Can a Muslim woman marry a Non-Muslim Man? Short Version

This is the short version of the article. If you are the Muslim woman considering marriying outside your faith, please read the full Version – 6000 Words – it may give you a few answers and relief.  http://interfaithmarriages.org/can-a-muslim-woman-marry-a-non-muslim-man/

This article brings serious discussion about marriage of single Muslim women in America in general and Muslim women in their forties and fifties in particular. There are not enough Muslim men out there, and interfaith marriage is one of the few viable options to them. Most American Muslim Women rule out the idea of marrying someone from their home country as it does not work out culturally nor do they have patience for arranged marriages. They want to get to know the guy before marrying and that is not easy. Today, nearly 40% of Muslim women marry outside of their faith and most of them without conversion.

Researching the matrimonial sites, out of 1000 Muslim women, only 30% of them over the age of 50 have listed Islam as their religion, the rest have listed themselves as spiritual but not religious, and the add “religion is no bar.”

There is nothing you can do, it is not your life and you don’t have solutions either. A majority of Muslims quietly go along with it, some have a lot of questions and some are ready to quote verses from Quran and make declarations that they are out of the pale of Islam.   By the way, this is not a Muslim problem exclusively; it is a problem in all faiths, again it is not the faith, but the whims of the guardians of faith.

This piece is not for binary Muslims who are robotic and parroting Halal and Haram on an auto pilot, i.e., Black or White, zero and one, they don’t realize that life is full of colors and digits.

This piece is for those Muslims who understand the essence of Islam which is to create cohesive societies. It is for those who understand God’s signs. He has created the earth and the heavens, planets and the systems and programmed them to function cohesively. To understand cohesion, let’s start with our own bodies. We are composed of billions of unique cells but most certainly we can see that our bodies have several different organs, and all of them have to work together for us to live a normal life.  We are one planet, one earth and one system of creation and through one cause.That is one God.

If your answer is an emphatic no to a Muslim woman marrying a non-Muslim, then please don’t read this article. It is not for you.

But, if you are struggling with the idea of pursuing a relationship with a man, who is not a Muslim, but you like him and want to spend your life with him and are tempted to be Bibi Khadija, then it is worth reading the entire 6000 words piece with most possible questions and answers and references.  Finding the truth is your own responsibility, and in Islam, no one is responsible for your actions but you,  and no one bears the burden of others. It is your decision and you have to live with it, so think through it.

The answer to the question has always been an emphatic NO. Guarding the flock is a human trait and no tradition wants to lose a member of their tradition to the other, whether you are a Hindu, Christian, Sikh or a Jew, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or new, indeed, any tradition for that matter. Muslims are no exception either and there is no need to beat up on Islam for your deficiency in comprehension.

This paper explores on possible causes for the Yes or No response, and what happens if that cause is not there anymore. The main source of Islamic knowledge is Quran and Hadiths that are authentic and reflect the personality of the prophet; a mercy to mankind.

Quran does not expressly forbid Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men and neither prophet has expressly forbidden it. Read the verses again particularly the oft quoted verses 60:10 and 2:221. There is an advisement to marry with whom you are compatible, and whom you can live in harmony with. It is a relational guidance that a believing bondsman is better than a non-believing man and vice-versa for men. The comparison is for one to understand that the social status is not important, but harmony is.

Marriage is all about harmony – God wants his creation to live in harmony. You don’t want to live with someone with conflicts throughout the day.  If you find a spouse who can live with you in harmony despite religion, race or region, than that ‘advisement’ or the condition is not applicable anymore.  After all, God is the one who puts love between two souls and it the couple who has to live their lives.

In verse 60:10 disbelievers were those individuals who prevented the believers to practice their faith; there was an element of hostility between them. But today, most people of faith are believers in God in one fashion or the other. But those who do not believe in God will have difficulty to live with those who do believe, and it is not advisable to marry them. I have officiated weddings between an Atheist and a faithful, it is about harmony and not the belief. If they can live in Harmony, God will not come in between their love, it is him or his system that made each other want to come together.  It is about compatibility and harmony and not religion or other case.

One of the most beautiful couplets to express this ‘love’, ‘attraction’ between two people was expressed by an Indian poet Ghalib some 150 years ago. He says,

Ishq a o aatish hai Ghalib, ke lagaye na lage, bujhaye no bujhe.
Love is such a flame Ghalib that you can cause it nor can you put it off, it just happens.

The questions are endless, but the answer is a powerful one, and that is accountability.  In the traditional societies parents rightfully felt responsible to guard the happiness of their offspring, where as parents in North America are learning to believe that their kids are independent and know what they want in their lives, and will find their own happiness.  Ultimately they have to live their own lives and you cannot babysit them forever.  American Muslim parents trust their kids to do the right thing and let them run their own lives. Please note that this comparison is made with Muslims living elsewhere in the world.

There is one segment of single Muslim women that is reaching an enormous percent of all the single women.  These women are in their late 40’s and 50’s, and are divorced or widowed and certainly not looking for a provider, nor do they entertain having children – the traditional marriage items.  They are simply looking to have a friend and a companion in their marriages and live their own lives. God wants nothing more for his creation than harmony and happiness.

No woman should be denied her right to life, liberty and happiness. No one can push an American Muslim woman to marry anyone other than whom she wants. By marrying someone she can be happy with, her faith remains strong, if not she would a Muslim in name.

Some of us may not want to acknowledge it, but the 2nd and 3rd generation American Muslims will have their own Islam that differs from others in other lands. However the American practice of Islam would be closer to the one Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) practiced; a religion committed to building cohesive societies and caring for fellow humans and environment, in essence Islam tells you to mind your own business as you do on the Day of Judgment.

Indeed, we all have the same Islam and there is no doubt about it. However, our cultures are different, the culture of Nahadatul Ulema,  Doebandis, Naqshbandis, Sufis, Sunnis, Shias, Ahmadiyya, Ismailis, WD Deen Muhammad, Bohri’s, Nation of Islam, Alawites, Wahhabis and others vary in practices from region to region. Even our rules are divided into six different schools of thought. The Islam practiced by Baghdadi is not the same as the one practiced by any American Muslim.  All of them are Muslims in their own right and none of us have the right or permission from God to belittle or denigrate the other.

If God would have said no to a Muslim woman marrying a non-Muslim man, it would have been said in the Quran, there is not even an inference. God does not make mistakes; instead he empowers us to figure out our own equilibrium.

This essay is merely an expression of what many American Muslims are thinking but are afraid to express. I am pleased to present some thoughts to reflect on; ultimately the decision to marry rests in the hearts and minds of the individuals marrying. It is their life and it is God who puts love in their hearts for each other.

God bless the Interfaith and Interracial Couples! Despite their religious, racial or cultural differences, they are setting the new standards of civility by showing the world how to live in harmony. Isn’t that is what God wants? We have to cherish and honor the couples who embrace genuine humanity by accepting each other’s uniquenesses.

When people are showing extreme intolerance towards each other, the interfaith and interracial couples are showing the way to live in harmony and are contributing to the idea of one nation. They are indeed exemplary patriotic Americans.

If we can learn to respect the otherness of other and accept the God-given uniqueness of each one of the seven billion of us, then conflicts fade and solutions emerge.

The sole intent of this essay is to understand the struggle of “Single American Muslim women” and keeping them from living with frustrations of culture and their wants and needs. We have expand our fold be reflective of God’s boundlessness and extending Prophet Muhammad’s mercy to the entire universe. After all, God says, he created all of us from one single couple, thus we are all one family and should not have any barriers between us.

Full Paper is 6000-plus words and is located at  http://www.InterfaithMarriages.org – http://interfaithmarriages.org/can-a-muslim-woman-marry-a-non-muslim-man/

Here is another article written by Dr. Asma Lamrabelt, Muslim Scholor in Morocco, I was pleased to read as she also has a similar but a layered take.

http://www.asma-lamrabet.com/articles/what-does-the-qur-an-say-about-the-interfaith-marriage/

Mike Ghouse

Texas faith: Is it more important to do the right thing or to have the right beliefs?

One of the joys of being a pluralist is to play Mr. Spock, and I would conclude, “Religion is a system of beliefs and rituals designed to bring tranquility to an individual and guide him to live in balance with what

surrounds him/her; life and the environment. Now turning to the religious folks to find what does it mean to be religious, we will run into three sets of people within each tradition; literalists, pragmatist, and essence-ialists. Mike Ghouse

URL - http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2013/07/texas-faith-is-it-more-important-to-do.html

TEXAS FAITH: Is it more important to do the right thing or to have the right beliefs?
By Wayne Slater | wslater@dallasnews.com
12:34 pm on July 30, 2013

What does it mean to be a religious person? Is it about what you do or what you think? A new study finds that about two-thirds of Americans say being a religious person “is primarily about living a good life and doing the right thing.” About a third hold that being religious “is primarily about having faith and the right beliefs.”The report was just published by the Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution.

The study suggests that political orientation influences on how people think about what it means to be religious. Or maybe it’s vice versa – the way you think about being religious guides your political orientation. Religious progressives are more likely than religious conservatives to say being a religious person is mostly about doing the right thing, not holding the rights beliefs. And that difference– thinking vs. doing – is not just an intellectual exercise. It says something about how people view social problems and what to do about them. For example, 8-in-10 religious conservatives agree that if enough people had a personal relationship with God, social problems would take care of themselves. Only about 3-in-10 religious progressives believe that.

No doubt, living out one’s faith is a virtuous thing. But is that what it means to be religious — or simply virtuous. To invert a Christian idea, are works without faith dead?

What does it mean to be a religious person?

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas, and speaker on interfaith issues

If Mr. Spock were to be hired to study various religions and present a report, he would study each tradition from Aztec to Zoroastrianism, and how individuals or groups live with the teachings, and struggle when he or she is off the course on a given set of norms.

One of the joys of being a pluralist is to play Mr. Spock, and I would conclude, “Religion is a system of beliefs and rituals designed to bring tranquility to an individual and guide him to live in balance with what surrounds him/her; life and the environment.

Now turning to the religious folks to find what does it mean to be religious, we will run into three sets of people within each tradition; literalists, pragmatist, and essence-ialists.

Each individual is driven by the politics of life –what is in it for me (selfishness), insecurity, and self preservation (greed).

To the literalists and conservatives, life is a simple affair; to be religious is to obey God! They believe in God and follow the Bible, Quran, Torah, Bhagvad Gita, the Gathas, Granth saheb, Pali or the other books to the literal meaning of the word, and most of them tend to be ritualistic observers.

Some of them literally believe in the Sodom and Gomorrah story and want to make life difficult for those who do not comply. To some, it is about making a business of calling others tradition a ‘false religion”, and to some, stoning an adulterer to death or waging jihad is religious. Their faith is the only true faith and all others are not, such is the simplicity of these folks. As long as they live in silos, they can actually live a happier life.

The pragmatists believe to be religious is to mind your own business, your own God and go on living a comfortable life. Their focus is not going to church, to them being religious, “is primarily about living a good life and doing the right thing.”

The essence-ialists are folks who see the beauty and wisdom of each religion in bringing solace to individual and building cohesive societies where no one has to live in apprehension, discomfort or fear of the other. They understand the value of religion and follow its essence without the rituals. To them, to be religious, “is about living a good life and doing the right thing.”

To read the other ten panelists thoughts, please go to Dallas Morning News at : http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/2013/07/texas-faith-is-it-more-important-to-do-the-right-thing-or-to-have-the-right-beliefs.html/

. . . . .

Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace, Islam, Israel, India, interfaith, and cohesion at work place. He is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com. He believes in Standing up for others and has done that throughout his life as an activist. Mike has a presence on national and local TV, Radio and Print Media. He is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News; fortnightly at Huffington post; and several other periodicals across the world. His personal site www.MikeGhouse.net indexes all his work through many links.

Texas Faith: Should evangelicals push for immigration reform?

Texas Faith: Should evangelicals push for immigration reform?

The time for immigration reform is now and most Americans support it. In a Gallup Poll released in June this year, 87% of Americans support reform, so now it is the responsibility of our elected representatives to pass it into law. Would they dare lose in the mid-term elections by opposing the will of the people? No. This is their last hope to remain elected.

Texas Faith: How hard should evangelicals push for immigration reform?
By Bill McKenzie / Editorial Columnistwmckenzie@dallasnews.com
10:55 am on July 23, 2013 | Permalink
 

Leaders of the Evangelical Immigration Table will meet on Capitol Hill Wednesday to continue praying for and advocating for a broad immigration reform. In other words, they want a package that goes beyond simply securing the border.

This group has a long list of supporters. They represent evangelicals from both conservative and liberal traditions. And they have a set of principles that guide their work. You can read all of this at this link:

This group also gathers regularly and continues to press for reform. Their outreach includes meeting with legislators, reaching out to media and generally lifting up Capitol Hill in prayer. They also are attracting press because evangelicals were not as outspoken for change back in 2007, when the last immigration debate took place. Here is an article from The Atlantic that details their work.

But this debate is about to get into some brutal politicking. The GOP-led House is clearly not interested in going as far as the Democratic-led Senate in crafting a comprehensive plan. For example, most House Republicans do not appear very eager to grant illegal immigrants a chance to earn citizenship or some kind of legal status.

Yet evangelicals could be the trump card. The Atlantic piece described the role of evangelicals this way, quoting Ali Noorani of the pro-reform National Immigration Forum: “Pro-reform groups view these efforts as essential. ‘I don’t think a House vote happens without evangelicals,’ Noorani said. ‘The only reason it happens is because evangelicals are engaged.’”

So, my question is this: How hard should evangelicals — or any other religious groups in favor of immigration reform — push for change?

This debate is not likely to move ahead in the House without a great deal of arm-twisting. But is that the role for people of faith?

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas, and speaker on interfaith issues

The time for immigration reform is now and most Americans support it. In a Gallup Poll released in June this year, 87% of Americans support reform, so now it is the responsibility of our elected representatives to pass it into law. Would they dare lose in the mid-term elections by opposing the will of the people? No. This is their last hope to remain elected.

I am glad evangelicals are more practical now than ever before. A series of losses in electing their candidates has taught them a lesson in compromise, and I welcome their new avatar. They will be at best a catalyst in garnering support from other religious groups. But they will not be the springboard to reform, although attention is shining on them.

Evangelical influence is over-rated. In January 2012, a group of them met in Houston to prop up their presidential candidate, who did not go anywhere. They also thought Obama was done with when he supported same sex marriage. They even supported a presidential candidate who called for self-deportation, but failed again.

Indeed, evangelicals once were opposed to immigration reforms, writes Jenny Yang in Washington post, “In 2006, evangelicals were polled to be the most anti-immigrant among other religious groups surveyed.”

What brings change? Many things.

Among them is the Dream Act, which tilted the Hispanic vote towards Democrats. Their vote was a key determinant in winning the 2012 race. Predictions were made that Romney needed 51% of the Hispanic vote to have a chance to win. He only got 27% and did not make it. Even the Asian community, which is driven by immigration, gave a whopping 73% of their votes to Obama.

Church demographics are changing as well. While membership among the traditional evangelicals is declining, Hispanic membership is increasing. That signals evangelicals need to be a part of the change and not get sidelined.

The immigration issue is certainly breaking the monopoly of any particular group on public policy. Indeed, no single group will determine the outcome of immigration reform.

While appreciating evangelicals for their change of heart, as people of faith, we need to come together and beef up our support for the religious, civic and political organizations committed to reform. After all we are a nation of immigrants.

To read all other opinions at Dallas Morning News - http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/2013/07/texas-faith-how-hard-should-evangelicals-push-for-immigration-reform.html/

My Speech, " We need immigration reform now"  at the Immigration rally in Down Town Dallas, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrjU0KULv-Y
. . . . .

Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace, Islam, Israel, India, interfaith, and cohesion at work place. He is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com. He believes in Standing up for others and has done that throughout his life as an activist. Mike has a presence on national and local TV, Radio and Print Media. He is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News; fortnightly at Huffington post; and several other periodicals across the world. His personal site www.MikeGhouse.net indexes all his work through many links.

Texas Faith: Do the political comebacks of scandal-marred politicians mean we’re forgiving or indifferent?

SHOULD MORALITY BE A FACTOR IN QUALIFYING A POLITICAL CANDIDATE?

Indeed we have become more tolerant and indifferent towards the morality of the elected officials; it appears that is not the issue with Weiner, Spitzer, and a host of others. As a nation we have to define what we want in our elected officials, sadly, fidelity in marriage will not be the one. The real question is do we want morality as a factor in qualifying the political candidate?  We are not looking for exemplary all round candidates any more? Are we looking for someone who can get the job done.  Mike Ghouse

 Continued: http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2013/07/texas-faith-do-political-comebacks-of.html

Texas Faith: Do the political comebacks of scandal-marred politicians mean we’re forgiving or indifferent?

Dallas Morning News | Published on July 16, 2013, 2013
By Wayne Slater 

Whatever happened to shame? It wasn’t that long ago that a politician tainted by a sex scandal or caught cheating on a spouse was finished in public life. But a couple of political comebacks this year illustrate how things have changed. Two years after he resigned from Congress for sending a sexually suggestive picture of himself to a follower on Twitter, Anthony Weiner is in contention for mayor of New York City. Eliot Spitzer abandoned the state’s governor’s race in 2008 in disgrace following reports he frequented high-end prostitutes. He could be the city’s next controller.

And they’re not alone. Mark Sanford was elected to Congress in South Carolina after admitting an affair in 2009. David Vitter overcame scandal when his name showed up on the customer list of the “D.C. Madam” in 1999, winning reelection to the Senate and is at the top of the GOP list to be the next governor of Louisiana. And Bill Clinton, despite the White House intern scandal, is more popular than ever.

What’s happened? What does it say about the culture that behavior once considered inappropriate or indecent, doesn’t pack the same punch it once did. Are we more understanding, more willing to forgive? Or have we just become indifferent? In politics and religion, no narrative is more powerful than the backslider redeemed. But there’s another tradition in politics: we hold the leaders we elect to office to certain standards and believe that failure to meet those standards has consequences.

Here’s this week’s question: What do recent political comebacks by scandal-tarred politicians say about our culture? Have we become more tolerant and forgiving or grown more callous and indifferent?

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, speaker and writer on pluralism and interfaith cooperation

 A quarter century ago, the Presidential candidate Gary Hart lost the Democratic Party’s nomination to Michael Dukakis for his extramarital affair, who in turn lost to George Bush in the General Elections. The nation debated about rejecting a good candidate over sexual morality, the sentence I recall from that era was, “Are we electing a saint?” It particularly became relevant when George Bush broke the promise, “Read my lips, no new taxes.”

There were random discussions on John 8:7, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone,” and Matthew 7:1, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” I have always wondered the impact of these conversations in assessing the moral caliber of the elected officials. Indeed, the shift was significant.

It seemed all the good candidates were blemished, and in desperation we were willing to overlook the morality for the right candidate. Bill Clinton established a new benchmark in that direction. In the recent primaries we blatantly ignored Newt Gingrich, a double cheater on his two helpless wives. It was a human failure and nothing to do with being a Republican or a Democrat; neither could cast the first stone.

The society has changed to a great extent as well; we treasured and looked up to long term marriages with awe, and that is not the case anymore. Many among us have affairs, and we have chosen not to judge others, as it became insensitive to someone or the other close to us. President Jimmy Carter with the cleanest record on morality failed us on the economic front, and George Bush with good morals ultimately lied to the nation about wars, and in the last election, the GOP gave a ticket to the one who hid his money overseas and was secretive about his tax returns.

Indeed we have become more tolerant and indifferent towards the morality of the elected officials; it appears that is not the issue with Weiner, Spitzer, and a host of others. We are not looking for exemplary candidates any more, but someone who can get the job done. As a nation we have to define what we want in our elected officials, sadly, fidelity in marriage will not be the one. The real question is whose morality? Do we want morality as a factor in qualifying the candidate?

To read all the contributions, please go to Dallas Morning News at: http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/2013/07/texas-faith-do-political-comebacks-by-scandal-marred-politicians-mean-were-forgiving-or-indifferent.html/

. . . . .
Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace,Islam, Israel, India, interfaith, and cohesion at work place. He is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com. He believes in Standing up for others and has done that throughout his life as an activist. Mike has a presence on national and local TV, Radio and Print Media. He is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show and Bill O'Reilly show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News; fortnightly at Huffington post; and several other periodicals across the world. His personal site www.MikeGhouse.net indexes all his work through many links. 

Texas Faith: Was it moral to shut down the Texas Senate?

Texas Faith: Was it moral to shut down the Texas Senate?

Demonstration in the gallery of the Senate, or a filibuster are not the healthy way to affect the decision-making process, but when people are apprehensive of the imminently dangerous decisions, they resort to those tactics out of sheer frustration. Let’s say, if they would not have demonstrated and Senate had passed the bill, would people have gladly accepted that? We need to improve our systems to ensure our liberties are not hacked by the Senate mob in the first place - Mike Ghouse

Texas Faith: Was it moral to shut down the Texas Senate?
Dallas Morning News, published on July 3, 2013
Editor: Wayne Slater

Last week’s week’s filibuster in the Texas Senate stopped an abortion bill and catapulted Sen. Wendy Davis to national political attention. Television stories beamed pictures of hundreds of cheering, jeering protesters who shut down Senate business while Republican leaders struggled to regain control. In the end, the bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy failed and Gov. Rick Perry called the Legislature back into another special session on Monday.

The protesters – criticized as a mob by some and hailed as heroes by others – were very much a part of the story, if only because it’s rare democratic institutions in this country are brought to a halt by people chanting from the balcony in a legislative chamber. The episode has been the focus of heated debate in terms of politics and ideology. Set aside which side you’re on. What if the roles were reversed. When is it ethical and moral to shut down a institution of government?

The question: Was it moral to shut down the Senate? Not whether it was politically successful or tactically expedient or even whether your side prevailed or not, but was it moral?

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism

Oscillate I did, it was a difficult issue, but indeed it was moral for the mob to shut down the senate.

We have a greater dilemma of chicken and egg to deal with; the Senate has an august responsibility to make decisions that are sustainable. Would it be moral for the Senate, and not necessarily legal for them to pass a bill because they have the majority of votes on party lines? If it were, the decision remains questionable, and any decision pushed on an unwilling people is not sustainable. Would that amount to mob rule in reverse?

Our morality is driven from the ideal that all men are created equal, and when a decision does not factor in that ideal, and legislates women to be obedient in the matter of abortion, then we have lost the ideal that our society was founded upon; women would not be equal. How are we better than the Taliban mob who imposes their will on their women folk?

Obama’s health care bill was pushed through the first time because of the Democratic majority in the House and the Senate, but when the Republicans got the majority they made several attempts to undo it. There is a lesson to be learned, consensus is critical for a decision to sustain.

Demonstration in the gallery of the Senate, or a filibuster are not the healthy way to affect the decision-making process, but when people are apprehensive of the imminently dangerous decisions, they resort to those tactics out of sheer frustration. Let’s say, if they would not have demonstrated and Senate had passed the bill, would people have gladly accepted that? We need to improve our systems to ensure our liberties are not hacked by the Senate mob in the first place.

It was certainly immoral on our part, the part of public not to have demonstrated against the evil wars. Had we done that, our nation would not have lost our sons and daughters, would not have racked up budget deficit, would not have witnessed break up families, loss of jobs for millions of Americans, foreclosures, and record personal bankruptcies.

After all, we are the government of the people, by the people and for the people. If Texas Senate or US Congress becomes a mob, we have the right to be the counter-mob and take action to protect our freedom.

To read what other panelists say, please visit Dallas Morning News at: http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/2013/07/texas-faith-is-it-moral-to-shut-down-an-institution-of-government.html/

. . . . .

Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace, Islam, Israel, India, interfaith, and cohesion at work place. He is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com. He believes in Standing up for others and has done that throughout his life as an activist. Mike has a presence on national and local TV, Radio and Print Media. He is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News; fortnightly at Huffington post; and several other periodicals across the world. His personal site www.MikeGhouse.net indexes all his work through many links. 

.....

Texas Faith: Is belief overrated?

The Hindus invariably invoke and bow to Ganesh aspect of God, the remover of obstacles, and the Muslims say, ”Bismillah” - to start in the name of God who is merciful.... .Some of us feel sanctimonious when we are in our place of worship. Ironically, arrogance creeps in instead of humility. We become the righteous ones, and everyone else becomes a loser, as if God has signed a deal with us behind others back. In the process we make a villain out of God. No matter what faith we profess, arrogance is the same. That leads to conflicts between us and the other soul - Mike Ghouse

 

Texas Faith : Is belief overrated?
Dallas Morning News | Published on June 25, 2013
By Bill McKenzie 

A couple of weeks ago, Keven Willey, the Morning News‘ editorial page editor, passed along this essay from Stanford anthropologist T. M. Luhrmann, author of “When God Talks Back: Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God.” As you will see from this link as well, Luhrmann gets into several lines of thought about belief and how we arrive at it religious convictions.

 

What I would like you to comment upon is this part of her New York Times essay:

 

“The role of belief in religion is greatly overstated, as anthropologists have long known. In 1912, Emile Durkheim, one of the founders of modern social science, argued that religion arose as a way for social groups to experience themselves as groups. He thought that when people experienced themselves in social groups, they felt bigger than themselves, better, more alive — and that they identified that aliveness as something supernatural. Religious ideas arose to make some sense of this experience of being part of something greater. Durkheim thought that belief was more like a flag than a philosophical position: You don’t go to church because you believe in God; rather you believe in God because you go to church.”

 

Applying that thinking to religion in general, not just churches, here is the question for the week:

 

Is belief overrated?

 

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism

 

Indeed, belief is overrated. It is not necessarily our belief in God that drives us to be good being. Rather, it is the necessity of co-existence.

 

We are taught to thank God, and give credit to God for all the good that happens in our lives. Dale Carnegie explains the wisdom in his best seller, “How to Win Friends and Influence People.” It was the idea to inculcate humility in us. Humility builds bridges and sustains relationships, whereas arrogance destroys it.

Among most people of faith, God remains an integral part of our language and culture. The traditional Baha’is, Jewish and Muslims have devised short phrases to utter for just about everything that happens in their lives between birth and death.

 

If you ask a Muslim how he or she is doing, out comes the response, “Alhamdu Lillah I am fine.” That means praise the Lord. If they commit to do something, they will always add, “Insha Allah” – God willing.” And no matter what they do, they say, ”Bismillah” – start in the name of God who is merciful. The Hindus invariably invoke and bow to Ganesh aspect of God, the remover of obstacles.

 

The eternal question remains, “You don’t go to church because you believe in God; rather you believe in God because you go to church.” I have battled with this thought for ages. Is it the essence or the ritual that makes one religious? Ritual becomes cultural part of our psyche, and we do things without meaning it. Many of us are cultural Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims or others.

 

Some of us feel sanctimonious when we are in our place of worship. Ironically, arrogance creeps in instead of humility. We become the righteous ones, and everyone else becomes a loser, as if God has signed a deal with us behind others back. In the process we make a villain out of God. No matter what faith we profess, arrogance is the same. That leads to conflicts between us and the other soul.

 

The essence of religion is to create societies where no one fears the other and people mind their own business. That is achievable through humility, not arrogance.

 

The shallower your faith, the greater your claim to the superiority of your faith, as if you are trying to offset the deficiency. At that point, belief is indeed overrated.

 

To read all the contributions, please go to: http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/2013/06/texas-faith-is-belief-overrated.html/

 

. . . . .
Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace, Islam, Israel, India, interfaith, and cohesion at work place. He is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com. He believes in Standing up for others and has done that throughout his life as an activist. Mike has a presence on national and local TV, Radio and Print Media. He is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show and Bill O'Reilly show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News; fortnightly at Huffington post; and several other periodicals across the world. His personal site www.MikeGhouse.net indexes all his work through many links. 

.....