Login to post comments | No account yet? Register here
| Shariah Hysteria: MPACUK on BBC News |
|
|
| Saturday, 09 February 2008 | |
|
Friends of Dr Rowan Williams say he is in a state of shock and dismayed by the criticism from his own Church. All the main political parties, secular groups and some senior Muslims have expressed dismay at his comments. However, the Bishop of Hulme, the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, criticised the "disgraceful" treatment of Dr Williams. Legal code The BBC understands from sources who work on Christian-Muslim interfaith issues that Dr Williams has faced a barrage of criticism from within the Church and has been genuinely taken aback by how his words were received. Islamic Sharia law is a legal and social code designed to help Muslims live their daily lives, but it has proved controversial in the West for the extreme nature of some of its punishments. BBC News religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott says both traditionalists and liberals in the Church have their own reasons for criticising Dr Williams. Traditionalists maintain that English law is based on Biblical values and that no parallel system could be tolerated in the UK. Liberal Anglicans believe giving Sharia legal status would be to the detriment of women and gay people. Resignation call Among those critical of the archbishop is the chairman of evangelical Church group Reform, the Reverend Rod Thomas. "The Church at the moment, and the country, needs a clear lead. The country is itself in a debate about its own sense of identity," he said. "The moral values that we pursue are ones that we need to know are clearly grounded, and it would be most helpful for the leader of the Church to be able to explain to people how the values we cherish stem from our Christian tradition." UKIP MEP Gerard Batten said it would be the "thin end of the wedge" and called on the archbishop to resign. He said: "I think he's shown he is totally unfit for the role he undertakes. He's not fit to be Archbishop of Canterbury, he doesn't seem to know what his own business is, and he's not fit to sit in the House of Lords. I think he should go." 'Hysterical misrepresentations' However, there has been some support for Dr Williams. The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said it was grateful for the archbishop's "thoughtful intervention". The organisation added that it was saddened by the "hysterical misrepresentations" of his speech, which would only "drive a wedge between British people". There is, and should only be, one law which covers all people and to suggest it can be otherwise is to seriously damage our rights Patricia London, UK Muhammed Abdul Bari, Secretary-General of the MCB, said: "The archbishop is not advocating implementation of the Islamic penal system in Britain. "His recommendation is confined to the civil system of Sharia law, and only in accordance with English law and agreeable to established notions of human rights." The archbishop had been "ridiculed" and "lampooned" by some people, according to Bishop Lowe. "We have probably one of the greatest and the brightest Archbishops of Canterbury we have had for many a long day," he said. Catherine Heseltine, from the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, said some people might be getting the wrong end of the stick. "I'm concerned this debate is getting out of control because people hear the word Sharia and instantly scary images of beheadings," she said. Dr Williams told BBC Radio 4 on Thursday that he believed the adoption of some Sharia law in the UK seemed "unavoidable". In an interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, Dr Williams said Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty". 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. Source: BBC News Readers have left 19 comments.
Tahira:
Quote
I'm so glad some groups like MPACUK were out there on the media yesterday dispelling some of the misinformation the tabloids have been pumping out. Keep up the good work!
(2)
2008-02-09 09:00:50
shan:
Quote
This current media bashing of muslims is having the desired effect.
as soon as you hear anyone say muslims must be given rights,the bigoted islam haters come out in the name of tradtion freedom of speech. so true what Allah says when it is stated what they speak against you can hear but what they conceal in their hearts is even worser. so when these occcasions give them moments to vent their real hate for islam. British muslims are living examples of islamic law, when they stay away fromn what Allah has prohibited, what next you may ask, forcing us to eat pork and drink to show how integrated we are.
(3)
2008-02-09 10:27:24
Sunita:
Quote
Rowan Williams said "In an interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, Dr Williams said Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
Isn't he stating that Muslims in the UK have a dilemma whether to obey the laws of the land or their religious/cultural law? In which case is anyone suprised that the Govt. says the UK Law is the single authority. Maybe the Archbishop hasn't been helpful to the Muslim Community
(4)
2008-02-09 10:44:20
Jennifer:
Quote
"cultural loyalty"? I thought Sharia, as the form of law used within Islam, was global, international, not tied to one culture? I am British English and have no problems with aspects of Sharia being absorbed into UK law. Culturally, there should be give and take to allow for legal access for all faith groups on an equal basis.
What is culturally acceptable say in Pakistan, may not be in Iran. In the same vein, Britain stands with yet another culture to add to the mix. ALL three countries therefore have disimilair cultures, but all three share Islam as a religious faith, in differing percentages of course. So to adopt certain aspects of a faith's jurisprudential process seems like a good idea. Why should we be beholden only to Christian ideals in a country where Christianity is one of many faiths, albeit a rather large one. This is what I understand that Rowan Williams meant. Hope I've made sense.
(5)
2008-02-09 11:45:57
Yunus Yakoub Islam:
Quote
It was the Radio 4 interview that has created most of the furore. I listened to that interview and I was almost banging my head on the floor by the time it had ended. Saying things like "Shariah law is probably inevitable" was handing The Sun a soundbite to smack him (and us Muslims) with. If I was Dr Rowan, I'd be sacking my press secretary today.
(6)
2008-02-09 12:27:18
K Urban:
Quote
MPAC should be congratulated in putting forward good points in well-spoken English with presentable speakers like Catherine Heseltine.
(7)
2008-02-09 13:46:40
William:
Quote
I was delighted to hear Rowan Williams raise these issues. But already as he spoke, one started to fear the backlash.
I'm not a Muslim. I dont understand Sharia or fatwas. I welcome immigration (the UK would be a miserable place without it). I'm perfectly comfortable that a Muslim community in Britain is made welcome and its Sharia processes recognised and accepted by the British legal system. But I dont want to see women treated as unequal in a court of law. I abhor the sort of mediaeval punishments we see in Saudi Arabia or under the Taliban. And I'm fed up to the back teeth with people trying to convert me to their religion because they think its superior, whether that's Catholics, Muslims, Evangelicals or Scientologists. I'm delighted if people have a religious practice that works for them, and I'll make up my own mind about how effective it is based on their actions and their respect for others. Can we co-exist in peace and mutual respect on that basis? Sorry if I've gone of topic, but Dr Williams raises some deep points.
(8)
2008-02-09 19:11:35
m a qureshi:
Quote
‘MPAC on BBC News’ seems basically a copy of BBC report on Shariah Hysteria and we accordingly read the following:
<<<Catherine Heseltine, from the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, said some people might be getting the wrong end of the stick. "I'm concerned this debate is getting out of control because people hear the word Sharia and instantly scary images of beheadings," she said. >>> It is fine as it is – a comment on the so-called ‘debate’, but one wanted to find out MPAC’s own position with regard to Dr Williams suggestion that parts of sharia law, viz, marriage etc, can be accommodate within the British civil law etc. Maybe you said something but the media failed to report. But then this morning’s Guardian quotes MPAC as saying: << 'How many Muslim countries actually operate a proper system of sharia law? How can we expect a non-Muslim country to do something Muslim countries have not managed to? There are more pressing issues facing Britain’s Muslims. Tabloid editors and archbishops take note?’ >> One doesn’t expect a cynical spin from MPAC. Pray let us know in plain English what is MPAC own position on the substantive question itself.
(9)
2008-02-09 23:28:11
wendy mann:
Quote
i think what is interesting is the way the establishment from politicians in government and opposition, the media have sought to prevent dr williams from having his freedom of thought and speech because of his very limited support for some aspects of sharia being utilised as a means of civil arbitration under english law.
the effort has been to silence him , even with calls for his removal from office. what more sanction could the establishment impose in order to bring the good dr back into line and to sing with the rest of the anti semitic rhetoric that passes as government policy and media commentary/news reporting? if anything what dr williams has brought to the table is the degree of prejudice , bigotry and hatred held by so many in government and in the news media. muslims should thank him if only for that in itself lets muslims know the degree of hatred that has been whipped up by the power brokers in the uk.
(10)
2008-02-10 01:25:45
melissa:
Quote
wendy mann
What this row also shows is that there is no such thing as Christianity in Britain. The way that the so-called 'Christians' have reacted so viciously to letting someone else live their life according to their religion, shows that they are no followers of Jesus. What happened to live and let live; what happened to 'turn the other cheek'? What a sham the 'Church' is. With its worship of the Tree God on the 25th December (offering gifts to a tree); the worship of the spring goddess 'Ester' at 'Easter' in March/April; and worshipping the Sun god 'Sol Invictus' on 'Sun'day, this faux 'religion' should come clean about its true agenda. The true followers of Jesus should stand up.
(11)
2008-02-10 23:35:20
zara:
Quote
"cultural loyalty"? I thought Sharia, as the form of law used within Islam, was global, international, not tied to one culture? I am British English and have no problems with aspects of Sharia being absorbed into UK law. Culturally, there should be give and take to allow for legal access for all faith groups on an equal basis. — JenniferWhat is culturally acceptable say in Pakistan, may not be in Iran. In the same vein, Britain stands with yet another culture to add to the mix. ALL three countries therefore have disimilair cultures, but all three share Islam as a religious faith, in differing percentages of course. So to adopt certain aspects of a faith's jurisprudential process seems like a good idea. Why should we be beholden only to Christian ideals in a country where Christianity is one of many faiths, albeit a rather large one. This is what I understand that Rowan Williams meant. Hope I've made sense. Couldn't agree with you more! This whole affair has been blown out of proportion with comics, sorry newspapers like The Sun promoting mass hysteria- Dr Williams' words have clearly been taken out of context and deliberately not explained to the layman. More importantly, whatever happened to the 'freedom of speech' principle that is often defended to the death? Why is it that when it comes to Muslims opposing the views of others, we are subjected to lengthly editorials on how this nation of ours prides itself on the virtue of speaking its mind,and yet when a person of Dr' William's position expresses his personal opinion, there are calls for his resignation? Blatant double standards!
(12)
2008-02-11 13:25:07
RSD:
Quote
The furore relating to this rather minor issue is rooted in the adequacy of the Archbishop to communicate his ideas in a manner that is readily understood by the avergage person. If the Archbishop is suggesting that Islamic and other religious courts should acquire the same rights and obligations as the Jewish Beth Din then then he should have said such in a clear way. He however did not and he made allusions to the idea that people of certain beliefs may excuse themselves from the obligations in law that all British citizens have to the state.
The comparison with the Beth Din is fine and would have remained so if the Archbishop had properly articulated the role of the Beth Dins - he did not. Instead he allowed various individuals to conjure up a distorted image of the Beth Dins and the status of women in Judaism. This merely fostered resistance to the idea of Muslim community courts and the existance of the Beth Din. The Archbishop would have supported his argument by examining the history of the Beth Dins in Christendom and the established relationship, noting that rabbis have long asserted that Jews are subordinate to the law of the land in the Diaspora. He could have then go on to suggest that for the Muslim and other communities that there are lessons to be learnt that can facilitate the establishment of faith based courts where they are desired which could aid arbitration between parties of the same faith. In large part the British Courts do recognise that community bodies can offer effective arbitration and a large part of what the Archbishop caled for exists already. It is nevertheless reasonable for British people to be concerned if it appears that the Archbishop is sanctioning the establishment of "Sharia" courts in this country that might have authority equal to the British Courts to hear all types of cases and issue sentences. IMO the weakness of the Archbishops proposal is that he fails to recognise that there are simply not enough Islamic Law professionals fully acquainted with the UK and its law to effectively provide this service to the standard we must expect.
(13)
2008-02-11 19:03:11
RSD:
Quote
Melissa,
It may surprise you to know that Christmas trees only appeared in this country in the mid-19th Century, introduced by Prince Albert. It has nothing to do with Christians in UK worshipping trees. Certainly the name Easter has its roots in paganism, but it was merely adopted by Christians to differentiate their festival from that of the Jewish Pesach / Passover which occurs at the same time. The names of the days in English predate the advent of Christianity on these islands and there is no reason why anyone should change the names of the days simply because they adopted Christianity. But it does not mean that people here worship these ancient pagan deities. The original Sabbath was on Saturday, but changed during early Christianity to differentiate itself from Judaism. I believe that there are plenty of Christians in this country, but who am I to judge who is or isn't a Christian? Given your clear ignorance, may I suggest that you are in even less of a position than I.
(14)
2008-02-11 19:19:21
Colin:
Quote
The remarks by Rowan Williams caused such a stir because of the position he holds in this country, he is archbishop of canterbury, what he says has impact, and what he definitely said was that Sharia should run parallel to UK Parliamentary law. The problem for Muslims is that the vast majority of the UK are not religious at all and will always fight to keep any religious laws, Jewish, Sharia, Christian, Hindu, out of UK law. We used to have religious courts some 200 years ago, never again, and the majority of the UK will always react to any sign of religious laws becoming part of official UK law. That I think was the reason for the 'backlash' against Rowan Williams.
(15)
2008-02-12 08:05:38
Melissa:
Quote
RSD
Why have the so-called 'Christians' repeatedly adopted pagan dates/days/festivals? Why didn't they come up with a date that was NOT a pagan festival (or related to a pagan 'god') in order to avoid any confusion? Answer it is Christo-Paganism, and not 'Christ'-ianity! Indeed the true followers of Jesus would be called 'Jesusian'.
(16)
2008-02-12 08:42:37
RSD:
Quote
The celebration of Christmas is symbolic and early Christian missionaries selected the major feats of the year. Easter may have been a common name which former Pagans noted the time of year by and Passover happened to coincide with it. These festivals are symbolic and are occassions in which Jesus as the Messiah~Son of God and of his execution are remembered as they are key to the story of Jesus. The name and date are irrelevant, what matters is the ideals that they symbolise. You will note that Easter is not fixed and thus is vaguely aligned to the Jewish Pesach from which it derives.
Is not the Islamic symbol of the Crescent Moon not a reference to earlier pagan worship fo the moon, no matter how much it may be dressed up in latter day claims? There are many who claim to belong to various religions and cite that as justification for murder, enslavement etc. There are others who are silent whose actions demonstrate that they actually upon their beliefs in meaningful ways.
(17)
2008-02-12 15:27:33
shan:
Quote
The moon is used to measure time,the moon is not celebrated or worshipped by muslims.
if you are going to make a example at least realise what you are saying. we know the majority of jews are silent on the murder and occupation of palestine,using excuses such as god promised us palestine,if that is not forcing your views on others i do not know what is.
(18)
2008-02-13 14:31:22
Imran Khan:
Quote
Salaam
Well Catherine Heseltine did a bang a job on Premier Christian Radio. Poor sister was murdered. We appreciate her enthusiasm; but, her zeal and enthusiasm is not enough to hide the fact that she is incredibly ignorant of the Islamic religion and worse still she is not a very good "apologetic". My advice to our sister is that go learn your religion; learn how to debate; learn logic and argumentation before putting yourself out in the field. It was harrowing to see Jay Smith and Beth Grove throw out every typical red herring to demonise Islam and sister Catherine not having the means to be able to defend her religion. MPACUK members need to be humble enough to realise their limitations. Wa salam
(19)
2008-03-10 00:07:03
|




The Archbishop of Canterbury is said to be overwhelmed by the "hostility of the response" after his call for parts of Sharia law to be recognised in the UK.










