Religion Part II

Since my knowledge of Islam is miniscule I am quoting an article by Ms. Ali which explains some basic facts about Islam.

This except is adapted from Ms. Hirsi Ali’s new book, “Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now,” to be published Tuesday by HarperCollins (which, like The Wall Street Journal, is owned by News Corp). Her previous books include “Infidel” and “Nomad: From Islam to America, A Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations.”
         “Any serious discussion of Islam must begin with its core creed, which is based on the Quran (the words said to have been revealed by the Angel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad) and the hadith (the accompanying works that detail Muhammad’s life and words). Despite some sectarian differences, this creed unites all Muslims. All, without exception, know by heart these words: “I bear witness that there is no God but Allah; and Muhammad is His messenger.” This is the Shahada, the Muslim profession of faith.
           The Shahada might seem to be a declaration of belief no different from any other. But the reality is that the Shahada is both a religious and a political symbol.
           In the early days of Islam, when Muhammad was going from door to door in Mecca trying to persuade the polytheists to abandon their idols of worship, he was inviting them to accept that there was no god but Allah and that he was Allah’s messenger.
         After 10 years of trying this kind of persuasion, however, he and his small band of believers went to Medina, and from that moment, Muhammad’s mission took on a political dimension. Unbelievers were still invited to submit to Allah, but after Medina, they were attacked if they refused. If defeated, they were given the option to convert or to die. (Jews and Christians could retain their faith if they submitted to paying a special tax.)
       No symbol represents the soul of Islam more than the Shahada. But today there is a contest within Islam for the ownership of that symbol. Who owns the Shahada? Is it those Muslims who want to emphasize Muhammad’s years in Mecca or those who are inspired by his conquests after Medina? On this basis, I believe that we can distinguish three different groups of Muslims.
      The first group is the most problematic. These are the fundamentalists who, when they say the Shahada, mean: “We must live by the strict letter of our creed.” They envision a regime based on Shariah, Islamic religious law. They argue for an Islam largely or completely unchanged from its original seventh-century version. What is more, they take it as a requirement of their faith that they impose it on everyone else.
       I shall call them Medina Muslims, in that they see the forcible imposition of Shariah as their religious duty. They aim not just to obey Muhammad’s teaching but also to emulate his warlike conduct after his move to Medina. Even if they do not themselves engage in violence, they do not hesitate to condone it.
      It is Medina Muslims who call Jews and Christians “pigs and monkeys.” It is Medina Muslims who prescribe death for the crime of apostasy, death by stoning for adultery and hanging for homosexuality. It is Medina Muslims who put women in burqas and beat them if they leave their homes alone or if they are improperly veiled.
      The second group—and the clear majority throughout the Muslim world—consists of Muslims who are loyal to the core creed and worship devoutly but are not inclined to practice violence. I call them Mecca Muslims. Like devout Christians or Jews who attend religious services every day and abide by religious rules in what they eat and wear, Mecca Muslims focus on religious observance. I was born in Somalia and raised as a Mecca Muslim. So were the majority of Muslims from Casablanca to Jakarta.
      Yet the Mecca Muslims have a problem: Their religious beliefs exist in an uneasy tension with modernity—the complex of economic, cultural and political innovations that not only reshaped the Western world but also dramatically transformed the developing world as the West exported it. The rational, secular and individualistic values of modernity are fundamentally corrosive of traditional societies, especially hierarchies based on gender, age and inherited status.
      Trapped between two worlds of belief and experience, these Muslims are engaged in a daily struggle to adhere to Islam in the context of a society that challenges their values and beliefs at every turn. Many are able to resolve this tension only by withdrawing into self-enclosed (and increasingly self-governing) enclaves. This is called cocooning, a practice whereby Muslim immigrants attempt to wall off outside influences, permitting only an Islamic education for their children and disengaging from the wider non-Muslim community.”
     Ms. Ali calls for an Islamic Reformation.  She is looking for a Muslim Martin Luther to tact his/her issues on a wall somewhere and start a dialogue that will change Islam.  There are a couple of problems, however.  In the 15^th C the Church was unified under a central authority.  I am unaware of any central authority in Islam.  Luther’s reformation resulted in dozens of sects under the umbrella of Protestant Christianity.  There are already several sects in Islam.  Getting them to agree on any type of change or modification seems impossible.
       There are extremists in all religions.  The 24/7 news cycles and the internet make us too aware of them.  The extremists in Christianity are really little different from the Islamic extremists, except that they have yet to adopt terrorist tactics.  However, a lawyer in California is requesting a ballot initiative calling for the murder of all gays and lesbians.  Other religious leaders in the country have also advocated for the death of the LBGT community.  They have yet to act on their comments.  Unfortunately, anti-abortion advocates have killed doctors and bombed facilities.  So the possibility of violence exists.
      These extremists have a pathway, however, that is not available in Muslim countries.  It’s the ballot box.  The Christian right comprise about 20% of the American population, maybe less, according to the polls.  The overwhelming majority of Americans support same-sex marriage, rights for the LBGT community, reasonable gun control laws, and a woman’s right to choose.  But in the last election one-third of Americans voted.  Those who did were overwhelmingly the conservative Christian Right.  Consequently, candidates have pandered to these voters.  While polls show that the majority of Americans are on one side of an issue, if this very vocal minority is not, the politicians will side with them rather than the majority.  Think about reasonable gun control laws, environmental protection, or a myriad of other issues that are blocked by this minority.
      The current Republican Party is a captive of a minority of Americans, a very vocal minority.  Unless more people vote, we will continue to have legislatures and federal Congressional representatives who will support their agenda and pass laws that will take years to fight in the Courts.  They are passing laws to restrict voting to the correct people, to limit access to abortions, to discriminate, to destroy the social safety net, to deny science and to limit education.
        I really don’t understand their attitude toward gays.  What in their religion and in their concept of God makes them think they will go to Hell, if they bake a cake for a same-sex wedding or take a photo of the event?  Is their God so vengeful?  Classic Freudian concepts suggest that paranoia is rooted in latent homosexuality.  Anyone who rants too loudly against gays, is suspect in my mind.  What is his or her problem?