Bishop of Oxford - A response to the Archbishop of Canterbury's Sharia comments
The Archbishop's comments are part of his longer term project to make sure religion is kept in the public square, says the Bishop of Oxford the Rt Rev John Pritchard.
Posted: Wednesday, February 13, 2008, 11:08 (GMT)
The speech by the Archbishop of Canterbury on British law raising the question of making some accommodation to sharia councils has stirred both hostility and puzzlement.
I think it's important to realise that in Rowan Williams we have a man of enormous intellectual capacity and integrity who isn't afraid of tackling contentious issues but usually intends to stir a wide-ranging debate rather than to state a final position. His arguments are often more subtle and sophisticated than most people are used to.
The Archbishop's main question is about how a secular legal system can give appropriate space to religious groups and religious commitments. I believe this is part of his longer term project to make sure religion is kept in the public square and not neutralised and privatised. That much is vital.
There is always a problem when the word 'sharia' is mentioned, however, because we have got used to associating it with extremes that are clearly totally unacceptable in a modern western state. The conjunction of the words 'archbishop', 'sharia' and 'unavoidable' were bound to end in tears and I could wish they had not been given the opportunity to do that.
The Archbishop may have been trying to open up a debate on overlapping jurisdiction in matters of marital and financial law, and in mediation and conflict resolution, but British society is clearly not ready for such a debate sponsored by an archbishop.
British law has Judaeo-Christian foundations and has been enacted and shaped by Parliament and the courts. The basis of a stable modern democracy is the rule of law - for all - and I believe we have to honour and protect that common standard.
Other discussions about reasonable accommodation for religious conscience (including Christian religious conscience) would have to take place very carefully and cautiously, and only if public opinion could engage with it without alarm.
Have your say on this article
The comments below are readers' personal opinions and are in no way intended to reflect the editorial opinion of Christian Today.
Added: Friday, February 15, 2008, 13:01 (GMT)
Regardless of what you think of the arguments for or against Sharia law I don't think it's something that the Archbishop of Canterbury should be concerned with. In the comments by the Bishop of Oxford it suggested that Rowan Williams aim is to start a debate rather than come down with a final position.
I do not believe this is a good role for the head of one of the largest Christian denominations in the world. I would have thought his role would be lead the Anglican Community and give it direction.
He is meant to be a Christian leader, which is not about starting debates. If you look at Christ, or the apostles Peter and Paul they did not start debates nor did they see that as their purpose- but they said what was right and wrong and what they believed.
I have some sympathy with the view that the current Archbishop would be more comfortable in a university where he can put such ideas forward. I've no doubt he is a good and kind man but nonetheless I think more is required of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Bill, Bristol
Added: Friday, February 15, 2008, 5:24 (GMT)
I'm living in a muslim country right now. We are a secular country per se BUT our current leaders as well as our former pm have had said in parliament and in local news that this nation is an islamic nation !
I'm not against their beliefs but how can a clearly defined sacred constitution from the day of independent can be so easily brushed aside by mere words from such politician. Islamisation ( sharia law ) is not for today's world as it will bring us back to the age of dinosaur ! All the do's & dont's will be imposed by the top clerics who themselves are a confused lot with dual standard.
One for them and one for the masses with them as Lord over all else. Please read " Dhimmi " in wikipedia to further understand the effect of what a sharia statehood will be for non muslim. A country cannot progress nor grow with a plural law and this has had caused untold misery right now in our nation.
With issue of last minute converts and dead body snatching being one of the prime stories lately here. So beware of the subtle advancement of pleading for their socalled rights as our nation itself is not even a signatory to the UN human rights declaration. We ( people of other faith - 40% of population ) are protected in a selective way in muslim nation here and in UK they want sharia as part of the nation's law ? Please be aware of wolf in sheep clothing. Tq
andrew hoo, Selangor, Malaysia
Added: Thursday, February 14, 2008, 4:25 (GMT)
One has little doubt on the Archbihop's intellect and and integrity, but do the Archbishop [and the Bishop] have sufficient confidence in that the Judaeo-Christian foundation to accomodate all religious and non religious, financial or marital issues, having studied these all their lives, hopefully, allowing the Holy Spirit to guide, teach, comfort and empower that learning?
To those who understand, Shariah cannot be divisible nor accommodating. To those who wish it, eventually and understandably, would want it whole.
Shalom.
Jerry, Singapore
Added: Wednesday, February 13, 2008, 15:52 (GMT)
There is simply nothing to discuss with regard to Shari'a.
I have lived in Muslim countries for several years, where Shari'a is the common law, and quite frankly, I never wish to return. Seeing Shari'a in its typical application is appalling to Western liberal values and respect for the individual.
Shari'a does not belong in Britain, or any other Western country.
Having also read Williams' speech in its entirety, I can conclude that however obscurely his points were made, his intent is clear enough, and we may plainly rebuke him on that basis.
This unworldly and pedantic Archbishop is not fit for his office, and ought to resign to make way for a vigorous defender of Christian values and universal civil law.
J Cline, London
Added: Wednesday, February 13, 2008, 13:39 (GMT)
I think that +Rowan betrayed some naivity in his comments, but I love him for that. Woe betide us if we allow the pres to dictate what can and ccannot be said. The Archbishop was talking to a group of lawyers, after all, and they should have had the subtlety of mind to understand that he was broaching an issue, not pronouncing on behalf of the CofE or indeed the worldwide Anglican Communion.
Rev Paul Rush, Swindon, UK
