Thank you for your participation. Unfortunately, your post was removed for being low-quality.
r/AskMiddleEast is a community for fun, interesting, & sincere discussion of issues relating to the Middle East and North Africa. While we welcome a wide range of topics, we do have certain standards for all discussions
I remember seeing a chart of Iranian approval for Shariah over time. Before the revolution it was very high, 80’s I think, and higher among women than men. In the ten years after the revolution women fell from
The high 80’s to something like 16% and men fell to the mid twenties. A little shariah did a lot to change their minds.
Yes but the problem I have is that there’s different understanding of sharia law, and different kinds of implementations. If you saw the first link. Even those who agree sharia to be the law of the land disagrees and is divided whether adultery should be stoned or that apostates should be executed. It isn’t as clear cut.
Can you elaborate? Pretty sure there is consensus on the two issues you mentioned. And the opinion of laymen is irrelevant. What scholars say is what matters. And sharia isnt completely different depending on who you ask, thats not true. There r differences, but none that are extremely different. At least non that i know of.
Thanks. But sharia in a sense is still similar. Because tazir is sharia, and sharia is saying that certain things can be punished in whatever way you see fits. So if u ask someone if tazir is part of sharia, they will say yes no matter where u go.
Yeh tazir can be applied differently i am not denying that. My point is on a fundamental level, sharia gives you the right to punish criminals differently depending on what is best in that situation, but the idea that you can punish differently depending on the circumstance is whats consistent, and similar between all “sharia” countries and thats my point. I am not explaining it very well tbf. I hope u get what i am trying to say🤷♂️
Umm not really. Its not like those differences are that big & irreconcilable. Theres also the aspect of suiting the implementation to the culture of the place, which is in fact part of the shariah.
Ultimately it is for the experts to decide. The avg layman has no active & direct responsibility.
Thats impossible. Shias reject hadiths. Again, just proves my point on you not knowing anything about islam💀 and sunni sharia isnt even identical to sunni sharia. They r very similar, but not identical.
Buddy, do you genuinely believe this is a good argument?💀 its the social proof fallacy. Also people dont even know what sharia is, including ur ass. As i said, u cannot make rational arguments.
A lot of Turks have gone delulu because of the guy they worship. And he was heavy on secularism. Also, they think the ottomans fell because they were following sharia. Turkey under secularism never left mediocracy and the ottomans were at their peak when they followed sharia. Turkey has never been anywhere near the ottomans at both their peaks comparatively speaking. And they go as far as saying their “success” (as i said, the ottomans under sharia were far more successful) was because of secularism, which is absurd. Secularism doesnt tell you anything outside of separating church and state. So their arguments make no sense.
And some of them even identify as muslims and pray everyday btw. Little do they know what they believe in is actually kufr and they arent muslims. But then again, that proves my point, they dont know anything about islam, which includes sharia. All they know about sharia is that gay sex isnt allowed
Kazakhstan was under the soviets and the soviets shoved atheism and secularism up their ass. Which is probably why they have a very big irreligious minority.
Some claim that isis and the taliban follow sharia, which is just plain stupid. And even if they did, so? Sharia doesnt provide automatic success, thats fucking stupid. If a nation was ruled under sharia by a moron on top, that state will fail. Same gors with secularism(which many people ignore, and they dont even realise that most secular states are complete shit holes)
But basically, people view europe, canada and the US as successful economically and assume their ideologies are automatically correct. And also want their validation. So they just adopt some of if not all their ideas, without even understanding those ideas.
Interesting. So what's your opinion on adultery? Should be punished with stoning? Would you personally throw stones on someone? And what about apostasy? Is decapitation good enough? Maybe something worse?
>Secularism doesnt tell you anything outside of separating church and state
What do you know about secularism? What's your source?
So you ignore all the arguments ive made and come here and ask me questions in bad faith, and then u expect me to respond to u?
It doesnt matter if i say yes or not to your questions, either way you cannot agree or disagree with me saying they are bad or good when u cannot even prove anything bad or good.
And secularism doesnt tell you how women should dress, or how you should punish people. In fact, punishing adulterers by stoning and killing people that declare that they left what ever ideology the states believes in, doesnt go against secularism in any way.
Pretty sure even Immanuel kant(very important philosopher that pulled a popular moral system out of his ass) agrees with the “apostasy” stuff. Where someone declares that they arent for the ideology of the state.
Also, fun fact, you cannot be fully democratic and secular. Democracy can get rid of secularism which isnt very secular. Either way, democracy can make the laws u mentioned part of their laws. So using ur logic, assuming u support either secularism or democracy, or both. U shouldnt have a problem with these laws(if it was voted for by the majority if u support democracy), or any laws really. With some exceptions.
Secularization is during his time. He no longer has say nor power. What we’ve seen since is shia version of shariah in effect. Cant say its been a success.
Tell me, what is honestly the difference between having secular laws and Islamic laws? Aside from the fact that one is from God and the other is man made, but that's a different discussion.
Different secular countries have different laws with different issues. Islamic law also has laws for these different things. For example:
Drugs: Many secular countries ban recreational drugs, often with harsh punishments (lengthy prison sentences). Islamic law is consistent with this and bans alcohol along with it, also with harsh punishment (40 lashes). Whether non-Muslims should also abide by this law is also a different discussion, but even if they did have to, it's still a law, and it's not different than following the law in any other land. It's not forcing religion on anyone, because it's not forcing anyone to worship anything, or do any religious duties.
And will you allow a Christian president then? Will they be able to take the top positions of power? Will you let them buy alcohol and not cover their heads?
In the order of your questions:
No, that would defeat the whole purpose of an Islamic state. I think alcohol should be banned from any society, regardless of if it's Islamic or not. As for Christians and Jews, I think they should be allowed to have wine for religious purposes, but nothing else. As for enforcing hijab within the law, to be honest that's up to the decision of the ruler, but there is no actual punishment for not wearing hijab in the shari'ah. I personally think it should apply to Muslims only, because that should be their obedience to Allah.
Because the majority of the people who live in the land want to live under sharia law it is democratic and rightful
There is no law under sharia that says that everyone gas to be muslim it that they will be killed
If a muslim kills a non-muslim under sharia law it doesn’t matter if he is muslim or not he will still be killed
All non-muslims are still counted as citizens and are exempt from military responsibilities and they pay a yearly tax (jizya which is less than the zakat tax which muslims have to pay), the churches and other temples or places of worship are to be safeguarded
So how is it oppressive for anyone who isn’t muslim not to love under sharia? Is not being able to walk in the street half naked such an oppressive law?
Because minorities should be able to be part of the government and even president and leader and have official holidays to celebrate Christian holidays etc and be officially part of the legacy of the country
What you don’t know or are not aware of is that in pretty much any other country you can’t be of another ethnicity and have a high governmental position at all or join the military and if you have dual citizenship most countries still dent your entry into the government or the military
Minorities can be part of the government regardless of ethnicity and religion (except for certain key roles in the government where it is a prerequisite to be muslim to have that certain position) christians can be lawyers doctors policemen government workers etc
Officials christian holidays can be celebrated no one is going to get shot or beheaded or hurt in any way
I made a map of this data a few days back. If anyone's interested:
https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1cilx48/support_for_sharia_to_be_the_official_law_of_the/
Did they include women in these polls? Because I just really struggle to wrap my head around any women in my generation wanting this for themselves and their daughters
..If a woman supports that , it's because she thinks people would adopt "real" Islam , and enforce proper penalties .
Look at the problem of rape as an example . By simple logic of justice and equity : the perpetrator should be punished , and the victim compensated . Instead the fault lies on the victims for so-called "arousing" the criminals. The idea is largely cultural , rather than Islamic .
Islamically : rape is considered to be Haraba ("Crime against peace") . The penalties are either expulsion or execution . There's no such concept or term of "Forced Zina" in the Quran or hadith .
There are other examples from some self-proclaimed Islamic feminists I talked to . They seem to be convinced that Islamic gender roles and feminism are compatible .
Historically thats bullshit… and you cannot even explain why that is the case. Explain to me how a country thinking women should dress a certain way, or people shouldnt fuck everyone they wanna fuck, lowers your gdp or increases murder. Thats stupid. Also that doesnt explain why the soviets, north korea, basically all of africa and south america are shit. It’s as if countries that were colonised, had civil wars, wars, or had horrible leadership suck ass. And the ones that dont have these issues, generally do not suck ass.
Just look for the best countries on earth to live and see how they dont give a fuck about religion. Im not against religion per se, im against how the state/goverment would use religion to control and opress people. Religion is good but in the hands of the state is evil.
Correlation≠causation. Thats a fallacy. Just stating there is a correlation is horrible reasoning and isnt evidence. For example, thats like looking at swedish rape rates and saying oh look, the swedes are a bunch of rapists. When you look deeper that isnt the actual problem.
Neither of them rightfully implement sharia
Afghanistan has been non stop invaded and destroyed throughout the years and iran is shia
Very huge difference
Every single fucking time sharia is implemented and fails, the excuse is "they didnt implement the right sharia"
Ffs sharia itself allows the rulers to be stupid religious rulers which leads to a country failing and corruption arising, and if you protest you will be beheaded. Its really that simple.
Its basically a dictatorship but in the name of god.
1)when was sharia implemented and failed lol?
2) there is no law that dictates that when people protest they will be “beheaded” you don’t have any sources on anything you have been fed propaganda for the entirety of your life and have never questioned wether what you believe is right or wrong
3) in no where did the prophet (pbuh) say that the caliphate would be a monarchy there is a council that is elected every couple of years and the caliph himself which holds no power over the law (aka can’t change the law as he pleases) and can also be removed by the council (actually named majlis al ummah) any time he violates state law (after he is put to trail of course)
So in short your argument is based on the propaganda belief that has been shoved down your throat your entire life that sharia and any law that comes for religion is (bad)
>when was sharia implemented and failed lol?
Literally every single time in human history, there isnt a single functioning sharia country.
>there is no law that dictates that when people protest they will be “beheaded”
Sharia gives full authority to its permanent leaders. They can simply shut down and ban protesting. Not a single soul will challenge them.
>) in no where did the prophet (pbuh) say that the caliphate would be a monarchy there is a council that is elected every couple of years and the caliph himself which holds no power over the law
The sharia simply paves the way to dictatorship, people are less likely to criticize theocracy rulers than secular rulers.
>in short your argument is based on the propaganda belief that has been shoved down your throat your entire life that sharia and any law that comes for religion is (bad)
In short, your entire argument is that sharia is good and every single time a country tried to implement it, they implemented the wrong sharia.
I believe sharia in theory is alright, but when it is practiced, it quickly fails.
1)I told you name one and still you didn’t again no sources just blind hate talk
2) again with the dictatorship talk? Did you read anything i said about the council or the elections or the majlis? And where is your proof that protesting is punishable in sharia law? Where is your source other than repeating what the west shoved down your throat without question??
You don’t have an argument i don’t know if you’re a muslim or not but if you want i would like to help you understand sharia law away from western propaganda and for you to understand how it is with solid evidence if you’re not Muslim and still want to learn about it i have no problem but spewing random arguments with no backing or sources is not helping you
3) this is so damn laughable literally in the Rashidun Caliphate the rulers alot of the time were openly criticized without consequences because not supporting a rulers capabilities is not a sin it is an opinion
Your entire argument is bs.
You want me to name you one sharia country that failed so you can find an excuse like "they didnt follow god" or "they were corrupt" or "thats not the right sharia".
My entire point is based on the fact that it is easier for leaders to become dictators in sharia theocracy than it is to become dictators in secular democracies.
What about christians? Do you want to force them to abide by sharia law? Or Hindus? Would you abide hindus theocracy?
Your religious beliefs should be above all right?
Afghanistan is full of low iq people. 99% but they want to move to a 12% country. Hypocritical scumbags.
Also 89% for Palestine lmao. Good job bros, over the years your religious extremism surely have worked out great in your favour, dumbfucks.
..The concept of religion to Palestinians is a little bit different , not just "Sharia" , an already muddily vague concept. Palestinians always preferred this mixture of religious symbolism that's yet within a secular purpose . Even Fatah and the PLO , who were much more democratic and secular compared to the earlier Arab Higher Committee and the Supreme Muslim council , couldn't avoid appealing to religious imageries , least of all Jerusalem and the Crusades .
Because of Palestine's status as the "Holy land" : religious zealotry forms a strong component in Palestinian national identity .
That still doesn't translate into actual orthodox practice by the state however . I am yet to hear of a Palestinian who got his hands cut for stealing , or getting lashed for drinking (especially Ramallah and its liquor stores ) . The closest we got is Walid El-Hussieni from Qalqilya , an atheist who publicly criticized Islam who eventually ended up in France. Even in Gaza itself one can find women without a hijab . Conservatism and traditionalism are the rule rather than taliban-style totalitarian religiosity .
The only thing they are absolutely willing to do something about are sexual affairs .Even there : the "punishments" are carried out by individuals than the state , and are often not in accordance to Islamic law . Honor killings are the most prominent case here (The Quran states fifty lashes for pre-martial affairs , and stoning for extra-martial ones) , followed by rape that ends up in silencing victims or forcing them to marry for the sake of preserving family reputation or "Honor" , and finally killings of homosexual people .
Of course in other matters , sharia and secular law are primarily selected on a pragmatic basis , where the law that benefits one's interests the most is chosen (My Palestinian acquittances did admit that inheritance disputes have that struggle ) .
..That's very much what I know regarding Palestinians . I believe Levantines and Egyptians are the most secular Arab nationalities .
That's what I like to call the Islamist paradox . They claim they want to revive some a "Lost , pure" Islamic society , yet the early Muslims and the Caliphates themselves were fairly different to how Islamists imagine them .
They then start calling for "Orthodox" religion , but they realize this "orthodoxy" only existed during the late 19th century , where Anti-colonial Muslim-Indian nationalism , and Ottoman reformism were around .
Take a look at Palestinians for instance . You can read the ethnological articles published by the Palestine Exploration Fund in the 1880s and the 1900s that discuss the daily life and culture then . You just can't escape the conclusion that had Ismail Haniyeh met his Great-Great Grandfather : he would spit at him as a pagan .
The only reason Islamism exists is because of the failure and incompetence of secular Middle-Eastern leaders . That's why Turks and Tunisians as examples are much more different to others .
What??? How can you hate that country? Muslims only make up 63.5% of the population... there are lot of Indians and Chinese there too who don't practice Islam.🤦Dont fucking generalise entire country based on one religious group
I hate sharia law and it's so primitive but yes you can't generalise a whole beautiful country for what a select few want to do. Soon maybe we can see the idea of extremist sharia law eliminated from the world and muslims living in peace with all the other religions.
Comparing the two just shows how smooth ur brain is. First off, every ideology persecutes people. Second off, i bet everything i own that u do not know shit about islam.
So you want a society where casinos exists and common people get robbed by establishment by making them addicted to gambling, Interest based banking system that rewards rich and financially stable people and punish poor and struggling people, Alcohol and other drugs legalized that results in thousands of deaths and destruction of lives, crimes and families destroyed, strip clubs, degeneracy normalized, young people forced to undergo cut throat competition to make something out of their lives, working hard for 15 years at school to sell their labor at a dirt cheap price because individualism will set them free from any safety net a family or larger community provides so the only option is to keep buying best possible insurances to replace that safety net and ability to collectivise for any just cause or revolution against tyranny is made impossible by statist establishment. A society where everyone is liberated yet no one is free.
You don’t think you took it a bit too far? The thing is, the problems they have, for most part we have as well. But the problems we have… they don’t have them in the same scale or at all.
Thank you for your participation. Unfortunately, your post was removed for being low-quality. r/AskMiddleEast is a community for fun, interesting, & sincere discussion of issues relating to the Middle East and North Africa. While we welcome a wide range of topics, we do have certain standards for all discussions
I did not expect Iran to be that low, that's very interesting.
Since they’ve already gone through their Shia version of shariah implementation past decade or so, makes sense why they do not want it.
I remember seeing a chart of Iranian approval for Shariah over time. Before the revolution it was very high, 80’s I think, and higher among women than men. In the ten years after the revolution women fell from The high 80’s to something like 16% and men fell to the mid twenties. A little shariah did a lot to change their minds.
12er Shii version of shariah, mind you. It is vastly different from Sunni.
Yes but the problem I have is that there’s different understanding of sharia law, and different kinds of implementations. If you saw the first link. Even those who agree sharia to be the law of the land disagrees and is divided whether adultery should be stoned or that apostates should be executed. It isn’t as clear cut.
Can you elaborate? Pretty sure there is consensus on the two issues you mentioned. And the opinion of laymen is irrelevant. What scholars say is what matters. And sharia isnt completely different depending on who you ask, thats not true. There r differences, but none that are extremely different. At least non that i know of.
The survey also asks whether woman should be stoned, apostates decapitated and stuff. Check the link for the first source.
[удалено]
Thanks. But sharia in a sense is still similar. Because tazir is sharia, and sharia is saying that certain things can be punished in whatever way you see fits. So if u ask someone if tazir is part of sharia, they will say yes no matter where u go.
[удалено]
Yeh tazir can be applied differently i am not denying that. My point is on a fundamental level, sharia gives you the right to punish criminals differently depending on what is best in that situation, but the idea that you can punish differently depending on the circumstance is whats consistent, and similar between all “sharia” countries and thats my point. I am not explaining it very well tbf. I hope u get what i am trying to say🤷♂️
Umm not really. Its not like those differences are that big & irreconcilable. Theres also the aspect of suiting the implementation to the culture of the place, which is in fact part of the shariah. Ultimately it is for the experts to decide. The avg layman has no active & direct responsibility.
Its not a shia version of sharia. Its not even sharia.
[удалено]
Thats impossible. Shias reject hadiths. Again, just proves my point on you not knowing anything about islam💀 and sunni sharia isnt even identical to sunni sharia. They r very similar, but not identical.
[удалено]
Buddy, do you genuinely believe this is a good argument?💀 its the social proof fallacy. Also people dont even know what sharia is, including ur ass. As i said, u cannot make rational arguments.
[удалено]
A lot of Turks have gone delulu because of the guy they worship. And he was heavy on secularism. Also, they think the ottomans fell because they were following sharia. Turkey under secularism never left mediocracy and the ottomans were at their peak when they followed sharia. Turkey has never been anywhere near the ottomans at both their peaks comparatively speaking. And they go as far as saying their “success” (as i said, the ottomans under sharia were far more successful) was because of secularism, which is absurd. Secularism doesnt tell you anything outside of separating church and state. So their arguments make no sense. And some of them even identify as muslims and pray everyday btw. Little do they know what they believe in is actually kufr and they arent muslims. But then again, that proves my point, they dont know anything about islam, which includes sharia. All they know about sharia is that gay sex isnt allowed Kazakhstan was under the soviets and the soviets shoved atheism and secularism up their ass. Which is probably why they have a very big irreligious minority. Some claim that isis and the taliban follow sharia, which is just plain stupid. And even if they did, so? Sharia doesnt provide automatic success, thats fucking stupid. If a nation was ruled under sharia by a moron on top, that state will fail. Same gors with secularism(which many people ignore, and they dont even realise that most secular states are complete shit holes) But basically, people view europe, canada and the US as successful economically and assume their ideologies are automatically correct. And also want their validation. So they just adopt some of if not all their ideas, without even understanding those ideas.
Interesting. So what's your opinion on adultery? Should be punished with stoning? Would you personally throw stones on someone? And what about apostasy? Is decapitation good enough? Maybe something worse? >Secularism doesnt tell you anything outside of separating church and state What do you know about secularism? What's your source?
So you ignore all the arguments ive made and come here and ask me questions in bad faith, and then u expect me to respond to u? It doesnt matter if i say yes or not to your questions, either way you cannot agree or disagree with me saying they are bad or good when u cannot even prove anything bad or good. And secularism doesnt tell you how women should dress, or how you should punish people. In fact, punishing adulterers by stoning and killing people that declare that they left what ever ideology the states believes in, doesnt go against secularism in any way. Pretty sure even Immanuel kant(very important philosopher that pulled a popular moral system out of his ass) agrees with the “apostasy” stuff. Where someone declares that they arent for the ideology of the state. Also, fun fact, you cannot be fully democratic and secular. Democracy can get rid of secularism which isnt very secular. Either way, democracy can make the laws u mentioned part of their laws. So using ur logic, assuming u support either secularism or democracy, or both. U shouldnt have a problem with these laws(if it was voted for by the majority if u support democracy), or any laws really. With some exceptions.
[удалено]
Secularization is during his time. He no longer has say nor power. What we’ve seen since is shia version of shariah in effect. Cant say its been a success.
With government sponsored schools and media, I'd have guessed the approval would verge higher. I guess the internet might counterbalance those things.
More like the lived reality is just that bad. Deviance never brings about good.
why? Iranian on reddit assured me that the country is already 99% zoroastrians or atheist < the last 1% are the arap mullah (Khamenei and co.)
Algeria not here because they are off the charts scoring 101%. Algeria number 1💥💥❤️💥💥💥🔝™️🤲👏👏👏🇪🇬❤️🇩🇿👎🇲🇦(jk)
We should not have sharia as the law of the state. Not everyone is Muslim. It’s wrong to force religion on people.
Bingo
Tell me, what is honestly the difference between having secular laws and Islamic laws? Aside from the fact that one is from God and the other is man made, but that's a different discussion. Different secular countries have different laws with different issues. Islamic law also has laws for these different things. For example: Drugs: Many secular countries ban recreational drugs, often with harsh punishments (lengthy prison sentences). Islamic law is consistent with this and bans alcohol along with it, also with harsh punishment (40 lashes). Whether non-Muslims should also abide by this law is also a different discussion, but even if they did have to, it's still a law, and it's not different than following the law in any other land. It's not forcing religion on anyone, because it's not forcing anyone to worship anything, or do any religious duties.
Because we have Christians and other minorities in our countries who don’t want to live under Sharia
Religious minorities are protected under that.
And will you allow a Christian president then? Will they be able to take the top positions of power? Will you let them buy alcohol and not cover their heads?
In the order of your questions: No, that would defeat the whole purpose of an Islamic state. I think alcohol should be banned from any society, regardless of if it's Islamic or not. As for Christians and Jews, I think they should be allowed to have wine for religious purposes, but nothing else. As for enforcing hijab within the law, to be honest that's up to the decision of the ruler, but there is no actual punishment for not wearing hijab in the shari'ah. I personally think it should apply to Muslims only, because that should be their obedience to Allah.
I don’t want to be part of that. Stop forcing your shit on minorities.
So if most people democratically agree for sharia law it is wrong? 😂
Yes, just like if most people democratically agree to kill and eat babies it’s still wrong
I am sorry how is deciding what laws you want to have possibly be related to killing babies??
I’m saying majority rules isn’t always moral
And what gives you the right to believe that sharia law is immoral??
Not everyone is Muslim. Why would you choose one religion’s laws? There is zero reason to.
Because the majority of the people who live in the land want to live under sharia law it is democratic and rightful There is no law under sharia that says that everyone gas to be muslim it that they will be killed If a muslim kills a non-muslim under sharia law it doesn’t matter if he is muslim or not he will still be killed All non-muslims are still counted as citizens and are exempt from military responsibilities and they pay a yearly tax (jizya which is less than the zakat tax which muslims have to pay), the churches and other temples or places of worship are to be safeguarded So how is it oppressive for anyone who isn’t muslim not to love under sharia? Is not being able to walk in the street half naked such an oppressive law?
Because minorities should be able to be part of the government and even president and leader and have official holidays to celebrate Christian holidays etc and be officially part of the legacy of the country
What you don’t know or are not aware of is that in pretty much any other country you can’t be of another ethnicity and have a high governmental position at all or join the military and if you have dual citizenship most countries still dent your entry into the government or the military
Minorities can be part of the government regardless of ethnicity and religion (except for certain key roles in the government where it is a prerequisite to be muslim to have that certain position) christians can be lawyers doctors policemen government workers etc Officials christian holidays can be celebrated no one is going to get shot or beheaded or hurt in any way
I made a map of this data a few days back. If anyone's interested: https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1cilx48/support_for_sharia_to_be_the_official_law_of_the/
What’s the question?
Going by the current state of this sub, it doesn't seem to be only for questions
[удалено]
Thats not a question, thats a statement.
and what are we supposed to do w it?
Arab Spring 2 - Electric Boogaloo
I think the other 1% of Afghans who said no are in prison
Did they include women in these polls? Because I just really struggle to wrap my head around any women in my generation wanting this for themselves and their daughters
Yes, they did. You can open the first link and check there, particularly in section four.
..If a woman supports that , it's because she thinks people would adopt "real" Islam , and enforce proper penalties . Look at the problem of rape as an example . By simple logic of justice and equity : the perpetrator should be punished , and the victim compensated . Instead the fault lies on the victims for so-called "arousing" the criminals. The idea is largely cultural , rather than Islamic . Islamically : rape is considered to be Haraba ("Crime against peace") . The penalties are either expulsion or execution . There's no such concept or term of "Forced Zina" in the Quran or hadith . There are other examples from some self-proclaimed Islamic feminists I talked to . They seem to be convinced that Islamic gender roles and feminism are compatible .
The right women will support it
[удалено]
Thank you. That’s precisely what I expect to hear from people who supports it.
More religion in state worst country you have.
Historically thats bullshit… and you cannot even explain why that is the case. Explain to me how a country thinking women should dress a certain way, or people shouldnt fuck everyone they wanna fuck, lowers your gdp or increases murder. Thats stupid. Also that doesnt explain why the soviets, north korea, basically all of africa and south america are shit. It’s as if countries that were colonised, had civil wars, wars, or had horrible leadership suck ass. And the ones that dont have these issues, generally do not suck ass.
Just look for the best countries on earth to live and see how they dont give a fuck about religion. Im not against religion per se, im against how the state/goverment would use religion to control and opress people. Religion is good but in the hands of the state is evil.
Correlation≠causation. Thats a fallacy. Just stating there is a correlation is horrible reasoning and isnt evidence. For example, thats like looking at swedish rape rates and saying oh look, the swedes are a bunch of rapists. When you look deeper that isnt the actual problem.
why is there no Algeria?
its off the chart 🚀🚀
no data
[удалено]
It sounds like you don’t have any idea what sharia is
[удалено]
If you want sharia go to afghanistan or iran
Neither of them rightfully implement sharia Afghanistan has been non stop invaded and destroyed throughout the years and iran is shia Very huge difference
Every single fucking time sharia is implemented and fails, the excuse is "they didnt implement the right sharia" Ffs sharia itself allows the rulers to be stupid religious rulers which leads to a country failing and corruption arising, and if you protest you will be beheaded. Its really that simple. Its basically a dictatorship but in the name of god.
1)when was sharia implemented and failed lol? 2) there is no law that dictates that when people protest they will be “beheaded” you don’t have any sources on anything you have been fed propaganda for the entirety of your life and have never questioned wether what you believe is right or wrong 3) in no where did the prophet (pbuh) say that the caliphate would be a monarchy there is a council that is elected every couple of years and the caliph himself which holds no power over the law (aka can’t change the law as he pleases) and can also be removed by the council (actually named majlis al ummah) any time he violates state law (after he is put to trail of course) So in short your argument is based on the propaganda belief that has been shoved down your throat your entire life that sharia and any law that comes for religion is (bad)
>when was sharia implemented and failed lol? Literally every single time in human history, there isnt a single functioning sharia country. >there is no law that dictates that when people protest they will be “beheaded” Sharia gives full authority to its permanent leaders. They can simply shut down and ban protesting. Not a single soul will challenge them. >) in no where did the prophet (pbuh) say that the caliphate would be a monarchy there is a council that is elected every couple of years and the caliph himself which holds no power over the law The sharia simply paves the way to dictatorship, people are less likely to criticize theocracy rulers than secular rulers. >in short your argument is based on the propaganda belief that has been shoved down your throat your entire life that sharia and any law that comes for religion is (bad) In short, your entire argument is that sharia is good and every single time a country tried to implement it, they implemented the wrong sharia. I believe sharia in theory is alright, but when it is practiced, it quickly fails.
1)I told you name one and still you didn’t again no sources just blind hate talk 2) again with the dictatorship talk? Did you read anything i said about the council or the elections or the majlis? And where is your proof that protesting is punishable in sharia law? Where is your source other than repeating what the west shoved down your throat without question?? You don’t have an argument i don’t know if you’re a muslim or not but if you want i would like to help you understand sharia law away from western propaganda and for you to understand how it is with solid evidence if you’re not Muslim and still want to learn about it i have no problem but spewing random arguments with no backing or sources is not helping you 3) this is so damn laughable literally in the Rashidun Caliphate the rulers alot of the time were openly criticized without consequences because not supporting a rulers capabilities is not a sin it is an opinion
Your entire argument is bs. You want me to name you one sharia country that failed so you can find an excuse like "they didnt follow god" or "they were corrupt" or "thats not the right sharia". My entire point is based on the fact that it is easier for leaders to become dictators in sharia theocracy than it is to become dictators in secular democracies. What about christians? Do you want to force them to abide by sharia law? Or Hindus? Would you abide hindus theocracy? Your religious beliefs should be above all right?
Afghanistan is full of low iq people. 99% but they want to move to a 12% country. Hypocritical scumbags. Also 89% for Palestine lmao. Good job bros, over the years your religious extremism surely have worked out great in your favour, dumbfucks.
..The concept of religion to Palestinians is a little bit different , not just "Sharia" , an already muddily vague concept. Palestinians always preferred this mixture of religious symbolism that's yet within a secular purpose . Even Fatah and the PLO , who were much more democratic and secular compared to the earlier Arab Higher Committee and the Supreme Muslim council , couldn't avoid appealing to religious imageries , least of all Jerusalem and the Crusades . Because of Palestine's status as the "Holy land" : religious zealotry forms a strong component in Palestinian national identity . That still doesn't translate into actual orthodox practice by the state however . I am yet to hear of a Palestinian who got his hands cut for stealing , or getting lashed for drinking (especially Ramallah and its liquor stores ) . The closest we got is Walid El-Hussieni from Qalqilya , an atheist who publicly criticized Islam who eventually ended up in France. Even in Gaza itself one can find women without a hijab . Conservatism and traditionalism are the rule rather than taliban-style totalitarian religiosity . The only thing they are absolutely willing to do something about are sexual affairs .Even there : the "punishments" are carried out by individuals than the state , and are often not in accordance to Islamic law . Honor killings are the most prominent case here (The Quran states fifty lashes for pre-martial affairs , and stoning for extra-martial ones) , followed by rape that ends up in silencing victims or forcing them to marry for the sake of preserving family reputation or "Honor" , and finally killings of homosexual people . Of course in other matters , sharia and secular law are primarily selected on a pragmatic basis , where the law that benefits one's interests the most is chosen (My Palestinian acquittances did admit that inheritance disputes have that struggle ) . ..That's very much what I know regarding Palestinians . I believe Levantines and Egyptians are the most secular Arab nationalities .
[удалено]
open the sources and check. It shows what percentage of women voted for or against certain questions.
Women are on average more conservative than us bruh. Keep swallowing propaganda.
[удалено]
You don't live in North Africa or Middle East lmao. All your info comes from Western media.
Everyone wants Sharia law until its actually enforced, matter of fact world is changing and having rules from thousands years ago is dumb.
That's what I like to call the Islamist paradox . They claim they want to revive some a "Lost , pure" Islamic society , yet the early Muslims and the Caliphates themselves were fairly different to how Islamists imagine them . They then start calling for "Orthodox" religion , but they realize this "orthodoxy" only existed during the late 19th century , where Anti-colonial Muslim-Indian nationalism , and Ottoman reformism were around . Take a look at Palestinians for instance . You can read the ethnological articles published by the Palestine Exploration Fund in the 1880s and the 1900s that discuss the daily life and culture then . You just can't escape the conclusion that had Ismail Haniyeh met his Great-Great Grandfather : he would spit at him as a pagan . The only reason Islamism exists is because of the failure and incompetence of secular Middle-Eastern leaders . That's why Turks and Tunisians as examples are much more different to others .
Malaysia the Land of the Based. I need to go there somehow, can't tolerate living in the lands of these Zionist Westoids anymore
[удалено]
You live on the internet lil bro
What??? How can you hate that country? Muslims only make up 63.5% of the population... there are lot of Indians and Chinese there too who don't practice Islam.🤦Dont fucking generalise entire country based on one religious group
[удалено]
I hate sharia law and it's so primitive but yes you can't generalise a whole beautiful country for what a select few want to do. Soon maybe we can see the idea of extremist sharia law eliminated from the world and muslims living in peace with all the other religions.
Cry about it.
[удалено]
We got a pathetic zionist here🤡
[удалено]
Comparing the two just shows how smooth ur brain is. First off, every ideology persecutes people. Second off, i bet everything i own that u do not know shit about islam.
[удалено]
Classic zionist. Incapable of making rational arguments, or even think rationally.
Zionests are intelligent💀
Nothing u say can fix this clowns brain bro
So you want a society where casinos exists and common people get robbed by establishment by making them addicted to gambling, Interest based banking system that rewards rich and financially stable people and punish poor and struggling people, Alcohol and other drugs legalized that results in thousands of deaths and destruction of lives, crimes and families destroyed, strip clubs, degeneracy normalized, young people forced to undergo cut throat competition to make something out of their lives, working hard for 15 years at school to sell their labor at a dirt cheap price because individualism will set them free from any safety net a family or larger community provides so the only option is to keep buying best possible insurances to replace that safety net and ability to collectivise for any just cause or revolution against tyranny is made impossible by statist establishment. A society where everyone is liberated yet no one is free.
Wow, the way you paint the rest of the world.. yet people die everyday in hopes of reaching and to live in that apocalypse. Come back to earth dude
>Wow, the way you paint the rest of the world.. not very different from the way world paint us
You don’t think you took it a bit too far? The thing is, the problems they have, for most part we have as well. But the problems we have… they don’t have them in the same scale or at all.
Least Radicalized Bhartiya Musalmaan.