Israel vs Palestinians II

[KB5252]

The Muslims paid zakat and the non-Muslims paid jizya so everyone got to pay tax. It would indeed be onerous if the rates were higher for the non-Muslims.
The majority and significant minority Muslim countries I know have civil courts for criminal and most civil matters for everyone. There are sharia courts for things like inheritance and divorce for Muslims only, and civil courts for such matters for everyone else. That's except for Aceh province in Indonesia, which does criminal justice for Muslims in sharia court and for everyone else in civil court.

The zakat was typically lower, in most areas and the poor were exempt, that wasn't the case for jizya and poor non Muslims.

It was also sometimes extracted/demanded by multiple entities who represented the area.

I wasn't aware that the religious courts only handled inheritance and divorce etc. I'll have to look into that a little deeper sometime.

I like to have an understanding of the way things work, just a tick of my mind.

 

[EasternVol]

The study passed peer review.
I get that it’s devastating to your normal dipshitery but the fact remains that Sheri’s law has been attempted to be introduced in 23 states.


I leave you as I found you.

23 states? Wow! Which ones and when?

 

[KB5252]

Didn't Jesus say that he didn't come to change the law? There are a lot of people who call themselves Christians that have mindsets incompatible with Western values. Many of them post here. There are a lot of people who call themselves Muslims like that too. Then there's the majority of both religions who are well in line with what we think of as Western values.

It said if they pay their tax and behave then they're good. Isn't that more in line with Western values (which came from the East in large part) than 'kill the men and enslave the women and children'?

Here you go: Understanding a Difficult Verse, Qur'an 4:34: Additional Translations | The Feminist Sexual Ethics Project | Brandeis University

I read through that last link. Nothing much changes, all said to beat their wives, with one stating only in parenthiss (lightly). I don't see that these interpretations change the overarching theme. If a man feels his wife is disobedient he admonishes, withholds sex ( honestly as a married man who knows married women it makes me chuckle...... That'll show her lol) and then beat her......... One guy says to take it lightly.

 

[EasternVol]

In your opinion, are those countries theocratic like the Muslim countries (with different  theos of course)?

At one time several of them were. And Chile and Ireland if I'm not wrong but those two have gotten more secular. RP used to be almost in lock step with Rome but that's declined a bit; maybe something to do with Duterte's death squads which weren't popular with the Church. But they're still really really Catholic.

 

[MAD]

 

[Orangeslice13]

I read through that last link. Nothing much changes, all said to beat their wives, with one stating only in parenthiss (lightly). I don't see that these interpretations change the overarching theme. If a man feels his wife is disobedient he admonishes, withholds sex ( honestly as a married man who knows married women it makes me chuckle...... That'll show her lol) and then beat her......... One guy says to take it lightly.

How’s wrestling with the pigs working out for you?
Especially the ones that can’t read and need you to wipe their ass for them

 

[Orangeslice13]

I think we all agree on one thing.
As a Jew who practices Messianic Judaism I think Torah law should not be used in the courts of the United States. I have no problem passing a law that bans the use of Torah in court cases. In that same manner I think we all agree that a law banning the use of Shitera law in the United States is not a problem either.

 

[McDad]

I think we all agree on one thing.
As a Jew who practices Messianic Judaism I think Torah law should not be used in the courts of the United States. I have no problem passing a law that bans the use of Torah in court cases. In that same manner I think we all agree that a law banning the use of Shitera law in the United States is not a problem either.

At the federal level, yes. State level, probably. County level, possibly. City level, maybe / maybe not.

 

[Orangeslice13]

At the federal level, yes. State level, probably. County level, possibly. City level, maybe / maybe not.

Interesting. I have a reverse view of the power vacuum. If I understand you correctly. I think the city should be more important than the county. County more important than the state. State more than federal.

Can you clarify for me why you see relaxation of the standards as you get smaller in government?
And also clarify if I misunderstood/ misinterpreted your statement?


Edit: The Governor of Texas has signed a ban on Shitrea law in response to a Muslim planned community.
Good or Bad, and Why?

 

[McDad]

Interesting. I have a reverse view of the power vacuum. If I understand you correctly. I think the city should be more important than the county. County more important than the state. State more than federal.

Can you clarify for me why you see relaxation of the standards as you get smaller in government?
And also clarify if I misunderstood/ misinterpreted your statement?

I'll do my best to explain. Give me a bit and I'll type from my keyboard.

 

[Orangeslice13]

I'll do my best to explain. Give me a bit and I'll type from my keyboard.

Here’s the link th the Texas thing so you know what I’m talking about.

Governor Abbott Signs Law Banning Sharia Compounds In Texas

gov.texas.gov

 

[McDad]

Here’s the link th the Texas thing so you know what I’m talking about.

Governor Abbott Signs Law Banning Sharia Compounds In Texas

gov.texas.gov

Abbott's prohibition looks reasonable.

Without typing out a novel, I'll share the basics. I can provide more if wanted.

Laws at the federal level apply to everyone. State laws apply to the state. State laws should not violate federal. Local government's laws apply to people in that locality. Local laws should not violate state or Federal. Local laws should not violate the constitutions (federal or state).

People in a city or county are responsible for governing themselves. This also includes policing the region. They should have autonomy the self govern and make laws they deem important as long as those laws do not violate State or Federal.

A predominately Muslim city should be able to pass laws aligned with the populus. The challenge is much of Sharia law (as i understand it) is in violation of both state and federal.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Abbott's prohibition looks reasonable.

Without typing out a novel, I'll share the basics. I can provide more if wanted.

Laws at the federal level apply to everyone. State laws apply to the state. State laws should not violate federal. Local government's laws apply to people in that locality. Local laws should not violate state or Federal. Local laws should not violate the constitutions (federal or state).

People in a city or county are responsible for governing themselves. This also includes policing the region. They should have autonomy the self govern and make laws they deem important as long as those laws do not violate State or Federal.

A predominately Muslim city should be able to pass laws aligned with the populus. The challenge is much of Sharia law (as i understand it) is in violation of both state and federal.

Ok. That’s more or less where I’m at. Except I think federal laws should be minimal and the federal government should just oversee and /or insure that local and state laws do not violate the provisions of the constitution.

But I think I understand you clearly.
Thanks

 

[McDad]

Ok. That’s more or less where I’m at. Except I think federal laws should be minimal and the federal government should just oversee and /or insure that local and state laws do not violate the provisions of the constitution.

But I think I understand you clearly.
Thanks

My pleasure.

And I agree the Federal level should have a minimal number of laws compared to state and local.

 

[n_huffhines]

Relax, it was the Biden admin. An apology event from this admin?

 

[Smokey123]

That's not something debatable. Christianity has made us slower to accept gay people, abortion, etc. and Turning Point's mission in part was to spread that further. Lots of evangelicals want essentially a theocracy while the same people act like sharia law is just around the corner

Wasn’t a lot of the first countries to legalize gay marriage majority Christian?

 

[NashVol11]

Wasn’t a lot of the first countries to legalize gay marriage majority Christian?

The first country was the Netherlands and the majority there aren't religious. A lot of the opposition here was religion-based, I think it's fair to say that we would have gotten there sooner without that

 

[Smokey123]

The first country was the Netherlands and the majority there aren't religious. A lot of the opposition here was religion-based, I think it's fair to say that we would have gotten there sooner without that

No but Spain, South Africa and Belgium are. Although Belgium has been shifting recently. There’s also others and it’s not like the US was far behind. Christianity has played a major role in the wests development and that’s basically the only place homosexuality is acceptable

I understand where you’re coming from I just don’t think its a completely fair assessment

 

[EasternVol]

I think we all agree on one thing.
As a Jew who practices Messianic Judaism I think Torah law should not be used in the courts of the United States. I have no problem passing a law that bans the use of Torah in court cases. In that same manner I think we all agree that a law banning the use of Shitera law in the United States is not a problem either.

At the risk of me getting dirty and you enjoying it, do you mean in Federal courts or nationwide in all the courts, and do you mean applying the Torah directly or using laws based on Torah? Of course Federal courts apply US law, and a lot of our laws are derived from Torah. What's bad if a state or locality wants to allow the option of a non-government Torah court to decide certain issues with the agreement of the parties?

 

[MAD]

Wake up people.

 

[Orangeslice13]

At the risk of me getting dirty and you enjoying it, do you mean in Federal courts or nationwide in all the courts, and do you mean applying the Torah directly or using laws based on Torah? Of course Federal courts apply US law, and a lot of our laws are derived from Torah. What's bad if a state or locality wants to allow the option of a non-government Torah court to decide certain issues with the agreement of the parties?

It’s not really complicated.
All laws are based on different things and/or morality.
That’s not what we’re talking about here.
I’m saying it’s not correct for any court to consider what Leviticus says in the court case/ decision.
In that same regard Islam law has no place being sited in our courts either.
I think we can all agree on that.

 

[NashVol11]

It’s not really complicated.
All laws are based on different things and/or morality.
That’s not what we’re talking about here.
I’m saying it’s not correct for any court to consider what Leviticus says in the court case/ decision.
In that same regard Islam law has no place being sited in our courts either.
I think we can all agree on that.

Based on the link you provided, "enforcing sharia law" isn't exactly what's happening. What we are actually talking about is whether someone's religious beliefs can have a bearing on the question of intent, and if you're saying no, then that should apply to all religions.

I disagree that it is not complicated, and I think the cavemen who reach for blanket bans because they are paranoid about "Islam taking over" are probably the worst people to legislate those complicated issues

 

[Orangeslice13]

Based on the link you provided, "enforcing sharia law" isn't exactly what's happening. What we are actually talking about is whether someone's religious beliefs can have a bearing on the question of intent, and if you're saying no, then that should apply to all religions.

I disagree that it is not complicated, and I think the cavemen who reach for blanket bans because they are paranoid about "Islam taking over" are probably the worst people to legislate those complicated issues

I don’t care what you were talking about.
I have no interest in trying to understand you.
I don’t care what you think
I just answered a question.

 

[MAD]

The real story of Jesus explained.

 

[MAD]