Public law in the West has emerged mainly from Christianised Roman Law and the Canon Law of the Church. It has acquired, however, a proper autonomy from particular religious communities. On the one hand, therefore, there has emerged a strong tradition of the equality of all before the law and of one law for all. On the other, law has respected the consciences of believers, especially if these have been formed by a recognised spiritual and moral tradition.  This is seen, for instance, in the provision for conscientious objection in times of war and even in the Abortion Act of 1967 which exempts medical personnel from having to participate in procedures which lead to the termination of pregnancy. It is a worrying development, therefore, that recent equality and other legislation does not take account of this important principle, leading religious believers to conflict with the law and to their exclusion from important areas of employment, civic participation and public life.

Religious communities, and their members, should be free to practise their faith in public and in private without unnecessary hindrance.  This principle, however, cannot prevent access to the courts for anyone nor can it prevent any citizen from asking for police protection for the safeguarding of their freedom. Muslims, for instance, are free to observe the provisions of sharia if they wish to do so but this cannot curtail the liberty or the right to justice under the law of the land or to due protection of the citizen under the law for anyone, including, of course, Muslims.

Because the tradition of public law in this country has arisen from the Judaeo-Christian tradition, as refracted by the Enlightenment, it would be a mistake to recognise aspects of sharia, which has arisen from quite different assumptions about equality in terms of public law in the West. It would mean introducing a principle of contradiction in the body of the law. This would be so even for the "softer" aspects of sharia, such as its family law. This latter does not recognise equality between men and women in terms of marriage, divorce, the custody of children, inheritance or in the laws of evidence. As can be imagined, this would create huge difficulties in maintaining the principle of equality of all before the law and of one law for all.

Traditionally, the ability to observe sharia and to enforce it has been a sine qua non, a minimum required for Muslims to continue living in a non-Muslim polity. Demands that sharia should be recognised in terms of public law stem from the perception that this is required for Muslims to be able to live in Western and non-Muslim societies. Whether the conditions for Muslims to live in non-Muslim societies are fulfilled is for Muslims to decide, in each particular case, but there should be no compromise on upholding the basic principles of public law as it has emerged and developed in the West.

Resurgent forms of Islam, leading to Islamist extremism, pose an international challenge which needs to be tackled in quite specific ways, depending on where it arises and its implications globally. Meanwhile, the domestic challenge must be met with a clear understanding and without compromise on the basic principles on which society is founded and which are needed for day to day decision-making. In the West, there is an urgent need for the renewal and the strengthening of the Judaeo-Christian tradition and its role in public life, if the challenges and dangers of extremist ideology are to be addressed effectively.