If Muslims rose up and through force, or votes (heh!) and implemented Sharia-principled government in the UK, what are the chances it would be a good government? I'm not looking so much at the answer based on religion, but rather at the answer based on reality.
We can be fairly certain that in the case of a Muslim takeover, the resultant government would be of a fundamentalist nature. The closest government to a full implementation of Sharia, other than the Caliphate perhaps, was Taliban-led Afghanistan.
Is it not the case that many Muslims should recoil in fear and loathing at such a government? Do all Muslimahs wish for purdah? Do many Muslims actually think gays should not be stoned to death in the UK? Should they oppose all attempts by the fundamentalists to gain political power?
You can argue that Sharia would be perfect, but even the fundamentalists say that any implementation of Sharia would be imperfect due to human imperfection.
Part of being Muslim is desiring Sharia. But Sharia is the opposite to the UK your predecessors fled to; it is anti-democratic, anti freedom, anti human rights, anti secular, anti separation of state and religion. How can anything good come from that, especially when implemented imperfectly?
I was listening to some program the other day and they mentioned that Morocco had a shariah law system there.
I was surprised as it never gets much mention by either side. (I have no idea eitherhow accurate the mention was.)
The hanafi view actually mandates NO punishment at all.
I disagree. Hadhrat Abu Bakr was chosen to lead the Muslims in what can be considered to a precursor to the democratic way.
More, in Islamic jurisprudence, After the QUr'an and sunnah, Ijma (consensus of the people) comes before qiyas (which in this case would be similar to autocracy - comparing what the existing laws are to get some guidance on issues which are not explicitly covered).
Even the shia of Iran have said that democracy is required including I believe Khomenei who stated something along the lines of the government needing legitimacy in the eyes of the people.
Depends on what you mean by freedom. In general, yes the governments of the middle east are authoratarian. But was this historically true too?
I think authoritarianism is flawed in that it costs more to run such a state. It is not something that is wanted, nor is it needed IMO.
It depends on how you define secular. If you define it as "anti religion" (which the popular arabic translation is), then yes they clash.
But this is not always the case - someone having a right to education while also a religiously a good thing, is also not requiring it to be in a non neutral way.
It could be identical to what we have already. More - the alternative system would also be inherrently flawed and run by humans too, so the issues you raise are not intrinsic to one system and nor are they not present in the alternatives.
It is just a different system and how it works would depend on the people who set it up and the climate in which it is set up.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.