tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post7695960034598341407..comments2024-03-25T19:00:40.046-06:00Comments on The Constructive Curmudgeon: Farewell to England qua England?Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-41487258421430471962008-09-19T20:01:00.000-06:002008-09-19T20:01:00.000-06:00Dr. Groothuis wrote:Giving sharia legal standing a...<I> Dr. Groothuis wrote:<BR/><BR/>Giving sharia legal standing against British law is not the freedom of religion; it is establishing Islam legally in an historically Christian civilization. But there is no first amendment in England, of course.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>It is certainly true that Britain has no first<BR/>amendment, and indeed, as a result does not<BR/>have as complete a safeguard of separation<BR/>of church and state as we have in the US.<BR/>However, while such separation is clear in<BR/>government matters, it is not clear at all<BR/>in civil matters.<BR/><BR/>I would invite interested readers to search on<BR/>google on the following:<BR/>"Islamic Sharia and Jewish Halakha Arbitration Court"<BR/><BR/>You should find an article in an online magazine<BR/>called The American Muslim, from a year ago<BR/>discussing this issue with regard to US law.<BR/>In the US we a similar structure for permitting<BR/>rulings in private arbitration courts. The<BR/>article points out that the US already allows<BR/>certain arbitration rulings made in<BR/>Jewish Hakhala courts to be legally binding.<BR/>So, there is a legal precedent of a<BR/>faith-based arbitration court already <BR/>operative in US law.<BR/><BR/>It is not a matter of "if" but a matter of "when"<BR/>with regard to sharia civiil arbitration courts in<BR/>the US. We could go the way of Canada and ban<BR/>all faith-based arbitration courts. But,<BR/>it may be that this would not stand<BR/>up under a Supreme Court test, by the<BR/>same legal argument used by the<BR/>lord chief justice in Britian.<BR/><BR/>I would point out that<BR/>such legal structures as neighborhood covenants,<BR/>which could easily turn into Sharia-neighborhood<BR/>covenants, are also examples of civil structures<BR/>that might be amenable to faith-based <BR/>tampering.John Stockwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03496308585336775569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-85158895527016132902008-09-19T19:40:00.000-06:002008-09-19T19:40:00.000-06:00Stockwell:Giving sharia legal standing against Bri...Stockwell:<BR/><BR/>Giving sharia legal standing against British law is not the freedom of religion; it is establishing Islam legally in an historically Christian civilization. But there is no first amendment in England, of course.Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-16989900154499231792008-09-19T17:41:00.000-06:002008-09-19T17:41:00.000-06:00Stockwell:Giving sharia legal standing against Bri...Stockwell:<BR/><BR/>Giving sharia legal standing against British law is not the freedom of religion; it is establishing Islam legally in an historically Christian civilization. But there is no first amendment in England, of course.Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-18539946025157736232008-09-17T21:44:00.000-06:002008-09-17T21:44:00.000-06:00England is not now an Islamic state, but on the wa...England is not now an Islamic state, but on the way, given demographics and legal philosophy.Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-65030502850514931652008-09-17T12:59:00.000-06:002008-09-17T12:59:00.000-06:00It seems that relativism is digging its own grave....It seems that relativism is digging its own grave. It has let absolutism in through the backdoor as one voice among the pluralistic many. Soon it will be the only voice heard shouting orders and commanding obedience.Yossmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16536162779634467220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-75452924098206422002008-09-17T11:13:00.000-06:002008-09-17T11:13:00.000-06:00From the article:Under the act, the sharia courts ...<I> From the article:<BR/>Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.<BR/><BR/>Siddiqi said: “We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.” <BR/></I><BR/>and<BR/><I><BR/>In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>In short, the lord chief justice simply<BR/>followed the law. An arbitration court<BR/>is an arbitration court. If parties<BR/>agree to arbitration on s civil matter,<BR/>then the ruling of the arbitration court<BR/>is binding.<BR/><BR/>There is nothing here about criminal<BR/>matters, so Dr. Groothuis' claims that<BR/>this ruling will adversely affect<BR/>issues of <B> criminal</B> justice<BR/>are hyperbolae. <BR/><BR/>This has nothing to do with the "Brits<BR/>being relativists". It has to do with<BR/>the lord chief justice following the<BR/>law of the land. What's he going<BR/>to do, not recognize a particular <BR/>arbitration court because of the religious affiliation of the parties<BR/>involved?<BR/><BR/>Remember that adherence to the principle<BR/>of religious freedom is one of the<BR/>foundation stones of modern democracy. Violate that principle because you don't<BR/>like Muslims, and you are no better than the Islamic dictatorships you despise.John Stockwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03496308585336775569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-62952972297748068982008-09-17T11:09:00.000-06:002008-09-17T11:09:00.000-06:00I was relieved to see that R. Williams merely said...I was relieved to see that R. Williams merely said that Sharai law was inevitible, which is true in a growing Islamic society like Britain. The article didn't say whether he agreed that it should become the system of the courts. <BR/><BR/>I would hope that this Anglican semi-authority would not go that far off the edge with tolerance like he is with the Episcopal Church!Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07600780136429792975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-72196293612095349452008-09-17T07:07:00.000-06:002008-09-17T07:07:00.000-06:00So, England is now and Islamic State?So, England is now and Islamic State?Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11912653730884160224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-70386967291042954112008-09-16T23:33:00.000-06:002008-09-16T23:33:00.000-06:00Brits are the relativists; Muslims are absolutists...Brits are the relativists; Muslims are absolutists with the wrong absolutes.Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-29690950197093432922008-09-16T22:21:00.000-06:002008-09-16T22:21:00.000-06:00"Islam always aspires to be a civilization, not ju..."Islam always aspires to be a civilization, not just a religion (in the Western sense)."<BR/><BR/>This is a vitally important point that most people in the western world don't grasp. The concept of "separation of church and state" is foreign to Islam.emmzeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16890906596361712543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-48333150792342076782008-09-16T20:41:00.000-06:002008-09-16T20:41:00.000-06:00Doug,Sorry, I wasn't merely referring to the accep...Doug,<BR/><BR/>Sorry, I wasn't merely referring to the acceptance of Sharia in Britain - I was thinking of your title itself. Are you familiar with Peter Hitchens's book, "The Abolitionc of Britain"?<BR/><BR/>ABC Rowan is merely a late symptom, as is the heir to the throne's wish to be known as the defender of "faith" rather than "the faith".Kamillahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13983400897547054097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-21326345554235521442008-09-16T19:56:00.000-06:002008-09-16T19:56:00.000-06:00K:I'm not late at all. I think I posted on Rowan W...K:<BR/><BR/>I'm not late at all. I think I posted on Rowan Williams after he affirmed sharia for Muslims. If not, I have been teaching on this kind of thing for years.Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-29194265026716837772008-09-16T18:52:00.000-06:002008-09-16T18:52:00.000-06:00Doug,Your judgments aren't extreme in the least - ...Doug,<BR/><BR/>Your judgments aren't extreme in the least - spend some time in London and other parts of the island and you'll see. My only surprise is that you are rather late to the party on this.<BR/><BR/>KamillaKamillahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13983400897547054097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-50287834948631155522008-09-16T18:20:00.000-06:002008-09-16T18:20:00.000-06:00Perhaps this is a sign of things to come, as you s...Perhaps this is a sign of things to come, as you say. Or, perhaps, England (the United Kingdom) is actually being itself. <BR/><BR/>Two things struck me in the Times article you link to: <BR/><BR/>1) Sharia courts are allowed under a provision of the Arbitration Act.<BR/><BR/>2) The last sentence in the article reads: "If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.” So I did a little search on Jewish tribunals in Great Britain, and--in fact--I quickly found <A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7233040.stm" REL="nofollow">this article</A>, which confirms that Jewish tribunals have flourished in "are in daily use in Britain, and have been for centuries."<BR/><BR/>So this new development, which I suspend my own judgment on, seems to have been taken in the name of fairness and of equal treatment. <BR/><BR/>We can agree or disagree with the effects that this decision will have, but we should agree that England has taken this decision precisely to continue to be England, not the opposite.The Daily Fuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12636581068441603099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-4340539321284028062008-09-16T18:15:00.000-06:002008-09-16T18:15:00.000-06:00I saw this for the first time yesterday and was sh...I saw this for the first time yesterday and was shocked. I may be wrong, but this seems very akin to the religious relativism we see here in the state. "Our truth is our law, your truth is your law."<BR/><BR/>God help them.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13125822647740242553noreply@blogger.com