This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable' - Comments

PJG's Avatar Comment 1 by PJG

This could be a good thing.

There have been many comments on this website about how the UK may "sleepwalk" into a dangerous situation regarding religion and the state. This may be what was needed to make a lot of complacent people sit up and realise where kow-towing to religious dogma may lead.

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:38:00 UTC | #117497

the way's Avatar Comment 2 by the way

This should fill the pews!! Salesman of the year award material!

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:40:00 UTC | #117499

Quetzalcoatl's Avatar Comment 3 by Quetzalcoatl

Yet another demonstration of how far out of touch Rowan Williams truly is. I find it interesting that he seems to believe that bringing in separate laws for separate groups is supposed to foster social cohesion. The opposite would seem to be the logical consequence.

I'm slightly reassured that the reaction so far seems to be one of all-round condemnation.

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:42:00 UTC | #117502

Sally Luxmoore's Avatar Comment 4 by Sally Luxmoore

Proof that there is such a thing as being so open-minded that your brains drop out !
... And to think that he sits in the House of Lords.
Maybe this will help towards the eventual disestablishment of the Church of England. We can but hope.

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:44:00 UTC | #117504

agn's Avatar Comment 5 by agn

"Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.
"

We already know that, archbishop.
We even have a name for such people: Criminals.

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:46:00 UTC | #117505

Szymanowski's Avatar Comment 6 by Szymanowski

It seems such a monumentally stupid thing to say that I suspect RW isn't being sincere. Might this be a cunning plan by the Archbishop to stir up some extra anti-Muslim sentiment?

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:48:00 UTC | #117507

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 7 by Diacanu

This shows me "moderate", Christianity is indeed jealous of the control fundamentalist Islam has on people.

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:50:00 UTC | #117508

Sally Luxmoore's Avatar Comment 8 by Sally Luxmoore

Szymanowski.

It seems such a monumentally stupid thing to say that I suspect RW isn't being sincere.


No, just monumentally stupid.

He has a record of coming out with daft comments like this.

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:52:00 UTC | #117509

jimbob's Avatar Comment 9 by jimbob

Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.


Yeah right! Under this scenario muslim men would choose the sharia option even if the women were against it.

Wonder if the archaicbishop will get invites to the public stonings?

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:53:00 UTC | #117510

liberalartist's Avatar Comment 10 by liberalartist

The best thing for society is to do away with all religious laws and have only secular laws like in the US. I assure you, there is no one here trying to establish sharia and we don't have muslims on the street protesting about it. I expect that it can be a struggle to adjust to a new culture and legal system, but when people migrate to a new country that is what they should be expected to do. The only way to have one cohesive society is that all participants share in the same system and all are treated equally. If there are laws that muslims disagree with then they should participate in the national legal system and democratically make changes, not create their own, independent system. How do you define where one system of laws start and another stops?? ridiculous.

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:55:00 UTC | #117511

Phoenix42's Avatar Comment 11 by Phoenix42

I think he is being deliberately provocative here. He is either doing it:

a) To show us where we’re headed and get us to explicitly and visibly object

b) As a classic con trick... ask for something outrageous (Sharia law) and then ask for something smaller (e.g. new blasphemy law and exemptions from human rights laws for religious organisations)

c) He has gone completely bonkers and has decided to give up being a bish and audition for the part of Dumbledore in the next Harry Potter movie!

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:58:00 UTC | #117512

clunkclickeverytrip's Avatar Comment 12 by clunkclickeverytrip

The a.o.c. proposes the validation of a form of lawmaking that makes a mockery of democracy, rather than siding with reason.
When push comes to shove, the above merely confirms that Christianity has more in common with Islam than it does with a secular social structure. These religions need each others support more than they need democracy. Certainly democracy does not need Christianity or Islam.

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:59:00 UTC | #117514

Fenriswolf's Avatar Comment 13 by Fenriswolf

On the plus side, the leaders of the main political parties have all distanced themselves from Bish's comments.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7233335.stm

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:04:00 UTC | #117519

Nighttripper's Avatar Comment 14 by Nighttripper


Comment #123558 by Szymanowski on February 7, 2008 at 10:48 am
It seems such a monumentally stupid thing to say that I suspect RW isn't being sincere. Might this be a cunning plan by the Archbishop to stir up some extra anti-Muslim sentiment?


My thought exactly. And how naive it is to allow muslims (or any group for that matter) to legally devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party "as long as both sides agree to the process".

Do you really think that the woman will be allowed to make a different choice then "judgement by Sharia law" when she finally has accumulated the courage to declare her desire to divorce (with a big chance at being ostracised by her familly and community for the rest of her life).

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:04:00 UTC | #117520

Geoff's Avatar Comment 15 by Geoff

If I go to another country, I expect to have to follow their laws; if it's a country whose laws I don't like or agree with, I don't go. Similarly, I don't expect them to speak English (or provide translators) for my benefit; I learn their language.

If that sounds racist, then fair enough, but I'm not suggesting any different treatment for them than I would expect for myself in any foreign country.

What the Archbishop is suggesting is not integration but disintegration.

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:07:00 UTC | #117521

Mr DArcy's Avatar Comment 16 by Mr DArcy

"An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth". Perhaps? Rowan Williams must know his own religion's view of justice.

As to whether Islamic thieves in Britain will ever be entirely armless is another question.

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:08:00 UTC | #117522

Ragnar0kk's Avatar Comment 18 by Ragnar0kk

I would rather fight to the death than bow before Sharia law, fuck this guy

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:09:00 UTC | #117524

82abhilash's Avatar Comment 17 by 82abhilash

Dr Rowan Williams is being idiotic. This move will only create two parallel societies which are highly polarized.

And the problem with Sharia law is that once it is introduced, no Muslim can refuse to follow it, even if it is only optional. They risk being labeled apostates and even killed.

Besides this will open the door to all sorts of claims from people of all sorts of religious backgrounds - Hindus, Sikhs, Catholics, etc.,

Given that this man is the Archbishop of Canterbury, we now have one more reason now to dismantle the antiquated theocratic institutions of Great Britain.

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:09:00 UTC | #117523

the way's Avatar Comment 19 by the way

It also reinforces how confused religion is and how even the religious leaders have lost the plot and do not know how to address all their various mythologies coherently...and on top of all that they have to deal with those pesky Atheists.

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:15:00 UTC | #117528

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 20 by Diacanu

Look, limeys, I'll say it again, read some Thomas Paine, get into a revolutionary froth, and revolt.

You've put it off far too long.

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:20:00 UTC | #117533

emmet's Avatar Comment 21 by emmet

Dr Williams added: "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."


Exactly backwards, Dr. Williams. In fact, that's exactly what we want: where "religious conscience" is at odds with law, it must be "squared up to"; the alternative is capitulation of civil society to the capricious religious whims of every denomination.

Equality of all persons before the law is a cornerstone of secular democracy.

The only way to respect all religions equally is to respect none of them at all.

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:21:00 UTC | #117534

WSteG's Avatar Comment 22 by WSteG

I rather suspect that Rowan Williams is fundamentally a decent and caring man (and far from stupid) but he doesn't appear to comprehend the aspiration of Islam to control the whole planet. Here's a refinement of his proposal that would leave him with less egg in his beard and, at the same time, would demonstrate vividly where Islam stands. Let Williams propose that all Islamic nations reciprocate and allow non-Muslims and (especially perhaps) apostates to bend to arrangements other than those prescribed by Sharia. I have no expectation that any Islamic nation would subscribe to such an arrangement but, if I were wrong, it would constitute a major breakthrough.

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:22:00 UTC | #117535

al-rawandi's Avatar Comment 24 by al-rawandi

Diacanu,


Tell them to dust off the muskets and red coats...

No more queen.

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:26:00 UTC | #117539

Colwyn Abernathy's Avatar Comment 23 by Colwyn Abernathy

No..No F'ing WAY! If they want to follow Sharia law so bad, they can move to Iran. I really don't see how a repressive set of laws can maintain any sort of social cohesion. If you don't like it move someplace where you do.

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:26:00 UTC | #117538

Ragnar0kk's Avatar Comment 25 by Ragnar0kk

Comment #123585 by emmet
The only way to respect all religions equally is to respect none of them at all.


I agree with your logic 100% my friend

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:28:00 UTC | #117540

Sally Luxmoore's Avatar Comment 26 by Sally Luxmoore

I rather suspect that Rowan Williams is fundamentally a decent and caring man (and far from stupid)


There is a kind of intelligence (think absent-minded professor stereotypes) that is quite incapable of common sense.
This appears to be the brand that Dr Williams is endowed with.
He is a bit of an innocent and frequently makes comments that backfire because of his inability to imagine their practical consequences.
Has anyone checked to see whether he's managed to put on a matching pair of socks?
He's just unsuitable for this post.

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:29:00 UTC | #117541

AshtonBlack's Avatar Comment 27 by AshtonBlack

Strange one this...

On one hand I can't believe he's even thought about this for more that 3 secs. On the other I can't help thinking there's a lot more of an ulterior motive at work...

Anyway, Sharia Law, over my dead cold body. (Well... maybe not, but this would be a deal breaker for me. I'd up sticks and move to fecking Sweden!)

British Common Law, has been, over the last 500 years the basis of most (yes that includes you US!) Legal systems.
Trail by Jury, Appeal Courts, Innocent till proven guilty etc etc.

I can assure you, the day this is past in Parliament will be my very last day in the UK.

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:31:00 UTC | #117542

scoobie's Avatar Comment 28 by scoobie

He stresses that "nobody in their right mind..."

Who's wearing the pearly dress and pointy hat?

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:31:00 UTC | #117543

Colwyn Abernathy's Avatar Comment 29 by Colwyn Abernathy

He stresses that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".


Hmm...then WHAT, pray tell, about Sharia law is reasonable, as WELL as not already on the books. If all that's on the books is what's reasonable in Sharia law, WHY BLOODY BOTHER CHANGING IT to appease one subgroup?! What makes them so much more "speshul" than the rest of us?

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:34:00 UTC | #117544

the way's Avatar Comment 30 by the way

A cunning plan?...Maybe it's an (dis) ingenious method to get the moderate moslems to start jumping up and down if they feel that sharia may be coming their way after all they have done to get away from it?

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:37:00 UTC | #117545