Is Islamic law compatible with secular law? Can Muslims remain true to the precepts of their faith under non-Muslim rule? These seem to be recurring questions. The recent controversy following the public announcement of the Archbishop of Canterbury regarding the possibility of incorporating aspects of Islamic law in the British legal system has brought them up again.
The Archbishop argued that 'a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law' may be possible. This is a well-meaning and accommodating position. It is also a brave one, as the backlash against the Archbishop illustrated. But there is an inherent problem with this position: it takes a literalist reading of Islam.
The literalist reading is widely assumed to be correct, by people on both sides of the argument.
This reading presents Islamic law as fixed and static. In the best case scenario, as presented by the Archbishop, some aspects may be palatable and reconcilable with United Kingdom or Australian laws, while others are not. In the worst case scenario, all aspects of Islamic law are antiquated and unpalatable to secular democratic societies.
This is a very simplistic depiction of Islam, and ignores its profound internal dynamics.
Some Muslim intellectuals, notably Tariq Ramadan in United Kingdom, have rejected the literalist approach. Instead Ramadan points to the essence of Islam. If Islam is a living religion, as Muslims believe it to be, then its laws and dictums need to evolve and keep up with the contemporary issues that face Muslims. If Islam is a religion for all times, it needs to have a real and organic relevance to all times. It needs to be evolutionary and adaptive.
This line of reasoning has led reformist-minded Islamic thinkers to emphasise the spirit, as opposed to the letter, of Islam. Notions of unity between the Creator and the created and justice, for example, are timeless and guiding principles which can be codified differently at different times. In other words, the essence remains true for all times, but not its codification in Islamic law.
As a result, Ramadan, who recently visited Australia, has challenged the conventional wisdom that British law is un-Islamic. Why would British, Australian or EU laws be un-Islamic if they are governed by the same notions of justice that reign supreme in Islam?
Suggesting that secular democratic laws may be called 'Islamic' is, of course, not easy to digest when conventional