The Archbishop of Canterbury has got it all wrong. It isn't English civil and criminal law that should be absorbing aspects of Sharia law, but the other way round. The laws of England and Wales (Scotland has a different judicial system), have been established over many years, based on precedence - that which has gone before. In this way, judges are able to determine whether a ruling can be made on previous legal findings, or if a new determination should be found. It is these determinations that often wend their way to the law lords for approval and, if necessary, to the European Courts of Justice. If parliament decides the findings are not in accord with present-day sentiment, then it is within its powers to pass new laws, which of course must now conform to those aspects of law within the EU that Britain has signed up to.
Within Britain, both Jews and Sikhs are allowed their own religious courts, ruling mainly but not exclusively upon civil and domestic issues, most often concerning the rights of women in their society. Many women would argue that the rulings are biased, being resolved by men and based on guidelines interpreted over the years by men, Some Muslim women argue the same charge can be laid at the door of Sharia law.
Be that as it may, another issue arises in this debate which is also worthy of consideration. It is that if a person is prepared to accept naturalisation, then it is only reasonable and fair for that person to accept the laws of the land of their newly adopted country. Otherwise there is very little point in seeking new citizenship, because it means they are entering the country under a false pretext - that of accepting laws and codes of conduct, traditions and cultures of that country which they find reasonable, while the rest they will not and do not accept or conform to. Such selectivity is anathema to most law-abiding citizens, especially of the indigenes many of whom become alarmed at having thrust upon them what they see as alien cultures.
Over the years mainly Christian Europe has accepted immigrants from diverse societies and religions. Those countries which have accepted a large influx of immigrants like to believe they are now cosmopolitan societies; none more so than Britain. Although the most widely accepted interpretation of the word "cosmopolitan" is "having constituent elements from different parts of the world" it can also mean "without borders". Yet it is common to see in many European countries - Germany, France, Italy, Denmark, and even Britain - ghettoes, or enclaves, as the word has such sensitive and pejorative connotations - where citizens from another nation reside, for one reason or another.
These enclaves, often attract people of the same beliefs and similar economic backgrounds who find it hard to assimilate into the main society, but very often do not want to do so, thereby establishing a society within a society with neither side attempting to integrate or attempt to create a unified "whole". Over the years, as the divide between the societies widens, so does the animosity, which can and does flare up into violence.
Burden
On the one side, immigrants often take issue with their inability to find gainful employment; on the other side it may be that main society perceives immigrants as a burden upon the state, which becomes aggravated when unemployment and living costs increase. To add to this heady cocktail of adversity can also be a lack of understanding, or dislike, of the immigrants' religion - and I am not talking about any one particular religion, but all which are considered alien to a Christian society.
When Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, spoke of absorbing certain aspects of Sharia law there was uproar in Britain. The reaction can be sectioned into different compartments.
The first, and easiest to deal with, is the reaction from the mainly tabloid press. The word "Sharia" was like a red rag to a bull - they could only see "jihad" and so led their readers down this path, wrong-footing them at every step, mainly because they have no knowledge of what is jihad or how one becomes a jihadi. As in a number of Christian societies, they combine Sharia, jihad and 9/11 in the same breath, thereby doing a great disservice to the millions of Muslims around the world to whom terrorism is totally alien. But then why should the tabloid press worry about such matters when it can sell a few more copies of their newspaper?
An outcry could also be heard from liberal Muslims who are happy to live under the present English law, believing the interpretation of Sharia law can infringe upon the rights of women. This is a very sensitive issue in Islamic societies, and one I shall not dwell upon, but suffice to say certain sections of liberal Islamic society were quick to express their views.
The last group to be heard was those who thought English law to be satisfactory as it is (this included the British prime minister, and the former Archbishop of Canterbury) as it needed no absorption of another form of law. This is why it is also thought that if any absorption is needed, then it is better for naturalised citizens to assimilate fully into their newly adopted society.
Send us your comments
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Gulf News may edit comments for length and clarity but will not change the tone of the message. Comments will only be accepted if all fields (including name) are filled correctly and the message isn't abusive, defamatory or offensive. The Gulf News website will only print your first name along with your comment. Please state in the message if you wish to remain anonymous. All comments sent may be forwarded for use in the Gulf News newspaper.
