Unintential Comedy: Thy Name is Rowan Williams
A friend of mine sent me this story this morning:
"Controversial: Dr Rowan Williams believes the introduction of Sharia law to Britain will help maintain social cohesion
The Archbishop of Canterbury has today said that the adoption of Islamic Sharia law in the UK is "unavoidable" and that it would help maintain social cohesion.
Rowan Williams told BBC 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.
He says that 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".
Dr Williams said there was a place for finding a "constructive accommodation" in areas such as marriage - allowing Muslim women to avoid Western divorce proceedings.
Other religions enjoyed such tolerance of their own laws, he pointed out, but stressed that it could never be allowed to take precedence over an individual's rights as a citizen.
He said it would also require a change in perception of what Sharia involved beyond the "inhumanity" of extreme punishments and attitudes to women seen in some Islamic states.
Dr Williams said: "It seems unavoidable and, as a matter of fact, certain conditions of Sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system.
"We already have in this country a number of situations in which the internal law of religious communities is recognised by the law of the land as justifying conscientious objections in certain circumstances."
He added: "There is a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law as we already do with aspects of other kinds of religious law.
"It would be quite wrong to say that we could ever license a system of law for some community which gave people no right of appeal, no way of exercising the rights that are guaranteed to them as citizens in general.
"But there are ways of looking at marital disputes, for example, which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them.
"In some cultural and religious settings, they would seem more appropriate."
I am particularly amused by William's contention that the addition of Sharia law will encourage social cohesion. I challenge you to read that without snickering. The idea that the introduction of a legal system that discriminates against women will encourage "social cohesion" is worthy of The Onion.
As is the fact that Williams is the Archbishop of Canterbury and supposedly a spokesman for Christianity.
Technorati Tags: 
Who could have predicted
Who could have predicted (besides, maybe, climate scientists) that an icon of the Christian Left would cover the flank of barbarity as it charges into the 21st century!? Not me.
My knee jerk reaction is
My knee jerk reaction is usually to disagree with Will (sorry, guy). But you trumped me on this one. As I read the article, I found myself inclined to agree with Williams. But your gender argument, which I think you use as just an example of many possible arguments against Williams's position, made me go back and rethink it all and realize how odd it was that I was inclined to agree in the first place. I mean, do we really want to regress on the separation of church and state, which is a much better way to accomodate religious diversity than the adoption of new or alternative laws?
Dustin Kidd
Dustin: I generally think
Dustin: I generally think the idea and practice of tolerance is a good thing (though I would probably use a different term). However, I think you see in Williams the problem when tolerance itself becomes such an idol that one is almost required to be tolerant of those things which we should not tolerate. There is almost an unspoken hypocrisy in the idea of pure tolerance.
From what I've read, the
From what I've read, the Archbishop isn't advocating the wholesale introduction of sharia. As your quotation indicates, he thinks individual rights are primary. But he is simply arguing that British society can afford to be (and therefore should be) accommodating to its sizeable Muslim community by providing an alternative legal sub-system. There are other examples of societies that make allowances like this, such as New Zealand. I think Canada has explored a similar move with sharia, too.
That's not to say I agree with Williams, but it's not just blissfully ignorant, tolerance-gone-too-far. Nor does he think that the obviously objectionable parts of sharia should be given legal sanction, either.
We've got the same thing.
We've got the same thing. It's called "arbitration," and Volokh had a case posted today affirming a decision by a sharia court.
Yes, but arbitration is not
Yes, but arbitration is not a special accommodation for a particular group, or is it?
Also, isn’t London one of the more sharia-compliant friendly banking cities in the West? I thought that they made changes to some regulations widening the availability of sharia-compliant financing/banking services and contracts for individuals and corporations.
If I recall correctly (could be a big if), it occurred to me that they already have it there, too (!) -- at least with respect to financial matters. My impression is that the UK has been rather bold in making other accommodations for their Muslim population, so I am left wondering just what the inscrutable Dr. Williams is on about?
Here is a somewhat helpful
Here is a somewhat helpful link:
islamic finance
What the heck is
What the heck is "Unintential Comedy?"
Certainly, as we live in a
Certainly, as we live in a world that is bent on tolerance at all costs and relativism at no cost, there will be an openness to every sub-culture making its own rules to live by. Not only will divorce and the subjugation of women become irrelevant in some cultures, but gay marriage will become common place and the sub-culture mores will dictate to the national legal system on what grounds differences shall be decided. And, as Archbishop Williams proves, ministers may become simply social and cultural observers and enablers. And you can see this in not only our religious institutions, but also in our educational institutions. Higher education particularly no longer views itself as being authoritative and men and women with PhD's let recent high school graduates tell them what they need to learn to prepare themselves for life or a vocation. Sorry for the tangent on higher ed; I got carried away, but it likely applies nonetheless.
Post new comment