Has the Archbishop gone bonkers?

Forgive the stark clarity of my headline, but sometimes when writing about the Archbishop of Canterbury, clarity is what is needed. I ask this of readers here, because this is the question put to me time after time this afternoon by incredulous commentators of every variety, stunned into blunt expression by the Archbishop of Canterbury's uncharacteristically clear comments on Sharia in Britain. The Archbishop believes adopting aspects of sharia law into British law would help maintain social cohesion. But who exactly is asking for this? No Muslim organisation in Britain has requested it, I could not find any who even wanted it. Instead, Muslims I spoke to this afternoon seem fearful of the effects the Archbishop's latest remarks will have on those already prejudiced against their community. As well they might be. His speech was delivered this evening at the Royal Courts of Justice in Strand, London. (Update: do read this interesting analaysis from Propaganda Box.)

The Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, responded:  'English law is rooted in the Judaeo-Christian tradition and, in particular, our notions of human freedoms derive from that tradition. In my view, it would be simply impossible to introduce a tradition, like sharia into this corpus without fundamentally affecting its integrity.' Read his full comments here. Also see here for a legal opinion from barrister Dr James Behrens.

Sheikh Michael Mumisa, an Islamic scholar at Cambridge University and who is affiliated to Centre for the Study of Muslim-Jewish Relations at the Woolf Institute, said:  'I do understand that by sharia law here he means only the personal status laws of Islam such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and not its penal code.”  Mumisa, author of the book Islamic Law: Theory and Interpretation, continued: 'I disagree and believe that the introduction of such laws within the UK will undermine the rights of Muslim women. Moreover, some senior Muslim clerics in the UK want more than just the personal status laws and would prefer that the penal laws were introduced as well.'

A few days ago, the Archbishop argued also for the abolition of the blasphemy law - as long as it was replaced by something even more severe. People should be punished for daring to voice thoughts that were hurtful to others, he said, even when that hurt was unintentional. Now it seems he wants women, children, all of us in fact, to have to kow-tow to some of the strictest, harshest and most draconian laws dreamed up by any religious system, ever, anywhere in the world.

There might not be no-go areas for non-Muslims in Britain, as he recently argued against the Bishop of Rochester. But this is certainly the way to go about creating them.

Is the Archbishop of Canterbury unaware of the history of the Church he has been chosen to lead? Coming from Wales is no excuse, as until the early years of the last century, Wales was part of the Church of England as well. The Church of England was born out of an express desire to rid Britain of a foreign, ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Article 37 of the 39 says: 'The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.' Queen Elizabeth I early in her reign decreed that the Crown had restored to it 'the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical and spiritual, abolishing all foreign power repugnant to the same'.

And now Queen Elizabeth II's very own Archbishop - and let's not forget she is his Church's Supreme Governor - wants to introduce a new 'jurisdiction into this realm of England.' And an Islamic one at that!

It is one thing for judges to take Sharia into account, as has happened in Germany. It is quite another to follow the line  the Archbishop is suggesting. It led to near disaster in Ontario, Canada two years ago and would created untold and unnecessary distress here were it to be implemented here.

The Archbishop has staked everything on trying to maintain unity in his own Anglican Communion. At the same time, he is advocating a policy that could only fragment the society around him.

If you doubt me, watch this, above.

Or this, below.

A few weeks ago, I was chatting to a woman who works in an advocacy role for Muslim women in an area that, quite independently of the Bishop of Rochester, she described as a 'no-go area' for non-Muslims. Her clients were women in the process of being sectioned into mental health units in the NHS. This woman, who for obvious reasons begged not to be identified, told me: 'The men get tired of their wives. Or bored. Or maybe the wife objects to her daughter being forced into a marriage she doesn't want. Or maybe she starts wearing western clothes.There can be many reasons. The women are sent for asssessment to a hospital. The GP referring them is Muslim. The psychiatrist assessing them is Muslim and male. I have sat in these assessments where the psychiatrist will not look the woman patient in the eye because she is a woman. Can you imagine! A psychiatrist refusing to look his patient in the eye? The woman speaks little or no English. She is sectioned. She is divorced. There are lots of these women in there, locked up in these hospitals. Why don't you people write about this?'

My interlocuter went very red and almost started to cry. Instead, she began shouting at me. I was a member of the press. 'You must write about this,' she begged.

'I can't,' I said. 'Not unless you become a whistle-blower. Or give me some evidence. Or something.'

She shook her head. 'I can't be identified,' she said. 'I would be killed. And so would the women.'

So there you have it. After weeks of wondering what to do, inspired by the Archbishop, I've taken her word that she is telling the truth, respected her anonymity, and written it anyway.

And this, I imagine, is what the Archbishop wants for the whole of England. As they used to say in my father's country parish: 'Heaven preserve us!' I wonder what they're saying there today. Expressions somewhat shorter and sweeter, I fear.

Comments

[observer]

This is England!
Equality for all before the law is a great principle.....one law applies to all....nobody is above the law.....no opt outs, please!

Anyone who wants a different system does not have to live here.....

[Michael]

The Archbishop is like so many in our emasculated, pretentious but cowardly 'liberal' society, deluding himself into thinking that harmony and peace can be bought by appeasement. He looks at the results only of past struggles where accomodations have been achieved, thinking that the former can be achieved without the latter. No! We must stand and fight to maintain our values, not necessarily with the sword, but absolutely with determination and courage.

[Babs]

A religious parasite wanting to feather the nests of other religious parasites. Whoodathunkit?

"Well, if they can have a legal system for believers based on their mediaeval holy book, why can't we? Oh, and can complainants have legal aid, please?"

[Michael]

The Archbishop is like so many in our emasculated, pretentious but cowardly 'liberal' society, deluding himself into thinking that harmony and peace can be bought by appeasement. He looks at the results only of past struggles where accomodations have been achieved, thinking that the former can be achieved without the latter. No! We must stand and fight to maintain our values, not necessarily with the sword, but absolutely with determination and courage.

[winnowing]

My primary issue is that in a governmental system that above all values the 'rule of law' he would like to introduce a religious element. Western countries, ostensibly, are secular in their judicial system so as to avoid the problems of dragging everyone's cultural and religious baggage into a discussion of rights and their violation.

It appears someone is a tad too fond of the middle ages.

[iforster]

i have always thought that the foundation of our legal system was the principle that there should be one equal law for everyone. this has meant we are seen as a fair and civilised society and is the reason that so many people want to live here.

[John Lynch]

Yes, he has. The man is stark, staring bonkers.

[John Hall]

Yes, he always was. So desperate is he to please and accomodate on this and all the other issues that he has fudged that he has lost sight of his duty to provide clear leadership.

[Nick]

Don't you think most of the muslims in the west came here to get away from Sharia? Maybe if we imposed it they would go back home.

[Tom Jackson]

To say I was dumbstruck this afternoon when I read the Archbishop's comments would be an admission that somehow, I expected better of him.

But these latest observations by Rowan Williams just serve to demonstrate once again just how unfit to lead the Anglican Communion this man is. It is embarrassing to suggest that the Christian Church is the most suitable organisation to resist Islamic incursion into our society and then to have the Archbishop of Canterbury advocating incorporating any aspect of Sharia Law into the Law of the United Kingdom.

I feel embarrassed, ashamed and more than a little angry. If I lived in Iran, in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, I would expect to live by their laws, for them to resist any attempt by me to introduce elements of the Law I was raised under, that of the UK, in any aspect of my life in their country. Even if I renounced my citizenship of the UK and became a citizen of, what would then be, my adopted country, this would apply.

The Archbishop should resign, should go and make way for someone more suited to such high office to take his place. His comments so undermine the Anglican community, they represent such a misunderstanding of the situation with regard to the Islamic presence here in the UK, that he has no alternative.

Rowan Williams is head of the Communion; he represents the power and the presence of Christ in our country and he does not have the right or the authority to support and encourage the growth and the stature of any belief system other than Christianity.

I don't think Rowan Williams has "gone bonkers". I think he is confused, misguided and mistaken, following his instinct like some secular social reformer, someone who views our community as a social worker and not the leader of our Church. I even believe that by such criteria, he can make some sense of what he is saying but he does his faith great harm - and that is unforgivable and unacceptable.

[Bill]

Yes he is bonkers and a druid

[Jim]

In the battle of ideas, which is often referred to, there is such a thing as the greater idea, which is often reached by observation and what is truly happening, upon the ground. This is where the Church characteristically is, and should find it's self, however we have seen increasingly fewer priests out and about, and more rhetoric, which , as we can see, sooner or later leads to the creation of what may be perceived as a good idea, however misses the sense of the matter, for one and to all. Your example is excellent, and hardly suprising since corruption and moral/community pressure is not beyond anyone-despite 'occupation' or 'status'-this again is often overlooked e.g. Hutton Report. I recall seeing a Bishop walking down Bond Street, looking very pleased with himself one weekday afternoon. I observed him strut-it was hard not to. I was incensed thinking that in purple, he was behaving like that, when there is so much to be done, and the social sensibilities seen in so many CofE Priests. Forget class, and become a class unto all, for that is the way-and the truth of the matter-and to reach all.

[Malcolm+]

This debate has already happened (and been settled) in the Canadian province of Ontario.

Some of the loudest voices in opposition to Sharia were Muslims - and in particular Muslim women.

[Alfonso Valdes]

Thank you for your reasoned commentary and courageous reportage, even if the woman in question refused to go on record.

I call on the queen to remove the Archbishop. Of course, I am a US citizen so that call carries no weight.

[MikeH]

Madness, sheer madness.

"One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half."

[Cinnamon]

Anyone who wants sharia can already 'implement' it as long as this happens mutually -- nothing stops anyone from handing maintenance money or children they don't want back to the father, or playing at getting 'married' or divorcing' within a polygamous relationship -- it's legal 'role-playing' until such time as one party isn't playing anymore, at which point, there is the law of the land that protects people's rights, no matter who they are or where they come from.

If the Arschbishop thinks that Muslim women should no longer have recourse to this law which favours men as the undisputed masters of their womenfolk, then it's time to ask him to resign -- it's neither Christian, nor democratic, nor helpful to our complex society. He must resign or be made to do so. The Times should start a petition to shame him into resigning!

[Pete]

I believe Iran is nice this time of year.

[Eddie Keane]

The vicious and inflammatory languaqe used by a number of these speakers borders on incitement to violence and have no place in a liberal-democratic society.I suggest that the good archbishop havs a long look at the video footage posted on YouTube and available in Ms.Gledhill's column today.
These particular individuals are espousing a fascist state and death to all who oppose them - indeed the absence of a loving God from any of their statements should make us all concerned at what their real goals are,namely,Islamic domination of Western Europe and death to those who oppose them.
Let's not cave in to these people but instead root out the cancerous agents who spread this poison and encourage moderate Muslims to publicly disavow these views.
The values which Britain has developed over centuries are civilised and humane and worth defending in the face of this hatefilled,totalitarian mob who behave disgracefully with chanting for death and destruction on societies which have given them refuge and peace.
Archbishop,think again about your request for Sharia and its implications for the poor women and children ground down by an oppressive male regime.
The laws of any land are made by parliament for the common good and not to appease a violent,fascist minority hell bent on destroying our values and traditions

[Michael Haag]

The man is an idiot. Why on earth was this fool elected Archbishop of Canterbury? He should be defrocked forthwith and put to work sweeping floors where he can do less harm.

[Owen Murphy]

There are already different laws in England for different people. In the Church of England there ia ecclesiastical law which governs clergy, ministers, and parishes; there is Military law for armed forces; and there is a seperate leagl arrangement for MPs and Royalty. One law for all? Come on...

[Annie Hancock]

Yes, Ruth, he obviously HAS gone bonkers.

Maybe HE should be sectioned?

[Christopher Pix]

1. There is currently room within UK law for religious beliefs to be taken into account. Given this, it seems unnecessary to add a whole new legal system that would only apply to a small section of society and which would only further exclude rather than include Muslims into our community.

If Rowan Williams’ fear is that we are becoming a secular society, the answer is not to assume that in the future it will be a case of ‘religions’ versus a secular society. That assumes that all religions are the same and should be treated as equally valid. As a Christian I cannot accept that.

2. Introducing Sharia Law in the UK is an academic issue. If I were a lawyer attending a lecture given by a Christian leader, I would like instead to hear his/her views on some of the real issues facing Christian lawyers in the UK today – for example, ethical issues surrounding the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill or the creation of animal human hybrids; and the legal and Christian issues involved in the tackling of human trafficking into the UK.

3. As a Christian, I would hope that Rowan Williams would use opportunities of speaking to the media to highlight some of the great Christian initiatives happening around the nation, like ‘Hope 08’. Sadly, his comments have only further alienated people from Christianity, and given many the illusion that Christianity is out of touch with the normal person, rather than being something that is utterly relevant to every living person. From his comments, I would rather suggest that Rowan Williams is out of touch with the views of most Christians.

Being a Christian is not about finding the lowest common denominator with other religions - rather it's about having an answer for "the hope that is in you", that God loves us so much that he gave his only son Jesus Christ so that we can be restored in relationship with him.

[Chris (escapee to US)]

WELL SAID! Will there come a day when English Law is taken into account in the countries where ex-pat Brits reside? I very much doubt it. I return to the UK about once a year, and each time the country is less recognizable and seems closer to implosion. Immigration is one thing, a complete loss of indigenous culture is another. I'll be dead within the next 40 years - I glad I won't have to witness what the UK will become shortly afterwards. To anyone who is listening - either get out now, or stand up for yourselves.

[Ahmad]

If one wishes to discuss the implications of the Archbishop's claim, why pepper your article with pictures of idiots with stupid placards who in no way represent what Sharia law is? (I doubt they could even define it properly for you). Also I fail to see how her 'story' of such a segregated area is relevant. There is also an anecdotal story which seems to indicate some kind of separate universe cut off from the rest of the UK (which some geniuses will no doubt think exists, despite no credible evidence apart from hearsay and screaming tabloid headlines to reflect their own prejudices). Even if this story is accurate, none of it relates to Sharia law. Getting bored/tired of your wife or forcing your daughter into marriage are NOT part of sharia (if you think it is, please read a book). I expect better of this newspaper

[Glo]

THis Idiot should be sacked, I have never heard such rubbish,Rowan Atkinson has more sense

[Dev]

Hi. I think that the Archbishop's comments are ludicrous and daft but also very insulting to other faiths. Why is it that Islam is the only faith the Archbishop belives worthy for people to follow the laws of? What about other faiths such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Judaism which have more logical and practical guidelines on living a morlaistic life? Personally as a Hindu, I feel this is a very dire society where people of certain sectors are exempt from the law. Hindus have been oppressed by Islamic followers in Kashmir, Bangladesh and other regions of the world. Just because they have not made a racket about it or blown up buildings and killed people means they are ignored. I personally feel that Sharia law will just be the beginning in the step of Islamification of Britain. Instead of Britain being so self-critical and asking the public to be more open towards Islam why is Islam not asked to be open towards other faiths. In Islamic countries people of other faiths are persecuted, women of other faiths are brutally raped and forced to convert, government policies are made to be anti- any other religion. When the September 11th, July 7th, Madrid bombings occurred there was no condemnation of the act by muslims instead the blame was shifted to the occupation of the West in Islamic states. I dislike the double standards that are demonstrated here and I feel that religious minorities are going to be targeted. I feel that the government and the law should be there to protect these minority faiths not quash them.

[Richard Martin]

As a practising Christian I have watched with despair as our politicised Archbishop of Canterbury sets about dismantling the Anglican church. This misguided man appears bent on marginalising the Christian faith whilst promoting other belief systems. It is not his role to build Islam into a powerful rival to Christian teaching. I am delighted that the representatives of all political parties have denounced his foolish ruminations. Particularly laughable is his statement that "some citizens do not relate to our laws". Such people are usually called criminals or dissidents, Archbishop. One longs for the Synod to see sense and put this odd man out to pasture and replace him with a true advocate of Christianity - Dr Sentamu, our wonderful Archbishop of York.

[thaggie]

As an atheist, I should be happy that our 'established' church is led by such a limp-wristed moron.

But I'm afraid Mr Williams only paints the Islamic faith in a better light. At least it has a backbone. The Anglican church has suffered a total collapse of confidence -- symbolised perfectly by Williams' comments here, and on the back of his refusal to countenance the existence of hell -- and I feel nothing but contempt for it.

[michael moorhouse]

Bonkers...?Certainly.
Stupid....? Certainly not.
Desperate....?Without a doubt.
This man ,who has nil leadership qualities , will see the Church of England implode soon
Will this matter....? Not at all.The sooner the C. of E. is dis-established the better.
Rowan Williams deserves his fate and no sympathy whatever.

[Clare Blackburn]

I am utterly horrified to hear the Archbishop of Canterbury recommend Sharia law in this country. This is England. In this country we are bound by English law. There are no exceptions. Has he gone mad?

[dave]

Well done for the above article, Dr. Rowen needs to find another job....

Perhaps as an Iman.

[hzh]

The Archbishop is of course not bonkers. His position is the logical consequence of multiculturalism, where all cultures are assumed to have equal valid within a society. If Muslims take the Sharia law to be part and parcel of their culture, there is nothing anyone can argue against this if they accept multiculturalism to be right.

And it is too late to argue against multiculturalism now, becaue people born of different cultures here expect it and demand it. Twenty years ago it might have made a difference, but people (the likes of you, Times readers) are too cowardly to do it for fear of being branded racist. So accept it, there is nothing to be done now.

[Phil Atkin]

Yes, he has lost his marbles. Or he is utterly deluded, and has not thought through the consequences of this.

Whichever of the 2 apply, he should reconsider his words and resign his post in the morning.

[Michael Stevens]

Has he ever been anywhere where Sharia law is actually applied and spoken to people? Seen what happens?

The poor man - nice, but bonkers if he wants that.

The real horror lies in the second part of your story, that these women are being treated in this manner and that the authorities are not acting in any way. To be imprisoned in a mental asylum for no god reason is torture, inhumane, and I am pretty damn sure totally against Sharia law.

[Bertie Johnston]

What is it about religious leaders that they have a totally perverted view of what is right, what is wrong and what is legal.

The present Pope, at the instigation of the previous Pope, wrote to clergy stating that if they found a paedophile priest in their midst they should not tell the police but keep it within the Catholic Church. That is blatant criminality. It is called conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The end result of that crime was that paedophile priests were in some cases moved to other parishes and continued to abuse young people.

If there was Sharia law here you can be sure there would be equally abhorrent happenings.

The Archbishop should be dismissed by the Queen.

[Pat Roberts]

The Archbishop seems to be saying that the introduction of sharia law is a price worth paying for the sake of "social cohesion". But what does this mean, apart from a predictable piece of soft-left gobbledygook?

Does it mean that all standards, laws, cultural traditions and even religions must be trimmed, gutted and diluted to the point where nothing is offensive to any vociferous minority with a chip on its shoulder?

The Archbishop is clearly a clever man who has lost his way, deserted by common sense and a moral compass. It is extraordinary that such a person should be a head of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion.

I have been a member of the Church of England all my life, but as long as this idiot is our nominal leader, I will never go to another Church of England service.

[ed]

Will no one rid us of this troublesome priest ?

[Al]

Dear Rowan,
I am seeking to divorce my wife and would like to make sure I don't need to hire a lawyer or give her any alimony. Please tell me how to proceed.

[fiona]

The man is clearly not fit to hold any postion in the Christian church, and he would be in for a big shock if he converted.

Nobody has picked up on the islamic gulag operating inside our NHS. How do we stop this happening?

We need some rule that breaks the chain of collusion between police, social workers, medical pratictioners and psychiatrists all of the same persuasion - one that it totally alien to natural justice and English and Scottish law.

[Mappy]

This man is a congenital idiot. End of discussion.

[Keith]

Yes he is mad. This is how to split a community, they need to integrate more; this will mean less.

[mike]

Of course he is bonkers absolutely bleeding bonkers and this latest outburst proves it-
mind you i hink you only have to look at him to come to the same conclusion!!

[Ann Alexander]

Please do not drag the country back to a pre-mediaeval way of thinking, where power is placed in the hands of a few elderly men and punishments are designed to keep ordinary people (who happen to be Muslim) in line!
There should be one law and one law only in this country, which has fought for such a system over centuries.

[Maurice Smelt]

When popes and archbishops have complicated and subtle ideas to express they do well to avoid giving them on air, and should instead wrte them in learned journals for the benefit of their own theological circle and preferably put their thoughts in Latin.

[Steve]

The archbishop is now archbonkers. He isn't living on the same planet as the rest of us.
If he likes sharia law so much why doesn't he go somewhere else where it is. Then see if he likes it.
The archbishop should resign, he is an embarrassment to christiantiy and the west.
Can't we have a better archbishop, like someone with a backbone?

[Pat Roberts]

The Archbishop seems to be saying that the introduction of sharia law is a price worth paying for the sake of "social cohesion". But what does this mean, apart from a predictable piece of soft-left gobbledygook?

Does it mean that all standards, laws, cultural traditions and even religions must be trimmed, gutted and diluted to the point where nothing is offensive to any vociferous minority with a chip on its shoulder?

The Archbishop is clearly a clever man who has lost his way, deserted by common sense and a moral compass. It is extraordinary that such a person should be head of the Anglican Communion. I have been a member of this all my life, but as long as this idiot is our nominal leader, I will never go to another Church of England service. Maybe others will mount a similar protest?

[hzh]

The Archbiship is of course not bonkers. What he said is the logical consequences of multiculturalism, where all different cultures within a society is assumed to be equally valid. And if muslims take the Sharia law to be part and parcel of their culture, there is nothing anyone who believes in multiculturalism can do anything about it.

If is too late to do anything about multiculturalism, because people of different cultures born and bred in this country expect and demand it. Argument against it might have made a difference twenty years ago, but people (people like you, Times readers) were too cowardly to do it for fear of being branded racist. So accept Sharia law (you will have to sooner or later) and make the best of it.

[johnw]

This stupity just shows the gulf that has opened up between the people of Britian and its Blairite leaders. If the Archbishop had any sense he would see that this gulf is its self much more serious than whether imigrants feel completely at home here. What about the rest of us? This multicultural twaddle is causing the melt down of an entire country. The archbishop has no ideas about that.

[Phil Barnes]

Is he bonkers? In a word yes. Either that or he wishes martyrdom. Which I would think would be the inevitable outcome of his ideas.

[DesmondTaylor]

This furry troglodyte should go back to Wales. Maybe he could preach in a Muslim Country. Yeah, that will happen.

[John]

He has already amply demonstrated his complete incomprehension of how to run a church, and now he is attempting to interfere in our legal system to its ruination.

All this on the basis of having written a number of rather pretentious books on obscure subjects which few can bear to read.

He should stick to his hobby and give up the day job. We need a competent leader urgently and there are several who would make splendid archbishops - not least the very impressive Bishop of London.

[Malcolm McLean]

There is a precedent:

John, by the grace of God, &c. Know that we have conceded and by this present charter of ours confirmed to our Jews in England that excesses which may arise among them except those which belong to our crown and justice, as homicide, mayhem, premeditated assault, burglary, rape, theft, arson, and treasure-trove, shall be brought before them according to their law and remedied, and they shall do justice thereon among themselves.

(charter of King John, 10 April, 1201)

[Howard]

No wonder the Church of England is in such decline. Who would want to associate with these views?

[james morrell]

to answer your question, yes without a doubt.
the man's a muppet.

[Santiago]

It would seem that your creepy archbishop wants to see a lot of handless and footless Mahommedans in his benighted diocese.

[TrevorH]

"Is the Archbishop bonkers?"

Is the pope Catholic?

Mrs Pankhurst must be spinning in her grave.

[Tom Taylor-Duxbury]

Bonkers?

Errrrr totally.

Just how does these numskies float to the "top"

[rae]

He should resign. And if he doesn't jump, I hope he gets pushed. And that's putting it politely.
He's strengthened the connection between religion and insanity in my eyes, I can tell you.
More research needs to be done about the situation of Muslim women in the NHS being locked up in psychiatric care by muslim doctors on behalf of their husbands. In Victorian England, husbands would also do this to non-compliant women, aided by the medical establishment. This sounds very similar to recent reports that Muslim policemen were sending back girls and women to families forcing them into marriage, when they went to the police for help.
I have no time for cultural relativism- human rights are for everyone and there is no excuse here. Having sharia law for muslims and english law for others is a type of apartheid.

[joe]

Seems to me he is only stating a fact. Jewish Eruv have no status in law but only exist because believers want them to.

I wish I had thought of this example a while ago when we were talking about calls to prayer, church bells and the invasion of British Christian identity.

Anyway, when you have a group of people who subject themselves to another informal judicial system, I can't see that anyone else can do much about it where rulings are outwith of the state judicial system. I'm not sure that is so different to Beth Din. Good for the goose, good for the gander.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

A friend of mine is visiting here in Haifa from Manchester. She is the 'best of British', a member of the Church of England, kindness personified, a tower of strength, a wonderful guest. I could go on and on ....

When I told her that I'd just seen online that the Archbishop of Canterbury (whose office had informed me that the reason the subject of sharia was going to be discussed by the ABC was because of CONCERN about sharia, and not for other reasons)was advocating the permitting of Sharia Law, she went as grim as I've ever seen her and said:

'There will be a backlash'.

As for my young Siberian engineer friend, currently studying engineering at Haifa's Technion, the same person who asked me for an itinerary of Britain to visit in the summer, and studies Shakespeare's Sonnets with me (aged 19), her only comment was:

'Why on earth is England committing suicide'.

It's all here:

http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/02/how-appeasement.html

[Christopher Holland]

Can I have my own religion and my own law? If Moslems can have their own laws, why can't I? Isn't that discrimination?

[Dick Pyle]

Who will rid us of this troublesome archbishop? Well it worked last time! He has to go, and go quickly.

[John Kenton-Page]

I just cannot understand this. The Archbishop must be off his trolly! This is the UK and if Muslims want to live here they must accept our laws as we would have to accept theirs if we went to a Muslim country. We must protect our culture - the Ottomans were defeated at the gates of Vienna, but the Archbishop is doing their work for them.

[john bates]

If what your saying about Muslim women been sectioned under the Mental Health is true then can I suggest it is your responsibility as a journalist to pursue and expose this practice further ...

[Charles]

Not bonkers, but naïve.

I have now read the Archbishop’s speech, and he refers to the Orthodox Jewish “courts” that have been operating here for some years now.

It is my understanding that the decisions of these Jewish “courts”, are subject to judicial review in the Courts of England & Wales (with apologies to the other two legal jurisdictions in the UK – I am only aware of the position where I reside) and are therefore not “above the law”. Furthermore, that the decision making processes of these Jewish “courts” had to be revised to take account the English common law principles of natural justice, to avoid their decisions being continuously challenged. A perhaps vaguely analogous situation is where two parties agree to binding arbitration, and that agreement is subject to review by the Courts.

I can only hope that the Archbishop was proposing a similar system for any Islamic “courts”, although I myself would not be in favour of such a system at this time.

[A. Foulkes]

His remarks are unacceptable and his views are out of order. He should resign forthwith.

[peter lenehan]

Surely this man Williams should be arrested. It cannot be legal for anyone to urge the destruction of democracy in this way. If he was a BNP member promoting the adoption of bizarre Aryan pagan-racial laws (eg as the Nazis tried to implement in Germany in the 1940's) he would be prosecuted very swiftly, and quite correctly. We are far too tolerant of the lunatic element operating inside our own state. These people are dangerous.

[alan maddox]

Williams is redundant.It is beyond proof that Jesus was not "the Son of God" but an ordinary bloke,married with a family,whose descendants live today in Paris.
The Catholic Church persists in this "con" as obviously they would all be out of a job and the Church of England was only created because Henry8 wanted to have another woman in his bed.
Williams should get a haircut and go out into the real world and get a job.

[David Bennett]

Why are the Civil Liberties and Womens Rights People not taking an interest in the maltreatment of Muslim Women by their own community? Any thing to do with political correctness?

[Frosbert Jocrisse]

Question is what is he on? Perhaps the prescription was wrongly filled by the pharmacist.

[A Renegade Priest]

Will the Archbishop now be seeking incorporate Sharia into the Clergy Discipline Measure?

[Elizabeth]

Bonkers, yes.

Wrong man in wrong job at wrong time, undoubtedly.

Is he actively trying to destroy the Church he took an oath to protect? One wonders ...

[Chris Gillibrand]

Malcolm Mclean writes
There is a precedent:
John, by the grace of God, &c. Know that we have conceded and by this present charter of ours confirmed to our Jews in England that excesses which may arise among them except those which belong to our crown and justice, as homicide, mayhem, premeditated assault, burglary, rape, theft, arson, and treasure-trove, shall be brought before them according to their law and remedied, and they shall do justice thereon among themselves.
(Charter of King John, 10 April, 1201)

King John is a precedent in another way, for by 1208, Pope Innocent III had put England under an interdict- locked Churches, no marriages and no Masses, as the King was refusing to let Stephen Langton into the country to take up his appointment as Archbishop of Canterbury.

King John’s response was to send an emissary to the Muslim ruler of Spain, Muhammad An-Nasr, in which he offered to accept Islam, along with his country. Fortunately, he also made a proviso that An-Nasr should send an army as well and he was turned down.

Having failed to adopt this new religion, excommunicated by the Pope in 1209, under increasing pressure in 1213, John offered to surrender ” the Kingdom of England to God and the Saints Peter and Paul for a feudal service of 1,000 marks annually, 700 for England and 300 for Ireland.”

Following defeat at the Battle of Bouvines in 1214, the Barons turned against him, which led to that Great Charter of Our Liberties, to give the document its full title, the Magna Carta.

When Pope St Gregory the Great told St Augustine of Canterbury, the first Archbishop to transform pagan altars rather than destroy them, he could not imagined that Rowan Williams would wish to reverse the process by becoming an archdruid in Wales. Likewise, when Pope Innocent III supported Stephen Langton against King John, he could not have imagined that a successor of Archbishop Langton would have been so relaxed about sharia law being introduced into the Realm. The idea would surely have found support from the thoroughly bad King John.

[Emlyn]

Since Dr. Williams is a Primate it should not be surprising that he has a tendency towards monkey business.

[Stephen]

No, I don't think he's bonkers. He's putting forward a point of view as part of what he probably hoped would be a level-headed and thoughtful process of discussion of a difficult and complex issue. But he won't get it and that is what's saddest about this whole business. His mistake was to think he could explain in a short, live radio interview on the World at One what he himself would later carefully argue in a lecture that I suspect took a good hour to deliver. The third estate and most people in public life these days it seems are not interested in calm, reasoned discussion. All they want is headlines and ideas that can be reduced to a substanceless soundbyte. Ronald Reagan insisted his advisors reduce every topic for discussion to a single page of foolscap. In today's world that would be considered long winded. What deluded fools we are.

[Ali]

Charles, do you really see Muslims agreeing that Allah's law can be subject to approval and proscription by infidel secular law?

The CofE usually bangs on about moral absolutism, and sees moral relativism as the scourge of modern society.

Until today, that is, when Rowan Williams now appears to agree that moral relativism is OK by him.

The assorted Muslim pressure groups must think all their birthdays have come at once today. I should think they are on their knees thanking Allah and praising his greatness in smuggling an Islamic trojan horse into Lambeth Palace.

Religion, eh? You couldn't make it up.

[Will McGuire]

As an American, I am thankful that our founding fathers, Englishmen all, created a codified system of government based on the principles of the Enlightenment. And yet our mother country seems intent, in the name of "tolerance", to repudiate these very same principles in a misguided attempt to accomodate a barbaric medieval theology. It is bad enough that Americans must struggle constantly against religious zealots who are attempting to compromise our inspired constitution, but to see the leader of the venerable Church of England advocate appeasement is to wonder whether Britain has lost its way.

[Chris Sugden]

A Legal opinion from Dr James Behrens a barrister is posted on www.anglican-mainstream.net.

The whole of England and Wales is under the jurisdiction of the Courts. The only way Sharia law could apply directly to a particular area would be for the jurisdiction of the Courts over that area to be removed, and for a Sharia court system to replace it. That would require an Act of Parliament to create a separate jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning “law” and dicere meaning “to speak”) in which the Queen’s rule no longer applied. The constitutional and political implications of this are immense.

Read in full here:

To what extent is is permissible for Sharia law to be part of English law?

Sharia law is not part of English law. Sharia law is treated by English law as a foreign law. The courts sometimes need evidence of what foreign law is on a particular matter, in order to decide rights in accordance with English law. Foreign law is a matter of evidence to be brought before the English Court.

For example, if the question arises in an English Court as to the validity of a will made by a Muslim in Pakistan, evidence will be admitted as to the law which would be applied in Pakistan. The English courts would then apply English law to determine whether, if the will was validly made in Pakistan, it should be treated as a valid will in English law. The answer in fact is yes - see the Wills Act 1963, a part of English law.

Similarly, if the question arises in an English Court as to whether two persons were validly married in a Muslim country, the court would receive evidence of the marriage laws of that country, and then decide, as a matter of English law, whether or not the couple are validly married. See the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 s. 14 and the Foreign Marriage Act 1892.

Although the English Courts may thus have to enquire what the foreign law is on a matter, this is a matter of evidence, a matter of fact. They will determine that as a matter of fact the foreign law says such and such. Then, applying English law to this fact, the court reaches its conclusion as a matter of English law on the issue it has to decide.

There is no question of the English Court applying Sharia law in this process. The English Court applies English law, and would not consider itself competent to apply any other law. In the same way, the English Court would be incompetent to apply French law to a dispute about a French property. Instead the English Court would receive evidence as to French property law, and apply that to the issue the English Court had to decide.

The foundations of English law include of course Acts of Parliament and the common law. Ecclesiastical law (the law of the Church of England) is part of the law of English Law, partly because the Church of England is the Established Church. The law of other Christian denominations is not part of English Law, but is treated as a foreign law. So, too, is Jewish and Muslim law. If the question arises as to the validity of a Jewish or a Muslim divorce, the court will hear evidence on the matter and decide as a matter of English law the answer.

An example of the English Court ascertaining Sharia law but applying English law is Basma Sulaiman Al Sulaiman v Walid Ahmed Al Juffali reported (2002) 1 FLR 479 and The Times, November 28, 2001. In this case the court heard and accepted the evidence of two experts on Sharia law that a Muslim talaq pronounced in England and Wales had the effect under Sharia Law of dissolving a marriage as soon as it was pronounced. However the court held that as a matter of English law a Muslim talaq was an informal divorce obtained otherwise than through a court and therefore could not be recognised in English law as validly dissolving the marriage.

The whole of England and Wales is under the jurisdiction of the Courts. The only way Sharia law could apply directly to a particular area would be for the jurisdiction of the Courts over that area to be removed, and for a Sharia court system to replace it. That would require an Act of Parliament to create a separate jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning “law” and dicere meaning “to speak”) in which the Queen’s rule no longer applied. The constitutional and political implications of this are immense.

Dr James Behrens, Barrister

[Linda]

Williams makes me ashamed to be an Anglican. He is stark raving mad!

[Bob Ayers]

The ABC's incautious remarks have certainly hit the fan here in the USA. .

Is there a distinction between "wet" and "all wet?" Hard for a colonial to be sure of UK slang. "Limp" perhaps?

[Lawrence]

Let me add my own protest to those of many others, pointing out where silly, mindless, pseudo-intellectual multiculturalism leads. OF COURSE Jewish courts in England and the United States operate like arbitration forums. It occurs to no Jews to have a separated ghettoized justice system. The correct course is for Islamic courts to operate the same way: only if both parties agree to be bound by the decision.

[Jeff from Boston]

Thank you, Jesus, for giving Messr.s Hancock, Jefferson, Madison & company the good sense to divorce us from this island of morons, idiots, and the Church of England. America is forever in your debt.

[Hunt S. Cross]

Delighted to read the weight of Muslim opinion on the BBC's HYS against what the Archbishop has said. Choosing to live out of sharia's reach, many in the community appear to have more common sense than he and will, I hope, come to disown other macho, supremacist elements of this political philosophy. As the top picture shows, another problem they face is an activist leadership which represents its own aggression as a victim's cry, blaming everyone yet fooling no one now except for the World Council of Churches and Becket's unworthy successor. Are we "all Hizbollah now" as we were last year? I don't think so. The Muslim community has the ability to make a greater positive contribution to harmony and mutual respect than the prattling prelate ever will.

[Joseph]

This is the first step on the slippery slope:
Step 1. Introduction of elements of Sharia Law in UK.
Step 2. As time passes the Muslim popluation grows through immigration and a higher birth rate.
Step 3. After intense lobbying from the large Muslim population, Sharia extended to all areas of life in the UK, and parallel legal systems function side by side.
Step 4. Further growth in the Muslim population, coupled with increasing non-Muslim emmigration, means Muslims reach majority of population.
Step 5. Non-sharia law is abandoned, and the UK is pronounced an Islamic state, governed solely by Sharia Law. (Already a stated objective of a number of Islamist group active in this UK).

[Spencer]

Yes Ruth. Williams has gone completely bonkers. The Queen should intervene and get this man out before the end of the week. He is a dreadful embarrassment.

[Monica]

80 odd posts of fearful ignorance of what the Archbishop had actually said or what might be considered and at last Charles gets there - well it simply indicates the decline of the once great Times and its increasingly tabloid market.
Nowhere does the ABC suggest that Muslims should be "above the law", nowhere does he suggest that it should be seperate from British law - if he has a fault then it is that he has an almost touching belief that the so-called quality press might actually report what he says rather than seeking anti-Muslim headlines.

[Terry Hudson]

Well done, Ruth. A brave article.

And yes, I think he has gone bonkers. But dangerously so!

[David Smith]

The Archbishop's comments are in the best tradition of Chamberlain and the Clivedon set. Where is Britain's 21st century Enoch Powell? Why have you let these medieval, pre wheel, primitive people into your country?

[Ramon Rodriguez]

Ruth:
This man needs to trade 20 points of his mighty IQ for an ounce of common sense.
Ramon

[DaveP]

Quote: "The Prime Minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values."

Well, this from a PM that has just sanctioned not just polygamous marriages, but actually supports it by allowing Muslims to claim Benefits for multiple wives.

No one is prepared to offer a likely solution to the present problem. Integration is suggested as one policy - though how it is to be achieved is not mentioned. It goes without saying that people of other cultures are just as adamant in preserving their culture as we are.

A nation is based on a common culture, language and ethnicity. Thus a multicultural nation is a contradiction in terms. If this situation continues in Britain, then it will, in the fullness of time, break up into monocultural nations, as demonstrated yet again in Bosnia and Cyprus- partition along religious lines.

We have seen that despite the shedding of much blood and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan, Muslims there, freely adopted shari'a. Sadly, I feel there are really no humane alternatives but a separation from Islam and Muslims, or I fear a civil war in Europe that will be damaging to all. Civil war and partition will happen here as well - Britain will not be an exception.

[Fr Paul Monash]

SORT YOUR OWN HOUSE FIRST BEFORE ADVICING ABOUT SYARIAH
LAW

Bishop Michael Nazir Ali spoke something sensible and faced up to the reality when he stated on 6th January, ‘Islamic fanatics have turned parts of the country into ghettos where non-Muslims are scared to visit’ he was wise to point out how Muslims make it hard for people of other faiths to live peacefully. There are millions of Hindues or Jews in Britain but they don’t make demands forcefully but try to imitate and adjust to British life. They know this is a Christian country and they are here only a generation or two only. They want to adapt to the British way of life. Anyway Archbishop Rowan seem to have rejected Bishop Nazir’s view when question. Today he seem to say the same thing but more as of a coward.

From growing up in Muslim country, I know the Muslim mind is opposite to Christians. They cannot live in peace with people of other faiths. They will taunt the others. Muslim faith is like a mist in the dark…..’It will slowly engulf and will want to kill everything that has life’ .For the archbishop of Canterbury to say, ‘we should adopt some or much of Syariah law’ into British culture or country is insane. He should just vacate his throne as the head of the Anglican Communion. What experience has he got to call ‘Syariah will bring unity, freedom for women or help multi-cultural Britain’? The Common Law we have is the best. Even Muslim countries like Malaysia or Pakistan is trying much to keep to the Common Law.

In Malaysia in the last few years Syariah court is allowed to function parallel with the Common Law. Although it is called to order the life of the 53% Muslims population in the country. It has only brought pain, disunity and division in the country. When a non-Muslim gets involved with a Muslim partner, when a father converts to Islam – many seek Syariah law and that has broken many families and put wife on the street, children been forced to accept Islam. All wealth and property taken away from the wife. It has brought so much of chaos and disunity in the country. The other races are oppressed. The archbishop is only encouraging further division in this land and helping the growth of fundamental Islam. Women will most suffer in Syariah. Multiculturalism is a failure.
Teach people to be British and anyway for a leader who cannot lead his own Church, he should stop advicing others.

Rowan should go and learn from Bishop Nazir Ali or go and meet grass roots in Muslim countries like Malaysia. He should come of his liberal horse that is destroying the Anglican Communion or just stick to church matters. I agree with the Prime Minister Gordon Brown, The Common Law should rule the country. Well done!

You can give the Muslim community any amount of support they cannot live in peace with people of other faiths. They love taunting, threatening anyone who speaks about them and bloodshed. They don’t like reasoning. I am ashamed for the first time to have an archbishop like Rowan Williams.

Reverend Paul Monash

[Jon Bevan]

Everyday on the news you here of one more person in a position of influence or power stating something completely abhorent to the majority of the people living here. The man has to resign. Apart from that we need a commonsense party to replace the gov't.

[David Kirwan]

I believe (check with your fellow-blogger and classicist Mary Beard) that the last stage in the decline of the Roman Empire in the west was when the Burgundians moved in and were given permission to use their own Burgundian traditional law (rather than the Roman law of their hosts), and the Vandals were allowed to use Vandal law (rather than etc) and the Franks were allowed to use Frankish law - and in the end the whole system fell apart. What the arch-bish is apparently advocating (to allow Muslims to use their own law instead of the common law) would result in the dissolution of the Britiah polity into mutually incompatible tribalisms, and the replacement of the UK by a collection of mini-states defined by their incompatible laws.

[JKM]

When in Rome do as the Romans

I am convinced he is looking for a "get out of jail " card and is not up to the job.

This is ludicrous and one of the many reasons the Church is irrelevent,out of touch with the people and moribund

HE SHOULD GO!

[DaveP]

To hzh

If you think it is too late to do anything about the situation, then you have already handed Britain over to Islam - for in less then 50 years, Muslims will be a majority in the UK, and democratic vote will ensure that Britain will be governed by shari’a.

The way forward is to honestly and humbly admit the following

1. Multiculturalism has not only failed, but failed society.
2. Islam and democracy are not compatible, and the rapid increase of the Muslim population in the UK, is a deadly threat to the well being and continued existence of the historic cultural identity of these isles.

To avoid the catastrophe of an inevitable civil war, it is best that Muslims be separated as humanely as possible from the UK. Charges of racism, or citizenship are trivial when the civilisational existence of the nation is at stake.

[Rev Ric]

I was so hopeful when RW became our Archbishop, that at long last here was a man for the times, who would grasp the needs of the Church of England and be able to show its relevance to everyday life. Those hopes have long since evaporated, and I do wonder how he has managed to become so disassociated with and ignorant of the real life of the Christian church in this land.

[Tim Mildenhall Broome Western Australia]

Bonkers? Depends on your frame of reference. To the ABC, he's doing 'the Christian thing', for to him, the Christian gospel is all about the horizontal plane - political equality in general, gender politics, wealth (re)distribution, (gay and many other) rights. The thing is, many of these issues find a form of expression in the documents which point to Jesus Christ and found Christianity - the Bible. But the ABC leaves out a not insignificant aspect of what the Bible is about - God! The great insights of the reformation, which has undoubtedly shaped modern concerns for human rights, were not self-referential statements of what is right, but grounded in a particular historical conviction. The conviction that God has loved us in sending his Son to reconcile us to him, by his death for us. Here, perhaps is the foundation of western views of equality. Certainly the accidentalism of certain evolutionary biologists would not cause me to believe that all people are equally valuable.
No, the ABC is not bonkers. He has just caught that western (European) disease of institutional embarassment of all things Christian.
Imagine a Prime Minister, who had to wait 'til he resigned from the job to join a church!

[Rosie]

I really think the archbishop must be mad even to contemplate such an idea.
Nobody, anywhere in the world, should be bound by the opinions of anybody else, in particular, not by the adherents of a religious faith.
Everybody must conform to the law of the land where they live. But they should be free to choose a land where they can comfortably do that.
Anybody who wishes to conform to the tenets of a religion is free to do so, but he or she has no right to impose them on anybody else, not even their spouse or their children.
The archbishop is entitled to speak only for those who voluntarily accept him as their spiritual leader. The more such garbage he comes up with the smaller that group is liekly to become.

[David M. Allen]

Although I have often felt sympathy for Dr. Williams, I have come to the conclusion that what is inevitable about him is that he will pander to all, but not be held accountable to anyone. If you feel the least bit like applauding this prelate, have no fear, he will soon say that than which
nothing more foolish can be conceived.

[Rick Arllen]

Ruth, his most certainly isn't bonkers. He is just doing his best to prove to us that the long, kinky hair we observe on the outside of his head is just as long and kinky on the inside of his head. He makes a most persuasive argument every time he shares his wisdom with us.

[Michael Daley]

Bonkers? Perhaps. Naive? Certainly. But, I also think he knows what he is doing. He is on his way out.

There are already many people calling for his resignation following his interview with the BBC, this week. I say do not bother. He has already made up his own mind and resign is precisely what he means to do.

http://www.lambethconference.net/?p=57

[Mike Homfray]

What I think he seems to be saying is far less radical then the headlines will no doubt say ( though this is RW so he might be saying something quite different)

I think he is starting from the position that he wants to preserve some space for religious thinking alongside the secular law, which means that there may be areas where religious attitudes or regulations can run alongside the secular law. The exemptions from the SOR's given to the church would be an example of that.

I think RW is suggesting that there may be areas where Sharia law can be respected and seen as acceptable alongside secular law - for example, with regard to some areas of family law within Muslim communities, perhaps on the lines of the acceptability of the Beth Din which has control of some aspects of family law within the orthodox Jewish community ( and is respected by the state)

I think, though, that his agenda is to try and preserve a religious space given the logic of a multi-faith society is increasing secularism as no religion is given preference. I think he is worried that unless this space is given for sharia, then Christians' privileges may be lost.

My own view is that the civil law should be secular, and that means no exemptions for anyone, but I think it likely that churches and mosques alike are likely to practice that which they believe in within their own walls, which is what freedom of religion means. But if some Christians wish to see Christianity receive a privileged place, then there will also be Muslims asking for the same and in a pluralist society there is no logic in refusing.

So - one law for all, no exemptions for religion. That must include discrimination law too.

[Brian]

To my dear friends in Merrie Ole' England,

Appeasement is alive and well among the ruling intelligentsia in Britain. I guess the good Archbishop should just finish the job by waiving a piece of paper saying "Peace in our time!"

England is definitely commiting suicide. This is the result of an ideology of self-loathing that has infected all levels of society, including and especially the CofE.

This is a disease peculiar to the West...concentrate on the bad, explain away any good. Advocate what has been traditionally considered bad, and denigrate what has been traditionally considered good. And to top things off, throw in a good dose of guilt for deeds done hundreds of years ago.

And I do mean suicide in the literal sense. Your birthrate is falling. It will be only a matter of time before Sharia Law is the law of England anyway...they are having more kids than you. If you think I am just scaremongering, you should listen to Bernard Lewis who says that all of Europe will be Islamic by the end of this century. So in a perverted sense, the Archdruid is a prophet.

Speaking of perversion, those Anglicans who have a different view on marriage and sexuality and want to spread the "gospel" of inclusion should ponder these things. If you think Akinola is bad, wait till your grandchildren meet the new Caliph.

Well, actually they won't meet him because they will not exist...you won't have any grandchildren because you are not procreating.

Actually, Akinola has had experience in Sharia law...it has been implemented in a number of northern provinces in Nigeria...you know, where they burn churches and beat and kill Christians. I guess Rowan sees a lot of social cohesion in that arrangement.

WAKE UP before its too late!!

[Scott]

This is a joke, right?

Otherwise the Archbishop has totally wigged out on reality. I thought that I had heard everything, but this is truly the straw that will break the camel's back.

The UK is a secular society with one set of laws divorced from religion (mostly) to govern everybody regardless of their espoused religion. If you want to be governed by Sharia, move to Saudi Arabia or somewhere else where they'll gladly poke your eye out for looking the wrong way, cut off a hand or two for stealing, or stone a girl to death for daring to ride in a car with an unrelated member of the opposite sex.

The Archbishop is starting to ramble on like a crazy uncle who should have been committed years ago. It's about time for a straight jacket and padded room for him, or maybe he should simply be sent to live in Saudi Arabia.

Welcome to the future of Britain. No Christians, Jews, or others allowed. Allah akbar!

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

To Tom Jackson and other British aborigines

When a culture is weakened by lack of will and self assurance, it will be attacked by foreign termites and destroyed. The key to renewal are the schools and the media. As long as they're in the hands of the "rootless cosmopolitans" on the Left, you will slowly die.

Like St Brendan, you may have to get a carragh ready for the long voyage to Canada or Australia where the remnants will find themselves :)

It is not so far fetched as I will illustrate by one of my travel stories. Recently, I was at Los Angeles International Airport where a white couple warmly greeted a Ghanaian fellow traveler claiming that they too were African ( South Africa that is ). They went on to say that they were currently living in Perth, Australia.

Now, how hypocritical is their attitude! Many whites were driven from their country to Australia and these two morons want to curry favor with those who drove them away. Yes, Ghana was not involved but yes it was involved in an indirect way because South Africa was a battle of the races.

You don't suck up to those who want to destroy you. Can you teach the Archbishop that?

[Jay Maupin]

The answer to your question is Yes. He has gone bonkers.

Not in a strictly clinical sense. But he has spent so long trying to reconcile irreconcilable things he has completely lost touch with reality.

He has inherited a Christian office of worldwide importance. He really wants to be a Christian. There is so much about Christianity he likes and supports. Except that ordhodox Christianity does NOT put tolerance and relativism above all else. Tolerance is not required of injustice. Traditiona Christianity requires that one FIGHT injustice--as peacefully as possible, but with ironclad resolve.

The Archbishop has carried the idea of trying to get along with everybody no matter what he's gotten to the point where it's more important to "get along" than to face the fact that sometimes people are WRONG and justice and require that we oppose them, not appease them.

He's gone completely round the bend. He's echoing Chamberlain's delusional trusting of Adolf Hitler.

[Terry]

Will someone please rid us of this totally bonkers, incoherent, incomprehensible, trouble making bearded twit. I note that a similar A'Beckettian plea has been made above and I get no joy in expressing myself somewhat intemperately. However, "Bearded Twit" is also supposed to be leader of the Anglican Communion which once - and not a long time ago - was justifiably powerful in espousing and protecting our religious and parliamentary traditions - an established church and representented in the House of Lords. Today the Anglican Communion is a risible rump and shrinking by the day. Williams, for God Sake GO and NOW!

[David]

Maybe or even clearly it is time for the Queen to step in and remove this man. How dare he even think such a thing. If he is ill then he should be helped by removal, If he believes this wicked type of "law" should be introduced then he is clearly not fit for his office and should be removed as difficult as this may be.

[Arthur George Kamya]

1. The notion of parallel universes of bodies of law within a single jurisdiction is common in federal common law jurisdictions such as the USA. Based on the set of facts (especially in financial and family matters, as noted by Rowan Williams) and the choice of parties, it is as common as apple pie for a set of facts/parties in New York State to be governed by the law of one of America’s other 51 jurisdictions, or indeed law from elsewhere, subject to certain public policy parameters, such as the fact that parties cannot enforce laws (for example permitting fraud) which are against the public policy of New York State, a caveat also drawn by Canterbury. None of this makes America a country without the rule of law

2. If people here knew their British history (which they should, given how much they rightly excoriate contemporary teaching fads), they would know that England as colonial power pioneered similar legal structures in their former colonies in Asia and Africa. The existence of parallel universes of statutory, common and customary laws is common in these countries. This does not necessarily make these countries without the rule of law

3. The reaction here to Rowan William’s very sober, considered musings reminds me of the most despicable traits of political correctness, the notion that there are certain ideas that are simply beyond the pale, absolutely not raisable in any way, shape or manner. How different are you lot from the “feminazis’ who drove the brainy Professor Larry Summers from his position as president of Harvard University simply for raising the hypothesis that it is worth investigating whether there was something innate within women that explains their relatively poor performance in the sciences compared to their male counterparts?

4. I think Brits have a particular problem fathoming this parceling out of laws because of certain legal fictions (sovereignty of parliament, indivisibility of such sovereignty, unitary crown, etc) underlying their constitutional make-up. However, surely, with developments such as devolution and Brussels, these should be seen for what they are, fictions!!

[Michael Stevens]

You know, I would have thought, that as ABC, part of his job description was to evangelise and lead Muslims to Christianity, not pander to them.

Sharia law is often misrepresented in the West, it is an entire legal system, not just about chopping hands off and stoning adulterous women and homosexuals, but how on earth he imagines it to be in any way compatible with the corpus of modern British law, which is now more and more influenced by European Union law, I do not understand.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear All,

The problem with being passive and weak when faced with invasion is that you will have to move - the question is when and where

To see your future if you do nothing, see this link

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1202246348327&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Malcolm Brock]

Ruth, you are absolutely right. He is stark staring bonkers & should be sectioned. If Henry 8 was around he'd have got the chop. Wonder what his thoughts on Sharia would have been then?

[Jim]

Perhaps Dr.Williams would enjoy the reintroduction of human sacrifice and the wearing of woad too...seeing that he's a druid.

[Aya]

The ABC inhabits a very very narrow world and always has. Small Welsh town, Cambridge. Academe. Oxford. Greenham Common protests as a hairy leftie. His imagination resides with weird Russian monks, Graeco Roman theologians and hermits. He is romanitc, loves the middle east and the 'idea' of lovely religious communities. He is just way way out of touch with actual normal people. He dislikes bourgeois, middle England. He loves 'alternative' societies, gays, other faiths, 'strangeness'. He has no idea of the suffering of Muslim women, he only meets Mullahs behaving nicely.

[david skinner]

It looks like a Druid , walks like a Druid and talks like a Druid

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38178000/jpg/_38178386_druid300.jpg&imgrefurl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2172918.stm&h=180&w=300&sz=9&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=elnedRKG5QJSqM:&tbnh=70&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3Drowan%2Bwilliams%2Bdruid%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

[stechfreak]

I think Rowan Williams should apply for the post of "Imam of Canterbury".

[Barry Smith]

Rowan Williams is perhaps not bonkers but he is a very silly man. His calm manner and erudite presentation hides the depths of his silliness. However he is exactly the leader the Church of England needs at the moment when it, and the religion it purports to advocate, are both in terminal decline.

[D A Littlewood]

I wonder what planet the Archbishop lives on. Has he been to places in the world (I have) where Sharia law is enforced and seen the brutality, the discrimination against women and those of other faiths? And doesn't he realise that many practising Christians are feeling marginalised and unrepresented by the laws in this increasingly secular society? Why can't he address these issues. This is typical drivel from an ivory tower academic.

[Bilen]

Greybeard should go--and he richly deserves the derision being heaped on him. I never thought that I would write to the Times to thank a writer for calling someone bonkers--but thank you!

However in corners of the British judiciary there have been whispers for several years that Blair and co want to introduce Sheria. Greybeard may just have been the government's trial balloon or stalking horse or whatever.

This is not the end of the matter.

Hardline Muslims will always press for the Sheria. The ostensible reason is that all Muslims must be ruled by their divine law and no other system will do. (Note as greybeard apparently does not, the dangerous triumphalism in this: they do not see it as a matter of customary practice but as a manifestation of superiority.)
The essence of the matter however is "social cohesion" but not in the way greybeard means. Sheria gives power to the ulema or guiding Muslim divines, shapes the total life of Muslims, moulds their mindset to its standards--and cuts them off from the modern world. Islamic schools are already doing this but no one watches this process closely. In another generation close observation will probably not be necessary when new hardline Islamists abound in British society, on what they see as a frontline between God's people and unbelief.

The people who understand this most clearly and speak out most strongly are that despised and rejected group--modernized secular Muslims, the counterpart of modernized secular Christians. They should be the leading voice in western societies about how to deal with radical Islam. But of course greyb

Creating a sheria community with sheria courts in Britain would most certainly be seen privately by many hardliners as a major step towards the eventual islamisation of this country.

And I think they would be right.

Few people have ever delivered such a blow to British, Christian, and democratic values as greybeard Rowan did yesterday. He should get out of public life.

[Tom Jackson]

God works in mysterious ways.

Waking up on a new day, reading the comments here, watching and listening to media talk shows last night and early this morning, checking out a few front pages online, Rowan Williams has done us all a great service!

The reaction to his interview is brilliant. Apart from one or two diehard multiculturalists and those Islamic adherents foolish enough to raise their heads above the parapets, there has been universal condemnation of the man and his observations on Sharia Law.

Ordinary people are having to think about the issue of Islamic incursion in to the UK. I don't know how long it will last and I'm not certain of the lasting effect, but there has been an uprising of indignation and rejection even that "well-reasoned" contributor from America, Emanuel Appel, might have been proud of!

All that needs to happen now is for Rowan Williams to pack his case and find some monastically secluded retreat, to be secure in his faith, out of the public eye.

And let's appoint an Archbishop who will expound and live the teaching's of Christ, defend and protect Christianity and the way of life that we have in the UK, someone who recognises the illusion and the danger that is so-called multiculturalism.

A question: how many of those of you who have commented here have read the Archbishop's lecture and his interview transcript in full? If you're going to slam the guy, at least have the courtesy to do so on the basis of a close reading of what he's said and not on the back of what the reporters say