In a question and answer session with the ladies (and a few guest men) of the Holy Trinity Mothers' Union yesterday, the question of the Archbishop's remarks came up once again. I have written a piece for Urban Saints (formerly Crusaders) leaders on this but it will only be available to those who subscribe to their Energize web-site. So here is an edited and, as far as I am able, simplified, version.
Last Thursday, in an interview on Radio 4’s The World at One, Archbishop Rowan Williams appeared to suggest that there was a certain inevitability about the adoption of some aspects of Sharia Law in the United Kingdom. The interview was in advance of a lecture to be given that evening. Although it was a reasonably long interview, and he was guarded and cautious, the opposition generated was astounding.
‘Sharia law is the body of Islamic religious law. The term means ‘way’ or ‘path to the water source’; it is the legal framework within which the public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Islamic principles of jurisprudence and for Muslims living outside the domain. Sharia deals with many aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business, contracts, family, sexuality, hygiene, and social issues.’[i]
Sharia is not a fixed system. Within it some actions which we consider abuses of human rights are enshrined. But the Archbishop said, ‘...while certain elements of the sharia are specified fairly exactly in the Qur'an... there is no single code that can be identified as 'the' sharia.’[ii] So although he distanced himself from being thought to advocate the adoption of sharia in its entirety, many journalists and commentators picked up on the Archbishop’s use of one word, ‘unavoidable.’
There followed a scramble of comments on the relationship between the law of the land and sharia, most of them based on things the Archbishop did not say. For many the idea of sharia conjures up images of stonings and amputations. But we should be very wary of judging a whole movement by its extreme positions – that would be like assuming all Christians are Mormon polygamists. In his opening address to General Synod last weekend the Archbishop quoted Ronald Knox saying, 'The prevailing attitude ... was one of heavy disagreement with a number of things which the [speaker] had not said.'
The text of the interview and lecture are both available. You can also listen to the lecture, courtesy of the BBC, here. The lecture is academic and includes many precise and technical words. Only the finest minds could listen to it and make immediate sense of it without access to the text later. The interview, whilst still complex, attempts to simplify for a non-technical audience, the nature of the discussion. It is probably within this process that the confusion arose. It is not easy to popularise a complex lecture for a non-specialist audience before you have delivered it to the specialists.
Many laws and rules govern our behaviour. We put ourselves under some of them voluntarily. The two places I have been questioned about this both have their own sets of rules:
Pubs - drinking hours, management right to refuse
Mothers' Union - subscriptions
In sports and games we stick to the rules or we will find ourselves in trouble, or become a founder of rugby football. If we belong to a club we agree to abide by its regulations. In each case access to a higher authority is possible – a person badly fouled in a game of football can sue in the civil court for damages. So where do we agree to have our disputes resolved? Arbitration is often agreed between parties without resorting to using the courts, but appeal to a higher court or authority is always available.
There already exist some concessions to faith communities in matters of family law within the law of our land. The Church of England enjoys the privilege of having control over its own buildings (through the ‘faculty’ system) without recourse to the law of the land. Church consistory courts hear cases on matters of parish discipline.
The Archbishop appears to argue that there should be a certain tolerance of faith groups in the order of a state justice system. Some will say no to that in a secular society; others might affirm individual group’s rights to self-policing as long as the law of the land is still the ultimate authority.
We live in a culture of opposition. Truth is established by setting out alternative propositions. Sometimes the desire to find the alternative pushes aside the desire to understand what is being said. We're an argumentative lot. We have all experienced being contradicted or even shouted down before we have finished our point. We are not good at hearing people out. The newspapers represent this. The Sun's headline was, 'What a burka!' Hardly tolerant.
There is a strong theme in the Old Testament prophets of the need for leaders to counter injustice and speak out on behalf of the unrepresented – see Amos 2:6-7 in particular. Has the Archbishop done any more than that? Christians believe that Jesus removed our obligations towards the ceremonial law (ritual washing, food laws etc) but the ethical law still stands, although needing interpretation in the light of today's culture.
In Romans 13:1-7 Paul writes about the law of the land and our attitude to authority. His basic premise is that the authorities are good. They are established by God and we should obey them.
‘It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.’[iii] Let us be more entertaining of views we don't immediately find attractive. We may grow to love them, and that has to be a good theme for Valentine's Day.
[i] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
[ii] http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575
[iii] attributed to Aristotle
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Education
Liz is away for the night so imagine my joy at dicovering I had forgotten to unset the alarm clock from its usual 6a.m. At least that enables me to catch up on a few things.
One of the difficulties a liberal, chattering society has is chattering with the poorly educated. We have to learn to jettison our assumptions that others will respond to rational argument. Yesterday I was talking to someone about a suggestion made in a meeting of a large Christian organisation. It was a suggestion that everyone thought was great until someone delivered a quality speech against it and then everyone agreed the idea was rubbish. That is fantastic and the way liberal, chattering democracy works. We all listen and are willing to change our minds. Job done.
But how do you change the mind of a Lancashire mother who, complaining that the newly nourishing food in the school canteen is of 'insufficient quality' for her child, smuggles fish and chips through the rails of the boundary between the school and the cemetery, backed up, wouldn't you know, by the local fish and chip shop owner, who is publicly quoted as saying that this argument is about the right of mothers to feed their children? It isn't feeding if done daily, it's assisted suicide. Trust me. I had fish and chips last night and today it's killing me.
Jamie Oliver has won the argument about nourishing food in canteens and demonstrated that, with the right will, minds can be changed. But it took passion, demonstration and hard work. I think he succeeded because his roots aren't liberal chattering class. He knew how to change the minds of the sort of people whose minds needed changing.
How can we make it easier for the poorly educated to change their minds without feeling they have lost?
And how, more complicatedly, do you change the minds of the entire nations, differently educated, who now want to demand an apology from the Pope for daring to quote an ancient, anti-Islamic source in an academic lecture. Before half a day had passed the whole Parliament of Pakistan, most of whom would have been unfamiliar with anything by then except populist reporting of the matter, had passed a motion calling for him to recant.
On the streets effigies of his holiness were burning
The Pope may have some unpleasant, illiberal views, and certainly in his position he should be guarded, but I'm beginning to think reporters shouldn't be allowed in such academic lectures unless they have a proven background in anti-inflamatory writing.
Of course it is the chattering, liberal(ish), democratically elected government (for whom I voted and to whom I can speak) who are responsible for education in this country so I'm not blaming anyone except myself here for the first problem.
The second scares me. Can we talk about it?
One of the difficulties a liberal, chattering society has is chattering with the poorly educated. We have to learn to jettison our assumptions that others will respond to rational argument. Yesterday I was talking to someone about a suggestion made in a meeting of a large Christian organisation. It was a suggestion that everyone thought was great until someone delivered a quality speech against it and then everyone agreed the idea was rubbish. That is fantastic and the way liberal, chattering democracy works. We all listen and are willing to change our minds. Job done.
But how do you change the mind of a Lancashire mother who, complaining that the newly nourishing food in the school canteen is of 'insufficient quality' for her child, smuggles fish and chips through the rails of the boundary between the school and the cemetery, backed up, wouldn't you know, by the local fish and chip shop owner, who is publicly quoted as saying that this argument is about the right of mothers to feed their children? It isn't feeding if done daily, it's assisted suicide. Trust me. I had fish and chips last night and today it's killing me.
Jamie Oliver has won the argument about nourishing food in canteens and demonstrated that, with the right will, minds can be changed. But it took passion, demonstration and hard work. I think he succeeded because his roots aren't liberal chattering class. He knew how to change the minds of the sort of people whose minds needed changing.
How can we make it easier for the poorly educated to change their minds without feeling they have lost?
And how, more complicatedly, do you change the minds of the entire nations, differently educated, who now want to demand an apology from the Pope for daring to quote an ancient, anti-Islamic source in an academic lecture. Before half a day had passed the whole Parliament of Pakistan, most of whom would have been unfamiliar with anything by then except populist reporting of the matter, had passed a motion calling for him to recant.
On the streets effigies of his holiness were burning
The Pope may have some unpleasant, illiberal views, and certainly in his position he should be guarded, but I'm beginning to think reporters shouldn't be allowed in such academic lectures unless they have a proven background in anti-inflamatory writing.
Of course it is the chattering, liberal(ish), democratically elected government (for whom I voted and to whom I can speak) who are responsible for education in this country so I'm not blaming anyone except myself here for the first problem.
The second scares me. Can we talk about it?
Friday, October 21, 2005
Islam
A few weeks ago I talked about the possibility of lying if someone told you at gunpoint to 'Choose Islam or die'. Started a few conversations, which I see as a good thing given the aim of this blog.
The subject of Islam has come up again this week following the coincidence of the visit of Patrick Sookdeo to our church and the chapters in A New Kind of Christian on other faiths.
Patrick said that the government is under-playing the figure for the number of Muslims in this country. He told us that at the present rate of growth we will gain 300,000 Muslims a year and could see a population of 5-6 million in 10 years time. This would amount to about 10% of the population of our country.
Is it wrong to have a reputation for being a friendly and welcoming country? Many asylum seekers are Muslims? We do not have a religion-test before allowing people in. Should we be frightened of the changes caused by the influx of Islam? Wary maybe, but frightened? Don't think so. And as Christians we should certainly not become over-militant. If we are welcoming we are not supposed to be welcoming people into a fight. I have a great deal of difficulty with the metaphor of Christianity versus everyone else as warfare.
Ephesians 6 tells us to be equipped for a spiritual battle. You can convey the same sentiments and principles with a different image. The battle analogy is culturally bound. How about:
Finally, be cool in the Lord, the King of cool. Put on all the oomph going so that you can face evil with confidence. This is not just a human thing. If you are frightened of muggers in dark alleyways take the light way home. Spiritual opposition is more subtle. So be prepared. And ready for whatever.
Being honest is like keeping your trousers on. It should be obvious. Only take your trousers off if they are really holding you back.
Don't let anything get into your heart that will spoil your relationship with the one who made it.
Know your Jesus stories. Like pride in a good pair of new trainers, let people notice and wonder where you got them.
Hold your beliefs firmly and sincerely if people are chucking random bits of pseudo-religious nonsense at you, but be prepared to put them down for a while when the chatter is calm and seeking after truth.
Know your eternal future in your head and keep a hat on in winter. You lose a lot of heat through the top of your body.
Wise people compiled books of words they thought they heard God saying and things they thought they saw God doing. Wiser people still sorted them out and put them together. If you meet people who haven't read these words try and help them. It's easier than trying to listen to God's voice directly and you don't have to go up a mountain to do it.
Give God feedback pretty much all the time. It sometimes feels like he's not listening but enough people think he is for it to be worth the risk. What harm can it do? While you're at it, ask him to help others who are seeking after the truth too.
(Ephesians 6:10-18 without a battle or a weapon in sight and with apologies to Eugene Peterson and the New International Version compilers)
I like living in a country where people tend to apologise for having their toe trodden on rather than acting aggressively. I like living in a country where we are coming to grips with the evils of our colonial past and are repenting rather than being proud. I like living in a democracy and part of that involves a willingness on the part of the minority to go along with the opinion of the majority. Democracy is, as has been said many times before, a flawed system, but there is no better one. We may need to improve our democracy but for the forseeable future it is the system. Part of being welcoming involves giving the new arrivals a voice.
I have been told by some commentators that Muslims live together for separatist reasons, forming parallel societies. Yet socio-economic reasons must be just as powerful. If I am a jobless, Muslim, asylum-seeking immigrant I am not going to find a pad in Virginia Water. Successful Muslim business people do move out to the suburbs and make good neighbours. Like-minded, like-origined, like-faithed people do like-living near each other. In our part of Leamington we even call one street Bible-belt these days. It's because the Christian first-time buyers have identified it as the best place they can afford to live, for the moment.
I have heard it said that the Muslim community won't embrace multi-culturalism. I can't believe they all won't. There are liberal and conservative Christians and Muslims. Some like talking to people with whom they have differences. Others don't.
We have a mature faith. If God is real we do not need to defend God. If someone speaks ill of Christianity during Easter or Christmas we do not need to take offence. The Bible asks us to consider if we should be slow to take offence in various circumstances. We invite Muslim children at church schools to come to the Christian church. I'm told they say the Lord's prayer. We show respect to the Koran because it is the tradition of Islam to reverence their holy book; this is not a widely held Christian tradition with the Bible. We respect and reverence the words, not the binding. Showing courtesy to another faith's holy book is just good manners.
Random observations to conclude:
Jesus showed passivity. Maybe we should start calling the Passion the Passive.
I'm really going to try to make friends with a Muslim.
What possible 'right' have I got to say this is my land? As the philosopher Mick Dundee put it in Crocodile Dundee, 'I reckon the land's been here for 12 million years and we've been here about 200. It's more true to say the land owns us.'
Brian McLaren suggests that there is so much culture wrapped up in being a Muslim, or Buddhist, that we need to think in terms of introducing Christ but not our culture. That would suggest a period of succesful dialogue might lead to there being Buddhochristians or Islamochristians - Jesus driving any evil out of the culture. Of course we need to remind ourselves that there is plenty of evil in western Christian culture which needs to be driven out. And we need to be content that we may see the growth of Christomuslims or Christobuddhists too. It cuts both ways.
Where do you see the truth?
The subject of Islam has come up again this week following the coincidence of the visit of Patrick Sookdeo to our church and the chapters in A New Kind of Christian on other faiths.
Patrick said that the government is under-playing the figure for the number of Muslims in this country. He told us that at the present rate of growth we will gain 300,000 Muslims a year and could see a population of 5-6 million in 10 years time. This would amount to about 10% of the population of our country.
Is it wrong to have a reputation for being a friendly and welcoming country? Many asylum seekers are Muslims? We do not have a religion-test before allowing people in. Should we be frightened of the changes caused by the influx of Islam? Wary maybe, but frightened? Don't think so. And as Christians we should certainly not become over-militant. If we are welcoming we are not supposed to be welcoming people into a fight. I have a great deal of difficulty with the metaphor of Christianity versus everyone else as warfare.
Ephesians 6 tells us to be equipped for a spiritual battle. You can convey the same sentiments and principles with a different image. The battle analogy is culturally bound. How about:
Finally, be cool in the Lord, the King of cool. Put on all the oomph going so that you can face evil with confidence. This is not just a human thing. If you are frightened of muggers in dark alleyways take the light way home. Spiritual opposition is more subtle. So be prepared. And ready for whatever.
Being honest is like keeping your trousers on. It should be obvious. Only take your trousers off if they are really holding you back.
Don't let anything get into your heart that will spoil your relationship with the one who made it.
Know your Jesus stories. Like pride in a good pair of new trainers, let people notice and wonder where you got them.
Hold your beliefs firmly and sincerely if people are chucking random bits of pseudo-religious nonsense at you, but be prepared to put them down for a while when the chatter is calm and seeking after truth.
Know your eternal future in your head and keep a hat on in winter. You lose a lot of heat through the top of your body.
Wise people compiled books of words they thought they heard God saying and things they thought they saw God doing. Wiser people still sorted them out and put them together. If you meet people who haven't read these words try and help them. It's easier than trying to listen to God's voice directly and you don't have to go up a mountain to do it.
Give God feedback pretty much all the time. It sometimes feels like he's not listening but enough people think he is for it to be worth the risk. What harm can it do? While you're at it, ask him to help others who are seeking after the truth too.
(Ephesians 6:10-18 without a battle or a weapon in sight and with apologies to Eugene Peterson and the New International Version compilers)
I like living in a country where people tend to apologise for having their toe trodden on rather than acting aggressively. I like living in a country where we are coming to grips with the evils of our colonial past and are repenting rather than being proud. I like living in a democracy and part of that involves a willingness on the part of the minority to go along with the opinion of the majority. Democracy is, as has been said many times before, a flawed system, but there is no better one. We may need to improve our democracy but for the forseeable future it is the system. Part of being welcoming involves giving the new arrivals a voice.
I have been told by some commentators that Muslims live together for separatist reasons, forming parallel societies. Yet socio-economic reasons must be just as powerful. If I am a jobless, Muslim, asylum-seeking immigrant I am not going to find a pad in Virginia Water. Successful Muslim business people do move out to the suburbs and make good neighbours. Like-minded, like-origined, like-faithed people do like-living near each other. In our part of Leamington we even call one street Bible-belt these days. It's because the Christian first-time buyers have identified it as the best place they can afford to live, for the moment.
I have heard it said that the Muslim community won't embrace multi-culturalism. I can't believe they all won't. There are liberal and conservative Christians and Muslims. Some like talking to people with whom they have differences. Others don't.
We have a mature faith. If God is real we do not need to defend God. If someone speaks ill of Christianity during Easter or Christmas we do not need to take offence. The Bible asks us to consider if we should be slow to take offence in various circumstances. We invite Muslim children at church schools to come to the Christian church. I'm told they say the Lord's prayer. We show respect to the Koran because it is the tradition of Islam to reverence their holy book; this is not a widely held Christian tradition with the Bible. We respect and reverence the words, not the binding. Showing courtesy to another faith's holy book is just good manners.
Random observations to conclude:
Jesus showed passivity. Maybe we should start calling the Passion the Passive.
I'm really going to try to make friends with a Muslim.
What possible 'right' have I got to say this is my land? As the philosopher Mick Dundee put it in Crocodile Dundee, 'I reckon the land's been here for 12 million years and we've been here about 200. It's more true to say the land owns us.'
Brian McLaren suggests that there is so much culture wrapped up in being a Muslim, or Buddhist, that we need to think in terms of introducing Christ but not our culture. That would suggest a period of succesful dialogue might lead to there being Buddhochristians or Islamochristians - Jesus driving any evil out of the culture. Of course we need to remind ourselves that there is plenty of evil in western Christian culture which needs to be driven out. And we need to be content that we may see the growth of Christomuslims or Christobuddhists too. It cuts both ways.
Where do you see the truth?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)