Good Intentions - Disastrous Outcomes.
Baroness Cox
Archbishop Rowan Williams’ lecture and interviews have created a justified furore. This is profoundly regrettable, as some of the issues he was raising in his densely argued lecture were very important and need widespread discussion.
One important point he was making is that many deeply enshrined beliefs and values of our Judaeo-Christian tradition have been overridden in recent legislation by secularist politicians, forging policies which are binding on followers of all faith traditions but which may violate some of their fundamental beliefs. This issue of accommodating minority groups’ values in a democracy deserves public debate and political consideration.
But then the Archbishop opened Pandora’s Box! The extension of this discussion to the claim that the implementation of Sharia law in this country is appropriate and inevitable is fraught with serious problems.
First, there is the reality: Sharia law is already in the UK. I put down this written Parliamentary Question to Her Majesty’s Government on May 9th last year:
‘What is their current position with regard to the appropriateness of the implementation of Sharia law in the United Kingdom?’ [HL3429]
The Answer shocked me:
‘Sharia law has no jurisdiction in England and Wales. There are, however, a number of Sharia councils in England and Wales that, on a private basis where the parties consent, deal with the mediation and resolution of personal and contractual disputes. These councils are not part of the court system. In all cases, parties will always have recourse to the UK courts.’
So, the Government has already allowed some aspects of Sharia – without any public discussion or parliamentary endorsement. And the ‘reassurance’ that ‘parties will always have recourse to the UK courts’ is disingenuous in the extreme. For example, the rise in so-called ‘honour-related violence’ is a symptom of the vulnerability of certain categories of people to brutal punishments inflicted within their own families and communities – often associated with domestic or sexual violence or conversion to another religion.
To suggest that, for example, a young woman from one of the increasingly ghetto-like communities which have grown around some of the more radical mosques is realistically able to make her own way to a local magistrate’s court to file a complaint or to seek protection is unbelievably naïve or disingenuous. Instead of endorsing this situation, there is an urgent need to challenge it.
Secondly, Sharia is inherently, incontrovertibly incompatible with our legal system, violating the fundamental commitment to the principle of equality before the law. It requires inequality before the law for non-Muslims compared with Muslims and for women compared with men. Sharia law also forbids people the right to choose or change their religion. They can convert to Islam – but conversion from Islam is apostasy, punishable by death.
Some Muslim advocates argue that Sharia is open to many interpretations and, as such, can be implemented in ways which are compatible with British values. It is true that we do not need to have decapitations and amputations for Sharia to operate here. But the essence of Sharia is derived from the Koran and the hadith; there is no other kind of Islamic law. As Bishop Nazir-Ali, with his authoritative knowledge, emphasises:
‘The Sharia is not a generalised collection of dispositions. It is articulated in highly concrete codes called fiqh.’ He points out that all interpretations would be in tension with the English legal tradition on questions like monogamy; provisions for divorce; the rights of women; custody of children; laws of inheritance and of evidence. Sharia also forbids conversion to another religion – apostasy – which is seen as treasonable and punishable by death, as is blasphemy in some jurisdictions (remember the responses to the Danish cartoons?).
So in principle and practice, Sharia is fundamentally incompatible with the United Kingdom’s centuries’ old and cherished legal tradition based on fundamental human rights and equality before the law for all citizens.
Thirdly, the parallels made by the Archbishop between Jewish law and Sharia are not accurate - Jewish communities around the world have always recognised the supremacy of national legal systems.
Fourthly, it must be remembered that many Muslims do not want Sharia in this country - and lessons from abroad are salutary. For example, in Canada, provision for some aspects of Sharia which had been allowed in Ontario was rescinded and further attempts to introduce it were strongly resisted. It was mainly Muslim women's groups there who succeeded in preventing the application of Islamic law in matrimonial matters. The result: the importance of a single law for all was strongly re-affirmed. I sometimes wonder why many women’s rights groups in this country are not more in evidence challenging laws and practices which manifestly discriminate against women and render them vulnerable to many forms of abuse.
Fifthly, the repercussions go far beyond Britain. The Anglican Archbishop of Jos in Nigeria – Rt. Rev’d Bishop Benjamin Kwashi - has responded in anguish: ‘Our people are in shock that an Anglican Archbishop is calling for Sharia Law. If the Christians are the ones asking for Sharia Law, now that will be used against us who are saying that we do not think Sharia will help the cause of freedom and the cause of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in Northern Nigeria. So if he, the Primate of England, is the one asking for it, now what he has done is to arm those who will now have more arguments against us who are saying ‘We don’t need Sharia Law.’
On many visits to Northern Nigeria, I have witnessed the conflict associated with the imposition of Sharia and the suffering of the Christian communities in the States where it is now prevailing: widespread killings, destruction of churches and other property and systematic discrimination against Christians. When I visited Archbishop Kwashi in Jos last June, he challenged us:
‘We have a faith worth living for, and it is a faith worth dying for. But do not you [in the West] compromise the faith we are dying for.’
Alas, this is just what our Government and Archbishop Rowan Williams appear to have done.