My understanding is that Muslims in Great Britain have not entered into British civil society as much as most Muslims have in the United States. In America we have separation of religion and government, but Britain has an established religion, the Church of England. I do not in any way want to imply that Muslims in this country are not as faithful in practicing their religion as are their fellow believers in other parts of the world. I am not aware, however, of any outcry by American Muslims to be allowed to live under sharia law.

This lecture (similar to a keynote address) was given in the Temple Festival series of lectures before an audience of judges and lawyers. The Archbishop is often very nuanced in his statements about theology or the church, perhaps to his detriment, so it is difficult and somewhat dangerous to attempt to summarize his statements.

Nevertheless, having read his address, I think that he was clearly focusing on the topic of the series, Civil and Religious Law in England. He pointed out that one of the strongest anxieties in the Muslim communities in British society was the desire to live under sharia law. He pointed out that there was not a simple standoff between Islamic and British law, in that sharia depends on the conviction that it represents the mind of God.

The Archbishop points out that if the law of the land takes no account of what is for certain people a “proper rationale for behavior” it falls short of “communicating” with someone involved in the legal process. But if the legal system should protect individuals on grounds of their corporate religious identity, perhaps in some manner of delegating certain legal functions to the religious court of a community a number of queries or objections arise. The Archbishop discussed three such objections, not the least of which was that in some areas, especially family law, recognition of some “supplementary jurisdiction” could reinforce some of the most repressive elements in the society, particularly concerning the role and liberties of women.

He does think that they must think harder about the role of law in “a plural society of overlapping identities,” looking at law as the mechanism whereby every participant is protected against the loss of certain elemental liberties. These issues are the matters he thinks should be discussed. But he says that to think intelligently about the relation of Islam and British law, we must think about the very nature of law. All this is hardly covered in a short memo.