Church backlash as Archbishop of Canterbury calls for Sharia law in Britain

[Shogun]

The Archbishop of Canterbury's claim that it seems "unavoidable" that some form of Sharia law will be introduced in Britain today came under attack from his own senior clergy.

The Bishop of Southwark the Right Reverend Tom Butler cast doubts on the argument that the Islamic law will come into force in the UK.

He said: "It will take a great deal more thought and work before I think it's a good idea."

Asked on BBC Radio 4's Today programme whether the Church of England leader, Dr Rowan Williams, should have been more diplomatic in his speech which sparked the controversy, Dr Butler said: "The Archbishop has a way with language but this was a very heavy lecture."

He admitted that the Dr Williams had entered a "minefield" with his views on Sharia law and it was not clear whether he would backtrack on behalf of the Church of England, on this issue.

He said: "Like all bishops I'm waking up this morning to a shoal of emails from clergy asking what's going on."

Culture Secretary Andy Burnham also launched a ferocious backlash against the Archbishop of Canterbury's claims about sharia law.


more...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23436203-details/Adoption+of+Islamic+Sharia+law+in+Britain+is+'unavoidable'%2C+says+Archbishop+of+Canterbury/article.do

 

[tigerbob]

I was wondering yesterday how long this would take to appear on these boards.

I appreciate Rowan Williams' point that Sharia is not understood by most non-Muslims (including me), but on the basis that it's not clearly understood, what on earth prompted the man to express his opinion in a manner that was guaranteed to provoke a firestorm. Or maybe that was his intention.

There may be a reasonable side to Sharia. I don't know enough about it to be sure. The only bits I know are the bits I'm sure most of you all know. And I sure as hell don't want anything to do with them. Thin end of the wedge if you ask me.

Glad to see most of the press, C of E clergy and the politicians have been swift to distance themselves from such an ill considered statement. One thing we all know however - when Rowan Williams puts his foot in his mouth it goes in up to the knee.

 

[Diuretic]

In Sri Lanka the legal system allows for, among other things, Muslim marriage.

 

[tigerbob]

In Sri Lanka the legal system allows for, among other things, Muslim marriage.

Don't follow. As far as I'm aware, Muslim marriage ceremonies mean you are legally married in the UK too. Or am I missing your point?

This Rowan Williams / Sharia business is on the front page of every national paper this morning. A selection...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/index.jhtml

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/dailymail/home.html?in_page_id=1766

http://www.guardian.co.uk/

http://www.independent.co.uk/

The following encapsulates it in a rather large nutshell...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3338104.ece

 

[Gurdari]

They wanted to have some elements in Ontario, Canada before (for property, divorce, inheritance I believe) same as they had Jewish and other religious legal options for those that wish. None of the outcomes could trump Canadian law of course, so it was for minor stuff.

I assume the bishop meant the same, and it is inevitable that some civil law elements will reflect the people who use them eventually, providing a few options could alright.

 

[Diuretic]

Don't follow. As far as I'm aware, Muslim marriage ceremonies mean you are legally married in the UK too. Or am I missing your point?

.......

No, you didn't miss the point. I should have expanded it a bit more. Sri Lanka has a legal system which incorporates the interest of all its communities, the Muslim community being one of them and I think in a minority. Aside from the grief that is occurring between the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the Sri Lankan government the legal system there seems to have been able to accommodate the needs of its various communities without everyone getting themselves into a froth.

Good links - thanks - it would appear that there has been some misunderstanding of Dr Williams points.

Anyway, I think what Dr W was really on about was having a go at secular British society. If that was his intent then he stuffed up.

 

[Diuretic]

They wanted to have some elements in Ontario, Canada before (for property, divorce, inheritance I believe) same as they had Jewish and other religious legal options for those that wish. None of the outcomes could trump Canadian law of course, so it was for minor stuff.

I assume the bishop meant the same, and it is inevitable that some civil law elements will reflect the people who use them eventually, providing a few options could alright.

And in any case the province could only legislate for its own laws, it couldn't enact laws which conflicted with federal law (including the Charter I would think).

 

[Shogun]

I posted this to illustrate the massive negative reaction to applied sharia law in a western nation. Indeed, I'm confident that lefties ans well as righties totally reject it as an equal to british law. As it should be, of course. I seem to recall having this conversation not too long ago.

 

[William Joyce]

Where is Charles Martel when you need him?

 

[Shogun]

funny, the people who were crying that the sky is falling NOW have nothing to say?!?!


no shit.



must not be enough muslims to demonize making it worth the effort.