Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of All England, senior archbishop in the Church of England and symbolic head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, has described the adoption of certain aspects of the Sharia law in the UK as 'unavoidable', arguing that it would help to maintain social cohesion. He suggests that Muslims could have the option to choose to have marital disputes or financial matters resolved in a Sharia court.
I find it especially interesting that the Archbishop of Canterbury, of all people, would advocate this. However, I'm not sure if this really belongs under religion, actually, because I don't really see this as being about Islam or Sharia law or the Archbishop of Canterbury specifically. I think for me, the question is: is the pillarisation of the legal system acceptable? Is it acceptable for communities to determine their own laws when these communities are based on factors such as religion, rather than geographical location?
As an American, my instinctive inclination is to view such a notion of communal law as ridiculous, although I'm aware that they have it in India and Israel. In any case, I'm sure people will pounce on him for being a postmodern relativist bent on committing civilizational suicide (or something like that).
As for social cohesion? I can't help thinking that it could only lead to fragmentation, inhibiting the development of a unified civic society. I think all citizens should be treated equally, subject to the same civil law.
In Singapore, there are Shariah courts that have jurisdiction over certain aspects of Muslim lives such as marriage, death and divorce. As such, I do not find such an idea completely bizarre as such a concept is common in the former colonies.
The Shariah (it is spelt as Syariah here) court usually defers to the common law courts if there are any clash of authorities. Not so in Malaysia, a country where Muslims make up 60% of the population and where their Syariah courts are led to believe that they are the judicial overlords of the country.
However, there is a reason why the Syariah Court exists in Singapore and Malaysia as Islam is an indigeneous religion and Syariah law was set up under the auspices of the British in order to win the Malays over to colonial rule. There is thus absolutely no reason why the UK should bend over backwards to accomodate a special interest minority whose cultural faith and practices are alien to the land.
Maybe the Archbishop of Canterbury does not really know what he is talking about. A Syariah Court system in the UK would effectively be nodding one's head towards polygamy as practised by the Muslims. This is one of the reasons why the Syariah Court exists in Singapore - polygamy is illegal here unless one is a Muslim. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
One thing I didn't realise until yesterday is that a similar provision already exists in the UK whereby Orthodox Jews can choose to have marital and financial issues resolved in a rabbinical Jewish court known as a beth din, as long as both parties agree. It would appear that Rowan Williams is suggesting something similar for Muslims.
I'm still undecided on this issue, as I see it primarily as a question as to the appropriateness of different legal systems for different communities under certain circumstances. I think it's unfortunate that the Archbishop of Canterbury's views are inevitably going to be misrepresented by the media, and consequently misinterpreted since the term Sharia seems to conjure up an image of mediaeval criminal law to many people. But ultimately, I think he's suggesting that Sharia principles could only be recognised where doing so would not violate existing legal practice. It certainly wouldn't have to involve allowing polygamy amongst British Muslims.
It certainly wouldn't have to involve allowing polygamy amongst British Muslims.
...but stoning for adultery it certainly would
No. But that is precisely the sort of assumption that many people are going to make about this, because for them it's what immediately comes to mind when they think of Sharia law.
One thing I didn't realise until yesterday is that a similar provision already exists in the UK whereby Orthodox Jews can choose to have marital and financial issues resolved in a rabbinical Jewish court known as a beth din, as long as both parties agree. It would appear that Rowan Williams is suggesting something similar for Muslims.
The BBC says that this is already available for Muslims: two people can agree to settle their dispute in front of a third party, and (according to the article) there exist Jewish and Muslim courts for this purpose. So I'm not sure exactly what the Archbishop is proposing. Does he think that there should be mandatory application of sharia for Muslim couples, treating them as a sort of non-geographical jurisdiction? That's scary.
Quote:
No. But that is precisely the sort of assumption that many people are going to make about this, because for them it's what immediately comes to mind when they think of Sharia law.
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 3:50 am Post subject: Re: Archbishop of Canterbury calls for Sharia law in the UK
Benjamin wrote:
[...] is the pillarisation of the legal system acceptable? Is it acceptable for communities to determine their own laws when these communities are based on factors such as religion, rather than geographical location?
I find the prospect of such "legal" bubbles (based on religion, or religion-based politics) totally illegal : law should be made by the lawmaker, carried out and enforced by justice, not by unelected cultists nor members of private religious associations with no electoral mandate.
I don't think that Williams meant hand amputation for thieves or lapidation for adulterous/raped women, but he clearly lost a very good opportunity to mind his own (and tiny) business : stop the hemorrage of churchgoing anglicans in the UK.
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 4:09 am Post subject: Re: Archbishop of Canterbury calls for Sharia law in the UK
greg in noord-frankrijk wrote:
I don't think that Williams meant hand amputation for thieves or lapidation for adulterous/raped women, but he clearly lost a very good opportunity to mind his own (and tiny) business : stop the hemorrage of churchgoing anglicans in the UK.
LOL — it's so true though.
Dr Williams has been making a lot of rather positive statements recently about other religious traditions, especially Roman Catholicism, Islam and Judaism, and to be honest, I think that this is just part of that general trend. What I often wonder is what sort of things he'd say if he weren't effectively moderated by the Archbishop of Nigeria.
not by unelected cultists nor members of private religious associations with no electoral mandate.
Now, I think this is unfair. If a substantial section of the population genuinely wishes to resolve civil issues according to the laws and traditions of their community, should not it be the duty of democracy to ensure that they get their wishes? _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
I wouldn't mind if amputation of hands for crime or flagellation of unfaithful spouses became the law in European countries, but stoning for adultery is maybe a little bit too far.
For those who think I'm serious (I'm sure there will be such) I'd like to say - no, I'm not.
Now, I think this is unfair. If a substantial section of the population genuinely wishes to resolve civil issues according to the laws and traditions of their community, should not it be the duty of democracy to ensure that they get their wishes?
So would there be a Muslim plebiscite on it? Would the state convoke a Muslim Parliament? I doubt it. It's sufficient to allow people to resolve their dispute in front of a third party, but I think anything further would go against principles of liberty and equality.
In the US, there are a lot of contracts that you can get into where you sign away your right to sue in a legal court, and instead agree to have disputes settled by a mediator. Arghhhh! There's a technical term for this that escapes me! But basically it is designed to protect the other party from the expense and consequences of actual litigation, and so many people look askance at this type of arrangement as being unfair. Because after all, the courts are where laws are tried, as well as people, and it's an important venue for protecting or establishing your rights, fair practice, and other legal issues.
It's not eligious in nature, but it is a voluntary arrangement for settling differences outside of the usual setting, and so is not far removed from sharia or rabbinical courts. _________________ An apple a day....
Dr Williams is a gentle, learned, brilliant, scholarly man, and a bit of a public relations doofus. The calls for his resignation are not unjustified. He should be the holder of an endowed professorship in some suitable subject at some research-led university. He should not be a prominent church administrator, and certainly not the Archbishop of Canterbury. Someone duller, less original, less intelligent, and more political should be found for that job.
I have to say that I totally agree with this. I've always thought it was a bit of a shame that Dr Williams has spent so much of his life as a bishop and archbishop, as I feel that this has hindered his potential contribution to theological research.
Apparently, he can speak (or at least read) English, Welsh, German, French, Spanish, Russian, Latin and Classical Greek.
not by unelected cultists nor members of private religious associations with no electoral mandate.
Now, I think this is unfair. If a substantial section of the population genuinely wishes to resolve civil issues according to the laws and traditions of their community, should not it be the duty of democracy to ensure that they get their wishes?
No : the duty of Republican democracy is to ensure that civil (and other) issues are addressed within the strict frame of public law, any section of which can't, by mere definition, be privatised, even to suit particular (religious, superstitious, traditional...) wishes. Now the UK is no Republic... Anyway, if some people want the law changed, they need a majority for that.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
