re: #518 SanFranciscoZionist

I think that one of the core issues, and I really would like to hear about this from a real scholar of Islam (and I don’t mean Mr. Spencer), is that there’s a core principle in the interpretation of Jewish law that states, simply, the law of the nation you live in is law. (This applies in criminal and civil matters, not religious ones, hence, halacha did not go on hold while practicing Judaism was illegal under the Nazis or the Soviets, say.)

We have this core principle because during the time the law was being expanded into its current ridiculously complex and still-under-construction form, we had no country of our own. Islam is in a different situation, being practiced in Islamic theocracies, Islamic semi-democracies, Islamic secular dictatorships, and also by Muslim populations in non-Muslim majority countries.

I do not know if there is a sharia equivalent to ‘dina malchut dina’, or what rules relating to such things are in place. I assume they must exist, simply because pious Muslims manage to live in non-Muslim countries, but I do not know to what extent, and what their status is in the eyes of, say, the mainstream Egyptian imam.

Simply stated, the core difference between Sharia and Bet Din courts is in application. For the Jewish community, usage of the Beth Din is optional. Proponents of Sharia Courts wants to make their usage binding on all Muslims, effectively marginalizing local leagal systems.

See my 454.