Tarek Fatah is attacked daily -- he's a traitor to Islam, he's a stooge of the West yadda yadda yadda. But today brought the weirdest attack yet -- he's not a Muslim at all.
Now, if this was the comment of someone saying, in an extreme way, he's not a "proper" Muslim (his views on, say, women and abortion do not fit well with Saudi views on Islam) it would make sense. But in this case the complaint comes from a Christian who says that a Muslim is defined by belief and a 'secular' Muslim cannot exist.
Of course, that is to import a Protestant Christian test into another faith altogether. It's the same mistake the English Supreme Court made earlier this year when considering Jews -- they defined a Jew by belief when, in fact, belief has nothing to do with who is a Jew. Tarek, like him or hate him (I follow the former), is a Muslim -- his religious beliefs, or the lack thereof, don't affect that status.
10 comments:
I'd have to think about this, but I don't think it's an open-and-shut case.
If religion were hereditary, then it would be impossible for the Pope to excommunicate people and concert them into ex-Catholics.
If religion were hereditary, ti would be impossible to convert - once a Muslim, always a Muslim - which makes the entire evangelical movement impossible and futile.
If religion were hereditary it would make no sense to talk about "freedom of conscience" - it would be like talking about someone's freedom to have two feet.
No, I think that in the common and everyday use of the term, whether one belongs to a religious faith depends greatly, if not entirely, on whether he has, or at least professes, to have faith.
Downes has pretty well said it all. The signifier"Muslim" is used as a stand-in for "race" these days by the Right. But it's a religious term, not a racial or ethnic one. "Secular Muslim" is a bit of a chimera. "Non-practising" might be more apt, because that at least leaves the belief intact.
Here I disagree -- simply because in its own terms once your are a Muslim, however you become one, you remain a Muslim for life, at least according to Islam. It's the same with being a Jew -- however you become a Jew, birht or conversion, once you have that status you have it forever and belief or practice is irrelevant. The sense of religion by belief is specially Christian -- and that's fine as a definition amongst Christians but it doesn't necessarily apply in other religions. But I think I may have beaten this rather small horse to death!!!
I like Tarek as well. He is a brave man. However being a Muslim is a faith, not a race. If Tarek calls himself a Muslim, he is one.
One question I have for the Jewish people I never got a clear answer on.
I am told you can be a Atheist and still be a Jew, however if you convert to Christianity, you are no longer a Jew.
This does not make sense.
People call themselves Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists; people call others by these names whether or not others identify themselves as such. For example, most Arab Americans are assumed to be Muslim even though about 70 percent of them are Christian.
During the 1930's and 40's, some people found out that they were classified as Jewish even thought they didn't practise Judaism. The results were often catastrophic.
I do call myself a Christian because I celebrate Christmas and Easter. Many Born-again Christians don't think of me as a Christian. Personally, I'm not worried.
Finally, the term "race" has changed over the century. We now think of race as someone's colour or skin complexion whereas it was used in Britain to identify people of different backgrounds such as the English, Irish, and Scots.
Morton, you write: It's the same with being a Jew -- however you become a Jew, [birth] or conversion, once you have that status you have it forever and belief or practice is irrelevant.
It would appear there are nuances to that assertion. I just came upon this fascinating column. The discussion is most interesting as well.
http://users.eastlink.ca/~nertamid/MALVERN.HTM
Malvern Jacobs was denied burial at Pardes Shalom because they claimed he was "no longer a Jew". He became a Christian, or as Mr. Jacobs describes as a "Messianic Jew".
Very sad. An atheist is not denied burial at a Jewish Cemetery (William Kashtan buried at Bathurst Lawn Memorial),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kashtan
Once you convert to Christianity its different.
No one has ever given me a clear reason why.
OK, in fairness some believe that if you are a Jew and become a Christian you cease to be a Jew. That said, Orthodox Judaism considers a person born of a Jewish mother to be Jewish, even if they convert to another religion: Katz, Lisa. "Who is a Jew?". Judaism. About.com. http://judaism.about.com/od/whoisajew/a/whoisjewdescent.htm. Reform thinks differently: "Question 18.3.4: Reform's Position On...What is unacceptable practice?". FAQs.org. 2008-07-17. http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/10-Reform/section-15.html. Retrieved 2008-07-17.
So... if I was raised a Christian, and then converted to Judaism, and then to Islam, and then back to Christianity, I could be all three at once, and more, _necessarily so_, because once I'm a Muslim, or a Jew, it doesn't matter what I believe any more, I'm one for life.
Is that the logic?
That doesn't make sense, and I can't really imagine anyone genuinely believing it makes sense. A practising Christian can't walk into mecca, or be buried in a Jewish cemetary, and is not, in fact, either of those, and would not be recognized as a Muslim or a Jew by either community.
I realize that it is a tenet of some Orthodox Jews to say "once a Jew always a Jew" but this tenet does by any empirical test appear actually to be believed.
Very interesting conversation. What about Hinduism? It's a term probably coined by ancient Greeks for peoples living across the Indus river. There is nothing like a "hindu" religion. You could believe in Jesus and still be a Hindu. In my parent's altar is a curious mix of religious figure that will surprise you. I accept that it's not easy for a westerner or someone of the Abrahamic faiths to comprehend this complexity. We don't have "defining canons". if it's made to seem like a coherent, organized faith lately, it's because it serves someone' political purposes. All that said, I'm an agnostic (and I find abhorrent some of the rituals practiced in India as also the ideas). I'm born to "Hindu" parents. Am I a Hindu, according to you?
Post a Comment