Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.
Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.
For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.
He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
'Sensational reporting'
In an exclusive interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, ahead of a lecture to lawyers in London on Monday, Dr Williams argues this relies on Sharia law being better understood.
At the moment, he says "sensational reporting of opinion polls" clouds the issue.
| | An approach to law which simply said - there's one law for everybody - I think that's a bit of a danger Dr Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury |
He stresses that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".
But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger".
"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law."
'Other loyalties'
Dr Williams added: "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."
HAVE YOUR SAY There is, and should only be, one law which covers all people and to suggest it can be otherwise is to seriously damage our rights Patricia London, UK
"We don't either want a situation where, because there's no way of legally monitoring what communities do... people do what they like in private in such a way that that becomes another way of intensifying oppression inside a community."
The issue of whether Catholic adoption agencies would be forced to accept gay parents under equality laws showed the potential for legal confusion, he said.
"That principle that there is only one law for everybody is an important pillar of our social identity as a western democracy," he said.
"But I think it is a misunderstanding to suppose that means people don't have other affiliations, other loyalties which shape and dictate how they behave in society and that the law needs to take some account of that."
'Custom and community'
Dr Williams noted that Orthodox Jewish courts already operated, and that the law accommodated the anti-abortion views of some Christians.
"The whole idea that there are perfectly proper ways the law of the land pays respect to custom and community, that's already there," he said.
People may legally devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process.
Muslim Sharia courts and the Jewish Beth Din which already exist in the UK come into this category.
The country's main Beth Din at Finchley in north London oversees a wide range of cases including divorce settlements, contractual rows between traders and tenancy disputes.
Dr Williams' comments are likely to fuel the debate over multiculturalism in the UK.
Last month, the Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, said some places in the UK were no-go areas for non-Muslims.
Dr Williams said it was "not at all the case that we have absolute social exclusion".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm
4 comments:
Wow. At first glance I ind this extremely problematic and troubling (and odd given at that it was a bishop that made the statement). Really I don't condone any religious notion as a guiding source for law (see my posts on why I hate Mike Huckabee). But thinking a little more in depth about the logic behind his arguments...I wonder. Don't mistake me, again I am not promoting or condoning religiously-inspired law. But could the use of some form of Sahria law in a cosmopolitan, democratic society like the UK actually promote a more tolerant brand of Sharia for those who want to adopt it? This is tricky, and I think in the end would be a bad idea--again, I am all for stripping religion from law all together. But this is war still being fought in the US as well and from what I can glean from the Huckster's performance, major sections of the US would be fine with Christian law governing major aspects of their lives. That scares me as well.
Should Mormons be tried under their religious and cultural traditions too? If so, call me LDS and sign me up for 3 wives. What about a strict interpretation of the Old Testament? I speak up to my father, he stones me, and the courts says, "Oh, he was sassing you? Well, Special Jewish Exemption 5.95 says that's fine." What about political thought? Should we put Neo-Nazis on trial using there ideals?
I posted this show the idiocy of the argument. It is a TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE idea. Everyone should be equal under the law. It should apply across the board. If Muslims don't like it, then they can just get married in their religious communities and have the state not recognize it. One law, no special exemptions (most courts allow mitigating circumstances, that is plenty of flexibility).
You cannot open the door to this kind of religious BS. It will be used as precedent for more religious BS laws.
Yeah, I entertained that thought for a moment too... But I think my biggest concern is the idea of having a set of laws for one sect of society, and another set for another sect... What happens when someone not normally subject to the "Sharia" draws a complaint from someone who is?
Would any muslim be subject to the Sharia laws? Or would one have to specifically state before hand that they are or not? Or do you get to choose at the time of indictment? And if so, could a non-muslim cite sharia law against a practicing muslim if the situation arose?
It's a sticky wicket, and I don't think it's a good idea. I don't mind laws allowing for cultural sensitivities, but I still feel that they need to be universally applied to all people all the time to maintain fairness.
Funny as it seems these issues were fleshed out under imperial systems like the Ottomans. There is one state law, but religious communities were granted some exemptions. Modern systems sometimes have similar allowances. I think Sharia is respected in Malaysia and applies to all Muslims. However, I think that Muslims can de-select from it by converting (though that does create a whole other set of problems). In the end, though, I think the secular law of the country is usually supreme with a few exception in family law.
Post a Comment