Two recent events, the swearing-in of an American congresswoman on the Quran, and the formation of the Islamist Party of Ontario, have generated numerous conversations about the ultimate meaning and significance of each. Danielle and Robert discover that they have a difference of opinion in that regard.
Citing distinctions between the Qur’an, Islamism, and Sharia Law, Robert suggests that swearing an oath on a document that one personally values is acceptable, since it affirms the ‘veracity’ of the oath. And, he suggests, political Islamists would prefer to run for a party like the Liberal Party, as they already have – not for an ‘Islamist’ Party of Ontario.
In contrast, Danielle argues that the book or document upon which someone swears an oath should represent a set of values shared by the body to which an allegiance is being sworn. She objects to swearing an oath on a book that represents the ‘antithesis’ of what it is supposed to uphold. And, she fears, a party like the Islamist party may have a larger constituency than some expect.
Whatever one’s views on the significance of these developing events, it’s simply not possible to picture any compromise between the basic tenets of the Qur’an, Islamism or Sharia Law – theocracy – and a free society that could ever be Just Right.