The political establishment last night distanced itself from the controversial remarks on sharia law made by the Archbishop of Canterbury with one MP accusing Rowan Williams of "pseudo-theological appeasement" towards Muslims.

The political establishment last night distanced itself from the controversial remarks on sharia law made by the Archbishop of Canterbury with one MP accusing Rowan Williams of "pseudo-theological appeasement" towards Muslims.

No 10 stressed that Gordon Brown "believes that British laws should be based on British values". Tony McNulty, the Home Office Minister, said: "To ask us to fundamentally change the rule of law and to adopt sharia law is fundamentally wrong."

Baroness Warsi, the Conservative shadow minister for community cohesion, said the archbishop's words were "unhelpful", insisting: "Let's be absolutely clear: all British citizens must be subject to British laws developed through Parliament and the courts."

Her colleague, Mark Pritchard, Conservative MP for the Wrekin in Shropshire, denounced Mr Williams's words as "naive and shocking" and accused him of "pseudo-theological appeasement".

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, added: "Equality before the law is part of the glue that binds our society together.

"We cannot have a situation where there is one law for one person and different laws for another."

The archbishop said that the UK had to "face up to the fact" some citizens did not relate to the British legal system; adopting parts of Islamic sharia law could help social cohesion. For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a sharia court.

He argued that Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty". However, the archbishop stressed that tolerance of other laws could never be allowed to take precedence over an individual's rights as a citizen.

He explained that it would also require a change in the perception of what sharia involved beyond the "inhumanity" of extreme punishments and attitudes to women seen in some Islamic states.

"It seems unavoidable," said Mr Williams, "and, as a matter of fact, certain conditions of sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system."

He added: "It would be quite wrong to say that we could ever license a system of law for some community which gave people no right of appeal, no way of exercising the rights that are guaranteed to them as citizens in general.

"But," he added, "there are ways of looking at marital disputes, for example, which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them."

However, Christian and secular groups gave the archbishop's remarks short shrift.

Alistair McBay of the National Secular Society said: "In a plural society, all citizens are equal under the law and the archbishop's comments directly undermines this.

"We have segregated schools, segregated scout groups and even segregated toilets for Muslims and now the archbishop says we should have different laws; it's madness."

However, Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Ramadhan Foundation, welcomed the archbishop's comments, saying: "Sharia law for civil matters is something which has been introduced in some western countries with much success. I believe Muslims would take huge comfort from the government allowing civil matters being resolved according to their faith."

Ibrahim Mogra of the Muslim Council of Britain, said the issue was a very small aspect of sharia for Muslim families regarding how they chose to be governed on matters like marriage, divorce, inheritance and the custody of children.

Legal and social code
Islamic sharia law, which is controversial in the West for the extreme nature of some of its punishments, is a legal and social code designed to help Muslims live their daily lives.

Derived partly from the Koran and refined over the centuries by Islamic scholars, it gives a moral system for living.

"Sharia is actually a very positive term," said Dilwar Hussain, a researcher at the Markfield Islamic Foundation in Leicestershire.

"It means pathway to water, and has a sense of giving life.

"It is a personal law, covering the way people worship, the way they pray, the way they fast, the way they relate to each other. The term itself has become controversial because although it encapsulates a broad set of values and principles, it is the punishments that people focus on, and we see references to flogging, amputation and stoning. In certain extreme cases, in certain countries, these do happen, but they are the least important parts of sharia." He said there had been debate among Muslim scholars about whether the most severe punishments should be suspended.

"The overarching objective of sharia is to establish justice. These punishments are sometimes applied unequally for men and women, rich and poor."