Mohammed the Friendly Bear Revisited

I wanted to better understand the Muslim point of view of the apparent conflict between Islam and western countries, so I decided to find some Muslim websites to try to see things from another side. Most of the sites I found were, not surprisingly, based in England, where they have a fair sized Muslim population. I learned a lot from this, finding some of it enlightening and some of it disturbing.

On the historical/political side, I have a better understanding of how they see their past political conflicts with western countries. I'll just say that I can see how they feel they were interfered with in some respects, and I'll leave it at that without trying to argue the merits of either side.

One particularly interesting discussion on a Muslim message board involved a non-Muslim asking about apostasy, which is when a Muslim decides to convert to another religion. The non-Muslim raised the question as to whether or not it's true that apostasy is punishable by death according to Islam. The bottom line is that yes, it's true, but that while strict Muslims would enforce it, more moderate Muslims generally would not.

One of the more illuminating responses explained that there was a historical reason for that position. At the time the Koran was written, it was common practice for men to infiltrate the opposing army, find out their plans, then return to their own side. So men would turn up to join their army, proclaim themselves to be Muslims, then leave with information. The reason for this rule wasn't spiritual; it was military, and common sense! I have a serious problem with the notion of putting someone to death based on spiritual doctrine, but I can understand the reasons for executing a spy in the course of war. The main problem here is that what was once a practical matter has become spiritual doctrine of a destructive nature.

On a different subject, one of the major conflicts between western values and Islam is political. In the west, we have the separation of church and state as a key principle for various reasons. In Islamic thought, there is no boundary between church and state. In fact, it's unacceptable and inconceivable to them that there could be such a boundary. From their point of view, it's the equivalent of saying that we'll only allow a leader to be in charge if he explicitly rejects morality!

I found multiple Muslim-based websites that took the position that, while western nations allow Muslims to worship freely in their countries, that's simply not enough. Those writers explained that Islam is as much political as it is spiritual, and that anything less than eventual implementation of sharia law is unacceptable. At the very least, they feel that a democracy that includes Muslims in their population should take Muslim sensibilities into account, requiring women to dress more modestly as a matter of law, for example. In multiple cases, they pointed out that one of the key differences between western values and Islamic values is that the west emphasizes individual freedom, where Islam places greater weight on the good of the community as a whole, at the expense of the individual if necessary.

A moderate Muslim believes that everyone will eventually convert to Islam, perhaps over a period of centuries, while an extremist believes that everyone should convert now. My main issue here is that many religions profess to having all of the answers, but that becomes a problem when the people of that religion insist on implementing their practices for all on this side of the afterlife. I want to stress that I'm not speaking exclusively about Islam when I say that.

Compromise between the sets of values is difficult at best, because some of the differences are so pronounced. It seems to me as though the best we're going to do in terms of compromise is to leave them to run their countries according to their values and run our countries according to ours. Frankly, the core values of most human beings are not terribly far apart, and I can't see why we can't live side by side with our different belief sets if we're willing to show some tolerance for other views and reasonable consideration for other sensibilities, but it's a difficult stretch when one set is so unwilling to compromise in some respects.

At the end of the day, I think intent has to be the measuring stick. Innocently allowing a group of Muslim children to name a toy Mohammed is obviously nothing more than a cultural mistake, at worst. Drawing a stick figure on a piece of paper, labeling it Mohammed, and mailing it to a mosque just to upset people is another thing entirely, and it's important that all people on both sides understand the distinction and operate accordingly. I can't think of any circumstance under which violence is justified based on a mere insult, even of the most extreme kind. That said, if you're going to intentionally insult someone else's core values, you'd better expect some kind of backlash in return.

I remember Sinead O'Connor tearing up a photograph of the Pope on Saturday Night Live many years ago and finding out that she was very upset at the reaction of many Catholics to her "artistic statement". It's worth noting that no Catholics rioted or called for her death, but it certainly had an impact on the commercial success of her musical career. As for the spiritual impact of her action, I don't think any of us on the corporeal plane get to judge.