Is "shariah" a "spooky" word?

Post Reply New Topic

Exactly there is no legal advice, the standard of evidence is low, it is subjective, the appeal process is weak, there is lack of reasonable legal principle.

how do you know? courts seem to work just fine in places like iran or the UAE...?

By talking to people who have lived in those countries, especially nationals. Also looking at the Jurisprudence as it is defined.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 05 Oct 2015, 5:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.

scratch that, i just did a quick google search and found out that shariah countries DO allow lawyers... like in the UAE

Court works fine in Iran? Ha, don't make me laugh. Iran executes people for being gay, so don't give me that.

Also, UAE uses a form of Sharia law, so nope. Any country with Islam as the state religion has a flawed judicial system.

andrethemoogle, i am warning you... if you do not stop posting stuff that is off topic i will ask the mods to lock this thread, and i will do the same with every thread i write that you respond to, provided that you get off topic there, too.

I like how this thread turned into an argument that reflects the OPs original sentiment about people treating certain words like the boogy man even though there's no chance they'd ever be implemented in the states anyways. It turned into an argument about the pros and cons of Shariah law, instead of recognizing manipulative political schemes. So meta

We can't change people in other parts of the world, no matter how much we bomb them, unless you're going to eradicate them entirely just deal with the fact that not everyone fits your definition of modern. People will change at their own pace.

There is a pro of Sharia law? Since when? Enlighten me as to when it actually has been effective and not barbaric in any way.

It is not required or mandated by sharia, and also access to legal council is rarely given when you are arrested and before you are questioned.

Modern legal principle. If you are arrested you must know what you are arrested for, this will relates to a specific of legislation and section. You have guaranteed access to a lawyer, you must be questions within a period like 24 hours, charged, bailed or released. Your lawyer is allowed to be present in questioning. You have a right to speedy trial, etc. For most crime you will be judged by a jury of you peers. The standard of evidence is high. It must be beyond reasonable doubt or you are viewed as innocent.

Crucially you are assumed innocent until guilty.

Yes Gitmo doesn't meet those standards, so that is wrong too.

Just one thing, shariah isn't solely based on the Quran, but also partially based on the hadeeths. Many muslim countries have shariah only for private matters while they have a judicial system for everything else loosely based on the shariah. Tunesia for example has a judicial system loosely based on the shariah, however the Tunesian system is very liberal compared to other muslim countries. However I do not think shariah has a place in western society because it is a religious based system and western countries are mostly secular.

Religious laws should have no place in court, period. It should not be ANYWHERE.

I disagree. I would be fine if people could choose between which court they prefer as long as both parties are okay with it. That is at least how they do it in Lebanon and in Malaysia (I think).

So you would rather take personal beliefs and barbaric practices over actual law proceedings? Even as a religious man myself (I am a Catholic), I cannot support having religion in a court room, it serves no purpose on judging an individual. Sharia law is one sided, and cannot be trusted. It presumes guilt without evidence.

This is the year 2015, not whenever Muhammed was a conquering warlord.

I can't rationalise a legal system that sentences a person to 10 years and 1000 lashes for disagreeing with official policy.

Raif Badawi

Locked on OP's request.