I knew there was some reason I like Australia...

...other than the cool accents and the Fosters.


http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_25-8-2005_pg1_2

Wish we had the nuts to do that here.

 

The main problem that I have with the cited article and the general sentiment expressed is that it lacks specificity. Here's what I mean. There are numerous religious groups living in the USA. They all have their own set of religious laws. Orthodox Jews have dietary laws (for example). Once upon a time Catholics were forbidden to eat meat on Fridays (many still adhere to this rule). I'm sure that there are many other examples.

These pose no problem as they present no conflict with the general laws of the USA (federal or state). They apply to elective behavior and obeying these religious laws creates no conflict with US law or a burden on anyone else.

I know virtually nothing about Islam and its rules of behavior. I do not know if adherence to Islamic law creates any conflict with US law (Federal or State). If there is no conflict with US law then I have no problem with a person living within the laws of their religion (Islam or otherwise). If there is a conflict then my expectation is that the individual will adhere to the rule of the land. If they do not then they should be prosecuted just like any other lawbreaker.

Returning to my original point, I have no available information that indicates to me that people living within Sharia law are in violation of US law. This may be another example of my ignorance but, at least, it hasn't been demonstrated in this thread (yet).
Jack

 

This is mostly speculation. If one of our Muslim posters can correct or add specificity, I'd be grateful.

I believe that a problem with Sharia law is that it doesn't really envisage its own privatisation within a general system of some other law. Orthodox Jewish law was devised almost entirely in situations where Jews were not the governing power, and similarly Parsi or Zarathushti customary law; Roman Catholic customary law governs piety, whatever implications or stipulations Roman Catholic legal philosophy may have for statecraft.

Islam, however, is a polity and a religion in a single indissoluble package. One is either in the dar-ul-Islam or the dar-ul-harb (the "house"/sphere of submission or the "house"/sphere of war--that is, submission or rebellion against God). Now, there are issues of Muslim fiqh (jurisprudence) and customary law--the wearing of head-coverings by women, celebratory animal sacrifice amid "animal cruelty" or butchering laws, the guaranty of halal meat (akin to kashrus certification), issues of ownership of property and legal personality of women, the medicalisation of circumcision, etc., etc.--which can easily be integrated into a non-Muslim, non-Sharia system of secular law as more or less private observances. But unless Muslims in non-Muslim countries become a sort of republic within the republic, an Ottoman-style millet (in reverse!), or secure political control of a given locality within a non-Muslim polity (east Dearborn?), it's hard for this non-Muslim* to see how it will quite work.

Perhaps the Ismai'li experience of living as a minority offers clues. Adherents of Subud or of Sufism might well have insights to add that differ from those of more "mainstream" Sunni or Shi'i Muslims.

And as I said at the outset, I hope that Muslim posters (of whatever school of thought) will add corrections or clarifications to this post. I am quite willing to offer ipsedixits about confessional Lutheranism, for it is my sandbox; I am not willing to do so about another's religion, for it is another's sandbox and not mine.

*Even this term is fraught. I mean by it a non-adherent of the religion/polity promulgated by Muhammad. I certainly do not mean "one who does not submit to God".

 

Yeah, the sharia and human rights conflict in numerous points. There are hundreds of studies that show it. Penal codes of most civilized countries overlap. Democracy and Islam really cannot be reconciled unless "someone" (they have no head like Catholics for instance) declares that Islam accepts the secularity of states. Even Turkey needs a guarantor to keep its "democracy" secular, the military. Without it, the country would drift away from nominal democracy to fundamentalism. Muslim people are first part of the umma, the Muslim community and then whatever nationality they have (even in France or the UK, where they have been living for generations).

I perceive a change here in the Netherlands, and, obviously in Australia, too. Holland used to be one of the most tolerant countries of the world towards foreigners, and their customs. No matter how eccentric or backward they were, people looked elsewhere, minding their own business. Now this has been reversed, and Muslims are undergoing an intense public campaign so they integrate ASAP, and follow the country’s laws and customs. In different words, that time for political correctness is over, especially after the murder of Theo van Gogh, a film director critical with Islam. People had it. The appearance (and unarguable success) of populist political leaders such as the latter Pim Fortuyn states explicitly where the society stands.

 

Still like Australia, Carl?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,1665366,00.html