I just knew there was going to be a pro-Williams backlash today. To be fair to the people who’ve stepped up to the plate, they’re brave in taking an unpopular stance. But I’m so, soooo in disagreement with them that I feel the need to Fisk… and Jeevan Vasagar’s piece at Comment is Free seems as likely a candidate as any. Helpfully he links to the text of the Venerable Windbag’s speech.

So, from the top…

This isn’t really about the detail, or what he actually said.

It is, actually: he said in order to achieve a constructive accommodation with Islam and to aid community cohesion, British law should take more account, in some way, of Islamic law, possibly by in some way delegating responsibility to Islamic councils. He said this was unavoidable; and he specifically mentioned law on marriage as an example. This seems to me this gist of at least part of his speech, and his BBC interview. It’s precisely about what he said. And it is about the detail that he left out, e.g. what rights precisely does he imagine Muslim wives and children, say as having or not having in Britain.

That much was obvious by the time the BBC’s 10 o’clock news was gleefully summoning up archive clips of floggings, amputations and Taliban firing squads to illustrate the archbishop’s thoughtful speech.

A classic pro-Williams line is that he’s “thoughful”. Well, he may think a lot, and his speech certainly is written in a very academic style, hedging his proposal in with all manner of abstract theoretical musings and references to papers. But it’s important not to be distracted by someone’s written and personal style into thinking theit “thoughfulness” implies that the content of what they say is somehow beyond criticism except by other “thoughtful” scholarly types.

The fact is there are plenty of countries where sharia exists alongside secular law. It’s the case in much of east Africa, where I used to live. In Tanzania, for example, Muslim family law applies to Muslim citizens. When it comes to questions of divorce, custody and inheritance, Muslim families settle their disputes at courts unique to their communities.

I notice he doesn’t say how fairly he thinks this operates or how Muslim women are protected or otherwise in the Tanzanian system.

There’s an interesting clash here – a classic liberal dilemma. Do you promote the rights of a minority community or do you worry more about the rights of Muslim women, who may get treated less generously under sharia than under secular law?

Isn’t this quite an easy choice if you have any personal relationship with the word “liberal”?

These are vital concerns; sharia family law dictates, for example, that fathers automatically get custody of children after divorce. It also sanctions polygamous marriage, a set-up in which the younger wives are – if the stories I heard in east Africa hold true – invariably treated miserably. Such practices are plainly unjust.

Ah, so Tanzania ain’t that great after all. And how can Williams and his defenders accuse people like me of harbouring ignorant “myths” about the content of sharia law, if they’re prepared openly to admit it fails to protect children’s rights in relation to their mothers, and the rights of the mothers themselves? Jeevan Vasagar is brave to mention this, as other like Williams are keen, as Williams did in his speech, to soft-pedal Islamic injustice and gloss over it.

The problem is that the right, and their fellow-travellers on the Muslim-bashing left, will seize on this. For them, it’s a case of mediaeval misogyny versus western enlightenment. Suddenly, papers that oppose abortion and believe career women will always be unhappy start cross-dressing as feminists. Don’t believe this ruse – they’re just using feminism as a stick to beat Muslims with.

I hate this argumentative device. He’s trying to say: “the BNP and the Sun hate Williams’s proposal; they use feminism as a cloak for their racism; therefore the feminist case against Williams is a fraud. If you’re against racists and misogynists, back the thoughtful Williams on sharia!” Anyone can see through this, can’t they?

Remember when Jack Straw told women in his constituency to take off their veils when they came to see him? The voices of the veiled women telling him to mind his own business were loud, confident and unmistakeably Lancastrian.

I think there was quite a diverse reaction to his comments, among which this was only one. And if having an unmistakeable Lancastrian accent means you’re always right, then frankly I have to tell him that means I automatically win every argument I ever take part in!

The point is that feminism can’t be imposed from outside.

From outside what? And if feminism can’t be imposed, then there’s no basis for laws on pornography or equal pay and equal treatment at work, is there? Aren’t they attempts to impose feminist ideas? Actually, come to think about it, is there any point in having laws to impose liberal feminist ideas on rapists?

Muslim men don’t have a monopoly on misogyny, and white men aren’t the only ones to be enlightened.

Obviously; but does he think misogyny is a problem or not? Does the mote of misogyny elsewhere justify the misogynistic Islamic law beam?

Aggressively rejecting religious traditions only strengthens them.

A mere assertion whose function is to rhetorically associate secularism with aggression. This sentence is also tricksy because it implies that the writer is opposed to strengthening religious traditions. But is he?

Rowan Williams is right about this, though his quiet voice is getting drowned out in the hysteria.

Williams characterised as “thoughtful” again, and anyone who disagrees with him as hysterical. Not a word one should use without care if one really is concerned about misogyny.

Sharia already plays a role in devout Muslim lives, and has to be accepted and understood.

Why does the one follow from the other? It’s that spirit of moral compromise again, that I mentioned yesterday: this is the case; therefore it must be accepted.

But there also has to be a right of appeal. In Muslim countries that practice sharia, it is not a static entity but a living body of rules – just like secular law – which often co-exists with inherited colonial structures and traditional practices.

I don’t see how lack of stasis guarantees fairness. Or why sharia’s general resemblance to other legal systems at the highest level of abstraction, or the possibility of co-existence, really makes the case for why it ought to be allowed to co-exist. Plus: if ultimately the “right of appeal” means applying British law, then why bother having sharia at any stage? If is doesn’t means this, then what does it mean and what good is it?

There are battles over sexism to be fought and won with the Muslim community, just as there are within the Hindu, Sikh, Christian and any other.

Is the writer fighting them?

They aren’t going to be won by ignorantly shouting down a skilfully argued speech.

Williams argues skilfully; his opponent shout and are ignorant. This is the message you’re being given, although if you read the speech you’ll it’s skilful, but in the sense of hedging round a vague proposal with so much academic theorising that you think the actual proposal hidden inside is much more reasonable than it really is. As for the rest of us, I’m not shouting. And if someone is the most ridiculous man in England then I see nothing shouty in saying it.

Oh, and this line also seeks to intimidate liberals by the old device: Ssh! if you’re pro-human rights, keep quiet about them! That way, the Chinese/Burmese/Iranians/Islamists will gradually see things your way. But if you try to ram your fancy ideas down people’s thoats…

There’s a case to be made for combining the better elements of all our traditions, for the common good, and the archbishop is a brave man for making it.

What better element is there in Islamic family law that we should combine with our own family law?