Being an American, I don’t have any right (or necessary background) to comment knowledgeably on British jurisprudence, but the Archbishop’s actual proposal seems to make considerable sense to me, and to carry a potential promise of helping somewhat to “clean up” relations between indigenous Britons and immigrating Muslims.

But I have three concerns:

(1) it seems hard for me to believe that the negative reaction could not at least to some degree have been foreseen by His Grace and/or his advisors. If – as he did in his remarks at Synod – he had simply avoided the dreaded word “sharia”, and spoke of “Islamic traditions of jurisprudence” or some such, I am certain there would have been little more than a ripple in the media. One is almost forced to ask if he has no sympathetic sensitivity to his public. Can he not “hear himself” with the ears of his listeners? Does he not recognize a red flag before a bull? Is he out-of-touch with his people? Some of us here have a sense that he doesn’t know us Episcopalians, either.

(2) Is it unreasonable to think of his comments in reference to the current battle for “religious exemptions” from British law? Does he here express a principle – i.e., the rights of a religious exception in law – which will support the C of E’s efforts to “escape” from laws against discrimination? Or is that “writing in” more than one ought accurately to surmise?

(3) As an Episcopalian, I am concerned about how the Archbishop might apply his principled support for a religious minority in our Province. For him, would that minority in America be the gays and lesbians whom our church has at least attempted to embrace, or (more likely?) the very small minority of reactionary “conservative” Episcopalians? Will he apply this principle by supporting the self-acclaimed “orthodox” minority? (Curiously, gays and lesbians make something near 10% of the population, and the “orthodox” something near 10% of the Church membership – about an even toss.)

I would be gratefully happy to hear any response to these concerns, and I thank you, Justin, for your elegant analysis of the address. It is my first visit to your site, but I shall be back with some regularity hereafter.

A couple of answers to specific comments:

Richard Turnbull (09 Feb 2008 at 11:24 am)

You say that “yet again this misses the point”. As far I am away this was the first time I had written anything about the speech, so presumably you are lumping me in with a lot of other point-misses. You seem to have two points. First that it is the Archbishop’s fault if he is misconstrued by a wider public, even if the wider public haven’t bothered to understand what he is trying to say. That seems unreasonably harsh. There is a Richard Turnbull I know of who has a very particular public persona in the blogosphere based upon, perhaps, a partial understanding of his decisions and motivations. I wonder whether that Richard Turnbull would be as eager to blame the messenger for the reception of the message?

Second, you criticise the Archbishop for a speech he did not make. That also seems unfair. You could just as unreasonably complain that the Archbishop did not speak about the principles of Christian stewardship or a Christian response to animal rights. +ABC did not set out “to adequately represent what Christians believe about law and duty to God or to account for different approaches in Christianity” (I have heard him do so, but in other times and places). Deal with the speech that he did make, not the one you would’ve liked him to make.

Andrew Brown on 10 Feb 2008 at 9:17 am

Wow. Thanks for calling by (long time fan). I’m glad you don’t want to defend stupid journalists, as you give us so much pleasure in your Church Times column pointing out the laziness of what passes for much of today’s (religious) journalism. I think you are overly harsh on +ABC for not pointing out the unacceptable harshness of most contemporary Islamic jurisprudence. As Mike Higton as emphasised, Rowan is extremely forceful in affirming the benefits of an Enlightenment understanding of law:

He argues quite directly, for instance, that this freedom [religious] can’t be allowed to deny to anyone the rights that we in our society regard as universal. It can’t be allowed to curtail anyone’s full citizenship. And he is in the lecture completely uncompromising about that, and spends a good deal of his lecture asking what conditions would have to be met if our society were to move towards any kind of greater legal recognition of the role of sharia of the kind mentioned. (rest here)

Graham on 10 Feb 2008 at 9:52 pm

Thanks for your kind comment. I must admit I didn’t think much of the d’Ancona opinion piece. It struck me as a slightly more wordy version of the Sun’s vituperation, and adds more to the Two Minute’s Hate than it does to any understanding of what the Archbishop said and what the implications are.

John Omani on 10 Feb 2008

Again thanks for your thoughtful contribution. I can’t say I agree with it. The sovereignty of the Crown is a red herring, as much of the Crown’s sovereignty is already delegated in one form or another: that’s what parliament is, after all. Your concern of a state within a state is, if you are a eurosceptic, is a bolted horse. We already have extra-national jurisdiction over some of the actions of the Queen’s subjects: it’s the various UN treaties and Council of Europe directives we are signed up to that prevent torture and cruel and inhuman punishment. And anywhere, I don’t think your point that any delegation of the Crown’s authority will automatically lead to diplomatic nonsense has proved to be the case: my local town council hasn’t yet declared war on France or made peace with the Taleban!

You have done a great piece of work here.

It is a pity Rowan Williams is unable to write or speak as clearly as you can.

His thought processes reall do seem as straggly as his beard.

Worse, however you read it – the speech is a foolish and dangerous mistake

If you want to be frigtened and amused, go to

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/10/nsharia310.xml&posted=true&_requestid=393440

Even so, I think his lecture should be criticised on its own terms. He is setting up a kind of make-believe in which, for example “while such universal claims are not open for renegotiation, they also assume the voluntary consent or submission of the believer, the free decision to be and to continue a member of the umma.” I just don’t see how that assertion can possibly be reconciled with the attitude to apostasy that seems common to all schools of Muslim jurisprudence, however they may disagree about whether death should be the punishment.

To unpick some of these implications:

‘The authority which allows an equal citizenship should not be turned into the source of all authority in society. That way leads to ghettoisation’

This is nonsense; the rule of law works in precisely the opposite way. That authority which guarantees an equal citizenship, i.e. the rule of law under the English crown, is what also guarantees against ghettoisation in society. It is the Archbishop’s proposals for a marketplace of ’supplementary juristictions’ which would encourage community separation and segregation.

‘So much of the normal rhetoric about universal rule of law misunderstands the origins of the idea, and so feels threatened by ideas of loosening a monopoly.’

But this is because the rule of law is ultimately tied to sovereignty; if one creates a situation where in the territory of the United Kingdom the rule of a foreign law operates, under the authority of, say, the Koran and Hadith, then the Crown no longer retains juristiction over that area. That would require an Act of Parliament to create a separate jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning “law” and dicere meaning “to speak”) in which the Queen’s rule no longer applied. The possibility then arises that this legal entity could make treaties with another entity; without the universal rule of English law over that territory or space, one can quickly see what would happen if that monopoly were loosened. The Archbishop’s suggestions would lead to a state within a state. The constitutional and political implications of this are staggering.

‘can we really (theoretically and practically) have anything other than a legal monopoly ie one authoritative legal system?’

No, we cannot, unless you wish to destroy the sovereignty of the Crown (or the state). The religious scruples the Archbishop mentions have been incorporated as part of English law, not through the importation or incorporation of some foreign system. Although the Orthodox Jewish Courts have authority to act as tribunals to make decisions in arbitration disputes, this is under the authority of the 1996 Arbitration Act. Jewish religious law has not been incorporated into English law. Their dispute resolution is informal and voluntary. Their religious marriage and divorce rituals have no status in English law (with the exception of one aspect designed to help resolve an anomaly in Jewish divorce law); for the state to recognise their marriages or divorces, Jews have to marry or be divorced according to English law just like everyone else.

‘But there could be very real damage done by unrelenting application of universalist law upon all minorities in our society…This might seem uncomfortably like a “market” in law, but the diverse, plural nature of our society already makes it seem unavoidable.’

On the contrary, the creation of a legal ‘market’ is to be avoided at all costs.

Also, I understand that the state of Israel has Sharia courts for Muslims and Druze, ecclesiastical courts for Christians and rabbinical courts for Jews. See http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Politics/judiciary.html. The Archbishop may want to look at Israel and India for a practical solution to the challenges he raised.