Here is a good story about a Muslim girl who is challenging the false perceptions about Islam through real work - A Muslim should be identified by serving humanity; God's creation. Thank God, Sarosha Hansraj, a Shia Imami Ismaili Muslim is setting that example. Isn't this what Islam is all about?
______________________________________________
http://cbs11tv.com/local/Sarosha.Hansraj.afghanistan.2.800889.html
Yes, she is only 10..
Texan With Character: Sarosha Hansraj
ReportingTeresa Frosini (CBS 11 News) After learning about girls in Afghanistan needing education, 10-year-old Sarosha Hansraj became inspired and knew she had to make a difference. That idea spark turned into an organization named it Children Care for Children. Sarosha's organization provides shoes, backpacks and basic school supplies to the Darnami Girls' School in Afghanistan. "For a long time, the Taliban didn't allow any girl to go to school. And so now that there are laws (allowing) for girls to go to school, I feel it is our responsibility to support them." The 5th grader has helped more than 340 girls who attend the school and hopes to be able all of them and more. "There are over a 120 million children and they don't have any access to primary education so I know I need to help as many children as I can," the Grapevine girl said. Her efforts have gained her recognition as one of the 10 national winners of the Kohl's Kids Who Care scholarship program this summer. She has some advice for other young people wanting to help: "Everybody can make a difference and it doesn't matter how young or old you are, or how rich or how poor you are, because even $1 can make a difference."
(© MMVIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)
______________________________________________
Sarosha Hansraj from Texas, found us, P.E.C.A in Minnesota. Her parents Sarfaraz and Seema migrated to the States from Pakistan, and she is helping young boys and girls reach their potential in Khost, Afghanistan. This rather improbable full-circle reaches astonishing proportions when we add this fact – Sarosha is ten years old.
Sarosha was eight when her father told her a bedtime story about an underprivileged farmer and his children. A troubled Sarosha woke the next day; and asked her Mom if there was something she could do to help the kids in this family. Her Mom explained to her that the story she heard was common for many families around the world and that children usually become the victims of such hardships.
Sarosha knew that she alone could not change the world and prevent stories like this from happening. But she thought that if the children around her were to join in and share her vision, together they could make a huge impact by changing the story of one child at a time. She asked her parents’ help to find an organization that worked with children and found us, and the rest as they say, is history.
Sarosha organized a hula-thon as her first fund-raising event and sent P.E.C.A all of the money raised. For the last two years she has organized various events to raise funds. As she turned ten, in an extraordinary act of grace, generosity and compassion, she sent a letter to her friends stating that she had everything and could they make out a check to P.E.C.A instead. P.E.C.A is humbled by these donations. Today, Sarosha has her own non-profit organization called Children Care for Children. You can find more information at http://www.childrencareforchildren.org/.
With her help, we’ve been able to buy all of the boys in Da Dornamio School in Khost a pair of good quality shoes. In addition the funds have been used for school supplies. As I head for Afghanistan, Sarosha is sending with me additional monies AND a stack of English magazines appropriate for elementary school children. The magazines are delightful and appropriate for the Afghan culture.
I talked with Sarosha and her father recently. I found a poised and articulate young girl who is giving presentations about her program and inspiring other children to get involved and reach out to their under privileged brothers and sisters both here and abroad. Her efforts are being acknowledged and she has just been declared a national winner in the Kohl’s Kids Who Care® Scholarship Program that recognizes and rewards young volunteers (ages 6-18) who help make their communities a better place. TEN kids are chosen from a slate of 1900 regional winners.
More information is available at http://www.kohlscorporation.com/CommunityRelations/scholarship/2008NationalWinners.asp. We are very, very, very proud to know Sarosha.
I asked her what motivates her. She told me that she is inspired by her religion (Islam) in which generosity is considered a divine virtue, she is encouraged by her parents and by her community, and she is driven by the fact that 30,000 children die each day – mostly due to poverty.
I asked her if she wanted to see something specific in the article. She said that she wants people to know that giving can bring more joy than receiving and that any amount is good. In countries like Afghanistan, where most people earn less than two dollars a day, a donation of one dollar goes a long way. Sarosha, we salute you and all of our best wishes are with you. We hope your story is heard far and wide and that you realize your hopes and dreams
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Towards Human Understanding through Dialogue
http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2008/08/towards-human-understanding-through.html
.
World Muslim Congress
Good for Muslims and good for the world
To be a Muslim is to be a peacemaker, one who seeks to mitigate conflicts and nurtures goodwill for peaceful co-existence. God wants us to live in peace and harmony with his creation; that is indeed the purpose of religion, any religion. Mission statement
AA,
Dr. Manzoor Alam,
Alhamdu Lillah, the dust that has gathered on Islam seems to be blowing away one speckle at a time taking back to the Islam of Prophet Muhammad’s time, where several faiths co-existed, where he believed in “live and let live”, when he initiated and co-signed Madinah pact, offered Christians to worship in his mosque, walked up and kissed the Torah in a Jewish procession showing reverence for other faith, unprecedented inter-tribal marriages for people to learn to live with different sets of beliefs without the need to convert the other, giving amnesty to the bitter people who wanted to kill him when he took Mecca back, praying for those who threw rocks at him. The biggest lesson we have to constantly remember is Prophet’s own uncle and care giver, who did not convert.
Over the centuries, we had become reclusive insensitive societies as we deprived ourselves of co-existence and rigidly became monolithic Muslim societies. We did not believe in dialogue for a while as we did not have any one to dialogue with.
Thank God, we see the light at the end of the tunnel; HH Aga Khan has jump started the movement with his Pluralism Center, King Abdullah of Jordan’s has made good moves, Abdul Wahid of Indonesia has great number of supporters for the movement and now King Abdullah puts the capstone to it. We are floundering, but once we understand the reason for co-existence and how Islam is about peace and Justice, we will get a firm back bone and stand firm footed on the kind of society that existed during Prophet’s time, it is coming back again, the evidence is all over.
Although Amina Wadud, Asra Nomani, Tarek Fateh, Farzana Qazi, Irshad Manji and a few others appear to be falling off the stratosphere, without them, we would not have moved an inch off our butts. Instead of letting them dig in their heels, we need to welcome them as reformers and give them a listen and make them our partners in working towards demystifying the myths about Islam. Let’s not lose them to the Neocons.
The Moderate Majority of Muslims are not afraid of exploring the ideas, the conservatives are scared that by listening to these reformers somehow Islam will not be Islam any more. As moderates, most of us are, my guess is 98% of us are moderates, we need to assure them that it won’t, we have to firmly believe in the word of Allah, he will protect his system of goodness that he has created for mankind. Islam has survived and will continue to be a part of billions of people as other faiths of God are. Every one is created by God, and each one of us has to account for what we do, the noblest among humans are those who necessarily care about others. We have a treasure and we need not let it be divided, all denominations and the ones on the left, right and the middle have to work together for a common goal; to mitigate conflicts and nurture goodwill for peaceful co-existence. God wants us to live in peace and harmony with his creation;
Dr. Alam,
I am pleased to enclose the response from Ambassador Ahsani copied to several movers and shakers of the Muslim community in the US.
You have two of them in your backyard – Dr. Abusaleh Shariff (http://salehshariff.blogspot.com/ ) one of the top 25 economists in India, and top ten demographers in the world. He is our common friend. Insha Allah he will present the paper that he and I would write on the subject “"Towards Human Understanding through Dialogue”.
Dr. Javed Jamil, is a prolific writer on Islam and economics.
I am sure you have Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer working on it as well.
I am also copying this note to Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq, who has written one of the best papers on Sharia Value that has moderated some of the Sharia Busters. http://sharialaws.blogspot.com/2008/03/sharia-value.html
You may want invite Dr. Eboo Patel, son of your soil (and mine too) who is making inroads into co-existence through service work. An young man who will have a major impact on removing the ill propagated perceptions about Islam. He will be a major player in the main stream community. http://ifyc.org/
Dr. Louay Safi is another great writer of our times on co-existence.
Insha Allah we have big plans in Dallas to build the Memnosyne Campus for Humanities, one of the six center is the Center for Interfaith inquiry and I am pleased to take the responsibility to over see the development of the Center as a co-chair. http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/Articles/Shaping-the-tomorrow.asp
Unity Day USA is our initiative, a Muslim initiative to contribute towards the well being of our nation. Insha Allah, if I continue to work on it, it will become a national day, a Muslim effort on the national event. http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/Articles/UnitydayUSA-2008-PressRelease.asp
Aga Khan Network’s “Partnership Walk” is becoming a major national event in the United States and Canada, perhaps in other nations as well. This is dialogue in action. http://www.partnershipwalk.org/
I have copied them all and Insha Allah will also post the event at http://islamicconferences.blogspot.com/
We have to factor in the idea that we have to deal with all possible negatives, comments, cheers and jeers to develop a sustainable ongoing dialogue, if not it would be a farce thing to please ourselves.
Qur'aan :: As-Saff (The Row)
61:2 O YOU who have attained to faith! Why do you say one thing and do another?
61:3 Most loathsome is it in the sight of God that you say what you do not do!
Mike Ghouse
World Muslim Congress
Memnosyne Center for Interfaith Inquiry
Foundation for Pluralism
Three-day international conference
Towards Human Understanding through Dialogue
Dear Dr Mohammed Manzoor Alam,
Assalamo Alaikum,
Through courtesy of Mike Ghouse, I thank you for contacting me. Mike Ghouse is doing wonderful work in reviving the agenda of World Muslim Congress, first established in1926 at Makkah. Held in 1931 at Jerusalem, under the Presidency of Hajj Amin Al_Hussaini, and with Allama Iqbal as Vice President, and Riad Solh of Lebanon, Mustafa Taba Tabai of Iran, Mohd Alouba Pasha of Egypt, it was in abeyance due to war.
Rejuvenated by Late Inamullah Khan in 1949 at Karachi in which I was present, it assembled a galaxy of leaders of Muslim world like Hajj Amin al-Hussein, Said Ramdan, of Egypt, Mahmud al-Sawwaf of Iraq, Mustafa Sabai of Syria.
As President of Institute of Medieval & Post Medieval Studies, Texas, we are at present working on Renaissance of Ummah/Humanity through Inter-civilization Dialogue.
May I request some Muslim leaders of societal standing as follows::
• Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi-Chairman,American Muslim Fiqh Council,California
• Dr. Ingrid Matson,President,Islamaic Society of North America
• Dr. Saiyyid Saeed, President Interfaith Outreach,WashingtonD.C.
• Dr. M.Fareed,Secretary General,ISNA
• Dr. Faisal Abdul Rauf,Presidnet,ASMA,New York
• Dr. Assad Basool,American-Arab College,Chicago
• Dr. Ghulam Haider Aaasi,Arab AmericanCollege,Chicago,
• Dr. Wasiullah Khan,President East -West University,Chicago
• Dr. Ibne Hassan,Prof.Harvard University
• Dr. Dr. Agha Saeed,Founder President,American Muslim Alliance,National:American MuslimTakd Force,for Civil Rights & Elections
• Dr.Zahir Ahmed,Space Scientist,Producer of Islamic Documentaries-God of 3 Religons,Islamic Spain,now working on a film on Allama Bukhari
• Dr.Dr.Nazeer Ahmad,Space Scientist,author of Islam in GlobalHistory,Member of Nixon Foundation
• Mr. Mike Wolfe ,President of Unity Productions,Documentar Film Producer of Films like Legacy of Prophet,Light of Two Cites,Prince of Slaves, author of book: One Thousand Years of Pilgrimage
.Kindly contact them on the addresses given in CC.
With kindest regards,
Ambassador of Pakistan (to15 countries) Syed A.Ahsani
Chair, American MuslimAlliance,
South West Coordinator,AmericanMuslim Task Force,Texas Chapter,
National & State Delelgate to Democratic Conventions since 1998
----- Original Message ----
From: Institute of Objective Studies
To: WorldMuslimCongress@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 1:57:53 AM
Subject: MuslimAgenda :: Three-day international confererence on "Towards Human Understanding through Dialogue" to be held from October24-26,2008 at New Delhi
August 23, 2008
To,
Mr.Mike Ghouse
World Muslim Congress
Foundation for Pluralism
Center for Interfaith Inquiry
Subject: Request to suggest name of organisations / individuals for the participation in the three-day international conference on "Towards Human Understanding through Dialogue" to be held from October 24-26, 2008 at New Delhi , India
Dear Sir,
Assalam Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah!
Please find herewith a copy of the approach paper for a proposed three-day international conference on Towards Human Understanding Through Dialogue to be held from October 24-26, 2008 in New Delhi .
The paper spells out various dimensions of issues relating to creation of synergy to generate mutual understanding among nations, civilisations, faiths and cultures so that humanity may find solutions to the present crises and dispel the atmosphere of mistrust. The 21st century presents an alarming and gloomy scenario of dangers of insecurity, terrorism, violence, conflicts and confrontations. This calls for immediate attention of all concerned to find out ways and means to address relevant questions and seek right answers.
It is believed that dialogue among faiths, civilisations and cultures may prove to be an effective means to achieve the objectives at hand. Dialogue is human in its basics and has been used in most crucial situations in human history with valuable results and favourable impact on civilisations. Islam, among other faiths and ideologies, has shown great respect and confidence in adopting the process of dialogue in reaching peaceful resolution of problems.
The Institute of Objective Studies has resolved to popularise dialogue and its importance in modern times through seminars, symposia, books and media discourse.
It organised a three-day international conference on "Inter-Civilisational Dialogue in a Globalising World" on April 6-8, 2005 at New Delhi . It was followed by nearly a dozen regional conferences on various aspects of dialogue at different regional centres in India .
We intend to invite, the above international conference, the top brass of all concerning segments from all over the world. We are sure of getting an excellent response and participation from eminent personalities from different quarters.
We earnestly request you to kindly suggest some name of organisation/ individuals working in this field.
Your contribution will certainly go a long way in fetching desirable results.
Waiting for your response,
With kind regards,
Dr. Mohd. Manzoor Alam
Chairman, Institute of Objective Studies
New Delhi, India
.
World Muslim Congress
Good for Muslims and good for the world
To be a Muslim is to be a peacemaker, one who seeks to mitigate conflicts and nurtures goodwill for peaceful co-existence. God wants us to live in peace and harmony with his creation; that is indeed the purpose of religion, any religion. Mission statement
AA,
Dr. Manzoor Alam,
Alhamdu Lillah, the dust that has gathered on Islam seems to be blowing away one speckle at a time taking back to the Islam of Prophet Muhammad’s time, where several faiths co-existed, where he believed in “live and let live”, when he initiated and co-signed Madinah pact, offered Christians to worship in his mosque, walked up and kissed the Torah in a Jewish procession showing reverence for other faith, unprecedented inter-tribal marriages for people to learn to live with different sets of beliefs without the need to convert the other, giving amnesty to the bitter people who wanted to kill him when he took Mecca back, praying for those who threw rocks at him. The biggest lesson we have to constantly remember is Prophet’s own uncle and care giver, who did not convert.
Over the centuries, we had become reclusive insensitive societies as we deprived ourselves of co-existence and rigidly became monolithic Muslim societies. We did not believe in dialogue for a while as we did not have any one to dialogue with.
Thank God, we see the light at the end of the tunnel; HH Aga Khan has jump started the movement with his Pluralism Center, King Abdullah of Jordan’s has made good moves, Abdul Wahid of Indonesia has great number of supporters for the movement and now King Abdullah puts the capstone to it. We are floundering, but once we understand the reason for co-existence and how Islam is about peace and Justice, we will get a firm back bone and stand firm footed on the kind of society that existed during Prophet’s time, it is coming back again, the evidence is all over.
Although Amina Wadud, Asra Nomani, Tarek Fateh, Farzana Qazi, Irshad Manji and a few others appear to be falling off the stratosphere, without them, we would not have moved an inch off our butts. Instead of letting them dig in their heels, we need to welcome them as reformers and give them a listen and make them our partners in working towards demystifying the myths about Islam. Let’s not lose them to the Neocons.
The Moderate Majority of Muslims are not afraid of exploring the ideas, the conservatives are scared that by listening to these reformers somehow Islam will not be Islam any more. As moderates, most of us are, my guess is 98% of us are moderates, we need to assure them that it won’t, we have to firmly believe in the word of Allah, he will protect his system of goodness that he has created for mankind. Islam has survived and will continue to be a part of billions of people as other faiths of God are. Every one is created by God, and each one of us has to account for what we do, the noblest among humans are those who necessarily care about others. We have a treasure and we need not let it be divided, all denominations and the ones on the left, right and the middle have to work together for a common goal; to mitigate conflicts and nurture goodwill for peaceful co-existence. God wants us to live in peace and harmony with his creation;
Dr. Alam,
I am pleased to enclose the response from Ambassador Ahsani copied to several movers and shakers of the Muslim community in the US.
You have two of them in your backyard – Dr. Abusaleh Shariff (http://salehshariff.blogspot.com/ ) one of the top 25 economists in India, and top ten demographers in the world. He is our common friend. Insha Allah he will present the paper that he and I would write on the subject “"Towards Human Understanding through Dialogue”.
Dr. Javed Jamil, is a prolific writer on Islam and economics.
I am sure you have Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer working on it as well.
I am also copying this note to Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq, who has written one of the best papers on Sharia Value that has moderated some of the Sharia Busters. http://sharialaws.blogspot.com/2008/03/sharia-value.html
You may want invite Dr. Eboo Patel, son of your soil (and mine too) who is making inroads into co-existence through service work. An young man who will have a major impact on removing the ill propagated perceptions about Islam. He will be a major player in the main stream community. http://ifyc.org/
Dr. Louay Safi is another great writer of our times on co-existence.
Insha Allah we have big plans in Dallas to build the Memnosyne Campus for Humanities, one of the six center is the Center for Interfaith inquiry and I am pleased to take the responsibility to over see the development of the Center as a co-chair. http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/Articles/Shaping-the-tomorrow.asp
Unity Day USA is our initiative, a Muslim initiative to contribute towards the well being of our nation. Insha Allah, if I continue to work on it, it will become a national day, a Muslim effort on the national event. http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/Articles/UnitydayUSA-2008-PressRelease.asp
Aga Khan Network’s “Partnership Walk” is becoming a major national event in the United States and Canada, perhaps in other nations as well. This is dialogue in action. http://www.partnershipwalk.org/
I have copied them all and Insha Allah will also post the event at http://islamicconferences.blogspot.com/
We have to factor in the idea that we have to deal with all possible negatives, comments, cheers and jeers to develop a sustainable ongoing dialogue, if not it would be a farce thing to please ourselves.
Qur'aan :: As-Saff (The Row)
61:2 O YOU who have attained to faith! Why do you say one thing and do another?
61:3 Most loathsome is it in the sight of God that you say what you do not do!
Mike Ghouse
World Muslim Congress
Memnosyne Center for Interfaith Inquiry
Foundation for Pluralism
Three-day international conference
Towards Human Understanding through Dialogue
Dear Dr Mohammed Manzoor Alam,
Assalamo Alaikum,
Through courtesy of Mike Ghouse, I thank you for contacting me. Mike Ghouse is doing wonderful work in reviving the agenda of World Muslim Congress, first established in1926 at Makkah. Held in 1931 at Jerusalem, under the Presidency of Hajj Amin Al_Hussaini, and with Allama Iqbal as Vice President, and Riad Solh of Lebanon, Mustafa Taba Tabai of Iran, Mohd Alouba Pasha of Egypt, it was in abeyance due to war.
Rejuvenated by Late Inamullah Khan in 1949 at Karachi in which I was present, it assembled a galaxy of leaders of Muslim world like Hajj Amin al-Hussein, Said Ramdan, of Egypt, Mahmud al-Sawwaf of Iraq, Mustafa Sabai of Syria.
As President of Institute of Medieval & Post Medieval Studies, Texas, we are at present working on Renaissance of Ummah/Humanity through Inter-civilization Dialogue.
May I request some Muslim leaders of societal standing as follows::
• Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi-Chairman,American Muslim Fiqh Council,California
• Dr. Ingrid Matson,President,Islamaic Society of North America
• Dr. Saiyyid Saeed, President Interfaith Outreach,WashingtonD.C.
• Dr. M.Fareed,Secretary General,ISNA
• Dr. Faisal Abdul Rauf,Presidnet,ASMA,New York
• Dr. Assad Basool,American-Arab College,Chicago
• Dr. Ghulam Haider Aaasi,Arab AmericanCollege,Chicago,
• Dr. Wasiullah Khan,President East -West University,Chicago
• Dr. Ibne Hassan,Prof.Harvard University
• Dr. Dr. Agha Saeed,Founder President,American Muslim Alliance,National:American MuslimTakd Force,for Civil Rights & Elections
• Dr.Zahir Ahmed,Space Scientist,Producer of Islamic Documentaries-God of 3 Religons,Islamic Spain,now working on a film on Allama Bukhari
• Dr.Dr.Nazeer Ahmad,Space Scientist,author of Islam in GlobalHistory,Member of Nixon Foundation
• Mr. Mike Wolfe ,President of Unity Productions,Documentar Film Producer of Films like Legacy of Prophet,Light of Two Cites,Prince of Slaves, author of book: One Thousand Years of Pilgrimage
.Kindly contact them on the addresses given in CC.
With kindest regards,
Ambassador of Pakistan (to15 countries) Syed A.Ahsani
Chair, American MuslimAlliance,
South West Coordinator,AmericanMuslim Task Force,Texas Chapter,
National & State Delelgate to Democratic Conventions since 1998
----- Original Message ----
From: Institute of Objective Studies
To: WorldMuslimCongress@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 1:57:53 AM
Subject: MuslimAgenda :: Three-day international confererence on "Towards Human Understanding through Dialogue" to be held from October24-26,2008 at New Delhi
August 23, 2008
To,
Mr.Mike Ghouse
World Muslim Congress
Foundation for Pluralism
Center for Interfaith Inquiry
Subject: Request to suggest name of organisations / individuals for the participation in the three-day international conference on "Towards Human Understanding through Dialogue" to be held from October 24-26, 2008 at New Delhi , India
Dear Sir,
Assalam Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah!
Please find herewith a copy of the approach paper for a proposed three-day international conference on Towards Human Understanding Through Dialogue to be held from October 24-26, 2008 in New Delhi .
The paper spells out various dimensions of issues relating to creation of synergy to generate mutual understanding among nations, civilisations, faiths and cultures so that humanity may find solutions to the present crises and dispel the atmosphere of mistrust. The 21st century presents an alarming and gloomy scenario of dangers of insecurity, terrorism, violence, conflicts and confrontations. This calls for immediate attention of all concerned to find out ways and means to address relevant questions and seek right answers.
It is believed that dialogue among faiths, civilisations and cultures may prove to be an effective means to achieve the objectives at hand. Dialogue is human in its basics and has been used in most crucial situations in human history with valuable results and favourable impact on civilisations. Islam, among other faiths and ideologies, has shown great respect and confidence in adopting the process of dialogue in reaching peaceful resolution of problems.
The Institute of Objective Studies has resolved to popularise dialogue and its importance in modern times through seminars, symposia, books and media discourse.
It organised a three-day international conference on "Inter-Civilisational Dialogue in a Globalising World" on April 6-8, 2005 at New Delhi . It was followed by nearly a dozen regional conferences on various aspects of dialogue at different regional centres in India .
We intend to invite, the above international conference, the top brass of all concerning segments from all over the world. We are sure of getting an excellent response and participation from eminent personalities from different quarters.
We earnestly request you to kindly suggest some name of organisation/ individuals working in this field.
Your contribution will certainly go a long way in fetching desirable results.
Waiting for your response,
With kind regards,
Dr. Mohd. Manzoor Alam
Chairman, Institute of Objective Studies
New Delhi, India
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Islam and Democracy
TVAliar forwared this article.
Islam and Democracy
THE things that concern man most vitally are the most difficult to define. Who has ever succeeded to offer a definition of religion that would satisfy all creeds and all sects and all philosophers of religion? The difficulty is not less in every single religion, great or small. The hundreds of Christian sects would define Christianity differently - everyone considering some one or more traits as essential constituents of it, while the others would regard them either un-Christian or of secondary importance.
Islam is proverbially reputed to have seventy-two sects, though it would be difficult for any research scholar to count more than a dozen. Hinduism is a completely indefinable entity and it is now agreed, only for the sake of consensus, that whoever calls himself a Hindu is a Hindu, irrespective of his beliefs or practices. Besides the division of sects, individuals within the pale of the same creed have widely different views and angles of vision about what actually constitutes the essence of religion.
I do not expect that the view of religion (or Islam in particular) as presented in this book would be universally accepted. However, I may substantiate it by the authority of the Qur'an and the Sunnah [the Traditions of the Prophet Muhammad, p.b.u.h.]. My like-minded co-religionists would hold it to be true, but whoever cares to differ may interpret the same verses differently or quote others to contradict my interpretation.
The subject of the relation of Islam to democracy would present further difficulties, because democracy seems to have become as indefinable as religion or love. From the beginning of democracy, in any part of the world, up to the present times, (when it almost seems to have taken the place of religion as an ideal or a way of life) opinions about its nature and value have been divergent and contradictory.
Western political historians usually start with Greek democracies, paying special attention to Athenian democracy as a typical institution. Some lovers of Greek culture praise it as much today as Pericles did when he called it the high water mark of civilization. But the most famous of the Greek political philosophers, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, considered it to be an irrational and disgraceful institution. The last one having the biggest world-conquering monarch as his glorious disciple.
Let me quote a sentence from Aristotle's Politics (Book V, Ch. I, Sec. 2). He says: "Democracy arose from men's thinking that if they are equal in any respect, they are equal absolutely." He did not believe in any fundamental equality of mankind. He has asserted that Nature creates some human beings for slavery, and so slavery is a natural institution. The whole of Plato's' Republic is a monumental and elaborate thesis against Athenian democracy and the whole concept of democracy in general.
The teacher and the disciple desired the creation and perpetuation of a rigid caste system in which the majority of superficially free citizens should have nothing to do with the making of laws or the executive government. They too, like Aristotle, considered it just that the majority should consist of virtual or actual slaves. Plutarch says about Lycurgas that to a man who demanded the establishment of democracy in Sparta, he replied: "Go thou and first establish democracy in thy household."
The broadest definition of democracy is that given by Abraham Lincoln, that "it is a government of the people, by the people and for the people," which Daniel Webster put in other words as the people's government made for the people, made by the people and answerable to the people. As I have said already, democracy has now in many ways taken the place of religion. It is inevitable, therefore, that like religion it should become vague and assume different shapes among different nations, due to [a] difference of temperament and history. The British are proud to have developed representative institutions; and the British Parliament is considered to be the mother of parliaments. But the Magna Carta which John was forced to sign was not a charter of rights for the people since a political entity did not exist. It was the landed aristocracy, the feudal barons, who wanted to share power with the king and the right to defend what they believed to be their rights or vested interests. The people received no protection against the exploitation and tyranny of the feudal lords.
The British, during a long process of political evolution, curtailed and ultimately annihilated the power of the king, threatening to behead him if he was too refractory [insubordinate] and self-willed, but [the] aristocracy continued to be the actual ruling power till the recent emasculation of the House of Lords where the aristocrats with denuded power and pelf [derog. wealth] are allowed to debate but not to decide, just as the king is allowed to reign but not to rule. A century ago, during the time of Macaulay, the franchise was still very restricted and the common man wielded no effectual power. But he proudly said: "Our democracy was from an early period the most aristocratic and our aristocracy the most democratic." Like many of Macaulay's verdicts, the assertion is more rhetorical than historical.
How many different and diametrically opposed systems have claimed to be democratic in recent history? I had au opportunity of discussing the suppression of democracy with Dr Schacht when he was removed by Hitler from the control of finance. At that time he could not dare to denounce the Nazis and, supporting the system, he said that the Jews were suppressed (he did not acknowledge persecution) in the name of German democracy and Hitler was elected by an overwhelming free democratic vote. On the other hand, Communism claimed to be [a] real democracy run by workers and peasants who have little power in a capitalist regime.
The Western democracies collectively have assumed the dignified title of the "free world" implying that the communist world is an enslaved world where people are equal only in the sense of enjoying equality of rightlessness [lack of rights]. The Italian Fascists also believed themselves to be true democrats wielding power for the glory of the people. France, during the French Revolution, raised the slogan of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality, and then Napoleon, the Caesar of Caesars, was the outcome of it. After that, having lost her political hegemony [supremacy].
In Europe, France started or intensified her colonial ventures, defeated in many regions by the British, but still holding fast to the rest. Having been defeated debased and ousted from a part of Indo-China and retaining the rest by the support of the so-called free democracies, France entered on a campaign of genocide in Algeria claiming Algeria to be French because of the exploiting French minority there. This is her practical application of the creed of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality which sounded even better than Abraham Lincoln's "government of the people, by the people and for the people". The Union of South Africa too, is a part of the so-called free world. It took [an] active part in defeating Hitler's Nazism and Mussolini's Fascism, but is actively and violently engaged in preaching and practicing the creed of racial segregation and disenfranchisement of the native population and the colored people within its realm. This too is democracy. Democracy, O Democracy, what crimes are committed in thy name!
Democracy, through its long and chequered history, has assumed many forms and shall in all probability assume many more forms in the future. We have to discuss here democracy in relation to the religion of Islam. Muslims in general believe Islam to be a democratic creed, but it is a curious phenomenon that neither Arabic nor any other Muslim language has any word that could be called an exact equivalent of the word 'democracy.' The word Jamhur'iyat derived from Jamhur, meaning 'the people,' is a twentieth-century translation which is now adopted in many Muslim languages. The Socialist Party in Iran is called Tudeh Party; the original meaning of Tudeh is a mass or a heap. The movement claiming to be the protagonist of the masses adopted the word Tudeh, meaning mass. When even the word did not exist, the presumption is that democracy, as understood in the West, neither existed in ideology nor as an institution.
Dealing with Islam, the question is not difficult to answer. According to the Islamic faith, sovereignty belongs to God and not to the people either as a whole or as a majority. As God is the Creator and the Law-giver of the universe, so all authority in human affairs ultimately vests [is vested] in God. The phrase 'sovereignty of the people' would be considered heretical or blasphemous. Whoever rules among the Ummah [community] rules only by delegated authority.
The real problem is to whom this sovereignty or authority is delegated. If there were an organized Church in Islam, with a hierarchy of ordained priests, this body would claim to be the vice-regent of God on earth. as the Catholic Church holds power in the name of Christ with an infallible pontiff at the apex of the ecclesiastical pyramid deriving his infallibility directly from Jesus himself. It is as if Jesus himself were the executive head of the institution. But as original Islam abolished monarchy and feudalism by abolishing primogeniture [an exclusive right of inheritance belonging to the eldest son], so it categorically abolished priesthood. The Prophet handed over the preservation, propagation and implementation of the faith to the entire community of the faithful advising them to choose their leader from among themselves on the basis of all-round fitness, irrespective of tribe, race or wealth. He said; "Follow your leader even if he is a Negro with tangled hair."
It should be kept in mind that in this book we are dealing with Islam and not with the types of States and societies in which Muslims have lived through these [last] fourteen centuries. Islam should not be confused with the social or political organization of various Muslim communities (or nations) in different epochs and different climes. As Christianity, as lived through the ages, should not be identified with the original outlook of Jesus, or [for] what he desired humanity to be.
Islam, as taught in the Qur'an, and preached and practiced by the Prophet; and a short time afterwards by those on whom his mantel [shadow?] fell, very soon lost its idealism by what may be called a counterrevolution. It became diluted with Arab imperialism which spoilt a good deal of its original egalitarian ideology. When wealth undreamt of by the dwellers of the desert poured in, it accumulated in the hands of a minority [and] all the economic ills and moral weaknesses followed in its wake. From Mu'awiyah onwards, who converted the democratic republic of Islam into a hereditary monarchy, the self-styled successors of the Prophet, assuming the dignified title of Khalifa, combined in themselves the powers a Caesar and a Pope. The whole wealth of an extensive realm became their private purse.
Courtiers and aristocracy sprang up so much so that they began to prefer the accumulation of taxes to the propagation of faith. Revenue collectors reported to an exceptionally pious Khalifa, 'Umar ibn 'Abdul ‘Aziz that the revenues of the realm were declining and all was not well with the State exchequer because those who became Muslims did not pay the poll tax. He said that the State should be pleased because it was not the aim of Islam to collect taxes but to propagate the faith.
Such a man among the later Khalifa was an exception. The ruling junta got rid of him by poisoning [him]. Theology, with [a] few honorable exceptions, became the handmaiden of monarchical power. Nobody raised a voice against these Caesars who sat in the seat of a Prophet who lived in a mud hut, swept his floor, mended his shoes and milked his goats, living for days together on a handful of dates with or without a cup of camel's milk.
The Prophet has said:
"Henceforth there shall be no Caesars and God hates most the man who is called an emperor or king of kings."
How could the world believe that there was anything democratic in Islam when the common man had no say in the working of the State and had no power to assert his rights? Among the people only a nostalgic memory was left of the type of State and society which was brought into being by the implementation of Islam for about three decades. They called this short-lived experiment Khilafat Rashidah, the rightly-guided Caliphate, implying thereby that the rulers that followed were misguided. The glory of Harun al-Rashid, the magnificence of Suleiman the Magnificent, and the splendor of Shah Jahan who sat in the jeweled Peacock Throne, costing half the revenue of his entire kingdom, was not the glory of Islam or the furtherance of its ideology but quite the opposite of it.
Let us summarize the type of State and society which Islam envisaged as an ideal pattern and which it tried to realize within the limitation of an early era, and the relief’s which it was based upon:
(1) Sovereignty belongs to God alone whose chief attributes are Wisdom, Justice and Love. He desires human beings to assimilate these attributes in their thoughts, words and deeds.
(2) Though ultimately God moulds destinies, He has endowed man with free-will so that he may freely attune his will to the will and purpose of God.
(3) In matters of faith, God has compelled nobody to believe; the ways of righteousness and their opposites have been clearly indicated. Anyone may believe or disbelieve and bear the consequences. There must not be any compulsion, in the matter of faith. An imposed faith is no faith at all. Everybody should be free to follow his own way of life, either because of personal preference or because of his belonging to a community, provided his conduct is not subversive of fundamental morality or disruptive of the peace of the realm or does not trespass on the legitimate freedom of others.
(4) An Islamic State is not theocratic but ideological. The rights and duties of its citizens shall be determined by the extent to which they identify themselves with this ideology.
(5) Non-Muslims can live peacefully as citizens of a Muslim realm. They are free to not take part in the defense of the State, and in lieu of this exemption pay a poll tax which shall entitle them to complete protection of life, property and liberty in the practice of their faith. If they are prepared to defend the realm as loyal citizens, they shall be exempt from this tax.
(6) There shall be no racial discrimination within a Muslim realm. People become high or low only because of their character.
(7) All avenues of economic exploitation must be blocked so that wealth does not circulate only in the hands of the few.
(8) A person shall be free to earn as much as he can by legitimate means, without exploitation or fraud. But wealth, even legitimately acquired beyond a certain minimum, shall be subject to a tax on capital. This shall be an inalienable part of a Muslim polity [state].
(9) Women shall enjoy an independent economic status. All their inherited wealth and their personal earnings shall be their own property which they can dispose of as they please.
(10) A truly Islamic State cannot be a monarchical state. It must be a democratic republic in which the president is elected by a free vote of the community on the basis of his capacity and character.
(11) It is incumbent on the ruler to have a council of advisers and consultants for purposes of legislation or major decisions. They shall be chosen on grounds of their wisdom, experience and integrity. The mode of their selection is left to circumstances. In matters not pertaining to faith, non-Muslims are not debarred from consultation.
(12) There shall be no special class of priests in an Islamic society, though persons leading [a] better religious life and possessing [a] better knowledge of religious affairs have a legitimate claim to honor. They shall enjoy no special privileges, legal or economic.
(13) There shall be perfect equality of opportunity and equality before [the] law. The law shall make no distinction between a Muslim and a non-Muslim either in civil or [in] criminal cases. Every citizen shall have the right to seek a judicial decision - even against the head of the state.
There were many instances of this in early Islam. The Khalifa 'Umar appeared in the Court as a party in a suit and the judge stood up as a matter of respect, at which the Khalifa said that he had started with an unjust act honoring one party more than the other; how could the other party have confidence in his sense of justice?
(14) The judiciary was made independent of the executive. In periods of monarchical absolutism, when the judiciary began to be influenced by the men in power, the great jurist Imam Abu Hanifah preferred to be whipped and sent to prison [rather] than accept the post of a judge. He was imbued with the original spirit of Islam which desired uncorrupted justice between man and man. "Do not refrain from justice even if it goes against you" (Qur'an 4:136); "Let not the hostility of a party tend to make you unjust towards it."
These are the fundamentals of an Islamic constitution that are unalterable. No ruler or no majority possesses any right to tamper with them or alter them. This is eternal Islam rooted in the ideals of a God-centered humanity.
An Islamic democracy could differ in its pattern from some of the modern democracies. It is un-Islamic that parliamentary government should run on a party basis.” My party, right or wrong," is morally as vicious as "My country, right or wrong." Once a haughty imperialist British viceroy of India had the audacity to say in a public utterance that Indians are liars. Chesterton, the famous British author, hearing this, said that the atmosphere in India must be chokingly false [in] that a party politician like Corson should feel the stink of it, because a party politician's life is based on hypocrisy and falsehood. The chief aim in party politics is not the welfare of the state or the weal of the commonwealth, but to strengthen the position of the party or weaken the position of its opponents. When a party gets into power by [either] fair or foul means, it very often forgets all the promises and does the very same things against which it raised a hue and cry and accused the opponents. The reduction ad absurdum [reduction to absurdity] of this system is the French Chamber of Deputies, which makes it impossible to have a stable government even for a few months. Every day persons and parties come together or separate to dislodge others. No division on the basis of principles is involved.
Government of the people and by the people has led logically to adult franchise [voice] even in nations where the majority is illiterate and utterly incapable of understanding the complicated economic and political issues of modern life. This kind of political democracy was demanded and furthered by exploiting [the] bourgeoisie in every country who were certain of getting the votes of helpless workers and peasants and dependent women.
People must have equality of opportunity and equality before [the] law, but equality before [the] law does not necessarily mean equality of wisdom and capacity to make laws. As Socrates said in Plato's Republic, it is curious that one would not entrust the work of making shoes to one who has not spent a good part of his life in acquiring this skill, but legislation and political decisions are considered to be safe in the hands of those who do not know the elements of statecraft and are devoid of the knowledge of human nature and human destiny. And how right Aristotle was in observing what we have quoted already that democracy means that if people are equal in some respects, they are equal in all respects!
Surely Islam enjoins that good government must be government by consultation, but the vital question is 'who the persons are entitled to be consulted and how are they to be chosen?' How could you expert a crowd of illiterate and exploited peoples to choose, properly and freely, a person to represent them solely on the basis of wisdom and integrity? Could a poor man who has no money for an expensive electioneering campaign ever hope to get into a modern legislature?
The extension of franchise should go hand in hand with the extension of a right type of education and economic freedom of the common man whether he is a wage earner or a peasant. Even when these conditions are realized, representatives should be chosen on the basis of knowledge and integrity; the possession of wealth playing no part in it.
Some nations experimented with democracy in the past and many more are experimenting with it in the present. It is not difficult to understand why it has so general an appeal. It appeals to the common man because it appeals to his sense of dignity and self-respect making him feels that, in however a humble way, he too counts. He appreciates the idea that everyone is to count as one and nobody more than one. [Immanuel] Kant defined the ethical imperative as meaning that every human being is to be treated as an end in himself and not as a means for the furtherance of ends [that are] extraneous to him.
Throughout the history of civilization, the majority of individuals in a nation or an empire were treated merely as a means to promote the end of a monarchy or an oligarchy or a plutocracy. The governments of the past were devices for maintaining in perpetuity the place and position of certain privileged classes. The democratic ideal is to devise machinery for protecting the rights of the people, and the ultimate extinction of all privileged classes. A democrat rightly believes that there are extraordinary possibilities in ordinary people and the system of state and society should be such as makes it possible for every human being to achieve whatever worth he is capable of achieving. The democratic idea is a religious idea in so far as its starting point is the postulate that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain natural rights; and for the protection of these natural rights, all men are to be treated as equal.
The world must be made safe for democracy if humanity as a whole has to develop the eternal intrinsic values of human life, which a theistic religion believes to originate in the nature of God. Implementation of these values may change but in themselves they arc eternal. This verse o. the Qur'an supports this conviction: "The nature of God, on which He molded the nature of man; the laws of God's creation are inalterable - this is the right religion." (Qur'an 30:30)
Again, the democratic ideal may be compared with religion in this respect that, like religion, so much human perversity and collective egoism of classes and vested interests masquerade in the garb of democracy. Perverse forms of religion have rightly been blamed for the worst types of tyranny. Crusades and unholy wars were waged in the name of God. But all the perversities and aberrations of religion have not made the genuinely religious man despair of it.
Theistic religion offers the highest kind of idealism, which alone can guarantee the spiritual advance of man, making him approximate more and more to the image of God and realize that nature which is rooted in the Divine. Cynics as well as lovers of mankind have looked with horror at some of the things done in the name of democracy.
Burke, in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, says that a perfect democracy is the most shameless thing in the world, and Benjamin Disraeli called a representative government a fatal drollery [joke]. Even a spiritual writer like Emerson looked at perverted democracy as a government of bullies tempered by editors. The Conservative Dean of St Paul, W.R. Inge, who as a good Christian should have believed that Christ established the eternal value of every individual, notes with satisfaction that the democracy of the ballot box has few worshippers any longer except in America. Longfellow called envy the vice of republics; and Bertrand Russell, himself a socialist, has endorsed it by saying that envy is the basis of democracy (The Conquest of Happiness, p. 83).
If religious as well as secular thinkers continue to decry [criticize] democracy, what is the alternative that they propose? Unfortunately, there is no other alternative which, on the whole, would produce more good than any democratic system. Benevolent monarchy or wise dictatorship, that could escape the intoxication of power, could achieve beneficial results in a shorter period in comparison with hesitant and slow-footed democracies. But you cannot have a succession of benevolent monarchs to which the history of all monarchies bears evidence. As to dictatorship, it is always established by ruthless violence and cannot continue without it. The ideal of Socrates and Plato of kings becoming philosophers, or philosophers becoming kings, is only a pattern in heaven.
The Islamic democratic pattern of a republic of free citizens could not last very long because power intoxicated Arab imperialism gave it a fatal blow. Imperialism and democracy cannot go together and any alliance between them is superficial, transient and hypocritical. Islam's original vision, which the best Muslim minds have never ceased to cherish even under most adverse circumstances, was democratic.
The Prophet as the recipient of revelation, and as an exemplar in the embodiment of what he taught, had an exalted and privileged position, but he did not consider himself to be above [the] law. He told his beloved daughter that she should bear in mind that if she stole anything she would receive the same dire punishment as any common thief. He never built a palace or even a middle class house for himself. He identified himself with the poorest citizen of the realm - neither eating nor dressing better than the humble folk. He left no material legacy for his family for he possessed nothing. His illustrious saintly successor testified after the death of the Prophet that he had heard him say that the prophets inherit nothing and nobody inherits anything from them. They are only entitled to the use of things without any claim of ownership.
Jesus had the same attitude towards material goods and considered it a great impediment in spiritual life that a soul should be encumbered with unnecessary wealth. Jesus was perfectly right in his observation that it would be more difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. (It is said that a very small window in the city gate through which a person could pass in a bent position with great difficulty was called the eye of the needle because of its extreme narrowness.)
Islam is a practical religion, so it does not prescribe for all such a spiritualized ideal existence in which nobody should own anything. This is only the characteristic of those who have reached a very high state which is beyond the common run of humanity. But this ideal condition defines the direction in which the principle of social justice should move. People should not sit on unnecessary wealth, however acquired. The have-nots have a right to share it. Does not all humanitarian socialism tend towards it, not curbing the initiative of earning as much as one can by legitimate motives? It enjoins to devise a system in which wealth as the life-blood of the social organism should circulate in every part of it. Concentration in any one organ would injure the greedy self centered organ besides having a deleterious effect on the whole organism.
There is a verse in the Qur'an in which a question put to the Prophet is answered in only one pregnant word which sums up the whole ideology of socialism: "They ask you what they should give away (for charity or common welfare); tell them they should part with whatever is 'surplus' " (Qur'an 2:219). The "surplus" is the answer of the Qur'an. Socialistic States are now devising all possible means to take away these surpluses by heavy progressive taxation amounting almost to confiscation when wealth reaches a very high level, and by death duties. They are moving in the direction of the Qur'an. The conservative Dean Inge is indignant about it because it would impoverish British aristocracy and make it impossible for them to maintain their magnificent country houses. He calls it the robbing of an innocent minority by a predatory majority of do-nothing have-nots.
Islam could not give an eternally valid chart of the details of execution and implementation but did give in unmistakable terms the fundamentals of a humanitarian democracy. True Islam in action could harbor no privileged classes and would not tolerate any type of hereditary monarchy. The hereditary principle is bad for the State and does not hold good even in the realm of the spirit. Even a prophet may have a degenerate son and ignoble progeny. There could be no hereditary apostolic succession. Nobody in the Islamic State would have the audacity to proclaim, like Louis XIV, "I am the State."
Islam recognizes neither kings nor their divine right. Feudalism or big landlordism also could not develop in a polity which is truly Islamic. As already stated, the law of primogeniture was the bedrock on which feudalism of castles and serfs was based. The Islamic law of inheritance definitely prohibits it. Even if a person has acquired large tracts of land by legitimates means (which is very seldom) they shall be cut up in small peasant proprietorships within one or two generations. And if surpluses are heavily taxed, capitalism, in the old sense, shall have no legs to stand upon.
In an ideal Islamic State there could be no kings, no feudal lords and no capitalists with a plethora of wealth. It will be a society of good middle-class people who are the backbone of every healthy society.
Shall it differ very much from a Communist State of the Russian type? The answer is yes, for the following reasons:
(1) It derives the fundamentals of life from the great spiritual leaders of humanity who taught that the ideals of human life are spiritual and divine.
(2) It shall not subscribe to the creed of dialectical or historical materialism, which for Communism, is the only eternal truth, if it believes at all in any eternal truth.
(3) It shall be based on the firm belief in the liberty and dignity of the individual. The State is not an end but a means for promoting the maximum welfare of the individual. As the Qur'an says: "You shall be responsible to God as individuals." The personal and private life of every individual must be secure.
(4) This necessitates absolute freedom of conscience which the Qur'an proclaims to the world in the emphatic injunction that there shall be no compulsion about religious beliefs and practices (2:256). No one shall enjoy any privilege or suffer any disability because of belonging to any particular group. There shall be no ruling party enjoying any special privilege or power.
(5) Religious communities shall enjoy the maximum of freedom to the extent that, apart from the general laws of the realm necessary for the common weal - general security and protection of fundamental rights of the individual - they shall have the right to be governed by their personal laws. The Qur'an and the Prophet granted that right to all religious communities which cannot be taken away by any legislation.
There are only two points of agreement between Communism and Islam. Both are against racial discrimination and both desire to do away with economic systems that tend to concentrate wealth in a few hands. One vital question remains to be answered which arises necessarily out of the relation of Islam to democracy and that is: 'How far is an Islamic society free to make laws for itself if a comprehensive code is already prescribed?'
Islam and Democracy
THE things that concern man most vitally are the most difficult to define. Who has ever succeeded to offer a definition of religion that would satisfy all creeds and all sects and all philosophers of religion? The difficulty is not less in every single religion, great or small. The hundreds of Christian sects would define Christianity differently - everyone considering some one or more traits as essential constituents of it, while the others would regard them either un-Christian or of secondary importance.
Islam is proverbially reputed to have seventy-two sects, though it would be difficult for any research scholar to count more than a dozen. Hinduism is a completely indefinable entity and it is now agreed, only for the sake of consensus, that whoever calls himself a Hindu is a Hindu, irrespective of his beliefs or practices. Besides the division of sects, individuals within the pale of the same creed have widely different views and angles of vision about what actually constitutes the essence of religion.
I do not expect that the view of religion (or Islam in particular) as presented in this book would be universally accepted. However, I may substantiate it by the authority of the Qur'an and the Sunnah [the Traditions of the Prophet Muhammad, p.b.u.h.]. My like-minded co-religionists would hold it to be true, but whoever cares to differ may interpret the same verses differently or quote others to contradict my interpretation.
The subject of the relation of Islam to democracy would present further difficulties, because democracy seems to have become as indefinable as religion or love. From the beginning of democracy, in any part of the world, up to the present times, (when it almost seems to have taken the place of religion as an ideal or a way of life) opinions about its nature and value have been divergent and contradictory.
Western political historians usually start with Greek democracies, paying special attention to Athenian democracy as a typical institution. Some lovers of Greek culture praise it as much today as Pericles did when he called it the high water mark of civilization. But the most famous of the Greek political philosophers, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, considered it to be an irrational and disgraceful institution. The last one having the biggest world-conquering monarch as his glorious disciple.
Let me quote a sentence from Aristotle's Politics (Book V, Ch. I, Sec. 2). He says: "Democracy arose from men's thinking that if they are equal in any respect, they are equal absolutely." He did not believe in any fundamental equality of mankind. He has asserted that Nature creates some human beings for slavery, and so slavery is a natural institution. The whole of Plato's' Republic is a monumental and elaborate thesis against Athenian democracy and the whole concept of democracy in general.
The teacher and the disciple desired the creation and perpetuation of a rigid caste system in which the majority of superficially free citizens should have nothing to do with the making of laws or the executive government. They too, like Aristotle, considered it just that the majority should consist of virtual or actual slaves. Plutarch says about Lycurgas that to a man who demanded the establishment of democracy in Sparta, he replied: "Go thou and first establish democracy in thy household."
The broadest definition of democracy is that given by Abraham Lincoln, that "it is a government of the people, by the people and for the people," which Daniel Webster put in other words as the people's government made for the people, made by the people and answerable to the people. As I have said already, democracy has now in many ways taken the place of religion. It is inevitable, therefore, that like religion it should become vague and assume different shapes among different nations, due to [a] difference of temperament and history. The British are proud to have developed representative institutions; and the British Parliament is considered to be the mother of parliaments. But the Magna Carta which John was forced to sign was not a charter of rights for the people since a political entity did not exist. It was the landed aristocracy, the feudal barons, who wanted to share power with the king and the right to defend what they believed to be their rights or vested interests. The people received no protection against the exploitation and tyranny of the feudal lords.
The British, during a long process of political evolution, curtailed and ultimately annihilated the power of the king, threatening to behead him if he was too refractory [insubordinate] and self-willed, but [the] aristocracy continued to be the actual ruling power till the recent emasculation of the House of Lords where the aristocrats with denuded power and pelf [derog. wealth] are allowed to debate but not to decide, just as the king is allowed to reign but not to rule. A century ago, during the time of Macaulay, the franchise was still very restricted and the common man wielded no effectual power. But he proudly said: "Our democracy was from an early period the most aristocratic and our aristocracy the most democratic." Like many of Macaulay's verdicts, the assertion is more rhetorical than historical.
How many different and diametrically opposed systems have claimed to be democratic in recent history? I had au opportunity of discussing the suppression of democracy with Dr Schacht when he was removed by Hitler from the control of finance. At that time he could not dare to denounce the Nazis and, supporting the system, he said that the Jews were suppressed (he did not acknowledge persecution) in the name of German democracy and Hitler was elected by an overwhelming free democratic vote. On the other hand, Communism claimed to be [a] real democracy run by workers and peasants who have little power in a capitalist regime.
The Western democracies collectively have assumed the dignified title of the "free world" implying that the communist world is an enslaved world where people are equal only in the sense of enjoying equality of rightlessness [lack of rights]. The Italian Fascists also believed themselves to be true democrats wielding power for the glory of the people. France, during the French Revolution, raised the slogan of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality, and then Napoleon, the Caesar of Caesars, was the outcome of it. After that, having lost her political hegemony [supremacy].
In Europe, France started or intensified her colonial ventures, defeated in many regions by the British, but still holding fast to the rest. Having been defeated debased and ousted from a part of Indo-China and retaining the rest by the support of the so-called free democracies, France entered on a campaign of genocide in Algeria claiming Algeria to be French because of the exploiting French minority there. This is her practical application of the creed of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality which sounded even better than Abraham Lincoln's "government of the people, by the people and for the people". The Union of South Africa too, is a part of the so-called free world. It took [an] active part in defeating Hitler's Nazism and Mussolini's Fascism, but is actively and violently engaged in preaching and practicing the creed of racial segregation and disenfranchisement of the native population and the colored people within its realm. This too is democracy. Democracy, O Democracy, what crimes are committed in thy name!
Democracy, through its long and chequered history, has assumed many forms and shall in all probability assume many more forms in the future. We have to discuss here democracy in relation to the religion of Islam. Muslims in general believe Islam to be a democratic creed, but it is a curious phenomenon that neither Arabic nor any other Muslim language has any word that could be called an exact equivalent of the word 'democracy.' The word Jamhur'iyat derived from Jamhur, meaning 'the people,' is a twentieth-century translation which is now adopted in many Muslim languages. The Socialist Party in Iran is called Tudeh Party; the original meaning of Tudeh is a mass or a heap. The movement claiming to be the protagonist of the masses adopted the word Tudeh, meaning mass. When even the word did not exist, the presumption is that democracy, as understood in the West, neither existed in ideology nor as an institution.
Dealing with Islam, the question is not difficult to answer. According to the Islamic faith, sovereignty belongs to God and not to the people either as a whole or as a majority. As God is the Creator and the Law-giver of the universe, so all authority in human affairs ultimately vests [is vested] in God. The phrase 'sovereignty of the people' would be considered heretical or blasphemous. Whoever rules among the Ummah [community] rules only by delegated authority.
The real problem is to whom this sovereignty or authority is delegated. If there were an organized Church in Islam, with a hierarchy of ordained priests, this body would claim to be the vice-regent of God on earth. as the Catholic Church holds power in the name of Christ with an infallible pontiff at the apex of the ecclesiastical pyramid deriving his infallibility directly from Jesus himself. It is as if Jesus himself were the executive head of the institution. But as original Islam abolished monarchy and feudalism by abolishing primogeniture [an exclusive right of inheritance belonging to the eldest son], so it categorically abolished priesthood. The Prophet handed over the preservation, propagation and implementation of the faith to the entire community of the faithful advising them to choose their leader from among themselves on the basis of all-round fitness, irrespective of tribe, race or wealth. He said; "Follow your leader even if he is a Negro with tangled hair."
It should be kept in mind that in this book we are dealing with Islam and not with the types of States and societies in which Muslims have lived through these [last] fourteen centuries. Islam should not be confused with the social or political organization of various Muslim communities (or nations) in different epochs and different climes. As Christianity, as lived through the ages, should not be identified with the original outlook of Jesus, or [for] what he desired humanity to be.
Islam, as taught in the Qur'an, and preached and practiced by the Prophet; and a short time afterwards by those on whom his mantel [shadow?] fell, very soon lost its idealism by what may be called a counterrevolution. It became diluted with Arab imperialism which spoilt a good deal of its original egalitarian ideology. When wealth undreamt of by the dwellers of the desert poured in, it accumulated in the hands of a minority [and] all the economic ills and moral weaknesses followed in its wake. From Mu'awiyah onwards, who converted the democratic republic of Islam into a hereditary monarchy, the self-styled successors of the Prophet, assuming the dignified title of Khalifa, combined in themselves the powers a Caesar and a Pope. The whole wealth of an extensive realm became their private purse.
Courtiers and aristocracy sprang up so much so that they began to prefer the accumulation of taxes to the propagation of faith. Revenue collectors reported to an exceptionally pious Khalifa, 'Umar ibn 'Abdul ‘Aziz that the revenues of the realm were declining and all was not well with the State exchequer because those who became Muslims did not pay the poll tax. He said that the State should be pleased because it was not the aim of Islam to collect taxes but to propagate the faith.
Such a man among the later Khalifa was an exception. The ruling junta got rid of him by poisoning [him]. Theology, with [a] few honorable exceptions, became the handmaiden of monarchical power. Nobody raised a voice against these Caesars who sat in the seat of a Prophet who lived in a mud hut, swept his floor, mended his shoes and milked his goats, living for days together on a handful of dates with or without a cup of camel's milk.
The Prophet has said:
"Henceforth there shall be no Caesars and God hates most the man who is called an emperor or king of kings."
How could the world believe that there was anything democratic in Islam when the common man had no say in the working of the State and had no power to assert his rights? Among the people only a nostalgic memory was left of the type of State and society which was brought into being by the implementation of Islam for about three decades. They called this short-lived experiment Khilafat Rashidah, the rightly-guided Caliphate, implying thereby that the rulers that followed were misguided. The glory of Harun al-Rashid, the magnificence of Suleiman the Magnificent, and the splendor of Shah Jahan who sat in the jeweled Peacock Throne, costing half the revenue of his entire kingdom, was not the glory of Islam or the furtherance of its ideology but quite the opposite of it.
Let us summarize the type of State and society which Islam envisaged as an ideal pattern and which it tried to realize within the limitation of an early era, and the relief’s which it was based upon:
(1) Sovereignty belongs to God alone whose chief attributes are Wisdom, Justice and Love. He desires human beings to assimilate these attributes in their thoughts, words and deeds.
(2) Though ultimately God moulds destinies, He has endowed man with free-will so that he may freely attune his will to the will and purpose of God.
(3) In matters of faith, God has compelled nobody to believe; the ways of righteousness and their opposites have been clearly indicated. Anyone may believe or disbelieve and bear the consequences. There must not be any compulsion, in the matter of faith. An imposed faith is no faith at all. Everybody should be free to follow his own way of life, either because of personal preference or because of his belonging to a community, provided his conduct is not subversive of fundamental morality or disruptive of the peace of the realm or does not trespass on the legitimate freedom of others.
(4) An Islamic State is not theocratic but ideological. The rights and duties of its citizens shall be determined by the extent to which they identify themselves with this ideology.
(5) Non-Muslims can live peacefully as citizens of a Muslim realm. They are free to not take part in the defense of the State, and in lieu of this exemption pay a poll tax which shall entitle them to complete protection of life, property and liberty in the practice of their faith. If they are prepared to defend the realm as loyal citizens, they shall be exempt from this tax.
(6) There shall be no racial discrimination within a Muslim realm. People become high or low only because of their character.
(7) All avenues of economic exploitation must be blocked so that wealth does not circulate only in the hands of the few.
(8) A person shall be free to earn as much as he can by legitimate means, without exploitation or fraud. But wealth, even legitimately acquired beyond a certain minimum, shall be subject to a tax on capital. This shall be an inalienable part of a Muslim polity [state].
(9) Women shall enjoy an independent economic status. All their inherited wealth and their personal earnings shall be their own property which they can dispose of as they please.
(10) A truly Islamic State cannot be a monarchical state. It must be a democratic republic in which the president is elected by a free vote of the community on the basis of his capacity and character.
(11) It is incumbent on the ruler to have a council of advisers and consultants for purposes of legislation or major decisions. They shall be chosen on grounds of their wisdom, experience and integrity. The mode of their selection is left to circumstances. In matters not pertaining to faith, non-Muslims are not debarred from consultation.
(12) There shall be no special class of priests in an Islamic society, though persons leading [a] better religious life and possessing [a] better knowledge of religious affairs have a legitimate claim to honor. They shall enjoy no special privileges, legal or economic.
(13) There shall be perfect equality of opportunity and equality before [the] law. The law shall make no distinction between a Muslim and a non-Muslim either in civil or [in] criminal cases. Every citizen shall have the right to seek a judicial decision - even against the head of the state.
There were many instances of this in early Islam. The Khalifa 'Umar appeared in the Court as a party in a suit and the judge stood up as a matter of respect, at which the Khalifa said that he had started with an unjust act honoring one party more than the other; how could the other party have confidence in his sense of justice?
(14) The judiciary was made independent of the executive. In periods of monarchical absolutism, when the judiciary began to be influenced by the men in power, the great jurist Imam Abu Hanifah preferred to be whipped and sent to prison [rather] than accept the post of a judge. He was imbued with the original spirit of Islam which desired uncorrupted justice between man and man. "Do not refrain from justice even if it goes against you" (Qur'an 4:136); "Let not the hostility of a party tend to make you unjust towards it."
These are the fundamentals of an Islamic constitution that are unalterable. No ruler or no majority possesses any right to tamper with them or alter them. This is eternal Islam rooted in the ideals of a God-centered humanity.
An Islamic democracy could differ in its pattern from some of the modern democracies. It is un-Islamic that parliamentary government should run on a party basis.” My party, right or wrong," is morally as vicious as "My country, right or wrong." Once a haughty imperialist British viceroy of India had the audacity to say in a public utterance that Indians are liars. Chesterton, the famous British author, hearing this, said that the atmosphere in India must be chokingly false [in] that a party politician like Corson should feel the stink of it, because a party politician's life is based on hypocrisy and falsehood. The chief aim in party politics is not the welfare of the state or the weal of the commonwealth, but to strengthen the position of the party or weaken the position of its opponents. When a party gets into power by [either] fair or foul means, it very often forgets all the promises and does the very same things against which it raised a hue and cry and accused the opponents. The reduction ad absurdum [reduction to absurdity] of this system is the French Chamber of Deputies, which makes it impossible to have a stable government even for a few months. Every day persons and parties come together or separate to dislodge others. No division on the basis of principles is involved.
Government of the people and by the people has led logically to adult franchise [voice] even in nations where the majority is illiterate and utterly incapable of understanding the complicated economic and political issues of modern life. This kind of political democracy was demanded and furthered by exploiting [the] bourgeoisie in every country who were certain of getting the votes of helpless workers and peasants and dependent women.
People must have equality of opportunity and equality before [the] law, but equality before [the] law does not necessarily mean equality of wisdom and capacity to make laws. As Socrates said in Plato's Republic, it is curious that one would not entrust the work of making shoes to one who has not spent a good part of his life in acquiring this skill, but legislation and political decisions are considered to be safe in the hands of those who do not know the elements of statecraft and are devoid of the knowledge of human nature and human destiny. And how right Aristotle was in observing what we have quoted already that democracy means that if people are equal in some respects, they are equal in all respects!
Surely Islam enjoins that good government must be government by consultation, but the vital question is 'who the persons are entitled to be consulted and how are they to be chosen?' How could you expert a crowd of illiterate and exploited peoples to choose, properly and freely, a person to represent them solely on the basis of wisdom and integrity? Could a poor man who has no money for an expensive electioneering campaign ever hope to get into a modern legislature?
The extension of franchise should go hand in hand with the extension of a right type of education and economic freedom of the common man whether he is a wage earner or a peasant. Even when these conditions are realized, representatives should be chosen on the basis of knowledge and integrity; the possession of wealth playing no part in it.
Some nations experimented with democracy in the past and many more are experimenting with it in the present. It is not difficult to understand why it has so general an appeal. It appeals to the common man because it appeals to his sense of dignity and self-respect making him feels that, in however a humble way, he too counts. He appreciates the idea that everyone is to count as one and nobody more than one. [Immanuel] Kant defined the ethical imperative as meaning that every human being is to be treated as an end in himself and not as a means for the furtherance of ends [that are] extraneous to him.
Throughout the history of civilization, the majority of individuals in a nation or an empire were treated merely as a means to promote the end of a monarchy or an oligarchy or a plutocracy. The governments of the past were devices for maintaining in perpetuity the place and position of certain privileged classes. The democratic ideal is to devise machinery for protecting the rights of the people, and the ultimate extinction of all privileged classes. A democrat rightly believes that there are extraordinary possibilities in ordinary people and the system of state and society should be such as makes it possible for every human being to achieve whatever worth he is capable of achieving. The democratic idea is a religious idea in so far as its starting point is the postulate that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain natural rights; and for the protection of these natural rights, all men are to be treated as equal.
The world must be made safe for democracy if humanity as a whole has to develop the eternal intrinsic values of human life, which a theistic religion believes to originate in the nature of God. Implementation of these values may change but in themselves they arc eternal. This verse o. the Qur'an supports this conviction: "The nature of God, on which He molded the nature of man; the laws of God's creation are inalterable - this is the right religion." (Qur'an 30:30)
Again, the democratic ideal may be compared with religion in this respect that, like religion, so much human perversity and collective egoism of classes and vested interests masquerade in the garb of democracy. Perverse forms of religion have rightly been blamed for the worst types of tyranny. Crusades and unholy wars were waged in the name of God. But all the perversities and aberrations of religion have not made the genuinely religious man despair of it.
Theistic religion offers the highest kind of idealism, which alone can guarantee the spiritual advance of man, making him approximate more and more to the image of God and realize that nature which is rooted in the Divine. Cynics as well as lovers of mankind have looked with horror at some of the things done in the name of democracy.
Burke, in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, says that a perfect democracy is the most shameless thing in the world, and Benjamin Disraeli called a representative government a fatal drollery [joke]. Even a spiritual writer like Emerson looked at perverted democracy as a government of bullies tempered by editors. The Conservative Dean of St Paul, W.R. Inge, who as a good Christian should have believed that Christ established the eternal value of every individual, notes with satisfaction that the democracy of the ballot box has few worshippers any longer except in America. Longfellow called envy the vice of republics; and Bertrand Russell, himself a socialist, has endorsed it by saying that envy is the basis of democracy (The Conquest of Happiness, p. 83).
If religious as well as secular thinkers continue to decry [criticize] democracy, what is the alternative that they propose? Unfortunately, there is no other alternative which, on the whole, would produce more good than any democratic system. Benevolent monarchy or wise dictatorship, that could escape the intoxication of power, could achieve beneficial results in a shorter period in comparison with hesitant and slow-footed democracies. But you cannot have a succession of benevolent monarchs to which the history of all monarchies bears evidence. As to dictatorship, it is always established by ruthless violence and cannot continue without it. The ideal of Socrates and Plato of kings becoming philosophers, or philosophers becoming kings, is only a pattern in heaven.
The Islamic democratic pattern of a republic of free citizens could not last very long because power intoxicated Arab imperialism gave it a fatal blow. Imperialism and democracy cannot go together and any alliance between them is superficial, transient and hypocritical. Islam's original vision, which the best Muslim minds have never ceased to cherish even under most adverse circumstances, was democratic.
The Prophet as the recipient of revelation, and as an exemplar in the embodiment of what he taught, had an exalted and privileged position, but he did not consider himself to be above [the] law. He told his beloved daughter that she should bear in mind that if she stole anything she would receive the same dire punishment as any common thief. He never built a palace or even a middle class house for himself. He identified himself with the poorest citizen of the realm - neither eating nor dressing better than the humble folk. He left no material legacy for his family for he possessed nothing. His illustrious saintly successor testified after the death of the Prophet that he had heard him say that the prophets inherit nothing and nobody inherits anything from them. They are only entitled to the use of things without any claim of ownership.
Jesus had the same attitude towards material goods and considered it a great impediment in spiritual life that a soul should be encumbered with unnecessary wealth. Jesus was perfectly right in his observation that it would be more difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. (It is said that a very small window in the city gate through which a person could pass in a bent position with great difficulty was called the eye of the needle because of its extreme narrowness.)
Islam is a practical religion, so it does not prescribe for all such a spiritualized ideal existence in which nobody should own anything. This is only the characteristic of those who have reached a very high state which is beyond the common run of humanity. But this ideal condition defines the direction in which the principle of social justice should move. People should not sit on unnecessary wealth, however acquired. The have-nots have a right to share it. Does not all humanitarian socialism tend towards it, not curbing the initiative of earning as much as one can by legitimate motives? It enjoins to devise a system in which wealth as the life-blood of the social organism should circulate in every part of it. Concentration in any one organ would injure the greedy self centered organ besides having a deleterious effect on the whole organism.
There is a verse in the Qur'an in which a question put to the Prophet is answered in only one pregnant word which sums up the whole ideology of socialism: "They ask you what they should give away (for charity or common welfare); tell them they should part with whatever is 'surplus' " (Qur'an 2:219). The "surplus" is the answer of the Qur'an. Socialistic States are now devising all possible means to take away these surpluses by heavy progressive taxation amounting almost to confiscation when wealth reaches a very high level, and by death duties. They are moving in the direction of the Qur'an. The conservative Dean Inge is indignant about it because it would impoverish British aristocracy and make it impossible for them to maintain their magnificent country houses. He calls it the robbing of an innocent minority by a predatory majority of do-nothing have-nots.
Islam could not give an eternally valid chart of the details of execution and implementation but did give in unmistakable terms the fundamentals of a humanitarian democracy. True Islam in action could harbor no privileged classes and would not tolerate any type of hereditary monarchy. The hereditary principle is bad for the State and does not hold good even in the realm of the spirit. Even a prophet may have a degenerate son and ignoble progeny. There could be no hereditary apostolic succession. Nobody in the Islamic State would have the audacity to proclaim, like Louis XIV, "I am the State."
Islam recognizes neither kings nor their divine right. Feudalism or big landlordism also could not develop in a polity which is truly Islamic. As already stated, the law of primogeniture was the bedrock on which feudalism of castles and serfs was based. The Islamic law of inheritance definitely prohibits it. Even if a person has acquired large tracts of land by legitimates means (which is very seldom) they shall be cut up in small peasant proprietorships within one or two generations. And if surpluses are heavily taxed, capitalism, in the old sense, shall have no legs to stand upon.
In an ideal Islamic State there could be no kings, no feudal lords and no capitalists with a plethora of wealth. It will be a society of good middle-class people who are the backbone of every healthy society.
Shall it differ very much from a Communist State of the Russian type? The answer is yes, for the following reasons:
(1) It derives the fundamentals of life from the great spiritual leaders of humanity who taught that the ideals of human life are spiritual and divine.
(2) It shall not subscribe to the creed of dialectical or historical materialism, which for Communism, is the only eternal truth, if it believes at all in any eternal truth.
(3) It shall be based on the firm belief in the liberty and dignity of the individual. The State is not an end but a means for promoting the maximum welfare of the individual. As the Qur'an says: "You shall be responsible to God as individuals." The personal and private life of every individual must be secure.
(4) This necessitates absolute freedom of conscience which the Qur'an proclaims to the world in the emphatic injunction that there shall be no compulsion about religious beliefs and practices (2:256). No one shall enjoy any privilege or suffer any disability because of belonging to any particular group. There shall be no ruling party enjoying any special privilege or power.
(5) Religious communities shall enjoy the maximum of freedom to the extent that, apart from the general laws of the realm necessary for the common weal - general security and protection of fundamental rights of the individual - they shall have the right to be governed by their personal laws. The Qur'an and the Prophet granted that right to all religious communities which cannot be taken away by any legislation.
There are only two points of agreement between Communism and Islam. Both are against racial discrimination and both desire to do away with economic systems that tend to concentrate wealth in a few hands. One vital question remains to be answered which arises necessarily out of the relation of Islam to democracy and that is: 'How far is an Islamic society free to make laws for itself if a comprehensive code is already prescribed?'
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Paradigm Shift - Religious Organizations
.
Islam is not about domination in the world (comments section)
A paradigm shift in making of religious organizations " We have to repair the world".
Mike Ghouse, World Muslim Congress
.
Islam or any religion does not teach one to hate, dominate or subjugate; individuals do. They do because they did not get their own religion into their blood stream.
Hate towards others is not about religion. Some of those who are vociferous and are committed to promoting hate do so, unabashedly claiming to be Christians Muslims, Jews, Hindus or others. What an irony!
Good Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and others will talk about getting along, about forgiveness, Co-existence and about treating each other as they would want to be treated. Their actions and their words reflect the beauty of their religion and we need to encourage that.
To be a Muslim (or religious) is to be a peace maker, one who constantly seeks to mitigate conflicts and nurtures goodwill for peaceful co-existence of humanity. God wants us to live in peace and harmony with his creation; Life and Matter. We need to monitor our pulpits to ensure what is spoken there is love and unity (embedded in every religion) and not the hate and division. A majority of the people are good people, they just need to ensure that goodness is passed on regularly and evilness chucked.
As Muslims, we are driven by the Qur'an, Al-Hujurat, Surah 49:13: "O mankind! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. The noblest of you, in sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Allah Knows and is Aware."
Our Mission
Our Mission is to work for a world of co-existence through inclusiveness and participation. As a member of diverse family of faiths, our efforts will be directed towards justice and equity to attain peace for the humankind with a firm grounding in commonly held values. We cannot have advantages at the cost of others. Such benefits are temporary and deleterious to lasting peace. We believe what is good for Muslims has got to be good for the world, and vice versa, to sustain it.
Indeed we aspire to promote goodwill amongst people of different affiliations, regardless of their faith, gender, race, nationality, culture or any other uniqueness blessed by the creator.
Goals
Our short term goal is to understand different faiths and let the values of Islam be understood as well. So we may know one another.
Our Long term goal is simply to bring the realization that the purpose of all religions is to bring peace and tranquility to an individual and further create a balanced relationships between the individual, society and the environment. Learning about other faiths need not imply infidelity, but rather the search will enrich one's own faith, it reaffirms the idea that the intent of every faith is to "fix" the individual as an active working and participating spoke in the wheel of life. Some get it and some don't.
Islam defined
The most precise definition of Islam: Justice for every human being.
The Qur'aan starts with the word God of Universe (not necessarily Muslims) and ends with Humankind (and again not Muslims).
We have a monumental task to repair the World, and we will do our part in working towards a World of co-existence, one person at a time. We are committed, and now help us God. Amen.
Good Deeds
Islam is a deed based non-judgmental religion, and consistently encourages individuals to do good. It emphasizes about individual responsibility towards the peace and security of society at large.
Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) described a good deed as an act which benefits others, such as planting a tree that serves generations of wayfarers with fruit and the shade. The world is a better place today because of a good legacy bequeathed to humanity by people of all faiths that came before us. We owe it to coming generations to leave the world a little better than we found it, to usher an era of justice and peace.
With Prejudice towards none
Almost all Muslims are cognizant and repeat the verse “God is the master of the Day of Judgment, and he alone we worship”. A fully observant Muslim recites this verse at least 50 times a day and refrains from judging others, as he or she believes God only can make that call.
Individual responsibility
Qur'an, Al-An'am, Surah 6:163-164: I ask whether I should seek any god besides God--when he is the Lord of all things. All people will reap the harvest of their own deeds; no one will bear another’s burden. Ultimately, all of you will return to your Lord, and he will resolve your disputes.
Citizenship
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) set an example of good citizenship early on in his life. The people of Makkah, non-Muslims at that time, called him Al-Amin; the truthful, the trustworthy and the peace maker because of his unwavering commitment to honesty in word and deed. The goal of the World Muslim Congress is to instill the humane values of Islam and to aspire to be Al-Amin to all.
A Just society
Islam emerged to bring peace, tranquility and equilibrium to the multitudes of tribes at conflict with each other in the 6th century AD. In a period of 23 years, thru suffering, persecution and sacrifice a just society evolved. Diversity was it’s basis, respecting each tradition and bringing them together and appreciating the creator was the foundation stone of Islam. Justice, liberty and freedom are the core values enshrined in Islam.
Pluralism
Islam is indeed a pluralistic faith and imbues a sense of humility and ideals of equality of humankind. These values are embedded in its rituals practices. All people harvest their own deeds.
Qur'an, At-Taghabun, Surah 64:2-4: It was God who created you; yet some of you refuse to believe, while others have faith. He is aware of all your actions. He created the heavens and the earth to manifest the truth.
He fashioned each one of you--and each one of you is beautiful. To God you will all return. He knows all that the heavens and the earth contain. He knows all that you hide and all that you reveal. He knows your deepest thoughts.
The Madinah pact, prescribes the rights of its Citizens and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was the signatory to it as the head of the City State. It was an all inclusive agreement between the Jews, Christians, Sabeans, Quraish, Muslims and other tribes for a peaceful co-existence. An example was set for a pluralistic society in documenting the rights of individuals. Perhaps it was the first historical document that included diverse people. The Word Ummah was used in the document to mean all residents of the City.
Freedom
God could have made us all sinless angels; instead he chose to make us humans, giving guidance on one hand, temptations on the other – then giving room to make mistakes, and room for correction. Islam has not claimed monopoly to heaven; it is assured to those who do good deeds. Good deeds are defined by Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) as how your treat others. He told his daughter that it would be her deeds that would earn her a place in the Kingdom of God and not her relation with the Prophet. ''There is no free lunch.
Qur'an, Al-Inshiqaq, Surah 84:7-15: Each person will be given a book. Those who are given their books in their right hands (understanding the book correctly) will be judged leniently; and they will return to their people joyfully. But those who are given their books in their left hands (misunderstanding) will call their own destruction on themselves, and burn in the fire of hell. There are the people who have never cared for their neighbors; they thought they would never return to God. Their Lord watches all that people do.
For Millions of years, the physical dimension of the Universe has existed in a perfect balance as it did not have the ego to compete with each other nor had the freedom to mess with it. They do, what God intended them to do. It is the human dimension that needed religion, and every religion is meant to bring peace to individuals and balance to the world around them through free choice.
God willing, the Muslim community will be drawing the blue prints and developing a 14 year plan to find their space in the world of communities, as contributors and active participants in the peaceful co-existence for the people of the World. The Book “Muslim Vision 2020” is on the horizon.
The human desire to monopolize World resources is the root cause of all evil. The pockets of anarchy and problems of the world are born out of fear and insecurities of evil men. Religion is not the source of wars or conflict. In fact, Religion is the best Gift humans have received from God, without which the World would be chaotic.
Praise the Lord. We are pleased to announce the formation of The World Muslim Congress, A non-profit organization dedicated to promoting co-existence and contributing towards a just world. (Formed: 5/25/2006)
Our silence has done more damage to us, our faith and our World. Silent no more, God willing, we will resolutely take back our faith for our good and the good of mankind.
A Major Paradigm Shift
The world has indeed become a global community. Everyone is a neighbor to everyone else; we aspire to nurture the concept of good neighborliness in the world. Our advisory board will be represented by individuals from every faith. It is time for us to be equal citizens of one world, our home. This is a major paradigm shift in how the religious organizations would be conducting their business in the coming years.
Our upcoming website: www.WorldMuslimCongress.com will present a range of values in Islam. It is a shame that some of the translations of Qur’an contain phrases that are not in Qur’an. A dozen translations will be presented verse by verse, with the source. So you may know the truth!
Hate towards others is not about religion. Some of those who are vociferous and are committed to promoting hate do so, unabashedly claiming to be Christians Muslims, Jews, Hindus or others. What an irony!
Good Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and others will talk about getting along, about forgiveness, Co-existence and about treating each other as they would want to be treated. Their actions and their words reflect the beauty of their religion and we need to encourage that.
To be a Muslim (or religious) is to be a peace maker, one who constantly seeks to mitigate conflicts and nurtures goodwill for peaceful co-existence of humanity. God wants us to live in peace and harmony with his creation; Life and Matter. We need to monitor our pulpits to ensure what is spoken there is love and unity (embedded in every religion) and not the hate and division. A majority of the people are good people, they just need to ensure that goodness is passed on regularly and evilness chucked.
As Muslims, we are driven by the Qur'an, Al-Hujurat, Surah 49:13: "O mankind! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. The noblest of you, in sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Allah Knows and is Aware."
Our Mission
Our Mission is to work for a world of co-existence through inclusiveness and participation. As a member of diverse family of faiths, our efforts will be directed towards justice and equity to attain peace for the humankind with a firm grounding in commonly held values. We cannot have advantages at the cost of others. Such benefits are temporary and deleterious to lasting peace. We believe what is good for Muslims has got to be good for the world, and vice versa, to sustain it.
Indeed we aspire to promote goodwill amongst people of different affiliations, regardless of their faith, gender, race, nationality, culture or any other uniqueness blessed by the creator.
Goals
Our short term goal is to understand different faiths and let the values of Islam be understood as well. So we may know one another.
Our Long term goal is simply to bring the realization that the purpose of all religions is to bring peace and tranquility to an individual and further create a balanced relationships between the individual, society and the environment. Learning about other faiths need not imply infidelity, but rather the search will enrich one's own faith, it reaffirms the idea that the intent of every faith is to "fix" the individual as an active working and participating spoke in the wheel of life. Some get it and some don't.
Islam defined
The most precise definition of Islam: Justice for every human being.
The Qur'aan starts with the word God of Universe (not necessarily Muslims) and ends with Humankind (and again not Muslims).
We have a monumental task to repair the World, and we will do our part in working towards a World of co-existence, one person at a time. We are committed, and now help us God. Amen.
Good Deeds
Islam is a deed based non-judgmental religion, and consistently encourages individuals to do good. It emphasizes about individual responsibility towards the peace and security of society at large.
Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) described a good deed as an act which benefits others, such as planting a tree that serves generations of wayfarers with fruit and the shade. The world is a better place today because of a good legacy bequeathed to humanity by people of all faiths that came before us. We owe it to coming generations to leave the world a little better than we found it, to usher an era of justice and peace.
With Prejudice towards none
Almost all Muslims are cognizant and repeat the verse “God is the master of the Day of Judgment, and he alone we worship”. A fully observant Muslim recites this verse at least 50 times a day and refrains from judging others, as he or she believes God only can make that call.
Individual responsibility
Qur'an, Al-An'am, Surah 6:163-164: I ask whether I should seek any god besides God--when he is the Lord of all things. All people will reap the harvest of their own deeds; no one will bear another’s burden. Ultimately, all of you will return to your Lord, and he will resolve your disputes.
Citizenship
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) set an example of good citizenship early on in his life. The people of Makkah, non-Muslims at that time, called him Al-Amin; the truthful, the trustworthy and the peace maker because of his unwavering commitment to honesty in word and deed. The goal of the World Muslim Congress is to instill the humane values of Islam and to aspire to be Al-Amin to all.
A Just society
Islam emerged to bring peace, tranquility and equilibrium to the multitudes of tribes at conflict with each other in the 6th century AD. In a period of 23 years, thru suffering, persecution and sacrifice a just society evolved. Diversity was it’s basis, respecting each tradition and bringing them together and appreciating the creator was the foundation stone of Islam. Justice, liberty and freedom are the core values enshrined in Islam.
Pluralism
Islam is indeed a pluralistic faith and imbues a sense of humility and ideals of equality of humankind. These values are embedded in its rituals practices. All people harvest their own deeds.
Qur'an, At-Taghabun, Surah 64:2-4: It was God who created you; yet some of you refuse to believe, while others have faith. He is aware of all your actions. He created the heavens and the earth to manifest the truth.
He fashioned each one of you--and each one of you is beautiful. To God you will all return. He knows all that the heavens and the earth contain. He knows all that you hide and all that you reveal. He knows your deepest thoughts.
The Madinah pact, prescribes the rights of its Citizens and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was the signatory to it as the head of the City State. It was an all inclusive agreement between the Jews, Christians, Sabeans, Quraish, Muslims and other tribes for a peaceful co-existence. An example was set for a pluralistic society in documenting the rights of individuals. Perhaps it was the first historical document that included diverse people. The Word Ummah was used in the document to mean all residents of the City.
Freedom
God could have made us all sinless angels; instead he chose to make us humans, giving guidance on one hand, temptations on the other – then giving room to make mistakes, and room for correction. Islam has not claimed monopoly to heaven; it is assured to those who do good deeds. Good deeds are defined by Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) as how your treat others. He told his daughter that it would be her deeds that would earn her a place in the Kingdom of God and not her relation with the Prophet. ''There is no free lunch.
Qur'an, Al-Inshiqaq, Surah 84:7-15: Each person will be given a book. Those who are given their books in their right hands (understanding the book correctly) will be judged leniently; and they will return to their people joyfully. But those who are given their books in their left hands (misunderstanding) will call their own destruction on themselves, and burn in the fire of hell. There are the people who have never cared for their neighbors; they thought they would never return to God. Their Lord watches all that people do.
For Millions of years, the physical dimension of the Universe has existed in a perfect balance as it did not have the ego to compete with each other nor had the freedom to mess with it. They do, what God intended them to do. It is the human dimension that needed religion, and every religion is meant to bring peace to individuals and balance to the world around them through free choice.
God willing, the Muslim community will be drawing the blue prints and developing a 14 year plan to find their space in the world of communities, as contributors and active participants in the peaceful co-existence for the people of the World. The Book “Muslim Vision 2020” is on the horizon.
The human desire to monopolize World resources is the root cause of all evil. The pockets of anarchy and problems of the world are born out of fear and insecurities of evil men. Religion is not the source of wars or conflict. In fact, Religion is the best Gift humans have received from God, without which the World would be chaotic.
Praise the Lord. We are pleased to announce the formation of The World Muslim Congress, A non-profit organization dedicated to promoting co-existence and contributing towards a just world. (Formed: 5/25/2006)
Our silence has done more damage to us, our faith and our World. Silent no more, God willing, we will resolutely take back our faith for our good and the good of mankind.
A Major Paradigm Shift
The world has indeed become a global community. Everyone is a neighbor to everyone else; we aspire to nurture the concept of good neighborliness in the world. Our advisory board will be represented by individuals from every faith. It is time for us to be equal citizens of one world, our home. This is a major paradigm shift in how the religious organizations would be conducting their business in the coming years.
Our upcoming website: www.WorldMuslimCongress.com will present a range of values in Islam. It is a shame that some of the translations of Qur’an contain phrases that are not in Qur’an. A dozen translations will be presented verse by verse, with the source. So you may know the truth!
ISLAM IS NOT ABOUT DOMINATION, IT IS ABOUT JUSTNESS - Comments below
Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker and a Writer. He is president of the Foundation for Pluralism and is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing interfaith, political and civic issues. He is the founding president of World Muslim Congress with a simple theme: Good for Muslims and good for the world. His comments, news analysis and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website http://www.mikeghouse.net/. Mike is a Dallasite for nearly three decades and Carrollton is his home town. He can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com
Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker and a Writer. He is president of the Foundation for Pluralism and is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing interfaith, political and civic issues. He is the founding president of World Muslim Congress with a simple theme: Good for Muslims and good for the world. His comments, news analysis and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website http://www.mikeghouse.net/. Mike is a Dallasite for nearly three decades and Carrollton is his home town. He can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Protest for "Jewel of Madina" By Sherry Jones
Although a few Muslims have taken up to protest this book, they are just a handful of them, it is not the moderate majority.
It is un-wise to protest.
We may want to take a different approach.
The propaganda machine goes to work to label this as a Muslim activity, it is not. It is not even a statistical sample to label it as Muslim or Islamic thing. Even if the wind blows, a few among us love to protest as if it is their business. However, this act is not exclusive to Muslims, you can find that in every group.
It is time for every one, including Muslims to start being a part of the interfaith councils locally and nationally. It is time to learn to accept and respect different ways of respecting the creator.
This protest is unwise, because the more attention a few Muslims pay to this, the more thrills the writers get to write. The protests will make people want to read it... let's not egg them on.
Who knows, it may be a ploy to create controversy to sell more books.
Let any one write what he or she pleases, it is nothing new, they have mistranslated Qur'aan in the 10th Century and many times after that, all with the same ill intent. Of course, Muslims also have mistranslated it for rallying up the support again with ill-intent. It is not the religion, it is the darned individual.
The best thing to do is to ignore, and certainly become Amabassadors of goodwill and peace and build solid things for our nation (whichever that is, in my case the USA) to be recognized as contributor to the peace, success and prosperity of our nation.
Please stand up and speak out, this protest is counter productive.
Below is author's explanation.
Mike Ghouse
World Muslim Congress
Foundation for Pluralism
Center for Interfaith Inquiry
_________________________________________________
Dear Brothers & sisters,
Few months ago it was cartoons about our beloved Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) under the cover of freedom of speach and Liberty,during that time Muslims all over the globe and specially the Leader of Jamaat Ahmadiyya and its followers protected very strongly and send their concerned to the government of Denmark.finally when that fire start cooling down Sherry Jones wrote a book on the our Prophets beloved wife Hadrat Ayesha may Allah be pleased with her. Even according to Wall St. Journal "its a stirring controversy. To read the WSJ article click on this link Wall St. Journal.The Jewel of Medina, written by Sherry Jones, was supposed to be published on August 12th. Sherry Jones was to go on a book tour to promote her her book, under the fear of valiance and riots the publisher stop the printing of this book.
We as a Muslim should come forward and strongly protect against these kind of things not only for the Muslim's Prophet or his wife or the his followers any other religion founder and his beavers.You will never find any country in this world who give this permission under the FREEDOM OF SPEACH to write any thing about any religion's founder or his believers. Please send letter to every newspaper and media to protest these kind of nonsense immediately.
_________________________________________________
Censoring "The Jewel Of Medina"
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/08/censoring_islam.html
This month the U.S. publisher Random House planned to launch an historical novel about Aisha, the wife of the prophet Muhammad. The book was a rarity in Islamic-themed literature: an attempt by a Western woman to fictionalize the personal life of the prophet, and to bring to a wider audience one of the great feminist heroines of the Middle East.
Instead, three months ago, Random House decided to abandon publication of "The Jewel of Medina", by journalist Sherry Jones. Fearing the book might incite the same violent reaction as the Danish Muhammad cartoons, and that company staff and property might comes under attack from Muslim extremists, Random House terminated Jones' contract, as reported by Asra Nomani, who first broke the story in the Wall Street Journal last week.
Random House was particularly concerned about a scene in which the Prophet Muhammad consummates his relationship with Aisha, a child bride. It's a short scene, and not to everyone's taste, in which Muhammad's embrace is likened to a "scorpion's sting", but it hardly amounts to "soft core pornography", as the university professor who first raised objections to the book, Denise Spellberg, has described it.
(Read Spellberg's take on the controversy here.)
But Random House's decision to bow down to a hypothetical terrorist threat is surely a grave insult to the Western tradition of free speech, and to Muslims' ability to take the book for what it is: a decidedly glowing portrayal of the Prophet (in marked contrast to the Muhammad Cartoons, or indeed Satanic Verses).
Here, Jones gives an eloquent defense of her book, and explains why we should all take note of Random House's assault on our freedoms.
By Sherry Jones
" 'I can't' never does anything," my mother used to say. " 'I can' does it all."
When I set out to write a book about A'isha bint Abi Bakr, favorite wife of the Prophet Muhammad, I never doubted that it would be published. After all, I had all the elements I needed for a terrific work of historical fiction: a remarkable heroine, little known in the West; a famous hero, widely misunderstood here; a setting unfamiliar yet exotic; and an exciting tale of love, war, spiritual awakening and redemption.
Five years and seven drafts later, I had indeed landed a publisher for "The Jewel of Medina." Not just any publisher, either, but Random House, the biggest house in the world. I was thrilled not only by the two-book deal, which included a sequel detailing A'isha's life after Muhammad's death, but also by the passion with which everyone at the publishing company seemed to embrace this novel. I was thrilled, but not surprised.
Soon, the foreign rights sales started coming in: Spain, Italy, Hungary. I still wasn't surprised. My agent called to tell me of an eight-city U.S. book tour -- gratifying, but not surprising. Book of the Month Club signed on to feature "The Jewel of Medina" in its August 2008 issue, and Quality Paperback Book Club would follow up six months later. My book seemed destined for the best-seller list.
Then, a university professor, asked for an endorsement, called Random House with warnings of a terrorist attack by angry Muslims if my book were published. "A national security issue," University of Texas associate professor Denise Spellberg reportedly said. "More dangerous than the Satanic Verses or the Danish cartoons."
Now this surprised me -- stunned me, in fact. The follow-up letter from her lawyer provided the second hit in Ms. Spellberg's one-two punch, threatening to sue Random House if her name were associated with my book in any way, including, I assume, a listing in my bibliography. Her reason had me reeling: She objected, she said, to the book's "sexual content," of which there is almost none.
Several weeks later, Random House associate publisher Elizabeth McGuire delivered the final blow. After consulting with other academic "experts" in Islam as well as the company's head of security, Random House executives had decided to "indefinitely postpone" publication. Not because of terrorist threats, mind you -- but because of threats of terrorist threats. Because, in other words, of fear.
I was, of course, devastated by this news, coming as it did less than three months before my Aug. 12 publication date. I was also chagrined to realize the far-reaching ramifications of this historic decision to quash a work of art before it could even reach the public eye. Is Random House no longer publishing books about Islam? How does this bode for the future of publishing? What will be banned next? Art? Music? Theater? Dance?
As a journalist for the last 28 years, I hold the right to free speech especially dear. The First Amendment is, in my view, the very best thing about living in the United States. Publishing houses can, of course, do whatever they want. But university professors? Ms. Spellberg urged Random House to abstain from publishing. The reason, she is telling reporters now, is that she doesn't like my book. Does this development mean our public universities no longer support the free exchange of ideas?
I'm optimistic, but not naive. I expected my book to spark controversy. "The Jewel of Medina" is a novel of women's empowerment, never a popular theme among fundamentalists of any faith. I was also aware that some would take offense at any fictional portrayal of Muhammad, especially one by a non-Muslim American woman. Given the respect with which I treat the Muslim prophet, however, I never expected to be killed because of it. I still don't.
As an advocate for peace, I have high hopes for "The Jewel of Medina" and its sequel, in which A'isha and her rival, Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, Ali, are dual protagonists facing off in the first Islamic civil war. Already I've had many requests for interviews with Muslim journalists and have been invited to participate in a 90-minute chat on IslamOnline.org, a Muslim website which boasts of 13 million hits weekly.
This type of dialogue is long overdue. So far, discussion has centered around my not-published book, which almost no one has read. Soon, I hope, we will address the text itself, in published form, and my ideas, derived from research and experience, of moderate Islam as a religion of egalitaranism and, yes, peace.
In the meantime, using A'isha as my example, I challenge all to do as I am striving to do: Rise up against the culture of fear that pervades our society, refuse to succumb to racism, stand up for our rights, and live courageous lives.
Journalist Sherry Jones is a correspondent for BNA, an international news agency in the Washington, D.C. area, and for Women's eNews in New York. "The Jewel of Medina" is her first novel.
____________________________________________________
READ THE COMMENTS AT WASHINGTON POST LINK GIVE ABOVE
WRITE YOUR OWN COMMENT BELOW
It is un-wise to protest.
We may want to take a different approach.
The propaganda machine goes to work to label this as a Muslim activity, it is not. It is not even a statistical sample to label it as Muslim or Islamic thing. Even if the wind blows, a few among us love to protest as if it is their business. However, this act is not exclusive to Muslims, you can find that in every group.
It is time for every one, including Muslims to start being a part of the interfaith councils locally and nationally. It is time to learn to accept and respect different ways of respecting the creator.
This protest is unwise, because the more attention a few Muslims pay to this, the more thrills the writers get to write. The protests will make people want to read it... let's not egg them on.
Who knows, it may be a ploy to create controversy to sell more books.
Let any one write what he or she pleases, it is nothing new, they have mistranslated Qur'aan in the 10th Century and many times after that, all with the same ill intent. Of course, Muslims also have mistranslated it for rallying up the support again with ill-intent. It is not the religion, it is the darned individual.
The best thing to do is to ignore, and certainly become Amabassadors of goodwill and peace and build solid things for our nation (whichever that is, in my case the USA) to be recognized as contributor to the peace, success and prosperity of our nation.
Please stand up and speak out, this protest is counter productive.
Below is author's explanation.
Mike Ghouse
World Muslim Congress
Foundation for Pluralism
Center for Interfaith Inquiry
_________________________________________________
Dear Brothers & sisters,
Few months ago it was cartoons about our beloved Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) under the cover of freedom of speach and Liberty,during that time Muslims all over the globe and specially the Leader of Jamaat Ahmadiyya and its followers protected very strongly and send their concerned to the government of Denmark.finally when that fire start cooling down Sherry Jones wrote a book on the our Prophets beloved wife Hadrat Ayesha may Allah be pleased with her. Even according to Wall St. Journal "its a stirring controversy. To read the WSJ article click on this link Wall St. Journal.The Jewel of Medina, written by Sherry Jones, was supposed to be published on August 12th. Sherry Jones was to go on a book tour to promote her her book, under the fear of valiance and riots the publisher stop the printing of this book.
We as a Muslim should come forward and strongly protect against these kind of things not only for the Muslim's Prophet or his wife or the his followers any other religion founder and his beavers.You will never find any country in this world who give this permission under the FREEDOM OF SPEACH to write any thing about any religion's founder or his believers. Please send letter to every newspaper and media to protest these kind of nonsense immediately.
_________________________________________________
Censoring "The Jewel Of Medina"
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/08/censoring_islam.html
This month the U.S. publisher Random House planned to launch an historical novel about Aisha, the wife of the prophet Muhammad. The book was a rarity in Islamic-themed literature: an attempt by a Western woman to fictionalize the personal life of the prophet, and to bring to a wider audience one of the great feminist heroines of the Middle East.
Instead, three months ago, Random House decided to abandon publication of "The Jewel of Medina", by journalist Sherry Jones. Fearing the book might incite the same violent reaction as the Danish Muhammad cartoons, and that company staff and property might comes under attack from Muslim extremists, Random House terminated Jones' contract, as reported by Asra Nomani, who first broke the story in the Wall Street Journal last week.
Random House was particularly concerned about a scene in which the Prophet Muhammad consummates his relationship with Aisha, a child bride. It's a short scene, and not to everyone's taste, in which Muhammad's embrace is likened to a "scorpion's sting", but it hardly amounts to "soft core pornography", as the university professor who first raised objections to the book, Denise Spellberg, has described it.
(Read Spellberg's take on the controversy here.)
But Random House's decision to bow down to a hypothetical terrorist threat is surely a grave insult to the Western tradition of free speech, and to Muslims' ability to take the book for what it is: a decidedly glowing portrayal of the Prophet (in marked contrast to the Muhammad Cartoons, or indeed Satanic Verses).
Here, Jones gives an eloquent defense of her book, and explains why we should all take note of Random House's assault on our freedoms.
By Sherry Jones
" 'I can't' never does anything," my mother used to say. " 'I can' does it all."
When I set out to write a book about A'isha bint Abi Bakr, favorite wife of the Prophet Muhammad, I never doubted that it would be published. After all, I had all the elements I needed for a terrific work of historical fiction: a remarkable heroine, little known in the West; a famous hero, widely misunderstood here; a setting unfamiliar yet exotic; and an exciting tale of love, war, spiritual awakening and redemption.
Five years and seven drafts later, I had indeed landed a publisher for "The Jewel of Medina." Not just any publisher, either, but Random House, the biggest house in the world. I was thrilled not only by the two-book deal, which included a sequel detailing A'isha's life after Muhammad's death, but also by the passion with which everyone at the publishing company seemed to embrace this novel. I was thrilled, but not surprised.
Soon, the foreign rights sales started coming in: Spain, Italy, Hungary. I still wasn't surprised. My agent called to tell me of an eight-city U.S. book tour -- gratifying, but not surprising. Book of the Month Club signed on to feature "The Jewel of Medina" in its August 2008 issue, and Quality Paperback Book Club would follow up six months later. My book seemed destined for the best-seller list.
Then, a university professor, asked for an endorsement, called Random House with warnings of a terrorist attack by angry Muslims if my book were published. "A national security issue," University of Texas associate professor Denise Spellberg reportedly said. "More dangerous than the Satanic Verses or the Danish cartoons."
Now this surprised me -- stunned me, in fact. The follow-up letter from her lawyer provided the second hit in Ms. Spellberg's one-two punch, threatening to sue Random House if her name were associated with my book in any way, including, I assume, a listing in my bibliography. Her reason had me reeling: She objected, she said, to the book's "sexual content," of which there is almost none.
Several weeks later, Random House associate publisher Elizabeth McGuire delivered the final blow. After consulting with other academic "experts" in Islam as well as the company's head of security, Random House executives had decided to "indefinitely postpone" publication. Not because of terrorist threats, mind you -- but because of threats of terrorist threats. Because, in other words, of fear.
I was, of course, devastated by this news, coming as it did less than three months before my Aug. 12 publication date. I was also chagrined to realize the far-reaching ramifications of this historic decision to quash a work of art before it could even reach the public eye. Is Random House no longer publishing books about Islam? How does this bode for the future of publishing? What will be banned next? Art? Music? Theater? Dance?
As a journalist for the last 28 years, I hold the right to free speech especially dear. The First Amendment is, in my view, the very best thing about living in the United States. Publishing houses can, of course, do whatever they want. But university professors? Ms. Spellberg urged Random House to abstain from publishing. The reason, she is telling reporters now, is that she doesn't like my book. Does this development mean our public universities no longer support the free exchange of ideas?
I'm optimistic, but not naive. I expected my book to spark controversy. "The Jewel of Medina" is a novel of women's empowerment, never a popular theme among fundamentalists of any faith. I was also aware that some would take offense at any fictional portrayal of Muhammad, especially one by a non-Muslim American woman. Given the respect with which I treat the Muslim prophet, however, I never expected to be killed because of it. I still don't.
As an advocate for peace, I have high hopes for "The Jewel of Medina" and its sequel, in which A'isha and her rival, Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, Ali, are dual protagonists facing off in the first Islamic civil war. Already I've had many requests for interviews with Muslim journalists and have been invited to participate in a 90-minute chat on IslamOnline.org, a Muslim website which boasts of 13 million hits weekly.
This type of dialogue is long overdue. So far, discussion has centered around my not-published book, which almost no one has read. Soon, I hope, we will address the text itself, in published form, and my ideas, derived from research and experience, of moderate Islam as a religion of egalitaranism and, yes, peace.
In the meantime, using A'isha as my example, I challenge all to do as I am striving to do: Rise up against the culture of fear that pervades our society, refuse to succumb to racism, stand up for our rights, and live courageous lives.
Journalist Sherry Jones is a correspondent for BNA, an international news agency in the Washington, D.C. area, and for Women's eNews in New York. "The Jewel of Medina" is her first novel.
____________________________________________________
READ THE COMMENTS AT WASHINGTON POST LINK GIVE ABOVE
WRITE YOUR OWN COMMENT BELOW
Self-Censoring Muslims
I am sharing my own comments and the article published in the Washington post, there are many comments on the post at the link given with the article below.
Also included is the author's explanation.
____________________________________________________________
Asra Nomani jolts a few, cause the majority of Muslims to think and certainly agitate the extremists. I do know one thing though; the masters know how to play the game, they know how the extremists react and tease them to play; and the extremists simply fall prey for it without realizing that they were had.
The Dutch cartoon Masters tested the mettle of the extremists, and succeeded in getting them to do the intended thing, so they can move their next pawn; that Muslims are extremists. They have several moves planned, as long as the dumb extremists play the game, the Masters will give them the exercise.
Both are wrong, however the onus is on the Muslims, as the Prophet asks them to walk the middle path and not extreme. If one were to do his Jihad, an inner struggle and the strength to remain peaceful despite the temptations to be angry, to retaliate (turn the other cheek), hate, malice, revenge and other vices. Alas those dumb extremists listen to their own Prophet and play the other game; to be the peace makers.
Islam flourished and contributed towards the civilization when its followers listened to Qur'aan and explored and mined every knowledge field for the benefit of mankind.
Asra Nomani writes about a bold new territory being explored by Sherry Jones. “The personal life of Aisha, a prominent Muslim Scholar and the wife of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).”
I urge Muslims to gear themselves to think and not react. If you cannot listen to the prophet, then don’t read the book. The more you re-act, the more books will be written, the more non-chalant you get, the incentive to write them dims. The Majority of Muslims always choose the right path and they need to speak when the few extremists roar.
Mike Ghouse
www.MikeGhouse.net
____________________________________________________________
Self-Censoring Muslims
Asra Nomani
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/08/debating_islam_from_within.html
When news spread that Random House had nixed publication of a new novel, "The Jewel of Medina," about the life of Aisha, the youngest wife of the prophet Muhammad, a congratulatory message went out to "all members of Husaini Youths (HY)."
"Walking on the footsteps shown by Imam Khomeini..." it said, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader, "Active members of HY foiled the conspiracy of Western Media to humiliate our beloved Holy Prophet Mohammad.... The writer Ms. Spillberg from Huston, US wrote this book without any base naming it as a historical fiction on the personality of Holy Prophet." Quite colloquially, it ended: "But after watching the posts by our active members, they have withdrawn the plans of printing it. Hats off for these brothers and all the members of HY. May Allah bless us all."
No big deal that the message got the author wrong: the novel was written by Portland journalist Sherry Jones. But, indeed, the HY group had been in the mix this past spring as Random House executives pondered a warning that the book would be a "declaration of war" on the Muslim world. In April, without reading the book, a 28-year-old HY member from Hyderabad, India, Ali Hemani, a young professional, had posted a seven-point plan to convince Random House to shelve the book this past spring.
This past weekend, Husaini Youth got a new member: Sherry Jones who joined the online group to start a conversation with her critics. She got an unexpected response from the man who had posted the seven-point plan: "I extend my hand for peace with you from all the Members of Husaini Youth." Sure, Jones has received the kind of ugly responses from Muslims that captures so much of what the West fears when it comes to Muslims. But the dialogue generated by the controversy surrounding her unpublished book shows that something valuable and much deeper has been set off in the Muslim world: a lively--and, yes, civilized--debate.
Sparking this debate was Random House's decision to cancel publication of the novel because of fears of a backlash from "a small, radical segment" of the Muslim community. I wrote an opinion piece last week, stating that the decision saddened me as Muslim and a writer because I have come to appreciate fiction as a powerful tool for understanding history.
What I didn't mention was this: I also believe the Muslim community can only move forward intellectually, spiritually and politically if we can engage as intellectual warriors in a civil, peaceful conversation about even that which may offend us. Even the Qur'an (31:19) enjoins us to decorous debate: "Lo! The harshest of all the voices is the voice of the ass."
That sort of decorous debate is happening. On blogs like http://www.smartbitchestrashybooks.com/ and http://www.mikeghouse.net/, Muslims are wrestling with prickly questions about the prophet Muhammad's "jailbait bride," as one blogger put it, and the place of sex in the prophet's biography. On his blog, Mike Ghouse wrote, "...the onus is on the Muslims, as the Prophet asks them to walk the middle path and not extremes....I urge Muslims to gear themselves to think and not react. If you cannot listen to the prophet, then don't read the book....The Majority of Muslims always choose the right path and they need to speak when the few extremists roar."
To me, debate is a good thing--and it's the kind of honest conversation I believe we can endure, just as the Jewish and Christian faiths have endured creative license with the maternal and paternal figures in their histories.
In the case of "The Jewel of Medina," most Muslims actually responded to the novel with restraint. Shahed Amanullah, the Austin, Tex.-based editor of a mainstream Muslim website, altmuslim.com, was among the first Muslims to hear about the book. He said he got a phone call from University of Texas of Austin associate professor Denise Spellberg. "Denise called me and said, 'I want to be able to address this book before it comes out. Can you help me find other Muslims who will want to help me with it?'" he recalled. "She felt it exoticized the history. She thought it was another imposition of Western ideas on Muslim society."
Not long after getting off the phone, Amanullah shot a now infamous email to a listserv of graduate students in Middle Eastern and Islamic studies, telling them he had received a "frantic" call from Spellberg. The email landed that day on a forum board at HusainiYouth.com, where a blogger posted the seven-point plan to protest the book.
In the wake of the controversy, some bloggers have pilloried Amanullah, American Muslims and Muslims in general. But Amanullah says he never wanted the book pulled. "I'm upset the book wasn't published," he said, "not because I agree or disagree with the book." For him, "I don't want to be in the position where we are stifling speech. Preemptive censorship is not in our interest. That's worse than even censorship. We're not going to silence our way out of problems."
Amanullah said he sent his email about the book to encourage "transparency." To him, it's better not to "blindsided." "That way we are calm and rational about our response," he said. "If somebody is going to be playing in my sandbox I should know what they are doing there."
The debate over whether historical fiction works with Islamic history is "part of a dialogue that has to happen in the public square," said Amanullah. "Muslims don't do nuance. Fiction is about all the grays," he said. "People are really sensitive about their history. Everybody wants to define history as they see it. It gets sensitive because there are social and political ramifications to the telling of history. But historical fiction is a great way to kind of explore possibilities. I'm not sure Muslims are quite ready for that in terms of our history."
In an effort to save her book, Jones sent a review copy to the American Society for Muslim Advancement, a New York-based Muslim American organization, where Sabeeha Rehman, director of interfaith program, read the book. In a letter to Jones, Rehman said the book was "very engaging, lush in its detail and imagery," chronicling impressive "general knowledge about the historical setting and events" and a "convincing" portrait of Aisha as "a courageous woman."
Yet, Rehman wrote, the novel would offend "Muslim readers," arguing that "certain aspects of the book and its approach will not be accepted by Muslim readers, can cause a firestorm, and seriously question the validity of the characters and the accounts." She noted she was "deeply offended by the liberal description of the Prophet's interaction with women." "Muslims also hold the Caliphs in very high esteem," she wrote, arguing the characters of Omar, the second caliph after the prophet Muhammad died, and Ali, the fourth caliph, is "disparaging," such as when the novel has them "barking." She wrote that "for Muslims" the belief is that "a dog is considered an unclean animal."
The book, she concluded, "was reviewed far three target audiences: (1) Muslim women; (2) Interfaith groups; and (2) World Muslim community," and the book doesn't "serve any purpose for any of these three groups."
To me it's always dangerous to refer to any group in the monolith, as Rehman did referring to "Muslim readers." As a Muslim, I reject the traditional interpretation that dogs are dirty, as does UCLA Islamic scholar Khaled Abou El Fadl. But she was pointedly not alarmist in her argument, rather, just urging "caution."
For his part, the Husaini Youth member, Hemani, said in an interview that he had joined the group to "serve the purpose of my life, by gaining closeness to Allah," saddened by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with the situation of Palestinians in Israel. In a decision that Muslims around the globe can use as a guidepost for public debate, he said he had only one choice when it came to welcoming Jones because Allah "says one who rushes towards good deeds is the one I hold close in my view."
Asra Q. Nomani, a former reporter for the Wall Street Journal, is the author of "Standing Alone: An American Woman's Struggle for the Soul of Islam." She is a professor of journalism at Georgetown University.
____________________________________________________________
In response to Georgiason,
As American Muslims, we don’t need an opinion from the Mufti of Al-Azhar; it is our life, our nation and our society. We have to co-exist and the responsibility is not be shouldered by any single group, we all have to own the responsibility and do our part without scoring on the other.
Rogue elements are always part of a society, however you chop it, religiously, ethnically, racially or other uniqueness. You find them in Muslims, and without a doubt, they are among Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and every group. We need to find them and turn them over to the FBI as common criminals, whoever they might be.
Can we count the same number in other faiths? Robertson, Falwell, Hagee, Crendo and many more will terrorize other people and nations, if the laws of our land were to be loose. Heck they wanted to murder Chavez, bomb Mecca, cursed Arial Sharon, they are true brothers of Bin Laden. All of them have on thing in common; they are insecure and misrepresent their faith to their constituencies.
Muslims around the globe are going through a gradual reformation. I will focus on just American Muslims. There is a tremendous reform happening and in the last five years I have observed remarkable changes – you can compare it to the information technology that came in to being in the eighties and every day is a new day, so is with American Muslims. I am working on the paper and you should be able to see it.
Does Islam allow for the separation of church and state? – Absolutely. 75% of Muslims in the world live in democracies, the others would too if we American had not promoted regimes that are not democratic.
Does Islam allow for the full legal equality of women? – Take the blinders off and not read the media that focus on the negatives. Do we, even the most advanced society practice it? Three of the Islamic nations that make up 25% of Muslim population had women heads; we have accepted the possibilities some 40 years later than them. Religiously all women have their rights, but not in practice, it is a shame, Islam is no different than other faiths when it comes to dealing with women. Of course, it is highlighted more as it suits the agenda of the few who want to manufacture an enemy.
Does Islam allow for religious pluralism? - Same things goes; God in his book Qur’aan guarantees his grace to every one who is good to the fellow beings regardless of what one believes. In practice, you will find faith defenders guarantee heavens exclusively, as if they own it.
There is a revolutions going among Muslims to restore the faith as it was intended to, to be open and inclusive and pluralistic.
Mike Ghousewww.WorldMuslimCongress.comWhat is good for Muslims has got to be good for the world and vice versa to have sustainable peace and prosperity for one and all.
____________________________________________________________
Censoring "The Jewel Of Medina"
This month the U.S. publisher Random House planned to launch an historical novel about Aisha, the wife of the prophet Muhammad. The book was a rarity in Islamic-themed literature: an attempt by a Western woman to fictionalize the personal life of the prophet, and to bring to a wider audience one of the great feminist heroines of the Middle East.
Instead, three months ago, Random House decided to abandon publication of "The Jewel of Medina", by journalist Sherry Jones. Fearing the book might incite the same violent reaction as the Danish Muhammad cartoons, and that company staff and property might comes under attack from Muslim extremists, Random House terminated Jones' contract, as reported by Asra Nomani, who first broke the story in the Wall Street Journal last week.
Random House was particularly concerned about a scene in which the Prophet Muhammad consummates his relationship with Aisha, a child bride. It's a short scene, and not to everyone's taste, in which Muhammad's embrace is likened to a "scorpion's sting", but it hardly amounts to "soft core pornography", as the university professor who first raised objections to the book, Denise Spellberg, has described it.
(Read Spellberg's take on the controversy here.)
But Random House's decision to bow down to a hypothetical terrorist threat is surely a grave insult to the Western tradition of free speech, and to Muslims' ability to take the book for what it is: a decidedly glowing portrayal of the Prophet (in marked contrast to the Muhammad Cartoons, or indeed Satanic Verses).
Here, Jones gives an eloquent defense of her book, and explains why we should all take note of Random House's assault on our freedoms.
By Sherry Jones
" 'I can't' never does anything," my mother used to say. " 'I can' does it all."
When I set out to write a book about A'isha bint Abi Bakr, favorite wife of the Prophet Muhammad, I never doubted that it would be published. After all, I had all the elements I needed for a terrific work of historical fiction: a remarkable heroine, little known in the West; a famous hero, widely misunderstood here; a setting unfamiliar yet exotic; and an exciting tale of love, war, spiritual awakening and redemption.
Five years and seven drafts later, I had indeed landed a publisher for "The Jewel of Medina." Not just any publisher, either, but Random House, the biggest house in the world. I was thrilled not only by the two-book deal, which included a sequel detailing A'isha's life after Muhammad's death, but also by the passion with which everyone at the publishing company seemed to embrace this novel. I was thrilled, but not surprised.
Soon, the foreign rights sales started coming in: Spain, Italy, Hungary. I still wasn't surprised. My agent called to tell me of an eight-city U.S. book tour -- gratifying, but not surprising. Book of the Month Club signed on to feature "The Jewel of Medina" in its August 2008 issue, and Quality Paperback Book Club would follow up six months later. My book seemed destined for the best-seller list.
Then, a university professor, asked for an endorsement, called Random House with warnings of a terrorist attack by angry Muslims if my book were published. "A national security issue," University of Texas associate professor Denise Spellberg reportedly said. "More dangerous than the Satanic Verses or the Danish cartoons."
Now this surprised me -- stunned me, in fact. The follow-up letter from her lawyer provided the second hit in Ms. Spellberg's one-two punch, threatening to sue Random House if her name were associated with my book in any way, including, I assume, a listing in my bibliography. Her reason had me reeling: She objected, she said, to the book's "sexual content," of which there is almost none.
Several weeks later, Random House associate publisher Elizabeth McGuire delivered the final blow. After consulting with other academic "experts" in Islam as well as the company's head of security, Random House executives had decided to "indefinitely postpone" publication. Not because of terrorist threats, mind you -- but because of threats of terrorist threats. Because, in other words, of fear.
I was, of course, devastated by this news, coming as it did less than three months before my Aug. 12 publication date. I was also chagrined to realize the far-reaching ramifications of this historic decision to quash a work of art before it could even reach the public eye. Is Random House no longer publishing books about Islam? How does this bode for the future of publishing? What will be banned next? Art? Music? Theater? Dance?
As a journalist for the last 28 years, I hold the right to free speech especially dear. The First Amendment is, in my view, the very best thing about living in the United States. Publishing houses can, of course, do whatever they want. But university professors? Ms. Spellberg urged Random House to abstain from publishing. The reason, she is telling reporters now, is that she doesn't like my book. Does this development mean our public universities no longer support the free exchange of ideas?
I'm optimistic, but not naive. I expected my book to spark controversy. "The Jewel of Medina" is a novel of women's empowerment, never a popular theme among fundamentalists of any faith. I was also aware that some would take offense at any fictional portrayal of Muhammad, especially one by a non-Muslim American woman. Given the respect with which I treat the Muslim prophet, however, I never expected to be killed because of it. I still don't.
As an advocate for peace, I have high hopes for "The Jewel of Medina" and its sequel, in which A'isha and her rival, Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, Ali, are dual protagonists facing off in the first Islamic civil war. Already I've had many requests for interviews with Muslim journalists and have been invited to participate in a 90-minute chat on IslamOnline.org, a Muslim website which boasts of 13 million hits weekly.
This type of dialogue is long overdue. So far, discussion has centered around my not-published book, which almost no one has read. Soon, I hope, we will address the text itself, in published form, and my ideas, derived from research and experience, of moderate Islam as a religion of egalitaranism and, yes, peace.
In the meantime, using A'isha as my example, I challenge all to do as I am striving to do: Rise up against the culture of fear that pervades our society, refuse to succumb to racism, stand up for our rights, and live courageous lives.
Journalist Sherry Jones is a correspondent for BNA, an international news agency in the Washington, D.C. area, and for Women's eNews in New York. "The Jewel of Medina" is her first novel.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/08/debating_islam_from_within/allcomments.html
YOUR COMMENTS BELOW
( I have posted several of my responses to the comments in the Newsweek Washington post link provided above)
Also included is the author's explanation.
____________________________________________________________
Asra Nomani jolts a few, cause the majority of Muslims to think and certainly agitate the extremists. I do know one thing though; the masters know how to play the game, they know how the extremists react and tease them to play; and the extremists simply fall prey for it without realizing that they were had.
The Dutch cartoon Masters tested the mettle of the extremists, and succeeded in getting them to do the intended thing, so they can move their next pawn; that Muslims are extremists. They have several moves planned, as long as the dumb extremists play the game, the Masters will give them the exercise.
Both are wrong, however the onus is on the Muslims, as the Prophet asks them to walk the middle path and not extreme. If one were to do his Jihad, an inner struggle and the strength to remain peaceful despite the temptations to be angry, to retaliate (turn the other cheek), hate, malice, revenge and other vices. Alas those dumb extremists listen to their own Prophet and play the other game; to be the peace makers.
Islam flourished and contributed towards the civilization when its followers listened to Qur'aan and explored and mined every knowledge field for the benefit of mankind.
Asra Nomani writes about a bold new territory being explored by Sherry Jones. “The personal life of Aisha, a prominent Muslim Scholar and the wife of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).”
I urge Muslims to gear themselves to think and not react. If you cannot listen to the prophet, then don’t read the book. The more you re-act, the more books will be written, the more non-chalant you get, the incentive to write them dims. The Majority of Muslims always choose the right path and they need to speak when the few extremists roar.
Mike Ghouse
www.MikeGhouse.net
____________________________________________________________
Self-Censoring Muslims
Asra Nomani
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/08/debating_islam_from_within.html
When news spread that Random House had nixed publication of a new novel, "The Jewel of Medina," about the life of Aisha, the youngest wife of the prophet Muhammad, a congratulatory message went out to "all members of Husaini Youths (HY)."
"Walking on the footsteps shown by Imam Khomeini..." it said, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader, "Active members of HY foiled the conspiracy of Western Media to humiliate our beloved Holy Prophet Mohammad.... The writer Ms. Spillberg from Huston, US wrote this book without any base naming it as a historical fiction on the personality of Holy Prophet." Quite colloquially, it ended: "But after watching the posts by our active members, they have withdrawn the plans of printing it. Hats off for these brothers and all the members of HY. May Allah bless us all."
No big deal that the message got the author wrong: the novel was written by Portland journalist Sherry Jones. But, indeed, the HY group had been in the mix this past spring as Random House executives pondered a warning that the book would be a "declaration of war" on the Muslim world. In April, without reading the book, a 28-year-old HY member from Hyderabad, India, Ali Hemani, a young professional, had posted a seven-point plan to convince Random House to shelve the book this past spring.
This past weekend, Husaini Youth got a new member: Sherry Jones who joined the online group to start a conversation with her critics. She got an unexpected response from the man who had posted the seven-point plan: "I extend my hand for peace with you from all the Members of Husaini Youth." Sure, Jones has received the kind of ugly responses from Muslims that captures so much of what the West fears when it comes to Muslims. But the dialogue generated by the controversy surrounding her unpublished book shows that something valuable and much deeper has been set off in the Muslim world: a lively--and, yes, civilized--debate.
Sparking this debate was Random House's decision to cancel publication of the novel because of fears of a backlash from "a small, radical segment" of the Muslim community. I wrote an opinion piece last week, stating that the decision saddened me as Muslim and a writer because I have come to appreciate fiction as a powerful tool for understanding history.
What I didn't mention was this: I also believe the Muslim community can only move forward intellectually, spiritually and politically if we can engage as intellectual warriors in a civil, peaceful conversation about even that which may offend us. Even the Qur'an (31:19) enjoins us to decorous debate: "Lo! The harshest of all the voices is the voice of the ass."
That sort of decorous debate is happening. On blogs like http://www.smartbitchestrashybooks.com/ and http://www.mikeghouse.net/, Muslims are wrestling with prickly questions about the prophet Muhammad's "jailbait bride," as one blogger put it, and the place of sex in the prophet's biography. On his blog, Mike Ghouse wrote, "...the onus is on the Muslims, as the Prophet asks them to walk the middle path and not extremes....I urge Muslims to gear themselves to think and not react. If you cannot listen to the prophet, then don't read the book....The Majority of Muslims always choose the right path and they need to speak when the few extremists roar."
To me, debate is a good thing--and it's the kind of honest conversation I believe we can endure, just as the Jewish and Christian faiths have endured creative license with the maternal and paternal figures in their histories.
In the case of "The Jewel of Medina," most Muslims actually responded to the novel with restraint. Shahed Amanullah, the Austin, Tex.-based editor of a mainstream Muslim website, altmuslim.com, was among the first Muslims to hear about the book. He said he got a phone call from University of Texas of Austin associate professor Denise Spellberg. "Denise called me and said, 'I want to be able to address this book before it comes out. Can you help me find other Muslims who will want to help me with it?'" he recalled. "She felt it exoticized the history. She thought it was another imposition of Western ideas on Muslim society."
Not long after getting off the phone, Amanullah shot a now infamous email to a listserv of graduate students in Middle Eastern and Islamic studies, telling them he had received a "frantic" call from Spellberg. The email landed that day on a forum board at HusainiYouth.com, where a blogger posted the seven-point plan to protest the book.
In the wake of the controversy, some bloggers have pilloried Amanullah, American Muslims and Muslims in general. But Amanullah says he never wanted the book pulled. "I'm upset the book wasn't published," he said, "not because I agree or disagree with the book." For him, "I don't want to be in the position where we are stifling speech. Preemptive censorship is not in our interest. That's worse than even censorship. We're not going to silence our way out of problems."
Amanullah said he sent his email about the book to encourage "transparency." To him, it's better not to "blindsided." "That way we are calm and rational about our response," he said. "If somebody is going to be playing in my sandbox I should know what they are doing there."
The debate over whether historical fiction works with Islamic history is "part of a dialogue that has to happen in the public square," said Amanullah. "Muslims don't do nuance. Fiction is about all the grays," he said. "People are really sensitive about their history. Everybody wants to define history as they see it. It gets sensitive because there are social and political ramifications to the telling of history. But historical fiction is a great way to kind of explore possibilities. I'm not sure Muslims are quite ready for that in terms of our history."
In an effort to save her book, Jones sent a review copy to the American Society for Muslim Advancement, a New York-based Muslim American organization, where Sabeeha Rehman, director of interfaith program, read the book. In a letter to Jones, Rehman said the book was "very engaging, lush in its detail and imagery," chronicling impressive "general knowledge about the historical setting and events" and a "convincing" portrait of Aisha as "a courageous woman."
Yet, Rehman wrote, the novel would offend "Muslim readers," arguing that "certain aspects of the book and its approach will not be accepted by Muslim readers, can cause a firestorm, and seriously question the validity of the characters and the accounts." She noted she was "deeply offended by the liberal description of the Prophet's interaction with women." "Muslims also hold the Caliphs in very high esteem," she wrote, arguing the characters of Omar, the second caliph after the prophet Muhammad died, and Ali, the fourth caliph, is "disparaging," such as when the novel has them "barking." She wrote that "for Muslims" the belief is that "a dog is considered an unclean animal."
The book, she concluded, "was reviewed far three target audiences: (1) Muslim women; (2) Interfaith groups; and (2) World Muslim community," and the book doesn't "serve any purpose for any of these three groups."
To me it's always dangerous to refer to any group in the monolith, as Rehman did referring to "Muslim readers." As a Muslim, I reject the traditional interpretation that dogs are dirty, as does UCLA Islamic scholar Khaled Abou El Fadl. But she was pointedly not alarmist in her argument, rather, just urging "caution."
For his part, the Husaini Youth member, Hemani, said in an interview that he had joined the group to "serve the purpose of my life, by gaining closeness to Allah," saddened by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with the situation of Palestinians in Israel. In a decision that Muslims around the globe can use as a guidepost for public debate, he said he had only one choice when it came to welcoming Jones because Allah "says one who rushes towards good deeds is the one I hold close in my view."
Asra Q. Nomani, a former reporter for the Wall Street Journal, is the author of "Standing Alone: An American Woman's Struggle for the Soul of Islam." She is a professor of journalism at Georgetown University.
____________________________________________________________
In response to Georgiason,
As American Muslims, we don’t need an opinion from the Mufti of Al-Azhar; it is our life, our nation and our society. We have to co-exist and the responsibility is not be shouldered by any single group, we all have to own the responsibility and do our part without scoring on the other.
Rogue elements are always part of a society, however you chop it, religiously, ethnically, racially or other uniqueness. You find them in Muslims, and without a doubt, they are among Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and every group. We need to find them and turn them over to the FBI as common criminals, whoever they might be.
Can we count the same number in other faiths? Robertson, Falwell, Hagee, Crendo and many more will terrorize other people and nations, if the laws of our land were to be loose. Heck they wanted to murder Chavez, bomb Mecca, cursed Arial Sharon, they are true brothers of Bin Laden. All of them have on thing in common; they are insecure and misrepresent their faith to their constituencies.
Muslims around the globe are going through a gradual reformation. I will focus on just American Muslims. There is a tremendous reform happening and in the last five years I have observed remarkable changes – you can compare it to the information technology that came in to being in the eighties and every day is a new day, so is with American Muslims. I am working on the paper and you should be able to see it.
Does Islam allow for the separation of church and state? – Absolutely. 75% of Muslims in the world live in democracies, the others would too if we American had not promoted regimes that are not democratic.
Does Islam allow for the full legal equality of women? – Take the blinders off and not read the media that focus on the negatives. Do we, even the most advanced society practice it? Three of the Islamic nations that make up 25% of Muslim population had women heads; we have accepted the possibilities some 40 years later than them. Religiously all women have their rights, but not in practice, it is a shame, Islam is no different than other faiths when it comes to dealing with women. Of course, it is highlighted more as it suits the agenda of the few who want to manufacture an enemy.
Does Islam allow for religious pluralism? - Same things goes; God in his book Qur’aan guarantees his grace to every one who is good to the fellow beings regardless of what one believes. In practice, you will find faith defenders guarantee heavens exclusively, as if they own it.
There is a revolutions going among Muslims to restore the faith as it was intended to, to be open and inclusive and pluralistic.
Mike Ghousewww.WorldMuslimCongress.comWhat is good for Muslims has got to be good for the world and vice versa to have sustainable peace and prosperity for one and all.
____________________________________________________________
Censoring "The Jewel Of Medina"
This month the U.S. publisher Random House planned to launch an historical novel about Aisha, the wife of the prophet Muhammad. The book was a rarity in Islamic-themed literature: an attempt by a Western woman to fictionalize the personal life of the prophet, and to bring to a wider audience one of the great feminist heroines of the Middle East.
Instead, three months ago, Random House decided to abandon publication of "The Jewel of Medina", by journalist Sherry Jones. Fearing the book might incite the same violent reaction as the Danish Muhammad cartoons, and that company staff and property might comes under attack from Muslim extremists, Random House terminated Jones' contract, as reported by Asra Nomani, who first broke the story in the Wall Street Journal last week.
Random House was particularly concerned about a scene in which the Prophet Muhammad consummates his relationship with Aisha, a child bride. It's a short scene, and not to everyone's taste, in which Muhammad's embrace is likened to a "scorpion's sting", but it hardly amounts to "soft core pornography", as the university professor who first raised objections to the book, Denise Spellberg, has described it.
(Read Spellberg's take on the controversy here.)
But Random House's decision to bow down to a hypothetical terrorist threat is surely a grave insult to the Western tradition of free speech, and to Muslims' ability to take the book for what it is: a decidedly glowing portrayal of the Prophet (in marked contrast to the Muhammad Cartoons, or indeed Satanic Verses).
Here, Jones gives an eloquent defense of her book, and explains why we should all take note of Random House's assault on our freedoms.
By Sherry Jones
" 'I can't' never does anything," my mother used to say. " 'I can' does it all."
When I set out to write a book about A'isha bint Abi Bakr, favorite wife of the Prophet Muhammad, I never doubted that it would be published. After all, I had all the elements I needed for a terrific work of historical fiction: a remarkable heroine, little known in the West; a famous hero, widely misunderstood here; a setting unfamiliar yet exotic; and an exciting tale of love, war, spiritual awakening and redemption.
Five years and seven drafts later, I had indeed landed a publisher for "The Jewel of Medina." Not just any publisher, either, but Random House, the biggest house in the world. I was thrilled not only by the two-book deal, which included a sequel detailing A'isha's life after Muhammad's death, but also by the passion with which everyone at the publishing company seemed to embrace this novel. I was thrilled, but not surprised.
Soon, the foreign rights sales started coming in: Spain, Italy, Hungary. I still wasn't surprised. My agent called to tell me of an eight-city U.S. book tour -- gratifying, but not surprising. Book of the Month Club signed on to feature "The Jewel of Medina" in its August 2008 issue, and Quality Paperback Book Club would follow up six months later. My book seemed destined for the best-seller list.
Then, a university professor, asked for an endorsement, called Random House with warnings of a terrorist attack by angry Muslims if my book were published. "A national security issue," University of Texas associate professor Denise Spellberg reportedly said. "More dangerous than the Satanic Verses or the Danish cartoons."
Now this surprised me -- stunned me, in fact. The follow-up letter from her lawyer provided the second hit in Ms. Spellberg's one-two punch, threatening to sue Random House if her name were associated with my book in any way, including, I assume, a listing in my bibliography. Her reason had me reeling: She objected, she said, to the book's "sexual content," of which there is almost none.
Several weeks later, Random House associate publisher Elizabeth McGuire delivered the final blow. After consulting with other academic "experts" in Islam as well as the company's head of security, Random House executives had decided to "indefinitely postpone" publication. Not because of terrorist threats, mind you -- but because of threats of terrorist threats. Because, in other words, of fear.
I was, of course, devastated by this news, coming as it did less than three months before my Aug. 12 publication date. I was also chagrined to realize the far-reaching ramifications of this historic decision to quash a work of art before it could even reach the public eye. Is Random House no longer publishing books about Islam? How does this bode for the future of publishing? What will be banned next? Art? Music? Theater? Dance?
As a journalist for the last 28 years, I hold the right to free speech especially dear. The First Amendment is, in my view, the very best thing about living in the United States. Publishing houses can, of course, do whatever they want. But university professors? Ms. Spellberg urged Random House to abstain from publishing. The reason, she is telling reporters now, is that she doesn't like my book. Does this development mean our public universities no longer support the free exchange of ideas?
I'm optimistic, but not naive. I expected my book to spark controversy. "The Jewel of Medina" is a novel of women's empowerment, never a popular theme among fundamentalists of any faith. I was also aware that some would take offense at any fictional portrayal of Muhammad, especially one by a non-Muslim American woman. Given the respect with which I treat the Muslim prophet, however, I never expected to be killed because of it. I still don't.
As an advocate for peace, I have high hopes for "The Jewel of Medina" and its sequel, in which A'isha and her rival, Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, Ali, are dual protagonists facing off in the first Islamic civil war. Already I've had many requests for interviews with Muslim journalists and have been invited to participate in a 90-minute chat on IslamOnline.org, a Muslim website which boasts of 13 million hits weekly.
This type of dialogue is long overdue. So far, discussion has centered around my not-published book, which almost no one has read. Soon, I hope, we will address the text itself, in published form, and my ideas, derived from research and experience, of moderate Islam as a religion of egalitaranism and, yes, peace.
In the meantime, using A'isha as my example, I challenge all to do as I am striving to do: Rise up against the culture of fear that pervades our society, refuse to succumb to racism, stand up for our rights, and live courageous lives.
Journalist Sherry Jones is a correspondent for BNA, an international news agency in the Washington, D.C. area, and for Women's eNews in New York. "The Jewel of Medina" is her first novel.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/08/debating_islam_from_within/allcomments.html
YOUR COMMENTS BELOW
( I have posted several of my responses to the comments in the Newsweek Washington post link provided above)
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Maldives Constitution to be questioned
As a Muslim, I question the amendment in the constitution of Maldives. If we don't question it, we would be giving a pass to exclusive ideologies around the world. . The noblest among you is the one who cares for the neighbors, Qur'aan says. Shame on the fanatic few in the Government of Maldives to get a law like this passed, it is against the spirit of Qur'aan and against the spirit of Prophet Muhammad's Madinah pact that protected the rights of every individual to practice his or her faith. In fact, even conversion of the spouse was not a requirement in a marriage. This amendment is contrary to the spirit of Islam.
The Qur'aan teaches one to live and let live, accept** and respect other people's way of life. Islam is about justice and peace. This act clearly violates Justice to those who are not Muslims. I hope the international community ropes Maldives into the civil societies with incentives and education
* http://quraan-today.blogspot.com/2008/07/sura-kafirun-un-believers.html
** The word accept does not mean change, it simply means acknowledgement of the otherness of other.
Mike Ghouse.
American NGO Condemns Maldives Constitution
Over Religion Clause
By Olivia Lang in MaléAugust 9, 2008
http://www.minivannews.com/news/news.php?id=4814
An American-based NGO promoting religious pluralism has condemned the Maldives’ new constitution over a clause requiring all citizens to be Muslims, saying it does not conform to international norms and human rights.
The Institute on Religion and Public Policy (IRPP) says the regulation in the country’s new constitution – ratified on Thursday – undermines basic guarantees of rights and freedoms.
The move follows criticism from US Ambassador Robert Blake, who also said the clause violated international covenants, describing it as a “concern” earlier this week.
The clause was left unchanged in the constitutional drafting process – despite being flagged up as a controversial issue – due to its sensitive nature in an Islamic country.
Islam Only
Article 9, Section D of the constitution now states that “a non-Muslim may not become a citizen of the Maldives,” which the IRPP says violates minorities’ freedom of worship.
“This denial of citizenship to non-Muslims is an extraordinarily harsh measure which places the Maldives among the worst countries in the world in regards to the legal foundation for freedom of religion and belief,” the Institute President Joseph K. Grieboski is reported to have said.
The Maldives government says the country is 100 per cent Muslim, and also bans the import of un-Islamic texts or symbols.
Ambassador Robert Blake said last Wednesday that the clause was a concern, but added that the Maldivian government was working to find a solution.
“Religious freedom is a very important part of our constitution. The [Maldivian] government understands our concern that this clause contravenes international conventions it is a party to,” he said.
But religious parties appear to support the new rule. Both Sheikh Abdul Majeed Abdul Bari, head of the religious Adhaalath party scholars’ council, and Islamic Democratic Party (IDP) presidential candidate Umar Naseer have said they agree with the tightening of the regulation.
Constitution
The clause could affect those who convert away from Islam, or who are children of Maldivians married to non-Muslims, but it is not clear whether it will ever be put into practice.
Despite being flagged up as difficult to implement prior to the constitution being passed in the Special Majlis (constitutional assembly), it was left unchanged in the final draft.
Information Minister Mohamed Nasheed has said this was due to the sensitivity of the issue. “No Maldives politician would want to take the case up,” he told Minivan News in May.
“It will be very difficult for Maldives mentality to accept Maldives citizens may belong to a different faith,” he added.
Politicians have been reluctant to condemn the rule ahead of upcoming presidential elections, the country’s first multi-party polls.
Former attorney general Dr Hassan Saeed, an independent presidential candidate, disregarded the issue saying it wasn’t relevant as “we do not have a non-Muslim population”.
Tenets Of Islam
In addition to denying non-Muslims citizenship, the new constitution establishes several other precepts regarding religion.
It limits freedom of expression to that which is “not contrary to a tenet of Islam.”
The Institute on Religion and Public Policy is reportedly drafting an analysis of the new constitution for expected release in September.
The Institute is an international, inter-religious non-profit organization which aims to ensure freedom of religion.
The Maldives’ previous constitution stipulated individuals must be Muslim in order to vote in elections, but not in order to be a citizen. Maldives became an Islamic country in 1153.
Related Articles:
Maldives’ New Constitution Ratified
Maldives Warned By US On Freedom Of Religion
Non-Muslims To Lose Citizenship Under New Constitution
The Qur'aan teaches one to live and let live, accept** and respect other people's way of life. Islam is about justice and peace. This act clearly violates Justice to those who are not Muslims. I hope the international community ropes Maldives into the civil societies with incentives and education
* http://quraan-today.blogspot.com/2008/07/sura-kafirun-un-believers.html
** The word accept does not mean change, it simply means acknowledgement of the otherness of other.
Mike Ghouse.
American NGO Condemns Maldives Constitution
Over Religion Clause
By Olivia Lang in MaléAugust 9, 2008
http://www.minivannews.com/news/news.php?id=4814
An American-based NGO promoting religious pluralism has condemned the Maldives’ new constitution over a clause requiring all citizens to be Muslims, saying it does not conform to international norms and human rights.
The Institute on Religion and Public Policy (IRPP) says the regulation in the country’s new constitution – ratified on Thursday – undermines basic guarantees of rights and freedoms.
The move follows criticism from US Ambassador Robert Blake, who also said the clause violated international covenants, describing it as a “concern” earlier this week.
The clause was left unchanged in the constitutional drafting process – despite being flagged up as a controversial issue – due to its sensitive nature in an Islamic country.
Islam Only
Article 9, Section D of the constitution now states that “a non-Muslim may not become a citizen of the Maldives,” which the IRPP says violates minorities’ freedom of worship.
“This denial of citizenship to non-Muslims is an extraordinarily harsh measure which places the Maldives among the worst countries in the world in regards to the legal foundation for freedom of religion and belief,” the Institute President Joseph K. Grieboski is reported to have said.
The Maldives government says the country is 100 per cent Muslim, and also bans the import of un-Islamic texts or symbols.
Ambassador Robert Blake said last Wednesday that the clause was a concern, but added that the Maldivian government was working to find a solution.
“Religious freedom is a very important part of our constitution. The [Maldivian] government understands our concern that this clause contravenes international conventions it is a party to,” he said.
But religious parties appear to support the new rule. Both Sheikh Abdul Majeed Abdul Bari, head of the religious Adhaalath party scholars’ council, and Islamic Democratic Party (IDP) presidential candidate Umar Naseer have said they agree with the tightening of the regulation.
Constitution
The clause could affect those who convert away from Islam, or who are children of Maldivians married to non-Muslims, but it is not clear whether it will ever be put into practice.
Despite being flagged up as difficult to implement prior to the constitution being passed in the Special Majlis (constitutional assembly), it was left unchanged in the final draft.
Information Minister Mohamed Nasheed has said this was due to the sensitivity of the issue. “No Maldives politician would want to take the case up,” he told Minivan News in May.
“It will be very difficult for Maldives mentality to accept Maldives citizens may belong to a different faith,” he added.
Politicians have been reluctant to condemn the rule ahead of upcoming presidential elections, the country’s first multi-party polls.
Former attorney general Dr Hassan Saeed, an independent presidential candidate, disregarded the issue saying it wasn’t relevant as “we do not have a non-Muslim population”.
Tenets Of Islam
In addition to denying non-Muslims citizenship, the new constitution establishes several other precepts regarding religion.
It limits freedom of expression to that which is “not contrary to a tenet of Islam.”
The Institute on Religion and Public Policy is reportedly drafting an analysis of the new constitution for expected release in September.
The Institute is an international, inter-religious non-profit organization which aims to ensure freedom of religion.
The Maldives’ previous constitution stipulated individuals must be Muslim in order to vote in elections, but not in order to be a citizen. Maldives became an Islamic country in 1153.
Related Articles:
Maldives’ New Constitution Ratified
Maldives Warned By US On Freedom Of Religion
Non-Muslims To Lose Citizenship Under New Constitution
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
MUSLIM SPEAKER
Email to: SpeakerMikeGhouse@gmail.com
Voice of Moderate Muslims
Voice of Moderate Muslims
SUCCESSFUL NAATIA MUSHAERA ON 2.21.14
Moderate Islam Speaker
Moderate Islam Speaker
CIVIL DIALOGUE
The people in Dallas are making an effort to understand and clean their own hearts first, when we are free from bias, it would be easy to share that with others. Islam teaches us in so many ways to "respect the otherness of others" and it is time we find simple practical ways of doing it.
