The Archbishop of Canterbury told Radio 4's World at One that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.
Now to me this seems somewhat odd.
Firstly, these comments come after an opinion poll found that 40% of Muslims want this.
41% do not. I can only assume the rest put "Don't Know" which always seems ridiculous. How can you not have a view on a question such as this?
So if we did adopt certain sections of Sharia law, we would in effect be ignoring the wishes of a slightly larger proportion of British Muslims.
I'm sure many other faiths would want parts of their belief system incorporated into law.
Indeed, we already have bishops voting in the House of Lords.
We didn't give in to religious adoption agencies who wanted to opt-out of the Equalities Act 2006.
So why should we go along with Rowan Williams and a minority of Muslims and incorporate Sharia Law?
There are also practical questions.
Would Sharia courts take place in ordinary courthouses or elsewhere? Would reporting be allowed from the court?
And who chooses which parts of Sharia Law? Most MP's are not Muslim. Will a committee of Muslim MP's be set up to advise on this?
Rowan Wiliams suggests that marital disputes could be dealt with by a Sharia court.
Does this mean that divorce (which usually needs the consent of the husband, unless impotence can be proved) will fall under Sharia law?
Sharia law is viewed by some as reducing reoffending:
Sharia's great strength was the effectiveness of its penalties, he said. Those who appeared before religious courts would avoid re-offending so as not to bring shame on their families.
Yet how does a Sharia court know when someone is sincere? And what happens when someone changes relgion or becomes an agnostic?
Ontario attempt:
There was a move to implement Sharia Law in Ontario, Canada in 2005.
This was quashed after protests across Canada and throughout Europe, including London and Paris.
It is worth noting that Roman Catholic and Jewish tribunals arbitration tribunals already operated in Ontario at the time.
If widespread protests were held in a country where religion was more a part of the law than in Britan, just think what we'd see here.
We can do a far greater service to Muslims by condeming Islamophobia in the media, in the Anglican Church and at Westminster.
it is striking that Rowan Williams has not commented on the daft comments made by the Bishop of Rochester that non-Muslims may find it difficult to live or work in some places.
Really? I've heard no evidence of that.
Religion should not guide law.
Turkey recently allowed Muslims to wear headscarves inside universites.
In my view, this was long overdue, and does not go far enough:
The approved amendment makes clear that female students would be allowed to wear head scarves at universities as long as they tied them under the chin, leaving their faces more exposed.
I don't think Muslim women should have to tie the headscarf under the chin. It should be up to them.
Wearning a headscarf harms no-one.
Adopting religious laws harms community cohesion and in some cases the rights of the gay community and women.
I used to admire Rowan Williams.
I though he ws far better than Robert Runcie or George Cary, a liberal, tolerant man who supported gay rights.
Not any more.
If you've enjoyed this post, why not visit our group blog http://thewordfromwestminster.blogspot.com or check out the rest of my blog.
More about me.
Finally, a good cause I would like to promote.
0 comments:
Post a Comment