Pictorial Report - Holocaust and Genocides

The III Annual Reflections on Holocaust and Genocides.
Sunday, January 24, 2010

This was an educational program, where 7 speakers reflected on 7 topics for 7 minutes each. Then 7 commentators made comments about 7 different situations. The topics ranged from the Holocaust to Genocides, massacres and tragedies.

This is perhaps the first time in our history that we have acknowledged the genocides of the indigenous Americans and Native peoples of Americas in a public forum along with other tragedies.

There is a shameless cruelty in us, either we shy away or some times refuse to acknowledge the sufferings of others, worrying that it will devalue our own or some how it amounts to infidelity to our own cause, and shame on us for justifying massacres that the victims deserved it or they asked for it.

Continued at: http://holocaustandgenocides.blogspot.com/2010/02/pictorial-report-holocaust-and.html
~~~

Can Women Be Imams?

http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2010/02/can-women-be-imams.html

Dr. Krausen’s presentation evokes the God given intellect in us. She demurs, “if this is a sign of a development towards a more rational approach to the issue, or whether it is merely an attempt to be politically correct.”, indeed, It is my observation over the last 10 years of work, debates and discussion forums, that it is a development. My comments follow the article - Mike Ghouse

Can Women Be Imams?
Halima Krausen

In the face of the controversy over Amina Wadud's Friday prayer, Muslim scholar Halima Krausen argues that we should have the courage to ask our own questions, to study the matter conscientiously and to reach conclusions which make sense in our times

Koranic traditions must be taken seriously, Krausen says, but it is also necessary to ask questions about their contemporaneity too. Following the Friday prayers led by Dr Amina Wadud in New York on 18th March and the emotional public debate to which that event led, I have repeatedly been asked for my view on the matter. I believe the issue may seem simple, but is more complicated than it appears. So I'd like to contribute a few ideas to the discussion, rather than put forward a clear opinion.

The first point to make is that it's absolutely unclear what we're talking about. Far from defining a clear "rank," the term "Imâm" is used for a wide spectrum of different meanings.

The word Imâm is related to the word umm, "mother"

In the Koran, the word is used in a more fundamental way and refers to leading exemplary figures like Abraham (Sura 2:124) or the judges of the Children of Israel (Sura 32:23-24) or the potential of all upright people in general (Sura 25:74; 28:4-5); but it can also refer misleadingly to characters like Pharaoh and others like him, who lead one "to the fire" (Sura 28:39-41).

The word Imâm stems from the root "amma" – move forward, lead, be in front – and is related to the word "umm" – mother – which goes beyond the biological aspect towards the meaning "Source, basis, being."

The second apparently unclear point in the current debate is one of methodology. Both supporters and critics of the Friday prayers in New York draw hasty conclusions either from specific traditions (since the Koran itself doesn't deal with the issue directly) or from assumed principles, without examining their background or taking account of their context.

"The gates of legal innovation are closed"

One of the most frequent arguments is that "this has never happened before and has never been considered possible in the past, and therefore should never happen."

There is indeed a methodological principle called Istishâb – the extension of a legal ruling – which applies in cases where the original conditions for the ruling remain the same. This prevents legal and social experiments from being carried out for their own sake, and requires urgent reasons for change, especially regarding prayers and services ('Ibâdât).

This principle has been tacitly overemphasised in Sunni schools of legal thought, and this overemphasis has been strengthened by the doctrine that allegedly "the gates of Ijtihâd (Islamic legal innovation) are closed" – a view which has often led to legal inflexibility.

The ontological equality of man and woman in the Koran

But there have been changes even in liturgical matters: while we assume that we are following the example of the prophet in such matters as ritual prayer (which in principle we no doubt do), in fact we follow the standardised instructions of Muslim teachers from the formative period of Islam, whose details can vary from one school to another. And at least in the diaspora, we tend to feel the need to simplify even those differences for the sake of Muslim unity, rather than to use the dynamic which they offer as a way of deepening the riches of our spiritual and cultural life.

On the other hand, the supporters of change cite the ontological equality of man and woman in the Koran and the fact that the same terms are used to refer to their practical and spiritual responsibilities (e.g. Sura 4:1, 33:35, 9:71 etc.). They overlook impatiently the development of Islamic tradition in the past and demand immediate reform in the direction of justice and equality here and now.

Islam knows no hierarchy of office. All the same, in the classical Fiqh, questions of priority regarding who should lead communal prayers were often not decided solely on the basis of knowledge, skill in recitation or piety. Issues of social hierarchy also played a role.

Women may lead prayers – for women

Within the patriarchal structures which ruled in the largest part of the Muslim world at that time, the idea that a woman might lead public prayer would have been seen as very strange.

Most schools of law consider that women can lead prayers for women. There are tendencies which discourage woman from doing so, and, in the case of Mâlikite school, prohibit them from doing so, evidently on the basis of a Hadîth according to which "a people which entrusts its matters to a woman can never win success."

It's an argument which is often called upon to support opposition to women holding positions of leadership, but it's an argument which neither fulfils the necessary criteria of authenticity, nor can it be brought to conform to the image of the Queen of Sheba as presented in the Koran, nor does it conform to the principle that men and women, as mutual friends and allies (Awliyâ'), "should offer each other good and deny each other evil" (Sura 9:71).

At the same time there are confirmed reports that the wives of the prophet certainly led prayers for women, which are verified by details such as that the (female) Imâm stood in the rows together with the other women.

Some scholars said women may lead mixed prayers

We are far from knowing all the debates of the past on this subject. We only have access to that which was recorded in writing and has been preserved. Indeed there were scholars who had nothing against women leading even mixed ritual prayer, among them Abu Thawr al-Kalbi (died 876), Abu Isma'il al-Muzani (died 879), al-Isfahani (died 884), the founder of the Zâhirite school, at-Tabari (died 923), or Ibn Taymiyya (died 1328).

We don't know many details of the arguments they used, but we also have no evidence that their positions called forth a storm of protest in their time or that they were condemned by their contemporaries. This could be because the cases they mentioned were regarded as exceptional (for example, that a woman may lead the Tarawîh prayers during the month of Ramadan when no man is available who knows the Koran by heart, or that a woman may lead her husband, their children and their slaves when she is the most learned of them).

One could argue that the Tarawîh prayers are not obligatory and that prayers with the family are not public, and that one should not transform exceptions into rules. On the other hand, one could understand such exceptions as confirmation of the theory that it's not reasons of theology or principle, but social reasons which are decisive in these rulings.

Between prejudiced doubt and uncritical approval

The case of Umm Waraqa is often given as a precedent in the current debate. In the various versions of her story, which all add a bit to the picture, we learn that she was one of the women who knew the Koran by heart, and that the Prophet called on her to be the Imâm of the members of her household (Ahl Dârihâ).

Critics have tried to prove that there are weak points in one or other of the Isnâd (chains of transmission) which put the authenticity of the tradition into doubt. On the other hand, the example is used uncritically to back the demand for equal rights for women in leading public prayers.

Between these extreme positions, a debate is taking place as to who the members of her household were and whether the situation was a private or a public one.

A Development Towards A More Rational Approach?

There seem to be no examples of women who led Friday prayers, but there were many women who became famous as preachers on other occasions. We only have to look in the classical collections of biographies to find them.

But we would be deceiving ourselves if we left it at that and simply ignored the many statements which say, for example, that the voice of women is seductive, that the welfare of a woman is dependent on the satisfaction of her husband, that a woman's memory and intellect are inferior, or that women cause temptation and disturbance (Fitnah). These views come from Koran verses taken out of context, traditions and general assumptions.

In fact I'm surprised at the fact that such arguments are scarcely to be found in the current debate, and I ask myself if this is a sign of a development towards a more rational approach to the issue, or whether it is merely an attempt to be politically correct.

Islam's rich cultural variety

The debate over the role of the woman as Imâm is symptomatic. What we really need is a critical evaluation of the situation as required by the Muslim Ummah.

To start with, aside from the stereotypes, there isn't anything like "the position of woman in Muslim society." Parallel to the various possibilities for women in the service which are dependent on the views of specific schools of law and local customs, there are, between Morocco and Indonesia, between Central Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, varied climatic and economic and political conditions (which, to be sure, may not necessarily be just), historical experiences, and social and family structures, varying from a clearly patriarchal system to matrilineal structures with every shading in between. All are rooted in the same Koranic and prophetic sources and all make their own contribution to a rich cultural variety.

There's an astonishing contradiction between the high proportion of women students at universities in Muslim countries and the high proportion of illiterate women in the same countries, between the expression of high regard for women and the practical difficulties put in the way of giving women a bigger say in decision making processes, between the lip service paid to the delicacy of women and the off-putting ugliness of the women's areas in many mosques or the rough comments on the duty of obedience of a women towards her husband.

In my own daily work with Muslims in Europe, I meet people from different Arab countries, many of them students or refugees with different backgrounds as far as their education and political attitudes are concerned. Many of them insist on strict separation of the sexes, which may not always be a disadvantage, since it often encourages initiative and solidarity among women.

Does difference necessarily lead to fragmentation?

I am often surprised by the support given to daughters who want to study, and by the attempts in other families to restrict and control their daughters. There are Turkish migrants who are often strongly influenced by the clear role expectations of their rural background, while the next generation works its way through a labyrinth of values and norms between the cultures as they wrestle with their identity.

Many Muslims, especially women, are frightened. They are frightened of difference: they fear it may lead to the fragmentation of their society, to such an extent that they become incapable of dealing with contradictions and differences of opinion.

Many Muslims, especially women, are angry – angry about stereotypes from outside and ignorance and superstition inside the community to which they are repeatedly challenged to react. This gives them scarcely any time for constructive thought. They are angry, because they feel themselves cheated of their spiritual and cultural inheritance, and they are angry about the lack of any possibility of working at the development of a contemporary interpretation and application of the values they hold.

What are our options?

Should we, like uncritical slaves, obey everything which is declared in the tone of command, without questioning the sense of it? Or should we work towards the Koranic ideal under which men and women are partners (Sura 9:71), with the same moral values and religious duties (Sura 33:35) and the same duty to work together to build a just society?

And on another level: should we make women's education and the improvement of women's position in society into a priority, both in the general society and in the Muslim community in particular? Or should we push forward with symbolic actions from which one might expect that they will have an influence on the situation? Or are there perhaps yet other ways to improve things?

Final comments

Currently there are more questions than answers. Ijtihâd is necessary in many areas, and there are many legal rules which have moved away from the spirit of the Koran, even if they are founded on some fragment of the text.

Aside from that, the teaching that Mohammed is the final messenger of God is not the same as saying that the situation of the past must never change. It's much more the starting point for a more mature way of contributing to the welfare of human society.

I certainly don't want to be misunderstood as meaning that I lack respect for any of the scholars of the past. Whatever their position, they have tried hard not simply to follow isolated statements or hasty conclusions from precedent, but to work systematically within the framework of their respective methodology, experience and society.

In the same spirit, we should not follow them blindly. We should have the courage to ask our own questions, to study the matter conscientiously and to reach conclusions which make sense in our times.

Halima Krausen is a Muslim scholar and lecturer for the Initiative for Islamic Studies in Hamburg, Germany. (Translation from German: Michael Lawton)

~~~~-

Mike Ghouse comments:

Dr. Krausen’s presentation evokes the God given intellect in us. She demurs, “if this is a sign of a development towards a more rational approach to the issue, or whether it is merely an attempt to be politically correct.”, indeed, It is my observation over the last 10 years of work, debates and discussion forums, that it is a development.

My comments follow the article - Mike Ghouse

She asks, “ Should we, like uncritical slaves, obey everything which is declared in the tone of command, without questioning the sense of it? Or should we work towards the Koranic ideal under which men and women are partners (Sura 9:71), with the same moral values and religious duties (Sura 33:35) and the same duty to work together to build a just society?” The Neocon Muslims usually are afraid of the freedom; they find safety and security in being uncritical slaves. A new thought frightens them; I wish God had made them angels, completely free from the burden of thinking and taking the responsibility.

I agree with her that most of “These views come from Koran verses taken out of context, traditions and general assumptions.” And, “One of the most frequent arguments is that "this has never happened before and has never been considered possible in the past, and therefore should never happen."

Women and men are created to be full partners in life, as Dr. Krausen quotes, “should we work towards the Koranic ideal under which men and women are partners (Sura 9:71), with the same moral values and religious duties (Sura 33:35) and the same duty to work together to build a just society?”

Not all, but many a Muslims are afraid to speak up, even for the sake of discussion. The one who speaks up gets fiercely pounced, so he or she never speaks again. This is how the bullies shut out much of the freedom. I have consistently observed this among Muslims, Jews, Hindus and others. By the way, it is not about Muslims, it is about men, no matter what faith they wear, their phobias are the same.

For some men, the only source of feeling superior (false security) is by considering women to be inferior, a dumb logic, they are so weak that their whole being gets threatened by even feeling their spouse or other woman to be on par. Women are not inferior to men in any form or shape, on the Day of Judgment; it is their deeds that will be accounted for just as much as men’s deeds. A good deed is what you do to make Allah’s creation better; people and environment.

A generation or two from now, it may become a common thing for women to lead mixed gender prayers, Qur’aan orders men to lower their gaze and focus on piety, and pray to God and not look at women’s back. That is a ridiculous argument and those men should wear full Burqa with solid cover on their faces. Indeed, it is a test to those few men, to check their intention of going to the Mosque; to pray or to loaf.

~~~-
Mohsin Maqbool Elahi "Can women be Imams?" is an extremely difficult question to answer. Besides, I am no Islamic scholar to do that. However, I do know that it is NOT allowed for men to offer their prayers behind women due to various and obvious reasons.

However, where the question "what are our options?" is concerned, we should definitely make women's education and ... See Morethe improvement of women's position in society into a priority, both in the general society and in the Muslim community in particular. Pakistan lacks far behind many other Islamic states where these are concerned. Come to think of it even the men stand nowhere near in comparison.

The situation in our rural areas is even worse which is why entire families migrate to urban areas looking for labour. And those who can't find work or rather don't want to work turn to crime.

I am surprised that you being a Muslim scholar and lecturer for Islamic studies use 'Mohammed' for the Prophet's spelling when it should be Muhammad (peace be upon him). 'Mohammed' is an anglicised version which is not used anymore for his name. Besides, Muslims are always supposed to write 'peace be upon him' after his name in veneration which you have not. This is the least we can do to show our profound respect for the final messenger of Allah.
And, please, no offense meant.

Sadikha Hassain I strnongly beleive follow the rules and regulations of Quran and Huzoor Momammed sav. why to make changes and additions?

Amina Akram Faizan bhai ,the expereinces i ahve had last few days are so abrupt that , its sick and sick of people all around here.

Mike Ghouse - Women and men are created to be full partners in life, as Dr. Krausen quotes, “should we work towards the Koranic ideal under which men and women are partners (Sura 9:71), with the same moral values and religious duties (Sura 33:35) and the same duty to work together to build a just society?”

Not all, but many a Muslims are afraid to speak up, even for the sake of discussion. The one who speaks up gets fiercely pounced, so he or she never speaks again. This is how the bullies shut out much of the freedom. I have consistently observed this among Muslims, Jews, Hindus and others. By the way, it is not about Muslims, it is about men, no matter what faith they wear, their phobias are the same.

For some men, the only source of feeling superior (false security) is by considering women to be inferior, a dumb logic, they are so weak that their whole being gets threatened by even feeling their spouse or other woman to be on par. Women are not inferior to men in any form or shape, on the Day of Judgment; it is their deeds that will be accounted for just as much as men’s deeds. A good deed is what you do to make Allah’s creation better; people and environment. ... See More

A generation or two from now, it may become a common thing for women to lead mixed gender prayers, Qur’aan orders men to lower their gaze and focus on piety, and pray to God and not look at women’s back. That is a ridiculous argument and those men should wear full Burqa with solid cover on their faces. Indeed, it is a test to those few men, to check their intention of going to the Mosque; to pray or to loaf?

41 minutes ago · Mike Ghouse - Mohsin, in academic circles, the name Muhammad is commonly written with or without (pbuh). Even in Quraan where ever Prophet's name has appeared, there is no (pbuh). It is our culture that we use. It is not a religious requirement. It is fully acceptalbe to just write Muhammad, he is our prophet, no matter how many suffixes or prefixes we add, it... See More is not enough. It is ok not to add them as well.

By the way, Muhammad is as anglicized as Mohammed. There is no international ruling to use one or the other. I understand it is only in Pakistan it is has to be written in certain way, that is not the case in other nations.
34 minutes ago · Mike Ghouse - I laud Dr. Amina Wadud for restoring the rights of the women, that Islam initiated to begin with. Dr. Wadud, Asra Nomani, and Naeema Ghafoor were on my Radio show on the day of the Juma prayers several years ago.

It was a shame and embarrassment that a few right wingers, intolerant and insecure Muslims held ugly placards outside the prayer.... ... See MoreThe women were afraid of doing the prayers in the Mosque, so they went to the church. Reminded me of the persecution the early Muslims endured in praying in public places and they hid and prayed.

Amina Akram We are thinking of women leading the prayer , when can the women be allowed in the mosque.

Mike Ghouse - Amina, it is a shame that we can pray together in Mecca and not our own mosques. Fortunately, in the US, women and men go to prayers together, but pray in two different separated areas.. it will change in a few years, when our girls will not put up with up it. Although a few men act ugly in Allah's house, but a few have dared to change it too. May Allah give the courage to women to stand up for their rights.

- Please watch Asra Nomanis Public Television documentary ... the Morgan Town Mosque or something like that.

- My late wife Najma and I were challenged to enter the Jumia Masjid in New Delhi, we went any way and the Nayab Imam was staring at us, we did our Nafl prayers together. ... See More

- Najma and I steppted into the Mosque on the left to Taj Mahal, the Imam stood in my way, I asked hm to produce a document of ownership or let me pray in Allah's house as I would pray in Mecca... Najma and I prayed together in that Mosque. He later came and we had a long chat... he was OK.
a few seconds ago

More comments at: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=285316480717#
~~~

MOHAMMAD IRTAZA ADDS:

Salamun Alykum.

Both believing men and women shall attend the Congregational Prayer as understood from this verse - "O you who believe, when the Congregational Prayer (Salat Al-Jumuah) is announced on Friday, you shall hasten to the commemoration of God, and drop all business. This is better for you, if you only knew." (Quran 62:9) Please note that this verse is addressed not only to believing man, but also to believing woman.

Leading a Congregational Prayer is a righteous work. The Quran recognizes that men and women are endowed with unique qualities (Quran 4:32). Yet, the Quran teaches us that men and women are equal and they can do any righteous work for which they will be rewarded - "Their Lord responded to them: "I never fail to reward any worker among you for any work you do, be you male or female-you are equal to one another. Thus, those who immigrate, and get evicted from their homes, and are persecuted because of Me, and fight and get killed, I will surely remit their sins and admit them into gardens with flowing streams." Such is the reward from God. God possesses the ultimate reward." (Quran 3:195) Based on this verse, male and female are equal, and an woman may lead a prayer since it is a righteous work.

One of the purpose of the Congregational Sermon (Khutba) is to advocate righteousness and forbid evil. The believing men and women are allies of one another and they can advocate righteousness and forbid evil as understood from this verse - "The believing men and women are allies of one another. They advocate righteousness and forbid evil, they observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), and they obey God and His messenger. They will be showered by God's mercy. God is Almighty, Most Wise." (Quran 9:71) Since, this verse does not specify the type of audiences, a woman may deliver sermon or advocate righteousness or forbid evil to a group of male and female worshipers.

But, can a woman really take a leadership role ? The Quran detailed out the story of Queen Sheba (Quran 27:22-44). She represented a democratic leadership who consulted with her people before making decisions - "She said, "O my advisers, I have received an honorable letter. It is from Solomon, and it is, "In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful." Proclaiming: "Do not be arrogant; come to me as submitters."" She said, "O my advisers, counsel me in this matter. I am not deciding anything until you advise me." (Quran 27:29-32) After witnessing what God gave to Solomon, she became Muslim. The Quran does not indicate that her leadership role is offensive.

But, is it an innovation if woman leads a Prayer with men present in the Congregation? The Quran is a complete(Quran 6:38), perfect (Quran 18:1-2) and fully detailed (Quran 6:114) book. The Quran has no such ruling that leads us to believe that woman cannot be an Imam with men present in the congregation. Please remember that the Quran condemns religious innovations. Any religious ruling not authorized by God Almighty is an innovation as understood from this verse - "You do not worship beside Him except innovations that you have made up, you and your parents. God has never authorized such idols. All ruling belongs to God, and He has ruled that you shall not worship except Him. This is the perfect religion, but most people do not know." (Quran 12:40)

Can you imagine how many religious innovations were made up by our respected imams and scholars just by quoting religious edicts (fatwas) !? The ancient religious scholar manufactured the following religious edict which was falsely attributed to the Prophet to discourage women to go to a mosque.- "Narrated Ibn Umar: The prophet (p.b.u.h) said, "Allow women to go to the Mosque at night." (Vol 2, Book 13, No 22, Bukhari hadith translated by M. Muhsin Khan) !!!!! The following modern religious edict is fabricated by Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America (AMJA) because they failed to resist the right of women to go to a mosque - "A unanimous consensus for the entire Ummah (Muslim community) in the east and west (is) that women cannot lead the Friday prayer nor can they deliver the (sermon). Whoever takes part in such a prayer, then his prayer is nullified, whether he was an Imam or a follower." !!!!!!!!! So, according to the new fatwa, woman may now go to a mosque but she cannot lead a prayer !!!!!

Is there any possibility that the ruling on "woman as imam" existed during the time of Abraham, since God Almighty taught him how to offer salat prayer (Quran 21:73) and Muhammed was enjoined to follow the religion of Abraham (Quran 16:123) ? We simply do not know how women were treated during the time of Abraham. We do not know if God Almighty decreed equality of law (Quran 3:195) for both men and women during Abraham's time. We even do not know if that ruling on "woman as imam" was relevant or premature during that time frame. Slavery is a relevant subject during Muhammed's time (Quran 2:177-178; 4:25) . But, is slavery a relevant subject during our time when it is universally recognized unacceptable practice !? The mathematical miracle of the Quran (Quran 74:30-35) is relevant during our time because the miracle can be verified with the help of a computer (Quran 27:82). But, could that miracle play any significant role during Muhammed's era when numerical system were not even developed and people used alphabets for counting !?

Only fifty years ago, women were not even allowed to pray in the mosque despite the fact that the Quran permits them to pray in the mosque (Quran 62:9). Today, it becomes a reality at a very small scale but with the segregation of men and women !!

Only God Almighty has the full knowledge of the past, present and future of all seven universes. Based on such knowledge, He designed His Quran such a way that it can be effectively applied to any situation for all the generations and generations to come.

Thank you and may God guide me,
Muhammed Irtaza
~~~~~

Haiti and Earthquake

Haiti - posted at the Foundation for Pluralism Blog

Haiti and Earthquake Theology
Dr. Jeffress, this is one of the most timely pieces, that we the people of faith need to read. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. It is time to get out and help, God is testing us and our intentions. Indeed, when we don't understand the calamities and its purpose, and we never will, it is good to trust in God. He is the creator and he knows his creation.
http://wisdomofreligion.blogspot.com/2010/01/haiti-and-earthquake-theology.html

Haiti, Voodoo's view on the quake
If you feel the temptation that your faith makes sense and others don't, ask yourselves, where does this arrogance come from? My comments follow the article
http://wisdomofreligion.blogspot.com/2010/01/haiti-voodoos-view-on-quake.html

Haiti needs one hundred helicopters
I urge each one of us living in the United States to make the call to the white house at the number given below. May God bless success to these initiatives and hope together we can save lives. Amen - http://wisdomofreligion.blogspot.com/2010/01/haiti-needs-one-hundred-helicopters.html

Faith in action: Haiti TragedyShare
It is the spirit of service, every religion is participating in the efforts to find relief to the victims in Haiti. This is what religion is all about; it is not me, me, and me, it is we, we and us.
http://wisdomofreligion.blogspot.com/2010/01/multifaith-action-haiti-tragedyshare.html

Seeking Harmony in Malaysia
I am pleased to see the following article by Imam Feisal. He has laid out how things are and then offered solutions. My comments follow the article
http://wisdomofreligion.blogspot.com/2010/01/seeking-harmony-in-malaysia.html

Mike Ghouse
~~~~

The Islamists Are Not Coming

The Islamists Are Not Coming
Religious parties in the Muslim world are hardly the juggernauts they've been made out to be.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issues/177/contents

BY CHARLES KURZMAN, IJLAL NAQVI JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2010

Do Muslims automatically vote Islamic? That's the concern conjured up by strongmen from Tunis to Tashkent, and plenty of Western experts agree. They point to the political victories of Islamic parties in Egypt, Palestine, and Turkey in recent years and warn that more elections across the Islamic world could turn power over to anti-democratic fundamentalists.

But these victories turn out to be exceptions, not the political rule. When we examined results from parliamentary elections in all Muslim societies, we found a very different pattern: Given the choice, voters tend to go with secular parties, not religious ones. Over the past 40 years, 86 parliamentary elections in 20 countries have included one or more Islamic parties, according to annual reports from the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Voters in these places have overwhelmingly turned up their noses at such parties. Eighty percent of these Islamic parties earned less than 20 percent of the vote, and a majority got less than 10 percent -- hardly landslide victories. The same is true even over the last few years, with numbers barely changing since 2001.

True, Islamic parties have won a few well-publicized breakthrough victories, such as in Algeria in 1991 and Palestine in 2006. But far more often, Islamic parties tend to do very poorly. What's more, the more free and fair an election is, the worse the Islamic parties do. By our calculations, the average percentage of seats won by Islamic parties in relatively free elections is 10 points lower than in less free ones.

Even if they don't win, Islamic parties often find themselves liberalized by the electoral process. We found that Islamic party platforms are less likely to focus on sharia law or armed jihad in freer elections and more likely to uphold democracy and women's rights. And even in more authoritarian countries, Islamic party platforms have shifted over the course of multiple elections toward more liberal positions: Morocco's Justice and Development Party and Jordan's Islamic Action Front both stripped sharia law from their platforms over the last several years.

These are still culturally conservative parties, by any standard, but their decision to run for office places them at odds with Islamic revolutionaries. In many cases, they're actually risking their lives. Almost two decades ago, even before his alliance with Osama bin Laden, Egyptian jihadist Ayman al-Zawahiri wrote a tract condemning the Muslim Brotherhood's abandonment of revolutionary methods in favor of electoral politics.
"Whoever labels himself as a Muslim democrat, or a Muslim who calls for democracy, is like saying he is a Jewish Muslim or a Christian Muslim," he wrote. In Iraq, Sunni Islamic revolutionaries recently renewed their campaign "to start killing all those participating in the political process," according to a warning received by a Sunni politician who was subsequently assassinated in Mosul.

What enrages Zawahiri and his ilk is that Islamists keep ignoring demands to stay out of parliamentary politics. Despite threats from terrorists and a cold shoulder from voters, more and more Islamic parties are entering the electoral process. A quarter-century ago, many of these movements were trying to overthrow the state and create an Islamic society, inspired by the Iranian Revolution. Now, disillusioned with revolution, they are working within the secular system.

But today's problems for Islamic parties may recall an earlier historical moment, the watershed period of the early 20th century when demands for democracy and human rights first gained mass support in Muslim societies from the Russian Empire to the Ottoman Empire. Then as now, violent Islamic movements such as the Ottoman-era Islamic Unity Society objected to electoral politics. But that was not what ultimately undermined democracy in Muslim societies. Instead, secular autocrats, such as Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in Turkey and Reza Shah in Iran, suppressed pro-democratic Islamic movements, driving Islamists underground and helping to radicalize them.

Today, too, dictators and terrorists are conspiring to keep Islamic political parties from competing freely for votes. Government repression has been successful in one sense -- Islamic parties have won few elections. In a broader sense, however, it is failing: According to the World Values Survey, which has polled cultural attitudes around the world, support for sharia is one-third lower in countries with relatively free elections than in other Muslim societies. In other words, suppressing Islamic movements has only made them more popular. Perhaps democratization is not such a gift to Islamists after all.

KHALIL MAZRAAWI/AFP/Getty Images

Charles Kurzman is professor of sociology and Ijlal Naqvi is a sociology graduate student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
~~~~

Change is Coming to Islam

CHANGE IS COMING TO ISLAM
ZIAUDDIN SARDAR
in Times of India on 26 December 2009

The article explores the revival, philanthropy, radicalism, Sharia and reform. I have added my comments beneath and you are welcome to share your comments section – Mike Ghouse

ZIAUDDIN SARDAR London-based author of Desperately Seeking Paradise, Balti Britain: A Provocative Journey through Asian Britain, and many other books.

Last week, I took the Euro Star from St Pancras International station in London to Paris. Just after clearing immigration, I was stopped by a security officer. Nothing unusual in that, except I was the only one he stopped and questioned in literally thousands of passengers. I had some time to kill so I stood beside him to watch who else he interrogates . In 40 minutes, he only stopped two other people. The first was an old man clearly recognisable as a Muslim: beard, cap, badly-fitted suit, Arab (I guessed Tunisian) origins. The other was a person who strikes terror in the heart of every security officer: a Muslim woman in hijab.

This is perhaps the most noticeable feature of the passing decade for us Muslims. We are now universally regarded as objects of suspicion and subjects for interrogation.

The main reason behind this is the momentous atrocity that began the Noughties: the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001. It is hardly surprising that the last decade has been dominated by the consequences of that attack. Most of the negative as well as positive developments in the Muslim world during the last ten years can be traced to that fateful event.

Terrorism, however, was not new to the Muslim world: it had been a problem before 9/11. In Pakistan , Kashmir, Egypt, and in Palestine, the cycle of sectarian and ideological terror and counter terror had already cost innumerable lives. In Chechnya, Bosnia and occupied Palestine, Muslims were victims of what can only be described as state-sponsored terrorism. And the vast majority of the victims of this internal and external violence were Muslims.

But the 9/11 atrocity did create a new chapter. To begin with, it compounded a set of problems that existed for some time. For more than a generation , since at least the 'Islamic Revolution' in Iran, the political rhetoric in the Muslim world had been changing from the hyperbole of sabrerattling nationalism to macho militancy seeking to clothe itself in the legitimating mantle of Islam. The response to the 9/11 atrocity, the so-called 'war on terror' , took that tendency to a new height.

The 'war on terror' had a devastating impact both on the external realities of Muslim societies as well as on Muslim consciousnesses. It changed not only the course of history in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan but also served as a springboard for the revival of the Taliban and the emergence of new militant groups such as the Jemaah Islamiya in Indonesia and the radical Shabab in the Horn of Africa. It also laid the foundation for home-grown al-Qaida-inspired terrorism in Europe and America. The hatred of America in the Muslim world, a direct consequence of the 'war on terror' , also became an ideal substitute, in certain circles, for introspection and reflexive thought on the economic, social and political problems of many Muslim countries.

There were other consequences as well. Western reactions to 'Muslim terror' in Iraq and Afghanistan reinforced the negative views of Islam and Muslims. The fear and loathing of Muslims has been an integral part of European consciousness almost from the inception of Islam. Bloody terrorist campaigns by fringe Muslim organisations brought these anti-Islam and anti-Muslim narratives, 'the darker side of Europe' , to the fore. What was conventionally described as 'Orientalism' , a refined literary and scholarly way of ascribing radicalism, backwardness and violence to Muslims, was transformed during the Noughties into what came to be known as 'Islamophobia' : crude, unabashed religious discrimination and racism against Muslims.

Europe has seen a frightening rise in Islamophobia since the July 7, 2005 bombings in London . As 'Muslims in Europe: A Report on 11 EU Cities' , published last week by the Open Society Institute , shows, prejudice and discrimination are the routine, everyday experience of European Muslims in such cities as Antwerp, Berlin, Copenhagen , Paris and Stockholm. Riding on openly anti-Muslim tickets, far-right political parties have made considerable gains all over Europe - from Denmark to Italy, Belgium, Germany and Britain. Even the so-called moderate conservative parties now routinely employ anti-Muslim narratives that tell of an indigenous culture being 'swamped' by 'alien' and 'hostile' Muslims with their fundamentally incompatible attitudes to gender, sexuality and freedom of expression.

The much-vaunted freedom of expression was itself curtailed throughout much of the Muslim world as a result of the 'war on terror' . The outcome was predicted by Anwar Ibrahim, one of the most lucid voices of sanity in the Muslim world, in early 2002. Ibrahim, one-time founder of an Islamic movement and former deputy prime minister of Malaysia, was a major threat to the corrupt regime of the then prime minister, the autocratic Mahathir Muhammad. Mahathir had Ibrahim framed on homosexuality charges, and after a sham trial, sentenced to fifteen years in prison. The development of the 'Anwar phenomenon' , as it came to be known, kept Muslim intellectuals throughout the world gripped for most of the decade.

One consequence of the 9/11 atrocity, said Ibrahim in an open letter written from his prison cell, would be that "the nascent democratic movements in Muslim countries will regress for a few decades as ruling autocrats use their participation in the global war against terrorism to terrorise their critics and dissenters" . Indeed, this is exactly what happened in Egypt, Algeria, Jordan, Iran and many other Muslim countries.

The problem for Muslim societies, Ibrahim explained , was simple: "In the centuries when Islam created civilizations, men of wealth created pious foundations supporting universities and hospitals. Princes competed with one another to patronize scientists, philosophers and men of letters." That was then, now: "bin Laden uses his personal fortune to sponsor terror and murder, not learning and creativity, and to wreak destruction rather than promote creation. Osama bin Laden and his protégés are the children of desperation; they come from countries where political struggle through peaceful means is futile. In many Muslim countries, political dissent is simply illegal."

In many - but not in all. And this is where the dark clouds of the Noughties revealed their silver lining. While the centre of Islam - the Arab world, Iran, Pakistan - was embroiled in strife and turmoil, something very interesting was happening at the periphery. Muslim democratic movements in Indonesia and Turkey made substantial gains. A miracle was performed in Morocco: Islamic personal law was totally changed and transformed . In Malaysia, Anwar Ibrahim himself was released in September 2004; and went on to lead the opposition in April 2008 after an election that shattered the absolute dominance of UMNO, the corrupt ruling party of Malaysia.

The 2002 election in Turkey brought the Justice and Development Party (AKP) into power. Led by Recep Tayyip Erdogen, former mayor of Istanbul, the AKP has deep Islamic roots. Both its leaders and the mass of its supporters are committed Muslims . Almost immediately, AKP demonstrated that it was more committed to democracy than any other political party in Turkey.

The AKP used standard Islamic principles to realign Islamic politics towards democracy. Its leaders argued that politics in Islam has to be based on the Qur'anic concept of shura, or consultation, and therefore must be consensual and democratic. They introduced far-reaching reforms: death penalty was abolished, minorities were given more freedom , including the right to their own language education , and various aspects of human rights legislation were put on the statue books.

The AKP even tried to change the law to ensure that the military cannot intervene in the political process. And, as its resounding success in 2007 proved, AKP turned out to be an effective and efficient manager of the economy; it has been credited with being economically the most successful party in Turkey's history. The AKP has proved that Islamic politics need not be the sole preserve of the fanatics and the Mullahs. It can be an effective instrument to establish civic society and a thriving democracy.

Indonesia went through a similar transformation . The first direct presidential election in 2004 was a watershed for the largest republic in the Muslim world. Unlike Pakistan or Bangladesh, where the Islamic movements are marginalised and have never won more than three or four per cent of the votes, the Islamic movements in Indonesia are a mass phenomenon. Organisations like Muhammadiyah , Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and Liberal Islam Network (LIN) have followers in scores of millions.

Since the return of democracy in Indonesia, these organisations have argued that Islamic politics is not about establishing a utopian 'Islamic state' where 'the shariah is supreme' but about creating a civic society where accountability, transparency and participatory democracy are the norm. Moreover, the shariah's overemphasis on formality and symbolism has drained it of all ethical and humane dimensions; and as such, it needs to be totally reformulated. Both democracy and Islamic law must evolve from below with the participation of the masses. This is the message that the largely young members of Muhammadiyah and LIN have been promoting in mosques, schools and universities throughout Indonesia. This outlook was the cornerstone of the peaceful settlement in 2005 of the long-running armed conflict in Aceh.

While the Islamic movement in Indonesia is still grappling with ways and means of reformulating the shariah, Morocco has provided a clear lead. The family law in Morocco, known as Moudawana, was based on the traditional Islamic rules on marriage, divorce, inheritance, polygamy and child custody. Women's groups and enlightened Muslim scholars had been campaigning for decades to change and reform it without much success. But 9/11 and its aftermath provided a new impetus. A special commission , which notably included women, was created with the specific task of producing fresh legislation based on the principles of Islam. The resulting family law, which was introduced on the statute books in February 2004, sweeps away centuries of bigotry and bias against women.

The new Moudawana allows a woman to contract a marriage without the legal approval of a guardian. Verbal divorce has been outlawed: men now require prior authorisation from a court, and women have exactly the same rights. Women can claim alimony and can be granted custody of their children even if they remarry. Husbands and wives must share property acquired during the marriage. Men are no longer the 'leaders' of the family; both husband and wife share the leadership role. The old custom of favouring male heirs in the sharing of inherited land has also been dropped, making it possible for grandchildren on the daughter's side to inherit from their grandfather, just like grandchildren on the son's side. As for polygamy, it has been all but abolished. Men can take second wives only with the full consent of the first wife and only if they can prove, in a court of law, that they can treat them both with absolute justice - an impossible condition.

Every change in the law is justified - chapter and verse - from the Qur'an , and from the examples and traditions of the Prophet Muhammad. And every change acquired the consent of the religious scholars. With the exception of the gripes of a few extremists , the new shariah has been widely welcomed, even by the Islamist political organisations. Justice and Development Party described the law as "a pioneering reform" that is "in line with the prescriptions of Islam and with the aims of our religion" .

If the shariah can be changed then anything and everything in the Muslim world is amenable to change. Not least in India, where the efforts of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board to declare 'triple talaq' null and void suggest stirrings of a forward movement. But the narrow-minded conservatives , in India as elsewhere, move quasi-statically . For sure, fundamentalism will continue to be with us for some time. But it is totally vacuous, based on nothing more than hateful slogans and, as such, is bound to wither away. Adaptation and emulation of the successful aspects of the Islamic movements in Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey will increasingly become the dominant theme. As in the past, so in the future: the centre of the Muslim world will be slowly but surely transformed from the periphery.

By ZIAUDDIN SARDAR, London-based author of Desperately Seeking Paradise, Balti Britain: A Provocative Journey Through Asian Britain, and many other books

source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Change-is-coming-to-Islam-/articleshow/5380563.cms

Comments by Mike Ghouse

Quote, "For sure, fundamentalism will continue to be with us for some time. But it is totally vacuous, based on nothing more than hateful slogans and, as such, is bound to wither away."

Indeed, fundamentalism is part of the whole, every group and every tradition will continue to hang on to some fundamentals as a safety niche, and it will be a part of the social fabric. We have to figure out working the least conflict route. It is good to see the follow up line which assures the common readers about the reduction of fundamentalism.

Quote, "the nascent democratic movements in Muslim countries will regress for a few decades as ruling autocrats use their participation in the global war against terrorism to terrorise their critics and dissenters"

I recall Indira Gandhi's emergency rule, where every petty officer in government abused the privilege given to him to run the organization effectively. They terrorized the people who worked under them. It was a nightmare.

Quote, "Princes competed with one another to patronize scientists, philosophers and men of letters."

The Muslims in America are working their way to volunteer their time and money to causes other than their own, wee need to accelerate that process and fully integrate in the society and be a part in contributing and participating towards the success of the society at large. We have to serve the needy, no matter who they are.

Here is an article I wrote, which has been published in an Indian Magazine as well, application is the same - Are Muslims a part of the American story? ...
http://wisdomofreligion.blogspot.com/2009/04/are-muslims-part-of-american-story.html

Quote, "The family law in Morocco, known as Moudawana, was based on the traditional Islamic rules on marriage, divorce, inheritance, polygamy and child custody. …..A special commission, which notably included women, was created with the specific task of producing fresh legislation based on the principles of Islam."

By using the word "traditional..." the author innocuously legitimizes that which was founded on mis-interpretations" as he beautifully segue into "producing fresh legislation based on the principles of Islam."

I admire the principles laid out in the Morocco's new Sharia law, it incorporates a fundamental principle that most "men" jurists in the past ignored, overlooked or deliberately suppressed.

The description of the day of accountability (Day of Judgment) is vivid – No one is responsible for the acts of others, it makes it clear that not even your prophet will come to rescue you; you stand alone with your good and bad Karma to take the next step. The prophet even told his daughter that, just because she is the daughter of the prophet, she is not going to get a free pass; she has to earn it – by doing good deeds. That is being good to God's creation; life and environment. It is about individual responsibility.

The law, any law is written to bring justice to an individual and the society, and laws produced with the free and willing participation of all its consumers would be sustainable and more importantly, it will be "just". . Although the intent of Sharia Laws was justice, it has many flaws in its public application, we have them in Texas too, we have hung too many innocent people. Sharia must be subjected to critical thinking, those who were critical were ignored; they were not given a listen due to the political climate which the Author describes it well, it was a similar climate when those laws were formulated.

Sharia Laws are not divine; we have to consistently hammer this. They are interpretations of what Qur'aan meant to the Jurists after the Prophet, it means differently to us in a pluralistic society. The production of those laws was in an exclusive environment and not the environment of Pluralism that Prophet had lived. Madinah document and other principles of Pluralism were in place during the time of prophet. ...

Thank God for the net and face book, freedom will become the supreme value for human kind .

By the way, the Moroccan Sharia laws are reflective of the laws we have in America, which are fair and carried forward with huge debates.

Your comments are welcome at: http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2010/01/change-is-coming-to-islam.html#comments

~~~

Book smashes India's "Islamic terrorism" myth

Book smashes India's "Islamic terrorism" myth
A former IG of Maharashtra police lays bare a massive plot to destabilise India

By M Zeyaul Haque

New Delhi, October 22 (The Milli Gazette): A new book curiously titled Who Killed Karkare? says a nationwide network of Hindutva terror that has its tentacles spread up to Nepal and Israel is out to destroy the India most Indians have known for ages and to remould it into some kind of Afghanistan under the Taliban.

The writer, a former IG Police of Maharashtra, SM Mushrif, has reconstructed a fearsome picture out of former Maharashtra ATS chief Hemant Karkare’s chargesheet against alleged Hindutva terrorists like Lt. Col. Purohit, Sadhvi Pragyasingh Thakur and others.

The chargesheet pointed towards a mind-boggling nationwide conspiracy with international support to destabilise the constitutional order and the secular democratic Indian state that upholds it, to be replaced by a Hindutva state run according to a new Constitution. For that the conspirators were prepared for a massive bloodbath, using bomb attacks on religious places to trigger that anti-Muslim holocaust.

Mushrif, who has over three decades of diligent policing behind him and whose feats include exposing the Telgi scam, has made an elaborate case out of nearly a dozen blasts over a large area of the country conducted by Hindutva terror groups of different stripes. His case: a section of India’s intelligence services, a miniscule group in the armed forces and a section of different state police forces have been compromised and infiltrated by these elements, a development that bodes ill for the future of the country.

In Hemant Karkare’s net (of investigations, of course) many big and small fishes of VHP, RSS, Bajrang Dal and Sanatan Sanstha (which has been found to be involved in Diwali-eve blasts in Goa last week) had been trapped. Serving and retired army officers, academics, serving and retired officials of India’s premier intelligence service were ensnared in Karkare’s fishing net. The menacing power of the latter groups, inspired by sustained anti-Muslim hate campaigns of the last six decades, gave the plot a sinister and highly destructive character.

Among the plans unearthed by Karkare was a blueprint for the assassination of 70 prominent Indians who could by a hindrance to the project of Hindutva. Interestingly, most of the persons marked for elimination would, naturally, be Hindus because it is they who primarily run the dispensation. The conspirators were also unhappy with organisations whose Hindutva they suspected to be less virulent than desired.

Mushrif, who very well knows the power of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) to make or mar lives and careers, says he is prepared to face the consequences of hostility of this power hub. He musters “evidence” to show that the IB has regularly been interfering with regular police investigations to let Hindutva terrorists slip out of the net and replace them with random Muslim youth. To fudge the issues further obliging police officers in the states would not mind exterminating a few Muslim youth to be branded posthumously as “terrorists”.

There are quite a few number of such cases where such extra-judicial killing of Muslim youth has turned out to be false police encounters. All this is done to cover tracks of Hindutva terror. Mushrif says a “Brahminist” network that has its origins in Maharashtra, and is closely knit across political parties, government services, including IB, and other vital sectors of life is behind the terror that seeks to destroy the secular, democratic state. He hastens to clarify that very few Brahminists are Brahmins. Many are from other high Hindu castes, some from middle and lower castes.

Most Brahmins are fair-minded and would not like to associate themselves with hate ideologies. Hemant Karkare, too, was a Brahmin, Mushrif says. So is Mushrif’s son-in-law.

It is pertinent to note that “Brahminism” and “Brahminical order” first appeared in Dalit protest vocabulary in the Dalit uprising movement in Maharashtra towards the turn of the 20th century. Mushrif, who appropriates part of this vocabulary for the present discourse, says that Maharashtra still remains the centre of this ideology that, among other things, has the dubious distinction of killing the Father of the Nation.

The power establishment that really runs the affairs of this country (Mushrif says it is not Sonia Gandhi, Manmohan Singh or Rahul Gandhi) does not want to expose the Hindutva terrorists. One example is the blasts in Samjhauta Express, which the IB said was carried out by Pakistan’s ISI. Mushrif quotes a report in The Times of India that said, “the Centre had blamed the ISI on the basis of the IB’s findings.” However, during a narco-analysis test under Karkare, Lt. Col. Purohit had admitted having supplied the RDX used in the blast. The IB, which draws its power from its proximity to the Prime Minister (its director briefs the PM every morning for half an hour), did not want Karkare’s investigation that blew the cover off the IB’s shenanigans, to continue.

Once Karkare was removed from the scene, the IB moved in to fill his position with KP Raghuvanshi, a pliant police officer with extremely low credibility among Muslims for his record of letting off known Hindutva terrorirsts and implicating innocent Muslim youth even in bomb attack cases on mosques.

There are quite a few interesting vignettes here, like Raghuvanshi and Col. Purohit’s association with Abhinav Bharat in Maharashtra, whose hand was evident in a series of blasts across the country. It has old connections with men like Veer Damodar Savarkar (whose relative Himani Savarkar leads the Abhinav Bharat movement), Dr Munje, who led the Hindu Mahasabha, and other Hindutva luminaries. It is at the Bhonsala Military Academy run by these groups that Purohit trained police officers, including Raghuvanshi. Mushrif asks a pertinent question: Will Raghuvanshi pursue the investigation against Purohit, his guru? A plausible answer is, perhaps no. Already charges have been dropped by a special court under MCOCA against 11 accused, including Purohit, on the grounds of insufficient evidence produced in the court by the prosecution.

This was just the beginning of the undoing of Karkare’s painstaking investigation. Mushrif says slowly the system is working to undo all of Karkare’s work and let off the terrorists who over the years destroyed scores of lives and wreaked irreparable economic damage. The ATS team under Karkare had pointed out VHP leader Praveen Togadia’s role in the blasts. The ATS under Raghuvanshi dropped the investigation against him saying (please hold your laughter) they do not know who Togadia is!

A number of investigations have been thus sabotaged by the powers that be and the tracks of the Hinduta terrorists duly covered. The 319-page book is crammed with such information.

But what about who killed Karkare? Mushrif says two teams were at work on 26/11 ­– one which did the maximum damage, and was from outside. The smaller team took advantage of the confusion of the moment and acted only on the relatively small CST-CAMA-Rangbhavan stretch that killed Karkare. It was a desi unit that wanted Karkare and his men out of the way.

Book: Who Killed Karkare? The Real Face of Terrorism in India
Author: SM Mushrif
Price: Rs 300
Pages: 319
Publisher: Pharos Media (www.pharosmedia.com), New Delhi
# #

Chandra Muzaffar on Islamic Inclusivism

Interview: Chandra Muzaffar on Islamic Inclusivism and Muslim Exclusivism
By Yogi Sikand -

Interview follows my comments - Mike Ghouse

Dr. Muzaffar - I firmly believe that the various messengers of God did not intend to create new communities of followers defined by external markers and rituals that had little or nothing to do with the central core of their message. Instead, they were sent by God to reform attitudes, to nourish proper ways of being human.

Mike - The purpose of all faiths is to spiritually connect the humans with the divine, simply meaning understanding existence, accountability, the beginning and the ending. The idea of religion is to bring peace and balance to an individual and what surrounds him or her; life and matter. To be religious is to be a peace maker, one who mitigates conflicts and nurtures goodwill.
Dr. Muzaffar - A third sense in which it is used is to refer to the whole of humankind in general.

Mike – Qur’aan, Al-Hujurat, Surah 49:13: "O mankind! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. The noblest of you, in sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Allah Knows and is Aware."

Dr. Muzaffar - but, rather, as a person who upholds certain values and reflects or possesses certain attributes, a person who believes in the one God, submits to His will and does good, irrespective of his or her community.

Mike – Muslims have got that right, but the focus has been the rituals, just as Neocon Christians are hung up with the words of Jesus “ You come to father through me” . Muslim Neocons have gone literal. Let me add a few more phrases, Krishna says in Bhagvad Gita, “surrender to me” and of course in Qur’aan Allah expects one to “submit to his will”. In essence, they nearly mean the same but the literalist in all traditions are hung with external manifestation rather than what it means.

Dr. Muzaffar - which Muslims generally think is wholly unchangeable, is actually fiqh, the product of the Ijtihaad or the thinking and interpretation of ulema, who were after all, fallible human beings like the rest of us.

Mike - Yogi, in your previous interview of Dr. Muzaffar, he said “"The fixation of many Muslims with fiqh, with the externalities of religion in terms of rituals or with Arabic linguistic terms and culture, completely negates what I regard as Islam’s inherent universality." And in my article, Are Muslims part of the American Story, I wrote, “We must learn to re-examine our attitudes towards others and push the refresh button to understand the essence of Islam. We must do our inner jihad against the temptations to reduce Islam to rituals, we should not only be identified as Muslims by the ritual aspect of our religion, but also be recognized by the spiritual aspect of “being a Muslim”.

Dr. Muzaffar - many Malay Muslims, mid-West Americans or Indian Hindus would not be enthusiastic about opening up to others.

Mike – That is the case with all Neocons (Muslims, Christians, Jews or Hindus) - * Neocons http://hatesermons.blogspot.com/2008/03/neocons.html

Dr. Muzaffar - And so, Indonesian Muslim religious intellectuals are much more open to questioning conservative understandings of religion and to promoting more contextually-relevant responses to a range of contemporary issues.

Mike – Part of it may be because of separation of state and religion. Islam always exhibits its wisdom and universality in democracies and free nations; in religious nations it gets choked.

Yogi, thanks for the interview. It is enlightening.

Mike Ghouse
www.WorldMuslimCongress.com
www.WorldMuslimCongress.org
___________________________________________

Interview: Chandra Muzaffar on Islamic Inclusivism and Muslim Exclusivism
By Yogi Sikand

Chandra Muzaffar is Malaysia’s leading public intellectual. Author of numerous
books, mainly on religion, hegemony and resistance, he is the President of the
International Movement for a Just World. In this interview with Yoginder Sikand
he talks about various aspects related to Islam and Islamic assertion in
Malaysia.

Q: Could you tell us something about yourself and your academic and activist
background? How did you get interested in Islam?

A: I was born in 1947 in the state of Kedah in northern Malaysia. Both my
parents were Hindus who were originally from Kerala in southern India. My mother
was a third generation Malaysian but my father had been born and brought up in
India.

Since my teens I evinced a strong interest in religion. I kept wondering about
the purpose of life, life after death and so on. And so I began reading about
religion. I started with Hinduism, and then went on to Christianity and then to
the Bahai Faith. I was even actively involved with a Bahai group but I left
after a while. There was more emphasis upon rituals than I had expected. In
1967, I enrolled at the University of Singapore to do a Bachelor’s degree in
Philosophy, Politics and History, eventually specializing in Politics and that
is where I began reading about how Western philosophers looked at the big
existential questions about life.

In the second year at the University, I became very close to a leading Malaysian
intellectual, who was at that time the head of the Department of Malay Studies
at the University of Singapore the late Syed Hussein Alatas, a very well-known
sociologist and author of numerous books on Islam. I began spending a lot of
time with him in his house. He had just then set up an opposition political
party in Malaysia, and so we would spend hours together discussing politics,
national unity, inter-communal relations and social justice in Malaysia. It was
he who inspired me to start reading about Islam. I read numerous works by many
Muslim authors who represented a diverse range of understandings of Islam. I
also read Alatas own works on Islam and was influenced particularly by his
personality, lifestyle and his very universalistic understanding of and approach
to Islam.

After graduating from Singapore I returned to Malaysia, where I registered at
the Universiti Sains Malaysia in Penang to do a Master’s degree. For my thesis
I worked on Malaysian politics, in the course of which I did fieldwork, which
gave me the opportunity to meet many Malay Muslim leaders from the Islamic party
PAS and to learn more about their understanding of Islam as a political
ideology. By this time, I had strengthened my own conviction in Islam ”not the
ritualistic, dogmatic sort of Islam, but the Islam that stands for universalism,
that stresses fundamental values over forms, that does not recognize mere
rituals and externals as a criterion of one’s religious commitment. And so in
May 1974 I formally embraced, or, as it is said, reverted to, Islam.

Q: You mentioned that one reason for your disenchantment with the Bahai Faith
was its ritualism. Given what some might call the excessive ritualism associated
with the general practice of Islam in Malaysia and elsewhere, it might seem
strange that you were attracted to Islam, is it not?

A: As I just mentioned, I was attracted by the universalism that I discovered in
the Quran, but which Muslim practice very often tends to completely negate by
associating Islam with a particular community and with a set of rituals. This is
quite in contrast to the understanding of Islam that I learnt from Syed Hussein
Alatas. I think one could argue that every religious community has betrayed its
leading figure by turning into a separate group, using rituals to shore up
boundaries to set it apart from other similarly constructed groups. This has
happened with Muslims as well, and has led to the universal message of Islam
being negated in practical terms.

My own understanding of Islam is that it is basically a worldview, a distinct
attitude, a weltanschauung, and not the creed of a narrowly-defined community. I
do not believe that the purpose of Islam is to create a community defined in
this sense. Rather, it is to nourish a certain outlook or way of living that
reflects certain basic values and which should not be seen as being confined to
a certain community. My understanding of Islam is one that is fundamentally
opposed to communal thinking. I mean, how can one consider a person who commits
a heinous crime like murder a Muslim in the true sense of the word ”which
means one who submits his will to God ”simply because he has an Arabic name and
has verbally recited the shahada, the Islamic testimony of faith?

I firmly believe that the various messengers of God did not intend to create new
communities of followers defined by external markers and rituals that had little
or nothing to do with the central core of their message. Instead, they were sent
by God to reform attitudes, to nourish proper ways of being human. Sadly,
however, precisely the opposite happened after their demise in every case.
According to conventional religious thinking, people are judged or viewed not in
terms of the basic values that the prophets stressed, on the basis of how they
relate to others, to Nature, and so on, but in terms of an elaborate set of
rituals and external markers. This is really tragic.

Q: You seem to argue, if I get you correctly, that Islam did not intend to
establish a separate community. But what about the concept of Muslims as an
ummah, as a separate people defined on the basis of religion?

A: I think there is a lot of confusion about the term ummah. The Quran uses the
term in different senses, which do not negate each other. For instance, it is
used in the context of the ummah of Medina, which included the Muslim Ansars and
Muhajirin and various non-Muslims, including Jewish tribes who were brought
together through the Covenant of Medina. A second sense in which the term ummah
is used is for those who accepted God and Muhammad as His messenger, as opposed
to those who rejected one or both. A third sense in which it is used is to refer
to the whole of humankind in general. In none of these senses does it
necessarily convey the exclusivist notion of community that many Muslims
understand it as.

So, I would contend that one of the major challenges before Muslims today is to
reappraise the whole notion of ummah, to retrieve what I believe is its actual
connotation as a group based on values and that transcends communal divisions.
This notion of the ummah is suggested in the Quran but it has been subverted in
the ways in which it has conventionally been understood and interpreted. I
believe that in todays context of rapid communications and the breaking down
of barriers dividing countries and communities, it could be possible to move
towards what I regard as the true Quranic understanding of the ummah that goes
beyond the narrow notion of religious-based communities.

For this we also need to reevaluate our understanding of what ˜Muslim
means. A Muslim should be understood not as someone born into a particular
community that claims to be Muslim, but, rather, as a person who upholds
certain values and reflects or possesses certain attributes, a person who
believes in the one God, submits to His will and does good, irrespective of his
or her community. This is why the Quran regards all the many thousands of
prophets who appeared before the Prophet Muhammad, in different parts of the
world, as Muslims. This means that belief in and devotion and surrender to God,
which is also reflected in righteous deeds, suffices to be considered a Muslim
in the literal sense of the term as one who has submitted to Gods will.

The Quran refers to the Prophet Abraham as a true believer, as a Hanif, and when
it specifies that he was neither a Christian nor a Jew it seems to me to suggest
the point that he did not create any sect or community defined in this narrow
sense, and that he was free of any narrow communal affiliation.

Q: If, as you say, to be a Muslim is to believe in the one God and lead a
righteous life, and that this suggests Islams universalism, why do
˜Muslims in practice place so much more importance on the Prophet Muhammad
over the other prophets although the Quran very clearly specifies that all the
prophets are equal and that no distinction should be made between them?

A: I think this has a lot to do with history, with the development of identity
of an expanding community over time. So, very often what Muslims are protecting
in the name of Islam is this narrowly-conceived identity or historical tradition
rather than what the Prophet stood for the basic values and beliefs, which,
unfortunately, are not conventionally understood as the defining attributes of
Muslims today. And what many of them defend in the name of Islam is not what the
Prophet taught and stood for, but, rather, what some medieval scholars and
jurists or fuqaha had written centuries ago, which they wrongly equate with
Islam.

This blind adherence to the views and prescriptions of the fuqaha is one of the
most fundamental problems of Muslims. Ironically, those who claim to interpret
the divine word are themselves considered ˜divine now. Much of what passes
off as divine shariah, which Muslims generally think is wholly unchangeable, is
actually fiqh, the product of the ijtihad or the thinking and interpretation of
ulema, who were after all, fallible human beings like the rest of us.

Q: Lets turn to Malaysia. Many Muslims (and others) outside Malaysia think of
Malaysia as a ˜model Muslim state or even as a model Islamic state.
Do you agree with this perception?

A: What those who think in this way see when they look at Malaysia is just the
brighter side of the picture: a country with a fairly high per capita income, a
very high literacy rate and good infrastructure, and which has to a great extent
succeeded in eradicating absolute poverty. On all these indices undoubtedly
Malaysia has done well, much better than most other Muslim-majority countries.
So, when non-Malaysian Muslims see all this they regard it as the achievement of
a people and government who do not subscribe to a narrow version of Islam, and
who are trying to ward off the creeping influence of this sort of Islam, and
they contrast this with their own countries. They admire the fact that Malaysia,
as a Muslim-majority country, has been able to do well by these standards
without imposing a narrowly-conceived shariah state, for they know that the kind
of progress Malaysia has achieved could not have happened if we were ruled by
that sort of state.

This is what particularly impresses them. Also perhaps the willingness of the
former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad to challenge the dictates of
the International Monetary Fund and to raise the issue of continued Western
imperialism.

But what people who consider Malaysia as a model Muslim country dont look at
is the other side of the picture: crass capitalism, rampant consumerism, lack of
integration between the different communities and so on.

People who uncritically regard Malaysia as a ˜model Muslim state do not see
or know that generally Muslims in Malaysia are very conservative when it comes
to things that are presented in ˜Islamic terms, and that what the
traditional ulema say or believe is still considered by most Malaysian Muslims
as binding. Often, Malaysian Muslims have no problems if you talk about
something as long as you dont bring in Islam, but the moment you do, their
approach becomes very traditional. A good instance of this is our legal system.
In our civil courts we have had Muslim women judges for a long time. That has
never been a problem. In fact, a few years ago the Chief Judge of peninsula
Malaysia was a Malay Muslim woman. But till today we have had not a single woman
judge in the shariah courts although there are many women in this country who
are well-versed in what is considered to be Islamic law. This is because of a
very conservative understanding of the Malaysian ulema that women cannot be judges in shariah courts, although there is actually no rule in Islam forbidding this. Even in countries like
Sudan, Iran and Indonesia there are women shariah court judges, so why not in
Malaysia?

Q: Are you suggesting that, overall, the traditional ulema still have a very
decisive influence in shaping Malaysian Muslim understandings of their religion?
What about alternate voices? The Malay middle-class has grown vastly in recent
decades. Has this resulted in any sort of movement pressing for a re-thinking of
Islamic theology and jurisprudence, for a contextual understanding of Islam?

A: There are only a very few, scattered individuals who are trying to do this
sort of work. It certainly has not taken the form of a movement in this country.
It is true that the modern educated and economically well-off Malay or Muslim
middle class has expanded considerably in Malaysia. But still you find that when
it comes to Islam they generally remain very conservative. For instance, on the
issue of apostasy from Islam, a hugely controversial issue in Malaysia, most of
middle-class Malays, despite their education, would continue to insist on its
criminalization by the state even though this does not have any Quranic sanction
and in fact violates the Qurans insistence that there is no compulsion in
religion.

Q: Scholars have argued that to a great extent the practice and perception of
Islam among the Malays is influenced by Malay ethnicity. Does that have anything
to do with the sort of conservatism that you refer to?

A: Yes, to a great extent. So, for instance, the issue of apostasy is also seen
even by many well-educated Malays as a threat to the Malay community and its
special position, as threatening Malay solidarity in the face of other
ethnic communities in the country. This is a reflection of a pervasive fear
among many Malays that if they move out of their ethnic cocoons, which they seek
to bolster through appeals to a conservative version of Islam, and open up and
embrace others the Malays will be overwhelmed by others. This is how Malay
ethnicity and insecurities shape Islamic understandings in the country.

Q: How valid are these insecurities, though?

A: Some decades ago some of these insecurities would have been understandable.
At that time, the economy was almost entirely controlled by foreigners and
ethnic Chinese. But today there is a very sizeable Malay middle class. Malays
now play significant roles in the upper reaches of the economy.. So, I feel
there is no need for them to feel insecure any more. Sadly, however, the
political parties keep playing up, even creating and further magnifying, these
insecurities. Even Islamic groups that otherwise insist that ethnic chauvinism
is contrary to Islam are not averse to this sort of political manipulation.

I must add that this is not a phenomenon unique to the Malays. In large parts of
the American mid-West you can find people who subscribe to the ridiculous theory
that their country is under threat from poor little Cuba. Or in India many
Hindus believe that the impoverished Dalits or heavily marginalized Muslim
minority are a threat to them, while this is not the case at all. But because of
this sort of ethnic and religious collective consciousness, which, contrary to
what Marx claimed, is much stronger than class consciousness, many Malay
Muslims, mid-West Americans or Indian Hindus would not be enthusiastic about
opening up to others.

Q: Despite generous government patronage of various Islamic institutions, it
appears that Malay intellectuals have not made a significant contribution to
contemporary debates about Islam or in developing socially relevant and
contextual understandings of Islam. This is in contrast to neighbouring
Indonesia, where Muslim intellectuals have a rich legacy of articulating
alternate Islamic perspectives on a host of social issues of contemporary
concern. How do you see this?

A: Perhaps the over-dependence of the bulk of the Malay middle-class on the
state, for patronage or for jobs or whatever, is itself a reason for the
stagnation of Islamic discourse in the country. Obviously, if you are dependent
on the state for your job or sources of funds you cannot really defy the line of
the state, be it on Islam or any other issue. But equally or perhaps even more
crucially, because of the ethnic issue in Malaysia few Malay intellectuals are
willing to be seen as going against what is seen as the interests of their
community. So, for instance, when it comes to many socio-economic or
socio-political matters, very few of them would stress Islamic universalism over
what they perceive as the Malay position. Another factor for the
retardation of Islamic discourse in Malaysia is that, on the whole, the middle
class Malay mindset is still conservative in matters of religion, relatively
untouched by reformist trends in other Muslim countries.

When one compares the situation in Malaysia with that in neighbouring Indonesia
the difference appears stark. There are several reasons for this. For one thing,
religious reform movements were an integral part of radical nationalist and
anti-colonial struggles in Indonesia. The Dutch in Indonesia directly interfered
in Islamic matters. They did away with the local Sultans and set up their own
board of Islamic affairs, which was staffed with Dutch administrators. This
naturally made the Indonesian ulema much more involved in the anti-colonial and
nationalist movement. In what was then Malaya, on the other hand, the British
retained the royal houses of the Sultans and appointed them as ˜heads of
Islam in their own states and generally refrained from interfering in Islamic
matters. The perpetuation of these monarchical structures also resulted in the
strengthening of a conservative approach to the religion since the Sultans
wanted to preserve the
status quo..

A second, and equally crucial, factor for the difference is that Muslims form
almost 90 per cent of Indonesias population, while they only a little more
than 60 per cent of Malaysias population. That is why Indonesian Muslims are
much more confident about their identity and feel less threatened by other
communities in their midst than the Malays. And so, Indonesian Muslim religious
intellectuals are much more open to questioning conservative understandings of
religion and to promoting more contextually-relevant responses to a range of
contemporary issues.

Q: Given the inextricable link between religious and ethnic assertion among the
Malays, which numerous scholars have alluded to, how do you see the phenomenon
of what is commonly described as Islamic revivalism in contemporary Malaysia? Is
it really a purely religious or even spiritual phenomenon? Or does it have more
to do with assertion of Malay communal identity?

A: I think it is related to a large extent to the quest for the assertion of
Malay identity.in multi-ethnic Malaysia. It has little, if at all, to do with
any spiritual awakening. In Malaysia, this superficial so-called Islamisation
and Malay ethnic assertion are in many senses synonymous because Malay and
Muslim are regarded as interchangeable terms. The Constitution of Malaysia
even lays down that considering oneself a Muslim is an integral part of being
Malay. So, especially due to the sort of ethnic-based politics in Malaysia,
instead of heralding a truly cosmopolitan Islam, the sort of Islamisation
that Malaysia has witnessed is leading to further reinforcing of a narrowly
conceived Malay ethnic consciousness. While it is portrayed as
Islamisation it is actually little more than Malay ethnic assertion.

Take, for instance, the question of hijab or modest womens clothing. Today
most Malay women wear a head-covering, though it is clear that the sort of
covering that they are so particular about is not mandated in the Quran. But for
many Malays, the womans head-cover is not just a religious statement. It
serves as a crucial marker of Malay ethnic identity, to mark off Malays/Muslims
from others.

Q: From Mahathir Mohamad onwards, successive Malaysian Prime Ministers have been
using Islam as an ingredient in Malaysia’s economic development strategy. Has
that at all worked?

A: I dont quite agree. I dont think Mahathirs version of Islam or the
Islam Hadhari of his successor, Abdullah Badawi, had any major role to play in
shaping or influencing Malaysias development strategy. Mahathirs use of
Islam was a very political move in recognition of societal pressures, to win
Malay votes and to out-maneuver the ˜Islamist opposition. So, he set up
some ˜Islamic institutions, but was careful not to touch the countrys
capitalist system. On the economic front, he established an Islamic Bank. His
experiment in Islamic insurance has not taken off. Other than this, he
made no other effort to ˜Islamise the economy. And I must add that I
don’t think the so-called ‘Islamic banks’ are really Islamic at all. At
least in the form they have assumed in Malaysia, they have fully adjusted
themselves to capitalism, and are now a lucrative means to make a lot of money,
while small borrowers actually pay more
than what they would have to if they took loans from commercial banks.

I don’t think genuinely Islamic banking needs Islamic label. Any
system that aims at proper generation and distribution of wealth, that helps
sustainable growth along with equity, can be considered Islamic without needing
the Islamic tag. If someone wants to call it Christian or
Buddhist banking its fine by me; I can still call it ˜Islamic if
it cares for the poor and reinforces justice and equity.

Why must we want to put a so-called ˜Islamic label on everything? It is a
reflection of a narrow-minded, communal, indeed tribalistic approach to Islam
and Muslim identity, one that I feel is contrary to the Quranic spirit and its
universalism. So, you have people talking about Islamic sociology or
Islamic environmental science and even ˜Islamic English and so on. I
think this is a very restrictive way of understanding Islam. We have to get out
of this suffocating obsession with such labels.

Q: Lets come back to the question of a certain vision of Islam, as
articulated by Mahathir Mohamad or Abdullah Badawi, as an input in
Malaysias economic development policy. Can you elaborate a little more?

A: I don’t think Islam has been an input in this sense. Perhaps the only case
is that of the Tabung Haji, the government-run Haj Fund, to which people who
want to perform the Haj can contribute every month. Just before they leave for
the Haj they are given the money that they have saved plus some bonus. The money
collected by the Tajung Haji is invested in various companies. That, I believe,
is the only Islamic input, if you can call it that, into Malaysia
otherwise capitalist path of development which undoubtedly has some elements of
social justice.

Q: Mahathir Mohammad and, after him, Abdullah Badawi, repeatedly stressed what
they considered to be an ˜Islamic work ethic as essential to the
countrys development. How effective were these exhortations actually?

A: Yes, Mahathir repeatedly stressed values such as dedication, hard work,
loyalty and obedience, but overall in such a way as to make them
capitalism-friendly. He did not, of course, refer to other such Islamic values
as redistribution of wealth, compassion and social justice that would in any way
challenge capitalism.

As for Abdullah Badawi’s Islam Hadhari, I don’t think it worked at all.
Although it also ostensibly sought to promote a certain work ethic, and the
agencies of the state tried to promote it, , it had no impact at all on people
and society in general. Islam Hadhari consists of ten points. I have no quarrel
with these points, which sound very lofty, but why brand this as a certain type
of Islam or add an adjective to Islam? If you want to change Muslim attitudes
you have to present and approach Islam as Islam itself, without any additional
adjectives, like ˜Hadhari” or whatever. That way of packaging Islam puts off
Muslims and is sure to be rejected. This is one reason why many Malaysian
Muslims resisted the very concept or label of Islam Hadhari.
=======

Chandra Muzaffar can be contacted on cmuzaffar@...
Yoginder Sikand works with the Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion and
Inclusive Social Policy at the National Law School, Bangalore.