Continued...I wouldn't say my primary sources are the Murdoch Press Pericles - though I wouldn't expect something presented as a quote in the paper to not be a quote at all. My primary source on this subject has been the lectures I have attended - general lectures on 'sharia in the region' by those who co-authored the curriculum project (NCEIS) and specific lectures dealing with the subject - most recently addressing sharia finance practitioners. Interesting that little facts like filmed sharia courts in Sydney are not worthy of your consideration either.
You are right - we should stand against those who refuse children blood transfusions, we should do all we can to assist every life and we should therefore not sit silently while ideas that foster segregation and discrimination are disseminated in Australia. You are also right that my worldview influences how I understand these issues - just as yours does Pericles. That's why we are having this discussion.

Word count and 4 post limits, Vickie, prevented me from tacking this on earlier...

"That's why we're discussing the ethics; is sharia compliance really ethical according to Australian norms?"

As long as we have S.116 in the Constitution it is, Vickie... as is your, or any adult's, ethical right to non-compliance with it.

With that, though, comes the over-riding requirement of compliance with Australian law.

@Pericles & co,

So it seems we have made some progress. We have established that there is discrimination by Sharia institution’s, namely the Sharia courts in the UK & the US.

And as a result Pericles & co have fallen back to their second line of obfuscation --YES BUT. Their position is now: it happens YES, BUT it is not legally binding.

But before I start to attack this –let me respond to the comment: <<You missed this somewhat germane point that the article included: "Sharia rulings are not legally binding">>

Well no, I didn’t actually, I saw it and I even prepared a comment but later thought: shucks let Pericles pick-up on it first - anyway here is that reasoned response:

What does “not legally binding” mean in this context?
It means that the wronged party is permitted to ignore the Sharia courts ruling, and walk away.

But we need to ask: what would be the consequences ?

If you are self supporting and a secularist like Pericles not the slightest bother. But imagine the consequences for a Muslim woman coming from a close knit community when trying on this caper?

She could only walk away from it if she wants to be disowned by her family.She could only walk away if she wants to be cast off by her community. And let us not forget what issues are at stake –it ain’t access to some esoteric priesthood –it ain’t membership of some sports club. It involves core life issues like access to children and family assets.

She not be put in such a position she should have confidence that the Sharia courts decision will be FAIR.

And once more, to say she should just walk away runs counter to both the letter & spirit of all the antidiscrimation legistation, in much of the Western world.

Continued ->

So that is discrimination within NON-MUSLIM MAJORITY states.
But what of discrimination within MUSLIM MAJORITY states?

I cannot believe you are still asking:<<As Vickie has stated: sharia law ... openly discriminates against non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries But neither you nor Vickie can show how this manifests itself.>>

Tell me you're joshing?
Go ask the Egyptian Copts if they think they get an equal go
Go ask the Pakistani Christians if they are treated fairly
Go ask the Kenyans who heard the terroist gunman say
"Muslims can go free" the rest we intend to kill!

Well written article. Couldn't agree more ...

The non muslim 'apologists' mostly have no idea about the contempt in which they are held as foul 'unbelievers' and 'infidel'

This seems to be going around in circles a little,so maybe I can summarize a little.

We agree that the discussion is not about sharia banking, despite the title and the lead-in.

>>...anyone reading the article should have come to the conclusion that it was not about finance per se, but about ethics<<

But Vickie, you used the banking system to highlight the lack of ethics, did you not.

>>I was testing those claims by pointing out that sharia compliance does not actually meet most Australians standards of ethics<<

So let's take a look at this bugbear of yours.

"A discussion paper by the Board of Taxation refers to five main features of Islamic economics, as set out by market intelligence organisation Standard & Poor’s: interest must not be charged; uncertainty in contractual terms is forbidden; financing of industries deemed unlawful by sharia – such as weapons, pork or gambling – is prohibited; parties to a financial transaction must share in the risks and rewards; and each transaction must be based on a tangible, identifiable asset."

http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2010/december/1294083136/sally-neighbour/way-watering-hole

Where is the shortfall of ethics here? Instead of interest payments, there is an agreed position on profit/loss-sharing, while "forbidden" investment areas are also present in our own society in various "Green Banks" and "Ethical Banks".

But while we disagree on the ethics of finance, we do agree that using random "quotes" from dubious sources is a pretty poor show:

>>Thanks for highlighting the Black/Sadiq quote which may indeed be a misrepresentation by the press.<<

We also agree that the examples of Islamic curricula in schools is a figment of your imagination.

>>"The case studies enable us to assess how the program objectives have been implemented in various schools "<<

This is a fig-leaf for the fact that there are absolutely no examples of the curriculum being adopted, only that "[t]he Learning from One Another project... has, to date, delivered teacher professional learning workshops and an accompanying resource to over 500 teachers nationally"

So 500 attended the workshops. And none has implemented the curriculum. Sounds like a pure beat-up to me.