Looking at Islam
Some recent articles on various aspects
and issues surrounding Islam
today.
Giving moderate Islam a voice
The new Muslim anti-Semitism
The Other Jihad: Islam's War on the Hindus
Islam and HIV AIDS
The Islamization of knowledge
Cultural Cavemen & The Wimps of the West
People in Glass Houses Should Not Throw Words
See also
"I wish there were more Islamic moderates," Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim and author of the emotionally gripping and horrifying book Infidel, wrote in a New York Times piece in early December. Answering that call is one Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, who is doing his best to make the world safe for Islamic moderates — or at least encourage the ones in the United States to speak out.
Jasser, a former lieutenant commander in the U.S. Navy and a full-time physician, founded a Phoenix, Ariz.-based group of professionals who are Muslim, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.
In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush said, "The 19 suicide terrorists hijacked a great religion." But as Jasser will tell you, there are Muslims right here in the United States preaching what could lead to the same drive for violence that killed almost 3,000 Americans.
As Jasser recently told me, "While I have never heard violence preached in any mosque I attended, I did hear conspiracy theories, anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism and radical politics, which often predominated instead of a focus on spirituality, humility and moral courage. This led to a regular struggle with many, but not all, of the clerical leadership in many of the Muslim communities in which I have lived and participated."
The Islam he loves — essentially, "maintaining a central, personal spiritual relationship with God" in his life — can thrive in a pluralistic country, he argues, which is sometimes contrary to what some American Muslims may hear in their local mosques. "I tried to intellectually counter them from within the community, but did so to no avail. For who was I to question clerical authority and interpretations?"
The 2001 attacks changed things for Jasser. "After 9/11, it was immediately clear to me ... that the Islamist agenda was the root cause of terrorism and Muslim radicalism. It was obvious to me that the only treatment of this cancer within was for devout Muslims who love America and love the spirituality of Islam to reclaim the mantle of faith from the Islamists."
He is grateful to Hirsi Ali, who is no longer Muslim, for sharing her story and giving an opening to Muslims like himself — people who want to fight back against militant Islam and the violent interpretations of a faith he loves.
But there are not enough Jassers. He laments, "What strikes me even more than the existence of the 'former Muslim voices' is the relative paucity of audible, devotional, anti-Islamist Muslim voices. For those of us immersed in the Muslim community for most of our life, we know that they exist, and we know they may even be a majority."
But inside the mosque, that's not the case, in his experience: "The anti-Islamist Muslim is a minority in the mosque scene or the political-activist Muslim-community scene. But studies have shown that less than a majority of Muslims attend mosque regularly, and even a far smaller percentage are involved in political Islamist organizations."
He surmises that many of his brothers in faith are staying away from their local mosques for fear of or in protest against what they are teaching there.
In the news over the past year, we've seen militant Islamic groups in the United States on trial, we've seen calls for the death of a British schoolteacher in Sudan over a teddy bear named Muhammad, we've seen a woman in the Islamic state of Saudi Arabia sentenced to lashes and jail time after being raped. (She was pardoned — an exception for the kingdom rather than the rule.) These incidents are all outrageous — and too few Muslims in America voiced their outrage loudly. This frustrates Jasser. He lives in a country he loves and practices a religion he loves, even as practitioners of his religion want to do harm to his beloved United States. But in a time of war, Jasser is doing his part. The rest of us need to listen and encourage the Jassers of our country. We owe it to ourselves as much as to him.
Kathryn Lopez is the editor of National Review Online
top
Jewish-Muslim relations are at a nadir today. But the mutual hatred and anti-Semitism on the Muslim side are relatively new phenomena, born of political, rather than religious factors. When the Islamic caliphs ruled large swaths of Asia and Africa, their Jewish subjects enjoyed a protected status their brethren in Christian Europe - victims of anti-Semitism - never thought possible.
Today, Muslim apologists have distorted this age of coexistence. They appropriate an old Jewish myth about an "interfaith utopia" in the Middle Ages and blame the Jews and Zionism for destroying the traditional harmony between the two peoples.
In response, there is a new Jewish "counter-myth" that claims that Islam has persecuted Jews from its origins and that anti-Semitism is endemic in the religion. This counter-myth has been propagated by Jewish writers in the Diaspora especially since the 1970s. It parallels a similar conviction among some Oriental Jews in Israel. Seeking to find their place in a predominantly European Jewish world scarred by centuries of Christian persecutions culminating in the Holocaust, they claim that Islam has persecuted Jews from its origins. By implication, they have a past of suffering like the Ashkenazim, including dislocation from their ancient homelands, and are thus eligible for a larger piece of the Zionist pie than the mostly Ashkenazic founding fathers of Israel have granted them.
THE HISTORIC plight of Oriental Jewry falls somewhere between these two extremes. To discover it, one must move past the layers of propaganda and mutual recriminations that have obscured our view of history.
First of all, however, let us not make the mistake of thinking that Jews lived in the Middle Ages as the equals of Muslims. They were second class citizens, at best. They were classed along with other religious minorities as unbelievers who did not recognize the prophethood of Muhammad and the truth of the Koran. But this kind of unbelief was not as threatening to Islam as Jewish unbelief was to Christians, for unbelief in Christianity means rejection of Jesus as Messiah and as God, a greater affront to the dominant faith than Jewish unbelief was to Islam because it challenged the theological basis of the whole religion.
Moreover, restrictions on Jewish (and Christian) life - they were not to build new houses of worship and were required to wear distinctive garb, avoid Muslim honorific titles, and so forth - were intended not so much to exclude them from society as they were meant to reinforce the necessary hierarchical distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims within a single social order.
Non-Muslims were to remain "in their place," avoiding any act, particularly any religious act, that might challenge the superior rank of Muslims or of Islam. Non-Muslims, however, occupied a definite rank in Islamic society - a low rank, but a rank nevertheless. They managed to co-exist more or less harmoniously with the higher-ranking dominant Muslim group because both sides recognized and accepted the place of the other - whether superior or inferior - and this facilitated interaction with a minimum of conflict.
THE FLIP SIDE of the discriminatory regulations imposed upon Jews is that they (as well as Christians) were a "protected people," ahl al-dhimma or dhimmis in Arabic, who enjoyed security of life and property, religious freedom, freedom from forced conversion, communal autonomy, and equality in the marketplace. For all its religious exclusivity and hostility towards the Jews, expressed in the Koran and in other Islamic literature, Islam contains a nucleus of pluralism that gave the Jews in Muslim lands greater security than Jews had in Christian Europe. For other important reasons, too, Jews in the Islamic orbit were spared the damaging stigma of "otherness" and anti-Semitism suffered by Jews in Europe. They were indigenous to the Near East - not immigrants, as in many parts of the Christian West - and largely indistinguishable physically from their Arab-Muslim neighbors.
Moreover, Jews were one of two and in some place three non-Muslim minority religions, which also diffused the natural hostility towards the "other." The contrast with the Christian West is revealing. Although for a few centuries in the early Middle Ages (up to the 11th century) Jews enjoyed a more or less secure place in the natural hierarchical order of Christian society, as well as substantial economic rights, a combination of factors led to the expulsion of most of western Jewry by the end of the 15th century. These factors include the loss of the pluralism that had marked the Germanic, "barbarian" early Middle Ages; the spread of Christianity to the masses by the 11th century; the commercial revolution that relegated Jews to a few, despised economic activities like money lending; the erosion of the old doctrine of St. Augustine that Jews must be allowed to live in Christian society as witnesses to the triumph of Christianity; and, finally, the gradual political unification of European countries, especially England, France, and Spain, which left the Jew even more of an outsider than in the past.
ISLAM AND Judaism had (and continue to have) much more in common than Judaism has with Christianity. This mutual recognition of religious similarities includes monotheism, which made Islam more tolerant of Jews than of Christians, whose Trinity smacked of polytheism, the greatest sin in Islam, and made Jews more tolerant of Islam for much the same reason. Another well known commonality are laws concerning animal ritual slaughter and other kashrut/halal practices. Partly because of shared religious beliefs, Islamic polemics against Judaism and the Jews in the Middle Ages were minimal and banal compared to the large body of anti-Jewish polemics in the Christian world in the 13th century. This led to the burning of the Talmud in France - an act of aggression against Judaism that had no parallel in the Muslim world and which was accompanied by other violent excesses like the blood libel that wrought the anti-Semitism whose tragic outcome in the 20th century is all too well known.
In the Muslim world, Jews retained for centuries their substantial security as well as their recognized place in the natural hierarchical social order. They did so by acknowledging, at least by their behavior in public, the superiority of Islam, by adhering to the prescribed restrictions of Islamic law, by paying an annual head tax called jizya, and by refraining from serving in government offices, where they might be in a position of superiority over Muslims. To be sure, there were periodic outbursts of violence, though they were almost always directed against dhimmis as a category, and not against Jews per se. These excesses occurred when the dhimmis were seen to be violating the terms of the dhimma arrangement; or when a particular ruler was pressured by Muslim clerics - the ulama - to crack down on the violators; or when Islam as a polity came under attack from the outside, as happened from the late 11th century on during the Crusades (the Crusade against the Muslims in the Holy Land and the Crusade to reconquer Spain from the Muslims) and during the Mongol invasions of the 13th century.
Jews were, however, rarely forced to convert to Islam (the Koran forbids compulsion in religion) and, with two major exceptions proving the rule, they were not expelled from Muslim lands. One expulsion took place in the Hijaz, the holy sanctuary of Arabia that includes Mecca and Medina, shortly after the death of the Prophet, and the other, in Yemen in the 17th century.
AGAIN, TO understand the relatively decent Jewish-Muslim relations in the medieval period, one needs to contrast them with the Christian world, where, from about the 12th century on, Jews were subject to a shaky adherence to an older commitment to protect the Jews and to guarantee their freedom of religion, as well as their liberty to practice any economic walk of life they wished - all of these things, of course, a function of time and place and the policies of particular secular rulers or the Church.
In Christian society, moreover, hostility was focused on one, "evil" non-Christian group, the Jews, paving the way for what was to become - beginning in the 12th century - anti-Semitism, understood as a religiously-based complex of irrational, mythical, and stereotypical beliefs about the diabolical, malevolent, and all-powerful Jew, later on infused, in its modern, secular form, with racism and the belief that there is a Jewish conspiracy against mankind.
This kind of anti-Semitism did not exist in the medieval Muslim world. It did not make its appearance there until the 19th century, when it was fostered by European Christian missionaries living in the Middle East.
ALL THIS adds up to one thing: Jews and Muslims got along better in the Middle Ages than they do today. But the co-existence of Jews and Muslims in the Middle Ages could not easily be maintained in the modern era. Colonial disruption of Muslim society, conflicting nationalisms, Arab belief that Zionism is just another form of European colonialism robbing them of their own right to self-determination in a modern state, and Jewish fear that Arab and Muslim enmity - and more recently, terrorism - might lead to something akin to another Holocaust, have dramatically degraded Muslim-Jewish relations. This has manifested itself in a new Muslim anti-Semitism, which is not, however, indigenous. It represents an Islamized version of its Christian roots. Muslim anti-Semitism has also provoked amnesia in Jews from Arab countries.
They (or most of them) no longer remember the friendships with Muslims that Arab Jews knew in the "old country." They no longer remember the substantial exemption from Muslim violence that the Jews of the Islamic world enjoyed in most places until the events of the 20th century. And they have forgotten that until the 20th century, in some cases right up until the 1940s, many in the Arabic-speaking Jewish middle class were deeply embedded in Arab society and culture, much like their ancestors in the medieval world, who wholeheartedly embraced Arabic and the Islamic culture of philosophy, science, medicine, scriptural study, and poetry in what was not an interfaith utopia, but an era of co-existence that can stand as a distant mirror of what might yet be possible in our own time.
The writer is professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. He is the author, among other works, of Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages, which has been translated into Hebrew.
top
The Art of War on Terror: Triumphing over Political Islam and the Axis of Jihad By Moorthy Muthuswamy
.
Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal catastrophically may fall into the hands of jihadists. But the South Asian version of jihad is a less familiar but no less fearsome variant of the war directed at the Great Satan America, and the Little Satan, Israel.
At one billion people, Hindus, the majority of whom live in the Indian sub-continent, constitute the third largest religion in the world after two billion Christians and 1.5 billion Muslims. Yet, their numbers have not spared Hindus from ongoing, systematic Muslim attacks in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Indeed, the jihad against India's non-Muslims has accelerated within the last few decades. The Indian government and international human rights organizations have done little to address human rights violations and have stood idle despite constant attacks on Hindus. Meanwhile, the media rarely mentions the desecration of Hindu religious sites and the constant intimidation of Hindus. While special concessions have been granted for Muslims in India, the governments of Pakistan and Bangladesh have long supported a policy, based on Islamic law, of religious discrimination against non-believers. Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh are unable to obtain positions of power, have great difficulty procuring business loans, are subjected to spurious blasphemy claims for defaming the prophet Mohammed and are specifically identified as non-Muslims on their passports.
In his recent book, The Art of War on Terror: Triumphing over Political Islam and the Axis of Jihad, Moorthy Muthuswamy explores this little-known and vastly under-reported Muslim campaign against Hindus. Muthuswamy addresses the methodology and ideological basis of political Islam, illuminates the 60-year history of jihad in India, specifies the roles played by the countries he identifies as being part of the "axis of jihad," and sets forth potential solutions to the jihadist threat.
The roots of this jihad on the Indian sub-continent began in 1947, when the British departed South Asia and granted independence to the sovereign states of India and Pakistan. India chose to establish a secular democracy and a legal system based on English Common and Statutory Law. Pakistan, however, was founded under the leadership of the Muslim League, later renamed the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and based its governance on Islamic law. At the time, the Hindu minority in West Pakistan constituted 29% of the new nation's population and 23% of the population of West Pakistan. But, by the start of the India-Pakistan War of 1971, some 2.5 million Hindu citizens of Pakistan had been massacred. Soon thereafter, when East Pakistan was established as the People's Republic of Bangladesh, 10 million Hindu refugees fled to India.
In the summary of a 1971 report to a U.S. Senate judiciary committee investigating the problem of refugees and settlement in South Asia, U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy wrote of the situation,
"Field reports to the U.S. Government, countless eye-witness journalistic accounts, reports of International agencies such as World Bank and additional information available to the subcommittee document the reign of terror which grips East Bengal (East Pakistan). Hardest hit have been members of the Hindu community who have been robbed of their lands and shops, systematically slaughtered, and in some places, painted with yellow patches marked ‘H.' All of this has been officially sanctioned, ordered and implemented under martial law from Islamabad."[1]
On April 23, 1977, Bangladesh amended its constitution, renounced secularism and dedicated itself to Islamic solidarity. In 1988, Islam became the state religion and sharia the law of the land. Meanwhile, an insurgency by Muslims of almost 20 years duration in the Indian Kashmir Valley is part of an ongoing attempt to Islamicize the region and expand Pakistan by incorporating the valley. Toward that end, Muslims have expelled 350,000 Kashmiri Hindus and have murdered, raped and kidnapped them.
In his book, Muthuswamy explains how Islamic religious beliefs and systems function to fuel and, even demand, constant efforts to annihilate all non-Muslim populations. The mosques and madrassas form the power base and central pillar of Islamic life, regulating, influencing and shaping daily Islamic existence. Total control is achieved by blocking progress and wealth creation and enforcing the dictates of the Islamic trilogy: the Koran, Hadith and the Sira. Muslim clerics renounce modern education and exclusively endorse Koranic study and the "noble" pursuit of jihad. The result is a populace kept ignorant, unworldly, impoverished and easily indoctrinated. This engenders dependence on religious leadership and Islamic organizations for subsistence services. It also makes Muslims susceptible to manipulation and fosters feelings of victimization and resentment, which are skillfully directed toward non-believers.
Islamic doctrine also plays a central role in the promulgation and advancement of a comprehensive political ideology that requires religious war and establishes the objective of achieving a worldwide Islamic caliphate under Islamic law, Muthuswamy writes. This ideology is based on the Islamic trilogy, scripture that is immutable and contains the word of Allah (Koran), the biography of Mohammed (Sira) and the rules governing life or the traditions of Mohammed (Hadith). The concept of the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," a prominent belief in most religions, is absent in Islam, as is the notion of a "human being." The Muslim world is simply divided into "believers" and "non-believers." The closest parallel to the Golden Rule is a prohibition against cheating, lying or killing other Muslims. However, such behavior is permissible against non-believers because it is accepted as necessary to conquer the Dar-al-Harb, the infidel world of war, in pursuit of the Dar-al-Islam, the world of Islam.
Muthuswamy cites research on the Koran, conducted by the Center for Political Islam, which illustrates the Islamic focus on conformist behavior and beliefs. According to the Center's analysis of the Koran, the Sira, and the Hadith, only 17% of the Islamic trilogy deals with the words of Allah. The remaining 83% refers to the words and deeds of Mohammed. Of all of the references to "hell" in the trilogy, 6% are for moral failings, while 94% are for the transgression of disagreeing with Mohammed. Statistical analysis of the trilogy revealed that 97% of references to "jihad" relate to war and a mere 3% to the concept of "inner struggle." [2]
It is instructive that in India, a non-white, non-Christian developing nation with a secular democracy, no moderate or reformed Islam exists. In India, the self-inflicted problems of Moslem society are projected onto non-Muslim "oppressors" in the very same way that Arab Palestinians focus their efforts on jihad rather than economic development and education and blame Israel for their own failures. Thus, for the last six decades, India's history has been characterized by the ethnic cleansing of non-Muslims, frequent terrorist attacks, special concessions to Muslims and a tolerated bias against Hindus.
Muslims in India wield considerable power as they exploit their self-imposed, victim status and demand special privileges under threats of uncontrollable violence. In South India, Muslims have extracted set asides in education and employment, based on a government study that found they didn't meet job and education expectations. Legislation to help fight escalating terrorism, the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 2002, was rescinded in 2006 following pressure by Muslims who deemed it anti-Muslim. Recently, in Kashmir, the Indian constitution and Indian law was withdrawn and sharia law established as the law of the land. Muslims typically claim they are victims while, at the same time victimizing Indian non-Muslims with terrorist acts. Such claims by Indian Muslims are similar to charges of apartheid against Israel for its erecting of a security fence and checkpoints to prevent Islamic suicide bombers from infiltrating the country. Muslims achieve political power by attaining majority status demographically; demanding special compensation, laws and conditions; and driving out non-Muslims.
The long-festering situation in India argues powerfully for the case that no possibility of coexistence with Islam exists and containment is not viable. Muslim conquest is scripturally driven and Islam's frontiers have been extended by gradually overtaking the land of non-believers and ethnically cleansing their territory. Unbeliever genocide has gradually swept through Pakistan, Bangladesh and parts of India. Muslim population growth is 1.5 times that of non-Muslims and physical threats and political correctness conspire to further the Muslim takeover.
Little hope exists for the reformation of Islam in the same way that religious reform is traditionally carried out: by religious institutions accompanied with the lessening influence of clergy. Currently, Islam is becoming more regressive, sharia courts and Wahhabism are spreading, and no tradition of tolerance for other religions has been established. No moderate or alternative versions of the religion are being offered because such alternative mosques would be threatened and would suffer from a lack of funding. The Islamic focus on indoctrination, high population growth, fomenting of insurgencies, and infiltration is part of the global jihad, a full-on religious war against infidel nations and an attempted land conquest.
Muthuswamy advances the notion that America's focus on the axis of evil has been misguided and that the United States must turn its attention instead to the axis of jihad: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran. He writes that both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan formally recognized the Taliban government. Saudi oil money has funded the growth of fanaticism worldwide and the Saudis have infectiously spread Wahhabism through mosques and madrassas across the globe and franchised the training of radical imams. The Saudis have also funded the worldwide terrorist group, Jamaat-e-Islami, the majority party in Pakistan and a major political force in Bangladesh. Both Saudi Arabia and Iran have financed terrorist training camps, and Riyadh has helped set up terror bases for jihad in India and aided the Islamic siege of Turkey. Money from Saudi Arabia and Iran funds mosques, schools, and social and jihad networks in Muslim communities, including powerful terrorist proxies such as Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and the Taliban.
The United States is hampered by its belief in Islam as a conventional faith and not a political ideology, Muthuswamy writes. This belief mistakenly frames the situation as a freedom-of-religion issue, he says. The author feels that America is weakened by its strong religious outlook and needs to refocus its priorities on scientific and technological development. "Information-based societies," such as China and India, have an advantage over theologically-based ones, Muthuswamy says. He adds that religion restricts effective functioning in the modern world and needs to be supplanted by common sense and science.
In a final "Policy Response" section of his book, Muthuswamy suggests a multi-pronged plan of action for America. He advocates the potential weakening of political Islam through the discrediting of its theological foundation and manufactured Muslim grievances. He recommends a change in focus away from individual terrorist groups and the axis of evil to the axis of jihad, even to the point of formally charging Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran with crimes against humanity. Muthuswamy further contends that the strengthening of India, as well as a coalition between India and Israel, could act as a counterforce to political Islam and the axis of jihad. Recognizing the physical threat of the global jihad, he acknowledges the necessity of developing a comprehensive allied nuclear retaliatory strategy to fight jihadist nations.
[1] "Crisis of South Asia" report by Senator Edward Kennedy to the Subcommittee investigating the Problem of Refugees and Their Settlement, Submitted to U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, November 1, 1971, U.S. Govt. Press, pp.66.
[2] William Warner, "The Study of Political Islam," FrontPage Magazine, February 5, 2007, .
top
Some people will be somewhat surprised as to what relation there could be between Islam and this dreaded disease. Yet there is, and there was international conference on this subject in Johannesburg, South Africa from 25th to 30th November in which more than 250 delegates, resource persons, activists and Ulama from all Muslim countries and Muslim minority countries was held. I was also invited there as resource person to speak from the Islamic point of view.
I was until then under the impression that Muslim countries in general and Muslims in particular are not victims of HIV/AIDS. But when I participated in this conference I realized that quite a few Muslims from different Muslim countries as well as non-Muslim countries were victims of this disease. Africa in particular has the largest number of victims and there are many Muslim majority countries among African countries.
It was for this reason that number of agencies including Islamic Relief, UNO and World Vision supported this conference. I was quite impressed with the number of participants and volunteers, and with the number of sessions in which people participated with enthusiasm. What was more appreciable was that many Muslim women participated and most of them were in hijab (head covering). Almost half the participants were women. And I was surprised when some Muslim women declared from the conference platform that they were HIV positive.
Every day in the morning, first a plenary session took place and discussed various aspects of this disease, and then participants would break into different groups each group consisting of ten persons to discuss things in depth and each group had some expert or experts either from a religious or technical point of view. Many groups were headed by women and in general women participated actively in these groups. Also each group was given series of questions to discuss what was presented in plenary session.
Various groups formed were, for example religious leaders and stigma, causes, consequences and approaches, revealing ones status, stigma and violence, mandatory testing, HIV and rights, core values, adoption/fostering, marriage and testing, men and women’s rights and roles, property and inheritance, female genital cutting and other traditions, life skills/education, the role of the media, reaching women, the role of faith, constraints and opportunities, vulnerable children, grieving and coping, treatment etc. I chose to be member of group headed by a women of Indian origin whose family had migrated to South Africa and she currently lives in Canada. Ms. Sabra Desai, a woman of very liberal and progressive ideas. The group mainly discussed women’s roles. There were five more women of African origin.
Generally Muslims and Ulama in particularly adopt very negative attitude towards those suffering from HIV/AIDS thinking it is the result of a sinful life. They always attribute it to sex outside marriage be it pre-marital or extra-marital. In other words they think it is result of having multiple partners or result of homosexual relations. It is not always true. In fact HIV/AIDS can be contracted in a variety of other ways – husband who is HIV positive infecting his wife who knows nothing about her husband’s infection. And if women becomes pregnant and gives birth to a baby, baby is also likely to get infected. Then how can one blame the mother and the child who became victims of man’s HIV infection. In fact we were taken to field visit in Johannesburg where we saw large number of innocent children living in special home. These children otherwise looking healthy and playing were not even aware what disease they are carrying. Their parents had died of HIV/AIDS. Thus it is wrong to carry negative attitude towards all HIV positive patients.
Also, even those who have contracted this disease as a result of sinful act like extra marital relation or drug injection can repent and in Qur’an Allah describes himself as Ghafur al-Rahim and Tawwab al-Rahim i.e. One who is Pardoner and Merciful and Accepter of repentance and Merciful. How then we human beings should can reject them with contempt. Such rejection is more cultural than religious. Religious attitude should be more value oriented than contempt oriented.
Social and cultural attitudes are misunderstood as religious even by Ulama. Also Muslims tend to see everything in terms of shari’ah laws. Shari’ah laws are for either state to implement or for Muslim organizations to decide. It is very different matter. But ordinary Muslims should not immediately develop negative attitude. Law will take its own course, if anyone has broken it and religion in its sense of fundamental values should take different course.
What are fundamental values of Islam as we find them in Qur’an? These values are ‘adl (justice), ihsan (benevolence), rahmah (compassion) and hikmah (wisdom). These are also Allah’s names: Allah is Just (Adil), Benevolent (Muhsin), Compassionate (Rahim) and Wise (Hakim).
Now let us take HIV positive patients and weigh our attitude towards them in the light of these Qur’anic values. Is negative attitude towards HIV positive just? Based on justice? Suppose someone contracted this disease due to non-sinful acts then justice will demand that we treat them with dignity due to any other person. But it would be unjust if we reject him/her just because he/she has HIV without knowing the full truth.
Similarly, if we do ihsan (benevolence to someone) to one who has such disease it would have very positive effect on her/him and we will win her/his heart forever. Allah is also Beneficient for all His servants and so his servants should also be benevolent to all His servants whatever status of their health. And if we treat someone with compassion despite being victim of such disease it will greatly help that person. And through acceptance of such person and preventing others from contracting this disease we will be acting as wise. Rejecting them may amount to spreading this disease further. Such person must be persuaded to adopt preventive measures like condoms so that wife/husband is not infected.
When I said this in plenary session many HIV/AIDS patients thanked me for my attitude in the light of Holy Qur’an which would be so helpful for them. In fact if one accepts such patient one can not only give him/her longer life but make him/her repentant if this disease has been contacted through sinful act. Rejection will only result in dejection and frustration and may worsen the situation of the patient.
There were quite a few eminent Ulama from different Islamic countries as these Ulama and Imams can play very positive role in spreading awareness among Muslims and hence making them understand real causes of HIV/AIDS would be extremely useful. A fatwa committee of these Ulama was constituted to discuss this problem in great details and finalise fatwas in this respect. I was also included in this committee from India.
There were two main issues before the committee of eminent ulama who came from Syria, Egypt, Libya, Qatar, Indonesia some other places. One issue was regarding condoms. Can use of condoms be permitted? The other issue was of use of zakat money, especially for non-Muslim poor patients suffering from HIV/AIDS?
Both the issues were hotly debated. Generally Ulama felt use of condoms cannot be permitted as it will encourage sinful acts of adultery or fornication. They gave examples from western countries that condoms are freely distributed even among school children and condom machines are installed in public places like railway stations and universities. Thus condoms are responsible for spreading sinful life and hence cannot be permitted.
I explained to them no one is advocating that condoms be freely distributed as in the western countries. There is fundamental difference between our culture and western culture. Again it should be realized problem is of cultural nature. In Muslim countries social and cultural values are very different. No one would permit free distribution of condoms. Our attitudes towards sexual life are much more rigid and would make fundamental difference.
I also pleaded that condoms are means, not an end. Means can be misused and can also be used properly. If made proper use of, condoms can help prevent spread of HIV and if misused can help spread it. Here we are concerned with prevention of disease rather than its spread. If a husband has contracted HIV in some or the other way and does not use condom while going to his wife, will infect his wife and also probably the child she gives birth to. Our fatwa would never allow condoms to be freely distributed in schools and universities or through vending machines as in the western countries. But we will advocate its use with strict warning that moral values are primary and it should be used only in marital life, not otherwise.
The condom packets can also carry the warning as cigarette packets carry certain warnings of health hazard. However, certain people will always misuse it and that is for government or society to take care of in collective way. Condoms per se cannot be held responsible for it.
A question was also raised should doctors who are Muslims should advise people to use condoms or should they advise not to use them. It was pointed out that doctor is concerned with physical health whereas Ulama and Muftis are concerned with spiritual and moral health. Doctor’s duty is to prevent spread of physical disease and that alone should be his main concern. On the other hand, Ulama’s main role is prevention of moral disease or moral corruption and they have to play their role effectively. A doctor should not, for sake of guarding morality, let disease spread to other innocent persons. This argument was finally accepted and it was decided that use of condoms could be permitted by Ulama subject to certain strict conditions and chemists should be allowed to sale condoms to married couples and a Muslim government could also allow its use in restricted way.
Another important issue was spending zakat money on non-Muslims suffering from HIV/AIDS as non-Muslim agencies often support Muslims suffering from this disease. Again stand was taken by Ulama except two among them that zakat cannot be given to non-Muslims. We maintained this stand is not Qur’anic nor is it in keeping with the Sunna. The verse on zakat in Qur’an (9:60) lays down that one portion of zakat be spent on what Qur’an calls Mu’allafat al-Qulub (for those non-Muslims whose hearts are to be won) and under this Prophet (PBUH) himself gave money to those Arabs who had not accepted Islam but were sympathetic to it.
Thus both Qur’an and sunnah support the concept of giving to non-Muslims. However, Qur’an itself does not use the word. ‘Muslim poor’ but only poor. Also, this verse provides for riqabi i.e. freeing prisoners, for ibn al-sabil i.e. travelers and fi’sabil Allah in the way of Allah. All these categories like freeing prisoners or for travelers and in the way of Allah are open to interpretation in favour of non-Muslim poor and needy for support. Thus this verse is so categorical that no one can maintain that non-Muslims cannot be entitled at all.
But still some Ulama said it should only be for Muslim poor and none else as there are so many needy among Muslims. Some said that non-Muslims can be provided from general charity (sadaqah) but not from zakkat. I said there is no separate category as sadaqah in Qur’an and for zakat Qur’an uses the word sadaqah and the verse (9:60) begins with the word sadaqat. Then one Egyptian ‘alim quoted Imam Shafi’I that he is also of the opinion that a portion of zakat could be spent on non-Muslims. That finally clinched the issue and it was then unanimously decided that a portion of zakat could be spent on non-Muslim needy, which could include those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
Thus both fatwas for use of condom and for spending part of zakat money for non-Muslims were finalized and read out in plenary session. It was also decided that these two fatwas will be presented to other Ulama of Muslim countries and their opinion sought in their favour so that Muslims could advocate use of condoms for genuine and legitimate purpose (within married couples) and a portion of zakat to be spent on non-Muslim poor, especially HIV/AIDS patients in need of help. It was unanimously approved in plenary session also.
This conference on Islam and HIV/AIDS was also supported partly by non-Muslim fund and that also required that Muslims also spend their funds on non-Muslims be it from zakat or general charity in addition to zakat from rich Muslims. When we visited a home for HIV/AIDS we found many Muslim children in the home run by Christians. So Muslims should also contribute to such homes where non-Muslim victims of HIV/AIDS are given shelter.
Another issue which was discussed in our group no. 4 was, amongs others, female genital cutting or female circumcision. Generally it is maintained that it is part of sunnah. Since this group consisted of more women and three men (liberally inclined) it was not difficult to agree on maintaining that it is not part of Islamic teachings.
I explained that it is basically a tribal custom which originated in some African countries and since shafi’i school also originated from Egypt (Imam Shafi’I lived in Egypt, he accepted some of local customs and traditions) he also provides for female circumcision. The tribals adopted female genital cutting for depriving women of sexual pleasure arguing that if their genitals are not cut, they may get corrupt before marriage. The Ismaili fiqh also originated in Egypt it also provides for female circumcision and in India only Bohras who are Isma’ilis practice it, not other Muslims.
Another male participant in discussion quoted Prophet’s (PBUH) hadith that female genitle should be cut gently. I said this hadith is not unanimously accepted and prophet of Islam was so much for gender equality that it is quite unlikely that he would require female genital to be circumcised. The hadith might be of later origin when female circumcision was introduced. Any way circumcision, female or male, is not obligatory in Qur’an but even male circumcision is called sunnah. Of course male circumcision is quite healthy and even reduces chances of HIV/AIDS where as injury caused due to female circumcision is likely to enhance chances of HIV/AIDS. Thus in any case while male circumcision is useful while female circumcision is against women’s right to enjoy sexual pleasure like men.
The Indonesian participant who is of Shafi’i persuasion also supported my viewpoint and it was unanimously decided that female circumcision be opposed as part of anti HIV/AIDS campaign. This measure was recommended by group 4 to be part of conference declaration.
There also was discussion on women, discrimination and violence in our group. One Syrian participant pointed out that Qur’an permits beating of women in verse 4:34. I said it has been wrongly interpreted by mostly male theologians. The word daraba is used in Arabic language in several different ways and according to Imam Raghib who compiled dictionary of Qur’an 13th century gives several meanings one of which is for male camel to go near female camel.
If we take wadribuhunna in verse 4:34 it would mean after they are persuaded (after their rebellion) go near them. Yet another meaning given by modern feminist interpreters of Qur’an is to strike away i.e. send them away. Also beating women is not in keeping with overall approach of Qur’an towards women’s rights. Qur’an clearly declares equality of women’s rights in verse 2:228) and verse 2:229 requires man to retain his wife with kindness.
If we read verse 4:34 in conjunction with verse 2:229 which requires wife to be treated with kindness how beating can be permitted. Beating is opposite of kindness and thus it is wrong to say Qur’an permits beating of wife. A Muslim women has equal dignity and must be treated by husband with dignity. However, wife beating, even honour killing is quite common in Islamic world.
Also women who contract HIV/AIDS are beaten up by their husbands and often deserted. This is un-Islamic especially when husbands themselves are often responsible for infecting their wives with HIV/AIDS. Thus we must campaign for women’s rights and wife beating must not be considered as husbands’ right. This aggravates HIV/AIDS infected women. An African woman who declared she is HIV positive also told the audience that she was having three children and her husband deserted her. She married again and man married her with full knowledge that she was HIV positive and yet deserted her after some time.
Thus such heart rending cases clearly show that men and women from Islamic world should be made aware of rights of women so that they do not maltreat women and do not consider them as their property as they do now. If they have rights on women, women also have rights on their husbands, as declared by the Qur’an in 2:228.
All the members of group 4 agreed with this viewpoint and the Syrian participant who had earlier pointed out that Qur’an gives husbands right to beat also changed his view and agreed with this interpretation.
Thus the conference on Islam and HIV/AIDS opened new vistas for delegates who had come from all over the Islamic world and gave them programme to campaign for the rights of victims of HIV/AIDS and also dispelled the illusion that Muslim world is an exempt from this dreaded disease. The Islamic world is also facing this problem. It is different thing that it is difficult in these countries to obtain correct statistics. Due to cultural reasons and fear of ostracism often victims suppress information.
It is also true that incidence of HIV/AIDS is somewhat less in Islamic world for number of reasons. In Islamic world cases of sexual profligacy is rather limited and male circumcision also helps reduce chances of HIV/AIDS. But it should not be taken as cause for celebration as this disease is spreading in Islamic world too otherwise there would have been no need to organize this conference.
I am sure the conference served its purpose and would go a long way to increase awareness among Muslims and caution them to take protective measures and create appropriate funds for the help of HIV/AIDS patients. I must say Mr. William, a convert to Islam some 14 years ago in Netherlands, was the moving spirit of this conference and he took great pains to make it successful.
top
We hear more and more about 'Islamic science' and 'Islamic economics', and over recent decades, calls for an 'Islamization of knowledge' and for attempts to develop Islamic models for approaching modern science have increasingly been heard. What does this mean and what does it involve for current developments across the Muslim world? Religioscope put these questions to Prof. Farid Alatas.
Syed Farid Alatas is an associate professor in the Department of Sociology, National University of Singapore, where he has been since 1992. He lectured at the University of Malaya in the Department of Southeast Asian Studies prior to his appointment at Singapore. His books include Democracy and Authoritarianism in Indonesia and Malaysia: The Rise of the Post-Colonial State (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1997) and Alternative Discourses in Asian Social Science: Responses to Eurocentrism (New Delhi: Sage, 2006), in which he documents various critiques of the state of the social sciences in Asia and critically assesses the prescriptions for alternative discourses that have emerged from these critiques.
Religioscope - In different parts of the world, we have seen in recent years claims that knowledge should be associated with some specific cultural or religious heritage. There are people claiming a Hindu science; there are those claiming an Islamic knowledge - or an Islamic approach to knowledge. In order to see the wider picture, before coming to Islam, could you elucidate the meaning of those different claims to indegenizing or religionizing knowledge?
Farid Alatas - If you put it in the larger context, there has been the consciousness that the Western cultural roots of the social sciences and humanities pose a problem for the development of social sciences in non-Western societies. So people have been thinking about developing new epistemological, metaphysical and cultural bases for the social sciences. This has taken the form of the indigenization of knowledge and the the indigenization of the social sciences; it has also taken the form of the nationalization of the social sciences to make them more in line with national interests in some countries. It has furthermore taken the form of the decolonization of the social sciences to allow them to be informed by local, or national, or indigenous interests - as opposed to colonial interests.
So it has taken various forms. One such form has to do with the Islamization of knowledge. What you have is the critique of Western knowledge in broad terms: it may be at the epistemological level; it may be more at the substantive or empirical level. And there have been various reactions in the non-Western world.
Within the Islamization of knowledge, there are at least two broad perspectives. There is the perspective associated with IIIT (International Institute of Islamic Thought), which was founded by Prof. Ismail Faruqi. It aims at the Islamization of disciplines: those involved speak about Islamic sociology, Islamic economics, Islamic anthropology, etc.
Then you have the other perspective, which is associated with my uncle, Prof. Syed Naquib al-Attas. It is more an approach influenced by the tradition of tasawuf, the Sufi tradition.
I should also mention a third perspective, which is related specifically to the discipline of economics. Before the idea of the Islamization of knowledge emerged, as early as the 1920s or the 1930s, there was already this idea of Islamic economics. In other words, Islam has a specific vision of the economy in terms of its ideals and that suggests a certain way of doing economic science. These Islamic economists have been engaged in developing that field for several decades.
Then the idea of Islamization of knowledge, as I have said, emerged in the 1970s. I would say that the Islamization of disciplines - i.e. the perspective associated with the IIIT - is a more positivist approach that seems to have a more mechanical view of how Islam is related to knowledge. Those concerned seem to approach the matter in terms of individual disciplines, and they imagine the possibility of Islamized disciplines.
I have to admit that very little headway has been made in terms of Islamizing these disciplines. We don't really see an Islamic sociology. It is very difficult to understand what is meant by these Islamized disciplines: they have not been put into practice, and the work that has been done on the Islamization of knowledge according to that perspective tends to be very abstract, and I would even say rather vague.
On the other hand, the approach very much inspired by Sufism does not speak of the Islamization of disciplines, but rather of the Islamization of the perspective that underlies the various disciplines. We are really talking about what my uncle once told me: it is the Islamization of the mind. The way I understand it, the discussion is about the way Islam provides the metaphysical and epistemological basis for knowledge. Those concerned are not interested in creating an Islamic sociology or an Islamic physics, but what they say is that, whatever your discipline, there is a particular metaphysical and epistemological framework that is provided by Islam. What they are doing is working out that framework, which can be fruitfully applied to any disciplines. There is a particular Islamic worldview, which suggests a particular framework.
Religioscope - I remember your quoting a statement by Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas stating that Islamization should be understood as a freeing of knowledge from its interpretations based on secular ideologies and from secular meanings and expressions. So this would be a challenge not only for Islam, but for all believers, including everybody with a metaphysical approach. What then would there be specific to Islam?
Farid Alatas - In general, among all religions, there is the idea of the sacralization of knowledge. Presumably, each religion would have its own perspective on how to sacralize knowledge. As far as Muslims are concerned, I think that one of the things is that, epistemologically speaking, to move away from more secular perspectives, we would have to recognize that there are multiple sources of knowledge. This includes not just reason or sense perperception, but also revelation and intuition.
I think the Sufis really - for example, my uncle himself - talk about the importance of intuition, of ilham, as a source of knowledge. This is one example of how knowledge is sacralized: you recognize the sacred or divine origin of knowledge.
People often misunderstand: they think that the Islamization of knowledge approach amounts to a different way of doing science. But I think the implication of this understanding of knowledge has more to do with the ethics of science and the way in which science is applied - when you think about the divine origins of knowledge or at least the role of the divine in the generation of knowledge and the responsibility that humans have in terms of the application of this knowledge in the world. I think the implications are more in that, rather than the actual doing of the science. As far as the rational scientific aspects of the work are concerned, the work of the physicist, the work of the medical scientist remain the same: we are not creating Islamic medical science or Islamic physics in that sense.
Religioscope - You wouldn't see the need for a specific type of training or school here; it is rather the way each professor and teacher would infuse his own approach with an understanding of the metaphysical?
Farid Alatas - Look at ISTAC (International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilization) - the 'old' ISTAC, which was under my uncle - it was created specifically to Islamize knowledge, not only to teach the various branches, but also to provide that metaphysical and epistemololgical basis that should be infused by all scholars and teachers, whatever the discipline.
This understanding of the Islamization of knowledge does not suggest that, in order to do proper Islamic science, you have to conform to some Islamic requirements. While I imagine that the IIIT understanding suggests a more rigid approach - that there are certain areas with a boundary - you must accept certain rules and regulations in order to stay within the orbit of the Islamization of knowledge, whereas the other approach has more to do with your metaphysical and epistemological perspective, which anyway in Islam is so broad that it can encompass a variety of perspectives within the social sciences. With the first approach, there is the idea that there is an Islamic school of economics, there is an Islamic school of sociology: so other schools would by definition be excluded. But the second approach, informed by Sufism, does not lock you into a particular school within any particular discipline.
Religioscope - Could one summarize by saying that there is an approach that is a reaction against knowledge as being Western, and another approach that is a reaction against knowledge as being secular? Obviously, the West and secularism have often gone hand in hand. This would be a reaction against secularism, not any kind of clash of civilizations.
Farid Alatas - Definitely not!
Religioscope - Now, several Islamic universities have been established throughout the world since the 1970s: how far have some of them attempted to implement the Islamization of knowledge in their curricula? How far have they have been successful?
Farid Alatas - There has been very little development along these lines. It is still very much at the level of rhetoric. And I think it is likely to remain that way. The only way in which Islam can be brought into closer alignment with knowledge is if people start to do empirical work. And that takes me to my own understanding of these matters. I think that, rather than to talk about Islamizing knowledge, one should actually look at Islamic traditions as sources of concepts and ideas, and do actual research with that.
For instance, if one is an historian, a sociologist, or an anthropologist, one should look at Al-Biruni, at Ibn Khaldun, at various other thinkers, look at their concepts, look at their theories. The idea is to reconstruct their ideas, and undertake empirical historical research with these ideas. That is the way you make use of the Islamic tradition to contribute to knowledge.
There has been some movement along these lines, but it is a wide open area for new research.
Religioscope - You see the Islamization of knowledge going beyond the idea of decolonizing the mind - it goes much deeper. However, when we look around the world, those different attempts are quite often related to trends evoking 'unfinished decolonization'. In many cases, it has little to do with metaphysical considerations, but more with political ones, and not only in Islam.
Farid Alatas - That is right. Often the discussion on the Islamization of knowledge starts with a critique of the West, and in many cases does not go beyond it, with exceptions here and there. Regarding the work of ISTAC, for instance, they have been elaborating what they understand to be the metaphysical and epistemological basis for knowledge. They are doing it today, and I think there are scholars in other parts of the world who have been making some progress in that area. And in fact you have been seeing more and more literature in the past ten to twenty years that addresses epistemological issues, which would be of use to those who are interested in providing that basis for the social sciences and humanities. But for the most part, the work has been reactionary, reacting to what they see as the problems affecting Western knowledge and talking about the decolonization or dewesternization of knowledge, but not going beyond that in terms of elaborating an alternative.
Religioscope - If I understand your remarks, this approach had some level of success in economics, e.g. Islamic banking, but you see the approach as being doomed in the social sciences.
Farid Alatas - That is a good way to put it! Yes, I do see it as doomed. Where there is great promise is for the revival of thinkers from the classical Islamic tradition and the development of modern reconstructions of its thought, and then doing theoretical and empirical work. But this is rarely done.
I myself am interested in Ibn Khaldun, and I have started to do this. I have actually published in that area [see references below]. I think a lot more can be done, regarding Ibn Khaldun, as well as other such classical thinkers.
References
Alatas, Syed Farid. 2006. "A Khaldunian Exemplar for a Historical Sociology for the South", Current Sociology 54(3): 397-411.
Alatas, Syed Farid 2006. "Ibn Khaldun" Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, Blackwell Publishers.
Alatas, Syed Farid. 2007. "The Historical Sociology of Muslim Societies: Khaldunian Applications", International Sociology 22(3): 267-288.
Ibn Khaldun. 1967. The Muqaddimah, translated from the Arabic by Franz Rosenthal. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Sachau, Edward C. (trans.) 1910. Alberinu's India: An account of the religion, philosophy, literature, geography, chronology, astronomy, customs, laws and astrology of India about AD 1030, Delhi: Low Price Publications.
The interview took place at the National University of Singapore and was conducted by Jean-François Mayer.
top
“We terminated the most precious American
asset which vowed to defeat
[the] mujahedeen.”
Al-Qaeda commander and spokesperson Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid, referencing the assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto; Adnkronos International News Service (AKI), December 27, 2007.
Lest I wind up standing back-to-back with actor Will Smith tomorrow morning defending myself against flying produce (Smith is taller, so I might not fare too badly), I’ll insert the disclaimer here: My personal, moral and religious values preclude a belief that any ethnic group is inherently superior or inferior to any other.
That being said, periodically I find it necessary and useful to state that such values do not preclude a belief that a particular culture might be inherently superior or inferior to another, and this is precisely the comparison I am making as regards Western culture versus the retrograde Indo-Arabic culture that spawns the mentality and social convention we glimpse in radical Islam.
True, the West and Western-influenced cultures do produce our share of sick freaks, however one cannot compare the body counts generated by one Jeffrey Dahmer, Jim Jones or even Aum Shinrikyo to that of radical Islamists worldwide or the primal, inhuman barbarity that is the hallmark of so many of their atrocities. Islamic extremists around the globe are currently averaging one People’s Temple-sized massacre each month, according to a cross section of media outlets, both reputable and questionable.
Benazir Bhutto, like many heads of state, particularly in the Third World, was no saint. Though definitely a cut far above her craven killers, this wasn’t Gandhi getting gunned down. In addition to the charges of corruption that plagued Bhutto during her tenure, the former Pakistani prime Minister was party to the repression of religious minorities in Pakistan. As is the case with many foreign politicos America has supported (and perhaps should not have), being an open advocate of cooperation with the West was Bhutto’s chief appeal. It was widely expected that her pro-Western stance would result in a government more cooperative and less duplicitous than that of the Pervez Musharraf regime.
This brings us to the likely course that might have been taken by the Bush administration and whichever administration follows. Was the hope that Bhutto would have immediately allowed NATO forces into northern Pakistan to wipe out Taliban and Al-Qaeda operatives – as opposed to sucking another $10 billion in American taxpayers’ money out of the invertebrates in high office as did Musharraf? The scenario is indeed reminiscent of that in Egypt, where a “cooperative” Sadat replaced the anti-West, anti-Israel Gamal Abdel Nasser, with Bhutto being an avatar of the former. As long as the U.S. aid dollars kept flowing, Sadat was willing to come to the table with Israeli leaders. It bears mentioning that he too was gunned down for his political coziness with the West.
America cannot bribe the whole world into “playing nice,” although many Western politicians and globalists think we can. If this sort of foreign policy strikes the reader as profoundly stupid, that’s because it is. For some reason, the West has a habit of employing such doctrines (profoundly stupid ones) in order to forestall clashes which seem inevitable to the lay observer, and which result in protracted global conflagrations (as opposed to transitory hostilities) as a result of inaction (or indecisive action) on the part of the West.
In the case of radical Islam, the establishment media conveniently skirts the magnitude of the Islamofascist problem. In the Sudan, 2.2 million people, mostly Christians, are dying slowly in concentration camps at the hands of Islamic militias who to date have killed tens of thousands of Sudanese. Al-Qaeda has even made inroads into Africa. Civil unrest, promoted by radical Muslims and allowed to fester into a full-scale and intractable insurgence in the southern Philippines and southeast Asia was apparent since the late 1990s, although it began long before then. Among the thousands of kidnapping, rape and murder victims of these thugs who claim Allah was an American missionary couple and most notably of late included the slaughter of Buddhist monks at Myanmar in Burma. I could easily go on…
Another key point that has been poorly analyzed by the press: “Radical Islam” is not monolithic. As evidenced in Iraq, sects not considered to be part of the global jihad have no compunction toward killing and persecuting one another. This is the way it has been in the Islamic world for centuries, and what we in America have to look forward to if we deny that elements of this religion are fundamentally incompatible with our culture, and therefore inassimilable.
The aforementioned lack of decisiveness on the part of the West that has served to embolden these cultural ubermenschen has its roots in one place: The political Left. A cursory study of history is all that is required to confirm the rot which began with Karl Marx and spread to putrefy first Russia, then much of Europe and parts of Asia, Africa and South America. In the United States, the “struggle” to bring about a socialist or communist model of government has been ongoing since the days of the Bolsheviks and Jack Reed. The degradation of America’s cultural fiber, the advent of moral relativism and the Orwellian representations of the press and far-Left politicians have been initiated by design in order to further this end.
As a result, Europe and the Americas have become overrun with intellectually pathetic milquetoasts, lambs for the slaughter by elitist secular-socialist gangsters in government.
It’s ironic that a nation – ours – which used to be unashamedly Christian also used to be intelligent enough to take prudent action against its enemies, even when that meant the regrettable tragedies associated with collateral damage. Now, a U.S. soldier on active duty overseas cannot accidentally bump into a civilian at the bazaar without it appearing on the front page of The New York Times; we legitimize manifestly criminal organizations like The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and are admonished by dull-normal entertainers to tolerate or even embrace our enemies’ point of view – regardless of the fact that our enemies have sworn to utterly destroy us and our way of life no matter what we say or do. The employment of this relativism in putting backward cultures on a par with America’s is ironic, an intellectually dishonest conceit and a dangerous example of false humility.
Cavemen emerged from the caverns in which they had dwelt since the seventh century, and the culture shock melted their brains. Are we expected to abide and endure their unformed primitive social paradigms and their antisocial reactions to the world that passed them by?
I think not.
All of which begs the proverbial question: If we abandon all restraint and show our enemy no quarter, are we not then in danger of perceiving him as the subhuman creature he perceives us to be, and “becoming what we behold?”
The answer: Only if we have hatred and bigotry rather than prudence in our hearts. If we objectively examine the extremes of our enemy’s philosophy, it simply comes down to an issue of self-preservation. The homeowner ought not be expected to pause and examine the motives of an armed home invader when he or she has the means to defend themselves, nor should the camper consider the legal ramifications of taking down the bear that’s about to rake his ribcage open with one swipe if he or she happens to have a rifle at the ready.
The individual who believes America is not entitled to that – at least – is a damn fool.
top
Muslim Violence,
Christian Non-Violence:
People in Glass Houses Should Not Throw Words
Sheila Musaji
People in Glass Houses Should Not Throw Words
Sheila Musaji
Recently, someone who had visited The American Muslim site sent me an email with links to a couple of articles and asking me to explain why all the violence in the world involved Muslims.
The first article “The Difference Between Christianity and Islam” emailed to me by the reader made the “point” that: Christianity has evolved and civilized to where violence is not the norm, but a very obscure abnormality. Where as violence for Muslims is a daily occurrence, and a sought after means to their ends.
The other article said that: “… the way of God, the One true God, Whom Islam tries to use to lay claim to its legitimacy, is wholly different than that of Muhammad and Allah. The way of the God of Israel, as most pointedly exemplified by His incarnation and appearing as the Lord Jesus Christ, is about laying down the life for others, not about taking others’ lives for oneself in the name of an imaginary and bloodthirsty god. Jesus Christ demonstrably did not come to set up an earthly Kingdom by material conquest. He told His followers that His Kingdom was not of this world. He instructed them not to fight back with the sword when threatened for their faith, much less did He lead them to go out and subjugate mankind with carnal weapons of coercion, be they political, economic, psychological, and least of all, military. He laid down His life, even unto death by crucifixion, and showed everyone that the Kingdom of God is not about the things of this world. It is not about the things that Muhammad and Muslims scheme over, fight over, and even dream of and promise to the ignorant and susceptible as their reward in Heaven if they will sacrifice their bodies while murdering and destroying. What a diabolical religion!”
I could chalk these articles up as the ramblings of a few nut cases. I could assume the fallacy and hypocricy in these statements was obvious to all Americans--but it is obviously not. Here are a few statements from important figures in the U.S. government and military, for example:
“Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for Him. Christianity is a faith in which God sends his son to die for you.” said John Ashcroft, former Attorney General of the U.S.
Maj. Gen. William Boykin declared that he was ”God’s Warrior” and that “America is a Christian nation.” He demeaned the entire Muslim world by stating that his God was bigger than a Muslim warlord’s god and that the Muslim’s god “was an idol.” And, he said all of this in uniform.
Let’s look at the premise that “violence is not the norm” in Christianity. How to measure something like this is tricky, but this was certainly not true throughout large portions of history. Whether it is true today is arguable. One look at our our cities, our schools, or even our homes, and violence by Christians, and every other group, is apparent. Since 9/11, there has been a rise in hate crimes against minority groups, and the aggressors often identify themselves and their motives as being Christian. Looking at the bigger picture, what country is the primary supplier of weapons to the rest of the world? Hint: it is not a Muslim country. What country has the highest military expenditures per capita of any country on earth? See previous hint. Which country has proposed bombing other countries into the stone age? The answer to all three is the US, which no one would identify as a Muslim country. Those who developed and dropped the atom bomb were a multicultural group--but none were Muslim. Looking outside the US, where have arguable violent and repressive systems like fascism, communism, and Naziism been produced? Not in Muslim countries. Was it Muslims who carried out the Rwandan and Bosnian genocides? Are the Italian and Russian mafias Muslim? Are the South American drug cartels Muslims? Who talks about sanctions, pre-emptive strikes, invasions? Who allows the torture of Muslims in various secret and not-so-secret prisons. What religion was Timothy McVeigh? The IRA?
So, the idea that ALL violence or terrorism is Muslim is laughable. All these examples show, as would a simple glance at any collection of court-documents, that there is an unfortunately common occurence of violence today, and it does not all involve Muslims (not even close). By population, violence is an aberration found in EVERY group.
In the first half of this decade, from 1990 to 1995, 70 international states were involved in 93 wars which killed five and a half million people.(5) Most of the casualties were civilians, noncombatants. At the beginning of this century, most of the war casualties were military (85-90%). In World War II more than half of all war deaths were noncombatants. Today, at the end of the twentieth century, more than three-fourths of all war deaths are civilians.(6) (Source) Were any Christians involved in these wars? Of course.
Jesus may have asked his followers to lay down their lives for others and to concern themselves with the heavenly kingdom and not to fight with the sword — but the reality of the last 2,000 years has not been typified by such actual behavior except in the case of small groups like the Amish and the Quakers. More typical have been clergy like Charles Stanley, “pastor of the First Baptist Church of Atlanta, whose weekly sermons are seen by millions of television viewers, led the charge with particular fervor. “We should offer to serve the war effort in any way possible,” said Mr. Stanley, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention. “God battles with people who oppose him, who fight against him and his followers.” In an article carried by the convention’s Baptist Press news service, a missionary wrote that “American foreign policy and military might have opened an opportunity for the Gospel in the land of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”
Stanley was not alone as a number of other clergymen and their flocks supported the war in Iraq. “As if working from a slate of evangelical talking points, both Franklin Graham, the evangelist and son of Billy Graham, and Marvin Olasky, the editor of the conservative World magazine and a former advisor to President Bush on faith-based policy, echoed these sentiments, claiming that the American invasion of Iraq would create exciting new prospects for proselytizing Muslims. Tim LaHaye, the co-author of the hugely popular “Left Behind” series, spoke of Iraq as “a focal point of end-time events,” whose special role in the earth’s final days will become clear after invasion, conquest and reconstruction. For his part, Jerry Falwell boasted that “God is pro-war” in the title of an essay he wrote in 2004. The war sermons rallied the evangelical congregations behind the invasion of Iraq. An astonishing 87 percent of all white evangelical Christians in the United States supported the president’s decision in April 2003. Recent polls indicate that 68 percent of white evangelicals continue to support the war. But what surprised me, looking at these sermons nearly three years later, was how little attention they paid to actual Christian moral doctrine. Some tried to square the American invasion with Christian “just war” theory, but such efforts could never quite reckon with the criterion that force must only be used as a last resort. As a result, many ministers dismissed the theory as no longer relevant.
As Chris Stephen pointed out in an article entitled ‘Praise Bush and the Iraq war’ ”Cornerstone Church, a vast squat white temple in San Antonio, is rapidly becoming the movement’s epicentre, thanks to the charismatic founder, Pastor John Hagee, the rising star of America’s TV evangelists. For these evangelists, the war in Iraq is not a disaster, but the beginning of the fulfilment of biblical prophecies that culminate, possibly very soon, in a mighty struggle between good and evil at Armageddon. ... “Listen up, president of Iran,” booms the pastor. “We are going to be your worst nightmare, Mr Ahmadinejad. The pharaoh threatened Israel, he ended up fish-food in the sea. When you say Israel is going to disappear in a sudden storm you may be predicting the way you disappear.”
Other articles have pointed to the same sentiments being common among certain segments of the Christian population of the U.S. Jim Lobe wrote an entire article on the subject: Conservative Christians Biggest Backers of Iraq War.
Sounds a tad bit violent to me. And, even those who declaim the violence are not adverse to benefitting from it. Max Blumenthal in Onward Christian Soldiers comes to the conclusion that: “Conservative fundamentalists with close ties to President Bush are planning a new missionary push in Iraq—and they might already be converting U.S. troops to their cause.” Is basing a missionary campaign in the ashes of violent endeavors a form of “subjugation” or a “carnal weapon of coercion” like that which the second article ascribed to Islam?
This “positive” missionary aspect has been widely discussed. For example: Christian Missionaries Battle For Hearts and Minds in Iraq; Bible Belt missionaries set out on a ‘war for souls’ in Iraq; Why Iraq Beckons Missionaries; God and Country; War in Babylon has evangelicals seeing Earth’s final days
This response is to the concept that violence is somehow unique--or even more common to--Islam than to other religious groups. It is currently common to EVERYONE. Addressing the moral and ethical arguments that revolve around the concept of “justified violence” is a separate matter all together. If your response to this article is that some violence is justified, you have missed the point. However, in this author’s opinion, the message of Jesus Christ was correct. Violence is not the answer. Indeed, if people of faith (every faith I can think of) were to follow the actual teachings of their scriptures (not some crazed pastors’ or imams’ distorted agenda), then the current violence would end. No legitimate representatives of any faith can both follow the teachings of their faith and preach violence.
See also
It is proper to challenge Islam
TWO THEORIES OF IJTIHAD
Women’s Rights and Political Islam
Britain thrilled by offer to submit or die
Readers please email comments
to: editorial AT
martinfrost.ws including full name