Episcopal Press and News
Responses to 'The Anglo-Islamic Church'
Episcopal News Service. February 11, 2008 [021108-06]
Several readers have responded to the Opinion column "The Anglo-Islamic Church" in which Gary Fletcher challenges Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams' remarks regarding certain aspects of Islamic Sharia law being introduced into the British legal system. Williams clarified his comments during a February 11 presidential address at the opening of the Church of England's General Synod. The full text of the February 7 lecture in which Williams talks about civil and religious law in England is available here.
Responses to Fletcher's column follow.
I am a missionary of the Episcopal Church serving in the Church of South India's Madras Diocese. Daily I have the occasion to interact in various ways with people of other faiths, especially with Hindus, and Muslims, and have come to an understanding of what "getting along" means in a society that is in important ways more multicultural than any in the west.
India has a system of law wherein family law follows ones religious tradition: Hindus have one set of laws, Muslims another and Christians yet another. Other religious groups here enjoy the same protection. Until quite recently, for example, divorce was more difficult for Christians in India than for any other group, precisely because of permanence of the vows one makes, as a Christian, in the marriage ceremony. While that law has been amended to reflect the more tolerant attitude in general in Indian law towards family issues surrounding marriage and divorce, many laws remain particular to the religious community involved, especially where family and property disputes are concerned, and judges at every level in the civil courts must consult the various bodies of law pertinent to a particular community in making their judgments. It is part of India's understanding of itself as a "secular state." In several countries such differences in law among religious communities exists. It could be so in Britain or the United States or where ever communities reach such numbers as to make these distinctions necessary under the law.
In his recent observations, the Archbishop was merely pointing out that in an increasingly multicultural and multi-religious community such as Britain now is, differences due to religion, especially where family law is concerned, may need some sort of official recognition under the law, because people perceive that their longstanding traditions and mores are sometimes not being addressed in the courts. As has been noted, a system already exists under British law that disputes can be settled by a third party agreeable to both sides of a legal question, and the Archbishop's comment about the inevitability of Sharia law becoming a part of the British system was a recognition that as a multicultural country Britain may well need at some point look at this particular aspect of the law.
I was amazed at the strident tone of Mr. Fletcher's comments on a system in which he does not participate, from the point of view of one who does not live in a society even as multicultural as Britain now is (let alone a place like India where several quite different faiths interact daily). We in the west plead for tolerance and charity among peoples, but it is instructive to note where our own tolerance ends and intolerance, in the name of Law and Culture and, yes, religion, begin.
Randall Giles
Chennai, India
This tirade reflects a total misunderstanding of what Rowan Williams actually said both in his lecture and in the BBC interview. He did not abandon Magna Carta or suggest imposing Sharia in Britain or any of the other outlandish things this writer suggests. His central point was very simple: like other religious communities in Britain (he mentions Jewish and Roman Catholic groups specifically) Muslims have a reasonable desire to treat some aspects of personal and family relations within the framework of their particular religious tradition. He suggests that British law already has adapted to that in part, but he sees a need for further consideration of their views. He explicitly called for maintaining protections of English law for all citizens and residents of Britain. There is simply no justification for such hysterical reactions.
Bruce Marshall
Lancaster, South Carolina
Thank you Gary, for a very, very enlightening article. You are absolutely correct, and like you, I believe the ABC made a huge mistake in his presentation, but follows true to his "academic" form. He has become too politically correct, multicultural, all of the above, to be the leader of a Christian denomination. He needs to be concerned with leading folks to Jesus Christ, and tending to his own flock. Anglicans in countries where there are many, many Muslims were horrified at his remarks. And well they should know.
The good that might come of this is that maybe the Brits, church and all, will wake up and see what is happening with Islam right on their doorstep, and do something about it!
Ruth McClain
Memphis, Tennessee
Three things: First the article is based on a newspaper article, not on what the Archbishop actually said. Second, the author has also neglected to make himself aware of Islamic law and culture. Third, he is obviously an anglophile. Ignorance is not an excuse for prejudice, but it is the source of prejudice. Or is it animosity toward the Archbishop that motivates the writing and the publication of this article? If that is the case it fits right in with the venom that spews forth from so many sources and is not worthy of being in a civilized or a Christian publication.
The Rev. Charles T Rines
Lake Elsinore, California
Gary Fletcher has very well articulated what many of us think about the statements made by Dr. Williams. In the context of academic discussion, most of us only look towards the good intent of any laws but ground realities unfortunately are different.
I wish Gary had elaborated on the plight of the non-Muslims in Islamic countries. Just look at Pakistan and Bangladesh (what used to be East Pakistan). The minorities especially the Hindus are treated with utter contempt causing many of them to leave for India or other countries. In contrast, Muslims occupy many privileged positions in India and freely practice their religion.
The claim by Pakistan-born Anglican bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, that some areas of Britain had become "no-go areas" for non-Muslims does not surprise me. It speaks for volume about the way Islamic society functions. Perhaps, Archbishop Rowan Williams should interact more with his Anglican bishops.
Jawaharlal Prasad
Webster, Texas
In reading Mr. Fletcher's opinion, I have already done more than he did for the Archbishop (i.e. I read what he said, instead of what was reported). The Archbishop was talking about aspects of sharia that no one really cares about "the changes Williams is advocating are not a high priority to British Muslims" (AP-RAPHAEL G. SATTER Feb 8, 2008).
Mr. Fletcher, tried to wow us with his history lesson and pro-American rhetoric, tried and failed in my class. I took history in high school and served in the U.S. Navy in Intelligence, therefore his comments are in my opinion part of this ignorance that Americans have for everything that exist beyond its own borders.
Lastly, what is a Lutheran lay person doing calling upon Anglican and/or Episcopal leadership to do anything. Calling for the church to disavow the head of the Church over a misquoting from a secular media source shows the lack of any real understanding over the American idea of separation between Church and State. I would advise Episcopal Life Online to find better voices to devote its bandwidth.
The Rev. David Wesley Lemburg
McComb, Mississippi
I agree with you and thank you for taking a stand that is not welcome by the liberal end of the church.
Virginia Pierce
Brookline, Massachusetts
I am deeply shocked that this misinformed and mean-spirited attacked on the Archbishop of Canterbury should be circulated by Episcopal Life Online, especially during Lent! There is certainly room for argument with and about the Archbishop's suggestions about how to accommodate sharia in British society. But for such argument to take place, there must be a basic understanding of what the Archbishop in fact suggested. Such understanding was utterly lacking from this sad bit of knee-jerk "Islamophobia."
I found myself wondering, as I read the rant, if Mr. Fletcher had actually read the text of the actual statement by Rowan Williams. To me it seemed that he was simply reacting to a headline. The fact is that Rowan Williams did nothing more than state that some aspects of sharia should be accommodated just as some aspects of traditional Jewish halakha (law) are accommodated. In this connection, he specifically and emphatically condemned harsh and repressive expressions of sharia. To take him as advocating surrender to Saudi-style totalitarianism is a nearly slanderous misrepresentation of what the Archbishop said. Mr. Fletcher owes the Archbishop of Canterbury an apology.
I also believe Episcopal Life Online needs to examine its policies around the "Opinion" category. I had assumed that some kind of basic qualification was required for writing an option piece on a particular issue. What were Mr. Fletcher's qualifications for attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury on the issue of the place of sharia in British society? Does he know anything about sharia beyond what he thinks he has learned from the news media? Judging by his article, he does not.
William K. Gilders
Atlanta, Georgia