1. “SperoNews” (http://www.speroforum.com)
Anglican Archbishop seen supporting Islamic law, 10 February 2008
Williams' comments were originally made to the BBC. The comments were immediately seized upon by the British press, and were immediately repudiated by British politicians
by Adrian Morgan
On Thursday January 7, Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, made statements that have caused shock and outrage, concerning Islamic or Sharia law. He said that he thought the adoption of aspects of Sharia law in Britain was "unavoidable". He argued that Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty." He said that incorporating aspects of Islamic law into Britain's legal system, relating to marital and financial disputes, would improve "social cohesion".
Williams' comments were originally made to the BBC. The comments were immediately seized upon by the British press, and were immediately repudiated by British politicians. His support for the introduction of any form of state-endorsed Sharia law will undoubtedly cause heated debate at the upcoming General Synod of the Church of England, which will be held from February 11 to 14 in London.
The Archbishop's comments about Sharia were made at midday on Thursday, on BBC Radio 4's "World at One" show. He was talking to Christopher Landau.
The radio interview took place before he gave a lecture later the same day to judges and lawyers at the Royal Courts of Justice. The full text of this lecture, entitled "Civil and Religious Law in England" can be downloaded in pdf format or read on Williams' website. His comments on radio can be heard , with a full transcript online.
Williams stated on Radio 4: "It (sharia) seems unavoidable. As a matter of fact, certain forms of Sharia law are already recognized in our society and under our law. So it's not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system. We already have in this country a number of situations where the law, or the internal law of religious communities, is recognized by the law of the land, as justifying conscientious objections in certain circumstances. So I think we have to look at this with a clear eye, and not imagine either that we know exactly what we mean by sharia, and just associate it with what we would about Saudi Arabia or whatever...."
The following article was sent to me from a regular reader who wishes to remain anonymous.
"...I am simply stating that there are ways of looking at marital dispute, for example, which provide an alternative to the divorce courts, as we understand them,. In cultural or religious settings, they would seem more appropriate."
Landau mentioned that the European Court of Human Rights views Sharia law as "incompatible with democracy", a statement which was made in 2003. Williams responded by saying that was a sweeping statement. He claimed that many Muslim jurists would not see it that way.
Williams said: "A lot of what's written suggests that the ideal situation is one in which there is one law and only one law. Now, that principle that there's one law for everybody is an important pillar of our social identity as a Western liberal democracy. But I think that's a misunderstanding to suppose that 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. An approach to law which simply said there's one law for everybody, and that's all that needs to be said, I think that's a bit of a danger."
Christopher Landau asked: "And that's why Sharia should have its place?"
Williams answered: "That's why there's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law as we already do with aspects of religious law."
Williams now claims to be "shocked" at the "hostility of the response" to his comments. Before any news stories appeared in print, the producers of the BBC's "World at One" received 17,000 emails, almost exclusively critical of his suggestions. Williams' friends claim he cannot believe criticisms which have come from his own church. He is said to be "overwhelmed".
Williams now claims on his website that he did not suggest Sharia law should be a parallel legal system. He claims he intended to "tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state," and used sharia as an example. His radio interview certainly did not give that impression.
The Sun, a popular tabloid newspaper, claimed the prelate had given a "victory to al Qaeda". The newspaper claims to have received almost 15,000 readers' emails demanding that Williams be sacked. On Friday, the Sun stated: "It's easy to dismiss Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams as a silly old goat. In fact he's a dangerous threat to our nation." The Sun now has a campaign cheekily called, "Bash the Bishop", whose title is a slang term for male masturbation.
Politicians from all parties have condemned Williams' comments. Tory Muslim peer Baroness Warsi said: "The archbishop's comments are unhelpful and may add to the confusion that already exists in our communities. All British citizens must be subject to British laws developed through Parliament and the courts."
Khalid Mahmood, Muslim Labour MP, said: "This is very misguided. There is no half-way house with this. What part of Sharia law does he want? The sort that is practiced in Saudi Arabia, which they are struggling to get away from? Muslims do not need special treatment or to be specially singled out. This would not contribute to community cohesion."
Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said on Channel 4 News: "We are all equal before the law. What I fear he may be doing is giving succour to extremists who basically want to say, 'Muslims, they're different'... it's not modern multiculturalism, its old-style, divisive multiculturalism." Phillips also called the comments "muddled and unhelpful," and said: "Raising this idea in this way will give fuel to anti-Muslim extremism and dismay everyone working towards a more integrated society."
At the General Synod next week, Williams' comments will continue to be discussed. Already there are calls from Synod members for him to resign. One of these, lay member Alison Ruoff, said: "He is a disaster for the Church of England. He vacillates, he is a weak leader and he does not stand up for the Church." Colonel Edward Armitstead, another Synod member, said: "I don't think he is the man for the job. 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." Williams' predecessor George Carey (Lord Carey of Clifton) claimed the Archbishop's views were wrong as sharia exists in several contradicting forms, most of them weighted against women. Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester, also mentioned that sharia discriminated against women's rights.
Dr Nazir-Ali, who recently claimed that some parts of Britain are now "no-go" areas for non-Muslims, said that arguments about Sharia "are not an argument for disturbing the integrity of a legal tradition which is rooted in the quite different moral and spiritual vision deriving from the Bible."
Rowan Williams has already had problems with African representatives of the Anglican church, who have threatened to secede from the church's main body due to his ambivalent stance on homosexuality. 12 Nigerian states out of 36 now have Sharia law. Thousands of people died when these were first introduced in Kaduna state in 2000. It will be interesting to see how African representatives view these comments by the spiritual head of the Anglican Church. Dr Peter Akinola, Primate of Nigeria was reported on Saturday as saying that the Archbishop's words were "most disturbing and unfortunate".
Less than a day after William's radio speech, the Sydney Anglican diocese, the largest in Australia, rejected the Archbishop's comments.
Church and State
Traditionally, the Anglican Church has been given privileges within Britain's legal system. There are 26 Anglican bishops in Parliament's upper house, the House of Lords. The selection of these 26 bishops is made by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister also chooses which individual is appointed to the position of Archbishop of Canterbury. Tony Blair, whose Labour government supported multiculturalism, selected Rowan Williams to head the Anglican Church when Dr George Carey resigned in February 2002. At that time, one Anglican reformist, Reverend David Holloway, criticized the role of the Prime Minister in the selection process. He said that the Anglican Church "could cease to be an effective voice in society if the wrong man was chosen." Those words now seem prophetic.
The role of the Anglican Church as part of the British "establishment" is already controversial. Since 1521 when Henry VIII was king, the monarch has been the head of this church, bearing the title "Defender of the Faith". With Prince Charles, the current heir to the throne, eulogizing Islam while preparing to become the official head of the Anglican Church, Williams' comments appear to have sounded alarm bells for Anglicans in Britain and around the globe.
The role of Archbishop of Canterbury is an integral part of Britain's "establishment" and constitution. Williams' comments appear designed to appease "radicalized" Muslims. The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu (pictured), came from Uganda to Britain. At York Minister, his inspiring services have managed to reverse Britain's general trend of declining church attendance. Sentamu, who is the second-in-command of Britain's Anglican church, has opinions that are refreshingly direct. Unlike Williams, he respects the primacy of democratically-developed law.
In February 2007, John Sentamu said: "Some people talk about radicalized young Muslims. I think that gives them a glamour they actually shouldn't have. For me, they are people with evil intentions, breaking the law. And if they are breaking the law, they should be dealt with as law-breakers, not as people who for some strange reason have been given some kind of political theological ideology. If you are in Britain and you are British, you should really cherish the traditions that are here... If you don't subscribe to the things that make Britain, you are going to be in trouble. It is the upholding of British law that is the most important thing."
As well as creating a raging debate within Britain, Williams' comments have huge ramifications for the global unity of the Anglican Church, and may assist calls for the disestablishment of this Church from Britain's "constitution". On January 9, 2008 an "Early Day Motion" was presented in the UK Parliament's House of Commons by MP John Austin and co-signed by 20 other MPs. This motion called for the disestablishment of the Church of England - i.e. for it to be removed from the processes of legislation. The fact that this motion's number was "666", the "number of the Beast", has not been lost on the press.
How Do You Solve A Problem Like Sharia? The politically correct BBC has recently tried to "explain" sharia to the British public in simplistic terms, ignoring the discriminatory and anti-democratic nature of Britain's existing Sharia Courts.
There are now at least 10 "sharia courts" in Britain, which issue rulings on domestic partnerships and other family-related issues. Former Al Muhajiroun member Anjem Choudary argues that there can be no compromise on sharia principles. He said: "Some element of family law or social and economic law will not work. It has to be adopted wholesale. It will not happen tomorrow but it is inevitable because sharia is superior and better for mankind."
The founder of Al Muhajiroun, Omar Bakri Mohammed, set himself up as Supreme Judge in his own Sharia Court, the British Sharia Court. This convened in Lee Valley Techno Park in Tottenham, north London. This court was more interested in issuing death fatwas than administering "family law". In 1991, a death fatwa was issued against then-prime minister John Major, with another issued against Hosni Mubarak of Egypt in 1997.
Despite Rowan Williams' attempts to claim that sharia "family" law for Muslims would be in keeping with British law, he fails to grasp the "sort" of sharia that is wanted by some Muslims. In February 2006, a poll for the Sunday Telegraph found that 42% of Muslims wanted Sharia law.
In January 2007, a poll was published by Policy Exchange, entitled "Living Apart Together", available as a pdf document. The poll found that the desire for Sharia law was strongest among younger British Muslims aged 16 to 24. Of these, 37% wanted to live under Sharia law, compared to only 17% of Muslims aged 55 and over. Alarmingly, 36% of young Muslims believed that a Muslim who converts to another religion should be "punished by death."
Williams stated that sharia courts would be useful in dealing with marriage problems. However, already, some Sharia Courts have bypassed British law altogether on issues of serious crime. In November 2006 it was revealed that in southeast London, a Somali sharia court called a "gar" had ruled on the case of a gang stabbing an individual. In this instance, a 29-year old youth worker called Aydarus Yusuf presided over the case. In accordance with Islamic sharia, blood-money was paid by relatives of the gang members to the victim. The gang members who had stabbed the man thus avoided any criminal record.
Even though polls suggest 60% of Muslims do not wish for Sharia law in Britain, the younger Muslim population appear to be the ones using Sharia Courts most frequently, particularly over issues of marriage. And it is here, where a Muslim man can have four wives - while bigamy remains illegal under British law - that the real problems of Islamic "family law" reveal themselves. Sharia law, even at "family" level, is incompatible with democratic justice. A woman is not allowed more than one husband in Islam, nor can she divorce her husband without resorting to a Muslim cleric to gain a fatwa allowing this.
To divorce a woman, a Muslim man need only declare the word "Talaq" for it to be Islamically binding. She cannot remarry the husband unless she marries someone else first. In India, this has led to one man being separated from his wife because he said "talaq" in his sleep. In Malaysia, one minister divorced his wife by text message on her cellular phone.
In Islamic law, over issues of testimony, the evidence of a woman is worth only half that of a man, derived from Sura 2: 282 of the Koran. In Vol3, Book 48, No 827 of Bukhari's Hadiths, it is reasoned that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man because Mohammed claimed women had "deficiency" of the mind. Most schools of Islamic jurisprudence accept Bukhari's sources as "sahih" or authentic in the formulation of sharia.
Additionally, if a man has been beating his wife, it is not necessarily a matter of outrage under sharia. Sura 4:34 of the Koran actively promotes the beating of a wife if she is not subordinate and obedient. For Rowan Williams to declare that these basic principles of sharia can in any way be acceptable in a Western democratic society is astounding.
Williams described "extreme" Sharia laws, as practiced in Saudi Arabia. If Sharia law is followed through, adulterous women would be stoned to death and thieves would have their hands amputated. In case anyone entertains any notions that these punishments are ever "justifiable", then watch a video of a real stoning or a real hand amputation (warning, graphic images). These barbaric practices are explicitly called for by one leading member of the Islamic Sharia law Council.
This individual is Sheikh Suhaib Hassan. He is general secretary of the group, which has its headquarters in Leyton, northeast London. This Islamic Sharia law Council has, for the past 25 years, held Islamic Court in London's Central Mosque at Regents Park. The meetings are held on the last Wednesday of each month. It is the oldest Sharia Court in Britain.
In January 2007, Suhaib Hassan featured in a Channel 4 documentary called "Undercover Mosques". He was filmed stating: "Allah has decreed this thing that 'I am going to be dominant'. The dominance of course is a political dominance....The chopping of the hands off thieves, the flogging of adulteress, and flogging of the drunkard. Then, jihad against the non-Muslims, against those people who are the oppressors."
Only four days before Rowan Williams made his ill-fated speech on BBC Radio, Channel 4 showed a documentary on the ways in which the Islamic Sharia law Council dealt with Islamic "family" law. 95% of the council's requests for arbitration concern matrimony and divorce issues. The full documentary, called "Divorce, Sharia Style" can be downloaded in sections here. Suhaib Hassan was shown dealing with a selfish young man called Imran Iqbal and his wife Nassra. Hassan acknowledged the validity of a second marriage which Iqbal man undertook with another woman in Pakistan. This caused his "first" wife considerable anxiety.
Hassan was also shown trying to persuade Lord Falconer, the former Lord Chancellor to attend a meeting about how Sharia law would benefit Britain. Rowan Williams may have been well-intentioned, but he has played into the political demands of Muslim leaders. The issue of Sharia law in the UK is a political issue.
In August 2006 while the British government attempted to discuss extremism within the Muslim community, one "leader" tried to suggest that Muslims would be more helpful fighting extremism if they were offered Sharia law in exchange. Dr Sayed Pasha, OBE, said: "In Scotland, they have a separate law. It doesn't mean they are not part of the UK. We are asking for Islamic law which covers marriage and family life. We are willing to co-operate but there should be a partnership. They should understand our problems then we will understand their problems."
Pasha has headed the Union of Muslim Organizations of the UK and Ireland for 27 years. In response to Pasha's comments, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) then dismissed calls for sharia. Inayat Bunglawala of the MCB said then: "We believe one legal code should apply for all citizens of the UK. There is no place for multiple legal systems for people of different religious or ethnic backgrounds. If people object to a certain law they should campaign peacefully and democratically for a change - but only so that it applies to all people, not just Muslims."
It is interesting to note that 18 months later, the MCB seems now more supportive of Sharia law in Britain. Ibrahim Mogra, the group's inter-faith adviser, said: "We're looking at a very small aspect of Sharia for Muslim families when they choose to be governed with regards to their marriage, divorce, inheritance, custody of children and so forth."
In Channel 4's recent Sharia documentary, when Suhaib Hassan was trying to urge Lord Falconer to attend a meeting on introduction of Sharia, the current head of the MCB, Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, looked on smiling. The British government has distanced itself from Rowan William's ill-considered comments, but there is an element of hypocrisy in its approach. On the same day that "Sharia, Divorce Style" was aired, it was revealed that the government would be officially recognizing Muslim polygamy in relation to welfare benefits, providing the extra marriages occurred in a country where polygamy is illegal. Any non-Muslim who engages in bigamy can receive a seven year jail term. Before the government can lecture Rowan Williams on "one rule for all", it should first look at its own double standards.
On February 19, 2006, the Daily Telegraph published an article entitled "The day is coming when British Muslims form a state within a state". This featured an interview with Anglican priest Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, who was brought up as a Muslim before he became an apostate. For some reason, the article was withdrawn from the newspaper's archive, and the editor who commissioned it was sacked. The full article can still be read here.
Dr Sookhdeo, who heads the Barnabus Fund, warned: "In a decade, you will see parts of English cities which are controlled by Muslim clerics and which follow, not the common law, but aspects of Muslim Sharia law. It is already starting to happen - and unless the Government changes the way it treats the so-called leaders of the Islamic community, it will continue." He claimed the government was "fundamentally deluded about the nature of Islam."
He said: "Islamic clerics do not believe in a society in which Islam is one religion among others in a society ruled by basically non-religious laws. They believe it must be the dominant religion - and it is their aim to achieve this. That is why they do not believe in integration. In 1980, the Islamic Council of Europe laid out their strategy for the future - and the fundamental rule was never dilute your presence. That is to say, do not integrate..."
"...The next step will be pushing the Government to recognise Sharia law for Muslim communities - which will be backed up by the claim that it is "racist" or "Islamophobic" or "violating the rights of Muslims" to deny them Sharia law. There's already a Sharia law Council for the UK. The Government has already started making concessions: it has changed the law so that there are sharia-compliant mortgages and sharia pensions... The more fundamentalist clerics think that it is only a matter of time before they will persuade the Government to concede on the issue of Sharia law. Given the Government's record of capitulating, you can see why they believe that."
The government has claimed that it repudiates Rowan Williams' comments. A national debate still rages, and the Archbishop of Canterbury has perhaps paid too much heed to Islamic "advisers" who desire to see Sharia implemented for their own political ends. He has been the lightning rod for public anger.
As head of an "established" church, selected by a Prime Minister and thus intrinsically part of Britain's political establishment, Dr Williams has only reflected the views of many who have been paid to act as government advisers.
The Anglican Church is one wing of the British state. Labour has presided over the systematical traducing of Britain's institutions and traditions in the name of multiculturalism. The debate continues to rage, but maybe the furor surrounding the Archbishop's comments have made ordinary Britons wake up to see where multiculturalism inevitably leads. Williams' words have forced many to reconsider their allegiance to British values, and to consider these values to be worth defending against the encroachments of multiculturalism and cultural relativism into almost every aspect of British life.
Further reading: Islamic Law Versus Secular Law In Britain
This article was also published at FamilySecurityMatters.org
Adrian Morgan is a British based writer and artist who has written for Western Resistance since its inception. He has previously contributed to various publications, including the Guardian and New Scientist and is a former Fellow of the Royal Anthropological Society.
The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author only, not of Spero News.
2.New Straits Times Online（http://www.net.com.my）
Koh Lay Chin: Need for more quiet contemplation, less shouting, 13 February 2008
by Koh Lay Chin
HE might as well have been speaking in another language, considering the uproar his speech sparked. When Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, spoke on syariah and the possible adoption of some aspects of it in Britain last week, it was as if the whole country took a collective gasp.
And then it exploded into a cacophony of protests and condemnation, centring around how a Christian leader could have dared say that adopting some aspects of Islamic law in Britain seemed "unavoidable".
As people called for his resignation, even Prime Minister Gordon Brown felt compelled to stress that British laws had to be based on British values, and religious laws were still subservient to British criminal and civil law.
But while the general attack on Williams seemed to revolve around accusations that he was calling for the introduction of syariah as a "parallel jurisdiction" (which he was not), it seemed the majority of those baying for blood had missed the finer points of his speech last Thursday.
It was a lengthy speech, into which I cannot go into detail here, but those who had taken the time to study it would not disagree that it had been a labour of much thought and research.
I say study, because the text was clearly a scholarly one, citing numerous thinkers and authors, and one that was clearly designed to promote discussion over the complexities of legal frameworks, secularisation and the rights of religious communities.
It was, as Williams clarified later, not an advocation for the adoption of syariah law, but an entreaty to understand it better.
He talked about the enlightenment, ijtihad (interpretation), the needs of the ummah, and indeed even spoke on the Quranic provision about the rights of widows, which may seem displeasing to some today, but "in its time served very clearly to secure a widow's position at a time when this was practically unknown in the culture".
He noted that some aspects of syariah were actually already recognised in British society, where many Muslims already seek religious rulings on marital issues via the Islamic Syariah Council, and that this could be extended to other areas.
What has perhaps not been said enough is that Williams also warned that "there can be no blank cheques given to unexamined scruples", that there must be an examination of the very real potential conflicts, and that any oppressive elements against civil liberties just would not stand in England.
His critics say his comments, perhaps delivered in such an academic style and bound to be reduced to more alarming soundbites, was a clumsy effort. Indeed, on Monday, Williams took responsibility for "unclarity" that may have caused "distress or misunderstanding" among the public. Needless to say, reactions to his speech have been fiery, and are still going on.
While some might say it is hypocritical for those who condemn him to do so based on democratic or liberal ideals, it is perhaps understandable why the British masses have stood up to defend their justice system as an able, competent and fair one for all. The uproar gives us much to think about.
It is easy to pick on the more gruesome points of syariah, such as the chopping off of hands or stoning to death. It is easy to say, "if you don't like what we do, go somewhere else".
Indeed, we have heard a lot of this in the aftermath. It is also easy for Muslims to denounce these sorts of reactions as Islamaphobic, and go on the defensive. It is harder to carefully research and sift through the contentious points these issues raise, and even tougher to present them without prickling sensitivities.
It is harder to differentiate between what is essentially cultural (forced marriages reported in the British-Pakistani community) and religious.
It is harder to go back to history or consider Muslim thinkers like Alam Khundmiri, who engaged both Western and Islamic philosophical traditions in his probings of Islam for the modern age.
Indeed, it just seems really agonising to find a middle ground. Surely people want to, or do they?
Looking at the controversies of the Lina Joy case and numerous other civil-syariah disputes in Malaysia, it would be interesting to have, say, a "liberal" Malaysian Muslim and a British Muslim "fundamentalist" compare notes on their thoughts about fiercely secular states like Turkey, which has been dead set on banning headscarves from universities, and the strict syariah-centred rule in Afghanistan under the Taliban.
Issues revolving around secularisation and religion are indeed minefields, and have been so for thousands of years. Can Muslims appreciate how Williams, the principal leader of the Church of England, had tried to present the Islamic viewpoint in a thoughtful, intelligent and sincere manner?
That such a religious heavyweight had been seen as "standing up" for the rights of the Muslim minority, and had taken such a beating for it?
Certainly some would say this cannot be summarised into a mere for-and-against type argument, and that the issue is highly complex.
There could be much learned from Williams's assertions on the awareness of human diversity and the defence of human dignity. But perhaps what is most needed here is more quiet contemplation and discussion. Too much shouting, and everything gets lost in translation.
© Copyright 2008 The New Straits Times Press (M) Berhad. All rights reserved.
(End)
