In Defense of Rowan Williams
---
I tried to abstain from blogging about this:
Sharia law is a code crafted by barbarians for barbarians. Point conceded. But that doesn't mean that said barbarians, assuming that they are competent, consenting adults, shouldn't be allowed to mutually agree to have their private disputes resolved by such a code -- even in a non-barbarian country such as the United Kingdom.
The idea of members of an insular religious community agreeing to private arbitration, often by religious elders, is hardly new or radical. Certain Jewish sects do it. The Mormons did it in the days before Utah statehood. The Mennonites have made conflict resolution a central tenet of their faith.
Of course, the complicating factor for Muslims and Sharia is the notion of "competent consenting adults." Executing gays, stoning adulterers and lashing the victim of a gang rape are certainly not arrangements that are entered into voluntary; they are imposed by government force. And these are obviously not the kinds of "alternative legal principles" that the West should adopt or even tolerate.
A gay adolescent hanging from a noose is not a competent consenting adult. A Muslim woman (or worse, a Muslim child) conscripted into an arranged marriage (or, worse, de facto sex slavery masquerading as "marriage") is not a competent consenting adult and should not be re-condemned to relying on goatherder justice in a non-goatherder society (or anywhere else, of course).
But if, for example, two Muslim neighbors have a property squabble, or two Muslim business partners want to dissolve their enterprise, or two truly competent Muslim adults agree a priori to rely on a Sharia court to hear any future divorce litigation, then where exactly is the "abomination"? Why the calls demanding Williams' ouster for stating the obvious?
Sharia undoubtedly deserves damnation -- in certain contexts. This simply isn't one of them.
The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".I'm no fan of Williams or his hyper-bigoted Church of England. But the hysteria, both in England and the blogosphere, over this uncontroversial statement has been astounding.
Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.
Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.
For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.
Sharia law is a code crafted by barbarians for barbarians. Point conceded. But that doesn't mean that said barbarians, assuming that they are competent, consenting adults, shouldn't be allowed to mutually agree to have their private disputes resolved by such a code -- even in a non-barbarian country such as the United Kingdom.
The idea of members of an insular religious community agreeing to private arbitration, often by religious elders, is hardly new or radical. Certain Jewish sects do it. The Mormons did it in the days before Utah statehood. The Mennonites have made conflict resolution a central tenet of their faith.
Of course, the complicating factor for Muslims and Sharia is the notion of "competent consenting adults." Executing gays, stoning adulterers and lashing the victim of a gang rape are certainly not arrangements that are entered into voluntary; they are imposed by government force. And these are obviously not the kinds of "alternative legal principles" that the West should adopt or even tolerate.
A gay adolescent hanging from a noose is not a competent consenting adult. A Muslim woman (or worse, a Muslim child) conscripted into an arranged marriage (or, worse, de facto sex slavery masquerading as "marriage") is not a competent consenting adult and should not be re-condemned to relying on goatherder justice in a non-goatherder society (or anywhere else, of course).
But if, for example, two Muslim neighbors have a property squabble, or two Muslim business partners want to dissolve their enterprise, or two truly competent Muslim adults agree a priori to rely on a Sharia court to hear any future divorce litigation, then where exactly is the "abomination"? Why the calls demanding Williams' ouster for stating the obvious?
Sharia undoubtedly deserves damnation -- in certain contexts. This simply isn't one of them.
Related Posts (on one page):
- In Defense of Rowan Williams
- RoP: Feel the Beat(ings)
- RoP: Cleric Sanctions Killing Gays
Posted by Kip on
10 February 2008
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
