Divorce in Qur'aan

Moderator's note is followed by Dr. Asghar Ali Engineers' article below.

http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2008/04/divorce-in-quraan.html

.

Dear God, help us stand up for the rights of the women on whom injustice is heaped through irresponsible statements by the anamolic Aalims. In the following article Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer takes us through the malady that exists in Muslim societies. Could some one translate this into regional languages and get it published for the benefit of the common people.

Not all, but a few political, civic, business and religious leaders make gross mistakes. Maulana Rahmani quoted below falls into that category. He may have self interests in trying to interpret it that way.

The core value of Islam is Justice; even the wahdaniyat (oneness) is a catalyst to get the humanity to edge towards Justice. In a just society, the fear of taking advantage of the week and the meek dissipates, when that is gone, there is lesser wrong doing to happen – no more lying, cheating, robbing and infidelity.

Qur’aan talks about a refined language that occurs in a civil dialogue. The pitiful language used by the interlocutors “Divorce is given only when husband gets angry with his wife due to some act of hers lack civility.” This is a bad language where the woman is treated less than the man. Alhamdu Lillah, Qur’aan has expressly added the language that Women can initiate a divorce for the very same purpose – to believe in the equal rights of men and women. The language of the Ulema should be “Divorce is an outcome of misunderstanding between the spouses” which is a language of the equals, which is an expression of Justice.

These are the dumb acts of individuals that we can find in every group be it religious or otherwise. Unless we stand up and speak out, we are part of it. There was a statement by a wise man “ evil triumphs because good people don’t do anything about it”. The least one can do is spread the word. I admire Dr. Asghar Ali Engineers stand on this issue and I hope that should be the stand of every Muslim – Justice to all humans.

Mike Ghouse
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
DIVORCE IN QUR’AN AND SHARI’AH

Asghar Ali Engineer

(Secular Perspective April 1-15, 2008)

The other day I read an article on divorce in Inquilab, an Urdu Daily from Mumbai written by a well known ‘alim and member of Muslim Personal Law Board Khalid Saifullah Rahmani. The title of the article was “Ghusse ki haalat ka f’al m’utabar hota hai to talaq kyun m’utabar nahin hogi” i.e. if generally anything done in anger is valid why not a divorce given in anger? If any lay person had written this article even then it would have been considered outrageous and when written by one who is considered an ‘alim, it is much more so.

The Maulana argues that generally divorce is given in state of anger only and he argues if a husband is happy with his wife, will he gift her divorce? Divorce is given only when husband gets angry with his wife due to some act of hers. And then he says not only divorce but also several things are done in the state of anger. One would not like to comment on such arguments had it not involved fate of hundreds of Muslim women. One can only ring ones hands at such status of our prominent ‘ulama. They take divorce so lightly and break up of family for them is only a matter of husband’s anger with his wife.

Maulana Rahmani also maintains in this article that all fuqaha’ have consensus that divorce takes place if given in state of anger because in this state as in this state man remains conscious of his act. Then the Maulana goes on to quote noted jurist Allama Abidayn Shami who has quoted Hafiz ibn Qayyim (very well known jurist and ‘alim and disciple of Ibn Taymiyyah) and argues that anger has three stages: one that no change has occurred in his reasoning power due to anger and what he says, he should be understanding that and he should remain aware of its consequences and divorce pronounced in this state of anger will be valid. Second state is of extreme anger when man is unable to understand consequences of what he is doing and lacks in his will power. In this status divorce will not be valid since such a status of anger borders on madness and divorce given in a state of madness is not valid. Third state of anger is between the two states i.e. when man is partially aware of what he is saying and doing and partially not and divorce given in this state will also not be valid.

These are hardly acceptable arguments and at best these are rationalization or justification of divorce given in a state of anger. One would like to ask Maulana and the jurists he quotes who will determine what state of anger one is when pronouncing divorce? Is there any objective criteria available to measure husband’s anger at the time of pronouncing divorce? Has any instrument like thermometer available for measuring the degree of anger? And for these jurists even two witnesses for divorce are not necessary as prescribed by the Qur’an?

A divorce simply takes place if a husband pronounces divorce thrice in one breathe and no witnesses are required. If witnesses are not required who will bear witness as to which state of anger divorce was pronounced? Will husband’s own statement will be relied on? And if husband is determined to divorce his wife, how can his statement as to what state of anger he was in at the time of divorce can be acceptable. Who will decide what state of anger he was at the time of pronouncing divorce? Very strange rationalization indeed for justifying divorce in a state of anger.

Also, these arguments are completely at variance with what Qur’an says about divorce. Firstly, Qur’an requires, as pointed out earlier, two witnesses for divorce. Also, there is not even indirect evidence in Qur’an for giving divorce in a state of anger. See these two verses of Qur’an from Chapter 65 (Surah Al-Talaq) “O Prophet, when you divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed period, and calculate the period; and keep your duty to Allah, your Lord. Turn them not out of their houses – nor should they themselves go away – unless they commit an open indecency. And these are limits of Allah. And whoever goes beyond limits of Allah, he indeed wrongs his own soul…” (65:1)

And we find in second verse of this chapter (65), “So when they have reached their prescribed time, retain them with kindness or dismiss them with kindness, and call to witness two just ones from among you, and give upright; testimony for Allah. With that is admonished he who believes in Allah and the latter Day. And whoever keeps his duty to Allah, He ordains a way out for him.

Let Maulana Rahmani note that Qur’an not only does not talk of divorcing in a state of anger but requires husband to divorce her (fariquhunna) with kindness. Also, she should not be thrown out of her marital home by the husband nor should she herself leave her marital home unless she comes with an indecent act (bi fahishatin). Also, Qur’an wherever talks of divorce, requires husbands to divorce them or separate them, with kindness. The verse 229 of Chapter 2 also talks of kindness while letting them go or separating them.

The verse is as under:” Divorce may be (pronounced) twice; then keep them in good fellowship (bi m’arufin) or let (them) go with kindness (tasrihun bi ihsan). Also so ensure full justice for women Qur’an requires arbitration before divorce (4:35). Thus there cannot be fairer method for divorce than the one prescribed by the Qur’an.

It is so unfortunate that Muslim jurists, under the influence of patriarchal ethos of their societies, they ignored all Qur’an injunctions and gave more credence to prevalent social practices and that too in the name of Islam. All this corpus of laws are referred to as Islamic laws of divine origin. In total contradiction to what Qur’an prescribes, the jurists, not only justified divorce given in a state of anger but also described states of anger.

What is more central to Islam - justice (‘adl, qist) or state of proper consciousness in anger? Forget about anger, Qur’an does not approve of divorce in normal state of consciousness if proper method is not followed for giving divorce which ensures justice for wife. Any unjust act is zulm (oppression, wrong doing). According to the Qur’an women must be treated with fairness and justice and no act, committed in a state of anger (whatever the state of anger) can be a just act.

Maulana Rahmani’s argument is very strange indeed that husband if not in a state of anger, will he divorce when he is happy with wife? Divorce, in fact should never be given in a state of anger at all. Whatever state of anger, intense, extreme or moderate, one does loose control of oneself and even if he is conscious of consequences of his act, is unable to think coolly and rationally. And Qur’an requires husband to remain kind even when divorcing her. Can anyone be kind while pronouncing divorce in a state of anger? Kindness and anger are two opposite states of mind.

Also, there are several instances in which husband pronounce divorce on getting angry on petty quarrels with wife. Can then such divorces be justified? Often husband repents after pronouncing divorce thrice in a state of anger but our jurists maintain his wife has been irrevocably divorced and he cannot take her back unless she marries some other man and he divorces her.

Husband and wife often quarrel and husband gets angry temporarily and is provoked to pronounce divorce. So such petty quarrels would become basis for divorce. This is not only legally wrong but also morally totally wrong. But such are our jurists and ‘responsible’ members of personal law board. Can Muslim women then ever expect justice from them?

On one hand these jurists will argue that Islam greatly raised status of women and in pre-Islamic society women were treated as chattels and, on the other hand, to maintain manly authority, bring back those pre-Islamic practices in divine garb. Qur’an put the entire responsibility of treating women fairly and with kindness on men and our jurists gave total authority to men to throw their wives away whenever they liked.

There is not a single verse in Qur’an which exhorts women to treat their husbands with kindness while in their nikah (marital bond) whereas there are several verses requiring men to treat their wives with kindness. This was because women were in weaker position in that society and Islam has all the sympathy for weaker sections of society. In fact Islam lad greatest stress on giving justice to weaker sections of society including slaves, servants, orphan, widows and the poor.

As we have repeatedly pointed out Qur’an’s sympathy is with mustad’ifin (those who have been weakened) (5:28) and our Ulama show all the sympathy with men who had all the power over women in that society (and still this continues even in most modern society) and juristically gives all the power over them. Let us remember justice is more central than opinion of any jurist howsoever eminent that jurist may be. Justice is Qur’an’s central principle which cannot be sacrificed on the altar of any jurist’s opinion.

If we have to project Islam as religion of justice and compassion for weaker sections of society we will have to revise our jurisprudence completely and prioritize justice over opinions of all past jurists of eminence. Eminence is not a principle it is only a social status whereas justice is a moral value central to Islam. Divorce is a very serious act and should be treated with utmost caution and responsibility. It breaks families and causes trauma to wife and children. According to a well-known hadith Allah has permitted act of divorce with utmost reluctance. Thus neither Qur’an nor authentic hadith are problem for women, it is male authority which is.
===

Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
Mumbai: - 400 055.
E-mail: csss@mtnl.net.in

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

Mohammad Irtaza share verses from Qur'aan

[1:1] In the name of GOD, Most Gracious, Most Merciful[6:116] If you obey the majority of people on earth, they will divert you from the path of GOD. They follow only conjecture; they only guess. Salamun Alykum. Does it a matter if "Muslims" outnumber Christians or Christians outnumber "Muslims"? [5:100] Proclaim: "The bad and the good are not the same, even if the abundance of the bad may impress you. You shall reverence GOD, (even if you are in the minority) O you who possess intelligence, that you may succeed." Who are the majority, anyway? What kind of people are they?! Please note that "Muslims" are not excluded from the following verses! [6:116] If you obey the majority of people on earth, they will divert you from the path of GOD. They follow only conjecture; they only guess.

[12:106] The majority of those who believe in GOD do not do so without committing idol worship.

[16:83] They fully recognize GOD's blessings, then deny them; the majority of them are disbelievers.

Please also note that "Muslims" do not get special privilege as noted from the following verses! [2:62] Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who (1) believes in GOD, and (2) believes in the Last Day, and (3) leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.

[5:69] Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the converts, and the Christians; any of them who (1) believe in GOD and (2) believe in the Last Day, and (3) lead a righteous life, have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.

[10:98] Any community that believes will surely be rewarded for believing. For example, the people of Jonah: when they believed, we relieved the humiliating retribution they had been suffering in this world, and we made them prosperous.

[16:93] Had GOD willed, He could have made you one congregation. But He sends astray whoever chooses to go astray, and He guides whoever wishes to be guided. You will surely be asked about everything you have done. The various Quranic stories always give us bad news: majority of people are disbelievers, wicked and idol worshipers! [3:110] You are the best community ever raised among the people: you advocate righteousness and forbid evil, and you believe in GOD. If the followers of the scripture believed, it would be better for them. Some of them do believe, but the majority of them are wicked.

[6:116] If you obey the majority of people on earth, they will divert you from the path of GOD. They follow only conjecture; they only guess.

[12:106] The majority of those who believe in GOD do not do so without committing idol worship.

[16:83] They fully recognize GOD's blessings, then deny them; the majority of them are disbelievers.

[19:73] When our revelations are recited to them, clearly, those who disbelieve say to those who believe, "Which of us is more prosperous? Which of us is in the majority?" Thank you and may God guide us, M. Irtaza Moderator - This is not anti-majority verses, but simply verses that value what is right, rather than majority or minority. thanks Mohammad, for the verses. Jazak Allah Khair. This was in reference to a question by Hasni Essa located in the archives: http://muslimarchives.blogspot.com/2008/04/04-03-2008-wednesday.html

Livingstone on Muslims

Ken Livingstone on Muslims, Islam and the media.

Moderator Mike Ghouse' note:

Unfortunately the media across the globe is brain washed by the Neocons (war monger extremists) as well. If a father murders his daughter and if he is a Muslim, it is all over the news, across the world and a fodder for talk show hosts for months...until another one comes along. What they deliberately fail to report on the very same day, they can find at least three other fathers killing their daughters for disobedience of some other nonsense... and their religion is never put on the media. This has got to go. Fairness in reporting must come together. There is no doubt about Muslim bias as well.

Cranmer has been emailed a document by ‘Spurius Lartius, London Citizen’ which examines a number of issues about Islam and attitudes towards British Muslims but not in the way the authors intended. It is published by The Greater London Authority and was commissioned by the Mayor of London, and is entitled ‘The search for common ground: Muslims, non-Muslims and the UK media.

Mayor Livingstone gives pride of place to the finding that in a typical week 91 percent of the news articles in the UK press mentioning Muslims or Islam were negative. He means that we now have firm proof that the UK Press is biased against Islam and Muslims. And yet what were these articles about?

A very large proportion of the stories are about terrorism in Britain, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. Given that the events taking place in these countries, it is difficult to see how the reporting could possibly be positive, or why Mr Livingstone is insisting that a positive spin should be put on them.

This pattern of perpetual negativity is replicated across all newspapers. Even The Guardian and the Independent convey the same sentiments. One might perhaps expect The Guardian, which was also the only newspaper with journalists on the study team, to be more positively disposed to Islam and Muslims, but it rarely is.

What does this prove?

Should Newspapers carry a Government Health Warning: ‘Whatever you think of this story or this biased newspaper, your Muslim neighbour is really a nice guy’? Have the good stories been missed or purposely omitted, even by The Guardian? Perhaps the UK Press has failed to report the ‘good news’ stories like the following that never made it to their pages:

● Saudi authorities welcome plans to build large church in Riyadh.

● Muhammad Bari, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), says arranged marriages are not a good idea and not practical in a developed country like the UK. He expects both his daughters to go to university in another part of the country. They will make social circles of their own, but he and his wife look forward to being introduced to the first serious boyfriends.

● Girls now surpass boys in numbers in school and exam results in Afghanistan.

● Birmingham will not become a majority Muslim city. The birth rate amongst Muslim women is now at a level comparable with the rest of the population. The rate was double the national rate but has come down as Muslim women have gained equal status with men and stopped believing large families are a cultural-economic necessity.

● East London mosque will do all in its power to terminate the lease of a shop on mosque premises selling literature extolling hatred and jihad against non-Muslims.

● Sir Iqbal Sacranie, former secretary general of the MCB, says there are limits to multiculturalism.

● Pakistan repeals law that requires a female rape victim to have four male witnesses. Iran stops stoning and public executions.

● Dr Al-Qaradawi says Muslim women in the UK should not wear a veil. You only cover your face in the West if you are unwell, cold, or in mourning. Otherwise covering your face means you want to hide your true feelings and it is very rude.

Or there is another grim possibility: the authors of this report believe the persecution, murder and mayhem throughout much of the Islamic world, and events like the London and Glasgow bombings, are nothing to do with Islam(-ism).

The report claims that a theme has developed in the British media the British way of life is under threat, and this is blamed on the pernicious influence of ‘political correctness’. It examines four newspaper stories expressing such views in relation to relatively trivial incidents.

• the alleged banning of piggy banks by a building society in a Lancashire town

• the alleged banning of Christmas by a local council in London

• the use of BP (Before Present) instead of BC (Before Christ) at a museum in the West country

• the Crown Prosecution Service taking a 10-year-old boy to court for playground insults in Salford.

The report makes an effective rebuttal of all these stories. They were either completely false or based on embellishment and twisting of innocent facts. But it goes on to make the most remarkable assertion:

‘…. even though real fears exist. These arise not from so-called political correctness, nor from the presence of Muslims in modern Britain, but from social and economic change, globalisation, and new international relationships.’

The report may have conveyed a degree of objectivity if it had mentioned the many true stories - ranging from the ridiculous to the sinister - that the British people have good cause to perceive as threatening to British customs and tradition> How about:

● Marks & Spencer shop assistant refuses to sell book of Bible stories.

● Imam’s daughter threatened with death because she converted to Christianity.

● British government formally recognises polygamy (but only for Muslims).

● Muslim staff in supermarket refuse to serve alcohol.

● PC forced to resign because he gave Muslim colleague bottle of wine and pack of bacon for a Christmas present.

● Female Muslim students refuse to shake hands with university Chancellor at degree awards ceremony.

● Muslim medical students refuse to treat illness caused by alcohol.

● Three pigs story ruled offensive to Muslims

Cranmer has covered a few of thee stories, and all are true and sourced. He shall remind communicants and readers of a few:

Imam’s daughter threatened: A British imam’s daughter who converted to Christianity has been forced to live under police protection because her family threatened to kill her. Her brother told her that he could not be responsible for his actions if she did not return to Islam. (The Times, 10 December 2007)

Britain recognises polygamy: The Department for Work and Pensions recognises polygamous marriages that are conducted overseas. The department states that claimants in polygamous unions are entitled to ‘additional allowances for each additional partner’. This is an exception solely for Muslims. (The Daily Telegraph, 4 Bruary 2008)

PC forced to resign: The constable gave the gift as part of a ‘Secret Santa’ game at Luton police station during a Christmas day party. The Muslim policeman recipient of the present did not complain, he thought the joke was just a bad joke, not funny, though imam was found said what a crime this was, insulting Islam. (The Daily Telegraph, 15 January 2008)

Three pigs: The remake of the children’s classic, the Three Little Pigs, was criticised by BECTA, the education technology agency, because ‘the use of pigs raises cultural issues’. (The Times and Daily Telegraph, 24 January 2008)

Although this report is commissioned and paid for by the Mayor of London (i.e., London taxpayers) it gives considerable attention to the views of the Muslim Council of Britain, some of which are warped. It is absurd to state that the ‘real causes of anxiety over Islam’ are to do with globalisation, the long-term decline in Britain’s position as a world power, Britain in Europe, devolution, the end of empire, or the rapid advance of social pluralism

The decline of British influence and the end of Empire have little relevance to anyone in Britain under pensionable age. And how devolution, Britain in Europe, or social pluralism could have a bearing on, say, the revulsion Britons feel about the murder of teachers in Afghanistan, hate preaching in British mosques, blowing up tube trains, or death for insults, is a complete mystery.

The truth is much simpler. Certain Islamic beliefs and practices are at variance with political liberalism. Of course, not all Muslims in the UK seek to aggressively assert these beliefs or practices, but very few challenge those who do.

Causes of concern include the undeniable belief that:

● death is a just punishment for apostasy or insulting Islam or the prophet.

● women are viewed as subordinate to men even if they do have rights.

● Islam should be pre-eminent above all other religions.

● Muslims have a duty to impose Islam, by force or deception if necessary.

● Muslims have a duty to usher in Shari’a law.

● Islam is a political movement and should dominate in the public sphere.

Some of the basic tenets of Shari’a law are incompatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There is no equality before the law between men and women and between Muslims and non-Muslims, and there is no freedom to choose and change religion.

‘Common ground’ is important but it is not the answer. It is possible that both you and your Muslim neighbour are both unhappy with binge drinking, underage sex, immodesty, break up of families, or Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but there comes a point where all the common ground in the world will not compensate for the irreconcilable differences. This is what the report fails to address.

The concluding part of the study presents a summary of how the authors believe the West views the problems concerning Muslims in Europe. It identifies:

1 Failure to integrate

2 Unreasonable demands

3 Mixed loyalties

4 Support for extremism

5 Obscurantism

6 Incompatibility of values and interests

7 Lack of Muslim leadership

8 Corroborating evidence from overseas

And some of these are reasoned:

1 Barriers to integration

The vast majority of Muslims in Western Europe would like to be fully integrated – though not culturally assimilated – in the economic and political affairs of west European societies but are prevented from doing so by the factors summarised in points 2 to 5 below.

2 Material disadvantage

Most Muslims in Western Europe are people who came, or are the children or grandchildren of people who came, to meet labour shortages. The jobs they were recruited to fill were poorly-paid, often dirty and in labour intensive heavy industries. Material disadvantage continues, as do discrimination and racist violence.

3 Negativity in the media and the general climate of opinion

Media coverage of Muslims, particularly but not only in the press, is almost entirely negative and hostile – when, that is, there is any coverage at all.

4 Foreign policy

Much of European foreign policy works to the disadvantage of Muslims overseas.

5 Policing

Since September 11th, and even more so since terrorist attacks within Europe, many Muslims have had experiences, either directly themselves or indirectly through their friends, families and acquaintances, of heavy-handed and insensitive policing, often in the full glare of the media.

6 Self-criticism

Muslims accept that some of the criticisms made of them by others are legitimate – the criticisms are not necessarily instances of ‘Islamophobia’. Muslims are ready to debate these, both with others and internally amongst themselves. Appropriate self-criticism is difficult or impossible, however, within the wider context of hostility and suspicion listed in points 2 to 5 above.

It is incredible that points 2-5 are given as reasons why Muslims in Europe are not integrating. If they can be considered barriers to integration they can even better be considered as reasons for integration. To assert such reasons can only be seen as another attempt to shift the debate about Islam on to more comfortable ground. It is saying that we are not going to discuss ‘your’ issues: we don’t recognise them; they are ill-founded.

In the final paragraph, the authors have realised that to slam the door shut looks a little bad, so as an afterthought they say: ‘…some of the criticisms made of them [Muslims] by others are legitimate’, but this is evidently qualified by points 2-5 above.

Yet in an unguarded moment, the report gets to the heart of the matter which no amount of ‘common ground’ is going to solve. It identifies the true nature of the Islamist position as perceived and interpreted by the authors of this report, which is that Muslims want political and economic integration but not cultural integration, and that this should be actively pursued.

This is nonsense.

Culture is at both the foundation and the heart of society, and finds expression both in and from its politics and economics. It is not possible to opt out of one dimension of this intricate fusion, for culture includes such things as attitudes to crime and punishment, law and order, how business is done, freedom of individuals, the status of men and women, acceptable humour, freedom of religion and freedom from religion. It permeates every level of social life.

Yet the authors of this report suggest that Muslims want all the benefits of an advanced economy and liberal society, they want a better life, they want political power and influence, but they should be free to reject and indeed aggressively oppose the very religio-political foundations in which these had their genesis.

This is separatism. There is no separatist committee, no separatist master plan, no separatist party, though there are groupings of the like-minded - like the MCB - who are incrementally taking the UK along that path. ‘Multiculturalism’ is the codeword. The whole basis of this study is that Multiculturalism is essentially a good thing.

Culture is not, of course, in any sense static, and over time both internal and external influences bring about changes which cohere with what preceded. But now we have a new phenomenon: such influences are aggressively challenging what preceded and demanding conformity to the new context. It is no longer an expectation that aliens should adapt to the culture of the host nation, but that the host nation should adapt to the cultural demands of the alien. This is giving rise to the foundation of permanent communities based on a different culture. The operation of Shari’a law in certain areas of the UK is one of the forces creating separate Islamic communities - the ‘no-go areas’ to which the Bishop of Rochester alludes - which will lead inexorably to the balkanisation of Britain, and is sowing the seeds of future conflict and bloodshed which will be borne by future generations. All enthusiastically supported by Mayor Ken Livingstone.

God help us.
posted by Cranmer at 11:58 AM

9 Comments:
najistani said...
Red Ken has recently admitted that the Muslim problem will cost him votes.

From http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2250379,00.html

"I made clear these outrages were the acts of a group of murderous criminals who did not represent the mainstream views of any major faith, and called on Londoners not to be divided. While the Guardian, and most Londoners, thought this was the right response, it unleashed criticism from many of those who believe in the so-called "clash of civilisations" and the "war on terror".

It is not at all surprising that in the campaign now being waged against me are some former leftwingers, such as Bright and Nick Cohen, whose fear of multiculturalism and Islamism has tipped dangerously towards a paranoid Islamophobia that threatens harmonious community relations in this city. This group wants the mayoral election not to be waged on central issues for Londoners - affordable homes, public transport, investment in policing, radical policies to tackle climate change - but on their own obsessions."

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2008/02/ken-livingstone-on-muslims-islam-and.html

Scorekeeping condemnations

Scorekeeping condemnations

Moderator Mike Ghouse comments : The following two articles are a good example of score keeping by any two groups, in this case the Jewish and Muslim Communities.

The two articles are:

i) Jews know how to protest and
ii) where are the condemnations

God has blessed me with the friendship of people from all faiths, (friends from every symbol on the foundation for pluralism website and more) and it amazes me the amount of bias that is prevalent among people.

Muslims (a few) tend to paint Jews with a broad brush and certainly the opposite is also true, I have witnessed it and have accounted for it in my writings. One of these days, when I have the funds, I would like to launch research on determining percentages. I believe until I am proven wrong, the same percent of fanatics can be found in every group, religious, civic, ethnic or nationalistic and that I believe is less than 1/50th of 1%. The average Jew or a Muslim when in company of Neocons** instinctively assumes that there is no moderate on the other side. It is a darn shame. But when you reason them, they see that they blurred on the truth.

I know it is bias because when you are with the others as friends, you will develop an understanding and prejudices fade away.

Well, there are two organizations in the US, fairly large ones who oppose the war in Iraq and who are taking action, as much as the Palestinians and Muslims are doing about the Gaza. I had posted that piece by Jewish Alliance for Peace and Justice. This is the same broken record the Neocons play; that Muslims have not condemned 9/11 – there is plenty condemnation, but they don’t even see it, the Media has to bring the truth to the American Public and the world. What does it take?

The truth is there as many Jews as Muslims (percentages) who seek peace; there as many Jews as Muslims who do nothing about anything; either they don't care or too selfish to think about others; there are as many extremists in Jews as in Muslims who would do harm to the other for a selfish short term again.

What we need to do it drop the prejudices first, look for facts and not fiction shoved down our throats by our Neocon* brothers.

* Neocons are extremists in every group be it Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jews or others. These babies are afraid of every little thing that happens around and take advanatage of the opportunity and mint money by frightening the easy prey through books and their talks. I wish the frightened rats don't open their check book until they demand that the necons work for peace, mitigate conflicts and nurture goodwill and promise to stay out of the frightening business and building chaos.

The following two articles are a good contrast....

-----------------------------------------

JEWS KNOW HOW TO PROTEST

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/950381.html

Last update - 15:31 02/02/2008
British Jewish group sparks outrage with Gaza blockade criticism

By Saul Sadka
Tags: Israel, British Jewry, Gaza

LONDON - A controversial coalition of prominent Jewish activists and academics has reignited controversy in the British Jewish community after taking out an paid advertisement in The Times this week calling for Israel to lift its economic blockade of the Gaza Strip and accusing the state of breaching international law. "Independent Jewish Voices" was formed a year ago and counts Nobel laureate Harold Pinter and actor Stephen Fry among its prominent signatories. Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm is also a signatory though neither he nor Fry and Pinter - the groups most recognisable names - signed Wednesday's statement.

The group was formed to provide an alternative to the Board of Deputies of British Jews - a cross communal Jewish organisation dating back to 1760 - who the IJV felt were inauthentically presenting themselves as the exclusive voice of Judaism in Britain. IJV members say that the Board of Deputies refuses to allow criticism of Israel and this presents a unrepresentative picture of Jewish opinion in the U.K. The statement which appeared on the inside pages of the paper was signed by 250 of the groups members. Entitled "End the siege of Gaza!", the statement condemned Israel's actions in blockading Gaza as a violation of international law, and also called for a halt to Palestinian rocket attacks. "The collective punishment of the population of Gaza is illegal under international law.

We condemn attacks on all civilians including the rocket attacks on the residents of Southern Israel," said the statement. The statement also called for an end to the blockade and for "both sides to observe a ceasefire." Feminist academic Jacqueline Rose who describes herself as a "critic of Zionism," is one of the groups principle advocates. She said that the motivation for the statement was in response to the current crisis in Gaza. "IJV arose partly in response to our sense that bodies in the U.K. who claim to represent British Jewry make statements as though they were speaking for all British Jews. While many of us have a high profile - we are not claiming that we are excluded from the debate - we formed to make it clear that British Jews do not speak with one voice."

The group has views on everything from th right of Norman Finkelstein to speak at the Oxford Union which they support, to the proposed academic and economic boycotts of Israel which members disagree on. Rose says that while the group disagrees over the boycott they "support it being discussed openly, something which regrettably may be illegal in the UK." She argues that "the battle against antisemitism is weakened by its association with criticism of Israel." Rose says that the network took out the advertisement in The Times rather that what might be seen as its more obvious political home

The Guardian to get its message beyond the left wing readership who would generally approve of the group's credo, to a more mainstream audience. She argues that "Israel must negotiate with the elected Hamas government for there to be any kind of a solution to the rocket fire on the south." The group caused a media storm following its launch, with a full page advertisement in The Times, a week long discussion on The Guardian's Website and extensive media coverage. However, the group does not take a firm position on the proposed academic and economic boycott of Israel, with some of its members supportive while other are in opposition.

One of its signatories, Tony Greenstein is a trade unionist who has publicly called for a boycott of Israeli goods and is also a member of "Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods." A critic of the group, lawyer and academic Anthony Julius, disputed the claim that Israel was in breach of international law. "It is by no means unarguable that Israel is right to treat Gaza as an enemy territory.

It is hard to see on what basis Israel's actions can be seen as a violation and only one or two of the signatories could grapple with issues involved." Julius argues that the group is "fraying at the edges and has lost some of its membership. It is unable to speak with a coherent voice on any issue, such as the academic boycott of Israel." Related articles:

· New group aims to open debate among British Jews on Israel
· British Jewish group strikes back at new left-wing group
· Jonathan Spyer / The anti-Israel lobby
· Richard Silverstein / In praise of the Jewish blogosphere


Where are the Jewish American condemnations?
2/1/2008 - By: Sherri Muzher

For years now, I have heard demands that we Americans Palestinian descent condemn various military actions. And we do because innocents should never pay for the sins of their military forces and government. I'd like to know if the American Jewish community will ever condemn the intentional starvation and collective punishment of an entire Gazan population?

The silence has been deafening at this inhumanity. I've heard that Palestinians have invited these brutal measures after they elected Hamas during internationally-observed elections, since Hamas refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Setting aside that the elections were about corruption, Palestinians said nothing when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert invited Avigdor Leiberman to his cabinet. Leiberman, once praised by Jewish extremists for supporting the deportation of Palestinians inside Israel, is known as an avid racist.

There were no condemnations from the American Jewish community about this repulsive appointment despite their long history of persecution.

I've also heard that 1.5 million Palestinians are to be collectively punished for the acts of a few militants firing homemade rocket into Sderot. If our government believed that, all of us Michiganian's would have been punished for the indirect role of the Michigan Militia during the Oklahoma City bombing in1995. But that is not what America stands for. People are not expected to pay for the acts of others.

What does the American Jewish community believe?

In February 22, 2006, Israel's Gideon Levy of Haaretz reported on a disturbing story, "Everyone agreed on the need to impose an economic siege on the Palestinian Authority, and Weissglas, as usual, provided the punch line: "It's like an appointment with a dietician. The Palestinians will get a lot thinner, but won't die," the advisor joked, and the participants reportedly rolled with laughter."
That's supposed to be funny?

And now nearly two years later, their "joke" has become a tragic reality with tens of thousands of Palestinians having to forcibly destroy parts of a wall to stream into Egypt to get food, fuel, and other necessities. Where was the American Jewish condemnation for this siege? When Israel prevents Palestinians from getting vital medical care and preventing dozens of Palestinian university students from returning to their studies in Europe., where are the condemnations from the American Jewish community?

When Gazan children go to school hungry and unable to concentrate, where are the American Jewish condemnations?

According to the Defense for Children International (DCI), there were 385 children doing time in Israeli prisons as of July, 2007. The DCI also notes that, "amongst the denial of many other fundamental rights, children do not have the right to a parent, a responsible adult or a lawyer to be present during the interrogation process. On average, Palestinian children are detained before being taken to court from between 8 and 21 days. As with adults, under Military Order 378, a child can be detained and interrogated for up to 90 days without charge."
Where are the American Jewish condemnations?

The list of human rights violations go on and on, whether they are noted by Amnesty International or Israel's own B'tselem. And with so many people having access to information on the internet, there is little excuse to be unfamiliar with at least some of the eye-opening tragedies on the ground. It's important to point out that The Israeli Coalition Against the Siege at least attempted to send a protest convoy to the Gaza border, on January 26, in coordination with the Palestinian Coalition. Parallel actions inside Gaza and in Ramallah, demanding a complete end to the blockade of Gaza, will also take place. Thankfully, there is more coordination between Palestinians and Israelis abroad. Rarely, here in the States.

I am often reminded of a conversation I observed between an Israeli and an American Jew years ago. The American Jew had expressed incredulity that another Israeli in the forum did something not particularly upstanding. The Israeli person responded that "We're human. We have bad people, too"

I left the forum a short while later but the conversation stayed with me. I was appreciative that the Israeli was more realistic about humanity and utterly disappointed in the star-struck tone of the American Jew. If peace is ever going to prevail, American Jews are going to have to look honestly at the realities on the ground and start speaking up. Staying silent while children starve from an Israeli siege can only be interpreted as approval. Is that the message we're supposed to get?Sherri Muzher is a contributing writer and journalist

Muslims Condemn Qaradawi

PRESS RELEASE

MUSLIMS CONDEMN QARADAWI’S APPEAL

Dallas, Texas – Thursday, October 18, 2007 – The World Muslim Congress in a press release today condemns Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s call to Muslims to defend Iran, should Washington launch an attack.

Mike Ghouse, President of World Muslim Congress states “We condemn all such acts, where religion is abused and misused for political purposes. God forbid, should Washington launch an attack on Iran, the American Muslims will not defend Iran nor the Muslims around the world will defend. If it happens, it would be a war between two egotistic, unyielding bullying fascist individuals; and not the nations they claim to represent. Neither is it a war between religions.”

If Mr. Qaradawi cares about Islam or Muslims, he should become the Ambassador of Islam, and promote peace next door in Darfur instead of appealing on his double standards. As far as the war, we Americans should speak up against our president’s irresponsible act, and the people of Iran should hold their president accountable for an unwanted war. If we don’t let them stop this non-sense, we would be responsible for the genocide, as we are with the Iraqi Genocide.

Reference: http://www.presstv.com/Detail.aspx?id=27058§ionid=351020101

YOUR COMMENTS: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3462242975774901312&postID=3338262486435764546


Mike Ghouse, President
World Muslim Congress
Dallas, Texas
(214) 325-1916
MikeGhouse@Gmail.com

Muslims demand an apology

Muslims demand an apology from MIM.
Let not this behavior go unaccounted.

Updated daily... updates listed below this op-ed.

Mike Ghouse, August 10, 2007

“We were all set to kill her”, said Majidullah Khan about Taslima Nasrin. It is an atrocious condemnable statement. it is time to reflect and figure out how to prevent this from happening now and in future.

The incident happened in Hyderabad, India on August 9th. The Majlis-e-Ittehadul-Muslimeen (MIM) has warned that it will not allow Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasrin to go back alive if she dared to come back to the city while the Majlis Bachao Tehreek claimed that their plan to kill her was foiled by the MIM attack.

"We are very proud of our MLAs and activists who assaulted her," said MIM leader and Member of the State Legislature Akbaruddin Owaisi. "We will implement the fatwa issued against Taslima if she comes to the city again."

Killing or threatening to kill is a crime in India, punishable by a life sentence to life itself. The above named men in their misplaced fervor claim to represent Islam while Islam forbids killing an individual. Qur’aan 5:32, “Because of this did We ordain unto the children of Israel that if anyone slays a human being-unless it be [in punishment] for murder or for spreading corruption on earth-it shall be as though he had slain all mankind; whereas, if anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he had saved the lives of all mankind.”

As Muslims of India and the Muslims around the globe, we urge Mr. Owaisi and Mr. Farhat apologize to not only Ms Nasrin but the Muslims of the world for the audacity of insulting them by speaking in their behalf without their permission. These misguided individuals should be indicted for threatening to kill, under the Indian penal code.

As Muslims of India and Muslims around the globe, we urge Chief Minister Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy and Home Minister K. Janardhana Reddy to ask the MLA to resign from the Legislature for violating the spirit and the word of the constitution of the Republic of India.

Taslima Nasrin is a rebellious writer and raises her voice when something appears unjust to her. We do not condone many of her provocative statements. However much we may disagree with her; her right to speak must be defended. We are a democracy and in a true functioning democracy, criticism ought to be cherished, as it keeps the leaders on their toes. Islam has a built-in system to incorporate new ideas through discussion and consensus called Ijtihad. She is in essence calling for Ijtihad, whether some consider her to be a Muslim or not, does not matter, the issues do matter.

Hecklers, all over the world are unwelcome, however, the test of decency and civilization is to allow free speech. Often they indulge in cat calls of stupidest statements, no matter what race, nation, or status they have including some presidents, but occasionally they do bring in important points to the dialogue, where many voices are not being heard.

When the Movie, ‘Passion of the Christ” was released, members of the Jewish community were wary of the release, fearing an increase in anti-Semitism. A Danish newspaper printed cartoons that were disparaging of the Prophet Muhammad, causing a disruptive few to create havoc around the globe in the name of Islam. When the movie Water was released, Deepa Mehta was castigated by many Hindus for the portrayal of widowed girls being forced into prostitution, the cast and crew was vandalized by a few in the name of Hinduism. President Carter released a book about the apartheid treatment of Palestinians (both Christian and Muslim Palestinians) in Israel, he is being harassed, even in the model American democracy, a few are intolerant.

US Congressman Tancredo called for Nuking Mecca, The Rev. Pat Robertson called for assassination of Hugo Chavez the President of Venezuela because he is a severe critic of Bush Policies. Intolerance is on the rise all over the world, Muslims have their own share, no single group has monopoly on intolerance. No society or a culture is ever perfect.

These are the dynamic values constantly changing with interaction within and without the various societies and sub-cultures. Screaming at Taslima, Deepa, Mel, President Carter or Tancredo will not make the problem go away. The right of free speech protects all of us, but it is not free speech to incite murder to suppress free speech.

There are a lot of injustices in the world; Free speech allows us to have our say to struggle against the perceived injustices. Justice is the key to peace for a nation or a community, without which peace is in peril.

Whether it is coming from Salahuddin Owaisi, Bal Thackeray or any one else, they should be answerable in the court of justice, file a law suit for a public threat or disturbing the peace. Let's take a principled stand on all the issues; if it is good for one, it has got to be good for others. Let justice be the corner stone of our democracy.

Solution:

File a law suit against Mr. Owaisi and Mr. Farhat for inciting and threatening to kill another human being. Let’s put the blame squarely on the wrong doer and not his family, town, culture or his religion. If we make the mistake of giving them a religious label, that in itself is inciting hatred. The mistakes were made by those men and not their religion.

Please note: Several Muslim Organizations/intellectuals have condemned this, they are all listed below

Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer and a Moderator. 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 the World Muslim Congress with a simple theme: "Good for Muslims and good for the world." His personal Website is www.MikeGhouse.net and his articles can be found on the Websites mentioned above and in his Blogs: http://MikeGhouseforAmerica.Blogspot.com and http://MikeGhouse.Sulekha.com . He can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com. Mike is a Dallasite for nearly three decades and Carrollton is his home town

.

Continuous Updates below:

1. Indian penal code that they can be charged - August 11, 2007
2. Islam does not condone gangsters - August 10, 2007
3. Taslima and her technicolor boat - August 11, 2007
4. Muslim intellectuals condemn -August 10, 2007
5. Attacks on Taslima Reprehensible - August 10, 2007
6. They could have killed her - August 10, 2007
7. Shame on you hoodlums - August 12, 2007
   

---------------------------------------------

INDIAN PENAL CODES

Saturday, August 11, 2007

Hasni, thanks for the forward about today - Indeed, we have the penal codes to sack the members of MIM and clear the branding of Muslims or Islam with such acts of individuals.

TIMES OF INDIA

Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen's fresh threat on Friday that it would "not spare" Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen the next time she visited Hyderabad compounded the crime its MLAs and activists had committed when they attacked her at a book release function. They can be prosecuted under following provisions of IPC: -

Section 503 defining criminal intimidation. "Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person ... with intent to cause alarm to that person or to cause that person to do any act ... or to omit to do any act ... as the means of avoiding the execution of such threats, commits criminal intimidation." -

Section 506 penalising criminal intimidation: "Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years ...; and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt ..., shall be punished with imprisonment ... which may extend to seven years." -

Section 350 defining criminal force: "Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other." -

Section 351 defining assault: "Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault." -

Section 352 penalising assault or criminal force: "Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person ... shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months ..."

Section 355: "Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, intending thereby to dishonour that person ... shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years ..." -

Section 120B penalising criminal conspiracy to commit any illegal act. The offender will be punished as if he had abetted that crime. -

Section 153A: "Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation, promotes or attempts to promote on grounds of religion .., disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious ... groups ... shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years."

------------------------------------------------------

Islam does not condone Gangsters
Mirza A. Beg, Friday, August 10, 2007

The attack of Tasleema Nasreen in Haydrabad, India and threatening her life is one more example of the impotent rage by religious bigots, because they find themselves incapable of living the ideals of their religion, and meeting the intellectual challenges.

I have not read the writings of Tasleema Nasreen, a citizen who has been chased from her native Bangladesh, currently living in India. Therefore I have no opinion on her writings. For the sake of discussion let us assume that what her detractors say is correct about her writing. It should not be difficult to prove her wrong by writing rebuttals, most of all by living the humane tenets of Islam. They do not seem to have faith in their own capabilities, or the greatness and grandeur of Islam to with stand small pin-pricks.

They find the low road of violence easy to take. It is uncivilized and un-Islamic, behavior, of brawn over brain. Intimidation and extortion are the only values they understand and practice. They neither read nor understand the humane attitude of the Prophet Muhammad, who did not attack those who insulted him, and there were many in Mecca at the time, who did. He returned the insults with visits to the sick with kind words. When he returned triumphant to Mecca, he did not punish any one who had not been guilty of cruel violence.

They obviously are in violation of the Indian penal code for attack on Ms. Nasreen and threatening her life, but emotionally they have insulted Islam much more than the detractors of Islam or Ms. Nasreen ever could, because they sully the name of Islam by acting in its name.

It is unfortunate that while India is making great strides towards modernity, many in the provincial legislators are criminals or support criminal behavior. Bal Thakary in the name of Hinduism has held the whole state of Maharashtra and its great city Mumbai ( Bombay) hostage as his fiefdom and has engineered riots where hundreds of people have been killed. Modi, who is still the chief minister of Gujarat has used the levers of power to kill and deprive minorities of their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

With this backdrop when three Muslim legislators from Hydrabad condone threats on the life of a woman whom they accuses of insulting Islam or Yaqub Qureshi from UP feign to put up a bounty for the killing of Danish editorial Cartoonist, the Indian government and the legal system finds itself hamstrung and fears accusations of the persecution of minorities.

These people are not only insult to their own religions they are an insult to the rule of law under the elegantly designed Indian constitution. They exploit the raw baser emotions of the populace for self aggrandizement. Tolerance of opinions is the hallmark of civilization and great religions. By not bringing such criminals to the bar of justice, not only the religions are insulted, but most of all it injures the Indian Republic and the rule of law. The country as a whole and the weaker sections of the society eventually pay grim price.

I urge the Government of India and the state governments to bring the legislators from Hydrabad and all others who indulge in patently illegal and unconstitutional activities to the bar of justice.

---------------------------------------------

Taslima and her technicolor boat
By Farzana Versey

Well, here is a interestingly balanced piece on Taslima Nasrin.

Let's keep the two issues separate... One was about the reactions of those few Muslims invoking the name of Islam for their bad acts and the other one is completely a different issue - it is Taslima Nasrin herself.

The first one' action do not sound like the acts of Islam; the Prophet prayed for goodwill of those miscreants who threw stones on him.

The MIM people used the name of Islam as though all Muslims had approved and given them the right to speak for Islam, and as though that fatwa against Taslima is endorsed by Muslims around the world.

Who can speak for Islam? No one is and paradoxically each one is. We are individually judged for our acts and we should individually bear the responsibility. However, this MIM act implicates Muslims and Islam, and each one of us is responsible to untangle Islam and Muslims from these individual acts. It is quite a difficult topic and all of us have to work on it. No easy answer.

Mike Ghouse

On the Heels of Sir Salman
Taslima and Her Technicolor Boat
By FARZANA VERSEY

Taslima Nasreen, like many contemporary Muslim writers, is trying to portray the victim of religion. The best manner in which to do so since Sir Salman (before he was knighted) showed the way is through the dark Islamic tunnel. Let the pot sizzle with some concern for the backward Muslim world. Take large doses of the Quran, the veil, the Prophet and carefully carve it into little bits for easy consumption.

The problem is that Muslims are a bunch of fools. They imagine that most of these books will have an impact. They don’t. On Thursday, a group of activists from the Majlis Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) barged into her press conference and apparently roughed her up. Television channels showed us this unruly mob get into a scuffle and throw bouquets of flowers still covered in cellophane. Taslima in her blue saree stood aside. No channel showed us what transpired before.

As always, they brought in a ‘conservative’ and he naturally said what conservatives do: she deserves it for constantly maligning the religion and the Prophet. The television anchor smiled and turned to the ‘liberal’ in the studio. This liberal has suddenly discovered she is a Muslim and the usual stuff about freedom of expression was dished out.

I don’t think Taslima or anyone should be physically attacked. What no one has bothered to find out, though, is that the organization that was involved is not a sanctioned Muslim outfit; not many Indian Muslims outside the city of Hyderabad have even heard about it. But, what is the message being sent out to the world? That not only are Muslims a bunch of uncouth fellows, they also beat up women. I can imagine the Western world nodding in agreement and saying, “We told you so.”

When Taslima Nasreen was not allowed to return to Bangladesh for fear for her life, she went to the West for a while. She could not adjust there, so she found solace in India. India that has been busy shunting out Bangladeshi immigrants became her temporary home. She did not have a word to say about the migrants who were being denied citizenship rights even though they have lived in India for 30 years or more.

If Taslima is all about this major literary voice being stilled, why is it that very little analysis is being done of her writings? Why is she always in the news for a perspective other than one of literary or ethical significance? Even when she wrote an autobiographical account in which several writers and political figures were mentioned, not for their role in damaging society but for sleeping with her, she was harping on freedom of speech. How different is this attitude from one of those Hollywood satellite social climbers that claim their pound of tabloid mileage and money based entirely on having had a close encounter with a celebrity? She has imprisoned her own mind and then goes out crying for escape.

Give her complete freedom and she won’t know what to do with it. She has nothing much going for her. Lajja revealed what one always suspected since that day in July 1993 when a fatwa demanding her head was pronounced in Bangladesh – that she was wallowing in quasi-historical truths to suit her convenience. She had ended her 13-day saga with false hope, “Let us go away…to India,” she made her character Sudhomoy Dutta, the sturdy secularist and patriot, say.

Does she imagine that India is some sort of Utopia? A few months ago, she had been ranting against Pakistan’s “tyrannical” yoke, quite forgetting that she lived in a different country. Of course, since she wants to make India her home, this is the best she could do. She felt that all talk of pan-Islamic or Muslim unity was essentially a myth, and nothing had shattered it more convincingly than the breakaway of East Pakistan from its parent unit in the west.

If there is no unity in the Islamic world – and most of us have been long saying so – then on what basis does she paint the whole Islamic world with the same brush? There are pockets of fanatics and she has had to deal with some. I have to belabor the point that a fatwa is an opinion by an individual or a group; it is not a sanctioned edict. If it were so, then all those who have fatwas on their heads would have been killed by now and not managed to write their life stories or create magic realism in Manhattan.

The only reason Taslima prefers India, specifically Kolkata, is the language. This is ironical. East Pakistan moved out of the ‘tyranny’ of West Pakistan largely due to the language issue. Now, she is speaking out against parochialism and perpetrating it herself.

What is she trying to prove? Her ‘humanitarianism’, which hangs round her neck like an albatross, weighty, but drawing sufficient attention to her prized position? Or is she just another writer with perfect timing and a sharp marketing sense? Take the reference to a sentence in her first book: “Most of Suranjan’s friends were Muslim. None of them thought he was Hindu.” What does this mean? Was she trying to say that a religious person could not have friends from another community? Is faith designed to make you inhuman? Then Marxists should be the most human and humane people on earth, and she herself would have written about communal harmony in the purest sense instead of sprinkling stereotypes from Bollywood movies.

If she scratched herself, she would be faced with a truth she refuses to acknowledge: She is so insecure that she feels the need to deny her antecedents. Were it restricted to a personal position it would have been all right, but she uses characters insidiously to make generalizations only in order to anoint herself as a progressive.

Shrewdly, she has selected a time when Islamic or fringe Muslim societies are going through a phase when the red alert sounds every time their names get mentioned. She has a nice bandwagon to ride on.

Farzana Versey is a Mumbai-based writer-columnist.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Muslim Intellectual Forum condemns attack on Taslima Nasreen
Statement:

We the Muslim Intellectual Forum categorically condemn the dastardly attack on Taslima Nasreen by three MLA's of the Muslim Ittehadul Muslimeen(MiM) at a Press Conference in Hyderabad. It is an attack on the basic democratic and secular foundations of the Indian
nation.

Interestingly this attack was not led by any conservative Muslim organization, but was the handiwork of legislative members sworn to uphold the Indian constitution. Therefore this attack reeks of political motivations, both on part of the MiM and its ally the ruling Congress-I.

Apart from the fact that Taslima Nasreen's writing continues to hurt the sentiments of a vast cross-section of Muslims, but yet in a secular democracy and a free society, we need to tolerate dissent and the freedom of conscience.

A problem also lies wherein Tasleema does not understand the difference between the ethos of Bangladesh and India. Yes, in India we do have a problem of communal
carnages and the fact that Mulsims are the victims of discrimination which has now been validated by the findings of the Sacchar Committee Report. But our culture and ethos is based on the foundations of a unique secularism, based on the concept of "Sarva
Dharma Samabhava", unparallel in the world and which is evolving as we speak. This concept could provide a globalised world with certain key answers that it is
desperately seeking.

Hindus and Muslims along with their compatriots from other religions enjoy, experience, and live in a vibrant multi-religio-cultural milieu, which is very different from Taslima's experiences in Bangladesh. If Taslima's intention is to genuinely contribute to the cause of reform, she is going about it in the wrong way. She cannot achieve this by constantly
berating Muslims, their beloved Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) and Islam and calling for changes in the text of the Holy Quran itself. This only reveals her utter ignorance of historical processes and the role of religion as a social force of progress in the human
quest for an egalitarian society. Little does she know that the seeds of democratic
reform are enshrined in three key Islamic tenets of Shura, Ijma and Ijtihad and she would be well advised to study these revolutionary concepts.

Also the fact lies that the issue of Taslima Nasreen is being cynically manipulated with a view to further demonise the Muslim community. It is apparent that Taslima is beholden to the Government as she is desperate for residentship, but all the Government is
willing to give her are 6 month visa extensions. Even at the time of her last extension, as one would recall, her article which was highly derogatory of the Prophet Muhammad ( p.b.u.h.), appeared in the Outlook magazine and created a national uproar.

So the government is playing its old cynical game of pandering to the communal fringes and stoking the embers so as to unsettle society. The three MLA's of the MIM who attacked Taslima in the full glare of the national media, would not have done so without the support of their party as well as the tacit backing of the their ally the Congress-I. It was on the basis of these guarantees that these MLA's were later let of lightly by the local police.

This is on the similar lines that the West, especially Britain and Blair, used the issue of Salman Rushdie to demonise Muslims and Islam. There to certain Muslims were politically illiterate enough to fall for the obvious traps.

At the time when there is a national consensus that, there has to be a national effort to draw out Muslims from the socio-economic backwardness as well as a similar support for justice for the victims of the Mumbai carnage of 1992-93, it is imperative that Muslims focus their energies on issues of national consequence.

The Muslim community would be best advised to see through the manipulative designs and ignore such minor and insignificant issues. The only democratic and civilised way to deal with Taslima is to either ignore her or answer her with the pen, violence is not an
option even to be considered. This has been the tradition and spirit of Islam. Also the democratically and politically illiterate Muslim extremist fringe would be best advised to study the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) himself and learn the basic lessons of universal peace, respect and compassion.

Recent history has shown, that a few more attacks on Taslima Nasreen will mean that she will be nominated for the Nobel Prize for Literature, if not win it! So we humbly request you to heed our advice.

Warm Regards
In Solidarity

Feroze Mithiborwala
(Convenor)
Asif Khan
Hanif Lakdawala
Afaque Azad
Arif Kapadia
Irfan Mulla

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attack on Taslima Nasreen : Most reprehensible
By Dr.M.K. Sherwani, LL.D Posted August 10th, 2007

The brutal attack on Taslima Nasreen in Hyderabad once again brings to the forefront the perverted, outrageous and misconceived religious frenzy of those Muslims who lack total sensitivity to the problems confronting the community. It reflects the mental bankruptcy of those who think that the resplendent horizons of Islam can be blurred by the rubbish writings and silly utterances of the non-entities like Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen.

The worst part of this gory incident is that the mob was led by three legislators of Majlis Ittehadul Muslimeen whose President Mr. Salahuddin Owaisi has praised chivalry of his party men in attacking a woman. Mr. Owaisi is a type of politician, who once, while addressing a Muslim convention in Lucknow after the demolition of Babri Mosque, in his emotional outburst, declared that the Constitution of India must be thrown into Gomti ( a river which passes through Lucknow). His statement was met with strong protest from the Muslim audience and he had to leave the dais.

Further, the contention that the government of India has hurt the religious susceptibilities of Muslims by granting visa to her has no basis.

India, despite all its infirmities, inequities, conspicuous discriminations and constantly serious erosion of its secular values, remains a pluralistic and vibrant society. The vast multitudes of Hindus and Muslims believe in a peaceful coexistence and multi-cultural ethos which have not lost their significance even after the fascist forces have been making unrelenting endeavor over the last more than five decades. And, no doubt, if there is any Fundamental Right in the Indian Constitution which is equally available to all, then certainly it is the ‘FREEDOM OF SPEECH’. To buttress my viewpoint, let me quote the concluding observation by a renowned journalist Mr. Ziyaul Haque, while writing in 2000 the review of my book ‘Secular Horror – A Real Story of Fifteen years ordeal with Indian secularism’( the book is the story of my prosecution for fifteen years at Tees Hazari Court New Delhi under section 124a(sedition) on the basis of one article ‘Secularism vis-à-vis Hindu Chauvinism’ published in Radiance Viewsweekly, Delhi in 1984)

“......... Sherwani is a fire-brand, which is evident from the periodic resolutions of the All-India Muslim Forum, of which he is the president. The forum is headquartered in Lucknow. His booklet in verse, Iblees and Maulanas is a biting satire on the state of affairs in Muslim religious life.

At the end, one is tempted to ask a question: Suppose Sherwani was caught in Islamic horror, rather than its secular variant, would he have survived to narrate his experience? To be precise, had he been accused by Iran’s mullahs or Afghanistan’s Taliban for sedition, would he have lived to recount the episode? No prize for guessing.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
'They could have even killed Taslima', say journalists
Posted August 10th, 2007 by Tarique

By IANS

Hyderabad : If Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen escaped unhurt in Thursday's attack by Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) legislators and cadre at the press club here, it was thanks to the journalists present.

The journalists acted as a shield to save Taslima, who was targeted by MIM activists at a book release function.

Only six media persons, mostly photographers, were covering the function as the organisers had invited only a handful of people to the function and Taslima's visit was also kept under warps.

"The legislators and those accompanying them were ferocious. Had we not intervened things would have gone out of control," Ravikanth Reddy, correspondent The Hindu, told newspersons.

Reddy, also secretary of the Hyderabad Press Club, was attending a meeting of the club office bearers in the boardroom at the time when three MIM legislators along with a few supporters barged into the hall where the function was on.

"For half hour no policeman reached the place and it was very difficult to control the legislators and their supporters who were throwing everything they could lay their hands on," Reddy told IANS.

Some missiles hit the journalists and a couple of writers and other participants who stood between Taslima and the attackers.

Innaiah Narisetti of the Centre of Inquiry, the organisers of the book release function, bled after the attack along with K.V.S. Giri, a photographer of Deccan Chronicle.

"It is because of the presence of journalists that the legislators were a bit restrained but the mood of the others was nasty. One of them was shouting 'Kill her'," said Reddy, who had tried to pacify the legislators.

"I told them not to resort to such activities in the Press Club. We have let out the premises to an organisation and it was our responsibility to ensure that no harm was caused to the participants of the function," he said.

"Though we managed to push the legislators and some others out of the meeting hall and escorted Taslima to the store room, another group of people arrived and they were more aggressive," recalled H. Satish, photographer of The Hindu.

"Taslima requested us to call the police, and I told her that the police will be reaching in a few minutes," he said.

"Anything could have happened in those 30 minutes. Fortunately the crowd was not armed. We don't know but they could have even killed her," he said.

"She came behind me to protect herself. She was really scared," said K.V.S. Giri, who received minor injuries in the scuffle. "The attackers threw books kept on the dais at her and some hit me."

Innaiah Narisetti, who saved Taslima from several missiles, termed the attack as "shameful".

"It is shameful on the part of our legislators to resort to such use of abusive language and physically attack her. They took oath on the constitution of India but their behaviour was shocking," said the intellectual.

"The attack on a woman writer is shocking but I think this will not deter her from writing for the rights of women," said V. Komala, whose Telugu translations of Taslima's book "Shodh" and Jung Chang's bestseller "Wild Swans" were released by the novelist at the function.

Meanwhile, journalists took out a rally and demanded stern action against those involved in the attack on Taslima.

The three legislators and some others arrested by the police were granted bail late Thursday by a court.

SHAME ON YOU HOODLUMS
Firoz Bakht Ahmed
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall
defend, to death, your right to say it — Voltaire

August 10 happened to be the blackest day for Indian
democracy as that lunatic fringe of cowardly,
undemocratic and waspish legislatures of
Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen made a travesty of law.
While the country is on the verge of its 60th
Independence Day achieved as a result of interfaith
concord, the barbaric hoodlums have again proved what
havoc organized religion can create. Owing to that,
the image of India has been tarnished in the world.
The attack by the lawmakers is a shame on the values
of democracy. As elected MLAs, they are expected to
respect and protect the freedom of expression as
enshrined in the Constitution.

These legislatures have brought shame to the nation.
How do they justify the attack on a woman? What
precedent are they setting for the Muslim youth? Their
statement after the attack shows that they have no
respect for the law let alone the women.

The loony MIM activists and their ilk represent the
intolerant sections that do not believe in values of
amnesty and mutual co-existence. They are in a
minority now but if they go unpunished, the malaise of
violence against voices of dissent will spread like a
weed very rapidly.

Their leader Sultan Salahuddin Owaisi, went a step
further patting on the back of the three vandalizing
legislatures and threatening that if she would ever
step in Hyderabad, she would be killed by them, a
similar comment that was uttered by Alia Andarabi in
her burqa-clad appearance on the CNN-IBN programme.

Before the ghastly act of terror is faded out of
public memory and anything else becomes the
“breaking news”, the MLAs must be tried under law.
Another problem with the community and the media is
that no platform is given to the voices of sanity in
the community and only patented brands representing
(who actually never represent) Muslims are encouraged
in television debates.

Targeting writers and artists by the fundamentalist
fringe is not new but the horrendous attack on Taslima
is a first on several counts. Till now, the orthodox
clerics only had stopped short of violence against
celebrities like Shabana Azmi, Sania Mirza etc and
their ire was directed against the police, innocent
civilians and public property, now the trend has
become a really dangerous one after the entry of the
educated ones like Glasgow famed doctor suicide
bombers and now legislatures. Muslim community today
has been like a rudderless ship.

It is true that Taslima did write some derogatory
remarks against the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) but
Muslims must realize that respect for him can never be
reduced by people who do not realize that the freedom
of expression and press is applied equally on both
sides and with it also comes the responsibility of not
hurting the religious sensibilities of others.

For a law abiding Muslim like me, it was so
embarrassing to see a lone woman in a foreign country
being manhandled by the so called custodians of Law
and Islam as well! I have felt let down these
co-religionists of mine who turned into savages
assaulting the author with files, bags, chairs,
flowerpots or any anything that came lying handy and
that too sarcastically at the Press Club of Hyderabad.
Eminent Muslim lawyer M Atyab Siddiqui states that
true, her lifestyle statements may not be in line with
Islamic injunctions on women, but she is well within
her rights to do so.

Dr Aziz Burney, the learned Muslim scholar and editor
Rashtriya Sahara Urdu daily opines that the best
treatment to works like Lajja or Satanic denouncing
religion is to ignore them and leave the matter
between the writer and God rather than taking law in
hands. Such protests actually render popularity to
otherwise sub-standard literary work. He said that
Prophet Mohammed actually invited dissent rather than
punishing those who spoke against him or Islam. He
believed in convincing.

Muslims have been put to shame by this remark of
Akbaruddin Owaisi, MIM, legilature when he said, “We
are least concerned about our MLA, “We are Muslims
first and it is our responsibility to punish all those
in any manner who have said anything against Islam.”
Certainly such acts do not help Islam. What authority
or which Hadith asks for the murder of dissenters, the
Owaisis should explain as we all know that Islam was
not spread by the likes of Owaisis but by the Sufi
saints whose life was generous like a river. The
honourable Owaisis overlooked the fact that ours is
not a totalitarian but secular country. Truth is
whether it is Gujarat, Hyderabad or Mumbai,
legislatures of all parties, have been known for
violent expressions regarding religious and ethnic
loyalties and they know how to get out of it.

Such people fail to understand that these blatantly
violent and anti-democratic expressions are the worst
possible publicity of their faith and owing to their
zealous misdeed, a common Muslim who is in majority,
has to pay dividends. As reaction to this, without
ado, the media will brand the entire Muslim fraternity
as a lot of extremists.

The legislatures turned goons from the
Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) defied not only all
democratic norms but even the Islamic ones as the
religion doesn’t allow such cowardly attacks on
women and other people. We may like or dislike what
Taslima Nasreen writes but when on Indian soil —
world’s largest democracy — no one has the right
to attack her.

Such people neither read nor understand the humane
attitude of the Prophet Muhammad, who did not attack
those who insulted him, and there were many in Mecca
at the time, who did. He returned the insults with
visits to the sick with kind words. When he returned
triumphant to Mecca, he did not punish any one who had
not been guilty of cruel violence.

I ask one question, Is it left to the MIM fiefdom of
honourable Owaisi and sons to decide for us Indians as
to who should be allowed a visa and who should not —
depending on their understanding of blasphemy and
heresy. The Owaisi family has been running the MIM as
its private business which is deplorable. It recalls
the ghetto mindset of the Gujarat BJP that banned
Parzania from being filmed in the state or that of
Yaqoob Qureshi, Mulayam’s minister who announced Rs
51 crore prize for Danish cartoonist’s head.

It seems that the kind of attacks in one of which
Taslima Nasrin had been subjected to in the Press Club
of Hyderabad by the Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimin
legislators turned extremists, will never let Islam
and Muslims have a peaceful existence. It is time that
all right thinking Muslims condemn the attack on
Taslima that actually is an attack on amnesty, humane
attitude and the basic democratic and secular
foundations of the Indian nation.

Quite interestingly, the attack wasn’t planned by
the clerics but by the legislative members sworn to
uphold the Indian constitution. The machinations
behind the heinous act smack of attaining cheap
political publicity at the cost of Islam and Muslims
who both felt embarrassed by these annihilators of law
and order. These zealots proved more dastardly that
even the clergy of Lal Masjid in Islamabad. These
legislators should thank their stars that India has no
Musharrafs to crush such attackers.

No doubt that people like Taslima Nasrin and Salman
Rushdie with their third rate literary works have been
hurting the sentiments of the Muslims all over the
world yet in a democratic set up and an independent
and secular society, it is of paramount importance
that we accept freedom of expression and conscience.

We all Indians, Hindus and Muslims and all the others
know that our culture and ethos is based on the
foundations of a unique secularism based on the
concept of Sarva Dharma Samabhava, globally unique and
locally practicable

Well, the tragedy with Taslima is that she had been
exploited by some people who were Muslims in name and
resultantly she took up cudgels Islam. Her experiences
in Bangladesh had been unpleasant and rather than
following the right track since her Lajja in 1993, she
has been found wayward. But the fact is that the best
advocates of the religion are the acts by its
followers. In case of Islam she had come into contact
with drastically morally depraved Muslims. The
solution is not in casting allegations against the
Prpohet or being vitriolic regarding Islam but in
interpreting the religion the Sufi way.

True that these legislatures are no ones to do moral
policing but Taslima herself is accused doing of what
others are accusing the MLAs. The Muslim community
best be advised to see through the manipulative
designs and ignore such minor and insignificant
issues. The only democratic and civilized way to deal
with Taslima is to either ignore her or answer her
with pen as violence at any cost is inhuman and
Un-Islamic.

The attackers have rather done a great favour to
Taslima that she might have been noted for female
Knighthood by Britain or may be another attack like
this can help her being nominated for the Noble prize
for literature! This is what some actors do by way of
their kisses — perfect fundas to remain in
limelight! Now she will have ‘Z’ category security
at our coast! (The author is a commentator on social,
religious and political matters) ***

FIROZ BAKHT AHMED, A-202 Adeeba Market and Apartments,
Near Rehmani Masjid, Main Road, Zakir Nagar, Oklhla,
New Delhi 110 025. Ph.: 26984238, 26984517,
98109-33050 E-mail: firozbakht@...

Sukhia Sab Sansar Khaye Aur Soye
Dukhia Das Kabir Jagey Aur Roye

The world is 'happy', eating and sleeping
The forlorn Kabir Das is awake and weeping

Islam a Single body? Pamela

On Faith - Islam a Single body?

Pamela Taylor

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/pamela_k_taylor/2007/03/double_standards_misinformatio.html
The American media is falling down on the job when it comes to reporting on Muslim communities both here in North America or world wide.

Three glaring issues stand out:

(1) an enormous double standard on reporting crimes by Muslims; (2) a gross oversimplification of a vastly complex community into angry men with beards and demure women with scarves or face veils; and (3) the incredible levels of vitriol, misinformation, and neo-McCarthyism of talk show hosts.

Double standards:

Naturally, bad news is more marketable than good, the more sensational the better, so it is hardly surprising that most of what we hear out of the Muslim world is bad news. Most of what we hear on the news is bad news, period. After all, fifty moderate Muslim American men and women, dressed much like another group of American men and women, sitting in a conference room signing a fatwa against terrorism isn't exactly as exciting as a dozen turbaned men waving machine guns shouting angrily and unintelligibly, while shooting at passing American jeeps.

This we expect. But the Muslim community is handled with a huge and glaring double standard. For instance, Timothy McVeigh was not labeled a Christian terrorist, despite his affiliation with a right wing Christian Militia. You can be sure if he'd been Muslim, he would have been called an Islamic terrorist, and there would have been dozens of exposes on the militant terrorist cell he had joined.

Further, bloodthirsty texts from the Bible were not paraded out to show why he believed the way he did, but if he were Muslim, passages would be cut from the Qur'an, taken out of context, both within the text and historically, to explain his motives, whether or not those passages had anything to do with his/her actual motives.

By and large, crimes committed by Muslims are attributed to Islam, even though said crimes are illegal according to the Qur'an and hadith. The fact of the perpetrator's religious affiliation is deemed significant if she/he is Muslim, though it would not be deemed significant if she/he were Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Pagan, or Christian.

So, too, we have a double standard in that editors consider the very fact that a crime was committed by Muslims to make it far more newsworthy than the same crime committed by non-Muslims. When Basque separatist group ETA blew up the Madrid airport parking garage in December of this year, destroying half the building, injuring 26, and killing at least 2 (they are still excavating the rubble) it didn't make the news here, except as an NPR piece focusing on how their reporter had to go through a ton of red tape to retrieve his car which was parked in the garage at the time of the explosion.

Similarly, the attack on the American embassy in Greece this January by leftist militants wielding rocket-grenade launchers went hugely underreported compared to how the story would have grabbed headlines if it had been carried out by a Greek Al Quada cell.

This double standard is not just of philosophical concern, but has contributed to the wave of hatred, intolerance and anti-Islamic bigotry that is sweeping certain sectors of American society.

We all have to live on this one small, rather fragile planet. We cannot afford to inculcate hatred of another group simply for their belief system. We may disagree with their theology, we may insist upon human rights standards that are in discord with certain tenets of their religion, but we cannot afford to hate, to fight, to destroy. In doing so, we create hell on earth, over and over again. As our weaponry gets more and more powerful, we endanger the very survival of the planet and of our entire species.

A Conversation between the Conservative and the Hyper-Conservative:

Currently the Muslim voice in the media is dominated by the conservatives of Sunni Islam. There are several reasons for this. They tend to dominate the mosques, they have a head start in establishing institutions in this country, and they are visually easy. That is, a photo of a Muslim woman in a headscarf or with the nijab is readily recognizable as a Muslim woman. A man wearing a turban and a long beard is either a Muslim (or perhaps a Sikh). A clean-shaven man, wearing a business suit or jeans and a sweater has to be explained. So too a Muslim woman wearing typical western clothing.

In taking the easy route, the media perpetuates the notion that the only "good" Muslim is one who conforms to that conservative standard. That "real" Muslim women have to wear a scarf, and "real" Muslim men all have beards. Nonsense! Huge portions of the Muslim community do not believe that head scarves are mandatory in Islam, or choose not to wear one for personal reasons. Wearing a head scarf says nothing about your piety except that you have chosen a more conservative interpretation, just as whether a Jewish woman wears a babushka or not says little about her faith except for which branch of Judaism she may follow.

Even more so with beards, which are at best a sunnah (a practice of the Prophet that was not explicitly mandated as a religious requirement, but which many like to follow as a signal of their devotion to him).

The biggest problem with the current media practice is that so often we read these conservative voices saying, "Islam says..." and then they state their own viewpoint. This is both dishonest and misleading. Very few things are so black and white in Islam as there is no clergy, no pope to determine canonical interpretations. It would be far more accurate to say, "There are many viewpoints on this issue, and mine is..." Savvy reporters should question Muslim spokespeople when they claim to have the sole explanation of a particular issue.

This problem is exacerbated by the fact that Muslims generally are resistant to sectarianism. Progressive Muslims, Conservative Muslims, Wahhabi, or Salafi Muslims are unlikely to identify themselves as belonging to a particular denomination. Sunni, Shii, Ahmedi, Ismaili is about as far as most will go, and even then there is resistance to this classification. Obviously, this complicates the job for media specialists -- Muslims aren't neatly divided into groups that are easily identifiable as liberal or conservative, reform or traditionalist, unless you go to political or activist groups, and even there many are loath to attach a label to their activism, preferring vague names like Islamic Society of this or that, Islamic Council of here and there.

Our journalists need to do a better job of seeking out multiplicity within the Muslim community, even though it may be a daunting task. To present the Muslim world as a single body, unified in belief and theology, is simply inaccurate, and again, feeds into fear of Muslims who often appears like a vast community of automaton clones.

I do want to say, that a lot of this burden also falls upon moderate, liberal, and progressive Muslims. We need to be seeking out the media as well, and offering ourselves as resource people. I have found that most media professionals are delighted to find a different voice, to discover there are Muslim individuals and organizations that don't fit the stereotypes, but reflect the true richness and diversity of Muslim society.

As a final note on this topic, I want to address two stereotypical images of Muslim women we get over and over in the media -- the serene, glowing convert or spunky second-generation Muslim woman who "went native," and the native woman who survived horrific misogyny and escaped to the West, some of whom still adhere to Islam, but many of whom have left the fold. Obviously each of these narratives has its place within the greater fabric, but they should not be the only faces of Muslim women. We need to see the full diversity of Muslim women, not just two types.

Again, I'm sure much of this has to do with reporter access and awareness of the community. Muslim women who do not wear a scarf often are not easily identifiable as Muslim. And angry voices of dissent are more exciting and newsworthy than those who are working for change from within. Even so, we need more -- and more diverse -- images of Muslim women in our media.

Verbal Poison:

The last issue which our society needs to deal with is the verbal garbage heap that talk radio and talk TV has become. High rhetoric, outrageous opinions, intolerant rantings and ravings have become de rigueur for talk hosts, not just about Muslims, but about every topic. It may be entertaining, or engaging, but it is socially irresponsible. The attack dog mode of opinion on radio and television is contributing to the divisiveness of our society, to the point that it is considered good to sneer upon people who have different opinions or different beliefs. No where is this more true than in relation with the Muslim community.

When hosts make over the top suggestions like "intern them all" or "nuke Mecca" it brings our society one step closer to being able to actually do those things. When talk show hosts categorize all Muslims as dangerous militants, out to destroy the US, they validate gross intolerance and hatred. The history of Jew baiting in the early days of Nazi Germany is something we cannot afford to forget. The parallels to the treatment Muslims receive at the hands of talk hosts are frightening.

As a society we need to ask ourselves some tough questions about how we want to conduct our affairs. I believe that the current climate of sneering disregard and open hostility is not conducive to a stable and healthy nation. Nor does it contribute in the least towards establishing a world order where every human being can live a life of dignity and respect, with equal opportunity and equal human rights for all.

I don't advocate censorship -- freedom of speech and of the press are essential rights -- but with every right comes a responsibility. I think those engaged in whipping the electorate into a frenzy over every issue need to look into their hearts and ask if they are making the world a better place in the long run or a worse one.

Posted by Pamela K. Taylor on March 27, 2007 12:07 PM