Islam in the News
OK, I'll wade in, but just up to my ankles.
1. So the prisoner in Arkansas, a convert to Islam, claims it is a violation of his religious freedom that the prison doesn't allow facial hair. This is one of those cases where most people's first reaction is, please. My reaction anyway. It does seem, though, that he has a pretty good case, since the beard doesn't represent any kind of security threat. That said, it seems to me almost preposterous that facial hair is essential to someone's religious practice. But I was raised a Protestant, so I have an ingrained bias against externals in religion. So let me be a bit more generous and say that religious practice defined thusly is simply not limber enough to meet the needs and challenges of the 21st century.*
2. OK, next, the Ben Affleck - Bill Maher flap about the nature of Islam. I'll just say that it's not helpful or accurate to define a religion only by its most generous and beneficent interpretation (nor by its most negative). Violent jihadis who claim to be following Islam deserve to be taken at their word. No religion can be interpreted just one way. And the jihadis can certainly back up their point of view with scripture. Islam is indeed a "religion of peace" for those who practice it that way. They can back up their interpretation with scripture, too. At this point in history, and on the whole, Islamic fundamentalists do appear to pose a bigger threat than fundamentalists in other religions. My preference is that all the fundamentalists across all the religions evolve into more inclusive worldviews.
* I see online that: "the Arkansas’ brief in the case noted that Holt is allowed access to a Muslim counselor, the ability to pray in the direction of Mecca and food options that allow him to observe Muslim dietary law." It sounds like this guy is just being a royal pain.
1. So the prisoner in Arkansas, a convert to Islam, claims it is a violation of his religious freedom that the prison doesn't allow facial hair. This is one of those cases where most people's first reaction is, please. My reaction anyway. It does seem, though, that he has a pretty good case, since the beard doesn't represent any kind of security threat. That said, it seems to me almost preposterous that facial hair is essential to someone's religious practice. But I was raised a Protestant, so I have an ingrained bias against externals in religion. So let me be a bit more generous and say that religious practice defined thusly is simply not limber enough to meet the needs and challenges of the 21st century.*
2. OK, next, the Ben Affleck - Bill Maher flap about the nature of Islam. I'll just say that it's not helpful or accurate to define a religion only by its most generous and beneficent interpretation (nor by its most negative). Violent jihadis who claim to be following Islam deserve to be taken at their word. No religion can be interpreted just one way. And the jihadis can certainly back up their point of view with scripture. Islam is indeed a "religion of peace" for those who practice it that way. They can back up their interpretation with scripture, too. At this point in history, and on the whole, Islamic fundamentalists do appear to pose a bigger threat than fundamentalists in other religions. My preference is that all the fundamentalists across all the religions evolve into more inclusive worldviews.
* I see online that: "the Arkansas’ brief in the case noted that Holt is allowed access to a Muslim counselor, the ability to pray in the direction of Mecca and food options that allow him to observe Muslim dietary law." It sounds like this guy is just being a royal pain.
Comments
Post a Comment