The article in the Times by Robin Griffiths-Jones and Ian Edge on Islamic Law and English law was a forerunner to the lecture of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rev. Dr. Rowan Williams. (click here to download a transcript of the Lecture)
I was at the lecture given by Dr. Williams, which, contrary to my earlier post on this topic was at the Royal Courts of Justice.
As a British Muslim, and one who has had some significant exposure to Islamic Law and Islamic Jurisprudence, as well as training as a Barrister in English Law, I found myself interestingly placed to receive the enlightening lecture and the interesting points made by the Archbishop.
Unfortunately, however, I feel that those who have called for the resignation of the Archbishop and also those that have read the transcript of the Lecture and yet assume that he called for the inclusion of the complete Shari‘ah within the English Legal System, have totally missed the purport of his Lecture.
Moreover, I fear (a fear that is day-by-day being substantiated from cursory glances at the Telegraph and the Daily Mail) that most of the British public have not approached this debate through an intellectual lens.
Most of those I am referring to assume that the Archbishop is calling for the Islamic Criminal / Penal code to be introduced as a parallel system.This is an immature and impractical assumption.
Rather, what the Archbishop was saying was that there should be an option for those Muslims who have CIVIL maters being heard in the English Court, to have their cases adjudged in view of the Islamic legal provisions regulating that matterm, for example, matters of divorce, intestacy matters, separation, property law matters and marriage, etc.
Furthermore, before we even get to that stage, the Archbishop has not called for the inclusion of Islamic Law within the English Legal System, rather, all he has alluded to is that there is an argument to be made that, in a secular society a certain section of the community which lives its lives distinctly by certain religious provisions should be entitled to such a service (otherwise democracy is not true to its objectives) - furthermore, he alludes to the foreseeable probability of this happening – note, though that he doesn’t say it necessarily should happen – but rather that there is the possibility that it will happen, and that therefore, the English Legal System, and the English people should open this for debate.
Finally, in the Question and Answer session which was not reported, the Archbishop answered questions from the audience. In these he mentioned specifically that although the English Legal System may have evolved from Christian principles, it is absolutely secular in character. Yet it has been shaped after years of legal evolution which stemmed from Christianity, and similarly, therefore, there is no reason why Muslims should be offered no choice in the law which governs them. To assert such a thing would further endanger the United Kingdom with regards to its Human Rights claims.
Muslims in Britain have just as much right to debate the changes in the English Legal system as any other British citizen does. Any British citizen that debates changes in the Legal system here does so biased as to their political opinions and personal biases – in the same way any British Muslim would be biased. My own views on this are uncertain at the moment – I am absoutely sure about certain things, however. I am sure that the Islamic Law, the Shari’ah, is perfect and lays down, through the Qur’an and the practice of the Noble Prophet (peace and blessings of God be upon him) perfect and universal principles that arm Islamic Jurists and Islamic Scholars with the irrevocable concepts on which to build the ideal society.
However, I don’t believe that the Muslim community in britain has matured enough to be able to cater for Muslims in Britain. The systems in which Islamic Law flourished, and in which Muslims and non-Muslims have not been experienced at least for a few centuries. There may be examples upto the 16th and 17th Century, but there has been a stagnancy amongst Muslims to cooperate and develop their legal and community systems to an appropriate degree.
For example, there is the question as to whether if such a system existed whereby a Muslim had a choice between being adjudged by the Islamic or English Legal system, if that person chose to be heard under English Law, whether he would be protected from the backlash faced by the Muslim community in which he or she lived for choosing a system other than the Islamic Legal system.
Which is why I do not think the Islamic Community is mature enough to be able to deal with this at the present. But, “on the debate…!”
Lastly, I would like to extend my thanks to Dr. Williams, as well as my support for his starting an intellectual and important debate. I would also like to offer my apologies on behalf of all those who believe ‘he had no right to speak’ on this topic, or that ‘called for his resignation’.
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
12 February, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Muqbool
I am glad you have confirmed my understanding of what Dr Williams actually said. Good to have an eye (ear?) witness rather than try to fathom the tabloid nonsense !
13 February, 2008 at 4:03 am
Islamislove
It is of significant regret that the recent sentiments of the honourable Archbishop of Canterbury have been so carelessly misinterpreted. It is also sad to see his comments so deviously manipulated by various sectors of society which are constantly, and very successfully, drumming up anti-Islamic feeling.
What is clear from existing ‘UK laws’ is that many private groups enjoy independent and exclusive codes of civil legal procedure. For example, the Quakers are exempt from conscription and the respected Jewish community is permitted to resolve certain civil issues in accordance with Jewish law. Members of the Catholic Church are permitted to refuse to perform the abortion procedure, on the basis of Christian doctrine, despite abortion being a legal right of each UK citizen. Certain public sector bodies such as those within the health sector (Doctors) and the army have separate civil procures operating outside of the normal scope of the law. Additionally, certain private individuals such as MPs, foreign diplomats and members of foreign armies based in the UK are exempt from certain civil laws which are applicable to ordinary citizens.
It is also common practice for individual bodies, which include Muslim groups, to set up committees of arbitration which operate privately on civil matters through a third party mediator. As it stands, the current UK legal system is robust and quite capable, in general terms, of catering for the ever expanding social needs and disputes of the Muslim community.
The honourable Archbishop, who is no doubt a well intentioned person, must have initially foreseen his comments as a productive way to open up constructive dialogue. However, he may have been better advised to have called for the Muslim community to enjoy equal rights to other minority groups rather than insensitively opening the subject up to public debate.
By insensitive I do not refer to the sensitivities of the Muslim community but rather those of the non-Muslim community of Britain. Though it may be a poor reflection upon our great country, the comments of the Archbishop were simply too intellectual and wholesome for the British public to fully, or even partially, digest. Such insensitivity provides the likes of the BNP, UKIP and right wing tabloids to exploit the ignorance of the British public. Before even attempting to address the issue of the Shariah one must first establish the intellectual boundaries of the subject at hand. By this I mean to say that prior to encouraging public debate on complicated social issues, surrounding the Muslim community, it is first necessary to educate the public as to what exactly is meant by Shariah. The general public view will generally always be negative because understands the Shariah by association. To the average citizen the Shariah is a code of law which calls upon, (1) the hands of criminals being chopped off, (2) the stoning to death of adulterers, (3) the oppression of women and strengthening of men etc.
In not explaining the basic issues, and in effect jumping the gun, the otherwise intellectual and insightful comments of the honourable Archbishop have become nothing more than a platform for differing groups to lustfully leap forward with their agendas of hate. The reality of the matter is that the implementations being called upon by the honourable Archbishop are not at all significant, or revolutionary, and meaningless to the vast majority of UK citizens.
By way of example, the average citizen would not know that the Jewish community is legally sanctioned to apply elements of Jewish civil law because it is not an element of the law which in any way effects them or threatens their way of life. Thus, it is perfectly reasonably for the respected Archbishop to discuss the issue of the Shariah but in the correct context and environment. Changes to the civil code which allow elements of the civil Shariah code to be practiced in the UK do not apply, nor effect non-Muslims and should therefore be dealt with in an appropriate arena away from public ignorance, and right wing vultures.
It is quite astonishing to me that the UK public, be they Muslim or not, should take such great interest in such a trivial matter, which does not effect them, and ignore other issues more critical to the principles of democracy and civil liberty. In the same week as the honourable Archbishop’s speech we find the UK Government launching, relatively unchallenged, two striking blows to our great UK democracy. These being the deportation of UK citizens to the United States, who may well face the death penalty, and the removal of civil liberty by increasing the length of detention. The alleged illegal bugging of Government ministers can be added to these attacks on civil liberty (and we should all know the partisan dangers of the security services bugging ministers from the Wilson Government!).
I guess the conclusion must be, what is the big deal!!??