The head of the government was clearly intrigued by the uproar in the press following the archbishop's sensational revelations, and personally called the head of the Anglican Church. After listening to Williams' explanations, Brown praised the archbishop for his 'frankness' and commended 'his dedication to public service,' the BBC reported, citing a spokesman for the prime minister. However, no details of the conversation between the high-ranking figures were disclosed.
The story of 'English-style sharia' began with an interview with Rowan Williams on the BBC, where the conversation smoothly turned to the topic of Islamic law. For Britain, this is a rather pressing issue, as the number of Muslims in the country is constantly increasing due to the influx of new immigrants. Many of them come from regions where strict Islam is the norm of life, and therefore Muslim law is paramount. In Britain, however, the laws, etiquette, and morals are their own, traditional, having nothing in common with Eastern customs. Moreover, as a rule, it is assumed that one does not go into a foreign monastery with one's own charter, so society never seriously thought about any Muslim laws (and, to tell the truth, the average Briton would hardly approve of the introduction of foreign norms on the island, be they Islamic, Buddhist, or shamanic). But Rowan Williams considered it timely to talk about the fact that sharia has a right to exist in Britain as well. And thereby he enraged the conservative circles of local society beyond measure.
In fact, the archbishop did not at all advocate replacing traditional British legislation with sharia norms. Rather, he said that if a religious community resolves some minor issues according to its own customs, there is nothing terrible about that and there is no particular need to oppose it. As an example, Williams cited the legally existing halakhic courts in Britain, which resolve disputes among observant Jews and use the Talmud as their main 'code.' He also mentioned the issue of abortion, which various Christian denominations do not view favorably. From this, the head of the Anglican Church concluded that, overall, the country's legislation has long taken into account some customs of religious communities. So there is nothing special about sharia either.
However, Williams specifically stated that 'no one in their right mind would want to see in our country the cruelty sometimes associated with the practice of law in some Islamic states – with excessive punishments and the treatment of women.' 'It is hardly conceivable that we would ever allow any community such a legislative system that... does not allow the exercise of rights guaranteed to citizens in general,' he clarified. That is, in the archbishop's view, if sharia is to be permitted, it must be one that fits into the Western system of rights and freedoms.
It is hard to judge whether Islamic religious law, which Westerners associate with cutting off hands for theft and stoning for adultery, can meet these requirements. It is even harder to assume whether modern British followers of the Prophet Muhammad can agree to 'sharia British-style.' It is possible that some radicals might, on the contrary, prefer to take an inch and then a mile, and rise up against the total Islamization of legal norms for British Muslims.
Naturally, Williams immediately came under harsh criticism. Moreover, this criticism escalated into public calls from representatives of the conservative wing of the church to retire the hierarch. They also recalled real examples of sharia implementation from the former colonies. For instance, Nigeria, where attempts to apply sharia law not only to Muslims but also to representatives of other religions led to serious problems. Alison Ruoff, a member of the Anglican Synod from London, stated that the archbishop is, of course, 'a very capable person, a brilliant scholar,' but as the head of the Christian church, he is 'simply a disaster at the moment.'
What Gordon Brown actually thinks about sharia in British daily life is a big question. It is possible that he generally agrees with the head of the Anglican Church, or it is possible that he believes Williams missed a good opportunity to remain silent. However, it was worth the prime minister's while to talk to the hierarch, whether he wanted to or not. Because when the newspapers, the conservative public, and the church opposition all attack him at once, he deserves support. The last time an archbishop was driven from the see of Canterbury was in the 14th century.