 The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".
Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.
| That really should be their problem and not the problem of the British legal system. |
Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.
| No. It would subject Christians, Jews, agnostics, atheists, Hindoos, Buddhists, Jains, Shintos, and worshippers of the Divine Elvis to Mohammedan strictures that they probably disagree with. To coin a phrase, they might not relate to the Mohammedan legal system. |
For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.
| Which would then be free to issue decisions that are at odds with the law of the land, to which previously all the inhabitants of the Sceptred Isle have been subject. That's actually been one of the selling points of Jolly Olde England. |
He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
| Well, y'see, the state represents whatcha might call a culture. It's evolved over the years, but it's come to encompass lots of things that make Britain different from, for instance, Bulgaria. Or Arabia. If Bulgarians come to live in Britain they're expected to learn how to be Brits, rather than Bulgarians. People expect them to ditch the habits they learned at old Uncle Ivan's knee and replace them with habits similar to those of Clive and Emma. If Mohammedans come to live in Britain it seems fair to expect the same of them. |
In an exclusive interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, ahead of a lecture to lawyers in London later on Monday, Dr Williams argues this relies on Sharia law being better understood. At the moment, he says "sensational reporting of opinion polls" clouds the issue. He stresses that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".
| The stonings, the public executions, the subservience of the common man to the whims of whatever holy man is placed over him. The religious police. Being forbidden to change religions unless you're becoming a Mohammedan. But, hey, as long as the Archdruid sez it's okay, go ahead. |
But Dr Williams says the argument that "there's one law for everybody... I think that's a bit of a danger".
| Many of us consider that single concept to be the most significant contribution the Brits have made to the world, bar none. |
"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law."
Dr Williams adds: "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences. We don't either want a situation where, because there's no way of legally monitoring what communities do... people do what they like in private in such a way that that becomes another way of intensifying oppression inside a community."
| Islam is all about oppression. The Brits have spent a couple thousand years achieving their rights, seeing them evolve into the Magna Charta, and from there into the magnificent body of Common Law. The common man spent year after year tugging his forelock at the approach of the gentry, yearning for his freedom, religious or otherwise -- it used to be against the law to be a Methodist or a Presbyterian or a Catholic, remember. And now His Excellency the Archbishop is casually prepared to return John Bull to those glorious days of yesteryear, replacing the parish priest with an imam, replacing the oppressive panoply of clerks and bishops and such with qazis and hafiz' and mullahs. If you're going to return to oppressing the populace, at least use honest English traditions, fergawdsake. You don't have to import them from Arabia. And when you do, the commons can again begin the long climb out from under the thumb of the gentry, who know what's best for them. If you're lucky, they'll remain honest Englishmen and not chop your heads off like the Frenchies did when they disposed of their gentry... Oh. Wait. Which King Chuck was it that got his head lopped off? |
Multiculturalism 'divisive'
His comments are likely to fuel the debate over multiculturalism in the UK.
| Y'think? What wuz yer first clue? |
Last month, one of Dr William's colleagues, the Bishop of Rochester, said that non-Muslims may find it hard to live or work in some areas of the UK. The Right Reverend Dr Michael Nazir-Ali said there was "hostility" in some areas and described the government's multicultural policies as divisive. He said there had been a worldwide resurgence of Islamic extremism, leading to young people growing up alienated from the country they lived in. He has since received death threats and has been placed under police protection.
| Whereas the Archdruid, perfectly happy to see the commons return to their natural state of deference to their betters, hasn't received any death threats. |
|