Bear with me on this one, it needs a bit of explaining I know. I think we need to establish some basic facts first before we get to the particular issue of whether these Sharia courts need closing or not. So, let’s start with some basics.

First up, despite what some like to claim, no parts of Britain are ‘under Sharia law’. I remember being asked by someone at a church I was in whether the area of Oldham we work in was under Sharia Law. They seemed astonished when I said ‘no’ despite the majority Pakistani Muslim makeup of Glodwick. They then wanted to insist that bits of Bradford definitely were under Sharia Law. Though I pointed out that I am not from Bradford, so was as expert on it as an area as him (which is to say, not at all), I was fairly confident that no bits of Bradford are under Sharia Law either. I am confident of this because all parts of Britain – whether Bradford, Bolton, Bodmin or Bexley Heath – are all under British law. That is without exception.

I agree, if it can be proven categorically, that Sharia courts are overruling British legal courts and an entirely parallel system of law has been adopted, and upheld, by the British government in certain parts of the country that this would, indeed, be egregious. But despite the headlines in certain outlets, it simply isn’t true. All parts of Britain remain under British law. It is true that we have some devolved issues – so there may be law in Northern Ireland, for example, that does not apply in England or Wales – these things are explicitly incorporated into British law and are still subject to it. There is no such provision for any sort of religious Sharia courts.

Second, it bears understanding exactly what Sharia courts are. Whilst ‘courts’ make it sound official and legal, it is worth noting that Presbyterians like to talk a lot about church courts given their system of church governance. Nobody thinks there are bits of Britain operating under Presbyterian courts that are somehow not subject to British law. Similarly, the Anglican church talks about canon law, which interestingly, is in actuality because of its position as the established church of England, technically the actual law in England. Nevertheless, few feel nearly so concerned that we are living under Anglican law (even though some of our traditions have, indeed, been quite literally under it and on the receiving end of some dire treatment because of it). Most do not really recognise canon law as the law of the court (including our law-makers!) One suspects, if they really did think that, it would quickly spell the end of CofE establishment.

So, what are we actually dealing with when we talk about Sharia courts? Again, despite how some media outlets like to portray them, they are not legally binding courts in Britain. What they are is religious courts to which those who subscribe to that religion submit voluntarily. They operate in precisely the same way as church discipline (in some traditions called ‘church courts’). That is, they are non-legally binding religious courts to which those who subscribe to that religion go for religious rulings on matters pertaining to their religious belief and practice. So, to be clear, that is what we are talking about.

With those two facts in mind, let’s now tackle the actual question: should we ban Sharia courts? I think there are a few reasons why our answer should be a clear and direct, ‘no’. These are arguments that should be evident from a Christian perspective and worldview.

First, if we believe in the freedom of religion, then we have no business seeking to ban non-legally binding religious courts from offering rulings on matters of religion for subscribers to that religion. It doesn’t matter if we like the religion or not. It doesn’t matter whether we agree with the rulings or not. If we believe in the freedom of religion, religious faith subscribers should be free to voluntarily submit to the religious rulings of their particular faith.

Second, if we think it is legitimate for churches to enact any sort of church discipline, we have to accept that it is legitimate for Muslims to make similar religious rulings in line with their faith. Such rulings are evidently not binding on anybody who does not subscribe to the religion; they have no legal bearing. That is exactly the same as the ruling of a local church, presbyterian session or Anglican bishop has no ability to bind the conscience of any who do not subscribe to their particular brand of Christianity. If we wish to ban Sharia courts, we will soon realise that this is a call to ban all religious institutions from enacting any sort of church discipline in their own church courts.

Third, if we think banning Sharia courts is a legitimate thing to do, we are in effect arguing for the state to rule on matters of religion. Whilst that may seem excellent when it is not the religion to which we subcribe, it will soon become a problem to us. It doesn’t take a lot of joined up thinking to see the cries and howls of “government overreach” that regularly emanate from Christian quarters mean that we cannot believe it is, therefore, legitimate for the government to regulate religion. Christians (particularly non-conformists) have historically been incredibly clearsighted on this. But if it is true that government should not be permitted to regulate religion, this means each religion must be free to regulate itself in line with its specific religious beliefs. That, by definition, means that religious courts (of some sort) are required. That, in turn, means Sharia courts for those who subscribe to Islamic Sharia law are similarly necessary.

Fourth, we readily recognise that government does have the right to regulate some bits of religion. For example, let’s say there was a modern resurrection of Molech worship in the UK. Whatever else might be allowed, you can be fairly confident that the law of the land would not permit their practice of child sacrifice. The law on murder would prevent it. At the much less serious end of the spectrum, most Christians recognise the state has some legitimacy in expecting compliance with health and safety law in our church buildings. Few claim that these laws are a matter of government overreach in respect to our free and public worship.

Whilst some find the concept of sphere sovereignty helpful here, I must admit I do not. Rather, I think the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world have overlapping authority; both readily speak in ways that impact the other. Many of the claims of government overreach are often objections to government stopping things we would like to do, often particular means, rather than things scripture directly commands. These are really not the kind of things the Apostles went after. Rather, they tended to push back against being stopped from worshipping/living ordinary (quiet) Christian lives. They didn’t push back on means so much as when they were told they could no longer speak about Christ at all in any form. The general tenor of scripture is that we submit to government and the only exceptions are where they are directly causing us to disobey Jesus (views will naturally differ on what that means in practice). However, when such is the case, the church is still to submit to the consequences of legal authority vested in the authorities. It is hard to seek that sort of protection and not extend it to those of other religions, who nevertheless must submit to the authority of the state.

So, for all those reasons, I think calls to ban Sharia courts are foolish. I think if those making them had their way, they would soon find the natural consequence would be to undermine their own position as churches free to worship. Most of the arguments for banning them are actually arguments against voluntarism and non-binding submission to the religion of your choosing. There doesn’t seem to me to be any credible grounds for making this case.