Check for web archive captures
Sharia East/Sharia West
By lindamuralidharan on 2017-12-08 04:28:23
[caption id="attachment_10649" align="aligncenter" width="160"] Mit: "aN Yoga tree pose[/caption] The
other day I was watching an (East) Indian TV channel. A host had a panel of 5 or 6 folks with opposing views on a burning
topic. Much like Don Lemon does occasionally on CNN, the host lost control of the panel, members of which spoke loudly
over each other much of the time. I had a real task following the gist of the opinions. I soon started laughing uncontrollably
because I did finally caught the gist of the main issue. An Islamic cleric had declared a fatwa on a Muslim yoga teacher.
The cleric maintained yoga is unIslamic because one or more yoga poses require "bowing", and a Muslim is only allowed to
a 4 % #
"bow" to Allah. [caption id="attachment_10650" align="alignleft" width="240"}
Kochin, India, St. Francis Church[/caption] I gathered that the panel had Muslims, Hindus, and probably an atheist of two.
At lest one Muslim and another one or two panelists said emphatically that yoga is for athleticism, for exercise and health
and not at all religious. Supporters of the fatwa came back with their declarations including the fact that yoga is an ancient
Hindu tradition and back and forth they went very passionately. The "bowing" was heretical in the view of the anti-yoga
Muslim. [caption id="attachment_10651" align="alignright" width="800"]
beautifulmosque.com 73%
<P a
¥ elatrip.com
Mosque in Kerala, India[/caption] My laughter related to how similar these Muslim extremists sound like Christian
extremists who also have publicly claimed yoga is unChristian and ought not to be allowed in public schools. In other
words, folks at both religious extremes (of these two religions...there can be other extremes of other philosophies and faiths,
of course) end up with more or less the same view...shall we call them "twin brothers and sisters of different mothers"?
Although I suppose I should say different fathers given the patriarchal nature of both religions. Both want, in some places,
their own narrow interpretation of their main religious tradition passed in to law. Christian "sharia" in the US and Uganda
and some other places; Muslim "sharia" law in places such as Afghanistan or Pakistan or Bangladesh. Also in the past
month I read a newspaper feature that brought a more positive slant to this debate. Quoted in the Honolulu Star Advertiser,
a lay religious writer, Ellen Godbey Carson, explained the Christian end of the distortion of classically accepted Biblical
scriptures. However literal the Bible (or Koran) is or is not, there is much that has been treated as received wisdom in the
books of the Old and New Testaments. [caption id="attachment_10652" align="alignright" width="862"]
St. Mary's Catholic Church, Texas[/caption] [caption id="attachment_10653" align="alignright" width="600"]
Mosque in Texas[/caption]
Some people believe the various writings of both old and new books of the Christian Bible come from a deity. Carson is a
believer in the teachings of the United Church of Christ, a significant denomination in the group known as Mainline
Protestants in the modern era. The distinction "Mainline" has been defined since the rise of the more strict interpreting
evangelical movement has gained a lot of followers and also attention in the press in the last few decades. Carson states that
various quotes about homosexuality being a sin are not from the teachings of the person alluded to as Jesus (and believed by
some to be divine). She cites Hebrew strictures known as the Holiness Code which includes 600 plus "purity" rules a good
Jew was required to follow. I have actually read some historical novels in which the characters try to stay in their Jehovah's
grace by such things as not eating pork or shellfish or wearing cloth or mixed thread and by following numerous daily
rituals. As in many ancient traditions (see some orthodox Hindu practices) there are taboos bout touching or other activities
with women who are currently menstruating. We can make any number of assumptions we want about a lot of customs
being "cultural" although culture itself is often developed both for positive reinforcement of the society in question as well
as for the benefit (males, generally) of those with the most power. Elders, clergy, rulers....all make rules and edicts designed
to keep themselves on top in a social hierarchy and often buttress these strictures by saying it is what the local deity
demands. Many moderns also suspect that a lot of ancient customs, rules, rituals, and the like were designed for the well
being of societies in a very different time and place from ours. Was the eating of pork forbidden to protect against
trichinosis? Were men allowed multiple wives in order to provide for protection for women widowed in wars? Carson
believes that the Holiness Rules were propagated largely to distinguish the Hebrew people from others...they were different,
superior, and their god's chosen people. I did not easily find a lot of research on this particular theory....most resources I
found were endless debates about the meaning of the word "holy". However, the other part of Carson's theory resonates
with what I was taught as a child and attended years and years of Protestant Sunday school and sometimes adult church
services. We were taught in those days that Jesus was sent to tell the Hebrews to stop the unspiritual habit of focusing on the
letter of all those of the ancient Hebrew laws. He said that love of others and love for their god were all that was needed to
be a good person, to be likely to go to "heaven". This was the quintessential example of the saying "follow the spirit, not the
letter of the law." In my childhood, we studied so many parables that seemed to emphasize compassion, simplicity, and
respect for fellow humans. Carson says that, in fact, Jesus did oppose the Holiness Rules as a case of focusing on the letter
of the law as opposed to the spirit of the law. [caption id="attachment_10654" align="alignright" width="160"]
Yoga pose standing forward ben[/caption] If it is a good interpretation (none of us was there and
authentication of most Biblical texts and stories is ambiguous to say the least), then there is no reason for the super
Christians and any Christian who likes taking the Bible as written literally, to insist that the god of that book is against
LGBT people or their full inclusion in any Christian community. Carson cites numerous United Church of Christ
congregations that have successfully accepted LGBT people in congregations and in the clergy and wants more Christian
churches to do so as in line with the teaching of their primary inspiration...a person they refer to as Jesus Christ. [caption
f
~
id="attachment_10655" align="alignright" width="160"] Yoga Warrior pose[/caption] I certainly
evolved over many years from my childhood religious, social, and political teachings. Thus I have know for some decades
that the death penalty is wrong. I never could reject gay friends, and in recent years I have certainly supported the rights of
that whole LGBTQ community and lobby against a sharia law (Christian style) that would interfere with their practice of
any right that I have as a white heterosexual practicing person. I simply figured out a humane standard for trying to figure
out what is right or just or loving in regard to any act or policy. Of course some decisions are tough and not cut and dried. It
was tough to really figure out if the US should sponsor interference in Libya when we had news reports that Qaddafi was
going to decimate a whole town (Benghazi). In other words, there are often no easy answers when applying my standards of
right and wrong. Reasonable people often disagree as has been noted repeatedly. [caption id="attachment_10656"
align="aligncenter" width="1024"]
children because of some Biblical passage. Some of the passages are definitely worth rejection, some of them represent the
wisdom of the ages (often found simultaneously in ancient religious texts from other parts of the world), and some are just
up to a given person to follow (or not) so long as he or she doesn't impose it on anybody else. For folks who like the
teaching of Jesus...man or deity...they can relax and stop using the Bible to condemn perfectly law abiding fellow citizens
who are not harming anybody. They can remember that some text or other of the Bible has been used to hurt black
communities, Jewish communities, and now some Muslim communities, especially Palestinians. And women. Those who
favor fair play and leaving religion out of public policy (please see the United States Constitution) have a really good
theological position to work from in lobbying to protect freedoms for all. Yes, knowledge is power!
