# European tolerance for multi-culturalism coming to an end? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 2, 2006, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/european-tolerance-for-multi-culturalism-coming-to-an-end/346700 "2006-03-02T00:32:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/european-tolerance-for-multi-culturalism-coming-to-an-end/346700/81 "2006-03-06T11:53:43Z")
[Can Sharia Law work in the 21st century?](http://www.freemuslims.org/document.php?id=41) Another good article. > [@](#): > > 1. WHAT IS SHARIA > What does " Sharia Law" mean? In whatever way we define the word “Law” it ultimately means the logical application of conscience. The word “Sharia” literally means “the path on sand created by camels walking to water-spots” but spiritually it means guidance. Islam initially revolutionized women’s rights by taking the first steps in that desert society by banning female-infanticide, preventing forcing of women into unwanted marriages, allowing women to retain their fathers’ names after marriage, permitting women to be witnesses (albeit their testimony counted as half of a man’s) and establishing their ownership rights to property and their income. All of these advances in women’s rights occurred in the Middle East when Europe was in the midst of the Dark Ages. > > Sharia laws were created to rule the vast expanding Muslim empire after 200 years of Prophet’s death. In the 7-8th century, disciples of four Islamic jurists codified the laws in their four respective Masters’ names according to their personal understanding of the Qura’an and Prophet’s examples. Thus the term “Fiqh” emerged, which literally means human understanding. Their codification is divided in two sections: Hudud and Ta’zir. The word Hudud comes from Hadd, which means limit. The Hudud laws are mostly penal and include stoning to death or cutting hands of thieves. These are considered beyond human authority to change. As Mawdudi, the father of modern Political Islam notes: > > “Where an explicit command of God or His Prophet already exists, no Muslim leader or legislature, or any religious scholar can form an independent judgment not even all the Muslims of the world put together, have any right to make least alteration to it”. > > Source: Islamic Law and Constitution - Maolana Mawdudi. > > Believing so is regarded as alliance to Islam itself. All books on Sharia law univocally maintain this dictum. > > Yet Sharia is not merely a codification of laws. It is the main pillar of Islamic theocracy. To its followers it is God’s divine command to establish a global Islamic State in order to apply Sharia. In that sense, Sharia is the constitution of the institution of Political Islam, which is defined by its founding father, Maolana Mawdudi (1903-1971) as: - > > “Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere in the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam�… If the Muslim Party commands adequate resources it will eliminate un-Islamic governments and establish the power of Islamic governments in their stead.” - > > Source: Jihad In Islam–Maolana Mawdudi. There is a whole huge weight of history and tradition that mitigates against any possibility of a liberal Islam emerging in any useful timescale. Sharia Law is not going to be transformed so any concession to it is intrinsically the thin end of the theocratic wedge, however much as liberal types like me would like to believe otherwise. Maybe in 50 years time and at great violence to the entire history of islamic jurisprudence and theological belief, but not now and it’s no point us pretending that Islam+Democracy = anything other than fundamentalist Islam. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/european-tolerance-for-multi-culturalism-coming-to-an-end/346700/82 "2006-03-06T13:37:56Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > You haven’t shown me any acceptable form of sharia. In other words, you admit that there are variations of interpretation of both Sharia and Islam, and admit that the only constant is your refusal to accept them? Fine, I’m glad you have moderated your stance; your previous insistence that Islam could Only Mean One Thing was rather unbecoming. Except that on preview I see we’ve regressed. Ah well. > [@](#): > > A legal system based on the infallible Word of God should be anathema to anyone who values freedom. Indeed. If you read my post earlier in response to **Tamerlane** , you will see that I loosely oppose even the voluntary and limited civil application of Sharia principles that I described. I do not want to be subject to any level of religious diktat, and if you’ll notice, a simple majority of Muslim respondents feel the same way. My points thus far have been an attempt to illustrate that your Shock! Horror! statistic regarding UK Muslims and Sharia is only Shocking! and Horrific! if one takes the absolute worst possible interpretation of the question, something you seem positively hell-bent on doing. Numerous people have demonstrated that no, Sharia is not absolute, and that no, Islam is not immune to moderation or liberalism. Fun though your newfound expert status may be, it is unfortunately at odds with much of reality. No matter how much you repeat this tired “thin end of the wedge” mantra (and please, get a new catchphrase), or ignore the very real examples of modern and modernising Muslims, you can’t escape the fact that you are acknowledging liberal Muslims’ very existence in the very process of your denials. Hell, you just linked to an entire site set up by moderate Muslims. Why this bizarrely black and white worldview? > [@](#): > > it’s no point us pretending that Islam+Democracy = anything other than fundamentalist Islam. Cobblers. We already have plenty of Muslims living with us. There’s one sitting about 10 feet from me, a perfectly pleasant guy called Ali. His wife frequently visits our office, and is conspicuously un-veiled. He comes in to work, occasionally prays by his desk, and goes home seemingly without once trying to overthrow western society or oppress our womenfolk. And yet you tell me that this man should not, nay _cannot_ exist! Such liberalism is anathema to Islam, you insist, with your many days of indepth Islamic scholarship to back you up. And yet … here he is, and he’s far from rare. Perhaps you could explain how he got here, and how he fits in with your statements thus far? ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/european-tolerance-for-multi-culturalism-coming-to-an-end/346700/83 "2006-03-06T14:35:58Z")
> [@Dead Badger](#): > > In other words, you admit that there are variations of interpretation of both Sharia and Islam, and admit that the only constant is your refusal to accept them? Fine, I’m glad you have moderated your stance; your previous insistence that Islam could Only Mean One Thing was rather unbecoming. Except that on preview I see we’ve regressed. Ah well. > > Indeed. If you read my post earlier in response to **Tamerlane** , you will see that I loosely oppose even the voluntary and limited civil application of Sharia principles that I described. I do not want to be subject to any level of religious diktat, and if you’ll notice, a simple majority of Muslim respondents feel the same way. My points thus far have been an attempt to illustrate that your Shock! Horror! statistic regarding UK Muslims and Sharia is only Shocking! and Horrific! if one takes the absolute worst possible interpretation of the question, something you seem positively hell-bent on doing. Numerous people have demonstrated that no, Sharia is not absolute, and that no, Islam is not immune to moderation or liberalism. Fun though your newfound expert status may be, it is unfortunately at odds with much of reality. > > No matter how much you repeat this tired “thin end of the wedge” mantra (and please, get a new catchphrase), or ignore the very real examples of modern and modernising Muslims, you can’t escape the fact that you are acknowledging liberal Muslims’ very existence in the very process of your denials. Hell, you just linked to an entire site set up by moderate Muslims. Why this bizarrely black and white worldview? > > Cobblers. We already have plenty of Muslims living with us. There’s one sitting about 10 feet from me, a perfectly pleasant guy called Ali. His wife frequently visits our office, and is conspicuously un-veiled. He comes in to work, occasionally prays by his desk, and goes home seemingly without once trying to overthrow western society or oppress our womenfolk. And yet you tell me that this man should not, nay _cannot_ exist! Such liberalism is anathema to Islam, you insist, with your many days of indepth Islamic scholarship to back you up. And yet … here he is, and he’s far from rare. Perhaps you could explain how he got here, and how he fits in with your statements thus far? A few people with a web site does not make a movement of any significance. And you can only be a ‘liberal’ Muslim by ignoring the tenets of Islam and the weight of history as manifested in the overwhelming consensus on sharia law. So you know a Muslim who to the best of your knowledge treats his wife okay in public. Good for you. Under sharia law she could not have that freedom. I know a woman who still goes in fear of her and my life when passing through Birmingham in the UK. And you might not like it but Islam is incompatible with human rights. Its entire history and current manifestations show that. As does its holy book. I see nothing apart from wishful thinking to suggest otherwise and if the best you can point to is the web sites of a few windmill tilting individuals and some guy in your offfice then you’ve got nothing except wishful thinking. Sharia Law is by definition and practice incompatible with secular liberal values and is going to remain so for generations. You’ve presented no facts or arguments of any weight to suggest otherwise. Do you have anything other than wishful thinking to offer? Any Islamic state that does not have sharia laws that are incompatible with liberal values or isn’t, like Pakistan, indonesia and malaysia - fighting a constant war between secular and sharia laws? Any influential form of Islam that does not espouse incompatible values? No - you don’t because neither exist outside of liberal wish-fulfillment fantasies. And as ‘thin end of the wedge’ is totally apposite (as the 40% of UK muslims wanting sharia shows), it remains in use. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/european-tolerance-for-multi-culturalism-coming-to-an-end/346700/84 "2006-03-06T14:59:15Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > A few people with a web site does not make a movement of any significance. And you can only be a ‘liberal’ Muslim by ignoring the tenets of Islam and the weight of history as manifested in the overwhelming consensus on sharia law. Good Lord, this is tiresome. I do love the way that your own cites get dismissed as soon as they become inconvenient, however - how is it that liberal Muslims denouncing fundamentalism constitutes proof that Islam can only be fundamentalist? And if these liberals are so inconsequential, why exactly did you refer to their page as “another good article”? You can’t have your cake and eat it. Did you perhaps not notice that the article you praised was written by Muslims? Oh, but of course, they’re not real Muslims, are they; anyone who disagrees with your fundamentalist reading of Islam doesn’t count. How awfully convenient for you. Anyway, this is going nowhere. Your wedges and your One True Scotsman fallacies can take a rest; I’m done. ---
**Author:** ![Lochdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/edb3f5/32.png) [@Lochdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lochdale)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/european-tolerance-for-multi-culturalism-coming-to-an-end/346700/85 "2006-03-06T18:57:30Z")
In fairness Dead Badger, Muslims with these sorts of sentiments at worst appear to be in the vast minority of Muslims or they are so quiet so as not to be relevant. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/european-tolerance-for-multi-culturalism-coming-to-an-end/346700/86 "2006-03-08T09:28:14Z")
> [@Dead Badger](#): > > Good Lord, this is tiresome. I do love the way that your own cites get dismissed as soon as they become inconvenient, however - how is it that liberal Muslims denouncing fundamentalism constitutes proof that Islam can only be fundamentalist? And if these liberals are so inconsequential, why exactly did you refer to their page as “another good article”? You can’t have your cake and eat it. Did you perhaps not notice that the article you praised was written by Muslims? Oh, but of course, they’re not real Muslims, are they; anyone who disagrees with your fundamentalist reading of Islam doesn’t count. How awfully convenient for you. > > Anyway, this is going nowhere. Your wedges and your One True Scotsman fallacies can take a rest; I’m done. Good Lord, your denseness is getting tiresome. If you cannot seperate out the merit of an article from the size and significance of an organisation then there is no hope for you. There can be no debate in the face of such lack of logic. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/european-tolerance-for-multi-culturalism-coming-to-an-end/346700.md?page=4)