Dr. Tawfik Hamid is an Islamic thinker and reformer. He was formerly a member of an Egyptian terrorist Islamic organization, JI, with Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, who later became second-in-command to Osama bin Laden of al Qaeda.I place my faith more in people than in Islam and its possible reform. It is like a western woman joining Islam and then fighting for women's rights from within - why join you are already free!! To join Islam you have to then explain the Prophet's behavior and all the draconian rules and cruel and unusual punishments. But some people will choose to fight from with - it's a paradise at the end of it ~ apparently. In any case - if anyone can get these nut-cases to behave themselves - I suppose we have to welcome!
In this article he is right on the money - if you start making concessions to Muslims for Shari'a law - then it becomes discriminatory not to extend those concessions to others. If you have an Islamic toilet - then there should also be a separate Hindu, Buddhist and Christian toilets. Similarly there should be separate prayer rooms from each respective faith on university campuses.
Generally speaking, showing respect to other cultures and religions is a great virtue that can create peace and harmony among different civilizations.
However, it is vital to distinguish between, for example, traditional dancing and the stoning of women until death as parts of various cultures. Tolerance for the former is useful; however, tolerance of the latter is entirely destructive.
It is also fundamental to know the effects of respecting some cultural or religious aspects on those who belong to the culture or follow a particular faith. There is a delicate balance between showing respect and showing weakness to some cultures.
For example, after the publishing of the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad by the Danish newspaper en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten Jyllands-Posten in late September of 2005, there were no violent demonstrations by Muslims for a four-month period.
The violent response to the cartoons occurred in early February of 2006; only 72 hours after the magazine apologized for publishing the cartoons. This apology was likely perceived by radical Muslims as weakness, and thus initiated a wave of Islamic violence that spread to many parts of the world.
Similarly, making concessions to Islamic Shariah law can serve as a provocation to radical Islam, as it gives the radicals the impression that the West should bow to their Islamic laws.
These radicals will remain unsatisfied until the West complies with all of their demands to practice additional aspects of Islamic Shariah law, including cruel punishments and discrimination against women, gays and non-Muslims.
For example, if the decision-makers in U.S. were to accept that Muslim taxi drivers should be allowed to refuse to transport passengers carrying dogs or alcohol with them on the grounds that doing so is "un-Islamic" (as Muslim taxi drivers demanded in Minneapolis in 2007), then these decision-makers should also be ready to exempt other Muslims from paying taxes in the U.S., assuming that the Muslims considered paying such taxes "un-Islamic"! Are the decision-makers here ready to allow this to happen under the banner of religious freedom?
Another crucial point in this regard is the question of how much we should change our laws to accommodate the Islamists' demands.
Making concessions to Shariah law is a potentially endless process that could ultimately result in the passage of unconstitutional and barbaric laws within the U.S. If every religious group in the U.S. is allowed to practice its own tribal or religious law instead of constitutional law, then the whole notion of a unified country will no longer exist.
In addition, the decision-makers in the U.S. need to realize that allowing mosques inside secular institutes such as universities was one of the earliest steps that aggravated the phenomenon of Islamism in other parts of the world, as it allowed radicals to have easy access to, and enough time to meet with and radicalize, motivated young Muslims.
The U.S. must be aware of this possibility and reject the Islamization of its secular institutes under the banner of religious freedom.
In 2008, to accommodate Muslim students, Harvard tried having women-only gym hours. This could be seen as a form of discrimination against male students, who had to change their workout schedules as a result of the new policy.
This is a clear form of sex discrimination. Furthermore, what if the Muslim students ask that gays not be permitted in the gym at any time, as homosexuality is a grave sin in Islam? Will the university bow to this as well to respect the religious demands of such Muslims?
Harvard should be also ready to apply the same principle if some followers of a certain faith ask the university one day to prevent Muslims from entering the gym as, in their view, the presence of Muslims in the gym offends their feelings and goes against their religious values.
In such a case, would the university also accommodate the religious demands of this religious group -- just as it accepted the demands of Muslim students -- and prevent Muslims from entering the gym?
The only way to get out of this dilemma is to ask both Muslims and non-Muslims to fit themselves within the non-discriminatory framework of the university.
In brief, accepting the idea that our constitutional laws can be broken to satisfy the Muslim population can actually open the gate for both discrimination against non-Muslims and the practice of many unconstitutional and inhumane Shariah laws.
We also need to distinguish between religious values, such as fasting, that predominantly affect the person who practices them, and those religious values that have a negative effect on others. The U.S. must insist that Muslims here practice their faith and fit it within the borders of the American legal system, and not the other way around.
Washington Examiner
0 comments:
Post a Comment