What did the Archbishop actually say?
News from the Archbishop of Canterbury - Friday 08 February 2008
Archbishop's Lecture - Civil and Religious Law in England: a Religious Perspective
The transcript of his interview on yesterday's World at One programme can also be viewed online, here:
BBC Interview - Radio 4 World at One.
The Archbishop made no proposals for sharia in either the lecture or the interview, and certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law.
Instead, in the interview, rather than proposing a parallel system of law, he observed that "as a matter of fact certain provisions of sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law" . When the question was put to him that: "the application of sharia in certain circumstances - if we want to achieve this cohesion and take seriously peoples' religion - seems unavoidable?", he indicated his assent.
The Archbishop opened his lecture by noting importantly that the very term sharia is not only misunderstood, but is the focus of much fear and anxiety deriving from its 'primitivist' application in some contexts. As such he said that sharia is a method of law rather than a single complete and final system ready to be applied wholesale to every situation, and noted that there was room, even within Islamic states which apply sharia, for some level of 'dual identity', where the state is not in fact religiously homogenous.
In his lecture, the Archbishop sought carefully to explore the limits of a unitary and secular legal system in the presence of an increasingly plural (including religiously plural) society and to see how such a unitary system might be able to accommodate religious claims. Behind this is the underlying principle that Christians cannot claim exceptions from a secular unitary system on religious grounds (for instance in situations where Christian doctors might not be compelled to perform abortions), if they are not willing to consider how a unitary system can accommodate other religious consciences. In doing so the Archbishop was not suggesting the introduction of parallel legal jurisdictions, but exploring ways in which reasonable accommodation might be made within existing arrangements for religious conscience.
He explained that his core aim was to: "to tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state" and was using sharia as an example. These include:
- How when the law does
not take seriously
religious motivation, it
fails to engage with the
community in question
and opens up real issues
of power by the majority
over the minority, with
potentially harmful
effects for community
cohesion.
- How the distinction
between cultural
practices and those
arising from genuine
religious belief might
be managed.
- How to deal with the
possibility that a
'supplementary
jurisdiction "could
have the effect of
reinforcing in minority
communities some of the
most repressive or
retrograde elements in
them, with particularly
serious consequences for
the role and liberties
of women".
At the end of the
lecture the Archbishop
referred to a suggestion
by a Jewish jurist that
there might be room for
'overlapping
jurisdictions' in which
"individuals might
choose in certain
limited areas whether to
seek justice under one
system or another".
This is what currently
happens both within the
Jewish arrangements and
increasingly in current
alternative dispute
resolution and mediation
practice.
He concludes his lecture with the comment:
"if we are to think intelligently about the relations between Islam and British law, we need a fair amount of 'deconstruction' of crude oppositions and mythologies, whether of the nature of sharia or the nature of the Enlightenment"
The lecture, which was given before an audience of about 1000 people and which was chaired by the Lord Chief Justice, was the first in a series of six lectures and discussions which are being given by senior Muslim and other lawyers and theologians at the Temple Church on the general theme of 'Islam in English Law'.
