The book review continues...
Chapter Two: The Appeasers
Shariah Courts In The UK
Mr. Wallace explains that these courts began in the United Kingdom in September, 2008. (16). The author writes that the British appeased Islam by adding Shariah to the British legal code. (16). The courts are limited to family civil law for now, but Mr. Wallace opines that inevitably with the rise of Islam this will lead to being expanded to criminal cases. (16).
I will agree with Mr. Wallace that in principal, I do not philosophically support the concept of a group of people in a Western nation being ruled by their own laws. (16). In my opinion, religious rules and law should not be sanctioned by the state, but should be administered internally within the state support of freedom of religion in Western democracies.
For example
I am a member of Northview Community Church and its second church plant, TriCity Church. If I break a rule required for membership, it is my view that for a reasonable separation of church-state, any church discipline with me should be administered via the church and not in any way by a state government. But again, I support freedom of religion via the state.
For Islam, I am opposed to state sanctioned Shariah Law, but support the right of Islam to rule internally. The modern West, unlike traditional Islam, does not have the religion-state unity and this should be maintained within Western society and law.
I am consistent, I would not support the sanctioning of Reformed, Christian law and courts by Maple Ridge, British Columbia or Canada either...
If that would occur in some fantasy alternative world!
Why, you ask?
I do not trust politicians and bureaucrats, or religious leaders, within a sinful, fallen realm, to accurately and reasonably administer theonomy (Biblical and/or religious law) within theocracy. (Religion-State rule).
Jesus Christ stated his Kingdom was not of this world (John 18), and I support theocracy when ruled by the perfect and holy God.
This demonstrates a consistent religious philosophy as opposed to an axe to grind with Islam.
The UK's Independent Fact Checking Charity
Quote
'Are there 'Sharia courts' in Britain?
While there are undoubtedly lots of different councils and tribunals dealing with Sharia principles, they aren't courts of law. Most are Sharia 'councils' set up to make decisions on purely religious matters, although there are some bodies that mix Sharia principles with legally binding arbitration. But none can overrule the regular courts.
Sharia councils
Getting married for the purposes of your religion doesn't necessarily mean you are married in the eyes of the state.
Equally, the paperwork required for a civil divorce needn't be recognised by your religion. For this reason, many Sharia councils exist to issue Islamic divorce certificates, and give advice on other aspects of religious law. They're often attached to mosques.'
---
As noted, principally, I do not support separate religious courts...
'But none can overrule the regular courts.'
This demonstrates a limitation to these courts.
An argument that inevitably this will expand to cover criminal law, or all laws of a nation, if there is an Islamic majority (or significant minority) in population, depends on one reasoning that Westernized Muslims in Western countries will embrace Shariah, as opposed to secularism and secular law.
Shariah law and Islam is definitely and definitively very religious and Western secularism is (of course) definitely and definitively secular. At this point, I do not see the West in any form becoming anything other than more secular, but I am open-minded....
Again, as noted in previous reviews, time will tell.
