A Stitch in Haste

And not in some Third World goat-herder backwater, but in England:

The leading imam in Manchester, England, confirms that he thinks the execution of sexually active gay men is justified, the rights group Outrage reported.

Arshad Misbahi of the Manchester Central Mosque confirmed his views in a conversation to John Casson, a local psychotherapist.
...
"It is part of the central tenets of Islam: that sex outside marriage is forbidden; this is stated in the Koran and the prophet ... had stated that these punishments were due to such behaviours."

Of course, evangelical Christians believe pretty much the same way, for pretty much the same reasons. Go figure.

As for Islam being a "Religion of Peace," keep in mind that the most peaceful place on Earth is a cemetery:

Secondary school pupils in north-eastern Nigeria have killed a teacher after apparently accusing her of desecrating the Koran, police say.

The teacher, a Christian, was attacked after supervising an exam in Gombe city. It is not clear what she had done to anger the students.

So much for Muslims being "tolerant" of Christians and Jews -- whom they supposedly embrace as "People of the Book." But if the Book isn't the Koran, then it's open season. And isn't "respect for elders" or "respect for teachers" anywhere in the Koran at all?

---

Meanwhile:

A German woman judge has refused a Moroccan-born woman permission to file for divorce by interpreting the Koran as allowing husbands to beat their wives.
...
"When the Koran takes precedence over the German Basic Law, then I can only say: Good night Germany," Ronald Pofalla, the secretary general of the conservative Christian Democratic Union of Chancellor Angela Merkel, told Bild.

From "Sieg Heil!" to "Sharia Heil!"?

Religious law is for houses of worship, not courthouses. Every civilized nation acknowledges this. You would think that the judge (who, interestingly, is not being named) would understand this.

To their credit, moderate German Muslims are decrying the ruling, as is just about every German politician. But what religious practitioners say in public and what they advocate in private are often very different. It remains to be seen whether this abomination stays an isolated, embarrassing incident.

I tried to abstain from blogging about this:

The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".

Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

I'm no fan of Williams or his hyper-bigoted Church of England. But the hysteria, both in England and the blogosphere, over this uncontroversial statement has been astounding.

Sharia law is a code crafted by barbarians for barbarians. Point conceded. But that doesn't mean that said barbarians, assuming that they are competent, consenting adults, shouldn't be allowed to mutually agree to have their private disputes resolved by such a code -- even in a non-barbarian country such as the United Kingdom.

The idea of members of an insular religious community agreeing to private arbitration, often by religious elders, is hardly new or radical. Certain Jewish sects do it. The Mormons did it in the days before Utah statehood. The Mennonites have made conflict resolution a central tenet of their faith.

Of course, the complicating factor for Muslims and Sharia is the notion of "competent consenting adults." Executing gays, stoning adulterers and lashing the victim of a gang rape are certainly not arrangements that are entered into voluntary; they are imposed by government force. And these are obviously not the kinds of "alternative legal principles" that the West should adopt or even tolerate.

A gay adolescent hanging from a noose is not a competent consenting adult. A Muslim woman (or worse, a Muslim child) conscripted into an arranged marriage (or, worse, de facto sex slavery masquerading as "marriage") is not a competent consenting adult and should not be re-condemned to relying on goatherder justice in a non-goatherder society (or anywhere else, of course).

But if, for example, two Muslim neighbors have a property squabble, or two Muslim business partners want to dissolve their enterprise, or two truly competent Muslim adults agree a priori to rely on a Sharia court to hear any future divorce litigation, then where exactly is the "abomination"? Why the calls demanding Williams' ouster for stating the obvious?

Sharia undoubtedly deserves damnation -- in certain contexts. This simply isn't one of them.