The ‘shari‘a law’ straw man is being dragged out in public again. Oh, dear.
This time, all sorts of talking heads are outraged that Sydney Uni law students might optionally take a course introducing them to the code of living followed by somewhere in the region of 1.8 billion people. Wouldn’t you think our future drafters of international business contracts selling our Aussie goodies should understand the basic elements underpinning many overseas law codes? Or that possible future legislators might like to understand the issues that motivate a growing segment of the Australian religious landscape?
It must be a slow news week: time to dust-off the familiar Muslim whipping-boy and give him a good public beating.
Federal Education Minister Simon Birmingham jumped on the bandwagon, waving a scolding finger at Sydney University and saying our tax dollars shouldn’t be used for That Type of Thing. Does he know that the government funds the National Centre of Excellence for Islamic Studies? It is a consortium of three major Australian universities that teach all about Islam and Muslims.
As distasteful as the media’s attempted take-down of Salim Farrar and Dr Ghena Krayem’s law subject is, it raises an important question. To what extent should Australian law accommodate the needs of different religious and cultural groups that have their own codes of living?
This doesn’t just affect Muslims: Catholics have canon law, Jews have halakha, Baha’is have their shari‘a, and don’t forget Indigenous Australians have traditional law too.
Most of the time, religious believers can go about their lives happily following their particular codes of sacred law. Priests can decline non-Catholics communion, Jews can down-tools on a Saturday, and Muslims can refuse to eat pork sausages.
But occasionally, Australian law and a particular religious law conflict with each other. Under shari‘a law, for example, a deceased Muslim should be shrouded and buried directly in the ground as soon as possible. Until recently, however, Australian laws—based on Christian practices—required the body be buried in a coffin. After successful lobbying by the late Sheikh Fehmi El-Imam, Victoria became the first state to permit direct burial, with other states following suit.
"Those politicians and media commentators threatening to exclude Muslims from contributing to questions of law and governance undermine the very fabric upon which our liberal democracy rests."
The notion of one law for all Australians is a furphy. What those wringing their hands should understand is that our social pact requires that we all assent to the government’s primacy of position as legislators, and that our liberal democracy allows any of us—Muslims included—the right to enter the public debate, lobby, and even run for office if we want to have a say in our law.
It is because Muslims (and Catholics, Jews, atheists and others) have the right to try to peacefully persuade others about their take on things, that we have liberal democracy, and not a theocracy or a revolution.
Muslims might try to persuade the government to recognise polygynous marriages, Jews might want non-stunning of animals for kosher slaughter to be standard practice; Catholics might want to end abortion; secular humanists might want to permit gay marriage—and it is quite possible that our legislators will say ‘no’. But Muslims, Catholics, Jews, or secular humanists have every right to lobby for these positions to be heard. It is the essence of Australian democracy.
This is the brilliance of the Rawlsian concept of ‘overlapping consensus’. That is, the idea that liberal democracy, by its nature, will produce fierce debate over political and social issues. We can build a peaceful and stable society by agreeing to cooperate with each other in the areas where we already agree, and give everyone the right to reasonably argue positions of difference.
It means we do not mutiny just because we haven’t gotten our way. Groups have to find within themselves the resources to recognise that this is a better way of doing things, rather than devolving into fighting and chaos.
Because we are a multicultural and multi-religious society, we do not impose a singular moral or religious code on everyone. Believers can follow their faith’s code of living voluntarily. But if they choose to enter public debate about legislation on questions that affect everybody, they must construct their arguments based on reasoning acceptable to non-believers. Put simply, it cannot just be because the Bible or the Qur’an says so.
This works pretty well in Australia. However, it is based on an agreement. The legitimacy of the government’s political power is recognised by various groups in our society because they have an assurance of the right to take part in public debate.
Those politicians and media commentators threatening to exclude Muslims from contributing to questions of law and governance undermine the very fabric upon which our liberal democracy rests.
If they keep going, it will push the disenfranchised into the position where they do not recognise the legitimacy of the government that systematically excludes them. For the future of Australian democracy, we cannot accept the fear mongering of xenophobes and racists to win.
Dr Rachel Woodlock is an expat Australian academic and writer living in Ireland.