كشیشی كه نتوانست منقدین را آرامش بخشد!
(انعكاس بخشی از موضعگیری هما ارجمند در برخورد به نظرات اخیر اسقف اعظم انگلستان)

این عنوان مقاله ای از لیندا هرست یكی از نویسندگان دایم پرتیراژترین روزنامه تورنتو است كه به بررسی موضع گیری اخیر اسقف اعظم كانتربری انگلستان  و واكنشهایی مربوط به آن پرداخته است. در این نوشته ضمن مقاسیه حركتی كه در كانادا جهت ایجاد دادگاههای اسلامی صورت گرفته بود با بیانات  كشیش مذكور در حمایت از ایجاد مراجع قضایی اسلامی در انگلستان میخواهد تصویری از مقاومت جامعه غرب در مقابل اسلام را نشان دهد.
در بخشی از مقاله نویسنده با رجوع به تجربه كانادا و مقاومت علیه اجرایی قوانین شریعه در استان انتاریو به  سراغ  هما ارجمند بعنوان سازمانده كمپین علیه دادگاههای شریعه در كانادا میرود و نظر او و واكنش او را در مقابل موضعگیری اخیر اسقف اعظم میپرسد و جستجو میكند. اولین مورد این است كه هما ارجمند به صراحت میگوید كه معذرت خواهی آقای ولیامز كافی نیست. او متذكر میشود كه این ساده لوئی بی حد و حصر آقای ولیامز است كه فكر میكند با اجازه دادن به قوانین شریعه میتوان جامعه تقسیم شده و تكه پاره انگلیس را وحدت بخشد. قوانین شریعه بر عكس، مخالف قوانین جا افتاده و باسابقه انگلستان در زمینه حقوق زنان، مسائلی چون طلاق، سرپرستی كودك و تك همسری است.
در ادامه این مقاله آمده است. "ولیامز در مصاحبه با بی بی سی میگوید در بعضی از فرهنگها و یا مذاهب میتوان الترناتیوهایی را سراغ كرد كه در رابطه با مسئله طلاق مناسبتر عمل میكند. اما هما رجمند مخالف آن بوده و تاكید میكند موضع آقای ولیامز تحت عنوان مولتی كالچرالیسم تبعیض و جداسازی را بیشتر تقویت می كند.
هما ارجمند میگوید مهاجرین بسیاری بخاطر قوانین سركوبگرایانه اسلامی به كانادا آمده اند كسانی كه جز صف بیشماری بودند كه طومار علیه لایحه حكمیت ۱٩٩۱ (كه دادگاههای مذهبی خانوادگی را مجاز میشمرد) را امضا كردند و یا به تظاهرات مقابال كوئینز پارك (مجلس ایالتی) تظاهرات پیوستند. حركتی كه مو جب شد تا در سپتامبر ۲٠٠۵ نخست وزیر ایلتی خواهان لغو این لایحه گشته و سپس مجلس نیز با اكثریت آرا آن را ملغی كرد.
آقای ویلیامز ضمن این كه میگوید قوانین اسلامی را بخوبی نمیشناسد، تاكید میكند كه خواهان حوزه قضایی پارلل با قوانین مدنی جاری نیست. بخصوص در مسائل حساسی چون موقعیت و حقوق زنان. اما هما ارجمند معترضانه میگوید كه قوانین اسلامی در همه جوانبش علیه زنان است. مجاز بودن مراجع شرعی یعنی زیر فشار قرار دادن زنان به پذیرش احكامش و یا ایزوله كردن آنان از خانواده و كمونیتی شان و عملا ایجاد مانع در جهت جذب آنان در جریان غالب جامعه و زیرپا گذاشتن حق شهروندی زنان."

نوشته لیند هرست به انگلیسی بطور كامل در زیر آمده است
Cleric fails to soothe critics

Despite apology of sorts over remarks about sharia, Archbishop of Canterbury refuses to back down
February 13, 2008
Lynda HurstFEATURE WRITER
It was an apology of sorts.
He would "take responsibility for any unclarity " or "misleading choice of words," but the Archbishop of Canterbury is not backing down on his view on sharia law.
Rowan Williams ignited a public furor in Britain last week when he told an interviewer Islamic law is "unavoidable" and should be incorporated into British legal system.
Faced with calls to apologize, even to resign, the embattled leader of the world's 77 million Anglicans said on Monday he will not stop attempting "to speak for the liberties and consciences of others in this country as well as our own."
He told the Church of England's General Synod, or governing body, the question still remains: "Whether certain additional choices could and should be made available under the law of the U.K."
Far from defusing the situation, Williams is still being rebuked on a number of fronts, from pandering to the U.K.'s 1.8 million Muslims, to speaking in ignorance of sharia law's attitudes toward women, undermining Britain's existing civil laws and failing to defend Christianity's primacy.
Three members of the synod and one Conservative MP have called for Williams' resignation. Trevor Phillips, head of the U.K.'s Commission on Racial Equality, calls his thinking "muddled and unhelpful."
Even his predecessor as archbishop, George Carey, says the adoption of sharia – a man-made body of Islamic laws written in the 7th and 8th centuries – would be "disastrous."
"There can be no exceptions to the laws of the land which have been so painfully honed by the struggle for democracy and human rights," said Carey.
Williams' sharia stance comes on top of the festering dispute over the ordination of gay clergy that could lead to a terminal split in the church. Critics say the liberal Williams, archbishop since 2002, has lost his authority as leader.
David Reed, emeritus professor of theology at the University of Toronto, says the archbishop "clearly didn't anticipate the political ramifications of what he said."
Williams is a brilliant scholar, says Reed, who believes his role "is to think through the hard questions – not necessarily to find solutions. He's a man of deep integrity."
Undoubtedly so, says Homa Arjomand, a secular Muslim whose International No-Sharia Campaign fought the adoption of Islamic domestic law in Ontario in 2004. "But his `apology' is not enough," she says.
Williams' statement in last week's BBC Radio interview, that allowing sharia law would maintain social cohesion in an increasingly fragmented Britain is "breathtakingly naive," says Arjomand. Its laws are in opposition to established British legal traditions on many issues, including monogamy, divorce, the rights of women and custody of children.
In the interview, Williams admitted he didn't "know enough about Islamic law" in regard to marriage: "I'm simply saying there are ways of looking at marital dispute ... which provide an alternative to the divorce courts. In some cultural and religious settings they would seem more appropriate."
Not so, says Arjomand, in secular countries such as Britain. "His position, in the name of multiculturalism, would promote more segregation and discrimination."
In 2004, Ontario went through a prolonged battle over the use of sharia tribunals to settle marital and child custody disputes under the province's little-known Arbitration Act. There was a huge outcry from Ontarians who pointed out that the sharia "code for living" blatantly contravened the gender equality provisions of the Charter of Rights.
Escaping sharia's oppressive presence was the very reason many Muslims immigrated to Canada, said Arjomand, among countless others who petitioned and protested at Queen's Park.
Finally in September 2005, Premier Dalton McGuinty made his decision: "We believe that no matter where you come from or how long you've been here, we are all to be held accountable by the same law."
The stand put the province in harmony with the European Court of Human Rights, which has said sharia law is incompatible with democracy. Williams' critics are trying to stop the same painful process from playing out in Britain.
In his synod clarification, Williams said he was not calling for "a parallel jurisdiction" to existing civil law. "There could be no blank cheques in this regard, in particular as regards some of the sensitive questions about the status and liberties of women."
But Arjomand argues that sharia law – in all its myriad forms in different Muslim sects and communities – is uniformly biased against women. Allowing women to be pressured into accepting its dictates "or face community ostracism, or worse" excludes them from mainstream life, as well as denying their equal rights as citizens.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was quick last week to distance the Labour government from Williams' remarks. A spokesperson said Brown "is very clear that British laws must be based on British values and that religious law should be subservient to British criminal and civil law."
Brown has been playing down former PM Tony Blair's concept of diversity in favour of emphasizing a dominant British culture