If sharia law were ever to reach the level were it was legally recognised then it would have to be passed as an act of the British parliament. This would involve many difficulties (not least for muslims):

1) Deciding on which of the competing codes of sharia law were chosen. (Although in practice since virtually all muslim organisations with any influence Saudi funded then the decision is a foregone conclusion.)

2) Since, in their wildest dreams, the Wahabists can't expect sharia law to be instituted in its entirety then parliament would have to adjudicate on which parts of the Koran and sunna were suitable sources for legal precedent. No muslim is going to allow western politicians to interpret the Koran and hadiths on their behalf. The Imams and sheiks would be apoplectic.

3) It is common to all forms of sharia that a woman's testimony is equal to half that of a man's. This is counter to British sex discrimination laws and European human rights conventions.

4)Most muslims polled since the Archbishop's comments are not in favour anyway.

Hitchens will be aware of all of the above and yet has still managed to fill an article which should (rightly) stick to attacking the Archbishop for his naivety and misjudgement into an anti-Muslim rant. There was no real demand from British Muslims for sharia courts except from the Saudi influenced minority and most were as mystified at the bishops statement as everybody else.