American Unitarian Conference Forum

Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has said some stupid things in the past but his latest commentary is really dangerous.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm
"Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
_________________________________________
People wonder why the West and mainline Christianity appear weak and feeble....here is perfect example.

This article goes into more detail re the potential adverse consequences of such an idea:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/d...te_hu.html

Europe had better get a grip because multiculturalism is leading to monoculturalism...and that could be Islamic.

I wrote about this on blog; what he actually advocated-at the very most-is an arbitration option for Muslims akin to the existing arbitration option available to Orthodox Jews (dealing with civil matters, not criminal and as with all forms of arbitration it must be voluntary). He did not (see his website) advocate parallel legal systems.

His pointy headed comments are ill considered....even his own bishops and some Muslim leaders think his comments are unwise.  The potential for abuse...which already occurs in Islamic enclaves in the U.K. & Europe... would be increased with any legitimacy.  

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/artic...article.do

"The archbishop had said it could help build a better and more cohesive society if Muslims were able to choose to have marital disputes or financial matters, for example, dealt with in a sharia court. The adoption of some elements of sharia law "seems unavoidable".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht...ria509.xml

"Lord Carey, Dr William's predecessor, and the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, were among those to challenge the Archbishop's comments.

Lord Carey said Dr Williams was wrong to believe that sharia could be accommodated into the English system because there were so many conflicting versions of it, many of which discriminated against women. Bishop Nazir-Ali said sharia would be "in tension" with fundamental aspects of our current legal system, such as the rights of women."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main....dl1201.xml

"It would seem that some of Dr Williams's apologists are simply failing to come to grips with the enormity of what his (perhaps badly chosen) words implied.

There are two quite separate points of legitimate concern. One is that the archbishop - who heads a national institution with a constitutional function - explicitly called into question the most fundamental principle of British justice: that we have a single system of law that applies equally to everyone.

The other is that, at a time when British cultural assumptions and institutions are under threat from a particularly aggressive interpretation of Islam, the head of its Established Church is unprepared to offer a robust defence of its values, apparently preferring to concede to the demands of what is in fact a minority, even among the Muslim community.

Dr Williams is guilty, at the very least, of arrogant insensitivity. His self-inflicted injury may yet prove to be fatal."

Ok, imagine an Islamic immigrant family and the wife who never leaves the house, is beaten regularly....she has 7 children...husband...anounces 3x I divorce you....deed is done as held up by Sharia court.   She does not approach a civil court out of fear of retribution...so, potential civil rights coming to her are lost for her and her children.  One of her sons is gay...Sharia court orders his hanging..he is taken to a garage and killed..nobody in the community will report it to the civil authorities...body is found dumped.
Far fetched?   It depends....after all....those people live in insular communities...yes, an assimiliation issue..but also by preference due to religion and culture.  If the Sharia court has some degree of legitimacy...the boundaries could easily get stretched.  Bad idea all around.

"The potential for abuse...which already occurs in Islamic enclaves in the U.K. & Europe... would be increased with any legitimacy."

Arbitration is a common means of settling disputes in both the UK and US. If two parties choose to use arbitration and they would like that arbitration to be guided by religious principles (still submissive to secular law) I still fail to see the problem. Again, this already exists for Orthodox Jews in the UK, giving Muslims the same outlet is hardly a threat to English law. Additionally, here in the US, church courts deal with church-issues all of the time. But we don't see Methodists running out killing lesbian ministers or Roman Catholics bombing bishops if they are denied an annulment. If there is abuse taking place in any particular community in the UK then the police and the justice system have to deal with it. It is unrelated to arbitration.

To be pedantic, only because twice today I've heard this, the CofE is the established church of England, not the whole of the UK, the Queen is the Supreme Governor of that church, not Rowan Williams, and Anglicans consider the Head of the church to be Jesus.

"Far fetched?"

Yes, it is; what you are describing is lawlessness, not voluntary arbitration to deal with civil matters. Regardless of whether Islamic arbitration is an option, the kind of people you are describing are going to do what they want because they seem to believe themselves above secular law.

"the kind of people you are describing are going to do what they want because they seem to believe themselves above secular law."

Yes, that is the profile....look in any country where Sharia law is implemented...non-Moslems are viewed as ..Kaffir's ...are not to be obeyed or accomodated.  This will widen the gap between people who claim to be citizens of a country (or residents) and rest of the non-Islamic citizens.  Sounds a lot like the Balkans....a recipe for disaster.  The Queen should sack him asap.  This is a very dangerous slippery slope .....whether it is Orthodox Jews, Hindus or Muslims.  Arbitration...guided by religion..where both parties agree...is not the issue...setting up religious courts is.  A separate legal system is not a good idea.  This is Europe's issue...they either get a handle on it or watch their civilization fall under Shadow.
Try being a cartoonist in Denmark...or writing a play critical of Sharia....most likely you will be assassinated.  Lovely.....keep looking for ways to accomodate these people and this is what you get....they have no desire to conform...you will conform...period.

"But we don't see Methodists running out killing lesbian ministers or Roman Catholics bombing bishops if they are denied an annulment. "

Who does do this?....Islamic fanatics......

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/6770

"Speaking after Dr Williams said introducing aspects of Sharia law into the British legal system was "unavoidable", Mahmud Al-Rashid, a spokesperson for the Association of Muslim Lawyers (AML) and a barrister at 6 Kings Bench Walk, said regulation could lead to improvements - but explained that Muslims had not asked for the debate and were a little puzzled as to how it had come about.

He said: "Sharia councils need to be formalised so they can be regulated and improved. Whenever anything operates that isn’t transparent there are always problems… people may not know the degree of competence of certain councils, as there is no way of standardising at the moment."

But while he felt regulation of existing courts would bring benefits, Mr Al-Rashid cautioned that the UK Muslim community had not been agitating for the introduction of Sharia, reports the UK Law Gazette, the profession's highly respected journal.

Al-Rashid said he was surprised by Dr Williams’ decision to raise the issue now, as "it is an internal debate Muslims need to have first".

He also warned: "I would want the experts in this country who understand the context, history and culture particular to our society here to develop the Sharia that way. It is not a fixed rule to be imported from another country… Muslims here are not of one view as to whether it is a good thing."

Mr Al-Rashid stressed that Sharia laws would not supersede English law."

>> What is the point? Why bother with it then? It would not be Sharia if it did not claim
superiority over "secular law".....we don't stone adulterers....they do.

"where Sharia law is implemented"

But no one is suggesting Sharia law be implemented in the UK. Again, it's like having the option of going to a church court to obtain, in addition to the requisite secular divorce or annulment decree, a church annulment. That meets a religious need or desire, but does not impose the canons of Rome on the rest of us.

Another example would be seeking counseling from one's clergy person. If Susan goes to her rabbi to discuss her concerns about her personal finances and the impact its having on her emotionally, she may do so to obtain advice from a Jewish viewpoint rather than a viewpoint given by a non-religious counsellor.

"Try being a cartoonist in Denmark...or writing a play critical of Sharia....most likely you will be assassinated."

Or try being an abortion doctor in Sandy Springs, GA-my backyard-where Eric Rudolph, an alleged (Catholic) Christian, bombed a clinic, before he bombed a local gay bar.

"Who does do this?....Islamic fanatics......"

And Hindu fanatics, and Christian fanatics, and...wait-there's a commonality here, FANATICISM.

"What is the point? Why bother with it then?"

Let's say Harry and Sam go into business together, and the business falls apart. They now have to divide up what's left of it to pay off investors. They are Muslims (as are the investors) but cannot, between them, come to an agreement on dissolving the business and repaying their debts. So they decide to seek Islamic arbitration. The arbiter decides that the two men have behaved inappropriately by fighting over the issue, and decides that they should sell all of the business assets and give proceeds to investors based proportionately on the amount invested.

Sam and Harry believe that a Muslim arbiter would make a fair decision and that is is why they chose Islamic arbitration.

Now, remove "Islam" and "Muslim" from the above situation, and you just have plain old arbitration. In neither instance can the arbitration result in something which supersedes existing law.

You seem to be painting all Muslims with a very broad brush...

>> Only those who push for Sharia and the individuals in the West who don't recognize their doom.

See:
http://www.ntpi.org/html/whyoppose.html

..."In the west, in countries that have a sizable Muslim population, there have been calls for the Sharia to be adopted for the Muslim community. These calls should be vigorously opposed; the Sharia conflicts with many basic human values, such as equality before the law, that punishments should be commensurate with the crime, and that the law must be based on the will of the people. The Sharia as it developed in the first few centuries of Islam incorporated many pre-Islamic Middle-Eastern misogynist and tribal customs and traditions. The Sharia was developed not only from the Holy Quran but incorporates legal principles from other sects. We may ask how a law whose elements were first laid down over 1,000 years ago can possibly be relevant in the 21st century. The Sharia reflects the social and economic conditions at the time of the Abbasids and has become further and further out of touch with later social, economic, technological, cultural and moral developments. The principles of the Sharia are inimical to moral progress, humanity and civilized values."

"The problem for all of us is how to oppose the violations of human rights inherent in the Sharia without being accused of blasphemy or apostasy. We would suggest that the answer lies in a return to the Five Pillars of Islam.

For non-Muslims who want to help, the problem is how to avoid charges of cultural imperialism, neocolonialism and racism, or of failing to respect “the other”. But cultural relativism is not the answer. In India, each religion has its own social laws. Muslim women do not enjoy the same rights as Hindu women. Why not? Justice cries out for secularism. One law for all – equality before the law – for Muslims and non-Muslims, for men and women alike, must be the answer.

Many of the arguments for permitting each religion or culture to determine its own laws are based on a misunderstanding of the nature of human rights. Human rights as defined in the UDHR are vested in the individual, not the group. As soon as rights are accorded to a group rather than to individuals, conflict becomes possible not only between one group and another, but between the group and its own members. Any group that denies the right of its members to leave is in contravention of one of the most fundamental principles of human rights. Yet clearly, one of the reasons for the growth of Islam over the past century has been that becoming a Muslim is a one-way street. Whether by birth or conversion (historically likely to have been a forced conversion) once you are a Muslim the only way out, under the Sharia, is death.

When Political Islam really does advocate jihad to achieve world domination, then anyone deeply concerned with humanity and human rights will be critical. Of all the existing ideologies, Political Islam remains the greatest danger to humanity. Political Islam has been neither tamed nor moderated by progressive forces. It has the power to inspire the terrorist mind, and, through its ties to oil-rich states, the funds to pursue its plans." ....

No one in any position of reasonable power is
advocating the replacement of secular law w/
religious "law."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht...fit103.xml
>Multiple wives will mean multiple benefits
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones

"The outcome will chiefly benefit Muslim men with more than one wife, as is permitted under Islamic law."

""You are not allowed to have multiple marriages in the UK, so to have a situation where the benefits system is treating people in different ways is totally unacceptable and will serve to undermine confidence in the system.

"This sets a precedent that will lead to more demands for the culture of other countries to be reflected in UK law and the benefits system."
_____________
http://www.spiegel.de/international/euro...72,00.html
Shariah Is for Everyone!

By Henryk M. Broder

"...A little bit of Shariah is just as unrealistic as a little bit of pregnancy. Shariah regulates all aspects of life, and anyone who proposes assuming only parts of Shariah fails to comprehend its inherent inevitability...."

"...The proposal by the archbishop of Canterbury is evidence of more than just an unbelievable naiveté. It also reveals how far the idea of preventive capitulation in the face of an unsolvable problem has advanced.

Proponents of preventive capitulation would argue that because some immigrants are unwilling or unable to accept the rules of society, society should assume the immigrants' rules. For them, "integration" could also be defined as the need for the majority to conform to a minority."

One never knows when one is on quicksand until it is too late....that little molehill will quickly grow.....where nobody dares flatten it.

Sweet dreams...!!  I think we have beat this to death.