“What a burkha” declared the Sun newspaper, alongside a picture of a head-covered figure making a rude gesture. To judge by the tone of the British press (and not only the tabloid press), the Archbishop””who is also the leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion, numbering 80m people””might have been advocating the mandatory covering of every female British head, plus the instant introduction of amputation, whipping and stoning for the most trivial misdemeanours.
In fact, of course, he said nothing of the kind. But what he did advocate was not uncontroversial: he suggested there could be a “plural jurisdiction” in which Muslims could freely decide whether disputes (in which only co-religionists were involved) were resolved in secular courts or by Islamic institutions which offer an alternative forum for arbitration.
As long as the decision to seek, and abide by, a form of arbitration is freely made, it is hard to see how any secular legal system could actually ban people from using it. But the extent to which state law can recognise and “use” decisions made by such private arbitration services is a difficult grey area. And perhaps””to interpret the Archbishop charitably””he was merely pointing out that such difficulties are bound to grow.
In any case, for those who are already making political capital by playing on people’s fears of multi-culturalism, the speech by the Archbishop was a gift And for some of the people who are concerned to defend the cultural rights of Muslims, both the speech and the reaction it prompted were an embarrassment, to put it mildly.
So when a Muslim dad living in Leeds decides it’s time for his 12 year-old daughter to marry his pal’s 28 year-old son back in Pakistan, will the 12 year-old be “free” to pick which legal system to lodge an objection in?
Wretchard at [url=http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2008/02/old-sport.html]The Belmont Club[/url] has an excerpt from [i]The Independent[/i] about a Muslim woman and her take on the wonderful opportunity our gracious Lord Canterbury is offering her:
[blockquote]Look around the Islamic world where sharia rules and, in every single country, these ordinances reduce our human value to less than half that is accorded a male; homosexuals are imprisoned or killed, children have no free voice or autonomy, authoritarianism rules and infantilises populations.
What’s more, different Muslim nations claim to have their own allegedly god-given sharia. … There is no agreed body of sharia, it is all drafted by males and the most cruel is now claiming absolute authority. In Pakistan, on the statutes are strictures on adultery introduced by the military dictator Zia ul-Haq. Women activists in that country have given their lives protesting against the injustice of those laws where women suspected of adultery, or rape victims, are punished in hideous ways and the man goes free. The Iranian theocracy changes its regulations from year to year, capriciously playing with the lives of females. ..
Two Iranian friends chose to die rather than live under the demeaning religious orders. Go to Afghanistan if you fancy a 12-year-old bride – a practice approved by the mullahs. That’s sharia for you. Many women, gay men and dissidents came to Britain to escape Islamic tyrants and their laws. Dr Williams supports those laws and, by default, makes the refugees victims again.
Four years ago, a Saudi woman in her fifties came to my home. She was divorced from a Saudi prince who had sent her away and kept her children. What she said about sharia cannot be repeated. She had money, this princess, but no parental rights and she howled like a child in excruciating pain in my living room.
Yet, family disputes, says Dr Williams, would be easier, within sharia. For whom exactly? The polygamous men who live in this country, yes, certainly. Not for their wives who will be told that God intends them to lower their eyes and accept unjust verdicts.[/blockquote]
Another cordless bungee jump into the abyss of bad ideas for ++Rowan. Perhaps taking up shuffleboard would occupy his time more productively…
The [url=http://news.sky.com/skynews/picture_gallery/0,,91232-1304800,00.html] saga [/url] continues in the Sunday headlines of the major UK papers, but its moved beyond the ABC to islamophobia:
[blockquote] The Sunday Express reports on ‘fury’ that has erupted after it emerged an Afghan boy who trained to be a suicide bomber is to enrol in a British school.
“The Sunday Times says a Government minister has warned that inbreeding among Islamic immigrants is causing a ‘surge’ in birth defects.”
“The Observer reports that a man’s Sharia marriage is to face a legal test”
[/blockquote]
The [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/10/nsharia110.xml] Sunday Telegraph [/url] has polled the members of the general synod and reports
[blockquote] The vast majority of the Church’s ruling body believe he was wrong, a Sunday Telegraph poll shows. The survey of the General Synod found that only three per cent agreed that aspects of Islamic law should be adopted. Four per cent said he should resign, but two thirds rejected claims that he had lost credibility. A number of bishops have spoken out against the attacks on the archbishop, but a far greater number, including the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, have chosen to distance themselves from the issue. [/blockquote]
So presumably that means that only 1/3 of the general synod thinks he has lost credibility.
In the news roundup on BBC news tonight where they review the Sunday papers the consensus was that this story has got legs, and with the general synod meeting next week it is going to continue to dominate the news.
By the end of this week, I expect more stirring up of Islamophobia, politicians will be clamboring to shut down the existing sharia courts which news reports are already suggesting are leading to poor settlements for women in divorce, and criminals who should be tried for assault being let loose on the streets free to continue to offend after paying small fines.
The public is coming to the realisation that religion needs to completely removed from the legal framework and secularism is the only way to ensure equality for all. Any future attempts to add a ‘religious exemption’ for any law will face more opposition.
End result? Fundamentalist followers of Islam will be more open to radicalisation as the law becomes openly hostile to what they see as ‘right living’. The current forore is isolating even moderate Muslims. Its becoming acceptable to openly criticise Muslims. The ‘us vs them’ walls are going up. Having seen this first hand in apartheid South Africa, it is not a good thing.
Yes, Rowan has opened a can of worms. It was a pressure cooking waiting to come to the surface with the 7/7 bombings, constant news warnings that there are more terrorist cells operating in Britain, and the increased immigration of muslims, and the tendency for immigrants to all migrate to the same suburbs. Once they are the majority in those suburbs, they naturally want to allow elements of their culture, like the call to prayer from the mosque over loudspeakers which infuriates any locals who haven’t moved on yet.
There has been a massive move in Britain in the last few years to no longer pander to immigrant communities who want to introduce their culture to Britain, as the powers that be have recognised the only way to maintain peace is to promote integration. The Bradford riots sealed that. See the [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1703432.stm] reports [/url]into that summer of violence.
Its all looking rather a mess. The politicians want integration. The religions want to be free to follow their beliefs, and build up bigger walls around their communities.
#3, I do believe that the Charles Napier approach, applied at the initiation of this tsunami of immigration, would have been the penny of prevention. Now the pound of cure is all that is left.
Here is the a lead op-ed piece from the Times:
[url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article3341738.ece]Archbishop, you’ve committed treason[/url]
In particular, some relevant quotes:
[blockquote] “An approach to law which simply said there is one law for everybody and that is all there is to be said . . . I think that’s a bit of a danger.â€
What danger? And to whom? The danger, surely, is rather the archbishop and those who think like him, who seem unwilling to hold fast that which is good. What is good and best and essential about our society � it isn’t merely a matter of “social identity†� is the principle of equality before the law. That principle and its practice have made this country the outstandingly just and tolerant state it is; it is one of the last remaining forces for unity as well.[/blockquote]
[blockquote]One encouraging sign is the almost universal fury that our foolish archbishop has aroused: he has miraculously united the irreconcilable in opposition to himself, from Christian extremists to mainstream Muslims, from Anglican vicars to godless Hampstead liberals, from Gordon Brown to backwoods Tories.[/blockquote]
and lastly
[blockquote]The archbishop and his few supporters insist that the media have misrepresented him and not many people have actually read the learned speech that he gave to a learned audience after his inflammatory radio interview. They are wrong. I haven’t seen any serious misrepresentation in the media, and reading his speech several times doesn’t exonerate him. Nor does it increase respect for his judgment, his command of English or his powers of ratiocination; he is woolly of face and woolly of mind.[/blockquote]
The economist is measured and right. The rest simply have it in for the archbishop.
He might be wrong. There is nothing wrong with that. But he does reveal the deep fears that Britain has about its Muslim immigrants. Jefferson’s case is not one that is relevant – it is pandering. It’s an extreme case that doesn’t really examine what +Rowan was saying with integrity.
I’m not agreeing with Rowan, but the hysteria around his thought piece (one where he did not say that he was absolutely right) is downright chilling and Orwellian. Jeffersonian et al are simply scapegoating him for an unpopular opinion.
That would be http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/10/nsharia310.xml
“what Dr Williams advances is still the jurisprudence of appeasement, moral cowardice dressed up as worthy cerebration”, John Wilkins.
[blockquote]He might be wrong. There is nothing wrong with that. But he does reveal the deep fears that Britain has about its Muslim immigrants. Jefferson’s case is not one that is relevant – it is pandering. It’s an extreme case that doesn’t really examine what +Rowan was saying with integrity.
I’m not agreeing with Rowan, but the hysteria around his thought piece (one where he did not say that he was absolutely right) is downright chilling and Orwellian. Jeffersonian et al are simply scapegoating him for an unpopular opinion. [/blockquote]
How dare we cite ++Rowan’s words!
But I think it interesting that the ABC’s defenders flee from the discussion of what might actually happen to flesh-and-blood people should shari’a be applied in precisely the supposedly innocuous areas indicated by ++Rowan. It’s so much more, well, intellectual to take the 30,000′ perspective. Appeasement and capitulation seem so much more….enlightened.
Jeffersonian –
you are paranoid. You are simply speaking from fear, as is a good portion of the Brits. Rowan’s argument, perhaps wrong, should be argued on its merits. But the ad hominem attacks, the moral self-righteousness, the immediate hostility is the problem of those attacking him – not his. He did NOT suggest that British law would be replaced.
All Jeffersonian and DWstroudmd are doing is quoting other people who think the same – fanning the flames, getting ready to lynch the man. both essays cited were ridiculous: are we to assume that dwstroud is a sudden defender of the enlightenment? When did reasserters suddenly find the enlightement their ally? When it beats up Muslims? those same people would require churches to ordain gay bishops and defend abortion rights. Be careful for what you wish for.
Jeffersonian – you did NOT quote Rowan. You quoted others who seem to think the Rowan has suddenly supported polygamy and other sorts of law. Where did he say that? Where did Rowan support child brides? Where did he support Muslims bashing Christians in Egypt? He’s been accused of all sorts of terrible crimes toward humanity – but there is little evidence. He had a very specific, theoretical view of Sharia, a critique of secular law and religion, and an opinion about how it MAY work. He did not say those things insinuated. Your hostility demonstrates your own sin to scapegoat the leader who you expect to bring the kingdom of God here on earth – don’t project it onto Rowan.
That everyone is united against him, of course, is the gospel story, alas.
[blockquote] you are paranoid. You are simply speaking from fear, as is a good portion of the Brits. Rowan’s argument, perhaps wrong, should be argued on its merits. But the ad hominem attacks, the moral self-righteousness, the immediate hostility is the problem of those attacking him – not his. He did NOT suggest that British law would be replaced. [/blockquote]
Oh please, John. I merely posited a scenario that will doubtless arise under this shari’a-lite system Rowan feels in inevitable. If Muslims are going to be setting up family and financial courts, as the ABC posits, this will surely be one of the issues it will tackle. Since you’re so up on the precise meaning of what he’s talking about, perhaps you can let us know the disposition of the 12 year-old bride and where she might find redress.
[blockquote] Jeffersonian – you did NOT quote Rowan. You quoted others who seem to think the Rowan has suddenly supported polygamy and other sorts of law. Where did he say that? Where did Rowan support child brides? Where did he support Muslims bashing Christians in Egypt? He’s been accused of all sorts of terrible crimes toward humanity – but there is little evidence. [/blockquote]
Indeed, as I said, it’s the 30,000′ view of shari’a implementation. All the unpleasantries are disavowed but no explanation is proffered as to how they are to be avoided, so moral culpability can be safely denied when things don’t turn out so benignly….”well [i]of course[/i] I wasn’t talking about girls being impressed into marriage at the dawn of puberty, [i]of course[/i] I wasn’t hoping for divorced women being dispossessed and stripped of their children….I was talking about all the good, wonderful, woozy, wooly and soft-focus stuff about shari’a.”
I share ++Rowan’s concern about aggressive secularism as imposed by the State, but embracing a vile, atavistic code like shari’a as an alternative, even a partial one, is bizarre.