Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: dpwiener
I have no problem with this. After reading the entire article, it appears this is no different than what the American Arbitration Association (AAA) does. Disputants can voluntarily agree to use a Sharia court to resolve their differences, but no one is forced to, and it doesn't apply to criminal matters.

Living under Sharia law is central to Islam. A Muslim who rejects Sharia law is an apostate. Under Islam, the penalty for apostasy is death.

Even if such a person is not killed, he or she would be barred from entering a mosque, and fellow Muslims would be barred from associating with him or doing business with him

25 posted on 04/28/2004 3:07:12 AM PDT by SauronOfMordor (That which does not kill me had better be able to run away damn fast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: SauronOfMordor
Even if such a person is not killed, he or she would be barred from entering a mosque, and fellow Muslims would be barred from associating with him or doing business with him

And if a Catholic person violates various Church laws, he or she would be barred from Communion. If an Amish person violates various religious or community laws, he or she would be shunned. What's the difference?

The article makes clear that criminal acts would not be covered by Sharia law. As long as that distinction is maintained, I don't see a problem. If a Muslim is physically harmed or killed for rejecting Sharia (or for leaving the religion altogether), then that must be prosecuted by the government as assault or murder. And if the physical harm is either sanctioned or instigated by the Sharia court, then everyone involved is an accomplice.

35 posted on 04/28/2004 8:22:54 AM PDT by dpwiener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson