The Archbishop and Sharia

What can you say of the Archbishop of Canterbury's expressed belief that the adoption of Sharia law in some parts of the UK is "unavoidable"? Dr Williams is a thoughtful man who is sometimes obscure when he states his views. The very best case I can make for his views on Sharia law is this.

Commentators of conservative social views - let me cite by way of example, as they are friends of mine, Melanie Phillips of the Daily Mail and Douglas Murray of the Centre for Social Cohesion - are apt to condemn what they call moral relativism. I'm unfazed by moral relativism, not because I find it plausible but because I find it insignificant. Taken at face value, moral relativism suggests that moral standards are matters of taste about which rational argument is impossible. The fact that few people seriously believe this is demonstrated by the very ubiquity and ferocity of public debate over moral standards - which is what, it seems to me, these conservative critics find objectionable. Indeed, in her own comment about the Archbishop's intervention, Melanie states: "Without a strong religious core providing the moral, ethical and cultural ballast, the society it has been instrumental in forming becomes intensely vulnerable to collapse and colonisation."

I strongly disagree with Melanie's view. It is an essential liberal principle that rational dispute about moral standards is both healthy and inevitable, because the things we value are incommensurable (not measurable on the same scale) and not all of them are compatible. The proper way to manage disagreement about the relative weight we put on conceptions of the good life is by recognising a pluralism of values. There are a very few goods that are basic, in the sense of being intrinsic to a worthwhile life. Beyond them, there is disagreement and therefore the necessity of choosing. If I can make any sense of the Archbishop's comments, it is that religious law is part of that area of legitimate diversity.

But of course that would be wrong. The Archbishop's error would be in regarding Sharia law as part of the realm of value pluralism. Instead it strikes at the heart of a liberal society because it is about the application of law. A free society depends on common citizenship under the rule of law. Sharia law, like the law of the Ancien Régime that prescribed the torture of heretics, requires obedience as an alternative to a liberal system, as it is either partial (applying to Muslims only) or oppressive (applying to those who want no part of religious authority). That's why the Archbishop's comments are pernicious. Or, as the estimable Times religious affairs correspondent Ruth Gledhill puts it more tersely than I have: "Has the Archbishop gone bonkers?"

Comments

[Cleanthes]

Pernicious or bonkers.

That's the BEST case you can make. Oh dear...

[expat lumberjack]

Hi Oliver,

Eugene Volokh had a good post about this on his blog, though from an American point of view:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_02_03-2008_02_09.shtml#1202454061

The most relevant quote:

"American courts are governed by American law, but American law has long provided that parties to contracts can provide for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (such as arbitration). American law has likewise long provided that some contractual disputes would be resolved with reference to foreign law, especially when the law is expressly provided for by the contract. It doesn't matter whether the arbitration or the foreign law is secular or religious -- secular and religious rules are treated basically equally, on the principle that the parties' contractual choices should be honored unless some extraordinary circumstance makes it unfair to do so.

"One could argue that American courts shouldn't be able to apply religious rules because of concerns about excessive entanglement of the government and religion. But even if that's so in some situations, it wouldn't apply when a court is merely asked to confirm an arbitration award rather than to applying the religious rules in the first instance, and it also wouldn't apply when the religious rules are part of the law of a foreign country (such as Saudi Arabia)."

[Luke]

Dear Oliver Kamm,
You said in your article that you are 'unfazed' by 'Moral Relativism' because you don't find it 'significant'. Surely it should be significant for people, such as you and I, who believe in value pluralism and the virtues of a liberal society? For a moral relativist would dispute the moral arguments for the liberal society you advocate on the grounds they have no rational basis. I challange you to find a non-moral argument for the liberal society that you advocate! How can a society be advocated on terms other than moral? Therefore you should be concerned with the ideological threat 'moral relativism' may or could pose.

best wishes,

Luke Burke

[blogger]

The Archbishop is actually a muslim. When is the CoE going to get rid of him ?

[vimothy]

I fail to see what all the excitment is about. We already have religious forms of arbitrage for Catholics and Jews. Why should Muslims not have them as well? The way the whole debate has been positioned (chopping hands off murderers vs. liberal British law, which was exactly how Doug Murray was trying to spin it on Newsnight) is wholly ludicrous.

Tim Worstall pretty much summed it up for me:

The giggles rather come from the former Archbishop of Canterbury saying such a thing. Has he never heard of Canon Law? That is, a different and discrete system of laws within our society that applies to one group and one group only: the Church of England and its priests (and sometimes its adherents)?

Our Cormac also piles in: yet while a Catholic might legally divorce the Church will not recognise that, while a Catholic may remarry after such a divorce, the Church will not recognise that. We already have a splintered legal system.

And not just for religous matters either. To sign up as a doctor puts you voluntarily under the legal system of the General Medical Council, as a solicitor under the Law Society. Many contracts insist upon arbitration clauses.

http://timworstall.com/2008/02/10/sharia-law/