By Jim Denison
In last month’s midterm elections, voters in Oklahoma overwhelmingly passed an amendment to their state constitution prohibiting state courts from considering Sharia law when deciding cases. U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange then issued a temporary restraining order, which prevented the state’s election board from certifying the results of the vote.
What is going on here? Why does the issue matter to the rest of us?
Let’s begin with some background. “Sharia” means “path” in Arabic. Sharia, or Islamic law, guides every aspect of Muslim life. It is derived from the Quran and the Sunna (the sayings, practices, and teachings of the Prophet Muhammed). Precedents and analogy are applied by Muslim scholars, together with the consensus of the Muslim community.
Sharia developed several hundred years after Muhammed’s death (A.D. 632). Under Sharia, punishments (hadd) are required for:
- Unlawful sexual intercourse
- False accusation of unlawful sexual intercourse
- Alcohol consumption
- Theft
- Highway robbery
Punishments range from flogging, stoning, amputation and exile to execution. They are not often carried out, though vigilante justice is a major problem. How do Muslims relate Sharia to the modern world? In three ways.
Some adopt a dual legal system where the government is secular but Muslims can choose to bring familial and financial disputes to Sharia courts. Britain now allows Sharia tribunals governing marriage, divorce and inheritance; this is similar to Anglican and Jewish mediation in that country. Criminal law remains under the existing legal system.
Sharia-compliant banking is growing by 15% a year in Europe as well. Since riba (charging or paying of interest) is banned under Islamic law, banks such as Citigroup, HSBC and Deutsche Bank are developing Islamic sectors. Sharia-compliant investments are also growing; they avoid transactions related to weapons, alcohol, tobacco, gambling, pornography and pork.
A second view is that government must exist under God, where Islam is the official religion and Sharia is a source or the source of all law. Examples of this kind of system include Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Yemen and the United Arab Emirates. In Egypt, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq, it is illegal to enact legislation that contradicts Islam. In Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive, are under the guardianship of male relatives at all times and must be completely covered in public.
A third view is that the government should be completely secular, as has been the case in Turkey since 1923.
What should Christians think about the debate in Oklahoma?
I understand the Muslim desire to live under Islamic law. America, however, is governed by a secular Constitution in which the word “God” nowhere appears. Unlike the United Kingdom, we have no precedent for suspending our governance in favor of alternative religious authorities. To do so would violate the First Amendment’s instruction that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
It seems understandable, then, that Oklahoma’s voters would pass their referendum. However, constitutional experts see problems with the wording of the new measure. They worry that it could harm businesses that engage in international commerce and singles out one religion for exclusion.
Whatever comes of the legal battles to be waged in Oklahoma, it is clear to me that “a free church in a free state” is the American ideal. The Founders wanted a country where people of all faiths and those of none could follow their religious beliefs without government entanglement.
George Truett gave voice to this ideal when he declared from the east steps of the U.S. Capitol building on Sunday, May 16, 1920: “That utterance of Jesus, ‘Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s,’ is one of the most revolutionary and history-making utterances that ever fell from those lips divine. That utterance, once for all, marked the divorcement of church and state. It marked a new era for the creeds and deeds of men. It was the sunrise gun of a new day, the echoes of which are to go on and on and on until in every land, whether great or small, the doctrine shall have absolute supremacy everywhere of a free church in a free state.”
May it be so today.