Log In | Register
Sharia Courts in the West
As the number of Muslims living in Western countries has increased, certain members of the group have become increasingly vocal in support of establishing their own court system. It seems to me that all arguments in favor of this separate court system fail without further comment, and yet not only do supporters continue to advocate for such a result, but Western governments are increasingly caving to the pressure. There are a number of reasons that separate court systems, in general, should not be tolerated, and even more so in regards to Sharia Courts.
One of the basic foundations on which our legal system rests is the concept that all citizens are equal before the law. It is this concept that is under attack, not only by Muslims, but by other groups who have also confused the one notion that all individuals are equal participants in the same system, with the counter veiling idea that all individuals have the right to choose to which system they wish to adhere. In the United States we do not have the right to simply decide that we will no longer abide by the Constitution based on an agreement reached by the two parties involved. Contracts made in violation of that principle, and not condoned by the legal system, are thus extra-legal, not enforceable by the courts, and thus illegal. All arguments to the contrary fail based on that simple test.
There are those, though, who continue to argue for a separate court system based on a variety of seemingly reasonable premises. Some argue that communities should be allowed to live in a way that reflects the values of their community, an argument with which I am very sympathetic, but with certain restrictions that must apply. Others argue that other “court systems” already do exist such as those dealing with Catholic or Jewish Law. The problem is that such arguments generally attempt to compare the proverbial apples with oranges. Are there really any of you out there who would suggest that the findings of a Blood or Cript Tribunal should have the force of law? The answer is obvious.
It is the religious aspect that seems to be the most troubling to some, both for and against. How does one address both the establishment clause and the free exercise clause of the First Amendment? How does one integrate both the right to live according to the dictates of one’s religion and the requirement to live according to the laws of the land? Interestingly, it is in examining this very question that we see the incompatibility between the Islamic view of justice and our own. The very act of approving the use of Sharia Courts is antithetical to the Western Concept of Justice and is fully in line with the Islamic system of jurisprudence. Islam requires the existence of two parallel systems of justice with Muslims occupying the premier spot and all others relegated to secondary status. When one understands this simple, but extremely important, concept, one realizes that the very existence of Sharia Courts in the West is an attack on the values of the West itself.
Of course there is still the question of why should Sharia Courts be discriminated against, when the aforementioned Jewish and Catholic “Courts” already exist? Aside from what I discussed in the previous paragraph, there are some very real differences in how the latter two approach their rulings. One of the major differences is that, in what might be considered the worst case scenario, the very worst punishment available to either body is a sentence of banishment. In other words, if a Catholic cannot receive an annulment of their marriage, any subsequent marriage may not be recognized by the Catholic Church and thus, to a Catholic, they are not married in the sight of God. This ruling has absolutely no bearing on the legal status of the individual concerned who may have received a civil divorce and is thus free to marry another person of their choosing. The ruling, thus, and in my open rightly so, fully protects the right of the Catholic Church to enforce the doctrine of the Church on its members while in no way running afoul of the law. In like manner, Jewish Courts are specifically required to follow the law of the country within which it makes its findings.
In conclusion, there is no real comparison between the purview of a Sharia Court and other religious courts. All citizens should have access to the same system of justice. As previously mentioned, the very existence of such courts is an Islamic, not a Western, concept. Should Christians also have their own court system? How about any number of other groups who might also suggest they would prefer to go in another direction and thus simply ignore the present system of justice based on their own personal ideas of justice? The entire concept is ludicrous to the nth degree.
I recommend the following for further information.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/the_case_for_banning_sharia_law_in_america.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/imposing_shariah_law_in_london.html
http://bigpeace.com/dyerushalmi/2010/09/18/is-shariah-the-same-as-jewish-law/
