|
The Most Rev. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, recently argued that the Western legal system should make room for Shariah, or Islamic law. Known for his lack of clarity in public, Williams was apparently referring mostly to divorces in which both sides have agreed to abide by the judgment of a religious tribunal. Apparently, he was not referring to criminal law where there is stoning, maiming or beheadings. Nonetheless, the Archbishop created a firestorm of criticism. How should we think about this matter?
- First of all, the problem with Williams’s position is that he is opening the door to a fundamental change in the rule of law and human rights. Additionally, the challenge for England is that it does not practice the separation of church and state, for the Anglican faith is the state religion of England. So, how does one incorporate a totally different faith than Christianity into rule of law in England? Especially in the matter of family law, how does a Muslim woman have the guarantee of protection by the state if Shariah is applied to her situation? What if she is uninformed or is under extreme duress. There is little doubt that Muslim society looks quite differently at the marriage institution than English society does. Further, in Western cultures as in England, people are guaranteed and protected if they choose to change their religions. Is Williams saying that Shariah should apply to this situation, if say, a Muslim woman, who is seeking a divorce also seeks to become a Christian? Further, how can Williams guarantee that a Muslim religious tribunal under Shariah will never be at odds with constitutional protections, human rights and basic notions of fairness? There are hosts of situations where a Muslim woman who decides to seek a divorce can face harsh financial consequences under Islamic law. Is this what Williams wants to protect? Does Williams advocate supporting a religious tribunal under Islamic law that leaves a woman worse off than she would have been in a conventional divorce in England? Few would doubt that Islam is a religious system titled against women. Williams offers no protections here. Is this really what he is advocating?
- Second, the situation raised by the Archbishop of Canterbury also raises a profoundly important question for Christians: How far should a Christian society go in accommodating various religious beliefs and practices? There is enormous tension for England, where there is a state religion. But it is also a crucial and tension-filled question for America, which practices the separation of church and state. Williams has pushed the issue of pluralism in a postmodern society to its logical, but untenable conclusion. How does a Christian function in such a pluralistic world? My conviction is that Williams is opening a Pandora’s box of accommodation. Rule of law in western civilization is rooted in and built upon a Judeo-Christian set of convictions and a guarantee of the innate worth and value of all human beings. It is difficult for me to see that same conviction in Islam. Women are not treated or protected by law to the same degree as men. If the Archbishop of Canterbury is serious about accommodating English law to Shariah, he is supporting a system that does not guarantee equal protection of law to women, something I do not believe God is pleased with.
See Adam Liptak in the New York Times (17 February 2008).
Print
|
