Friday, August 7, 2009

Interfaith, Pluralism and Islam

CAUTION: If you have low tolerance for another point of view, please do not read this. If you do read, please be independent and a critical thinker.

Pluralism and Interfaith continues to be mis-understood, it is time for us to refresh our minds and unload some of the ideas we have carried forward against the idea of Interfaith and Pluralism.

1. Interfaith is about exploring common issues from each religious point of view.
2. Pluralism is about exploring co-existence among theists and atheist.

Pluralism is an attitude of accepting the otherness of other without having to believe the other. One has to be secure in his or her faith to listen without interrupting thoughts and let the other person speak out his or her belief; if I were to believe my faith is the only way, my intellect requires me to understand that the other person is also claiming the same while the arrogance in me denies that right to the other. It is your word vs. my word.

God is not going to step in and take sides nor has God signed a deal with me or him to claim exclusive ownership of God and goodness. This is not going to be acceptable to the Neocons Muslims, Christians, Jews or Hindus, their mind set is; the other has to be wrong for me to be right. However, the majorities from the same groups are secure in their faith and acknowledge the right of other individuals to believe in their faith, without losing an ounce of their own faith. The Neocons simply cannot do that, they are too insecure.

As beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, faith is in the heart of the believer. Islam understood that human sentiment and said that there is no compulsion in faith, you cannot make one believe against his or her will. Islam also has delivered a wise chapter on civil conduct.

There is a myth out there among 1/100th of 1% of Muslims, who propagate with vengeance or out of ignorance that Interfaith is mumbo jumbo like Akbar’s deen-e-Elahi. That does not fit the trait of a Muslim – to deliberately spread falsity about interfaith.

Prophet Muhammad was a pluralist, his goal was not to wipe out any of God’s creation, it rather was to forge peace and co-existence. Look at his very first model where he forged cooperation by mitigating conflicts and nurturing goodwill among the conflicting tribes to place the Aswad Stone in its place. There are several models for us to emulate including the one where he acknowledges the otherness of the other and brought together the Jews, Christians and others that lived under his leadership, he created the Madinah Pact giving all believers their rights to practice their faith freely. If prophet did not believe in the otherness of other, he would not have initiated that pact.

Prophet Muhammad invited people of other faiths to discuss the faith issues in his own mosque. Today, shamelessly a few Muslims who rule the Mosques around would not let an interfaith dialogue take place in the mosques.Islam is about creating a just world and a world of co-existence through the Madinah Pacts and not bent on converting others to become Muslims.

What else the Neocon Muslims need to know?

Islam is about creating a just world and a world of co-existence through the Madinah Pacts and not bent on converting others to become Muslims.

I am please to share Dr. Javed Jamil’s piece “Interfaith, Pluralism and Islam” with a few observations:

Dr. Jamil - “They are trying to change/reinterpret/adjust Islamic principles in accordance with the demands of Interfaith. I am trying to adjust Interfaith according to the demands of Islam”

Mike – It may be true in a few places, but that is not the whole truth. In all the groups that we participate here in the United States interfaith is “you are who you are and we are who we are” how can we mitigate the conflicts without compromising the integrity of the faith. This is what interfaith is all about.

Dr. Jamil, “It can be seen that most of these interfaith dialogues are being funded by governments and agencies that seek to dilute, diminish or readjust the role of religions in accordance”

Mike – Where on the earth is government funding this? Not in the United States. Shall we take it that if Muslims fund such a dialogue; they are dishonest in their intentions?

Dr. Jamil – “They want to marginalize religion, weaken the institution of religion and to minimize its role in influencing the world system.”

Mike – Not the interfaith groups Dr. Jamil, it may be the Christian Missionaries and the Dawah Missions who are bent on denigrating each other.

Dr. Jamil – “The ultimate aim of the Qur’aan is nothing but the unity of the whole mankind under the umbrella of Islam.”

Mike – “Which definition of Islam suits us? One is about submission to the almighty and the other is compelling or enticing every one to believe like we do. If it is the former, every one does submit to the almighty his/her own way – but if it is political, they have to do our way. The submission loses the value, and doing our way gains it.

Mike Ghouse
Our Mission is to work for a World of co-existence. What is good for Muslims has got to be good for the others and vice versa for world peace and harmony. To be a Muslim is to be a peacemaker, one who seeks to mitigate conflicts and nurtures goodwill for peaceful co-existence. God wants us to live in peace and harmony with his creation; that is indeed the purpose of religion, any religion. Mission statement

Interfaith, Pluralism and Islam

I have spoken on several Interfaith platforms. Recently I spoke in two conferences at New Delhi organized by Interfaith Coalition for Peace and one at Bangalore organized by International Council of Churches, Geneva. In the first I was one of few Muslims in the all-religion gathering and in the latter I was the only Muslim. I spoke without in any way compromising my stand on the established principles of Islam, and yet I could present the most talked about and most admired papers in both. But I feel anguished when I see many Muslims saying things that neither required to be said nor would be acceptable to religious scholars of any religion. If some ideological stand is not acceptable to the scholars of the religions, Interfaith is simply not going to serve any purpose. The difference in the approach of these Muslims and that of mine is simple: They are trying to change/reinterpret/adjust Islamic principles in accordance with the demands of Interfaith. I am trying to adjust Interfaith according to the demands of Islam.

It can be seen that most of these Interfaith dialogues are being funded by governments and agencies that seek to dilute, diminish or readjust the role of religions in accordance with their plans, which are directly or indirectly related to the demands of the forces of globalization. These forces want to keep religious scholars busy in fighting or trying to arrive at a common point on the issues that are fundamental to the religion. They want to marginalize religion, weaken the institution of religion and to minimize its role in influencing the world system. Invariably, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists come to these meetings, discuss a few points related to the concept of “Pluralism”, exchange some pleasantries, shake hands and hug and then disperse without arriving at any common agenda about the world. They have been made to believe that religion is the root cause of all the problems in the world; and the infighting between different faiths is responsible for the bloodshed. And poor religious scholars, unable to understand what is boiling in the international area, fall prey to their designs. When I told the Bishops and priests at Bangalore that Westernism and Christianity are two different things, and both Muslims and Christians have often failed to realize this, and when West attacks Islamic countries, Muslims often tend to attack Christians, they all were hugely excited. When I said that Westernism was as much an enemy of Christianity as that of Islam, and Westernism is an ideology comprising economic fundamentalism, commercialization of human susceptibilities, misuse of science and Technology and domination of Western powers, there was a long round of clapping. When I ended my talk asserting that the time has now come when we should stop keeping on debating the theological issues and must instead focus on the evil of the current worl forming a common agenda, and together we must challenge the forces of evil, chaos and materialism, people there rose in standing ovation. I was in truth overwhelmed by the kind of response I got from Christian priests. I requested them that though the responsibility to challenge the forces should be shared by all the religions, Christians and Muslims should take the lead because together they form about half of the world and have influence over even on other parts as well.

An interfaith Muslim activist bases his arguments on a seemingly beautiful slogan of “pluralism”. He contends that God wants pluralism in the world, and this is why He has given birth to human beings in different religions and faiths. This line of argument is becoming popular with several Muslim writers recently. Had it been the desire of God to see all humans turn to Islam, they argue, He would not have given birth to most humans as non-Muslims. In favour of this argument, they present the verse of the Qur’an: “If God had so willed He would have made you a single people, but His plan is to test you in what He has given you; so strive as in a race in all virtues.”

I want to point out that though the Qur’an accepts religious plurality yet pluralism is neither the foundation of the Book of Allah nor its ultimate aim. It is at best a permitted position. The ultimate aim of the Qur’an is nothing but the unity of the whole mankind under the umbrella of Islam. Till it is achieved, plurality is tolerable. Even otherwise, this is true for every ideology that it can tolerate but will never promote other ideologies. Even the advocates of pluralism will want the whole society to adopt the ideals of pluralism and would not love the presence of those who do not believe in the ideology of pluralism.

Will versus Desire of God

Qur’an tells us that God’s Will and Desire are two different things. In Qur’an God has clearly spelled his preferences, which represent His Desire. See the following:
And spend of your substance in the cause of God, and make not your own hands contribute to (your) destruction; but do good; for God loveth those who do good. (2: 195/A)
And swell not thy cheek (for pride) at men, nor walk in insolence through the earth; for God loveth not any arrogant boaster. (31: 18/A)

They perform (their) vows, and they fear a Day whose evil flies far and wide. And they feed, for the love of God, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive,- (saying), We feed you for the sake of God alone: no reward do we desire from you, nor thanks. (76: 7-9/A)

By no means shall ye attain righteousness unless ye give (freely) of that which ye love; and whatever ye give, of a truth God knoweth it well. (3: 92/A)

Serve God, and join not any partners with Him; and do good- to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbours who are near, neighbours who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (ye meet), and what your right hands possess... (4: 36/A)

It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces towards east or west; but it is righteousness-to believe in God and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the God-fearing. (2: 177/A)

For in Gods sight are (all) His servants,- (namely), those who say: Our Lord! we have indeed believed: forgive us, then, our sins, and save us from the agony of the Fire;”- Those who show patience, firmness and self-control; who are true (in word and deed); who worship devoutly; who spend (in the way of God.; and who pray for forgiveness in the early hours of the morning. (3: 15-17/A)

And there is the type of man who gives his life to earn the pleasure of God. And God is full of kindness to (His) devotees. (2: 207/A)

God loveth not that evil should be noised abroad in public speech, except where injustice hath been done; for God is He who heareth and knoweth all things. (4: 148/A)

Say: the things that my Lord hath indeed forbidden are: shameful deeds, whether open or secret; sins and trespasses against truth or reason. (7: 33/A)

God loveth not one given to perfidy and crime... (4: 105-107/A)

Those who spend their substance in the cause of God, and follow not up their gifts with reminders of their generosity or with injury,-for them their reward is with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. Kind words and the covering of faults are better than charity followed by injury. God is free of all wants, (2: 262/A)

And obey not (the behests) of the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and heed not their annoyances, but put thy Trust in God. For enough is God as a Disposer of affairs. (33: 48/A)

God loveth not that evil should be noised abroad in public speech, except where injustice hath been done; for God is He who heareth and knoweth all things. (4: 148/A)

And obey God and His Messenger; and fall into no disputes...(8: 46/A)

For God loveth not any vainglorious boaster,- such persons as are covetous and commend covetousness to men. (57: 23-24/A)

Behold, Luqman said to his son by way of instruction: “O my son! join not in worship (others) with God; for false worship is indeed the highest wrongdoing.” (31: 13/A)

O my son!”, (said Luqman), If there be (but) the weight of a mustard-seed and it were (hidden) in a rock, or (anywhere) in the heavens or on earth, God will bring it forth: for God understands the finest mysteries, (and) is well-acquainted (with them). O my son! establish regular prayer, enjoin what is just, and forbid what is wrong: and bear with patient constancy whatever betide thee; for this is firmness (of purpose) in (the conduct of) affairs. And swell not thy cheek (for pride) at men, nor walk in insolence through the earth; for God loveth not any arrogant boaster. And be moderate in thy pace, and lower thy voice; for the harshest of sounds without doubt is the braying of the ass.” (31: 16-19/A)

Thus God has made clear His desires: that all must follow His Book and His Messenger and must do good deeds and avoid wrong deeds. But still, most of the human beings are engaged in severe forms of wrongdoing. Does this mean that God wants people to be bad? Does He want them to fight one another, be untruthful, dishonest and arrogant? No. If people have fallen to evils this is not because God desires them to be bad but because God has let them do things of their own liking, as part of His plan. His plan was to establish a system in which humans are not physically forced to act in a particular way but they choose by their own will to act rightfully or wrongfully. They are free to establish a system of Lawful and Forbidden for them; they can do this either in accordance with the commands of God or according to their own selfish interests. If they were not free, they would not have been tested. If there were no Devil to mislead them, men and women with real mettle would not have emerged on the scene. When an interviewer or examiner interviews or examines a candidate for a big post, he tests him with the most difficult questions, often through confusing inquiries. The World is like a College, established and run by a Management. The Management creates a system to run the college, which every student has to go through. Students prepare for the examination. If Management had wanted, they would have passed all the students giving them the same marks. But the students pass and fail receiving different grades according to their capabilities and preparation. Management’s desire is to see all students passing with excellence, but their plan is to give students a free hand and then test their mettle through a system of tests.

The creation of a system in the world and letting human beings act out of free will represents God’s Will. God’s Guidance through Messengers and Scriptures represents God’s Desire. Plural society (different faiths, different deities, etc) is the product of God’s Will and not God’s Desire, which seeks the submission of the whole mankind and all the national and international systems to Him. Plural society is what God has allowed; One System and One People are what God wants mankind to achieve. Muslims must learn to bear with Plurality, but must not stop endeavouring to unite the whole mankind under the umbrella of God’s Final System

Dr Javed Jamil isExecutive Chairman, International Centre for Applied Islamics &
Chief Editor, “Islam, Muslims & the World


  1. Javed I am a little weary of Scholars who pad up there own resumes and many market themselves as populist or feel insecure that they feel they have to announce titles that are self claimed, or are beneficiary off not withstanding your own meritorious achievements, I think it is wonderful to travel to Vienna or locally as an observer or guest speaker if you have the means but even better if you can build schools and hospitals, and distribute food to poor people, Can you provide link to or the text of your speeches at the these different religious conferences and share the views of other prominent religious leaders etc or is this about you----thanks

    AgaKhan Foundation firmly believes in pluralism and interfaith diversity, What would be your advise to His Highness the AgaKhan.

    regards Aziz

    I have several issues with your views of the Jews as people of the book that I will address separately after I see your response to all the groups you have copied to, I appreciate you have taken a step back from your extreme views and language of personal attacks and I hope your controversial anti west argument sells and you do well. It is an easy call amongst Muslims preaching to the Choir

    Though I find your approach dishonest by taking this discussion to wider audience minus the context of hateful anti Jewish language discussed in other groups, this one of the old unethical tactic used to play off negative or veiled comments in groups your adversary does not belong to incite passions of the extremist it is best one behave in Islamic way and address the issues where it originated there just to many groups copied most of them I am not a member, you can use their feed back but it does not enhance your credibility with moderates It would be equally worthwhile to attend conferences denouncing religious bigotry However if one believes in co existence, Pluralism, Ethical Humanism, Human rights and diversity and if it is compatible with universal a wisdom expressed in dialectic Greek by philosophers and Muslim Philosophers than this would not be an issue, What your preaching is not new it has been tried out both by Seyd Qutb and Mauddodi what you are doing is simply repackaging it, Your Clash of civilization is political does not represent the spiritual message of the Quran that is for all of the mankind but I am sorry to disagree with the choice of antagonism The Taliban methods have not yielded positive results nor soft peddling of conservative extreme views work where interfaith, Diversity and Pluralism becomes a dirty words

    You are trying to change and reinterpret the teachings of Prophet Mohammed doing the dance around Quranic verse which empasis pluralism and interfaith co existence

    While you disagree with Muslims who have spent their life dedicated to preaching peace through interfaith pluralism exemplified by the treaty with the people of Hejaz ushered in by the Prophet as the first Islamic constitution and values interfaith in form of letters by Hazraat Ali to the Governor of Egypt and strong respect for diversity and interfaith pluralism They saw this in context of peoples ignorance and arrogance of scholars

    you see interfaith in context of clash of civilisation with the west it does help when we don't distinguish between political and spiritual message of Islam

    It would be better to work hard and spend energies to raise the level of Education and promote human rights and Islamic Ethics and build hospitals amongst Muslims instead of Strawmen arguments that are childish "OH by the way Interfaith conferences are funded by Govts you mean like the conference Iranian Govt Sponsored denying holocast occured.


  2. Aziz,

    I really feel surprised at the methodology you adopt when replying to rather rejecting whatever I say. You are continuouslu making personal attacksagainst me and complain that I make personal attacks. Your style of discussing things isso complex that it ishard to understand what you are trying to prove. I am not an Aghakhani but I have a great respect of the humanitary services he is known for. I do in my own humble ways what I can do as a doctor or asa social worker. You keep on attacking me for thingswhich I neither say nor believe. The essence of your letter will make the reader feel asif I am engaged in fights against Christianity, Judaism or other religions or against the followersof these religions. The truth on the contrary isthat I have always avoided criticising other religionsor religious communities, and I am constantly working to unite all religions on a common agenda. Whatever you say, my mission of fighting the evils will not stop. Fighting alcohol, gambling, prostitution, promiscuity, homosexuality, crimes, abortions are on top of my agenda and will always continue to be wherever these evils occur.

    It is my right to send my articlesto wherever I like. Thisparticular piece is a separate article, and I have not mentioned in it anything about the debate going on the Muslimagenda. By the way your views too appear on at least two forums.

    Javed Jamil

  3. Javed,

    I am not at all surprised at the level of bigotry, I did not ask your religious affiliations with the Shia Muslims who are identified as Ismailis I was talking about his foundation based on Ethics of Islamic pluralism but as usual,....

    I hope you recognize your own methodology, its all in the language and how you communicates in this recent message you insult people by using derogatory words like "I am not an Agahkhani" Why? you can not say Shia?, go ahead pretend ignorance I think you should check with your friends how they would feel if someone called them Al mehdis or kazemis, or abbasids or call you Abu Bakereni or Mauwiyya et al It is bad enough to endorse the extreme views of someone who regards Jews and their beliefs as Evil, associating Zionism with Judaism, for you to sanctify false premise and say such response to Mike has been appropriate, your words "very good response" in this discussion is provocation not to mention insulting the intelligence of people or its intent also demeaning to say i am not a worthy debating opponent, so lets not complain alright. such hypocrisy we can do without

    You have also tried to associate me, Mr Iftekhar and Zeba and others who are not a party to this discussion to make people think the views of Mr Iftehkar and Tarek Fateh are the same. This is low bowling your own morality so lets not complain about methodology that you are quiet familiar with.

    Javeed Says: It is my right to send my articlesto wherever I like. Thisparticular piece is a separate article, and I have not mentioned in it anything about the debate going on the Muslimagenda. By the way your views too appear on at least two forums.

    Javeed I appreciate the obusification but could you not have changed the subject line it usually tends to lead to proprietary interest in the preceding discussions not a separate article or subject which would not be cause of ethical concern by itself. I have restricted myself to the two groups I am member and have restricted myself to the subject line, and conservatives can take credit if they like, I just thought some of the arguments are little shallow you will also have noticed I am not a regular in the group.

    Now If you can stick to the substance I would appreciate and at the same time you feel you wish to absolve yourself from culpability then think is endorsing personal and hostile responses that are unbecoming, as human beings is a right way to go, there is lot to learn about humility you have personally insulted me several times in the past and more recently some may not recognize insult I do.

    Please feel free to provide the links news articles about your contributions or text of your speeches and that of other religous leaders in refrence to your contribution at these conferences. It would restore my confidence if I understood what this new islamism ideas of yours is about that Prophet Mohammed SAS could not communicate to the people of the Book

    Regards Aziz

  4. Brother Aziz,

    I don't hold a brief for Javed Jamil, but I do feel the need to interject when you so outrightly reject someone who has done extremely persuasive and compelling work for no personal gratification. Of course like anyone else if he craves for his work to be seen and debated, it should not surprise anyone.

    Personally, I discovered Javed in the virtual world of Internet when I came across some of his writings on the subject of how Science has become subservient to Economics, resulting in the domination of market forces in the administration of Nations. He had articulated his thoughts in his Book, 'The Devil of Economic Fundamentalism", which is extremely thought provoking just like several of his other books, "Islam means Peace", "The Essence of Quranic Verses", "Rediscovering the Universe", where he has contested Einstein’s theory of relativity and several other papers on the medical benefits of Wudu, Islam’s perspective on family planning and so on.

    To this day four years down the line I have had the pleasure of having extremely stimulating discussions and intellectually rewarding meetings with him. I have found this gentleman to be entirely honest and upright in what he believes and regardless of whether or not one agrees with him, there is no denying the fact that he makes you sit up and take note.

    If I may add as to the persuasive nature of his work, I for one felt a very compelling need to help find him a platform from where he could present his thoughts on the issues that ail the world today. Accordingly, it was my pleasure to arrange sponsor his visit to Bangalore under the auspices of Sherif Foundation for a series of lectures at various forums in the year 2007 during which he spoke on a variety of subjects. One of his lectures in Ecumenical Christian Centre resulted in him being invited by a global church organization based in Geneva to deliver a lecture on “ Religious intolerance in South Asia” at ECC in the month of March’2009. Needless to say, his lecture was extremely well received and who knows might well succeed in eventually bringing together all faiths to beat back godlessness from our society.

    It is precisely on account of Javed Jamil’s single minded determination to make himself heard, he even sacrificed his medical practice to devote himself to this cause and as you must be surely aware, has successfully launched a monthly magazine “Islam Muslims and the World”, which within a six months period has established itself as a magazine with wide acceptance. This has happened against all odds and purely on the strength of quality and content.

    As for your own Aga Khan foundation, I do believe it is doing great work in bringing education to the remotest areas of the world. As for its belief in pluralism and inter-faith diversity, I believe Dr. Javed Jamil is no different, as is evident from his successful forays into inter-faith meets.

    With profound regards
    S.A.R. Adil

  5. AZIZ,

    I just cant understand why you keep on targeting me for something which has never been my view. Show me one single sentence where I insulted People of Books. This has never been my approach to criticise other religions. I have time and gain told you my targets are economic fundamentalists, Westernism, market forces etc. If you want to know some of my views you can find by searching “javed Jamil” on Internet, and show me at one place where I insulted any religion or sect. And pls if you are honest don’t keep trying to insult me by blaming on me something that has no relation with me. I have more than a dozen books to my credit, and their titles alone are enough to tell that I do never attack other religions or religious communities. “The Devil of Economic Fundamentalism”, “the essence of the Divine Verses”, “The Killer Sex”, “rediscovering the Universe”, “Family Welfare in Islam” , “Islam means Peace” etc. I am summarizing for you what I have been doing

    1 I have been regularly telling Muslims to learn to differentiate between Westernism and Christianity, between Zionism and Judaism and between Hindu religion and Hindutva

    2. That Islam and not Muslimism should be the guiding principle, and Muslimism can be as bad as any other form of communalism;

    3. That the challenge to Islam is not from other religions but from the forces of New World Order, and Islamic scholars must not waste time in criticizing other religions;

    4. That Islam’s world view must be propagated and Muslims must learn to make sacrifices for others:

    5. That all faiths must come together, evolve a common agenda and must fight against the forces that are glorifying and commercializing evils.

    I really feel sorry if you took my Aghakhani” remark as derogatory. I didn't mean to disrespect that at all. It was to say something like: “I am not a Shia but I love Ali”, or “I am not a Jamaati (Member of Jamaat Islami but I respect Maulana Maudodi.

    My only point regarding Pluralism is that there is a fine difference between saying that Quran accepts Plurality and that Quran advocates Pluralism. The first one is right, the second one not. Quran accepts diversity but campaigns for the unity of the whole mankind under the banner of Islam. The difference is like that between saying that America allows communists, Muslims, Hindus etc and that America promotes Islam, Communism or Hinduism or their mixture.

    Aziz, you have the right to criticize me but criticize what I am writing not what I haven’t said.

    Javed Jamil

  6. Javed,

    Why does it always have to be about you.

    Point to a single sentence you disagree and refute it, instead of the crocodile tears

    I am amazed you constantly target and attack the views of others in the rubric of westernism and encourage views that are not consistent with what you claim to write but insist you are a victim when your views are challenged, you choose never to respond to the challenge directly or refute the very substance of disagreement. Do you know what a mule runner or agent provocateur is ? You show contempt for women that got you in trouble with Zeba you show contempt for human rights and attack westerners accusing them of western conspiracy over recent Iranian elections, you blame west for vice and immorality, You endorse views that defiles Jewish people, and than claim innocence, tell me why the west has become your Holy Grail and not the ethics of Muslims, I have searched hard on the internet and could not find any reference of yours that condemn such acts of horrific nature by Muslims nor will I see it in objective rendering in your books however plenty of examples of western tyranny.

    I understand you respect Maudoodi even if he ascribes to political Jihad to restore islam to some strict pure utopia devoid of western political influence.Like Qutb and yourself Maudoodi had his own new vision of Islam. It also was centered around the struggle jihad against the oppressive forces of the west. Maudoodi felt that Pakistan might have escaped the political domination of Britain, but it was still suffering under the cultural oppression of the West and that the struggle must continue in order to establish a truly Islamic state as the Prophet SAS had done he denies the message of peaceful co existence just look at what has happened to minorities in Pakistan. Maudoodi founded the Jamaat-i-Islami , a political party dedicated to establishing Islamic law and global domination through the Madrassa system of indoctrination of Talibs.One of its great triumph is the Taliban.

  7. I consider your efforts to fine tune his theories and concepts that would allow Islamic ideology to be seen as necessary new reawakening or simply pedelling old concepts.

    I will ask you one more time did you endorse the views of a person who holds Jews as most loathsome evil human beings, your words "Very good response to Mike" go ahead deny it again.
    Did you say Muslim women don't have brains so if she married a Jewish Men she would end up doing things against her free will paraphrased.

    Two years ago you took up the debate over Hijab describing women who don't wear hijab as immoral and victim of western Fashion industry, why reduce women to a peice of steak out there as exhibitionist, I am afraid your cumulative arguments have not impressed me.

    I have given you in quotes your endorsement of negative views of the Jewish people, and you are still playing a victim to a larger audience who are not privy of your endorsement of the views in smaller group, so cut through the chase.

    Now let me say I am not impressed with your argument like I don't mean what I say, but mean what I say "I am not a terrorist but I respect the Taliban" as in the use of the word to the effect in your use of the word Agakhani pure intellectual dishonesty.

    Now to the dozen booklets or articles you have written can you provide a Link to Amazon or major western bookstore where it can be found and rankings and any specific book of yours that condemns violent Jihad of Taliban and of Maudoodi utopia of uni world.

    Also this is 4th and final reminder can you provide text of your speeches but more important the comments of others in how they perceived your views. I am very much and sincerely interested.

    I think it would be best if we stick to substance and not shed tears over what has already been said without boring other readers. So far you have not answered any of my questions, like what you consider is the failure in Muslim conduct besides your favourite it is the fault of the West, What is that in the Quran and the message of the Prophet that Muslims can not relate to other than that what is limited in their nature that some are born naturally good and some are born naturally in that case nature and not west who is to blame. Believe me you are the type I prefer to debate but never agree nothing personal even if it hinders my search of the overself. Please respond only if you have anything meaningful to add, at this point the dailogue has become a broken tune.

    Javed let me make very clear to you, any attempt to distinguish between Islam accepts Pluralism and Islam does not advocates Pluralism becomes an oxymoron It is the balance that has to be found between deen and duniya profoundly advocated.

    This will be my final comments


  8. Aziz

    This is also going to be my last response to you, because instead of discussing what I wrote you are just busy in assassinating me. That won’t work, Aziz. Insha Allah. And I will redouble my efforts against evils particularly the forces that normalize, glorify and commercialize these evils. I have great respect for all faiths and all people but that doesn’t mean I will include “Christians, Jew, etc in the bracket of “Muslims” and “momins”, (Even Christiand and Jewswould never like to be called Muslimsor Momins) nor that I will promoter interfaith marriages.

    To me the greatest oppression of women has taken place in the modern world where she has been reduced to a sex object who can be used for commercial purposes, whose body is for all to see, whose services are available to all, who is forced by the circumstances to abort again and again, to live in and as single parent families, is raped and sexually molested, is lured to market away from the family, and what not. You are free to campaign or the marriages of Muslim women with Jews and others, the rights of women not to wear Hijab, the rights of men and women to have free relationships, etc. You are echoing the strategy of the enemies of Islam to ask Muslims to first look into their own faults. I would ask West to first look into its decades long history of murders of people all over the world, which is more than 16 million in number, and then trying hard to hide the deaths caused by its” freedom of choice” leading to the death of more than 100 million people in last 50 years on account of AIDS, alcohol, smoking, gambling, and the death of more than 1 billion children by way of abortions, caused by their “free choices”.
    I have nothing more to add Aziz. For you your ideology and your ways, for me mine! May Allah reward you for whatever good you do for society!

    And I am no Obama or Mandela the reactions to whose speeches would be available on Net. I am a small and humble man doing my work within the limits of lhumble resources I have.

    Javed Jamil

  9. Mr Javads logic on plularism to me is upside down. Pluralistic values begin by giving and not by taking. Compassion, charity, giving , humility, respect for other are core values of Islam.

    For a person to understand pluralarism and pluralistic values, a person has to have deep respect for an individual , he has to be ethically literate,a person who sees the world through the lens of ethics., a person who can atriculate his moral reasoning clearly. It is difficult to understand pluralism if your
    ethical values about humanity are shakey and have a twisted view of what humanity is all about.. I will make an attempt to to explain how
    I have come to understand pluralism from the speeches of His Highness the Aga Khan.

    Aga Khan in a recent speech in Canada quoted from The Holly Quran "O mankind! Be careful of your duty to the Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women" and Aga Khan went on to say and I quote "what a unique and profound statement about Oneness of humanity.

    Deep ethical and moral understanding of this beautiful verse of Holy Quran lies the seeds of the beginings of understanding what Pluralism is all about.

    The Aga Khan went on to say " The centrality of pluralism as a way of thinking in a world that is becoming more diversified and more interactive. Pluralism means not only accepting,
    but embracing human differences. It sees the world's variety as a blessing rather than as aburden, regarding the encounter with the " OTHER " as an opportunity rather than a threat.
    Pluralism does not mean HOMOGENIZATION- denying what is different to seek superficial accommodation. To the contrary, pluralism respects the role of an individual in building a richer world."
    and hee went on to say:
    "Pluralism means reconciling what is unique in our individual tradition with a profound sense of what connects us to all of humankind. A pluralistic attitude is not something with which
    people are born. Instinctive fear of what is different is perhaps a more common trait. But such fear is a condition which can be transcended - and that is why teaching about pluralism is such an important objective at all educational level"

  10. Above comments was also by Nizar Jinha

    Aga Khan went on to say "In the final analysis, no nation, no race, no individual has amonopoly of intellegence or virtue. If we are to pursue the ideal of merotocracy in human endeavour,
    than its most perfect form will grow out of a respect for human pluralism, so that we can harness the very best contribution from whomever they come from" end of quote.

    We only need to look at our very recent history of the result of not accepting pluralism. Look at the countless hundred of thousands of humans that have parished in Pakistan, Afghanistan,
    Darfur, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Congo and even in Iraq and very recently in Sri Lanka for not embrace the difference in the otherness. Not acceptance of a pluralistic values,
    look at how brothers are killing brothers among Shias and Sunnis and yet Islam is a brotherhood..

    Any muslim who works against the idea of Pluralism beware of your duty to Your Lord. And if what you see in Pakistan, Ruwanda, Sri Lanka does not make one shudder than may God help you.
    After all what is the use if you can not see a future safe, stable environment in which our children can flurish. It is the responsibility of any intellectualy honest, ethical person to support the notion of pluralism.

    Perhaps there is another way to understand pluralism. If you look at a beautiful garden in which there are many different kinds of flowers, different colours and shapes of flowers,
    with different fragrances and one looks at it and one sees a beautiful garden. In this garden one flower does not tell the other that I am better than you. They are all beautiful in their own way and combined together they create a beautiful garden. and so it is with humanity.

    Nizar Jinha

  11. Salaams Mike.

    Once again Mike I find myself in agreement with Javid, the following is what I say too :

    That Islam and not Muslimism should be the guiding principle, and Muslimism can be as bad as any other form of communalism;

    I believe that, in todays understanding the word Muslim (Musulaman in sub-continent) does not mean the same as the Quranic word ˜Muslim, meaning ‘Momin’. It has taken the connotation of “the Muslim people”, within themselves being different let alone from Christians, Jews etc and belonging to various divisions and sects. What is more they are not even compatible with each other in their religion.

    If Muslim meant what Quran implies, then as in 42-13 etc it would be compulsory to follow the edict-“you should remain steadfast in Deen (not religion) and make no divisions (Religions) therein.

    The juxtaposition of the word Islam and Muslim, for example as in, ‘Islamic country’ and ‘Muslim majority country’ is a common occurrence. We should all acknowledge that there is no such country in the world today (including the five Islamic Republics) that is Islamic, yet there are about fifty two majority Muslim countries, for none of them have a slightest commonality with Islam (ad-Deen ul Islam).

    Hence you are right Dr Javid and I agree with you.


  12. Salam,

    Aziz! Quran is not divided into spiritual and political. It is your own one point agenda that divides the word of Allah, albeit, I hope unknowlingly. Quran is very clear when it condemns those who believe in a part of the book and reject other. Islam is a Deen, no less no more. Inside Masjid we obey His commands, outside the Masjid there is another Masjid where His command is to be obeyed in absolute. There, in this external Masjid, we stand when His Desire is for us to stand, we bow when it is the bowing that expresses complete submission and when He demands prostration then we fall without batting an eyelid to fullful His command.

    Thus, Aziz, whosoever pursues only one aspect of His Names (Qualities) about him the Prophet is told to ignore them- don't even bother about them, "and leave the company of those who pursue only one aspect among His Names. They will be requited for what they used to do"(Al-Araf:180).

    Islam is middle path because it doesn't talks peace when war is the necessity and doesn't allows war when peace is paramount. However, ultimate objective is establishing justice. If peace gives justice fine, else be prepared for war.

    Mike, some articles become too long as they quote quranic ayah. I think we must allow readers to do some hard work. Ask contributors to just refer the Ayah, this makes article short and sweet!


    Khalid Faridi

  13. Khalid,

    Let me do this.. some thing I don't like, but will do it to make it work.

    That is copy the comments - and cut off anything after 250 looks bad, at least people will read it.

    Fair enough?

  14. 1. Interfaith is about exploring common issues from each religious point of view.
    2. Pluralism is about exploring co-existence among theists and atheist.

    Excellent definitions, thanks! M.

  15. If you are interested in some new ideas on religious pluralism and the Trinity, please check out my website at It previews my book, which has not been published yet and is still a “work-in-progress.” Your constructive criticism would be very much appreciated.

    My thesis is that an abstract version of the Trinity could be Christianity’s answer to the world need for a framework of pluralistic theology.

    In a constructive worldview: east, west, and far-east religions present a threefold understanding of One God manifest primarily in Muslim and Hebrew intuition of the Deity Absolute, Christian and Krishnan Hindu conception of the Universe Absolute Supreme Being; and Shaivite Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist apprehension of the Destroyer (meaning also Consummator), Unconditioned Absolute, or Spirit of All That Is and is not. Together with their variations and combinations in other major religions, these religious ideas reflect and express our collective understanding of God, in an expanded concept of the Holy Trinity.

    The Trinity Absolute is portrayed in the logic of world religions, as follows:

    1. Muslims and Jews may be said to worship only the first person of the Trinity, i.e. the existential Deity Absolute Creator, known as Allah or Yhwh, Abba or Father (as Jesus called him), Brahma, and other names; represented by Gabriel (Executive Archangel), Muhammad and Moses (mighty messenger prophets), and others.

    2. Christians and Krishnan Hindus may be said to worship the first person through a second person, i.e. the experiential Universe or "Universal” Absolute Supreme Being (Allsoul or Supersoul), called Son/Christ or Vishnu/Krishna; represented by Michael (Supreme Archangel), Jesus (teacher and savior of souls), and others. The Allsoul is that gestalt of personal human consciousness, which we expect will be the "body of Christ" (Mahdi, Messiah, Kalki or Maitreya) in the second coming – personified in history by Muhammad, Jesus Christ, Buddha (9th incarnation of Vishnu), and others.

    3. Shaivite Hindus, Buddhists, and Confucian-Taoists seem to venerate the synthesis of the first and second persons in a third person or appearance, ie. the Destiny Consummator of ultimate reality – unqualified Nirvana consciousness – associative Tao of All That Is – the absonite* Unconditioned Absolute Spirit “Synthesis of Source and Synthesis,”** who/which is logically expected to be Allah/Abba/Brahma glorified in and by union with the Supreme Being – represented in religions by Gabriel, Michael, and other Archangels, Mahadevas, Spiritpersons, etc., who may be included within the mysterious Holy Ghost.

    Other strains of religion seem to be psychological variations on the third person, or possibly combinations and permutations of the members of the Trinity – all just different personality perspectives on the Same God. Taken together, the world’s major religions give us at least two insights into the first person of this thrice-personal One God, two perceptions of the second person, and at least three glimpses of the third.

    * The ever-mysterious Holy Ghost or Unconditioned Spirit is neither absolutely infinite, nor absolutely finite, but absonite; meaning neither existential nor experiential, but their ultimate consummation; neither fully ideal nor totally real, but a middle path and grand synthesis of the superconscious and the conscious, in consciousness of the unconscious.

    ** This conception is so strong because somewhat as the Absonite Spirit is a synthesis of the spirit of the Absolute and the spirit of the Supreme, so it would seem that the evolving Supreme Being may himself also be a synthesis or “gestalt” of humanity with itself, in an Almighty Universe Allperson or Supersoul. Thus ultimately, the Absonite is their Unconditioned Absolute Coordinate Identity – the Spirit Synthesis of Source and Synthesis – the metaphysical Destiny Consummator of All That Is.

    For more details, please see:

    Samuel Stuart Maynes



Email to:

Voice of Moderate Muslims

Voice of Moderate Muslims
Voice of Moderate Muslims

Moderate Islam Speaker

Moderate Islam Speaker
Moderate Islam Speaker

quraan burning

Planned Muslim Response to Qur'an Burning by Pastor Jones on September 11 in Mulberry, Florida

August 19, 2013| Dallas, Texas

Mike Ghouse
Text/Talk: (214) 325-1916

Mirza A Beg
(205) 454-8797


We as Muslims plan to respond to pastor Terry Jones' planned burning of 3000 copies of Quran on September 11, 2013 in positive terms.

Our response - we will reclaim the standard of behavior practiced by the Prophet concerning “scurrilous and hostile criticism of the Qur’an” (Muhammad Asad Translation Note 31, verse 41:34). It was "To overcome evil with good is good, and to resist evil by evil is evil." It is also strongly enjoined in the Qur’an in the same verse 41:34, “Good and evil deeds are not equal. Repel evil with what is better; then you will see that one who was once your enemy has become your dearest friend.”

God willing Muslims will follow the divine guidance and pray for the restoration of Goodwill, and on that day many Muslim organizations will go on a “blood drive” to save lives and serve humanity with kindness.

We invite fellow Americans of all faiths, races, and ethnicities to join us to rededicate the pledge, “One nation under God”, and to build a cohesive America where no American has to live in apprehension, discomfort or fear of fellow Americans. This event is a substitute for our 10th Annual Unity Day Celebration ( held in Dallas, but now it will be at Mulberry, Florida.

Unwittingly Pastor Jones has done us a favor by invigorating us by his decision to burn nearly 3000 copies Quran on September 11, 2013. Obviously he is not satisfied by the notoriety he garnered by burning one Qur'an last year.

As Muslims and citizens we honor the free speech guaranteed in our constitution. We have no intentions to criticize, condemn or oppose Pastor Terry Jones' freedom of expression. Instead, we will be donating blood and praying for goodness to permeate in our society.

We plan to follow Jesus Christ (pbuh), a revered prophet in Islam as well as Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) – that of mitigating the conflicts and nurturing good will for the common good of the society.

We hope, this event and the message will remind Muslims elsewhere in the world as well, that violence is not the way. Muslims, who react violently to senseless provocation, should realize that, violence causes more violence, and besmirches the name of the religion that we hold so dear. We believe that Prophet Muhammad was a mercy to the mankind, and we ought to practice what we believe and preach. We must not insult Islam by the negative reactions of a few.

We can only hope it will bring about a change in the attitude of the followers of Pastor Jones, and in the behavior of those Muslims who reacted violently the last time Pastor sought notoriety – We hope this small step towards a bridge to peaceful coexistence would propel us towards building a cohesive society.

Like most Americans a majority of Muslims quietly go about their own business, but it is time to speak up and take positive action instead of negative reaction. May this message of peace and goodwill reverberate and reach many shores.

Lastly, we appreciate the Citizens of Mulberry, Florida, Honorable Mayor George Hatch, City Commissioners, police and Fire Chiefs for handing this situation very well. This will add a ‘feather of peace’ in the City’s reputation. We hope Mulberry will be a catalyst in showing the way in handling conflict with dignity and peace.

We thank the Media for giving value to the work towards peace rather than conflict.


Thank you.


The people in Dallas are making an effort to understand and clean their own hearts first, when we are free from bias, it would be easy to share that with others. Islam teaches us in so many ways to "respect the otherness of others" and it is time we find simple practical ways of doing it.