can sharia and freedom coexist?


moralist

Recommended Posts

Prager is doing a really good job on his Prager University YouTube channel. His short videos are mostly stories, not lectures. Small morality tales, if you will with a small amount of commentary.

By my count, if we consider a viral video to have over 500,000 views, he has 18 viral videos so far. All of them are recent, too (the oldest was uploaded 1 year ago, but most 2 or 3 months ago.)

And for those on the way to becoming viral, say over 100,000 to 500,000 views, he has 46.

That's a crapload.

This is the power of couching ideas in stories.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shariah can be a mode of arbitration, wherein both parties agree to abide by the decision. This is no different in principle from Rabbinic Courts used by Orthodox Jews to settle disputes according to Halachah (Jewish law). The parties agree to abide by the decision of the Rabbinic Courts. Since submission to arbitration is voluntary, the law recognizes the validity of the contract signed by both parties to abide by the decision of the arbitrator. At no point does arbitration assume an authority greater than the laws.

Where such arbitration is legal it does NOT mean Shariah has replaced law. Why? Because no party is compelled to submit to Shariah law. Both parties have to voluntarily agree to do so.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can Islamic sharia law and western democratic freedom coexist in Pakistan...

...or anywhere else?

Can Orthodox Jewish Rabbinical Courts and freedom co-exist. They do in New York City. Where two parties have a dispute they can have a Rabbinic Court arbitrate the dispute. No freedom lost.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does your comment mean that you regard behavior as proscribed by Judaism and Islam to be morally equivalent?

Greg

certainly not! I am pointing out that rabbinic courts function as mediation courts which are a legal alternative to law courts in settling civil disputes between parties who voluntarily agree to abide by the decision of the mediator. Shriah courts could do the same thing.

Law courts are not overruled or put down. Parties wishing to resolve civil dispute have an alternative to law courts.

In criminal matter law courts have primary standing. Neither Orthodox Jewish Law or Shariah would replaced or displace the law of the land.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shriah courts could do the same thing.

This is "Sharia law":

Cairo (AFP) - The Islamic State group in Libya released a video on Sunday purportedly showing the beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians, prompting Egypt's president to threaten a "suitable" punishment for the killings.

http://news.yahoo.com/says-beheaded-egyptian-copts-libya-193850727.html;_ylt=AwrBEiS3O.FUohoAr1rQtDMD

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a matter of facts that I'd only discovered recently, the Hasidim in New York have long had Sharia - a semi formal criminal justice system that the formal one rarely interferes with and that doesn't always work:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/10/outcast-3

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/nyregion/ultra-orthodox-jews-shun-their-own-for-reporting-child-sexual-abuse.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/satmar-leader-weberman-guilty-molesting-girl-article-1.1217092

For more, look up new york hasidic molest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shriah courts could do the same thing.

This is "Sharia law":

Cairo (AFP) - The Islamic State group in Libya released a video on Sunday purportedly showing the beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians, prompting Egypt's president to threaten a "suitable" punishment for the killings.

http://news.yahoo.com/says-beheaded-egyptian-copts-libya-193850727.html;_ylt=AwrBEiS3O.FUohoAr1rQtDMD

Greg

The US uncorked three bottles by its fruitless meddling in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. I'm sure there's more to come--Ukraine, Iran and, if it lasts long enough, China.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the US should actually switch from meddling to if they are going to fight, fight to actually win, or just stay the f home.

Too late for that. The US will never win by waging a politically correct war against the Islamic fascists with a weak feminized leftist Commander in Chief who is occupied with appeasing the enemy. Heck, he's so spineless he can't even name the enemy, so how could the US ever defeat them?

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the US should actually switch from meddling to if they are going to fight, fight to actually win, or just stay the f home.

Too late for that. The US will never win by waging a politically correct war against the Islamic fascists with a weak feminized leftist Commander in Chief who is occupied with appeasing the enemy. Heck, he's so spineless he can't even name the enemy, so how could the US ever defeat them?

Greg

Maybe the US should start with Saudi Arabia.

--Brant

they do chop heads

just how many Iraqis were killed by the US through two wars and economic sanctions?

upwards of 6 1/2 million Vietnamese and Cambodians were killed consequent to the Vietnam War

and the beat goes on

http://youtu.be/to0irFedGqc?t=59s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory, Sharia as a form of Private Binding Arbitration could coexist with freedom (presuming it was a voluntary legal code), and the previous example of Jewish religious courts in New York City is roughly similar in how it acts.

However, the Jewish courts certainly didn't work to prevent the molestation scandals. Indeed, it is arguably no different from the Catholic Church's "internal" dispute resolution process (after all you can't POSSIBLY damage the reputation of the Church/Jewish People in front of the world/the Gentiles!) in that it swept things up under the rug for PR reasons.

There's no reason to believe an Islamic court wouldn't succumb to the same pressures. Not only that but several punishments endorsed in Islamic law are on-their-face violations of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause.

And of course, there's an important issue with respect to "voluntary" legal codes being based in religion; people tend to bring up their own children within their own religion (and this often gets into the realm of full-on indoctrination in the case of theologically-conservative religious groups). We can hardly say a child growing up in a family that has "voluntarily" accepted Sharia law (ditto for a child growing up in an Orthodox Jewish family!) has voluntarily accepted that legal code.

If we are to accept the existence of religiously-based Private Binding Arbitration when voluntarily accepted, I think the law must do two things: First, there has to be some sort of 'supremacy clause' in which Constitutional rights and secular law trump religious law. For instance, if the 'crime' violates secular law it must immediately be referred to secular authorities (irrespective of whether or not the crime also violates religious law). In addition, cruel and unusual punishments must be forbidden.

Secondly, children must be exempt from these religious laws. After all, PBA must be agreed to via contract and children cannot sign contracts. Religious PBA must be an "opt-in" thing and a person should have to be a legal adult before being able to exercise the choice to opt in.

Naturally, these restraints will have to be applied across any form of religious PBA, including but not limited to Sharia. Equal treatment, after all.

Under these constraints I can at least in theory see a coexistence between some form of religious PBA based upon Sharia (to at least some extent) and a classically liberal society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The use of technology and social media to bait bears and recruit warriors and make the world shit in its pants. In the meantime, Israel goes to war with Iran.

--Brant

Israel could never win a ground war with Iran. Iran has five times the population of Israel. The only war Israel could win with Iran is a nuclear war, and the Israelis simply will not do that.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The use of technology and social media to bait bears and recruit warriors and make the world shit in its pants. In the meantime, Israel goes to war with Iran.

--Brant

Israel could never win a ground war with Iran. Iran has five times the population of Israel. The only war Israel could win with Iran is a nuclear war, and the Israelis simply will not do that.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I didn't say ground war and it wouldn't necessarily need nukes. Such a war would have a severely limited objective. But, WTF do you think it has nukes for? It was prepared to use them in 1972 until Nixon came with massive resupplies.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now