is that it's only a matter of time before muslims start demanding that non-muslims "pay for their crimes against Islam" in front of some mullah or iman. Say something they don't like and your hauled off to a Sharia court with completely arbitrary punishments and no doubt harsher penalties for being an "infidel" unless of course you convert. And the problem with idiots like this British Archbishop is that it signals to the mad mullahs and the other Islamonazi oinkers is that the west is weakening and it's only a matter of time before they get what they want.

It does seem to signal a cultural collaspe in progress. Especially since Islam seems a more regressive/oppressive religion than Christianity.

It does seem inevitable, doesn't it? Neville Chamberlain is BACK, baby.

Thank "Allah" that here in the States, we at least have the 2nd Amendment to back the 1st.

This is what bothers me about Hitchens' poorly researched piece: the actual proposal was really quite limited.

You'd never know it from this screed, but the proposal is that a 'court' (binding arbitration) be created for VOLUNTARY use for people who want Sharia rules to be applied to their CIVIL disputes.

Every single example that Hitchens gives is wrong. Assault and rape and murder are CRIMINAL matters and would still be handled by the regular court system. Muslim law (enshrined in the scriptures) requires that a woman must freely consent to her marriage, so that example is also wrong. Oh, and taking her dowry is THEFT -- under the Muslim rules.

In the actual proposal, if you and your ex-wife are both Muslim and you both wanted custody matters settled the "cultural" way, then you could agree to do that. In practice, you can do that now by telling your divorce lawyers what you want the agreements to look like; this is just a way of making it more transparent (and making sure that someone involved actually knows what Sharia rules are). Under this proposal, if the father wanted Sharia (which favors him for custody) and the mother didn't, then it goes to the regular family court proceeding under the regular British rules.

What's so bad about that?

BTW, The model for this is that noted bastion of radical Islam: Canada.

What is so bad about it? Aside from the fact that it undermines a unified code of law that is Western, it means that political legislation will have to be passed to institute a new and exclusive Sharia. And Sharia is not a body of civil rules in Islam: it is the legal doctrine run by a Religion Organization. Thereby, the legislation would have to "cut the child in half" so that Sharia Law [not "rule"] is no longer a complete authority of itself. You would then propose two legal systems not one. And the Canadians made well have made a horrible choice to allow the cult camel into the tent by a leg or tail or indeed...a head.

Your point about Sharia law which is nonsense and more than that it's bullshit.

By the way, you are worse than the Mullahs.

Islam phobia is the tree that hides Neo cons intentions; racism and deep grudges against all that isn't I would say "Pale faces"

it's only a matter of time before muslims start demanding that non-muslims "pay for their crimes against Islam" in front of some mullah or iman.

Wow, sounds just like Gitmo, but hey, that's allowed coz Rumsfeld (who never lies) told us they are the worst of the worst right?