The Commentary

The lecture given by the Archbishop of Canterbury in early February, ‘Civil and Religious Law in England’, has stirred a deep controversy which has brought calls for his resignation.

The talk addresses the increasing difficulty over matters of conscience for religious believers in general when faced by the demands of contemporary secular law; things like Christian doctors or nurses who are expected to set aside religious scruples over performing abortions, etc. However, the majority of what he said, being framed in terms of the problems which confront Muslims, means that it comes across first and foremost as an argument for the accommodation of shari’a law into the English legal system. Although Lambeth Palace denied this, the text commends ‘a scheme in which individuals retain the liberty to choose the jurisdiction under which they will seek to resolve certain carefully specified matters’. Williams goes on to admit: ‘It is uncomfortably true that this introduces into our thinking about law what some would see as a “market” element.’

Two monoliths

The problems facing believers living under the monolith of an increasingly secular state are, indeed, real and have become exacerbated by the current government’s pushing through the various newer ‘hatred’ laws.

The truth is that law will always be a problem in a pluralistic postmodern society where there is no agreed truth or meta-narrative on which to base law through common consent. Different groups recognise different laws. In this situation, mainstream secular views are bound to prevail and cause difficulties for minority groups, including both Muslims and Christians. Unless you take the Williams’ route of allowing individuals to choose which ‘law’ they will be judged by, this is inevitable. Secular society would like to preserve the Enlightenment (and biblical) concept of universal human rights and common law while at the same time maintaining a thoroughly pluralistic society. But in reality you can’t have your cake and eat it. (The Williams route would surely lead to the Balkanisation of England.)

Much of the negative reaction to Dr. Williams’s lecture comes from the fact that many Britons see shari’a as an op-pressive system of law which denies women’s and minority rights, incap-able of peaceful co-existence with others. Williams tries to rebut this, but bases his ideas on what a few more progressive Muslim scholars have theorised, rather than on the view of Islam and shari’a that is accepted by the majority of its ordinary adherents.

Once given an inch does Islam tend to take over? The same weekend in which the controversy around Dr. Williams blew up, thousands upon thousands of Turkish women took to the streets in their native country as the ban on wearing the Islamic headscarf in universities was over-turned by their government. Why such an extreme reaction? It is because they fear that this is just the first step in a process of Islamisation of their up-to-now secular state which will eventually take away their freedom.

Perhaps Dr. Williams has been misrepresented in the popular press. His problem is that he expects to be treated as an academic, free to float ideas for discussion and fly kites of questionable value, rather than as a leader who is to give clear direction to his church and nation. And, for me, the greatest sadness was that if you search the text of what he had to say you will find no reference to Jesus Christ at all.

The Archbishop, Islam and pluralism

Two monoliths

John Benton

Main Articles

Other articles