Two of the most powerful clergy in Britain launch stinging attack on Archbishop over sharia row

 Add your view

Two of the most powerful figures in the church today united to launch a stinging attack on the Archbishop of Canterbury after his comments on sharia law.

As pressure mounted on Dr Rowan Williams, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, insisted that migrants must obey the British legal system.

Meanwhile, Lord Carey, a former Archbishop of Canterbury, claimed any adoption of sharia would be "disastrous" for Britain.

Scroll down for more ...

Holy alliance: Lord Carey (left) claims sharia would be 'disastrous' for Britain while Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor said migrants 'must obey British laws'

He went on: "He (Dr Williams) has overstated the case for accommodating Islamic legal codes.

"His conclusion that Britain will eventually have to concede some place in law for aspects of sharia is a view I cannot share.

"There can be no exceptions to the laws of our land which have been so painfully honed by the struggle for democracy and human rights."

Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Lord Carey went on to claim multiculturism had created Islamic ghettos and that the introduction of sharia would only lead to more demands from the Muslim community.

"This is absolutely inevitable, since questions to do with the separation of 'church and state' are largely new to Islam. Sharia law trumps civil law every time," he wrote.

"Many Muslim interpreters of sharia believe that it supersedes secular law and assume that its 'God-given' status would lead to the point of eventually replacing civil law."

He then went on to claim it disadvantaged women and minorities and went against human rights.

Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor added his criticisms and went on to urge Muslims to do more to integrate.

"The extent to which multiculturalism has been encouraged recently has meant a lessening of the kind of unity that a country needs.

"There are common values which are part of the heritage of this country which should be embraced by everybody.

"I don't believe in a multi-cultural society. When people come into this country they have to obey the laws of the land."

Last night, the Archbishop of Canterbury was battling to salvage his authority after the outcry over his remarks on Islamic law reached the highest levels of the Church of England.

As Dr Rowan Williams tried to claim his comments had been misrepresented, two bishops dealt a blow to the attempted fightback by adding their voices to the criticism.

It leaves the country's most senior churchman facing a crucial test of his support at a meeting of the General Synod, his ruling body, tomorrow.

At least two members of the Synod have called for him to resign, and the storm has forced him to hastily rewrite his Presidential address.

The row started when Dr Williams gave a lecture and interview on Thursday calling for parts of sharia law – the legal and social code that guides Muslims in their daily life – to be recognised in the UK.

However, the Archbishop has vowed not to resign over his controversial comments.

"He is not considering his position," church spokeswoman Marie Papworth said, adding that Williams would not be speaking publicly about the issue until Monday, when he was due to address the General Synod, the church's governing body.

Yesterday he tried to calm the situation by placing on his website a selectively edited account of his words, insisting that he had "made no proposals for sharia, and certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction".

But a transcript of his BBC radio interview on Thursday shows him stating that the application of sharia in the UK was "unavoidable ...it's not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system".

Should the Archbishop resign? Tell us your view in Reader Comments below

Dr Rowan Williams: now battling to salvage his authority

"We should be extremely cautious about welcoming sharia law into Britain," he said.

"British law has been built upon Judaeo-Christian foundations over many centuries and established through Parliament and our courts and I don't think that should be undermined. British law ought to apply to everyone in Britain, Muslim or not."

He was echoed by the Bishop of Rochester, the Right Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, who said Dr Williams's proposals would be "impossible" to implement and would disturb "the integrity of the legal tradition that is rooted in the quite different moral and spiritual vision deriving from the Bible".

Alison Ruoff, a member of the General Synod, added to the pressure when she said he was no longer "the right man for the job". She said of his speech: "At best it was politically inept and at worst it was sheer foolishness. Christians, particularly in Islamic countries who are being severely persecuted, are really incredibly upset."

Politicians stepped tentatively into the furore. Labour MP Chris Bryant, who was taught at theological college by Dr Williams, said the Archbishop had been ill-advised.

He said: "I can see how he can have come to have had an academic discussion but being the Archbishop of Canterbury you are not just an academic. I like British law, if I am honest. Our respect for the individual and the ideas of rights and responsibilities – they are fine ideas."

In his rewritten address to the crunch Synod meeting, Dr Williams is expected to express regret over the row – although he has told friends that he remains surprised by the scale of the controversy.

The General Synod can remove a bishop if a 12-strong disciplinary committee agree on the sanction. According to rules drawn up in 1996, it is constrained from disciplining members over "doctrinal" differences.

There are only four grounds for making a complaint: breaching ecclesiastical law, failing to do something required by ecclesiastical law, neglecting to perform the duties of office and conduct inappropriate to the clergy.

But last night a spokesman for Lambeth Palace said: "The Archbishop has done nothing to contravene any of these."

The spokesman claimed to be unaware of the methods by which an archbishop could be sacked. The last Archbishop of Canterbury to resign was Simon Langham in 1368, due to a disagreement with King Edward III.

Scroll down for more ...

Elders debate a case: It emerged this week that sharia courts are already operating in Britain

Two bishops made moves to calm the situation. The Bishop of Liverpool, the Right Rev James Jones, called for both sides to debate the issues sensibly in order to avoid further splits.

"Writing in an academic context, the Archbishop did raise serious issues that need careful consideration because of their sensitivity and preponderance to disrupt rather than enhance social cohesion," he said.

Meanwhile, the Bishop of Southwell, the Right Rev George Cassidy, rounded on Dr Williams's critics.

"I am saddened and dismayed that when the Archbishop of Canterbury was invited to open and resource a public debate, the aim of which was to build a more vibrant and cohesive society, he is then subjected to hysterical knee-jerk reaction," he said.

"The Archbishop can count on the support of all serious-minded people who are prepared to tackle the challenges of our complex society."

Police are now believed to have taken steps to protect the Archbishop of Canterbury following concern that he could be the target of attack – although he is said to have turned down the offer of round-the-clock personal protection.

It is understood Mike Fuller, the Chief Constable of Kent, expressed concern as soon as he learnt of the furore over the comments.

A Kent Police spokeswoman would not discuss the details.

 

What's on today   What's on tomorrow

Receive our newsletter