It’s interesting how Islam has appeared in the newspapers over the last few days. In the first instance, preacher Abu Hamza is reported to be extradited to the US to face terror charges. At the same time, in a move said of as hypocritical in a country that allows platform for characters such as Nick Griffin, respected cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi was denied entry to the UK due to his comments justifying Palestinian acts of suicide bombing. But it was the Archbishop of Canterbury’s comments on the possibility that Shariah law may be permissible in the UK which incited the most interesting response.

The red tops (UK tabloids) were quick off the mark to paint a picture of a burqa-ed Britain; underlining the average layperson’s understanding of what constitutes Shariah law, and being about two thousand miles off the mark from what the Archbishop meant. The idea put forth by Dr Rowan Williams suggested that certain facets of the Shariah, such as Islamic finance and marriage (and subsequent dissolution) laws, be integrated into the current framework of the British legal system. Note that his argument is integration into, not replacement of, British law.

Williams has been met with much criticism, not only from members of the Anglican church, but also from Muslim conservative peer Sayeeda Warsi, who argues that such a suggestion could not come at a worse time. While in principle I agree with Williams’ suggestion – mainly from the perspective of the protection of women under marriage laws – Warsi does have a point. From media reports in the past 36 hours, many seem to have jumped onto the Islamophobia bandwagon a bit too quickly.

Resistance seems to stem from three perspectives. First are those who use hudud punishments such as the cutting off of hands for theft and stoning for adultery to define everything that is Shariah, where as this is but a small part of the whole Islamic legal system. Second are those who generally see no sense – or respect – for rule of religion of any sort, be it Christian, Judaism or Buddhist; and therefore would find the suggestion of any type of religious law embedded as an option under British law to be a general affront to their ‘liberties’ and the secular system the country has for so long enjoyed. And third are those who are not clear of the context of what Dr Williams is arguing. Perhaps a smaller fourth group also exists : those, like Warsi, who do not find the idea wrong as much as the timing is.

Williams may be a man a little ahead of his time. He is a few steps ahead of his detractors: he knows pretty well that for instance, Muslims will continue to marry under religious laws – his suggestion would allow recourse and in some cases, help under the current legal system. Assertions that Muslims choose to live in the West because of a wish to escape Shariah law is also misleading; symptomatic of a misconception of what Shariah law is, and no thanks to the voice given to ex-Muslims such as Hirsi Ali. When you are hell bent on painting a poor picture of someone, the fact that he wears his shirt tucked out on an otherwise perfect body is the flaw you magnify over and over again. Misconceptions of what constitutes Shariah law, among other facets of Islam, gets that treament all too often.

As with most news items hitting the headlines, this will most probably die down in the next few days (unless someone kidnaps a teddy bear and calls it Jesus or something). What is obvious, though, is the power of the media in shaping how people have reacted. You can lay down your Jewish conspiracy theories of media control at my door if you wish; my challenge to the Muslim world is, what are you doing about it? What steps have you taken to right these misconceptions? Get your happy astronauts off the moon, get your fingers out of arms deals – and instead get your movies in the cinemas. Stop using your newspapers to silence opposition that may, at some point, provide you with some semblance of accountability for your misspending; if you can’t tell them what it’s all about, who do you think will do the job for you?