Shari'ah Law in the UK

My MA tutor and most of my fellow students were Anglicans, it was 1997 and they were discussing who would be the next Archbishop of Canterbury. Someone suggested Rowan Williams and the tutor, a professor who holds doctorates in both theology and sociology couldn't help laughing. "That would be wonderful, I'd love it to be Rowan Williams but it never will be" he said.

Well it was and it is. The idea of a first-rate academic theologian leading the national church is something that many educated Christians thought could never happen, but now that it has the idea of going back to someone not quite so bright is depressing.

It's been said in the recent furore over his comments on Shari'ah law that it's his massive brain that is the problem - that he doesn't understand the difference between the role of an academic theologian and a church leader, but that's unfair.

Theology is difficult and so unsurprisingly his theological works are complex and not always easy to follow. But he has used a different voice as archbishop, particularly in the media -twice in the last few months I've heard him on the radio using brilliant soundbites. He talked about people "looking at the Christian story and saying 'I'm going to make that story my story'" - a brilliant way of capturing narrative as a theological device. And when talking about the duty of those in the worldwide Anglican communion with problems over homosexuality not to boycott the Lambeth conference he said that if they refused to meet with their opponents they would be "walking away from the cross".

This is brilliant stuff. It shows that he has the ability to think deeply AND express himself clearly.

So I take issue with all those who criticized him for opening his mouth on the subject of Shari'ah law in the UK, I think he has a duty to raise pressing and uncomfortable questions and to start a debate.

But while I'm glad he's spoken out, and I hope he contineus to do so, I do think he's wrong about this.

He is interested in the idea of how religious laws can co-exist with the laws of the state. The headlines were all about Islamic law but really I think he was concerned about the preservation of Christian law but then conceeded that it would be wrong to protect Christian law without affording the same rights to Muslims. It's a very fair point in that respect, his bishops sit in the house of Lords and before too long that privlege is going to have to be withdrawn or extended to other denominations and faiths.

I suspect that we might be seeing here a rerun of the debate between Lutheranism and Calvinism. Or to attempt a pithy soundbite worthy of Dr Williams it's a debate about whether our faith is 7 days a week or just for sundays.

We should resist the idea that the laws of our land are disconnected from faith communities. All the laws that have been passed with the aim of countering injustice, promoting equality of opportunity, inclusion and support for the vulnerable: are we not justified in saying that these laws, in so far as they meet these aims, are Christian laws? Equally Muslims can and should describe as Islamic all those aspects of British law, all those activities of the British state which meet Islamic objectives (Compassion, Justice etc.)

And our faith, whatever religion we are, gives us beliefs and a duty to promote them. If our beliefs have any sort of value then we must argue for them to become part of UK law not simply to be kept by our own kind but ignored by others. If our faith tells us that it is important to combat poverty and protect children then we must, as electors and as citizens play our full part in bringing about and supporting laws that achieve this. These are Christian laws and these are Islamic laws. They are also Humanist laws.

And if our faith leads us to beliefs that are rejected by mainstream society then can we ask the state to fund, support or enforce such laws? As consenting adults we can agree to be bound by such rules but religious laws don't tend to make such a distinction.

Children whose parents believe they are demon posessed (not Islamic I realise, often African Christians) are sometimes mistreated for religious reasons. But those reasons, however devoutly held by the parents are so completely rejected by the rest of us that we do not allow sincerely held religious beliefs, in these instances, to override the rights of the individual.

Once we accept this principle there can't be any grey areas. Vulnerable members of all faith communities rely on the law of the land to guarantee their rights as individuals. And if our beliefs have no persuasive force in the democratic law making process then they should not have any other sort of force. Ultimately a law has to be enforceable or it is meaningless. All religious believers have the opportunity and the duty to persuade society that its laws should take account of our beliefs and values. And if we really believe them why should we keep them to ourselves?

Finally it's worth emphasising that many Muslims were aghast at the suggestion that Shari'ah law could be given any formal status in British law. I'd particularly recommend the work of Tariq Ramadan who argues that Muslims in Europe should be claiming all those aspects of European culture (human rights, the welfare state) as being Muslim concepts.