Mecca and moderation

Mecca and moderation
By David Clingingsmith, Asim Ijaz Khwaja and Michael Kremer
International Herald Tribune

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

For many people in the West, Islam is increasingly associated with violence and terrorism. According to a 2007 survey conducted by the PEW Forum, 45 percent of Americans believe Islam is more likely to encourage violence than other religions, up from 36 percent in 2005. Close to a third of respondents use negative words like fanatic, radical and terror to describe their impressions of Islam.

Does increased religious orthodoxy promote violence and intolerance? Our research on the hajj pilgrimage to Mecca suggests this association is wrong. The hajj is one of the most important institutions in Islam and a singular experience for many Muslims.

Our recent study of Pakistani pilgrims shows that while performing the hajj leads to greater religious orthodoxy, it also increases pilgrims' desire for peace and tolerance toward others (to read the study, go to http://ssrn.com/abstract=1124213). And this greater tolerance is not just toward fellow Muslims - it also extends to non-Muslims.

These findings echo the experience of Malcolm X, who drastically altered his views on race after performing the hajj. In a letter from the hajj, he wrote: "We were all participating in the same ritual, displaying a spirit of unity and brotherhood that my experiences in America had led me to believe never could exist between the white and non-white ... what I have seen, and experienced, has forced me to rearrange much of my thought patterns previously held."
The hajj is an inherently communal and international phenomenon, with over 2 million Muslims from all over the world gathering for several days in intense prayer and rituals. Pilgrims interact with fellow Muslims of different races and ethnicities in a religious context. At the hajj, men and women often pray alongside one another, an entirely new experience for many pilgrims.

Our study isolates the impact of performing the hajj using a method common in medicine. When doctors want to test a new drug, they give it to a randomly selected treatment group and compare their outcomes to a statistically similar control group. While social scientists rarely have the opportunity to use this method, we are able to do so by taking advantage of a randomized lottery for allocating hajj visas in Pakistan. We compare the attitudes of 800 successful lottery applicants, the "treatment" group, to an equal number of unsuccessful ones. The results are incredibly revealing.

Pilgrims are more observant of orthodox religious practice even five to eight months after returning from the hajj. They are 16 percent more likely to pray, 26 percent more likely to do so regularly in the mosque, and double their likelihood of non-obligatory fasting.

Interestingly, however, pilgrims are less likely to believe and participate in localized religious practices, such as using amulets.

What may be surprising to some is that the hajj makes pilgrims more tolerant of both fellow Muslims and non-Muslims. The experience of diversity on the hajj really does seem to matter: Hajjis have more positive views about people from other Muslim countries and are more likely to believe that different Pakistani ethnic and Islamic sectarian groups are equal and that they can live in harmony. Despite non-Muslims not being part of the hajj experience, these views also extend to adherents of other religions: Pilgrims are 22 percent more likely to declare that people of different religions are equal and 11 percent more likely to state that different religions can live in harmony by compromising over their disagreements.

Paralleling the findings on tolerance, hajjis report more positive views on women's abilities, greater concern for their quality of life, and are also more likely to favor educating girls and women participating in the workforce.

Hajjis are also less likely to support the use of violence and show no evidence of any increased hostility toward the West. They are more than twice as likely to declare that the goals of Osama bin Laden are incorrect, more likely to express a preference for peace between Pakistan and India, and more likely to declare that it is incorrect to physically punish someone if they have dishonored the family. Hajjis also become more sensitive to crimes against women.

While these results are specifically about the hajj, they have broader implications.
The impact of an event like the hajj demonstrates that even deep-rooted attitudes such as religious beliefs and views about other social groups can be changed. While all religions may have radical seminaries or extremist groups that promote an orthodoxy that goes hand in hand with hostility toward outsiders, our study shows this is not an inherent attribute of orthodoxy.

The promotion of tolerance doesn't therefore need to be defined in immediate opposition to religious orthodoxy. There may be ways, as demonstrated in the hajj, to leverage religious beliefs to foster compromise and mutual respect.

There is also a broader lesson about exposure to a diversity of peoples. Although lacking a common language, mixing with others across national, sect, and gender lines can help promote tolerance - both toward fellow participants but even more significantly, to those who are not part of the experience.

David Clingingsmith is an assistant professor of economics, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University. Asim Ijaz Khwaja is an associate professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. Michael Kremer is a professor of developing societies in the Department of Economics at Harvard University and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. They are the authors of "Estimating the Impact of the Hajj: Religion and Tolerance in Islam's Global Gathering."

Jihad, Women & Terrorism

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

By Chandra Muzaffar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Divorce in Qur'aan

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Asghar Ali Engineer

(Secular Perspective April 1-15, 2008)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

Mohammad Irtaza share verses from Qur'aan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terrorism is anti-Islamic

TERRORISM IS ANTI-ISLAMIC, A declaration by 10,000 Clerics

I am pleased to see this statement aka Fatwa by one of the World's largest Islamic learning centers. It is good to see the establishment take action. I welcome this wholeheartedly.

Bush's war on terrorism is a dismal failure because it does not target the individual criminals who can be reached, accessed and punished. Instead he blames the religion, which is intangible, meaning cannot punish the religion, as it is not a target, or gives birth to terrorists. He and his advisors fail to understand that it is not the religion, it is the individuals that need to be targeted, then we will have success. (article on why the war on terror failed http://mikeghouseforamerica.blogspot.com/2007/05/laser-barking-at-terrorists.html )

The President and his men, do not have the guts to deal with issue head on, i.e., going after the terrorist individuals, instead they run amuck, blazing the gun in every direction hoping something will come in its way and gets killed. On the other hand the declared war on terrorism may be a sham, it may be really a war to control the energy resources, we are the beneficiaries not doubt, but I would rather focus on alternate sources than have the means on some one else's blood.

Mike Ghouse

The Deoband Declaration on Terrorism: Why Now?
Dost Mittar March 10, 2008
http://www.chowk.com/articles/13709
Darul Uloom of Deoband is the second most important institute of Islamic learning in the world after the Al Azhar University of Cairo. On February 25, 2008, it held a large “All India Terrorism Conference” in its hometown, which was attended by over 10,000 Islamic clerics, scholars, muftis and teachers of Madrasas owing allegiance not only to Deobandi but also Barelavi and Shia schools of Islamic thought. The conference issued a statement that included the following declaration:

"Islam is the religion of mercy for all humanity. It is the fountainhead of eternal peace, tranquility [and] security. Islam has given so much importance to human beings that it regards the killing of a single person [as] the killing [of] the entire humanity, without differentiation based on creed and caste. Its teaching of peace encompasses all humanity. Islam has taught its followers to treat all mankind with equality, mercy, tolerance [and] justice. Islam sternly condemns all kinds of oppression, violence and terrorism. It has regarded oppression, mischief, rioting and murdering among [the] severest sins and crimes.
"This All India Anti-Terrorism Conference, attended by the representatives of all Muslim schools of thought, organised by Rabta Madaris Islamiah Arabia (The Islamic Madrasas Association) Darul Uloom Deoband, condemns all kinds of violence and terrorism in the strongest possible terms.
"The Conference expresses its deep concern and agony [over] the alarming global and national conditions [presently prevailing in the world], in which most of the nations are adopting an attitude against their citizens - especially the Muslims - that cannot be justified in any way, in order to appease the tyrant and colonial master of the West. It is a matter of [even] greater concern that the internal and external policies of our country are becoming heavily influenced by these forces. Their aggression, barbarism and state-sponsored terrorism - not only in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in Bosnia and various South American countries - have surpassed all records known to human history. Our great nation, [on the other hand], has always been known for impartiality and [for] its moral and spiritual values.
"Now the situation has worsened [to such an extent] that every Indian Muslim - especially those associated with madrasas, who are innocent with good record of character - are always gripped by the fear that they might be trapped by the administrative machinery anytime. Today countless innocent Muslims are spending their lives behind bars, and are forced to bear many intolerable tortures. [At the same time], those spreading terror, attacking police stations, killing police [officers] in broad daylight and [carrying] illegal arms are roaming about freely, while the government takes no effective and preventive steps to check their acts of terrorism and violence.
"This [discriminatory] attitude has put a big question mark on the secular character of the government, posing a great threat to the country. The All India Anti-Terrorism Conference strongly condemns this attitude, expresses its deep concern [over] this partiality of the government officials, and declares its continuous joint struggle for [rule] of law, justice and [secularism].”


The above declaration does not refer to specific acts of terrorism, such as against the World Trade Centre or the Indian Parliament and the emphasis seems to be on the effect of negative publicity against Muslims in gerneral and on Indian Muslims in particular. It has been hailed as a strong condemnation of acts of terrorism in the name of Islam by the authoritative religious body. Leaders of both the Congress and the BJP parties have praised this statement.

Ever since the September 11 attack on the World Trade Centre, Muslim religious organizations have been under persistent demands by the West to denounce such acts of terrorism. Such Western pressures have been especially intense on Darul Uloom of Deoband as many jihadi organizations have identified themselves as Deobandi. Jamiat Ulema Islami of Maulan Fazalul Rehman owes its allegiance to Deoband and Mullah Umar of Taliban was trained in a Deobandi madrassa. Al Qaida operatives are described as Wahabis who can be described as ideological twins of Deobandis. All these years, the religious leaders of Deoband have resisted the call for a denunciation of terrorist acts committed in the name of Islam. So, why this sudden need to issue this fatwa?

I think that the timing of the statement is related to the internal political dynamics of India. The Deobandis could earlier ignore the Western call for a religious edict against terrorism as Indian Muslims had by and large remained outside the influence of the international Islamic Jihad. On the other hand, they were paraded as an example of how Muslims can be peaceful under a democracy and democracy was prescribed as a cure-all against the influence of Islamic jihadists. Influential writers, such as Thomas Freedman of New York Times, attributed India’s democracy to the fact that no Indian Muslim was found in the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba for the Al Qaida suspects. They were also helped by the fact that Indian governments of all political persuasions routinely blamed Pakistan and Pakistani agencies for all acts of terrorism committed in India.

The situation has changed in recent months. Indian Muslims have been involved in international acts of terrorism, including suicide bombing. The thaw in the Indo-Pak relations has resulted in Indian officials not blaming Pakistan in a routine manner for all acts of terrorism in India. More and more of the recent attacks have been traced to homegrown terrorists and to members of organizations such as SIMI. This has increased pressure of the Indian security agencies on Indian Muslims, leading to the difficult situation of hapless Indian Muslims alluded to in the Deobandi declaration.

Another domestic development is the possibility of a general election for the Indian Lok Sabha. The UPA government has been busy clearing the decks for a possible general election later this year. It has brought in a popular Railways budget which has reduced passenger fares for all and provided free passes and further concessions for students and senior citizens. In a populous general buget, it has waived Rs. 60,000 crores worth of loans to farmers and substantially raised income tax exemptions which affect the middle class.

The Congress Party also wants to be in the good books of Indian Muslims. It is quite conscious of losing its hold on its Muslim vote bank, following the demolition of the Babri Masjid and has been working assiduously in recent years to rehabilitate itself as their natural party once again. It instituted the Sachar Commission to examine the state of Indian Muslims. The Commission came out with a significant set of recommendations to improve the conditions of Indian Muslims and to bring them into the national mainstream. The government has decided to implement many of those recommendations and has set aside a substantial amount for this purpose in the current budget.

The UPA government is also aware of the fact that the BJP is planning to make national security a major election issue in the next election and hopes to repeat the success it had with that issue in the Gujarat state elections last year. To blunt such an attack, the Congress and Left Parties, who are deemed to be friendly towards Indian Muslims, have been pleading with Darul Uloom, Deoband and other Muslim organizations to come out openly against terrorism in the name of Islam. I believe that this conference and its declaration are the result of this pressure. This is also the reason why the statement lays emphasis on the adverse impact of the charge of terrorism on Indian Muslims.

Will there be an election in India this year? I think that the Congress Party has taken the decision to go ahead with the Indo-US nuclear deal despite the staunch opposition to it by the Communist parties who have made it loud and clear that they will withdraw their support to the government in such an eventuality. If the Communists withdraw their support, the government is bound to fall, leading to an election. Another variable in determining the likelihood of elections this year will be the outcome of state elections in important states, such as Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. If the Congress Party does well in these elections, there would be an extra incentive for it to call an election, regardless of the outcome of the nuclear deal.

As a screaming headline in the Times of India proclaimed, All Voting Lines Are Clear!

Two other articles: http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2008/03/terrorism-un-islamic.html

Tags: terrorism , Indian Muslims , Deoband , madrassas , India

PLEASE SEND YOUR COMMENTS TO : Foundationforpluralism@gmail.com

SUBJECT LINE : Terrorism is anti-Islamic

Muslim Moderates?

Looking for Muslim Moderates in the Wrong Places
Mirza A. Beg, July 17, 2007

Moderate! It used to be a very nice word. Essentially it described a person who considers all sides of issues to makes a thoughtful, balanced, informed and humane judgment - as opposed to an extremist.

In the current political climate in the United States, the word moderate has been corrupted to become a propaganda buzz word of the right wing extremists and pseudo-moderates, the solid base of the Bush administration. Pretending their own moderation, they use it to smear Islam, as in “they are looking for moderate Muslims to speak up.”

A pastor of a large church, I have known briefly, vehemently used the word moderate in a discussion recently. He went on to longingly preach the imminent Armageddon and the crucial need of expulsion of the Palestinians from the Holy Land, to make it happen. I gingerly asked about the fate of the Jews of Israel in the aftermath of the second coming? He side stepped the question and veered into the inevitability of the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists; in short order, all non Christians (avoiding to name Jews), going to hell.

He preached fire and brimstone from the book of revelation, and the necessity to support Bush. It did not matter to him if millions of innocent Iraqis are killed; after all it is war of annihilation. After a while I asked, what do the Gospels, the essence of Jesus’ message have to say about this theology. He again changed the subject.

While painting this dire scenario, this paragon of religious virtue asked the question often asked by the talking heads on the FOX news network or Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), “Why don’t moderate Muslims speak out against extremism?”

This phrase is hurled as a truism, supposedly a winning volley. I drew his attention to the huge university library and the city libraries housing thousands of books on Islam, most written by Western scholars, and scores written by and about the moderate Muslims. He rejected the suggestion with a curt remark, “He has the real truth. He does not need to read books about fake religions.”

No wonder, people like him, who draw information exclusively from FOX or CBN news or from the propaganda web-sites on the Internet can not find moderate Muslims.

Fortunately I have many Christian friends, including many very contemplative pastors, with whom I have had hours of introspective discussions. Though he does not represent Christianity to me, sadly he does represent the views of about 25 to 30%, right-wing Armageddon-seeking (war mongering) Christians, a solid base of the Bush presidency. They are a huge chunk of the American polity with loud voices. They are heard loud and clear among their counterparts in the Muslim world, who just like this pastor can not find a moderate Christian.

A combination of titillating news about the latest sex scandal and the hard-core Bush doctrinal agenda has helped the FOX News to the top of the viewer share, yielding rich economic dividends. Chasing the almighty viewer-share ratings, other major cable outlets such as CNN and CNBC have been trying hard to emulate FOX.

The failure of the popular media to inform the electorate has injured the political process. Although most Americans have belatedly realized the horrible folly of the immoral invasion of Iraq based on lies by the Bush Administration. They are unable to force a change of course towards sanity. A strong minority of the 25 to 30% Armageddon-seeking Christians, helped by an apathetic titillation-seeking polity, aided the Republican Party to win majorities in the Congress for the first six years of Bush administration. Republicans in congress acted as a rubber stamp for the Bush follies. Though the Democrats won last November with a slim majority in the Congress, with the threat of veto from Bush, the Republicans have blocked all efforts towards a change in course.

Those really looking for moderate Muslims or moderate anything have no problem finding them. Most Americans, including religious Christians do not have a problem finding moderate Muslims. MENSA (International Organization of highly intelligent people with IQs in 98 percentile) at its annual gathering at Birmingham, Alabama, in July had no problem finding moderate Muslim speakers. Many Churches, Public Radio or Public Broadcasting Network have had no problem finding moderate Muslims from all walks of life.

It is the popular cable networks and extremists Christian columnists who just can not locate them. They are not looking for Muslims who strongly disagree with the extremists, such as Talibans and the Al Qaida; they are looking for those who should support the Bush doctrine of supremacy, invasion of countries without any restraint in an endless war, as in the Presidents words, “Those not with us are against us.”

The extremists are indeed a threat to the world peace. They preach exactly the same ideologies from the opposite sides. Armed with half-truths they use the other side as an effective tool to recruit followers. They have a symbiotic relationship – Right-wing Christians obsessed with Armageddon trying to control the most powerful state, against the Taliban-style Muslims pining for a mis-perceived caliphate looking for a state.

Both sides are an insult to the religions they supposedly hold dear and in whose name they advance their murderous agenda. It indeed is a failure of the moderates on all sides if they do not join hands and redouble their efforts in defeating the murderous supremacist ideologies within their own religions.

Balancing the Prophet

I am pleased to share the following article " Balancing the prophet " by Karen Armstrong.

The religions of the world are in place to bring peace to man and his environment.

It is the politics of humans that does wrong things, and not thier religion. The European history in relation to Islam was based on fabrications and deliberate mis-translations of Qur'aan. http://www.theghouseteam.com/mg/WMC_Files/Quran_Translations_Issues_031107.pps . They were paid to write it by their kings, just so they can rouse the public against the created enemy, and thus turn the public against them to protect their kingdoms.

The Europeans were not that stupid, but when religion was used, they fell for it and went on the crusades bandwagon to kill their fabricated enemy, while the kings got their tails saved, the poor suckers (the public) martyred themselves believing that it was for their lord, they were dying.

The neo-con gang thrives on falsehood as they get their excitment in war mongering, death and destruction. I don't know if a single neo-con has made attempts to build bridges, they are just bent on annihilating or subjugating others. Their vocabulary is devoid of harmony, peace and co-existence.

Mike Ghouse

www.MikeGhouse.net

www.FoundationforPluralism.com

www.WorldMuslimCongress.com

Balancing the Prophet
By Karen Armstrong

Financial Times: Published: April 27 2007 15:43 Last updated: April 27 2007 15:43

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/4a05a4a4-f134-11db-838b-000b5df10621.html

Ever since the Crusades, people in the west have seen the prophet Muhammad as a sinister figure. During the 12th century, Christians were fighting brutal holy wars against Muslims, even though Jesus had told his followers to love their enemies, not to exterminate them. The scholar monks of Europe stigmatised Muhammad as a cruel warlord who established the false religion of Islam by the sword. They also, with ill-concealed envy, berated him as a lecher and sexual pervert at a time when the popes were attempting to impose celibacy on the reluctant clergy. Our Islamophobia became entwined with our chronic anti-Semitism; Jews and Muslims, the victims of the crusaders, became the shadow self of Europe, the enemies of decent civilisation and the opposite of ”us”.

Our suspicion of Islam is alive and well. Indeed, understandably perhaps, it has hardened as a result of terrorist atrocities apparently committed in its name. Yet despite the religious rhetoric, these terrorists are motivated by politics rather than religion. Like ”fundamentalists” in other traditions, their ideology is deliberately and defiantly unorthodox. Until the 1950s, no major Muslim thinker had made holy war a central pillar of Islam. The Muslim ideologues Abu ala Mawdudi (1903-79) and Sayyid Qutb (1906-66), among the first to do so, knew they were proposing a controversial innovation. They believed it was justified by the current political emergency.

The criminal activities of terrorists have given the old western prejudice a new lease of life. People often seem eager to believe the worst about Muhammad, are reluctant to put his life in its historical perspective and assume the Jewish and Christian traditions lack the flaws they attribute to Islam. This entrenched hostility informs Robert Spencer's misnamed biography The Truth about Muhammad, subtitled Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion.

Spencer has studied Islam for 20 years, largely, it seems, to prove that it is an evil, inherently violent religion. He is a hero of the American right and author of the US bestseller The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam. Like any book written in hatred, his new work is a depressing read. Spencer makes no attempt to explain the historical, political, economic and spiritual circumstances of 7th-century Arabia, without which it is impossible to understand the complexities of Muhammad's life. Consequently he makes basic and bad mistakes of fact. Even more damaging, he deliberately manipulates the evidence.

The traditions of any religion are multifarious. It is easy, therefore, to quote so selectively that the main thrust of the faith is distorted. But Spencer is not interested in balance. He picks out only those aspects of Islamic tradition that support his thesis. For example, he cites only passages from the Koran that are hostile to Jews and Christians and does not mention the numerous verses that insist on the continuity of Islam with the People of the Book: ”Say to them: We believe what you believe; your God and our God is one.”

Islam has a far better record than either Christianity or Judaism of appreciating other faiths. In Muslim Spain, relations between the three religions of Abraham were uniquely harmonious in medieval Europe. The Christian Byzantines had forbidden Jews from residing in Jerusalem, but when Caliph Umar conquered the city in AD638, he invited them to return and was hailed as the precursor of the Messiah. Spencer doesn't refer to this. Jewish-Muslim relations certainly have declined as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but this departs from centuries of peaceful and often positive co-existence. When discussing Muhammad's war with Mecca, Spencer never cites the Koran's condemnation of all warfare as an ”awesome evil”, its prohibition of aggression or its insistence that only self-defence justifies armed conflict. He ignores the Koranic emphasis on the primacy of forgiveness and peaceful negotiation: the second the enemy asks for peace, Muslims must lay down their arms and accept any terms offered, however disadvantageous. There is no mention of Muhammad's non-violent campaign that ended the conflict.

People would be offended by an account of Judaism that dwelled exclusively on Joshua's massacres and never mentioned Rabbi Hillel's Golden Rule, or a description of Christianity based on the bellicose Book of Revelation that failed to cite the Sermon on the Mount. But the widespread ignorance about Islam in the west makes many vulnerable to Spencer's polemic; he is telling them what they are predisposed to hear. His book is a gift to extremists who can use it to ”prove” to those Muslims who have been alienated by events in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq that the west is incurably hostile to their faith.

Eliot Weinberger is a poet whose interest in Islam began at the time of the first Gulf war. His slim volume, Muhammad, is also a selective anthology about the Prophet. His avowed aim is to ”give a small sense of the awe surrounding this historical and sacred figure, at a time of the demonisation of the Muslim world in much of the media”. Many of the passages he quotes are indeed mystical and beautiful, but others are likely to confirm some readers in their prejudice. Without knowing their provenance, how can we respond to such statements as ”He said that he who plays chess is like one who has dyed his hand in the blood of a pig” or ”Filling the stomach with pus is better than stuffing the brain with poetry”?

It is difficult to see how selecting only these dubious traditions as examples could advance mutual understanding. The second section of this anthology is devoted to anecdotes about Muhammad's wives that smack of prurient gossip. Western readers need historical perspective to understand the significance of the Prophet's domestic arrangements, his respect for his wives, and the free and forthright way in which they approached him. Equally eccentric are the stories cited by Weinberger to describe miracles attributed to the Prophet: the Koran makes it clear that Muhammad did not perform miracles and insists that he was an ordinary human being, with no divine powers.

It is, therefore, a relief to turn to Barnaby Rogerson's more balanced and nuanced account of early Muslim history in The Heirs of the Prophet Muhammad. Rogerson is a travel writer by trade; his explanation of the Sunni/Shia divide is theologically simplistic, but his account of the rashidun, the first four ”rightly guided” caliphs who succeeded the Prophet, is historically sound, accessible and clears up many western misconceptions about this crucial period.

Rogerson makes it clear, for example, that the wars of conquest and the establishment of the Islamic empire after Muhammad's death were not inspired by religious ideology but by pragmatic politics. The idea that Islam should conquer the world was alien to the Koran and there was no attempt to convert Jews or Christians. Islam was for the Arabs, the sons of Ishmael, as Judaism was for the descendants of Isaac and Christianity for the followers of Jesus.

Rogerson also shows that Muslim tradition is multi-layered and many-faceted. The early historians regularly gave two or three variant accounts of an incident in the life of the Prophet; readers were expected to make up their own minds.

Similarly, there are at least four contrasting and sometimes conflicting versions of the Exodus story in the Hebrew Bible, and in the New Testament the four evangelists interpret the life of Jesus quite differently. To choose one tradition and ignore the rest - as Weinberger and Spencer do - is distorting.

Professor Tariq Ramadan has studied Islam at the University of Geneva and al-Azhar University in Cairo and is currently senior research fellow at St Antony's College, Oxford. The Messenger is easily the most scholarly and knowledgeable of these four biographies of Muhammad, but it is also practical and relevant, drawing lessons from the Prophet's life that are crucial for Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Ramadan makes it clear, for example, that Muhammad did not shun non-Muslims as ”unbelievers” but from the beginning co-operated with them in the pursuit of the common good. Islam was not a closed system at variance with other traditions. Muhammad insisted that relations between the different groups must be egalitarian. Even warfare must not obviate the primary duty of justice and respect.

When the Muslims were forced to leave Mecca because they were persecuted by the Meccan establishment, Ramadan shows, they had to adapt to the alien customs of their new home in Medina, where, for example, women enjoyed more freedom than in Mecca. The hijrah (”migration”) was a test of intelligence; the emigrants had to recognise that some of their customs were cultural rather than Islamic, and had to learn foreign practices.

Ramadan also makes it clear that, in the Koran, jihad was not synonymous with ”holy war”. The verb jihada should rather be translated: ”making an effort”. The first time the word is used in the Koran, it signified a ”resistance to oppression” (25:26) that was intellectual and spiritual rather than militant. Muslims were required to oppose the lies and terror of those who were motivated solely by self-interest; they had to be patient and enduring. Only after the hijrah, when they encountered the enmity of Mecca, did the word jihad take connotations of self-defence and armed resistance in the face of military aggression. Even so, in mainstream Muslim tradition, the greatest jihad was not warfare but reform of one's own society and heart; as Muhammad explained to one of his companions, the true jihad was an inner struggle against egotism.

The Koran teaches that, while warfare must be avoided whenever possible, it is sometimes necessary to resist humanity's natural propensity to expansionism and oppression, which all too often seeks to obliterate the diversity and religious pluralism that is God's will. If they do wage war, Muslims must behave ethically. ”Do not kill women, children and old people,” Abu Bakr, the first caliph, commanded his troops. ”Do not commit treacherous actions. Do not burn houses and cornfields.” Muslims must be especially careful not to destroy monasteries where Christian monks served God in prayer.

Ramadan could have devoted more time to such contentious issues as the veiling of women, polygamy and Muhammad's treatment of some (though by no means all) of the Jewish tribes of Medina. But his account restores the balance that is so often lacking in western narratives. Muhammad was not a belligerent warrior. Ramadan shows that he constantly emphasised the importance of ”gentleness” (ar-rafiq), ”tolerance” (al-ana) and clemency (al-hilm).

It will be interesting to see how The Messenger is received. Ramadan is clearly addressing issues that inspire some Muslims to distort their religion. Western people often complain that they never hear from ”moderate” Muslims, but when such Muslims do speak out they are frequently dismissed as apologists and hagiographers. Until we all learn to approach one another with generosity and respect, we cannot hope for peace.

Karen Armstrong is the author of ”Muhammad: Prophet For Our Time”

Orthodox - Moderate -Labels

Why I am not a moderate Muslim

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0423/p09s01-coop.html?page=1

Paul Lachine

Why I am not a moderate Muslim
I'd rather be considered 'orthodox' than 'moderate.' True orthodoxy is simply the attempt to piously adhere to a religion's tenets.

By Asma Khalid

Cambridge, England - Last month, three Muslim men were arrested in Britain in connection with the London bombings of July 2005. In light of such situations, a number of non-Muslims and Muslims alike yearn for "moderate," peace-loving Muslims to speak out against the violent acts sometimes perpetrated in the name of Islam. And to avoid association with terrorism, some Muslims adopt a "moderate" label to describe themselves.

I am a Muslim who embraces peace. But, if we must attach stereotypical tags, I'd rather be considered "orthodox" than "moderate."

"Moderate" implies that Muslims who are more orthodox are somehow backward and violent. And in our current cultural climate, progress and peace are restricted to "moderate" Muslims. To be a "moderate" Muslim is to be a "good," malleable Muslim in the eyes of Western society.

I recently attended a debate about Western liberalism and Islam at the University of Cambridge where I'm pursuing my master's degree. I expected debaters on one side to present a bigoted laundry list of complaints against Islam and its alleged incompatibility with liberalism, and they did.

But what was more disturbing was that those on the other side, in theory supported the harmony of Islam and Western liberalism, but they based their argument on spurious terms. While these debaters – including a former top government official and a Nobel peace prize winner – were well-intentioned, they in fact wrought more harm than good. Through implied references to moderate Muslims, they offered a simplistic, paternalistic discourse that suggested Muslims would one day catch up with Western civilization.

In the aftermath of September 11, much has been said about the need for "moderate Muslims." But to be a "moderate" Muslim also implies that Osama bin Laden and Co. must represent the pinnacle of orthodoxy; that a criterion of orthodox Islam somehow inherently entails violence; and, consequently, that if I espouse peace, I am not adhering to my full religious duties.

I refuse to live as a "moderate" Muslim if its side effect is an unintentional admission that suicide bombing is a religious obligation for the orthodox faithful. True orthodoxy is simply the attempt to adhere piously to a religion's tenets.

The public relations drive for "moderate Islam" is injurious to the entire international community. It may provisionally ease the pain when so-called Islamic extremists strike. But it really creates deeper wounds that will require thicker bandages because it indirectly labels the entire religion of Islam as violent.

The term moderate Muslim is actually a redundancy. In the Islamic tradition, the concept of the "middle way" is central. Muslims believe that Islam is a path of intrinsic moderation, wasatiyya. This concept is the namesake of a British Muslim grass-roots organization, the Radical Middle Way. It is an initiative to counter Islam's violent reputation with factual scholarship.

This was demonstrated through a day-long conference that the organization sponsored in February. The best speaker of the night was Abdallah bin Bayyah, an elderly Mauritanian sheikh dressed all in traditional white Arab garb, offset by a long gray beard.

The words coming out of the sheikh's mouth – all in Arabic – were remarkably progressive. He confronted inaccurate assumptions about Islam, spoke of tolerance, and told fellow Muslims an un­pleasant truth: "Perhaps much of this current crisis springs from us," he said, kindly admonishing them. He chastised Muslims for inadequately explaining their beliefs, thereby letting other, illiberal voices speak for them.

I was shocked by his blunt though nuanced analysis, given his traditional, religious appearance. And then I was troubled by my shock. To what extent had I, a hijabi Muslim woman studying Middle Eastern/Islamic studies, internalized the untruthful representations of my own fellow Muslims? For far too long, I had been fed a false snapshot of what Islamic orthodoxy really means.

The sheikh continued, challenging Mr. bin Laden's violent interpretation of jihad, citing Koranic verses and prophetic narrations. He referred to jihad as any "good action" and recounted a recent conversation with a non-Muslim lawyer who asked if electing a respectable official would be considered jihad. The sheikh answered "yes" because voting for someone who supports the truth and upholds justice is a good action.

The sheikh, not bin Laden, is a depiction of true Islamic orthodoxy. The sheikh, not bin Laden, is the man trained in Islamic jurisprudence. The sheikh, not bin Laden, is the authentic religious scholar. But to call him a moderate Muslim would be a misnomer.

• Asma Khalid is pursuing her master's degree in Middle Eastern/Islamic studies at the University of Cambridge in England.

Elusive Moderates - LSafi

Moderator: Indeed, the nec-cons need some moderates to help them define their policies about who is a moderate. Let there be single universal principle that the group define themselves who they are, and not be defined by the others. Mike Ghouse

Myopic Builders and Elusive Moderates
Louay Safi

http://aninsight.org/2007/04/myopic-builders-and-elusive-moderates.html

Building Moderate Muslim Networks is RAND Corporation’s second attempt at devising a strategy to help prevent “some Muslim societies [from] falling back even further into patterns of intolerance and violence.” And to do that RAND reassigns Caryl Benard, the author of the first report Civil Democratic Islam, to join three more scholars for preparing its new report.

The present report makes little improvements over the previous one, and suffers from the same faulty assumptions and flawed analysis. The new report moves away from overtly relying on “lifestyle” for distinguishing friends from foes, and shifts the emphasis to a set of political values. RAND’s new research team uses a list of 10 criteria to separate moderate and radical Muslims. The emphasis is less focused on religious practices, as attention turns to ideology and commitment to free and open society.

The current study recognizes that the entrenched authoritarian governments and the decline of civil-society institutions in much of the Muslim world “have left the mosque as one of the few avenues for the expression of popular dissatisfaction with prevailing political, economic, and social conditions.” Yet the authors seem less concerned with the need to withdraw support from authoritarian regimes responsible for destroying civil society in much of the Muslim world. Rather, the authors are exceedingly obsessed with the goal of marginalizing social groups, even the most moderate of them, that appeal to Islamic values as the basis for sociopolitical reform. I have already discussed at length in my response to RAND’s early report why this obsession is counterproductive and will only feed into political radicalization, and have nothing to add to this point here.

One cannot help but notice that the report consistently places the blame on Muslim societies. It refuses to assign any responsibility for the radicalization of Muslim politics to the cynical strategies advocated by foreign policy experts. These strategies call for freedom and democracy simultaneously as they continue to urge support to friendly authoritarian regimes.

In discussing the Danish cartoon saga, for instance, the report directs the blame for this sad and unfortunate episode to the “Danish imams,” who the report asserts “caused the cartoon controversy to spiral into an international conflagration.” No blame is placed at the door of the newspaper that published the offensive cartoons, despite the fact that the newspaper was implicated in deliberate efforts to demonize the emerging Danish Muslim community. Blaming the Danish imams is the equivalent of blaming the Rutgers University women's basketball team for complaining about Don Imus’s racial slur and abuse, and for making their indignations known to the public, leading to his ousting from his job.

Among the many faulty assumptions on which the report builds its recommendations is that the Muslim World’s Moderates, defined as secularist and liberal Muslims, lack the resources they need to dominate Muslim societies. Moderates, the report asserts, “do not have the resources” they need to create viable networks to counter the radicals. They lack the skills to do that themselves and require an “external catalyst.” The United States can, the report continues, serve in the role of catalyst by utilizing the experience it gained “during the Cold War to foster networks of people committed to free and democratic ideas. The United States “critical role” consists in leveling the playing field for moderates.”

The reality is that radicals in most Muslim countries constitute small and fringe groups whose impact far exceeds their numbers because they are willing to employ shocking violence in pursuing their goals. Further, many of the Middle Eastern regimes are ruled by elites who are socially secular and liberal, but politically autocratic and authoritarian.

The radicalization of politics in Middle Eastern countries like Egypt, Syria, and Iraq was the result of deliberate efforts by Muslim secularists to impose modern practices on Muslim societies. The reliance on force and iron fist policies to impose “modern” institutions and practices by socially “moderate” but politically radical secularists, who held and continue to hold power in many Muslim countries, has led to the destruction of public debate, the disappearance of civil society, and the radicalization of politics. For instance, the use of violence by state security agencies to silence opposition during Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat of Egypt has paved the way to the rise of terrorism in the 1980s and 1990s.

The report’s efforts to take a principled approach to defining the “moderate” proved to be elusive. For even though the report acknowledges that some Islamists satisfy the “moderate criteria,” it eventually sides with those who counsel against engaging Islamists. Moderate Islamists, the report contends, should only be engaged as “interlocutors,” but never supported even when they espouse democratic values.

The reason for refusing to embrace moderate Islam, the report insists, is that “the Muslim world moderate and liberal groups are organizationally weak and have been as yet unable to develop substantial constituencies, for the West to bypass these groups in favor of Islamist interlocutors would simply perpetuate these weaknesses.”

Perhaps the only significant contribution to stimulating democratic debate among grassroots organizations and groups is the one led by the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID), despite serious limitations in their resources. The majority of the initiatives carried out by other democracy promoting organizations were confined to academic and official debates. Participants in CSID programs involve democracy and civil rights activists that represent the political spectrum in the Middle East, including Islamists committed to democratic governance.

The report concludes by giving several examples of moderate Muslims, and surprisingly they include prominent Islam bashers. The list includes Ayaan Hirsi Ali; Salman Rushdie, Taslima Nasreen, Irshad Manji, Basam Tibi, etc. Ultimately, it is not commitment to democratic values and practices, but proximity to Islam, that sets moderates and radicals is the eyes of the authors of the recent RAND report on moderate Islam.

It is not surprising, therefore, that RAND’s recommendations feed into the arrogant and unilateralist policies advanced by the neoconservatives in the last six years, policies that resulted in more chaos on the world stage and misery within Muslim societies.

Commentaries by Louay Safi on Islamic affairs and issues relating to human rights, social and political reforms, American Muslims, globalization, democracy, and world peace.

Reader’s comments reflect the opinions of their authors alone and are not necessarily those of Louay Safi. Comments containing abusive language maybe edited or removed.

---
Louay Safi has published extensively on such issues as socio-political development, modernization, democracy, human rights, and Islamic resurgence, including eight books and numerous academic papers.

Visit Louay Safi's Pages
Visit Qur'anic Themes