BBoy says 'The notion that Dr Rowan Williams advocated incorporating Sharia Law into the UK, represents a nadir in both misdirected citizen outrage and irresponsible journalism.' Have you not read Melanie Phillips on the topic?. It is clear concise and quite superb and will change you point of view totally. Unless of course you choose to remain ignorant.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/

The Archbishop of Canterbury said, and I quote,
"There is a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with SOME aspects of Muslim law as we already do with some kinds of aspects of other religious law."

But he DID NOT endorse the "kind of inhumanity" that was associated with sharia in some Islamic states.

His comments were made in a lecture on civil and religious law given at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, and were swiftly rebutted by the Prime Minister Gordon Brown's spokesman, who insisted British law would be based on British values and that sharia law would be no justification for acting against national law.

"Our general position is that sharia law cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor should the principles of sharia law be included in a civil court for resolving contractual disputes," he said.

"If there are specific instances like stamp duty, where changes can be made in a way that's consistent with British law and British values, in a way to accommodate the values of fundamental Muslims, that is something the Government would look at."

As a previous poster exclaimed - "For Shame" on the author, for not presenting all of the facts as they occurred. And "shame" also
on those posters - who simply rant and rave about anything that has the word "Islam" in it.

It is all about power.If an Anglican waning diety sees an opportunity,then let Allah be the vehicle to his/her power.We don't need churches or godly concepts,just more faith in ourselves.

Foxy, the problem is a little like democracy - you can either take all or it, or leave all of it: Democracy functions due to the sum of its constituent parts, not just laws, but elections, separation of powers, separation of 'church' and state.

Who is to decide which bits of Sharia Law are to be incorporated into the law of the land? If it is only those parts of Sharia that already agree with the current law, then there is no point in privileging it. It is already there.

Or are you saying that Britain, and possibly Australia, should adopt the model currently in India, where some types of disputes are ruled upon by government set-up religious courts, where the culture of the parties are taken into account? That is, where a 'Christian' woman is treated more favourably than an Islamic woman in an otherwise identical family law matter, and where a Hindu women is treated differently again?

To privilege Sharia Law in a western democracy is to discriminate against women. After a long struggle, women and men are at least nominally equal (but not fully equal) under the law in the west, this is one thing that Islamic extremists are fighting against. Do you really want to set women back into the dark ages of being little more than chattels and possessions? Do you advocate the Sharia position because it privileges males?

Foxy: What do YOU see the role of Sharia in a 'western' democracy is? Seeing that it has been argued that democracy - being the acceptance of the inherent value of the individual - depends on so called Christian values?

Ah, Boaz, the undisputed champion of the knee-jerk, whack-a-mozzie reaction.

>>Probably a good place to share this...MINNEAPOLIS/ST PAUL (Muslim) TAXI DRIVERS REFUSE SERVICE TO PASSENGERS CARRYING ALCHOLOL[sic].<<

Boaz, you know as well as anyone that this was a pure media beat-up. The airport commission voted unanimously "to suspend for 30 days any driver who refuses to carry a passenger. A repeat offense could result in a two-year license revocation."

I know that this does not give you any pleasure, because it removes just one more opportunity for you to rant on about the encroaching Islamic hordes.

>>Does everyone see it? I surely hope so...<<

We do, Boaz. And it's not a pretty sight, that dribble on your chin.

>>Call to Prayer from Mosques: UK http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/14/nchurch214.xml

Did you read the article?

>>Last month, dozens of people packed into a council meeting to signal their outrage, claiming they feared the prayer call would be an "un-neighbourly intrusion" that could turn the area into a "Muslim ghetto".<<

"dozens of people" Boaz? "packed into a council meeting"? Yeah, right, that's a lot of worried Boaz's, signalling their outrage.

As someone who was woken up every Sunday as a youth by three separate local churches clanging away, I have a certain sympathy with the noise pollution argument. But it never struck me as signalling a religious revolution, despite the fact that the three churches were clearly different denominations. If it did turn into a "Christian ghetto", I didn't notice it.

>>Never mind the fact that they KNOW that to migrate to a place MEANS abiding by its laws.<<

Laws move with the times, Boaz, unlike you.

One day there may even be a law against beating your daughter - that's the day you should fear most, I reckon.

BOAZ,

CLAIM. "If.. muslims are allowed to dominate any industry or area, they WILL without question seek to impose Sharia law on the community, even if that goes against the law of the land."

Who is making that claim and under what circumstances could it possibly happen?