few acts in history are not the general rule and never have been (you being a history degree holder should know that!) - on a wider scale the muslims have been incredibly tolerant .
As I said, at the time there is no doubt that a religious minority was treated much better under Muslim rule than in Europe.
- Christians and Jews have been living in the mid east for centuries - the same cannot be said about Europe about Muslims or even Jews - the wider picture is that they have been persecuted or not even allowed to live there
If you look at the last 100 years, though, you will see a large exodus of Jews and other religious minorities away from Muslim majority nations and towards Europe. Part of this is economic, but part is also because there is more tolerance elsewhere.
But we can be like you and Judge america on the "ground zero" contreversy or all of europe on the burkha or the minerat ban - I think you'll agree that would be unfair.
True. I also don't want anyone to think that I believe democracies are automatically tolerant. History shows otherwise, especially American history. The tolerance of a democracy depends solely upon the willingness of the majority to not oppress the minority.
The issue that I have with Sharia, both in theory and in historical practice, is that when you give control to one religion and you equate the state with that religion then you automatically create a subclass that consists of people who do not follow that religion. If you look at history you will see that even though Christians and Jews were tolerated under Muslim rule they were second class citizens and never as a group were they seen as anything close to equals. In the US the law states that the law cannot differentiate between religions. I know in practice that is not always the case in public life (i.e. the Ground Zero Mosque debacle, harassment of Muslims, etc.), but at least these are not the actions of the government but of individuals.
The "modern west" is not the best alternative it helps keep Mubarak in power for goodness sake
Don't confuse a countries religious tolerance with foreign policy. They are two different issues.
Sharia doesnt mean mass exodus I find hard to believe that the copts will leave Egypt when they have been living there under various conditions for centuries.
It depends on whose version of Sharia is implemented. There are Islamic "scholars" that are popular that say that under Sharia no other religions are allowed to build places of worship. If a tolerant version of Sharia is implemented then yes, they will stay. If a not so tolerant version is implemented you will see many leave for freedom elsewhere.
the copts would probably be treated better they would be allowed to have there own courts - cant say the same for the "modern west".
But under Sharia, if there is a conflict between a Copt and a Muslim which court do they go to? Will a Muslim decide or a Copt? What court would atheists or Hindus use? Would every religion have to set up their own courts?
Do you believe that a policy of "separate but equal" is feasible? Because I have yet to find an instance in history where it was a success.
