´óÏó´«Ã½

Rowan Williams should focus on bringing anglicanism into the 21st century - homosexuality, abortion, da de da - rather than joining forces with the tide of mysogynistic traditionalism sweeping the country.

what elizabeth I achieved against huge odds we could see undone at the eve of the reign of elizabeth II.

we are on our way to becoming a satellite state of saudi and the william's of this world are just plain naive -

jesus was not a passive idiot - remember when he turned over the tables in the temple? he was a political activist and we should get back to his true word

please don't invite batty shakra to talk about this

Hello

No, we don't need Sharia Law in the UK as we have enough laws here as it is. The Archbishop's batty ideas to make the situation worse. If people wish to voluntarily obey their own religious laws, thats fine, but we live in a democratic (just about)secular society in the UK. I do not think that Islamic countries would take too kindly to Christian laws being practised within their borders. Its totally hypocritical of Rowan Williams, and, simply an attempt by the Christian church to enhance its own power. What next witch burning??

Will Jews and Christians because of their faith, be able to chose which laws they wish to 'opt out' of and use a different legal system. Or, will we have a system where 'everyone' is equal and subject to the 'same' laws?

If the lack of "social cohesion" was the reason for people to decide which law applies to them, then the encouragement of a brake down in "social cohesion" can be used to change the law. This process reminds me of the word anarchy.

For all its faults, I would rather keep the our current system.

I cannot believe what the archbishop has said today. Britain was a free country I thought, and these people came to it to better themselves let's face it. I always said we had fifth columists...... If I was a young person in Britain today I would be standing outside either the Canadian, Australian or New Zealand consulates begging for a visa. All those lost lives in Iraq and Afganistan for what. British law is British law and those who don't like it should go home. Outrageous!!!

No wonder nobody goes to church anymore....it is run by idiots. How can anyone say this.

I have lived in many of these countries and visited many more......but I guess in a hundred years, we Britian, will no longer exist.

Also while I am at it. Why is the Taliban allowed to grow its poppies and reap the opium openly while our soldiers die. Give them flame throwers to destroy it as they pass by. Curb them financially and then watch things change.

I married a Dutchman but the British government would not allow MY children to be British. I am glad I left and I will not be coming back to live in Britain ever again!!!!

My grandfather fought in France in the first world war, and my father fought with the R.A.F. in the second world war. Where are my rights as a Brit to give my nationality to my children, but now third world countries are demanding the earth and we are giving it to them.

I am furious. Sorry ´óÏó´«Ã½.

Adopting any part of Sharia law is a mistake. If the Muslims dont like the existing laws let them move to a Muslim country.

I think the Archbishop has lost the plot, not to say, his ‘marbles’.
The introduction of separate laws for separate sectors of society will lead to separatism, segregation, apartied, and a dangerously divided and turbulent society. Britain cannot afford to go down that route. As I have said before, in Britain we have British laws approved of by the people and implemented by a democratically voted government. Those people who want Sharia law have the option to move to a country which supports Sharia law. I suggest that they take the Archbishop of Canterbury with them too.

P Dewar Finch

Once again religious nutballs talking utter nonsense - can we get a law in place to only allow religious nonsense to be discussed with the confines of Churches, Mosques, and other nutball sanctuaries. Keep the airways clear for intelligent, rational, earthly, debate. Please.

I thought newsnight (which I'm watching right now) is supposed to be highbrow. Please sack Kirsty Young. She's awful.

In response to comment 6, Muslims are not asking for sharia law. Rowan Williams has said something daffy and liberal but that's hardly the fauly of Muslims. I'm sick of liberals offering something to Muslims and then Muslims getting blamed for asking for it, when they haven't. This applies to councils who ban pigs from display, without ever asking a Muslim if they are offended by it in the first place. The fact is, a lot of bored people with computers, love blaming minorities for everything,

Have I missed something or has Ken Livingston suddenly become important to me- most of the country don't live in London so why on earth are Newsnight covering a story about Lvingston and the London assembly. Sorry, but I'm switching to Question time; I couldn't care less what Livingston does.

hi newsnight

dar if muslims wont 2 live by Sharia law ok dont have a problem with that
just pack yor bags go live in pakistan or where ever u wont
if we go another contry we have to live by there laws

The questions is....if a group of Christian, or any other faith, Britains went to Pakistan or any other muslim faith country, would they adopt our laws in support of their new citizens? I THINK NOT. What on earth is this country coming to? If they don't like our laws then they are welcome to leave.

When ´óÏó´«Ã½ discusses security it asks Frank Gardener as lead expert to introduce a news story. For diplomacy, there is Mark Urban. But it is astonishing that a discussion about any possibilities of regulating to accommodate some life-cycle customs of a community is given to a correspondent unclear and unconvincing of how to discuss such delicate matters. Kirsty Walk's introduction contributed more to confuse the issue than clarify. Is it how ´óÏó´«Ã½ contributes to educate and inform its viewers? Is it really so difficult to find genuine British experts of Islamic Marriage laws and their coexistence with the law of land?

When in Rome!!,OR England??
As a Nation of People,multi culural,spelling ect..UK EU ECC.
My Dad Would be PERPLEXED reading todays news,Bless him long time expired..
Are we becoming embroyeled even more"is the world getting smaller",,YEP.. Grow up and learn!!

The House of Lords shoud wake UP!!
The House is awake?Maybe..
depends on thier stand point??
Have a nice day fron an Irish man in the UK..

You Must do better!! what ever your ethmic back ground,Irish,muslim, ect..
WHAT WILL OUR MUILTY EMTHIC KIDS THING OF US IN 50 YEARS.................

My Mind may BOGGGGGLLLLLLEEEEE???

I find it interesting that so much of the media and 'intellectuals' in the UK are anti-American, yet there is great interest in their forthcoming elections. Also, Ken Livingstone, who loathes the US dream places Americans in charge of much of the metro system, and NU Labour politicans are having American companies in charge of Primary Health Care Funds in several areas. Looking at the vibrant US candidates, they all (even Hiliary) show up the tawdry UK politicans and Blair's Babes with their energy. It seems that ageism in the UK has created a nation of the prematurely old by continually hammering away at candidate's ages. Vincent Cable is just a young pup compared to McCain, yet he has bowed out to yet another untried clone, who although seemingly clean may, heaven forbid, be proven as yet another Liberal naughty boy.

Just watching Newsnight now, and heard a Muslim supporter of Sharia law try to justify how polygamy is good for women, because apparently the only choices open to single women are prostitution or becoming nun, and remaining unmarried is obviously unthinkable. Unbelieveable!! Someone should tell this man what century we are living in - and what country. The idea of "multi-culturalism" seems to have gone mad...again.

can not believe that the tax payers of London are swallowing all the guff from Ken Livingstone, just saw his adviser trying to justify the loss of money to a third party, saying it is just £65k when the presenter said it was 1 million, 1 million, 65k who care its still giving money to the pigs troff

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them.

guess its censership

What the hell is gioing on in this country we call Great Britain. It is about time we said enough is enough.
We are becoming a puppet country for everybody and their dog to dictate what we should and should'nt do and allow.
The law in this country is cast in tablets of stone and dates back hundreds years. Do gooders and some of our attention seekers needs to remember this.

If we were to try and enforce our laws in other countries what would be the reaction. We are becomming too soft and weak. If people want the privalge of living in Britain then they should abide, accept and comply with our laws and culture.

If they do not integrate and accept out laws then there is always an option to go elswhere.

No wonder Britain is becoming a
Joke, laughing stock and dumping ground.

Our grand fathers would turn in their graves if they could see what they had faught and stood up for being erroded away and the state our county is in today

If people wish to live under a religious law so be it as long as they understand that the laws of this land overrule any theological doctrine they wish to live by. Religious laws and judicial laws are not the same and should not be confused. I fear the Archbishop is letting the Sharia law issue play into the hands of racist bigots who will use his comments to feed their hate and alas gain support from people who are getting fed up with the erosion of this country. I think he is wrong and should concentrate on pastoral issues not political ones.

Iran are about to execute an 18 year old called Behnam Zare for a crime he is charged with committing when he was 15. Iran are breaching international law by doing this - surely this is too awful to ignore, and the idea of giving the victims and their families the right of punishment too socially crippling to ever consider?

As an American liberal, I am all for the Muslim community in the UK to be allowed to pick Sharia law instead of the existing British law based on Judeo-Christian concepts. Of course, all of the Arab countries would have to reciprocate and allow Westerners to be judged by the law of their choice as well. Oh, is that a problem?

This Williams clown says giving Islamic law official status in the UK would help to achieve social cohesion because some Muslims did not relate to the British legal system.

I would hazard a guess that quite a few people in this country don't relate to the British legal system.

But they abide by it.

I am staggered he has made this statement.

Hows about *they* abide by the laws of the country they are resident in?

How much fuel is this going to give to The National Front? And frankly who can blame them.

britain is now made up of two types of immigrant, those that are anglicised and those that are not and do not intend to be. people like dame kelly holmes and baronness warsi are terrific role models for girls in this country. women wearing head coverings, i suggest, are not.

"Bright lad our Rowan, he's going to be archbishop one day...ROWAN! stop prodding that hornets nest with that stick son".

The Archbishop may be an learned chap but he can always come up with some rather interesting ideas. Rowans latest thoughts on issues regarding sharia law is actually going to do more harm than good; can you guess where this one is gonna go?

Polygamy:
I never thought i needed more than one wife and i can just about afford to keep that one woman in the lifestyle which she is so accustomed to; thanks to my hard work, so how does a Muslim afford to keep more than one wife? its hard work keeping the occasional mistress in shoes and hotel bills and i've tried..so the idea of having up to 4 wife's is financially scary with loads of children to consider as well as exhausting...what is their secret?
And finally if i could cherry pick a sharia law... can i have that 'amputation of hand' for light fingered thief's... the catholic church could team up with the Islam sharia law system with the removal of hands for the sin of impure thoughts and masturbation "which is it? left hand or right?........BOTH!"

This is simply one branch of the religion industry promoting a more profitable branch and this the whole industry. If the muslim industry can impose some of its rules, maybe the anglican industry can too. The catholic industry is making a fortune out of Polish immigration so the profile of religion in general is improved . Competition is healthy, everyone wins. This could save the anglican industry from eventual bankruptcy as its customer base dies off.

Rowan Williams is a figure of fun who has no influence. Time to hang the bat in the pavilion.

I have never understood why academic men, including many university professors, feel that they are above the requirement to consider their appearance from the onlooker's point of view. many is the meeting that i have sat in opposite eyebrows that reach menacingly across the table towards me. i find the wild eyebrow syndrome unnecessary for intellectual thought and extremely unpleasant to look at.

What a time to watch Question Time and miss an edition of Newsnight. It is always the same on Thursday nights...do you want to hear good debate or in-depth analysis as usually provided on Newsnight, at least I can play it again. I wanted to hear about our meddlesome priest and Kirsty's constant interruptions made me switch over. Kindly contain yourself, Kirsty. The numbers moving abroad will escalate as our nut Archbishop and the premier league being played in Hong Kong is there anything out there that we can truly describe as British anymore? Thought not.

Within a few miles radius of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ studious, many eminent scholars
of Muslim family laws could be easily found who are academically and professionally positioned to enlighten the Newsnight audience on the such matters such as Jane Comiors, Ian Edge, Chibli Mallat, Antony Allott and, of course, to remind us of the views of Britain's foremost scholar of Islamic law, Professor Sir Norman Anderson and J.N.D. Anderson.

So, was the Newsnight editor unwilling or unable to arrange for a learned and informed view of such a delicate matter?

Kirsty does not give the guests and they are invited guests a change to reply I switched over to ´óÏó´«Ã½ 1 it just got too much her high pitched interruptions.

Still must be half term soon we should get a rest

Live in Britain work in Britain, live by British laws and standards!
The rules are the rules and in such respect one size does fit all!
Muslims men are allowed more than one wife so I believe, the law of this country states this to be bigamy (a crime) and just because a religion says it is legal to have more than one wife does not mean that the law of every land should adopt it!
In defence of the Muslim community, may I also say it is recognised that it is not the Muslim community demanding these things. This is another shinning example of silly white men trying to give this country away to anybody who wants it and frankly its disgraceful.

There was I thinking that centuries of enlightenment had freed us from this sort of ecclesiastic doctrine...

Even allowing for the fact that Rowan Williams clearly views cultural/religious values as an overriding factor of individual behaviour, his attack on enlightenment and the current legal system for failing to ensure individual expression of these values is at best questionable.

His main preoccupation is the perceived conflict between an individual's cultural/religious conscience and the universal legal system which in his opinion leads to "ghettoising and effectively disenfranchising a minority, at real cost to overall social cohesion and creativity". He purposes that individuals should not have to choose between their cultural norms and the law.

He fails to address the consequences of allowing individuals to choose the system under which they wish to see their grievance dealt with. While stating that the universal values should underpin any cultural/religious norms, he admits that the latter's instatement "could have the effect of reinforcing ... some of the most repressive or retrograde elements". He does not offer a solution regarding the safeguards that would have to be put in place to control these "elements" or indeed to ensure that any ruling defends "human dignity as such". Nor does he address the lack of a dominant interpretation of cultural/religious norms and the effect of such diversity on the finality of a ruling based on them.

However, the main problem is that he sees the individual's rights to freedom of conscience as uncorrelated to any duties, which a "universal" system might require. Thus a Muslim woman who refuses to handle books on bible stories at her work place should have her "vexatious appeals to religious scruple" treated similarly to a medical professional who is allowed to refuse to partake in an abortion. The conclusion is that society should allow individuals to pick and choose which 'duties' they wish to perform based on personal beliefs that override basic principles of cooperation and responsibility. Consequently, the requirement to 'conform' to a commonly accepted set of rules, which allow for the private practice of personal beliefs, takes second place to the obligation of the 'anonymous majority' to tolerate and cope with the fall-out of different cultural/religious norms and behaviours.

I'm left wondering how this is supposed to increase "overall social cohesion".

Surely all the religious faiths in this country have their own "laws" which believers choose to follow, and which they sometimes try to impose on related non-believers? The Roman Catholic one about non-Catholics agreeing to their children being Catholic before being allowed marriage to a Catholic, that Tony Blair followed, for example. Sort of relevant in civil courts in certain circumstances. Behind all such "laws" are social punishments such as family exclusion, but also more stringent, and often cruel "laws" that at least some in the religion would impose if they could. Perhaps the Muslim situation is different in there being often a "court" situation, where the "judges" are always male, but then there are the Orthodox Jewish Beth Din courts, and I suspect several other religions have similar structures. Certainly the Church of England once did.

Reading[1] that police know that Islamic courts are now handling criminal cases where all concerned are muslim, ordering compensation, is more worrying since that confers considerable power over antisocial individuals, and avoids there being national records.

Is it also that the Muslim presence in Europe is so fast growing, militant, and seen to have limitless ambition, whilst the rest of us seem to have no real legal guarantee against its domination? Of course the European Convention on human rights is such a guarantee, but then our politicians lightly mislead on what offends against that and talk of withdrawing from it, and our police and other authorities increasingly pick and choose what laws they they will enforce. Is the Archbishop, who seems intelligent but not quite as clever as necessary, seeking an open, national accommodation to assuage those fears? A "peace in our time" as he seeks in selling out lesbians and gays in the face of foreign fundamentalist pressure in his own church? I note that whilst he, in his speech, stated that maltreatment of women in many Islamic states is "inhuman", he did not mention the treatment of sexual minorities, who often face cruel executions.

We might also remember that a religion separating its followers from a wider population is a long-known technique for building numbers, loyalty and influence. Paul spelled it out in his letters to the Corinthians. One can easily imagine adherents preferring to socialise and do business with each other rather than face judgment by or pay money to outsiders. Those Christians soon destroyed the entire common social fabric of the time, all public works collapsing, with the church the only power, plunging the west into the dark ages.

Perhaps closing all religious "courts", making clear that all "religious laws" are subject to national (and European) law, and being far more careful about granting exceptions (for example allowing sex and sexuality discrimination) for religions in that law would be for the best?

[1]

If Newsnight genuinely intends to have a healthy exchange among learned experts, one is surprised over the wisdom of inviting a howler to distract. This is exactly what Douglas Murray contributed to a discussion for which he is outrightly unqualified both in terms of academic background and professional specialization. He addressed Dr Williams and Professor Ramadan
without the esteem in which an educated person addresses his learned discussants.

One can learn from how sensibly CNN's London correspondent has covered the issue- reporting facts, giving diverse opinions without
stirring up emotions.

For a man regarded as being of high intelligence and learned, these comments will surely go down as the preface to his replacement. This country's model of demorcacy and law is the bedrock of the civilised world. To make comments of this nature says more about the Archbishops own pysche than Shiria law. Being bright he must have known the outcry his mutterings would cause. I'm proud to live in a country that more or less treats everyone the same under the law. Perhaps he should think of the words "Thin end of the wedge" while he's having a refresher course in Shiria Law in one of the regions of this crazy world, that practice the removal of hands for shoplifting food to feed yourself, or being sentenced to death for downloading info on equal rights for woman. I for one won't be paying anymore attention to these unelected power heads who think they have a right to stick their oar into our lives, so they can read their own publicity later. The Church's record on equality and sheltering abusers is nothing short of shameful. Get your own house in order before you lecture us on any matter. There's a line in the sand that is fast being approached, that the ordinary tolerant folk of this country will not allow. One law for everyone, equality and tolerance. If you don't like that, go to a place thats more accomadating of your views. Did someone say "Whip round"

The spokesperson of the centre for social cohesion Douglas Murray that was part of debate last night came across as a upstart pretencious individual

He ideas at times were very radical and offensive to me, and i am a devote christian. His remarks and offensive comments i believe will fuel even more hatered and encourage islamophobia. Please do not bring him to the show next time!! I am bitterly disapointed with the ´óÏó´«Ã½ for allowing such a media biggot into the debate.

That the Arch-bishop is suprised at people's reaction must confirm more so that he is an absolute fool.

The man is not fit for his job.
That he should have a place in our Parliament is beyond reason.

The only good thing is that he may have wakened up the many who are sleep-walking into much future social strife and unnecessay costly trouble.

We always fancied that we in Britain were less involved with civil strife and less of a police state than other countries. But we simply then did not have their problems of a multi-cultural society. A multi-cultural society is a nonsense, since what makes a society is the unity of its culture.

A multi-cultural society is a contradiction is terms and has not worked throughout history.

"The Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, … A bishop who claimed Islamic extremism has turned some communities into no-go areas for non-Muslims has received threats against himself and his family" [1]

Q. does Dr Rowan Williams not keep in touch with his flock … or the news?

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1]