The Wardman Wire

A Solution by Scapegoat?

[Update 15:40. A couple of people have emailed me commenting that critics of the ABC have now come into the open.

However, I have commented on the "anonymous Cleric", not on lay members of the Synod. So I do not need to update my piece.]

Laying aside for a moment my usual mantle of restraint. From the Times yesterday:

A senior Church of England clergyman called today for the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, over his remarks supporting Sharia in England.

Bollocks.

The senior Synod member, who insisted on remaining anonymous, told The Times: “A lot of people will now have lost confidence in him. I am just so shocked, and cannot believe a man of his intelligence could be so gullible. I can only assume that all the Muslims he meets are senior leaders of the community who tell him what a wonderful book the Koran is.

I don’t have a problem with people calling for senior figures to stand down. I do have a problem when it is done anonymously.

The Senior Cleric knows as well as I do that it is hugely difficult to sack almost anyone - especially Senior Clerics - in the Church of England, without the sort of process that would make a protagonist from I’m Alright Jack tremble in his Branch Meeting. Their position is safe.

If he (or she) hasn’t got the balls (and the integrity) to come out in public to put a proper argument and stab the Archbishop in the front, and rather relies on stabbing ++Rowan in the back - then I rather wish it was easier for Senior Clerics to be sacked.

One thing I’ll say for bloggers is that they are usually open about their opinions, their identities, and their affiliations.

On the same subject, David Keen comments:

No he shouldn’t resign. That’s a job for whoever was responsible for the Two Minutes Hate that was yesterdays Sun.

If this is what happens whenever someone tries to start a debate on a serious subject, it’s no wonder we get politicians who are more concerned with lining their pockets than thinking through the issues our society faces. After this, who will dare to open up a debate on the place of Islam in modern Britain? Knowing how contentious the subject is, RW should, in hindsight, have run his ideas past a few people first. But hey, that’s what mistakes are for - learning from. We also have a culture which doesn’t allow people to make mistakes in public. It’s the culture of the gladiator - as soon as you put yourself on the floor of the arena, its you vs the wild animals, and the population bays for blood from the stands.

Quite.

Scratch the Surface…

The Archbishop has opened up an important debate. He has also highlighted up just how incapable we are of having serious debates on important issues without resorting to hair-trigger prejudice.

This question of whether British society is capable of serious reflection is perhaps more important that the particular debate about Sharia.

I’ll return to this in more detail later, but Bishop Alan writes cogently on the issue.

Welcome to 1829: Scary Roman Catholics

In some aspects attacking “Muslims” using the stick called “Sharia”, is a replay of the ignorant prejudice against Roman Catholics when they were given votes back in 1829. As Alan says:

At the time of Roman Catholic emancipation back in 1829 we experienced big social hysteria about how people who theoretically owe allegiance to other systems of law could be completely part of English society. We’ve pretty much managed to work that one out — the whole idea that Roman Catholics are a sinister fifth column is just wrong, though this crazy notion has deep roots in English history. Loyal is as loyal does. Within the overarching framework of monarchy we’re all still here, and the deep fried hysteria from 1780 (the Gordon riots) or 1685 (the Popish Plot) seems, frankly, potty. From this we learn that the English sometimes do hysterical kneejerks. Best check that the bogeymen really are bogeymen. In a country containing people who don’t know the difference between a paediatrician and a paedophile, this is particularly important.

Fast forward. Muslims, in fact, represent 3% of the UK population. In the cold light of day, fear that Bearded Ayatollahs are about to march up Whitehall and Take Power is utterly ridiculous. It’s particularly babyish when you remember 99% of actual British Muslims live decent, law abiding lives, according to rather conservative standards of family life. Forget that fact, and we make big fools of ourselves. Muslims know the UK is not a Muslim nation, and don’t either expect or want it to be. They just expect basic standards of decency and respect towards their faith; which they are entitled to do, because decency and respect are values we all profess, secured by basic charters of human rights.

And he drives the point home:

Hysteria about Bogeymen is a great British Tradition. It gets people talking. But when they do, historically, they usually talk rubbish.

And to 2007: Scary Muslims

Yayha Birt, of “Musings on the Britannic Crescent” a Muslim writer for EMEL Magazine, comments:

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent intervention on the recognition of Shariah in English law has sent the country into a spin. His address on “Civil and Religious Law in England”, which calls for “interactive pluralism” in law, is far from being a call for legal and cultural separatism. However alarmed the reaction has been, there is simply no question of separate or independent courts; rather, the aim, it seems, is to bring existing informal Shariah courts under the purview of English law.

The main reason for the adverse and fearful reaction is that Shariah is popularly used as a synonym for penal law with its fixed penalties that can involve capital punishment. However, there is no Muslim representative body advocating Islamic penal law in Britain. Furthermore, the term “Shariah” itself is an umbrella concept that includes criminal and civil law, ethics, personal morality and conduct and matters of worship. Thus, due to this semantic confusion, attacks on the Shariah can often be misconstrued by Muslims as an attack upon their core values. More clarity about what Shariah actually means is essential to moving this debate forward constructively.

Wrapping Up

There has been some excellent serious commentary, as well as kneejerks - and I will respond to Matthew Sinclair later (perhaps with agreement, we’ll see), since he nodded in my direction in his first article.

One thing we do need to do - no matter what our view - is to follow through on that last sentence from Yayha:

More clarity about what Shariah actually means is essential to moving this debate forward constructively

That is necessary even for those of us who can be characterised as “anti-Sharia”.

This is my last “can we have a serious debate, please” post. I’ll be moving on to participate in that debate.

Tags: matt wardman, matt sinclair, david keen, sharia, rowan williams, yayha birt[tags]matt wardman, matt sinclair, david keen, sharia, rowan williams, yayha birt[/tags]