Well, make sure it comes in first! Then look forward to practising it.

InshAllah it will.

Seems like this has blown up into a big issue all of a sudden...BBC are leading with it on their news.

Might or might not be a good thing for British Muslims. Depends who runs the courts. From my outsider's perspective, there's been a lot of agitation to challenge the traditional leadership of Muslim communities in the UK, and my concern is that a) shariah law would not be enforced with the utmost equitableness as endorsed by most of you lot and b) highly sectarian groups claiming to be against fitnah would dominate the community and intimidate individuals from using regular British courts, resulting in some bizarre rulings. I consider the Archbishop pretty naive and think that while shariah courts are not in themselves a bad thing - and they do exist here already, with limited powers - at this time of political unease he risks pushing a victory for hardliners. Am I wrong wrong wrong?

No you have a good point too much power can lead to corruption. Before you know it some scholars will abuse their position which could lead to injustice. Perhaps if the UK government kept a watchful eye on things things might not spiral out of control. I think there is some sort of Sharia law already present esp in relation divorce in London. There was a programme about it on the other day on channel 4.

IF Sharia law is introduced there is no way that the Government is gonna hand over full control to the relevant ppl.

You only have to look at the mosques!

In my opinion Shariah law is only for the good of humanity. Allah (swt) knows best.

shoulnt be alloowed

ooh, controversial. Why not?

A good read:

Quote:

[size=18]Q and A: Sharia law explained[/size]

[size=9]By Dominic Casciani
BBC News home affairs reporter[/size]

The Archbishop of Canterbury has come under fire after appearing to back the adoption of some aspects of Sharia law in the UK. But how does the legal system work and fit into society?

[b]What is Sharia?[/b]

Sharia law is Islam's legal system. It is derived from both the Koran, as the word of God, the example of the life of the prophet Muhammad, and fatwas - the rulings of Islamic scholars. .

But Sharia differs in one very important and significant way to the legal traditions of the Western world: it governs, or at least informs, every aspect of the life of a Muslim.

[b]What does it cover?[/b]

Western law confines itself largely to matters relating to crime, contract, civil relationships and individual rights.

Sharia is however concerned with more. Sharia rulings have been developed to help Muslims understand how they should lead every aspect of their lives according to God's wishes.

[b]What does this mean in practice?[/b]

All sorts of things in daily life. For example, many young Muslims ask themselves what they should do if colleagues invite them to the pub after work or college.

Many people would of course make up their own mind about the appropriate course of action. But others may turn to a Sharia scholar for advice.

So Sharia covers a lot of very mundane and banal daily issues where observant Muslims want to ensure they act within the legal framework of their faith.

[b]So how are rulings made?[/b]

Like any legal system, Sharia is complex and its practice is entirely reliant on the quality and training of experts.

There are different schools of thought, which consequently lead to different rulings.

Scholars spend decades studying the law and, like with Western law, an expert on one aspect of Sharia is no means the authority on another.

Islamic jurists issue guidance and rulings. Guidance that is considered a formal legal ruling is called a Fatwa.

[b]Do people go to court?[/b]

Sharia courts exist in both the Muslim world and in the Western world.

In parts of the Muslim world the criminal courts and their punishments are of course drawn from the rules of Sharia.

In the West, Muslim communities have established Sharia courts to largely deal with family or business disputes.

The internet has become a popular way of seeking a ruling with scholars. Some of the guidance to Muslims in the west which has been considered most outlandish has come from these sources, particularly where the scholar has no knowledge of the realities of western life.

[b]Why is Sharia mentioned in the same breath as public executions?[/b]

Of all the issues around Islamic law, this remains the most controversial in Western eyes - and its presentation the most infuriating for Muslims.

Muslims say the Western world misrepresents Sharia by focusing on beheadings in Saudi Arabia and other gruesome punishments. The equivalent, they say, would be a debate about the history of Western law focused on America's electric chair.

Some modern Muslim scholars say that while Sharia includes provisions for capital and corporal punishment, getting to that stage is in fact quite difficult.

The most famous Muslim thinker in Europe, Tariq Ramadan, has called for a moratorium on these penalties in the Muslim world.

He argues that the conditions under which such penalties would be legal are almost impossible to re-establish in today's world.

[b]But Muslims can be executed for converting?[/b]

Apostasy, or leaving the faith, is a very controversial issue in the Muslim world and the majority of scholars believe it is punishable by death.

But a minority of Muslim thinkers, particularly those engaged with Western societies, argue that the reality of the modern world means the "punishment" should be left to God - and that Islam itself is not threatened by apostasy.

The Koran itself declares there is "no compulsion" in religion.

Egypt's most senior cleric has faced a storm in the Middle East after floating some of these ideas but the debate may well continue for many generations to come.

[b]So what kind of Sharia are we talking about in the UK?[/b]

The key issues are family law, finance and business. In practice many Muslims do turn to Sharia guidance for many of these day-to-day matters, particularly family disputes.

[b]And how does this work in practice?[/b]

Muslims are increasingly looking to the example of Jewish communities which have long-established religious community courts.

These "courts" are legally recognised in English law as a means for warring parties to agree to arbitration. The law sees this as a practical way of helping people to resolve their differences in their own way, without clogging up the local courts.

[b]But what about incorporating Sharia into British law?[/b]

In two important areas British law has incorporated religious legal considerations. British food regulations allow meat to be slaughtered according to Jewish and Islamic practices - a touchstone issue for both communities.

Secondly, the Treasury has approved Sharia-compliant financial products such as mortgages and investments. Islam forbids interest on the basis that it is money unjustly earned. These products are said by supporters to meet the needs of modern life in a way that fits the faith.

[b]Has any western nation allowed Sharia to be used in full?[/b]

Not at all. Canada is widely reported to have come close - leading to protests in 2005.

But in reality the proposals were little different to the existing religious arbitration rules here in the UK.

Experts considered establishing Sharia-related family courts to ease the burden on civil courts - but said these would have to observe the basic human rights guarantees of Canadian law.

[b]What about Sharia and women?[/b]

Some Muslim women in Britain are concerned about how their rights are protected. Take marriage for example.

Muslims only consider themselves truly married once they have conducted the Islamic ceremony, known as the nikah. In some cases, this means that there is a cultural view that the British civil ceremony, which enforces legal rights under the law, is not important.

Some mosques are alive to this issue and now demand to see a marriage certificate as a condition of the nikah. Others do not. Many women want Muslim leaders to do more to ensure their rights are protected under British law.

[b]Does Sharia allow men to instantly divorce wives?[/b]

There is an idea that men merely have to say the Arabic for divorce three times (known as the triple talaq) and that is sufficient - and there are some men who think they have this right.

In practice, not only do texts show Muhammad disagreed but today, where Sharia courts are properly run, the words are merely a symbolic part of a rigorous process.

Marriage is a contract in Islam. Scholars expect three-month cooling-off periods, dialogue, arbitration and counselling. However, Talaq is a very complicated area of Sharia law with conflicting views - see internet links for one example.

[b]So women have reservations about Sharia?[/b]

Some Muslim women in the West would be worried about protection of their rights in Sharia courts where there is discrimination against them because of patriarchal and cultural control in their communities.

This does not mean that they are necessarily opposed to Sharia - only there are live concerns about the fairness of its application.

It's fair to say that many leading Muslim women are more concerned about how existing British equality measures and human rights laws can be used to improve their position and voice in society.

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7234870.stm]BBC News[/url]

I cant see it working in britain

its going to cause further problems for the image of Islam and muslims

and plus, who would be the judges?

I mean, it was a shariah court in sudan that kicked off the whole thing about the Teddy called Muhammad.

It may work with a good panel of judges etc, but seeeing as the Ummah is divided on many matters as it is, then how we going to have one court?

and if we are getting by fairly ok as it, IMO no need to change it

Should be Shariah law in a muslim country, but seeing as Britain isnt, i cant see why we should be demanding it

Did you read that article I put all that effort in quoting? it is not about criminal law, but family, potentially financial civic law. (Did you do Law at uni? Not good if you can't even read a short article!)

and ftr, there are already shariah courts in the UK - any matter that also has an Islamic aspect (such as divorce) currently has to be done twice as those courts are not recognised as legal entities, and an Islamic verdict is also required.

According to the article, similar things are already present for the Jewish community and if an Islamic court is accepted, it would be modeled on that.

Now that would give a lot of Muslims a heart attack!

"You" wrote:

Did you read that article I put all that effort in quoting? it is not about criminal law, but family, potentially financial civic law. (Did you do Law at uni? Not good if you can't even read a short article!)

and ftr, there are already shariah courts in the UK - any matter that also has an Islamic aspect (such as divorce) currently has to be done twice as those courts are not recognised as legal entities, and an Islamic verdict is also required.

According to the article, similar things are already present for the Jewish community and if an Islamic court is accepted, it would be modeled on that.

Now that would give a lot of Muslims a heart attack!

As I understand it, the Muslim courts already are modelled on the Jewish courts. In both instances, relations with secular courts are only relevant in upholding contracts made in the religious courts. The issue became important in the Jewish community because we needed a mechanism to allow a secular court to demand that a Jewish man be willing to issue a religious divorce, allowing an estranged wife to remarry under orthodox law. But there is no suggestion that we would want the court to advocate for further powers. There is a problem, however, being that Judaism has no ambitions to expand its authority in any sense, whereas for many Muslims, and especially those with more "hardline" views, that is an obligation. I recognise that as for Jews, for many Muslims it is a priority to obey the law of the land. Yasmin Alibhi Brown, I note (and I disagree very much with her perceptions of the Jewish community), is absolutely aghast at the prospect of Islamic courts at precisely the time when Muslim women are relying on British justice to be free of misogynistic practises.

I'm not sure what the Archbishop is arguing for, and nor apparently is he, but for reasons I outlined in an earlier post it simply seems like a very silly thing to say.

"Joie de Vivre" wrote:

The issue became important in the Jewish community because we needed a mechanism to allow a secular court to demand that a Jewish man be willing to issue a religious divorce, allowing an estranged wife to remarry under orthodox law. But there is no suggestion that we would want the court to advocate for further powers.

afaik that is what has been suggested.

Can't really say what the Muslims want as the subject on this occasion was not brought up by a Muslim.

There are positives and negatives over any implementation.

"You" wrote:

"Joie de Vivre" wrote:

The issue became important in the Jewish community because we needed a mechanism to allow a secular court to demand that a Jewish man be willing to issue a religious divorce, allowing an estranged wife to remarry under orthodox law. But there is no suggestion that we would want the court to advocate for further powers.

afaik that is what has been suggested.

Can't really say what the Muslims want as the subject on this occasion was not brought up by a Muslim.

There are positives and negatives over any implementation.

That's reasonable. But why did the guy talk so much about restructuring the model for faith communities etc.? He seems very woolly and barmy. If I were CoE I would probably want him out. Christianity and Islam both strive (am I naive?) for world domination, and are at odds. Better that each advocates for his own and tries not to be either too aggressive or too submissive. And I do think, with the pressures of both Islamist propaganda and activity on the one hand and nationalisms on the other, that it is an issue of submission. The more angry right wing are referring to him as a dhimmi, and he has a whiff of that. How's that for controversial?

"Ya'qub" wrote:

"Joie de Vivre" wrote:

I'm not sure what the Archbishop is arguing for, and nor apparently is he, but it simply seems like a very silly thing to say.

Note for Joey: Any point you make, no matter how valid, is immediately weakened by either quoting or citing Yasmin Alibhi Brown. Thank you.

Noted.

Half the people who've got a problem with introducing Shariah Law dont know what the hell it is. They just hear Shariah Law and start tripping like we're gonna start chopping peoples hands off in the middle of town square.

Just introduce it under a different name and then see what people say.

The Archbishop wasn't calling for sharia law to be introduced to the UK. He didn't call for MPs in Westminster to start debating on bills on the basis of sharia principles. However, sharia law, as the Archbishop acknowledged, already operates in the UK in arbitration courts/councils.

It may be the case that in the future the government will want to intervene in the operation of these sharia arbitration courts and seek to regulate, formalise and even licence them. In this instance there will be resistance to state intervention from within the sharia courts and from people not wanting to give sharia law any resulting legitimacy. There will, therefore, be a stand-off between secular law on the one side and religious law on the other. The Archbishop's speech last week, I believe, was an attempt to deal, at least in theory, with some of the challenges that the state might face when it seeks to intervene in and engage with sharia arbitration courts.

If you follow the thread of this hoo-ha back to the Radio 4 interview, it may very well be the case that it started because of the use of the word "unavoidable". A word the Radio 4 interviewer used at the end of a question to which the Archbish gave an answer in the affirmative.

Some of the reaction against the Archbish personally I think was a result of knee-jerk reaction to the word "sharia". Further, it just goes to show the tabloid nature of debate in this country about all things Muslim and all things Islamic.

[url=http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575]The Archbishop's speech[/url]

"Seraphim" wrote:

like we're gonna start chopping peoples hands off in the middle of town square.

Maybe that wont be such a bad thing. Maybe it will bring the crime rate down.
Sticking ppl in prisons where they get to watch TV, play pool all day and eat 3 course meals dont seem to be working nor does rehabilitation.

"Naz" wrote:

"Seraphim" wrote:

like we're gonna start chopping peoples hands off in the middle of town square.

Maybe that wont be such a bad thing. Maybe it will bring the crime rate down.
Sticking ppl in prisons where they get to watch TV, play pool all day and eat 3 course meals dont seem to be working nor does rehabilitation.

Agreed.

Not agreed.

We can only say the current measures don't work if we have a dataset comparing the current system with what it would be like without it(no laws, no punishment, no rehabilitation).

My gut reaction is that such a comparison will show that the system works.

That isn't what's under discussion though. We're talking about giving some form of state legitimacy to its civil arbitration, and the Archbishop was using sharia as a topical example of his concern at the notion of religious law being subservient to secular law.

A sampling of comment from The Telegraph and The Independent:

[img]http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/1343/ixd12bigaj4.gif[/img]

"[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/02/12/dl... wrote:

The Daily Telegraph[/url]"]Certainly, some of his supporters have been quick to blame the media for a "knee-jerk" reaction to what they describe as a "serious piece of academic work", implying that the tide of criticism that has enveloped Lambeth Palace has been simple-minded or deliberately obtuse.

The Vicar of Putney, Rev Giles Fraser, has likened the press to "a pack of dogs" who had not even tried "to understand what [Dr Williams] said". This is quite untrue: the serious media have examined both Dr Williams's lecture and his BBC interview and focused their critique precisely on the legal and theological significance of his views.

It would seem that some of Dr Williams's apologists are simply failing to come to grips with the enormity of what his (perhaps badly chosen) words implied.

There are two quite separate points of legitimate concern. One is that the archbishop - who heads a national institution with a constitutional function - explicitly called into question the most fundamental principle of British justice: that we have a single system of law that applies equally to everyone.

The other is that, at a time when British cultural assumptions and institutions are under threat from a particularly aggressive interpretation of Islam, the head of its Established Church is unprepared to offer a robust defence of its values, apparently preferring to concede to the demands of what is in fact a minority, even among the Muslim community.

Dr Williams is guilty, at the very least, of arrogant insensitivity. His self-inflicted injury may yet prove to be fatal.

"[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/02/11/do... wrote:

Janet Daley[/url]"]In a contest between the principles of modern democracy and doctrines of faith, democracy and the rule of secular law must always win. And that is the solution to the problem with which all of the great faiths that survive in freedom have made their peace.

But that is exactly the assumption that Dr Williams was challenging because, I presume, it seemed to him that it relegated religion to a private sphere - a matter of personal taste or preference - which somehow trivialised it.

What Dr Williams presented was a clear-cut distinction between what he called "a universal Enlightenment system" with its concept of "one law for everybody" and what he described as "plural jurisdiction" in which different communities within one country are permitted to follow their own codes of justice.

He was, in effect, casting doubt on the most fundamental premise of modern political life: that freedom and equality under a universal rule of law is the most advanced and just system of government in which human beings may live.

This doctrine is now considered so utterly irrefutable that it is paid lip service even by the tin-pot dictators who attempt to crush its exponents: to be explicitly opposed to it is to rule oneself - either as an individual or a party - out of consideration on the world stage.

Yet this is what the archbishop chose to dispute. Not only did he exacerbate ethnic tensions in our society and do almost immeasurable damage to the cause of moderate Islam but his disservice to his own Church was immense.

He has laid bare the question that should never have been asked if the prevailing fuzzy compromise between established church and state was to remain tenable: how can a revealed religion officially accept that its position is subservient to secular law? Answer: it can't - not without surrendering its understanding of absolute truth.

By definition, the rules of a democracy are subject to majority opinion. They are negotiable, amendable and retractable - providing that they accept the basic principle of liberty and equality.

So religious beliefs and doctrines will always be in potential conflict with forms of law that evolve with social attitudes, and what Dr Williams saw was that Islamic doctrine had a particular problem because it had no history of adapting its theology to being a minority religion within a liberal society. It has no official doctrine for coming to terms with diaspora (as the Jewish religion has).

So the archbishop turns this into a virtue: faced with people who take their religion very seriously, he seems embarrassed by what has been the historical readiness of his own Church to compromise and hints that maybe we could all learn something from the commitment of Muslims to a higher truth.

Being the head of a national church, he is determined to defend the value of faith in general, not just Islam, against the encroachments of the profane concerns of political life. Just because he is a political figure, and because he takes philosophical dilemmas seriously, he cannot evade the question.

So he feels he must repudiate the Enlightenment altogether: the problem becomes secularism itself and the belief that there is one universal system of law which must apply to everyone equally.

"[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-har... wrote:

Johann Hari[/url]"]For five days now, the Archbishop of Canterbury has been chorusing: how do you solve a problem like Sharia? Ever since he suggested it is "unavoidable" – and desirable – for Britain to have Islamic courts ruling on Muslim family affairs, bashing the bishop has become a national sport. But this row shouldn't be just about the pitiful contortions of the head of a dying Church. Rowan Williams has shown us why the doctrine of multiculturalism needs to abandoned.

If you really believe that Britain is comprised of a smorgasbord of "cultures" that need to be preserved, promoted and respected as an end in itself, then this proposal is perfectly logical. Different cultures should have different courts, and rules, and schools.

We don't need to speculate about what these British sharia courts would look like. They already exist in some mosques across Britain, as voluntary enterprises. Last month, a plain, unsensationalist documentary called Divorce: Sharia Style looked at the judgements they hand down.

If a man wants a divorce, he simply has to say to his wife, "I divorce you" three times over three months. The wife has no right of appeal, and no right to ask for a reason. If a woman wants a divorce, by contrast, she has to humbly ask her husband. If he refuses, she must turn to a sharia court, and convince three Mullahs that her husband has behaved "unreasonably" – according to the rules laid out in a pre-modern text that recommends domestic violence if your wife gets uppity.

Irum Shazad, a 26-year-old British woman, travels from her battered women's refuge to a sharia court in East London. She explains that her husband was so abusive she slashed her wrists with a carving knife. The court tells her this was a sin, making her as bad as him. They tell her to go back to her husband. (They grant a divorce half a year later, after a dozen more "last chances" for him to abuse her.)

Then we meet Nasirin Iqbal, a 27-year-old Pakistani woman who was shipped to Britain five years ago to marry. Her husband, Imran, has kept her isolated, and she does not speak a word of English. "I came here thinking he'd treat me well," she says. "But he keeps hurting me. He brought me here to use me. I'm not an object.... Do I not have a heart?... He tells me I'm stuck with him, and under Islam he can treat me however he wants. 'I am a man, I can treat you how I want'."

We see how Imran torments her, announcing, "You are a reject. I didn't want to marry you." He takes a second wife in Pakistan, and texts her all day in front of Nasirin declaring his love. The sharia court issues a fatwa saying the marriage stands. She doesn't seem to know this isn't a court of law. "I can't ignore what they say," she cries. "You have to go with what they say."

These are the courts that Rowan Williams would give the stamp of British law. In his lecture, he worries that this could harm women – before serving up a theological gloop, saying that sharia could be reinterpreted in a way compatible with the rights of women. But if that happens, why would you need different courts? What would be the point?

The argument that women will only have to enter these courts if they freely choose to shows a near-total disconnection from the reality of Muslim women's lives. Most of the women who will be drawn into "consenting" are, like Nasirin, recent immigrants with little idea of their legal options. Then there are the threats of excommunication – or violence – from some families. As the Muslim feminist Irshad Manji puts it: "When it comes to contemporary sharia, choice is theory; intimidation is the reality."

These courts highlight in their purest form the problem with multiculturalism. It has become a feel-good doctrine mindlessly celebrating "difference", without looking at what that difference actually means.

Yet many people feel instinctively uncomfortable when we talk about ditching multiculturalism – for a good reason. The only alternative they are aware of is the old whiter-than-white monoculturalism. This view, voiced most clearly by Enoch Powell and Norman Tebbit, believes that if people are going to live together, they need to look and feel similar, and have a tightly prescribed shared identity. They argue that the number of newcomers should be small, and need to be pressured to assimilate to the 1950s norm of a suburban white family, fast.

Multiculturalism was formed with good intentions as a counter-reaction. But it has become a mirror-image of this old racism, treating Muslim women – and others – as so different that they do not deserve the same rights as the rest of us. As the European-Iranian feminist Azar Majedi puts it: "By creating different laws and judicial systems for each ethnic group, we are not fighting racism. In fact, we are institutionalising it."

When people talk about defending Muslim culture, ask them – which culture? The culture of Irum and Nasireen, or the culture of their abusive husbands? Multiculturalism patronisingly treats immigrants as homogenous blocks – when in fact they are as diffuse and dissenting as the rest of us. Would anybody lump me in with Richard Littlejohn and Nick Griffin as part of a "white community"?

There is a better way for the state to understand and regulate human differences, beyond the old oppositions of Tebbittry and multiculturalism. It is called liberalism. A liberal society allows an individual to do whatever he or she wants, provided it doesn't harm other people. You can choose to wear PVC hotpants or a veil. You can choose to spend all day praying, or all day mocking people who pray.

Where a multiculturalist prizes the rights of religious groups, a liberal favours the rights of the individual. So if you want to preach that the Archangel Gabriel revealed the word of God to an illiterate nomad two millennia ago, you can do it as much as you like. You can write books and hold rallies and make your case. What you cannot do is argue that since this angel supposedly said women are worth half of a man when it comes to inheritance, and that gay people should be killed, you can ditch the rules of liberalism and act on it.

The job of a liberal state is not to stamp The True National Essence on its citizens, nor to promote "difference" for its own sake. It is to uphold the equal rights of every individual – whether they are white men or Muslim women. It has one liberal culture, with freedoms used differently by different people.

So as well as scorning the Archbishop, we should thank him. He has helped to deliver the funeral rites for multiculturalism. With his matted beard and tortured hand-wringing to a desert-God, the Archbishop has unwittingly pointed us towards a vision of a better Britain – one that chooses proudly to be liberal.

"You" wrote:

Not agreed.

We can only say the current measures don't work if we have a dataset comparing the current system with what it would be like without it(no laws, no punishment, no rehabilitation).

My gut reaction is that such a comparison will show that the system works.

True but there will never come a point where a country will not impose punishment on an individual who is guilty of a crime. The current system does not work. For minor crimes all you get is a slap on the wrist. For the major crimes even if you get sent down you only serve half of your sentence. The prisons are overcrowded. Instead of making more prisons why not do something to deter ppl from committing a crime in the first place. The UK criminal law is too soft when it comes to punishing criminals. They need tougher and harsher measures that will make ppl think twice before they commit a crime.

Example: You tell a small child not to touch the cup of tea which is hot. The child knows they have been told not to touch the cup of tea but nevertheless they still will. They feel pain, they cry. Will that child touch the cup of tea again? No because it knows what pain feels like and does not wish to experience it again.

What if the child eats the candy, when his parents tell him not to, do you suggest poisoning it?

"Irfan.Khan" wrote:

What if the child eats the candy, when his parents tell him not to, do you suggest poisoning it?

nah that would be too cruel.

just tell him it was made out of cat poop

That will stop him.

Joie your extracts (apart from the cartoon) seem to be all beating up on the Archbishop.

Here's something from the FT, Guardian and Independent.

"[url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d84ea956-d6b0-11dc-b9f4-0000779fd2ac.html?ncli... wrote:

Financial Times[/url]"][b]Some civil jurisdiction but no parallel legal system[/b]

The Archbishop of Canterbury's comments have triggered widespread confusion about the current status of the Islamic legal system.

In Britain, Muslims can already choose to have disputes settled privately under Sharia law. The government also recognises some Sharia-compliant investment and banking products, such as mortgages, and allows meat to be slaughtered according to strict Islamic practices.

The government has not, however, authorised the establishment of formal Sharia courts to deal with criminal law proceedings

Under the Archbishop's proposals, Muslim groups would be expected to follow the precedent set by Beth Din, the Jewish court, which legally arbitrates marital and financial disputes between Orthodox Jews.

Family lawyers said this might mean establishment of local Sharia councils, which could deal with Muslim marriages and divorces, among other civil matters. It would not allow for the creation of a "parallel" legal system.

"[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2255135,00.html wrote:

The Guardian[/url]"][b]The simplicity complex[/b]

It is not the usual breakfast reading at Lambeth Palace, but Dr Rowan Williams could hardly avoid seeing yesterday's Sun, with the sneering headline What A Burkha plastered above his mugshot. In speaking about religion and law on Thursday, the Archbishop of Canterbury had hoped, among other things, to draw attention to inequities affecting followers of Islam. Refracted through the twin lenses of media and politics, his words have only served to stir up the sort of fears that could make Muslims more vulnerable to abuse than ever.

Dr Williams' naivety played a major part in the treatment he has attracted, particularly the casual way in which he flung the explosive term "sharia law" into the debate. Another part of his problem, however, was the sheer complexity of his argument. Dr Williams is a scholar: his meditation on Thursday was littered with all manner of references. His argued with subtlety that laws are not just instruments of control, but that they also have a role in affirming the affiliations people owe to one another. In a multicultural society such affiliations are diverse - diversity which, he reasoned, parts of the law must better reflect. This was the stuff of seminars and was never going to register in the mass market without being boiled down into soundbites. The archbishop did not do that, ensuring others would. As a result, this most humane of men finds himself being caricatured as supporting the severing of limbs.

In the next world, perhaps, Dr Williams' arguments will be discussed only in the tones of mellow precision that are the mark of his own timbre. He might be applauded for arguing that Muslim weddings deserve the same legal standing as those of many other faiths, but gently chided for not giving enough emphasis to equality under the law. In this world, however, nuance is not always met with nuance. And public figures can only control their influence on public life by recognising that.

Thankfully, it does not automatically follow that a grasp of subtle concepts is a bar on being a leader - the current occupant of No 10 is a serious intellectual. Petrified of a soundbite culture, however, Gordon Brown frequently shies away from acting on his ideas. After making an elegant speech on liberty last autumn crass political calculation led him to come up with plans to extend imprisonment without trial. But it should be possible to lead with more consistent intellectual conviction - as long as good advice on how to handle the media is available. Dr Williams did not have that, and he is paying the price. For those who deal in complexity, subtle press officers are indispensable to survival in a culture afflicted with a simplicity complex.

"[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/deborah-orr/deborah-or... wrote:

Deborah Orr in the Independent[/url]"][b]Don't be fooled... the archbishop wants to beat extremists at their own game[/b]

As he summed up his controversy-igniting lecture on sharia in Britain at London's Royal Courts of Justice this week, the Archbishop of Canterbury warned that "if we are to think intelligently about the relations between Islam and British law, we need a fair amount of 'deconstruction' of crude oppositions and mythologies, whether of the nature of sharia or the nature of the Enlightenment". I think it's safe to say that hardly a soul is heeding his warning. Crude oppositions and mythologies are exactly what people are rushing headlong to display.

Any arbitration, he emphasised, could not contravene the rule of law. Or as he put it himself: "If any kind of plural jurisdiction is recognised, it would presumably have to be under the rubric that no 'supplementary' jurisdiction could have the power to deny access to the rights granted to other citizens or to punish its members for claiming those rights."

Williams is clear on what some of the risks involved in a process of formalising sharia, or any system of religion belief, might be. He is concerned, for example, about the further promotion of one phenomenon that seems to irritate almost everyone, the "vexatious appeal to religious scruple". He cites the fairly trivial example of a Muslim woman who refused to handle a book of Bible stories while working in Marks & Spencer.

I have to confess that it lifts my heart to imagine a legally and religiously recognised board of religious Muslim people, widely supported, and committed to taking a lead in plotting a modern yet Islamic attitude to the rights of women in Britain and around the world. It could be rather wonderful, and is quite a different proposition from the one we have been led to believe that Williams made.

"Beast" wrote:

Joie your extracts (apart from the cartoon) seem to be all beating up on the Archbishop.

They are, that's true. I was most struck by Hari's examples of the conflict between judgements of shariah courts and women's rights under secular courts. In the Jewish community there was a problem in that a Jewish court had no framework for working with regular British courts to force a man to agree to a divorce. This meant Jewish women who had separated from their husbands had no freedom to remarry in an Orthodox synagogue and any children from subsequent relationships would be tarred as born outside wedlock. Therefore powers were given to both Jewish and secular courts to insist that a divorce be granted if required. It seems to me that the Archbishop's proposals would have the opposite effect, giving legitimacy to a system that keeps things in the community and doesn't encourage a woman to seek her rights. As I expressed earlier, I also doubt very much that those courts, if they were to have credibility among Muslims, would adopt such liberal leanings. Since the only calls for shariah powers tend not to emanate from moderate sections of the community the Archbishop's proposals seem superfluous and a disaster.