Monday, 02.11.08

My Shari'a

by Adrian Dennis / Getty Images

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has called the eventual adoption of some form of shari'a law for British Muslims "inevitable."

A chorus of critics has since condemned the Archbishop, the eccentric prelate some wags affectionately refer to as "the ArchDruid." But is it self-evidently true that Islamic law is incompatible with modernity, or that a liberal state can't embrace some forms of religious law? Consider India, where the formidably titled Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937 was seen as a landmark in minority rights. As in many countries, Indian family law is determined in part by religious boards -- for Christians, Parsis, Hindus, and Muslims -- that draw on and interpret faith traditions to adjudicate disputes. The system is by no means universally popular. Many Hindu chauvinists oppose Muslim personal law in an effort to denigrate a minority they see as a fifth column. Some secular liberals oppose it on grounds that a liberal state demands a uniform civil code. Then there Muslims who want to see Muslim personal law revised in response to changing social norms. And that, difficult though this may be to believe, is well within the Islamic tradition. Shari'a has historically evolved in response to local conditions and cultural traditions, and one would assume the same would be true of a shari'a for British Muslims. By bringing these practices into the light of day, by forcing the women and men who embrace Islamic law to take part in wide-ranging public discussion, we'd bring members of hidebound, isolated communities into the light of liberal modernity.
— Reihan Salam

Filed Under: Britain, Europe, Islam, religion