Don’t believe the Lord Chief Justice any more than the Archbishop of Canterbury, say Stephen Schwartz and Irfan Al-Alawi
Soon after Archbishop Williams’s gaffe the Centre for Islamic Pluralism conducted a field survey of attitudes towards sharia in the main Muslim communities in Britain. We visited Birmingham, Manchester, Bolton, Bradford, Sheffield and Leicester, in addition to ongoing and extensive investigations in London’s East End. Interviewees included imams, muftis (legal authorities), spiritual shaykhs, British Muslim barristers and solicitors, social workers and rank-and-file mosque attendees. The full results will be published, with similar data from Germany, Holland, France and Spain, next year.
Our survey was made easier by Muslim debate over the Williams affair. The overwhelming majority of our sample — we estimate a minimum of 65 per cent — brusquely repudiated the imposition of sharia in Britain and even expressed resentment at the interference of individuals like the Archbishop in British Muslim affairs.
Unfortunately, the real beliefs of British Muslims are unlikely to get sufficient attention either from non-Muslim leaders or from most of the British media. For the elite, multiculturalism is the order of the day, and sharia must be offered, notwithstanding the utter ignorance of it among the non-Muslims who advocate it. In the tabloids, sharia is identified with such punishments as the stoning of adulterers — an issue Lord Phillips ineptly tried to address. Little sensible commentary may be expected from the public prints.
At the Madina Mosque in Bolton it was pointed out to us that tens of thousands of British Muslims practise as solicitors and barristers, and have no interest in surrendering their positions to sharia advocates. A parallel system of sharia law would be a disaster for the British Muslim community, producing legal chaos, according to the barrister Aseid Malik. British Muslim legal professionals observe that Islamist radicals prefer to enter the scientific and medical professions, because there they can avoid participation in the British ‘unbeliever’ state required of solicitors and barristers.
More articles from: Irfan al-Alawi & S. Schwartz | this section
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Martin Vander Weyer looks ahead to next week’s Pre-Budget Report and reflects on George Osborne’s contentious remarks about the devaluation of sterling. It looks like Gordon Brown is getting away with his borrowing binge — leaving the Tories isolated
The movie W. did not provide the crude anti-Bush agitprop that the reviewers craved, says Rod Liddle. This was precisely its strength: we need to get inside the minds even of those we most deplore
In the wake of Cameron’s decision to drop his pledge to match Labour spending, Fraser Nelson and Daniel Fin kelstein of the Times trade rhetorical blows over the issue that is gripping and troubling the Conservative party as it adjusts to the transformed economic context
Bryan Forbes remembers listening to Churchill as a 14-year-old evacuee and now looks with envy at Obama’s capacity to galvanise hope. Where are his UK counterparts?
The first takeaways originated about 150 million years ago, says Christopher Lloyd; global travel is pretty ancient, too. And as for democracy...
Sarfraz Manzoor celebrates an iftar meal with homeless people and his fellow Muslims, a web-generated ‘flashmob’ observing an Islamic tradition of generosity to the needy
These narcissistic adolescent halfwits should not fill us with fear, says Rod Liddle. The aircraft plot trial showed yet again that those who wish to murder us with fizzy pop and peroxide are a bunch of cowards
Eye-stopping glimpses of an exotic and forbidden world
Zenga Longmore on Yasmin Hai's new book
The new French ambassador is a figure of significance
Subscribe to Sky from £16 a month. Get free equipment and free broadband - Join Now. Sky HD - be amongst the first to have it - order now.
Subscribe to Sky from £16 a month. Get free equipment and free broadband - Join Now. Sky HD - be...
PORTA METRONIA, ROME Standing high on the top of one of the seven hills of Rome- the Coelian- this unique
ROME and PARIS: over 350 holiday rentals apartments listed: visit www.romanreference.com and www.parisreference.com or call +39 0648 903612.
Goldsmiths by Design Welcome to Ruffs! You have found a company of Goldsmiths that specialises in the manufacture, amongst other
Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine
Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2008 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
bill
July 10th, 2008 1:35pmOf course, we all know this. It's just the usual clap-trap the elite serve us up to keep us divided so we don't look to closely at how they're cynically ripping us off.
Yawn.
I wouldn't mind so much but I think they genuinely believe they're being clever/
Keith
July 10th, 2008 1:56pmI am not surprised UK Muslims feel patronised by this,I am sure many are here precisely to avoid over the top interpretations of religious law.They must be sick of other religious and PC politicians claiming to know what they want.The system of secular law in the UK is better than any religious system, more just and more equitable and caters for belief and non belief. Let us also remember that non believers and those not attached to organised religions have equal rights under the law with the religious and can equally be offended by overt displays of religion or religious law.
Herbert Thornton
July 10th, 2008 6:05pmThe last sentence of this paragraph in the survey strikes me as especially significant -
"Iraqi Shia Ayatollah Ali Sistani, one of the world’s preeminent sharia authorities, teaches that, ‘If [a Muslim] has given [a non-Muslim government] a commitment — even if indirectly (as is implied in the immigration documents) — to abide by the laws of that country, it is necessary for him to fulfil his commitment.’ If they cannot do this, they should return to Muslim territory."
Now, let us ask ourselves - do any of the political parties see virtue in that last sentence? If so, which?
Ib
July 11th, 2008 11:34amVery helpful. Our government at all levels consults very hard liner Muslim 'leaders', hence beds moved 5 times per day in Dewsbury hospitals, the pulling of honour killing legislation. Churches do the same, speaking to ultra conservatives as representing all Muslims.
It has been a disastrous policy, strengthening the fanatics, bringing ordinary Muslims by birth under their 'leadership', and making British Islam more and more conservative. Look at the muslim council of Britain website and its links to DTI rules for prayers etc in factories.
So thanks: we rarely get a snapshot of grass roots opinion.
Charles Smyth
July 11th, 2008 11:39amFor those who must have Sharia as the law, there are states to which they can repatriate or expatriate to, in order to enjoy this class of law. In the UK and/or EU an introduction of Sharia would be divisive in itself vis-à-vis the state law, which is designed to be even handed to all, and would, as has been tentatively suggested in Germany, demand the reintroduction of other faiths' doctrines into law. Fortunately, the majority of Muslims in the UK have more sense than to advocate the introduction of Sharia, which many of them have fled to the UK, to avoid.
http://www.youtube.com/v/R4J80UytcHo
Iftikhar Ahmad
July 11th, 2008 12:52pmSalaam
Sharia laws and State funded Muslim schools are for those who believe in Sharia laws and who would like to send their children to Muslim schools. Silent majority of Muslims would like to live under Sharia laws and want to send their children to Muslim schools. There is no complusion in Islam.
Nicholas storey
July 11th, 2008 1:36pmFor the sake of comity between peoples, I welcome comprehensible explanations of Islam, since it is much misunderstood by non-Muslims and, like anything that is misunderstood, it is routinely feared and, ultimately, attacked by the tabloid-led rabble; especially when a cynical minority of cynics adopt the ostensible cause of Islam to pardon and excuse the perpetration of attrocities in order to satisfy some perverted instinct. It might be useful if someone ran through the major basic tenets of Islam for the non-Muslim British public - and even for the Americans. Then they might realize that Islam does not reject the person whom they call 'Jesus of Nazareth' as a great prophet, it rejects that he was the Son of God and of the Virgin Mary. But all that should be dealt with comprehensively by those who know far more about it than I. Turning to the article, several points do arise: first of all, you say that Muslims are told that they should abide by the Laws of the land into which they go. However, what if they find the very core of the State into which they go, so lacking in moral fibre that it has lost its own sense of identity and desire to uphold its own laws; that it bends with the wind and shows eager to adopt the healthier parts of Sharia, even to a restricted extent? Would Islamic scholars then deny Muslims the right to exploit this weakness, this rottenness to the very core in the State into which they have gone? For, the Archbishop of Canterbury as the head of the Church of England (which, the last time that I looked, was both still a Christian organization and still an established part of the Constitution)has no business making political pronouncements about the state of the secular law, except to the extent that it is proposed to make it inconsistent with Christian morals or ecceliastical law. Rather, he and his clergy have a bounden duty to get out there and convert non-Christians to Christianity. Is this not how it all began - men (mainly but not just men) dying for the Faith? Men like Thomas More died to uphold his own brand of the Faith, the point of which would be lost on most modern Britons. Secondly, since the whole purpose of abolishing the office of Lord Chancellor was to make the judiciary appear to have no political links or bias, one wonders why the unelected Lord Chief Justice sees fit to give out political opinions (coincidentally as spineless, as ignorant, as unwise and as contrary to the purpose of his office, as the opinions of Dr Rowan Williams) on the legal infra-structure, enacted by Parliament, which it is his sole function to enforce.
NJS
David Short
July 12th, 2008 5:00amI once had the chance, which I did not take, in a farmhouse in a very posh part of England, the Cotswolds, to ask: 'More tea, Vicar?'
I wish I had, just for history's sake, but we were talking, lots of us, about the Muslim religion, and this was about 15 years ago.
I said to the young vicar, who was in fact drinking lots of whisky under the disapproving nose of his wife because he had a service to perform that evening: 'But of course Islam is an evangelical religion!'
He replied, quite correctly: 'So is Christianity!'
I missed another opportunity around a Sunday fireside to reply: 'How true, vicar! How true!'
Do we value our own religion?
If not, then don't complain.
Nicholas Storey
July 12th, 2008 10:50pmDavid Short says 'don't complain' - but he doesn't say about what. Might he please clarify?
Vir Narain
July 15th, 2008 3:04pmSo British Muslims do not want Sharia. What if they did? Surely it is not for them to choose, or not to choose, what laws should govern the United Kingdom. The line of reasoning implied by the title is pernicious