The front page of last week’s Sunday Observer featured an article on Rowan Williams’ forthcoming book: Faith in the Public Square.
The Observer featured this quote which apparently came from the book:
“To suggest that the Muslim owes an overriding loyalty to the international Muslim Community (the Umma) is extremely worrying. Muslims must make clear that their loyalty is straightforward modern political loyalty to the nation state.”
These comments caused some controversy.
The trouble is the comments weren’t from the book at all, but from a lecture Williams gave in 2004 in which he rebuts the above comment.
The article has been amended online to remove the comment.
A small clarification has now appeared in the “For the Record” section of the newspaper:
Our coverage last week of Faith in the Public Square, a forthcoming book by the archbishop of Canterbury (News), contained this quote, supplied to us by the publishers: “To suggest that the Muslim owes an overriding loyalty to the international Muslim community (the Umma) is extremely worrying. Muslims must make clear that their loyalty is straightforward modern political loyalty to the nation state.” This is a representation of a view that the archbishop does not hold. It was drawn from a lecture he gave in October 2004 in which he went on to deconstruct the argument, maintaining that religious loyalty and political loyalty should not be seen as being in direct competition.
The question Engage are asking is:
Given that the original article was front page news and a full page spread in last week’s paper, does the paragraph printed on the Observer’s Letters page suffice both in prominence and content by way of a retraction and apology?