Guardian
Riazat Butt Archbishop backs sharia law for British Muslims and later, Uproar as archbishop says sharia law inevitable in UK and
Will Woodward and Riazat Butt Laying down the law: ministers cool on archbishop’s sharia suggestion
Elizabeth Stewart Q&A: Sharia law
Andrew Brown Laws of the land
Guardian leader: Sharia and the state
The Times
Ruth Gledhill and Philip Webster Archbishop of Canterbury argues for Islamic law in Britain
Ruth Gledhill Has the Archbishop gone bonkers?
Daniel Finkelstein Why the Archbishop is wrong about Sharia
Ian Edge and Robin Griffiths-Jones Does Islam fit with our law?
Times leader: Church in a State
Daily Telegraph
Jonathan Petre Archbishop Williams sparks Sharia law row and later
Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent, and Andrew Porter, Political Editor Adopt sharia law in Britain, says the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams
Christopher Howse Sharia is no law for Britain
Gordon Rayner Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury
Williams attacked over Sharia law comments
Daily Telegraph leader: Archbishop of Canterbury’s inept intervention
BBC
Archbishop sparks Sharia law row headline now changed to Sharia comments trigger criticism
Christopher Landau Sharia law and the British legal system
Nick Tarry Religious courts already in use
Independent
Ben Russell and Colin Brown Archbishop of Canterbury warns sharia law in Britain is inevitable
Paul Vallely Williams is snared in a trap of his own making
Being naughty, I couldn’t resist posting this CNN Report (from today): Greek Orthodox bishops Thursday elected Bishop Ieronymos of Thebes as church’s successor to Archbishop Christodoulos. http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/02/07/greek.orthodox/index.html
Now there’s an idea of something for the Bishops and Primates to do at Lambeth?!
I’m afraid that ++Canterbury entirely deserves this hammering from the press. Not only was his intervention muddled and completely lacking in foresight, it actually does great damage to those liberal and reformist Muslims one would have thought deserved his support. It is fitting that some of the sharpest criticisms have come from Muslims themselves, a number of whom are disgusted that he has given more ammunition to the hardliners. Who will deciding which parts of Shar’ia law will be enforced and which will not but the hardline clerics? Or, as Khalid Mahmood points out, most orthodox imams do not accept… Read more »
Pre Modernity, or the social system outside of the Metropolis of the West is, amongst other things, marked by Priviledge – that is separate Legal system (including Courts of Law) for different groups, Estates and classes.
A Man may enjoy/exercise Legal/Social/Political/Economical Powers that a Woman lacks in part or in entirety, such as with Polygamy… (which is n o t about who gets to sleep with whom – or how many ;=)
The Single person may in his several capacities belong to different groups, exercising distinct Legal/Social/Political Capacities, such as a Bishop in Synod/Senate &c.
From the Guardian report on his BBC interview:- ‘He did not endorse, however, the “kind of inhumanity” that was associated with sharia law in some Islamic states’. Does he mean to say that he would endorse other kinds of inhumanity in other Islamic states or elsewhere? Why oh why does the ABC seem to think that what he says in a dense academic lecture is going to be actually understood by the popular press and the popular mind. One has to increasingly wonder whether he is the right man for the job, everything he touches just seems to blow up… Read more »
Using sharia as the paradigm wasn’t the best choice, because sharia tends to have different connotations from those he intended (the Jewish beth din laws are less controversial, though still not great for the equality of women). Of course, what he’s managed to do is to brass off, in equal quantities: (1) Those who argue for equal rights under the law in all circumstances (2) Christian fundamentalists who hate all things Muslim (3) Liberals and secularists who don’t want any special rights for people of faith (4) The Press, who hate the fact that he doesn’t speak in words of… Read more »
I was at the lecture last night. We have an Archbishop of Canterbury who is thoughtful and interesting, with an extraordinary personal presence, who can deliver a lecture (or sermon) minute perfect in a way which can only be described as beautiful. I don’t agree with a lot of what he said, but not in a “yes/no” way, more because I think a lot of it is actually not new (people have been operating “opt in” private systems of law and law enforcement, like arbitration agreements, for centuries, and the Courts respect them) and some obvious points were overlooked (British… Read more »
“It is sad that we can’t have a rational debate on things in public any more.” Pete, I think a lot of this relates to your point number 4. The Press isn’t interested in factual reportage any more. It’s all about ratings and circulation, and the easily misrepresented soundbite is far better for that than thoughtful exposition. I’ve often thought it would be a good Master’s thesis in journalism if someone reviewed the news reports of the five major American TV news sources for the two weeks following Sept. 11, 1991 just to document how much of what was reported… Read more »
Sorry folks, but I understand Rowan’s argument perfectly clearly; I just happen to profoundly disagree with it. And I also disagree with the anti-liberal strain that runs through most of what Rowan says; indeed that opposition to enlightenment liberalism is the very reason why people like Brian Crowe at Burke’s Corner approved of last night’s speech. While one can’t expect the Daily Express to follow anything in words of more than one syllable, there is a terrible undercurrent of snobbery in a lot of the defence of Rowan. Oxbridge Common Rooms are not exactly the sole repository of intellectual fibre… Read more »
Now The British Government is “helping” the Archbishop of Canterbury see the light (perhaps they ought “step in” and save the Anglican Communion and ask Bishop Tutu to save OUR ship by giving speeches on real justice coupled with COMMON SENSE:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/02/08/sharia.uk/index.html
I’m sure he’s quite astonished at the outrage his comments have sparked. But really, considering that there are Christians, ANGLICAN Christians in Africa and Asia being murdered and persecuted under Sharia law, his remarks were very inappropriate.
Well, you know, it really is a problem the Archbishop has with apparently being unable to see things through the eyes of his audience and the public. He sometimes seems to be incapable of projecting himself into others’ minds and hearts, and so he often walks all unheeding into easily predictable mine field after mine field. For instance, if in his address he had just never mentioned the dread word “sharia” (which has such incredibly monstrous associations for all civilized people) but simply suggested that perhaps some Islamic traditions of mediation in civil matters might have a place in British… Read more »
And John-Julian OSB, I (had) thought there could be nothing worse than Carey.
How wrong I was.
It seems to me that the ABC was well aware that he was dealing with a controversial issue, which is why his press release was so clearly and carefully worded. It just astonishes me that none of the press commentators appear to have bothered to read it – it really isn’t hard to understand. As to avoiding the dread word sharia: he was invited to give the inaugural lecture in a series on Islam in English Law – he could hardly avoid it! I for one would rather have an ABC with ++R’s depth of faith, spirituality and intellect –… Read more »