"If you're a Muslim, why not be religious?" | The New York Times
A fascinating discussion of a complex issue, for which the participants suggested an overly simplistic solution.
The UAE is not a traditional Muslim country, even though
officially 96 percent of its population practices Islam. Women drive, go shopping alone, many do not wear veils and most certainly do not
get arrested for being with a member of the opposite sex not related or married to her. There is no
religious police, families and singles mingle in every venue, and men flirt with women while
driving on the highway. It's a pretty liberal atmosphere here, even by Western standards.
The American University in Cairo students took issue with a
Times article that, among other points, said that bored, disadvantaged and disillusioned young Muslims are filling their lives with religious fervor instead. And, fine, that has holes as Osama bin Laden is heir to a fortune, but it's the latter part of their discussion focusing on religion's role in society that I can't stomach. They unanimously suggest that the government should operate by the tenets of Islam. Except some of them wear headscarves, and some don't, and one of the students gives a noncommittal answer as to whether these female colleagues were sinning because of that. Yet all of them claimed to be religious.
Do they not see the problem here? They're proposing to canonize a religion whose mandates they disagree on.
The freedom to choose what religion means to you and how you live your life in accordance with it is something that's only relevant on a personal level. But problems arise when attempting to choose one of the many interpretations thereof, even within a single religion, to impose on an entire population. I'm glad that these kids have found a liberal enclave in an increasingly conservative society and enjoy an enlightened, privileged vantage point from which to experience their religion, but that's not everyone's Islam. More than that, like seemingly every other religion on this planet, their holy book makes reference to killing nonbelievers. Should that be ordained? I'm just picking on an extreme example, but that concept is no less legitimate than women covering their hair if the criteria is, "What does the book say about this?"
I'm just saying that religions have books, yet even scholars who make a life of studying them don't always agree on its passages, let alone laypeople. Much like the Constitution of the United States, in fact, except I haven't heard of people killing each other in its name because that document says nothing of purging anyone, nonbeliever or otherwise. I'm not saying democracy is the answer - its track record is checkered at best - but I'm down with a malleable courts system, freedom of and from religion, and not having my fashion choices criticized with stoning.