The New York Times Goes to England and Finds Shariah

For readers of SANE, there is not much new here. You’ve got mostly all of the elements (we’ve heard before) of the superficial story:

-Shariah courts are a reality in England whether officially recognized or not.

-You’ve got Jewish courts (beit din), so there is no reason not to have Shariah courts.

-Shariah-compliant banking is flourishing in London so what’s the problem allowing Shariah to extend its reach?

As most of you know, we have addressed the fundamental distinction between Shariah and Jewish law in many forums. What all of the arguments for Shariah’s inclusion in Western societies miss is that Shariah, per Shariah, cannot be subject to cut and paste applications. It is an all or nothing. Thus, an important text authored by a Bahrain Treasury official and an Australian economics professor, both of whom specialize in Shariah-economics, describes Shariah’s hold on the A-Z of the adherent’s life:

Since Islamic law reflects the will of God rather than the will of a human lawmaker, it covers all areas of life and not simply those which are of interest to a secular state or society. It is not limited to questions of belief and religious practice, but also deals with criminal and constitution [sic] matters, as well as many other fields which in other societies would be regarded as the concern of the secular authorities. In an Islamic context there is no such thing as a separate secular authority and secular law, since religion and state are one. Essentially, the Islamic state as conceived by orthodox Muslims is a religious entity established under divine law.

Harvard professors Vogel and Hayes, the two leading non-Muslim authorities on Shariah-compliant finance, echo these sentiments and explain the authoritarian nature of Shariah and its grip on everything a Shariah-adherent Muslim does:

continue reading at