It would be nice if when we did things for our faith that made sense, we were seen as reclaiming the inclusive and intellectual aspects of our traditions rather than trying to reform them. So many groups that live and die by a narrow interpretation of Islam use the past to justify their actions. It’s heartwarming to see the past being invoked for good things as well. Here’s an article about a group that I believe is doing just that in Canada.
As a side question – if forced to live in under a fundamentalist regime, would you rather it be Christian or Muslim?
Thanks for that excellent article; I added it to my del.icio.us feed.
I’m not sure I can choose which of those fundamentalist regimes I’d rather live under. Can I pick “c) neither of the above”? 🙂
A trick question? Having had my run-ins with both Muslim and Christian fundamentalists, there’s no difference that I can discern between these two dystopian visions.
I read that article on another site (MWU perhaps). My problem with the Muslim progessives has nothing to do with their religious sensibilities. In fact, I embrace those views. However, I have a serious problem with their political views (humor me for a moment that there’s a difference between the religious and the political in this instance), are almost always well to the left of my own opinions. Years ago, I once shared those political views but no longer.
Surely, there is a place for a mixed-market private enterprise, private property, fiscally conservative, socially liberal Muslim like myself ; ^).
Rachel – thanks for reading. And, no, you can’t pick C. 🙂
Tony – I think I probably agree with your political views. You raise an interesting point, but I guess that I’ve fallen into the mindset that you’re either on the side of those imposing their views on others and curtailing individual rights, or you’re on the side of the ACLU. 4 or 5 years ago I probably would have been in the first camp, if forced to choose sides. However, post 9/11, I’m definitely on this side of the fence. You correctly point out though, that the progressives aren’t necessarily representative of you or I. For now (at least for me), they’re more representative than others that I’ve come across so that’s where I’m pitching my tent.
Hmm. Good question. I’d only prefer the Muslim fundamentalist regime because I’d rather be a Muslim under a Muslim fundamentalist regime than a Muslim under a Christian fundamentalist regime.
Hard to believe that about 15 years ago, I was briefly on the board of governors for the Maryland ACLU. I also handled several cases pro bono for clients represented by the ACLU. Today I wouldn’t give a dime or a minute to the ACLU effort. Sometimes I miss the old days of defending Nazis.
haroon – The reason I posed the question was because I was surprised at my own answer. I would prefer to live under a Christian fundamentalist regime because even though I would be viewed and treated as salvifically deficient, no one would tell me how to practice my faith or impose their interpretation of the non-existent one true Islam upon me.
Tony – I’m speechless …
“no one would tell me how to practice my faith or impose their interpretation of the non-existent one true Islam upon me.”
That is if Islam was a legally acceptable faith under this “Christian fundamentalist” state.
thabet – good point.
I assumed that a “Christian fundamentalist” regime, whatever that looked like, would have to allow for the existence of those who were not “saved” and would not achieve salvation, but still had a right to live within the nation. I’d rather pay a special tax than be told how I must practice my faith. (Maybe that’s not such a good assumption.)
On a related note, my gut feels better about being called an infidel by a Christian than by a Muslim. When a Christian calls me an infidel, I believe it reflects on his/her faith, not mine. When a Muslim labels me as such, I can’t help but feel sad because I think that it takes something away from Islam. I guess I would choose exclusion/discrimination over oppression. (Once again assuming that the former doesn’t necessarily lead to the latter.)