Slouching toward Constantinople

The last days of the Eastern Roman Empire -- I will not use the historical term "Byzantine Empire" for reasons that will be the subject of another blog post -- were, not surprisingly, far from happy ones. Stabbed in the back by vicious Venetians, selfish Serbs and several members of the imperial house, the remnants of Rome had now dwindled to a few pockets of Greece proper and Constantinople, to which the Greek population referred as "the city," in Greek "i polis" or "i stan polis," from which comes the Turkish name "Istanbul" I suspect that "i stan polis" was a play on words of a sort to the Greeks, since it sounds like a shortened form of Constantinopolis, never an easy word to say with all those syllables. But I digress.

With the Ottoman Turks breathing down their throats and the Serbs all too eager to help them -- an alliance the Serbs would later regret, to this day, in fact -- the Romans were in desperate straits. They tried their hand at appeasement -- creating a Muslim quarter in the greatest city of Christendom, and demolishing many of their fortifications.

Maybe they just didn't know any better; after all, no one had given away the Sudetenland just yet. Winston Churchill had not yet uttered his famous phrase, "An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last."

Or maybe they just couldn't stomach needing the Latin West. The Fourth Crusade had left the Eastern Romans bitter, the West was demanding a high price for any help, and throughout I stan polis could be heard the phrase "better the sultan's turban than the pope's mitre." I wouldn't necessarily place the debacle that followed on the pope, however.

Or maybe the leadership of Constantinople was out of touch with their people, who by and large opposed these appeasement measures.

Be that as it may, the Eastern Roman Empire, the bulwark against Islamic expansion for 800 years, stood alone. As the walls of Constantinople were stormed on May 29, 1453 by anywhere from 100,000 to 150,000 Ottoman troops, they were defended by only some 7,000 troops. And not even very good troops. The elite cataphracts were no longer available after the defeat at Manzikert; the Varangian Guard had long been disbanded.

But even after the appeasement measures of their leaders had failed, the Greek people had fought. Not successfully enough to defeat the Ottomans, not successfully enough to overcome the appeasement and betrayal by their leaders, but they had fought.

The crocodile had indeed eaten the Eastern Romans, and the Serbs soon followed.

I could not help but think of this chain of events leading up to the fall of Constantinople after hearing last month of the comments of the Head of the Anglican Church, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. Williams called for implementing certain elements of shari'a law in Britain:

The adoption of some aspects of Islamic Sharia law in Britain "seems unavoidable", the Archbishop of Canterbury has said.

Dr Rowan Williams said other religions enjoyed tolerance of their own laws, and called for "constructive accommodation" with Muslim practice in areas such as marital disputes.

But he stressed that it could never be allowed to take precedence over an individual's rights as a citizen.

Asked if the adoption of Sharia law was necessary for community cohesion, Dr Williams told the BBC: "It seems unavoidable and, as a matter of fact, certain conditions of Sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system.

"We already have in this country a number of situations in which the internal law of religious communities is recognised by the law of the land as justifying conscientious objections in certain circumstances."

He added: "There is a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law as we already do with aspects of other kinds of religious law.

"It would be quite wrong to say that we could ever license a system of law for some community which gave people no right of appeal, no way of exercising the rights that are guaranteed to them as citizens in general.

"But there are ways of looking at marital disputes, for example, which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them.

"In some cultural and religious settings they would seem more appropriate."

It must be stated that, based on my read of his comments, Williams call was more narrow than later media reports made then out to be, and never called for imposition of shari'a law over non-Muslims. But his comments were bad enough, and made a mockery of the Western legal tradition of "equal justice under the law." The negative effect was magnified by his position as the head of a major Western religious denomination, the Church of England.

And he was called out on it. The Anglican Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali:

It was said that he could not believe the fury of the reaction. The most damaging attack came from the Pakistan-born Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali.

He said it would be "simply impossible" to bring sharia law into British law "without fundamentally affecting its integrity".

Sharia "would be in tension with the English legal tradition on questions like monogamy, provisions for divorce, the rights of women, custody of children, laws of inheritance and of evidence.

"This is not to mention the relation of freedom of belief and of expression to provisions for blasphemy and apostasy."

The British government:

The Archbishop's controversial stance has received widespread criticism from Christian and secular groups, the head of the equality watchdog, several high-profile Muslims and MPs from all parties.

Amid the storm of protest, Downing Street moved quickly to distance itself from the Archbishop's remarks, insisting that British law would and should remain based on British values.

A spokesman for Mr Brown said: "Our general position is that sharia law cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor should the principles of sharia law be included in a civil court for resolving contractual disputes.

"If there are specific instances like stamp duty, where changes can be made in a way that's consistent with British law and British values, in a way to accommodate the values of fundamental Muslims, that is something the Government would look at.

"But the Prime Minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values."

Former Labour home secretary David Blunkett said that sharia law would be "catastrophic" for social cohesion in Britain.

"I think this is very dangerous because the Archbishop used the term affiliations," he said on BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"We have affiliations to football clubs, to cricket teams, to all sorts of things that aren't central to our citizenship and the acceptance of that in terms of a common society.

"We don't have affiliations when it comes to the question of the law. And when it comes to equality under the law, we have to be rigorous in terms of making sure people do not find themselves excluded from it because of cultural or faith reasons."

Andy Burnham, the Culture Secretary, agreed that Dr Williams was "wrong" to advocate the adoption of elements of sharia law.

"This isn't a path down which we should go. The system, the British legal system, should apply to everybody equally. You cannot run two systems of law along side each other. That in my view would be a recipe for chaos, social chaos," he said on BBC1's Question Time.

"British law has to be based on British values. If people choose to live in this country, they choose to abide by that law and that law alone. It has got to be fundamental and a cornerstone of our country and our democracy that everybody is equal before that one system of British law."

The Telegraph:

The problem lies, rather, in the status of the messenger and the timing of his intervention. If there is a case for the creation of sharia courts, it would be better made by a joint group representing the three Abrahamic faiths - Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Coming from the senior bishop in the Church of England, it is vulnerable to interpretation as appeasement of Islamic extremism prompted by fear of social unrest.

As for timing, the lecture was given shortly after threats had been made against one of Dr Williams's fellow bishops, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali of Rochester, for writing in the Sunday Telegraph that Islamic extremism had turned some communities into no-go areas for non-Muslims. Add to this the growing recognition of the failures of multiculturalism, and you have on the part of the archbishop a classic example of political ineptitude.

Even with more convincing advocacy, the creation of sharia courts in this country faces an uphill battle. In the public mind, sharia is associated with brutal punishment, whether the amputation of hands for theft or stoning for adultery and apostasy.

It is also seen as repressive to women; a journalist in Afghanistan is facing the death penalty for having distributed a report taken off the internet which questions the practice of polygamy. A further obstacle is the opposition to a dual legal system of the Muslim Council of Britain, an organisation not always associated with moderation.

Jonathan Pearce:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, is the head of the Church of England and as such, is still - amazingly - considered to be a person of some eminence. Unfortunately, he does not lend weight to that institution. Although the Anglican Church is far less powerful than it used to be - and for good reasons, such as the removal of 19th century electoral discrimination against Jews, Catholics and dissenters - it is still regarded with affection by many of us, even atheists, agnostics or lukewarm Christians. It has given us great thinkers; its liturgy and music are among the great adornments of western civilisation. Alas, Dr Williams is not a great thinker, although he is no doubt a kindly man.

Dr Williams believes that aspects of sharia law - which aspects he does not explictly say - should be allowed to form part of the law of this country. He does not explain what tests should be used to decide what bits of sharia law are acceptable and what are not. For example, in some of the most conservative muslim lands, the death penalty is used for offences far less serious than murder, such as adultery. We are not told what the Archbishop thinks about this; or whether he thinks things such as arranged marriage, etc, are acceptable. But he needs to be clear about what he thinks is acceptable, otherwise, all we can assume is that the fellow is mouthing vacuous platitudes, nothing more.

I do not believe you can operate a polycentric legal order in Britain, at least not in ways that would allow one legal code to allow coerced marriages, sitting alongside the English Common law. How, for example, could one avoid westernised Muslims wanting to be treated under the ordinary law of the land and not to be ruled over by their co-religionists? Without the active support of the State, I suspect, and hope, that many Muslims, particularly women, will revolt and choose to live under the Common Law tradition of this country. I hope so.

Dr Williams means well; a lot of such people do. But frankly, he gives lapsed Christians such as yours truly plenty of reason for wanting the Church to be shorn of its state privileges.

Roger Kimball:

Where is Santayana when you need him? What, I wonder, would he have had to say about Archbishop Williams’s declaration earlier today that the adoption of Islamic Sharia law in Britain is “unavoidable.” In a widely reported lecture on BBC radio 4 the Archbishop called for a “constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law” and said that Britons must “face up to the fact” that some of its citizens do not “relate” to the British legal system. “Constructive accommodation”: let’s see, I guess that is British English for “spineless capitulation”?

And what is all this about Muslim Brits not “relating” to the law? The rule of law is is not a lifestyle choice: it is not something you can opt out of if you happen to have alternative inclinations. “Gee, in my religion, we stone adulteresses to death, so would you mind stepping aside and handing me that pile of rocks?”

The proper answer to such gambits was formulated in the 19th century by General Charles Napier when dealing with sutte, the Indian custom of burning a widow on her husband’s funeral pyre: “You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”

Jimmy Bradshaw:

Remember this next time someone tells you Christian values are the best defense against the spread of Islamism: the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, the head of the Anglican church, believes that the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK “seems unavoidable”.

Williams isn’t of course referring to the Islamist-imperialist dream of the entire U.K being placed under Sharia law, but rather he’s backing the idea, promoted by some in the UK Muslim community, of allowing Muslims to settle some aspects of family and “personal status” laws in Sharia courts.

Williams says Muslims should not have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty” (he doesn’t say why not) and rejects an approach to law where “there’s one law for everybody and that’s all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts — I think that’s a bit of a danger.” He doesn’t say what is “dangerous” about the idea of the law applying equally to all.

Ed Morrissey:

It's not the first time a member of the clergy has suggested appeasement and surrender for a strategy against expansion of radical Islam. The endorsement of these strategies by the leader of the Anglican Church is especially disheartening, however. That the leader of a worldwide sect of Christianity thinks of shari'a as "inevitable" should prompt questions about his fitness for that office.

Victor Davis Hanson:

And one could argue that Christendom's clergy at least put up a fight in North Africa in the 5th and 6th centuries before being overwhelmed, and that there were priests on the walls of Constantinople on that terrible day May 29, 1453 — but Archbishop Rowan Williams seems to be welcoming in the end of the Church and the Enlightenment all at once in a sort of 'if you can't beat them, join them.'

Ruth Gledhill:

Is the Archbishop of Canterbury unaware of the history of the Church he has been chosen to lead? Coming from Wales is no excuse, as until the early years of the last century, Wales was part of the Church of England as well. The Church of England was born out of an express desire to rid Britain of a foreign, ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Article 37 of the 39 says: 'The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.' Queen Elizabeth I early in her reign decreed that the Crown had restored to it 'the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical and spiritual, abolishing all foreign power repugnant to the same'.

And now Queen Elizabeth II's very own Archbishop - and let's not forget she is his Church's Supreme Governor - wants to introduce a new 'jurisdiction into this realm of England.' And an Islamic one at that!

It is one thing for judges to take Sharia into account, as has happened in Germany. It is quite another to follow the line the Archbishop is suggesting. It led to near disaster in Ontario, Canada two years ago and would created untold and unnecessary distress here were it to be implemented here.

The Archbishop has staked everything on trying to maintain unity in his own Anglican Communion. At the same time, he is advocating a policy that could only fragment the society around him.

[...]

A few weeks ago, I was chatting to a woman who works in an advocacy role for Muslim women in an area that, quite independently of the Bishop of Rochester, she described as a 'no-go area' for non-Muslims. Her clients were women in the process of being sectioned into mental health units in the NHS. This woman, who for obvious reasons begged not to be identified, told me: 'The men get tired of their wives. Or bored. Or maybe the wife objects to her daughter being forced into a marriage she doesn't want. Or maybe she starts wearing western clothes.There can be many reasons. The women are sent for asssessment to a hospital. The GP referring them is Muslim. The psychiatrist assessing them is Muslim and male. I have sat in these assessments where the psychiatrist will not look the woman patient in the eye because she is a woman. Can you imagine! A psychiatrist refusing to look his patient in the eye? The woman speaks little or no English. She is sectioned. She is divorced. There are lots of these women in there, locked up in these hospitals. Why don't you people write about this?'

My interlocuter went very red and almost started to cry. Instead, she began shouting at me. I was a member of the press. 'You must write about this,' she begged.

'I can't,' I said. 'Not unless you become a whistle-blower. Or give me some evidence. Or something.'

She shook her head. 'I can't be identified,' she said. 'I would be killed. And so would the women.'

So there you have it. After weeks of wondering what to do, inspired by the Archbishop, I've taken her word that she is telling the truth, respected her anonymity, and written it anyway.

And this, I imagine, is what the Archbishop wants for the whole of England. As they used to say in my father's country parish: 'Heaven preserve us!' I wonder what they're saying there today. Expressions somewhat shorter and sweeter, I fear.

R. Emmett Tyrell, Jr.:

Islam has a new convert. Some will be surprised, but I am not. The newest convert to the religion of the unshaven face is Archbishop Rowan Williams. Dr. Williams has been the spiritual leader of the Anglican Church in the UK. However, after his February 7 interview on the BBC I think we can all agree that he is not so much a spiritual leader as a spiritual capitulator.

In his wonderfully wooly-headed interview, derived from a public lecture delivered by him at the Royal Courts of Justice, Dr. Williams called on his countrymen to arrive at "constructive accommodation" with Islamic sharia law. According to his calculations, the inclusion of sharia law into the British code of law is "unavoidable." Thus if you are visiting London in the future and you appear in a British court, do not be surprised if it is presided over by a smiling mullah. Actually, it is not clear what Dr. Williams knows about sharia law, and in his BBC interview he admitted, "I'm no expert on this." Nonetheless, he is calling for the institutionalization of Islam into at least some areas of his country's legal code. Doubtless soon the forward-looking archbishop will be seen lugging a prayer rug over to his local mosque at the appointed hours -- his wife, veiled and obedient, in tow. Sharia law can be pretty demanding.

In some countries where this legal code -- first formulated sometime in the seventh century -- is followed, it enjoins, among other atrocities, the stoning of adulterers, the amputation of body parts, and a kind of female subjugation unimaginable to even the most ardent Western male chauvinist pig. By the way, sharia law even takes into consideration pigs, as well as mortgages, couture, and the care of household pets, which are discouraged. As for pigs, they are considered "unclean." In most countries where sharia law rules, a ham on rye is malum prohibitum -- pardon my Latin. As I say, sharia law can be pretty demanding.

This brings me to a matter that Islam's most recent celebrity convert seems not to understand. Sharia law is socially, politically, and legally, all-embracing. It is not simply a religious faith, as various forms of Christianity are. It is a polity. As Peter G. Riddell, a theologian at the Kairos Journal, wrote in response to Dr. Williams here, sharia law "is a system that insists on society's compliance in every sector of human activity: legal, religious, economic, political, and social. Although Muslims may disagree on how to implement Islam as the total package, they do not disagree that Islam is much more than just a private expression of religious belief." So Dr. Williams, you have had your last ham sandwich and forget the pigs' knuckles. They are completely off the menu.

Brits at their Best:

Could someone persuade this fellow to read a little history? Britain has one law common to all because that is the fairest and most enlightened way to operate. British Christians purchased with their lives the principle that no one is above or beyond Common Law, and that everyone must abide by its rules of fairness and equity. Grounded in individual rights and due process, Common Law protects the vulnerable, including women who have been abused by Sharia laws that treat them as having less rights than men and that inflict barbaric punishments on men and women.

The archbishop has lectured on St Benedict’s Rule, but he does not realize the importance of refraining from speech - “Death and life are in the power of the tongue. Keep a guard on your mouth.” Instead he feels compelled to foster controversy and confusion. Where is his Socratic humility, his acknowledgement that he knows very little?

Fortunately his idea has been met in Britain with an almost universal and appalled NO.

Williams' comments provoked calls for his resignation:

The Archbishop of Canterbury was facing demands to quit last night as the row over sharia law intensified.

Lord George Carey, Dr Williams' predecessor, criticised his comments on sharia law and said that accepting the Islamic code would be a disaster for Britain.

Other leading bishops publicly contradicted Dr Rowan Williams's call for Islamic law to be brought into the British legal system.

With the Church of England plunged into crisis, senior figures were said to be discussing the archbishop's future.

One member of the church's "Cabinet", the Archbishop's Council, was reported as saying: "There have been a lot of calls for him to resign. I don't suppose he will take any notice, but, yes, he should resign."

And yet for all that, one month after the row, he is still head of the Church if England. He refuses to resign. Williams sees nothing wrong with his comments.

Let me clarify two things. First, any call to adopt any part of shari'a -- any call -- must be met with condemnation in the harshest terms possible. The shari'a is codified barbarism inapposite for any civilized country and more in line with ancient Carthage, who sacrificed their own children to the god Baal. Any god who would demand his followers adhere to such a code is a false god.

Second, why do we in the United States care what a British religious figure thinks? Because Britain is where US law starts. US law is formed on the foundation of the British common law. And US courts will periodically look to British common law for guidance where there is no US law on point. This is the one instance where it is acceptable for US courts to look to foriegn law for guidance (which does not serve to bail out SCOTUS Justice Ruth bader Ginsburg for her ridiculous comments on that issue).

Further, as head of a major western religious order, Williams' opinion carries some weight. Perhaps not with westerners in this instance, but with Islamists who do see this as a war and see WIlliams' comments as another sign that they are winning.

And Williams' comments amounting to creating an Islamic quarter of Constantinople suggest that perhaps they are.

That quarter is getting larger, as a Western Civilization weakened by decades of "multiculturalism" finds the general populace but not the leadeship who actually matter willing to man the battlements. British children are disappearing from schools, amid fears that they may have been forced into arranged marriages. Muslim medical students are refusing to wash up before surgery because it is against Islamic law. Islamic polygamy is already recognized de facto in Britain. The camel's nose is thus already in the common law tent.

Meanwhile, back in the US, we have Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis attempting to force shari'a on their passengers. We have honor killings in Texas. We also have Stanford and Cal using Saudi money to help set up a university in Saudi Arabia, one which the Saudis probably could not set up themselves because their own practice of shari'a, shall we say?, discourages the intellectual vigor and critical thinking necessary for such and endeavor.

And we have Harvard banning men from their campus gym during certain hours for Muslim women uncomfortable working out with men around.

When a columnist asked Harvard spokesman Bob Mitchell about this new Sharia-friendly policy, he denied that they were banning anyone. “No, no,” he told me, “we’re permitting women to work out in an environment that accommodates their religion.”

By banning all men from the facility, right?

“It’s not ‘banning,’ ” he insisted. “We’re allowing, we’re accommodating people.”

Accommodating. The age-old buzz word of multiculturalism.

The hordes are getting closer. The hour of Constantinople is coming.