Williams and Sharia

[owl]

If Rowan Williams is so enamoured of Sharia law, why doesn't he emigrate to Saudi Arabia? However, to get the full benefit, I suspect he may have to be a woman subject to Sharia.

My da: The man's a buffoon.What does he think would happen to a Christian minority in a Sharia country who wanted their own laws?

The thought of deliberately setting up a legal system that isn't one law for all turns my stomach, frankly.

Comments

[violaswamp.livejournal.com]

What a nutcase. Basically he's proposing that people, once they've signed up for Sharia law, should be forced to live by it afterwards--even if they've changed their minds about it. (Because if they could easily opt out then it's not really a system of law at all, just a clubhouse). In other words, a woman who signs up for sharia law because she's a good Muslim will not be able to opt-out if her husband suddenly decides to force her daughter into a marriage or something--the British govt will force her to abide by her previous religious belief. Enforcing people's religious beliefs on them is hardly the business of government.

[fiendish-cat.livejournal.com]

>>>Basically he's proposing that people, once they've signed up for Sharia law, should be forced to live by it afterwards--even if they've changed their minds about it

No he's not. Have you read the lecture?

[violaswamp.livejournal.com]

I have not read the lecture, but I've seen him quoted extensively, enough to know that he's seriously muddle-headed about this. Without some degree of force, I don't see how sharia law--or any other kind of law--could work as law. Right now, if I'm not mistaken, Muslims are able to consensually arrange their own affairs according to their religious principles if they so choose. Unless I'm seriously misunderstanding the British legal system, no one's going to stop a husband and wife from choosing (with BOTH parties' consent) to divide up their assets in a certain way after the divorce, for example. But that's not a law--that's a personal choice. If the "sharia law" the archbishop wants to impose is consensual every step of the way--meaning that people submit to a religious authority for an arbitration, but can choose to pull out at any point in time if they don't think the arbitration is going fairly--then I don't see how it's different from the current state of affairs, and I also don't see how it's any kind of law. But if he's really advocating a change and if that change involves a kind of law, then at some point a religious authority will have to have the power to compel you to do something against your will.

[owl]

Yeah, that's my understanding too.