The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of Islamic Sharia law in the UK seems “unavoidable”.
Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4’s World at One that the UK has to “face up to the fact” that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.
Dr Williams argues that adopting some aspects of Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.
For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.
He says Muslims should not have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.
Somebody, please again explain to me why this gentleman retains any moral or intellectual authority to lead the Anglican Communion?
The concept of citizenship in a non-sacred state comes down to us from the ancient Greeks, and it is the foundation of the concept and respect for law in Western Civilization. Any society will fall apart into separate camps if it attempts to mix the Western legal tradition with the theocratic understanding behind Sharia law. Rowan Williams is dead wrong on this one.
Help me understand why you folks still are willing to follow this guy???
Brian
Multicuturalism run to tribalism. What a go, Ro’!!! Another blow to intellectual freedom! When’s the conversion to take place? Not the political one.
He says Muslims should not have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.
Why not?
The full interview is on the Archbishop’s site
here.
Another “slippery slope” perhaps?
Gloria
How much longer do we have to endure this man before he retires?
Are any of our British cousins listening here? One can but wonder about their sanity in tolerating this. Whatever happened to their sense of fair play? I suspect that the once well-known British stubbornness has gotten up and left!
Now if he would just interchange the word “law†with TEC polity, we would feel much better on this side of the pond.
Of course this is totally unworkable. It must in some sense be voluntary. But what happens when father A decides his daughter B must be under sharia? Who enforces his decision? And why isn’t her contrary decision paramount despite the a priori assumption of sharia as a governing body of law? Truly the idea of voluntary subjection to law is ridiculous. Is an Islamic woman a British citizen or not? Does she have rights protected by law or not?
But it does serve to illustrate nicely that Islam is not of the West and the West is not of Islam. Otherwise why should an Islamic community be carved out and given its own jurisdiction? If we value our cultural heritage in the west, we had best be prepared to defend it. Too bad we are too busy eating and drinking and fornicating to notice.
I await the expected troupe of secular liberals who will tell me that “All is well. We shall secularize Islam.” You better hope so, since you have bet your life on it.
carl
It is not often that I am left in a state of utter shock. Note this
“What a lot of Muslim scholars would say, I think, and I’m no expert on this, is that Sharia is a method rather than a code of law and that where it’s codified in some of the ways that you’ve mentioned in very brutal and inhuman and unjust ways, that’s one particular expression of it which is historically conditioned, not at all what people would want to see as part of the method of trying to make actual the will of God in certain circumstances. So there’s a lot of internal debate within the Islamic community generally about the nature of Sharia and its extent; nobody in their right mind I think would want to see in this country a kind of inhumanity that sometimes appears to be associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well.”
I agree that he is no expert. But then, I suppose, neither am I, though I do consider him hugely mistaken. Once you accept it in one place (and the sharia provisions on marriage and divorce are themselves barbaric) sooner or latter you will have to accept it all.
I am near speechless. The kindest words that come to mind are “madness” and “lunacy.”
Israel has worked under a mixed system since its independence.
This guy makes Nevile Chamberlain looked steely and principled. Although I consider myself an Anglo Catholic the endless chatter about church discipline is a farce – the +ABC is an appointee of the British Prime Minister – who at the time was the head of a socialst party. The left has every intention of surrendering Western Civ to its gods of multicutural diversity and moral relativism. Things will end very badly for us will religious and cultural leaders such as the +ABC.
And will the BBC have a channel for broadcasting all the beheadings, amputations, and floggings? Cool!
You might as well have appointed this [url=http://www.rowanatkinson.org]Rowan[/url] as Archbishop.
The only possible analogy is with the Jewish legal system, but Orthodox dominance in Israel isn’t exactly pluralistic, is it? Moreover, outside Israel, the Jewish legal system only has influence to the extent that BOTH the contending parties agree to abide by its decisions. It cannot sanction a party that refuses to participate in the process or abide by its rulings.
Absent a profound cultural shift, Sharia will not rely on the consent of the parties but will enforce its decisions by any and all means at its disposal. Look at Nigeria for evidence of that.
One wonders what the Bishop of Rochester is making of all this.
Before everyone goes ballistic, could I recommend you actually read the [url=http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1573]speech[/url].
Two things leap out at me. The first is that this would only apply to things like marriage and financial matters, the second that this would be a choice and that anyone could opt out and go for the secular courts if they wanted to.
The second point is his final paragraph, which really explains what this is about:
[blockquote]CL In the end, do you think that some people might be surprised to hear that a Christian Archbishop is calling for greater consideration of the role of Islamic law?
ABC People may be surprised but I hope that that surprise will be modified when they think about the general question of how the law and religious community, religious principle are best and fruitfully accommodated. What we don’t want I think is either a stand-off where the law squares up to religious consciences over something like abortion or indeed by forcing a vote on some aspects of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in the commons as it were a secular discourse saying ‘we have no room for conscientious objections’; we don’t want that, we don’t either I think want a situation where because there’s no way of legally monitoring what communities do, making them part of public process, people do what they like in private in such a way that that becomes a way of intensifying oppression within a community and that happens; that happens. So how does the law engage critically and intelligently – the law of the land – with the custom, the imperatives, the principles of distinctive religious communities? It’s a large question, much larger than the question about Islam and I think it’s a question which the Church can quite reasonably be thinking about.[/blockquote]
It’s quite important to remember that the big battle going on in the UK is Religious vs. Secular. There is quite a substantial secular majority in the House of Commons (though not, mercifully, in the House of Lords). There are moves to force Christian doctors to perform abortions (not very far advanced), Christian adoption agencies to place children with gay couples (already law, but delayed enforcement), to create human-animal hybrids for scientific research, to remove the Bishops from the House of Lords etc. What Rowan Williams is doing is articulating the need to allow people of faith to “opt out” of areas of law which they don’t agree with. There’s no sustainable way of doing this without including Islam in the discussion.
People who go to live in a foreign land and then carve out enclaves for themselves and then import the legal system of their country of origin are NOT immigrants.
They are COLONISTS.
Sorry for the ‘caps,’ but I used them out of literary emphasis, not emotion.
#9 Patience is wearing thin!
So… if “opting out” is an option, why doesn’t he get behind the reasserter side of the church, and support their “opting out” but remaining members of the WWAC.
He won’t even support “transforming within”, let alone “opting out.
Gloria
OK so we are not going to have the crazy hand-chopping stuff, the public stonings, hangings and beheadings for reading about womens’ rights, blasphemy or converting to Christianity or the family having the right to execute murderers unless paid blood money.
Just the bit about ditching your wife when you are fed up with her by reciting ‘I divorce thee’ three times leaving her financially cashless and starving unless you are somewhere like England where the rest of us will pay for her.
Are those the bits?
I don’t want to hear any more lectures on other matters or why Jesus may have been gay by the Bishop of Liverpool. Get yourself an email account, pick up the phone and start sorting out the mess you have created by driving off half the Communion!
This is a joke, right?
On the merits, his actual remarks aren’t quite as bad as that, when you read them. For example:
But from a “political” perspective, it seems extremely ill-advised for him to be ruminating publicly about such a hot-button issue, especially one on which he admits he’s not an expert. One wonders whether the learned archbishop is clueless about public opinion, which would not be a good thing for someone in his position.
Oh and what about the American lady in Riyadh who was arrested by the religious police, strip searched, made to put on clothes dunked in dirty water, forced to give a ‘confession’ – for?
Sitting in an internet-cafe with her male office staff when her office air conditioning packed up.
Or the two sisters who have just been stoned to death in Iran for sitting in a car with a man who was not her husband. Hubbie was taking video of them to hand over to the authorities – is that the divorce/morality law we are to have here with Sharia?
And how will a minor girl opt out when her parents want Sharia?
We’d better get from the UK special relationship what we can, because in about twenty years the UK will be on Al Qaeda’s side if drooling idiocy such as this is taken seriously.
‘not an expert’ – pig ignorant.
Rowan is the consummate, effete, liberal, intellectual snob. But he makes up for that by being totally clueless about human nature. Sharia law, but only for the limited purposes Rowan envisions, is the nose of the camel underneath his cassock. Yes, there are moderate Muslims out there, but they are afraid to speak. All the oil money is behind the Wahabbists – try to talk to someone about the Gospel in Saudi Arabia and you will experience the future of the U.K. under “limited, local-option” Sharia law.
IMHO we are at the point of needing a “cultural” Crusade to reverse the spread of Islamicization. We will be persecuted for proclaiming the Gospel, but that is the price we are asked to pay for faithfulness to God.
If its any consolation, the British man in the street (or at least on the BBC forums) seems to be firmly opposed to this.
This is why the state should be run in an aggressively secular manner.
There is no way to simultaneously say “we cannot allow same-sex marriage because it goes against the Bible” and to say “Sharia law is indefensible”, unless you wish to put the state in the position of elevating one religion above the rest.
[blockquote]IMHO we are at the point of needing a “cultural†Crusade to reverse the spread of Islamicization.[/blockquote]
No, what we need is a commitment to SECULAR governance.
That’s it, D.C. He never seems to get over having been a theology professor who can make statements and suppositions of all kinds without hurting anybody.
The idea of women having a “choice” to use or not use sharia is unworkable. The family and community pressures would be insurmountable, and they often include violence.
I have to say, for all that I understand why he has said this, I would personally fight very hard against this – fundamentally if you come from another culture and want to make your home in the UK, you should be prepared to accept British law. Otherwise there are dozens of countries with sharia law where you might feel more comfortable.
I fear the Archbishop has forgotten that he’s no longer an academic and can no longer muse on matters like this without causing a storm.
This statement is so bad that it takes one’s breath away. How about the bit of Sharia that states that when a woman is raped, she, not the rapists, should be jailed as the guilty party? The ABC can ask the wretched woman in Saudi Arabia for details. Or the “honour killings”? Or the decision by the Saudi religious police to lock the girl students inside the burning building, where they died, rather than let them escape into the street without their burkhas?
All this, and much more, is brought to you by Sharia, which the ABC now wants to introduce into the UK!
Perhaps the only positive element of this is that the towering stupidity of these remarks will reduce the ABC’s credibility, as thereby reduce his ability to further harm, our devastated Communion.
I was reading this, and wondered how it might sound with some minor changes:
[blockquote]The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of [strike]Islamic Sharia law in the UK[/strike][u]alternative oversight missions[/u] seems “unavoidable”.
Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4’s World at One that the [strike]UK[/strike] [u]communion[/u] has to “face up to the fact” that some of its [strike]citizens[/strike] [u]members[/u] do not relate to the [u]innovations of TEC[/u] [strike]British legal system[/strike]…
He says [u]Anglicans[/u] [strike]Muslims[/strike] should not have to choose between “the stark alternatives of [u]communion[/u] [strike]cultural[/strike] loyalty or [u]gospel[/u] [strike]state[/strike] loyalty”.[/blockquote]
Hmmm… he seems willing to give to non-Christians more than he is willing to give to some aggrieved members of his own communion.
What does that tell us…
😉
The ironies of this plea for religious diversity when applied to Anglicanism are stark and unavoidable.
I don’t think the Archbishop’s comments are lunacy by any means, and first, I would like to express my wish that certain folks on this blog would afford him a greater measure of respect. He holds the see of unity in our Communion, and ought not be treated so poorly in our speech or thought. Furthermore, he is a theologian of respect and distinction, and I find it quite ironic that someone would think a one-line blog posting a legitimate response to any of his proposals.
Secondly, the Archbishop is grappling with an important issue that few of these responses seem to recognize the gravity of. For a liberal democracy to function, there must be a shared political culture that legitimates the rule of law in the eyes of all reasonable citizens. This is not shared by many in the new wave of UK immigration, and something must be done to reconcile the problem, lest the entire legal system devolve along ethnic lines. There are alternative proposals… a more serious program of inculturation, intentional integration, and slower rates of immigration, etc. France has started down this road, a little late, though. And, inculturation has shown promise, as second generation UK immigrants are far more mainstream than their parents. In any case, the Archbishop’s comments may sound absurd in the American political context — our most recent wave of immigration, namely Mexican and Latin American illegals, are not fundamentally opposed to our political culture — but there is a more pressing crisis in the UK, and Western Europe generally, that has to be proactively addressed in order to maintain civil order and forestall a future of problems like we saw in France in recent years.
The Archbishop seems to be proposing a manner in which respect for the British rule of law generally is bolstered by allowing provisions in which communities of new muslim immigrants can resolve specific intra-community legal matters through religious law. (A People’s Court, of sorts, where parties agree to be bound by the decision. It doesn’t supplant the British legal system, it simply exists within it). It is an interesting proposal, and perhaps a workable one. It certainly beats following the path of France! My question to the Archbishop would be to reconcile this prescription with his thoughts on the disestablishment of the CoE, (which I believe is a good idea at this point). Given that he is a systematic thinker, I am sure he has the larger picture in mind, and this is but one snapshot of it.
Let me encourage folks to give the Archbishop a bit more respect, and furthermore to consider the UK political context before shooting off…
It would greatly help maintain social cohesion in the Anglican Communion if Rowan Williams were to stop saying stupid things or resign. Or even both.
The fact that he wants to make it voluntary only indicates that he doesn’t know anything about sharia. Sharia is not a system of law like Catholic canon law. It isn’t simply religious law. It is civil and criminal law as well. Picking and choosing the parts that you would let Muslims implement, and whether they would live under it or not, would be rejected by the people who want to implement sharia, and would lead to division if not violence against those who opted out. Williams wants what I’ve called “British sharia,” which would be all prim and proper and polite. But that’s not sharia, and it’s not what the Pakistani and Bangladeshi and Arab and other Islamists want, and they certainly aren’t going to accept it as another half-baked handout from a British society that is terrified of them and looking for something, anything, to keep them quiet.
Imperial Guilt, White Man’s Burden, call it what you like. The ABP is an ole Lefty radical from way back. Purely in character. Yawn.
#33 – Publius, I don;t support that Archbishop’s aims on this, but equally wouldn’t want them misrepresented. He did say,
[blockquote]…nobody in their right mind I think would want to see in this country a kind of inhumanity that sometimes appears to be associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well.[/blockquote]
He also says, pretty fairly given the standards of debate shown here so far,
[blockquote] I think we need to look at this with a clearer eye and not imagine either we know exactly what we mean by Sharia and not just associate it with what we read about Saudi Arabia or wherever.[/blockquote]
That said, no matter how moderate a form of sharia law, I return to the principle that you shouldn’t come to the UK if you want to live under Islamic law. Plenty of places you can do that…
“….. driving off half the Communion!” Actually, Pageantmaster, unless I’m very much mistaken, the archbishop has finally come up with an plan that unites the Communion.
#36 Jerod – Smart people can say stupid things. When they do, they should be called on it.
Mr Williams has a habit of uttering aloud any idea that pops into his head. In some (academic) settings, this might be all right, but not when you have been entrusted with the spiritual guidance of millions, and you are speaking to a reporter. That he has not thought out the implications of his proposal, is the most charitable spin I can put on this.
But what if he [i] has [/i] thought it out, and seriously believes his own words? If unabated, this sort of thinking will be the death of England, and of Anglicanism.
#41 Lapinbizarre
Interesting to hear you supporting the Covenant.
My comment about the email and telephone stands.
The most awful thought has crossed my mind – how will the Archbishop’s words be read in the northern provinces of Nigeria where Christians are involved suffering under the imposition of Sharia over the secular laws of those states. Of what support are his words to their witness.
Oh oh oh oh oh!
If one is a citizen of England, one abides by British law. There are and can be no substitutes. No church doctrine can override it or stand besides it as an equal in some – or any – sense. Cultural qualifications and divigations do not count. So, in this cou8ntry, when one is an illegal immigrant, one is breaking the law, and cultural and economic forces in the parent state are irrelevant.
THe ABC is, for all his qualifying remarks, dead and dangerously wrong for allowing religious law to alter, qualify,coexist as a legal force beside British law. It is too late to demand that we show respect for the ABC; he has disqualified himself, again and again. His titles are irrelevant; only performance counts. Larry
He’s really done it this time.
Just Sharia Law, PM, don’t get too excited!
Marcus (#40), I agree with you that Sharia must not be introduced into the UK. Western political theory holds that people consent to the ground rules of their nation (the “social contract”). In the West, those ground rules have long been settled. Equality under one law is one of those settled principles. Our political theory says that Moslem immigrants to Western countries, along with all other immigrants, must accept those ground rules.
The Moslems seem to reject both our settled ground rules, and the proposition that they must adopt them in our countries. For example, in Minneapolis, Moslem taxi drivers who service the airport claim the right not to pick up people who are blind (the guide dogs “defile” the taxi), or those who are carrying a bottle of alcohol or a pork product, or male/female couples who cannot prove they are married. Thus moslems claim special preferences for themselves. There are many examples of this everywhere moslems have settled.
I am afraid that there is no “moderate” sharia. Islam claims absolute superiority, and demands that all religions and political theories and legal systems submit, or face the (violent) consequences. Islam has a word for us: dhimmis. I expect that we are going to hear a lot more of dhimmitude and the concepts behind it.
Which returns us to the ABC’s statement. Perhaps Rowan wouldn’t want to see the hand chopping, beheadings, and oppression of women happen in the UK, but there are lots of people who do. It is truly astonishing that he cannot see the deadly threat he advocates importing into the UK. The ABC advocates giving moslems special preferences before the UK law. This is dhimmitude. The ABC’s voluntary adoption of dhimmitude truly indicates stupidity; there is no other word for it.
He holds the See of unity? Are you for real? I used to point out that he was appointed by a liberal government. That’s incorrect. It was a socialist government that appointed him. The position of ABC can be respected without our being required to respect the person holding it at the moment. Willliams long ago by his actions and statements (like the current one) tossed aside any hope he would be respected. He is an embarrassment even to thinking effetes. Thanks, Tony Blair, for putting this pretense of a leader/thinker on our backs and then crossing to Rome yourself.
Thanks Lapinbizarre.
And when Islamic law rules in Britain (as is their historic goal everywhere) don’t expect that the rare Christian who is elected to village office will have the option to take the oath on a Bible. Won’t be allowed.
There really is no polite way to say this, so I won’t try.
He really is clueless.
It is time Anglicans around the world called for his immediate resignation.
Can’t the queen recall him?
Now what would have happened if the allied troops who were in Saudi Arabia had put up Christmas trees after they had forbidden to?
Try opening a Christian church in Waziristan!
Allow Voodoo adherents perform animal sacrifices in England!
Agree (and allow) that Muslim immigrants in the UK to kill their children if they consort with or marry non Muslims. (and then let the father and brother out of prison for doing precisely that!
Forbid Muslims to convert to Christianity.
Allow British muslims to put a fatwa (sp.) on any non Muslim in the UK who writes or says anything critical of Islam or Mohammad.
Take alcohol into muslim areas of Britain or open an off-license there (or pub).
Etc, etc
So it looks like we have lost both France and Britain to Islam. Who’s next?
here’s some of what +++Rowan can look forward to:
Religious police in Saudi Arabia arrest mother for sitting with a man
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3321637.ece
Why live in Britain if you abhore British law?
British law has helped Britain prosper over the centuries. The British legal system helps Britain remain a desirable place to live, work, invest, and do business.
Can anyone point to a sharia-dominated legal system with a comparable record of probity, stability, and prudence—or a comparable role in facilitating social peace and prosperity?
The ABpC is said to be an intellectual and that is why he comes up with naive statements like this. He may be philosophically learned, but he certainly doesn’t know the history of the British Empire since WWII and what happened in countries that were preponderantly Muslim. I have lived in two of those countries and know how wrong he is. Malaysia is a good example of what happens when Sharia law is implemented. The Brits left a parliamentary form of government that, to this day, many Muslims fight to control and replace with the Sharia. It can be ugly. When I left Malaysia, one state had declared the Sharia to rule, even though it was unconstitutional to disenfranchise the large minority who wanted no part of it. Even the PM who was against the idea had no power to force that local government to observe national law.
Little does +++Rowan know that in Islam the Sharia is supreme and like a woman can not be a little pregnant, neither can a state accept a little bit of the Sharia.
Britain will be Balkanized if the ABpC’s ideas become a fact and headlines, in even “The Guardian,†will read like the following in the news this morning: “Woman Jailed for Sitting With Man at Saudi Starbucks.â€
Two kinds of people can be described as often being ‘out of touch with reality’ and ‘seeing reality through a distorting lens.”
They are liberal arts/soft science academics and the insane.
It’s interesting how mainline liberal Christians refuse to accept any Biblical moral standards for themselves, and denigrate any Christians who do, but then fawn all over extremists of a false religion who would replace God’s grace and mercy with exactly what Jesus taught against.
“The first is that this would only apply to things like marriage and financial matters, the second that this would be a choice and that anyone could opt out and go for the secular courts if they wanted to” —Marcus [#18]
Fair enough. But that would still be plenty problematic. For example:
–1– Applying sharia to family and financial matters would disproportionately harm women, who would opt in when getting married and then be stuck with fewer rights when the marriage went sour. Having different ethnic groups live under different family laws may be unavoidable in some parts of the world. Britain is not such a place. Within England or within Scotland, the law is the same for everyone.
–2– Under the circumstances presented here, legal separatism (and other extreme multiculturalist solutions) will not douse the flames of cultural separatism; it will feed them. And it will set a rotten precedent.
“Two kinds of people can be described as often being ‘out of touch with reality’ and ‘seeing reality through a distorting lens.’ They are liberal arts/soft science academics and the insane.” —#59
Don’t forget ideologues.
Again we come back to the comparison between ++Rowan and Chamberlain. The ABC is much more a Chamberlain than a Churchhill – he is all about aoppeasement. A society can not function when the law is applied differently to different people.
There was a call, somewhere above, for respect and deference due to the archbishops reputation. Unfortunately, I think he recklessly squandered that reputation a very long time ago.
Good grief where does one start?
When will the remnant of sixites hippies running our country finally die out? This is a joke..let me say it plainly:
LIBERALS TAKE NOTE: MUSLIMS ARE NOT MERELY CHRISTIANS WITH DIFFERENT COLOUR SKIN AND CLOTHES….THEY ACTUALLY STAND FOR VALUES DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO OUR OWN
The tolerance and liberal values you love are the product of years of CHRISTIAN leadership. They do not apply to Islam which finds tolerance to be a weakness:
Hence once Sharia law is established it has to reign forever. Acoording to sharia law anyone trying to change it faces death Think I am joking …just ask +Nazir Ali who seems to have a better hjandle on all of this – has spoken the truth- and is now threatened with death himself. That is the compromise of those we deal with.
So one last time:
Muslims do not share you vision of a land in which all religions hold hands and are freinds- they plan to convert the whole nation and kill the faith of Christ crucified. WHICH IS WHY WE NEED TO DEFEND OUR VALUES AND FAITH WHILST BEING LOVING AND COMPASSIONATE WITH THOSE WE DISAGREE WITH
After the Brits finish gagging on their tea maybe they will mass at Lambeth and take the ABC out to the woodshed. Is there ANYTHING that Williams will not compromise with and try to paste together and call “good”? This bodes what is to come in the Anglican Communion: a patchwork of unsustainable compromises that ultimately end up falling apart. GET OUT OF THE BOOKS ABC and join the world!
Has anyone in the UK considered having him committed. He seems to have slipped off the dock.
Having read some of the press in the UK, the suggestion is being made.
Dear Dr Williams, what can you have been thinking of.
Honestly, I am not surprised. Nothing in Anglicanism surprises me anymore. Well… except that so many self identified conservatives remain in this “communion.” I will concede that one. There will be the inevitable howls of outrage here and elsewhere among those wandering about the ruins. But no one will actually do anything serious, LIKE LEAVE.
I am not even remotely angry with the ABC. This is exactly the man everyone has known him to be. Why the shock and indignation? I think my frustration is directed more at the people in forums like this one who will expend enough hot air to lift a dirigible but who obstinately refuse to see the writing on the wall.
WHY ARE YOU STILL ANGLICANS? At what point will you finally concede that this battle is over and you have lost. Is there anything on this earth that can make you grasp that? I think not.
If anyone in England (maybe even Rowan) reads anymore, they should check the books of the late, great, Steven Runciman for what happens to a population of Christians under Islam. That is, if England qualifies. Rowan would make a good leader of a conquered people under an Anglican Millet. Very compliant, he will be a good eunuch in the court of the Sultan. The lady clergy of the C of E will look just fine in burkhas.
Thank you, Jerod, #36, for suggesting some sense of respect for the office of Archbishop of Canterbury and, perhaps even for the person of Archbishop Rowan. In [i]Mere Christianity[/i] CS Lewis, discussing what a Christian society might look like, thought it might seem rather old fashioned in an insistance upon showing outward signs of respect and in an emphasis upon courtesy which, he noted, is a virtue.
JRR Tolkien opined that “Touching your cap to the Squire may be damn bad for the Squire, but it’s damn good for you.”
A little courtesy shown to the archbishop of Canterbury would probably not be too terribly bad for him, and it would certainly would be good for those who show it.
Father Dean A. Einerson+
Rhinelander, Wisconsin
I agree almost completely with the comments that are highly critical of ++Williams and his most recent rather bizarre remarks.
However – I should point out that there are some points in Sharia law that I actually appreciate. When I took a course on Early Islam in my doctoral studies from a (Jewish) professor whose research focus was Islamic law. Let me give the example I have in mind – inheritance law. There is a hadith (of highly questionable isnad/pedigree) in which M’d says, “No bequeath to an heir”. What this little rule means is that every family member will have a minimally fair share of an inheritance. Dear old dad cannot will everything to the young hottie he married after the divorce. No child or (other?) spouse can be disinherited. I rather like that. (For the record this is not an issue in my own family.)
#69: “WHY ARE YOU STILL ANGLICANS?†Because the center of gravity in the Communion doesn’t prescribe to this nonsense. Remember that in the OT, Egypt (land of Africa) saved the decedents of Israel.
There were some points in the sharia that were significant improvements over conditions in pre-Islamic pagan Arabia, Rick in Louisiana. Muhummad, for instance, stopped the cycle of vengeance by strictly limiting who could take vengeance and under what circumstances. He imposed a sense of order and discipline on a chaotic and disorganized culture.
The problem is that sharia is a complete legal system from the eighth and ninth centuries AD and is not allowed to be modified. It is not adaptable to modern life and, in modern terms, treats women very unfairly. It also, in places where it is the majority legal code, treats religious minorities unfairly. What was “tolerant” in medieval times is grossly intolerant today, but Islam and sharia have been unable to make the time shift.
If the muslims don’t like the law in UK they should go somewhere else or organize and vote to change it without the ABC’s help. Two legal systems ? This may be the stupidest statement I ever heard him make. He is leading the lemmings over the cliff…why are we following him???
Give the Muslimopalian Anne Holmes Redding her collar back. Obviously, she was just ahead of her time. And some of you look to this guy for LEADERSHIP???? A fish rots from its head down.
[blockquote] Somebody, please again explain to me why this gentleman retains any moral or intellectual authority to lead the Anglican Communion? [/blockquote]
Or, for that matter, a lemonade stand.
Time to park ++Rowan in a nice, cushy sinecure at Cardiff JuCo.
Virgil in Tacoma writes:
[blockquote]Israel has worked under a mixed system since its independence. [/blockquote]
Probably not the most convincing marketing there, Virg.
Pageantmaster,
Thanks for your posts. You have expressed perfectly what we are all feeling (and, with respect to places like Nigeria, fearing).
I hope this statement puts to rest any faith that +++ABC would rescue orthodox Christians from our new age tormentors. The people who have the most to fear from this nonsense is Muslim women living in the United Kingdom. The Uk needs to drastically curtail immigration, deport Muslim extremists, and stop pandering to multi cutural sentiment and work very hard at restoring pride in being British (it would likely require firing most of its academics.) +++Williams has it entirely backward – he is merely discussing surrender terms.
#78 re: Virgil in Tacoma’s Israeli reference. The conflict in Israel etc. has gone on since 1948 and will probably continue until one person on each side is all that is left. It is hardly the way Britain should want to go and I’m surprised that long conflict has not been considered by +++Rowan before making his strange pronouncement.
re 80: Well, if you’ll read the excerpt back in 18, it seems to me you’ll find the belief that Cantuar cannot perform such a rescue. And I think that on the terms typically advanced here, he is absolutely right. If he were to turn into the dogmatic figure that seems to be the preference among his detractors, the secularists would have no problem at all consolidating their hold on the British government.
I don’t think his program would work; but that’s not the point. The point is to attack him. Even if like Neville Chamberlain he were to have a radical change of heart– and for the ignorant out there, I would point out that it was Chamberlain who led England into war against Germany, not Churchill– I think he would still be decried. I have to believe that the GafCon bishops want to divide themselves from the communion, regardless of whatever anyone else does. They have abandoned Anglicanism because they have absolutely abandoned any effort at comprehensivity.
[blockquote] I would point out that it was Chamberlain who led England into war against Germany, not Churchill. [/blockquote]
Too little. Too late. And when the fate of Western Civilization hung by a thread during the last week of May 1940 – with France prostrate, America asleep, and Britain’s only significant military force west of Egypt surrounded at Dunkirk – it was Churchill who stood in the gap and kept England in the war. That was his finest hour. Never was Hitler so close to winning. And never did one man make such a difference. Chamberlain was no Churchhill. Chamberlain didn’t see the threat until it was too late, and then proved himself incapable of dealing with it.
carl
Mr. Wingate:
Given the choice between parity between Christian values and Islamic values or secularism which at least reflects predominatly Western values – most would opt for secularism. Letting Sharia in is far more terrorfying to most people. (when the multicuturlaists finally realize that they are going to get slapped silly by the very non-tolerant Muslims it will get interesting) As to Gafcon Bishops – if they have concluded that comrehensivity means having to tolerate heretical religious views as part of your own religion – then comprehensitivy might ought to be abandoned as unworkable (re Lincoln’s house divided cannot stand). BTW – Yes Chamberlain was Prime Minister on Sept 3, 1940 – but I would hardly say that he had a radical change of heart – the Conservative party would have thrown him out had he not of belatedly rearmed after the Munich debacle and declared war after guarnteeing Poland’s borders.
Sorry I meant Sept 3 1939
Well, it was only two years ago that the Bishop Chane of Washington and Episcopal Church spokesperson Jim Naughton excoriated the Archbishop of Nigeria for the Nigerian church backhandedly supporting a law which impinged on human rights, but actually was a proposal to soften the punishment that sharia law would have imposed. So will they now disassociate themselves from the Archbishop of Canterbury for calling for sharia law in Britain? Or will they simply reveal that they had no real concern for either Nigerians or Britons in the first place, only political motivations?
Per Bishop Chane:
[blockquote]Archbishop Peter J. Akinola, primate of the Church of Nigeria and leader of the conservative wing of the communion, recently threw his prestige and resources behind a new law that criminalizes same-sex marriage in his country and denies gay citizens the freedoms to assemble and petition their government. The law also infringes upon press and religious freedom….
I also feel compelled to ask the archbishop’s many high-profile supporters in this country why they have not publicly dissociated themselves from his attack on the human rights of a vulnerable population. Is it because they support this sort of legislation, or because the rights of gay men and women are not worth the risk of tangling with an important alliance?
As a matter of logic, it must be one or the other, and it is urgent that members of our church, and citizens of our country, know your mind.[/blockquote]
As a matter of logic, Bishop Chane, do you support sharia law in Britain or not? Do you disassaociate yourself from the Archbishop or not? It is urgent that members or our church and citizens of our country know your mind, don’t you think?
Let’s have a show of hands. How many of you have either (a) listened to the Radio 4 interview on the BBC web site or (b) read the lecture the Archbishop delivered on the subject today?
It is clear from reading a sample of the more than 260 stories on the subject currently on Google News that very few of those who are commenting have done either, much less both.
When you listen to the interview in the light of what he said the next day in the speech his interview was intended to promote, it is not as big a deal as some are making out. I think what he was saying is that people who choose to submit themselves to an alternate set of rules for decision and an alternative tribunal are routinely allowed to do so by secular contracts that contain arbitration clauses. The English legal system also recognizes decisions by the Beth Din (the Orthodox Jewish courts) and by the courts of the Church of England, for some purposes.
Why should people who voluntarily (and that must be proved, not assumed) wish to have their disputes settled by Muslim courts according to Muslim rules be treated differently? To say they cannot is to say they do not have the same rights as a credit card company. It is also to say that British citizenship must be an exclusive loyalty—a Muslim can have only one master and that master must be the secular state.
+Rowan is thinking a chess-move or two ahead here, I think. Once the principle is established that the state can always trump religious loyalties, a fairly obvious target will be Christians whose loyalty to the City of God affects their sole allegiance to the Earthly City. Britons have already seen this in the insistence that Roman Catholic adoption agencies must consider gay couples.
An important proviso that almost all of the comments are missing is +Rowan’s insistence that deference to religious principle should only be honored when used defensively, not offensively. It exists to protect the minority from the majority, not to allow the minority to impose on the majority. The rights of a religious community cannot be used to reduce the rights that the members of that community enjoy as citizens of the state, and certainly cannot be used to reduce the rights of other citizens who do not choose to belong to that community (or choose to leave it).
What if a Muslim man wants to submit a marital dispute, say, to a sharia court but his wife does not? Dr. Williams’ airheaded assumption that everyone involved will be there by “choice” belies the facts on the ground. And anyone who thinks that British Muslims will be permanently satisfied with sharia’s restricted role in British life really needs to get out more.
Greetings from London. I am just back from attending a seminar in Cambridge and late to the news. I am absolutely appalled. On this blog some time ago I pointed to a similar idea, in that case that Jewish divorce law might be given some statutory teeth (the in the case of women who cannot get a get of bill of divorce from their orthodox husband). That idea thankfully fell by the wayside. Now this crops up. As a Catholic may I point out how offensive it is for him to drag in Catholic adoption agencies and their position? My guess would be that RW’s suggestion will be held in horror in RC circles and may well lead to an ecumenical freeze. You lucky people in the US have separation of church and state.
Ad Orientem [#69]: Your comment could be seen as verging on the “Fly, you fools!” genre frowned upon by our blog hosts.
“What if a Muslim man wants to submit a marital dispute, say, to a sharia court but his wife does not?” —Christopher Johnson [#88]
Christopher: The result may be even worse than you think. In countries with opt-in systems of religious or tribal marital-property law, the wife is (I gather) often bound by an opt-in decision she made during the halcyon days of the marriage.
This conversation is patently ridiculous. Read Rowan Carefully. He respects that people are thinking about these things. Although he is not an expert, he understands Islamic Law better than most of us, who get it through Fox News or think that Islamic Fundamentalists represent all of Islam. It’s too bad that in a sound bite culture even the archbishop isn’t permitted the right to talk about complex subjects.
I’m not sure I agree with him, but he’s not saying something idiotic. He’s talking about how religious minorities might be given room in a secular state. Pro-lifers and anti-gay people should take heed. In a secular society, the state could simply force him – on the basis of anti-discriminatory laws – to accept gay clergy, deans and bishops. He’s not simply defending Sharia. He’s defending the right of the C of E to hold views opposing the direction of secular society.
Note, of course, that he has a very specific understanding – a rigorous one – of what sharia is. It’s not the popular understanding.
Contra Dr. Williams idiotic theorizing and the efforts of others to try to make us understand what the Archbishop really meant, here, from Ruth Gledhill, is an illustration of Islamic reality:
“It’s too bad that in a sound bite culture even the archbishop isn’t permitted the right to talk about complex subjects”
The more senior and prominent your position, the more you have to think through how your words could be misunderstood.
Abp. Williams is playing with fire.
After reading this news story I wonder why anyone in their right mind remains Anglican. I suppose they are under the delusion the Church of England-Episcopalian Church is still a Christian church instead of what it really is :::a decadent dagger in the heart of Christendom. The lunatic statements by such leaders(???) as Williams is why those of other Christian churches must speak out for we are all in danger of being becoming “dhimmis” (second class groveling nobodies) in an Islamic swamp.
The most heart-rending comment I have seen on the thread linked by Boring Bloke at #29 above:
[blockquote][i]Added: Thursday, 7 February, 2008, 22:19 GMT 22:19 UK[/i]
I am a muslim woman. Muslims do not want shariah law in this country, and all these “go back home” statements are very insulting especially people who are born here and see themselves as British and who want to be accepted.
Sabrina, Leeds[/blockquote]
Fine, folks. You will doubtless get what you ask for… a state in which everyone is treated exactly alike regardless of their religious convictions. Of course, that is a state in which children will be forced to attend public schools where they forbidden to wear religious jewelry, doctors and nurses will not be licensed to work unless they are willing to perform abortions, churches in dry counties can be forbidden to use wine for communion, and traditional Catholic parishes will be forced by the anti-discrimination laws to hire married lesbian pastors.
Every one of you who has claimed a tax exemption for your gifts to a religious institution is the beneficiary of a law that should be abolished on the basis of the arguments people are making above. Obviously, most of you favor some accommodation by the state to your own religious convictions. Can you not see that denying reasonable accommodation to other religious convictions is a step down the road Pastor Niemuller described: “They came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up; then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up… finally, they came for me and there was no one left to speak up.”
We can differ as to whether allowing Muslims to settle disputes within their community by their own community’s standards is a workable or even reasonable accommodation, but let’s not make the argument that everybody must be treated the same, unless we are willing to be treated that way ourselves.
Dale, I regret to say you are talking skubalon tou taurou – you don’t understand how sharia works. Whatever nonsense Williams comes up with, you use your considerable powers as an advocate to defend – all the time failing to see the bigger picture. Of course Christianity has been betrayed by the secular left – including Tec, which scarcely qualifies as Christian now, at least in its leadership – and we face a new dark ages. But you can’t see that.
from the London Telegraph:
“Anglicans in parts of Nigeria live under what is, in effect, totalitarian Sharia. It goes without saying Williams does not defend the stoning of adulterous women and other charming Islamic practices. But, in his interview with the BBC, his condemnation of “bad” Sharia is deeply buried in acres of Vichyite waffle about the need to see Sharia “case by case within an overall framework of the principles laid down in the Koran and the Hadith”.
For the Archbishop of Canterbury to propose an extension of British Sharia in the same week that we learned of the extent to which the Sharia authorities cover up “honour crimes” reveals a degree of ineptitude that even George Carey never managed.
And, talking of George, watch this space. Lord Carey of Clifton is no fan of his successor, but a very big fan of African Anglicans persecuted by Sharia. I would be very surprised if he can resist intervening in this dispute.
Anyway, I reckon it’s all over for Rowan.”
Williams has shattered any hope (if any existed) of being taken seriously by Nigeria and most of Africa. He is wholly inept.
PLEASE – Can we have an online petition calling for his resignation?
Anyone who hopes for the emergence of a “moderate Islam” must strenuously resist the recognition of sharia in any Western country.
A majority, I think, of those who are Anglican today live within reach of militant Islamism and its restrictions and brutality. How can the Archbishop betray his own like this? He thinks too much and too little at the same time.
EASY, Dale. Deep breaths, buddy. Wouldn’t want you to pass out from all that hyperventilating you’re doing. What’s in view here is, for all practical purposes, an entirely seperate law code for a particular group of people. Do you seriously think that British Muslims will permit their wives to opt out of such an arrangement as Dr. Williams seems to breezily suggest?
For that matter, do you seriously think that British Muslims will long consent to having(in their eyes) infidel law courts circumscribing the jurisdiction of these courts or putting any limits at all on what they can and cannot do? Because if you believe either of those things, you reallly need to take the blinders off.
Here in America, Christians thrive under the secular law and ask for no special favors under it. For my part, I have no desire to have any disputes of mine resolved according to “Christian” law. When I break the secular law, I expect to pay whatever penalty the secular law imposes. It is only adherents of the Islamic religion who demand a law of their own.
#92 you are right that we live in a soundbite culture but that is not to say all who are appalled are misunderstanding Rowan.
I see that he is stating that religious belief needs better protection in law- and I understand he says this in fear that secularism is pushing religion to the edges. BUT and it is a huge BUTT
His start point assumes and affords all religions equal respect. This buys into the multicultural and multifaith apporach of the liberal establishment.
Actually we are a Christian nation and our law should be based on Christian premises. As ABC that is the position he should adopt.
A comment from the BBC site:
[blockquote]Sharia law is only part of the concern. The national press recently highlighted that male muslim immigrants can bring into the UK four wives, each of whom can receive benefits and each of whom will qualify for a state pension.
Sharia Law, number of wives and other cultural allowances have significant financial implications for the UK economy.[/blockquote]
Aaah, multiculturalism and political correctness run amok.
Actually, I think many of the people commenting here have listened to the interview. It is not that the listeners have not understood Williams, or don’t realize that sharia law, like all law, has some good things in it, like prohibitions against stealing or murder. It is that they have thought through the implications more deeply than Williams has. William’s nuanced, sliced and evaluated version of sharia law does not exist. That would be sharia law as applied by Anglican bishops or Oxbridge dons. To introduce sharia law is to introduce the fuller thing applied with a different purpose by men who do not think as the Archbishop does. I believe that is because it is in the nature of the thing and the natural consequence of the beliefs of the followers of Islam. But Rye, Wilkins and the others, if you believe that the “good” sharia law Williams posits exists, pray tell where it is applied today, so we can test what you say by what we can observe.
That is why Anglicans are doubly disappointed. Not only is the introduction of sharia law a bad idea, it is a half-baked one coming from one who is reputedly a learned man. It has not been thought through. Not what one has the right to expect from an Archbishop of Canterbury.
re 94: Well, Irenaeus, the correlary to your comment (which to some degree of cynicism I am in sympathy with) is that we can only be governed by stupidity, because any principle that requires intelligence and subtlety for its expression must be run through the meatgrinder of soundbite speech writing first.
97: Dale, I have to say I agree with you. I don’t think his idea is workable; but contemplating it doesn’t make him the enemy of Christendom. Well, actually, an important point of his remarks is that Christendom is being hammered hard, and that the Church, being pushed into a minority, powerless position, has to be prepared to live in it. It does no good to demand that the law of the realm express Christian principles, when the realm is increasingly not Christian.
Particularly an Archbishop of Canterbury who ought to be doing his all to promote Christian, not Islamic, values.
Dale Rye is right in that we must not become moral relativists and insist on morally relativistic treatment for all – re the PC movement. We must defend our moral values and be willing to state that Sharia is inimicable to a free people and does not deserve equal status along side our values. We must be willing to state unequivocably that sharia has no place in Western Civilization.
Dale’s argument is fair enough, but he does not sem to grask the intellectual waffling, the fence-sitting, the weak ambiguities that lie behind what are commonly called nuances, the unprincipled willingness to compromise as an avoidance of decision-making… all of this is to be seen in the vagueness, the indirections, the indeterminacy of his speech patterns. What passes for fairness and a sense of equsal justice is in fact simple spinelessness. This man is afraid and the fear expllains the vacillations we hve seen from him now for severl years. The sharia issue exists in a larger context where in the unconscious of the king is caught. LM
To repeat a comment from another thread: The agreement I have with my credit card company provides that any dispute we have will be submitted to binding arbitration in South Dakota under South Dakota law and arbitration rules essentially dictated by the company; I do not have the option of appealing an adverse decision to a court here in Texas. Under +Rowan’s proposal, two Muslims who both wished to submit a dispute to arbitration before a sharia court could do so, but the losing party could appeal to the English courts. Which of those two situations constitutes the greater infringement of Anglo-American and Christian standards of justice?
Former ABC George Carey was the last biblically orthodox ABC. We need a new ABC. Or just have a new “First Among Equals” for example, Orombi, Akinola, Jensen, Venables, or Kolini. Instead of calling it the “Lambeth” Conference. Call it the International Anglican Conference. That would free up “Lambeth” from its historical ties to Canterbury. ABC Rowan Williams has clearly gone off the deep end in resigning to accept Sharia law. The way things are going ABC Williams is going destroy everything that is Christian and biblical in the Anglican Communion. As Christian musicians “Malcom & Alwyn” said in a song “The Church needs Jesus.”
Regarding muslims who do NOT want sharia law in Britain, more power to them. Those muslims faithful to Britain and the British people should not be deported or harrassed. They should be commended for their loyalty to Britain. But, those muslims who live in England and who stir up hatred and violence and have a jihad against British citizenry who oppose, let alone disagree, with them, should be at best deported. Otherwise they should be imprisoned or even executed if they do violence, since they show disdain to Britian and its people, laws, customs and culture. As an American I know that the American people would not put up with the defiance many muslims get away with in Great Britain.
#109 – You have the option of using a proper credit card company …
(Of course, under sharia you wouldn’t be allowed such filthy haram as credit cards …)
Dale Rye (#109), I’ll bite at your hypothetical.
There are at least two differences between your credit card arbitration agreement and sharia. They are (1) the South Dakota arbitrator will use the same substantive principles of law as the South Dakota secular courts would use to resolve your dispute with Visa, etc. Sharia courts would use drastically different principles from those used by Western secular courts. (2) The arbitrator will impose the same remedies on the loser (money damages) as the secular courts would impose. Sharia courts would impose drastically different remedies.
To see how what the ABC proposes would work, try two thought experiments: (1) a Moslem man marries a non Moslem woman. They have a child. The man then dies. Under secular law principles, the child would almosrt certainly stay with the mother. Under Sharia principles, the child must stay with the father’s family to be raised as a Moslem, rather than with the infidel mother. I understand that this has happened in the UK. (2) A Moslem accuses a Christian of stealing from him. Under Sharia, the Christian must produce four witnesses to refute the testimony of the Moslem. Suppose the Christian is convicted. Sharia demands that his hand be chopped off.
Now I know that the ABC would deplore hand chopping, etc. But the point is that many Moslems think that they, as members of the ummah, deserve special priviledges above us dhimmis. Lots of Moslems (40% of UK immigrants?) would like to see hands chopped, stonings, etc. in the UK. The immense danger of the ABC’s proposal is that it [i] concedes the principle that Moslems are entitled to special priviledges[/i]. The ABC insouciantly throws away the bedrock Western principle that all are equal before the same law.
The only beneficial aspect of this fiasco is that it demonstrates, for the world to see, the ABC’s atrocious judgment. I hope that this will limit the additional damage he can do to our poor, battered Communion.
May I point out, Publius, that by your example it is already possible for Orthodox Jews in England to legally stone people for certain offenses? Um, well, it isn’t, but those Jews already do enjoy the “special privileges” RW would offer to Moslems– as do, for that matter, members of the C of E. (Methodists and Catholics presumably are on their own.)
As it happens (if you read what RW said, and how this functions with Jews and, well, Anglicans) neither of your examples would play out as you claim. In both cases the fact that one party is non-muslim would thrust the matter into the civil courts. Again (and I’m tired of this phrase) if you actually read what he said, he is merely saying that they should be extended the privileges that other groups already enjoy.
This vision of the British muslim community as “today Small Heath; tomorrow, the world!” is self-fulfilling. As long as those moslems feel their religious identity is being repressed, they will unite, out of solidarity, with their extremists.
“Here in America, Christians thrive under the secular law and ask for no special favors under it” —Christopher Johnson [#101]
That depends on what you mean by “special favors.” We assert our constitutionally guaranteed right to the “free exercise of religion,” including rights of conscience. Quakers do not swear oaths. Mennonites do not bear arms. RC priests do not betray confessional secrets. Each receives a dispensation from the rules applicable to other citizens. Some would call these dispensations “special favors.”
#110 I laughed out loud!! Carey was SO orthodox he admitted women to holy orders and began the chain reaction that led to Robinson’s consecration.
Oh he has found a spine since retirement – but in office he completely misunderstoood the importance of sound ecclesiology