Let me begin with a disclaimer. This is a BBC.com article. It isn’t meant to inflame anyone. But, I am interested in what people who are Muslim think about Sharia law. What I am wondering is, (1) of those people that are Islamic how many would like to live in a situation as proposed by the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party? In the article it states that under The Islamic code punishment for a crime can include amputations and stoning. While non-Muslims committing the same crimes will not be answerable to Sharia law and I suppose not be dealt these harsher punishments. (2) If given the opportunity replace your laws with Sharia (if you live in the West) would you choose to do so or do you feel the system presently working with out Sharia Law? (3) If you would choose Sharia law then what do you think about the notion that non-Muslims do not answer in the same manner as Muslims? Is that fair? And is it also fair that they would have to (They are non-Muslim after all)? Lastly, why would the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party feel they need to introduce Sharia law as part of they’re platform for campaigning. I mean Singapore is directly across the bridge. They have a large Muslim population. They are prosperous. They do not have Sharia law and yet Singapore is (by all accounts) one of the safest places on the palant to live. SO why would their neighbors (many of who have the same culture) feel they need this harsh system when it’s obvious they don’t. Or at least it seems obvious. Sorry for all the questions but I would appreciate any civilized comments, Thanks, MII
He won't get elected...noway...Iran is a very good example of how people no longer want an Islamic state. Muslims once thought that the answers to their few problems is a complete return to religion. They didn't know that they already were religious and there was no need for a return to something that they already have. It was a desperate move, and Iran was one of the first states to advocate the return to fundementalism. Now, they have returned, they have more problems than when they started, they can't return anymore than they already did and they're sick and tired of it. Muslims are cornered at the far extreme end of the religious equation and they have no move except toward democray. Muslims have no more stomachs for politicians who campaign as religious leaders. We have been hurt way too many times before for listening to such tunes, and muslims all over the world are returning to the normal ways of keeping religion safe and private in their hearts and out of politicians and self interest parties.
Eh, first of all, the article is pretty light on facts, and does a poor explanation of what really is going on over there. Let me answer the question broadly, then get into specifics. I would like to live in an Islamic state, which would therefore have Islamic law and a Caliph. You need both to be an official Islamic state. Try not to have any misconceptions of what that would look like, it wouldn't be anything like the Taliban or Saudi Arabia, they've been criticized by Muslims for years for not being 'true' Islamic states though they claim to be. In the case of Malaysia, well, I think they're putting the cart before the horse there. I mean, local provinces of Pakistan and Nigeria also supposedly have sharia law enacted, but they're not doing it properly either, not without a caliph and not with those strange quasi-secular legal systems that are like a botched graft of western government with sharia. IIRC, Malaysia had a form of sharia that didnt have stoning, as they used a very liberal reading of a passage of Quran. I don't know the current situation enough to agree with what they supposedly had, but there are no shortage of scholars who will tell you you can't have sharia unless its an Islamic state. No, non-Muslims won't be subject to Islamic law. For example, Christians are allowed things like pork and wine, although forbidden to muslims. That includes things like the mandatory charity for Muslims (2.5% of income), the draft if there is one. Non-Muslims would be subject to a different court and legal system. I wouldn't go adding Sharia law to a non-Islamic system, I can't imagine them working well together. Part of sharia includes a representative democracy system, elections, and a leader with advisors/ministers, so you could just throw away whatever government they have there and setup an... umm, how would you term it. Islamicly-limited Caliphate with Parliment I guess. Oh, they're just playing to the crowd. Muslims are proud of being Muslim. They want to follow their religion. They all want to live in an "Islamic" country, so thats what they all call themselves. The "Islamic Republic of Pakistan" or the "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" or "Islamic monarchy of Saudi Arabia." The politicians pay lip service (like Bush saying the US is a "Christian" country with its values), and the public is relatively content. The Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan announced that they'd make sharia law, and while its on the books, its not really enforced. Sharia isn't a harsh system, but you only hear about the times when people screw it up and make it all oppressive or brutal. It really isn't the case, but instead of having scholars codify the laws, we have monarchs, politicians, and police doing a halfway job. They'll take something that someone said without consulting people of knowledge. Look at Afghanistan, the Taliban was said to have banned music but did they debate the issue? I can find plenty of dissenting scholarly opinions on that kind of ruling they made, banning it outright was incorrect, to put it nicely. Saudi Arabia won't let women drive, where in Islam does it say that? NO scholar would say thats part of sharia, but the Saudi monarchs do it anyway. Muslims DO want to overhaul such rubbish, but its slow and fraught with difficulties. Properly done sharia is supposed to give people freedoms like the constitution, and scholar Hamza Yusuf said that the US is doing a better job of keeping Islamic freedoms than most other governments out there.
