Thread: Archbishop Calls for Sharia Law to Operate in Britain

Brown slaps down Archbishop's call for Islamic sharia law to operate in Britain

Last updated at 01:07am on 08.02.08

"The Archbishop of Canterbury caused consternation yesterday by calling for Islamic law to be recognised in Britain.

He declared that sharia and Parliamentary law should be given equal legal status so the people could choose which governs their lives.

This raised the prospect of Islamic courts in Britain with full legal powers to approve polygamous marriages, grant easy divorce for men and prevent finance firms from charging interest.

His comments in a BBC interview and a lecture to lawyers were condemned at a time when government ministers are striving to encourage integration and stop the nation from "sleepwalking to segregation".

The Prime Minister rapidly distanced himself from Dr Williams's view. Gordon Brown's spokesman said: "Our general position is that sharia law cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor should the principles of sharia law be included in a civil court for resolving contractual disputes.

"The Prime Minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values."

Dr Williams's words opened a chasm over Islam between senior leaders of the Church of England, who are already trying to deal with an Anglican war over gay rights which broke out after he was appointed archbishop.

The Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, is facing death threats following his warning last month about Muslim "no-go areas" in Britain.
And the Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu, who has been fiercely critical of Muslim extremists, said last year that "the imposition of sharia law, Britain as a Muslim society - that will never happen".

In his lecture, 57-year-old Dr Williams said that "we have to think a little harder about the role and rule of law in a plural society of overlapping identities".

He added that it would be possible to develop "a scheme in which individuals retain the liberty to choose the jurisdiction under which they will seek to resolve certain carefully specified matters, so that power-holders are forced to compete for the loyalty of their shared constituents.

"This may include aspects of marital law, the regulation of financial transactions, and authorised structures of mediation and conflict resolution."

The archbishop attempted to distance himself from the extreme legal systems run in Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, where adultery can be punished by death and women who behave independently risk harsh punishments.

"Nobody in their right mind, I think, would want to see in this country a kind of inhumanity that sometimes appears to be associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states - the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well," he said.

Dr Williams pointed out that Jewish Beth Din courts already operate in Britain. But these, like sharia arrangements currently existing in Muslim areas, are voluntary understandings conducted with the agreement of participants.

Alternative sharia courts as proposed by the archbishop would dish out enforceable law.

Muslim groups responded cautiously to Dr Williams's proposals. A spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain said: "We will need to look carefully at the archbishop's lecture."

The Ramadhan Foundation youth organisation said the scheme would help build respect and tolerance.

Its director Mohammed Shafiq said: "Sharia law for civil matters is something which has been introduced in some western countries with much success; I believe that Muslims would take huge comfort from the Government allowing civil matters being resolved according to their faith."

But he added: "We are however disappointed that the Archbishop of Canterbury was silent when Bishop Nazir-Ali was promoting intolerance and lying about no-go areas for Christians in the UK by Muslim extremists.
"Unless he speaks out against this intolerance, Muslims will take his silence as authorisation and support for such comments."

Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said Dr Williams's comments gave "succour to extremists".

"He needs to understand that his words carry enormous weight," he said in a Channel 4 interview.

"What he seems to be talking about is a situation in which people are treated differently under the law according to their religion. People cannot be treated differently. Everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law.

"I don't doubt the archbishop's desire to accommodate diversity, but we cannot do so at the expense of our common values."

He described Dr Williams as "muddled" and "dangerous".

Mr Phillips was the first prominent Labour figure to condemn multiculturalism, the Left-wing doctrine which promotes different cultures.
He declared that under its influence Britain was sleepwalking to segregation.

Yesterday he said the "implication that British courts should treat people differently based on their faith is divisive and dangerous.

"It risks removing the protection afforded by law, for example, to children in custody cases or women in divorce proceedings.

"The first people who would suffer would be ethnic-minority citizens. Follow the logic of this extreme multiculturalism through and where do we end up?

With a group of white Christians in Barking and Dagenham deciding they had a conscientious objection to nonwhite Muslims in their neighbourhoods - and seeking the support of the courts?"

Mike Judge, of the Christian Institute, said: "I am appalled that the head of the Church of England is advocating that parts of sharia law should be introduced into British law.

"The idea that you can have the moderate bits without the nasty bits coming along at a later time is naive."

Tory backbencher David Davies, an Anglican, said: "I am astounded. Dr Williams is a nice enough man, very intellectual, but he has clearly lost the plot.

"He's one of the most influential Christian prelates in the world and he's
supposed to be standing up for Christianity.

"What he's doing is abandoning his own religion. If people come to this country they should be prepared to compromise their own traditions to fit in with the host country.

Tory cohesion spokesman Baroness Warsi, a Muslim herself, said: "The archbishop's comments are unhelpful and may add to the confusion that already exists in our communities.

"Freedom under the law allows respect for some religious practices.
"But let's be absolutely clear. All British citizens must be subject to British laws developed through Parliament and the courts."

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/arti ... article.do

England needs to take a lesson from the Prime Minister of Austrailia. About a year ago this same issue was brought up in Austrailia and the PM came out and said this is Austrailia, we have been ruled under a parlimentary system of government for several hundred years now and are not going to change. If you don't like it, LEAVE!!!

Those were not his exact words of course, but he did emphasize the fact that if muslims down under didn't like the parlimentary law, they are free to leave anytime they want.

Too bad we don't have leaders here with a similar back bone.

Originally Posted by sippy

England needs to take a lesson from the Prime Minister of Austrailia. About a year ago this same issue was brought up in Austrailia and the PM came out and said this is Austrailia, we have been ruled under a parlimentary system of government for several hundred years now and are not going to change. If you don't like it, LEAVE!!!

Those were not his exact words of course, but he did emphasize the fact that if muslims down under didn't like the parlimentary law, they are free to leave anytime they want.

Too bad we don't have leaders here with a similar back bone.

I agree!!! The US and Canada should be saying the same thing!!

I also remember reading about Australia's Prime Minister's statements to the Muslims who wanted Australia to accommodate their religion/laws.

I "believe" that Australia has now made major changes in regard to their legal immigration policies as well-----there is now DEFINITELY a preference for those wanting to legally immigrate to Australia from Western nations. Australia no longer tolerates illegal immigration in any way.

Australia sees what is happening in the UK, France, etc. in regard to Muslims wanting to force their religion and laws----and they want to save their country before it is too late.

Also, the paper in the UK is just like the papers here in regard to censorship. I know that I sent comments----as well as other people----and the comments were never posted. So, when you read the comments under the article you think----"come on Brits, get some backbone and defend your citizenship rights"...........However, it is that they are "intentionally" not posting the angry posts regarding the issue.

What on earth is England thinking.....this is scarey.

Originally Posted by crazybird

What on earth is England thinking.....this is scarey.

England is not thinking it. Only the archbishop of Canterbury who is trying to please everyone, which of course is impossible. If you give an inch people take a mile, of anything.

My mother still lives in England and finds the immigrant situation increasingly distressing. Since I came here legally and have to keep jumping through hoops to remain so she is horrified at how easy it is to get into England and take jobs off people. She has no appreciation of how easy it is to get over your southern border.

Any country that can offer a better living is going to be invaded if it does not actively prevent it.

This bishop is NUTTIER than a FRUITCAKE!

As usual, the press took what the man said and totally distorted it.

England doesn't have the separation of church and state that we do, and the Church of England is quite meshed with their justice system. They use of religious courts to settle certain civil matters, like marital issues.

Speaking as a member of the Church of England, he was saying that the relationship between religion and law was something that "Christians and people of other faiths ought to be doing some reflecting together"

Taken in context, I don't necessarily disagree with him. This is exactly why our founding fathers wanted to keep church and state separate. The Muslims in America can't ask for a Sharia divorce proceeding in lieu of a government trial, because religion has nothing to do with it here.

But it's just easier to hate the Muslims, I guess.

Originally Posted by AngelaTC

As usual, the press took what the man said and totally distorted it.

England doesn't have the separation of church and state that we do, and the Church of England is quite meshed with their justice system. They use of religious courts to settle certain civil matters, like marital issues.

Speaking as a member of the Church of England, he was saying that the relationship between religion and law was something that "Christians and people of other faiths ought to be doing some reflecting together"

Taken in context, I don't necessarily disagree with him. This is exactly why our founding fathers wanted to keep church and state separate. The Muslims in America can't ask for a Sharia divorce proceeding in lieu of a government trial, because religion has nothing to do with it here.

But it's just easier to hate the Muslims, I guess.

The UK does have separation of church and government. As someone posted under the comments----the UK already has a system of laws/government that EVERYONE must follow----they do not need to cater to certain religions/groups.

I definitely do not agree with you, and read the quotes in the article above---as well as the comments under the article----and you will see that the majority of Brits do not agree as well.

In regard to Sharia Law----Most people who live in Western countries do not want to accommodate laws that approve of stoning women, that women should be treated like second-class citizens, women should not be allowed to drive, women should completely cover their hair/bodies at all times, etc.

Originally Posted by AngelaTC

As usual, the press took what the man said and totally distorted it.

England doesn't have the separation of church and state that we do, and the Church of England is quite meshed with their justice system. They use of religious courts to settle certain civil matters, like marital issues.

Speaking as a member of the Church of England, he was saying that the relationship between religion and law was something that "Christians and people of other faiths ought to be doing some reflecting together"

Taken in context, I don't necessarily disagree with him. This is exactly why our founding fathers wanted to keep church and state separate. The Muslims in America can't ask for a Sharia divorce proceeding in lieu of a government trial, because religion has nothing to do with it here.

But it's just easier to hate the Muslims, I guess.

"The Prime Minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values."

........The archbishop attempted to distance himself from the extreme legal systems run in Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, where adultery can be punished by death and women who behave independently risk harsh punishments.

"Nobody in their right mind, I think, would want to see in this country a kind of inhumanity that sometimes appears to be associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states - the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well," he said."

Originally Posted by AngelaTC

As usual, the press took what the man said and totally distorted it.

England doesn't have the separation of church and state that we do, and the Church of England is quite meshed with their justice system. They use of religious courts to settle certain civil matters, like marital issues.

Speaking as a member of the Church of England, he was saying that the relationship between religion and law was something that "Christians and people of other faiths ought to be doing some reflecting together"

Taken in context, I don't necessarily disagree with him. This is exactly why our founding fathers wanted to keep church and state separate. The Muslims in America can't ask for a Sharia divorce proceeding in lieu of a government trial, because religion has nothing to do with it here.

But it's just easier to hate the Muslims, I guess.

What you say could not be further from the truth. The church and state in England are not remotely joined. The Queen is the head of the Church of England and she is the head of state but they do not meet anywhere in the middle.

From someone who was born there I was shocked to see how much religion is embedded in your electoral process here in the US. I was never even aware of the religion of any of the politicians I voted for while I still lived in England.

The Archbishop is doing what certain bishops have tried here with regard to the illegal immigrant population and that is putting his opinion in where it is not wanted.