• Home
  • News
  • Law Prof Who Called Homosexuality a Disorder Won’t Teach NYU Class

Law Schools

Law Prof Who Called Homosexuality a Disorder Won’t Teach NYU Class

Posted Jul 23, 2009 6:36 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

A Singapore law professor under fire for her statements about homosexuality has decided not to teach a human rights class at New York University law school.

Thio Li-ann, who was a member of her country’s Parliament, made the controversial statements in October 2007 while opposing repeal of a law that criminalizes sex between men, the New York Times reports.

During the debate, she said homosexuality is a “gender identity disorder” and anal sex is like “shoving a straw up your nose to drink.” Repealing the law “is the first step of a radical, political agenda which will subvert social morality, the common good and undermine our liberties,” she said.

Above the Law posted a statement by NYU law dean Richard Revesz announcing Thio’s decision to withdraw as a visiting professor at the school. The school also sent a copy of the statement to the ABA Journal.

Thio decided to withdraw because “she was disappointed by the hostility of some members of our community to her views regarding homosexuality and gay rights, and by the low enrollments in her classes,” Revesz wrote.

The memo wrestles with the tension between academic freedom and the school’s commitment to gay rights. It concludes that the “analytic cogency” of Thio’s argument against the bill, if it had been known, might have relevant in deciding whether to hire her.

The memo said the law school did not ask Thio to withdraw, but her decision to do so makes it unnecessary to decide whether to cancel her her course on human rights in Asia. Revesz notes that Thio became involved in e-mail exchanges after her views became known and in at least one case made comments Revesz considered "insulting and hurtful."

Revesz said neither he nor the panel that recommended Thio had been aware of her views. “The position taken in the speech should have been irrelevant to our evaluation of Professor Thio, although the argumentation supporting the position might properly have played a role in that evaluation,” he wrote.

“Professor Thio's position in that speech is inimical to the law school's position against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Nonetheless, I do not believe that Professor Thio's opposition to our institutional position should have played any role in our evaluation of her. Leading academic institutions benefit greatly from a diversity of perspectives, not from hiring only people who share the same views.

“At the same time, our evaluation of Professor Thio's strength as a scholar might have been usefully informed by an assessment of the analytic cogency and methodological integrity of the arguments and evidence she marshaled for her position.”

Comments

1.

B. McLeod
Jul 23, 2009 7:12 AM CST

A prime example of our society’s “politial correctness” turning on itself, as sensitivity for a sexual subculture eclipses respect for the right of members of other societies to hold and express divergent views.

Flag this comment

2.

tim
Jul 23, 2009 7:12 AM CST

Comment removed by moderator.

Flag this comment

3.

Paul
Jul 23, 2009 7:14 AM CST

B. McLeod: I couldn’t have said it better!

Flag this comment

4.

Jake
Jul 23, 2009 7:14 AM CST

You said it, B! I gotta try that straw trick. Sounds fun.

Flag this comment

5.

anonymous
Jul 23, 2009 7:26 AM CST

Aren’t my tax dollars being used to support NYU and subsidize the loans of its students?  If you want to import and house someone from a foreign country so she can spew hateful bile, do it solely on your own dime.

Flag this comment

6.

J.D.
Jul 23, 2009 8:02 AM CST

MEANWHILE, New York school administrators and faculty are defending inviting Hamas-funders by arguing “freedom of speech.”

No joke: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/nyregion/18scholar.html

Flag this comment

7.

Dustin
Jul 23, 2009 8:22 AM CST

She pulled out of coming to NYU because she claimed she was a victim. What poppycock. Some joe schmo sent her an email saying he disagreed with her and she replied with an 18-point diatribe. Was she going to spew venom each time a student said they didn’t agree with her. That’s hardly professional behavior from an academic. What a coward - to play the bigot, then cry victim, and then run away.

Flag this comment

8.

Charis P
Jul 23, 2009 10:35 AM CST

I find it ironic that Thio invoked the concept of academic freedom and tolerance for diverse views in her attempts to defend herself while simultaneously openly displaying a lack of respect for either in her memo.

Revesz was kind in only inferring the weakness of Thio’s analytic cogency and methodological integrity in her memo.  I also think that NYU failed to exercise due diligence in reviewing Thio’s background as her speech in Singapore’s parliament was notorious in her homeland, laced with Dominionist rhetoric, and was a readily available source of her intellectual deficits notwithstanding her academic credentials.

Flag this comment

9.

Dino
Jul 23, 2009 10:35 AM CST

Not only homosexuality is illegal in Singapore but Racial discrimination is allowed there. It is possible to write an add for renting a flat or job position stating “Only Chinese welcome to apply”. Their argument is that they don`t want to upset “racial harmony”, i.e, Chinese domination.

So it is not surprising their laws on homosexuality.

Furthermore, there have been cases of political activists and opposition members being caught with drugs and being put on death for that. Anyone familiar with the situation in Singapore would know they were set up.

Flag this comment

10.

Vickie Pynchon
Jul 23, 2009 10:39 AM CST

I think the question is this:  did this professor have any basis in science, social science or any other recognized academic discipline for her inflammatory statements about the private sexual practices of others.  If she did, complaints that the University is violating academic freedom would have some traction.  If not, these statements indicate her lack of fitness to teach this subject in a university setting.

Flag this comment

11.

Dino
Jul 23, 2009 10:55 AM CST

This professor is the parrot of the official Singaporean government policy towards homosexually. The NYC law university should know better about the situation in Singapore.

The irony is that she was going to teach Human Rights in Asia. Singapore is the country with most death penalties in the world in relation to its population.

And Singapore is where the Myanmar Junta generals have their financial assets. No wonder the Singaporean government did nothing during the September 2007 uprising. They were hosting the ASEAN summit on the ASEAN charter, a total joke.

Flag this comment

12.

B. McLeod
Jul 23, 2009 11:38 AM CST

And of course, we would not want a professor who might teach students that concepts of basic human rights in other places are not exactly the same as at NYU.

Flag this comment

13.

Tom
Jul 23, 2009 11:38 AM CST

Frankly I’m disappointed that NYU didn’t come out more forcefully against her appointment. It is such a ridiculous contradiction for someone so full of antiquated bigoted views to teach a course on human rights. If her views were targeted at any other minority, her invitation not only would have been rescinded, but there would have been a much broader and more vocal outrage from the NYU community. I’m all for respecting diverse points of view and academic freedom, but when someone’s point of view is directly and actively (and successfully I might add) working to prevent another class of people from having basic civil rights, a line needs to be drawn, clearly and unequivocally.

Flag this comment

14.

Dino
Jul 23, 2009 11:54 AM CST

@ B. McLeod:

The idea of Human Rights has nothing to do with the NYU nor the US or anywhere else. The idea of HRs comes from a way to deal with the disasters of WWII. Do you think it would be good to start killing people because they have a different religion or race? Would you agree to raping children? How would you feel if someone wants to kill you because you are different?

Of course the HRs declaration was naive and the US failed in Asia. They could not declare such HRs aims when the British only wanted to re-establish control in their East Asia colonies.

In this sense, WWII was a defeat for the US in Asia because right after it, Japan became the main US ally without never recognizing her War Crimes. This might explain Asian countries distrust to such global concepts because as they see it, the only rule is power.

As for homosexuality, I respect people who think gays are Contra-Natura but there is nothing no one can do about it. If two gays/lesbians want to have consensual fun together, what can you do? Death penalty like in Saudi Arabia?

Maybe there is something wrong with you if you have issues with gays. I have tons of gays friends and I will never do anything with them, why? Because I am not gay…simple?

Live and let die.. :P

Flag this comment

15.

Jim
Jul 23, 2009 11:57 AM CST

“she was disappointed by the hostility of some members of our community to her views regarding homosexuality and gay rights, and by the low enrollments in her classes,”

Note the ‘low enrollments’ tagged at the end. Maybe she cancelled due to her general unpopularity as a speaker rather than any outcry from NYU, students, or expressions of political correctness.

With bigotry evidenced, no matter how much we think we should force people to listen, perhaps the fact is that most people are just not interested in hearing it.

More fun to pontificate that the Liberal Reich is pushing their views and furthering the Gay Agenda, but maybe she’s just unpopular.  Can we have someone against homosexuality that’s a little more…charismatic?

Flag this comment

16.

Fena
Jul 23, 2009 12:10 PM CST

I think there is a scientific basis for that comment. But seriously folks, does anyone here believe that homosexuality is not abnormal. This is has nothing to do with allowing consenting adults to so engage. It has everything to do with it’s aceptance as a normal societal practice. No, I don’t think so.

Flag this comment

17.

Dino
Jul 23, 2009 12:47 PM CST

The normal societal practice is to respect two (or three or seven hundreds… :) consenting adults engage in abnormal practices. One has the right to disapprove of such behaviours but one has no the right to make it illegal as it happens in Singapore.

I think the real problems in Singapore are racism, intolerance, abuse of authority and sophisticated corruption. For this, I am referring to the real state bubble they had, it was totally manipulated by the Government.

This professor is just one of the many parrots they have over there. Really nasty little place, one needs to live there for some time to see all the BS…and the fact is that when one needs help from the police, they are totally useless. So the police state is only to protect the state, no its citizens.

And there is nothing Singaporeans can do about it because Chinese would be treated like rubbish in Malaysia or Indonesia. So the problems are really regional and quite serious.

So serious that gays would almost look “normal” to any conservative… :P

I am telling you, Singapore is not cool at all, following by Japan, America`s favourite hostess in Asia…So no wonder China resents American value and North Korea is going ballistic, as far as they can see it, only power counts, no rules, no principles.

As they say in Bangkok “No money, no honey”

Flag this comment

18.

Dino
Jul 23, 2009 12:56 PM CST

Actually, some Singaporeans do try to improve the situation. Here two interesting sites:

http://www.thinkcentre.org/

http://www.talkingcock.com/

Flag this comment

19.

B. McLeod
Jul 23, 2009 1:04 PM CST

Thank you, Dino.  I am quite aware that there were some international accords relating to human rights formed after the great war of 1939-1945.  However, I do not recall any of them recognizing specific protections for homosexual conduct.  Indeed, most nations supporting the concept of international human rights accords would not have supported such a provision (including, at the time, the United States, in which homosexual conduct was then widely criminalized).  So my point - as to topics that were not covered at all in any international accords, different nations will differ.  Homosexual lifestyles are not going to be viewed as a basic human right in Singapore just because they are at NYU.

Flag this comment

20.

Be Mclod
Jul 23, 2009 1:22 PM CST

I’m just jealous because I couldn’t get into New York Law School, let alone NYU, and had to entroll in Western New England School of Law.  Now, with all the free time I have from not retaining clients, I get to write multiple posts on EVERY TOPIC here, in addition to the two dozen plus meandering blog postings on my personal bankruptcy website.  Yay me!

Flag this comment

21.

B. McLeod
Jul 23, 2009 4:06 PM CST

Wow, Be Mclod, that sounds like fun, I don’t have time to post on every topic myself (or to maintain a personal website).

Flag this comment

22.

Scottish Pratt
Jul 23, 2009 4:09 PM CST

Comment removed by moderator.

Flag this comment

23.

hate mcleod
Jul 23, 2009 4:17 PM CST

Comment removed by moderator.

Flag this comment

24.

kitty hawk
Jul 23, 2009 4:21 PM CST

I too wish he would STFU.

Flag this comment

25.

B. McLeod
Jul 23, 2009 5:59 PM CST

All God’s children got problems.  But of course, nobody is forced to come to this site and read the posts.

Flag this comment

26.

Tom
Jul 23, 2009 7:16 PM CST

McLeod - the thing is that she was asked to teach on NYU’s campus.  I really don’t blame NYU students for not wanting to sit in on a class taught by such a narrow-minded anti-gay activist. And not taking her course is exercising one of the most fundamental human rights in the United States, freedom of [removed]which is also not a fundamental right in many parts of the world).

As far as the Singapore case goes, its government would like to lift the law against homosexual sex, but they do not do so in order to maintain religious harmony.  Although they don’t say it, I believe it is really their fear of activist fundamentalist Christians (of which there are many in Singapore) causing an uproar. So they let the British colonial-era law stay on the books, but also announce that they will not enforce the law. I don’t agree with the decision and feel that it confuses the public about what the purpose of laws is. But let’s be clear that the laws against homosexuality in Chinese-dominated Singaporean society come from the West.  Homosexuality is not illegal in China, for example.

Dino, your personal agenda against Singapore isn’t ‘t really helpful or relevant to this particular discussion. I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing with any of your comments, but this professor who just happens to be from Singapore, is not representative of the views of homosexuality in either the Singaporean society nor its government.  She represents a radical fundamentalist activist Christian agenda, that pretty much models itself off of (American) religious zealots like James Dobson and Jerry Falwell, almost word-for-word.  If anything, this type of politicization of religion is highly frowned upon by the Singaporean government.  Not surprisingly, nary a peep has come out of Prof. Thio’s mouth in Singapore since her infamous and highly criticized speech to the parliament.

Flag this comment

27.

Tom
Jul 23, 2009 7:35 PM CST

edit: I’m not sure why the word “expression” was removed from my post.

Also I want to clarify, that it is just my hunch that there are many in the Singaporean government that would like to lift the law against sex between men but don’t fight for it actively.  And I think this simply because they call the current policy a compromise between those who want the law removed and those who want to maintain it, primarily on religious grounds. It’s sort of Singapore’s version of “don’t ask, don’t tell”.

Flag this comment

28.

fflambeau
Jul 23, 2009 8:33 PM CST

Tom, your statements about Singapore government officials wanting to change their laws realting to homosexuality are conjecture and very fanciful.  They have had decades in which to do so.  Singapore has long harbored anti-gay attitudes that emanate from Confucianism and Chinese culture.  It is no secret that Chinese dominate the government ranks and make the laws in Singapore where canning and public shaming (by putting photos in the press) of gay people occurs in addition to criminal penalties. 

What is odd about this situation—and I say this as someone who has been a university professor at various universities around the world and who teaches human rights law—is NYU’s approach.  For the Dean to claim he had no knowledge of her past statements and that even if he did they are irrelevant is simply nonsense.  He is just trying to cover his and NYU’s butt.  NYU is a good school but as a private badly needs money and let’s face it, Singapore is a cash cow.  I’m sure NYU’s attempt to “reach out” to Singapore was financially related but this has blown up in their face.  To ask such a person who is an obvious homophobe to be teaching human rights law is an insult to reason, to the law, to the NYU law students and community, to the citizens of New York and more.  The Dean of NYU should be kicked out over this.

Flag this comment

29.

et2cetera
Jul 23, 2009 9:00 PM CST

Strange, isn’t it, that people can’t see their own double standards? If you wish to claim freedom of expression for your views then you too must extend that right to others as well. If you believe that you have the right to set the laws in your own land, then you too must extend that right to other countries too. All too often, the American Exceptionalism is interpreted by its proponents to be universal. Sorry, folks, its a big world and not everyone thinks like that.

Dino, talking about the death penalty, doesn’t the bulk of the states (except the north-eastern parts and NM) still carry them? In addition, the US has carried out 1,170 executions since 1976. So picking on Singapore is like the pot calling the kettle black.

Moreover, one wonders if you had truly spent any length of time in Singapore or South-East Asia and even if you did - did you spent it with people from the towns and ‘kampungs’ (villages)? The “discrimination” that you claim exists in Singapore is not even one-hundredth that shown by the Malay-dominated countries like Malaysia and Indonesia towards their non-Muslim minorities. Apart from the Chinese, there are commnunities of Indians, Sikhs, Eurasians and other varied ethnic types in case you were bothered to know, who would tell you differently. Yes, there are prejudices but honestly, is there anyone who does not have a prejudice? 

For me, its live and let live. However, if someone wants to express his opinions forcefully, he must be prepared to face a counter-opinion just as forcefully. So, through the actions of members of NYU, it has shown that it has a selective approach to embracing freedom and intellectual honesty. It diminishes the arguments of human rights and makes it seem nothing more than another vehicle to make others conform to US/western standards.

Flag this comment

30.

Tom
Jul 23, 2009 9:19 PM CST

fflambeau: Of course I’m not suggesting that homophobia in the East comes entirely from the West.  I am saying, however, that the particular law that bans homosexuality (between men only) in Singapore comes from British colonial law.  It’s the same British-originated law that the Indian courts recently overturned.  Your comments about how gay people are caned, shamed, and imprisoned in Singapore is simply not true.  It may have been at one time, but then homosexuals were persecuted and faced criminal penalties in the US as well.  I don’t disagree with you at all though, on your comments about the NYU law dean.  Don’t know about being the reason (also conjecture on your part), but I do agree that he should have stood up more forcefully and recognized his school’s mistake.

et2cetera: what are you talking about?  NYU invited her, upheld their invitation, those who opposed her appointment voiced their opposition, few students enrolled in her course, and then she backed out on her own.  How is that preventing anyone the freedom to express themselves?

Flag this comment

31.

Dino
Jul 23, 2009 10:47 PM CST

@ Tom, I don`t have a personal agenda against Singapore in particular but with abuse of authority and violation of anyone`s personal rights, the right to live one`s life without annoying bothering else.

How can you explain that racial discrimination is legal in Singapore? Or that 75% of people arrested under the “Misuse of Drug Act” are Indians, Malays and Foreigners? Or that the police can search anyone and any place without a warrant? II would recommend you to stay there for a while and not to stick to the “official” Singapore for foreigners but go to places in the East and North. The racial tension there is quite serious.

You are right that Anti-homosexuality law comes from the British rule, same the racial division by using IDs with the race on it. They did so in order to prevent the rise of an Asian identity.

fflambeau is right on the ambivalence of the Singaporean government. They don`t want to enforce it but they don`t want to legalize it.

McLeod: HRs does not mention specifically homosexuality but if you check articles 2 and 7, then it could be interpreted as discrimination for sex. I think the HRs is totally outdated and that the US was trying at that time to find the best fix to establish a “normal” international order.

If you think about it, anti-racial segregation, women` rights, civil rights, children rights are all the logical consequences of the HRs declaration. One needs to be tolerant to any kind of life styles as long as they don`t bother other people. In this sense, I don`t like gays antagonizing religious people, they should respect that they don`t accept their behaviour. Maybe to make a “gay corner”  and a “religious corner” in Central Park and why not an “Pot corner” or maybe keep it all private.

As I see it, there is something essentially wrong in Singapore but also in Japan, Taiwan, all supposedly allies of the US.

As for China, homosexually was illegal till the late 90s, early 2000s. They finally realized there was no point in putting people in jail for this.

Flag this comment

32.

Dino
Jul 23, 2009 10:52 PM CST

Anyway, I think NYU should have insisted on inviting her. Most likely she got the indication from the government not to go there because it would had been bad for Singapore imagine.

I know the Singapore government tries hard to establish an international imagine. In the city centre, they have trash-free police and separate recycling bins but once one goes to the suburbs, there is litter all over and people just put all the garbage together. All this stuff is then shipped to Indonesia. Japan does the same, shipping its garbage to Philippines.

Flag this comment

33.

Dino
Jul 24, 2009 12:50 AM CST

Another interesting link, to see the situation in Singapore:

http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/

“Once a professor asked his three students from India, America and Singapore about their opinion on the nutrition qualities of beef.

- The Indian student asked “What is beef?

- The American student asked: What is nutrition?

- And the Singaporean student asked: What is an Opinion?”

I don`t think this professor is capable of any independent opinion based on research. Professors are really careful there to follow the official guidelines.

Flag this comment

34.

George Stevens
Jul 24, 2009 1:56 AM CST

“Leading academic institutions benefit greatly from a diversity of perspectives, not from hiring only people who share the same views.”

So, when are they going to hire a few racist and misogynistic professors to balance out all of the uber-liberal oh-so-tolerant ones?

This idea that adding a homophobe to the faculty brings ‘diversity’ is laughable.

Flag this comment

35.

Souk Lan
Jul 24, 2009 1:59 AM CST

There is a facutal error in this article -  Prof Thio is no longer a member of Parliament.
It should also be noted that when she was a member, she didn’t have voting rights: she was a ‘Nominated’ MP, which is a system Singapore has introduced to increase the number of alternative voices in Parliament to to counter the fact that nearly all elected MPs are drawn from the ruling party.

Flag this comment

36.

Tom
Jul 24, 2009 3:39 AM CST

I’m sorry Dino, but you don’t know what you’re talking about.  I’m quite familiar with the academic world in Singapore and what you say simply isn’t true. Stop spreading your false anti-Singapore agenda and stick to the topic of the discussion.  You’re exaggerations and distortions only discredit the many valid points that you make.

Flag this comment

37.

fflambeau
Jul 24, 2009 4:37 AM CST

Tom,  You are correct to state that Singapore’s antigay laws originally came from the British.  what you neglect to point out is that the British long ago changed those laws, as did many of their colonies.  The Singapore law professor in question here also opposed changing these laws making such ridiculous and discredited claims that gays are more disease prone, that their activities are unnatural and defy biology etc.  All bunkum. 

You also write this:  “Your comments about how gay people are caned, shamed, and imprisoned in Singapore is simply not true.”  Sorry, I’m writing this from Singapore, I have been a frequent visitor here for the past 20 years and I know what I’m talking about.  Just a few years back, the Singapore police arrested gay men who were cruising at various malls and then put their pictures in newspapers to shame them and their families.  People have been caned here for being gay and have been put in prison.  It is you who doesn’t seem to know the facts or be ready to acknowledge them.  River Valley Road swimming pool, which used to be a haven for gays, was frequently raided by the police and closed a number of years ago.  Despite it’s prime location and still good swimming facilities, it has never been reopened (despite a population boom in the city that would have meant lots of people using the facilities).  Why do you think that happened?  Why do you think various gay bars and clubs have been harrassed and closed by the government in the last decade?  And tell me, finally, where else in the world would such a “law professor” spewing hate and nonsense be hired AND TO TEACH human rights law, of all things, but in Singapore?

Flag this comment

38.

Guano
Jul 24, 2009 4:43 AM CST

There is nothing wrong with homosexuals.  As long as they don’t bother me, I don’t bother them.  A man should be free to sleep with whoever he wants to.  End of story.

Flag this comment

39.

fflambeauf
Jul 24, 2009 4:45 AM CST

Comment removed by moderator.

Flag this comment

40.

Mohammed
Jul 24, 2009 7:05 AM CST

Islam and sharia law does not permit homosexuality.  Homosexuality under Islamic law is punishable by the death penalty.

WHy are we being racist and judgmental for this professor to follow sincerely held religious beliefs?

Flag this comment

41.

Peter
Jul 24, 2009 7:08 AM CST

#38 - u are right.  Incest, polygamy, homo’s, hetro, one nighters…as long as they are consenting adults who cares. Let a dad mary his daughter, a man 6 wives, a man and a man.  Who cares who marries who.

Flag this comment

42.

Tom
Jul 25, 2009 11:33 PM CST

fflambeau: I live in Singapore as well and have for 10 years.  So I really don’t know what bars you are talking about that have been shut down by the government.  You’ll have to provide more data than just claiming it to be true. Bars and clubs are opening and closing all the time everywhere in the world. I do know of several thriving gay bars in Singapore (and saunas even) and as far as I can tell, they are not being harassed or shut down.  If the government has cracked down on cruising areas, then that is a different matter. Not that I agree with it, but it is not the same thing as caning/arresting people for being gay. If I recall correctly, George Michael was arrested in London for something along these lines.  I’m not saying that I don’t think gay people are often unfairly targeted for these kinds of arrests, but simply that it’s not unique to Singapore. I know that there have been some drug raids in gay bars in Singapore, and while I think that it is possible that gay bars are being targeted moreso than straight ones, if people are obeying the law, then the clubs and their patrons will not be in trouble for being gay.

Dr. Thio is a law professor, and she is not an expert on law for gay people.  She happens to be extremely religious of the far-right wing evangelical type.  So if she holds repugnant negative views on homosexuality, it does not mean that she is necessarily not knowledgeable or well-versed in the broader topic of human rights in Asia.  Her views on homosexuality do indeed raise questions to her qualifications to teach a course on human rights and that is what this outcry about her has been all about. But more importantly, it doesn’t mean that the Singapore government has placed her in this position because of her religious views.  On the contrary, I think most members of parliament were shocked by her outrageous speech on homosexuality. If you are familiar with what is happening in Singapore you know about the huge row that occurred recently with AWARE and Dr. Thio’s mother being at the centre of the controversy. In the end, the religious zealots were booted out, and the so-called “liberal” or “pro-gay” leadership was restored.  The government did not interfere other than to state that they do not want religious views interfering in the operations of secular organizations.

mohammed: Thio is not being attacked for following her religious beliefs, she is being attacked for trying to impose her religious beliefs on others who do not follow her religion.  Do you believe non-Muslims should be required to follow Islamic/Shariah law?  How would you feel as a Muslim if someone was trying to require that you follow Christian/Jewish/Hindu law?

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.