The defence of Western secularism against the ‘invading forces’ of Islamic Shariah lead by no less than the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams has dealt body blows to the United Kingdom and its portrayal as ‘a Western secular democracy based on human rights’. The big debate has exposed the double standards and the inherent hypocrisy in Western notions of ‘secularism’, ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy’.
For Lord Carey as he wrote in the Telegraph “[T]he watchword for any dialogue, worth its name, between Muslim and Christian communities must insist on reciprocity - - that rights guaranteed to all in the West should be granted to minorities in Muslim lands.” By tying the rights of British citizens to those of Christians outside the UK Lord Carey launched the biggest attack on secularism, democracy and human rights. May be we should remind Lord Carey that when Jesus Christ turned the other cheek he was not insisting on reciprocity!
Lord Carey has chosen to join the debate against Dr. Williams without a proper understanding of the remarks made by Dr. Williams and without reflecting on how Shariah works in countries that are secular and democratic.
Lord Carey raises fears of a parallel system of justice. However Dr. Williams called for the Shariah to be introduced as the personal law of Muslims in the UK and not for anything more. It would be a parallel system only in the limited area of marriage and divorce. In any case special or parallel legal regimes are not strange to the English Legal System. The Jews have their Beth Din. There is nothing in principle that prevents the existence of special legal regimes for special communities governing special relationships. India is a text book example.
Another criticism levelled to the introduction of the Shariah is the lack of universal agreement in its application and interpretation. If that was the yardstick upon which the legitimacy of a legal principle was to be assessed then there would be little of English common law remaining. It is inherent in religious institutions and laws that they are subjected to an array of views most often contradicting each other. No stranger to such multiplicity of controversial views is the Anglican Church itself of which Lord Carey was once the head.
In his article Lord Carey cites harassment of minority Christian communities in Muslim majority countries. Firstly it is unfortunate and secondly it is un-Islamic. But then how could Church burning be an argument against the introduction of Shariah law if there is no principle in Shariah that advocates or urges people to burn Churches? Mosques are burnt in the secular West. Could that then be the fault of the secular laws?
There is an argument also made that Shariah law is contrary to human rights and disadvantages women. Shariah will never live up to the Western standards of women’s right which allows a woman to remove her hijab but prevents her from wearing it. Western notion of liberalism and freedom is the freedom of a horse in a stable, restricted to the four corners of what the West perceives as being right and wrong.
Even though the West pontificates to the rest of the world about equality and the treatment of minorities the outrage against the comments expressed by Dr. Williams exposes its double standards. It shows that there are some in British society who have a difficulty in accepting certain segments of the population purely on the basis of religion and culture. They seem to hold the view that Muslims are and should be second class citizens. These thoughts are the biggest threats to a secular, free and democratic United Kingdom. Respecting minorities and appreciating the fact that they are different from us and making room for them to live in our society as equal citizens would be what is truly British and it is something that we can achieve.
For Lord Carey as he wrote in the Telegraph “[T]he watchword for any dialogue, worth its name, between Muslim and Christian communities must insist on reciprocity - - that rights guaranteed to all in the West should be granted to minorities in Muslim lands.” By tying the rights of British citizens to those of Christians outside the UK Lord Carey launched the biggest attack on secularism, democracy and human rights. May be we should remind Lord Carey that when Jesus Christ turned the other cheek he was not insisting on reciprocity!
Lord Carey has chosen to join the debate against Dr. Williams without a proper understanding of the remarks made by Dr. Williams and without reflecting on how Shariah works in countries that are secular and democratic.
Lord Carey raises fears of a parallel system of justice. However Dr. Williams called for the Shariah to be introduced as the personal law of Muslims in the UK and not for anything more. It would be a parallel system only in the limited area of marriage and divorce. In any case special or parallel legal regimes are not strange to the English Legal System. The Jews have their Beth Din. There is nothing in principle that prevents the existence of special legal regimes for special communities governing special relationships. India is a text book example.
Another criticism levelled to the introduction of the Shariah is the lack of universal agreement in its application and interpretation. If that was the yardstick upon which the legitimacy of a legal principle was to be assessed then there would be little of English common law remaining. It is inherent in religious institutions and laws that they are subjected to an array of views most often contradicting each other. No stranger to such multiplicity of controversial views is the Anglican Church itself of which Lord Carey was once the head.
In his article Lord Carey cites harassment of minority Christian communities in Muslim majority countries. Firstly it is unfortunate and secondly it is un-Islamic. But then how could Church burning be an argument against the introduction of Shariah law if there is no principle in Shariah that advocates or urges people to burn Churches? Mosques are burnt in the secular West. Could that then be the fault of the secular laws?
There is an argument also made that Shariah law is contrary to human rights and disadvantages women. Shariah will never live up to the Western standards of women’s right which allows a woman to remove her hijab but prevents her from wearing it. Western notion of liberalism and freedom is the freedom of a horse in a stable, restricted to the four corners of what the West perceives as being right and wrong.
Even though the West pontificates to the rest of the world about equality and the treatment of minorities the outrage against the comments expressed by Dr. Williams exposes its double standards. It shows that there are some in British society who have a difficulty in accepting certain segments of the population purely on the basis of religion and culture. They seem to hold the view that Muslims are and should be second class citizens. These thoughts are the biggest threats to a secular, free and democratic United Kingdom. Respecting minorities and appreciating the fact that they are different from us and making room for them to live in our society as equal citizens would be what is truly British and it is something that we can achieve.
