Is the Archbishop just misunderstood?

The Archbishop of Canterbury has stubbornly occupied the front pages of websites and newspapers for the past four days after his speech on Islamic law in the UK created one almighty row.

The head of the Church of England has successfully united the government, Muslim leaders and members of his own church in condemnation. A statement has since appeared on his website suggesting the whole thing was a terrible misunderstanding.

It read: "The Archbishop made no proposals for Sharia in either the lecture or the interview, and certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law."

Is he sure? This is what he said, so make up your own mind:

(Excerpts from a speech at the Royal Courts of Justice and a BBC radio interview)

- "There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law."

- "It seems unavoidable and, as a matter of fact, certain conditions of Sharia are already recognised in our society."

- "Sharia cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor should the principles of Sharia be included in a civil court for resolving contractual disputes."

- "Nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well"

- "[If] there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger".

Reaction has been forthright, add your own views below

Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission: "Raising this idea will give fuel to anti-Muslim extremism."

David Blunkett, former Home Secretary: "I think this is very dangerous."

Taji Mustafa, Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain spokesman: "The response to Dr William's comments illustrate both the profound level of ignorance in Britain about the Islamic Sharia and the near total blindness of some to the flaws within secularism."

Andy Burnham, Culture Secretary: "You cannot run two systems of law alongside each other. That would be a recipe for chaos."

Lord Carey, the previous Archbishop of Canterbury: "His acceptance of some Muslim laws within British law would be disastrous for the nation."

Comments

[Ron]

He has been misunderstood only to the point of opting for certain aspects of Sharia to be allowed to Muslims.He seems to be opting that all religions be able to apply their own beliefs when it doesn't agree with the law.Rather than going through the laborious process involved in changing a law,he advocates some sort of religious immunity.

[Lawrence A Winans]

As an Anglican deep in the heartland of America, being an Anglican has been a continuing challenge. The Church on this side of the pond has been racked by division over homosexuality among its episcopacy as well as other matters. The so-called "continuing Anglican church" has been siphoning off members and we're under attack even by sister churches within the Anglican Communion who have been capturing parishes and dioceses. As one deeply committed to our faith and its tradition I have maintained that I will only worship at a church in communion with Canterbury.
Understandably, the recent comments of the Archbishop which appear to endorse Sharia have been more than troubling. As the spiritual leader of 70 million in England, the USA and around the world, I expect one who will be a Defender of the Faith ,not one who will raise the white flag. Our brothers and sisters in Africa and the Middle East are under assault by the exponents of Sharia as it is, let us preserve the rule of law in North America and the British isles at the very least.

[Jon Dickenson]

Everyone seems to have gone off the deep end due to the Archbishop's comments. Poor bloke! I am committed to our secular society and am not religious, but it has amused me to see both liberals and traditionalists forming their own unholy alliance in castigating the man for his comments. Nobody seems to want to read what he actually said. Everyone's quoted comments seem to address their own concerns about Sharia law with no reference to Rowan Williams' speech. Give him a break! He's an intelligent, articulate Archbishop who needs space to say some of these things. If he can't, as the Archbishop of Canterbury, who can?

[Ian Martin]

Satirical multiple-choice options for those determined to misunderstand Dr. Williams at...

http://www.martian.fm/canterbuh.htm

[Steve]

Fairly obviously he said nothing to justify the headline in the Times last week.

[David North]

Not just misunderstood but misinterpreted, misquoted and pilloried unjustly, especially by the mucky Murdoch press.

[Robin Kempster]

King James 1 has been knocked off his perch: we now have a new 'wisest fool in Christendom'.

[Mike Homfray]

I thought the Times was meant to be an intelligent newspaper which explained, not expected to be satisfied by soundbite.

I was wrong.

[Dominic Stockford]

"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law..."

If this is not a call to introduce elements of sharia law into this country then the man hasn't got a clue what he is saying. Frankly, I think he is now LYING when he says that he 'never meant' such a thing. He should read his own words and be honest about what he said, with himself at least, if not with us.

[Norman]

At Runnymede, at Runnymede,
Oh, hear the reeds at Runnymede:
'You musn't sell, delay, deny,
A freeman's right or liberty.
It wakes the stubborn Englishry,
We saw 'em roused at Runnymede!
...

And still when mob or Monarch lays
Too rude a hand on English ways,
The whisper wakes, the shudder plays,
Across the reeds at Runnymede.
And Thames, that knows the moods of kings,
And crowds and priests and suchlike things,
Rolls deep and dreadful as he brings
Their warning down from Runnymede!

Rudyard Kipling

[No doubts]

This display of tactical humility with refusal to bend on the central issue is rather wearisome. Dr Williams original remarks (which I did read and hear several times) were redolent with a sense of superiority that presumably comes from seeing one's self as a guardian of the polity--rather than the head of a crumbling and failing fossil institution. His message was and seems to remain "You the majority will have to put up with it." And he and his supporters simply tell everyone who disagrees with him that they are 1) ignorant and 2) less intelligent than he is.

This I fear is the big headedness that comes from sitting on interfaith communities and the gatherings of the new establishment. Secularism is a dirty word to clerics who want to carve up society between them.

Dr. Williams and his followers are no doubt furious at all the abuse that has been flung at him. A more truly intelligent man would see that he had invited it by a display of unconscious arrogance--and by diverging from both the letter and the spirit of his faith. Can we now look forward to his denunciations of radical Islam, social and legal intolerance, honour crimes, and of course the contumely heaped on his neighbour bishop, now facing death threats for saying things which appear to be a matter of fact?

[Nick Salmon]

I've read the ABofC's lecture on his website and am shocked! Ancient, set in stone religious texts have no place anywhere near modern morals or law, unless one's goal is that of obfuscation.

[David]

Rowan Williams has not been misunderstood to any significant extent. Either he is saying that Sharia law should run parallel to British law in certain areas (which he has denied)or that it should replace portons of British law (it has to be one or the other), either option being impractical or offensive or both to most people with Btitish roots. He now seems to be getting a substantial sympathy vote because so many people have attacked him and he seems bewildered by it. Has he not enough sense to realise that having put his head above the parapet in this paticularly obtuse way he has made himself the target for some of the huge anger and dismay so many people in the country feel against their own political class for ever allowing this situation to come about. And that without ever offering a democratic choice to ordinary people through the publication in their manifestos of the intention to admit countless thousands of incomers, many from some of the poorest, most ill-educated and primitive parts of the world.These people having arrived in full flight from oppression, poverty and misery in their own countries, far from exhibiting gratitude unfashionable as that may be, in no time are announcing their dissatisfaction with their hosts' arrangements, threatening to blow them up (a minority but an alarmingly big one) and demanding profound changes in the financial, legal, medical and other institutions of the host country. As uninvited guests their demeanour leaves something to be desired to say the least. It is hard for many to regard their demands with equanimity. Like it or lump it seems the more appropriate response.

[Michael]

The BBC is currently reporting that he has just said that it his duty to speak on the behalf of other religions!!!!????!!!!???
Is there no end to the man's buffoonery? Can no-one sack him?

[Michael]

The BBC is currently reporting that he has just said that it his duty to speak on the behalf of other religions!!!!????!!!!???
Is there no end to the man's buffoonery? Can no-one sack him?

[Michael]

The BBC is currently reporting that he has just said that it his duty to speak on the behalf of other religions!!!!????!!!!???
Is there no end to the man's buffoonery? Can no-one sack him?

[Michael]

The BBC is currently reporting that he has just said that it his duty to speak on the behalf of other religions!!!!????!!!!???
Is there no end to the man's buffoonery? Can no-one sack him?

[Michael]

The BBC is currently reporting that he has just said that it his duty to speak on the behalf of other religions!!!!????!!!!???
Is there no end to the man's buffoonery? Can no-one sack him?

[Jack Okie]

"[If] there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger".

Perhaps Williams is not familiar with "Render unto Ceasar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". The ultimate result of his way of thinking is a kind of themeless pudding of moral relativism, where “When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”

[Hugh]

If there is any confusion then that is down to the Archbishop. If he is an intelligent man (as we are told constantly) then presumably he is capable of framing his argument such that it can be understood. The fact that he seems to be incapable of doing is (yet another) reason for him to considered unsuitable for his current position.

He was clearly confirming that the 'recognition' of Sharia would go beyond current circumstances. As it is if parties want to voluntarily resolve a dispute under religious guidance they are free to do so. Williams can hardly have been suggesting the adoption of a process which already exists. No - Williams was taking the matter one step further. The final quote confirms that he was seeking some 'opt out' from secular law. An unmitigated disaster for this country and a further step in the balkanisation and voluntary apartheid arising from 'multiculturalism'.