Archbishop: Sharia law in UK 'seems unavoidable'

[rob_just_rob]

Maybe he'll be sacked, or resign but regardless of his position, his views have touched a nerve.

I may be giving the chap too much credit here, but a part of me suspects he made that statement because he knew it would touch a nerve and create a backlash against the idea of sharia law.

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

Well he's not allowed legally to come out and say he's against it.

 

[dong20]

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.

This one (I think I typed 2002 by mistake above)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml

I think the numbers were accurate, but I have a suspicion that they were led by the questions. I can't find these any more. If you look at some of the other responses I don't believe that they suggest support for Sharia law to supplant existing law. After all as more people opposed it than supported it.

This is a hot topic for the media, scary polls such as this are their bread and butter. I do agree with you that there appears to be a underlying trend toward radicalisation, and division along religious lines and that some form of limits need to be applied, why they still can be.

Using Sharia law as a form of community based enforcement I have no problem (or little problem) with, after all that's what Christians etc do isn't it? Having Sharia 'law' supplant UK law or be equally enforceable alongside it, that I have a problem with.

 

[dong20]

I may be giving the chap too much credit here, but a part of me suspects he made that statement because he knew it would touch a nerve and create a backlash against the idea of sharia law.

I don't think that was his motive given his record on this issue, but yes I'm pretty sure he knew exactly what the likely response would be. Alternatively it was all a cunning plan and he's smarter than I think he is, which is also possible.

 

[Drifterwood]

We have a pretty good leagl system in the UK, I no more want Dr. Williams interfering with it than I do some Immam. Thank you.

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

It is a hot topic and I think that some of the articles they publish - for instance this bad Muslim did this bad thing, are intended to inflame us because they can't come straight out and say 'we object to Islam and it's tenets', but Muslims often seem to me to be extremely intolerant while expecting tolerance and some of the statements by Muslim authorities/councils seem to be purposely ambiguous. I can't remember the exact circumstances of it but the Muslim Council of Great Britain made a statement condemning bombing of innocent people - I'd have been much happier if they'd said outright they were against bombing, instead of qualifying it.

 

[dong20]

Well he's not allowed legally to come out and say he's against it.

On what grounds? Like anyone else in the UK, he is.

Some extracts from his lecture:

"Among the manifold anxieties that haunt the discussion of the place of Muslims in British society, one of the strongest, reinforced from time to time by the sensational reporting of opinion polls, is that Muslim communities in this country seek the freedom to live under sharia law. And what most people think they know of sharia is that it is repressive towards women and wedded to archaic and brutal physical punishments; just a few days ago, it was reported that a 'forced marriage' involving a young woman with learning difficulties had been 'sanctioned under sharia law' - the kind of story that, in its assumption that we all 'really' know what is involved in the practice of sharia, powerfully reinforces the image of - at best - a pre-modern system in which human rights have no role. The problem is freely admitted by Muslim scholars. 'In the West', writes Tariq Ramadan in his groundbreaking Western Muslims and the Future of Islam, 'the idea of Sharia calls up all the darkest images of Islam"

"...there is a larger theoretical and practical issue about what it is to live under more than one jurisdiction., which takes us back to the question we began with - the role of sharia (or indeed Orthodox Jewish practice) in relation to the routine jurisdiction of the British courts. In general, when there is a robust affirmation that the law of the land should protect individuals on the grounds of their corporate religious identity and secure their freedom to fulfil religious duties, a number of queries are regularly raised. I want to look at three such difficulties briefly. They relate both to the question of whether there should be a higher level of attention to religious identity and communal rights in the practice of the law, and to the larger issue I mentioned of something like a delegation of certain legal functions to the religious courts of a community; and this latter question, it should be remembered, is relevant not only to Islamic law but also to areas of Orthodox Jewish practice."

"...The second issue, a very serious one, is that recognition of 'supplementary jurisdiction' in some areas, especially family law, could have the effect of reinforcing in minority communities some of the most repressive or retrograde elements in them, with particularly serious consequences for the role and liberties of women. The 'forced marriage' question is the one most often referred to here...
....

"The problem here is that recognising the authority of a communal religious court to decide finally and authoritatively about such a question would in effect not merely allow an additional layer of legal routes for resolving conflicts and ordering behaviour but would actually deprive members of the minority community of rights and liberties that they were entitled to enjoy as citizens; and while a legal system might properly admit structures or protocols that embody the diversity of moral reasoning in a plural society by allowing scope for a minority group to administer its affairs according to its own convictions, it can hardly admit or 'license' protocols that effectively take away the rights it acknowledges as generally valid."

It's pretty much along the above lines and is tacit support, but hardly a rallying cry.

 

[dong20]

I can't remember the exact circumstances of it but the Muslim Council of Great Britain made a statement condemning bombing of innocent people - I'd have been much happier if they'd said outright they were against bombing, instead of qualifying it.

Sir Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim Council of Britain said he utterly condemned the attacks:."We are simply appalled and want to express our deepest condolences to the families. These terrorists, these evil people want to demoralise us as a nation and divide us. All of must unite in helping the police to hunt these murderers down."

Yes, it's a hot topic, but not in a good way.

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

How is he free to say anything negative, if he were to do so he'd be lamblasted for it?

The quote above wasn't the one I saw, the one I saw specifically said 'innocent' people which is an important distinction.

Those who seek to deliberately kill or maim innocent people are the enemies of us all. There is no cause whatsoever that could possibly justify such barbarity."

Muslim Council of Britain declares 'condemnation is not enough' | Terror threat to Britain | Guardian Unlimited

 

[dong20]

How is he free to say anything negative, if he were to do so he'd be lamblasted for it?

You said he was legally precluded from saying what he did, he isn't. Church canons are not enforceable in the courts.

It wasn't derisive, insulting or intended to incite religious hatred so doesn't fall within the purview of hate crimes legislation. Sometimes speaking your mind comes at the cost of a lambasting, happens here everyday.:wink:

It wasn't the best career move, I'll grant you but as he's at the top already, I suppose...:redface:

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

That was my point in response to what Rob said, that he might have said what he said to inflame because he can't make his real feelings known. I don't know that what he said was supposed to be canon and not just personal opinion.

 

[dong20]

The quote above wasn't the one I saw, the one I saw specifically said 'innocent' people which is an important distinction.

Those who seek to deliberately kill or maim innocent people are the enemies of us all. There is no cause whatsoever that could possibly justify such barbarity."

Muslim Council of Britain declares 'condemnation is not enough' | Terror threat to Britain | Guardian Unlimited

Yes, that was part of a longer policy speech given almost two years after the event and wasn't addressing 7/7 directly. The comment I cited was made in direct response to the incident a the day or next day after it happened.

There's some further comments by him here. He was rather equivocal about condemning terrorism in the Mid east, which seemed like rather an own goal.

 

[dong20]

That was my point in response to what Rob said, that he might have said what he said to inflame because he can't make his real feelings known. I don't know that what he said was supposed to be canon and not just personal opinion.

No, what I meant was, had what he said breached church canons (I think it dented a few), it would be matter for the church to deal with, not the courts.

Like Rob, and you I suspect he knew exactly what he was doing.

 

[Gillette]

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

Bears repeating.

The quote above wasn't the one I saw, the one I saw specifically said 'innocent' people which is an important distinction.

Those who seek to deliberately kill or maim innocent people are the enemies of us all. There is no cause whatsoever that could possibly justify such barbarity."

Muslim Council of Britain declares 'condemnation is not enough' | Terror threat to Britain | Guardian Unlimited

Well, yes, it is an important distinction. Without that word in there he'd also be condemning military troops and the police when deadly force were needed. Why read something sketchy into a statement that anybody would have said the same way?

 

[2322]

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.

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.

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.

The point you missed was simply that it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Whether the Monarch or Parliament is supreme is rather moot. The public still pay for this man, using his authority, to suggest that which is antithetical not only to the religion he represents but the nation which pays him. His attitude seems to be one of, common law and the Anglican church should just roll over and die. That he should do this while head of the spiritual branch of government is insulting to the people who pay his bills and his boss in whose name the government is created and enacts law.

I couldn't imagine living with a government-sponsored faith. It's completely antithetical to my political sensibilities, but if you're going to do it, then do it with some respect and dignity. As far as I'm concerned if he can let God pay his salary.

 

[Freddie53]

The point you missed was simply that it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Whether the Monarch or Parliament is supreme is rather moot. The public still pay for this man, using his authority, to suggest that which is antithetical not only to the religion he represents but the nation which pays him. His attitude seems to be one of, common law and the Anglican church should just roll over and die. That he should do this while head of the spiritual branch of government is insulting to the people who pay his bills and his boss in whose name the government is created and enacts law.

I couldn't imagine living with a government-sponsored faith. It's completely antithetical to my political sensibilities, but if you're going to do it, then do it with some respect and dignity. As far as I'm concerned if he can let God pay his salary.

I don't remember where I read it or heard it, but I was under the impression the the Church of England is the state church alright but that the church is not supported by taxes.

Would some one from th UK enlighten us cousins across the pond as to the legal relationship between the state church and the government in terms of financial support?

 

[2322]

The Archbishop's stipend is paid from the revenues of investments administered by the Church Commissioners. The Commissioners manage the Church's portfolio (quite successfully) and are accountable to Parliament. Rather remarkably, the clergy of the church are unionized and have trade union representation.

I see two ways of looking at this depending upon your political opinion. The money the church has comes from public funds supplied to it by parliament and parishioners and since it is a government institution then it is essentially the public's money which is being spent. Government, however, in the UK is not sovereign in the people but the crown. The people are subjects of the crown in whose name government is established. This would mean that though the government has right to impose taxes, the funds are the government's to do with as they please and therefore the church only has to answer to the crown and parliament.

It takes just over £1000 million a year to run the Church of England, financing its 13,000 parishes and 43 cathedrals.

Around three-quarters (£750 million) comes from worshippers in the parishes. Over the past five years, parishes have increased their giving by around £100 million to meet increased ministry and pension costs.

Across the Church, regular, tax-efficient giving rose by nearly 50% in the five years between 1999 and 2004.
Today:

• over £200 million is given tax-efficiently each year through Gift Aid and a further £60 million is recovered from the Inland Revenue in tax;
• £200 million is given in cash and donations by congregations and visitors;
• £250 million is raised through legacies, special events, the letting of church halls, bookstalls, fundraising and parish magazines etc.

Around 15 per cent (over £160 million) comes from the Church Commissioners who manage assets of £4.8 billion on behalf of the Church:

• In 2005, the Church Commissioners achieved a return of 19.1 per cent on their investments, and over the past ten years they have substantially outperformed the benchmark index of more than 700 similar funds.
• As a result of this above-average performance over the last ten years, the Commissioners’ have been able to distribute £38 million more each year to the Church, than if the investments had performed only at the industry average over the last ten years.

In addition, income for the Church of England is generated from:

• £50 million through income on reserve funds in parishes;
• £50 million through income on reserves in dioceses and cathedrals;
• £30 million from fees paid for weddings, funerals and chaplaincies.

The above from, Funding the Church of England

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

In the context of the speech the 'those' referred to can only mean Muslim terrorists Gillette, and what was needed was for the Muslim Council to categorically state that they condemn all killing by terrorists, not for them to leave it in terms that were open to any type of interpretation.

 

[hornygeordie]

I agree princess. No wonder that some muslims get a bad press. I have nothing against them, but they are living in our country and they must learn to adapt to our ways. If I were top go and live in a secular islamic country I would be expected to obide by their rules and laws.
In the UK it certainly appears that the muslims are getting an easier ride and you are not allowed to say anything against it without people putting you into the 'racist' category.

 

[B_ScaredLittleBoy]

This is the UK. It isn't the Ira-kay. Or any other Muslim country. You choose to live in a country, you live by the rules (laws) of that country. You don't try and enforce your own laws upon another country.

Especially if they are crazy laws at odds with the modern laws of another country.

We shouldn't bend over backwards for Muslims. I'd say implementing exclusive Sharia Law is bending over backwards so far as to break your back. It's ridiculous.