He said he still hoped that one day the United States would be a Muslim country ruled by Islamic law, "not by violent means, but by persuasion."
"Every Muslim who is honest would say, I would like to see America become a Muslim country," he said. "I think it would help people, and if I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t be a Muslim. Because Islam helped me as a person, and it’s helped a lot of people in my community."
This is a ludicrous and frankly stupid thing to say. America is already the greatest Islamic nation in the world. Muslims of all sects within Islam can pracctice their faith freeely here, build masajid, pray. There is no nation on earth that officially calls itself "Islamic" that accords all believers the same freedom of faith. None.
UPDATE: Eteraz has more.
UPDATE 2. Via Ezra, Shadi Hamid comes along and now says that it is incumbent upon American muslims to repuduiate Shakir's remarks. That's equally insulting. Can American muslims for once have a dialog about faith and poliltics without pseudo-fatwas about what a "true muslim" feels or what is "incumbent" ? Ezra points out that Shakir's remarks would be unexceptional in a Christian framework, whch is certainly why Hamid is wrong to insist that they be the subject of a "loyalty test", no matter how aggravating the remarks were. Any non-muslim pointing to Shakir's remarks as proof of impending dhimmitude is just giving vent to their inner jafi. However, American muslims have every right to be indignant and outraged - if they so choose, Ms. Hamdi! - by yet another attempt by someone to import religious sensibilities from abroad, and designate themselves as our mouthpiece.
We muslims in America will choose our own leaders. Both Shakir and Hamdi would do well to reflect on that.
I also note that I do consider myself a traditionalist muslim, not a "progressive" one. I am just put off by attempts to assert what I as an "honest muslim" should believe.
(note: some interesting discussion on my cross-post at Dean's World).
4 comments:
Imagine The U.S. of A as an Islamic Repulic. Just imagine. Nothing changed, same military status. The world might actually be more peaceful.
I can't see a bigger obstacle to world peace than our secular, non-theocratic civilzed, modern western nations. Well, a few of them.
dude what are you smoking. Is the USA were an ISlamic Republic, then I would be dead. You seem to live in a bubble. Have you ever actually traveled to the Middle East? Are you a muslim? or Shi'a ?
then I would be dead.
No you wouldn't. Of course, blogs like yours might put you in a little danger in some Islamic Republic systems; but then, if the USA were an Islamic Republic, you would very likely not have reason to feel the way you do now, and so you would not have made such a blog or have expressed such views and, therefore, would not be in danger. I will almost promise you.
Are you a muslim? or Shi'a ?
negative.
Have you ever actually traveled to the Middle East
negative. And why should I, when I can get a nice clear view of the how war machine works and it's consequences from here?
You seem to live in a bubble.
Well, that's not surprising considering my view of things.
Talk about beind dead, I would likely be assasinated instantly by some crazed American jingoist, or even by a mislead, brainwashed, pro-western invasion, imperialist moslem, if I dared express the truths of my views publicly, here, in the free, old western world. Or, even secret-service agents making me silently disappear.
Get used to it; the Islamic theocratic system is not the worst thing in the universe. The only reason some people in Islamic theocracies are unsatisfied is that they are not immune to western propaganda; they start believing that the west must be a great, heaven-like place, and that theocracies must be backward and unfree.
And, of course, this is very far from the truth of the matter.
Question: Is there a difference between a 'Muslim country' and an 'Islamic Republic'?
Post a Comment