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.