International Law Comparison. (Posted by Gabe)

Just the other day, the news broke on a decision by the Malaysian equivalent of the Supreme Court. The decision was both atrocious and fascinating at the same time.

If you are familiar with international law in general, you are probably familiar with Shari'a Law, which can be very roughly analogized with the common law for the Arab world. Shari'a has been around for centuries, and has been reasoned out by Islamic philosophers and theologians in a fashion rather similar to the way that philosophers like Locke, Blackstone, and Rousseau reasoned the common law from Biblical principles.

Shari'a, of course, is reasoned from the Qur'an, and forms the basis of Islamic jurisprudence. It differs very strikingly from the common law, though, in that it mandates Islam as a religion, and certain religious practices. There is no way for one to be a Christian and follow the Shari'a law, while every religion could follow the common law.

There are many countries that are more recent "converts" to Islam, and nations that want to be secular, that have a dual system of law--a secular Constitution and body of laws that apply to all, and Shari'a, which only applies to Muslims.

Lina Joy was a Muslim, but converted to Christianity. In order to do that, in Malaysia, you have to apply for a "Certificate of Apostasy" to be designated a non-Muslim. The recent decision said, in effect, that you can only get such a certificate from the Shari'a courts that are tasked with enforcing Muslim beliefs!

That raises fascinating questions about how the law is supposed to work. It wasn't too long ago (past couple hundred years) that Christian nations had canon law courts, to enforce certain church laws. Now, of course, we argue about things like prayer in schools and government "endorsement" of religion.

What do you think is the appropriate measure for the authority of the church and the authority of the government? Do they mix, or are they separate?

More over at Right Reason, and at Time.