The New Nation - Internet Edition

The Archbishop of Canterbury touched an extremely raw nerve recently and paid an extremely heavy price in suffering an unprecedented barrage of vilification normally reserved for UK's Muslim communities. In a lecture on Civil and Religious Law in England, Dr Rowan Williams dared to float the idea that some role for Islamic arbitration could be recognised within the secular legal system. His core aim, he said, was to "to tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state." But it did not prevent an ensuing wave of mass hysteria in the media and from certain politicians, deliberately misrepresenting his views. The Sun describing the primate as a "dangerous threat to the nation," who "handed al-Qaida a victory." The Express claimed that he had "surrendered to fanatics." Even the BBC news deceptively showed images of Muslims being flogged in a Muslim country as commentary on the speech was being analysed.

In his speech the Archbishop spoke of the way in which the term Shari'ah is not only misunderstood, but is the focus of much fear and anxiety. He also warned that "sensational reporting of opinion polls" clouded the issue. The Editor of The Muslim News, who was present at the lecture, immediately predicted to those sitting with him that there would be a negative reaction the next day, and that it would be Muslims who would bear the brunt of the attack, as one of the most demonised words in the British media had been uttered. But what was interesting was that most of the attacks were launched without the attackers having even read the speech. When the Satanic Verses was published in 1988, Muslims condemned the book as it denigrated the Prophet and his wives, and the media and politicians criticised the Muslim community for reacting without having read the book. It is ironic that the adverse Muslim reaction to the book was condemned as it could be superceded by the loftier notion of free speech, and yet the Archbishop's brave use of this very same right was condemned as it could be superceded by sheer hysterical ignorance.

The unsurprising response attacking Muslims and Islam was articulated as if it was Muslims who wanted their own law, a parallel system. Not only did Dr Williams not advocate a parallel system of 'sharia' law, but Muslims were vilified for something that someone else did not say.

From The Daily Telegraph front page headline 'Adopt sharia law in Britain'; The Times' 'Archbishop argues for Islamic law in Britain'; The Independent's two page headline 'Archbishop of Canterbury warns sharia law in Britain is inevitable' with a photograph of Muslim women in the niqab to The Sun's front page carrying the headline 'What a burkha' and a woman in niqab giving the two-fingered salute and The Daily Express' front page headline 'Muslim laws must come to Britain', the media not only responded to something that wasn't, they made sure they portrayed Muslims in a derogatory manner while they were at it. When the media discuss Jewish rabbinical courts, the Beth Din, which are already established, there is simply no parallel to this kind of reaction. However, among the choristers of vilification some should have known better. The Prime Minister's Spokesperson said, "Our general position is that sharia law cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor should the principles of sharia law be included in a civil court for resolving contractual disputes." Tory Party's Minister for Community Cohesion and Social Action, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, said, "All British citizens must be subject to British laws developed through Parliament and the courts." Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, Khalid Mahmood, said, "What part of Sharia law does he want? The sort that is practised in Saudi Arabia…Muslims do not need special treatment…" Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, said, "Equality before the law is part of the glue that binds our society together. We cannot have a situation where there is one law for one person and different laws for another." Head of the Catholic community in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, said, "When people come into this country they have to obey the laws of the land. The laws of this country don't allow forced marriages or polygamy." And Shaista Gohir, a member of the Government created National Muslim Women's Advisory Group was quoted on BBC News On Line saying she did not believe there was a need for Shari'ah courts because "the majority of Muslims do not want it."

If there are any lessons to be learnt, they are that the demonisation of Muslims in the current climate is so widespread, it is impossible to have a serious debate about virtually any issue concerning them, let alone about equal rights or integration.

It is no wonder Muslims felt beleaguered when this speech came in the same week of suspicions about the reported police bugging of Muslim MP, Sadiq Khan, and the Government's ceding to ban 81-year old Islamic scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi from entering the UK after previously having encouraged him to come to counter al-Qai'da propaganda. An Associate Editor of The Guardian, Seumas Milne, suggests, "When politicians and newspapers denounce 'preachers of hate', it increasingly sounds as though they're talking about themselves." Last month, The Muslim News warned that the Bishop of Rochester's latest Islamophobic outburst was a danger to tolerance, respect and humility, especially in relation to other faiths. Everyone knows that the media often acts in a highly irresponsible way, but what excuse do politicians have, other than wanting to jump on the bandwagon for a good sound bite? Are these the shared values that the Government is calling on all to respect? Or more of a case of the blind leading the blind to obscurity?

(Source: MUslim News, UK)