An update, and clarification, on this story. "The law of the land: Adopting Shariah is no way to bridge cultures," from the Dallas Morning News (thanks to Joe):
...First, let's debunk the myth: Shariah is not now and should never be a part of the Texas legal code. We live in a secular society where the laws are designed specifically not to be influenced by religion or reflect a religious preference.The question arose when an Arlington Muslim couple, Rola and Jamal Qaddura, filed for divorce in 1999. After prolonged court battles, they agreed to arbitration by a private Richardson-based group, the Texas Islamic Court. The arbitration agreement wound up in the 2nd Court of Appeals in Fort Worth, which upheld its validity in 2005.
Throughout the case, our courts never relinquished judicial control. And that's how it must always be. In the eyes of the law, the Texas Islamic Court has zero judicial authority and was brought in only as a private civil arbiter, a common practice.
The British and U.S. secular legal systems are rooted in the Magna Carta. The law of our land should never adapt to the ebb and flow of migrants from countries where other legal codes prevail – particularly not a religious code like Shariah, which authorizes harsh treatment of women and severing the hands of thieves....
Well, now where exactly is THAT in the Qur'an, ahadith and seera? I know where the ayah on taqiyya are (16:106, 3:28).
"Abide by". Silly infidel, always hearing what he wants to hear. Yes, it CAN mean "to submit to", but it can also mean "to put up with; tolerate" or ". to endure, sustain, or withstand without yielding or submitting".
025.052
PICKTHAL: So obey not the disbelievers, but strive against them herewith with a great endeavour.
014.014
YUSUFALI: And verily We shall cause you to abide in the land, and succeed them.
@ Robert
During the recent debate on sharia in the UK many broadcasters seemed uneasy talking about it. In part this seemed to stem from the fact that they didn't know much beyond "amputations and executions."
These were easily dismissed by noting it only forms a small part of the law and there are many different interpretations.
The broadcasters then tended to flounder or even seem guilty or uneasy at rejecting it.
Surely there are simple key examples to illustrate why sharia should never be implemented into our legal systems. For example:
The fundamental difference between the worth of a believer and non-believer in terms of the worth of their evidence/ testimony.
The status of Dhimitude and what it means.
The position of apostates in *all* Sunni schools.
Are these accurate questions that broadcasters could raise?
Are there any others about the law that would be more effective than "amputations and executions"?
You can check out Youtube.com to see some of the main TV debates about the "sharia Archbishop" debate to see how these broadcasters performed.
The key seems to be:
1. They don't know know anything beyond "amputations and executions", and feel uneasy about this and readily accept whatever the opposition spokesman says in defence because he has little to rebut it with.
2. The idea that all cultures have equal value seems to be playing havoc with peoples ability to have a rational and logical discussion.
"There is no such principle within Islam that says you have to obey any laws other than what Allah (SWT) has revealed. It is outrageous to claim that the “law-of-the-land” supersedes the Sharia laws"
http://icssa.org/article_detail_parse.php?a_id=503&rel=&pg=1&m_link=9&slink=5&m_id=48
That is neither an update nor a clarification. It is an opinion. It's an editorial, not a news item.
Muslim tribes may control the west by default; Islam encourages large families. Sharia compliant regimes could replace current representational governments.
Many non-Muslim tribes mentally and physically abort their next generation. They have small families or no families. They race to self-annihilation.
Socialists also trumpet the benefits of abortion. What is convenient at the moment is only considered worthy of consideration.
@ SFOD
not only socialists believe in a woman's right to choose.
I agree. Thank you for your clarification. Contemporary western females are expected to achieve higher education, earn income, and raise families. Many spheres of influence, such as careers, now complement rather then replace time for children. Technology is assisting in this endeavor. Individual circumstances and pressures are unique but additional options and flexibility may help more females choose life over abortion.
"2. The idea that all cultures have equal value seems to be playing havoc with peoples ability to have a rational and logical discussion."
It's worse than that. The reigning worldview throughout the West is that non-Western cultures are better, and the West is worse. The West's greatness has included an unprecedented amount of self-criticism, but this has developed into a morbid extreme, whereby most of the world's dysfunctions and evils are somehow our fault, and we never substantively criticize, blame or (God forbid) condemn Third World cultures -- whereas we have been substantively criticizing, blaming and even condemning our own West for decades now (with roots of this pathology going back 200 years).
This pathology is not just a mental illness among Leftists: they have a more virulent strain of it, true; but the basics of this virus have afflicted pretty nearly everyone throughout the West.
One crucial example out of thousands one could cite: approximately 60 years ago, most of the American public supported the internment of Japanese-American citizens, and our greatest liberal President in the 20th century, FDR, approved and implemented it.
Fast forward to our own era: in the last three decades, our cultural consciousness has undergone a sea change: now we are "ashamed" of FDR's sane, rational and necessary decision. Now it is utterly unthinkable to implement such a policy, and anybody raising it as a pragmatic topic of discussion is vilified as a "bigot" and a "racist" on the "slippery slope" to genocide.
Thus, in the span of 60-odd years, the American consciousness became transformed from one that supported internment of those rationally deemed to be a threat to our security and safety, to one that feels "guilty" of that "shameful past" and feels resolved never to do that again. It has been an amazing transformation, and it's not just an American transformation: it's part of a grander, broader transformation of the entire West -- much of it bringing good changes; but, in the particular case of our ability to rationally analyze and act in the face of the menace of a Third World culture, Islam, utterly bankrupt, pathologically irrational, and dangerously inept.