“so what is Rowan saying,” Simply in order to reduce the possibilities of confusion I can only refer you to what the ABofC actually said.

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1573

“is he right,” I can only speak from my own encounters with Muslims and the theology of the ABofC: having read the ABofC’s speech I find myself trying to find the weak spots and flaws, but the limits and confines to any accomodation of Sharia which he clearly states in his speech have convinced me that he has done much to take public debate forward. “Is he right?” you ask. Well, I think we’d have to judge that on the basis of the continuing quality of dialogue between Islam, Christianity and British Law and would depend on the efficacy (legal, social and personal) of how certain limited aspects of Sharia are implemented.

“what does it mean in terms of change in our society regarding our engagement with Shari’ah?” Hopefully, and I think what has started to happen in certain places, it will mean that we become far more aware of when we are allowing crude images of the extremities and unjust expressions of Sharia to dictate our whole vision of what Sharia can be. As the ABofC was at pains to make clear:

“if we are to think intelligently about the relations between Islam and British law, we need a fair amount of ‘deconstruction’ of crude oppositions and mythologies, whether of the nature of sharia or the nature of the Enlightenment”

“If you think I’ve missed it entirely, I’d like to know what I missed.” I don’t think you missed it entirely, but I think there is a general human tendency which we are all vulnerable to, and that is the tendency to jump to conclusions in an effort to sate our appetite for understanding and our desire for certainty, or to use the ABofC’s terminology, an “Impatience with ambiguity”. Taking the time to be patient with ambiguity will mean that the debate generates more light than heat and a higher quality of dialogue can be had.

Thanks for re-posting that missing link, appreciated, I hadn’t seen that clip before (I don’t watch much TV).

You wrote: “To describe Christian conversion in terms of “vanquishing an … enemy” indicates a lack of understanding of the gospel” Precisely my point, this was absolutely not something I was advocating! I’m quite sure about that!

And finally, you asked: “what I really don’t understand is why we, as followers of Jesus, would seek to reinforce any system that makes people more subject to religious law.” I really don’t see any reason to assume that certain limited aspects of Sharia in appropriate circumstances would “make people more subject to religious law.” That really isn’t how I’d imagine it at all. Do you mind if I quote a bit from the Radio 4 interview with Christopher Landau:

CL So for example one of the examples you give where Sharia might be applied is in relation to marriage; what would that look like; what would that mean for example a British Muslim woman suddenly given the choice to settle a dispute via a Sharia route as opposed to the existing British legal system?

ABC It’s very important hat you mention there the word ‘choice’; I think it would be quite wrong to say that we could ever licence so to speak a system of law for some community which gave people no right of appeal, no way of exercising the rights that are guaranteed to them as citizens in general, so that a woman in such circumstances would have to know that she was not signing away for good and all; now this is a matter of detail that I don’t know enough about the detail of the law in the Islamic law in this context; I’m simply saying that there are ways of looking at marital dispute for example within discussions that go on among some contemporary scholars which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them. In some cultural and religious settings they would seem more appropriate.

It seems to me that if provision can be made for certain aspects of Sharia to be made active depending on how appropriate they are to circumstance and need in a particular area, then it could possibly be quite unjust to deny such provision. I think this comes back to the “‘deconstruction’ of crude oppositions”, dialogical engagement and being open to mutually critical yet appreciative partnership with those of other religious identity.

Also have a look at this, taken from Jens Christensen’s “A Practical Approach to Muslims”.

To describe Christian conversion in terms of “vanquishing an … enemy” indicates a lack of understanding of the gospel, unless you mean our enmity with God. If you’re not sure on that, I’m confident you will know where you might do some reading or listening.

“I’d be interested to hear from anyone who supports his proposals just what they think this should mean in practice…” Simply that any imagiative Christian response to multiculturalism must engage in a mutually critical partnership with those it finds itself alongside, to challenge ignorance wherever it may be found and impatience with our own lack of understanding at every turn. Certainly not to see(k) Christian conversion as a result of vanquishing an imagined enemy, whether (ir)religious, cultural or Uttlesford. That would be some sort of start towards fulfilling Christ’s nature as “Son of Man”, not just “Son of God”.

Rowan and Islam for dummies and, for a longer version, Shari’ah: Why Williams was wrong.

None of this would prevent me joining in with a rousing chorus of “For he’s a jolly good fellow”. It just means I think he got it wrong (and I also think “the media” mostly understood him).

I’d be interested to hear from anyone who supports his proposals just what they think this should mean in practice (beyond, of course, what is happening already – he would hardly have given this speech just to endorse that.)

“Obscurely worded? Rowan Williams commented: “But I must of course take responsibility for any unclarity in either that text or in the radio interview, and for any misleading choice of words that has helped to cause distress or misunderstanding among the public at large and especially among my fellow Christians.”” Which, to me, clearly shows how gracious the ABofC is being with the likes of you and me.

“You also wrote, ““Look at what is being proposed, not at the man proposing it.” I would hope that actually they were one and the same.” Not sure I get you.” Simply that a person is the sum of their thoughts, actions and speech, integrity being measured in the level of unity between thought, action and speech.

“You also wrote, ““If in doubt, read Martin O’Neill in the New Statesman.” Hahahahahahaha, you so funny!” I have read O’Neill, it was difficult, not to understand, but to stomach so much irrationalilty. Don’t put yourself down! You are so much funnier than you realise!

“If this is Christian debate it doesn’t say much for Christianity!” It doesn’t, it’s in a mess, not because of robust debate but because such issues have been swept under a carpet for far too long where they are hidden from the light of reason and imagination. Anyway, if a bit of argy-bargy debate is something to be feared then you’ll want to keep your distance from that Jesus bloke, what with all that table-turning, talk of white-washed graves and of bringing a sword rather than peace…I guess we’d better skip over those bits though…such a bad witness…

Adieu.

christianity would be a really bad idea without the founder

I agree.

You’re not exactly increasing my estimate of the level of debate.

You wrote, “Not an obscure idea at all, much discussed in university departments of theology and religion, not just the “liberal” ones either. Obscurely worded? Only by the careless listener/reader.”

Actually I wrote, bad idea. Obscurely worded? Rowan Williams commented: “But I must of course take responsibility for any unclarity in either that text or in the radio interview, and for any misleading choice of words that has helped to cause distress or misunderstanding among the public at large and especially among my fellow Christians.”

You also wrote, ““Look at what is being proposed, not at the man proposing it.” I would hope that actually they were one and the same.”

Not sure I get you.

You also wrote, ““If in doubt, read Martin O’Neill in the New Statesman.” Hahahahahahaha, you so funny!”

Am I? And have you read O’Neill?

If this is Christian debate it doesn’t say much for Christianity!