irreconcilable loyalties

In an old Law and Order a black attorney asks whether his is a black lawyer or a lawyer who happens to be black. In an other L&and O an Imam asks whether he is a Muslim first or an American First. Although they do not raise exactly the same question, both do question where their loyalties lie, the lawyer' to his minority community, the Imam to his possibly much larger community, although the case in question concerns only a small NYC part of that. The issue interests me, for the Imam's loyalties are to a religious community and religion transcends the social and political. Actually, I think both placed themselves in a false dilemma for although it often appears that there is one as the law is often applied differently for white Americans than for members of a minority. In the case involving the Imam, who is unwilling to testify about a member of his congregation, the same black attorney returns for the defense and in his peroration he actually argues that the accused is in the dock only because he is a Muslim.

If I were to extend that premise it seems that only if these minorities do not want to be integrated, they can argue that the laws of the US do not apply to them, in which case they have to create a legal system of their own (sharia law for example) AND not commit crimes, etc. against those who are not members of their minority, or a sort of new court would have to be created to deal with conflicts between the separate legal systems. That would be something like the office of praetor peregrinus in the Roman Republic, though the word peregrinus suggests these foreigners were not permanent citizens.

The perception that there is "one law for white Americans and another one for minorities" (which is perhaps an extension of "one for the rich and one for the poor") rests on the frequent real misuse of the law by prejudiced officials, beginning with the arresting officers. This misuse occurs at all levels of interaction and is not necessarily based on ethnic antagonisms, it is also present in the penal system where white collar crime results in so called "country club" prisons, though the crime may involve millions or, in the case of elected officials, the betrayal of the public trust.

However that may be, it seems to me that if one chooses to live in a country by choice as a born citizen who does not leave and especially as an immigrant, one must live according to the its laws. When I came to this country in 1957 from the Netherlands I was required to sign to a list of things, one of which a pledge not to overthrow the government by force. In England the question is being debated whether such Muslim laws as those concerning marriage can be recognized even if they are contrary to English law. Roman Catholics have similar issues, e.g. they can divorce under the secular law, but the Church does not accept such a divorce and neither of the couple can marry in a Catholic Church again until an annulment is obtained from the Church. These, I think, are not questions of loyalty but of obedience. In the Middle Ages when there was only one church it was held that obedience to God superseded obedience to any wordly authority (who were all expected to obey God's Word. This idea led during the Reformation of the 16th century to the question whether obedience to God justified a Protestants' disobedience to a Catholic ruler if this ruler forced them to go to mass which Protestants believed was contrary to their reading of God's Word and thus a sin. This eventually led to the (much expanded) political theory of legitimate resistance on which the Dutch fought their War of Independence, the English engaged in the Glorious Revolution, etc. In the process the useful theory of separation of Church and State became (gradually) accepted in the Western world, for in a nation with several religious organisations,  the prescriptions of which religion would govern the people? This question was debated during the presidential election in l960 because JFK was Roman Catholic.

This started me to think about the problem of loyalties in a wider context. When the sovereignty of nation states was established by the treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the Pope refused to recognize it; fortunately without much practical consequence (how many troops does the Pope have?) or the question would have arisen whether I could be Dutch and a Christian at the same time (neither is any longer of essential importance to me). Yet, the Imam's question on Law and Order raises the same issue by extension, namely if one has a state like Iran is there a dual loyalty, one to the President and his government and one to the council of clerics? To what extent do the clerics permit latitude of action to the secular government or to the people? There is no relationship between Osama bin Laden's anti-Western crusade (he's a Sunni) and the Taliban's political aims of a radical Islamic nation, other than their use of terrorism. It is the West that has joined them together from the shoulders down (e.g. Al Queda tried to use anti-American feelings apparently only in the Sunni areas of Iraq, but Bush et al. treated them and the Shia Sadr's followers alike as enemies in the war on terrorism) even though they apparently kill each other as well as Westerners.

May Questions suggests themselves:
If the law of the Koran with its many interpreters must have precedence over all other laws, rules and regulations can there be national states, some Sunni and others not, in the Muslim world?
or:
If the West "simply went away," would Sunni and Shia engage in a civil war like Protestants and Catholics did and some already seem to be engaged in?