Archbishop: Sharia law in UK 'seems unavoidable'

[SpoiledPrincess]

We may well be DW. People will say Islam isn't a problem - the world has had to alter the way it acts because of Islam, that is a problem. And if another Muslim pushes in front of me in a queue I'm going to slap her bloody face instead of pointing out there's a queue.

 

[2322]

Can't the Queen can this loser? The Archbishop of 7th Century Apologetics needs to get booted. Actually endorsing sharia law is beyond the pale. He's lost all respect from me.

 

[Osiris]

We may well be DW. People will say Islam isn't a problem - the world has had to alter the way it acts because of Islam, that is a problem. And if another Muslim pushes in front of me in a queue I'm going to slap her bloody face instead of pointing out there's a queue.

As much as I am loathe to think this, how much of this type of thing in the UK do you think is based on post 9/11 and Iraq War incidents?

 

[deleted213967]

I tried to check the numbers.

Surprisingly, estimating the size of the Muslim population is very hard.

In the US, sources show a 0.5 - 1.5% range.

In Europe, including in France, which is said to have the largest Muslim population, the original numbers were revised down to 5% - 10%.

In Britain, the number is less.

Of those who identify as Muslim, I would hope only a minority would even dream of asking for the Sharia Law to co-exist with the French, British , German laws.

 

[Drifterwood]

As far as I am aware, anytime a Muslim acts as if there were sharia law, they get the full force of our secular law. If Dr. Williams is suggesting that this should change, well then he is history.

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

I think before 9/11 there was general grumbling about the immigrant population and the amount of asylum seekers over here, but since then it's become much more prevalent, I don't know if that's down to 9/11 alone or because there are more immigrants each day. I'm all for letting people in, but if they want to come in they should come in on the understanding that they're coming to Britain, they're not coming to Little Iraq. They should change to suit us not vice versa, and the wearing of veils should be illegal, there's a local magistrate who's being investigated for asking a Muslim woman take off her veil - he said he would possibly be sending her to prison so he needed to make sure he was sentencing the right person, she kicked up a fuss.

 

[Drifterwood]

As much as I am loathe to think this, how much of this type of thing in the UK do you think is based on post 9/11 and Iraq War incidents?

Zero, these things are pretty much incidental. Sorry.

 

[DC_DEEP]

I agree - the immigrants need to adapt to their chosen new country, not the other way around. I try to be as tolerant as possible, but I refuse to be held hostage to anyone else's customs.

What these dimwits fail to realize is that sharia may be religious law, but when it comes to a government, sharia is nothing more than customs. It does not, nor should it, trump national or local laws.

My own country has been under some bad influences over the last couple of decades, but from the christian fundamentalists, rather than the muslim fundamentalists. Either way, they must be made to understand: religious freedom is as much my right as theirs.

 

[DaveyR]

I moved to Tenerife from the UK almost 3 years ago. The red tape here is horrendous but we don't complain about it we just get on with it. It's the Spanish system and we've no right to try and change it.

There are so many official procedures you have to go through and forms to fill in. When you go to the Police station or town hall to sort out what needs doing they do not speak English. If you can't speak Spanish then you pay an interpreter to go with you and fill in your forms. In the UK they make exceptions for non English speakers at the expense of tax payers. No wonder there is resentment.

It's time the UK stopped being the only Country to abide by ridiculous EU laws and looked after it's own people.

When in Rome indeed

 

[dong20]

D...
The big difference between the US and the EU is that the relative Muslim population is much smaller here. In France, UK, Germany, ... it is close to or above 10%.

In the UK it's less than 3%. France is about 6%, Germany 3.5%. I don't know where you got you're figures from but I'd reconsider using that source again!

This guy has balls, he has said what many people think. If Austraila can spare him can he come to the USA.

Probably, since he's no longer PM.

It all sounds crazy really. Couldn't they kind of administer it by county? So that rather than the whole country being subject, they just have one area under sharia law.

I don't believe it work, nor do I believe it should be tried.

Look at Nigeria, Sudan, Algeria as examples of where this was enforced through colonial policy and China, Somalia, Cote D'Ivoire, Southern Thailand and so on where it's separatist movements.

When it comes to government I'm not sure Islam can co-exist peacefully with Christianity, or perhaps, any other religion. I lay the blame on all parties for that failure to which I would add that I don't believe any religion should be within a parsec of Government.

I guess I just can't wrap my head around that idea. I mean British Law is centuries old and to bring in that law sounds rather foolish at best.

We fought a civil war, strictly, three in fact - precisely (well almost precisely) to avoid having the nation directly ruled by a monarch (or Government) in any religion's pocket. That lesson was well learned and it's kept the UK comparatively free from the nonsense the US is plagued with today.

While I fully support and respect Dr Edward's efforts at rapprochement, I don't believe those freedoms will be given up so lightly. We have a tolerant society, some would say too tolerant but I suspect in recent years that the limits of that tolerance are being tested. I only hope it's not tested to breaking point.

 

[Drifterwood]

I moved to Tenerife from the UK almost 3 years ago. The red tape here is horrendous but we don't complain about it we just get on with it. It's the Spanish system and we've no right to try and change it.

There are so many official procedures you have to go through and forms to fill in. When you go to the Police station or town hall to sort out what needs doing they do not speak English. If you can't speak Spanish then you pay an interpreter to go with you and fill in your forms. In the UK they make exceptions for non English speakers at the expense of tax payers. No wonder there is resentment.

It's time the UK stopped being the only Country to abide by ridiculous EU laws and looked after it's own people.

When in Rome indeed

But we always needed interpreters for Geordies. :biggrin1:

 

[dong20]

What these dimwits fail to realize is that sharia may be religious law, but when it comes to a government, sharia is nothing more than customs. It does not, nor should it, trump national or local laws.

Unless of cousre, Sharia is local, regional or national law.

I saw a poll way back in 2002 that suggested 40% of UK Muslims supported the introduction of Sharia law in the UK. I suspect that figure was inflated, or rather that the wrong questions were asked to obtain an answer that suited the agenda of those running the poll.

They didn't want it nationally but locally, in predominately Muslim areas. There are already no go areas in parts of the UK based on ethnic and religious affiliation. Were that situation to be enshrined in law I doubt the consequces would be good, for anyone.

This is a rather OTT and clearly prejudiced piece but rather interesting nonetheless.

 

[2322]

We fought a civil war, strictly, three in fact - precisely (well almost precisely) to avoid having the nation directly ruled by a monarch (or Government) in any religion's pocket. That lesson was well learned and it's kept the UK comparatively free from the nonsense the US is plagued with today.

Then I daresay you'll appreciate the irony that the US was founded by religious refugees who fled not only Britain's state religion, but its outright suppression of other religions.

Today we have a secular government and Britain is still saddled with a state religion whose pockets are lined by the government itself and its highest religious leader just suggested that the UK adopt the religious laws of another faith.

While I fully support and respect Dr Edward's efforts at rapprochement, I don't believe those freedoms will be given up so lightly. We have a tolerant society, some would say too tolerant but I suspect in recent years that the limits of that tolerance are being tested. I only hope it's not tested to breaking point.

He's a nutter and should be fired for failing to defend the faith he's paid (£66,140 a year of taxpayer's money) to lead.

 

[deleted213967]

He's a nutter and should be fired for failing to defend the faith he's paid (£66,140 a year of taxpayer's money) to lead.

Dude, that's all he makes!!!

Still, his comments were out of line, I agree with you.

The pope is also trying for a reconciliation between the 2 worlds, but the Vatican has come nowhere near suggesting that the Western world should somehow force the Sharia Law into its fabric.

 

[2322]

It's about $132,000 a year plus he gets a house, staff, and car. Pretty good for a minister.

 

[rob_just_rob]

Religion (ANY religion) has no place in the laws of any democratic country. Period.

 

[Drifterwood]

Then I daresay you'll appreciate the irony that the US was founded by religious refugees who fled not only Britain's state religion, but its outright suppression of other religions.

The loony outcasts that crashed on Plymouth Rock weren't the first, that's just a part of your mythology.

 

[rob_just_rob]

What these dimwits fail to realize is that sharia may be religious law, but when it comes to a government, sharia is nothing more than customs. It does not, nor should it, trump national or local laws.

There was some debate hereabouts a while back about allowing sharia-based tribunals to rule on issues of divorce.
(Ontario Premier rejects use of Shariah law)

Supposedly, individuals would have to voluntarily put their disputes before the sharia tribunal and agree to abide by the tribunal's decision. Nonetheless, the idea was shot down.

Generally speaking, I don't have a problem with people volunteering to have their disputes settled in a binding way by a sharia tribunal - after all, there are other religious tribunals out there, and other forms of ADR as well, that don't trump local law unless you agree they will. My principal concerns are (a) the slippery slope, and (b) the possibility that vulnerable people might be pressured into going before a sharia tribunal when it isn't in their interest to do so.

My own country has been under some bad influences over the last couple of decades, but from the christian fundamentalists, rather than the muslim fundamentalists. Either way, they must be made to understand: religious freedom is as much my right as theirs.

See above. So long as nobody tries to force me or anyone else to live by religious laws, I don't have much problem with others doing so.

 

[dong20]

Then I daresay you'll appreciate the irony that the US was founded by religious refugees who fled not only Britain's state religion, but its outright suppression of other religions.

I had no idea, especially since a sizable proportion were indeed fleeing the very persecution to which was referring above and recently elsewhere here too.

At the time as I'm sure you know there was great animosity (to say the least) between the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Monarchy and Parliament - This had been getting worse for well over 100 years and the folks that mattered had had enough hence the civil wars. there were other more selfish reasons too of course but they're not germane.

I'm not at all sure what your point there is and while interesting it's somewhat off the topic, but the end result (in simple terms) of the civil wars was to (largely) resolve those issues, and end religious oppression and remove the Church and the Monarch from direct involvement in Government. As I stated above.

Today we have a secular government and Britain is still saddled with a state religion whose pockets are lined by the government itself and its highest religious leader just suggested that the UK adopt the religious laws of another faith.

The Monarch is the head of the Church, not Parliament and constitutionally Parliament is supreme. The church has always had a role in the moral leadership of the country, as it does in the US (in case you hadn't noticed) but it plays almost no real role in it's political or judicial administration, again much like the US, only perhaps, in recent years in the case of the US, perhaps not.

He's a nutter and should be fired for failing to defend the faith he's paid (£66,140 a year of taxpayer's money) to lead.

And he's entitled to his view, however nutty. Maybe he'll be sacked, or resign but regardless of his position, his views have touched a nerve.

It's a tricky system to appreciate from the outside so it may be hard to understand that such comments are rarely taken seriously. Naturally a great fuss is made in the popular press, by fundamentalists, the far right wing and of course it provides an opportunity for Parliament to have a pop too because it's no longer accountable to the church - a fact it takes every opportunity to remind it of.

Do I believe there is still too much of a connection between the church and state in the UK and would I like to see it reduce or eliminated - Yes. Do I believe it poses a real threat to it's proper governance - No.

That the head of the church is able to stand up and say such things, knowing the 'consequence' rather underscores this, I'd say.

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

I saw a poll way back in 2002 that suggested 40% of UK Muslims supported the introduction of Sharia law in the UK.
They didn't want it nationally but locally, in predominately Muslim areas. .

I saw the same poll but I don't think it was inflated, we see more Muslim women now wearing the hijab and I can't help seeing a link between this and a more militant Islam attitude. There are Sharia courts already in action ruling on divorce and other civil matters and once they're officially sanctioned their power will grow until they do begin to impinge on traditional British law.