« An Ungodly Suggestion | Main | Some Weekend Tech Readings »

February 09, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Ben Myers has a somewhat different take on Wiliam's comments, see ' On sharia and hysteria: or, why Rowan Williams is right' here: http://faith-theology.blogspot.com/2008/02/on-sharia-and-hysteria-or-why-rowan.html



Thanks for the heads up. Will read the AB's lecture. Have to say though: the hullabaloo wasn't reported in the context of this lecture. Rather it was reported in the context of an interview he gave to a Muslim magazine and to the BBC. These may in fact have sprung out of his more "nuanced" lecture.

However, at first glance, I have to say, Lord Napier's dictum is spot on.

The AB seems to be suggesting that shari'a isn't monolithic and prescribed: it is the jurisprudential reflection on a pre-existing divine coda. And as such, it could be interpreted through a more modern lens.

However, this still seems to concede the point being thrown around in the papers and the blogs that shari'a may inevitably need to coexist with British common law. That concession is very problematic in my books.


When Ataturk abolished the Ottoman Caliphate in Turkey in the 1920's,it was specifically to separate religion from government.

We in the west seem to be moving the other way.

Napier's response to the problem of what law to abide by is the antithisis of the Multiculturism of today.


This will probably arrive before the post I wrote without signing in.

The problem with the likes of Archbishop Williams is that they ponitficate from a high perch without, it seems, the requisite knowledge.

Their words may be ridiculed locally, but in Muslim areas they are mana from the Infidel. Even the high priest of the Infidel acknowledges his Dhimminitude in the presence of Sharia.

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31