As readers of this journal know better than most, the relationship between religion and the legal regulation of a society is not only a complex one but also one that goes back to time immemorial. This relationship, as is also well known, varies from absolute theocracy, in countries such as Iran or Saudi Arabia, where religion and the state are seen as one, to those states which have been hostile to any religious faith and where adherents have been persecuted for such beliefs. Albania under communist rule is an example of such a state. Most countries have adopted a model which is somewhere between these two ends of the spectrum but they all vary in the exact relationship between state and religion.

Where there is a dominant religious group, religion, law and culture usually overlap and are often in harmony, and their mutual relationship often remains invisible. Expressions of religion and the religious practices of mainstream traditional faiths present in that society usually run more or less parallel to its mainstream culture and are embedded in its structure – public holidays that coincide with Christian festivals at Christmas time and Easter, even in states that are formally secular, are good examples of this.

The book under review examines the political and legal ramifications of the regulation of the religious practices of Muslims in three states that take very different approaches to the relationship between state and religion – Turkey, Pakistan and the United Kingdom. According to Article 2 of the Turkish Constitution, ‘The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular and social state …’.Pakistan, however, which was formed as a homeland for the Muslims of the Asian sub-continent upon independence, is, as one would expect, constitutionally Islamic in nature. The preamble and Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution make the Islamic nature of the state more than apparent, although freedom of religion is theoretically protected for all.Footnote ¹ In both Turkey and Pakistan the population is overwhelmingly Muslim and the relationship between the state itself and the religious beliefs and views of their respective populations has been a long and difficult one.

In Turkey, much of the debate has centred on respecting the principle of secularism, which has increasingly been difficult as ‘Islam’ has become a more powerful and influential political force. In Pakistan, the debate has not been straightforward either and has parallels owing to the strengthening grip that Islamic parties have on part of the political spectrum. In Pakistan, the debate in recent years has predominantly focussed on which secular values and practices an (or more accurately this) Islamic state can accommodate. In Turkey, however, the debate has been towards the other end of the spectrum and concerned with which Islamic practices a secular state can accommodate. The two states, which are close allies (President Musharraf speaks fluent Turkish and spent a number of years living there), have close ties to the USA, are overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim and are members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. They are thus very good choices for case studies.

The third case study in the book is, as mentioned above, the United Kingdom, although technically this is limited to England and Wales (and not just England as the title and text state). As obvious as it is, Muslims are a religious minority in the United Kingdom. The 2001 census considered that there were approximately 1.6 million Muslims in Britain, who account for three per cent of the population and represent over half of the ‘non-Christian religious population’.Footnote ² Compared to Turkey and Pakistan, the debate about the role of religion in society and the religion–state relationship is also very different. Readers of this journal will not need to be told that, in the United Kingdom, there are established churches – Anglican Christianity in England through the Church of England, and Presbyterian Christianity in Scotland through the Church of Scotland.Footnote ³ There is, however, no formal statement of the relationship between ‘church and state’– it is the result of normal legal rules scattered throughout the statutes and cases. Similarly, there is no explicit statement of the position that other religious organisations and groups are to occupy in relation to the state.

The religion–liberalism dynamic is also very different in the United Kingdom, in particular compared to Pakistan. As the United Kingdom has become more multi-cultural and multi-religious than it was in the past, this has coincided with an overall process of secularisation and individualism in many modern liberal societies, which tended to obscure and downplay the role of religion and its relationship with the law and culture. Incidents such as the Rushdie affair, debates on the ban on the hijab in French schools, laws to outlaw incitement to religious hatred and, most obviously, the repercussions of the radicalisation of a minority of Muslims have brought this subject back to the fore. Such incidents, rather than helping people understand the role of religion in society and its importance to those who adhere to faith, have arguably led to the demonisation of some religions and a tendency in many liberal societies to consider all those who publicly follow any faith with suspicion. Dr Rowan Williams in his 2003 Christmas sermon, for example, noted that suspicion of religion existed in the UK, since public proclamations of belief were often greeted with ‘nervous sniggering’.Footnote ⁴ Professor Silvio Ferrari, has noted that religion is now required to prove that it can benefit liberal civil society or, at the least, that it is harmless.Footnote ⁵

This increasing distrust of religion has put pressure on all faiths, and there is arguably an expectation for adherents of religion in liberal societies to conform to liberal secularised expectations and practices.Footnote ⁶ This increasing distrust of religion in the United Kingdom is shared by the ‘secularists’ in both Turkey and Pakistan, although their positions of relative strength differ markedly. In Turkey, the constitutional principle of secularism is fiercely protected by the Supreme Court, whereas in Pakistan, despite Musharraf's proclamations of ‘enlightened moderation’ and the repealing of some of the most repressive rape laws in the world, the fundamentally Islamic nature of the state is never questioned, at least publicly. In reality, secular values and practices have to be accommodated in an ‘Islamic’ framework, where what is Islamic or not is determined by the political whims of those in power.

This book, therefore, makes for what is potentially a fascinating exploration of these issues. I am sorry to say, however, that it does not really deliver. On the whole, the book does not make as much of the underlying issues and tensions that exist in all the case studies between the state and religion as referred to above. The author's basic contention is that Muslim populations react to the modern frameworks of legal systems in which they live by retaining and reconstructing their own locally specific unofficial Muslim laws. As he states, the ‘main objective of the study is to show that there will always be dynamic legal pluralism stemming from unofficial Muslim laws’ (p 3). As a contention I do not consider this to be particularly surprising. I am certain almost all religious communities, be they Jewish, Catholic or Muslim, continue to adhere to religious practices and customs that differ from the ‘official’ versions of their respective faith as codified by the state, to the extent that it is, no matter where they are. That is not to say that it is not worthwhile or valuable to do so, but in many senses it is confirming what we already know or at least suspect.

The book is, I assume, a revised version of the author's PhD thesis completed at SOAS in 1998. Much of it has already been published, especially in the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, yet I cannot help but think that the book has a dated feel about it. It does not feel like a work that has been updated properly or revised in the way that a PhD thesis, even an excellent one, should be to make for a very good book. The discussions on both Pakistan and England (and Wales) in particular feel dated, and part of this relates to where I think the author's real expertise lies. The author's general discussion as a case study and use of Turkey as an example in the concluding chapter is more detailed and nuanced than his discussions of England and Pakistan and this does lead to what feels like an imbalance in the book. It would have benefited from more detailed discussion of the situation in Pakistan and also non sub-continental Muslim communities in the United Kingdom to make the most of the very good choice of case studies. Although Muslims from the Asian sub-continent form the majority of the British Muslim population, the author's argument that Muslim populations lead to diverse legal pluralisms would have benefited and been strengthened from greater reliance on the practices of such populations.

In his discussions on the Muslim communities in the United Kingdom, the author adopts the angrezi shariat (in Urdu, literally English Shari'a) argument that Werner Menski and David Pearl have forwarded.Footnote ⁷ As Professor Menski is credited for his invaluable help, advice and support by the author, it can be seen why the concept has been used, but the idea of angrezi shariat is one that I consider difficult to accept and actually in some senses undermines the idea of Muslim legal pluralisms, for whose existence the author argues.

In the concluding chapter, ‘Looking to the future’, the imbalance mentioned above is apparent. Here, the author seeks to provide ‘solutions’ to the legal pluralisms that exist. The ‘solutions’ discussed overwhelmingly draw from Turkish practice and I simply do not feel that they transfer to either Pakistan or the United Kingdom. That is not to say that they are not interesting, but simply that they are not particularly practical or likely in the real world.

My comments should not detract from what is good about this book. It is on the whole clearly written and well researched; the bibliography is impressive and the case studies are in themselves interesting. It may well be the case that I hoped to get more from it than I did but I cannot help but feel that it does not deliver what it could have. Bearing in mind that Ashgate are seeking to charge £60 for a book that has less than two hundred pages of actual text, I hope that they will publish it in paperback at a far more reasonable price so that it is more widely read than is currently likely to be the case. That much it does deserve.