[Dragar]

I did some research on this, because Rowan Williams seems a smart chap, if a bit prone to making statements the media can easily misrepresent (he's an academic, after all).

Rowan's original idea, that was so badly mocked and misrepresented, was simply this. In many British courts, the idea is that the court itself should be a last resort. It's far more appropriate, and often a better use of taxpayer's money, for those involved to work out the dispute without the courts ruling. Instead they will often come to an agreement beforehand. Often the judge can even appoint someone to work out an agreement for both parties. Rowan's idea that was so misrepresented was that this 'arbitration' should take into account Muslim rules and values when both parties want it.

And this smart idea has been implemented. I hope everyone has read the important part from the article:

The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Sharia law is being forced on nobody; it's simply an option for Muslims to have their legal disputes resolved with reference to their own religious codes and practies. I rather suspect similar things must exist for other religious groups in the UK. I bet, for instance, there is a Jewish equivilent. It's a nice move, and I applaud it.