dogmatic violent government

Submitted by Arno (Netherlands), Aug 6, 2009 at 12:37

The most important reason to reject Sharia is that it is dogmatic, not open to change and therefore can never be legitimate in a democratic sense. Second it includes punishments that are violent , excessive breaches of human rights which the world population should consider more essential than any particular set of laws.

I do take the point that Sharia law applied to non-muslims as a particular threat. Even if applied only to muslims it constitutes a sub-state without any geographic borders and without any democratic basis. Applying laws is a means of government and must be rejected. There can only be one legitimate government. Then there is the relgious background. Most people who took part in the Holocaust in Germany ( and elsewhere ) came up with the argument they were following orders only, it was their duty. Do we want this argument in islamic style: we follow the qran, words from god himself, it is our duty as muslims ? The military usually has a seperate set of laws. In Germany out of the experiences from the Holocaust the military code of law was ammended. Now it is an obligation to refuse an order that asks for a criminal act. This is the kind of statement I do ask explicitly from any muslim.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".