British woman: 'Sharia law has worked fine here'

WHAT ugliness we've seen this week as Britain, in the grip of gross misunderstanding, has turned on the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Aided and abetted by the irresponsible, the nation has demanded he be sacked. And why? Because he pondered on whether a few aspects of sharia law could be gainfully incorporated into our British legal system.

From that innocuous thought was fashioned the belief that Dr Williams was advocating the practices of limb-lopping for thieves, stonings for adulterers and the whole grizzly gamut of uncivilised punishments dealt in some Islamic countries.

But the Archbishop is a man of peace. Only fools - a multitude of whom seemed up in arms this week - could interpret that suggestion as a return to medieval punishments. The outcry following his words, whipped up by idiots who hadn't listened, was interesting. It showed how Britain is eager to think the worst of all Muslims: it showed how quickly the empty-headed can spread despair. Millions reading not the Archbishop's words but the mass media's interpretation of them, believed this nation was heading towards complete sharia law.

What was clear was that the most vociferous knew beggar all of what's been happening under their noses for years.

Sharia courts have been settling property disputes, quarrels and divorces for many years. The same applies to the Beth Din, the courts held under Judaic law. They've been cantering along quite happily for centuries in Britain, working hand-in-hand with our legal system.

Already there is a Muslim banking service in Britain that works round the Islamic injunction that outlaws interest - the main plank in British banking. These are all up and running. And have you ever heard a word of complaint against them? No, neither have I.

That the Archbishop was unwise to mention any slight adoption of sharia law is now clear. But he's a charitable man, well versed in academic circles. He could never have guessed how the rude plebs could twist and add to his words.

He should have known, of course. Yet morally earnest and good men are often a trifle naive: they forget there are mischief makers. His sole sin was in over-estimating his listeners.

We have all heard this week that three drunken yobs have been sentenced to a total of 44 years for battering to death Garry Newlove, who ran from his home, barefoot, in an attempt to stop them vandalising his wife's car. Were that to have happened in areas where the gentlest tenets of sharia is established in Britain, the criminals would still have faced British law.

But their families, prouder and more aware of honour, would have gone to a Muslim court to offer compensation to the bereaved family. Thus, it is believed, the family name would not be besmirched forever. That is the system the Archbishop advocated could be grafted on to our British legal system. He went no further. He didn't mention physical punishment.

There have been times this week when I've thought that those making the greatest noise must be educationally sub-normal to have got the wrong end of the stick so hugely.

Were they under the impression that our Dr Naseem would be overseeing limb-loss and stonings outside the Central Mosque at Friday prayer time? It seems this notion was growing among those who have never both-ered to learn of Islam, have no social contact with Muslims and no idea of what's happening in Muslim communities. Muslims seeing this row were dismayed. The uncivilised punishments advocated in some interpretations of sharia law dismay them as much as they dismay us. Nothing could be further from the truth than that the average Muslim wants that here.

That there are dyed-in-the-wool Muslim bigots is true. So are there ignorant Alf Garnett types. We've got to ignore these fools.

~ Sharia law has worked fine here for many years by Maureen Messent ~