The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, is the head of the Church of England and as such, is still – amazingly – considered to be a person of some eminence. Unfortunately, he does not lend weight to that institution. Although the Anglican Church is far less powerful than it used to be – and for good reasons, such as the removal of 19th century electoral discrimination against Jews, Catholics and dissenters – it is still regarded with affection by many of us, even atheists, agnostics or lukewarm Christians. It has given us great thinkers; its liturgy and music are among the great adornments of western civilisation. Alas, Dr Williams is not a great thinker, although he is no doubt a kindly man.
Dr Williams believes that aspects of sharia law – which aspects he does not explictly say – should be allowed to form part of the law of this country. He does not explain what tests should be used to decide what bits of sharia law are acceptable and what are not. For example, in some of the most conservative muslim lands, the death penalty is used for offences far less serious than murder, such as adultery. We are not told what the Archbishop thinks about this; or whether he thinks things such as arranged marriage, etc, are acceptable. But he needs to be clear about what he thinks is acceptable, otherwise, all we can assume is that the fellow is mouthing vacuous platitudes, nothing more.
I do not believe you can operate a polycentric legal order in Britain, at least not in ways that would allow one legal code to allow coerced marriages, sitting alongside the English Common law. How, for example, could one avoid westernised Muslims wanting to be treated under the ordinary law of the land and not to be ruled over by their co-religionists? Without the active support of the State, I suspect, and hope, that many Muslims, particularly women, will revolt and choose to live under the Common Law tradition of this country. I hope so.
Dr Williams means well; a lot of such people do. But frankly, he gives lapsed Christians such as yours truly plenty of reason for wanting the Church to be shorn of its state privileges.
Of course, if people can freely choose to live under a sharia code, and consent in advance to submit to its controls, then I can hardly object to that. An interesting area at the moment is sharia finance; a problem, however, is that a lot of what is called Islamic finance is re-inventing of the wheel: if it is immoral to charge for lending money because money is not considered a legitimate asset in its own right (which is mistaken, as money accumulated by saving has involved sacrificing consumption) it seems odd that sharia does tolerate things like commodities speculation, such as certain forms of derivative contracts. But at least investors can shop around; arguably, some western investors might want to own sharia investments that avoid banks as a way to avoid the impact of the credit crunch. That is an example of capitalism at its best: allowing people of all faiths or none to do business with one another. Voltaire noticed this when he observed the London Stock Exchange in action in the 18th Century. But allowing sharia law to operate in matters such as marriage, divorce or punishment of supposed wrongdoings, in ways that are at clear variance to the prevailing legal code of a country like Britain, is an entirely different matter.
I hope the Archbishop speaks more clearly in the future.
(Update: one commenter complains about my description of Dr Williams as “the head” of the Church; of course, that, strictly speaking, is the role of the Monarch, by law. In practice, however, the Queen, unlike centuries past, is unlikely to have any real authority over this character, although it would be fascinating to know what she thinks of him in private.
Archbishop Swampy is the prawn in the curtain pole left by our former Dear Leader Anthony Charles Lynton Blair. Blair,a man who managed to break everything he touched except his bank balance,has since become a Roman Catholic.One can only hope that the Pope knows what he has been lumbered with.
The man is an A grade c**t, there is no inevitability to anything in this world.
He thinks he is being “tolerant” when in fact he is being submissive and doesn’t even have the courag eof his own convictions to defend what he believes in, right or wrong.
Personally I think Nazir-Ali should control the See of Canterbury, someone who has experience of faiths “accommodating” each other elsewhere in the world…
If he gets his kicks from tolerating the oppression of women, who are we to judge?
I think a liberatarian would applaud the notion that two people or entities could choose to have a civil dispute settled by whatever means they agreed on, be it English, Sharia or Jedi Law, and I believe that under the Arbitration Acts they already can (and the resolution is binding under English Law).
But two or more different criminal codes is an obvious no-no.
Leave the experimenting with polycentric moonbattery until an otherwise reasonably free libertarianish society exists. Under the current state socalist oligocracy, forget it. I mean really forget it, don’t even think about it, don’t even muse quietly about it all alone in the bath. Don’t go there, anywhere near there, even out of curiosity. Just don’t.
Even if you get the reasonably free libertarianish society, the idea should be handled with very long tongs.
…because on a practical level it seems likely (though not provably so) that significantly divergent legalomoral systems will be unable to share the same geographic space without some kind of powerful state apparatus to stop their adherents killing each other.
The Archbishop is just pitching for the business of the dwindling band of idealistic, clueless ‘liberal’ types. He’s desperate for new members as the C of E spirals towards oblivion.
The Archbishop of C*nterb*ry is an odious, weak-minded man who had disgraced the name of his post. Sucking up to the Islam hordes will not help one iota, though they will be much cheered that a cornerstone of English law – the input of the State Church – is crumbling nicely.
So an alteration there to that law and a little change here to this law and we can have the divided nation our lunatic leaders want. Better still some (not white natives however) may choose which laws they want to live by, as suits them. “Move along here, nothing to see, the man’s a muslim. Move along…”
But of course the fact that dopey Williams has spoken does not alter the fact we are already seeing two laws instead of one. On my driving licence I am forbidden to wear a hat, but if I am of another faith I can cover my head. Polygamy is illegal in the UK? Er, no, not if you have married more than one woman in another country…
We are effectively handing over our futures and our children’s future in the hope this revolting and perverted muslim religion will like us and be nice back, but sadly my grandson is destined to live in a dark and evil Britain under the control of bearded ferrets.
As for Williams, he will long gone and unmourned by then and his ridiculous church will go with him. For Sharia might decide it does not like the CofE…
Who is this guy anyway? Who was so stupid as to give him a post of responsibility?
Say whatever you want about the Evangelicals in the USA, at least they know what they are fighting for! This idiot seems to have forgotten who he works for.
How, for example, could one avoid westernised Muslims wanting to be treated under the ordinary law of the land and not to be ruled over by their co-religionists?
Islam is like the mafia. Once you’re in, you’re in full-stop. The Muslims are agitating for “Sharia law for Muslims” to prevent apostasy or even vague assimilation. If they get it then they will have the power of the state to support their barbarity.
England 2015:
An 18 year old Muslim girl runs away from home to avoid a coerced marriage to cousin Ahmed from Warizistan. The cops pick her up walking the streets. They check her ID card which prominently states “Muslim” on it and kicking and screaming she is taken back to her parents. As the police leave they can hear her getting beaten to a pulp but then domestic violence laws are Sharia for Muslims so what can they do? She’s on the next 787 to Karachi as soon as the bruising subsides.
The ID card which states religion will also have to be shown at the few off-licenses left and it will be against the law to serve anyone who’s card states “Muslim”.
The noted pornographer, Ian B is entering his third year of incarceration for “Outraging Islamic Sentiment” and “Crimes against Social Cohesion”.
Well, at least I got to be famous. That’s a little comfort.
Nick,
You sure make a man want to take up bootlegging and gunrunning.
Speaking as a member of his Church, the Archbishop seems to love spitting out these vacuous platitudes in the name of making nice with the rest of the world. I don’t think he’s evil. I think he lives in a squishy soft happy land that doesn’t entirely exist, and he just doesn’t understand that there are people who will not peacefully coexist.
Maybe the Archbishop is purposely highlighting the issue in order to show that Sharia has made headway into acceptable law.
Knowing full well he’ll be seen as a soft headed buffoon suits his plans, he is coming from the opposite direction as the BNP but their destinations are close to each other nevertheless.
How many people know about Sharia banking rules and the Sharia mortgages? how many more will know about them tomorrow, how many will be appalled by the headway Sharia has made.
A partial list of changes in the law during my lifetime which moved us away from being a ‘Christian’ country to being a secular one.
Divorce – made much easier
Abortion – made legal
Homosexuality – made legal
Sunday shopping – made legal
Sunday sport – made legal.
I submit that each of those changes was opposed by a far larger proportion of the population than those who support sharia now, and it wasn’t only the practicing Christians who were against them. Indeed some of them were opposed by a large majority of the people.
Each change was preceded by a PR campaign full of desperate sob-stories and much tutting about living in a theocracy, yet there are some were instrumental in pushing through those changes who now see Sharia law as perfectly acceptable, desirable even, provided it doesn’t apply to them.
Jonathan
When you mention a “polycentric legal order” I assume you are alluding to Randy Barnett’s Structure of Liberty in which he calls for just that. (For the avoidance of doubt, I didn’t manage to finish Barnett’s book, finding it a bit too dense for me. Or perhaps I was a bit to dense for it).
Isn’t the introduction of Sharia for moslems just what Barnett is calling for? And isn’t it just the same as Talmudic law, which I believe also operates in the UK?
I can understand your nervousness over sharia, but it’s hard to make the liberal case for refusing it, I would say.
It’s very easy to make that case, since Sharia respects neither life, liberty nor property.
That’s ignoring of course the fact that it’s incompatible with English Common Law, British traditions and customs, and is just plain disgusting to most decent folks.
The whole idea of competitive legal systems is one of those nice minarchist thought experiments, but it seems to me that everyone proposing them always makes an unspoken assumption that the competing systems will be broadly similar. You can’t assume that, as in this case. Where two legal systems have fundamentally different moral bases, the populations living under them in mutual contact will find each other repugnant.
Just won’t work. Too many political theorists ignore human nature.
It’s worth noting that the early Christian Church had similar restrictions around Usury that the current Islamic faith has.
I sold a house once to a Muslim on a Sharia Mortgage from HSBC, it slowed the process down but I wasn’t in a rush as the price was right.
Essentially he rented the house from HSBC for an agreed fixed rate for 25 years and then there was some complex ownership transfer calculation at the end of the period, or over time.
It looked a lot like a normal repayment mortgage to me.
There’s a good bible quote for this which Williams rather ought to have remembered and seems apt for this situation. “Render unto Caesar…” Civil authority over religious matters goes back a long way, he ought to remember that.
I’m not sure the characterisation of the proposal as “two competing systems” is what is being proposed. As Jonathan mentions, if two people willingly agree to dispute resolution by a sharia court and to be bound by its decision then who are we to argue? Is more than this being proposed?
For me the issue is one of whether, in a relatively closed community, we can be certain that a decision to go to sharia is actually voluntary or not. In a community which practices forced marriage to some extent, it’s hard to believe that sharia will be a force for good rather than evil. But then the argument is one of “we don’t think your community will abide by the rules”. This is not a liberal argument. I’m reminded of Sean Gabb’s arguments against laws of prior restraint, which is what a refusal on these grounds would be.
It’s a difficult one.
“Who is this guy anyway? Who was so stupid as to give him a post of responsibility?”
Anthony Charles Lynton Blair,lapsed Anglican and Roman Catholic convert.But hey,anything to get Cherie into a veil.
They hanged Lord Haw-Haw for saying things like this during the last war.
Hmm. Let’s try a thought experiment.
Let’s imagine a closed religious community, a convent or monastary say, where there is a penalty for screwing the window-cleaner.
Suppose the punishment is penance. Spending an hour a day for a week on ones knees praying for forgiveness. Or ten hours a day for a month. Or ten, or fifty, or a hundred lashes. Or stoning to death.
The inmates of the institution are volunteers who agree to the rules before joining and the rules are adequately published and reiterated weekly, but leaving the institution to escape the penalty is not allowed.
At what point should the external community, as represented by the state, step in and say “You can’t do that here! It’s against the law.”
Bishop Hill,
Nope. Absolutely. Because they absolutely won’t play by the rules. This is a charter for Islamic metrocosms to be able to impose the iron rule of sharia to their sons and daughters whether those kids like it or not. To a large extent they do this unofficially but this would give official sanction and protection.
This is carte blanche for “Muslim” lasses to be forced into marriages as property, “Muslim” lads to be lashed for having a beer with their work chums rather than go to Friday prayers. I use the quotes because these people may not believe, they are just considered Muslim because their parents are Muslim.
How would you feel about Sharia in the UK if you were a British Pakistani who wanted to convert to Christianity despite the disapproval of their family and community?
That’s the short term. The longer term is practically UDI for big chunks of our cities which will become effectively no-go areas for non-Muslims. Certainly for non-hijabed women.
This is not an issue to resort to ideological purity because the consequences are utterly obvious.
I urge all remaining sensible and clear thinking Britons to begin the process of emigrating to the United States. If you have socialist leanings you are not welcome, but otherwise you will be a welcome contribution.
Become an American and warn your fellow Americans about the fate of the nation you left and the abandonment of your own culture which precipitated it.
Kevin, you’re right. It sounds like a libertarian wonderland, this sharia law place. So tell me, once the sharia jurists declare sharis law is in effect – I understand that’s how it happens, you don’t really vote on it – how exactly does one opt out of the sharia contract? Where can I find the opt-out and opt-in clauses? I’d like to look at them a bit.
I’d have thought the point at which the external community steps in and says “no” is when abuse or oppression in violation of basic western presumptions of universal rights are violated. Y’know, like 13 year old girls murdered for going on a date with a similarly aged boy. Of course it’s their choice to do so, knowing the ‘contractual’ punishment is being murdered, so I guess you can make a libertarian case even for honor killing being a really great expression of our respect for individual rights…
Ps. The disgusting thing about Big L libertarianism, in my book, is the absolute adoration of every effort toward self-gratification, except for the right of the individual to abrogate a few freedoms in order to make joint decisions with others, a right to self-governance in agreement with others. *That* contract is the only one that Big L libertarians just don’t seem to respect. While there is plenty of room for pot and porno, there no room whatsoever for self-governance, other than the sort that involves leading one’s self into vice. Hayek wept.
I (an evangelical Christian from the UK, with Jewish antecedents, and who has experience living in solidly Muslim communities abroad) don’t agree with the Archbishop, but he doesn’t merit the kind of obscene and childish name calling seen above. He is not stupid; he may be naive, but it’s a kind of naivete that goes with a willingness to see the good in the Other, that (dare I suggest) might be called Christian?
Most of the commenters above evidently know damn-all about Sharia. There are huge areas relating to property law and dispute resolution which consenting Muslims would naturally want to use among themselves; the proper analogy is with Orthodox Jewish use of Bes Din’s by common consent.
Where Williams *is* consistently naive, BTW, is in failing to anticipate how the running-dog mainstream media will selectively quote sexy snippets from his speeches to get the most sensational effects they can.
I’ll have to agree with Bishop Hill on this one.
My particular version –
The state shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all. Marriage should be a private contracts affair between the individuals in question (however many there be), their church (if they have one), and their lawyers. So long as nothing illegal is written into the contract, signatories ought to be able to set their own conditions for leaving. Some people will set their bars higher than others.
Believing muslims will sign contracts that are in accordance with Sharia marriage law the way that believing Catholics will sign contracts in accordance with Catechism. Done deal.
Nick M has this objection:
This is a straw man insofar as the national law guarantees religious freedom and forbids murder and credible threats of violence. A muslim under a system of private contract marriages has all the same legal protections against this use of Sharia law as he does under the current system. Perhaps those protections don’t amount to much, but that is a problem with law enforcement, not with the laws as written.
If the proposal is that Sharia laws actually be incorporated into the English legal code, then obviously it’s absurd. And in particular if the proposal is that Sharia laws that contradict the basic rights of English citizens be written into English legal code, then it is absurd.
But if the proposal is simply that we let people draw up their own marriage contracts, then I’m all for it. As any credible libertarian ought to be.
Where Williams is naive,is in thinking that he speaks for any of us outside his flock,and then I would think that many of those dissent from his views.
What we have is one religion accepting the power of another religion in a secular nation.This was a political speech by an unelected church leader.From comments everywhere,it is obvious that Wiliams is in a minority.
No you can’t. That would be an example of something that you can’t write into a contract because it is in violation of other laws. This is why, for example, BDSM “sex slave” contracts are just for sport. You can’t actually write such a contract with legal force, just as you can’t actually write the kind of contract you are suggesting with legal force. Contracts involving the conditions for divorce and who gets what property when it happens, however – that is the sort of thing that should be left to individuals to decide on their own. And if they decide it based on a silly book written by a degenerate (L. Ron Hubbard, Mohammed, whoever), well, their property their rights.
No problem folks,after this year you will not have to worry about any abuses of English common law,there will not be any,just the code napoleon,should fit quite nicely with incarceration with-out trial for as long as our masters choose,secret courts,guilty until proven innocent,or in practice just guilty,well you have been arrested ,you must be guilty,your personal chip under your skin,beats tatooing your forearm,and thought crimes such as believing that islam is not a religion of peace,and just think of all those corner shops not being allowed to sell booze,porn ,tobacco,being ignored while being served,oh brave new world that has such people int.
I’m not even convinced he’s Christian. I’ve read things he’s said that sound very much like he’s agnostic.
But if the proposal is simply that we let people draw up their own marriage contracts, then I’m all for it.
And if the contract provided the husband could beat the wife if she misbehaved, would is still be okay? What about stoning her to death for infidelity?
Ever heard the story about the British officer and the Indians who wanted to burn the window?
No problem folks,after this year you will not have to worry about any abuses of English common law,there will not be any,just the code napoleon,should fit quite nicely with incarceration with-out trial for as long as our masters choose,secret courts,guilty until proven innocent,or in practice just guilty,well you have been arrested ,you must be guilty,your personal chip under your skin,beats tatooing your forearm,and thought crimes such as believing that islam is not a religion of peace,and just think of all those corner shops not being allowed to sell booze,porn ,tobacco,being ignored while being served,oh brave new world that has such people int.
Joshua, this isn’t abou whether people shoud be allowed to draw up private contracts. Of course they should.
It’s a question of whether state patronage is to be applied to the sharia system. We should do everything to oppose this. It’s quite clear this His Moonbattishness is suggesting that muslims should be able to opt out of those parts of the English Law that they think conflict with their cult rules. That is unacceptable, partly because the law must be even-handed, and partly because just because a person’s parents happen to be members of an insane cult, it doesn’t mean that they lose the right to basic human rights. Religion is a matter of personal choice. A person is only a muslim or a christian if they believe they are. Anybody may change their mind about these things at any time; as such it is intolerable that they should somehow offiically register their faith officially.
People trapped by the multiculturalist monstrosity within “the muslim community” deserve the rights and freedoms of all other citizens. Getting Sharia officially recognised here is nothing to do with “social cohesion”, whatever the fuck that is. It’s about strengthening the already extant muslim enclaves.
Islam is a morbid cult. Throughout history it has brought nothing but misery to every society it has touched. Let’s not fool ourselves that any good can come of its expansion in our own land.
Regarding Anglicanism, the center of gravity of the church has gradually shifted from England, the US, and the rest of the Anglosphere (Canada, Australia, etc) to Africa and Asia, where the church is vital and growing. There are easily more Anglicans in Africa than in the US and England combined. (I’m referring to practicing members, as opposed to “Anglicans in Name Only”.) With this shift, there is a corresponding shift in the theological center of the faith. While the Archbishop of Canterbury is still the figurehead leader of the church, his actual authority continues to diminish with the continuing rejection of the church in England by the English.
For instance, in the USA, Episcopal congregations opposed to the liberal theology of the US leaders are putting themselves under the authority of African bishops instead. the point being that what the Archbishop of Canterbury says is of less interest to Anglicans around the world than it once was.
My personal belief is that if the Christian church were more vital in England, then this hand wringing over Sharia law would diminish greatly. GK Chesterton, a Brit, once said that when a person quits believing in God, he doesn’t believe in nothing, he believes in anything (paraphrasing). One look at Western society these days is enough to see the truth in his words.
Well, yes, that’s traditional.
Well I think I shot most of my load on the thread below.
But as an old Law Graduate
My Smith and Hogan Gently weeps…
Ian B –
Yes, I agree that that is probably what “His Moonbattishness” means, and as such it is an absurd proposal. Let me restate, in case it was not clear from my last comment, that I’m not arguing for allowing people to opt out of the law. To the extent that the Archbishop’s proposal is to allow for that, I strongly oppose it.
However, I think there is room for public dialogue about getting religion OUT of certain aspects of legal life, marriage being a sterling example of an area where there is room for improvement. What I am suggesting is NOT that we take the Archbishop at his word and create a separate legal system for self-identified Muslims, but simply that we let people draw up their own marriage contracts. If some people draw up Sharia-based contracts, well, it’s a bad choice but neither of us is in the business of using the police to force people to make proper life choices.
In response to the inevitable strawmans about how people will sign contracts prescribing beating wives and honor killings – grow up. These things are not currently legal in Britain, nor should they be. If muslims drawing up their private contracts under the system I am proposing try include such provisions, the contracts will be illegal, as would ANY business contract in Britain that tried to include similar items.
Kevin B
Excellent question
In the case of a child, the outside world intervenes immediately anything threatens his well-being.
In the case of an adult, the outside world intervenes when anyone is prevented by force (or threat of force) from leaving to escape a penalty or for any other reason.
There have been parallel issues in Australia where English law and Aboriginal customary law come into conflict.
For clarity (and apologies for not properly previewing my comments) – the last paragraph of my previous comment is NOT directed at Ian B, but at others on this thread who have been engaging in bad slippery slope arguments. It is from these people that I anticipate hearing a chorus of strawmans about wifebeating, not from Ian B.
David,
so presumably a Christian ought to “see the good” in Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and… Mohammed. I do know a bit about Islam and I don’t think anyone put it better than a certain Byzantime Emporer quoted by the Pope quite recently.
Joshua,
That is not a strawman. I have spent almost my entire adult life living in or near Islamic metrocosms in the UK. They are incredibly closed already. Giving them a different legal system turns quitting Islam (or even abiding by your own interpretation of it) from being difficult to well-nigh impossible.
Yes, those things are already enshrined in UK law but they are not in Sharia and we are talking about an either/or here. The idea that we can allow two Muslim businessmen to resolve a property dispute Islamically and it stops there is ridiculous. Note that the Archbish mentioned family law. That’s it. That’s game over for a Muslimah who doesn’t want to wed cousin Achmed from Karachi.
I appreciate your strict legalistic approach to stuff here but practically speaking incorporating Shariah into UK law is legislating for a parrallel society and there will be ructions. Williams was on about this being necessary for social cohesion or some such. It’s absolutely the last thing we need for that. There are many, many examples of successful societies made up of many races and cultures and they invariably involve a large amount of interaction and even intermarriage. The Archbishop is clearly deeply misguided because he is suggesting the best way for us to all rub along together is for a minority to be allowed to introduce what amounts to apartheid.
Do you want an example of what happens when Western legal norms run up against Shariah? The constitution of Afghanistan states in it’s preamble that it is based upon the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and The Noble Qu’ran. Remember that Afghan/German who was put on death row a coupla years back for having converted to Cristianity? What about the chap currently on death row for downloading stuff about women’s rights in Islam?
Note: The UN UDHR has the right to change one’s religion stated explicitly. Shariah regards apostasy as a capital crime. Irresistable force / immovable object?
If we were to allow mini-shariah states in the UK then how would you feel about your daughter traversing such a place? A place where the young lads not only believe but feel some sort of legalistic protection for the idea they can have sex with any female “their right hands possess”?
It’s quite clear that most commentators here have not listened to the Rowan Williams interview on the BBC. He makes it quite clear that he is deeply opposed to many practices such as stoning and limb amputation that are practiced under the Saudi version of Sharia.
The comments in his interview were nowhere near as outrageous as selective quotation make them appear.
‘David’ above has provided the most sensible comment on this thread to date. As for Johnathan Pearce, you should really have listened to the interview in full before tapping out this post.
I’ve written about this from a libertarian perspective Basically, it’s not on.
Okay, here’s a question. Does the multicultural concept of distinguishable “communities” have any value? If it does, who is to decide to which “community” a specific individual belongs? Is it reasonable to consider children to be members of any community before they are of a legal age of responsibility?
You talk about consent – can a Muslim women living in a Muslim-only neighbourhood under the threat of violence from her husband or father really freely consent to anything? This Sharia-lite proposal was floated in Ontario and was damn close to becoming official (under the auspices of the Arbitration Act, IIRC) but in the end was stopped, primarily at the behest of Muslim women’s groups who could see EXACTLY where it would lead. Sure there would be some sort of ultimate appeal to the real courts, but generally the courts grant a great deal of deference since they do not want to be bothered.
Here’s another thought – under Sharia a man can divorce his wife stone cold – no warning, no spousal upport, even if he has the means to provide it. As taxpayers, you all will be responsible for taking care of all these ex-wives.
Either you live in England or you live in Saudi Arabia, make up your mind.
As an American, I would like to tell you all across the pond that many of us feel (strongly and often) that we owe you much in terms of the rule of law – that that and our language were gifts from Old England to New; we may have changed both (we might think perfected and you might not) but we know who gave us the base on which we’ve built.
This is a proud, beautiful, resonant heritage – and some of you seem to think of it as unimportant.
Now don’t start saying bad things about mules! The Arch-Bishop is a fool, not an ass, and an immoral fool at that.
Be aware that sharia law applies to non-Muslims in Islamic societies, too and is much more than a dress code or diet rules for Muslims. Look what sharia was done to the countrues that have it. It will silence our voices and end our freedoms. Under sharia, anybody saying bad (but very true) things about Islam’s dear prophet can be killed. Anybody criticising Islam will be punished. It will be the end of 500 + years of civilization and the beginning of a new dark and barbaric era. It will also be bloody.
There is nothing moral about Islam, unless you consider raids, plunder, slavery, torture, murder and rape to be morally acceptable, as is discrimination against others because of their religious beliefs. Mohammad did all of these, many times, and Muslims say “Praise be unto him” after his name. Figure out, if you can, what that means. He attacked, killed, and lied — and is considered THE great moral example to follow by Muslims.
In simple terms, Islam is a religion of hate, violence and lies.
http://www.kactuzkid.com/lies.html
Islam does not want dialog, it does not want close examination. Its want power and conquest. Look around; read the newspapers; look at what is happening in the streets. Bad times are coming a people like the archbishop marching to death and destruction with a smile on their faces and without a care in the world. He is pathetic and, because he does not stand up to evil, he is a enabler. He doesn’t care about us or our liberies.
Because of people like this man, lights are going out all over Europe again. Everywhere we see Islam, we find people that hate us and want to end our freedoms
http://www.kactuzkid.com/liberty.html
The future will not be nice. Be sure that when very bad things happen, people like the archbishop will blame us and say we need to be more understanding and tolerant.
Radical Muslims kill, moderates make excuses and lie.
Kactuz
There is a way out. Mass convert to Catholicism. Then the pope, who is not politically correct, can appoint a new person to the vacant see.
Ron Brick,
Well that explains a lot!
Kevin B,
Life and liberty are fundamental rights, they cannot be contracted out no matter how many papers the parties sign. One of the functions of the State, even a Libertarian one, is the Rule of Law and the defence of those rights. You cannot become a slave even if you wish it; you can decide to voluntarily obey someone’s orders for as long as you want, but if you change your mind, no one can stop you from quitting, neither can they demand a payment before they let you go. That, for example, is how serfdom began in the late Roman Empire/early Middle Ages.
To answer your question: the point at which the State should have the right to stop them is when they tried to enforce or coerce the “contract” on any individual that wished to leave.
Two Muslims could agree to follow the advice of whoever they wanted, but that advice should have no legal weight at all; if one of them decided to disregard it, the other should not have recourse to the Law at all, as the agreement/contract is void for violating both parties’ fundamental rights.
One of the main differences between Christianity and Islam is the fact that Christianity always accepted the existence of a civil society in which it operated (“Give God and is God’s; give Caesar what is Caesar’s”), while Islam does not. All comparisons between the two should not forget that even if the Papacy tried to dominate European society for long periods, it never negated the existence of such a society as a separate entity; there is no such distinction in Islam, it is inherently totalitarian.
There is a another way out. Reject sharia law. How do you feel about paying welfare to the multiple wives of these immigrants?
I’m not anti-immigrant. I married one who has more than paid her own way. I’m a curious American. Do you feel your government is paying about as much attention to the wishes of the people regarding immigration as ours is?
“It’s quite clear that most commentators here have not listened to the Rowan Williams interview on the BBC. He makes it quite clear that he is deeply opposed to many practices such as stoning and limb amputation that are practiced under the Saudi version of Sharia.”
That is like electing to become a “little bit fascist”.Where on earth does the idea that Sharia is something that can be pick and mixed? Sharia is part of a belief system.Once signed into law,we will get the lot. If you think otherwise all you have to do is look at the way the EU has stitched up British governments over the years.
The first dissent will have all the force of Jack Beria Straw’s Hate Speech laws brought down on upon it.
Arthurian,
Right. Yeah, let’s just let ’em be a leetle bit shariah. Oy Vey Gewalt! Because of course if we compromise on this they’ll be happy and play “tame house-muzzie” and they won’t want to ever push it further…
I wrote that before seeing Ron’s comment.
One of the main differences between Christianity and Islam is the fact that Christianity always accepted the existence of a civil society in which it operated
Yes, but not willingly. The Church in Europe came pretty close to wresting power from the secular rulers several times. I don’t really see that 11thC Europe was more or less totalitarian than 11thC Syria. England and some other parts of Northern Europe were exceptional in some early and strong notion of general rights, but that certainly wasn’t the case elsewhere on the continent.
It’s foolish to attribute the differences between modern Western society and modern Islamic society to some kind of ancient religious traditions. You don’t need to go back further than the enlightenment and the industrial revolution to see where our societies parted ways.
The AoC’s first reference in his lecture is the “groundbreaking” work on “Western Muslims and the Future of Islam” by Tariq Ramadan.
This is the same Tariq Ramadan that French intelligence believed was in contact with an instigator of the mid-nineties Paris bombings.
The same Tariq Ramadan who a Spanish judge said was in routine contact with an Al-Queda member.
The same Tariq Ramadan who had his US visa revoked for espousing terrorism.
The same Tariq Ramadan who is full of praise for Hassan Al-Turabi , the man who allowed Osama bin-Laden free reign in the Sudan during the 90s.
The same Tariq Ramadan who was taped by an Italian magazine as saying 8 year old Israeli children are legitimate targets.
The same Tariq Ramadan whose father is believed to have written “The Project”, the Musim Brotherhood’s manual for the Islamic takeover of the west.
The same Tariq Ramadan whose Grandfather was the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood!
We should be lucky that the AoC calls Sayyid Qutb a “polemicist”. I guess thats one word to describe the teacher of Osama bin Laden who is often referred to as the man who shaped Al-Queda!
AoC states…
“This lecture will not attempt a detailed discussion of the nature of sharia, which would be far beyond my competence”
Yet ends…
“In conclusion, it seems that if we are to think intelligently about the relations between Islam and British law, we need a fair amount of ‘deconstruction’ of crude oppositions and mythologies, whether of the nature of sharia or the nature of the Enlightenment.”
So, he admits ignorance of sharia yet still wishes to deconstruct opposition to it, including mythologies that he doesn’t know the existance of or not. Huh?
Given the shenanigans between MI6 and the Muslim Brotherhood there’d be allegations Rowan is a spook if he wasn’t quite so soft in the head.
“How do you feel about paying welfare to the multiple wives of these immigrants?” MarkD
It was probably done to save money, Mark! Giving full benefit to non-accepted wives is more expensive than the smaller payments for the accepted multiple wives.
As always it is all about saving money or taxing us.
“Given the shenanigans between MI6 and the Muslim Brotherhood there’d be allegations Rowan is a spook if he wasn’t quite so soft in the head.”
Most of the modern day spooks seem soft in the head.
“‘deconstruction’ of crude oppositions and mythologies, whether of the nature of sharia or the nature of the Enlightenment.”
WTF this means God only knows,one is a set of religious laws and the other an intellectual and cultural movement..
Sorry,the old fool has flipped his mitre.
No, he’s not a fool or an ass. He’s a traitor.
I don’t know that the Archbishop is an ass. I think he might be a heretic, though.
Were I to decide, of my own volition, to decide to submit to the jurisdiction of a particular sharia court, or Beth Din, or the Court of Arches then it would be a very odd decision for an atheist in the classical and enlightenment tradition. But it is surely contrary to the holy apostolic and catholic tradition of the Church of England to advocate the religious law of another faith? I think it is equivocation to suggest the reception of “some aspects” of sharia is not advocating it in part.
Can you be sacked for heresy, or will he have to be burned at the stake?
“Can you be sacked for heresy, or will he have to be burned at the stake?”
Surely something more Sharia is in order,stoning,hanging,beheading,pushing a wall over on him.
Perhaps we could outsource the job to Saudi Arabia?
I have the feeling that the faith of the current AoC isn’t that different from Richard Dawkins’.
Even though Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, was killed for standing by Christian principles as he understood them, the secular principle of one law for people and clergy ultimately and rightly prevailed.
So is the AoC trying to avoid Becket’s fate, or is he setting himself up to be (figuratively) martyred by Christians for cleaving to another religion?
Seriously, I thought the religious vs. civil law debate was decided in the 13th century. That we’re even having this discussion is very, very bad.
Back when England was Catholic and fundamentalist, men like this would have been ex-communicated, at best.
catholicfundamentalism.com frequently puts forth the notion that England cannot be saved without The Church that kept it free from tryanny like the present for a thousand years.
It also says that God can program in three dimensions, make particles, and compile them into beings and structures. Revolting (to many) notion that He could have programmed everything in a week.
What’s wrong with the Brits? The tax payers work their tails off to support lazy head-chopper-polygamists and their various wives, then they submit themselves to Sharia without a fight.
“What’s wrong with the Brits? The tax payers work their tails off to support lazy head-chopper-polygamists and their various wives, then they submit themselves to Sharia without a fight.”
Oh,eventually somebody ends up on the scaffold,we are kind of traditionalists.
J,
No, it did not; at no point was the Catholic Church even close to supplanting secular power. The simple fact that the supposedly Papaly-ordained Holy Roman Emperor fought a war with the Papacy (or rather the nobles that used the Pope’s banner to rebel) over the right to choose bishops and abbots, or that all through the Middle Ages, the Papacy vs Empire conflict developed into the Guelphs vs Ghibellines one, shows that the Papacy’s power was clearly limited by secular power.
Even at the end of the First Crusade (a Papaly-inspired movement if there ever was one), when the Crusaders took Jerusalem and they had to share the spoils in the form of titles and territories, the Papal Legates’ attempts to control the Kingdom of Jerusalem failed; the great Lords elected who they wanted and let the Pope get used to it. At this same moment, the Abbasid Caliph was both secular and religious leader of Islam (even the Fatimids who opposed him did it so arguing a different descent from Muhammad, not a different level of authority for the title).
As for the “exceptionality” of England, do not forget that the Guelphs vs Ghibellines conflict happened in Northern Italy (Northern Europe it is not!), and that William The Conqueror, after accepting the Papal banner and his support, refused to swear fealty to the Pope for the Kingdom of England: similar behaviour as far as I can see.
The Papacy never could, on its own, wield enough military power, it always had to co-opt secular disputes and power. The only way the Pope was able to employ secular power was by becoming a secular lord himself, using secular forms of organization, not supplanting them with theocratic ones like in Islam.
As for the willingness, Christianity started as an anti-establishment religion against Rome, unlike Islam that started by assuming secular power in Arabia; that had profound implications on how the two religions would evolve. St Augustine of Hippo in the 400s, clearly made the distinction between the secular state and the Christian religion in his “City of God”, while the Koran is both a religious document and a Law code.
J,
In 1303, Phillip IV of France, after being excommunicated by Pope Boniface VI, took the later prisioner for a few days. After he released him, the Pope is said to have died from the shock of the ordeal. Now, how could have the Caliph as a secular figure taken the Caliph as a religious one prisioner and drive him to an early death? His right hand cutting off his left hand?
Sorry, but no; the state vs church tension is a purely Western concept, and it is at least as old as the late Roman Empire. Those that try to limit The West’s history to the Enlightenment and later forget that it all started in in Greece well before anyone heard of Christ.
Okay, here’s a question. Does the multicultural concept of distinguishable “communities” have any value?
No. Of course it doesn’t. It is not the law’s role to respect such constructs. It’s the law’s role to protect individuals. It certainly isn’t the tax-payers repsonsibility to advance the causes dear to the hearts of what essentially amounts to clubs.
If it does, who is to decide to which “community” a specific individual belongs?
An intractable problem because we all belong to so many. Ultimately that comes down to the individual in question. If the club in question won’t let you leave of your own free will then fuck ’em. They have no place in any reasonable society. And I frankly don’t care whether that’s Penge Golf Club or the One True Faith of Muhammed.
Is it reasonable to consider children to be members of any community before they are of a legal age of responsibility?
Tricky. My main concern is with older teens and adults who are coerced, tortured and killed by their loving Islamic families.
I’m pig-sick of Muslims carping on about being discriminated against. I’m pig-sick of them claiming communitarian (never individual) rights and this really is the living end.
Bungle at the MCB must be laughing his camel-fucked ass off.
I’m just pig-sick of Muslims. Why won’t anyone in a position of power tell them to put up, shut up or fuck off?
Yeah, Ian. I’ll probably be in the cell next door.
I doubt it.
He’s a tin-plated jackass, and kind to no one but himself (if that).
As an American, I would like to tell you all across the pond that many of us feel (strongly and often) that we owe you much in terms of the rule of law – that that and our language were gifts from Old England to New; we may have changed both (we might think perfected and you might not) but we know who gave us the base on which we’ve built.
This is a proud, beautiful, resonant heritage – and some of you seem to think of it as unimportant.
I heartily second my fellow american’s comment.
He should be sacked for this.
A fatwa from “Penge Golf Club” is a fearsome thing to behold.You’ll never wear plus fours again.
In my ignorance I thought that title belonged to The Sovereign (Fid.Def.)…but no matter (nothing does these days).
Not one word of what has been written here before this, my comment, would have appeared but for the succession of elected traitors who have brought this country to its present terminal shame…Williams is just another such.
I can only feel a deep sorrow for those indigenes who still inhabit this tragic, PC riddled island…and especially for their children whose birthright has been exchanged for a bowl of poisonous chick-peas.
PM Brown should ask the Queen to fire this clown. No wonder Tony Blair and thousands of other Anglicans are converting to Catholicism, a real religion which stands for something besides wooly-headed kumbayeh silliness.
I would submit that one can be senile at 57 yrs. old!
Sharia was spread by the sword and is now spread by national suicide. What Britain/England/West need now is the sword of Uhtred and the guile of Alfred. Make Bernard Cornwell the PM.
I don’t think you really wanted to say that. On existential issues such as this liberal/libertarian analysis can breakdown.
In an ordinary relationship in civil society a party who is unhappy can quit. Marriages are dissolved by divorce. Contracts can be terminated with a payment of damages. Even citizenship can be renounced.
Sharia is different. Like living in the Soviet Union there is no lawful nor easy exit. Nureyev could escape, and live to tell the tale. But, victims of sharia, often young women, seeking to leave its shackles will be tracked down and killed by members of their own family.
It happens every day now in the west, and you people in Europe have forsworn the only real weapon that you would have in curbing this barbarism — the gallows.
Sharia is not only antiquated and inflexible, it is a violent attack on human freedom and dignity, and a desecration of God’s holy name. It is to be dreaded like an outbreak of the smallpox. Any society that wants to retain a commitment to civilization must reject it absolutely and in all of its manifestations.
I think it is actually a mistake to think of Sharia as a legal code… Islam is a political system, not just a religion, and Sharia is the manifestation of that political code as you cannot really separate the two.
I think when pondering polycentric law, any legal tradition needs to pass two tests to see if it can be tolerable: (1) is it barbaric (2) just how voluntary is it before you give any prior consent?
Now (1) ‘barbaric’ is fairly subjective but I do think it is a reasonable standard to have. Any fallible system which chops off people limbs is barbaric. Any system which weights the value of witness on the basis of bollocks is, well, bollocks but not barbaric. (2) however is rather more empirical and this is where I think Sharia fails utterly. I do not see how it can co-exist with other legal systems because it does not tolerate people opting out and going for a competing system by (for example) changing their religion. The apostasy issue is an obvious deal breaker.
A marvellous bunch of comments, but strange that none touches on how and when Shariah came into existence, or anything about the “Age of Jurists,” which just might have something to do with its validity vel non.
We shall have to rely on Bernard Lewis for those reminders (even though he has removed to the U.S.)
Canada was on the verge of allowing sharia law for settling domestic disputes among muslims four years ago. Decisions by the mullas would be binding and non-appealable to the Canadian leagal system. Sounded great to the multi-culturists in the great land north of me.
There was much discussion in the legal community of the pros and cons of a dual legal system. Fortunately at the last moment it was turned down.
When I asked my winter neighbor in Florida, a recently retired Canadian Federal Judge, the reasoning behind the last minute change, I expected a discussion of the esoterica of mujltiple legal systems etc, he answered, “Sharia allows wife beating and we weren’t going to have that!”
Perhaps a little common-sense like this is needed in the Church of England.
The Islamic Republik of Britain.
.
Well, we’ve already noted PB Schori’s proposed contemporary “upgrade” of Episcopal liturgical vestment style….
http://www.tinyurl.com/22yyyc
…so I suppose we shouldn’t be too surprised that ABC Williams felt compelled to get into the act with an Anglican “vestment style upgrade” of his own:
http://www.tinyurl.com/25qg5l
“Aye, it’s lookin’ posh on ye, laddie!”
Sometimes laughter is the only thing that will keep us even marginally sane…
Stolen comment from another site…-“Posted by: carsoncitygal on Jan 31, 2008 7:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The irony is that what we call Western civilization consists of the last group of humans to crawl out of barbarism. We appear to be crawling still. We love to identify the ancient Greeks as our ancestors, conveniently forgetting that we white types are the direct descendants of all those barbarians who brought down the Roman empire, colonized Western Europe, and slaughtered thousands of highly refined, highly civilized Muslims in the Crusades. Yes, it’s high time we considered civilization as a preferable option. “
Nick M,
The idea that we can allow two Muslim businessmen to resolve a property dispute Islamically and it stops there is ridiculous.
No it isn’t. And they can already. It is called arbitration.
Who’s this “we” to allow or disallow such things? And on what ground would you do so?
The problem with parallel legal systems is the problem of consent and of equal treatment. The common law (and the civil law system, too) evolved precisely in order to get rid of the problems of having different people subject to different jurisdictions without their consent.
If the Archbishop is just talking about arbitration, then he’s engaging in a bit of multiculturalist grandstanding and saying nothing in particular – a very Anglican approach. If he does mean something more, that may not make him an ass but a hopeless legal optimist. (Cf the many intelligent cultivated proponents of the Human Rights Act.)
I think he may well have been naive about the impact of his remarks, both on those who agree with him, those who don’t, and those who will seize on them as justifying the genuinely parallel and separate courts that they want (whom we haven’t heard much from yet).
What is critical here is his office. They might be empty remarks or questionable ones; but if made by, say, a judge they wouldn’t be a big deal. The Primate of All England though, is supposed by many people (including those like me who don’t share it) to have the duty of promoting the Anglican faith, which makes his seeming acquiescence to the religious law of another so mad. The parallel is with the Prince of Wales suggesting he might want to be ‘defender of faith,’ rather than Defender of The Faith, when he grows up. To either the office of King or Archbishop of Canterbury belief in Anglicanism as the one true religion is generally supposed to be a condition precedent.
Can one imagine the chief imam of the Regents Park Mosque staying in office long were he to suggest publicly that Church Law or the Beth Din have similar value to sharia?
Great comments. Quick reaction:
the polycentric legal issue: Ian B, I think, is broadly right here. While in theory there is no reason why different groups of people cannot agree to submit to having disputes resolved in a certain way, the problem with sharia is that consent is not really on offer, particularly if you happen to be the 50%-plus of the population that happens to be female. I don’t see a lot of consent going on. For that reason, divorce, treatment of homosexuality, marriage contracts, etc, are likely to be a constant source of trouble; horrors like “honour killings” and the like are clearly at variance with the law against murder. Ditto all the various physical punishments.
The other problem is that once a person has chosen to submit to sharia, it is not a matter of their being able to change their mind subsequently. No polycentric legal order can really operate unless the code enables its users to choose another one, but then what happens if people operating under different codes clash? If a person submitting to the Common law is assaulted by a Muslim or vice versa, which legal system should be invoked?
I don’t think libertarian legal thinkers like Bruce Benson or Randy Barnett have really answered these questions. I think that frankly the polycentric idea, in anything other than minor lifestyle issues, is unworkable and intolerable.
I think the Archbishop needs to seriously consider his position.
Never. It’s a wedge.
Next they will want official recognition of muslim areas. Then they will want only muslims as police in their areas. (Along the way the imams will need exempted from all non-discrimination legislation.) Then they will want official recognition of muslim criminal laws against, for example, alcohol. Then they will demand official recognition of the religious police, who will have been operating unofficially for years in these areas. After that we will be told that it is none of our business what they are doing in these muslim enclaves.
I am not overly pessimistic as what is going on is an existential challenge trial to multi-culturalism and the PC state. In due course, we will get new political coalitions to change the direction of things. How much of a pickle we will be in first is anybody’s guess.
The trouble is that Williams has been sucking up to Islam for many years. This is not unusual. His words will be used by Muslim leaders pushing for more and more rights to make their case. The man is supposed to be supporting his flock not empowering Muslims in the UK.
Does anyone have an example of a state under Sharia law which has thriving libertarian and other religious cultures?
There is absolutely NO EXCUSE to codify or give legitimacy to what is being supposedly touted as “voluntary”. In fact you need not even mention it, but this is not the real purpose here, lets be frank.
The real purpose is to get “recognition” of Sharia as “legitimate”. It gives power to the beards. How long will it take for coercion to creep in? I’d say less than a day. How long before people are condemned as “unIslamic” for not going to the Sharia “court”. Next will be the request that ANY situation involving one or more Muslims be seen by Sharia. Do not think this is not the plan – these people are utterly convinced as to the “superiority” of their system and are Totalitarian in their mindset. They. Will. Not. Stop.
The only way to deal with it is to NEVER pander to their aims. We have seen pandering in the concubines and hints now of GB pandering to allow changes in our tax laws. Who is badgering the system so systematically?
To the MCB, Doctorate of Sky Fairy bearded goat appeaser Williams and all the self-loathers, totalitarians and rabid mysongenists out there, I have a message for you from Penn and Teller.(Link)
Doesn’t Rowan Williams looks a bit like a white-haired Salman Rushdie?
Don’t forget – Rev. Williams also became a druid (sort of).
Judging by the tone of most of the posts above, readers will doubtless be “amused” by the Aneurin Bevan reference…
All this stuff about Williams being kind hearted and naïve is utter nonsense. He is a classic left wing activist. His ideas stem from hatred and envy. He constantly sucks up to fascists – be it Muslims, Palestinian terrorists, Ba’athists or enviro-Nazis – and simultaneously poors derision on the West (the US in particular). He knows exactly what he is doing. He’s a treacherous little shit.
It’s high time the modern day equivalents of Reginald Fitzurse, Hugh de Moreville, William de Tracy, and Richard le Breton were dispatched to Canterbury with haste…
I wonder how he is with the whole stoning to death for adultery thing?
Rock Solid?
I tried to take that attitude but someone who is that dismissive to Muslim women (and Islamic apostates) as human beings who deserve the same protection as everyone else, is either criminally incompetent or just plain evil. I blame the Anglican church as an institution for enabling his leadership and this is why I am ashamed to have been associated with the Anglican church and having been descended from a good natured Anglican clergy member. Any last respect for organized religion was destroyed by this man.
From his unwillingness to even understand those who supported force against the Ba’athist and Taliban regimes to his opposition against free-market principles and the state of Israel(Link) he is an ideological midget and a spiritual nomad.
Britains MUST protest against this corrupted Mo-Fckr
as all institutions of establishment – this used-to-be Christian Church elit is totaly roten
As I sit here in the US, watching the lunacy of growing European submission to Islam, I remember an old American saying about government: The people get the government they deserve. They also get the society they deserve as well. Where was all this clamor when you elected leftist after leftist? Don’t you realize that that this idiot archbishop is merely reflecting the liberal mindset that has infected Great Britain and Europe? My family fought for Great Britain–army, navy and air force–and I have to tell you it is sad to watch what is happening, the land they loved and served being corrupted like this. Multiculturalism is great, but not at the expense of the core culture of a nation. That is a lesson that is sadly lost on the liberals on this side of the Atlantic.
Folks, both in Europe and here in the US, it is time to see a little nationalism and some cultural pushback against the rising tide of Islam. It isn’t up to the government or the church, it is up to the people. If the people are proud of their nation and its history and culture–as they damn well should be–then this can work out. If not, then get used to wearing beards and hajibs.