Sharia law is a very controversial topic right now. It is seen as an extreme form of Islam. The website, National Interest, has an article, found here: http://nationalinterest.org/feature/defense-sharia-law-12545, where sharia law is analyzed in light of the assumption that there are both good and bad things about it.
The first important point that the article makes is that what works in one culture does not necessarily work for another. When I read this, I was reminded of the fact that you cannot just transplant democracy from one country to another. Democracy is something that has to be fought for. I have also read that not everyone thinks democracy is a good idea. My own thought on this is that a democracy is ideal in theory, but if you have a less than average population in terms of intelligence, then it is never going to work.
The next point that the article makes is that there are a lot of similarities between sharia law and Western common law. One of the differences is in the use of precedent, which is used in common law to a great degree (meaning that the ruling of a case depends a lot on what a similar case in the past had as a judge’s ruling).
I write quite a bit about the New World Order. The goal of this idea is to create a universal, global order where everyone is basically the same—that is, easier for the global elite to manipulate. David Cameron is quoted in the article as stating that Asians have strong family values, and should accordingly be respected. He makes the point that instead of the traditional notion that Muslims, etc., should assimilate into Western culture, perhaps it should be the other way around. I liked this, because it’s a point I have made myself.
The next point that the article makes is that there is a lot of flexibility within sharia law. Also, the final and most important point that the article makes is that violence worldwide has exponentially increased ever since the West, particularly the United States, has sought to force Western culture on the peoples of other countries, especially the Middle East. Whenever America intervenes as the world’s policeman, for example, there is blowback, enraged conservatives in Middle Eastern countries who resent the political and legal intrusion.
If Western leaders are not all about the oil, and enjoy sincere motives in trying to make other cultures more in line with the Western way of life, then they still need to be patient and hope that other cultures someday will a lot more closely approximate Western culture.
Sharia law is very controversial. Canada’s Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, is pro-Muslim and it is very heartening to see that he does not share the colonial and imperial mindset which afflicts so many racists among the Western population. If we take out the violent part of sharia law, we are left with some ideas that make a significant amount of sense. For example, someone who steals…imagine the deterrent if they lost an arm. I am against violence, except in self defense, and it can easily be argued that theft is a major crime against society that must be punished. The Christian Old Testament also argues for an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, but that was replaced by the Atonement of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. But not everyone in the world is Christian. We need to respect all beliefs—particularly if we demand that ours be respected. Some sins in sharia law are punishable by death—the same as in the West, where the death penalty still does exist.
A Muslim man under sharia law can marry four women. This was obviously done in the Old Testament as well. As I have said before, in Victorian England, the attitude toward women was similar to sharia law in the area of chaperones. Women, then and now, were not allowed to go about society without a male guardian. This protected them, just as not allowing them to drive protects them. What if they have an accident? There are always two ways of looking at things.
Under sharia law, a woman cannot talk to a man alone on a private basis. This seems to me eminently wise, because it will cut down drastically on adultery. Of course, the opposite argument can also be made that this should apply to both genders. However, since under sharia law, Muslim men can have four wives, it is not as much of a concern. And again, the four wives thing can also be argued as unfair, but look at it this way: It means that if a man is particularly wonderful, more than one woman gets to build a strong family with him. This is good news for women.
I am against violence, as I have said before. There are parts of sharia law that I am extremely uncomfortable with. But my point in writing this blog article is that we shouldn’t have a knee-jerk reaction to sharia law. There are good and bad aspects to it. I wholeheartedly support Justin Trudeau in his sense of inclusiveness. It’s been reported by his detractors that he has been known to visit even radical mosques. But I think we need to be careful to define what’s meant exactly by radical. As long as he is not condoning violence, I see nothing wrong with Trudeau’s allowance of other cultures to practice their way of life as they see fit.