The next round in the ABC's sharia pronouncements: we don't really understand what he said and in any case it was to expert lawyers

As a result of yesterday's blog on the ABC's apparent advocacy of the implementation of sharia law:

http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/02/with-the-abcs-a.html

I've received this response from Lambeth Palace:

Dear irene

I am rather stunned by your blog ...
The idea that the archbishop was calling for the introduction of sharia, or that he was suggesting that sharia courts and the beth din are equivalent, is so far from the reality of what he said in the carefully constructed lecture, that I have to wonder how carefully you had read it. Possibly you have been over relying on reports in the Times.

The lecture, which was given in the Royal Courts of Justice and chaired by the Lord Chief Justice of England  in front of an audience of a thousand, mainly from the legal profession, Jewish, Muslim, Christian and secular, was warmly received and he was given an ovation on three occasions.

The heart of his matter was the desirability that a single legal system should be abLe to make accomodations for religious conscience whether for Christian, Jewish or Muslim or other. This is not an innovation since it has been operated for centuries for the Church of England, for 25 years for Sikhs, 2002 for Jews when the divorce legislation was amended to make specific provision for divorce proceedings in the Beth Din, and most recently by the Prime Minister when Chancellor for so called sharia compliant financial instruments. There so many examples and the issue is the trend at present from systematic secularists to remove from the civil law any accomodation for religious conscience.

There is much more to say and I renew my invitation to lunch.

Best wishes

As you can see, this e-mail is from someone well disposed. They have even renewed their invitation to lunch when I travel back to England today.

But their response to my blog reveals quite a lot that is extremely troubling for a free society. The points I want to discuss are in blue:

a) Of course I've read the original speech, plus the amended material. In fact The Times linked to these, but just in case, I went onto the Lambeth Palace website as well.


b) I don't care how erudite, numerous or conciliatory the audience was. To me it sounds like a Hitler rally, in which Hitler also received standing ovations from the learned academics, lawyers and clerics of the day. I thought, in any case, that for Anglicans, 'small is beautiful' and 'the weak shall inherit the earth', and 'do not follow a multitude to do evil'.

However, the writer's implication is also that I'm an emotional twit, who knows nothing of law. Maybe the writer is unaware of the fact that I've actually taken a course on Jewish law, offered by the Faculty of Law at Liverpool University - lecturers' privilege - I was teaching Hebrew at the University at the time, and the then Professor of Law, an expert in both Roman and Jewish law, invited me to sit in on the course, in order to be in a better position to teach his star PhD student Biblical Hebrew, with an emphasis on the legal aspects.

And when the guy had completed his doctorate on Jewish Law and the Bible and asked me to look it over, he was most grateful for the way I went over it with a fine tooth comb, pointing out glaring errors, misunderstandings and omissions.

And in fact, I've also reviewed a number of books on Jewish law for the Jewish Law Annual, published by Brill, one of the best academic publishers going - and especially in the very relevant fields of women's rights and minority rights.

In addition, my own book, which is now interestingly available in paper-back, deals at length with Jewish, Muslim, Chrisian and secular law and norms, as well as the problem of post-modernism and 'parallel universes':

http://www.amazon.com/Deconstructing-Bible-Abraham-Ezras-Introduction/dp/0700715746

c) the term 'make accommodations for religious conscience' is truly frightening. The idea of 'religious conscience' simply does not exist in Islam. It is a term redolent of the Enlightenment period, when accommodation was made between science, democracy and religious practice. It never envisaged sharia law as being part of this, as sharia knows no limits and once in place, takes over. This is what Muslims themselves say about sharia, and it is arrogant and condescending not to believe them on this. Maybe, an offshoot of colonialist guilt.

d) then the real hub of the argument: the problem is 'systematic secularists'. But you know what, in the 'war' between Richard Dawkins and the average mullah, I would rather take on Dawkins. Because at least he has had scientific training, which all the great rabbis have said is absolutely essential to religious and philosophical debate. I know that he thinks the Old Testament is rubbish - and the way it is used by many in the church -  he is right. And he has also said stupid things about Jewish power - I wish!!

However, being grounded in science is a start, and it is my belief and the belief of many others that militant Islam is the reason why the Dawkins and Hitchens of this world have reacted in the way they have.

If we are not careful, appeasement of Islam will lead to ALL the religions in Britain being penalized for the excesses of one religion. This is the true tragedy faced by Britain at present.

And I see that the very brave MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth (home to the student who stood up and told me publicly in 2000 that I couldn't teach subjects to do with Islam at Manchester University, because I was 'doubly unclean', being both Jewish and female, and to the female students bussed into the large girls' comprehensive in Moston, Greater Manchester, who when asked in a Citizenship class what their solution to burglaries would be, said 'sharia law, i.e. the cutting off of hands for all in this country, and not just for Muslims') has also expressed a few home truths:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3342040.ece

and that today's The Sunday Times has even suggested that the ABC has committed treason:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article3341738.ece

But let's end on a high. I've just received this from a boy aged 11, who I used to teach at a church school in Jaffa, last term:

Thank you Dr. Lancaster fro teaching us. We enjoyed you learning us and learned us some nice music. With love.

Thank you

From

Islam

I never ever received anything like this when I taught hundreds of Muslims in the Greater Manchester area, and certainly not from a male. And certainly not about music, a subject that they regarded as totally and utterly off limits.

Comments

[devorgilla]

Thanks for this Irene. I'm finding this a bit worrying, as, apart from the invitation to lunch, I find it aggressive in tone, almost threatening. I also find it has deployed arguments raised as critiques used by detractors; learning to deflect. There's no hint of 'oops! I got it wrong...' but rather: defiance, and arrogance. This suggests he will not give way easily for calls for his resignation.

The other thing I'm finding worrying, is the lack of comment from academic lawyers. Maybe this is for 'legal' reasons? But something makes me feel they are somehow colluding, and in assent.

On a more positive note, I am heartened by the 'moderate' Muslims who have suddenly appeared out of the woodwork saying they definitely DON'T want sharia. A gentleman in the Times yesterday made this point, and added, (quite right), that the Archbishop of Canterbury held no representative authority over him.