Let us support the courageous Muslims who, often at great personal risk, are campaigning against religious extremism
Comments (564)
Peter Tatchell
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 19 November 2009 21.00 GMT
Article history
This Saturday's London rally against sharia law and all religious tyrannies should be huge. Millions of people are suffering at the hands of clerical regimes, especially our Muslim brothers and sisters in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Sadly, the turn out in Hyde Park will probably be quite small. This is odd. Most liberals and leftwingers would protest loud and strong if these persecutions were perpetrated by a western regime or by Christian fundamentalists. But they get squeamish when it comes to challenging human rights abuses committed in the name of Islam. They fear being denouned as Islamophobic. They confuse protests against fundamentalist, political Islam, which seeks to establish a religious dictatorship, with an attack on Muslim people and the Muslim faith. These are two very different things. Saturday's protest is in defence of Muslim people – and all people everywhere – who are victims of any form of religious tyranny.
While other faiths are also often oppressive, sharia law is especially oppressive. Its interpretations stipulate the execution of Muslims who commit adultery, renounce their faith (apostates) or have same-sex relationships. Sharia methods of execution, such as stoning, are particularly brutal and cruel – witness the stoning to death this week in Somalia of a 20-year-old woman divorcee who was accused of adultery. This is the fourth stoning of an adulterer in Somalia in the last year.
Somalia is an extreme example of the sharia oppression that exists in large parts of the Muslim world. As ever, Muslim women are often the main victims. Our rally is in support of Muslim women who are campaigning for equality.
We cannot accept the way many Islamic states, including western allies like Saudi Arabia, restrict women's freedom of movement, make women subject to the control of male guardians, deny women access to certain jobs and positions in government and enforce the compulsory veiling of women (the hijab, niqab, jilbab or burqa).
Speakers at Saturday's One Law For All rally include philosopher AC Grayling, columnist Johann Hari, Bangladeshi feminist writer Taslima Nasrin, Rahila Gupta of Women Against Fundamentalism, Pragna Patel from Southall Black Sisters, Houzan Mahmoud of the Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq and Muslim refugees from sharia law in Iran. The organisers have made it clear that supporters of the English Defence League and the British National party are not welcome. We reject their racist and anti-Muslim agenda.
This the key point of the protest is to show support for the many courageous, inspiring Muslims who are campaigning against the inequalities and inhumanities of ssharia law, often at great risk to their liberty and life. Contrary to the way our critics are trying to misrepresent our campaign, this is not an attack on Muslims or Islam. Nor are we uniquely condemning sharia law. We reject all religious laws and courts, including those inspired by Judaist and Christian fundamentalism.
In a democracy, everyone should be subject to the same laws, with the same rights and responsibilties. Religious rulings should not influence the laws or courts in any way.
Britain cannot claim the moral high ground: it is not a secular democracy. The Church of England is the established church, the official state religion. Some of its bishops are granted automatic places in the House of Lords, by virtue of their religious office, and they are able to speak and vote on legislation. No other faith in Britain has such privileged law-making status and power.
When I speak at Saturday's rally, I will defend Muslims and people of all faiths against hatred and discrimination. The victimisation of people because of their religious beliefs is just as wrong as victimising people because of their race, gender or sexuality.
However, it is important to acknowledge that the religious right, which exists in all faiths, is a serious threat to human freedom wherever it manifests itself – whether in the US, Iran, Russia, Italy, Uganda, Israel or the UK. This is why our protest supports secular democracy. We believe there should be a separation of religion from the state. No faith should dominate any government and seek to impose its creed on the rest of society. When this happens, freedom of expression is diminished and minority faiths are victimised. We saw this happen when Protestantism became the state religion in England and Catholics suffered great persecution from the late 1500s. We also see it today in Iran where the Shia-dominated state persecutes the Sunni Muslim minority (especially the Arabs and Baluchs). The reverse happens in Sunni-ascendant Saudi Arabia, where Salafi and Wahhabi interpretations of Islam are enforced and Shia Muslims, and dissident Sunni Muslims, are the victims.
For these reasons, secularism is not only an important element of freedom of expression. It is also the best guarantee of religious freedom, as it prevents any one faith becoming politically dominant and abusing its powers to oppress people of other faiths.
The organisers of Saturday's rally believe that Muslims and all peoples worldwide should have rights, freedoms and choices, in accordance with the principles of equality and non-discrimination that are enshrined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These are not "western values". They are international humanitarian values, agreed by the global consensus of the member states of the UN.
It is wrong to tolerate the denial of human rights to non-white Muslims in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, when most of us would never tolerate the denial of these rights to white (and non-white) people in Britain. There should be no double standards. No cultural and moral relativism. Defend universal human rights. One law for all.
Showing posts with label sharia law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sharia law. Show all posts
Monday, November 23, 2009
Friday, June 20, 2008
Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates by UN human rights body
Originally Reported by Daily Times of Pakistan. via http://richarddawkins.net/article,2743,n,n
HASSERS Source: International Herald Tribune.
HASSERS Source: UN webcast: http://www.un.org/webcast/unhrc/archive.asp?go=080616#pm
Association for World Education, International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) (Joint statement)
[English] 1 minute
Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates
HASSERS Source: UN webcast: http://www.un.org/webcast/unhrc/archive.asp?go=080616#pm
Association for World Education, International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) (Joint statement)
[English] 1 minute
Points of order | ||
|
Association for World Education, International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) (Joint statement)
[English] 1 minuteMeeting is suspended | ||
| ||
Points of order | ||
| ||
Non-governemental Organizations (Continued) | ||
| ||
Points of order | ||
| ||
Meeting is suspended | ||
| ||
Points of order | ||
| ||
Non-governemental Organizations (Continued) | ||
| ||
Rights of reply / Points of order | ||
| ||
Non-governemental Organizations (Continued) | ||
| ||
| ||
Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates
* UN body says only religious scholars should be allowed to discuss
matters of faith
GENEVA: Muslim countries have won a battle to prevent Islam from being criticized during debates by the U.N. Human Rights Council.
Religions deserve special protection because any debate about faith is bound to be "very complex, very sensitive and very intense," council President Doru-Romulus Costea said Wednesday.
Only religious scholars should be allowed to discuss matters of faith, he told journalists in Geneva.
While Costea's ban applies to all religions, it was prompted by Muslim countries complaining about references to Islam.
Costea issued his "presidential ruling" Monday (16th June 2008) during the eighth meeting of the council's 47 members, which do not include the United States. The ruling will not affect findings by the council's experts, just its chamber debates.
On Monday Egypt, Pakistan and Iran angrily protested attempts by a humanist group to link Islam to human rights abuses such as female genital mutilation and so-called honor killings of women.
The interventions sparked a heated debate which threatened to sour the mood of the meeting ahead of important votes on the future of the council's work.
The council was created two years ago to replace the discredited U.N. Human Rights Commission. Its resolutions carry no legal weight but are intended to throw a spotlight on governments that abuse their citizens.
"This council is not prepared to discuss religious matters in depth, consequently we should not do it," Costea ruled after an emergency break to calm the situation.
"To continue a debate on this in the Human Rights Council will mean to open the door to purely political approaches," Costea later told journalists on Wednesday.
Discussing the religious reasons for human rights abuses would be "unhelpful, to say the least, for both the human rights in question and for a true, genuine dialogue among followers of various religions," he added.
A spokesman for human rights group Amnesty International said the move was consistent with attempts by some governments to create no-go zones in the council.
"If Pakistan can come and say that the murder of women for some perverse sense of honor has nothing to do with universally recognized human rights, we're in trouble," Peter Splinter told The Associated Press on Wednesday.
Egypt, too, has repeatedly tried to stop Islamic law — or sharia — from being discussed, he said.
In March, the council resolved to have its expert on free speech investigate individuals and news media for negative comments about Islam.
The American ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva, Warren Tichenor, cited that decision as one reason why the U.S. is pulling back from the council, where Western countries are in a minority.
The United States, which is not a council member but can speak during debates, announced earlier this month that it would only participate in the forum when absolutely necessary.
Washington has vocally complained that the council focuses too much on Israel, while treating autocratic governments such as Cuba and Myanmar with a light touch.
Meanwhile, the council also decided Wednesday to allow countries to call for the sacking of the council's independent rights experts after three years.
"Good mandate holders who do their job right upset governments," said Splinter of Amnesty.
"Any government which feels upset can now complicate the reappointment of an expert. This is going to have a stifling effect, potentially a serious one," he said.
___
From www.un.org/webcast
Video of U.N. rights council debate webcast, part 1: http://tinyurl.com/4kn6ym (7 mins)
http://tinyurl.com/3qgvgg (22 mins)
Recommended
Fascinating insight into how the UN debates these issues with great dignity. Also shows how proponents of Sharia Law fight their corner for Sharia Law.
The President said "statement should refrain from making judgements and evaluations of ...
Roy Brown, former president of IHEU reports in full.
Wikipedia UN Human Rights Council
Thursday, June 12, 2008
'Scottish Islamic state plotted'
 Police searches were carried out at the homes of all four defendants |
Plans to set up a secret Islamist state in Scotland were discussed by two supporters of jihad, a court has heard.
The pair said it could provide a safe haven for those who felt "oppressed", London's Blackfriars Crown Court heard.
Aabid Khan, from Bradford, West Yorkshire, said the only problem was the availability of weapons, the court was told.
The 23-year-old and three others deny terrorism-related counts of possessing articles or documents.
In the dock are Mr Khan and Sultan Muhammad, 23, also from Bradford, Ahmed Sulieman, 30, from Woolwich, south-east London, and Hammaad Munshi, 18, from, Dewsbury, West Yorkshire.
Incriminating material
Jurors heard
the state would also be run according to Sharia law and eventually be used as a base to "discreetly train" for attacks against non-believers.
The court heard the online exchange was part of a "mass" of allegedly incriminating material found by police during a series of swoops in Bradford and London two years ago.
Prosecutor Simon Denison said the MSN exchange between Khan and Muhammad about the secret Islamic state in Scotland occurred on 12 November 2005.
He said it began with Mr Muhammad explaining how he and work colleagues had allegedly been chatting about "hijrah" or emigration for Muslims feeling oppressed in Britain.
He then continued: "So like maybe a remote part of Scotland - people were like 'What the hell?' - at least to a place where there were Muslim communities."
Sharia law
Mr Khan is said to have replied:
"A group of Muslims can go to a remote place and set up a mini Sharia state and they can rule according to Sharia law, like this and stay there, building them up and their children up, preparing for fitness, and then launching jihad once they strengthen themselves."
Mr Denison claimed he then added:
"In the UK you can isolate with a group discreetly and train, but better in the US as they have weapons there. Over here weapons is problem."
All defendants deny possessing articles or documents likely to be useful to terrorists in 2005 and 2006.
Mr Khan and Mr Muhammad also deny possessing articles for a terrorist purpose.
The trial continues.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
The archbishop adapts to survive by Andrew Copson, BHA
It's no surprise that Rowan Williams wants other religions to be accorded the same sense of privilege as the Church of England
Imagine that you are sitting in Lambeth Palace as Archbishop of Canterbury, head of the established church in England. It may not seem an enviable position (even without the fracas of recent days).
Although your church is nominally the national church, most people don't even get married (pdf) in it any more, hardly anyone comes to your services, most people don't believe in the doctrines that your church promotes, they're not religious and a lot of them don't even believe in god(s) at all.
Still, it's not all bad.
You and 25 bishops of your church sit as of right in the nation's parliament, something no other religious group can claim; your church controls a third of all the state schools in the country at almost no expense to itself and the government actually wants you to take on the provision of more public services at no costbut with potentially positive consequences for your claim to national significance.
But it must nag at you that there is a bit of a mismatch between the power and privilege your organisation holds and the public support it has; you may find it hard to justify the position of a national church when it doesn't any longer represent the nation.
With an eye to the future, you really do need to find another way to shore up your church's position. (The alternative - the creation of a society where no one religion is privileged but all citizens, whatever their beliefs, are treated with impartiality by a state that favours no one religion or non-religious philosophy and is neutral between all of them - is presumably too horrible to contemplate.)
So, if the Catholic church wants exemption from laws to protect gay people from discrimination, you give them your support and even when you have to accept the case for abolishing the legal protection you own religion has from "blasphemy", you can still salvage something by raising the spectre of offence caused to other religions (as the archbishop says, "The grounds for legal restraint in respect of language and behaviour offensive to religious believers are pretty clear"). And
if you want to protect the special status of the church and Christianity in law, then you speak up for the rights of those of other religions to have their religious law recognised(to quote the archbishop again, "Christians cannot claim exceptions from a secular unitary system on religious grounds (for instance in situations where Christian doctors might not be compelled to perform abortions), if they are not willing to consider how a unitary system can accommodate other religious consciences"). Replacing "Church of England" with "faith" makes any defence of special treatment seem a whole lot more reasonable.
Judging by the outraged reaction of so many at Rowan Williams' comments on sharia law, there was considerable surprise that he said what he said. In fact, nothing could be less surprising.Of course
Williams wishes to argue for the extension of at least some of the privileges enjoyed by his own church to other religions. Such an argument, coupled with the sustained critique (some might say assault) on secularism and other Enlightenment values by a number of bishops in the Church of England, is the best defence the church today has for its own privileged position.
What would have been genuinely surprising would be for an archbishop to come out in favour of universal human rights and state neutrality in its dealings with each citizen, whatever their religious or non-religious convictions; for an end to the archaic privileges of the seats in the Lords, the schools, the state-funded public services, the legally enforceable protection from insult. For as long as we allow the anachronism of an established church, however, we can pretty much guarantee that no Archbishop of Canterbury will ever do so.
For more on the debate on Islamic law, click here
Comments ex: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_copson/2008/02/the_archbishop_adapts_to_survive.html
Excellent article. Lets have a secular state enshrined by a written constitution.
The best article I have seen on this issue by a country mile.
Good article. The issue is about public and private spheres. Members of private clubs can have their own rules of behaviour and are entitled to agree what to do with their subscriptions and who to include and exclude. But the law of the land demands that your club members should not break the common rules of the state.
Problem with the C of E is that its schools, its churches and graveyards, its parishes and festivals are part of the civic superstructure. The C of E is not a private club, and the atheists or secularists or humanists among us have a legitimate interest in what it does. When its leader tells us that some of the rules of that and other religious institutions (please let's stop calling them 'faiths') would be a useful adornment to the civil laws, or that they can be considered as parallel (even if not superior) jurisdictions,
we know he feels his Church is in deep trouble.
The one separation needed even more than that between Church and State is that between Belief and Morality. Islamic, Catholic, Jewish and Anglican moralities are wildly different, and have changed wildly over time. They should be ignored, even if we can cheerfully put up with their beliefs. It's hard enough for the law to keep up with all the other moralities on offer.
As C of E attendances have fallen below one million a week, the Archbishop obviously needs to gain allies amongst other faiths if he is to maintain the influence of his church. He's looking for marriage of convenience that is more concerned with the power of religion than its spirituality.
This has got to be one of the highest positive to negative responses ratios I've ever seen on CiF!
Spot on.
As I think many of us had already noted, this plea for respect for another religion is a not-even-thinly-disguised plea to save his own church. And, it is indeed an attack on secularism - A blatant and shameless and totally obvious ploy.
What people like Copson want is to end all the so-called privileges accorded to religious bodies, including their charitable work, while keeping those privileges for all non-religious bodies. Hardly an unbiassed approach.This is all part of the secularist myth that religion is, or should be, a purely private activity which individuals should be permitted to practice on the quiet. But the word "religion" means "to bind together", so its nature is ESSENTIALLY communal, not individual. It was the churches which originated nearly all the great charitable work in this country.
Excellent article as usual, Andrew.
Of course the ABC has to defend - and try to extend -religious privilege, religious influence on government and religious exemptions from equality and non-discrimination laws, if for no other reason than to keep up with the European churches who are steadily getting their tentacles into the European Union.
What, did you think we saw off the idea of Christian values being written into the European constitution? But that was only ever cover for the real battle - the one we lost.
The Lisbon Treaty now requires the EU to maintain a regular dialogue with the churches.
Already there are regular joint meetings of religious hierarchies with the Presidents of the Commission, Council and Parliament, one-to-one meetings with the governments holding the Council presidency and frequent EU-financed seminars.
Now they are planning what more to demand (see http://www.comece.org/comece.taf?_function=news&_sub=&id=4&language=en - "These talks are indeed necessary but they alone are in our view not enough to satisfy the offer of an open, transparent and regular dialogue").
What they - the Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox bishops of Europe - want was revealed in their 1993 contribution to the discussion of the abortive Constitution. They want a special "pre-legislative consultation procedure", regular "dialogue seminars" with the closest advisors to the Commission president, and a "liaison office ... in the [EU Commission] Secretariat General" that would be informed about all "legislative and political initiatives" the churches might wish to have a say on.
What the bishops want in Europe the C of E already has in entirely informal ways in Britain: it has little formal power but (as I have seen myself) huge informal influence over even non-religious Ministers. Now the ABC wants to formalise and entrench that influence before it becomes so blatantly anomalous that it is swept away.
Similarly, as his numbers decline towards extinction, he is trying with strong Government backing via religious corporations and charities to take over central public services - Jobcentres, probation, you name it - so as to build an alternative power base for the church (see http://tinyurl.com/3a4497 and http://tinyurl.com/25w2hb).
The politics is plain to those with eyes to see.
(Incidentally, bromleyboy at comment 1124854 is right that "What people like Copson want is to end all the so-called privileges accorded to religious bodies" - why should there be any privilege for individuals on the basis of their private beliefs, let alone for undemocratic institutions that are largely unrepresentative of their claimed followers? - but entirely wrong that we want to "keep those privileges for all non-religious bodies" - not sure actually what privileges non-religious bodies have, but it is directly against Humanist and secularist policy to accept any such privilege: we want an open soc
The subject of the Archbishop's speech cannot in itself have been responsible for the overwhelming upsurge of public protest that resulted. A few years ago it might well have passed unnoticed. No, what he said acted as a catalyst to open the floodgates of public concern over the perspective of Islam in the UK as often presented by the media and fueled all too readily by the pronouncements and antics of some Muslims themselves. We may recall the recent Islamic marches in London where the purveyors of hate brandished placards that, in their advocacy of criminal acts towards the liberal, Democratic West, demonstrated a freedom of expression denied, at least in public perception, to the rest of us. I will here quote five of theses messages: 'Europe you will pay - extermination is on its way,' 'Europe you will pay - 9/11 is on its way,' 'Butcher those who mock Islam,' 'Freedom go to hell' and 'Islam will dominate the world.'
Perhaps the Archbishop of Canterbury was not aware of the messages conveyed by this march but he ought to be since according to BBC and Chanel 4 interviews, the opinions of this rabble are far from being those of a fringe minority. The Archbishop of Rochester is at least aware of no-go areas in a number of British towns, as I am, even though some of our politicians claim they are not.
Its adherents claim that Islam is a way of life but those of us who take a broader view of things might instead regard them as besotted by religion in the way Christians were centuries ago. And therein lies the problem: we have a backward looking culture at odds with a largely free-minded, secular society whose material advantages they are eager to accept but not its philosophies. From their threats and propositions are cast the shadow of a new Dark Age.
Now, before anyone shouts 'racist,' I'll remind you that Muslims are not a race any more than Jews and Christians are a race - or people from Yorkshire, if you like. Islam is a culture; so as a freethinking supporter of the Western Democratic system, perhaps I stand as being a 'culturalist,' since that is not, as far as I know, yet been made illegal.
I have gained over the years Jewish, Christian and Muslim friends, something we Atheists can do with more comfort and ease than is apparently the case amongst those who hold differing and strong religious convictions. One thing I will mention: My Muslim friend once pointed out to me that many in the UK holding her religious opinions, albeit to a more extreme degree, regard Usama bin Laden as a hero. Well, I suppose if being a wealthy man in hiding who directs others to waste their own lives in murdering others is seen as such then we need to redefine the word itself. But then she doubtless referred to those in this country and elsewhere who would advocate Sharia law.
"What people like Copson want is to end all the so-called privileges accorded to religious bodies, including their charitable work, while keeping those privileges for all non-religious bodies." - Bromleyboy
Utter tosh.
You really should engage a bit more with the BHA before you post reactionary comments like that.
An end to priviledges like the Bishops having an automatic seat in the House of Lords is hardly the same as stopping their charitable work, now is it?
And of this charitable work, how much of what is raised do you think goes to admin costs? How much gets swallowed into the coffers of the great churches?
You only get the facts when you look at the whole picture.
Dear Peitha,
It is the very fact that you cannot see your special priviledge to take our taxes and spend them indoctrinating British children in your religion that is the reason that priviledge should be taken from you. Yes you do pay taxes, so if you want them spent indoctrinating children, spend them yourself. Just your own money. Don't take money from everyone else.
You refer to over-subscription to faith schools. Precisely the argument. The government should spend money on all schools equally, concentrate on giving them all a decent 'ethos' and have them all oversubscribed. Who says that ethos must be christian or muslim or any other weird belief.
And I repeat the argument. Children do not have a religion, because they are children. How can you take your over-subscription list to your nice christian school and weed out the non-christians? Colour of their skin? Test them or test their parents?
There should be no religion (beyond the personal) in the functions of the state, and that means in schools.
And yes, if it is an irrational belief system, then arguments for it I will call propaganda. When I have an irrational belief system, complete with fairies and virgins and walking on water, I will be sure to send you one of my own propaganda leaflets (at my own expense).
++++++++++++ Andrew Copsons' Reply +++++++++++++
Rowan is recognizing that there are some menacing signs for faith holders being presented in the public domain recently.Things that have been taken for granted as red by faith holders are suddenly under scrutiny, faith schools for instance.Catholic doctors never before under questioning by others, for their right to opt out of abortions, now under some dialogical pressure with the why should you when in the NHS? Abortion is after all an absolute human right in most secularist atheist perceptions, so the right not to perform one is under pressure if these norms are to be enforced. One example of the development of this growing pressure is to be found in the universities.Two Christian unions have had to fight for their right to be supported by their university guilds.There has been a protacted tug-of-war between CUs at Birmingham and Exeter universities and their respective student guilds.These groups have existed unnoticed for years, now they are under attack. There is a militancy asserting itself in the secularist agenda, which those with faith are on the receiving end of, Rowan is attempting to articulate a workable way through.
cathpal
Comment No. 1124108
February 12 20:12
"..Rowan is recognizing that there are some menacing signs for faith holders being presented in the public domain recently.Things that have been taken for granted as red by faith holders are suddenly under scrutiny, faith schools for instance.Catholic doctors never before under questioning by others, for their right to opt out of abortions, now under some dialogical pressure with the why should you when in the NHS? Abortion is after all an absolute human right in most secularist atheist perceptions, so the right not to perform one is under pressure if these norms are to be enforced."
==
Yes indeed. This is also becoming a growing problem with some muslim (sigh!) medical students, where there have been cases of refusing by 'religious' objection to engaging with issues of alcohol-relate disease, or STDs, and even of male students refusing to attend female patients. The solution is simple - kick them out of the profession.
greymatter
"Yes indeed.....The solution is simple - kick them out of the profession."
So from your comment you don't seem to think then Catholic/Muslim/Jewish/other doctors should be able to assert their consciences in issues of abortion (you agree with the pressure)? Basically you think the secularist moral norms laid down in the law should be enforceable on all workers in the public sphere as being carried out in a pro-active way?
Andrew Copson says:
Kharin: The presence of bishops in the Lords is not the only privilege for the Church of England; there is also the state funding of schools, chaplaincy and other aspects of their 'mission'. Apart from legal privileges, there is the informal influence that comes from a generalised feeling that 'faith' is important; this is certainly something that the Church seeks to take advantage of and it can only be bolstered if religions other than the Church of England are apparently brought into the mix.
I think there's a lot to this theory and it certainly mirrors a lot of my own thinking on it. However, there is one flaw, namely that Anglicanism doesn't have any special privilege with respect to the current law structures. The only respect it does have any privilege there is in terms of seats in the House of Lords and it could have addressed that by advocating Imams to be allowed to sit there as well (as Rabbis already have).
Andrew Copson says:
Kharin: The presence of bishops in the Lords is not the only privilege for the Church of England; there is also the state funding of schools, chaplaincy and other aspects of their 'mission'. Apart from legal privileges, there is the informal influence that comes from a generalised feeling that 'faith' is important; this is certainly something that the Church seeks to take advantage of and it can only be bolstered if religions other than the Church of England are apparently brought into the mix.
I disagree with Mr Copsons analysis.
The is no vast conspiracy here to enhance the CofE's social standing or influence.
Nothing of the sort.
The ugly truth is Rowan Williams actualy IS so misinformed about Islam that he would advocate shari law.
The ABC gleaned his info on Islam from none other than *progressive* Tariq Ramadan, radical Islam's point man in Europe and a purveyor of lies, deceptions and half-truths about the true nature of the religion.
*Beardy* isn't making ANY powerplay. The frightening truth is that he is sorely misinformed about Islam, like so many others in positions of responsability.
I mean, you'd have to be utterly clueless to invite T. Ramadan to lecture at Oxford, wouldn't you?
Rowan Williams awkward foray into the fray is yet another example of what a systemic and systematic campaign of misinformation about Islam's threat can achieve.
The bishop is just a symptom of the absolute stupidity of our times.
Sadly, he has no ulterior motives!
Andrew Copson says:
Bicker: I'm not saying there's a 'vast conspiracy' and it may well be that Rowan Williams' advocacy of sharia is the result of misinformation received by him. But there still has to be an explanation of why he is willing to advocate for other religions in the first place. Part of the explanation, I think, is that the bringing together of other religions under the general banner of 'faith' in general serves to increase the apparent significance of religion in the lives of people in Britain and so apparently justify the continuing privileging of the churches.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
No Sharia in the UK - British Humanist Association responds to Archbishop of Canterbury
The British Humanist Association (BHA) has reacted to comments by the Archbishop of Canterbury that the introduction of sharia law in the UK is ‘inevitable’.
Responding to the comments of the Archbishop, BHA chief executive Hanne Stinson said, ‘ Fundamental to the principle of equality before the law that the same rights and processes of law be available to all and this automatically rules out any possibility of delegating the rights of some citizens to unaccountable religious authorities. Singling out certain groups for separate treatment will also surely undermine work towards good relations and social cohesion rather than assist it.’
The BHA has also written to the Archbishop to make our views known to him and you can read the letter here
Monday, February 11, 2008
Removing the state from Dr Rowan Williams
By Janet Daley, Daily Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 11/02/2008
Synod turns on Rowan Williams in sharia row Brassneck: Another reason for Dr Williams to resign
The Archbishop of Canterbury said something stupid. What is to be done about it? There is now a fusillade of demands for his resignation rather as if he were a Chancellor of the Exchequer whose fatally bad judgment had undermined the economy.
In almost any other country in the world, this would seem bizarre but here, the parallel is apt.
 | |
The head of the Church of England is a political figure. Founded as a conscious bulwark against the Roman outfit to which the nation's enemies owed allegiance, the Anglican Church must play out its uncomfortable, anomalous role.
Dr Rowan Williams's latest pronouncements are, in a sense (or should I say, "in a very real sense"?) a peculiarly frank expression of the messy overlap between matters of state and of faith that is its remit. And, as so often happens with well-intentioned attempts at appeasement and compromise with the unacceptable, Dr Williams's intervention has made it clear how untenable all this now is.
The archbishop has discredited not just himself, and the über-tolerant multicultural lobby that he sought to support, but the position of the established Church.
Why say this, when so many other members of the Anglican hierarchy - including his immediate predecessor - have countered his remarks with eminent good sense?
Indeed, you may think, if the former archbishop Lord Carey can enunciate so neatly and forcibly, as he did at the weekend, everything that was wrong with Dr Williams's stated view, then surely the problem is just with the man who currently heads it and not with the institution itself?
Perhaps, perversely, I would argue that
the dilemma that Dr Williams thought he was addressing was a genuine one and that it goes to the heart of this matter.
Being an unworldly scholar, he was profoundly wrong in his understanding of the political implications of what he was saying,
but actually quite right (from the point of view of a spiritual leader) in his concern about the place of religious belief in a modern democratic society.
What he was suggesting was that, for the genuine believer who takes adherence to his faith seriously, the concept of the secular law whose authority must take precedence over all other authorities is a problem. And that is true. It is also true that the law - secular though it is - makes allowances for the sensibilities of religious believers.
Although this notion can be overplayed: the obvious example is Roman Catholic doctors not being forced to perform abortions, but in a life-threatening crisis I doubt that religious scruple would constitute legal protection to a medical practitioner who refused to intervene.
The law generally takes the view that an individual's religion should be respected wherever possible, but that it should not be permitted to over-ride other people's basic human rights to life and liberty.
In a contest between the principles of modern democracy and doctrines of faith, democracy and the rule of secular law must always win. And that is the solution to the problem with which all of the great faiths that survive in freedom have made their peace.
But that is exactly the assumption that Dr Williams was challenging because, I presume, it seemed to him that it relegated religion to a private sphere - a matter of personal taste or preference - which somehow trivialised it.
What Dr Williams presented was a clear-cut distinction between what he called "a universal Enlightenment system" with its concept of "one law for everybody" and what he described as "plural jurisdiction" in which different communities within one country are permitted to follow their own codes of justice.
He was, in effect, casting doubt on the most fundamental premise of modern political life: that freedom and equality under a universal rule of law is the most advanced and just system of government in which human beings may live.
This doctrine is now considered so utterly irrefutable that it is paid lip service even by the tin-pot dictators who attempt to crush its exponents: to be explicitly opposed to it is to rule oneself - either as an individual or a party - out of consideration on the world stage.
Yet this is what the archbishop chose to dispute. Not only did he exacerbate ethnic tensions in our society and do almost immeasurable damage to the cause of moderate Islam but his disservice to his own Church was immense.
He has laid bare the question that should never have been asked if the prevailing fuzzy compromise between established church and state was to remain tenable: how can a revealed religion officially accept that its position is subservient to secular law? Answer: it can't - not without surrendering its understanding of absolute truth.
By definition, the rules of a democracy are subject to majority opinion. They are negotiable, amendable and retractable - providing that they accept the basic principle of liberty and equality.
So religious beliefs and doctrines will always be in potential conflict with forms of law that evolve with social attitudes, and what Dr Williams saw was that Islamic doctrine had a particular problem because it had no history of adapting its theology to being a minority religion within a liberal society. It has no official doctrine for coming to terms with diaspora (as the Jewish religion has).
So the archbishop turns this into a virtue: faced with people who take their religion very seriously, he seems embarrassed by what has been the historical readiness of his own Church to compromise and hints that maybe we could all learn something from the commitment of Muslims to a higher truth.
Being the head of a national church, he is determined to defend the value of faith in general, not just Islam, against the encroachments of the profane concerns of political life. Just because he is a political figure, and because he takes philosophical dilemmas seriously, he cannot evade the question.
So he feels he must repudiate the Enlightenment altogether: the problem becomes secularism itself and the belief that there is one universal system of law which must apply to everyone equally.
In fact, as is being proved once again in the United States where Christianity of a very muscular kind indeed is a formidable political force in the presidential race, religion - far from being threatened by the secular state - can flourish in it.
It is not the primacy of secular law that threatens the survival of religious faith but the unedifying equivocations that a church feels obliged to make when it is a branch of the state.
Williams in synod Sharia address
Williams in synod Sharia address
 |  Dr Williams said law and religion needed to be debated  |
Williams speaks He told the Church of England's general synod he felt some remarks had been taken out of context, but he accepted he may have created misunderstanding.
He has faced calls to apologise for his comments, in which he implied adopting aspects of Sharia law was unavoidable.
Earlier PM Gordon Brown praised Dr Williams's "great integrity".
I believe quite strongly that it is not inappropriate for a pastor of the Church of England to address issues about the perceived concerns of other religious communities 
Dr Rowan Williams
Dr Williams told clergy and lay people at the synod - the Church's governing body - he believed "some of what has been heard is a very long way indeed from what was actually said".
"But I must of course take responsibility for any unclarity in either that text or in the radio interview and for any misleading choice of words that's helped to cause distress or misunderstanding among the public at large, and especially among my fellow Christians,'' he added.
He said: "I believe quite strongly that it is not inappropriate for a pastor of the Church of England to address issues about the perceived concerns of other religious communities, and to try and bring them into better public focus."
Liberties and consciences
Part of the "burden and the privilege of being the Church" in the UK meant, Dr Williams said, the clergy needed "some coherent voice on behalf of all the faith communities living here".
"If we can attempt to speak for the liberties and consciences of others in this country - as well as our own - we shall, I believe, be doing something we as a church are called to do in Christ's name: witnessing to his Lordship, not compromising it."
DR WILLIAMS'S FULL TEXT Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader
The relationship between law and religion was a subject on which "Christians and people of other faiths ought to be doing some reflecting together", he added.
Dr Williams sparked a major row after saying, in a BBC Radio 4 interview last week, the adoption of parts of Sharia law was "unavoidable" in Britain.
He has insisted he was not advocating a parallel set of laws, but has faced calls for his resignation.
Conservative MP Robert Key, a synod member, said Dr Williams's speech had been well received.
He said: "The archbishop had overwhelming support, not only for having opened up this very important discussion, which is part of the fabric of our national life - we simply cannot avoid it - but he also clearly had the majority of the synod right behind him.
"I suspect he will always have a tiny minority, and I think it is tiny, who are opposed to him, but it was quite clear synod wants to move on."
Community service
Dr Williams had been facing pressure from some Church of England traditionalists who wanted him to apologise for his original comments.
Two synod members also called for Dr Williams to stand down following his remarks.
His predecessor as the Church of England's leader, Lord Carey, said on Sunday the acceptance of some Muslim laws would be "disastrous" for Britain.
But, writing in the News of the World, Lord Carey said his successor should not be forced to quit.
Earlier the prime minister's spokesman said Mr Brown understood "the difficulties" the archbishop was facing and paid tribute to Dr Williams's "dedication to public and community service".
Mr Brown believed religious law should be subservient to UK law, he added.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Another reason for Dr Williams to resign
People have been calling for the Dr William's resignation after his misguided comments about Sharia Law. But it seems to me that if he were to resign, it should be for a more important reason. In the private sector, CEOs routinely get pushed out because of falling customer numbers caused by their failure to market services that appeal to the public.
As CEO, Dr Williams has failed to market services
Looking at results might seem vulgar in the leisurely world of full-time Christianity, but the truth is that Dr Williams has failed to deliver. Figures published here and here for his first three years in office show declining Sunday church attendances each year, from 1,017,000 in 2003 to 983,000 in 2006.
While the Church of England's decline is, of course, good news for atheists, Anglicans should be asking this question: do they want their CEO to be a wooly-headed, media-unsavvy lefty, or a dynamic Stuart Rose-style executive who will reinvigorate the organisation?
Brassneck
Posted by Alex Singleton on 10 Feb 2008
As CEO, Dr Williams has failed to market services
Looking at results might seem vulgar in the leisurely world of full-time Christianity, but the truth is that Dr Williams has failed to deliver. Figures published here and here for his first three years in office show declining Sunday church attendances each year, from 1,017,000 in 2003 to 983,000 in 2006.
While the Church of England's decline is, of course, good news for atheists, Anglicans should be asking this question: do they want their CEO to be a wooly-headed, media-unsavvy lefty, or a dynamic Stuart Rose-style executive who will reinvigorate the organisation?
Brassneck
Posted by Alex Singleton on 10 Feb 2008
Archbishop’s Comments On Sharia Law Make Mockery Of Social Cohesion
The National Secular Society said today that there would be few British citizens who will not be both baffled and dismayed by BBC reports that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, believes the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable" and might actually help social integration.
Dr Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK had to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens did not relate to the British legal system.NSS spokesman Alistair McBay condemned the comments, saying it was difficult to imagine a less helpful contribution to the debate on cohesion and social integration than this.
“The cornerstone of our pluralistic liberal democracy is the equality of all citizens under the law, yet Dr Williams says the idea of one law for everybody is 'a bit of a danger'.
He is directly undermining what Britain stands for,” said McBay. “Can the Archbishop really be saying that some people in Britain should be allowed to have their own laws if they don’t approve of the ones we have? Apparently, yes he is!”
McBay continued:
“All religious groups preach that they are inclusive and work towards social integration in Britain, yet what they practise is exactly the opposite. They want, and get, segregated schools, segregated scout groups, even segregated toilets, and now apparently, social cohesion and integration are to be further achieved by separate laws for separate religious groups. This is truly bizarre.”
McBay also queried the position the Church of England holds on the subject of social cohesion. “The Church of England’s recent contributions to the great multiculturalism debate are curious, to say the least. The Bishop of Rochester told us in January that there were Muslim “no-go” areas in Britain, all the fault of multiculturalism and the demise of the Christian religion, and he was seeking a Christian revival to counter this. Now his boss is telling us that Muslims should have their own laws. Neither contribution, contradictory as they apparently are, has been helpful.”
McBay also pointed out that
Trevor Phillips, head of the CEHR, said last year that Britain was ‘sleepwalking into segregation’. “I bet not even he imagined that it would be the Church of England leading the somnambulists!”McBay said.
February 7 2008
What did the Archbishop actually say? by archbishopofcanterbury.org
Friday 08 February 2008 There has been a strong reaction in the media and elsewhere to the Archbishop of Canterbury's remarks of yesterday on civil and religious law.
The full text of the Archbishop's lecture at the Royal Courts of Justice 'Civil and Religious Law in England: a religious perspective', can be viewed on the Archbishop's website, here:
Archbishop's Lecture - Civil and Religious Law in England: a Religious Perspective
The transcript of his interview on yesterday's World at One programme can also be viewed online, here:
BBC Interview - Radio 4 World at One.
The Archbishop made no proposals for sharia in either the lecture or the interview, and certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law.
Instead, in the interview, rather than proposing a parallel system of law, he observed that "as a matter of fact certain provisions of sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law" . When the question was put to him that: "the application of sharia in certain circumstances - if we want to achieve this cohesion and take seriously peoples' religion - seems unavoidable?", he indicated his assent.
The Archbishop opened his lecture by noting importantly that the very term sharia is not only misunderstood, but is the focus of much fear and anxiety deriving from its 'primitivist' application in some contexts. As such he said that sharia is a method of law rather than a single complete and final system ready to be applied wholesale to every situation, and noted that there was room, even within Islamic states which apply sharia, for some level of 'dual identity', where the state is not in fact religiously homogenous.
In his lecture, the Archbishop sought carefully to explore the limits of a unitary and secular legal system in the presence of an increasingly plural (including religiously plural) society and
to see how such a unitary system might be able to accommodate religious claims. Behind this is the underlying principle that Christians cannot claim exceptions from a secular unitary system on religious grounds (for instance in situations where Christian doctors might not be compelled to perform abortions), if they are not willing to consider how a unitary system can accommodate other religious consciences.In doing so
does that mean enshrining religious priveleges in law??
the Archbishop was not suggesting the introduction of parallel legal jurisdictions, but exploring ways in which reasonable accommodation might be made within existing arrangements for religious conscience.
ditto!
He explained that
his core aim was to: "to tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state" and was using sharia as an example.These include:
-
How when the law does not take seriously religious motivation, it fails to engage with the community in questionand opens up real issues of power by the majority over the minority, with potentially harmful effects for community cohesion.
-
How the distinction between cultural practices and those arising from genuine religious belief might be managed.
- How to deal with the possibility that a 'supplementary jurisdiction "could have the effect of reinforcing in minority communities some of the most repressive or retrograde elements in them, with particularly serious consequences for the role and liberties of women".
At the end of the lecture the Archbishop referred to a suggestion by a Jewish jurist that there might be room for 'overlapping jurisdictions' in which "individuals might choose in certain limited areas whether to seek justice under one system or another". This is what currently happens both within the Jewish arrangements and increasingly in current alternative dispute resolution and mediation practice.
He concludes his lecture with the comment:
"if we are to think intelligently about the relations between Islam and British law, we need a fair amount of 'deconstruction' of crude oppositions and mythologies, whether of the nature of sharia or the nature of the Enlightenment"
what does that mean??
The lecture, which was given before an audience of about 1000 people and which was chaired by the Lord Chief Justice, was the first in a series of six lectures and discussions which are being given by senior Muslim and other lawyers and theologians at the Temple Church on the general theme of 'Islam in English Law'.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Williams 'shocked' at Sharia row
The Sun discussion here.
Story from BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7235550.stm
Williams 'shocked' at Sharia row
 Dr Williams has been taken aback by the response to his comments |
Friends of Dr Rowan Williams say he is in a state of shock and cannot believe the criticism from his own Church.
All the main political parties, secular groups and some senior Muslims have expressed dismay at his comments.
However, the Bishop of Hulme, the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, criticised the "disgraceful" treatment of Dr Williams.
The BBC understands from sources who work on Christian-Muslim interfaith issues that Dr Williams has faced a barrage of criticism from within the Church and has been genuinely taken aback by how his words were received.
Resignation call
Islamic Sharia law is a legal and social code designed to help Muslims live their daily lives, but it has proved controversial in the West for the extreme nature of some of its punishments.
Culture Secretary Andy Burnham said moves such as those suggested by the archbishop would create "social chaos".
The Reverend Rod Thomas, chairman of evangelical Church group Reform, said the archbishop's comments were unhelpful.
"The Church at the moment, and the country, needs a clear lead. The country is itself in a debate about its own sense of identity," he said.
It would be most helpful for the leader of the Church to be able to explain to people how the values we cherish stem from our Christian tradition The Reverend Rod Thomas
Reform
"The moral values that we pursue are ones that we need to know are clearly grounded, and it would be most helpful for the leader of the Church to be able to explain to people how the values we cherish stem from our Christian tradition."
UKIP MEP Gerard Batten said it would be the "thin end of the wedge" and called on the archbishop to resign.
He said: "I think he's shown he is totally unfit for the role he undertakes. He's not fit to be Archbishop of Canterbury, he doesn't seem to know what his own business is, and he's not fit to sit in the House of Lords. I think he should go."
'Hysterical misrepresentations'
However, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said it was grateful for the archbishop's "thoughtful intervention".
The organisation added that it was saddened by the "hysterical misrepresentations" of his speech, which would only "drive a wedge between British people".
SHARIA LAW Sharia law is Islam's legal system It is derived from the Koran and the life of the prophet Mohammed Sharia rulings help Muslims understand how they should lead their lives A formal legal ruling is called a fatwa In the West, Sharia courts deal mainly with family and business issues English law recognises religious courts as a means of arbitration
Muhammed Abdul Bari, Secretary-General of the MCB, said: "The archbishop is not advocating implementation of the Islamic penal system in Britain.
"His recommendation is confined to the civil system of Sharia law, and only in accordance with English law and agreeable to established notions of human rights."
Bishop Lowe said the archbishop had been "ridiculed" and "lampooned" by some people.
"We have probably one of the greatest and the brightest Archbishops of Canterbury we have had for many a long day," he said.
Catherine Heseltine, from the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, said some people might be getting the wrong end of the stick.
"I'm concerned this debate is getting out of control because people hear the word Sharia and instantly scary images of beheadings," she said.
"But this is not what British Muslims want and it's not what British Muslims are asking for in any way."
'British values'
She added: "Sharia in our everyday lives means things like certification of halal meat, in the same way as Jewish religious bodies will certify kosher meat. No-one's forced to eat it but it's a choice if consumers want to buy it."
HAVE YOUR SAY
There is, and should only be, one law which covers all people and to suggest it can be otherwise is to seriously damage our rights
Patricia London, UK
Dr Williams told BBC Radio 4 on Thursday that he believed the adoption of some Sharia law in the UK seemed "unavoidable".
In an interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, Dr Williams said Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
Gordon Brown's spokesman said the prime minister "believes that British laws should be based on British values", but that the archbishop was perfectly entitled to express his views.
Home Office Minister Tony McNulty said to fundamentally change the rule of law and adopt Sharia law would be "fundamentally wrong."
Shaista Gohir, a government advisor on Muslim women, said the majority of British Muslims did not want Sharia courts.
READ THE FULL TEXT Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said he did not agree with the archbishop him on the issue.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Comment No. 1123932
February 12 18:44
FRA