How Christians would be treated under Sharia!

page: 8
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by logical7

ya it is double standard. But answer me, would a christian husband aknowledge the religion and prophet of his muslim wife?


We do not have to "acknowledge" these things, we have only to guard her observance of them, and insure that she can observe them without interference.



Would he let her do the religious duties without a problem?


Yes.



Would he agree to let her follow halal food practices(no pork, no alcohol etc)?


Yes. Even when I was a Christian I refused to eat pork - it says that's not a good thing in the Bible.



Would he let her wear hijab?


Yes. As a matter of fact, where I'm from most Christian women covered as well until very recently, and many of the older ones still do. It's not a stigma, but Christians don't call it hijab - it's pretty much the same thing, however.



Would he let her teach the children about islam?


Yes. Children cannot make informed decisions as adults without a firm educational basis to back it. To NOT teach them about their mother's religion is a disservice to them, as much as not teaching them about their father's religion would be. In the end, it's the children's decision after they are grown, and they cannot make good decisions without the information to support their decision.



Ofcourse two people who love each other will find ways, reach compromises and be together.
But an important decision is "what to teach the kids?" Jesus pbuh god or a prophet and Messiah? Because if the idea of him being god is let go, christianity and islam have the same value system.


They are pretty similar, there is no doubt. Not all Christians believe Jesus was God, but all DO believe that He was sent to save the "Elect" - they tend to differ on just who they consider to be "the Elect", though. In short, not all Christians believe Jesus was God, but they all DO believe he was God's chosen Savior. In the Christian conception of "Messiah", that is what being Messiah is all about.

As I said above, however, in the end it is the child's decision what to believe, and in order to make a good decision, they must be taught about both.



So Islam thinks a practicing muslim woman would have a harder time with a christian than a muslim man with a christian wife, he can follow the OP.


I understand that is the Islamic thought in the matter, but there appears to be a certain inflexibility in that thought, an inability to make allowances on a case by case basis where that may not be the case at all.

For what it's worth, a Christian married to a Muslim has to deal with a lot of crap from the Christian community as well. It's not a one-way street. What's important in those situations, I think, is the strength of the individual's character - many seem not to have the strength of character to deal well with the inevitable problems which arise.



And non practicing people, well they can do whatever they feel good, whats the need to get aknowledgement from the religion they dont even care to practice?


Agreed. Problems only arise when they ARE practicing, yet are prevented from the pursuit of happiness by the very religion they love. Then it becomes a choice, and not always an easy one. In at least some of those cases, the religion is going to lose, and not for the better, due to it's inflexibility and inability to make allowances. I think that a jurisprudential review of the matter may be in order, but I seriously doubt that will ever happen.




posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by maes2

where is the double standard ! where is the second class citizen !!


Allowing a Muslim man to make his own decision, while denying the same right to a Muslim woman. Corollary to that is denying Christians and Jews the right to make their own decisions in the matter altogether. That's at least TWO double standards right there, and makes of the Christians, Jews, AND Islamic women second-class citizens. We are ALL "less than" an Islamic male under that system. I will not live under it. That is one of the very few reasons I would ever again go to war.

Injustice is injustice, and THAT is what I'm willing to fight against, not Islam per se.



all religions have such laws for themselves. I have chiristian and jew friends non of them feels that there is a double standard. because they have such laws for themselves.


None of the Christians I know have any such laws. Some have customs like that, but no laws. Some of that perception may be, as you observe, a difference in the countries. In Iran, the Christians and Jews have lived in dhimmitude for so long that it has become habit for them, whereas in the US it never will be. We would die before living that way.



even there are many solutions in such cases.


What are the solutions you mention? I'm seriously interested in knowing. There is no solution without dialog, and this IS that dialog.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by logical7

ya it is double standard. But answer me, would a christian husband aknowledge the religion and prophet of his muslim wife?


We do not have to "acknowledge" these things, we have only to guard her observance of them, and insure that she can observe them without interference.



Would he let her do the religious duties without a problem?


Yes.



Would he agree to let her follow halal food practices(no pork, no alcohol etc)?


Yes. Even when I was a Christian I refused to eat pork - it says that's not a good thing in the Bible.



Would he let her wear hijab?


Yes. As a matter of fact, where I'm from most Christian women covered as well until very recently, and many of the older ones still do. It's not a stigma, but Christians don't call it hijab - it's pretty much the same thing, however.



Would he let her teach the children about islam?


Yes. Children cannot make informed decisions as adults without a firm educational basis to back it. To NOT teach them about their mother's religion is a disservice to them, as much as not teaching them about their father's religion would be. In the end, it's the children's decision after they are grown, and they cannot make good decisions without the information to support their decision.



Ofcourse two people who love each other will find ways, reach compromises and be together.
But an important decision is "what to teach the kids?" Jesus pbuh god or a prophet and Messiah? Because if the idea of him being god is let go, christianity and islam have the same value system.


They are pretty similar, there is no doubt. Not all Christians believe Jesus was God, but all DO believe that He was sent to save the "Elect" - they tend to differ on just who they consider to be "the Elect", though. In short, not all Christians believe Jesus was God, but they all DO believe he was God's chosen Savior. In the Christian conception of "Messiah", that is what being Messiah is all about.

As I said above, however, in the end it is the child's decision what to believe, and in order to make a good decision, they must be taught about both.



So Islam thinks a practicing muslim woman would have a harder time with a christian than a muslim man with a christian wife, he can follow the OP.


I understand that is the Islamic thought in the matter, but there appears to be a certain inflexibility in that thought, an inability to make allowances on a case by case basis where that may not be the case at all.

For what it's worth, a Christian married to a Muslim has to deal with a lot of crap from the Christian community as well. It's not a one-way street. What's important in those situations, I think, is the strength of the individual's character - many seem not to have the strength of character to deal well with the inevitable problems which arise.



And non practicing people, well they can do whatever they feel good, whats the need to get aknowledgement from the religion they dont even care to practice?


Agreed. Problems only arise when they ARE practicing, yet are prevented from the pursuit of happiness by the very religion they love. Then it becomes a choice, and not always an easy one. In at least some of those cases, the religion is going to lose, and not for the better, due to it's inflexibility and inability to make allowances. I think that a jurisprudential review of the matter may be in order, but I seriously doubt that will ever happen.


i appreciate your reply and agree, and a person who doesnt believe Jesus pbuh as god and acknowledges prophet Muhammad pbuh as prophet is technically a muslim. However if thats not acknowledged then why not? If the religions are similar, and Jesus pbuh was a prophet, then is it just about labels? Shouldnt there be a mutual acceptance of the prophets?
I know it feels strangely forced.
But if a husband believing that his wife's religion is wrong, the prophet is false then wouldnt it spill over in behaviour?



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



Allowing a Muslim man to make his
own decision, while denying the same
right to a Muslim woman

giving the right to a woman to divorce like a man makes me picture a divorce every PMS!!
Not saying a man cant be emotionally unstable and do that too. Just that women are different not unequal, just different and more emotional at times, a woman is free to seek divorce, she just has to go to a judge and demand it with a good reason for it.
Equality doesnt always mean similarity. Men and Women are equal, but not similar, neither physically, emotionally, psychologically nor spiritually. And a law which doesnt acknowledge that is being unjust to either one or both.
edit on 7-12-2012 by logical7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by logical7
giving the right to a woman to divorce like a man makes me picture a divorce every PMS!!

OMG.
Need some bandaids on those knuckles of yours?

I don't think a mentality like this can be fixed. Just unbelievable!



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 



Just that women are different not unequal, just different and more emotional at times, a woman is free to seek divorce, she just has to go to a jugde and demand it with a good reason for it.

What's the chance that she will have her case heard by a female judge in Iran.

Pretty slim.... Women can't sit on a case where a verdict is issued.

Iran Chamber Society



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by logical7
giving the right to a woman to divorce like a man makes me picture a divorce every PMS!!

OMG.
Need some bandaids on those knuckles of yours?

I don't think a mentality like this can be fixed. Just unbelievable!

look at your reaction, a guy wouldnt react that way. I dint literally mean it, just stressing a point in a joke.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

reply to post by logical7
 



Just that women are different not unequal, just different and more emotional at times, a woman is free to seek divorce, she just has to go to a jugde and demand it with a good reason for it.

What's the chance that she will have her case heard by a female judge in Iran.

Pretty slim.... Women can't sit on a case where a verdict is issued.

Iran Chamber Society

why female judge? Do you think a male cant understand "the good enough reason"
i am not telling a female judge shouldnt be there, i am asking whats your point? Argument for equality in jobs?



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by logical7

Originally posted by butcherguy

reply to post by logical7
 



Just that women are different not unequal, just different and more emotional at times, a woman is free to seek divorce, she just has to go to a jugde and demand it with a good reason for it.

What's the chance that she will have her case heard by a female judge in Iran.

Pretty slim.... Women can't sit on a case where a verdict is issued.

Iran Chamber Society

why female judge? Do you think a male cant understand "the good enough reason"
i am not telling a female judge shouldnt be there, i am asking whats your point? Argument for equality in jobs?
Argument for equality period.
Why not?
Islam is totally patriarchal.
It doesn't bother you that a female judge is viewed as being incapable of rendering a verdict in Iran?
edit on 7-12-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by logical7

i appreciate your reply and agree, and a person who doesnt believe Jesus pbuh as god and acknowledges prophet Muhammad pbuh as prophet is technically a muslim. However if thats not acknowledged then why not?


I do not know if Jesus was God (He does seem to have denied that several times out of his own mouth) or if Mohammed was a prophet, and neither do I care. Neither of those questions has any bearing on my life, and I leave those questions to the folks who think it matters in their search for heaven. What I DO believe is that Jesus was the Messiah, and that's all that really matters about it to me.



If the religions are similar, and Jesus pbuh was a prophet, then is it just about labels? Shouldnt there be a mutual acceptance of the prophets?


No. Prophets should always be tested before blind acceptance. The prophets David Koresh, Jim Jones, Marshal Appelwhite, Sun Myung Moon, and a host of others killed off their loyal followers because those followers just blindly accepted them as genuine, when they were not.



I know it feels strangely forced.
But if a husband believing that his wife's religion is wrong, the prophet is false then wouldnt it spill over in behaviour?


Not if he respects her, and if he does not, why in the hell would he shackle himself to her by marriage? If he respects her, he will also have to respect her ability to think for herself, and to determine for herself the way she wants to go.

It's all about the respect - I've already raised all my children, and I'm certainly not about to marry a woman who can't even think for herself, whom I would also have to raise as if she were a child.

My mother was a hard-core Christian. My father was an inveterate drunk who probably didn't believe much of anything, and cared even less. Even at that, he never belittled her religion or tried to get her to leave it. He thought she was old enough to think for herself. Instead, he took her to church every Sunday, and patiently waited outside in the parking lot for her, so they could go home. In my entire life, I never, EVER, saw that man so much as enter a church... but I've seen him wait on my mother for hours outside one.

If even an unbelieving drunk can do that, how much more so should a believer be able to?



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by logical7

giving the right to a woman to divorce like a man makes me picture a divorce every PMS!!


I've been married 3 or 4 times (depends on what you call a "marriage", I suppose). My first wife tried desperately to divorce me by fairly permanent means once a month, every month, and didn't seem to fret over the legalities of it!




Not saying a man cant be emotionally unstable and do that too. Just that women are different not unequal, just different and more emotional at times, a woman is free to seek divorce, she just has to go to a judge and demand it with a good reason for it.
Equality doesnt always mean similarity. Men and Women are equal, but not similar, neither physically, emotionally, psychologically nor spiritually. And a law which doesnt acknowledge that is being unjust to either one or both.
edit on 7-12-2012 by logical7 because: (no reason given)



But you see, we are not talking about divorce - or at least I'm not. We are talking about women of any religion, and even Christian and Jewish MEN, having the same right of self-determination, to decide for themselves whom they want to marry, as a Muslim man has. Until that day comes, Islam as practiced by most today will be unacceptable to those who acknowledge no human masters.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



the same right of self-
determination, to decide for themselves whom they want to marry,
as a Muslim man has

a muslim woman has full right to decide whom to marry, a muslim woman has right to own property, to keep her maiden name, actually in the marriage ceremony the girl is asked first and then the groom only if the bride had said yes.
The groom also pays the girl some money as a proof and a safeguard that he is capable to take care of her. And its her money and she can do whatever she wishes.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by logical7

a muslim woman has full right to decide whom to marry, a muslim woman has right to own property, to keep her maiden name, actually in the marriage ceremony the girl is asked first and then the groom only if the bride had said yes.


Perhaps I've been misinformed, then. It's my understanding that a Muslim woman cannot choose to marry a Christian man. If that is the case, then she does not have "full rights to decide who to marry".



The groom also pays the girl some money as a proof and a safeguard that he is capable to take care of her. And its her money and she can do whatever she wishes.


I understand the mahr, and nikah vs. nikah al-mutah, but what I'm apparently not clear on at this point is whether or not Muslim women actually have full rights to marry whom they choose - including Christians and Jews if they so choose - or whether they are actually restricted to marrying only Muslim men, and thus are possessed of inferior rights.

I don't think there's much question that Christian and Jewish men are restricted from marrying Muslim women (thereby making of Christians and Jews something less than full citizens, since they have fewer rights than Islamic men), so if Muslim women are allowed those marriages, I'm not sure how that would work...



edit on 2012/12/8 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 

reply to post by nenothtu
 

Islam says women and men are equal because of their humanity but they are different because they have special roles as a woman and a man in the scope of family. so family is the most important part of a society in Islam.

Feminism says men and women are similar. and even worse because of patriarchal experiences in the west and or east (which I do not ignore that) they think that men are superior so women should be like men to be superior ! and there is always a conflict between two genders.
however evidences show that feminism itself occurred in a patriarchal context. so that the industrial revolution could benefit from cheap workers from females.

when bedouin arabs were buring their girls alive just because of their gender and women were just toys in the Medieval and in many countries. Islam came to recognize women rights of education, inheritance, economic independence.
God gave the prophet of Islam a girl (Fatima) who was respected by him a lot. and she would participate in social issues but with coordinates of Sharia law. even Islam gave a right to women for some sort of voting what arabs would call it homage. so no one can believe that Islam is patriarchal.

Sharia law is a pack. people can not pick out a small part and judge about that. Islam is an improved ideology which it should consider all the people in the world from centuries ago to now. so there are some general laws based on default assumptions. however as a religion it is far more than just some laws. and it is coincident with the realities of this limited world.

for example one may say why men can marry four women but women can not !?
first of all this law come from Judaism and ancient times. when people were not living in penthouses. life was hard and it needed more people to share it. moreover Islam does not say that men should marry four women but it has limited that to four ones and even if one returns to Koran it can see that Koran is advising not to. because it declares that justice is an important issue in the family. moreover in general women can not and could not share many men because even physiologically Vagina is not made for that. if a woman shares many men the vagina environment becomes bases. and so genital diseases emerges. however there is no blockage in Sharia. for example men should have the permission of their wives for extra marriages in Iran. I think Sharia does not have such law explicitly but this law should be passed for nowadays situation of societies and it is not contrary to Sharia though. so there is no blockage in Sharia.

in the general Sharia's pack the default is that men are physically and psychologically more capable to tolerate the economical pressure of leadering a family or being a judge. and females have no duty regarding the economy of the family. and even regarding housekeeping or even nursing the child ! however they have financial independence and they can spend their money anyhow they want. and men should give some of their properties to women as a gift. and instead men can divorce women unless court realizes that the woman excuses are right for divorcing the man.... these are the defaults.
but there is no blockage in Sharia. for example marriage is a contract. so women or men can add whatever conditions they desire to that consensual contract.

one may say why muslim women can not marry non_muslims but the men can. however there is a little difference between sects but that is because Islam considers family a society and every society needs a leader by default men are considered the leader of families in Islam. and exceptions can not ruin the general rules. the aim is that families become a safe and calm environment for growing of the next generation. this is for religious individuals so if one really wants to marry non_muslims she can convert. there is no blockage in Sharia and as Koran declares no one has a right to force people to be under a religion !!!
there is no patriarchy in the private life of prophet of Islam and Ahl al-Bayt but love. and there is no dictatorship and monarchy in the governing method of prophet of Islam and the first four califes.
and it is said that minorities are dhimmitudes in Iran. no world has changed. nowadays nationality is an identity so they are not dhimmitudes, they are Iranians. all of them should participate in wars and defense and governing issues so they should not pay Jazya.
there are shortcomings but people do not say oh that is because of Sharia.
if female judges can not pass the final sentence instead men can not become a doctor of female genitalia and pregnancy in Iran !
conflictsforum.org...



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   


if female judges can not pass the final sentence instead men can not become a doctor of female genitalia and pregnancy in Iran !

Oh, what a trade-off. Women aren't trusted to pass judgement on ANYONE, but we will trust them be gynecologists.

What is the problem with women in the eyes of a Muslim? You say that they are equal, but they have to walk behind their men in public, can't hold the same jobs as men and best of all they will always have a verdict handed down to them from a man.... but a man will never hear one from a woman.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



whether or not Muslim women actually
have full rights to marry whom they
choose - including Christians and Jews if they so choose - or whether they are
actually restricted to marrying only
Muslim men, and thus are possessed
of inferior rights.

again its not about superior and inferior rights as maes2 has said. It about remembering the gender difference and yet being equal.
A muslim man is by law told to respect a christian/jew wife's belief. But is christian/jewish man having any law that way?
So it comes to individual basis.
And you are judging a religious law with secular standards. Secular law doesnt think much of any religion so inter religious marriage is just a marriage between two consenting adults for secular law. Religious law has to think about the religious aspects too.
A muslim cant marry a polytheist at all, is it inferior rights to polytheists?
In short the laws are not equal but a religious muslim (man/woman) understands and obeys them because for them faith is very important. And the justice with genders is done not in each tiny aspect but as a sum of whole integrated system.
let me give example of inheritance, women getting half than men, so unjust right? But now the responsibility to provide for women is on men only, a women need not use her money. So what would one choose? Double money with responsibility of parents, unmarried sister/s, wife/s and kid/s or half money responsibility free? so to whom is it unjust?
I as a man would prefer secular law as i know the maths and expenses, but as a muslim man i accept to obey it.
.
You cant judge a system by another system's standard which are at conflict with each other. Especially when sharia law looks at the whole society and family first and then the individual in laws, also justice would be done in my whole lifetime rather then at each time. Say i take care of my old parents and the old me would be tolerated by my kids as its a religious duty.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
Oh, what a trade-off. Women aren't trusted to pass judgement on ANYONE, but we will trust them be gynecologists.
What is the problem with women in the eyes of a Muslim? You say that they are equal, but they have to walk behind their men in public, can't hold the same jobs as men and best of all they will always have a verdict handed down to them from a man.... but a man will never hear one from a woman.

walking behind men has nothing to do with Sharia law.
I know that there are women that can judge better than many men. Sharia law does not say that women should not become a judge it says that women do not have to become a judge ! however to tell you the truth they themselves are not sure about it so maybe someday they modify the law. as they modified the law of stoning to prevent judges sentencing people to that as much as possible. because stoning has more symbolic role than implementing role.
when there is no female doctor which can help a pregnant woman it is logical that a man should help her. when there is no man capable for judging it is logical that a female judge passes the last sentence ...............



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by maes2
 
You can paint it with all the colors of the rainbow, but when you look at the subject of the painting....

Women are second class citizens in many Muslim countries.

You can tell me how much they like it,
You can tell me that it is good for women to have this life.

The slave owners used to say the same thing about their slaves in the US before the Civil War.

Oh, that's right, some Islamic countries still keep slaves, don't they?



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by logical7

again its not about superior and inferior rights as maes2 has said. It about remembering the gender difference and yet being equal.


WITHIN a marriage, there of course has to be a leader, someone to make the bulk of the decisions. In any effort, from plowing to driving, there has to be a single direction set - we can't just run willy-nilly in two or more directions, pulling against one another, and expect to get anywhere. What I'm referring to, however, is the choices to be made leading UP TO a marriage. Why is a woman's judgement, or a Christian or Jewish man's judgement, in the matter of whom they would prefer to be yoked to, who they believe they can set a course in life with and follow it, hamstrung and inferior to a Muslim man's judgement in the same matter?



A muslim man is by law told to respect a christian/jew wife's belief. But is christian/jewish man having any law that way?


This is true - but it's the other side of the coin, the idea that a Christian or Jewish man CAN'T do the same, which bothers me. Now, regarding the laws, in Islam marriage is a contract, and both parties have to agree to the terms of the contract. Likewise, both parties (theoretically) have a say in the terms of the contract, each being able to specify terms that suit them, to which the other must agree, or no marriage takes place. What is to prevent having respect for each other's religious beliefs, and tolerance thereof, built into the terms of the contract? If that is done, then yes, the same laws would apply to Christian and Jewish men if they were to marry Muslim women. If they failed to live up to their end of the contract, then it would be a breach of the contract, a breaking of the law as set forth in it, and grounds for divorce, would it not? NONE of those religions smiles on a broken contract, or the one who breaks it.



So it comes to individual basis.


Absolutely, and this is what I've been saying, but Islam refuses to allow for this individual basis. There is generally no mechanism in Islam to allow for marriages of Muslim women and Christian or Jewish men. This was originally intended to protect Islam I think, but I also believe that these days it does more disservice to Islam than it does protection. Imagine a world where a non-muslim man didn't learn about Islam from CNN or some biased internet website, but from his wife in his own home instead. Just imagine the perceptions that could be changed, the bridges that could be built, the understanding and tolerance that could be fostered. Islam cuts it's own throat and promotes divisions and misunderstandings which lead to more wars and rumors of wars by not allowing such interaction.

As I mentioned above, I've been married several times, and I can tell you that Muslim women make better wives in general. Most western men will never, ever be allowed to find that out, however. Frankly, I think if it were allowed and word got out, non-muslim women would live in fear of being left behind, or else get on the ball and start trying to figure out what they really ought to be putting into a marriage in order to try to keep up.



And you are judging a religious law with secular standards. Secular law doesnt think much of any religion so inter religious marriage is just a marriage between two consenting adults for secular law. Religious law has to think about the religious aspects too.


Personally, I don't think ANY religion should interfere with the law in a secular setting where there are multiple religions. Some one is always going to get the short end of the stick in those situations. With that said, however, there are some aspects of life that religion is going to govern for some people, and that is where the contractual obligations come to the fore. Religious law can be built-in to that contract and be enforced within that contractual obligation just as any secular law would be.



A muslim cant marry a polytheist at all, is it inferior rights to polytheists?


No. It actually gives inferior rights to Muslim men, since the polytheists don't care who they marry, and will marry whomever they please. The difference is that Muslim men are imposing those restrictions upon themselves, rather than having them enforced upon them by another religion.

... to be continued...



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by logical7

In short the laws are not equal but a religious muslim (man/woman) understands and obeys them because for them faith is very important. And the justice with genders is done not in each tiny aspect but as a sum of whole integrated system.


This is what a lot of westerners fail to realize - Islam is not just a religion, it IS an entire integrated system, comprising religion, laws, and social custom. That is also one of the reasons it will be so difficult to bring Islam into the modern age. It has retained a lot of the older ways inflexibly as times and society have changed, rather than keeping up and making changes to reflect (either support or refute) those changing societal values. Christianity has, to a large extent, gone too far the other way - they are tending to support new social customs that are contrary to them, rather than trying to make logical arguments against those customs. Either way is, in my opinion, the wrong way.



let me give example of inheritance, women getting half than men, so unjust right? But now the responsibility to provide for women is on men only, a women need not use her money. So what would one choose? Double money with responsibility of parents, unmarried sister/s, wife/s and kid/s or half money responsibility free? so to whom is it unjust?
I as a man would prefer secular law as i know the maths and expenses, but as a muslim man i accept to obey it.


That actually sounds fair to me, within those cultural restraints. It wouldn't work here, though, because the cultural restraints are different. No longer are men seen as the sole support of a family. Since women here are now expected to at least in part support themselves and the family, half inheritance is not workable here. That is, however, a cultural difference rather than a religious one, and the dictates of practicality will obviously reflect different values. Some of us still DO take on those responsibilities, but it's a matter of our own personal choices and sense of responsibility, rather than the dictates of religious law. As an example, until very recently I was the sole support for a room mate, two of her unmarried daughters, and two of her grand children. No one told me I had to do that, but it had to be done, so I did.



You cant judge a system by another system's standard which are at conflict with each other. Especially when sharia law looks at the whole society and family first and then the individual in laws, also justice would be done in my whole lifetime rather then at each time. Say i take care of my old parents and the old me would be tolerated by my kids as its a religious duty.


The similar standards are what will tell whether the systems are comparable enough to be made to work together, and the conflicting standards are where work needs to be done to harmonize them. BOTH must be taken into account in any equitable and practical solution for getting along, and in some cases allowances will have to be made if they are to be made compatible, and in other cases allowances CAN'T be made, so the parties will have to be responsible enough to agree to disagree in some matters - what they CAN'T do is run roughshod over one another.

That just makes for more war, to the detriment of us all.


edit on 2012/12/8 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join