Category: News and Views
Uproar as archbishop says sharia law inevitable in UK
Williams argues official status for Islamic law could aid social cohesion
Riazat Butt, religious affairs correspondent
Friday February 8, 2008
The Guardian
The Archbishop of Canterbury drew criticism from across the political spectrum last night after he backed the introduction of sharia law in Britain and
argued that adopting some aspects of it seemed "unavoidable". Rowan Williams, the most senior figure in the Church of England, said that giving Islamic
law official status in the UK would help to achieve social cohesion because some Muslims did not relate to the British legal system.
His comments, in a lecture on civil and religious law given at the Royal Courts of Justice, were swiftly rebutted by the prime minister's spokesman, who
insisted British law would be based on British values and that sharia law would be no justification for acting against national law.
"Our general position is that sharia law cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor should the principles of sharia law
be included in a civil court for resolving contractual disputes. If there are specific instances, like stamp duty, where changes can be made in a way that's
consistent with British law ... to accommodate the values of fundamental Muslims, that is something the government would look at."
Williams was also criticised by the Tory peer Sayeeda Warsi, shadow minister for community cohesion and social action. "The comments may add to the confusion
that already exists in our communities," she said ... "We must ensure people of all backgrounds and religions are treated equally before the law. Freedom
under the law allows respect for some religious practices. But let's be clear: all British citizens must be subject to British laws developed through parliament
and the courts."
Sharia law sets out a broad code of conduct for all aspects of life, from diet, wearing of the hijab to marriage and divorce.
British courts do not recognise Islamic marriages performed in this country unless they are registered separately with the civil authorities. The result
is that some Muslims think they are protected by family law when they are not, and others can think they are properly divorced, when they are still married.
However, Britain recognises Islamic marriages and divorces conducted in Muslim countries such as Pakistan or Bangladesh.
Under Islamic law polygamy is condoned, allowing a man up to four wives and giving him the primary right to call for divorce. This means he can leave his
first wife, refuse her a divorce and remarry, yet still consider himself living in accordance with his faith.
Some Muslim groups supported Williams' views. The Ramadhan Foundation, an educational and welfare body, said the speech was "testament to his attempts to
understand Islam and promote tolerance and respect between our great faiths".
More than 800 people were in the Great Hall of the Royal Courts of Justice in London for last night's speech, while another 200 poured into the overspill
marquee.
Williams said introducing sharia law would mean Muslims would no longer have to choose between two systems.
"If what we want socially is a pattern of relations in which a plurality of diverse and overlapping affiliations work for a common good, and in which groups
of serious and profound conviction are not systematically faced with the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty, it seems unavoidable,"
he said.
Earlier, in a BBC interview, the archbishop was more succinct. He said it was a "matter of fact" that sharia law was already practised in Britain. "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 ... There is a place
for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some kinds of aspects of other religious
law."
He did not endorse, however, the "kind of inhumanity" that was associated with sharia law in some Islamic states.
Hey Loui,
Another fascinating article! Wow but what a subject though? This one is sure to get tempers flaring, blood boiling and the fundamentalists up and about, without a doubt.
*disclaimer*
I'm writing this as I go, so apologies if I ramble.
*end of disclaimer*
Seriously, however, anything that promotes social cohesion *can be* a good thing. Like all good ideas though, as I've said before, it is a great idea until humans get a hold of it.
I've just heard part of a radio broadcast from the BBC in which there was a debate on this very subject. You can read some information about this subject, and hear this broadcast and others here. It was interesting, but left me with little more information than I had at the beginning, and more questions. So my still somewhat uneducated view is that yes, it can be a good thing, but we need to have people educated in both British and Sharia law working *together* to make it work. I have to admit to approaching this from a somewhat ethnocentric viewpoint, as chopping people's hands off and stuff doesnt' seem to me to be such a good idea. However this, as well as other things that happen, are open to question. The way I understand it is that Sharia law is in part based on scripture, but that it is also to a large extent man-made. It's also open to development and change. Also in our favour, British law and Sharia has a lot in common, at least fundamentally. We both apparently believe in the upholding of justice, fairness and other such qualities. Taking that into consideration it seems there is hope for a cohesion of the two cultures/law systems. So yeah, careful as we go folks, but this can be done, and for the good.
Hugs ya,
Cheers,
Simon
I'm sorry, but I have to disaggree. Call me narrow minded, a bigott, etc, etc, but, when you come to another country, no matter how many generations ago that was, they you make a commitment to live by that country's laws. You teach your childrento do likewise. This Social Cohesion problem has been brought about by many newcomers to the country staying in their own groups, not integrating with the rest of the population. I'm not saying that we're completely blameless; wecould've done more to help this happen, but the fact remains that we didn't. Now, let me ask this. If we allow these laws to come into the UK, how does that encourage social cohesion? All it does is promotes two separate societies, one following their laws, the other a different set of rules.
When Brittish people emigrate to muslim countries, their laws aren't changed to accommodate them.
In a TV broadcast not so long ago, there were a group of 6 lads who admitted, in front of a camera, that they were actively working to overthrow the Brittish govenment. Nothing was done about it. Baring that in mind, why on earth would we want to encourage this by giving the ability to follow a different set of laws?
In short, no, I don't think this is a good idea at all, and unnecessary. I am all for people having religious freedom, as long as it has no ill effects on any other person, but Brittish law is a whole different ball game. They were set down for a reason, and for that same reason, they should remail, whole, untouched.
FM
Polish people aren't demanding that they should be able to abide by Polish law while they're here. People who have come here from Caribbean countries don't request that they abide by Caribbean law instead of our own in certain situations. There is a problem which is unique concerning Muslims. It isn't anything to do with multiculturalism, for no other cultural group is causing as many problems around the world as Muslims.
They're already able to implement some degree of Sharia law within their communities. Muslim women are persecuted. Some are killed, beaten, raped, forced into marriage etc under the Sharia law practiced by their families. Some Muslims will debate whether those Muslims are really applying Sharia law, but in the minds of Muslim extremists, they are implementing Sharia law. It is their interpretation of Islam that is important, because it is there interpretation of Islam they wish to implement, not the interpretations of "moderates".
The Arch Bishop could have instead focused on the victims of Islam within the UK, and proposed ways in which they can be given more help, to resist familial oppression, which is a form of oppression which hasn't been given enough attention by the UK government, law-enforcement agencies, media and people.
Especially concerning those who are living in the united kingdom as a favor essentially, out of good will, (or, the decline of the british empire, sad to say), they should respect the culture, legal system, and values of great britain. Europe as a whole is having enough trouble with these groups for various reasons. Immigration should be much tighter. I know for a fact that many immigrants that end up in jail for breaking UK law are not deported, even though they aren't citizens in some cases. Ridiculous. This is political correctness gone mad. Someone needs to stand up and be straight about it. Unfortunetly, I see Britain losing it's heritage, culture, and identity if they keep bending to every immigrant group that pines for something. if they don't like the UK, which many slag off quite publicly, then they should leave. case in point. a few years ago, when I was still living in England, there was a clip on the news at a secondary school in London where a group of moslem kids were talking about being perfectly willing to take up a gHad against the west. That is dangerous to society and should not be tolerated. I heard nothing after that about any actual action being taken. The last thing Britain should do is incoporate their legal system. If they do that, then what's next? It is certainly troubling indeed...
Typical western Propoganda. Wake up, planet Earth.
Lol, I actually agree with hanif here.
fm:
I'm sorry, but I have to disaggree. Call me narrow minded, a bigott, etc, etc, but, when you come to another country, no matter how many generations ago
that was, they you make a commitment to live by that country's laws.
True, and I'm not sure that they're disputing that. What they are asking though, as far as I understand it, is for an extention of British law to incorporate *some* not all of Sharia law also. Not one law for them, adn another for us, but a cohesion, a blending of the two.
This Social Cohesion problem has been brought
about by many newcomers to the country staying in their own groups, not integrating with the rest of the population.
UM no it hasn't has it? Social cohesion, I thought, stood for blending in, stood for mixing, not staying separate and segregated.
Now, let me ask this. If we allow these laws to come into the
UK, how does that encourage social cohesion?
I answered that above. Extend our laws to incorporate something of islamic belief and philosophy then it would follow that it'd be easier for those who follow islam to relate to the rest of us and our laws.
When Brittish people emigrate to muslim countries, their laws aren't changed to accommodate them.
True again, perhaps that should, to a certain extent happen also. But are we going to wait for them to do it before we do? Or do it ourselves first thereby perhaps even leading the way.
In a TV broadcast not so long ago, there were a group of 6 lads who admitted, in front of a camera, that they were actively working to overthrow the Brittish
govenment. Nothing was done about it. Baring that in mind, why on earth would we want to encourage this by giving the ability to follow a different set
of laws?
Ur we still have a goverment, so perhaps nothing was done about it because nothing needed to be done? There are extremists and fanatics in every walk of life, fm, smile. The different set of laws issue, I think I also answered above.
In short, no, I don't think this is a good idea at all, and unnecessary. I am all for people having religious freedom, as long as it has no ill effects
on any other person, but Brittish law is a whole different ball game. They were set down for a reason, and for that same reason, they should remail, whole,
untouched.
Absolutely agree. And this, I can't see affecting us in any way except for the better.
Dont' touch our laws? But if we did that, kids would still work under-ground in mines, and women wouldn't have the vote, among other things. Mankind is changing all the time, sometimes even for the better. Our laws and regulations should change with us,.
Senior:
Polish people aren't demanding that they should be able to abide by Polish law while they're here. People who have come here from Caribbean countries don't
request that they abide by Caribbean law instead of our own in certain situations. There is a problem which is unique concerning Muslims. It isn't anything
to do with multiculturalism, for no other cultural group is causing as many problems around the world as Muslims.
Oh, dear. If Polish or any other culture were as different, regulatorywise, (wrong word I know), then perhaps they would. Problems how? Oh you mean the bombings and so on that are done by a select few fanatical extremists? But wait, what about the Catholic and protistant fighting in Ireland? And there are others. Fanaticism is fanaticism, regardless of religion, colour, or creed. You may as well say all Germans are evil because the Nazis were.
They're already able to implement some degree of Sharia law within their communities. Muslim women are persecuted. Some are killed, beaten, raped, forced
into marriage etc under the Sharia law practiced by their families. Some Muslims will debate whether those Muslims are really applying Sharia law, but
in the minds of Muslim extremists, they are implementing Sharia law. It is their interpretation of Islam that is important, because it is there interpretation
of Islam they wish to implement, not the interpretations of "moderates".
Perhaps, again, I have it wrong. But I don't remember reading anything about them implementing "honour killings" as part of the changes they wish to make. Like I said though, I could be wrong, and will gladly admit it if I am found to be. As far as I understand it, all the muslim community are doing is asking for a greater voice in the country's laws in which they live. If I were part of an ethnic minority overseas, I'd be asking for the same thing.
The Arch Bishop could have instead focused on the victims of Islam within the UK, and proposed ways in which they can be given more help, to resist familial
oppression, which is a form of oppression which hasn't been given enough attention by the UK government, law-enforcement agencies, media and people.
I agree, familial oppression by fanatical people hasnt' been given enough attention, and when it has has been hadnled in such a crap way it's not even funny. That too, needs changing. Could these laws not pave the way for that to happen?
guitar god:
they should respect the culture, legal system, and values of great britain.
And those cultures, legal system etc cannot and should not be changed? Ever? See above for my answer to that.
I see Britain losing it's heritage, culture, and identity if they keep bending to every immigrant group that pines for something.
I, on the other hand, see an evolving society, with more diversity both in its culture and people. There are things in our culture now, as there have been for centuries, that I would quite happily lose. Change, is most definitely, a good thing.
a few years ago, when I was still living in England, there was a clip on
the news at a secondary school in London where a group of moslem kids were talking about being perfectly willing to take up a gHad against the west. That
is dangerous to society and should not be tolerated.
I agree. So, it must be said, do many muslims. Extremists, I have also covered above.
If they do that, what's next?
Who knows. But let's hope for further improvements to a law that has been, adn still is, so imperfect it's incredible.
Let's also hope for more acceptance, and understanding among people in general. Read things guys, talk to people, not just people who agree with you, but others too. Find out what's really going on, before running scared about something that you really ought not be scared of at all.
So, that's my rather long winded post. Just an oppinion, but thought I'd post it.
Cheers,
Simon
Wow Symon, that rocked. Much respect to you for that.
just saying it how i see it
In light of a recent view expressed by one of our leading judges, I thought I'd bring this topic back. But instead of just posting my oppinion, (it's already been done, and hasn't changed), I thought I'd provide you with a different person's point of view. This is from a web site called "Islam Online". Here's the link to an article called | Incorporation of Shari`ah Into British Law. The article starts a fair way down the page, past the log in form fields, so just scroll past those to get to it. Speaking of the afore mentioned judge's oppinion, Cris, if you are reading this, as you were the one who found it in the first place, would you like to post what he said here?
Cheers,
Simon
July 4, 2008
The Daily Mail (UK)
Sharia law SHOULD be used in Britain, says UK's top judge
By Steve Doughty
The most senior judge in England yesterday gave his blessing to the use of sharia law to resolve disputes among Muslims.
Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said that Islamic legal principles could be employed to deal with family and marital arguments and to regulate finance.
He declared: 'Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.'
In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips signalled approval of sharia principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - complied with
the law of the land.
But his remarks, which back the informal sharia courts operated by numerous mosques, provoked a barrage of criticism.
Lawyers warned that family and marital disputes settled by sharia could disadvantage women or the vulnerable.
Tories said that legal equality must be respected and that rulings incompatible with English law should never be enforceable.
Lord Phillips spoke five months after Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams suggested Islamic law could govern marital law, financial transactions
and arbitration in disputes.
The Lord Chief Justice said yesterday of the Archbishop's views: 'It was not very radical to advocate embracing sharia law in the context of family disputes'.
He added there is 'widespread misunderstanding as to the nature of sharia law'.
Lord Phillips said: 'Those who are in dispute are free to subject it to mediation or to agree that it shall be resolved by a chosen arbitrator. There is
no reason why principles of sharia law or any other religious code should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of dispute resolution.'
Lord Phillips said that any sanctions must be 'drawn from the laws of England and Wales'. Severe physical punishment - he mentioned stoning, flogging or
amputating hands - is 'out of the question' in Britain, he added. . . .
Thanks Cris mate, and that's exactly my point. People jump to conclusions about Sharia and its practices. They jump to conclusions about what is meant by incorporating it into British law. It's great news that at least two leading figures in their fields are backing this cohesion.
Cheers,
Simon
"He declared: 'Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.'"
Then from now on, any contract I sign will be governed by the laws of anarchy!
I'm not familiar with the laws of anarchy, but as long as all parties to the agreement agree to such terms, then why not. Without knowing said laws, as I said, I fail to see your point, senior.
Why not go the other way and take out religion from the law. I am sure British laws can be improved and why not look at cultural values. The law and our political rights should be universal and free of religious baggage.
Because it isnt' how Islam works. Islam is the law. What there is a call for is to incorporate certain Islamic values into British law. We have had, I believe, a separation of church and state for quite some time in Britain. Not all of our fellow citizens see it that way though, or rather see it as the way to go. The proposal is to cater for them in some respects. Just my couple of Eurosworth on the matter though.
Cheers,
Simon
if they do it with islam, why not every other religion in the world?