Thought for the Day, 11 February 2008

Abdal Hakim Murad

The controversy over the Archbishop's remarks on Shari'a rumble on. Last week, in the hours before the full text became available, concerned voices were raised, worried that he was advocating legal separateness for Britain's largest minority. Many commentators became understandably angry.

As the weekend wore on, however, my impression was that the mood slowly shifted. There were signs that more people were actually reading the Archbishop's lecture, which was written as a subtle reflection on the right relationship between faith, law, and citizenship in the modern state. And the criticisms grew more muted.

Many leapt to his defence. Others took the view that Dr Williams might well be right, but should have expressed himself in a way that could not have been misinterpreted.

It is now clear to most that Dr Williams, far from recommending some kind of parallel law for Muslims, was pointing out that informal religious tribunals which already adjudicate on a limited number of civil - never criminal - matters, in a way which is entirely legal under arbitration laws, should be more systematically brought under the regulation of the legal system. He was not commending greater separateness, or an expansion of Muslim courts - quite the opposite.

Although his prose is sometimes dense, I know he thinks this because a few weeks ago I was with him in Singapore, where we were shown how many of the city's religious minorities, including the Muslims, have their own courts to deal with civil matters such as marriage and divorce. He is interested in the challenge that religious diversity poses to a secular legal system. But he is sure that social cohesion is best served when there is a mechanism by which arbitration conducted within communities can be formally related to national law.

A storm in a teacup, then? Not quite. The issue of how faith is acknowledged in law will continue to be a tricky one, and not just for Muslims. For instance, one recent poll showed that nine percent of Americans think that the Bible should be their country's only source of law, and that percentage is growing.

For me, my major reaction to this dispute has been a sadness that so many of us so readily leap to judgement.

In the Koran itself, we read: 'O people of faith! If a person brings you some news, inquire into it carefully, lest you should harm others unwittingly, and afterwards be sorry for what you did.'

So what will be the fallout? One can only hope for something positive. Muslims know that their heritage of legal wisdom, the Shari'a, bears many very different interpretations. Secular law is the same. So in the midst of this flexibility, there is hope for a constructive dialogue. And if the Archbishop has helped that process along, many of us, of whatever faith, will be grateful.