Bashing the Bishop - What a Burhka!

[Sen Yai]

The head of the Church of England, Rowan Williams, has stated that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system and that the introduction of Sharia Law in the UK is now "unavoidable".

He says 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 also says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

This has caused a major fuss and in an attempt to dodge calls for his resignation the Right Rev. has now put out a message on his website stating he "certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law". In a further mealy mouthed statement he said he was simply "exploring ways in which reasonable accommodation might be made within existing arrangements for religious conscience".

What a Burhka!

The Sun (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article782629.ece)

[Aunty]

Once was Great Britian.

Unfortunately Rowan Williams is prone to make such ill-judged statements. I am afraid he lives in a cloistered world which is is totally out of touch with modern reality. During his tenure as Archbishop of Canterbury the Anglican church has fallen both into disrepute and turmoil (and is also in danger of splitting forever as a result of his mealy-mouthed lead on the subject of gay clergy). Church attendances have also fallen quite sharply since he became head of the Anglican Church.

In the Archbishop's defence he did not actually say that Britain MUST introduce shariah courts in the UK - he was merely stating that already in the UK the Jewish community can go to the Beth Din religious courts to resolve civil disputes in areas of business and marriage, and as a society maybe we need to listen and explore calls for similar arrangements for those of other religious faiths. Furthermore, if we look at the pressing problem of community cohesion in Britain's cities, here was a man who has all his adult life been seen more as a brilliant academic theologian rather than a mere pastoral priest, who was really trying to explore options that may go some way to move the community cohesion debate further. He is not a man to grab headlines - but he is an academic who maybe naively felt that the United Kingdom was mature enough to have a rational, thorough and properly considered debate with ALL the issues openly discussed.

The key problem here as always is the press latch on to one part of what was a very thoughtful speech and we see headlines claiming the Archbishop of Canterbury wants Shariah Law Courts set up tomorrow. For me this is the sad part of the story - it seems nowadays we are not able to have thoughtful debate about issues that will by their very nature be controversial - instead we see sub-editors writing disingenuous headlines selectively picking out small parts of what someone said and really missing the central thrust of the issues in question - namely community cohesion and the rights of all religious groups in a secular society. Add to that the very fractious nature of the Anglican (Episcopalian) Church and we see both the liberal wing (who fear Shariah courts could be detrimental to women and indeed gays), and the evangelical wing who basically see anything Islamic as almost of the devil, and we have a clear scenario for an Archbishop who is going to be attacked from many corners.

For me, it is simply sad that grown up debate is no longer possible in the UK on any subject without the rabid idiots grasping onto 1 particular controversial suggestion and missing the central issues. We seem to prefer to find a fall guy to beat rather than face up to the serious problems affecting communities in cities across the length and breadth of the kingdom.

Furthermore, if we look at the pressing problem of community cohesion in Britain's cities, here was a man who has all his adult life been seen more as a brilliant academic theologian rather than a mere pastoral priest, ----------(who fear Shariah courts could be detrimental to women and indeed gays)
Rowan Williams has a list of theology degrees, doctorates and professorships longer than his Bishop's crook and is probably the most intellectual archbishop in centuries.

He spent 24 years in the rarefied air of Oxbridge academia before being appointed Bishop in 1992. His relative lack of experience as a parish clergyman is seen as a major weakness. He has no real understanding of the modern world or the lives of people who live in it. He is extremely highly educated and qualified but he can also be fairly described as a 'highly educated idiot'.

Shariah courts ARE detrimental to both women and gays. The Archbishop has done more with his statement to ensure a break in 'social cohesion' than maintain or enhance it.

It is not being racial or anti-Islamic to point out that proponents of Islam and Sharia law are NOT prepared to even consider, yet alone entertain, any deviation from the teachings of the Koran (especially in the twisted interpretation of it that the more radical Islamists preach). They want it all their own way and consider that everyone else should submit to it and if they disagree are even condemned to death for that disagreement.

It is also not racist to express the view that those who wish to live and abide by Shariah law should move to (or return) to any Islamist country where Sharia law is the law of the land. They are certainly not welcome or wanted in Great Britain.

I was just trying to say that we need an open and honest debate about these issues. If the Jewish community is allowed to operate their own legal system within our own civil law, then the issue of whether those of other faiths should too, has to be discussed. I am no expert in shariah law but I do think we should be allowed an honest debate before we start jumping on the Archbishop or indeed Muslims. Jewish Beth Din Courts operate within the UK, yet we do not see people calling for Jews to go and live in Israel. That is a preposterous suggestion. The legal precedent is there, and as such we as a nation have the obligation to discuss it calmly and in great depth.

I am optimistic though, as certain (less hysterical sections), of the press are giving the issue deep thought - look at the articles in today's The Guardian, The Times, even The Financial Times - however, sadly the circulation figures for the tabloids with their quickness to see 1 narrow aspect, are higher in the UK, and so we do get these ridiculous responses that do not help the debate or further it, merely enhance this negative view of British Muslims.

He is wrong in both time and place. The British Police are only just getting round to wondering why thousands of young British Born girls leave the country every year never to return. They are only just beginning to look closely at disappearances of female Moslems with the suspicion that there may have been "honour" killings.

The AB of C is the leader of a group, the Anglican Bishops, who have a right to sit in our second chamber. It is disturbing that our laws are vetted by someone with such faulty judgment and his idiotic action must raise the question of the validity of those seats in the Lords. One might expect that he would represent the concerns of the flock he leads, which is a pillar of British culture. Instead we see an appeasement to an incoming group some of who are determined to supplant the host culture. He must go.

final attempt - all I read here are position statements and opinions. I am merely stating that the archbishop is simply calling for an in-indepth discussion about the rights of those of religious faiths within a secular society and if some religious groups have their own legal court system which operates within the wider umbrella of British Law, then why do others not? I am not saying what he said is right nor do i say what he said is wrong. I just wish calm and reasoned debate was possible without diversifying the issue.

We do have serious problems in Britain's inner cities - has multiculturalism worked? how do we dismantle the ethnic ghettos earlier government policies have created? how do we deal with the growing radicalisation of some sections of Muslim youth? How do we deal with the fact that some areas of our cities are no-go areas for people of different ethnic groups? And yes indeed, how do we reform the Paliamentary system that has an established Church with some of its senior Bishops sitting in the upper Chamber? We also need to look quite rightly at the genuine human rights enshrined for all in the UK, and compare this with the rights of minorities in for example muslim states (eg in Britain mosques can be opened anywhere quite easily, yet i do not think any of us could even think of opening a church in any Muslim country). So please don't think I am defending Sharia Courts, I am merely saying once and for all wouldn't it be radical and positive move forward if ALL the issues were placed on the table and discussed in a less hysterical way, with ALL the evidence laid before us.

I am merely saying once and for all wouldn't it be radical and positive move forward if ALL the issues were placed on the table and discussed in a less hysterical way, with ALL the evidence laid before us.
If you wish to have a discussion on the wider issue of Nu-Labour's disastrous love affair with multiculturalism in Britain fine but I for one see it as a slippery slope to the swamping and eventual destruction of British culture and identity as it has been developed over centuries.

The issues regarding the particular subject of introducing some parts of Sharia law into Britain are already there and plain to see for those who wish to study them and there is no hysteria involved in saying that the Archbishop is totally wrong on this particular subject. QED

In the Archbishop's defence he did not actually say that Britain MUST introduce shariah courts in the UK - he was merely stating that already in the UK the Jewish community can go to the Beth Din religious courts to resolve civil disputes in areas of business and marriage, and as a society maybe we need to listen and explore calls for similar arrangements for those of other religious faiths. Poor dear Rowan. My gay bishop cousin (on my mother's side - no relative of Aunty) says Dr Atkinson simply didn't understand how beastly the Murdoch press could be. I agree with everything YardenUK has written. But one can expect no more from the Great British Public, whose knee-jerk reaction must be everything Rupert and his minions desired. Mind you, I'm on record as stating that I believe the burqua should be mandatory for all women, but that's another issue altogether

[Sen Yai]

Poor dear Rowan. My gay bishop cousin (on my mother's side - no relative of Aunty) says Dr Atkinson simply didn't understand how beastly the Murdoch press could be.

Never mind all that. The point is that someone in Dr Williams position should have known better and should have "explored ways in which reasonable accommodation might be made within existing arrangements for religious conscience" without allowing the press to stir up all this controversy which may further damage the very social cohesion he says he wishes to preserve.

multiculturalism started long before the Labour government we have had since 1997 (some would argue it has been a part of life in these islands for centuries (Normans, Angles, Danes, Saxons, Celts, Romans, Vikings/Norse etc etc etc....)

C&P:

PROFESSOR SIR BERNARD CRICK
(Chair of the 'Life in the UK' report commissioned by the British Government in 2004, which led to the new citizenship tests )

I see no incompatibility between multiculturalism and Britishness. Britishness must be part of multiculturalism.

In the report I chaired advocating language and citizenship education for immigrants, The New and the Old (2003), we said:

"Who are we British? For a long time the UK has been a multicultural state composed of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and also a multicultural society... made up of a diverse range of cultures and identities, and one that emphasises the need for a continuous process of mutual engagement and learning about each other with respect, understanding and tolerance."

In other words, dual identities have been common, even before large scale immigration.

But Britishness does not mean a single culture. Integration is the co-existence of communities and unimpeded movement between them, it is not assimilation.

Britishness is a strong concept but not all embracing.


I always felt proud that I come from a country with a long history in enshrining the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. It is therefore sad that when the leader of the established Christian church in this country starts a debate that Britain badly needs, he is told to resign. Knee-jerk reactions based on spurious headlines that bear no resemblance to the Archbishop's intentions do nothing to uphold values like free speech which we collectively should feel immensely proud of. We may not like to listen to what some people have to say, but we do have a duty to allow free and fair debate, without "crucifying" the voice we don't like.

Poor dear Rowan. My gay bishop cousin (on my mother's side - no relative of Aunty) says Dr Atkinson simply didn't understand how beastly the Murdoch press could be. Never mind all that. The point is that someone in Dr Williams position should have known better and should have "explored ways in which reasonable accommodation might be made within existing arrangements for religious conscience" without allowing the press to stir up all this controversy which may further damage the very social cohesion he says he wishes to preserve.And how would he have done that? I think referring to the Archbishop of Canterbury as Rowan Atkinson is particulary apt, especially if one considers his portrayal as a bumbling clergyman in Four Weddings and a Funeral, but obviously you didn't get my little joke

Yarden,

You miss the point that there are already courts for religous groups when people wish to succumb to them voluntarily. Jews can have divorces in the eyes of other Jews as can Moslems but not in the eyes of the law. So what on earth does the Archbishop want.

In many, many Moslem countries and partially Moslem countries, like the one South of Thailand, people born into Moslem families are assumed to be Moslem forever and therefore subject to Sharia law. If that is what the Archbishop is leading us into then - and I never thought I'd say this - thank Allah for the Murdoch press.

In many, many Moslem countries and partially Moslem countries, like the one South of Thailand, people born into Moslem families are assumed to be Moslem forever and therefore subject to Sharia law. If that is what the Archbishop is leading us into then - and I never thought I'd say this - thank Allah for the Murdoch press.I don't think there's any evidence that His Grace is suggesting that Shariah law over-ride UK law, merely supplement it, so that in settling intra-communal disputes the participants feel more comfortable. There is, after all nothing that compels Jews to use their own legal system in the UK - it's optional and both parties must consent to it. Why would Shariah courts be any different? It's like any two people or businesses agreeing that their legal dispute won't be settled by the Court system but by arbitration - and that is an increasingly popular option

I have to agree with homintern - and i apologise if you think i have missed the point: in 21st century Britain should anyone face a pressgang into resignation of their post because they want to have an open and thoughtful debate on an interesting issue that has serious ramifications for our communities. That is the simple point I have tried not to miss.

I feel very ashamed today - an Archbishop opening a controversial issue for discussion is under pressure to resign? Are we not in 21st century Modern Britain? I guess he should count himself lucky we have abolished death by burning on the stake!

Are we not in 21st century Modern Britain?One where the popular media is dominated by soft-core pornographer Rupert Murdoch. Thank heavens the Chinese managed to humiliate him comprehensively - http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/fo ... 13837.html (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/how-rupert-crashed-and-burned-in-china-t13837.html)

As for 555's comment about Moslem countries universally disallowing conversions, the following is an indication that this is not a monolithic as the fear-mongers would have us believe - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7237152.stm

There is, after all nothing that compels Jews to use their own legal system in the UK - it's optional and both parties must consent to it. Why would Shariah courts be any different?
That's exactly the point. Shariah courts are different. They are not optional and both parties do not have to consent to the verdict. If a man wants to take an issue to a Shariah court his adversary, especially if it is a woman has to submit to the court's deliberations whether she likes it or not. It is impossible for a woman to obtain a divorce from a Shariah court if the man refuses to agree to it - his veto over any decision of the court in a divorce case is final. Woman (and children for that matter) have no say or standing before such courts.

And for those in any doubt that Shariah law is not for a civilised or western society like Britain just research the treatment meted out to gays under Shariah law. I am amazed and appalled that any gay man (presumably YardenUK is?) should even consider defending the Archbishop on this particular subject.

its is surely ironic that under your postings u quote Voltaire's defence of a human being's right to free speech

this is what i am defending - i have said nothing about the merits or otherwise of the Shariah legal system - i have merely said that an Archbishop should be free to express his thoughts on a subject without people clammering for his resignation. If he has to resign over this no future Archbishop will dare utter a controversial word, for fear of being de-throned. Even Voltaire himself would be appalled that in 2008 an Archbishop is being called on to resign because of something he said.

what do we want our church leaders to be? quiet dotty old men who make placid sermons every sunday then totter back to the Bishop's Palace to swap their robes for a cardigan? The problem in western Europe (UK, Netherlands, Sweden in particular) is that this Islam and the west debate is not being properly explored and as such is leading to hysteria on one side and radicalisation on the other. We need a frank, free and extremely open and honest debate otherwise we are doing ourselves no favours.

Please do not think that I am defending the idea of introducing shariah courts - I have no opinion on this whatsoever, because frankly i have not heard the arguments for and against in enough detail. I merely defend the right of our foremost Christian leader to be able to expound his views publically in order that people like me may hear the differing views calmly, and can then make up my own mind. Sadly, this is not happening because sections of the media are trying to pile on the pressure for him to resign and this is stifling any chance of a proper calm an rational debate.

[Sen Yai]

The point is that someone in Dr Williams position should have known better .......... without allowing the press to stir up all this controversy which may further damage the very social cohesion he says he wishes to preserve.And how would he have done that?

How? By being a little more careful with his pronouncements, pre-judging the grown-up debate that YardenUK hopes for, stating that the introduction of Sharia Law in the UK is nevertheless 'unavoidable' - on a BBC radio show. Qui gladio ferit, gladio perit, eh?

Interestingly Big Ears, who has in the past been a champion of the spread of Islam in the UK, has remained silent on the matter.

And Homi, of course I got your little joke. Your allegories may be tenuous but I was just high-lighting them in a nod of recognition. Not daring to suggest that senility was once again manifest in your ramblings. :cyclops:

[Aunty]

While first and foremost the Archbishop should have (and does have) the right to make whatever statements he pleases about whatever matter he chooses, he nevertheless remains the Archbishop of Canterbury when he makes them. Not a private citizen and not a University Professor steeped in the traditions of his ivory bunker. Surely the Archbishop's role, first and foremost, is the defence, or advancement, of the Anglican Church and its place in modern British society, followed perhaps by a wider consideration of Christian thought and principle and its place in the secular age. In a nutshell, I would have thought his job would be to ask how to make the Anglican Church relevant to modern Britons, and how to take the message of Christ to the widest possible audience. What is the Christian principle he is advocating or advancing in wanting to have a debate about the place of Sharia law in modern Britain? Frankly it makes no sense given his position as head of the Anglican Church. Out of touch? I think so. Should he resign? Probably. At this difficult and challenging time for the Chruch, the Church requires someone who is fully engaged in dealing with those very important issues and not someone tilting at windmills of unrelated abstractions that can be taken up by any number of other people or sectors within British society.

To actually have a debate about the role of Shariah law in Britain would require British people to be sufficiently knowledgeable about Islam to make that a meaningful and accurate dialogue. I don't think there are enough in Britain (or anywhere else for that matter) with that knowledge for that to actually happen. There is little point in having a debate if people don't know what they are talking about.

Although the Jews may have some version of their own law recognised in the UK, this by itself does not mean that other religions should as well on some grounds of universal fairness or equity. To do so would be to treat all religions as being equal in terms of their theology, their principles, their aims, the conduct of their followers, their impact upon the society in which they are practised. This is clearly not the case with religions, they are all fundamentally very different in terms of the way their adherents live and the way their societies are constructed. Perhaps the question should first be asked in terms of what does that religion require of 'us' and what space on the landscape of our home should we give it, given its aims?

The Jewish tradition for example does not call for the destruction of non-believers, their religion and their institutions. It is fairy benign in this regard and has a fairy benign effect on British society at large. This however is not the case with Islam. Islam requires all Muslims to undertake Jihad for the advancement of it. It requires that non-believers must convert to Islam, pay a tax (poll-tax) as non-believers, or be killed.

To abandon Islam as ones faith is to become an apostate, and the penalty for that is death. It is disappointing but not surprising that Beryl once again misleads and distorts an outside article in an an attempt to advance his self-serving arguments. If you actually read his BBC link, you will see that the High Court in Egypt allowed former Christians, who converted to Islam, to convert back to Christianity without the usual punishments for becoming apostates. They did this only because these people had previously being Christian. It is clear from the article however, that no such leeway would be extended to Islamic apostates who, having never being anything other than Muslims, should decide to abandon Islam. There is no tolerance for that.

I really don't want to cause offence but is there also a generational issue here?

I have spoken to loads of friends over the weekend about this - and one of the points was should an Anglican Archbishop speak on matters outside christianity and anglicanism, and the overwhelming views among the younger people of the UK is he definitely should. If the man has the legal right to sit in parliament he should be free to speak on any matter that is an issue in modern Britain. no one is saying legalise Shariah Courts here, but we are saying let's have a full discussion, because as in other parts of Europe, the islam question is going to have to be addressed properly (in a global context)

Among my older friends, the opinion is pretty similar to what I am seeing here.

This is probably another thread topic but i do see a very widening gap in attitudes in Britain across the generations - the same phenomenon seems to be happening in the US with Obama motivating the youth and re-enfranchising them in many ways. The same thing is happening here with a much more radicalised youth who are starting to openly say the unspeakable and to me that is very healthy and makes me feel great optimism.

I accept the point that the Archbishop maybe could have worded his speech in a different way, but I can never accept that he should resign over it.

its is surely ironic that under your postings u quote Voltaire's defence of a human being's right to free speech
i have merely said that an Archbishop should be free to express his thoughts on a subject without people clammering for his resignation.
Nowhere have I suggested that he should resign. Nor have I said that he does not have the freedom to express the thoughts he has. Please don't figuratively put words into my mouth or try to twist what I have said to suit your agenda. All I have have done is to say that in my opinion he is naive in judgment and totally wrong to make the comments he has about the 'inevitability' of parts or forms of Shariah law being introduced side-by-side with British law.

Whilst of course he has the fundamental right to free-speech, he should engage his brain before making preposterous and dangerous pronouncements, especially in his role as head of the Anglican Church. It is interesting to see that his predecessor as Archbishop, Lord Carey, and the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, have both lambasted him for his comments - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ria110.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/10/nsharia110.xml)

ok we better agree to differ snowkat because I have no agenda or desire to start an argument - i just genuinely think the Archbishop should have the freedom to discuss pertinent issues concerning those of faith, and I feel very sad that people are calling for him to resign, which basically means due to his role in this country he is only allowed to speak on certain issues and not others - that is far from Voltaire's idea of freedom of speech.

ok we better agree to differ snowkat because I have no agenda or desire to start an argumentYou're wasting your breath, YardenUK - Snowkat has absolutely no idea what Voltaire meant

[Marsilius]

"...its is surely ironic that under your postings u quote Voltaire's defence of a human being's right to free speech... this is what i am defending - i have said nothing about the merits or otherwise of the Shariah legal system - i have merely said that an Archbishop should be free to express his thoughts on a subject without people clammering for his resignation" - YardenUK, above.

But, Yarden, if the Archbishop should be free to express his thoughts, then surely everyone else should be just as free to call for his resignation? Or do Archbishops have an enhanced level of free speech over everybody else?

As I have done here before, I do recommend "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)" by Robert Spencer (Regnery Publishing Inc.). His critique of Islam is based almost exclusively on what the Koran itself says. The book can usually be found at Bookazine opposite the police box at Jomtien and makes a surprisingly compelling piece of reading for the beach.

But, Yarden, if the Archbishop should be free to express his thoughts, then surely everyone else should be just as free to call for his resignation? Or do Archbishops have an enhanced level of free speech over everybody else?That is somewhat disingenuous - getting him to resign is merely a way of shutting him up - rather like saying that anyone can express an opinion in this Forum and then asking for a poster to be banned

[Marsilius]

Au contraire, mon ami, calling for him to resign is not equivalent to asking him to shut up... For, if he were to resign and return to being an academic, he would then be able to say exactly what he wanted without fear of criticism that one in his position (responsible, presumably, for forwarding the interests of the Anglican church of which he is Primate) ought not to be advocating such things.

... ought not to be advocating such things.So you don't defend to the death his right to say something of which you disapprove ("ought not")? But then we should hardly be surprised of such a view coming from an admirer of Noam Chomsky

[Marsilius]

But it is surprising that an admirer of Jane Austen does not appear to perceive the irony in Rowan Williams's position!

But it is surprising that an admirer of Jane Austen does not appear to perceive the irony in Rowan Williams's position!You mean a religious leader discussing the role of the religious life in a civil society?

The Economist has inserted the voice of English reason into the debate - http://www.economist.com/world/britain/ ... d=10673119 (http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10673119)

[Sen Yai]

Meanwhile, The SunтАЩs more cerebral Sunday publication News of The World has, without even mentioning the name тАШAtkinsonтАЩ also made similar seemingly subliminal connections, describing Rowan's recent behaviour as a тАШMr Bean like blunderтАЩ. They even have a picture to reinforce the concept. www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/1002_sharia.shtml (http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/1002_sharia.shtml)

Meanwhile, The SunтАЩs more cerebral Sunday publication News of The World has, without even mentioning the name тАШAtkinsonтАЩ also made similar seemingly subliminal connections, describing Rowan's recent behaviour as a тАШMr Bean like blunderтАЩ. They even have a picture to reinforce the concept.Where I lead, others follow

[RonanTheBarbarian]

An earlier poster said:


..he was merely stating that already in the UK the Jewish community can go to the Beth Din religious courts to resolve civil disputes in areas of business and marriage, and as a society maybe we need to listen and explore calls for similar arrangements for those of other religious faiths.

I think a major problem is that one is not comparing like with like. As far as I know the Beth Din only deals only with some issues like the religious aspects of marriage and issues of kosher law regulations.

IN REAL terms, it has no proper legal standing.

According to the BBC, with the Beth Din:

"... in the case of divorce, the parties must still obtain a civil divorce alongside the religious one."


So in other words it is just window dressing - with about as much legal standing as saying you got a Druid to divorce you. A Jewish man who was on trial for civil polygamy would not not get off if he just had a Beth Din divorce.

So what relevance has this for Sharia? The Muslim supporters of Sharia who want it to have legal standing (and there have already been unrecognised Sharia Courts operating in Britain for thirty years, with most claiming a very high success rate for handling disputes) want it because they want to have a recognised separate system for Muslims in the field of economics as well as marriage in the UK. There are already Sharia mortgages available for those who want them. The problem is that, unlike the Jewish system, Sharia law is more all-encompassing that Jewish religious law. That means there is more room for disagreement. For instance, let us say two companies are suing each other in the Sharia court. This will work alright if they are small (Mr. Ali's butchers suing Mr. Hussein's taxi firm), but what if you have a large private company with say 19 Muslim shareholders and one Christian?. And the 19 Muslim shareholders want to go to sharia court and the Christian does not?

At the moment it is simple enough - Sharia law has no legal standing, so it would never really be used by a limited company.

But what if Sharia has legal standing? Does that mean that if 50% plus one of the shareholders are Muslim, it goes to the Sharia court. or does it have to be unanimous?

And a Sharia divorce. Unlike a Beth Din court, Sharia marriage courts are very bound up with financial matters. Let us say the Sharia court awards the women in the divorce little or no maintenance. (In fairness Sharia courts are usually fairly good to women with regard to money, if little else).

If Sharia law is incorporated into British law, would the Child Support Agency have to take this into account?

And if not, why not?

And will the Muslim population of Britain (many of them with rather radical views on the matter) be ultimately satisfied with a separate court system like the Beth Din, which is to be honest, a pretty Mickey Mouse system?

Or will they start agitating for a beefed-up one from the day they get recognition of their Beth Din style "Sharia Law Lite" courts?

These are all questions that have to be answered, and I do not think that how they will be answered will necessarily be good for multi-cultural Britain.

[Aunty]

As a good God-fearing Muslim, and follower of the Prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him, I demand the right as a Muslim to follow and adhere to my religion, to follow shariah law and the words of the Koran and I demand to do that here in Once Was Great Britain. And as a Muslim, I demand the religious freedom to not employ (or rent out my house) to any of you take-it-up-the-arse degenerate homosexuals! May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your anuses, and Allah chop off your heads. You dirty dirty bummers.

[Marsilius]

It emerged over the weekend that the UK government has ordered that, in the case of moslem polygamous marriages, state benefits will not only be paid to a claimant and his "main" wife but also to the other wives, too.

One might have thought that the police might have been called in to investigate a breach of the bigamy laws instead!

It emerged over the weekend ...You are behind with the news, old boy. It emerged days ago, not "over the weekend", as I had already reported - http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/fo ... 13900.html (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/polygamy-t13900.html)

Marsilius, just a couple of points - first of all thanks for the book reference, I will take a look for it. My work has seen me living in Muslim societies as far apart as Gaza, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and for the record I am no avid fan of Islam as it is interpreted today, so my postings should not be seen as some defence of Shariah Law/Courts - merely, I find the outcry calling for Williams to resign shocking because I for one do not want my Archbishop to feel he cannot raise controversial issues on matters of faith.

Your other point that he should not speak on this matter as the Archbishop but could do so as an academic (which he once was) - I find this baffling because academics speak out and publish day in day out, but who listens? I truly cannot imagine the following front page headline:

"PROFESSOR THINKS SHARIAH COURTS INEVITABLE"

It is only because he is Archbishop that his ideas hit the front page surely?

I truly wish the government would initiate a Royal Commission on the issue of community cohesion and inter-faith issues, with serious terms of reference, because the Muslim/non-Muslim divide is a very serious issue affecting most of our major inner cities and dividing and radicalising massive sections of the young generation. Instead, after every "terrorist" scare the govt merely summons in Muslim "leaders" who in fact many of the Muslim community do not recognise as leaders, and then utter some platitude about how multicultural Britain is making enormous strides in community cohesion, and we are all working together. This just isnt the reality on the ground, and I think the attempt by the archbishop to initiate a proper debate, starting from a position of friendship towards Muslims was a good idea, perhaps just not executed very well.

[Aunty]

My work has seen me living in Muslim societies as far apart as Gaza, Pakistan and Bangladesh.............

That's great YardenUK. And when you were living there did you tell the Muslims of those communities that you were a practicing homosexual? And if not why not?

More erudite contributions from Aunty Tourette, I see

aunty, not being famous, I am as yet unable to reach out to any entire population and proclaim my sexuality - i wonder if i could, would i wish to? :dontknow:

as a matter of interest why do some members of this board view differing opinions as a virtual all-out declaration of war - do the accepted rules of debate not apply to gay fora?

It is a bit pathetic that people seem to go on the attack all the time, with snide comments and quasi-pompous put-downs. It is not surprising, yet very sad, that out of the thousands of people who read these boards, only a handful bother to contribute.

I was enjoying the discussion, and diverging viewpoints have really made me re-assess and think more about this issue - but comments about my sexuality when I have worked in Muslim countries is quite irrelevant to the furore surrounding the Archbishop of Cantebury, and simply not relevant to the point I was making.

as a matter of interest why do some members of this board view differing opinions as a virtual all-out declaration of war - do the accepted rules of debate not apply to gay fora?They don't apply anywhere else - or is this the only Forum to which you belong/contribute?

no - i belong to them all i think - Baht Stop and Ting Tong are lovely places. GT can be good and is starting to pick up again. This one I like because it is busy although there is a lot of off topic postings and bitchy comments that are not appealing to most people I guess (and now, thanks Homintern, i am totally off topic on this thread !! ha ha)
:geek:

[Marsilius]

"Your other point that he should not speak on this matter as the Archbishop but could do so as an academic (which he once was) - I find this baffling because academics speak out and publish day in day out, but who listens? I truly cannot imagine the following front page headline: "PROFESSOR THINKS SHARIAH COURTS INEVITABLE" It is only because he is Archbishop that his ideas hit the front page surely? (YardenUK, above).

I don't think that would be the headline... It would certainly say "ex-archbishop" rather than "professor". Just look at the way that George Carey (who now, apart from being the ex-archbishop, is just a peer) has been quoted on this issue in the last few days.

Williams would still get publicity - but could no longer be accused of betraying the specific church that he is supposed to be leading.

... be accused of betraying the specific church that he is supposed to be leading.Largely by people who are not members

[Marsilius]

Does one have to be a member of Al Qaeda, then, in order to criticise its leadership for their words and actions, too?

Does one have to be a member of Al Qaeda, then, in order to criticise its leadership for their words and actions, too?Playing with words again, I see - how very Noam Chomsky. The word you used, and to which I referred, was "betray" not "criticise"

[RonanTheBarbarian]

YardenUK said:

"I was enjoying the discussion, and diverging viewpoints have really made me re-assess and think more about this issue - but comments about my sexuality when I have worked in Muslim countries is quite irrelevant to the furore surrounding the Archbishop of Cantebury, and simply not relevant to the point I was making."

I think you are unfair on the Board there, Yarden.

You yourself brought the fact that you had lived in Muslim countries ("Muslim societies as far apart as Gaza, Pakistan and Bangladesh") into the discussion, and although I accept that you were not trying to personalise by doing so, the very fact that you talked about your personal experience was BOUND to raise a reaction along the lines you got from Aunty.

Obviously, this being a mainly gay male Board, the angle taken was relating to how you fared there as a "practising homosexual"

In other discussion boards other angles would be raised - in most cases the women's rights angle would be stressed. If you were a women posting on a general politics discussion board in Britain on this issue, and you let slip that you had lived in Muslim countries, you can be sure you would get comments like "Well, how did you like wearing the veil," etc.


And by the way, the issue Aunty raised WAS relevent, although the way it was personalised on you may have irritated you.

The gay community in Britain is a lot more open now, and any attempt to introduce any Sharia provisions into law would have to take into account the fact that gays can now get married and have legal equality in Britain. Any discussion on how Sharia courts would deal with a gay Muslim divorce case sounds like a joke now, but do not forget, the very idea that civil marriage ceremony could take place between to men would have seemed farcical to most twenty years ago.

[RonanTheBarbarian]

There are some good articles on this issue in the (London) Independent recently.



Johann Hari (who is himself gay, btw) give the idea of Sharia law a good blasting HERE:


www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-rowan-williams-has-shown-us-one-thing-ndash-why-multiculturalism-must-be-abandoned-780710.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-rowan-williams-has-shown-us-one-thing-ndash-why-multiculturalism-must-be-abandoned-780710.html)



Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has another very critical viewpoint HERE:

www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibrown-what-he-wishes-on-us-is-an-abomination-780186.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibrown-what-he-wishes-on-us-is-an-abomination-780186.html)



And Deborah Orr feels the Archbishop's idea has some merit HERE:

www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/deborah-orr/deborah-orr-dont-be-fooled-the-archbishop-wants-to-beat-extremists-at-their-own-game-780195.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/deborah-orr/deborah-orr-dont-be-fooled-the-archbishop-wants-to-beat-extremists-at-their-own-game-780195.html)

I can't (and won't) speak for YardenUK but for me this thread has never been about the merits or otherwise of what the Archbishop said, but about whether he has a right, as Archbishop, to express such views. Those who believe he has not belong to a long tradition stretching back at least as far as Henry II and Thomas a Becket; commonly whenever a cleric makes statements that conservatives deem to be outside what they interpret as "the role of the church" eg. social justice, there's the sort of hue and cry that we've seen over the last few days (and in Becket's case he was murdered to shut him up). As a agnostic I think the Archbishop's views are pernicious because they reinforce the view that religion has a special place in society and should therefore enjoy tax exemption and so on as well as (in this case) its own court system. We did away with that sort of thing with the Reformation

But did the English really have a reformation or did they just accommodate a King.

[Marsilius]

While the Henrician Reformation (from about 1529 onwards) was mainly concerned with politics and, specifically, the king's desire to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, there was indeed a subsequent and genuine English Protestant Reformation (underground until 1547 but then official after the accession of Edward VI).

saw this on the UK's Channel 4 news website - a nice way to lighten up the furore :compress:

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/s ... or/1545747 (http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/religion/good+intentions+by+beau+bo+dor/1545747)

[Aunty]

PM protests over Afghan death sentence
6:16PM Saturday February 16, 2008

The New Zealand Government has protested to Afghanistan over the death sentence handed down for a Afghan journalism student.

Sayed Parweiz Kambakhsh was sentenced to death last month for distributing a report considered to be blasphemous and offensive to Islam.

"We are deeply concerned by the sentence passed on this young man for exercising freedom of speech," Prime Minister Helen Clark said this morning.

"Mr Kambakhsh's detention and trial have been marked by a number of irregularities, including the fact he had no legal counsel."

Miss Clark said the New Zealand ambassador in Tehran had made representations to the Afghanistan government.

The student had used a report on women's rights in Islam during lectures at Balkh University in Mazar-i-Sharif in northern Afghanistan.

He is appealing the sentence and his case has been taken up by the United States and Britain.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/sto ... d=10492855 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10492855)

Helen Clark is a bit slow on the uptake - this was reported on the BBC on 23 Jan - but they also said that the guy will likely be pardoned as he still has a number of appeal procedures to go through and in the end even the President can nullify the sentence (which he is likely to do under enormous international pressure).

If he isn't pardoned, maybe we should try and arrange for the Archbishop of Canterbury to fly out and offer him some anglican blessings? :geek:

[Aunty]

I have held off replying to this thread to see if there were any more contributions to it from others.

I really donтАЩt have much to add to what Ronan has said above who has adroitly picked up on the points I have made and developed them further. He understands the issues, whereas sadly others here clearly do not.

While I was not actually trying to personalise my posts above, if they nevertheless came across that way I make no apology for it. This is not an abstract argument. The abuse of men and women by Islam and its Shariah courts all around the world are not abstract arguments either, for the those involved it is personal for them. Just try and tell Sayed Kambakhsh (see above) that he should not тАШpersonaliseтАЩ his issues with Islam, otherwise his arguments and positions are тАШinvalidтАЩ as he is engaging in little more than personal attacks, and one can see that such a charge is little more than a cop out.

In contrast to modern Christianity, Islam still requires the death or imprisonment of homosexuals. Why would any thoughtful and self-respecting British gay man want to allow a foreign religion that requires his death to be given a foot in the door of the centuriesтАЩ evolved British legal system? If Shariah courts are allowed, how long will it be before Muslims demand to be excused, on religious grounds, from adherence to the anti-discriminatory laws that protect homosexuals in the UK? When will they demand to be allowed to not employ gay men and women, or to provide them with housing or professional services all in the name of Islam? Rather than giving in to the current practices and interpretations of Islam by Muslims, I would suggest that the British public actually digs its toes in and says no, we donтАЩt need Shariah courts; Islam needs to reform to the modern age. And the Archbishop of Canterbury would do better in calling for the reformation of Islam, than pandering to its тАШinevitabilityтАЩ in modern British life.

You know over the years I attended many conferences, symposium, lectures, presentations etc., where scientists have presented their work and ideas to their peers and wider audiences. At the end of a talk it is customary to take questions form the audience. As you can imagine the presenters work is often vigorously challenged, debated, questioned at length and at depth, and heated disagreements, all in public view, are quite common. Can you imagine if, in response to a member of the audienceтАЩs question or comment about a presenterтАЩs work, that person replied тАЬas a matter of interest why do some members of this audience view differing opinions as a virtual all-out declaration of war - do the accepted rules of debate not apply to science fora?

It is a bit pathetic that people seem to go on the attack all the time, with snide comments and quasi-pompous put-downs. It is not surprising, yet very sad, that out of the thousands of people who read these boards, only a handful bother to contribute.тАЭ

Apart from destroying their credibility, that person would be laughed out of the room with many saying, donтАЩt bitch, answer the question. If your argument and data are that good it will stand up to scrutiny. WonтАЩt it?