Would you define Sharia Law as Conservative or Liberal?

[TommyGriffin]

Would you define Sharia Law as Conservative or Liberal in nature?

Let it be known I am not endorsing Sharia Law in any way or form.

[nightprowler10]

Is this a serious question?

[poido123]

I describe it as the plague of the earth.


Nothing good comes from it.

[KyrieTheFuture]

Conservative

[poido123]

Ultra progressive.

[Patrick Chewing]

I describe it as the plague of the earth.


Nothing good comes from it.

+ 1

[NumberSix]

Sharia is conservative in Saudi Arabia. It's anti-conservative in the west.

Western conservatism is liberal. Islamic conservatism is anti-liberal.

[iamgine]

Would you define Sharia Law as Conservative or Liberal in nature?

Let it be known I am not endorsing Sharia Law in any way or form.

Conservatism promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization.

What's conservative in one place might not be in another.

[fiddy]

Neither, its retarded

[Dresta]

Conservatism promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization.

What's conservative in one place might not be in another.

Exactly. It's conservative in the countries where it exists and has a long and accepted tradition behind it, but would be a radical innovation in the countries where it doesn't.

Most people on this site don't even have the slightest understanding of what conservatism means; being Americans, many seem to think it simply the worship of money and large corporate interests. This is nonsensical, and also why most of the "conservatives" at publications like the National Review have done more harm to conservatism than any liberal.

The difference between a conservative and a liberal (generally) is that the former has a respect for local custom and prescriptive rights, whereas the latter would gladly bulldoze any culture that doesn't fit its universalised image of humanity. It is, I think largely because liberals see humanity as monolithic, and public education as a panacea that can be used to make all of mankind reason rightly, ignoring the fact that Germany was the most advanced country in the world in this respect, when it succumbed to Nazism. An example of this can be seen in the differing approaches taken to India or Edmund Burke and Thomas Macauley. Most Republicans and Democrats are liberals, some in the old sense, but most in the new; but fundamentally, their outlook is largely the same, and based upon a kind of sentimental materialism that confuses means with ends.

[Trollsmasher]

if we mean Liberal in its current American sense, something that defines itself by the opposition to every Western value (Conservatism), then sharia is indeed Liberal

[NumberSix]

Exactly. It's conservative in the countries where it exists and has a long and accepted tradition behind it, but would be a radical innovation in the countries where it doesn't.

Most people on this site don't even have the slightest understanding of what conservatism means; being Americans, many seem to think it simply the worship of money and large corporate interests. This is nonsensical, and also why most of the "conservatives" at publications like the National Review have done more harm to conservatism than any liberal.

The difference between a conservative and a liberal (generally) is that the former has a respect for local custom and prescriptive rights, whereas the latter would gladly bulldoze any culture that doesn't fit its universalised image of humanity. It is, I think largely because liberals see humanity as monolithic, and public education as a panacea that can be used to make all of mankind reason rightly, ignoring the fact that Germany was the most advanced country in the world in this respect, when it succumbed to Nazism. An example of this can be seen in the differing approaches taken to India or Edmund Burke and Thomas Macauley. Most Republicans and Democrats are liberals, some in the old sense, but most in the new; but fundamentally, their outlook is largely the same, and based upon a kind of sentimental materialism that confuses means with ends.

The main difference between conservatives and "liberals" with regard to policy is the issue of principles. Mainly, that the left doesn't have any.

The left views policy as a way to produce a desired result. If they want a particular result, they're in favor of whatever policy they believe will produce this result, regardless of what the policy is. Conservatives believe that policies have to adhere to certain principles, regardless of the outcome. Even if a policy would produce a result they want, the policy is no good if it violates certain principles.

A good example is the terror watch list. We ALL don't want terrorists to get weapons. The left, rightly or wrongly, believes banning people on watch lists from legal gun purchases would achieve this outcome. For conservatives, whether it would or wouldn't is irrelevant. It violates the principle that the government can't take away rights without due process. The policy is unacceptable regardless of if it would work or not.

This is what is dangerous about the left. They've always had a "the ends justify the means" attitude.