Is a clash looming between the laws of the West and Islam? In the wake of
9/11, commentators such as Samuel Huntington have spoken of a conflict
between an economically powerful but increasingly amoral West, and a
resurgent and moralistic Islam.
There is much at stake. Can a state such as Turkey, overwhelmingly Muslim,
join the EU and become party to international human rights provisions? Given
that Islamic councils have been established in England, should they be
recognised by English family law?
And what of the exercise of human rights in the context of combating
terrorism? Is any dilution of human rights norms justified for the
protection of the public and of national security? “The rules of the game
have changed,” Tony Blair famously said after the London bombs. This seemed
to signal a change in policy on human rights, from which Muslims – here and
abroad – would be the most likely to suffer.
But everyone can feel victimised and resentful. All religions attach
importance to certain rituals and sanctity to certain religious persons. How
far should the law go in protecting such religious beliefs and ultimately
religious feelings, and how far in protecting free speech? The Danish
cartoons raised passions on all sides.
Sharp questions lead to sharp answers. In all our communities there is
misinformation, ignorance and fear of that which is little known. Occasional
suspicion readily deepens into a rut of distrust, which can lead to anxiety
and antagonism; so ends all hope of understanding between communities and
mutual appreciation.
Two organisations have come together to generate discussion with a quite
different dynamic. The Temple Church in the heart of legal London and the
Centre of Islamic and Middle East Law (CIMEL) at the School of Oriental and
African Studies in the University of London are sponsoring a series of
lecture-discussions on Islam in English law. The sponsors are telling every
ticket-holder that an important part of the series is the opportunity for
people from different backgrounds to meet. “Please make the most of this
opportunity, from this first evening, by introducing yourself to those
sitting around you,” they say.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, launches the series this
Thursday with a foundation lecture on civil and religious law in England.
The discussions are part of the 2008 Temple Festival, a year-long mix of
music, art, drama, history and law events to mark the 400th anniversary of
James I granting the Inner and Middle Temples freehold of their land.
English law and Islamic law differ in principle and in application. English
law has been shaped in large part by the principles and history of Christian
culture, but acknowledges no duty of obedience to any revelation, scripture
or doctrine ascribed to God. In current practice, it attends closely to the
rights and freedoms of the individual and protects them against curtailment
from the state or from corporate power.
It is the prime duty of all Muslims to follow, as much as they are able, the
traditions of Islamic law, which include the principles imparted by Allah to
the Prophet Muhammad. Islamic law has tended to protect and strengthen the
community in which, it is intended, the individual can then live a devout,
good and ordered life.
The English court system aims to free litigants – and especially, vulnerable
litigants – from the pressure that people powerful in a local community can
bring to bear; Islamic councils draw strength from the insights that local
and personal knowledge can offer.
English family law does not accept the validity of decisions of the many
Islamic councils that have grown up; there is vigorous debate as to whether
it should. Intolerant actions of militant Islamists have affected the debate
on the exercise of human rights – an issue behind the question of the
validity or morality at Guantanamo Bay.
At times the two systems have seemed in direct conflict. In 2001, the European
Court of Human Rights in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights
declared that Islamic law “clearly diverges from convention values,
particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its
rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervenes in all spheres
of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts”.
The claim cries out for discussion. We too readily imagine two incompatible
and impermeable systems of law squared up for conflict with each other. But
it is a matter of genuine disagreement how wide or deep is the gulf between
the two systems – and both are evolving.
The series on Islam in English law is not designed to reach clear,
prescriptive answers to all the questions that its speakers will raise. It
is meant to be a forum for the discovery, on all sides, of people, ideas and
ideals that seem alien and threatening.
Last month, when Dr Williams spoke in the House of Lords on religious hatred
and religious offence, he talked of an “argumentative democracy” in which,
quite apart from the law’s sanction, public controversy should not be
debased – or effectively silenced – by thoughtless and (even if
unintentionally) cruel styles of speaking and acting.
The setting for the rest of the series is significant. The Temple Church was
built in 1185 by the Knights Templar, who were vital in the Crusades to the
viability of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. In past centuries it
represented the gulf between Christendom and Islam; the sponsors are now
using it to help to heal the divisions it was built to foster.
They have just installed a window in the church to mark the anniversary,
bearing the motto of James I: “Blessed are the peacemakers.” That is what
the sponsors, through honesty and courtesy and without delusion, hope to be.
For more details of the series go to www.temple2008.org
Ian Edge is director of CIMEL and Robin Griffith-Jones is Master
of the Temple at the Temple Church
Does Islam fit with UK law? No, it does not. It fits in with Saudi Arabai law or Tailban law. I would suggest to those wishing to live in a society under Sharia law to move to Afganistan, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. Have fun!
Andrew Duncan, Godalming, UK
O'Boogie from Arizona says it all. I do hope Gordon Brown
will read this email. It may help him to make his mind up.
Pearl, Loughton, Essex UK
A big part of the earth is ruled by Muslims, therefore those who are in awe with Muslim way of life and jurisdiction should live there. As simple as it is.
shantam , Freiburg, Germany
Please allow this American to offer that Islam and any western system of laws are wholly incompatible. I have lived in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Somalia. I have lived in numerous European and Oriental countries. No no no. No way they can be intermeshed. Your willingness to "accomodate" and "accept" the ways of Islam and Shari'a law will be taken as a sing of doubt in your own system and a weakness to be exploited and expounded upon. It is, as we say, a slippery slope.
You must, and I mean MUST, demand that all immigrants be functional in English - the language of their adopted homeland, that they perform service for the country that has taken them in from wherever they come and that they take an allegiance to the Queen. No nation can stand long if it is divided from within.
In our quest to be accepting of all, we have overlooked the evil that is in some peoples' hearts. And all that need be done for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
W. O'Boogie, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Isn't multiculturalism just a laugh!
The joke is now over. There should be a moratorium on ALL immigration into the UK until the newcomers are sufficiently integrated into our society that they do not pose a culturally-fuelled threat.
Sure, we need cheap labour, and this is the reason that successive govts in the 19th and 20th centuries have encouraged or tolerated (despite their public protestations and token dissent) immigration with the Irish, Asians and more recently, East Europeans.
The problem is that it is now happening far too fast, and social cohesion is breaking down. Put simply, yes, I want a guaranteed state pension when the time comes. The newcomers will help fund this, but now the price of doing this is simply too high!
Let us put a stop to this now. Meanwhile we can meet our moral obligations concerning the few genuine asylum seekers by hosting them at the geographically closest point in the Commonwealth to their cultural origin.
Mike Hart, London, UK
Two wondrous things the English have given us. Rugby and Common Law. Why screw with either one?
Honestly, if the community wants to create its own law and deal with things internally their own way, that's their decision. Providing they abide by English law and it usurps over all Sharia/Community/Jedi/whatever "law" that is created by the community.
They can play courthouse all they want, as long as they abide by English law. First hand that gets cut off will get their "court" system thrown in an English jail for assault.
Brian, Huntington, IN, USA
English law and American law is based on a system of morality that comes in bulk from the Christian religion. The moral system followed by Muslims in many areas directly contradicts the Christian system. There are Muslim countries that tolerate Christians and there are Christian countries that tolerate Muslims. In both instances the government is decidedly one way or the other. To establish both systems as moral equals will surely end in civil war.
Ken Thomas, Edmond, Oklahoma
Just entertaining the question proves that Britain has lost it's collective mind.
m jackson, Portland,, Oregon
I am disappointed and shocked at Dr. Williams' absurd comments. Church and state are not linked in any way and must remain that way. Although our laws were founded on a base of Christianity they are democratic, thanks in no small part to Oliver Cromwell, and created by the people absent religious overtones or under currents. Of course, Dr. William's must resign as his loose tongue will now cause increased friction and distrust between the majority of English men and women and those of the Muslim faith. We are taught, from an early age, to tolerate and accept other peoples' beliefs, but when it comes that those who seek freedom try to impose the very laws which persecuted them and forced to flee, on us then the answer must be both "No" and if you don't agree or like the laws, the English way of life or don't want to assimilate then leave and go home and let us live in peace.
CM, London, UK
We the British have fought long and hard through the dark ages to gain the civility and peaceful way of life we had until the influx of immigrants from Nations who are still living back there in the dark ages, now look what's happening in our Country: murders on the rise, unrest and resentment amongst our young people, and we are being blown up on our public transport, so the answer to the queston of them being allowed to have their own laws in OUR COUNTRY should be a resounding 'NO', if you don't like our laws go elsewhere!!!
Barb, Newcastle, UK
A majority of Muslims have come to western countries to escape from Islam and to not be pressured into conforming to Sharia law. They are pressured by a small group of fanatics, so that they cannot publicly state that they are no longer Muslim and no longer believe in this. If they were given a chance, by not living in Islamic ghetto and by not being threatened by this minority,. many like myself, would feel freer about declaring publicly "I am not Muslim, I do not believe in Islam, I do not want Sharia law, I want to be a modern person, with individual rights"
Z. Hemini, Kingston, Canada
the Dr Williams' stupid comment should provoke a debate that can lead to but one conclusion:
ALL leaders of ALL religions in the UK MUST publicly declare and sign up to an acknowledgement that UK Law has absolute primacy
...the consequences are obvious
martin brighton, sheffield,
Well, we all spent the Middle Ages ridding ourselves of religious idiotsand fanatics and getting of Christian weirdos responsible for the English Civil War off to America where they are still a pain to this day.
Law is above religion.
Or does it mean that if I stab a Muslim (Jew, Jedi or whatever) and I say that according to my own personal religion that this is perfectly OK then the state will say it is OK as well.
This is what Sharia means, make no mistake. How many C of E churches are to be found in Jeddah?
Er, not many...
God Help Us!
Dave Smith, Geneva,
Britain is a multi cultural, diverse, society which had evolved through centuries of conflict, harmony and lately immigration. These things can either make the country stronger or weaker, depending upon your point of view.
What can be said with certainty is that the law is the Law.
Whatever your relgion is, you should be sure of impartial justice. Introducing religion to law (even though the British system has evolved through notions of right and wrong) would be wrong. People come to this country because of the reputation for "justice" and "freedom".
If someone does not like this system or believes it is morally repugnant, please feel free to go somewhere which adheres to whichever system it is you believe in.
We should not be encouraging practices which enroach or encourage the suppression of freedom of speech, women or any other figures. We should be legislating against them and making it clear that such encroachments will not be tolerated in this country.
Claire, London,
Mr. Emerton, as an academic (who has a personal library of 400+ philosophy books, 300 history books, 300 books on psychoanalysis, 200 other books on psychology and cognitive science, etc. ), I''d be more than happy to talk about about philosophy, J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism, and Mill's "greatest happiness principle."
However, before a feasible discussion starts, one would need to know which philosophers are you speaking of. Further, you would need to do some homework (i.e. read) about facts to get yourself ready for a discussion.
I am sorry to point out that you sadly make it apparent that you are misinformed/confused about "Christian principles" that you speak of. If you are misinformed about something so basic, I wonder what philosophy you do know? Do you not know that Jesus stopped a bunch of men from stoning a woman and that he talked about the merits/necessity of working on the Sabbath?
On the aside, the pharisees who opposed Jesus made up their own laws, too.
Andrew, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA
I say Law and Religion are two seperate issues and we should not mix up the two, I am a student currently studying Law at college and think the English Legal system is just and fair. I also feel that the UK is culturally and religiously diverse and would certainly not like a certain religion to want its laws implemented
I myself am a muslim although not a religious one and i do feel i wouldnt want shariah law imposed as i think some aspects are extreme such as stoning adulterers and cutting off hands and so and so although i do respect the decisions of other muslims who want it.
I say everyone follows the law of the land and in our case; The English Legal System
Hannah, Birmingham, UK
Sharia law is enforced by draconian punishment. A hand cut from a thief for instance. It is based on two wrongs making a right and takes no account of the level of wrongful conviction in any society.
We should also bear in mind Yugoslavia, Kenya and countless other examples of people from different ‘communities’ living in ‘harmony’ for years, only for extreme violence to start over an issue that seemed innocuous but became controversial. It might be better for everyone to face that now than pretend to ourselves otherwise.
Anyone who does not accept that UK law of the land is not religious, or that Parliamentary law does not invariably trump any other law should not be permitted to take up residency in the UK. British Moslems need to accept this too or there is a risk of confrontation over the issue.
Jack, Glasgow, UK
If I were a woman who valued her freedom to go out and socialise as I wanted, to drive myself to the shops and wear what I liked whilst doing so, there are various countries in which I would not live.
If I were a man who liked to hang out with mates ‘down the pub’ and sink a pint or two before dinner there are certain countries I would avoid.
The point is – I would willingly observe the laws of the land and only settle in a land where the laws allowed me the freedom to follow my chosen lifestyle. I would not expect them to change or modify their laws, customs and culture to suit me.
R Bingham, Lauzun, France
P.Emerton, try reading the bible and stop following general assumptions. The bible does, infact, point to the sanctity of life, human rights and equality. Jesus preached on equality and respect. Try reading the gospels or a start.
It's such a shame that we cry alot about tolerance but have none for Christianity.
wisevik, London,
"Can anyone name one Islamic country that is a model for Islam and its sharia law? Just one."
The answer is that there is no Islamic state today, none. The Islamic state seized to exist long time ago. Iran and Pakistan are not Islamic states, but theocracies. Islamic state knows no borders between muslims, there can not be Iran, Pakistan or Turkey in Islamic state. Just one, big, true state. It (Islamic state) will return with second coming of Jesus!
Esad, Istanbul,
I am a 19 year old British citizen studying Law at university. I have a great admiration for the English Legal System: I respect it's aims, logical/practical principles & the great minds that shaped it into the just system it is today.
Yet, I also see the justice & logic in the Islamic system of law. But - pardon me - is it because, unlike most people who choose to comment on such matters and misguidedly call it "nasty" and "brutish", that I can see the benefits of Shari'a?
Ignorance is indeed bliss. Nonetheless, may I take this opportunity to urge people to take some time to learn about that which they pass so harsh a judgement on. I recommend the lectures of Doctor Zakir Niak who gives an extensive explanation on Islam's take on all matters and the reasons.
However, having said this, I agree that there can be no need to implement Islamic Law in a country whose greatest strength lies in it's ethnic and religious diversity.
Let those who want Shari'a law so badly, go elsewhere.
Aysha Zahid, Chingford, London, UK
Secular or non secular based legal systems and faith based religions are mutually incompatable. Add the 'Western' version of human rights to the pot and it becomes irreconcilable. It becomes even worse when one faith based religion attempts to inculcate others especially when one has evolved over 20 centuries and the other is 'frozen' in what historians once referred to as the Dark Ages.
The ballot box is the starting place for those seeking law change. In a Parliamentary democracy acceptance of law has to come first - the 'supremacy' of faith based belief systems over the rule of law is a non starter - unless you have the numbers.
It could be worse; imagine a world run by Scientologists!
Thank goodness for Professor Dawkins.
Ashley Balls, Auckland , New Zealand
So all of those Suras commanding muslims to kill kufirs in the name of Allah are all mistranslations? What about the Suras condemning democracy, religious freedom, apostasy, freedom to criticise Islam, and advocating slavery and forced conversion. And let's not even get started on women's rights. It's okay, I've got it: mistranslations.
I'd list examples of the 'mistranslations', but I've only got 590 characters left, but here's Sura (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them".This is one of 37 Suras from the Qur'an which commands Muslims to kill.
Anyway, in answer to the question. No, it most certainly does not.
Dominic Burns, Durham, UK
To conclude that Islam is somehow incompatible with or opposed to human rights, based on the comments of an Iranian Ayatollah, is worrying and frankly ignorant. As somebody else pointed out, a lot of the messages in the Quran have been distorted by various individuals which isn't surprising given that manipulation occurs in every faith. I urge people to properly educate themselves before commenting. Most religions have more in common than is often made out.
Tanya, London, UK
Can anyone name one Islamic country that is a model for Islam and its sharia law? Just one.
Katy, Tulsa, Oklahoma
Which "islam are you comparing English Law to?
The Primary Scripture The Quran is very similar to English law in many ways, however the mullahs do not agree with it so they follow alleged sayings of the Prophet (written not by him but by numerous persons centuries after his death) called Hadith and sunnah, and urge people to follow these rather than the Quran. These are also used to mistranslate the Quran to suit them.
I call this Mullahism. Unfortunately most "muslims" are really Mullahists.
Did you know that the Quran actually forbids suicide killing? In the second volume, first chapter section 8, clear rules for warfare, killing, executions are given. It says "Wa la tulqu be ahdikum illat tahluqat" - "Do not inflict self-destruction on yourself to kill anyone. " This is unambiguous.
The Quran is full of human rights but the preachers are against it however there are real Musims too who follow the Quran and should not be confused with the mullahists.
Shehnaz Somjee Liverpool
shehnaz somjee, Liverpool, UK
Is 'English' law now cast as the bedrock of western civilisation?
Scotland has its own legal system which is much respected throughout the world. Or had you forgotten? Or try Northern Ireland.
David Glen, Glasgow, Scotland
What on Earth is going on?
It's about time we had a secular, written constitution before this garbage about hurtling our highly developed legal system back to the dark ages gains any more ground.
There is no place for religion in law.
None whatsoever.
A P, Colwyn Bay,
"Blessed are the peacemakers."
Quote for truth!...although i do sincerely commend the efforts by these groups to try and bring peace... unfortunately 'Islamophobia' in this modern age can be comparable to 'racism'. There is absolutely zero chance that humans from different religious or racial background can/will ever live together in peace...well not for a long length of time.
The best know example was when Jews, Muslims, and Christians lived in relative harmony and Arabic was the dominant language by the mid-tenth century.
The worst examples are African/Native -Americans in U.S during slave trade and ethnic cleansing respectively. Jews in Hitlers Germany. Jews and Palastanians in Israel?
Muslims in UK/Europe coming next ?
Mohammed, London, UK
I recall an Iranian Ayatollah remarking that "Human rights is a Judeo-Christian belief, not an Islamic one". Enough said.
Peter, London,
I think the first point to repeat is that all belief is just that, it is supposition and not fact and there is no proof of a divinity or divine influence. The second point is that there are many people who believe in a Supreme Being, a personal God, but who are not attached to a religion because they are not impressed with the moral and ethical standards of religions and to impose any kind of Doctrine upon them would be discriminatory and offensive. The third point is that as I understand it , death for adultery and apostasy are inviolable tenets of Islam, but are certainly illegal under EU law. The danger is literal interpretation, we no longer kill our neighbours because they work on the Sabbath but if the Old Testament were interpreted literally( as some Muslims do with the Koran) then all non believers in Jehovah would be put to the sword tomorrow, but our modern system of law is far more moral and just than any of these archaic religious codes. Someone is offended by every Faith.
Keith Budden, Rayleigh, England
Why is Islamic Law an issue in the UK? In England and Wales we have English Law under which we all live irrespective of religious beliefs or lack of them. That's evolved over time to suit our various cultures.
Protection of Individual rights and the promotion of liberty are things that we should be pursuing. If that gives Muslims more protection to live as they see fit then so be it but it should be pursued for those principles not to specifically appease the vocally religious.
David Jones, Loughborough, UK
Actually our law comes more from the ideas of Philosophers and social reformers such as John Stuart Mill. If it came from Christian principles we'd be stoning adulterers, people who worked on the sabbath and anyone who tried to lure us to 'other gods'. There's no mention of human rights, equality and so on in the Bible!
Paul Emerton, Bristol,
The Archbishop can be counted upon to deliver some warm-sounding fudge. But upon closer examination it will be apparent from the aroma that it merely looks like fudge.
Why is he so anxious to debase the common law which guarantees our rights and liberties, in favour of a system which is by any western standards nasty, brutish and shortens the lives of its adherents?
David Booth, Bedford,
And who gets to decide which is the correct following of Islamic Law?
For example it seems quite clear that Islam does not advocate free speech (as witnessed in Denmark and around the world).
You cannot pick and choose which parts of Sha'ria to follow, it is all or nothing as it's God's law. Something that I thought was supposed to be separate from the State.
I understand that law much like language is exposed to new ideas, arguments and experiments but this is one case set to fail.
Steven O'Neill, Slough, UK