If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Archbishop of Canterbury backs Sharia Law
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2254075,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfrontThe Archbishop of Canterbury sparked controversy today when he said the introduction of sharia law for British Muslims was "unavoidable".
Rowan Williams told BBC Radio 4's World at One that Muslims should be able to choose whether to have matters such as marital disputes dealt with under sharia law or the British legal system.
His comments were strongly criticised by the National Secular Society but welcomed by the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), which stressed it did not back the introduction of sharia criminal law.
So once again, we have attempts by religious groups to have special dispensation and privilages. I'm getting really sick of it.
I like football. It's my religion. Can I have special dispensation to wear my club's emblem on my uniform? Can I have disputes with other football fans settled by a panel of football fans instead of the established courts?
Rowan Williams has lost his fucking mind.
Question to Stargalaxy. The other day you were rambling about the National Secular Society being a bunch of crackpots. In view of this story, don't you think they're the sane ones and everyone else the crackpots?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
The Archbishop of Canterbury is an absolute bell-piece. I don't think anyone takes him seriously.
EDIT: Classic photo The Elitist Liberal Lefty Socialist Daily (Guardian) have used:
I can see where he's coming from. Many of our laws are dervied from a Christian tradition (eg on marriage) and those who come from a different tradition will have different cultural mores.
personally I think the AoC is a typical bearded leftie, guardian reading, bleeding heart who doesn't have the nerve to say 'Fuck off - frankly Western enlightment is better than Islamic law, so we'll stick with our laws for all' thanks
Nah. He's saying this at least partly if not wholy because he believes religious faiths are so important society must accommodate their every wish whenever possible, even if it means changing the law.
I usually have a great deal of respect for Rowan Williams so this statement has thrown me. I'll have to give it more thought.
He's part of the wishy-washy wing of Anglicanism... The fact he believes in God doesn't stop him having a beard, reading the Guardian (I've seen him in the HoL reading it) and one only has to listen to him to realise he's a bleeding heart.
He's saying it because he thinks current law excludes a large segment of society. I think he's wrong - but that's because he's a cultural relavatist, not because he's AoC
Importantly though, he said that separate laws for particular groups is already a reality in Britain. Though he doesn't seem to realise that that isn't actually a good thing.
I think the last two or three things i've heard him come out with have been absolute cod-shit. I think the silly hats are starting to affect his thinking.
Do you and Stargalaxy hook up in the evenings and patrol the neighbourhood lest a discarded copy of the Guardian might get blown in by the wind and picked up by an innocent child?
ETA: Nice avatar Aladdin. I bought The Guardian today for the first time since uni (only because they'd ran out of The Times). Only read the sports bit so far though, because I fell asleep before half time last night, so needed filling in.
Just you - he's always said stupid things with alarming frequecy
Pot calling Kettle - I can see a copy of the Mail and there's a small child at risk of reading it...
You can't equate the Guardian with the Mail. The Guardian at least has some writers that are literate.
Anyway, just reading into this a bit more, it seems that sharia law in it's current state basically amounts to a civil agreement between two parties. I don't see what's wrong with that, nor do I see any need to formally recognise it in our legal system. Muslim 1 hurts muslim 2. Muslim 2 agrees to pay muslim 1 compensation for said harm. They sign a genuine legal agreement in the Michael Jackson sense, and everyone is happy. What's wrong with that? providing the real law always overrides it, is always an option, and the contracts consist of nothing that goes against actual law.
They may be good at fiction - it's the non-fiction bit they are appallingly bad at...
But its a bit hypocritical to whinge about one paper is bad because you don't agree with its political views and then complain when someone else moans about a paper you disagree with. Especially if you are always bringing the Mail and 'S*n' into your own posts.
Of course I am a hypocrite as well, but I don't deny it;)
BBC Link
I'd agree. If two people want to get anyone else to rule on their civil agreement and abide by it I don't disagree. If they one of them doesn't like the outcome and goes to Civil Court, the Judge should take be able to take account at mediation efforts before hand. But the rule of the land should be able to overide that of informal agreements you make (religous or other).
That said I'm not sure i;d agree with covering divorce which is a state recognition of two parties joining together and only the state should be able to legally end that union.
And I certainly don't agree for criminal law (though to be fair I don't think the AoC is suggesting that)
He has no balls, and he proved that by not sticking up for the American Church the other year. Now he can't even stick up for the traditions of this country.
Sharia Law does have its advantages though- at least I can have five wives.
I was wrong in my post. He doesn't actually say separate laws for separate groups is a reality. He says:
Which is quite different. But he does seem to be in support of a separate system of law for Muslims, which I think is wrong.
Who should be speaking for themselves, or if they are, they should be getting media coverage... NOT him.
Then there is the issue of sheer comparison between the papers in question. I don't agree with almost anything found in the opinion pages of the Telegraph but I believe it to be a respectable and serious newspaper. There is a clear distinction between the Telegraph and the borderline racist, homophobic, xenophobic, low-brow worthless shite that is the S*n and the Mail. I would have expected people could make the same distinction between the Guardian and the Mirror.
And finally there is the influence of each paper. A broadsheet is very rarely going to cause the sentiments of prejudice and sometimes plain hatred the tabloids cause with their shameless lying, distoring and unashamed shit-stirring. To blame the Guardian for the various ills it sometimes gets blamed is as risible as is false.
Though of course as your comments are often in context of people reading those papers I find it hard to tell the difference.... Though as you are one of the biggest purveyors of hyperbole on these papges (with the exception of Kermit
Well the Guardian has more pages...
To blame the Mail and Sun for those same ills is just as bad.
The only difference between a tabloid and boradsheet is that more tabloid readers realise their paper doesn't always tell the truth.
What's your point? That he should keep quiet about things where he thinks he can help or the media shouldn't print newsworthy comments by the head of a major church?
No...
Just that too often people are speaking for certain communities who arguably should be speaking for themselves.
Don't get me wrong, he has brought publicity to the issue, but it is a Muslim issue, shouldn't people be focussing on Muslims who want to talk about it?
I worry because of issues before such as "Three Little Pigs is offensive to Muslims" or "Christmas lights are offensive to Muslims".
I remember a mate of mine once said "they always speak for us, but they never listen to us".
Of course, there would possibly be a more negative media reaction to a Muslim talking about the issue.
What you mean like this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/20/nsharia_120.xml&page=1
http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/divorce.html
Fair enough... I just wondered as the link given wasn't a Muslim talking about it.
Secular law is something that has been FOUGHT for over the years. I've said it before and I'll say it again, people are beginning to take their freedom for granted. Introduction of Sharia law would be a backword and extremely dangerous step and to describe the Archbishop as a "useful idiot" would be a huge understatement.
The Mullahs and Imams will always continue in their quest to implement Sharia Law wherever they can and however they can, bit by bit if they have to... and they won't face any resistance from the so-called 'moderate' Muslims either.
Here's a quote from a professor in human rights:
"Although many contemporary Muslims would privately object to Sharia's suppression of freedom of belief and expression, very few are willing to express their objection publicly for fear of being branded as apostates themselves - guilt by association. Other Muslims would find it difficult to admit their objections, even to themselves, for fear of losing their faith in the process."
^ I agree with that entirely.
Obviously there should be the usual legal back up, but I think if they can come to an agreement seperately perhaps inconjuction with the Imam - what actual harm would that do?
He is not in any shape or form advocating two completely seperate legal systems, just that some legal disputes are better handled within the social and religious context of the people involved.
I'm pretty certain that Jews can divorce using their 'courts' rather than going through the usual channel.