Thursday, February 7, 2008
A correspondent from England writes:
I'm in England. Today's big story - dominating all networks here - is that Rowan Williams has called the (limited) recognition of sharia in Britain quot;inevitable" to avoid forcong people to choose from loyalty to their "culture" and loyalty to the "state". The British public is outraged. The BBC is flooded by its own listeners eager to denounce Rowan and shaaria.
BBC: Sharia law in UK is '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 parts of Islamic 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"...
Harry's Place says: Sack Rowan Williams, Disestablish the Church. Mick Hartley titles his post: A Bit of a Danger.
A stunning surrender, really.
I don't see any reason why people shouldn't be free to seek arbitration in a religious court, and it's insanely shortsighted for Jewish communities who already enjoy that right to criticize it for Muslims. (The geniuses in the Canadian Jewish community managed to get the legal standing of their own courts wiped out.)
That said, the Archbishop managed to make that case about as badly could have been done. Honestly, he doesn't seem very bright.
Having Sharia as a parallel legal system would help social cohesion?
Rowan Williams is an idiot. 'Nuff said.
I dont think he surrenderd and it should not be taken as a surrender. Muslims are more than 1.3 billion world wide. And the Uk has lots of muslims.
I think he is brave and this will lead to muslims in UK to be more integrated.
In the field of marriage and finance, its not a big deal.
And this is not a oneside step, I am sure the Archbishop heard of many islamic countries that did the same thing, to christians.
For Example many arabic countries allow christians to drink alcohol, import ham, convienance banking, even building churches for them( QATAR, Bahrain,Uae, Kuwaite, even though 0% of the population in these countries are christian), and they dont force the sharie law on them ( the Christians)
"Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion."
I say may god bless this man.
Sharia Law is totalitarian in its inherent religious supremacism, its bigotry against women and non-Muslims, and in its opposition to the divine equality of all people. Totalitarian Sharia suppresses free speech by murdering anyone who, in their eyes, dishonors their religion. Thus, allowing Sharia Law into a non-Muslim society is tantamount to allowing Nazi law into a society.
arab19, you conveniently forgot that your saudi arabia, practices apartheid by religion, by sex.
The Muslim Only roads in Saudi Arabia are a prime example.
A picture of a sign proving saudi apartheid.
http://m.blog.hu/dz/dzsihad/image/Islam/hway-2-mecca-muslims-only.jpg
How many churches are in saudi arabia?
Can non-Muslims wear their religious symbols openly - a cross around their neck?
arab19, remember, there are 4.7 billion NON-muslims who could not care less for islam and sharia law. Expect that your friends, pushing for sharia, threatening jihad in europe, to be pushed back, forcefully. Insallah!
I dont think he surrenderd and it should not be taken as a surrender. Muslims are more than 1.3 billion world wide. And the Uk has lots of muslims.
I think he is brave and this will lead to muslims in UK to be more integrated.
If you read the links to the commentary on the British blogs, (or if you've ever been to a tarts and vicars party) you'd see that Brits don't respect the views of religious leaders the way most Americans do. They don't see them as moral leaders, and they certainly don't see them the way that some Muslims do, as lawmakers.
Most Brits would prefer that all religious leaders, including the Muslim ones, would keep their 'foolish bearded faces' out of the business of lawmaking.
Mary
Although you my be right,
but nevertheless a figure like an "archbishop" has his respected views,even if it wont be implemented.
English law allows any two parties in a civil dispute (i.e., divorce, business dispute, but not criminal offenses) to select an arbitrator and sign a contract agreeing to abide by the outcome of the arbitration. The arbitrator can apply any legal princilples he chooses, and the courts will enforce the contract (i.e., force the litigants to abide by the decision as they contracted to do) provided only htat the decision is rational.
It is under this principle that Jewish businessmen and divorcing couples often go throught a bet din (aldo the British batei din are said to be quicker and less expensive than the courts) Other Brits often use arbitrators in property and divorce cases - as many Americans do. Nothing now stops Brits form entering this type od contract and taking their disputes to a shaaria court.
What the archbishop is asking for , although vague, is necessarily something more than current law grants. At the least, the implication is that he wants British courts to abide by the decision of a a Qadi in cases in which the parties have not entered a binding legal contract to abide by the Shaaria decision.
nevertheless a figure like an "archbishop" has his respected views,even if it wont be implemented
Uh huh. You might want to read this article in the London Times titled "Has the Archbishop gone bonkers?"
The Gulf Arabs who are currently trying to buy Britain have seriously overplayed their hand. The best way for the anti-Sharia forces to handle this would be to quote a few Muslim leaders saying that under Sharia law, Christians will be able to keep few of their infidel pubs open. But only a few...
Dr. Williams is a kind and decent man. As
Christians were suppose to love one another.
We should remember that. Anyway I'm a Catholic
who believes our Anglican "cousins" are very
fortunate in having this man as head of their
church. Leo Whitaker
Two ways of looking at the Archbishop:
He may just have lost it:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/archbishop-of-canterbury-loses-mind-20080208713/
Or he is just another condescending Brit with fondness for British Empire policies:
http://brockley.blogspot.com/2008/02/rowan-williams-and-sharia-law-2.html
This whole area needs indepth discussion. The Archbishop has initiated this and given everyone the opportunity to learn much more. Thank goodness the Archbishop is a great thinker and has wide knowledge and also has the courage to be a forerunner.
Forerunner for what?
When every man (that means women too!) does what is right in his own eyes, that's complete devolution of a society. Chaos is not good for women and children because 'the violent seize it by force', to borrow a phrase from Flannery O'Connor.
Nothing is more useless than a man of God without a spine. Looks like Deborah (Judges 4-5) needs to rally her troops and defend the homeland from those that mean it harm. Children are not explosives and every life is sacred. Unless there is a codification of the term "reform Islam" then we haven't a clue as to what we are talking about. Before we accept it as law, prudence dictates that we check into the legal ramifications first.