Separating Jihadists fact and fiction

Glenn Carle dares to write, “Separating Jihadists fact and fiction”

Throughout the history of mankind, insecure men have found their false security in rattling up others, they have been wrong and will continue to err. You cannot have security when others around you are not; neither can you have peace when others can’t.

The Neocons believe in keeping the Americans frightened, and when we are vulnerable, they get away doing things that are not in the interest of our nation. Their polices have done nothing but destruction around the World and they have figured out the formula very well; to rule, you have to keep the public scared all the times and it is okay to manufacture the facts and tread on immorality.

It is like the 6 o’clock news, for 20 minutes all you see is murder, robbery, arson and other evils of the society, it is indeed a minute tiny speck of the truth but not the whole truth. Because you, your family members and your friends have made back home safely. Terrorism is there, but much of it is cooked up by the Neocons and their bonded media men. It is time to dare the scare.

Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker and a Writer. He is president of the Foundation for Pluralism and is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing interfaith, political and civic issues. He is the founding president of World Muslim Congress with a simple theme: Good for Muslims and good for the world. His comments, news analysis and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website www.MikeGhouse.net. Mike is a Dallasite for nearly three decades and Carrollton is his home town. He can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com

Glenn Carle: Separating Jihadists fact and fiction
12:00 AM CDT on Wednesday, July 16, 2008

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-carle_16edi.ART.State.Edition1.4d54fa7.html

Glenn L. Carle, a member of the CIA's Clandestine Service for 23 years, retired in March 2007 as deputy national intelligence officer for transnational threats.

Sen. John McCain has repeatedly characterized the threat of "radical Islamic extremism" as "the absolute gravest threat ... that we're in against." Before we simply accept this, we need to examine the nature of the terrorist threat facing our country. If we do so, we will see how we have allowed the specter of that threat to distort our lives and take our treasure.

The "Global War on Terror" has conjured the image of terrorists behind every bush, the bushes themselves burning and an angry god inciting its faithful to religious war. The inclination to trust our leaders when they warn of danger is compelling, particularly when the specters of mushroom clouds and jihadists haunt every debate.

In my 23 years in the CIA, I drafted or was involved in many of the government's most senior assessments of the threats facing our country. I have devoted years to understanding and combating the jihadist threat.

From that experience base, I suggest that the next commander in chief base his counterterrorism policies on the following realities:

• We do not face a global jihadist "movement," but a series of disparate ethnic and religious conflicts involving Muslim populations, each of which remains fundamentally regional in nature and almost all of which long predate the existence of al-Qaeda.

Osama bin Laden and his disciples are small men and secondary threats whose shadows are made large by our fears. Al-Qaeda is the only global jihadist organization and is the only Islamic terrorist organization that targets the U.S. homeland.

Al-Qaeda remains capable of striking here and is plotting from its redoubt in Waziristan, Pakistan. The organization, however, has only a handful of individuals capable of planning, organizing and leading a terrorist operation. Al-Qaeda threatens to use chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons, but its capabilities are far inferior to its desires.

Even the "loose nuke" threat, whose consequences would be horrific, has a very low probability. For the medium term, any attack is overwhelmingly likely to consist of creative uses of conventional explosives.

• No other Islamic-based terrorist organization targets the U.S. homeland, is part of a "global jihadist movement," or has more than passing contact with al-Qaeda. These groups do and will, however, identify themselves with global jihadist rhetoric and may bandy the bogey-phrase of "al-Qaeda." They are motivated by hostility toward the West and fear of the irresistible changes that education, trade and economic and social development are causing in their cultures.
These regional terrorist organizations may target U.S. interests or persons in the groups' historic areas of interest and operations. None of these groups is likely to succeed in seizing power or in destabilizing the societies they attack, though they may succeed in killing numerous people through sporadic attacks such as the Madrid train bombings.

• There are and will continue to be small numbers of Muslims in certain Western countries – in the dozens, perhaps – who seek to commit terrorist acts, along the lines of the British citizens behind the 2005 London subway and bus bombings. Some may have irregular contact with al-Qaeda central in Waziristan; more will act as free agents for their imagined cause. We need to catch and neutralize these people. But they do not represent a global movement or a global threat.

The threat from Islamic terrorism is no larger now than it was before Sept. 11, 2001. Islamic societies the world over are in turmoil and will continue for years to produce small numbers of dedicated killers, whom we must stop. U.S. and allied intelligence do a good job at that; these efforts, however, will never succeed in neutralizing every terrorist everywhere.

We must not delude ourselves about the nature of the terrorist threat to our country. We must not take fright at the specter our leaders have exaggerated. In fact, we must see jihadists for the small, lethal, disjointed and miserable opponents that they are.

Glenn L. Carle, a member of the CIA's Clandestine Service for 23 years, retired in March 2007 as deputy national intelligence officer for transnational threats.

ANTI-ISLAM VIDEO

Islam: What the West Needs to Know
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-871902797772997781

I urge Muslims and Non0Muslims to watch this video with a peaceful mind, as a subject that needs to be addressed. It has PM Tony Blair, President Bush, President Clinton's in the introduction. Then they take on the real work - maligning Islam.

I am pleased to see this video... and I hope you are too... This is the first time, I have seen all the "Phobia and Propaganda" pulled together in one single Video. If this is all the problem is, thanks to the producer, it makes our job easy to respond. Please take a look at it, and send your comments to wmcarchives@gmail.com or just post it at the bottom.

They have rounded up all the Islam bashers and have deliberately used the Hilali Translation. Shame on us Muslims for not doing anything about that translations.
http://quraan-today.blogspot.com/2007/12/not-like-jews-or-christians.html

Tell me one gross mistake in it all? One singular big mistake. This is a mistake the Neocons make it over and over again. This is gaining popularity. How long can they misquote Qur'aan? How long the gullible's out there believe in this propaganda? There are many verses in this that need to be addressed, I have addressed 14 of them in this link: http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2008/03/wilders-fitna-and-quraan.html

What Walid Shoebat, Robert Spencer and others are saying has a speck of truth in it, but at the cost of the entire truth. It is their personal experience that they are presenting it as the whole truth, they are paid to propagate hate. I wish, they spend that time on building peace, it would be more rewarding. Watch the 6:00 o'clock evening news, what you see is the truth, but not the whole truth. You came home, your spouse is home and your kids made it back for instance in Dallas, where I live, but if you watch the news, it will scare the devil out of you. There is a lot of hate out there, we cannot increase the hate by hate, it has to be through peace for the good of the mankind.

We have to face this squarely and deal with it with reason, logic and peace. To be a Muslim is to be a peacemaker, one who constantly seeks to mitigate conflicts and nurtures goodwill for peaceful co-existence. God wants us to live in peace and harmony with his creation; life and mater. Indeed, that is the purpose of religion, any religion.

Unless we believe in the need to speak the truth, we will take a lot of beating. We have to change this. We have to become the causers of peace in the interest of the mankind and not let the few make the world chaotic.

If you wish me to produce a response,
I need it to be financed to produce top-notch quality film.

Check out these links:

Slay the idolaters:
http://quraan-today.blogspot.com/2007/12/slay-idolaters-95.html

Be ruthless to the infidels:
http://quraan-today.blogspot.com/2007/12/ruthless-to-infidels-4829.html

Not like Jews or Christians - A must read
http://quraan-today.blogspot.com/2007/12/not-like-jews-or-christians.html

Jews turned into Apes:
http://quraan-today.blogspot.com/2008/01/jews-turned-into-apes.html

Neocon Bait on Quraan:
http://quraan-today.blogspot.com/2008/03/neocon-bait-on-quraan.html

Mike Ghouse
http://www.worldmuslimcongress.com/
http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/
http://quraan-today.blogspot.com/
http://sharialaws.blogspot.com/

Jihad, Women & Terrorism

What is Jihad?
Under what conditions does Islam allow the use of Violence?
What would you tell the suicide bombers who invoke Islam to Justify their actions?

By Chandra Muzaffar

The term 'jihad' means to exert or to strive in the path of God.

It does not mean 'holy war'. It should be emphasized that there is no concept of 'holy war' in Islam. 'Holy war' was a term associated with the Christian Crusades which seeped into medieval European literature as it maligned and vilified Islam.

It is true that from the early days of Islam, striving or struggling against an aggressor or oppressor on the battlefield was regarded as jihad. But jihad also meant--- right at the outset--- striving to live according to the will of God. Thus, the struggle of a human being to lead an honest life would be a jihad just as a government's endeavor to eradicate corruption would be a jihad.

Seen in this light it is understandable why the Prophet Muhammad described striving against one's own lust as "the greater jihad" compared to victory in war which to him was "the lesser jihad".

This clarification of the meaning of jihad tells us something about Islam's attitude towards violence. War is permissible only if the purpose is to repel aggression or to end oppression. There is an oft-quoted verse in the Qur'an which states, "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not commit aggression, for God loves not aggressors" (2:190). There are other verses which convey a similar meaning that one fights only if one has been expelled from one's home or if one has been persecuted.

It is partly because of Qur'anic sanction that there is tremendous solidarity among Muslims everywhere with Palestinians and Arabs who are resisting Israeli occupation of their land. In fact, it is not widely known that Muslims even in Southeast Asia began to express sympathy with the Arab cause soon after Zionist colonization of Palestine intensified in the wake of the Balfour Declaration of 1917.

Today, the Anglo-American invasion and occupation of Iraq has elicited worldwide Muslim condemnation. Like a huge segment of Western society, Muslims are of the view that the occupiers have no right to seize control of Iraqi oil.

Of course, Muslims are aware of other injustices -- such as the oppression of the people of Chechnya and Kashmir -- but at this juncture, Muslim anger is directed mainly at the US and Israeli governments.

While defending oneself in the face of aggression and oppression is legitimate from a Quranic perspective, the religion is also clear about the limits that one should observe in war. The Prophet Muhammad had commanded that those who are not combatants in a battle should not be harmed in any way. Children, women, the old and the infirm should be spared in a war, however just the cause may be. Even animals and plants and any house of worship should be protected.

It is a shame that some Muslims in the name of fighting oppression deliberately target civilians. It is in this context that some of the so-called 'suicide bombers' have brought disrepute to Islam. They have tarnished the moral integrity of their cause.

HOW DOES ISLAM DEFINE APOSTASY? IS IT PERMISSIBLE FOR A MUSLIM TO CONVERT TO ANOTHER FAITH? HOW CAN LAWS AGAINST APOSTASY AND BLASPHEMY BE RECONCILED WITH THE KORANIC INJUNCTION OF "NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION"?

It is significant that the Qur'an -- Islam's supreme book of guidance and its primary source of law -- does not prescribe any form of punishment for the apostate, a person who chooses to leave the religion. To be sure, it regards apostasy as a sin but the Qur'an does not view it as a crime. It says. "Those who believe, and then disbelieve, and then (again) disbelieve, and then increase in disbelief, Allah will never pardon them, nor will He guide them to the (right) way. (4:137). This suggests that while the apostate incurs God's displeasure because he has committed a grave sin, we human beings have not been instructed to mete out any form of penalty. How the apostate will be punished, presumably in the hereafter, is God's prerogative.

This Quranic approach to apostasy is consistent with its general tone and tenor which respects freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. "There is no compulsion in religion"(2:256) is one of the best known Qur'anic lines. This means that no one should be coerced to join the religion or to remain in it or to leave the religion. The Qur'an also makes that profound observation: "To you your religion and to me mine". (109:6).

Even in the Sunnah -- the Way of the Prophet -- there was no evidence of anyone being punished for exiting the religion in a peaceful manner. If apostates were put to death, it was because they were part of a violent rebellion against the nascent Islamic state. In such circumstances the issue was rebellion and not apostasy per se.

However, as time went on, the jurists came to regard the act of apostasy itself as a crime which was punishable by death. They did not make a distinction between peaceful exit and violent denunciation of the religion through an assault upon the state. This thinking --- which views apostasy as a terrible crime that should be punished through the law---is pervasive within the Muslim community or ummah.

It is a mindset that has to change. The Qur'an's humane and compassionate perspective should inspire Muslims to adopt a different approach towards the question of apostasy.

Instead of punishing the apostate, he should be counseled with civility and kindness in order to persuade him to remain within the faith. If, after counseling, the apostate is still adamant about leaving the religion, he should be allowed to do so. He should have the freedom to embrace another faith or not to subscribe to any religion.

WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN IN ISLAM? HOW DOES ISLAM'S VIEW OF MALE-FEMALE EQUALITY DIFFER FROM THE WESTERN VIEW?

Those who have studied the Qur'an and looked closely at the evolution of Muslim societies in the early centuries know that women enjoyed a wide spectrum of rights some of which their counterparts in the West secured only in the early decades of the twentieth century. A woman had the right to education, to work outside the home, to a just wage, to own and inherit property, to choose her life partner, to keep her maiden name after marriage, to initiate divorce, to re-marry, and to do various other things in accordance with her honor and dignity as a woman and as a human being. It is not surprising therefore that in a number of pre-colonial Muslim societies women played prominent roles in the public sphere. Some of the Queens in what is today the Indonesian province of Acheh for instance were Admirals of their navy.

Nonetheless, in Muslim societies as a whole --- as in other societies--- it was invariably the men, and not the women, who ruled the roost. Male patriarchy has been a constant feature of most societies right through history. It would be unfair to highlight male dominance in Muslim societies as if it was their unique attribute. Besides, some of the gross injustices against the Muslim female which the Western media exposes such as genital mutilation and honor killing are not confined to Muslim societies since these are cultural practices which transcend religion.

What the media should emphasize are some of the positive changes that are taking place in a number of countries largely because of the tireless efforts of courageous and determined women's groups seeking equality and justice for their kind. Even in ultra conservative societies such as Saudi Arabia, women are beginning to be accorded limited but visible roles in the public sphere. It is partly because Muslim women have been asserting their rights and roles that certain dogmatic, often bigoted notions of how Islam should be practiced today, propagated by jurists with a closed mind, have been challenged and demolished.

But the struggle for gender equality will not --- and should not---lead to a situation where the enhancement of the position of the woman results in the decline of the family or the erosion of the moral foundation of society. For Islam, the integrity and cohesiveness of the family institution is fundamental. It should not be sacrificed at the altar of the self-serving interests of the husband or the wife, or for that matter, the child. This is one of the reasons why some contemporary Muslim thinkers are wary of the intrusion of an exaggerated form of individualism into the family fabric. It also explains why many Muslims while cognizant of the importance of male-female equality also continue to emphasize that the husband complements the wife just as the wife complements the husband. This complementary dimension in the relationship between the sexes is beautifully encapsulated in a line from the Qur'an that reads," They (your wives) are raiment for you and you are raiment for them". (2:187).

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/muslims_speak_out/2007/07/chandra_muzaffar.html

Jihad - Muslims Speak out

,

,

,

Article follows my comments;

The issues of Jihad, Use of Voilence, Apostasy, Blasphemy, Women and Conversions are addressed in this article.

I dropped the idea of highlighting a few sentences, as it turned out to be half of the article, 5 pages out of 10. However, I am pleased to place at least a few samplers of the quality of his writing;

- all violence done in the name of Jihad is murder, mass murder or terrorism and this is one of the worst crimes that any Muslim can commit. Therefore, it is easy to see that those engaging in wrongful violence in the name of Jihad have in fact acted contrary to the very concept and dictates of Jihad as prescribed by God throughout the Qur'an.

- The first mistake was casting the historians’ recorded news, that is facts, of the early Muslim battles in religious tones and the second mistake was casting all subsequent battles of Muslims into the exclusive scenery of religious Jihad. This second mistake by far has been the more egregious in its ability to mislead.

- Historically there have been many kinds of battles that have not been religious Jihad, such as civil, national and regional wars

- Wars fought for secular, economic or political reasons and goals are more easily terminated on terms that can be acceptable, even if disliked, to the warring sides unlike religious wars whose devotees seek vindication and protection of their faith, values and way of life.

- young Muslims today think not only that all past wars were true religious Jihad but that current wars that have nothing to do with any religion are also religious Jihad.

- Most wars do not meet the high conditions of Jihad. In authentic Jihad there can be absolutely no killing of any prisoners and noncombatants; there can be no use of poisonous weapons; there shall be no atrocities, such as any mutilation of people and animals, committed in conquered lands; there shall be no raping, pillaging and razing; there shall be no wanton despoliation of natural resources and necessary killing must only be done humanely. Therefore, in true Jihad the use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons as well as the use of cluster and smart bombs and white phosphorus, is anathema because it flies in the face of several rules of engagement.

- To put it in stark terms, I would ask the suicide bomber why he or she believes that he or she loves Islam when the intended action will only bring fear and hatred of Islam to the religion and the community.

- In addition, he who turns back on his heels, not the least harm wills he do to God; and God will reward those who are grateful.By relying on some of the Hadiths, or prophetic traditions, and interpreting some of the Quran’s verses stating that Islam is the last, complete revelation by God for mankind, they argue that God will accept no faith but Islam and so therefore a Muslim has no right to convert from the one true, last religion. This cha0uvinistic outlook is very prevalent in other religions, such as evangelical Christianity which believes it has the only true beliefs that will give mankind eternal life with God in Heaven.

- The Quran`s teachings about women were enormously progressive in their original historical context. Women's legal and financial rights and equality with men saw dramatic advances over pre-Islamic social norms. Westerners not knowing this, see, instead, restrictive social traditions that are given the cover of religion being very harshly enforced by impassioned religious leaders in that society. This Western view is worsened dramatically and intentionally by some Western propagandists, such as but certainly not limited to very influential, high profile evangelical leaders, who denigrate Islam, the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and the Quran, for instance, by calling the Prophet a terrorist and the Quran the work of the Devil.

- I should like to add here that while Islam does allow divorce, the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) strongly disliked divorce unless the difference or problems between the spouses were genuinely irreconcilable.

Enjoy reading, it is enlightening. Article courtesy - Newsweek/Wpost. http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/muslims_speak_out/2007/07/abdullah_alaskar.html

Mike Ghouse
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

1. What is Jihad?

Jihad is an Arabic word that means, very broadly, striving hard or exerting oneself to the best one’s power and ability to behave in the way God, or in Arabic “Allah”, has set forth for mankind. This behavior has two aspects: personal and communal interaction. The Quran, which Muslims believe is God speaking directly and with completion to mankind, is divided into sura or chapters that are, in turn, subdivided into aiya or verses. The Quran frequently urges Muslims to strive hard in different aiya that address different circumstances that we face in life, be it in daily, routine life or in unusual, tumultuous and extreme times, such as we are living in today. Therefore, the central question that is important in this regard is what kind of striving God is requiring Muslims to make. Most of the Islamic scholars, called Ulma, for the past fifteen centuries believe that Muslims should strive hard to attain their nearness to God by struggling to overcome bad desires or weaknesses of character, especially if acquired and to the extent possible if genetic. Muslims are reminded that they must adhere, or strive hard to adhere, to all the standards in Islam; they cannot “cherry pick’, no matter what the circumstances. They are to participate in the defense of the Muslim community when attacked by enemy forces that are intent and directed towards the destruction of the faith and the community of Islam.

2. Under what conditions does Islam sanction the use of violence?

It is crucial to understand, especially in today’s war on terrorism, which some high profile, influential people construe only in terms of Islamo-fascism or other emotive artifice against Islam, that there is no mention, let alone urging, in the Quran for individual Muslims to start or actively participate in military action or in any physical violence against an enemy of Islam, actual or alleged, without a clear declaration from the highest, relevant political authority first. That is why you see political and religious leaders questioning and challenging the authority of those calling for “Jihad” today. Without this initial, properly authorized, declaration of Jihad, all violence done in the name of Jihad is murder, mass murder or terrorism and this is one of the worst crimes that any Muslim can commit. Therefore, it is easy to see that those engaging in wrongful violence in the name of Jihad have in fact acted contrary to the very concept and dictates of Jihad as prescribed by God throughout the Qur'an. In addition, I should like to point out that preemptive war for regime change is strictly forbidden.

It is also clear that true, or properly declared, Jihad strictly forbids Muslims, whether as individuals or collectively as a political identity, to wage war against non-Muslims simply because of their religious belief. True Jihad is only waged against those, Muslim or not, who are actively engaged in the destruction of the faith and the community of Islam and the force to be used to counteract or neutralize that destructive action has to be, must only be, of the kind or relevance and to the minimum degree appropriate to succeed without engaging in “overkill”.

Therefore, within this context of Jihad, the question arises how the definition came to be construed broadly to mean the kind of fighting that we see globally today rather than the very limited, self-defensive action against clearly identified, active enemies. The answer has historical roots. Some historians have wrongly understood the definition of Jihad that was applied to the first battles that the founding Muslims were forced to fight for survival in the advent of Islam. Also some jurists tried to find justification in those battles for subsequent fighting by utilizing comparisons and verses in the Quran to make Muslims feel confident in themselves as warriors and confident in the purpose and view of the battle. It was to assure the warriors that their fighting, their killing and dying, and those battles were religiously correct. How did the jurists do this convincingly? First, they relied on the historians’ narratives and second, they gave every aspect of life a religious cover and meaning due to the influences and in keeping with the culture and times of the middle Ages.

However, there are two inherent flaws in this approach, which essentially reduces, renders and transforms persuasion from unbiased, intellectual curiosity and analysis of objective facts to unquestioning, subjective propaganda. The first mistake was casting the historians’ recorded news, that is facts, of the early Muslim battles in religious tones and the second mistake was casting all subsequent battles of Muslims into the exclusive scenery of religious Jihad. This second mistake by far has been the more egregious in its ability to mislead.

It is undeniable that the first Muslim battles were fought out of necessity and in self-defense for the very existence of Islam, for the first Muslims to practice their new faith and for the establishment and preservation of the founding Islamic community. The long-established communities saw the new Islamic faith and community as life threatening for many reasons, not least of which was economic since it abolished slavery and treated women as equals with legal rights. As there was no other reason for and goal than self-preservation in these initial battles, it is illogical to cast this existential religious character to some or all subsequent battles because it falsely conveys an inherent quality of religion and the magnified consequence of religious annihilation to them. This can be particularly persuasive to those with passion but with little to no comprehensive knowledge or objective understanding of history or religion for they can be easily manipulated by propaganda. Historically there have been many kinds of battles that have not been religious Jihad, such as civil, national and regional wars.

Wars fought for secular, economic or political reasons and goals are more easily terminated on terms that can be acceptable, even if disliked, to the warring sides unlike religious wars whose devotees seek vindication and protection of their faith, values and way of life. Further, exclusivity of eternal salvation and life is a common belief to devotees of particular faiths, especially those that include a proselytizing component, so that losing in war for these devotees includes a tacit admission that their faith is inferior to the conqueror’s or that their faith will be vanquished by the conqueror. Therefore, when the West defines the war on global terrorism as a war on qualified Islam, such as Islamo-fascism, which is a highly charged, emotive but intellectually vacuous term, the West casts a genuine cause that is acceptable to all rational civilizations into a religious cause of questionable purpose and goals.

So based on these earlier jurists’ misleading interpretations and coupled with the West’s depictions of the war on global terrorism in these charged religious terms, young Muslims today think not only that all past wars were true religious Jihad but that current wars that have nothing to do with any religion are also religious Jihad.

So it is clear that Jihad is not a war of aggression or preemption to conquer and occupy foreign lands, to possess and exploit the natural resources, property, lives and futures of others, be they Muslim or non Muslim. To reiterate, individuals can only battle in genuine Jihad after the proper declaration from the highest, appropriate government authority. If it is a religious battle, it must be existential for the religion, for the right to worship and for the Islamic community.

Those acts commonly considered terrorist actions are an abomination to Islam and strictly forbidden in true Jihad. Most wars do not meet the high conditions of Jihad. In authentic Jihad there can be absolutely no killing of any prisoners and noncombatants; there can be no use of poisonous weapons; there shall be no atrocities, such as any mutilation of people and animals, committed in conquered lands; there shall be no raping, pillaging and razing; there shall be no wanton despoliation of natural resources and necessary killing must only be done humanely. Therefore, in true Jihad the use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons as well as the use of cluster and smart bombs and white phosphorus, is anathema because it flies in the face of several rules of engagement.

Applying these strict and absolute preconditions and conditions of true Jihad to the fighting today, it is hard, if not impossible, to consider this fighting Jihad. Nevertheless, such mandatory prerequisites have not prevented horrors from being perpetrated in the very name of Jihad and of Islam to the great sorrow of many millions of Muslims. While I do not find in Islam or in rational thinking any justification that excuses those who engage in atrocities, no matter what their avowed religious affiliation or expressed motivations may be, it is also true that not sufficient, objective analysis has been taken to rationalize their motivation in order to counteract their terrorism.

3. What would you tell suicide bombers who invoke Islam to justify their action?

Suicide bombers are first and foremost people, not lifeless weapons like cluster bombs or killing machines like armed airships, so before telling them anything I would listen to them, their life story, their motivation, their goals, their reasoning and how they reconcile their intended action not only to achieve their goals but to stay within Islam and true Jihad. This point is very important because a suicide bomber in Afghanistan may have a very different life story, goals and motivation from a suicide bomber in the Occupied Territories. Further there is a difference between targets: dying in fighting legitimately against enemy soldiers actively engaged in destroying Islam, the freedom of Muslims to practice Islam and the Islamic community is totally different from dying to kill unarmed, innocent civilians who are neither part of or sympathetic to but under the occupation of an active enemy force. After listening to the suicide bomber, I would discuss in an atmosphere of “a level playing ground” the difference between true Jihad and war for political or other secular reasons. We would discuss, in keeping with Islamic principles of warfare, alternative and appropriate means as well as the relevant degree of force, if indeed any is necessary, to directly combat successfully the actual or perceived threat after it has been defined accurately and fully.

Framing the argument purely in Islam, on the assumption that the suicide bomber is a Muslim, for not all suicide bombers are Muslim, we would start in agreement on the most fundamental basis: that the soul is not ours to destroy; our soul belongs only to God and it is our duty to nourish and preserve it from harm. From there I would go to the next step of mutual agreement. The Quran states explicitly and very clearly that Allah commands each Muslim to uphold Justice and to do good deeds, saying ‘surely Allah loves those who do well to others’. If necessary, we would return to these two grounding principles of mutual agreement whenever necessary but the discussion or debate would then embark using the whole Quran and the true Hadiths as well as the Islamic principles and historical facts, circumstances and justifications of warfare. We would engage in critical debate and intellectual curiosity. The point in the approach and substance would be to make the suicide bomber come to his or her own conclusion through Socratic questioning and logical reasoning that the action he or she contemplated is absolutely forbidden in Islam. For someone to become a suicide bomber, as it is generally perceived, the person first had to be indoctrinated or brainwashed as well as feel hopeless in resolving the threat or making things better outside of his or her suicide. Therefore, what and the manner of what I would say to the suicide bomber would have the goal of undoing the brainwashing and preventing any subsequent brainwashing through actual knowledge and personal conviction; by substituting reasoning for emotion and control for helplessness. My purpose would be to convert the suicide bomber from an enemy into an ally who could talk to and persuade others from becoming suicide bombers. Two mistakes the American government has made and continues to make is converting friends and allies into enemies and not making enemies or potential enemies into allies.

Ideally, the suicide bomber would through the discussion convince himself or herself that in the Qur'an violence, as defined in the Islamic tradition, is absolutely prohibited outside true Jihad whether undertaken by an individual or by a political or alleged religious entity. The suicide bomber would understand with conviction that Islam does not accept the justifications voiced today by terrorists and that wrongful violence becomes a complete abomination when it associated with Islamic slogans or justifications.

The concept of Jihad is complex for it permits defensive war for reasons totally outside of protecting Islam, the right to worship and the Islamic community. However, the same rules of engagement apply. So while the suicide bomber may defend his or her action by arguing this aspect of Jihad as well as buttressing this Islamic right with the complementary and equivalent right under international law to fight against illegal occupation and state terrorism by a harsh occupying force, I would hope to convince the suicide bomber that unless the preconditions and conditions of Jihad are met, violence that is outside Quranic correctness is terrorism.

I believe that we are in a very dangerous situation right now because there is too much high profile, vociferous confusion in linking suicide bombing and violence to Islam, as a religion, without the necessary understanding of the religion being given the same opportunity and prominent airing. Indeed many who publicly state their confusion between hearing that Islam is a moderate religion that advocates peace but that its practitioners are extremists or terrorists only compound the problem by implying that what they hear is false propaganda. The linkage of violence, suicide bombing and terrorism with Islam serves the goals of both the so-called Islamic, since I do not consider them Muslim, terrorists who want their actions to be considered Islamic and others who know little to nothing of Islam but have their reasons for instilling global fear of Islam through highly emotive, imprecise and false rhetoric. I would ask a true Muslim who intends to be a suicide bomber why he or she would want to help the forces against Islam rather than work for the good of Islam by explaining the truth about the religion. To put it in stark terms, I would ask the suicide bomber why he or she believes that he or she loves Islam when the intended action will only bring fear and hatred of Islam to the religion and the community.

QUESTIONS ON APOSTASY: How does Islam define apostasy? Is it permissible for a Muslim to convert to another faith? How can laws against apostasy and blasphemy be reconciled with the Quranic injunction of “no compulsion in religion”?
How does Islam define apostasy?

There is no definition of apostasy, called in Arabic rida, in the Quran but rather descriptions or incidents although the meaning of the word is well known as it is used in the Quran. The meaning of rida is turn around, which developed a similar, negative connotation of harmful betrayal in the Western term, turncoat.

Is it permissible for a Muslim to convert to another faith?

Aiya 144 of Sura 3, “Al-Imran”, (literally meaning “the family of Mary”) states:Mohammed (PBUH) is no more than a Messenger and indeed (many) Messengers have passed away before him. If he dies or is killed, will you turn back on your heels (as disbelievers)? In addition, he who turns back on his heels, not the least harm wills he do to God; and God will reward those who are grateful.

This aiya was revealed by God to the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) while he was still alive so it shows that reversion to the original belief or converting to another religion or belief was foreseen in Islam and addressed. An example of how Islam, the religion, deals with apostasy and blasphemy is found in a very early historical event.

Within the first Muslim community led by the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was a man called Abu Bakre, who was also the Prophet’s father-in-law. Upon the death of the Prophet, Abu Bakre was elected to be the first caliph, who resided in and ruled from Medina. Also upon the death of the Prophet, in Najd, central of Arabia, lived a man called Musaylima who immediately declared himself a prophet. He urged people to believe in and follow him becoming, within a short period, a religious leader with a substantial following. While Musaylima kept to imitate the belief and same practices of Islam, his self-designation as a prophet was blasphemous because Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was the “seal” of prophets, meaning that he was the last one. Therefore, Musaylima was a liar and false prophet. Abu Bakre sent a messenger to Najd from Medina urging Musaylima to abandon his claim. Musaylima not only refused but also answered Abu Bakre harshly and put the messenger to death. Upon hearing this news, Abu Bakre sent armies, one after another. The Muslim army had engaged in a sever wars with fighters from some tribes of Najd, those wars are known in the Islamic history by the name of the wars of apostasy.

The intolerance many Westerners see in Islam today derives not from this application of Islam to conversion but rather other historical events that presented existential problems to the fledgling Islamic community. Islam had many enemies and it was the intent of some to infiltrate the community and then sow sufficient suspicion and dissent to cause physical strife within the community, hoping it would lead to its demise. These converts to Islam were false so soon would renounce Islam. Because of the genuine threat to the community’s continuation, capitol punishment was imposed on Muslim converts, called “Munafiqoon” or hypocrites. Not only was such a punishment necessary to safeguard the community from within but it also attempted to insure that anyone who chose to become a Muslim did so with true intent, respect and commitment to both the religion and the community. The issues of apostasy and hypocrisy are very complex, from both the religious and social points of view, and to compound the matter the issues are so intertwined over the centuries that deep knowledge is required to separate the issues. Unfortunately many today, whether they are called religious leaders, experts or not, do not have the sufficient wisdom to apply the principles correctly. Many intentionally distort what Islam says or requires for their own purposes and this is true for some Westerners as much as for some Muslims.

How can laws against apostasy and blasphemy be reconciled with the Quranic injunction of “no compulsion in religion”?

Quranic law is known as the “Shariya of which there are several different schools. Because the laws are not monolithic, it is not possible to really answer this question superficially. Some Islamic jurists have argued that freedom is granted to all mankind. Therefore, logically, a Muslim can choose his faith, but these scholars condition this freedom on the convert from Islam to another religion keeping silent in his practice and speech. In other words, he is not to proselytize his new faith to the Islamic community in which he lives. Other jurists completely disagree. By relying on some of the Hadiths, or prophetic traditions, and interpreting some of the Quran’s verses stating that Islam is the last, complete revelation by God for mankind, they argue that God will accept no faith but Islam and so therefore a Muslim has no right to convert from the one true, last religion. This cha0uvinistic outlook is very prevalent in other religions, such as evangelical Christianity which believes it has the only true beliefs that will give mankind eternal life with God in Heaven.

Blasphemy is unacceptable in all Islamic schools of law. However, some Muslim countries have created a secular judicial forum to settle civil charges equivalent to blasphemy so that the accused can be tried outside the religious judicial system. As in the West, judicial systems have to work for the people and community they serve. Since religion plays a major role in daily life of people living in Islamic countries, the law should comply with and serve the needs of the community. This is no different from what is happening in the United States with Americans wanting their legal system to change to closer reflect Christian principles.

QUESTIONS ON WOMEN: What are the rights of women in Islam? How does Islam view male-female equality? How does this differ from the Western view?

Islam gives women many rights because the Quran clearly states that women are equal to men although men are given greater obligations to protect women. The Quran acknowledges the obvious differences between the genders, such as women being the sole gender to bear children, and their roles in the community. From a Western perspective, you would find the rights and duties of women in reference to those of men a combination of “equal but different” but without the wrongful discrimination, the US Supreme Court found in this concept applied to racial discrimination and dynamic, complementary equilibrium. With regard to this second concept the usual analogy is made to pieces of a jigsaw puzzle fitting together in order to make the fractured picture or, in this case, society whole, an integrated whole. However, I would add that rather than these pieces being fixed as they are in a jigsaw puzzle, they are fluid and changing as well as being fixed because what the Quran states is as relevant today and in very different societies with their own characteristic and local traditions. In other words women’s rights and duties in the Quran are universal and to be expressed or implemented in the “here and now”.

This is purely from a religious point of view and that is the reason you find some women and men in societies with restrictive traditions limiting the rights and role of women in their society arguing to be given their rights as stated in the Quran. For instance, women in the Prophet Mohammed’s community rode horses; learnt how to swim and swam; actively participated in battles; were fully educated and according to their ability and learning were respected by men who sought their advice; owned their own property and were influential and wealthy business women who ran their own businesses. The Quran forbade in the absolute the pre-Islamic practice of burying alive the first-born daughter. Islam forbids slavery. Slavery was not only very prominent in pre-Islamic society but it was also an economic pillar of society’s financial well-being. Islam established a system that would allow the abolishment of slavery without destroying the society economically. Female slaves were treated as property for their owners to do unto them what they pleased so you can see the Quran first recognized these women as human beings not as property or chattel and then gave them rights of equality.

Westerners today become fearful when they see men and women calling for or demanding women’s fundamental rights guaranteed in the Quran because they do not know what the Quran, or more correctly God, gives, they do not know how the Quran’s rights were radical freedoms in the society and at the time of that society when the Quran was revealed by God. The Quran`s teachings about women were enormously progressive in their original historical context. Women's legal and financial rights and equality with men saw dramatic advances over pre-Islamic social norms. Westerners not knowing this, see, instead, restrictive social traditions that are given the cover of religion being very harshly enforced by impassioned religious leaders in that society. This Western view is worsened dramatically and intentionally by some Western propagandists, such as but certainly not limited to very influential, high profile evangelical leaders, who denigrate Islam, the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and the Quran, for instance, by calling the Prophet a terrorist and the Quran the work of the Devil.

Criticism by Westerners of Islam for preventing women from becoming fully educated and taking an active role in their society’s well-being, for preventing women from driving and for other things is, therefore, totally misplaced. Indeed, people forget the first Muslim woman head of state was Shajrat Al- Durr of Egypt over 800 years ago. More recently, Benazir Bhutto was Prime Minister of Pakistan. In addition, there are many prominent women held high seats in the governments of Malaysia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Indonesia.

Another very common criticism of Islam by Westerners is the inequality to divorce. Generally speaking, it is harder for women to divorce their husbands than husbands are their wives. However, what is unknown or unstated by Westerners is that the contract of marriage allows the woman to list all her conditions that would be grounds for divorce without lengthy procedural complications that is a divorce pursuant to the contract. If she marries unconditionally then she faces legal problems if she wants a divorce not because of Islam but by social norms. In Islam, women are not to be coerced into marriage and they are not to be prevented from listing their grounds for divorce or conditions of marriage in the contract. Men do not have this right in the contract. I should like to add here that while Islam does allow divorce, the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) strongly disliked divorce unless the difference or problems between the spouses were genuinely irreconcilable. This is why a man must divorce his wife three times before it is final and why he must marry another woman first if the divorced spouses want to remarry. This process is mediation and has the same purpose many states in the United States now that is only since the late twentieth century, require before spouses can divorce.

Westerners point out that Muslim men can marry Christian or Jewish women without their converting to Islam unlike Muslim women whose fiancés must convert to Islam before marriage. This distinction has social reasons based upon several premises. First, divorce is not encouraged and that puts an added seriousness to marriage and the suitability of prospective spouses. Society wants the marriage to work and for the unit to be harmonious within society for everyone’s benefit. Second, society is paternalistic and the husband is head of his household. The children will bear his family name. Third, it is assumed that parents will want their children to grown up in their religious community and become practitioners or believers in the same religion as them. Muslims consider Islam to be the final and complete religion desired and commanded by God. It is impossible for a true Muslim parent to teach his or her children to be believers in a different religion, just as it would be impossible, say of Billy Graham to have brought his children up Muslim while being an evangelical Christian preacher. A wife and mother will accept that she teach and/or allow her children to grow up and become believers in her husband’s religion. Therefore, it is assumed that a Jewish or Christian wife accepts that her children will be Muslims. For a Muslim wife of a non-Muslim husband to teach her children to become believers in a religion other than Islam is impossible. This religious difference, it is assumed, would cause irreconcilable problems for the family leading to divorce. As mentioned above, Islam requires that women be protected and so to protect women from this unpleasant situation, social tradition requires Muslim women to marry Muslim men.

Islamic tradition and values include a very clear picture of gender roles, especially within the family. The predominant view is that in order to maintain family order, the husband or father has the final say in matters of dispute. From this practice, outsider observers may understand that women in Islam have no equality with men. This social or domestic practice, however, is not religious; in fact, it is a pre-Islamic practice or a local custom that you find in Western homes as well.

From the preceding discussion, it is easy to see that Islam treats women’s rights well within the scope of contemporary international human rights. I would like to emphasize that the oppression of women is not an exclusive Islamic issue or problem. Some Muslim leaders just like those in other religions have often used or misused their own religion to control social behavior of women and men in various contexts. The roots of female subordination in social status and abuse by men as evidenced in numerous societies today go much deeper and broader than Islam.

However, it is true that many Muslim women do not know their rights in Islam and there is strong concern in the community to educate women on their rights. This concern is quite controversial in some segments as it flies in the face of tradition and control enjoyed by some.

Another concern in the community is the proper and full implementation and enforcement of women’s Islamic rights through competent social institutions and fair, correct procedures.

I would like to conclude this question by pointing out that Islamic religious tradition is rich with stories of Muslim women who are role models, for men and women of all ages and societies, of faith, courage, leadership and virtue.

++

Abdullah al-Askar is a Professor of History at King Saud University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He received his PhD at the University of California, Los Angeles. His studies and publications focus strongly on the social transformations of the Saudi people, including Al-Yamama in the Early Islamic Era, which tracks the early political and geographic development of the Saudi Peninsula. Dr. Al-Askar has participated in a number of international conferences geared towards improving dialogue between the Arab and Western worlds, most recently taking part in the US-Islamic World Forum in Doha.

Pope Baptizes a Muslim

Pope baptizes prominent Italian Muslim

Article follows moderators comments;

Alhamdu Lillahi, praise the lord, (الْحَمْدُ للّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ 1:2) he knows and he is aware of every thing we do. He is the Malik-i-Yom-iddin, (مَـالِكِ يَوْمِ الدِّينِ 1:4) master of the day of the judgment.

We have several choices, and we need to evaluate the consequence of each choice.

i) We should not let his action have the capacity to irritate the weakest amongst us by reacting with vengeance. He wanted to choose another faith, let him. You cannot force any one to believe what one does not feel - Attempts to push him violates two basics - no oppression and no compulsion.

ii) Proclaim he is a bad guy - what good will it do?

iii) Issue a fatwa to kill him - This is where Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) wanted us to struggle (jihaad) against our base emotions of avenge and anger and win over them. Let's listen to the prophet and follow his guidance.

iv) Just do nothing, there are so many things happening in the world that needs our attention.

v) The more we re-act, the more they will be tempted to irritate us. I hope that is not what we want.

vi) Write in your own solution, solution must not create havoc, destruction and bad blood but bring peace - that is the name of our religion.

vii) Ignore and just live on your life.

Mike Ghouse
# # #

Pope baptizes prominent Italian Muslim
By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press Writer http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080322/ap_on_re_eu/pope_muslim_convert;_ylt=An.N8vVqFLLdc1KsIIjk5fBbbBAF

VATICAN CITY - Italy's most prominent Muslim, an iconoclastic writer who condemned Islamic extremism and defended Israel, converted to Catholicism Saturday in a baptism by the pope at a Vatican Easter service.

An Egyptian-born, non-practicing Muslim who is married to a Catholic, Magdi Allam infuriated some Muslims with his books and columns in the newspaper Corriere della Sera newspaper, where he is a deputy editor. He titled one book "Long Live Israel."

As a choir sang, Pope Benedict XVI poured holy water over Allam's head and said a brief prayer in Latin.

"We no longer stand alongside or in opposition to one another," Benedict said in a homily reflecting on the meaning of baptism. "Thus faith is a force for peace and reconciliation in the world: distances between people are overcome, in the Lord we have become close."

Vatican Television zoomed in on Allam, who sat in the front row of the basilica along with six other candidates for baptism. He later received his first Communion.

Allam, 55, told the newspaper Il Giornale in a December interview that his criticism of Palestinian suicide bombing provoked threats on his life in 2003, prompting the Italian government to provide him with a sizable security detail.

The Union of Islamic Communities in Italy — which Allam has frequently criticized as having links to Hamas — said the baptism was his own decision.

"He is an adult, free to make his personal choice," the Apcom news agency quoted the group's spokesman, Issedin El Zir, as saying.

Yahya Pallavicini, vice president of Coreis, the Islamic religious community in Italy, said he respected Allam's choice but said he was "perplexed" by the symbolic and high-profile way in which he chose to convert.

"If Allam truly was compelled by a strong spiritual inspiration, perhaps it would have been better to do it delicately, maybe with a priest from Viterbo where he lives," the ANSA news agency quoted Pallavicini as saying.

The nighttime Easter vigil service at St. Peter's Basilica marked the period between Good Friday, which commemorates Jesus' crucifixion, and Easter Sunday, which marks his resurrection.

Benedict opened by blessing a white candle, which he then carried down the main aisle of the darkened basilica. Slowly, the pews began to light up as his flame was shared with candles carried by the faithful, until the whole basilica twinkled and the main lights came on.

The pope administers baptism "without making any 'difference of people,' that is, considering all equally important before the love of God and welcoming all in the community of the Church," said the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi.

Allam, who has a young son with his Catholic wife and two adult children from a previous relationship, indicated in the Il Giornale interview that he would have no problem converting to Christianity. He said he had even received Communion once — when he was 13 or 14 — "even though I knew it was an act of blasphemy, not having been baptized."

He did not speak to the press Saturday and his newspaper said it had no information about his conversion.

Allam said in the interview that he had made a pilgrimage to Mecca, as is required of all Muslims, with his deeply religious mother in 1991, although he was not otherwise observant.

"I was never practicing," he was quoted as saying. "I never prayed five times a day, facing Mecca. I never fasted during Ramadan."

Allam also explained his decision to title a recent book "Viva Israele" by saying he wrote it after he received death threats from Hamas.

"Having been condemned to death, I have reflected a long time on the value of life. And I discovered that behind the origin of the ideology of hatred, violence and death is the discrimination against Israel. Everyone has the right to exist except for the Jewish state and its inhabitants," he said. "Today, Israel is the paradigm of the right to life."

In 2006, Allam was a co-winner, with three other journalists, of the $1 million Dan David prize, named for an Israeli entrepreneur. Allam was cited for "his ceaseless work in fostering understanding and tolerance between cultures."

There is no overarching Muslim law on conversion. But under a widespread interpretation of Islamic legal doctrine, converting from Islam is apostasy and punishable by death — though killings are rare.

Egypt's highest Islamic cleric, the Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa, wrote last year against the killing of apostates, saying there is no worldly retribution for Muslims who abandon their religion and that punishment would come in the afterlife.

On Wednesday, a new audio message from Osama bin Laden accused the pope of playing a "large and lengthy role" in a "new Crusade" against Islam that included the publication of drawings of the Prophet Muhammad that many Muslims found insulting.

Lombardi said Thursday that bin Laden's accusation was baseless. He said Benedict repeatedly criticized the Muhammad cartoons, first published in some European newspapers in 2006 and republished by Danish papers in February.

Renaissance can't be Islamic

Renaissance Cannot Be Islamic

The article follows my comments:

I don’t have much to comment on this article, it is every thing I would have said – some highlights;

Renaissance has no colour, creed or ideology, add reason to logic and top it up with broad-mindedness and pluralism and you have a sturdy drift of 'Renaissance' engulfing any region or any society. For these conditions to exist minds need to be free from dogma and idolatry of puritan ideology. Self righteousness is anathema of Renaissance, so is self flagellation and self pity, nations who indulge in this are more concerned with post life than the life here.

Renaissance is a collective effort of minds to seek freedom from dogma and seek answers to complex questions of purpose of existence on this planet. Free thinking, logic and rationalism have to be the foundation stone of any serious attempt to induce renaissance in the Islamic world. Pluralism of Ideas and the prosperity of any land are intertwined. Freedom of minds and skill of intellect to ‘think the unthinkable’ is how humanity has progressed; when minds are incarcerated nothing endures.

You have to read the whole article to be enlightened.. Let me define religion:

To be a Muslim is to be a peace maker; one who constantly seeks to mitigate conflicts and nurtures goodwill for peaceful co-existence. God wants us to live in peace and harmony with his creation; life and matter. Indeed that is the purpose religion. Please feel free to substitute the word “Muslim” with “Religious”.

Mike Ghouse
###

Renaissance Cannot Be Islamic
Iqbal Latif - 3/16/2008
http://globalpolitician.com/24272-renaissance-religion-islam

The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has adopted a new charter that calls for a “jihad of peace” to spark off an Islamic renaissance. Muslim country Indonesia called for an “Islamic Renaissance.” Indonesian President Susilo Bambang was quoted as saying “The possibility of an Islamic renaissance lies before us. We need to get our act together as an organisation of Muslim nations.” These are virtuous and extremely timely, helpful statements cannot be overlooked, these represents sea change of attitude and I can see beginning of a thaw in very hardened ideological quarters. The world should try to capitalise on these offshoots and act as catalyst to commence a debate on change.

Renaissance has no colour, creed or ideology, add reason to logic and top it up with broad-mindedness and pluralism and you have a sturdy drift of 'Renaissance' engulfing any region or any society. For these conditions to exist minds need to be free from dogma and idolatry of puritan ideology. Self righteousness is anathema of Renaissance, so is self flagellation and self pity, nations who indulge in this are more concerned with post life than the life here.

Describing the OIC as a “unique” institution, Yudhoyono said its influence covered three continents. Besides, Muslim countries supplied 70 per cent of the worlds energy requirements and 40 per cent of its raw material exports, he added.It’s appalling statistic that with all of their oil wealth, two-thirds of the world’s poorest people live in Muslim countries? This state of misery is unparalleled; Islam’s inability to translate its economic prowess into general good has baffled the intelligentsia of the world. Perhaps one can argue that why, in the last 20 years, have over million people died in conflicts involving intra Muslim wars? Why are democracy and the rule of law nonexistent in most Muslim states? Why are most of the worst acts of terrorism carried out in the name of Islam? Whenever wicked fundamentalists have taken over reins of affairs they have gone for the jugular. Extremists have a single point agenda whereby 'worldly decadence' needs to be abolished for blessings and rewards of the after world. None of devotion but their kind can gratify them, every strain of deviancy over times have its own brand of virtuous approach, these anarchists at one point have inflicted devastation on embryonic societies of Islam.

I have a suggestion for President Susilo Bambang. Renaissance cannot be tainted with colour of ideology, it cannot be ‘Islamic or Christian,’ it is collective effort of minds to seek freedom from dogma and seek answers to complex questions of purpose of existence on this planet. Free thinking, logic and rationalism have to be the foundation stone of any serious attempt to induce renaissance in the Islamic world. Pluralism of Ideas and the prosperity of any land are intertwined. Freedom of minds and skill of intellect to ‘think the unthinkable’ is how humanity has progressed; when minds are incarcerated nothing endures.

Renaissance within all three monolithic religions was built around norms of free mind; renaissance was about literature, architecture, arts and chiseling of marble to exquisite forms. David could only be created by the love of the free labor of Michelangelo an enslaved mind cannot be an artist or a creator. Enslaved man can be a revolutionary and many a enslave people have helped changed the world but their minds were free they accepted death instead of compromise with totalitarian or dogmatic despotism.

The first and foremost challenge nations of Islam faces is freedom of intellectual enquiry, ability to ask the unthinkable and still be able to live in peace within a society is the ultimate hall mark of any efforts of kindling renaissance. "In our relations with the Western world, we are going through difficult times," said OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, calling for Israelis to be tried for war crimes. "Ignorance about Islam and calculated animosity with deep historic roots on the part of a minority in the West, as well as our failure to defend the true values of Islam, are the reason for the increasing wave of Islamophobia." Unfortuntely, however the true values are rarely ever discussed freely, during the glorified ‘Golden Age’ there was particularly strong tradition of rationalists, the Mutazilites. They stressed a human being’s inherent free will countering the predestinarians, who taught that everything was foreordained. The Mutazilites carefully cultivated an ‘enlightened moderation’ and allowed for the growth of knowledge and in their active promulgation and acceptance of Science as a part of the religion doctrine they brought to the Islamic world her Golden Age.

Caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad printed by European newspapers have sparked anger across the Muslim world. Some western human rights groups have accused the OIC of trying to limit freedom of expression and belief. "Should freedom of expression mean freedom to blaspheme? There is no such thing as limitless freedom," Wade told delegates, while criticizing those who carried out attacks in the name of Islam: "They deserve only our contempt." The second is slightly more unacceptable, toleration of opposing critical enquiry view into ‘theology and Holy Scriptures.’ Questioning minds should not be burnt on stake or beheaded as blasphemous. Perhaps they should be contented with logic and reason. The exercise of blasphemy law as a guardian of ‘truth and enquiry’ is one of the main reason of Islamic backwardness. Sadly a fine balance between deference and enquiry in East and West is the missing link here. The two sides have to work on it and fine tune their ability to coexist.

This guidance to coexist was advanced by the renowned thinkers such as Avicenna, Al-Raazi, Al Ma’ari and Omar Khayyam; each of whom would later be remembered for the striking global contribution to the field of art, science and logic. The decline set in when the puritan Al-Ghazali began to undermine this rationalistic tradition and instead push for dogma over thought, obedience over free will and the primacy of doctrine. It was the beginning of the end as Al-Ghazali strove to put a stop to the tradition that had cultivated the greatest of the Islamic thinkers and instead stifle the unbridled creativity of the Islamic world.

Thus the civilization of Islam began to falter as ‘Destiny’ persevered over reason and logic-and Lenient ecclesiastical and priestly control once again tightened over the free Muslim people. With the will of Allah sufficing to explain everything risk no longer matter and Muslim commerce began to dramatically suffer. The banking and finance capitals that could have emerged in the coastal cities and regions of Alexandria, the Yemen and Sumatra, as rivals to Europe were stemmed in their infancy. Any belief that employs “guardians of truth’’ on shaping of landscape of intellect will implode. It is said that ‘Crutches of faith are introduced when reason sink exhausted.’ It is an paradox that when curtain of dogma was descending within the Islamic lands killing free thinking it was slowly and steadily rising in Italy and northern Europe.

Let’s start calling spade the spade, whenever, tolerance has been overtaken by bigotry, blinkeredness and singularity; nations and empires have just withered away. At heart of hatred, viciousness and venomous intensity lies intolerance, bigotry and inability to ever find the enemy within. Fanaticism is an evil of a society that corrodes the elegance of any culture. It is most amazing that most of the Muslims like to refer to the ‘Golden age of Islam’ but refuse to appreciate its underpinnings! Tolerant rulers –who saw knowledge without ownership of any creed and expand knowledge to new frontiers. The lack of intellectual progress within the Muslim world suggests something is terribly wrong, their inability to point out their own weaknesses and look at history objectively instead of subjectively they have not been able to learn any lessons from their past.

It is religion that teaches us the lesson of intolerance for a divergent view. In super rich societies, dogmas like the age of our universe is 6,000 years, the thought that we are at the heart of the universe develops an exaggerated sense of human importance and creates most of the obstacles. In lesser educated societies, religious hope of life after death and Puritanism inflict mayhem. Those who want to make a mark in the next world, making this one a perfect hell, should definitely deserve our censure. (1)

Look at ‘Taliban’ who are very ferocious in their interpretation; they are fighting for freedom to install shariah in their lands and then export that later to the hinterland. Their shortfalls and heavy-handed attitudes have resulted into a backlash by the voters who rejected them in free elections. Their preoccupation with the idea of reincarnation of the Middle Ages’ ‘medieval Islam’ so that hands are chopped freely, women be enslaved is what actually fuels this campaign of suicide-bombing.

It is totally wrong to quote Baghdad and Cordoba as models of successful Islamic societies if the conditions of those model societies are today abhorred by the main body of Islam, the tolerance required just does not exist, taking history out of context is the biggest injustice that Muslims commit. A clerical state would not be ever able to address the complex problems of governance the world poses today, the separation of state from institutions of clergy is a must for any society to develop. Poverty as a part of the Islamic society is not by design but by efforts, over reliance of ‘will of Allah’ and lack of freedom leads to poverty of a nation, mental as well as physical. Loyalty to the institutions of nation beyond those demanded by the religion has torn the mind of Muslims. Muslim should be loyal to the state where he swears an allegiance and not to the creed he follows.

A dark age within any civilization is characterized with dogmatic extremism that denies civil liberties, including freedom of religion and justice or the right to a fair trial. 'Golden age' on the other hand should be about the freedom of expression and availability of justice for the downtrodden. A society is judged not by its standards of the richest but by the way the under privileged and the poorest live. A minor renaissance within the regions under the influence of Islam can be traced but the conditions that help ‘seeds of reason’ to take roots that are essential for freethinking were just not allowed to be nurtured.

The world cannot remain hostage to medievalists, this modern fight has to be seen in its intellectual, historical and geographical context, the Islamic world today is trying to reignite its lost renaissance, this is the age of Islamic renaissance, people who are meant to cure our ills are out in the open to slaughter and maim thousands, apparently educated are mentally demented, this the age that was for 500 years escaped the region and hence helped establish a void of reason and rational. Respect of life is the first sign of an educated mind, the most important creation of providence being subject to dynamite is a work of an evil soul, lets not mix it, any mind that plots to maim and kill has not evolved, it has remained stuck in medieval hatreds of the past.

The war of ideas where Islamic clergy, for its own limited interests, has tried to introduce elements of bigotry and fanaticism in mainstream Islamic thought is not new to Muslim societies. It has made them weak and backward and if it continues in its most dangerous form, such a schism will fragment any country whose only reason to exist as a nation is theological unity of belief.

Iqbal Latif writes for the Global Politician about Islam and related issues.

Jihad

It is a power point presentation
use the right arrow keep to advance the page or try F5 key

http://www.theghouseteam.com/mg/WMC_Files/VersesofJihadintheQuran.ppt