If think you both are missing my point....

First of all, to comment on the implementation of the sharia, you first have to know what parts of the sharia and the intention of the sharia to be implemented....

Second, the root of the discussion where the comments of one of our ministers, which was plainly misinterpretated. I don't think the sharia would stand any chance up here, so I'm not concerned.
I'm not willing to live under the sharia.

However life is not all misirable in countries where the sharia is implemented in some form. You'll have to accept that. It is part of their culture and you cannot for change of culture from outside. It has come from within...


In other words. The sharia exists and people are living under it. Whether for us to judge its backwardness is a bit shamefull as in the past we have experience the same discrimination. We have to give it time. When those countries devellop more I expect to see changes to the sharia, the same as we have experienced. We should not forget that the sharia forfills a function in the muslim world that is important in any developped nation: culture, laws and justice. In extreme cases (e.g. adultery where women are stoned to death) I'm shocked and srongly disagree and I think we should do something about it. However I then don't think they should get rid of the sharia, but just adjust it. Today it forfills an important function.

Finally, we have to stop thinking with a western mind into those issues. You have to understand more of their culture and accept their cultur and search for solutions within that frame work rather than to force our western view upon them.

And again, it seems to be neccesary over and over again: I don't agree with the sharia, but I'm not muslim and don't live in the arab world.



>Walter, I think you are missing Dan's point. Would you accept sharia law even if only for muslims in Holland. In principle do you think sharia law is ok for those who wish to live under it in Holland?

Not sure. I would take all discriminating things out of it and their laws should not conflict ours. Then again with the possiility to escalate issues from the sharia to national laws. This was mainly the intention of the ontario proposal. It would have been an interesting experiment. I think it is up to politicians and the citizens to decide for its implementation: That is DEMOCRACY !!!








>
>>Dan
>>
>>Just the fact that you totally ignore that in most cases the sharia is and addition to the general law, proves my point.
>>
>>Walter,
>>
>>>>As you have learned from alan: Canada.
>>>
>>>That will be tolerated until the first stoning. There is a great deal of opposition to it from both outside and inside the Muslim community.
>>>
>>>>Have you looked at your own country and how its laws are based on cristianity??
>>>
>>>What's your point here? Both the US and most of Europe functions under laws that have been influenced to varying degrees by Christianity - but not controlled by it. Interpretations of sharia are - as we've seen in the news over, and over, and over again - done by imams, not politicians. Kind of an important difference.
>>>
>>>>Dan you've written no single word about the sharia that gives me or any other reader that you understand what the sharia means. In those few messages you made various assumptions that are simply not true.
>>>
>>>No, Walter, what clear is that you are ignoring the reality of sharia as it gets put into practice. Read your own Wikipedia citation, and tell me: is that the kind of thing you'd be okay with having imposed in your country, even if just for Muslims?