One Nation Under Two Gods- Who Gets to be the True Supreme Law of the Land?

As was predicted by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams several months ago, the British legal system has recently made steps to include sharia law as a legitimate legal standard for practicing Muslims in Britain.  What this means is that, if a British Muslim has a dispute come up which ranges from divorce and domestic issues to wills to possibly even real estate transactions, they now have the option of having their case tried under the letter of the Islamic law and the Qu’ran in place of the letter of the British law and constitution.  You can read about this here.

So, big deal, right?  Well, possibly, if you are in favor of the continued oppression of women and minorities and the ever-growing cultural assimilation of England into an Islamic state.  What has been making its way through Europe silently over the past decade or so, advancing in the name of multiculturalism and tolerance, has now become a looming cloud on the horizon of Western civilization where all of our both Judeo-Christian and secular democratic principles are being threatened by a strong willed, highly populated movement of devout Muslim immigrants.

Now, lest I sound too polemical and religiously fanatic, let me break down why I believe this to be a bad thing.  First, in the view of just the law, it seems absurd to allow a population to be split between which courts they should go to.  Of course, at this point there are jurisdiction limits and some argue that what is being done is no more than what British Jews have in place already.  But, when you look at other countries such as Iran or Saudi Arabia, you see countries whose entire legal system is based on sharia law, and so it only seems reasonable that the sharia courts in Britain will strive towards this same goal.  This is unconscionable.  A country the size of Great Britain cannot afford to have its people governed under different legal standards, it just won’t work.

Beyond this, the legal standards of sharia law run opposite to the accepted laws of any democratic nation in so many ways.  Sharia law is characterized (not stereotyped, actually so) by a favoring of men over women and a dehumanization of “criminals.”  If we look at sharia law against the Bill of Rights we would find that it violates at minimum the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment.  Sharia law actually allows for domestic abuse in certain cases.  It also calls for the execution of homosexuals.  This is not just an archaic rule that stands without ever being enforced, but is a very well-enforced law in places like Iran (just search the internet, you can find the videos).  All of the tolerance and equality which makes democratic nations so great is thrown to the side when sharia law kicks in.

Moving to a more religious tone, I feel that the inception of sharia law in Western courts is a bad thing because it provides legitimacy and furtherance of a satanic religion.  I say that with as little fundamentalism as possible and with as much biblical support as I can muster.  Islam denies the deity of Christ, his atoning work on the cross, the sufficiency of his sacrifice for our forgiveness, and the power of grace to eventually save us.  There can be no compatibility between Christianity and Islam because to the core we worship two radically different gods.  Therefore, by propping up Islam in the courts we are inevitably propping up Islam in the culture and increasing the aversion to the message of the Gospel and Christ in the general population.

This is a difficult issue to approach because so many people will blindly fall into the trappings of extreme tolerance and open-mindedness and view any opposition as religious fundamentalism and bigotry, but I just want to leave you with one question: if a Muslim murders a Christian because they attempt to share the Gospel with them (as may be prescribed by Qu’ran 22.40), which court would get to try this?

3 Responses to “One Nation Under Two Gods- Who Gets to be the True Supreme Law of the Land?”

  1. Keith Walters Says:

    Ahh multiculturalism and tolerance. I must admit that I am somewhat amazed with the lengths to which individuals in Europe are going to hold an inconsistent worldview. I agree with the central thesis of your post but part of me thinks that this is a good thing. Yes, I have some explaining to do. I certainly do not think this is good in terms of human rights; however, when one considers the worldview implications of this decision the results could be profound. Indeed this could mark the fall of postmodernism in Europe. At this point in the game it appears that Europeans are quite fastidious in their attempt to consistently operate from a postmodern worldview. If truth is a social construct and is situated within particular cultures then it would make complete sense that Muslim culture should operate under their own laws and the British will operate under the constructs of their culture. But here’s the rub; Muslims are not operating out of postmodernism and for them truth is universal, not situated, and at some point in the near or distant future they will cease to function within the box in which the Europeans have placed them. In my mind I can see three possible outcomes of such a situation. First, Europe is driven to the point where it realizes that one cannot consistently hold to postmodernism and abandons it in favor of another worldview to combat the encroaching Islam. Second, Europe is driven to the point where it realizes that one cannot consistently hold to postmodernism and abandons it in favor of Islam. Third, Europe strives to consistently hold to postmodernism until they are conquered due to their passivity.

    As to your point about this furthering a satanic religion, I agree while at the same time I would argue that the secularism rampant in Europe is equally satanic. So regardless of whether Democracy or Sharia law is the rule of the land we know that “there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” so let us be about taking those authorities and the people they rule the gospel that the peace of Christ may rule in their hearts.

  2. Todd Burus Says:

    Keith,
    I definately get your point about how this could be a good thing because it may cause Europe to wake up to the inconsistency of their practices, but from all that I have read and analyzed myself, without a strong influence from conservative American and African Christians, the wake up call will just be enough for them to wake up in time to see their demise. The fact of the matter is that the core of anything resembling Christianity in England is so weak that even if they were to say “We can no longer tolerate the parasitic Muslim immigration,” the expulsion of their postmodern worldview would just leave a vacuum in its place. As Dr. Mohler has commented, it may be no more than a year until the entire Anglican communion in England has completely dissolved. That’s hundreds of years of Christianity which will have just evaporated from Great Britain.

    To be a little negative for a moment, this is one of the reasons why I have been so down on the IMB and other missions organizations as it pertains to Great Britain. They have all but ignored the rising problems there as well. In fact, I spoke last week with a representative from Greater Europe Missions and he confirmed this observation, saying they had just felt that Britain was a strong Christian country and so had not put much focus into evangelism there. At this time they only have one family in England, and even those people are not in the crucial area of London. Don’t get me wrong, I know that evangelism to the previously unreached in South America is a necessary thing, but when I have to contact upwards of 10 people with IMB before I can find anyone working for the SBC in Great Britain that is a problem. We need to take the evangelization of Great Britain on as a global missions objective in hopes of giving those people a chance at fighting the overwhelming influence of Islam in their borders, because I do not feel that they can do it on their own at this point.

  3. Keith Walters Says:

    I agree that if postmodernism were to crumble it would likely be just in time to see their demise. I also agree that we need to reprioritize SBC missions. I think one of the first things that needs to happen is to combine the IMB and NAMB into one entity. In recent years there has been a switch from a geopolitical focus to a people group focus and I applaud this; however, I think we need to take the next step and emphasize a worldview focus. Where we are sending people to particular locations to reach individuals embedded in Postmodernity, or Islam, or Animism, or Catholicism. We need to keep the people group focus but we need to begin to network along worldview lines. Why? Because the strongholds that the gospel must destroy among an animistic South American tribe are similar to the strongholds that must be destroyed among animists in Asia. The same could be said of postmoderns, whether they be in the US, France, Great Britain, or in Montreal.

Leave a Reply