I'm not sure what that means.

There are lots of laws that I consider bullcr@p, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. But I still try to respect those laws because that's how things work (even if I do jaywalk regularly and break lots of other minor laws with similar frequency).

Why should I condemn a Muslim for being of similar inclination?

They mean Sharia.

How do you know?

The "religious rules" (the term used in the study) of the Koran constitute a body of Islamic law titled "Sharia."

If the study meant Sharia law why wasn't that term used, why ask about the "rules of the Koran" instead? Either the question is actually intended to create ambiguity or the Sharia was not meant.

A practicing muslim is to pray five times a day I think, I'd call that a rule not a law. In order to obey a muslim has to be aware of it many times every day, which automatically makes it an important. Thoughts like this may well be the reason for the high approval rate to this question.

Also take note that the question Christians were asked is
"104. The rules of the Bible are more important to me than the laws of [survey country]."
here also the term rules is used, neither law nor the Ten Commandments.

You make good points. I would guess that the researchers used the term "rules" instead of "Sharia" so that they could compare Muslim and Christian responses by way of standard questions. They could not ask the Christians whether Sharia should trump local law.

I grant your point that perhaps some Muslim respondents did not think of Sharia. But as Sharia is Muslim law, I argue that this distinction is not statistically important. Indeed, other studies have shown high proportions of Muslim populations support Sharia. See this ongoing Pew study http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...und-the-world/

Sadly, certain Muslim groups like the Sufis, that do not take the Koran literally, are heavily outnumbered by those Muslims who do take it literally. (Indeed, their argument is that you are an apostate if you do not take the Koran as the literal word of god.) This is sad because Sharia is diametrically opposed to Western values such as democracy, secularism, etc., and therefore the more it is followed the more people suffer and the more humanity regresses.

In the meantime, Kansas has just voted to reverse the law that made it illegal to beat your wife and the Vatican confirms that having an abortion is much worse that raping someone ...

1st bolded) Nope, there was one distinct set of questions for muslim and another one for christians. The number of questions differed vastly, if memory serves 150 questions for the muslims but only 110 for the christians (the "Koran rules" question was about #140 while the "Bible rules" question was about #105). This alone places considerable doubt on the neutrality, and thus scientific value, of the study.

2nd bolded) From the Pew study:
"Nearly all Muslims in Afghanistan (99%) and most in Iraq (91%) and Pakistan (84%) support sharia law as official law. But in some other countries, especially in Eastern Europe and Central Asia – including Turkey (12%), Kazakhstan (10%) and Azerbaijan (8%) – relatively few favor the implementation of sharia law."

North african countries are not mentioned, Syria may lean towards Iraq or just as well towards Turkey thus it's anybody's guess which direction the muslims arriving here leant towards.

My objection holds, rules is quite a different thing than law. Please prove your assertion.

The Vatican is in good company then as the German justice minister Heiko Maass says posting negative things about Merkel or immigrants on facebook is far worse than rape.

Urs Max, you just quoted the Pew study that says "Sharia". Sharia is the term for Islamic law and includes the "rules" of the Koran. I have nothing left to prove.

Why do you say the questions regarding rules were different when they were not? You seem to be conflating the issue of the use of the stanardized use of the term "rules" in the questions asked of both Christians and Muslims with your dislike of the study's methodology.

Were all these questions asked in English? What's Pashto for "rules"? Perhaps we're arguing irrelevant semantics.

Do you have a link for the Kansas law? Geniunely curious - can't find anything with a google search.

The starting point isn't the Pew study, but the one by published on wzb.eu., where they use the term "rules" in Koran and not Sharia. Had they used Sharia instead there'd no ambiguity.

The Sharia does not base purely on stuff in the Koran. There is also stuff from the Hadith. In fact many of the more controversial bits are from the latter.

Are there any good reasons why Sharia should be hindered from being practiced by Muslims in the West? So long as the same Muslims adhere to the secular laws of their host country, and that Sharia is not imposed on those who aren't Muslims. What are some possible problems with that?

Some of the stuff in Sharia is about things such as how to wash your hands and with which hand you should wipe your arse. I don't see any difference between that and say, Mormon rules on what type of underwear you should be wearing.

It is one of the appealing aspects of a libertarian society that state laws are kept to an absolute minimum but people are free to voluntarily live by whatever laws they want and freely associate within groups who set their own laws and contracts.

There is the benign rule of hand washing (which brings to mind the question of what happens if you break that rule and wipe with your right hand or not at all); and then there are the rules that are at odds with a secular society (well, as secular as it gets).

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/pete...b_6658808.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discri...ainst_atheists

Before throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as long as Sharia is not applied to non-Muslims, and elements that are illegal by secular laws, such as death to apostasy, stays illegal, since there is plenty of room for co-existence otherwise. Is there anyone really calling for the prevalence of Sharia to override Secular laws otherwise? Is there an existing problem with a call for Sharia for Muslims?

Good idea!
This would be a useful way for foreign criminal Muslims in Switzerland to avoid deportation since Sharia does not have a penalty of deportation.

Well, for those who are wary of the idea of Sharia, I don't think it is a good idea to negate Sharia for Muslims. As long as it is an additive law, and does not negate secular laws. And as long as it isn't applied to non-Muslims

I'm thinking The Island of Dr. Moreau here. It could be problematic to negate the Sayer of the Law.

Surely if the Muslim community wants to use Sharia law that should be fine as long as civil law is also adhered too. However it should be civil law that has the final say in any serious matter including penalization. But why should we assume a domestic dispute between two Muslims cannot be decided through Sharia, as long as both parties are happy with that and the outcome. It save time and money in the civil courts.

Sharia is as simple as being Halal but can cover everything, however it should be insisted that when matters of a serious nature that constitutes a crime in civil society are broken that it is for civil law to decide the appropriate course of action or penalization.

Is it that much different from a Catholic who has sinned getting given Hail Marie's at confession?

Personally I would rather have everybody equal under a civil law, but as we all know, there is no real equality even in the eyes of the law.