Tweet
Sharia comments trigger criticism
BBC
08-02-2008 12:36:08 - KarabakhOpen
The Archbishop of Canterbury has come under fire after appearing to
back the adoption of Sharia law in the UK.
The prime minister's spokesman said Sharia law could never be used to
justify a breach of English law.
Home Office Minister Tony McNulty said: "To ask us to fundamentally
change the rule of law and to adopt Sharia law, I think, is
fundamentally wrong."
Dr Rowan Williams told BBC Radio 4 he believed the adoption of some
Sharia law in the UK seemed "unavoidable".
'Unacceptable and unhelpful'
Dr Williams said the UK had to "face up to the fact" some citizens did
not relate to the British legal system.
He said adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law could help social
cohesion. For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or
financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.
But Gordon Brown's spokesman said the prime minister "believes that
British laws should be based on British values".
He added that Mr Brown had a good relationship with the archbishop, who
was perfectly entitled to express his views.
For the Conservatives, shadow community cohesion minister Baroness
Warsi said the archbishop's comments were "unhelpful".
She told BBC News 24: "Dr Williams seems to be suggesting that there
should be two systems of law, running alongside each other, almost
parallel, and for people to be offered the choice of opting into one or
the other. That is unacceptable."
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said he had "an enormous amount of
respect" for Dr Williams, but could not agree with him on this issue.
He said: "Equality before the law is part of the glue that binds our
society together. We cannot have a situation where there is one law for
one person and different laws for another.
"There is a huge difference between respecting people's right to follow
their own beliefs and allowing them to excuse themselves from the rule
of law."
Trevor Phillips, who chairs the Equality and Human Rights Commission
said the "implication that British courts should treat people
differently based on their faith is divisive and dangerous".
"It risks removing the protection afforded by law, for example, to
children in custody cases or women in divorce proceedings," he said.
'Sensational'
Dr Williams said Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark
alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
In an interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, he argued
this relied on Sharia law being better understood. At the moment, he
said "sensational reporting of opinion polls" clouded the issue.
He stressed "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this
country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with
the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme
punishments, the attitudes to women as well".
But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one
law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else
that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in
the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger".
Dr Williams added: "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off,
where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."
Under English law, people may devise their own way to settle a dispute
in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the
process.
Muslim Sharia courts and Orthodox Jewish courts which already exist in
the UK come into this category.
Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Ramadhan Foundation, welcomed Dr
Williams's comments, saying they "further underline the attempts by
both our great faiths to build respect and tolerance".
He added: "I believe that Muslims would take huge comfort from the
government allowing civil matters being resolved according to their
faith."
Ibrahim Mogra, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "We're looking
at a very small aspect of Sharia for Muslim families when they choose
to be governed with regards to their marriage, divorce, inheritance,
custody of children and so forth."
He added: "Let's debate this issue. It is very complex. It is not as
straight forward as saying that we will have a system here."
BBC
08-02-2008 12:36:08 - KarabakhOpen
The Archbishop of Canterbury has come under fire after appearing to
back the adoption of Sharia law in the UK.
The prime minister's spokesman said Sharia law could never be used to
justify a breach of English law.
Home Office Minister Tony McNulty said: "To ask us to fundamentally
change the rule of law and to adopt Sharia law, I think, is
fundamentally wrong."
Dr Rowan Williams told BBC Radio 4 he believed the adoption of some
Sharia law in the UK seemed "unavoidable".
'Unacceptable and unhelpful'
Dr Williams said the UK had to "face up to the fact" some citizens did
not relate to the British legal system.
He said adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law could help social
cohesion. For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or
financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.
But Gordon Brown's spokesman said the prime minister "believes that
British laws should be based on British values".
He added that Mr Brown had a good relationship with the archbishop, who
was perfectly entitled to express his views.
For the Conservatives, shadow community cohesion minister Baroness
Warsi said the archbishop's comments were "unhelpful".
She told BBC News 24: "Dr Williams seems to be suggesting that there
should be two systems of law, running alongside each other, almost
parallel, and for people to be offered the choice of opting into one or
the other. That is unacceptable."
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said he had "an enormous amount of
respect" for Dr Williams, but could not agree with him on this issue.
He said: "Equality before the law is part of the glue that binds our
society together. We cannot have a situation where there is one law for
one person and different laws for another.
"There is a huge difference between respecting people's right to follow
their own beliefs and allowing them to excuse themselves from the rule
of law."
Trevor Phillips, who chairs the Equality and Human Rights Commission
said the "implication that British courts should treat people
differently based on their faith is divisive and dangerous".
"It risks removing the protection afforded by law, for example, to
children in custody cases or women in divorce proceedings," he said.
'Sensational'
Dr Williams said Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark
alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
In an interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, he argued
this relied on Sharia law being better understood. At the moment, he
said "sensational reporting of opinion polls" clouded the issue.
He stressed "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this
country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with
the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme
punishments, the attitudes to women as well".
But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one
law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else
that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in
the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger".
Dr Williams added: "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off,
where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."
Under English law, people may devise their own way to settle a dispute
in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the
process.
Muslim Sharia courts and Orthodox Jewish courts which already exist in
the UK come into this category.
Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Ramadhan Foundation, welcomed Dr
Williams's comments, saying they "further underline the attempts by
both our great faiths to build respect and tolerance".
He added: "I believe that Muslims would take huge comfort from the
government allowing civil matters being resolved according to their
faith."
Ibrahim Mogra, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "We're looking
at a very small aspect of Sharia for Muslim families when they choose
to be governed with regards to their marriage, divorce, inheritance,
custody of children and so forth."
He added: "Let's debate this issue. It is very complex. It is not as
straight forward as saying that we will have a system here."