In fairness, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, could hardly have avoided speaking about Islamic religious law last week, given that he was delivering the inaugural lecture in a series entitled Islam in British Law, writes David Adams.
Nor was he exclusively concerned that elements of Sharia should be incorporated into the British legal system. Dr Williams's main point was that secular civil law does not make enough allowances for the role that religion in general plays within society.
I strongly disagree.
Making further legal provision for religious belief of any kind would be a retrograde step, and potentially put us on a very slippery slope. We hardly need reminding that religious edict as state law has led (and, in many countries, still does) to some of the most repressive, inhumane and anti-democratic practices imaginable. Religious law is supposedly God's will as revealed to, and interpreted by, man, though agreement on interpretation is often hard to find, even within different religions never mind across them.
The belief that a supernatural being gave us a set of rules and regulations that we must abide by is further undermined by the fact that religious leaders seem to have no difficulty in ignoring, amending or resurrecting parts of God's law whenever the notion takes them. This not only calls into question claims of immutability, but sometimes makes you wonder just how wedded some of them actually are to the central notion they are propagating. It is remarkable how often "God's will" so accurately reflects the will of the interpreter.
Even if we accept the archbishop's contention, how would we determine who qualifies for having some of their core values catered for within a legal system? It surely cannot be intended by Dr Williams that numerical strength should be the determining factor, considering that he used Sharia as his example when only about 3 per cent of the total UK population is Muslim. One can only presume that he believes some of the religious ideals of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and other minority faiths should be catered for as well.
Without a clearly defined cut-off point, how far down are we meant to go in our attempt to incorporate faith into law: to each individual citizen? The archbishop was of course right in stating that British law owes much of its origins to Jewish/Christian values, but it has evolved far from its beginnings. It now often runs contrary to biblical teaching, most notably in areas such as slavery, freedom of expression, divorce, abortion, child adoption, capital punishment, gay and women's rights, and human rights in general.
It is astonishing that anyone, even a religious leader, would advocate something that could potentially lead to a retreat from post-Enlightenment advances. What possible improvement can be made to striving for the same laws to be applied equally and fairly to all citizens, irrespective of religion, birth or station? Notably, these laws are made by public representatives who are answerable to an electorate, which is more than can be said for religious leaders.
Dr Williams argues that while the legal system takes little account of religious conviction we run the risk of "ghettoising and effectively disenfranchising a minority, at real cost to overall social cohesion and creativity".
The opposite is actually the case.
The concept of multiculturalism (not to be confused with multi-ethnicity), which is still being relentlessly pursued by many European governments, and none more so than the British, has already created a ghettoised society in Britain and made a mockery of social cohesion. Society is breaking down into its component parts. When every incoming culture is treated as being of equal value to the indigenous one, it breeds anger, confusion and resentment within the host community. More critically, it removes much of the incentive for minority groupings to make the required effort to integrate as fully as possible into broader society.
Every city in Britain now has large, singular- identity, virtually autonomous communities existing in almost total isolation from one another. The problem continues to grow as successive emigrants flock naturally to the community that best reflects their own culture.
There, they need make little if any adjustment to the values and customs of their native land (many of which are totally at odds with western ideals regarding democracy and the rights of females) in order to fit in, sometimes not even feeling any great need to learn English.
To this already ghettoised society, Dr Williams now wants to add, albeit in limited form, a pick-and-mix legal system that allows for even further withdrawal from the mainstream. It can hardly be coincidental that the archbishop is a strong supporter of multiculturalism.
In Northern Ireland, we know something about separation and ghettoised communities, and the problems that inevitably arise from successive generations having no knowledge beyond negative caricature of those different from themselves. It is a recipe for disaster.
Unlike the archbishop, I believe that too much regard is still being paid to religion in Britain: government support for "faith" schools springs immediately to mind, reminiscent again of Northern Ireland.