The Sharia law row and what the Archbishop ACTUALLY meant
If you live in the UK, then it’s hard to miss the controversy that the Archbishop of Canterbury has caused by what he said on BBC Radio a couple of days away. For the uninformed, the Archbishop said that he thought it was “unavoidable” that some aspects of Sharia (Islamic) law were adopted here in the UK to “retain social cohesion”. Of course, just about all parties in parliament have jumped on the bandwagon, distancing themselves from his comments with some even calling for him to resign.
As per usual, the BNP (British National Party), a bunch of racist scum, are having a field day purposely misinterpreting and broadcasting his remarks simple to gain further support for their Neo-Nazi policies.
Sharia law is a practical code of ethics/law that some Islamic countries use to live out Islam in their daily life. On the whole, it gets bad press because it doesn’t treat women as equal to men and it even supports public executions and whippings.
The misinformed public now have these visions in their heads, of Muslims living to their own laws in Britain and publicly killing criminals. This is definitely not what the Archbishop meant when he said Sharia law was coming to Britain eventually.
What Rowan Williams actually meant was that certain aspects of Sharia law, such as that concerning civil matters (marriage, divorce etc.), should be allowed in this country as long as both parties involved consented to their matter being heard in a Sharia court. What is the problem with this? I don’t see one. In fact, some Sharia courts are already in existence in places like London where they already perform these duties. It doesn’t actually force anyone to do anything - if one of the parties involved in the matter decides they want a secular court hearing, then that will happen. As I’ve already said, Sharia courts wouldn’t have any say on criminal matters but only on civil matters relating to religious belief.
The media should have been more careful when they first reported this so that people didn’t get the wrong end of the stick. Due to the media’s stupidity in reporting this, hardline extremist groups have gained further support!
February 27th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Obviously the media would make a big issue out of this, even if they knew perfectly well what he ment, controversy and chos = more papers/magazines/news website hits/Tv time etc which means A LOT more revenue… and we all want that right.
February 28th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Sadly I agree with Dan. This isn’t media stupidity, it’s really cunning on their part. They love sensationalism and making everything seem like you’ll die if you don’t watch or read their news, and a bunch of garbage. It helps them sell more ads.
Maybe it’s differnet in England? I don’t think people in Europe are as lazy and stupid as we tend to be over here.
March 10th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
[...] links from high PR pages have become a commodity in and of themselves. Some would even rather have PR than visitors, because it helps them sell more links, which are in essense nothing. The things have tremendous [...]