So when a Woman "consents" to being abused under Sharia law, British Law is going to allow it because she "Consented"?
I'm not sure you grasp the "voluntary" nature of this business.
That is more or less true. Except that abuse is tightly defined, and against the law. If a woman consents to not getting an inheritance then probably the law will not force her to contest it.
I have friends who are devout Muslims, and have heard the arguments, for example, from enlightened women who choose to wear a veil. Personally I find even that symbolically unfortunate: the idea that women feel safer covered up comes with a whole patriarchal mindset that I strongly don't like. It goes with a male defence to rape of "she was dressed provocatively so I know she really wanted it even though she said no". But the one thing that we cannot helpfully do is tell others that their fears (at whatever level) are groundless. Who am I to tell Muslim women it is wrong to wear a veil? Might as well tell a nun she should dress in a mini-skirt.
I am starting to view Muslim accoutrements in much the manner I would view Nazi Armbands. Saying that we should have no objections to people wearing such stuff is to miss the point entirely. That they CHOSE to wear such stuff marks them as a dangerous entity in our midst.
I am being persuaded that Islam can no more be tolerated than Nazism; That it is incompatible with my comprehension of civilization. Yes, I suppose this would make for an awkward position for someone with Muslim friends, but i'm not sure how you can square that circle. If we have learned anything from Rotterham it ought to be that some people are willing to polite themselves to death.
My point is that I'll fight the evil social aspects of how Sharia Law is practiced anywhere. I'll argue philosophically that Sharia Law however interpreted is in principle wrong, as I will the power issues in Christianity between men and women (less codified than Sharia, but no less powerful). Men treating women appallingly happens throughout the world and is not specifically Muslim - making out that it is my be comfortable, but is untrue and also, practically, deeply unhelpful for Muslim women. I'd say as a religion Islam is a few hundred years behind Christianity in its "average" social enlightenment. Both religions vary enormously and today have enlightened forms, and abusive forms. For Christians not to see the historic and current kinship is hypocrisy. For Christians to say "the abuses are not true Christianity" is true but unhelpful. The same can be said of all religions and the abuses still happen.
You argue that Islam will "evolve." I do not believe this. I believe that much of it's strength comes from the fact that it will NOT evolve, because Allah is eternal. He doesn't change his mind, and if he says it's your duty to kill infidels, then it is you duty to kill infidels.
What you postulate is a form of Islam that ignores what is in the Koran, but that would not really be Islam, now would it? It would be some form of faux Islam, and it would eventually be attacked mercilessly by adherents of the real thing.
Indeed, what ISIS is doing now, is in compliance with Islam. The Prophet Mohammad did the very same himself.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —