Archbishop says "sharia law in Britain is unavoidable".

Atomic_Piggy

Atomic_Piggy

Newbie
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
6,485
Reaction score
2
Atomic_Piggy says: D: D: D: D: D:

Sharia comments trigger criticism

Dr Rowan Williams
Dr Williams made his comments in a BBC radio interview

Dr Williams interview
The Archbishop of Canterbury has come under fire after appearing to back the adoption of Sharia law in the UK.

The prime minister's spokesman said Sharia law could never be used to justify a breach of English law.

Home Office Minister Tony McNulty said: "To ask us to fundamentally change the rule of law and to adopt Sharia law, I think, is fundamentally wrong."

Dr Rowan Williams told BBC Radio 4 he believed the adoption of some Sharia law in the UK seemed "unavoidable".

'Unacceptable and unhelpful'

Dr Williams said the UK had to "face up to the fact" some citizens did not relate to the British legal system.

He said adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law could help social cohesion. For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

But Gordon Brown's spokesman said the prime minister "believes that British laws should be based on British values".

He added that Mr Brown had a good relationship with the archbishop, who was perfectly entitled to express his views.

For the Conservatives, shadow community cohesion minister Baroness Warsi said the archbishop's comments were "unhelpful".

She told BBC News 24: "Dr Williams seems to be suggesting that there should be two systems of law, running alongside each other, almost parallel, and for people to be offered the choice of opting into one or the other. That is unacceptable."

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said he had "an enormous amount of respect" for Dr Williams, but could not agree with him on this issue.

He said: "Equality before the law is part of the glue that binds our society together. We cannot have a situation where there is one law for one person and different laws for another.

"There is a huge difference between respecting people's right to follow their own beliefs and allowing them to excuse themselves from the rule of law."

Trevor Phillips, who chairs the Equality and Human Rights Commission said the "implication that British courts should treat people differently based on their faith is divisive and dangerous".

"It risks removing the protection afforded by law, for example, to children in custody cases or women in divorce proceedings," he said.

'Sensational'

Dr Williams said Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

In an interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, he argued this relied on Sharia law being better understood. At the moment, he said "sensational reporting of opinion polls" clouded the issue.

He stressed "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".

But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "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".

Dr Williams added: "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."

Under English law, people may devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process.

Muslim Sharia courts and Orthodox Jewish courts which already exist in the UK come into this category.

Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Ramadhan Foundation, welcomed Dr Williams's comments, saying they "further underline the attempts by both our great faiths to build respect and tolerance".


He should be concentrating on winning souls into the Church of England rather than getting involved in politics
Conservative MP Mark Pritchard

He added: "I believe that Muslims would take huge comfort from the government allowing civil matters being resolved according to their faith."

Ibrahim Mogra, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "We're looking at a very small aspect of Sharia for Muslim families when they choose to be governed with regards to their marriage, divorce, inheritance, custody of children and so forth."

He added: "Let's debate this issue. It is very complex. It is not as straight forward as saying that we will have a system here."
Click to expand...

Its only marriages now, but once they get a piece of law they'll demandf more and more, and so will the other religions. It's a shame, I liked the archbishop.

One more reason on a empire state building high pile to leave this country and never return.
 
Hmm. An interesting idea, but I don't think it's a good idea, especially when, if what that article says is true, you can already agree on Sharia courts for various thinks.
 
i say we gather all politicians in a row, drop their pants and and start kicking them in the balls as much as we can.

WTF man if that ever happens (Sharia law) in my country i probably won't hesitate to take up arms (if i couldn't leave my country that is).
 
A cry for attention from the church of England, they know that no one cares what they think.
 
Possibly the dumbest thing he's ever likely to say. There is no place for religious laws of any kind in a secular state.
 
What's worrying is that I wouldn't trust Gordon Brown to look after a rock.
 
That's how it started over here. 50 years later, we still have trouble reconciling the different legal systems. :sleep:
 
Archbishop says "sharia law in Britain is unavoidable"
Click to expand...

Says a leading member of a quickly dwindling faith due to increasing British apathy in religion and increasing grasp of fact and fundamental scientific truth.


But when the tiny teeny minority of Sharia nut ends can impose their archaic laughable judico-religious system on the 95+% non Muslim population, then power to them.
 
Hey everyone! What's it called when a minority has significant power over the majority?

Need a hint? Most of the time, the minority is a different class.
Need another? Its been around for the entirety of human history.

Thats right,
Dictatorship
...

Not impugning the British government. But democracy is supposed to work under majority rule for a reason. I.E. Saria law is a load of bollocks, and the tiny but vocal group who is pushing for this needs to beat themselves with the sticks lodged up their collective ass.
 
Atomic_Piggy said:
Meh, different figures. Its not very high anyway.
Click to expand...

8% is several million. Considering that 40% of Muslims in this country apparently support Sharia law, and I can't remember the percentage but it was well into double figures thought the 7/7 bombers were martyrs, that's significant cause for alarm.
 
Of course, that archibishop must be some alarmist moron. Only Americans take those "Eurabia" ideas seriously.
 
Polaris said:
Of course, that archibishob must be some alarmist moron. Only Americans take those "Eurabia" ideas seriously.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's pretty bloody obvious what will happen if you open the floodgates to a population that is, as a whole, notable for its refusal to integrate into the host culture, its militancy, xenophobia, racism and total incompatibility with modern Western culture, whilst not only allowing but encouraging them to shit all over our ways, traditions and even our laws, with the markedly higher birth rate to top it all off.
An Islamic Europe is the virtually inevitable consequence unless things change, and fast.
 
Ah yes, The Wacky World of HL2.net! I have a feeling we've not seen the last of it...

On-topic: one of the many, many problems with implementing sharia elements into the present British legal system is to work out exactly who it will apply to. Just saying "Muslims" isn't that easy. Presumably one must be a practising Muslim for these things to apply and it can't simply be your family background.
How do you prove that you're eligible for admission to a sharia court for dispute x, y or z?
Do you need a letter from your imam? Such a method could be too easily criticised by opponents of such a scheme.
Would you have to register for eligibility? Now if that were the case that would put a lot of Muslim people on a register. Exactly how comfortable would that make them feel? That in no way encompasses the ideas of cohesion Archbishop Williams was addressing.


On another, related note - the tabloids' reaction to the archbishop's comments were so rabid, so fevered, so over the top and so unrepresentative that I was actually quite impressed the news stands didn't spontaneously combust.

mastapenguin said:
Hey everyone! What's it called when a minority has significant power over the majority?

Need a hint? Most of the time, the minority is a different class.
Need another? Its been around for the entirety of human history.

Thats right,
Dictatorship
...

Not impugning the British government. But democracy is supposed to work under majority rule for a reason. I.E. Saria law is a load of bollocks, and the tiny but vocal group who is pushing for this needs to beat themselves with the sticks lodged up their collective ass.
Click to expand...
Congratulations on misunderstanding the issue. Seriously, well done.
 
Dr. Rowan Atkinson is a funny guy.

I like it how he deliberately satirises religion in this way.
 
Llama said:
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/6653/repivjd2os8.jpg
;( Sorry, couldn't resist
Click to expand...

Comforting to know that the usual brainless denial of potentially the most serious threat facing Western civilisation as we know it today remains unchanged.
I'm sure it makes you feel all warm inside to fantasise about dancing round the campfire singing "Kum-bay-ahh" with Ali, Omar and Shariq, but personally I value the fate of our civilisation above people's PC sensibilities.
 
For anyone who fancies a bit of context, Auntie Beeb has kindly compiled a list of quotes from Archbishop Williams on various matters.

It seems something of a shame (albeit an inevitable one) that his comments on sharia law have caused such a shit storm because he's a thoroughly intelligent, relatively progressive and open-minded individual and this furore will no doubt detract from that, at least in the general public perception.
 
The thing is, he didn't seem to give it his outright endorsement or categorically say this should happen; he said it's very likely to happen and that it could help cultural cohesion, essentially saying that it's not an inherently bad idea.
Go go tabloid media.

Again with the context: the original article about what his remarks plus a link to the actual interview itself.
 
repiV said:
Comforting to know that the usual brainless denial of potentially the most serious threat facing Western civilisation as we know it today remains unchanged.
I'm sure it makes you feel all warm inside to fantasise about dancing round the campfire singing "Kum-bay-ahh" with Ali, Omar and Shariq, but personally I value the fate of our civilisation above people's PC sensibilities.
Click to expand...

Ahh, repiV, I always did value your sense of humour. ;)

I do love the fact you describe it the most serious threat western civilisation faces. I mean, shit, what has nuclear war got on some disgruntled middle eastern youths?
Seriously. A small % of the population being radical, or a war with Russia or China? I think I know which one i'd rather have.
 
Llama said:
Ahh, repiV, I always did value your sense of humour. ;)

I do love the fact you describe it the most serious threat western civilisation faces. I mean, shit, what has nuclear war got on some disgruntled middle eastern youths?
Seriously. A small % of the population being radical, or a war with Russia or China? I think I know which one i'd rather have.
Click to expand...

The difference is nuclear war is a fantasy and Islam is not. It's hardly a small % either, and the high birth rate of Muslims combined with the mass emigration of native Brits due to this country being a piece of shit means that it's entirely conceiveable that Muslims will constitute 30% of the population within 50 years.
Despite your situation being fantasy, Russia or China would pose no major military threat to the West anyway. It's got nothing on cultural takeover from the inside.
 
How can you say Nuclear War is a fantasy? No, we haven't experienced one yet but the fact remains that the current big players (Like the US and China) have nuclear weaons. The threat is already there. We have nations like Isreal with nukes. Hell, WE have nukes of our own.
If Nuclear War was just "fantasy" we wouldn't have come within hours of mass genocide before, would we? But we did. There is nothing to say a similiar situation may not occur again.
 
I think it should be noted at this point that those participating in the World's Greatest Threat 2008 contest need to consider environmental disaster and/or the oil running out.
 
Sulkdodds said:
I think it should be noted at this point that those participating in the World's Greatest Threat 2008 contest need to consider environmental disaster and/or the oil running out.
Click to expand...

I'd say the Oil running out is the catalyst for a whole lot of things.
 
So if it's the catalyst, then surely that would have to be the World's Greatest Threat...
 
Llama said:
How can you say Nuclear War is a fantasy? No, we haven't experienced one yet but the fact remains that the current big players (Like the US and China) have nuclear weaons. The threat is already there. We have nations like Isreal with nukes. Hell, WE have nukes of our own.
If Nuclear War was just "fantasy" we wouldn't have come within hours of mass genocide before, would we? But we did. There is nothing to say a similiar situation may not occur again.
Click to expand...

All conjecture.
Saying that nuclear war is the biggest threat to Western civilisation because big countries have nukes makes no sense. It isn't an actual threat, it isn't an issue, and it isn't something that can be or needs to be addressed right now.
Why would you even bring it up?
 
Why isn't it a threat, or an issue? It's a bold statement considering you're not backing it up. Nuclear weapons are the most destructive things humans can use on each other, so why arn't they an issue?
 
el Chi said:
So if it's the catalyst, then surely that would have to be the World's Greatest Threat...
Click to expand...

A threat is implied, a catalyst is inevitable. It's no threat that the Oil will run out, it's an absolute certainty, and given that the entire global infrastructure that we have become dependent upon, and built our world around over the last 100 years relies upon it, it's a Pandora's box of problems waiting to be opened.


Llama said:
Why isn't it a threat, or an issue? It's a bold statement considering you're not backing it up. Nuclear weapons are the most destructive things humans can use on each other, so why aren't they an issue?
Click to expand...

A weapon is a tool, but it requires a motive to become dangerous. Despite the hysterics of Fox News, Jack Bauer in 24 or any Hollywood action B Movie, there's not a whole lot of motive for anyone (Russians, Chinese, Iranians,Israelis, etc) to start going crazy with the cheese whip nuclear style, because the paybacks more of the same from whomever you attacked, and no ones going to be cheering you on for starting the fireworks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
HL2.NET HORROR SLAP
Replies
7
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Dr. Rosenberg's cut appearance in Half-Life: Blue Shift
Replies
0
Views
5K
Barnz
B
Hectic Glenn
Kerbal Developers Depart Valve
Replies
4
Views
27K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Back
Top