We had our final class last night in the eastern religions course, and one of the presentations was on yoga. I mentioned that the practice had actually been banned in Malaysia by the Islamic ruling council there. Abdul Shukor, the Fatwa chairman, said “We are of the view that yoga, which originates from Hinduism, combines physical exercise, religious elements, chanting and worshipping for the purpose of achieving inner peace and ultimately to be one with god.”

The ruling has since been reversed, but it goes without saying that it still raises several interesting questions. First of all, were the Muslims right in their assessment of the essence of yoga? I realize that pragmatic Americans are efficient in picking out what seems to work for them and ignoring the rest. In this case, it means defining yoga strictly as exercise and nothing more. But non-religious yoga seems to be a recent invention. Historically, yoga fits the description above. Within Hinduism, there is no religiously-neutral yogic path. That’s why the Muslim council objected.

But the other question, of course, has to do with religious freedom. Who should make these decisions? The reason why the ruling tends to rub us the wrong way is because we believe in freedom of religion. During our first class session, we spend a lot of time talking about the implications of the First Amendment. Ultimately, it’s the individual who ought to decide which path to follow. It’s not a decision that should ever be left up to the government.