Saw some newscasts from the mid-east regions about the discussions of how Islam, as viewed by some, should deal with the west.
Essentially, there is a view that states it's the governments who will be dealt with that will not allow for Islam to be promoted.
This idea comes from the tradition of Islam as the protector of rights of an individual against the state. However it requires the state enforce an establishment of religion. That isn't the model in our system. We have both freedom of and from religion.
A scholarly view from a traditional Muslim.
"The threats that differences of religious opinion pose to the state can be defended against by guaranteeing the free exercise of religion, but the threats that the state poses to the understanding of religion by its establishment have no defense."
Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, Ph.D. Minaret of Freedom Institute
This particular scholar gives both scriptural and traditional/ historical examples of the proposition that, indeed, establishment is not in the interests of the Muslim.
His conclusion? That the American system is a Muslims best bet for a governmental structure.
"Establishment of a state religion opens the door to the politicization of religion. The art of politics is coercive by definition."
Wouldn't the founding fathers be pleased.
