Main focus of Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Great Britain debates the implementation of sharia law

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said on February 7th that the adoption of certain aspects of sharia, or Islamic, law, was "inevitable" in Great Britain. With this, he provoked a lively debate, generously commented upon in the European press.

The Daily Telegraph - United Kingdom

Rachel Sylvester, a columnist for the right-wing daily, writes that Britain is not a secular state and has a deeply Christian history. "This weekend, Dr Rowan Williams discovered the true implications of his observation. Marx once described religion as the opium of the people; the archbishop has found that it has the potential to be a form of intellectual cocaine, which will keep the nation up and arguing all night. Dr Williams's suggestion that the introduction of sharia law in some parts of Britain was 'unavoidable' did not just challenge the legal system; it also raised questions about the relationship between Church and State. ... This is not just about the rules governing mortgages and divorce. It is about the nature of British identity. ... Britain is not a secular state like France or Turkey. Its history and culture are based on the link between Church and State. It is odd for the archbishop to deny that." (12/02/2008)

» full article (external link, English)
More from the press review on the subject » Religion, » Integration, » United Kingdom
All available articles from » Rachel Sylvester

Dagbladet Information - Denmark

Commenting on the British debate over the comments made by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the newspaper says one cannot accuse Rowan Williams of not distancing himself clearly enough from archaic traditions like stoning or so-called honour killings that are associated with Islam. "This is not where the Archbishop's error lies. ... For even peaceful, favourable or sensible legal practices of other religions have no place in Europe's modern, secular and democratic states based on the rule of law. Religion is religion and politics is politics. And that is how it must remain. In a legal system courts must function [the same way] for everyone. ... It is depressing that even in a multi-cultural state like Britain the current discussion about Islam is so tension-ridden that the only response to Williams' mistakes is hysteria." (12/02/2008)

» full article (external link, Danish)
More from the press review on the subject » Domestic Policy, » Religion, » Migration, » Weltanschauung, » Denmark

Le Figaro - France

Cyrille Vanlerberghe, the daily's London correspondent, writes that the Archbishop's statement "wasn't a simple provocation. ... After his first declarations on BBC 4 in the early afternoon, the spiritual leader of 77 million Anglicans worldwide elaborately defined his ideas during a conference on civil and religious rights at the Royal Court of Justice in London. ... The Archbishop's statement is not a polemic in favour of the indiscriminate application of all aspects of Koranic law, but rather a complete and complex argument for a judicial system that recognises the religious particularities of a minority. ... The theological positions taken by Rowan Williams were not understood and, more often than not, we retain only the provocative part of what he said." (08/02/2008)

» full article (external link, French)
More from the press review on the subject » Religion, » United Kingdom
All available articles from » Cyrille Vanlerberghe

Neue Zürcher Zeitung - Switzerland

The Archbishop of Canterbury's attempt to defend his position is not convincing, in the opinion of London correspondent Ulrich Meister. "Ultimately he has retreated into the defensive position of a man of faith, who claims that the law of the state, which also covers European human rights, does not always adequately protect the faith and conscience of all religious believers. ... At the same time he has repeated opportunistic arguments, like the one that in England Sharia courts have been regulating civil disputes like divorce (easy for men, protracted for women) and inheritance for a long time now and that the Jews likewise use the Beth Din to settle civil and commercial differences. Apart from criminal offences, British law does indeed allow such third-party tribunals. ... The pressure exerted by religious or clan communities is completely underestimated in such cases." (12/02/2008)

» full article (external link, German)
More from the press review on the subject » Religion, » Integration, » Weltanschauung, » United Kingdom
All available articles from » Ulrich Meister

» To the complete press review of Tuesday, February 12, 2008