Tristan Stubbs (West Bromwich): With all the commotion that followed Rowan Williams' speech on Sharia law last Thursday, few commentators noted that the Archbishop of Canterbury had started the previous week rather well. In his Wiener Lecture to the House of Lords, Dr. Williams preached intelligently on anti-Semitism. Characteristically, his address was full of historical references, one of which stood out:
Some of the passionate polemic against Jewish people in the New Testament reflects a situation in which Christian groups were still small and vulnerable over against an entrenched religio-political establishment; but the language is repeated and intensified when the Church is no longer a minority and when Jews have become more vulnerable than ever
Cut through the Archbishop's equally characteristic verbiage and the argument is clear - that he who shouts loudest shouts last. Even the barmiest ideas, if expounded with enough confidence and repeated over and over again, begin to take root.
From the Greeks onwards, thinkers have worried about the danger that loudmouths pose to political discourse. Bertrand Russell disagreed with Plato's conclusion that "justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger" because of the implications of this maxim for shutting down rational debate. "What are we to say of scientific innovators like Galileo," Russell asked in his History of Western Philosophy, "who advocate an opinion with which few agree, but finally win the support of almost everybody? They do so by means of arguments, not by emotional appeals or state propaganda or the use of force."
We have heard much about liberal democracy since the Archbishop made his comments. The legal foundations of that system are the result of considered discussion over many centuries. They represent the triumph of rational enquiry over passion, violence and faction.
In this light, the suggestion that Islamic law is "unavoidable and indeed desirable" appears decidedly partisan. Leaving aside arguments about the utility and morality of implementing Sharia, at the crux of the debate should be the question of Rowan Williams' motivation. Why did Thursday's speech choose to focus on Sharia in particular? Why didn't the Archbishop give more weight to another pressing conflict between faith and the law: the refusal by Catholic adoption agencies to accept gay adoptive parents? Why give special attention to Islam - an interest group like any other? Why, for that matter, give succour to a competing faith system? The deeper one digs, the greater the suspicion grows that this most woolly of liberals is presently treating with forces that are anything but liberal.
Williams has been praised in some quarters for the restrained tones of his speech. But these in fact disguised an entirely unrestrained dynamic. Appearing on Friday's Today programme was former Home Secretary David Blunkett, who picked up on the latent threat implicit in the Archbishop's message. "I think it is very dangerous because the Archbishop used the term affiliations," he said. "We don't have affiliations when it comes to the question of the law." Dr. Williams focussed on Sharia because at the moment, some Muslims are choosing to offer their allegiance not to the British state, or to British law, but to alternative systems of ideas. As the world saw on 7/7, some are even putting their faith in Islamist terrorism.
Unfortunately, the loudest spokespeople for Islamic law are treated by many in the media as representative of Muslim opinion. But organisations such as the Muslim Council of Britain are far from representative (as belatedly conceded by the government). To seek an upheaval of the British legal system because of the noisy arguments of some, and the murderous actions of others, is consequently to ignore the desires of the peaceful but relatively silent Muslim majority who have little wish to see the implementation of Sharia. For a figure such as Rowan Williams to claim to speak for all Muslims as a monolithic group is not only borderline racist, but, as Trevor Phillips, the head of the Commission for Equalities and Human Rights has suggested, the Archbishop's plan will also do nothing for intercommunal relations. For the last few days callers to radio phone-ins have been repeating with gusto that depressingly familiar mantra - "if they don't like it, they can leave."
So, as with all poisons of the body politic, it seems clear that illiberalism brings further illiberalism. More than that, by rewarding disloyalty we simply risk encouraging greater levels of disloyalty. As long as the "interest of the stronger" is deferred to - be it anti-Semitism, the demands of unrepresentative faith groups of any religion, or terrorism - our liberal democracy will remain under threat.
