Comment On- Sharia in Britain? We think not..

Faith Central - Times Online - WBLG: Sharia in Britain? We think not..

(The Archbishop of Canterbury recently called for some accommodation of Sharia law in Britain in an ill-advised lecture, which caused an uproar of condemnation. Trying to make sense of his presumably good intentions, this was my commentary on a Times Blog)

I'm pretty sure the archbishop just mainly referring to efforts to accommodate civil things like marriage customs, that the Muslim/Asian population will follow anyway and to help them do so legally. Civil courts to arrange such matters so that the minority can feel safe and that their personal preferences are legalised could, in such personal matters, be a good and progressive thing.

Yet this is a far cry from trying to be an apologist for even a small-scale implementation of 'Sharia Law'. The problem is that the 'Sharia' is not something to be trifled with, as overwhelming evidence from the Islamic world shows. Even allowing the traditional marriage styles opens up the problem of inbreeding causing birth defects, unreasonable welfare requirements for multiple wives and so on. Yet there needs to be some kind of accommodation in a multicultural world and the messenger who reminded us of this should not be shot, but rather thanked. In fact, he is really just explaining a process that will happen regardless of what anyone says.

On the one hand I am glad that so many people know how dangerous the notions of 'Sharia' law actually are and how antithetical they are to Jesus' teachings of forgiveness and love. I hope this never takes root in our free country as it clearly leads to unimaginable suffering. Yet I am saddened that his thoughtful attempts at commentary, even if seen as misguided, can be attacked so viscously. Perhaps the instinct to protect ourselves and the children in those communities from such dangers was awoken. He should make clear the civil and limited nature of his proposals and that they are for reasons of multicultural harmony. He should criticise the breaches of human rights in 'Islamic countries' and show his credentials as a supporter of human rights. Otherwise, he should probably resign.

However- this will not change anything, as ideas are more powerful than positions. It is quite possible that his deeper intention is to make sure that people can follow civil laws in a slightly exceptionalistic way, so as to be true to their religious beliefs, as some other posters have indicated. Now, this may be unpopular with the majority, especially if they feel that their values are accurately reflected by our secular society.

But democracy is all about protecting the rights of minorities, each person being in a sense a minority inasmuch as they are an individual. So there needs to be some conscientious opt-outs to be negotiated. Yet they need to be very limited in nature and not at all infringe on the rights of the majority, or of the innocent inside such communities.