Sir, The Archbishop of Canterbury is utterly naive or extremely clever. Either he surreptitiously wishes to use the Muslim community as a test case in order to gradually reintroduce the influence of religion, particularly that of the Church of England, over the affairs of the State; or he believes that allowing certain aspects of Sharia as self-governance for British Muslims would achieve the greater objective of lasting community cohesion (“Archbishop argues for Islamic law in Britain”, Feb 8).
In either case, his presumption that the majority of British Muslims would opt for Sharia courts as opposed to the British legal system will almost certainly turn out to be inaccurate. Any sane-minded Muslim living in Britain under the liberal, secular, democratic system and having the faintest knowledge about Sharia and its implications would prefer the Royal Courts of Justice over the Sharia courts any day.
British Muslims are not a homogeneous group. They are divided along multiple variables such as ethnicity, geographical origin, cultural practices and, above all, interpretation of religious beliefs and principles. To presume that Sharia derived from any single school of thought in Islam could ever be deemed acceptable to all the Muslim communities in Britain is utterly nonsensical.
Advertisement
Sharia, if introduced, would not only jeopardise community relations but also further segregate Muslim communities from the rest of the British public. Every moderate, liberal-minded Muslim like myself would resist the imposition of Sharia in Britain regardless of whether its advocate was a Church of England archbishop or a mullah from the local mosque.
Dr Shaaz Mahboob
Hillingdon, Middx
Advertisement
Sir, The Archbishop of Canterbury has suggested that we examine Sharia to see if any aspects might be incorporated into our system. Knowing how imperfect ours is, should not a commission be appointed to study this in depth instead of rejecting a fine theologian out of hand in favour of an entrenched, politico-legal, knee-jerk reaction?
Lord Stamp
London W14
Advertisement
Sir, As one who was present at the lecture, I have been astonished at the wholly inaccurate coverage of the measured and thoughtful contribution that Dr Williams has brought to bear on the current debate.
Advertisement
Religious organisations are no different from any other members’ club or voluntary association. They have their own rules of conduct and process to which their adherents sign up when they join, and which are mutually binding as a matter of quasi-contract. The secular courts are required, when necessary, to enforce these internal regulations.
While reluctant to engage with matters of doctrine, the courts do so when necessary but have traditionally shown deference to the internal governing instruments of individual faith communities, provided they do not offend the law of the land. There is nothing novel in what Dr Williams is suggesting. For centuries Britain has shown toleration to religious minorities and afforded accommodations in laws of general application. Such is the mainstay of a liberal democracy in a plural state.
Professor Mark Hill
Centre for Law and Religion
Cardiff University
Advertisement
Sir, Religious institutions, such as the one led by Dr Williams, set their individual followers apart from those of other faiths and non-believers. Contrastingly, our secular, universal law is a manifestation of what is best about advanced, enlightened, progressive, liberal democracy. It treats all as individual human beings with equal and unalienable human rights, making no reference to ethnicity or religious creed. Thanks to the law and the progressive and enlightened forces that have forged it over the centuries, the conditions of life in Britain are far superior to those experienced in much of the rest of the world. All citizens, but particularly women, children and vulnerable groups such as gay people, are protected by our law from the forces of moral conservatism and bigotry, which organised religions used to foist on society in the past.
The vast majority of the population shun the pews each Sunday morning, and I have little doubt will reject the Archbishop’s sermon on the law as off target in an age when we need integration based on common values, rather than separation along religious lines.
John Slinger
Rugby
Sir, I am a British Muslim. I abide by the law of this land, I do not demand Sharia and the Archbishop of Canterbury is not my spokesman.
Dr Izhar Khan
Aberdeen
Sir, I doubt whether the ever-increasing number of women priests share the same enthusiasm for the implementation of Sharia as their boss.
David Salmon
Bloxham, Oxon
Sir, The Archbishop of Canterbury suggests that some citizens do not relate to the British legal system.
Aren’t they called criminals?
Simon Adam
Borehamwood, Herts