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
Showing posts with label Muslimoutrage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Muslimoutrage. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
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).
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).
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
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?
". . . 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.
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.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Moderates, Conservatives, and Extremists
Sunnipath has an interesting position on the Danish Cartoons. They say it comes from another Website called duaatalislam.com (although this link doesn't connect correctly to it) and is signed by about 40 Islamic scholars throughout the world. The Sunnipath website contains many teachings which definitely press my limits of toleration, but also many others which have an internal consistency and basic gentleness which occasionally inspire my respect. If I thought there was any danger of these principles becoming the way I had to live my life, I would be very worried, as would most Muslims I know. Many Muslims came to America precisely so they wouldn't have to live by these kinds of social restrictions. Nevertheless, this declaration shows that this conservative Islamic establishment is equally out of step with both liberal Muslims and violent extremists. That is why it is dangerously simpleminded to divide the Muslim world into The Good Guys who agree with us, and the Bad Guys who disagree with us. The position advocated in this paper is one that needs to be debated. Nevertheless, it clearly denounces the attitudes that make Islam seem completely incompatible with Enlightenment values. It is clearly inflammatory and misleading for the Western media to report only on riots and violence, and ignore reasoned and careful documents like this one.
My biggest problem is with these sentences:
"We call upon the Danish government and the Danish people to yield to the large number of objective and sincere voices emanating from within their society, by apologizing, and condemning and bringing an end to this attack. "
Sorry, this isn't going to happen, and it shouldn't. As vile as some of those cartoons were, they were within the limits of acceptable free speech. If the Danish Government were to "bring an end to this attack", this would be the worst sort of censorship. The doublespeak that is used to justify this is worthy of either George W. Bush or the most extreme forms of Politically Correct Liberalism (who says the Muslims haven't learned anything from the West?)
This is to ensure that Denmark is not isolated from the global community, a community that upholds the kind of freedom that prevents it from attacking and desecrating religious symbols or provoking animosity and antagonism towards any religion or race.
The reference to "a freedom that prevents" is worthy of Orwell. My point here, however, is that this kind of doublethink is, unfortunately, not out of sync with modern western thought (would that it were.) That is why they have a point when they say:
there is no society today that advocates an unaccountable freedom without putting in place measures of regulation so as to prevent harm to come to others. Of course, societies differ in their levels of regulation.
Our society bans hate speech and holocaust denial, their's bans pictures of Muhammad. Their ban appears irrational to us and vice versa. I'm willing to accept the ban on holocaust denial, with considerable reservations that make me unwilling to expand the ban further. I've got no problems with their protesting the content of the cartoons, that's their right to free speech. But because "societies differ in their levels of regulation", the Islamic world is going to have to accept that there is a difference here.
However, the thing that makes most Islamophobes feel that there is an irreconcilable difference is the willingness of Muslims to violently attack the cartoonists and other westerners vaguely associated with them. It is important to recognize that these very conservative Imams condemns such attacks in no uncertain terms.
3. We affirm here that freedom of ideas is a right guaranteed by the teachings of our noble religion to those who seek clarification or desire to engage in dialogue provided that no abuse is intended, in consonance with the Quranic directive: 'And argue with them in the most courteous way'. This point has been agreed upon by all rationally-minded people and is stated clearly and categorically in the agreements on human rights.
4. We appeal to all Muslims to exercise self-restraint in accordance with the teachings of Islam and we reject countering an act of aggression by acts not sanctioned in Islam, such as breaking treaties and breaching time-honoured agreements by attacking foreign embassies or innocent people and other targets. Such violent reactions can lead to a distortion of the just and balanced nature of our request or even to our isolation from the global dialogue. The support that we give to our Prophet will not be given by flouting his teachings.
Again I ask: Why aren't statements of this sort being given the same kind of coverage as the riots?
P.S. I've tried to start a Beliefnet thread over the issue of whether Islam in fact requires Muslims to protest non-Muslims making pictures of Muhammad. Muslims are banned from making pictures of Muhammad, according to certain sources, but I can see no basis in the Koran or the Hadith for saying they should force this position on non-Muslims. The issue of insulting vs. non-insulting pictures has been blurred here, creating a lot of unnecessary confusion.
My biggest problem is with these sentences:
"We call upon the Danish government and the Danish people to yield to the large number of objective and sincere voices emanating from within their society, by apologizing, and condemning and bringing an end to this attack. "
Sorry, this isn't going to happen, and it shouldn't. As vile as some of those cartoons were, they were within the limits of acceptable free speech. If the Danish Government were to "bring an end to this attack", this would be the worst sort of censorship. The doublespeak that is used to justify this is worthy of either George W. Bush or the most extreme forms of Politically Correct Liberalism (who says the Muslims haven't learned anything from the West?)
This is to ensure that Denmark is not isolated from the global community, a community that upholds the kind of freedom that prevents it from attacking and desecrating religious symbols or provoking animosity and antagonism towards any religion or race.
The reference to "a freedom that prevents" is worthy of Orwell. My point here, however, is that this kind of doublethink is, unfortunately, not out of sync with modern western thought (would that it were.) That is why they have a point when they say:
there is no society today that advocates an unaccountable freedom without putting in place measures of regulation so as to prevent harm to come to others. Of course, societies differ in their levels of regulation.
Our society bans hate speech and holocaust denial, their's bans pictures of Muhammad. Their ban appears irrational to us and vice versa. I'm willing to accept the ban on holocaust denial, with considerable reservations that make me unwilling to expand the ban further. I've got no problems with their protesting the content of the cartoons, that's their right to free speech. But because "societies differ in their levels of regulation", the Islamic world is going to have to accept that there is a difference here.
However, the thing that makes most Islamophobes feel that there is an irreconcilable difference is the willingness of Muslims to violently attack the cartoonists and other westerners vaguely associated with them. It is important to recognize that these very conservative Imams condemns such attacks in no uncertain terms.
3. We affirm here that freedom of ideas is a right guaranteed by the teachings of our noble religion to those who seek clarification or desire to engage in dialogue provided that no abuse is intended, in consonance with the Quranic directive: 'And argue with them in the most courteous way'. This point has been agreed upon by all rationally-minded people and is stated clearly and categorically in the agreements on human rights.
4. We appeal to all Muslims to exercise self-restraint in accordance with the teachings of Islam and we reject countering an act of aggression by acts not sanctioned in Islam, such as breaking treaties and breaching time-honoured agreements by attacking foreign embassies or innocent people and other targets. Such violent reactions can lead to a distortion of the just and balanced nature of our request or even to our isolation from the global dialogue. The support that we give to our Prophet will not be given by flouting his teachings.
Again I ask: Why aren't statements of this sort being given the same kind of coverage as the riots?
P.S. I've tried to start a Beliefnet thread over the issue of whether Islam in fact requires Muslims to protest non-Muslims making pictures of Muhammad. Muslims are banned from making pictures of Muhammad, according to certain sources, but I can see no basis in the Koran or the Hadith for saying they should force this position on non-Muslims. The issue of insulting vs. non-insulting pictures has been blurred here, creating a lot of unnecessary confusion.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Muslim Outrage keeps coming (and being ignored)
Thanks once again to Aziz Poonawalla for spreading the word about Muslims who are protesting Islamoid Extremism. Abu Laith Luqman Ahmad is the imam and director of the Masjid Ibrahim Islamic Center in Sacramento, CA. He issued a scathing critique of Anwar Al Awlaki's call to violence recently. I did searches on both his name and his center.s name on the New York Time Website, and found nothing. There were 231 references to Anwar al Awlaki during that same period.
You can find Ahmad's entire statement here. Some excerpts are below.
You asked; “To the Muslims in America, I have this to say: How can your conscience allow you to live in peaceful coexistence with a nation that is responsible for the tyranny and crimes committed against your own brothers and sisters?”
Well, now that you’ve posed the question, I’ll tell you why, and may Allah grant us His mercy. First of all, peaceful coexistence is not a crime; it is a mercy from the Almighty God be He Exalted and Glorified. As American Muslims, we peacefully coexist with our country because we are not under attack because of our faith and we are not driven from our homes; “Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.” 60:8 Quran. We live here because some of us were born and raised here, and it is the only home that we know. My forefathers came here as slaves, and have helped build this country with their bare hands. Millions of other Muslims have sought and received refuge and safe passage through this vast land of ours, and have made it their home. As American Muslims, we are of different origins; nevertheless we are here now, and it is the result of God’s divine Providence, and we are connected to this soil.
We live here because we are free men, women and children. We have the right to live here and this is our country. We live here because Millions of American Muslims attend this nations masaajid every week without being accosted, bombed while in prayer, or hindered in any way from worshipping our Lord. Many Muslim Imams and scholars have branded our country as evil, even calling her the ‘Great Satan’. I say that the Lord that we worship favors not the east or the west; He favors the righteous wherever they dwell. “Say: To Allah belong both East and West: He guideth whom He will to a Way that is straight.” Quran, 2:142. So to answer your question about our conscience as we peacefully coexist in The United States of America, my conscience, and the conscience of many Muslim Americans who live in this great land, is clear. As for those Muslims whose conscience and belief compels them to leave this country for another land, then the door is open for them to leave.
As for your call for American Muslims to wage jihad against our country and homeland; the land that you are urging us to wage war against, is the land of our homes that we are obligated to protect. In a prophetic narration by Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-’As, he said: When we were around the Apostle of Allah (SAWS), he mentioned the period of commotion (fitnah) saying: “When you see the people that their covenants have been impaired, (the fulfilling of) the guarantees becomes rare, and they become thus (interwining his fingers). I then got up and said: What should I do at that time, may Allah make me ransom for you? He replied: “Keep to your house, control your tongue, accept what you approve, and abandon what you disapprove, attend to your own affairs, and leave alone the affairs of the generality.”[1] Therefore as Muslim Americans we are obligated by faith to protect our homes, and our homeland upon which they stand, as our homes are our refuge.
The people whom you claim we are obligated to take up arms against are our neighbors whom we live next to and share neighborhoods with, and our Prophet (SAWS) informs us to honor our neighbors by his words in the hadith reported by Abu Shuraih; “By Allah, he does not believe! By Allah, he does not believe! By Allah, he does not believe!” It was said, “Who is that, O Allah’s Apostle?” He said, “That person whose neighbor does not feel safe from his evil.“[2] Furthermore, in the hadith of Aisha, she mentioned that the Prophet (SAWS) said “Gabriel continued to recommend me about treating the neighbors kindly and politely so much so that I thought he would order me to make them as my heirs.”[3] They are our co-workers whom we work alongside them, our students who we teach, and our teachers who we learn from. The people whom you incite us to violence against are our firefighters who defend our homes and our property from ruin, our law enforcement officers who patrol our streets at night, and municipal workers who restore power after the storms, and remove injurious objects from the road. The individuals whom you suggest we wage jihad against are our physicians, nurses and medical professionals who care for our sick and mend the broken bones of our children. They are university professors that you yourself have benefitted from and under whose instruction you obtained your engineering degree. So in summary, my dear Imam and may Allah guide us, we must categorically reject your petition that we wage jihad against the United States of America as in doing so we would be in disobedience to Allah subhaanahu wa ta’ala and His Prophet (SAWS).
You can find Ahmad's entire statement here. Some excerpts are below.
You asked; “To the Muslims in America, I have this to say: How can your conscience allow you to live in peaceful coexistence with a nation that is responsible for the tyranny and crimes committed against your own brothers and sisters?”
Well, now that you’ve posed the question, I’ll tell you why, and may Allah grant us His mercy. First of all, peaceful coexistence is not a crime; it is a mercy from the Almighty God be He Exalted and Glorified. As American Muslims, we peacefully coexist with our country because we are not under attack because of our faith and we are not driven from our homes; “Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.” 60:8 Quran. We live here because some of us were born and raised here, and it is the only home that we know. My forefathers came here as slaves, and have helped build this country with their bare hands. Millions of other Muslims have sought and received refuge and safe passage through this vast land of ours, and have made it their home. As American Muslims, we are of different origins; nevertheless we are here now, and it is the result of God’s divine Providence, and we are connected to this soil.
We live here because we are free men, women and children. We have the right to live here and this is our country. We live here because Millions of American Muslims attend this nations masaajid every week without being accosted, bombed while in prayer, or hindered in any way from worshipping our Lord. Many Muslim Imams and scholars have branded our country as evil, even calling her the ‘Great Satan’. I say that the Lord that we worship favors not the east or the west; He favors the righteous wherever they dwell. “Say: To Allah belong both East and West: He guideth whom He will to a Way that is straight.” Quran, 2:142. So to answer your question about our conscience as we peacefully coexist in The United States of America, my conscience, and the conscience of many Muslim Americans who live in this great land, is clear. As for those Muslims whose conscience and belief compels them to leave this country for another land, then the door is open for them to leave.
As for your call for American Muslims to wage jihad against our country and homeland; the land that you are urging us to wage war against, is the land of our homes that we are obligated to protect. In a prophetic narration by Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-’As, he said: When we were around the Apostle of Allah (SAWS), he mentioned the period of commotion (fitnah) saying: “When you see the people that their covenants have been impaired, (the fulfilling of) the guarantees becomes rare, and they become thus (interwining his fingers). I then got up and said: What should I do at that time, may Allah make me ransom for you? He replied: “Keep to your house, control your tongue, accept what you approve, and abandon what you disapprove, attend to your own affairs, and leave alone the affairs of the generality.”[1] Therefore as Muslim Americans we are obligated by faith to protect our homes, and our homeland upon which they stand, as our homes are our refuge.
The people whom you claim we are obligated to take up arms against are our neighbors whom we live next to and share neighborhoods with, and our Prophet (SAWS) informs us to honor our neighbors by his words in the hadith reported by Abu Shuraih; “By Allah, he does not believe! By Allah, he does not believe! By Allah, he does not believe!” It was said, “Who is that, O Allah’s Apostle?” He said, “That person whose neighbor does not feel safe from his evil.“[2] Furthermore, in the hadith of Aisha, she mentioned that the Prophet (SAWS) said “Gabriel continued to recommend me about treating the neighbors kindly and politely so much so that I thought he would order me to make them as my heirs.”[3] They are our co-workers whom we work alongside them, our students who we teach, and our teachers who we learn from. The people whom you incite us to violence against are our firefighters who defend our homes and our property from ruin, our law enforcement officers who patrol our streets at night, and municipal workers who restore power after the storms, and remove injurious objects from the road. The individuals whom you suggest we wage jihad against are our physicians, nurses and medical professionals who care for our sick and mend the broken bones of our children. They are university professors that you yourself have benefitted from and under whose instruction you obtained your engineering degree. So in summary, my dear Imam and may Allah guide us, we must categorically reject your petition that we wage jihad against the United States of America as in doing so we would be in disobedience to Allah subhaanahu wa ta’ala and His Prophet (SAWS).
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Muslim Non-Outrage
Below is the complete text of Statement made by Karamah an organization of Women Muslim Lawyers, which is pretty much self-explanatory. It counteracts the stereotype of irrational insult-sensitive Muslims quite well, I think. They are also doing some really extraordinary and important other work, as you can see by looking at other pages of their website.
KARAMAH was contacted by a number of Muslim organizations, which were concerned about reports of a sculptured representation of the Prophet Muhammad in the historical frieze on the north wall of the Supreme Courtroom. KARAMAH was also asked by these organizations to contact the Supreme Court administrators and discuss the matter.
A KARAMAH delegation visited the Supreme Court and looked at the frieze, one of several honoring a broad spectrum of leading figures in the law, including the Prophet Moses, Napoleon, and the fourth Chief Justice of the United States John Marshall. Contrary to early information, the frieze does not contain an inscription referring to the Prophet Muhammad as "the founder of Islam." That statement appears in a caption prepared by the museum in connection with a miniature replica of the frieze on display there. The statement is repeated in brochures distributed to visitors.
KARAMAH explained to the administrators that for Muslims, the Prophet is not the "founder" of Islam. As an Abrahamic religion, Islam is considered by Muslims as a later revelation of the same message revealed to Moses and Jesus. Supreme Court administrators showed great sensitivity and understanding of the matter. It was readily agreed that the caption would be revised to describe Prophet Muhammad as the "Prophet" of Islam. It will also be revised to refer briefly to the concerns discussed below.
Furthermore, the sculptured figure purportedly of the Prophet, carries what appears to be a Qur’an in one hand and a sword in the other. Some Muslims expressed their concern to us that the sword would reinforce the current stereotype about Muslims as violent. In fact, KARAMAH discovered that throughout the friezes in the Supreme Courtroom and at the entrance of the Supreme Court itself (statue on the Authority of the Law, lamppost on west entrance, base of Plaza flag poles), swords are repeatedly used as a symbol for the protection of law and justice. Based on these facts, KARAMAH has concluded that there is no reason to assume a contrary intention in the case of the Prophet Muhammad.
A more complex issue remained; namely that of the sculptured representation of the Prophet in the frieze. Muslims have generally refrained from such representation as a strong expression of their commitment to monotheism. Islam was revealed initially to a population of idol worshippers. Fearing a return to these old practices, jurists discouraged any sculptured or even pictorial representation of the Prophet early on. That tradition has generally continued throughout Muslim history, although some Muslim cultures, such as the Turkish and Persian ones, did produce throughout history art, which represented the Prophet pictorially.
While KARAMAH fully identifies with the Islamic aversion to such representation of the Prophet, we are very pleased that Islamic contributions to law are recognized in the highest court of our land. We see that attempt in a tolerant light similar to that in which earlier Muslims saw Turkish and Persian art. It is well intentioned. While it is not what we would have chosen to represent Islam, we do appreciate this early attempt at recognizing Islamic contributions to American jurisprudence and we do not believe it is necessary to destroy it. In reaching this position, we have consulted with many Muslim leaders and relied upon the reasoned opinion of Dr. Taha Jabir al-Alwani, President of the Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) Council of North America.
KARAMAH was contacted by a number of Muslim organizations, which were concerned about reports of a sculptured representation of the Prophet Muhammad in the historical frieze on the north wall of the Supreme Courtroom. KARAMAH was also asked by these organizations to contact the Supreme Court administrators and discuss the matter.
A KARAMAH delegation visited the Supreme Court and looked at the frieze, one of several honoring a broad spectrum of leading figures in the law, including the Prophet Moses, Napoleon, and the fourth Chief Justice of the United States John Marshall. Contrary to early information, the frieze does not contain an inscription referring to the Prophet Muhammad as "the founder of Islam." That statement appears in a caption prepared by the museum in connection with a miniature replica of the frieze on display there. The statement is repeated in brochures distributed to visitors.
KARAMAH explained to the administrators that for Muslims, the Prophet is not the "founder" of Islam. As an Abrahamic religion, Islam is considered by Muslims as a later revelation of the same message revealed to Moses and Jesus. Supreme Court administrators showed great sensitivity and understanding of the matter. It was readily agreed that the caption would be revised to describe Prophet Muhammad as the "Prophet" of Islam. It will also be revised to refer briefly to the concerns discussed below.
Furthermore, the sculptured figure purportedly of the Prophet, carries what appears to be a Qur’an in one hand and a sword in the other. Some Muslims expressed their concern to us that the sword would reinforce the current stereotype about Muslims as violent. In fact, KARAMAH discovered that throughout the friezes in the Supreme Courtroom and at the entrance of the Supreme Court itself (statue on the Authority of the Law, lamppost on west entrance, base of Plaza flag poles), swords are repeatedly used as a symbol for the protection of law and justice. Based on these facts, KARAMAH has concluded that there is no reason to assume a contrary intention in the case of the Prophet Muhammad.
A more complex issue remained; namely that of the sculptured representation of the Prophet in the frieze. Muslims have generally refrained from such representation as a strong expression of their commitment to monotheism. Islam was revealed initially to a population of idol worshippers. Fearing a return to these old practices, jurists discouraged any sculptured or even pictorial representation of the Prophet early on. That tradition has generally continued throughout Muslim history, although some Muslim cultures, such as the Turkish and Persian ones, did produce throughout history art, which represented the Prophet pictorially.
While KARAMAH fully identifies with the Islamic aversion to such representation of the Prophet, we are very pleased that Islamic contributions to law are recognized in the highest court of our land. We see that attempt in a tolerant light similar to that in which earlier Muslims saw Turkish and Persian art. It is well intentioned. While it is not what we would have chosen to represent Islam, we do appreciate this early attempt at recognizing Islamic contributions to American jurisprudence and we do not believe it is necessary to destroy it. In reaching this position, we have consulted with many Muslim leaders and relied upon the reasoned opinion of Dr. Taha Jabir al-Alwani, President of the Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) Council of North America.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Where is the Conservative Outrage?
On February 18th, a man who had posted conservative anti-tax rants on a website crashed his airplane into an IRS office in Austin Texas. This was the third act of far-right political violence since the FBI issued a report saying that such acts would become a danger. During that time there have been only two acts of Islamoid political violence.
Muslim Blogger Aziz Poonwalla says we should not blame the Tea Party movement for this attack. I understand and admire his willingness not to do unto others what has so frequently been done to Muslims, but I think he is being too easy on the far right fringe movements.
It is, of course, unfair to blame the Tea party groups and Sarah Palin for this act--exactly as unfair as blaming all Muslims for the 9/11 attacks. Nevertheless, it's important to point out that if we consistently applied the standards that many Americans use for evaluating and categorizing Islamoid terrorism, everyone would recognize that those standards are unfair and confused. Poonwalla points out that there is no evidence that this man is a member of the Tea Party movement. However, there is no such thing as membership to the Tea party movement. They are a mob, not an organization, and expressing ideas similar to theirs is the only requirement for membership. For many otherwise intelligent Americans, the shouting of "Alahu Akbar" was all that was necessary to transform Hassan from a lone gunman into a member of terrorist movement. Why should it be any different for Anti-Tax terrorists?
More importantly, no one is imposing the so-called obligation to renounce terrorism on the far right when it comes to this case. On the contrary, at least one prominent conservative refused to denounce the Austin attacks. According to NYTimes columnist Gail Collins:
"Scott Brown... the new senator from Massachusetts, was asked on Fox News about the I.R.S. office attack. He appeared to embrace the possibility that the pilot of the plane might have been one of his followers.
'And I don’t know if it’s related, but I can just sense, not only in my election but since being here in Washington, people are frustrated,” he said. 'They want transparency.'"
If a Muslim Imam had made this kind of statement about 9/11, he probably would have been jailed.
P.S. I just coined a new word "Islamoid", because I don't like implying that these terrorists are genuine Muslims when there so many renunciations of both suicide and slaughtering innocent people in the Koran. The suffix "oid" is usually used to mean something that vaguely resembles what the suffix modifies, but doesn't really belong in the category i.e. a planetoid is not really a planet, an asteroid is not really a star, and a humanoid is not really human.
Muslim Blogger Aziz Poonwalla says we should not blame the Tea Party movement for this attack. I understand and admire his willingness not to do unto others what has so frequently been done to Muslims, but I think he is being too easy on the far right fringe movements.
It is, of course, unfair to blame the Tea party groups and Sarah Palin for this act--exactly as unfair as blaming all Muslims for the 9/11 attacks. Nevertheless, it's important to point out that if we consistently applied the standards that many Americans use for evaluating and categorizing Islamoid terrorism, everyone would recognize that those standards are unfair and confused. Poonwalla points out that there is no evidence that this man is a member of the Tea Party movement. However, there is no such thing as membership to the Tea party movement. They are a mob, not an organization, and expressing ideas similar to theirs is the only requirement for membership. For many otherwise intelligent Americans, the shouting of "Alahu Akbar" was all that was necessary to transform Hassan from a lone gunman into a member of terrorist movement. Why should it be any different for Anti-Tax terrorists?
More importantly, no one is imposing the so-called obligation to renounce terrorism on the far right when it comes to this case. On the contrary, at least one prominent conservative refused to denounce the Austin attacks. According to NYTimes columnist Gail Collins:
"Scott Brown... the new senator from Massachusetts, was asked on Fox News about the I.R.S. office attack. He appeared to embrace the possibility that the pilot of the plane might have been one of his followers.
'And I don’t know if it’s related, but I can just sense, not only in my election but since being here in Washington, people are frustrated,” he said. 'They want transparency.'"
If a Muslim Imam had made this kind of statement about 9/11, he probably would have been jailed.
P.S. I just coined a new word "Islamoid", because I don't like implying that these terrorists are genuine Muslims when there so many renunciations of both suicide and slaughtering innocent people in the Koran. The suffix "oid" is usually used to mean something that vaguely resembles what the suffix modifies, but doesn't really belong in the category i.e. a planetoid is not really a planet, an asteroid is not really a star, and a humanoid is not really human.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Still more Muslim Outrage
thanks again to Aziz Poonwalla's Blog
It was about a year ago that Aasiya Zubair Hassan was brutally murdered by her husband in a horrific crime (must-read: Wajahat Ali's excellent piece about Aasiya in the Guardian on Friday). In response to Aasiya's murder, the muslim community stepped up to the plate, condemning domestic violence, hosting friday khutbahs devoted to the topic, and founding organizations like Muslim Men Against Domestic Violence and a grassroots facebook page devoted to remembering Aasiya as the face of the domestic violence epidemic for the muslim community to rally around.
This year, on the first anniversary of Aasiya's murder, the muslim community still remembers and is doing something about it. Here are a few examples:
1. MMADA has issued a Call to Action and PDF information packet to raise awareness in the muslim community about domestic violence. They encourage people to download the packet and distribute; see their website for more details.
2. For people in the New York area, there is a panel discussion hosted Sunday by the Domestic Harmony Foundation and Turning Point for Women and Families, from 11 am - 1 pm at 7 Jaymie Drive, Basement, Westbury, NY 11590.
3. A global Facebook Event - wear purple, the official color of domestic violence awareness -- February 13th through February 16th, in memory of Aasiya Zubair Hassan and other victims of domestic violence. Event organized by Hadayai Majeed of Baitul Salaam.
4. Altmuslimah.com is hosting a domestic violence awareness photographic campaign - "aimed at providing an alternative to the dominant media image of oppressed Muslim women and angry Muslim men." Send your photos in!
5. Abdul Malik Mujahid, a prominent imam and community activist in the Chicago area, has written a 9-point plan for ordinary muslims (based on a khutbah he will deliver today) to take concrete steps against domestic violence. I am reprinting the document in its entirety with permission:
In memory of Sister Aasiya Zubair: 9 things you can do
By Abdul Malik Mujahid
1. Organize "In Memory of. Aasiya: Domestic Violence Awareness Day"
Get together a couple of Imams, leaders, mosques and Islamic centers in your city and organize a city-wide "In Memory of Aasiya: Domestic Violence Awareness Day", This would feature Khutbas and speeches by both men and women leaders from the local Muslim community, workshops on domestic violence awareness at local Islamic institutions, as well as the distribution of multilingual information about this form of abuse in area mosques, Islamic centers and Muslim institutions.
2. Audit Yourself for Domestic Violence
You many not be physically beating your spouse but verbal abuse can lead to physical abuse. Verbal abuse is also prohibited by the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him. Verbal abuse occurs where there is a deficit of mercy and forgiveness. The low level of mercy points to a low level of love or an absence of communication. So let's do a self-audit in our own homes:
Start by saying praises to the Merciful God who says He has ninety-nine times more mercy than mothers and remembering that the Prophet did not raise his hand against anyone. Period. Ask yourself the following questions about your relationship with your spouse:
· How is our communication?
· How is our expression of love?
· How are we doing in terms of mercy and forgiveness?
· Is there any verbal abuse in the relationship?
· Is silence being used as a weapon?
Once you have done this personal audit, seek Allah's forgiveness if you feel it is required and then sit down with a pen and a paper to plan for a better life.
3. Name something after Sister Aasyia
Aasiya Zubair was a leader. She was the one who thought of the idea of starting a television station to correct the image of Islam and Muslims in the media. She was named Aasyia after the wife of a Pharoah who took care of the Prophet Moses, peace be upon him. She is considered among the four best women of the world by the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him. So name something after her: a baby; a food pantry; a new not-for-profit organization; a sisters' Halaqa (Islamic studies circle); a. new media project; a Masjid; a school; a scholarship.
4. Stop ignoring a situation involving domestic violence
If you know of a woman who is being abused by her husband physically, verbally or emotionally, then start helping her today.
You may not be ready to confront her abuser. However, one of the first and most important steps you can take is to reach out to her. That means keeping in touch on a regular basis. One thing abusers do is isolate their victims by cutting off their relationships with the outside world, particularly with family and friends. By keeping in touch, you can literally be a lifeline by alerting authorities if her situation becomes deadly.
What's more likely to happen though is that by slowly breaking the isolation, you will help the abused woman gain the strength and support she needs to take a stand and get out of the abusive situation.
5. Insist that your Imam talk about domestic violence, using Sr. Aasiya Zubair's example or Sr. Shahpara Sayeed who was burned alive.
http://wwww.soundvision.com/Info/domesticviolence/shahpara1.asp
Call, email or snail mail your local Imam and discuss the need to have a Khutba about the Islamic perspective on domestic violence. Offer him specific points and insist that he use Aasiya Zubair's case to show a practical example in the Muslim community.
If your Imam does not respond, arrange an in-person meeting with a delegation and make sure to include some brothers to show this is not a "women's" issue but a community issue. If that doesn't work, keep contacting Imams in your city until you find one or more who are willing to give at least one Khutba on this topic.
6. Make collective Dua for Aasiya Zubair and all victims of domestic violence. Make this the closing of the Friday Khutba on this topic, as well as all related events.
7. Make this excellent directory available in every mosque and for all abused women in your community
Last year, the Muslim Women's League, in collaboration with the Peaceful Families Project, put together a directory of "Domestic Violence Programs for Muslim Communities" which is available here:
http://www.mwlusa.org/DV.Services.For.Muslim.Women-Directory-09.2009.pdf
Make sure this is on the desk of every Imam and Muslim community leader in your city, as well as any woman you know who is being abused.
8. Contact a women's shelter or help hotline and see if you can volunteer
This may be emotionally trying and is not for everyone. If you don't think you can bear the sadness and pain, at least help the shelter or hotline with your money by making a small, monthly donation to support their work.
9. Seek and distribute multilingual information about domestic violence
There is information available online and through various social services agencies about domestic violence in Arabic, Urdu, Somali, Bangla, Punjabi and many other languages. Get these pamphlets and put them in the women's section of every mosque in your city, as well as in the main areas usually frequented by men.
If you cannot find information in the language you need, arrange to have it translated, published and distributed. Consider this your major project for year 2010, one that could very possibly save the lives of women and children suffering pain and abuse.
Some resources include:
http://SoundVision.com/info/domesticviolence
http://www.map-seattle.org/
If you have information on other activities please share in the comments thread.
And, have a happy Valentine's Day :) Inshallah every victim of domestic violence will someday be able to enjoy it too. It's our collective responsibility to make it so.
It was about a year ago that Aasiya Zubair Hassan was brutally murdered by her husband in a horrific crime (must-read: Wajahat Ali's excellent piece about Aasiya in the Guardian on Friday). In response to Aasiya's murder, the muslim community stepped up to the plate, condemning domestic violence, hosting friday khutbahs devoted to the topic, and founding organizations like Muslim Men Against Domestic Violence and a grassroots facebook page devoted to remembering Aasiya as the face of the domestic violence epidemic for the muslim community to rally around.
This year, on the first anniversary of Aasiya's murder, the muslim community still remembers and is doing something about it. Here are a few examples:
1. MMADA has issued a Call to Action and PDF information packet to raise awareness in the muslim community about domestic violence. They encourage people to download the packet and distribute; see their website for more details.
2. For people in the New York area, there is a panel discussion hosted Sunday by the Domestic Harmony Foundation and Turning Point for Women and Families, from 11 am - 1 pm at 7 Jaymie Drive, Basement, Westbury, NY 11590.
3. A global Facebook Event - wear purple, the official color of domestic violence awareness -- February 13th through February 16th, in memory of Aasiya Zubair Hassan and other victims of domestic violence. Event organized by Hadayai Majeed of Baitul Salaam.
4. Altmuslimah.com is hosting a domestic violence awareness photographic campaign - "aimed at providing an alternative to the dominant media image of oppressed Muslim women and angry Muslim men." Send your photos in!
5. Abdul Malik Mujahid, a prominent imam and community activist in the Chicago area, has written a 9-point plan for ordinary muslims (based on a khutbah he will deliver today) to take concrete steps against domestic violence. I am reprinting the document in its entirety with permission:
In memory of Sister Aasiya Zubair: 9 things you can do
By Abdul Malik Mujahid
1. Organize "In Memory of. Aasiya: Domestic Violence Awareness Day"
Get together a couple of Imams, leaders, mosques and Islamic centers in your city and organize a city-wide "In Memory of Aasiya: Domestic Violence Awareness Day", This would feature Khutbas and speeches by both men and women leaders from the local Muslim community, workshops on domestic violence awareness at local Islamic institutions, as well as the distribution of multilingual information about this form of abuse in area mosques, Islamic centers and Muslim institutions.
2. Audit Yourself for Domestic Violence
You many not be physically beating your spouse but verbal abuse can lead to physical abuse. Verbal abuse is also prohibited by the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him. Verbal abuse occurs where there is a deficit of mercy and forgiveness. The low level of mercy points to a low level of love or an absence of communication. So let's do a self-audit in our own homes:
Start by saying praises to the Merciful God who says He has ninety-nine times more mercy than mothers and remembering that the Prophet did not raise his hand against anyone. Period. Ask yourself the following questions about your relationship with your spouse:
· How is our communication?
· How is our expression of love?
· How are we doing in terms of mercy and forgiveness?
· Is there any verbal abuse in the relationship?
· Is silence being used as a weapon?
Once you have done this personal audit, seek Allah's forgiveness if you feel it is required and then sit down with a pen and a paper to plan for a better life.
3. Name something after Sister Aasyia
Aasiya Zubair was a leader. She was the one who thought of the idea of starting a television station to correct the image of Islam and Muslims in the media. She was named Aasyia after the wife of a Pharoah who took care of the Prophet Moses, peace be upon him. She is considered among the four best women of the world by the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him. So name something after her: a baby; a food pantry; a new not-for-profit organization; a sisters' Halaqa (Islamic studies circle); a. new media project; a Masjid; a school; a scholarship.
4. Stop ignoring a situation involving domestic violence
If you know of a woman who is being abused by her husband physically, verbally or emotionally, then start helping her today.
You may not be ready to confront her abuser. However, one of the first and most important steps you can take is to reach out to her. That means keeping in touch on a regular basis. One thing abusers do is isolate their victims by cutting off their relationships with the outside world, particularly with family and friends. By keeping in touch, you can literally be a lifeline by alerting authorities if her situation becomes deadly.
What's more likely to happen though is that by slowly breaking the isolation, you will help the abused woman gain the strength and support she needs to take a stand and get out of the abusive situation.
5. Insist that your Imam talk about domestic violence, using Sr. Aasiya Zubair's example or Sr. Shahpara Sayeed who was burned alive.
http://wwww.soundvision.com/Info/domesticviolence/shahpara1.asp
Call, email or snail mail your local Imam and discuss the need to have a Khutba about the Islamic perspective on domestic violence. Offer him specific points and insist that he use Aasiya Zubair's case to show a practical example in the Muslim community.
If your Imam does not respond, arrange an in-person meeting with a delegation and make sure to include some brothers to show this is not a "women's" issue but a community issue. If that doesn't work, keep contacting Imams in your city until you find one or more who are willing to give at least one Khutba on this topic.
6. Make collective Dua for Aasiya Zubair and all victims of domestic violence. Make this the closing of the Friday Khutba on this topic, as well as all related events.
7. Make this excellent directory available in every mosque and for all abused women in your community
Last year, the Muslim Women's League, in collaboration with the Peaceful Families Project, put together a directory of "Domestic Violence Programs for Muslim Communities" which is available here:
http://www.mwlusa.org/DV.Services.For.Muslim.Women-Directory-09.2009.pdf
Make sure this is on the desk of every Imam and Muslim community leader in your city, as well as any woman you know who is being abused.
8. Contact a women's shelter or help hotline and see if you can volunteer
This may be emotionally trying and is not for everyone. If you don't think you can bear the sadness and pain, at least help the shelter or hotline with your money by making a small, monthly donation to support their work.
9. Seek and distribute multilingual information about domestic violence
There is information available online and through various social services agencies about domestic violence in Arabic, Urdu, Somali, Bangla, Punjabi and many other languages. Get these pamphlets and put them in the women's section of every mosque in your city, as well as in the main areas usually frequented by men.
If you cannot find information in the language you need, arrange to have it translated, published and distributed. Consider this your major project for year 2010, one that could very possibly save the lives of women and children suffering pain and abuse.
Some resources include:
http://SoundVision.com/info/domesticviolence
http://www.map-seattle.org/
If you have information on other activities please share in the comments thread.
And, have a happy Valentine's Day :) Inshallah every victim of domestic violence will someday be able to enjoy it too. It's our collective responsibility to make it so.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Fatwa against Terrorism
ISCC affiliated Imams Issue Important Fatwa
Attack on Canada and the United States is Attack on Muslims
Over 10 million Muslims Live in North America
Calgary) Twenty Imams affiliated with the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada have issued a Fatwa today declaring the attacks on Canada and the United States by any extremist will be the attack on 10 million Muslims living in North America. This is the first Fatwa by the Muslim clergy declaring attacks on Canada and the United States as attack on Muslims. Following is the text of the Fatwa.
FATWA (religious edict)
In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful
We, the undersigned Imams, are issuing the following Fatwa in order to guide the Muslims of North America regarding the attacks on Canada and the United States by the terrorists and the extremists. In our view, these attacks are evil and Islam requires from Muslims to stand up against this evil. In the holy Qur’an Almighty Allah orders Muslims,
"Let there among you be a group that summon to all that is beneficial commands what is proper and forbids what is improper; they are the ones who will prosper." (3:104)
"Believing men and believing women are protecting friends of one another; they enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong; they perform salat and give zakat..." (9:71)
"Those who, if We establish them in the land (with authority), establish regular prayers and practice regular charity and enjoin the right and forbid the wrong..." (22:41)
Our beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said in a Hadith;
"When people see a wrong-doer and do nothing to stop him, they may well be visited by God with a punishment."
Therefore, it is an obligation upon us (Imams) to inform all Muslims around the world that Muslims in Canada and the United States have complete freedom to practice Islam. There is no single city in Canada and the United States where MASAJIDS (Mosques) are not built. In all major cities Islamic schools provide education to Muslim children about Qur’an and the Islamic traditions. Thousands of Muslims perform Hajj every year and travel to Saudi Arabia with complete freedom and respect. In the month of Ramadan, both Canadian and the United States governments recognize the occasion and greet all Muslim citizens. Muslims pray five daily prayers in mosques without any fear or restrictions. Muslims have complete freedom to pay Zakat (poor due) to the charity or a person of their choice. Muslims have complete freedom to celebrate their festivals openly, publicly and Islamically. Muslims enjoy freedom of religion just like Christians, Jews and others. No one stops us from obeying Allah and His Messenger (Peace be upon him). No one stops us from preaching Islam and practicing Islam. In many cases, Muslims have more freedom to practice Islam here in Canada and the United States than many Muslim countries.
In fact, the constitutions of the United States and Canada are very close to the Islamic guiding principles of human rights and freedom. There is no conflict between the Islamic values of freedom and justice and the Canadian /US values of freedom and justice.
Therefore, any attack on Canada and the United States is an attack on the freedom of Canadian and American Muslims. Any attack on Canada and the United States is an attack on thousands of mosques across North America. It is a duty of every Canadian and American Muslim to safeguard Canada and the USA. They must expose any person, Muslim OR non-Muslim, who would cause harm to fellow Canadians OR Americans. We, Canadian and American Muslims, must condemn and stand up against these attacks on Canada and the United States.
May Allah save Canada, the United States and the entire world from the evil of wrong doers. Ameen.
Signed by:
1. Prof. Imam Syed B. Soharwardy - Calgary
2. Allama Imam Ghalib Hussain Chishty - Calgary
3. Allama Imam Syed Mukhtar Naeemi – Houston, USA
4. Allama Imam Muhammad Nasir Qadri - Montreal
5. Allama Imam Abdul Latif No’mani - Vancouver
6. Imam Hafiz Muhammad Zarif Naeemi - Airdrie
7. Imam Nizamuddin Sayed Qadri - Calgary
8. Imam Qazi Bashiruddin Qadri - Hamilton
9. Imam Osman Qazi - Toronto
10. Imam Saeed Ahmed Saifee - Toronto
11. Alimah Hafizah Sister Zaheera Tariq - Calgary
12. Imam Ayaz Khan Qadri - Calgary
13. Alimah Sister Fatimah Zohra - Toronto
14. Imam Shahid Bashir Lahori - Calgary
15. Imam Hafiz Intizar Ahmed Qadri - Montreal
16. Imam Sayed Sajid Qadri – Calgary
17. Imam Arif Mahmood Naqshbandi - Calgary
18. Imam Muhammad Anees Siddiqui – Calgary
19. Sister Shahana Kamil – Mississauga
20. Mr. Mushtaq Khan - Mississauga
Today, January 8, 2010, Calgary Imams will be available at the Al Madinah Calgary Islamic Centre, 5700 Falsbridge Dr. NE at 2:00 PM to explain the Fatwa and answer any questions. The other Imams will be speaking about this Fatwa in their Friday sermons.
*******************
(Comments by Me) Some people have asked “if America were oppressive of its muslim population would it then be permissible to attack America?”
That inference is a fallacy called affirming the consequent.
If America does not oppress Muslims, It should not be attacked
Therefore if America does oppress Muslims, It should be attacked.
This has the same logical form as:
If Napoleon was killed in a plane crash, then Napolean would be dead. (true)
Therefore, if Napoleon was not killed in a plane crash, Napoleon would not be dead. (false)
Terrorists of course are likely to embrace fallacious arguments. But you can't accuse these Imams of making a statement that would give them logical justification for attacking America.
All of the Abrahamic faiths were deeply influenced by Aristotle, which is a good thing.
Attack on Canada and the United States is Attack on Muslims
Over 10 million Muslims Live in North America
Calgary) Twenty Imams affiliated with the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada have issued a Fatwa today declaring the attacks on Canada and the United States by any extremist will be the attack on 10 million Muslims living in North America. This is the first Fatwa by the Muslim clergy declaring attacks on Canada and the United States as attack on Muslims. Following is the text of the Fatwa.
FATWA (religious edict)
In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful
We, the undersigned Imams, are issuing the following Fatwa in order to guide the Muslims of North America regarding the attacks on Canada and the United States by the terrorists and the extremists. In our view, these attacks are evil and Islam requires from Muslims to stand up against this evil. In the holy Qur’an Almighty Allah orders Muslims,
"Let there among you be a group that summon to all that is beneficial commands what is proper and forbids what is improper; they are the ones who will prosper." (3:104)
"Believing men and believing women are protecting friends of one another; they enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong; they perform salat and give zakat..." (9:71)
"Those who, if We establish them in the land (with authority), establish regular prayers and practice regular charity and enjoin the right and forbid the wrong..." (22:41)
Our beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said in a Hadith;
"When people see a wrong-doer and do nothing to stop him, they may well be visited by God with a punishment."
Therefore, it is an obligation upon us (Imams) to inform all Muslims around the world that Muslims in Canada and the United States have complete freedom to practice Islam. There is no single city in Canada and the United States where MASAJIDS (Mosques) are not built. In all major cities Islamic schools provide education to Muslim children about Qur’an and the Islamic traditions. Thousands of Muslims perform Hajj every year and travel to Saudi Arabia with complete freedom and respect. In the month of Ramadan, both Canadian and the United States governments recognize the occasion and greet all Muslim citizens. Muslims pray five daily prayers in mosques without any fear or restrictions. Muslims have complete freedom to pay Zakat (poor due) to the charity or a person of their choice. Muslims have complete freedom to celebrate their festivals openly, publicly and Islamically. Muslims enjoy freedom of religion just like Christians, Jews and others. No one stops us from obeying Allah and His Messenger (Peace be upon him). No one stops us from preaching Islam and practicing Islam. In many cases, Muslims have more freedom to practice Islam here in Canada and the United States than many Muslim countries.
In fact, the constitutions of the United States and Canada are very close to the Islamic guiding principles of human rights and freedom. There is no conflict between the Islamic values of freedom and justice and the Canadian /US values of freedom and justice.
Therefore, any attack on Canada and the United States is an attack on the freedom of Canadian and American Muslims. Any attack on Canada and the United States is an attack on thousands of mosques across North America. It is a duty of every Canadian and American Muslim to safeguard Canada and the USA. They must expose any person, Muslim OR non-Muslim, who would cause harm to fellow Canadians OR Americans. We, Canadian and American Muslims, must condemn and stand up against these attacks on Canada and the United States.
May Allah save Canada, the United States and the entire world from the evil of wrong doers. Ameen.
Signed by:
1. Prof. Imam Syed B. Soharwardy - Calgary
2. Allama Imam Ghalib Hussain Chishty - Calgary
3. Allama Imam Syed Mukhtar Naeemi – Houston, USA
4. Allama Imam Muhammad Nasir Qadri - Montreal
5. Allama Imam Abdul Latif No’mani - Vancouver
6. Imam Hafiz Muhammad Zarif Naeemi - Airdrie
7. Imam Nizamuddin Sayed Qadri - Calgary
8. Imam Qazi Bashiruddin Qadri - Hamilton
9. Imam Osman Qazi - Toronto
10. Imam Saeed Ahmed Saifee - Toronto
11. Alimah Hafizah Sister Zaheera Tariq - Calgary
12. Imam Ayaz Khan Qadri - Calgary
13. Alimah Sister Fatimah Zohra - Toronto
14. Imam Shahid Bashir Lahori - Calgary
15. Imam Hafiz Intizar Ahmed Qadri - Montreal
16. Imam Sayed Sajid Qadri – Calgary
17. Imam Arif Mahmood Naqshbandi - Calgary
18. Imam Muhammad Anees Siddiqui – Calgary
19. Sister Shahana Kamil – Mississauga
20. Mr. Mushtaq Khan - Mississauga
Today, January 8, 2010, Calgary Imams will be available at the Al Madinah Calgary Islamic Centre, 5700 Falsbridge Dr. NE at 2:00 PM to explain the Fatwa and answer any questions. The other Imams will be speaking about this Fatwa in their Friday sermons.
*******************
(Comments by Me) Some people have asked “if America were oppressive of its muslim population would it then be permissible to attack America?”
That inference is a fallacy called affirming the consequent.
If America does not oppress Muslims, It should not be attacked
Therefore if America does oppress Muslims, It should be attacked.
This has the same logical form as:
If Napoleon was killed in a plane crash, then Napolean would be dead. (true)
Therefore, if Napoleon was not killed in a plane crash, Napoleon would not be dead. (false)
Terrorists of course are likely to embrace fallacious arguments. But you can't accuse these Imams of making a statement that would give them logical justification for attacking America.
All of the Abrahamic faiths were deeply influenced by Aristotle, which is a good thing.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
More Muslim outrage
I found a link to this Article on Juan Cole's Blog. There's lots of good stuff there, both ideas and research. Cole is president of the Global Americana Institute, and has written at least two books on the interactions between Islam and the West.
Thomas Friedman recently wrote a column in the Nytimes demanding that more Muslims speak out against terrorism. Isn't fifty-three protests enough to merit some sort of western coverage? The NYtimes put the explosions that were being protested on the front page of their web site, but I saw nothing about the protests. The number of people who caused the explosions was probably in the very low hundreds or less. There were a thousand people at only one of those 53 protests. These protests were co-ordinated by the Pakistani organization Aman Ittehad, which is a powerful force for peace and should be encouraged. I just joined their face book group, and found this photo among many others on their flickr page.
Perhaps these don't count in some people's eyes because they were protesting both the Taliban bombings and the American drone strikes. But a peace rally is a peace rally, and for obvious reasons, Muslims don't see any difference between slaughter of innocents by Americans or Taliban. Our willingness to see the rights and lives of other Muslims as "collateral damage" is an inevitable consequence of seeing terrorists as soldiers instead of criminals. No American police force would consider it acceptable to destroy an entire city block in Harlem or Compton just because they knew that there were drug dealers in one apartment there. But that is the strategy we are following with our drone attacks against terrorists, because this is supposedly a war, not a police action.
Perhaps the American Government is making a mistake in thinking they have to kill terrorists to eliminate them as a threat. If we just let them reveal their barbarity to the local public, rather than matching it with barbarity of our own, they would probably lose the support they need. Al Qaeda's insistence on killing Shiite Muslims destroyed their credibility in Iraq, and it is destroying their credibility in Pakistan. Many of the rallies mentioned below were organized by Sunni groups protesting the killing of Shiites. Cole says, "The Pakistani public is clearly fed up with the Taliban, and is cheering on the army in its struggle against them. If it weren't for the American drone attacks, in fact, there would not be the slightest ambiguity in the politics of peace and anti-terrorism."
Rally in capital reaffirms commitment to promote peace
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Rasheed Khalid
Islamabad
More than 1,000 citizens marched in the Federal Metropolis as part of a nationwide campaign in which people took out rallies in 53 cities and towns of Pakistan to reaffirm the commitment to peace and observe Jan 1 as a day to express solidarity with those who suffered violence and injustice.
Under the banner of Aman Ittehad, the peaceful rally marched to the point law enforcing agencies allowed it to proceed near the Parliament House here on Friday. Chanting slogan of “Aao milke zulm mitaey — hissay ki apne shama jalaen,” the demonstration was one of the 53 public rallies held nationwide at Aman Ittehad’s call across Pakistan.
Representatives of civil society organisations including trade union leaders, mediapersons, business groups, youth organisations, lawyers, students, teachers, and political activists participated in the rally in Islamabad.
According to a spokesperson of the Aman Ittehad, rallies were also held in Karachi, Lahore, Quetta, Rawalpindi, Peshawar, Muzaffarabad, Multan, Hyderabad, Dadu, Badin, Larkana, Sukkur, Jamshoro, Naushero Feroz, Mithi, Umerkot, Jacobabad, Khairpur, Nawabshah, Bahawalpur, Faisalabad, Sialkot, Gujranwala, Chakwal, Dera Ghazi Khan, Rahim Yar Khan, Khushab, Muzaffargarh, Okara, Gujrat, Hafizabad, Sheikhupura, Chiniot, Mandi Bahauddin, Kasur, Mardan, Swabi, Mingora, Abbottabad, Haripur, Mansehra, Karak, Dera Ismail Khan, Buner, Havelian, Mohmand Agency, Kurram Agency,Orakzai Agency, Khyber Agency, Kohat, Loralai and Sibi.
Ali Asghar Khan, younger brother of late Omar Asghar Khan, addressing the rally in Islamabad said that the fact that citizens from every part of Pakistan are holding public rallies today reflects public aspiration for peace and their resolve to strive for an end to violence and extremism. He said that we will continue this struggle for democratic governance, rule of law, and equal opportunities for all citizens.
Earlier, Naeem Mirza of the Aman Ittehad requested participants to pray for all those that have lost their lives due to suicide attacks, target killings, drone attacks, etc
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Here's the muslim outrage!
theamericanmuslim.org
I wish I could find a way of keeping this link permanently on the top of my page. If there's anyone who knows how, please let me know on the comment page. Also if there's some way I could link to this image rather than the text above I would love to know that as well. For all the people who keep saying Muslims should speak up against terrorism: Many Muslims are doing so, but most people don't hear about it because Bombs are much more likely to hit the front page than are petitions. Click on this link and check them out.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Albanian Guest Blogger
I found this on the comments page of an NYTimes article. signed simply "David, New Jersey". I really liked it, and present it without comment.
Mr. Douthat, as an American of Albanian descent who happens to be Orthodox Christian, I am deeply offended by your simplistic, myopic portrayals of Europe's Muslim communities, but I am not surprised. Your writing on this subject, as with many others before this, is rife with Fox Network-inspired talking points and glitzy, contrived mots justes ('Eurabia', 'Clash of Civilizations' and 'dhimmitude'). This piece could have been written by any wide-eyed, fearful Evangelical Christian who's never left the deep south, and frankly, Mr. Douthat, it already has been - many, many times over. You paint with an extra-wide brush here about yet another large segment of humanity of which you seem to know next to nothing, and with which it would appear you have had zero meaningful contact. Europe is not now, nor has it ever been all Christian, all Western, all the time. Get to know Europe's indigenous Muslims in their countries of origin, Mr. Douthat, and have your eyes opened for you. Albania had more Jews in it after World War Two than it did before. I used to attend Albanian school on Fridays at the Albanian Islamic Center in Waterbury, Connecticut. My father used to drive me there - it was about forty-five minutes from our home. Like me, he felt it was important to maintain a connection to Albanian language and culture. After my language class was over, and patriotic songs sung, I used to sit in on the religion class, so that I could learn about Islam. I would even go up into the mosque to pray alongside my classmates - all American-born teenagers and children. The Imam was a wise older man who was aware that I was an Orthodox Christian (my Godparents were known and loved by many in this community). He always made me know that I was welcome to pray, in my own way, right alongside the other kids. I would watch their motions and prostrations as I silently said the Lord's Prayer, and made the sign of the cross. I enjoyed hearing the call to prayer, and listened attentively to the sermon (hutbe), which was always about loving and helping one another, forgiveness - much the same things as I'd hear in church on Sunday. In short, I understood from a very young age that Muslims weren't any different from Christians or Jews. The only time I ever saw any women with headscarves on was when they walked into the mosque to pray. Otherwise, once they were outside, the headscarves went into purses, the kids went into the car, and everyone went off to have pizza. Visit Albania and you will see the situation is identical there today. Because Albanians have suffered together through the ages, and share an ancient, unique language which binds them together, we have always felt ourselves to be Albanians first. Our people intermarry across religious lines, and have a strong tradition of the separation of church and state. Albania: statistically 65% Muslim and 35% Christian and 100% European and proud of it.
Mr. Douthat, as an American of Albanian descent who happens to be Orthodox Christian, I am deeply offended by your simplistic, myopic portrayals of Europe's Muslim communities, but I am not surprised. Your writing on this subject, as with many others before this, is rife with Fox Network-inspired talking points and glitzy, contrived mots justes ('Eurabia', 'Clash of Civilizations' and 'dhimmitude'). This piece could have been written by any wide-eyed, fearful Evangelical Christian who's never left the deep south, and frankly, Mr. Douthat, it already has been - many, many times over. You paint with an extra-wide brush here about yet another large segment of humanity of which you seem to know next to nothing, and with which it would appear you have had zero meaningful contact. Europe is not now, nor has it ever been all Christian, all Western, all the time. Get to know Europe's indigenous Muslims in their countries of origin, Mr. Douthat, and have your eyes opened for you. Albania had more Jews in it after World War Two than it did before. I used to attend Albanian school on Fridays at the Albanian Islamic Center in Waterbury, Connecticut. My father used to drive me there - it was about forty-five minutes from our home. Like me, he felt it was important to maintain a connection to Albanian language and culture. After my language class was over, and patriotic songs sung, I used to sit in on the religion class, so that I could learn about Islam. I would even go up into the mosque to pray alongside my classmates - all American-born teenagers and children. The Imam was a wise older man who was aware that I was an Orthodox Christian (my Godparents were known and loved by many in this community). He always made me know that I was welcome to pray, in my own way, right alongside the other kids. I would watch their motions and prostrations as I silently said the Lord's Prayer, and made the sign of the cross. I enjoyed hearing the call to prayer, and listened attentively to the sermon (hutbe), which was always about loving and helping one another, forgiveness - much the same things as I'd hear in church on Sunday. In short, I understood from a very young age that Muslims weren't any different from Christians or Jews. The only time I ever saw any women with headscarves on was when they walked into the mosque to pray. Otherwise, once they were outside, the headscarves went into purses, the kids went into the car, and everyone went off to have pizza. Visit Albania and you will see the situation is identical there today. Because Albanians have suffered together through the ages, and share an ancient, unique language which binds them together, we have always felt ourselves to be Albanians first. Our people intermarry across religious lines, and have a strong tradition of the separation of church and state. Albania: statistically 65% Muslim and 35% Christian and 100% European and proud of it.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Salman Ahmad on Islam
A few years ago I interviewed Pakistani Rock Star Salman Ahmad (of the Band Junoon), and asked what Islam meant to him. Here are a few of his comments from that Article.
"Those planes were not the only thing those terrorists hijacked on 9/11. They also hijacked my religion. They call themselves Moslems, but they only bow to the gods of hate, fanaticism and bigotry.
I may look like a long-haired musician, but I know Islamic Logic. I studied the Koran as a child, and I continue to go back to it as a source of inspiration for my music. There is absolutely nothing in the Koran that forbids music. On the contrary, the Koran says that the prophet David was given the gift of singing and that when he sang the mountains swayed. Why would God give a prophet such a gift if it were evil? And the Hadith they cite as banning music criticizes things like “idle talk”, which obviously only refers to gossip, not music. I researched and studied this topic and spent two and a half hours discussing it with the most prominent Mullah in Peshawar. But instead of responding to my arguments, he just fell back on apocalyptic imagery. I saw through him, but I still treated him respectfully. In fact, he ended our discussion by entreating me ‘from the heart’ not to be angry with him, and asking me to come and see him again. Then he sang a song to me, and asked me to perform at my next concert. After 2 and a half hours of saying music was sinful, he was standing there singing to me.”
“The fact is, these mullahs don’t really believe what they are saying. They’re attacking music because they are afraid of losing their gig. They see a long-haired musician getting thirty thousand people at a concert, and they see us as intruding on their market share. In Pakistan, 50% of the population is under twenty-five, and they are the ones who are attracted to Rock music and videos. When I starting interviewing the students at the Madrassahs, all they wanted to talk about was Junoon’s music. They knew all the songs, and were asking for my autograph. But once the cameras came on, they all mouthed the same preprogrammed commentary, saying that music was forbidden.
“ The kids say what they say because they’re poor and they get free food and education from the Madrassahs. Their parents leave them there and say “raise them”. There’s no other social safety net, so the kids have no choice but to echo the party line. But when the mullahs aren’t watching, they watch satellite TV, discuss cricket matches, and do all the other things that normal kids do. If they were provided with any other economic opportunities, they wouldn’t be there. Even though all music is banned in Peshawar, there are three or four rock bands from there who have made videos that are running on satellite music channels in Pakistan. I don’t have a crystal ball, so I can’t be sure, but I think the Mullahs are losing.”
Nevertheless, Ahmad strongly believes that a defeat for the extremists will result in a rejuvenation of Islam at its best.
“They are trying to recreate seventh century Arabia in our time, and they are not even recreating it accurately. They say that women shouldn’t work outside the home. But the Prophet Muhammad was married to a working businesswoman who was fifteen years older than he was. And she proposed to him.”
“They try to avenge any action they think is disrespectful of Islam. But here is a story that all Moslem children hear from their mothers. When the Prophet, peace be upon him, first began to preach his message, there were many people who reacted hostilely. There was a woman who used to see Muhammad walk by her house every day, and she always dumped garbage on him from her window. Not once did he protest this, or try to get revenge. One day he walked by and she didn’t dump garbage on him. So he went up to see her, and discovered that she was sick. He stayed with her, nursed her back to health, and eventually she converted to Islam. He used persuasion and gentleness, not anger and force. He knew that the only way to win over people is through truth, humility, and compassion. There are so many stories in which his followers wanted him to act aggressively, and he would say ‘the truth will prevail, as long as we’re true to ourselves’. The self-appointed spokesmen for Islam who claim they want to emulate Muhammad’s character erase this whole side of his story.”
“Being a Good Muslim is having faith in a higher power. Once you have that faith, it strengthens you against the fear of humiliation, poverty, and death. The Koran says only God has the power to exalt you. No one else has ultimate control over when you die or how much financial success you have. Once you accept this, it frees you from all the mind games we play with ourselves. It’s an empowerment which comes from submission. We think of submission as implying weakness, but it really means tuning in with the frequency of the universe. Once you’re in harmony with that frequency, then you can imagine your own destiny.”
“Strength of faith is not in veils or beards or trouser length, it’s a matter of the heart. This was perfectly expressed in a poem by Bulleh Shah, which I used as the lyric for my song Masjid/Mandir (the mosque and the temple) “destroy the mosque/tear down the temple/ break all that can be broken/but don't ever break anyone's heart / that's the true house of God.”
Information about Junoon recordings, concerts etc. can be found at www.junoon.com
"Those planes were not the only thing those terrorists hijacked on 9/11. They also hijacked my religion. They call themselves Moslems, but they only bow to the gods of hate, fanaticism and bigotry.
I may look like a long-haired musician, but I know Islamic Logic. I studied the Koran as a child, and I continue to go back to it as a source of inspiration for my music. There is absolutely nothing in the Koran that forbids music. On the contrary, the Koran says that the prophet David was given the gift of singing and that when he sang the mountains swayed. Why would God give a prophet such a gift if it were evil? And the Hadith they cite as banning music criticizes things like “idle talk”, which obviously only refers to gossip, not music. I researched and studied this topic and spent two and a half hours discussing it with the most prominent Mullah in Peshawar. But instead of responding to my arguments, he just fell back on apocalyptic imagery. I saw through him, but I still treated him respectfully. In fact, he ended our discussion by entreating me ‘from the heart’ not to be angry with him, and asking me to come and see him again. Then he sang a song to me, and asked me to perform at my next concert. After 2 and a half hours of saying music was sinful, he was standing there singing to me.”
“The fact is, these mullahs don’t really believe what they are saying. They’re attacking music because they are afraid of losing their gig. They see a long-haired musician getting thirty thousand people at a concert, and they see us as intruding on their market share. In Pakistan, 50% of the population is under twenty-five, and they are the ones who are attracted to Rock music and videos. When I starting interviewing the students at the Madrassahs, all they wanted to talk about was Junoon’s music. They knew all the songs, and were asking for my autograph. But once the cameras came on, they all mouthed the same preprogrammed commentary, saying that music was forbidden.
“ The kids say what they say because they’re poor and they get free food and education from the Madrassahs. Their parents leave them there and say “raise them”. There’s no other social safety net, so the kids have no choice but to echo the party line. But when the mullahs aren’t watching, they watch satellite TV, discuss cricket matches, and do all the other things that normal kids do. If they were provided with any other economic opportunities, they wouldn’t be there. Even though all music is banned in Peshawar, there are three or four rock bands from there who have made videos that are running on satellite music channels in Pakistan. I don’t have a crystal ball, so I can’t be sure, but I think the Mullahs are losing.”
Nevertheless, Ahmad strongly believes that a defeat for the extremists will result in a rejuvenation of Islam at its best.
“They are trying to recreate seventh century Arabia in our time, and they are not even recreating it accurately. They say that women shouldn’t work outside the home. But the Prophet Muhammad was married to a working businesswoman who was fifteen years older than he was. And she proposed to him.”
“They try to avenge any action they think is disrespectful of Islam. But here is a story that all Moslem children hear from their mothers. When the Prophet, peace be upon him, first began to preach his message, there were many people who reacted hostilely. There was a woman who used to see Muhammad walk by her house every day, and she always dumped garbage on him from her window. Not once did he protest this, or try to get revenge. One day he walked by and she didn’t dump garbage on him. So he went up to see her, and discovered that she was sick. He stayed with her, nursed her back to health, and eventually she converted to Islam. He used persuasion and gentleness, not anger and force. He knew that the only way to win over people is through truth, humility, and compassion. There are so many stories in which his followers wanted him to act aggressively, and he would say ‘the truth will prevail, as long as we’re true to ourselves’. The self-appointed spokesmen for Islam who claim they want to emulate Muhammad’s character erase this whole side of his story.”
“Being a Good Muslim is having faith in a higher power. Once you have that faith, it strengthens you against the fear of humiliation, poverty, and death. The Koran says only God has the power to exalt you. No one else has ultimate control over when you die or how much financial success you have. Once you accept this, it frees you from all the mind games we play with ourselves. It’s an empowerment which comes from submission. We think of submission as implying weakness, but it really means tuning in with the frequency of the universe. Once you’re in harmony with that frequency, then you can imagine your own destiny.”
“Strength of faith is not in veils or beards or trouser length, it’s a matter of the heart. This was perfectly expressed in a poem by Bulleh Shah, which I used as the lyric for my song Masjid/Mandir (the mosque and the temple) “destroy the mosque/tear down the temple/ break all that can be broken/but don't ever break anyone's heart / that's the true house of God.”
Information about Junoon recordings, concerts etc. can be found at www.junoon.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)