Readers of this Journal will doubtless recall the media frenzy which greeted the Archbishop of Canterbury's lecture to an invited audience in the Great Hall of the Royal Courts of Justice on 7 February 2008. Dr Williams' topic was ‘Civil and religious law in England’, including a considered analysis of the place of sharia within the English legal system. Before the lecture had been delivered, the BBC had somewhat unhelpfully prepared the ground for the onslaught which was to follow, by telling listeners with less than total accuracy ‘that the Archbishop of Canterbury's statement that sharia law seems unavoidable in parts of Britain is highly controversial’.Footnote ¹ Taking its cue, on the following day The Sun managed to come up with the characteristically inventive headline ‘What a Burhka!’ and spokespersons of the Labour government, the Conservative opposition and the Liberal Democrat party all sought to distance themselves from what Dr Williams was supposed to have said. Some luminaries from within the Church added to the archbishop's discomfort: Lord Carey and the then Bishop of Rochester, for example, felt the need to make public pronouncements effectively challenging Dr Williams' approach. The Daily Mail of 9 February 2008 was not alone in asserting that, as a result of the lecture, Dr Williams was ‘facing demands to quit last night’. Dr Williams weathered the storm, albeit six years later news stories relating to the place of Islam in British civil society, and Islamic movements worldwide, can still be guaranteed to generate news headlines.

In the immediate aftermath of Dr Williams' lecture, there were, of course, voices counselling a more supportive and considered response. Mark Hill, one of the audience at Dr Williams' lecture, had a letter published in The Times of 9 February 2008 expressing his astonishment at the ‘wholly inaccurate coverage of the measured and thoughtful contribution that Dr Williams has brought to bear on the current debate’. As editor of this Journal, he was then able to facilitate an edition in September 2008 where his editorial introduced the topic again, and the journal gave space to the text of Dr Williams' lecture.Footnote ² The same edition published articles commissioned from Dr Samia BanoFootnote ³ and Professor John WitteFootnote ⁴ considering the nature of Islamic law and an American perspective, respectively. There have been further learned contributions to the topic in this Journal and elsewhere. For example, in May 2009 Professor Bernard Jackson's article in the Journal examined the ‘transformative accommodation’ raised by Dr Williams, while others have contributed to the debate in articles in such journals as Law & Justice. Studies have picked up on the use of sharia law for arbitration, and the workings of the various religious tribunals.

Robin Griffith-Jones, Master of the Temple at the Temple Church (and Senior Lecturer in Theology at King's College, London) has been central in facilitating the debate over the place of Islam in English law. Dr Williams' lecture introduced a series of public lectures, or discussions, some at the Royal Courts of Justice, but mostly hosted at the Temple Church, and jointly organised by Griffith-Jones and Ian Edge, Director of the Centre for Islamic and Middle Eastern Law at the School of Oriental and African Studies. It is of note that the series marked the four hundredth anniversary of the Temple Church being entrusted to the Middle and Inner Temple: the Knights Templar who originally established the church had their own unique place in the space between religion and the secular world, especially in respect of the crusades.

Today, there are some 2.4 million Muslims living in the UK, and the relationship between Islam and English law, as Dr Williams recognised, is one which must be addressed. Most of the chapters in this book are developed versions of the public discussions following the introductory lecture. Stephen Hockman, in his introduction, suggests that the purpose of the discussions was not to reach firm conclusions, but that ‘few of those who were able to attend and participate will have disputed the pressing need for such debate and analysis to continue’ (p 2). As indicated above, the debate and analysis has, indeed, continued. What, then, is the contribution of this book to that process?

Griffith-Jones has assembled a distinguished group of experts from differing professional, religious and academic backgrounds, picking up on several key themes in twenty chapters. He has written the initial chapter himself, describing the sequence of events of which Dr Williams' lecture was an integral part, introducing some of the themes and providing context for the debate which follows, and suggesting that, although it was Dr Williams' discussion of Islam that attracted attention, his lecture contained an analysis of the place of all religions in our public life. A particular theme in the lecture was the possibility of ‘transformative accommodation’, where individuals may choose the jurisdiction under which they will seek to resolve certain carefully specified matters. There is plainly a tension between what is generally accepted as English law and the possibility of adopting (or indeed incorporating) other models. In any event, Chapter 2 is a transcript of Dr Williams' lecture: this bears re-reading, since readers may find that the passage of time and the growth of other commentaries further demonstrates the importance of Dr Williams' insights as to the nature of the issues. The remainder of the book might broadly be characterised as examining various practical aspects of those issues, generally within English law but also looking elsewhere in the world for parallels. It is divided into three further main parts: Part II discusses the archbishop's proposal for ‘transformative accommodation’, Part III considers responsibilities and rights, and Part IV is entitled ‘Prospect: equality before God and before the law’.

The themes picked up by the contributors in Part II start with four chapters covering the tensions between sharia law and the European Convention of Human Rights. First is a short essay by Nicolas Bratza, former President of the Court at Strasbourg, posing questions raised by the Turkish Refah case as to the place of sharia; the next three chapters give different authors the opportunity to examine these and similar themes. The following five chapters then deal with legal pluralism, and examine whether English law should give greater recognition to Islamic law: For example, Elizabeth Butler-Sloss and Mark Hill, in a jointly authored chapter, consider family law, suggesting that there is scope for family courts to take into account matters of sharia. They conclude, however, that family court judges are not – and should not be – subservient to or reliant upon the determination of a religious court. Prakash Shah's chapter (on ‘judging Muslims’) takes a slightly different approach and makes a plea for more attention to be paid to the role of judges in the process of developing the law with respect to cases involving Muslims. A chapter by Griffith-Jones draws together some strands and suggests an approach of ‘co-operative accommodation’.

The next three chapters examine freedom of speech and incitement to religious hatred. Albie Sachs, for example, reflects on his experience as a judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa and on the wider issues thrown up elsewhere in the world, such as in respect of The Satanic Verses and the Danish cartoons case. In what I found to be a particularly interesting and humane analysis, he suggests that, while some areas of law (such as habeas corpus or the prohibition on torture) demand absolute precision, in many areas ‘fuzzy law’ is preferable, bringing an approach of proportionality rather than categorical line-drawing. Three chapters then explore religion, the state and the meaning of ‘jihad’: Tariq Ramadan, for example, examines ideas of the use of force and non-violence in opposing injustice, and valuing the life of all people at exactly the same level.

Part IV contains a final pair of chapters. David Ford commends Dr Williams for opening up the question of sharia in Britain, and considers, from a perspective rooted in Christian theology, that ‘the debate has just begun’ and that he was still ‘undecided on whether the Archbishop's modest form of legal pluralism, with some competition between systems for the allegiance of citizens, is the best solution’ (p 285). The final word goes to Nicholas Phillips, who as the then Lord Chief Justice had hosted Dr Williams' lecture, before going on to become President of the Supreme Court. He touches upon the potential influences of sharia in the English legal system and considers that ‘there is room for change over time both in the definition of the law and in the sanctions to be applied for breach of it’ (p 288). His essay emphasises the importance of upholding the law as it is, but also includes a reminder of the need to ‘treat every man and woman on equal footing, entitled to the same personal dignity and respect’ (p 292).

A short review cannot do justice to the contents of the twenty varied chapters, or credit all the distinguished authors – I have singled out a few contributors, but that is not to suggest that the remaining chapters are of lesser significance. The comments above do, I hope, give a flavour. There is plainly much more to be said on this important theme, and it is a topic which will doubtless provide fertile ground for further work by theologians, sociologists, legal academics and legal practitioners. The blurb on the book's cover suggests that ‘This book is for anyone interested in the interaction between religion and secular society’. I would agree, and expect that this list of people covers most of the readership of this Journal. Stephen Hockman's introduction also suggests that the public discussions and debate have been ‘far more fruitful than the newspapers in February 2008 would have led anyone to credit’ (p 4). This book is an integral part of that fruitful law and religion debate: each chapter provides a thoughtful insight into one particular aspect, but I would suggest that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Not all the themes or tentative conclusions are easy, and it may be difficult to agree upon the best way ahead, but such is the nature of the topic. Whether one is reading the book sequentially for the insight it provides, dipping into the chapters thematically or using it as a source for further reading or research, this is a reference work which should be kept readily accessible. The place of Islam within English law will undoubtedly remain a subject for debate, raising profound issues, and this book provides an invaluable and wide-ranging overview.