Ideas I like:
- Sharia is not a fixed set of laws, but rather is the spirit in which laws should be formulated. Obviously then the law should be flexible for the values that we hold are in a constant state of flux.
- In a marriage both partners are equal and in a divorce all assets should be split equally (obviously there are exceptions i.e. a marriage with the intent of divorcing for financial gain.
- In Sharia law arranged marriages are prohibited.
- There is a system of nika’mutah basically a temporary marriage -the phrase literally means marriage for pleasure. It is a form of Islamic dating (although some regulations are in place).
- There is a charity tax – a proportion of your earnings is put aside to good causes.
- Banks and money lenders are not permitted to charge interest on loans. Although a service charge is permissible.

I particularly like the last one. And I think this law would fundamentally challenge western economy. It is therefore unsuprising how rampantly anti-sharia some capitalists are!

It is interesting that most negative comments which have come from a broad spectrum the Christian Right and the Secular Left have focused their arguments on two specific points.
1) The extreme interpretations of Sharia in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and
2) The legal ideology that as you put it ‘one size fits all’.

With regards the 1st point and the extremes of Sharia, Dr Williams had said he was not advocating stoning for adultery etc. But he was recommending legal overlap and a method of opt-in. He did not argue that the law should be diminished but that there should be a plurality of methods whilst maintaining the ideal of equality under the law.

Regards the 2nd point as a libertarian I critically question whether our ‘equality under the law’ is any sort of equality at all, when for example a well-heeled celebrity seems to get countless repreives from the courts on any number of criminal offences as opposed to the down-and-out dissaffected youth of urban britain who is thust into the system chewed up and continuously re-processed.
Is it the celebrity status that saw David Beckham or Alex Ferguson (for example) escape numerous speeding charges? Or did their wealth allow them to hire the best lawyers they could afford who were adept in exploiting every loophole imaginable?

And one final point – I feel that Dr Williams words have been taken out of context and blown out of all proportion (the media exaggerate – surely not?!) What I think he was trying to say was that we already have a situation where there are multiple legal codes in this country (for example Sharia law) but which has no legal authority other than within the communities that opt for it. Therefore we have a conflict of legal codes – which will only serve to isolate communities. What Dr Williams is arguing for is that a process of normalization occur – that where it is appropriate and compatible we respect the ‘authority’ of a particular legal code as chosen by its community and its legal binding status within that community.

It is really just a statement of fact!
Funnily enough the newspapers made a big deal about how for example the Catholic Church doesnt seek to ‘impose’ its moral view as secular law. A debate we’ve recently had. The journalist was trying to suggest that religious law is completely seperate from secular law. That one is binding only to the community that adheres to it, and the other binds to us all.
Yet this is blindingly naive. Take marriage for example. The Catholic position is that the ‘minister’ of marriage is the husband and wife who take vows in front of witnesses. The secular position is that marriage is only formally legal when registered by a legitimate authority. Thus a Catholic marriage has two steps to accomodate both – the service of marriage and then the signing of the certificates afterwards. In Catholic eyes the marriage is complete at the vows – the certification is unneccessary – in secular eyes the certification needs to be approved in order for the marriage (with or without a form of vows) to be validated.
So already we have two ‘legal’ codes in action – what constitutes marriage in the eyes of the Church and the state.

Similarly divorce. In the eyes of the state a judicial procedure must be undertaken in order to dissolve a marriage. The dissolution of which is recorded – and subsequently re-recorded on future registration documents i.e. on the certificate following a second marriage.
In the eyes of the Catholic church such a ‘legal divorce’ is canonically ‘illegal’. Thus remarriage would be bigamous and adulterous. The get-out clause is through what is called an “annulment” in Catholic eyes a marriage can be annulled – i.e. considered null and void, if following an enquiry certain conditions are fulfilled: for example maybe the marriage was forced, conducted under false pretences, the vows were not taken seriously, maybe the couple were too young to fully understand what they were getting into etc.
(Ironically it is rather easy to get a marriage annulled).

Anyway the point is that communities (should) choose the method of government and opt for which rules they wish to follow. It is not an uncommon state of affairs that more than one method is adopted by an individual – say the example of a Catholic who needs a civil divorce to legally remarry but also an anulment in order to do so within the Catholic church.

In a plural society we should recognise the legitimacy of these various freely chosen legal codes. And we should normalize them as far as possible in order to prevent conflict.

When the water hath planks, when gangways and railings o’erspan the stream, verily, he is not believed who then saith: “All is in flux.”

But even the simpletons contradict him. “What?” say the simpletons, “all in flux? Planks and railings are still OVER the stream!

“OVER the stream all is stable, all the values of things, the bridges and bearings, all ‘good’ and ‘evil’: these are all STABLE!”—

Cometh, however, the hard winter, the stream–tamer, then learn even the wittiest distrust, and verily, not only the simpletons then say: “Should not everything—STAND STILL?”

“Fundamentally standeth everything still”—that is an appropriate winter doctrine, good cheer for an unproductive period, a great comfort for winter–sleepers and fireside–loungers.

“Fundamentally standeth everything still”—: but CONTRARY thereto, preacheth the thawing wind!

The thawing wind, a bullock, which is no ploughing bullock—a furious bullock, a destroyer, which with angry horns breaketh the ice! The ice however—BREAKETH GANGWAYS!

O my brethren, is not everything AT PRESENT IN FLUX? Have not all railings and gangways fallen into the water? Who would still HOLD ON to “good” and “evil”?

“Woe to us! Hail to us! The thawing wind bloweth!”—Thus preach, my brethren, through all the streets!

Old and New Tables, Thus Spake Zarathustra, Nietzsche