View Full Version : BBC NEWS Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'
Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'
The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".
Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.
Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.
For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.
He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
'Sensational reporting'
In an exclusive interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, ahead of a lecture to lawyers in London on Monday, Dr Williams argues this relies on Sharia law being better understood.
At the moment, he says "sensational reporting of opinion polls" clouds the issue.
He stresses that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".
But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger".
"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law."
'Other loyalties'
Dr Williams added: "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."
That principle that there is only one law for everybody is an important pillar of our social identity as a western democracy," he said.
"But I think it is a misunderstanding to suppose that means people don't have other affiliations, other loyalties which shape and dictate how they behave in society and that the law needs to take some account of that."
'Custom and community'
Dr Williams noted that Orthodox Jewish courts already operated, and that the law accommodated the anti-abortion views of some Christians.
"The whole idea that there are perfectly proper ways the law of the land pays respect to custom and community, that's already there," he said.
People may legally devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process.
Muslim Sharia courts and the Jewish Beth Din which already exist in the UK come into this category.
The country's main Beth Din at Finchley in north London oversees a wide range of cases including divorce settlements, contractual rows between traders and tenancy disputes.
Dr Williams' comments are likely to fuel the debate over multiculturalism in the UK.
Last month, the Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, said some places in the UK were no-go areas for non-Muslims.
Dr Williams said it was "not at all the case that we have absolute social exclusion".
This surrendering your moral and cultural rights without a fight. df
Last month, the Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, said some places in the UK were no-go areas for non-Muslims.
When England fades into the night I don't want anybody who helped blow out the candle coming into our country.
We have enough surrender monkeys as it is - don't need any more.
At least we're armed - for now.
This type of crap makes me so mad. If you don't like the specific laws of a country you are moving to, then go to a different country. You are a guest in a new country, they don't owe you anything. They should be grateful they were allowed into the country in the first place.
I hope this issue never comes up in the USA.
Retired W4
02-07-2008, 14:06
At least we're armed - for now.
Forever, I say.
Well, isnt this all just special. Lets all set around and sing Kumbaya! The so called intelligent world is in a downward spiral because of what they think should be a politically correct envoirment.
As a first generation American growing up in a coal mining "patch" there was no such thing as politically correctness. Everyday was an education. No laws or customs were changed to conform to the vaious ethnic groups living in these patches. THEY learned American language, laws and customs.
Being Czech, I never learned the language because parents and relatives opted to speak English. They wanted to speak American, because they were in America and wanted to be good Americans.
All of this are customs I feel should be emulated. Just my opinion though.
The Reaper
02-07-2008, 14:28
Forever, I say.
I doubt it.
My grandkids, if and when they come, will likely be unable to own the majority of my collection.
All the government has to do is to continue the death by a thousand cuts banning certain types of weapons, and to continue to make it more expensive and difficult to get permits and ammunition. You may have the guns, but taking them out to shoot or buying ammo will be impossible, effectively ending your ability to exercise your rights. Neighbors near my family farm already call the cops to complain when they hear shooting.
You let Hill or Obama get in office with a Dem Congress, and the lessons of 1992-1994 will be lost, along with the remainder of your Second Amendment rights.
Don't think the Dems do not have a ton of senseless feelgood legislation waiting to pass. Even President Bush said that he would sign the AWB if Congress passed it again. McCain probably would as well. You think Klinton would not?
England is lost. Nothing like allowing citizens to choose their own regressive, misogynistic 12th Century legal system.:rolleyes:
Good news is, if it were in effect here, Hillary and Nancy would be wearing burkas, cooking, cleaning, pulling plows, getting the shit kicked out of them every night by their husbands, and loving it, because divorce would mean being kicked out in the street with nothing, to be stoned to death.
TR
incommin
02-07-2008, 18:49
Lets see, charcoal, sulfur, saltpeter.... mix with alcohol to make a cake, crush and load........
Us old Southern boys will always have a loaded firearm no matter what congress says.....
Jim
Lets see, charcoal, sulfur, saltpeter.... mix with alcohol to make a cake, crush and load........
Us old Southern boys will always have a loaded firearm no matter what congress says.....
Jim
"As long as the Union was faithful to her trust,
Like friends and like brothers both kind were we and just;
But now, when Northern treachery attempts our rights to mar,
We hoist on high the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star."
http://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/gettkidz/gkmusic/cwsong4.htm
Bracholi
02-07-2008, 23:38
My biggest question is what happens to the military minded ones?
I can't imagine what must be going through the minds of those British soldiers that were in Iraq and saw first hand Sharia law... and then it being instated in their own country... I couldn't let it happen here. I'd be obligated to resist it to the best of all my abilities, especially understanding it's Al Qaeda's plan to use our democracy against us...
God help us all.
My grandkids, if and when they come, will likely be unable to own the majority of my collection.
Sir, I have a feeling you're going to have the kind of grandkids that don't allow that to happen.
The Archbishop of Canterbury continues to face calls for his resignation despite attempts to defuse the row over his Islamic Sharia law comments.
Dr Rowan Williams has been condemned from inside and outside his church for saying the adoption of parts of the law was "unavoidable" in Britain.
At least two General Synod members have called for him to quit and he has been heckled as he left a church service.
But supporters say his comments have been misinterpreted.
The archbishop is said to be shocked and hurt by the hostility his comments have provoked, and on his website he said he "certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law".
Members of the Synod - the Church of England's national assembly - will have the opportunity of tabling a motion to discuss the issue at the body's biannual meeting, starting on Monday.
It is more likely that Dr Williams will receive warm support, such is the respect and affection for him among Anglicans, BBC News religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott said.
Dr Williams evidently wanted to provoke discussion about Sharia but not the impassioned and confused debate that has taken place, our correspondent added.
University setting
The Right Reverend George Cassidy, Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, is the latest colleague to offer support.
He described the reaction as "hysterical" and said the archbishop was simply trying to take forward a serious public debate.
I sense he would be far happier in a university where he can kick around these sorts of ideas
Synod member Col Edward Armitstead
"The archbishop can count on the support of all serious minded people who are prepared to tackle the challenges of our complex society," he said.
Meanwhile, the Very Reverend Colin Slee, Dean of Southwark Cathedral, said the archbishop's advisors were not up to the job.
"I have said to him on many occasions that his staff actually aren't up to the job and he needs a bigger staff and more expert advice," he said.
Islamic Sharia law is a legal and social code designed to help Muslims live their daily lives, but it has proved controversial in the West for the extreme nature of some of its punishments.
Col Edward Armitstead, a Synod member from the diocese of Bath and Wells, was among those calling for Dr Williams to step down, telling the Daily Telegraph: "I don't think he is the man for the job."
He is undoubtedly one of the finest minds of this nation
Rt Rev Stephen Lowe
He said: "One wants to be charitable, but I sense that he would be far happier in a university where he can kick around these sorts of ideas."
Alison Ruoff, a Synod member from London, said: "Many people, huge numbers of people, would be greatly relieved [if he resigned] because he sits on the fence over all sorts of things and we need strong, Christian, biblical leadership right now, as opposed to somebody who huffs and puffs around and vacillates from one thing to another.
"He's a very able, a brilliant scholar as a man but in terms of being a leader of the Christian community I think he's actually at the moment a disaster."
'A disaster'
Brig William Dobbie, a former Synod member, described the archbishop as "a disaster, a tragic mistake".
SHARIA LAW
Sharia law is Islam's legal system
It is derived from the Koran and the life of the prophet Mohammed
Sharia rulings help Muslims understand how they should lead their lives
A formal legal ruling is called a fatwa
In the West, Sharia courts deal mainly with family and business issues
English law recognises religious courts as a means of arbitration
Q and A: Sharia law explained
Sharia law around the world
The statement on the archbishop's website said Dr Williams had pointed out that "as a matter of fact, certain provisions of Sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law".
The statement said he was "exploring ways in which reasonable accommodation might be made within existing arrangements for religious conscience".
It also said his principal aim was "to tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state".
And he said he did not initiate the idea but simply agreed when that proposition was put to him.
First public appearance
Dr Williams made his first public appearance since the controversy erupted at a thanksgiving service on Saturday but made no comment on the row.
The service, at Great St Mary's in Cambridge, was held to give thanks for the life of the Rev Professor Charles Moule, a New Testament scholar who died last year.
As Dr Williams left the church, one person shouted "resign" and a couple of people booed, but there were no signs of any protest.
The archbishop has been defended by the most senior woman priest in the Church of England, the Dean of Salisbury the Very Reverend June Osborne, who said he was right to discuss Sharia law.
"We can say he may have been politically naive [but] I don't think he was.
"Our society needs to be provoked into talking about these things. I would say that all of the law of Britain has got to work within the very high standards of human rights and Christian principles."
'Lampooned'
The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said it was grateful for the Archbishop's "thoughtful intervention" on the discussion of the place of Islam and Muslims in modern Britain.
A spokesman said: "The MCB observes, with some sadness, the hysterical misrepresentations of his speech which serves only to drive a wedge between British people."
The Bishop of Hulme, the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, said he was dismayed at the "knee-jerk" reaction to Dr Williams' comments.
"We have probably one of the greatest and the brightest Archbishops of Canterbury we have had for many a long day," he told BBC Radio 4.
"He is undoubtedly one of the finest minds of this nation.
"The way he has been ridiculed, lampooned and treated by some people and indeed some of the media within this process, is quite disgraceful."
frostfire
02-11-2008, 20:09
The Times online, February 6, 2008
Have your loudspeakers. But not here
Britain is welcoming to minorities. They in turn should respect Britain's Christian culture
By Daniel Finkelstein
Comment Central: Why the Archbishop is wrong about Sharia
Tu B'shvat. Latkes. Kinloss. Simchat Torah. The four questions. Viennas. Halacha dictates that you should affix your mezuzah on the right side of the door in the upper third of the doorpost within approximately three inches of the opening. Chrain.
If you are not Jewish my list will have lost you by now. Other people's religions are mystifying. The son of God - who came up with that one? The Eucharist - what's that when it's at home?
Fortunately you don't need to understand any of the words with which I started this column. (Although I recommend finding out about latkes. And Viennas. Oh, and chrain.) If you insist on learning - because you think it might come up in a quiz or something - then by all means go ahead. But not on my account. All I really need you to do is leave me alone to get on with it.
And I don't doubt that you will. That's what I love about Britain. Our country is a very tolerant, quiet, modest, hospitable sort of place. We try and leave others in peace and expect to be left in peace ourselves. When a mass murderer is discovered in our midst, the neighbours still murmur with approval: “He kept himself to himself.”
You know what else I love? That none of you will have questioned my right to use the word “our” about this country, even though I am the son of immigrants naturalised not long before I was born.
Imprisoned by communists and Nazis, expelled from their homes, seeing their relatives die, forced to start again with nothing, my parents found peace and freedom in this country. Because of its traditions and its culture. Because there is something precious about this place.
Now I'll tell you what I'd like to do. I'd like you to look after it. I'd like you to stand up for the principles that make this country what it is, even when it's mildly awkward to do so. And an awkward case has just arisen, as it happens. So I can test your resolve.
Over in East Oxford, the Central Mosque wants to issue a call to prayer by loudspeaker three times a day. As the mosque's spokeman, Sardar Rana, put it: “The call to prayer would be made in the central hall and then linked to three speakers in the minaret, which would point in different directions.” He then added, without, I think, trying to be funny: “I don't think it would disturb anybody.”
You can see why this is awkward, can't you? The first, and correct, instinct of the Englishman is to see if we can accommodate the request without any fuss. It is, however, hard to see how this is possible. With the best will in the world, the muezzin's electronically enhanced recitation is going to be an intrusion.
Yet I don't think it's enough to confine one's objection purely to the noise.
Let me dispense with a couple of minor - but in my view incorrect - arguments about the call to prayer. There's nothing all that wrong with the words that would be recited. Apart from anything else it would be in Arabic. And yes, the muezzin will announce that God is great, but fortunately we are entitled in Britain to disagree. I don't accept either the idea that this call to prayer would create a Muslim ghetto. Nor would I fear such a thing. It is natural that Muslims want to live near each other anyway, just as Jews do. And that they will wish to live near the mosque.
These arguments are diversions from the important principle involved. And that concerns this country's status as a Christian country with an established Church. Perhaps you feel reluctant to use this argument - feeling it a departure from inclusiveness. Well, I don't think you should be reluctant in the slightest.
Immigrants and their children in this country receive a fantastic deal. We are able to practise our religion in peace. We can openly enjoy our culture. Our colleagues tolerate our taking vacations on holy days and they even let their children be taught about some of our practices, which is most courteous, I must say.
In return I think it reasonable for us to show respect for the majority religion and for the established religious institutions. We could, after all, live somewhere else. We came here on purpose. And here we have a right to practise, but not to dominate the public space. We have the right to pray, but not to blare out our prayer across Cowley.
Let's say that the call to prayer, the sound of the muezzin from the minaret, is the most precious sound to you. You do not have to live in East Oxford. There are any number of mosques all over the world, loudspeakering away to their hearts' content. One of the reasons I support the existence of the state of Israel is that I feel there should be one place in the world where Jews can loudspeaker away. Although most of us Jews talk loud enough without a megaphone, so we can settle in Pinner.
Here, however, they have church bells. And the Queen is defender of the faith. Many members of the Church of England aren't very religious - my favourite Spitting Image joke involved a man knocking on a door and saying: “Jehovah's Witnesses here. Do you believe in God?” To which the man inside replied: “No, I'm C of E.” But even among the less religious many marry in church and are buried in a churchyard. And religiosity isn't the only issue here. It's also culture.
Why should the mild, gentle culture of the Anglicans not deserve the same preservation and respect as any other ancient culture? I regard the Jewish tradition as something I hold in trust for my children. What of the culture and sights and sounds of this country and its heritage?
I'm not calling for a retreat from the tolerance and mutual respect of this country. That's the last thing I want. I depend on it, don't I?
It's just that I don't think tolerance and mutual respect come from nowhere. There's a reason why this country shows it, why we have fought for it, and died for it. I am just saying that if this country doesn't protect its own heritage and culture, how can I expect it to protect mine?
daniel.finkelstein@thetimes.co.uk
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article3315165.ece
The statement on the archbishop's website said Dr Williams had pointed out that "as a matter of fact, certain provisions of Sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law".
The statement said he was "exploring ways in which reasonable accommodation might be made within existing arrangements for religious conscience".
Where does the reasonable accommodation end?
Is it now okay for an Iman to pray for our defeat within the halls of our own government?
Wasn’t this called treason at one time?:mad:
Muslim Imam Prays For Victory Over ‘Great Satan’ In Iowa House Of Representatives
February 8, 2008 – Commentary By TVC Chairman, Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
In Iowa last week, Mohammed Khan, the Imam of the Islamic Center of Des Moines, said the opening prayer in the Iowa House of Representatives. Khan had been invited by state representative Ako Abdul-Samad.
Abdul-Samad is a former Iowa school board member and has worked as a counselor in the Iowa prison system.
Imam Khan’s prayer was four minutes long and included such statements as “victory over those who disbelieve” and asked for “protection from the Great Satan.”
These statements have angered many in the House who heard them as well as pastors in the state who are concerned that such statements would be made as a prayer in a legislative body in America.
In Islam, there are only two kinds of people: Muslims and Infidels (or unbelievers). The Islamic Prophet Mohammed taught that unbelievers were to be encouraged to convert to Islam. If they refused, they had two choices: live in slavery under Islam or be killed by the sword.
The Koran, for example, says in the Verse of the Sword (9:5): “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush.”
Those who not killed but enslaved are placed under what has been described as “Dhimmitude.” This is a subservient status mandated in Islamic (Sharia) law. It is designed to make the Christian, Jew or other conquered peoples to feel humiliated and subdued.
The term “Great Satan,” of course, is known by most students of Islam to be a reference to the United States. Israel is considered the “Little Satan.”
So, what exactly did Imam Khan mean when he prayed for victory over unbelievers and protection from the Great Satan? It sounds to me like he was praying for Islamic rule over the world and for the defeat of America in its battle against Islamic fascism.
Is this really the kind of religious tolerance we should permit in a state legislative body?
Representative Abdul-Samad, the man who invited Khan to say the opening prayer, seems to have some questionable ties to radical Islam. According to a recent article published by FrontPageMagazine.com, Abdul-Samad gained notoriety in 2004 when he welcomed Ibrahim Dremali to become the new Imam of the Islamic Center of Des Moines.
Dremali founded the Islamic New Horizons School in Des Moines with funds provided by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). This group is a Saudi-funded Wahhabi organization that controls most American mosques and espouses a form of radical Islam.
In September, 2005, Mohammed Khan and Ako Abdul-Samad were featured speakers at a Muslim program called “A Way To The Future.” One of the workshops was titled, “The Practical Structure of Building an Islamic Society.”
Is “Building an Islamic Society” in America the ultimate goal of Khan and Abdul-Samad?
Americans need to come to grips with the possibility that a subversive and tyrannical political movement in the United States is hiding under the protection of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom and free speech.
What we do about it will determine what kind of America our grandchildren live in. Will it be an Islamic Republic ruled by ruthless Imams or a Republic under the U.S. Constitution? How we deal with radical Islam—both inside and outside America--will determine the future of our nation.
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3256
Sweetbriar
02-16-2008, 09:35
If you can have a sense of humour on the subject....
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/02/heere-bigynneth.html
Peregrino
02-16-2008, 10:29
If you can have a sense of humour on the subject....
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/02/heere-bigynneth.html
ROTFLMMFAO!:D Had to shift mental gears, probably should have started with mead or a good stout, but it does "roll off the tounge" once you get going. "Death of a thousand cuts" is the literal truth. Mulitculturalism is not tolerance - it's suicide.