However, for Christians as well as Muslims and those of other faiths, it does open up a debate on the place of those with a religious faith within an increasingly secular society.

Dr Williams was forced to apologise on Monday. He had indicated that elements of sharia law could be adopted in the UK to accommodate Muslims who "relate to something other than the British legal system alone". To compound this, on Radio Four's World at One programme, he said such a move "seemed unavoidable".

In his speech, he stated one law for everybody was "not adequate to deal with the reality of complex societies" and that people should be free to "choose the jurisdiction under which they will seek to resolve certain carefully specified matters" including "aspects of marital law, the regulation of financial transactions and authorised structures of mediation and conflict resolution".

Former Home Secretary David Blunkett described the Archbishop's remarks as 'dangerous' and 'catastrophic'. He was giving 'succour to extremists' with his 'muddled and unhelpful' views according to Trevor Phillips of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, who continued: "As far as I am aware, no serious body of Muslim opinion supports the idea of special treatment, or exemption from the law of the land based on some vague 'conscious objection'. Raising this idea in this way will give fuel to anti-Muslim extremism and dismay everyone who is working towards a more integrated society."

The Prime Minister said: "British law should apply in this country, based on British values." New Culture Secretary Andy Burnham added: "You cannot run two systems of law alongside each other. That would be a recipe for chaos". Dr Williams was accused of unwittingly risking inflaming community tensions and adversely impacting social cohesion.

The Archbishop had to be advised by police about his personal safety and offered protection. There has been criticism from colleagues around the world and his resignation was sought by members of the General Synod.

By all accounts, he was stunned at the ferocity of the backlash.
However he could not have been so naïve to fail to appreciate the inevitable political ramifications. He quickly assembled the broadest possible coalition in opposition to his view.

Dr Williams has created controversy before in the political arena with his aggressive promotion of homosexual rights and forthright views on the Iraq war and the United States administration.

Sharia derives from the Koran and the seventh century teachings of the prophet Muhammad. Several sharia courts are already known to be operating in towns and cities in England. However, many Muslims were highly critical and voiced their opposition to the introduction of sharia law. Sharia is not a single undisputed set of rules. It is very much open to interpretation by Muslim leaders and subject to the customs of each particular country. So in practice, it is implemented very differently in different parts of the world.

Parallel legal systems exist in other parts of the world. No matter how diluted a form of sharia law would be envisaged though in the UK, conflict would still be unavoidable on civil rights matters, for instance.

On issues involving monogamy, divorce, women's rights, custody of children, inheritance and strength of evidence, there would be obvious disparity. Environment Minister Phil Woolas drew attention over the weekend to the not uncommon practice of Muslims marrying first cousins.

There are already actions taken to incorporate Muslim views. For instance, abattoirs kill animals with a clean cut to the throat. In his last budget, as Chancellor Gordon Brown relaxed the law on stamp duty as a concession to Muslim homeowners since sharia forbids the payment of interest. Many will be surprised to learn that the Department for Work and Pensions permits husbands to claim benefits for multiple wives.

Other faiths already have special provisions. Jewish divorces and civil disputes, for instance, are often settled in their own officially recognised Beth Din court under the authority of a Chief Rabbi. This is clearly subordinate to the British legal system though.
We retain the historical link between our Head of State and the Church of England.

Damian Thompson, editor of the Catholic Herald, stated that Dr Williams' stance suggests that the Church of England is now "more confident of putting the case for sharia law than it is for putting the case for Christianity".

This reflects a sense among Christians that too often, those representing them in leadership roles, do not articulate stridently enough the sincerely held views of their congregation and instead ironically appear to have confrontation avoidance as their main objective.

Some question if it is wise at a time when the Church is losing members to Islam for the Archbishop to be promoting, if indirectly, another faith.

They feel it may be more appropriate for him to promote his own. The Church of England is in turmoil itself over the issue of homosexual ministers, and the challenges for the Archbishop of this week's General Synod will be dwarfed by those presented by the Lambeth conference later in the year.

The Archbishop's comments and the subsequent outcry they sparked do highlight the tensions that exist for everyone with religious convictions when they contradict the legal position. It is important to consider how Christians indeed, as well as Muslims, will integrate in future years within an ever more anti-religious country.

Already there are many matters legislated for in Brussels and increasingly in Westminster which do not sit comfortably with any interpretation of the scriptures. Christians feel immensely strongly on matters such as sanctity of life issues, abortion and family life. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill currently passing through Parliament contains many elements repugnant to Christians, and all efforts will be made in both Houses to oppose them.