A Dose of Sanity in Archbishop Willams' Sharia Controversy (by Becky Garrison)
As reported by the BBC, the Archbishop of Canterbury has attracted widespread criticism after appearing to back the adoption of some aspects of Sharia law in the U.K. This article goes on to explain that "under English law, people may 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 Orthodox Jewish courts which already exist in the U.K. come into this category."
In response, the senior member of the Church of England's governing body, the General Synod, who insisted on remaining anonymous, told The Times: "A lot of people will now have lost confidence in him. I am just so shocked, and cannot believe a man of his intelligence could be so gullible. I can only assume that all the Muslims he meets are senior leaders of the community who tell him what a wonderful book the Koran is."
My friend Jonny Baker posted via his blog that "Richard Sudworth has an excellent response to this controversy." In this article, Sudworth observes that "For most people sharia = stonings for adultery, hands chopped off for stealing and institutionalised misogyny." However, he challenges this misperception. "The vast bulk of Islamic laws that are invoked within Muslim communities (yes, present tense because it is a current reality here in Britain) concern family relationships (divorce and separation), and inheritance matters. The trouble is, the media and our beloved political establishment are either not intelligent enough to know this or, and God forbid this be the case, prefer to play to the simplistic public perception of sharia = stonings for short-term electoral expediency."
Becky Garrison explores reaching those for whom church is not in their vocabulary in her book Rising from the Ashes: Rethinking Church.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
What people decide to do during mediation is fine, as long as it's willingly entered into by all parties concerned and does not conflict with or violate the general laws.
The consequence, though, of people having greater trust in their own dispute models is that they may never generally accept the legitimacy of the state's laws and thus those communities will not share the values and traditions of the larger group.
Eventually, this tension could result, given the right demographics, the replacement with Sharia-influenced law.
We have to ask ourselves, though, why are our own sets of laws and societal values not as compelling to others as they once were?
Our own changing values and practices have created an almost completely materialist society that is deeply flawed and dissatisfying. This crisis may be even more evident in Europe, but the perceived influence of religion even in America is more in appearance than actual faithfulness to Christ.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 12, 2008 12:10 PM
Here's the kicker: because individuals are allowed to resolve private disputes by any means they both agree to, Muslims in Britain (or the US for that matter) are able to invoke Sharia if they agree to it. By the same token, Christians can make arrangements to have their disputes resolved by Christian mediators or arbitrators.
Some of the Archbishop's defenders act as if we are not aware of this, and that therefore Rowan Williams' comments amount to nothing unprecedented. But we are very much aware of private dispute resolution, (I actually served on a couple panels for a Christan dispute resolution ministry) and it is entirely appropriate to ask: if what we have now isn't enough, what comes next?
Rowan Williams calls for Sharia to receive further recognition in English law -- what exactly he is vague on (a common problem with Rowan Williams) but the current understandings are not enough. That implies some special rights for Muslims that Christians do not have, and perhaps even a separate legal system. These things cannot exist without severely weakening the basic concepts of non-sectarian government and equal protection under law that are fundamental to a civilized, secular, and pluralistic society.
Now maybe Rowan Williams has something much more modest in mind, but throwing that idea out there without any indication of limits was reckless to say the least. Sharia is a very controversial topic, and a man with Rowan's responsibilities should be aware of that. That being the case, he needs, at a minimum, to choose his words carefully and be ready to explain just what he does or does not have in mind.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | February 12, 2008 12:11 PM
The archbishop just may be enlightened. In the words of Dr. Janice Hale, “Difference does not mean deficience.” Nor does difference mean that we have to condemn it. If all things were taken to the level that most institutions radiate, Christians must be cannibals because they partake of the "blood and body" of the Christ in the sacrament.
"In international media, practices by countries applying Islamic law have fallen under considerable criticism at times. This is particularly the case when the sentence carried out is seen to greatly tilt away from established standards of international human rights. This is true for the application of the death penalty for the crimes of adultery and homosexuality, amputations for the crime of theft, and flogging for fornication or public intoxication."---Wikipedia "Sharia"
Much of Sharia law is concerned with the obligations to God, and family and community matters. Any violation accusation requires witnesses. For example, four for theft, and the theft is not punished if it was for need.
I really do not believe that democratic states should adopt Sharia in their secular laws. However, I do believe that there should be some understanding of this law in the civil court system. Franc is a good example.
Posted by: Mary Rollins | February 12, 2008 12:27 PM
"Eventually, this tension could result, given the right demographics, the replacement with Sharia-influenced law."
It almost certainly will.
I don't see how embracing the prospect of enhance Sharia Law in Britain lends sanity to the discussion. Compromising with insanity does not make one sane, but rather moderate on the question of one's own sanity.
"Franc is a good example."
Do you mean to say that France is a good example? Oh, heavens no it isn't.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 12, 2008 12:41 PM
Thanks Becky for updating us on this.
Although I am a Christian today, I grew up in a European Muslim family (in capital of Croatia) and our family rule of conduct had an aspect to it that I have observed in my extended family as well as among Muslims of former Yugoslavia: "We do not seek justice by hurting anybody, even when we are convinced we are (or in fact are) right, because violence, retaliation and revenge are simply a wrong way to live under God". It was better to be hurt and run, than to hurt. This was an example of our Sharia, our practice. After coming to the United States, it was Amish who freshly reminded me of my religiously observing relatives.
Shariah is similar to Dharma in Buddhism, a path, a way of life one learns and practices, rather than a law one imposes. What many do not want to deal with is the fact that Muslim faith is public and not just private. For example, Muslims pray publicly and have sex privately, while in the host countries like UK and USA for most people spirituality is to stay hidden and sexuality is to be displayed.
Tax-paying, voting, upright Muslim citizens are asking for consideration from their host countries, to accomodate their faith practice of being good and just in the world. Not taking this need seriously and with respect (regardless of whether any accomodations in law are actually made) is counterproductive in helping Muslims discover a fresh expression of Islam in their relatively new surroundings in the West, an expression that can bless them and their neighbors.
I understand the fear of secular people who have hard time seeing the benefit of accomodating any religion at all. They have good reasons. What I don't understand is why we Christians are abandoning our own rule of conduct (remember "the way"?) such as listening, serving, mediating, seeking the best in the other, doing to them what we would like them to do to us, when people from other religions need it. We abandon the radicalism of Jesus and become religiously pedestrian. It seems to me, we have more patience and willingness to accomodate the values coming to us from nebulously mysterious forces of the market or irresistible powers of testosterone to affect all aspect of our public life, than we have with other religions. What are we afraid of? Since when was Christ afraid of protecting the interest and prosperity of the Other?
I hope we Christians soon find strength to practice our own Shariah not only with Muslims, but also with one of our wonderful teachers such as Rowan Williams.
Samir Selmanovic, www.faithhousemanhattan.org
Posted by: Samir Selmanovic | February 12, 2008 12:48 PM
For those readers and posters who are not necessarily up to speed with the English Church scene, this is, as President Roosevelt used to say at his press conferences, background.
There is within the General Synod a small but vocal group (how small could be gauged in the clip last on last night's BBC News which showed the overwhelming majority of members giving Archbishop Rowan a standing ovation at the end of his presidential address) who have been demanding the Archbishop's resignation more or less since he was enthroned and who have (with their friends in the media) been making life difficult for him. It has to be admitted that Rowan's preference for reasoned - and sometimes highly nuanced - argument over the soundbite makes him a journalist's despair and gives his enemies plenty of scope for mischief-making.
In response to Wolverine's post: I suspect that what the Archbishop may have had in mind was establishing something like the relationship between the Common Law of England and the Jewish system of Beth Din family courts. That has worked well for over a century - but, of course, there are no recent images of amputation/decapitation for a hard-pressed picture editor to call on when s/he runs the word "Torah" through a search engine...
Posted by: Tony Diickinson | February 12, 2008 12:49 PM
I would note that nobody denies that nastier aspects of sharia law, particularly (brutally) mysoginistic ones, but rather simply choose to de-emphasize them. I would too, of course, were I trying to advocate that such laws have a greater foothold in civil society.
I hope someone asks Obama what he thinks of this. I suspect his answer would single-handedly sink his candidacy.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 12, 2008 12:53 PM
"but, of course, there are no recent images of amputation/decapitation for a hard-pressed picture editor to call on when s/he runs the word "Torah" through a search engine..."
No, there sure aren't.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 12, 2008 12:56 PM
Its funny but many atheists throw very similar at Christian doctrine
So if we want to treat all Muslims and Islamic doctrine the same we should accept out place amongst catholic and protestant terrorists of Northern Ireland, abortion doctor killers and the massacres of the great crusades.
The rest of us will probably deal with the little bit of complexity and see the difference in different Islamic interpretations of Sharia.
Also wouldn’t we all like to see Islamic States be more accommodating to Christian values or western values like human rights. Now we could re-muster our struggling armies and ride in on our high horses and try and force the nations of the world round to our way of thinking or maybe somewhat like what Jesus might have done. We can be humble show what a state that can learn from and accommodate the values of others look’s like.
Posted by: Matybigfro | February 12, 2008 1:14 PM
I've lived in countries that have Shariah so I make these comments with some experience of the facts.
There are many aspects of Shariah law quite apart from stonings that one should have a great deal of trouble with, especially when it comes to familial issues - inheritance laws for one or rules concerning domestic disputes for another. It is troublesome and both well meaning Christians and Muslims need to be frank about that.
I have a great deal of respect for Rowan Williams - he's a careful and imaginative scholar so I was surprised to hear these remarks. In his own words, he admits that his phrasing was clumsy even if he was tryign to call attention to a legitimate larger point.
As to that point of whether or not the recognitaion of Shariah is unavoidable I would say look to the Canadian example. A proposal to introduce Shariah into the province of Ontario ultimately did not pass due, in a large part, to opposition from the large moderate Muslim community in that province. I suspect that this would be much the same case for the 2.5 million British Muslims, so that any move to do so against the will of the moderates will just encourage the extremist elements.
Posted by: splinterlog | February 12, 2008 2:14 PM
Here we go again with the "Obama as stealth Muslim" libel:
"...nobody denies that nastier aspects of sharia law... but rather simply choose to de-emphasize them. I would too, of course, were I trying to advocate that such laws have a greater foothold... hope someone asks Obama what he thinks of this. I suspect his answer would single-handedly sink his candidacy."
We all know, and I think you do too, that he'll answer precisely the opposite of what you intimate. To say otherwise is bearing false witness.
Heck, he's not even going to pull us out of Iraq at all.
That propensity to "suspect" is a product of the latent racial prejudice I always said is the real thing that will "sink" his candidacy.
It's effective - it was even used eight years ago in the south to derail John McCain by the Bush campaign floating the rumor that McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child. It seems people are all-too-willing receptacles for this kind of thing - they are looking for confirmation of their deepest disquietudes about race by looking for any straw argument in order to return to their old places of comfort.
People convinced against their will, even with every overt evidence in favor, are of the same opinion still.
Just as Randy Woodley pointed out, people aren't ready to submit to leadership from other than their own favored sons to American Indians, even if they're grudgingly ready for "equality." And as Rick Nowlin encountered, white-run churches wanted more black membership, but withhold the leadership positions and reserve those for themselves due to thir own unacknowledged discomfort.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 12, 2008 2:14 PM
American Indians with sovereignty over their reservation lands have their own courts and procedures that differ markedly from the larger society's methods.
In Canada, there are alternative sentencing and community restoration procedures for aboriginal Canadians (Canadian Indians) both within and without First Nations territories.
Application of European-based laws to native communities resulted in anomalies where prison populations were 80% American Indian of the larger society's prison populations in state and provincial jails.
What European-based legal system advocates fear in regards to Sharia is that the Sharia law will apply to them eventually, to their own detriment, in their own land, favoring the Muslim and relegating them to second clas dhimmi status.
This is, of course, precisely how European-based law ended up marginalizing indigenous American Indian populations.
Rather than fearing ascendancy by others, we ought to ask how can we make our systems more just, fair and redemptive to everyone, even taking into account community sensibilities, whether Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Native American Church or those who are purely secular.
A legal system like ours, in which America has less than 5% of the world population, yet incarcerates numerically fully 25% of the world's inmate population, is clearly broken, and is neither optimal for us nor a model for anyone else in the world. Our incarceration rates exceed those of every current and historical rogue nations like the Soviet Union, North Korea, China or South Africa.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 12, 2008 2:28 PM
"We all know, and I think you do too, that he'll answer precisely the opposite of what you intimate. To say otherwise is bearing false witness."
Unless he's been well-prepped, he'll say something along the lines of "I applaud the endeavor to embrace what cultures bring to our own sense of justice and law."
Follow up question: "Would you applaud similar efforts here in America?"
"I would welcome anything that helps us grow in our acceptance of other faith traditions. I think there is a place for that, yes."
Hillary Clinton (and/or John McCain): Jackpot!
I'm not saying he's a closet Muslim. I am saying that he is open to some very bad suggestions. That is a function of his ethos, not his race.
"What European-based legal system advocates fear in regards to Sharia is that the Sharia law will apply to them eventually, to their own detriment, in their own land, favoring the Muslim and relegating them to second clas dhimmi status.
This is, of course, precisely how European-based law ended up marginalizing indigenous American Indian populations."
So, by your analogy, the Europeans have every reason to be afraid.
Our system in America does aim to be fair to all, whereas Sharia does not. I fully expect our inmate populations to exceed those of rogue nations. Our inmates are inmates because they have been imprisoned for crimes. In the Middle East, such men become national leaders. I prefer the former paradigm, and that has nothing to do with my race.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 12, 2008 3:10 PM
Sojourner Truth wrote:
American Indians with sovereignty over their reservation lands have their own courts and procedures that differ markedly from the larger society's methods.
This is, I believe, what is called "The Exception That Proves The Rule".
First off, we are dealing with an ethnic and cultural group that was here before the US was founded, not a group of later immigrants. And their legal system covers a distinct geographical territory.
Second, with the exception of a few tribes that have benefitted from some dreadfully cynical casino deals, you are dealing with a lot of desperately poor people.
As far as our prison population goes, there are worse things. Just a little while ago I read a newswire account that Saudi Arabia's religious police were cracking down on Valentine's Day paraphernalia, including things like roses -- that's Muslim religious law for you -- religious police cracking down on flowers. A lot of folks in prison in the US end up dead or maimed in a full-bore Sharia jurisdiction. Whatever the problem is with western governance, Sharia is not the answer.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | February 12, 2008 3:36 PM
If anyone reading this thread is interested in the issues raised by the Archbishop's speech and subsequent interview (rather than simply indulging in a little light Muslim-bashing), can I recommend the respected Evangelical scholar Andrew Goddard's reflection at
http://covenant-communion.com/?p=549
Posted by: Tony Dickinson | February 12, 2008 4:01 PM
Our resident religious conservatives are happy that incarceration rates in the US are much higher than totalitarian and authoritarian nations of past and present? And orders of magnitude greater than other modern industrialized western democracies? And want to see it go even higher?
Even though it must not be working, perhaps because we are the most violent and drug-addled domestic society of law breakers in the planet's history? We are certainly not the safest society to live in in the world - that status belongs to other western democracies - so even the argument it makes us safer holds no weight.
If we are on the right upwards track, as our resident conservatives here seem happy to believe, then we ought to compare the rotten apple with apples, not with oranges.
Let's look at a chart, not courtesy leftists, but from the conservative stalwarts at the Cato Institute, who believe government's too big more consistently than our authoritarian conservatives here, which shows the rate of incarceration for all nations, including western democracies.
We are so far off the chart it's ridiculous.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/06/02/con-nation-illustrated/
I'm thus tempted to be as dismissive of all the arguments as to how this is somehow positive, in the manner of our friend Mark!
Seeing is believing - or is it?
"Even if someone rose from the dead, they still would not believe." - from the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man in scripture.
Quod erat demonstratum!
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 12, 2008 4:06 PM
Often, you've accuse others of putting words in your mouth to unfairly enhance their arguments, but this dismal post proves that we most often accuse others of what we do ourselves. (A common hypocritical failing of conservatives from Foley to Haggard to Limbaugh, one might add. And not just them, but any of we moderns who adopt the Pharisaic mode of religiosity and morality.)
"'Unless [Obama]'s been well-prepped, he'll say something along the lines of "I applaud the endeavor to embrace what cultures bring to our own sense of justice and law."
'Follow up question: "Would you applaud similar efforts here in America?"
'"I would welcome anything that helps us grow in our acceptance of other faith traditions. I think there is a place for that, yes."'
Pot, kettle, black.
It's easy to "triumph" over straw-man opponents when you even get to insert the statements you want them to make which you already have demolished.
I don't know if you can see it, but one could pray you come to recognize the flawed hidden assumptions you are building your views on, which are latently but thoroughly racist. In America, it's no longer in good taste to spit out "N"-word innuendos in order to build up ethnic fear, but substituting other handy and more acceptable fear and hate proxies is very much alive.
When Obama actually says those false quotations you made up for him, then, and only then, can you use them to fairly make your point.
Incidentally, I'm for McCain.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 12, 2008 4:21 PM
Sojourner Truth,
Where did you get the idea that I approve of US incarceration rates? I mean, "there are worse things" is hardly a ringing endorsement. And as for the rest of the "resident religious conservatives" here, I suspect Kevin S. (dad in prison for a crime he didn't commit) might not be totally enthused about it either.
But you have nothing to say to my observation that states that have adopted Sharia law are prone to become repressive.
Look, I'm not a huge fan of the drug war (which is a big part of the incarceration rate here) but to the extent there is a problem, Sharia is not the answer.
Wolverine
PS: It's Quod Erat Demonstrandum -- tossing around Latin is more impressive when you spell it right.
Posted by: Wolverine | February 12, 2008 4:35 PM
Hmm, making non-english speaking muslim women from tribal backgrounds jump through more hurdles to escape their culture by allowing Sharia courts in place of English Civil Law does not sound like a good idea to me.
Posted by: aaron | February 12, 2008 4:42 PM
Our incarceration rates exceed those of every current and historical rogue nations like the Soviet Union, North Korea, China or South Africa.
If they're historically or currently rogue nations, why are you accepting their prison census? DO you believe them when they say they don't violate human rights in their prisons too?
Posted by: aaron | February 12, 2008 4:45 PM
"Our resident religious conservatives are happy that incarceration rates in the US are much higher than totalitarian and authoritarian nations of past and present?"
Nope, but go ahead criticize that attitude anyway, I guess. I also agree with Aaron's point that rogue nations (China for example) cannot be trusted to accurately report data on their prisons.
But unless you are proposing a little Sharia law as an antidote to our woes, I have no idea why you are carrying on about this.
"Pot, kettle, black."
It was pretty clear from my post that Obama hasn't said that, so you are comparing apples to oranges. You don't need to wonder how I would respond to such a question, because you can simply ask me.
"I don't know if you can see it, but one could pray you come to recognize the flawed hidden assumptions you are building your views on, which are latently but thoroughly racist."
Which views are racist? Hillary Clinton offered similar criticisms of Obama's pseudo-thoughtful grandstanding at the expense of important American principles. Is she racist? Is it inherently racist to criticize Obama?
"When Obama actually says those false quotations you made up for him, then, and only then, can you use them to fairly make your point."
My point is that this is how I anticipate he will handle issues of this nature... It's why I think he should not be president. There is nothing racist or immoral about it.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 12, 2008 5:03 PM
Aaron, stop fumbling for an excuse not to, man, and wake up!
Check out that data for yourself. Tough as it might be to believe considering all the unexamined myths that seem to give life meaning, something's uncomfortably rotten in the state of Denmark.
Posted by: Tortured Logic | February 12, 2008 5:10 PM
Ironic. What have we this side of the water have to say about laws and the law? We have permitted our outlaw president Cheney/Bush to dismantle more than 800 years of Anglo-Saxon Common Law without even noticing: Magna Carta, habeas corpus, the rule of law, the rights of Englishmen, as enshrined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
And from what I've heard of Cheney/Bush's poodle-dog Blair, the same thing's happened over there.
You know, sisters, brothers in the US, one of the things our Lord's going to ask us one of these days is: 'Whatever happened to that Republic I gave you?'
Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | February 12, 2008 5:12 PM
It's mighty hard to for someone to refute things he's never said, but that people are "sure" he will - someday.
Kind of like a "Minority Report" in which your own prejudices get to fill in the blanks, instead of reality.
And when some obviously phoney rumor turns out to be false, why were people so ready to believe it? Because they wanted to. It confirmed them in their prejudices.
If you're going by your "gut" instead of reason, well, we all know where that hall of mirrors and illusions leads to in the real world. We've just had seven years of it.
It's not what we don't know that hurts us - it's what we think we do but don't. And that's one hell of a stomach ache.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 12, 2008 5:20 PM
Oh, yes. Those simple little Islamic laws about family matters and inheritance law that have nothing at all to do with stonings, honor killings, etc. Right. Except, they have everything to do with each other. Whatever Sharia has been about historically, it is now, presently, here in the real world we actually live in, used by Islamic countries (or Islamic populations in countries like Nigeria) a seamless framework that is used to subjugate women. These forms of oppression reinforce each other. For example, when a woman cannot inherit from her parents because she is a woman, she may be further locked into a potentially abusive marriage. This is only one example; it's ridiculously blind not to see those connections.
The idea that British law should not only accomodate, but outright encourage, a system that physically, emotionally, and financially cripples women is outrageous. No amount of explaining or justifying changes that truth.
Posted by: Cici | February 12, 2008 5:33 PM
"It's mighty hard to for someone to refute things he's never said, but that people are "sure" he will - someday."
No. If you wanted to offer a defense, you would suggest that he would not say such a thing, and then cite a time when he has given more careful thought to a similar question.
The reason I provided the fake quotes was to explain the reasoning behind by original argument, as I was accused of perpetuating a rumor that Obama was a closet Muslim. Agree or disagree, that is all I'm saying about it, as the question at hand is much more compelling.
I agree completely with Cici's point. Whether most of Sharia law deals with inheritance or leash laws is irrelevant. The entire law subjogates women, as well as adherents to any other religion.
So what if only a small group is outragedat the archbishop's remarks? So what if Sharia has some elements that are less quarrelsome?
Does anyone want to defend what the man actually said? I have heard nothing resembling a defense.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 12, 2008 5:50 PM
We have quite enough problems in our country for us Americans to worry about, thank you.
If the Brits want to allow the Muslims in their nation to use Sharia, then it's their business, not mine. So I'll keep my mouth shut on this one rather than shoot it off about another country's affairs, thank you.
Posted by: bud duncan | February 12, 2008 6:16 PM
It wasn't so long ago, in our own history, that our own "Christian" society treated women as property - they could not vote until well into the 20th century, and conservatives of the time fought tooth and glove to keep them from it. Women were entitled to be beaten as the legal prerogative of the husband - along with the children, too - just as in the previous 500 years of Christian European American history slaves had been, too.
Conservative churches fought tooth and hood for the god-given institution of slavery, too.
So whether its millions of years of human history or the mere 10,000 or so fundamentalists claim, a hundred years is a pretty thin amount of history to assert an inherent superior morality. All the sins that were recently ours are theirs, or recently were too. And most of the things they consider sins, conservative Christians do too, even if the secular are reviled and want a pox on both our houses.
We've forgotten that pre-2001, conservative Muslims were the allies of conservative Christians. They made common political cause together against abortion, homosexuality, pornography, Hollywood's purveying of immorality, sex education, gambling and drug and alcohol abuse.
Some of today's harshest advocates for a new Crusade and a clash of civilizations were making like bosom buddies with Muslims during the Clinton era on all the above issues. Pick your fave, from Bennett to Dobson to Colson or Medved.
Christian legal organizations even took up the cause of Muslim women's right to wear the chador and scarves in schools and offices on common religious freedom grounds, against their old bugaboo, the ACLU.
Yesteday's ally is today's enemy is tomorrow's friend is tomorrow's enemy.
Hey, we just *knew* Saddam had those WMD - at least once upon a time - because we *gave* them to him. And Rummy was embracing him and had an ear-to-ear grin as they shook hands on the deal.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 12, 2008 6:28 PM
Aaron, stop fumbling for an excuse not to, man, and wake up!
Check out that data for yourself. Tough as it might be to believe considering all the unexamined myths that seem to give life meaning, something's uncomfortably rotten in the state of Denmark.
Mr. Logic, could you please tell me which posts of mine you were referring too?
Posted by: aaron | February 12, 2008 7:22 PM
N.M. Rod, from your last post, I could not tell if you were putting forth an argument for or against the Archbishops proposal.
Posted by: aaron | February 12, 2008 7:29 PM
the following is from a popular Christian fundamentalist periodical dated October 1929 (same month the stock market burped, interestingly enough!)
"according to the misguided editor of ********, the official publication of the ******** Church, a bastion of liberalism and all things modernist, "it is long past time the church encouraged men to stop treating their wives as their personal property..." "
The editor of the fundy magazine then commented:
"To this we have just one word to say: ROTTEN! This is but another example of how modernists corrupt the clear teaching of the Word of God!"
Posted by: canucklehead | February 12, 2008 7:41 PM
In other words, some idiot said something idiotic nearly eighty years ago. Therefore muslims in Britain must be given special legal rights.
Okay...
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | February 12, 2008 7:57 PM
Canucklehead,
What was said in the ellipses and so forth?
Posted by: aaron | February 12, 2008 8:04 PM
Good catch Aaron.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | February 12, 2008 9:31 PM
It's hard to tell just what the Archbishop's proposal really entails. He seems to be a master at lips moving, sounds coming out, but Greenspan-like, you interpret them according to your predelictions.
I'm just for getting the underlying background properly understood, rather than riding off in all ideological directions at full speed in Know-Nothing mode.
Like heading them off at the pass when they think it has something to do with Obama's being a "stealth muslim" or
that our present law system has somehow caught the perfect wave.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 12, 2008 10:20 PM
"We've forgotten that pre-2001, conservative Muslims were the allies of conservative Christians. "
I haven't forgotten. It makes me not one iota more excited about Sharia law. We don't learn from history by throwing our hands in the air as it repeats itself.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 12, 2008 11:43 PM
In other words, some idiot said something idiotic nearly eighty years ago. Therefore muslims in Britain must be given special legal rights.
Okay...
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | February 12, 2008 7:57 PM
Precisely, Wolverine, your brilliance has aptly captured the purpose of the post....
So let me spell it out for you slowly - the purpose of the post is simply to show that Islam is not the only religion that has a few extremists; where you got your "Therefore" conclusion from, I'm not sure even God knows
and the reasons for the ellipses is to spare the inevitable discussion/rant concerning the particular magazine or church - you'll note I didn't identify the fundy either
Posted by: canucklehead | February 13, 2008 1:24 AM
woops, full last phrase = "you'll note I didn't identify the fundy either whose quote is as it's presented by him
Posted by: canucklehead | February 13, 2008 1:45 AM
"The trouble is, the media and our beloved political establishment are either not intelligent enough to know this or, and God forbid this be the case, prefer to play to the simplistic public perception of sharia = stonings for short-term electoral expediency."
///
Sharia Law = millions and millions of non-Muslims slaughtered by Muslims adhering to Sharia Law that it is Sharia Law that killing non-Muslims is totally acceptable.
We all get Sharia Law. You don't have to be a Muslim to understand what an AK-47 or Improvised Explosive Device can do to settle disputes. Islam has diputed non-Muslims issues with violence sine Mohammad took Mecca by force of war and Islamic "law."
I guess the Fall of the Roman Empire (unassimilating immigrants) and the rise of Nazi Germany (totalitarianism), just didn't teach the Europeans a lesson. If they were not studying Marxism and started studying real history, they might figure this out before "Arabic" and forced prayer five times a day is the law of the land too.
Posted by: Donny | February 13, 2008 8:09 AM
I have read through the line of comments in this thread and most of Rowan's obtuse discourse. Although I do not think that he should be villified for making these comments, I see real problems with what he is proposing.
Great Britain is already experiencing tremendous difficulty in integrating its Muslim population. Why would one want to set up a legal sub-structure, albeit very circumscribed, for the Muslim population? It seems to go against the concept of a modern, liberal, secular society.
How voluntary would such a system be? I wonder how young women facing the scorn of their community would fare in such a "voluntary" system. You can write "voluntary" into a law empowering these "panels" or "tribunals" all you want, but in fact they run the risk of being that in name only.
I think that it would be an over-simplification to label those adamantly opposed to this type of system as being anti-Muslim. The fact of the matter is Rowan, to the extent anybody can understand his comments, is seeing a positive side of Sharia which is most likely there but his critics are seeing a very real negative side.
How much Sharia will be enough? If the State empowers these panels, will the community be satisfied with the circumscribed powers that they have? Will they continually demand more?
I have sympathy for the Muslims in the UK. On some level, British society does not integrate them well. They, in response, turn in on themselves and become insular communties. Can British society afford to propel that process? I don't think that that is desirable for anybody.
If a person immigrates to another country, he or she should seek to adopt the customs of that country and incorporate themselves into civil society. That does not mean that they should be forced to leave their language and religion totally behind them, but they should have enough respect for their new neighbors that they do not try to impose their structures and institutions on civil society. If Sharia is so desirable, there are any of a number of countries that operate under that system and they perhaps should consider moving there. I know that that sounds harsh and uncharitable but I see the level of discord that there is on this blog and we all more or less hold to the principle of an independent, secular court. I can only imagine the division that would be engendered from a Presbyterian, Charismatic, Lutheran or Catholic court.
Nothing I have said here should be construed as seeking to prohibit Mosques, churches and synagogues from having their own dispute resolution panels. But for them to be truly voluntary, their decisions should not be accorded the full faith and credit of the secular courts.
Posted by: JamesMartin | February 13, 2008 8:10 AM
Does anyone notice any similarities in the treatment of Williams these days following the Sharia statements to that of Dumbledore in the Harry Potter Series? It's not enough that he could have played the part of Dumbledore in the movie and nobody would have noticed a difference, but it seems his life as Archbishop has in a way mirrored that of Dumbeldore as schoolmaster: he has committed detractors in the church and the media who have sought his resignation since he took the helm. I'll leave the casting of Lucius Malfoy to someone else...
Posted by: Terry Craghead | February 13, 2008 9:12 AM
Canucklehead:
First off, it was Aaron who caught the elipses, not me, since we're on the topic though I am touched by your concern for the reputation of fundamentalist magazines, but in this case full disclosure is probably best.
This is a little complicated, but this whole 79 year old exchange began with the following comment found in a "modernist" church magazine which was then quoted in a fundamentalist publication:
"it is long past time the church encouraged men to stop treating their wives as their personal property..."
To which a fundamentalist magzine responded "ROTTEN". But what really interests me is just what was covered in the "..." in the first article. Right now I can't say for sure just what it is that the fundamentalist calls "ROTTEN"
As things stand, with a pair of short and heavily edited quotations, I have to wonder if this isn't the functional equivalent of the notorious Bible quotation: "Judas went and hanged himself...go and do thou likewise".
And even if the edits don't change the meaning of the whole exchange, the bottom line is that this whole exchange is 79 years old and says little about what Sharia law might do to Britain today.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | February 13, 2008 9:20 AM
My problem with this statment from the Archbishop as we have it here is that, based on what I'm reading, I don't understand precisely what the Archbishop is recommending, or even whether he's recommending anything at all. It almost sounds as if he's merely describing things as they are, not making a recommendation.
Having said that, however, I think that concerns about the implementation of Shari'a are well placed, and not because it might end up allowing stonings for adultery, hand amputations for theft, or dhimmi status for Christians and Jews. Allowing any imposition of Shari'a on a non-sectarian legal system is fraught with danger, and some of you here have articulated those dangers well, so I won't repeat them.
Bud Duncan, what happens in Britain may well eventually come around here, so our concerns are well placed. I would recommend that you not remain ignorant just because these things are happening far away.
Terry Craghead, I enjoyed your comparing Archbp. Williams to Dumbledore. But I wonder if Williams himself isn't playing a double role: Dumbledore and, not Lucius Malfoy, but Cornelius Fudge. Although like I said earlier, I'm not sure what if anything he's recommending, it seems that, like Fudge, he doesn't want to recognize the potential dangers.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 13, 2008 10:10 AM
This as been an exceptional discussion, more enlightening than the MSM coverage. My initial reaction was that this was really a bad idea and totally out of place but the fact that there are other religious and secular systems of arbitration already in place makes this seem less onerous as long as it is well monitored and does not allow infringement of laws which protect all members of a society. Th Archbishop should have been more precise and clear, though.
Posted by: jonabark | February 13, 2008 10:23 AM
The Archbishop is making the argument that Sharia law can gain a foothold so long as citizens willingly submit to it. But, as recent history has shown, Sharia law has a way of manufacturing such consent.
Democratic law exists, in part, to prevent such factioning, and with good reason. One could use consenting individuals as a means to cultivate an uprising in an effort to subvert existing Democratic law.
In the case of Sharia, such fears are well-founded, as it is the stated goal of Islam to bring the nations to submission.
We don't have to ask whether Sharia law is forcibly achieving assent. We see it everyday. As one poster mentioned, a journalist need only do a Google Image search to discover how Sharia is propogating itself.
To believe that the Archbishop is merely engaging in intellectual exercise, one must assume that he is ignorant not only of Sharia's reputation, but also of it's execution (no pun intended).
More likely, he was endeavoring to be provocative, as that seems to be what his church is about these days, anyway. Well, he provoked, and now he ought to be held to account. I don't see how such accountability constitutes insanity, but then, I don't know the British press.
If the Archbishop is Dumbledore, Sharia is Aaron the Moor, and the kindly headmaster should stick to the stuff of kiddie books, like wizards and ghosts.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 13, 2008 11:35 AM
"If a person immigrates to another country, he or she should seek to adopt the customs of that country and incorporate themselves into civil society. That does not mean that they should be forced to leave their language and religion totally behind them, but they should have enough respect for their new neighbors that they do not try to impose their structures and institutions on civil society."
What hypocritical advice to give, coming from the descendants of those who illegally immigrated and then did just the opposite over the last couple of hundred years here in America - in fact in all of North and South America.
Takes one to know one? Or more of "do as I say, not as I do?"
And has anyone noticed, that in fact we are in other people's countries i a big way, forcing them to make accommodations to us, often at the receiving end of bombs and bullets?
I guess the idea is that if we force them all to submit to being like us, then we won't have a problem with cultural accomodation at home. ("We are fighting them there so we won't have to fight them here"?)
All very, very far from the Sermon on the Mount, for those who care to be recognized as His, instead of "Depart from me, ye accursed - I never knew you."
Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 13, 2008 11:57 AM
"To which a fundamentalist magzine responded "ROTTEN". But what really interests me is just what was covered in the "..." in the first article. Right now I can't say for sure just what it is that the fundamentalist calls "ROTTEN" - Wolverine
Wolvie - I presented the quote in its entirety as it was presented by the fundy in a Signs of the Times type of column w/ bits and pieces from here and there - I assume the "..." after the reference to the husbands/wives things was irrelevant to the point he wanted to make.
My point was simply to show w/ a quote from a very popular (at the time) fundy that bizarre thinking on gender relations has not been the sole domain of Muslims throughout history.
In that regard, you may be interested in Bruce Bawer's book "While Europe Slept: How Islam is Taking Over the Continent" for an American ex-pat's perspective on the broader matter that the Archbishop's comments touch on. Bawer, a gay journalist, left the U.S. some 12 years ago partly due to his concerns about the Religious Right's agenda in your country. He's now seen another kind of Religious Right up front and close in Europe and his observations are most engaging.
When the sharia law thing arose here in Canada in the province of Ontario back in 03-04 I interviewed a number of leading figures on either side for a magazine story on the matter. My conclusion: while there are certainly some alarming prospects w/ regard to elements of sharia, there are also many benign aspects to it which would have helped break up the logjam/backlog that existed in the Ontario court system at the time.
Best,
Posted by: canucklehead | February 13, 2008 12:17 PM
In the light of some recent posts it might be worth reminding everyone that Rowan's speech was addressed to a specific audience of senior lawyers and legal philosophers. It raised a number of questions about the nature of law and the possibility of overlapping legal systems with different bases, including religious bases, some of which are already recognised to some extent in English Law (not "British Law", please: there is no such thing, as any Scot will remind you).
The question at issue is whether some aspects of Islamic family law can be incorporated into the Common Law framework in the same way that Jewish family law and some aspects of Roman Catholic Canon Law (not to mention the Canon Law of the Church of England) have been. Muslim jurists in Britain are reportedly both interested in and terrified by the prospect, because of the wide range of interpretations which are possible, depending on where (or if) those responsible for interpreting Muslim law were trained. There is recognition that a lot of serious and difficult work will be necessary to reconcile Islamic law as interpreted by the scholars of (for the sake of argument) Al-Azhar University and the same law as interpreted by (say) a group of Mirpuri village elders.
The whole debate is of consierable interest locally, because the population in my part of town is roughly 20% Muslim and several arrests in connection with the alleged terrorist plot of Summer 2006 were made about half a mile from where I'm posting this.
Posted by: Tony Dickinson | February 13, 2008 12:26 PM
Me: "If a person immigrates to another country, he or she should seek to adopt the customs of that country and incorporate themselves into civil society. That does not mean that they should be forced to leave their language and religion totally behind them, but they should have enough respect for their new neighbors that they do not try to impose their structures and institutions on civil society."
You: What hypocritical advice to give, coming from the descendants of those who illegally immigrated and then did just the opposite over the last couple of hundred years here in America - in fact in all of North and South America."
I am not insensitive to the fact that my ancestors and yours, probably, came here against the wishes of the native Americans. I simply don't have an answer for that which would satisfy justice. But by your taking such a sanctimonious stance, you are opening yourself up to accusation that you are not attached enough to the current secular institutions to oppose their being converted to religious institutions. When you can reconcile your lack of attachment to our democratic secular institutions with what you appear to be advocating, I will attempt to justify my stance with the justice argument you have raised. In the meantime, I guess we'll just have be content with holding "hypocritical" postions ;-)
Posted by: JamesMartin | February 13, 2008 2:11 PM
This is really endemic of the Church of the England leadership in general. What is even more shocking than the comments made by the Archbishop is that most Britons do not go to church at all. For them, the Church of England and many other denominations are not relevant. One of my British friends told me that his problem with Church of England is that it doesn't stand for anything. The truth of the Gospel is largely vacant from Church of England pulpits. I wonder what the likes Thomas Cranmer and C.S. Lewis would think of the Archbishop's relativism?
Posted by: David Crumplar | February 13, 2008 3:31 PM
You can check out the Cranmer blog which may answer one part of that!
The Archbishop may not be deserving of ALL the scorn that's been poured on him, but how much is enough? His thoughts are no doubt excellent fodder for a philosophy class, but as a recommendation for public policy? Surely he is not that obtuse?!
What does he understand if not the dignity and equality of each person before the law?
Posted by: Starrs | February 13, 2008 4:30 PM
David Crumpler's British friend should get out more. There are many faithful parish clergy (and even bishops!) in the Church of England who not only preach but live the Gospel (I can provide names and contact details if required).
David Crumpler should also bone up on his English Church history before bandying names about. Thomas Cranmer wobbled seriously, issuing six recantations of his "heretical" opinions before going to the stake as a martyr for the cause of the English Reformation - and he would have gone anyway. The authorities had decided that they would take the unprecedented step of burning a repentant heretic, as was made plain by Dr Cole's sermon in the University Church in Oxford on the morning of the execution.
Jasper Ridley's classic biography "Thomas Cranmer" records the conversation between Cranmer and the Catholic Juan de Garcina on the way to the stake in which "Garcina reproached him for his insincerity, and said that he would have admitted the supremacy of the Pope if the Pope had spared his life. Cranmer agreed that this was true." (Ridley op.cit. p. 407)
I suspect that Thomas of Canterbury, at least, would have had some sympathy with the trials of his Welsh successor.
Posted by: Tony Dickinson | February 14, 2008 4:33 AM
I'll pass along your comments to Euan, but then again he's probably on the football pitch at the moment. I suggest reading the MacCulloch biography of Cramner, which is much better. Anyway, what I was trying to get at, and perhaps was not clear, is that the Archbishop's comments are the latest example of the Church of England trying to be all things to all people, without focusing on the truth of the Gospel. The Archbishop has really no connection to most British people that I know. Although he may have been taken out of context, it won't really matter: most people will simply remember that the Archbishop said something to the effect that Sharia law should be allowed in Britain. Comments like these from church leaders, whether from the likes of Archbishop of Williams or the late Jerry Falwell, don't help make sharing one's faith with family, friends and colleagues. It can be hard enough sharing the radical beliefs of Christianity to people; we don't need the Archbishop making it harder.
Posted by: David Crumplar | February 14, 2008 4:10 PM
Before this article falls "under the radar," readers may be interested in reading Brian McLaren's essay about this on WashingtonPost.com in the "on faith" section.
Posted by: I and I | February 15, 2008 9:36 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?