Monday, March 21, 2011

In Reply: Non-radical Sharia? That's crazy talk...

In reply to: NPR Sting: Baker v. Beck, Round 1

Nothing Baker said is inconsistent with what Beck's Sharia expert Paul Marshall said in that video, though. One of the first things the man does is clarify that he's talking about radical Sharia law (as a response to a query by Beck, to GB's credit), which has to lead one to believe that according to this expert, there is also a non-radical understanding and interpretation of Sharia among moderate Muslims... ...which is exactly what Baker reports.

According to Wikipedia, anyway, the situation in England isn't as dire as Beck paints it. "In September 2008, newspapers in the United Kingdom stated the government had 'quietly sanctioned' the recognition of Sharia courts. This refers to situations where both sides in a legal dispute freely choose a Sharia court as a binding arbitrator rather than taking a matter before the official courts. The decision did not break new ground: the decisions of similar Jewish beth din court arbitrations have been recognized in England for over 100 years. Neither party can be forced into arbitration by a Sharia or a Jewish court." Wikipedia goes on to cite an article discussing religious courts--including sharia courts, but also jewish ones--in that bastion of Islamofascism, Israel.

I oppose radical Islam and the Saudi model of Sharia, too. But I hope you'd agree--especially given the other post, about closed minds--that it shouldn't be a
conversation ender, or indicative of a slippery slope argument deserving of ridicule and a quick brush-off to discuss the concept that not all Muslims interpret or espouse Sharia as being the violent, radical, backward view held by Saudi Arabia, and indirectly, by Mr. Beck and many in his viewership.

Submitted for moderator approval March 21, 2011 at 9:46 am, LS blog time

No comments:

Nerd Score (Do nerds score?)