Sharia would not help integration but disunity

I have always had a lot of respect for Dr Rowan Williams. He has made timely interventions in the past, offering thoughtful reflections. He has also engaged constructively with Islam and its adherents in this country, using his authority to entrench the tolerance and respect that makes our country so great.

On Thursday, however, Dr Williams said something unhelpful and untimely. He said the adoption of parts of sharia in Britain looked "unavoidable" and called for "constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law".

Legal sensitivity to religious belief is nothing new in this country. But under the rule of law, the British system has over time recognised minority religious practices. For example the Jewish method of slaughter, kosher, and the Islamic method of slaughter, halal, have long been recognised under our laws. Sikhs can wear a ceremonial sword in public. And Orthodox Jews may turn to the Beth Din over tenancy and other disputes.

But religious leaders, like politicians, have a particular responsibility to weigh their words carefully when intervening on this sensitive subject. Without it, various interpretations can increase suspicion, swell hostility and inflame public opinion.

We have all seen this happen over the past few days. The Archbishop could possibly have chosen his words better. We must now all engage in the debate in a considered and measured way.

Dr Williams, in his Thursday lunchtime interview with the BBC, appeared to suggest that there should be two systems of law, running alongside each other, with people given the choice of opting into one or the other. This is unacceptable.

In Britain, all citizens are equal before the law. That concept is fundamental to our democracy, protecting us from disorder and preventing preferential treatment. This noble tradition is one of the reasons my parents came to this country half a century ago.

Further, Dr Williams's assertion that implementing sharia would help social cohesion is simply incorrect. It will alienate large sections of society, resentful of preferential treatment. Put simply, the recognition of sharia would simply be the tip of the multicultural iceberg, focusing on what divides us, rather than unites us. Rather than reinforcing social cohesion, it could lead to cultural and legal apartheid.

Instead, we need to create a society that is held together by a strong sense of shared identity and common values, encourages active citizenship and inspires people to join. For me, this means two things: localism and responsibility. Cohesion is local because, after all, it's about people learning to live alongside each other in neighbourhoods. This means listening to individual voices and ideas, particularly from women and young people, and devolving power through local government to the grassroots.

Cohesion is also about responsibility, because we're all in this together. So the government and wider society needs to empower communities to tackle challenges within their communities. One of these challenges is unauthorised, unregulated and sometimes highly controversial back-street organisations, calling themselves sharia courts.

I have previously suggested a voluntary support network, a place for guidance and help, rooted in the community with an understanding of Islamic practices and theology and fully aware of British rights and responsibilities. This type of organisation would do away with the need for back-street guidance that leads to much heartache and misunderstanding within the Muslim communities.

So there is much to disagree with in what Dr Williams has said - and much to consider in finding an alternative.

But one positive that may emerge from this debate is the fate of Muslim women in divorce proceedings. In 2002, the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act achieved equal treatment for Orthodox Jewish women. It gave courts the right to require a religious dissolution of marriage before granting a civil divorce, ending the scenario where an Orthodox Jewish woman would be divorced in law but not religion.

Today, many Muslim women face the same problem: a Muslim woman may be divorced under civil law but may still find herself married religiously. Not only can this lead to family conflict, isolation from communities and personal trauma, it is also profoundly unfair. The law must surely be even in the way it treats citizens.

There is much to admire in Dr Williams, but I believe in this instance he has confused an already delicate situation. What our communities are crying out for is unity, not division. Ultimately, they want to know that whoever they are, wherever they come from, they will be treated the same and with respect. The introduction of a parallel system of religious law, like sharia law, in our country would fundamentally undermine all this.

• Baroness Warsi is shadow minister for community cohesion and social action