Report comment

To Anonymous | 24 December 2015 at 10:18 pm

Yes, it has been an interesting discussion and more than anything it must be remembered that most of the inhabitants of the British Isles are themselves descended from former immigrants, some of them Romans – and that many of the laws which have been promulgated in Britain during the last millennium have been derived from overseas jurisdictions, often with beneficial results. The promulgation of new laws inevitably lags behind changing social realities but on the whole does seek to establish what is best for human society, as long as political expediency is not a factor.

Since the article which has been the catalyst for this discussion is concerned with the Shari’a of Islam and its application in Muslim personal law matters by Shari’a Councils, my contributions to the discussion have been concerned mainly with this context ~ and yet I have in the process acknowledged the existence and the right to exist of other religious beliefs including those of the Jewish and Christian religions as well as the relatively modern man-made religion of fundamentalist secularism whose most vociferous followers currently assert that only its law should be the “one law for all”.

At the heart of my proposals is what I believe to be a reasonable proposition (certainly it is shared by the Law Commission) that the law governing personal law matters (marriage, divorce, inheritance) should make provision for recognition and reasonable accommodation of all religious beliefs and practices (including but not restricted to Islam) – and not just secularist beliefs and practices – in practical terms.

In my brief life I have seen that whatever religion a person follows, they usually do so because they believe that it is right for them and the best for them – otherwise they would leave it and choose a better option. It is only amongst members of the “one law for all” brigade that I have encountered the belief that their religion alone is right and best for everyone – and yes, there is no greater threat to peace than intransigent arrogance born of doctrine, whether that doctrine is derived from a divine revelation or from a man-made ideology such as secularism.

What many people fail to appreciate (often because they have not really studied the matter and depend on the tabloid press and TV for their limited and often erroneous information) is just how many (but not all) of the provisions of English law are in harmony with the Shari’a of Islam. The maqasid (underlying objectives) of the Shari’a are not really very different to the underlying objectives of most other developed legal systems around the world:

the preservation of its way of life (din)
the preservation of life itself (nafs)
the preservation of the family (nasl)
the preservation of understanding (‘aql)
the preservation of wealth (mal)

Whoever wants a fight will usually find it – and whoever wants peace will usually find it.

The only collision I see taking place is between ignorance and wisdom – and as far as I can see in the end wisdom usually prevails, thank God!

Happy Christmas!