What parallel Sharia means in practice

I wonder whether the Archbishop of Canterbury has heard of Lina Joy?

Since Rowan Williams made his extraordinary intervention I have been in correspondence with Malaysians with direct experience of living under a parallel system of state and Sharia.

There have been numerous disputes concerning the correct courts to be used in different cases.

One of the most famous controversies concerns Lina Joy. Actually that's only her name now, her Christian name. Her birth name is Azlina Jailani, and she was born a Muslim.

In 1981 Lina Joy became a Christian and she is trying to have herself declared as such on her identity card, her MyKad. One reason is that she wishes to marry her Christian boyfriend and it is illegal for her to do this while she remains classified as a Muslim.

However her attempts to have her conversion recognised have failed.

The civil courts, and finally the highest court - the Federal court - have ruled that she can't decide on her religion for herself. She has to to be given approval by the Islamic courts. Which, of course, is not forthcoming.

As the decision was announced last May, outside the federal courts a crowd chanted Allahu Akhbar.

This is not the only type of case, by any means, where the joint jurisdiction poses fundamental problems of human rights. Another type concerns what is known as body snatching.

The conversion of non-Muslims near death without the knowledge of their families has caused fierce rows. One reason, according to my correspondents, is that conversion changes the destination of any inheritance with Islamic courts deciding and inherited assets flowing only to Muslim relatives or the community.

Divorce battles raise similar questions. Conversion by the father in the run-up to a divorce gives him crucial advantages - he gets custody, turns the children into Muslims and prevents his wife using the civil courts.

Running a dual court system produces extraordinary practical difficulties and the opportunity for human rights abuses. Just ask the campaigners in Malaysia.

Comments

[Richard]

Danny - that's all good stuff. But please re-read Williams's comments. He specifically didn't say there would be a "parallel system" and went to great lengths to explain himself in this exact context: "It's very important that you mention there the word 'choice'; I think it would be quite wrong to say that we could ever licence, so to speak, a system of law for some community which gave people no right of appeal, no way of exercising the rights that are guaranteed to them as citizens in general, so that a woman in such circumstances would have to know that she was not signing away for good and all; now this is a matter of detail that I don't know enough about the detail of the law in the Islamic law in this context; I'm simply saying that there are ways of looking at marital dispute for example within discussions that go on among some contemporary scholars which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them. In some cultural and religious settings they would seem more appropriate."

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1573

I really do expect more from the Times on this story. So far, we have the usual echo-chamber, with stories and opinion feeding off false assumptions and panic.

[Matthew]

A feature on Israel's system would be useful - it seems more like what the AoC is proposing, but I haven't seen many details so can't be sure.

[Verity]

Richard, above, quotes the Archbishop thusly: "It's very important that you mention there the word 'choice';".

How many times does he have to be told that there is no "choice"? If sharia is available, a muslim can't simply opt out of it. That's an advanced Western concept. It doesn't apply. If sharia's there, they are governed by it. It's the will of allah.

Why does the Archbishop think that islam is Christianity but with a few exotic twizzles? It is not similar.

As I've noted elsewhere (as have others) the reason those islamic women in Ontario fought with such steely determination not to allow the introduction of sharia into the Ontario legal system is, there are no options. If it's there, and you're a muslim, you will be governed by sharia. No woman in her right mind wants to be under this oppressive religio/legal system.

And again, if it is there, she has no choice. Mr Williams is talking out the top of his mitre.

[Tapestry]

The Archbishop is saying that if the world wasn't as it is, things could all be different. Very helpful.

[Richard]

Sorry, Verity, I'm afraid you're not living up to your name on that one. The whole point of ABC's comment was that without choice, such concessions to different religious and cultural means of resolving issues normally dealt with in the courts *could not work*. So if you're right, and Muslim women would feel compelled not to seek redress through the standard courts of arbitration or marriage, for example, they have no choice - ergo, any concessions to sharia in that form would not be considered - by Williams himself - to be workable.

And how do you know no women want to live by a version of Sharia law? Many people want abortion banned - does that make them "out of their minds" for rejecting that choice? Would they say women who accept legal abortion are monsters? Jeremy Clarkson doesn't want to live with 70mph speed limits - does that make him a heretic or a threat to British civilisation?

The more I re-read it, the more Williams's WatO comments seem to bear no relation to the debate they kicked off. That makes him at best a poor PR person and at worst a bad communicator. But when things get this heated, it behooves commentators to disentangle what he actually said, not bang on in general terms about the worst possible interpretations of one aspect of what they think he said.

Tsk. Some example we're showing the fundamentalists of how to live in an open and thoughtful society...

[Donald Sargeant]

Dear Lina Joy,

Maybe you should come to the states, and join the Episcopal Church. We are a little more forgiven then the Archbishop's church,on things like that.

[Dectora]

Rowan Williams was remarkably evasive on the issue of women's legal and social rights;in a memorably opaque comment he said that this might ptrove to be a 'neuralgic ' issue under Sharia law.If he does not support equality before the law for both men and women. LET HIM SAY SO! Of course he is too much of a vain coward to do so. And useful idiots such as Richard evidently believe that Sharia law is just so cool for women. I am sure that Richard knows many women who are utterly happy to have their legal testimony counted for half that of a man's. Tell us more, Richard.

[Garry]

"I wonder whether the Archbishop of Canterbury has heard of Lina Joy?"

In a general sense, here's your answer (from Williams' speech):

"What about the historic Islamic prohibition against apostasy, and the draconian penalties entailed? In a society where freedom of religion is secured by law, it is obviously impossible for any group to claim that conversion to another faith is simply disallowed or to claim the right to inflict punishment on a convert."

Also, given that Williams made it clear that British law would have primacy and that he was not advocating parallel systems as described here, this article is woefully misleading.

Disappointing, Mr Finkelstein.

[Scott A]

The bishop may have stated that he believes that there should be a choice, islam does not. Islam wants their law to be the only one and the fact that it is so open to abuse should cause EVERYONE to stop and re-evaluate.

[Man in a Shed]

Richard | 12 Feb 2008 14:29:49 - the problem is the breath taking naivety (or worse otherwise deceit) of Rowan Williams and his supporters. What you fail to understand is that Rowan Williams has shown great weakness that will encourage aggressive Islmacists to push for more and more.

Let be clear - nobody - not the Christians or the Muslims is going to do what this weak and failed leader suggests. He is just carrying out the role of Neville Chamberlin and waving a peace of paper he thinks will guarantee peace in our time when in fact it will guarantee the opposite.

[David Moran]

I simply do not understand what the Archbishop is proposing.

He says he's not proposing a parallel legal systems for Islam (oh and for the CofE while your at it) to bypass the democratic process. Pleased to hear it!

So that leaves us with the alternative, that courts should recognise agreements that individuals make as a result of mediation from their chosen religious body. In other words courts would recognise valid lawful contracts. Well English law has recognised private contracts for generations, so why would RW go to all this trouble to "to tease out some of the broader issues around ..." ... keeping things as they are?

Sorry, but something doesn't square here. It's this feeling that he's deliberately exercising "unclarity" and being evasive that is both frustrating and worrying.

Can any of the people defending him enlighten us as to what precisely the Archbishop IS proposing?

[Todd]

How can you have an oppressive Islamic Court operating in tandem with a Secular Court of the state that gives equality to all based on the laws of the country?? If you leave your country to go to another one you need to obey their laws. You can't import laws with your immigration. Maybe on the street, but in the courts??? That's a hill of beans. Bullocks.

[Dave]

I dont want ANY religion involved in law, its bad enough without some 2000+ year old methodology from the dark ages being rammed down our throats.

Its bad enough with all the NEW laws without adding OLD ones.

[BOB]

Richard you still don't get it. Verity is right on. In the context of a sub-culture, where the whole family can disassociate itself from one person and lay a moat of fear around the "guilty" party is enough evidence to not allow a subcultural legal system to exist, choice or no choice. Her freedom stops at the doorstop of her house. Allowing her family the choice to extend sharia, takes away her own choice of freedom by default. The existence of any sub-law tolerated by our legal system opens up enormous abuse. Our cultural mores are based on fundamentally different principals-freedom and liberty under law where full liberty exists within the constraints of law. There's is obviously not....we must endeavor to keep it that way.

[Alistair]

How dos the Christian religion here in the UK deal with those who wish to renounce it?

If I am baptised as a Protestant or as a Catholic, am I a permanent number on their roll? What do I do to get the number of claimed Christians reduced by 1 if I convert to another faith or none at all?

[Alistair]

I may have missed something, but it seemed to me that the Archbishop said he took the blame for a lack of clarity in what he said, for which he apologised. But he remains adamant that he was right to raise the subject and stands by his speech.

Plese correct me if I'm wrong. It's just that I am still trying to understand (even more so after the Synod address) what the difference is between

1) "a supplementary jurisdiction" with Sharia

2) a "constructive accommodation" with Sharia

3) the law recognising "other affiliations and loyalties that shape and dictate how people behave in society"

4) Muslims not having "to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty"

and the 'parallel' system that both Lord Carey and Cardinal O'Connor seemed to think he was speaking about and which they slapped down at the weekend, notably in the Sunday Telegraph and the News of the World.

I don't think the media can be entirely blamed for misinterpeting the Archbishop when Messrs Carey and O'Connor had significant opportunites in their newspaper articles to set any misinterpretation straight, and didn't.

Perhaps Carey and O'Connor, also described in the past as great thinkers, are just too thick to understand the musings and "nuances" of Oxford trained theologians?

[dave]

We seem to be having the debate the chief wizard wanted and it is clear there is a massive divide between the leaders and their flocks. This has come as a shock to the great and the good and challenged their so called wisdom. Until the web and broadband the masses could only voice their opinion with letters to the editor of a newspaper and one vote every five years. By email and blogs they have shown their frustration and anger at so called academics and wise men/women who sit in their ivory towers and tell the rest of us what is good for us.It does not matter what debate the chief wizard wanted the great unwashed have seized their opportunity to tell them what they think and they do not like it.The non Muslim people of this country are fed up with Muslims demanding we live by their culture and the useful idiots who aid them in the name of multiculturalism.

Yeah may be we see those things happenin in islamic contries but that does not mean that this is Islam people that do this things are makin Islam looks like that lot of bad things happen in Christian countries that doesn't mean that this is christianity u dont judge a whole faith that s embarraced by more than 1.6 billion person by the action of some. so what sharia law offers you solutions for your problems may be you wont like it but you just want to disagree with anything related to Islam just like that. you even misunderstood what the Archbishop siad it s just he said something good about Islam u attacked him. Respect to him for being brave and God will stand with him you ll see.

[LGB]

I think the Archbishop missed a trick here. In the last Census more people (like myself) stated their religion as Jedi than any other mainstream religion. This means there are more Jedi's in the UK than there are Christians or Muslims. Should the Archbishop have considered the creation of a Jedi Council? Where we can discuss our own legal requirements and arbitrate our own laws? Can I also carry a light sabre now too? That would have got him far more popularity votes than trying to befriend the Muslim community! Oh, in case you feel the need to laugh at my religion and say its all made up, perhaps you should read our doctrine first? (continues at http://www.jedichurch.com/jedi-doctrine.html)
"There is one all powerful force that binds the entire universe together. It is "an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together". This is a concept that most religions of the world concur with. Some refer to it as their deity, some refer to it as a life force, but the one thing nearly all religions agree with, is that there exists a single unifying force."

May the force be with you.

[paul]

If there wasn't ANY religion do you really think this would be in discussion. Every single religion in this world cause more worry and upset than the rest of the human race. this world will break apart due to stupid people who have nothing better to do than spout off about this God and that god...there is no 'God', there is no 'Allah' get it into your thick skulls and get a life for yourselves instead of joining the big bandwagon that is 'Religion'....it should be banned!

[Ashok]

Malaysia and Turkey were the only Muslim dominated states that were the show-piece of Muslim liberals.

Not anymore.

There is a case of a Hindu-Malaysian, whose widow found, to her horror that he had 'claimed' to have changed his religion just before his death.

She is going from post to pillar to get her inheritance and her children but facing Islamic resistance.

Muslims just can't live in a democracy and none of the Islamic states is secular. In minority, they use democratic instituions to get their way.

[LorV]

Regarding the article, it's probably worth addig that Lina Joy eventually could not marry and set up a family (she is now over 50 and cannot have children anymore). So she was deprived of the most basic human rights. Malaysia is a segregationist and institutionally racist state.
As for those whe defend archibishop, because he proposed sharia courts "olny" for family and property disputes. I would say that he did that with arguments (loyalty to state vs religious affiliation) that could (then) be used for estabishing sharia court for any other matter as well. This is idiocy, and British people are right to be outraged. Why does he not go to Sudi to live for a while?

[Mathew Collins]

A muslim and colleague and friend of mine has recommended me to watch a television program on Sky channel 813 "Islam Channel" tonight at 19:08:00.

Apparently the program will host a number of prominent Christian and Muslim scholars which will be discussing ABC comments.

[Marco Borg]

Basically we have a group of people from outside Europe, half of whom want a set of laws which are totally incompatible with European culture, history, traditions and indeed to basic values, eg treatment of women, religious conversions, ploygamy and marriage to under-age girls.

Over the past 30 years a relatively small number of people have virtually monopolised the media and parliament and imposed on us the
strange doctrine of political correctness. We have been formatted to accept "multi-culturalism" and to "celebrate" diversity. What this has meant in essence, is to criticise most things European, most things Christian and to accept a tsunami of unskilled people from Asia and Africa. At the behest of some of these people we are supposed to offer apologies for disputed matters dating hundreds of years ago, discard our history, poke fun at our religion and yet we are supposed to be impressed with "holy cities" in the desert.

Our politicians far from defending us and our heritage have been the prime movers in this degradation. They have been more interested in capturing "the ethnic vote" than in defending us. And our churchmen have behaved like politicians because probably they do not believe in what they are supposed to defend.

IT is a very gloomy state of affairs and it is very difficult for the individualistic British citizens to organise themselves. However we are many and the appeasers and "useful idiots" are few. We can force our politicians and the party leaders to our bidding by emails, correspondence and phone-calls. We can express our opinions about multi-culturalism, veils, block postal voting, building of mosques, immigration the BBC etc.

Again I repeat, we are many and they are few.

[maujkar]

Well it seems that people are misquoting his statement. Certain matters like marriage , remarriage etc should be dealt with according to their religion. You just cant apply Jewish or Muslim law on Christian and vice versa. I think he’s got a point there but the media is trying to corner him by imposing that he is a traitor, what’s right is right and one should stand for the right. What he means is that if there are Jewish court for Jews, then why not Muslim court for Muslim other wise the judiciary incomplete. Either take out the Jewish court and just have one English jurisprudence or have it complete.

[maujkar]

Response to Ashok: India is a raciest country, where ordinary people are divided in four casts. Brahmins etc the good one and the shudar the untouchable. As a Malaysian, we do have racism but thats only in the Hindu community and I am ashamed of them.

[Hamad Lone]

Parallel judicial system is not the answer. The Arch Bishop merely said that elements of Shariah could be incorporated into British law. I wouldn't mind if it means stiffer sentences for criminals and more rights for the victim. As an aside, Islam clearly states that Muslims must abide by the laws of the land they live in. Therefore the need for shariah does not arise.

[MaryCunningham]

Boy, you gotta hand it to the blogs. A whole new religion--Jedi--which outnumbers Christian and Muslim! Who said bloggers can't create their own reality?

For any who might wish to see the alternate reality--ie the 2001 census as published by the National Statistics Office--here is the breakdown (%)

Christian: 77%
Buddhist:0.3
Hindu: 1.2
Jewish: 0.5
Muslim: 3.2
No religion: 16.1

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=984&Pos=6&ColRank=1&Rank=176

Additionally, I wait for another series of screeds by Mr Finkelstein first applauding the great tolerance of the Anglicans abruptly followed by several lambasting the Archbishop, firstly by himself and consecutively by--could one call them attack dogs without being offensive?--his other journos when it became clear that the Archbishop was intent on tolerating Muslims!

Finkelstein was not the worst--I think Minette Martin gets the prize by charging a kindly, rather wooly, archbishop with treason--but he is their boss. Shame on DF!

We must redefine 'tolerance', I guess.

[M.Stephenson]

Muslims should "face up to the fact" that living in Britain means obeying the British legal system. Nothing else.
Beause Rowan Williams is "a man of great integrity"he sould resign now!
AMEN!!!

[Quijote]

Like the Eagles' Hotel California, you can never leave Islam. The concept of a Muslim female electing Civil Law over Sharia is totally ludicrous.

[Sean]

Let us not forget that Islam is a religious doctrine, a religious ideology or way of thinking. It is NOT racist to oppose this reactionary, medieval, misogynistic highly patriarchal outlook because islam is neither a 'race' nor an ethnicity. The best we can hope for is an islamic Martin Luther who might bring this backward dogma out of 7th century Arabia and into 21st century global capitalist society. An excellent account of the life of the founder of this ideology is "Muhammed" by Maxim Rodinson, a late French scholar of Islam. Mohammed is viewed by muslims as the "perfect man". They always fail to mention the fact that he took a child bride (Ayesha) who was less than 9 years of age when he took her virginity. She herself admitted this to arabic scribes after the death of mohammed. He was a very worldly man, merchant, warrior, bandit, 12 wives and concubines, slave holder, executed those scholars who disgareed with him, etc, etc. We must oppose any extension of this Sharia. It's a step backwards for social life. Speaking as a socialist, I think a socialist critique of islam is long overdue

[Twilron]

At what point, does society finally see the idiocity of trying to live the lie of multiculrualism. Assimilitation of the different cultures into the overall community has worked for centuries (At least in the Western Countries). The Arch Bishop's comments, even if they were badly communicated by him, really should never have been spoken. The more that the dominant society gives away, the more the minority society will push for even more consessions. If I came to your country (or any other), I would expect to live under your rules. Not have the rules bent to accomdate me....Multiculrualism is the fastest way to have a fractured society, with every group doing its own little thing. And if the group is big enough, they probably wont even have to deal with anybody outside of that group...Somehow I dont see that as being real conductive to regional harmony...

[julie]

Thank god for the arch bishop people are waking up at last, maybe the government wont be able to slip this law in the backdoor now.

[KW]

Someone said on here
"The Archbishop is saying that if the world wasn't as it is, things could all be different. Very helpful".

I think what is meant is:
"If the world wasn`t full of radical muslims as it is now, things could all be very different, and much safer"
That really would be helpful.

[Jenny]

The ABoC can claim that he was misunderstood, but he hasn't been willing to engage in an indepth dialogue based on the facts across the board.

It's one thing to cry that he's been misunderstood before a synod that is largely ignorant on the subject of Sharia Law, and who aren't able to question him on the full implications, or get him to pin down the subject substantively. He's being allowed to act irresponsibly on a subject that truly is life or death for some.

The man is corrupt and immoral. He refuses to act responsibly given his position. The people should demand a full accounting, where the ABoC has to be accountable. To refuse to do so is dangerous.

[Bill Miller]

Is our law so perfect that it can find nothing to improve by considering that done by others?

The times appears to be deliberately missrepreseting the ideas of the ABC in orer to foster cultural missunderstanding in order to sell newspapers. It used to have far better aspirations.

[Nallakaruppan]

I concur with Ashok that Malaysia practices racist policies. People like Ashok who belong to parapayan race cannot marry into kallans like Samyvellu. A lot of misery is caused by stone-age practices like stove deaths and acid throwing for failure to give dowries.

[Martha Hoeber]

Israel is not like Britain; it is a theocracy, although it does also have a secular government. But the rabbinate handles marriages, divorces, and burials, and the question of "who is a Jew," important in the Right of Return. Britain is a constitutional monarchy, and even though its constitution is not written, individuals are guaranteed rights by the weight of precedent and legal opinion. So looking to Israel will not help. You'd be better off to look at the USA, where religion is separated from federal law. You might learn something from that example. The government of the USA is entirely secular and does not decide on religious matters, except to rein it in if religion tramples on individual rights as guaranteed in a written Constitution.

[Stephen Pain]

I really do not see what is the problem. Firstly, we already have EU law which often goes against the interest of UK citizens, secondly, the concept of equity which is an inbuilt parallel law to address inequality in the law proper, thirdly the examples of parallel law given above are in non EU jurisdiction, fourthly the archbishop is a Christian trying to accommodate people of other faiths - is that so wrong?

Fifthly,a probable solution would be as follows, allow greater scope for a selection of religious laws and rituals within equity - so when there is a case in which the UK or EU law clashes with them, there is a legal space and forum for them, allowing for a construction of a legal argument (using UK legal terms) to come to an equitable solution. By this means there is no conflict. The interests of all are served.

[Michael]

People here tend to forget that there is no such thing as unified Islamic law. Shariah in one muslim society as often as not is quite different in another. The concept of fundamental legal principles based on the Islamic faith is in constant evolution, and indeed a great number of rules and proscriptions described as "Islamic" are anything but. They are ancient and tribal customs that have been integrated into so-called Shariah, according to the country in which they are being applied.

Female genital mutilation is but one of these, whilst being very widely practised in a country such as Egypt, which hosts what most muslims believe to be the ultimate source of authority on Shariah. I refer of course to Al Azhar.

Given the multiple and constantly evolving versions of Shariah, how many parallels do we think we can tolerate alongside our secular laws?

[Susie]

If people want Sharia law, then they should go and live in a Muslim country. As far as I'm concerned, that's it, plain & simple.

Apart from any of the several more important considerations, one only has to consider what the Muslims in their own countries would do if Christians or athiests arrived and tried to alter the laws to suit themselves, to realise what absolute mugs we in Britain are allowing ourselves to be taken for.

[Muhammad Atif]

The reaction to Dr. RW's comments has proven that huge amount of racism, islamophobia and narrow-mindedness exists in the British soceity. If their should be one law and it should be ENFORCED on EVERYONE then Taliban had every right to ENFORCE THEIR version of LAW in Afghanisation.. correct?? In alot of muslim countries; muslims MUST pay charity, marriage MUST be done in islamic way and consuming alcohol is a CRIME. But non-muslims have NO SUCH restrictions; Should'nt their be ONE LAW for all?? According to the 'SUPERIOR SECULAR LAW' a married woman can have as many affairs she want and then at divorce get the custody of kids as well as maintenance along with HALF OF EVERYTHING THE HUSBAND HAS. WOW.. what a GREAT law. No wonder why people in west ESPECIALLY MEN are preffering the LIVING TOGETHER lifestyle rather than a proper marriage. In Islam, law is balanced for both parties because before marriage both parties determine a particular amount of dowry that a man MUST give to his wife which is her to keep in any case divorce or not. The only case where she may have to return the dowry is when she wants to go for divorce WITHOUT ANY VALID REASON. BEATING OF WIFE IS A VALID REASON FOR DIVORCE. Now, lets take a scenario. Lets say a muslim woman (or rather not so muslim woman) who gets married in west, gets her dowry and then later on at divorce keeps the dowry and go to the secular courts to grab half the man's property as well. Would that be justice?? I think its precisely these aspects of sharia which Dr RW williams wants to be accomodated for MUSLIMS ONLY NOT FOR EVERYONE.

[LGB]

In response to Hamad Lone, yes you are quite right, I misread the quote. What I should have said was "So many people stated their religion as Jedi that it is now recognised as a real religion". That would be more accurate. 390,000 people, I hope there's enough force to go around!

[Javed Javed]

HUMANITY (The Poem)

O Humans Lets walk all together,
Everybody has been deceived by their own guide.

Clouds of decimation and destruction are always on the sky
O Human, what have you achieve by discarding humanity?

Listen Muslims, adulterated Islam has put you to sleep
You will not find your destination by sleeping day and night.

Muslims, your heart and soul is naked and has been altered
You are hoping for the flowers by sowing the thorn.

If respect of humans not taught by the religions?
It is a gang of hate, get out of it even if they stop you.

March forward all religions and break the walls of the hate and terror,
Whoever stops you is not human but a devil.

O Humans, Raise the flag of mutiny all together,
Everybody's priests are tormenting and persecuting everybody.
Javed Javed

[silivren]

hey there, muhammnad atif!

the problem with implementing sharia law lies in your statement... "without a valid reason, beating of wife is grounds for divorce"...what on earth constitutes a valid reason? in the english system, the husband would be charged for assault! if anything, dowries (referring back to your example) should be outlawed. in any case, the court takes into account many things before granting either spouse a right to the other's assets, so it would not be so easy to fleece a person off his/her assets unjustly.

are we going to push women's rights into the 12th century so that a group of immigrants (no offense to all british muslims, but you guys, or your ancestors, are not natives of the british isles) can implement the law which they feel should apply to them? or should there be 2 standards by which a person is to be judged? or, by implementing sharia law, are we saying that the hindus may choose to be governed under vedic laws?

seems to me like the archbishop is trying to adopt a give-and-take system with terrorists...we'll implement sharia law, you don't blow up the tube...

[Stephenson]

(5/10/07) Saudi Arabia member of the UN Human Rights Council...(??!!)sentenced two men to 7000 lashes
each after being convicted of sodomy. Iran’s Islamic Penal Law Against Homosexuals, approved in July 1991 and ratified in November 1991 reads- Article 110: “Punishment for sodomy is killing the Sharia judge decides on how to carry out the killing.” Uganda's leading Muslim cleric Sheikh Ramathan Shaban Mubajje has proposed to President Yoweri Museveni that homosexuals be rounded up and marooned on an island in Lake Victoria until they die...
Sharia is not compatible with European fundamental rights and standards. The fact that there are different forms of the Sharia does not change anything in this matter.

The EPP-ED group in the European Parliament is the largest political group with 278 members from 27 member states. In September after studying Sharia, it concluded:Islamic law laid down in the Sharia is not compatible with European fundamental rights and standards. The fact that there are different forms of the Sharia does not change anything in this matter."
There is no discussion to forbid Islam or to restrict private worshipping. There is however the increasing danger that the development of Islamic parallel societies will also lead to the establishment of the Sharia as an additional legal system. Here, EU Member States must set boundaries very clearly as well as quickly."

[Salma Nasser]

Such horror stories. Lina Joy should just go ahead and marry her love. The laws of inheritance don't change if a child of Muslim parents converts to another religion, the law applies equally to the child not to his religious belief. If Lina Joy is being restrained by the Malaysian courts it is not because of Islam but the idiots who are misinterpreting the laws and then controlling the Muslims by the wrong application and wrong interpretations. This is why as a Muslim I would never want sharia Law option in the UK because the interpreters will be members from council of Muslims in Britian, who like their brethren in Malaysia want to rule by misusing and misquoting sharia law. If sharia law was accurately applied in Malaysia, Lina would be free to do what she wants, and if God is offended by any of her actions than it is between her and her God, not her and the government of Malaysia. Islam is the most just religion provided it is applied accurately and understood by men of wisdom, not by control freaks!!!

[Dave]

Sharia will not be implemented into our legal system.

[Maduka]

I now understand fully the significance of the adjective "academic". It refers to individuals far removed from the realities of everyday life.

Rowan Williams is the leader of 70 million Anglicans. He seems not be aware the several Anglican priests bear scars from confrontation with "Sharia".

But why should he be? Afterall, he is more at home with obscure arguments of the 3rd Century Church than with the practicalities of Christianity in the 21st Century.

[Leonard Colquhoun]

As far as I can tell (which may not be very far) Indonesia is a better example to couple with Turkey as cases of Muslim-populated secular nations; I don't think it has the Islamic courts with privileged powers which D Finkelstein referred to in Malaysia, though groups like Jemaah Islamiyah are campaigning for them. The nationalist meetings which took place in 1928 in the then Netherlands East Indies looked to Kemal Ataturk's modern Turkey for inspiration, deciding on a modern secular state, etc, right down to deliberately choosing the Latin alphabet over the Arabic-based one used in the Muslim areas of the SE Asian archipelago and accepting thousands of European-derived words (mainly, of course, through Dutch) such as administrasi, fakultas, gubernur, lampu, tempo and universitas, instead of Arabic-based neologisms, as was often the case in neighbouring Malaya. Perhaps the Shah of Iran should have done the same.

[Nuraini]

ah, lina joy. what a lot of sound and noise over nothing. there is a system in place, so follow the system. had she gone to the syariah court to register her apostasy, and then it is blocked (i mean, a declaration of apostasy, just as a conversion, once verified to be made of free will and sane mind, is a statement of fact, the only reason the authorities need to know is for bureaucratic purposes) *THEN* i'd support her objection, not least because i'm not in favour of having someone listed as muslim when she's not. however, considering that she asked the *registration* department to change it, and then got huffy about being turned down, does not impress me at all. after all, for example you can't just ask the NRD to change the name on your identity card unless you have papers to show you have legally changed it. the NRD's job is to make sure that the information contained on your identity card is in fact true, before making the change.

there are many people who have legally apostasized in malaysia, enough that some people grow concerned, although this sort of thing is not publicised because few controversial things are in malaysia. i know of someone who knows such a person. a muslim malay woman, apostasized to buddhism, married a buddhist man, and died and buried according to buddhist rites, with nary a controversy erupting nor did it ever make the news. besides, what on earth would be the benefit for listing someone as muslim when she is not. the syariah court does a disservice to the muslim people for not registering apostasy, thus misleading the muslims who may need to know, for purposes of marriage, or inheritance and so forth. plus, many of the current issues on cross-conversion occur only because the people concerned keep it secret from their families, sometimes for good reason. on multiple sides of conversion, converts into and out (especially out of islam, and into islam from hinduism) face real stigma and sometimes abuse from their original group for what is a personal decision. this is a reality of things that needs to be addressed seriously and reasonably.

syariah courts have given custody of children to the unconverted mother, in cases where the husband converts to islam, and vice versa, depending on the situation. it is not unknown. recently it was decided that contracts made prior to conversion still need to be kept and does not dissolve automatically, and dissolution takes place in the same way as it was made. i.e. a civil marriage must be dissolved in civil court, even though one spouse is now muslim. the question of converting children, contrary to the parents in question's belief and ignorant people, does not arise at all and therefore it is doubtful whether the syariah court has justification to decide it (since there is no real question in the first place), because in islam all children are innocent anyway, there is nothing to convert them to. if when they grow up they choose a different religion, from islam's POV that is when they choose *away* from their natural inclination.

these things are being debated and decided all the time. by more sensible and careful people who don't waste time pandering for airtime with foreign journalists who are already anti-muslims anyway, looking out for news from divisive, non-solution oriented groups who are also anti-muslims. so it's taking some years to get done. i'm only interested it is getting done, and not hastily. how many years did it take women to get the vote in europe? how many years did it take to end slavery, or give back colonies, or apologise to aborigines? i'm positive that even without being hasty we can manage to work out something in less time than all that.

[gordon]

No wonder the Brits are getting angry? Is it racist to tell things as they are? A muslin family murdered their daughter for not agreeing to an arranged marriage, which is illegal in the UK. Is it racist to speak against this practice? A Muslim family had their daughter circumcised, again illegal in the UK. If this was done by an indigenous white family, the social services would step in. why not for Muslims? Is it racist to wonder why? Why are people banned from wearing hoods in shopping centres because they cannot be recognised when Muslim women are allowed to wear veils in the same circumstances? Why can’t UK citizens criticise the Muslim religion in our country without being threatened with death? While they make bombs and terrorise us? Is it racist to mention these things? Is it racist for a 70 year old pensioner to feel intimidated when walking through a high street in Bradford, being the only white person there? Why are illegal immigrants not returned to whence they came without any delay? Female Muslim nurses and doctors are now putting patients at risk by not washing properly on religious grounds. Now we have to pay benefits to Muslims with multi wives, again an illegal practice in Britain. Where is it going to end? Perhaps, now that Gordon brown has been put on the hit list by Muslim terrorists he will answer some of these questions before we have a civil war! No wonder people are now listening to the BMP, which let me say I abhor. ABC open your eyes and ears. We are a European culture and let’s stay that way.

[stewart]

I think John Lennon, sumed it up very nicely

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

[Nick B]

The entire debate can be made very simple indeed - simply re-read everything Williams said, and everything all the subsequent commentators said, and replace the word "sharia" with the word "apartheid." If you then still think it is OK to suggest that allowing communities to adopt sharia law, then you are either racist, or willfully blind to what islam and sharia mean in practice all over the world.

[RW]

Silivren, you say:
"in the english system, the husband would be charged for assault!" That's hypothetically, I assume. having heard every on eof my female neighbours in Islington beaten by her partner or husband at some point and not one of them ever charged, even though the police were called (when the women were taking refuge in my house), may I politely say that you are talking through your hat. So, both systems can be hypothetical on that point.

As a Muslim woman, who is not an immigrant, and therefore has every right to live in the UK and practise whatever religion I like, I would like to put my hand up and say I would be very happy to be bound by sharia. In fact, I am bound by sharia. I obey it (without you apparently noticing) and accept all the rules about marriage women's rights, the works, with joy! But then I know the wisdom in the sharia and its purpose (which, of course, is not mere social control - this is the "islam as ideology" apprach which is confined to a relatively small number of (ironically) western-educated or -influenced Muslims. We don't need you permission to follow sharia. If my husband were to take another wife (it only needs both of them to give consent, a dowry for the woman and two adult witnesses), I would accept it and make every attempt to get on with her. In what way is this more difficult than, say, dealing with your husband's children (your step-children)? Nobody says that shouldn't be done because "it's hard on the woman". I Islam it is precisely through such experiences that the sould is deepened and grows closer to God. And that's our aim. Not world domination - self-domination, self-control, control of the evil-commanding self which is obsessed and blinded by thing's of this earth and fails to see the importance of what comes after. So, anyone who believes in God will "get" this and anyone who doesn't believe in God, or who has a worldly approach to religion will not 'get' it. This is why this seems to be a 'dialogue of the deaf.'

[Michael Hartman]

Britons please leave the EU. Having subdued to dhimmitude and being handed over to muslim populace, Great Britain now is a real danger to continental europe.
We (germans, french, danes) fight the fight of our life and can't bear a country in our rows, which gave up the fight.
Please, leave us alone. Still we wish you all the luck in the world. May god be with you.

[Joe]

There is some confusion regarding 'Jewish' Law in the UK and in Israel. In the UK a Beth Din or abbiical Court acts under the English Arbitration system, where two parties to a dispute sign an agreement for 'binding arbitration' and then present their case before three Rabbis, who make a ruling that must be compatible with UK Law. If it does not accord with UK law there can be a judicial review. Every Beth Din has a trained authority in UK law to check their decisions. Jewish Law is not parallel, except in Jewish marriage and divorce which require certain religious rites in addition to civil marriage and civil divorce.
In Israel there is no civil marriage. Jewish, Christian and Muslims groups have their own marriage arrangements. Intermarriages take place in Cyprus or elsewhere outside Israel. Israel's religious courts are part of the system and can be overruled by the High Court, although this is unusual.

[S Ahmed]

The Sharia was good for the society & its circumstances when it was revealed but it was meant to evolove & didn't, Why? Because of men who monopolised the sharia & prevented any attempts to reinterpret the laws according to the new circumstances.

[richard]

Er...why is there any discussion about having any legal system that is ruled by attaching the ravings of a fantasy based belief system (i.e. religion) to the way we as humans dispense justice. The process has to be rational and ethical and not based on superstition and delusion. Anyone disagree ?

[herwala john]

common law is fair for all

[Dominic]

The real problem, which many fail to see, is that a leader of a Christian denomination has said that a religion and its system that is utterly opposed to Christianity has something to offer. This is like Turkeys voting for Christmas, not credible.

[D James Reason]

Some facts are sure. Williams has caused complete confusion. Some like his idea of sharia fitting in. Most fear islam and terror. History confirms the latter fears.

There is confused ignorance about islam's founder, history, sharia, muslim's aims and sharia's effect.

A fact is 1 in 10 christians live in muslim states. They are harshly persecuted under sharia. See the Barnabus Fund.

Muslim states have sharia for muslims and sharia to discriminate against 'kaffirs', like Germany in the 1930's had laws set for jews.

Willaims created more fear for the Christians in muslim states 100+ million. He gives credence to sharia and less to Christianity. UN facts are over 3 million girls a year have genitals cut out under sharia.

Sharia is not 'law' as in 'UK law'.
Sharia means path to the well. It is used to control all aspects of a muslim, from thoughts to actions. Any muslim can set up a court, make decisions and fatwas, applying koranic verses to suit.

UK law is founded on christian values for all. Sharia has many discriminations, against 'kaffirs', women and others. Verses can be applied to suit the judges.

UK law is based on certainty from precedent and caselaw. Sharia has no certainty. One sure fact is that it is not certain, varying at the whim of judge, immam and allah.

UK law is fair, impartial for all. Sharia discriminates on many levels, such as one man's word is the same as that of two women.

UK law aims to prevent corruption. Sharia allows payment to victims, or a court to vary sentence. A somali stabber in London was released after his family paid the victim. Taliban took money from criminals before public beheading, then beheaded a rival. Corruption follows at once.

UK law seeks truth. Sharia works with accepted islam arab deceptions such as takeyya a plain lie, khod'eh to trick a rival/enemy into a mistake, taarof to divert, tanfih to weaken an enemy, kitman deceive.

UK law is envied across the world. In sharia states, about 50, many are failed states, such as Sudan, with genocide for christians. Many are in chaos depending on christian aid. Pakistan has a rich 5% elite controlling the 95% on £100 a month.

Williams has created immense damage in principle to UK law by asserting one law is not good for all.

The damage to UK christianity by indirectly undermining church authority is unclear as yet.

He has upset many believers, and created untold fear for christians living under sharia. Leaders should assist, clarify and unite. Wiliams damages, confuses and splits.

Williams has encouraged sharia to develop, at the next bombing will he accept any responsibility?

[Joseph]

There is a basic principle in Jewish Law called 'dina demalchusa dina' which means the Law of the Land is binding in non-religious matters. Jews are bound by the civil and criminal law of the lands of their dispersion. In religious matters such as what is kosher or who is Jewish, Rabbinical Courts make the decisions. In the case of admissions policies to some British Jewish schools even the definition of who is Jewish has been adjusted to comply with civil law. We are grateful that we are able to live our lives in peace in the UK and are more than happy to be governed by the Laws of the UK. Most British Muslims no doubt feel the same way.

[BJH]

The Archbishop's comments cannot be excused or explained away? The use of the word choice does not make his comments acceptable. If the law does not give all people equal rights to make truly voluntary choices what is the outcome of the Archbishop's supposed choice? Who makes the choice for females? How truly voluntary can their choices be? It is interesting that the Archbishop chose divorce laws as those subject to such system - where only the females will be disadvantaged. Why did he not also include property disputes? Could it be because that might involve the rights of those who are important, that is, males? There cannot be two systems of justice - such do not protect all people.

[D]

I hadn't read all the posts. But now I've gone through them... Wow! I'm impressed by the ignorance, intolerance and bigotry. I'm even surprised that sooooooooooo many posters with Muslim names don't know anything about their history and culture. It's great to know that so many Brits are stuck in the middle ages and the crusader mentality, specially the self-hating Muslims. It's quite hilarious actually. But seeing how ignorant, intolerant and bigoted most politicians and media pundits are, it's not really that surprising.

[S.RAMDAHEN]

EVER SINCE HENRY VIII WHEN DECLARED HIMSELF DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, EVERY BRITISH SOVEREIGN HAS BORN THAT TITLE, BUT, OF LATE SOME MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL FAMILY HAVE TENDED TO LEAN TOWARDS ISLAMISM. PRINCE CHARLES HAS OFTEN VISITED BRITISH MOSQUES, ALTHOUGH,TO BE FAIR, HE DID ALSO VISIT THE NEASDEN HINDU TEMPLE ONCE,AND HE TOLD THE MEDIA THAT HE PREFERRED THE SOVEREIGN TO CHANGE THIS OFFICIAL TITLE TO THAT OF
DEFENDER OF THE FAITHS BECAUSE BRITAIN NOW HAS A MULTICULTURAL AND MULTI-RELIGIOUS POPULATION. THE PEOPLE'S PRINCESS DIANA HAS HAD SEVERAL MUSLIM BOYFRIENDS AND SHE TOO HAD VISITED A COUPLE OF MOSQUES IN KARACHI.SHE WAS PRINCE WILLIAM THE HEIR TO THE BRITISH THRONE'S MOTHER. WHAT HE WILL DO WHEN HE BECOMES KING , NO ONE KNOWS YET.
NOW THE TOPMOST CLERGY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND WANTS CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF THE ISLAMIC SHARIAT LAW TO BE INTRODUCED IN THE BRITISH LEGAL SYSTEM TO PLEASE HIS MUSLIM FRIENDS.
APPARENTLY HE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN THE CAPABILITY OF THE BRITISH LAWS TO DEAL WITH THE COMPLEX LAWS THAT GOVERN THE MUSLIMS IN BRITAIN AND ELSEWHERE IN THE BRITISH ISLES.
I WONDER WHAT THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT MAKES OF ALL THAT.
THE PRIME MINISTER'S FATHER HAS BEEN DEVOUT PRIEST AND HE IS PROUD OF HIS FATHER'S LEGACY TO HIM. HE IS A PUCCA CHRISTIAN. AND WOULDN'T WE LIKE TO KNOW. WHAT DOES HE MAKE OF ALL THAT?
WILL SOME ENLIGHTEN ME PLEASE?
SHUSHI.

[Mani]

Sharia Laws are anti-women and are not fit for 21-century secular democracies. In many nations, they have been a disaster and recipes for clashes with non-Muslims. Nobody wants some to be treated differently just based on their religion. Muslims cannot have special treatments and exceptions from general laws. Accept general laws or get out!

It is strange that some Muslims (especially from Pakistan and Bangladesh), who came to Britain for better life, cannot adjust themselves to secular democracies in UK, US, European nations. Why did these people come with their baggages and stick to them, though they have proved to be a disaster in Pakistan and Bangladesh?

All these suggest that time has come for UK, US, Canada and European nations to limit the immigration from these highly Islamic extremism prone nations!

[Muslim in britian]

As a muslim in britian id be happy to have some of my rights finally recognised. You can get married in a church but its not legally recognised if you get married in a mosque. Is that fair?

[Muslim in britian]

people who talk about culture this and that. well you want sharia to evolve but not your culture. isnt that hypocritical. cultures evolve. its time to allow shariah courts and polygamy.

[TONY]

I agree with Richard, just give us the law of the land, without any religious interference. For centuries all it's brought is war or persecution. Keep your aincent dogma, give us freedom to get on with our lives in peace.

[EBC]

Just remember (or learn for the first time?) MUSLIM IN BRITAIN and others saying Sharia is a good idea. Women had to become active 'terrorists' in order to get our rights not even 100 years ago. We blew things up and died for our cause. If you think we wouldn’t do the same again - this time to defend them, you are very wrong.

[David]

I'm sensing that in a very real and meaningful sense this is exactly what the venerable Archbish meant-struggling as he is with his great intellect, his conscience and an overwhelming need to bend over backwards to accommodate his bretheren of the Uma -sharing as they do, in an increasingly secularised world, an undying faith in the one Creator. Brothers in faith! What are the rights of a few women and the grabbing of a few assets in Malasia when compared to this?

[shabana]

In the 2008 a woman still cant walk the streets of britain for fear of being raped. Under sharialh law a woman is an honour that must be protected - under a truly islamic state she would not be used to sell chocolate bars or cars. Unnfortunatly the true Islami stae doesnt exist today - the current regimes are a mish mash of laws no conssitent with islam - and the women of these lands want to live By the shariah as many polls n surveys are elluding to.