This week Dr Rowan Williams, the head of the Church of England, sparked outrage among many followers of the Anglican faith by openly suggesting in a speech at the 2008 Temple Festival that aspects of Islamic Sharia law should be adopted in Britain. The speech made by the Archbishop was only an hour long, but the days following have seen huge criticism of the comments by senior Anglican Bishops and MPs from all three main political parties. In the speech, Dr Williams talked about looking at "...what might be entailed in crafting a just and constructive relationship between Islamic law and the statutory law of the United Kingdom", and then went on to attempt to "dispel some myths about sharia". He commented on these 'myths', which it seems, he believes are irrational and falsely based; and said that most people think Sharia is "...oppressive to women and wedded to archaic and brutal physical punishments". The way in which Dr Williams gave the lecture was a way that implicitly patronises its audience, a situation by which he is the enlightened preacher, and we are the sheep to be taught. I suppose one could expect nothing more from the Archbishop of Canterbury, a man who's job it is to lead Britain’s most senior Christian community, but to conduct a speech on a matter of serious political context in the way in which religious doctrines are given seems to me utterly absurd and quite arrogant-like.
To quote Dr Williams, he said the following "It seems that if we are to think intelligently about the relationship between Islam and British Law, we need a fair amount of deconstruction of crude oppositions and mythologies, whether mythologies about the nature of sharia or about the nature of the enlightenment; but as I’ve hinted I don’t believe this can be done without some thinking also about the very nature of law." The implication that we should somehow invest resources in altering perceptions of Islamic Law in Britain, for the soul purpose of bettering community relations, is quite a frightening prospect. In these times of 9/11, home-grown suicide bombers, and radical organisations like Hizb-ut-Tahrir, people should be left to their own conclusions on the acceptability of Sharia Law in Britain. With access to the internet and a basic understanding of Arabic, one can easily see the punishments given out to thieves, murderers, homosexuals, and even drunks in Saudi Arabia, punishments which are all dictated by Islamic Law. The vital thing in this example is that Saudi Arabia is not an Islamic Republic, like Iran or Pakistan, but is a Kingdom ruled by a Royal Family; Sharia Law therefore can be compatibly implemented under the reign of a Monarchy, and Dr Rowan Williams, the man who represents our Queen's Church, is seemingly sympathetic to the idea.
The Archbishops speech on Thursday has made the lives of many integrating Muslims against the implementation of Sharia Law very difficult, and has made many others, like me, question their own support for Anglicanism in the process. If we are to talk about improving community relations in terms of common ground, I think the successor of the Archbishop should undoubtedly be one of the most admirable and righteous figures in the Anglican faith: Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali. The Bishop is just the kind of strong mediator the Church of England needs if it is to stand any chance of survival after the abysmal leadership of its current one. I don’t recall the church having so many divisions, rebellions, and public upheavals before Dr Williams was appointed, a man whose resignation is without a doubt now due. In researching the past affiliations of Dr Rowan Williams, it was no surprise to find that most of them were Anti-Nuclear, Anti-US and Anti-Coalition. He was once famously quoted saying that he believed the descendents of victims of the slave trade should be financially compensated, when referring to Al-Qaeda once said "...terrorists can have serious moral goals", and even openly criticised "Christian Zionists" for supporting the Jews return to Israel, in the British Muslim magazine 'Emel'. His appointment in 2002 has ultimately led to the weakening of the Church's credibility in terms of traditional foundation, as well as rational teaching; and has turned many away from the faith into what is now considered to be a largely secular society.
The Church Times columnist Andrew Brown once said "The trouble with Rowan Williams is that he can never remember that he is Archbishop". It's true, he seems to think that he's at some sort of Socialist Worker street rally every time he gives a speech; casually giving his views on all sorts of political issues, instead of on what he is supposed to. Of course the man should have his own political views, but it is not irresponsible to unnecessarily spout them and in the process label the whole Anglican faith? At this point might I remind everybody reading that the Pakistani-born Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali was born into a Punjabi-Christian family, and I firmly belive that because of this reason, the Bishop of Rochester has a better understanding of Islam than the Archbishop, and of course has had practical experience of Sharia. His outspoken comments on Islamic-extremism in Britain pull no punches in stating fact, and his appreciation for British culture and national identity I find deeply touching. If ever there was a man to strengthen the foundations of British Anglicanism in the face of increasingly hostile times, surely it would be him.
When the news came on Thursday that the Archbishop had made a speech on Sharia Law in Britain, I had a slight spell of Deja Vu. My mind harked back to Sunday night's Channel 4 programme 'Divorce Sharia Style', in which the lives of several Muslims were filmed as they dabbled with the idea of divorcing their spouses. The programme focused on the Sharia Council based in East London's Regents Park Mosque, and their attempts to assess the requests of divorce based on Sharia principles. I thoroughly enjoyed the programme and found it to be highly educating in terms of community insight and belief. During the middle of the programme however, Council representatives began to speak of how they wanted their practices of Sharia Law to be recognised by the state. A statement I initially took to mean in reference to Marriage and Divorce, not in what Sheikh Hassan, Senior Judge and Secretary of the Council, was about to say next. "We know that if Sharia laws are implemented then you can change this country into a haven of peace. Because once a thief’s hand is cut off, nobody is going to steal. If only once an adulterer is stoned, nobody is going to commit this crime at all. There would be no rapists at all. This is why we say that, yes, we want to offer it to the British society. … And if they don’t accept it, they would need more and more prisons." I couldn't believe my ears, this man was openly advocating the proposal that Britain should not only implement Islamic Law with regard to wedlock, but with everything else as well.
That sort of talk I had heard before, from the lips of fundamentalist members of the radical group Hizb-ut-Tahrir on shows such as BBC2's Newsnight, a group dedicated to the creation of an Islamic State in Britain. I quickly dismissed the man as just another misguided old idealist who wanted what he thought was best for people. Not a bad man necessarily, just one of many other religious scholars who want everyone on the Earth to be united by the same faith. I went to bed that night and picked up Ed Hussain's 'The Islamist', a book which I have been reading for many weeks. In it Hussain describes in detail what he experienced as a young extremist, revealing the story of his life at the beginning and the end of his radicalisation. By a stroke of sheer coincidence, the chapter I was to read was about Hussain's joining of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, their beliefs and morals from his understanding, and their ultimate goals. From reading that night I learned that Hizb-ut-tahrir was not only an organisation dedicated to implementing an Islamic State in Britain, but eventually a world-wide Caliphate, or Islamic super-state. The organisation is banned in many countries including Saudi Arabia, but it is currently legally active in the UK. There is no doubt that people like Sheikh Hassan are in support groups like Hizb-ut-Tahrir, or at least have some sympathies with them, a view not in the least shared by all Muslims.
Looking back at the programmes airing, I do wonder if the Archbishop happened to be watching Channel 4 that Sunday night, and whether or not his sympathies with such naive people did indeed prompt the speech. God Almighty I miss Henry II...one can only imagine would he have done with the man...
No comments:
Post a Comment