keith_hendrix wrote:
To say that Syria is not doing well "because the citizens do not respect secular law enough for it to be enforced" is fucking asinine.
Nothing in what you said contradicted that. The extreme difference of opinion in the people governed, coupled with lack of agreement about the value of secular law, is at the root of it.
When, for example, "extremist" Muslims want the country ruled by Sharia law and to become an Islamic state, democracy breaks down and the important checks on power that come from that are lost, government has to be more authoritarian and the power is concentrated with less accountability, which leads to corruption, social strife is magnified, and we get situations like this.
You can't force people to respect secular law, and if they don't respect it and you try to enforce secular law anyway, you run into a big problem. I don't think it's impossible to solve, but it's difficult.
keith_hendrix wrote:You're just ascribing what you want to believe from this situation.
That's not what I want to believe, that's the conclusion I've drawn from the evidence available.
If you have a different argument to make, then make it. Again, nothing you have presented has contradicted what I suggested.
keith_hendrix wrote:
How do you know what Muslims are asking for when they say they want Shari'ah law?
They (most of them) don't even know what they're asking for. But based on surveys, a significant number think apostates from Islam should be punished and that non-Muslims should also be ruled by Sharia.
keith_hendrix wrote:You're describing the exact bylaw system that happens in many Islamic countries, btw.
In some, yes,
sort of.
Malaysia is the best example I know of. (Link for anybody reading who isn't aware:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Malaysia )
But not, that's not
exactly what I described. In practice it's more of a confused "parallel" system, where each has domains of authority and the common secular law's authority is limited to the extent that it can not properly protect freedom of religion or mitigate family disputes in interfaith cases. People can't freely leave Islam and then be subject only to common law; if you're born into it, you're a slave of Sharia for life unless the Sharia court lets you leave. And even if your partner converts to Islam while you're married, orders from the Sharia court can prevent police from acting to enforce secular court orders. People think they're "parallel" and equal, and so they are -- it's what's practiced, not what the books say that matters.
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/zaid-malaysia-does-not-have-dual-legal-system
If you have a better example, I'd love to hear it. But you probably don't, because it probably doesn't exist.
AGAIN, I say if a bylaw system is all Muslims wanted, they could have that today. Bylaws are inherently civil and voluntary. People can enter into arbitration contracts already. Unless Muslims are all complete idiots and don't realize that they can already
voluntarily organize Sharia courts that they personally use as bylaws in a civil contract under secular law, then their demand for Sharia law is NOT a demand for Sharia bylaw.
keith_hendrix wrote:Again, this is just you ascribing your narrative in the way you see fit.
Again, I'm going to have to ask you to provide more of an argument. Assume I'm not completely ignorant of common knowledge, and provide some specific examples and citation. Maybe don't just call me "fucking asinine" without explaining why.
