Should the Archbishop of Canterbury have raised the subject of Islamic Shariah in the UK?

The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is a brave man who wanted a debate on whether some parts of the Islamic Shariah laws could be accommodated within the UK.

Should he have remained silent in case his “Christian” views provoked outrage amongst the “civilized and democratic” people of the country, who would totally ignore what he was saying and instead let their pre-conceived rigid views cloud the issue?

The opposition and outrage at his suggestions and calls for him to resign only goes to show that it is extremely difficult to debate anything to do with Islam.

Even a Synod member from London who describes him as a “very able, a brilliant scholar” want him to resign.

It is the same “Christian” mentality that finds it hard to accept that the occupation, destruction and killing and imprisonment of innocent civilians by Western armies in Iraq will not incite any one to carry out any retaliatory attacks in Britain or the US.

As the Secretary-General of the MCB, Muhammed Abdul Bari pointed out: "The archbishop is not advocating implementation of the Islamic penal system in Britain.

"His recommendation is confined to the civil system of Sharia law, and only in accordance with English law and agreeable to established notions of human rights."

Under UK Law, people can legally devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process.

Muslim Sharia courts and the Jewish Beth Din which already exist in the UK fall into this category.

Jewish Beth Din’s has existed for decades and oversee cases including divorce settlements, contractual rows between traders and tenancy disputes.