Sharia law comments criticised

AckwelFoley

Religious and secular groups have criticised the Archbishop of Canterbury after he said the adoption of elements of Islamic sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".

Dr Rowan Williams said there was a place for finding a "constructive accommodation" in areas such as marriage - allowing Muslim women to avoid western divorce proceedings.

But his comments have been criticised by Christian and secular groups, while a spokesman for Prime Minister Gordon Brown insisted British law would be based on British values, and sharia law would be no justification for acting against national law.

Mr Brown's spokesman said: "Our general position is that sharia law cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor should the principles of sharia law be included in a civil court for resolving contractual disputes.

"If there are specific instances like stamp duty, where changes can be made in a way that's consistent with British law and British values, in a way to accommodate the values of fundamental Muslims, that is something the Government would look at."

He added: "There is always going to be a debate about this issue. In general terms, if there are specific instances that can be looked at on a case-by-case basis, that is something we can look at. But the Prime Minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values."

Alistair McBay, spokesman for the National Secular Society said: "In a plural society, all citizens are equal under the law and the Archbishop's comments directly undermines this.

"We have segregated schools, segregated scout groups and even segregated toilets for Muslims, and now the Archbishop says we should have different laws, it's madness. On the one hand religious groups say they want to integrate, but actually they want to segregate."

Stephen Green, national director of Christian Voice said: "This is a Christian country with Christian laws. If Muslims want to live under sharia law then they are free to emigrate to a country where sharia law is already in operation. Any accommodation with sharia law does nothing to help social cohesion. Christian law has been eroded by secularism and this country was founded on Christian values."

Dr Williams said other religions enjoyed such tolerance of their own laws, but stressed that it could never be allowed to take precedence over an individual's rights as a citizen. He said it would also require a change in perception of what sharia involved beyond the "inhumanity" of extreme punishments and attitudes to women seen in some Islamic states


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20080207/tuk-sharia-law-comments-criticised-6323e80_1.html

wes

Dual legal systems would be pointless. I see no need to introduce Shar'ia law in the UK (or anywhere for that matter).

Having said that, the Archbishops comments are designed to cause a stir. The Anglican church attendance numbers have gone down quite a bit, so its seems they have resorted to this silliness.

Stephen Green, national director of Christian Voice said: "This is a Christian country with Christian laws. If Muslims want to live under sharia law then they are free to emigrate to a country where sharia law is already in operation. Any accommodation with sharia law does nothing to help social cohesion. Christian law has been eroded by secularism and this country was founded on Christian values."

The above comment is ridiculous. It wasn't a Muslim who has said this.
Also, I taught the UK was a liberal secular democracy. British politicians like to mentioned that quite a bit.

AckwelFoley

wes wrote: »

Dual legal systems would be pointless. I see no need to introduce Shar'ia law in the UK (or anywhere for that matter).

Having said that, the Archbishops comments are designed to cause a stir. The Anglican church attendance numbers have gone down quite a bit, so its seems they have resorted to this silliness.

Yes, i think its either just ignoance or a stunt to tapp into the Islamophobia within some ppl

wes

snyper wrote: »

Yes, i think its either just ignoance or a stunt to tapp into the Islamophobia within some ppl

That or a misguided attempt to be nice to Muslims.

philologos

wes wrote: »

Having said that, the Archbishops comments are designed to cause a stir. The Anglican church attendance numbers have gone down quite a bit, so its seems they have resorted to this silliness.

As an Anglican myself, I think I should refute this rubbish that the Archbishop is merely doing this to reflect the declining Anglican church attendance in the UK. Listening to interviews and reading transcripts of what this man has said before, he is merely looking for perhaps a means to lessen the tensions that some in Islam have in the UK at the minute. Channel 4 did a documentary on the Sharia courts in the UK and it seems that many do wish that they were ruled under their Caliphs as opposed to the State itself. Rowan Williams has been involved in interfaith work before and I think he is qualified to make such an assertion. He refers to the courts of Judaism in the UK also, and is a pivotal figure in the Council of Christians and Jews in the UK, and has been in discussion with certain groups of Muslims also. Which allows for positive debate and dialogue. I think this is out of genuine concern as opposed to merely a stunt to get more people to go to Church?

May I also note that the Archbishop makes regular statements in the media about Christianity and other topics. It's not an isolated media statement. If you wish to look at more of his speeches and interviews you may do so on his website, all the transcripts are availiable:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/91

Edit: Actually, an interview in which he was discussing civil and religious law and their roles in the UK probably put this article in BBC News in the first place. This is from BBC Radio 4 World at One:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1573

wes

Jakkass wrote: »

As an Anglican myself, I think I should refute this rubbish that the Archbishop is merely doing this to reflect the declining Anglican church attendance in the UK.

I have seen him on Sky News just now, where he clarified his comments and I was wrong about the Archbishop. Apologies!

Bottle_of_Smoke

I don't think his comments are a big deal.

"Dr Williams said other religions enjoyed such tolerance of their own laws, but stressed that it could never be allowed to take precedence over an individual's rights as a citizen."

Seems safe enough. Seems to mainly refer to divorce. What are the differences between an Islamic divorce & a western one?

philologos

What I found surprising is that he mentions Jewish and Muslim religious courts on divorce, but not any for Christianity?

If Christian priests are allowed to add married couples onto the register, (as are Imams?) they should be allowed the possibility to rule on divorce in the same light.

wes

Jakkass wrote: »

What I found surprising is that he mentions Jewish and Muslim religious courts on divorce, but not any for Christianity?

If Christian priests are allowed to add married couples onto the register, (as are Imams?) they should be allowed the possibility to rule on divorce in the same light.

I don't think the Muslim divorces ones are recognized by the state (no clue about the Jewish one). They have to get a separate civil divorce along with the religious one.

I taught Christianity had no divorce or is that just Catholicism?

philologos

Catholicism. Well Biblically divorce is deemed to be acceptable on grounds of unchastity or cheating.

And yes Christians have to get a civil divorce as well. The religious leaders are allowed to add people to the register, but not remove them.

Sesshoumaru

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

What are the differences between an Islamic divorce & a western one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1SGYftwcfw

A documentary on Channel 4 recently about divorce under Sharia law.

Rev Hellfire

The BBC had an interesting article on the matter and shows how Sharia law (or at least certain sections, ie no death penalties etc) can be compatible with British law. It revolves around the case of the Beth Din which can issue binding decisions when it arbitrates, I'm sure a similar system could be implemented with respect to sharia law, the crux been that both parties must accept the arbitrator.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7233040.stm

All in all it seems perfectly reasonable to me.

donaghs

"English law states that any third party can be agreed by two sides to arbitrate in a dispute".

I think this is the relevant quote from the BBC article. Nothing unusual here. Except the judgements and trial and punishment methods would have to been within the framework of English law and human rights.

Looking at attempts to bring in sharia Law in countries like Sudan, Nigeria and elsewhere, I can immediatley see many problems here.

Sesshoumaru

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The BBC had an interesting article on the matter and shows how Sharia law (or at least certain sections, ie no death penalties etc) can be compatible with British law. It revolves around the case of the Beth Din which can issue binding decisions when it arbitrates, I'm sure a similar system could be implemented with respect to sharia law, the crux been that both parties must accept the arbitrator.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7233040.stm

All in all it seems perfectly reasonable to me.

What happens to Atheists? Are we the only suckers that have to live under man made laws? Will religious politicians be allowed to vote in parliament on laws that will only effect atheists? Can they be asked to leave the chamber so that laws for atheists will be voted on by only atheist politicians? How will it effect national unity when your next neighbor doesn't live under the same laws as yourself?

No sane person would agree to let this happen!

Rev Hellfire

Indeed as I stated the main point is that both sides must agree to the arbitrator.

Raising countries like Sudan, Nigeria, etc is a red herring when the majority of muslims (or at least the institutions that represent them) have stated time and time again that they do not wish to have such legal systems implemented here.

pH

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

What happens to Atheists? Are we the only suckers that have to live under man made laws? Will religious politicians be allowed to vote in parliament on laws that will only effect atheists? Can they be asked to leave the chamber so that laws for atheists will be voted on by only atheist politicians? How will it effect national unity when your next neighbor doesn't live under the same laws as yourself?

No sane person would agree to let this happen!

I really don't see the problem here - all that's being said is that if 2 parties have a civil dispute and they both agree on a third party (be it a person, committe or council) to make a decision on that dispute then why not?

Atheists should also be free to have a dispute between 2 atheists resolved by a third party of their choosing if they both agree on that third party, perhaps the humanist society could offer its services if there was enough demand.

These courts can't punish or sentence people, they would solely be able to make a legally binding decisions in relation to civil disputes, only when both parties have given their agreement beforehand to be bound by their judgement.

It seems a perfectly proper and fair system to me.

philologos

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

What happens to Atheists? Are we the only suckers that have to live under man made laws?

If you are an atheist you believe they are all man made laws. All in all religious laws are generally more strict than secular law.

Sesshoumaru

Jakkass wrote: »

If you are an atheist you believe they are all man made laws. All in all religious laws are generally more strict than secular law.

Yes of course, I was being polite. I just want to live in a country where one system is good enough for everyone living there. This is a slippery slope, one day it will be Muslims looking for something, next day it will be Christians. I am very apprehensive about where all this will end up if allowed to continue.

pretty*monster

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Yes of course, I was being polite. I just want to live in a country where one system is good enough for everyone living there. This is a slippery slope, one day it will be Muslims looking for something, next day it will be Christians. I am very apprehensive about where all this will end up if allowed to continue.

There's already pleanty of secualar arbitration though. It's used in a lot of commercial disputes as well as for personal matters such a s divorce. The principle of arbitration is that when no crime has been committed against the state people have the right to elect to sort out their disputes between themselves.
You wouldn't, I presume, dispute that they have this right in an informal way, if you and your neighbour are locked in a a bettle over some tree roots encroacing into your garden you need not drag him infron of the courts, but could, in theory settle the argument over a cup of tea.
Arbitration merely formalises this arangement and makes it legally binding so long as both parties submit to it. If two parties in a civil dispute both want the dispute settled according the the teachings of their religion I don't think that there can be anything in principle wrong with that. (And this is coming from an anti-immigration atheist).

philologos

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Yes of course, I was being polite. I just want to live in a country where one system is good enough for everyone living there. This is a slippery slope, one day it will be Muslims looking for something, next day it will be Christians. I am very apprehensive about where all this will end up if allowed to continue.

I see the opportunities for William's suggestions as I'm a Christian and I'm a bit disturbed by the way some laws are going in this country. Perhaps religious arbitration is a good idea, provided both parties agree to it. In situations such as employee - business disputes, and in relation to marriage / divorce to deem if a divorce case is necessary. By no means is anyone suggesting that this should be placed among the secular population. From my point of view having this option available would enhance freedom of religion. I can see your apprehension, but at the same time it would be nice if we would actually be able to keep the ruling that Christ gave us to go to the priests before bringing it to a secular court.

Hobbes

wes wrote: »

Dual legal systems would be pointless. I see no need to introduce Shar'ia law in the UK (or anywhere for that matter).

Actually there is already a dual legal system in the UK. There are Sharia lawyers in the UK who follow Sharia law within the confines of the UK legal system.

wes

Hobbes wrote: »

Actually there is already a dual legal system in the UK. There are Sharia lawyers in the UK who follow Sharia law within the confines of the UK legal system.

I was under the impression that a dual legal system, would mean that Shari'a, would automatically apply to Muslims in the UK. This is not the case.

wotisthere

I am Irish in Ireland. I uphold and respect the laws of this land to the best I can.If a foreigner for what ever reasons enters this country he/she will respect the laws that are there.The laws are our laws let them be respected by all.No out side third parties should be allowed to change or attempt to change them.The Church as usual , we have had our fill of it here in Ireland for so many years try to poke their nose into politics from time to time .I say , stick to preaching those who bother to turn up at your service and respect your constitution . Do you have one in the u.k ?

Hobbes

wes wrote: »

I was under the impression that a dual legal system, would mean that Shari'a, would automatically apply to Muslims in the UK. This is not the case.

Ahh ok.

wotisthere wrote: »

I am Irish in Ireland.

You are aware there are Irish people in Ireland who are muslims? Being Irish and muslim are not mutually exclusive.

PDN

It looks like the witch hunt has commenced against Archbishop Williams. We may expect to hear calls for his resignation for the rest of the week.

As an evangelical Christian I have no bias towards Islam, but I think what Williams was saying is eminently sensible. The Church of England has ecclesiastical courts and Judaism has rabbinical councils. To deny Muslims equal opportunities and powers is a clear case of discrimination. The word 'Islamophobia' is often misused, but I think it is appropriate in this case.

philologos

PDN wrote: »

It looks like the witch hunt has commenced against Archbishop Williams. We may expect to hear calls for his resignation for the rest of the week.

All of 2 people on the UK General Synod so far. I believe he's far too popular to resign, and most Anglicans want him to remain as Archbishop of Canterbury.

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

All of 2 people on the UK General Synod so far. I believe he's far too popular to resign, and most Anglicans want him to remain as Archbishop of Canterbury.

I was thinking more of the morons on Sky News and in the tabloids.

irish_bob

PDN wrote: »

I was thinking more of the morons on Sky News and in the tabloids.

whats wrong with sky news
are you thinking of fox news

sky news is nothing like fox

PDN

irish_bob wrote: »

whats wrong with sky news
are you thinking of fox news

sky news is nothing like fox

Comparing Sky News with Fox (both owned by the same people) is like comparing MacDonalds with Burger King. They're both crap.

The Archbishop was very clear that he was talking about a limited application of sharia law in regard to marriage and divorce etc.

Yet almost immediately Sky News run a poll - "Should sharia law be implemented in the UK?" Cue for several thousand uneducated buffoons to think "Shariah law? That means cutting people's hands off! Let's hit that red button so I can participate in a meaningless poll!"

philologos

PDN wrote: »

The Archbishop was very clear that he was talking about a limited application of sharia law in regard to marriage and divorce etc.

It's clear he's been put under a lot of pressure. He spoke at the General Synod the other day, saying that the wording was perhaps a bit clumsy and that all interpretation issues were his fault, but he says that he was not wrong for speaking on behalf of the situation of another faith community in the UK.

donaghs

Hobbes wrote: »

Actually there is already a dual legal system in the UK. There are Sharia lawyers in the UK who follow Sharia law within the confines of the UK legal system.

If it operates within the confines of UK law, then its not exactly a dual system?

I did read the speech but have to admit its very long and tends to weave in and out of topics rather than addressing them point-by-point.

There has been a lot of press hysteria. But I can understand people being concerned about a possible return of religious courts, inquisitions and so on - no matter what your religion, or lack of. A dual system, i.e. separate or equal to secular/civil law would indeed be time to start worrying.