S2, I think you should go back and read what the Archdruid actually said rather than what the red tops reported.

Williams was addressing a forum of legal types and merely posed the question...he did not state that it was inevitable.

However, with Beth Din (Jewish orthodox law) recognised under British law, is it any wonder that Muslims may feel just a little bit put upon.

I don't think anyone would countence a legal system that discriminates based on sectarian values living where you do, you should at least have some understanding of that particuler can of worms) but rather that elements of Sharia relating to civil and matrimonial matters be recognised by British law so that where an agreement is reached under Sharia it cannot then be challenged again in the civil courts. Provided of course that what has been agreed does not contravene the law of the land.

Law is and always has been something of a minefield. And the basic tenets of our legal system are imported.

Henry, you have completely missed the point of my post.

Part of the job of any political leader — which is what the Archbishop of Canterbury is — is to know that people are listening to what you say and to be prepared for how what you say is likely to be interpreted. Being caught off guard, completely baffled, and totally unprepared by a response that any ten-year-old could have predicted is what makes Williams bloody useless.

As for the rest....

Well, I have read what he said, thanks, and I think you're wrong about it. You're certainly wrong about this:

> Williams was addressing a forum of legal types

No, he was addressing the entire audience of Radio 4 in order to discuss and clarify his previous address to the forum of legal types. That interview, not the speech, was what gave rise to the furore. And he did say that the introduction of Sharia seems unavoidable if we want social cohesion in Britain. So no, he didn't say it was inevitable; he said we have a choice between Sharia and social breakdown. So that's OK, then.

As for the speech itself, it basically amounted to "There are a handful of terribly civilised Islamic academics who claim that Sharia's got nothing to do with any of that stuff that always happens anywhere that Sharia actually is in place, and I think, when considering this matter, that we should always lend more weight to their purely theoretical writings than to any real-world observations." Same as we still get from Communists: "Ah, but the USSR wasn't really Communist."

There have been Jewish communities in Britain for at least a thousand years. Their presence here predates the introduction of the jury system and most of the rest of our legal system. The same cannot be said of Muslims. It is not therefore unreasonable that our legal system should have reached some accommodation with Judaism where it has not with Islam. That might be an accident of history, but then so's the fact that Magna Carta was written in England rather than Bulgaria. Our culture is the end result of loads of accidents of history. It is not clear to me that Jews have the rights they do because they're religious and not because they've been here so long that they are part of our history, and it is not therefore obvious that the same rights should be extended to any other religions.

S2, I apologise if I misinterpreted your post, nor was it my intention to cast aspersions on your own intellectual interpretation of Williams's speeach and interview - unfortunately tone of voice doesn't transpose very well to blog comment.

However, in reponse to:

"It is not therefore unreasonable that our legal system should have reached some accommodation with Judaism where it has not with Islam."

It's not like Islam is going to go away either and like Judaism its here to stay whether we like it or not. So, we have a choice, either we look at Sharia and how it applies to the Muslim community (how I hate that word - blame the multi-culturalists for the divisiveness it causes) and see how it applies within British law, or tell the Muslims to fuck off and hope for the best.

It would appear that everyone's leaning towards option no 2....

On the subject of the Beth Din courts: "where an agreement is reached under Sharia it cannot then be challenged again in the civil courts. "

Is this they way they too operate? If someone is unhappy with the Beth Din ruling (or judgement), do they then have no redress in civil court?

There is an essential difference between the Beth Din courts and Sharia. Two individuals may choose, if they wish, to go to Beth Din and be bound by the decision; both parties enter voluntarily. Compare that with Sharia law on say, divorce. It's incompatible: the whole point of Sharia marriage law is that the man gets to decide and the woman doesn't. The introduction of Sharia divorce courts would mean that the man could choose to go to the Sharia court and the woman would then have to whether she liked it or not. Even if she had the legal right not to, she'd be aware of the threat of violence if she didn't. Dishonour killing has never been a significant problem among Britain's Jews.


> If someone is unhappy with the Beth Din ruling (or judgement), do they then have no redress in civil court?

No, if they're unhappy, they can take the matter to the courts, and the courts may choose to overrule the Beth Din ruling.

Incidentally, Beth Din courts can grant a Jewish divorce which has no legal status under UK law. You have to get it as well as, not instead of your civil divorce.


> It's not like Islam is going to go away either and like Judaism its here to stay whether we like it or not.

My point wasn't that we've accommodated the legal needs of Jews merely because they've been here for ages. It was that we've accommodated the legal needs of Jews because their presence has been having an influence on our society for as long as we've had a legal system, and therefore our legal system, which is based on the values of our society, was always going to be fundamentally compatible with Jewish law. If the same were to turn out to be true of Sharia, fair enough. I'll not hold my breath.

Besides, even if the issue were length of presence, Muslims have been a significant group in Britain for fifty years. Jews have been here, like I said, for over a millenium. Beth Din were legally sanctioned a hundred years ago. So OK, let's apply the same standards to Muslims as we do to Jews, and legally recognise their courts in 850 years' time. I have no problem with that.


> either we look at Sharia and how it applies to the Muslim community ... and see how it applies within British law, or tell the Muslims to fuck off and hope for the best.

I disagree. We're not about to incorporate Hindu laws, but I don't believe that that means we are, in any sense, telling Hindus to fuck off.

"Dishonour killing has never been a significant problem among Britain's Jews."

Maybe not... but if an orthodox Jewish man or woman marries outside the faith then the family will cut them off and some orthodox sects will even hold a funeral as the person will be considered "as dead".

At least the debate has now been opened and we should ask what are the motiviations for incorporating or recognising Sharia under British law. Is it merely appeasement in some misguided attempt to "combat terrorism" or is it an attempt to incorporate Muslims into British society.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm no Muslim apologist and have made a few blogposts castigating the legal system for capitulating to Muslims and also Muslims for hiding behind Islam in order to exploit the law. So if we are to avoid Muslims playing the sectarian or "race" card (why being anti-Muslim is considered racist is still beyond me) for their own ends then perhaps the legal system needs to consider Sharia when dealing with these sorts of cases. So it's more of a cultural recognition along the lines of "What would Mohammed (the prophet not the teddy bear) do?"

> we should ask what are the motiviations for incorporating or recognising Sharia under British law.

I see no reason why we should do any such thing. Don't dignify such an appalling idea by giving it lip service.

Squander, elements of Sharia are already recognised by the courts in matters of probate and also by the FSA for banks offering loans in accordance with Islamic practice - ( could explain how they work and interest is charged but not as interest but its all a bit complicated)

Don't know if you watched Question Time last night but one chap in the audience raised the point that British Law constantly adapts and has indeed recognised Sharia in the past in India.

I think measured debate is required rather than knee-jerk outright rejection of the idea. What disgusts me most of all is the anti-intellectualism displayed by the red-tops. But then we can expect nothing less of a newspaper designed for van drivers to wipe their arses on.

> banks offering loans in accordance with Islamic practice

But this is just straightforward contract law. If a bank offers a loan under a certain set of conditions, both parties are obliged to meet those conditions. It makes sense for the FSA to brush up on a particularly popular set of conditions, but that really has no significant impact on British law.

Again with probate: I personally believe that you should be allowed to do what you want with your own money when you die, and it is entirely unsurprising that some Muslims might leave wills that simply say "in accordance with Islamic tradition", so the Probate Service need to know what that is.

> one chap in the audience raised the point that British Law constantly adapts and has indeed recognised Sharia in the past in India.

Well, as long as he wants to use the same logic to bring back hanging, conscription, and shooting deserters, fine. But I bet he doesn't.

But it's essentially disingenuous to be discussing this stuff. If the debate were about Sharia inheritance laws, there'd be no debate; no-one would really care. But no-one serious thinks that Abu Hamza, when he calls for Sharia to be imposed in the UK, is concerned about bank loans. As I said above, the reason to oppose Sharia is a simple matter of observing what happens in every single territory in which it is dominant. Williams wants to insist that in theory none of that atrociousness is inherently necessary. I am reminded of that great quote:

"I don't care whether it works in practice. Does it work in theory?"

I might add that it's a bad idea to give in to terrorists. Even if unifying Ireland were the best idea ever, it would still be a terrible idea to do it while the IRA were conducting their campaign. It would send a clear message to the whole world that the British will give you whatever you want if you start killing them. Introduce Sharia in the UK and what message do you think people will get? You think anyone will think, "Ah, this must be in response to a reasoned constitutional legal debate sparked by the Archbishop of Canterbury"? Bollocks they will.

The message a competent government would give is:

"Parts of Sharia might one day be incorporated into British law, if they're compatible with it. British law has always adapted, after all. But, as long as British people are being physically threatened by those who demand that the British adopt Sharia, not one iota of Sharia will enter our laws."

To do otherwise is to invite assault.

> I think measured debate is required rather than knee-jerk outright rejection of the idea.

There is a tendency to believe that reasoned debate inevitably leads to middle ground and compromise while outright rejection is always knee-jerk and insufficiently thought out. This is wrong. I believe that measured debate is what you do with people who are not threatening you with violence. My outright rejection of ideas that come from those who threaten me is not knee-jerk; it is considered.

"Dishonour killing has never been a significant problem among Britain's Jews."

Maybe not... but if an orthodox Jewish man or woman marries outside the faith then the family will cut them off and some orthodox sects will even hold a funeral as the person will be considered "as dead".

All true. But, and here's the subtle bit, the person is in actuality still very much alive. And doesn't much care that a bunch of people whose authority he has decided to reject, deeply disapprove of him. Which is really the point of the primacy of the rule of law. No matter how much Jews, Christians, Muslims or Scientologists might wish that their rules apply regardless of the wishes of the apply-ees, they actually only apply with their consent. And that is how it must be.