When I first read the book, I spoke to Imam Feisal about where I agree and disagree with him in regard to his view that western societies should accommodate some aspects of shariah.

Imam Feisal writes that “Islamic law divides laws into two broad categories pertaining to human actions: ritual acts (‘ibadat) and worldly acts (mu’amalat).” The Imam clearly argues, and I totally agree with him that, “American courts have no overlap with Islamic laws pertaining to acts of worship.” Thus American law does not and should not have any role in deciding issues of religious calendars, who is included in which acts and who is not and so forth. This is clear and shariah should govern those concerns.

The other area of shariah law, that which pertains to worldly acts, is “subdivided into three groups: (1) family law or laws of personal status, dealing with issues such as marriage, divorce, alimony, child custody, and inheritance; (2) transactions—property rights, contracts, rules of sale, hire, gift, loans and debts deposits, partnerships and damage to property; and (3) criminal law, pertaining to murder, theft, libel and so forth.” The Imam does not directly address the latter two.

Imam Feisal argues that it is in the area of family law, however, where “Separation of church and state…will not be violated if we establish separate Muslim, Jewish, or Christian personal status courts to render judgments for Muslim, Jewish, or Christian couples…” This is where I begin to disagree.

There is precedent, the Imam cogently argues, in that as an Imam he is licensed by the State of New York to perform weddings, though not divorces. As a Christian minister I too am so licensed by the State of Illinois, but I have concluded that this legal work on my part is an unwarranted intrusion of the state into the church where I conduct weddings and so I will no longer do the legal part; as a Pastor I need to lead worship, not work for the State of Illinois. The reason is simple. Gay rights. Gay marriage as a political issue simply goes away if Pastors, Rabbis, Imams and other religious leaders cannot perform legally binding marriages, but only conduct religious ceremonies. Then every American who wishes to marry could get legally married by a civil authority and those who wish a religious ceremony could go those religious leaders they wish to officiate at the religious ceremony who are willing to do so. We in the United Church of Christ welcome such same-sex couples as well as heterosexual couples.

Legal marriage is about taxes, inheritance and a host of issues that have no business in my church, in my view. I have stepped away from performing the legal part of marriage because it is already a violation of some peoples’ rights, namely gay Americans. I will scarcely support expanding that intrusion.

Inheritance is another area where Imam Feisal brings up church-state separation in relationship to sharia law versus U.S. law. Current U.S. law mandates that if a person dies without a will that the estate goes to the next of kin. “Islamic law prohibits a deceased Muslim from disinheriting certain beneficiaries: every member of the immediate family shares in the estate, and no bequest can be made that exceeds one-third of the estate.” The Imam argues that it “would not be a violation of church-state separation” if American Muslims who died without a will would have their estates disbursed according to Islamic law. Except, of course, that not all Muslims have Muslim relatives. If the relatives are of a different faith, or no faith, what is their recourse if they disagree with having the decision about inheritance made according to Islamic law?

I do not think that different laws can likewise govern other issues of family law such as property rights, child custody, and alimony. The state has an appropriate stake in each of these issues—they are not exclusively private but have broad societal implications. Women in particular have benefited from a growing understanding in this society that “family” is not just private, but also public and even political and that their rights as women are bound up with the legal protection of the full equality of every citizen.

“Worldly” in American society means secular. I believe that there is a lot of creative thinking going on in relationship to how we as Americans can be genuinely more respectful of the increasing religious pluralism in our midst, but I continue to believe the best way to accomplish this is to maintain a strict separation of church and state, mosque and state, synagogue and state and as well as the many other religious bodies who have adherents in the U.S. and the state. This protects religion from the state and protects the state from religion.

Again I urge you to read What’s Right With Islam. There are so many areas where we as Christians have common ground with Muslims and I believe we need to build on those.