You say,” said Lord Napier (confronted as Commander-in-Chief of the British Army in India by locals protesting against the suppression of suttee) “that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”
The present Archbishop of Canterbury is no Napier. He was not, however, proposing tolerance for the wilder excesses of Sharia, let alone suttee, in his speech on Thursday. Rowan Williams is not in favour of letting people stone adultresses, or chop off thieves' hands, or force the marriages of daughters. He made it clear that a line must be drawn. But he failed to say why or how. And it is that failure that marks what I hope is just the incoherence - but fear may be the disingenuousness - of the Archbishop's argument.
It is not useful, it is not even interesting, to begin an argument on whether Sharia should be given some kind of status within British law, unless you think there are otherwise potential conflicts. I am not aware of speeches by Anglican clerics stoutly defending the proposition that the rules of chess, or football, or the Caravan Club, or Boodles, or indeed the governance of the Church of England, should be permitted sway within their own domains by British law. They already are. No defence is called for. They challenge nobody and nobody challenges them.
Only when rules agreed among a group's own members (let us call these “private laws”) sit uneasily with the spirit of the law of the land (let us call this “the general law”) does any issue arise. Hence (for example) the controversies about smoking in private clubs, or the exclusion of women, Jews or blacks from private-members-only organisations. Unless, therefore, Dr Williams is proposing that elements of Sharia should be tolerated even though they appear to conflict with the general law, he is saying nothing interesting.
They do conflict. And what happens when they do? The moment a private law appears to defy the general law, one question, and one alone, becomes central. It is the question of consent.
But not the consent of the group's members alone. Consent must be examined on two fronts. Of group members, of course - and first - we must ask: is consent real, unanimous, complete? Is there duress? Is there undue influence? How about children? Who truly speaks for the group? What opportunities are offered to opt out? These are the questions about which we agonise, for example, when looking at the practices of cults, or members of sects who oppose medical treatment.
Secondly, we examine the impact upon (and therefore consent of) citizens outside the group. Are the rights of any of the rest of us prejudiced? Is confidence in public morals damaged? Such are the questions we debate, for example, when looking at the position of a Jew who feels a right to be considered on an equal basis for membership of a golf club; or the health risks to barmen in clubs where members smoke; or the effect upon society as a whole of the knowledge that there exist clubs where members nail each other's penises to the floor for fun.
These are difficult questions and by no means always to be decided in favour of state and against private laws. Some “voluntary” cessations of liberty may be allowed in the interests of liberty itself. Some threats to the general interest are too slight or indirect to sway the decision. There are usually questions of degree, and we are right to agonise. But nowhere is our national discomfort with private laws more intense, or more justified, than when dealing with religious groupings. There is a sound reason for this, and it, too, centres around consent.
Faiths capture people. I do not mean this disparagingly. So of course do patriotisms, ideologies, families. But a religion, properly understood, makes profound claims on an individual and community, quite unlike the demands of a golf club. It involves the use of public places and public services, the subordination of the individual's will; and may demand that he subordinate his spouse's and children's wills too. Hence our unease about duress, and the completeness of “consent”.
Dr Williams, in a welter of words, makes no serious attempt to resolve this. Those who read his speech properly will see that his entire argument turns upon the freedom of the group member to “opt out” of the “supplementary jurisdiction” and choose British law instead. But repressive faith groups make it culturally difficult - sometimes well-nigh impossible - for a member to opt out. This gives them the very togetherness and focus that Dr Williams wants to foster.
A religion is more than a collection of rules and habits: it is a complete moral and philosophical system with deep claims upon the inner and outer life of the adherent, from cradle, through schooling, and beyond. The rules it lays down - the private laws - are of a more commanding kind than the rules of Scrabble or the High Peak Hunt because they are morally joined-up: joined with a loyalty beyond the State; joined within an overarching faith and its explanations of the Universe.
Dr Williams knows this. He preaches it. It is the reason he wants more autonomy for faith communities. And it is the reason we should resist him.
Many commentators are mistakenly seeing demands like the Archbishop's as “liberal”, “progressive” or “PC gone mad”. They are anything but.
Properly understood, the effect of devolving national law and national morality to local and group level is profoundly conservative. Dr Williams's ideas really represent the wilder fringes of a bigger idea: communitarianism. Communitarianism can come in a surplice, a yarmulka or from a minaret and is all the more dangerous because armed with a divine rather than a local loyalty. It almost always proves a repressive and reactionary force, fearful of competitors, often anti-science, sometimes sceptical of knowledge itself, and grudging towards the State.
There is absolutely nothing “left-wing” or woolly-liberal about empowering it. A Britain in which Muslim communities policed themselves would be more ruthlessly policed, and probably more law-abiding than today. But it would be a Britain in which the individual Muslim - maybe female, maybe ambitious, maybe gay, maybe a religious doubter - would lose their chances of rescue from his or her family or community by the State.
The State, not family, faith or community, is the guarantor of personal liberty and intellectual freedom, and it will always be to the State, not the Church, synagogue or mosque, that the oppressed individual needs look. Some two centuries ago Nonconformism in Britain, by offering the individual an unmediated approach to a personal God, started to liberate Christians from the Church. Dr Williams seems not to understand this. Or perhaps he does, and is on the other side.
I can hardly believe you wrote that 'The State, not family, faith or community, is the guarantor of personal liberty and intellectual freedom, and it will always be to the State, not the Church, synagogue or mosque, that the oppressed individual needs look'
I'm not sure that people on the eastern side of the Berlin Wall or in all those other states which, even so relatively recently, provided them with 'guaranteed' personal liberties and intellectual freedoms would necessarily agree.
And, given the current rapid erosion of individual civil liberties, I'm not sure how much longer people will feel sure of that here either
Avana Beach, London, UK
I think that Matthew Parris accurately identifies the philosophy which underlies Archbishop Williams's position and summarizes pithily the snags should his ideas ever be expressed in legislative reality.
But when he says: "The State, not family, faith or community, is the guarantor of personal liberty and intellectual freedom, and it will always be to the State, not the Church, synagogue or mosque, that the oppressed individual needs look", I wish I could share his confidence. My feeling is that there are more constraints upon liberty and freedom than was the case forty years ago, and that the instinct of those currently in power is for greater control and diminution of personal freedom.
The reaction of so many commentators to Archbishop Williams's musings - not least the editorial line of a newspaper in the same stable as this one! - suggests that those who think "outside the box" of accepted wisdom pay a price for their temerity as they face the howls of execration that follow
John Ellis,, Hazel Grove, Stockport,, UK.
When in Rome do as the Roman Catholics do, when in Britain you'll do as your told - obviously!
Apparently his aim was “to tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state†and that he did not initiate the idea but simply agreed when that proposition was put to him - so one has to ask: who put him up to the job of intervening in this way in his lecture to the highest court of the land and to the notional national broadcaster?
Well, it can hardly be claimed that he was acting in a personal capacity, so it must have been in his official political capapcity...hmmm...so Dr Williams was acting on orders from passed down from on high - which makes Gordon Brown God!
Heaven help us!
thomaskust, Bedford, UK
Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams made some suggestions about Sharia Law. Majority of the UK public took his message in the wrong context. As he clarifies in a statement, “certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law". In a statement on his website, the Archbishop said he made no proposals for Sharia but was simply "exploring ways in which reasonable accommodation might be made within existing arrangements for religious conscience".
Without any doubt Islamic laws are the best, if you get their proper interpretation. Some of them are part of British legal system as well. It is all depends on intentions. Dr. Rowan Williams said that in good faith. As he clarified he did not mean to introduce a parallel system. He is trying to make cohesion among different groups and trying to make better society. On the other hand some Pakistani extremist religious leaders are calling for Sharia Law in Pakistan. They are demanding to implement Taliban type Sharia Law.
As far as the implementation of some of the Islamic controversial laws they cannot be implemented in any part of the world. Those laws do not represent real Islam. If by chance the government will try to implement those laws they will confiscate the rights of others and create disharmony and division in society. Where as true Islam represents peace and equality.
Some types of Sharia Laws cannot be accommodated in English Law because there are too many versions of Sharia Laws. Which one they are going to implement? Practically it is impossible to introduce one set of Sharia Law for everybody. Like Christianity has different sects Islam has different as well.
It is a very debatable issue. As Muslim it is our duty to abide by the law of the country where we live. We are abiding by the British Laws and we will do so in future.
Aejaz ul Haque Malik, Bradford, UK
Hi Tim, Toronto, Canada - i just want to make clear that Islam is also a political system and it is also expansionist and downright aggressive to other cultures. So there is not the clear parallel with orthodox Judaism.
Daniel K888, Melbourne , Australia
I'd like to echo the sentiment. Fantastic Article.
I was not at all surprised after i read it to look up and see it was Matthew Paris who wrote it, excellent writer. Just started reading his book and I hope it is just as good as his articles.
If you read these comments Matt, good job and keep up the good work
Leon Andrews, Brisbane/ Bury, Queensland/ Lancashire
My ancestors luckily emigrated from the British Isles to America during Victoria's reign, but that does not ease my disquiet in watching the sad spectacle that is England's slow-motion suicide, however multicultural.
"Rule Britannia" now has a different meaning altogether, and the changes in the offing will be more fundamental than those instituted after William and his Norman Vikings ended Anglo-Saxon rule with an arrow into King Harald's throat on 14 October 1066.
Rule Britannia, Brittania waives the rule.
David Govett, Davis, California
Tim of Toronto have you ever heard of something called `the thin end of the wedge?' It means that the seemingly insignificant part of something - a policy for example, is just the start of something bigger - a bigger, more ambitious policy for example.
A lot of people in the UK, but not the government of course, it isn't perceptive enough, see the Sharia issue as the start of a more ambitious policy.
Why do you think they see it this way? Could it be that the London bombings have influenced their views? Have you had any bombings in Toronto, Tim? Maybe you'd think differently if you had.
Paul, Nottingham, UK
The days of all priests and gurus are over.
Religions were patriarchal creations to control people - especially women and children.
And a fine job they all did too.
All religions should be kept out of politics and law.
Look at our legal system- freemasons and opus die members included- who judge the people according to their own beliefs.
Let those days be his-story now.
Matriarchal age bagan in Jan 2008- so the old system will want to go back to its barbarity to control more.
Not a chance- because Mother Earth herself is evolving an Love is the future.
Lilith Barrett, London, UK
A superb article.
The slurry of reactionary responses to William's musings has been depressing. But thank you Matthew, for making sense of it all and provoking further thought.
Primarily, for me, this brouhaha has underlined the strength of secular democracy. With laws to reflect considered reasoning of the people, over the revealed scriptures of divine clubs.
G Johns, Athens,
Well put Mr Parris. Religious leaders do not like to lose their power over their community and will do anything to keep it, or in the Archbishop's case, get it back.
Lesley Cooper, Bromley, Kent
The Queen, as head of the Church of England, should dismiss the Archibishop immediately.
Tom, Los Angeles, California
Exactly - good article - What Rowan was asking for is for more religious influence/
Enough - I want complete seperation of Church etc and state.
No faith schools and no religious law authority for any religion.
If polygamy is illegal in the UK why on earth can you get benefits for four wives. That is state sanctioned polygamy, it's either acceptable for all or for none. As a woman I vote for none.
Anna Charlton, London,
Mathew Parris is quite wrong. Dr Williams is only stating facts and all the usual hoo ha amounts to a hill of beans, as is usually the case. The horse has already bolted as the courts are in place at both official and community level. Why shoot the messenger? His mention of the Jews and their hypothetical predicaments ignores the fact that they practice their own law freely, even to the point of deciding when the woman shall receive her husband or concieve. A fellow Zimbabwean, I cannot but be surprised at his unwillingness to embrace all cultures and faiths as Britain, like it or not, is now a multicultural society.
Ralph William Gunn, London, United Kingdom
So Orthodox Jewish courts are OK but not Muslim courts because you wouldn't want more than one legal system operating in the country.
I guess that makes sense to you.
Tim, Toronto, Canada
Matthew Parris is a secular fundamentalist. It seems to me that if anything in our contemporary world is "dangerous" and "must be resisted" it is surely fundamentalism in its myriad guises. At least Rowan Williams is proposing a solution to the disturbing clash of cultures and ideologies that threaten our society. This seems to me to be to be a far braver, nobler contribution to the debate than all the rantings of his detractors.
Matthew, Ashford, Kent, UK
Why should he say why or how anyway? Since when did he need to know all the answers? Since when was discussion among academics the source of pre-potted solutions? Maybe it really wasn't controversial in the first place. General newspaper headlines and leaders are blatently misrepresentative of his gist. The public can take nuanced debate. So offer it on the front page.
Maggie, Qingdao, PR China
Mathew Parris is quite right. Dr.Williams should resign or the Queen should kick him out.
Stan, Newcastle, uk
Religion is the Worlds primary cancer.
To embrace religion is to abandon common sense.
Ithamer, Toronto, Canada
Dr Williams has doubtless learned that some caution and qualifiers are necessary when making radical-sounding suggestions. His friend Professor Ratzinger even got into trouble for a quotation. I suspect that Dr Williams now realizes that his suggestion was unnecessary since Muslim communities can grant religious divorce just as Catholics can annul a marriage but a civil divorce is still required.
James Silverton, Potomac, USA
Will the Archbishop bow to the will of the people to stay out of politics or RESIGN? Please...resign.
moira monks, Merseyside,
With inflation a generally ongoing problem since 33AD I hope the Archbishop got more than the traditional 30-pieces of silver; Perhaps the Euro equivalent of 30-barrels of Arab oil.
James Pawlak, West Allis, Wisconsin, USA
Mathew has nailed it. Please can we now disestablish the CofE?
Jon, New York, USA
When the Archbishop was first ordained, "The Times" asked me to comment on his signature. I responded and Tom Baldwin's article then printed my view. I said that Dr. Rowan Williams was not a leader but a loner and that he would always follow his own view, no matter what.
I guess I interpreted his signature correctly.
Erik Rees, Tunbridge Wells, Kent
I think this article is slightly unfortunate and scaremongering, but must be commended for actually trying to engage with Dr. Williams rather than jumping on a bandwagon of hysteria. Parris clearly understands some of the better anthroplogical descriptions of religions but his conclusion is mistaken. The problem is the conclusion that any communitarian philosophy with a religious centre is inevitably an antirationalistic force of repression. This is simply not the case, while many such philosophies have resulted in this, the roots of most societies in the west (including Britain's) is in Chrisitanity and has not suffered in this way for it. The undercurrent of this piece seems to be almost akin to Evan Harris' claim of a religious consipracy. But Dr. Williams was not claiming a communitarian position, nor even a liberal one, but simply trying to assert that the majority secular culture of britain needs to be hospitable to Islamic concerns, these sentiments are right, however expressed.
Stuart, Cambridge,
Yes faith communities should have less autonomy not more.The individual must be protected. The State is best placed to do this.A Bishop supporting Willliams this morning mentioned mulitculturalism.They should both get out more.
Multiculturalism is a busted flush. It does not serve the interests of anyone and this is now well accepted. We are a multi racial society and we should have shared values that Great Britain protects for all of us .
Sam, Maidstone, UK
The UK's laws no longer guarantee freedom. They restrict speech, actions and thought in pursuit of kindergarten safety and unrealistic multiculturalism. They have become inconsistent, over complex and incomprehensible to the heterosexual on the Clapham skateboard. English family law is so obviously unfair and changeable it has got to the point where it has to be administered in secret. Lawlessness is now rife in the safe country that I grew up in. Perhaps Sharia offers some respite from this madness for those who understand and choose it.
Rob, Reading, UK
I completely agree with Mathew Paris. The fundamental principle of democracy is separation of the state from religion. We have seen disasterous consequences of mixing religion with states in muslim majority nations. Essence of any modern society is constant evolution to suit the present needs of the society. Sharia law was created in 7th century and followed blindly without any evolution or modification. I respect Dr Williams, but on this issue his comments are unfortunate.
Manjunath, San Diego, USA
This is kind of what I think - I think...
I reckon that by forming a default position that he knows everyone will disagree with he is seeking to claw back authority for his own religion:-
So he says "we should incorporate aspects of Sharia law into British law" (or whatever - you get the idea), then eveyone goes "Outrageous! this is a Christian country - blah blah blah", they get all vexed and some bigots crawl out of the woodwork etc etc.
Then once that idea is rejected (or not - i don't think he cares actually) it follows that if we are a Christian country, we should let people adopt some of the Christian principles into the law.
I'm thinking about all that who-har over the state saying no the christian adoption agencies last year cos they don't like the idea of homosexual couples adopting.
What do you reckon? Have I figured him out or what? I'd like to think so - but if I was right, i'd imagine that his own colleagues would be less angry.
Damian, Manchester,
Matthew Parris' article is spot on.
The Archbishops of Cantabury's comments show one thing very clearly; the ambitions of Islam and Christianity are identical. Both want special treatment for their adherents over and above the secular law which applies to everyone else.
Roman Catholics want (among other things) concessions to allow them to discriminate against gay couples in matters of adoption, and Muslims want (among other things) concessions that will inevitably result in the continuing subjugation of women within Islamic culture.
Both religions are prepared to sink their historic differences to offer each other support in a new and sinister 'ecumenicalism' to achieve these ends. Such cynicism shows that they have more in common with each other than either has with democracy. Both set a higher value on the crude bronze-age texts of a desert religion than they do on modern enlightened secular law.
History shows us that what religion really craves is, power; it also reminds us what it did with that power when it had it, and it is the responsibility of everyone to resist any attempt to return to that dark age mentality.
The Norwegian Institute of Human Rights, published the following at the site of The Strasbourg Conference:
"The Court considers that sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it. It is difficult to declare one's respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverges from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervenes in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with Islamic religious precepts."
John Tate, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
The Archbishop and some of the speakers from the Muslin community claims that he was misquoted. It is not what he said. it is what he implied. Yes we live in a multicultural country, but we should not change our British laws and Christian values to apiece everyone. If I went to any country around the world I would not be so rude as to think they had to change thier laws to suite my culturel beliefs. It is not true that catholics and jews have a right to chose what laws their religion states. This is not rasicum it is a fact of you have to follow the laws of the country you live in. I work with preschool children. The children are asked to follow the rules/law of the nursery. When a child is not following the rules for example running around the room to fast we say no running it is against the rules/law they reply, but I am allowed to run around inside at home. Our reply it is a rule in this nursery that they are not a home but at nursery so they follow the rules/law.
M.K.Turner, Preston, England
The Church of England by law established and by law will be dis-established...NOW!!!
David B. Monier-Williams Scottsdale, AZ. US
David B. Monier-Williams, Scottsdale, US Arizona
Today's individualistic Western model of society, more particularly in Britain, is premised on Christianity. Not organised Christianity, but Gnostic, Mary Magdalene, water into wine Christianity, where idealism's moral code is Christ's. This is not something to renounce it is something to remember. Shame on you Mr Williams you have lost your faith and confused it with your job.
mount, dorset, gb
Well done, Dr Williams for inadvertently setting off the alarm bells! I'm all for religious tolerance and accommodation but it is a fact that some non Christian religions are, on the contrary, extraordinarily zealous, with an exclusive, monopolistic, global agenda and neither evidence nor profess any control over their own growing bands of life threatening extremists. And let's remind Charles, a citizen of Great Britain, that one day, by the grace of God, he will be the Defender of THE Faith that inspired and supported our forebears who fought for our freedoms during times of conflict. If he's not happy with that, then let him pre abdicate. In the meantime, long may Queen Elizabeth reign over us!
Theo Nelson, South Hams,
@Jim O'Sullivan, re Napier had no right ... imposing foreign laws and standards
As an Indian citizen, I can only say that most modern Indians would disagree with you. The laws against Suttee (or Sati) changed the status quo & allowed Indian reformers to speak out against a brutal social system. Their message evidently got through, but without the British to change the law in the first place, would they even have a chance?
Note: I'm not defending colonial rule here. It would have been preferable if India's society figured out Sati was bad by themselves. But given how slowly Indian social customs changed from 1200 upto 1800, I'm glad Napier did what he did instead of waiting for us to figure it out.
These days we're a lot more careful about imposing our cultural views on others, thanks to the PC goons. But cultures that still practice honour killings, female genital mutilation, gay-hangings, etc in the 21st century could IMHO definitely use a dose of Napier's medicine.
Prashant Kerai, London,
When muslims in other countries adopt equal rights for women, always a good indication of an enlightened culture, then I'll listen to the arguments for sharia law in this one.
The archbishop may have meant well but his idea comes at the wrong time. We can only consider it when we are at peace or relaxed enough - when we don't have the fear of being bombed, or when muslims universally disown Bin Laden.
Brian, Oldbury, England
"They are a tiny minority and have no right to highjack a legal system which has become pretty good at delivering justice. Sharia law - which really does include stoning, chopping off limbs, the death penalty etc - knows little about justice in the modern world. "
============================================
lets get the facts right: archbishop williams is a christian
you never heard from a MUSLIM that sharia law should be implemented. your comment about hijacking is prejudiced and ignorant
Answer these questions: what would you do to a peadophile?
what would you do to someone who murders or rapes a member of your family/friend?
do not sit there and tell me your law is better. i follow sharia and british law. if the case of divorce came up a muslim would first acquire a british divorce then an islamic one and according to sharia law if a WOMEN acquires a british divorce an islamic divorce is compulsory. look at muslim countries before judging sharia law. divorce is one example.
Ahmad, Bradford, UK
The issue is whether law is based on the idea that God said it must be this way or whether it is based, as in a secular state, on some notion of democracy and experience and reason. The caveat is that if the behaviour of a culture is based on such religious thinking it should only be tolerated in a secular society if it does no harm.
For this reason many think that it was a mistake to allow concessions to some religious groups for the ritual religious slaughter of animals despite the overwhelming evidence that this involves significant suffering to the animals if pre-stunning does not precede the killing.
The precedent therefore has been set but one hopes will be rescinded if there remains a persistent refusual to pre-stun animals by the more extreme religious groups. For the archbishop to raise this issue in a more general sense
is a serious tactical error particularly and I have seldom met acquaintances so angry with his obtuse and muddled thinking. He must go.
David Bachauer, Manchester, UK
At last, a deconstruction of Rowan's comments which clearly state the implications of the proposals, ie. it is the most vulnerable members of the Muslim belief system who will become more vulnerable to coercion and undue influence.
Given that, in parts of the world where Sharia law takes prominence, opting out of the faith can mean death at the hands of the faithful, any set of laws which impose religious edicts above and alongside rationality and secular laws is wrong.
And, as a member of the National Secular Society pointed out in a TV interview, what Rowan was also claiming for himself was the ability to create a set of laws based on Christian values, ie. a Christian Sharia-style law system, which those in charge of the Christian church can influence and pervert to their own ends. It sounds like Rowan is aiming to make Christianity more like Islam, in that it becomes all encompassing and attempts to control all elements of the free-born individual's life.
DWillerton, Lincolnshire, UK
Having read as much of the speech as I can bear to read (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/07_02_08_islam.pdf), my reading is that Rowan Williams is a theologian, promoting his idea that religion (or rather theology) should influence the law.
He doesn’t offer concrete proposals. He is an academic - wanting to impress an audience of lawyers and get them thinking about his idea. I suspect he deliberately chose Sharia law (knowing its topicality) to illustrate his academic thesis. He could have made the same points without any reference to Islam, and got no press coverage.
He was foolish to distil his speech in an interview with the BBC. Matthew Parris in TIMESONLINE says he dangerous and must be resisted. Surely he will resign before any resistance is needed?
Graham, London,
The key to Islam is that it is not merely a "faith" but a totalitarian ideology which seeks to dominate all non-muslims and which actively discriminates against them whenever possible. If anyone doubts this, let them look at the existence of a chain of Muslim countries stretching from Morocco to Indonesia known as "muslim countries" where discrimination against non-muslims is overwhelmingly institutionalised and even officially sanctioned. It does not have to use force, but simply gains power incrementally, by stealth, bit by bit. This would be one more bit. But on one thing, I think Williams is right. Sharia is inevitable, because the islamisation of Europe is inevitable. The weakness and cowardice of the European establishment and pure demographics will see to this.
Trofim, Birmingham, UK
Perhaps we should have an African Archbishop like disaffected American Congregations?
R James, Clifton, UK
Chamberlain capitulated to the Nazis; Williams to the Muslims.
I look forward to the emergence of the new Churchill.
David Johnson, Cambridge, England
This guy I believe wants all to practice their religions in freedom...which is cool...but in a secular state...religious laws have no place....Christians are not allowed to build churches of preach their relgious beliefs in most Arab countries...why should they expect to be able to be given special rights in non Arab countries...no religion should be allowed to make their own laws in a secular state...The archbishop is so out of line ....his views would erode the secular state and give those muslims who are extremist dangerous powers...does he want fighting and terrorism in the streets....? He should really step back and apologize or resign...whats next Roman Catholics become 2nd class citizens and Jews are tortured to convert?
Its the 21th century not the 15th...
Joel M, Cranston, RI/USA
wake up britain before its to late.
helen, Norwich,
Beautiful piece that exactly captures why Williams is wrong.
I don't think that community oppression of individuals goes on only in Muslim communities, just think of how people who break the 'laws' in Jehovah's Witnesses and such groups are shunned, but the low resource levels, in terms of income, education, literacy and so on, in some Muslim communities, make it even more important that the state is able to protect individuals in their pursuit of personal rights of whatever nature.
Ibrahim, London,
What an excellent article. Must confess I have the opposite opinion to Noel Falconer's comments - Because of his position, both within his faith and his political footprint, this was way beyond ill-judgement and Williams really, really should go, whether this be with the grace of resignation or through compulsion.
Andy Iddon, London, UK
It could be that Rowan Williams has been rather astute, albeit sacrificing his own personal standing in the process.
When was there last an Archbishop to have succeeded in uniting
" Christians" on such a grand scale ?
Peter Jones, Figeac, France
Dear Mr. Parris:
Thank you. This perfectly expresses my own concerns, and in a much better way than I could have written them.
Georgina Kosanovic, Windsor, Canada
Oh, except for one thing - sometimes "the State" is the oppressor, as in Nazi Germany, or in the Stalinist Soviet Union!
Georgina Kosanovic, Windsor, Canada
Lets face it, if the Archbishop and this issue were in reverse, i.e. he was leader of a muslim organisation in a muslim country, and suggesting that implementation of parts of non-muslim law was inevitable within that country, he would be subject to a fatwa calling for his elimination, for insulting Muhammad by suggesting that sharia law was not appropriate for all the citizens of that country.
Matthew's point about religious intolerance is extremely well made, but is probably lost on our archbishop.
Chris, Woodford Green, Essex
I believe that the current debate about Sharia law is good for the UK. Women will have more advantages regarding divorce, inheritance and other rights under the Sharia law.
Sharia law is the law of ALLAH (GOD). It is much better than Human law. GOD knows what is best for HIS creation.
Best Regards
Gharib, Reading, UK
We have seen far too much change in this country, much without the consent of the populace, in the last ten years under this labour government (all the time it seems they are pushing through policy undemocratically). People want stability and continuity now. Suggestions like this from Mr. Williams are the last thing this country needs. It is bad enough we have such division in the first place without legitimizing it.
Joshua , Sheffield, England
When a religious system rules a state it always leads to
oppression as they try to force everyone into a one size fits
all situation. The Roman Catholic Church in the middle ages
was a feared and tyranical organisation which killed millions.
The priest reigned supreme and the people lived in fear,
society was backward and corrupt. It was the same in Russia
under the Orthodox Church and formerly in India when the
Hindu religion was all powerful. All countries with an Islamic
majority face tension between the secular and the religious,
just look at Egypt and Turkey and Pakistan. DO WE REALLY
WANT THAT HERE?
Hugh, Staines, UK
Dr. Williams would be far more respected were he to address the main issue affecting our society today namely family breakdown and the ramifications upon children who have been denied via family law the Human Right to have and be nourished by their paternal side of the family after separation or divorce. Over 80% of all children in our schools are from one parent families hence its no wonder that kids turn to gangs as a sense of belonging and so begins the downward spiral into anti-social behaviour. It’s high time that the Church spoke out in accordance with biblical teaching and not self indulgence and interpretation. The family, both maternal and paternal is the bedrock of all civilization and the church should be there to fight for its very existence without fear or favour.
Mike Ellis, Bideford, UK
This apparently naive and politically foolish man is not disinterested in want he is proposing. He is actually following a very aggressive agenda. We have a situation in this country where a morally enlightened State finds itself at odds with reactionary religion and just about prevails. The Church constantly argues for opt-out clauses in progressive legislation and succeeded in the matter of teacher recruitment in Church Schools. It joined with the catholics over gay adoption - and lost. But the battle is raging and is still too close to call. We now hear that muslim schools have won the right to inspect themselves. Sounds familiar?
Absolutely brilliant article
Malcolm Trahearn, Lichfield,
As an atheist i demand new laws and centers to deprogramme the religious zombies. Of course it would be mandatory all attend and only leave when they can demonstrate full reasoning, are free of delusion, understand logic, see the harm of faith schools, understand why separation of church and state is sensible.
Failing that, broadcast a Derren Brown deprogramming message 24 hours a days on all tv and radio channels.
Mark Taylor, HH, UK.
Lets bring in sharia law. Eventually this country will be owned by the Arab's so we may as well get used to it!.. if you really have a problem with this, dont buy oil!
sohiab, hemel hempstead, herts
Graham Rankin berates journalists for not challening Muslims on their treatment of women. One might also ask where are the female popes, and even priests. The christian churches treat homosexuals as inferiors, refusing gay couples permission to marry in church.
Until a church conforms to modern morals it should be excluded from any legal authority. Martin Luther, that old bundle of fun, said "If [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that is why they are there." And, just in case his point was too obscure he also reckoned that, "Girls begin to talk and stand on their feet sooner that boys because weeds always grow up more quickly than good crops." Little has changed in the church's attitude to women since then. Misogeny rules.
Derek Smith, Brighton, UK
What the Archbishop is proposing is similar to the dual track legal system in Malaysia (a former British colony) where civil law coexists with Sharia law. Recent developments within the legal system has the non-Muslims worried (40% of the population) where Sharia law has begun to encroach on the lives and rights of non-Muslims.
Over the past several years several Hindu, Christian & Buddhist families had their deceased loved ones bodies snatched by the Sharia court based on flimsy and suspicious evidence of conversion to Islam, usually taken advantage of by a converted relative as opposed to the rest of the non-Muslim family. Only when they died, did the convert come out and allege that the decease had converted and the bodies were snatched brutally by Islamic authorities. The civil courts refused to intervene saying that Islamic matters fall under Islamic law. Other cases, where a converted son's insurance was not given to his mother (non-Muslim), Muslim barred from converting out etc.
Alex, KL, Malaysia
Brilliantly written if I may say so.
Fire in the belly rather than languid. A palpable hit.
Jim , Salford, England
Rowan Williams claims that he has been misrepresented and that his carefully worded and nuanced speech had never called for a parallel jurisdiction of Sharia for Muslims. Perhaps because he used so many caveats, he himself, doesn’t actually realise that this is generally the idea he was trying to gently put forward.
If anyone takes the trouble to decipher the full text of his speech it is actually obvious that he was using the example of Sharia to plead for exceptionalism from the law for those people who have a religious faith. This idea is utterly repugnant to anyone that believes that we should all be equal under the same law. This is why he said that the one law was “a bit of a danger.â€
He hasn’t been misunderstood and, unfortunately for him, what he actually meant was only far too clear. Professor Richard Dawkins was obviously correct when he pointed out the dangers posed by religious moderates in his book, the God Delusion.
Jason Mead, Bristol, England
I would like to specifically address the recent furore concerning the Archbishop's comments concerning sharia law. Although a debate on this subject is welcome, it is apparent that the archbishop's level of debate on this matter is well below that of the Christian believer within this and other Countries throughout the World. As the head of our church we look to the archbishop for spiritual guidance within our lives, it is now quite apparent through his latest comments, that his judgement and Christian beliefs are being eroded by the insistence and appeasement of Islamic integration. For the archbishop to suggest that the Islamic sharia law be examined as to its functions within our society and attributes to the UK law, is an insult to my faith and a sign that the archbishop has finally succumbed to his supposed beliefs of Islam as being a humanitarian faith in its treatments of women and humanity in general. Dare I suggest that if the archbishop believes in further denigrating this Christian country and its faith, then he should address or believe that satanism should be promoted and be run-in-parallel, within Canterbury and his own home. I agree this comment of satanism is rather sharp in its assumptions, and I have no doubt that it will offend the reader or archbishop. However one fact of this matter is to be noted, I as do other Christian's abhor the belief in satanistic worship, and would not concern or promote its values or idealism that it should be run-in-parallel with the beliefs of Christian integration. The archbishop's comments appease the Islamic culture and further alienate Christian beliefs of tolerance. Considering his latest outburst he should consider his position as head of the church, after all his position can be run-in-parallel with the Muslim Council Of Great Britain.
I. S. Herd, Durham City.,
Spot on. In various guises, religious leaders like Williams have been quietly pushing this communitarian agenda for quite some time now. Behind all the obfuscation, what it boils down to is the idea that, in some circumstances, the rights of the individual can be curtailed by some undemocratic cultural "community". This is basically a power-grab for self-appointed community leaders. The Muslims I know don't feel that their "community leaders" represent them, or accurately reflect their views. And the Archbishop of Canterbury certainly doesn't represent the views of most Christians.
The Church of England seems keen to carve out a niche for itself as a "cultural mediator". Fine. But it seems grossly dishonest to try to exaggerate the need for such mediation by overblowing cultural differences, and disseminating the false idea that British Muslims can't "relate" to our judicial system, and are demanding special treatment.
Richard, London,
One more obvious point. Suggestions like the Archbishop's are more likely to increase, rather than work against, Islamophobia in the UK.
alan, czech republic,
A fine analysis by Matthew Parris.
With luck the Archbishop's speech will trigger off a debate about the privileged position the Church of England still enjoys in the law-making of our country. Removal of the Bishops from the House of Lords would put all religions on an equal footing in this regard and remove the Archbishop to a position where he can do less harm - a win-win situation all round I feel.
Colin Mill, Glossop, Derbyshire, UK
Terrific article Matthew. Absolutely spot on.
Derrick Byford, London, UK
Is this our only solution these days to call for people to resign?
Resignation, for an amoral crime, the expression an opinion & opening up a debate.
James Tinney, London,
The opening paragraph harms what followed. Napier had no right to be in India imposing foreign laws and standards no matter who right they seem. Start again.
Jim O'Sullivan, Sligo, Ireland
I am glad that Matthew Parris has had the courage to speak out against Rowan Williams' idiotic views. He has not gone far enough. It is not just a matter of whether the people within a so-called community "consent" to be in it - & actually there is no such thing as the Muslim community because parents have no right to force their religion on their children.
The basic problem is that if everyone makes their own laws there will be no laws at all.
This year alone, 300 schoolgirls in Bradford disappeared without trace because their Asian parents took them out of school & forced them into marriage. That is a disgrace. If people want to live in this country, they must agree to abide by the laws and customs here. No fatwahs! If they want Sharia law - & the Archbishop is naive if he thinks they won't practice amputation or stoning - they should stay in Pakistan.
The Archbishop has said nothing about the persecution of Christians in Egypt, Iran, Indonesia & Saudi Arabia!
He should resign
Dr Julia Gasper, Oxford, England, what's left of it
.
1. This looks like the right time to ponder the profun-dity of "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's".
2. The late Vincent Hanna used to tell the story of a client of his, a battered wife, in court, pleading for the judge to be lenient towards her husband. The judge pointed out that the law is there to protect all wives, even foolish ones.
.
David Moss, London, UK
Muslims constitute, apparently, between 2% and 4% of the population. Yet every week, there seems to be a major story about Muslims in the UK news. The Oxford call to prayer controversy and Rowan Williams are but two recent ones.
Why is this happening? Either the country is very, very uncomfortable with the Muslim religion or the Muslim community is seriously misjudging the tolerance of the host nation.
Either way, there is a real fear developing and it cannot be dismissed as irrational. It may be very rational indeed and indicate a repudiation of Islam by the West.
MarkS, Leeds,
This is a splendid analysis of the issues associated with Dr Williams' views. It is extremely disturbing that the person who should be the guardian of the British laws, on the basis that the Church and State in Britain are inextricably linked, should be able to have such views and remain in office.
The British laws (although increasingly becoming less so) are based on the Judeo-Christian traditions and any suggestion that they should be diluted in any way by embracing laws which are diametrically opposed to such laws should not be tolerated. In ancient days, this would amount to heresy and therefore treason.
On another level, to have a cohesive British society, we should be advocating one set of values which all actions in society should be benchmarked against. This, if nothing else, would encourage integration & harmony.
I absolutely agree with Matthew Parris that Dr Williams is dangerous - that he should have such views and profess to be the head of the Church is untenable.
Oyetunde Oluwabunmileyi, London, United Kingdom
In our society's current debate of atheism vs organized religion, this must be counted as another point for the atheists. Even if it is an own goal...
Keep the current archbishop- he's simply accelerating the decline of his own fairy worshiping nonsense.
JD, Gloucester, UK
Does anyone take the Church of England and its Archbishop
seriously? Apparently they do.
John , LONDON,
"An ounce of mother-wit is worth a pound of clergy". Quite so.
For a man who has probably received a lifetime of Religious Education (oxymoron?), Mr Williams seems to lack common sense and the ability to speak clearly and to the point. But at least this furore has elicited a sensible article from Mr Parris, a rare blessing indeed.
Al, Weybridge, UQ
parris is right.
let us apply the whole logic and take religion out of the school and legal systems and leave it where individualism demands, at home.
john haydon rowe, javea,
I agree up till the last paragraph. The State, unfortunately, is not the guarantor of liberty, at least, not in this day and age.
Sean Fear, London,
Your - splendid - article demonstrates why even crackpot views should be allowed a hearing, and not be suppressed by attacks on those who voice them. Dr Williams's thoughts on sharia law here have been analysed and shown to be wrong. This is far better than leaving such ideas unexpressed to fester in the minds of zealots who have heard only one side or the argument.
Noel Falconer, COUIZA, France
How many of these Sharia councils have women representatives? Instead of a shrug of the shoulders at the likely answer that none of them do, why don't journalists demand why? And why are women banned from prayers at the Mosque?
If Muslim community leaders really do believe that women are inferior, let's have it out in the open, and let's hear them proclaim it loudly and clearly.
Then we can see what the Archbishop has to say about that.
Graham Rankin, Ales, France
"If people actually read about Shariah rather than react hysterically, they will see many aspects of it that can be applied to their lives." Quite so, I have no problem with the individual applying any code of law to their own lives. It's when they insist on applying their code to other people and their families that problems arise. That is why we need, and have, an evolving code of law that everybody can vote on and influence. We change that at our peril.
Al, Weybridge, UQ
I agree 100 per cent with Matthew. What on earth does the Archbishop think he is doing? He He is opening a can of worms. He should resign.
Duncan, Hampshire, England
neville d watson, waltham chase, england
Thanks to Matthew Parris for (yet another) superb article on the Archbishop's folly........there could be no question of an individual being rescued, under sharia law there is no freedom of worship, to convert to another faith would be apostasy and is punishable by death......beware all who have thoughts of entering..........Archbishops included.
Nick .......Stroud
Nick, stroud, gloucestershire
He is not dangerous but way ahead of his time. If people actually read about Shariah rather than react hysterically, they will see many aspects of it that can be applied to their lives.
John Taylor, London,
I prefer Lord Napier's approach to all the intellectualising over the rights and wrongs of integrating sharia law into the British system. Muslims make up around 2% of British society. They are a tiny minority and have no right to highjack a legal system which has become pretty good at delivering justice. Sharia law - which really does include stoning, chopping off limbs, the death penalty etc - knows little about justice in the modern world.
Chris, Manama, Bahrain
I remember hearing this Archbishop making a speech when he was first appointed and not understanding a word of it. I suppose upsetting everyone who's heard his latest one is some kind of improvement though.
K Philips, London, UK
Does the Archibishop want the UK to go backwards? He needs to live in a Muslim country to see what Sharia Law does to a country.
He talks about women with Muslim law courts in the UK this would be a very grave step backwards and not what the women would want. They have come tio flee these laws
He needs to rememebr this.
You would not go to a Muslim coutnry and suggest they adopt the British Law, they would laugh at you.
May the Archbishop be mroe aware iof the feeling in the UK.
Margaret A Hughes, Wallasey, Merseyside
actually restrictions on gambling and drinking as well as other matters are already compatible with sharia law. a grown up discussion about what sharia law means in the majority of cases would have been rather than hysteria about the excesses (and we too know about excesses and display it in gory glory at the Tower of London and London Dungeons) would be a good place to start.
Sam, Shanghai, China
Excellent, well-thought out article. No faith that attempts to constrain the hard-fought rights of the individual should be allowed to impart its own system of 'justice'. Dr. Williams is obviously blind to the fact that by endorsing a system whereby the 'crimes' of a person must be punished in accordance with the principles of his or her faith only encourages the excesses of the zealots amongst us.
Colin Cumner, Adelaide, South Australia
Ably argued & discerning, although I would hesitate to call the Archbishop dangerous. He seems rather to have been broad-minded & a trifle incautious.
Ernest Werner, Trumansburg NY , USA
I think this issue cries out for plain speaking.
What you are struggling to say is that it is a repressive religion which to ensure the freedom of the individual requires laws that have been developed for the common good over centuries. I agree
David Cartright, Birmingham,
I don't think the Archbishop is really expecting the UK to be ruled by Sharia. I think he's trying to appease the Muslim community and at the same time warn the British public about the impending Muslim threat to Europe--all this while avoiding a fatwa against him! Pretty ingenious if you ask me.
Marco, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA