Newsnight is asking a question tonight: is the reaction to the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments on Sharia Law Islamophobic? There is a one word answer to that question. No.
Why is it that we cannot talk about issues of religion and race without people immediately jumping on a politically correct bandwagon?
I don't want any form of Sharia Law in this country at all. Ever. That is not being Islamaphobic. It's my opinion and it's one shared by 99 per cent of the British people, as well as, I suspect, by the majority of British Muslims.. Sharia Law has nothing in common with British values and parts of it could fairly be desribed as downright evil. Anyone who believes that women and men are equal in the eyes of society and the law could not countenance it.
Rowan Williams was misguided and wrong. Simple as that. And the reaction across the political spectrum has demonstrated it in very graphic terms.
112 comments:
What's wrong with being islamophobic? It seems like an eminently sensible position to me.
As has become apparent since the Archbishop's comments were first aired (only 24 hrs ago), Sharia law is already being applied in many Muslim communities across the UK.
10/10 to the Archbishop for getting this out in the open. Now we need to decide where we go from here.
Not really. What's wrong with having the debate?
It is not what he said, which is covered by the basic idea of free speach, but the reaction to it. Instead of people saying they disagree, we have a bizarre explosion of claims that the Arch Bish wants to hand us all over to a bunch of murderers.
The Mail poll today shows it for what it is, a right wing reaction to a non-starter of an idea, but an idea that may have interesting consequences within the Islamic community.
Yes you are, you have picked Islamic law out of a list. If you were complaining equally about Talmudic and Papal law as well, both of which were covered by Dr Williams then you would have a defence.
I would say properly instituting these tribunal would be the rough equivalent of the Human Rights Act short cutting the cost and wasted effort of the court cases that legitimise them. But that wouldn't be a n argument in favour would it.
Betty( David )Boothroyd- Yes ..black is white , ..this is not a hat... gibber gibber
Chris Paul- Yes we are... * endless boring details of no relevance*
Bob Piper - Yes you wozzoocks ( a charming regional word)
All sane people - NO
Sorted
I suppose not, but it brings out the racist brigade, whose phobias cause noxious bilge to spill out.
Careful not to become the terrorists friend by describing all non-extreme rght-wingers as "one-worlder trolls". Rowan was only exercising his freedom of speech. Unconsidered, poor language if all he was proposing was an extension of understanding on all sides, but don't hound him out of office because of his non-binding statements...you begin to sound like your "enemy"
Nonsense, Iain. British Jews have used Battei din uncontroversially for many years. Why should arbitration tribunals guided by sharia be any different?
We're talking civil disputes here, not arm-chopping or stoning. UK law already provides for this.
Williams' ridiculous mistake, blithering fool that he is, has been to raise the issue as a matter of controversy, and thus setting off another round of tabloid xenophobia.
I think Phobia is misused by the PC zealots, it now is taken to mean hatred of, not scared of. I don't hate muslims but I am scared of their religions goal of world domination. A little concession here, give a little there and suddenly we are part of the Caliphate.
The Archbish is bonkers, something I've always suspected. His thin, reedy, 'sincere' voice gives me the creeps; and his air of affected intellectualism and moral superiority has always been unfortunate. There is very little of the humble cleric in this smug, self-satisfied man. Now we know, for sure, how disconnected he is from reality - and why he is no longer suitable to continue in his post. To coin a phrase, he is unfit for purpose. Why do we need two Archbishops anyway? Britain is a small country, the number of C of E churchgoers is declining - maybe redundancy is in order. e'd never notice if he wasn't there.
The very terminology - islamophobic - implies a fear of being seen as politically incorrect. We are becoming afraid of our own shadows and its about time that we turned our faces to the sun and demanded freedom of expression again.
Sharia law has no place in the UK legal system. It should never be recognised as a legal system in the UK. If Muslims want to practice and live by Sharia law, let them live in a country that adopts the system. If they want to live in the UK, then they must accept and abide by our laws and legal system. Much as if a British citizen is arrsted in a sharia country, they aren't able to ask to be dealt with under a British-style legal system.
"I don't want any form of Sharia Law in this country at all. Ever."
Even if freely consenting people agree to be bound by Sharia law in a civil dispute - just as occurs currently with some Jewish Law and whenever people agree to binding arbitration under certain trade body/consumer codes etc.? I suspect that this is near to the current legal position and I am not sure that the Archbishop was proposing much more.
A Realist - No. Not "thanks to the Archbishop" Crazyboots.
The Archibishop of York, David Sentamu broke this news and named names over a year ago. So Archibishop Crazyboots is way behind on the big news. Dr. Sentamu even identified Somali "gars" in London where the law is administered by tribal "elders" and punishments are the primitive habit of making the perp's family give blood money to the victim's family. So suave, I find.
Dr Sentamu has been warning about this for ages.
Tony Kennick - our English Common Law has not only served our civil society with outstanding success for around 1,000 years, but has been exported all over the world, where its robustness serves citizens from India to the United States, Canada, Oz, New Zealand,Singapore, Malaysia and several points in Africa. It's the most just legal system in the world.
Still waiting for Peter Hitchens to express his view! Send for the Hitch!
Verity
What's wrong with being islamophobic - it's against the law that's what!
You can't uphold the integrity of English Law (and criticise the Preposterous Priest who undermines it) whilst feeling yourself free to break a Law which outlaws overt insults on racial and religious grounds. By suggesting that islamophobia be tolerated you play right into the hands of those like Williams who argue for one law for one lot of us an one law for another. Overt islamophobia risks prosecution – so, aside from the moral repugnance of such prejudice, that a good enough reason why it’s wrong!
This is one of those occasions when the question doesn't mean what we think it does.
Islamophobia (fear of Islam) is an invented part of the politically correct lexicon. Its purpose, as with the rest of new-speak is to prevent consideration of ideas and to crush descent without conscious thought being possible.
Any sane human being who understand a religion who's name is after submission and surrender should fear such a religion. Especially when the same religion spent a lot of time falsely telling us it really meant peace ( the peace being only after you have surrendered. )
The fear of Islam is rational and well evidenced in the treatment of other religious minorities is Muslim states such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan, the Gaza strip and Malaysia.
If you don't fear Islam then you really haven't understood the question.
Fear does not mean cowardice or in civility should result, which is the great danger in this situation. It should not result in appeasement or oppression or any curtailment in civil rights. And certainly not the introduction or toleration of rival legal systems.
But the price of freedom is eternal vigilance and fear is an integral part of such vigilance.
I oppose Islam, Christianity, Judaism and all other such cults. I have a greater focus on Islam because it's more of a powerful force in this country. If I lived in the USA I'd be standing against people like Huckabee. And when Christians gain undue influence (one thinks of Peter Vardy) I oppose them
Yes, I'm a proud free thinker. I joined the Brights. There is pride in being without belief, no shame.
ano@4.41: as I noted on a previous post, if all that Williams was saying was that he approved of the current situation vis-a-vis Sharia councils, the Beth Din etc, then there wouldn't be this controversy; his speech would have been unnecessary, since no one has a problem with different religions having their own authorities to judge on religious matters.
THe Archbishop is a dangerous idiot
If Mohammedans want to run their own fiscal affairs according to their faith that's fine by me.
If they wish to settle civil disputes within their own community according to the precepts laid down in their sacred text that's fine by me too.
As long as they don't coerce anyone (including other Moslems) into doing so, don't try and tell me to abide by it, and don't try to claim it gives them exemption from British criminal law, I can't say I care.
Tory in "someone is wrong but i won't explain, oh and i'm right" SHOCKAAAA!
Harry Bassett - Quite. That's why I wrote as I did in the first comment on this thread.
Paddy Briggs, aka One Man Yawn-o-Rama, writes: What's wrong with being islamophobic - it's against the law that's what! Oooooh, the uppity-ness! - the triumphalism of the truly ignorant.
Look phobia up in the dictionary like a good chap, will you? It means fear, sweet thang, not hatred. It's from Greek. Claustrophobia is fear of being caught in large crowds or a contained space, for example. The opposite, fear of open spaces, is agoraphobia. Fear of spiders is arachnophobia, as you may remember from the movie.
Now do you understand the context?
Read Winston Smith's excellent post appearing immediately after your own.
FH - we've been through this before. The Beth Din is nothing like what Archbishop DooLally was promoting and it is destructive to conflate the two.
When I heard about Williams's WATO interview and evening lecture, I immediately thought of native communties in Canada. I grew up in Toronto, and there were experiments in urban self-government/urban aboriginal justice systems in the 1990's. The reason I viewed those parallel systems as legitimate separate-but-equal experiments, was, well, we had stolen the country from under them for a few bottles of whiskey and smallpox-drenched blankets.
It's a bit different here with sharia.
To be charitable to Williams, what I think he's trying to clumsily do is propose an integration of already-existing civil sharia practice with our legal structure, i.e. by acknowledging it happens, you draw people back into seeing the entire system as legitimate.
Instead, he's ignited this firestorm. You read his evening lecture, and my word, he likes to use his £20 words. Our media isn't able to convey that type of depth/breadth/subtlety of argument. Instead, Williams comes across as saying "hey, sharia's ok."
Oh come on Iain, you're a better writer and researcher than that...
Rowan Williams hasn't even said that Sharia law should be introduced in the UK, his lecture has been widely misconstrued and uncritically seized upon by the press.
The point of the lecture was to critique the way in which rights and personhood are understood by ruling hegemonies, and to offer some corrections.
For the media to then claim that he wants to allow Muslims to be exempt from British law or for Sharia law to have precedence says nothing about Williams' lecture and everything about the British press.
The bishop does need a better PR office however.
Asquith -
I wouldn't hold your breath for Hitchens. In a debate on Radio Wales this afternoon he slated Williams before being forced to admit that he hadn't actually even read the lecture.
If reasonable people don't discuss these topics, then the field is left open to people who aren't reasonable at all. I do not want to see Jihadists and Neo-Nazis fighting it out in our streets which is what will happen if we aren't careful.
Trying to put discussion of immigration, race, religion, life-style off-limits will end up causing more trouble than it saves.
I don't see why the Archbishop shouldn't have the same right to debate this particular topic as all of us here on Iain's blog; if one of us says something daft we will soon be told about it. If he says something which most people think is daft, as seems to be the case right now, then he should be told about it too. And that certainly seems to be happening!
However we have every right to expect a bit more common sense from Williams, when he chooses to sound off, than we seem to be getting. He isn't just a blog contributer, or even an obscure academic with a bee in his bonnet.
Whatever private arrangements people choose to make among themselves, which do not contravene the law of the land, are up to them (as long as the choice really is free, which may be open to doubt in some cases). But we must all be bound by the same laws otherwise chaos results.
The real problem is that in Moslem thought Sharia law is indivisible .( unlike Jewish law) It cannot apply only to quaint religious things :it is across the board to all social, political,financial , religious topics and anything else you care to mention . Nothing is excluded . It is a way of life and permits of no competition whenever it is in a position to impose itself . It is not only , to the western mind , archaic and horribly wrong , it is also profoundly intolerant .
Ask Kemal Ataturk .
Good to see Newmania on form.
One might ask: When will the Saudis be introducing Roman Dutch law into their country?
I do not imagine that any islamic country would allow Christians or Jews to operate their own legal system within the boundaries of their country....
It is customary, respectfull and enlightened to abide by the laws of the country you live in. Sharia Law is an unwelcome foreign import to the UK and as such those practising it should be told once and for all that the U.K. has its unique culture, which includes the English Language, English Law etc. Either comply with it or go live in a country where Sharia law is applicable. And they can take the Archbishop with them!! The great dhimmi...
I just don't understand what's wrong with everyone. Don't they realise we have lost this country without any war being declared, nor any shot fired? It's now just up to the rabble hordes as to which parts and where their "culture" should apply. I regret having to say this, but anyone whoever fought and died for this country was completely wasting their time. As soon as I get the opportunity I'm off to somewhere, anywhere, that maintains a strong sense of it's own standards and identity.
Steven Harris, Peter Hitchens has made more than enough mistakes but when he is on form there's no stopping him. A lot of the time it isn't necessary to be right-wing to nod at what he says, and I speak as someone who is against more or less every right-wing writer ever. I agreed with almost every word he wrote in the Hate Mail On Sunday last week. I get the impression he's a top-notch person in real life, too.
Iain this post is over the top. What's evil about the idea of not charging land because it is sacred? In this way we already have parts of sharia law in the english legal system, allowing Muslims (or anyone else) to have "Islamic mortgages" which are in effect mortgages that don't technically charge the land. This was one of the few good steps taken by Brown as it opens the UK economy up even more to investment from the East.
Having sharia law as a separate system in the UK is nonsense, but having parts of it adopted within the English legal system via statute or the common law is practical, valuable, and, of course, most importantly, democratic (oh, and also already going on anyway!).
@ Paddy Briggs
Have you tried using a dictionary recently?
"What's wrong with being islamophobic - it's against the law that's what!"
Absolute garbage.
1. Learn to understand the meanings of words before applying your own distortions.
2. Where in the (prodigious) legislation does it say that 'phobia' is 'illegal'?
Jesus H Christ!
Given that we have the oldest legal system in the world (maybe after Iceland, I'm not sure), I don't think we want to start adopting primitive practices. We have been proved over a thousand years more than capable of passing any laws, according to our own mores, that we deem necessary.
I would echo what others have written here and elsewhere: people who want to live under this extraordinary legal system are more than welcome to go to a country where this is the legal system. Indeed, many of us would be more than pleased to see some taxes going in assisted passages for these people - as long as we got a retinal photo and a swab of DNA to make sure they couldn't sneak back in for another whack.
So far, let's face it, the islamics have been here for 30 years and they have actually contributed bugger all to progress. Their religion and all the laws surrounding every single aspect of their lives discourages spontaneity of thought and thus creativity.
Don’t even think of using the tag “Islamaphobic”, I do not fear Islamists, I fear no one. I am an “Anglophile”, a lover of things English and British and don’t you forget it.
Iain:
I don't want any form of Sharia Law in this country at all. Ever. That is not being Islamaphobic. It's my opinion and it's one shared by 99 per cent of the British people, as well as, I suspect, by the majority of Brtish Muslims.
So, 'British Muslims' (presumably ones born here) get separated out in your statement from the rest of the British populous?
Are they not part of the 'British people' too?
Patrick, the two statements do not conflict with each other. At least not in my mind.
Although I'm hardly a fan of The Devil's Kitchen, he has really delivered the goods over this one. Credit where it's due. Though he will probably never again get my agreement on anything. :)
I'm going to link to a document that purports to be by the Ayatollah Khomeini that relates to marriage. I am a) not certain of the provenance of this document and b) not sure that it is relevant to Shariah law. If it is a genuine fatwah by the Ayotollah and it is relevant then we really get an idea of what the Cantuar has in mind: Ayatollah Khomeini's Religious Teachings on Marriage, Divorce and Relationships.
Somebody please tell me the archbishop didn't mean this or that this document is a fake.
Iain, you seem to have a very high opinion of your opinion.
"I don't want any form of Sharia Law in this country at all. Ever. That is not being Islamaphobic. It's my opinion ..." is like saying "I don't want any form of gay rights in this country at all. Ever. That is not being homophobic. It's my opinion ..."
Asquith - Agree. DK has been outstanding over this. Absolute aces.
Patrick "Are they not part of the 'British people', too?" That depends, frankly, on where their loyalties lie. If they want to see the vile shariah in Britain then no, they are not British and have no concept of British values. If they are contemplating blowing planes up over the Atlantic, again, call me a fusspot, but no, they are not British.
And do I believe the lying Labour government (oops! - gave myself a away!) that the aggressive men who intend to impose shariah on a comparatively free society are a "tiny minority"?
No. I believe they are in the majority because the koran commands that they convert the infidel, and islamics, by their nature, believe the koran is the word of their god.
What a lot of people fail to understand is, islam is not a smorgasboard. You can't pick the bits you like and disgard the rest. And these people, never forget, have been brainwashed from birth with mandatory prayers five times a bleedin' day. They have no time to think for themselves.
We have become afraid of speaking the truth. Speaking as Free People should speak. Afraid of telling politicians to start putting the English,Welsh,Scottish and Irish first, whilst welcoming people from other parts of the world who wish to live with us.
I agree with Lord Tebbit who said it is wrong for people to bring their culture into our country and expect us to join them.
Let us reject Political Correctness. Demand from our MP's that they repeal legislation which is Anti-British and expect from the Church of England -, indeed from our politicians, that quality they lack greatly -LEADERSHIP!
Finally may I recommend a new book to you all. 'Religion as Myth' by Peter Williams - obtainable through Amazon etc.
It puts the whole religion business into proper context.
Percy Weasley, beyond parody. Get a sodding grip, all of you.
i'm beginning to realise that the Islamists are winning the war by the nature of the debate on here.
we're arguing about RELIGION for chrissakes... something that stopped in this country during the age of enlightenment.
its like we've turned the clock back 300 years. which is exactly what the islamists want.
we go back 300, they'll push us back further , all the way back to 7th century barbarity.
As I read the lecture (and yes I have read the full transcript) Willaims wasn't advocating the adoption of Sharia law rather commenting on its inevitability in parts of our society. Now if one ventures to Bradford or parts of Leeds it is quite shocking to see how parts are really segregated. These cities have townships of people living in parallel societies that are in effect like those in apartheid South Africa or the suburbs of Belfast. In these areas British law and society have no real meaning beyond the occasional manifestation of the British state in the form of a policeman or postie. We have allowed these areas to develop through our misguided policy of multi-culturalism. We are still doing with initiatives such as faith schools. How long before these places via 'community leaders' are demanding autonomy through state support of Sharia courts as a form of 'arbitration'? Its going to happen. So what will we do then?
Steven Harris:
Are '...rights and personhood ... understood by ruling hegemonies,'
the same as individual freedom under the law?
asquith
Could be better put, but Iain is (apparently) objecting to Shariah Law because it's Shariah Law, not because of the detail. That's prejudice.
It's also absurd, given that, as has been mentioned, parts of Shariah Law are already being applied.
If Iain is ever elected, I hope he troubles to look at the detail of the legislation he will be paid to scrutinise, and not just to come to a quick soundbite. Blair Mark III will serve no one very well.
Trust the BBC to come up with such a twisted spin on the matter!
"fh" If anyone thinks this is like the Jewish courts and thinks this will be the end of it he is a fool. No, sorry, wrong term: "useful idiot".
Winston Smith nails it.
Rohan - The French muslims have already petitioned for a millet (a separate islamic state) in France. Ha ha! Bonne chance sous M Sarkozy!
John Trenchard writes: "i'm beginning to realise that the Islamists are winning the war by the nature of the debate on here." Oh, how very astute and worldly of you!
There is no such thing as an "islamist" by the way, unless, perhaps, it's someone who studies islam. Otherwise, it's "muslims". Tell us how the muslims are winning the war, will you? Because we articulate a reasoned dislike of having a large, unassimilable alien presence in our country? This means the muslims are "winning the war" in some way? Who started this "war" you refer to, by the way?
These people are never going to be happy in an advanced Western country because it is jam packed with things allah doesn't like. Girls in short skirts and tank tops. Alcohol. Independent women. Irreverence for authority. A deadening lack of interest in the opinions of their diety. They are going to be constantly driven to change it all.
We need reverse immigration to help these people return to the lands of their ancestors where they can mutilate little girls' genitals, kill daughters who get on their nerves, hang people born homosexual with impunity. We're not going to get it from the monocular prime minister, who depends on their votes, nor the cowardly David Cameron. But the time is approaching when there will be a resolution.
Blogger Rohan February 08, 2008 9:07 PM said...
As I read the lecture (and yes I have read the full transcript) Willaims wasn't advocating the adoption of Sharia law rather commenting on its inevitability in parts of our society. Now if one ventures to Bradford or parts of Leeds it is quite shocking to see how parts are really segregated. These cities have townships of people living in parallel societies that are in effect like those in apartheid South Africa or the suburbs of Belfast. In these areas British law and society have no real meaning beyond the occasional manifestation of the British state in the form of a policeman or postie. We have allowed these areas to develop through our misguided policy of multi-culturalism. We are still doing with initiatives such as faith schools. How long before these places via 'community leaders' are demanding autonomy through state support of Sharia courts as a form of 'arbitration'? Its going to happen. So what will we do then?
I think we "do" the logical outcome of what our culturally-suicidal politico-media-bureaucratic elite have made inevitable. It's called Civil War.
The Archbishop is a fool and should resign.
[Victim]-o-phobic: Verb.
Definition when a subject wishes to portray any opposition as aggressive. A tool of political correctness.
Just a thought - did Blair,having already planned to join the Catholic Church, appoint that prize gink as Archbish in order to destroy the C of E?
If he'd suggested looking at aspects of Hebrew, Christian or Sikh scripture to see of they had anything worthwhile to add to our legal system would the reaction have been as strong?
Secularists (like me) would have told him where to go, yes, but would the reaction have been as strong?
I suspect not and that, to a degree, answers the question.
This is a Christian country, but our laws are not usually made with much reference to Christian teaching. Why else would abortion and homosexuality be "allowed" by law. Laws in countries such as ours mainly move with the times; they adapt and adjust to the ever moving morals and thinking of the day. I think that this is a good thing. We do not live in a time wharp. Sharia law is stuck in almost medieval times; women are seen as second class citizens, not worthy or capable of education; homosexuals treated dreadfully, almost unto death. How on earth can anybody suggest that ANY part of Sharia law be amalgamated into British law; it would be a massive step backwards. I have heard that Sharia law could be taken into account in divorce and child custody cases, for example. If a muslim woman went to one of these hearings, how much say would she have? Probably not much; and yet we would allow the ruling of the Sharia court to be the final arbiter in such cases?
The bottom line is: if certain hard-line muslims want to live under Sharia law, then they must move (back?)to a country which recognises and supports it. Those people have no business living in a Christian democratic (!) country such as Britain and try to impose their ways on us.
And please,before all you idiotic liberals who have almost brought this country to its knees with your breast-beating and apologist rhetoric about the rights of children, religious extremists or murderers, because they had a bad home life or were ridiculed in school, call me any sort of "phobe" ,think carefully about how much more unrest there is in this country now that most "ordinary" people feel intimidated about expressing any sort of unease or unrest about the way the country is going.
Percy Weasely writes that "It's also absurd, given that ... parts of Shariah Law are already being applied." Not legally. Some people are already robbing banks. Some people are already stealing cars.
people are already murdering their daughters in "honour killings" - so is that legal too? What a stupid argument.
"but Iain is (apparently) objecting to Shariah Law because it's Shariah Law, not because of the detail. That's prejudice." Really? You have decided that Iain doesn't know anything about shariah? Why do you make such an odd assumption, given that he has started a thread on it?
"If Iain is ever elected, I hope he troubles to look at the detail of the legislation he will be paid to scrutinise, and not just to come to a quick soundbite." I'm sure Iain is most grateful for your cosmopolitan and erudite advice.
God! What a prune!
True, Javelin. I personally am muezzinophobic.
Cassilis - No Hindus or Sikhs have lobbied to have their personal law incorporated into the law of the country of their adoption.
In addition, Hindus and Sikhs are assimilated, contribute to our culture and don't have a chip on their shoulders.
Thus there would be no motivation on the part of Rowan DooLally or New Labourites to start public chunterings.
It is most unjust to group all immigrants together. Jews, Hindus, Sikhs set about assimilating and contributing to their new society. They didn't lose their cultures or their identities, but they assimilated, as intelligent people have done since time immemorial.
Percy Weasley. Your comments are foolish and seek to put words in my mouth which I did not utter. When you put a more cogent argument, I will respond to it, but I am not responding to what you think I said, when I said nothing of the sort.
Islamophobic, homophobic, europhobic, anything-at-all-ophobic is chucked around to silence any debate on any liberal subject.
It is always us on the right of centre subjected to this bile, normally from the left.
The BBC has a left leaning bias that it admits to, so the discussion about Islamophobia is only what you would expect from the BBC.
There should be one law that we are all equal under. That law must be observed by all - if they dont like then go to somewhere that they can find the laws to their liking.
If you want to go to hand choppers, head choppers, abuse of women, et al then find one of the repressive countries that do indulge in this. But don't try to export this to the UK.
The Archbish is off his trolley and is now seemingly shocked that all of the country is saying he's lost the plot.
He should go and lets have someone who is less PC, and more Christian.
I don't think the reaction is Islamophobic (NB Newmania) because there's a good reason to object to any private institution grafting itself onto the formal processes of law. As long as the process is informal and voluntary, as with Jewish religious courts (Beth Din), no-one could object.
I'd like to see all the Church of England's consistory courts abolished as part of the judicial system of this country, given that they retain criminal jurisdiction (see the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963, 1963 no. 1, for details). It is hypocritical to object to Islamic religious courts and permit Anglican ones.
"Why is it that we cannot talk about issues of religion and race without people immediately jumping on a politically correct bandwagon?"
Oh, what rich irony. Williams has made a considered speech on this issue and the media, politicians and bloggers such as yourself have all piled aboard the Muslim bashing bandwagon. The worst of it is that he's being condemned mostly for things he simply did not say. I'd love to have a rational conversation about issues of religion and race but it's hard when there's a witch hunt going on.
As you ignored this question last time, I'm going to try posing it in an easy to answer format:
"I don't want any form of Halakha Law in this country at all. Ever."
Agree or disagree? Seems like it'd be simple enough to provide an answer (unless you're taking tips from Gordon Brown).
By the way, those who claim that Williams suggested that Sharia should over-rule English law, or that anyone would be forced to be bound by its ruling rather than choosing voluntarily to do so, or that this could apply to anything other than a small number of civil matter between Muslims who wish it is simply wrong. As such, the comparison with Beth Din courts is quite valid.
The false claims and indignation surrounding Williams' speech seem to be generated by prejudice and ignorance and are part of the reason why it is so difficult to talk about issues of religion and race. I think that answers your question.
Garry, I disagree with so much of what you said. I have seen Dr William's comments as reported on the World at One and they do not match your interpretation.
I also do not accept your analogy with what you reckon is a Jewish equivalent. While not being an expert in this, my jewish friends tell me there is no similarity at all.
What you say about Sharia Law having supremacy over English law is, I think, exactly what Williams was aluding to - maybe not immediately but it would be a slippery slope.
I am sure there are parts of Sharia Law which are fine, but there are also parts which are not, and fundemantally at odds with British values.
@ verity: we've been through this before. The Beth Din is nothing like what Archbishop DooLally was promoting and it is destructive to conflate the two.
Read it please. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/07_02_08_islam.pdf
It's awful. It's the worst kind of smug intellectualism. But it is exactly about the realms of law dealt with at a Beth Din, including (he says) "aspects of marital law, the regulation of financial transactions and authorised structures of mediation and conflict resolution."
Williams has done us a favour. we can see that no one wants his crazy ideas. He should resign and they should find another numpty to lead The Church of ENGLAND.
People should come to live in this country to enjoy our way of life. If they find it to difficult they should return to their homeland.
Unmitigated garbage, Garry: "By the way, those who claim that Williams suggested that Sharia should over-rule English law, or that anyone would be forced to be bound by its ruling rather than choosing voluntarily to do so, or that this could apply to anything other than a small number of civil matter between Muslims who wish it is simply wrong. As such, the comparison with Beth Din courts is quite valid."
Sharia, whether they "wished" it or not, would overrule English law for muslims. If it is present, they would be compelled, by various means, to use it.
Not that that is the reason we shouldn't try to graft it on to our body of law, like a third arm or a second head. The reason is, it is malevolent and primitive. Cutting off little girls' genitals is malevolent. Hanging homosexuals is malevolent. Making women accept another woman as a "wife" in the home is malevolent. The notion that somehow this primitive body of bossiness could be accommodated by our English Common Law - which incorporates the bracing spirit of freedom of the individual - is just too stupid.
As the lovely Tony Blair said in another context, "Forward; not back."
verity -> what i'm trying to say is that the debate is being framed.not a week goes by without some sort of debate about "islam", with the arguments being framed whereby anyone who is against islam is called an "islamophobe", rather than someone who merely wishes to preserve the freedoms we have fought so hard for over centuries. And thus,. the Jihadist cause advances , step by step, because the debate is being framed on their terms.
i just wish we had somebody of sufficient political stature to stand up to it.
Mitt Romney did just that the other day.
http://www.mittromney.com/
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/CPAC_Address
I see nothing comparable in Britain to what that man said in his speech CPAC and i quote below:
"The values and beliefs of the free American people are the source of our nation's strength and they always will be. "
"A nation built on the principles of the Founding Fathers cannot long stand when its children are raised without fathers in the home."
""Europe is facing a demographic disaster. That is the inevitable product of weakened faith in the Creator, failed families, disrespect for the sanctity of human life and eroded morality."
"It is past time for us to invest in energy technology, nuclear power, clean coal, liquid coal, renewable sources and energy efficiency. America must never be held hostage by the likes of Putin, Chavez, and Ahmadinejad."
"Can you imagine what happens to an economy where the best opportunities are for bureaucrats? "
"And finally, let's consider the greatest challenge facing America – and facing the entire civilized world: the threat of violent, radical Jihad. In one wing of the world of Islam, there is a conviction that all governments should be destroyed and replaced by a religious caliphate. These Jihadists will battle any form of democracy. To them, democracy is blasphemous for it says that citizens, not God shape the law. They find the idea of human equality to be offensive. They hate everything we believe about freedom just as we hate everything they believe about radical Jihad."
and how many high profile politicians in Britain have said anything like this:
"I agree with him (McCain) on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror."
the above Verity, is called framing the debate ON OUR TERMS.
Unfortunately, our socialist government is more interested in appeasement and creeping sharia.
I'm coming late to this posting as usual. I'm a busy man and can only post once in a while. But when the lovely verity said What's wrong with being islamophobic? It seems like an eminently sensible position to me She pre-emptied exactly what I wanted to say.
Hits the nail on the head so far as I am concerned.
fh - I wouldn't have the impertinence to respond to you, but there are Jews on this thread who will be able to give you a measured explanation.
Several have already explained Beth Din, but you may have missed it. You want to save them the trouble of trudging through it all again by doing a word search here and on DK.
Garry - Ignorant rubbish. This is exactly why those muslim women in Ontario fought so hard - and so bravely, considering the opposition - against Ontario formally giving sharia any legal standing whatsoever. Because those gals understand the word "coercion". Once it's there, it is not a choice for islamics. The ladies in Ontario prevailed - a great victory for liberty, sanity and English Common Law.
I would like to ask Mr Briggs if he beleives in free speech.
It does not matter what the law says as he and his labour friends cannot control how people think.
They are trying to control more and more of our lives and do you know Mr Briggs you and your friends will not succeed.
Islam reminds me of how things were in the medieval world. It has no place in England in todays world as I think you can see from the peoples reaction.
Most people seem to be missing the point here - the Newsnight story Iain referred to was specifically about the strength and vehemence of the reaction to the Archbishop's speech and whether it suggested a greater hostility to Islamic norms than relgious ones in general.
Nobody seems to be engaging that specific issue - just rehashing the debate over Sharia Law itself. That there should be such a hostile and excitable reaction to a rather sober and high-brow speech, even if much of it was relativist nonsense, suggests as a country we're not entirely at ease with Islam. That's all...
And in anticipation of Verity's response - it matters not a jot that there are significant elements of the Muslim community who are very ill at ease with our culture or are lobbying hard for Sharia recognition. We can rebutt them forcefully while still engaging this the debate and dialogue the Archbishop is calling for....
The time is rapidly coming in the British Isles when we will have to insist that all immigrants swear an oath of allegiance to our secular, legal, liberal and Parliamentary way of life. I would include in this even resident British muslims who have an overly high minority of militants in their ranks dedicated to overthrowing all that the indigenous population hold dear.
Any person not prepared to swear that oath should be removed to a country of their choice. Its time to decide that we really want to protect our way of life, whether its Christian names-not given names, Happy Christmas-not Seasons Greetings or an amplified call to prayer from the minaret of a mosque in Oxford. I have a right to free association, that's why I choose to live in the British Isles amongst people of my own culture and with customs that I feel comfortable with. If I wanted to live in an islamic state then I would have gone to live in Saudi Arabia.
In what way is it different? Beth Din judgements can be legally binding under English law if both partied agree in advance. The principle is already established in law (which is why he used the word "inevitable"). He merely suggested that the application of the principle might be extended to a small degree in civil cases.
"What you say about Sharia Law having supremacy over English law is, I think, exactly what Williams was aluding to"
No, I really don't think he was. Direct quotation from the interview:
"It is very important, as you mentioned there, the word "choice". I think it would be quite wrong to say that we could ever licence, so to speak, a system of law for some community which gave people... no way of exercising the rights that people are due as citizens in general".
He has made it clear (by his standards anyway) that the law of the land must remains available to all. Only when two parties voluntarily agree could a Sharia judgement be binding. Muslim women would not lose their rights under English law "ever".
Note that he used the word "ever". He explicitly ruled out your "slippery slope".
Also, what cassilis said.
I'd just like to add that this whole islamic immigration deal has been sleight of hand by the socialists to weaken the threads and strands of our British society. They've used the islamics as a weapon, and are still doing so.
The notion that beggar immigrants should be in a position to bring their own laws with them and impose them on a host society is insane and unknown in recorded history.
A socialist perversity forced on the indigenes.
Time for an accounting. The vile spirit occupying Tony Blair occasioned all this damage, and also appointed Williams Archbishop DooLally - but the Archbishop wandered wanly away from the plot and unknowingly started to create the climate for a deus ex machina, which is quite amusing, really.
Judith
Perhaps you should look at what the Bishop was actually saying rather than commenting on what was reported. It is interesting that Evan Price a Conservative lawyer (and someone I normally disagree with on most things) has on his blog at http://evanprice.blogspot.com/ and has come to broadly the same conclusions as myself.
I do wonder if the Archbishop was making his pronouncement as a counter to some attack on the many entrenched privileges that the CofE currently receives.
Anon 4:41pm
Surely we learned in the 80's, when Runcie kept attacking Margaret, that the Church has nothing useful to say on contemporary social matters? Why are we paying so much attention to what is clearly an irrelevant, spent force? The BBC has led all day with this non-story.
Maybe NuLab has been trying to bury some more bad news?
The Archbish should go back to sucking up to his sky-fairy.
verity said "Because those gals understand the word "coercion". Once it's there, it is not a choice for islamics."
They're just not like us, are they verity? You can't trust them an inch...
As I'm attempting to discuss what the Archbishop actually said and you seem to be discussing something else entirely, I doubt there's any point in continuing this conversation. It's been interesting though.
John Trenchard @8.58 writes:
"we're arguing about RELIGION for chrissakes... something that stopped in this country during the age of enlightenment."
No we are not, John. It is not (only)a religion; it is their LAW & it is their WAY OF LIFE which should be anathema to any free-born Briton.
As has already been mentioned, this is the only immigrant group which, never mind making no effort to assimilate & obey our constitutional law, actively seeks to undermine it with the help of the intellectually deprived & the plaster saints of terminal 'politische Korrektheit'.
The justifying drivel expressed by some commenters beggars belief.
Those who pooh-pooh the dangers The Septic Isle is facing presently cannot have read recent history...if any at all.
As for the interpretation of words containing more than a single syllable we can always blame the brilliant education system. Gaaahd!!!
"the above Verity, is called framing the debate ON OUR TERMS."
No question, John Trenchard, and a medal for Mitt Romney. (I'm sorry he's no longer a contender by the way.)
As you rightly say, "Unfortunately, our socialist government is more interested in appeasement and creeping sharia."
Except, I would add that this situation of beggar immigrants having their primitive mores imposed on the advanced, enlightened civilisation they were kindly admitted to, was deliberately created by evil(sic) Tony Blair and his henchman/enforcer Alastair Campbell.
It didn't come about by accident because, in human nature, it couldn't.
It was imposed with an iron fist. And no one fought it because everyone was so frightened of Blair. British newspapers "the freest press in the world" (excuse me while I double up with laughter) did not dare publish the Motoons and even tried to avoid mentioning them.
The Danes, as we know, published them. (And the simply heroic Anders Fogh, PM refused to meet mad mullahs saying the freedom of the press was beyond the control of a prime minister.) As did the Swedes. As did the French (whose press we used to regard as laughable). As did the Jordanians. As did the Mexicans. As did an American paper or two. But not the British. Because they were frightened of Alastair Campbell.
The question is, why were they so frit? What could Alastair Campbell or Tony Blair have done to them ... legally? Yet frit they were.
This was the same team that ramrodded the Human Rights Act into British law, partly because the Mrs Manatee Blair needed the cash, but partly as a weapon of oppression.
Cassilis: "significant elements of the Muslim community who are very ill at ease with our culture or are lobbying hard for Sharia recognition."
You still don't get it, which is alarming. There are no "significant elements of the Muslim community" (this is NuLabour-speak) who aren't at ease in our country. Tell me the name of your closest airport and I'll advance you the price of a ticket back to your islamic hellhole.
The bleeding criminal Muslim Council - bleeding criminal not least because of Bari's barnet which is an offence against Western civilisation, but that's another issue. Dear allah! - couldn't he pay money and get something that looks real?) - is a lobbying outfit for pressing islamic agendas.
Bari's "salary" and the fragrant Inayat's "salary" and all their clerical back-up are being paid for by British people, who really would rather have that extra couple of pounds a month for themselves and their families. I don't think the muslim council would go begging for money were the British taxpayer cut loose from this obligation. A quick text to Riyadh ...
The "significant element" of the "muslim community" is the aggressive pushing of their alien mores in our country. Not just their bloody awful religion, but their sharia which has no place in the advanced West.
verity. Thank you for your gracious advice to give the thread a full re-read. I have done so.
Apart from rather more outrageous bigotry than I'm used to reading of an evening, I'm afraid Iain must have deleted the posts which specify the ways in which a Beth Din's functions differ from the Sharia adjudications the archbishop contemplates. Naughty Iain. Of course I do see a few posts highlighting differences between Beth Din (and other religious courts) and what is being fantasized from the headlines by a lot of very silly people.
I also see all the overheated nonsense about slippery slopes and Sharia not being a smorgasbord, and the anxious conclusions that once we let 'em choose (an operative word) to submit civil and contract disputes to their own tribunals, it'll be stonings of shoplifters on The Mall.
Through his remarkable insensitivity to possible (or probable) misinterpretation, Williams has managed to legitimize the very xenophobia he says he wishes to counteract.
But I have to say that I agree with some here that Williams probably had a less honourable motive anyway, like protecting the consistory courts, which David Boothroyd has mentioned, from rightful abolition. Looked at from that perspective, one can perhaps see the clumsy reasoning behind this otherwise utterly unnecessary speech. I can well envisage Williams and his aides sitting around worrying about their church's many undeserved privileges and thinking that maybe it would be best to make them appear just a little less, well, exclusive. A little gesture politics, Anglican style.
In any event, pointless to try to discuss that with you, verity. As garry suggests, you don't want to discuss the actual lecture. This is just a convenient platform from which to express your utterly contemptible views.
"permanentexpat said..."
i agree with everything you have said. but i'm just warning about letting the jihadists frame the terms of reference of our lives where we endlessly debate these "sharia" issues, while ignoring the bigger picture - as in - how do we actually defeat islamofascism.
we need to step up a gear and to stop talking about this crap - and to start talking about OUR values, rather than let the islamists and their hangers on set the agenda.
I promised myself I was off this thread to do something else, and Garry squirted itself onto the stage.
Garry (is your real name Duane?) said: "They're just not like us, are they verity? You can't trust them an inch..."
Who are you referring to? Islamics? No. They're not like Britons. You cannot trust them. And they don't trust each other, sweetheart. If you think there's some lovely celestial brotherhood of islam, you are living in a world of your own.
They trade in the way of the souks. Sorry. But it's the truth. "Oh, I give you a good deal! You are my sister! You are just like my sister! [I bloody hope not!] Nothing is too good for my sister!"
And they cringe and rub their hands. It's their habit, in those badly lit back alleys selling carpets ("real Persian, madam! Please, madam, you are my sister!") Oh, wait a minute, we've been there.
These are individuals who may indeed be intelligent, but have been held back for 900 years by a controlling, insane belief system. That's why even today when Asia and Latin America are prospering, their home countries, basically, Pakistan and Somalia, can't get an notional leg over.
Kemal Attaturk rightly intuited that Turkey stood its best chance by divesting itself of official islam. And he was visionary.
Obviously, there are integrated muslims in Britain and good luck to them. Sairah Kahn is one. The owner of my corner shop when I lived in Britain was another one. And I'm sure they are legion.
But the fact of human historoy is: integration has been the name of the game for 10,000 years of people who wandered off course and found themselves in a different camp on whose goodwill they were dependent.
Sharia is an ediface of control. It has no place in Britain at all, never mind in our legislature. People who crave sharia are free to find their way to the airport.
I have just read Rowan William’s speech. It is on his website.
This speech is a naked plea for separate courts and laws for different religious groups. Williams states :-
“….we might recall that, while the law of the Church of England is the law of the land, its daily operation is in the hands of authorities to whom considerable independence is granted…..”
Leaving aside the fact that the law of the Church of England is not the law of the land (eg civil partnerships are not recognised by the Church of England), Williams is actually complaining that secular judges are deciding upon law which he believes is based on Church of England teachings. He seems to be suggesting that the Chancellors and Registrars of the Church of England (Church of England judges and lawyers) would be better judges than say the late Lord Denning. A laughable proposition (the one Registrar that I knew well was one of the most narrow minded people I have ever met).
Williams goes on to complain that:-
“….when secular government assumes a monopoly in terms of defining public and political identity. There is a position – not at all unfamiliar in contemporary discussion – which says that to be a citizen is essentially and simply to be under the rule of the uniform law of a sovereign state, in such a way that any other relations, commitments or protocols of behaviour belong exclusively to the realm of the private and of individual choice. As I have maintained in several other contexts, this is a very unsatisfactory account of political reality in modern societies;…………..”
I am sorry Dr Williams but you live in a state where only one person is above the law, H.M. The Queen (and if you don’t believe me watch when she drives herself. Like most people of her age she doesn’t like seatbelts. Only she can avoid prosecution for not wearing one). The law is set down by the legislature and interpreted by judges. There is not an “opt out” for various religious groups. Often the law is not based on Christian morality because Christian morality does not cure the evil that the law seeks to cure.
Williams goes on to say:-
“……There needs to be access to recognised authority acting for a religious group: there is already, of course, an Islamic Shari'a Council, much in demand for rulings on marital questions in the UK; and if we were to see more latitude given in law to rights and scruples rooted in religious identity, we should need a much enhanced and quite sophisticated version of such a body, with increased resource and a high degree of community recognition, so that 'vexatious' claims could be summarily dealt with. The secular lawyer needs to know where the potential conflict is real, legally and religiously serious, and where it is grounded in either nuisance or ignorance. There can be no blank cheques given to unexamined scruples……”
This is an extraordinary idea. It amounts to a request to “hand over” the jurisdiction over Muslims to a Shari’a court, on the basis that our courts are not qualified to interpret the law in a Muslim way. He is implying that Christian tribunals should also have such power over Christians and, presumably, Jewish tribunals should have similar powers.
I am not surprised that politicians are so aghast at this because it is a direct attack on their power to legislate. It suggests that religious tribunals would be better equipped to judge people in their own community. It totally ignores the fact that the secular and religious authorities are often in conflict because the needs of the state conflict with religious principles. I think of the Law of Return in the State of Israel where the definition of a Jew is wider than that accepted by the Orthodox Rabbinate.
Williams primary example is to open the Pandora’s Box of Shari’a law. Nothing could be better designed to cause controversy because of the general fear that Shari’a law could be imposed upon non-Muslims in this country. I was profoundly shocked to hear a commentator on BBC News saying that Northern Nigerian Christians liked the Shari’a law that was imposed on them. Nothing could be further from the truth. People do not generally like being stoned to death. If you really want the truth about how some Muslim countries treat their Christians then you should watch Channel 4s “Unreported World” on the Egyptian Christian Copts forced to recycle rubbish.
It is clear that “the establishment” really have no idea about the dangers of this issue. It has been ignored for so long. Left to fester it stirs up nightmares. Nightmares caused by those who fear being “swamped” by a Muslim majority . Nightmares in the shape of people like the late Meir Kahane (founder of the odious Kach Party) who wanted all Arabs expelled from Israel or Todor Zhivkov of Bulgaria who expelled many Muslims and forced many more to change their names to their Bulgarian equivalents. Yes, Verity, your ideas have been tried before (by a Communist, take note). Israel was saved by the influx of Russians after the end of the cold war and many of those expelled returned to Bulgaria, which has now managed to have a coalition of Muslims, former Communists and the party of the former King, Simeon II (Saxecoburggotski). The threat has not materialised in either country but nasty things were suggested and, in the case of Bulgaria, tried. This should be a lesson to us. Everyone must be equal before the law and there should be no special pleading. We cannot afford to stir up fear which may lead to a massive boost for the BNP. I fear that a BNP victory would mean Iain would hang from a lamppost, just as he would if some Islamic zealots got their way. Dr Williams should have kept his mouth shut.
Williams moves towards his conclusion:-
“…..I labour the point because what at first seems to be a somewhat narrow point about how Islamic law and Islamic identity should or might be regarded in our legal system in fact opens up a very wide range of current issues, and requires some general thinking about the character of law. It would be a pity if the immense advances in the recognition of human rights led, because of a misconception about legal universality, to a situation where a person was defined primarily as the possessor of a set of abstract liberties and the law's function was accordingly seen as nothing but the securing of those liberties irrespective of the custom and conscience of those groups which concretely compose a plural modern society…….”
The law is not a moral construct. Its purpose is to impose a set of rules drawn up by a legislature. Special privileges for certain people or groups have tended to lead to disaster in the past. There are myriad examples of this, from the tax exemptions for the nobility which led to the French Revolution to the special legal privileges for Europeans in China in the late 19th Century, which led to the Boxer Rebellion. Dr Williams should know this. Sorry, Archbishop we will not be giving you any special religious courts anytime soon.
Hristov - "Yes, Verity, your ideas have been tried before (by a Communist, take note)."
What ideas?
I didn't bother to read your endless post, but I am interested in what ideas I have proposed that have been "tried before". I hadn't realised I'd proposed any ideas. Care to clue me in?
One sentence would be fine.
I'll tell you what is interesting about this thread. The lefty men are purple in the face with fury as they get bested in argument after argument and resort to insults and abuse. So nothing new there, and who cares about the opinions of lefty men anyway?
But every woman who has posted is conservatively minded - meaning, conserve folk identities, conserve families, conserve mores, conserve laws.
I'll make a bet: the slavvering socialist men who have posted here go to committee meetings. They print out agendas and distribute them to seats before the meeting. They go by "Dave" and "Kev". And maybe even "Marilyn" as where would a socialist committee meeting be without a beautiful human being transgendered individual "who has so much to teach us"?
To those, like Verity, who seek to play with words let me explain. Verity and some others (not all) who are islamophobic express their phobia with their "in the public domain" statements that are incitements to religious hatred. Verity does the same with her various race and national phobias. That's the bit that is against law. I trawled this Blog and found literally dozens of racist and other tirades from Verity that unquestionably could result in her prosecution if anybody took the trouble to contact the DPP.
Perhaps I was imprecise in the drafting of my original post - but any fool should have seen what I was getting at and I certainly don't need the picky admonishments that she and others have seen fit to post!
Incitement to religious hatred? Mr. Briggs seems to have forgotten the placard carrying primitives in his streets...but no matter, Mr.Briggs is a bit miffed & perhaps should try to remember that Islam is not a race.
Iain,
It is a shame that you are reporting this story on the basis of the BBC reports rather than reading the Archbishop of Canterbury's speech.
He did not advocate that Sharia law should prevail over British law even though many muslims may agree to abide by the judgements of Sharoiah courts, and he specifically stated that the Sharia courts would not have either any jurisdiction in criminal matters.
In his interview with the BBC he said that certain aspects of Sharia law are already recognised in our law and society. By that he doesn't mean that he woul like Sharia law to be incorporated into our law, rather that the consequences of living under Sharia should be adressed under our laws.
He could have been clearer, but if you had read any of his religious writings (I have but I suspect you haven't), then you would know that he is always opaque. Did he express himself poorly? Probably. Was this a fit subject for the Archbishop to raise? probably not. It should have been raised by muslims and their political advocates.
As far as I can tell his reference to the current recognition of Sharia concerned the taxation of islamic mortgages and other islamic financial transactions. Our tax legislation has hundreds of references to interest and "loan relationships", but there is nothing in the law that stipulates what form commercial transactions must take. Sharia has always prohibited interest because that smack of usury (we used to have similar laws and anti-usury laws still exist in other countries0, so muslims will only lend or borrow under other forms of transaction. It doesn't seem unreasonable to adjust our tax laws to put Sharia compliant transactions on an equal footing with economically equivalent non-Sharia transactions. It also gives certainty to non-Islamic banks (HSBC are big lenders in these markets) and it means that London banks can offer Islamic financial products not just to British muslims but to international clients knowing that their tax treatment is clear.
Their are similar issues in family law: what is the position of a second wife married under a foreign law when considered under UK law? At present our laws only permit / recognise one valid marriage, and yet even if we do not recognise those marriages for our own citizens, we should still give some consideration to them when our law does apply to them as it it could under our inheritance laws and family laws when applied to foreign citizens living in the UK.
All valid reasons for accepting that the consequences of Sharia need to be recognised in our laws, but a far cry from having Islamic courts and quite frankly, not even a thin end of a wedge.
What is Sharia law?
Does it conjour up just the images of beheadings and amputations and the Taliban?
Just for readers information Sharia law is divided into two main sections:
The acts of worship, or al-ibadat, these include:
Ritual Purification (Wudu)
Prayers (Salah)
Fasts (Sawm and Ramadan)
Charities (Zakat)
Pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj)
Human interaction, or al-mu'amalat, which includes:
Financial transactions
Endowments
Laws of inheritance
Marriage, divorce, and child care
Foods and drinks (including ritual slaughtering and hunting)
Penal punishments
Warfare and peace
Judicial matters (including witnesses and forms of evidence)
The conservative spokesman on Sky the cohesion spokesman has said that Britain is not ready YET for sharia law, it is too early for him to be coming out with these statements.
So can we now have it confirmed that sharia law is conservative policy for the future?
we need to be told before we make up our minds who to vote for because I shall not be voting for a party that thinks sharia law may be good for the future.
You are all a bunch of chamberlains.
I don't think we are 'islamophobic' [a loaded phrase if ever there was one ] we are merely being 'sharia-sceptic'...
I have great sympathy for all those individuals ensnared, either through family background or misguided conviction, in this evil cult. If that statement's against the law then we are well on the way to the Gulag and no doubt Lavrenti Briggs will be leading the way.
Verity, take the time to read Hristov's post - it is well worth it, and articulated valid arguments that I certainly agree with.
And could certain posters stop equating Jewish law with Sharia? Jewish law is for those who WISH to be bound by it, and makes no claim to be a political power.
Everyone should read Matthew Parris in today's Times 'Williams is dangerous. He must be resisted'.
Parris on top form.
Paddy, piss off will you. I want to read what people have to say without some arsewipe threatening them with the thought police.
Halal and Kosher butchers operate under an exemption from English law.I hear no calls for change.
Well, since 'Beardy Weirdie' Rowan Williams is a non-believing PC cretin of the first order (he must be a LibDem as well), may i suggest he resigns forthwith? Could i suggest a replacement? How about Richard Dawkins who wrote 'The God Delusion'.
Paddy Briggs - You thought 'phobia' meant hate and you jumped up and down, red in the face, screeching, "It's illegal - that's why!" You thought you have scored a point when you had just illuminated your lack of education.
Briggs writes: "Perhaps I was imprecise" - well, yes. You used a word you didn't understand and that didn't mean what you thought it meant - despite phobia being a common word in our language.
"Perhaps I was imprecise" - yes; you used the wrong word - "in the drafting of my original post" - oh! it was a draft! - not intended to be the finished post! "...but any fool could see what I was getting at" This is surreal. Ignorant misemployment of words is incidental, because it's up to the reader to "see what I was getting at". Why bother to compose a post at all? Why not just type your name and in the comment box type: "Thought." It's up to the reader to know what you are getting at. " I certainly don't need the picky admonishments that she and others have seen fit to post!" Well, yes you do, actually.
Let me be clear and write in words that you can understand: I do not like islam. It is a violent, aggressive belief system that believes it is not only superior to every other belief system in the world - despite its demonstrable inferiority in every aspect - but has been commanded by its diety to convert every living human soul to worship allah, by persuasion, by lies and deceit (taqqya and kitman) or at the point of a sword (or these days, a bomb).
It is a religion freely entered into. As I have said many, many, many times, people don't choose how they pop out of their mother, which is why racism is so absurd, as is hatred/dislike of homosexuals. We all get born. We had no choice in the matter.
Religion is a choice.
Now do you understand, oh mahatama?
OK, Judith, will do. Thanks for the pointer.
Judith - I went back and read M Hristov's whole post and you are right; it is very interesting and well stated.
Also, an apology to M Hristov for having been so dismissive in the first instance.
The only thing that baffles me about the post is this sentence: "Yes, Verity, your ideas have been tried before (by a Communist, take note)." What ideas? I didn't promote any ideas except that sharia must not be given any legal standing in the United Kingdom. I am totally puzzled by the sentence above - especially as I hold communism at the same level of contempt as I hold sharia.
M. Hristov: It is clear that “the establishment” really have no idea about the dangers of this issue.
Well said. You are absolutely right.
judith: And could certain posters stop equating Jewish law with Sharia? Jewish law is for those who WISH to be bound by it, and makes no claim to be a political power.
Quite right. Sorry if I was misunderstood to be equating the two. The Islamic attitude to apostasy would be a critical issue with regard to the limitations on what might be adjudicated.
Oscar Miller mentioned Matthew Parris's piece, and I agree it should be read. It makes the good point that "voluntary" -- as in volantarily opting for religious court adjudication -- may not be as voluntary as we'd like.
That said, I was not actually equating Jewish and Islamic law. I was discussing provision under English law for civil or religious arbitration.
Verity, I cannot understand why you think yourself qualified to comment upon a speech that you have not read. I even summarised it for you and you cannot be bothered to read the precis, except the bit that mentions your name. No marks for effort or understanding.
The Archbishop’s speech is fundamentally wrong but you don’t understand why it is wrong. You think it is wrong because it calls for you to be placed under Shar’ia law. In fact, it is wrong because it suggests that religious groups and ethnic/religious groups should have their own courts, which will enforce religious law upon their congregation or ethnic group, without reference to the secular law of the land. This is a recipe for disastrous division and permanent conflict between secular legislators and courts on the one hand and religious courts on the other. There would also be endless conflict between the different religious courts and the courts supporting the different traditions within the three Abrahamic faiths eg Shia and Sunni Muslims; Reform and Orthodox Jews and Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox churches.
As regards, your policy being the same as Zhivkov’s, I quote your post of December 2007
“December 27, 2007 2:18 PM ,
“Anyway, we need to repatriate tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Pakistanis and accept no more "immigrants"/"asylum seekers" from countries under islamic law. They are bonkers and infantile and have no place in the advanced West.””
Zhivkov did repatriate Muslims to Turkey and made other take Bulgarian names. That is the policy you are advocating here. That makes you a “Communist Troll” to use your own words and your own distorted logic.
Finally, I am surprised that you think you can divine the gender of the bloggers who post here. Why is your transgender person named “Marilyn”. It could easily be “Verity” for all we know.
The short answer to the original question is in may cases yes - and I'm afraid that this was demonstrated by how many people here and elsewhere were prepared to comment on the Archbishop's speech without first bothering to understand what he said in the first place.
Verity is absolutely correct that she is not Islamophobic - see has developed here own vast understanding of what is Islam and is not making a prejudgement about Islam - so it is difficult to say that she has an irrational fear of Islam. Verity's problem is that she is not prepared to modify her view one jot in the light of any evidence which may be presented by others - the usual word for such behaviour is bigotry.
Tolerance for others with different views is not something that Verity is ever able to countenance - and she will doubtless respond (again) by calling me a Moslem - despite the fact that my family background is Methodist/C of E and my own views varying between agnosticism and atheism - and I supported the Iraq War for good measure.
Verity: "Religion is a choice". Not necessarily: if something seems true, then you have no option but to believe it for the time being. There are things I would rather not believe but am forced to by events or evidence. You could only be completely free to if you were cut off from objective reality, i.e. mad.
M Hristov - You will have read my apology by now.
However, you make a silly assumption about me and my objection to sharia having any official standing in Britain whatsoever: "You think it is wrong because it calls for you to be placed under Shar’ia law."
That is the height of lunacy. Don't tell me why I profoundly object to sharia having any status whatsover in Britain. I assure you, I have a very lucid understanding of why Archbishop Dingbat's speech is not just profoundly wrong, but profoundly dangerous.
On a less aggressive note, "transgendered", (soi-disant, there is no such thing in reality) individuals often seem to choose Marilyn as their new name. It referred to a notional person. It was part of a joke.
Tory Boys - your father's background is Methodist/CofE. You never said what religion your mother is/was. You were definitely not brought up as a Christian because you know nothing about the religion and make strange blunders when discussing it. But you seem to know a little about islam. And yes, I still believe you are a muslim flying under the radar.
Little Black Sambo - Yes, that is a good point. But I would submit you have to be teetering on the edge of lunacy to follow such an aggressive, totalitarian belief system. They believe if you kill infidels in the name of their diety, you get 72 virgins. How crazy is that? By which I mean, the entire concept of murdering people to get 72 virgins? This is the kind of mind that finds that appealing rather than creepy.
And while I'm at it, they also believe that these virgins are recycled. As soon as Omar or whoever has initiated them into sex, they get reconditioned as a virgin again.
In other words, women in heaven are of no more consquence and worthy of consideration than women on earth.
One point 2bn people find this appealing, including women, so this is a religion of dingbats. I cannot, though, answer your very good point.
One very important question which has not been addressed is - What happens when Turkey is in the EU, and a slow drift of Moslems into the EU takes place, making it necessary to change EU law to accommodate their religious views ??
It shouldn't be a problem - after all, we haven't had any problems ceding a few, small, minor powers to the EU to help with cohesion of the different nation states ??
I realise it's getting late in Britain and the papers change around midnight, but there is a very eloquent and elegant letter in defence of English law by a Dr Shaaz Mahgoob in the Letters section of The Telegraph. He seems to have a much keener grasp of English Common Law than Dr Williams.
Anonymous re Turkey joining - if it is ever allowed in - the EU. You ask what will happen to the law. Nothing. Turkey is a secular state and its law is secular not sharia.
Verity @ 9:21
Just seen on the news that the ABC's predecessor, Lord Carey, has just waded in with some sharp criticism.
Wish I shared your confidence that Turkey could maintain it's post-Ataturk secular tradition. There are worrying signs just now. In the past there army has stepped in, but....
Thing is Iain it was not "talk about" it was "knee jerk in uncontrollable hysteria about". Different. I stand by my view*. The debate is a good thing. Very likely the Arch Bish is reaching out to other god botherers to form an alliance as his own constituency declines and even Rome has more regulars on these shores.
I think it is just possible that the "knee jerk in uncontrollable hysteria about" reaction has been driven in some quarters by Islamophobia.
* Clearly the post heading is a reference to your own and as I say in my opening I don't think you're part of the sheriff's posse wilfully misunderstanding the man.
Henry Rogers - Thanks. I read that Carey had waded in, which is interesting in that he has nothing to gain. And speaks as a fellow wimp. So, interesting that even a fellow leftie couldn't abide Canterbury's comments.
My fingers are crossed for the brave and acutely intelligent (insofar as I am equipped to judge acute intelligence) Dr John Sentamu to be the next +Canterbury. Rochester could be promoted to York. They are both outstanding men and they are needed.
Chris Paul, aka One-Man-Barking:
Why is the debate "a good thing"? Why is it even deemed worthy of debate? We are a Christian country with Christian mores. Get back to us on why the "debate" - of which there wasn't any sign until the Canterbury's submissive mews - is "a good thing".
That's around 93% of us - given that we also have Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists living amongst us as most welcome citizens, and obviously the long-integrated Jews.
Not being clinically insane, I'm assuming the socialist government is lying to the citizenry about numbers. They say 3% islamic, so let's almost double it to five percent - guesstimate.
Who the hell cares what their opinion about anything is?
And why the hell is the Archbishop of Canterbury occupying himself with it? He doesn't have anything better to do? Like filling the churches?
Yes you are, you have picked Islamic law out of a list. If you were complaining equally about Talmudic and Papal law as well, both of which were covered by Dr Williams then you would have a defence
Um, Tony, what is this 'Papal law' of which you speak? Now, if you're talking about Catholic canon law, I'd very much like to hear what parts of that the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks will inevitably become part of British civil law.
Verity
Wrong again - I said what my family background was and that includes my mother. Also have several years of Methodist sunday school and an O-Level in scipture.
But of course being a bigot you can believe what you want to believe and never have to listen to anyone else's views - Moslem, Christian, left wing or otherwise. When was the last time when you changed your views on anything??
Tory Boys - You are trying to sidle out of it by innuendo.
When was the last time I changed my mind about anything? Probably yesterday or the day before. I decided to shrug and be more tolerant of all the endless four-day racket of Mardi Gras.
Post a Comment