Should we adopt shariah law to dealo with crinimality?
A friend recently had their car stolen. Should the thief have a hand/ foot cut off to ensure they can't do this again?
Controversial I know but sometimes we have to think outside the box to achieve something great.
I don't think Shariah Law overrides or replaces Criminal Law, but instead replaces certain Civil Laws. So, any criminal activity will still be governed by a countries judicial system.
The laws of the land and the courts of the day in Western Society say a big"NO" and so do I.
No, it is against every grain of decency, human rights, woman rights and a civilized society. I suggest that those who want to go back to the Medieval ages please please do so by buying a plane ticket and going to places that have Sharia Law. Also, we might as well have the Inquisition back and the Mosaic Law back as well IF we are to say YES to Sharia.
I've thought about this many times but if you look at other countries or societies that have adopted the idea they have'nt really curbed criminality. People still steal, rape and murder. There are a few exceptions but for the majority upping the punishment rarely works to the extreme would like it to.
Exactly what would be great about lopping off body parts? What next? Stoning?
Y'know, it's funny--in the past, I've heard a lot of people say that we should do something like that...cut off the hand of a thief, set an arsonist on fire, castrate a rapist, etc.
But if you call it "Sharia Law," these same people freak right the heck out and get all "We can't let them ter'rists win!"
Just an observation.
But to answer the original question, no, we shouldn't.
And the thing about Sharia Law is that it applies differently to Muslims than to non-Muslims. And that difference is built right into it.
Sharia Law is most certainly not an "eye for an eye"
But, yes, of course we should stone women to death for adultery and we should settle our differences via family vendettas.
How could anyone think otherwise?
Any other questions?
The part in sharia law that forbids lending money at interest makes a lot of sense.
And our, the USA's Govt, has set up Sharia compliant loans for Muslims in this country. Which I find to be totally unacceptable. And no I do not know if we do them for Jews in the same fashion.
Well, that's not fair. We loan money to muslims interest free? While muslims are the largest shareholders in corporations that own credit card companies that charge interest?
Yes we do. Nice of us, isn't it.
http://www.universityislamicfinancial.c … .27.08.pdf
Read the link.
http://www.universityislamicfinancial.c … .27.08.pdf
This year, 2005, the $90 million-asset University has opened Islamic finance offices in East Brunswick, N.J., and McLean, Va., and received regulatory approval to write its Islamiclaw-compliant loans in eight other states. It plans to open at least five more offices in markets outside its home state over the next year.
“His (Pawlenty’s) Minnesota housing finance agency set up a Sharia-compliant home loan program to help Muslims buy homes without paying interest.” (See rebuttal to this assertion by Morris in the first comment below. Pawlenty says he shut the program down immediately upon becoming aware of what was going on.)
HIs, Pawlenty's, may have shut down... but they are still given out to Muslims in the USA
http://freedomslighthouse.net/2011/04/2 … deo-42511/
This is not new news, Jeff.
And California also...
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/gen … usat_x.htm
Not new news Jeff...
Not new news, but not the news you represent it to be either.
The freedom's lighthouse link is very damning, especially when you see that it accuses Pawlenty's administration of making interest-free loans to Muslims with state money when everyone else has to pay interest. But I doubt that the program was that simple.
Why? Because of the explanation of sharia-compliant home loans in the USA Today article. It's not that Muslims get the same loan you'd get, but don't pay any interest (which wouldn't be fair). They get a different kind of loan, where instead of paying interest as such, they pay an agreed-upon markup.
From the article:
""I felt so strongly that if we were not able to get financing — which was possible — we were going to stay in our rented apartment," says Ali, who paid Lariba an "implied" interest rate of about 6% on his loan, making it slightly more expensive than conventional mortgage rates.""[emphasis mine]
Also, neither the USA Today article nor the University Islamic Financial article says anything about the government writing sharia-compliant loans.
Not that there'd be anything wrong with that, as long as all citizens, Muslim or otherwise, had equal access to them. But why would a non-Muslim want a sharia-compliant loan, since they're not just an interest-free traditional loan, as you and others would have us believe, but rather a more expensive loan, in which the price for the use of cash is paid in such a way that it's not called "interest."
And somehow, I thought that a transaction between a bank and its customers was nobody's business but theirs, as long as no fraud was involved. Isn't that the traditional position of the Right? Or is there an exception for when a bank makes a product that Muslims want to buy?
As usual, the Right is oversimplifying and exaggerating to score demagoguery points, and the real story is both more complicated and not scary at all.
I don't know enough about that to comment, except that in general everyone should be equal under the law.
Islamic banking is an interesting alternative and is growing pretty fast in the Middle East where the International banks are non-sharia but there's too much money just to keep it under the bed.
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals … ray01.html
That enough for you Jeff? You can google these yourself. You know?
"And our, the USA's Govt, has set up Sharia compliant loans for Muslims in this country."
None of your links prove that assertion. Not one. They prove that Banks in the US are making sharia-compliant loans available to their customers. That's so not the same thing.
Also, sharia-compliant loans are not merely interest-free loans. They're more complicated, and they seem to be a bit more expensive than a fixed-rate mortgage for a similar amount.
Further, there's nothing in those links that says you have to prove you're a Muslim to qualify for a sharia-compliant loan--at least, I couldn't find anything that says that.
In short, none of the stuff you're trying to scare us with even exists. That's fun when I'm at the movies, but in the real world conjuring chimaeras damages the country.
Anything banks do have to be approved by our govt, FTC? I believe, is the agency that handles that.
And if the IRS is allowing for interest deductions on them... than it is Govt involved.
IRS allows interest deductions on supposedly interest-free sharia compliant loans;
"We, Creeping Sharia, confirmed with Devon Bank that the IRS does indeed allow an interest deduction on tax returns of sharia compliant murabaha loans that supposedly do not charge interest. To do so, the bank issuing the sharia loan must provide a statement to the home owner detailing interest paid. The homeowner then reports it to the IRS (possibly on IRS Form 1098)."
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/200 … ant-loans/
"Anything banks do have to be approved by our govt, FTC? I believe, is the agency that handles that."
You mean the Federal Trade Commission? They're a regulatory agency. Are you saying that the FTC should be stopping banks from creating sharia-compliant loans? Isn't that a bit...discriminatory?
"And if the IRS is allowing for interest deductions on them... than it is Govt involved."
Okay, but there's no greater government involvement in one of these loans than in one of any other loan, is there?
"IRS allows interest deductions on supposedly interest-free sharia compliant loans;"
That is an interesting point--the sharia loans don't charge interest as such, they call it something else. But the IRS still allows a tax deduction on those non-interest loan fees. I really don't see a problem with it. It's all financial double-speak. The loans are still loans, and the extra money the borrower pays the lender is still "money rent" whether you call it 'interest' or a 'service charge' or whatever. The gov't gives a tax break on the 'money rent,' whether it's called interest or something else. No worries there.
Is this only scary because it's Muslims doing it?
Why do you hate the free market?
No... allowing them is discriminatory, Jeff.
Um....how, exactly? Serious question.
I mean, if the sharia compliant mortgages were being issued by the US government, while the government wouldn't issue other kinds of loans, that would be a problem. But the sources you used as evidence of that don't show the US government doing that.
In fact, if any of the issues you raised were real issues, it'd be a problem. But in fact, Muslims aren't getting special treatment, and there's no Islamic back-door to sweet mortgage deals that aren't available to the non-Muslim population. So far every single thing you don't like about sharia-compliant loans has turned out to be chimaerical; they are non-issues.
So how is merely allowing the existence of sharia-compliant loans an act of discrimination?
'Cos if that's discrimination, then allowing butchers to sell halal-compliant meat (and kosher meat, for that matter) is also an act of discrimination and must be stopped!
But it's easy to make assumptions here. The Islamic 'mortgage' model isn't just an interest free loan. The client agrees terms with the lender who then buys the property outright, on the client's behalf. The client then lives in the property and makes regular payments which are part rent and part installments. Over a period of time, as his share in the property increases, the ratio of installment to rent increases until eventually the client owns the property.
Technically, interest is not involved, but practically it's a proper business model with the client paying and the lender receiving far more than the purchase price over the full term.
As a matter of fact, there is a considerable debate within Islam over whether this model is or is not shariah compliant.
(And at least we've taken this thread somewhere more edifying than the lopping off of appendages!)
It is discrinatory in nature toward anyone not Mulsim. And another thing is, in this day when alot of people in America are losing their homes due to adjustable rate Morts., it is an insult. These loans do not increase... they stay the same. So... it creates an unfair playing field. And we all know how the Left and Progressives feel about, "fair".
Are you meaning that a bank offering these "loans" would not make the same offer to someone that could not prove they are Muslim?
Do they require documentation for such proof, or do they investigate home, too?
If I know my American bankers, the muslims will end up paying considerably more for their home than traditional loans.
Muslims only Wild, your imam and mosque must certify you are a Muslim.
Uneven playing field... what about fair?
Ahh. It does seem then that a legal case could probably be made for religious discrimination.
Can a business legally limit who they sell to by religious affiliation? Or what products they will sell to whom?
Appearently they can if they are DELTA Airlines...
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-delt … haria-law/
Imagine the protests in the streets if Delta Airlines were to tell Muslims that they could not fly somewhere because the local customs would not permit them to enter that country? And just how quickly would Rev. Al Sharpton be able to gather thousands to march against Delta Airlines if they would not allow black people onto their planes because the country where they were flying would not permit people of color to enter?
Those situations are impossible to conceive because they could never happen, right?
But Delta Airlines is facing a similar moral dilemma as they get are about to complete an alliance with Saudi Arabia. The Delta-Saudi deal means adding Saudi Arabian Airlines (SAA) to Delta’s SkyTeam Alliance. For the first time, this would allow Delta passengers to fly direct into Saudi Arabia, as long as passengers are not Jewish, do not have a passport from Israel or a passport that is stamped from Israel
Delta did not see Saudi Arabia’s discrimination against Jews to be their problem. And yet, Mr. Lovitky presisted with his questions until he received this letter;
I have posted this as a topic, but appearently no one ses anything wrong with it. Whi isn't the Left up in arms over thjis?
Letters sent between these two are very interseting and are on this site.
The two cases do not seem the same at all to me. One concerns selling certain products within US borders based on religious faith. The other concerns selling passage to people to locations that will allow them to enter the country.
It is illegal to transport people without valid visas into the US; we catch thousands each year coming in from Mexico and other places. Delta's refusal to carry such passengers seems more in line with this and is probably a good thing. In no way is Delta responsible legally or ethically for the refusal of any country to allow entrance to anyone. At most they could take an ethical stance that they won't do business with such a country, but in this day and age that isn't really practical. There are too many different cultures and laws worldwide.
"we catch thousands each year coming in from Mexico and other places."
And we ignore the tens of thousends who get past the borders. Just saying. I am not trying to be argumentative, Wild... just saying.
And if the USA started banning Muslim Immigration the Left would hit the roof. They are so about multi-culturalism and acceptance, why are they not confronting Suadi Arabia? They would go after our Govt so quick it would give me whip-lash. But not a peep about Saudi policy and their discrimination based on religion and race... why?
Why doesn't the Left hit the street and scream about no more American money till they change their policies? I would support that. I would be out there with you.
IMHO the US goes 'way too far in using financial, political and social clout to "reform" other nations into what we believe. Other peoples have as much right to live as they wish as we do.
A foreign country has a discriminatory law (that doesn't affect Americans in the US) and we're supposed to get mad about it here?
I don't like the Saudi government very much for many reasons, but I'm more worried about our own government, thanks. I don't think the Saudis should be getting American money for many reasons. Same with Israel, for many of the same reasons. But you won't see the Right (or the Left!) holding Israel to the standard you want us to hold Saudi Arabia to.
And you're right, if the US banned the immigration of any particular group, I'd hope both the Left and the Right would speak up against it.
"Muslims only Wild, your imam and mosque must certify you are a Muslim. "
You read that in the links you posted? 'Cos I didn't see that in there.
Unlike yourself, Jeff. I do not learn everything I know from internet links.
You should really find yourself other sources to verify and expand your knowledge regarding issues and questions.
Surely a private sector finance business has discretion in how it selects its customers? A public sector outfit providing services specifically to Muslims or any other special group is discriminatory and shouldn't be supported.
Then there is reverse discrimination:
This sign in a supermarket in Dubai discriminates against the local Muslim population, yes?
That is a joke, obviously, because Muslims do not eat pork. They believe that pork is unclean because Jokthar the prohet supposedly turned the Jews, see the AD tribe..., who abused him and Gods name into monkeys and Pigs. Pretty simple to understand. Pork is Haram... unlawful, forbidden
It is not a joke. I took the photo myself and it is absolutely real. In Qatar, there is no pork anywhere (unless illegally imported like my last pack of bacon!) But in UAE, pork products are available in supermarkets, but always in a separate section protected by clear signage.
I thought you were posting that as here in America.
Well I would think just getting caught with black market pork, never mind selling it to Muslims, would be worth a lashing or two. And no... I do not abide by discrination against pork. I enjoy the bacon and chops myself Para.
I certainly wouldn't risk it in Saudi, but in Qatar many people carry a couple of packs of bacon in through customs. The worst they will do is confiscate and destroy it. Selling it would be a no-no though. People get deported for that.
yes Saudi Arabia is something, aren't they Para.
It isd good to se you again, friend. So to speak. How have you been para? I hope well.
I've been fine, but just a bit busier than usual at work, so a bit more absent from here. All this turmoil in the region is making a lot of work for us media types
Yes, I would imagine so. You take care Para, and be careful out there.
"And another thing is, in this day when alot of people in America are losing their homes due to adjustable rate Morts., it is an insult."
Now you're just flailing. It's not a situation of "muslims get fixed rate loans while everyone else has to get an ARM and take their lumps." My mortgage is fixed-rate. My house in underwater, but the payments haven't changed. And I'm not even Muslim. Shocking!
So because it doesn't affect you it is okay.
I understand now.
No, not at all. I'm just pointing out that while it's bad that folks who took out an ARM are loosing their homes, the existence of sharia-compliant loans that didn't get their interest hiked is no more 'insulting' than the existence of fixed rate mortgages.
So really, you're saying that people suffering from ARM rate hikes is only bad because there are Muslims who aren't also suffering?
Seriously, you're just throwing stuff against the wall, hoping something will stick.
Sharia-compliant loans aren't being made by the US government; they're being made by banks.
They're not a sweet deal only for Muslims; you haven't given any evidence that you have to prove you're a Muslim to get one of these loans.
They aren't cheaper than a similar fixed-rate mortgage; in fact, they're a little more expensive.
They're not a secret way for Muslims to avoid ARM rate hikes; in fact, the stability of a sharia-compliant loan is analogous to a standard fixed-rate mortgage.
In fact, none of your assertions have held up to examination; they've all been shown to be chimaerical after a quick reading of the links you yourself provided.
"So because it doesn't affect you it is okay. "
No. Because none of your fears are real, it's okay.
I like to allay people's fears. It doesn't do for adults to be scared of stuff that doesn't exist. If you want, I can come over and check your closet for boogiemen before you got to bed, too.
If this were a Chhristian loan Program the left would scream seperation of church and state till their lungs blew out.
Other than that google it and do your web-site research you so value for yourself. I have supplied enough links to get you going.
"If this were a Chhristian loan Program the left would scream seperation of church and state till their lungs blew out."
You're still flailing.
I've addressed your concerns one by one. It's not a secret sweet deal for only Muslims, the fact that its payments don't change is exactly analogous to a regular fixed-rate mortgage, banks--not the US government--are writing the loans, and it's an example of the free enterprise system working: there's a need/want for a product, and someone filled said need.
So now all you've got is, "But, but, but, if it were a christian program, you'd be freaking out!"
Well, if the government were funding a christians-only loan program, you're right, I would be freaking out. But it isn't. And the government isn't funding a Muslims-only loan program, either. If any of the fears you raised were real problems, I'd be right there with you; discrimination is bad, and government-funded discrimination is even worse.
But so far, nothing you've said is even real! This is based on not my own research but on a careful reading of the links you provided.
Really the only things your links prove is that some banks are making Sharia-compliant loans available to their customers, and that they're slightly more expensive than standard loans. That's exactly analogous to some grocery stores making Halal meat available to their customers.
Why are you so scared of Islam?
And you can keep addressing them, or just move on.
And no it isn't analogous. Banking and a Halal food are in no way similar. What a simplistic line of thought.
"Banking and a Halal food are in no way similar."
Well, yeah, they are. Check it out:
The grocery store offers both regular food and halal food, so that can serve muslim customers as well as non muslim ones.
The bank offers a sharia-compliant loan so it can serve muslim customers as well as non-muslim ones.
Totally analogous. And equally innocuous. This is no. big. deal.
Why does it give you the heebie-jeebies?
Banks are strictly regulated by the Govt. and cannot do anything without Govt apporoval. So no they are not. And I don't care to hear about food inspectors as if they are the FTC.
And I don't get the heebie anythings Jeff.
If it is not big deal then stop replying...
If we accept ONE system, we will be expected to accept all.
Why wouldn't any sane person be afraid if she happens to be a SHE (or gay) and would have to adhere to a 17th century religion that never went through the Enlightenmnent or something AT LEAST like the Reformation?
Well, if you can show my how a bank offering a sharia-compliant loan means that all women in the USA will have to wear a burkha, you bet I'll grab my torch and pitchfork.
But a bank offering a sharia-compliant loan isn't forcing anyone to convert to Islam any more than a deli selling kosher meat is forcing anyone to convert to judaism, or a department store having a Christmas sale forces anyone to convert to Christianity.
Appendage lopping is much more fun though, you have to admit.
"Banks are strictly regulated by the Govt. and cannot do anything without Govt apporoval." The banks regulate the government, not the other way around.
The banks don't own the money... they are allowed to borrow it just like the Govt. So I do not believe the banks run our Govt.... those who own the money, run our Govt. And I am not talking about the fed either... they are just the piggy bank.
"The banks don't own the money... they are allowed to borrow it just like the Govt."
The Fed is privately owned banks who print the money for the price of the paper and ink, and lend it to the US government, where you pay the interest to the banks. Such a deal. One of the only government controlled banks in the world is in Libya. Good luck with that.
The banks are owned by who, knol?... The banks do not own themselves, there are real people behind them, real families. The fed is their community chest to use. But there are real live people behind it all. The fed and the banks are a tool to minipulate with... but there are real people behind them.
I am not an Alex jones fan but he has got that right... there are families that own that power because they own the money, and they flex that power through the fed and banks.
Now if you want to say the bankers, the old money lenders
You are right they are people. "The Warburgs, Kuhn Loebs, Goldman Sachs, Schiffs and Rothschilds have intermarried into one big happy banking family." These are some of them.
I agree. My only point was the fed and banks were tools. I thought you meant the old money lenders and their ilk, but you kept saying the banks. So... but yes we agree.
It is awful funny the Buildergburg knows the agenda before anyone else and seem to call the world shots. Very telling indeed.
by Susie Lehto17 hours ago
There should not have been a need at all for Senate Bill 97 in the United States. The House voted 56-44 to prohibit sharia law. I'd like the names of the block heads who voted against that bill, they should...
by Jackie Lynnley7 months ago
20 to 30 men outside your house screaming they will kidnap and rape you! Where are all the network news when something like this happens? Do they not want us to know of these little incidents popping up all around...
by weholdthesetruths6 years ago
Whatever the social or anti-social implications of his actions, Terry Jones was making a statement protected as free speech, absolutely protected as free speech. Certainly, had he chosen to burn the flag, instead...
by andrew savage3 years ago
What are the aspects of the two modes of practical law that make one incompatible with the other?
by thirdmillenium5 years ago
They amputate limbs, hang the criminals in public and flog adulterers.Have you ever felt, "he/she deserves it"
by Onusonus4 years ago
The governor of Kansas just signed a bill that prevents foreign laws (including Sharia law) from being enforced in US courts. opponents to the law say that it singles out Muslims despite the fact that "sharia...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.