The Archbishop of Cant

Chingford Man

Beardy's problem is not his "lack of clarity", as such. His prose might be literary treacle, but most people can find a way through even the most turgid lecture. No, it's perfectly clear what he meant: that equality before the law ain't good enough any longer. He hasn't actually changed his position.

Max Kaye

Better back-peddling can only be seen in a three ring circus. He claimed responsibility for any 'unclarity' and then proceeded to further muddy the waters. Thank goodness I'm not a Christian: I'd be tearing me hair out in frustration.

If this is clarification then I am

Chuck Unsworth

The Archbishop is being disingenuous, as is his custom. The fact is that he should be taking full responsibility not only for the 'unclarity' (does this word actually exist outside of Lambeth Palace?), but for the entire furore. It was his ill-considered words and actions which led directly to this shambles. He should have known and done so much better.

Faceless Bureaucrat

Enough Already!! - if Rowan 'Atkinson' Williams was just a bumptious old fool, then we could all ignore his mindless utterances - but he is not. That a supposedly intelligent individual (and leader of the Anglican Church no-less) can spout such inflamatory guff and then be surprised at the response it elicits is in serious need of therapy. He must go and go quickly, either voluntary or if neccessary, the Synod must take decisive action and remove him (although don't hold your breath on the latter option). If the Synod has any balls at all (or for that matter, any interest in saving the Anglican Church from its near-terminal decline) they should seriously consider replacing Williams with Dr. John Sentamu. If not, any remaining Anglicans may as well pack their bags and head for Rome...

Perry

Another timely warning to beware, - and avoid, - the waffling liberal ‘academic’ ‘intellectual’ out-of-touch elite that do, and have done, so much harm to this land.

Kevin

I still can't see how you can consistently argue, as a liberal, against two consenting adults submitting their dispute to arbitration by, for example, a sharia court. You can only do this if you assert that there is a higher objective truth, the violation of which is not excusable by the principle of consent. What is that truth, and how do you propose to demonstrate it? How, in other words, do you justify imposing “d'Anconaism” on British subjects in a manner that does not commit a fallacy of reasoning such as appeal to custom or appeal to majority opinion?

RC

The man's nuts.

rita guigon

Academics tend to play with ideas the way I might play with chess pieces on a board. They can say stupid things in convoluted language giving the impression that their thoughts are deeply considered and intelligent. I have tried to "tease" out the substance from Mr. Rowan's sayings and all I can discern are snarls and tangles, not made any more clear by his attempts to clarify them. If the man has muddy thoughts it is no wonder that his attempts to make them clear to the rest of us are failing. Custom and culture will continue to operate among various groups whether Mr. Rowan gives his rather confused blessing or not. But laws should apply to all in the same way. To introduce Sharia in however diluted or benign a form, is bound to be oppressive to women who might be coerced into giving up their choice to seek their rights under British law. I am not surprised that a cleric is blind to the fact that his views (and his lofty motives of accommodation) can contribute to the oppression of women who so desperately need to be liberated from medieval forms of control. Very often, so-called humanitarians and religious leaders are more focused on debate than on people. Down with all the clerics.

Annabelle

He reminds me of those religious intellectual types who visited the Soviet Union in the 20s/30s and came back telling us what a paradise it was. Impervious to reality.

Paul Moon

Instead of Anglicans cringing and facing more derision at the latest muddled musings of their leader, the easiest option for them would be to leave the Church and join, say, the Congregationalists. There, they would have no single person speaking on their behalf, no divisions on matters of public policy, and would be free to worship as their consciences guided them.

David

What interests me is that support for the Archbishop has come from sources, like the Guardian, that utterly condemned the idea that Catholic adoption agencies should be exempt from the laws regarding discrimination.

Trumpeter Lanfried

The language is convoluted, to no purpose. Why say, "An honest discussion of the Islamic doctrine of apostasy is imperative" [11 words, passive voice] when he means "We need to discuss the Islamic doctrine of apostacy." [9 words, active voice.] Of course, once you simplify the language the poverty of thought becomes apparent. What useful purpose would be served by any such discussion? You might as well "discuss" the vital statistics of the 72 virgins who await martyrs in heaven.

Fergus Pickering

Surely most of the intellectuals who were fooled by Stalin were anti-religious lefties. Bernard Shaw springs to mind.

Simon Allen

Kevin "... can't see how you can consistently argue... ..against two consenting adults submitting their dispute to arbitration by a sharia court." The answer is that females living in Muslim communities have no consent, any more than they consent to forced arranged marriages. The problem with English liberals is that they don't appear to believe in anything anymore, least of all equality or freedom.

Verity

Kevin - "against two consenting adults" ... Reality check here. In sharia, where a man and a woman are involved, there is no such thing as "two consenting adults". The islamic ladies of Ontario moved heaven and earth, put their shoulders to the wheel, put their money where their mouth is, fought tooth and nail, etc, to stop this abomination being made legal in Ontario. They won. And all power to those gals. Rita Guigon's post hit the nail on the head. Annabelle, too, got it right. Williams is pleased with his stance as a cultural cringer. He seems to think that his own culture isn't worth saving. And frankly, Rowan, if you're it, the beard, the hair, the too-much-time-sitting-down belly ... you're right. A haircut and a radical shave wouldn't go amiss if you hope to find a berth in the private sector. As Trumpeter says: "The language is convoluted, to no purpose." I hope we will welcome a man with crystal clarity of thought, an observant mind and the power of lucid and kindly expression of faith in the person of Dr John Sentamu as the new Canterbury.

Verity

Trumpeter - I agree with you about the sly confusion of the active and passive voice. It infests the left and its use proves, were proof needed, that Rowan Williams is a creature of the left - not Western civilisation.

Robert

Once you cut through the left leaning liberal intellectual guff it comes down to one thing. Britain and it's subjects have a system of Common Laws, Common being the operative word. It applies to everyone equally without exception. Therefore there will never be a place for Sharia or any other form of courts. To suggest otherwise, however you dress it up in liberal speak, is just pandering to the small Islamic minority. The same minority who should be told, if they object to the British way of life and British laws then they should pack up and leave. There are plenty of countries around the world that practice Sharia, Afganistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia spring to mind, all shining examples of the benifits of Sharia. Williams and the Anglican Church was an irrelevance before his ridiculous speach so nothing has changed.

David

So the Archbishop gets a standing ovation from the synod, and apologises for his "unclarity". Is this a case of being ecumenical with the truth?

C Powell

Kevin: It's not just women who are disadvantaged under Sharia courts but all Muslims because how can one have meaningful consent to religious laws where that religion prescribes death for apostasy? We value freedom of conscience and religion in the West: that means the freedom to practise one's religion but also the freedom to leave it. That freedom cannot properly be exercised if someone choosing not to be a Muslim is faced with death threats, as happens in this country. See for instance the case of the imam's daughter who converted to Christianity and is having to live in hiding. The Archbishop's naivety about the religion whose "laws" he seeks to incorporate is breathtaking.

Frank Pulley

David (9.01am): Bwaahahahahahaaa! Pun of the Year - so far!

Roger Clague

The Imam of Cantabury trying to clarify his earlier remarks said, 'it is not unapproprate.... He could have avoided the double negative and said appropriate. Or even better, ' in my opinion.'

Verity

David 9:01 - V good!

Haroon

By saying that “honest discussion of this was imperative”, I would hope that the Archbishop is alluding to the realistic prospect of making Islamic scholars realise that many aspects of Islamic Law need changing. Let's take the most detestable feature of traditional Islamic Law, the death penalty for apostasy. There was never unanimous support for this, and the opposition to it among Islamic legal scholrs has been growing. This sort of gentle pressure from Rowan Williams is a much more constructive way of making Muslims get their house in order than the alienating behaviour of some of his colleagues.

Verity

Haroon, if you think "islamic scholars" have the tiniest scintilla of interest in the aperçus of the head of the CoE, a church whose attendance worldwide is melting away under his stewardship, I think you underestimate the security of their conviction. Surely you must realise that Islam is not a collegiate religion?

David

Thanks to Frank and Verity. FWIW my reflections on the archbishop blogged here: http://tinyurl.com/2y2e8x

Chingford Man

Only just over 2 months until the 40th anniversary of Rivers of Blood. I wonder how Old Enoch would have shredded the Bish. What did he warn about? Was it communalism perchance?

Salome

Kevin, as far as I understand it 'two consenting adults' already can mutually agree to have a dispute dealt with by alternative dispute resolution according to the principles of Sharia. Other comments above indicate that there may be questions as to consent in such cases, and these would put the Sharia-mode dispute resolution outside the bounds of what is permitted.

Kevin

(Got lost in the post? Second attempt...) Simon, Verity and C Powell: As a matter of free-will, it is strictly possible to consent to anything; however, I too believe that consent can be misapplied as a principle, where a higher value is involved. C Powell mentions the impossibility of consent to one's own killing, yet it's worth noting what Parliament has achieved in this regard, without assistance from a foreign culture. If one reads the explanatory notes to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, prepared by the Departments of Constitutional Affairs and Health, one sees the following in para.14 (emphases added): “A donee of [a lasting power of attorney - “LPA”] can be given power to refuse to give consent to life-sustaining treatment on behalf of the donor [when the latter becomes mentally incapacitated].... The donor's [Convention on Human Rights] Article 2 [right to LIFE] and Article 3 [freedom from TORTURE] rights COULD BE ENGAGED. A person can also make an advance decision to refuse treatment [i.e., in the event of his becoming mentally incapacitated], including life-sustaining treatment. Section 25(5) provides that an advance decision will not apply to any treatment necessary to sustain life UNLESS THE ADVANCE DECISION IS IN WRITING.... Further, there must be a statement that the decision stands EVEN IF LIFE IS AT RISK.... Sections 6(7) and 26(5) provide that action can be taken to preserve LIFE or prevent SERIOUS DETERIORATION [in the person's condition] WHILE the court resolves any dispute or difficulty. These provisions are designed to protect a person's Article 2 and 3 rights, WHILE ALSO DISCHARGING THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT THE...[PRIVATE LIFE] RIGHTS of those who CHOOSE to give powers to a donee under an LPA or to make an advance decision”. It seems pretty clear to me that, mutatis mutandis, this kind of political chicanery could be used to facilitate the introduction of sharia into Britain.

Haroon

Verity, external factors have a big part to play on the debates going on within the field of Islamic law. After all, ones conviction about something depends largely on ones ability to explain it in a satisfactory manner to others. There are some Muslim specialists in Islamic law who object to its more primitive features and don’t see them as an intrinsic part of the faith. Alongside these, there are many scholars who are deeply uncomfortable with the harsh punishments and the marginalisation of women but have so far avoided addressing them properly. This is because, when having to explain themselves, it has usually been to people who are either ignorant (so not much explaining is required) or antagonistic (so there is no effort to work things out and people just start scoring debating points to please their own supporters). If there were more people like Rowan Williams, who recognise the problems but are willing to talk things through in a calm manner, the apologists for Islamic law would have to face up to the issues and work things out properly. And I would add that membership numbers are not a reliable indicator of whether someone is doing God’s work!

C Powell

Kevin: I did not say what you claim I did. My point was that a religion which uses violence - or the threat of it - coupled with a cultural background where particular groups are seen as second class (women for instance) is not one on which we - let alone someone as allegedly learned as the Archbishop - need place any value. Nor is the concept of consent really meaningful in such a context, especially not where sharia claims domination over all Muslims and all aspects of their life, irrespective of whether anyone wants it or not. The Archbishop seems to be completely unaware of this. Perhaps he should have talked to some of his fellow Bishops in Africa or the Middle East who might have enlightened him on what sharia law really means. The Archbishop has had nothing to say about the persecution of Christians by Muslims, the treatment of those who choose to convert from Islam, the treatment of women under Islam, the hatred spouted against other religions - Christians and Jews particularly - by Islamic preachers. Why? Why has he felt obliged to appease the most fundamentalist group within the Muslim community? Does it not worry him that the only group openly supporting him is Hizbut Ul Tahir: a group described by others as the "antechamber to terrorism". (Or read what Ed Husain has to say about them?) He's a fool but a dangerous one and it is up to us to make sure that these pernicious ideas do not spread any further.

Haroon

• External factors have a big part to play on the debates going on within the field of Islamic law. After all, ones conviction about something depends largely on ones ability to explain it in a satisfactory manner to others. There are some Muslim specialists in Islamic law who object to its more primitive features and don’t see them as an intrinsic part of the faith. Alongside these, there are many scholars who are deeply uncomfortable with the harsh punishments and the marginalisation of women but have so far avoided addressing them properly. This is because, when having to explain themselves, it has usually been to people who are either ignorant (so not much explaining is required) or antagonistic (so there is no effort to work things out and people just start scoring debating points to please their own supporters). If there were more people like Rowan Williams, who recognise the problems but are willing to talk things through in a calm manner, the apologists for Islamic law would have to face up to the issues and work things out properly. And I would add that attendance figures are not a reliable indicator of whether someone is doing God’s work!

mike in TN

doesn't the loss of equal application of the law mean the end of citizenship and freedom

Drusilla

One of the genuine surprises of this 'debate' has been how little confidence you secularist liberals seem to have in the robustness of your belief system. Do you really imagine that, if we were to have even more parallel arbitration systems than we already do have, including perhaps a few more faith-based ones, that the secularising, liberal order here would simply roll over and die? If so, that's awfully revealing - especially in contrast with the Archbishop of Canterbury's evident confidence in the resilience and God-given strength of his particular strand of Christian culture. And if not, why on earth are you making such a fuss?

Richard Walker

His profoundly foolish statement discredits the Church of England, encourages extremists and endangers lives of Christians worldwide. That he remains shamelessly unrepentant and suggest that didn’t quite mean (through unclarity) what he actually said, reflects his unfitness for any job requiring commonsense or trust. The Queen should encourage him to resign from his present role and recommend that the Prime Minister doesn’t dither over replacing him quickly with a man of competence, charm and clear belief. There are some excellent candidates. York, Rochester and London come to mind.

Max Kaye

Drusilla, Is the ABC's "confidence in the resilience and God-given strength of his particular strand of Christian culture" the same as, say, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's 'confidence in the resilience and God-given strength of his particular strand of Islamic culture'? Or is that a different God? They both seem very confident. Can they both be right?

Nick Kaplan

The Archbishop claims that it is inevitable and necessary that we introduce some form of Islamic law in Britain. If we look at the reason why this might be, it is only because left leaning 'intellectuals' such as the Archbishop (although his intellect in this regard is highly questionable) have propagated the ridiculous idea of multiculturalism for the last 20 years. If we had not been telling communities how terrible it would be for them to integrate and accept British culture and values, we would have no need for the Archbishops proposals. Now he feels he must make comments to try and rectify the damage he, and those like him, have done, but as usual his approach is completely backward and would only make matters worse. If we recognize the ‘need’ for Islamic law in some small way it is hard to see how we could stop a slow encroachment of further powers to Sharia courts until we do have the parallel legal system the Archbishop claims he wants to avoid.

Nick Kaplan

The Archbishop claims that it is inevitable and necessary that we introduce some form of Islamic law in Britain. If we look at the reason why this might be, it is only because left leaning 'intellectuals' such as the Archbishop (although his intellect in this regard is highly questionable) have propagated the ridiculous idea of multiculturalism for the last 20 years. If we had not been telling communities how terrible it would be for them to integrate and accept British culture and values, we would have no need for the Archbishops proposals. Now he feels he must make comments to try and rectify the damage he, and those like him, have done, but as usual his approach is completely backward and would only make matters worse. If we recognize the ‘need’ for Islamic law in some small way it is hard to see how we could stop a slow encroachment of further powers to Sharia courts until we do have the parallel legal system the Archbishop claims he wants to avoid.

bruce morley

Rowan Williams's foolishness is not the real issue. Religions deal in absolutes, and any attempt at ecumenicism is only ever driven by need. Even the maddest of mullahs must now know that if the modern world holds fast, it cannot be defeated (if only because of the short supply of virgins as reward), while the Archbishop's recent absurd apostasy, before the real battle has even been joined, is beneath contempt. It is also a distant early warning that if Muslim lunatics and their Christian counterparts ever reach an accord and decide to double-team the few remaining sane people in the world, then God help us (yes, I know...). As George Bernard Shaw said, "Beware the man whose God is in the skies". Now, more than ever.

Marin

The very concept of 'plural jurisdictions' is puerile in the extreme. How many such jurisdictions are we supposed to accomodate and who's to say which 'jurisdictions' are acceptable? After all Mafia has its own jurisdiction and one day, in order to enhance social cohesion , they may also demand greater understanding!

IvyEileen

Shouldn't the Archbishop be doing more to lead his flock in spiritual and moral matters, rather than all this philosophising. For example, does anyone know what his views are on Animal/Human Hybrids and the HEF Bill being pushed through Parliament by this Government ? Much less importantly, if he is an academic and intellectual (as is alleged), where in the OED did he find "unclarity" and "unappropriate" ?

Mozart 21

One of the major challenges under the Arbitration Act 1996 for an arbitrator, is ensuring that there is consent to the arbitral process and the capacity of the parties to express that consent. There have been many arbitrations which have failed for that reason. Consent given by a woman under real, imaginary, perceived or other pressure would, under English law, make the agreement unenforceable and illegal. However, as noted above, this is of scant consolation to an aggrieved and embittered party. What is the greater worry is that we have, in Britain today, large numbers of women who believe it is their duty to succumb to the wishes of the man or men in their lives, be they violent partners, immams, paterfamilias or a cousin seeking a forced marriage in a foreign land. Giving primary recognition to the shariah dispute resolution mechnaism over-rides many of our traditional safeguards. RW should have thought this through. A comprable, but fundamentally different model, is that of the jewish beth Din, the rabbinic court. Its decisions have to accord to the law of the land which has supremacy.

hojo0710

The liberal Western multiculturalists are just a bunch of naifs who think they can make a household pet of a tiger, a python, or a cobra.

The Morning Post

Malaysia is a classic example where Sharia Law fails to co-exist with the countries civil law. Recently a Muslim woman in that country was severely punished by a Sharia Court for rejecting Islam even though her countries constitution guarantees religious freedom to all under the law. She appealed through the civil courts, which then failed to uphold her constitutional right of religious freedom, bowing instead to the Sharia Court's judgment! Sharia law is perceived by Muslims as being Gods law and its considered 'Haram' to question any part of it.

The Morning Post

Look no further than the current plight of a teenage Sri Lankan housemaid highlighted by AI a day or so ago. She is facing death by beheading in Saudi Arabia under Sharia Law, for supposedly choking a baby to death whilst bottle feeding it. She speaks no Arabic but was denied an interpreter at her trial. The agency who sent her to Saudi lied about her true age, she is younger than first thought, but the Court have refused to accept documents from her newly appointed lawyers confirming her true age. She was 17 years old at the time of her alleged crime last year, still a minor, but she faces death in the most barbaric way possible within weeks if her sentence is not commuted. This is the standard of law then The Arch Bishop wishes to see practiced however peripherally here in the UK.

The Chicago Quadrilateral

Mr. Williams outgrew his britches when he presumed to dictate to the Episcopal Church of the United States how we might best appoint our bishops, at the instigation of some turf-hunters in Fort Worth and their cat's paws among the Third World's Anglicans. Now he wants to disenfranchise British Christians to the extent that sharia law will inevitably impact them. Could the Archbishop of Canterbury have less legitimate authority over Christians at this point?

John R Clegg

I no longer take this Archbishop to be my moral and spiritual leader.

TomTom

Williams was selected by Blair as another Christian Socialist - and was not even a member of the Church of England ! Typical of the '68 Generation they sit detached from the realities of the world and utter inanities to entertain their friends in politics and media - I have every confidence these utterances were cleared with G Brown who is desperately kow-towing to Islam/Taleban and whatever provides a quiet haven for the Ship of State to sink into the mud