Archbishop of Canterbury seeks adoption of Islamic law

[BlaznFattyz]

The chief of the 70-million-strong worldwide Anglican Communion advocates the establishment of Islamic law in Britain, drawing a rebuke from Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who suggested that perhaps British law would serve better.

In a recent interview with BBC Radio 4's "The World At One Today," Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams confirmed adoption of sharia "seems unavoidable."

"As a matter of fact, certain conditions of sharia are already recognized in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system," Williams said.

"We already have in this country a number of situations in which the internal laws of religious communities is (sic) recognized by the law of the land as justifying conscientious objections in certain circumstances," he said.

However, according to published reports, Brown was of a different opinion... Cont'd

[farhan]

Its a good start towards peace & mutual understanding, rather than the typical muslims should change, Islam is incompatible propaganda.

Incidently, I was reading the news here

Archbishop of Canterbury: “Sharia law in Britain is unavoidable”. | The British National Party

I was a bit amazed to see general behaviour of many people with an anti Islamic mindset...if lets say these comments were by Muhammads & Usamas & Abdullahs about some christian/jewish minority, it would have been considered an expression of Islamofascism. But here they are considered to be for the saftey of UK's values.

[mee]

INTERESTING and to think that christians should be no part of the world , they seem to be in the thick of it , yet again . but then again it is nothing new is it ?

[bob x]

Originally Posted by farhan

Incidently, I was reading the news here

*The British National Party*

I was a bit amazed to see general behaviour of many people with an anti Islamic mindset...

You are aware, I hope, that you are reading the website of the neo-Nazis? I assure you that these people, too, are called "Fascists".

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by bob x

You are aware, I hope, that you are reading the website of the neo-Nazis? I assure you that these people, too, are called "Fascists".

Well said Bob, I was just going to point this out.

s.

[Snoopy]

If one only reads the press (and fascist websites) one is not likely to get to grips with his lecture. I'm not expressing an opinion on what he said here, merely suggesting that people read his text first hand before pronouncing.

s.

"The title of this series of lectures signals the existence of what is very widely felt to be a growing challenge in our society – that is, the presence of communities which, while no less 'law-abiding' than the rest of the population, relate to something other than the British legal system alone. But, as I hope to suggest, the issues that arise around what level of public or legal recognition, if any, might be allowed to the legal provisions of a religious group, are not peculiar to Islam: we might recall that, while the law of the Church of England is the law of the land, its daily operation is in the hands of authorities to whom considerable independence is granted. And beyond the specific issues that arise in relation to the practicalities of recognition or delegation, there are large questions in the background about what we understand by and expect from the law, questions that are more sharply focused than ever in a largely secular social environment. I shall therefore be concentrating on certain issues around Islamic law to begin with, in order to open up some of these wider matters."

...contd. - The Archbishop of Canterbury - Archbishop's Lecture - Civil and Religious Law in England: a Religious Perspective

s.

[farhan]

I know thats a neo-nazi site, but I never thought these guys would be that much against the poor archbishop

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by farhan

I know thats a neo-nazi site, but I never thought these guys would be that much against the poor archbishop

White British racists/fascists "against" open-minded thinkers and Islam? Kind of par for the course, I'd have thought. The Archbishop is suggesting an accommodation of an aspect of Islam: the real target of the BNP.

s.

[Tao_Equus]

Yet another storm in a tea cup.

Like flies to **** the fascists of all persuasions buzz on in.

My take.... abolish any religious consideration. Make all law an entirely secular what is "good for one is good for all" system free from the influence of any religion. Everybody has to make some compromise, no one gains any special treatment or advantage. Everyone is equal.

tao

[Francis king]

...actually, what Rowan said was, not let's adopt sharia, full stop, at all... he actually said...

"we are all brothers of the book"...

what he was trying to say was... let the Muslim minority in the UK be allowed to have "religious" courts- mainly for producing certificates of marriages, births and deaths and the dealing of civil disputes... much like the jews already have in the UK in the Beth Shin (sp?), and which is a system which seems to work rather well for them, and which does not impinge or try to alter the state laws already existent...

he was not saying- let's all become muslims, and lets all cut ppl's hands off and stone adulterers, although yes, that's a nice salacious headline: "Archbishop wants Sharia law imposed", especially when in the last few years we have been force fed by the same media its tales of the excesses of sharia law...

...what he was trying to say, having read todays UK papers, was this kind of recognition of Islam as a way of life for muslims means that muslims may feel more welcome, more valued, within the wider society if their customs and values are allowed full expression...

..or at least, that's what I think he was trying to say...

... personally, I don't think religion should come into legal matters at all, civil or criminal. Or the education of minors. Or health and social care. Or adoption. Or anywhere, except in the mind of the individual.

If are all equal, then we must be judged as equals. What brand of faith we favour should not matter in the eyes of the state, or in law. Faith should not determine the rights and punishments of men.

Hat's off to him, though, for saying what he feels. As we live in a democracy, he's entitled to spout off, if he likes, although I think whoever he has advising him should be lined up and shot, as it appears on the surface to just be the ramblings of a cleric...

but, maybe that's all part of the plan... maybe the church wants rid of him, so shooting him the back with his own gun is the start of his fall from grace... he's already stirred up a fair bit of controversy so far, and he's not too well liked, is he?

amazing what you discover in the newspaper, aint it?

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by bob x

You are aware, I hope, that you are reading the website of the neo-Nazis? I assure you that these people, too, are called "Fascists".

BNP aren't Nazi's lol... Racist and Facist... That's a given.... But, not Nazi's lol....

[bananabrain]

very few people have actually read what he said in the interview and secondly in the speech. of these, very few have understood exactly what he was saying. that is, however, almost entirely his own fault for not being more clear about what he meant and/or didn't mean.

Originally Posted by francis king

what he was trying to say was... let the Muslim minority in the UK be allowed to have "religious" courts- mainly for producing certificates of marriages, births and deaths and the dealing of civil disputes... much like the jews already have in the UK in the Beth Shin (sp?), and which is a system which seems to work rather well for them, and which does not impinge or try to alter the state laws already existent...

ahem - the muslim community *already* has a system of courts in which they can choose to arbitrate *disputes*, by mutual consent, just like jews, insurers and shipping professionals. this is already provided for within the civil law. muslims are also able (like jews, hoteliers and cruise-ship captains) to conduct civil marriages on their own premises (i.e. mosques) at the same time as the nika (islamic wedding ceremony) provided they have registered these premises and have an in-house registrar. the only accomodation to judaism in the civil law is the recognition that a jewish marriage counts as a marriage (i think) and i think that muslims and everyone else is entitled to do the same (provided they go through the civil ceremony at the same time) and in the event of a *divorce*, which is both a dispute *and* an issue of personal status, for the judge not to issue decree absolute (the final dissolution of the civil marriage) where s/he has been advised that the religious dissolution has not also taken place by means of the "get" ceremony. there is, again, no reason this cannot be included in court procedure for cases where an islamic divorce is necessary. i don't even think a change in the law is necessary.

in which case, i actually wonder what it is he thinks he's suggesting. and, yes, the people on the "global south" wing of anglicanism are using this as an excuse to get rid of him. in fact, it is more likely that he was trying to secure religious opt-outs (think faith schools, christian adoption agencies and sunday trading laws) and trying to get the muslims on board because they want some of the same things, in which case it's not particularly subtle and just looks craven.

and i think you mean the "beth din" - the "shin beth" is israeli MI5.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Yet another storm in a tea cup.

Like flies to **** the fascists of all persuasions buzz on in.

My take.... abolish any religious consideration. Make all law an entirely secular what is "good for one is good for all" system free from the influence of any religion. Everybody has to make some compromise, no one gains any special treatment or advantage. Everyone is equal.

tao

Impossible, since law of the land is based on Noahidic law, which is anything but secular. The basic law of the world seems to have been passed down by a "Creator" that left no room for interpretation concerning who judges should be in any court, anywhere in the world. They according to the 7th and last law, must be "just" and impartial...or there would be hell to pay. I do believe we have witnessed the results of failing to adhere to that basic God given law.

[Francis king]

lol, thanks banana... beth din, shin beth... easy mistake...

[Snoopy]

A British male Muslim told me that he found divorcing his first wife "too easy", a lot easier than it would be for a female. And that's as it stands at present in the UK.

The typical response from British female Muslims on various news programmes was that they preferred the status quo rather than any accommodation of Sharia law.

s.