The Application of Sharia Law in the United States

In the effort to understand this controversial and inflammatory subject, his explanation proved very helpful. Here is a list of what is and is not allowed in the American judicial system:
Allowed: Distribution of inheritance according to religious motivation
Not: Asking the court to divide inheritance according to shariah law
US law allows freedom of contract and disposition of property. One may divide one’s property in a will according to whim, or ask a religious scholar to divide it according to shariah law. But the court does not accept competency to interpret religious laws, and would reject a request asking it to do so.
Allowed: Application of foreign law to determine marriage or overseas injury
Not: Specifics of foreign law against US code or procedural discrimination of testimony
US law will accept that two foreign individuals are married if they were legally married according to the law of their country of emigration. If in foreign nations marriage is determined according to shariah, then US courts must take this into consideration for the determination of marriage in a domestic dispute. Foreign acceptance of polygamy, however, has no application in US courts. Similarly, if an American is injured abroad and sues a company with representation in America, tort laws are determined by the nation in which the injury occurred. But should foreign tort laws limit the value of female testimony, as for example in some understandings of shariah, this has no carry-over consideration in the American lawsuit.
Allowed: Exemption from work rules for religious reasons
Not: Unless it imposes ‘undue hardship’ on an employer or is against government interest
US law permits reasonable accommodation for religious belief, evaluated on a case-by-case basis. So wearing a hijab at work or taking time from the work day to pray may or may not be granted, based on the nature of the employment in question. A famous ruling allowing Muslim taxi drivers to decline a customer carrying alcohol may or may not have been judged correctly, but what is important is that it was based on existing American precedent, not in understanding what is right in Islamic shariah.
Allowed: Granting accommodation to students or clients that impose only modest costs on the granting institution
Not: Evaluation of these requests on the basis of which religious group asks for them
US law allows public and private institutions to better serve citizens and customers by appealing to their religious sentiments, as long as this does not damage the public interest as a whole. Banks have offered sharia-compliant loans, for example, and schools with high density Muslim populations have granted a full day off on holidays rather than just excusing Muslim students. Examples of this sort apply equally to all religious petitions, and must not be judged on the basis of which religion benefits.
Allowed: Efforts to legislate Islamic morality in heavily populated Muslim areas
Not: Unless it violates the Free Speech Code or Equal Protection Clause
US law permits citizens to lobby government to pass laws reflective of morality. In local areas therefore, Muslims are as free as others to pass legislation barring alcohol, for example. Should any locality, however, seek to encode restrictions on “blasphemy” or limit the rights of women, it will stand in clear violation of existing US law and be struck down by the courts.

Why Nations Rage: A Biblical Response to Radical Islam

The first Christian century was a brutal one for a growing minority who dared profess their faith as followers of Jesus Christ. Believers encountered a double whammy of injustice and persecution from leaders of the prevailing religious structure who despised those who would dare advocate divergence from their traditional Jewish law and the Roman authority who would tolerate no supreme allegiance except to Caesar.

In chapter four of Acts, Peter and John had been arrested, threatened and ordered not to preach or teach in the name of Jesus, a restriction imposed on many believers across the Muslim world today. The response of the church to this situation is a model for how the global church should respond–they prayed! When they heard it, they lifted their voices to God and said, “Sovereign Lord who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything
in them, who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, ‘Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against His anointed.

’”We are asking the same question today. “Why do the nations rage?” Why do those in authority in Muslim nations set themselves against Christ and those who follow Him?” Why does ISIS indiscriminately behead Christians in Libya, al Shabaab slaughter Christian students in Kenya and Boko Haram massacre Christian villagers in Nigeria?

1. They recognized the consequences of a sinful world. Since Cain’s murder of his brother Abel in a jealous rage history confirms we live in a fallen world. The merciful character of God has provided a redemptive alternative, but His moral nature does not allow coercive manipulation of choices by those who inflict injustice and are committed to the destruction of those who do not conform to power structures and imposed ideologies.

2. They reflected confidence in a sovereign God. The New Testament church in Jerusalem affirmed their belief in a God who made the heavens and earth and everything in them, including those who were wrecking havoc and threatening their peace and security. They continued their prayer in Acts 4:27-28 to remind God:
“For truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy
servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along
with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand
and your plan had predestined to take place.”
The greatest tragedy to occur in the world was not the massacres carried out by angry Muslims or a terrorist attack on the U.S. on September 11, 2001. The most heinous injustice occurred when the sinless Son of God was betrayed and crucified by an conspiracy of Jews and Gentiles and the unlikely alliance of political adversaries, Herod and Pontius Pilate. But this did not take God by surprise. The church acknowledged that God not only knew this would happen, He planned for it to fulfill His purpose of bringing redemption to a lost world.

3. Therefore, they renewed their commitment to a saving word. They did not ask God to remove the threats and harassment they were experiencing, so they could live in peace and prosperity. They did not pray that God would destroy their adversaries and create an environment in which they could propagate the gospel without danger or retribution. They concluded their petition in Acts 4:29:
“And now Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness.”

Confident that Jesus was the answer, they prayed for boldness to proclaim the good news of hope and salvation, even in the face of personal risk and danger. The church today needs to follow the example of earlier believers and understand biblical realities of being hated and persecuted for the sake of Christ. Yet, rather than responding with paranoia and fear of ISIS lone wolf enemies among us and the spread of global terrorism, we should engage the threat with the most powerful weapon supplied by our divine leader–to love our enemies and a bold, positive witness of a living Savior.

The Difficulty of ‘Do Unto Others’

This article originally appeared on The Acts 2:11 Project:

As Christians involve themselves – for good and for bad – in the divisive politics and cultural struggles of our nation, it is assumed they do so to preserve and advance a moral ethic consistent with Scripture.

Unfortunately, it can be easy to forget one of the central marks of this morality: ‘Do unto others, as you would have others do unto you.’
This command, and it is necessary to remember it is an active imperative, concerns many issues of the day. I would submit that current Muslim-Christian relations illustrate this selective memory, and the Middle East provides a useful mirror.

The US Embassy in Jerusalem: What’s the Big Deal?

US President Donald Trump has moved to fulfill his campaign pledge, one that others made before him and failed to fulfill—to declare Jerusalem as the capital of the state of Israel and move the US embassy there. The initiative did not begin with President Trump. The US Congress passed a law in 1995 to move the embassy to Jerusalem but successive presidents have opted to postpone implementation of the law until now.

A chorus of US Evangelical voices have congratulated the President recognizing the move as a token of solidarity with God’s ancient people that he has promised to bless. Some suggest…