Civil and Religious Law in England: The Perspective of The Archbishop of Canterbury

This has been getting a lot of press.  The full text of the archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams' lecture on shar'ia and secular law.

[I]n contrast to what is sometimes assumed, we do not simply have a standoff between two rival legal systems when we discuss Islamic and British law.  On the one hand, sharia depends for its legitimacy not on any human decision, not on votes or preferences, but on the conviction that it represents the mind of God; on the other, it is to some extent unfinished business so far as codified and precise provisions are concerned.  To recognise sharia is to recognise a method of jurisprudence governed by revealed texts rather than a single system.  In a discussion based on a paper from Mona Siddiqui at a conference last year at Al Akhawayn University in Morocco, the point was made by one or two Muslim scholars that an excessively narrow understanding sharia as simply codified rules can have the effect of actually undermining the universal claims of the Qur'an. 

But while such universal claims are not open for renegotiation, they also assume the voluntary consent or submission of the believer, the free decision to be and to continue a member of the ummaSharia is not, in that sense, intrinsically to do with any demand for Muslim dominance over non-Muslims.  Both historically and in the contemporary context, Muslim states have acknowledged that membership of the umma is not coterminous with membership in a particular political society: in modern times, the clearest articulation of this was in the foundation of the Pakistani state under Jinnah; but other examples (Morocco, Jordan) could be cited of societies where there is a concept of citizenship that is not identical with belonging to the umma. Such societies, while not compromising or weakening the possibility of unqualified belief in the authority and universality of sharia, or even the privileged status of Islam in a nation, recognise that there can be no guarantee that the state is religiously homogeneous and that the relationships in which the individual stands and which define him or her are not exclusively with other Muslims.  There has therefore to be some concept of common good that is not prescribed solely in terms of revealed Law, however provisional or imperfect such a situation is thought to be.  And this implies in turn that the Muslim, even in a predominantly Muslim state, has something of a dual identity, as citizen and as believer within the community of the faithful.

Comments

[Mac]

Silly fellow.

It's clear that he hasn't been keeping tabs on developments in Canada since Michael Peers retired as Anglican Primate there.

Ontario for a time considered establishing private tribunals to enable Muslims, Catholics, observant Jews and others to attorn to religious law. That howler was comprehensively retired at the behest of Muslim women, who suggested that they didn't emigrate to the West only to ... well, you know.

[Carlos]

they didn't emigrate to the West only to ...

Only to have the head of the Anglican Church have his head turned by his betrothed's younger sister?

Indeed.

[Phish]

"To recognise sharia is to recognise a method of jurisprudence governed by revealed texts rather than a single system. "

If the Archbishop doesn't justify somebody else's revelation, then perhaps people will see through his own.

[Jim H.]

Thanks for pointing us to this lecture. In a number of my past blog posts, I've touched on this theme of sacred vs. secular authority. This clearly called for a further posting here:

http://wisdomofthewest.blogspot.com/2008/02/auto-da-fe.html.