[Dean's World] Aziz P: Shari'a! Boo!

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Aziz P:
Shari'a! Boo!
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1202478525.shtml


   My friend thabet, a muslim blogger formerly in the UK, has [1]linked
   to several excellent commentaries on the matter of Archbishop
   Williams' remarks regarding Shari'a. The question is really what kind
   of game is Williams playing? Is he supremely saavy, or astonishingly
   naive?

   First, [2]this by Cranmer:

     Dr Williams did not advocate Shariâa law; he said quite distinctly
     that âaspectsâ of it might be incorporated into British law. He
     said other religions enjoyed tolerance of their own laws, and
     called for âconstructive accommodationâ with Muslim practice in
     areas such as marital disputes. But he stressed that it could never
     be allowed to take precedence over an individual's rights as a
     citizen. This is an important distinction. [...] the Archbishopâs
     naivety is astonishing. He treats Radio 4 as if it were an Oxford
     theological college, and assumes that his audience is made up of
     academics with the ability to dissect and analyse words with his
     professorial precision.

     Shariâa may be a complex and convoluted legal system, but it means
     only one thing in the UK: oppression, barbarism and injustice. This
     judgement may in itself be unjust, but the word is alien and, like
     âjihadâ, has taken on its own meaning. Shariâa law is in fact
     profoundly complex, and varies in interpretation and application
     from Islamic community to Islamic community.

   Cranmer goes on to make the necessary distinction between "private"
   and "public" Shari'a, noting that the former, not the latter, is
   acceptable as a framework for inclusion into law. That the archbishop
   failed to clarify this in his remarks, but rather treated Shari'a as a
   single static unit, is astonishing.

   Another blog, G[3]lobal Dashboard, notes:

     As ever, when you actually listen to what he says, he comes across
     as thoughtful, considered and nuanced; he points, for instance, to
     the fact that Orthodox Jewish courts already exist in the UK. But I
     canât help wondering whether this is a pretty bad error of
     judgement in communication terms. Even the BBCâs own coverage of
     the story on BBC News Online loses most of the nuances; Iâve
     listened to the whole interview, and Iâm not sure that I fully
     understand where Williams is going with this.

     The risk here is that what would have been fine as an article in
     Prospect, say, or the London Review of Books, ignites a firestorm
     by dint of appearing first on a broadcast medium, followed by
     immediate pickup on the internet. Just wait for the reactions from
     the US right wing blogosphere to roll in as they gleefully take
     this as confirmation of all their predictions about dhimmitude.
     Itâs the âunavoidableâ bit thatâll really drive the story. Theyâre
     going to have a hard few daysâ work in the Lambeth Palace press
     officeâ¦

   And [4]over at The Independent,

     Rowan Williams bridles when anyone suggests that he is the Anglican
     churchâs equivalent of the Pope. But he has made the same mistake
     in discussing sharia law that Pope Benedict XVI made in his
     ill-fated foray on the subject of Islam at the University of
     Regensburg two years ago, which sparked protests around the world,
     the murder of a nun and much else.

     The error is assuming that the leader of a major church has the
     same intellectual freedom that he had when he was merely an eminent
     theologian. The cold fact is that the semiotics are entirely
     different. An academic may call for a nuanced renegotiation of
     societyâs attitudes to the internal laws of religious communities.
     But when the Archbishop of Canterbury does that the headline
     follows, as night follows day: âSharia law in UK is unavoidable,
     says Archbishop.â

   And finally, [5]at the Guardian:

     Dr Williams, characteristically, is interested in the arguments
     over what sharia law actually says. The rest of the country is more
     interested in whether and how it might be enforced. Only if Islamic
     law can be reduced to a game played between consenting adults can
     it be acceptably enforced in this country; and thatâs not, I think,
     how it is understood by its practitioners. Letâs hope Iâm wrong.

   As far as religious courts in the UK go, thabet also points out that
   [6]they already exist.

References

   1. http://pixelisation.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/was-rowen-williams-playing-good-cop-to-michael-nazir-alis-bad-cop-or-was-he-just-incredibly-naive/
   2. http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2008/02/archbishop-of-canterbury-sharia-law-in.html
   3. http://www.globaldashboard.org/religion-in-politics/sharia-law-in-uk-inevitable-archbishop-of-canterbury/
   4. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/paul-vallely-williams-is-snared-in-a-trap-of-his-own-making-779799.html
   5. http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_brown/2008/02/laws_of_the_land.html
   6. http://pixelisation.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/a-look-at-religious-courts-in-the-uk/