FGM and Muhammad

My previous post was sent as an email to a liberal Christian friend who sent me this link to the alleged Hadith which permits female genital mutilation. This my reply to her. The passages in quotes are from her message to me.

That Hadith is considered to be fraudulent by most of the sources I have encountered, for purely historical reasons. Muslim scholars have a very elaborate system of scholarship for determining the authenticity of Hadith, and by that standard this Hadith is on the bottom rung. The most obvious reason for thinking it fraudulent, however, Is that it says that this practice was done by members of Muhammad’s tribe,  and there is very strong evidence that they never did it. (Such as the fact that they don’t do it now.)

 There is something reflective of Muhammad’s character in this story in that he tries to correct the abuse of the practice (“If you cut, do not overdo it”), rather than ban it outright. But Muhammad made those kinds of compromises only with powerful groups, and he would have had no reason to do it for this woman. Also there are Hadiths which say that a man has a moral obligation to make sure his sexual partner is satisfied,  which is clearly impossible with FGM.

Also the distinction between Sunna and Makruma is best translated as “required” and “encouraged”, and an important part of that distinction is that no one can be required to do an act which is Makruma. Consequently, forcing a woman to do a Makruma act is contrary to Islamic law, even if this story is true.


“Why is there such a gap between the fatwas and ideas of right-thinking people and the institutions on the ground?"

Because Islam became trapped in a series of Narrow and often Scripturally unjustified versions in the early 19th century, thanks to of Wahab and other fundamentalist writers. I have never denied that these conservative  interpretations are wide-spread, and are becoming more so, because of the Saudi funding of Wahabbi clerics. But I believe the best way to combat these people is to point out that they are misinterpreting Islam.  To some degree that point is orthogonal to our discussion, because even the most conservative Wahabbi clerics in Saudi Arabia condemn FGM (As do the equally conservative Shia clerics in Iran.) But the problem is basically the same: Confusing folk prejudices with Islamic teachings that actually contradict those prejudices.

“the Koranic view that such ideas are inherently those of infidels who will burn in hell for all eternity” is no different from the orthodox Christian view.  Yet this has not stopped the Christian world from developing  multicultural function states. Do you really buy into the Dawkins principle that “the only good Christian is a bad Christian.” , and that we only have religious freedom here because westerners don’t take their Christianity very seriously? The Koran actually gives a lot more support for tolerance than does the Bible. The Koran at least specifically forbids forced conversion, in dozens of passages.  Some of these passages do imply that those who do not heed the word of God will burn in hell, but the Koran stresses that this is the will of God, and Muslims cannot change that by forcing people to convert. There is arguably something self-righteous about that attitude, but it can and has served as a basis for religious tolerance.

 Nevertheless, The claim that infidels burn in hell is controversial among Islamic scholars. There are passages that say that anyone who follows any of the other prophets can also be saved, and that there are countless prophets who aren’t mentioned in Koran. Some Muslim scholars in Bangladesh argue that Hindus are followers of the prophet Adam, and therefore a good Hindu can enter paradise.

You ask “Is it possible for Islam to create a multicultural, functioning secular state with a rule of law and  Western style human rights? “. I don’t know whether it will ever happen, that depends of the strengths and weaknesses of individuals. But I have no doubt that it is possible. There are three claims here that need to be untangled.

1) Islam has little precedent for the separation of Church state, but although I strongly want to preserve that in my home country, I don’t think it’s essential for a humane modern government. Many European states, such as England and Denmark, are not technically secular.

2)One of Muhammad’s greatest achievements was  introducing the concept of rule by Law into the Arab world. This is the reason he is depicted along with Hammurabi and other great law givers on the US supreme court building. We may not like many of those Laws, but the principle of rule by law is clearly there.

3) Western Style Human Rights are a long way off for many Muslim countries, in part because of Western subsidies of corrupt dictators who kept the Oil flowing. As I said before, I think there are toxic fundamentalist trends in Islam which violate important human rights, and are becoming dangerously more popular. But the Turkish strategy of banning headscarves and Islamic parties is not working very well. The current Turkish prime Minister is a member of an Islamic party, whose popularity has increased because of the banning of headscarves. That strategy has been followed by many Arab dictators including Saddam Hussein and Gaddhaffi, before they started grasping at fundamentalists straws to consolidate their waning power. The result has in many cases been a fundamentalist backlash. The Shah of Iran also banned headscarves, before he was overthrown. The usual problem has been alternating between forcing women to wear headscarves, and then forcing women to not wear them. There is no easy solution to this problem, but I think a better strategy is for Islam to go back to its roots and correct the many misinterpretations cultivated by the modern fundamentalists.


All the Best,

Teed

P.S. I think you’re right that there is an important difference between a culture built around a single sacred text, and a culture built around several such texts by several authors. But your argument that this is a fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam is essentially equivalent to my defense of a Liberal Islam that can be found by reinterpretation of the original texts. Only a few liberal Christians like yourself accept this difference. The majority of Christians  see every word of the Bible as the literal word of God, just as a substantial minority of Muslims see FGM as  an Islamic practice. You can’t consistently define Christianity using your own liberal interpretation, and then insist that Islam be defined by the practices of  “the institutions on the ground”.

FGM

Just had a conversation with some people who insisted that Female Genital Mutilation must be described as an Islamic practice. So I did some research to find out.

According to the Christian Science Monitor, There is only circumstantial evidence that it is practiced in secret in parts of western Iran. The Cultural Consul of the Islamic Republic of Iran said Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is not a fundamental practice in Islam and that women should not be forced to undergo it. There is a group that actively works against FGM in Iran. However, The official government position is that there isn't any, that this is something that only happens in Africa and is not a true part of Islam. This is probably delusional, like the claim that there is no homosexuality in Iran. But people suffering from such delusions can't be accused of actively promoting FGM as part of Islamic teaching.

This is a folk practice that even the most conservative of the top clerics in Iran have rejected. I also found an article about the Iranian Embassy actively campaigning against the practice in Sierra Leone by denouncing it as Anti-Islamic. In Egypt, there are many clerics who argue that FGM is required by Islam. However the Al-Azhar Supreme Council of Islamic Research, the highest religious authority in Egypt, issued a statement that FGM had no basis in core Islamic law, and this enabled the government to outlaw it entirely. In Mauritania, where almost all the girls in minority communities undergo FGM, 34 Islamic scholars signed a fatwa in January 2010 banning the practice.

In the Arab pennisula, the practice is done primarily by Kurds and Bedouins. As these people have wandered throughout the Arab world, there many countries where the practice occurs, but usually the majority Islamic cultures condemn it as something done by these ignorant tribal peoples. The Kurdish state in Iraq has banned FGM, and several Kurdish clerics have protested this law as unIslamic. But once again, the establishment position is that it is not a proper Islamic practice.

The Muslims did not bring FGM to Indonesia. It was already there, as a practice in Pagan Micronesia. It's also practiced by Australian Aborigines. According to a report prepared by the US state department, the practice in Indonesia is largely symbolic, involving a very light pinprick that heals without leaving permanent damage. In some cases, it is even performed symbolically on a plant stalk. I don't like the symbolic implications of such an act, but it's clearly misleading to identify the symbolic act with the barbarism of real FGM.

It appears that the Clerics who defended the practice are the Islamic analog to redneck backwoods preachers. Those on the top of the Islamic hierarchies are at worst neutral, and frequently openly condemn the practice. This is true not only of Muslim Liberals but of even the most conservative fundamentalists. The only reason that more Muslims are involved in the practice today is that Islam spread into areas where it was already there, and either tolerated the practice or were unsuccessful at stamping it out. Those few FGM countries that are majority Christian or Animist had no more success. Ethiopia is over 90% Christian, and the practice is as common there as in Egypt.

These distinctions are important because there are people like Geert Wilders and Sam Harris who claim that it is impossible to build a humane modern religion out of Islamic teachings. There are also Muslim extremists who believe this, and think it's a good thing. The best way to fight FGM is to do what many Muslim clerics do--separate the two by using texts to show that the practice is unIslamic, regardless of how many people do it who call themselves Muslims.

Great NYTimes post about Norwegian Terrorist

These are his words, not mine. They speak for themselves

Teed



His lawyer is simply doing his job, trying to come up with justifications for his client's behavior that will reduce his eventual sentence - but why on earth would a corporate media outlet repeat such claims in this unquestioning manner? Compare and contrast this soft-handed treatment of the radical right-wing movement with, say, Anwar Al-Awlaki:

"Anwar al-Awlaki is a radical American-born Muslim cleric. He is perhaps the most prominent English-speaking advocate of violent jihad against the United States, and uses the Web as a tool for extremist indoctrination. The Obama administrationhas taken the rare step of authorizing the targeted killing of Mr. Awlaki, even though he is an American citizen."

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/a/anwar_al...

Clearly, the Norwegian terrorist was involved with similar Internet hate groups that advocated violence - and it is very possible that he was recruited into this movement by others (Pamela Geller, perhaps?)

http://www.slate.com/id/2299967/

"In a manifesto posted online, the admitted killer, Anders Behring Breivik, praised Geller. He cited her blog, Atlas Shrugs, and the writings of her friends, allies, and collaborators—Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch, Islam Watch, and Front Page magazine—more than 250 times. And he echoed their tactics, tarring peaceful Muslims with the crimes of violent Muslims."

So - is Norway now justified in carrying out 'targeted killings' of the sponsors of terrorism in their own country, even if they are American or British citizens? Will we see the FBI carrying out sting operations and surveillance in politically active right-wing Christian churches and communities, as has been the norm in many Muslim communities in the U.S.?

The fact is, radical violent extremists of all stripes are a threat to democracy and open societies - and their true goal is likely the same in all cases: replace democratic pluralist societies with authoritarian states.

A word to the veiled and bearded

Eat what you want and dress up as you desire, as long as extravagance and pride do not mislead you.

- Hadith The Prophet Muhammad (SAW), as reported by AbdAllah ibn Abbas



This seems to state very clearly that rules of diet and dress are means to an end, not an end in themselves. It also implies that if you follow any religious dietary and dress codes out of extravagance and pride, you are hurting yourself spiritually. I have known Muslim women who refuse to wear hijab in the west, because it calls attention to one's self unnecessarily. It seems to me that this hadith backs up that judgment.

Lost in Translation

There's a great Article on Salafi Cleric Yasir Qadhi. in the New York times. We need to make distinctions between acceptance, respect, and tolerance. I could never accept Salafi views about lifestyle and values, especially in the light of recent developments in Western Feminism. Ultimately I think feminism will make its way into the Islamic world slowly, as it did in the Western World. (Women couldn't vote in France until the 1940s). But in the meantime I can tolerate, and to some degree even respect this man, as long as he continues to actively campaign against Islamoid terrorism.


A poster on the New York times comment page for this article, aptly named Rambo, writes: "Do you know the first line of Islamic prayer - La ilaha illallah! means "There is no God but Allah". Simply right, well not if you consider that it is as much a denial of other faiths as the confession of their own."

This illustrates perfectly the problems of relying on translations. The most accurate translation of this passage is "there is no God but God". The word "Allah" is used to refer to God by both Christian and Muslim Arabs. In other words, this passage is just saying there is only one God. This is the most common interpretation of the phrase I have heard Muslims give. This is what happens when someone superimposes their prejudices on a text and assume that this is the only possible interpretation.

Muhammad and Aisha

A beliefnet interview with Deepak Chopra quotes him as saying "some of the {facts of Muhammad's life} are not very palatable. There's the beheading of the Jews, there's the marriage to Aisha, a girl of 6 -- we are told all this from history, confirmed by scholars."

I've already written about the beheading of the Jews, but I suppose this is as good a time as any to discuss his relationship with Aisha. For many people,this story is a deal breaker that completely devalues everything else Muhammad ever did. For that reason, it is important to paraphrase the two most common responses to this issue by modern Muslims.

1) Some Muslims say it was a different time and that this sort of thing was acceptable back then. Some have pointed out that in the 19th century USA, the age of consent was 10 in almost every state. According to the only Hadith that deals with this issue, Aisha was 6 when she married Muhammad, and consummated the marriage at 9. Are we really going to label Muhammad a monster over a one year difference? Ignoring Muhammad's alleged behavior on this issue does not require us to approve of it. Muhammad was often ahead of his time, but perhaps on this particular issue he wasn't. Like George Washington and Abraham, he also kept slaves. No one claims that Washington's numerous other accomplishments and virtues should be completely ignored because he was a slave holder. Why not give Muhammad similar allowances for the customs of his time?

2) There are also many Muslim scholars who are highly critical of the single hadith that supports this claim. It was from a highly questionable source-a male friend of Muhammad's who obviously wasn't there at the time- and is not confirmed by any other source. This source claims that he heard the details from Aisha, but Aisha herself was one of the greatest contributors of hadiths, and makes no mention of it. There are also other historical sources which seem to contradict it. For example, Aisha was reported to have been present at a battle which was only a few years after her wedding, and she would have been too young to be permitted on the battlefield if she had gotten married at six. Scholars who use these alternative sources usually date Aisha's wedding age as around fourteen or fifteen.

So how about focusing on Muhammad's teachings, and ignoring thousand year old gossip? Chopra's claim that this incident is "confirmed by scholars" is an overstatement at best, and the incident is not that important even if it occurred.

Halal Meat

Here's a post I contributed to a discussion about Halal meat on beliefnet


Doesn't the Koran say that it is permissible to eat Haram food when that is the only way to avoid starving? This may be a bit of a stretch, but it seems to me that when you eat Haram food believing it to be Halal you're eating of the food is unavoidable, in much the same sense. If you believe that eating Halal is an essential part of your spiritual path, I think you need to be reasonably rigorous in making sure that the food really is Halal. The Medieval Christian writers spoke of seven virtues, one of which is Prudence (i.e. careful practical intelligence.) If you've got good evidence that a particular food item is not Halal, you have a moral obligation to use your common sense and wisdom to weigh that evidence carefully. But there has to be an outside limit as to how much time you should spend doing that kind of research. We also have other obligations as a citizen, husband, father etc. that should not be compromised by compulsive attempts at certainty. I think this is pretty much Abdullah's point. Nice to see we finally agree about something.

My spiritual path is Vajrayana Buddhism and we are given many different kinds of spiritual practices to choose from. We have teachers who are celibate monks who don't drink alcohol, and "House holder" Yogis who raise families, drink and otherwise remain part of the world. But everyone agrees that if you make a commitment to a spiritual practice, you should take it seriously and follow it to the letter. I salute all Muslims who have the self-discipline to choose and follow through the most rigorous aspects of Islamic practice.

We Vajrayana Buddhists, are however, fairly lax about whether or not our practices come from "false" prophets. We believe that sincere and pious devotion to a "false" prophet is better than a twisted misinterpretation of any "true" prophet. We have a story about a Tibetan Merchant whose mother asked him to bring back a relic of the Buddha's from India. He forgot to bring the relic, so he found a dogs tooth in a skull by the road, wrapped it in a silk scarf and told his mother it was one of the Buddhas teeth. She was delighted,and she and her friends prayed to it every day. Eventually the tooth began to radiate a powerful spiritual light. The point of this story is it was the faith and motivation focused on it that made the tooth holy, not it's history of belonging to Buddha or a dog. I think that this is equally true of dietary practices followed by many religions, and I have no doubt that many Muslims have benefited from the devotion required to follow the rules of Halal.

Muhammad and Genital Mutilation

I followed up a link to what was called an "excellent balanced article regarding Islam" by a poster on beliefnet. I'm not going to include the link on this papge, because only a person who hates and fears Islam would consider this article balanced. It is full of highly insulting and inflammatory comments about Islam and Muslims, treating both as a scourge that threatens to engulf all of Western Civilization. Most importantly, none of these comments are backed up by footnotes, and I am certain that at least one of them is completely fabricated:an alleged Hadith in which Muhammad praises genital mutilation. The Arabs of Muhammad's time and place did not practice genital mutilation, so Muhammad would have had no reason to praise that practice, if he had heard of it at all. This is an African practice, and is done only by Sub-Saharan Africans and some Arabs who live in Africa. i.e. Egypt. The fact that this article contains such an obvious falsehood gives good reason for dismissing the rest of its alleged facts.

Muhammad the Reformer

A New York Times Article describes how Iran has instituted Needle exchange and Methadone programs to help combat AIDs and drug abuse. How does a doctrinaire theocracy manage to overcome the moralistic objections that have made it so hard to start these programs in the West? Here's one quote of interest.

No matter what the regime, Iran’s medical schools have emphasized real science. “When I look at other countries I see lots of power interference from religion in public health,” said Bijan Nassirimanesh, a harm-reduction pioneer in Iran and founder of Persepolis, a drop-in harm reduction center in Tehran. “You don’t see that in Iran except for sex education. The foundation (of science) was so strong that it became a shield.”

In the "enlightened" USA there is not a single Republican Congressman that accepts the science of global warming. Apparently the foundation for science isn't as strong here.

Another quote confirms something I have definitely noticed in my own studies of Islam.

There is a rule in Islam that between bad and worse, you have to accept bad.

This is a principle that runs through all of Muhammad's teachings. Muhammad knew he couldn't get full equality for women. Consequently, he settled for giving women partial rights, while affirming that the rest of the patriarchal system should remain in place, to placate his male patriarchal followers. The unequal distribution of inheritance replaced a system in which women not only couldn't inherit at all, but were often inherited as property themselves. The passage in the Koran on corporal punishment for wives lists a series of things that men must do before they are permitted to use corporal punishment. (And according to some translators, doesn't mention physical force at all). Muhammad did not abolish slavery, but instituted reforms that permitted slaves to sue their masters in court if they were mistreated.

Sadly, many contemporary "conservative" Muslims are insisting that Muhammad's first steps towards reform be frozen in place, and have thus portrayed this great reformer into a reactionary.

Apostasy in Islam

Loonwatch has done the best scholarly research on Apostasy in Islam I have ever seen. These Guys rule. Careful reasoned attacks of the Loons on both sides of this controversy. Among its many useful resources is a link to a petition which renounces the idea that Islam requires death for Apostates. This petition was signed by over a hundred prominent Muslim clerics. Here's an important quote from that petition.

Undeniably, the traditional position of Muslim scholars and jurists has been that apostasy [riddah] is punishable by death. The longstanding problem of the traditional position, as held by Classical jurists or scholars, can be explained and excused as not being able to see apostasy, an issue of pure freedom of faith and conscience, separate from treason against the community or the state. However, the accumulated experience over the history in terms of abuse of this position about apostasy even against Muslims as well as the changed context of a globally-connected, pluralistic society should help us appreciate the contemporary challenges in light of the Qur'anic norms and the Prophetic legacy. In this context, while the classical misunderstanding about this issue of apostasy is excusable, the position of some of the well-known contemporary scholars is not

Not your Father's Hajj

This is a comment I made on a nice beliefnet post called Not my Father's Hajj The author discussed the fact that the trip to Mecca he took recently was both more comfortable and more commercial than the Austere pilgrimage he made as a boy with his father.

It's really nice to see a discussion about the heart of Islam, which ignores the trivial issues of clothing etc. that often dominate discussions in the mainstream media. Thanks for this thoughtful post.


The question between good modernizations of traditions and bad ones is a complex one, that runs through all religions and many non-religious aspects of life as well. Because I am not a Muslim, anything I say about this topic must be accepted with not only grains of salt but huge handfuls. Nevertheless, I feel inclined to offer my comments, and humbly hope they might be interesting, and perhaps even useful.

The way you describe your first Haj seems to imply that it had many of the benefits of Ramadan: a kind of ritualized deprivation which brings one face to face with our own vulnerability, and inspires compassion for those who are less fortunate. I think there is something that can be received from that kind of pilgrimage that would not be received from looking down on Makkah from an air conditioned room while drinking Starbucks coffee. If I were a Muslim, I would try to approximate the first kind of experience in my own Haj, and would encourage other Muslims to do so if they could. Nevertheless, the Koran specifically says that people are exempt from Haj if they are too weak or sick to make the journey. Making the Haj more comfortable makes it possible for many people who would not have the strength to otherwise go, and I think that Muhammad would have approved of that. I think it's a good thing to make one's own Haj as austere as possible--as long one doesn't fall into the trap of becoming smug, and looking down on those who for whatever reason decided to take a more comfortable route.

The issue of the shops around the Masjid al-Haram is more complicated. I think it's a good thing to preserve old buildings, and a bad thing to sacrifice them to make a few bucks. Nevertheless, I can't see those aesthetic considerations as being equivalent to religious laws. If there have always been commercial buildings around the Haram, I can see no reason why new ones should be seen as more unreligious than old ones. We have to be careful about creating new religious prohibitions which change religion in the name of preserving it. Perhaps part of the challenge of the Haj is to maintain a spiritual sense while surrounded by elements of commerce.

What is Sharia Law?

I put up the following post on the NYtimes discussion board on Stanley Fish's column on the relationship between Shariah law and American Law:

It's amazing that so much discussion takes place over Sharia Law by people who have no idea what it is, whether or not the term refers to a single consistent point of view, or whether there are any significant number of U.S. Muslims who want Sharia law. I include myself in this category, but I'd like to clear up my ignorance on this topic. I do know that Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Taliban had significantly different ideas of what it consisted of. (although they are all pretty vile in their respective ways.) Isn't it possible that there are other interpretations of Sharia Law which are not that different from American Law? And how many Muslims in America actually want Sharia? Has anyone taken a poll? I have never seen a single demonstration in America demanding it. My guess is most US Muslims came here to get away from it.


Later I discovered another poster had given me something like an answer to my question:


"Must a devout Muslim choose between his or her faith and the letter of the law of the land?"

NO - and that's from Islamic doctrinal perspective.

When Muslims migrate to countries not governed by Islamic sharia or tradition (yes, there are Muslim countries that do not embrace sharia law), they are commanded to obey the laws of the country they reside in as long as those laws do not prevent them from carrying out their basic duties as Muslims.

To use some simplistic examples, under sharia it is permissible but not required for a man to have up to four wives. A man can have one wife and still be able to fulfill all his duties as a Muslim in any country. Therefore, according to Islam, he needs to follow US law and marry only one wife and duly punished under US law if he chooses to flout it.

On the other hand, if a law were passed that every person has to eat bacon with every meal then the law is in direct conflict with some of the basic tenents of Islam and Muslims are exhorted to move away from areas where laws conflict with religious practice.

France is a more nuanced case because of the burqa ban. The Quran directs women to "dress modestly" but does not explicitly advocate a burqa - that's a tradition passed on from the Saudis. The burqa vs niqab debate is still ongoing in the Muslim world, so technically the jury is still out on whether one can live as a devout Muslim there. Of greater concern is that a country felt it had to single out a minority religion for discrimination.

As a Muslim I find it ridiculous Prof Fish has decided to make an issue of a problem that does not exist. If he had simply looked into actual Islamic law, he might not have had to write this column as yet more fodder for the Tea Partiers. And for the record, no, I do not have references for my assertions. This was all taught to me long ago in my Islamic studies class in a muslim country (Pakistan).

It looks like I'm going to have to start reading about Sharia law these days, given that so many apparently unfounded statements are being made about it.

Muslims and Free Speech

Aziz Poonawalla has co-authored a petition for muslims endorsing the principle of Free speech, specifically naming those who have been drawing caricatures of Muhammad. Here it is, in full.

I am proud to co-publish and add my name as a signatory to this statement upholding the principle of free speech and denouncing those who would threaten violence in the name of Islam. If you would like to add your signature, please send an email with your name, title, and organizational affiliation (if any) to Sheila Musaji, tameditor@aol.com.

A DEFENSE OF FREE SPEECH BY AMERICAN AND CANADIAN MUSLIMS

We, the undersigned, unconditionally condemn any intimidation or threats of violence directed against any individual or group exercising the rights of freedom of religion and speech; even when that speech may be perceived as hurtful or reprehensible.

We are concerned and saddened by the recent wave of vitriolic anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic sentiment that is being expressed across our nation.

We are even more concerned and saddened by threats that have been made against individual writers, cartoonists, and others by a minority of Muslims. We see these as a greater offense against Islam than any cartoon, Qur'an burning, or other speech could ever be deemed.

We affirm the right of free speech for Molly Norris, Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and all others including ourselves.

As Muslims, we must set an example of justice, patience, tolerance, respect, and forgiveness.

The Qur'an enjoins Muslims to:
* bear witness to Islam through our good example (2:143);
* restrain anger and pardon people (3:133-134 and 24:22);
* remain patient in adversity (3186);
* stand firmly for justice (4:135);
* not let the hatred of others swerve us from justice (5:8);
* respect the sanctity of life (5:32);
* turn away from those who mock Islam (6:68 and 28:55);
* hold to forgiveness, command what is right, and turn away from the ignorant (7:199);
* restrain ourselves from rash responses (16:125-128);
* pass by worthless talk with dignity (25:72); and
* repel evil with what is better (41:34).

Islam calls for vigorous condemnation of both hateful speech and hateful acts, but always within the boundaries of the law. It is of the utmost importance that we react, not out of reflexive emotion, but with dignity and intelligence, in accordance with both our religious precepts and the laws of our country.

We uphold the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Both protect freedom of religion and speech, because both protections are fundamental to defending minorities from the whims of the majority.

We therefore call on all Muslims in the United States, Canada and abroad to refrain from violence. We should see the challenges we face today as an opportunity to sideline the voices of hate--not reward them with further attention--by engaging our communities in constructive dialogue about the true principles of Islam, and the true principles of democracy, both of which stress the importance of freedom of religion and tolerance.

A master copy with the complete list of signatories to this statement is available at The American Muslim website. If you would like to add your signature, please send an email with your name, title, and organizational affiliation (if any) to the Editor at The American Muslim, Sheila Musaji (tameditor@aol.com).

Amongst the responses were the usual urban legands that pass for Islamophobic scholarship, and demands for even more statements from Muslims about Hamas. etc. The expression "Moving the Goalposts" seems appropriate here. Whatever moderate Muslims do, there's no acknowledgment of the progress, only demands for more.

There's also a link in one of the posts to a site called Loonwatch Which is a Muslim response to sites like Jihad watch. The tone of the site is somewhat angry and abusive,(but no where near as bad as the average Islamophobe site, but there are some good facts on it, written by Muslims who are clearly sensible and honest.

The Smearing of Feisal Rauf

Once people acknowledge that there is no possible reason to deny one of the two Mosques near ground zero the right to build a community center with a prayer room, the next step is to try to find something wrong with Faisal Rauf, the sufi teacher who is organizing the project. Ross Douhat claims that he endorsed the Iranian regime, and won't denounce Hamas.


I checked Douhat's link to Rauf's supposed endorsement of the Iranian Regime, and both Douhat and blogger Michael Weiss misinterpreted Rauf's statement. Here's the conclusion of the section Weiss Quoted:

Now, on the streets of Teheran and undoubtedly in high political circles behind the scenes, Iranians are asking themselves, has this election confirmed the legitimacy of the ruler? President Obama has rightly said that his administration will not interfere with the internal affairs of Iran, unlike what happened in 1953. Now he has an opportunity to have a greater positive impact on Iranian-American relations.
He should say his administration respects many of the guiding principles of the 1979 revolution -- to establish a government that expresses the will of the people; a just government, based on the idea of Vilayet-i-faqih, that establishes the rule of law.

Anyone who was not reading this with a pathologically prejudiced eye would see that this is a criticism of the Iranian government, not an endorsement. What Rauf is advising is that Obama express his criticism of the Iranian Government by saying this: the poll fraud of the last Iranian election does not live up to the ideals that the Iranian Government claims to stand for. Rauf is surely correct in saying that this would be a more effective strategy than demanding that Iran adopt the American Bill of Rights. Rauf is arguing that the principles of just government and rule of law are an essential part of Islam's value sytem. This is certainly true. It is the reason that the U.S. Supreme Court building has a carving of Muhammad along with Moses and Hammurabi in a frieze honoring the great lawmakers of history. This is also by far the most persuasive way of persuading Muslims who are sitting on the fence between moderation and extremism.


As for Rauf's refusal to condemn Hamas: I feel that both Israel and Hamas are treating each other abominably. I disagree with both the softpedaling of Israel's atrocities by many Americans and the soft pedaling of Hamas' atrocities by many Muslims. But none of us has to agree on these issues to be recognized as legitimate members of the American Community. Catholics don't have to denounce papal infallibility, or accept Dawkins' demand that the pope be arrested as an accessory to pedophilia, in order to build their Churches anywhere they want, and that's exactly the way it should be. Violent destruction of property, whether by Bin Laden or McVeigh, is a crime and anyone who commits such crimes or irresponsibly advocates them should pay the appropriate penalty. But it would be a dark day for America if mere differences of opinion about foreign policy could be used to deny anyone's right to build a community center on their own land, in an area that already has several other houses of worship (including two Mosques).

The Burqua again

I think the "Ban the Burqua" controversy is basically a conflict between two principles of ethics-the deontological (based on issues of justice) and the utilitarian (based on issues of happiness.) Deontological arguments of this sort are often used by people on the libertarian right--"No matter how unbalanced the distribution of wealth, the Government must never interfere with property rights". Nussbaum's NYTimes argument against Burqua bans has a similar form-- "No matter how many women are made miserable by the burqua, we must never interfere with religious freedom." Some of us use the utilitarian argument that banning the burqua could help to bring some Muslim women in greater contact with people outside their orthodox families, and thus give them more freedom of choice in the long run. This seems to be a more important fact than the abstract principle defended by Ms. Nussbaum. This issue is confused by the fact that the primary motivation for most burqua banners is Islamophobia. ( like the banning of Minarets.) Nevertheless, some people do the right thing for the wrong reason.

Utilitarian arguments do require more empirical input than justice arguments. Will the ban really give women more freedom, or just prompt their husbands and fathers to keep them permanently at home? Can this problem by more effectively dealt with by having the burqua wearers be persuaded by their hijabi and bare-headed sisters? Can the law really be written so that it doesn't ban ski masks? I'm still uncertain about the answers to these questions, but I do think these kinds of issues need to be considered, rather than only thinking about justice in the abstract. Abstract principles of justice often produce concrete examples of injustice.

http://theiscollection.com/category/the-ethicist/

This religion is easy

This religion is easy. Do not make it a rigor, or you shall be overcome. Be steadfast, seek the closeness of Allah, grow in virtue, and implore His appeasement day and night.

- Hadith The Prophet Muhammad (SAW), as reported by Abu Hurairah

Nothing in here about not playing music, or keeping your beard long, or stopping women from driving cars. As a political leader, sometimes Muhammad had to make a lot of ad hoc decisions about what his particular Ummah had to do at that particular time. I see no reason to believe he wanted a troop of scholars to comb through everything everyone remembered about what he said and construct a set of prohibitions that are not mentioned anywhere in the Koran

Interview

Terrific Interview with the Builder of the so-called 9/11 Mosque. Lots of unjustified accusations against somebody (apparently him) in the comments. Read it, it needs no comment from me. Among other things, he invites Sarah Palin to visit his current mosque.

I've now decided that it is important to see this thing through. Muslims need to be patient, and take a lot of abuse,like black children attending white schools for the first time. Or like Muhammad who let a woman dump garbage on him until she finally realized he was a saint and converted to Islam. Let people see that once this center is up, it is not dangerous, and they will regret their hysteria years later.

Quotes from NYtimes comment page

Here is an excerpt of a statement by H.E. Shaikh Salih bin Muhammad Al-Luheidan, Chairman of the Muslim Supreme Judicial Council on Friday, September 14, 2001, following the terrorist attacks in the United States:

". . . God Almighty says: 'And let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just, that is nearer to piety.' Inflicting a collective punishment is considered by Islam as despicable aggression and perversion. Killing innocent people is by itself a grave crime, quite apart from terrorizing and committing crimes against infants and women. Such acts do no honor to he who commits them, even if he claims to be a Muslim . . . " Sounds pretty dead- set against terrorism to me.

***

Visit the Cordoba house initiative and see just how scary these people are.

They believe in changing the muslim world through modern education. They believe in empowering women, women's equality.

Isn't that the key to ending the fundamentalism in Islam that is fueling the problem?

"A bit insensitive"

Suppose someone refused to serve African-Americans in their restaurant because he had once been beaten up and robbed by a gang of African-American teenagers? After all, it would be " a bit insensitive" to require him to let blacks in his restaurant after that traumatic experience he went through. Furthermore there are lots of areas of town that white people can't go into now for fear of violence. It's hardly fair to expect us to let blacks into "our" parts of town, when we can't go into "their" parts of town. And don't tell me that these teenagers were not typical blacks, that's just liberal propaganda. If you read the paper, you'll see that there are lots of black people who do things like that.

Do I need to spell this out? There is no significant difference between this example and the reaction to the Cordoba center. It's bigotry, pure and simple, to blame and discriminate against individuals because of the behavior of other individuals who happen to share their religion, skin color or ethnicity.

the Mosque at Ground Zero

Check This Blog about the Mosque at Ground Zero, which actually isn't a Mosque, but a community center called Cordoba house, and is further away from Ground Zero than a strip club or pornography shop. Check out the comments if you have any doubts that Islamophobia is a real and present danger.

The poster "AngelElf" ought to change his or her nom de web to "DemonDwarf" considering the content of his or her message. This message complains that "Having a Muslim presence in the heart of Ground Zero is the ultimate in poor taste." The idea that someone can insult America by their mere presence is about as racist as one can get. Would DemonDwarf be equally outraged be the presence of blacks, Latinos, or Jews? DD is also worried by the fact that "Cordoba was the capital of an Islamic caliphate during the Moorish occupation of Spain." Cordoba was the capital of the most tolerant regime in the world for its time. It protected both Jews and Christians until the Muslims were thrown out by the Christians, who killed and tortured Muslims and Jews who didn't flee to the Muslim world. It's a perfect name for a Muslim center advocating tolerance.

Another poster wanted a Buddhist Temple at ground Zero, because "Buddhists have never murdered innocent citizens, American or otherwise, in the name of their religion." As a Buddhist, I'd be happy if this were true. Unfortunately, Zen Buddhist Monks and Priests trained and blessed the Japanese Kamikaze pilots in World War II, who were Buddhist suicide bombers. If you tell someone who remembers World War II that you're a Buddhist, they'll often talk about the "Bad Buddhists" who tried to destroy America. I don't feel the need to apologize for those Zen Buddhists, however, and I think it is equally unfair to say things like "Islam has too much anti-American rhetoric" when you mean "Some Muslims use too much anti-American rhetoric". Is it really so hard to understand the principle that people should only be blamed for the things they actually do?