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.

Ridiculous, I know. Couldn’t happen here and stuff.

It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

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.

The problem isn’t with them obeying the laws of the land, the problem is with them adding and enforcing abhorrent laws of their own.

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).

The bit winsagio repeated was bile, which was a blog post. The actual article had no bile. Make no mistake that the Sharia being advocated is abhorrent. Of course it is “civil”, it is about regulating person behaviour and lifestyle to conform with rigid guidelines.