|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Permalink: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/272
Fulcrum Subjects: Other Faiths / Politics and Faith Other articles by Ben White are available from this site Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum See the 62 comments on this article by
While Nazir-Ali’s comments were primarily about British Muslims, there was a broader context reflected both in his own remarks, and the Telegraph’s reporting of a recent Synod survey. This survey revealed that “bishops, senior clergy and influential churchgoers” consider “an increasingly multi-faith society” to threaten “the country's Christian heritage”, while a third of those questioned thought that “a mass influx of people of other faiths is diluting the Christian nature of Nazir-Ali too made reference to the apparent disregard for “the distinctively Christian character of the nation’s laws, values, customs and culture” and towards the end of his piece he stressed the need for Before proceeding, it is worth noting that Nazir-Ali later issued two 'clarifying statements', (8 January and 1 February) saying that the main intention of the article was “to note that successive governments have failed to foster an integrating vision for Firstly, it is instructive to note what Nazir-Ali is not talking about: the health of the Church. His warnings are not primarily focussed on the vitality of the body of Christ in Yet surely as Christians our foremost desire should be to see the body of Christ flourishing, in all its denominational diversity, and playing its role in the realisation of the Secondly, the assumption that One response to such a dismal summary might be to say that all of this simply demonstrates that Christianity fosters violence and oppression. In fact, it gives the lie to the claim that the British state has even been ‘Christian’ beyond the adoption of an ideology for the purposes of power. We can go further still though. Leaving aside the British state, and taking a look at the lives of individual Britons, who can deny that in 2008 we are an overwhelmingly secular society? Most would contrast that with the situation in centuries past, but to what extent have British people merely moved from being culturally Christian to culturally secular? These are important questions because they provide one of the perspectives for how the discussion about British Muslims is framed. Let us consider the assertion reflected in the Synod survey that a multi-faith Britain “threatens” Britain’s “Christian heritage”. Firstly, there has never been strict religious homogeneity in Britain – ever since Christianity arrived on these isles it has shared the space with paganism, Islam, Judaism and more besides; not to mention the historically flexible definition of who constituted a Christian ‘heretic’. Nor, indeed, has there always been racial homogeneity, though even now, ethnic minorities only make up around 8% of the population. Yet it is also true that there is a change taking place in At this point, many will start to argue for the apparent ‘special case’ nature of Islam. But this is where the issue of While the relationship between a host and a guest can be mutually enjoyable and beneficial, there are limitations. By definition, the guest is never truly ‘at home’, even if urged to feel that way by the host. Even with the best intentions, the guest is permanently subject to the goodwill of the host, creating for the guest both a sense of insecurity and an implication that there are certain ‘house rules’ to be obeyed. The host and guest are separated by the issue of ownership too, with the latter never fully having a stake in key decisions that need to be made. The other problem with suggesting that it is the Muslim community, other faiths in general, or indeed immigrants themselves, that represent a significant challenge or threat (again, a view tenable only with regards to ‘Christian Britain’ rather than the Church) is that it unwittingly or otherwise stirs up racial tensions. I am sure that it is not Nazir-Ali’s intention to encourage racism, and nor is an argument invalidated simply because it is distorted and misapplied by others. But a party like the British National Party has relished the post-9/11 polemics about Islam, proudly citing church figures who ‘back up’ their claim that ‘Christian’ (read white) Britain is being destroyed by Muslim communities who refuse to ‘integrate’. There are other criticisms that could be added. Issues of inclusion are not unique to Muslims. One writer, supporting the Bishop’s remarks, cited the Muslim director of a Birmingham-based research centre, who regretted the fact that his peers “haven’t seen rural It is worth remembering that religious or racial minorities have always tended to cluster together, a phenomenon common to countries all over the world and every substantial immigration movement. Someone from ‘outside’ the group will obviously feel ‘different’ on entering such an area, but whether one interprets that as ‘threatening’ will often depend on contemporary politics, and says more about the individual than the particular community. Moreover, there are sadly many ‘no go’ areas in urban None of this takes away from the fact that there are indeed British Muslim groups and individuals with an agenda that is incompatible with the wishes of the vast majority of non-Muslims and Muslims in There is another way, one that was at least partly outlined by Ekklesia’s co-director Simon Barrow: What we need right now is not Christendom revanchism (an impossibility anyway), but the rediscovery of a Christian vision which is self-sufficient enough not to need to prop or be propped by the state, open enough to engage with others on equal terms, historical enough not be fall prey to nostalgia, and subversive enough to recognise that the Gospel is about overturning the status quo rather than wanting to be its lynch pin. In 21st century The threats worth identifying and tackling are those that face the body of Christ, not a mythologized and severely compromised ‘Christian Britain’. In many areas of social concern, from environmental damage to urban poverty, influential Christians have an excellent track record in bringing to the table passionate yet nuanced, Kingdom-shaped solutions to the challenges facing all of us in Britain. There is no reason not to expect the same with regards to community cohesion and inter-faith relations.
Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum Forum Posts About This Article:
Posted by: Graham Kings
Thursday 12 June 2008 - 09:20am
On Fulcrum newswatch today we have linked into two important articles on this subject. Ruth Gledhill,'Seven in ten marriages [involving an English Citizen and a spouse born in Asia] 'forced', Articles of Faith, The Times online, 12 June 2008 Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, 'Liberation from Forced Marriages Report', Articles of Faith [Ruth Gledhill] site, The Times online, 12 June 2008, see also www.matribunal.com
Posted by: Graham Kings
Saturday 8 March 2008 - 04:49pm
We have just published on Fulcrum an article in three parts by Jenny Taylor, 'Dilemmas of the Law in a Multicultural Society'. Dr Taylor, the Director of Lapido Media, gave this paper 10 years ago at the the Whitefield Institute Seminar, Oxford, on 16 March 1998. See also in today's edition of The Times, four significant articles: 'Forced marriage fear prompts a national count of missing girls', by Lucy Bannerman 'I felt invisible and that no one cared about me', concerning Shazia Qayum, by Lucy Bannerman 'Specialist courts planned to tackle domestic violence', by Frances Gibb 'Running away from a forced marriage', by Tim Bouquet Posted by: Jonathan Chaplin Monday 3 March 2008 - 07:10pm Thanks, Philip Thomas, for pointing us to the Law Gazette article, available at: http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/home.law ('Sharia unveiled'). I recommend everyone reads this article. It clears up several confusions about what it could mean to 'accommodate' Sharia law in English law. For those who appetites are thereby whetted, try the Ontario government's 'Boyd Report' at: http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/boyd/ (190pp - but there is an executive summary). Thanks to David H and James, both of whom seem to me to be getting both the law and the Archbishop right. I'd still ask Pluralist if he can quote from the ABC's lecture to support his specific interpretations: 1. that the ABC was proposing a 'group opt out to a parallel court, with an individual opt-out back to the universal court'. If I have missed something, I'll happily acknowledge that. 2. that the ABC was proposing a system which was 'competitive and parallel, being up to the litigants to decide which court to attend and apparently without communal or faith sanction - utterly unrealistic and chaotic, but parallel in that each court contains full legal powers to make a decision.' Now I do admit that he slipped in the notion that there might be a degree of competition (a market place) between civil courts and religious courts. He got that idea from a Canadian feminist Jewish legal theorist called Ayelet Shachar, who was not arguing for 'parallel' systems in Pluralist's sense, and whose chief concern was to protect vulnerable women - but the ABC did allow for misunderstanding here, I concede. Posted by: Dave Monday 3 March 2008 - 10:31am The proposal from various Islamic sources is that Sharia is superior to western jurisprudence because it is the word of the prophet and hence of God. A poll for the Dispatches program for example shows that a high proportion of British Muslims want the introduction of Social Sharia. In this context the opposition to the ABCs comments is understandable but he was misheard. He certainly points out that society must come to terms with the strength of Muslim feeling but he does not say we must give up our own cherished traditions. David Posted by: Deleted user 1222 Friday 29 February 2008 - 05:27pm Everything about the Beth Din as currently practised is supplementary, but the proposal was not for more Beth Dins as applied to Islam. Posted by: James Friday 29 February 2008 - 11:40am Yes, that's where the difficulty of terminology comes in. Tribunals etc. which operate in English law are not subject to the process of Judicial Review unless an aggrieved party applies to the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction to do so. That doesn't IMO make tribunals parallel jurisdictions as I would normally understand that term. It doesn't follow that every person aggrieved applies for judicial review, or that all the tribunals other decisions actually are properly made since, for the most part, the process is ony triggered by the application of one of the parties. In other words there could be some decisions which are being made by tribunals where the law is violated, but where the tribunals are not corrected because no-one invokes Judicial Review. In family matters the Court is the body which gives legal effect to the decisions of a sharia council or the Beth Din, and it remains the responsibility of the Court to be satisfied that the decision is proper as between the parties. One particular accommodation to the role of the Beth Din has been to address the problem of a person obtaining a civil divorce but refusing a religious divorce, and there is now power for the civil divorce proceedings to be suspended and the decree not to be granted until the get has also been granted. Posted by: Deleted user 1222 Thursday 28 February 2008 - 11:40pm Could be cross purposes, but it might be found that a court had acted entirely properly and neither individual exercised an option to use a State law. Thus the review finds all correct. That would still be parallel. It would be supplementary if the state court decides rights were not upheld, thus checking what a supplementary court could do. Posted by: Philip Thomas Thursday 28 February 2008 - 06:11pm I have been keeping an eye open to see what the lawyers made of the Archbishop's lecture. An article has appeared today in the Law Society Gazette, which gives an interesting overview of the extent to which other jurisdictions are already recognised in the English legal system. Belgian conventions of arbitration have been endorsed (and can be enforced) by the High Court for instance, and Beth Din pronouncements of 'Get' are recognised as a basis for civil divorce proceedings with the consent of both parties - with courts delaying judgment if such consent has not been agreed. The article is clear in its conviction that religious considerations cannot be seen as an alternative to civil law. No community can expect to opt out for its own purposes. But a Muslim lawyer is quoted to the effect that courts welcome agreements that have been reached through a Sharia council. Applications for divorce or property settlements by Muslims must meet the requirements of a civil court, but "I have found civil court judges to be very welcoming to to have such matters decided under sharia law. They see it as a benefit to have other systems which the community recognises." However, recognising the significance of religious conviction to the way in which individuals and communities actually live is not the same thing as allowing 'exceptions' to the law because of their beliefs. That is an issue that will need to be addressed by Christians as much as Muslims. Accepting Dr Williams' assurance that he was exploring how a unitary and secular legal system might accommodate religious claims, the writer concludes that "this is a debate worth having - calmly". Posted by: James Thursday 28 February 2008 - 06:02pm Pluralist, I wondere if we are slightly at cross purposes here. I am thinking about this formal legal process. Judicial Review is a process by which one of the parties may invoke the court's jurisdiction over (among other things) a tribunal which has acted unlawfully, for example by exceeding its powers or by violating the rights of one of the parties - it is in effect a kind of appeal process. The existence of the procedure means that the supplementary tribunals which it oversees have to be careful to operate within the law of the land. Posted by: Deleted user 1222 Thursday 28 February 2008 - 03:01pm If a process of judicial review was frequent and systematic, then it would be supplementary. But the process advocated here was competitive and parallel, being up to the litigants to decide which court to attend and apparently without communal or faith sanction - utterly unrealistic and chaotic, but parallel in that each court contains full legal powers to make a decision. In a supplementary system, the State court looks at the decision of the community court to check all is in order and to actually give it the legal nod. Then the community court as a supplement could represent one set of principles but the State court make sure each time that all liberties and laws were in order. Posted by: James Thursday 28 February 2008 - 10:56am Pluralist, you said: Supplementary jurisdiction would work if a couple went to a community court, received a ruling, and took that ruling to an actual court that confirmed or denied the ruling subject to actual consent being demonstrated and no violation of essential rights and liberties. Thus the community court is supplementary. What Rowan Williams wants is a group opt out to a parallel court, with an individual opt-out back to the universal court. This is still parallel jurisdiction. When he says he was not arguing for parallel jurisdiction, he was using a sleight of hand. To some extent this becomes an argument about terminology and precisely what one means by supplementary or parallel. RW argues that this supplementary jurisidiction would have to respect the overarching law of the land - and specifically that it could not remove rights which the law of the land protects. Such a jurisdiction would in prinicple be open to processes in the higher courts (e.g. judicial review) if it failed to do this. Incorporating such jurisdictions in the law of the land would include expecting them to operate within those expectations. Fern, you said: what you seem to be saying is that sharia law is permissable so long as it doesn't conflict with British civil and criminal law. To which I would say amen but to which many muslims would say, 'well, it isn't sharia then, is it?' This seems to be the circle that cannot be squared. You are right that there would be muslims who would say that, and that is something which RW specifically addresses in the lecture. He argues that there are grounds for believing that Islam and Sharia are able to accommodate themselves to contexts which are not wholly muslim and that they already do so in some ways in both majority muslim contexts and minority muslim contexts. I think he sees this discussion about accommodation as one that needs to take place, but it will never begin if there is a complete refusal in prinicple to the idea that aspects of Sharia could be accommodated within English/British law. Posted by: Dave Thursday 28 February 2008 - 10:19am Rowan William's lecture is lacking in specific proposals, rather it calls for a different attitude to religious sensibilities by the state. The calls for parallel jurisdiction are in the imagination of his detractors because that is what they fear. There are at leasr 3 issues here. 1. Matters of concience. Such matters as wearing turbans, performing abortions, refusing military service, arranging adoptions, style of mortgage etc. These matters are delt with by the existing law or amedments thereto with greater or lesser sensitivity. There need be no challenge to the rule of law here. 2. Rights enshrined in UK law e.g the right to a fair trial, the right to a divorce with appropriate mainenance, minimum wages, health and safety etc. There is no suggestion that these can or should be abrogated. Religious authiorities may impose conditions and carry out inspections to certify food for religious purposes but this in no way reduces the states authority to do the same thing for public health. Reports or religious audit may reduce the level of state inspection but cannot reduce the right of the state to inspect. 3. The matter of alternate courts. The most that is being asked for is the right of both parties to take their dispute to another body and agree in advance to abide by it's deciscion. This right already exists in trade and employment disputes under the title of binding arbitration. Subsidiary jurisdiction on specific matters also exists such as the BMA. Even golf clubs can fine or suspedn their members. These issues come together in family law. Only the court can grant a divorce. The Beth din can arrange the terms of a divorce which is then formaly accepted by the court. This does not challenge the authority of the court and is not much different from an agreed settlement which is proposed by both sides solicitors. The fact is that Sharia is operated in Britain. the courts have no jurisdiction over an unregistered marriage. David Posted by: Deleted user 1222 Thursday 28 February 2008 - 01:01am Jonathan - the crux of my argument is, again: Supplementary jurisdiction would work if a couple went to a community court, received a ruling, and took that ruling to an actual court that confirmed or denied the ruling subject to actual consent being demonstrated and no violation of essential rights and liberties. Thus the community court is supplementary. What Rowan Williams wants is a group opt out to a parallel court, with an individual opt-out back to the universal court. This is still parallel jurisdiction. When he says he was not arguing for parallel jurisdiction, he was using a sleight of hand. Posted by: Fern Wednesday 27 February 2008 - 11:40am Jonathan Chaplin, what you seem to be saying is that sharia law is permissable so long as it doesn't conflict with British civil and criminal law. To which I would say amen but to which many muslims would say, 'well, it isn't sharia then, is it?' This seems to be the circle that cannot be squared. I tend to the view that people should be free to do as they wish as long as it's not in the street and doesn't frighten the horses so folk should be able to have their personal and business affairs regulated by the Council of Pixies living behind the garden shed if they want. I just don't think British law should lend any weight to the prounouncements of the little mushroom dwellers. We live in a pretty fractured society where, instead of the multicultural rainbow of the spin doctors, there are rather geographical areas dominated by one or more ethnic groups. So-called 'white flight' from our cities a la USA is already a reality. There are increasing tensions between older, longer established communities and newcomers such as the Afro-Caribbean resentment towards wealthier, better educated Africans. Encouraging further 'ghettoisation' cannot be a sensible way forward. One needs to ask a question that many, including the Archbishop, shy away from - why is it that muslims seems to have more problems than any other group when it comes to integrating in western societies? Why is it that sikhs, buddhists, hindus, jainists, confucians, pagans, animists and so on manage to settle, get on and keep their religious and cultural pracitces without any special pleading? Posted by: Jonathan Chaplin Monday 25 February 2008 - 04:51pm Pluralist says: I already have Well as I read them, those quotations don't clearly establish your case. And ++RW has specifically rejected the suggestion that he meant "parallel jurisdictions" in any of your senses. Perhaps it's a good rule of conservative hermeneutics that we read a disputed text in the light of the stated intentions of the author. Posted by: Deleted user 1222 Thursday 21 February 2008 - 10:19pm Can you support these claims about RW's intentions by quoting from his actual lecture? I already have: http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/02/parallel-or-not-that-lecture.html http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com Posted by: Peter H Thursday 21 February 2008 - 09:30pm Mark, It was not my intention to accuse you personally of bluster ! I think your analysis is reasonable and well made. However, there are those - other than yourself - who have argued that the "media fire-storm" is a result of a mis-reading of what was said by the ABC, by people who are motivated by carelessness or worse. The truth is he has made and stood by some very serious and controversial statements. Those who support him should be prepared to accept he is the (partial) author of his own mis-fortune and is not just a well-meaning man caught up in a fury of other people's making Peter Posted by: Mark Bennet Thursday 21 February 2008 - 01:49pm Peter You are entitled, of course, to draw your own conclusions from what has happened. On the issue of speaking on behalf of other faiths, I refer you to my comments on the position of Bishops in the House of Lords. I do not think, though, that it is fair to generalise from an interview on one occasion, deriving from a specific speech that the Archbishop has given to "he has taken on the role of a general spokesperson for those with religious convictions". I don't think that people of religious convictions would universally recognise this - particularly groups of Muslim women, for whom the Archbishop expressed significant concern in his detailed comments - some of these have expressed strong reservations about what the Archbishop said, and made it very clear that he does not speak on their behalf. There are, please note, occasions on which matters of concern to Christians are also of concern to other religious groups, and it would be extraordinary if our Bishops did not notice these occasions and mention them in public! Just as Christians are entitled to say this is not what they expect of their Bishops, so also Christians are entitled to say that it is what they expect. We disagree about that, but I don't think that my position can be properly characterised as 'bluster'. Mark Posted by: Peter H Wednesday 20 February 2008 - 01:05pm Mark, The ABC is asked specifically - as the final question in the Radio 4 interview - about the impact of a christian leader raising concerns on behalf of Islam, on the wider christian community. He answers by placing the concerns in the wider context of how public law interacts with personal or community conscience (my own paraphrase) which he claims, quite reasonably, is a valid area of comment for a christian leader. Yet the fundamental concern remains - despite all the bluster from the ABC's defenders - which is that he has taken on the role of a general spokesperson for those with religious convictions. Christians are entitled to say this is not what they expect of their Bishops. Peter Posted by: Jonathan Chaplin Wednesday 20 February 2008 - 11:48am Pluralist writes: 'I'd say that Rowan Williams was suggesting parallel jurisdiction on certain civil matters as a community opt out from state laws, and would presumably involve more than Muslims, with then an individual opt out back into the state system. Both courts would have real legislative teeth....Williams's form of multi-culturalism...is a separate packages pluralism....' (19 Feb). And: 'The Archbishop's system was a chaotic set of parallels, in that community courts would have legal powers with individuals consenting to use them.' (20 Feb). Can you support these claims about RW's intentions by quoting from his actual lecture? Posted by: Jonathan Chaplin Wednesday 20 February 2008 - 11:35am Fern quotes me as saying in my article: "I was then dismayed by the speed with which the government later ditched its own report under intense pressure from an emotionally-charged campaign by Muslim, secularist, and feminist opponents across Canada." Fern goes on: 'Why 'dismayed', I wonder? Did Dr Chaplin consider that perhaps muslims, and muslim women in particular, had a better idea of what introducing elements of the sharia might mean for them and their children than non-muslim academic theologians?' No, dismayed because the Ontario government simply cast aside a year of thorough research which it had commissioned and which was based on widespread consultation including with many Muslim women's groups. Their views are amply and forcefully represented in that 190-page report. Fern goes on: 'Chaplin moves on to what he call the 'tectonic' question. He asks "whether the authority of a state can presume to take precedence over every other obligation on citizens’ loyalty", and goes on to quote Acts "we must obey God rather than men". ' Not quite. I didn't say that it was 'the' tectonic question, only that it was one of them. The one Fern raises is just as important. Here's how he sets it up: 'So if people have deeply held religious convictions that they should travel to a small middle-eastern country and blow-up civilians, are we all OK with that? And Islam is only one faith in the melting pot. Who's going to define what is 'religious' and therefore to be granted a free pass from observing laws its members dislike? Should Rastas be granted exception from the drug laws? Should we no longer be horrified when the headless bodies of 5 year old boys are found in the Thames because some West Africans have 'deeply held religious convictions' about child sacrifice?' Readers can judge whether that's a reasonable implication from what I wrote about civil disobedience. But within the polemic there is a serious question: unless you impose an absolute ban on civil disobedience for any reason whatsoever (would Fern do that?), then you have the problem of distinguishing between acts of CD which are morally legitimate and those which are not. Well, a state will necessarily take a view on any acts of civil disobedience. Obviously it will respond harshly to those which involve violence or serious public disorder, and so it should. So the British state should today bring down the full force of law on radical Islamist jihadists who would engage in or foster terrorism. Nothing in my article questions that. Indeed Christians should support the state in doing that because they believe it is ordained by God to maintain justice and peace in society, including protecting the security of tis citizens. You are right to make the distinction between convictions and actions. States shouldn't get into defining what counts as acceptable religious (or ideological) belief, only into whether the public expression of a belief actually threatens public order. Mere belief in radical Islamism, fascism, or communism, by the way, are not illegal in the UK (is Fern implying it should be?). But of course the state will not 'grant a free pass from observing laws' to adherent to such beliefs. In so refusing it is not deciding which religion is true. It is acting within its own mandate to maintain justice, and if a religious group appeals to its faith to justify acts of violence, it will meet the state head-on. I did not argue that just any appeal to religious conviction to justify resistance to the state, is legitimate. But I did argue that there might come an extreme point when, in order to 'obey God rather than men', Christians might have to disobey the state. Nothing new about that in the Christian political tradition. Posted by: James Wednesday 20 February 2008 - 10:59am The problem that the archbishop is addressing is what happens to groups of principled dissenters from the principled general consensus. How should the law of the land relate to them. As I understand his argument in relation to supplementary jurisdictions it is that in some respects some such jurisdictions already operate even though they have no legal sanction. No legal penalties can be brought to bear upon those who will not use those supplementary jurisdictions, or who take their case through the secular court system, but they face pressure, even ostracism from their communities. Finding ways of accommodating such jurisdictions within the overarching law of the land would include requiring them to operate within the overarching liberties which the law of the land grants, and would allow people to obtain legal remedy in ways which accord both with the law of the land and with their religious tradition. One might feel that in fact this is a circle which cannot be squared - but nonetheless (as I understand it) that is what the archbishop was suggesting should be explored. Although he uses sharia as a case in point, his speech is not as such about advocacy for Islamic believers per se, but about space for religious convictions in general in the way in which the secular law of the land operates. Posted by: Deleted user 1222 Wednesday 20 February 2008 - 01:00am A key concern is something like Roman Catholic adoption agencies refusing to deal with gay couples. The law says that these private providers, because this is what we have, must treat such couples equally with others. The Roman Catholics wanted an opt out and the law says no. The Archbishop dealt with 'moral communities' with different views from the secular, but all the secular amounts to is a principled general consensus as focused through the political system. Inevitably a Muslim court, as a Jewish, as a Christian, would have its own set of moralities and of course people can contract to these, though the State will put rights higher than contracts. Whatever people decide should be filtered through the one law for all, a law that is flexible regarding different views and peoples but where there are clear standards. The Archbishop's system was a chaotic set of parallels, in that community courts would have legal powers with individuals consenting to use them. It is somewhat idealistic to believe that individuals who did not consent would find no consequence in the religious community - after all, if there is Divine Law, then to go outside this on a "rights basis" alternative would be seen as a kind of heresy at best. It simply will not work. The power of a court must come through the secular court, in other words it oversees and forces a level playing field - even one with variations that still uphold the rights that the court is there to protect. Posted by: Mark Bennet Tuesday 19 February 2008 - 09:06pm Peter H My reading of this is not that the Archbishop is acting as an advocate for people of Islamic faith - although the presence of Bishops in the House of Lords as religious representatives as of right has encouraged some to be channels through which people of other faiths can bring their concerns to political attention and make sure laws do not inadvertently discriminate against them. [And this concern for others is one argument the Church now has for retaining Bishops in the House of Lords as part of any revised constitutional settlement]. Rather, the Archbishop seems to have been asked, as a Christian leader who has been in dialogue with Muslims, to address a group of lawyers from a Christian perspective on how the law might have to adapt - in the context of growing numbers of Muslims in our country, and particular areas where there are now Muslim majorities - how the law might have to adapt to avoid unnecessary social tension and to promote social cohesion. The law of our nation has adapted many times in respect of religious tolerance - in relation to Muslims, Jews, Roman Catholics, non-conformists ... so there is nothing new in principle about suggestions being made. The fact that the suggestions might help to create additional space for Christianity in relation to a state apparatus which increasingly tells us that it is secular seems to have passed many commentators by. Why and how commentators can state on the BBC and without challenge that ours is a secular state, when we still have an established church - that is a potentially more concerning question, I would think. Posted by: Peter H Tuesday 19 February 2008 - 06:55pm Hi, Why on earth is the Archbishop of Canterbury assuming a responsibility to act as an advocate for those members of our community for whom Islam is their faith ? I claim no expertise in relation to the duties of Bishops in the Church of England, but have always understood them to be responsible for the promulgation of the Christian Faith. It is the novelty of the Archbishop's interpretation of his great Office which concerns many ordinary people such as myself Peter Posted by: James Tuesday 19 February 2008 - 04:41pm He does mean a supplementary jurisdiction, Pluralist. He addresses the questions you raise in paragraphs 12 and following in his speech and specifically attends to the issues you raise. He offers some suggestions as to how the problems might be overcome, and indicates some of the areas where difficult questions remain to be answered. The hardest issue remains where those who wish to remain loyal to their faith tradition may not get justice within its legal procedures but will find that if they seek justice in a different tribunal, its rulings will not be accepted within the faith community. This issue arises whether the faith community's tribunals have any legal standing or not. It is hard to see how any legal sanction can be brought to bear to prevent people from being regarded as unfaithful by those communities where they do not accept community norms of dispute resolution. The law can prevent all kinds practical outcomes of discrimination, but not the actual regard a person is held in by their faith community. ISTM that he is arguing that one way forward is to try and draw religious courts in in such a way that members of such communities can use them without finding themselves legally disadvantaged in doing so. In particular he is clear that it will not do to countenance proposals for religious courts which will withdraw (de jure or de facto) from members of those communities the rights they enjoy under the general law. I don't think he is actually seeking for religious groups the ability to practise discrimination which is prohibited by national law. He is, however, asking for a recognition that faith communities may find themselves at odds with the law of the land for faith related reasons which are at most tangential to the ends to which the law of the land is directed. If the law of the land is to be effective as (among other things) a unifying force, and in avoiding the ghettoisation of such communities it must have some means of recognising genuine and serious faith related concerns. Posted by: Mark Bennet Tuesday 19 February 2008 - 04:15pm Well ... Should British law recognise secular values in relation to marriage - for example by enforcing pre-nuptial agreements (obviously contracted on the basis that promises traditionally made until death do us part are not to be relied on)? Why is this question so very different from that which the Archbishop raised? Should we throw out the Ten Commandments because the Old Testament advocates penalties of stoning, and capital punishment for all homicide? Sharia is a much more subtle concept than a lot of the headline reaction suggests, just as Old Testament Law is much more than stoning. We have some sharia simply by virtue of allowing mosques to operate freely (and that was not always the case). And there are halal butchers too. Let's at least have an intelligent conversation, and stop shouting out answers before we've heard enough to know what the questions are. Posted by: Deleted user 1222 Tuesday 19 February 2008 - 01:45pm I'm afraid, concerned Anglican layman, that you have rather missed the point. I'd say that Rowan Williams was suggesting parallel jurisdiction on certain civil matters as a community opt out from state laws, and would presumably involve more than Muslims, with then an individual opt out back into the state system. Both courts would have real legislative teeth. It is an utterly impactical suggestion, because many could not escape their community bonds to get to the state courts, individuals would disagree as to which court to attend, and competition between courts would be chaotic. If he really meant supplementary jurisdiction, then this would involve some sort of community court decision that would have the decision verified by a state court checking that all rights were upheld and that consent was fully given. Williams's form of multi-culturalism is not a pluralism (more pluralism that Islamic or any other takeover) that involves engagement with one another - it is a separate packages pluralism which involves privilege given to religious traditions, and is becuase he wants the freedom of religious groups to continue to behave in the way the state regards as discriminatory. This, by the way, is my response to Tom Wright's new and rather low grade anti-secularist rant and politicking lecture on these pages. Posted by: James Tuesday 19 February 2008 - 11:23am This isn't what RW was advocating - nor is Sharia law the main point of his lecture. Read his lecture and the transcript of the interview on the Archbishop of Canterbury website, or read Andrew Goddard or Jonathan Chaplin or Tom Wright on this website to see what the discussion actually was - not just what the BBC to their shame and others less surprisingly reported it as having been. Posted by: Concerned Anglican layma Monday 18 February 2008 - 05:22pm As a layman of the Anglican church it seems to me that the mind of Archbishop Williams has been 'got at' by the strong Muslim forces at work in British society today. In the 1950s I learnt at Sunday school that Islam is an 'evangelising' religion that aims to make everyone on earth a believer. So it is, in the 2000s that we have 'home-grown' suicide bombers, and now a Christian leader advocating giving way to Islamic teaching and bringing Islamic law in to Britain. Posted by: Fern Monday 18 February 2008 - 11:22am Jonathan Chaplin writes of his reaction to the objections to the proposal to introduce elements of sharia law in Canada:- "I was then dismayed by the speed with which the government later ditched its own report under intense pressure from an emotionally-charged campaign by Muslim, secularist, and feminist opponents across Canada." Why 'dismayed', I wonder? Did Dr Chaplin consider that perhaps muslims, and muslim women in particular, had a better idea of what introducing elements of the sharia might mean for them and their children than non-muslim academic theologians? After acknowledging and then somewhat airily dismissing the dangers to women of being coerced into going the sharia route and Patrick Sookhdeo's warning that extremists are likely to subvert and then take-over such legal structures to further an Islamist agenda, Dr Chaplin moves on to what he call the 'tectonic' question. He asks "whether the authority of a state can presume to take precedence over every other obligation on citizens’ loyalty", and goes on to quote Acts "we must obey God rather than men". Well, I'd have to disagree about his choice of the 'tectonic' issue. In a modern multicultural society peopled by those of all faiths and none, the 'tectonic' issue is surely not that "we must obey God" but, rather, which God must we obey? Allah is not remotely like the God of the Bible; the Prophet not remotely like Christ; the religious duties imposed on muslims not remotely like those imposed on Christians. The young men who blew up London tube trains believed they were carrying out a religious duty. Another pair of young men also believed they were carrying out a religious duty when they went to Israel and tried to blow up a nightclub. Many muslim scholars condemn the first act; very few the second. Britain allows muslims freedom to practice their faith, they argue, there is no oppression, Islam is not at war with Britain and so muslims must respect the laws of the land. Israel, as they say, is a different kettle of fish. So if people have deeply held religious convictions that they should travel to a small middle-eastern country and blow-up civilians, are we all OK with that? And Islam is only one faith in the melting pot. Who's going to define what is 'religious' and therefore to be granted a free pass from observing laws its members dislike? Should Rastas be granted exception from the drug laws? Should we no longer be horrified when the headless bodies of 5 year old boys are found in the Thames because some West Africans have 'deeply held religious convictions' about child sacrifice? Most people, I guess, would say that democracy is a better politcal system to live under than facism or communism. In the political debate, facism, for example, is not usually seen as a neutral ideology entitled to equal space with other ideologies such as democracy - it is accepted that the practical consequences of fascism are bad. In other words, people have no problem understanding that what is important is not the deeply held convictions of fascists but the outcomes of facism. So if we can discriminate between good and bad outcomes in the political sphere, why not in the religious? Many people sincerely hold religious beliefs that, if acted upon, are profoundly harmful to others. The different religious faiths are no more neutral ideologies than facism and communism - some are downright dangerous and should have no place in our society.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Sunday 17 February 2008 - 05:36pm
We have just published on Fulcrum an article by Jonathan Chaplin, Director of the Kirby Laing Institute for Christian Ethics, Cambridge. It is entitled, 'Law, Faith and Freedom: a critical appreciation of Archbishop Williams's lecture'. Posted by: Deleted user 974 Sunday 17 February 2008 - 04:14pm Its all very well to begin to speak of 'interactive pluralism' now. Unfortunately so=called secularism (hardly monolithic) has done more for interactive pluralism than the Churches. The Churches tend only to be interested alas, in what is hammered on their own anvil (not so different from when those words were penned for the AV Bible Preface). Where is the pluralistic interaction in the AC and the C of E re women's ordiantion and full place in the Churches ? Where is the pluralistic interaction re the place of lgbt folk in the Churches (etc) ? Posted by: John Clark Sunday 17 February 2008 - 10:19am The article by Clifford Longley in this week's 'Tablet' well picks up the themes of ' interactive pluralism' and concern that secular society would not permit public space for those who had different valuses that underlay ++Rowan's address. Posted by: Fern Saturday 16 February 2008 - 12:48pm This idea that members of any so-called 'community' would be perfectly free to opt in or out of laws applying solely to members of that community, is ludicrous. It's based on the assumption (supported by no evidence whatsoever) that all members of the 'community' have an equal voice within that community. This is just stuff and nonsense. The reality, of course, is that there would be absolutely enormous pressure brought to bear on parties in dispute to go the 'keep-it-in-the-community route - this is especially so in any dispute involving women. A fairly high proportion of British muslim men marry women from the sub-continent. How could any young girl from India or Pakistan, probably with poor or no English, assert her rights to the safeguards afforded her under civil law if her marriage turns out to be a nightmare? British law, after a long, hard struggle, takes domestic violence seriously; the Koran permits the physical chastisement of wives (as a last resort) so a woman suffering physical abuse from her husband would be under great pressure from family and local religious leaders to accept Koranic-sanctioned behaviour. Aren't those who're supportive of the extension of sharia actually abandoning some of our most vulnerable citizens? Ah, the answer will be that this isn't the sort of sharia the ABC was talking about but then what the ABC wants to see isn't sharia at all. Philip Thomas (user 1554), I was a tad confused by your post with its different font sizes and colours of text and couldn't decide which were your opinions and which were those of others you were quoting. But let me ask you and all those who seem broadly sympathetic to the Archbishop's vision - do you think it a Good Thing if Islamic law plays a greater role in British society? Given that men and women are not equal in Islam, it really baffles me what it is about this particular faith that seems so attractive to those who'd like to see it occupy a bigger share of public space. Perhaps someone could enlighten me. Posted by: Deleted user 974 Saturday 16 February 2008 - 01:18am Woman's Hour on radio 4 today gave very good background interviews around this. Do listen via the Listen again facility on its website. Posted by: Deleted user 1222 Friday 15 February 2008 - 11:19pm Good substantive interview, useful for informing beyond the headlines. As I saw it, though, the religious community courts would have real legal powers and so they were parallel, only that just as they would be an opt out from universal law so individuals would have opt outs from the community religious courts - utterly unworkable as law and in terms of where the parties in dispute would turn up as they weigh up differently the advantages of one kind of court over another. Posted by: Philip Mounstephen Friday 15 February 2008 - 09:23pm I had the opportunity to comment on the story on France 24 on Tuesday this week: http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=tADvGz2GnSA Posted by: John Clark Thursday 14 February 2008 - 12:41pm The point made in Andrew Goddard's paper that what the Archbishop is calling for is (in ++Rowan's words) 'interactive pluralism' rather than a monochrome 'secular enlightenment' state undergirds a host of major speeches and lectures that he has given over the last five years. it is worth scanning the archives of his speeches on his website http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/ for example in October 2004 he gave The Chatham Lecture at Oxford : " Convictions, Loyalties and the Secular State", Trinity College, Oxford. on 07 November 2005 came 'Religion culture diversity and tolerance - shaping the new Europe': address at the European Policy Centre, Brussels - a remarkable comment on the role of Christianity in shaping European democracy. And on 12 May 2007 Christianity: Public Religion and the Common Good which he gave to the Building Bridges Christ-Muslim seminar in Singapore. The role of religion in the public space in the modern state is one of his priority themes, which he is able to argue extremely effectively - into which the lecture at the Royal Courts of Justice fits (the next lecture in the series of six is by two Muslims, whose names I forget - and takes place in May, I think). The underlying theme was picked up in BBC Newsnight reports after his 'clarifying' address to General Synod on Tuesday - and I think Paul Vallely did so in the Independent. I have just noticed that on Tuesday he hosted a seminar at Lambeth Palace with visiting scholars from China on the place of religion in modern society. His website is a mine of good things. Even if you disagree he is immensely stimulating. John Clark john@mclark32.freeserve.co.uk Posted by: Philip Thomas Thursday 14 February 2008 - 10:58am It has been suggested that I copy my contribution to the British and Irish Association for Mission Studies forum to this site, especially as subsequent discussion there referred back to Andrew Goddard's fine piece posted here: I read the lecture when it came on-line, without understanding it, but had a light-bulb moment during the early communion service on Sunday, while reading (from Book of Common Prayer, in Lent) the 10 Commandments. It occured to me that in doing that I was actually promoting an alternative law held by a minority religious community in our culture. Of course we have the 'advantage' of finding so much of the Judeo-Christian heritage mirrored in our legal system, so it doesn't seem as counter-cultural as it really is - but actually, if we took (for instance) the commandment about covetousness seriously, it might just about wipe out the whole western economic system! So, on Sunday night (after reading the lecture again - and still not fully grasping the complexities of it) I tried out that approach as a way-in to what +Rowan was saying (and the congregation didn't understand that either.) But I think that his argument is of compelling importance for Christianity, quite apart from how it is judged by Islam or Judaism, and for religion in general in this country. At the heart of it there is a treatment of 'the universal vision of post-Enlightenment politics' which refuses to justify the rule of law by anything other than the claim to 'equal accountability' - a claim which, as the mirror reflecting our Christian cultural roots is increasingly tarnished (if not quite cracked from side to side) can hold only 'a negative rather than a positive sense.' The last third of his lecture, and its conclusion, is in fact an invitation for law to engage with theology - 'however hard our culture may try to keep it out' - and at that point there will be the need for discrimination about the details of religious aspirations/ Shar'ia/ the human enterprise/ the good life, etc. To add to the inter-religious mix, and a Hindu perspective, I was impressed by Akhandadhi Das' thought for the day, broadcast by Radio 4 on Tuesday: he suggested that religious laws should not be seen as 'parallel' jurisdictions, but could be 'wired in series' so that there was a sense of vision and direction flowing through them. To exclude religion perpetuates the solely 'compliance' mode of law-making which we seem to have been forced into. Legitimising some aspects of religious law (and I don't see how it could be done either - and don't really expect it is going to be attempted very soon) might be seen to incorporate some of the dynamics by which people actually choose to live into the British legal system. The 'disadvantage' of living in a society with a Christian heritage (for which there is much to be thankful) is that people tend to think that 'doing it our way' is the Christian way of life - and what +Rowan calls 'the monopoly of legitmate violence' (ie 'if ya' get caught, y'll get banged up') represents the church's hope for society and is its mission to defend. Another contributor has pointed out how consistent this lecture was with a central part of the Archbishop's ministry: The point made in Andrew Goddard's paper that what the Archbishop is calling for is 'interactive pluralism' rather than a monochrome 'secular enlightenment' state undergirds a host of major speeches and lectures that he has given over the last five years. it is worth scanning the archives of his speeches on his website http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/ for example in October 2004 he gave The Chatham Lecture at Oxford : " Convictions, Loyalties and the Secular State", Trinity College, Oxford. on 07 November 2005 came 'Religion culture diversity and tolerance - shaping the new Europe': address at the European Policy Centre, Brussels - a remarkable comment on the role of Christianity in shaping European democracy. And on 12 May 2007 Christianity: Public Religion and the Common Good which he gave to the Building Bridges Christ-Muslim seminar in Singapore. The role of religion in the public space in the modern state is one of his priority themes, which he is able to argue extremely effectively - into which the lecture at the Royal Courts of Justice fits. I think this is important especially in the light of the Times editorial which implied the Archbishop should stick to his day job of keeping the Anglican Communion together, and avoid these 'peripheral' forays into things which don't concern him! But the two things are linked. Part of the pressure on Anglican churches over the homosexuality issue (eg. Uganda's decision not to attend the Lambeth Conference, announced this morning) is built up because of their confrontation with Islam: at the same time, the questions about pluriformity in the church are exactly mirrored by the reluctance of the state to admit legitimate diversity - except under the threadbare slogan of 'multi-culturalism' , which means that no culture (apart from Enlightenment secularism) needs to be taken seriously at all. The question of Anglican 'communion' (and that of - and between - other Christian communities too) is really testing how far the unity of the church does actually pre-figure the unity of all humanity, and the fulfilment of the vision of Ephesians 1 etc! To engage with that involves a change of mind-set - not least in the way that Christians set out their stall in the market place of ideas. In the parallel discussion, someone else remarked that the furore that the lecture has created is of missiological significance itself: Much of this, even from church sources, seems to me to betray a view of religion rather akin to football – you ought to be passionate about your own team and disparaging about all its rivals. Rowan has not complied with this stereotype and I find it amazing to see the depth of the outrage which he has provoked as a result. How to strike the balance of sustaining Christian conviction while making common cause with other faiths in a secular society is a familiar challenge to those on the inside of the question but the reaction to Rowan suggests that it is baffling and bewildering to the majority. Do we need to re-contextualize ourselves once again? The answer to that final question is another that seems 'inevitable'. Philip Thomas Posted by: BenWhite Thursday 14 February 2008 - 12:54am @ Fern "You are, I think, like many instinctively liberal people, anxious to protest muslims from calumny but in so doing you are actually denying them any moral responsibility for the state of their societies." I don't feel particularly 'anxious to protest [protect?} muslims from calumny', though I am keen to avoid generalisations that feed into a damaging Islamophobic discourse. "Is israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank actually more brutal and oppressive than China's occupation of Tibet? How have the Tibeteans managed to develop an opposition that doesn't include suicide bombing of civilians? The East Timorese, largely Christian this time, are another people who've faced near-genocidal levels of violence from a muslim-majority neighbour, Indonesia, in their struggle for independence. They didn't resort to bombing cafes and bars in Jakarta but developed a coherent political opposition to the terror visited upon them." Not quite sure what your point is here. Interestingly, you seem to acknowledge that Muslims have indeed faced occupation and colonial domination (hence your comparisons with Tibet and East Timor). But you also seem to be saying that "Muslims" (again, as if 'they' are all the same) are unique in that they have used violence against civilians, or specifically suicide bombing. But the facts don`t really add up. As shown in Pape's excellent study, 'Dying to Win', the majority of suicide bombers in the last decades have actually been non-Muslim - the Tamil Tigers (a Hindu-Marxist influenced group) pioneered suicide bombing as a tactic of asymmetrical warfare. "When Ayatollah Khoemeini issued his fatwa against Salman Rushdie for his "Satanic Verses", the majority of British muslims who took up the call for the author's death were not from the middle east but, like the overwhelming majority of British muslims, from the Indian sub-continent, many of them Bengalis." It is not, as you falsely surmise, to say 'it's all our fault'. That would be ridiculous, and I haven't actually said that. But the fact is that the specific political phenomenon and events that you refer to did not simply appear from nowhere, or emerge in a vacuum. It was in the fire of colonialism, exploitation, manipulation, and occupation - past and present - that the various expressions of a politicised Islam were - and are being - forged. Posted by: Fern Wednesday 13 February 2008 - 01:47pm Ben White, this post is a reply to your post on Sunday in response to an earlier post of mine....if you're still with me, now read on. You write:- "It is impossible to talk about events such as the Satanic Verses fatwa, or the Danish cartoon controversy, without the political context in which they emerged. Ever since Sykes-Picot divvied up the Middle East between them, or the US signed a deal with the House of Saud after WW2, or the UK and US conspired to bring down the Iranian government in 1953, we have marvelled at how the 'Muslims' seem bent on doing us harm...Do you imagine that policies like these don’t have consequences? Seemingly unable to prevent US hegemony, Israeli occupation, and a host of related problems, sadly many have seen fit to find refuge in a kind of politicised religion that gives vent to the anger, humiliation and frustration experienced by so many millions." You are, I think, like many instinctively liberal people, anxious to protest muslims from calumny but in so doing you are actually denying them any moral responsibility for the state of their societies. The biggest losers under the Sykes-Picot agreement, for example, were the Kurds. Denied a state, they have subsequently lived on their traditional homelands which are split between Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria and have frequently faced near-genocidal levels of violence from their fellow-muslims in these countries. Is israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank actually more brutal and oppressive than China's occupation of Tibet? How have the Tibeteans managed to develop an opposition that doesn't include suicide bombing of civilians? The East Timorese, largely Christian this time, are another people who've faced near-genocidal levels of violence from a muslim-majority neighbour, Indonesia, in their struggle for independence. They didn't resort to bombing cafes and bars in Jakarta but developed a coherent political opposition to the terror visited upon them. When Ayatollah Khoemeini issued his fatwa against Salman Rushdie for his "Satanic Verses", the majority of British muslims who took up the call for the author's death were not from the middle east but, like the overwhelming majority of British muslims, from the Indian sub-continent, many of them Bengalis. Who should, of course, know a fair bit about terror given the savagery of the West/East Pakistan conflict. Neither the US, UK nor Israel are killing muslim Darfurians by the thousands, that would be the Islamist regime in Khartoum. It is simply absurd to lay responsibility for all of the malaise in the muslim world at the door of western countries. And if you are going to talk about imperialism, it seems a little odd not to recognise that one of the most lasting examples of it is Islam itself. The lands we think of as muslim were not so from time immemorial but as a result of conquest. The "anger, humiliation and frustration" you speak of is rooted in a supremist ideology which believes, as the Hamas charter states, that "The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day? This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement." Posted by: Greg Yerbury Wednesday 13 February 2008 - 04:00am As I understand it the key point that Rowan was making that the British law will have to accommodate Sharia law to some extent but it has already happened over multiple marriages so I don't see the need for the fuss. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/03/nbenefit103.xml Posted by: Philip Mounstephen Tuesday 12 February 2008 - 09:26am In the light of what I’ve read recently I want to revise my earlier comment: the weakness in ++Rowan's argument is that he is selling out to a multicultural agenda that the UK government is retreating from at full speed. ‘Selling out’ is inappropriately pejorative language. I do think there are difficult issues of the coherence of society raised by the Archbishop’s proposal but he is surely right to raise the issue of the difficult position in which an intolerant, secular positive corpus of law places dissenting minorities – Christians included. Ben – I wholly agree with the substance of your last comments to me: we have seriously to face up to the fact that Muslims are our neighbours. Re. my bracketing of schools, hospitals, govt. departments etc – of course I did it deliberately, because I think that what we mean by the ‘state’, ‘public life’, ‘civil’ and ‘civic life’ etc is not that easy to define – it certainly means more that ‘government’. It’s crucial we discuss the whole issue of appropriate Christian involvement in such things (without I hope suffering the appalling treatment that's been the Archbishop’s lot). Posted by: Deleted user 1222 Tuesday 12 February 2008 - 05:23am My view on the synod address. It was a politician's apology and he did argue for parallel jurisdiction. Like with that Advent Letter, I have rewritten than lecture to make it clearer, and it is in the order he gave it (rather than get rid of the repetition). It is a sleight of hand. As for the main business of the communion, he has the blame all the wrong way around - the Communion first in everything, closing down difference rather than facing up to difference, and blaming those who have been open and above board for giving the excuse to the plain evil and the schismatics. Remember that a blog is in reverse order: it may make sense to read No... No...No... first and then Parallel or Not: That Lecture (should you wish to do so). http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com
Posted by: Graham Kings
Monday 11 February 2008 - 06:03pm
The afternoon's Presidential Address to General Synod by the Archbishop of Canterbury is now published on his site. It is worth reading in full and deals with the debate concerning Islamic Law, with Zimbabwe and the Lambeth Conference. Posted by: BenWhite Monday 11 February 2008 - 09:03am Three links to add to my last comment, providing some much needed level-headed analysis: Financial Times, Some civil jurisdiction but no parallel legal system Clare Dyer in the Guardian "The Archbishop of Canterbury's message was not that there should be one law for Muslims and another for the rest. What he seemed to be positing was that the secular legal system should accommodate the traditional sharia councils which exist around the country, dealing with family and other disputes. One model could be the Beth Din, the rabbinical courts set up by a UK statute more than 100 years ago, which means they are recognised within the legal system..." Deborah Orr in the Independent "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..."
Posted by: Graham Kings
Monday 11 February 2008 - 12:37am
As General Synod begins, we have just published on Fulcrum two articles by Andrew Goddard concerning the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent lecture at the Royal Courts of Justice. The first is 'Prudence and Jurisprudence: Reflections on the Archbishop's Interview and Lecture'. Comments on this should be posted on this forum thread. The second is 'Islamic Law and the Anglican Communion: is there a Common Vision?'. Comments on this should be posted on the forum thread 'The Anglican Communion: a common vision?'
Posted by: Graham Kings
Sunday 10 February 2008 - 11:53pm
Two important articles were published in The Sunday Independent today, 10 February 2008, concerning women: Joan Smith, 'British women are already suffering from Islamic law' Bill Brady, 'A question of honour: Police say 17,000 women are victims every year' Posted by: BenWhite Sunday 10 February 2008 - 10:32pm user 1202 “Islam couldn't have come to Britain before the late 600s, and Christianity got there--and to other countries in Europe-- before that.” My sentence was unhelpfully ambiguous. I meant that throughout the history of Christianity in Britain, there have been other belief systems sharing the space – but I didn’t intend to list my examples in chronological order. Philip, Thanks Philip, for some very thought-provoking ideas. I don’t think I would group together “local Christian communities, charities, schools, hospitals, government departments, and even armies” in the same category, especially in terms of how it is possible for each to reflect Kingdom values. Also, Alfred the Great may have done what you describe, as other individuals may also have done, but he was (and they are) still operating in a system fundamentally characterised by absolute hierarchical power, designed to maintain the privileges of an elite. I’d actually like to think about this whole issue more – though for now, I’d quite like to shift the focus of the thread more on to the specific issue of Islam in Britain (if that’s OK). I’m going to do that with a quotation from Jonathan Freedland, in an article he wrote back in October 2006. Sadly, it is just as pertinent now (perhaps more so) – look at the front page of the Indy on Sunday today about ‘honour killings’, for example. “I've been trying to imagine what it must be like to be a Muslim in Britain. I guess there's a sense of dread about switching on the radio or television, even about walking into a newsagents. What will they be saying about us today? Will we be under assault for the way we dress? Or the schools we go to, or the mosques we build? Who will be on the front page: a terror suspect, a woman in a veil or, the best of both worlds, a veiled terror suspect… Right now, we're getting it badly wrong - bombarding Muslims with pressure and prejudice, laying one social problem after another at their door. I try to imagine how I would feel if this rainstorm of headlines substituted the word "Jew" for "Muslim": Jews creating apartheid, Jews whose strange customs and costume should be banned. I wouldn't just feel frightened. I would be looking for my passport.” Public Christian leaders – and indeed, us ‘lay folk’ – should be focussing on two main things in this climate it seems to me. Firstly, we should be participating in an intelligent, balanced discussion, about the various issues pertaining to inter-ethnic and inter-religious relations in British society – an antidote to the soundbite distortions and hateful scaremongering. Secondly, we should also be at the front of the queue to defend British Muslims from a fairly full-on assault, demonstrating that it is possible to be a prophetic voice of justice at the same time as feeling no need to water down theological differences. Posted by: Celinda Sunday 10 February 2008 - 11:59am A quibble: the author says that "ever since Christianity arrived on these isles, it has shared space with paganism, Judaism, Islam...": Islam couldn't have come to Britain before the late 600s, and Christianity got there--and to other countries in Europe-- before that. Islam presented a military threat to Christianity in Europe until the defeat of Muslim armies in southern France in the 800s (not sure of the exact date). Posted by: Philip Mounstephen Saturday 9 February 2008 - 09:25pm Thanks Ben Of course I recognise that national structures are not neutral. Indeed it's the burden of my argument that they shouldn't be. I don't want to pretend that any human institution isn't at best a mixed bag, and of course power plays a huge part, but nonetheless I still believe that it is possible for human institutions – be they local Christian communities, charities, schools, hospitals, government departments, and even armies – to reflect, and intentionally reflect, something of the values of the Kingdom. The relationship between Kingdom and kingdoms is complex – but I don't think 'polar opposites' really does justice to it. Historically I think the issue is how we cope with life post-Constantine. I think there's something in your argument that holds that the church is only authentically Christian when it's marginalised and threatened. I don't think that history bears that out, any more than I think it demonstrates that the concept of Christendom leads inevitably to the 'distortion and dilution of the gospel'. (I've just been reading for instance of the significant way Alfred the Great encouraged his Bishops to learn to read, to found schools, and to preach and teach the good news.) Of course building the Kingdom will always fall primarily to the Christian community, but I believe enough in common grace to believe that it is possible for the state to lend its aid to that endeavour.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Saturday 9 February 2008 - 05:55pm
On Wednesday 7 February 2008, Jenny Taylor, director of Lapido Media, published a very interesting press statement, little noticed, for the Archbishop of Canterbury's lecture at the Royal Court of Justice the following day Thursday. It gives some background to the current debate and shows why the media picked up the words of the lecture concerning Sharia Law. The press statement, 'Academics push to merge Shariah and English Law', was written by the organisers of the lecture series, Ian Edge (Director of the Centre of Islamic and Middle East Law at the School of Oriental and African Studies, London) and Robin Griffiths-Jones (Master of The Temple, London). Jenny Taylor has responded with an article, 'Archbishop's Time Bomb', Lapido Media site, 8 February 2008. Posted by: BenWhite Saturday 9 February 2008 - 04:06pm @ Douglas Knight “Like any Christian, an Archbishop can take a lot of flack from opponents of the Church, and it is his priestly calling to do so. But members of the Church, standing in judgment on him and so leave him to face this fury on his own – that is not so impressive.” Very much agreed. @ Philip Thanks very much for your most recent comment. There are some very complex issues at play here, questions that I’m almost constantly re-asking and re-evaluating. I’m just going to take up your final paragraph, if that’s OK. “Finally I wholly share your view that the key issue for us is to 'see the body of Christ flourishing.... and playing its role in the realisation of the Kingdom of God' However you go on to say that 'Not only is this very different to the question of to what extent is Christianity being appropriated by a state’s institutions, it is often in direct conflict.' I'm not sure what you base that conclusion on. It does seem to be that we can have a radical Church focussed on the Kingdom and national structures and values that reflect the values of the Kingdom. I don't think we have to choose. I do believe that in every sense we should seek to 'build Jerusalem in England's green and pleasant land' (and I quote that not as a piece of jingoistic claptrap, but as the visionary words of a truly radical Christian).” A few things I’d like to say here. First, it is an illusion to imagine that these “national structures” are neutral. By which I mean, the British state and establishment have powerful vested interests at stake, for example, capital and wealth. Second, the Jesus of the Gospels inaugurates a Kingdom that is the polar opposite of the ‘kingdoms’ of this world. Power and military might are out; the marginalised, and subversion, are in. The ‘appropriation’ of Christianity by a state (I use the word ‘appropriation’ deliberately) is not because of a ‘conversion’ of the power interests – it is because a distortion and dilution of the Gospel has taken place such as to render the official religion harmless and even helpful to the state. I have to say, I think that ‘building Jerusalem in England’s green and pleasant land’ – if by that we are referring to God’s restoration of creation as it applies to this little isle! – will best be done outside of the state, by the diverse, numerous bands of Jesus-followers living out the fullness of the Kingdom. Over to you? @ Fern We need to entangle a few different threads here. “Is that actually correct? Saddam Hussein's Iraq was ruled by an authoritarian, corrupt elite and yet it was relatively safe to be a Christian there. Post-Hussein Iraq is a more democratic place and yet huge numbers of Christians have fled, many of them to the only other secular(ish) dicatatorship in the region, Syria.” In my paragraph that you picked up on, I was primarily referring to state-orchestrated persecution. Under Saddam Hussein, therefore, Christians suffered like their Muslim neighbours from the absence of profound political and civil freedoms. In Uzbekistan, for example, Christian pastors are arrested and share jail cells with Islamists and Leftists – why? Because the government in Uzbekistan is dictatorial, and defends the interests of an elite through an official ideology. The disaster that has befallen Christians in Iraq during the US-UK occupation is due to a number of factors that came together in a catastrophic mix (predicted incidentally). Firstly, for example, in post-Saddam Iraq, there continues to be an intense, nasty struggle for power between various groups, sectarian or otherwise. Many of these groups competing for territory, position, natural resources etc. have been played off each other by third parties, such as the US occupation authorities or neighbouring countries. The Christians, a small minority, are more vulnerable in this competition. Secondly, as Christians, they are seen as co-religionists of the occupying US and UK forces, nations – that as we are seeing in this discussion – to some extent define themselves as ‘Christian’ (not to mention the very public faith of prominent leaders). Thirdly, there are groups operating in Iraq that work according to a particularly reactionary manipulation of Islam, and see part of their mission to kill anyone outside of their narrowly-defined ‘right religion’. That is just a brief summary, and it’s already a complex mix. What it can’t be reduced to, I’m afraid, is what you then wrote: “but the real problem, politically incorrect though it is to acknowledge, is Islam.” The only way for this to be ‘true’ is for dozens of other factors – economic, social, political, imperial, historical, anthropological, and more besides – to be discarded because they complicate the desired narrative. It is similar to the generalisation: “A state run on Islamic principles does not give non-muslims equal citizenship with muslims.” What are these ‘Islamic principles’? Who defines them? But before this reply gets too long, your final paragraph: “Criticise the government in many muslim-majority countries and you're likely to be arrested; criticise Islam or its Prophet and you're likely to be killed. The UK is a democratic state with a well-developed civil society and lots of avenues open to protest pretty much anything you like and yet the number of voices calling for the death of Salman Rushdie when the 'Satanic Verses' was published should disabuse anyone of the notion that recourse to violence and oppression is really to do with the lack of an alternative. In Norway, one of the freest countries on the planet, either Rushdie's translator or publisher was murdered. A more recent example, from which one could draw the same lesson, is the Danish cartoon controversy.” It is impossible to talk about events such as the Satanic Verses fatwa, or the Danish cartoon controversy, without the political context in which they emerged. Ever since Sykes-Picot divvied up the Middle East between them, or the US signed a deal with the House of Saud after WW2, or the UK and US conspired to bring down the Iranian government in 1953, we have marvelled at how the 'Muslims' seem bent on doing us harm...Do you imagine that policies like these don’t have consequences? Seemingly unable to prevent US hegemony, Israeli occupation, and a host of related problems, sadly many have seen fit to find refuge in a kind of politicised religion that gives vent to the anger, humiliation and frustration experienced by so many millions. Posted by: Fern Saturday 9 February 2008 - 02:09pm Ben, you write:- "The fact is that Christian minorities in Muslim majority countries often suffer because they live in a society where the political order is characterised by authoritarianism, corruption, suppression of free speech, and the defense of the interests of an elite few by manipulating an official 'ideology'. The way to combat that is by being sure of our own principles of freedom and equality at home, and pushing for them abroad." Is that actually correct? Saddam Hussein's Iraq was ruled by an authoritarian, corrupt elite and yet it was relatively safe to be a Christian there. Post-Hussein Iraq is a more democratic place and yet huge numbers of Christians have fled, many of them to the only other secular(ish) dicatatorship in the region, Syria. Many muslim-majority states are ruled by corrupt elites but the real problem, politically incorrect though it is to acknowledge, is Islam. A state run on Islamic principles does not give non-muslims equal citizenship with muslims. It gives Jews and Christians a protected status which can, of course, be revoked at anytime. Back to Iraq again, home to the Mandeans, an ancient sect who revere John the Baptist and who lived relatively safely under Saddam. Practically the first act of Grand Ayatollah al-Hakim on returning from exile in Iran was to declare the Mandeans no longer 'People of the Book' so they can be attacked with impunity and their property confiscated without compensation. Criticise the government in many muslim-majority countries and you're likely to be arrested; criticise Islam or its Prophet and you're likely to be killed. The UK is a democratic state with a well-developed civil society and lots of avenues open to protest pretty much anything you like and yet the number of voices calling for the death of Salman Rushdie when the 'Satanic Verses' was published should disabuse anyone of the notion that recourse to violence and oppression is really to do with the lack of an alternative. In Norway, one of the freest countries on the planet, either Rushdie's translator or publisher was murdered. A more recent example, from which one could draw the same lesson, is the Danish cartoon controversy. Posted by: Philip Mounstephen Saturday 9 February 2008 - 10:06am Ben, Thanks for your response. You ask what Christendom was and how much it's worth defending. I absolutely agree it's possible to idealise it. You rightly point out in your article the significant moral failings of Britain over centuries in a supposedly Christian era. But I don't think therefore that one can claim that Christendom as a concept is of no moral and spiritual significance. I would describe it as national predisposition to order our affairs (including our laws) according to a clear set of values with identifiable roots in Judaeo-Christian tradition. To put it simply it was a determination to 'do God' (contra Alastair Campbell) in the public arena. I live and work in France, a country that decidedly doesn't 'do God' in the same way, and while there is much to admire and enjoy in French society, I do think there are negative consequences in all sorts of ways. It's interesting that President Sarkozy has just slightly opened the (previously firmly shut) door to discuss whether France itself shouldn't 'do God' in some way. I agree with you that there are a number of forces – some extremely unpleasant – stoking the responses to the Archbishop's argument. But I do thing among them are some serious voices which recognise the distinctive character and values that 'Christendom' gave the UK. Have no fear – I'm certainly not advocating a 'we'll give them rights here if they give Christians rights in Muslim lands argument'. I can't see how that can possibly construed as Christian. But I do think we need to look at the international consequences of actions taken, and words spoken, and to take seriously our responsibilities for our brothers and sisters in other places - as I'm sure ++Rowan would want to do. Finally I wholly share your view that the key issue for us is to 'see the body of Christ flourishing.... and playing its role in the realisation of the Kingdom of God' However you go on to say that 'Not only is this very different to the question of to what extent is Christianity being appropriated by a state’s institutions, it is often in direct conflict.' I'm not sure what you base that conclusion on. It does seem to be that we can have a radical Church focussed on the Kingdom and national structures and values that reflect the values of the Kingdom. I don't think we have to choose. I do believe that in every sense we should seek to 'build Jerusalem in England's green and pleasant land' (and I quote that not as a piece of jingoistic claptrap, but as the visionary words of a truly radical Christian).
Posted by: Graham Kings
Saturday 9 February 2008 - 09:28am
For today's reports, articles and leaders on the Archbishop of Canterbury's lecture at the Royal Courts of Justice, see Fulcrum newswatch. In particular the following are worth concentrating on: 1. Frances Gibb (The Times Legal Editor), 'Was Archbishop's obscure phrasing and bad timing to blame for uproar?', The Times, 9 February 2008 2. Leader, 'A Devalued Faith: The Archbishop of Canterbury is damaging the standing of his Church', The Times, 9 February 2008 3. Leader, 'The simplicity complex', The Guardian, 9 February 2008 4. Leader, 'The Archbishop has stepped into a political and intellectual minefield', The Independent, 9 February 2008 Posted by: Deleted user 678 Saturday 9 February 2008 - 09:26am The media here in the UK is not only hostile to the Christian faith, but also simply to ideas. The Archbishop was invited, by jurists, to give a lecture, in the High Court, to the relationship of law and communities. The press headline was 'Archbishop says Sharia 'inevitable'. This is what you can expect from our press. They consider the Church easy meat, as indeed it is as long as we have no basic ecclesiology. It would be a pity if Christians around the world were unable to read our headlines of our media without any critical hermeneutic. When we see the media stoning a Christian, we conclude that he must have done something wrong? Did we learn nothing from Regensburg? My Archbishop said that more formal recognition of the range of jurisdictions is 'unavoidable'. There is a range of jurisdictions, so for example, two participants to a dispute are sometimes able to choose which tribunal they wish their (civil) case to be examined under. This is takes place now, has always taken place and is very basic to English common law. The only strange thing is that governments have been in denial about this in recent decades. This is part of a decay of civil society that is consequent on understanding our relationships to each other only in terms of rights (and never responsibilities) and understanding governments as service-providers and ourselves as consumers of their products. The result of this is that we believe that governments are to do everything and we are to nothing: over the long term this makes for totalitarianism - and it is no less totalitarian because we are complicit in it. Truly to sum up that lecture the headline would have to be ‘Archbishop says common law is ‘inevitable’’, or ‘civil society ‘inevitable’’. The Archbishop believes it is 'unavoidable' that this denial, of civil society, by governments and people, should come to an end. He is right that it should come to an end, and I hope he is right that its end is 'unavoidable'. But if this sort of intelligent, and Christian, contribution to the public square is so vehemently jeered off by the media (BBC is no different from the Murdoch press in this) a smaller, stupider public square in which no one dare say anything intelligent (never mind anything Christian) is the only 'unavoidable' thing here. Like any Christian, an Archbishop can take a lot of flack from opponents of the Church, and it is his priestly calling to do so. But members of the Church, standing in judgment on him and so leave him to face this fury on his own – that is not so impressive. Posted by: BenWhite Saturday 9 February 2008 - 12:42am Philip, "The truth is that UK society is somewhere between Christendom and something genuinely multicultural: and in that position my instinct is to hold on to what we already have rather than move to a place that would be truly strange and novel." What I would like to question here is what this 'Christendom' actually was, and how much it is something worth 'defending' (if that is not already a lost cause) from the point of view of a Christian in Britain. What, for example, is there "to hold on to" from 'Christendom'? "That very furore suggests that society has not departed quite so far from Christendom as the Archbishop may believe." I'm not sure that's the reason for the controversy and backlash. That seems to be more about the prevailing anti-Islamic mood that reduces nuanced debate to soundbites, and careful argument to outlandish scare-mongering (take a look at the front pages of the tabloids here and here for example). "But what of the lot of Christian minorities in Muslim majority countries? It would be nice to think that concession in the UK would result in reciprocal concession there: nice, but naive. The reality surely is that it would only make their lot worse. Legal non-conformity for Muslims in the UK would only serve to put Christian minorities under yet greater pressure to conform." Although this may well not be your intention, this sounds similar to an argument often heard that goes, 'Well, you can't build a church in Saudi Arabia, so why should we allow them to build a mosque here?' The fact is that Christian minorities in Muslim majority countries often suffer because they live in a society where the political order is characterised by authoritarianism, corruption, suppression of free speech, and the defense of the interests of an elite few by manipulating an official 'ideology'. The way to combat that is by being sure of our own principles of freedom and equality at home, and pushing for them abroad. Thoughts? Posted by: Philip Mounstephen Friday 8 February 2008 - 03:21pm This isn't an original view, but I'm very taken with the idea that the weakness in +Michael's argument is that he is defending a Christendom position that does not reflect the reality of current society, whereas the weakness in ++Rowan's argument is that he is selling out to a multicultural agenda that the UK government is retreating from at full speed. The truth is that UK society is somewhere between Christendom and something genuinely multicultural: and in that position my instinct is to hold on to what we already have rather than move to a place that would be truly strange and novel. Of course we must be careful. There is much enshrined already in law that many Christians (and Muslims too) are unhappy with - such as the adoption laws. That was part of the agenda behind what the Archbishop said, so we must be cautious about the 'one law for all' argument: what happens when that law, cut loose from its roots, demands of us what we cannot or will not deliver? In the 1670s Lord Chief Justice Matthew Hale declared that 'to reproach the Christian religion is to speak in subversion of the law.' Few today would be so confident of the Judaeo-Christian nature of the law. And yet relativising the law seems pretty risky. What kind of coherent society would that produce? It's ironic that it's only the privileged position that Establishment gives the Archbishop that allows him to make such comments, and produces such a furore when he does so. That very furore suggests that society has not departed quite so far from Christendom as the Archbishop may believe. I think we also need to see this in international perspective. Here in France the belief in the unity of the Republic, where nationals of foreign origin do not even officially exist, means that the Archbishop's comments are greeted with incredulity. But what of the lot of Christian minorities in Muslim majority countries? It would be nice to think that concession in the UK would result in reciprocal concession there: nice, but naive. The reality surely is that it would only make their lot worse. Legal non-conformity for Muslims in the UK would only serve to put Christian minorities under yet greater pressure to conform.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Friday 8 February 2008 - 10:32am
I copy below in full Michael Nazir-Ali's response to the Archbishop of Canterbury's lecture 'Civil and Religious Law in England: a religious perspective', Diocese of Rochester site, 8 September 2008: English law and the Shari ca English law is rooted in the Judaeo-Christian tradition and, in particular, our notions of human freedoms derive from that tradition. In my view, it would be simply impossible to introduce a tradition, like Shari ca, into this Corpus without fundamentally affecting its integrity. The Shari ca is not a generalised collection of dispositions. It is articulated in highly concrete codes called fiqh. It would have to be one or the other, or all, of these which would have to be recognised. All of these schools would be in tension with the English legal tradition on questions like monogamy, provisions for divorce, the rights of women, custody of children, laws of inheritance and of evidence. This is not to mention the relation of freedom of belief and of expression to provisions for blasphemy and apostasy. We should learn from the debate on this question which recently took place in Canada. Here it was mainly Muslim women’s groups that succeeded in preventing the application of Islamic law in matrimonial matters. The importance of a single law for all was strongly re-affirmed. As with the Beth-din of the Jewish community, it is perfectly possible for religious communities to rule on personal, family and financial matters as long as this does not interfere with the workings of the law of the land. People can use such rulings to inform their conscience and to submit to them voluntarily. Conscientious objection, on religious grounds, should be recognised by the law of the land, as far as possible, but this is quite different from a parallel system of law operating alongside it. We welcome progressive views on the development of Shari ca. These will enable Muslims to relate better to the contemporary world and will ease the situation of non-Muslims in many Muslim countries. They are not, however, an argument for disturbing the integrity of a legal tradition which is rooted in the quite different moral and spiritual vision deriving from the Bible. +Michael Roffen 7 February 2008
Posted by: Graham Kings
Friday 8 February 2008 - 08:22am
This new thread on 'Britain, Christianity and Islam' relates to both: 1. the article by Ben White, 'Britain, Christianity and Islam', published on Fulcrum today, in which he responds to the Sunday Telegraph interview with Michael Nazir-Ali concerning 'No-Go' areas 2. the BBC Radio 4 interview and to the lecture 'Civil and Religious Law in England: a religious perspective' at the Royal Courts of Justice, London, given by Rowan Williams yesterday, in which he considered British Law and Sharia Law. It seems to me that he was unwise in some of his comments and the soundbite on the 'World at One' interview, linking 'some aspects of sharia law' and the word 'unavoidable' without further explanation, was misguided. His comments and lecture have created a media storm: 1. Riazat Butt, 'Williams argues official status for Islamic law could aid social cohesion', The Guardian, 8 February 2008 2. Leader, 'Sharia and the state', The Guardian, 8 February 2008 3. Leader, 'Archbishop of Canterbury's Inept Intervention', The Daily Telegraph, 8 February 2008 4. Leader, 'Church in a State: The Archbishop of Canterbury has made a grave mistake', The Times, 8 February 2008 5. Michael Nazir-Ali, 'English law and the Sharia', Diocese of Rochester site, 8 February 2008 One of the wisest articles, in the midst of the storm, is the following: 6. Paul Vallely, 'Williams is snared in a trap of his own making', The Independent, 8 February 2008. |
LATEST
|
The differing responses to Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali’s