The Archbishop and the Sharia

I thought that I'd go back to first principles when looking at exactly what Dr. Rowan Williams has said with regard to the possibility of sharia law existing within the body of British Law.

The integral speech is available here, and I guess that he is due some credit for raising the issue of Sharia law, and the large numbers of British Muslims. But is the Archbishop straying from his brief if making comment on this? Surely very few in his flock are also Muslims: so why is he advocating on their behalf? The splashes across UK papers, including one headline "What a burkha" have universally panned the speech, reporting and editorialising that the speech was divisive rather than uniting of Britons.

A couple of quotes:

'In The West', writes Tariq Ramadan in his groundbreaking Western Muslims and the Future of Islam, 'the idea of Sharia calls up all the darkest images of Islam...It has reached the extent that many Muslim intellectuals do not dare even to refer to the concept for fear of frightening people or arousing suspicion of all their work by the mere mention of the word'.

So if Muslims don't raise it for that very reason, why did the Archbishop wish to inject himself into this debate?

There is a risk of assuming that 'mainstreram' (sic) jurisprudence should routinely and unquestioningly bypass the variety of ways in which actions are as a matter of fact understood by agents in the light of the diverse sorts of communal belonging they are involved in.

This is where the ire would probably have begun to be raised. Williams posits that a separate body of law, or procedure, should be put together to judge those based on those very communal belongings. It smells of tokenism, and pandering to minorities. Looking specifically at an Islamic example, this can be taken to mean that certain actions would be excusable purely because of a person's identification with the Muslim religion.

Certainly there is a place for leniency, and taking into account all the relevant factors before a judgment is rendered by a judge. They're called pre-sentencing reports, and are compiled after a verdict has been given. These do not defer the progress of a trial from the application of transparent and consistent justice. This is not to mention that many Muslims have immigrated quite legally to the UK in search of a better life. There are sacrifices and benefits from that, and one is to faithfully obey British law.

There needs to be access to recognised authority acting for a religious group: there is already, of course, an Islamic Shari'a Council, much in demand for rulings on marital questions in the UK; and if we were to see more latitude given in law to rights and scruples rooted in religious identity, we should need a much enhanced and quite sophisticated version of such a body, with increased resource and a high degree of community recognition, so that 'vexatious' claims could be summarily dealt with.

So what the Archbishop is asking for is a devolution of decision making away from appointed judges, and into the hands of religious advisory bodies, who would (apparently) be able to make better decisions with regards to questions with regard to religious contexts. I don't suggest the bodies should be banned, far from it. Many seek answers on matters of religion from their own clerics, elders and priests and that right should extend to Imams (and others). I would just as much object that the Synod of the Church of England have to deal with any 'vexatious' issue, with legally binding results. Not surprisingly, the decisions of the Islamic Shari'a Council relating to marriage are not recognised by UK courts.

The problem here is that recognising the authority of a communal religious court [...] would in effect not merely allow an additional layer of legal routes for resolving conflicts and ordering behaviour but would actually deprive members of the minority community of rights and liberties that they were entitled to enjoy as citizens.

So here's the rub. Where would the establishment of these courts be recognised within the court hierarchy? Are they at the very bottom, along with the magistrates' courts, or do they become an alternate court of last appeal, if the subject matter is dealing with Muslim business. My firm belief is that the current system is able to deal with all sorts of different instances. The precedents established are conservative enough to be understood, and argued, but flexible enough to change with the times, and the influx of a Muslim population is just another event to be adapted to. This should not be done through the introduction of a two religion system in the country. The Catholics of the United Kingdom, the Orthodox Jewish population and the Hindu population would all be entitled then to their own 'special' courts, that would only tear further at the social fabric.

I could go on quoting Williams, his speech runs for quite some length. He does not have the same faith I have in the transparency and supremacy of law in this country. I am going to give the final word to Peter Costello, a former Treasurer of Australia, who in 2006 had some advice for those asking for Sharia law to be incorporated alongside Australian law.

The radical Muslim Cleric Ben Brika was asked in an interview in August 2005:-
But don't you think Australian Muslims living in Australia also have a responsibility to adhere to Australian law?

To which he answered:- This is a big problem.
There are two laws there is an Australian law and there is an Islamic law.

No this is not a big problem. There is one law we are all expected to abide by. It is the law enacted by the Parliament under the Australian Constitution. If you can't accept that then you don't accept the fundamentals of what Australia is and what it stands for.

Our State is a secular State. As such it can protect the freedom of all religions for worship. Religion instructs its adherents on faith, morals and conscience. But there is not a separate stream of law derived from religious sources that competes with or supplants Australian law in governing our civil society.

The source of our law is the democratically elected legislature. There are countries that apply religious or sharia law Saudi Arabia and Iran come to mind. If a person wants to live under sharia law these are countries where they might feel at ease. But not Australia.

And the citizenship pledge should be a big flashing warning sign to those who want to
live under sharia law. A person who does not acknowledge the supremacy of civil law laid down by democratic processes cannot truthfully take the pledge of allegiance. As such they do not meet the pre-condition for citizenship.

Before entering a mosque visitors are asked to take off their shoes. This is a sign of respect. If you have a strong objection to walking in your socks don't enter the mosque. Before becoming an Australian you will be asked to subscribe to certain values. If you have strong objections to those values don't come to Australia.