Sharia Law has no place in a free democracy

last SG · 2005-08-25T12:40:04+00:00

you are right in trying to see from both side. When got discussion only from one side? All races and religion is equal. if muslim gets something from the go...

laurence82 SG

While you guys are focusing on Muslims, there are rising bigotry and extremist views being bred elsewhere, for example, one of our Christian forum in sgforums.

Atobe SG

Originally posted by kheldorin:
You misunderstood by saying that the Syariah Law would affect the non-believers which is not the case here. The Syariah Law exists here in Singapore but there isn't any "insidious bigger, bolder" steps made by the Muslim community. Your assumption that the Muslim community has some greater political agenda is pretty paranoid. They are going to take over the world!! lol...

The point is not about Syariah Law being implemented in Singapore, in which the Singaporean Muslims are not migrants - unlike the subject of Muslims who have migrated to Australia, Europe, UK, and the USA.

Before we get into a paranoia of the Muslims taking over the world, perhaps we should take note of the teachings and writings of some of the fervent Muslims from the Middle-east and Pakistan, as well as their fellow-brethens in South-east Asia who are planning a Pan-Islamic South-east Asia. (See Ref #1 and 2 below)

:
In my opinion, this "my way or the highway" stance taken by the Australian government is pretty stupid. Like Singapore, they can make a compromise to set up a Shariah Law that is compatible with their consitituition. In that way, they can bring the moderate Muslims to their side instead of totally alienating them. Afterall, what feeds the support for the radicals Muslims are the extremist government that is incapable of compromise. So yes, although there will still be some who will fight for a fully-implemented Syariah Law, they will now be in the minority and lacking support.

Singapore has Forty Years of Independence, and more then 150 Years since the founding of Singapore in 1819 - the Malay Community is part of the natural history of Singapore.

The population is largely comprising of the four main racial groups of Chinese, Malays, Indians, Eurasians, and some minority groups of Arabs, Armenians, Jews, and newer emigrants from China, Europe, Japan, and other parts of the globe.

Will Singapore change its Constitution to accomodate some other newer religions that will protect the Rights of a minor religious group, which has its Precepts that are in conflict with those of our own ?

If Singapore can accomodate Islamic Shariah Law, why does it not accomodate the Shariah Law in its TOTALITY ?

If Singapore can accomodate the minority religion such as Islam, why does it not tolerate the Jehovah Witness or the Falungong ? (See Reference #3)

:
The Syariah Law is not forced onto anyone. Race is unchangeable but religion is not. They can always convert if they do not agree with the Syariah Law. The problem is that the image of Islam is intertwined with the Middle Eastern culture, a majority of which is pretty backwards. And as such, we should be clear on which are Middle Eastern culture and which are Islamic practices. You don't have to wear a Middle Eastern garb to be a Muslim when a simple T-shirt and jeans would suffice. The reason why they came to Australia is to escape the backwards Middle Eastern culture but they still want to practise their religion. There is no conflict.

Is there an 'opt out' clause for a Muslim to renounce his religion ?

Similarly, can a Catholic also 'opt out' from being a Catholic ?

"The Syariah Law is not forced onto anyone" ? Try that again on the other non-Malay communities living in Kelantan, Malaysia - where men and women are not allowed to be in the same Q-line, nor swim on the same beach, nor enjoy their traditional entertainment with alcohol, nor public entertainment with songs and dances.

Is it not true that the image of Islam is intertwined with the Middle-eastern culture ?

Besides being clear that Islam is not simply the outward display of physical appearance - dress and goatee, or total head-to-toe garb for women - one should understand the Shariah Law in its TOTALITY that governs the LIFE and LIFE-STYLE of a Muslim Man and Woman.

If a Middle-eastern Muslim decide to leave the backwardness of his country, why does he/she continue to subject himself/herself to the backwardness of the Shariah Law that contradicts the Constitution of the adopted Country, which basically protects the basic rights of all its citizens in enjoying a HUMANE LIFE that is progressive in all cultural, social, economic and political spheres ?

:
I also like to point out that people tend to think of all the Muslim countries having the same practices when clearly this is not the case. Because of this decentralized nature of Islam which has no one central authority, Islam is being practised differently in different countries with different 'experts'. As such if the governments is smart enough, like the Singapore government, they can exploit this system and thus decide the type of Islam that they want their Muslim citizens to practise. Too bad, the only ones exploiting this nature is the extremists.

While most Muslim countries are independent of each other in the political and national sense, it is Islam that binds all the Muslim countries together - as it is only normal for any group of people to naturally bond and group themselves together.

However, over the last ten years, Islam has transcended narrow nationalism, and is now even troubling the legitimate Governments of Islamic States, as there are now influential Islamic Personalities usurping Islam to move the ground, and start a Pan-Islamic revolution to overthrow these Governments.

We have seen strong Islamic personalities in the likes of Ayatollah Khomeini overthrowing the Shah of Iran - (See Reference #4)

The call by Osama Bin Laden to overthrow the Royal Rulers of Saudi Arabia,

Is Islam practised differently in different countries, and advised by differing experts of the religion ? Are you implying that Islam in Singapore is different from that practised in Malaysia or Indonesia, or Pakistan and the Middle-east countries ?

Surely, every good Muslim are all bound by the same required religious practise of making the Haj, making the trip to Mecca and Medina ?

Are they any different ?

The Singapore Government is smart to accomodate the Singaporean Muslims only insofar as it is able to limit the religious fervour from spilling into politico-religious extremism.

The future of Islam will need to be carefully understood and not feared.
(See Reference #5 n #6)

Reference #1
The evolution of transnational extremist-Muslim terrorist groups in South-east Asia
http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/terrorism/chapter4.html

Reference #2
Indonesian cops nab Muslim terror suspects - Pan-naitonal Muslim State
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030203-061444-1355r

Reference #3
Singapore - International Religious Freedom Report 2004
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35427.htm

Reference #4
Dawn of an Islamic Revolution
http://www.alternet.org/story/21887

Reference #5
The Future of Islam
http://www.alternet.org/story/21887

Reference #6
A View from the Eye of the Storm
http://www.ctjewishledger.com/articles/2005/08/18/opinions/articles_of_interest/article01.txt

Gauze SG

Oh, immigrants or not, Muslim minorities are not allowed to demand for the application of Shari`ah. However, they can still appeal that in family affairs like marriages, divorces or lineage properties, they want Shari`ah to be applied, which is exactly how it has been in Singapore. Likewise in a proper Muslim state while applying the Shari`ah in full, it gives the chance to non-Muslims to act in accordance with their own religious matters concerning family, personal rights and such and such.

I certainly do not think a secular country is so bad. One of its exposition is to protect religion from the interference of the State, not the opposite. From the history of the Prophet, he had asked troubled Muslims to immigrate to Abyssinia (a non-Muslim country) just because there was a ruling king who was implementing justice and nobody under his leadership were subjected to aggression, torture or bad treatment. Hence, Muslims in these countries are to respect their law and the people who hosted them and deal with them in the best of ways.

Those ungrateful clerics in the article should have their nuts pulled and cracked for not being appreciative before they are extradicted. Or let me do some other painful kinky actions to them.... sigh.

As for the severe punishments in the Shari`ah posted here, its only a one sided view on the part of the "boundaries" law. The doors of repentance are always opened and there are tons of preventive measures.

About A GaL SG

stop this religious bashing!

iveco SG

Things can get worse at Eternal Hope. This is really mild compared to what I have seen over there.

LazerLordz SG

This is not religious bashing, it is a sharing session on how to reform a religion for the betterment of its believers.

laurence82 SG

Reform a religion?

sheesh

Knowing that you are a christian, you are using your own values to reform a different faith?

Its understandable if you focus on those extremists and their actions.

But to 'reform a reglion' for what u believe is for the betterment of others?

What are u acting as, a god?

No wonder for the bigotry and hypocriticism in christianity.

Gedanken SG

Hey chill, Ah Lau! Smile

What we're talking about here pretty much covers the debate between the radicals and the moderates, so it does reflect what the moderates are thinking of in terms of reform. It's not a matter of turning Islam into Christianity - the issue here is how Sharia fits into secular societies.

LazerLordz SG

Am I stating my points as a Christian?Since when have I approached this from the wicked ways of rabid evangelism?

Tell that to Martin Luther and see if Christianity is better off without the Protestant movement.Don't just jump to conclusions without seeing the jungle for the trees.

I mentioned reformation is better for the believers.You merely misinterpreted my stand as wanting to lord over another religion.Now who's the bigot here? Rolling Eyes

laurence82 SG

What u or everyone else believe is better for the believers? Again, who do u think u are acting as, god? Arent you using your own value system to try to change a faith u think is good for believers, when the issue lies on few extremists who misintepreted the Quran for their own purposes?

Does original Islam advocates violence and destruction?

Whether or not Christianity is better off without the Reformation is for the Christians to judge, do you see anyone else butting in to tell the Christians what to do? And to think abt it, where are the Muslims in this topic?

And let me quote you, you are talking abt reforming a religion. Nowhere have you mentioned changing the system or changing the negative mindsets of many Muslims here towards other people.

Christian Reformation include major changes to doctrines, theology and practices, not just the system. This is what you want the Muslism to do?

Rolling Eyes

LazerLordz SG

In hindsight, we will know which path worked.And there is no one set path.Any form of change to mindsets and supposed state-funded ideology and interpretation that contributes to furthering the cause of peace and the fundamental basics of Islam, which happens to be tolerance and embrace of diversity should be welcome.

Have you ever read the Koran?When you do, then you will understand why I think that it's not just a case of mindset, because there is a huge amount of Muslims are under the thrall of a misguided authority that wishes to exploit Islam for tribal and political purpose.

The more I look at it..the more I feel there is some miscommunication here.Apologies if I have ruffled any feathers..just trying to put my point across.That's all. Smile

LittleTiger SG

I have to agreed to whatever posted by Atobe. It makes sense. Other religoin will put the national laws first before the religion rules.

The ang moh are so stupid to take them (as kind hearted and their so called humanitarian) and in the end the kind heart turn into evil repayment.

Its fortunate like spore where muslim members here are understanding and muslim law are only involved on family matters.

Imagine..... a girl must have 4 guys witness to prove that she been raped. Else the rapist will get scot free?

LazerLordz SG

See this is what is meant by interpretation and the fact that religion has been misused and misread.

laurence82 SG

Precisely. The root of the problems lies within a few idiotic extremists.

Gauze SG

Oh god, thanks Lazerlord for speaking out. Unfortunately, that was the state of affairs under the law in some Muslim countries. It is not, however, what Islamic law really says. How frustratingly moronic are them to confuse rape with adultery. "The need for the 4 witnesses is not to prove rape but to prove adultery. Rape in Islamic law of evidence can be proven using DNA testing, medical records, witnesses and even circumstantial evidence. This is because it is understandable that the women is potentially a victim and will not impose unnecessary hardship to prove her case. Whereas someone who wants to be a morality police and look into the affairs of others would have to give a high burden of proof to prove adultery (four male witnesses), especially because that has serious repercussions on the accused."

As a side note, in Islamic law, a woman who kills her rapist in self defence has committed a lawful act and will not be charged with homicide. If she dies while fighting her rapist, she is considered a martyr.

LazerLordz SG

Thanks for the clarification. Mr. Green

sbst275 SG

Too extreme

oxford mushroom SG

some would say that you have to accept gays as equal in society to move on..

oxford mushroom SG

These liberal western nations also have huge problems with crime and societies that are morally corrupt. I have been robbed twice in London.....now I think thieves should have their right hands cut off in public...if someone rapes my daughter I want to cut his genitals off and see him slowly bleed to death...sharia law does not go far enough in that sense.

Atobe SG

Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
These liberal western nations also have huge problems with crime and societies that are morally corrupt. I have been robbed twice in London.....now I think thieves should have their right hands cut off in public...if someone rapes my daughter I want to cut his genitals off and see him slowly bleed to death...sharia law does not go far enough in that sense.

And someone insist that the Death Sentence should be abolished, as it is a cruel form of punishment.

Yet, back to the thread, is it right for a migrant to insist that his Religion and Religious Laws be enshrined in the Constitution of his adopted country, in the same manner that will allow him to practise his faith as in his original domicile ?

« Previous Page Next Page »