As for Mark Steyn, he has to realize that the march of hedonism and western progressive liberalism will overwhelm anything that the muslim world can ever produce in the western world
Please Google "Great Britain+sharia law" and get back to me.
NM...here ya go:http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBF_enUS292US294&q=Great+Britain%2bsharia+law
Dr Williams argued, in a speech at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, for a â€œplural jurisdictionâ€ that would allow Muslims to choose whether some legal disputes were resolved in secular or Sharia courts. He called for â€œconstructive accommodationâ€ over such issues as resolving marriage disputes.
Earlier, he told BBC Radio 4 that people should approach Islamic law with an open mind.
Although emphasising that there was no place for â€œextreme punishmentsâ€ and discrimination against women, Dr Williams stressed the importance of making all communities â€œpart of the public processâ€ in order to limit any oppression.
There are nearly 1.6 million Muslims in Britain, representing 2.7 per cent of the total population. Sharia courts do exist, but they have no legal standing and their decisions are not binding.
Dr Williams said: â€œIt seems unavoidable and, as a matter of fact, certain conditions of Sharia are already recognised in our society.â€
This "Dr. Williams" is Rowand Williams....The Archbishop of Canterbury
Now you might argue that Dr. Williams is saying merely that more civil-based disputes such as those related to marriage might be better dealt with for Muslims if sharia law is recognized. OK.....but what about "honor killings"? To Muslims- at least some of them- honor killings are a facet of "marriage disputes" and are permitted under some interpretations of sharia law. So should Britain permit Islamic law to deal with- which is to say 'approve of'- honor killings?
But let's take that a step further and move it 'across the Pond'.
IN the US Constitution, the right of government to sieze land for the common good and to justly compensate the owner for the land is recognized and validated- "Eminent Domain" is the legal term. It has long been recognized that government could take land from its owner if the purpose to which the government would use the land were soemthing that would benefit the common good- a road, bridge, hospital, etc.
But the Kelo v. New London
decision by SCOTUS expanded the public good to include increasing the government's tax revenue. Clearly, there is no valid historical precedent to such a ruling...but that didn't stop SCOTUS from 'finding' one.
Those damn "emanations" from those damn "penumbra".
So might one argue that, as the concept of eminent domain was redefined and broadened here in the UIS, so might sharia law's recognition and influence be expanded in Great Britain?
Mark Steyn would say yes and I'd agree with him.
Hedonism has proven to be no impenetrable barrier to sharia gaining recogntion and standing in British courts so far. And, as the Muslim populations of most European countries expands much faster than does the native populations of those countries, will the tendencies of these expanded Muslim minorities be to assimilate? Or to seek to impose their values and customs on the native populations through use of the English court system in a perfectly legal manner?
Mark Steyn would- and has- said the latter and I completely agree with him.