The Archbishop of Canterbury may seem to have come off better than his over-excited opponents in all that noise about his thoughts on the inevitability of Sharia law. But that may be little consolation to him as he tries to rectify the confusion arising from his lecture.

He spent a good deal of the lecture asking what conditions would have to be met if our society were to move towards a greater legal recognition of (taking into account of?) the role of Sharia.

He suggested that there are areas where such recognition might nevertheless be possible: “aspects of marital law, the regulation of financial transactions and authorised structures of mediation and conflict resolution”. In some of these areas Khoranic teachings and Sharia rulings are already ‘recognised’ in British law. He anticipated there would be difficulties but he failed to anticipate how ready the press would be in misinterpreting the intentions behind his words. His words are not clear and nor are his intentions. On the Sharia issue evangelists oppose him for not being more trenchantly Anglican and secularists oppose him for seeming to adopt the Sharia idea as a means of advancing the interests of religion however it is defined.

Muslims who emigrate to Western countries enjoy all the privileges of the citizens of the host countries. They make maximum use of the social benefits and thoroughly enjoy the freedoms they were often denied in their own countries. These Muslims are, of course, welcome to all they receive - in exchange for living as good law abiding citizens in our country.

However, far too many Muslims living in the West say quite openly that they would prefer to replace secular governments with Islamic ones, run according to Sharia law. And there are numerous groups all over the country that are dedicated to achieving just this - we are told.

When Muslims talk of Sharia law they introduce a certain confusion because, judging from what we hear from other countries, there are many different varieties of this Muslim system of justice ranging from extreme cruelty to the fairly benign. I don’t think any version doles out justice on an equitable basis for men and women. I hear that most versions of Sharia law values a woman as worth half that of a man! And Muslim Polygamy is a lob-sided privilege for men to have several wives.

One group advocating Sharia law in this country, Hizb ut Tahrir, has declared: ‘All Muslims in the world already want to live in a Caliphate, under Sharia law… a huge state, a very powerful state. Even now you are all afraid of us - America, Israel, you in the UK too.’ What does that mean?? Perhaps I am misreading things but I certainly sense a threatening note in those fiery words.

This same group openly attacks secularism in the widest possible sense. Secular values are stated by them to have brought misery to the people of the world. They, like most religious fanatics, seem to think that their own religious ‘values’ have never brought misery to the world!! They claim that Shariah law is superior in every way to British law and they work slowly towards shifting things accordingly.

Many of the numerous hysterical outbursts in the press following Rowan Williams’ lecture claimed he was aiding and abetting this Islamist wish to force Sharia law onto the British public. But, to take him at his word he was not remotely suggesting any such thing. He neither advocates the displacement of British with Sharia law nor suggests introducing a parallel system of justice. I think he was exploring the idea of sharing with Muslims those traditional religious privileges that Christians have long enjoyed - and thereby to strike a blow at secularism!

Like Christians, Muslims draw on revelation - and to talk of revelation is Rowan William’s job. As he said in his lecture, “To recognise sharia is to recognise a method of jurisprudence governed by revealed texts …”.

The modern secular world has no use for revelation. Muslims do, but that provides no legal justification for granting special privileges to citizens on the basis of their quaint religious beliefs. In any case, those Muslims who came to this country to escape from the worst excesses of Sharia law in their homeland are strongly opposed to introducing it here.

So, what is the problem? The Archbishop knows that we live in a secular state and that British Law is essentially secular law. The standard of justice to which the law (our common law) aspires is defined by statute and precedent within Parliament. Our system of justice has, of course, been influenced over the centuries by distilled ingredients from other sources such as Christianity and Roman law from Gaius to Justinian.

Rowan Williams is unhappy with a secular state where the law in general is indifferent to a person’s religious belief. He is interested in promoting a system whereby religious belief IS taken into consideration. That is probably why the Catholic Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor was quick to show support for Rowan Williams - he recognised that there was more to his speech than mere Sharia or the mere recognition of Muslim belief… it had the intention of making a strong plea for our legal system to take account of the views of all who are guided by revelation. Ergo, he attacks us secularists.

Has Rowan Williams also opened the way for disestablishment?