This is a site designed to make it easier to take the core of large published reports and allow anyone to comment on them.
In conclusion, it seems that if we are to think intelligently about the relations between Islam and British law, we need a fair amount of 'deconstruction' of crude oppositions and mythologies, whether of the nature of sharia or the nature of the Enlightenment. But as I have hinted, I do not believe this can be done without some thinking also about the very nature of law. It is always easy to take refuge in some form of positivism; and what I have called legal universalism, when divorced from a serious theoretical (and, I would argue, religious) underpinning, can turn into a positivism as sterile as any other variety. If the paradoxical idea which I have sketched is true — that universal law and universal right are a way of recognising what is least fathomable and controllable in the human subject — theology still waits for us around the corner of these debates, however hard our culture may try to keep it out. And, as you can imagine, I am not going to complain about that.
I find I fundamentally agree with what he says, and also with how he expresses it. I can see the incensed reaction to how his comments have been reported. I dont see what in this speech as he wrote it is threatening or offensive to self-confident and right-minded people.Posted by William on 2008-02-08 14:37:41. Link. Report abuse to firstname.lastname@example.org. Back to the main document list