As a discussion regarding Sharia Law is broader in focus than honor killing or the opinion of one poster, the European Court of Human Rights has clearly set forth their opinion about this subject.
"...in 2004 the European Court of Human Rights "found that sharia was incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy… It considered that “sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it. According to the Court, it was difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverged from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervened in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.”
Council of Europe - Conseil de l'Europe
I can assure you that muslims do not give a rat's ass what a European/Western court has to say about Sharia or other associated Islamic issues.
True story.......
Dear Sunni and Indored:
A. Can you please specify what is meant by Shariah?
A1. The head of CAIR said there is no Shariah Law, but only the practices in Islam called Shariah including giving of charity, and traditions for the prayer and dress.
A2. but people keep using this to mean when the govts are taken over by religious authorities who use the secular positions of govt to IMPOSE or regulate these religious customs by mixing with state institutions and mandatory laws etc.
Doesn't this clearly go against the teaching about no compulsion?
That any practice should be chosen and exercised freely, not forced by the state?
Even where one is compelled to follow God to avoid bad consequences of selfish evil,
this is still by free choice when it comes to religion.
Can you please specify how to distinguish the difference between
A1. FREELY CHOSEN practices required in Islam such as giving charity
A2. and MANDATORY regulations when govts adopt or enforce rules relating to religion.
B. Also Sunni can you please answer the other question
in the previous post,
that if the 10 commandments are universal for Jews Christians and Muslims
then how can these be "on the same level of Shariah" that is only for Muslims.
Also isn't the Shariah interpreted FROM the Quran wehre the Quran is the original source not Shariah which is
law derived from Quranic scripture. So again, how can Shariah be on the same level as original scripture if it is derived from it?
And if Shariah differs from one country to another,
how can that be like the 10 commandments that are uniform and do not change,
they are given as written, and any adaptation is different and separate from the
original 10 commandments.
C. Also would you consent to live in a country where the govt would enforce
having your hand chopped off if you were found guilty of theft.
Do you really agree to that, or do you insist on having Constitutional due process
enforced so this is indeed necessary in order to protect human rights.
Would you trust a country or govt to practice Islam or Shariah
without being under the same Constitutional principles as in the US?
Would you agree to live in that country equally as you support others to live under Shariah enforced by govt?
If you do not support Shariah enforced by govt, then how do you propose to change this, with or without US help?
Thank youSunni!
