It's Saturday afternoon and in the middle of a strip of brightly colored market stalls in the heart of east London's Whitechapel, Reema Choudhury, a 25-year-old banker, turns to her friend.
"It is not Muslims calling for this," British-born Choudhury said. "It is Rowan Williams, a Christian. But once again it is us being demonized."
Dressed in a fashionable top and jeans with a matching headscarf and clutching a brown bag slung over shoulder, Choudhury expressed sympathy for the Archbishop of Canterbury, now the focus of a sustained tabloid newspaper campaign to have him removed from his post after he expressed the view that it was "inevitable" that some aspects of Shariah law would one day be recognized in the UK.
"It has been taken completely out of context," Choudhury said. "Rowan Williams was trying to be kind."
Choudhury and her friend are saddened to see how the story has been covered on TV.
"The first pictures they used were of someone being flogged in Somalia and someone having their arm chopped off in Saudi Arabia," Reema said, insisting no one would ever want to see that happen in the UK."
Standing between piles of shoes in his stall, Tariq Mohammud, a 43-year-old who moved to England from Egypt more than 20 years ago, thinks even the most punitive forms of Shariah law are preferable to English law.
"Of course I would prefer Shariah law," he said. "There has to be four witnesses so they are 1 million percent sure the person is guilty."
Given the profound reactions to Williams' speech, some Muslim academics fear the archbishop has unwittingly inflamed community tensions.
"I think the speech will have an impact on social cohesion," said Irfan al-Alawi, international director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism.
One key problem, he said, is that Shariah law is not monolithic. It does not exist as a unified, indisputable set text, but is interpreted by scholars.
"If we assume for a second that the UK adopts Shariah law in certain respects, there need to be scholars who go through the rigors of studying Islamic law as well as a good understanding of the customs of this country," al-Alawi said.
"Adopting Shariah law would mean the need for better trained imams rather than a man who has read one fiqh [Islamic law] book. In fact, in Islamic legal tradition a scholar cannot give a ruling until he understands the customs of his people and we don't have these qualified imams in the UK. We will have radical fatwas issued by unqualified imams," he said.
DEBATE
Williams was steering clear of controversy on Saturday, preaching at a thanksgiving service at the picturesque church of Great St Mary's in Cambridge for the life and work of the Reverend Charles Moule, an eminent New Testament scholar who died last year aged 98. It is the sort of thing many Anglicans would prefer him concentrate on, rather than steering the church into increasingly turbulent waters.
The Reverend Martin Reynolds has known Rowan Williams for more than 20 years. They were neighbors when Williams was archbishop of Wales and the two could often be found in each other's houses chewing over theological issues.
They do not always see eye to eye. Reynolds is openly gay and has brought up a severely disabled children in Newport. His sexuality has seen him clash with Williams over the emotive issue of gay priests in the Anglican church. Often Reynolds has felt a deep sense of unease with the direction in which Williams is taking the 70 million-strong worldwide Anglican Communion and has publicly criticized the man he calls his friend. So it might be expected Reynolds would have similar misgivings about Williams' latest musings.
But no.
"What do we do when we have 5 million Muslims living in the UK in 20 years' time?" he said. "From the reactions to Rowan's speech it is clear everybody has been waiting to talk about this."
But why would Williams, whose profound intellect can result in him making gnomic -- the unkind might say impenetrable -- speeches that are open to misinterpretation, choose to confront the issue now? When the Anglican Communion is attempting to construct a fragile internal truce over the issue of gay priests and its African congregations are losing followers to Islam, speaking out on such a contentious issue was bound to have profound repercussions that would resonate thousands of kilometers beyond the walls of the Royal Courts of Justice where Williams delivered his address.
Already the ramifications are being felt. Peter Akinola, the primate of Nigeria in charge of the spiritual oversight of some 20 million Christians, called the remarks "most disturbing and most unfortunate."
This week's General Synod now promises to be a particularly prickly affair.
But Williams is singularly minded.
"He writes his speeches," said one of his advisers who saw the speech before it was delivered. "Colleagues see it and comment, but he's responsible for it."
Admittedly, there was a debate among Williams' advisers about whether he should go on BBC Radio 4's The World at One on Thursday lunchtime to talk about the speech he was to make later that day.
"There was a discussion about the pros and cons," the adviser said. "We asked, will this lead to just soundbites being taken? It was a difficult decision, but the archbishop had the material and was not afraid to use it."
But even the adviser admits they had not foreseen how ferocious the backlash would be.
"I had not expected this kind of outburst. It seems very irrational," he said.
But Reynolds believes Williams has been waiting to make the speech for a long time.
"The courts and parliament have allowed religious groups to set up states within states," he said, citing the row between the Catholic Church and the government over gay adoption as an example of how politics and religion are clashing against each other, with both sides vying for jurisdiction.
"We already have situations where equality before the law no longer exists," he said.
Examples are not hard to find. Thirty years ago, parliament gave Sikhs the right to wear turbans rather than helmets when riding motorbikes. Last year, then-chancellor of the exchequer Gordon Brown changed the law to introduce Shariah mortgages because Islam forbids the charging of interest. The Church of England has Consistory courts giving it wide powers over planning applications. Halal meat is legal, despite protests from animal rights groups who attack the preparation method of slitting the animal's throat.
Britain recognizes Islamic marriages and divorces conducted overseas and the Department for Work and Pensions has ruled that the multiple wives of polygamous husbands were eligible for spouse benefits.
Jewish civil divorce courts have operated effectively for decades. On Saturday, members of the Orthodox Haredi Jewish community in Stamford Hill, north London, spoke warmly of the Beth Din, the rabbinical court set up by a British statute more than a century ago and recognized within the UK legal system.
They said the Beth Din was respected by all the community and was the first port of call to resolve civil disputes. But it always operates within British law and never seeks to supersede it. It deals only with civil disputes and can award costs, but cannot impose fines or punishment for or hear criminal cases.
"We're living in a society where you've got to integrate into the British system," said Gerald Rose, 49, a property developer. "The Beth Din always acknowledges British law first. Wherever you live the law of the land has to come first."
ROLE
Williams was explicit that he was talking only about the role of Shariah law within the civil, not the criminal, system. And he was talking about a voluntary system, something that seemed to be lost on many.
"The archbishop is not advocating implementation of the Islamic penal system," said Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain.
"He sought to explore the possibilities of an accommodation between English law and some aspects of Islamic personal law. British Muslims would wish for parity with other faiths, for their personal relationships to be governed by a Shariah code," Bari said.
Even many critics concede this now that the white noise which followed his speech has died down.
"His aim was to look at the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state," said the Reverend Joel Edwards, general director of the Evangelical Alliance. "While we disagree that implementing aspects of Shariah law is `unavoidable,' or even desirable, the issue of the protection of religious conscience for all faiths cannot be trivialized or ignored."
"The law makes all sorts of accommodations for faith groups," the archbishop's adviser said. "In a society with a diverse range of values and religious systems, is it not reasonable to suppose the parliamentary system will want to make other forms of accommodation?"
But even with these provisos, Williams's speech opened a hornets' nest.
"He's damaged the Anglican church," Reynolds said. "People have this impression he's pro-Shariah, but he's not."
Faced with a tabloid feeding frenzy, it was not long before politicians joined the attack. The prime minister's official spokesman was quick to talk about British law based on British values; Sayeeda Warsi, the Conservatives' shadow Cabinet spokeswoman on community cohesion and a practising Muslim, described the comments as "unhelpful."
But Williams' supporters argue that Shariah law exists within the UK and turning a blind eye to it will not help an increasingly multicultural society.
There are already an estimated 30 Shariah courts in Britain handing down judgments on civil matters.
In addition, as Haras Rafiq, of the Sufi Muslim Council, which recently established Crescentlive.tv -- an online portal to combat the radicalization of Muslim youth -- asks: "Which version of Shariah do you pick? There are 40. In Saudi Arabia, for example, Shariah law forbids motorists from having driving insurance and women from driving."
Rafiq's concern is that Williams has opened the door to legitimizing these "backstreet courts."
"Britain allows me to practice my faith," Rafiq said. "When people go outside that and have separate laws we have a problem."
This was never Williams's suggestion, but he has paid the price for being an intellectual and not a politician -- who would have foreseen how his speech would be interpreted.
But his supporters say the issue can no longer be ignored.
"Is there a household that has not been talking about sharia for the past few years?" one of the archbishop's advisers asked. "It's not as if this debate has come out of the blue."
Unfortunately for Williams, for millions of Britons last week, that is exactly what happened.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS