Print"What are we to make of the call among some Muslim leaders for the introduction of Shari'a law into our western culture?
To be honest, I am surprised to find myself writing these words. I do not consider myself to be a racist or a religious bigot. To this point I have largely avoided this subject because I am not a confrontationist. I prefer to think of myself as a peacemaker; a mediator who brings reconciliation to the discussion.
However, I'm no longer convinced that reconciliation is possible given the extreme or radical elements of Islam (or any other religion, for that matter).
I want to emphasise that I am writing about "radical Islam" i.e. those expressions of this religion that are committed to world domination through violence and the elimination of the "infidels" i.e. all non-Muslims by forcing them to embrace Islam. The reason for using Islam as an example of radicalism or fundamentalism is because Islam now has such a high profile - especially since 9/11 and the subsequent Gulf Wars, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Even as I was preparing this article (and as if to further energise my concern) there have been a number of interviews on television with an Australian-born Muslim convert who enthusiastically predicted the inevitability of Australia becoming a Muslim nation. High on his agenda is the mission to impose Shari'a law on our current way of life. To his credit, he was very open that this was his agenda. There was no attempt to avoid the question.
The radical elements of Islam make their agenda known without compromise. They can see the day dawning when these countries will become Muslim and that day is not far away. Our country of Australia is not exempt from such an agenda.
A key mechanism to achieve such a goal is the introduction of Shari'a law.
The introduction of Shari'a law may or may not be not just for the Muslim community; either way it would be divisive and set up two conflicting standards of belief and behaviour. Given that the legal system of any country is the standard by which the citizens of that country live, for any non-Muslim community to adopt Shari'a law - in part (i.e.in addition to what is already in place) or in whole (i.e. replacing completely what is currently there) - would be to radically change the whole social, cultural, legal and religious life of the nation.
Since democracy has no place in Shari'a law, those who interpret the law and impose it don't have to justify their decisions. When the imposition of religious law - any religious law - becomes the basis for exercising power, manipulation and control, what eventually emerges is behaviour modification. Law is powerless to change a person.
The vast majority of religions in the world seek to utilize their particular system of laws (legalism) to control the outward behaviour of their devotees - whether that law be embodied in the Muslim holy book (the Qur'an), the Christian Scriptures (the Bible) or the Jewish Scriptures (the Torah and/or the Old Testament).
The antidote to the crippling condemnation of the law is unique to Christianity. You will not find this concept in any other faith. In a word, the antidote is grace. Each expression of religion depends upon law to achieve its ends and tries to change the person from the outside in, which is nothing more than cosmetic adjustment of conduct.
Watch what happens when the Highway Patrol vehicle is spotted by nearby drivers. There is an immediate adjustment of behaviour in the presence of law. Now watch what happens as soon as the police car turns and goes out of sight. Most of the drivers revert to type and drive in a manner of their own choosing. Law may achieve short-term reformation of behaviour and conduct based on a system of rewards and punishments. Grace alone can achieve long-term transformation. Grace changes the person from the inside out.
Yet even Christianity, which is meant to embody this truth about grace can degenerate into a legalistic religion if it ignores or abandons grace. Much of the writing of the Apostle Paul is directed against those false teachers who would exclude grace from its rightful place and substitute human endeavour in its place.
In so many ways and in so many places Paul rises to the challenge of exposing those who would claim that salvation is by works or, at least, would want to present the gospel as a mix of faith and human effort or merit. The whole of the book of Galatians is written as an appeal to not abandon or contaminate the truth about grace.
Perhaps this truth is no more clearly seen than in Ephesians 2:8-10 (NIV)
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
The life of Paul himself is a decisive example of the difference between a life lived under the control of religious law and a life lived in the freedom of grace. Passages like Romans chapters 5 to 8, all of Galatians and Philippians 3 all tell the same story. Grace. Grace. Grace. We are not called to live under religious law of any kind; we are called to live in the freedom of God's grace.
So I am opposed to the introduction of Shari'a law into our country and culture. Not because it is Islamic in origin but because it, like all religious legal systems, is opposed to the grace of God. For that reason I am opposed to any form of legalistic religion.
We are saved by grace, not the fulfilment of any law.
We live by grace, not under the dictates of legalism.
Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.
T'was Grace that taught my heart to fear.
And Grace, my fears relieved.
How precious did that Grace appear
The hour I first believed.
