WeiWenDi wrote:The question is: do you want their public behaviour to be accountable and accessible, or do you want to drive them underground, into alienation and possibly into violent action?
There, now you've got the hang of using the genuine, Islamist language of moral blackmail.
And there's nothing "public" or "accessible" about these sharia courts — that's the whole point. They're Muslim-only. If you don't like how they're run, so what? You have your courts, and we Muslims have ours, unbeliever. So butt out.
Ranbir wrote:Civil arbitration is not a threat. Only a third want it and that will decrease.
It's not a question of who wants it. There's no verse in the Koran that says "hey guys, it's OK to opt out". When they tried to push sharia on us Canadians, their main guy, Syed Mumtaz Ali, said, "A Muslim who would choose to opt out at this stage, for reasons of convenience would be guilty of a far greater crime than a mere breach of contract, and this would be tantamount to blasphemy — apostasy."
Islamic law applies to all Muslims, not just "those who want it", and the punishment for blasphemy/apostasy is death.
Ranbir wrote:This is unnecessary scaring. I mean, they have Mosques littered around the country too. Maybe we should stomp them out so they can't all gather in one place!
You saw on "Undercover Mosque" who is likely to do the stomping. The domination of the mosques by foreign-funded Islamists is a big part of the problem. We should demand: if you want special status in "our" legal system, then we want the right to debate you in your mosques, on gay rights, female circumcision, polygamy, and the separation of religion and the state.