Archbishop sparks Sharia law row

BBC says "Dr Williams made his comments in a BBC Radio interview Leading politicians have distanced themselves from the Archbishop of Canterbury's belief that some Sharia law in the UK seems "unavoidable". Gordon Brown's spokesman said the prime minister "believes that British laws should be based on British values". The Tories called the archbishop's remarks "unhelpful" and the Lib Dems said all must abide by the rule of law.Dr Rowan Williams said the UK had to "face up to the fact" some citizens do not relate to the British legal system.He said adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law could help social cohesion.For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court. But the prime minister's official spokesman said Sharia law could never be used as a justification for committing a breach of English law, nor could the principle of Sharia law be applied in a civil case. He added that Mr Brown had a good relationship with the archbishop, who was perfectly entitled to express his views. The spokesman also said: "There are instances where government has made changes - for example on stamp duty - but the general position is that Sharia cannot be used as justification for committing breaches of English law nor can its principles be used in civil courts." All British citizens must be subject to British laws developed through Parliament and the courts Home Office Minister Tony McNulty said: "To ask us to fundamentally change the rule of law and to adopt Sharia law, I think, is fundamentally wrong." For the Conservatives, shadow community cohesion minister Baroness Warsi said the archbishop's comments were "unhelpful". "Dr Williams seems to be suggesting that there should be two systems of law, running alongside each other, almost parallel, and for people to be offered the choice of opting into one or the other," she told BBC News 24"That is unacceptable. There has to be one system of law and there could not be an opt-out out of it."Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said: "Whilst having an enormous amount of respect for Rowan Williams, I cannot agree with his conclusions on this issue. "Equality before the law is part of the glue that binds our society together. We cannot have a situation where there is one law for one person and different laws for another."There is a huge difference between respecting people's right to follow their own beliefs and allowing them to excuse themselves from the rule of law". Dr Williams said Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
In an interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, he argued this relied on Sharia law being better understood. At the moment, he said "sensational reporting of opinion polls" clouded the issue. He stressed 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." 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.""We don't either want a situation where, because there's no way of legally monitoring what communities do... people do what they like in private in such a way that that becomes another way of intensifying oppression inside a community." Under English law, people may 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 Orthodox Jewish courts which already exist in the UK come into this category."

Shari'a law is inequitable. Th witness of a man is worth more than a woman, a Muslim worth more than a Christian. This stinks and has no place in the UK. I watched a Channel 4 programme on Shari'a divorce. An unhappy husband went from his wife in England and married another in Pakistan. He did not bring her here but when his real wife left him the family pressured them back together. IMO she should have gone to law here and had him divorced for adultery which is what this bigamy is.

More from BBC, "Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Ramadhan Foundation, welcomed Dr Williams's comments, saying they "further underline the attempts by both our great faiths to build respect and tolerance". He added: "I believe that Muslims would take huge comfort from the government allowing civil matters being resolved according to their faith." Ibrahim Mogra, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "We're looking at a very small aspect of Sharia for Muslim families when they choose to be governed with regards to their marriage, divorce, inheritance, custody of children and so forth." He added: "Let's debate this issue. It is very complex. It is not as straight forward as saying that we will have a system here."

Complex it is. What version of shari'a out of the four available does he want?

"He should be concentrating on winning souls into the Church of England rather than getting involved in politics" Conservative MP Mark Pritchard

Amen to that. The Canterbury cobbler should stick to his last, preach the gospel and sort out the homosexualist heretics breaking up his worldwide communion.

The Times says, "Virtually the only organisation to have come out on Dr Williams's side of the debate was the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, which said that the media response to the Archbishop's speech could "only be described as a fanatical and emotional outpouring of exaggeration, misrepresentative statements, untruths and sometimes vitriolic hatred".

The latest controversy is the second time that Dr Williams's views on Islam have provoked dispute. In an interview last year with Emel, a Muslim lifestyle magazine, he accused the US of wielding its power in a way worse than Britain at the peak of the Empire, compared Muslims in Britain to the Good Samaritans, and praised the Muslim ritual of praying five times a day. He also said terrorists “can have serious moral goals” and argued that the 9/11 terrorists should not be called evil.
A senior member of General Synod, who asked not to be named, said that he had had high hopes of Dr Williams when he was enthroned five years ago but had now lost confidence in his archiepiscopacy. He thought that he should resign and said that many others were also saying the same thing privately. "

With Hizb ut-Tahrir as his friends one does wonder at Cantuar.

BBC further reports, "However, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said it was grateful for the archbishop's "thoughtful intervention".The organisation added that it was saddened by the "hysterical misrepresentations" of his speech, which would only "drive a wedge between British people". Muhammed Abdul Bari, Secretary-General of the MCB, said: "The archbishop is not advocating implementation of the Islamic penal system in Britain."His recommendation is confined to the civil system of Sharia law, and only in accordance with English law and agreeable to established notions of human rights."

But give them an inch on personal law and these people will want the whole mile of shari'a. { find the overwhelming public reaction to be most encouraging.

Now again from the BBC, "Brigadier William Dobbie, a former Synod member, described the Archbishop as "a disaster, a tragic mistake".

The statement on the Archbishop's website also said Dr Williams had pointed out that "as a matter of fact, certain provisions of Sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law" The statement said he was "exploring ways in which reasonable accommodation might be made within existing arrangements for religious conscience".It also said his principal aim was "to tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state"."

But there is a million miles of difference between giving a doctor an opt out from abortions and the incorporation of Shari'a. As Ruth Gledhill observed this morning on "Today" the C of E came into being in a dispute over legal sovereignty in England. Its articles tell us "the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England". Nor does the false prophet. Archbishops were in past centuries, put to death, with or without due process, for not recognising the supremacy of the Crown in matters legal.

"..for the many Anglicans and other Christians living in contexts where shari`a is being applied and causing untold misery and suffering, for example in parts of Nigeria and parts of Sudan, the Archbishop of Canterbury`s suggestions are not just unwise, but insensitive to the point of callousness."Dr Patrick Sookhdeo