News
blog: has he been misunderstood?
The Prime Minister today spoke out strongly in defence of the Archbishop of
Canterbury, a short time before Dr Rowan Williams attempts to justify to the
General Synod of the Church of England his controversial remarks on Islamic
law .
Gordon Brown's spokesman said that the PM and the Archbishop had a strong
relationship and stayed in close touch.
“The Prime Minister believes the Archbishop of Canterbury is a man of great
integrity and dedication to public and community services, and he
understands the difficulty he is facing at the moment," said the
spokesman.
"The Archbishop has been clarifying and setting in a wider context the
comments he has made and I’m sure he will continue to do so in the future.”
The spokesman added however: “The Prime Minister is very clear that British
laws must be based on British values, and that religious law, while
respecting other cultures, should be subservient to British criminal and
civil law."
Dr WIlliams has enraged many and given fuel to his enemies by appearing to
advocate in a speech last week that parts of Sharia, or Islamic law, should
be incorporated into English law. The comments have brought frank criticisms
and calls for his resignation from within the Church of England.
Early indications at Church House, Westminster, where Dr Williams will take to
the rostrum at 3pm to deliver his presidential address, were however that
Synod members intended to rally around their beleaguered leader. He is
likely to get a standing ovation as he emerges into the public forum after
three days of blistering attack and comment.
But behind the scenes, clergy and laity will be demanding to know how the
Archbishop could have landed himself and the Church in such a position.
Dr Williams in his speech referred to "supplementary jurisdiction"
in a way that made it appear he advocated it, and earlier on Thursday said
in a BBC interview that he believed Sharia in Britain "seems unavoidable".
Alison Ruoff, a Synod member who has already said she would like to see Dr
Williams resign and go back to academia, told GMTV that what had happened
was incredibly sad. She said: “I think what the Archbishop has said has led
an enormous number of people to be very worried, to be upset.
"As a Christian leader, people simply don’t understand where he is coming
from. Yes, you extend the hand of friendship to all, and that includes
Muslims, of course, but you don’t actually think about embracing part of
their Sharia law or even suggesting it.
“There are Christians overseas in Islamic countries who cannot believe that
their Archbishop, who is not only head of the Church of England but of the
Anglican Communion, has said such a thing when they are suffering from
massive persecution in Islamic countries.”
Dr Williams, who had intended to talk about Zimbabwe in his 30-minute address
to Synod, is prepared to improvise to clarify his position over the row.
Although some commentators are beginning to look behind the Archbishop's
opaque speech at the issues he was attempting to address, rarely has a
single archbishop united so many factions in criticism.
His predecessor Lord Carey wrote in the News of the World: “He has in my
opinion overstated the case for accommodating Islamic legal codes. His
conclusion that Britain will eventually have to concede some place in law
for aspects of Sharia is a view I cannot share.”
But Lord Carey also defended the Archbishop, saying: “This is not a matter
upon which Dr Williams should resign. He is a great leader in the Anglican
tradition and he has a very important role to play in the Church.
“He has my full support. I telephoned him to say this to him and to tell him
he is in my prayers. I understand he is horrified by what has happened.”
Ken Clarke, the Conservative former Chancellor, said of the Archbishop: “He’s
just one of the most unworldly men I have ever met, together with being one
of the most intelligent and plainly one of the most saintly and he has got
himself into an absolutely classic British row and has angered a lot of
people because they have all been persuaded that he has been talking about
bringing back the stoning of women for various moral offences, and so on,
which plainly he is just about the last person on earth to contemplate.”
Dr Williams has been backed by some Church figures. The Bishop of Hulme, the
Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, said he was appalled at the “knee-jerk” reaction to a
serious piece of academic work.
The Rev Giles Fraser, vicar of Putney, told the BBC Radio 4 Sunday programme
the media had descended on Dr Williams like a “pack of dogs”.
“I think the big issue here is the way the press has treated the Archbishop of
Canterbury for raising a legitimate issue for him to raise.
“That is the big moral picture here. They have been a pack of dogs having a go
at him without even trying to understand what he said.
“There is something sinister about a culture that judges first and tries to
understand later.”
Well its hardly surprising that he got a standing ovation at the synod, now that they have actually bothered to understand what he was saying. They, like the vast majority of the country, got hung up on the mention of Sharia, but they now realise he was actually calling for special legal exemptions for their club, along with any other other co called "faith group".
That was the reason I was outraged at his original speech. Claims to superstitious nonsense cannot and must not be a reason for exemption from the law of the land. Where such a group's "laws" don't overlap with those of the country at large then they are already free to do whatever they like, but the moment an overlap occurs then the religious code must in every case be subservient to common law.
Mark Allen, Nottingham,
As I read about this, I call to mind the words of a better Warwickshire man than I :
'It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.'
John, Kenilworth,
As a lay member of the Church I am not "demanding to know how the Archbishop could have landed himself and the Church in such a position".
The Archbishop has my full support and the support of the vast majority of the church (as demonstrated by the standing ovation).
What I am demanding to know is how the press can be so reckless, biassed and unprofessional in their reporting without being subject to "British Values" (which surely includes respect, balance and adherence to truth).
This irresponsible reporting has sadly not been limited to the Tabloids.
Mick Lumsden, Cambridge, UK
What a mess the Church of England and therefore the Country is in.The Queen is not a good head of it.The Archbishop is not a good leader and we have Charles to come with his notions of being Head of Religions.All the while Roman Catholacism is edging its way back into a powerfull position boosted by the conversion of people like Tony Blair
who has been touted as the first President of Europe.
Brendan Greer, Donaghadee, Northern Ireland. UK.
Dr Williams has gotten a lot of mileage using the role of "absent-minded professor". Perhaps, in the interest of multiculturism, the two "Rowans" could switch places. It would be worth seeing if Mr. Bean could do as good a job as the AoC as Dr Williams is doing in stand-up comedy.
David, Minneapolis, USA
Dr. Irene, and others, please remain calm.
All that ABC Williams has done is to give us a timely reminder to be on our guard against those too wrapped up in the academic to see reality.
1,000 years ago it would have been "counting angels on the head of a pin",among consenting intellects in private, but now we peasants can actually read times have changed.
I reckon his supporting caste are DEF!
MikeM, St. Albans, England
Dr Rowan has had to clarify because (as far I can tell) the media and the public have simply failed to read his lecture. No apology should be required from him, but from all the ignorant people who jump to conclusions based on limited evidence or incorrect assumptions (John B from Middlesborough's comment about not knowing the General Synod is the legislator for the CofE is a demonstration of the fact the commentators are often ill-informed). A religious figure or an academic does not have to pander to contemporary assertions of democratic acceptability or comprehension.
John Scott, London,
The more one considers this, the more absurd it appears. Assuming the U.K. has the same religious freedom as he United States, where anybody can start a religion any day they wish, it would be absurd to consider changing the laws to conform to the religions. In fact it is quite the opposite; you can start any religion you want, WONDERFUL, but it must adhere to current U.S. law, i.e. no sacrificing of human virgins, no polygamy (a hard fight we are fighting against some Mormans and Muslims), no fatwas advocating the killing of people who don't agree or write books criticizing the religion or its leaders, and so on.
So in fact this suggestion is all backwards; religions must adhere to law, not vice versa.
Just like so many said about the case of Yara in Saudi Arabia, who was arrested for not conforming to their laws, why don't the Muslims who don't like or want to adhere to British law just leave and go back to a country that suits their lifestyle ad beliefs?
Tim, Ventura, Ca., USA
"The General Synod is ... a lawmaking body"
News to me, but if true it's about time it stopped being one. We don't need this ridiculous bunch making up laws for us.They should go back to praying or whatever it is they do.
John B, Middlesbrough, UK
The Archbishop's concern with the welfare of Islam and the part that he perceives it should play in the life of this country is 'inevitable'. It is not only a product of his multiculturalist ideology, but yet more evidence - at the highest level - of the 'ganging up' of the religious, of any tradition whatsoever it would seem, in opposition to the great bogy of the times - 'secularism'. He was quite explicit on this point (at least!), but it doesn't seem to have been picked up on, obscured perhaps by all the alarm over sharia. Any religion now will do - Judaism, Islam , Christianity, Sikhism, Hinduism, the Moonies presumably - anything so long as it is not tainted by the rationalism and insights of Dawkins, the contemporary devil incarnate. Personally I would venture to suggest that the great enemy is not secularism, or even Islam - let alone poor Williams himself, but quite simply: religion.
Unfortunately it will ever be with us.
Ian Smith, Dersingham, UK
"I cannot accept the dual system which the Church appears to advocate and I will withdraw from the Church before these principles are prejudiced by the intervention of organised religion." -- Mark, Berkhamsted
Sir, Orthodox Jewish courts in Britain already exist, do they not count as 'dual system'? Or were you not aware of this...which would obviously exempt you from previously making any decision to withdraw from the Church...?
jayil, london, uk
I am disappointed but not suprised by the way that even supposedly "quality journalism" from the BBC and Times has failed to read and understand the original lecture.
The BBC then claims to be "even handed"
I just wish journalists would check their stories properly rather than repeat ever more extreme polemics from journalists and commentators. Perhaps the most sensible question would be to ask a commentator if he had even read the lecture.
Rod, Chichester, UK
Frankly, the 'clarification is little better than the original speech. He has again said what is excluded from his thinking but has given no clearer indication of what he considers would be within the bounds of his suggestion. Either he is saying Muslims should be free to mediate disputes in their own communities so long as the decisions made remain within the bounds of British Law - a statement hardly worth wasting breath on as it can and does already happen. Or he is saying that mediation conducted within the Muslim community should in some way unspecified be allowed to go beyond the bounds of British Law. If the Archbishop intends the latter he needs to be considerably more specific as to what he suggests be allowed and what safeguards he would propose to ensure the rights of those concerned.
If Muslims need changes to the law those changes should be passed by parliament and applied to us all. Anything else will be divisive.
ColinFarmer, Derbyshire, England
What an absurd idea and statement, Dr. Williams is in fact saying. Christ said" I am the Way the Truth and the Life" there is no other Way. " The Father and I are One." Islamic Law is brutal. It must be a British thing.
Mike Wilcox, Woodinville, Washington
it happened during the high middle ages when saxons conquerred partsof England or when Franks percolated in Gaull and took the lead over gallo-roman people and gallo-roman laws. A question of lobbying,strength and ...power .There were often rows and even fierce battles between groups of warriors of different cultures. in the then very mixed roman army. Same problems differents times but now deadlier weapons. We shall be subtlier i can assure you of that but the real end about this problem is 2028 .Very hard years still ahead 2022-2027
Pascal, Brussels, Belgium
Actually, Dr Williams, as a (supposed) representative of Jesus Christ in the world you are living in, it should be your burden and privilege to represent him alone. Preferably coherently. Which is why it helps noone when you start making comments about politics or other religions - or both.
And I doubt very much that the 'other faith communities' in the UK want to be represented by a Protestant Christian Archbishop.
Emily, Cambridge,
Williams actually said nothing controversial. Its the way it's been read and reported that's inflamatory.
sam richards, totnes, devon
A household divided against itself cannot stand. I can now appreciate the old addage 'All roads lead to Rome.'
Bosco, Bantry, Ireland
Lois Rees
The Church of England does pays its way. If you think the government pays stipends (clergy 'wages'), you're very much mistaken. The people in the pews already pay for their pastors - and for Synod and for all the rest.
Richard Doney, Oxford, UK
His lack of sensitivity, loyalty, or common sense are evident, and nothing he said today has dispelled the public's perception.
It is incomprehensible that a world spiritual leader would abandon so many of his flock, as Williams has done to Anglicans in Africa who struggle daily to co-exist with Shari'a law.
Would this vain, foolish old man want this for England? Does he not realize that Islam brooks no competitors, and that one cannot have a little bit of Shari'a? It is all or nothing. And once Shari'a has been established, it would truly take an Act of God to get rid of it.
Poor England. You're really done for.
J Cline, Ottawa, Canada
"Non-Christians fear loosing their unlawful freedoms."
Mohammed, London, UK
What is unlawful about the freedoms enjoyed under UK law by "non-Christians"? Why should people not be afraid of losing them if Sharia became a part of UK law? You confirm the worst fears of the AoC's critics.
Amin Aswet, Gibraltar,
Williams has drawn the General Synod and the Church into an argument that they cannot win and which the Church can only lose.
Most ordinary church goers will be bewildered by the Archbishop's remarks and his challenge to the constitutional settlement of this country. These people like myself, will wonder how much longer they can attend a church whose values now seem so alien.
Although an Anglican I believe in our secular system of law - with one law for all and equality before that law. I cannot accept the dual system which the Church appears to advocate and I will withdraw from the Church before these principles are prejudiced by the intervention of organised religion.
Mark, Berkhamsted,
Why will the Prime minister not do just exactly what his predecessor Tony Brown did?
Tony Brown appointed Rowan to destroyed the Anglican Communion and latter left Anglican Communion to joined Roman Catholic Church. I will not be surprise to see Gordon Brown leaving State to another Country or becoming a Roman Catholic after he would have allow Rowan to extend his damage to the State.
I still think it’s time for the defender of THE FAITH (QEII) to remove Rowan from the office before it is too late, or she is no longer defending THE FAITH. Giving someone the courtesy of resigning should not be offered to someone who undermines the moral and legal authority of the State and the Church. He is becoming too dangerous to the community and the Church,. It is not unreasonable to think that flippant remarks like this could lead to rioting and loss of life for which he would hold great responsibility.
I think it will be good for him to go back to the secular University and be teaching.
Olugbenga Olajide, Chicago, IL USA
The Church of England should be disestablished without further ado and its clergy and members of its Synod should pay their own way in the world. Then they can spout all the claptrap they like. But to have these fools under the protection of the state is an offence to civil life.
Lois Rees, Lyme, Dorset
The people of England must not be much concerned about Sharia law coming to their country, no, that will not happen
The remarks made by the good Christian Archbishop of Canterbury were made in the academic way to see and find out what kind of laws are under Islam. Well, the Islamic law is a religious law,used all over the Moslem world today. There are good parts in the Sharia and there are bad parts which are horrible to even think, such as amputation of hands, limbs, legs,ect. Under Sharia the lawyers make very little money, under Roman Christian law they make a lot of money. It is all about religion and most of it about money.
Sharia is good only for the Islamic countries because they are used to it, the West has its own laws because we are used to them.Accusing and asking for the good Archbishop to resign that is Christian intolerance to say the least If the Archbishop is not allowed to express himself who then is. This is Christian intolerance,this is Sharia for you .
vespasianus, Paramus n.j, United States
How dare people suggest that the ABC's speech was 'too academic to understand'. If it was, he shouldn't have given it. But some of us did understand it, only too well.
His speech has threatened the well-being of all other minority groups in the country.
http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/
Dr. Irene Lancaster, Haifa, Israel
The Archbishop must seek mercy from God as he has let down the Church and is nothing but a paradoxical figure for the Church.
He has with his remarks been a huge let down for our NATO Coalition that serve to protect the Christian values of Europe.
I still feel that his remarks are a detriment to the Church and he should do the honourable thing and resign as his position has become untenable.
The Church needs a leader with wisdom, intellect and the vision to take it forward in this third millennium. Back door collusion with faiths of the Taliban are nothing but a travesty and betrayal of the office to which the Archbishop holds.
For the sake of Christianity in the modern era he should abdicate his responsibility and a new leader for the Church be appointed.
Some people have the intellect and wisdom to quantify the business of Government and the Church and also understand International Law and Human Rights.
Resign with dignity rather than be seen as nothing but a fool.
The Director, LONDON, England
The Archbishop appears to be putting forth the argument that all religious denomnations should be able to sift out what they don't like about British Law and replace it with things they like.In his world,when a religious belief,such as no adoptions to homosexuals,bump up against a law alowing same,it will be all right to bypass the law.The total law,as written,would only apply to people of no sworn religion.
ron, topsham,
His energy would best be spent protecting christians in the muslim world that are being murdered for their religion and beliefs.
Imagine the reaction if you were to go to Iran and suggest such an idea.
Muslims should not have to choose between cultural or state loyalty, if they don´t like the UK laws they can always go to one of the countries that does follow sharia law.
He is doing a great job turning Christians into Agnostics, isn't he?
M. Stephenson, Mallorca, Spain
Archbishop Rowan is the most enlightened and thoughtful leaders of the Anglican Communion and of our country.
His initiative in opening the debate on including aspects of Islamic sharia law should be responded to with cool heads and rational discussion instead the tabloid media frenzy which muddies the waters.
Sound public debate will lead to a greater unity of people of all faiths and none in this tolerant and great nation. The Archbishop has started a much-needed review of the place of sharia and Muslims in British society.
Ali Kalsheker, Birmingham, West Midlands
Well, these are bad news for Britain. The fact that the Synod supported Dr (?) Williams means the following:
1. Britain is moving towards Middle Ages, when religion dominated in every sphere: social, military, laws, etc. In this case it would be Islam that will dominate, not the CofE.
2. British establishment is scared of British muslim minority and ready to make any consessions possible for the false sense of appeasement.
3. The public opinion on this matter is ignored by the goverment as usual. We saw this during the start of Iraq fiasko, we see it now and we will see it again.
In the near future we will see some form of Sharia law coming to existence in Britain. Once this happen, there will be mass exodus of white, Christian Brits out of the doomed country. It's already happening, the Sharia law will be the last straw that will beak the camel's back of British society. I wish I was wrong, but this is the way the events are developing.
Oleg, Toronto, Canada
He is the Archbishop of Canterbury. His job, surely, is to spread the word of Jesus Christ, to lead his own church and make a Christian contribution to public life from an Anglican perspective. He might also want to draw attention to the persecution of Christians all over the world, not least in Islamic countries. You'd have thought that would be a pretty full day's work for anyone, a real challenge. But he then decides to focus on Islamic law and the problems therein. That's a bit like me hiring an electrician to fix my lights, and coming home to find him retiling my bathroom (while my lights remain unfixed). I mean, fine, he might be quiet good at it, perhaps it needs doing. But it's not his job - it's not what he is there for! Perhaps - and I don't mean this nastily - he should retire to an Oxford college and focus his energies on interfaith matters such as the present controversy, if that's where his mind wanders. Perhaps he is quite literally and genuinely in the wrong job.
David Mills, London,
Finally, sanity prevails. Now can all the bigoted people who were quick to criticise the Archbishop before sparing a second to fully understand his words, refrain from causing a hige furore simply because he was intelligent enough to voice his opinion on a sensitive issue. Regardless of whether anyone or everyone agreed with him is irrelevant - the UK is supposed to pride itself on 'freedom of speech and opinion' yet the reaction of the last few days proved anything but. Give him a break.
Zakiyya, Leicester,
Sorry my Lord Archbishop, you cant eat your cake and still have it. The members of the Synod may applaud but the Anglican Communion world wide is not amused neither are our fellow Christians of other denominations. Please derobe yourself respectfully.
With this harakiri, i wonder how you would manage this year's Lambeth Conference- thats if there would be any. Go Rowan GO!
Chimaroke, London, UK
"Universal principles are simple: do no harm, love your neighbour as yourself. This is not restricted to any faith/religion, it is just basic ethics."
Not true.
These trite sentiments have nothing to do with Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism or Sikhism.
Dont project your provincial Christian values onto other faiths.
allens, Stoneham, USA
Dr Williams is very clever - He mumbles into his beard and then blames everyone else for not hearing what he said!
But after trying to defend his folly a proverb will answer him:
"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise" Proverbs 12:15
Justin, London,
Send him to Poland to deal with that Exorcism Debacle
rex, pit, pa
A leader in a time of severe sheepishness.
wayne, Abuja,
I am sure that he is a very nice chap, and history teaches us that intelligent self loving nice chaps can be delusional, perhaps he is right, perhaps we should introduce sharia law to everybody AND make it an offence to be NON Muslim, it is only fair, perhaps we could have torture and punishment of Non Muslims like they do in some Muslim Nations around the world? Somehow I do not think that if Christians set up in Tehran and demanded Christian Church Moral Law that they would get a fair hearing - more like the church would get burtnt down with the congregation in it! - Who is wrong? I know that for that very reason I choose not to live in a Muslim country, and it is the choice of individuals. No one forces them, and so they should not expect to force a decision based on a minority interest.
Long Live choice, long live freedom, long live the Union of The Kingdoms of England Scotland and Wales!
Dominic Tattersall, Burnley, England
while I do not agree with the thoughts of this rather ignorant archbishop in the ways of ordinary people and what is happening to Uk being invaded once again by foreigners we have to realise that we as a nation are paying for having an Empire There is a saying WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND This is useful for everyone to remember in life we never get away from our past, sooner or later we have to pay for our mistakes
elizabeth, edinburgh, scotland
Dear Emily from Cambridge,
I am sorry to hear that you've also misunderstood me. I hope this news article from the newyorktimes (Published: October 22, 2001) may clear things up. Please read it.
"Islam Attracts Converts By the Thousand"
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/22/national/22CONV.html
Mohammed, London, UK
So, he is the defender of "Faiths" now, not just Christianity?
Does that mean the substantial number of Jedi's in Britain, the Druids, voodooism, people who believe in Zeus, Ra, Jupiter, Thor, Sun Gods, human sacrifice theism, maybe even back to Cave Bear worship? All of them, Archbishop?
Pity he didn't have some faith in evidence. He might be taken a bit more seriously.
Vaal, Newbury, England
Surely it essential to separate law and the judicial system from all religious association. These are people who believe in magic, turning water into wine, walking on water, flying horses and virgin births.
I'm sure Mr. Williams is a nice chap, but he is delusional and we should show as much interest in his views as we would to the rantings of the Islamic movement and the witches and druids.
Come on!
Craig Franklin, Kingsbridge, Devon
Except the Lord build they who build,build in vain...
unlearned, London, England
Surely, State, Church and Courts, while entirely separate entities intervening in different areas of daily life, should respect values common to all. Universal principles are simple: do no harm, love your neighbour as yourself. This is not restricted to any faith/religion, it is just basic ethics.
Carla, La Rochelle, France
"There is something sinister about a culture that judges first and tries to understand later.â€
Well, uh, yes, but can we apply this statement to some far more relevant examples? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Indonesia? Basically anyplace where Sharia is practiced would qualify as a judgmental, non-understanding culture.
Good heavens, take off the rosy glasses. Your country teeters on the brink of a social and demographic abyss. And you still dither and wring your hands?
Get rid of Williams. He has discredited himself beyond redemption. His God may forgive him, but we certainly should not.
J Cline, Ottawa, Canada
if he is saying that Islamic law should be applied in Britain that means he must have some valid resons of saying this,you all people out here should ask him the points and then offcourse you are going to realized and understand the importance of Islam and its law.
Sana Khan, Karachi, Pakistan
"Thousands of people have converted to Islam because of 9/11?" -- K. Tyson, Mobile, USA
Nope, you've misunderstood. Thousands of people had converted after reading the Qu'ran and the reason why they read the Qu'ran was due to the huge media coverage straight after 911.
Please watch this YouTube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7YoBwRyWEM
Mohammed, London, UK
Well he would, wouldn't he? Two of a kind.
judy, Liverpool, England
Amazing!! All is forgiven?
Williams and the synod are playing us for fools...... (unless they are the fools).
Zelba, Peterborough,
I too have read the speech several times and it is a confused and ill-thought out speech, not the work of a great and towering intellect. One or two things jump out at me:
1. His misunderstanding of the liberal British constitution, and his constantly muddling civil law with civil society.
2. His dislike of secular government and his seeing it as tyrannical (even the ultra liberal multicultural British state).
3. His authoritarianism and wish to enlarge the role of religion in public life; his knee-jerk espousal of 'big government' to do this. I.e., the state should act to shore up religious minorities. Tantamount to theocracy.
Overall Williams fails to grasp the liberal principle of voluntaryism. Not surprising really, since he is an establishment figure. The biggest practitioners of voluntaryism, after all, were the dissenting Protestant churches that left the C of E in droves to set up their own churches, schools and charities.
Or hadn't he noticed?
devorgilla, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Mohammed, if all Muslims were like you, Islamophobia would be fully justified. Rather like a phobia of Nazi fascism in the second world war, we would be right if we fear and hate a fanatical system or religious sect whose followers would take over the world and kill all those who oppose them.
Thankfully there are plenty of normal, moderate Muslims around, however I expect people in the West (including many Muslims!) rightly fear the spread of Islamic extremism and worry about the extent to which it has already infected the Muslim community here. If you look at the devastation of countries overtaken by extremists (of any kind) and the atrocities committed in countries under strict Sharia law, you cannot believe that it would be right to subject the world to this terror. Western civilization does not have everything right, but its faults are to be judged by God, not by you.
If you interpret Islam this way, you have no right to resent Islamophobia.
Emily, Cambridge,
Gordon Brown endorsing someone is hardly likely to improve a reputation.
RB, Aberdeen,
Thousands of people have converted to Islam because of 9/11? Doubtful. If they did, it was out of fear and nothing more.
I do think that the Archbishop was correct in one thing--if Christians keep turning away from reality, Sharia will be the future for all Westerners.
It is obvious the Archbishop is not sorry for anthing he said. As a man, he has nothing to fear from Sharia and as a non-believing Christian, he has nothing to fear from Sharia. Too bad for the rest of us.
K. Tyson, Mobile, USA
He seems like an unbiased, open minded, and most of all a good christian. Some of it was taken out of proportion and blown up in the media.
Britiain is a perfect example of weaving various threads to form the multi-cultural fabric which i greatly admire.
Our legal system has the flexibilty to allow alternative methods of dispute resolution, and if it means individuals opt for such a tribunal whose decision they would accept as binding-so beit.
Me personaly, i couldn't live under any other law but the English Legal System!
babar, Birmingham, England
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ask whether, in an increasingly secular society, the law would continue to recognise that "religious communities form the consciences of believers".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What an absolute joke! The beauty of the law is that it should be completely independent of religious beliefs so that everyone is equal under the law.
John, London, England
Cracking stuff - now that he has been criticised he is backing down. I think that is a brilliant example of how to really undermine your personal and professional integrity in the eyes of the public. He would have done better to stand by what he said and not bow, wrong though he may have been.
However there must be scope for religious and legal debate in this country. Our public figures must occasionally say something controversial just to provoke a serious debate. Therefore, I don't want to see the man lose his job but keep on provoking our thoughts, opinions and even anger!
Chris, Portsmouth, UK
The reason for this type of outrage as soon as anyone mentions anything Islamic is pure and simple.
Christians (not only in UK but worldwide) are frightened of Islam overtaking their country/their lives...hence why we use the word "Islamophobia". It's real. Christians are worried about the spread of Islam in the western world. Non-Christians fear loosing their unlawful freedoms.
Since 911 and thanks to the huge amounts of media coverage, people were eager to learn more about Islam and thereafter...thousands of people have converted...
Mohammed, London, UK
Seperate State and Church and Courts.
Steve
Steve, London,
I agree with Giles Raser and, must say, have been disappointed by the manner in which The Times has conducted itself in this whole debate
Gareth Williams, Cardiff, UK
This reminds me of when Dr David Owen was Foreign Secretary. King Hussain of Jordan was reputed to have asked " and is he a bad Dr as well ". ? It must be a Welsh thing.
Desmond Taylor, Houston, USA Tx
Peter
What are you talking about. Have you read the transcript? It's way too academic to understand. The media picked up on his speech and interpreted it as they saw fit. I have read through it several times, and still have no idea exactly what he was implying.
Matt
matt, humberside, uk
The Media has to have someone to denigrate. Why they think the public continually want someone to be hounded I do not know. The only consolation the Archbishop has is that next week they'll be onto somebody else.
Anna Wathen , Stratford-upon-Avon, UK
Maybe if Dr Williams stuck to issues within the church, rather than trying to mix himself up in politics, he would have avoided this row and its likely repercussions for the country and the Muslim community, and sorted out problems within the Church of England. Then again, with the kind of views he airs when he does mix himself up in politics, perhaps it's better for the Church that Dr Williams leaves it well alone.
Emily, Cambridge,
Sounds like the Rev Giles Fraser is as embarrassed as many other church folk - however, his characterisation as "a pack of dogs" for those who object to attempts to give away their birthright, sounds decidedly unchristian of him, to say the least.
Ian McC, Edinburg, Scotland
Mr Williams spoke English. We understood very well what he said. There is something fuzzy about people saying they didn't say what they said.
Peter, Brussels,