Is Diversity and Multiculturalism a Good or Bad Thing?

[Kubumba Tribe]

4: AlHamdulillah. He/she is now a Muslim and must follow Al-Islam the best he/she can

Would they still be allowed to be punished for leaving the Jehovah's witness community (common practise in many areas) since they are now under Islamic Law.

No, Muslims are supposed to protect our brothers and sisters

Also, can a person be punished for a crime they committed before conversion that was legal in their former religion.

No, a person sins are completely forive upon conversion to Al-Islam

Can a person be punished for breaking a law in their old religion before converting

Are you asking if a convert Muslim can be punished for a crime they did before their conversion?

and who decides which court adjudicates over which person (in the event of a recent conversion or unclear religion)?

Mixed courts.

[Kubumba Tribe]

How does one go about dealing with already complex enough financial crimes, involving people of several faiths?

Bringing evidence against/for someone is still in place, and if the defendant is found guilty, he/she is punished according to his/her religion's punishment

The purpose of law is to protect the people. If I am part of a religion which bans a certain crime, and a person of another religion (where this is legal) commits this against me, am I receiving adequate protection from the law?

?

Why can't we just have secular law apply to everyone? Saves paperwork and makes legal battles less likely to be confusing train wrecks not even the judge understands.

Yes, irreligious people live under secularism

[Proctopeo]

How does one go about dealing with already complex enough financial crimes, involving people of several faiths?

Bringing evidence against/for someone is still in place, and if the defendant is found guilty, he/she is punished according to his/her religion's punishment

The purpose of law is to protect the people. If I am part of a religion which bans a certain crime, and a person of another religion (where this is legal) commits this against me, am I receiving adequate protection from the law?

?

Why can't we just have secular law apply to everyone? Saves paperwork and makes legal battles less likely to be confusing train wrecks not even the judge understands.

Yes, irreligious people live under secularism

How does that apply to what I said?

[Goverwal]

Try telling anyone who has to deal with which of the dozen or so courts that this is a good idea...
Also, how do the police know whether to arrest someone without first having to find out their religion (bear in mind that criminals can be uncooperative) and then trying to remember which religions that they have committed a crime in. How do you remember that many sets of laws and apply them in the heat of the moment?

[Proctopeo]

Try telling anyone who has to deal with which of the dozen or so courts that this is a good idea...
Also, how do the police know whether to arrest someone without first having to find out their religion (bear in mind that criminals can be uncooperative) and then trying to remember which religions that they have committed a crime in. How do you remember that many sets of laws and apply them in the heat of the moment?

"Alright, so, the killer was a Muslim, so we have to apply Shariah law, but the victim was... some odd variant of... what does this say? I can't read the font. Ah, some newly-formed religion inspired by the Aztecs. Do we dismember the killer then torch his body now or later? I can't do it, I'm a Jain, but my partner is part of the Fire Cult of Ninth Street. Where did the killing take place, by the way? ...a temple to Hades? Dammit just call the specialists."

[Kubumba Tribe]

Also, how do the police know whether to arrest someone without first having to find out their religion (bear in mind that criminals can be uncooperative) and then trying to remember which religions that they have committed a crime in. How do you remember that many sets of laws and apply them in the heat of the moment?

Imo, they would be arrested 1st, then while being held in court, the court finds out what religion they adhere to.
If their religion allows something, they are free. If not, they'll have a trial.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Also, how do the police know whether to arrest someone without first having to find out their religion (bear in mind that criminals can be uncooperative) and then trying to remember which religions that they have committed a crime in. How do you remember that many sets of laws and apply them in the heat of the moment?

Imo, they would be arrested 1st, then while being held in court, the court finds out what religion they adhere to.
If their religion allows something, they are free. If not, they'll have a trial.

Guilty until proven innocent, nice.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Try telling anyone who has to deal with which of the dozen or so courts that this is a good idea...
Also, how do the police know whether to arrest someone without first having to find out their religion (bear in mind that criminals can be uncooperative) and then trying to remember which religions that they have committed a crime in. How do you remember that many sets of laws and apply them in the heat of the moment?

"Alright, so, the killer was a Muslim, so we have to apply Shariah law, but the victim was... some odd variant of... what does this say? I can't read the font. Ah, some newly-formed religion inspired by the Aztecs. Do we dismember the killer then torch his body now or later? I can't do it, I'm a Jain, but my partner is part of the Fire Cult of Ninth Street. Where did the killing take place, by the way? ...a temple to Hades? Dammit just call the specialists."

If the accused Muslim killer is found guilty, he/she is subject to Shari'ah punishment.

[Goverwal]

Imo, they would be arrested 1st, then while being held in court, the court finds out what religion they adhere to.
If their religion allows something, they are free. If not, they'll have a trial.

Guilty until proven innocent, nice.

Thus Kubumba's ideas violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 11)

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Guilty until proven innocent, nice.

Thus Kubumba's ideas violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 11)

Do y'all have a better way without saying "secularism for everyone"?

[Genivaria]

Thus Kubumba's ideas violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 11)

Do y'all have a better way without saying "secularism for everyone"?

You don't get to make people live by your religion, how horrible.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Thus Kubumba's ideas violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 11)

Do y'all have a better way without saying "secularism for everyone"?

Secularism for everyone. Shocking I know but it's the best system we have.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Do y'all have a better way without saying "secularism for everyone"?

You don't get to make people live by your religion, how horrible.

Yes, non-Muslims shouldn't being living under Islamic law. I've said this many times before

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Do y'all have a better way without saying "secularism for everyone"?

Secularism for everyone. Shocking I know but it's the best system we have.

Read my post.

[Genivaria]

You don't get to make people live by your religion, how horrible.

Yes, non-Muslims shouldn't being living under Islamic law. I've said this many times before

No I didn't say Muslims, I said YOU don't get to make people live under your religion.
If they call themselves Muslims and want to embrace secularism that's their business and if you have an issue with that then tough.

[Genivaria]

Secularism for everyone. Shocking I know but it's the best system we have.

Read my post.

I think he did considering he responded to it.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Read my post.

I think he did considering he responded to it.

I asked "besides saying "secularism for everyone"". He either did not read the entirety of my post, or isn't willing to answer my question the it's supposed to be answered.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Also, how do the police know whether to arrest someone without first having to find out their religion (bear in mind that criminals can be uncooperative) and then trying to remember which religions that they have committed a crime in. How do you remember that many sets of laws and apply them in the heat of the moment?

Imo, they would be arrested 1st, then while being held in court, the court finds out what religion they adhere to.
If their religion allows something, they are free. If not, they'll have a trial.

People prepare before the case. If they are being told while the court is set it, it would completely change the outcome of the case.

The Prosecutor might think sharia law is to extreme of punishments and backs out, also they would have to pay their lawyers regardless of outcome. You don't wait until they're brought to court.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Yes, non-Muslims shouldn't being living under Islamic law. I've said this many times before

No I didn't say Muslims, I said YOU don't get to make people live under your religion.
If they call themselves Muslims and want to embrace secularism

Then they are not submitting to Allah (SWT).

[Goverwal]

Do y'all have a better way without saying "secularism for everyone"?

You don't get to make people live by your religion, how horrible.

Just admit that this would create an administrative nightmare. Also, you have advocated taxing non-Muslims before (to counter religious taxes placed upon them) but surely under your system they would not be under the jurisdiction of the Islamic government. Furthermore, I would like to ask which government pays for public services (busses, trains, possibly health, etc.) when each government would have its own taxation and spending systems?

EDIT: Also, couldn't people change religion while in custody in order to evade prosecution?

[Alvecia]

I think he did considering he responded to it.

I asked "besides saying "secularism for everyone"". He either did not read the entirety of my post, or isn't willing to answer my question the it's supposed to be answered.

Why should they be obliged to give a second answer when the first is the superior one?

[Genivaria]

No I didn't say Muslims, I said YOU don't get to make people live under your religion.
If they call themselves Muslims and want to embrace secularism

Then they are not submitting to Allah (SWT).

It is extremely arrogant to try to tell people what is in their minds.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Thus Kubumba's ideas violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 11)

Do y'all have a better way without saying "secularism for everyone"?

Are you implying there's a better way than secularism for everyone?

You don't get to make people live by your religion, how horrible.

Yes, non-Muslims shouldn't being living under Islamic law. I've said this many times before

Best way to convince people to live under a shitty law is to impose upon them a shittier law first.

Really activates the almonds.

[Genivaria]

I think he did considering he responded to it.

I asked "besides saying "secularism for everyone"". He either did not read the entirety of my post, or isn't willing to answer my question the it's supposed to be answered.

Too. Fucking. Bad.

to answer my question the it's supposed to be answered

You mean he refuses to follow your asinine script? Oh how horrible.

[Aillyria]

Yes, non-Muslims shouldn't being living under Islamic law. I've said this many times before

No I didn't say Muslims, I said YOU don't get to make people live under your religion.
If they call themselves Muslims and want to embrace secularism that's their business and if you have an issue with that then tough.

I'd say it depends, muslims living in a secular nation should live under secular law. I think in a muslim nation though, sharia should be law without exception. Having mixed legal systems is inefficient and difficult to implement.