From The Sunday Times
February 10, 2008
Rowan Williams faces backlash over shariaWhat
are the consequences of Rowan Williams¡¦s foray into the Islamic legal
system? Dipesh Gadher, Abul Taher and Christopher Morgan investigate
Dipesh Gadher, Abul Taher and Christopher Morgan
Last Thursday afternoon, as the country¡¦s Anglican bishops went about
their duties, an innocuous-looking e-mail from Lambeth Palace arrived on
their computer screens.
It contained a copy of a speech called Civil and Religious Law in England
that
was to be delivered that evening by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of
Canterbury, to an audience of more than 1,000 eminent lawyers, including
the lord chief justice.
With what now seems like great understatement, a press officer for
Williams
had typed across the document: ¡§This may be of some media interest.¡¨
Dense though the text may have been, it contained a hand grenade: the
cerebral
archbishop appeared to be calling for elements of sharia, or strict
Islamic
law, to be adopted by Britain.
Even before he had given his speech at the Royal Courts of Justice in
London,
Williams had already gone on BBC radio proclaiming that such a move seemed
¡§unavoidable¡¨.
His comments immediately exploded into a fierce row. Not for the first
time
did Williams find himself at the centre of a storm ¡V but on this occasion
he
was completely out on a limb.
He produced one of the most unlikely coalitions seen in Britain in recent
times. He was attacked by conservatives, liberals, all three leading
political parties, fellow Christians, Jews and, indeed, some Muslims.
Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission,
described the archbishop¡¦s comments as ¡§muddled and unhelpful¡¨.
¡§As far as I am aware, no serious body of Muslim opinion supports the
idea of
special treatment, or exemption from the law of the land based on some
vague
¡¥conscious objection¡¦,¡¨ he said.
¡§Raising this idea in this way will give fuel to anti-Muslim extremism
and
dismay everyone who is working towards a more integrated society.¡¨
Gordon Brown, the prime minister, quickly distanced himself from the
Anglican
primate, signalling that British law must be based on British values. Andy
Burnham, the culture secretary, went further, suggesting that the
introduction of a parallel Islamic legal system would be ¡§a recipe for
social chaos¡¨.
Up to a third of the UK¡¦s bishops are thought to be unhappy with
Williams¡¦s
remarks and yesterday some members of the clergy were calling for him to
consider his position.
¡§I find it hard to imagine what lies behind his comments,¡¨ said David
Phillips, general secretary of the Church Society, the oldest evangelical
grouping in the Church of England. ¡§It seems to be completely irrational
for
a Christian leader to want to introduce a separate system which doesn¡¦t
have Christian values and would be divisive.¡¨
The tabloid newspapers were unforgiving. On Friday, under the front-page
headline ¡§What a burkha¡¨, The Sun claimed Williams had ¡§handed Al-Qaeda
a
victory¡¨. Yesterday it followed up with an entreaty to ¡§Bash the
bishop¡¨.
The paper¡¦s outrage seemed be mirrored by the public, with 17,000 viewers
flooding the BBC¡¦s online message boards with overwhelmingly hostile
reaction.
In his speech the archbishop said individuals should be free to ¡§choose
the
jurisdiction under which they will seek to resolve certain carefully
specified matters¡¨. These could include ¡§aspects of marital law, the
regulation of financial transactions and authorised structures of
mediation
and conflict resolution¡¨.
This was taken to mean that a way should be found to run a system of
sharia
parallel to common law.
On Friday, Lambeth Palace tried desperately to douse the firestorm,
issuing a
statement on Williams¡¦s website saying that this was not his intention.
¡§The archbishop made no proposals for sharia and certainly did not call
for
its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law,¡¨
it
said in language notably clearer than that in which Williams had delivered
his original remarks.
Yet the genie was out of the bottle. Any talk of sharia in the West
conjures
up images of thieves having their hands chopped off, murderers being
decapitated and adulterous women being stoned to death. Stories began to
emerge of its use in Britain.
A wider debate about Muslim culture was also sparked. Phil Woolas, the
environment minister, said there was an ¡§elephant in the room¡¨ in Muslim
families as a result of the widespread practice of marriage between
cousins.
¡§If you talk to any primary care worker they will tell you that levels of
disability among the [British] Pakistani population are higher than the
general population. And everybody knows it¡¦s caused by first-cousin
marriage,¡¨ Woolas said.
In the aftermath of the speech, switchboards at Lambeth Palace and
Canterbury
Cathedral were flooded with angry calls. Police sources said yesterday
they
had advised the archbishop on measures he should take to ensure his
personal
safety and offered him protection, which he refused.
Yesterday a somewhat shell-shocked Williams took to the pulpit at a church
in
Cambridge to give a sermon at a memorial service. Friends reported that he
said he ¡§had expected a critical reaction but nothing like this¡¨.
What would his proposals actually mean? Is there a prospect of Islamic law
becoming an everyday part of British society and why did the archbishop
raise such an inflammatory proposal in the first place?
TRANSLATED as ¡§pathway to the water¡¨, sharia is derived from the Koran
and the
7th-century teachings of the prophet Muhammad known as the hadiths.
It is not merely a legal code. Sharia governs all aspects of Muslim life,
ranging from diet and dress code to social relationships and business
transactions. For westerners it has become synonymous with the brutal
punishment meted out for the most serious crimes, known as hadd offences.
In Afghanistan, where support for the Taliban remains strong in some
areas, a
23-year-old journalist was recently sentenced to death by an Islamic court
for downloading an article from the internet about women¡¦s rights.
Last December a 21-year-old Saudi Arabian woman was sentenced to 200
lashes
and a six-month prison sentence for having an affair with a male friend ¡V
despite having been abducted and gang-raped. She was spared by a
last-minute
royal pardon from King Abdullah.
In Iran, public executions of homosexuals are a regular occurrence.
An ironic aspect of the reaction to Williams¡¦s speech was that some
aspects of
sharia have already been accommodated by legislation in the UK, which is
home to almost 2m Muslims.
In his last budget as chancellor, Brown relaxed the law on stamp duty as a
concession to Muslim homeowners. Sharia forbids the payment of interest,
so
many buyers obtain an Islamic mortgage. This involves a bank purchasing a
property on the buyer¡¦s behalf and then selling it back to them through
monthly capital payments.
Such a transaction would technically require stamp duty to be paid twice
¡V
because the property has changed hands two times ¡V but the law was
changed
so it is paid only once.
Slaughterhouse practices, which require animals to be killed with a clean
cut
to the throat, are another area in which concessions have been granted ¡V
not
only to Muslims, but also to British Jews.
In his lecture, Williams was at pains to point out that the issues he was
raising were applicable to other faiths.
Orthodox Jews already operate a well established network of religious
courts,
the beth din, to decide matters of divorce and to settle disputes. They
are
based on ancient Jewish law and run under the authority of the Chief
Rabbi.
However, the courts are entirely voluntary and subordinate to the British
legal system.
A further irony of the row is that a dozen or so sharia courts are already
operating in British towns and cities with large Muslim populations, such
as
London, Birmingham, Man-chester, Sheffield, Dewsbury and Milton Keynes.
One of the oldest, established in 1982 and run from an end-of-terrace
house in
Leyton, a suburb of east London, is the Islamic sharia council.
The court, made up of four middle-aged Pakistani ¡§judges¡¨, handles about
50
cases each month involving civil and personal matters.
The set-up is far removed from a typical magistrates¡¦ or crown court.
Justice
is usually dispensed by one judge who sits behind a plain desk in a
cramped
office lined with ramshackle shelves full of battered cardboard boxes
containing files from previous cases. No lawyers are present and usually
no
witnesses other than the petitioner. The judge listens and makes notes
only
after he has made his judgment.
¡§All manner of stuff gets referred to us, but 95% of the cases that we
deal
with are to do with divorce,¡¨ said Suhaib Hasan, the court¡¦s general
secretary.
UNDER sharia it is usually the husband who initiates divorce proceedings
¡V
and, in theory, can end a marriage by saying ¡§I divorce thee¡¨, or
¡§talaq¡¨,
on three separate occasions. Women can apply to a sharia court for divorce
only if they are able to provide a legitimate reason, such as being the
victim of domestic abuse.
Although an Islamic union can be ¡§dissolved¡¨ in this way the couple must
still
obtain a divorce from the civil courts if the split is to be recognised by
British law.
Other cases presided over by sharia courts can be of a more personal
nature.
Judges are often asked to provide a fatwa, or religious edict, on whether
a
product or form of conduct is permissible in Islam.
Hasan recalled a recent case in which a Somali train driver who worked for
London Underground wanted to find out if he had ¡§sinned¡¨ by running
overa
passenger who had jumped onto the tracks in order to commit suicide.
¡§I deliberated over the case for two days and concluded that he was not
guilty
of any crime,¡¨ he said.
Other sharia courts have ruled that Ribena, organ donations and IVF
treatment
are all ¡§halal¡¨, or Islamically lawful.
While these cases seem perfectly reasonable, other sharia practices ¡V
such as
a man¡¦s right to have four wives ¡V would directly contravene British
law.
Indeed, Hasan¡¦s court recently ruled on the case of a young man from
Bradford
who had tired of his arranged marriage and had taken another wife in
Pakistan. He wanted to bring her to Britain and divorce his first wife,
but
wanted to retain access to his three children by her. He should remain
married and treat them both equally, ruled the court.
For Hasan, such divergences from British law and customs are not a
problem.
¡§If people can have mistresses in this country and have homosexual
relationships, then why can¡¦t a Muslim have a second wife?¡¨ he said.
Here lies one of the main problems with Williams¡¦s remarks, say experts.
Although he was talking about ¡§supplementary jurisdictions¡¨ for civil
matters, is sharia something that can be cherry-picked?
¡§There is no halfway house with this,¡¨ said Khalid Mahmood, the Muslim
Labour
MP for Birmingham Perry Bar. ¡§What part of sharia does he want? The sort
that is practised in Saudi Arabia which they are struggling to get away
from?
¡§Muslims do not need special treatment or to be specially singled out.
This
would not contribute to community cohesion.¡¨
Hasan asserted that the wider introduction of sharia would be good for the
country.
¡§If sharia is implemented then you can turn this country into a haven of
peace,¡¨ he said. ¡§Once a thief¡¦s hand is cut off, nobody is going to
steal.
Once an adulterer is stoned, nobody is going to commit this crime at all.
This is why we say we want to offer it to British society. If they accept
it, that is for their good. If they don¡¦t, they will need more prisons.¡¨
Reports suggest that the influence of sharia may already have crept into
criminal cases.
In 2006, when police arrested a group of youths on suspicion of stabbing a
fellow Somali teenager, the victim¡¦s family are believed to have told
officers that the matter would be settled out of court and the suspects
were
released on bail.
An impromptu court ¡V called a gar in Somali ¡V was reportedly convened in
Woolwich, southeast London, and elders from the local Somali community
ordered the assailants to pay the victim compensation.
Aydarus Yusuf, a youth worker involved in setting up the hearing, said:
¡§All
their uncles and their fathers were there, so they all put something
towards
that and apologised for the wrongdoing.¡¨
Critics believe the practicalities of implementing sharia in Britain, even
on
a partial basis, would be a minefield.
¡§British society and its legal traditions have developed a wholeness
about
them which is open to evolution, but should not be interfered with
lightly,¡¨
said Michael Nazir-Ali, the Pakistan-born Bishop of Rochester.
He noted that every school of sharia law would be in conflict with British
law
¡§on matters like monogamy, provisions for divorce, the rights of women,
the
custody of children, the laws of inheritance and of evidence. This is not
to
mention the relation of freedom of belief and of expression to provisions
for blasphemy and apostasy¡¨.
The main objection for most opponents of sharia¡¦s introduction is its
inherent
bias against women. Alongside the provision that women must in most cases
have their husband¡¦s permission to sue for divorce is the ruling that one
man¡¦s testimony is worth the same as the testimony of two women.
Baroness Kennedy, a leading barrister, said: ¡§Very often traditional law
in
small courts doesn¡¦t evolve to take account of changes in the world; they
become very rooted in the past and that can often disadvantage women.¡¨
Although a Muslim woman can expect to be paid back her family¡¦s dowry if
she
is divorced, she has no entitlement to long-term maintenance payments or
to
a share of her exhusband¡¦s property.
In Malaysia, a dual legal system operates in which sharia is used for
civil,
family and marriage cases involving the country¡¦s Muslim majority. Marina
Mahathir, daughter of the former prime minister, Mahathir bin Mohamad,
believes that there is an ¡§apartheid¡¨ between Muslim women like her and
those of other faiths.
¡§Muslim men may still contract polygamous marriages, may unilaterally
divorce
their wives (even by text message) and are entitled to double the shares
of
inheritance,¡¨ she has said. She and her fellow Muslim women ¡§can only
look
at their nonMuslim sisters in despair and envy¡¨.
Nevertheless, some observers believed that formalising sharia would
benefit
some women in Britain.
¡§A woman who has not registered her marriage in a register office might
be
married under sharia and if there is a divorce she might lose her children
and her property,¡¨ said David James, the Bishop of Bradford, whose
diocese
has a large Muslim population and who said he knew of a number of men who
had more than one wife.
¡§If a form of sharia which was compliant with British law was introduced,
the
situation for many women and children would be improved.¡¨
Another serious objection to Williams¡¦s suggestions is that the
professional
standards of Britain¡¦s sharia courts are questionable.
¡§One of the concerns that I have is the qualifications of people who
consider
themselves sharia judges,¡¨ said Baroness Warsi, the Tory spokeswoman for
community cohesion and social action who is herself a Muslim. ¡§At the
moment
anyone in their back room can set up a sharia council and start issuing
fatwas.¡¨
One such court was operated in the 1990s by Omar Bakri Mohammed, a radical
preacher who is now banned from Britain. Bakri first came under the
spotlight after declaring that John Major, the former prime minister, was
a
legitimate target for assassination. He also hailed the 7/7 bombers as the
¡§fantastic four¡¨.
This weekend many worshippers filing out of the mosque in Whitechapel,
east
London, said that they did not want sharia anyway because of the damage it
could cause to race relations.
¡§Sharia is such an emotive word to non-Muslims and the tabloids really
play on
that fear,¡¨ said Ali Hassan, 42, an electronics shopkeeper. ¡§Most
Muslims
have absolutely no expectation or desire to impose sharia on Britain.¡¨
Syeed Rahman, a 25-year-old banker who had just returned from his hajj
pilgrimage to Mecca, said: ¡§This country is the best place in the world
for
Muslims. If you were in Saudi you couldn¡¦t practise your religion as
unrestrictedly as you do here. We don¡¦t need sharia to be recognised as
law
in this country. We follow it in what we do.¡¨
As Britain grapples with the can of worms opened by Williams, it could
learn
from the experience of Canada.
In 1991 the province of Ontario passed the Arbitration Act which gave
people
the ability to settle civil and family disputes without resorting to the
courts. The move spawned a network of Jewish and Christian tribunals that
were able to make legally binding decisions.
In 2003 the Canadian Society of Muslims sought to establish similar sharia
tribunals under the act, but their proposals met with a public outcry,
with
some groups claiming that the move would violate the rights of Muslim
women.
This led to all faith-based arbitration being scrapped.
THE reaction to Williams¡¦s remarks suggests that sharia is unlikely to be
formally recognised within the British legal system any time soon. More
significant, perhaps, may be the damage done by the affair to the
archbishop¡¦s credibility.
Critics within the church marvel that a man of such intelligence could
misjudge the public reaction so badly.
¡§It has been an own goal,¡¨ said one bishop. ¡§I¡¦m disappointed because
it makes
Rowan look silly. People stopped at a certain point because they heard the
term sharia.
¡§It sounds as if the Archbishop of Canterbury is saying, ¡¥Let these
Muslim
people do their own thing¡¦, and this is, of course, not what he is
saying.
Who on earth was advising him? Anyone could see that a speech mentioning
sharia would create its own headlines.¡¨
As has been his habit from his days as an academic, Williams did not
consult
widely on the lecture, preferring to work alone. He did, however, discuss
its content in the broadest terms with his fellow primate John Sentamu,
the
Archbishop of York, and a number of Muslim scholars.
He told friends that he found the reaction to the speech ¡§all very
unpleasant¡¨. When pressed on why he had raised this issue now, he said it
was so important to prevent further isolation of the Muslim community.
He said he had been drawn to the subject of ¡§religious conscience¡¨ by
the
recent row over whether Catholic adoption agencies should have to
accommodate same-sex couples and questions about Ruth Kelly¡¦s suitability
to
be a cabinet minister when it emerged that she was a member of Opus Dei,
the
Catholic group.
Yet his erudite and heavily caveated exposition of his ideas was lost in
the
moment that he evoked sharia.
He regards it as part of his role as leader of the church to address
issues
from which others shy away and which may make him unpopular.
Indeed, this week he risks raising the ire of ministers again by voicing
his
opposition to plans to extend the detention without charge for terrorist
suspects to 42 days.
Last year he was accused of exaggeration when he suggested that America
wields
its power in a way that is worse than Britain during its imperial heyday.
He
claimed that Washington¡¦s attempt to intervene overseas by ¡§clearing the
decks¡¨ with a ¡§quick burst of violent action¡¨ had led to ¡§the worst of
all
worlds¡¨.
The problem with his intervention in the debate about inter-faith
relations
was that his true message was almost completely obscured.
Some within the church ¡V already upset by his favourable attitude towards
gay
rights ¡V regard him as terminally wounded. In the age of quick and easy
headlines, can the church be led by such an unworldly figure? This weekend
there were calls for him to resign.
¡§He is a disaster for the Church of England. He vacillates, he is a weak
leader and he does not stand up for the church. I would like to see him
resign and go back to academia,¡¨ said Alison Ruoff, a Synod member from
London.
That prospect is unlikely. Williams told friends this weekend he would not
resign and he cannot be sacked for doctrinal or political reasons. He can,
if he likes, remain in his post until his 70th birthday in June 2020.
This weekend he may look to the past for comfort. In March 1556 one of his
predecessors, Thomas Cranmer, was burnt at the stake in Oxford for
expressing unpopular views.
Williams may reflect that at least a media firestorm is nothing like a
real
one.
Additional reporting: Jonathan Oliver, Chris Gourlay and Michael Sheridan
WHAT THE ARCHBISHOP SAID
What was he talking about?
At the heart of Rowan Williams¡¦s speech to a group of lawyers in central
London was a call for more attention to be paid to religious sensitivities
of all kinds in the British legal system. He said that the Enlightenment
principle of one-law-for-everybody on which it was based was ¡§not
adequate
to deal with the reality of complex societies¡¨. He had concentrated on
Muslim issues because he was inaugurating a lecture series on Islam in
British law.
Why was there confusion about what he meant?
His academic background meant that Williams was careful to make sure
everything he said was considered and caveated and he also used language
that scholars, but not necessarily lay people, would understand.
For example, his main point was that a ¡§transformative accommodation¡¨
should
be reached between secular and religious legal systems. This did not
involve
setting up a ¡§parallel¡¨ legal system to British law but rather a
¡§scheme in
which individuals retain the liberty to choose the jurisdiction under
which
they will seek to resolve certain carefully chosen matters, so that the
power-holders are forced to compete for the loyalty of their shared
constituents¡¨.
That¡¦s not very clear . . . Indeed. What Williams appears to be
suggesting is
that secular and religious legal traditions should co-exist and that
individuals could choose which one was best for them on a case-by-case
basis. They would not be denied the use of either, though. It was not
clear
how any formal transfer of jurisdiction would take place. Williams did
admit
that the solution would not be simple.
Why was there such an uproar?
Previewing his speech, Williams gave a BBC interview in which he used much
clearer language. One particular phrase leapt out. Asked whether the
adoption of sharia in the UK was necessary for community cohesion, he
answered that it ¡§seems unavoidable¡¨.
THE FURIOUS REACTION TO ARCHBISHOP'S SPEECH
There can be no exceptions to the laws of our land which have been so
painfully honed by the struggle for democracy and human rights. His
acceptance of some Muslim laws within British law would be disastrous for
the nation - Lord Carey, Williams's predecessor as Archbishop of
Canterbury
I don¡¦t think he is the man for the job. One wants to be charitable, but
I
sense that he would be far happier in a university where he can kick
around
these sort of ideas - Edward Armitstead, member of the Church of England
General Synod
Who needs Al-Qaeda when you¡¦ve got Al-Rowan? This professional fool
doesn¡¦t
seem to realise that some of us came to the UK precisely to escape sharia.
Those desperate to enjoy hand-chopping or women¡¦s testimony being worth
half
that of a man¡¦s can always move to an Islamic republic - Patricia,
blogger,
London
I am horrified by the archbishop¡¦s remarks. My father came to the UK from
India in the early 1950s and always said the UK¡¦s robust judiciary and
sense
of fair play was something to be admired - Robin Sohdi, web comment,
Walton-on-Thames
People should understand that it¡¦s not Muslims asking for a parallel
system of
sharia. The great majority of Muslims are saying something else. The
British
legal system is our sharia - Professor Tariq Ramadan, Oxford University
What on earth is Rowan up to? Who does this man think he¡¦s supposed to be
representing?
I can¡¦t comprehend why he should bring this topic up. If it is a clever
means to make a case for religious influence in secular society, then
frankly he couldn¡¦t have made a worse job of it - Simon Patrick, web
comment, Buckinghamshire
Christmas has gone, Easter on the way. The Christian calendar drives the
tempo
of our lives in the UK and sometimes, like me, people may think: maybe I
should go to church, rediscover what it¡¦s all about? But then you can
always
count on Canterbury putting you off with his wishy-washy twaddle - Ben
Wright, web comment, London
Will Dr Williams be delivering this year¡¦s Easter sermon from Mecca? -
Dominic
Shelmerdine, web comment, London
PARALLEL SYSTEMS AROUND THE WORLD
¡½ Malaysia, which has a Muslim majority and a predominantly Chinese
minority
population, runs a twin-track legal system. Sharia courts have
jurisdiction
over areas such as marriage, inheritance, apostasy, conversion, and
custody
of children for Muslims. Civil courts deal with other areas
¡½ The Malaysian constitution does not say whether civil or sharia courts
prevail in cases involving a dispute between Islam and another religion
¡½ In practice, many lawyers say, the system discriminates against the
non-Muslim minority. In one recent case a Buddhist family tried in vain to
stop the religious authorities burying their father as a Muslim after the
police said he had converted
¡½ In Nigeria, sharia law is practised as a parallel system to English
common
law in the Muslim-dominated north of the country. The south of the
country,
which is mainly Christian, mainly follows English common law
¡½ In most Middle Eastern countries, there is a dual system of secular and
religious courts, in which the latter mainly deal with marriage and
inheritance. In Saudi Arabia and Iran sharia courts are responsible for
all
aspects of jurisprudence
----------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail has been sent via JARING webmail at http://www.jaring.my
