Rowan Williams pipes up again
The archbishop of Canterbury seems to be incapable of taking in new information that is inimical to what he already wants to believe. Perhaps this is not even worth pointing out, in an archbishop – except of course it is, however obvious it may be, because archbishops in the UK unfortunately have a huge amount of temporal power and also a considerable amount of influence.
On the anniversary of the interview in which Dr Rowan Williams said it “seems inevitable” that some parts of sharia would be enshrined in this country’s legal code, he claimed “a number of fairly senior people” now take the same view. He added that there is a “drift of understanding” towards what he was saying, and that the public sees the difference between letting Muslim courts decide divorces and wills, and allowing them to rule on criminal cases and impose harsh punishments.
Yes of course there’s a ‘difference’ but that does not mean, and it is not the case, that the difference in question is between harmful and harmless or cruel and benign or harsh and mild or irrationally fundamentalist and sweetly reasonable. There is a ‘difference’ but it remains the case that letting Muslim courts decide divorces and wills is a way to treat women grossly unequally.
The odd thing is that Williams must have been told this. He must have been told it a thousand times, in the strongest possible terms. So why can’t he take it in? What is the matter with the man? Apart from the fact that he’s an archbishop, of course. What is wrong with him? Why is he so determined to persuade the great British public that unequal rights for women is quite all right as long as the women in question are ‘members of the Muslim community’?
However critics insist that family disputes must be dealt with by civil law rather than according to religious principles, and claim the Archbishop’s comments have only helped the case of extremists while making Muslim women worse off, because they do not have equal rights under Islamic law.
Well duh. So how does Williams manage to ignore what critics say for a period of twelve months? Has he eaten of the multicultural lotus, or what?
Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “He has started a process which is deeply dangerous, damaging to Britain and to Muslim women in Britain. It was a wicked move because it undermines the progressives and gives succour to the extremists. How does the Archbishop of Canterbury know, sitting in Lambeth Palace, that a woman in Bolton has volunteered to give up half her inheritance to her brother?”
I would love to know, but I doubt that the archbish will be explaining any time soon.
The man has an addled brain, a bit like Bob’s. Once their synapses have developed pathways, they’re laid down for good, it seems. And then all they can do is repeat things over and over, hoping that, at some point, what they say will square with the way the world is. That must be the way theology is done, since it’s not based on evidence. So, the best thing for a theologian to do is not to change and hope that the world does.
Well it’s possible that the Archbishop has indeed taken in what he’s been told, but just doesn’t give a damn.
Thank you, OB, for deleting Bob’s silly interventions, although there is a fearful symmetry between the fundamentalist born-again attitude towards things and the deliverances of a trained theologians. Their minds seem to run in grooves, and I’m sure if you put Michael Persinger’s helmet on either of them you would find similar parts of the brain light up along similar pathways. How else can you possibly explain coming back to the scene of the crime a year later and making the same claims? Pehaps there’s a force-field around Lambeth Palace that excludes all but confirming brain waves. Perhaps there is really a strange anomaly on the south bank of the Thames that should be investigated. Or, perhaps – here’s another theory the hidden imam is in residence!
Or, perhaps – here’s another theory the hidden imam is in residence!
Or, perhaps – here’s another theory the hidden Abrahamic Blair is in residence!
And sharing with Williams a nice quiet prayer breakfast.
Neil, yeah…I suppose that’s what I meant by ‘why can’t he take it in?’ Why doesn’t he give enough of a damn to let it change his mind?
It was a British governor in India who was being challenged by Hindu extremists about suttee (the practice of burning widows alive with their deceased husband.) When they argued that it was their custom, he replied, you follow your custom and I will follow my countries custom of hanging men who burn women.
OB, do you ever get the feeling that religions, which used to be at each other’s throats, are now closing ranks against the common enemy, namely, free thought?
Perhaps a few defrauded British Muslim women are, to the Archbishop, just a some broken eggs necessary for the omelette of secularism’s defeat.
Williams doesn’t need to pay attention to what people have been saying for 12 months. Archbishops don’t do that. They know. Archbishops also assume that imams know too. It has nothing to do with what ordinary people think. So, yes, there is a closing of ranks agasint the common enemy, which is ordinary people, and free thought.
If the archbishop is to keep his establishment, he can’t go around offending other establishments. That’s the way it works in Britain. And he’s not going to explain either. He doesn’t have to do that. It’s one of the benefits of power.
From the moment one sets foot in a foreign country one is obliged to obey that country’s laws or face the consequences. It has always been this way.
Those who wish to participate in the British economy while being governed (in part for the time being) by the law and social norms of their country of origin literally do not belong in Britain, and should be told with the greatest of respect to leave.
Rowan Williams is trying to make a stir using the thin end of a wedge while standing on top of a slippery slope. It’s perhaps OK to forgive those who know not what they do, but none should forgive Williams, because the bastard should know better.
I tell you, archbishops don’t need to listen to, or to remember, or to digest what is being said. They speak from power. Pay attention to the place where he was speaking: Egypt. Notice who came to his support: Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers. Recall how hopelessly vague he was: “So I think there is a drift of understanding of what I was trying to say, perhaps I like to think so.” The casualness of power cheaply bought. You can hear the tone in practically any diocesan bishop’s office.
The most eloquent of those who oppose this archiepiscopal idiocy is Maryam Namazie. Eloquent and measured: the archbishop should listen.Some of us had to flee to escape sharia
I agree with NB and Eric. This is largely about embedding religious privilege. Believing is more important than what you believe.
OB, quoting Douglas Murray:
This makes no sense.
Today, in England, if a Muslim woman’s brother tries to compel her to give him half of her inheritance against her will, she has legal recourse against him.
Under the model Williams proposes, the same woman has … the same legal recourse. No rights under British civil law are abrogated.
Read the full address before you ascribe the Archbishop with views he does not hold or advocate. I’ve linked to it on my site, with some callouts.
Eric: Thanks for the link. I listened to the podcast. Maryam Namazie makes some good points, and is very articulate.
The whole project stinks.
Shambling fools like Williams and Lord Phillips of Worth Whatever are giving in on the very basis of their society. There is nothing more fundamental than the question of whose law rules, and that the same law applies to everyone. Moreover, there is the insidious subtext to all this that modern British law on human rights stops at the front door of every man’s castle. The Islamic hard-liners are not asking for the right to chop off the hands of those they find guilty of theft; well, not yet. We’re talking domestic and family matters only. For now.
Chris Schoen,
You are correct that no British woman would lose her legal rights, because she wouldn’t be required to use Sharia courts, but is it realistic to think that no women shall be pressured by their families to use them?
Chris, the archbishop is an ass! Why not just admit it? He’s been an ass since his first day. He’s overturned practically everything he ever stood for. He’s not only an ass. He’s a dishonest ass!
Perhaps everyone should have a look at this: One law for all
Chris Schoen, I read the full address months ago, I read it several times when the archbish first made it. Do stop patronizing, if you can manage it.
Ian,
Sharia law is an abomination in any country – not just Britain. What’s wrong in London is wrong in Kabul too.
Talk of immigration etiquette is unnecessary when there is a far stronger and more concise objection to sharia – it’s just not compatible with human rights.
NB, you ask “is it realistic to think that no women shall be pressured by their families to use [Sharia courts]?”
Perhaps not. But this would constitute an attempt to abridge these women’s rights, and under British civil law they would still have full legal standing to resist this pressure, if they so chose.
Lots of people are pressured by family members and others to do things that are against their interests. Bringing an unwanted child to term, for example. We don’t criminalize *not* terminating a pregnancy–how could we? The best we can do is try to make it abundantly clear to all that civil law provides an ever-present remedy to pursue one’s full rights and freedoms. The rest is up to free will.
Chris,
I think you may be underestimating the level of coercion that would be be used in such cases. As soon as sharia law becomes and option it will immediately become the default for most Muslims. Going to the secular courts instead will be more of an opt-out than an opt-in, and those who do will be treated with suspicion. They’ll be accused of not being real Muslims because they are refusing to follow Islamic law. They will have to overcome to their own self-image and the prospect of complete social ostracism. That’s an enormous obstacle that people who aren’t raised as Muslims won’t have to contend with.
Chris Schoen,
I realize that it’s not possible to abolish all forms of familial pressure, but why create new opportunities for it? Why not just have all British subjects, whatever their religion, use British courts? Everyone is already free to have their personal disputes decided by clergy — or even by strangers pulled in off the street — if they wish; but why give official recognition of any sort to religious tribunals, especially if they have a lower standard of fairness than British legal system?
Chris,
It will make using those options far more difficult. I can’t think of any present situation in Britain where a similar amount of social pressure is brought to bear on individuals in such a damaging way. It is not comparable with parents pressuring their kids to do law degrees or whatever.
N.B.,
I think the obvious answer would be that it would be an expansion of rights to the extent that it allowed a portion of the population to exercise their freedom of religion, as long as this practice does not contravene the civil law.
But a more subtle reason would speak to the common misunderstanding that there is an intrinsic injustice embedded in sharia. I don’t deny that sharia, in practice, often operates in tension with secular liberal standards of jurisprudence. But there is no written code that demands that sharia-based rulings adhere to the 7th century standards found in the Koran or hadith. Sharia is a system, or method of law, not a written code, and if it were allowed to operate in a liberal democratic society such as the UK, there is every chance that it might have an opportunity to reintegrate some of the principles it held in an earlier era, where Islamic jurists were permitted, if not encouraged, to exercise independent thought or interpretation (ijtihad). The long-delayed “Islamic Enlightenment” will surely have the principle of ijtihad at its center, if it is ever to arrive at all.
I don’t claim that it is certain that this would come to pass. But I don’t think it is markedly less probable that liberalization in Islam will take this course, than the probability that it will undergo a wholesale conversion to Western secular liberalism. (I’m prepared for the charge of naivete, here, but I think we have to reckon with the reality that a significant portion of Muslims feel that it is a de facto persecution of their culture to have to adhere to a civil code of law.)
It is certainly plausible that a legitimately Islamic liberalization in a free society such as Britain could have positive affects on Islamic culture as a whole. Things could also go in the other direction, of course, but the important fact is that even then there would be no curtailment of the full protection of British civil law, and no permit for any Islamic jurisprudence to abrogate existing civil law.
Without whitewashing or romanticizing the facts of Islam “on the ground,” I think we should remember that there are aspects of Islamic ethics that are actually a boon to a civilized society, such as the emphasis on charity (zakat), in both compulsory and voluntary forms. For the “West” to maintain that we have all the answers, ethically and legally, is not just wrong (as the history of both free market capitalism and doctrinaire Marxist-Leninism attest), but also unpragmatic to the extent that it fosters a continued game of cultural “chicken” that seems only to be entrenching the stance of the players on both sides.
Chris,
Ijtihad doesn’t mean independent thought. It means reading the Koran for yourself and then doing exactly what it says.
I would also take issue with your claim that zakat is a positive influence on the west. From what I understand (I may be wrong about this) only Muslims are eligible to receive zakat. In the west we already have the concepts of charity and wealth redistribution, but they are not tied up with discrimination.
The Enlightenment took place in Europe in the teeth of opposition from religious conservatives. It didn’t happen as a result of secular authorities implementing biblical law.
(I’m prepared for the charge of naivete, here, but I think we have to reckon with the reality that a significant portion of Muslims feel that it is a de facto persecution of their culture to have to adhere to a civil code of law.) Chris. Rather than pander to this feeling(that I suspect is only felt by moslem men) it would be far better to spell it out that we all have to abide by laws that we may hate?
Quite right. Also, Jews love money, Gypsies steal, blacks are violent and rapacious, Mexicans are lazy, Liberals are spineless appeasers, conservatives are soulless warmongers, homosexuals are promiscuous, Chinese are inscrutable…
You’ve essentially just accused 1.2 billion people of being hypocrites, wholesale. If that’s how you like to do business, so be it, but don’t pretend it’s intelligent, rational argument.
“I think we should remember that there are aspects of Islamic ethics that are actually a boon to a civilized society, such as the emphasis on charity (zakat).”
What emphasis? In practice, what happens when sharia is implemented or imposed or re-imposed or strengthened or renewed (in northern Nigeria, in Somalia, in Indonesia, in Pakistan, anywhere you like) is that women are stripped of their rights. Every single time, that is the first thing that happens. The ’emphasis’ on charity is just a form of words, a bit of nice feel-good window dressing; the reality is violent subordination of women.
I think we’re in danger of losing the focus here. The Archbishop of Canterbury recently suggested, a year after his first venture into these dangerous waters, that elements of Muslim law be introduced in Britain. Everyone knows, including Chris Schoen, that this would have immediate effect on the rights of Muslim women in Britain, but Chris thinks they should at least have the right to have their rights abridged.
But keep your eyes on the archbishop. He didn’t say this out of the goodness of his heart, or because he has a particular love for Islam or Islamic law. No. He sees an opportunity for the church here. As Stephen Timms recently said (in the Times), “Muslims in Britain … have helped faith gain a new voice and a new confidence.” Indeed they have. And the ABC is just trying to capitalise on that new voice. He has new confidence too. Introducing Muslim law would strengthen the hand of people of faith in the public square.
Religious people believe that they have the answers to everything, to questions of social order and morality, to the truth about human life and the universe, and they feel shut out of the ongoing social conversation, because they don’t like others having a voice too. When you know the answers, you don’t want to discuss with other people, much less with those who don’t think you know them. So, the more influence people of faith can bring to bear, the more likely their voices will be heard.
I began by suggesting that the ABC’s mind is addled. I still think so. Introducing Sharia would be a huge coup for the religious crowd, because it would be an important precedent allowing religious law into secular space. It’s possible, I suppose, that Rowan Williams’ ideas of social organisation are as medieval as those represented by Islamic law. I don’t know. If they are, then perhaps he’s not as addled as he seems. But if they aren’t, then introducing Sharia would not only introduce another tier to the justice system in Britain, it would also add conflict.
I don’t think that’s what the ABC has in mind, which is why I think his mind is addled. He has pretty short term goals in mind. He wants to be able to take faith into the public square, and this is one way to do it. He doesn’t understand what secularity is all about. He thinks it is anti-religious, but it’s really impartial as to world view. That’s why it’s a good system, but, like every other religious person, he thinks the world is going to the dogs, because it’s not religious, except amongst those who choose to be. Here’s a chance to introduce one level of compulsion. He thinks there will be others.
“For the “West” to maintain that we have all the answers, ethically and legally, is not just wrong (as the history of both free market capitalism and doctrinaire Marxist-Leninism attest) blah blah”
That’s just a stupid bit of boilerplate irrelevance. No one here is claiming anything so moronic and empty as that ‘the “West” has all the answers.’ I’ll tell you what I (for one) do maintain though, and that is that Islam has none of the answers (apart from such obvious ones as the notion that charity and justice are commendable, which are hardly exclusive to Islam and which Islam is not much good at anyway).
This is exactly the reason why we need to explore–intellectually at least, if not in actual practice–what Islamic influences on jurisprudence would look like in a free society, where equal protection under the law are assiduously pursued.
I think people are being thrown off by the word “sharia” here. It implies that stoning and child brides are on their way to the UK. There is nothing intrinsically barbaric about sharia, regardless of what is prevalent in practice. There is no code or rule that 7th century standards of justice must be applied. How will we ever know if a liberalization of Islam is possible if we can’t even entertain the possibility, in writing, of considering what it might look like?
CS, we’ve been over all this, a year ago. We know what the archbish said. It’s ambiguous, tortuous, opaque drivel. You’re not the first person to have read what Williams said, so please stop trying to instruct us from the beginning. You’re going over old ground, and it’s a waste of bandwidth.
Oh, christ – no we don’t – we need to have no truck with it, just as we need to have no truck with Vatican law or Calvinist law or any other theocratic law. I don’t care what a bunch of male clerics think god wants jurisprudence to look like in a free society – or rather I care only enough to know that I want nothing to do with it.
Liberalization of Islam does not require implementation of sharia! You live in a dream world.
Furthermore –
“There is nothing intrinsically barbaric about sharia, regardless of what is prevalent in practice. There is no code or rule that 7th century standards of justice must be applied.”
That’s actually not true, because there are suras and hadiths that prescribe various harsh laws and punishments, and those won’t disappear however many clerics become more liberal. There is no code, but there are texts.
Chris,
How have I accused all Muslims of being hypocrites?
I merely gave an accurate description of what Ijtihad is. I was unaware that 1.2 billion people have claimed it is anything else.
According to Wikipedia, “Ijtihad (Arabic: اجتهاد, ’iğtihād) is a technical term of Islamic law that describes the process of making a legal decision by independent interpretation of the legal sources, the Qu’Ran and the Sunnah. The opposite of ijtihad is taqlid, Arabic for “imitation”.”
So it means reading the Koran for yourself (and the Sunnah which I didn’t mention) and doing what it says.
It certainly does not mean independent thought as you claimed. Independent thought would be making a decision on the basis of reason and your own moral intuitions. Independent thought is not dependent on the authority of scripture.
Your reply to Dirigible is pretty poor as well. Williams admits that sharia is a threat to women’s rights, but advocates it anyway. He’s just trying to have his cake and eat it to.
He might as well have said “when we impose racial hygiene laws, we must be careful not to do anything racist.”
To add to Ophelia’s point, if we did end up with a situation where sharia was liberalised by ignoring all the barbaric, sexist, and homophobic parts, it wouldn’t really be sharia would it? It would be something else going under the name of sharia.
Which was always the problem with Williams’s Exciting Idea, as many observers pointed out at the time – that sharia in the current sense would be a bad thing and sharia reformed out of all recognition would be simply superfluous. Williams never made clear what would be the point of adding a New and Improved sharia – he simply flung an avalanche of words and name-drops at the idea.
Here is a link for the Onelawforall campaign. It’s current now. It’s protesting sharia courts that exist now in the UK. Vote in favour of it. No foothold for patriarchy in Britain. No apartheid for women. Let the archbishop languish unread and unnoticed. He’s a patriarch. Of course, he’s in favour of patriarchy. Onelawforall
Ophelia,
If you’re tired of talking about it, then say so, but don’t pretend you can just dismiss Williams argument because it hurts your head. I’m sorry this isn’t a simpler topic, but wishing doesn’t make it so.
“Liberalization of Islam does not require implementation of sharia!”
I never said it required it. I said that that was one possible path. I haven’t heard anyone here mount any serious, reasoned argument against that idea, apart from “but look what they do in Nigeria!”
“That’s actually not true, because there are suras and hadiths that prescribe various harsh laws and punishments, and those won’t disappear however many clerics become more liberal. There is no code, but there are texts.”
Again, you seem to be under the inmpression that there is some requirement under sharia that these texts be literally applied. Jakob makes the same misreading. The Wikipedia page is a little misleading, but I think it’s clear enough that contrasting ijtihad with imitation indicates that the latter would mean something like “do whatever the books say, literally,” and the former would mean, use your judgement in interpreting these texts to inform a contemporary situation.”
This is from a paper called http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr125.html“>”Ijtihad: Reinterpreting Islamic Principles for the Twenty-first Century:”
It’s something of a self-fulfilling prophesy to declare that Islam will always be a force of oppression. We are talking about 20 percent of the world’s population. If you expect them to silently pass into secular humanist values leaving no trace of their former culture and ethics, whether that takes place in 10 years or 100 or 1000, are you sure it is I who live in dreamland?
I’m not making this up out of whole cloth. There are numerous voices within Islam which advocate a rehabilitation of sharia through ijtihad to bring it into step with humanist values. You’re welcome to treat this as an impossible project, but why speak out against it, when it offers a path of hope?
CS, don’t be rude and don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say it hurt my head, I said you are going over old ground. You are. You seem to think this is a new discussion, but it’s not.
“I never said it required it. I said that that was one possible path.”
No you didn’t. You said “This is exactly the reason why we need to explore–intellectually at least, if not in actual practice–what Islamic influences on jurisprudence would look like in a free society”
Saying we need to explore etc is not the same thing as saying that’s one possible path.
‘apart from “but look what they do in Nigeria!”‘
And Pakistan and Afghanistan and Sudan and Somalia and Malaysia and southern Thailand and Indonesia and Saudi and Yemen and and and – yet you blithely ignore all that while trying to claim that sharia is potentially quite benign. Why should anyone believe sharia is potentially quite benign for an instant when in practice it never is? And why are you so cheerfully willing to ignore that crucial fact? It would make as much sense to claim that Nazism is potentially quite benign even though the actual instantiations of it were all a trifle harsh and abrupt.
“Again, you seem to be under the inmpression that there is some requirement under sharia that these texts be literally applied.”
No. That’s not what I said, and it’s not my impression. No such requirement is necessary. The point is that the texts are there, and there is no way to prevent their being literally applied. This truism makes it simply fatuous to claim that somewhere over the rainbow sharia could be completely different.
Chris,
You said:
‘The Wikipedia page is a little misleading, but I think it’s clear enough that contrasting ijtihad with imitation indicates that the latter would mean something like “do whatever the books say, literally,” and the former would mean, use your judgement in interpreting these texts to inform a contemporary situation.”‘
You have got this exactly backwards. Imitation would be to blindly accept the claims other make about what it says in the Koran. Ijtihad is the opposite of that – reading it for yourself.
Ijtihad means “do whatever the books say, literally” and taqlid means “do whatever authority figures tell you the books say.”
In your response to Ophelia, you seem to think you can have your cake and eat it too. You claim that sharia isn’t just what they do in countries that practice sharia, but also claim that sharia isn’t what the scripture says it is. So what is it? Is sharia to be defined as whatever people who claim to practice it do, or are they doing it wrong? You can’t have it both ways.
Chris, this is nonsense, simple unadulterated nonsense. Itjihad does not offer a path of hope at all. No textual religion is safe in a secular context, and laws based on sacred texts change with the changing interpretations of sacred text. They can be progressive, but they can change quickly with religious leadership and become regressive too.
The argument here is not whether sharia could be interpreted in a progressive way. Religious texts are always freely interpretable. Just go over Christian theology over the last century or so. The argument is whether religious law of any sort should have a place in secular society. I see no place for it. It is dangerous. Itjihad, and the free interpretation of religious texts makes it so. Romaan Catholics even seem progressive at times, but all it takes is one pope, and back to the middle ages we go. Religious institutions are not to be trusted, because they are based on interpretations of ambiguous texts almost always originating in primitive times. They can be jury-rigged (interpreted freely) for changing times. But the text remains, and other interpretations are always a possibility, and in many cases a probability. Religious texts can be, and are often today represented as, messages of peace and love (since this is what people want to hear), but they can be rigorously patriarchal and unjust as well, and can be guaranteed to be read that way by someone with authority. And all it takes is one authoritative pronouncement and the hopeful path you have indicated becomes a wilderness.
Despite the Archbishop of Canterbury’s unintelligible lucubrations on the topic of sharia, there is not one single good reason to suppose that Muslim subjects of the crown should be subject to a different law than that of others. Not one good reason. Itjihad, for all its adaptability, is not like the common law. It is inconsistent, and indiosycratic. There is no reason to accept sharia, even based on this sort of interpretive idiosycracy, as an appropriate form of law for British subjects, and there is good reason to close down existing sharia courts operating in Britain. They have already shown themselves to be unjust, and to disadvantage women. There is not a sigle good reason to preserve them.
Chris, yes, I know you haven’t seen them, but you could have looked. That’s not a requirement or anything, of course, but after all the archbishop’s address is a year old – it could have occurred to you that there had been some prior discussion (in the world at large and here) and that it might be a little pointless for you to start at the beginning.
“But your argument seems to rest on the very continued existence of the Koran as a holy text as necessitating that Islamic justice be literally applied from sacred texts.”
No; I just said that that’s not what I’m saying. See above.
“an exploration of the possibility of incorporating elements of sharia into civil secular law in a free society would shed light on what is possible.”
What do you mean ‘an exploration’? Williams is talking about the incorporation of parts of sharia itself, not a dinner table discussion. It’s just frivolous to talk about exploration when sharia has real effects in the real world that are widely documented (and not benign).
If the abdication of women’s rights is intolerable to Williams, then he should stfu about sharia. He can’t have both.
“If the abdication of women’s rights is intolerable to Williams, then he should stfu about sharia. He can’t have both.”
Another unsubstantiated assertion, I notice.
Chris,
Of course people could do something that doesn’t violate human rights, and then call this sharia, but so what? I could set up a soup-kitchen and call it The Third Reich.
You say we are asking billions of people to overcome their desire for sharia and embrace secularism instead, but you are doing the same thing. The only difference is that you want them to call secularism “sharia.”
“law in accordance with God”
I don’t want law in accordance with God – I want secular law, which can be revised without any requirement of harmonizing with – God.
“without having to give up its connection to divine justice”
Divine justice nothing – it’s not justice.
Chris Schoen,
The issue isn’t “global justice”, but simply British law. It is not necessary to “persuade hundreds of millions if not billions of people to overcome their deep desire for justice according to their sacred beliefs.” British Muslims need to accept justice according to British standards. Citizens of countries are not entitled to have their own standards of justice, except in their minds.
Also, why do you assume that all millions and billions who are nominally Muslim really believe in Islam and Islamic law? It’s likely that many were simply born into Islam, but don’t really agree with much of it, and yet keep their mouths shut in order to avoid persecution.
Chris Schoen is a blittering idiot. Wiki’ed a bit, came up to speed with a couple of arabic terms and concluded that sharia – path to the fucking wellspring, indeed- is ‘potentially’ some cuddly, indefinable tao-like fluffy sweetness and needs must be given the chance to evolve into assumed potential. Chris manages a fair bit of smugness and condescension in the process of promoting the indefensible, and if I were to ever meet him or the bloody bastard Rowan Williams, I’d spit in their faces. Sorry for the language, Ophelia but this twit is dangerous to women and kids and the mullahs can’t ask for better useful idiots than him or williams.
Sharia is a strange beast. It is not ONE codified set of laws – so the fucking retards who pass for judges in Saudi arabia, for example, can exercise their ‘ijtihad’ when sentencing rape victims to lashing or forcing underaged girls to stay married to the paedophiles who buy them. But there are 4 main schools of jurisprudence and the precepts are pretty well established (hardly differing in substance) and understood as such by the muslims who follow them. Even non-muslims have a pretty good grasp of it. In Malaysia, non-muslim men (and it is ONLY men, which tells you something the fairness inherent in sharia) contemplating divorce and custody battles convert to Islam to deliver the kind of blows that would be unthinkable under secular law. You’d think that a body that is capable of evolving into something better might be able to preempt or deal with such cynical use of it.Not a chance. There are truly well-intentioned muslim women activists, Sisters-in-islam, who sincerely believe in reforming sharia who’d have had zero success in all the years they’ve been around. They are derided as western stooges. Even as SiS was campaigning for liberalisation, the islamlic family laws were tightened last time the issue came up 3 years ago. I tell you, notwithstanding the wonderful paradise of liberalism that the UK appears to be to Schoen, malaysian muslims are a very liberal bunch compared to the UK’s subcontinental muslims . There is no honour killing or forced marriage here just for starters. If it is UK muslims who going to ‘ijtihad’ sharia (even with the nitwit williams, schoen et al looking benignly over their shoulders), the path to the bloody wellspring just got landmined.
Ijtihad by those who have no power – women, even women scholars, – is simply dismissed as bidaa, or innovation, itself a crime. Ijtihad even for those at the higher echelon of power say, the Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa, who backpedaled pretty swiftly after appearing to sanction apostasy, is risky.
“You argue that Williams abdicates equal rights for women in doing so, when he has specifically said it would not be tolerable to him if this were the case.”
Since Sharia law would specifically have this effect, by his own argument Williams should not be promoting it.
“Sharia has a definition, and etymology and a history of practice. In the third of these, it is very often associated with traditional and draconian punishments. But these do not comprise the definition of sharia,”
The second and third are a product of the first. You are playing a shell game with only one shell.
No need to apologize, mirax!
“No need to apologize, mirax!”
Really? For saying she’d like to “spit in my face,” because she thinks I advocate diminishing women’s rights?
I guess it’s just the people who you are quarreling with who need to take care not to be “rude”?
Not because she thinks you advocate diminishing women’s rights; she cited other reasons.
mirax wasn’t apologizing to you, but you were talking to me when I told you not to be so rude. If you want to tell mirax not to be so rude, go right ahead. Am I going to do it for you? No.
Mirax should not apologise for what she said. Quite clearly, she knows a lot first hand that Chris only knows by hearsay. She quite clearly knows, and has watched sharia in action. Williams obviously doesn’t know, or he wouldn’t be so stupid as to propose a parallel judicial system in Britain, whose common law traditions are not only justly famous, but underlie the common law traditions of many other countries. To propose a system parallel to that is so ridiculous as to border on the criminal, no matter what he said. But to do so in face of the fact that everywhere that sharia is established women suffer discrimination and diminishment as persons, is evil. And into Williams’ face I am quite prepared to spit was well. I don’t know Chris, and couldn’t care less what he believes, but when the Archbishop of Canterbury is using his position and his authority to propose this criminal act, he deserves at least that, but more, the opprobrium of all thinking people.
“in face of the fact that everywhere that sharia is established women suffer discrimination and diminishment as persons”
This is the crucial bit of course (though one has to add gays, ‘apostates,’ and non-Muslims to women). That’s why Schoen’s ridiculous ‘apart from “but look what they do in Nigeria!”‘ is so revoltingly frivolous. As if it were just one country! But as I of course said and as Schoen ignored, it’s every country where sharia is in force. Morocco and Jordan make some efforts to reform some laws – but very slowly and cautiously and against much resistance. And then, what about ‘what they do in Nigeria’? Why is that so dismissable? It’s not, of course. One might as well have sneered at ‘look at what they do in Germany!’ in 1942. Schoen is, precisely, a useful idiot for the Williamses of the world.
Precisely, which is probably why I should not dismiss so cavalierly the idiocies of Chris Schoen. Without Chrisses there would be no Williamses.
Regarding changes in Jordan. Wasn’t it in Jordan recently that a man was let off (you linked it, I think) for killing his sister and her boyfriend? The judge could understand his rage at the dishonour to his family, or something clever like that. Clearly, they’re not trying hard enough.
Yeh. There’s an even more revolting case that happened the day after a reform to the law about ‘honour killing’ failed; it’s discussed in our book.
“A woman is like an olive tree. When its branch catches woodworm, it has to be chopped off so that society stays clean and pure.”
So declared some years ago one tribal leader when pressed on the issue of “honour killings” in Jordan.
Jordan ‘honour killings’ cover for other crimes. Men, apparently exploit lenient laws to murder women for inheritance, settling family feuds or to hide other crimes. For instance, there was one such case in Amman when 18-year-old Maha decided that she wanted to quit her family’s prostitution ring, her brother killed her and alleged it was to “cleanse” the family’s honour.