Postgraduate Alumni Regional Research Day Conference
27 March 2010 York St John University
Secular Monopoly vs Interactive Pluralism:
Revisiting Rowan Williams’ Lecture on Sharia Law
Sebastian Kim
Introduction
1. Rowan Williams and the role of the Archbishop in Britain
2. Archbishop’s lecture on Sharia law
‘There is a position – not at all unfamiliar in contemporary discussion – which says that to be a citizen is
essentially and simply to be under the rule of the uniform law of a sovereign state, in such a way that any
other relations, commitments or protocols of behaviour belong exclusively to the realm of the private and of
individual choice.
… a defence of an unqualified secular legal monopoly in terms of the need for a universalist doctrine of
human right or dignity is to misunderstand the circumstances in which that doctrine emerged, and that the
essential liberating (and religiously informed) vision it represents is not imperilled by a loosening of the
monopolistic framework’.1
3. Responses to the lecture
‘To seek to undermine our legal system and the values on which it rests, in a spirit of unnecessary
appeasement to an alien set of values, is a kind of treason. It is a betrayal of all those who struggled and
died here, over the centuries, for freedom and equality under the rule of law and of their courage in the face
of injustice and unreason’.2
‘For 200 years it has been assumed that these operated in separate spheres: the law regulates my public
life, faith or religion operates in private. This was always a dangerous half-truth, since many of the great
world faiths, including Christianity itself, actually claim that all of life is included within religious obedience’.3
4. Issues relating to public engagement of the church
a) Rationale for the involvement of the church in public affairs
‘I am arguing that the sphere of public and political negotiation flourishes only in the context of larger
commitments and visions, and that if this is forgotten or repressed by a supposedly neutral ideology of the
public sphere, immense damage is done to the moral energy of a liberal society… The struggle for a right
balance of secular process and public religious debate is part of a wider struggle for a concept of the
personal that is appropriately robust and able to withstand the pressures of a functionalist and reductionist
climate… without this dimension, the liberal ideal becomes deeply anti-humanist’. 4
‘[The secularist agenda] discriminates against religious persons and violates the principle of equal
citizenship. It is undemocratic and ignores the wishes of a large body of citizens and even perhaps the
majority. It is impractical for there is no way of enforcing it. It is counterproductive as it is likely to alienate
religiously minded citizens from the political system and create a crisis of legitimacy. It is unwise because it
deprives political life of both the valuable insights religion offers and the moral energies it can mobilize for
just and worthwhile causes’.5
b) The role of the media in public discussion
Rowan Williams, ‘Civil and Religious Law in England: a Religious Perspective’:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575.
2 Minettee Marrin, The Sunday Times, 10 Feb 2008.
3 Tom Wright, http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=277.
4 Rowan Williams, http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/654.
5 Bhikhu Parekh, Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory (New York: Palgrave, 2000), 324.
1
‘It is also a reminder – if such reminders are needed – that this is a woefully anti-intellectual society, fed on a
daily diet of the tabloid press and reality television, and apparently incapable of engaging in intelligent public
debate about significant issues… They have also revealed again just how chauvinistic the media in Britain
can be, in this case by preying on public perceptions of Islam as a misogynistic and barbaric religion…’6
‘… while Britain needs this debate, it appears to lack the discipline to conduct it in a civilised way. The scale
of the backlash, some of the language used and the haste with which some opponents of the archbishop
have reached for crude stereotypes of Islam is dispiriting. It is unedifying to see the majority culture turn with
near unanimous scorn on a minority. It suggests that secular Britain is deeply insecure about the durability of
its own culture… It is a contest that reveals just as much about modern Britain as any treatise on faith. It is
the contrast between reasonable, sensible exposition of an idea, whatever its merits, and unthinking,
poisonous, prejudiced reaction’.7
‘We need to deflate some of the rhetoric about the media as guardians and nurturers of democracy simply
by virtue of the constant exposure of 'information', and we need to be cautious about a use of 'public interest'
language that ignores the complexity and, often, artificiality of our ideas of 'the public'… we need a form of
self-regulation that admits provisionality and provides means of assessment. We need journalistic work that
equips its own critics’.8(Rowan Williams)
c) ‘Secular legal monopoly’ vs. ‘interactive pluralism’ in a multicultural society
A religion is more than a collection of rules and habits: it is a complete moral and philosophical system with
deep claims upon the inner and outer life of the adherent, from cradle, through schooling, and beyond. The
rules it lays down – the private laws – are of a more commanding kind than the rules of Scrabble or the High
Peak Hunt because they are morally joined-up: joined with a loyalty beyond the State; joined within an
overarching faith and its explanations of the Universe. Dr Williams knows this. He preaches it. It is the
reason he wants more autonomy for faith communities. And it is the reason we should resist him. 9
In other words, Williams is putting forward a model for a pluralist, liberal, state, governed by the impartial rule
of law, which preserves the heritage of the Enlightenment. Williams does not think that the model he is
proposing is a step away from universality, the Enlightenment or the freedoms we have so painfully won
over the last few centuries. Indeed, he thinks the model he is proposing is more accountable, transparent
and realistic about how freedom is preserved than any model of unqualified secular monopoly. It is more
serious about binding religious citizens fully into publicly accountable conversation as religious; more serious
about working against the creation of cultural and religious ghettos isolated from the mainstream of public
discourse… It is a vision of society as religious and secular; a defence of religious freedom that is at the
same time an interpretation and defence of secularity. 10
d) Sharia law and women
it would be a Britain in which the individual Muslim – maybe female, maybe ambitious, maybe gay, maybe a
religious doubter – would lose their chances of rescue from his or her family or community by the State. The
State, not family, faith or community, is the guarantor of personal liberty and intellectual freedom, and it will
always be to the State, not the Church, synagogue or mosque, that the oppressed individual needs look. 11
Multiculturalism was formed with good intentions as a counter-reaction. But it has become a mirror-image of
this old racism, treating Muslim women – and others – as so different that they do not deserve the same
rights as the rest of us. As the European-Iranian feminist Azar Majedi puts it: "By creating different laws and
judicial systems for each ethnic group, we are not fighting racism. In fact, we are institutionalising it”.12
Conclusion: Public engagement of the church
Tina Beattie, ‘Rowan Williams and Sharia Law’,
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/faith_ideas/europe_islam/sharia_law_uk.
7 Leader, ‘Wrong, Dr Williams, but the Debate is Right’, The Observer 10 Feb 2008.
8 Rowan Williams, ‘The Media: Public Interest and Common Good’, http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/992
9 Matthew Parris, The Times, 9 Feb 2008.
10 Mike Higton, ‘Rowan Williams and Sharia: Defending the Secular’, International Journal of Public Theology, 2/4 (2008),
400-417.
11 Matthew Parris, The Times 9, Feb 2008.
12 Johann Hari, The Independent 11 Feb 2008.
6
The Observer 10 Feb 2008
The Sunday Times 10 Feb 2008
The Observer 10 Feb 2008
The Independent 10 Feb 2008
The Sunday Telegraph 10 Feb 2008