Douglas Carswell MP: Why sharia-lite is wrong

Douglas Carswell, MP for Harwich & Clacton and a CentreRight contributor, explains why sharia cannot be implemented into UK law to any degree.

Unlike Rowan Williams, Sayed Qutb - the intellectual architect of political Islamism - was never noted for his nuance.  Qutb's 1964 manifesto, Milestones, is to the point;  sharia - the law of God - needs to be forcefully imposed on a decadent (jahili) world by a revolutionary Islamic vanguard.

Qutb argued that God's sovereignty over all the earth is violated wherever there is no sharia.  Anyone who therefore ignores sharia in favour of man-made laws cannot be a true Muslim.

However one looks at what Dr Williams said - and millions on Al Jazeera have - his comments can only have encouraged those inspired by Qutb's teachings.

As the BBC has been quick to point out, Dr Williams was not apparently arguing for nasty hand-chopping sharia.  No, he simply wants a little bit of civil sharia.  Just in a few cases.  Domestic disputes, you understand.  By consent, of course.  No "blank cheques", whatever that means.

Yet, if Qutb's Milestones is anything to go by, the kind of folk who want sharia - bar the odd Anglican clergyman - are unlikely to be satisfied with sharia's limited application in a few civil cases.

The Archbishop's "clarification" that he does not want a parallel legal system does not really reassure.  Williams "only" seeks an acceptance by the English legal system of some aspects of sharia.  Perhaps this is a nuance they will miss in some madrassas.

And that's surely the point.  It's not really about what Church of England clergy think, nor even what the majority of us think they think.  What counts is how this plays among Muslims.  For pious British Muslims, devoted in their faith, yet steadfast in rejecting Qutb's absolutism, Dr Williams just made an increasingly difficult position a bit less tenable.   

The Archbishop seems to genuinely think his "sharia lite" will help community cohesion.  Yet even just calling for it has done the precise opposite.  Qutb's once outlandish notion that without sharia one cannot be a true Muslim has been made a little more mainstream.

Worse than what Dr Williams said is his justification for saying it. Apparently "sharia lite" is necessary since not all those living in our country are now able to relate to Britain's legal system.

Think about that.  What can possibly have possessed the most senior clergyperson in the Church of England to believe that since not everyone can relate to the English legal system, we need to change our legal system?   It is an affliction called "multiculturalism".

Dr Williams no doubt believes he was talking about Islam, but his opaque utterances reveal far more about muddled Western ways of thinking.  Williams has inadvertently highlighted the enormity of the problem caused by the cultural relativism of our own Western elites.

Once you stop proclaiming allegiance to a common culture, and kid youself that all cultures are of equal worth, the Archbishop's position becomes almost logical.  If all is of equal worth, and some who live here cannot relate to what is here already, changing what is here - as opposed to helping adapt the attitudes of the newcomers - becomes your norm.

Rather than social cohesion, public policy built on this bogus series of assumptions will make for fragmentation.  The politicians we elect have belatedly begun to wake up to this reality, but so what?  Multicultural assumptions are now the default setting of the British State, its unelected institutions and unaccountable quangos - not merely the Anglican Church.

The most inspirational book I've read in a long time is Ed Hussein's The Islamist.  Why am I uplifted by a book which depressingly confirms that such a large chunk of youth in London, Birmingham and Bradford now heeds Qutb's call? Because ultimately Hussein seems to show that Islam, and being a British Muslim, could be made compatible with the ideas of the Western Enlightenment.

How sad that the Archbishop should now put his church at odds with the ideals of the Enlightenment.  How tragic that our own nuanced elites should be the ones who break with what are universal ideals.

Comments

[Dave B]

Multiculturalism, like Rowan Williams, has been a disaster. It's inflicted on us by the arms of the state, and enjoys no support, that I'm aware of, among the population.

I think the conservative policy suggestion of the state handing service delivery over to commercial/charitable organisations will help end it.

[True Blue]

That is an excellent piece from Douglas. I would however disagree about the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment led to secular liberalism dominating British and European politics, especially the genocide of the French revolution. Liberal secularism has rejected our Christian values and culture and but embraced extreme and authoritarian Islamism under the false premises of anti-racism and multiculturalism.

Sharia lite is the proverbial thin end of the wedge. Once Sharia Law is established here, it will creep insidiously into more aspects of the law and our life. We are allowing our national identity and culture to be withered away by the cancer of multiculturalism. If British Muslims want to live under Sharia law then should live in an Arab country which practices it, e.g. Iran or Saudi Arabia.

The Archbishop of Canterbury should be promoting Christian values and his established Church. He is unfit and uanble to provide the religious leadership that our decadent and immoral country desperately needs. Unfortunately, the standing ovation that Rowan Williams received from General Synod only demonstrates that it would be difficult to replace him with a suitable successor, e.g. the Archbishop of York.

The British people are fed up being treated as racist pariahs by the liberal media and establishment that is too ready to pander to the narrow interests of the ethnic lobby. David Cameron must demonstrate his professed Christianity by speaking out against the insidious influence of Islamic extremism in our communities and national institutions. If he does so, he will enjoy the support of disenfranchised conservatives who have stayed at home at successive general elections.

[support the strivers]

Thank Goodness someone is prepared to set out calmly and intellectually why the Archbishop of Canterbury is so wrong.

I believe history will show he has unfortuantely caused a tipping point by his pathetically pc comments putting the issue of adoption of Sharia into the public domain.

The Synod should censure him.

[Stewart Geddes]

OK the point has been made that Multiculturalism has been a disaster. What therefore are we, as conservatives, going to do about it?

There is no point complaining unless you are willing to take a stand and offer a viable alternative.

For example are we going to say that the official language of this country is english? (with allowances for Welsh and gaelic) therefore all official communication will be in English (i.e. no more translations into other languages)? Are we going to say that if you want to be a citizen of this country you learn English? Schools should no longer offer multi lingual support?

In terms of Religion, we have an established church which will have precedence in representation? (in fact at all official events it is the only representation).

The BBC as the official Media is to represent the official UK view and is not to support or promote multiculturalism?

Think about it. These are some implications of the stance. I'm not sure that the Conservative party has the guts to take this stance and to provoke the oppobrium of the BBC and the Guardian.

If we did go down the monoculturalism route it would play very well in many more areas than you would imagine- particularly inner city areas with large immigrant populations.

I'm not sure how far we want to go on this, but we should be having that discussion and certainly if we do it will differentiate us from the Liberals and the socialists.

These are some thoughts for discussion, not necessarily proposals.

[Martin Coxall]

Also, can we please stop having random cretinoleftists saying "But it's what the Jews have!"

Claiming that the Beth Din means that British Jews are above the law seems to be latest libel by the new antisemitic left. I bet British Jews are really grateful to the Archbishop now.

[HF]

Rowan Williams is the worst form of Leader. One who does not believe in the ethos of the organisation he represents. He does not want a growing CoE but believes that the products his organisation offer are inferior to others and he lacks the drive to improve them.

He is the Gerald Ratner of the CofE. Trashes his own product and wonders why people howl in disbelief at his stupidity.

[John Wilkin]

The Archbishop needs to think about why we have a Church of England

"I do declare, that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this Realm"

That was the sentiment which led to the creation of the C of E in the first place. In the 16th and 17th centuries the Bishop of Rome was the specific foreign power in mind, however it does seem to apply equally well to fundamentalist Islam.

[Stewart Geddes]

John Wilkin 10:45
I do declare, that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this Realm"

This also applies to the EU....

[Moral minority]

Stewart Geddes is right. Prince Charles's Europhilia makes him unfit to be King.

[Martin Coxall]

@Stewart Geddes:

Are you sure the EU has ecclesiastical or spiritual authority in this realm?

Of course, it's a rather trite notion since the number of people or supra-national entities not of British origin that have jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence or authority in this realm probably numbers in the tens of thousands or more.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Of all the stupid comments you've made on this blog 'Moral Minority' that at 11.47 must take the biscuit.

[Moral minority]

Under our constitution, Acts of Parliament require Royal Assent. Under the EU constitution, EU law has supremacy over British law. The Monarch can no longer refuse Royal Assent to laws that are required by EU legislation. Prince Charles, by supporting more EU powers, especially on the environment, is undermining the Monarchy. The British people need a Sovereign who will stand up for and protect our democracy, Parliament and the rights of The Crown.

[Mike H]

It is good to see that, at last, some politicians are prepared to speak up against the multicultural rot that is doing so much damage to our country.

I fear that the battle won't be won until the BBC is completely dismantled, or at least has its charter amended so that it's limited to the production of wildlife and light entertainment programmes. Any broadcaster given the privileged position that is afforded the BBC needs to offer a balanced view presenting both sides of any argument. The BBC patently fails to achieve this.

[Martin Coxall]

@Moral Minority:

EU directives are enacted in the UK by the will of Parliament- which, as you say, the Monarch by convention does not refuse assent to.

How is that any different from any other UK act?

[support the strivers]

HF, Why do you say the A of C doesn't want the C of E to become any bigger?

or if HF has logged off, any ideas anyone as to what he was driving at?

the only parallel I can see is that of Con Associations that actually don't want to get a local councillor as it would affect the power of the local chairman? is that what HF meant?

god it's sad isn't it?

[Martin Coxall]

Why did the General Synod not vote to censure The Bearded One?

Cowardice?

[Scott]

Well, at least if things get as bad as they seem likely to, we shall have a few decent candidates for Prime Minister (Carswell and Gove) to help extricate us from the mire.

I wonder how much worse it has to get.

[Sally Roberts]

Oh dear! I was reading this thread with interest and formulating what I was going to say ...until I got to Stewart Geddes @ 11.25 - unfortunately debate at that point took a downward turn at that point and threatened to go wandering off into the European theme - again!!! Luckily it seems to have wandered back again onto the topic so I'll add my two penn'orth..... I would simply say that as a woman I fear the introduction of "Sharia Lite" which as others have pointed out will simply be the top of a slippery slope. I consider I dress relatively stylishly but also relatively modestly - sometimes I feel "judged" by women on the street clad in hijab, niqab or even occasionally burka! Judged in my own country! I have always been tolerant and indeed enthusiastic towards different cultures but what may happen as the result of foolish, misguided left-wing liberals makes me fearful and, yes, angry!

[Mr A Pullen]

Do you think that Cameron will really have the nerve to tackle these issues effectively?
We need a strong, angry leader to put this country back on its feet, not someone who discusses the UK as if he is discussing what to have for breakfast.
Cameron is limp, remote and unaffected by such things and as such is unable to tackle them because he cannot relate to them.

[Sally Roberts]

I disagree with you, Mr Pullen (and may I say how very formal you are!) Although I have said that I am "angry" I am conscious that my anger is probably not helpful and it is far better to cultivate a certain detachment when dealing with matters of this nature.
What I particularly like about David Cameron is his ability to deal unemotionally with challenges and to keep a cool head and a positive attitude at all times. That, I believe, is something to emulate even if we don't always live up to it!

[Mr A Pullen]

Sally Roberts, the problem is that we have had years of discussion by so called educated Liberals, but the mindset of these, esp wealthy ones like Cameron, is unable to come up with any reasonable solution.
Cameron will attempt to make the proverbial omellette without breaking the eggs and we will end up hungry.

[Moral minority]

Martin Coxall wrote - "EU directives are enacted in the UK by the will of Parliament- which, as you say, the Monarch by convention does not refuse assent to. How is that any different from any other UK act?"

Our Government has no choice but to pass the legislation required by Brussels, especially as the veto is being abolished im more areas. The "other" legislation is initiated by a Government that is elected by the British people. We can get rid of our Government at an election but not the Commission.

The Sovereign can refuse to give Royal Assent to a Bill that was initiated by her government and passed by Parliament. There would a be a huge row, and possibly a constitutional crisis, but she could do it. If the Queen refused to give Assent to legislation required by the EU, the Brussels bureaucrats would take our Government and The Queen to court.

I hope that the Queen will refuse to give Royal Assent to the legislation ratifying the Lisbon Treaty. It gives the EU the power to remove more vetos without more Treaties and enshrines the supremacy of EU law. It is time for our Monarch to save our democracy from the EU-fascists.

[Philip]

Excellent article, and posts here, except Mr Carswell’s apparent endorsement of enlightenment - I suspect that True Blue (0944) is right in his excellent post that the enlightenment (so-called) has led to secular liberalism that has rejected our Christian values and culture and embraced extreme and authoritarian Islamism. It is ironic that this secular liberalism which has rejected Christian values, but welcomes everything else, has enabled something extreme and that seems much less merciful to get its foot in the door. Our Christian values had the advantage of providing the certainty and security of moral absolutes and freedom under the law to do what is right, and while showing love and mercy for those who acknowledge they fall short.

I agree with Mike H (1333) about the need to dismantle the BBC! That organisation (or at least the news & current affairs part of it) seems to have an agenda to promote everything that undermines our tradition and Christian values.

[Sally Roberts]

Mr Pullen @ 18:48 - OK here's today's challenge.... Come up with The Pullen Manifesto on this topic! What would YOU consider a "reasonable" solution?

[Mr A Pullen]

Sally, You know, I sat here and wrote a longwinded answer then realised that one line would do.
Look at where we are going, then stop it!

[Sally Roberts]

Mr Pullen - "Look at where we are going, then stop it!"

...... and do WHAT instead?

[Sally Roberts]

"Mr Pullen - "Look at where we are going, then stop it!"

...... and do WHAT instead?"

.... and answer, came there.... None!

[Mr A Pullen]

Sorry Sally but I couldn't be bothered to repeat the obvious because you can't be bothered to think.