Back to main News & Musings page

February 8th, 2008

I see from the papers today that the Archbishop of Canterbury has apparently argued for Islamic law in Britain.   This is clearly a controversial concept and there is no wonder that both the "heavy" and "redtop papers" have become extremely excited about it.  

It transpires that Dr Rowan Williams suggested as much in a speech at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.   In fact, if one is to accept what is said in the Times, Dr Williams referred to a "plural jurisdiction" that would have Muslims choose whether some legal disputes were resolved in secular or Sharia courts.   The Times highlights that that the intention was that it would the "make all communities "part of the public process".

I am not sure that Dr Williams was actually suggesting the incorporation of Sharia law into the laws of England and Wales but may have merely been acknowledging "that certain conditions of Sharia law are already recognized in society".

For me, there are two main questions (at least) going on here.

The first question is about how much of this is the press building a large and roaring fire out of a few tinders mentioned in a relatively innocuous speech.   In the Times there are a few quotes from the speech of Dr Williams, which upon examination could merely have been an acknowledgement that many of the basic concepts of Islamic law are incorporated into English law.   This of course could be said about the law of many religions, which at least in the theory of such religions, rather than sometimes in the practice, incorporate values which are part of the law of this land.  

The Times then draws outraged comments from a large number of individuals across the spectrum, including the Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion and Social Action (a title not to be sniffed at), Danny Rich, Chief Executive of Liberal Judaism and Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra, a Leicester imam and an "expert in interfaith issues for the Muslim Council".  

Classic journalism!   Everyone is a little tired of the Northern Rock story and, frankly depressed by it, so some relatively innocuous comments by the Archbishop of Canterbury are seized upon by the newspapers, partially quoted and then a few "names" are wheeled out to give comments on the so-called story, thus giving an unfair and perhaps inequitable appearance of substance.

I am put in mind of two particular speeches heavily reported in the press that were the ending of illustrious careers.

Who can forget dear old Glenn Hoddle the then England football manager who alluded a little unwisely in an interview to his belief in reincarnation and referred to the fact that individuals, who are disabled in this lifetime may be in such a position as a result of sins carried out by such individuals in previous lifetimes.   Whilst I do not personally espouse this view, it is a reasonable religious view shared by many millions of people.   If you will excuse the word, he was crucified by the popular press and sacked.   (I believe "mutual consent"is the correct term).   Had England been winning a few football matches at the time, I think the press may have adopted the view that "Our Glenn" was not only an excellent football manager but "deep and contemplative" as well.

Many of you may remember Gerald Ratner , one of the retail   giants of the 1980s. He headed up the Ratner's chain of jewellers and it has been argued that he was personally responsible for turning jewellery from a high end product available only to the wealthy into an impulse buy available, in one form or another, to most.

Mr Ratner, was one day back in 1991 giving a speech to the Institute of Directors.   He joked that his Ratner's High Street chain sold a pair of earrings for under a pound, "which is cheaper than a prawn sandwich from Marks & Spencer, but probably wouldn't last as long". From what we can understand, those in attendance knew he was joking and laughed appropriately.

Buoyed up by his success in front of such an august crowd he then went on by saying a tacky sherry decanter was so cheap because it was "total crap". Cue laughter again!

On a slow day in Fleet Street, the story was picked up by a newspaper, who shall remain nameless and used as an example of " fat cats " (a much used expression in the 1980s") dining both literally and figuratively at the expense of their consumers.   A feeding frenzy (sorry about the pun) amongst pretty well every newspaper ensued and the story was soon on the front pages everywhere.  

Members of the public did not take kindly to being taken for fools, and in the furore that followed they stopped shopping at his stores.   It wiped an estimated £500m from the value of the company, and in 1994 his name was expunged from the company.

There is something about the press that has the potential to embrace the worst characteristics of the British people insofar as they build them up then knock them down.   If you listen very carefully you may hear Ratner and Hoddle, and a host of others, whispering, "no didn't really mean it, I was just joking, or I didn't realise that the press were there."   I hope you can't hear the Archbishop of Canterbury whispering the same thing.

Let us now turn to the second question which is, what if Sharia law and indeed other religious laws were available and enforceable as part of the law of the land by individuals if they were members of such religions?

I understand under Sharia law it is illegal to charge excessive or unnecessary interest on mortgages and other loans, although I am informed many Muslims believe that the payment of all such interest should be treated accordingly.   The adoption of such a law in the UK may lead to a mass conversion to Islam of home owners.

Religious Jews are not permitted to work on the sabbath (Saturday).   The conversion to Judaism of a large number of London bus conductors would incapacitate London transport on a weekend.

Now one might argue that individuals would not go as far as changing religion to secure financial and other benefits, as religion is "much more important than that."

Well, I wonder.   People go as far as to marry other people in order to secure the right to stay within this and other countries so why would they not adopt religions in order to secure other benefits?

This of course can lead on to the consideration of how important religion is or is not in the lives of people in this country today.

That however, is a discussion for another day by which time I imagine the contents of the speech of Dr Williams will be simply another forgotten headline which sold some newspapers oh and gave the Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion and Social Action, the, I imagine rare opportunity of seeing his full title reproduced the benefit of the reading public.

Back to main News & Musings page