mmoa_writes

This came up on Question Time last night, but so did a lot of other interesting things which can come later.



The first question was concerning the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent remarks concerning Sharia law and the possible implementation of it within British law (for civil cases, he mentioned - a fate that was 'inavoidable' and would 'benefit the cohesion of society').

Now, I am a fan of the Archbishop of Canterbury, mostly because no one else within the Anglican community seems to be, and because everyone who isn't in the Anglican community seems to like him (I feel I ought to add how amusing it was that throughout discussions on this statement on both Question Time and This Week, the rather puzzled commentators kept on repeating how thoughtful and ponderous the man is and how that makes the statement all the more difficult to condemn or praise. No wonder the Dalai Lama likes him), but mostly because the man is rather 'deep': I know of very few other people so in their own heads who have not been driven insane upon venturing into the real world.

The obvious answer to the question of whether it is possible to have two systems of laws within one country is no. The only thing that makes a country a country is it's history, an expression of which is it's law. It seems obvious that implementing sharia law would simply divide a country further.

However, the statement itself isn't obvious, mostly because the topic (religious law) isn't obvious either.

In some respects, the Williams is actually correct. Religious law, unlike the law of the land, is really to do with the attitude of the worshipper in question. One can break religious law and often enough not have to go to the religious equivalent of prison (though I guess we can see penance as the equivalent of community service, but that's something else). Certainly within sharia law, there is an understanding that it is really trying to convey the depth of the various sins that a Muslim can commit (for instance, adultery, which we all know is supposed to be punished by stoning. This is not to say that someone who commits adultery should be stoned - that is and has been rarely the case - but that the 'sin' itself is bad enough that stoning would be the 'appropriate' punishment) but also there is the more pragmatic aspect covering divorce and custody etc. that deals with the civic, rather than purely religious, aspects of life.

The reason why this distinction is important, is because with this interpretation, you can see that sharia law is being implemented via British law. It is, after all, not just the culture of the immigrant that changes upon entering a strange land, but that of the strange land as well. Local police forces, for example, have had to absorb various understandings of sharia in order to effectively police their Muslim populations. Whilst literally, that is not the same as actually carrying out and allowing sharia justice, it is still sharia, simply because they have absorbed said understandings. Sharia, basically, is like all religious law systems: it does not just include the physical, more obvious symbols and acts of the law giver, but [most importantly?] the attitude as well.

So long as there is no clash with British law, Sharia law is respected, so again, one can say that we have already been mixing the two: in divorce, sharia law is not recognised by the courts, but, if the divorce has been carried out via our Civic Law, and both parties are consenting Muslims, a Muslim mediator is allowed, just as it would be under Sharia law. Even when there is a clash, British law does make exceptions, for example, in the case of bigamy, which here is illegal, but in other countries is not. All the wives (barr the first who is treated by law as the one 'partner' and thus is fully entitled to social services/funds) are still allowed financial and social support. This is based on the understanding that the 'law was made for man', and that our laws against bigamy, are relics of a religious law that we long ago decided weren't to be the absolute understanding of Civic law.

But the last part of the statement made by Williams, suggests an odd sort of blindness to the sort of society we live in today. It is an increasingly conservative and less tolerant society, in which any publicly affirmed implementation of sharia law would not lead to a greater cohesion of society. Far from it. Perhaps ten or twenty years ago, it would have led to a greater trust between the Muslim citizens and the police/judiciary, but today, I'm afraid it would only breed more resentment and allow the increasingly intolerant and narrow-minded echelons of the Muslim community to take advantage over those for whom sharia law has often proved to be a damnation, rather than a blessing: women, children and Muslim GLBTQ. The same goes for those to be found within 'British' society, who would seek to use such a thing against the Muslim population.