The government, opposition and the Press have been quick to distance themselves from the Comments of The Archbishop of Canterbury with his interview for Radio 4's World at one in which he suggests that British Muslims would be better served under Sharia Law.
The mere mention of sharia law brings thoughts of amputations and public floggings to the thoughts of Westerners,but before we all jump on the bandwagon,it is important to examine Rowen William's comments.He wasn't advocating the imposition of sharia law in Britain,simply saying that in some cases it might be appropriate.
Those cases are not the satrict interpretation of the law which leads to women who are raped being stoned to death.They are the cases where civil disputes can be amicably sorted by local Muslim councils.
Yes there is no practical way that two laws can run side by side,we all accept that but why should English law be above taking the best bits of other legal systems.We react today as though our system is perfect.It is far from that as many would testify.
The Telegraph leader is worth a read on this issue.It maintains that it is the messenger that is wrong rather than the message.
The idea is not as outlandish as it may first appear.
There are already sharia councils in this country to which Muslims turn for advice and religious sanction in matters such as divorce. Likewise, Orthodox Jews have recourse to the Beth Din over, for example, dietary laws, divorce and tenancy disputes.
A further instance of legal sensitivity to religious belief is the ability of Christian doctors to opt out of abortions. So Dr Rowan Williams's argument that there should be "a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law" is, to a certain extent, recognition of a situation which already exists.
No comments:
Post a Comment