Sharia law debate: What do you think?
18 Feb 2008
After The Archbishop of Canterbury’s lecture about Sharia law, which has caused so much controversy, The Evangelical Alliance UK, have started a section on their web site, to discuss this issue.
In their own words, ‘The controversy over the Archbishop of Canterbury has escalated this conversation, and we feel this is an opportune time to widen the debate to the broader Christian community.’
They are looking for your views, in particular around these questions:
1. How can religious conscience and values be protected in a secular state?
2. What is your view of Sharia law operating within the British legal system? Do you see any acceptable way aspects of Sharia could be integrated?
3. What is the relationship like between Christians and Muslims in your area? Can you describe any local examples of good or bad relations?
4. Do you agree with the Archbishop of Canterbury that, as the established/majority religion, Christians should attempt to speak for the liberties and consciences of people of other faiths in Britain as well as our own?
5. How do you think the Evangelical Alliance should respond to this debate?
To let them know your answers go here.
Tagged: muslim, Secularism, Sharia
4 comments
Trackback
Comment by fernando
2.50 pm on 18 Feb 2008
I’m not a defender of secularity, though a secular state that enshrines religious freedom is preferable to a constantinian state that prejudices in favour of one denomination. In this I hark back to not to Rowan, but Roger Williams.
Unless aspects of Sharia Law can function within a society like Britain, then religious freedom is really only an abstract construct. The real question is to whom the law applies and the question of constituency. Doesn’t the idea of Sharia banking really make us wonder who poor a job we have done of creating commercial institutions that mirror our theological ethics?
Here in Hong Kong, there is little interaction, in part because Muslims tend to most represented in the under-classes (e.g., Indonesian domestic workers, etc.). In India, it was of course a lot more complex!
I don’t agree with the Anglican version of Inter-Faith dialogue, which is that the Anglicans throw a big Anglican party, then everyone turns up in costume and the Anglicans speak for everyone else. As a Baptist, I don’t think Rowan speaks for me, so why should I expect Hindus, Sikhs or Muslims to accept that he speak for them? Rather, we should all speak for Religious freedom as parts of a cosmopolitan society.
Besides, if we are talking bums on seats/feet in the temple/ knees on prayer-mats, does Anglicanism really command a majority anymore?
I think the evangelical alliance should reflect the diversity of views within evangelicalism…
Comment by James Prescott
11.34 am on 19 Feb 2008
This is a big issue with a lot of areas covered. I will try to think through and cover all of them before responding properly, though my initial reaction is to think this has merely opened a door to a much bigger debate which goes beyond the boundaries of Sharia law.
Comment by Josh Heilman
4.54 am on 21 Feb 2008
When the Rowan Wms controversy hit the US news agencies (esp. Drudge Report), everything sounded like a sound bite. To actually understand what he said was difficult. It, first of all, sounds like he did a poor job of communicating what he was intending.
But should Christians (not just Rowan/Anglicans in particular) stand up for the consciences of people of other faiths? (I think that question #4 was written a bit on the vague side). What might it say to those who are not Christians if Christians began standing up for other religions’ rights and not simply rights of Christians? That could be powerful witness to the love of Christ.
Comment by Robin Parry
8.55 pm on 28 Feb 2008
Very tricky – to know quite how one should answer one would need a much more detailed sketch of what the Archbishop was proposing.
However, I confess to being exceptionally wary of the proposal. Islam is a very problematic religion to integrate within a secular state – especially as it becomes more powerful – because its ideal goal is for all countries to be Islamic states under sharia. There are plenty of Islamic organizations in the UK with the declared goal of having the UK become an Islamic state as soon as it is realistic (which is not for one moment to suggest that such organizations neccesarily support terrorism – one can be an Islamist without being a terrorist). I genuinely fear anything that could serve as a step towards that goal because whilst the secular state would protect the freedom of religion (including Islam) Islamic law most certainly does not.
So, for instance, suppose that Muslims in Bradford could apply aspects of sharia to the Muslim communities there. Suppose one of those Muslims becomes a Christian. Now the death penalty applies under sharia but there is no way that that would be permitted in the UK. However, sharia also says that the marriage of the person may be terminated and their children can be taken from them. Would we allow that ruling to be applied by sharia courts? I hope not. That’s why I say that it very much depends on the details and what to do when sharia law runs up against human rights (as it does) or other UK laws.
I am open to a sensible proposal but all we have at the moment is a very vague suggestion that could be the thin end of the wedge to something most undersirable.
Just a thought
Robin
Comments are now closed.