Sharia in Britain? We think not..

Our sister blog, Ruth Gledhill's Articles of Faith, offers a magnificent response to the Archbishop of Canterbury's plea for Sharia law to replace - in small part at least - the thousand years' evolution of common and equal British law.  "Has the Archbishop gone bonkers?"  she asks, and it takes a lot to rouse our civilized religion correspondent  to such bluntness.  I commend it. 
       All Faith Central has to add is that he chose a lulu of a day to make this suggestion to a country with less than 3% Muslim population, given the latest news from the Islamic police state of Saudi Arabia.  A western businesswoman has been arrested for sitting with a man in a Starbucks.  This follows a raft of other cases all in this 21st century; teenagers beheaded,  girls burnt to death because the religious police wouldn't let them out of the building wrongly dressed where unrelated men could see them...persecution of homosexuals, terrifying hounding of women, beating up of British Shia pilgrims and arrests of Christians...
      Interestingly,  there is now a reported unease among the Saudi authorities about the power of the religious police; last year there were promises to curb their power.   The Archbishop is not recommending brutal extremes, of course not, and Islamic law is not all bad.  But - as he would put it - we have to "face the fact" that it will take years of visible, measurable civilization and liberalization in Islamic states - Saudi, Iran, Afghanistan in particular - before British opinion will do anything but shrink in horror from the idea of any aspect of it being permitted to replace the rights and duties of British citizens under Britishlaw.                                                                                                                                           
    The BBC, ever even-handed, makes a brave stab at a parallel with the very limited Jewish courts , the Beth Din, which operate by mutual consent in business and marital matters in the Jewish community.  It is not a parallel which holds up for long, though.   Sharia apologists want much, much more. 

Comments

[alan]

I view the Sharia law with utter revulsion. Having said that, could someone dispel my anxiety over the following fact? -
Organisations such as football associations, clubs, political parties etc. do in fact have internal legal procedures. They can fine members, ban them or expel them. This means that there are actually "parallel" legal systems already, alongside the "law of the land".
So why shouldn't this apply to Sharia law too?
This thought disturbs me. Could perhaps some legal expert clarify the matter?

[Carl Waring]

I think not too. Mind you, if some religions have courts it's only natural that other religions should want the same recognition.

Of course, we could all just grow up and stop trying to claim special privileges for believing in an invisible bearded man in the sky, but somehow I think that's quite unlikely.....

[Richard]

Not having ever met the Archbishop, I judge from his photo that he is Monster Raving Loony nuts.

Tower of London is not for this Archbishop; send him over here to the States. Plunk him down in rural Arkansas.

End of problem.

[Christine Armstrong]

Well we could at least behead paeodophiles and rapists, and the banning of gambling and drinking would see most rich arabs leave London. So perhaps it's not such a bad idea?????

[anit]

Archbishop Williams has not had a positive effect on Anglicanism, to say the least, during his tenure. He should resign.

[The 3rd Column]

Could very well believe that the Archbishop of Canterbury has gone bonkers. Why else is he attempting to undermine the British legal system? Because at the end of the day, that's what he is doing -- undermining the British legal system!

Sharia law in the British legal system? Stone adulterers to death, cut off hands and feet for offenders, women stripped of rights, etc?

Archbishop of Canterbury will want to call the Church of England, the Church of Mohammed next!

Mr Williams' mad proposition is the best way to recruit for the BNP.

[Tom Callaghan]

I am a redhead (estimates vary between 4-6 per cent of the population). Since redheads outnumber Muslims by roughly two to one, I assume that Dr Williams will be advocating redheads only courts, where I can be tried by fellow gingers. The man is a disgrace to his faith (if he has any, which seems unlikely), and to the democratic principles of 'all equal under the law' through which this country has survived. I live under a Sharia-based legal system, in a country where the mere reported word of the Prophet (Hadith) is enough to determine law, where non-Muslims, women, gays and so on, are penalised. Dr Willams leads a church which will no longer exist in 20 years, not because of demographics, but simply because he offers nothing in which to believe.

PS: The Prophet dyed his hair red: a sign of great wisdom perhaps.

[Andrew Manners]

Yes he is nuts. He must resign immediately. This type of ignorance can only stir up more animosity towards muslims. He has done them no favours whatsoever. Irrespnsible, ignorant and naive.....but what would you expect from a member of the clergy???? (be it Cof E or Islamic)

The broader subtext with this whole sorry incident is that religion, as an entity, should not be allowed to influence the state. Any cult, for that is what all religions are, is based on fairy tales and mumbo-jumbo......for the purpose of social control and power monopolising. No way should any developed, free thinking society allow religion any part in the workings of State. Here the church of England have been so benign that they have been tolerated and have done mostly good for people who use the church. Today, with the rise of Islam religion is no longer benign and measure need to be taken to ensure that it does not poison this country with its vile, backward, ignorant messages.

[kef]

One suspects Williams has been bumbling rather than arch (really?), but either way he has done us all a great service in stirring things up. Of course the big issue is religion itself, particularly those that have yet to be cowed by secular rationalism. No western liberal, gay, woman, non-believer should ever tolerate any system that attacks, descriminates against, oppresses or treats unequally another human being.

[James]

For once Libby Purves, a columnist I much admire, seems to have jumped onto a bandwagon and I'm disappointed. I've read the speech and listened to the interview and frankly I think many people are sounding off at what the Archbishop didn't say and largely ignoring what he did say. Perhaps they can't cope with words of more than two syllables or prefer to believe highly selective quotes in the newspapers rather than following a line of reasoning.

Incidentally praying in aid a thousand years of evolution of British common and equal (equal?)law looks a bit odd. The history of Islamic jurisprudence antedates Magna Carta by centuries.

[David]

I feel deep despair. Not at what Rowan Williams said but the reaction to it. I tried to engage people at work today on the subject and they frankly didn't want to know. They based their views on what the media had told them, and they weren't interested in exploring what the Archbishop had actually said. Worse, they made assumptions about me, simply for trying to discuss the issue in a constructive way. The destructive soundbite approach adopted to this and all complex issues by the media is to blame. I'm sorry Libby - Ruth Gledhill's reporting on this is unprofessional and sensationalist. She should move to your sister paper. Anglicans sometimes find Rowan Williams hard work; but the hard work is always rewarding in the end. Sadly, the fastfood media aren't prepared to consider their response. Why, for example, have you burst into print today; someone as reflective as you should have waited a few days. But no, that's not how it works, is it ? Has anyone actually read what he said ?

[Muslim in britian]

As a muslim in the UK what is wrong with me living by my religon to the best of my abilities? i got married via an islamic process and will leave my will according to islamic inheritance laws. shariah is not only the enforcing of criminal penalties and wether you like it or not its already here, in our lives - the archbishop understanding of this surprised me - it has shown that he is indeed one of the pre-eminent theologians of the anglican world.

[Adrian Leonard Williams]

The Archbishop of Canterbury (or will it soon be Caliphatebury?)has entered deep waters which anyone who has spent a few years in the muslim world would have told him to avoid. Before the next time he feels the urge to pontificate, I would humbly suggest that he live in the Islamic world for a few years preferably next door to a mosque, (get some earplugs), keep his identity, treat everyone as well as he would like to be treated and then come back and tell us how enriched he has become and give advice to the natives of the UK how best to accommodate their muslim brethren. Just as the Pope was unwise to engage in academic debate with Islam, so is the Head of the England church.

[Adrian Leonard Williams (no relation)]

See my earlier comment.

[jayil]

I do not agree with the Archbishop’s considerate suggestion. Having said that, majority of comments made against Sharia law in UK are stating that Muslims have no right to demand Sharia law within a Christian majority country (i agree) and if they wish to practise it, they should move to an Islamic country. I wonder why have these people not spoken up about 'Christian' U.S and UK's military invasions in the Muslim lands forcefully changing their laws and way of life into western democracies?

[Peter, London]

Firstly, I have not read the Archbishop's speech.

Commenting on the outcry rather than the content of the speech there are a lot of reactionary comments which themselves challenge the weakness of people's religious convictions. To suggest converting to Catholicism because the head of their current religion has made a controversial comment is laughable.
These days people would be less likely to change their support for a football team or their bank.

Interpreting the law and morality that was codified in the medieval and early modern period in the Bible, Koran etc. and making that book written law and morality relevant to the modern world is the challenge for all religions. There is no future for religions in trying to make modern English society fit out of date laws and morality.

The strength of English Law is that it has adapted over the centuries to reflect, uphold justice and control the society in which it operates. English Law is at least generally relevant.
To propose pre-medieval Sharia law as relevant to modern English law and morality perhaps justifies some outcry.

[Una Kroll]

Having just read the Archbishop's speech, I think this is a wider issue than Sharia Laws for Muslims. I think it is about the right of religious people in general, including Christians, to be exempt from the laws of this country by reason of religious conscience. The archbishop may have a won the right to exempt the Anglican Church in this country from Sex and gender discrimination Laws by denying them full human status. In the case of women the Laws have been modified to allow discrimination and non-representation in the House of Bishops in the House of Lords. At this time it is vital that theologically well educated Anglican women make appropriate contributions to certain moral problems - particularly in the field of genetics, embryology and ethics - in the House of Lords. There they are disenfranchised. In the case of homosexuals the Anglican and Catholiic churches seek special dispensation from adoption laws in order to retain public funding for discriminatory practises. Christians have a right to opt out running adoptuion agencies, but they cannot then expect to retain public funding. Now the Church is trying to get a dispensation from legislation that second degree funding is not going to be allowed for theological students. Yes, if they want to discriminate against women and homosexuals they can do so, but please don't expect the citizens of this country to fund them to do so.

The 'SHARIA' inheritance and divorce laws, and their exclusion from many mosques are unjust towards some Muslim women. If they consent to this injustice it is one thing, and they have a perfect right to live as they please, but economic discrimination should not be made legal in this country and it is vital that Muslim women who wisdh to avail themselves of the laws of this country should be able to do so. Una Kroll

[Charles]

Sharia in Britain? As the Archbishop pointed out yesterday, it's already here. The government has introduced a Stamp Duty exception for sharia compliant mortgages, and has agreed to recognize polygamous marriages for benefit claims. Having read both the interview and the speech – rather than relying on sound byte headlines – I consider that the Archbishop was suggesting that there should be a debate about, not proposing a parallel system of, sharia law. It is the government, not the Archbishop, who made these changes to accommodate sharia law. Don’t shoot the messenger.

An important freedom we enjoy in this county is the freedom to choose a religion, or none. He who leaves the faith, kill him - this is but one example of where I have difficulty in accepting Islam as being consonant with British values. Accordingly, I can see little scope for any further recognition of sharia within English law myself.

[Helga McPhail]

The mere thought that Archibishop Williams was not booed out of the Royal Courts during the lecture is most disturbing. Did the upholders of the Law just sit and grin? A place, where the Law of the Land is applied should never be the podium for any clergy to meddle in secular matters of any design. As long as he wears the golden robes of office, he is not a civilian with all the rights that go with this status.
Archbishop, either refrain in the future from meddling in state affairs or abdicate and run for political office! By the way, you should really not be in the House of Lords either, should you?

[FRANK]

DAVID said: "Anglicans sometimes find Rowan Williams hard work; but the hard work is always rewarding in the end."

Says who? And in what way? The complete disintegration of the Anglican Communion? Nice work, Rowan.

In fact, Williams is *always* (not "sometimes") hard work and it has not, in any way, shape or form, been rewarding.

He needs to go, pronto. Someone call the Queen.

[Mark]

Well I have read what Dr Williams said - and it leaves me deeply concerned at so many different levels.

As Anglicans my wife and I have discussed whether we can remain in a church which is so prepared to compromise on fundamental beliefs, historic understandings and the concerns of millions of its members.

And as a lawyer (qualified in three separate jurisdictions with a degree in law, a degree in economics and a masters in law) I am deeply concerned at the challenge to the fundamentals of our constitutional settlement and common law.

This man was not talking about an agreed settlement of civil disputes between parties by reference to sharia principles though subject to English common law (as already exists). Attempts to explain away what Williams said on this basis are not consistent with what was said.

William's remarks went much much further - in effect an opting out of our legal system completely. I simply cannot accept that we can or should so divide our country or prejudice fundamental principles.

And it is not as if this is the first time this has happened. Only recently Williams attacked US 'imperialism' yet remained less than critical of the breach of human rights and absence of democracy in Islamic societies.

Williams should resign - sadly, I don't think he will. And many more Anglicans will have to decide whether to stay inside the Church of England.

[Doc Savage]

I seriously propose that the archbishop undergo a medical examination to determine whether he is suffering from the first signs of dementia.

[Danial]

"It is not a parallel which holds up for long, though."

Your hypocrisy is quite outstanding, but at least you're honest in your hypocrisy unlike other commentators.

[i heart sharia law]

internal "proceedures" or "rules" are not the same as legal statutes. they do not function in parallel with the legal system.

if you violate the football club's rules, you are not likely going to jail, as you would violating a criminal statute.

however, i wouldn't mind sharia law in britain if it leads to the demise of the anglican church. that's what the idiot is asking for isn't it.

[Sophie]

Alan, in response to your question, under English contract law any parties are free to enter a legally binding contract as long as it does not conflict with English law and is not entered under duress. English law would still have the final say if there were any conflict and would take into account the wishes of the parties expressed in the contract but would not necessarily enforce it if it was felt to be unreasonable, against the law or obtained under duress. Pre-nuptial contracts are an interesting example. Courts will take them into account but might overrule them if they clash with the prevailing family law. Therefore these kind of informal contracts do not constitute a separate legal system. Muslims are also free to make such arrangements.

[Rick Beekman]

Richard;

We Don't Need Another Lunatic Like This Archbishop Sent Over To The States Especially To Arkansas.

We Have Bill And Hillary Clinton From Arkansas Already Which Is The US Version Of The "Royal Family"....Both Are Royal Pain In The You-Know-What!!

[Lesley]

How dare the Archbishop of Canterbury casually throw away the rights of Muslim women in the UK? Sharia Law only for domestic and property disputes would take away their rights to equal justice that women in the UK have fought for and won over the last century. Sharia Law was created by men for the good of men, and make women second-class citizens.
I was so furious when I heard The Archbishop's comments that I shouted at the television even though I was on my own!!

[leila]

I think we are so fearful of Islamic fundamentalism (or whatever the government want me to call it) that the very mention of the word Sharia is enough to send us into a downward spiral. Whether this is wrong is immaterial. Archbishops or any other speakers have to realize this before they contribute to debates no matter how intellectual the discourse.

We cannot forget the bombings and the bombast of those who would recruit young men and women in this country for their evil purposes.

Let us first see condemnation from the Moslem Council of Britain for their activities and not fury when men like Qaradawi, who stands for nothing that 95% of the British public admire, are refused entry. Perhaps then we might have respect for the less iniquitous and unequal side of Sharia.

[lesley spofforth]

Time to retire, i think the archbishop has lost the plot and damaged christians beyond repair

[Rat]

Jewish Religious Law outdated Islamic laws by many centuries. So What? Does that mean that the UK shouls keep Kosher?

[Champaklal Lad]

Rowan Williams is already correct as Sharia Law exists in the Uk already and has done so for a while. Its just that people are ignorant of the fact as it does not apply to them and when someone makes a statement/speech all of a sudden the ignorant think they know everything about it. Statements such as one law for one person and another for the Muslims, well the following will prove just that.

A search on HSBC and sharia law will bring up enough articles for you to reference.

Sharia Law exists in the UK. HSBC has a banking division called HSBC Amanah - established in 1998 - is also based in the UK.
Provides Sharia Law financial services.

Urls to look at :

http://www.hsbcamanah.com/1/2/hsbc-amanah/about-us

http://shariahfinancewatch.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/how-islamic-loans-avoid-interest-hsbc/

There are many others.

So by inference one person can be treated differently for a mortgage, loan to another under the current UK legal system.

Also look at LlyodsTSB and Barclays I believe they have Sharia Law personal and Business accounts on offer

[Robert Browne]

The only way that Islamo facism can establish itself in Europe is by betrayal from within by people like the archbishop. If he had even one brain cell in his head, which clearly he does not have, he would already have resigned. He thinks he has done nothing wrong and that is what makes him so dangerous and the very reason he should be made to resign. Hitler thought he had done nothing wrong likewise Stalin. So archbishop you are in good company. However, you are a clear danger to the State,to the Anglican church but more importantly you are a clear danger to democratic society. This is the reason he should be made resign. Indeed, if treason is still on the statute books he should be charged under the very law of the land which he seeks to undermine and has undermined. He is a disgrace!

[Reyal]

Why all this hoo bah? First people has to learn Sharia and get to know very well before criticising it?
Do not give stupid example what is happening in some Muslim countries.
First you have to see they are real Muslim Leaders. I am Muslim I always accomodate all the world religion

[Maree Shearer]

England's laws are based on Democracy & Freedom. Justice, equality,fairness.Arch. Rowan doesn't speak on behalf of the maj. of Christians who uphold these beliefs.Our forefathers revered this beliefs and so do we.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

This analysis of correspondence received from Lambeth Palace may be of interest:

http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/02/the-next-round.html

[Nadia Stoves]

The Bishop of Cantbery should remember Our Lord Jesus talked of love and forgivness.

How is it possible that any one in Britain, or the whole world, that has seen the 'Death of a Princess' can ever forget how unjust the Sharia law can be!

Have women and children any rights, in Sharia law, to give their opinions???

Can the Bishop tell us how many 'Honourable Killings' have taken place in Britain?

Has the Bishop read any book by the Egyptian doctor Nawal El Saadawi?

We are obliged to respect, accept and live in harmony in the country that we have chosen to come to and to live in.

No one has forced people to move to Britain, the choice is theirs

Love Peace & Forgivness

[RM]

Send the archbishop to rural Arkansas? No thanks, he's your "malfunction". He seems to think sharia law is a good thing. Send him to Saudi Arabia.

[Jim]

Unlike some, I have read the full text of Mr. Rowen Williams speech, in which he states "if Shar is the revealed word and Sharia law its realisation..." etc. (paraphrased). To then go on to be an apologist for and to actually promote even partial (initially!) sharia law in christian based Britain can logically only mean that he believes the Shar to be the revealed word of God. After all, he is not promoting a christian ethos or system of rules even within his own Anglican Church, many of whose churches are now mosques. Resignation followed by Dis-establishment is an urgent necessity for Britain now.

[Robert Atkins]

Whilst Dr Williams may not have expected quite the extreme reaction that his remarks have elicited, I wonder if he wasn't in some way motiviated by a desire to 'stir things up' in the good old tradition not only of turbulent English Archbishops but in the ancient tradition of radical Christianity - the tradition of the moneylenders and the temple. In this case, he hasn't 'gone nuts' at all, but he is, in part, trying to respond to the recent injunction to be more outspoken from another Holy Archbishop - Desmond Tutu.

[Stuart-Edward Hopkins]

Dear Sir Only a small minority will have taken the trouble to study the Archbishop’s lecture, and only a minority of those who have actually read the lecture will understand the meaning of its content. In fact the lecture does not contain anything that is either sound or original. The lecture is thoughtful but, at the same time, it is both discursive and inconclusive: it lacks a coherent or consistent philosophical structure. This subject has already been explored, at length, by a number of internationally renowned scholars, to which the Archbishop makes reference in his lecture. I would suggest that it would be wise if he were now maintain an extended period of silence, at least with respect to this particular subject. The Archbishop may have done us all service, in so far as the reaction to his essay, which has been almost universally hostile, indicates a deeply imbedded distaste for sharia law - whatever it may happen to be. The very idea is clearly unacceptable to the host community at large. Stuart E Hopkins, APhS.

[Lynn]

If Dr Rowan had a call to the Christian Church, it would appear that he has lost that call and should now resign

[Wilma Parkinson]

I have read what he said, which took a while as it was addressed to jurists and I am not.But even so, if it was not beyond my understanding then it certainly ought not to have been beyond Times journalists and columnists. Has the dumbing down of any issue affected their own intellect? How sad in that case, because they are missing the most thoughtful Archbishop for a long time; whether you agree with him or not. Like David's comment, I feel deep despair at people's absurd kneejerk reaction to a lecture and especially at journalists encouring and fuelling this.

Wilma

[Dr.Proctor]

The pc crowd in the UK have finally gone over the edge with this latest bit of insanity. If you chaps don't vigorously oppose this mentally deranged archbishop, the British way of life and the freedoms you enjoy, freedom that men and women died for, will be a distant memory for you all.
FIGHT BACK!!!!!!!!

[Gbenga Williams]

He's a stark raving mad druid and his head should be examined. The BBC as usual will always stoke anti-semitic feelings. The BBC knws that the Jewish courts are totally different, but they went ahead and compared Williams' proposals with the Beth Din courts.
I've made a prediction that the BBC will be one of the first British media outlets to feature female newscasters with covered heads. The BBC is pathetic.

[Mohamad Azmi]

Why do we have to compare Sharia implementation in Saudi with Britain? In Britain, Muslims are minority, therefore, Sharia law that will be most helpful to be implemented are in areas related to family lay, inheritance law and matters related to death and marriage. Is that too painful for Britons to accept? What happened to the hundreds of years of British empire forcing their culture and law down the throat of people in south asia, far east and africa?

[J Cline]

You're reaping the fruits of multiculturalism, my friends.

One good thing: it's happening now, when the problem culture represents only 3% of the population. You have the power to recognize it and avert the disaster.

It's still possible to cage this growing tiger cub. Don't be fooled by its cuteness or seeming innocence. Empowered Islam is a tiger full-grown, and it means to devour England. Such is Islam's dominant nature -- one must not blame it. But you do not bring tigers into your home.

I am happy that Rowan Williams has kindly put the country on notice that Sharia is coming. He is, of course, a blithering idiot to suggest it has a place here.

But the fact that such a presumably-wise man could actually propose bringing ANY degree of barbaric legal practice into Britain must be the greatest warning of all.

If the learned elite can be made to submit to Islam so cravenly, then it must be up to the sensible common folk to stand up for their own native culture and legal traditions and say "NO!" ...before it is too late.

[Richard]

I learnt 50 years ago in Sunday School that Islam is an evengelising religion that is intent on converting the whole world to its beliefs & practices. We cannot allow even a small part of sharia law to become part of the British legal system.
'Multi-culturalism' has many many faults, and will never work in this country. If it were allowed to work even more than now, British culture will completely go down the tubes. We would end up like Saudi Arabia or worse.

[julie]

I hope the politicions read these letters then maybe they will see what they have done.not only have they given away our little country for which so many died,but have made us sick to death of the do gooders who in turn make people who have never been rasist, rasist.It seems if you do not come from abroad you just don't count anymore

[Jason Mead]

So our unelected and unrepresentative Archbishop, once again and as Polly Toynbee once pointed out, dithers and “muddles into the moral maze and gets himself hopelessly lost.”

No one seems to have noticed that this is only the latest of a series of high-minded moral lectures that Rowan Williams has been making on matters social and legal over the last couple of weeks. Let’s put aside his unhelpful contribution to the abortion debate, last year, which he dithered into and provoked Polly’s unusually perceptive assessment. He also started shooting his mouth off over the 24 hour drinking laws and, whether you agree with them or not, you have to ask who voted for this person to lecture the government on changing its laws?

It is, perhaps, an indication of how the government is so utterly compromised by the issue of faith that Gordon Brown said that he wanted to "consult" with the Church of England in relation to scrapping the out-dated, unjustifiable, blasphemy laws. Again, you have to ask, why the Chuch of England? Why not all of the respective constituents that they're supposed to represent?

Rowan’s response to this was absolutely stunning. He actually advocated that the blasphemy laws are abolished in favour of something even more severe and draconian, that prohibited “cruel“ and “thoughtless“ forms of speaking. Even then there were useful idiots rallying to support him.

Now, Rowan Williams claims that he has been misrepresented and that his carefully worded and nuanced speech had never called for a parallel jurisdiction of Sharia for Muslims. It is probably because he used so many caveats that he, himself, doesn’t actually realise that this is generally the notion he was trying to gently put forward.

On reading the full text of the speech, It appears, that it is no more than special pleading and consideration of the law making special legal provision for practicing religious groups. The Archbishop’s intention and agenda, really seems to be, one law for those of religious faith and another for the rest of us. He was merely using the example of Sharia to promote a notion of exceptionalism from the law so that the idea can be extended to all religious faiths including Christianity. This idea is, of course, utterly repugnant to anyone that believes that we should all be equal under the same law. This is why he said in the BBC interview that the one law was “a bit dangerous.”

Rowan Williams hasn’t been misunderstood. Unfortunately for him, what he actually meant was only far too clear and we all know various examples for what he means. Cast your minds back to the crash helmet debacle. The law of the land was then seriously compromised when Sikhs were not compelled to wear crash helmets, an exception being made on religious grounds. We’re all aware of GPs who refuse to do their job and public duty by refusing to refer women for abortions because of “personal convictions.”

More recently, we’ve had Hindus who object to disease-riddened cattle being humanely destroyed, hotel owners who refuse to accommodate gay people and Catholic adoption agencies that are threatening to close rather than allow a child to be adopted by gay parents because they refuse to acknowledge a change in the law.

It is in the light of this that Rowan Williams wouldn’t just like to see a continuation of religious exceptionalism but to also see it extended. This surely demonstrates one of the points that Professor Richard Dawkins made in his fine book, The God Delusion, where he identifies that one of the threats to democratic values and the rule of law comes from the so-called religious moderates rather than extremists. This is because extremists are easily dismissed as crackpots and being completely out-of-touch with the everyday world. Moderates, as epitomised by the Archbishop, are dangerous because they’ll strain every intellectual muscle and every rhetorical sinew to defend the indefensible, excuse the inexcusable and, in case of Sharia law, perform mental acrobatics to justify the unjustifiable and have a far greater chance of being taken seriously by their peers.

I hope that we can now all see where this is ultimately heading and recognise that there now has to be an absolute separation of religion and state. We can only co-exist in secular state no matter how uncomfortable that may be for some.

We can start by getting rid of all unelected peers, including the Archbishop, from the House of Lords. Doctors who refuse to give abortions or pharmacists who refuse to administer contraception out of “personal conscience” should be systematically struck-off or sacked. Hotel owners who refuse to accommodate gay people should be closed down and so should Catholic adoption agencies that refuse to obey the law. All religious involvement in family courts also has to end.

Only then will we have something approaching a sane, rational society that isn’t held to ransom by faith-based pressure groups, muddle-headed medievalists and the bigoted believers in Bronze or dark-age fairy tales.

Still, we do have the Archbishop to thank for putting the media spotlight on this particular issue. After all, the general public may not have been aware that Sharia law is already being dispenced on the streets of Britain or that Polygamous relationships have been officially recognised by the benefit's system.

[hussein]

Well these has been blown away by haters.Cause muslims never spoke a word about sharia yet from right and left they are being insulted by self appointed muslim haters.My response to your hate is first to see why.Let for example take americans anti-abortion movement who blow up clinics who also profess christiniaty does that mean all christians are terrorist?? So presumambly you hate all muslims cause of every tom,dick and harry who blow up somewhere claim to be a muslim.It could be some are but some are planted by organisations such as CIA.Does it mean all muslims are killers? these is worrying times for western civilization after brutal killings of muslims in crusades they have now graduated to character assasinations against muslims.My main points is that islam is a message of god whoever used it wrongly or done something in it name he alone should be blamed not islam.It strange the good man Williams was merely pointing out something about sharia law yet majority of those who resoponded like pack of wolves never read the full text.In islam we say keep your religion and your belief to yourself and we keep our religion to ourself.I think these is era of backwardness in terms of many things.
The west is at the crossroad like never before in it history where end of cold war was good chance to bring new order of enlightment we now witness same old tactics of divide and rule used against muslims who do not even constitute a single unitary threat.The funny thing is cold war has returned slowly wth Russia calling for armament to keep up with west.These time around their would be no western alliance to prop up western goverment with free oil and labour Thanks to demonisation of muslims.So the nuclear threat is now coming from Russia who are busy supplying anybody with ready cash.It simply the reward for to many lies and hate spread by Bush adminstration.Islam is a message of god,it has nothing to do with muslims they either follow it or choose not to.Keep hating cause at the end of day what is the big deal if sharia is implemented or not.Let get real once for all.BNP mentality is not goner bring you any progress.I have lived here in Uk for long time and thankfully majority of people are open minded people and tolerant.It few who spoil for the rest but that human nature.

[Gideon Davidson]

I'm pretty sure he was just referring to efforts to accommodate marriage styles that the Muslim population will follow anyway and to help them do so legally. Civil courts to arrange such matters so that the minority can feel safe and that their personal preferences are legalised could, in such personal matters, be a good and progressive thing.

Yet this is a far cry from trying to be an apologist for even a small-scale implementation of 'Sharia Law'. The problem is that the 'Sharia' is not something to be trifled with, as overwhelming evidence from the Islamic world shows. Even allowing the traditional marriage styles opens up the problem of inbreeding causing birth defects, unreasonable welfare requirements for multiple wives and so on. Yet there needs to be some kind of accommodation in a multicultural world and the messenger who reminded us of this should not be shot, but rather thanked. In fact, he is really just explaining a process that will happen regardless of what anyone says.

On the one hand I am glad that so many people know how dangerous the notions of 'Sharia' law actually are and how antithetical they are to Jesus' teachings of forgiveness and love. I hope this never takes root in our free country as it clearly leads to unimaginable suffering. Yet I am saddened that his thoughtful attempts at commentary, even if seen as misguided, can be attacked so viscously. Perhaps the instinct to protect ourselves and the children in those communities from such dangers was awoken. He should make clear the civil and limited nature of his proposals and that they are for reasons of multicultural harmony. He should criticise the breaches of human rights in 'Islamic countries' and show his credentials as a supporter of human rights. Otherwise, he should probably resign.

However- this will not change anything, as ideas are more powerful than positions. It is quite possible that his deeper intention is to make sure that people can follow civil laws in a slightly exceptionalistic way, so as to be true to their religious beliefs, as some other posters have indicated. Now, this may be unpopular with the majority, especially if they feel that their values are accurately reflected by our secular society.

But democracy is all about protecting the rights of minorities, each person being in a sense a minority inasmuch as they are an individual. So there needs to be some conscientious opt-outs to be negotiated. Yet they need to be very limited in nature and not at all infringe on the rights of the majority, or of the innocent inside such communities.

[F]

The Jewish Beth Din is only for Orthodox Jews. Conservative, Reform and Liberal Jews have their own respective 'beth din' which are not recognised. I doubt non-Orthodox movements would not want legal legitimacy. The responsa they give is advisory. http://paswonky.blogspot.com

[John]

There were Christian religious courts in Mediaeval Christendom. However, those able to choose these courts, rather than the King's, through "benefit of clergy" (being able to read and write) could expect a much less severe penalty.

Sharia works in the opposite way: its provisions are more, not less brutal, it claims jurisdiction over all, and supremacy over the State. The Islamic religion claims the right to world domination, unlike any other religion, and Sharia treats members of other religions as second class, and has always done so. Islam has not changed its imperialistic, absolutist nature since the seventh and eighth centuries when it conquered the Middle East; North Africa and Spain by force of arms.

Williams' remarks, however limited, must be viewed in this context. Islam's attempts at world domination, and must be resisted, wherever Islamism or Islamism's "useful idiots", like Williams, seek to open the gates of Judaeo-Christian democracy to the barbarian.

I await the Islamic Renaissance and Enlightenment, and their abhorrence of stoning, and their separation of Church and State, as recommended by Our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom I love them as brothers and sisters, whatever they may think of my remarks.

Yours in Christ

John

[Bernard O'Callaghan]

I have no time for sharia law, but the drunkenness, violence, promiscuity and drug abuse which fills our city centres at weekends, causes a counter-reaction among Muslim youth, driving them into the arms of the extremist imams. The demand for sharia is in part a reaction against the decadent and immoral nature of our society.

Ironic that Tehran and Riyadh are safer places to walk round at night than our western cities. They are also safer places for unborn children to survive!

You can't always assume that State law is morally correct, and therefore to some extent (to what precis extent is debatable) you have to leave room for rights of conscience of religious believers who see things differently. For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses who refused to join the Wehrmacht under hitler's democratically elected government, and were sent to Dachau.

People have different conceptions of human rights. Some think that there is a natural right to homosexual intercourse, others think it is a more basic right that children should have and know and be brought up by a male and female parent (unless one of them has died). Hence the gay adoption issue.

Who is to say that British laws in 2008 are any better than British laws were in 1958. Over 50% of marriages break up, STDs are sky high, suicides and drug abuse asnd Prozac use is far far higher than it was then, etc etc. I'll sound like a Daily Mail reader if I go on. But the state of our society is hardly much of an advertisement for our legal structure.

I don't like creeping State secular-liberal totalitarianism any more than Sharia Law. They both seem to me extremely damaging.

[J]

Agree with Jason on all counts, not least as normal Muslims seem to wish this would go away and leave them to follow their faith as good British citizens respecting the rule of secular law.

Let's not forget that the Bish is subject to the Church's own version of the law- priests have no contracts of employment (or therefore normal rights to maternity leave etc.), as they are apparently employed by God, not the state. So he is used to this barking state of affairs- indeed, he presides over it. When will he deal with this ludicrous anomaly which deprives his own staff of their normal employment rights under the law of this country?

Does anyone know if canon law still operates? I think it does in some areas.

[RW]

John,
You say, "The Islamic religion claims the right to world domination, unlike any other religion, and Sharia treats members of other religions as second class, and has always done so." This is not so. The Qur’an (Maedah 5:48) says: “For every one of you did We appoint a law and a way. If God had pleased He would have made you one people, but (He didn’t) that He might test you in what He gave you. Therefore compete with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; for all return to God, so He will let you know (after Judgment Day) that in which you differed.” This means Muslims can never expect that everybody will be Muslim or follow sharia because God (Allah) says this is not what He has chosen for the world. Any Muslim who says otherwise is mistaken.
Muslim societies allow Jews and Christians their own law courts and have at least always viewed them as citizens to be protected, unlike Christian societies. It was "Christian" Europe that had pogrom after pogrom (and seems to be building up for another one against Muslims). I would advise Muslims to leave Europe, not because they have no right to be there - they are citizens, but because they are in real danger.

[John]

RW

Muslim societies, from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan do not allow Christians to build churches or even practise their faith; the same follows for Jews. Even in the so-called "golden age" of Islam, Christians had to wear monkey badges and Jews pig badges. Non-Muslims (dhimmis) were subjected to punitive special taxes.

If you really believe that these practices, past and present, are wrong, you should encourage your fellow Muslims to say so, loud and often. I suggest this movement be called the "Islamic Reformation". I also suggest that it would be a great deal safer to launch this enterprise from the free West, rather than an Islamic country. If you doubt my word, read the works of these Muslim, or ex-Muslim authors; Ibn Warraq, Shirin Ebadi, Irshad Manjit and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Their views, although differing widely, are much closer to mine than yours. In some of them, their condemnation of Islam is much greater. My father, together with the citizens of the British Empire, America and Europe, fought a war to end the last and most terrible of the pogroms - which were like the others against Jews, not Muslims.

Please note, Jews did not exact global vengeance as a result of this, but set about creating the state of Israel, a democratic model for the Middle East. They have been rewarded with a further murderous campaign to exterminate them, by Muslims this time, not Europeans. The Palestinian leader, Amin Al- Hussein, was tried and found guilty at the Hague of collusion with Hitler's henchmen to exterminate the Jews of Palestine through a projected concentration camp near the town of Hebron.

I am not a Jews, nor an Israeli, nor a Nazi, whatever you say. I want your help in ending the perversion of Islam, past and present, by mad fanatics and self-serving absolutists. Will you help, or are you going off in a sulk because you can't have it all your own way?

John