david mcgee Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Rowan Williams proposes incorporating Sharia law within Brittish law. A bit like saying ,there is that many Brits in the costas the Spanish should adopt Brittish law. What is particularly worrying about his comments? Nobody from the Muslim community was asking for this. At a time where the islamic community is trying very hard to build bridges this clown comes out with these comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheriff Fatman Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 No he didn't. People should really stop reading toilet paper like the Daily Mail and the Sun and thinking that what is printed is anything close to being the truth. He said in certain civil cases, if all parties are in agreement there should be no problem with Sharia law being applied if it doesn't contradict British Civil Law. This already happens in some circumstances and Williams was just saying that there is a case for it happening in a few more circumstances. It also already happens with Jewish courts, but I don't see any tabloid excuse for a journalist having a hairy fit about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david mcgee Posted February 12, 2008 Author Share Posted February 12, 2008 No he didn't. People should really stop reading toilet paper like the Daily Mail and the Sun and thinking that what is printed is anything close to being the truth. He said in certain civil cases, if all parties are in agreement there should be no problem with Sharia law being applied if it doesn't contradict British Civil Law. This already happens in some circumstances and Williams was just saying that there is a case for it happening in a few more circumstances. It also already happens with Jewish courts, but I don't see any tabloid excuse for a journalist having a hairy fit about that. The tabloid press are having a field day whipping up the racists. Which if this trumpet had kept his mouth piece firmly shut they would have had nothing to get excited about. Its almost as if he wanted to cause it! I feel a conspiracy theory! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Harris Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 The tabloid press are having a field day whipping up the racists.Which if this trumpet had kept his mouth piece firmly shut they would have had nothing to get excited about. Its almost as if he wanted to cause it! I feel a conspiracy theory! racists? what race exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheriff Fatman Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 The tabloid press are having a field day whipping up the racists.Which if this trumpet had kept his mouth piece firmly shut they would have had nothing to get excited about. Its almost as if he wanted to cause it! I feel a conspiracy theory! What he said was perfectly sensible and rational. It's not his fault if knob jockey journalists cherry pick words out of his statement and throw a wobbly over nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david mcgee Posted February 12, 2008 Author Share Posted February 12, 2008 What he said was perfectly sensible and rational. It's not his fault if knob jockey journalists cherry pick words out of his statement and throw a wobbly over nothing. From what i can gather, his audience ( Muslim lawyers ) are holding their heads in their hands. Asking the question, " why is he going there"? So, why was he going there? He has caused these people far more problems than they were looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheriff Fatman Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 From what i can gather, his audience ( Muslim lawyers ) are holding their heads in their hands.Asking the question, " why is he going there"? So, why was he going there? He has caused these people far more problems than they were looking for. He was giving an interview to Radio 4's World at One when he first made the comments, I know the BBC has an reputation in some circles, but I doubt that Christopher Landau could be accused of being a Muslim lawyer. Later on the same day he gave a lecture to a group of London lawyers that included an expansion of the comment. They were not just Muslim lawyers they were lawyers from many ethnic and religious backgrounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david mcgee Posted February 12, 2008 Author Share Posted February 12, 2008 He was giving an interview to Radio 4's World at One when he first made the comments, I know the BBC has an reputation in some circles, but I doubt that Christopher Landau could be accused of being a Muslim lawyer. Later on the same day he gave a lecture to a group of London lawyers that included an expansion of the comment. They were not just Muslim lawyers they were lawyers from many ethnic and religious backgrounds. You still dont answer the question. Why did he bring it up? Did the Muslim community want this raised? If he was appealing to his audience, why did he not realise that his audience had no wish to raise this issue? What was his agenda? He could have raised any issue in the world affecting his church and bretherine. Why cause conflict where it does not exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheriff Fatman Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Because he is a religious leader and he was going to be talking to lawyers. As a religious leader talking tp lawyers, of course he is going to talk about religious issues effecting and affected by the law. He talked about religious communities using their own arbitration systems in matters only effecting their community when both sides of the matter agree. He was talking about Jewish courts just as much as he was about Muslim ones, but no-one seems to be getting in a tizzy about that. He wasn't appealing to his audience as his audience were lawyers not Muslims. He could of and did raise many other issues concerning his church and the law. The issue was just one of many raised at a lecture. As to your last sentance, you could quite easily say exactly the same about 99% of the things that any person in public life ever comes out with. Most polititians from all parties cause conflicts where none exists, most religions cause conflicts where none exists. Most football commentators cause conflict where none exist. It's the nature of people having an opinion that others don't agree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Sheriff. You're writing all the words that I would have. Storm in a teacup but it goes to show how dangerous the media can be. The AB of C has simply said, "I can see the possibility that at some time in the future, certain laws may adapt to accommodate..." It's no different to someone saying in 1960, "You know what, with all these immigrants to the UK, we'll have to have laws that stop us from using offensive terms to describe people originating from faraway shores." Or, in 1900, someone saying, "At some point in the future, we might see the day when women (bless them) are allowed to vote." But the press have manipulated it to make him look barking and say that he is calling for such a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Refreshing to see there's still reasoned debate on JKB. Personally I've a lot of time for the archbishop..(as most of the anglican community do). He's a clever guy who chose his words very carefully. What he was originally talking about was tolerance and understanding - fairly non-controversial and central to most religions. Even the BBC news last night were banging on about his latest address and "failure to apolgise" whilst at the same time, neglecting to say exactly what he should be apologising for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pants Shaton Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 The definitive take on the issue: http://www.slate.com/id/2184186/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 The definitive take on the issue: http://www.slate.com/id/2184186/ A reasonable argument to make against accommodation of Sharia Law, which I thought was slightly cheapened by the personal insults including: just look at how casually this sheep-faced English cleric throws away the work of centuries I've not read the AB of C's subsequent clarification of his view so can't be certain. However, I'd be surprised if he were to support changes to the law to make legal the more barbaric practices which are allowed within Sharia Law. In order to avoid unnecessary argument here, I have absolutely no wish to see any aspect of Sharia Law accommodated in the UK. It should be one law for all and sensible, democratic laws. I do, however, worry that the press have chosen to select the incendiary fragments from the AB's comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boaby Ewing Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 The 'sheep-faced' bit made me laugh tbh. I think it's a fair comment - it wasn't just a bland pointless insult like 'fat ersed' or 'big nosed' but to point out his docile following of liberal claptrappery to its logical conclusion. The fact that it's physically accurate means it works on both levels. In that respect it's a good insult, and therefore fair game in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 The 'sheep-faced' bit made me laugh tbh. I think it's a fair comment - it wasn't just a bland pointless insult like 'fat ersed' or 'big nosed' but to point out his docile following of liberal claptrappery to its logical conclusion. The fact that it's physically accurate means it works on both levels. In that respect it's a good insult, and therefore fair game in my book. I just thought it strangely out of context. "Sheepish" might have been more appropriate. More importantly... I don't think I've ever seen a sheep with those wild eyebrows going on. Then again, I'm usually looking at their cleavages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 The definitive take on the issue: http://www.slate.com/id/2184186/ Not really the definitive take..just another excuse to talk about extremism and genital mutilation,wife beating and forced marriage - all absolutely nothing to do with what Rowan Williams was talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pants Shaton Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Not really the definitive take..just another excuse to talk about extremism and genital mutilation,wife beating and forced marriage - all absolutely nothing to do with what Rowan Williams was talking about. Don't knock the Hitch, b*tch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Don't knock the Hitch, b*tch! QUOTE] I like the Hitch - b*tch; especially his anti-any-religion stance; therefore it's no revelation he's against genital mutilation.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.