Which privileges for Islam?

Jewish World Review ^ | 3-15-05 | Daniel Pipes

[SJackson]

Throughout the West, Muslims are making new and assertive demands, and in some cases challenging the very premises of European and North American life. How to respond?

Here is a general rule: Offer full rights — but turn down demands for special privileges.

By way of example, note two current Canadian controversies. The first concerns the establishment of voluntary Shar'i (Islamic law) courts in Ontario. This idea is promoted by the usual Islamist groups, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations-Canada and the Canadian Islamic Congress. It is most prominently opposed by Muslim women's groups, led by Homa Arjomand, who fear that the Islamic courts, despite their voluntary nature, will be used to repress women's rights.

I oppose any role for the Shari'a, a medieval law, in public life today, but so long as women are truly not coerced (create an ombudsman to ensure this?) and Islamic rulings remain subordinate to Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I see no grounds on which to deny Muslims the right, like other Canadians, to revert to private arbitration.

[muawiyah]

Might be a good idea for Canadian Moslems to be required to remove obvious superstition and human rights violations from Sharia Law FIRST!

Now that'd tie a knot in their tails.

[mozrock]

This is getting freaking ridiculous! I suggest everyone back up as my head is likely to soon explode from the absurdity of this!

[marty60]

The sdarey thing is that the Islamofascist are using the PC crowds tactics against us. Everyone wants a special right. There is no AMERICAN these days. It's I'm (fill in the blank) and I need special treatment and rights, not included in the constitution. They have taken the broad freedoms of the Constitution and turned them into a weapon against us. Ofcourse with the full aid and comfort from the Leftist Judges, Dum politicos, and THE SUPREME COURT.

I don't think the majority of Americans understand just how much the illegal immigration and failure of the local authorities enforcement of Laws is jeopardizing our freedoms.

[Cornpone]

The seeking of special privileges is the essential tactic of Islamic divisiveness used to split and destroy societies. It the very tactic Muhammad used 1400 years ago to destroy Meccan civil society, creating a wedge for the insertion of Muslim political ideology.

The second stage is to invite persecution and therefore sympathy to the nascent cause. This is often prompted by violence instigated in order to bring retribution.

The third stage is violent assault of the established order justified by the supposed wrongs heaped upon the wretched followers of Islam. Enough of this junk. No special privileges period.

[2banana]

I say we treat them like this:

Saudi Arabia - Conversion by a Muslim to another religion is punishable by death. Bibles are illegal. Churches are illegal.

Yemen - Bans proselytizing by non-Muslims and forbids conversions. The Government does not allow the building of new non-Muslim places of worship.

Kuwait - Registration and licensing of religious groups. Members of religions not sanctioned in the Koran may not build places of worship. Prohibits organized religious education for religions other than Islam.

Egypt - Islam is the official state religion and primary source of legislation. Accordingly, religious practices that conflict with Islamic law are prohibited. Muslims may face legal problems if they convert to another faith. Requires non-Muslims to obtain what is now a presidential decree to build a place of worship.

Algeria - The law prohibits public assembly for purposes of practicing a faith other than Islam. Non-Islamic proselytizing is illegal, and the Government restricts the importation of non-Islamic literature for distribution.

Jordan - Has the death penalty for any Muslim selling land to a Jew.

[odoso]

Shut them down in the U.S. and send them packing! America has no place for Muslims. In fact, America doesn't need or want Muslims; unless they want to abandon their culture for America's. Otherwise, see 2nd & 3rd sentences...

No offense.

[mozrock]

You know, it's funny because I am really all for freedom of religion (I am a Christian myself) but I think there comes a point when rational has to kick and we have to say enough is enough. This is not a religion, it is a diseas as far as I am concerned. The more I learn about this "religion" the more I realize we need to start placing laws against it just like the laws banning any non-Islamic religion in most of the ME!

[OK]

The problem with the Canadian "voluntary" Sharia private arbitration scheme is that it is not voluntary.

Women can and will be threatened into it by hard core believers against their true will.

The very idea is an abomination in a supposedly free society.

[muawiyah]

The Republic of Venice demanded and got special provisions from the Ottomans. In India they have what's called "Personal Code", which, more or less, provides that Moslems get judged according to Sharia, Hindus get judged according to whatever type law they might have (there are lots of different kinds of Hindus), and so forth.

This is not unknown!

[TwoWolves]

It may not be unknown, but it is wrong. God told the Israelites that they would have ONE LAW for themselves and the aliens who lived within their borders.

Granted, this was probably meant to protect the aliens, but, then again, it would tend to protect the muslim women in Canada, wouldn't it?

[muawiyah]

They may well have had "one law" but if one of those aliens was a gentile and he or she crossed over the line separating the Court of the Gentiles from the main part of the Temple, they'd cut him to pieces on the spot.

[TwoWolves]

Yes, and anyone who was not a priest who tried to perform the rituals of the priestly office was also to be cut down.

What's your point?

[muawiyah]

There were, of course, NO GENTILE PRIESTS!

But that's just for the Holy of Holies. At the time of Herod's Temple there were several "courtyards" designed for the purpose of keeping certain folks out of the Temple proper.

This of course created a disparity of law based on class or sex.

Ergo, there were more than one system of laws even in ancient Israel!

Canada, by the way, in case you missed it, ain't Israel!

[TwoWolves]

Sorry, there was still only one set of laws, even if that system discriminated against women and gentiles. (And being as how God handed down the ceremonial laws, I don't think that cries of "discrimination!" are really relevant or appropriate. He has a right to dictate how He wants to be worshipped.)

And no, I didn't miss the fact that Canada is not ancient Israel. However, I am suggesting that when God said that they should have one law for everyone, He was implying that that was the way to make sure that justice was practiced uniformly. I am suggesting that He intended that as a model for how nations should behave. Even Canada.

[Steve_Seattle]

"It is quite another when the City of Boston, Massachusetts sells land for an Islamic complex at well below the market price, a benefit unheard of for other religious groups in that city." [from full article]

This kind of thing cannot be tolerated.

[Steve_Seattle]

"I say we treat them like this."

You are spot-on in raising the issue of how Islamic law affects non-Muslimes in Muslim countries. Whenever some Muslim group in your area is whining about their alleged mistreatment, write a letter to the editor raising these issues.

[Steve_Seattle]

The most pernicious of all these laws are those which make it a crime to criticize Islam; this is absolute theocracy and should be unthinkable in modern Western society.