That is essentially the problem with Shari’a (the last 4 words there), and I think it is a problem inherent in the Shari’a itself, not just this or that practice of it. How would it possible to implement amputation for theft or murder for matters of conscience (e.g., changing religion) in a “pleasant manner”? It’s not possible. So I oppose even allowing it for the particular communities, even as I recognize that this is hypocrisy with reference to the Jewish courts. Should the Jewish courts implement death sentences and mutilations and other things that are at variance with federal laws enacted to deal with the same situations, then they ought to be shut down, too. We can’t have a Christian state-within-a-state for the Christians, a Muslim state-within-a-state for the Muslims, a Jewish state-within-a-state for the Jews, etc. Not in a America, anyway. America is not analogous to any place in the Middle East, and we ought import or support that kind of legal system here. It does nothing but legitimize and solidify social stratification along religious lines. I don’t know about any of you, but as much as I love Lebanon as a symbol of the deep roots of indigenous Middle Eastern Christianity, I have no desire to see my own country fall to that kind of sectarianism, and I think that’s precisely what religious-based courts lay the groundwork for.
I understand and in a sense agree with the idea that banning such courts drives the same activity underground, but that does nothing but confirm to me the unavoidable and insurmountable problem with treating Islam the same as every other religion. We simply cannot allow one religion’s decrees to override the secular values embraced by the West with regard to freedom of conscience. To do so betrays the ex-Muslim (or questioning Muslim, or true pluralism-supporting Muslim) by virtue of their belonging to Islam in the first place. It essentially says “Sorry. You’re a Muslim, and Islam allows this treatment of you, so there’s nothing we can do. It is lawful according to your community, and we wouldn’t want to cause problems with that community.” In reality, it is that community that causes problems when they live by an inherently problematic law code, in so far as it conflicts with the law of the country in which they now find themselves.
Basically, you want to be able to stone suspected adulterers and rape victims, kill apostates and homosexuals, and deny women many of their fundamental rights as human beings? Sadly, there are many such places in the world where it is perfectly legal and encouraged to do so. The United States, Canada, Western Europe, and most other places where Muslims find themselves living outside of the Islamic world are NOT such places, and should not be allowed to become such places at any level. Even if it is just one FAMILY practicing this law completely within the confines of their own house, it should be treated as a crime when it causes them to commit crimes. (And it has happened several times in recent memory; see the Aqsa Parvez case in Canada, Noor Almaleki case in Arizona, Amina and Sarah Said case in Texas, etc.)
These are crimes. Your religious identity is not an excuse to be a criminal, and if your religion or its book say that these are not crimes but right and honorable acts, then your religion is wrong and needs to be dealt with accordingly.
Do you?
