Britain:The Archbishop of Canterbury stands charged of naivety over his remarks on sharia law, writes Frank Millar, London Editor.
Striking in his physical bearing, deeply spiritual, compelling, profound - to many admirers Dr Rowan Williams will appear the quintessential man of God.
Linguist, philosopher and poet, this Welsh-born archbishop of Canterbury is also leader of Britain's established church at a time of growing doubt and debate about identity and the nature of "Britishness". So it might be assumed that Dr Williams would have anticipated the furore sparked by his warning that the incorporation of some aspects of Islamic sharia law might be "unavoidable" if the United Kingdom is to maintain social cohesion.
Yet the wounded silence from Lambeth Palace yesterday appeared rather to suggest hurt and some surprise, reinforcing a widespread charge that the archbishop had shown himself politically naive. And friends of the archbishop last night said he was in a state of shock and could not believe the criticism even from within his own church. One defender, the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, bishop of Hulme, condemned a "knee-jerk reaction" from people he suggested had not heard the archbishop's BBC interview or read the text of his address to an audience of 1,000 at the Royal Courts of Justice on Thursday night.
In the speech Dr Williams argued for "a plural jurisdiction" that would allow Britain's Muslims to choose whether some legal, matrimonial and financial disputes might be settled in secular or sharia courts". In his interview he also observed "as a matter of fact" that some aspects of sharia law were already being recognised and incorporated in British society.
And for the avoidance of any possible doubt, he made clear that "nobody in their right mind would want to see [in Britain] the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practise of the law in some Islamic states".
Bishop Lowe sought to characterise the torrent of critical reaction as being in response to the "nonsense" of "whether or not women are going to be stoned or have their hands cut off". And other liberal churchmen may have contentedly dismissed as entirely predictable headlines of the "What a Burkha" variety on the front-page of the Sun. They may likewise have been unperturbed to find their archbishop derided in the columns of the Daily Mailas "a batty old booby, but dangerous with it".
However - while Christians may sometimes find validation in condemnation from all quarters - as one religious affairs commentator told BBC Radio's World at Oneprogramme: "Sometimes if the world's against you, it can be because you are wrong." Those lining-up to describe the archbishop as wrong yesterday were led by Gordon Brown and spanned the political divide, with secular critics joined by some senior Muslim figures suggesting Dr Williams's comments could feed public fear and confusion.
The Ramadhan Foundation was among Muslim groups who welcomed Dr Williams's speech as "testament to his attempts to understand Islam and promote tolerance and respect between our great faiths".
There was support, too, from the UK Islamic Sharia Council, amid several reports about the spread of sharia courts across Britain. One Islamic council in east London told the Timesthat 95 per cent of some 7,000 cases it had dealt with since opening in 1982 dealt with divorce - specifically with releasing women from bad or forced marriages. The newspaper also referred to a BBC programme last year revealing that a stabbing case involving two Somali teenagers was dealt with by a "court" in Woolwich after the victim's family told police the matter would be settled out of court.
However, that seemed likely to fuel the widespread objection voiced by David Pannick QC, who insisted: "Fundamental standards of fairness, of human rights, which underpin our laws cannot be abrogated. They just can't be ditched. If the archbishop is saying this, then that is fundamentally wrong."
Trevor Phillips, head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said it was reasonable to seek debate about the limits of religious law and how much of that should be recognised by the courts: "But the suggestion that a British court should treat people differently according to their faith . . . is absolutely divisive and, I think, really rather dangerous."
Ibrahim Mogra for the Muslim Council of Britain stressed the debate only involved "a very small aspect" of sharia, saying: "It's very complex . . . We do not wish to see a parallel system of judiciary for Muslims."
Former home secretary David Blunkett, meanwhile, reflected the political consensus, saying he feared a tendency for "well-meaning liberals . . . to actually believe we have to accommodate something which is external to our country and not to do with the development of a common citizenship".