The Archbishop has responded to criticism of his remarks over Shari’a law in this country.
The embattled Archbishop of Canterbury began a strong but brief defence of his remarks on Islamic law in front of the Church of England’s 550-strong general synod this afternoon.
Not too surprising given the overwhelming condemnation he received.
He said sharia law potentially offered “additional choices” for believers in resolving some disputes and transactions, but added that he was aware of strong concerns over some aspects of the Islamic code such as women’s rights and apostasy.
He stressed that “the laws of the land” did and should still apply.
But that is the case currently. There is no need to make any changes to the law to allow for such choices. In which case, there was no need to make any comment.
Williams said some reports of his comments had been “a long way away” from his original remarks. But he added that he took responsibility for “any unclarity” in his speech on Thursday in which he said that the introduction of some aspects of sharia law in Britain was “unavoidable” and would mean Muslims no longer have to choose between “cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.
Well, yes, any “unclarity” (what a dreadful, ugly word) is entirely his fault. However, his remarks regarding cultural and state loyalty were perfectly clear. I accept that he now regards that comment as, shall we say, inopportune?
He defended his right to comment on issues affecting religious communities, saying that he believed strongly that it was “not inappropriate” for a pastor to do so.
Sure, he has every right to speak on whatever matters take his fancy. No one has suggested otherwise – at least no reasonable person would. What those of us who objected to his remarks took exception to, was the clear suggestion that Shari’a should be accorded some sort of legal status in English law. If he didn’t mean that after all – or has decided that having meant it, he was “mistaken” then so be it.
I smiled at the defence of the archbish by Christina Rees:
Christina Rees said: “I am angry and frustrated at the way he has been treated. He has been vilified. Nobody is responding to what he said at the lecture, which was highly nuanced and complex, and delivered to a sophisticated audience.”
No, Christina, the speech was worded in such a way that it was virtually incomprehensible to native English speakers. That was the point of the Radio 4 interview; to translate the gobbledygook into English. Perhaps instead of “nuanced and complex” Dr. Williams might like to try plain English. Then his “sophisticated” audience wouldn’t misunderstand – and we ignorant proles wouldn’t get all worked up; you sanctimonious cow.
Your final paragraph says it all – and well and (moreover, unlike the arsebishop) clearly. I have had (for my part anyway) an interesting disagreement with Tom Paine who is his usual reasonable and reasoned self. However, I disagreed with him on this occasion on the basis that had the arsebishop wished not to be contentious all that was required was a clear statement (preferably in his lecture but certainly in his original Radio 4 interview) that the application of sharia in the UK was to be no more than yet another (uncontentious) use of existing law as used in arbitration. To the contrary the AoC provided a high-flown and unnecessarily complex exegesis on what – as it turns out from his apologia – is a simple matter. The AoC’s supporters then have the chutzpah to say that he was “vilified”. If he was “vilified”, he was quite rightly vilified for his execrable and flashy “scholarship” which confuses where it should enlighten and complicates where it should simplify. Ruth Gledhill – not exactly a conservative in these matters – puts the cause of this fuss down to the AoC’s irredeemable arrogance and who could disagree?
As a stupid prole I am said to be confused also by the ” nuanced and complex” details of the EU (not a)constitution. I wish I were as sophisticated as a nulab politician.
The answer lies in the definition of the root of ‘sophisticated’
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sophist
1. One of a class of men who taught eloquence, philosophy, and politics in ancient Greece; especially, one of those who, by their fallacious but plausible reasoning, puzzled inquirers after truth, weakened the faith of the people, and drew upon themselves general hatred and contempt.
2. Hence, an impostor in argument; a captious or fallacious reasoner.
haddock’s last blog post..Lamp post.
Agreed. I’ve put my take too.
jameshigham’s last blog post..[groupthink] the gentle art of persuasion
Is it just me or does everyone find what comes out of Rowan Williams mouth virtually unintelligible? I never know what he’s trying to say. Maybe that’s why he does it, so he can say “oh you’ve misrepresented me” when he puts his size 9’s in his mouth, which he seems to do rather often. Silly sod!
Jonathan’s last blog post..Heads and shoulders, knees and toes….
Haddock, quite.