My text for today is “Hold fast that which is good”: 1 Thessalonians 5:21. These are words I heard so regularly in prayers at my Anglican girls’ school that I have been unable to forget them. I draw them to the attention of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who seems to have forgotten them. At least, he seems to be losing his grip on what is good in this country and, indeed, to be throwing it away with both hands in his curious suggestion that aspects of sharia should be recognised in English law.
In an interview on Radio 4 last Thursday, Rowan Williams said that the introduction of parts of Islamic law here would help to maintain social cohesion and seems unavoidable. Sharia courts exist already, he pointed out. We should “face up to the fact” that some British citizens do not relate to the British legal system, he said, and that Muslims should not have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.
What he went on to say was more astonishing. He explained to the interviewer, in his gentle, wordy way, that a lot of what is written on this confusing subject suggests “the ideal situation is one in which there is one law and only one law for everybody”. He went on: “That principle is an important pillar of our social identity as a western liberal democracy.” How true.
However, he continued: “It’s a misunderstanding to suppose that that means people don’t have other affiliations, other loyalties, which shape and dictate how they behave in society, and the law needs to take some account of that.”
Stuff like this is bad for the blood pressure, but I listened on. “An approach to law which simply said there is one law for everybody and that is all there is to be said . . . I think that’s a bit of a danger.”
What danger? And to whom? The danger, surely, is rather the archbishop and those who think like him, who seem unwilling to hold fast that which is good. What is good and best and essential about our society – it isn’t merely a matter of “social identity” – is the principle of equality before the law. That principle and its practice have made this country the outstandingly just and tolerant state it is; it is one of the last remaining forces for unity as well.
What is also good and essential to this country is the law itself. It has evolved over centuries from medieval barbarities into something, for all its faults, that is civilised. Our law expresses and maintains the best virtues of our society. Anybody who does not accept it does not belong here.
When other legal systems or other customs clash with ours, we prefer ours, to put it mildly. At least we should; what has troubled me for years is the way that exceptions and excuses tend to be made, in the name of multiculturalism, for practices of which we do not approve. Victoria Climbié’s terrible bruises were ignored because of assumptions about the cultural norms of African discipline. Last week it emerged that someone in government has sold the moral pass on polygamy: husbands with multiple wives in this country are now to get benefit payments for each wife.
In the midst of all this moral confusion and relativism, is the premier prelate in the land holding fast that which is good? Far from it. He is recommending multiculti legal cherry-picking, in which individuals would be free to choose the jurisdiction they preferred for certain matters. He even admits that his proposal introduces, “uncomfortably”, the idea of a market in the law, “a competition for loyalty”.
One encouraging sign is the almost universal fury that our foolish archbishop has aroused: he has miraculously united the irreconcilable in opposition to himself, from Christian extremists to mainstream Muslims, from Anglican vicars to godless Hampstead liberals, from Gordon Brown to backwoods Tories.
The archbishop and his few supporters insist that the media have misrepresented him and not many people have actually read the learned speech that he gave to a learned audience after his inflammatory radio interview. They are wrong. I haven’t seen any serious misrepresentation in the media, and reading his speech several times doesn’t exonerate him. Nor does it increase respect for his judgment, his command of English or his powers of ratiocination; he is woolly of face and woolly of mind.
In any case, you do not need to follow anybody’s argument to understand that legally recognising aspects of sharia is either unnecessary or undesirable. If the aspects in question accord with English law (the Anglican archbishop is speaking of England, presumably), there is no need to offer any extra provision or recognition for religious courts. They are of no interest to the law. If they don’t accord with English law, they are unacceptable and should be repudiated, or even prosecuted.
All this has nothing particularly to do with it being Islamic law at issue. The same would apply to any other religious law: Hindu, Mormon or wiccan. However, there is a lot to be said against sharia and the desire of a reported 40% of British Muslims to live under it. That explains, in part, the present outrage. Sharia is rightly feared here: it is disputed, sometimes primitive, grievously in need of reform and wholly unacceptable in Britain.
So what possessed this troublesome priest to stir up this predictable fury with his divisive and unnecessary suggestions? Why did he choose to speak not just in a quiet academic meeting but also in the public glare of The World at One? And cui bono? It has most certainly not been good for ordinary British Muslims, as they well understand. It has, however, given comfort to Muslim extremists, who will see this as the thin end of their Islamist wedge.
Williams’s behaviour looks like vainglorious attention-seeking, but it is also something much worse. To seek to undermine our legal system and the values on which it rests, in a spirit of unnecessary appeasement to an alien set of values, is a kind of treason. It is a betrayal of all those who struggled and died here, over the centuries, for freedom and equality under the rule of law and of their courage in the face of injustice and unreason. Theirs is the good that we should hold fast and so of all people should the Archbishop of Canterbury. Otherwise, what is he for?
minette.marrin@sunday-times.co.uk
I imagine the Securitas robbers would rather have opted out of the UK justice system with the benefit of hindsight.
Gwilym Rhys-Jones, costa del sol, spain
"We should 'face up to the fact' that some British citizens do not relate to the British legal system, he said,... "
Well, it's nice to know the law are there for us to obey if we like them.
Next time you get stopped by the police for a speeding ticket, just tell 'em, "Sorry, guys... keep it. I just don't relate to the British legal system..."
Let's see how far that get's ya.
kirbywallace.com
Kirby L. Wallace, Tulsa, OK, USA
Well, lets be honest. Britain is really a democracy. Its a at least a little bit theocratic and monarchial. Keeping a royal family around for tourist reasons is about the dumbest scam going. Having a monarchy, something that the Saudis understand is a nice slippery slope to Sharia theocracy. Frankly, if the Brits don't see this, I have no sympathy for them.
Titus, Houston, USA / Texas
There are still so many negative points in the law of the so-called civilized Western world and not all that comes from the islamic world is bad. So, why refuse to take the most positve points in Sharia and integrate them in the English law? A national law should respect the beliefs and the way of life of the different communities that make up the society, otherwise it would be discriminating and therefore unfair.
Dj. Messaoudi, Takhervucht, Algeria
I don't really understand the argument for sharia law in England or anywhere else in Europe. Why would you move to England (of all places) if you wanted to live under sharia law? Why not move to Dubai or to Saudi Arabia, both of which openly accept foreign workers in droves? If you want sharia law, why would you move to a country with an established Christian church? I understand wanting to keep your culture alive and proud (I live in New York with its Little Italy, Chinatown, et al, and they enrich our city to no end), but would the Chinese have moved here and demanded that we adopt Communism?
Ian, New York, USA
From the other side of the pond...
You are right on target, Mrs. Marrin, the Archbishop's comments are, at their heart, nothing short of revolutionary. And for what? To placate a loud minority who want to change a part of British life that is taken for granted, and not seen as needing any major overhauls - the laws OF the British people, BY the British people and FOR the British People (to pinch the words of our Abraham Lincoln).
But to me, as an Anglican who is no longer welcomed in the church of my birth (our local Bishop pronounced us Evangelicals out of his diocese) - that's the same church over which the ABC is the titular head - this comes as no surprise. He's been placating the wealthy, loud, and few of the Episcopal Church since he took office. The result will likely be the destruction of the worldwide Anglican Communion before 2008 comes to a close. He must be so proud.
Please, people of England! For your own good (not to mention ours) GET THIS MAN OUT OF OFFICE!
Steven Kelley, Chattanooga, TN, USA
People might be interested to learn from countries where sharia law exists in tandem with the secular, state law. My experience of Malaysia was that the secular courts would not touch any dispute that fell even slightly within sharia jurisdiction and since such disputes often involved non Muslims, that left the non Muslim party effectively with no legal redress.
Perhaps the point here is not about introducing sharia law to ease the integration of Muslims coming into the country but instead why should any Muslim feel they need it when for centuries others of different religions have settled here without feeling they have to bring their own system of law with them. The Jewish religious courts point is a red herring. All Jews in this country are subject to, and therefore have redress within, English law.
A. Watson, London,
“Hold fast that which is good†is an aphorism as appealing as the basic tenet of the Hippocratic Oath: "First do no harm." For how else do we construct a society and its moral and guiding principles?
Peter, New York, New York , USA
The man is trying to point out that sharia law exists and takes place in Britain silently and undercover. It need be uncovered and all need to face its existence amongst an islamic community.
But, in the deaf mans door you can knock all you like.
Theodore, Hove, East Sussex
Humura, we have nothing to learn from Islam.
Richard, London,
the brits brought this upon themselves. they say that "debate" idea is apllied to everything. and they debate anything even when they know the conclusion before. they have - as a tree "has" roots - a "debate" - mania, so anything is debate - for them. and debate means generalities - without details.
this is only the begining for this debate. and with good argumentation - with generalities good argumentation exists anytime - the backers of the sharia will win. and the backers will be the britons, the outspoken ones, as until now.
they gave the idea - to others - that everything within the society is backed - so they have generalities - and now they have this.
ps. sorry for my bad english
maurice bengal, georgetown,
A truly great article! Congratulations!
Ivo, Antwerp, Belgium
Interesting article spoilt by the sentence 'Our law expresses and maintains the best virtues of our society. Anybody who does not accept it does not belong here'. 'Our law' (which is defined by both the legal texts and by the people who administer it) requires constant scrutiny or we will continue with the current stream of miscarriages of justice, some arrogant self important judges, some dishonest overpaid lawyers and inconsistency in judgements. 'Our law' already has very different meanings to the legal profession, to the privileged and to those who can't afford to defend themselves. Do I not belong here?
Richard, Huntingdon, Cambs
I'm reading the discussion amongst you Brits, and I'm flabbergasted.
The idea that a Western democracy would allow Sharia law ANY type of legal recognition in any context is disturbing enough.
What's more disturbing is the response of the supposed intellectuals calling for "nuanced...thoughtful consideration" of the ArchBishop's ludicrous statements.
Any people who would sacrifice both their culture and their freedom to accomodate radical Islamicists (and yes, ANY MUSLIM who believes in political Islam is a radical) deserve slavery and oppression.
The enemy of Western Civilization is political, not spiritual, Islam. The imposition of Sharia law is the most overt demonstration of political Islam. EVERY Western nation should proudly and forcefully renounce political Islam whenever and wherever it rears its ugly head.
ds, grand rapids, Michigan
Good article Minette. Thank you. Maybe the Church of England should now be disestablished?
Una Kroll, Bury, Lancs, England
I am speaking as a non British person, which gives me, I believe so, a different perspective about United Kingdom. When I first came to the UK I started looking for something British, as it's my main objective in life to get integrated wherever I go or live. What makes life very exciting is getting involved in different activities, not only working, but also, doing some volunteering work, studying, having a normal social life; as the expression goes 'in Rome be Roman'. Basically I came to this country to make the most of it the open minded way. I find this approach very rewarding not only on a personal but also on a cultural level. It would not make any sense to me if I have decided to impose my way from the very beginning because that would be the first step to isolate myself thus feeling very miserable. What made me come to this country in the first country was the British culture and for that reason I would rather to see things to be kept that way.
Daniel Costa, Oxford , England
We as a nation have a lot to learn from Islam; for example, Islam was the first social order in history to give women significant rights. Women gained rights of inheritance, property, and education. Most of these rights were only gained by women in the western world in the last 100 years. 1200 years before it was abolished in the USA,Islam encouraged the freeing of slaves.
To make it clear, honor killings are FORBIDDEN by Islam. Honor killing is murder and must be punished accordingly. Honor killing was one of many abuses of women in pre-Islamic Arabia that Islamic teachings eradicated.
Regards chopping off the hands, well it would deter £53 million heists and the like and lets face it, we live in a society where paedophillia flourishes with short sentences for those who prey on children.
Humara, London,
When does Richard Dawkins get his turn to lecture the same audience. That would make them think.
m wilson, bidache, france
If Archbishop says that in a modren UK , there will not be a place for monarchy, one can understand but to bring the primitive social and legal system in British legal system is against the human evolution. But the priests are never concerned with the evolution, their needle is stuck thousands years before, they have the eyes behind their head.
shantam i singh, Freiburg, Germany
Did Henry VIII go far enough I ask myself?
Tom Taylor-Duxbury, Ludlow, UK
Where's the street demo in Britian to promote secular, democratic law over the rise of Sharia law?
Turks are demonstrating in the streets to defend their secular state from the first signs of political Islam in universities.
Public demo anyone? I'll be there in a heartbeat.
Victor Smithwell, Putney, London,
It is this type of suggestion made by the archbishop that I decided to leave the UK and live here in Brazil. British society is going to the dogs! We are trying to adapt to much to the many ethnic minorities we have in the UK, when it is the ethnic minorities that should be adapting to the British culture, laws and way of life.
Greg, Fortaleza, Brazil
Since we have abandoned Christianity, the religion on which our body of law is based, we should not be surprised that, having abandoned that Christianity,another religion will willingly fill the vacuum. We only have ourselves to blame if we don't stand up for our beliefs.
RB, Aberdeen,
A very well written intelligent article on this distubing issue which has opened the whole can of worms surrounding the British Government and establishment's secretive and craven 'accommodation' of Islam. Accommodation itself is perhaps an ironic word to use -in Mafia speak it is a euphemism for agreeing to something under threat of violence -although perhaps unwittingly and having borrowed it from elsewhere, Dr Williams has chosen precisely the right word t! Surely after this 'appeasement of an alien set of values ...a kind of treason' he can be sectioned or packed off to a seminary to entertain the Monks with his phiolsophical musings and pomopous phiolsophical meanderings. Bring old common sense Carey back to save what's left of the Cof E's credibility! Rowan's higher intelligence is up in the ether with the Angels and the Halcyon bird -well out of sight of planet earth and its lowly falible creatures.However, this makes his speech no less dangerous or wrongheaded.
david, uzes, france
Williams and his cultural relativist ilk are just a part of the political betrayal of this country, principally by self-seeking MPs in search of "minority" (the majority in many areas now) votes and the appeasement of mischievous Marxist constituency activists. They could not change the people (and convince them to be communists), so they have determined to change the people - and replace them with immigrants whose customs most differ from our own. We are being ethnically cleansed, and its the leftist revenge for rejecting the totalitarian state they wanted. Reasonable English people will all have considered leaving, if they haven't gone already.
Martin, London, England
Thank you for a brilliant article!
Hal G. P. Colebatch, Nedlands, WA,. Australia
Like so many of church hierachy, being politically correct and sounding popular has become more important than maintaining standards. Here in Australia, with church membership and attendance in free-fall, the so-called leaders pay lip service to the teaching of Christ while they embrace anything and everything in an attempt to look modern. Sadly, by believing in everything, they eventually believe in nothing.
David Fletcher, Perth, Western Australia
The Bishop Williams, and his supporters, Rev June Osborne and Rev. George Cassidy, have enlightened the multitudes. May the British have courage to deflect defamation and defend their land against foreign invasion, however it may come.
Diana C.Hyden, Florida, USA
You’re right Minette. My father and uncles fought to preserve this country’s freedom for all of common kinship. When the going got tough, they didn’t abandon ship and migrate to some easier clime. They stood and fought their corner, sustained by a religious faith through which they and their children were christened, married and spiritually supported through their lives and in their final parting from loved ones. The Christian message was all around and within them. They didn’t need a hymn sheet to sing “Silent Night†or “There is a Green Hill far Away†to their kids. They needed no tall tower from which to whistle “Abide with Meâ€. So, we don’t fill churches like we used to. Hardly surprising. Our church leaders seem mostly concerned with sexual proclivities. Christianity must seem shallow to zealots of other faiths when our Archbishop can’t even condemn the sale in the three months before the event of Christmas paraphernalia or Easter eggs! If my mother, father and uncles were here now they would weep. So would many more.
Theo Nelson, South Hams,
The Archbishop's speech has created such a furore because for many people it is the last straw. They are crying out for someone to say Stop! Enough! -- not just about Islam but about the way the country surrenders on so many issues: giving away national sovreignty to Brussels, the spread of surveillance, the proliferation of ridiculous Health and Safety measures...the list goes on and on.. Where will a leader come from who will harness the simmering fury of good people? Someone even asked recently - is it right to teach children to be proud of our history? There is a big difference between "tolerance" and spineless appeasement. Confusing the two has created a state that accepts everything and stands for nothing.
Baxter Lindsay, Lausanne, Switzerland
The hysteria is unjustified. Do we want to see MacCarthyism and witch hunt to take place? I refer to those critics who use words "treason", "resign", etc. etc. Why can't we have a proper debate upon this issue of Sharia law. Let's us say yes to Sharia Law.
Jewish courts and Sharia courts already exist in this country. Remember this country has been magnanimous to take and borrow ideas from abroad. Sharia will strengthen the family life and moral fabric of this society. We should not, as Archbishop has rightly said, look to Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries for the practice of Sharia. Chopping of hands and stoning to death is not what sharia is all about. I fully support the courage of Archbishop to speak out his thoughts without fear and favour. Let this country be a beacon of free ideas and debate.
S M, Croydon, United Kingdom
I have a lot of time for Rowan Williams, a very gentle and thoughtful man. Nonetheless, aside from the hyperbole and hysteria, he was wrong on this issue
Richard, Bexhill, UK
Once again we have visible proof of complete deterioration of the English Church. The Britons should consider seriously is there anything left of the old glory what would validate the position of the English Church on British political scene. In my humble opinion this institution has failed already so much that there is now nothing left but far-left agenda of homosexuals and pedophiliacs doing its utmost to undermine principles of western civilization in all aspects and areas. Achbishop Williams statement on islamic law is yet another appeasment - yet another step into abyss marking fall of Great Britain as we knew her and loved.
Zbigniew Szczesny, Warsaw, Poland
Commited treason Wow! what a load of hypocrites. I thought this country was leading force in FREEDOM OF SPEACH. Its alright we know its fine to have jewish courts that go hand in hand with british laws but god forbid we should have a Muslim version too. The poor man has been bashed because he made a speach where in he even dared to encourage support to anything muslim. If this was the jews,hindus etc nobody would have said a word. minette marrin should be ashamed and all the journalist on this paper who attack a man a leader of the church who is an intellectual for saying what he has. FREEDOM OF SPEACH IS DEAD.
Salim , blackburn,
Lets stop holding up 'English law' as if it somekind of wonderful perfect institution, it is not. It is the law which allow some very clearly anti-christian activities, such as abortion, which have always been held by all the main Christian churches to be terrible sins. All the Archbishop was saying was that there should be someway of bring in to our legal codes a way of recognising decisions made by 'arbitration courts' operating under a sharia based system. We already have similar systems for the Jewish community and for trade disputes (where a contract may state that arbitration has to be used). Muslims (and anyone else) would have to accept the juristiction of the Court at the outset and its decisions would be open to scrutiny by a standard higher court. This strkes me as sensible, and, in many cases, cheaper than running to the County Court over some of these issues.
Mark, Cardiff, Wales
I think his comments need to be given a careful thought, and not to be lambastered ignorantly.
abdul, telford, United Kingdom
The seventh century retrograde Sharia law is against the very principles of equality of laws irrespective of gender, race, religion and nation of origin.
It is highly discriminatory against women and non-Muslims. It is unfit for 21st century.
Any introduction, even in part, will lead to serious legal chaos, heavy ant-Muslim hatred and may be riots! For non-Muslims, these Sharia laws are unacceptable.
Dr. Williams wants to make clash of civilizations real! Time for Dr. Williams to go!
Regards,
Krishna R. Kumar, Udupi, India
I agree very well analysed. I immigrated to Quebec, therefore I accepted that I had to speak French. For example, I cannot ask them to change the road signs on the grounds that I cannot understand them.
Hugh Philliips, Boucherville QC, canada
Our laws have their roots in the Canon law of the Christian Church and our laws and institutions, including the Common Law as well as icons of liberty such as habeas corpus and Magna Carta, were all developed and promoted in an explicitly Christian environment.
For a Christian archbishop to not only fail to defend our Christian culture but to promote the laws of the Muslim faith is totally unaccepatable.
Alexander Stilwell, Godalming, England
Most of the Immigrants came to UK to better their living standards and to be involved with British Way of Life. Having settled in UK one has to accept the Way of Life of the Country, respect the law.
If Muslims want Sharia Laws then they should go back to their own Country. Why do we need Sharia Laws...We are happy with the Laws of UK & Europe where human life is respected unlike other Countries where Sharia Laws are practiced.
I came to this Country since last 48 years, have no complaints what so ever. Very happy with the laws of the Land. Those who preach Sharia Laws should realise why did they migrate to the West. Their own Country did not give the freedom to speak and here they want us to take on repressive laws.
We must not even think of Sharia Laws...Let those believe in go to the Countries where these Sharia Laws are in existance and then see which Laws are good.
C.J.Rabheru, London, UK
You might like to read the lesson, Sunday 10 February 2008.
http://markatscotland.blogspot.com
Mark Dowe, Castle Douglas , Scotland, UK
Well said Minette,
I am past my sell by date but do worry about my grandchildren regarding the state of this country, his type of comment is the last thing we need.
Dorothy Brown, Gislingham. Eye, UK
If Sharia law was brought in tomorrow, about two thirds of women in this country would be flogged for having " relations" outside of marriage.
steve lloyd, swansea, UK
Thank you Minette for cutting through all the PC crap we have to deal with these days (since 1997 anyway) and telling it like it is. Bravo!
Richard Marriott, Worcester, England
When in ROME do as the Romans do, had he made this statement in a Muslim country (In reverse) what do you think would have happened to him.
When you decide to live in a Foreign Country you should accept their way of life, laws, traditions, et'c, not try to change them, if you dont like it you can always go back home.
EDWARD, wARR, GREAT BRITAIN
I have long thought that we should only allow religious extremists into this country if they will agree to live by the rules which they think women should live by. If they expect a burka, staying within the house walls and no attendance at large gatherings, then they must live by the same rules.
So now I will add Sharia law to my list. Any court claiming to apply Sharia here must reverse their view of the rights of men and women. A man's value as a witness is automatically discounted to one half or one quarter of a woman's. No man shall inherit more than a woman, and sons should expect to receive half the share that a daughter gets. And a few other things...
YHB, Norwich,
"So what possessed this troublesome priest to stir up this predictable fury with his divisive and unnecessary suggestions?"
Fundamentally, the archbishop believes that religious people (of all faiths) should be able to opt-out of any secular law that conflicts with their conscience. This kind of exceptionalism is divisive and incredibly dangerous.
Chris, Dorking, Surrey
The British law is and always has been adaptable. Its not a set of unchanging ancient laws. the law is changed frequently to allow our society to adapt to changing ways. So allowing polygamy is not a sign of imminent collapse, it is a change in the law. It is not treason to argue for alternatives - it is democracy.
All that said, well over 90% of the population would be against Sharia in this country. The archbishop is an idiot and its time he went. Time we dis-established the church too.
Neil Murphy, cromer,
What is wrong with expecting migrants to this country to accept things as they find them? If you don`t like it then get out. This was the message spelt out recently by the new Labour Prime Minister of Australia.Too late here I`m afraid, we have already made so many exceptions to take account of other cultural and religious sensibilities. This is just another nail in the coffin for our sense of national cohesivness and identity.
Greg, Stevenage, England
Ms. Marrin, in saying, "Our law expresses and maintains the best virtues of our society", encapsulates the essence of this debate. She epitomises the complacency of everyone who disagrees with the archbishop on the grounds that there should be one law for everyone. Dr. Williams stresses that the law *constitutes* society, it doesn't only reflect and govern it. The law takes an almighty swipe at the vast continuum of social activity and bisects it into legal and illegal. The archbishop is absolutely correct to say that people have other affiliations and loyalties; the problem is that the law is not geared towards recognising them. The law has it's own internal logic, a concrete and context-less one. Ideas such as mediation, mitigating circumstance, and manslaughter highlight how the law struggles with such ideas. Sharia law is simply a further example. Dr Williams does't advocate stoning of adulterers, merely a better awareness of context.
Ms. Marrin please reconsider your hyperbole.
Toby, Pangbourne, UK,
The Government has been appeasing and introducing changes stealthily.
The recognition of multiple wives here in Britain and allowing the husband to claim benefits for each wife was not even know by a Government Minister Andrew Barnham (as he stated on Question Time on Thursday)
What other appeasing deals are being agreed under the table, changing our laws and culture in ways which are deliberately designed to conceal from the scrutiny of the public, our elected representatives or Parliament?
David Cartright, Birmingham,
We have our freedom of Faith because of the thousands of Saints who would not compromise. Yet compromise is all that this Rowan Williams appears to do. A very good comment by the second poster Glenn. Our freedom to worship as we choose was had won.
Is it a coincidence that all the counties in the world who do not allow the open worship of Christ as the Son of God are either Comminist or Muslim.
MR Williams (I refuse to give you any other title), you are a disgrace. Little wonder the Anglican Church is dead when it has a leader like you.
Fred, KZN, South Africa
whey the anti beard rant !
The primate talked nonsense, but what has that to do with his beard ?
Please remember , beards are the natural state for a man !
Paul Greenwood, Worcester,
I'm certain that the Archbishop hasn't actually committed treason. But I'm not quite so certain about the case of David Miliband and Gordon Brown. When they signed the Final Act of the Lisbon Treaty they put their names inter alia to its annexed Declaration 17, which asserts that EU treaties and laws are inherently superior to British laws. At the very least, if we had MPs worth their salt they would be looking up the correct procedure to impeach these two Ministers for denying the sovereignty of Parliament.
Denis Cooper, Maidenhead, England
Did the learned Archbishop ever study English history?! It took over a millenium to win all the rights and priviledges to win our present form of democracy and legal system which has as its central pillar universal respect for the 'rule of law.' All of my ancestors left Europe involuntarily because of the application of religious laws on them.
harold schmor, cairns australia,
I am an American Anglican, and I am pretty well disgusted with the hysterical, unreasonable, and yes, rather bigoted reaction to what was a thoughtful and nuanced lecture by the Archbishop on a relevant topic. It is actually quite sad how politicians and eminent journalists alike are attempting to surpass each other in their shrill jingoism.
If some of you raving critics did indeed read his lecture and comments, you clearly didn't read them carefully, for you are completely mis-representing them. This lecture was one of six lectures to be given by eminent scholars on Islamic law in England, it certainly was not a call to institute beheadings in Britain!
As Dr. Wiilliams and others have pointed out, there are already Orthodox Jewish religious courts (Beth Din) that are allowed to settle certain religious matters as third party arbitrators, as long as they don't conflict with English criminal law. It seems clear he was suggesting a similar, limited arrangement for Muslims.
Gary Bennett, Monrovia, California, USA
Perhaps a 7th century mindset sits well with the current ruling elites who over the last thirty years have done their best to roll back the gains of the industrial revolution here, and have starved investment and innovation to ensure we slowly slip backwards to a "cleric" ruled multicultural future?
Dave, chorley, UK
And just how long would the Archbishop would be allowed to continue to preach the Christian faith in a UK ruled by Sharia law?
Glenn, Aberdare, Wales
Exactly!
Richard Bale, Palma de Mallorca, Spain
Simply the best writing I 've seen on the issue ! Superb.
chris murray, treal, france
i think the archbishop is entirely right and furthermore sharia could reverse the moral decline of Britain. Women in particular have become very selfish over the past 40 years and no longer fulfill their roles as mothers as they should. it is no wonder we are breeding generation after generation of luddite kids.
Sharia would reverse this feminist trend that has done so much damage to our society.
Richard K, nottingham,
such an amazingly well written and well argued article.it will resonate with most.
Stephen jones, cardiff, uk
Very well argued piece. I think your opening comment "Hold fast that which is good" is very telling. There is a terrible asymmetry about this entire Sharia law argument; the Sharia proponents like to think that their law is 'better' because it came from God. But good old fashioned English common law is equally part of our religious tradition; it may not have been written down in a book but our common law tradition is very Christian-based. So 'our' law came from God too. Maybe a different one. But a no less equal one.
Mark, London,
I am afraid he has stirred the pot world wide it will take the UK. a while to recover from his comments. GRAINGER
Grainger Hannah, Auckland, New Zealand
AGREE A 100%. We don't need Sharia law in the UK. If the Arch bishop so desires he is welcome to move to a country that espouses these primitive, evil laws of the 7th century. We have come a long way from that.
He should RESIGN immediately from his position as head of the C of E.
Faqi, London, UK
Dear Ms. Holt,
I am really sorry that I can't keep up with the flow of information from GB, but, in part, I must plead my abiding faith in the stability of your inspiring nation. The horrors you describe are inconsistent with my memories of England.
In every trip I've made, which are many, and in all the friendships I have and maintain, and all of the acquaintances I have and have had, nowhere have I seen the slightest hint of the attitudes and behavior you present. I do not question your observations or accuracy; perhaps this is something new? But if our countries are to remain mutually supportive, the US must learn from GB, while you must be true to your traditions.
Robert duBarry, Hamden, CT, USA
One either believes in "the rule of law" or not. (Has anyone ever heard of "the rule of laws"?) With such fuzzy-headed nonsense intoned at the top, is it any wonder that the Anglican communion is going into the toilet?
Perhaps it is time for a U.K split in the church like is happening in the USA. That way, those who support "other affiliations, other loyalties" can go off on their own. They can find ways to condone things like female genital mutilation - in the name of multi-culturalism - without making decent people ill by association.
You said it right: Treason. By the way, how does your Queen like it?
Robert Jones, Nashville, Tennessee
No, the revered Archbishop has NOT committed treason, he has only expressed his opinions in a non offensive manner which as a British citizen he is PERFECTLY entitled to.
It is rather ironic that in this day and age where free speech is considered a sacrosanct human right, a man of integrity and humility like the Archbishop of Canterbury can be publicly vilified simply for expressing an opinion. That so many Muslims have respectfully distanced themselves from his views at a time when he is being vociferously attacked by his own followers is particularly telling and is food for thought.
True, the Archbishop may be mistaken when he says Sharia is ``unavoidable'' but I urge all to read through his comment in their entirety - he distanced himself from some of the more extreme and cruel methods of punishment - in any case law courts for British Jews already exist and giving more recognition to minority laws is NOT the same as ignoring current British ones.
Suhail Shafi , Buffalo, NY , USA
THe reverend Archbishop should be spending more time looking after his flock and making sure they return to their Christian roots and practices. How many of his flock even go to church!
j nicholls, Jkt, Indonesia
What is 'treasonable' about merely asking how, in a complex society, we can find a way of ensuring that everyone can live voluntarily within their moral civil code, while not denying them access to a universal civil code available to all who choose to use it, the latter being the superior.
Exploring ways of trying to get some tolerance, harmony and peace in people's lives doesn't sound like treachery. And the Archbishop seeking transparency in this is to be commended.
Without that our politicians will 'buy' harmony, behind closed doors, with the shadowy compromises we all know and love, some of which may result in the more insidious elements actually creeping in by stealth. By way of example, the introduction of benefits payments for multiple wives hardly got a public airing, did it?
He may have done us all a big favour by making people more aware of what the issues are, and what is already going on.
Treason? Hardly!
Avana Beach, London, UK
It is odd to think that the Church of England maintains the monarch as its head and therefore accepts the laws passed under that monarch's government (including those on abortion, for example) but that its chief expects to need to allow Muslims or other faith groups a parallel system of some kind should they desire it. He seems to be arguing for a return to religious authorities being allowed to trump (albeit sometimes only in small ways) state authorities. This is deeply regressive and disappointing, especially given that the C of E was founded (aside of a certain divorce) on resisting the claims of the Roman Catholic Church on the rights of English citizens. Any minority complaint about legislation needs to go through the usual processes of participative democracy to find compromises widely enough agreed to bring new laws into place. Williams undermines participative democracy and its usefulness with such a statement
Alexander Monro, London, UK
1) Sharia law itself has several interpretations 2) if we allowed any other system, we would have conflict, as in effect we are allowing someone to break existing laws. An extreme case: under Sharia law you may be allowed to amuputate for theft, yet, under UK law, such amputation would be a crime.
3) I believe I should not pay tax if the government does things with which I disagree. I guess I would have a huge following. Can I therefore claim my own legal system and not pay tax?
Name withheld, Norfolkshire, UK