I didn't comment on the press coverage of Dr. Rowan Williams' presentation on the role of Shariah law in Britain last month because, to be honest, I was disappointed at the utter ignorance of the UK media's coverage of Williams' argument. I actually was able to see and hear Williams give his presentation on the BBC Parliament TV channel where it was replayed a few days after it was given. Willams' language was academic, dense and rarely did he give concrete examples of how his theories would work out in practice.

However, Williams did give clear concessions to those who would hear the word Shariah and imagine the oppression of women, hands being cut off, and public floggings. For instance, he repeatedly made a distinction between "primitivist" interpretations of Shariah and the progressive ones he was advocating. So too, he used the phrase "there are no blank checks" when referring to how religious legal courts would practically function within the UK legal system. In other words, although Williams was speaking in a highly intellectual way, he did try to make concessions to indicate that he was in no way advocating a wholesale adoption of Shariah law in the UK.

Today the NY Times has posted an insightful and helpful article by Noah Feldman, a law professor at Harvard University. Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16Shariah-t.html. And here's the first paragraph to give a taste of what he's trying to do in this article.

"Last month, Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, gave a nuanced, scholarly lecture in London about whether the British legal system should allow non-Christian courts to decide certain matters of family law. Britain has no constitutional separation of church and state. The archbishop noted that “the law of the Church of England is the law of the land” there; indeed, ecclesiastical courts that once handled marriage and divorce are still integrated into the British legal system, deciding matters of church property and doctrine. His tentative suggestion was that, subject to the agreement of all parties and the strict requirement of protecting equal rights for women, it might be a good idea to consider allowing Islamic and Orthodox Jewish courts to handle marriage and divorce... Needless to say, the outrage was not occasioned by Williams’s mention of Orthodox Jewish law. For the purposes of public discussion, it was the word “Shariah” that was radioactive."

Feldman rightly introduces the role of religious courts in the UK before moving on to draw attention to the basic ignorance which circulates around the word Shariah. The article goes on therefore to redress this problem by offering a more thoroughgoing account of Shariah as it is being used in different political contexts around the world today. In particular, Feldman analyzes the problems that Islamist states face when they try to blend modern constitutional political structures with Islamic law. In principle Feldman recognizes, as did Williams, that there are real possibilities that Western states should explore as Islamic people take up democratic citizenship in their countries. So too, however, there are real obstacles which must be addressed and overcome. As Feldman concludes:

"The odds of success in the endeavor to deliver the rule of law are never high. Nothing is harder than creating new institutions with the capacity to balance executive dominance — except perhaps avoiding the temptation to overreach once in power. In Iran, the Islamists have discredited their faith among many ordinary people, and a similar process may be under way in Iraq. Still, with all its risks and dangers, the Islamists’ aspiration to renew old ideas of the rule of law while coming to terms with contemporary circumstances is bold and noble — and may represent a path to just and legitimate government in much of the Muslim world."