Sharia show shuts down? No it doesn't. Bad luck Rowan.

Despite the best efforts of the LamPal staff and the General Synod to pretend Rowan didn't say what they knew perfectly well he had, this story has legs again. According to The Telegraph, which we followed up for later editions, the Queen is anxious now about the Archbishop of Canterbury. She is worried about the "fall-out" from the row. I imagine she fears the authority of his office has been undermined. Which of course it has. And no doubt she's been deluged with emails from bishops in the many Commonwealth countries with large Muslim populations. I did a video vox-pop yesterday of General Synod members about Rowan Williams. The comment of Willesden's Pete Broadbent, first up, might not surprise some of you...

What is significant about this is that it is not the first time HM has been concerned. When the Jeffrey John row broke in 2003, the Archbishop was all for steaming ahead with the appointment of Dr John as Bishop of Reading. Liberals were angry and bewildered when he suddenly backtracked and forced Dr John to withdraw. As a consoltation prize, Dr John became Dean of St Albans. So what could have persuaded this most stubborn of Archbishops, as he was described by Madeleine Bunting (see below) to change his mind? Could it have been pressure then from the Queen? I am given to understand that shortly before the Jeffrey John backtrack, the Archbishop had an audience at  Buckingham Palace. He has those regularly of course. But she is also understood to have twice raised the matter of Dr John's Reading appointment with the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

Then take the Commonwealth. A significant number of Commonwealth countries, representing in total nearly half the communicants of the 75-million strong Anglican Communion, are not attending Lambeth. Instead, their Primates and Bishops are going to Gafcon. Take into account the fact that of the 25 nominal Anglicans in England, barely one million go to Church, and that is a boycott representative of over half the Church. One of the largest is Nigeria, with 18 million-plus.

Here is the full quote that Archbishop Akinola gave me last week, that appeared briefly in the paper but that I've just not had time to post before: 'We have received news of what the Archbishop of Canterbury allegedly said. If it is true that this statement about the inevitability of the introduction of Sharia law into the UK credited to Rowan Williams was actually said by him, it is most disturbing and most unfortunate. With what Christians are going through in Muslim lands around the world, it is unbelievable that any Christian leader - not to talk of an Archbishop - would make such a statement under whatever guise. This matter will be discussed at the next meeting of our House of Bishops.'

Much of Britain's former empire gained independence through conflict. Nigeria left peacefully. Nigeria has a special place in the heart of the Queen, but she loves all the Commonwealth nations.

Think forward now to the Lambeth Conference, and the highlight of the gathering for many, the tea party at Buckingham Palace. Imagine how the Queen will feel as she prepares to welcome Anglican bishops from all around the world onto the immaculately-tended lawns of the Palace. Where will all the black faces be? The bishops of the Commonwealth? There will be a few of course, but most will have already had their Anglican gathering, at Gafcon, whether it is Amman or Jerusalem.

This row puts a rather different perspective on the whole Gafcon initiative. 

If I were Rowan Williams right now, I think I'd want to climb into a Tupperware box and hide.

Surfacing from the maelstrom of the last few days, when I've not had time to do a new post here but have just worked 20-hour days doing stories and posting comments and taking phone calls, it is difficult to know where to start. I feel a little written out. So I'm going to do a round-up of what others have been saying.

But first, with Rowan claiming he did not discuss parallel jurisdictions, let's just clarify for a moment precisely what he did say:

In his World at One interview on  BBC Radio 4 last Thursday, the Archbishop of Canterbury confessed he believed Sharia was inevitable in Britain. He said: "It seem unavoidable and indeed as a matter of fact certain provisions of Sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law; so it's not as if we're bringing in an alien and rival system."

In his speech delivered that evening to an audience of judges and lawyers at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, he spoke about a "supplementary jurisdiction" that might be effected to accommodate the needs of Muslims in Britain. Advocating a scheme in which individuals could choose the jurisdiction under which to resolve certain matters, he said: "Certainly, no-one is likely to suppose that a scheme allowing for supplementary jurisdiction will be simple, and the history of experiments in this direction amply illustrates the problems."

In his presidential address to General Synod on Monday, he appeared to calm the waters when he insisted he was not advocating parallel jurisdiction. But he went on: "So the question remains of whether certain additional choices could and should be made available under the law of the United Kingdom for resolving disputes and regulating transactions."

Has he been misrepresented? I don't think so.

For access to all the best links of the various papers that have covered this story, go as usual to Thinking Anglicans. Some of my own thoughts can be heard on the BBC's Listen Again service from Saturday's Today programme (about ten minutes in on the clip). I also did a comment piece for the paper used yesterday.

But I am fairly certain that many if not most of you here have had enough of me. I know I have So here are some of my favourite things from this whole sharia show. I thought I'ld list my top stories. Our other faith blog, Faith Central, has its own 'top ten' which includes some I've missed, including Mary Ann Sieghart's spot-on analysis from yesterday's Times. Mary Ann is, as am I, extremely concerned about the place of women in Islam in all this. That even she should come out in a way that is critical of the Arcbhishop is significant because she a natural sympathiser of his and was influential in advocating for him to get the job in the first place.

1. Andrew Gimson in the Telegraph had us all curled up with giggles in the press office this morning with: 'The Church of England has been plunged into a renewed crisis of confidence after it proved unable to organise a public stoning to death. The proposed victim, a bearded 57-year-old Archbishop from Kent, had been tried in the media and found guilty of delivering a lecture on sharia law which could not be reduced to an easy soundbite. The penalty is to be stoned to death, though in rare cases the court of public opinion can commute this punishment to exile to some country with sharia law, where the offender is expected to spend the rest of his days sipping cups of tea and beating his wife.'

2. Alan Hamilton in The Times notes that Christianity thrives on nothing so well as persecution and spotted that the Archbishop chose to define his self-avowed sin by a word that does not exist. 'So, Christians: to pride, lust and the rest, add the eighth deadly sin of “unclarity” – a word that is obscure enough not to appear in the Oxford English Dictionary.'

3. I knew this row was turning nuclear when I had the surreal experience of being on the same side as Andrew Brown. In Saturday's Guardian he wrote: 'The Archbishop of Canterbury, a man whose prose is as luxuriant as his beard, might not have anything in common with the heroes of American tough-guy novelist Elmore Leonard beyond a tendency to interrupt his sentences with "Jesus". But it was an Elmore Leonard hero he called to mind in his latest speech: the one in Tishomingo Blues, who earns his living by diving from high platforms into tiny pools of water.'

4. Andrew also wrote on an earlier blog: 'Yesterday’s Sun had a front page urging readers to “Bash the Bishop” and in case they had forgotten how to, a picture of a pretty girl in her underwear right above it.'

5. The Guardian's Riazat Butt, incidentally a Muslim, is writing her Church of England Newspaper column as I am writing this and Andrew Brown is looking over her shoulder, giggling. I'm putting this in here so I can include a link to the column when it appears, as I'm guessing it is going to be quite amusing.

6. Jonathan Petre in the Telegraph today had an intelligent analysis. 'After three days suffering the torments of hell over his ill-judged remarks on Islamic law, the Archbishop of Canterbury has metaphorically risen again. In his presidential address to the General Synod, Dr Rowan Williams refused to modify his admittedly ambivalent views on the place of sharia in the English legal system. At the same time, he displayed sufficient humility over his presentational skills to placate many of his critics.' I include this as a special tribute because it so happens that I was standing outside the Westminster Arms last night with Jonathan, and Putney vicar Giles Fraser, wondering whether to go inside and join Brown and Stephen Bates for the usual post-Synod synod. It was 7.30pm. At that moment, the Telegraph newsdesk called and asked him to do 750 words of analysis. I want you to think about that time for a second, because that's more than he had. 7.30pm. Give him another ten minutes to get over to the press office at Church House, and he had that piece written and down the wire in 15 minutes. A real pro.

7. Quentin Letts in the Daily Mail was his usual brilliant self. The most interesting thing about this row may not be the contribution of the Archbishop, a kindly soul who obviously believes all that ecumenical jazz. It may be the reaction of a British Left which has reflexively recoiled from the multi-culturalism it so long promoted and may now be taking out its self-hatred on this druidical figure in the black cassock and Elijah beard. Incidentally, another reason we all have to be grateful to Rowan. The Mail stopped covering Synod years ago, but this week we've been graced once more by the presence of a resurrected Steve Doughty.

8. Another former religion correspondent, Madeleine Bunting, had a piece of brilliant analysis, for which I am given to understand she had 'access'. I'm guessing that means she was in touch with the Archbishop himself over the weekend. 'Something mad and admirable here,' she wrote. 'Kicking off a constructive debate about sharia is a noble aim, but because it is such an explosive subject you have to be crystal clear about what you are saying and what you are not. You have to go to great lengths to reassure people and allay their anxieties. What you most certainly do not do, as the archbishop did, is wrap sharia into a hugely complex speculation about the nature of "supplementary jurisdictions", and a series of thought-provoking questions about how religious principle can be accommodated within English law, which sounded very alarming.'

9. Another brilliant piece of work was that by Matthew D'Ancona in The Sunday Telegraph. 'Forty years after Enoch Powell's "rivers of blood" speech, the Archbishop of Canterbury has delivered its liberal mirror image: let us call it "rivers of blather". The lecture that Dr Rowan Williams gave in London on Thursday night, and specifically his remarks on sharia law, showed that even the mildest-mannered intellectual can become a bulldog in the social china shop, spraying daft ideas around with a recklessness that disgraced his office.'

10. Matthew Parris said in The Times the Archbishop was dangerous. 'You say,” said Lord Napier (confronted as Commander-in-Chief of the British Army in India by locals protesting against the suppression of suttee) “that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.'

11. In an analysis of Britain's encounter with Islam, Daniel Pipes in FrontPage Magazine writes: 'Williams may be right about the Shari‘a being unavoidable, for it is already getting entrenched in the West. A Dutch justice minister announced that "if two-thirds of the Dutch population should want to introduce the Shari‘a tomorrow, then the possibility should exist." A German judge referred to the Koran in a routine divorce case. A parallel Somali gar courts system already exists in Britain. These developments suggest that British appeasement concerning the war on terror, the nature of the family, and the rule of law are part of a larger pattern. Even more than the security threat posed by Islamist violence, these trends are challenging and perhaps will change the very nature of Western life.'

12. Anne Applebaum in the Washington Post condemns a 'Craven Canterbury'. She writes: 'Every time police shrug their shoulders when a Muslim woman complains that she has been forced to marry against her will, every time a Western doctor tries not to notice the female circumcisions being carried out in his hospital, they are acting in the spirit of the archbishop of Canterbury. So is the social worker who dismisses the plight of an illiterate, house-bound woman, removed from her village and sent across the world to marry a man she has never met, on the grounds that her religion prohibits interference. That's why -- if there is to be war between the British tabloids and the archbishop -- I'm on the side of the Sun.'

Comments

[Dan]

Ruth,

Being from the U.S., I am poorly versed in British accents, but in your video I detected nary a person with what I would call a "working class" accent. Were all the commenters on this video from the "upper crust" of Anglican society?

(rg writes: I would guess they were all middles.)

[Tom Jackson]

Well, nobody could accuse Ruth of putting her own 'spin' on this video!

I believe it is customary for the Synod to stand when the President enters and as a body of Christians, I would have expected nothing less than warm and welcoming applause for a fellow traveller under pressure.

The story of the Good Samaritan comes to mind. I am sure that many of us who have attacked the Archbishop and criticised his speech hold him in high regard, wishing him well and hoping for a strong recovery.

Rowan Williams is obviously not going to resign or be encouraged to think hard about his position and that is disappointing. I cannot see how the Anglican Church can organise any form of effective defence and resistance to the Islamic onslaught without a strong, realistic and purposeful leader and whatever plaudits his supporters in the Synod may heap upon him, strength, realism and purposefulness are sadly missing or misplaced.

[andrew holden]

Tom, I really don't see how, in any Christian charity, you can believe that the Archbishop hasn't already thought very hard about his position and has responded quite humbly to his mistakes. Shame he disagrees with your opinion - but that's why we debate things in the Church of England. He's certainly not a feudal Bishop ready to get on his white charger and lead any sort of Crusade to eject the Islamic onslaught. No doubt he rightly wishes to leave any crusading to politicians!

Dan, joining the CofE these days means that, whatever your class background you become middle class. Nevertheless the working class origins were clearly detectable in accents from London to Lancashire!

[Neil]

Now I have heard and seen it all.
What a bunch of sycophants! :(

The Bishop of Willesden shows just how out of touch with most of the population he really is.
Shocking.

Thank you Ruth for posting that. Sorry, Pete, that was a shockingly self-confident comment. Please get your head out of the sand.

[Tom Jackson]

"No doubt he rightly wishes to leave any crusading to politicians!"

And, with all respect, Andrew, this is where we differ. Onward Christian Soldiers, Marching as to War.

Oh, sorry! Debate, prevaricate, bury your head in the Bible and pass the buck to someone else!

Is that really what you believe Jesus would have us do?

"Of course that does not mean that where Islam is in the wrong, and where Muslims threaten some of our shared human values we should not defend those principles with a robust determination."

Robust determination! What on earth did you mean by that then? Challenge them to a debate? Build a human shield around our Capital and force them to blast their way in with car bombs? Sit quietly in our front rooms while they adopt the Palestinian tactic of lobbing rockets down our streets?

Have absolutely no doubt about it, Andrew. If we rely upon a secular resistance and response as J Pearce would advocate, we are in serious trouble.

Because, any defence again erosion of Christian values is going to be built in a fostering of faith amongst those who currently couldn't care less. It will be a fight for the hearts, minds and souls of those people and that will require a clarity of purpose and strength in leadership.

What is a dead cert loser is to place your faith in someone who ever since he was appointed as shown none of those qualities.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

Well, Ruth, I come back to England for a well-deserved rest and to see my friends, and what happens? Your best friend, Andrew Brown of the Church Times, assumes in public that I forwarded you the e-mail I received from Lambeth Palace, when as you know, I placed the response on my blog, without mentioning names, a couple of months ago.

This is because a lawyer and member of the Church of England had forwarded me the details of the proposed lecture in December and asked for comments.

I could see at once that if the speech was made as suggested by the blurb, Rowan would be in serious trouble and that there would be a back-lash against the Jewish community, as many would assume that the Bet Din is run like a sharia court, which it isn't.

Anyway, I've now had the privilege of being greeted by my former neighbour in Salford as a hero for featuring in one of your articles, which you wrote when I was en route from Israel to England, and of being treated with the expected disdain by Andrew Brown of the Church Times.

For those who don't know, I've written extensively on Jewish law and have also advised Lambeth Palace and other relevant bodies on topics to do with religion and law.

Lambeth Palace had originally invited me to lunch when I was here, but to judge from the frosty missive I received from them in the wake of your article, before I'd even had a chance to read it and to digest the accusations made in the said missive from Lambeth Palace, one might be forgiven for feeling that one was oneself guilty of the treachery of which the ABC has been accused. But then, Jews always are fair game, aren't they?

A final word: the Press is not to blame at all for what has happened, except that it was the Times who got Rowan elected in the first place.

A second word: being an academic myself, whose knowledge of Bible is not insignificant, I do not accept that academics can be excused for unclarity of thought.

That's just post-modern hogwash of the worst sort.

The fact is that what I was sent by Lambeth as an explanation of the proposed lecture was in complete contradiction to what was actually said in the Archbishop's subsequent speech, as accessed on the Lambeth Palace website.

But we're used to this, aren't we? For when the Archbishop 'welcomed' the 2004 Anglican Peace and Justice Network document, presented at the Anglican Consultative Council in 2005, which proposed divestment from Israel, he then clarified his position as being one of not actually being in favour of boycotting Jews.

And then promptly went ahead and voted for specific divestment in Synod 2006.

So consistency is certainly not to be expected from the C of E.

By the way, how can Giles Fraser square his espousal of the ABC's speech, which he deems heroic, with his equally devoted espousal of gay rights?

Or is this all part of the post-modern world inherited by certain members of the C of E, particularly those who admire Martin Heidegger as Giles says he does - a German philosopher who was also a notorious antisemite?

Do access my blog for the latest, which is an e-mail sent to me by one of Rowan's greatest friends and admirers, and also a great friend of mine:

http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/

PS, he did give me permission to post his e-mail.

[Alistair]

I may have missed something, but it seemed to me that the Archbishop said he took the blame for a lack of clarity in what he said, for which he apologised. But he remains adamant that he was right to raise the subject and stands by his speech.

Plese correct me if I'm wrong. It's just that I am still trying to understand (even more so after the Synod address) what the difference is between "a supplementary jurisdiction" and a "constructive accommodation" with Sharia, or the law recognising "other affiliations and loyalties", and the 'parallel' system that both Lord Carey and Cardinal O'Connor seemed to think he was speaking about and which they slapped down at the weekend, notably in the Sunday Telegraph and the News of the World.

I don't think the media can be entirely blamed for misinterpeting the Archbishop when Messrs Carey and O'Connor had significant opportunites in their newspaper articles to set any misinterpretation straight, and didn't.

(And I don't want to have a debate about which is the better aademic/theologian among the three of them!)

[J Pearce]

"Have absolutely no doubt about it, Andrew. If we rely upon a secular resistance and response as J Pearce would advocate, we are in serious trouble."

What did I say!?!?

Seriously Tom, Christians seem to have one of two default settings - couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag; or scorched earth fascism.

Neither is a recipie for defending cultural freedoms. My advice - leave it to us "poor, spiritually bankrupt secularists" to sort the grown-up problems out, then you constantly fueding religionists can get back to what you do best - bitching at each other from partisan lines (in the most Jesus-approved way, of course...).

[saint]

I think the Brits have spoken: right problem, wrong solution.

And me thinks the Brits are right.

And Ruth, you and your readers should really enjoy this. It's brilliant.

[andrew holden]

Tom, my faith remains in Christ - not in ANY Archbishop.

And when it comes to actually fighting against terror and extremism from Islamists, I've probably been a lot nearer than most here - yourself included.

[Tom Jackson]

"A second word: being an academic myself, whose knowledge of Bible is not insignificant, I do not accept that academics can be excused for unclarity of thought."

While I would agree with Irene's comment - from someone I have a great deal of respect for - I would suggest that the original and valuable contribution that academics often make does not necessarily fit them as the most suitable people to put their thoughts into practice.

Now, this is not always the case, of course, but Rowan Williams has demonstrated that accepted principle in football, a good player does not necessarily have the qualities to make a good manager.

Unfortunately, in his case, this situation has also revealed that having failed to translate, what to him is, clear thinking about aspects of Sharia Law relative to our system of justice, into what is understandable by the general public, he and his supporters then hide behind attacks on the media rather than accept and admit that some of us have a reasonable amount of intelligence inside our thick skulls!

In the end, it just adds to the befuddled, unorganised and bumbling image that has gradually evolved about our Archbishop which does little to raise Christ high in our community.

[Tom Jackson]

"And when it comes to actually fighting against terror and extremism from Islamists, I've probably been a lot nearer than most here - yourself included."

Andrew, whatever your circumstances, there was no offence intended.

"They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. " Isaiah II (King James version).

I am just afraid that we are too settled and comfortable in our complacency to leave the fields and take up the weapons to deal with this new threat.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

I agree with Tom. However, having just returned to Britain from Israel for a month, the different attitudes to academics in the two places couldn't be more different.

If a Chief Rabbi of Israel made a speech both as convoluted and as potentially incendiary as that made by the ABC, he would be hounded in the press, and academic brilliance would be no excuse.

Luckily, most of my teaching has been in adult education. Teaching at Manchester University, as well as being an appallingly dhimmi type of experience, in which censorship was rife, was also very disappointing intellectually. Possibly the two go together.

As for ABC's, most of us had assumed that the Bishop of Rochester would have got the job, until The Times had a love-in with Rowan Williams. If I remember correctly, the Muslim community (whoever that is) were asked for their opinions on the matter, and opted for Rowan.

Not surprising really, but tragic for the country. Apart from anything else, one of the outcomes has been a brain drain of thoughtful members of the Jewish community to Israel, as well as to the USA.

We just don't think that we are welcome in Britain any more.

http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/

[Malcolm Bowden]

As to the football analogy, surely he's not a player - I believe his parish experience is extremely limited to say the least - and he's certainly a failed manager. The only thing to do would be to kick him into touch as a Director of Football. Then we could get a real manager who might put the interests of our team first and leave the rest of the league to sort themselves out!

By the way, more seriously and as a lawyer I entirely agree with Irene - to compare sharia with Bet Din is a mockery and betrays a complete lack of understanding of the constitutional and legal history of England and Wales (and I presume to say, although I can't speak for them, Scotland)

[observer]

Numbers 15:16
"One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you."

(but then the bible says lots of things that certain bishops feel they can ignore as they know better.....)

[andrew holden]

"By the way, how can Giles Fraser square his espousal of the ABC's speech, which he deems heroic, with his equally devoted espousal of gay rights?"

I think there are two basic types of people. One sort always looks for an argument and tries to find reasons why the other person cannot be a friend. No wonder they have so many fights!

The other kind of person irenically looks for common ground on which we can agree and from which we can tackle the serious issues which still divide us.

I guess that Giles Fraser, whilst disagreeing with the Archbishop on both Islamic Law and on the Gay question in the CofE still thinks he is essentially an ally on the side of reasoned dialogue preferrable to some facist seeking violent schism both in our church and in our society.

There may come a point when talking stops (perhaps because the other is no longer committed to it) and it's right to fight in defence of what one believes in - but if we are fighting merely to impose our 'religion' on the other then I think we are every bit as bad as the worst of them.

No small wonder that in such a situation George Parr and JPearce declare "a pox on both (your) houses."

[pendennis88]

Now, I am just an average person, and not an intellectual as are the Archbishop and his staff. Well, I was offered the opportunity in college, but I failed to avail myself of it. Study was not a priority until after my second degree, when things began to get a little harder.

But intellectuals come in many varieties. One is the sort who raises interesting questions. Another is the sort who thinks through those questions into the answers, possible answers or lack of answers and why. Both are intellectuals, but the latter are thinner on the ground. It was the latter I would have hoped the Archbishop to be, rather than the former.

N.T. Wright suggests that the Archbishop was just broaching the subject of the lines between the law of the state and individual religious conscience. Well, that may be what the Archbishop thought he was doing, but if so, one thing is that I hardly think that the Archbishop's contribution to the question is plowing any new fields of scholarship. Truckloads of paper and barrels of ink have already been spent on that subject, so I suppose I would expect an intellectual even of the question-raising stripe to come up with something fresher. But then to throw out that some nuanced and apparently theoretical form of sharia law, voluntary in some undefined manner, and as interpreted by who knows, might be accomodated by the secular law, while largely not addressing the many, many reasons why that might be a disastrous idea, either theroretically or as applied, is simply not the level of intellectualism that I think we ordinary folk have the right to expect from our betters.

Just my opinion, of course, common as I am.

[Kate Rafferty]

Absolutely unbelievable how clueless these people are.

[Neil]

Who does that Madeleine Bunting think she is? She’s must have gone native. Its one thing for a journalist to cover religion but does she have to behave like a Christian? She had "access"! Obviously, she doesn't know how its done. Better get on top of this. Before you know it she’ll be remembering the 9th commandment.

[sbw]

Rowan Williams failed to harmonize British law with other cultures because he mistakenly assumes culture and society are synonymous. They are not. Society is the edge where two individuals -- or two cultures -- meet. Let me explain: Helping Rowan Williams.

[Steve Hayes]

Well now, the Muslim media got their collective knickers in a knot because of the Roman pope's comments in an academic paper he delivered at Regensburg, and now the Western secularist media are doing precisely the same thing over something the Archbishop of Canterbury says at a similar gathering.

What comes out most clearly in both these incidents is the mendacity of the media.

[robroy]

There is a very important analysis that dispels the offensive spin being offered that critics are 1) too stupid to understand RW's remarks, 2) haven't read the transcript, or 3) misrepresenting what he said. It is by Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, who is head of the Barnabas fund which helps persecuted Christians (often at the hands of Islamists). It may be found at Anglican Mainstream: www.anglican-mainstream.net. (Go there and search for "Barnabas".) It offers a clear, cogent critique of the statements and their implications.

[andrew holden]

Robroy, there's another side to every argument. For the other side to the argument that moderate Islam is a myth (one of Sookhdeo's own charges) see:

http://www.islamicamagazine.com/Issue-15/The-Myth-of-The-Myth-of-Moderate-Islam.html

[andrew holden]

Maybe this is the definitive analysis of who is to blame - maybe not. At least it doesn't blame the Times' religious blogs!

http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2008/02/13/archbishop-rowan-firestorm-was-started-by-the-bbc/

[Katie]

No, he has not been misrepresented. Thank you,Ruth, for being so forthright (and for not being bought off or called off) about the latest sorry mess that R.W. has created.

[andrew holden]

"No, he has not been misrepresented. Thank you,Ruth, for being so forthright (and for not being bought off or called off) about the latest sorry mess that R.W. has created."

You know I don't actually agree with the Archbishop's position but when the media are not much interested in what the AoC ACTUALLY SAID, nor in what he ACTUALLY MEANT (which might have taken some further teasing out or clarification - to which we are all entitled when speaking on complex issues) but only in what VARIOUS PEOPLE SAID he said and THOUGHT he meant then what else would you call it but blatant misrepresentation?

I think Matt Wardman's page says it all and has the evidence to prove his point.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

Speaking personally, I find most of the journalists I encounter to be far more intelligent than most academics, and they have the added advantage of being interested in both people and the truth.

Academics tend to be interested in the next grant they'll be able to get - that is when they are not interested in boycotting Israeli universities.

As for the Church of England, I've met quite a few Bishops and some of them don't seem to have a brain in their head; others are alarmingly politically correct; and all seem to be very fearful of Islam.

There are one or two exceptions to this, but I can't name them, as they might suffer the indignity of being booted out as a result.

[Mike Homfray]

And if its upset Akinola, that prime example of premodern ignorance ( and why the Commonwealth should be recognised for what it is - largely a group of banana republics constantly bleating on about aid and expecting us to pay the bill) then perhaps more of the same should be encouraged - danaging the CofE AND upsetting those who need to be upset! Keep it up, folks....

[Mike Homfray]

The Queen should keep her views to herself - she is there purely as a figurehead. Once she starts to have a public voice, then the remaining reason for monarchy has gone.

Naturally, I am completely republican in any case.

[Mike Homfray]

Irene: how out of touch can you be? Nazir-Ali was never in with a ghost of a chance - the man isn't fit to run the proverbial whelk stall and will make an excellent leader of the new Akinolite church in England. Most will be only too happy to see him go, and remember his hilarious appearance on the Today programme which showed him in his true colours.

[George Parr]

Insofar as legitimacy is concerned, the vastly expensive, wholly inappropriate, undeserving monarchy and the elitist carousel that is the Anglican hierarchy have had it all their own way for far too long. When either institution makes one tiny move to heal the society it continues to divide and classify, we might begin a slow process of social and racial tolerance.

The mistake is in passively going along with the notion that any of these people have divine rights which, bizarrely, cannot be challenged in favour of equality and the rights of all people, regarding their freedom to think for themselves. Religious worldviews of all colours categorise and judge human behaviour, human worth, relationships and sexuality, whilst maintaining and proposing archaic systems in which power and gender are issues.

[Lutheran]

Guess you got an aversion to the Archbishop of Canterbury who is agreat person. Please be objective.