Question One aspect of Muslim culture that runs against the grain of Americans is the lack of the acceptance of separation of church and state. Some (many?) Muslim sects, like the Taliban wish to institute a muslimocracy in which the religious leaders, i.e. imams and such, are also the state. Under Sharia law, it seems that religious texts determine justice in any kind of human disputes, with little regard to circumstances, and with broad interpretation by those who claim to be learned with respect to Koranic law; oh, and with rather crude sentences like stoning. This kind of society is quite different from one in which there is a civil code that can be invoked without bringing God into the equation explicitly. Certainly, some of the components of Western civil law have roots in parts of the bible, such as the ten commandments. But civil, i.e. governmental and commercial, interests pushed religion from the leading role in Western society and culture to a mostly minor footnote over the last several centuries. Individuals are not judged primarily on their morals or their religion, but rather on what they can accomplish, and how efficiently and quickly they can do it. This leaves many ethical questions to the religious folks to decide, if they don't impact business. The existence of a civil society fosters the use of logic and understanding, and promotes cooperation to minimize time wasted in disputes. On the negative side of the coin, no moral authority will speak out when the market-makers exploit human ignorance and man's covetous nature to create a dog-eat-dog world filled with meaningless pursuits. Without a civil society, justice must be haphazard due to the nature of the guidance provided by Holy Books. The Koran is likely no less self-contradicting nor more consistent than the Christian Bible or the Jewish Talmud. Muslim groups within America appear to be content with the separation of church and state; but, if their holy book says that the believers should make Sharia the law of the land, that is seditious! It speaks against democracy and the human freedoms for which the country stands. It would be useful if someone(s) familiar with the subject would address this conflict in an open forum. Perhaps there are whole books, or chapters thereof in the literature that have covered this. Does anyone know?

Accepted:
September 23, 2010

Comments

Theocracy is indeed one of the most dangerous political phenomena the world faces today--especially Muslim, Christian, and Jewish theocracy. That having been said, what the Koran says or doesn't say isn't terribly important. Believers of all three of the Abrahamic religions commonly ignore or explain away elements of their Scriptures that contradict the norms of civil society. Ambrose Bierce famously defined a Christian as someone who adheres to the teachings of Christ to the extent they are not inconsistent with a life of sin. I think that's true of most believers. Having said that, there are plenty in all three religions who wish to import religious dogma into the business of government, and you are right to resist that. On the other hand, there may be special cases where civil law grants certain exemptions or latitude to deep matters of conscience. For example, US law grants conscientious objectors exemption from military service for reasons of religious conviction. Accommodations are often made in civil institutions of government like prisons for dietary restrictions--pork for Jews and Muslims, for example. Civil government often suspends is operations on religious holidays.

The philosophical problem with setting a religious basis to public policy and law in a pluralistic society is that religion appeals to reasons not available and not acceptable to non-believers. Moreover, in maintaining that they have apprehended absolute truths, religions commonly regard their opponents as absolutely wrong. Even worse, the religious not only regard those who disagree with or defy them as not only absolutely wrong but also as dangerous in the most profound way--threatening to lead believers not only into error but also into eternal damnation. As a result infidels, heretics, and dissenters warrant for believers the most extreme censure and punishment. Of course, it's by no means true that all or even most believers follow out the logic of their religions in this way. And it's important not to conclude that Christians, Muslims, and Jews present widespread threats to society. The hard work of civilization has thankfully made religion largely safe for civil society. Keeping it safe however t does require continued labor.