i was also really, really, taken with this quote from the Qur’an:

“O you who believe! if an evil-doer comes to you with a report, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance, then be sorry for what you have done.” al-Qur’an 49:6

excellent. i will be quoting this at people forthwith.

b’shalom

bananabrain

Because in the eyes of evryone else any virtues that they have they have regardless of their source.

I agree – it isn’t strange. In fact, it is a truism.

Generally, however, I’d have thought that formalising – even ‘pillarising’ – the position of communities governed by a rigid interpretation of religious law is an unhealthy thing for a pluralist society to be encouraging. Religious people often do yearn to live their lives according to theologically sanctioned values and codes. The only objections are

- That such precepts are only reconcilable in a pluralist state if they operate at the personal level and are not sanctioned or enforced by law.

- They should not be privileged over values which are not specifically religious.

- They should be recognised only to the extent that they are voluntarily assumed. There is a world of difference between two individuals deciding that their commercial disputes be governed by religious commercial law on the one hand, and a law which punishes individuals who have not consented to the jurisdiction of religious courts for transgressing moral or ritual precepts. Particularly on issues of personal choice or morality, religious communities tend to be extremely culturally conservative because they are often organised on the basis of the empowerment of religious absolutists – usually old men – and are therefore inherently resistant to innovation.

It is on the last point that the tension is greatest. Members of strong and cohesive religious communities can find themselves in the position of, effectively, being by a community which is intolerant of dissent, if they breach its religiously ordained requirements. Being expelled from a such community – which a member might otherwise value, because it constitutes a bond with his family and peers – is a terrible thing to happen to somebody. For example, jews who married non jews have found themselves expelled by their families.

You, in particular, should have significant reasons for wanting to resist the emerging of a narrow, morally authoritarian, religious community.

“Britain is our home. Why leave it? All legal systems evolve. If sharia or halacha (Jewish law) have something to contribute to British law then let the debate begin.”

He’s asking for an open mind and discussion. What is so strange about that?

We should be grateful, at least, that no such alliance exists. It would make life for fluffy (and disorganised) liberals even more dismal than it is already.

Instead, we have ‘godless Communists’ lining up with religious absolutists and falangists: a friendship of convenience rather than conviction which I sincerely hope contains the seeds of its own destruction, so to speak.

That said, the rabbi in question seems to be not a super Orthodox type, but rather a wooly liberal Reform Jew, who is making a familiar ‘wonderful-patchwork-quilt-of-rich-religious-traditions’ argument, rather than peddling a plea for religious separatism. Its the sort of thing I’m generally keen on. Although I suspect that most traditionalist jews and muslims, and many literalist christians would take issue with the notion that “All legal systems evolve”. I doubt many of them would agree that the revealed law of God evolves.

Thats so true. If you are a Muslim talking about Sharia and you cant bother to even pray five times a day, there is something a little hypocritical about you, dangerous even. Muslims have all the Sharia they need in Britian.

I wonder if Muslims in Britian were asked if they wanted to live under Sharia or according to Sharia. The former implies living in a land where there is a Muslim ruler implementing his obligations vis a vis the people while the latter speaks to a Muslims lifestyle.

I do wonder.