L'archevêque suicidaire

Au Royaume-Uni, plusieurs voix s'élèvent pour réclamer la démission de l'archevêque de Canterbury après ses déclarations sur la loi islamique, la charia. Sa démission est même réclamée jusque dans les rangs de l'Église anglicane.

Samedi, l'archevêché de Canterbury a tenté d'éteindre cette polémique en expliquant ses propos. Sur son site web, Rowan Williams a même publié un texte en ce sens.

Jeudi dernier, il a indiqué que l'adoption de certains aspects de la loi islamique au Royaume-Uni était inévitable. Il estime que les Britanniques doivent entrevoir la loi islamique avec ouverture d'esprit. De plus, il juge qu'il est possible de parvenir à un « arrangement constructif » sur certains sujets.

Par ailleurs, il a souligné qu'il n'y a pas de place pour les châtiments extrêmes et la discrimination envers les femmes au Royaume-Uni.

De vives réactions

Ces propos avaient immédiatement déclenché de vives réactions, y compris du côté du premier ministre britannique Gordon Brown. Au moins deux membres du synode général ont réclamé la démission de Rowan Williams, tandis que le tabloïd The Sun a lancé une campagne auprès de ses lecteurs pour obtenir son départ.

L'évêque de Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, qui a des liens avec la chrétienté et l'Islam, et l'évêque de Southwark, Tom Butler, ont fait part de leurs inquiétudes après ces propos. Ce dernier a souligné que l'archevêque avait mis le pied dans un véritable « champ de mines », mais soulevé néanmoins des questions légitimes.

Pas que des mécontents

Les propos de l'archevêque ont été salués samedi par Al-Azhar. Il s'agit de la plus haute institution de l'islam sunnite. Elle juge inévitable l'adoption de certains aspects de la charia au Royaume-Uni.

L'adjoint de l'imam d'Al-Azhar, cheikh Abdel Fattah Allam, a mentionné à l'agence égyptienne Mena que les déclarations de l'archevêque ont un impact positif chez les musulmans. Il considère que, même si elles provoquent un tollé chez les Britanniques, elles « encouragent le dialogue entre les cultures et les civilisations dans un cadre de respect mutuel des religions ». Nous sommes loin de Saint Bernard. Le clergé comme le poisson pourrit par la tête.

BBC Interview

The Archbishop made no proposals for sharia in either the lecture or the interview, and certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law.

Instead, in the interview, rather than proposing a parallel system of law, he observed that "as a matter of fact certain provisions of sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law" . When the question was put to him that: "the application of sharia in certain circumstances - if we want to achieve this cohesion and take seriously peoples' religion - seems unavoidable?", he indicated his assent.

The Archbishop opened his lecture by noting importantly that the very term sharia is not only misunderstood, but is the focus of much fear and anxiety deriving from its 'primitivist' application in some contexts. As such he said that sharia is a method of law rather than a single complete and final system ready to be applied wholesale to every situation, and noted that there was room, even within Islamic states which apply sharia, for some level of 'dual identity', where the state is not in fact religiously homogenous.

In his lecture, the Archbishop sought carefully to explore the limits of a unitary and secular legal system in the presence of an increasingly plural (including religiously plural) society and to see how such a unitary system might be able to accommodate religious claims. Behind this is the underlying principle that Christians cannot claim exceptions from a secular unitary system on religious grounds (for instance in situations where Christian doctors might not be compelled to perform abortions), if they are not willing to consider how a unitary system can accommodate other religious consciences. In doing so the Archbishop was not suggesting the introduction of parallel legal jurisdictions, but exploring ways in which reasonable accommodation might be made within existing arrangements for religious conscience.

He explained that his core aim was to: "to tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state" and was using sharia as an example. These include:

- How when the law does not take seriously religious motivation, it fails to engage with the community in question and opens up real issues of power by the majority over the minority, with potentially harmful effects for community cohesion.
- How the distinction between cultural practices and those arising from genuine religious belief might be managed.
- How to deal with the possibility that a 'supplementary jurisdiction "could have the effect of reinforcing in minority communities some of the most repressive or retrograde elements in them, with particularly serious consequences for the role and liberties of women".

At the end of the lecture the Archbishop referred to a suggestion by a Jewish jurist that there might be room for 'overlapping jurisdictions' in which "individuals might choose in certain limited areas whether to seek justice under one system or another". This is what currently happens both within the Jewish arrangements and increasingly in current alternative dispute resolution and mediation practice.

He concludes his lecture with the comment:

"if we are to think intelligently about the relations between Islam and British law, we need a fair amount of 'deconstruction' of crude oppositions and mythologies, whether of the nature of sharia or the nature of the Enlightenment"

The lecture, which was given before an audience of about 1000 people and which was chaired by the Lord Chief Justice, was the first in a series of six lectures and discussions which are being given by senior Muslim and other lawyers and theologians at the Temple Church on the general theme of 'Islam in English Law'.