Controversy rages

It’s “inevitable” that “parts” of Islamic law would be adopted in the United Kingdom, also because this would help to maintain greater social cohesion between British and Muslim citizens. The words of Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, spoken during an interview on BBC radio, have opened up a veritable hornet’s nest in the UK. And this has happened at the very opening of the General Synod of the Church of England, where the archbishop has the chance to resume the question and explain himself better. The words of Rowan Williams to the BBC. Adopting parts of Islamic sharia law, Archbishop Williams told the BBC, would help to maintain greater social cohesion. Of course, he added, “no one in his right mind would like to see in this country the inhumanity that at times is associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states, such as extreme punishments or the attitude to women. And in no case would it precede the rights we have as citizens. But to say that there’s a law for everyone is a bit dangerous”. According to the archbishop there is in fact “scope” in the British system for “constructively adopting some aspects of Islamic law”, relating for instance to conjugal disputes or financial questions that could be resolved in an Islamic court. In this regard, Williams recalls some precedents, such as the Orthodox Jewish courts already active in the UK, or such as the anti-abortion outlook of Catholics and other Christians that is “taken into consideration within the law”. The controversy. Among the first to dissociate themselves from the words of Archbishop Williams were the Primate of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, and the former Archbishop of Canterbury William Carey. When people come to this country – commented Cardinal Murphy O’Connor – they are bound to respect its laws which recognize neither polygamy nor forced marriages”. The same view is shared by William Carey who adds: “The recognition of some Islamic laws within the UK would be disastrous for the nation. There can be no exceptions for the laws of our land, arduously drafted thanks to the struggle for democracy and for human rights”. According to Clifford Longley, a Catholic and veteran BBC religious affairs commentator, the stance adopted by the Anglican archbishop is “inexplicable”. “I could understand Williams’ position if the Islamic community were dissatisfied with the legislation of this country and the Archbishop were to become a promoter of their point of view. But there are no cases in which the sharia would resolve legal questions in a more satisfactory way than the legislation of the United Kingdom”. And in Europe? A response is given by Silvio Ferrari, professor of canon law and director of the department of comparative law of religions at the University of Milan. According to Ferrari, it is quite impossible to “extrapolate the reasoning of the Anglican Primate from the English context and adapt it to other legal contexts, such as that in Italy or France”. These countries, in fact, champion the principle of “civil law”, which is stricter than the “common law” that inspires the British legal code. “Opening such a discussion in Italy or France would be counter-productive”, he underlines. “There are – he says – other priorities in terms of achieving a better integration of the Islamic community”. The archbishop’s clarification. Given the furore, the speech that Archbishop Williams gave on the opening of the General Synod of the Church of England on Monday, 10 February, was eagerly awaited. “Some of what has been heard – he pleaded – is a very long way indeed from what was actually said”. “But I must of course – the archbishop continued – take responsibility for any unclarity in either the text [of my lecture] or in the radio interview, and for any misleading choice of words that has helped to cause distress or misunderstanding among the public at large and especially among my fellow Christians”. Williams however claimed the right of a “pastor of the Church of England” to address issues “around the perceived concerns of other religious communities”. He further insisted, “we are not talking about parallel jurisdictions. I tried to make clear that there could be no ‘blank cheques’ in this regard, in particular as regards some of the sensitive questions about the status and liberties of women. The law of the land still guarantees for all the basic components of human dignity”.