A point of disagreement

Submitted by Gloria Stewart (United States), Mar 15, 2005 at 21:35

Dear Dr. Pipes,

I think your article was excellent. There is one point of disagreement, however. You would accept a Shariah Court for private arbitration as is currently under review in Canada. Here we part company. While it is true that religious Jewish Courts exist in many Western Countries, the situation is not analagous. Three points should be made.

First, the main pillar of Western civilization in general and the United States in particular is Judeo Christian philosophy which underpins western law. Indeed, the Talmud contains many points of law that were advanced for its day and which are found in some form in English Common Law. This is not true of Sharia. Shariah is totally foreign to the West.

Second, given the repressive nature of Islam particularly with regard to women, when a Muslim woman agrees to private arbitration, can one be sure that her consent is valid? If a slave holder and his slave appeared before a court, would the latter be deemed capable of informed consent?

Third, given the malignant nature of Islam, would a Shariah Court be formed with the expressed purpose of giving Muslims private arbitration within a system they are comfortable with or would it be the seed of Muslim expansionism?

Gloria Stewart

P. S. Muslims claim that the call to prayer they ask for is no different than the Christian ringing of church bells. When the latter has been subject to judicial review, church bells have been regarded as music, not a call to prayer.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".