If the rednecks who rail against Islam all the time bothered to discover what "introducing Sharia law" actually entailed they might pull in their heads and shut up for five minutes. In Canada it would have been on the same footing as traditional Jewish law: with agreement of parties, a civil dispute could have been adjudicated on the one hand by someone trained in Islamic law, or, on the other hand as already happens, Judaic law.

There was never a suggestion that it be imposed on the population at large. Nor has that ever been suggested here.

A practical example of resulting diversity is banking. Western banks pay interest on deposits and charge interest on loans, but under Islamic law (and some interpretations of Christianity-based law) charging interest is usury and is forbidden. Islamic banking uses a concept of profit/loss sharing by a bank and its customers instead, http://www.islamic-banking.com/ibanking/whatib.php

Modern interpretations of Sharia law have nothing to do with repressing women, genital mutilation, amputating limbs or a heavenly supply of virgins. See http://law.emory.edu/IFL/

It is often forgotten that only 200 years ago, under British law, someone could be hanged for stealing a chicken or (as the attitude of some contributors to this site reminds us) exiled to Australia. Five hundred years ago it was assumed that if a woman thrown into a pond somehow survived, she was a witch and should be burned at the stake. (If she drowned, she was innocent. Tough luck.)

Next time Islam is mentioned in an OLO article, the usual suspects might do the rest of us a favour by discovering what the subject is actually about before lifting the floodgates on their river of vituperation.

It would be good too, to at least toy with the possibility that Sebastian De Brennan knows something about the subject on which he writes.

DISCLAIMER: I was brought up in the Anglican faith but have long been an atheist. I respect the right of those with religious beliefs to enjoy them without interference, so long as they don't try to impose them on me.

galty, I laugh at it also, hahaha, the term is "dumbfounded".

"... the usual suspects might do the rest of us a favour by discovering what the subject is actually about..." [MikeM]

To the 'usual suspects' please refer to the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law#Contemporary_Practice_of_Sharia_Law

"The punishments include amputation of one/both hand(s) for theft, stoning for adultery, and execution for apostasy."

“There was never a suggestion that it be imposed on the population at large.” [MikeM]

I don’t think Australian law, or the majority of Australians for that matter, would allow “amputation of one/both hand(s) for theft, stoning for adultery, and execution for apostasy” whether it be imposed on the population at large or not...

In its essence, its advocates see it as Allah’s law to be imposed on ALL of mankind and do not share your perspective of cultural tolerance. If it were imposed at all, it would most definitely be imposed on you also MikeM, no matter how tolerant you were, its very nature assures us that such cultural tolerance will not reciprocated to you.

As you yourself stated 'as long as it is not imposed on [you]', which it most definitely would be (travel to Saudi Arabia and expericnce the cultural tolerance of Islam first-hand), you yourself 'might do us all a favour by discovering what the subject is actually about.'

Its middle age practices of “amputation of one/both hand(s) for theft, stoning for adultery, and execution for apostasy” aside, I suppose this is the reason people don’t seem to tolerate Sharia as it is in its essence intolerant itself, be it racist or not to say so.

Yes MikeM, you are correct that in Europe in the middle ages people were burned etc, but today reasonable people no longer 'tolerate' such middle age practices and do not 'tolerate' the imposition of them in any part of contemprory soceity, be it, ('Allah's law to be imposed on ALL of mankind) imposed on us or not. MikeM, do you really tolerate people who want to take society a step backwards?

Sharia Law dictates the death sentence for the 'crime' of apostasy.
For an example go to http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/4823874.stm
There's no issue of it being 'open to interpretation'. All 4 schools of Islamic Jurisprudence (the Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki and Shafii) require the death penalty.
In Sharia you don't get to pick and choose your interpretation unless the Koran and Hadiths are ambiguous and this is not the case for many obscene aspects of Sharia including the law on apostasy.
The author of this article is another example of academe investing a great deal of time in an 'exotic' subject and now he can't bear to disown it.

The idea that Sharia law and western law is compatible is laughable.

It is important to understand that yes, there may be misconceptions on what is and is not Sharia law. Your own article indicates there are differences of interpretations. If there isn't a uniform or consistent idea of sharia. How is a averasge westerner not versed with the nuance of sharia supposed to be able to make a informed opinion?

To form an opinion, one only need to look at the implementations of sharia law. The most obvious are Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Nigeria. Until the obscene, backward events such as stoning to death, beheadings for prostitution and divorce (by a male) by simple saying it 3 times, how can anyone expect it to be taken seriously by a society that values individual rights and respect?
Along with Morocco, Afghanistan *executes* people for renouncing islam and converting to another religion. In fact, only tonight I hear that an Australian man is to be condemned to death for converting to christianity.

In a past where people were uneducated and life was worth little, perhaps such extremes were acceptable. To consider this form of brutal religious governance compatible(or equivalent) with western laws is offensive and tries to revert progress 1500 years.

Cheers

BC

MikeM,
In a world where inflation and growth does not occurr intrest free loans by a society (a government) may be acceptable. But we in the West, bank and invest private money to promote growth and development.

Because inflation occurrs we expect some equity in our investments from loan terms, and the fact that we have benifited others. Jesus taught that he expected growth from investments, merely retaining over a period of time the same talent - such a person is to be condemned.

If we wish to remain growth neutral then interest free loans could be introduced. You invest $1,000,000.00 today interest free and in 25 years time it will only purchase $250,000.00 of property in comparison to todays markets. Shari'ah is not viable in a free market economy. It is a backward looking economic structure - under it nothing changes.

Quote, "Western banks pay interest on deposits and charge interest on loans, but under Islamic law (and some interpretations of Christianity-based law) charging interest is usury and is forbidden."

Australians don't want it so tuff luck.