Archbishop of Canterbury advocates Sharia law in the UK

[Captain Seafort]

Beeb

Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".

Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

Dr Williams argues that adopting 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".

'Sensational reporting'

In an exclusive interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, ahead of a lecture to lawyers in London on Monday, Dr Williams argues this relies on Sharia law being better understood.

At the moment, he says "sensational reporting of opinion polls" clouds the issue.

An approach to law which simply said - there's one law for everybody - I think that's a bit of a danger

Religious courts in the UK

He stresses that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".

But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger".

"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law."

'Other loyalties'

Dr Williams added: "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."

The issue of whether Catholic adoption agencies would be forced to accept gay parents under equality laws showed the potential for legal confusion, he said.

"That principle that there is only one law for everybody is an important pillar of our social identity as a western democracy," he said.

"But I think it is a misunderstanding to suppose that means people don't have other affiliations, other loyalties which shape and dictate how they behave in society and that the law needs to take some account of that."

'Custom and community'

Dr Williams noted that Orthodox Jewish courts already operated, and that the law accommodated the anti-abortion views of some Christians.

"The whole idea that there are perfectly proper ways the law of the land pays respect to custom and community, that's already there," he said.

People may legally devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process.

Muslim Sharia courts and the Jewish Beth Din which already exist in the UK come into this category.

The country's main Beth Din at Finchley in north London oversees a wide range of cases including divorce settlements, contractual rows between traders and tenancy disputes.

Dr Williams' comments are likely to fuel the debate over multiculturalism in the UK.

Last month, the Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, said some places in the UK were no-go areas for non-Muslims.

Dr Williams said it was "not at all the case that we have absolute social exclusion".

All right, it's official - Rowan Williams has gone off the deep end. Will someone kindly explain to the idiot why having different laws for different people based on their religion is an extremely bad idea.

[Monroe]

Wow.. so if I suddenly live in England and I suddenly have a wife I can convert to Islam, divorce her that way, then convert back to whatever I want? Let's say Jedi. Speaking of which, how's that Jedi temple coming in London?

[Tsukiyumi]

Jedi temple? That's the first I've heard of that.

[Deepcrush]

We're still working on it. I sent Vader to "help" move things a little faster. Did you guys still want that Heavy TurboLaser pointing at France? If so then good but if you want it move then we'll need two weeks warning.

[sunnyside]

How much political clout does this guy have and is it at all representative of England?

[Monroe]

How much political clout does this guy have and is it at all representative of England?

Still that's like a politician, say a Christian convservative in the south running for president saying he'd like to rewrite the constitution to fit the Bible. Only a mad man would ever say that! *covers up Huckabee's name*

[Sionnach Glic]

What the hell is up with this guy?

He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

Hey, here's a crazy idea; if you don't like the laws of the country you're in, go to a different country instead of trying to force your laws on everyone else.

[Captain Seafort]

How much political clout does this guy have

He's in charge of the day-to-day running of the Church of England, and a member of the House of Lords, so no real political power, but his opinions are generally listened to.

and is it at all representative of England?

Not in the slightest - as the earful he's been getting from pretty much everyone over this latest piece of stupidity demonstrates.

[Thorin]

Newsflash:

Unelected member of the House of Lords acts like a bafoon.



Laws are specific to states and countries, not to religion. What an idiot.

[Mikey]

Rochey echoes much of my own sentiments, although they're usually expressed at illegal immigrants in my own country. There already ARE countries based on Islamic law. If that's how you want to live your life, then fine... GO THERE!

[sunnyside]

Britain isn't in a situation yet where they need immigrants is it? Supposedly the low birthrate in some countries (Germany I've been told), means while they may not like it they need to bring in people or they'll have a population inversion and economic collapse.

The US has a bit of that.

"Either learn English or get out!
Er. Wait. Where are you going? That fruit needs to be picked this week!

Uh.

!Vuelto por favor! !Le necesito! "

[Captain Seafort]

Britain isn't in a situation yet where they need immigrants is it? Supposedly the low birthrate in some countries (Germany I've been told), means while they may not like it they need to bring in people or they'll have a population inversion and economic collapse.

It's not a case of us needing immigrants so much as vast numbers of people immigrating during the 60s and 70s either to get a better job or to GTFO when their own country was being run by a thug - Idi Amin being a case in point. The problem has been that this vast wave of immigrants tended to all set up shop in the same areas, resulting in a ghettoisation of the major cities and a distinct lack of incentive the integrate into the wider population. The result was that a few far sighted individuals predicted that "as I look ahead I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman I seem to to see 'the river Tiber foaming with much blood'".

[Graham Kennedy]

Okay, what he is ACTUALLY saying is that there's no reason why Muslims could not CHOOSE to go to a Sharia court if they wanted to resolve things by their own religion.

British law already allows a third party to arbitrate civil matters if both sides agree to this. Often it's some low level judge or professional arbiter, but we already have Jewish courts in the UK for instance. The settle things like divorces and such.

And anybody can decide not to go through with the arbitration process, or pull out of it, and go on to a proper court at any time.

So why shouldn't we have Sharia courts functioning in a similar manner?

[Captain Seafort]

So why shouldn't we have Sharia courts functioning in a similar manner?

We have, under that very principle.

The brings up the question of why he's making such a fuss. Either a) he's ignorant of the existing law, and it's all a storm in a teacup, b) he thinks Sharia should have some form of special privilage over other forms of independant arbitration. If it's a) he should do a bit more research before he starts spouting off, and if it's b) he should explain why he thinks a particular group should be given special treatment.

The impression I get is that he thinks that when Sharia rulings are made regarding civil matters they should superceed British law. This is, to put it mildly, bonkers.

[Mikey]

British law already allows a third party to arbitrate civil matters if both sides agree to this. Often it's some low level judge or professional arbiter, but we already have Jewish courts in the UK for instance. The settle things like divorces and such.

Thank you for mentioning this, Graham - I for one was completely ignorant of this point of British civil law. I'm certainly no rabbi or Torah scholar, but here's my understanding after 35 years of being a Jew: You refer to a Bait Din, which is a Jewish court of halacha - Jewish law as applied to everyday life rather than to actual prayer or ritual. However, since the diaspora, Jewish tradition has been both steadfast and clear that the law of the land has precedence, save where unreasonable - e.g., if a nation required its residents to eat bacon. This is a silly example, I know, but in the final analysis the Jewish response would NOT be to change the law of the land which the Jews in question have adopted - the response would be to go to a different place.

In other words, to use Graham's example of divorce: if there are secular British legal regulations in place regarding divorce, the Bait Din would not make a ruling that countermanded such - the only resultant conflict and/or suit would be if the secular law directly countermanded or prohibited Jewish "law."

I have never been a follower of Islam, and many of the Muslims that I have known have either been so Americanized or reformed that I learned little about Muslim tradition; or, have been so ardently Shi'ite or Sunni that all I was able to learn was propaganda detracting the other side of the argument. So, I certainly can't claim to know much about Sharia. However, the tone of the article implied to me a separate system of adjudication, parallel - rather than subordinate - to the secular court system. If that is the case, this cardinal or bishop or whoever he is happens to be a few cards short of a deck. If not, it's an interesting experiment, but I foresee that it would be only a matter of time until someone decides to flex their PC muscles and attempt to make it so.[/i]