Sharia Law in the UK
Debate Rounds (3)
For over 1,400 years religion in the UK has been dominated mostly by various forms of Christianity, whether it be Catholic, Church of England or other. Now don't take the wrong end of the stick, I fully acknowledge that while we are apparently a 'Christian' country, we try to accommodate for all races, religions and genders. However, this means that though we accommodate for the Islamic community, whether that be immigrants or UK born, this does not mean we can let them take over and change our country to suit themselves.
With Sharia law in place, we will be living as a country regulated by Islam. We cannot as a nation be ruled under the Qur'an and Hadith. So many things will be affected and be made to run the Muslim way. Marriage and divorce, ethics, faith, food and drink (mainly ritual slaughtering and hunting), judicial matters and even laws of inheritance.
Are we really going to punish people with 100 lashes if they commit adultery? This is not the middle ages! Are we really going to control what people eat and drink. What if I want a sandwich? Do I have to make sure that the filling is killed in the manner of tazkiyah? That it is killed in the name of God? Lord knows I can't get it from Subway any more, right?
Why should one religion rule in a country over another? I realise that this point contradicts my first, but as I am not a Christian, I shall state it anyway. Why should Islam have power in the UK? What if people want Judaism to rule? Or Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Atheism, Christianity, Shinto, New Thought, Confuscianism, Jainism, Shabakism? We can't let Islam rule just because of Muslim extremists pressuring the government.
I will continue in round 3, but I would like to see what you say to this.
It is very funny argument, first of all UK is secular country.
Secondly, you are very ignorant about topic. Because even sharia was the law of UK, and sharia says it cannot be imposed on non-Muslims, therefore sharia cannot be imposed in UK, because it is majority non-Muslim country. Do you want prove, go study history. Even incest relations was granted to Zoroastrians, who lived under Muslim countries, alcohol and pig farms was granted to Christians, and etc.
If you compare Europe to historically Islamic Lands, you will see that there is no national religions left in Europe, all was destroyed. But in historical Muslim lands, there are still Christians, Jews (the second largest Jewish population in Middle East is Iran), Hindus, Buddhists, African religions (Parts of West Africa is also historically Islamic lands, search for Mansa Musa and Islam in Africa). How did they survive, well, thanks to Sharia.
Sharia or Shariah basically means legislation.
And Con does not know that when Muslims say we want sharia, they want sharia in civil matters for themselves, as Jews and Christians already have it. So if you say no sharia, you also have to ban it for Jews, and you will be called Nazi, so I take the privilege of being first person to call you Nazi.
And also how did reformation come Europe and UK, it come from Muslims, even Oxford University was build by guys (I do not exactly remember names) who stole the the documents from Spain, which were left behind by Muslims, because, thanks to Spanish, Muslims and Jews were massacred.
If you want to ban Sharia, you may start by "Presumption of Innocence", it came from Islam. The woman's right for education, inheritance, right to choose husband also came from Islam. Modern war code also came from Islam (don't kill elders, woman, children, who does not participate in battle, ad don't kill animals, and don't cut trees and crops).
And it is a paradoxical topic. Here is the reason:
1. Sharia is the main law of UK.
2. Non-Muslims cannot be ruled by sharia.
3 Non-Muslims are in majority in UK.
4. Therefore Non-Muslim law is the main law.
5. Therefore sharia cannot be main law in UK.
The UK has 3 distinct law systems: English law, Northern Ireland law and Scots law. If Sharia law were brought in it would have to be it's own distinct law system, applying only to Muslims. My main argument in this debate is that it is unethical and a move backwards as far as equality is concerned. We are a secular society. Secular and humanist views mean that everybody is treated as an equal, and everybody has the same rights as the next person. Though we are still working towards complete equality, Sharia law will not let us do this.
Take homosexuals for example. Under Sharia law homosexuals will be called Kafiras and Murtadda. They will not be equal. In their own personal beliefs they may be, but under Sharia law they will be seen as infidels and apostates. They will not be allowed to marry, they will not be allowed to adopt children. Surely you can see that they will be treated as less than equal? Under Sharia law they will not even be able to have sex. Surely this is a basic human right? In Iran and Nigeria (These historical Muslim countries you mentioned) They will be put to death for sodomy. In Egypt Iraq and Aceh, they will be imprisoned and discriminated against. The UK has a new movement of LGBT Muslims, surely we can not punish them when they are just starting to get the equality they deserve? Try reading Islam and Homosexuality by Siraj Scott. You'll see it's perfectly okay to be Muslim and homosexual.
And what about Muslim women? They will not be treated equally under Sharia. What if a man suspects nushuz in his wife? Will he now be allowed to beat her for being disloyal? No! This is domestic abuse! Just because Islamic law says it's okay does not mean we can let Muslim women be beaten, while white men go to prison for beating their wives. Sharia law is also discriminatory toward women when it comes to court as a woman's case is worth half as much as a mans. (http://www.unicef.org...)
What about Sharia in Iran, Lebanon and Bahrain? Child marriage is perfectly acceptable. And in other countries Sharia courts have the power to overrule civil rule. Are we just going to start letting Child marriage happen again? Surely people realise this is wrong?
What if a woman wants to become an imam? She will only be able to lead women in prayer while men can lead both man and woman in prayer? It is not equality. It is not justifiable.
And then there is the argument of inheritance. You may say that under Sharia, women are equal when it comes to inheritance as both single and married women are perfectly okay to own their own property and women are allowed to inherit. This is all well and good, except once again there is no equality. Women inherit much less than men. These rights are detailed in the Quran.
For example, if somebody has a son and a daughter, she will inherit half of whatever he gets, and has no say over this.
Up until the 20th century, Islamic law did grant women more rights that Western society. Yet the west realised this and changed their law systems to include women and are now much more advanced than Islamic systems. When will Islam realise that women and children are not being treated as equals?
What if somebody is born and raised Islam? Once again they will be treated as an infidel. It is a religious crime to leave Islam and they will be punished for it. This does not happen in other religions though. My uncle was baptised as a Christian, but is now a Buddhist and has not been punished once for this. What if he had have been born Muslim? Does he deserve to be punished for having his own thoughts and beliefs?
And what if a person is offered to convert to Muslim? Sharia states that if they are a Kafir and reject the offer then they must be killed, enslaved or or ransomed. Last time I checked, murder and slavery are not okay any more.
Once again, I would like to see what you have to say to all of this.
Firstly we are not equal. That is myth. Equality is metaphysical, you cannot see it, touch it, smell it, or eat it. And one person is smarter, or taller, or stronger, or etc. than another person. So equality falls. But sharia says we are equal in front of God. Equality has meaning in presence of religion, not absence of religion.
Homosexuals will be punished. I will ask practical question from the time of prophet till 1920, how many people were punished because of homosexuality? And Nigeria and Egypt are secular countries. There is no punishment for homosexuals, but there is punishment for adultery, and for punishment take place there must be 4 witnesses, at least first study the sharia, don't make argument from ignorance.
By using Arabic words (nushuz), you try to look smart. But it does not make any different. Here is the hadith about wife beating:
"Do not beat the female servants of Allah."
"Some (women) visited my family complaining about their husbands (beating them). These (husbands) are not the best of you."
"Approach your tilth when or how you will, give her (your wife) food when you take food, clothe when you clothe yourself, do not revile her face, and do not beat her."
Again you are ignorant about the topic.
Dude child marriage is acceptable in western countries. In Mississippi there is no minimum age with parental and judicial consent. In Texas 14, Bolivia, Paraguay 14, some European countries 14-15.
Treason is punishable everywhere.
"Sharia states that if they are a Kafir and reject the offer then they must be killed, enslaved or or ransomed." Cite the source for it. Or again you are just making argument from ignorance.
You did not cite any source, you did not actually how what sharia says about the points you raised, if you are a lawyer, then you are the worst lawyer.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro countered con's claims, but never showed good reason to enact Sharia law. The insults such as "Nazi" and remarks about being a horrible lawyer also factor into this decision.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.