Why Sharia scares the British

-- By WardBenson - 14 Feb 2008

Last week, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams unwittingly sparked a bitter controversy by stating that it is “unavoidable” that the British legal system will have to adopt aspects of Sharia in order to preserve community cohesion. He was immediately and viciously attacked by much of the government, secular society, and conservative elements of his own church. That comments which, in actuality, were so mild could create such animosity indicates that, in the eyes of both his supporters and detractors, some fundamental purpose of the legal system is at stake here. Amid the vitriol, though, what exactly is this purpose, which so many people seem to believe to be threatened, is not so clear.

Despite statements about the threats to “Britishness,” Dr. Williams’s detractors do not seem to think that his suggestions primarily threaten the legal system as the embodiment age-old and immutable British legal and moral traditions and values. Based on some of their comments, the word Sharia conjured up images of its harshest and most brutal manifestations—Saudi women stoned for alleged infidelity or Pakistani women gang-raped as punishment for their brothers’ crimes. However, in terms of cruelty, retributiveness, and disrespect for human dignity, law as it was practiced in England up until the 19th century is much closer to even this version of Sharia than to modern British legal thought. To the extent that some see Sharia as at odds with the British system, it is not that it is opposed to British law as it was or always has been, but to what it is now and what liberal, secular British people hope it will be in the future. Moreover, in the areas where Dr. Williams suggested Sharia principles actually be employed—in family disputes and financial transactions—Sharia is not necessarily at odds with either traditional British legal traditions or modern views on human rights. Certainly, in light of credit problems in the US and Britain, the British might be increasingly interested in Sharia’s prohibitions of usury and exploitative economic transactions.

Opposition to the Archbishop’s comments is not based on a belief that Sharia cannot be administered effectively or that it will not have practical benefits. Similar systems have proven workable in England. Orthodox Jews have the legally recognized Beth Din courts which adjudicate disputes according to Jewish holy law. Participation is voluntary, as Dr. Williams insisted participation in a Muslim counterpart must be, and the courts have become accepted in British society as a way for this group to resolve private disputes as it sees fit. Meanwhile, unofficial Sharia courts have been functioning for years in Britain. While some may adjudicate disputes in ways that do not comport with mainstream British values, this is certainly not true of all. The Islamic Sharia Council devotes the majority of its time to helping Muslim women to annul marriages with husbands who have left them for other women, thus allowing them to regain their social standing within their community. Its other activities focus primarily on helping Muslims to conduct business transactions in ethical ways. Encouraging these courts would further these pursuits, both of which are to the benefit of not only Muslims, but British society as a whole. More importantly, to the extent that unofficial Sharia courts may be acting in ways contrary to mainstream values, especially in terms of their treatment of women, legalizing them and opening them to public scrutiny should mitigate these problems. Most of all, whether they like it or not, even the most ardent conservative must admit that as a symbolic gesture, recognizing some kind of Sharia court would probably ease some of the tensions between Britain’s native and Muslim communities.

What really is at issue is whether the legal system can fulfill its role of convincing the populace that they are all united by, and thus judged according to, one set of moral principles. This is why the two main groups opposed any adoption of Sharia are native secularists and the majority of British Muslims. The former, represented by Culture Secretary Andy Burnham, believe that allowing there to be different laws applied to people, even when done so voluntarily, is a “recipe for social chaos” as there would no longer be any sense of unity among different groups. The latter oppose the plan for two reasons. By officially supporting the idea that Muslims have a separate set of moral principles they wish to be judged by, these courts would reinforce the belief in British society that Muslims cannot be integrated and thus are a threat to social unity. Moreover, regional variations in Sharia would make such courts a source of contention in the Muslim community, fracturing it and preventing its integration into mainstream society.

This view of law as a symbol of social unity also explains why certain groups support the integration of Sharia. Instead of seeing accommodation of religious views as a threat to social unity, religious groups of all faiths support the courts because they see tolerance of religious convictions are critical for their members to be integrated into society and thus to prevent conflicts over religious beliefs. So, despite the enmity between orthodox Jews and Muslims, those in charge of the Beth Din fully support the creation of parallel courts for Muslims. They must realize that any argument against Sharia courts as threatening national unity are equally valid towards their courts, and so they must support them. Some Catholic groups, which have been fighting laws intended to prevent Catholic adoption agencies and landlords from discriminating against homosexuals, support the idea because they share Muslims’ interest in preserving tolerance of individuals’ ability to act on their religious conviction, a right they see as under threat in secular British society. Finally, and ironically, the Archbishop realizes that his ability to advocate for legal recognition of the religious principles of the very members of his church who are calling for his resignation depends on the same tolerance of different religious beliefs that he argues should now be extended to Muslims.

---

You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:

# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, WardBenson

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list