Anglican Tensions Runneth Over

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s comments regarding the need in Great Britain to consider whether English law should accommodate some aspects of Islamic law reflects a context significantly different from America. The firestorm and subsequent reactions to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s comments on Shariah law should be seen within the existing tensions and fissures within the Anglican Church exemplified by, but not restricted to, the breakaway of some ultra conservative Anglican clergy and churches over the ordination of a gay bishop.

This issue or another becomes a pretext for those who are against the Archbishop’s leadership to call for his resignation. However, the controversy also reflects a British (and more broadly European) context where the impact of attacks in London, Madrid and Glasgow and the continued threat of “homegrown” extremism and anti-immigrant right wing political parties have led to a sharp increase in Islamophobia. Finally, for many any mention of Shariah is often equated facilely with Taliban-like laws. In fact, as the Gallup World Poll shows, majorities of mainstream Muslims (women as well as men) want some form of Shariah, religious values, as a source of law. This sentiment is not all that different from a majority of Americans who want to see the Bible as a source of legislation. (See Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think)

In fact, Archbishop Rowan Williams was not calling for implementation of Shariah law but simply signaling the need for addressing/discussing a question/issue that is inevitable. Muslims should have the same rights and choice that Orthodox Jews and Catholics already enjoy. For example, the London Beth Din Jewish Courts adjudicate civil disputes. An award given by the Beth Din has the full force of an Arbitration Award and may be enforced (with prior permission of the Beth Din) by the civil courts. Parties who submit to such courts agree, as a matter of contract, to accept their decisions. The public courts enforce awards just as they would enforce other agreements provided they do not contradict or override British law. Any attempt to do so would be overruled on appeal to the public courts.

The situation in the U.S. is quite different. We draw the line more sharply between church and state. In contrast, in Great Britain, though secular, church and state are not separate: the monarch is the head of the church, government funding is provided for some religious institutions and their activities … Certainly Muslims like members of other faiths can draw on their religious law to govern internal matters and as a guide in family and social behavior as long as they do not violate civil law. As with some other faith communities, religious arbitration councils can also mediate in family law disputes. However, this is a far cry from incorporating religious law (any religions laws) within our American legal system. In addition to major constitutional problems, even if it were possible there would be formidable issues, given the different schools of Islamic law and contemporary jurists’ opinions, the lack of a central religious authority in Islam and the fact that Muslims themselves differ sharply on many matters of Islamic law.

By John Esposito  |  February 12, 2008; 2:30 PM ET Save & Share:                 
Previous: Unity Requires Some Accomodation | Next: A Serious Issue that Requires Sensitivity

Posted by: The Moderate | February 16, 2008 3:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: The Moderate | February 16, 2008 3:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: Michael | February 15, 2008 11:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | February 15, 2008 10:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.