Proving Islam is peace

Islam Should Prove It's a Religion of Peace
Muslims can start with better Quranic scholarship.
By TAWFIK HAMID

The following commentary by Tawfik Hamid is questionable. I do expect WSJ to verify a few basics, they have a responsibility to put out responsible statements.

Tawfik or WSJ need to provide the substantiation for these claims;

1. Many Muslims seem to believe that it is acceptable to teach hatred and violence in the name of their religion - seems to beleive?

2. Scholars in the most prestigious Islamic institutes and universities continue to teach things like Jews are "pigs and monkeys," - which ones?

Tawfik is BSing... a year ago, WSJ published an article by the Phoenix Doctor, he wrote about hate sermons in mosques, I asked them to prove... they did not. However, the writer finally
said, it used to be... I asked to him correct it. It used to be is different than giving a false impression that they are doing now...

He rightfully asks about the stoning of women for adultery... we need to come together on this and do our consulting and deliever an opinion to put an end to this.

I add apostasy to it. Some of the Muslims scholars that I have talked with are chickens, they agree that there should be no punishement for apostasy and that any one can choose to be a Muslim and go out of being a Muslim, and come back again, it is all about free will, but they did not have the guts to sign up at www.ApostasyandIslam.com their Job was important to them
than being righteousness.

Tawfiq has not seen the documentary Fitna.... his comments are not made about fitna, but something else. I have responded word for word to it. It is athttp://www.Quraan-today.blogspot.com

Every religion is for peace, the problem is not religion, it is the individuals, and you find them in every faith.

Mike Ghouse
###

Islam Should Prove It's a Religion of Peace
Muslims can start with better Quranic scholarship.
By TAWFIK HAMID

The film "Fitna" by Dutch parliament member Geert Wilders has created an uproar around the world because it links violence committed by Islamists to Islam.

Many commentators and politicians -- including the British government, which denied him entry to the country last month -- reflexively accused Mr.. Wilders of inciting hatred. The question, however, is whether the blame is with Mr. Wilders, who simply exposed Islamic radicalism, or with those who promote and engage in this religious extremism. In other words, shall we fault Mr. Wilders for raising issues like the stoning of women, or shall we fault those who actually promote and practice this crime?

Many Muslims seem to believe that it is acceptable to teach hatred and violence in the name of their religion -- while at the same time expecting the world to respect Islam as a religion of peace, love and harmony.

Scholars in the most prestigious Islamic institutes and universities continue to teach things like Jews are "pigs and monkeys," that women and men must be stoned to death for adultery, or that Muslims must fight the world to spread their religion. Isn't, then, Mr. Wilders's criticism appropriate? Instead of blaming him, we must blame the leading Islamic scholars for having failed to produce an authoritative book on Islamic jurisprudence that is accepted in the Islamic world and unambiguously rejects these violent teachings.

While many religious texts preach violence, the interpretation, modern usage and implementation of these teachings make all the difference. For example, the stoning of women exists in both the Old Testament and in the Islamic tradition, or "Sunna" -- the recorded deeds and manners of the prophet Muhammad. The difference, though, is that leading Jewish scholars agreed to discontinue these practices centuries ago, while Muslim scholars have yet to do so. Hence we do not see the stoning of women practiced or promoted in Israel, the "Jewish" state, but we see it practiced and promoted in Iran and Saudi Arabia, the "Islamic" states.

When the British government banned Geert Wilders from entering the country to present his film in the House of Lords, it made two egregious errors. The first was to suppress free speech, a canon of the civilized Western world. The second mistake was to blame the messenger -- punishing, so to speak, the witness who exposed the crime instead of punishing the criminal. Mr. Wilders did not produce the content of the violent Islamic message he showed in his film -- the Islamic world did that. Until the Islamic clerical establishment takes concrete steps to reject violence in the name of their religion, Mr. Wilders's criticism is not only permissible as "controversial" free speech but justified.

So, Islamic scholars and clerics, it is up to you to produce a Shariah book that will be accepted in the Islamic world and that teaches that Jews are not pigs and monkeys, that declaring war to spread Islam is unacceptable, and that killing apostates is a crime. Such a book would prove that Islam is a religion of peace.

Mr. Hamid, a former member of an Egyptian Islamist terrorist group, is an Islamic reformer and senior fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.

Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.