British Bishop: Questions Remain on Sharia
| More news stories on Britain |
|---|
Toby Cohen, Religious Intelligence (London), September 28, 2008
The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal has take advantage of Section 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996 which allows individuals to nominate any third party to settle their argument. It says: “The parties should be free to agree how their disputes are resolved, subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest”.
In the Telegraph, Dr Nazir-Ali asked how we could be certain the parties had submitted to the rule of the arbitration tribunals willingly, particularly in the case of women. He said: “Both in terms of submission to a tribunal and in accepting its decisions, are women genuinely free, or is it possible that there are elements of coercion?”
The bishop also questioned how the rulings themselves could be reconciled with British law, based on such different values. In the cases of alimony, division of estate and marriage, he points out stark differences between Sharia law and that of the land which supposedly now supports it.
Also in the Telegraph, Joshua Rozenberg investigates the veracity of the reports which received much attention in the last fortnight. He said: “The tribunal, which was established in 2007, says it operates ‘within the legal framework of England and Wales’. When sitting, it must have at least two members, one a scholar of Islamic sacred law and the other a solicitor or barrister registered to practise in England and Wales.”
The Bishop of Rochester said: “This is not a time to flinch, but to uphold the hard-won liberties of this country for all of its citizens, whatever their creed or colour.”
(Posted on October 3, 2008)
Comments
As much as I would like to get worked up about this sort of thing, I can not. Why? Because Western feminists have chosen to work to undermine the West for so long, and to promote the multicult, that this sort of thing was inevitable. And in so doing, the feminists have had the support of much of Western elites.
This is a matter of the multicult devouring its own. Let us see a mass rejection of the multicult, and the sort of issue raised in this article will disappear.
Posted by Californian at 3:50 AM on October 4
I don’t understand the Church anymore. I don’t know why they would not propagate their own religious beliefs, but would rather support
laws and systems which would surely end them ? I think the world has gone insane…
Posted by at 5:42 AM on October 4
One of the reasons right wing nationalists have been suspicious of Christianity is because of its tendency toward universalism and against particularism, especially since the global, country hopping advent of modern industrialism. The two seem to fit beautifully. We have seen the blowback in the form of German and Italian nationalism and neo-paganism in the aftermath of WW1. If the modern forms of multicultural liberalism continue to eat away at the vitals of nationalism, I believe we will begin to see remnants of these neo-pagan forces begin to reassert themselves, though not on any grand level, and certainly not like the mass movements of the Nazi party. But the internet is beginning to connect kindrid souls and I believe we are witnessing the beginning of a post Christian, particularist society. I don’t know what form the non-communist left will take, though their weird propensity to join environmentalist movements seems to give an indication. If this credit crunch morphs into a serious, long-term economic decline, it will hurt Christians and help non-Christian particularists, essentially the same way the Holocaust destroyed the faith of millions of Jews. There is nothing like a disaster to concentrate the mind.
Posted by Xenophon at 5:14 PM on October 4
Of course these women will be coerced into accepting Sharia authority. They are under their husband’s thumb as mandated by the Koran and their culture. How stupid can the British be!
Posted by at 9:31 AM on October 5
It’s amazing that feminist efforts eventually will result in them living under Islamic law.. lol. It’s insane but there it is.
Posted by Unemployed WASP at 12:12 AM on October 6
Interesting that the Pakistani-born Bishop of Rochester, Nazir-Ali, and the African-born Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, are the only two senior members of the Anglican hierarchy who seem to have the cojones to stand up in defence of England’s Christian heritage in the face of Islamic encroachment. The default position of head honcho, Archbishop of Canterbury Williams, in the face of Islam, seems to be a cringe. Pathetic.
Posted by Joe English at 4:57 PM on October 6
‘Interesting that the Pakistani-born Bishop of Rochester, Nazir-Ali, and the African-born Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, are the only two senior members of the Anglican hierarchy who seem to have the cojones to stand up in defence of England’s Christian heritage in the face of Islamic encroachment.’
I can’t agree with this comment. In this case, speaking out has nothing to do with ‘cojones’ and everything to do with political correctness. Nazir-Ali and Sentamu are permitted to say these (true) things because they are not Englishmen and they are not white. If a white Englishman (or Irish/Scots/Welshman for that matter)said these things they would be howled down by the Leftie-Liberal consensus. Look what happened to the Revd. Peter Mullen.
Posted by Robert Sharpe at 3:05 PM on October 7