Tronic

brokensickle, With, "Make the constitution and the rule of the land the prime text"; I meant make the constitution and the rule of the land; i.e. British law, the only text which people must adhere to in British social life. They can follow whichever other religious texts or books personally in their own homes. What i'm basically trying to say is that there should not be any other special laws like Sharia or any other religious laws; as all they do is divide the common populace into seperate communities. One law for One nation.

Right, but you must now see the scenario at present times; as a vast majority of the "foreigners" you keep refering to are now no more foriegn then their non-Muslim counterparts. Even the London bombers were no "foriegners", they were born and raised British citizens. The problem is now as much homegrown as it is alien. Britain must address the radicalism growing on its land rather then merely thinking it as a foriegn problem.

__________________
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory

bandwagon

As a person he is not at all crazy. He's a highly intelligent and thoughtful man. It is just that his involvement in religion distracted him from a real-life pespective.

tankie

Once again , intelligence and common sense at a crossroads , he is now getting a backlash from his own parishioners ,for his ill judged comments . ??

Hey Dave , im an atheist as well ,, did you hear about the insomniac dyslexic agnostic

He couldtn not gte a sleepe at nite thinkg taht meybe there watns a Dog .

__________________
TANKIE , WITHOUT WAX

medvedev

Perhaps he was making the issue big news to draw attention to the fact that muslim faith is beginning to dominate the UK while Christian faith diminishes. Very cynical but maybe he wanted to inadvertently spark a debate to open our eyes to this fact. It is very cynical of me but maybe the Church is threatened by muslim demands in the UK and wanted to draw attention to it without of course saying as much.
What do you think?

glyn

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

glyn

Mobbme

Archbishop denies asking for Islamic law
Williams says he made no proposals for parallel Islamic legal system in U.K.

LONDON - The archbishop of Canterbury said Friday he never proposed the creation of a parallel Islamic legal system in Britain, as anger continued to simmer over statements he made seen as backing Islamic law.

Rowan Williams told the British Broadcasting Corp. in an interview aired Thursday that some aspects of Shariah law, a venerable Islamic code of conduct, already fit easily within the existing British legal system, and he agreed when asked if its implementation was inevitable.

Britain's media took the statement as broadly backing Shariah law, which delighted some British Muslims — and outraged almost everyone else.

Lawmakers across the political spectrum condemned Williams' statement, and Britain's tabloid newspapers reacted with fury, publishing pictures of people being beheaded under Shariah law and showing the carnage after Islamic suicide bombers attacked London's transport system in 2005.

In an editorial, The Sun newspaper called Williams "a dangerous threat to our nation" and said Muslim terrorists would "see his foolish ramblings as a sign that our resolve against extremism is weakening."

Williams acknowledged the "strong reaction in the media and elsewhere" but said in a message posted to his Web site he never intended to propose the creation of a parallel Muslim legal system.

Williams: He used Shariah to set example
Williams said his aim was "to tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state" and was using Shariah law as an example.

He explained that Christians could not be expected to claim religious exceptions to secular rules — for example, by refusing to carry out abortions — unless they were willing to accommodate other religious traditions.

The heated reaction prompted some British Muslim groups to soften their initial support for Williams' plans and to complain about "Islamophobia" making British Muslims feel unwelcome in their homeland.

"The reaction has escalated into hysteria," said Catherine Heseltine, a spokeswoman with the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK. "People hear the word Shariah and have an emotive conjuring of Taliban beheadings. It's seen as threatening Muslim outsiders coming in and imposing something on Britain."

In reality, she said, the changes Williams is advocating are not a high priority to British Muslims. For most Muslims here, she said, Shariah law deals primarily with questions of how Halal meat should be prepared and how marriages should be conducted.

Shariah is a wide-ranging Islamic code that has evolved over the centuries and is subject to differing interpretations in various countries. It deals with many aspects of daily life, including dress and dietary restrictions, and also codifies how to punish serious offenses.

The code imposes some restrictions on banking practices and in fact some British banks have introduced Shariah-compliant programs for certain types of transactions.

There are already some Shariah councils operating in Britain for Muslims who agree to abide by their rulings, but these are unofficial bodies not recognized by British law.


Archbishop denies asking for Islamic law - Europe - MSNBC.com


Is this guy crazy? You can't start a controversial issue, then back pedal like this.

tankie

Oh yes he can , he is no different to any half baked not of this planet politician

Adux

tankie,

dont you think life outside the 60tn challenger is too complicated

Herodotus

I like your choice of font, weight and colour. It looks nice, doesn't it? However you completely miss the point of my post. I suspect the reason for this is that your adherence to religion prevents you from seeing the obvious. And in that you are no different to members of all other faiths. Purblind. As to what you imagine is happening to my country might I suggest that you are not fully informed? This entire brouhaha started because of a ridiculous statement by Englands leading cleric. (The question I ask is why can't the religious types simply stfu?) As to why I say stuff like this (as you so charmingly put it) I think it is because I am truthful. I don't believe in fairy stories, but hey you can if you want to![/quote]

Why are you bigoted against religious people? Do YOU have some narrow-minded pre-conceived notion about "religion"? Maybe. Look the Archbishop spoke his mind, he's allowed to do that I think. Does he have a vote on the matter? No.

But his point was that there exist plenty of mechanisms in the law for Christians and Jews (and yes even atheists) when it comes to marriage, divorce, lending money, etc. But none for Muslims. He has forced a debate, a public one, on this issue, and the issue of Muslims in Britain. Why aren't Muslims being integrated/assimilated smoothly into British society or European society in general. Why do they feel alienated?

Sharia law may be distasteful for modern, forward-thinking Enlightened progressive individuals like yourself, but it is still a day-to-day reality in many parts of the world. So how do we deal with it when there is a cultural clash? Do we kow-tow to it? No. Do we stomp it into the ground? Unwise, probably. But it has to be dealt with, head-on, incrementally at least. Compromises could be made for the least offensive and least brutal aspects of the law. That's all he was saying:

Wrong, Dr Williams, but the debate is right

* Leader
* The Observer,
* Sunday February 10 2008


This article appeared in the Observer on Sunday February 10 2008 on p34 of the Comment section. It was last updated at 02:05 on February 10 2008.

If Rowan Williams did not anticipate the furore that would be caused by his speech on the evolving role of sharia law in Britain, then he was naive to the point of foolishness. If he had even an inkling of the vitriol that would be poured on him within hours of making his observations, and went ahead regardless, he was brave to the point of foolhardiness.

Given how intemperate in many quarters the response to the archbishop has been, it is worth pausing to consider what it is exactly that is under debate. Any attempt at clarification throws up three distinct questions. First, what did Dr Williams actually say? Second, was he right? And third, was it wise of him, as head of the Church of England, to be passing judgment on Islamic law one way or another?

The first question is in many ways the trickiest. The archbishop delivered a long lecture in nuanced and often opaque language that defies easy synopsis. It lends itself to both a pragmatic and an ideological interpretation.

The pragmatic one is as follows: Britain is home to at least 1.6m Muslims. Many of them choose to run their lives, like followers of other faiths, in accordance with religious law. They want to marry, divorce, lend, borrow and generally conduct their affairs in accordance with sharia. But there is no mechanism in British society for recognising in public law the decisions they have made in private. Such mechanisms do exist for other religions. So fairness dictates that it should be technically easier for Muslims to get state recognition for their faith-based judicial rulings, as long as the choices sanctioned by sharia do not contravene the law of the land.

The ideological interpretation of Dr Williams's ideas goes thus: it is an article of faith for Muslims to submit themselves first and foremost to sharia law, which derives its authority from God. Christians, who share the same God, should be able to recognise in that something admirable. If a community wants to govern itself in peaceful piety according to its scriptures, the law should make every possible accommodation for them. Muslims should not be forced to choose between loyalty to God and loyalty to the state.

The pragmatic version of Dr Williams's view could be taken as much as a statement about globalisation as about religion. The complexion of Britain has changed dramatically. Since sharia has become a fact of life for many British citizens, the state cannot ignore it. Finding ways to smooth the passage of immigrants into British civic structures may aid social cohesion. It should, for example, be easier to have a marriage in a mosque recognised as a bona fide legal union.

But such pragmatism glosses over the possibility that even the most selective recognition of sharia, limiting it to matrimonial matters, for example, would quickly collide with British traditions of civil rights. Women's status, for example, is unambiguously inferior in Islamic divorces. Dr Williams's apparent blindness to that point is what makes the ideological interpretation of his speech especially worrying. Divinely inspired dogma (be it from the Koran, Leviticus or the Epistles of St Paul) is easily interpreted to justify bigotry.

Even if we accept, as Dr Williams seems glibly happy to do, that there is no appetite among British Muslims for the more famously brutal applications of sharia as practised in countries such as Saudi Arabia, it is quite wrong to suggest that God's word could be equivalent to parliamentary statute in regulating a diverse society. Dr Williams can believe that if he wants to and the law protects his right to express that view.

But for him to continue enjoying that freedom - and, crucially, for others to be free to disagree - secular law must have unequivocal primacy. Sometimes, religious believers will be forced to choose whom they obey, a religious judge or a civil one. They must choose the latter every time. Democracy and the rule of law demand it.

So Dr Williams is right on some of the detail (working towards a better understanding of sharia to help Muslims integrate) and wrong on the big picture (deferring to God's law over man's). That leaves the third question: was he right to say anything on this subject at all?

The passions unleashed by Dr Williams's intervention prove that the debate is necessary. It is telling that politicians of all stripes hurried to oppose the archbishop, not by rebutting his view, but on the grounds that its mere expression in public was divisive. In other words, the secular establishment is afraid of debating Dr Williams on his own terms. Showing shrewd judgment and cowardice in equal measure, Westminster chose collectively to keep secret its feelings about Islam, God, the church and the state. Politicians running scared from a debate is evidence that it is necessary.

Rowan Williams's position as head of the established church gives him a double advantage in inaugurating that debate. First, he is a Christian. Had a high-profile imam made the same point, he would have been swiftly denounced as a dangerous extremist. No one could make the same claim of the archbishop, although some hysterical commentators have come close. Second, his church enjoys unique privileges in law. The Queen is its nominal head. So Dr Williams is speaking from a position of power. He is not pleading for special favours for his own followers. He can rightly claim to be advancing a purely academic argument from a position of relative neutrality: a believer but not a Muslim, a figure of the establishment but not a politician. For all the controversy, it is perhaps appropriate that the tricky relationship between divine and secular authority in Britain be explored by the successor to Thomas à Beckett.

The sad truth that has emerged in recent days is that, while Britain needs this debate, it appears to lack the discipline to conduct it in a civilised way. The scale of the backlash, some of the language used and the haste with which some opponents of the archbishop have reached for crude stereotypes of Islam is dispiriting. It is unedifying to see the majority culture turn with near unanimous scorn on a minority. It suggests that secular Britain is deeply insecure about the durability of its own culture.

If we see even a stolid, closely argued lecture by a respected church leader as an existential threat, we must be woefully lacking in faith - not in God, but in the institutions and traditions that make our law.

So Rowan Williams was perfectly entitled to speak his mind. But he could have spared himself a lot of trouble by explaining himself more clearly. His allies in the church might plea naivety on his behalf, but a man in his position - with massive constitutional responsibility - must anticipate the political as well as the theological consequences of his words. He should have predicted that people would leap on the most incendiary interpretation of his speech: that sharia courts should one day be recognised as equivalent to civil ones as a source of law in Britain. If he meant anything even close to that, he is plain wrong.

But a competition has emerged in recent days quite separate from the theoretical rivalry between sharia and parliamentary law that Dr Williams wanted to debate. It is a contest that reveals just as much about modern Britain as any treatise on faith. It is the contrast between reasonable, sensible exposition of an idea, whatever its merits, and unthinking, poisonous, prejudiced reaction. From that competition, for all his wrong-headedness and naivety, Dr Williams emerges on the moral high ground.

"

Leader: Wrong, Dr Williams, but the debate is right | Comment is free | The Observer

glyn

[quote=Herodotus;457672]

Why are you bigoted against religious people?

Some religious people, dear heart.

Do YOU have some narrow-minded pre-conceived notion about "religion"? Maybe.

I have studied religions for many a year. Because I think them all utterly worthless you consider me to be 'narrow-minded'.

Look the Archbishop spoke his mind, he's allowed to do that I think. Does he have a vote on the matter? No.

Of course he's allowed to speak his mind, but a man in his position needs to be circumspect and avoid un-necessary controversy. In this case he fouled up. As for the vote - for losing that privilege he gets to live in Lambeth Palace. Seems like a good deal to me.



The pragmatic one is as follows: Britain is home to at least 1.6m Muslims. Many of them choose to run their lives, like followers of other faiths, in accordance with religious law. Muslims should not be forced to choose between loyalty to God and loyalty to the state.

Pragmatic, eh? I think not. Make all the immigrants obey the laws of the land or out they go. There, that's pragmatic. We have admitted millions of ingrates and have quite enough already, thank you very much. I am not going to deny my heritage by being forced to accept theirs.

Parihaka

Actually loyalty to the state is a precondition of belonging to that state. Citizens don't have the right to pick and choose which aspects of state they accept and which they reject, irrespective of their personal belief system.

gunnut

Why does their god come before the state? They are free to choose loyalty to the state before loyalty to their god.

What happens if they choose loyalty to the state first? Well, they are no longer muslims.

What happens if they choose loyalty to their god first? Well, they are no longer "fill in the blank."

They have the freedom to choose, which is more than what they would have in any muslim nation. We also have the freedom of not welcoming those who don't like our customs, our rules, our laws, and our culture.

What about our right to refuse visitors? Since when do visitors have the right to enter a house, any house?

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Adux

The whole question of choosing between state and god is important in some context.
This is a question that is being asked to muslims in my country on a constant basis, There are some valid reasons why this is being asked.

If you are a Muslim first, and a lets say your nationality second. Then if your nation is attacked by a muslim nation claiming to be the upholder of Islamic flame; Where does your loyalities lie? Will they defend their homeland? or Will they remain silent spectators and not do their national duty, or will they side with the Islamic nation. The moment you say, Its Islam first, especially in a Indian context, this questions become relevant.

Most muslims today dont rise up against other terrorist muslims specifically because of this reasons.

In the Indian context, You see a lot of Indian Parsi's, Christains, Hindu's various ethnicities in the Indian Army. But very less muslims. And this is the case in most Armies of the world?

So, Yes. For a person if he lives in a certain country, his loyality should be first and formost to that country, and nothing else all the while being ardent religious follower to whatever religion he believes in.

Herodotus

[quote=glyn;457688]
Regards,

Herodotus