Some moderate thoughts:
If Williams was an academic (that is, someone without a high profile in the general public) who wrote this article, no-one in the wider world would care.
Sharia law is not as simple as 'all women should be stoned for having ovaries'.
has been observed here for a while.
Williams was, as much as anything else, point out that there are subtle differences between the religiously observant and the non-religious
. For the non-observant, the state is the highest authority; for the religious, that state is second to God (or Allah, Y____h etc). The religious must, immediately, answer to the state, but the state need not be in contrast with 'God'.
In essence, Williams hasn't been terrifically radical; he's opened a debate that anyone with a passing awareness of Islam should be able to discuss without recourse to hysterics. Some people are cunts. Some of these people are in Islamic states. Some of these cunts control the laws of Islamic states. This at no point suggests that, even if Williams was proposing a bipartisan Sharia/ traditional British legal system (which he wasn't), Sharia is necessarily incompatible, or distinct from, the values of British law.
The whole storm in a teacup has got me incredibly angry. I'm genuinely not impressed with the fact that I've seen very little in the British press that has bothered to cover the discussion that Williams has proposed, and instead has gone for the hysterical discussion of the Sun type (not on my watch etc) or the hysterical discussion of the aftermath. It's all bloody ridiculous.