Perhaps unsurprisingly, the lecture by Archbishop Rowan Williams has been picked up in Malaysia (see Subky Latif’s article here). And the framework of the argument, in its simplest term, is this: “Even the Archbishop is now supporting shariah!”. This is both not at all surprising and couldn’t be any more wrong.
I have touched on this previously, but, for the record once again, the Archbishop was not advocating shariah. He was advocating choice in arbitration.
It is not only the “seculars” who oppose his statement. Malaysians should know that mainstream Muslim leaders in Britain do not fully endorse the Archbishop’s statement, nor do they support the introduction of syariah in this country.
However, I do support his statement. But I support him because, as a libertarian, I believe in choice, including choice in arbitration.
I would not be surprised if one day a conspiracy theory arises claiming that the Archbishop has converted to Islam. But I do not believe that he said what he said because of his conviction in Islam as such. There was no sign of that. I see it more as a sign that he believes in choice, which, in this particular context, is a sign of a liberal.
Filed under: Britain
I get the sense your reading of the Archbishop is correct. But then let me go back and reread his text
while considering the wider context in which these words are spoken.
But it’s always fascinating to see what is “heard” from what is “spoken”.
And I find it fascinating that some people quickly label anyone who oppose the Archbishop as “secular”. These people are blind to the fact that some of the Archbishop’s critics are far from secular – they are indeed very religious, including the former Archbishop Lord Carey, and many other senior religious figures.
Talk about short-sightedness!