Express Mortgages Express Loans Bingo Lose Weight Franchising Dating Shopping Book Shop Find Spare Parts Cut Your Bills Wine Shop Legal Store FlatShare Cruises

HAVE YOUR SAY

SHOULD THE ARCHBISHOP RESIGN OVER SHARIA ROW?

Saturday February 9,2008

Comment Speech Bubble Have your say(51)

Dr Rowan Williams claimed incorporating aspects of the Muslim legal system into UK law was now “unavoidable” and “appropriate” and said believers should not have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.

The Church of England’s most senior cleric also backed demands for Islamic courts to settle divorces and other disputes between Muslims living in Britain.

But his remarks sparked a storm of protest.

Sharia law has been used to justify stoning, beheadings and other brutal punishments in many Muslim countries.

In extreme cases, Islamic courts have even put people to death for converting to Christianity.

The Archbishop is now being called to step down from his position following an outcry from the public over his proposition.

Do you think he should quit?

Have YOUR say....

YES, HE SHOULD GO

21.02.08, 12:15pm

This man ought to be at the top of any movement to preserve our Judeo-Christian heritage, but he seems willing to roll over and give in to the demands of this vociferous and largely disliked minority. Sharia encompasses plural marriage - illegal in the UK if you are a Christian. This is but one of the many totally unaccepatble faces of the Muslim religion.
If you feel strongly about this issue, there is a Downing St online petition you can sign:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/SackArchbishop/

• Posted by: JaneRoberts • Report Comment

PERHAPS JUST A RED HERRING.

13.02.08, 10:36pm

i think the Archbishop would have realised that his suggestion would cause enough up roar to take everyones' mind off the main problem today The E.U. Law on Human Rights that law must be repealed immediately. There mmust be no doubt that both are detested by 95% of the Electorate yet most of the M.P'.s do not even bother to attenf the House to debate the new E.U. Treaty. Tthe people who should be looking after our interests have made many monumental errors, Not controlling immigration from IRAQ AFGHANISTAN AND PAKINSTAN and then allowing unlimited immigration from the newly elected countries to the E.U.e This Government.has a lot to answer for

• Posted by: THE2NDBARON • Report Comment

PERHAPS JUST A RED HERRING.

13.02.08, 10:36pm

• Posted by: THE2NDBARON • Report Comment

THE ARCHBISHOP AND SHARI‘A: A PAS DE DEUX?

13.02.08, 1:14am

The Archbishop and Shari‘a: a Pas de Deux?

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, stirred up a hornets’ nest when he commented in a BBC interview on February 7, 2008, that he could foresee a place for aspects of shari‘a law in Britain in the future. Responses to his comments have been diverse, with some opponents calling for his resignation and his supporters crying foul, saying that he has been misquoted.

Inaccurate reporting is indeed a common flaw of a media hungry for a good story. Let us therefore return to the archbishop’s statements and consider exactly what was said. A full transcript of the interview can be found online.1 There are a number of points which emerge from the statements of the archbishop.

The first point is a certain lack of self-confidence on the part of the archbishop. Rowan Williams is a humble man. This is in evidence when he says, “I’m no expert on this,” thereby seeking to add a disclaimer to his statements about shari‘a law. So from the outset we are made to wonder about the Archbishop’s credentials to quote Muslim jurists, make reference to Qur’an and Hadith, allude to aspects of Islamic history, and highlight Islamic diversity.

A second point to emerge from the interview is the archbishop’s sense of self-assurance that shari‘a law is little different from other legal codes and as such should not be seen as threatening. He declares that “it's not as if we're bringing in an alien and rival system” and then goes on to call for “a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law as we already do with some kinds of aspects of other religious law,” reminding his audience that “We have orthodox Jewish courts operating in this country legally.” So although he has declared himself no expert, we should be comfortable in his assurances that there’s no need to fear the accommodation of aspects of shari‘a law in Britain.

A further point to emerge from the interview is his declared concern that Muslim wishes are accommodated in Britain, declaring that “It’s very important that you mention . . . the word ‘choice.’” His concern for Muslim perspectives is clear, and in reference to the statement by Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali recently that certain Muslim neighborhoods were “no-go areas” for non-Muslims, Dr. Williams states that “many Muslims say that they feel bits of British society are ‘no go’ areas for them[—]places that they can't go.”

The archbishop’s comments need to be taken seriously and affirmed where appropriate. The first statement deserving of affirmation is that Dr. Williams is, indeed, no expert. His inclination to neatly equate Islamic law with legal systems of other faiths is superficial and sloppy. The fact is that other faiths are just that: religious faiths. Islam, by its own account, is much more than a religious faith. It is a system which insists on society's compliance in every sector of human activity: legal, religious, economic, political, and social. Although Muslims may disagree on how to implement Islam as the total package, they do not disagree that Islam is much more than just a private expression of religious belief. So while we may wish to compare Christianity with Judaism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Hinduism, Islam should be compared with (a) all those religious faiths, (b) Western political systems, (c) Western legal codes, and so forth. Islam as a total package is indeed “a rival system” for British religion, state, and society. It will remain so until it undergoes a major transformation, one that would need to entail an acceptance by the Islamic mainstream of a separation between faith and state.

Another of Dr. Williams’s statements which should be affirmed is that “We [British] have got a fragmented society at the moment, internally fragmented, socially fragmented in our cities and fragmented between communities of different allegiance.” This is absolutely correct. However, the archbishop’s proposed remedy—making space for aspects of shari‘a law—is only likely to increase the very fragmentation of which he is so critical. Were aspects of shari‘a law to be integrated within Britain, then it is highly likely that we would see the theory of rising expectations2 come into play: there would then be demands for more aspects of shari‘a law to be integrated, and then more, and more, and more…

We should also consider the archbishop’s desire to take account of the wishes of Muslims. In a November 2004 ICM poll of British Muslims for the Guardian,3 61% of respondents supported the use of shari‘a courts in Britain to resolve civil cases within the Muslim community. In a February 2006 ICM poll for the Telegraph,4 40% of Muslim respondents supported the introduction of shari‘a law into certain areas of Britain. These results caused shockwaves in Britain when they were announced. But in the context of Dr. Williams’s recent statements we need to remember that on the above figures somewhere between 40-60% of British Muslims do not support the implementation of shari‘a in Britain. Where do such Muslims fit into the archbishop’s vision for the future of Britain?

Clearly Dr. Williams does not speak for the many British Muslims who do not want to see shari‘a law in Britain. Nor does he speak for vast numbers of non-Muslim British, on the basis of the torrent of criticism which his comments have triggered. It should be noted that much of this criticism has come from within his own constituency, the Church of England. Dr. Williams has some serious thinking to do. So does the Church of England.

http://www.kairosjournal.org/Document.aspx?QuadrantID=4&CategoryID=10&TopicID=50&DocumentID=9170&L=1

• Posted by: Brisies • Report Comment

BIBLE V KORAN

12.02.08, 10:32pm

A quick book review for those who've actually read both books.

Jesus actually has a go at people who are about to stone a woman to death, in short he reminds people that there is always forgiveness - he has just said that something greater than the temple is there implying that he is the place where God meets man and where sacrifices occur for forgiveness of sins. He is direct in saying he has the authority to forgive so you need to look up that word 'echad' which I know Muslims say in reference to their deity, who also calls himself 'we'* in the Koran.

The whole point of the Bible is forgivness by the terms given to Moses with regard to the tabernacle (mishkan), in which the Qur'an acknowledges. The bible also instructs to not judging anyone. The tenets of Judaism and Christianity do NOT allow forcing anyone to believe, it has been done, but is violently against scripture, unlike the Qur'an in which forced conversions are required with a heavy penalty or death for those who don't. In the New Testament many people choose not to follow Jesus. In fact Peter, when asked if he was going to leave him (Jesus) too, isn't exactly forthcoming with gratitude, he basically says 'what else is there, you have the message of eternal life' of the plethora of beliefs available at that time, it is Jesus who interprets scriptures in their correct interpretation, much to the chagrin of those in power who think they know it all, very much like today. : The essence of Bible belief is acceptance of forgivness for sins in God's terms, and then love God and love your neighbour as yourself - that's not new, Rabbi Hillel before him said this.

In fact, Isa (Jesus) and Moses in the Qur'an are people worthy of being investigated further as they don't say or do anything nasty. I'd say they were worth looking up.

*God must witness himself as he is not above his own law, there must be a minimum of 2 witnesses, although he remains one, he is still echad.

• Posted by: K8Bee • Report Comment

RIGHT

12.02.08, 9:55pm

sigh. yes b to b. two worngs don't make a right. you are fond of saying that at inappropriate times. but yes, that it true 'two wrongs don't make a right'.

what i am trying to point out here is hypocracy and double standards. people are happy to condem a group of people, and to say really nasty and offensive things about them, despite the fact that they do not apply those same standards to other groups, or themselves.

now, the question is, 'why do they do that?' i.e. why are charlie and sandie so keen to point out violent scripts and behavious in other religions, and ignore thier own? bigotry, thats why. they simply do not like muslims, and they will come up with any reason, and excuse, any twist of the facts to say something crappy about them.

me, personally, i don't care about muslims at all. most i've met seem like nice people, some not so nice. just like christians or anyone else. they are all the same, they are individuals. and i, being a sane and decent human being, judge people as individuals, not as entire groups.

the definition of bigotry, by the way:

"The characteristic qualities of a bigot; intolerance or prejudice, especially religious or racial. "

definition of bigot:
"a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

so yes, saying 'muslims are bad, or evil or this or that, is bigotry. charlie is a bigot. so is sandie. how about you?

• Posted by: nofreespeechhere • Report Comment