Archbishop defends remarks on Sharia

Williams accepts using wrong words that has caused ‘misunderstanding’ among the public

LONDON: The Archbishop of Canterbury, who has been under fire for the last few days for his comments on the ‘inevitability’ of Sharia law in the UK, gave an apology of sorts to the Church of England’s highest body — the general synod.

Last week, Rowan Williams, the most senior figure in the Church of England, suggested that giving Islamic law official status in the UK would help to achieve social cohesion and mean that Muslims would no longer have to choose between two systems.

This brought condemnation from all political parties, media and some bishops among the Anglican Church. The tabloid press had a field day calling Williams a ‘burka’, and some conservative evangelicals even called for his resignation.

Since Thursday when Williams made the speech at the Royal Courts of Justice, he had not clarified his position until he spoke to the synod on Monday.

While the Archbishop defended his remarks on sharia law he took responsibility for ‘misleading choice of words’ which had helped to cause ‘misunderstanding’ among the public. Stopping short of a full apology as demanded by many, 57-year-old Williams who is regarded as the ‘intensely intellectual Primate’ Britain has had for decades, he moved to neutralise the crisis.

“It is not inappropriate for a pastor of the Church of England to address issues around the perceived concerns of other religious communities and to try to bring them into better public focus,” said Williams defending his earlier speech.

He blamed the media for the outpouring of anger. “Some of what has been heard is a very long way from what was said last Thursday,” he told his audience in Westminster. As a show of support Williams received a minute-long standing ovation from the majority of the 482-strong synod on his arrival at the Church Hall.

During his 20-minute speech he reiterated his earlier position on a debate to adopt certain aspects of sharia for Muslims in the UK.

“The question remains whether certain additional choices could and should be made available under the law of the UK…it would create a helpful interaction between the courts and the practice of Muslim legal scholars,” he said.

He noted that many Muslim-majority countries distinguished between the rights of citizens overall and the duties accepted by some citizens of obedience to Islamic law. “It is this that encourages me that there may be ways of engaging with the world of Islamic law on something other than an all or nothing basis,” he added.