Religion
Related: About this forumTo Sharia or not to Sharia: The question of Islamopolitics
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/05/20135198390976229.htmlIslam does not seek to turn its adherents into a monolithic group, but instead celebrates diversity and pluralism.
Last Modified: 25 May 2013 17:18
Mohamed Ghilan
Mohamed Ghilan is a neuroscience PhD candidate at the University of Victoria, Canada, and a student of Islamic jurisprudence.
"Islam was never meant to be a prescribing force that dictates how society should be like," writes Ghilan [AP]
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life recently released their latest results from a survey of Muslims around the world on religion, politics and society. Although there is wide variability, it seems that most Muslims want Sharia (Islamic Law) to be the governing law of their countries and to play an important role in the political process. However, although the majority of Muslims agree on the general principle of applying Sharia, they do not seem to agree on what that term means. Given the diversity of understanding and sources one can be exposed to in the Islamic tradition, this disagreement should not come as a surprise.
A romanticised history leading to failed reality
Although valid religious reasons might be cited from average Muslims for the desire of Sharia, the lack of Islamic education and awareness about how Sharia operates raises a flag to dig deeper into their motives. Children in the Muslim world are typically exposed to a romanticised and utopic historical account of how Muslims of the past were. It is an image of saints walking upon the Earth fulfilling the commandments of God and striving for more self-purification, while at the same time studying the world and contributing to science and the advancement of human knowledge at a miraculous rate. They are taught that Muslims today have strayed away so far from Islamic teachings that God is punishing them by depriving them from what the West has accomplished.
What has been lost on Muslims today is the methodology of "how" to be a Muslim. In selling their hypothetical utopia of the days that have passed, those who teach Islamic history in the Muslim world have inadvertently switched the focus from how one can be a practising Muslim who contributes to the greater good of society, to focusing on attempts to replicate the exact way past Muslims supposedly lived. Hence, many Muslims today are working hard to bring about quantum mechanical speculations to reality and take everyone back in time away from "evil" modernity. One way they do this is through advancing their various versions of Islamopolitics.
Winston Churchill said that "tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip". This tact is exemplified in the contemporary experience of the failure of Islamopolitics in Sudan. As Nesrine Malik pointed out last year in response to another oppressive act of the Sudanese government in the name of Sharia, Islamic rhetoric in politics was initially "a way of paying lip service to religion for the government to gain legitimacy". She mentioned how this false cloak of religiosity now serves as a "potent tool that allows the government to apply punishment harshly (but inconsistently) whenever it feels the need... to invoke the emotive power of religious offence".
more at link
trotsky
(49,533 posts)if a fundie moron like Fred Phelps or Osama Bin Laden proclaims, "This is (or is not) what my religion does" they are disregarded.
But if a more liberal follower makes a similar blanket declaration like "Islam was never meant to be a prescribing force.." it's OK.
Until and unless moderate believers can eliminate this blatant and completely arbitrary double standard, the words ring hollow.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The only way it is a double standard is if the fundies are not morons. You yourself called them morons. Is your theory that rational people should be treated the same as morons, for equality sake? The standard is the lowest common denominator?
Your words seem very contradictory. 'treat the morons as if they were not morons, then you are being fair'.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)If anything, one could excuse such behavior with a moron, who doesn't know any better.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)You are saying this: 'treat everyone as you treat those you see as morons'. If your statement had lacked the editorial word 'morons' it would be a different statement. I don't excuse hate mongering out of anyone, moron or non moron, so for me that's not a question, you want to excuse, I don't. You say one side is morons but the other side must not say that, only you get to call a moron a moron. I seriously don't get that.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You go ahead and defend him; I'm not interested in the task.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)It's like you are not even reading what I wrote. I've been an active and actual opponent of Phelps and his lot face to face. For years and years, while straight folks muttered excuses for him. He and his lot did over 10,000 demonstrations against my people before any other community organized a response to his venom.
To equate the thoughts in this OP with a bomb or a sign saying 'God Hates Fags' is your choice, because your theory is to treat everyone as you would the very worst.
To me there is a huge difference between Phelps and those people of faith who stand up for equality and decent treatment of each other. Perhaps you see him differently because he is not attacking you, but I think it has to do with the fact that I look at actions, not the rhetorical framing offered for them. A person standing with me is just a person standing with me, a person attacking my people is just a person attacking my people. The 'reasons' they offer are for themselves. I don't do guilt by rhetorical association.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I'm not equating the thoughts, I'm equating the support for each. Each person is merely declaring their opinion of what they want their religion to be as "the" actual religion. With equal confidence.
Yet neither has any more actual support for their position than the other.
Get it now?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Exactly my point.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)that its proponents never see for some reason.
God and his prophets are not here in person to tell us what to do.
All laws, even "God's laws", must be interpreted and carried out by men (and women).
And we can't take on trust someone who says God has told them what to do. Because there will be thousands of people who believe God is talking to them, all with different interpretations and schisms.
Even in a theocracy there would need to be some kind of democracy or discussion to interpret and implement the laws.
Theocrats also claim that politics is corrupt and that in a theocratic system there is no politics. So how did the split in Christianity into Catholicism and Protestantism come about? How did the split in Islam into Sunni and Shia come about?
The reality is that we (humanity) are all in this together. God's prophets are no longer here to tell us what to do so we need to work it out together.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Because they *know* (via "another way of knowing" that they absolutely have the CORRECT interpretation. Case closed.
It is interesting that liberal/moderate believers too claim this kind of absolute certainty, though thankfully they usually proclaim it in order to support overall positive goals. But it's the same kind of certainty, one that comes from religious faith.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Because interpretation is so individualized, trying to make religious writings into law seems always problematic.
Theocracy is politics more than religion, imo.