Sharia law an antidote to modernity or legislating misogyny?

When the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, opened this can of worms, he must have cut his hand on the tin. His suggestion that sharia law might have a place within British law has left a gash in his support base so wide that it will need umpteen stitches just to stop the bleeding.

Minette Marrin in the Times of London accuses him of treason, while her colleague Matthew Parris calls him downright dangerous for even suggesting that sharia law might be given any consideration for any kind of status within British law.

Both of the Times‘s religious blogs — Faith Central (Libby Purvis) and Articles of Faith (Ruth Gledhill) use their forums to launch attacks on the archbishop.

Gledhill in particular has been outspoken, including an appearance on Sky News on Saturday where, in response to claims that the archbishop had been taken out of context, she stated that he, of all people, should know that we are living in a day and age of sound bites where he has to be extremely careful when expressing his views.

The Independent‘s Muslim columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown was scathing in her attack on the archbishop and sharia, calling it a law made by bearded men for men, attacking most sharia as a distortion of the Qur’an and lambasting Williams for even suggesting a revisiting of the law from which many refugees have fled.

Catherine Bennett, writing for the Sunday Observer, followed this thinking: “It’s one sharia for men and quite another for women.” In examining the misogynist nature of the law, she also takes aim at Prime Minister Gordon Brown, saying that he must have been delighted to have a full go at multiculturalism without being called a racist.

The Observer also had a leader in which it posed what it saw as three salient questions: What did the archbishop say, was he right and should he, as head of the Church of England, be passing judgement on Islamic law?

The Sunday Telegraph headlined with “Sharia law may result in ‘legal apartheid’“. It cited religious leaders — including Lord Carey and Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor — who are of the belief that multiculturalism and sharia law would prove divisive and destroy Britain’s culture and values.

While certain sections of the Anglican Church have come out in support of Williams, the overwhelming majority is, to put it mildly, unimpressed. On British television we were treated to members claiming that while they would not be calling for his head, they would back anyone who did.

Accordingly and in the interest of fairness, I feel obliged to direct you to Williams’s website. What is of importance is that he says that rather than suggesting some sort of parallel law, he had observed, as a matter of fact, that certain provisions of sharia are recognised in British society and under the law.

Is that, in fact, not correct?

In South Africa, we recognise certain marriage and divorce laws from other religions, which does not detract from the fact that a South African civil divorce is still required.

As a Jew, I recognise the religious authority of the Beth Din while still considering myself bound to the laws of the Republic of South Africa. So why would sharia law be cause for concern either here or in the United Kingdom where it is probably observed along the same lines?

Nobody as far as I can make out is suggesting the removal of one and transplanting of the other — not even in the form of a parallel law. The law of the country concerned remains decisive and untouched.

Moreover, sharia law, like any other, is observed differently throughout the world. What is enforced in Saudi Arabia may not find application in Pakistan and other Muslim countries. Jason Burke examines this in his article for the Guardian.

What I found particularly interesting were the views of the women from Pakistan expressed therein. Well-educated and articulate, these women seek the certainty found in sharia law, which they feel secular law seems to lack. They believe it will shield them from the chaos and violence of the modern world.

My question to Burke is this: How representative of modern Muslim women is this?

Above, we saw over and over again the views of British women who are vehemently opposed to sharia law as it discriminates against them. Granted, these women, even the Muslims among them, are very Westernised, but that does not detract from the fact that they see sharia law as designed by men, for men and against women.

Daily we are treated to stories about Muslim women from Iran, Pakistan and beyond who are no longer prepared to be subservient to men — advised that they are a silent mass even in places such as Tehran and Rawalpindi.

Of course this begs the question whether sharia law discriminates against women, or gives them a different role within Muslim society. This is best answered by Muslim readers and religious leaders rather than the rest of us.

I do know, for example, that some Jewish women do feel that Judaism is chauvinistic in certain areas. These traditions and laws, which have survived thousands of years, have been regarded by some to be out of place in a modern world. As an Orthodox Jew, I’ll leave that to others to decide.

As the leader in the Observer said, while the archbishop of Canterbury may well be wrong, the debate is right. The time for women and other communities affected by these laws to have their say is here. Pose the questions, and hopefully those with the proper background and training in those laws will put forward the arguments and counter-arguments.

What may appear as misogyny to the women of Britain can, as we have seen, be regarded as a source of comfort to the women of Pakistan.

In order to understand why, we have to ask the questions.