Friday, July 28, 2006

Why Sharia laws would be bad for the world

This entry was formerly a comment that I wrote to The Sphinx, but I figured it is so important that it needs its own entry. The Sphinx told me that Sharia laws would be great for mankind, and this was my reply. (NOTE: I already wrote a related post explaining that there never truly was peace between Muslims and Jews - in the history of the world) ---- Sphinx, your quote from the Koran contained the following: God promises those who believe and lead a righteous life forgiveness and a great recompense." I am fully aware of this quote. Yet, it gives justification for the horrible treatment of Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists. Historically, that has been born out - and they were treated as lower than second class citizens. I am sorry, but that is inexcusable. Secondly, you are just simply wholly incorrect about the way dhimmi laws have been born out. In fact, the nonMuslims lacked many of the rights that Muslims took for granted: a) they couldn't be secure in owning their property; b) they couldn't testify in court against a nonMuslim; c) the dhimmi taxes sometimes were in fact crippling; d) they could be relocated at any time by the government; e) no right to protest the dhimmi laws; f) death penalty for blasphemy; g) the value of a dhimmi life was only half that of a Muslim's life. I could go on. You are simply ignorant of what it means to be a dhimmi. A quick primer to it is found on wikipedia. As far as interest goes. Economically, it is impossible to ban interest. It has been tried for thousands of years, and never succeeded. Why? Because banning interest only means that people will use loan sharks and get the money illegally - paying much higher interest rates, and increasing criminality. This is a historical fact. Moreover, interest itself makes sense from the perspective of natural law. Here is what I mean. The productivity of the earth has increased exponentially just in the past 100 years - that's forgetting the past thousands of years. We are able to make much more efficient use of our time than ever before. As such, when money is lent to someone, that money is then not going to be invested or used to create something up. It is being tied up. During that time, the earth is getting more and more efficient, and hence the money that is being tied up is being devalued - whether or not interest is charged. Merely to recover the time value of money, some form of interest needs to be charged to give an incentive to loan money. And it should be noted that most scholars agree that the Industrial Revolution never would have happened without the more ready available of capital. This was only possible through the liberalization of many of the usury laws that existed at the time. In fact, the speed and growth of the Industrial Revolution was greatly hampered by the still existing usury laws. The following economic paper explains this. It is easy to say "wow, charging interest is just haraam," and to not examine what that means. It should be noted that Islamic banks actually do charge interest, under a different name - because it is wholly impossible to be a bank, not charge interest, and remain in business. ----- UPDATE: More documentation on life as a dhimmi can be found here, here, here, and here.

11 comments:

Jason said...

So, does he think the parts of sharia law that would have all gay people like me killed would be great too?

Red Tulips said...

I do not know. He will probably be on here and explain himself later today...

The Sphinx said...

Ok if you'll quote your comment, I'll repost mine here again.

"I am fully aware of this quote. Yet, it gives justification for the horrible treatment of Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists. Historically, that has been born out - and they were treated as lower than second class citizens. I am sorry, but that is inexcusable."

Ok we'll look at this quote one more time:

"God promises those who believe and lead a righteous life forgiveness and a great recompense."

Where are Hindus, Atheists and Buddhists mentioned here? Or did you try to read between the lines and saw this statement pop up in front of you: "As for those non-believers, do what you want with them."? There is absolutely NOTHING in this verse that is against any non-believers, just that the believers will be rewarded in their afterlives. I really don't know where your conclusion came from.

"Secondly, you are just simply wholly incorrect about the way dhimmi laws have been born out. In fact, the nonMuslims lacked many of the rights that Muslims took for granted: a) they couldn't be secure in owning their property.."

And why were the Jizya payers guaranteed protection of their lives and property? Is that not securing their stuff?

"b) they couldn't testify in court against a nonMuslim"

In fact, one of the Caliphs (can't remember which one) had a court case between a Muslim and a non-Muslim, whereas the non Muslim was right, and the Caliph ruled in his favour.

"c) the dhimmi taxes sometimes were in fact crippling"

For the second time they were not. The amount of Jizya paid were fully dependant on the wealth of the person. Women, children, poor and old people were exempted. And the others eligible of paying never had to pay too much.

"d) they could be relocated at any time by the government"

I never heard of such a case

"e) no right to protest the dhimmi laws f) death penalty for blasphemy g) the value of a dhimmi life was only half that of a Muslim's life."

Where'd you get that from? Give me real sources please.

"I could go on. You are simply ignorant of what it means to be a dhimmi. A quick primer to it is found on wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi"


If only that article didn't have a notice stating that "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article is disputed.", I'd gladly accept it. But I don't trust it.

About the interests: The Bank interest system is disputed here in Egypt. Some religious figures are for it, some are against it. And the interest system exists here. And I myself don't know what applies in this matter.

But what's for sure is, that interests on an individual level aren't to be taken. If you borrow an amount of money from me and I ask for a percentage back in interests, I'm taking money from you that I have no right in having. And interests - in some cases - can be crippling. In the early days of Islam, there weren't banks in the form we have today. There was the beit el mal (house of money), which was used for public benefit and social support. It's where the Jizya and Zakah money and donations went. And that system worked in those days. There were also very rich people, and there were well-off people, and there were poor people, who had an unalienable right of being supported by the wealthy and the community.

In those days, it wasn't predominately about keeping your business alive and running well with lots of profits. People actually cared for each other.


I remembered something at this point that would be interesting for anybody who wants to know more about the origins of Islam: If you ever come by a film called "The Message" by Mustafa el Akkad, watch it.

Red Tulips said...

Sphinx:

I replied about the economics in the other thread. As far as the dhimmi laws - I updated this post with four links about dhimmis. Please read them - you will see documentation that backs up what I have said.

I also am curious what you think about gay people, and what you think sharia says about gay people. I am sure Jason is extra curious as well!

The Sphinx said...

I personally am straight as they can be and will only attack a gay person if they try to hit on me (Self defense, Red Tulips, self defence..)

Homosexuality is also a pretty grave sin in Islam, as in the Quran there is the story of Prophet Lot (yes, the same biblical figure), how he condemns his people for being homosexual and tries to bring them onto the right path again. But that's pretty much all I know about. I don't know of any authentic laws or punishments. If there are any certain punishments undergone today, I'd doubt that they have roots in the true Sharia.

IMO, what isn't clearly stated is to be left up to God. After all, it's why we believe in judgement day.

Red Tulips said...

Sphinx:

Why would you attack a gay person if they hit on you? Why not just shake off the advances? That is NOT "self defense."

And yes, Islam breeds terrible intolerance towards gay people. You just admitted it yourself. (though to be fair, so do other religions) I fail to see any justification for any of it. Also, the gay teens who were hung in Iran were hung with religious texts quoting the reason for the hanging.

The Sphinx said...

"Why would you attack a gay person if they hit on you? Why not just shake off the advances? That is NOT "self defense."

Why do you attack and start destroying a whole country if some group in there kidnapped 2 soldiers of your? Why not negotiate and get them back? That is NOT "self defense" either.

Maybe I used the word attack too soon. Attacking would be rather in the case of attempted rape. I guess a firm "STOP" would do. Sorry for the wrong expression.

And something else: You will find homophobes in absolutely every religion and non-religion. Just make a gay man walk into a smokey bar and announce that he's gay. I don't think he'll like the experience. You act as if the only homophobes are Muslims.

Homophobia isn't religious, it's human.

shlemazl said...

Useful links. I've had a "little" discussion on dhimmitude on Leilouta's blog:

http://leilouta.blogspot.com/2006/07/wein-el-malayeen_16.html

The discussion went on on Jokerman's blog...

Render said...

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Authors/Arlandson/apostasy.htm

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Authors/Arlandson/jews.htm

http://www.islamreview.com/

http://www.secularislam.org/

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

http://www.islamundressed.com/#_Toc113793259

http://www.islam-watch.org/

http://www.geocities.com/islamic_monitor/

http://www.islamistwatch.org/

http://www.siteinstitute.org/

http://www.terrortracker.co.uk/

5,000
YEARS,
R

Render said...

At some point or another, the whole web of Sharia, Hudna, Taqyia, and Kitman comes tumbling down...

Religion is nothing more than politics by another name, an older name.

===

My apologies, perhaps the English translated Koran that CAIR sent to one of my mail-drops contains some mistranslations?

===

Poor Sphinxie, do you think he knows that homosexuality was common and somewhat socially accepted under certain Calphid's? I believe Lawrence of Arabia made some mention of it as well...

"...and will only attack a gay person if they try to hit on me..."

See, this is not a good policy. To Rend your role-reversal policy, we have...This means you expect women that you "hit" on to attack you if they find you unattractive...

Let's break this down a bit further...

Why are you "hitting" on women again? Is that another one of those Koran things none of us can know about because we can't read Arabic?

Sharia is a return to medival barbarism with modern weapons and no visible means of support once it has destroyed the wheels of industry and commerce.

Call it whatever you want to call it, make it as small as you think it can possibly be, I will not be paying a tax on my religion, ever.

===

"The Legacy of the Prophet - Despots, Democrats, and the new face of Islam" by Anthony Shadid 2002 Westview Press

...while Mien Kampf is still on the Middle Eastern bestsellers lists.

RIPPLE
FIRE,
R

Red Tulips said...

To echo render, I refuse to pay a nonbeliever tax, even if it is ONE PENNY. This is NOTHING to aspire to. Furthermore, the Koran is quite explicit in what it says about not charging interest. It is one of the most important parts of being Muslim, and clearly part of Sharia law. You are dreaming if you think that any imposition of Sharia law would not involve the lack of charging interest.

I refuse to be a second class citizen. I refuse to be a dhimmi. And Sharia law also involves the merging of religion and state - something inherently problematic.

Sharia law would impose a backwards and regressive system upon the world. It is to be fought tooth and nail.

Finally, Sphinx, you are wrong about homophobia being "human." It is hate-based and unacceptable. And, oh yeah, homophobia is also rooted in religion.