The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has gone and done it.  He mentioned the “M” word.  Let’s hope he’s prepared for all the fire and brimstone he’s about to face.  The Archbishop gave a radio interview and later gave a speech where he raised the issue of sharia law (Islamic based jurisprudence) and how he thought that its adoption at least in part “seems unavoidable”.

In a considered and thoughtful speech the archbishop added "We already have in this country a number of situations in which the internal law of religious communities is recognised by the law of the land as justifying conscientious objections in certain circumstances."

Dr Williams made a number of astute points about the issue that in normal times would give everyone food for thought and perhaps initiate a considered debate on the topic of civil law.  The problem is we aren’t living in “normal times”.  Prepare for lots of ominous warnings about beheadings, limb amputations and stoning and the thin end of the wedge in the gutter press.  The argument is simply too nuanced for their Editors.

Sharia is already here in the form of products and services such as sharia-compliant mortgages and food.  Secular law has already been altered to accommodate them.  They provide additional choice to consumers and give the suppliers new opportunities - a rare win-win situation.

The Archbishop alluded to Beth Din courts that are already established in the UK allowing British Jews an option to choose religious law in certain civil law matters instead of secular common law.  In effect the Bishop was arguing why Muslims can’t have the same.  Dr Rowan has a case but there are more powerful counter arguments.

Firstly this type of debate plays into the hands of the far-right and their fellow travellers in the Zionist community who are only too willing to portray British Muslims as a dangerous fifth column alien to British values and harbouring hostility to its citizens.  Who are these Muslims demanding this law?  Well hardly anyone actually although some Muslims are more keen than others to contribute to the debate.

There is also the thorny issue of community cohesion.  There are problems with some Muslim communities in Britain living an insular existence and not integrating easily.  A separate civil legal system could make the issue of integration more difficult.  There has been a lot of talk about values lately when discussing the issue of “British identity”.  The legal system is one of the key elements of a shared value system.  It should be applied equally to everyone and without prejudice.  Exceptionalism would promote an “us and them” attitude and increase resentment to Muslims even further.

Another additional issue is one of sanction.  Although the debate focuses on civil law the practical issue of sanction still arises.  How would judgements by sharia courts be enforced if a party failed to comply?  Who would pay for those courts?  Islam has several schools of thought.  Which one should have sharia courts?

Lastly a contentious but little debated issue is that Muslims that emigrated to Britain came here in the knowledge that sharia law does not operate in Britain and they came here anyway and have managed to live their lives without the need for its establishment.  How many Muslim countries actually operate a proper system of sharia law?  How can we expect a non-Muslim country to do something Muslim countries have not managed to?

There are more pressing issues facing Britain’s Muslims.  Tabloid Editors and Archbishops take note.