Towards a kind and just society

Towards a kind and just society

God wills for humanity to strive for a balance; social, spiritual, biological, physical, moral and environmental. When this elusive equilibrium is achieved, where no one is afraid of the other, oppression becomes a story, exploitation fades away, and goodwill becomes the norm of the society. Religion has achieved its goal; indeed, God is all about peace and equilibrium – Mike Ghouse

Continued: http://wisdomofreligion.blogspot.com/2009/10/towards-kind-and-just-society.html

Pluralism in Islam

Response to Message #38033
Question to Mike Ghouse about Shirk

1. Your pluralism says that a Muslim girl can marry Jew man. (My intention is not to discuss fallacy of this belief. This is only to prove that you promote pluralism as a law)

Please enlighten me through Qur’aan if this is prohibited. Qur’aan is a binary book, every thing that is asked of a man is asked of a woman. If a Muslim man can marry a non-Muslim woman and don’t even have to convert her, the other way around needs to be considered. It is a matter of faith and it is between her and him. We cannot regulate it, if we do that, we have to take the responsibility. On the Day of Judgment, no one but her is responsible for her actions. The good and bad she did to others, the Huqooqul Ibad. Only Allah knows and can judge her about her Deen (faith).

2. Your pluralism allow to you create positive impression about Zionism as though it is trivial personal differences

You have to be specific and give me a quote of my words. You said or I said is only good if it is backed up by the actual referential quote.

Extremism in Zionism is hated by moderate Jews. Zionism in itself is questioned by the Jews, the moderate Zionists think of it as a desire to return to their land per their scriptures without doing injustice to the Palestinians, the extremist Zionists on the other hand have no moral compass when it comes to the life of Palestinians, even though their scriptures, like the Islamic scriptures clearly say, saving one life is like saving the whole humanity. Extremism in every group goes against the very grain of the faith they boast to espouse. It is not about faith, it is their animalist insecurity that makes them do wrong things. Just as some extremist Muslims, Christians or Hindus do it.

Extereme Zionism, like the Taliban or Wahabbi ideolgies, is an ideology of exclusion, which is antithesis of Pluralism. I will be happy to retract any statement I have made in error.

3. Your pluralism endorses greatest sin in the site of Allah (Shirk)

How? Are you assuming it? Prove to me where I have said that.
In a response to Khalid I have given a detailed response. Shirk can be committed only by a Muslim, for he subscribes to the idea of one God. For the polytheist shirk does not apply as he is not a monotheist.

4. Your pluralism make you to support those who want to take icons of “their religion” to a place of worship of other religion who do not endorse such icon.

Either you did not understand or misrepresenting my statements. Neither the Hindu couple nor the Catholic priests expected anything out of the ordinary for each other. The priest’s frame of reference called schema was that the couple is getting married and perhaps he had no idea what is involved in it. To the Hindu couple it was a normal common thing to have the Ganesh Icon to commence any ceremony. It is their Bismillah, requesting God to remove obstacles for them. This is a common misunderstand that happens in a daily life. My outrage was for the church members to be judgmental, and fire him.

As a Muslim, our role is to mitigate conflicts and nurture goodwill. That was the first model of peace the prophet gave – when Aswad fell off the wall, he was asked to resolve the conflict. He could have placed it himself but he brought the competing tribes and had them participate in placing the Aswad, it removed the conflict among them and nurtured the goodwill of doing it together.

5. Your pluralism makes you to promote a Hindu deity among Muslims whose history of existence is established neither by history nor by faith of the audience.

Please quote me where I said that and secondly, please clarify what the question. We have to be honest, in your rush to malign another Muslim who differs from you; you have made several statements without back up.

6. Your pluralism makes you to get blessing from a book which clearly mentions that a human walking on earth is Lord of heaven. Mind you, we do not read holy book on dead for seeking wisdom but to get blessings only.

Please quote me where I said that. There is no room for assumption here.

7. You can make 100 copy-past claiming pluralism is nothing but attitude. But, your pluralism is much more than attitude. The above facts give clear indication that your pluralism interfere in religious law, political systems, theology etc.

Please be specific how an attitude of respecting the otherness of other interferes with the religious laws or the political system or even theology.

8. Moreover, we do not develop random attitudes. Attitudes are merely manifestation of principles, values and ideology of our life. You cannot just get away by saying that pluralism is attitude.

You asked me my opinion, and were specific, your words, ‘Our whole discussion is about your version of Pluralism’ and here it is.”

9. If you read your previous mails, you have given ideological framework to justify your version of pluralism. This framework even proposes your own version of theology. Have read this comment and tell me whether this is attitude or theology.

To be a Muslim is to be a peace maker, one who constantly seeks to mitigate conflicts and nurtures goodwill for peaceful co-existence of humanity. God wants us to live in peace and harmony with his creation; Life and Matter.

It is obvious that it is my statement as it does not reference any verse of Qur’aan. It is based on the essence of Islam, which is creation of peace on earth achieved through removing conflicts and nurturing goodwill. I would like to know if this is not Islam.

10. You are redefining not even the word Muslim; rather even propose a new purpose of creation of God. In my previous mail I have given the verse to prove that your theology is in exact contradiction with Qur’aan and for some strange reason you chose to ignore the given verse.

Please present the verse.

11. Earlier too I have given a verse from Qur’aan to disprove your version of pluralism that you chose to ignore. I am giving reference of same verse again.

60:4 There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: "We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah. We have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever, - unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone": But not when Abraham said to his father: "I will pray for forgiveness for thee, though I have no power (to get) aught on thy behalf from Allah." (They prayed): "Our Lord! In Thee do we trust, and to Thee do we turn in repentance: to Thee is (our) Final Goal.

And tell me how your pluralism does not contradict with “excellent pattern” of Ibraheem AS


Thanks for quoting this verse 60:4, from the given translation it appears to be in conflict with Pluralism, and it is our duty to explore and find more about it. Please review these verses – there is no statement of enmity or hatred in these verses.

109:1 (Asad) SAY: "O you who deny the truth!
109:2 (Asad) "I do not worship that which you worship,
109:3 (Asad) and neither do you worship that which I worship!
109:4 (Asad) "And I will not worship ~hat which you have [ever] worshipped,
109:5 (Asad) and neither will you [ever] worship that which I worship.
109:6 (Asad) Unto you, your moral law, and unto me, mine!"

We need to understand both 60:4 and 109:1-6, please share what you have and I will look into it and check with my Imam.

12. There is another mail from you to prove pluralism from Qur’aan. Some of these verses may prove a specific version of pluralism. I can create another list to disprove the specific version of pluralism. But this wills be argument for the sake of argument. Our discussion is about your pluralism that comes with a specific ideological background creates an attitude and bulldozes the whole Islamic legacy.

Accepting the otherness of other is not in conflict with Islam” Prophet Muhammad accepted Jews, Christians and others as another faith, and had them sign the Madinah pact with them and he also removed Muhammadur Rasool Allah from his signature as the others objected to it saying you may be a Rasool to your followers but not to us.

I will be repeating much of what has been said before. He has asked the visiting Abyssinians Christians to pray in his mosque – he was accepting that their way of worship is different than ours and the prophet did not pass the judgment on them.”

13. In this mail you have only tried to refute my claim that you preach a separate doctrine. I reiterate that attitude of pluralism is only a part of your preaching. You in fact preach a complete ideology which contradicts Qur’aan.

That is your understanding, Pluralism is part of Islam, admit, it has not been explored or we may not be familiar with the work in this area, we should always be open to reviewing other works, without having to subscribe to it.

14. I am pasting my previous mail for your reference if you are missing anything.

Separation of falsehood from truth is very objective of Islam. Truth cannot exist by mixing truth with falsehood. You may like Mike's version of pluralism, but do not dilute Islam. You can present your doctrine as completely different religion considering mike as founder of it. In Islam our Kalama start with LA (No) negating and refuting shirk is foundation of Islam. Here negation comes even before affirming God.

Negation of shirk applies to Muslims who subscribe to the idea to begin with, and is required of them to take the Shahada as a reaffirmation of faith, as you and I have done. Polytheists have other belief system. However 60:4 needs to be reviewed.

15. You seem to promote a religion in which pluralism is most basic principle for which all Islamic values can be sacrificed. So far Mike has given only one proof from Qur’aan which is actually against racism and has nothing to do with kind of pluralism he is trying to promote.

Islam is a religion for the Aalameen, not for you and I alone but for the whole universe and we have to see how it is. Every one is welcome to explore and figure out how we can create a better world for every one. What is good for Muslims has got be good for others and vice versa to be sustainable.

16. Muslims have lived peacefully with non-Muslims all over the history except with those who were hostile to Muslims. But, need to live peacefully with non-Muslims never made them to give up their claim that Islam is the only true path.

This is good news and we need to work to maintain it.

17. So far, I am still struggling to figure out Mike's version of pluralism in Qur’aan and the closest thing that I found in Qur’aan is this.

68:7 Verily it is thy Lord that knoweth best, which (among men) hath strayed from His Path: and He knoweth best those who receive (true) Guidance.

68:8 So hearken not to those who deny (the Truth).

68:9 Their desire is that thou shouldst be pliant: so would they be pliant.

Thanks for these verses, and I have already quoted a host of verses in the previous email.

18. He goes to the extent that he claims that the reason of creation is pluralism!!! While Qur’aan clearly says things that is in exact contradiction.

Please quote me the text.

19. The Objective of creation is to instigate the clash between truth and falsehood.

21:16 Not for (idle) sport did We create the heavens and the earth and all that is between!

21:17 If it had been Our wish to take (just) a pastime, We should surely have taken it from the things nearest to Us, if We would do (such a thing)!

21:18 Nay, We hurl the Truth against falsehood, and it knocks out its brain, and behold, falsehood doth perish! Ah! woe be to you for the (false) things ye ascribe (to Us).

Thanks for sharing these beautiful verses, they are not in contradiction of the phrase that Allah is the Lord of the Aalameen.

20. Mind you, I am not asking you muslims to instigate this clash. My intention is only to provide a doctrinal basis to understand the purpose of creation. Now, what role we can and have to play in this clash is completely different topic.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, we have a lot more to understand, learn and exchange. Pluralism is an attitude of accepting the otherness of other and not a religion, ideology or a philosophy. As a Muslim I believe God wants us to live in peace with others and the environment.

Jazak Allah Khair

Mike Ghouse

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message #38033 - Re: Re: Question to Mike Ghouse about Shirk
Sat Oct 3, 2009 8:08 am

AbdusSalam Khalifa

Mike,

We are not discussing about the word pluralism here. Our whole discussion is about your version of Pluralism.

You are promoting your pluralism in the form of events and your reaction and comments to those events. If you go through your previous mails you can easily see that you are promoting pluralism as a belief system and a separate law.

If you can’t recall, let me remind you few things.

1. Your pluralism says that a Muslim girl can marry Jew man. (My intention is not to discuss fallacy of this belief. This is only to prove that you promote pluralism as a law)

2. Your pluralism allow to you create positive impression about Zionism as though it is trivial personal differences

3. Your pluralism endorses greatest sin in the site of Allah (Shirk)

4. Your pluralism make you to support those who want to take icons of “their religion” to a place of worship of other religion who do not endorse such icon.

5. Your pluralism makes you to promote a Hindu deity among Muslims whose history of existence is established neither by history nor by faith of the audience.

6. Your pluralism makes you to get blessing from a book which clearly mentions that a human walking on earth is Lord of heaven. Mind you, we do not read holy book on dead for seeking wisdom but to get blessings only.

You can make 100 copy-past claiming pluralism is nothing but attitude. But, your pluralism is much more than attitude. The above facts give clear indication that your pluralism interfere in religious law, political systems, theology etc.

Moreover, we do not develop random attitudes. Attitudes are merely manifestation of principles, values and ideology of our life. You cannot just get away by saying that pluralism is attitude.

If you read your previous mails, you have given ideological framework to justify your version of pluralism. This framework even proposes your own version of theology. Have read this comment and tell me whether this is attitude or theology.

To be a Muslim is to be a peace maker, one who constantly seeks to mitigate conflicts and nurtures goodwill for peaceful co-existence of humanity. God wants us to live in peace and harmony with his creation; Life and Matter.

You are redefining not even the word Muslim; rather even propose a new purpose of creation of God. In my previous mail I have given the verse to prove that your theology is in exact contradiction with Quran and for some strange reason you chose to ignore the given verse.

Earlier too I have given a verse from Quran to disprove your version of pluralism that you chose to ignore. I am giving reference of same verse again.

60:4 There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: "We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah. we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever,- unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone": But not when Abraham said to his father: "I will pray for forgiveness for thee, though I have no power (to get) aught on thy behalf from Allah." (They prayed): "Our Lord! in Thee do we trust, and to Thee do we turn in repentance: to Thee is (our) Final Goal.

And tell me how your pluralism does not contradict with “excellent pattern” of Ibraheem AS

There is another mail from you to prove pluralism from Quran. Some of these verses may prove a specific version of pluralism. I can create another list to disprove the specific version of pluralism. But this wills be argument for the sake of argument. Our discussion is about your pluralism that comes with a specific ideological background creates an attitude and bulldozes the whole Islamic legacy.

In this mail you have only tried to refute my claim that you preach a separate doctrine. I reiterate that attitude of pluralism is only a part of your preaching. You in fact preach a complete ideology which contradicts Quran.

I am pasting my previous mail for your reference if you are missing anything.

Separation of falsehood from truth is very objective of Islam. Truth cannot exists by mixing truth with falsehood. You may like Mike's version of pluralism, but do not dilute Islam. You can present your doctrine as completely different religion considering mike as founder of it. In Islam our Kalima start with LA (No) negating and refuting shirk is foundation of Islam. Here negation comes even before affirming God.

You seem to promote a religion in which pluralism is most basic principle for which all Islamic values can be sacrificed. So far Mike has given only one proof from Quran which is actually against racism and has nothing to do with kind of pluralism he is trying to promote.

Muslims have lived peacefully with non-Muslims all over the history except with those who were hostile to muslims. But, need to live peacefully with non-muslims never made them to give up their claim that Islam is the only true path.

So far, I am still struggling to figure out Mike's version of pluralism in Quran and the closest thing that I found in Quran is this.

68:7 Verily it is thy Lord that knoweth best, which (among men) hath strayed from His Path: and He knoweth best those who receive (true) Guidance.

68:8 So hearken not to those who deny (the Truth).

68:9 Their desire is that thou shouldst be pliant: so would they be pliant.

He goes to the extent that he claim that the reason of creation is pluralism!!! while Quran clearly says things that is in exact contradiction.

The Objective of creation is to instigate the clash between truth and falsehood.

21:16 Not for (idle) sport did We create the heavens and the earth and all that is between!

21:17 If it had been Our wish to take (just) a pastime, We should surely have taken it from the things nearest to Us, if We would do (such a thing)!

21:18 Nay, We hurl the Truth against falsehood, and it knocks out its brain, and behold, falsehood doth perish! Ah! woe be to you for the (false) things ye ascribe (to Us).

Mind you, I am not asking you muslims to instigate this clash. My intention is only to provide a doctrinal basis to understand the purpose of creation. Now, what role we can and have to play in this clash is completely different topic.

#

Prophet Muhammad, a Pluralist and an interfaith dialoguer

.
Prophet Muhammad, a Pluralist and an interfaith dialoguer

Prophet Muhammad is perhaps the first religious person to initiate interfaith dialogue, he not only invited people of other faiths to dialogue, but he also offered them to pray, their own prayers in his mosque. Didn't Prophet Muhammad accept the otherness of other faiths? He sure did! He did not believe what others believed but he certainly did not denigrate any one of them. That is the confidence we must develop in our faith, whatever faith we follow.

Prophet Muhammad was not only a Pluralist religiously, but he believed in co-existence and living in harmony with life and environment. He initiated the pluralistic form of governance, again perhaps first of its kind where he invited the Jews, Christian and others to sign along with him an agreement called “Madinah pact”. The pact honored signatories to practice their faith the way they deem it fit. There was an instance where the people of other faiths objected to his signature which added the phrase messenger of God to his name; he revised it as he was not a messenger to them.

Prophet Muhammad would have invited Darwin, were Darwin lived in his time to have a dialogue. Perhaps he would have seen the value in creation through evolution. Muhammad (pbuh) knew God's wisdom is boundless and not containable in words that we read in the holy books, he would have meditated to understand the enormity of God's words instead of confining the meaning to the words.

I am blessed to have taken the initiative on Pluralism that began with my Radio show in 1994, in the 700+ hours of talk radio on Wisdom of Religion I did between 2004 and 2005, we learned the essence of every faith (or no faith) from Atheism to Zoroastrianism and every tradition in between. What is the wisdom? God wants his creation to live in harmony; each one of the religions is a formula to live in peace and balance with self and with others who surround. Those faiths that are life centered like Buddhism, Jainism, Atheism, Wicca and the African, American and other native traditions believe in living a life of balance; self balancing act is built into every piece of existence that struggles to keep the equilibrium through pleasures and pain. All faiths are either God centered or life centered and serve the same purpose; to bring peace and tranquility to one.

HH Aga Khan has made great strides in bringing back the tradition of Prophet Muhammad and has opened a Pluralism Center in Toronto. An overwhelming majority of the Muslims are in tune with the idea of co-existence, they want to get along and live a peaceful life with their families and friends.

Dallasites got to hear for the first time about Ismaili Muslims on my talk show radio, when I spoke about Ismaili traditions on the Imamat day. My Mentors are Muhammad (pbuh), Jesus, Krishna, Bahaullah, Nanak, Gandhi, MLK and Aga Khan among others. Obama is very close to becoming my mentor. Every thing I write gets articulated by him within a week. He is a shining example of Pluralism, a person who truly follows Jesus who embraced every human as fellow being without any distinction; he submits to the will of God as in Islam where God does not discriminate one soul from the other, or surrenders to Krishna and treats the whole world as one family. I am inspired by the models of co-existence they have created for us to emulate.

Personally I am committed to dust off layers of ignorance on the Islamic values of co-existence; aka Pluralism. God wants his creation to live in harmony and you find beautiful guidance in Qur'aan to create that abode. God willing I will do my share of work and you do yours. We are all in it together to create the world we would love to live.

A few among us are still clamoring to see Islam's value of Pluralism and about 1/10th of 1% of Muslims are far from getting it. In my reach out of about 24,000 Muslims across the world, my formula approximates about 240 individuals to be abhorrent to this idea... again thank God, you will find less than 24 people among the 24,000 who are obdurate to the idea, i.e., about 1/100th of 1% of Muslims. Are they significant statistically? You will find similar ratios in every faith group. A majority of all of us are good people.

A list of the Blogs on Islam and Pluralism are on my personal site www.MikeGhouse.net, if you wish to read about them. Please read the Qur’aanic model for a civil dialogue at item # 21 at http://quraan-today.blogspot.com/2008/08/all-articles-listed.html

Pluralism is not a religion, it is not an ideology, it is simply an attitude of accepting the otherness of other and respecting the God (or creation) given uniqueness of each one of us. I believe if we can learn to do that, then conflicts fade and solutions emerge. The conflict is real when some one were to mess with your space, food and loved ones, all other conflicts are imaginary as they can be resolved through a dialogue.

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.

Mike Ghouse is a thinker, writer speaker and an activist of pluralism, interfaith, co-existence, peace, Islam and India. He is a frequent guest at the TV, radio and print media offering pluralistic solutions to issues of the day. His websites and Blogs are listed on http://www.mikeghouse.net/
#

Apostasy and Islam

Apostasy and Islam

Three items below.

1. Dr. Abdullahi Al Naim is considered one of the 50 Muslims who are looking to removing layers of non-Islamic values that have creeped in to Islam.

2. Dr. Mohammad Farooq has created a website http://www.apostasyandislam.com/ bringing together historical incidents and endorsements from 100 Islamic Scholars, he and I were going further to get endorsements from 100 Imams around the globe. Insha Allah, we need volunteers to do the work.

3. A few verses from Qur’aan on the subject.

Islam is about freedom; freedom from clergy and freedom from fatwa noose hanging around our necks every time some one sneezes. The Neocon Muslim are too insecure to accept and absorb the freedom Islam offers, instead they eagerly throw the noose and frighten you every time with Sharia rules; Islam is not about frightening, it is about creating a world of co-existence with justice resulting in peace. It is time we the moderate majority speak up.

Mike Ghouse

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

A bold Muslim voice

From harsh terrain
Aug 6th 2009
From The Economist print edition

We should love heretics, not kill them, says an unconventional scholar
ON THE face of things, Sudan is stony ground for Islamic reformers. It is a country where allegations of apostasy departing from Islam, or merely straying slightly from the received interpretation of the faith have often been deployed as a lethal weapon in political power struggles. In 1985 a leading opponent of the regime was hanged after a court declared him to be an apostate. In recent years Sudan’s best-known Islamist, Hassan al-Turabi, has been decried as an apostate by certain greybeards, simply because he dared to suggest that men and women were equal.

But that is not the whole story of Sudan and Islam. That country has also produced a passionate advocate of the view that you can be a faithful Muslim while also supporting the right of more than one reading of the faith to exist.
Abdullahi an-Naâim is now a law professor at Emory University in Georgia” and when he returns to his native Sudan, it is as an American passport-holder. That is just as well, given what he practises and preaches.

For theocrats, the professor says, heresy charges have always been an easy way out, a way to explain difficult problems. And, one might add, to eliminate difficult people. Last year, he co-organised a conference (in Atlanta, a city that calls itself too busy to hate) that was provocatively devoted to the Celebration of Heresy.

Dissident views are healthy for the religion, he insists. To keep the religion honest, it is very important that somebody should take the risk of being denounced as heretical.

And if anybody (in America, at least) applies the H-word to him, he does not mind: Only God can judge that so let me take my chances with God. In any case, he insists that his liberal reading of Islam is closer to the roots of the faith than the theocrats™ interpretations are.

In its core theology, he maintains, Islam is radically democratic; for example, it is an important principle that no earthly or religious authority can come between the believer and God. The problem is simply that sociologically, the world of Islam is conservative. He is trying to break that mould.

# # #

Qur’aan on Apostasy.

Unfortunately, it is a common belief that 'death' should be the punishment for apostasy. However, the Qur’aan mentions nothing of such punishment, so why should we impose such a cruel and inhumane form of punishment? Are we so insecure about our own religion that if anyone is to leave it we kill them?

17:33 (Asad) And do not take any human being's life -[the life] which God has willed to be, sacred-otherwise than in [the pursuit of] justice. [38] Hence, if anyone has been slain wrongfully, We have empowered the defender of his rights [to exact a just retribution] ; [39] but even so, let him not exceed the bounds of equity in [retributive] killing. [40] [And as for him who has been slain wrongfully -] behold, he is indeed succoured [by God] ! [41]

وَلاَ تَقْتُلُواْ النَّفْسَ الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللّهُ إِلاَّ بِالحَقِّ وَمَن قُتِلَ مَظْلُومًا فَقَدْ جَعَلْنَا لِوَلِيِّهِ سُلْطَانًا فَلاَ يُسْرِف فِّي الْقَتْلِ إِنَّهُ كَانَ مَنْصُور 17:33

Note 38 Le., in the execution of a legal sentence or in a just war (see 2:190 and the corresponding note 167), or in individual; legitimate self-defence.(Quran Ref: 17:33

Note 39 This refers to the legal punishment for homicide, termed qisas ("just retribution") and explained in 2:178 and the corresponding notes. In the present context, the term wall ("protector" or "defender of [one's] rights") is usually taken to mean the heir or next of kin of the victim; Zamakhshari, however, observes that it may also apply to the government (as-sultan): an interpretation which is obviously based on the concept of the government as the "protector" or "defender of the rights" of all its citizens. As regards the expression qutila mazluman ("slain wrongfully"), it is obvious that it refers only to cases of wilful homicide, since the concept of zulm applies in the Qur'an exclusively to intentional and never to accidental wrongdoing.(Quran Ref: 17:33 )

Note 40 Thus, the defender of the victim's rights (in this case, a court of justice) is not only not entitled to impose a capital sentence on any but the actual murderer or murderers, but may also, if the case warrants it, concede mitigating circumstances and refrain from capital punishment altogether.(Quran Ref: 17:33 )

Note 41 I.e., he is avenged in this world by the retribution exacted from his murderer, and in the life to come, blessed by the special grace which God bestows on all who have been slain without any legal or moral justification (Razi). Some of the commentators, however, relate the pronoun "he" to the defender of the victim's rights, respectively, to the latter's heir or next of kin, and explain the above phrase as meaning "he is sufficiently helped by the law of just retribution (qisas) and should not, therefore, demand any punishment in excess of what is equitable".(Quran Ref: 17:33 )

Killing someone because they left their religion (apostasy) is a cruel punishment that has no basis in Islam. Such a punishment is man-made;You shall not kill any person - for GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. If one is killed unjustly, then we give his heir authority to enforce justice. Thus, he shall not exceed the limits in avenging the murder, he will be helped. ·

6:115 (Asad) for, truly and justly has thy Sustainer's promise been fulfilled. There is no power that could alter [the fulfillment of] His promises: and He alone is all-hearing, all-knowing.

وَتَمَّتْ كَلِمَتُ رَبِّكَ صِدْقًا وَعَدْلاً لاَّ مُبَدِّلِ لِكَلِمَاتِهِ وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ (6:115)

· 109:6 (Asad) Unto you, your moral law, and unto me, mine !"
Simple translation: As your religion is dear to you, mine is to me.

لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ 109:6

Nowhere in the Qur’aan does God say to 'kill' those who leave their own religion. On the contrary, God emphasizes that all Muslims must practice the total freedom of religion
· 6:104 (Asad) Means of insight have now come unto you from your Sustainer [through this divine writ]. Whoever, therefore, chooses to see, does so for his own good; and whoever chooses to remain blind, does so to his own hurt. And [say unto the blind of heart]: "I am not your keeper."

قَدْ جَاءكُم بَصَآئِرُ مِن رَّبِّكُمْ فَمَنْ أَبْصَرَ فَلِنَفْسِهِ وَمَنْ عَمِيَ فَعَلَيْهَا وَمَا أَنَاْ عَلَيْكُم بِحَفِيظٍ 6:104
#

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
By: DR JAVED JAMIL

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

#

Indonesian Pluralism

Indonesian Pluralism and Politics Irfan Abubakar

6 August 2009 Muslims in Indonesia have long been accustomed to religious diversity. But such diversity is accepted merely as fact, not as a guiding principle. The future of pluralism in Indonesia is, unfortunately, still determined by political negotiations between religious and state elites, not by principles recognised by all religious followers. Consequently, religious tolerance in Indonesia stands on fragile ground.

As a country with more than 17,000 islands, its diversity is not only reflected in its natural resources, but also in the ethnicity, language and religion of its people. Before Buddhism, Islam, Christianity and other world religions arrived in the country, inhabitants 
had their own belief systems, which are still practiced in several tribal communities today.

To manage this diversity, Indonesia’s founding fathers in 1945 decided on a common platform: Pancasila, which comprises the five core principles of religiosity, humanity, unity, democracy and social justice. These principles govern public life. The significant role of religion in public life is recognised by the first principle, “belief in one supreme God”, but this principle does not uphold any particular religion, even Islam – the religion of the majority – as state ideology.

The Indonesian constitution (also written in 1945) ensures the freedom of every citizen to practice his or her faith. It declares that “the state guarantees all persons the freedom of worship, each according to his/her own religion or belief” (Article 29).

However, in practice, the state only guarantees the freedom of certain religions: Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Protestantism, Catholicism and, more recently, Confucianism. Other religions and local belief systems are not acknowledged as legitimate religions.

Even currently recognised faiths were not always so. A ban on Confucianism, which began in 1967, was only lifted in 2000. During President Suharto’s 1965-1998 New Order administration – which was dominated by the military and characterised by a weakened civil society – followers of Confucius, and those adhering to local religions, were asked to identify with one of the religions recognised by the government on their national identity card.

Since 2006, however, those who follow religions that are not officially recognised by the state are no longer obliged to list one of the state-recognised religions on their identity cards, though they are not yet allowed to list their own particular faith either.

Responding to this crisis, the government released a Joint Ministerial Decree from the Minister of Religious Affairs, the General Attorney and the Minister of Home Affairs, prohibiting Ahmadis from spreading their teachings in order to “maintain religious harmony and public order”.

Another example of the absence of clear policy is when the government refrained from taking a position on a fatwa, or legal opinion, issued by the Indonesian Ulema Council in 2005 prohibiting Muslims from “following ideas of pluralism, liberalism and secularism”. According to this edict, Muslims are not allowed to acknowledge the truth of other religions, use reasoning to understand the Qur’an or relegate religion to only private affairs, clearly contradicting the principles of diversity that shape the foundation of Indonesia as a state.

These examples show that the management of diversity in Indonesia, based on the interest of keeping social harmony, has sacrificed religious freedom and civil rights.

Currently, the parliament is discussing the possibility of revising the criminal code. This is an opportunity for civil society to advocate amending the article allowing for investigation and punishment of groups suspected of violating religious doctrines to protect every citizen from intimidation or 
violence when it comes to their religious freedom.

Genuine social harmony will not be realised by silencing diversity; it can only be attained when the rights of every citizen are upheld and every group is free from religious discrimination. For this to happen, the state must be impartial to religious doctrines.

Irfan Abubakar is a programme coordinator for conflict resolution and peace studies at the Center for the Study of Religion and Culture (CSRC) at Hidayatullah Islamic University (UIN) in Jakarta. This article is part of a series on pluralism in Muslim-majority countries written for the Common Ground News Service.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=/data/opinion/2009/August/opinion_August29.xml&section=opinion

Defining a few words in Islam

Discussing and defining a few words in Islam

A conversation with a few Muslims on the net – it is about 12 pages long followed by some 40 comments as continuance of the debate.

Thanks for sharing your frustrations, as a moderate Muslim I seek divergent opinions on any given subject at hand. One of the reasons we muslims are divisive is our inability to accept another point of view, while the majority of Muslims like all other majorities go on enjoying the God given life getting along with every one - a tiny minority of about 1% want to stick their understanding and their version of the religion onto others, it is the same story with all religions, cultures and systems. The Neocons (i.e. the stick in the muds among Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Jews .....), in every faith are passionate in what they do, and are loud enough to fool others to beleive that the whole Muslim world (or Christian) thinks like them.

We at WMC discussion forum practice the god given freedom in publishing all opinions from extreme conservative to ultra liberal. Every idea of yours has been published and you will not find this on most discussion forums. No single opinion is above the other, we are equal in God's presence. We are Moderate Muslims and are learning to stand up against the radical views and hope most of us will start speaking up.

If we don't agree, we must present the reasons for such disagreement and not attack the person.
Mike Ghouse

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

#####

From Iftekhar Hai

Dear All:

After studying closely arguments from all sides - I would like to add my observations:

In San Francisco and around its 50 miles radius - we have people from all over the world peacefully engaged in making a living.

The silicon valley of the world consist of people from every religion. They are exposed to each other intellectual and cultural differences. They range from religion to secularism.

Males and females of every religion are marrying each other in a civil union. Religious blessing is not coming to them from their respective families - BUT live goes on. Each person respecting the other's faith.

Muslim families are highly educated and do not view religion in a private setting - not to be enforced on the environment. American society is where you leave your religion at home. You have complete freedom to practise privately.

I am reminded of the ayat in the Quran that says: 109:6 "To you be your ways and to me mine."
Islam is din of Allah - Allah will resurrect it. Allah does not need anyone's help. Our family lives in the vicinity of San Francisco. We follow our religion to the utmost as we think fit and pray to the same God who has created people of other faiths and other cultures in millions. ALL SPIRITUAL PATHS ARE ENDING IN THE SAME DESTINATION.

ALLAH ALONE WITH TELL YOU THE TRUTH IN MATTERS IN WHICH WE DISPUTE. 5:48

ISLAM RECOGNISES DIVERSITY & PLURALISM

To you we have given the scriptures, just as we have given the scriptures to people before you (Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc). We have protected your scriptures (Quran) in its entirety. So judge among people from what knowledge has come to you (from Quran) and do not be carried over by your vain desires (that Muslims are the only righteous and chosen people to lead). To each among you (referring to diverse groups – not excluding anybody) We have prescribed the Law (teachings of the indigenous, native people and Buddhist scholars, Gitas, Vedas, Torah, Gospels and The Quran) and an Open Way (given a conscience with reference to the spiritualists people). If God had willed, all humanity would have been of one single community (this means diversity is part of God’s creation). God’s plan is to test you in what each one has received (in form of Holy Scriptures or Conscience). So strive, as in a race in all virtues. The goal of all the people is to God. God (alone) will tell you the truth in matters of which you dispute.” 5:48

(This means do not fight over religious matters, establish peace and conduct dialogues with wisdom and beautiful conduct to understand each other so all can live in peace)

Iftekhar Hai
UMA Interfaith Alliance
~~~~~~~ 0 ~~~~~~~

From: Iftekhar Hai
Subject: Reply to Zahid Jamil: What is Islam & Basic Fundamentals of Quran
Date: Saturday, August 1, 2009, 3:40 PM

Salams to All:

I would love to hear from any one of you on two points that Zahid Saheb has raised below:

1) What is the definition of the world Islam. Can Javid/Zahid Saheb or any one define Islam. This is what comes up in global interfaith discussions over and over again. Our answers are in attachment.

2) What are the fundamentals of Islamic ideology? This is what Br. Zahid Jamil has implied. Is pluralism and diversity not the fundamentals of Quranic teachings? Our answers are in attachment too.

Both the below attachments are shared all over USA, Europe and UK.

1) Islamic definitions and
2) Basic & Fundamentals of Quran

Iftekhar Hai
UMA Interfaith Alliance
~~~~~~~ 0 ~~~~~~~

Dear Iftekhar,

ASAK

Your definition of Islam is nothing but an attempt to deislamise islam, to deprive it the supremacy it has, owing to its being the Destination of God’s Guidance, over all other ideologies, and to make it compatible with the Western ideologies of economic fundamentalism, supremacy of Western ideology over others, the dominance of West in the world and the commercialization of human susceptibilities, which is one of the major sources of its economic power.

A few years back I had given a detailed reply to all your questions. Interfaith has unfortunately been reduced to an attempt to deprive all religions of their established principles and to develop a conglomeration of ideas befitting the demands of Westernism from religion, which wants religion to be chained into the boundaries of places of worship and human brains. Interfaith has made it look to the world that the root cause of all evils is in religion, or at least in the ways they are interpreted.

The truth on the contrary is that the threat to religion in general and Islam in particular comes not from the other religions but from the modern ideology of Economic fundamentalism, Westernism being its most visible face. Interfaith must realize this and not play into the hands of the forces of globalization, and must instead concentrate on fighting the economic fundamentalism and its most dangerous component, the commercialization of human weaknesses that hassled to the death of hundreds of millions of people, disintegration of family system, huge increase in crime rates and social chaos. Islam of course has the capability t0o lead this fight, and Muslims must seek the support of all other faiths in this task.

The world must know the dangers posed by alcohol, smoking, gambling, prostitution, pornography, homosexuality, promiscuity, lame legal system that fails to control crimes and the exploitative economic system that has created huge disparities.

Dr Javed Jamil
Chief Editor
Islam, Muslims & the World

~~~~~~~ 0 ~~~~~~~

In a message dated 8/2/2009 12:42:27 P.M. Central Daylight Time, iftekhar writes:

Dear Javed Saheb:

Let me ask you a few specific questions: We would appreciate if you could answer them objectively and not go off our focus of defining key words that are repeated over and over in the Quran. This can help all of us. If we agree to key definitions of these words then the interpretation of the Quran becomes more important in the light of these definitions. AGAIN - PLEASE DO NOT ATTACK OR MAKE "PERSONAL ATTACKS." This is only to explain our two sides in the best possible way so that global message of the Quran and its wisdom from the Hadith can be available for all to see.

1) Define Islam
2) Believer
3) Dhimmi
4) Kafir
5) Non-Believer

OUR DEFINITIONS HAVE RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM NUMEROUS SCHOLARS FROM INDIA AS WELL AS FROM USA.

Key Definitions: How do we define and explain key words is absolutely important to better understanding of The Quran in the light of Global Inter-religious peace movement that is going on. It creates a mind-set that can become very narrow and selective in creating antagonistic divisions or it can create a more accommodating and tolerant mind-set. Some of the key words which are essential to better understanding are the following:

Islam The Quran is very clear in explaining the definition of the word Islam. What does it mean and what does it stand for. The uniqueness of this word is - that it is not named after any person (in this case our Prophet). It means total surrender or submission to Allah (God). Islam was the religion even before our Prophet Mohammed was born (pbuh) as is evidenced in The Quran in reference to 42:13,

"The same religion (Islam or submission) has He established for you that which He enjoined on Noah. That which We have sends as inspiration to you (Mohammed pbuh) and that which We enjoined on Abraham, Moses and Jesus: That you should stay steadfast in religion (submission to our Lord -Islam) and make no divisions therein. (this means work for the unity of humankind) As for those who worship other than God they are on (hard) wrong way to call from. God chooses and guides those whom He wills towards Him.

Commentary: According to this if a Christian, a Jew or any believer in One Supreme Being says “we surrender or submit to God.” They are falling within the definition of the word Islam. The art of surrender or submission is called Islam. This art of submission/surrende r was shown to all the Prophets and their people as evidenced in The Quran 10:47, 14:4 & 16:36. Islam is very inclusive and broad in its definition. Muslims believe in Allah (God) and take Mohammed (pbuh) as their messenger, just as Christians and Jews believe in the same God and take Jesus and Moses as their respective messengers. However Muslims believe in all the prophets from Jewish and Christian scriptures. One must refrain from judging other believers the depth of surrendering or submission of other believers. God is THE ONLY JUDGE. Here Jesus advice is more relevant, “Do not Judge others lest you be judged.”

Surah 3:85, “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him.” Here the definition of Islam must be taken in its global context of surrendering and submission to One and Only One God.

Believer: Anyone who says, “We believe in One God” is a Believer. Let God be the ultimate judge. Humans will never have perfect knowledge to judge others.

Muslim: A Muslim is a person who says, “There is no God but One God (Allah) and Mohammed (pbuh) is a messenger of God.

Dhimmi: People of the Book, Christians and Jews who lived in an Islamic state were called dhimmis. This term is very often mis-interpreted. The expressed mission of Islamic state was to establish Islamic rules and regulations and form Islamic society. To convert People of Book to Islam was not the policy.

Dhimmis were exempted from military service and Islamic teachings. The Quran honored Christians and Jews as People with Revelations, the Bible and the Torah. Their property, life and places of worship were protected. For this service and protection a prorated tax “Jaziya” was collected by the Islamic state. Jaziya was not meant to be economically oppressive, on the contrary it was a compensation paid to the state for maintenance of law, order and due process in the Islamic state that guaranteed their constitutional rights. Dhimmis were exempted from paying the Zakat that was obligatory on every Muslim citizen. The rate of Jaziya was smaller than the Zakat rate. Presently, no Muslim country imposes “Jaziya” on People of other faiths. Jaziya is now history.

Kafir or Infidels:

The word Kafir is derived from the Arabic root word KFR, (Kaf, Fay and Ray) which means to cover, conceal or hide. Hiding with the intention of misleading, deceiving or suppressing the truth. Meddling with the Holy Scriptures where intentionally truth is either, concealed, changed, omitted, misinterpreted so that people either begin to doubt or lose complete faith in God, His Signs and His Revelations – this can come in the area of infidelity (being unfaithful to your Creator) or Kufr.

Character assassinations of Biblical and Quranic Prophets, done intentionally to undermine the faith or trust/believe in God, His Signs and Revelations can also be classified, as Kufr and people committing such acts are called Kafirs or infidels.

One cannot call a believer in God from Christianity or Judaism as Kafir if they do not believe in Mohammed (pbuh) as Messenger of God.

In modern language, you can say, it has to be intentional dishonesty, deception and misinformation. Just like a more sophisticated, premeditated perjury is deep rooted in misleading or deceiving people which can lead to criminal actions so also we have to consider the extent of intentional deception or perjury in explaining Kafir or Kufr.

Infidel does not really represent the true meaning of the word Kafir. The dictionary merely says an infidel is one who does not belief in any religion, especially Christianity and Islam.

Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs who comprise 2.5 billion of the world’s population cannot all be classified as non-believers or as KAFIRS. There are billions of them who belief in God, the Last Day and Life after Death and in doing righteous deeds. They have also been shown the art of surrender, submission or devotion (which in Arabic is called Islam). The Quran says, “To every people we send an Apostle in their own language and in their own country to clarify God’s message in Quran 14:4, 10:47 &16:36. Muslims are commanded to believe in the revelations that have come to them (The Quran) and the revelations that came before their times (Torah, Psalms and Gospels) in Quran 2:4.

Hence believers in One God from other faiths cannot be lumped or stereotyped as non-believers. No one has the authority to judge others. Hence they cannot be called KAFIRS because they also have been shown the art of surrender, submission or devotion which is the true meaning of the word Islam.

The Quran uses Kafirs in reference to the pagan Arabs who had unleashed war on Prophet Mohammed and early Muslims. All the verses on war must be taken in reference to pagan, idolatrous Arabs. Muslims look towards war in the Quran to stop tyranny, oppression of the pagan Quresh tribe. The other side of war was to establish freedom, liberty, women rights and a better law abiding society.

Christians and Jews who lived during the times of Prophet Mohammed were never defined as Kafirs or infidels. They are called as, “People of the Book” throughout the Quran. Prophet Mohammed included them as part of Medina Constitution This is a very important observation that we all should know.

Hence believers in One God from other faiths cannot be lumped or stereotyped as non-believers. No one has the authority to judge others. Hence they cannot be called KAFIRS because they also have been shown the art of surrender, submission or devotion which is the true meaning of the word Islam.

Non-Believer: Non-believers are those who do not believe in God. There could be numerous reasons, conditions, situations or factors for their lack of faith in God. There are Americans who are not taught religion at home or public schools hence they become secular in their outlook. They also grow with no negative baggage. Their conscience is clear. They have a sense of equality and justice which is God-given quality of being just and fair.

Sometimes a believer passes from being in a believing state to a non-believing state and there could be many reasons for that too.

A non-believer is not a hypocrite or infidel (kafir). It is important to know the difference.
#####

From: Mike Ghouse
Subject: MuslimAgenda :: Defining Islam, people of the book, Kafir etc.
To: worldmuslimcongress@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 5:59 PM

AA,
Iftekhar,

I appreciate your comments on the words Islam, Kafir, People of the book etc, indeed a majority of Muslims subscribe to that thought process. The word Kafir and People of the book are misused to claim superiority over the others, to create a class, that which Islam stands againts. Arrogance is the root cause of all conflict and that is not what God's wishes, he wishes his creation to get along and live in harmony without any distinction of religion, race or culture. (idea of Quraan 49:13)

I know a few will jump at me without even thinking, as if they are parrots and have shut out all thinking faculties. The fact is an overwhelming majority of Muslims are open to learning, as Quran started with that word, and most Muslims subscribe to the idea that God is not owned by Muslims or any exclusive group, Praise the lord, lord of the universe, (rabbul aalameen) as Muslims we recite that at least 50 times a day.

I am writing a piece on Muslim women seeking to marry men outside their faith, in the article, I have touched up on the idea of " Kafir and the people of the book". For nearly a thousand years men who wanted to "control" women wrote most of the ideas... at times what it seems like going against the equality God has blessed to men and women. On the day of judgment no woman will have her husband stand by her, nor a man has a woman standing by him, each one is an equal individual responsible for his or her actions. Nothing but your responsibility is accounted for... of course, God is merciful and beneficent and he would always has his last word.

2:221 “AND DO NOT marry women who ascribe divinity to aught beside God ere they attain to [true] belief: for any believing bondwoman [of God]* is certainly better than a woman who ascribes divinity to aught beside God, even though she pleases you greatly. And do not give your women in marriage to men who ascribe divinity to aught beside God ere they attain to [true] belief: for- any believing bondman [of God] is certainly better than a man who ascribes divinity to aught beside God, even though he pleases you greatly. [Such as] these invite unto the fire, whereas God invites unto paradise, and unto [the achievement of] forgiveness by His leave; and He makes clear His messages unto mankind, so that they might bear them in mind."

God is for all times and so is his wisdom. Thank God we have the freedom to learn and understand concepts that were limited in scope but are actually universal.

In the above verse, a distinction was made between those who believe in a creator and those who reject the creator (or associate the creator with others). Do Jews, Christians, Hindus or people of other faith not believe in God? Don't the Atheist, Buddhists, Jains, Wicca and others believe in accountability? They all do, they also believe that some thing caused the world to come into being, whom we call God.

Perhaps the wisdom behind the distinction was to understand those who rejected God in medieval times, and it meant that they did not care for the moral values of the humanity and became a source of immorality. That stereo typing does not apply today as it did some ten centuries ago. Atheist and those who do not believe in a formal God are as moral as the ones who show off their belief every which possible. In all sincerity the word “Polytheist” exists without a corpus. Typically Hindus are ascribed as Polytheists without verifying that Hindus believe in one supreme God as well, and accept God in different manifestations, as Muslims also see God in 99 different attributes.

The other aspect that a few Muslims are hung up with is the phrase “People of the book” as though we belong to an “exclusive men’s club” and others don’t. That is sheer arrogance and a major source of conflict in community relations. Islam’s message was to find means to dissolve the arrogance and not manufacture it.

The Prophet, peace be upon him, indeed had wished that his people also had a book like the Jews and Christians. At that time having a book meant civility, discipline and a system and not necessarily divinity. No doubt the Christians and Jews were included in the exclusive club, but we have missed out the Hindus, Buddhist, Jains and others who all have a book of guidance. The Qur’aan uses 124,000 Prophets to mean that the cherisher of the universe (Rabbul Aalameen) has reached out to every nation and tribe although only 25 names were listed; similarly only two inclusions were listed as people of the book where as there were many others who followed the books.

God is wise, all embracing and cannot be narrow in his appeal. We the humans tend to want to own God and box up his wisdom. Let's give God all the freedom he has. After all we have created God in our own image.

Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, an Islamic family law expert at Emory University , argues that gender dynamics have changed in a way that makes interfaith marriage more reasonable under Islamic tradition. "In social reality today, men are not dominant in the marriage relationship. The rationale of historic rule is no longer valid," he said. "But people are not willing to accept this. This is a major source of tensions."

There is a value we all have to realize today or tomorrow and that is peaceful co-existence is God’s will. We should be open to people who value the morals of the society to work for peaceful co-existence with or without the books.

Mike Ghouse
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

~~~~~~~ 0 ~~~~~~~

From: javed jamil
Subject: Re: MuslimAgenda :: Defining Islam, people of the book, Kafir etc.
To: worldmuslimcongress@yahoogroups.com, WorldMuslimCongress@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2009, 2:55 AM

Brother Mike

AA

I am writing this letter to you in dismay and disappointment. I have been part of the forum you moderate for several years, and have been a part of most of the debates that occurred there. I have respected you as a moderator because I felt that despite your own specific inclinations, you are giving everybody an opportunity to speak. But lately I have started feeling that you are continuously pushing your own agenda, which is something not acceptable to majority of Muslims, and least to Islamic scholars. I felt it bad that slowly but steadily most of the members who had been actively participating in the debate have now stopped taking any interest in the forum debates. Many of them have left the forum; some4 forums have even put your views on “Ban”. I wrote a harsh letter to you in the hope that you will realize this, and will not allow the forum to become dead. But I feel you are now only interested in the views of people like Tarek Fateh, Farzana Hasan, both notoriously known for their campaigns against whatever the common Muslims and Islamic scholars stand for, Zeba, Aziz, Iftakhar and few others. I have no complaints if you can continue with them and run the forum as you like, as you are the owner of this forum.

I have never written or spoken anything against any other religion or community – Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism or anyone else. I have always advocated a unity of all religions against the evils of the world. I have also never spoken against the people of any country. I have only spoken against the systems and the government policies of different countries. Yes I have been fighting against Westernism, because I feel this is the most dominant ideology of the current world, and it has caused much greater harm than it has benefited. I have never disrespected any religion, but I know I am a Muslim because I feel Islam is the best and final version of God’s Guidance to mankind. If I didn’t believe it, I won’t be a Muslim. (I give this right to the followers of all other ideologies as well.) I believe that Allah sent Islam for the whole mankind; and it is the duty of Muslims to demonstrate to the mankind that it is indeed for them. Every human being has the right to benefit from Islam’s System in this world if he does not believe it as a religion, and in the Hereafter as well if he believes in God, Hereafter, and the finality and supremacy of Muhammad and Qur’an after they were sent to the world.

I have held you in great respect, as an elder brother. I will continue to have that respect. I can sometimes be very hard-hitting in debates but I never allow the debate to make me feel bad about the person with whom I am debating. You must have noticed that I have had debates even with my real brother, Mr Zahid Jamil.

With these words, I thank you for giving me the space in your forums for all these years and request you to kindly unsubscribe me for the future. I will no longer “jump” at you or Iftakhar and you can continue with your giving new meanings to Islam. All the best! May this world become healthier, cleaner and more peaceful in accordance with the desire of God expressed in His Final Book!

Dr Javed Jamil
~~~~~~~ 0 ~~~~~~~

On Aug 4, 2009, at 7:16 AM, TSidd wrote:

Mohtram Jamil Bhai. ASA

I do appreciate your frustration as a Muslim. You have been hitting your benevolent friendly head, unfortunately, against a stubborn stony wall. But you should not stop your words of Nasiha. Please go on trying your efforts that will put some kind of restrain on his free-reigns. Some day you may be able to change his "misguided" path of self-deception which is fast tilting towards "arrogance".

Our thoughtful words of Nasiha can change his behavior and approach through our peaceful non-violent friendly "rebukes". At least we can say to Allah on the Day of Judgement to his and our Lord: "O Allah! We did our best but your salve [ABD} was full of arrogance, intoxicated with the lust of Modernism, enjoying your bounties on earth but obeying to the dictates of his whims and caprices while living under the false notion that he can deliver a new Deen. a "Cosmopolitan" life pattern to American society after your perfect Deen Al-Islam. What a self deception arrogance it is!

Mohtram Ghouse Bhai is living in the USA, a society free-for-all. He is down to earth liberal and pursuing a secular political agenda that suits all the deformed and decomposed religions of time. He is surrounded by them. He is their "Guru." Let him carry out his agenda. One day I am sure he will repent and that day is not far off. We all can encounter it any moment. The most uncertain thing that we all posses is a span of life but when it terminates we don't know at all.

Just wish him the best of luck and keep ourselves fully updated with his "achievements"

Shamim

~~~~~~~ 0 ~~~~~~~

In a message dated 8/4/2009 10:46:00 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, MikeGhouse writes:

AA,

Brothers Jameel and Shamim;

Thanks for sharing your frustrations, as a moderate Muslim I seek divergent opinions on any given subject at hand. One of the reasons we muslims are divisive is our inability to accept another point of view. We at WMC forum practice the god given freedom in publishing all opinions from extreme conservative to ultra liberal. Every idea of yours has been published and you will not find this on most discussion forums. No single opinion is above the other, we are equal in God's presence.

Brother shamim please don't lose your integrity by labeling me with liberal and other labels. Furthermore pl do not spread the word that I am creating another religion, it does not suit your caliber and buzurgi. Islam is my faith and it is universal enough to accomodate the essence of all goodness out there.

Javed, you can choose to remain within your circle or be open to different points of view. That is what perhaps IQRA also means. Insha Allah we will continue to bring all points of view on the subject including yours.

Jazak Allah Khair
Mike Ghouse

~~~~~~~ 0 ~~~~~~~

From: TSidd
To: MikeGhouse
Sent: 8/4/2009 4:36:30 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Re: MuslimAgenda :: Defining Islam, people of the book, Kafir etc.

Mohtram Ghouse Bhai, ASA

I don't want to argue with you and create bitterness for nothing. Just tell me if you are not "liberal"as you say what for then "liberalism" stands?

If you prefer, love the dogmas of other faiths and promote them, is it not the creation of an ultra faith equal to Akbar's Deen-e Ilahi?

I told you that if all these "Summalons" [gatherings of faiths} are for inviting them ultimately to Allah's Deen, then go ahead with my "Asherbad". If not, please don't feel ill of my comments. All are for the sake of Allah and for His pleasure.

I an not losing my "integrity" rather helping my big brother to maintain his integrity that is very much at stake and he is unmindful of what he is fast losing in the Muslim community.

Mine and Br Javed's concern about you are the same.

Shamim

~~~~~~~ 0 ~~~~~~~

From Mike Ghouse
Tuesday, August 04, 2009

Brothers Shamim and Javed:

I cannot call you an extremist, because you are not.

Tarek Fatah, Irshad Manji, Farzana Hasan and Asra Nomani are liberals and they are fine with that title. They reject a lot of conservative ideas. On the other hand Javed Jamil, Shamim Siddiqi and a few others are conservatives and reject every thing that is liberal.

Hasni Essa, Iftekhar Hai, Zahid Jamil, Irfan Faiz, a few others and myself are moderates because we dialogue with the conservatives, we are not 100% in tune with them, but can find sense with them.

Conservatives stick with what they are familiar with and that is the end of discussion for them.

Liberals on the other hand feel full freedom and any rejection of that ends their discussion.

Moderates on the other hand can reach out to both ends of the spectrum and are open to discussions.

Let me summarize this;

1) Liberals - reject Sharia out rightly, Hadith is not their basis and see Qur'aan as the book of guidance. Islam does not negate other faiths for them.

2) Conservatives - Stick to the Sharia dearly, Hadith is divine and Qur'aan negates all other books for them. Islam negates other faiths for them.

3) Moderates - see value in Sharia and adopt personal Sharia and adopt the civil laws of the country for justice instead of the Public version of Sharia, If Hadith is in tune with Qur’an’s universality, they will quote it; Islam does not negate other faiths for them.

I will share the difference in a more formal format in a few weeks.

Jazak Allah Khair
Mike Ghouse

#

Islam in the West

Islam in the West: the Threat of Internal Extremism
by M. Muqtedar Khan and John Esposito

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/VMagazine/v8i3/v8i3.htm#7

The tension between the US and the Muslim World has been steadily escalating with both sides resorting to steps that undermine the prospects for more peaceful and cooperative US-Muslim relations. Western Muslims, in America and Europe, suffer directly as a result of this escalation. They are being targeted as a potential fifth column and though they have responded admirably to face the new challenges, their circumstances continue to deteriorate. The presence of a persistent anti-western extremism within a small minority of Western Muslims exacerbates the plight of Western Muslims and undermines all their efforts to improve relations with the broader Western communities and allay fears that Islam in the West is a threat to democracy and security.

The US led invasion of Iraq and the subsequent chaos, death and destruction in Iraq, compounded by the inability of 1700 US experts to find any trace of WMDs in two years of systematic searching [the stated reason for the invasion] has contributed to an unprecedented amount of anger, frustration, resentment and anti-American feelings among Muslims everywhere. According to several international polls conducted by the PEW forum and Zogby International, public opinion of the US across the Muslim World (and elsewhere in the world) has plummeted and is at its lowest ever.

The Bush administration’s tactics of keeping the fear, anger and resentment triggered by the 9/11 catastrophe alive in order to advance the conservative agenda combined with frustration of American goals in Iraq and a sense of being at war with Muslim extremism has made many Americans increasingly hostile towards Islam and Muslims. Polls conducted in the US suggest that while 38% Americans hold very negative views about Islam and Muslims, only 2% have anything nice to say about them [survey conducted by CAIR Survey, November 2004] and over 44% of Americans are willing to deprive Muslims freedoms and rights available to other Americans [A survey by Cornell University, December 2004].

The war on terror and its attendant consequences has created extremely difficult circumstances for American Muslims in particular and Western Muslim in general. The changing political and legal environment in Western countries across the board has undermined the quality of life of Western Muslims. Many face discrimination in the work place, are victims of racial and religious profiling, businesses are failing, international travel has become difficult and risky and Islamic institutions, and particularly mosques and Islamic charities face harassment and unnecessary scrutiny.

The world has never been more interdependent and the plight of Western Muslims is illustrative of how global integration is now a palpable reality. The murder of a Dutch film producer, Theo Van Gogh, allegedly by a disenchanted Dutch Muslim [Mohammed Bouyeri, 26], the denial of a visa to the US for a Swiss Muslim scholar, Tariq Ramadan, or the humiliating deportation of a British Muslim, Yusuf Islam, from the US immediately on arrival are all front page news all over the world. Not only do these episodes draw widespread attention from the media, they feed upon and fuel the new crisis in Western Civilization – “Islam in the West”.

When a Dutch animal rights activist, Volkert van der Graaf, murdered a Dutch politician, Pim Fortuyn in 2002, it did not raise questions about the compatibility of the philosophy of rights and the West. But when a Dutch Muslim murders a Dutch film producer, it raises profound questions not just about Islam’s compatibility with modernity and democracy but also about the ability of Western Muslims to live in a democratic society. Even though such outrageous episodes are extremely rare, the fear of Islam and the now embedded antipathy towards Muslims, frequently surfaces in the western media, in popular discourse, in casual conversation, in parliamentary discussions and in new legislations.

As long as relations between Western societies and the Muslim World remain less than cordial, Western Muslims face the reality of Islamopheobia and as a result they will remain second-class citizens, constantly watched, regularly demonized, systematically marginalized, feared, despised and portrayed as a potential fifth column. Defending the innocence of Western Muslims, and speaking about tolerance and Islamic teachings on peace and violence, has become the most important communal activity of western Muslims.

The Challenge for Western Muslims today is existential. If things get worse what will happen to them? Some fear the rhetoric and recommendations of Islamopheobic political commentators who exaggerate and exacerbate the situation, questioning the patriotism of Muslim communities in the West and even raising the example of the internment of Americans of Japanese origin during World War II. Will the West create another “Israel” to solve the problem of the new Jews of the West? The fact that there are nearly 20-30 million Muslims in the West makes such drastic solutions impossible. Those who are bewildered that we are even considering this possibility must remember not only what happened to Japanese Americans but also what happened to Muslims in Spain who disappeared after ruling Spain for 700 years.

There are three routes available to Western nations with regards to their Muslim populations. They are marginalization, assimilation and accommodation. The first implies dis-empowering the community, reducing its influence and its rights and making its presence insignificant. The Bush administration has adopted this policy since 9/11. The second strategy is to reform Islam and Muslims, secularize them to such an extent that the difference does not make a difference. The French have embarked on this strategy and face a lot of resistance. This strategy causes disharmony and divisions within society and undermines democracy. Accommodation, a strategy that was adopted by the US before 9/11, by the UK, Canada and Netherlands is for Muslims the best option.

But in order to push Western nations to adopt the strategy of accommodation and resist the political pressure from xenophobic right-wingers to do otherwise, Western Muslims will have to manage their politics with foresight, prudence, and patience.

Dangers for Western Muslims

There are three potential dangers that Western Muslims face. Increased anti-western terrorism in the Muslim World which fuels Islamopheobia, enhances the political influence of Western anti-Muslim extremists and enables the institutionalization of legislation designed to undermine the influence of Muslims. The bush administration’s foreign policy that is geared towards the projection of American power and reassertion of American hegemony in the Middle East is another threat to Western Muslims. Aggressive American unilateralism triggers events and actions that ultimately undermine the security and well being of Western Muslims. The third danger to Western Muslim future is homegrown extremism.

While western Muslims at the moment can do little to reduce the first two dangers beyond engaging in dialogues – political and religious – at various levels, they can and must play an aggressive and decisive role in eliminating internal extremism that resonates with extremism in the Muslim World. Extremist discourse, actions and postures by a small minority of Western Muslims not only undermines the efforts of the vast majority to improve Western-Islamic relations, they also provide concrete evidence of the most egregious stereotypes of Islam and Muslims.

Western Muslim community leaders, activists and scholars must condemn and reject any and all forms of extremist rhetoric coming from Jumma Khutbas, public statements on TV and other media and from Muslim publications themselves. Care must be taken to not only moderate Muslim public discourse but also Muslim-Muslim discourse in order to ensure that extremism and vehement anti-Westernism do not take root in the community. Islam and Muslims in the West can be critical of the West and Western ideals but cannot and must not be anti-West. The critical distinction between being opposed to American foreign policy in the Muslim World and being anti-American must be maintained.

The Threat of Internal Extremism

While a vast majority of Western Muslims have the same basic desires as many others – material well being, cultural acceptance and the opportunity to practice their faith without social and political intimidation – some of them however wish to use their geographic location as an asset in their war against the perceived enemies of Islam. The argument made by some that radical Islam is well deeply embedded in the West and the community western Muslims hides in its bosom many secret sleeper terrorist cells is patently false and such claims must be seen as racist and religiously bigoted. No community has been so closely scrutinized as Muslims in America and no widespread threat has been uncovered. The 9/11 Commission fully exonerated the community of any connection to terrorism.

Nevertheless in every Muslim community there is a small group of individuals angry with the West and fearing that Islam is being destroyed. In their ignorance and anger they say and do counter-productive and dangerous things. The continuous barrage of images of Arab and Muslim humiliation and defeats from Iraq and Palestine make it difficult for even those most pacific to remain calm. Occasionally people lose control and say things that hurt them as well as the community.

Most people in the West are sensible and recognize isolated episodes of violence or intemperate rants as isolated. However there are three issues on which a small minority of Western Muslims, continue to alienate Western populations from Islam and Muslims.

Justifying Suicide Bombing: The images of the attacks of September 11th and the many victims of suicide bombings in Iraq and Israel have become etched on the Western psyche. Suicide bombing has become an epitome, a metaphor for of all that is evil in this world and all that is terrible about Islam and Muslims. Even though most Muslims everywhere – with notable exceptions of course – condemn suicide bombing as unIslamic and when targeting civilians as an abhorrent form of terrorism, some Muslims continue to utilize the freedom of speech available in the West to claim that suicide bombing is a noble and Islamically justifiable defense strategy. These individuals who defend and support suicide bombing [sometimes even when targeting civilians] succeed only in branding Islam as a barbaric religion that inspires violence. They also belie the majority of Western Muslims who condemn it and make it look as if they are dissimulating and lying. This promotes the canard that western Muslims are all secretly supporters of terrorism and that Islam indeed teaches violence. Those who continue to hem and haw on the issue of condemning suicide bombings by invoking “complex realities” and resorting to moral relativism work, intentionally or unconsciously, with Muslim radicals in undermining the fundamental moderation of Islamic teachings.

Equating the war on Terror to the war on Islam: Some radical Muslim commentators have been insisting that the war on terror is actually a war on Islam. Unfortunately the history of American foreign policy and the US’ recent actions in the Muslim World have convinced many Muslims that the US is at war with Islam. Ironically these radical commentators themselves equate Islam with terror when they translate the war on terror as war on Islam. For Western Muslims this is an unacceptable interpretation of what is happening. First of all it is not true. Islam continues to thrive in the West even today. The prominent role played by American Muslims in the Presidential elections of 2004 is clear proof that in spite of growing Islamopheobia and the Patriot Act American Muslims still remain a vibrant force and far from being snuffed out. Yes, they are targeted and profiled because of the actions and discourses of radical Muslims, but most of them will testify that the war on terror is not a war on Islam.

In Europe the presence of Muslims has transformed Europe’s foreign policy, its relations with the US and its posture with regards to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Today Europe seeks to balance US’ support for Israel. Muslim commentators who continue to propagate these claims are trying to insert a wedge between Western Muslims and their homelands. They wish to use Western Muslims as a weapon to subvert the West from within, but in the process sacrificing the community. Those who insist that the West is at war with Islam do a grave disservice to Western Muslims and to undermine the prospects of future good relations between the West and the Islamic World.

Demonization of the West and Democracy: The third theme in the radical Muslim discourse includes a rhetorical demonization of the West as evil and democracy as hypocrisy. In a curious way the very existence of this “free radical discourse” is indicative of how strong democracy is across the board in western countries. But this constant demonization of the West (America and Europe), ridicule of their values, icons, their religious beliefs, their secular beliefs and cultural practices may very well lead to the elimination of free speech and the diminishing of democracy. As far as Western Muslims are concerned, the 19 Muslims who attacked the US on 9/11 have caused them untold misery; they cannot allow it to be amplified through irresponsible statements from within their own communities.

The community must get tough on radical discourse

We recommend that Western Muslims become more organized and aggressive in marginalizing and condemning voices that justify violence, incite hatred and practice demonization of the other. How can community members and leaders fight bigots in the mainstream community and the rising Islamopheobia if some within their own ranks mirror the same fear, ignorance and prejudice? When some one from the community makes a radical statement, community leaders must immediately condemn it and demand a retraction and an apology before anyone else does it. Once radicals realize that the community will not tolerate their extremism, and will take lead in condemning them, they will fade away. The struggle for acceptance of Islam and Muslims in the West cannot be divorced from the acceptance of the West within its Muslim communities.

Contributors: Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware. He is also the Director of the Islamic Studies Program. He earned his Ph.D. in International Relations, Political Philosophy, and Islamic Political Thought, from Georgetown University in May 2000. For more, visit Ijtihad.org. We are glad to him for his permission to publish this article in our magazine.

John L. Esposito is University Professor & Founding Director, Professor of Religion and International Affairs and Professor of Islamic Studies.
His specialty is Islam and Politics, Religion and International Affairs, Islam and Global Terrorism, and the impact of Islamic movements from North Africa to Southeast Asia. Visit Ijtihad.org.

This article was published in Ijtihad.org, The Q-News [Feb. 2005 - UK], The Muslimwakeup.com [Feb 18, 2005 - USA], AlMuslim.com [Feb. 17, 2005 - USA], Iqra [Feb 18, 2005 - Canada], Closer [Feb 21, 2005 - Netherlands]. Research Institutions such as The Brookings Institution, Zogby International and ISPU also carry it on their websites. Shorter versions have appeared in Beliefnet.com [March 9th, 2005 - USA] and Islamic Horizons [May, 2005 - USA].