Further, Dr Williams's assertion that implementing sharia would help social cohesion is simply incorrect. It will alienate large sections of society, resentful of preferential treatment. Put simply, the recognition of sharia would simply be the tip of the multicultural iceberg, focusing on what divides us, rather than unites us. Rather than reinforcing social cohesion, it could lead to cultural and legal apartheid.

Instead, we need to create a society that is held together by a strong sense of shared identity and common values, encourages active citizenship and inspires people to join. For me, this means two things: localism and responsibility. Cohesion is local because, after all, it's about people learning to live alongside each other in neighbourhoods. This means listening to individual voices and ideas, particularly from women and young people, and devolving power through local government to the grassroots.

Cohesion is also about responsibility, because we're all in this together

Clerics should appreciate the proper limits of their authority. They should do their best to discourage sectarianism and violence between their followers and those of other religions. They should do their best to win converts from other religions, if they truely believe that they represent the only path to salvation.

But, most of all, they should keep their foolish bearded faces out of the business of lawmaking.

The man doesn't even have the courage of his lack of convictions. Far from defending what he actually said about sharia law, the Archbishop of Canterbury is fighting to save his job by frantically back-tracking and claiming he has been misunderstood. It was all got up by the tabloids... no-one actually read the lecture... people have jumped to the wrong conclusion from a few misleading headlines. Ye gods. What planet is he living on? Everyone heard what the man actually said on the World at One; by now, many have heroically ploughed through his lecture as well. It is the words that he actually uttered that have caused unprecedented numbers to take to their keyboards in outrage.

[reason] 4 - Coercion

I hear a lot that the arbitration courts don't apply unless both parties consent.

I guess people forget that for Muslims, marriage is an all-family business. Heck, its in the Quran that in cases of marital-conflict you appoint two negotiators. You think these negotiators -- whose primary motivation, due to social stigma, is going to be to keep the couple from divorcing -- is not going to try and talk them towards the Sharia court?

Coercion won't be by people putting a gun to the heads of women. Instead, women will be gently "reminded" (with a nice hard grasp on their arm) that if they don't go to Sharia judge they will be seen as impious and not-devout. You have no idea of the power of social death.

The Archbishop of Canterbury says sharia courts could rule on family issues, but this is exactly where they can cause most harm:

If a woman is running away from her parents or a violent husband, mosques and sharia courts are not the obvious place for her to turn to get justice. The Centre for Social Cohesion study contains a startling insight into attitudes in one British mosque, reported by Mohamed Baleela, a team leader at the Domestic Violence Intervention Project in Hammersmith, west London. "Last time I talked about marital rape in a mosque," he said, "I nearly got beaten up. Because we said that the law makes it illegal to rape your wife, someone got up and hit me because he was ignorant of the law."

There is an argument, and it is a compelling one, that we should all be subject to the same laws. People who look favourably on a parallel system of religious courts for civil matters claim they do no harm if all parties consent to their use. This, of course, is the crux of the matter: how can we know that women from traditional and religious families have given consent when they are under huge pressure from relatives? They may be threatened into accepting the authority of a religious court, just as hundreds of young women (and some young men) are coerced into getting married against their will...

...Only someone as out of touch with modern Britain as the Archbishop of Canterbury could possibly think otherwise, or line up so willingly with the forces of reaction.

What Rowan Williams wishes upon us is an abomination and I write here as a modern Muslim woman. He lectures the nation on the benefits of sharia law - made by bearded men, for men - and wants the alternative legal system to be accommodated within our democracy in the spirit of inclusion and cohesion.

Pray tell me sir, how do separate and impenetrable courts and schools and extreme female segregation promote commonalities and deep bonds between citizens of these small isles?

What he did on Thursday was to convince other Britons, white, black and brown, that Muslims want not equality but exceptionalism and their own domains. Enlightened British Muslims quail. Friends like this churchman do us more harm than our many enemies. He passes round what he believes to be the benign libation of tolerance. It is laced with arsenic.

The day sharia law is adopted in my country is the day the ballot box is put to one side and we have to fight for our rights.

TP, Manchester

Sharia in Britain? Come should we really have to discuss such an issue in our own country. Unbelievable! How long are we gonna be ruled by the appeasing vote-fishers... I've been a center-left-wing liberal for years, but here's my vote to the BNP!!!!!!! Time to send a serious signal to the government to speak up and protect our British (European) values and rights now and in the future. Or should we better consider to convert to Islam in the future to complete the course of appeasement?

Georg Lasko, London

How the west was won. I'm not on about the Led Zep album.

We are being conquered without a sword being raised. The sheep in Britain need to read some real history and look at the facts.

Tolerence?. I call it a weakness.

WAKE UP!

MDK, Liverpool , England

The whole issue has been taken out of porportion. The Islamic Shari'a Council (ISC) is not asking for the implementation of the Shari'a as a whole but only Personal Family Law; divorces, inheritance etc. In regards to criminal prosecution the ISC has not asked for this to be altered in Britain.

If we are such a tolerant society why do we show so much hatred to another mans' opinion. In the past Chritians and Jews have been allowed to rule amongst them selves whilst living under Islam Law, why the opposition? it will not effect anyone who is not a Muslim. It seems as though the media has caste a bad image of the Shari'a, let s not forget the welfare state was first established by the Muslims, a system we all today reap the benefits of. Finally for those who do not know some Shari'ah is already implemented in the British system. e.g. laws in relation to paparazzi.

Zeb, London, UK

I have just read all 244 comments on Rowan William's support of Sharia in today's paper. Could all 244 readers of the Times be wrong? It's high time for the Archbishop to seek treatment for his mental and spiritual condition.

San Ying, Montreal, Canada QC

You can't just pick a long and complex legal system with a 1400 year history with all sorts of good and bad things in it, and then say that because of the bad things in it "it should not be the basis" of current law. Listen: the Bible is part of the Western legal tradition. It just is. There are parts of the Bible we would *never* apply to modern law, but there are parts we still routinely do whether we're aware of it or not. So the real question is, is there *any* part of Sharia law *anywhere* that's *in any way* compatible with values we find acceptable? All you need to do is a little study to realize the answer is "yes." But by studying, that means doing more than finding some articles written by people who hate Islam and want to fill your ear with every negative story in the universe.

A MUSLIM leader declared last night: "We don't want Sharia law in Wales."

But secretary of the Welsh Muslim Council Saleem Kidwai backed the under-fire Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams, saying his message had been taken out of context, and labelled the backlash "typical Islamophobia".