All Comments (7)

a citizen of a country is made to feel like an alien then that society cannot be united and cohesive. I think the key word in the Archbishop's suggestion is "incorporation". There needs to be a dialogue with the different ethnic groups to understand what aspects of their personal law is important enough to be incorporated into the general law.

A great Indian reformer, Justice Ranade called for- among other things- the replacement of the concept of status by the notion of contract. Islam was the first world religion to base itself entirely on the concept of contractual rather than thymotic relations- not just between man and man, but also between man and wife, and (more significantly still from the spiritual point of view) between man and himself. Indeed, the episode of the Satanic Verses, properly considered, shows Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h)as considering himself bound by contract to the Ummah (Muslim community) he himself created. Thus, having received a false revelation (relating to the status of certain female Goddesses believed to be the daughters of Allah) he did not obstinately stick to his guns, against the objections of the Ummah, but went back and got the true revelation.
It is true that, as Shree Arun Gandhi says, Hindus in India(for example a favourite film actor of my generation) had to change religion in order to preserve decency in their personal lives and legitimate their children. However, this shows the inferiority of the laws made by foolish parliamentarians to those given by the only prophet (that I know of) whom we to know to have had a specific revelation in this matter. (Whereas the whole of the Quran is prophetically inspired, the same can not be proven with respect to every detail of Biblical or Shastric (Hindu) Law codes.) Indeed, the laws currently regulating Hindu Marriage have no Revealed basis in Shruti, Smriti, commentary or recorded practice.
Changing Religion has been the one method of gaining relief from horrible injustices consequent upon secular interpretations of purely sectarian codes. Resort to such expedient conversion should be applauded as it enables Religious leaders to argue for change so as to prevent mass defection and upholds the universal principle that the Law is made for Man not Man for the Law.
Of course, Law codes based on Revelation must be interpreted in the light of present day needs and in a liberal spirit conformable to best practice amongst best people. In the case of divorce, Prophet Muhammad called it the worst of permissible things. Such considerations can be taken into account before the pronouncement of talaq (divorce) is validated by the Qazi (judge).
However, the fact is, at this moment, acceptance of Sharia Law in U.K could have bad effects. The legal position re. whether or not UK is Dar ul Harb (realm of war where Muslims must not reside) is not clear. I am thinking of cases where spouses of U.K Muslims doimiciled in salafi jurisdictions are forced to divorce their partners- or, in the case of women- have their marriages annulled. These divorces or annulments would then have to be upheld by U.K law (if Sharia is recognised as having jurisdiction) thus causing misery. The parallel I am drawing here is with the manner in which some Communist countries out of malice towards Israel deliberately created problems for israeli women to get the Jewish bill of divorcement from their ex- husbands who were still behind the Iron Curtain.
In conclusion, practical considerations outweigh the prestige attaching to Revealed Religion as a basis for Civil Law. Rationality dictates all forms of Marriage and other Civil contract be recognised subject to the principle that no actual harm is done to any third party.
Vivek Iyer

Mr. Gandhi,

You are quite right. The media has left out the fact that there are special provisions in British laws for orthadox Jews.

But of course, we'll never hear that.

I see, above, a long scam intended to stop this column. It is frequently used. Always on the same subject.

AT THIS POINT, WE DON'T HAVE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IN AMERICA. We have a Jewish controlled media. Obvious in the runup to the war. Obvious here. And in the rucus caused when your last column was taken down. Censured. You, sir, have the credentials to help stop this. Please do so.
But not in the Jewish owned and operated Washington Post. It's far too late there.

Mr. Gandhi,

You are quite right. The media has left out the fact that there are special provisions in British laws for orthadox Jews.

But of course, we'll never hear that.

I see, above, a long scam intended to stop this column. It is frequently used. Always on the same subject.

AT THIS POINT, WE DON'T HAVE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IN AMERICA. We have a Jewish controlled media. Obvious in the runup to the war. Obvious here. And in the rucus caused when your last column was taken down. Censured. You, sir, have the credentials to help stop this. Please do so.
But not in the Jewish owned and operated Washington Post. It's far too late there.

Speaking of accepting multiculturalism, when can we expect to read what you have learned after your hate essay of January 7th?

In an interview you gave on January 25th, you said you stand by "the content." If so, then, clearly, multi-culturalism is not your thing.

Why go on so dishonestly? I realize you worship the great god of publicity--I'm thinking of your piece in the New York Times some years ago--concerning your auctioning off your grandfather's letters at Christies. (Good choice, if you want the big bucks) "What Should I Do?" I believe it was called.

Well, we know what you should do now. You are seventy-four years old, perhaps a bit dotty, and you can't take your clippings with you.

Try to develop a soul. There have been huge advances in life-span learning. Try to develop a soul. Anything can happen. It really can.

I wish you the best.

Mr. Gandhi, societal inclusion does not mean the laws of one land should be invalidated to accomodate the religious laws of a particular group. We do it in India and it is wrong IMHO.

Inclusion can be done by amending some laws to respect cultures and traditions of a particular group. For eg - Turbans that Sikh's wear, or the veils that Muslim women wear.

If the common law was a Christian law (Religious in nature, then it makes sense to include the Shariah)

However, the common law is not based on religion and that should be the law followed by all members of a country.

No one will stop the muslims in following their own laws, as long as they are not in violation of the common law of that land.

The Islamic rule for divorce is that the "I divorce thee" decree must take place once a month for three consecutive months. Anyone who is doing this in one hour is not a Muslim anyway.