I read a piece in the Post this morning that suggested Shariah law was a great danger because Islam was a universal religion that believes everyone should be a Muslim. I thought that was an interesting point and read on to learn what specifics the writer found so problematic.
The writer found two -- a nursing home in England where the Muslim owner declined to serve pork and a City where the police bought headcoverings for women officers to put on when they entered a Mosque.
I pause.
That's it? No bacon in a British nursing home and headcovering to show respect when enetering a Mosque?
If that's the extent of the danger to Western society I'm not too worried... .
Why shariah must be opposed
Daniel Pipes, National Post Published: Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Those of us who argue against shariah are sometimes asked why Islamic law poses a problem when modern Western societies long ago accommodated Halacha, or Jewish law. In fact, this was one of the main talking points of those who argued that shariah law should become an accepted part of dispute resolution in Ontario in 2005.
The answer is easy. A fundamental difference separates the two: Islam is a missionizing religion, Judaism is not. Islamists aspire to apply Islamic law to everyone, while observant Jews seek only to live by Jewish law themselves.
Two very recent examples from the United Kingdom demonstrate the innate imperialism of Islamic law. The first concerns Queens Care Centre, an old-age home and daycare provider for the elderly in the coal town of Maltby, 40 miles east of Manchester. At present, according to The Daily Telegraph, not one of the centre's 37 staff or 40 residents is Muslim. Although the home's management asserts a respect for its residents' "religious and cultural beliefs," QCC's owner since 1994, Zulfikar Ali Khan, on his own decided this year to switch the home's meat purchases to a halal butcher.
Full sory here: http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=1860105
3 comments:
"Two very recent examples"
Morton, you can't use very "recent" examples to realize that Islam has been the most brutal religion ever, and all you need to look at is every Muslim nation in the world.
Morton, if you are not prepared to move to a Muslim nation, then you would have to agree that Sharia Law is the reason.
Sharia Law is the reason why Muslims are still living in the 1st century.
Stoning, honor killings, homicide bombings, just about every single brutal act mankind has ever witnessed has come from Muslim's.
Did you forget that Morton?
with regards to the previous commenter-----if Islam was such a proselytizing religion---why didn't most people in the west know anything about it until 9/11? A billion of us muslims were quietly practicing our faith until a bunch of lunatics thrust us all into the world stage!----Anyway, there are 4 schools of sharia---and in those schools of thought, they have their own ideas on jurisprudence. Islamic jurisprudence (Fiq) can be flexible and adaptable---if it wants to be.
It is good that today's "western" laws originate from Judeo-Islamic principles which holds that ---all human beings are innocent until proven guilty---Had it been from a "christian" perspective---we may have all been "presumed guilty until proven innocent"---what with ideas about "original sin" and such....
Morton---if my post sounds harsh,please accept my apologies to you....
I'm pretty sure that the Canadian Charter of Rights, and somewhere in the rules of the RCMP, it would be impossible to discriminate against a police office by forcing her to wear any uniform other than that of her male colleagues when she entered any building on official business. You see female soldiers in Iraq wearing exactly the same as their male colleagues. That might be your first clue that these "little" examples aren't little in any way.
Shariah law condones the perceived inquality of females to males, and therefore is in direct opposition to the Canadian Charter.
Post a Comment