The answer to your question is Turkey.

An easy contrast would be to ask which Islamic country would be willing to adopt features of western jurisprudence (beyond commercial law). I can't imagine the Saudis being comfortable with this. It's also strange to emigrate to a country becuase there is more opporunity and then to say I want to change it to be more like the country I left. There is the larger problem of secular versus church law. One way to test the shariah idea would be to say that countries should also adopt the legal code of the Catholic Church - a much larger minority. I can't imagine Britons welcoming this, nor should they. Finally, there is always the question of which bits of Sharia do you adopt. Is it all or nothing? The whole thing is too much, but then we have to ask who gets to decide which Shariah laws are applied. Is it Parliament, a referendum, British Imams? The reason we have secular laws is that European societies tried religious law and it didn't work.

What is Islamic Sharia?

1400 years of Breeding, Birthing and Brainwashing in Islamic flaws. To all Muslims out there, there is hope via the Five Step Method to Deprogram Islam:

Using "The 77 Branches of Islamic "faith" a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi as a starting point. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true "faith" (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings." i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs.

"1. Belief in Allah"

"aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc." should be added to your cleansing neurons.

"2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."

Evolution and the Big Bang or the "Gib Gnab" (when the universe starts to recycle) are more plausible and the "akas" for Allah should be included if you continue to be a "creationist".

"3. To believe in the existence of angels."

A major item for neuron cleansing. Angels/devils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.

"4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."

Another major item to delete. There are no books written in the spirit state of Heaven (if there is one) just as there are no angels/"pwtfft"s to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.

Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line. Today we call them fortune tellers.
Prophecies are also invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.

"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."
Mohammed spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a neuron deletion of #5.

#5 is also the major source of Islamic violence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallucinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.

Accept these five "cleansers" and we guarantee a complete recovery from your Islamic ways!!!!

I do not disagree with most of what Imam Feisal is describing here. But he is making one wrong assumption ie. that western law is based solely on the Judeo-Christian tradition. Although surely inspired by it, modern law is much more a product of the Enlightenment and is founded on the autonomy of reason rather than faith in fact often developed in opposition to religion. From this so called natural law tradition, liberalism, the french & american revolution, human rights etc developed. And it is this secular tradition rather than Christianity that finds itself at odds with the Sharia. And rightly so, the courts and the legal system should be secular, but where traditional religious practices are harmless and do not contradict secular law, these practices should obviously be allowed.

I am impressed by the Archbishop's thinking and philosophy. This will be a step towards PEACE.

I am impressed by the Archbishop's thinking and philosophy. This will be a step towards PEACE.

I am impressed by the Archbishop's thinking and philosophy. This will be a step towards PEACE.

Forward thinking or backward
The Press in UK is always desperate for Drama.

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

You cannot even address the flaws in basic Islam so why would we consider you some expert on Islamic law or Islamic prayer.

Just in case you missed the top four flaws in basic Islam and in case you want to add your disagreement with supporting evidence that these are not flaws, here they are one more time:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

for the record, to answer joe's contentions about time taken out to pray.

during the day, when many- not all- people are at work-
there are 2 prayers that would be prayed-

today, for instance- those times are 12:12PM and 3:53PM.

this is about average.

as you see, the noon prayer occurs around luchtime-

it takes approximately 9 minutes (for me) to pray.

in america, we are allowed two 15 minute breaks, and 1/2 hour for lunch on a workday.

as you can see- the current times already easily accomodate the neede time taken.

the misconception that one needs 'half a day' or anything near that is simply not true.

some people may chooose to nibble on something, or smoke a cigarette during their break.

muslims can pray.

with no more interruption of worktime, or inconvenience to employers or co-workers than any other employee.

peace all

i believe people are greatly confused as to what sharia is, and what it's inclusion or recognition actually portends.

sharia laws are intended to be for the benefit of society.

also, to codify it and ossify it in the patriarchal and unjut societal standards of the 8th century, is not reasonalbe.

islam encourages its adherents to educate themselves for this and many reasons.

muslims are interpreting and understanding the sharia injunctions to reflect the true egalutarian face of islam, unfettered by medieval concepts of justice.

now, as for implementing sharia law in britain or america-

it is, in no way- to supercede current laws of the land.

but is to be used as a mediation and arbitration tool only- and on a voluntary basis-

for those who wish to have rulings sensitive to their religious conmvictions- they can do so-

in cases of family law, or business transactions-
the islamic custom of having 2 witnesses to every contract could certainly cut down on much nuisance litigation.

criminal rulings are not really part of the system that is bein enacted- so fears about such issues are unfounded.

the BETH DIN, a jewish arbitration system has been active in britain for some time.

by modern western standards, certainly some of the rulings would appear very misogynist- but if the parties volunteer to accept such decisions handed down, and the superceding governmental laws deem the rulings reasonable-
then the parties agree to accept the rulings, and they are recognized as legally binding by both religious jurisprudence, and civil law.

but it is a conscious and deliberate choice of the parties involved to seek such mediation.

non jewish citizens are not affected by these decisions-

similarly, non-muslim citizens are not affected by decisions handed down by a sharia council or judge-

the only parties affected are those who seek these arbitration tools themselves.

Malleck, Malleck, Malleck,

I see no rant or hate in the previous listed flaws in basic Islam.

No one has yet to present any counter points to these flaws and that is why the flaws are repeated again and again hoping some Muslim out there can refute the obvious.

But let us make it even easier by starting with the first flaw i.e. your required belief in "angels". Any hate or rant in that statement?

So do you or do you not believe in "angels" and why ???????

We will then proceed to the next flaw after your answer.

what is there about English law that prevents praying five times a day, fasting during Ramadan, going to Mecca, or giving to charity? Thats the part I don't understand. I don't think there should be rules imposed by any state law regarding religion. Everyone should be able to follow their religion as long as it does not violate the laws of civilian law. Everyone sets these laws. There should be no state laws governing the requirements of any religion by any people. On the other hand a person should not be punished for following religious practices such as being fired from a job, within reason. For instance it would be a problem if someone only goes to work-one half or two-thirds of the time. Or only works half the time and takes time when they are suppose to be working to pray. But labor laws already provide for breaks and lunch. Things like that could be discussed by everyone so you can make your own case. But a law should not be accepted simply because it is Sharia law. When you start telling other people what to do you are going to run into problems.

Well worded humanist,
frankly the Prophet Muhammed died well before there was any Sharia law established. So frankly all Sharia is but law written by powerful medaieval Muslim men and for the benefit of the same men. Just look how lovely Sharia gov't.

Madame, Monsieur,
It is great talking of Shariah, however, before all that it is necessary to know as to what is this Shariah?
Did Allah ordererd it? Did the Prophet of Islam ever used the word Shariah, introduced it or imposed it?
Did the first four righteous caliphs ever imposed or introduced this thihg called, Shariah?
No, neither Allah ordered in Koran, nor the Prophet in Hadith, nor the first four righteous caliphs?
So why this Mr. Archbishop wants Shariah law for Muslims of UK?
I wrote to the newpapers against this suggestion on the basis that the word Shariah was never used in Koran for the legal code.
Well, then, who concocted this Shariah, what does this include and why?
Pleaser define and prove that this word Shariah is in Koran and that the concept is well-supported by Allah's words or prophet's ahfiths; is it Islamic, if at all. before going any further....!It is necessaary to use the words in their proper meanings as well as in their proper context.

Thanks much
Yours sincerely
Humanist

Mohammed,

I really am not Joe T. Honest.

Now, please don't have another snit. How about you answer *yet another* simple question. The reason there has been such an overwhelmingly negative response to your assertions (I actually felt breifly sorry for you) is because we are not ignorant to what goes on in Sharia countries.

Also, Americans very much value our freedoms. We have no desire to see people like the repugnant and brutal Saudi court dictating to our lives. I assure you that if religious police ever showed up, Americans would see it as their civic duty to fight them tooth and nail.

This is a good thing. It is a pillar of this Nation.

So OK here is a different question. You like to lecture us, and when challenged by one who knows some truth, you go to attacks, insults and off topics in order to escape scrutiny. Only this time, it really did not work for you did it?

Why do you think that is?

Even the normal leftist sympathy you get here erroded. Why? Because Americans believe in freedom. How does it feel to see just how wrong you were about how many you can fool with your silly attempts at rhetoric?

Ohhh... And if you really were good at Real Analysis, you should have been able to answer the question about Compact Support!

Joe, Jojo or Joe T,

I'll leave you where you choose to be.

Mohammed Malleck,

Joe T is not me,

However, I must agree with him though. If you wish to build on our understanding... you can answer any of the questions I've put to you.

Here is a new one:

The Saudi sharia court really did just beat a woman into signing a "confession" for witchcraft. It was carried by AP. Of course the Sharia court decided to execute her.

Her accusers were men who believed that their impotence was caused by a hex she put on them. She had no attorny, and her testimony did not mean much - after all she is an accused woman.

This is what happens in Sharia countries. Shall I pull out stories from other Middle Eastern Sharia "courts."

Please Mohammed, you are very reticent about the evil of suicide bombing, so how about this perversion of justice? What do you say to it?

Why should any free thinker believe for a moment that Sharia when practiced is backwards and evil?

DR. DEAN,

Which side will I be on? On the side of Canada, my friend; and of Kevin Rudd's Australia!

You might be aware that I live in Canada, and that both Canada and Australia have asked NATO to define more clearly what are the aims of a called-for stronger presence in Afghanistan before it renews the stay of their countries' troops in Afghanistan, leave alone taking a decision on strengthening their presence.

Mr. Malleck.

You are nothing more than an armchair jihadist cloaked in pseudo intellectualism. You are an enemy of both America, my nation and, the Jews, my people. I have no desire for discourse with a vile maggot like you.

To everyone else,

I have taken some time to look up MR. Lerner.
He is a self hating, ultra far left, socialist leaning "rabbi." He does not keep Halacha. He does not represent any but a small number of the tragically misguided. Please do not think he speaks for us.

JOE and CATHERINE,

You're sick and I'll leave you with your sickness.

Mr. Malleck: It appears you are arguing that Islamic polygyny (as Muslim women are not allowed to marry multiple husbands, "polygamy" is not quite correct) applies "at all times, in all circumstances, in every clime." Therefore, if a man is financially capable of supporting multiple wives (note again the Islamic rigid gender expectations), he is allowed to so indulge himself under Islamic law. In my first post I also quite clearly identified that Muslim males are "allowed" -- not "required" -- to maintain multiple wives.

Marrying multiple spouses is illegal in the United States. A wife's "permission" is irrelevant. Are you arguing, that under a parallel system of sharia law, that Muslim males should be permitted to do so, and that their marriages be viewed as legally binding? Do you believe that is what Mr. Rauf, the writer of the opening article, desires?

Dr. Dean, of course Mohamed MALLECK is not understandable, his obfuscation is deliberate. He tells Connie not to "confuse insanities with reality" and when she is ready he will explain gods will to her. Confusion of insanity with reality is the whole of islam in a nutshell. And he will explain gods will? What a meglomaniac! Sharia is nothing more than the codification of a pathologically insecure culture of religious fanatics with a HUGE inferiority complex. But I guess if I went to sleep in the 7th century and woke up in the 21st I would feel a bit insecure too. Islam and sharia could disappear from the world today and we would only be better for it, and anyone who needs to believe this backward garbage needs to seek intensive psychiatric treatment.

Like hell he is! It is capitulation in the face of an agressive subversive want to be conquerors.
Tell them if they want to live here they have to follow our laws. Just Damn!

CATHERINE,

Mr. Moody provided answers with respcwet to laws of inheritance and equality between the genders (I think this is a more approrpaite word than sexes, although nincompoops with a very limited vocabulary think that they are very civilized and pro-gender equality if they use the word "clit' without any "false" modesty). He also provided website addresses for your other questions.

Allow me, here, as a Muslim, to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that maybe nobody has ever told you that, in Islam, you are ALLOWED (not REQUIRED) to have four wives (but it is mentioned several times that God prefers that a Muslim should have only one wife, that is why God makes the number of men and women born to each generation equal) provided that:

(1)you are endowed with the material, financial, emotional, biological and spiritual means to treat them ALL equally. You no doubt are intelligent enough to spell out what these terms mean operationally, don't you? If you don't revert back to me.

(2) you ask the permission of the first before yo take the second wife; you ask the permission of the first and second before you take the third wife, etc.

(3) since the religion is applicable at all times, in all all circumstance, under every clime, it enables the sustainability of family life even in circumstances when a war, a disease or affliction may have decimated a large number of men in the community and the women need not turn to self-demeaning ways of sustaining themselves and, where apllicable, their children.

I repeat, in numerous places in the Holy Quran and in the Ahaadith, it is written that the best married state is for a man wedded to a woman in a bond that endures for a lifelong.

Mohamed MALLECK: Your writing is not understandable. The troops are no longer stretched thin and the rest of your attempted snark is unintelligible. Though it is none of your business whatsoever, I served my country for six years as a fighter pilot. I would happily go back and may do so as a reservist. If/when I do, which side would I expect to see you on?

CONNIE,

I'll ch3eck that, of course; but you could start by giving me a first, very rough approximation what TRUTH means.

If you don't have an answer, you could follow thw following procedure:

(1) Check for 'truth' under wikipedia, which, in spite of all its imperfections, provides an excellent first approximation to almost evey concept.

(2) Next, read Roger Penrose's book 'The Road to Reality' and the following three books:

(a) John Barrow : The Infinite Book

(b) John Barrow : The Book of Nothing

(c) Charles Seife Alpha and Omega.

You DO understand me, Connie, don't you? To understand TRUTH (which is EVERYTHING), you must at least understand the BEGINNING (which is NOTHING, or alternatively the ALPHA) and the end (Which is the INFINITE or alternatively, the OMEGA). But then, you must not confuse your insanities with REALITY.

Good luck.

When you're done, get back to me and I'll expalin to you How God Wills.

I agree with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and this is and can be the solution integrating Muslim citizens into the society.

Mr. Moody's "answers," such as they are, appear to be restricted to matters of inheritance and witnessing. His first response is based upon an Islamic religious norm of a male being the "sole support" of a woman and her children. With all due respect, I do not believe equality under law should be suppressed by Islamic religious expectations of the rigid roles of men and women.

Further, it also appears to me that a division of assets during a divorce, and the provision of support, could certainly be viewed as a "financial transaction" where sharia rules denigrating female testimony would apply.

But even setting those issues aside, how could simple questions (the "not all" I imagine you're referring to) about Islamic instant divorce, child custody, women's remarriage, age of marriage, number of wives, and the very clear sanction of beating wives in the Koran be regarded as "bigoted"? I am simply asking for the parameters of how Islamic marriage laws are to be applied as a parallel system in the United States.

re: Mohamed MALLECK, Swift Current, Canada

"Moreover, both Tariq Ramadan and Ziauddin Sardar have launched websites for an exegesis of the Holy Quran verse by verse.

February 18, 2008 3:08 PM"

So has Robert Spencer, who is more truthful in his analysis.

Blogging the Qur'an

http://www.jihadwatch.org/articles/bloggingtheq.php

CATHERINE,

I, for one, would not have stopped reading your posting after a couple of sentences had it not been obvious that, before posting your questions, you had read the answers provided by MOODY is his posting above timed at 5:12 a.m., which answers several ( but not all) of your questions.

As it is your bigory and ill-will is too blatant for a reasonable person not to dismiss you as worthless.

Sharia "law":

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/pics/Islam_in_Action_Nick_Berg/Nick_Berg_beheading_video_10.jpg

http://www.dhushara.com/book/sakina/stoningetc/stoning.jpg

M.A. GEORGE,

You raise a very valid point, and that is the one REAL concern I have which makes me one who, as someone who tries to be a good Muslim, will be ready to do anything to abide by the PHILOSOPHY of the Sharia (but not necessarily the often misguided constructs of bigots!)but still REFUSE to be signatory to a petition that Sharia be introduced in Canada or the US.

If that position of mine surprises some and make my Muslim brethren disappointed with me, so be it!

A few questions about the suggested "limited" scope of sharia law as a parallel system in the United States:

A secular divorce in the United States requires a waiting period. A Muslim male, under sharia, is allowed to divorce his wife instantly. Would sharia instant divorce be regarded as legally binding?

Under sharia law, a woman is not permitted to remarry until a certain waiting period is over, though a man can do so immediately. Would sharia limitations on a woman's right to remarry be regarded as legally binding? What would be the sharia punishment should she in fact remarry?

Under sharia law, a man is not required to provide spousal or child support after a very short period expires. Would sharia law on support be regarded as legally binding?

Under sharia law, a man is allowed to marry up to four wives (one hopes the Koran's allowance of additional sex slaves -- "possessions of the right hand" -- would be prohibited by the 13th Amendment). Would sharia law on the number of spouses be regarded as legally binding?

Under sharia law, a man is given custody of children, with no recourse for the woman, at certain ages for a male child and another for a female. Would sharia rules on custody force women to surrender their children?

Under sharia law as applied in Afghanistan and Iran, and possibly including others, a man can marry a prepubescent child in the manner of the Islamic prophet with the child Aisha. Would such a marriage be recognized legally?

Under sharia law, wives, daughters, and female relatives are given less of a share in inheritances due to their gender. Should sharia law be allowed to trump secular law in such instances?

Under the rules of the Koran, and amplified by extensive Islamic jurisprudence, a man is allowed to beat or whip his wife should he "fear disobedience" (Koran 4:34). Given this Islamic rule, how can we be certain that a woman has not been forced to agree to the determination of her case by an Islamic court? And given that, under sharia, her testimony is worth half of a man's in certain circumstances, how can we be certain that the sharia court's determination bears any resemblance to "equal justice under law"?

Hey, thanks, Joe.

Let's try to build on that first step.

Maybe it is time that Israel started incorporating some of the better aspects of the third reich into it's legal system. I am sure there are many enlightened, tolerant practices that the Nazis used which would only benefit and broaden the daily lives of Israelis and their relationship with their compatriots, the Palestinians. Does this sound like cold hearted drivel? Well no more than suggesting that something as backward and brutal as islamic law is somehow a complement to western democratic law. This whole article makes me sick! Try bringing that crap to america and you will get it shoved back down your throat.

RABBI LERNER,

My most heartfelt apologies for misspelling your name. Just bad habit -- mistyping a common noun for an eminent surname. The Economist Abba Lerner is also one of the figures in the academic world that I most admire.

DR. DEAN,

I just read that the troops in Iraq are stetched thin. You going to the front? I also read that Muqtada is warning that the ceasefire (a 'hudna' of his own to complement Haniyeh's) that he has unilaterally been observing will be ended ( why, I don't know because I did not finish reading the artilce, being too busy reading and writing about Pakistan -- a triumph of reason and self-reliance ain't it, buster?).

JUST A SIMPLE JEW,

I just read on Haa'retz that Olmert is expanding illegal setlements despite his promises to stop them. Amira Haass is even more scathing about Olmert's duplicity. The Head of IDF says he can't rule out a resumption of war. Are you enlisting or are you a despicable armchair warrior who runs to hide under his bed as soon as the sirens go on?

Mohammed Mallek

I actually have to AGREE with you about Jozvez...

Well that's one thing we see eye to eye on.

Not sure if my first attempt posted...

MR. Lerner

How can you as a progressive support a legal system that refuses the rights of women? How can you as a progressive accept a legal system that considers their testimony to be half that of a mans? How can you as a progressive support a legal system that imposes capitol punishments for thought crimes like questioning a faith - let alone brutal public execution? How can you as a progressive support a legal system that turns a blind eye to honor killings? How can you as a progressive support polygamy? How can you as a progressive support lashes for rape victims or modern witch trials? I am not however as appalled by your hypocricy as a progressive as I am with your hypocricy as a Rabbi.

How can you? Tikkun Olam does not mean turning a blind eye towards evil. Surely you know the Talmud that if you are merciful to those who deserve justice you will inevitably become cruel to those who deserve mercy. To put this in proper context for this time of year, there is sometimes a fine line between the society of Ishmael and the attitudes of Amalek. A Rabbi should see these things.

What you wrote sounds very frighteningly like you consider a Beit Din to be somehow equivalent to a Sharia court. You discredit Halacha when you do that. It is a low thing you do presenting them as somehow equivalent. I would have to call you Mr. Lerner for that.

Also, no-one in present American law would prevent Muslims to submitting to voluntary binding arbitration. If that is truly all that is being asked for by the Muslims in America, they already have it.

You have discredited us all and you pander to those who would be glad to kill you.

I am deeply ashamed of you. You bring dishonor to the People.

Not sure if my first attempt posted...

MR. Lerner

How can you as a progressive support a legal system that refuses the rights of women? How can you as a progressive accept a legal system that considers their testimony to be half that of a mans? How can you as a progressive support a legal system that imposes capitol punishments for thought crimes like questioning a faith - let alone brutal public execution? How can you as a progressive support a legal system that turns a blind eye to honor killings? How can you as a progressive support polygamy? How can you as a progressive support lashes for rape victims or modern witch trials? I am not however as appalled by your hypocricy as a progressive as I am with your hypocricy as a Rabbi.

How can you? Tikkun Olam does not mean turning a blind eye towards evil. Surely you know the Talmud that if you are merciful to those who deserve justice you will inevitably become cruel to those who deserve mercy. To put this in proper context for this time of year, there is sometimes a fine line between the society of Ishmael and the attitudes of Amalek. A Rabbi should see these things.

What you wrote sounds very frighteningly like you consider a Beit Din to be somehow equivalent to a Sharia court. You discredit Halacha when you do that. It is a low thing you do presenting them as somehow equivalent. I would have to call you Mr. Lerner for that.

Also, no-one in present American law would prevent Muslims to submitting to voluntary binding arbitration. If that is truly all that is being asked for by the Muslims in America, they already have it.

You have discredited us all and you pander to those who would be glad to kill you.

I am deeply ashamed of you. You bring dishonor to the People.

Rabbi Lerner,

How can you as a progressive support a legal system that refuses the rights of women? How can you as a progressive accept a legal system that considers their testimony to be half that of a mans? How can you as a progressive support a legal system that imposes capitol punishments for thought crimes like questioning a faith - let alone brutal public execution? How can you as a progressive support a legal system that turns a blind eye to honor killings? How can you as a progressive support polygamy? How can you as a progressive support lashes for rape victims or modern witch trials? I am not however as appalled by your hypocricy as a progressive as I am with your hypocricy as a Rabbi.

How can you? Tikkun Olam does not mean turning a blind eye towards evil. Surely you know the Talmud that if you are merciful to those who deserve justice you will inevitably become cruel to those who deserve mercy. To put this in proper context for this time of year, there is sometimes a fine line between the society of Ishmael and the attitudes of Amalek. A Rabbi should see these things.

What you wrote sounds very frighteningly like you consider a Beit Din to be somehow equivalent to a Sharia court. You discredit Halacha when you do that. It is a low thing you do presenting them as somehow equivalent. I would have to call you Mr. Lerner for that.

Also, no-one in present American law would prevent Muslims to submitting to voluntary binding arbitration. If that is truly all that is being asked for by the Muslims in America, they already have it.

You have discredited us all and you pander to those who would be glad to kill you.

I am deeply ashamed of you. You bring dishonor to the People.

There is no denying that modern Islam is a creeping, insidious threat to Western civilization. The irony is that Western civilization is not battling what could be it's future master, it is praising, accepting and agreeing with it.

If one accepts the concept of multiculturalism - that is that Western society should embrace all that every culture (except in practice the indigenous Western culture which is deemed evil and oppressive) then acceptance of Sharia is inevitable and even to be desired as proof of the "value" of multiculturalism.

Others however see that modern Islam, as practiced by a culturally significant number, is taking advantage of the naive notions of multiculturalism and slowly but surely ratcheting up its control and domination of said Western cultures. The UK is probably the most obvious example of this phenomenon, but not the only example. Remember, Islam has birth rates far in excess of the host nations indigenous people and cultures and has no compunction about using violence and murder to instill fear in both the indigenous population and in moderate muslims who might otherwise reject the establishment of Islamic rule.

RABBI LEARNER,

I have been reading Tikkun (and Haaraetz and Al Jazeera) relatively regularly for the last two years or so (Tikkun 3 years).

I have ENORMOUS respect for the work you and yourteam do, even if on quite a number of issues, I have differently-nuanced points of view or I even totally disagree. This is as it should be.

I am a non-Palestinian, non-Arab, non-Iranian, non-Pakistani, Muslim who tries to live to the principles of my religion as best I can.

I am proud to share with you and the readers of WAPO ON FIATH Forum my experience that one of the persons whom, thrity years after the event I am most gratefulness to was a teacher who "wished for me the most intensely what he would have wished for himself". He was a Jewish Professor of Mathematics, Professor Edelstein then of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. He was very impressed with my work in Real Analysis and did everything to convince me that i should specialize in Mathematics and go on to do a Ph. D. in the subject. But, I had received a Commonwealth Scholarship to specialize in Economics. He tried by every means to persuade me that I can give up the scholarship if that's an obstacle, and what I would achieve in life later by specialising in Mathematics would far outweigh the inconvenience of giving up my scholarship. I could only agree to accommodate his enthusiasm by accpeting to do a Comined Honours in Econ and Math. During graduate studies to the doctoral level, I combined a series of courses in Game Theory with my specialization in Economics.

For that, I am infinitely grateful. And it was my Jewish teacher who contributed to my choice of that felicitous combination of specialist studies.

We shall know a tree by its fruits.

What is the fruit of the tree of Islam since around the 7th century?

MODERATOR,

Please do yourself and the readers of WAPO ON FAITH Forum a favour by choosing between the following necessary alternatives:

(1) Refuse to publish anything by all the guys (especially JOSEVZ and CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED) who repeat the same rant and hate- filled tirades that they post in every blog no matter what its relevance to the subject at hand might be;

or, better

(2) call a shrink and have them locked up.

Thanks.

MODERATOR,

Please do yourself and the readers of WAPO ON FAITH Forum a favour by choosing between the following necessary alternatives:

(1) Refuse to publish anything by these fellows that repeats the same rant and hate filled tirades that they post in everu blog no matter what its relevance to the subject at hand might be;

or, better

(2) call a shrink and have them locked up.

Thanks.

We in the Jewish world have been seeking to obey Hallakhah, the Jewish legal system, while living in the Western world and obeying its laws. The saem rights and privileges ought to be extended to Muslims without suspicion or attempts to demonize some of them for the extremist actions of other Muslims. We at Tikkun magazine www.tikkun.org have created an interfaith organization (the Network of Spiritual Progressives) seeking to challenge the materialism and selfishness that predominates in the world today, and to affirm a "New Bottom Line" so that institutions and social practices are judged efficient, rational and productive not only to the extent that they maximize money and power, but ALSO to the extent that they maximize love, kindness, generosity and caring for others, ethical and ecologicl sensitivity and awe and wonder at the grandeur of the universe. And we are seeking to switch global consciousness so that our governments understand that "homeland security" is best achieved NOT through domination but through generosity and caring for others. To exemplify that, we are supporting a Global Marshall Plan, and we invite the Muslim world, the Christian world, the Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu and secular worlds to join us in this enterprise. www.spiritualprogressives.org. Meanwhile, congratulations to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf for the perspective he articulates above!
--Rabbi Michael Lerner
Editor, Tikkun Magazine
Chair, the Network of Spiritual Progressives

I will support the right of the barbaraic sharia law to integrate with a society only when and if I see just one functioning church in Saudi Arabia.

Until then Mohammed and his law can crawl back to the pit where they came from, period.

"You are right that a lot of western countries right now are more diverse. How come they are migrating to western countries? Is it because they are trying to escape that kind of law."

Eric:

They immigrate to the free nation with a purpose.

A british reporter spent several months going into his local mosques with a hidden camera and filming what he saw and heard. So take a look, hear it from the imams mouth and decide for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bsgnjfgvi8

How about Hindu, Christian, Jewish law in 50 intolerant Islamic nations?

How about having 5 to 10 percent of non-Muslims even living in Muslim nations?

Saudi Arabia, the pure Sharia state and prophet's birthplace will arrest you with a Bible, women can not drive, can not seek medical attention(w/o a male guardian)...

Taliban, another Sharia group blew up 100 civilians two days ago and then followed up with blowing up another 35 yesterday. Not a word of concern from Muslims anywhere including on this board.

OMG! What an argument. Why not incorporate any kind of law into a nation's common law? All it takes is a demand. Do it for one, do it for all--and things fall apart when the center no longer holds.

You are right that a lot of western countries right now are more diverse. How come they are migrating to western countries? Is it because they are trying to escape that kind of law. Sharia law has been around for thousands of years and they still migrate to western countries. What if the Archbishop stay for ten years in a country with a Sharia law and try to mix it with his western kind of law?

Aisha Rafea
The issue of integrating Islamic Sharia law into a secular country or not cannot be a simple and very clear YES or NO. The idea of just saying: YES, let us do it on the spot may be horrifying to many non Muslims who feel doubting the intentions of Muslims in their countries, and they do have a point at a time many atrocities are done under the name of Islam. Even though thousands of 'moderate' Muslims including scholars like Imam Feisal introduce Sharia as they read it to be very broad, flexible, tolerant, inclusive and creative, the rigid interpretations of some extremists have so grave effects on both Muslims and non Muslims. ALSO, a big, decisive and lasting NO to just listen to those who try to consider the rights of Muslim minorities, violates the very essence of human rights who have the right to a style of life that suits them, but of course have no right to impose their way of thinking and living on the laws of the secular country itself. A big NO triggers a spirit of violence and superiority that may lead to (it is leading already) many unjust and terrorist thoughts and actions under the name of defending freedom and democracy. So, simplifying things into a NO or YES is just very illusive. The idea of living in isolated islands of Muslims and Non Muslims is not a solution either in a world that is turned into a small village. We, humans, need to be more far sighted and think of a long term solution that can be fair for all. We need to build bridges of understanding, work together to solve political problems that lead to the blossoming of violence and fanaticism. We need to uproot that spirit of hatred and selfishness, not by reciprocating or internalizing them but by being creative in making the land of all ready to embrace the seeds of mutual consideration for the rights of all. In such a land the seeds of selfishness and violence cannot grow. This needs awareness, true will and a lot of work. It also needs time but the journey of one thousand miles starts by one step.

Farid Ghadry:
Speaking as a Muslim, Sharia has contributed widely to our backwardness and incapacity to compete with a western world able to separate religion from state and more importantly religion from sciences.

Unless Sharia meets the modern standards of Islamic societies by morphing into a new "Church of England", Muslims should be very wary of imposing societal rules upon themselves, or others for that matter, that greatly enhances the divide already in existence between Judeo-Christian principles and that of Muslim laws. What is not right with our Sharia laws far exceed the inconsequential item mentioned in your article, which seem not to conflict with the economic interests of both religions.

How could our treatment of women as second class citizens provide a modicum of equilibrium?

Just the opposite, it will accelerate the clash of civilizations because Muslim societies, like Saudi Arabia, have yet to accept the Judeo-Christian beliefs let alone debate their integration with Sharia.

If anyone skipped the comment posted by Farid Gahdry on Feb 20 at 3:58 AM, go back and read it. He packs a ton of wisdom and insight about the Shariah in modern society, in a very few well-chosen words.

The issue of integrating Islamic Sharia law into a secular country or not cannot be a simple and very clear YES or NO. The idea of just saying: YES, let us do it on the spot may be horrifying to many non Muslims who feel doubting the intentions of Muslims in their countries, and they do have a point at a time many atrocities are done under the name of Islam. Even though thousands of 'moderate' Muslims including scholars like Imam Feisal introduce Sharia as they read it to be very broad, flexible, tolerant, inclusive and creative, the rigid interpretations of some extremists have so grave effects on both Muslims and non Muslims. ALSO, a big, decisive and lasting NO to just listen to those who try to consider the rights of Muslim minorities, violates the very essence of human rights who have the right to a style of life that suits them, but of course have no right to impose their way of thinking and living on the laws of the secular country itself. A big NO triggers a spirit of violence and superiority that may lead to (it is leading already) many unjust and terrorist thoughts and actions under the name of defending freedom and democracy. So, simplifying things into a NO or YES is just very illusive. The idea of living in isolated islands of Muslims and Non Muslims is not a solution either in a world that is turned into a small village. We, humans, need to be more far sighted and think of a long term solution that can be fair for all. We need to build bridges of understanding, work together to solve political problems that lead to the blossoming of violence and fanaticism. We need to uproot that spirit of hatred and selfishness, not by reciprocating or internalizing them but by being creative in making the land of all ready to embrace the seeds of mutual consideration for the rights of all. In such a land the seeds of selfishness and violence cannot grow. This needs awareness, true will and a lot of work. It also needs time but the journey of one thousand miles starts by one step.

Muslim Motto for dealing with pesky western questions:

"Dissemble Prevaricate Obfuscate"

Anonymous:

Prophecy:

The [un] holy Idolotary place called the KABB in SAUDi, Arabia will be destroyed , after July 2008, if Islam does not surrender (Dead or Alive) the Corpus of "Osama Bin Ladin" and his LAMPS !

Also the Al AQSA in JERUSALEM will be destroyed!

hence: The KABBA & Al Aqsa Gold Dome will have similar fates to the World-trade-Centers & the Pentegon repsectfuly!

Today is FEB.19.08 and the Clock is ticking!

This is not a Joke!!!!

The historical pattern of Islam shows us that when a nation gains a sufficiently large Muslim population, they will begin to agitate for Shariah to be implemented. Shariah is the system of civil law that is based upon the Qur’an and the Ahadith and the work of Muslim scholars in the first two centuries of Islam. Shariah extends beyond just civil law. Applied fully, the Shariah is a code for living that Muslims should adhere to, including prayers, fasting and donations to the poor. Shariah is the totality of religious, political, social, domestic and private life. Shariah is primarily meant for all Muslims, but applies to a certain extent also for people living inside a Muslim society.

Muslims feel that Shariah has been misunderstood by Christians, who have tended to concentrate on the demands for harsh punishments such as amputation of a hand or foot for theft and public flogging for people caught drinking alcohol.

Under the Shariah laws in Afghanistan, the Taliban's religious police, formally known as the Department for Prevention of Vice and Promotion of Virtue, enforce the Shariah laws.

For example, a man’s beard must be long enough to protrude from a fist clenched at the base of the chin. If it is not, he is subject to punishment.

Under Shariah in Afghanistan, women are not allowed to work in any field except the medical sector. The Islamic law of Afghanistan does not allow the employment of women in government departments or international agencies. Women should not go outside their residences with the exception of those working in the medical sector.

Shariah also places restrictions on what women can wear and whom they can see. It forbids women from wearing jewelry and make-up and from making noise with their shoes when they walk. If a woman does work outside the home, she is forbidden to sit beside the driver when traveling to and from work. Stylish dress and decoration of women is forbidden.

There have been reported cases of the beating female doctors and female medical staff at the hospitals where they worked.

The instituting of a national law that incorporates both civil and spiritual laws is one of the principles that makes it difficult for Americans to understand Islamic nations. It is even more difficult for the people in those Islamic nations to understand a government that does not enforce morality as well as civil law. Since they do not understand the principle of the separation of the government from the religion, when people in Islamic nations see Western nation’s magazines with nudity or near nudity, they believe that what they are seeing is Christianity! After all, they are told that the United States is a Christian nation. When they see a satellite program that originates from Playboy, they think that is Christianity! When they see a television commercial for any kind of alcoholic beverage, they think that is Christianity! They do not understand the separation of government and religion. They cannot understand why those who produce such materials are not punished by the government.

Muslims believe that Shariah is not something the intelligence of man can prove wrong, it is only to be accepted by humans, since it is based on the will of Allah. Muslims see their religion and government being ordained by Allah. It is their conviction that Islam is intended to be the religion of all mankind. It is to be the universal religion to replace Judaism, Christianity, and all others. While Muslims may deny it, they are willing to replace other religions first by conversion, then suppression and even armed conflict. In the Philippines, there is a growing Muslim population that is agitating for the institution of Islamic law. They have not hesitated to use violence to try to implement their beliefs.

Muslims claim that there is freedom of religion under Shariah. When Islam gains a strong representation in the population, they want to impose Shariah on everyone, since they believe that it is the only law that comes directly from Allah.

Talk about being Bred, Born and Brainwashed by Islam!!! Moody, Arif and Abdul need some real help and help is here with the Five Step Method to Deprogram/"Deflaw" 1400 years of Islamic mumbo jumbo.

Are you ready?

Using "The 77 Branches of Islamic "faith" a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi as a starting point. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true "faith" (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings." i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs.

"1. Belief in Allah"

"aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc." should be added to your cleansing neurons.

"2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."

Evolution and the Big Bang or the "Gib Gnab" (when the universe starts to recycle) are more plausible and the "akas" for Allah should be included if you continue to be a "creationist".

"3. To believe in the existence of angels."

A major item for neuron cleansing. Angels/devils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.

"4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."

Another major item to delete. There are no books written in the spirit state of Heaven (if there is one) just as there are no angels/"pwtfft"s to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.

Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line. Today we call them fortune tellers.

Prophecies are also invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.

"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."

Mohammed spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a neuron deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic violence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallucinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.

Accept these five "cleansers" and we guarantee a complete recovery from your Islamic ways!!!!

Talk about being Bred, Born and Brainwashed by Islam!!! Moody, Arif and Abdul need some real help and help is here with the Five Step Method to Deprogram/"Deflaw" 1400 years of Islamic mumbo jumbo.

Are you ready?

Using "The 77 Branches of Islamic "faith" a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi as a starting point. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true "faith" (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings." i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs.

"1. Belief in Allah"

"aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc." should be added to your cleansing neurons.

"2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."

Evolution and the Big Bang or the "Gib Gnab" (when the universe starts to recycle) are more plausible and the "akas" for Allah should be included if you continue to be a "creationist".

"3. To believe in the existence of angels."

A major item for neuron cleansing. Angels/devils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.

"4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."

Another major item to delete. There are no books written in the spirit state of Heaven (if there is one) just as there are no angels/"pwtfft"s to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.

Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line. Today we call them fortune tellers.

Prophecies are also invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.

"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."

Mohammed spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a neuron deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic violence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallucinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.

Accept these five "cleansers" and we guarantee a complete recovery from your Islamic ways!!!!

Most Common Questions asked by Non-Muslims

INHERITANCE

Question:

Under Islamic law, why is a woman’s share of the inherited wealth only half that of a man?

Answer:

The Glorious Qur’an contains specific and detailed guidance regarding the division of the inherited wealth, among the rightful beneficiaries.

The Qur’anic verses that contain guidance regarding inheritance are:

* Surah Baqarah, chapter 2 verse 180

* Surah Baqarah, chapter 2 verse 240

* Surah Nisa, chapter 4 verse 7-9

* Surah Nisa, chapter 4 verse 19

* Surah Nisa, chapter 4 verse 33 and

* Surah Maidah, chapter 5 verse 106-108

There are three verses in the Qur’an that broadly describe the share of close relatives i.e. Surah Nisah chapter 4 verses 11, 12 and 176. The translation of these verses are as follows:

"Allah (swt) (thus) directs you as regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females, if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; If only one, her share is a half.

For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; If no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases is) after the payment of legacies and debts. Ye know not whether your parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

In what your wives leave, your share is half. If they leave no child; but if they leave a child, ye get a fourth; after payment of legacies and debts. In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eight; after payment of legacies and debts. If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, has left neither ascendants nor descendants, but has left a brother or a sister, each one of the two gets a sixth; but if more than two, they share in a third; after payment of legacies and debts; so that no loss is caused (to anyone). Thus it is ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-Knowing Most Forbearing"
[Al-Qur’an 4:11-12]

"They ask thee for a legal decision. Say: Allah directs (them) about those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs. If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister but no child, she shall have half the inheritance. If (such a deceased was) a woman who left no child, Her brother takes her inheritance. If there are two sisters, they shall have two thirds of the inheritance (between them). If there are brothers and sisters, (they share), the male having twice the share of the female. Thus doth Allah (swt) makes clear to you (His knowledge of all things).
[Al-Qur’an 4:176]

In most of the cases, a woman inherits half of what her male counterpart inherits. However, this is not always the case. In case the deceased has left no ascendant or descendent but has left the uterine brother and sister, each of the two inherit one sixth. If the deceased has left children, both the parents that is mother and father get an equal share and inherit one sixth each. In certain cases, a woman can also inherit a share that is double that of the male. If the deceased is a woman who has left no children, brothers or sisters and is survived only by her husband, mother and father, the husband inherits half the property while the mother inherits one third and the father the remaining one sixth. In this particular case, the mother inherits a share that is double that of the father. It is true that as a general rule, in most cases, the female inherits a share that is half that of the male. For instance in the following cases:

1. daughter inherits half of what the son inherits,

2. wife inherits 1/8th and husband 1/4th if the deceased has no children.

3. Wife inherits 1/4th and husband 1/2 if the deceased has children

4. If the deceased has no ascendant or descendent, the sister inherits a share that is half that of the brother.

In Islam a woman has no financial obligation and the economical responsibility lies on the shoulders of the man. Before a woman is married it is the duty of the father or brother to look after the lodging, boarding, clothing and other financial requirements of the woman. After she is married it is the duty of the husband or the son. Islam holds the man financially responsible for fulfilling the needs of his family. In order to do be able to fulfill the responsibility the men get double the share of the inheritance. For example, if a man dies leaving about Rs. One Hundred and Fifty Thousand, for the children (i.e one son and one daughter) the son inherits One Hundred Thousand rupees and the daughter only Fifty Thousand rupees. Out of the one hundred thousand which the son inherits, as his duty towards his family, he may have to spend on them almost the entire amount or say about eighty thousand and thus he has a small percentage of inheritance, say about twenty thousand, left for himself. On the other hand, the daughter, who inherits fifty thousand is not bound to spend a single penny on anybody. She can keep the entire amount for herself. Would you prefer inheriting one hundred thousand rupees and spending eighty thousand from it, or inheriting fifty thousand rupees and having the entire amount to yourself?

Most Common Questions asked by Non-Muslims

EQUALITY OF WITNESSES

Question:

Why are two witnesses who are women, equivalent to only one witness who is a man ?

Answer:

It is not true that two female witnesses are always considered as equal to only one male witness. It is true only in certain cases. There are about five verses in the Qur’an that mention witnesses, without specifying male or female. There is only one verse in the Qur’an, that says two female witnesses are equal to one male witness. This verse is Surah Baqarah, chapter 2 verse 282. This is the longest verse in the Qur’an and deals with financial transactions. It says:

"Oh! ye who believe!
When ye deal with each other,
in transactions involving future obligation
in a fixed period of time
reduce them to writing and get two witnesses
out of your own men and if there are not two men,
then a man and two women, such as ye choose,
for witnesses so that if one of them errs
the other can remind her."
[Al-Qur’an 2:282]

This verse of the Qur’an deals only with financial transactions. In such cases, it is advised to make an agreement in writing between the parties and take two witnesses, preferably both of which should be men only. In case you cannot find two men, then one man and two women would suffice.

For instance, suppose a person wants to undergo an operation for a particular ailment. To confirm the treatment, he would prefer taking references from two qualified surgeons. In case he is unable to find two surgeons, his second option would be one surgeon and two general practitioners who are plain MBBS doctors.

Similarly in financial transactions, two men are preferred. Islam expects men to be the breadwinners of their families. Since financial responsibility is shouldered by men, they are expected to be well versed in financial transactions as compared to women. As a second option, the witness can be one man and two women, so that if one of the women errs the other can remind her. The Arabic word used in the Qur’an is ‘Tazil’ which means ‘confused’ or ‘to err’. Many have wrongly translated this word as ‘to forget’. Thus financial transactions constitute the only case in which two female witnesses are equal to one male witness.

However, some scholars are of the opinion that the feminine attitude can also have an effect on the witness in a murder case. In such circumstances a woman is more terrified as compared to a man. Due to her emotional condition she can get confused. Therefore, according to some jurists, even in cases of murder, two female witnesses are equivalent to one male witness. In all other cases, one female witness is equivalent to one male witness. There are about five verses in the Qur’an which speak about witnesses without specifying man or woman.

While making a will of inheritance, two just persons are required as witnesses. In Surah Maidah chapter 5 verse 106, the Glorious Qur’an says:

"Oh you who believe!
When death approaches any of you,
(take) witnesses among yourself when making bequests."
[Al-Qur’an 5:106]

two just persons of your own (brotherhood)
or other from outside if you are journeying
through the earth and the chance of death befalls you."
[Al-Qur’an 65:2]

Two persons endued with justice in case of talaq.

"Four witnesses are required
in case of charge against chaste women,
[Al-Qur’an 24:4]

There are some scholars who are of the opinion that the rule of two female witnesses equal to one male witness should be applied to all the cases. This cannot be agreed upon because one particular verse of the Qur’an from Surah Noor chapter 24, verse 6 clearly equates one female witness and one male witness:

"And those who launch a charge
against their spouses, and have (in support)
no evidence but their own -
their solitary evidence can be received."
[Al-Qur’an 24:6]

Hazrat Ayesha (RA) hadith narrated of one witness

Many jurists agree that even one witness of a woman is sufficient for the sighting of the crescent of the moon. Imagine one woman witness is sufficient for one of the pillars of Islam, i.e. fasting and the whole Muslim community of men and women agree and accept her witness! Some jurists say that one witness is required at the beginning of Ramadaan and two witnesses at the end of Ramadaan. It makes no difference whether the witnesses are men or women.

Some incidents require only female witness and that of a male cannot be accepted. For instance, in dealing with the problems of women, while giving the burial bath i.e. ‘ghusl’ to a woman, the witness has to be a woman.

The seeming inequality of male and female witnesses in financial transactions is not due to any inequality of the sexes in Islam. It is only due to the different natures and roles of men and women in society as envisaged by Islam.

All possible kind of questions asked by non Muslims about Islam answered on below web sites:

ALL MISCONCEPTIONS AND FALSE MEANINGS ARE ANSWERED:

1-www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm
2-www.islamalways.com/
3-www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
4-www.jamaat.net/deedat.htm
5-www.islamtomorrow.com/yusuf.asp
6-www.justaskislam.com/index.php

It is argued from the verse 4:11 that a daughter inherits half that of son and hence man is superior. Some modernists also argue on the basis of this verse that it is injustice to a daughter as she has been given half that of son and hence it is bias against female sex. It is simply not true. From one perspective one can say it was a cautious reform in favour of daughters. In pre-Islamic society daughters did not inherit at all and now they were given right to inherit half that of son. From another perspective it could be argued that it was not bias against daughter that they were given half that of son but daughters were duly compensated by mehr (dower amount at the time of marriage) whereas sons had to loose out by paying dower to their wives. And the wives do not have to spend anything by way of maintenance as it is enjoined upon the husbands to maintain their wives. Also, a woman inherited as wife and mother too. Moreover she did not contribute to family wealth in those days by way of earning but now she does and her portion could be increased in view of the changed conditions. Thus the Qur’an has done no injustice to her in matters of inheritance

Sharia law says two female witnesses equal one male witness, same goes for inheritance where a male gets twice as much his female siblings...that's justice for you!!!

Sharia law says two female witnesses equal one male witness, same goes for inheritance where a male gets twice as much his female siblings...that's justice for you!!!

Sharia law says two female witnesses equal one male witness, same goes for inheritance where a male gets twice as much his female siblings...that's justice for you!!!

Sharia law says two female witnesses equal one male witness, same goes for inheritance where a male gets twice as much his female siblings...that's justice for you!!!

Sharia law says two female witnesses equal one male witness, same goes for inheritance where a male gets twice as much his female siblings...that's justice for you!!!

Sharia law says two female witnesses equal one male witness, same goes for inheritance where a male gets twice as much his female siblings...that's justice for you!!!

Speaking as a Muslim, Sharia has contributed widely to our backwardness and incapacity to compete with a western world able to separate religion from state and more importantly religion from sciences. Unless Sharia meets the modern standards of Islamic societies by morphing into a new "Church of England", Muslims should be very wary of imposing societal rules upon themselves, or others for that matter, that greatly enhances the divide already in existence between Judeo-Christian principles and that of Muslim laws. What is not right with our Sharia laws far exceed the inconsequential item mentioned in your article, which seem not to conflict with the economic interests of both religions. How could our treatment of women as second class citizens provide a modicum of equilibrium? Just the opposite, it will accelerate the clash of civilizations because Muslim societies, like Saudi Arabia, have yet to accept the Judeo-Christian beliefs let alone debate their integration with Sharia.

First of all, this is what happens when you sit at home and bury your head. You end up being Left Behind and that is what happened to the Brits who were too scared to leave and form a new country.
Your genepool left and became the "Ugly Americans".
And now we're being invaded, by the offspring of the muslims that embraced the Nazis, with photo-ops, smiles and safehouses.
Nobody's way of life should be labeled as the "best". But laws should not be compromised.
Britian has finally lost the Battle of Britain with the subversion of it's way of life.

Newsweek, WaPo, the NY Times, et al, are in thrall to every multi-culti, fascist ideology on earth. Just as the press worshipped Stalin in the 1930's and London's "smart set" grovelled before and fawned over Hitler at the same time, Newsweek is part of the present group of fascist worshipping "liberals". They love this sort of garbage that Rauf is proposing as they love anything that is destructive to Western traditions including the Rule of Law. The liberal mass media can't bootlick the Chavezes, Hamases, Castros and Raufs of the world enough. They crave a strongman who will teach the masses the error of their ways.

Question:

Why do people from other countries want to come to a new country and impose their backward rules on everyone?

But of couse that is what we have learned to expect from the people from the great religion of peace.

"agathodemon:

Why in the world would any sane person want to see any aspect of Sharia law incorporated into the secular legal system."

He who pretends to be without sins. Just like our current leaders who lust for executions and prisons filled with peasants.

Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com

Come on! The most violent and intolerant religion on the planet should have its religious theocracy/dogma incorporated or co-opted into western law? This is again western self loathing and multi-culturism at its best, to placate a minority in an attempt to entice them to play nice. Have you watched TV or read any books? Over 29% of Muslims are in agreement with the 7/7 London bombings. Everyday the newspaper is riddled with death to Jews and Death to the West and the best we can do is give them islam friendly loans and tell them it is OK to have four wives the British taxpayers will be happy to support all of them. When are we going to stand up and look the 800 pound gorilla in the room wearing a turban... and say enough! My God there are Muslim countries in the world that still have slavery, are we going to reinstitute that into our societies again? This is 1095 AD all over again are we going to wait until they siege the Vatican again before we do something? Pope Benedict is certainly willing to call a sword a sword but he is no Pope Urban. Incase you missed it the Crusades were not a means to spread the word of Christ as so many would like to believe but a late response to the warring tribes of the children of Mohammad in their attempt to take over Europe.

Come on! The most violent and intolerant religion on the planet should have its religious theocracy/dogma incorporated or co-opted into western law? This is again western self loathing and multi-culturism at its best, to placate a minority in an attempt to entice them to play nice. Have you watched TV or read any books? Over 29% of Muslims are in agreement with the 7/7 London bombings. Everyday the newspaper is riddled with death to Jews and Death to the West and the best we can do is give them islam friendly loans and tell them it is OK to have four wives the British taxpayers will be happy to support all of them. When are we going to stand up and look the 800 pound gorilla in the room wearing a turban... and say enough! My God there are Muslim countries in the world that still have slavery, are we going to reinstitute that into our societies again? This is 1095 AD all over again are we going to wait until they siege the Vatican again before we do something? Pope Benedict is certainly willing to call a sword a sword but he is no Pope Urban. Incase you missed it the Crusades were not a means to spread the word of Christ as so many would like to believe but a late response to the warring tribes of the children of Mohammad in their attempt to take over Europe.

What a load of taqiya. Any person with half a brain can see that Sharia is a fascist idealogy. Junk journalism like this is why I no longer have a subscription to newsweek.

QURAN 2.228 - summary: A woman's testimony is only half that of a man's in an Islamic court of law

QURAN 4.11 - summary: A woman may only inherit half of what her brother inherits

QURAN 4.34 - summary: Man is superior to woman and a husband may beat his wife

Look it up folks. The Quran is the primary basis for Sharia, and the discrimination against women is there for all to see!

The Washington Post supports sharia law. Gee big surprise.

I don't understand however, liberals are always speaking out for womyn's rights, gay rights, criminal rights, freedom of expression, etc.

Sharia law states that women are cattle, gays should be killed, the limbs of thieves amputated and music is forbidden. That sounds like hate and intolerance to me.

You won't see a gay pride festival in Riyadh, no transgender bill of rights in Pakistan or topless lesbos marching in Kabul. Why don't liberals accuse muslims of "hate and intolerance" instead of supporting sharia law??

There is a difference between practices adhered to voluntarily and practices that are mandated. I've no objection to someone praying 6 times daily; I do object to the idea of being required to do so. Religious laws are not established through majority vote, but by unelected religious leaders. I need more information about what the Archbishop had in mind.

The only part of sharia law I care about is what it says about Jews.

And I know what it says. I've read the comments of the top teacher at Azhar.

Sharia is anti-Jewish.

Now, if Rauf will state after me: 'Jews are human beings, not apes and pigs, who are entitled to live in peace where they wish, and any and all claims to the contrary made under color of sharia I denounce and reject,' then, we can talk.

Until Rauf signs on to that, he's just another Jew-hating Muslim, not worth the electrons it took to publish his screed.

To those who tried to compare a Beit Din to a Shaira court...

It offends me that you would even mention a Beit Din.

Do not dishonor my faith by comparing a Beit Din to an Islamic court. Do not dishonor Jewish Law by comparing it to the barbarity of Sharia.

Let me point out some differences.

ONE: The law rulings of a Beit Din are voluntarily submitted to by both parties. There is no special anything in American law that enforces the rulings of a Beit Din other than people can agree to binding arbitration. If that is all you want, you already have it. There is no need for any "incorporation of the best parts of Sharia" into American Law.

TWO: Beit Dins do not permit honor killings. In fact, if G-d forbid such a case arose, it would be turned over to the criminal authorities.

THREE: Beit Dins do not cut off heads or other body parts for the delectation of drooling crowds.

FOUR: Jewish Law respects the rights of women. And please don't hand us your crap about Sharia respecting women. In a Beit Din a woman's testimony has equal weight to a man's. Women are not property. Women have the right to say "no" to their husbands. Heck, Jewish women can read - not something to be assumed in the Muslim world even today.

FIVE: Beit Dins do not issue fatwahs calling for the destruction of America, the West or Democracy.

SIX: A Beit Din knows that suicide bombing is evil.

SEVEN: A Beit Din does not try people for witchcraft, or call questioning Judaism apostacy (with an implied capitol punishment). A Beit Din does not try people for being gay.

EIGHT: Jewish Law is very clear that Jews must obey the laws of the land.

So again, just don't even dare mention a Beit Din. There is no comparison.

Think Again,

My bad.... :)

Think Again,

My bad.... :)

"Just as Western law is now being stretched thin and distorted to justify torture in the war on terrorism, so too can Sharia law be stretched and distorted to justify tyranny and injustice."

Sorry, NATO defended Moslems in the Balkans.

It justifies even genocide in Darfur.

American-

Push the link to the utube.

Its Phil Hendrie doing a parody.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWN3twz6cQY

Think Again,

I am tired of hearing Muslim whining, seething and propaganda pushed by self hating useful idiots in the West.

How about OUR grievances?

F - them!

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/02/heere-bigynneth.html

1 Whan in Februar, withe hise global warmynge

2 Midst unseasonabyl rain and stormynge

3 Gaia in hyr heat encourages

4 Englande folke to goon pilgrimages.

5 Frome everiches farme and shire

6 Frome London Towne and Lancanshire

7 The pilgryms toward Canterbury wended

8 Wyth fyve weke holiday leave extended

9 In hybryd Prius and Subaru

10 Off the Boughton Bypasse, east on M2.

11 Fouer and Twyntie theye came to seke

12 The Arche-Bishop, wyse and meke

13 Labouryte and hippye, Gaye and Greene

14 Anti-warre and libertyne

15 All sondry folke urbayne and progressyve

16 Vexed by Musselmans aggressyve.

17 Hie and thither to the Arche-Bishop's manse

18 The pilgryms ryde and fynde perchance

19 The hooly Bishop takynge tea

20 Whilste watching himselfe on BBC.

21 Heere was a hooly manne of peace

22 Withe bearyd of snow and wyld brows of fleece

23 Whilhom stoode athwart the Bush crusades

24 Withe peace march papier-mache paraydes.

25 Sayeth the pilgryms to Bishop Rowan,

26 "Father, we do not like howe thynges are goin'.

27 You know we are as Lefte as thee,

28 But of layte have beyn chaunced to see

29 From Edinburgh to London-towne

30 The Musslemans in burnoose gowne

31 Who beat theyr ownselfs with theyr knyves

32 Than goon home and beat theyr wyves

33 And slaye theyr daughtyrs in honour killlynge

34 Howe do we stoppe the bloode fromme spillynge?"

35 The Bishop sipped upon hys tea

36 And sayed, "an open mind must we

37 Keep, for know thee well the Mussel-man

38 Has hys own laws for hys own clan

39 So question not hys Muslim reason

40 And presaerve ye well social cohesion."

41 Sayth the libertine, "'tis well and goode

42 But sharia goes now where nae it should;

43 I liketh bigge buttes and I cannot lye,

44 You othere faelows can't denye,

45 But the council closed my wenching pub,

46 To please the Imams, aye thaere's the rub."

47 Sayeth the Bishop, strokynge his chin,

48 "To the Mosque-man, sexe is sinne

49 So as to staye in his goode-graces

50 Cover well thy wenches' faces

51 And abstain ye Chavs from ribaldry

52 Welcome him to our communitie."

53 "But Father Williams," sayed the Gaye-manne

54 "Though I am but a layman

55 The Mussleman youthes hath smyte me so

56 Whan on streets I saunter wyth my beau."

57 Sayed the Bishop in a curt replye

58 "I am as toolrant as anye oothere guy,

59 But if Mussleman law sayes no packynge fudge,

60 Really nowe, who are we to judge?"

61 Then bespake the Po-Mo artist,

62 "My last skulptyure was hailed as smartest

63 Bye sondry criticks at the Tate

64 Whom called it genius, brillyant, greate

65 A Jesus skulpted out of dunge

66 Earned four starres in the Guardian;

67 But now the same schtick withe Mo-ha-med

68 Has earned a bountye on my hed."

69 Sayed the Bishop, "that's quyte impressyve

70 To crafte a Jesus so transgressyve

71 But to do so with the Muslim Prophet

72 Doomed thy neck to lose whats off it.

73 Thou should have showen mor chivalrie

74 In committynge such a blasphemie."

75 And so it went, the pilgryms all

76 Complaynynge of the Muslim thrall;

77 To eaches same the Bishop lectured

78 About the cultur fabrick textured

79 With rainbow threyds from everie nation

80 With rainbow laws for all situations.

81 "But Father Rowan, we bathyr nae one

82 We onlye want to hav our funne!"

83 "But the Musselman is sure to see

84 Thy funne as Western hegemony.

85 'Tis not Cristian for Cristians to cause

86 The Moor to live by Cristendom's laws

87 Whan he has hise sovereyn culture

88 Crist bade us put ours in sepulture.

89 To be divyne we must first be diverse

90 So cheer thee well, thynges could be wors

91 Sharia is Englishe as tea and scones,

92 So everybody muste get stoned."

93 The pilgryms shuffled for the door

94 To face the rule of the Moor;

95 Poets, Professors, Starbucks workers

96 Donning turbans, veils and burqqas.

97 As they face theyr fynal curtan

98 Of Englande folk, one thynge is certan:

99 Dying by theyr own thousande cuts,

100 The Englande folk are folking nuts.

101 BURMA SHAVE

As the posts here suggest- many Muslims have a few grievances.

Maybe if we addressed them instead of going to war there would be peace.

Interesting and inspiring conversation on a radio talk show-

Muslim Grievances


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWN3twz6cQY

This article just lists some "nice" things that Sharia law includes... which don't seem to be particularly against British law, as far as I can tell. For example, does Brit law require people to loan money for interest? Forbid them from praying X times a day? I would hope not.

The problem here, though, is that this is supposed to be taken as a reason for government to codify "allowances" (requirements?) for Muslims to follow Sharia law. But... it doesn't. It simply illustrates why the government should stay out of the business of Sharia altogether. Just one obvious question : whose version of Sharia would be chosen?

Mohammed Malleck,

Is the best you can do, to try to make female genital mutilation into a joke?

Muslims like you are a sick, sick enemy.

Really... you now show your all too common, for all too many Muslims, regard for women as well.

Is suicide bombing evil?

Just tell us...

Or even better, maybe your Ulama will tell you not to talk to any of us, and you can have a quiet little sulk someplace else (coward!) without polluting our forums with your jihadist evil.

You meanies must hate Muslims to write all of that true stuff about Sharia.

You are xenophobic if you point out we murder women in honor killings.

You are Islamophobic if you don't want your women repressed.

You are racist for mocking our ways as backwards. You should respect our right to stone people and behead people and riot over views we don't like.

Why are you scared of us? When We are talking nice in the POST, you should know we are good, peaceful people. It is only when we threaten violence or blow things up that we want you to be scared.

You racists... How dare you...

I am so angry right now....

AND YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE GET ANGRY!!!!!

Mohammed Malleck is back!

Mohammed, is suicide bombing evil? You can come hear and mock a woman for not wanting her genitals damaged - like it is done by many Muslims, and yet, you have been asked many times.

IS SUICIDE BOMBING EVIL?

Answer the question or never show you sick, jihadist face here again.

Feisal Abdul Rauf's apology for sharia law just goes to show that men of the cloth should do what they do best; give sermons in mosques to gullible congregations.

I cannot believe that the Washington Post would entertain this Islamist nonsense as being worthy for its website.

I hope the editors and publishers of the WP would take a sabattical and study a sampling of medieval man-made sharia laws that Feisal Abdul Rauf is trying to pass off as divine guidance.

Mischka:
How About Some Truth wrote:
"Just the fact that women (in Islam) are property of men …….”
You replied :
“I DARE YOU TO PROVE THIS STATEMENT WITH FACTS AND LAWS STATED IN SHARIA…”

Quran 2:223 states:
“Your wives are
A tilth unto you;
So approach your tilth
When or how ye will
When or how ye will;"

If that does not show that women in your religion are treated as sex objects i.e., property, I don’t know what does.

Here's what the Archbishop said:"An approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts"—I think that's a bit of a danger."

A bit of a danger? Well, unfortunately it is what we call the Rule of Law. In liberal democracies such as we enjoy in the US and UK, there is, in fact, "one law for everybody" (notwithstanding that law may not always be administered fairly.)

Imam Feisal's "brief tutorial" is perhaps far too brief. As I understand it, though Sharia may be variously interpreted (there are less brutal versions than the Taliban's), it is in all cases intended to be an all-encompassing set of prescriptions and proscriptions. Can the Imam cite an example of its being adopted "in part"?

I find the Imam's contention that the only laws that British Muslims wish to amend have to do with "liberalizing" child support and inheritance ludicrous.

And as he rightly points out, there is nothing in British Law which prevents Muslims from fulfilling their religious obligations with regard to the Five Pillars, and nothing to prevent them from
making the financial arrangements they deem proper.

There is a process whereby laws are amended in democracies. It is a slow process, and involves a lot of convincing. So knock yourself out. But do us all a favor: don't call it Sharia. Or Leviticus.

Yes,

I hope they implement the stoning of homosexuals and adulterers immediately, just like the Sharia law practiced in that bastion of enlightenement, Iran.

"Just as Western law is now being stretched thin and distorted to justify torture in the war on terrorism, so too can Sharia law be stretched and distorted to justify tyranny and injustice."

And here we have it

1.) uses Abu Ghraib, water boarding to access his goals: that is the damage torture has done to our case

2.) He puts Sharia law and Western laws at the same level

Mr. Rauf, in case you didn't notice yet: we urgently need to leave the concept of a faith based foundation for any state, Western, Eastern, Antarctica, wherever. It is a recipe for disaster. That's what we, in the West, had in medieval days, not our brightest days.

Robert Fuji:

"What about secularists?"

Go to the closest public library and check out a copy of the Quran.

As repugnant as it may seem- read it cover to cover.

You need to get an education on what is acceptable under sharia and what is not.

warning- expect barbaric punishment for the crime of not believing as they do.

Feisal Abdul Rauf writes....

"But in case some of the skepticism that has greeted the remarks is due to a lack of familiarity with Sharia law itself (and perhaps the incorrect belief that it threatens civil and human rights, particularly women's rights), I will close with a brief tutorial."
"Sharia law shares the Judeo-Christian ethic, namely the top two commandments of loving God and loving your neighbor, upon which, says Jesus, hangs all the law and the prophets."

Sorry, but these statements are utterly and condescendingly pointless. Rauf's so-called "brief tutorial" to enlighten those "skeptical of sharia" is to equate sharia with the Judeo-Christian ethic of "loving God and neighbor"? Then WHAT, pray tell, is the *PROBLEM* to begin with? If "loving God and neighbor" is basically "sharia-in-a-brief-tutorial-nutshell", then Muslims already have all the sharia they need in Western countries! There's nothing new that sharia has to offer! Everyone, no matter who they are, can "love God and neighbor" all they want in Western countries! You don't even need to amend the Constitution or write up new initiatives or legal codes for "loving God and neighbor" in Western countries! How convenient is THAT?

BUT....if there is something ELSE in sharia besides being able to freely "love God and neighbor" that Rauf feel is inadequately addressed in Western countries....weeellll, he conveniently (purposely?) left that out of his "brief tutorial". Gonna need a BIGGER tutorial for THAT, I suspect.

Alright,

he states Britain: But we know and I subconsciously implicated that, he means the West, this country included.

Only over my dead body.

Indeed Sharia law covers the entire gamut of a Muslim's public and private life and the practice of the five pillars of Islam listed by Imam Feisal fall within the scope of Sharia. Apart from this asertion, I beg to differ with practicaly every statement made by the imam in his endorsement of the Archbishop's comments. Sharia law is highly discriminatory of women when it comes to the adjudication of cases involving alimony,custody, divorce, adultery and a host of other issues.I am aware of the rationale that provides justifcations for these continuing inequalities under the, law but these belong to a bygone era. Take for example the principles governing inheritance laws. Women are entitled to only half that of men. Sharia apologists often argue that this is fair and just because men have greater ecnomonic responsiblities. However, does that still hold true in our contemporary world? It is high time Muslims with progressive views like the imam repudiated Sharia and all the mysogyny and injustice it entials.
Farzana Hassan: President: Muslim Canadian Congress,author :"Islam , Women and the challenges of today"

No way.



This is a secular state. The folks that founded it had various backgrounds and reasons. But one outcome was crystal clear:

"Congress shall make no law respecting........." We know the rest.

No way. Never.

As always, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf speaks with clarity and and a genuine concern for the good of the community at large. His appeal to the broader Abrahamic tradition is very helpful. He is right, Archbishop Williams has been unfairly maligned for his very forward-thinking refections on Sharia law in the context of Western communities that have significant numbers of Muslim citizens.
The way out of the war on terror "at home" is in part through genuine engagement of each nation's full citizenry.

Islam's credo in the attempt to subdue and overwhelm the west:

"Dissemble Prevaricate Obfuscate"

Jeremy,

I thought you were joking at first. Crazy, just crazy. Next thing you know, they will be claiming that the site on which the White House is built was a Muslim Holy Site.

You state Laws for "the believers", aka Judeo-Christian-Muslim. What about secularists? What about those that do not belong to any of these "believers" category? God considers them lesser beings?

Why don't you mention other Sharia laws, e.g., about marriage and divorce?

In any islamic nation, none of the non-Muslims are allowed to practice their faith. Why should Muslims need be specially accommodated everywhere they go?

As always, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf speaks with clarity and and a enuine concern for the good of the community at large. Archbishop Williams has been unfairly maligned for his very forward-thinking refections on Sharia law in the context of Western society.

Prophecy:

The [un] holy Idolotary place called the KABB in SAUDi, Arabia will be destroyed , after July 2008, if Islam does not surrender (Dead or Alive) the Corpus of "Osama Bin Ladin" and his LAMPS !

Also the Al AQSA in JERUSALEM will be destroyed!

hence: The KABBA & Al Aqsa Gold Dome will have similar fates to the World-trade-Centers & the Pentegon repsectfuly!

Today is FEB.19.08 and the Clock is ticking!

This is not a Joke!!!!

Mischka, Mischka, Mischka,

It is all about the basic flaws in Islam. And once again here they are:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.
These are tough issues. Address them, correct them then ask again to be allowed into the civil world!!!!!

And accusing someone of spreading hate and lies does not work when these "someones" are simply listing the facts. If you have counter points about your beliefs then list them. Hiding behind imams and clerics blinded by 1400 years of brainwashing serves no purpose other than to secure a dishonest living for said imams and clerics.

Why are we even discussing this? Our Constitution goes way beyond Sharia and Mosaic law in defining a humanitarian society.

KICK MUSLIMS OUT OF USA ! That shall end this Islamic pandemic ! Why allow them to come to USA ? And, see how audacious these morons are on this blog suggesting integrating parts of Sharia into secular laws.

Consider, the reciprocal situation. Will Saudia Arabia (the barbaric desert kingdom) integrate Judeo-Christian laws into its Sharia ? Why then otherwise ?

And why are secular non-Muslim westerners even arguing about this ? Arguments only give importance to the question posed on this forum.

Atrocities have been perpetrated in the name of most major religions, I think. Also most secular philosophies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
Generally the "secular " philosophies you refer to were not secular humanist philosophies where the law is based on the rights of man. You are speaking of the state religions like those of the communists, hitler etc.
America is based on the rights of man and even then we can violate these principles occasionally for an illusion of security. But we still are second to none and no theocracy has ever come close. Our Constitution prevents Congress from passing laws respecting the establishment of religion as well as the prohibition of religion and religious tests for public office and institutions. So sorry, no sharia here but you are free to worship as you please. You will not get a better deal than that anywhere.
Please let the folks in the old country how this works.

Mischka,

You could not answer the questions on why your Allah and quran hate the non-muslims, and you could not produce a single verse, not even one, where Allah tells you to befriend a non-muslim. Now would you like to talk about how much Islam hates women? Your prophet raped sixteen year old girls after torturing and butchering their husbands and other relatives. And you want the Kafirs to believe that a monster like him would make any laws that would be beneficial for women? Try again.

Feisal Abdul Rauf writes...

"British Muslims, for example, freely practice Sharia law pertaining to worship: praying five times daily, giving to charity, fasting during the month of Ramadan, and traveling to Mecca to perform the Haj, or pilgrimage."

Gimme a break. If that's the case, then sharia IS practiced in the USA already. Muslims in the USA and everywhere have been observing Islam's 5 pillars w/o issue for decades. But since when does worship = LAW (as Rauf says above)? So, is a Muslim to be *punished* by the same LAW if s/he skips prayer or doesn't fast? On this, Rauf obfuscates quite a bit. It's not codified Christian LAW that a Christian HAS to pray or attend church....it's their choice, and there's no LAW, Christian or otherwise, that punishes anyone for not doing so. Same with interest-based banks....it's not LAW that banks HAVE to charge interest. It's just a *business principle*. And if banks want Muslim business, they'll change their business practices to accomodate them. But not because it's some kind of LAW....but because they want to make $$$$. That's it, nothing else. Nothing to do with LAW. But Rauf and Williams suggest that there's still something missing, some issues beyond worship and banking practices for which sharia needs to be implemented because Muslims aren't getting it their way under the current system.

LAW concerns, among many things, what punishments to dispense (or not) for stealing, murdering, speeding, jaywalking, drinking, adultery, gambling, porn, rape, vandalism, drugs, violating dress code, blasphemy, assault, racketeering, littering, truancy, etc. What's sharia got to say about all THIS? And is this where the slope is slipping towards?

while I completely agree with Imam Feisal's idea that bringing Sharia law into the public sphere in the UK will allow for greater scrutiny of its adherence to basic principles; I think there is a greater problem. for far too long, sharia has been preserved and tended by religious scholars with far more on their agenda than simple adherence to some benevolent golden rule. I think the tendency of history has been towards less symbiosis between church and state, and honestly, I think that is to our benefit. If there is some principle in Sharia law that needs to be brought into secular society, I have no problem with our representatives introducing it, but I really don't want to see federal authorities trying to enforce laws that were written many hundreds of years ago in a very different society.

This of course depends on which aspect of sharia you're talking about. If the law is secular when removed from the sharia framework, and is consistent with democracy and human rights, then fine. Good ideas can come from anywhere. But if the law is inherently religious or violates any human right, it cannot be implemented.

Propheteer-

I suppose you know:

"Muslims discovered America before Columbus"

Oh Yeah. They did. If this wasn't Muslims land before anyone else had it, they wouldn't be authorised by the Koran to fight to take it back for Islam. You ought to check things out;

http://www.islamictimes.co.uk/content/view/56/40/

And once they take America back as rightfully Muslim, they want Sharia Law. Why mess with the US Constitution if Islamic Law is already perfect?

No, we SHOULD NOT institute sharia law.

Sharia law is backwards and medieval. This is why Muslims are backwards and medieval, and why they treat women like slaves.

If any American politician says the same thing as Williams, he should be shot.

Bin Laden must be proud of Williams, as well as the doofus who wrote this column.

Go back to your cave, you anti-Semitic misogynist.

The most compelling indictment against Sharia Law
is that, for 14 centuries, it managed to cohabitate with the worst practices known to man
kind, with no serious attempt to eject them from
Sharia-ruled societies. So, why not cherry-pick
the good part of Sharia and throw away the bad?
Because it was done already, it is called: The US
Constitution. If Muslims wish to call the constitution a derivative of the Koran -- who is to stop them?

Mo.

If women having sexual desires bothers you-

Western life is not for you. We think our bodies are beautiful and the working parts are wonderful.

As a Western woman I dislike Islamic practices. It bothers me that Big Mo told everyone to shave their pubic hair. God made hair. Every mature human has it. Why did he tell everyone to shave off what God gave them? Why did this old desert guy prefer hairless so much?

Think about it before your mirror-neurones blot it out again...

The archbishop and Mr. Rauf fail to understand British (or 'common law' as its applied here and elsewhere). British law has evolved over time and was heavily influenced by enlightenment ideals. It has been a lengthy struggle (begining, more or less, with the Magna Carta in the 1200s) to secure broad and *universal* rights for all British (or American/Canadian/Australian/etc) citizens. Its universal rights & guarantees demand no competition from religious or secular authorities. Under such a system everyone knows their rights and responsibilities. Its foolish and criminal to make exceptions for religious groups no matter how benevolent they think their policies might be. Eventually, secular law will be called in to deal with the problems caused by sharia law--what about contracts between Muslims and others? How do you handle conversion? This entire argument is foolish and backward thinking. Muslims are free to lobby for changes to British law overall, but if they are that unhappy with the common law, they have the option of moving to a country that incorportes sharia into their legal code.

How about some truth wrote -

"Please do not whitewash it. Do you think we do not read the news? Rights of women?"

Please provide us with the definition of Sharia as stated in your Idiot-Manual...should be fun for those of us who are educated and know better. You should write a book - "The Moron's Guide to Politics"...

and FSR -

"Just the fact that women are property of men and can be murdered at will of the husband, father or male member of the family is reason to condem the myth that this represents "LAW""

I DARE YOU TO PROVE THIS STATEMENT WITH FACTS AND LAWS STATED IN SHARIA...

I WANT YOU TO LOOK UP A WOMAN'S RIGHTS UNDER THE QUR'AN AND SHARIA AND THEN COMPARE IT TO WHAT YOU WROTE. AFTER YOU REALIZE HOW STUPID YOU SOUND - I THEN WANT YOU TO TAKE YOUR HAND AND PLACE IT OVER YOUR MOUTH.

THE LESSON HERE IS NEVER SPEAK OF THINGS YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.

IF YOU CANNOT DO IT - DONT COME BACK HERE WITH MORONIC AND POORLY INFORMED VIEWS THAT CAN POLLUTE AND LOWER THE STANDARD OF A DISCUSSION. I FEEL ITS A WASTE EVEN ADDRESSING YOU BECAUSE OF THE OBVIOUS LACK OF KNOWLEDGE (YOU ARE NOT WORTH IT) BUT IM BORED AT WORK SO WHY NOT? I WAS GOING TO REORGANIZE MY DRAWER BUT THIS IS JUST AS AMUSING...

A good review on the basic flaws of the koran:

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/quran9tc.htm

And we thank Victoria for bringing this to our attention:

An excerpt:

"In conclusion, while we can concede that the Qur'an is a fascinating book to study, it simply cannot maintain its status as the final Word of God it claims to be. The declaration of textual perfection by the Muslims simply do not stand up to any critical analysis of their content. As we have seen, the Qur'an carries numerous inconsistencies with the former scriptures, while its narratives and stories help to discredit its claim to be the true Word of God.

Popular sentiment and unquestioning fanatical devotion by Muslims are simply not adequate as a proof for the Qur'an's authenticity. When we take a sober analysis of the sources of the Qur'an, we find conclusive evidence that the confidence of the Muslims for their scripture is simply unfounded.

It stands to reason that those whose responsibility it was to compile a "holy book" which could compete with the existing scriptures, would naturally turn to the myths and legends of the surrounding civilizations and borrow many of their stories. Due to the predominance of oral tradition in the 7th-9th centuries one can understand how many of the stories became embellished and distorted over time. It is these corrupted stories that we find all through the Qur'an, many of which were adapted from 2nd century Talmudic literature, which was popular amongst the Jews of that area. Consequently it is the glaring similarities which we find between the Qur'an and these errant sources which nullifies the claim that the Qur'an could hope to be the true Word of God. "

Mohamed MALLECK, the word "clit" is not a dirty word, and Jane has every right to use it in the context she did.

You may not care about Jane's clit, mine, or any other woman's, but I care. As a woman, I care about my own body. As a human, I care about Jane's body not being chopped up and mutilated so that she won't enjoy sex. As a human, I care about little girls being cut with rusty kitchen knives and razors while being held down by their fanatical relatives. I care that many of those girls die from infection. I care about millions of women enduring, rather than enjoying, sex for their entire lives.

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof.

Honestly, can anyone think that WaPo would have anything but fire and venom if Bush were to suggest implementing aspects of 'Christian' law? The left would be, rightfully for once, apoplectic with rage. But, in this case, the reaction is not the normal moral equivalency arguments, but actual endorsement. Amazing.

Jane's Friend,

You have no idea of how barbaric many -- thank God, not all, not even the majority of ---'westerners' are.

Because it made news I can tell you about the woman who, at a party when her ex refused her advances, she grabbed her genitalia and ...

If I described here what students at a North American university did about 18 months ago to 'prove' their secular values and assert their 'freedom of speech', I would be censored.

But, more importantly, such thoughts are automatically washed out from the neurones in my brain by the salutary reactions in my mirror-neurones against utterly disgusting notions.

oh good more racist islamists trying to hardsell the bigoted and hateful sharia.

The British initiative needs to be appreciated.
I am in complete agreement with Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf's comments.

Mo Malleck wantsto know if Jane doesn't have "anything better to do than talk publicly of (her) clit?"

Mo- let me speak plainly so you will understand.

Female genital mutilation is a cruel, macabre, sadistic practice.

Imagine if you as a young boy had been castrated without anesthesia (for your own good).

They save your sperm-so you can still procreate. But they have done away with all the messy sexual desires.

You like that- Mo?

No. Western women want nothing to do with Islamic practices, laws, or values..

To: Khalid and Imam Faisal.
No. We don't need any further education about Sharia. We see the riots in Europe. We see the signs "Behead those who insult the Prophet!" We see the thousands of Bombings of Churches in Indonesia and Pakistan. We see the attacks on non-Muslims in so many countries in Africa. We see the attacks on Buddhists in Thailand, and Catholics in the Philipines. We see the supression of Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Religion, in every Islamic country.
We see the second rate status of women in Islam. We hear all of those Imams, probably including you, Faisal, who keep screaming, "Kill the Kuffars"! We hear the other screams "Jews are apes and pigs!" What a laugh Islam is - "The Religion of Peace!! What a joke!!..... GET YOU GONE, WITH YOUR DEMANDS!! GO TO SAUDI ARABIA, IF YOU WANT SHARIA! WE DON'T WANT IT!!!

Jane,

Don't you have anything better to do than talk publicly of your clit?

I agree with the comments of Imam Faisal.

The addition of Islamic laws to the judeo-christian laws ( as long as these do not conflict with the laws of the land) will enrich the legal system and everyone will be benefit. We live in a global village now. With a large number of Muslims in the United Kingdom and other western countries, it is important to integrate sharia laws to the extent possible.

The negative reaction to the Arch Bishop's comments is mostly due to ignorance about the Sharia Laws. In the psot 9/11 world, anything " Islamic" or "Muslim" suddenly raises red flags.

I thank Imam Faisal for his effort to educate all of us about the concept of Sharia Law so that we can react more intelegently and reasonably.

The influx of Islam in the west has done virtually nothing to IMPROVE the west. How could introducing Islamic law? If Islam as a religion disappeared from the west tomorrow, the west would not miss a beat. Secularists like myself can't make the same statement about Christianity. Islam has nothing to offer that would in any significant way improve the west. It might CHANGE the west, certainly. But improve it? There isn't one example in the Muslim world of a country on par with any industrialized western nation, regardless of how many hideous tropical communities are built in Dubai. So, why the rush to import Islam and Islamic law? It is a terrible ultimately fatal mistake the west has made.

WOMEN- STAND UP AND FIGHT AGAINST ISLAMIC LAW:

Here is a Sudanese lawyer and human rights activist sharing what happens to young rape victims under islamic law:

"Mossad Mohamed Ali is a lawyer and human rights defender based in Nyala, South Darfur where he currently works for a centre that provides legal aid and medical and psycho-social assistance to victims of torture and sexual violence and those at risk of the death penalty and amputations.

In this short interview (two minutes), he tells Global X the story of a 16-year old girl who was traveling by bus in the Sudan when she was taken by armed militia to a remote place, beaten up and raped.

The accused were acquitted, because the law, based on the sharia, requires four independent, neutral witnesses for this type of crime. "She is now married to a relative," concludes Mossad Mohamed Ali.

Global X found out later that the relative was actually a much older uncle."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=---ZlRe5hUU

Shame on the Washington Post for advancing the barbarisms of Sharia as being compatible with Western law. The naivety and the gullibility of the Liberal/Left knows no bounds.

Western Law is a man-made construct, reflecting the consensus values of a progressive, modern society. Sharia Law is a "divine" construct, reflecting the ethics and mindset of a 7th century Bedouin. They are fundamentally incompatible

Should Sharia ever become the law of the land, stonings for adultery, amputations for theft, the killing of apostates, and the defiling of girls 9 years and up...will become normative and legal in our society. Please people, let's all grow up and stop pretending that by calling Islam tolerant and peaceful, it will become so.

Are you insane? Oh wait, I just saw your name, your Muslim. Infer all you want.

ON SECOND THOUGHT- EVERY READER SHOULD TAKE TIME AND LISTEN TO THESE VIDEOS.

to Rob Wagner and all other Shari'ah sympathizers:

You may be premature in stating "the world has yet to go to hell in a handbasket".

Remember this "family values" Shari'ah was sold in the Sudan. We can see were that has led:

"The statement of the Sudanese thinker, Ustazh Mahmoud Muhammad Taha, during his trial in January 7th, 1985. After the speedy and mockery trial Ustazh Mahmoud and four of his followers were sentenced to death for distributing a one page pamphlet criticizing the government of Sudan and its so-called Islamic Sharia laws. The ruling was then modified by the appeal court (which no one appealed to it) to become an apostasy charge, and was approved by the president of Sudan, Jaafar Nimeiri. Ustazh Mahmoud Muhammad Taha was executed in public in Koper prison (Khartoum North) in January 18, 1985."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmu3hpnjVX4

and please watch-

"Sudan's leadership discusses the West's fears about the rise of militant Islamic fundamentalism.

Includes the 'boy in chains' sequence at a Koranic school. Hundreds of armed women fighters illustrate the fundamentalist theme. Inside the notorious Kober Prison- guards show where prisoners are routinely hanged. For lesser crimes Islamic Shariah Courts may impose flogging or amputation. Survivors of secret torture prisons ('Ghost Houses') tell their story. The government is accused of using unethical means to induce Southerners to convert to Islam. Near Khartoum 1.8 million war-displaced Southerners live disadvantaged lives. For three years the authorities have bulldozed homes and forced these displaced out into the desert. We speak to Sudan's Minister of Housing - more appropriately 'the Minister of Demolition'. We profile harsh conditions in a Koranic school where children are forced to memorise the Koran or spend years chained up. The reality of Sudan's worst face of Islam is revealed in this comprehensive documentary. Nominated for Amnesty International Press Awards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1WtDXIM69g

Excellent Article by Spengler; Kafirs should read it.
***************************
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JB20Dj08.html

Not since lions tore apart slaves for the prurient enjoyment of the Roman mob has Europe witnessed a spectacle as revolting as Hirsi Ali’s appearance last week before the European Parliament. She has lived under guard since Theo van Gogh’s murder in 2004. To its shame, the Dutch government has stopped paying for her security. On February 14 she asked the European Parliament to fund her security, saying: "The threats to my life have not subsided and the cost is beyond anything I can pay ... I find myself in a very desperate position. I don't want to die. I want to live and I love life. I'm going to do anything legal to get help."

Before the eyes of the world, a leading citizen of the Netherlands begs the legislature of Europe to protect her against assassins whose declared goal is the destruction of Europe’s liberties as well as its civilization. The Dutch government turns its back. Europe’s Parliament listens politely and refers the matter to committee. A group of French members of parliament has invited her to apply for French citizenship so that the French government might offer her protection.

Thus far, the authorities of Europe have made clear that they will do nothing to prevent the murder of a prominent citizen. If Ayaan Hirsi Ali, whose plea to the European Parliament made headlines, can expect no help from the authorities when her life is at imminent risk, what succor can the anonymous victims of Islamist violence expect?

I am ashamed to say that it did not become clear to me that Wilders has taken the only appropriate course of action until I read carefully the Archbishop of Canterbury’s now-infamous "sharia" speech. Stripped of casuistry, he proposed that Muslim women subject to forced marriages, genital mutilation, or domestic violence should be handed over to Muslim religious courts, rather than be offered the protection of English Common Law. To my knowledge, this is the first time that one of Europe’s spiritual leaders has proposed to abandon innocent victims to their fate.

Archbishop Dr Rowan Williams, to be sure, has a point. But he should have stated plainly what he really thinks. What he wanted to say is more or less: "To protect a few hundred or a few thousand colored ladies, the English state will have to put its big boots on, kick down the doors of Muslim homes, trample through Muslim living rooms, tear up the fabric of Muslim communities, and disrupt the social order. Why not turn such cases over to religious courts and wash our hands of them?" I reiterate: this is satanic hypocrisy.

Last time I checked you one could not practice any faith or carry any religious material in Saudi Arabia, and other Wahhabi/Sunni nations. But they want Sharia law in the west.

But this propaganda is hardly surprising as both Newsweek and Post have been suckling at the same Saudi/Wahhabi bosom for a long time.

Not only our banks but also our media is controlled by Saudis/Wahhbis.

The folks who are predicting doom and gloom over Sharia in the US and the UK are forgetting some very important things: Sharia is already practiced in the US and the UK and the world has yet to go to hell in a handbasket. And let's not forget there is already a precedent established in the UK of incorporating religious law into the British judicial system. It's called Beth Din. It's used by Orthodox Jews and has been around for more than 70 years. It's been so successful that British Muslims have sought help from the Jewish community in London in establishing Sharia to be in line closer with Britain's secular laws. The real issue here is not whether Sharia should be more formally established, but that women's rights are protected.

I abhor the idea of Shari'a getting a foothold in a free democratic country. Thank goodness the USA has constitutional and clear-cut prevention of the mixing of religious law in with the law of the land.

Not only is Shari'a medieval - it would create a separate class of citizens under the law. Also, it is patently false that one can obey the law of the land while also obeying Shari'a law.

Additionally, Islamic lending is a crock. It is essentially rent to own, and the banks make plenty of profit - they just don't call it interest. Like so many things in Islamic law, it is a hypocritical fraud.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf:

Why do you stoop to lying?
You think your lies will not be seen?

You claim:
"Sharia law shares the Judeo-Christian ethic, namely the top two commandments of loving God and loving your neighbor"

That is a lie. In Sharia law as in the Quran and the Ahdeeth and the Sunnah of Muhammad, the "neighbor" is only for "muslims" and non-muslims are not included in it. And the word love is not part of the Islamic lexicon. That is your bastardization of what the Sharia states.

Then the lie that Allah of the Quran is the God of the bible or the Yaweh of the Torah. That is just not factual.

The Kafirs will be well advised to learn about Sharia for themselves for the Imam his lying through his teeth.

Yeah! I can't wait to have my clit forcibly cut off me. I can't wait for Vitamin D deficiency from wearing a black burka 24/7. I can't wait to be forbidden to drive or to be stoned to death for being seen in the company of a man not my husband.
Yeah! Bring it on!

Yeah! I can't wait to have my clit forcibly cut off me. I can't wait for Vitamin D deficiency from wearing a black burka 24/7. I can't wait to be forbidden to drive or to be stoned to death for beeing seen in the company of a man not my husband.
Yeah! Bring it on!

Many in the West do not fully understand the consequences of Sharia law. But let the hair on your neck stand up when you hear the word "Sharia." This is Islamic law that allows homosexuals to be stoned, women to be completely subjugated, girls to be married at 9, men to have 4 wives, thieves to have their hands cut off etc. etc. In Saudi Arabia the religious police let 14 school girls perish in a in a school fire. They forbade them from escaping the building because they were uncovered. In Germany, a judge adjudicated a domestic abuse case for a Muslim woman based on Sharia law, which allows her husband to "discipline" her. The West needs to wake up. The enemy is here. And anyone who advocates Sharia is one of them.

Only the politically correct liberal fool believes the 7th century cult known as islam has any place among civilized humans.

If the muzzie wants its sharia so badly, then leave humanity and go back to the third world toilets that spawned you and your drunken psychotic pedophile "prophet."

Banish islam from the West.

What does Sharia law say about taxes? I think mine are too high. If I get a better deal under Sharia I might want to take it.

Ah, the wonders of sharia!
1. A woman's testimony counts as a 1/4 of a man in court.
2. Flogging and amputation as punishments.
3. Homosexuality is a mandatory death sentence.
4. and on and on and....

Oh, and perhaps we should remember that old fashioned concept of "equal before the law" before we allow fascist Islam to impose Sharia on us.

Your liberal wishy washy faith in a new world concerns me more than any TNT strapped muslim from Gaza....WAKE UP FOOLISH Church

If you would like followers of your nasty, hateful religion to abide the nasty and hateful laws of Sharia, why don't they move (back) to a nasty and hateful country like Saudi Arabia or Iran, and leave the civilized world alone?

The true face of islam is out of place in the modern world. We would be better off if it refrained from exercising its medieval traditions beyond the ethical, cultural, and moral backwaters of the middle east.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Mr. Abdul Rauf

You advocate the adoption of Sharia law for Muslims living in the West in order to, for example,“insure that Muslim men pay child support and alimony”. What a noble sentiment! Where in the Sharia is such a stipulation? You know very well the intent is the exact opposite; to nullify the human rights that was acquired by Muslim women when they had settled in the West.
Muslim men could not bear to see their women gain a semblance of equality, and want to reassert their dominance and maintain their predatory grip over their women's lives. All but the very naive will fail to see through your fancy "argument".

"Ushering in aspects of Sharia law would acknowledge Britain's new inhabitants, of increasingly Muslim variety, and assemble an aggregated legal framework that represents all three Abrahamic traditions, Jewish, Christian and Muslim."

Mr. Rauf gives the impression that Islam considers itself equal to Judaism and Christianity. This is untrue. Islam considers itself to be the true, original Abrahamic tradition. Indeed, according to Islam Abraham was Muslim. Mohammed is considered to be the "Seal of the Prophets", meaning that he is the final Prophet who, inevitably, has the final word. In Islamic tradition (as supported by the Koran) Both Christianity and Judaism are considered to be based on falsified writings and distorted teachings, and are little better than heresies of the "original" Islam - which brings me to the next quote.

"Sharia law shares the Judeo-Christian ethic, namely the top two commandments of loving God and loving your neighbor, upon which, says Jesus, hangs all the law and the prophets."

More dissembling in the furtherance of Islam. Here the lie is one of omission. Sharia law does indeed command to love God and one's neigbor, but Mr. Rauf fails to explain that this applies only to Muslims among each other. Non-Muslims are not to be taken as friends, and Sharia mandates the levying of a poll tax - "Jiziya" - on non-Muslims "so that they may feel themselves humiliated". I fail to recognize "neigborliness" in any of this.

Mr. Rauf's approach is typical "taqqiya" of the last few decades of Muslim indoctrination - a presentation of the "nice" aspects of Islam while lying (by omission or commission) about things like "Naskh" (abrogation), the process whereby the peaceful verses in the Koran are superseded by the War verses. The peaceful verses serve to lull non-Muslims into a false sense of security; by the time they are subjected to the real Islam of Mohammed - the imperialist War Lord - it is usually too late.

Ever wonder how that "spread" of Islam in the Middle Ages happened? It's happening again. Peacefully if possible, as conducted by Mr. Rauf - or by force of arms when necessary. And ALL of it is Jihad.

"The set of laws sought by some British Muslims would only improve upon existing practice by requiring Muslim fathers to provide child support for children in cases of divorce, for example, and by ensuring that spouses and children are not disinherited from estates."

A clear act of taqqiya. If the author has any knowledge of Sharia - and I have no reason to believe that he does not - then he knowingly spreads a falsehood.

All British citizens are subject to laws providing for child support for children in cases of divorce, so no "supplementary" laws are necessary. If Muslim men currently do not abide by these laws then they are, quite simply, in breach of established British law.

Sharia Law treats women as inferior to men in matters of inheritance. British law does not, and is therefore superior.

When will Saudi Arabia include Christian Law. I am tired of muslim hypocracy.

Our laws are not Judeo-Christian in origin. They're derived from Saxon Common Law which was in use for at least two hundred years before the introduction of Christianity among the Saxons. The whole notion that there's even such a thing as a specific Judeo-Christian ethic is nothing but an arrogant conceit. Jews and Christians didn't invent morality or ethics, and our secular laws were specifically tailored to prevent them from being hijacked by religious dogmatists.

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.

". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." - Thomas Jefferson

In short, the author of this essay, by arguing that Sharia should be melded into British law to even out the Judeo-Christian influence, is arguing a false premise.

Sharia Law, as practiced by unofficial Sharia courts in (among others) Britain, does not accomodate voluntary submission to arbitration of disputes. This is in stark contrast to Jewish Rabbinical Law which requires voluntary submission.

In a recent case, a stabbing among Somalis in Britain was resolved under Sharia Law whereby the family of the offender paid restitution to the victim. This is a breach of British criminal law, yet the State saw fit not to force the matter. This is one example of replacement of national law by Sharia Law in the West today.

Sharia Law is also benevolent towards honor killings. In a closed community operating under Sharia Law, the criminal law of the host nation will be unable to bring the perpetrators to justice because the community will protect them. That is why relatively few honor killings result in prosecution. A recent spate of Muslim girls "falling" out of apartment baconies in various Swedish cities, for instance, has the police completely stumped. By sheer luck the killers in one case were caught, but the majority of cases remain unresolved.

Britain's Brown government recently decided to recognize multiple marriages by one man, as long as these were contracted in countries where polygamy is legal. Concurrently, these multiple wives are now eligible for unemployment and welfare benefits - paid for by the host nation's taxpayers. Polygamy is permissible under Sharia Law, but (until Brown's "waiver") illegal under British law.

Then there is the fact that under Sharia Law, a woman who claims to have been raped must present four male eye witnesses to the event. If she makes the claim without presenting this "proof", she is then accused of adultery - to which she has now freely confessed. Sharia is not mild for adulters: the penalty varies from lashing to stoning.

Some will make the argument that "some" aspects of Sharia could be introduced that do not conflict with established law. The problem is that once there is official recognition of Sharia Law, an ever increasing Muslim community will push for more Sharia Law. And the stabbing incident proves that Sharia Law already operates in breach of established criminal law, with the consent of the State. Indeed, the polygamy issue proves that whenever Muslims clamor for the enforcement of Sharia Law which conflicts with local law, in Britain at least the problem is simply solved by voluntarily rendering national law inoperable with respect to Muslim sensibilities.

For all these reasons Sharia Law is incompatible with Western legal traditions. Moreover, progressive notions such as equality between men and women and the protection and acceptance of alternative lifestyles are in direct contradiction with Sharia. People who wish to live under Sharia Law are free to do so - in countries where Sharia is the accepted norm.

I find the article dumb. Does that mean that Sharia law can make a person dumb? I think so coz I often hear the term Sharia Law from Muslims which I consider as idiotic. I heard it also from an Archbishop which I also considered as dumb. Coincidence? I don' think so.

Sharia Divorce laws
A husband may divorce his wife whenever he wants. If the marriage has been consummated, the divorced woman must remain at her ex-husband's house for three months before she is allowed to leave. The man has the ability to retract the divorce by having sex with the woman within those three months.
A woman who wishes to be divorced needs the consent of her husband. If he consents she has to pay back the dowry. Under certain circumstances (abuse, for instance), the wife may ask a judge to separate the couple.
If a man divorces his wife three times, he can no longer marry her again unless she marries another man and then divorces him. These are guidelines; Islamic law on divorce is different depending on the school of thought.[7]
For more of Sharioa Law : http://www.trosch.org/moh/sharia-law.html

Jonathan said: "The Constitution states that the United States government may not impose any specific religion on the citizens of this great country..."
------------------------
This is false! Read the first amendment carefully next time, Jonathan! The first amendment prohibits law that establish RELIGION, not a particular religion. There IS a separation of church and state in the constitution, whether it is acknowledged or not, and the constitution's writers believed in such a separation whole-heartedly. See their own writings, if you don't believe me.

Using religious doctrine to determine civil law leads to repression of religious minorities, and/or people in groups that are not currently in power with the ability to fashion law and policy. There are many problems with Mr. Rauf's proposal along this line: 1) his premise is wrong- laws in western democracies should be based on and are generally based on secular justifications, not Judeo-Christian practices or any other religious beliefs; 2)whose Islamic principles are you going to enact into law? There is a vast array of differences among Islamic believers as to their values, practices, etc. Surely, some people of Islamic faith would feel "Islamic Law" was being applied to them unjustly or inappropriately; and 3) his proposal would have a potential for the forcing of religious practices upon religious minorities.

there is another threat that is going to have to be addressed. the religeon of atheism.(communism). if you want to do a body count ,marxist-socialist virulent anti judean- christian government has killed more people than islam has had a chance to. and that from so-called civilization. facism is control. of thought,money beliefs ,natural resources. al gores way.

A plethora of comments in this forum has already pointed out in detail why Mr. Rauf is wrong. Those voices have already refuted each point he makes and shown what nonsense it is to believe that any Western country needs to incorporate one iota of the Shariah. I will not attempt to repeat those points here.

Let me just briefly point out the intellectual dishonesty in Mr. Rauf's treatise. He and other Muslim apologists can cite all the fine phrases they want from the Koran, the Shariah, and learned Muslim legal scholars. They will still fail to turn this sow's ear into a silk purse. The absolute proof of the evil of the Shariah is easily found: you need only to look at the countries in which it is the supreme law of the land and enforced as the law of the land. No rational, normal person concerned about basic human decency could look at those third world backwaters and their treatment of women and argue in favor of the Shariah's incorporation into a modern legal system. No sane person could look at the closed circle of isolated, insulated, and misogynistic old men who are the ultimate authorities on Shariah, who will be called on to deliver the rulings, and whose rulings will be binding, and conclude that they should be empowered to decide a human being's fate.

The second act step in looking at this issue realistically rather than through the rose colored glasses of political correctness is to look at the Muslim communities in Europe which, as Mr. Rauf accurately points out, already live under the shadow of the Shariah. The precedent is chilling, not enlightening. Once more, the empirical evidence shouts loudly and clearly that the Shariah should not be allowed to spread its suffocating tentacles into a modern, civilized society.

Mr. Rauf's attempt to draw a comparison between the Shariah, on the one hand, and the Judeo-Christian ethic on the other is disgusting and intellectually dishonest beyond belief. It's comparing apples and oranges, night and day. The Judeo-Christian ethic has been shaped and molded in the West by a unique history and movements. That legacy starts with the great body of Roman law and ethos and moves through the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment, democracy, the idea of women and minority rights, the scientific revolution, and universal secular education, just to name a few. Above all, the West is bathed in the light of reason and rational thought as the way to examine man's role and purpose in the cosmos.

Now, take all of the above, and then form a mental image of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Algeria. See what I mean?

The Shariah exists in total isolation from the great forces that have shaped and molded the Judeo-Christian ethic and how it influences our whole concept of law and justice. A Christian or Jewish-inspired jurist is a vastly different thing from a Shariah-inspired jurist. For Mr. Rauf and others to try to gloss over this yawning gap with shallow reasoning and pretty words from some Muslim scholar shows the paucity of their argument. In fact, it seems clearly to me to reflect exactly the un-reason of which I speak. It's demagoguery and ideological claptrap, not reality.

i think the shariah rule is perfectly legitmate,walllahukbar

i think the shariah rule is perfectly legitmate,walllahukbar

i think the shariah rule is perfectly legitmate,walllahukbar

i think the shariah rule is perfectly legitmate,walllahukbar

i think the shariah rule is perfectly legitmate,walllahukbar

i think the shariah rule is perfectly legitmate,walllahukbar

Who's afraid of a little 12th century religious superstitious BS?

Let us see some of the principles of Shariah law as agreed upon by all major branches of Islamic jurisprudence:

1) The punishment for stealing is cutting of limbs, starting with hands and moving on to feet.

2) The punishment for adultery for unmarried couples is lashing, while for married couples it is stoning to death.

3) It is illegal for a person to leave Islam. For men, all major schools of Islamic jurisprudence state that the punishment is death, while for women there is disagreement, with some sanctioning death and others sanctioning imprisonment.

4) A man can marry four wives, without the consent of existing wives when making new additions, and can divorce his wives by simply stating "you are divorced". A woman can only marry one man and cannot divorce her husband easily, if at all. In some branches of Islamic jurisprudence, a woman can divorce her husband easily only by renouncing any rights to alimony and child support (khole).

5) A Muslim woman MUST wear the hijab. There is no choice, it is a religious compulsion enforced by religious police in countries where Shariah is implemented.

6) The rules of testimony in Islamic court state that women's testimony count as half that of men and make it almost impossible for women to prove their case in instances of rape by requiring four witnesses.

Etc

Such laws are not compatible with human rights and gender equality as we know them in the West. Any attempt to bring in such barbaric laws into secular societies would be a step back to the stone ages and should be vigorously resisted by anybody who values his/her freedoms.

I am no Christian, but it certainly sounds to me as if the Archbishop has lost his way. In fact, considering the convulsions wracking his flock, it seems he'd be better served working for peace than lobbing more bombs.

Secular law is by definition a framework by which rational men and women have created a structure wiithin which to govern one's life. It is most obviously at odds with religious law in that if it acknowledged religious law it would not need to exist.

There is no place for religious law of any sort in any Western country. If people want to live under religious law, they can stay where it is practiced and not come here.

I have no need of visitors coming into my house and rearranging the furniture. If you have an uncontrolable need to rearrange furniture, by all means, please stay home.

Dear Deb

So you are claiming that Mohammed thinks that suicide bombers are holier than he. From his lack of response it seems obvious.

Curious to Hear wrote:

"So again, for the record...

Is it evil to suicide bomb, murder innocents or use unwitting tools as the cause of the murder? Yes or no?

Please do not give me a diatribe about all you see wrong in America. This is something else wrong with the Muslim world. Please address this one question."

Well, Mo cannot explain because of the following reason. Islam states that to further the cause, i.e. propagation of Islam a Muslim who bears arms and fights on the behalf of Islam, which is NOT NECESSARILY a defensive war, Allah will grant him a higher status than other Muslims who don't partake in such warfare (also known as Jihad). The following is what Quran(004:095) states. The English translation is by a well-known Muslim scholar, Abdullah Yusuf Ali.

YUSUFALI: "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" [Quran(004:095)].

The website is:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html

Good idea. To many rape vitims have been getting off too easy. A few hundred lashes is just the thing to smarten them up.

Dear Curious,

He won't answer you. He is in a bind. On the one hand, he does know how he looks, on the other, he really does think the suicide bombers are ok.

It really does not matter if he answers anything at this point. I asked him this weeks ago. His silence so far has said enough.

And for the record, I have an actual degree in math. Some time ago I asked him a very basic question that was central to one of his claims of knowledge. Of course, he did not know.

Dear Mo Mo,

I am not Thopaine sorry... And I am very sad that your Ulama (no I don't remember him, I don't hang out with barbarians who wish to overthrow the West) forbade you to speak with little old me...

What did I do? Little old me? I am just asking you to define where you stand. You have made it painfully obvious anyway, but, it is for the benefit of those who may be a little more blinkered to keep using your condoning of evil as an example.

Dear Mohammed Mallek,

Respectfully, if you do not wish to speak to Joe, who seems to have asked a very valid question, then please answer it for me.

I really wish to hear your response, not that you are having an immature snit and "won't answer." It is really quite obnoxious to claim all the things you do, and then, when posed with an obvious question suddenly pack up your toys and leave.

I have been seeing your comments on these boards for some time. You like to present yourself as very educated. Though I doubt your claims to be a mathematician, you are clearly brighter than average. You must understand how you look.

So again, for the record...

Is it evil to suicide bomb, murder innocents or use unwitting tools as the cause of the murder? Yes or no?

Please do not give me a diatribe about all you see wrong in America. This is something else wrong with the Muslim world. Please address this one question.

Doubting Thomas........I'm with you. That was well and thoughtfully written on your part.

I would add one point. Would the addition of one or more elements of Sharia Law to the Law of the Land bring with it the responsibility for enforcement of them by the State? I daresay that would be a really difficult sell to the public. Alas, the good Imam really must be much more specific about this to foster a meaningful debate about it.

STOP MUSLIM IMMIGRATION TO WEST !!

END SHARIAH NOW !!!

Johnny Appleseed,

Well said, except about the "sex/gender". I am a "he".

Just, FYI, "Deb" in ancient Sanskrit (a language of Hindus in India) means implies a divine male deity.

All said and done, after all criticism and analysis, one can only reach a simple conclusion: ISLAM IS A BARBARIC RELIGION.

Only Mohamed Malleck doesn't get it.

Jo, Jo or Jojo,

Whatever name you post under, THOPAINE, my Ulama, has told me not to answer you. Remember him, my Ulama?

When Muslims are in a minority they will always ask for 'rights' that they will never give to others when they are in a majority.

Well it looks like the Koranimals have fled with their tails between their legs. Pity, I would have loved to have seen Mo Mo answer that question.

Seriously, you scratch one of them a millimeter and you see their true colors. All he had to do was say that it is evil to use retarded women as unknowing bombs to murder other innocents. Heck that bombing even killed other Muslims and he can't say it was evil.

What an animal!

Hey Mo Mo, I know 5 year old Israeli girls who are tougher than you!

I doubt the utility of Sharia Law for providing liberty and justice - I have no doubt that it can provide utilitarian tyranny and injustice. I'm having porkchops for dinner.

Those who doubt the utility of sharia in the west should down few Purina nuggets before casting aspersion on sharia law.

Those who doubt the utility of sharia in the west should down few Purina nuggets before casting aspersion on sharia law.

I'd like to post a laundry list of links of just the daily atrocities resulting from Sharia law but god forbid we direct anyone from the compost's website....

This message board is extremely weak.

Sharia is bad.

I suppose then all the christians and jews in Islamic countries should have no problem suggesting the law of the land needs to change to accomodate them, right? Thought so.

Roland Williams and Feisal Rauf can go to hell.

Sharia law, when practiced in all its glory, is a perversion of every western value there is.

Stoning of adulterers

Four wives per muslim man ( as long as he can afford it)

Mandatory viels/hijabs for females

Death penalty for those with the audacity to hold the opinion that since Mohammed married a 9 year old, if he were alive today and living in any western country such is evidence would be sufficient to convict him for abject pedophilia. That would be blasphemy under sharia law, which is punishable by death.

Pure sharia law would make it permissible, to marry 9 year olds. The Ayotollah Khomieni thoguth that part of sharia was so beautiful the very first law he passed when he took power was to lower the legal age of marrying for females to 9 years old, all in the example of Mohammed. And that had nothing to do with legitimizing his own marraige to a ten year old when he was 28 years old.

Cutting off hands and feet on ooposite sides just like the Koran encourages and as they practice in Saudi Arabia.

Allowing a man to divorce by repeating "I divorce you" 3 times while a woman will need the permission of the local sharia court.

Allowing men to beat their wives ( but not upon the face- so as to not leave any noticeable, unsightly and embarassing marks)

These are the things Sharia offers British muslims.

So Mohammed, dare you attempt to defend the death penalty for such blasphemy? or do you find it more convenient to slip and slide away from the truth and reply with ad hominem and evasiveness?

A SECULAR state should not, in fact most certainly, MUST NOT include religious "law" into the general code that governs the country. Enough said.

A SECULAR state should not, in fact most certainly, MUST NOT include religious "law" into the general code that governs the country. Enough said.

MO MO MO

You are such a fake! WAS IT EVIL? Do you Koranimals ever, ever do evil?

Any person may choose to become a member of a society or "club" (secular or otherwise), that has its own rules, as long as those rules do not violate the laws of the State. However membership in such societies must be voluntary.

The State can not be asked to enforce compliance. Therefore, the greatest penalty that such a society can exact from an individual is expulsion from its membership.

The latter also means that such compliance is not a business of the State, and no explicit recognition of the rules of such a society is required. No "incorporation" of such rules is warranted.

Thus the Archbishops comments were unnecessary, confusing, and ill advised.

Really, Mo, we are waiting....

Was that evil?

Mr Appleseed,

That is a good handle. I assure you, there are still Americans left who know evil when they see it.

Mohammed Malleck

You have managed to post to three other people since you were asked if a certain atrocity was evil. You can not claim you did not see the question.

We can only conclude that you actually support the bombers - people who strapped bombs on to mentally challenged women. Those women were used unwittingly as delivery systems by the men who murdered them.

Why can you not condemn this as evil?

If you do not, why should ANYONE think you anything other than a perverted and evil little monster?

Mohamed,
I'm afraid your bigotry is showing - pull up your pants. Deb Chatterjee has a God-given right under our Declaration of Independence to say anything she wants in America, even if it is hysterical. She might actually feel a bit hysterical with a Muslim like you breathing down her delicate neck - particularly if whe were in a land dominated by Sharia law.

Say that again: Did you say she has to address her words elsewhere? Has to? What do you mean has to? Do women have to do as you command in Muslim countries under the Islamic Government with Sharia Law? What else do they have to do? Do they have to walk a certain distance behind you? Do they have to shut up and submit to rape?
Do they have to then go to prison and face more rape and beatings, and possibly a death penalty because they couldn't come up with a sufficiently large number of men to testify on her behalf?

Well, I couldn't help Ms. Chatterjee in a Muslim country under Sharia Law - I'd be beheaded if I tried. Thank God I live in America where I have the right to defend the life and liberty of innocent women. We Americans didn't get to be the land of the free without first becoming the home of the brave. My father, my grandfathers, and my founding fathers have taught me how to defend Ms. Chatterjee.

You really can't be that naive,...the goal is not compatibility or even co-existence - it is domination.

The pattern for Islamic takeover of a country
has been seen repeatedly in Africa. The Muslim
population remains very docile and compliant until
a majority is reached. Then they become ruthless in their subjugation of the rest of the population. Anyone who does not understand the basic purpose of world dominion by Islam does not really understand Islam. Europe is their next main, natural target, and it is very likely that they will succeed to a great degree.

Quote from "A World View" by Rick Joyner

Getting Islamic law in place will only encourage and escalate their objective.

Feisal Abdul Rauf's legal reasoning evaporates in his own religious contradiction.

He wrote," Sharia law is unequivocally clear that Muslims who live as minorities in non-Muslim majority communities are required to abide by the law of the land."

Muslims living in England, Spain and the United States are minorities and Sharia "law" can never justify murdering non-Muslims in New York, Madrid and London.

That's the inevitable result of giving any religious leaders any authority over any legal system in any country.

His logic and objectives are repugnant.

Oh, Johnny, so Chatter is a She?

She still has no right to be hysterical; if she wants to have results about her command, she has to address it elsewhere.

Help her --- if you can, that is.

If Britain accepts Sharia law, would they re-jail that teacher who named a teddy bear in Sudan?

Just look who wrote this!

Feisal Abdul Rauf is a Muhammed-worshiper and therefore uses lies, deceit and obfuscation in order to spread the Islamic da'awa, which is his duty as an Islamic agent, or call him soldier of Allah if you will.

Why give him a forum? If he was a cannibal (and Muhammedanism is no different) would you also provide him with a forum?

Hey, here's Mohamed sticking his nose in our business again!

Stay the hell out of our affairs here in America. Deb Chatterjee can say anything she wants, thanks to her God-given American liberty - which is justice secured by the first amendment to our Constitution.

I can feel your frustration, though; in a Muslim country with an Islamic gobernment dominated by Sharia Law you could rape her or cut off her head at your pleasure. That's got to be a real burr under your saddle right now.

Mohamed,

Get a life ! Don't sneak in with the Shariah on your head.

Hey, here's Chatter let loose again!

He says " STOP MUSLIM IMMIGRATION TO USA, NOW !!!"

But he does not even know to whom he must address that command.

Surely not WAPO readers not the moderators?

C'mon Chatter, think, if you can and act as if you really mean what you are saying. Address your command to an authority that can act on it.

When you post it here, the message that readers get is that you are ful of hatred, pure and simple, and cannot control yourself long enough to check out to whom your command to STOP MUSLIM IMMIGRATION TO US should be ddressed and then act coherently to have your command heard by those who can act on it.

Muslims who want to live under Sharia Law need to re-locate to countries where Sharia Law is practiced !

We like our countries in the West to remain civilized with SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE !
We like our FREE societies just the way they are, thank you
very much !!!

Islam came at a time when ARABS used to bury their daughters alive ! In today's civilized world, there's no place for Islam.
STOP making it look pretty because it isn't.

Women are allowed to be BEATEN by their husbands, to bear witness you need 2 women for each man, a man is allowed to have four wives, and if he's lucky enough to be Shia, then as many TEMPORARY-WIVES as he wishes !!!: here's your
Sharia Law !!!

Stay on your side of the world until you decide to become civilized !

Muslims who want to live under Sharia Law need to re-locate to countries where Sharia Law is practiced !

We like our countries in the West to remain civilized with SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE !
We like our FREE societies just the way they are, thank you
very much !!!

Islam came at a time when ARABS used to bury their daughters alive ! In today's civilized world, there's no place for Islam.
STOP making it look pretty because it isn't.

Women are allowed to be BEATEN by their husbands, to bear witness you need 2 women for each man, a man is allowed to have four wives, and if he's lucky enough to be Shia, then as many TEMPORARY-WIVES as he wishes !!!: here's your
Sharia Law !!!

Stay on your side of the world until you decide to become civilized !

Actually the posts show the moral bankruptcy of the so-called westerner who is baffled by the barbaric dictates of Islamic Shariah. These are what should be done for USA to exorcize itself of the Shariah ghost:

1. Regularly criticize Islamic doctrine in open forums. (This would include the Sharia.)

2. Delegitimze Islam as a religious practice (in USA) as being incompatible with secular western values (1st Amendment).

3. Withdraw all diplomatic connections with Muslim countries. Generate your own oil !

4. STOP MUSLIM IMMIGRATION TO USA, NOW !!!

5. Support FISA (Foreign Services Intelligence Act) to snoop at mosques.

EHCOHEN,
"But let me just say that if anyone were looking for evidence that the western body politic is ignorant, bigoted, and hysterical...well, he need look no further than this comment thread."

Well, Mr. Cohen, I've read some very well thought-out comments here regarding the actual immorality and injustice of Sharia Law - as it actually exists in Muslim countries. Most of the comments reflect the truth, not ignorance, bigotry or hysteria. I think you may suffer from a psychological condition known as projection.

Muslims can propose laws to our legislatures at any time, and they can call their legal proposals anything they wish - Sharia Law, or just some new law proposal.

This is not what is being proposed, they desire a parallel legal system, one which, over time will demand supremacy over the original system. Their system of law is supremacist and bigoted, and it is not based upon the legal and moral equality of all people. Sharia law does not recognize our God-given rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Sharia law does not accept government of the people, by the people and for the people - it does not accept that just government power is derived through the consent of the governed.

Sharia Law is the enemy of liberty, and is therefore, the enemy of the United States.

No one made the Muslims move to England, America or where ever they are, it was their choice. You live there you live by their laws. They allow you to practice your religion live free and prosper. If living by Sharia law is so important to you go back home. What is the big problem, or is it you want your cake and eat it too? Pick and choose what you go by, sorry the world does not work that way. Like they say while in Rome do as the Romans do. It is kind of like the people of the Middle East saying how they hate America as they stand there in their Nike shirt drinking a can of Pepsi!

Apart from all the issues already raised that show sharia is, by its nature, problematic, there is the issue of process.

What both the Archbishop and the author of this piece are suggesting is the incorporation of sharia law by fiat. They just want it to be so. Where is the process that British and Americans use to create laws? It is nowhere in evidence in their suggestions.

The reason the process is not discussed is pretty clear. If there were elements of sharia that the public wanted incorporated into the body of laws, there is already a process for doing this. The US Congress and the British Parliament already have the authority to create laws. The Archbishop and the author, both being of an anti-democratic and anti-republican frame of mind, are fully aware that the overwhelming majority of American and British citizens find sharia repugnant. Because of that, they want it slipped in under the table to appease the imams of Londonistan.

Feisal Abdul Rauf is part of the AoC Alliance of civilizations propaganda machine. The AoC is also sponsored by the UN. This propaganda machine is a core element of the AoC founded by Spain and Turkey, two countries at the cross roads with a predominantly mix of Muslim and modern secular influence.

Spain Turkey and the AoC either have everything to loose or the world to gain. With an open Western frontier at their boarders they are positioning themselves for power with a religious element along with their EU neighbor. The AoC goes around preaching about building bridges while solely promoting a Muslim agenda attempting to reshape the west into a form they see fit. The AoC and the Cordoba institute is an exclusive institution with their hand picked token Rabbis with no real representation from Israel, neither the Christian community nor the western world.

The AoC and the Cordoba institute is a Trojan horse so beware. It’s goal through “interfaith” gatherings practices is to create a global unifying religion using Sufism as the glue.

Mr. Feisal Abdul Rauf you so wisely quoted Jesus as if that would have some clout with western readers. Should not you and your Muslim “brothers” lay your lives down first? “I tell you there is no love greater than to lay down your life for your”. So tell me why don’t you and your Muslim friends promote western law or culture in Islamic countries first? Is it because there is NO tolerance for Westerner’s in Islam period. When the Muslim word decides to tolerate western values and incorporate law into their world then come and talk to us. But as we all know it will be a cold day in Jahim (hell).

The west should be proud of it’s heritage, up hold it PRESERVE OUR culture, not watering it down with a law for every religion and nationality, because Lord knows the Muslim nations certainly wont do it for us.

What do you do with a problem like Sharia?

If this happens in the US, you can GUARANTEE the start of the second civil war.

Unfortunately, those who speak for muslim women (e.g. Mona Eltahawy) do not agree, and believe Sharia law would be an unmitigated disaster for muslim women. oh well.

Sharia Law is like letting the inmates run the asylum. We should all strive to leave a better world behind. I am absolutely sicken by the very conversation of sharia law, why would I lower my standards of living, I do not walk with camels and dream of the day that the only schools will be for boys and will only teach islamic approved, mindless dribble. The idea of Jewish Law and Christian Law what a bogus argument, I see no provisions in the law current law for Jews to pray 3 time a day and requiring hand washing stations for Jews in restaurants let alone Kosher food. I see nothing in the current law against blaspheming God name for the Christians. Why make Britain and /or another civilized country a third world with honor killing (with sharia blessing in some countries).

Have terrible things been done in the name of shari`a? Yes, undoubtedly.

Does that mean that shari`a should be judged as synonymous with the worst things that have been done in its name? No, clearly not.

Atrocities have been perpetrated in the name of most major religions, I think. Also most secular philosophies. It doesn't make sense to dismiss (or accept) any particular proposal for legal reform on the basis of where it came from. We'll have to see the proposals themselves before we can really evaluate them.

But let me just say that if anyone were looking for evidence that the western body politic is ignorant, bigoted, and hysterical...well, he need look no further than this comment thread.

Sharia Law is like letting the inmates run the asylum. We should all strive to leave a better world behind. I am absolutely sicken by the very conversation of sharia law, why would I lower my standards of living, I do not walk with camels and dream of the day that the only schools will be for boys and will only teach islamic approved, mindless dribble. The idea of Jewish Law and Christian Law what a bogus argument, I see no provisions in the law current law for Jews to pray 3 time a day and requiring hand washing stations for Jews in restaurants let alone Kosher food. I see nothing in the current law against blaspheming God name for the Christians. Why make Britain and /or another civilized country a third world with honor killing (with sharia blessing in some countries).

In Nevada, we are looking for a suspect described as bearded with a "shaved pubic region". ie: he does not shave his face, but does shave his nether regions..

People are posting that this is required of devout Muslim men.

Is this true?

Jonathan wrote:
'"In God We Trust" is on everything as American was founded on the Judeo-Christian beliefs.'

No, it wasn't. Look up the Treaty of Tripoli (1797), especially Article 11:

"[As] the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

Jonathan wrote:
'"In God We Trust" is on everything as American was founded on the Judeo-Christian beliefs.'

No, it wasn't. Look up the Treaty of Tripoli (1797), especially Article 10:

"[As] the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

Mohammed Malleck

ANSWER THE MAN'S QUESTION.

Was that bombing evil? Can you ever admit that you Muslims do bad things too?

You evil little coward, c'mon at least have the courage of your convictions. Please bravely pontificate from Canada. Tell us how it is our fault you are such Medieval monsters.

Was that bombing EVIL?

ANSWER.

Ohhhh Mohammed Malleck?

ANSWER THE MAN'S QUESTION!

Was that evil? Can you ever admit that you Muslims do bad things too?

You evil little coward, c'mon at least have the courage of your convictions.

I agree, Alibaba..

Every reader should make it a personal mission to see that this NEVER happens to their town:

Too Late for Bern, Switzerland 10. JULY 2007

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCB-ibyV4aw

Mohammed Malik

If you can not call that act of barbarity evil, then you yourself are evil.

You fool no one. You are nothing but a mouthpiece for evil.

If what you represent is Sharia, then Sharia is evil as well.

This is nothing short of insane. I guess the Washington Slimes has reached a new low...and that was a tough thing to do.

So let's get this straight...I may have to abide by a draconinan alien legal code that supports the subjugation of women and the stoning of children. Uh no I won't if peopel are stupid enough to try that here there will be blood...and I'm gonna finish your milk shake Mohammad.

Mohammed Malik

If you can not call that act of barbarity evil, then you yourself are evil.

You fool no one.

If what you represent is Sharia, then Sharia is evil as well.

Britain has its own laws and identity regardless of what any religious minorities law has to offer. The point of the matter is that Islam is not a part of Britain's identity and never will be. Those who agree with implementing Sharia law don't seem to understand or care that British identity will not survive if you give in to foreign ideas just because it sounded right or made sense at the time. The principle of identity and values of a nation and the survival of them are more important than what can be gained financially.

Britain has its own laws and identity regardless of what any religious minoritys law has to offer. The point of the matter is that Islam is not a part of Britains identity and never will be. Those who agree with implementing Sharia law dont seem to understand or care that British identity will not survive if you give in to foreign ideas just because it sounded right or made sense at the time. The principle of identity and values of a nation and the survival of them are more important than what can be gained financially.

Britain has its own laws and identity regardless of what any religious minoritys law has to offer. The point of the matter is that Islam is not a part of Britains identity and never will be. Those who agree with implementing Sharia law dont seem to understand or care that British identity will not survive if you give in to foreign ideas just because it sounded right or made sense at the time. The principle of identity and values of a nation and the survival of them are more important than what can be gained financially.

Britain has its own laws and identity regardless of what anyeligious minoritys law has to offer. The point of the matter is that Islam is not a part of Britains identity and never will be. Those who agree with implementing Sharia law dont seem to understand or care that British identity will not survive if you give in to foreign ideas just because it sounded right or made sense at the time. The principle of identity and values of a nation and the survival of them are more important than what can be gained financially.

Both Mr Rauf and many posted comments, often vitriolic in content, make it clear that the Western public is not informed enough on Sharia law for an intelligent public debate at this time.

I ask those who detest 'Sharia' to think on this: Have you read or studied Sharia, or is your knowledge based on media reports by non-Muslim journalists? Islam and Sharia in outsider reports become signs of the exotic, the different, the mysterious and dangerous - they become used as easy explanations by reporters too pressed by time or to lazy to investigate further. And a lot of their interviewees are laymen no more experts on Sharia than I am on Levitic law.

But Mr Raus, what does it mean to 'incorporate' Sharia law? As you note, many Islamic practices are entirely possible under current law, such as charity, fasting, prayer, pilgrimage. European states once wrote religious practice into law such as laws prohibiting certain activities on the Sabbath, but the movement has been away from mandated religious strictures on behavior for a half-century. We are not likely to switch directions in accommodation to our newer citizens.

So you need to be much more specific about incorporation, or the average reader will think you mean cutting off the right hand of a thief, or legal divorce outside of the courts.

Salaam

EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE

Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG

A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives, as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe, where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European Appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic Fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany?

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists. One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler and declaring European "Peace in our time".

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted & nbsp;by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness. Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for Anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.

His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against Democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.

On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.

While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive".

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.

Appeasement?

Europe, thy name is Cowardice.

Fiesal,
Excellent.Articulate.Balanced and Objective piece.

P.S. Some posts show profund ignorance of Shariah or pretend to-and dish out and therefore display their shameful xenophobia against Islam and Muslims.

Fiesal,
Excellent.Articulate.Balanced and Objective piece.

P.S. Some posts show profund ignorance of Shariah or pretend to-and dish out and therefore display their shameful xenophobia against Islam and Muslims.

Excellent idea. Let's change western law so that everyone must pray 5 times each day. And if they don't pray we will whack them and also whack their mother and father. If they miss two prayers we will gang rape their sister and set their mother on fire and sentence them to death by stoning.

And if I don't like my wife anymore I will send her three text messages to say I am divorcing her. And if I see a woman outside without an escort I will sprinkle her with lighter fluid and then spark her up!

This would be a real step forward.

What disgusting drivel.

Look, in Sharia the law comes from the top down - it orders people how to act. In the west laws develop from the bottom up - we revise our laws to reflect the society we wish to live in.

ANONYMOUS,

Glad to read your post timed at 5:18 p.m.
Mirza wrote " ... inocrporate the shariah into the law of the land without violating local laws", and you commented " how about reciprocity?"

Well, reciprocity would require incorporating Western laws into the judicial systems of Muslim countries without violating local laws.

The buggers in those Muslim countries are so servile that they not only "incorporate Western laws into the judicial systems of Muslim countries even ithese sometimes violate local laws', but they go overboard and do much more, like making as if, eight years ago, we had the start of a natural third millenium (which is total bull), or as if Sunday should be a ntural 'day of rest' (it is still so in several Muslim countries, I don't know why).

Why should they do it first and then the West will do it after another 500 years?

Because you are are filled with hatred?

Well, you can choke on your hatred, buster!

Mohammed Malleck,

Everyone agrees the greatest crime is commited by America in Iraq? Give me a break. That would be the genocide being commited in Sudan by Muslim Arabs.

Last time you showed up you were blaming everyone and everything but yourself for the suicide bombing in Iraq that used unwitting women as weapons delivery. You never did answer my question. Was that evil? How does that fall in to Sharia?

Let me try one more time... Was suicide murder evil?

I said:

"What you fail to see, and I know you are going to blame everyone else but yourself for this, but what you fail to see is that when you do not speak out against this, and people like you never do, you just confirm to all but the most blinkered fools that you sympathise more with the monsters than their victims."

I have never claimed that the US was perfect. It does not matter in any case. The morality of American policy, for good or bad, does not alter the morality of these monsters. They were either good or evil in their own right. The sets do not intersect. The existence of the crimes of Al Capone do not mitigate crimes of Charles Manson. Someone who knows game theory should at least be able to hear that very basic language.

So I ask again, were the people who strapped bombs onto unwitting women and then remotely detonated those women in a public market killing dozens, evil?

The fact that you can not say this, yet, you are continually willing to blame everyone and everything else - to talk about anything else- simply proves that you are either deluded or evil or both. Why are you a mouth-piece for evil?

Further, why should any decent person from America or Canada look on you with anything other than disgust for defending evil. Muslims like you, (many are good people, but I am talking about Muslims like you) can not have this both ways. You can not go on and on about your rage, and riot in Paris and blow people up all the time and refuse to even accept that what you do is utterly evil. You then expect the civilised world which very clearly got your message, to turn around and talk about how nice, loving and peaceful you are. We are not blind to the facts

Mohammed Malleck,

Everyone agrees the greatest crime is commited by America in Iraq? Give me a break. That would be the genocide being commited in Sudan by Muslim Arabs.

Last time you showed up you were blaming everyone and everything but yourself for the suicide bombing in Iraq that used unwitting women as weapons delivery. You never did answer my question. Was that evil? How does that fall in to Sharia?

Let me try one more time... Was suicide murder evil?

I said:

"What you fail to see, and I know you are going to blame everyone else but yourself for this, but what you fail to see is that when you do not speak out against this, and people like you never do, you just confirm to all but the most blinkered fools that you sympathise more with the monsters than their victims."

I have never claimed that the US was perfect. It does not matter in any case. The morality of American policy, for good or bad, does not alter the morality of these monsters. They were either good or evil in their own right. The sets do not intersect. The existence of the crimes of Al Capone do not mitigate crimes of Charles Manson. Someone who knows game theory should at least be able to hear that very basic language.

So I ask again, were the people who strapped bombs onto unwitting women and then remotely detonated those women in a public market killing dozens, evil?

The fact that you can not say this, yet, you are continually willing to blame everyone and everything else - to talk about anything else- simply proves that you are either deluded or evil or both. Why are you a mouth-piece for evil?

Further, why should any decent person from America or Canada look on you with anything other than disgust for defending evil. Muslims like you, (many are good people, but I am talking about Muslims like you) can not have this both ways. You can not go on and on about your rage, and riot in Paris and blow people up all the time and refuse to even accept that what you do is utterly evil. You then expect the civilised world which very clearly got your message, to turn around and talk about how nice, loving and peaceful you are. We are not blind to the facts

Mohammed Malleck,

Everyone agrees the greatest crime is commited by America in Iraq? Give me a break. That would be the genocide being commited in Sudan by Muslim Arabs.

Last time you showed up you were blaming everyone and everything but yourself for the suicide bombing in Iraq that used unwitting women as weapons delivery. You never did answer my question. Was that evil? How does that fall in to Sharia?

Let me try one more time... Was suicide murder evil?

I said:

"What you fail to see, and I know you are going to blame everyone else but yourself for this, but what you fail to see is that when you do not speak out against this, and people like you never do, you just confirm to all but the most blinkered fools that you sympathise more with the monsters than their victims."

I have never claimed that the US was perfect. It does not matter in any case. The morality of American policy, for good or bad, does not alter the morality of these monsters. They were either good or evil in their own right. The sets do not intersect. The existence of the crimes of Al Capone do not mitigate crimes of Charles Manson. Someone who knows game theory should at least be able to hear that very basic language.

So I ask again, were the people who strapped bombs onto unwitting women and then remotely detonated those women in a public market killing dozens, evil?

The fact that you can not say this, yet, you are continually willing to blame everyone and everything else - to talk about anything else- simply proves that you are either deluded or evil or both. Why are you a mouth-piece for evil?

Further, why should any decent person from America or Canada look on you with anything other than disgust for defending evil. Muslims like you, (many are good people, but I am talking about Muslims like you) can not have this both ways. You can not go on and on about your rage, and riot in Paris and blow people up all the time and refuse to even accept that what you do is utterly evil. You then expect the civilised world which very clearly got your message, to turn around and talk about how nice, loving and peaceful you are. We are not blind to the facts

Tufail Mirza wrote: "It is the perfect time to incorporate the shariah into the law of the land without violating the local laws."
^^^^^^^^^^

How about reciprocity? All of the muslim countries have to allow complete religious freedom and include Western laws into their judicial systems first. And then, after another 500 years, we'll consider the idea of shariah.

While it is true that "Sharia law shares the Judeo-Christian ethic, namely the top two commandments of loving God and loving your neighbor...” neither of these commandments are found in British civil. Perhaps the archbishop was thinking of Anglican ecclesiastical law. If Sharia law could integrate with Anglican church law, may be over time aspects of Sharia will find its way into civil law. I think it will take generations and many cultural attitudes will have to change on both sides.

If an element of sharia law is to be added to British law, then it is up to the legislature to debate the merits of it.

But no legislative change should ever be accepted simply to please some fifth column special interest group.

Islam is fast becoming more and more prevalent in in England, especially in certain areas like London and other metropolitan areas.

What Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams meant was that with higher birth rate among Muslims, their continued immigration into the country, Muslims' refusal to assimilate, accept the British law and increasing militancy, it is only a meter of time before Sharia law will become "the law of the land" in England.

The British may like it or not. Until the British government stops pondering to the hostile foreigners among them, closing their eyes on Sharia barbarism and appeasing the Muslim radicals, the Imam takeover is all but inevitable.

http://n00b1.blogspot.com/

What a bunch of complete and utter horses--t. There is nothing beneficial about trying to incorporate elements of a different legal system simply because it is familiar to newcomers. Any amendment to the law of the land must be considered on its merits, not simply its source. Based on my understanding of sharia law, any such amendments are at best unnecessary and at worst repugnant. To the extent that sharia accords with existing laws, then changes are obviously unnecessary. But where it differs, it differs to a level that makes me want to puke all over the koran.

Sharia law forbids recognition of the rights of the individual: only the Religion has rights, as interpreted by Immans who are simultaneoulsy the judges and the attorneys for the individual.
Sharia was conceived in the 5th century as a means of governing uneducated tribes. Islamic leaders want Sharia law so they can exercise complete control over their subjects, including the censorship of ideas that are not found in the Koran.
I would like to see British and Western Law incorporated into the Sharia Laws of Islamic Countries - but those who try it are dead meat.
Sharia law, where Muslims control the government, is allowed to tax and harasses non-muslims and Sharia Governments make it illegal to practice any religion but Islam.
Once in the majority, Sharia becomes a vastly different animal. It is trying to grow now.

Sharia law forbids recognition of the rights of the individual: only the Religion has rights, as interpreted by Immans who are simultaneoulsy the judges and the attorneys for the individual.
Sharia was conceived in the 5th century as a means of governing uneducated tribes. Islamic leaders want Sharia law so they can exercise complete control over their subjects, including the censorship of ideas that are not found in the Koran.
I would like to see British and Western Law incorporated into the Sharia Laws of Islamic Countries - but those who try it are dead meat.
Sharia law, where Muslims control the government, is allowed to tax and harasses non-muslims and Sharia Governments make it illegal to practice any religion but Islam.
Once in the majority, Sharia becomes a vastly different animal. It is trying to grow now.

I think everyone agrees that Muslims reside in the West; they've been here for centuries (http://www.newislamicdirections.com/nid/notes/reflections_on_black_history_month/). And the overwhelming majority of them work in almost every field available, pay taxes, give charity, and send their children to school; things which benefit them and the society as a whole.

The vast majority have bent their culture to allow for them to function in a Western society while living and observing the law of the land. For example, most Muslims in the west do not wear the turban. However, most eat Halal foods (and there are goverenment certification boards for it like there are for Kosher foods), most do pray 5 times a day, fast during Ramadan, and pay charity, and go on the pilgrimage to God's House in Makkah if they can afford that. Basically these Muslims have found a niche in the world where both Western and Islamic identities co-mingle without one subverting the other.

As Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf suggests in the article, incorporating aspects of their culture into British law would give these Muslims some representation so they feel that they are actually accepted. This will go a long way in defeating extremism and building bridges between the East and West.

Hey, Aaron, You're still around?

I thought they had locked you up for ALWAYS writing the same nonsense.

how ridiculas English Law is for the English
Islam is for those who believe in it
You obviously do not know anything about the Church of England
Ido not notice the POPE WANTING TO CHANGE THE CATHOLIC FAITH
Are you hoping the USA will adopt the Shariah Law

They is no such thing as "separation of church and state" in the United States Constitution! This is a myth perpetrated by the far left. The Constitution states that the United States government may not impose any specific religion on the citizens of this great country but there is nothing that says that anything about separation of church and state. Federal, State, or Local governments can use Christian, Jewish, Muslim or any other religious references in the day to day operations of these organizations. Look on every piece of legal currency in your pocket. "In God We Trust" is on everything as America was founded on the Judeo-Christian beliefs. It is fine for government to use religious reference just no FORCE anyone to a particular religion. DROP "Separation of Church and State" from the language as it does not exist in the USA. God Bless America!

They is no such thing as "separation of church and state" in the United States Constitution! This is a myth perpetrated by the far left. The Constitution states that the United States government may not impose any specific religion on the citizens of this great country but there is nothing that says that anything about separation of church and state. Federal, State, or Local governments can use Christian, Jewish, Muslim or any other religious references in the day to day operations of these organizations. Look on every piece of legal currency in your pocket. "In God We Trust" is on everything as American was founded on the Judeo-Christian beliefs. It is fine for government to use religious reference just no FORCE anyone to a particular religion. DROP "Separation of Church and State" from the language as it does not exist in the USA. God Bless America!

As a muslim, why wouldn't the imam want Islam to expand into as many aspects of society as possible? His article doesn't sound like much more than a sales pitch for Sharia. What was it he said about womens' rights again? He brought it up, as if anticipating protest, then dropped it.

British law having its origins in Christian values is different than having origins in Christian "law", of which there is none in any judicial sense in the New Testament.

Sharia is a complex legal/judicial framework that has no parallel in Christianity.

Values and laws aren't the same thing and Sharia law is an alternative law not a complimentary law.

Much of Sharia law is repugnant to Western law. For example, polygamy is outlawed in Western societies, but a linchpin of Sharia law that degrades and devalues women. The argument that Western law is developed from Judeo-Christian law and "fairness" requires adding Sharia law is a red herring. The sourece of Western law does not matter. It is the existence and acceptance in the West of Western law that does. If Muslims want to try to legislate aspects of Sharia law, let them try to influence Western legislatures to enact new legislation like everyone else. Don't come to the West and then claim some right to make the West part of the Muslim world.

I am not sure what aspects of Sharia the author is specifically talking about. As far as I know child support is a common aspect of divorce proceedings in Britain already. Being Muslim should not exempt anyone from that so Muslim men, I would assume, already must pay child support when appropriate.

Sharia friendly banking is perfectly legal, and it does attract Muslim investments. It is a bit of a farce though. Sharia friendly banks cannot charge interest but they can sell a property to a buyer at an inflated price and offer installments. Hmmm... I just do not see any material difference. That inflated price would generally be considered interest, but I guess if you want to draw artificial boundaries in society you can just play a few semantic games and voila, we have "Islamic" banking. Other than that investments in vice are prohibited. We already have socially conscious funds that do that. Calling such a vehicle "Islamic" is merely a matter of branding.

I would ask proponents of incorporating Sharia to lay out specific proposals that would improve justice in society. As the author noted the Abrahamic religions share a common base of ethics so I do not see any problems getting positive laws passed in a traditionally non-Muslim country. Why you have to call such things Islamic law though confounds me. We live under secular law so that we may protect members of all religions and not favor members of any religion.

I know that not all Brits believe in this tripe. As they however are closest to the bully and no discernable playground monitor they must try to "appease" the bully.

Walk into my house and obey my rules. If you do not like my rules then go visit someone else.

As an Englishman, I would ask what message Rauf thinks that this talk of sharia sends to the 400 girls who disappear from our education system every year - many into arranged marriages. Or the young women who already live in fear for their lives because of the growing culture of honour killing?

Here's a suggestion for you. Build Christian Churches in Mecca. Then come back and we'll talk.

"Sharia law is unequivocally clear that Muslims who live as minorities in non-Muslim majority communities are required to abide by the law of the land. That doesn't prevent British Muslims from practicing aspects of Sharia that don't conflict with British law, or from seeking changes in British law."
Well said and democratic.
For most Europeans the problem lies in the word "aspects"
What will happen once these undescribed "aspects" is achieved? Complete implementation of Sharia in Western society?
Somehow I fear it not and I'm not even remotely connected with the Muslim world.
Any system which could replace existing Western moral standards and penal laws would be most welcome.
Archbishop Owen Williams made an astounding statement in this regard and as a long inactive (frustrated) Protestant I admire his boldness.

Time to wake up Mohammed. All people are imbued with the inalienable right to freedom from religious or despotic tyranny. The founding principle of the US. Why should you and I, but not Iraqis or Iranians, have this right? Iraq has a democratically elected parliament, a first for the Arab/Muslim world, on its way to freedom, self-determination, and public representation, instead of a genocidal dictator. Your friends AQI are committing war crimes trying to destroy this amazing process. We have a lot of self-loathing elite in the West, but don't confuse their (loud) self-righteous moral masturbation for the general consensus.

There are not two moral laws, only one. Murder, lying theft and envy are always wrong, supremeacism and bigotry are always wrong - these evils are sanctioned in Sharia Law. Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are individual God-given human rights declared by our founding fathers, and are not to be found in Sharia Law. All people are created equal according to our founding fathers, but not according to Sharia Law. Sharia Law contradicts our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and are therefore incompatible with America - Sharia is un-American.

Excellent article. Off the top I am wondering about the impact when one considers say radical Islamic oozing into the mix just like Bushes perversion of Christian princples to justify killing and torturing people. Is there a way to also implement genuine Abrahamic principles and keep the other two monsters out?

Why in the world would any sane person want to see any aspect of Sharia law incorporated into the secular legal system. If the Sharia law doesn't conflict with the "law-of-the-land", people are free to agree to abide by it. If it does, then it is illegal. If the people in favor of this stupidity say that it will neither replace nor conflict with current laws, then what's the point? If you want to abide by an non-binding Sharia court ruling - fine. It has no more binding force than the ruling of a Jewish Bet-Din. This is as it should be. This PC nonsense is getting out of hand. When Saudi Arabia or Iran feel the need to incorporate western secular law into their systems then maybe it's time to talk. Since this will never happen, it's moot.

No thank you to any religous law, especially sharia.

We've seen enough examples in muslim countries of what it stands for. I would rather not see a rape victim whipped or an adulterer stoned to death.

PAUL IN NY,

But I thought that, by now, EVERYBODY had agreed that the greatest on-going crime against humanity is being committed in Iraq by the US of A.

I was waiting for two things: First, a defense of the asinine statements of Rowan Williams in the media. So that box is now checked.

Next, I was looking for the moral/cultural relativism that conflates fundamentalist Christianity with fundamentalist Islam. Garak helpfully filled in that square with his comments above.

Sharia is codified barbarity, misogyny, and religious bigotry, full stop. It cannot "complement" English law in any way. Furthermore sharia is not a la carte; it is all or nothing.

Oh, and the only "ayatollahs" attempting to remake the US Constitution these days are on the political and cultural left. See gay "marriage" for a prime example.

WKEVERETT,

There already exists at least the following two websites that at least partly cater for the needs that you have identified:

http://www.salaam.co.uk/knowledge

and

qantara.de

Moreover, both Tariq Ramadan and Ziauddin Sardar have launched websites for an exegesis of the Holy Quran verse by verse.

I was waiting for two things: First, a defense of the asinine statements of Rowan Williams in the media. So that box is now checked.

Next, I was looking for the moral/cultural relativism that conflates fundamentalist Christianity with fundamentalist Islam. Garak helpfully filled in that square with his comments above.

Sharia is codified barbarity, misogyny, and religious bigotry, full stop. It cannot "complement" English law in any way. Furthermore sharia is not a la carte; it is all or nothing.

Oh, and the only "ayatollahs" attempting to remake the US Constitution these days are on the political and cultural left. See gay "marriage" for a prime example.

Oh for crying out load, give me a break.

This has to be the worst example of taqiya so far.

Nis

What a load of crap! Sharia is completely subjective and cultural. There is no commonality with any other law system and varies greatly among Islamic countries. Because there is not commonality, it therefore can default to the lowest common denomenator, loudest or most violent among its proponents.

Anytime you have one group of people subject to Sharia Law and not the law of the land there will be big, big problems. Muslims need to learn to assimilate or move back to the Middle East. PERIOD.

How About Some Truth wrote: "Sharia is repugnant, backwards, vile and evil. I am very glad that at least in America, we will not surrender our constitution to the sick legalisms of a barbaric past."

So is ALL religious law. All religious law is based on primitive superstition. Islamic law is no different from Christian or Jewish law. Any doubts? Go read Leviticus. Then sell your children into slavery if they mouth off. Or do you kill them?

Let Me Add wrote: "If Sharia ever comes to America, the last real Americans will be either dead or fighting in the hills."

I'll get a gun and join you when Ayatollah Huckabee amends the Constitution to make it subservient to the perverted Baptist view of the Bible.

How About Some Truth wrote: "Sharia is repugnant, backwards, vile and evil. I am very glad that at least in America, we will not surrender our constitution to the sick legalisms of a barbaric past."

So is ALL religious law. All religious law is based on primitive superstition. Islamic law is no different from Christian or Jewish law. Any doubts? Go read Leviticus. Then sell your children into slavery if they mouth off. Or do you kill them?

Let Me Add wrote: "If Sharia ever comes to America, the last real Americans will be either dead or fighting in the hills."

I'll get a gun and join you when Ayatollah Huckabee amends the Constitution to make it subservient to the perverted Baptist view of the Bible.

No "HUMAN" being could ever justify Shariah Law.
Just the fact that women are property of men and can be murdered at will of the husband, father or male member of the family is reason to condemn the myth that this represents "LAW".

No "HUMAN" being could ever justify Shariah Law.
Just the fact that women are property of men and can be murdered at will of the husband, father or male member of the family is reason to condem the myth that this represents "LAW".

Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, primate of the Church of England is wrong to add another dimension to the suffering of the British people.

It is rather silly to have come up with his comments to the British people who are increasingly secular; the only way as the people are freed from the tyranny of religions. He has lost his moral authority to be the leader of the Church of England -- a forward thinking organization amidst the tyranny.

Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, primate of the Church of England is wrong to add another dimension to the suffering of the British people.

It is rather silly to have come up with his comments to the British people who are increasingly secular; the only way as the people are freed from the tyranny of religions. He has lost his moral authority to be the leader of the Church of England -- a forward thinking organization amidst the tyranny.

It is the perfect time to incorporate the shariah into the law of the land without violating the local laws.

I do not want Sharia law implemented in United States law, in any way, shape, form, or fashion and neither do millions of others like me who know the perils of compromising with those who declare they want us dead. You will not convince me that our present system is not good enough and should be changed, lest we be charged with isolationist behavior. You're insane if you believe that compromising with Islamic murderers and their sympathizers is a route to a peaceful settlement. You will fight the American people if you fight for this, and you will not gain any ground. Be forewarned.

With all due respect, I cannot reconcile the Sharia of this posting with the Sharia I see in practice. Muslims around the world are using the Sharia as the "rationale" behind immoral acts of brutality, murder, and subjugation. One only has to look to any accredited news source to confirm my statement. Because of the immoral practices that stem from the Sharia, I can never condone seeing it integrated into any system of secular law. Any secular country that considers such an integration of Sharia law is damning their citizens to the same barbaric practices we see and read about every day in the news.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is to be commended for his articulate comments and for his brief tutorial concerning Sharia law. It is certainly true that most of the West is not well informed in this regard. Unfortunately, it is also true within the world's Islamic community, where there is great disparity in the interpretation and enforcement of Sharia law. I would encourage the Imam to join with others to create better educational programs, including professional documentaries, explaining Sharia objectively to both the West and to the world's Islamic community. Such a project would have great normative value.

If Sharia ever comes to America, the last real Americans will be either dead or fighting in the hills.

If Sharia ever comes to America, the last real Americans will be either dead or fighting in the hills.

Fortunately, in America we have separation of Church and State.

Sharia is repugnant, backwards, vile and evil. I am very glad that at least in America, we will not surrender our constitution to the sick legalisms of a barbaric past.

Please do not whitewash it. Do you think we do not read the news? Rights of women? You must be kidding! Saudi Arabia sentenced a rape victim to lashes and is set to execute another woman (who was beaten and coerced in to signing a "confession")for WITCHCRAFT!

Take you PC "sharia is all sweet and pretty" propaganda elsewhere. We only have to look at the depravity of the Muslim world to see the truth!