In recent times, Islamic groups are attempting to introduce Shariah law into Australia. Of course all kinds of appeals are made to culture and tolerance while ignoring the realities of the western legal system and its irrevocable difference with Shariah. Tim Soutphommasane of the Australian has given reasoned arguments as to why Australia should NOT introduce Shariah law. Nor could one ever imagine Tim wanting to introduce Hindu, Buddhist or Cao-Dai law into Australia. Tim asks
MUST accepting multiculturalism also mean accommodating Islamic law? PONDER for a moment the following. Given that we tolerate and even celebrate multiculturalism in its various practical forms, should we not also extend pluralism to the law? This is the proposition put forward by the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils. (source)
Anticipating a ‘hysterical’ reaction from the preachers of unqualified tolerance, Tim acknowledges that while for many ‘sharia means a repressive, pre-modern legal system. Many will think of public canings or stonings as punishment for theft or adultery’, there are others, like the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who called for "constructive accommodation" of parts of sharia. Muslims, he said, should be free to bypass English law in favour of Islamic courts to resolve non-criminal disputes such as divorce.’. However, Tim notes that the Archbishop’s suggestions did not get very far. Then he goes on to give a balanced account of what multiculturalism was meant to be:
In Australia, multiculturalism has never been about cultural relativism. It has never meant that someone can subvert the rule of law by using a defence of "it's my culture". Rather, it has always been clearly defined as a citizenship policy. Its goal has been to integrate immigrants into an Australian civic culture. (source)
He then explains further
Any granting of group rights must not limit the ability of individuals in a group (particularly women) to question, revise or abandon traditional roles and practices. More generally, we should avoid any capitulation to any urges for social or legal segregation. Multiculturalism should be about nation-building; it shouldn't be about encouraging communities to live in isolation from one another or what Indian economist Amartya Sen has called "plural monoculturalism". (source)
The perceptive remark that we should avoid plural monoculturalism indicates that Tim has grasped the essence of the debate. Tim, while supporting immigration, sees what many rosy eyed utopian lefties do not see – that there must be a line drawn as to what society will tolerate. Otherwise, he implies, that society will tolerate intolerance and a loss of human rights. If as the Cole Porter song says ‘anything goes’ then why not tolerate abuse of women, segregation and amputation for theft. The reality is– apologies to Porter - ‘anything does not go’ and it would be nice if a contemporary composer would write a song to those words.
Another important reason for NOT introducing Shariah law is that it would render those in the Muslim community second class citizens.
These are the obvious and grave risks of recognising sharia as part of our law. I would imagine most Australian Muslims would agree with this view. Legal pluralism would exacerbate the danger of them becoming second-class citizens. (source)
Introducing another system of law with which the west is not familiar would leave the vulnerable within Muslim society at the mercy or lack of it of those in power. The western system of law has as one of its aims, the protection of the weaker members of society and as such it is a better model than any other existing system of law on the planet. It is not perfect but if given a choice, would you rather live under Saudi law or Australian law?
Australians celebrate and revere Anzac Day on April 25th each year in remembrance of our brave soldiers who fought in two great world wars to secure our freedom. Every Australian identifies with the slogan “lest we forget” and in services held around the country people reflect on the battles and men who died to secure our freedom. Yet across the world in France, there is one remarkable battle which helped form the Europe we know today and allowed the development of civilization based on Judeo Christian principles. This one famous battle has become known as the battle of Tours and effectively stopped the Muslim advance into Europe. After the death of Mohammed in 632AD, Muslim armies exploded out of the Arabian peninsula to conquer much of the Middle East, expanding across north Africa. From there they crossed into Spain in 711AD and eventually controlled much of al-Andalus by 715AD. It was the victory at Tours by Charles Martel that stemmed the tide and eventually the Muslim marauders were expelled from Spain in 1492 when the last outpost at Granada fell to King Ferdinand of Spain. 
Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj was born, lived, fought and won battles against religious and social oppression in the 17th century Bharat or India. He was a shining star in the Indian firmament and is renowned as a champion of the downtrodden and depressed masses. He was and continues to be an icon for the classes and masses alike and is seen as a rallying point for peasants oppressed by foreign rulers, Pathans and Moghuls alike. Sexually exploited women found in Shivaji Raje a protector, a benefactor and flocked to his Hindavi Swaraj to find solace and feel liberated under his saffron flag. 
Perhaps some readers might be interested to know that January 28 is considered a feast day among Catholics – actually 2 feast days are celebrated on the same day – one is of ST Thomas Aquinas, the great medieval theologian and philosopher who adapted Aristotle to the western Judeo-Christian worldview. . It is also the feast day of a lesser known person – St Peter Nolasco, the great ransomer of captives from the Muslims.
How often in conversation with a Muslim, do they quote Spain as the crowning achievement of Islam, where Muslims, Jews and Christians lived in harmony for about 800 years?
Why do Muslims insist that Jerusalem is their Holy City?
There is a very strongly entrenched view among majority of Westerners today that the three main monotheistic religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam share one common God and therefore despite the obvious differences, the core foundation of these three religions is the same. 
