In Britain, a poll of Muslims last night found evidence of growing alienation, with four in 10 calling for religious sharia law to be imposed in parts of the UK with a mainly Muslim population. The law specifies stonings and amputations as punishments, and involves religious police bringing suspects before courts.
Link.
There isn't much to say about this, except to repeat the obvious: most of these folks can't assimilate to the West. I think it's in the Muslim worldview that imposes divine law as human law.
I will take this opportunity, however, to distinguish the Muslim approach to law with a natural law approach. The distinction needs to be made because the secularists refer to all political and jurisprudential thought that invokes divine law as forms of "theocracy." That's simply sloppy, or ignorant, thinking on their part.
A quick primer:
The natural law is an attempt to reflect divine law in human laws. Divine law, in a sense, flows through natural law and is then reflected in human laws. The key thing is, natural law doesn't lose sight of the fact that the divine law is mediated by faulty human beings. Consequently, natural law tends to be humble. Knowing that it sees through a glass darkly, it tends to take a "hands off" approach to sanctioning or prohibiting human actions, reserving such laws for the clearly harmful or immoral. It's difficult to know when the line of "clearly" is crossed. That's where politics and prudence come in.
In Muslim thought, divine law isn't mediated through faulty human interpreters. Divine law is divine law and there is no need to construe it, struggle with it, or nuance it. It just is. It's stark, naked, and bold; and it sits on society like an elephant in a room.
If you want to learn about natural law, I recommend: 50 Questions on the Natural Law: What It Is and Why We Need It, by Charles Rice, the man who taught me jurisprudence at Notre Dame.
