A defender of the faith needs better judgment

 Have your say      Read comments

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has many fine qualities: he is unquestionably sincere, well-meaning, and intelligent. He has manifested an admirable commitment to upholding spiritual values. But his position as leader of the Church of England requires him to have another virtue: that of judgment. And unfortunately, the events of last week have shown a surprising and regrettable lapse of judgment. He must have known what he was getting into when he entered the minefield of whether Muslim communities should be able to regulate themselves by sharia law. He has insisted that he did not mean to imply that they should be allowed to have a parallel legal system, existing alongside the law of the land. But the fact is that what he did say was so obscure, imprecise and difficult to follow that it could easily be interpreted as endorsing precisely the position from which he has now gone to such pains to distance himself. A BBC radio studio is not a seminar room, and a lecture in public is not the same as a symposium with academic colleagues. Public debate inevitably operates in bolder, clearer, less sophisticated colours than the nuances of High Table conversation - a reality which the Archbishop may not like, but has to live with for as long as he is head of the Anglican Communion. The media coverage which reported him - wrongly, he insists - as advocating the granting of legal legitimacy to sharia courts was wholly understandable, for his words appeared to support that view. The blame for the resulting uproar must ultimately rest with Rowan Williams himself. Had he spoken in a less ambiguous style, his musings on how "to tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state" would in all probability have been ignored. advertisement They were not, however, ignored. And the fact remains that the Archbishop has got into a pickle from which he has yet to extricate himself. His language was not only unclear: his thinking was uncharacteristically muddled. His suggestion that the British state should recognise different kinds of justice, including sharia, because that would enable people with different religious convictions to feel "loyal" to British society, is preposterous: it is a recipe, not for the social cohesion and unity which he says he craves, but for separatism and conflict. Far from overcoming cultural conflict, its primary effect would be to enforce division by emphasising it. In his effort to find an accommodation with other religions, in particular Islam, Dr Williams appears to be willing to give up on values which define his own. In fact, it is hard to understand why the leader of the Church of England should be so willing to "accommodate" the values of sharia law at all. Sharia law is abhorrent not just to most Christians, but to anyone who is committed to human rights - a group that includes many Muslims. In the countries where it operates, sharia law is brutal, cruel, discriminatory, and viciously oppressive of women, whose testimony is worth only half that of a man, and who are disadvantaged, relative to men, in marriage law, in disputes on the custody of children in divorce cases, and in inheritance law. Dr Williams said he did not want to be interpreted as endorsing the practices of sharia law countries such as Saudi Arabia, which punish rape victims with imprisonment and lashes on the grounds that they have committed "fornication", which chop off the hands of those convicted of theft and behead or stone women convicted of adultery. But that kind of "law" is precisely what some of the more extreme Islamic fundamentalists mean when they say they want to apply sharia to their own communities. Dr Williams should realise what lies at the bottom of the slippery slope he has begun to descend. He wants to find a liberal compromise between those whose religious convictions lead them to want to regulate their lives by sharia law, and the rest of us, who do not. But no such compromise is possible, or indeed necessary. The Muslims who are interested in reaching a compromise on religious matters are not the ones trying to impose sharia, and those interested in imposing sharia law aren't interested in compromising on a single particle of the religious principles of Islam they believe to be embodied in sharia. The majority of British citizens who are committed to equal treatment under the law, and to the freedoms which are the fruit of centuries of legal evolution and struggle in Britain, cannot compromise on fundamental principles either: we cannot allow women to be systematically discriminated against, for example. No attempt to give such discrimination religious sanction can, or should, be endorsed by the law of this country. Any other position is a betrayal of liberal values - and indeed of Christian ones. Millions of members of the Church of England look to the Archbishop of Canterbury to provide clear and inspiring leadership. Last week, he failed to provide it. He now needs to show that he believes our fundamental values should be defended.

 Have your say    

Related articles News: Sharia law may result in 'legal apartheid'

It occurs to me that there is an underlying problem that has been missed both by Dr Williams and in the comments about his speech.

In the past 11 years over 3,000 new criminal offences are said (by Nick Clegg) to have been created - more than one new way to get a criminal record for every working day. This astonishing statistic can be compared to the 10 Commandments of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Most of these new laws are probably quite unnecessary, and more significantly, some of them could result in the criminalisation of the followers of most of Britain's religions - just for practising their Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist beliefs.

Only the Cardinal has hinted that the aggressive secularism of Government law makers may be the cause of big problems in the future. When so many laws offend those with a spiritual dimension to their lives, general respect for the law and for law enforcement agencies is diminished.

One commentator has said "Sharia Law is explicitly anti-Christian". So too are many of Britain's aggressively secular new laws.

The laws of our land must be respected by all its citizens, but the other side of that bargain, is that the law must be worthy of our respect.
Posted by Richard Doran on February 11, 2008 1:03 AM
Report this comment

Saw Archbishop Rowan on television officiating at a ceremony. Wondered if he was trying out for the role of Gandalf in Lord of the Rings. Inappropriate appearance is often a reflection of inappropriate behavior. Give him back his crozier and get a real cleric in there.
Posted by Anne Lossing on February 11, 2008 1:00 AM
Report this comment

Defender of the Faith. The title was given by the Pope to Henry VIII because of his "Defence of the Seven Sacraments against Luther." When Henry repudiated the authority of the Pope he lost the title, but got Parliament to give it to him anew. It is thus a purely Parliamentary title, and what Parliament gives it can remove. No Archbishop has ever had such a title. Since the Queen who swore at her coronation to defend the Protestant Reformed religion of the Church of England is in law the Supreme Governor of that Church in all things spiritual as temporal then she may rightly be termed its defender. Does defence include fostering other religions?
Posted by Realist on February 10, 2008 10:21 PM
Report this comment

Oh dear. What is going on here? Since when is polygamy recognised in Britain? That is crazy!

Regarding Rowan Williams- his own church is in disarray, he should be looking about that. Britain and most of Western Europe is grand because we've spent over 500 years separating church from state, and embracing secularity.

With Islam and 'introducing aspects of Sharia law', you know that once you say yes to one thing, the militants won't stop there, right?

Canada had this discussion of Sharia law, but chose to drop it, because women come out all the poorer for it. Why in heavens would you want to bring that system *here*?


Posted by jazz williams on February 10, 2008 10:18 PM
Report this comment

As minister to his flock Dr Williams has failed miserably. If he, cocooned as he is in Lambeth Palace, does not understand the fear that our experiences of fundamental Islam has generated throughout the country he should resign.
Posted by TSA on February 10, 2008 9:50 PM
Report this comment

Resign resign resign !! NOW !!!!
Posted by Anthony Roy James on February 10, 2008 4:46 PM
Report this comment

Following Simon Heffer's article on Saturday on the Anglo-Muslim
Archbishop could he possibly pen a follow-up on how he reached his eminence and who assisted his ascent?
Posted by John Thorogood on February 10, 2008 3:32 PM
Report this comment

King James I (V1 of Scotland) was known as 'the Wisest Fool in Christendom.' His actions inflamed religious tensions leading to some renegade Catholics trying to blow up Parliament (Guy Fawkes).

It looks like Archbishop Williams is a modern candidate for the title of 'wisest fool in Christendom.' Let's hope it doesn't lead to the same kind of outcome!

Posted by Donna Walker on February 10, 2008 3:10 PM
Report this comment

Rather than villify the AoC I think we owe him a debt of gratitude. I doubt that the controversey he has aroused was his intention but nonetheless it has has had a very positive and desirable outcome. We have stopped being PC, for the moment, and this looks to be the first glimmerings of a return to free speech.

UK Muslims now know exactly how the vast majority of the population regard them. If they wish to remain in the UK and adopt our lifestyle and values they are welcome to remain. If they choose not to, then I suggest they begin consulting airline timetables so they can take themselves and their debased and barbaric religion off to some other country where they can live out their values to their hearts content.

However, I doubt they will do so because it is one thing to espouse extreme doctrines but quite another to actually have to live them.
Posted by TS on February 10, 2008 3:05 PM
Report this comment

It is reassuring to see our British cousins finally recognizing the degree to which their leftist clergy, academics, media, and government have sold out their great culture and heritage to forces that would destroy them. Perhaps you will begin to understand why we Americans are fighting and not just writing nice polite letters to newspapers. Call us cowboys if you choose. While you debate, we fight to preserve Western Civilization.
Posted by Charles Martel on February 10, 2008 2:45 PM
Report this comment

Stick to praying. Probably better at that than politics.
Posted by Mac on February 10, 2008 2:25 PM
Report this comment

Mitre and coat please Dr. Williams...
Posted by Oliver on February 10, 2008 2:22 PM
Report this comment

He was warm, affectionate, generous, and peace loving. He was in favor of religious toleration and pacifist foreign policies.

Thus was described, James the VI of Scotland and James the Ist of England, the King who was upon the throne at the time of the 1605 Gunpowder Plot.

Henry IV of France called him “the wisest fool in Christendom.”

This 'soubriquet' would seem apposite for the present incumbent of the Archdiocese of Canterbury
Posted by Robert on February 10, 2008 2:04 PM
Report this comment

The problem lies in the church not doing what the church is called to do; namely propagate the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and thus the salvation of souls. Too many church leaders spend far too much time pontificating (pun intended) on social engineering and matters better left in the political arena. If (a big if) they read their Bibles they would find their reason for being didn't spend His time making political speeches but rather touching the lives of individuals. But the Bishops and Archbishops are too busy broadening their phylacteries to be doing such mundane things. No wonder people are jaded and either put off from going to church or the ones that are going are leaving. Christian leadership in the high church are failing as leaders because they've forgotten who they are supposed to be following.
Posted by Carl on February 10, 2008 1:44 PM
Report this comment

The reigning Monarch is Defender of the Faith. Goes back to 1521.
Where isthe Queen in all this?
I have an oddball view.
I think the AofC is trying to align himself with Charles who is known for his pro Muslim multicultural views. Thus when/if Charles becomes King, and after the AofC has officiated at the Multicultural Coronation, and know doubt, crowning Queen Camilla at the same time, the AofC will be set up for life.
Joan
Posted by Joan on February 10, 2008 1:22 PM
Report this comment

To Dave H (04:55 AM): don't be confused, here
are the answers to your questions..
The Archbishop is an academic, the subject
matter would perhaps have been suitable for a
lecture at some university somewhere, but was
totally inappropriate for real life. In addition he is
a left-leaning multiculturalist, and his
appointment was by our splendid socialist
government, which believes in open borders,
diversity and all that guff. Personally I thought
his job was to extoll the virtues of Christianity,
rather than drive the faithful away.
PM Brown wants to get paid for doing nothing...
hence by giving away sovereignty of the UK he
can sit on his fat ass and blame the EU for
everything that goes wrong.
Our Police were re-branded a service, loaded
with massive amounts of targets (all requiring
paperwork) and cultural/race relations trained to
be told they are all racist to make them afraid of
stopping non-whites. The right to charge a
suspect was taken away and given to the CPS,
who are lawyers who probably couldn't get jobs
with decent firms, & they drop as many cases as
possible (after the officers have spent 6+ hours
doing the paperwork). I suspect the police have
now got the stage where there is no point going
out & catching criminals (except Traffic, who
persecute drivers).
In answer to your final question, all this is
tolerated because the underclass & immigrants
probably now outnumber the decent folks who
either hide themselves away, or try to leave the
country for ever.
Posted by peanut on February 10, 2008 1:14 PM
Report this comment

Defender of the faith,its a joke.Destroyer of the faith more like,he should resign and make way for the bishop of Rochester or York.They are true defenders of the faith.
Posted by roadrunner on February 10, 2008 12:15 PM
Report this comment

"it is a recipe, not for the social cohesion and unity which he says he craves, but for separatism and conflict"

You have missed chaos and anarchy. More laws slowly end up as no one following any law! Disadvantaged are hurt most!

In India, it is a mess of all laws. The common joke is: if a case is in a court, grandson/granddaughter can take the judgment. Of course, in the judicial system, lawyers, defense, prosecution and justices are the busiest (many highly corrupt, low IQ, poor integrity and honesty) people on earth!

In Saudi Arabia, it is savage and discriminatory! A lady was called out by phone acquaintance and gang raped. Religious court convictions: death sentence for the lady and least punishment for rapists. After international outcries, the lady was spared! The lady is a Shia and rapists were Sunnis!

Dr. Williams ought to have studied Sharia laws, its impact and its practices in different nations before commenting. He is a religious and spiritual leader and guide. He should be highly responsible.

As rightly pointed out by you, Dr. Williams failed to exercise “judgment”. Here he failed! It will be very difficult to restore the confidence. For this reason, best option is to gracefully retire!
Regards,
Posted by Krishna R. Kumar on February 10, 2008 12:10 PM
Report this comment

The archbishop should explain the biblical basis for his appeasement of Islam. He will see that Elijah did not appease the Baal worshippers (the spiritual forebarers of Islam), he challenged them then with the help of God eliminated their leaders. Similarly Joshua and Samuel as well as Moses dealt with evil as they saw it. In the new testament, Paul engaged with the pagans with the sole purpose of convincing them that Christianity was the only way to go. Now, as Imans all over the world direct their congregation towards Hell, the church has a calling to show the the only Way, Truth and Life. Now the head of this church chooses accommodation with Satan, his sidekick Allah, their prophet Mohammed and their unfortunate msguided followers. If the archbishop is fired up with the Love of Christ he must condemn and not appease Islam. By their deeds they are known and by this yardstick the archbishop has made his position untenable.
Posted by George on February 10, 2008 11:58 AM
Report this comment

Dr. Rowan Williams is well past his sell by date.I sincerely hope our Queen realises what a time bomb she has leading the Church of England and packs him off.But not to the house of lords please.
Posted by kevan mealor on February 10, 2008 11:50 AM
Report this comment

Phil is quite right in saying that "our Queen is 'Defender of the Faith'". Ironically the title was bestowed initially on King Henry VIII by Pope Leo X, in recognition of Henry's public repudiation of the doctrines of Martin Luther...
Posted by Edmund Burke on February 10, 2008 11:47 AM
Report this comment

The druid is merely repaying a debt here, as his remarks have efficiently deflected the nation's attention away from the sell-out to Brussels which has been happening in Parliament this week. People rarely think or observe well when they are angry, so what more effective tactic than for Culpability Brown and Druid Williams to dream up this diversion to occupy the otherwise troublesome plebs and proles who might object to the treason (or so it was before NuLab repealed the law) that is happening in westminster.
Posted by David MH on February 10, 2008 11:42 AM
Report this comment

The legal recognition of rabbinical courts in 2002 was a serious misjudgment that must be reversed. It sets a precedent that will make it impossible to resist further demands for religious exceptionalism.
Posted by Chris on February 10, 2008 11:31 AM
Report this comment

Miranda post 09:06.
Hello Mirada, a couple of points I would respectfully disaggre with you.

I can't recall any BBC media outlet, on-line, tv or radio supporting the ABC. Can you provide evidence?. The Anglican Church and its ageing and dwindling parishoners are these days fairly irrelevant in modern day Britain. Therefore the suggestion that elements of sharia law being introduced alongside British law will not happen so we can disregard the ABC's comments. Whether or not there should be a debate on this doesn't bother me. We suggested one regarding the Danish Cartoons last year and as Churchill said "jaw jaw is better than war war". The other surprising thing to me, is the outrage from the tabloid press given the numbers attending christian churches in this country. One would have thought 99% attend.

The other element to your posting, the impartiality of the BBC. Whilst the BBC is undoubtedly left leaning in the subjects it selects for reporting, the reporting itself reamains, in my opinion fairly balanced.
Posted by Alistair Walker on February 10, 2008 11:30 AM
Report this comment

So, Cardinal O'Connor says that "people here must obey the laws of the land".

I seem to remember that not too long ago he was trying to make the case for the RC Church being exempted from the laws of the land in regard to the Sexual Orientation Regulations. Little difference from Williams' arguing for accommodation with Sharia really. This Cardinal is little short of a hypocrite!

There should be equality before the law for all and these interfering clerics, of whatever flavour, should simply shut up and recognise that religion has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with secular law. Church/Sharia courts belong in centuries past.


Posted by Mike K on February 10, 2008 11:23 AM
Report this comment

He doesn't need better judgement he need dismissing from his office. Someone has got to get a grip on all this ridiculous'accommodation' nonsense before it is too late. The secuar law rules for all in the UK and should be enforced on all who live here without fear or favour.Tolerated alien religions should be private affairs with only a discrete public presence. The clamour by Muslim Medievalists with a very sinister agenda for the Theocratising of our society should be stopped now before it goes any further.Can it really be possible in Britain that we are discussing the possibilty of allowing Sharia Law to take precedence over British Secular law in our own land? It beggars belief.
Posted by david on February 10, 2008 11:17 AM
Report this comment

There has been little or no attempt in the media to treat seriously the
thinking behind Dr. Williams statements. Thus the intolerant words
from so many ill-informed people. But what, in the eyes of the establishment, is the main problem?
Is it that Dr. Williams has never seen his responsibilities as the
Christian face of the establishment,
as most of his predecessors did. Indeed, he is perceived as a threat to the establishment so any opportunity to destabilise him is
taken with relish. What they see as an opportunity to be rid of this ''turbulent priest'' is an opportunity not to be missed. So sad
that the ''masses''cannot see this.

Posted by Ernie on February 10, 2008 11:13 AM
Report this comment

The begining of the Balkanisation of the UK? leading to ethnic cleansing more terorists, death and destruction and the UK becomming a fourth world state. That is the eventual outcome if the Archbishop's pediction that Sharia law is unavoidable is true.
British people wake up; Welcome immigrants that want to join us legally, deport those who do not.
Posted by George Warwick on February 10, 2008 11:11 AM
Report this comment

the man must have been of his rocker
Posted by M.Mourik on February 10, 2008 11:08 AM
Report this comment

This is not the first time Dr Rowan Williams has made a mockery of his so called leadership of one of the main stream Christian churches in England & Wales. He is completly out of touch with the feelings of the vast majority British people let alone British christians or even Anglicans. His views reflect no one else's except his own and his merry band of Academic liberals who live in their own little world but sadly have a disprapotionate amount of power in the running of The Anglican Church. This latest faux par by the Archbishop should be the final straw and he should be encouraged to resign forthwith before he makes any more embarrassing or as this time dangerous remarks in public. However the woolly liberal clerics and other similar hangers on that run the Anglican church will make sure Dr Rowan Williams clings to power, no matter how inept he is as a Christian leader as they couldn't bear the thought of an evangelical Christian leading the Anglican church. God forbid!
Posted by Simon Icke on February 10, 2008 11:07 AM
Report this comment

Instead of being appointed by the British Establishment, would it not be a great idea if the archbishops of the world-wide Anglican Communion gathered to elect their leader. They could, perhaps burn something that gave white smoke when they had completed their task.
Why has noone ever thought of this idea before ?
Posted by G J Edgar on February 10, 2008 11:02 AM
Report this comment

Great second to last paragraph. Absolutly agree.
Posted by Barry .W. Freake on February 10, 2008 10:56 AM
Report this comment

Excellent article.

Williams needs to use clear, unambiguous prose. - Maybe the Plain English Campaign could help him?
Posted by Margaret Wilde on February 10, 2008 10:56 AM
Report this comment

When the government introduced a sort of sharia concession by allowing moslem polygamists to have multiple benefits the outcry was considerably less loud than when the Archbishop put his labyrinthine and muddled incoherencies forward.

It is bizarre that in spite of the fact that we have become a predominantly godless or atheist people we take a cleric's almost incomprehensible utterances more seriously than we take an elected government's actions!

And yet it would seem that Dr Williams has a point: with the current government in power parts of sharia law are not just 'inevitable' in the future - the process has already begun.

There should be a great balloon debate on television. Which one of the following should be saved: Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Dr Rowan Williams, David Cameron, or Myra Hindley?


Posted by René Descartes on February 10, 2008 10:49 AM
Report this comment

THe Arch Bishop should resign.
He continually puts his foot in his mouth. Is it any wonder church numbers are declining? Who can follow a leader that picks and chooses what parts of the bible he considers to true.
Can you imagine a Muslim cleric telling a believer the Koran is just a story.
What ever his views on the subject of sharia law he would have served us all better by keeping his mouth firmly shut.

Posted by Bree Speed on February 10, 2008 10:37 AM
Report this comment

"Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad."

Poor Dr Williams - was it Allah, Jehovah, Zeus or Christ who robbed you of your reason and common sense? Or did they all unite to conspire against you?
Posted by Rastus C. Tastey on February 10, 2008 10:29 AM
Report this comment

Rowan Williams may well be a very learned man in matters theological, and at high rank - but he has shown a remarkable lack of understanding about the gulf between the private intra-Anglican Communion issues which so consume those of his ilk - and the real issues and fears driving the concerns of his presumed flock in their ordinary lives.

Williams has shown himself to be out of touch, out of tune - and like countless other clerics, focused on ecclesiastical politics, not his ministry.

The (frankly, scruffy) Archbishop has shown himself yet again to be a poor flagship ambassador for Anglican Christianity.

Nero fiddling while Rome burned has much in common with how far Williams and co have taken their eyes of their own last.

Their ministry is writhing in death throes across much of Britain - the church where Mum married in London in the 1940s is a Mosque now - and Williams concerns himself with what can be termed appeasement - of a sort which would never remotely be reciprocated in any kind of Islamic jurisdiction (and there the State will not be separate from Faith).

Parallel Sharia Law in Britain is a very different thing from a few Sharia court type set-ups of the sort Williams was mooting. The archbishop nevertheless shows himself to be woefully out of touch: he simply does not realise how mainstream laymen reel at such ideas coming to Britain - from their less discerning standpoint.

Instead of assuaging Muslim sensibilities - Rowan Williams ought to be a lot closer to what makes his own flock tick, what worries them, and most of all - be trying to hang on to what is left of his ministry.
Posted by simon coulter on February 10, 2008 10:29 AM
Report this comment

A very good piece.

But I still think he should go.

He is completely out of touch with the opinions of his flock.
Posted by Annie on February 10, 2008 10:27 AM
Report this comment

I am in my eighties I served to defend our
Country & way of life as so many more did in two
world wars. There is one law of the land, and
there should be No exceptions. I want the leader
of the Church of England to defend our faith. Not
only the Church, I want a Government that will
also protect our ways of life, understanding &
respect for other religion there must be. If this is
the attention the 4% of our population can
demand. Think what it would be like with 40%.




Posted by g. Sturman on February 10, 2008 10:00 AM
Report this comment

A clerihew for today.

Archbishop Williams, Rowan
Had a good thing goin'.
'Til he got into the area
Of sharia.
Posted by Cincinnatus on February 10, 2008 9:54 AM
Report this comment

Its time Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor became Archbishop of Canterbury. Cormac's piece on multiculturalism contains more sense than any of the wittering drivel uttered by Archbishop Rowan. Rowan is clearly way out of his depth in dealing with the challenge of Islam. As a start Rowan should re-read and copy out the Regensburg address given by Pope Benedict in October 2006, which brilliantly compares Christianity and Islam.
Posted by bluedog on February 10, 2008 9:46 AM
Report this comment

I write with much sadness and after listening to and reading debate in the media to say that the Archbishop has done a disservice to us all in setting off debate by proposing an outcome.

We live in a country where society is already fractured and trying to cope with an influx of cultures. In an overcrowded little island where pressure for physical and emotional space is already making itself felt, he notion of a multicultural society has been shown to be flawed. Suggesting that there can be two parallel systems of law can only lead to more division, especially in a country where we have a government which has effectively lost control and is strangling itself and us in a mess of its own making. Whatever was in the mind of government to allow some immigrants to claim welfare for multiple wives?

The Archbishop should, if he has a care for his church and for all the people, stand down and create the space for someone with the necessary experience of life to apply reason in a common sense way.


Posted by George Jackson on February 10, 2008 9:42 AM
Report this comment

"Beth Din" judgements do not have the force of law. Legally they are private arrangments, accepted on a voluntary basis, not contrary to the law of the land.
Posted by Realist on February 10, 2008 9:35 AM
Report this comment

Dr Williams is not a complete idiot as some have suggested. His failing is to assume his own standards of decency, reason, tolerance and humanity apply equally to the masses. Frankly where religious belief is concerned, (especially of the more zealous kind), most of these characraristics and especially reason, are in short supply. At tines likes these it's great entertainment to be an impartial atheist observer. What in the world might an alien from Mars make of us!
Posted by Peter Long on February 10, 2008 9:35 AM
Report this comment

The one positive aspect of Rowan Williams statement, on sharia law, is that it was stated publicly, and has for the first time allowed the whole question of multi culturism to be debated in the public forum. For far to long the viewes of the magority have been stifled by the "liberal" minority, using the word racism to silence those who disagree with them.

Our country has a long record of absorbing people from different countries due in no small part to the fact that those arriving here were attracted to the values and freedoms of speech, religon and thought we hold dear, and wished to partake of those values. Unfortunately there now appears to be a substantial minority who reject those values and to those I would remind them of another of those freedoms that this country allows them, the freedom to return from whence they came.
Posted by Cam Poulter on February 10, 2008 9:29 AM
Report this comment

What ever happened to a Church that sent its followers on crusades, and weeded out heretics. Has it really been replaced by spineless,toothless 'defenders of the faith' that really don't want to offend anyone else.
Allowing sharia law in the uk, isn't the same as giving up your seat to an old lady on the bus.
Posted by Ian Blair on February 10, 2008 9:28 AM
Report this comment

"Beth Din Jewish courts operate in the UK so why is the idea of an Islamic Sharia court not acceptable?"

I think you know perfectly well that the scope of Beth Din is limited to domestic matters affecting the Jewish way of life and, as such, it does not come into conflict with UK law. It has such a low profile that very few non Jews are aware if its existence and it does not seek to expand its scope.

The scope of Sharia law is potentially very wide. I find it very hard to believe that Muslims would be content with a severely limited application. Strident calls for expansion would soon follow.
Posted by Iain on February 10, 2008 9:28 AM
Report this comment

Beth Din" Jewish courts operate in the UK so why is
the idea of an Islamic "Sharia" court not acceptable?
Posted by Jan Jansen on February 10, 2008 2:15 AM

Dear Jan,

Beth Din courts have no legal jurisdiction at all and cannot be enforced in English law if any party disagrees ie English law rules no matter what. Jews can choose to voluntarily resort to a Beth Din ruling that has no legal substance if any party chooses. Muslims like Jews are free to do this as well via their own courts, but the courts must not contravene English Law. Indeed anyone is free to do this.

Perhaps you should read Sharia law more, in particular the teachings on apostasy, treatment of unbelievers ie Dhimmis, theft, adultery, a woman's testimony, rape etc.

Please feel free to tell the Telegraph readers which of the above teachings you think would be of benefit to Britain because make no mistake the people who want sharia law want all of it and they are prepared to wait very patiently to get all of it by stealth and if they do get all of it, none of us will be talking freely on this board!.













Posted by Mark,England on February 10, 2008 9:25 AM
Report this comment

Sharia law derives from the Koran which Muslims believe is the unalterable word of Allah. If women are diminished so be it - it is what Allah has ordained. The world 1400 years ago into which The Prophet received the words was primitive and not just medieval but pre-medieval. How can Williams countenance,for example,the hopeless disadvantage women have in family disputes (divorce,custody of children etc) under Sharia Law.
I note that Dr Sentamu,Archbishop of York,has been unusually silent up to now. In his native Africa divisions between Christians and Muslims are often stark and bitter. Dr Sentamu ?

I believe Williams should resign.
Posted by Paul Virginia USA on February 10, 2008 9:15 AM
Report this comment

The BBC and The Guardian, both of whom came out with their main coverage in support of The Archbishop, must also be condemned as illiberal fools. They too are supporting the subjugation of women, the break up of society, unequal treatment before the law - and the enemies that even now our soldiers are fighting. I don't have to buy the Guardian, but I am forced to support the BBC. The Licence Fee must go, and go now. Or else the BBC must be purged.

Posted by Miranda on February 10, 2008 9:06 AM
Report this comment

Yes,his timing was also very bad, coming just a week or so after the government recognised polygamous marriages for immigrants, but not for people marrying in this country. Clearly the government is only a whisker away from sanctioning all sorts of things that our culture used to forbid, but on a selective basis, with the indigenous people of this country at a disadvantage. Encouragement from the ABC in this direction is not what most of us want.
Posted by andrew on February 10, 2008 8:56 AM
Report this comment

We have been told that the Archbishop's words were taken 'out of context'. My problem is that I cannot imagine a context in which it is OK to say that parts of Sharia Law should be adopted in the country of my birth.
Posted by Brenda on February 10, 2008 8:46 AM
Report this comment

This is one of the most cogent editorials you have printed for a very long time. The quality of this article is in very stark contrast to the lecture of Rowan Williams. He is undoubtedly sorry he delivered it.He should be ashamed also because he has made his lack of judgement very clear to all . This also applies to any leadership skills .
Posted by Michael Moorhouse on February 10, 2008 8:45 AM
Report this comment

The furore caused by Dr Rowan Williams is not surprising. The archaic method of selecting CoE prelates is largely responsible for the Church's woefully inadequate leadership. The monarch is required to choose Archbishops from one of two nominees selected at the behest and instigation of politicians, many of whom are not Anglicans or, indeed, Christians. In such circumstances, is it any wonder that the Church is in terminal decline and that people like me voted with our feet many years ago?

Posted by Ronald G W Rickcord on February 10, 2008 8:38 AM
Report this comment

Silly old academic who knows nothing of the real world...how else can he be described? Is he really only 57? (Wikipedia says so) He looks and sounds 77. Thereby lies the rub.....
Posted by Victor M. on February 10, 2008 8:36 AM
Report this comment

When the Archbishop was first ordained, The Times newspaper asked me to comment on his signature. My view was printed in the article written by Tim Baldwin and I said that The churchman was not a leader but a loner. His script showed that he will always follow his own desires and not those of anyone else. This is the truth and the sad fact is that if graphology was more accepted in this country we would not have the awful disasters that happen every day of the week.
Rowan Williams is one of the many intellectuals in this country who lives in his own world and who has no understanding of what real life is about.
Posted by Erik Rees on February 10, 2008 8:31 AM
Report this comment

Sadly, Canterbury's naivete, fence-sitting, and lack of clear leadership are only a parallel of his handling of the current furore with the consecration of an actively homosexual bishop in the American Episcopal Church.
Posted by Job on February 10, 2008 8:20 AM
Report this comment

Muslims make up only about 4% of British society. Sharia Law is explicitly anti-Christian. Why is the introduction of the law of an alien culture even being discussed? What happened to the idea of democracy - government by majority consensus? The government has already made a benefit payment change tantamount to legalising polygamy for some. Having one law for one person and another for another is divisive.
What comes next?
Posted by Anton on February 10, 2008 8:02 AM
Report this comment

I am very angry that much of the reporting of the Archbishops remarks has been so sloppy and ill-considered. As this Leader states "the fact is that what he did say was so obscure, imprecise and difficult to follow that it could easily be interpreted...", indeed it was and it is now clear that the media en masse jumped to conclusions without thought or examination and has got it utterly wrong. When this happens, as it so often does, no attempt is made to put the facts before us and to say - sorry for our stupidity - its all because we need headlines and to please our editors - we didnt ask - what did you mean? We jumped to conclusions and so did everyone else in Fleet Street. We operate as a virtual cartel in these matters. Joe public doesnt get facts direct from the horses mouth but via the press so is it any wonder that we end up bemused? Rowan Williams was clearly suggesting that if people want to regulate themselves but WITHIN the UK legal framework they should be allowed to do so. The parallel with the Jewish Beth Din has been referred to. But take other examples. Many companies in dispute over matters of Civil Law agree to arbitration. Couples divorcing increasingly go to Family Mediation and reach their own financial and other conclusions. They know in doing so they may well be coming to a solution that is different to that they would achieve if they went before a Judge but they have the wit to realise that what a Judge says may not be what they want once they have been helped to look at all the options. Expensive lawyers may urge them to use their money exploring the full limits of the law so they get their "rights" but they arent obliged to do so - they have free will. Similarly if Muslims freely want to settle their differences within their Mosque and not within a Court as many of us would understand it - why shouldnt they? As a Professor of Law with whom I discussed the matter last week agreed - its just another form of Alternative Dispute Resoultion.
Posted by PRW Richardson on February 10, 2008 7:59 AM
Report this comment

A wonderful article, well done Sir,

Derek McDonald,
Saigon, Vietnam.
Posted by Derek McDonald on February 10, 2008 7:15 AM
Report this comment

I thought our Queen was Defender of the Faith... or do some not remember her coronation?
Posted by phil on February 10, 2008 7:14 AM
Report this comment

I am a warden of my local Church of England. I shall be telling my clergy this morning that I am leaving the CofE if Dr. Williams does not resign or is sacked. I am also fed up having to read in my newspapers, hear and see from the radio or television about islam or Muslims.
Posted by William Hanson on February 10, 2008 7:13 AM
Report this comment

Are babies born to a particular religion, or is it the assertion or assumption of the parents that their baby is so, the latter is wicked and has nothing to do with free thought.
Religion requires an age of consent, but that would proberly be the end of religions.
Posted by wayne on February 10, 2008 7:13 AM
Report this comment

It may be that Dr Williams has struck a mighty blow against the very notions that he appeared to be propounding. Following his comments, and despite their grievous mangling and oversimplification by sections of the media, it has now surely become impossible for sharia, or indeed anything comparable, to be formally introduced into, or recognised by, the English legal system. I would go further; where it already exists, as it apparently does, then I would expect steps to be taken to eradicate it and anything approximating to it.

Why? might well be the next question. There are of course a number of points of principle, but keeping things below that level it needs to be asked whether any remotely civilised society could seriously contemplate giving recognition to sharia, which is the legal manifestation of a belief system that tolerates the permanent and apparently irrevocable subordination of women?

This is not an academic point; the results of this subordination have real consequences. Consider, just by way of example, the cases of 17-year-old Shafilea Ahmed from Warrington; after objecting to an arranged marriage she was found in a river in Cumbria. A coroner ruled last month that the she had been the victim of a ‘very vile murder.’ Or 20-year-old Banaz Mahmod from south London; raped and murdered by men hired by her father and uncle when she left an arranged marriage to be with another man.

For those of us who profess a secularist viewpoint, there can be few greater abominations than official sanction of a superstition-based, unevolved, and thus medieval, legal system. Since the furore raised by Dr Williams has, it would appear, put paid to any such notion for the foreseeable future, I, for one, am grateful to him.

Posted by Charles Stephenson on February 10, 2008 7:12 AM
Report this comment

The archbishop is said to be shocked by the reaction to his comments. This is a man whose job is to communicate lucidly and leave no room for any wrong interpretation of what he said. To even touch on the prickly subject of sharia law and leave the whole subject dangling, then attempt to tell us that what he said, he didn't mean: surely this leaves one with the impression that he has not only lost his way but lost touch with reality. Is he unaware of the impact of his utterances in relation to the position he holds?
Posted by Sid Robbins on February 10, 2008 7:10 AM
Report this comment

This is an excellent piece. It just seems to be one silly utterance after another with Rowan Williams. I have serious doubts whether the archbishop is even a believing Christian at all, which is kind of strange in one who is a keeper of the faith. Who was it that one said "he who believes in nothing will believe in anything."? It's odd that the archbishop is so un- offended by sharia law, when most people associate sharia with the horrors enumerated by the author of the above editorial
Posted by Steve on February 10, 2008 6:49 AM
Report this comment

Re:
"A defender of the faith needs better judgment". He also needs a sense of honour and having singularly failed to defend the faith of which he is titular head and so casually proposed weakening our legal system which has never and, hopefully, will never, work in parellel with any other alien system within our country (since we became a sovereign state) he should take the honourable way out and resign.
This would enable him to visit any moslem country of his choice and attempt to spread christianity by establishing a similar system in reverse. He won't be staying long!

Posted by Godfrey Underwood on February 10, 2008 6:33 AM
Report this comment

I agree with the title. How do you folks go about impeaching an Archbishop?

He's a dangerous clown, and I wouldn't want him greeting me in a Wal-Mart.

Posted by American Observer on February 10, 2008 6:23 AM
Report this comment

He needs to go..........he has not supported either the Church of Englands teaching or the policies of the United Kingdom government as it currently stands... We need a religious leader who can provide us with a direction with which we can not only understand but with which we can acknowldege and accept. We do not need a person who is supposed to be head of the Church of Engoland, who seems 'hell bent' on moving us towards an islamic way of life. Having said this, our government is moving us there fast and furious so maybe there is a joinht initiaitive to encourage the UK to become Islamic rather than Crhistain? Can someone from the government refute this and make me feel comfortable that the UK is safe with its current administration?
Posted by Imoutofhere on February 10, 2008 5:59 AM
Report this comment

Of course, this is not an isolated case. If other religious leaders had made a similar statement, but without the long history of gaffes, the public may have let is slide. But this is just one in a long series. The public grows weary and cries, "Enough." We need a leader of the Anglican Communion to be a Christian leader, not an obscure academic engaged in idle speculation.
Posted by Robert McLean MD PhD on February 10, 2008 5:27 AM
Report this comment

As an American there are some things about England that I don't understand. Perhaps you can help me; Why would the Archbishop even consider granting special rights to separate faiths? I presume that if Muslims can have a separate law, then Hindus, Methodists, Pentecostals, Jews, Catholics et. al. can have their separate courts also. Why does Prime Minister Brown want to hand over British sovereignty to a French Bureaucrat in Brussels without the consent of the people? Why don't your Police, "police" the streets? I had the pleasure of visiting Britain many times, but my wife and I have not visited in a number of years; since your crime has gotten out of control. What the heck is going on over there? And why are these things tolerated? I really don't understand.
Posted by Dave H on February 10, 2008 4:55 AM
Report this comment

It is clear that the Church of England is in crisis with dwindling attendance and many Church closings. I believe Rowan Williams has lost credibility after his latest comments and I don't think he has any choice but to step down. As a female I am horrified that any part of sharia law could become legal in Britain, this simply must not be allowed to happen and we need leaders who have the strength of character to refuse point blank to let this inhumane law exist in any form in our country.
Posted by Ivy on February 10, 2008 4:46 AM
Report this comment

A whole sale collapse in a master-plan by the Church of England.

The tragedy is deep, for is shows us all that CoE are in surrender mode - when it comes to Islam.

Instead of seeing the Muslims (in Britain and beyond) as Christians-to-be, they are running their engine in 5th gear to ensure the best possible Muslim terms & conditions in Britain.

This is truly the Emperors New Clothes by H.C. Andersen.
Posted by anti-sharia on February 10, 2008 4:42 AM
Report this comment

Late last year he was stating that the Nativity story was probably just that, a 'story'. Or more precisely likely to be just a legend.

On a personal level I tend to agree with him, but in his position he should not be stating such an opinion in public.

This latest statement by him is of course even more disastrous. Anyone with even half a brain can see that.

As the effective CEO of the Anglican Church he should do the honourable thing and resign if he is not able to support the organisation he heads.

Posted by JC on February 10, 2008 4:16 AM
Report this comment

I am not sure the Archbishop is even a firm believer in Christianity. He seems to easily compromise, apologize for, and qualify his faith as he struggles to meld the politically correct and secular world to the Anglican faith. It is clear he does not believe in the universal correctness of his faith.
Posted by Paul, New York on February 10, 2008 3:38 AM
Report this comment

Absolutely correct. There's a short time permitted in the public mind now for Rowan Williams to emerge from his own fog and say - preferably in Noddy language we can all comprehend - exactly what he had or has in mind. A simple, straight-forward statement of view precisely expressing some clear thinking. Up to now, he's sought defence in his own ambiguity: not really meaning this; or that; or possibly another; badly misunderstood. Not good enough. Now's the time to clear up any misapprehensions.
The severe, public disapproval of what we suspect he meant, though, has been entirely justified; and our force of boiling anger a telling indicator of real community feeling over matters Islamic. That, if nothing else, is crystal clear. The Home Office and others should note this carefully. Multiculturalism is at an end and we won't be messed around with it any longer.
And if there's a silver lining to this cloud, then it's the exposure Sharia law has received. It's been revealed more than popularly ever as an awful system: derived from a deeply questionable creed that continues to inflict misery, fear, slave-like submission and gross injustice onto millions. It's completely incompatible with our democratically crafted legal system as tried, tested and reformed over centuries; and it's hostile to national unity. Britain doesn't want it - any of it.
We can say this plainly enough. Why can't the Archbishop? Now's his last chance. Speak out - or go.
Posted by sebastian on February 10, 2008 3:35 AM
Report this comment

It is quite obvious rthat Dr Williams is a complete idiot unfit for any job above toilet cleaner
Posted by David Woolley on February 10, 2008 3:34 AM
Report this comment

This may not be to the point, but, my own reading of the Koran gave me the impression that it was Mohammed, for whom I have great respect, who founded Womens Lib.

Shame that the religious almost never follow the teachings of their long dead teachers, none of whom are ever likely to return.

PS
I was very insulted when somebody referred to this idiot Archbishop as a hippy.
La honte!






Posted by Old Nick Heavenly on February 10, 2008 2:56 AM
Report this comment

"Beth Din" Jewish courts operate in the UK so why is
the idea of an Islamic "Sharia" court not acceptable?
Posted by Jan Jansen on February 10, 2008 2:15 AM
Report this comment

The very aspect of religious freedom is an outcome of the long, long international struggle for human rights and democracy. That freedom is supported by a set of laws that do not in any fashion allow any aspect of religious law to contravene civil law.

The Archbishop, despite his obvious goodness, has introduced the concept of a slurry of religious and civil law and that, as others have stated, will undermine the sanctity of religious freedom and human rights.Unfortunately for the good Archbishop, this is reprehensible to all you believe in civil liberties and human rights. Additionally, it fans the flames of religious intolerance that always lurks in the shadows of most societies.
Posted by Waddell Robey on February 10, 2008 2:04 AM
Report this comment

Please remember that the submission of any material to telegraph.co.uk is governed by our Terms and Conditions (clause 5 in particular) and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Your name: *

Your email address: * (We won't publish this.)

Your site's URL: (If you have one.)

Please click the post button only once - your comment will not be published immediately.

* = Required information

YOUR MONEY Credit score Our top 10 tips to help you improve your credit rating.

TRAVEL Burlesque revival Vaudeville's raunchy cousin is making a New York comeback.

DIGITAL LIFE Size matters We put the Apple MacBook Air through its paces.

ARTS Wizard lover... Mills & Boon novels reflect changing ideas about love.