Heronblade:

THE_NAMSU:
snip

Concerning women under Sharia law, there are a couple of things I find troublesome aside from the reduced inheritance, which is minor to be honest.

-A woman's testimony is only given half the weight of a man's in legal matters
-many versions of Sharia law allow a rapist to escape justice by marrying his victim, sometimes without the consent of that victim.
-many versions of Sharia law require a woman to submit to her husband at any time, instead of considering it rape if she is not willing.

Like you stated yourself, a person that is willing to abide by these rules is welcome to do so if that is what they believe in. But even within the Muslim community, there are plenty of people that don't believe such laws reflect the teachings in the Qur'an

True, but it's worth pointing out that this was the case in most Western nations until recently. For example, it was only in the 1980's that most European Nations criminalised martial rape.

I think that Sharia can change some if it's legislation without compromising itself. Individual law changes won't invalidate Sharia any more than changing western laws would invalidate our legal systems. As long as the basic level of human rights is maintained its fine.

Wait, unless I'm missing something, this entire thread seems to be based on the "No True Scotsman"-fallacy.
Danyal, you don't get to decide that "proper" Muslims have to follow Sharia and follow it in the way you want them to, just like you don't get to decide that "proper" Christians have to stone unruly children and believe in a literal Genesis.

Danyal:
*snip*

But if actual Muslims don't think so, maybe your definition of what you need to be, do or believe to be a Muslim needs to change.
This is kind of like the people who argue that "proper" Christians have to believe in a faith-based salvation.
With the right interpretation, that is indeed an essential part of Christianity, and yet there are countless people out there who consider themselves Christians, believe in a Jesus but don't believe in faith-based salvation.

Denying that some people are Scotsmen is not a fallacy or arrogant. "True Scotsmen" are born in Scotland or are born from one or two Scottish parents, something like that.

The thing is that the equivalent of "born in Scotland" is not necessarily "follow Sharia to the letter", at least not in modern, Western, integrated Muslims and just like I won't call Christians who don't believe in faith-based salvation "not Christians", I'm not going to call Muslims who've made a proper transition to Western values "not Muslims".

What is this supposed to accomplish, anyway? Do you not want Muslims to abandon their outdated laws? Or do you want them to drop Islam altogether at once? Because the former makes no sense and the latter isn't going to happen, certainly not at once.

What we need is more moderation, more adaptation to secular moral values, so these are exactly the kind of "real Muslims" I'm gonna embrace as productive members of society.

I think the problem is that Islam is such a large religion that covers many different groups and places. Things like self identity are too large and nebulous to reduce to a simple check-list. Something like religion, which encompasses such a large range of issues are not discreet categories, and do not exist independent of cultural and historical contexts.

Danyal:
I'm a meat eating vegetarian, a virgin with a healthy sex life, I'm atheist and I believe in God.

Right, because Sharia is the defining point of Islam. Oh, wait, it's not, it's belief in Allah and Mohammed as his prophet. That's the thing with religions: They are splintered, vague and up to interpretation. Just because one interpretation requires Sharia doesn't mean the entirety of Islam does. If anybody is creating strawmen, it is you.

Do you disagree with the definition of the Shahada or do you disagree with the fact that it's important?

I disagree with your interpretation of its content and its importance in the sense that I think it's up to Muslims to decide, not you or me.

Where did I say 'follow Sharia to the letter'?! I do remember saying...

Alright, make that "follow Sharia". I live in Germany. We have many Turkish people here, many of which still believe in Allah but would never agree with any of the particular, outdated morality you're trying to define as requirements for adherents of Muslims. People change their views depending on their cultural surroundings, what's so bad about that?

Skeleon:
What is this supposed to accomplish, anyway? Do you not want Muslims to abandon their outdated laws?

Does sound like a rather good idea, doesn't it?

I think you missed a "not" there. You arguing for the "proper" way towards Islam is not helpful in getting people to become more moderate, you know. You only antagonize moderates rather than encourage them by attacking them as "not proper Muslims".

Skeleon:
Or do you want them to drop Islam altogether at once?

To expect that it happens at once sounds a little unreasonable, but I would encourage them to do so.

Then maybe you need to reevaluate your approach to Muslims, because this won't do it.

Muslims are expected, because of their religion, to follow the moral values of a 7th century desert warlord.

Yes, in the same way that Christians are expect to follow a thousand year old slave morality and three thousand year old tribal rules. So I'm glad whenever I see neither do that.

If you erase those and accept modern secular-humanist moral values, you could still call yourself a Muslim, but there is a dissonance; 'inconsistency between the beliefs one holds or between one's actions and one's beliefs'.

Sure. Who cares. It's religion, it doesn't make sense in the first place. Be pragmatic about it! Moderate Theists are our friggin' allies when it comes to issues of secularization, you are not helping the issues at all. Don't drive moderates away by your unfair judgement of the "value" of their adherence to their religion.

Danyal:
It's up to Muslims to define Islam? Kafirs have nothing to do with it?

Of course not. Why would they? When a modern day Muslim has his own personal interpretation of god and what believing in that god entails, that's up to them. You still act like there's an objectively correct Islam (or any religion for that matter) to follow. They're all splintered and the more personal and the less dogmatic they are, the better.

Where did I say that 'following Sharia' is a prerequisite for being a Muslim? I said...

"Did the ECHR declare Islam incompatible with human rights and democracy?"
"So basically...
1. Sharia is 'incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy'.
2. Sharia is a core part of Islam."

Calling Sharia a core part of Islam and implying that Islam would therefore be incompatible with democracy due to the evaluation of Sharia itself. There. Feel free to change the title of the thread, though.
Or am I supposed to buy the Fox News technique of "we're just asking questions" from you?

People claim to obey a 7th century desert warlord, without actually doing that, but making people confuse them with people who actually do that. What's so bad about that? I don't know. I'm glad there aren't tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims, anywhere.

No, they claim to follow Allah and his prophet Mohammed. They also don't believe that Allah wants them to do plenty of awful, outdated things. There's obviously a contradiction there, but just like with other religions, those contradictions can be argued away by way of interpretations, historical context and so on.
Why is Islam so special in your eyes in that regard? Why are these contradictions in behaviour and belief different than the contradictions in Christianity or some other religion? I care about the end result and when we're talking about moderates and fundamentalists, then it's frankly the same in both.
The difference is that Christianity has much more moderates and much less medieval-style violent fundamentalists. But not because of any superiority of the religion, merely because it got dragged kicking and screaming into Enlightenment hundreds of years ago.

And that's the whole problem of the dissonance. People don't actually follow the out-dated, violent, misogynist and hateful beliefs they claim to follow, but still identify with them and get angry when someones attacks those beliefs.

Why is that a problem? Be glad that they have dismissed those awful rules and beliefs and encourage others to do so, also. Again, why does it matter what the texts say? It doesn't matter in Christianity. It doesn't really matter in any religions unless you take a dogmatic approach to them.

Could you show me the Christian Shahada?

No, but you are more than aware of the awful morality of the Old and the New Testament and I doubt I need to point any of them out to you and you are probably aware of the lovely passage of Jesus proclaiming that not even the dot of an i of the old laws are to be changed until "everything is fulfilled" or whatever translation you prefer.
The fact that people don't live by them anymore is the result of Christianity being more moderate and Christians being more enlightened at this point. Islam is no different in principle. Look at Uganda to see what Christian theocracy still does today. And look at integrated Muslims to see the opposite in Muslims in Western societies when secularization is done right.
Just because around here we have more problems with or at least fears of Muslim fundamentalists than Christian ones does not somehow elevate Christianity itself above Islam. Both are awful when followed to their medieval rules, both are much more benign when followed in a secular, humanistic context.

R Man:

True, but it's worth pointing out that this was the case in most Western nations until recently. For example, it was only in the 1980's that most European Nations criminalised martial rape.

I think that Sharia can change some if it's legislation without compromising itself. Individual law changes won't invalidate Sharia any more than changing western laws would invalidate our legal systems. As long as the basic level of human rights is maintained its fine.

True, but the Muslims started off with a significantly greater level of individual freedoms and rights than their European counterparts at the time. The Europeans have changed their stance for the better as time went on, but Islam as a whole have only begun to improve fairly recently, done so very slowly, and as a result of western influence, often screaming bloody murder every step of the way. (as a whole, multiple subgroups are not counted in that sweeping statement)

If Sharia law was edited to the point that basic human rights and freedoms were respected (and measures were put it in place to keep it that way), I would certainly change my stance on it being banned as an optional system of law, and so would the ECHR from the looks of it. I still would not choose it, but that would then simply be a matter of preferring that laws be exclusively derived from and for secular purposes rather than an ethical objection to the system itself.

Danyal:
But you have to draw the line somewhere.

Yah. But considering many Muslims do not think Sharia laws are a core part of Islam, that line is clearly not there. It's probably more in the territory of believing in Allah in a general way and believing that Muhammed was his prophet. Details may vary gianormously. You know, like believing in Yahweh in a general way and believing that Jesus was important (not even going to say divine considering the whole Aryan stuff in the past) is sufficient to be considered a Christian.

And how does "Sharia is a core part of Islam" mean "Sharia is a prerequisite for being a Muslim"?

Don't ignore the thread title I added in there. You're basically conflating Sharia and Islam, as if the latter couldn't be without the former. Unless, again, you want to change the title of your thread?

You believe that anyone can have a very personal interpretation of God and still be a Muslim. How would you explain Islam to other people?

Probably something along the lines of: "They believe in a Monotheistic god whose prophet Muhammed is said to have written their holy texts."
Then, if you asked me about those holy texts, I'd say: "What exactly those holy texts mean and what lessons to draw from it depends vastly on what sect you talk to as well as the variant of Muslim, be they extremely vague in their belief or very fundamentalist, like Christians."

"Humans have a highly developed brain and are capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, and problem solving."
Yet, you're still human if you're head is cut off. People with down-syndrom are human too, just like people with dementia. Are you now going to attack Wikipedia for generalizing humans?

Wow, what the fuck? Fuck you. People with Downs syndrom tend to fulfill all those criteria, you dick. As do people with dementia unless it's really far ahead.
How about you ask me about anencephaly, because then we could have a question about whether such a child qualifies as human. Same goes for my decapitated dead body. The problem stems from the fact that my dead body or an anencephalic child would be human in terms of genetics but lack the criteria to be a human being in the sense of being a person (and the anencephalic child would at least be alive - for a while).
So unless you are purposely muddying the waters, you aren't going to use human in the one context in both senses of the word without qualifying.

Because Islam has more properly defined itself and can't be turned into everything with semantics.

No. You're the one trying to do the defining. Others, too, like "authority figures" within the religion or whatever. But the essential fact remains that it is still a personal issue to many people. Again, just like the Pope does not speak for all Christians or even just all Catholics. Oh ho ho, how the Catholics I know disagree with the Pope...

Because Islam hasn't experienced an Enlightenment or anything similar.

Yeah, in many places it hasn't. Yet in other places, in the West for example, it has. The personalized moderation of Islam is exactly that and you come across as opposing that progress.

And now you oppose me because I try to drag Islam through a new Enlightenment, and I'm at fault because some Muslims kick and scream?

As I said before, that's not what you're doing. You're criticizing those Muslims who already hold or are on their way to Enlightenment-values as being "not proper Muslims". If anything, you are putting people like that on the defensive, not encourage them to become more secularized.

Wait. Are you serious? The texts don't matter?
Remember a month ago? A few of those texts were accidentally burned. EXTREME RIOTS! PEOPLE WERE KILLED BECAUSE OF IT! DOZENS OF PEOPLE DIED!
A few weeks later, an American soldier killed a lot of civilians. You remember the intense riots following the incident? Yeah, me neither.

Duh. Don't act stupid. Of course it mattered to the people rioting and killing. Are you seriously conflating those folks with the moderate Muslim living next door who has his own personal interpretation of Allah and did not go on a riot?! What is wrong with you?
My entire point is about the different, varying views of Islam and religion in general. You appear not to get that point if you're again trying to generalize. This is the thing, though, you cannot generalize the entire religion, neither to mean it's all backwards nor to mean it's all secularized.

And again, the dissonance. "I follow Jesus", but I don't actually follow Jesus.

Sure, one might judge it like that. And again, so what? One might also judge it as being closer to what Jesus wanted people to do, i.e. "be nice to people" rather than "follow the ancient, sometimes very hateful dogma". And you know what? Once again: Interpretation. You don't get to decide who qualifies as a proper Christian.

Imagine we run two simulations. Both are completely the same, and both are late-antiquity/early-medieval worlds.
To world A, we apply Islam, and all people follow the Prophet, the Quran, the Hadiths.
To world B, we apply Christianity, and all people follow Jesus Christ, the Quran, the Gospels.

And then we'll run those simulations for a few thousand years. Will they both experience 'the Enlightenment' after roughly the same amount of years?

Eh, it would depend on the other circumstances, obviously, but if everything else was the same? Yeah, probably. Considering we do see Muslims shedding Islam's dogma, it's likely that the right circumstances would've allowed for an equally enlightened Islam today, as well. Hell, remember that Islam was the more enlightened influence while Europe went through a dark age of church tyranny.
In my view it's quite likely that these two religions both have similar potentials, both in the positive and negative senses. Both can be despotic, horrendous and authoritarian, but both can also be very moderate and secularized and perfectly compatible with modern Western values.

Danyal:
Okay, wait, wait, so when I say that Muslims must not eat pork meat, must pray 5 times a day and must fast during Ramadan, I'm saying something strange, controversial and troll-like?

It requires a basic clarification to make it a meaningful statement.

"According to..."

Because, while the things you've picked up on are things which most interpretations agree on (except for the number of prayers, there's a lot of disagreement there) the vast majority of Fiqh questions, including the ones you actually have a problem with, are not nearly that clear cut.

Basically, your views on what Islam "is" aren't actually important. The views of the people who practice it are important, they are what makes Islam a "religion" rather than a "book". If you can't get beyond the book, you should probably just accept that you don't have the right to define Islam.

Danyal:

oktalist:

Blablahb:
Another well-known example is of course the existance of recognized sharia courts in Britain.

Source?

"Britain has 85 sharia courts: The astonishing spread of the Islamic justice behind closed doors"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196165/Britain-85-sharia-courts-The-astonishing-spread-Islamic-justice-closed-doors.html

And here is the thinktank press release that spawned that Mail article: http://www.civitas.org.uk/press/prcs91.php

It was Blab's use of the word "recognised" that most interested me. It turns out that these "arbitration tribunals" (not courts) are "recognised" in a weak sense by our judicial system by virtue of the Arbitration Act 1996. This Act didn't really introduce any new powers, it just regulated powers that already existed in common law. For example, prior to the Act, followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster were free to set up their own tribunals that would rule on cases based on the principle of throwing spaghetti at a wall and seeing if it sticks, just as Muslims were free to set up Sharia tribunals, Jews to set up Beth Din tribunals, Catholics to set up Canon Law tribunals, or anyone to set up secular tribunals in order to resolve disputes without neccessarily having to resort to going to court. The Act merely regulated this and placed specific limits on it. If any party is unhappy with a tribunal's decision, they are of course able to appeal it to the real court, and have it overturned if it is not compatible with UK law. It's a stupid system, but it's nothing new, and people are within their rights to submit themselves to whatever the hell kind of triunal they want, as long as it's lawful.

"The report added: 'The fact that so many sharia rulings in Britain relate to cases concerning divorce and custody of children is of particular concern, as women are not equal in sharia law, and sharia contains no specific commitment to the best interests of the child that is fundamental to family law in the UK.'"

The press release doesn't mention how many, if any, rulings have related to divorce and custody, but it does say that the Arbitration Act specifically excludes divorce and custody from tribunals' jurisdiction, a fact which the Mail is only too happy to omit.

Danyal:

It's up to Muslims to define Islam? Kafirs have nothing to do with it?

You cannot impose useful objective measures on intrinsically subjective matters, and you cannot hang subjective views without engaging them, and

I think a substantial problem you have is that you are here, and in another file, trying to set parameters for religious people in order to judge them on, with no reference to what they do actually think. This might be onanistic religion-bashing fun for you, but it's a colossal straw man. It's not reflective of the real world.

We should all know quite a few religious people from a decent cross-section of society, and it should be obvious their interpretations of religion tend to be very individual.

What, for instance, is the Bible? Is it a series of religious instructions and laws? Is it a history of the Hewbrews/ early Jews? Is it a general guide or inspiration for moral conduct? Do you need to be able to cite chapter and verse, or does it only matter that you get a feel for an overall message? Is it a bit of some or all or many factors I haven't mentioned? Differing amounts of each for each individual? What does Sharia mean to individual Muslims? Strict law? A rough guide to moral conduct? Is it clear what is strict and what is not? Does any of it demand being secular law? And so on.

You can make your assert your opinion of what religion is and should be, but you simply cannot demand that everyone else accept and live up to it. If you try to tell a Muslim / Christian / etc. what his religion means (according to you) and he simply doesn't agree, where do you hope to get?