[flumbaps]

Islam isn't a system of laws, it's a religion. Like all organised religions, what's written in its holy books is of far less practical importance than what is preached by its leaders. Adherents don't read and figure out for themselves, they follow what they are told the books say. Like most religious leaders, the Islamic holy men tend to preach what is convenient to them. The fact that the religion is Islam isn't of particular note. It wasn't so long ago that American Christian leaders preached that God condoned slavery. You might explain this by talking about different branches of Christianity, and likewise there are different interpretations of Islam too. But really, I think that unless a religion actively encourages a practical pursuit of self-enlightenment (e.g. Buddhism, Taoism, spiritual Yoga), then it is nothing more than a system of control. Ultimately the important thing is how corrupt the leaders are.

Think of it this way, if there were no courts and no defence lawyers and no-one ever bothered to read the legal statutes for themselves, then would the actual text of the law mean anything? Or wouldn't it rather be that, in application, the law would tend serve the interests of the police?

[rayiner]

> Islam isn't a system of laws, it's a religion.

That's a very secular western view of religion. The distinction between law and religion is one seems important to people familiar with Christianity, because that religion has historically existed alongside a state with a separate system of laws (either English common law or some derivative of Roman civil law). It's a distinction that makes a lot less sense in Islam, which has historically not existed alongside a separate state, but has been an integral foundation for the state.

[_delirium]

I wouldn't say that Christianity has "historically" been particularly well factored from a separate system of laws, unless you mean to start history with the Enlightenment. The seat of power in Constantinople for centuries was a shifting alliance of Emperors and Patriarchs, and the law that was enforced was not really separated into secular and church law, but more like negotiated spheres of influence of each leader's representatives. The same goes for most of Western Europe's history, which involves a very long shadow cast by the Pope, and an extensive role for the Catholic Church in comprehensively ordering society and the operation of courts—in many places and eras there was essentially no distinction between canon law and civil law. This is because, exactly as you say, religion has traditionally been considered an integral foundation for the state in Christian countries.

[Mikeb85]

Islam absolutely contains a set of laws. For the Muslim, you cannot have the religion without the law. Even in countries where Islam is the minority, disputes between Muslims are settled by a community Islamic court...

[flumbaps]

Please read again. I have not denied that Islam contains a set of laws. I said that Islam is not exactly equal to a set of laws. Which is correct.

I've also stated that, in practical terms, it is the behaviour and beliefs of the religious leaders that matter more that the laws themselves. The community Islamic courts you cite are a perfect example of this. You seem to expect them to behave according to some monolithic interpretation of Sharia law. Whereas, in reality, these courts are run by the Islamic community and are presided over by local religious leaders who make decisions (and interpret the laws) according to their own beliefs, informed by their own prejudices and self interests.

If you have any doubt that this is true, then simply consider that there are moderate Muslims in the world, and there are Muslims that believe God wants them to commit murder. Do you think it is a coincidence that those who see the West as the devil come from countries where the West has severely harmed in the past through selfish and corrupt interference? Do you think it is by chance that within the West and within countries allied with the West, we find more moderate viewpoints?

Religious rhetoric aligns itself with realpolitik. It is naive to see it in any other terms.

[waps]

1) many muslims disagree that there is a difference between islam and sharia. The word itself disagrees with your assessment. Besides, ever met a muslim that didn't care what halal was ? Ever wondered what "halal" refers to. These people that call themselves muslim use the sources I referred to as guidance on what is halal, they do not decide for themselves.

2) slavery, incuding kidnapping people, even children into slavery is halal. So is raping them. Yes there's limits to exactly who, when and where, but frankly that doesn't matter to the morality of that. Halal = morally reprehensible.

3) Even seemingly stupid parts of the islamic faith, like halal food (practiced by the vast majority of muslims), you're going to find discriminatory/racist at best (religious discrimination in employment, to start with). Even that part is morally reprehensible.

4) I disagree strongly with your assessment that "those who see the West as the devil come from countries where the West has severely harmed in the past through selfish and corrupt interference". Aside from the fact that that statement reads like a conspiracy theory, those hotbeds you refer to are Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Pakistan. In a different way Egypt has been a hotbed. You might be able to build a weak case America has harmed Somalia, but the others have massively benefited from America's influence and help.

I propose instead that those who see the west as the devil come from societies (or at least families) that take islam very seriously and let it guide their life. The stronger the place of islam in their lives, the more hate for everyone they have (not just for America, in case you truly are that naive. Israel, Holland (because there is a whore at every intersection, one Egyptian explained to me not very long ago), France (something about a Jewish school that you just can't repeat, and the "fact" that they support ex-muslims in Lebanon), Ethiopia, Kenia, ...).

> Religious rhetoric aligns itself with realpolitik. It is naive to see it in any other terms.

Everything, including your rhetoric, aligns itself with realpolitik. That's the definition of realpolitik. Your statement is true, but it contains no information, other than what's in the dictionary. Barbie dolls align themselves with realpolitik too, and it is equally naive to see things otherwise.

[swalkergibson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

You are a bigot.

[bukkake]

I disagree. I think his comments are well-researched, insightful, and logically driven. That his conclusion does not jibe with your particular worldview does not make him a bigot.

[marrs]

This is true, but besides the point. Laws on how to treat slaves are redundant in a country where slavery is illegal. And there is nothing in Islam to say that keeping slaves is compulsory or even desirable.

[Mikeb85]

People operate under the law all the time. I know of plenty of places where polygamy is practiced, despite being illegal in those countries...

[seivan]

It's a political power.

[waps]

"Islam isn't a system of laws"

Really ? Have you ever -even once- asked a muslim this ? Seriously ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

[marrs]

Islam isn't a system of laws. Sharia is not Islam. I'm pretty amazed that I've just read this thread, to be honest.

[flumbaps]

Sharia is the laws OF Islam. Sharia is not equal to Islam. Set A contains set B. Set A is not equal to set B. You might as well say that Christianity is the ten commandments, Judaism is the halakhah and Atheism is the American Atheists’ conference code of conduct.