A number of Muslim Ulema wants that Sharia (Islamic law) introduced in Australia, a secular western nation in which religion and law are kept separate. Most of the Muslims in the country are relatively newcomers. Do given that Islam does not have no separation between religion and the law, these mullahs seek independent legal and cultural existence for members of their religion in a cosmopolitan, multicultural, multi-ethnic and modern nation?
Way back in history, would have been normal for a tribe, which is a collection of families extended bound by blood, found living near another tribe with different cultural traditions. They even can coexist, especially if they were nomadic. In fact, it is also likely that some nomadic tribes camped on the outskirts of agricultural settlements. No doubt the normal pattern of human behaviour - competition or cooperation or tolerant coexistence - would have then applied.
Without however, with the creation of the modern nation States with tribal boundaries implied, the entry of 'outsiders' or foreigners would be subject to control by the rulers of these States. Border control is now applied universally. Usually, immigrants with different cultural values and traditions are kept out of the host society, as they, not us"! As religion for cultural differences are defended by immigrants, coexistence and host communities (hopefully peaceful) is everything that can be exempted.
However, in a nation of migrants collection as Australia, which offers equal opportunities all immigrants regardless of their origin, their cultural traditions or religious, separated affiliations and parallel ethno-religious, legal structures should be avoided. The official policy is the integration (as in a fruit salad), not total assimilation or absorption (as in a mixed soup). Immigrants (first generation Australians) may, for access to equal opportunities prevailing (known as the spirit of 'fair go') give up certain practices (such as wife beating or spit) or even modify their cultural prejudices.
The second generation (the local born) which unconsciously link closely with the host people. This last Yes had evolved over time through the integration of earlier immigrants. The third generation, without any dividing interventions by priests or politicians, is now part of the host population.
Consistent influences in this process are public education, habituation (that is, is comfortable in constant contact through sport or socialization only with those whose ancestors may once have been "them, not us"), and that innate or instinctive to get sample by very young children who has not taught any prejudice on the colour of skin, language and other irrelevant matters.
Most importantly, in Australia, each one is free to pray as they wish, for cooking, dress and eat as they wish and freely speak their language. They are only obligated to accept the institutions and social of the host nation (ie. behavior) mores and respect all other cultural communities. Immigrants know about this as they seek to enter Australia. Do on what basis, by what right can then seek to the host country's institutions altered, especially when religion has been correctly differentiate themselves from the Government?
Different laws and different institutions for each community of immigrants from minority ethnic separatists? How quaint!?
In his second book "The Karma of culture", published under his name of birth Arasa, the author addresses intercultural impacts of various immigrant intake and the potential of Asian values cultural and spiritual influence in Western thought.
The author has published three stories based on the experience with the analysis of ethnic affairs, multiculturalism, citizenship, entry of refugee and migrant settlement assistance under his name of birth, Arasa; and a book of memoirs that overlaps a mixture of history, sociology and personal experiences with an Asian spirituality, under his westernised name Siamese. See http://www.dragonraj.com.