Dhimmi — or just dim?

Lucinda Harper

I think the reason why Dr Williams' team keeps trying to draw the comparison with Jewish courts is because it's an obscure defence. It doesn't matter to whoever wrote that statement (don't you love the way that it's anonymous! - no more hostages to fortune, eh?) that it's not true, he knows full well that only a relatively small number of people in his own flock will know in any detail about about Beth Din courts and of course very few television and radio commentators will bother to correct that. The spin doesn't end there. He dances around certain of the words he uttered on Thursday, but, as you suggest, when it comes to the real nub of it - one law for some, another law for others - he hopes to leap free by not commenting on it all. By not taking questions, this means the media spotlight falls in the Sunday papers not on what he does not say today but on what he does say. He's trying to run away from the quicksand he's made for himself. Well, he may not take questions on it today or tomorrow, but he has damaged himself beyond repair. What damage he has done to this country we don't yet know but the prognosis is not, I fear, a good one. As a Christian it would be wonderful to see Dr Michael Nazir-Ali become the next ABofC, but I won't hold my breath. In fact as long as Dr Rowan Williams remains the incumbent I'll just have to hold my nose.

Austin Barry

Dr Williams is history. His next official engagement will likely be as Santa in some obscure suburban shopping mall.

Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA

Dear Melanie I have just received this from Lambeth Palace in response to my blog on the subject: http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/02/with-the-abcs-a.html 'I am rather stunned by your blog.... The idea that the archbishop was calling for the introduction of sharia, or that he was suggesting that sharia courts and the beth din are equivalent, is so far from the reality of what he said in the carefully constructed lecture, that I have to wonder how carefully you had read it. Possibly you have been over relying on reports in the Times. The lecture, which was given in the Royal Courts of Justice and chaired by the Lord Chief Justice of England in front of an audience of a thousand, mainly from the legal profession, Jewish, Muslim, Christian and secular, was warmly received and he was given an ovation on three occasions. The heart of his matter was the desirability that a single legal system should be abLe to make accomodations for religious conscience whether for Christian, Jewish or Muslim or other. This is not an innovation since it has been operated for centuries for the Church of England, for 25 years for Sikhs, 2002 for Jews when the divorce legislation was amended to make specific provision for divorce proceedings in the Beth Din, and most recently by the Prime Minister when Chancellor for so called sharia compliant financial instruments. There so many examples and the issue is the trend at present from systematic secularists to remove from the civil law any accomodation for religious conscience.'

YA

(I repeat it since my previous post wasn't published). Religion, law, social moral and social order are inter-related. To absolutize either law or religion is a mistake. Auschwitz was 100% legal according to the "law of the land". The only measure and refuge in this world is, and always were - human conscientiousness and reason. And here the Bish was below plinth, showing himself as coward, opportunist, traitor, and fool. A replica from these days fashions in political establishment, actually.

John

This man is a buffoon. He is one of those left wing thinkers who doesn't recognise reality. He has woefully betrayed the Church in England and should resign. Say one thing about the Islamists they defend their religion - you don't make jokes about that except at your peril. Contrast that with Christianity which is considered fair game.

SethK

'Why do they insist upon dragging the Jews into this?' I think we all know the answer to that question.

Douglas

What a sad sign of the times that someone who is supposedly a talented and influential journalist is only capable of bitter and insidious bullying such as this. Never one to rely on the truth of the matter Ms. Phillips has again excelled herself in an outpouring of egoistic claptrap.

Shona

Melanie, as I pointed out below, it's more than a thousand years, it's from the beginning of democracy itself, isonomia, equality under the law was what made democracy possible. It's 2500 years of Western civilisation. The other thing that angers me is that the last time I looked, our laws were made by parliament by democratically elected parliamentarians. What is he suggesting, that some citizens be bound by laws they have no say over? That's tyranny.

Howard

The point is what happens now? The political class has been very slow to close this down, which would be the norm when the clergy get a rush to the head. So what do people want, a retraction, a resignation, a period of silence, hoping this matter dies down. What? Maybe we should all join the Sun's campaign and, "Bash the Bishop" Everybody is very quick to condemn but where are the solutions? Williams is an academic not a polished professional politician spinning sound bits. Perhaps these days people do not want a debate (which is what Williams meant to start) but just wish to bash the guy. We have become a nation of little Murdoch's!

Ray

I repeat the comments I made in an earlier blog about the Anglican leadership heeding the words of 1 Corinthian 14:8 - "if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle?" The Archbishop's trumpet has been wofting some pretty peculiar noises our way just lately. However, after this weekend it is surely time for him to hand over to someone who can instead bang out more recognisable tunes with which to stir the flock - (either Bishop Nazir-Ali or Bishop John Sentamu - neither of whom, by virtue of their backgrounds, harbours any illusions about the delights of living under Sharia law.

Alcuin

The Archbishop is head of a global Anglican community as well as of the Church in England and Wales. As Damian Thompson noted in the Telegraph, Anglicans living in Muslim countries and suffering the institutional discrimination of Sharia law (in addition to routine attacks - which are not dealt with by the authorities) must feel utterly betrayed.

The issue is whether a Muslim's participation in a Sharia court is truly voluntary and informed. The evidence is unfortunately of serious intimidation of women to conform to Muslim social norms. Such norms need dismantling, not reinforcing - officially or unofficially.

The Telegraph reports today of criminal cases being settled by Sharia courts, without recourse to British Law at all. This development is worse than no-go areas. It means that a large minority group is opting out of the legal system. If this becomes commonplace, what happens when a crime is committed by Muslims in a no-go area on non-Muslims or vice versa? Such Muslims will be discouraged (as is already happening) from co-operating with our civil authorities, making the work of the Police impossible. There is already evidence of partiality among Muslim policemen. This is a recipe for vigilantism and the rise of the BNP.

Maybe (just maybe) Dr Williams has done us all a service by bringing these problems (that the elite have been sweeping under the carpet for years) into the public domain. The massive response is the result of these issues not being openly discussed for far too long.

d1carter

The answer to your headline question is...both. Sadly.

Bill M

May his winged brows carry him to the golden sands of Saudi Arabia where he can present the case for Judeo-Christian law within a system of Sharia justice. The sooner this foolish man admits his foolishness and steps down, the better for what's left of his ailing church and the Queen's realm.

Joe Strummer

Oh, I finally get it now, and it was all a terrible misunderstanding on OUR part. How silly of me.! The Archbishop's remarks on Sharia Law went completely over the heads of all of us little ordinary people who could never in our wildest dreams be able to digest what he was really attempting to say on theological and legal matters. What patronising and insulting guff from the CEO.!

Frank Pulley

Can someone inform this congregation about HM Queen's rights in this matter? Could she legally intervene directly and dismiss the ABC? Or does this kind of seditious propaganda have to be addressed informally in enclave behind the purple curtains? Is there no one who can legally admonish or sack the primate of the established church? Is this one just expressing an opinion within the concessions of free speech? Even if he were to commit a serious criminal offence, such as buggering a choirboy (that is still a criminal offfence, isn't it?) could he be removed from office (having been removed from the choirboy) and if so, by whom?

Frank Pulley

BTW, Melanie has just adduced, withinin this thread, incontrovertible evidence that our Anglican pontiff is a stupidly and profoundly mendacious man. How does this jig with what seems to be, even among most of his detractors on this issue, the general acceptance that he is an 'intellectual' and 'well meaning'? I would have thought that both those accolades must have the prerequisite of honesty to be valid?

field

One phrase from the Lambeth Palace statement leapt out for me - "The lecture, which was given in the Royal Courts of Justice and chaired by the Lord Chief Justice of England" Others were probably aware, I wasn't. Even more worrying. This was definitely a "softening up" exercise by the elite as far as I am concerned. My point would be that there is in REALITY a huge difference between official status for Jewish religious courts (or indeed, say, Sikh courts) and Islamic courts. Judaism is a small religion globally and most Jews are in any case well integrated into British society. Islam is a globalising, aggressive creed and most Muslims are poorly integrated into British society. Shariah can never regard itself as an appendix to another legal system: it is THE legal system for everyone on the planet potentially. However, and this is the point I make about the Beth Din courts, that reality cannot be reflected in legal principle. There is no way the law can discriminate against a global religion followed by over a billion people and two million in this country in that way. There is no way the law can say yes to Jewish religious courts and no to Islamic religious courts. It presents itself as an anomaly. This is why granting official status to the Beth Din courts, a foreign legal system completely alien to UK law, was a huge mistake, allowing a Trojan horse to be wheeled into the heart of our constitution. We need to "revisit" , as they say, that decision and de-recognise those courts. A Jewish couple can always go to a Rabbi or religious judge for mediation if they want - just as Muslims can go to an Imam. But there is no reason on earth why our law should recognise these religious courts in any way whatsoever.

Spencer de Vere

Judging by the photo, the archbishop is hirsutely qualified to move across to the Religion of Peace as soon as they offer him a sufficiently elevated position.

Robbins Mitchell

Even here in Houston,Tx,some of us are utterly appalled at the Archbishop's pronouncements...I take particular heed of such careless declarations as his because of a personal family history of theological forensic disputation....one of my maternal ancestors,Sir Thomas Richardson,was Archbishop Laud's famous opponent during the early Stuart period,when there was still a strong ecclesiastical court system in England and the immunity of clerics to jurisdiction of secular Crown Courts was jealously guarded by Archbishop Laud and his minions....to his credit,Sir Thomas,as a Crown Marshall,barrister,MP,and Lord Chief Justice,fought valiantly to end this system of dual court systems and,happy to say,the ecclesiastical courts went the way of the Dodo bird....for the current Archbishop to mindlessly suggest that their should be a return to that legalistic duality...even in the guise of Islamic civil bodies,would be a step backward for what we like to call 'English jurisprudence'...even here in Houston...so called 'Sharia' law in the UK is one misbegotten infant that must be strangled in its cradle

Louise

What a splendidly symbolic denouement to this sad and extraordinary affair that would be - Dr Nazir-Ali as the new Archbishop! To Dr Williams and all who would like to see sharia accepted in this country: heed the warnings and sufferings of such courageous and persecuted women as Taslim Nasrin and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Dr. Irene Lancaster

This analysis of correspondence on the subject from Lambeth Palace may be of interest: http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/02/the-next-round.html

YA

field - your suggestion to discriminate Jews in order to solve problems with Muslims is not only ridiculous, but also deeply unpleasant. Just another face of dhimmitude. But it is quite in line with "progressive" tradition, which implies that 1) well organized propaganda will always outweight common sense, and 2) cause and effect are the notions alien in the sphere of moral. As to your objection that "everybody is equal before the law" - I would advise again not to absolutize the law, as it is just an instrument for distributing inequality.

Robert Coates

'Douglas' and 'Howard': so stating that "one law for everybody is a bit of a danger" (and then 'forgetting' to justify it in the anonymous web-statement) is alright by you? And to criticise the irresponsibility of the archbishop's statement is 'bullying'? And that anyone who wishes to disagree with this dangerous talk is somehow a running dog of the Murdoch empire? Wake up!

Celia

field obviously has a problem with Jews by the number of times he/she feels justified in levering Sharia Courts because there is a Beth Din.Since Sikhs can be excused a crash helmet because they wera a turban does it mean the a Muslim woman wearing a Niqab (head covering with a slit) should be allowed to drive a car with restricted vision? The ABofC has acknowledged that Shariah Courts exist and no-one has actually objected. What he advoates is that their rulings be recognised as an alternative to UK Law. The rulings of the Beth Din have NO legal UK applicability and is only used by Orthodox Jews. In fact most Jews would say Ultra-Orthodox Jews and by that they would mean tiny communities in Stamford Hill, Golders Green/Edgeware and Manchester. The ABofC ASLO identifies acknowledgement of Shariah Courts as a way of making it easy for Muslims NOT to integrate so that they can have a parallel system of justice. That is contrary to stated Govt policy. Jews are already assimilated into UK society and are actually a major contributor to it. The same cannot yet be said of the Muslim community and so granting them official recognition of Shariah Courts has no parallel with the Beth Din. Your persistent ignorance of this point makes you demonstrate Antisemitic sentiment

Geoff Miller

If you want to see someone speaking the absolute truth about Islam then check this brave lady out. Williams (and many others) should take heed! http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=2WLoasfOLpQ

J. Isaacs

Does Dr. Nazir-Ali want the job? He has already received death threats and Archbishop of Canterbury is a well-known dead-end job, as Thomas Becket found out literally in Canterbury in 1170 and Thomas Cranmer discovered in Oxford in 1556, being burned at the stake in the city of dreaming spires, which now wants to broadcast the Islamic call to prayer to its residents.

Joshua

'But it is quite in line with "progressive" tradition,' -- I am afraid his views are in line with quite another tradition.

kate b

I don't find it odd that the archbishop's website is, let's not beat about the bush - lying, as tequiya (legal lying) is allowed in the Qur'an. In fact just do what 'Christian' Heraclius did in vol 1 of the Hadiths and have done and cross over to Islam, Sir. I don't have a problem with the Beth Din, they don't have anything in their Holy Book to convert or kill us; it's just not the same. #why bend over backwards for sharia when most muslims don't want it and have come to the uk to escape it? Unfortunately, they, by their own tenets are seen as kuffir. Also Jews are known in the Qur'an/hadith as pigs and apes - this little nation has survived the rise and fall of every empire known to man because of adherence to their God and Holy Book - a million little 'monkeys' can't be wrong.

Darren

The essential theme of the ABC's speech that needs to be punched home (and Melanie does that) is his statememnt that we need Shariah Courts in order to offer Muslims a way of justice so that they don't have the dilemma of divided loyalty between state and religion. Its a dilemma that doesn't apply to any other citizen of the UK. Since he has the backing of most mainstream Muslim organisations does that mean they accept they have this dilemma and welcome an escape clause?

phil

Field once again you write nonsense at great length-a little like TAB-perhaps it is to amuse us ,but dont give up your day job.Thankfully for you, you are in no danger in this country-free speech is still available and i,m sure we would both defend that ,but please try to leave out your incessant pronunciations about the Jews of which you seem to know little -perhaps you could get an interview at the Beth Din and find out what that body actually does or is able to do and then we can put an end to this ceaseless diatribe -as they say i would defend your right to say what you like ,but i am really pretty fed up with it -try another subject as you write quite well ,but be careful which law applies and remember salmans mistake ,or was the whole thing a taqqiyah

Ravi

I read that the UK Judges are to rule whether a Shariah marriage arranged outside the UK, but to a UK citizen who is a man with learning disabilities is recognised under UK Law as a marriage. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/10/religion.law2. I find this unbelievable. It would seem that someone is taking advantage of us and a mentally disabled man just to legitimise a marriage so the wife can come to Britain. STOP THIS!!!

maggie

is dr. williams a marxist?

field

I think it is very sad that sticking up for a secular or unified approach to law draws ridiculous allegations of anti-semitism. It is a deeply unpleasant form of debate - and a very unconvincing one, particularly when applied to me. It shows a complete lack of moral scruple and a shallowness of intellect on the part of those who deploy such baseless accusations. It is contemptible. Anyway, to respond to the critics and reinforce the points I am making:- 1. I am an expert on British law. I'm subject to thousands of British laws in my daily life. Hence I am an expert on it like every other British citizen. I have every right to comment on it and to express whether I want the courts of particular religions to be granted official status under our law. 2. I am fully aware that the Beth Din courts are used only by a (probably quite small) minority of British Jews. I think that is an argument against official status, not for. I think the vast majority of Jews are not particularly bothered one way or the other. Most Jews are not particularly religious. For those who are observant, their religion informs their private life and that is enough - they're unlikely to find themselves in teh divorce courts for a start! It is only a small minority of Jews who seek official recognition for the courts. 3. I have never shrunk from criticising Islam and I have put myself at personal risk by doing so, as anybody who makes such criticisms (including Melanie) knows. 4. As far as I am aware, apart from Anglican courts, my understanding is that it is only the Beth Din courts that enjoy any sort of official status of this kind. That is why I am focussed on them and why I am calling for them to be de-recognised - because they are like a Trojan Horse which has been wheeled into the heart of our constitution and which is going to let in Shariah. I would like a review of the Anglican courts as well, but because the Anglican Church is the established church, it is a slightly different issue - it doesn't provide a template for Shariah. If any other courts - Hindu, Buddhist or Sikh are recognised, I want their official status withdrawn as well. I support Israel and value the contribution of Jews and their culture to civilisation. But my outlook is not "Judeo-Christian" it is "Greco-rational" if anything. I have every right to put forward my views without being vilified as anti-semitic because I don't want officially recognised religious courts.

sunnybrookg

There's too many "liberals" in the positions that make them dangerous to society. I suggest reading the Bible, especially if you represent the clergy. The folly of idiots in power is no longer laughable

sebastian

"An approach to law which simply said - there's one law for everybody - I think that's a bit of a danger." Actually, Dr Williams, I think that's a bit of a safeguard. I can't think of anything that muslims couldn't adequately settle under English law. I can imagine some sharia provisions that might breach English law. Given this, tell me why and how sharia isn't superfluous; or possibly illegal in some respects. But this isn't really about justice is it? It's more about appeasing muslim discontent, isn't it? But we're all so heartily sick of listening to muslim grievances and complaints and of seeing how concessions never appear to diminish them, that I think we're neither in the mood for more, nor much attracted by the legal anarchy and national disintegration that a rich and vibrant multicultural tapestry of colourful and culturally sensitive legal options would bring. So..........one legal system - the one we have; the one that treats men and women as equal before it; the one that upholds freedom of conscience; the one that would protect the rights of teenage muslim girls facing forced marriages; the one that has women judges and a Statue of Justice that's majestically all female - and no Rowan Williams as Archbishop.

Ravi

field, you say that the Beth Din has an 'official status' what does that mean? Why do you hide behind this vague phrase in order to justify why you suddenly want to remove the Beth Din after being in the UK for over 100 years and causing no problem?

Michael

You often read that this and that percentage of British Muslims are in favour of one thing or another. Are these figures ever broken down by ethnic groups?

For instance, 40% of British Muslims favour the imposition of Sharia law and 40% of British Muslims are Pakistanis. Are they the same people?

If they are, then we have a much smaller problem.

Ravi

Given that the UK Govt. states there is no other law than British Law, and given field's apparent disdain about allowing Jewish Law (Beth Din) isn't interesting that there are so many lawmakers and politicians who are Jewish? This indicates that the law that field seems to think incompatible (all of a sudden) is actually supported and refined by so many Jews and it affects us all. And an interesting fact will be that the marriages of these Jews parents and their own will have been governed by the Beth Din in sanctioning Jewish Marriage. Stop digging field.

field

Ravi asks the following:- "field, you say that the Beth Din has an 'official status' what does that mean? Why do you hide behind this vague phrase in order to justify why you suddenly want to remove the Beth Din after being in the UK for over 100 years and causing no problem?" My answer it as follows: It is not a vague phrase. As I understand it UK statutes SPECIFICALLY refer to Beth Din courts as being competent to decide on a divorce settlement where a couple accept their jurisdiction. This is what I mean by official recognition or official status. As I understand it (happy to be corrected) the only other religious courts which enjoy similar official recognition in England are Anglican Church courts. Now, I understand that people can make a reasonable argument for Beth Din courts to have such official recognition. But my point is that in doing so it is very difficult to deny official recognition to Shariah courts for similar purposes. You can't use arguments like "there are lots more Jewish nobel prize winners", "Jews make better British citizens than Muslims" or "Jews tend to be better integrated than Muslims" when trying to stop Shariah courts. Or rather you can, but you will appear ridiculous and prejudiced. Certainly those sorts of arguments are going to play badly with judges (and there are going to be more and more Muslim judges in a few years' time, don't forget). I am saying that for those of us interested in defending secularism rather than advancing Judaism it is a bad defensive position, which can easily be overrun by the enemy.

YA

field - least I secluar Jew want to promote Judaism. But you try to make points by giving up not your privileged rights but the rights of people who are the minority with very tragic history of persecution, and who are in the bitter fight with the same enemy (you use correct word), people from neighboring trench - just becasue you don't like what? shape of their noses? Again - relevance of Jewish subject was suggested for this debate by ARC who is not only deceptive but also mean, and as a mob puppet master he knows all about importance of anti-semitic strings. You are helping him to succeed in this meanness.

bill

Archbishop Rowan, Sir, Excellency, might you possibly consider giving up Islam for Lent? And, converting to Christianity? And, praying for those Churches attacked by Moslems?

JJSpader

Ravi, the person called field just talks. It doesn't bother him that he doesn't know what he is saying -- he has a right to talk and he exercises it! Let him. You have a right not to listen to ill-informed nonsense, so don't! (His being an "expert" in Britsh law -- by virtue of living here -- just about sums up his authority and level of knowledge.) He has absolutely no idea about the function, purpose, remit, or anything else about the Beth Din, yet persists in parading his ignorance. So leave him be. What I find interesting is that he also persists in his anonymity. Now there's someone with the courage of their convictions!!

Ravi

field, you indicate that you are only guessing when you said "phrase. As I understand it UK statutes SPECIFICALLY refer to Beth Din courts as being competent to decide on a divorce settlement where a couple accept their jurisdiction." There is NO legal statute wherby UK Law recognises that the Beth Din is in any way competent to detrmine the merits of divorce. You are 100% wrong. The ONLY legality to determine whether a divorce can be granted is UK Law. If you aren't divorced under UK law then you aren't divorced. There is nothing wrong with teh statement "UK Jews are better integrated than UK Muslims" since it is evidentially true. We don't have daily news about the demands of Jews or any Government funding to help Jewish communities to better integrate.

Dave

This Youtube vid by Pat Condell hits all the points concerning the brewha caused by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams latest comments about Sharia law in Britain.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mM2dC1iWzww

He maybe a devout atheist but he will definitely not submit to the "Religion of Peace".

Wolla Dalbo

Sometimes the old ways are best. Traitor's Gate still works doesn't it? Or perhaps a pillory or even a stake set up in front of Lambeth Palace might prove useful in instructing an "Archbishop" who is so unsure of the history and utility of Christianity and the benefits of English law.

Fasternu426

When they venture into Stoning for marital infidelity, chopping hands off for stealing, Beatings for exposed hair, Female genital mutilation, beheading infidels, etc... will he still smilingly accept Sharia law? Or just convert?

Pamela Atherton

Well done Melanie. Bang on target as always. They should make you Prime Minister and, as you suggest, Dr Michael Nazir Ali, Archbishop of Canterbury and perhaps we would have some sense knocked into the Muslims of Britain who do nothing but moan about their life here. If they want Sharia law, they should go and live in one of the many Islamic countries which practise it.

Gordon Neil

Melanie et al ..Small point of interest - Somewhere amongst the plethora of articles covering and reacting to the Archbishop's lecture, I came across the suggestion that this lecture is not a simple one off exercise and it is (was) merely the opening contribution to a series of such lectures to our assembled lawyers on the topic of Islam and The Law. Firstly does anyone know Is this true ? If it is, who is driving the initiative, who else is lined up to speak and who is funding it ?

A. Magyar

The reason for bringing in the Beth Sin is not an accident. Looking through discussions on pages like the pro Islamist Guardian would tell you that at any time and any place Muslims are criticized and their ambitions exposed, the Jews are brought up as an excuse and a false comparison. Islamophobia = Nazism, Israel = Germany and with this debate, the same, alleging that this is just like what the Jews want and got and opposing it would look hypocritical and Jews better stay quiet despite them being brought into this debate.... It is calculated and nobody should assume this to be a mere laps of knowledge or ignorance. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2255088,00.html

Louise

While taking heart from Gordon Brown's rebuff to Dr Williams, in which Brown stresses that there can be only one set of laws in this country, laws based on British tradition and values, there is an obvious anomaly. Last week the Home Office confirmed that although polygamy is illegal in this country, Muslim men contracting polygamous marriages overseas will be able quite legally to maintain their polygamous households here and continue to receive support payments for their wives - all at the taxpayer's expense. So there is in effect one law for the rest of us, and one for Muslim polygamists. Not only is polygamy insulting to the dignity and status of women, but the numerous children resulting from a multiplicity of wives bodes ill for this country in the future. Will it be so easy to rebuff calls such as Williams's then? Indeed, will we have a choice any more? It's high time our political masters addressed this issue and its implications.

Ethan

Let us speak bluntly here. There is a power struggle going on within British society. That struggle is for dominance of the public cultural, spiritual space.

The Archbishop of Canterbury and others of the liberal elite have long since given up on themselves. It now appears that they look to Islam to provide the spiritual and cultural convictions that they themselves worked so hard over so many years to undermine. They have conceded that space to Islam over the heads of the British people.

It is up to us, the British people, to boldly assert our dominance over that public cultural and spiritual space. If we are not prepared to do that then we are doomed. There are times, ladies and gentlemen, when you really do have to get up off your knees and start fighting.

Sempronius

Alas, I think Michael Nazir-Ali, a brave man though he is, has blown his chances thanks to the furore over his own recent comments. There is however another brave man who could and should get the chance to do the job: John Sentamu, Archbishop of York.

Verity

I agree with Magyar. On all the threads on all the blogs that I have read this weekend that address the problem of the Archbishop of Canterbury, trolls soon come flying in quoting, "Beth Din, Beth Din". Clearly there is an intention here to conflate the two and lessen the hazardous nature of what the Archbishop of Canterbury was clearly promoting. Lucinda Harper is correct when she notes that it serves to obscure the issue. My guess is, the political and religious fifth columnists will fear to proceed now for quite some considerable time, during which we will be strengthened by having observed the depth of the outcry among our fellow citizens. I would like to see the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, replace Rowan Williams, stat. If not York, then the Bishop of Rochester, both of whom are under no illusions about the pacific nature of islam.

Sounder

You are being swallowed slowly but whole. God help the UK.

jerry

A major purpose of law is to provide expectations for the resolution of disputes. Another purpose is to provide a framework for working out unintended consequences of this law or that. Rowen has sold out both purposes by failing to make distinctions between legal outcomes. Today's news cites 17,000 cases in the UK during the previous calendar year of honor punishments among the Muslim community. In the future under Rowen what will an English court do in the face of honor killings for alleged adultery? Will it exonerate the murderer on the basis of "this is how these folk do it"?

Philip Saenz

The man is insane, a mad doctor. So why don't you leave him alone? We have them too in America. Haven't you heard of Jimmy Dhimmi Carter?

Sean

Dim. He's not a leader. He's also not a man. If he was a man he would have resigned by now. He's not to be trusted from now on.

D. Bowen

My current favourite statement in defence of Britain and western civilization is: "We will have no truce or parley with you, or the grisly gang who work your wicked will. You do your worst - and we will do our best"

Anne Mansfield

I agree with all that Mrs Phillips says. However, I do remember her Spectator cover article, blood laden (nopunintd) RC was the picture that accompanied the piece, of some years ago when she attacked the Catholics with vigour. I wrote her then about that but had no answer. I hope she has changed her mind, as one does, because we are in many ways on the same side.

CJ

Any Church leader who becomes a Druid should get the boot. He is an Archbishop for G*d's sake, he has no clue about Christianity. He has broken the 1st Commandment.

field

Ravi: I don't think you're right. This from Wikipedia: "The present rules [relating to Beth Din courts]derive from the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act 2002 (as implemented by the Family Proceedings (Amendment) Rules 2003), which applies if a decree nisi has been granted but not made absolute and the parties: (a) were married in accordance with: (i) any other prescribed religious usages; and (b) must co-operate if the marriage is to be dissolved in accordance with those usages. On the application of either party, if the court is satisfied that in all the circumstances of the case it is just and reasonable to do so, it may order that the decree nisi is not made absolute until a declaration made by both parties that they have taken such steps as are required to dissolve the marriage in accordance with those usages is produced to the court." This is even more worrisome than I thought, since it doesn't actually require both parties to agree before the case is referred to the Beth Din court. I don't see how this can be described as official recognition of or official status for the religious courts. I'll maybe have a look at the Act. It sounds like it might have scope for extension to other religions built in.

field

Here is an extract from the Act: "This section applies if a decree of divorce has been granted but not made absolute and the parties to the marriage concerned— (a) were married in accordance with— (i) the usages of the Jews, or (ii) any other prescribed religious usages; and (b) must co-operate if the marriage is to be dissolved in accordance with those usages. (2) On the application of either party, the court may order that a decree of divorce is not to be made absolute until a declaration made by both parties that they have taken such steps as are required to dissolve the marriage in accordance with those usages is produced to the court. " Seems clear to me that this Act would actually already allow extension to Shariah if the courts wished to go down that road. It appears, as far as I can tell that so far the Act has only been used with respect to the Beth Din courts. Perhaps that was the purpose of the meeting at the Royal Courts of Justice before the Lord Chief Justice. How better to pave the way for introducing Shariah into English law than have the Archbishop give it his moral imprimatur? If the ABofC is in favour, how can it be wrong. I don't see how any of my critics, reading this Act, can now deny that there is an intimate connection between granting official status to Jewish courts and possibly extending this to Shariah courts. The Act itself makes plain the connection. It's quite scandalous as far as I am concerned. According to this law someone who marries as a Jew and then becomes an apostate can still be forced to divorce according to Jewish law.

guinsPen

Oh well, I hear there's an opening at St. Looney-up-the-Cream-Bun-and-Jam.

George Steiner

I am not an expert on British Law nor on the Beth Din. As some of you fellows claim to be. But I have a modest proposal. Why not get your Jewish problem out of the way first. By acknowledging that the Jews have so to speak squatter's rights. They have been with you for a long long time. Even the field fellow acknowledges that they have made a major contibution. And that without having read Abba Eban's "The Jews and Civilisation", which goes back a litte further than 200 years. Then why not say to your Muslims, "look chaps, you are relative newcommers to this country, so we will put all questions relating to Sharia away for a 100 years or so. See how you turn out. If you do well, we will talk again then."

field

For some reason my post appears twice. But it is the second post which has the accurate quotation from the Act. The rest of my comments depend on the accurate quotation so please ignore the first post. No idea why this appears in two forms. Nothing to do with me.

Dave Surls

"Even here in Houston,Tx,some of us are utterly appalled at the Archbishop's pronouncements..." Out here in California, we're so used to the vapid nonsense that regularly issues from Rowan Williams' mouth, that we're relatively unmoved by his latest idiocy.

M. Weiss

Bravo Melanie Phillips for stating the facts and doing a brilliant forensic analysis of the bumbling bishop's contorted remarks!

Sergey

This is a perfect case of treason of clerics. When the ruling class and political institutions abandon their constituency in so crass and arrogant way, the most probable reaction is creating of vigilance commitees, and this promises to Muslims nothing good. Everybody can forsee now rivers of blood, so wisely prescienced by Enoch Powell decades ago.

john

"Native American communities in Canada". As in the US, these legal systems have no writ outside the Reservation territories. Is the Archbishop suggesting that Muslims should be ghettoised in the UK?

Ravi

Well field, you are good at cut & paste but not smart enough to read an understand what you pasted. Here is the essence "On the application of either party, the court may order that a decree of divorce is not to be made absolute until a declaration made by both parties that they have taken such steps as are required to dissolve the marriage in accordance with those usages is produced to the court" (You will note that this ALSO applies to Muslim marriages). Since a Jewish divorce cannot take place until a civil divorce is granted (decree nisis) then its Jewish Law that is subservient to UK Law. Then a Jeiwsh divorce may be granted IF either party requires it. A decree absolute will be granted unless ONE party objects and then the court MAY ask that both parties confirm their commitment to obtaining a Jewish divorce. The word "MAY" is not the word "WILL". Why don't you stop trolling? Further, both parties only have to state that they have taken these steps if ONE party has objected. You lost this point so many times already.

Roland

I must say I agree completely with +Rowan here. I actually read his speech and listened to the BBC interview. Taken in context, he simply did not say what the headlines accuse him of saying. His point was that the legal system should make a reasonable effort to accommodate the reasonable religious convictions and practices of religious citizens. I don't see how Christians in an increasingly secular Britain could disagree with this. I'm sure the militant secularists are amused to see Christians doing their dirty work for them, arguing in favor of a uniformly secular legal system. Meanwhile, this torrent of criticism is clearly not just a reaction to +Rowan's remarks on Sharia. Everyone who already hates him for whatever reason is taking this opportunity to whip up hysteria against him and piling on in an effort to bring him down. God save us from mob rule!

Lynne T

field: we had Beit Dins and Catholic family mediations in Ontario, Canada under the provincial Alternate Disputes Resolution legislation for over a decade, until, in response to lobbying by some reactionary Muslim organizations, the provincial government agreed to include Sharia courts under that legislation as well. This proposal brought out a much larger number of Muslims, primarily female exiles from Khomeini's Iran, out in protest. Consequently, the provincial government felt compelled to terminate the limited recognization the Beit Dins and Catholic family mediation units had under the ADR legislation, although no complaints had been made regarding either. I cannot speak to consequences for the Catholic family courts, but the Beit Dins had been very helpful in getting cooperation from recalcitrant Orthodox men who were denying their ex-wives "ghets" the document the wives require to remarry within the faith. These women now are left to pursue the matter in Ontario's civil court system at considerably greater expense and much longer time requirements. It's very nice for you as a secular Jew to make the "damn them all" pronunciations as you do, but all this does is establish you as a moral equivalencer. And while Beit Dins don't operate in direct conflict with British law, according to Sir Martin Gilbert, Jewish lawyers made a rather substantial contribution to the reshaping of British law by making criminal guilt or civil liability a matter of evidence as opposed to "trial by ordeal" determinations of culpability. As for the various writers who wish that Michael Nazer-Ali was made the next ABC, the biggest obstacles to this would be the Anglican Church hierarchy that endorsed Rowan Williams, and the government of the day. Such appointment, however, would come very close to life imitating art in that in an episode of that wonderful TV series "Yes, Prime Minister", the likeliest candidate for bishop of some lesser degree was a Muslim because at least he believed in God. Nazer-Ali is, of course a convert to Anglicanism, but unlike Rowan Williams, Nazir-Ali believes in Anglicanism.

Peter

It is not the Archbishop of Canterbury's business proposing legal rights to other religions.This is a political m,if the AoC puts his head over the parapet on political matter he should expect a response.
The man cannot speak ex-cathedra on secular concerns without justifying what he says in public.As clergyman his views are no more informed than the layman's view.

USBeast

Brickbats at the ready my beloved Britons. A lowly Yank is going quote Kipling at ya. My Father's Chair There are four good legs to my Father's Chair-- Priests and People and Lords and Crown. I sits on all of 'em fair and square, And that is reason it don't break down. I won't trust one leg, nor two, nor three, To carry my weight when I sets me down. I wants all four of 'em under me-- Priests and People and Lords and Crown. I sits on all four and favours none-- Priests, nor People, nor Lords, nor Crown: And I never tilts in my chair, my son, And that is the reason it don't break down. When your time comes to sit in my Chair, Remember your Father's habits and rules, Sit on all four legs, fair and square, And never be tempted by one-legged stools! It would seem that at least one of the legs of your father's chair is infested with termites. I'd look after if I were you. This sort of thing can only get worse.

JJS

Lynn T - what makes you think 'field' is Jewish?

field

Field's a great name for annoying people on this sort of subject. They're never quite sure. Anyway, to accuse me of moral equivalence is absurd. I've always believed some religions (or sects within religions) are better than others, just as some political ideologies are better than others. It's pretty clear to me that Quakerism is preferable to Wahaabism and Wahaabism is preferable to Nazism. I have no time for moral equivalence. I can see the moral differences between Judaism and Islam, as taught and as practised. However, I can also see (in terms of this debate) how the one might provide cover for the other to advance, which is no reflection on Judaism per se but is a reflection on what sort of society I want to live in.

Peter

It has been a fascinating journey for this Anglican, first trying to divine [ !] what the titular head of my church actually meant by his argument for sharia law, and secondly enjoying Melanie's response. My thoughts are these: Christians of my particular brand of belief: [ reformed, evangelical, orthodox ] struggle with Rowan William's doctrine. For those of you who are not Christian, [ and I should imagine that is the majority of the Spectator's readership ], please understand that the Archbishop of Canterbury does NOT speak on behalf of the vast number of Anglicans around the world who believe, and LIVE, a far more robust and healthy Christianity than he professes. There is a great sadness among many Anglicans that their wonderful heritage has come to this. Even the atheists, agnostics, secular humanists who make up the huge majority of English people today, must sense something of this loss. You can understand the confusion, perhaps quiet contempt that Muslims have for the so-called 'christian west' they hear about. If I was a good professing Muslim, I too would ask: 'Where is this so-called Christian West and why is there so much fuss about sharia when they care nothing for their own religion.' I accept the teachings of Islam; which are that Mohammed is to be acknowledged in every land as the one true prophet. I am a distant observer in Australia, but I visit England enough to see the decline into the wishy-washy pluralism that the Archbishop of Canterbury so aptly argues. Rowan Williams is a wake-up call to thoughtful Englishmen and women. It is your Christian heritage that is at stake.