THE ARCHBISHOP'S STORM - a measured response

Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, has created quite a stir of recent days with his comment that he can foresee a place for certain aspects of Shari-ah law in Britain in the future. Without question, even though the Archbishop may have uttered the words, much of the stirring has been done by the media. Amidst the excessive and inflammatory language and pictures of beheadings that mark many reactions to his words, we would like to quietly contribute our view from a somewhat more reasoned perspective.

Our main issue with the Archbishop’s comments lies with the fact that for Muslims there can be no separation of state and faith. They are one and the same thing. Therefore to introduce elements of Shari-ah law into the legal code of Britain is fundamentally flawed and could only be corrected by the insistence that the Islam faith is also introduced either fully or in the same proportion as the legal requirements. Muslims describe ‘Islam as a total way of life’ and faith, politics, law and society must be regulated and governed as a whole by that one code of Quranic’ belief. The Christian church is quite different in its position often quoting Mt 22:21 "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." For Christians no contention therefore exists when they live in a country of another religion or of none. No obligation exists that demands we change it by necessity. The Christian community is made up of Christians who worship and fellowship together. For Muslims however the faith and state are the community.

Therefore any integration of Shari-ah law into the British judicial system is by definition incomplete to the Muslim mind and indeed even insulting that their faith should be treated as a pick and mix variety stall. It is little different from how a Christian would react if Statutory authorities were to review the Bible and issue an amended version for the British populace with the full endorsement of the Privy Council. Of course the British government may learn from other cultural and judicial systems and often does. However any new introductions are seen as thoroughly British and incorporated into our judicial system rather than a subset of another judicial system designed to satisfy a certain element of the general population.

We have no interest in joining those who are vociferously condemning the Archbishop at this time but to say, on this occasion, we believe his comments lacked the rigor and maturity which we may have expected from one who is so undoubtedly academically able.