Muslim Law

I'm currently living in Malaysia, which has two legal systems. Muslims (and all native Malays are Muslims by default) have to abide by Sharia law - no drinking, no premarital sex, no gambling, no unchaperoned contact between unmarried men and women etc - and everyone else abides by a more liberal law system which tolerates all of the above. It doesn't seem fair to me that there is one law for one set of people, and one law for another set of people.

It is a fact that there are plenty of non-Muslims in this country, and obviously they wouldn't want to abide by Sharia law. (C'mon, no more drinking? No premarital sex? Get me out of here!) It also isn't in tune with Malaysia's aim of becoming a more modern and progressive country. However, Sharia law is in keeping with the dominant religion of the country, Islam. I also wonder if a country needs to allow alcohol/premarital sex etc in order to be considered modern.

Is there any better compromise than a two-law system? Any suggestions?

Are there two separate governments as well? I'm trying to understand.

My personal belief is that NO religion should be enforced by law, but that people of a religion should be free to practice their beliefs inasmuch as it doesn't endanger or infringe upon the rights of others. 

I don't know the answer, but it makes me glad that those who founded the United States understood why government and religion should be separate. 

Nope, there's one government, just two legal systems. Which means that Islam is not enforced if you aren't Muslim, but it is enforced if you are. Sounds like that wouldn't be a problem, except that I'm sure lots of Muslims here would like to be able to do things like have a drink now and then.

Then honestly, they shouldn't be Muslim. Drinking is forbidden by Islam. That's why the law is set up as such. If you are Muslim, you are able to leave the faith but most people don't because it severs family ties.

There are 3 main ethnic groups here, Chinese, Indians and Malays. The Malays are Muslims by birth, and it's actually pretty hard to get out of - you have to go on trial. It's much easier to become a Muslim.

And, as the law stands, it doesn't allow for more liberal interpretations of Islam which might include things like drinking. After all, you can be Christian but not go to church, and no-one would suggest you 'shouldn't' be a part of your religion because of the way you live your life.

Original Post by merylwhite1:

There are 3 main ethnic groups here, Chinese, Indians and Malays. The Malays are Muslims by birth, and it's actually pretty hard to get out of - you have to go on trial. It's much easier to become a Muslim.

And, as the law stands, it doesn't allow for more liberal interpretations of Islam which might include things like drinking. After all, you can be Christian but not go to church, and no-one would suggest you 'shouldn't' be a part of your religion because of the way you live your life.

 Yes.  Very good point.

My sister and brother in law lived in Malaysia for years!  They loved it.  That is an interesting question you asked.v

Is there a compromise?  I think the US seperation of church and state is an awesome idea.  My husband, a Peruvian, thinks the Catholic church should run the world (or at least the US) and that would eliminate all of our problems.  I would get really frustrated when the church would influence things that the Peruvian government would attempt - for instance several years back, the government wanted to do some family planning education to help battle poverty and the church squashed it.

But, right now this system is working for the Malays, and when it doesn't they will change it.  They may have to fight to change it.  But in the end, it isn't for us as foreigners, even those that live there, to judge their system. 

Original Post by merylwhite1:

After all, you can be Christian but not go to church, and no-one would suggest you 'shouldn't' be a part of your religion because of the way you live your life.

I don't know - there's quite a few people suggesting that Obama's not really a Christian (or at least an insincere one) because he decided to not have the same fanfare that Bush traditionally did with The National Day of Prayer.  I recall news stories speculating on why the Obamas didn't go to church very often in the early part of the year (there's a thread on CC even).  

Maybe those particular examples are more politics than anything else, but when I was religious, I was accused many many times of not being a "real" Christian because either I'm a political liberal and/or I didn't attend church regularly.  

As for the OP:  If people voluntarily want to live under religious law, that's one thing.  But history has shown that when government and religious laws mix, one or both wind up being compromised and abused.

Original Post by alibsam:

Then honestly, they shouldn't be Muslim. Drinking is forbidden by Islam. That's why the law is set up as such. If you are Muslim, you are able to leave the faith but most people don't because it severs family ties.

A Muslim is not able to leave the faith. The punishment for that is severe (though it is not in practise these days). I was born Muslim and am considered one although I do not practise any religion at all. I do drink and I am lucky that I live in a country where the main religion is Islam, but the law is not Islamic (although some of the family-related laws are drawn from Islam).

Isn't Dubai the same way?  Sharia for the muslim population, liberal laws for the non-muslim tourist crowd (although I understand they draw the line at public sex on the beach)?

As far as being considered "modern," I think that "modern" nations (aka "advanced" and/or "first world" nations) are participants in a global economy.  It is hard to do that if you insist that your trade partners wear an abbeya and pray five times a day, regardless of their own beliefs.  So globalism necessarily requires a little tolerance of others' behaviors.  No, it doesn't mean you have to legalize alcohol and premarital sex, but the reality is, if you want to do business with Russia, you better have a head for vodka, and if you want to do business with Japan, you better know how to handle a business card with respect.

Dubai is the same. I visited it a few years ago and I had a bottle of duty free vodka with me. They X-rayed my bags and the lady at the customs counter took my passport and started reading it intently. Jordanian passports do not have the religion written in so she was stumped! She did not ask me outright about my religion. I have a surname that is shared by both Muslim and Christian people in the region. I did not understand what her problem was till a friend who lived there told me the vodka would have been confiscated if they could prove I was a Muslim by birth.

Another country I visited where I was warned not to bring in alcohol: Pakistan. I transited at Qatar airport and the duty free shop there would not sell liquor to anybody going to Pakistan, regardless of their religion.

Original Post by lysistrata:

As far as being considered "modern," I think that "modern" nations (aka "advanced" and/or "first world" nations) are participants in a global economy.  It is hard to do that if you insist that your trade partners wear an abbeya and pray five times a day, regardless of their own beliefs.  So globalism necessarily requires a little tolerance of others' behaviors.  No, it doesn't mean you have to legalize alcohol and premarital sex, but the reality is, if you want to do business with Russia, you better have a head for vodka, and if you want to do business with Japan, you better know how to handle a business card with respect.

Good point. I couldn't decide if I was just imposing my beliefs on the concept by thinking that modern = liberal, but you've convinced me.

Here, Muslims don't force non-Muslims to do anything - the rules are just strictly imposed within the Muslim community. Still, a lot of things that are legal for non-Muslims are definitely frowned upon. I live with my boyfriend and am sometimes made to feel like I'm pretty cheap for not waiting until we're married.

Just as an aside - a lot of places in Asia seem to be the same about business cards. Here, China and Singapore, respect for business cards seems disproportionately important!

I don't understand the issue...In order to be modern we need to have rampant drinking and premarital sex?  I feel that people are confusing modern with what is considered the norm in the Western world.  The West doesn't dictate what is best.  Why can't we respect other countries wishes and be glad it is not the law of the land in our "modern" places we call home.  I respect the laws of the land of any country I visit even if I don't agree with it...

No one is forcing you to abide by Sharia...So be happy.  And yes you may get frowned upon foir living with your beau..but atleast its a frowning and not a death sentence.

Original Post by fayeonherway:

I don't understand the issue...In order to be modern we need to have rampant drinking and premarital sex?  I feel that people are confusing modern with what is considered the norm in the Western world.  The West doesn't dictate what is best.  Why can't we respect other countries wishes and be glad it is not the law of the land in our "modern" places we call home.  I respect the laws of the land of any country I visit even if I don't agree with it...

No one is forcing you to abide by Sharia...So be happy.  And yes you may get frowned upon foir living with your beau..but atleast its a frowning and not a death sentence.

I do respect the laws of this country. You say 'I respect the laws of the land of any country I visit even if I don't agree with it.' That is exactly what I am doing, respecting the laws but not agreeing with them.

And actually, this is the place I call home, and they are the laws of the country I live in. So your 'be glad it is not the law of the land in our "modern" places we call home' comment is a little redundant.

I used drinking and premarital sex as examples of conservative laws, but I never claimed I wished them to be 'rampant'.

You are right that nobody is forcing me to abide by Sharia law. But the many Muslims in this country are forced to abide by Sharia law, which is stricter and more conservative than the laws for everyone else. That is what this thread is about, the fairness and legitimacy of a two-law system. You sound very confused, so maybe you should read this thread again.

Original Post by fayeonherway:

I don't understand the issue...In order to be modern we need to have rampant drinking and premarital sex? 

Duh, yes. 

Original Post by merylwhite1:

Original Post by fayeonherway:

I don't understand the issue...In order to be modern we need to have rampant drinking and premarital sex?  I feel that people are confusing modern with what is considered the norm in the Western world.  The West doesn't dictate what is best.  Why can't we respect other countries wishes and be glad it is not the law of the land in our "modern" places we call home.  I respect the laws of the land of any country I visit even if I don't agree with it...

No one is forcing you to abide by Sharia...So be happy.  And yes you may get frowned upon foir living with your beau..but atleast its a frowning and not a death sentence.

I do respect the laws of this country. You say 'I respect the laws of the land of any country I visit even if I don't agree with it.' That is exactly what I am doing, respecting the laws but not agreeing with them.

And actually, this is the place I call home, and they are the laws of the country I live in. So your 'be glad it is not the law of the land in our "modern" places we call home' comment is a little redundant.

I used drinking and premarital sex as examples of conservative laws, but I never claimed I wished them to be 'rampant'.

You are right that nobody is forcing me to abide by Sharia law. But the many Muslims in this country are forced to abide by Sharia law, which is stricter and more conservative than the laws for everyone else. That is what this thread is about, the fairness and legitimacy of a two-law system. You sound very confused, so maybe you should read this thread again.

 I am not confused at all having lived under Sharia and currently in an industrialized, "modern" country.  I feel its is rude and presumptious for you to make such statements about a group of people solely based on what you define as modern.

My issues are with these statements:

"It also isn't in tune with Malaysia's aim of becoming a more modern and progressive country."

"However, Sharia law is in keeping with the dominant religion of the country, Islam"

1) Who are you to define what dictates modern

2) What is wrong with having a dominant religion?  Many countries have them...

Original Post by marichi:

My husband, a Peruvian, thinks the Catholic church should run the world (or at least the US) and that would eliminate all of our problems. 

 *head explodes*

I think the OP just focused on the wrong aspects of "modern". The no unchaperoned contact between unmarried men and women is the biggie here, IMO. Not the drinking or pre marital sex. But still, if that's what they want...although I'm not sure it IS what the women want....I don't know enough. AH!

*head explodes*

Mine explodes too.  On a daily basis.