Galty,
Written Contracts between persons date back to the time of Hamarubbi 1,800 BC and he was a polytheist. Islam cannot claim it first introduced written contracts, such a claim is falacious. Islam merely followed the Hebrews model of the second Talmud of 630 AD.

The essential principles of good law are formulated from an informed social conscience. Shari'ah reflects much of the Middle Eastern mind in the 600 AD period; And according to Religious edict cannot be changed. So the modernising of it is violates the religious intent of shari'ah but modernising merely reflects upon changes in the conscience of people being informed by comparative laws of an informed conscience.

The West does not need to understand Shari'ah, the fact is those espousing Shari'ah need to understand Our laws, and live by them!
Otherwise ship out!

I was interested to understand how Sebastian De Breen would reconcile Sharia Law with Australian Law and value systems in his article. Sebastian got around that little inconvenience by simply dodging the entire issue.

Instead, Sebastian implied that Sharia Law and Australian Law could exist side by side, using an indirect argument. Sebastian pointed out that in some states and territories, tribal aboriginal law can take precedence over Australian Law in remote aboriginal communities. His premise appears to be, that if some aboriginal tribal groups can get away with it, then every separate religious and ethnic group that now resides in Australia could also have separate religious or cultural laws specific to their own community.

The logic in that premise does not impress me one iota.

Understand that sharia in an Islamic state also applies to non-Muslims. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a fool. Infidels can have their own laws as long as they conform to Sharia. Gee thanks.

If ever Muslims come to power in a state, all nonmuslims immediately become dhimmis. That is the term to describe the legal relationship of nonMuslims in an Islamic state. Here is a good discussion of that concept:
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=18fsqvs68kpt1?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Dhimmi&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc02b&linktext=dhimmi

Here is how Sharia and dhimmitude are working for nonMuslims in Egypt: http://freedomhouse.org/religion/publications/endangered/index.htm and http://www.copts.net/demands.asp. Notice the oppression and severe discrimination.

This is what you get when you let religious laws control society. It is one religion against another against no religion. It is not pretty. Yet Muslims insist they must have their dear sharia. On a side note here is a good discussion on religious-civil relationships in Egypt: http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum10/HTML/000801.html Be aware that most of the posters are Muslims, and many are sympathetic to the plight of the Coptic Christians.

Make no mistake, sharia is a perverted system that has little to do with justice and everything to do with control and oppression. If Aussie Muzzies believe so strongly in it, why don’t they go live in an Islamic state? Of course, they may be Muslims but they are not stupid. Logic and honesty do not apply in Islam: Read how Muslims in Canada wanted the right to kill apostates/blasphemers under sharia: http://www.muslim-canada.org/apostasy.htm
If they are no longer Muslims them sharia would not apply, yet they still want to kill infidels. That is the essence of Islam: hate, anger and oppression – and they lie about it all.

How can anyone argue for a system based on the teachings of a man that murdered, raped, tortured and enslaved? Have these people no shame? A few days ago a Muslim here defended the cutting open and killing of a pregnant woman for insulting Islam. He tried to explain it away, without any censure or condemnation of his dear prophet. Do you want people with that kind of morality to control your laws? That is Islam, that is sharia.

John Kactuz

"For, after a 1,450-year long encounter between Islam and what is now known as the West, surely it's time that we tried to understand one another."

The last line of Sebastian De Brennan's article

Great Idea.

I suggest anyone who comes to Australia should "understand" that Australia is not a Muslim country and Sharia law has no place here.

If someone wants to live under "Sharia law", then the solution is simple

Do not come to Australia because you are only going to be disappointed.

Go to Iran or Yemen and enjoy all the benefits of Sharia that you want but understand this

Australia is a secular nation in which the majority of the population neither want, need, understand nor trust Sharia legal principles.

We have enough of a hard time understanding our current legal system without wanting to bother with a new code.

Anyone in doubt of the validity of my view,
I am happy to put it to a vote in a constitutional referendum.

Leigh - naturally, I agree with your view.

"For, after a 1,450-year long encounter between Islam and what is now known as the West, surely it's time that we tried to understand one another."

So true but no worries cuz we do understand each other with out a doubt.

Col,

yeh i thought of a referendum and cracked up laughing cuz it would be so predictable.

Secular and nonsecular are like oil and water..

This is what the Dutch govt is now telling prospective immigrants:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2006/03/17/2003297777

It would be great if the Australian govt had the guts and common sense to do something similar, but of course the Australian Christian extremists wouldn't like it, would they?