Sir, Whether one agrees with the Archbishop’s conclusions or not (“Archbishop argues for Islamic law in Britain”, Feb 8), his arguments are intelligent and subtle. The hysterical reaction is suggestive of the real menace to the cohesion of our society. Our obsession with “sending the right message” means that we do not take the time to engage in depth with those with whom we disagree.
Christians believe that our intelligence is a gift from God, which should embolden us to probe complex issues, and the Archbishop has shown real Christian leadership in daring to do so.
Father Timothy Radcliffe, OP
Blackfriars, Oxford
Advertisement
Sir, The potential harm done by Dr Williams’s utterances to the Christian Church in northern Nigeria, where Sharia has been imposed in recent years, is considerable.
Advertisement
One of your reports speaks of Dr Williams’s “nuanced and complex language”. Language is surely intended to allow us to communicate our thoughts with a reasonable degree of clarity: it is not intended — outside the University of Oxford — to be part of a game called “guess what I might be thinking”. A swift return to academia should be the Archbishop’s first priority.
Ian H. Lane
Torquay
Advertisement
Sir, How can your religion correspondent accuse the Archbishop of “hastily backtracking, claiming he had never called for a parallel jurisdiction of Sharia for Muslims” (Feb 9, page 1) when your legal editor quotes the Archbishop in responding to questions after the lecture: “I am not talking about parallel systems” and adds her own comment: “Dr Williams is not saying this” (page 7). Why bother with the truth when you can wind up a good story?
The Right Rev Keith Sinclair
Bishop of Birkenhead
Advertisement
Sir, I am still trying to digest the full text of the Archbishop’s lecture, but have so far discerned nothing which merits the hysterical headlines he has received. It may well be true that he was ill-advised to think aloud as he did. Yet it is equally true that if he were an entirely safe pair of hands, the Archbishop would be pilloried for being ineffectual or, more likely, ignored as irrelevant.
As it is, he has at least brought into the public realm issues that have been simmering under the surface which need to be acknowledged and debated openly. For that he deserves support, not approbation.
Advertisement
The Very Rev Charles Taylor
Dean of Peterborough
Sir, Has the Archbishop of Canterbury considered the pastoral implications of his pronouncement?
The UK is seen as a place of refuge for many Muslim converts to Christianity who flee persecution in their homelands. Asylum applications are often rejected because these Christians have joined the Church of Scotland or the Church of England. The Home Office argues that these Christians would face no hazard if returned home as such established Churches do not take seriously the Christian duty of spreading the gospel. The Archbishop’s pronouncements must strengthen this position.
Meanwhile, Christians who have fled the worst excesses of Sharia and hear a Christian leader argue for its use in the UK must wonder about the wisdom of seeing the UK as a place of sanctuary.
The Rev Dr C. Campbell-Jack
Glasgow
Sir, What no one seems to have noticed is that what Dr Williams said is consistent with his declared programme of challenging the liberal-secular world view as the default position in British society. In stirring up a hornets’ nest of disapproval, the immediate focus of which has been Sharia, what has really been stirred up is this world view, which until recently thought that religion had been suitably tamed and confined to the private sphere. Clearly, this is not the case. Religion, and not just the extreme variety, is alive and well, and the secularists do not like it. Far from failing in leadership, Dr Williams has shown admirable courage in bringing legitimate religious concerns into the public sphere.
Father Paul Graham
London N1
Sir, I read Daniel Finkelstein’s article (comment, Feb 6) about his experience of how minorities should respect Christian culture and then became worried and confused when I hear my own Archbishop indicating the inevitability of allowing Sharia to be incorporated into our legal system. There is an irony that a Jewish layman should be speaking up for our Christian heritage while our Christian Archbishop seems to be neglecting it.
Canon David Godwin
Sandhurst, Glos
Sir, For 30 years I worked for a bank in the Gulf and until the late 1960s the only law in most Gulf states was Sharia. However, all our contractual documents with customers referred to English law. When disputes arose with residents, or with overseas customers, the matter was referred to us in London and that meant in the latter years to me. I would look at the textbooks to see if there was a case and give my opinion, which was always accepted. It is interesting how the Gulf Arabs accepted a legal decision in another law, in another language and by a sometimes interested party — such was the influence of the British in that area — without question.
If someone wished to have recourse to Sharia, we all shuddered, not because our system was superior, but because Sharia does not work from precedent. So a decision made last year on similar facts to a case this year may have had a different decision; a disaster in commercial dealings. Fortunately, I cannot remember a case ever going to Sharia in the end.
Peter Croggon
Fellow, Chartered Institute of Bankers
Sir, May I say that I think the Archbishop was right to say what he did. It is clearly a matter that needs airing, if only because elements of Sharia are already active and condoned by British practice. What was wrong was not the lecture but the superficial comment that greeted it. The media rush to exploit the potential for a sensational front page was far worse than any alleged failing in the Archbishop’s thinking. If there are problems with Sharia, and there are, they need to be exposed, so that people can get a rounded view of its strong points and its defects. Reporting should be enlightening, a support to balance.
Islam is a touchy issue thanks to the homicidal and misogynistic distortions of the Islamists and extremists. But at no cost must we respond by gagging discussion.
John Abrami
Rochester, Kent
Sir, If by the introduction of “supplementary jurisdiction” of Sharia Dr Williams means cultural relativism, incorporating archaic social and legal systems that include gender persecution and the curtailment of freedom of speech, I am all against it.
Britain has incorporated and integrated many different foreign people, and developed a syncretic culture, which has enriched and enlightened far corners of the Earth. It has taken many centuries for the British Isles to free the juridical system from the hegemony of religious forces. Do we have to go back to the darkness of the Middle Ages against the wishes of the majority?
As a person of South Asian origin and a secular rationalist, I cannot help but comment.
Sam Banik
London N10
Sir, The English legal system is built on the principle of equality before the law and one law for everybody. This has guaranteed our freedom for generations and is the envy of many nations. To dilute it because some citizens do not relate to our system of values is to undermine the very foundations of British life.
Ganesh Lall
London SE21
Sir, Isn’t it astonishing how the hapless Archbishop has succeeded in uniting agnostics, atheists, Muslims, Jews, politicians and the media to declare respect and support for the Judaeo-Christian ethical heritage of this country? God certainly moves in mysterious ways.
Adrian Bingham
Bromley, Kent