All Comments (287)

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.