re: #847 CuriousLurker

Under Sharia law punishments couldn’t really be carried in the absence of an Islamic state/infrastructure because there would be a bunch of possibly extenuating circumstances that would have to be taken into account, and there would also be a need for Muslim judges, courts, authorities to answer to, etc.

As I mentioned the other day, Muslims living in non-Muslim countries are required to obey the existing laws of the land in which they live, provided that their lives & safety aren’t being threatened and that they required to do something forbidden—e.g. if there was a law that said I had to go out and drink alcohol every Saturday night, I would be obligated to break it.

I didn’t look at the article since it sounds like it’s full of bile, but I would imagine that the parts of sharia any Muslim in the West would be concerned with would be more civil in nature—e.g. things like inheritance and such (and even then, only if agreed upon by all parties).

One of the big issues is whether, for example, a Muslim woman’s submission to Sharia Law is truly voluntary, or whether she is being coerced by religious, family and peer pressure. In Canada enforcement of Sharia has been rejected by the government largely due to concerns like this.