crackerjack
Well-known member
Gettin somewhere closer to the original topic, I'm curious to know - is there anyone here who doesn't think the Archbish of Canterbury is several burgers short of a barbecue?
Islamophobia
- Thread starter zhao
- Start date
IdleRich
IdleRich
Great minds think alike, I was just searching for something on that, and, in the spirit of Islamophobia, let's go with the currant bun.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article778163.ece
Seems as though he actually did say something close to what they are reporting though, he's never going to hear the end of this one.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article778163.ece
Seems as though he actually did say something close to what they are reporting though, he's never going to hear the end of this one.
vimothy
yurp
He maintained it was WRONG for followers of Islam to be forced to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.
Instead he said the country must “face the fact” that some Muslims do not relate to the law in Britain.
Instead he said the country must “face the fact” that some Muslims do not relate to the law in Britain.
Pure idiocy from every conceivable angle. Rowan Williams is a good and thoughtful man, I think, but he does talk some terrible rubbish at times. One more person suffering under the false idea that every "Muslim" is an adherent to a monolithic "Muslim" culture.
vimothy
yurp
The sly old fox -- it's dissimulation, taqiyya -- "I use the enemy"!
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Hmm...I would say you can have rational responses (which often tend to be violent) to unreasonable motivations. Is this a useful distinction: actions as ir/rational, motives as un/reasonable?
I think we can all agree murdering lots of civilians to foment civil war, or behaving aggressively towards non-Muslims because they don't conform to your (specifically) Islamic morality, is undeniably unreasonable.
Last edited:
crackerjack
Well-known member
The only cynical angle i can come up with is that he's secretly hankering after some fantasy land where half the nation allies opts into its own particular religious court, and opts out of the current system where you have, you know, one law of the land, decided through a system of elections n which everyone, even atheists, gets to vote.
But that's rubbish innit? The truth is that he is indeed a mad fool.
vimothy
yurp
I don't know. Like I said, I think there is an element of semantic difference between what we both mean. However, I do think that if you describe mass-murder or terrorism or basically any action no matter how hateful, ridiculous, unnecessary, malicious, sectarian, etc, as rational (walking around killing people for love of it or for spurious ethnic hatreds), then "rational" has no real meaning and there is no distinction between a rational and an irrational act.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Sorry, that should have been "ir/rational" not "ir/responsible" in my last post.
I think I can see what you're getting at, and perhaps it has to do with two slightly different usages of 'rationality': logical rationality (the world came into being through natural processes vs. the world was created in seven days) and what you might call moral rationality (fighting in the defence of a democratically elected government vs. fighting to impose your will on others by brute force). Maybe it's my scientific background, but I'm using it more in the former sense, in which it's possible to use rational means in pursuit of an unreasonable goal.
But this is all just so much semantics, of course.
I think I can see what you're getting at, and perhaps it has to do with two slightly different usages of 'rationality': logical rationality (the world came into being through natural processes vs. the world was created in seven days) and what you might call moral rationality (fighting in the defence of a democratically elected government vs. fighting to impose your will on others by brute force). Maybe it's my scientific background, but I'm using it more in the former sense, in which it's possible to use rational means in pursuit of an unreasonable goal.
But this is all just so much semantics, of course.
swears
preppy-kei
I think he's trying to provoke one of the petty one sided "debates" that the UK press is so famous for. Reminds me of that Harry Enfield sketch:
"Is that what you want? 'Cause that's what'll happen!"
hmm im not convinced that he is suffering under this idea. the detail of his speech in fact goes to considerable lengths to make it clear that he is well aware of the multi-faceted nature of Sharia law and Muslim faith
my (speculative!) reckoning is that it is motivated by a desire to see rights to religious (as a whole, given that to make any such attempt specific to CoE would be ridiculous in the UK today) belief and identity more greatly entrenched and respected in law, in the face of the CoE's belief system's increasing irrelevance to its development
crackerjack
Well-known member
That's kinda what I was getting at above. But if he thinks this is the right way to go about it, he is a very, very, very poor judge of national mood. Apparently Hizb ut-Tahir were the first to come out in support - way to go Rowan.
Mr BoShambles
jambiguous
From what i understand, his proposal is that sharia law should be available to those wishing to abide by it as a form of community/family/personal arbitration. Something similar apparently has existed for a long time for those of the Jewish community who wish to use it. He was at pains to stress that: (1) British law would always take precedent over it; and (2) that its judgements would only be binding where both sides accepted the ruling - any dispute over the outcome would always result in the matter being considered under British law.
Clearly chopping off hands or stoning raped women to death would not be possible since both of these instances would contravene British law. But for marriage, divorce, contestation of wills and other civil matters it doesn't seem like such a bad idea to me.
I guess there are pitfalls which I'm sure you'll all be happy to point out....
Mr BoShambles
jambiguous
From this article in the independent today:
However, this is, Dr Williams suggests, a travesty of the truth. What sharia means, and most Islamic jurists agree, he tells us, is not a list of laws but a way of thinking that expresses the universal principles of Islam. Codifications of that law, by the Saudis, the Taliban or whoever, are inevitably reductive and therefore false. "An excessively narrow understanding of sharia, as simply codified rules," he says in the full lecture on which the stories were based, "can have the effect of actually undermining the universal claims of the Koran."
What Dr Williams is saying is that we all have overlapping identities. It is possible to be a British citizen, a Muslim, a Tory and a member of the local golf club at the same time. Each of these identities brings with it rules and it is high time that British society took account of this instead of "a secular government assuming a monopoly in terms of defining public and political identity".
Thus, as a golf club or political party may expel a member who breaks its rules, so a religion may have a legal code under which marital or financial disputes can be decided. The law should recognise this, as it does already with the internal systems of Orthodox Jews. But in a way which does not dispense with a citizen's rights to appeal to the courts of law. All but Islamicist "primitivists" would accept that this is a secondary jurisdiction. That, I think, is what he is saying in an immensely dense, 7,000 word text.
What Dr Williams is saying is that we all have overlapping identities. It is possible to be a British citizen, a Muslim, a Tory and a member of the local golf club at the same time. Each of these identities brings with it rules and it is high time that British society took account of this instead of "a secular government assuming a monopoly in terms of defining public and political identity".
Thus, as a golf club or political party may expel a member who breaks its rules, so a religion may have a legal code under which marital or financial disputes can be decided. The law should recognise this, as it does already with the internal systems of Orthodox Jews. But in a way which does not dispense with a citizen's rights to appeal to the courts of law. All but Islamicist "primitivists" would accept that this is a secondary jurisdiction. That, I think, is what he is saying in an immensely dense, 7,000 word text.
vimothy
yurp
Yeah, doesn't sound that bad given that, I guess.
But I do think that, even if it would rely upon both sides giving their assent, it would promote a kind of Islamic millet within the UK -- not what we're looking for. And where would it leave poeple who don't wish to abide by Islamic law but who can't say that to the authorities because of familial pressure?
Or maybe not -- if the Jewish community have something similar, maybe it's only fair.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
This a very important point. The rules on divorce or financial disputes would be in addition to, not instead of, British law, and the latter would always be given precedence in cases of contradiction. It's really not so daft as it sounds at first blush.
The really vital thing, though, would be to ensure that there is always recourse for the parties involved in such disputes to appeal to national law if they feel they need to; this proposal carries the risk of being used as an excuse for people to 'deal with things their own way' in direct contravention of the law.
crackerjack
Well-known member
Quite.
I appreciate the ABC was never gonna say Muslims should be able to chop each other's hands off or stone adulteresses to death. But there is an important principle at stake i.e. that secular law should not be at the mercy of people pleading special religious interest (one example I heard quoted was conscientious objectors, which is a wholly different issue).
Can anyone cite specific examples of financial and divorce law? 4 wives for Muslims ok with people?