 |
| Fraser River: Yesterday |
An email sent to me today:
‘See how the world is acting fast on the threat posed by Islam and its barbaric Sharia Law.’
In my humble opinion, there is tension between freedom of religion, freedom of thought (including non-religion) for all, and Western state security.
A reasonable compromise seems to me is to ban any kind of Sharia law or religious law as being sanctioned by any state government level.
’North Carolina: Bans Islamic “Sharia Law" in the State, regarding it now as a criminal offense.’
Personally, I would oppose any form of self-government for any group, but in Canada this has been granted to First Nations groups. These areas could instead be legal jurisdictions like everywhere else.
BC Treaty
Cited
‘The government of Canada recognizes that the Indian Act system needs to change. Under the BC treaty process, self-government arrangements will be designed, established and administered by aboriginal peoples. Through self government, First Nations can again become self determining and self sufficient.
Back to Islam
Vancouver Sun June 8 2013
Cited
‘Researchers are unaware of any official shariah courts in the U.S. or Canada, even though some imams offer voluntary dispute-resolution services based on principles of Islamic law. In addition, shariah is not unique. Most religions maintain their own internal codes of conduct, particularly regarding marriage, divorce, financial wrongdoing, and sexual behaviour. Then there is the question of whether the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims interpret shariah the same, or take it equally seriously.’
---
Religious law and rules should be handled internally. Such as for September, I have been asked to join a local megachurch in order to possibly teach there regularly. Membership, rules and regulation is maintained by the church itself and perhaps in extreme cases the denomination would become involved. Religious rules should handled internally in similar ways to other private groups (unions, Rotary Clubs, Masonic Lodges, sports associations, for example).
 |
| Today |
The United Kingdom has it wrong:
Express July 13
Cited
‘Theresa May forced to defend views on Sharia Law as she prepares to enter
No 10: INCOMING Prime Minister Theresa May has defended her position on Sharia Law on the eve of taking over as the leader of the Conservative party.
By ZOIE O'BRIEN PUBLISHED: 10:13, Wed, Jul 13, 2016 | UPDATED: 10:18, Wed
‘May sparked controversy when she spoke out in support of the Islamic courts operating in the country, telling the nation they could "benefit a great deal" from Sharia teachings. The future Tory leader made the comments as she ordered a review into the system which are accused of ordering women to stay with abusive partners. Mrs May, said she is worried the courts are "misused" and "exploited" to discriminate against Muslim women, but defended their place in society. Sharia is Islam's legal system derived from both the Koran, Islam's central text, and fatwas - the rulings of Islamic scholars. There are thought to be around 100 Sharia Law courts operating throughout the UK, dispensing Islamic justice outside the remit of our own legal system. Judgements handed down by the informal courts have no legal basis, but there are fears their presence means many Muslim women are not getting access to the justice they deserve.’
---
Based on academic studies of comparative religions and philosophy, I do not think Islam is true religious philosophy, but I recognize the right of freedom of religion, but not state sanctioned religion, or any allowance of radicalized, extreme, religion or political philosophy. Basically most religious and non-religious people can agree to disagree and live peaceably, in Western society. Those within radical Islam are an exception and should be denied access/deported. Illegal entry obviously requires prevention from security services.
