Sharia law in Britain
Rowan Williams’ friends have argued that he didn’t mean to suggest that Sharia law should have equal status, or be an alternative to, British law, or be in any way legally enforceable in Britain: simply that it be recognised as a form of “dispute resolution”, in the way that ACAS and other bodies settle disputes without recourse to the courts. And that Sharia would be limited to financial and marital matters: the favourite comparitor now being used by Dr Williams’ friends, is the ‘Beth Din’ courts used by some orthodox Jews to settle disputes.
This is a false comparison: The Beth Din courts operate within the framework of existing British law; they do not exercise any form of alternative jurisdiction; participation is entirely voluntary and participants retain the right to revert to ‘normal’ British law at any time. it is the distinction between allowing for cultural differentiation within civil society, and allowing different state legal systems to co-exist and be applied to different members of the population. These are quite distinct matters, as Rowan Williams (who, everyone seems to agree, is highly intelligent) surely ought to realise.
Anyway, let’s take Williams’s case at its least objectionable, and accept that he’s proposing a ‘voluntary’ means of ‘dispute resolution’, for financial and marital matters…
I’ll tell you a true story that helped shape my own attitude to these matters…
A couple of years ago, a woman from a Muslim background started doing some unpaid voluntary work in my workplace. She proved herself to be a capable, reliable and resourceful person. I once asked her why she was, apparently, happy to be working for nothing: she replied that it was the only way she could gain some experience and have something to put on her CV. She never discussed her personal circumstances with me, and I never asked.
Then one day, out of the blue, a man burst into our office, uttering very nasty threats, and demanding to see this woman (who -fortunately- wasn’t there at the time): it turned out that this guy was her estranged husband. He threatened colleagues of mine and the police were called. The police said they couldn’t do anything at that stage, but (from what I understand), they were called in again, shortly afterwards, after an incident outside the school where the woman’s kids attended, and the husband was arrested and charged with Threatening Behaviour.
I then recieved a phone call: it was from a local Muslim activist, who is also a relative of this woman. He said -very friendly- “I’m sure we can sort this matter out: just tell us where she is, and we’ll deal with her; the charges will be dropped, and you lot will have no more trouble.”
This guy had been, for many years feted by the left (predominently “Socialist Action”) in the local Labour Party, and is a well-known activist in the cause of Kashmir. By the time of the events I’m describing, he had switched over to Respect, and was accompanying Salma Yaqoob round the ward, in the run-up to her council election success.
I’m proud to say that we told this character where he could get off; the woman is still in hiding; ‘Socialist Action’ and ‘Respect’ still happily associate with this character; the husband was prosecuted (but only because this remarkable woman had the courage to stand her ground and defy her family and ‘community’); I and my colleagues no longer regard ‘Socialist Action’ or either wing of ‘Respect’ as having anything whatsoever to do with socialism (or, indeed, simple human decency), in any conceivable shape or form…
…and that’s why I oppose Sharia law being recognised in Britain under any circumstances.
Rowan Williams is a stupid, dangerous, reactionary idiot.
Will said,
February 9, 2008 at 1:54 am
Great post Jimbo.
Fuck all these maniacs.
Time we got organised against the filth all proper like.
johng said,
February 9, 2008 at 10:54 am
Why not post the actual article written by the Archbishop. I’ve just read it and it has nothing whatsoever to do with any call for a dual legal system, any imposition of sharia law on anybody, or anything like that. Its basically a set of fairly unexceptional reflections on the relationship between religous communities and the state and how equality can be guaranteed between those communities. Its the sort of thing you read in 101 political theory about secularism, religion and the modern state. The controversy is extraordinary and seems to relate to real anger about Runcie undermining stereotypes about Islam as monolithic and the possibility that it might be treated in the same way as other religions in Britain.
JR said,
February 9, 2008 at 11:37 am
Now that the govt is committed to repeal the blasphemy law, The Archb is desperate to get a replacement in place and he’s going to do a deal with the muslims to get it – http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3272730.ece
That’s the agenda behind the sharia talk. Don’t trust this nutter.
johng said,
February 9, 2008 at 11:54 am
Again though, why not discuss the actual article and what was actually said. I would suggest because a number of the points made in the article attempt to treat Islam as just another faith. This causes enourmous outrage amongst some. Its not a secular outrage. Anyone who saw that bloke from some sinister outfit called ‘community cohesion’ on newsnight last night would realise that there is nothing secular about this whole discussion.
JR said,
February 9, 2008 at 12:09 pm
There is enormous outrage most of which is from the speak-your-branes crowd and this plays into beardy’s hands because it makes him look reasonable. The important issue is what he is trying to achieve. Why does one world-domination cult hold out a hand to another? The only reason is to make the world safe for world domination cults. And in this case you don’t have to look far to discover the agenda. Its to get blasphemy law mark 2 on the books: no pics of Mo and no more Jerry Springer musicals.
johng said,
February 9, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Again, why not discuss the actual article and what it actually says. The fact that you have conspiritorial theories which resemble classical anti-semitism about people who happen to be religous notwithstanding.
JR said,
February 9, 2008 at 12:39 pm
No conspiracy theory. Christians and muslims want to convert everyone else to their respective religions. They are open about it. They seek world domination for their religions. Unlike Judaism which is non proselytizing.
The archbishop’s statement was actually content free. He was proposing an arrangement which is already available, which is that parties can agree to abide by third party arbitration in civil matters. The third party could be a sharia court, a beth din or a guy dressed as Ronald McDonald.
modernityblog said,
February 9, 2008 at 12:44 pm
JohnG,
why do you try to bring “classical antisemitism” into this debate which implies that your interlocutors are arguing in bad faith?
if other people were to do the same to you, you’d be screaming “Zionist propaganda, neo-con lies…” etc or some such like, in a tick
and as you and your organisation have such a poor record with contemporary antisemitism (that’s emanating from the Middle East), I hope that you’d show a bit more contrition
btw, how is Hasan Nasrallah? you been listening to his speeches recently?
Jules said,
February 9, 2008 at 12:44 pm
JR,
Claim: “Christians and muslims want to convert everyone else to their respective religions.”
Status: False.
*Some* christians and *some* muslims want to convert *some* people to their respective religions.
Will said,
February 9, 2008 at 12:46 pm
John G is an islamo-fascist.
johng said,
February 9, 2008 at 12:53 pm
My point is that interlocuters ARE arguing in bad faith. Either they have not read the article or on the other hand they’re arguing from a position of religious bigotry. The point about anti-semitism is a serious one. The form taken by anti-semitism in the later part of the 19th century involved identifying a particular religous community as subscribing to dual loyalties and therefore undermining the existence of the national state. This is identical to the hysterical reaction which greeted this unexceptional discussion and should be treated as a canary in a mine. Its terrifying and I have genuinely little comprehension of how people who call themselves socialists cannot see it. It does help me to understand how even civilised liberals could have colluded in anti-semitism during that period though, as today we see apologetics for Islamophobia, and worse, hysterical attacks on anyone who identifies it as a problem (one could hear Paxman sighing in the background, because anyone dared to object to the hysterical ranting about British values, Christian country, values of the enlightenment, which came pouring out of the mouth of a supposed ‘liberal’, who was given utterly free rein, whilst everyone else was treated as suspicious and smelly.
Its interesting that on this site no one seems to have noticed that in the text the archbishop begins by noting the anomolous privilages of the Anglican Church in relationship to the British State. Something of a step foward really.
voltaires_priest said,
February 9, 2008 at 12:58 pm
John; it would be a good start if you could remember who exactly is the Archbishop of Canterbury. Robert Runcie retired before I got my GCSEs.
JR said,
February 9, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Jules – Xtians and muslims would like everyone else to be xtians or muslims = Not false.
Johng – the issue is about separating religion from state so that it is something people have the choice to get involved with or not. I think that beardy is just trying to muddy the waters because he sees the writing on the wall for his own monopoly.
Got it?
Will said,
February 9, 2008 at 1:12 pm
John G has converted.
John G is an islamo-fascist.
modernityblog said,
February 9, 2008 at 1:17 pm
JohnG,
if you TRULY are concerned with antisemitism, which I doubt as it seems to be merely a convenient word for unprincipled scallywag’s such as yourself to throw around
but if you were, then why not look in at this thread and take up the issues of THE major racist in the thread, you can spot him can’t you?
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1690
“52. andy’s article is just another piece of covert (and not very covert, at that) zionist propaganda, and part of a concerted effort to drive everyone but covert zionists out of the Palestine campaign, which is feeble enough already. He should be thrown out of Respect Renewal (correct me if I’m wrong that he’s in RR); not that it matters anyway since that organisation has absolutely no future, being a coalition of the muslim communalists with the league of jewish supremacists who post here.
What’s all this about holocaust denial? Why would anyone need to deny the holocaust? At the moment it is illegal in many countries, and effectively so in the US and UK, to evaluate, assess, criticise the ‘evidence’ for the holocaust; evidence, by definition, is something that can be evaluated, assessed, criticised, so it is correct to say that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE for the holocaust. It would be reasonable to assume that an awful lot of jews died under the nazi regime, but there is no reason to believe anything further.
Why does Andy keep asking (loosely) ” what is the point of your questioning the holocaust? “?. Obviously, he’s trying to imply that anyone questioning the holocaust is trying to rehabilitate Hitler, and is therefore a nazi, and shouldn’t be allowed a platform. Pathetic! The holocaust is the lynchpin of the propaganda of ‘unique Jewish suffering’; that’s why they are so keen to keep it unassailable, but this just has the opposite effect – I don’t deny the holocaust, I just see no reason to believe it. Until the holocaust can be treated like any other happening in history, no-one should believe it – and if at some point, the restrictions are removed, the case is argued openly without fear of prosecution, and the holocaust is proven reasonably, then we will have to look back on the current situation as the worst dishonour heaped on the nazis victims by the zionists.
Get the zionists out of the left and out of the Palestine solidarity movement!
Comment by Jock McTrousers — 9 February, 2008 @ 2:03 am”
give it ago, it would make a nice change for you
Will said,
February 9, 2008 at 1:24 pm
John Game spouts islamo-facist propaganda.
johng said,
February 9, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I am truely concerned with anti-semitism and I have no need to write on SUN to prove it. But my concern with anti-semitism includes a concern with the historical lessons of a particular type of bigotry and its relationship to the rise of the modern state system. Given such a concern its no surprise that I am concerned with a contemporary manifestation that currently dominates discussion of race relations in Britain today. This doesn’t however neccessarily mean that I’ll always be able to tell the difference between Rowan and Runcie.
The archbishops discussion makes quite clear that he is concerned to allow people to get involved in religion if they want to but not be involved in religion if they don’t. So in terms of what he wrote R’s points are, again, completely irrelevent.
modernityblog said,
February 9, 2008 at 1:45 pm
JohnG wrote:
I am truely concerned with anti-semitism and I have no need to write on SUN to prove it.
what a complete load of old bollocks
evidentially, you have argued that Hassan Nasrallah’s call to kill all the Jews was not antisemitic
you have argued on a number of occasions that his inflammatory speeches were merely anti-judaic (see yout own comment at Lenin’s Tomb, you’ll probably want to forget them)
so when a racist appears on SU blog, you can’t be bothered to argue? why’s that?
why? because you can’t tell the difference between anti-Zionism and antisemitism
you can’t recognise the signs, because you have demonstrated such a profound ignorance of this topic
and then, with your customary upper middle-class arrogance, you proceed to lecture people on the topic which you
1) know very little of
2) have conspicuously provided excuses for anti-Jewish racist rantings
so please don’t lecture people on antisemitism, it stinks to high heaven
Will said,
February 9, 2008 at 1:47 pm
John Game is a petty bourgeois dilettante who spouts antisemitic shit constantly – he is also an islamo-facist apologist. A maniac in other words.
Get back to the uni library you filth.
johng said,
February 9, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Will,
If I had converted to Islam would that mean as a British citizen I had no right to talk about the relationship between religious and civil law in England (or perhaps less right then someone from another religion or none). Is that what your implying?
Modernity has gone back to repeating his own allegations and pretending they’re things I’ve said (viz: I distinguished between ‘terrible ethnic hatreds generated by ethnic conflict’, and European anti-semitism in a discussion two years ago, he said ‘are you saying this is anti-judaic rather then anti-semitic?’ I stated not really but there is such a thing as religious anti-Jew hatred which I would distinguish from Modern Anti-semitism (which has more to do with conspiracy theories of the more familiar modern kind).
What exactly this has to do with a discussion about why when the head of the Anglican Church suggests that all religions should be treated equally in Modern Britain, there is an outpouring of hysteria unrelated to anything he actually said, is quite beyond me.
Will said,
February 9, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Dirty little antisemite John Game comes on here to give of himself like a middle-class piece of vermin talking down his snooty snout to his underlings and shit.
Tosser!
Will said,
February 9, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Woman only
http://www.islamic-sharia.org/general/permissibility-for-women-to-study-medicine-2.html
Will said,
February 9, 2008 at 2:08 pm
ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY LOSES MIND
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/archbishop-of-canterbury-loses-mind-20080208713/
modernityblog said,
February 9, 2008 at 2:12 pm
JohnG,
It is beyond you?
Here’s why, because you constantly accuse your interlocutors of bad faith and yet you have over time demonstrated amply that you are the embodiment of bad faith.
Some examples
1. decidedly dodgy comments about Nasrallah, and yet you will never admit his antisemitic rhetoric:
“Just saw Nasrallah on Al Jazeera addressing HUGE crowds in Beirut.
…
But seriously impressive.
(outrage from the usual crowd).
johng | 12.07.06 – 7:50 pm | # ”
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/levi9909/116518082829472281/
2. Hamas’s representative in London, the racist Dr. Tamimi be lionised by the SWP and found on speaking platform with leading members of the SWP (your Party), see http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1663.htm (it is in English, so his meaning cannot be denied)
and the racist Gilad Atzmon performing at the SWP’s flagship events: Marxism 2005, 2006 and 2007
so there is NO commitment to opposing anti Jewish racism when it comes from non traditional sources, that’s what the evidence shows
JohnG, cut the hypocrisy and the bad faith, then people might treat you as you would like to be treated.
Will said,
February 9, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Pointless engaging with the antisemite John Game.
Tell him to fuck off and be done with it.
John Game — what a fucking tosser!
modernityblog said,
February 9, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Will,
please do me a favour, don’t tell ME what to do, OK??
Will said,
February 9, 2008 at 2:20 pm
You’re another tosser.
I wasn’t *telling* you what to do — you moralising fucking twat.
modernityblog said,
February 9, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Will,
listen up:
you can threaten people on your own blog
you can delete their comments
you can rant like Father Jack on acid
but you’re wasting your time if you think that aggressive behaviour makes people want to listen to you
PS: see if you can write more than three sentences where you don’t swear or act like a complete loon? go on, have a go
Will said,
February 9, 2008 at 2:27 pm
You like licking the arse of HP Sauce vermin.
Get back to that pit of shit you fucking prick.
You and Gameboy deserve each other’s company.
What a pair of knackers.
Tossers!
voltaires_priest said,
February 9, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Still the very picture of sanity, I see…
modernityblog said,
February 9, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Will,
What exactly is your problem?
You insult, you threaten people, you rant and rave
Then you expect people to be nice to you?
What fecking planet are you on?
If you are interested in politics then please spare us your teenage tantrums, argue politics and keep your tempestuous stupidity to yourself
Jim Denham said,
February 9, 2008 at 3:03 pm
John G: I did, in fact provide a link to a complete transcription of Williams’ “World at One” interview, in the text of my previous psot on this issue (”the Archbishop is a disgrace and must go!”): at that point he had not made his Royal Courts of Justice speech. I’ll happily provide a link to the full speech, when I can find one. But all serious commentators seem to be agreed that Williams’ language is obscure, ambigious and “as luxuriant as his beard”. What is beyond doubt is that Williams’ special pleading for religion *in general* has given heart to clerical fascists whose (happily, unrealisable) aim is to impose full-blown Sharia law in the UK, and to the BNP who seek to portary Muslims as an undifferentiated mass demanding special privileges (happlly, it would seem that most UK Muslims reject Williams’ nonsense, thus taking the wind out of the BNP’s sails).
But don’t take the word of an Islamophobe like me, John: read what Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has to say in today’s ‘Independent’:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhai-brown-what-he-wishes-on-us-is-an-abomination-780186.html
Shuggy said,
February 9, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Its basically a set of fairly unexceptional reflections on the relationship between religous communities and the state and how equality can be guaranteed between those communities.
The controversy is extraordinary and seems to relate to real anger about Runcie undermining stereotypes about Islam as monolithic and the possibility that it might be treated in the same way as other religions in Britain.
JohnG – Runcie? Showing your age there. You’re wrong. It isn’t, or shouldn’t be, the proper role of the state to ensure equality between groups but rather individuals. I read the article (it was actually a speech) too. It followed the typical Williams pattern, which is to obfuscate essentially reactionary ideas in academic and psuedo-liberal language. (He probably is quite clever because it usually has the desired effect – responses where journalists go on about how reasonable and liberal he is.) And I don’t think there can be any doubt that strengthening the rights of ‘communities’ whether religious or not would be done at the expense of actually existing liberty.
It is, btw, pointless harping on about how everyone should engage with what he said in the article (i.e. speech) since it was so long and dense, it isn’t very accessible. If what he said on the Radio 4 programme isn’t a fair reflection of what he meant, this is rather his problem, don’t you think? But it is a fair summary of what he was getting at. Deliberate obfuscation-boy’s been caught out this time.
johng said,
February 9, 2008 at 3:09 pm
A Palestinian saying a) that Hamas was a shock to Israel and the US because they thought they’d domesticated the PLO and b) saying I will never recognise the state that dispossessed my family and don’t give a damn about the people who did, is not anti-semitic. Nothing in that film is anti-semitic. His is not a position I agree with but to label these statements as ‘anti-semitic’ is effectively to label the sentiments of most palestinians as anti-semitic, and this I will not do.
Yes I did say that Nasrallah was hugely impressive in that particular appearence and thats because he was. This is after all a movement which came to have the support of the majority of the Lebanese people at that time. Was this because most of the Lebanese people were anti-semites do you think?
These are simply attempts to move discussion away from any constructive engagement which might lead to peace. Both Hezbollah and Hamas will be a central part of any peace in the region. The alternative is endless war.
Now, is it possible to get back to what the archbishop actually said?
Jim Denham said,
February 9, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Here you are, John: this, as far as I can make out, contains a transcript of Williams’ speech (*not* “article”, as you seem to think). I’m sure a great respector of religious leaders and faith like you will appreciate the wise words of this holy and ecumenical man:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575
johng said,
February 9, 2008 at 3:14 pm
The text is very interesting Shuggy and repays reading. In the first place it emphasises the anomolies of the British state in relationship to the Anglican Church, which is certainly not without interest. It also deals in detail with certain legal matters that have arisen. Finally you say that the state must deal with individuals rather then groups. Where does this leave those groups who suffer persecution or racism? Should there be no legislation related to these realities? The text can be downloaded. People here are grownups. Given the extent of controversy I’m surprised that no one can be bothered to discuss any substantive point preferring the hysterical lies of the tabloid press.
johng said,
February 9, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Sadly it appears he’s backing down in the face of a torrent of thinly disguised bigotry, probably a lot of it from his own congregation. Thats the problem with Archbishops. No moral guts.
Jim Denham said,
February 9, 2008 at 3:21 pm
No John: we simply recognise a reactionary, religious shyster who gives aid and comfort to clerical fascists, when we see one. Read Yasmin Alibhai-Brown’s article (link above, in my last comment).
I suppose you’d want us to read every Tory or BNP pronouncement in full, contextualised detail, before expressing an opinion?
Shuggy said,
February 9, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Another thing…
Its interesting that on this site no one seems to have noticed that in the text the archbishop begins by noting the anomolous privilages of the Anglican Church in relationship to the British State. Something of a step foward really.
Why should anyone take note of this? He has never advocated dismantling them. I once saw him in discussion arguing that it was the role of the established church to put ‘moral pressure on civil society’. One extraordinary thing he said was that in the absence of this ‘moral pressure’ civil war might ensue but the point was, he clearly didn’t see the established church as part of civil society. Now – and this was what his crapola about free speech was about too – he’s really trying to justify the church’s privileges by arguing that these should be extended to others. Other groups instead of individuals and religious groups at the expense of secular ones. If this isn’t reactionary, I don’t know what it.
On the ‘hysterical reaction’ the only thing I could agree with you about is it does seem strange that people think this is actually going to happen. In every other respect, you’re talking shite. Your reference to Runcie reveals your age. Are you seriously trying to tell me you don’t recall the hoo-hah when, for example, the Bishop of Durham expressed his skepticism about the resurrection? At least as many column inches, if memory serves. Absolutely unexceptional in a theological seminary, I’d agree – but the point is – and this is something you haven’t taken account of – I think quite a lot of people who aren’t necessarily Christians themselves still like the clerics of the C of E to come out with stuff that’s orthodox. This has precisely SFA to do with ‘canaries down coalmines.’
Jim Denham said,
February 9, 2008 at 3:29 pm
“Sadly it appears he’s backing down”.
Bloody hell, John! It’s come to something when a supposed “Marxist” (you do still consider yourself a “Marxist”, rather than a true post-modern relativist, do you John?) criticises an Archbishop for not being religious enough!
Such is the degeneration of the SWP academics: La Trahison des Clercs.
Shuggy said,
February 9, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Should there be no legislation related to these realities?
Yes but the analogy doesn’t hold. You receive these as individuals and they are universal. I am covered by the same legislation that also protects individuals from groups that have had a history of persecution.
voltairespriest said,
February 9, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Jim. I’m going down the local, should be there by about four. Come for a pint and stop posting for a bit.
johng said,
February 9, 2008 at 3:47 pm
No Jim. Not for not being religious enough. For backing down over an argument which identified a number of genuine problems in existing relationships between civil and religious law in England on the basis of a hysterical campaign of chauvinism both within his church and in society at large.
The divide on this was correctly identified by a French Socialist. For some what is involved here is a continuation of the bourgoise revolution and the struggle for Enlightenment. On this reading any ‘concession’ to Muslims, Jews or Catholics is a step backward from the struggle against Feudalism.
The difficulty faced by such people is that they fail to distinguish between dominant religions which have close ties with the State and indeed, as in Britain, with ruling class conceptions of national identity, and religious minorities, thinking it is ‘fair’ to treat all as equal, or worse, to stigmatise religious minorities as, almost by definition, you will often find that religious belief and identity is more important to them (after all there is a greater social cost involved in mantaining that identity).
Marx’s writing ‘On the Jewish Question’ and his polemic against Baur who opposed Jewish emancipation on the basis that they ought to give up their prejudices reveals that Marx certainly understood the difference. Sadly some Socialists do not.
On Shuggy’s point I’m afraid I just disagree. I oppose injustice and part of me opposing injustice is a recognition of the limited nature of what Marx called political emancipation as opposed to social emancipation. That limited nature of political emancipation is captured, as Marx understood it, precisely in the doctrine which refuses to recognise the reality of social and group identities (in his polemic against radical liberals who opposed Jewish emancipation on much the same basis that many liberals are today hostile to any notion of ‘group’ as opposed to ‘individual’).
The really great thing about Marx’s pamphlet is when he suggests a structural connection between the way bourgoise law denies the realities of exploitation and the way it obfuscates the oppression of religious minorities. These are real questions and cannot simply be dismissed, even if the person writing about this question today happens to be an Archbishop, inconstant in his defence of justice when confronted by a baying mob of reactionaries horrified by the idea of his sacrificing the special privilages of the Anglican Church in law.
johng said,
February 9, 2008 at 4:31 pm
That horror of course concealing a deeper horror at the thought of migrant communities being seen as equal in every possible way to indiginous ones. The very idea of this being a threat to ‘our way of life’.
Jim Denham said,
February 9, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Bollocks, John! Revulsion against religious laws of any kind is healthy and progressive – not reactionary in any way and certainly not racist. . There can be no srious doubt about where that militant atheist and secularist Marx would have stood on this issue, and if you don’t understand that then wahtever else you are, you ain’t no Marxist, John.
In addition, tyhere’s no evidence that any but the most backward elements amongst British muslims want any form of Sahaia law – and certainly most Muslim women don’t, given Sharia’s misogyny. Once again, John read what Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has to say (link provided in my last-but-one comment).
Anyone who claims to be any sort of socialist (let alone a revolutionary) who defends Williams, has completely lost their bearings.
Mind you, the SWP has, of course, denounced secular and socialist people mfrom Muslim bckgrounds as, in effect, being “bad Muslims” and sided with fundamentalist thugs against them. So no surprise that the likes of John G wants to impose Sharia law on UK Muslims.
johnnyrook said,
February 9, 2008 at 7:42 pm
The bolsheviks adopted parts of sharia law into the law in some parts of Russia to allow the freedom of religious and ethnic minorites to practice their religion.
johng said,
February 9, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Jim as you have’nt read the article, unsurprisingly none of your comments bear the slightest resemblence to anything in it. Obviously not having read Marx on the subject either it becomes unclear how you ground anything you say on the subject either of the argument or of what Marx would have had to say about it. If no rational discussion of what was actually said can take place I have to say the benifits of secularism as an ideology begin to dim.
At the simplest level the discussion was about issues connected to Johnny Rooks point. Religous institutions like any club are treated in law as private associations. As with other private associations occassionally the law becomes involved. This would particularly be the case with marriage for instance. At present if you are married in a mosque this is not recognised as a marriage by the British state. If you are married in a christian church or in a synagogue it is. I’m unclear what the position is with a temple. This is an anomoly legally and is connected on the one hand to the privelaged position of christianity in our society and on the other hand a longer history of (belated) accomadation to another religious tradition. Given that marriages in mosques are covered by Sharia recognition of a marriage in a Mosque would require accomadaton with Sharia in the same way that recognition of marriage in a synagogue requires recognition of Jewish law (just technically it does).
Typically this eventually means that the state regulates what aspects of religious laws it recognises and which it won’t and which, on the other hand, it refuses to allow.
Marriage is just the simplest example and that these examples multiply is well known in all discussions of secularism and the relationship of secularism to the existence of religous institutions that I am familiar with (as it happens I have to be familiar with the literature on secularism as some of the most detailed discussions of the relationship of secularism to religion have taken place in relation to the Indian subcontinent were issues connected to ‘personal law’ etc are a legacy of Scottish lawyers in the early 19th century responsible for drawing up Muslim and Hindu personal laws, many of which were to become institutionalised in the post-independence states. They did this because they were building a state responsible for the rule of law and the state is called upon to regulate disputes within both private and public institutions. So when it came to Hindu Temples there might be disputes about who such Temples had the right to bar entry to and who not for instance, there would also be regulation of customs associated with wedding (dowry payments etc over which disputes occured and which was later made illegal in post-independence Indi although the practice continued).
Typically seperation of Church and State does not mean what it says on the Tin. The state demands the right to regulate religous practices (to ensure for example that they are in line with other laws). The expansion of State interest in and regulation of religous practices is charecteristic of secular states in the 20th century.
Now if you want to you can argue that the state should recognise no marriages conducted in any religious institution and make registry marriages compulsory. Whilst such a move would undoubtably be secular, it is not to me a definition of secularism (anymore then attempts to outlaw the wearing of religous symbols in public institutions is a definition of secularism). To equate even discussion of these matters with an attempt to ‘impose’ sharia is racist bigotry pure and simple. But as you refuse to read the article or relate anything you say to it, you are in no position to rationally discuss it. As stated the combination of avowed secularism and extreme irrationalism is disturbing.
I’m unsure the proportion of Muslim men and women who get married in a mosque but I’m sure its quite high. And I’m sure many (including most women) would prefer it if the state recognised their marriage (which of course would include certain legal protections particularly for women) without having to go for a seperate licence.
Discussions about these things is precisely how religions become secularised. There is something very strange about a body of existing opinion which demands that Muslims reforms and then argues that it should not and that indeed this is impossible.
modernityblog said,
February 9, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Having listened to the radio programme clip, I notice that Rowan Williams is testing the water here, he is very careful not to argue DIRECTLY for Sharia Law, his technique is the sly approach.
He says “An approach to law which simply said – there’s one law for everybody – I think that’s a bit of a danger”
I think that one law, universally applied to all is what socialists have for years argued, not for the segmentation of society.
Williams’ tactic is to build up a united front of religious communities against what he sees as a threat: encroaching secularism, he’s putting a marker out.
Given the Anglicans privileged position in British society, instead of paralleling it there is a simpler method: the complete disestablishment of Church and State.
So religious bodies would be self supporting without Government handouts or concessions, and where all marriages, if so required, would consist of two ceremonies, one religious and one civil.
That way they would be total equality in the eyes of the law, the Anglicans would not be so privileged and there would be no requirement for others to get on the gravy train of the religious establishment.
That’s a fairly basic socialist and secular approach to the matter, although I think that the religious left (incorporating the SWP) will find that hard to swallow, given their previous support for blasphemy laws.
resistor said,
February 10, 2008 at 1:41 am
I believe Sikhs have the right not to wear motorcycle helmets – a right denied to non-Sikhs in the UK. A wonderful example of the law accommodating diverse religious sensibilities.
Interesting (i.e. revealing) stuff from Denham’s ‘Cult of Sean Matgamna’s Personality’ site where the writer turns himself inside out trying to claim that Bolshevik tolerance of Sharia Law was OK then, but out of the question for us today. Apparently Muslims are less progressive in today’s UK than they were in the Central Asia of 1921. Hmmmm.
http://www.workersliberty.org/node/1805
johng said,
February 10, 2008 at 10:30 am
Modernity
One feature of discussions of secularism comment on the ways in which the seperation of church and state does not do what is on the tin. Far from seperating religous affairs from those of the state, typically the state becomes more and more involved in regulating and arbitrating disputes within religious institutions. This goes togeather with the far greater reach of the state in the affairs of society which emerge ironically, at the same time as ideas of the seperation of state and society reach their apogee. Typically this is how religions become secularised in secular societies. Thus when the state recognises christian marriage it also introduces new standards in the regulation of such marriages despite the formal effect being the recognition of church law. In many ways this is all Williams was saying about how ‘recognition of Sharia is inevitable’.
Inevitable that is if marriages in Mosques are to be recognised, and inevitable if we are to treat Islam in the same way we treat christianity. Ironically one might conclude, inevitable if Islam is to become a secularised religion in England. The demand on the one hand for Islamic reform and on the other the exclusion of Islam from English law are a kind of double bind which once charecterised anti-semitism (the Jewish faith now thankfully not stigmatised in this way). The concern about any challenge to the notion that individuals rather then communities as the locus of rights has its place, but in this case conceals a chauvinist discourse about national identity which is not concerned with anyones individual rights. The levels of abusive commentry are sufficiant testimony to that fact. However at a deeper philosophical level it is very unclear whether ignoring social and religious identities in the favour of ‘individual rights’ does in fact protect individuals.
Too often people become trapped between authoritarian communities and on the other hand legal regulations so impersonal and removed from their actual lives that they become useless. The slyness of William’s piece is in fact the slyness of state secularism penetrating religious communities (secularisation as opposed to secularism usually being something done on the sly). Whilst nothing that Williams says resolves any of these difficulties it is standard modernising fare (if perhaps rather more open then some are comfortable with). This is how modernisation actually happens, behind peoples backs as it were.
But what is striking is the way firstly, a completely ideological as opposed to an historically and sociologically informed concept of secularism dominates these debates even amongst some who imagine themselves to be on the left, and on the other hand, more normatively, the way in which ‘national identity’ and ‘the rule of law’ are treated entirely uncritically by the same.
Incidently I’m absolutely opposed to the notion that people should not be allowed to decide what kind of marriage they want or that it should be compulsory to get married in a state institution for that marriage to be recognised. I do not equate state authoritarianism with human emancipation. Unfortunately such a tradition casts a long shadow even over those who imagine themselves to be libertarian socialists. State authoritarianism is the dirty secret of liberalism in capitalist societies. As a socialist I oppose such authoritarianism.
Hari said,
February 10, 2008 at 10:58 am
Sharia reconised forced marriages to be ruled illegal?
Mark Townsend The Observer, Sunday February 10 2008 Article history · Contact us Contact usClose Report errors or inaccuracies: reader@observer.co.uk Letters for publication should be sent to: letters@guardian.co.uk If you need help using the site: userhelp@guardian.co.uk Call the main Guardian and Observer switchboard:
+44 (0)20 7278 2332
Advertising guide License/buy our content About this articleClose This article appeared in the Observer on Sunday February 10 2008 on p1 of the News section. It was last updated at 09:35 on February 10 2008. Three senior judges are to rule on the legality of an arranged marriage conducted in the UK under sharia law, a judgment that could have profound consequences for British Muslims.
Last week, as Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, declared it was ‘inevitable’ that certain parts of Islamic law would be introduced into Britain, the Court of Appeal was told how a 26-year-old British Muslim with learning difficulties was married over the telephone to a woman in Bangladesh. It was arranged by the man’s father and deemed lawful under sharia law.
Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Hall and Lady Justice Hallett were asked by the man’s family to reject an earlier decision that, because the groom was unable to give his consent, the marriage was unlawful. Mr Justice Wood said that the true test into the validity of the marriage was ‘whether the marriage is so offensive to the conscience of the English court that it should refuse to recognise and give effect to the proper foreign law’.
The judge added that the long-standing British policy to recognise sharia marriages conducted abroad should be offset by the understanding that ‘there are occasions when such a marriage cannot be recognised in England, for example where to do so would be repugnant to public policy’.
The case was brought by Westminster city council community services department after the local authority raised concerns about a marriage in which the groom could not possibly have given consent because of his learning disabilities.
The marriage took place in September 2006. Although the bridegroom stayed in London and listened to the ceremony by speakerphone, the ceremony took place in Bangladesh and was declared valid under sharia law.
Yogi Amin of the law firm Irwin Mitchell, representing Westminster council, said: ‘This case highlights that the law in this country may clash with sharia law and the cultural wishes of the family.’ He added: ‘The High Court held that the marriage in this case … is not valid under English law, and that any marriage entered into by this vulnerable adult whether inside or outside England will not be recognised under English law.’
Legal experts said the case would have ramifications for plans to make forced marriages – often arranged marriages involving youngsters – prohibited in the UK under case law.
Yesterday the archbishop hit back amid calls for his resignation. A statement on his website said he made no proposals for sharia and ‘did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law’. Sources close to the archbishop said he had been surprised at what he believes is the ‘irrational’ reaction to his speech.
Already two members of the General Synod, the church’s parliament, have called for Williams to resign amid criticism from leading bishops, secular groups and government figures. Today, writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Lord George Carey, Williams’s predecessor, has accused him of ‘overstating the case for accommodating Islamic legal codes’, adding that ‘acceptance of some Muslim laws would be disastrous for the nation’.
Head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, echoed these sentiments and added: ‘I don’t believe in a multicultural society. When people come into this country they have to obey the laws of the land.’
But Lord Carey also defended the archbishop as a great Anglican leader, saying ‘this is not a matter upon which Dr Williams should resign’.
johng said,
February 10, 2008 at 11:42 am
If you actually read Williams piece there is a long discussion of this particular case in it. His piece is in fact all about how such clashes need to be regulated to prevent such abuses. Although you’d never know it.
modernity said,
February 10, 2008 at 1:17 pm
JohnG wrote:
“However at a deeper philosophical level it is very unclear whether ignoring social and religious identities in the favour of ‘individual rights’ does in fact protect individuals.”
of course, it is unclear to YOU, but that is true of so many issues, the question is not so much ignoring them, but not privileging them above others
if individuals wish to indulge some religious practice, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else and they keep to themselves then I have no objections, but I do object when those religious attitudes are forced upon other people (American fundamentalist Christians) or take up a political programme (again Fundi Christians)
however, if you subscribe to the communatarian view of society, which Williams does, the naturally you will try to privilege these groupings above others, and that’s part of the conflict
“As a socialist I oppose such authoritarianism.”
beating your chest and proclaiming that you’re a socialist, may make you feel good when you’re in the company of fellow SWPers, but the SWP can be extremely authoritarian when it wishes, as indicated by the control of the StWC and the Respects split, so such a statement would seem more sincere if you’re more honest about other issues
“such clashes need to be regulated “
but by whom?
self selecting leaders?
who regulates the regulators?
Little John said,
February 10, 2008 at 1:45 pm
As a socialist I believe in a free market for religious group to compete for social spheres over which they will excersise authority.
johng said,
February 10, 2008 at 2:54 pm
After the sentance I go on to explain why it is unclear. Typically people find themselves trapped between authoritarian communities on the one hand and formal rights so far removed from their actual situation that they are useless.
I would go on to say that the link between this and socialists other critiques of liberal individualism is that both problems are the product of societies in which there is formal political equality but gross social inequality.
I am not a communitarian. I’m a socialist.
modernity said,
February 10, 2008 at 3:07 pm
JohnG wrote:
Typically people find themselves trapped between authoritarian communities on the one hand and formal rights so far removed from their actual situation that they are useless.
a rather typical Manichaean view of things
returning to Williams’ points, he is essentially empowering religious “communities” take on a more authoritarian role, staking out their space in secular society
that’s his point and why socialists should oppose it
equally, socialists should not be under any illusion as to the coercive powers in these communities or how adopting communalism, partly or in whole, allows that to continue and does not provide any apostates from these communities with support, which is why it is so important to build up secular support organisations outside of the sphere of the State that can help individuals
again, it’s not an or all nothing situation in modern society, although that might appear so to those with a rather limited and caricatured would view of the world
Jim Denham said,
February 10, 2008 at 5:37 pm
So let’s get this straight: John G (an SWP member!) thinks that increasing the hold of religious courts and religious culture in societies is *progressive”; he supports the Archbishop of Canterbury’s drive for religious considerations to override equality before the law; he justifies this in the name of “Marxism”, in the face of the miltant atheist and secularist Marx’s innumerable writings denouncing religion and the influence of the Church, on the basis of one single, early article “On The Jewish Question”, which contains some passages that contradict everything else Marx wrote on religion: these are the passages that John G chooses to seize upon in his desperate and nonsensical attempt to suggest that Marx supported religion. Btw, this same artice (’On The Jewish Question’) also contains the suggestion that if Jews could be relieved “of their present life of huckstering.. Judaism will quickly fade away”: do you like that part of your favourite Marx article, John?
Marx’s true, mature position on religion is in Capital (Ch1, last sect.): Marx repeated his conviction that religious delusions have no function “but to throw a veil over the irrationalities of the system of production, and will come to an end when men enter into rational relations with with one another and cure te social whole of its distempers.”
I think that’s pretty clear, John. And leaves no room for your sort of “left wing” pro-religion wriggling and apologetics.
Btw: is the SWP’s position to support Williams against his secular critics? Just as they supported muslim fundamentalists against left-wingers from Muslim backgrounds, and denounced the left-wingers as (in effect) ‘bad Muslims’?
Little John said,
February 10, 2008 at 6:01 pm
“political equality but gross social inequality.”
My solution as a socialist, not a communitarian,is to itnroduce women to religious law rather than the totalitarian law which oppresses them.
resistor said,
February 11, 2008 at 11:59 pm
I think you’ll find that Jim Denham is a stupid, dangerous, reactionary idiot.
Sue R said,
February 12, 2008 at 10:50 am
Johng is a real indictment of the State education system. To think the man is doing a Phd!! He’s read a lot of books, and acquired a lot of information but he hasn’t understood anything or digested anything. He can’t even do basic research: The name of the present Archbishop of Canterbury is Rowan Williams, not Rowan and not Runcie. Only Cof E vicars are empowered to sign the marriage register, any other religion the celebrants have to visit the local resistry office. That means Catholics,Jews, Pentacostals, Sikhs, Muslims, everyone. The CofE has a licence to perform legally recognised weddings because it is the ’state’ church. Does Mr G want all denominations and religions to have the right to perform validwedding ceremonies? Then say so. Don’t wring your hands and claim Muslims are discriminated against because they are treated exactly the same as everyone else.
modernityblog said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:32 pm
JohnG is not concerned to debate this matter.
He is uninterested in other people’s points, he’s already decided what he thinks and won’t consider other logical arguments, this is apparent from his dialogue on the SU blog
“60. RedFlintstone,
I’m sorry but I stopped reading half way through when it became clear that you were simply repeating tabloid nonsense about ‘introducing Sharia law’.
I take it you will be campaigning to revoke laws recognising marriages as these are part of the hierarchy of patriarchy?
In general I prefer to win arguments to persuade people about their social practices rather then force them, but, to be sure, give it a go.
Comment by johng — 12 February, 2008 @ 12:54 pm”
Red Flinstone may be uncontentious point that:
“When Williams described the introduction of Sharia law in the UK as inevitable, he set in motion an Islamophobic tsunami. Socialists need to rescue the victims of this reactionary tidal wave, for which they do not bear any responsibility. However, when Andy Newman, Salma Yaqoob, johng and others try to absolve the subterranean earthquake that set this tidal wave in motion, when they present this as in any sense positive, they do nothing to help. On the contrary, they make matters infinitely worse. By insisting that the introduction of Sharia law was “inevitable“, Williams incited all those opposed to this (and that has to include socialists, by the way) to take up the cudgels to stop this. It goes without saying that secularists want to stop this in a different way to the BNP, That will, of course, do nothing to blur the distinction between secularists and Islamophobes. All reactionaries will exploit Williams’ nonsense. They will do so by demanding the institutionalisation of the rights of Christianity. Secularists of an atheist persuasion have to make common cause with Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews and all other non-Christian believers to stop this, and we can win practising Christians to this cause. All non-Christians have an incentive to stop this. And it can be stopped. But only if socialists don’t jump into bed with Williams and call for religious apartheid in the courts, as well as in our schools.
Another thing socialists have to insist upon is that Sharia law is not only wrong in principle for British Muslims. It is equally wrong for Muslims in Palestine, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and everywhere else. When “socialists” attempt to defend Sharia law on the basis of fighting Islamophobia, they need to address the specific legislation in these countries. And they would need to stop defending human rights for atheists in non-Muslim countries, if they are to be consistent. A far better way to regain consistency would of course be advocate universal support for secularism, at home and abroad.
Comment by Red Flintstone — 12 February, 2008 @ 12:42 pm “
modernityblog said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:32 pm
here’s the link http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1704
johng said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Actually modernity what I said was the opposite of manchianism. I think a third alternative is neccessary. When will you guys ever respond to any actual argument put foward by someone you disagree with, as opposed to simply inventing imaginary ones?
johng said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Oh and modernity seeing as Williams did not advocate the introduction of Sharia law into the UK, its rather hard to see how you can treat Flintstones post as ‘uncontentious’. Its irrelevent nonsense from start to finish.
modernityblog said,
February 12, 2008 at 2:08 pm
JohnG,
no, in fact you were just momentarily honest, you probably don’t read half of the arguments which are posted here.
you’ve already made your mind up.
so no matter what points we make concerning communalism and its dangers, you are unconcerned.
Jim Denham said,
February 12, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Here’s what another SWP’er, Keith Flett says in a letter published in today’s ‘Morning Star’:
“As a lifelong atheist, I don’t support any religious laws, but I do hope that those who are complaining about the Archbishop of Canterbury’s comments on sharia law are also calling for the disestablishment of the Church of England”
Yes indeed, Comrade. That’s precisely what this blog and plenty of other critics of Williams (eg Andrew Anthony in todays ‘Graun’) *have* been arguing all along.
John G and Flett don’t seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet (if you’ll pardon the expression), with Flett opposing religious laws and John “Defender of the Faiths” G , supporting them. Have we a split in the SWP over this?
modernity said,
February 12, 2008 at 4:29 pm
a spilt over religion? unlikely
haven’t they been there before?
Little John said,
February 12, 2008 at 4:33 pm
I also believe it is my socialist duty to argue against all scientific evidence.
“If there is any hard evidence on the ‘in-breeding’ question we have yet to see any.”
And therefore miss the point entirely
Jim Denham said,
February 13, 2008 at 11:12 am
Over at CIF, someone has written a very sensible piece on all this:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_copson/2008/02/the_archbishop_adapts_to_survive.html
In fact, its the sanest, most progressive take on the whole matter you’re likely to come across. Apart from my stuff, of course.
Tim said,
February 13, 2008 at 9:44 pm
What better way to destroy the Christian churches. Place stupid, dangerous idiots like Rowan Williams in charge and watch the people attack their own religious “leaders”. Sorry folks, this is deliberate. Rowan Williams is just a tool.