Sharia comments trigger criticism

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:58 am

The Archbishop of Canterbury has come under fire after appearing to back the adoption of some aspects of Sharia law in the UK.

Dr Rowan Williams said the UK had to "face up to the fact" some citizens did not relate to the British legal system.

Culture Secretary Andy Burnham said such moves would create "social chaos."

The Muslim Council of Britain said it was a complex issue in need of debate, but stressed it would only involve a "small aspect" of the law.

'Unacceptable and unhelpful'

Islamic Sharia law is a legal and social code designed to help Muslims live their daily lives, but it has proved controversial in the West for the extreme nature of some of its punishments.

Dr Rowan Williams told BBC Radio 4 on Thursday that he believed the adoption of some Sharia law in the UK seemed "unavoidable".

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 Gordon Brown's spokesman said the prime minister "believes that British laws should be based on British values".

He added that Mr Brown had a good relationship with the archbishop, who was perfectly entitled to express his views.

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."

implication that British courts should treat people differently based on their faith is divisive and dangerous

Trevor Phillips

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Sharia law in the UK

Religious courts already used

Shadow community cohesion minister Baroness Warsi said the archbishop's comments were "unhelpful".

She told BBC News 24: "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. That is unacceptable."

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said he had "an enormous amount of respect" for Dr Williams, but could not agree with him on this issue.

He said: "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."

READ THE FULL TEXT

Islam in English law [54KB]

Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader

Download the reader here

Trevor Phillips, who chairs the Equality and Human Rights Commission 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," he said.

'Sensational'

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 "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".

HAVE YOUR SAY There is, and should only be, one law which covers all people and to suggest it can be otherwise is to seriously damage our rights

Patricia London, UK

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

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 Orthodox Jewish courts which already exist in the UK come into this category.

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."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm

Any other religion/faith/creed/mammal fancy their law system to be adopted by the British, apply today cos the countries gone bloody mad!:wah:

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:17 am

Sharia law should be confined to the countries where it is law. If people want to live under it they know where to go and live.

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:40 am

The Archbishop of Canterbury should keep his feck'n mouth shut. Let him go over to some Muslem country and try to introduce equality for Christians.

They would kill him on the spot and not even think twice about it.

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 4:58 am

mikeinie;773119 wrote: The Archbishop of Canterbury should keep his feck'n mouth shut. Let him go over to some Muslem country and try to introduce equality for Christians.

They would kill him on the spot and not even think twice about it.

Poor Spot...:wah::D

Yep I agree, out of touch with his own never mind banding on about others.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 5:07 am

I think the Archbishop is being extremely foolish, and if this is considered opinion of the head of the Anglican Church then no wonder so many people are disillusioned within that Church. Like the government spokesperson said, its quite plain than if you start allowing the creation of parallel systems of law based on religious texts, then the days of England (let alone Britain) as a unified secular western country are over.

Victoria · Post by **Victoria** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 5:46 am

English laws for England

Based on English culture tradition and belief, anybody wanting something else go off and find it elsewhere.

People should adapt to the country they have chosen to live in,, if they cannot do this then they should make the choice and leave.

That also applies to Brits abroad

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:08 am

Victoria;773155 wrote: English laws for England

Based on English culture tradition and belief, anybody wanting something else go off and find it elsewhere.

People should adapt to the country they have chosen to live in,, if they cannot do this then they should make the choice and leave.

That also applies to Brits abroad

Exactly Victoria, thats exactly how I see it:)

Uncle Kram · Post by **Uncle Kram** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:14 am

The Archbishop is a complete tit.

freetobeme · Post by **freetobeme** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 7:05 am

Agreed, the Archbishop seems to be caught up in the politics of political correctness.

Richard Bell · Post by **Richard Bell** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:42 am

This comment by the Archbishop is just about as stupid as the Pope's blatherings a year or two ago about the nastiness of Islam.

These religious poobahs should shut up already about affairs of which they know little. All they are doing is stirring the pot.

freetobeme · Post by **freetobeme** » Sat Feb 09, 2008 9:16 am

Well, he might not be that much in error, check this out

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/191148.php

"

Good News! Shari'a Law in London Texas! (London should be struck out not underlined)

Assalam aleikum, y'all!

The Second Court of Appeals of the State of Texas has rendered a ruling:

http://www.2ndcoa.courts.state.tx.us/op ... onID=14601

on the enforceability of shari'a judgments rendered by imams. According to the Texas appeals court, it's all good.

You've heard of the Texas Courts. Ladies and gentlemen, make way for the Texas Islamic Courts!!!

The parties will ask the courts to refer the cases for arbitration to Texas Islamic court within "Seven Days" from the establishment of the Texas Islamic Court panel of Arbitrators. The assignment must include ALL cases, including those filed against or on behalf of other family members related to the parties. Each party will notify the other party, Texas Islamic Court, and their respective attorneys, in writing of the assignment of all the above Cause Numbers from the above appropriate District Court to Texas Islamic Court.

In general, private arbitration agreements are enforceable by government courts. Shari'a arbitration agreements are one type of private arbitration agreement. Without a theory as to why shari'a arbitration agreements shouldn't be enforced by the courts, I'm not sure what else the appeals court could have done in this case. Still, this is not a welcome development."

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 09, 2008 11:37 am

Chezzie;773106 wrote: [...]

Dr Rowan Williams told BBC Radio 4 on Thursday that he believed the adoption of some Sharia law in the UK seemed "unavoidable".

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. Sure, and why not? That's what the early Christian church did. Where do you think the Easter Bunny and Christmas Tree came from? After all, social cohesion is far more important than some kind of nebulous "morality" innit?

freetobeme · Post by **freetobeme** » Sat Feb 09, 2008 4:12 pm

Accountable;773957 wrote: Sure, and why not? That's what the early Christian church did. Where do you think the Easter Bunny and Christmas Tree came from? After all, social cohesion is far more important than some kind of nebulous "morality" innit?

Why not? - because some of their rulings could be contrary to our laws particularly with regard to women's rights. A muslim group in Canada has allready asked to be exempt from our family laws... re divorce and inheritance. I used to have a link for a paper they produced on it, but can't find it now.

There is no place for Sharia law in our society.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 09, 2008 6:20 pm

freetobeme;774082 wrote: Why not? - because some of their rulings could be contrary to our laws particularly with regard to women's rights. A muslim group in Canada has allready asked to be exempt from our family laws... re divorce and inheritance. I used to have a link for a paper they produced on it, but can't find it now.

There is no place for Sharia law in our society.
Whew! :yh_sweat I was afraid you wouldn't catch the sarcastic tone.

I agree Sharia law has no place in our legislation, but as I mentioned in a similar thread, if people want to base arbitration on it then current law will keep it in check. No arbitration decision that violates human rights will ever stand up in court.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:04 pm

I stopped reading on the second line.

Dr Rowan Williams said the UK had to "face up to the fact" some citizens did not relate to the British legal system.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:06 pm

As an Anglican, I think my head of state, so to speak, is a major twit, but this new silliness is no big surprise.

Richard Bell · Post by **Richard Bell** » Sat Feb 09, 2008 9:55 pm

freetobeme;774082 wrote: A muslim group in Canada has allready asked to be exempt from our family laws... re divorce and inheritance. I used to have a link for a paper they produced on it, but can't find it now.

That was in the pre-election days in Ontario when the Liberal government was fishing for voter support.They assumed such a tack would deliver big GTA Muslim votes.

I was appalled when McGuinty & Co. started talking about it in a positive tone.

It was the outrage of Muslim women's groups against Sharia law that finally knocked sense into their pointy heads, and they dropped the idea like a hot potato.

Many of these women were immigrants from lands where Sharia is enforced. They wanted no part of it.

It's probably why many of them chose a secular democracy in which to live, rather than a religious autocracy.

freetobeme · Post by **freetobeme** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 1:47 pm

The Archbishop of Canterbury, had better hope that shariah law never takes hold in Britain, otherwise, as the leader of an infidel faith, he'll be among the first to be flogged for it...

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:27 pm

AussiePam;774128 wrote: As an Anglican, I think my head of state, so to speak, is a major twit, but this new silliness is no big surprise.

It was hilarious watching the rest of the clergy trying to backtrack without coming out and saying that he was out of his tiny :wah:

freetobeme · Post by **freetobeme** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:38 pm

Very interesting article, and to say the least scary... worth a read.

http://raephu.notlong.com

SPIEGEL ONLINEInternational. Sharia Law has ramifications in Europe. Adding more international fuel to the fire!

Shariah Is for Everyone!

By Henryk M. Broder

The archbishop of Canterbury has proposed a partial introduction of Islamic Shariah law in Great Britain. This is yet another step on the part of the Western world to subjugate itself to a Muslim immigrant minority unwilling to integrate.

In the autumn of 2006, the Dutch were dismayed over a book that had been published by the country's then justice minister, in which he speculated over the introduction of Shariah law in the Netherlands.

Burqas for everyone: For proponents of preventative capitulation, "integration" could also be defined as the need for the majority to conform to a minority.

"How can this (the introduction of Shariah) be prevented legally?" the minister wrote. "Simply calling it 'impossible' would be scandalous. The majority counts. This happens to be the essence of democracy."

If two-thirds of the Dutch public favored Shariah, the minister argued, its introduction would be unavoidable. Forced onto the defensive, the minister explained that his comment had merely been a reference "to the democratic principle" that a two-thirds majority is all it takes to amend the country's constitution.

-snip[

The archbishop could actually be right -- on a purely factual level, at least. It would indeed help to avoid social tensions if Muslims were not required to observe the aspects of British law governing marriage and divorce. Even a few non-Muslims might find this option rather appealing. A "temporary marriage," as is possible under Shariah, could certainly have many advantages, especially if "temporary" means only a few hours or days.

A Cafeteria-Style Society?

Paving the Way for a Muslim Parallel Society (03/29/2007)But the bishop is mistaken if he believes that one can structure a society like a cafeteria, where diners can choose between meat and vegetarian menus. A little bit of Shariah is just as unrealistic as a little bit of pregnancy. Shariah regulates all aspects of life, and anyone who proposes assuming only parts of Shariah fails to comprehend its inherent inevitability. Imagine if we were to allow nudity in public swimming pools, but only under the condition that each visitor be allowed to decide which article of clothing he or she wishes to remove.

The proposal by the archbishop of Canterbury is evidence of more than just an unbelievable naiveté. It also reveals how far the idea of preventive capitulation in the face of an unsolvable problem has advanced.

-snip-

Not in England -- not yet, at least. But precisely that is possible in liberal Canada, a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, whose titular head is the British monarch.

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan