okay, okay, one little post on Rowan Williams
So, the uproar continues over the recent remarks of Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, about sharia and British law. (Note the extraordinary thing I just did: I linked to the remarks themselves, rather than newspaper summaries of them.) Ross has the smartest take on the whole thing I’ve yet seen: while rightly noting that Williams simply did not say what he has been accused of saying, he equally rightly goes on to note what a total hash Williams made of an extremely touchy set of issues: “Perhaps there will come a time when an Archbishop of Canterbury will have the luxury to muse at length on whether it might be appropriate for his nation to consider some sort of ‘plural jurisdiction’ where Muslim communities are concerned. But regardless of his good intentions, it seems to me the height of folly for this head of the Church of England, at this moment in the history of his nation and his faith, to wander in the gardens of intellectual theory while brushing away the actual controversies on the ground.”
And in the past few hours Williams has issued further clarifications, important ones (emphases mine): “The lecture was written as an opening contribution to a series on Islam and English Law mounted by the Temple Church and London University. As such, it posed the question to the legal establishment of whether attempts to accommodate aspects of Islamic law would create an area where the law of the land doesn’t run. This, I said, would certainly be the case if any practice under Islamic law had the effect of removing from any individual the rights they were entitled to enjoy as a citizen of the UK; and I concluded that nothing should be recognised which had that effect. We are not talking about parallel jurisdictions; and I tried to make clear that there could be no ‘blank cheques’ in this regard, in particular as regards some of the sensitive questions about the status and liberties of women. The law of the land still guarantees for all the basic components of human dignity.”
But even here Williams is rhetorically maladroit: when he says (or rather implies) that there should be no “blank cheques” for people who want to use sharia to restrict the freedoms of Muslim women, does that mean that they could ultimately get what they want after dialogue and negotiation? And if not, then what does Williams mean? And when he says that there are “sensitive questions about the status and liberties of women,” does he mean to say that he’s willing to put the “status and liberties of women” on the table for discussion? He’s certainly not saying that those who want to curtail and liberties of women are wrong. This clarification helps, but doesn’t help much.
Meanwhile, the H. M. S. Hitchens now lurches into view and unleashes a series of volleys against the starboard side of the Archbishop. Of course he accuses Williams of saying things he didn’t say (“But now the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has cited the Beth Din as one of his reasons for believing that sharia, or Islamic law, can and should become a part of what he called ‘plural jurisdiction’ in Britain”), but to some degree Williams’s verbal academentia excuses that misconstrual. In any case, Hitch is just getting warmed up: by the end we hear Williams described as “this sheep-faced English cleric” who “throws away the work of centuries of civilization,” and as “a fatuous cleric who, presiding over an increasingly emaciated and schismatic and irrelevant church, nonetheless maintains that any faith is better than none at all.”
This all might be rather more effective if it were slightly more rooted in fact, but it’s fun all the same to see Hitch in full dudgeon. What was it that Balfour said about Churchill? “His guns are powerful, though not very mobile.”
Ross’s point is reasonable but the specific criticisms in this post are not.
when he says…that there should be no “blank cheques”…does that mean that they could ultimately get what they want after dialogue and negotiation?
No. Doesn’t it pretty clearly mean that there will be no “blank cheques” to the Islamic legal system to “cash out” in doctrine however it wants? In other words, it’s a metaphor (not a great one, but a pretty transparent one, I think) for his claim that “nothing should be recognised which had [the] effect” of “removing from any individual the rights they were entitled to enjoy as a citizen of the UK.”
And when he says that there are “sensitive questions about the status and liberties of women,” does he mean to say that he’s willing to put the “status and liberties of women” on the table for discussion?
Why would asserting the existence of “sensitive questions” on a subject imply that one is potentially willing to bargain away one’s own position on those questions? I mean, let’s say I support a strong right to own firearms for private use. Would I somehow contradict myself if I admit that, in our society, there are “sensitive questions” about the extent of those rights? Clearly there are, and recognizing that fact just doesn’t imply much of anything about how they should be resolved.
— Christopher M · Feb 11, 09:20 PM · #
“H.M.S. Hitchens” – hilarious. It should become a permanent nickname.
— roger · Feb 11, 10:17 PM · #
You’re absolutely right, Christopher, that Williams’s comments don’t logically entail any compromises with Islamic radicals, but that’s not my point. I think you’re neglecting (as Williams has neglected) the heated rhetorical context in which his remarks are being produced. Someone will surely say, “What a wimp. All he’ll say is that the radicals won’t get a “blank cheque,’ but what kind of cheque will he write them? He’s obviously willing to make concessions.” Similarly: “Since when are the basic rights of women ‘sensitive questions”? The basic rights of all human beings under British law should be non-negotiable. If that’s a ‘sensitive’ matter for the radicals, why should we kow-tow to them?” Even in his clarifications, Williams has left his critics a lot of room to accuse him of more waffling, whether he’s actually meaning to waffle or not.
— Alan Jacobs · Feb 11, 10:19 PM · #
Isn’t waffling the very essence of the Church of England? My main recollection of Newman’s Apologia is that makes a good case that the CoE is not a church for people who can think clearly.
— JimB · Feb 11, 11:06 PM · #
It bears some pedantic emphasis too I think that the minute you start talking about certain things as the ‘status and liberties’ of women in this context you rather give the game away. The words ‘status’ and ‘liberties’ as Williams uses them strike me as superfluous and meaningless and stupid from a perspective informed not only by Sharia law but, in the alternate, any strain of Christianity not to be described as emaciated, schismatic, and irrelevant. No, of course I don’t mean that true Christians don’t think female humans have any freedom. I do mean that Williams’ choice of words is a deliberately weak-as-water version of what someone who’s a Christian really should mean when they’re talking about the worth of women – and men, for that matter. The thought of Rowan Williams dialoguing over my ‘status’ and ‘liberties’ makes me shudder, and I lack a female body.
— James · Feb 11, 11:25 PM · #
I think it’s also quite fair to criticize the archbishop for having a fairly naively optimistic view of sharia. I don’t mean to validate the knee-jerk responses that have come in the press, but there are what seem to me reasonable grounds to dispute his characterization of sharia as voluntary for its adherents and tolerant of a wider religiously heterogeneous society. As much as we would all like to think that Tariq Ramadan speaks for the Islamic mainstream in such matters, that’s not at all clearly the case.
I’m no expert on Muslim views of sharia—particularly contemporary British Muslim views of sharia, which are most pertinent here—but, then, Dr. Williams admits that neither is he. It’s these sorts of questions about the nature of sharia that need to be answered before its acceptability as an alternative legal regime can be determined. I would argue that the other examples of religious legal systems which Dr. Williams cites each possess certain properties that make them allowable within a larger secular legal system without risking the destruction of that broader system, but that sharia may lack those properties. It’s at very least a legitimate question which must be asked.
— Ethan Cordray · Feb 12, 03:54 AM · #
the CoE is not a church for people who can think clearly.
Well, to be fair, church is not generally a place for people who can think clearly.
Still, Hitch seems to have his complaint backwards; it’s that ‘hundreds of years of civilization’ that have turned England’s clergy into ponderous, incoherent weathervanes, while the potentially useful 99% of her citizenry has moved on to gainful employ. Now if only Hitch could concede victory already instead of repeatedly calling back the opposition for one more follow on.
— Bo · Feb 12, 03:55 AM · #
Williams is proposing what “Spengler” at the Asian Times calls pre-emptive surrender. You can no more have little bits of Sharia and stop there than you can be a “little bit” pregnant.
Sharia includes: forced marriages, female genital mutilation, honor killings, child marriage, cousin marriage, divorce by phone call or text messaging, and the latest commitment to a mental hospital by Muslim doctors and health workers when Muslims tire of their wives.
More than 12,000 women a year in Britain are subjected to Sharia violence. Sharia ALREADY EXISTS in Britain. As a legal system that supplants that of the State. A mullah issues a ruling, a woman is killed. That’s final. And Sharia.
Williams proposes to recognize this reality and surrender to it, in order to “regulate” the gradual Islamization of British life. Multiculturalism and PC at it’s finest. It was precisely this surrender, appeasement, that generated so much backlash.
There is either one law for everyone (and here Hitchens is right and only an intellectual would be so stupid as think otherwise) or there is the law of the strongest. The most brutal. The most able to use violence to cut their sister’s throat, or strangle their daughter. THAT is Sharia. Part and parcel of it and ignoring it and hoping the bad men will go away like Williams is pure idiocy.
Enoch Powell of course warned there would be rivers of blood if immigrants alien to the UK were let in. That seems prophetic as English Common Law struggles to survive against the assaults of Sharia.
— Jim Rockford · Feb 12, 06:09 AM · #