Sharia, Islam not uniform
The marriage of religion - any religion - and law is a terrible idea. That is no less true for Christianity than Islam.
Anything backed by the power of a deity is fraught with limitless potential for abuse. Who can argue with the authority of a god? To challenge actions made "in the name of God" is to be accused of immorality or faithlessness. When defying "the faith" equates to lawbreaking, there is no redress. Government authority is unchecked and absolute.
The inclinations in this country to mix the almighty with politics terrify me more than any outside threat.
Against this backdrop of the dangers of church-state marriages, although rarely applied to a concept of Christian law, is the swelling tsunami of fear of Islamic law. Sharia (literally, "path to the watering hole") must not be confused with Islam itself.
There are as many interpretations of Islam as of Christianity. Mormons/LDS differ in beliefs and practices from southern Baptists, and even more from Presbyterians. They all differ from the Aryan Nations' version of Christianity, yet all these consider themselves Christians and act "in the name of God."
Judging as uniform all who claim Christianity is no more accurate than doing the same with Muslims.
The Islam I grew up with in Iran (in my two-religion family and before the revolution) was pious, peaceful, and compassionate. In a Tehran school I was taught that Islam condemns all violence. I prayed to Mecca with grandma and went to Catholic mass with mom with full support of each. Nowhere in our city of seven million did I encounter what I hear locals describe - the extremist interpretations excusing terrorism. It isn't common; fear drives the impression that it is.
I wonder how offended Christians would be if a Hindu claimed to know more about Christianity than Christians themselves, yet here we persist in ignoring what Muslims say about their own religion. Mainstream and American Muslims continue to share their visions of a peaceful Islam, condemning the use of Islam to justify violence, using public announcements and speaking (such as the imam who visited Unity Church).
Not that anybody pays attention to what he doesn't want to hear. It's easier to simply target a religion, something identifiable, than it is to ferret out responsible individuals, subgroups, and complex motivations.
Just as all Christians are not created alike (and don't take every word in the Bible literally), nor are all Muslims. Even the published texts of both religions vary by interpretation and wording. Yet in the last years across the U.S. Islamic children's nurseries have been pipe-bombed by those calling themselves Christians, people walking to Friday services have had acid thrown in their faces, and ministers have presided over Quran-burnings.
Islam is not sharia. The application of sharia isn't detailed in the Quran, so in practice, personal and national interpretations range widely in level of liberties. Iran's sharia is extremely conservative and minimal in civil liberties. At the opposite end of the spectrum is a more liberal sharia that allows women to divorce at will and condemns such archaic practices as stoning. Some Muslims oppose any concept of sharia as a form of government.
Regardless of particulars, mixing any religion with law or politics is bad for human rights. Yes, using god as a basis for terrorism makes it more dangerous, but as they say, all poodles may be dogs, but all dogs are not poodles. Extremism, oppressive governments, and fear are the enemies, not the billions of Muslims who have coexisted for centuries without attacking anyone. If we focused as much energy on promoting human rights as we do on expressions of hatred, we might actually get somewhere.
Sholeh Patrick is a columnist for the Hagadone News Network whose childhood was split between Iran and the U.S. She holds degrees in international studies and law. Sholehjo@hotmail.com