Sharia "would be in tension with the English legal tradition on questions like monogamy, provisions for divorce, the rights of women, custody of children, laws of inheritance and of evidence This is not to mention the relation of freedom of belief and of expression to provisions for blasphemy and apostasy."

— Nazer Ali

A medal should be struck for this man. In two sentences he manages to say it all.

It's simple: FIRE THE ARCHBISHOP. And let everybody accommodating shari'a as a "viable subculture" take note: the first six of these violations of British law apply to women and the last two to both Muslims and non-Muslims. But mostly, shari'a is about men maintaining privilege over women.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at February 11, 2008 6:49 AM

Morgaan's back with the same one-track crusade.

See? Sha'aria's mostly only bad for women.

Pfffffft.

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 11, 2008 7:13 AM

Melanie Phillips:

"People often say the church is now irrelevant. On the contrary — without a strong religious core providing the moral, ethical and cultural ballast, the society it has been instrumental in forming becomes intensely vulnerable to collapse and colonisation. The defence mounted by politicians becomes an empty shell — particularly when we can see they are already running scared and selling the cultural pass with measures such as sharia finance or welfare benefits for polygamous wives.

"Is this really the way the history of a nation, which has for the last thousand years fought off invasion and defended its independence and the liberty it created for the world, finally ends — with the head of its established church on his knees before terror?"

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28901_Phillips-_Dhimmi_-_or_Just_Dim&only

Posted by: StillBreathing at February 11, 2008 7:16 AM

The Archdhimmi is a vile & demented old goat.

I don't even give a hoot for this sharia nonsense. He said other things in the past that give him away as a TheoNazi who would be just like the Mullah's, if only he had the power:

http://sheikyermami.com/2008/01/30/the-very-very-despicable-archbishop-of-canterbury/

Archbishop of Canterbury calls for new law to punish ‘thoughtless or cruel’ words

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 11, 2008 8:15 AM

"Even prominent Muslims were rounding on Dr Williams. Shahid Malik, Labour MP for Dewsbury, said: "I haven't experienced any clamour or fervent desire for sharia law in this country."

Thats a lie

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/29/nsharia29.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml

Posted by: Elric66 at February 11, 2008 8:16 AM

Assalamau Laikum all,

Rev Ronan Williams is under pressue...he always knew that is the price to pay for supporting Islam. He is a giant intelluctial amongst men in the Synod...stick to his guns(no pun intented) Ronan and do not resign.

Keep pusing Ronan...your are doing this for hunmankind ...not just christians ...who will be a fringe group...a minority in Europe in 50 years time anyway.

You are will positioned...stay there, keep calm and don't bust a gut...humankind need your thinking...they just don't know it yet.

Tell them it's not Sharia that you are proposing ....but Sharia Lite...you and me are on the same page Bud.

Posted by: Naseem at February 11, 2008 9:11 AM

ohhh Naseem, you're on the same page as a man?

That sounds rather adulterous to me. Reminds me of the muslim man who recently divorced his wife because she was watching tv alone, and a man was on the screen.

Isn't the pentalty for adulterous women in Sharia law death by stoning?

Posted by: JenBee at February 11, 2008 9:16 AM

Shy Guy,

I can't count the number of times I've read "where are the femininsts?" on this blog.

Then, a woman with some feminist views shows up, speaks out against sharia and its detrimental effect on the women it touches, and you treat her with scorn. What gives with that?

Posted by: Abscedere at February 11, 2008 9:31 AM

Ronan? Who's Ronan?

Posted by: Abscedere at February 11, 2008 9:35 AM

I can't count the number of times I've read "where are the femininsts?" on this blog.

Then, a woman with some feminist views shows up, speaks out against sharia and its detrimental effect on the women it touches, and you treat her with scorn. What gives with that?

Posted by: Abscedere at February 11, 2008 9:31 AM

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 11, 2008 10:03 AM

The best comments on this issue go to two people who have experienced it. First is Nigerian Anglican Archbishop Ben Kwashi in this Youtube interview. He's living it firsthand in northern Nigeria.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN4lqnJjlvw

The second is by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown who writes in The Independent:

"What Rowan Williams wishes upon us is an abomination and I write here as a modern Muslim woman. He lectures the nation on the benefits of sharia law – made by bearded men, for men – and wants the alternative legal system to be accommodated within our democracy in the spirit of inclusion and cohesion."

"Pray tell me sir, how do separate and impenetrable courts and schools and extreme female segregation promote commonalities and deep bonds between citizens of these small isles?"

"What he did on Thursday was to convince other Britons, white, black and brown, that Muslims want not equality but exceptionalism and their own domains. Enlightened British Muslims quail. Friends like this churchman do us more harm than our many enemies. He passes round what he believes to be the benign libation of tolerance. It is laced with arsenic."

"He would not want his own girls and women, I am sure, to "choose" to be governed by these laws he breezily endorses. And he is naive to the point of folly if he imagines it is possible to pick and choose the bits that are relatively nice to the girls or ones that seem to dictate honourable financial transactions."

"Look around the Islamic world where sharia rules and, in every single country, these ordinances reduce our human value to less than half that is accorded a male; homosexuals are imprisoned or killed, children have no free voice or autonomy, authoritarianism rules and infantilises populations."
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibrown-what-he-wishes-on-us-is-an-abomination-780186.html

Do read all of it and listen to the Archbishop's comments.

Posted by: johnb at February 11, 2008 10:29 AM

There must be something in the water in Canterbury. In the 1930's there was Hewlett Johnson, the Dean (i.e. the senior priest) who made himself notorious as an apologist for the Bolshevik terror and genocide. Now it's the archbishop himself who speaks up for Islamic totalitarianism. Maybe they should forget drinking the water, and stick to good Kentish cider.

Posted by: ebonystone at February 11, 2008 10:30 AM

An apology, I didn't realize Robert had posted the latter article on Sunday.

Posted by: johnb at February 11, 2008 10:33 AM

Shy Guy,

I remember the thread. Things got very heated, and people got angry. I think a lot of it was misunderstandings.

I think most of the non-Muslim posters can agree on these points:

1) Anyone and everyone has the right, already, to settle disagreements by arbitration, if they choose to do so.

2) Muslims are not excluded from this privilege.

3) The introduction of "some" sharia would be nothing less than a new toehold to allow Muslims to demand more sharia. Today, they speak of civil disagreements, but tomorrow, they will want to punish what they consider to be "crimes" in their own way, independent of, and even in violation of established British law.

As it is, I can't but agree with Morgaan that sharia would not be a good thing for women. Any women! I mean, suppose a non-Muslim woman were to accidentally run afoul of Muslim law in a Muslim... jurisdiction (for want of a better word)?

We already know what happens, to a woman who names a teddy bear 'Mohammed'.

Posted by: Abscedere at February 11, 2008 10:50 AM

As it is, I can't but agree with Morgaan that sharia would not be a good thing for women.

The point is: Sha'aria is an equal opportunity destroyer that discriminates against any infidel, regardless of gender.

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 11, 2008 10:54 AM

The latest bout of unclarity:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/11/nbishop411.xml

It'll be surprising if he resigns. Despite damaging himself and his office beyond repair, he is not a man to do the honorable thing. He has no courage of his convictions. He just says things, 'teases' them out nuance-style, dresses up monstrous notions in affected prose. Look at what he's done since this whole mess began. Until these latest mealy-mouthed words, no statements in person, no further interviews, just messages on websites and second-hand reports about how shocked, shocked he is. Worse than a fool; a criminally ignorant individual who really doesn't have a clue. He should be literally run out of town.

Posted by: Dane at February 11, 2008 11:49 AM

I remeber reading somewhere that Rowan watches "The Simpsons", so he can't be all bad. (Unless he is lying about his viewing habits to look like a man of the people.)
/Eat my shorts.

Posted by: MP at February 11, 2008 12:15 PM

I remeber reading somewhere that Rowan watches "The Simpsons", so he can't be all bad.

Posted by: MP at February 11, 2008 12:15 PM

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 11, 2008 12:18 PM

Rowan is your typical authoritarian secular leftist nutter and thats the problem in a nutshell.

Like most leftists he has a hatred for all most things western and love of things that are authoritarian in nature. You see this with his embrace of laws that would punish “thoughtless and cruel” styles of speaking(hat tip to sheik yer mami's), to his support of the shariah.

This is not a person you want running anything or having input on new laws.

And BTW the shariah doesn't just hurt women it hurts and kills non-muslims who happen to live under it.

Posted by: waltc at February 11, 2008 12:59 PM

Anglican Bishop: It would be "simply impossible" to bring sharia law into British law "without fundamentally affecting its integrity"

Yep, that's about it...next case...

The point is: Sha'aria is an equal opportunity destroyer that discriminates against any infidel, regardless of gender.
Posted by: Shy Guy

I agree with that, but there are a number of Shari'a issues. Like spokes in a wheel. Morgaan is doing a service by focusing on that spoke. Not that she has no opinion on other subjects, but I am glad she is focused on the womans issues spoke, thats her advocation, and what she should be doing, and she does it well. There are too many Islamic spokes for me to deal with by myself. I am realy glad that there are people like Robert, Hugh, Marisol, and commenter's like Morgaan and numerous others who post here, who keep this wheel tuned up...

Posted by: duh_swami at February 11, 2008 1:27 PM

The 'clarifications' he has uttered today at the General Synod do not alter my grasp of what his speech was about but reveal him to be a 'theo-nazi' as sheikh yermami says.

He still misunderstands the liberal British constitution and the distinction between civil law and civil society, with its principle of voluntaryism.

Hardly surprising, since his is an ESTABLISHED Church. The greatest practitioners of 'voluntaryism' (the aspect of the British constitution Williams fails to grasp) were of course Protestant dissenters and evangelicals who left the established Church of England in droves during the 18th and 19th centuries, setting up their own churches, schools, charities and social networks independent of the state.

Many of these folks came to the US. And it was on account of their complaints against the C of E and its autocracy that the US constitution refused to endorse any particular Church and rejected the establishment principle.

Yet despite this 'establishment' principle in the UK, the other principle - voluntaryism - is the cornerstone of our democracy.

On this basis Muslims have been setting up sharia courts for some years - only nobody has paid a blind bit of attention. Their 'authority' is purely moral and cultural, and they have no powers to enforce their decisions. Compliance remains voluntary. Specifically, the law of the land remains in force, and any British citizen using these courts is NOT bound by their rulings but can seek the civil law.

The great mischief is that Williams, being an establishment figure, and so quite unable to grasp the voluntary principle, has at last spotted these courts, and instinctively seeks to beef them up with some sort of quite uneccessary state endorsement.

Posted by: devorgilla at February 11, 2008 1:39 PM

I keep wondering if Nasseem's husband knows that she's out here flirting with strange men(?)...that's assuming there IS a husband.
I would have thought she'd be in violation of some Sharia rule or other.

Posted by: DaninVan at February 11, 2008 4:22 PM

Perhaps Bishop Williams should read this page on Islamism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

I wonder if he would agree with Sharia (Naseem's 'lite' included) per Indian Islamist Abul Ala Maududi?

Because Islam is all-encompassing, Maududi believed that the Islamic state should not be limited to just the "homeland of Islam", it is for all the world:
Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and programme, ... the objective of Islamic 'Jihad' is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system"

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at February 11, 2008 4:32 PM

I have not commented on this story until now, feeling that if one cannot say anything nice it is sometimes best to say nothing at all.
However, days have passed, and I still don't have anything nice to say about the man who sheikyermami has, with commendable restraint, described as "a vile & demented old goat".
I do however suck some consolation from the degree to which the country now seems to be united in outrage against him and, more importantly, Sharia.
I also hope that perhaps there will now be more attention paid to the victims of Sharia around the world, including the victims within the flock which the Archbishop has so signally failed to feed.

Posted by: M Al-Content at February 11, 2008 5:05 PM

By opening his mouth and putting his big flat archi-episcopal foot in it right up to the knee, Williams has done a service I am sure he never intended: EVERYONE across the English-speaking world is publicly discussing the gross incompatibility between sharia 'law' and the laws and customs of the free world.

For example: here is an editorial from Australia's Sydney Morning Herald. The first half contains some sensible and incisive comments on the clash between sharia law and western law, and the separation of the religious and political realms in the west:

http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2008/02/10/1202578597399.html

Oh yes: and I concur with Morgaan Sinclair - Bp Nazir-Ali said all that required to be said, in just two sentences, all the better to get through to Generation Sound-Bite. There it is, in the Daily Mail.

If Bp Michael Nazir-Ali can keep this up, he'll be getting the grand prize for International Non-Dhimmi of the Year, 2008.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at February 11, 2008 5:26 PM

"I remeber reading somewhere that Rowan watches "The Simpsons", so he can't be all bad. (Unless he is lying about his viewing habits to look like a man of the people.)
/Eat my shorts."

Posted by: MP

Ah, that explains it.
One day the world will come to understand the horrifying extent of the damage wrought by that progressive little tofu munching Marxist, Lisa Simpson.

Posted by: Mike_W at February 11, 2008 6:55 PM

The Telegraph comments section, which normally runs about 100 comments, has over 750 comments.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=BLOGDETAIL&grid=F11&blog=yourview&xml=/news/2008/02/07/view07c.xml#comments

And the BBC Have Your Say had over 25,000 comments. That's got to be a record.

Do you think the politicians will get the message?

Posted by: Borg at February 11, 2008 8:40 PM

Anybody here read Townhall? Because naseem sounds like a certain LoyalDemocrat who posts over there... and yes, you can agree as to whether or not LD is a better poster or not. It just struck me that naseem's tone is very much like his...

(Actually, for that matter, anyone who visits Shark Tank might recognise a certain 'JIM'ness to the poster...)

Oops. Did I accidentally break your cover, naseem? Sorry about that.

Anyway, yeah, I got het up over naseem's posts before. Way het up. But then, I sat back, analysed it a bit more, and came up with this conclusion. What does everyone else think? I mean, step back for a bit and doesn't she just seem a little (ok, waaayyyy) over-the-top to you?

I think the scary thing was that for a long time, I didn't think so. What does that say about Islam when the perception of the religion is such that even the most outrageous statements seem 'normal' coming from the adherents' mouths...

But oh boy, I'm glad His Stupidity the pretender Archbishop is getting it both barrels. Shouldn't be, but even Jesus rebuked dense-headed whitewashed sepulchers in His day (and remember John Baptiser's brood-of-vipers line? Classic! Biblically so, in fact).

Posted by: gkong3 at February 11, 2008 10:50 PM

The operative word in this article is of course integrity.
Something our alleged elite have yet to come to terms with, in any way, shape or form.

Posted by: Stone Rose at February 12, 2008 2:41 AM