The reaction indicates how touchy is any discussion of the relations between Islam and Western society. Remember the response from the other side to Pope Benedict XVI’s Regensburg address.

Because of the attacks on the archbishop, we need to emphasize what he did not say. He did not favor having criminals judged and punished under Islamic law. He did not favor having two parallel judicial systems, one for Muslims and the other for everyone else. He did not favor denying rights to Muslim women that they enjoy under British law. He acknowledged that coercive authority must remain with the state.

Rather, he was concerned with “the reluctance of a dominant rights-based philosophy to acknowledge the liberty of conscientious opting-out from collaboration in procedures or practices that are in tension with the demands of particular religious groups.” He objected when secular law looked on religious motivation or values as somehow stupid, irrelevant or even insane. He attempted to raise questions for discussion rather than to give definitive answers.

It might help to look shari`a as a law that applies to persons not geography. It covers Muslims wherever they live and it need not apply to non-Muslims even in a Muslim state. A believing Muslim is already bound by shari`a even if he or she is living in a non-shari`a state. All the rules about diet, prayer, relations with others bind the believer even if there is no state enforcement. So you can actually say that shari`a is already operative in the Britain and the United States among Muslims.

In that it might be compared to canon law for Catholics. Church law forbids divorce between two validly married Catholics, but that does not mean they cannot ignore church law and get a divorce from the state. But a civil divorce does not mean they can be married in a Catholic church. Likewise, a Catholic with an annulment can get married. But civil law requires such Catholics to get a civil divorce before remarrying.

Catholics freely choose to be bound by church law. The Swiss Guard does not enforce it. But as long as they do not interfere in the rights of others, civil law should allow them space to live their beliefs.

Unlike Catholic canon law, shari`a is not codified in a form that is recognized by all Muslims. In fact, the very complexity of what shari`a actually means is a good argument for the state legal system not to get involved in it.

One wonders why people are concerned about implementing shari`a in the United States and Britain when there appears to be little or no pressure for this from Muslims themselves. In most instances in the world where there is a popular push for the implementation of shari`a, for example in Northern Nigeria, what is at issue is not adultery and drunkenness (which are easy enough to punish and make headlines) but widespread corruption and injustice. The U.S. and Europe already have functioning legal systems that deal with these issues and most Muslims recognize that the aims of the shari`a in these areas are already met by existing systems.