ok, two possibilities here:
1. the archbishop's comments were intended to ignite an already volatile tinkerbox, or
2. the archbishop's comments were a genuine response to genuine problem
well, if the former is true, then the archbishop's comments were intended to agitate an already paranoid public. this would not be the first time for the archbishop, and it certainly would not be the first time for a secular or religious leader. the vitriol that ensued could certainly give credence to this claim.
so was the archbishop trying to inflame tensions? tenable, but unlikely.
let us consider the latter.
the fact is that significant portions of the muslim community in the uk (and in oz) already follow islamic law in their private affairs. they marry, divorce, and inherit according to islamic law. they seek to construct their financial and commercial arrangements in accordance with islamic law. they raise their children and establish their familial relationships on the same basis.
perhaps the archbishop's statements in this respect is a statement of the bleeding obvious.
but the significance of his speech is not on its content alone. what is more important is the public acknowledgment of an otherwise uncomfortable truth, i.e. the fact that a significant portion of muslim community prefer to conclude their matters upon Islamic values, and not western values.
it is quite conceivable the archbishop's comments will be exploited as a basis for future political compromise. given the current infatuation with the integration of Muslim minorities in western societies, perhaps the archbishop's comments is the first in a long series of public overtures that will end with the formal recognition of some form of Islamic arbitration.
the government has a choice to make. is it in the continuing interest of society to have a large body of citizens operate outside the ambit of established law? or is it preferable to modify existing legal strictures so as to accomodate the needs of such citizens?
such a development, no doubt deeply unpopular with an already skeptical public, may prove a political necessity. the continuing support of the Muslim community is built upon it. the harmonious function of society depends upon it.
but such an initiative is a two edged sword. when the niceties are concluded and the happy snaps exhausted, the focus will then be upon the Muslim community. the political establishment will then ask: after all we have done for you, what will you now do for us?
1. the archbishop's comments were intended to ignite an already volatile tinkerbox, or
2. the archbishop's comments were a genuine response to genuine problem
well, if the former is true, then the archbishop's comments were intended to agitate an already paranoid public. this would not be the first time for the archbishop, and it certainly would not be the first time for a secular or religious leader. the vitriol that ensued could certainly give credence to this claim.
so was the archbishop trying to inflame tensions? tenable, but unlikely.
let us consider the latter.
the fact is that significant portions of the muslim community in the uk (and in oz) already follow islamic law in their private affairs. they marry, divorce, and inherit according to islamic law. they seek to construct their financial and commercial arrangements in accordance with islamic law. they raise their children and establish their familial relationships on the same basis.
perhaps the archbishop's statements in this respect is a statement of the bleeding obvious.
but the significance of his speech is not on its content alone. what is more important is the public acknowledgment of an otherwise uncomfortable truth, i.e. the fact that a significant portion of muslim community prefer to conclude their matters upon Islamic values, and not western values.
it is quite conceivable the archbishop's comments will be exploited as a basis for future political compromise. given the current infatuation with the integration of Muslim minorities in western societies, perhaps the archbishop's comments is the first in a long series of public overtures that will end with the formal recognition of some form of Islamic arbitration.
the government has a choice to make. is it in the continuing interest of society to have a large body of citizens operate outside the ambit of established law? or is it preferable to modify existing legal strictures so as to accomodate the needs of such citizens?
such a development, no doubt deeply unpopular with an already skeptical public, may prove a political necessity. the continuing support of the Muslim community is built upon it. the harmonious function of society depends upon it.
but such an initiative is a two edged sword. when the niceties are concluded and the happy snaps exhausted, the focus will then be upon the Muslim community. the political establishment will then ask: after all we have done for you, what will you now do for us?
No comments:
Post a Comment