The Anglo-Islamic Church
Episcopal News Service. February 10, 2008 [021008-01]
Gary Fletcher, Parishioner at Our Savior’s Lutheran Church in Everett, Washington
Editor's note: Following a strong reaction in the media and elsewhere to the Archbishop of Canterbury's remarks indicating that certain aspects of Islamic Sharia law should be introduced into the British legal system, Lambeth Palace issued a statement February 8 saying that Dr. Rowan Williams made no such proposals. The full text of the February 7 lecture in which Williams talks about civil and religious law in England is available here.
This unbelievable headline caught my eye immediately. Archbishop: Adoption of Sharia Law in U.K. is 'Unavoidable'
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, has suggested that it "seems unavoidable" that elements of Islamic law be accepted into the British legal system.
I suggest a better headline would have been: "Archbishop of Canterbury Loses His Mind." Why in the world would the leader of the Church of England advocate for the imposition of Islamic law in Britain?
So profound a misunderstanding of the proud English and British heritage from the leader of the Church of England it is incomprehensible. Ironically, his comments demonstrate either ignorance of or hostility toward the historic commitment of the British people to freedom and self-determination. The first nation to emerge from the political chaos of the Middle Ages, the defiant victor over the militarily superior Spanish Armada in the 16th century, the last bastion in Europe against the forces of fascism in the century past, the people of the United Kingdom surrender their autonomy to no foreign power, secular or religious. Surrender is precisely what the Archbishop now says is "unavoidable."
Most astonishing, these comments by the Archbishop disavow the most significant underlying values which have defined British history. For at least eight centuries, Britons have been motivated by the struggle to extend human rights further and yet further. With Magna Carta in the 13th century, the power of the King was extended to the nobility. In the 17th century the historic "Rights of Englishmen" were set forth. Freedom has been extended to the former serf, to all the citizens, to former slaves, to the people of the former colonies. Britain is the mother country of many of the most dedicated and influential democracies in the world today, including Canada, Australia, and the United States of America, and provided the political model for democracy to take hold in the world's second most populous nation, India. The people of Britain have exhibited for centuries a love of freedom and the desire to spread freedom to oppressed people everywhere. It might not be too much to say that this is the defining self-concept of the modern United Kingdom. Islamic Sharia is an oppressive system, offensive to freedom-loving peoples everywhere. This is particularly so in Britain.
Judging by his comments, the Primate of All England would have the people of Britain accept imposition of a religious intolerance not seen in Britain since the time of Queen Mary I ("Bloody Mary") in the 16th century. The Archbishop stated that sanctioning Sharia will improve community relations and aid integration. I'm sure he is correct, in a sense. The burglar who is handed the keys to the store by the shopkeeper is very happy with his lot, very approving of the shopkeeper. Proponents of Sharia undoubtedly will be very happy with the remarks of the Archbishop, particularly if such comments are acted upon by either Church or government.
The same Archbishop Rowan Williams recently said, "In a society where we think of so many things as disposable, do we end up tempted to think of people and relationships as disposable?" I would ask the Archbishop whether he thinks the long and honorable heritage of British history, culture, and shared values is disposable.
The Archbishop has in effect called for the British people to abdicate their birthright of religious freedom. To acquiesce to the imposition of Sharia would undermine religious freedom, undermine the longstanding British principle of tolerance, undermine the very foundation of British society and government: "Rule of Law." The British concept of the rule of law began with Magna Carta, and has grown through the centuries. "Rule of Law" presumes the equality of all persons before the law, a concept foreign to Sharia. "Rule of Law" insists upon a separation of powers, rejects totalitarianism in civil or religious guise, and affirms legal protection of essential civil liberties. Sharia rejects all of these. British "Rule of Law" is founded upon the idea of "natural rights," rights with which persons are born, rights which belong to all by reason of simple humanity, not by the beneficence of any government or religious institution. The very concept of "natural rights" is absent in the realm of Islamic law.
The fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury is the leader of a major Christian church, the Church of England, must not be overlooked. As a religious leader, the Archbishop should understand that these comments demonstrate profound disregard for the message and meaning of Christianity. In the New Testament book of Galatians, the Apostle Paul wrote, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." Encouraging political recognition of Sharia is an endorsement of the very entanglement with the yoke of bondage against which the Apostle Paul warned.
The Archbishop's motive for asserting the inevitability of Islamic law in Britain is incomprehensible and bizarre. Endorsing religious tyranny is a slap in the face to all Britons, to all non-Islamic peoples, to all democracies which uphold human rights, to all persons of good faith throughout the world who believe that in the unalienable rights of human beings cannot be legitimately denied by government or religious authority. Endorsement of Sharia by the Archbishop undercuts the efforts and moral authority of courageous, freedom-loving Islamic reformers who are working to create or preserve the separation of secular and religious authority in Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, and throughout the Islamic world. To the historic concept of religious freedom, to democratic governments throughout the world, to universal human rights, this is an unexpected and stinging blow.
An ironic observation: In my source, this article appears on the same page as the following headline: "American Woman Jailed in Saudi Arabia for Sitting With Man at Starbucks." Is this our future? Apparently so, according to the Archbishop. His comments herald the next step in the cultural campaign for the Islamification of Britain and Europe. The Archbishop has given the extremist Moslem population encouragement in their hope of someday, perhaps soon, taking the reigns of power from the democratic people of Europe and the world.
In his misguided attempt at cultural inclusion, the leader of the Anglican Communion has undercut the resolve and surrendered the moral authority of the Church of England. I expected such a call for an attack on British culture, heritage, and values to come from an Ayatollah, not an Archbishop.
Shouldn't the leader of the Church of England at least give credence to the validity and universal applicability of the beliefs of his Church? As misguided as she was, at least Queen Mary I was acting in accordance with her religious principles. The Archbishop is making a mistake potentially as perilous, but in opposition to his avowed principles. Zealotry in pursuit of a religious agenda is dangerous. Acquiescence to zealots in opposition to one's own beliefs is dangerous, cowardly, hypocritical, and disingenuous.
Would the Archbishop relinquish title to the Christian church buildings, grant them to the proponents of Sharia for conversion into mosques? Of course not. But I ask, if he will not relinquish the rights to real estate, how then can he publicly relinquish the values of the church? Which is more important? Which is more easily recovered?
I am bewildered and appalled. How could the Archbishop have done this? Perhaps I should have expected this from the man who, a few months ago, characterized America (a nation founded upon and dedicated to liberty) as the world's "one global hegemonic power," and "the worst of all worlds." Interestingly enough, these remarks were published in an Islamic magazine.
Perhaps I am being too harsh. In fact, it may be that the Archbishop is trying to ease a transition he truly believes to be inescapable. Perhaps the Archbishop hasn't thought through all the implications of his statement. I call upon him then to correct his mistake, take up once more the righteous mantle of his office, and assume a leading role in opposition to tyrannical forces seeking a foothold in Britain. We will respect his enlightened efforts.
I call upon the leaders of the churches in the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth, America, and throughout the world publicly to reject these most dangerous comments. Irrevocable damage has been done. The Church must minimize the damage by disavowing the Archbishop's comments and reaffirming the historic commitment of the British people, the Church of England, indeed the entire Christian Church, to human rights and religious freedom.