Is Islam like a drug? (Hamed Abdel Samad, political scientist)

Any more loaded questions?

Every single human in the world has a set of beliefs that always supersedes national laws. Think of the atheist American who does not agree with the criminalization of mar1juana. Think of the Christian who bombs abortion clinics. Think of the Jewish person who believes that Jews shouldn't have a nation but he/she lives in Israel. All we're talking about is that every human believes certain things should be legal and other things illegal, and they only abide by the laws of nation-states as far as it doesn't impede their freedom to live how they want to live.

It absolutely makes it easier to manipulate followers of Islam into breaking laws, for the exact same reason it makes it difficult to manipulate followers of Islam into blindly following laws which they feel are illegitimate.

This doesn't seem inherently bad to me. If I can borrow the financial terminology, the risk is higher and the expected return is higher, but it does not necessarily have a higher risk/return ratio.

What exactly is the goal is the same for Muslims as it is for everyone else. Everyone wants laws to gravitate towards what they believe is "right". Given no two Muslims believe in the same "right", it is arbitrary to even discuss them as a group in this context. A Muslim and a Jew could have the same definition of right.

Don't forget that Islam is a revolutionary religion, and Muhammad is a revolutionary. Granted this idea has been virtually annihilated in the Arab world today (for obvious reasons I'm sure you can figure out), the basic structure is:

- The Quraysh tribe (from which Muhammad hails) was the government of Mecca. I wouldn't say it was a pure dictatorship since the other tribes nominated them routinely, but it was far from a democracy.
- Muhammad told people that they do not have to pay Quraysh to worship God.
- Quraysh did not like this and jailed/tortured Muhammad and the people who believed him.
- Muhammad insisted on his freedom to speak and express views not aligned with the ruling tribe's views.
- They tortured him and his friends and family.
- He advised his friends and family to abandon Mecca and go to modern-day Ethiopia to escape persecution while he figured out a solution. Quraysh sent people to force them back to Mecca, since this immigration would cost them money.
- The mostly Jewish population of Yathrib, aka Madina, invited Muhammad and his followers to live there. So they all went there. Muhammad was trusted by the Jews enough that he settled disputes through arbitration. He was NOT in power here. He was just living there.
- Quraysh placed a reward for Muhammad, dead or alive. They could not accept someone escaping their judgement.
- When the time for pilgrimage came, he had too many supporters for Quraysh to have a chance. He pre-announced to Quraysh that he would return peacefully.
- Quraysh attacked his people. The Muslims resisted fighting until Quraysh committed the cardinal sin - a sin in both their religion and the Islamic religion - of killing people during prayer at pilgrimage. This was essentially the final straw, and it is also the context for the Quranic verse which you routinely take out of context to imply that Muslims are ordered by the Quran to kill non-Muslims. The verse is, in fact, an order from God that the Muslims can no longer tolerate the persecution of Quraysh and that they can defend themselves now for this particular conflict. Not for the rest of eternity. Not for anyone who annoys Muslims. It's an order to the early Muslims to defend themselves in war from the Qurayshis who have persecuted them systematically and violently for years.
- The Muslims defeated Quraysh. Muhammad was the leader of the ummah. I say ummah because they did not exert control over any town/city geographically that did not attempt to attack them first. "Pagans", Jews and Christians were allowed to enforce their own law in their own territories all over present-day Saudi Arabia.

In that sense, no one should be surprised that Muslims are less likely to conform to present day laws. Their religion is born out of opposition to oppressive laws against freedom of speech and expression. This is even more apparent when you consider that Muhammad did not limit the freedom of speech/expression of anyone during his life. The reversal began when his seemingly arbitrarily appointed successors became the leaders of the ummah.

 

the atheist American who does not agree with the criminalization of mar1juana?


wait... what?