Link back to comment

If an evangelical Christian says in a survey that they want our society to be governed by his version of Christian law then we think that's ok, you can think what you like but it's not going to happen. We don't go squawking about civilisational challenge, we recognise that this is a minority viewpoint, he's probably going to vote for Fred Nile and give his second preference to the Liberals and that's that.

When a Muslim says that sharia law is great (remembering that, as with Christians, there's huge variation in what this means) then suddenly the klaxon sounds and it's civilisational challenge time with all the bells and whistles. But what is the end result? He votes for Fred Nile (yes this happens) or he votes Labor because sharia is down the list of his concerns but he likes Labor's attitude to immigrants and he thinks they'll spend more on his kids education and that's very important to him.

If imposing some version of sharia law is so important, so popular among Muslims, here or in the UK, then why isn't there a Sharia Law Party scooping up all those votes that are just going begging?

It's a joke, it's malarkey and, as Peter keeps showing by omission, there's not a serious, reputable historian or political studies academic who would have a bar of this nonsense.