Author: Editorial
Publication: The Times
Date: February 8, 2008
URL: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article3330341.ece
The Archbishop of Canterbury has made a grave
mistake
Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury,
has made admirable efforts to engage constructively with Islam and its clerics.
His sensible conversations about the Muslim world stand in welcome contrast
to the attitude of some of his colleagues, notably the Bishop of Rochester,
whose remarks last month about unspecified "no-go areas" for non-Muslims
were unnecessarily provocative. Many members of the Church of England were
furious, and felt that those remarks undermined all the work they had been
doing to improve interfaith relations.
In trying to retrieve that situation, and
smooth sensibilities, Dr Williams did something yesterday that was far from
sensible. He said that the adoption of parts of Sharia in Britain looked "unavoidable",
and called for "constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim
law", over issues such as resolving marriage disputes. Muslims should
not have to choose, he said, between "the stark alternatives of cultural
loyalty or state loyalty".
These remarks are astonishing. Because a different
set of rules seems "more appropriate ... in some cultural and religious
settings" does not justify exempting one set of citizens from the laws
laid down by Parliament. It is fundamental to this democracy that there should
be one law for everyone. People of many faiths - Jews, Hindus, Sikhs - have
settled happily in Britain without demanding a new set of laws for themselves.
It would be more useful to ask how to help more Muslims to integrate successfully
into what is a tolerant culture, than to urge a change in that culture to
suit a notion that some parts of the Muslim community feel more comfortable
with.
It is not clear how far the Archbishop is
suggesting that Sharia should apply. He has certainly denounced its more extreme
forms. It is also clear that Sharia differs widely in its application from
country to country. But that is not really the point. In Britain, all citizens
are equal before the law. Anything that might skew that balance ought to be
wholly unacceptable.
In 2001 the European Court of Human Rights
stated that Sharia clearly diverged from the human rights values enshrined
in the European Convention. In 2005 concerns about human rights and women's
rights led to a storm of protest in Canada, when the attorney-general of Ontario
proposed to adopt Sharia-based law to settle Muslim family disputes over divorce
and child custody. The proposal was quashed on the grounds that there should
be one law for all Canadians, amid fears that Islamic tribunals could lead
to discrimination against women.
Dr Williams may be unaware of the Canadian
experience. But while his desire to reduce what he calls "social suspicion"
is genuine, his way of going about it seems guaranteed to create even more
suspicion and hostility. The established Church was founded to break from
the parallel jurisdiction in Rome. It is extraordinary to hear the head of
the established Church, 500 years later, argue for a return to a parallel
jurisdiction for another faith. We all wish to live in harmony. There are
important questions to be answered about how to make Muslims feel more welcome
in British society. But this is an act of appeasement. It threatens to undermine
the practice of all faiths in Britain and the strength of our parliamentary
democracy.
