Recently in Muslims Category

a great series at Open Left by diarist dreaminonempty has been chronicling the future decline and fall of the Republican Party on the basis of demographic trends, ethnic and religious. The post on religious trends had a extensive section on how muslim voting trends, which have been much more volatile in response to policy than comparable groups like the African Americans or Jewish Americans. I take these results at City of Brass and re-open an old debate about whether there is/should be a "muslim vote" and whether it would necessarily be aligned with the political Left.

We are discussing this at Talk Islam, as usual...

Immediately after it became known that the shooter at Fort Hood was South Asian and had a Muslim sounding name the condemnations came in from every major Islamic organization in America. In my inbox I got emails from Daisy Khan and Feisal Rauf, Eboo Patel, Shahed Amanullah and others expressing, on behalf of their religion, their sorrow and grief for the victims and the families of those who were killed and wounded. These Muslims felt the need to urgently and publically disassociated themselves from any violence that is in any way connected to Islam, and ask for calm in the face of this renewed suspicion among some quarters that Islam is the reason for this violent act. It reminds me of African Americans who cringe when they hear reports of a crime done by another African American fearing that the incident will reflect upon them because they share the same racial background. More recently, Asian Americans, especially of Korean decent, experienced a similar inclination to disassociate their own race with the shooter at Virginia Tech. And even more recently, Jews felt somehow implicated as a race and/or religion in the crimes of the swindler Bernie Madoff. It is in recognition of my own privilege as a white Christian male in America that I do not feel any need to disassociate myself from the many heinous things that white Christian men do because I already don't associate myself with them and neither does the rest of society. We who are White, Christian and Male (WCMs) should ask ourselves this basic question: When we heard about the Oklahoma bomber, Columbine, or the shooter at the Holocaust museum - all horrible crimes committed by WCMs did we think to ourselves - 'oh, this will reflect badly on me?' The answer is no. Why? Because still in this country, White, Male, Christians are considered normative and therefore the range of WCM behavior, from very good to very bad, simply represents the wide range of human behavior. I know I have nothing in common with Timothy McVeigh and so does the rest of American society. Unfortunately, people of other races and religions in America do not have the benefit of recognition that there are very good people and very bad people among them. Instead, the actions of one person of a minority group reflects upon the reputation and sense of security and worth of the entire group. This has to stop. It is not fair for a young Muslim student in Seattle to bear the burden of association or responsibility for the shooting in Texas. The two have nothing to do with one another. Of course we need to investigate the factors, including religious ones, that may have gone into this horrible shooter incident at Fort Hood, just as we needed to look into the influences on Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma or Von Brunn at the Holocaust Museum. But this event no more reflects on the whole of Islam or South Asians than McVeigh or Von Brunn reflects on White, Christian Males. It is time to extend the privilege of disassociation from evil outliers to all races and religions in America.

Thursday's fatal shooting at Fort Hood military base in Texas, in which 12 people were killed and over 30 wounded, would be horrific under any circumstances. But the reported identity of one of the shooters killed, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, is only going to make things worse. The 39 year-old is a reported convert to Islam, which will make religion the prism through which this act of murder is viewed.

Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, was reportedly troubled by his impending deployment to Iraq. Mental instability and depression has resulted in violence within the armed forces before. But unless Hasan left an explicit message to that effect, a religiously-inspired political act of violence is, much as we'd be unwilling to admit it, entirely plausible. With that in mind, Muslims will have to ask themselves some difficult questions as to why there are still those among us who continue to find justification for acts such as this in their faith.

Until then, American Muslims should consider this an act of betrayal and treachery, regardless of the political sphere surrounding America's wars overseas. It is clear that Islam does not condone (if we must entertain the killer's possible motives) any sort of extrajudicial punishment. It is also clear that any scholarly consensus on the matter has not been communicated widely enough, particularly - it must be said - with those who may be new to the religion.

Unfortunately, current active-duty Muslim servicemen and women will have to try even harder in the wake of this shooting to prove their loyalty to their fellow soldiers. It must be said that dozens of Muslim-Americans have already given their lives in the service of their country just in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition to offering our condolences to the families of the fallen, we must reassert our solidarity with Muslim-Americans currently in the services who don't deserve to face hostility from two fronts.

crossposted from Alt Muslims

ABC's Nightline has been running a series on the Ten Commandments in which they explore the issues and dimensions of each commandment in contemporary society.   Tonight's commandment:  Thou shalt not commit adultery.

The series is interesting and, in many ways, inclusive.  After all, the Ten Commandments form the ethical basis of the world's three great monotheistic religions.  Jews, Christians, and Muslims draw inspiration from them and, throughout history, developed the insights of the commandments in theological, moral, social, and legal arenas.  They are very important spiritually, morally, intellectually, and culturally.

But for all their inclusiveness, their interpretation is often the source of division.  It is one thing to say, "Thou shalt not...." and it is often a completely different thing to figure out how the "shalt nots" relate to human experience.  For, despite the moral idealism of the commandments, everyone knows that human beings actually do the "shalt nots."

"Thou shalt not commit adultery" is a good example of the problem with the commandments.  Martial fidelity is a practical way of honoring and respecting one's partner.  To be faithful--even when one might not "feel" like it--is a fundamental way of respecting another human being by taking into their feelings, emotions, and commitments before simply acting on one's personal inclinations.  To stop and think about the effects of one's actions on a larger community (in the case of adultery, thinking about a spouse and children) often inhibits bad choices.  That's a big part of morality--to reflect on one's actions in advance and to consider the communal consequences of behavior.  Moral frameworks--like the Ten Commandments--provide guidelines for such reflection.  And, as such, they form a vision for what constitutes the good society--a society that honors God and neighbor.

The problem comes with the obvious fact that human beings--even reflective and caring ones--don't always act in a way that honors God and neighbor.  We both flaunt and break the commandments on a regular basis.  So, what does society do with the violators?

Throughout history, religious groups have tried to enforce the Ten Commandments through legal means.  We might all agree that theft and murder are wrong and that thieves and murderers should go to prison.  But what about the "lesser" commandments--like adultery?  In Jesus' day, women caught in adultery could be stoned--and that is still the case in many countries around the world.  In early American history, adulterers could be whipped, jailed, divorced with their permission, or forced (as in The Scarlet Letter) to wear a public mark of shame. 

To point up the problem with adultery is only the beginning.  What of those who swear, lie, or worship other gods?  Should society make swearing a crime?  Idolatry?  Being angry at your parents?  Where does this end?  In some sort of Taliban-style legalism where the religion police enforce a literal interpretation of each of these Ten Commandments?  Do we rank the commandments in order of importance?  The bad ones get the most punishment?  The minor ones get overlooked?  The Ten Commandments--for all their moral grandeur--quickly descend into an ethical quagmire of angels dancing on the head of pins. 

The answer is obvious:  Very few people take the Ten Commandments literally.  We contextualize them, trying to discern the origin, intent, and purpose of these commandments in order to create a way of life that demonstrates the deeper wisdom of these teachings.  And we recognize the human disposition toward breaking them--and, to a greater or lesser degree, we offer forgiveness, understanding, and reconciliation toward one another in regard to the Ten Commandments.  And religious communities argue about how much forgiveness, understanding, and reconciliation is appropriate in any given denomination or tradition.   

Taking the Commandments out of context is spiritually and politically dangerous.  To hold up these ten commandments--in Hebrew they aren't even called "commandments;" rather, the Hebrew word is "terms"--to hold up these ten terms of the moral law without reference to the larger intent of the words leads to legalism, violence, and repression.  God intended for the Law to be joyful, a pathway for a way of life of devotion and respect for one other, a blessing and not a curse. Indeed, Jesus--a rabbi himself--made this point.  When asked what was the most important of the commandments, he replied:  "Love God and love your neighbor as yourself." 

That is the summary--the intended wisdom--of the Ten Commandments.  The ten terms of the law should bring us to the basis for a good life:  love.   Is it loving to murder, steal, curse, violate our vows, lie, envy or demean another?  That should be the first question of morality--and it is what the Ten Commandments teach.