by Chris Merritt  – The Australian, May 21, 2002

Useful idiocy and self-delusion. Leftist/Islamic Supremacist Alliance Update: “UK author James Fergusson advocates sharia law in West,”

AFTER championing the cause of the Taliban, British author James Fergusson has found another cause: the need for Western legal systems to incorporate at least some of the principles of sharia.

“Properly and correctly applied, sharia has the potential to be extremely humane and flexible in a way that the common law does not,” he said.

That’s why Sharia states like Saudi Arabia and Iran are so notoriously humane and flexible.

Fergusson was speaking in Sydney, where he was promoting his most recent book, Taliban, at the Sydney Writers Festival.

He believes sharia, like the Taliban, is misunderstood.

Yes, of course. The Taliban didn’t mean to burn down all those girls’ schools. They were just trying to fix the central heating.

His arrival in Sydney coincided with a push for sharia in Australia, a move that was rejected by federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland.

Fergusson said the way forward was not to apply sharia only to Muslims but to incorporate its principles into the general law.

“It’s about developing something better — and you start by acknowledging that our precious secular law is far from perfect.”

After observing how the Taliban ran Afghanistan, he believes their version of sharia was effective at ending lawlessness, but it would be unsuitable here.

“They were a law and order party and they were pretty effective,” he said. “A few months of hand-chopping and there was no more theft, no more murder. Suddenly it was safe to leave your house without locking it.”

Is that cure really preferable to the disease?

Fergusson, who describes himself as a liberal, said rapid population growth in the Islamic world coupled with globalisation, meant it was important for Western countries to abandon their attachment to secular law.

Of course.

Because remember: for the mainstream media and useful idiots like Fergusson, Islamic supremacists are “conservatives,” and those who oppose Islamic supremacism are also “conservatives.” But those who enable Islamic supremacism in the West, as “conservative” as it is, are “liberals.”

In a word: surrender.

The push for sharia in Australia was “only about certain aspects, mainly family affairs. In a way, it’s not that outrageous,” he said.

He recognised, however, it would be difficult for Western countries to incorporate aspects of sharia because under Islam there was no separation between religion and law.

No kidding, really? I thought only greasy Islamophobes dared to point that out.

 


1 Response to “Leftist UK author advocates Sharia in the West”

  1. 1 Philip Bruce Heywood

    Here’s a thought. Thoughts are easy — theories don’t cost anything.

    Western ‘law’ has got so washed up, it’s laughable in many respects. I assume that this Sharia Law has got some appeal simply because there is a vacuum and things run into vacuums?

    Rather than tire people with a lengthy discourse on the practical, user-friendly and society – friendly civil and criminal Law of the Bible, which may be extracted by the simple expedient of reading most of the second half of EXODUS plus LEVITICUS plus a few snippets elsewhere — am I correct? — I give one example, in bare outline.

    As I recall, theives were neither incarcerated in prison at society’s expense, nor parted from their right hands. One wonders wich is the more unwise procedure. As I recall, theiving could be met with a choice of actions, depending upon the circumstances. If the stealing was accompanied by violence or a clear willingness to take life, then the relevant laws relating to violence cut in. But assuming it was a case of theiving only, first offence, no murderous intent; there was no incarceration, no forced, prolonged separation from family: but you repay I forget how many times the value of that which was stolen: or face the music. I assume that the music was all the neighbours with a stone in their hands, or perhaps someone with a whip in his hand, or perhaps someone with an axe in his hand. Simply, the crime had to be proven according to correct jurisprudence, to the satisfaction of the community: and once proven there was no cost to society and the criminal either made it good or suffered the consequences. Presumably, the fathers and the elders in that society were doing the justice. And every man counted– you either saved him if you could, or did otherwise if he was judged to be beyond reformation.

    The Bible seems to imply that determining guilt or innocence isn’t rocket science in most cases and certainly doesn’t require a $550/hr fee (that’s at the cheap end of the scale). The crimes committed every day under the guise of ‘justice’, in this country!

    Of course there is a hefty amount of hypothetical theory thrown in here, because dowtown New York isn’t the fields of Bethlehem or Bashan — but the underlaying principles are exactly the same. Law should make sense. It is to be an exercise in precise science.

    As I recall there is no age differential to laws and principles such as that relating to stealing. These behavioural correctional principles begin at birth and the Old Testament expects parents to employ the means it places at their disposal.

    So here we have in Australia, legislation to criminalize almost all forms of restraint/punishment normally and rightfully exercised by normal parents: legislation to turn marriage law into a farce; schools where bullies rule; and a society where ……. no, it’s easy to be negative. A society where Jesus Crist is Lord, let’s believe it.

    So, couldn’t someone put in a counter-proposal to Sharia — plain, common sense, biblical law, historical, christian British LAW as it is meant to be? The real article makes all the others fade to obscurity. We have certainly got better proposals than cutting off hands and making women do nazi salutes all day.

Leave a Reply





Youtube Highlights

Archives

3K2 theme by Hakan Aydin