On their knees in the Temple
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s infamous lecture on sharia was the launch event of a series of discussions at Temple Church under the heading ‘Islam in English law’. The very title of this series might well raise an eyebrow among those who believe naively that the law of the land is the law for all minorities, since it assumes by definition that the extent to which Islam may or may not be accommodated by English law is an issue to be discussed. Now Temple Church – the church of the Inner and Middle Temple, the Inns of Court -- is publicising its next event in this series:
Can Moral or Religious Obligation ever justify the Use of Force Inadmissible under Secular Law?The line up is as follows:
Chair: Sir James Craig
(Ambassador to Saudi Arabia 1979-1984)Introduction and Summary:Dr Lynn Welchman
(Head of the Law School, School of Oriental and African Studies, and described as 'an authority on honour codes in Islamic societies and on anti-terrorism law in Arab societies)Speakers:Prof Abdullahi An-Na'im (Professor of law at Emory University, and described as an 'internationally recognised scholar of Islam and human rights,human rights in cross-cultural perspectives and Islam and politics)
Prof Tariq Ramadan (Erasmus University, Rotterdam)
It really is deeply troubling that the Inner Temple should be associated with such an event. First and foremost, it is shocking that such a question should even be posed. Even if the answer from each participant is 'no', the question should not be asked. There should simply never be instances where the use of force which is forbidden under English law is justified. The law of the land is, or should be, the law. Of course, under tyranny an entirely different set of norms applies; but this is not some abstract discussion about a hypothetical situation. It is a discussion about the relationship between Islam and English law. And merely asking the question presupposes the possibility that there might be circumstances where force mandated by sharia (killing of apostates? Stoning of adulterers? Jihad against unbelievers?) would be justified in Britain.
Moreover, given the line-up I somehow don't think that the argument for the robust defence of western civilisation will be on prominent display at this event -- ie, I doubt very much whether any of the participants will object to the terms of the discussion on the grounds that this question would not be asked in respect of any other minority culture in Britain.
Whatever has happened to the Temple?