Surely even a child can understand the difference between good and evil.
Dad ... what's a terrorist?
Well, according to the Oxford dictionary a terrorist is "a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims". Which means that terrorists are very bad men and women who frighten ordinary people like us, and sometimes even kill them.
Why do they kill them?
Because they hate them or their country. It's hard to explain ... it's just the way things are. For many different reasons a lot of people in our world are full of hate.
Like the ones in Iraq who are capturing people and saying that they'll kill them if all the soldiers don't leave?
Exactly! That's an evil thing called "blackmail". Those innocent people are hostages, and the terrorists are saying that if governments don't do what they want the hostages will be killed.
So was it blackmail when we said we'd attack Iraq and kill innocent people unless they told us where all their weapons were?
No! Well ... yes, I suppose. In a way. But that was an "ultimatum" ... call it "good blackmail.
Good blackmail? What's that?
That's when it's done for good reasons. Those weapons were very dangerous and could have hurt a lot of people all over the world. It was very important to find them and destroy them.
But Dad ... there weren't any weapons.
True. We know that now. But we didn't at the time. We thought there were.
So was killing all those innocent people in Iraq a mistake?
No. It was a tragedy, but we also saved a lot of lives. You see, we had to stop a very cruel man called Saddam Hussein from killing a great many ordinary Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein stayed in power by giving orders that meant thousands of people died or were horribly injured. Mothers and fathers. Even children.
Like that boy I saw on TV? The one who had his arms blown off by a bomb?
Yes ... just like him.
But we did that. Does that mean our leaders are terrorists?
Good heavens, no! Whatever gave you that idea? That was just an accident. Unfortunately, innocent people get hurt in a war. You can't expect anything else when you drop bombs on cities. Nobody wants it to happen ... it's just the way things are.
So in a war only soldiers are supposed to get killed?
Well, soldiers are trained to fight for their country. It's their job, and they're very brave. They know that war is dangerous and that they might be killed. As soon as they put on a uniform they become a target.
What uniforms do terrorists wear?
That's just the problem ... they don't! We can't tell them apart from the civilians. We don't know who we're fighting. And that's why so many innocent people are getting killed ... the terrorists don't follow the rules of war.
War has rules?
Oh, yes. Soldiers must wear uniforms. And you can't just suddenly attack someone unless they do something to you first. Then you can defend yourself.
So that's why we attacked Iraq? Because Iraq attacked us first and we were just defending ourselves?
Not exactly. Iraq didn't attack us ... but it might have. We decided to get in first. Just in case Iraq used those weapons we were talking about.
The ones they didn't have? So we broke the rules of war?
Technically speaking, yes. But ...
So if we broke the rules first, why isn't it OK for those people in Iraq who aren't wearing uniforms to break the rules?
Well, that's different. We were doing the right thing when we broke the rules.
But Dad ... how do we know we were doing the right thing?
Our leaders ... Bush and Blair and Howard ... they told us it was the right thing. And if they don't know, who does? They say that something had to be done to make Iraq a better place.
Is it a better place?
I suppose so, but I don't know for sure. Innocent people are still being killed and these kidnappings are terrible things. I feel very sorry for the families of those poor hostages, but we simply can't give in to terrorists. We must stand firm.
Would you say that if I was captured by terrorists?
Uh ... yes ... no ... I mean, it's very difficult ...
So you'd let me be killed? Don't you love me?
Of course! I love you very much. It's just that it's a very complicated issue and I don't know what I'd do ...
Well, if somebody attacked us and bombed our house and killed you and Mum and Jamie I know what I'd do.
What?
I'd find out who did it and kill them. Any way I could. I'd hate them for ever and ever. And then I'd get in a plane and bomb their cities.
But ... but ... you'd kill a lot of innocent people.
I know. But it's war, Dad. And that's just the way things are. Remember?
Monday, 14 March 2011
AGGRESSION ON IRAQ AS AN EMOTIONAL EXPERIENCE FOR MUSLIMS
AGGRESSION ON IRAQ AS AN EMOTIONAL EXPERIENCE FOR MUSLIMS
By Dr. Ahmad Shafaat
The American attack on Iraq created in me and many other Muslims almost every type of emotion – sadness, anger, hope, faith, and a desire to act frustrated by a feeling of helplessness.
Sadness was felt for those thousands of Iraqi children, women and men who were either killed or crippled for life. Everyone has heard of the example of the twelve-year old boy who lost both his parents and both his arms, but there are hundreds of similarly tragic stories that the media simply did not have time to cover, especially in the USA and Britain where governmental propaganda and other more “important” issues of war took priority.
Anger was felt at the fact that the mightiest and wealthiest country in history first imposed a dictator on a small country, then weakened and impoverished it by sanctions and weakly air raids for more than a decade and then without any valid reason and in disregard of the international law and world public opinion attacked and devastated it. A seemingly quick end to the war, although seen by some as a vindication of Bush-Blair aggression, in reality only proves that Iraq posed no real threat to the USA or Britain and hence that the war was a violation of international law.
There was anger also at the fact that the Anglo-American invaders were quick to secure the oil fields but did nothing to safeguard the museums and libraries containing priceless artefacts and books, hundreds and even thousands of years old.
There was anger because there is promise that Iraq will be democratic, but when the question arises, what if the Iraqis choose to become an Islamic state, many Americans talk of preventing such an eventuality.
There was also anger at Muslims themselves. Why for the past few centuries have we been so inactive and devoid of foresight that while nations around us were moving from strength to strength, we have been moving from weakness to weakness, as a result of which other countries keep attacking us? And why did we allow traitors to become our rulers and kings who would sell Islamic and Muslim interests to maintain their rule and who would often help the Americans and the British -- by making their lands, sea ports, and airspaces, and sometimes even money available to them -- to attack any Muslim country that will not appease the imperialists?
Finally, there was anger at those Iraqis who seemed to welcome the Anglo-American invaders and waving the foreign flags. It is not blameworthy that Iraqis should feel relief at the fall of a dictatorial regime, but to welcome the invaders is as shameless as to accept dictators, especially invaders from those countries who have been responsible for the death and disease of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children through sanctions.
Along with feelings of sadness and anger, there was also feeling of hope.
Hope was felt because a vast majority of Iraqis did not welcome Anglo-American invaders any more than they accepted Saddam. Tens of thousands demonstrated saying “No to America, no to Saddam”. They instead wanted Islam. The British and the Americans have used these demonstrations to their advantage by saying that they are a manifestation of the freedom that the Iraqis now have. What they will not say is that there is another infinitely better alternative to bloody, expensive, and illegal wars for promoting democracy in the world: do not support the dictators. But I doubt very much that the Americans and the British will learn this lesson. Indeed, I venture to predict that other Arab dictatorial regimes, far from being next targets for change, are now safer than ever before because the Americans and the British have seen what comes out when you remove a dictator from a Muslim country: dreaded religion of Islam.
Hope was felt also because humanity demonstrated that it has at least as much potential for good as for evil. It not only produced the war mongers in Washington and London, but also protestors for peace and good sense, even in Washington and London. From east to west tens of millions came out to call on the Americans and the British governments to stop their crazy war machines and respect the international law. And as the common people opposed war, so did some of the governments that traditionally go along with whatever the USA says: France, Germany, Russia, and even Canada.
I also felt some hope at the thought that just as centuries ago the Mongols, after devastating Baghdad became Muslims, the time may not be too far when the “modern day Mongols” will also submit to the message of God. The present world order rests on very weak foundations. The United Nations may have a reasonable charter but it cannot improve or enforce it and the mighty nations have just reinforced in a powerful way the principle that might is right. The world needs a strong international order built on justice and rule of law. To this end it needs the message of the Qur`an.
Accompanying hope, I felt feelings of faith arising in my heart. A little sober reflection showed me the power and wisdom of God at work in the recent Iraqi affair. I was God creating a collision between a hard-headed national dictatorship and an equally hard-headed international dictatorship in order to provide means for the destruction of both. The dictatorship of Saddam has of course already fallen. The international Anglo-American global dictatorship has also sowed the seeds of its own fall by acting in defiance of the international law and of the will of almost the whole of humanity. These seeds must come to fruition at the appointed time set by God.
This working of the power of God is visible in another way. Remember the Islamic revolution, about two decades ago? Saddam was prompted by the Americans and their allies among the Arab dictators to attack Iran in order to defeat the revolution or at least to stop it at the Iranian borders. The Arab rulers provided or promised money and the Americans helped him acquire weapons including chemical weapons – yes the same weapons of mass destruction that seemingly lie behind the latest aggression against Iraq. War did not go well for Iraq until the use of chemical weapons that Saddam acquired with American knowledge and help. After the death and maiming of millions of people Iranian advance was halted and Saddam was saved. But now by the hands of the same Americans and Arab rulers for whom Saddam once fought against Islam God has brought him down and the Islamic revolution may have finally crossed the borders where it was once meant to be stopped. Such is the amazing working of the power and wisdom of God.
Another emotion experienced by Muslims is desire to do something. This emotion was, however, frustrated by a feeling of helplessness. Our rulers, who derive their strength from outside, have not left the people with avenues for any actions aimed at defending our lands, culture and religion and as a result desire to act does not get channelled in meaningful directions. But it is of paramount importance that we overcome this feeling of helplessness and create our own avenues of constructive action. Such action should be of two types: 1) action that makes Islam and Muslims stronger, e.g. helping those Muslims who need help, pursuing knowledge and research in all fields etc; 2) action to oppose the Anglo-American hegemony through peaceful political means.
This second type of action is required even if the Americans and the British fulfill their promise of creating a democratic Iraq. Hegemony is wrong in itself even if once in a while it does some good. Indeed, even the greatest evil can have some very good consequences. For example, for the West the worst example of evil is probably Hitler. But Hitler’s actions expedited the development of science and freedom for Asian and African countries from colonial powers.
It should also be remembered that if the Americans will move to real freedom for the Iraqi people, it would be only because the war was fiercely opposed by the rest of us and because they are still under a close scrutiny by the world , so that they have a real need to justify their actions before the international community. This opposition and scrutiny should continue with undiminished vigor if some good results of an evil aggression are to be ensured.
Note: This article is copyright to © Dr. Ahmad Shafaat. It may be reproduced for da'wa purpose without making any changes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Saddam is Bush as a national dictator; Bush is Saddam as an international dictator. The only difference between the two is that since the world is much larger than Iraq, Bush’s global power is more limited than was Saddam’s power within Iraq. True, Bush has been chosen by a certain percentage of the Americans, a very tiny fraction of the world population upon whom he imposes his will. But Saddam also had the loyalty of a fraction of the population of Iraq whom he rules by decree. In fact, the percentage of Iraqis supporting Saddam was probably much higher than the percentage of the world population supporting Bush.
By Dr. Ahmad Shafaat
The American attack on Iraq created in me and many other Muslims almost every type of emotion – sadness, anger, hope, faith, and a desire to act frustrated by a feeling of helplessness.
Sadness was felt for those thousands of Iraqi children, women and men who were either killed or crippled for life. Everyone has heard of the example of the twelve-year old boy who lost both his parents and both his arms, but there are hundreds of similarly tragic stories that the media simply did not have time to cover, especially in the USA and Britain where governmental propaganda and other more “important” issues of war took priority.
Anger was felt at the fact that the mightiest and wealthiest country in history first imposed a dictator on a small country, then weakened and impoverished it by sanctions and weakly air raids for more than a decade and then without any valid reason and in disregard of the international law and world public opinion attacked and devastated it. A seemingly quick end to the war, although seen by some as a vindication of Bush-Blair aggression, in reality only proves that Iraq posed no real threat to the USA or Britain and hence that the war was a violation of international law.
There was anger also at the fact that the Anglo-American invaders were quick to secure the oil fields but did nothing to safeguard the museums and libraries containing priceless artefacts and books, hundreds and even thousands of years old.
There was anger because there is promise that Iraq will be democratic, but when the question arises, what if the Iraqis choose to become an Islamic state, many Americans talk of preventing such an eventuality.
There was also anger at Muslims themselves. Why for the past few centuries have we been so inactive and devoid of foresight that while nations around us were moving from strength to strength, we have been moving from weakness to weakness, as a result of which other countries keep attacking us? And why did we allow traitors to become our rulers and kings who would sell Islamic and Muslim interests to maintain their rule and who would often help the Americans and the British -- by making their lands, sea ports, and airspaces, and sometimes even money available to them -- to attack any Muslim country that will not appease the imperialists?
Finally, there was anger at those Iraqis who seemed to welcome the Anglo-American invaders and waving the foreign flags. It is not blameworthy that Iraqis should feel relief at the fall of a dictatorial regime, but to welcome the invaders is as shameless as to accept dictators, especially invaders from those countries who have been responsible for the death and disease of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children through sanctions.
Along with feelings of sadness and anger, there was also feeling of hope.
Hope was felt because a vast majority of Iraqis did not welcome Anglo-American invaders any more than they accepted Saddam. Tens of thousands demonstrated saying “No to America, no to Saddam”. They instead wanted Islam. The British and the Americans have used these demonstrations to their advantage by saying that they are a manifestation of the freedom that the Iraqis now have. What they will not say is that there is another infinitely better alternative to bloody, expensive, and illegal wars for promoting democracy in the world: do not support the dictators. But I doubt very much that the Americans and the British will learn this lesson. Indeed, I venture to predict that other Arab dictatorial regimes, far from being next targets for change, are now safer than ever before because the Americans and the British have seen what comes out when you remove a dictator from a Muslim country: dreaded religion of Islam.
Hope was felt also because humanity demonstrated that it has at least as much potential for good as for evil. It not only produced the war mongers in Washington and London, but also protestors for peace and good sense, even in Washington and London. From east to west tens of millions came out to call on the Americans and the British governments to stop their crazy war machines and respect the international law. And as the common people opposed war, so did some of the governments that traditionally go along with whatever the USA says: France, Germany, Russia, and even Canada.
I also felt some hope at the thought that just as centuries ago the Mongols, after devastating Baghdad became Muslims, the time may not be too far when the “modern day Mongols” will also submit to the message of God. The present world order rests on very weak foundations. The United Nations may have a reasonable charter but it cannot improve or enforce it and the mighty nations have just reinforced in a powerful way the principle that might is right. The world needs a strong international order built on justice and rule of law. To this end it needs the message of the Qur`an.
Accompanying hope, I felt feelings of faith arising in my heart. A little sober reflection showed me the power and wisdom of God at work in the recent Iraqi affair. I was God creating a collision between a hard-headed national dictatorship and an equally hard-headed international dictatorship in order to provide means for the destruction of both. The dictatorship of Saddam has of course already fallen. The international Anglo-American global dictatorship has also sowed the seeds of its own fall by acting in defiance of the international law and of the will of almost the whole of humanity. These seeds must come to fruition at the appointed time set by God.
This working of the power of God is visible in another way. Remember the Islamic revolution, about two decades ago? Saddam was prompted by the Americans and their allies among the Arab dictators to attack Iran in order to defeat the revolution or at least to stop it at the Iranian borders. The Arab rulers provided or promised money and the Americans helped him acquire weapons including chemical weapons – yes the same weapons of mass destruction that seemingly lie behind the latest aggression against Iraq. War did not go well for Iraq until the use of chemical weapons that Saddam acquired with American knowledge and help. After the death and maiming of millions of people Iranian advance was halted and Saddam was saved. But now by the hands of the same Americans and Arab rulers for whom Saddam once fought against Islam God has brought him down and the Islamic revolution may have finally crossed the borders where it was once meant to be stopped. Such is the amazing working of the power and wisdom of God.
Another emotion experienced by Muslims is desire to do something. This emotion was, however, frustrated by a feeling of helplessness. Our rulers, who derive their strength from outside, have not left the people with avenues for any actions aimed at defending our lands, culture and religion and as a result desire to act does not get channelled in meaningful directions. But it is of paramount importance that we overcome this feeling of helplessness and create our own avenues of constructive action. Such action should be of two types: 1) action that makes Islam and Muslims stronger, e.g. helping those Muslims who need help, pursuing knowledge and research in all fields etc; 2) action to oppose the Anglo-American hegemony through peaceful political means.
This second type of action is required even if the Americans and the British fulfill their promise of creating a democratic Iraq. Hegemony is wrong in itself even if once in a while it does some good. Indeed, even the greatest evil can have some very good consequences. For example, for the West the worst example of evil is probably Hitler. But Hitler’s actions expedited the development of science and freedom for Asian and African countries from colonial powers.
It should also be remembered that if the Americans will move to real freedom for the Iraqi people, it would be only because the war was fiercely opposed by the rest of us and because they are still under a close scrutiny by the world , so that they have a real need to justify their actions before the international community. This opposition and scrutiny should continue with undiminished vigor if some good results of an evil aggression are to be ensured.
Note: This article is copyright to © Dr. Ahmad Shafaat. It may be reproduced for da'wa purpose without making any changes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Saddam is Bush as a national dictator; Bush is Saddam as an international dictator. The only difference between the two is that since the world is much larger than Iraq, Bush’s global power is more limited than was Saddam’s power within Iraq. True, Bush has been chosen by a certain percentage of the Americans, a very tiny fraction of the world population upon whom he imposes his will. But Saddam also had the loyalty of a fraction of the population of Iraq whom he rules by decree. In fact, the percentage of Iraqis supporting Saddam was probably much higher than the percentage of the world population supporting Bush.
Arsalan Tariq Iftikhar: Bush ignores Israeli terrorism
Arsalan Tariq Iftikhar: Bush ignores Israeli terrorism
WASHINGTON
ELEANOR Roosevelt once said, "Justice cannot be for one side alone. It must be for both sides." President Bush's speech Monday made it predictably clear that in the context of the Holy Land, justice would not present its elusive countenance to the beleaguered men, women and children of Palestine today.
On a day when many Israeli groups went into raptures over the president's "superb" and "visionary" address, the Palestinians and those who support their plight felt further marginalized by an administration that seems to assign more value to an Israeli life than to that of a Palestinian.
"Terrorism" is to President Bush as "communism" was to Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Since that fateful Sept. 11, "terrorism" has become a bloody term that arouses a painful reminder of the towers crumbling in New York. But why is the word "terrorism" only used for the Palestinians and not for the Israelis?
Before President Bush's address, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak continuously used the word "terror" to refer to the Palestinians.
The president followed suit a few minutes later by using the word "terror" 10 times in his address. Of those 10, how many times was he referring to the Israelis? Not once.
According to Amnesty International, in the first 408 days of the current Intifada, 570 Palestinians were killed, compared with 150 Israelis who died. Out of those figures, 150 Palestinian children were killed to Israel's 30. Amnesty reported that "Israeli forces have killed Palestinians unlawfully by shooting them during demonstrations and at checkpoints, although lives were not in danger. They have shelled residential areas and committed extrajudicial executions. All Palestinians in the Occupied Territories -- more than 3 million people -- have been collectively punished. Almost every Palestinian town and village has been cut off by Israeli army checkpoints or physical barriers. Curfews on Palestinian areas have trapped residents in their homes for days, weeks or even months. In the name of security, hundreds of Palestinian homes have been demolished."
Just going by Amnesty's casualty count, if President Bush used the word "terror" for Palestinians 10 times in his address, the number of associations between Israelis and "terror" should have numbered around 50.
But documented figures from the pre-eminent international human-rights organization aside, let us get back to the transcript. Although the Israeli government is responsible for five times as many murders as its Palestinian counterparts, the condolences only went to Israel. The president looked somber as he emotionally stated that he understood that Israelis have "lived too long with fear and funerals, having to avoid markets and public transportation, and forced to put armed guards in kindergarten classrooms."
Let me state in the most categorical terms that I can that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is as much of a terrorist as Yasser Arafat, if not five times more.
That is saying quite a handful, given that I really cannot stand Yasser Arafat either. I believe that he has recently been a detriment to his people. If a suitable replacement for Arafat would rise up from the ashes to uphold the democratic ideal of the Palestinians, I would be his ardent supporter.
Unfortunately, President Bush has now created a scenario that is a nonstarter. He has called for the "provisional" state of Palestine, on the condition that the "terror" cease. Many were hoping that he was referring to both the Israelis and the Palestinians, but unfortunately, our held breath was knocked out of us yet again.
By setting so many parameters, he made it easy for this straw house of a Palestinian state to collapse. If Palestinians do not approve of the Bush plan, all they have to do is commit an act of "terror" to prevent any formation of Palestine on the president's terms.
Sharon has vowed not to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza until the "terror" ends. The Palestinian zealots are smiling at Sharon's covert invitation to let them kill two birds with one stone. With another attack, they can prove the Palestinian Authority's ineffectiveness for the Palestinians, while creating fear and havoc in Israeli life.
I somberly conclude that this mockery of a proposal may play right into the hands of the extreme zealots.
I concede that there were some good proclamations in President Bush's speech. And I know that there will be a slew of opinion pieces commending the president for his "visionary" and "courageous" address.
I also note that this is the first time an American president has ever called for swift creation of a Palestinian state, with the same constitutional guarantees and legislative powers as in any other democracy. Unfortunately, like the Israeli settlement policy, there is too much Swiss cheese in the president's proposal. With so many holes and so little substance, it seems that this process may fail even before it begins.
All we can do now is pray. I gravely fear that this proposal has too many flaws to succeed. Although President Bush strongly empowered Israelis with his address and weakly tried to rectify the wrongs committed against the Palestinians, the endgame will play into the hands of people like Ariel Sharon, Yasser Arafat and terrorists from both sides.
Arsalan Tariq Iftikhar is Midwest communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. He also attends Washington University School of Law, in St. Louis.
WASHINGTON
ELEANOR Roosevelt once said, "Justice cannot be for one side alone. It must be for both sides." President Bush's speech Monday made it predictably clear that in the context of the Holy Land, justice would not present its elusive countenance to the beleaguered men, women and children of Palestine today.
On a day when many Israeli groups went into raptures over the president's "superb" and "visionary" address, the Palestinians and those who support their plight felt further marginalized by an administration that seems to assign more value to an Israeli life than to that of a Palestinian.
"Terrorism" is to President Bush as "communism" was to Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Since that fateful Sept. 11, "terrorism" has become a bloody term that arouses a painful reminder of the towers crumbling in New York. But why is the word "terrorism" only used for the Palestinians and not for the Israelis?
Before President Bush's address, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak continuously used the word "terror" to refer to the Palestinians.
The president followed suit a few minutes later by using the word "terror" 10 times in his address. Of those 10, how many times was he referring to the Israelis? Not once.
According to Amnesty International, in the first 408 days of the current Intifada, 570 Palestinians were killed, compared with 150 Israelis who died. Out of those figures, 150 Palestinian children were killed to Israel's 30. Amnesty reported that "Israeli forces have killed Palestinians unlawfully by shooting them during demonstrations and at checkpoints, although lives were not in danger. They have shelled residential areas and committed extrajudicial executions. All Palestinians in the Occupied Territories -- more than 3 million people -- have been collectively punished. Almost every Palestinian town and village has been cut off by Israeli army checkpoints or physical barriers. Curfews on Palestinian areas have trapped residents in their homes for days, weeks or even months. In the name of security, hundreds of Palestinian homes have been demolished."
Just going by Amnesty's casualty count, if President Bush used the word "terror" for Palestinians 10 times in his address, the number of associations between Israelis and "terror" should have numbered around 50.
But documented figures from the pre-eminent international human-rights organization aside, let us get back to the transcript. Although the Israeli government is responsible for five times as many murders as its Palestinian counterparts, the condolences only went to Israel. The president looked somber as he emotionally stated that he understood that Israelis have "lived too long with fear and funerals, having to avoid markets and public transportation, and forced to put armed guards in kindergarten classrooms."
Let me state in the most categorical terms that I can that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is as much of a terrorist as Yasser Arafat, if not five times more.
That is saying quite a handful, given that I really cannot stand Yasser Arafat either. I believe that he has recently been a detriment to his people. If a suitable replacement for Arafat would rise up from the ashes to uphold the democratic ideal of the Palestinians, I would be his ardent supporter.
Unfortunately, President Bush has now created a scenario that is a nonstarter. He has called for the "provisional" state of Palestine, on the condition that the "terror" cease. Many were hoping that he was referring to both the Israelis and the Palestinians, but unfortunately, our held breath was knocked out of us yet again.
By setting so many parameters, he made it easy for this straw house of a Palestinian state to collapse. If Palestinians do not approve of the Bush plan, all they have to do is commit an act of "terror" to prevent any formation of Palestine on the president's terms.
Sharon has vowed not to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza until the "terror" ends. The Palestinian zealots are smiling at Sharon's covert invitation to let them kill two birds with one stone. With another attack, they can prove the Palestinian Authority's ineffectiveness for the Palestinians, while creating fear and havoc in Israeli life.
I somberly conclude that this mockery of a proposal may play right into the hands of the extreme zealots.
I concede that there were some good proclamations in President Bush's speech. And I know that there will be a slew of opinion pieces commending the president for his "visionary" and "courageous" address.
I also note that this is the first time an American president has ever called for swift creation of a Palestinian state, with the same constitutional guarantees and legislative powers as in any other democracy. Unfortunately, like the Israeli settlement policy, there is too much Swiss cheese in the president's proposal. With so many holes and so little substance, it seems that this process may fail even before it begins.
All we can do now is pray. I gravely fear that this proposal has too many flaws to succeed. Although President Bush strongly empowered Israelis with his address and weakly tried to rectify the wrongs committed against the Palestinians, the endgame will play into the hands of people like Ariel Sharon, Yasser Arafat and terrorists from both sides.
Arsalan Tariq Iftikhar is Midwest communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. He also attends Washington University School of Law, in St. Louis.
A Veil on the Truth
A Veil on the Truth
By Cynthia Peters
A few privileged Afghan women have been caught smiling for AP cameras, but many Afghan women, men and children are silently dying behind the burqa of U.S. deceit.
The facts are simple. Massive food distribution programs put in place prior to 9-11 in response to widespread famine were derailed by the anticipation of and then the actual U.S. bombing campaign, and have been even further set back by the Taliban's retreat. According to the New York Times (11/30/01), "In the past two weeks, the tonnage [of aid] delivered dropped to a pace less than half of what it had been in the previous two weeks." The problem is that the "towns and cities are so chaotic that relief agencies cannot safely operate. Many roads are off limits because of lawlessness and banditry."
Those of us who opposed the U.S. war in A fghanistan nevertheless saw its apparent rapid resolution as an opportunity to at least get much needed supplies into the country. Having routed the enemy, perhaps the United States would stop the bombing, allowing food trucks to move in from across the border. But, instead, the opposite is true. As of this writing (December 5), the bombing continues, civilian populations are left at the mercy of marauding gangs, and food aid dwindles.
There are a few simple things we could do that would immediately turn down the torture in Afghanistan.
First, the U.S. should stop bombing. There is no real accounting yet of the civilian casualty rate, but reports in the last few days claim that U.S. bombs hit four villages near Tora Bora, possibly killing hundreds (NYT 12/3/01). This is an unethical and illegal use of U.S. firepower. If it's Osama bin Laden who we are still after, it is never too late to apprehend him in a manner that accords with international law -- present proper evidence and allow the UN to mount a prudent, ground-based multilateral campaign to capture him. In any case, since there is no Afghan enemy mounting any kind of defense or engaging in battle, there is no excuse for large-scale bombings -- whether directed by the U.S. or the UN.
Second, the bridge to Uzbekistan, which is a key passage for aid trucks, should be secured. And we should meet Uzbekistan's demand that an international force provide security at their Afghan border. Instead American military officials are saying that although they "recognize the urgency of opening the bridge from Uzbekistan, [U.S.] troops will not be protecting the border."
There is callous disregard for human life in this casual acknowledgement of the urgency. American officials understand the consequences of their inactivity, but are blithely sitting back and saying they want Afghan forces -- not foreign troops -- to police the roadways, when the only Afghan forces that exist in the country are "lawless bandits," and it is American officials themselves that installed them. Having destabilized the country to the point where it is not even safe for aid trucks to travel, it seems the U.S. is washing its hands of the disaster.
If only that were the case.
Instead, the U.S. is actually blocking efforts to bring in the very peacekeepers that might secure the roads and borders, and facilitate the transport of life-saving aid. Buried in an article about how the Northern Alliance, during negotiations in Bonn, finally relented on allowing foreign peacekeepers into the country, the Boston Globe
(11/30/01) reported that some U.S. officials believe peacekeepers will be a nuisance to their unilateral conduct of the war. "Citing Bush Administration officials, the Washington Post reported that `the U.S. Central Command, which oversees the war in Afghanistan, is opposing the imminent deployment of peacekeepers in areas freed from Taliban control out of concern this could encumber U.S. military operations.'"
In a New York Times article (12/3/01) about the Bonn negotiations, a brief aside mentions the "Pentagon's unwillingness to take part in any peacekeeping force or to favor placing peacekeepers anywhere where they could get in the way of the war against Al Qaeda." Specifically, since November 12 when the Northern Alliance took Kabul, the Pentagon has blocked proposals by France and Britain to send thousands of troops to secure Kabul, the northern half of the country, and aid routes. On December 4, the Pentagon said it would "not object to peacekeepers confined to Kabul and its immediate vicinity" -- a concession that is mostly symbolic (only 200 peacekeepers will be admitted) and is nonetheless entirely irrelevant to ensuring open channels for aid (NYT 12/5/01).
Third, the U.S. should reconsider food airdrops. Dropping "Humanitarian Daily Rations" -- bright yellow packages, decorated with the American flag and containing 2200 calories worth of peanut butter, shortbread, and fruit pastries -- is counterproductive. Airdrops undermine the work of neutral aid organizations by turning humanitarian assistance into an attempt to win "hearts and minds." They ignore the special needs of malnourished children who require a specific diet. "If you would give peanut butter to a severely malnourished child, you are likely to do more harm than good," says Lucas Van den Broeck of Action Against Hunger (Boston Globe 10/25/01). And the airdrops bypass crucial distribution methods, which ensure food gets to all who need it, not just to those nimble enough to gather the yellow packets as they drop from the skies, assuming, that is, that they land where people can reach them and not among land mines (10 million of which litter the Afghan landscape). According to at least one UN report (Boston Globe, 11/30/01), two children have already been killed "when they stepped on mines running across a field trying to pick up food packets."
We won't see pictures of their exploded bodies in the morning newspaper because those images are a theat to the Pentagon's ongoing prosecution of the "war on terrorism." Those images must stay safely shrouded from public view. While the media showcase the newly revealed faces of Afghan women, the innocent victims of the U.S. war are still thickly veiled.
This is a veil that U.S. citizens have the power to lift, and the consequences of doing so are immense. We should expose and demand an end to a war that has turned Afghanistan into a world stage for the theatrical display of U.S. might and banal disregard for human life.
By Cynthia Peters
A few privileged Afghan women have been caught smiling for AP cameras, but many Afghan women, men and children are silently dying behind the burqa of U.S. deceit.
The facts are simple. Massive food distribution programs put in place prior to 9-11 in response to widespread famine were derailed by the anticipation of and then the actual U.S. bombing campaign, and have been even further set back by the Taliban's retreat. According to the New York Times (11/30/01), "In the past two weeks, the tonnage [of aid] delivered dropped to a pace less than half of what it had been in the previous two weeks." The problem is that the "towns and cities are so chaotic that relief agencies cannot safely operate. Many roads are off limits because of lawlessness and banditry."
Those of us who opposed the U.S. war in A fghanistan nevertheless saw its apparent rapid resolution as an opportunity to at least get much needed supplies into the country. Having routed the enemy, perhaps the United States would stop the bombing, allowing food trucks to move in from across the border. But, instead, the opposite is true. As of this writing (December 5), the bombing continues, civilian populations are left at the mercy of marauding gangs, and food aid dwindles.
There are a few simple things we could do that would immediately turn down the torture in Afghanistan.
First, the U.S. should stop bombing. There is no real accounting yet of the civilian casualty rate, but reports in the last few days claim that U.S. bombs hit four villages near Tora Bora, possibly killing hundreds (NYT 12/3/01). This is an unethical and illegal use of U.S. firepower. If it's Osama bin Laden who we are still after, it is never too late to apprehend him in a manner that accords with international law -- present proper evidence and allow the UN to mount a prudent, ground-based multilateral campaign to capture him. In any case, since there is no Afghan enemy mounting any kind of defense or engaging in battle, there is no excuse for large-scale bombings -- whether directed by the U.S. or the UN.
Second, the bridge to Uzbekistan, which is a key passage for aid trucks, should be secured. And we should meet Uzbekistan's demand that an international force provide security at their Afghan border. Instead American military officials are saying that although they "recognize the urgency of opening the bridge from Uzbekistan, [U.S.] troops will not be protecting the border."
There is callous disregard for human life in this casual acknowledgement of the urgency. American officials understand the consequences of their inactivity, but are blithely sitting back and saying they want Afghan forces -- not foreign troops -- to police the roadways, when the only Afghan forces that exist in the country are "lawless bandits," and it is American officials themselves that installed them. Having destabilized the country to the point where it is not even safe for aid trucks to travel, it seems the U.S. is washing its hands of the disaster.
If only that were the case.
Instead, the U.S. is actually blocking efforts to bring in the very peacekeepers that might secure the roads and borders, and facilitate the transport of life-saving aid. Buried in an article about how the Northern Alliance, during negotiations in Bonn, finally relented on allowing foreign peacekeepers into the country, the Boston Globe
(11/30/01) reported that some U.S. officials believe peacekeepers will be a nuisance to their unilateral conduct of the war. "Citing Bush Administration officials, the Washington Post reported that `the U.S. Central Command, which oversees the war in Afghanistan, is opposing the imminent deployment of peacekeepers in areas freed from Taliban control out of concern this could encumber U.S. military operations.'"
In a New York Times article (12/3/01) about the Bonn negotiations, a brief aside mentions the "Pentagon's unwillingness to take part in any peacekeeping force or to favor placing peacekeepers anywhere where they could get in the way of the war against Al Qaeda." Specifically, since November 12 when the Northern Alliance took Kabul, the Pentagon has blocked proposals by France and Britain to send thousands of troops to secure Kabul, the northern half of the country, and aid routes. On December 4, the Pentagon said it would "not object to peacekeepers confined to Kabul and its immediate vicinity" -- a concession that is mostly symbolic (only 200 peacekeepers will be admitted) and is nonetheless entirely irrelevant to ensuring open channels for aid (NYT 12/5/01).
Third, the U.S. should reconsider food airdrops. Dropping "Humanitarian Daily Rations" -- bright yellow packages, decorated with the American flag and containing 2200 calories worth of peanut butter, shortbread, and fruit pastries -- is counterproductive. Airdrops undermine the work of neutral aid organizations by turning humanitarian assistance into an attempt to win "hearts and minds." They ignore the special needs of malnourished children who require a specific diet. "If you would give peanut butter to a severely malnourished child, you are likely to do more harm than good," says Lucas Van den Broeck of Action Against Hunger (Boston Globe 10/25/01). And the airdrops bypass crucial distribution methods, which ensure food gets to all who need it, not just to those nimble enough to gather the yellow packets as they drop from the skies, assuming, that is, that they land where people can reach them and not among land mines (10 million of which litter the Afghan landscape). According to at least one UN report (Boston Globe, 11/30/01), two children have already been killed "when they stepped on mines running across a field trying to pick up food packets."
We won't see pictures of their exploded bodies in the morning newspaper because those images are a theat to the Pentagon's ongoing prosecution of the "war on terrorism." Those images must stay safely shrouded from public view. While the media showcase the newly revealed faces of Afghan women, the innocent victims of the U.S. war are still thickly veiled.
This is a veil that U.S. citizens have the power to lift, and the consequences of doing so are immense. We should expose and demand an end to a war that has turned Afghanistan into a world stage for the theatrical display of U.S. might and banal disregard for human life.
Bravado fades away as rebels prepare for last stand in Benghazi
Bravado fades away as rebels prepare for last stand in Benghazi
Gaddafi's demoralised foes are in retreat. Kim Sengupta reports from Brega
Monday, 14 March 2011
Share Close
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Comments
Print Email Text Size
NormalLargeExtra Large
AFP/GETTY
Libyan rebels prepare to leave the town of Brega yesterday
enlarge Sponsored Links
Ads by Google
HSBC Offshore
Living Abroad Can Be Challenging -
Find Out How HSBC Can Assist You.
Offshore.HSBC.com/Expat-Experts
Expat? £60K+ UK Pension?
Free Expert Advice To Access Your
Personal Or Occupational UK Pension
yourQROPS.expatra.com/HMRCapproved
New Model for Middle East
Using Business to Promote Peace,
Prosperity and Freedom
www.sellingavisionofhope.org
Employee for your Company
Advertise Your Company and Seek
Potential Candidates on Quikr Now!
www.Quikr.com
The sandstorm added to the terror and panic; one could hear the shrill sound of the shells and rockets coming in but had no idea where they would land until the shattering noise of the explosion and orange flames lit up the swirling dust.
All around the rebel fighters were in flight, with screeching tyres on trucks and cars, some piled on a mechanical digger, others running beside the vehicles desperate for a ride to safety. Anti-aircraft guns and rocket launchers had been abandoned. A few were on fire. Brega was lost, and the road to Benghazi lay wide open.
With the rebel forces in disarray and Muammar Gaddafi's forces pressing ahead, only Western action would now save what was briefly "Free Libya". And that, most of the opposition are convinced, is now a forlorn hope.
Related articles
Fighters and residents flee eastwards as Gaddafi forces advance
Patrick Cockburn: Arab League call for a no-fly zone may be too little, too late
Leading article: Meanwhile in Libya...
Search the news archive for more stories
With their hold on Brega, which had followed the capture of Ras Lanuf, the regime now controls two key oil ports, putting them in a position to shut down power to the rebel-held east of the country. The two towns are also key points on the coastal route, putting Gaddafi's forces within three hours' drive of Benghazi, with just one other town, Azdabia, on the way. Taking Brega will also bring with it an airport, allowing the military to bring in reinforcements.
The exodus of rebel forces from Brega began on Saturday evening. It was complete by yesterday afternoon, with convoys of fighters outstripping the few residents trying to make a getaway along the road.
Some of the locals who stayed behind paid a terrible price. Dr Suleiman Refadi found four bodies lying on the road, a couple in their fifties, and two men in their early twenties. "They had been shot many times. They were civilians. Why were they murdered?" he asked. "The fighting should be limited to soldiers, not these innocent people."
The soldiers were no longer in the mood to fight. Just a week ago these men were dreaming of a triumphant entry into Tripoli. Now they were a beaten army, fear and uncertainty replacing the bravado.
Yassin Mawafaq, a 22-year-old baker and revolutionary volunteer, had been posing with his Kalashnikov assault rifle for the cameras, firing off round after round into the air and vowing he would rather be a martyr than fail in his mission. Now the only thing on his mind was how to stay alive. Hunched in the back of a battered Toyota Corolla, he whispered: "A rocket landed near us. I saw a man with half his body blown off. We need to get away. We cannot stay here, we need to get away."
Standing by the roadside, Ibrahim Husseini was still carrying his anti-tank missile launcher. He was tired and resigned. "I want to stay and fight, but the others are going. They have much better weapons than us, we could not match them. Too many people have been killed. We need to find out why it went wrong."
Some of the questions could be addressed to the rebel leadership in Benghazi. On Saturday, General Abdel Fattah-Younis, a former regime interior minister whom William Hague had consulted before sending the mission which ended with British special forces soldiers being arrested, said there would be a counter-attack, which would rapidly reclaim lost ground. "Yes, the Gaddafi men control Ras Lanuf and the oil terminal, but this is only temporary. We shall recover them. We shall take back Ras Lanuf, at the latest by Sunday," he said. "We have got a plan and we are carrying it out."
On Saturday evening a group of shivering rebel fighters standing at a checkpoint in Brega got a fleeting visit from a commander in Benghazi. "Do not worry, we have 50 tanks now in Azdabia, they are coming up. We shall attack as soon as they arrive."
Yesterday the same officer, who refused to give his name, was at the main gate of Azdabia, loudly claiming that Gaddafi forces were fighting among themselves in Misrata and some had switched sides to the rebels. These tales have been coming since the uprising began and many were by now openly sceptical.
"I do not think I believe any of this any longer," said Khalid Bugaighis. "If all these soldiers are changing sides, then why are we in this position? No, it is finished here now. We need to go back to Benghazi and try and defend there. We can do street-fighting there. Maybe, in the meantime, [the international community] will bring in this no-fly zone. That will be our last chance."
But in Benghazi Gaddafi loyalists who have been lying low have become emboldened and are now carrying out attacks. "I understand that there are problems in Benghazi," said Mr Bugaighis. "But what choice have we got? That is the place of our last stand."
Gaddafi's demoralised foes are in retreat. Kim Sengupta reports from Brega
Monday, 14 March 2011
Share Close
Digg
del.icio.us
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Comments
Print Email Text Size
NormalLargeExtra Large
AFP/GETTY
Libyan rebels prepare to leave the town of Brega yesterday
enlarge Sponsored Links
Ads by Google
HSBC Offshore
Living Abroad Can Be Challenging -
Find Out How HSBC Can Assist You.
Offshore.HSBC.com/Expat-Experts
Expat? £60K+ UK Pension?
Free Expert Advice To Access Your
Personal Or Occupational UK Pension
yourQROPS.expatra.com/HMRCapproved
New Model for Middle East
Using Business to Promote Peace,
Prosperity and Freedom
www.sellingavisionofhope.org
Employee for your Company
Advertise Your Company and Seek
Potential Candidates on Quikr Now!
www.Quikr.com
The sandstorm added to the terror and panic; one could hear the shrill sound of the shells and rockets coming in but had no idea where they would land until the shattering noise of the explosion and orange flames lit up the swirling dust.
All around the rebel fighters were in flight, with screeching tyres on trucks and cars, some piled on a mechanical digger, others running beside the vehicles desperate for a ride to safety. Anti-aircraft guns and rocket launchers had been abandoned. A few were on fire. Brega was lost, and the road to Benghazi lay wide open.
With the rebel forces in disarray and Muammar Gaddafi's forces pressing ahead, only Western action would now save what was briefly "Free Libya". And that, most of the opposition are convinced, is now a forlorn hope.
Related articles
Fighters and residents flee eastwards as Gaddafi forces advance
Patrick Cockburn: Arab League call for a no-fly zone may be too little, too late
Leading article: Meanwhile in Libya...
Search the news archive for more stories
With their hold on Brega, which had followed the capture of Ras Lanuf, the regime now controls two key oil ports, putting them in a position to shut down power to the rebel-held east of the country. The two towns are also key points on the coastal route, putting Gaddafi's forces within three hours' drive of Benghazi, with just one other town, Azdabia, on the way. Taking Brega will also bring with it an airport, allowing the military to bring in reinforcements.
The exodus of rebel forces from Brega began on Saturday evening. It was complete by yesterday afternoon, with convoys of fighters outstripping the few residents trying to make a getaway along the road.
Some of the locals who stayed behind paid a terrible price. Dr Suleiman Refadi found four bodies lying on the road, a couple in their fifties, and two men in their early twenties. "They had been shot many times. They were civilians. Why were they murdered?" he asked. "The fighting should be limited to soldiers, not these innocent people."
The soldiers were no longer in the mood to fight. Just a week ago these men were dreaming of a triumphant entry into Tripoli. Now they were a beaten army, fear and uncertainty replacing the bravado.
Yassin Mawafaq, a 22-year-old baker and revolutionary volunteer, had been posing with his Kalashnikov assault rifle for the cameras, firing off round after round into the air and vowing he would rather be a martyr than fail in his mission. Now the only thing on his mind was how to stay alive. Hunched in the back of a battered Toyota Corolla, he whispered: "A rocket landed near us. I saw a man with half his body blown off. We need to get away. We cannot stay here, we need to get away."
Standing by the roadside, Ibrahim Husseini was still carrying his anti-tank missile launcher. He was tired and resigned. "I want to stay and fight, but the others are going. They have much better weapons than us, we could not match them. Too many people have been killed. We need to find out why it went wrong."
Some of the questions could be addressed to the rebel leadership in Benghazi. On Saturday, General Abdel Fattah-Younis, a former regime interior minister whom William Hague had consulted before sending the mission which ended with British special forces soldiers being arrested, said there would be a counter-attack, which would rapidly reclaim lost ground. "Yes, the Gaddafi men control Ras Lanuf and the oil terminal, but this is only temporary. We shall recover them. We shall take back Ras Lanuf, at the latest by Sunday," he said. "We have got a plan and we are carrying it out."
On Saturday evening a group of shivering rebel fighters standing at a checkpoint in Brega got a fleeting visit from a commander in Benghazi. "Do not worry, we have 50 tanks now in Azdabia, they are coming up. We shall attack as soon as they arrive."
Yesterday the same officer, who refused to give his name, was at the main gate of Azdabia, loudly claiming that Gaddafi forces were fighting among themselves in Misrata and some had switched sides to the rebels. These tales have been coming since the uprising began and many were by now openly sceptical.
"I do not think I believe any of this any longer," said Khalid Bugaighis. "If all these soldiers are changing sides, then why are we in this position? No, it is finished here now. We need to go back to Benghazi and try and defend there. We can do street-fighting there. Maybe, in the meantime, [the international community] will bring in this no-fly zone. That will be our last chance."
But in Benghazi Gaddafi loyalists who have been lying low have become emboldened and are now carrying out attacks. "I understand that there are problems in Benghazi," said Mr Bugaighis. "But what choice have we got? That is the place of our last stand."
Bahrain protests spread to financial centre
Bahrain protests spread to financial centre
* Police clash with demonstrators trying to occupy Manama’s banking centre
* Regime loyalists armed with knives, clubs fight university students
MANAMA: Bahraini police on Sunday clashed with demonstrators trying to occupy Manama’s banking centre, as protests spread from a peaceful sit-in to the heart of the strategic Gulf state’s business district.
Witnesses said police fired tear gas and rubber bullets at around 350 activists who had sealed off the Financial Harbour business complex with road blocks and a human chain. Some 200 people were overcome by the gas which wafted through the heart of the wealthy harbour side area, while the interior ministry said 14 policemen were injured. Thousands of protesters however returned to the area later in the afternoon, residents said.
Regime loyalists armed with knives and clubs meanwhile fought students at the university, and police fired tear gas at protesters occupying Pearl Square, which is a short distance from the financial district, witnesses said. “The regime is using thugs,” said Khalil Marzooq, who is a member of the main Shia opposition group.
King Hamad bin Issa al-Khalifa reiterated an offer of dialogue with the main opposition groups, which have refused to negotiate until the government resigns and dissidents are released from jail. “I call all parties to meet quickly around the table and be open-minded and well-intentioned to reach a national consensus,” he said in a statement quoted by the BNA state news agency, after a meeting with Jordan’s foreign minister.
Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, who joined King Hamad in talks on Saturday with visiting US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, has also urged the opposition to come to the negotiating table. “I’m hopeful that they will join the dialogue without preconditions. We have given them the best deal they can hope for,” he told reporters Saturday.
Meanwhile, Bahrain’s main trade union announced an open-ended strike starting on Sunday to protest the use of force against protesters. “This is in violation of human rights and international conventions ratified by the kingdom of Bahrain,” said the General Federation of Workers Trade Unions.
The Iranian-backed Shia Lebanese movement Hezbollah condemned “the excessive use of violence to suppress peaceful demonstrations by the people of Bahrain who are seeking to secure their legitimate political rights.”
Bahrain — home of the US Fifth Fleet — has become a regional financial hub as it seeks to diversify its economy away from a dependence on diminishing oil revenues. Protests in Shia-majority Bahrain, which has been ruled by a Sunni dynasty for more than 200 years, broke out after popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia ousted those countries’ long-time autocratic rulers. The main opposition groups have stopped short of demanding the toppling of the king, but more extreme hardliners have been vocal in calling for the end of monarchy.
Gates said he told Bahrain’s leaders to quickly adopt far-reaching reforms or risk being swamped by the tide of democratic change sweeping the Arab world. He also warned that Shia-led Iran would likely work to use Bahrain’s sectarian tensions to its advantage. The US defence chief said he came away encouraged the country’s leaders king were prepared to accommodate anti-government protesters.
With unrest sweeping the Middle East and North Africa, the United States has struggled to balance its long standing ties with Arab regimes with support for protests demanding democratic reform. afp
* Police clash with demonstrators trying to occupy Manama’s banking centre
* Regime loyalists armed with knives, clubs fight university students
MANAMA: Bahraini police on Sunday clashed with demonstrators trying to occupy Manama’s banking centre, as protests spread from a peaceful sit-in to the heart of the strategic Gulf state’s business district.
Witnesses said police fired tear gas and rubber bullets at around 350 activists who had sealed off the Financial Harbour business complex with road blocks and a human chain. Some 200 people were overcome by the gas which wafted through the heart of the wealthy harbour side area, while the interior ministry said 14 policemen were injured. Thousands of protesters however returned to the area later in the afternoon, residents said.
Regime loyalists armed with knives and clubs meanwhile fought students at the university, and police fired tear gas at protesters occupying Pearl Square, which is a short distance from the financial district, witnesses said. “The regime is using thugs,” said Khalil Marzooq, who is a member of the main Shia opposition group.
King Hamad bin Issa al-Khalifa reiterated an offer of dialogue with the main opposition groups, which have refused to negotiate until the government resigns and dissidents are released from jail. “I call all parties to meet quickly around the table and be open-minded and well-intentioned to reach a national consensus,” he said in a statement quoted by the BNA state news agency, after a meeting with Jordan’s foreign minister.
Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, who joined King Hamad in talks on Saturday with visiting US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, has also urged the opposition to come to the negotiating table. “I’m hopeful that they will join the dialogue without preconditions. We have given them the best deal they can hope for,” he told reporters Saturday.
Meanwhile, Bahrain’s main trade union announced an open-ended strike starting on Sunday to protest the use of force against protesters. “This is in violation of human rights and international conventions ratified by the kingdom of Bahrain,” said the General Federation of Workers Trade Unions.
The Iranian-backed Shia Lebanese movement Hezbollah condemned “the excessive use of violence to suppress peaceful demonstrations by the people of Bahrain who are seeking to secure their legitimate political rights.”
Bahrain — home of the US Fifth Fleet — has become a regional financial hub as it seeks to diversify its economy away from a dependence on diminishing oil revenues. Protests in Shia-majority Bahrain, which has been ruled by a Sunni dynasty for more than 200 years, broke out after popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia ousted those countries’ long-time autocratic rulers. The main opposition groups have stopped short of demanding the toppling of the king, but more extreme hardliners have been vocal in calling for the end of monarchy.
Gates said he told Bahrain’s leaders to quickly adopt far-reaching reforms or risk being swamped by the tide of democratic change sweeping the Arab world. He also warned that Shia-led Iran would likely work to use Bahrain’s sectarian tensions to its advantage. The US defence chief said he came away encouraged the country’s leaders king were prepared to accommodate anti-government protesters.
With unrest sweeping the Middle East and North Africa, the United States has struggled to balance its long standing ties with Arab regimes with support for protests demanding democratic reform. afp
A Memo to American Muslims
A Memo to American Muslims
"It is time that we acknowledge that the freedoms we enjoy in the US are more desirable to us than superficial solidarity with the Muslim World. If you disagree, then prove it by packing your bags and going to whichever Muslim country you identify with."
In the wake of September 11, Dr. M. A. Muqtedar Khan calls for soul searching, reflection and reassessment among US Muslims.
In the name of Allah, the most Benevolent and the Most Merciful. May this memo find you in the shade of Islam enjoying the mercy, the protection and the grace of Allah.
I am writing this memo to you all with the explicit purpose of inviting you to lead the American Muslim community in soul searching, reflection and reassessment.
What happened on September 11th in New York and Washington DC will forever remain a horrible scar on the history of Islam and humanity. No matter how much we condemn it, and point to the Quran and the Sunnah to argue that Islam forbids the killing of innocent people, the fact remains that the perpetrators of this crime against humanity have indicated that their actions are sanctioned by Islamic values.
The fact that even now several Muslim scholars and thousands of Muslims defend the accused is indicative that not all Muslims believe that the attacks are unIslamic. This is truly sad.
Even if it were true that Israel and the US are enemies of the Muslim World, wonder what is preventing them from unleashing their nuclear arsenal against Muslims, a response that mercilessly murders thousands of innocent people, including hundreds of Muslims is absolutely indefensible. If anywhere in your hearts there is any sympathy or understanding with those who committed this act, I invite you to ask yourself this question, would Muhammad (pbuh) sanction such an act?
While encouraging Muslims to struggle against injustice (Al Quran 4:135), Allah also imposes strict rules of engagement. He says in unequivocal terms that to kill an innocent being is like killing entire humanity (Al Quran 5:32). He also encourages Muslims to forgive Jews and Christians if they have committed injustices against us (Al Quran 2:109, 3:159, 5:85).
Muslims, including American Muslims have been practicing hypocrisy on a grand scale. They protest against the discriminatory practices of Israel but are silent against the discriminatory practices in Muslim states. In the Gulf one can see how laws and even salaries are based on ethnic origin. This is racism, but we never hear of Muslims protesting against them at International fora.
The Israeli occupation of Palestine is perhaps central to Muslim grievance against the West. While acknowledging that, I must remind you that Israel treats its one million Arab citizens with greater respect and dignity than most Arab nations treat their citizens. Today Palestinian refugees can settle and become citizens of the United States but in spite of all the tall rhetoric of the Arab world and Quranic injunctions (24:22) no Muslim country except Jordan extends this support to them.
While we loudly and consistently condemn Israel for its ill treatment of Palestinians we are silent when Muslim regimes abuse the rights of Muslims and slaughter thousands of them. Remember Saddam and his use of chemical weapons against Muslims (Kurds)?. Remember Pakistani army’s excesses against Muslims (Bengalis)?. Remember the Mujahideen of Afghanistan and their mutual slaughter? Have we ever condemned them for their excesses? Have we demanded international intervention or retribution against them? Do you know how the Saudis treat their minority Shias? Have we protested the violation of their rights? But we all are eager to condemn Israel; not because we care for rights and lives of the Palestinians, we don’t. We condemn Israel because we hate “them".
Muslims love to live in the US but also love to hate it. Many openly claim that the US is a terrorist state but they continue to live in it. Their decision to live here is testimony that they would rather live here than anywhere else. As an Indian Muslim, I know for sure that nowhere on earth, including India, will I get the same sense of dignity and respect that I have received in the US. No Muslim country will treat me as well as the US has. If what happened on September 11th had happened in India, the biggest democracy, thousands of Muslims would have been slaughtered in riots on mere suspicion and there would be another slaughter after confirmation. But in the US, bigotry and xenophobia has been kept in check by media and leaders. In many places hundreds of Americans have gathered around Islamic centers in symbolic gestures of protection and embrace of American Muslims. In many cities Christian congregations have started wearing hijab to identify with fellow Muslim women. In patience and in tolerance ordinary Americans have demonstrated their extraordinary virtues.
It is time that we acknowledge that the freedoms we enjoy in the US are more desirable to us than superficial solidarity with the Muslim World. If you disagree than prove it by packing your bags and going to whichever Muslim country you identify with. If you do not leave and do not acknowledge that you would rather live here than anywhere else, know that you are being hypocritical.
It is time that we faced these hypocritical practices and struggled to transcend them. It is time that American Muslim leaders fought to purify their own lot.
For over a decade we have watched as Muslims in the name of Islam have committed violence against other Muslims and other peoples. We have always found a way to reconcile the vast distance between Islamic values and Muslim practices by pointing out to the injustices committed upon Muslims by others. The point however is this – our belief in Islam and commitment to Islamic values is not contingent on the moral conduct of the US or Israel. And as Muslims can we condone such inhuman and senseless waste of life in the name of Islam?
The biggest victims of hate filled politics as embodied in the actions of several Muslim militias all over the world are Muslims themselves. Hate is the extreme form of intolerance and when individuals and groups succumb to it they can do nothing constructive. Militias like the Taliban have allowed their hate for the West to override their obligation to pursue the welfare of their people and as a result of their actions not only have thousands of innocent people died in America, but thousands of people will die in the Muslim World.
Already, half a million Afghans have had to leave their homes and their country. The war has not yet begun. It will only get worst. Hamas and Islamic Jihad may kill a few Jews, women and children included, with their suicide bombs and temporarily satisfy their lust for Jewish blood, but thousands of Palestinians then pay the price for their actions.
The culture of hate and killing is tearing away at the moral fabric of the Muslim society. We are more focused on “the other” and have completely forgotten our duty to Allah. In pursuit of the inferior jihad we have sacrificed the superior jihad.
Islamic resurgence, the cherished ideals of which pursued the ultimate goal of a universally just and moral society has been hijacked by hate and call for murder and mayhem. If Bin Laden were an individual then we would have no problem. But unfortunately Bin Laden has become a phenomenon -- a cancer eating away at the morality of our youth, and undermining the spiritual health of our future.
Today the century old Islamic revival is in jeopardy because we have allowed insanity to prevail over our better judgment. Yes, the US has played a hand in the creation of Bin Laden and the Taliban, but it is we who have allowed them to grow and gain such a foothold. It is our duty to police our world. It is our responsibility to prevent people from abusing Islam. It is our job to ensure that Islam is not misrepresented. We should have made sure that what happened on Sept. 11th should never have happened.
It is time the leaders of the American Muslim community woke up and realized that there is more to life than competing with the American Jewish lobby for power over US foreign policy. Islam is not about defeating Jews or conquering Jerusalem. It is about mercy, about virtue, about sacrifice and about duty. Above all it is the pursuit of moral perfection. Nothing can be further away from moral perfection than the wanton slaughter of thousands of unsuspecting innocent people.
I hope that we will now rededicate our lives and our institutions to the search for harmony, peace and tolerance. Let us be prepared to suffer injustice rather than commit injustices. After all it is we who carry the divine burden of Islam and not others. We have to be morally better, more forgiving, more sacrificing than others, if we wish to convince the world about the truth of our message. We cannot even be equal to others in virtue, we must excel.
It is time for soul searching. How can the message of Muhammad (pbuh) who was sent as mercy to mankind become a source of horror and fear? How can Islam inspire thousands of youth to dedicate their lives to killing others? We are supposed to invite people to Islam not murder them.
The worst exhibition of Islam happened on our turf. We must take first responsibility to undo the evil it has manifest. This is our mandate, our burden and also our opportunity.
"It is time that we acknowledge that the freedoms we enjoy in the US are more desirable to us than superficial solidarity with the Muslim World. If you disagree, then prove it by packing your bags and going to whichever Muslim country you identify with."
In the wake of September 11, Dr. M. A. Muqtedar Khan calls for soul searching, reflection and reassessment among US Muslims.
In the name of Allah, the most Benevolent and the Most Merciful. May this memo find you in the shade of Islam enjoying the mercy, the protection and the grace of Allah.
I am writing this memo to you all with the explicit purpose of inviting you to lead the American Muslim community in soul searching, reflection and reassessment.
What happened on September 11th in New York and Washington DC will forever remain a horrible scar on the history of Islam and humanity. No matter how much we condemn it, and point to the Quran and the Sunnah to argue that Islam forbids the killing of innocent people, the fact remains that the perpetrators of this crime against humanity have indicated that their actions are sanctioned by Islamic values.
The fact that even now several Muslim scholars and thousands of Muslims defend the accused is indicative that not all Muslims believe that the attacks are unIslamic. This is truly sad.
Even if it were true that Israel and the US are enemies of the Muslim World, wonder what is preventing them from unleashing their nuclear arsenal against Muslims, a response that mercilessly murders thousands of innocent people, including hundreds of Muslims is absolutely indefensible. If anywhere in your hearts there is any sympathy or understanding with those who committed this act, I invite you to ask yourself this question, would Muhammad (pbuh) sanction such an act?
While encouraging Muslims to struggle against injustice (Al Quran 4:135), Allah also imposes strict rules of engagement. He says in unequivocal terms that to kill an innocent being is like killing entire humanity (Al Quran 5:32). He also encourages Muslims to forgive Jews and Christians if they have committed injustices against us (Al Quran 2:109, 3:159, 5:85).
Muslims, including American Muslims have been practicing hypocrisy on a grand scale. They protest against the discriminatory practices of Israel but are silent against the discriminatory practices in Muslim states. In the Gulf one can see how laws and even salaries are based on ethnic origin. This is racism, but we never hear of Muslims protesting against them at International fora.
The Israeli occupation of Palestine is perhaps central to Muslim grievance against the West. While acknowledging that, I must remind you that Israel treats its one million Arab citizens with greater respect and dignity than most Arab nations treat their citizens. Today Palestinian refugees can settle and become citizens of the United States but in spite of all the tall rhetoric of the Arab world and Quranic injunctions (24:22) no Muslim country except Jordan extends this support to them.
While we loudly and consistently condemn Israel for its ill treatment of Palestinians we are silent when Muslim regimes abuse the rights of Muslims and slaughter thousands of them. Remember Saddam and his use of chemical weapons against Muslims (Kurds)?. Remember Pakistani army’s excesses against Muslims (Bengalis)?. Remember the Mujahideen of Afghanistan and their mutual slaughter? Have we ever condemned them for their excesses? Have we demanded international intervention or retribution against them? Do you know how the Saudis treat their minority Shias? Have we protested the violation of their rights? But we all are eager to condemn Israel; not because we care for rights and lives of the Palestinians, we don’t. We condemn Israel because we hate “them".
Muslims love to live in the US but also love to hate it. Many openly claim that the US is a terrorist state but they continue to live in it. Their decision to live here is testimony that they would rather live here than anywhere else. As an Indian Muslim, I know for sure that nowhere on earth, including India, will I get the same sense of dignity and respect that I have received in the US. No Muslim country will treat me as well as the US has. If what happened on September 11th had happened in India, the biggest democracy, thousands of Muslims would have been slaughtered in riots on mere suspicion and there would be another slaughter after confirmation. But in the US, bigotry and xenophobia has been kept in check by media and leaders. In many places hundreds of Americans have gathered around Islamic centers in symbolic gestures of protection and embrace of American Muslims. In many cities Christian congregations have started wearing hijab to identify with fellow Muslim women. In patience and in tolerance ordinary Americans have demonstrated their extraordinary virtues.
It is time that we acknowledge that the freedoms we enjoy in the US are more desirable to us than superficial solidarity with the Muslim World. If you disagree than prove it by packing your bags and going to whichever Muslim country you identify with. If you do not leave and do not acknowledge that you would rather live here than anywhere else, know that you are being hypocritical.
It is time that we faced these hypocritical practices and struggled to transcend them. It is time that American Muslim leaders fought to purify their own lot.
For over a decade we have watched as Muslims in the name of Islam have committed violence against other Muslims and other peoples. We have always found a way to reconcile the vast distance between Islamic values and Muslim practices by pointing out to the injustices committed upon Muslims by others. The point however is this – our belief in Islam and commitment to Islamic values is not contingent on the moral conduct of the US or Israel. And as Muslims can we condone such inhuman and senseless waste of life in the name of Islam?
The biggest victims of hate filled politics as embodied in the actions of several Muslim militias all over the world are Muslims themselves. Hate is the extreme form of intolerance and when individuals and groups succumb to it they can do nothing constructive. Militias like the Taliban have allowed their hate for the West to override their obligation to pursue the welfare of their people and as a result of their actions not only have thousands of innocent people died in America, but thousands of people will die in the Muslim World.
Already, half a million Afghans have had to leave their homes and their country. The war has not yet begun. It will only get worst. Hamas and Islamic Jihad may kill a few Jews, women and children included, with their suicide bombs and temporarily satisfy their lust for Jewish blood, but thousands of Palestinians then pay the price for their actions.
The culture of hate and killing is tearing away at the moral fabric of the Muslim society. We are more focused on “the other” and have completely forgotten our duty to Allah. In pursuit of the inferior jihad we have sacrificed the superior jihad.
Islamic resurgence, the cherished ideals of which pursued the ultimate goal of a universally just and moral society has been hijacked by hate and call for murder and mayhem. If Bin Laden were an individual then we would have no problem. But unfortunately Bin Laden has become a phenomenon -- a cancer eating away at the morality of our youth, and undermining the spiritual health of our future.
Today the century old Islamic revival is in jeopardy because we have allowed insanity to prevail over our better judgment. Yes, the US has played a hand in the creation of Bin Laden and the Taliban, but it is we who have allowed them to grow and gain such a foothold. It is our duty to police our world. It is our responsibility to prevent people from abusing Islam. It is our job to ensure that Islam is not misrepresented. We should have made sure that what happened on Sept. 11th should never have happened.
It is time the leaders of the American Muslim community woke up and realized that there is more to life than competing with the American Jewish lobby for power over US foreign policy. Islam is not about defeating Jews or conquering Jerusalem. It is about mercy, about virtue, about sacrifice and about duty. Above all it is the pursuit of moral perfection. Nothing can be further away from moral perfection than the wanton slaughter of thousands of unsuspecting innocent people.
I hope that we will now rededicate our lives and our institutions to the search for harmony, peace and tolerance. Let us be prepared to suffer injustice rather than commit injustices. After all it is we who carry the divine burden of Islam and not others. We have to be morally better, more forgiving, more sacrificing than others, if we wish to convince the world about the truth of our message. We cannot even be equal to others in virtue, we must excel.
It is time for soul searching. How can the message of Muhammad (pbuh) who was sent as mercy to mankind become a source of horror and fear? How can Islam inspire thousands of youth to dedicate their lives to killing others? We are supposed to invite people to Islam not murder them.
The worst exhibition of Islam happened on our turf. We must take first responsibility to undo the evil it has manifest. This is our mandate, our burden and also our opportunity.
Memo to Americans
Memo to Americans
In the wake of the September 11 attacks, Americans are asking, why are some Muslims so angry at the US that they would perpetrate such an inhuman act? And how could Islam be a source of motivation or justification for such an act? Muqtedar Khan, Ph.D. offers some insights.
October 29th, 2001
Dear Americans,
I hope this memo finds you all well on the way to recovery. I pray that God, who is most merciful and most benevolent, will be with you every step of the way as you recover from the collective anguish and fear precipitated by the events of Sept 11. God promises in the Quran (2:286) that He does not burden a soul beyond its capacity to bear pain. He will keep his promise.
The catastrophic attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have raised several questions about Islam and militant Muslims. The chief among them are, why are some Muslims so angry at the US that they would perpetrate such an inhuman act? An even more puzzling question is how could Islam or any religion be a source of motivation or justification for such an act?
Before we answer the above questions, I want to thank all those wonderful Americans (specially President Bush) who came out to protect American Muslims, their mosques and their properties from a xenophobic backlash. I congratulate you for displaying such humanity and safeguarding the American way even under such adverse and challenging circumstances. May Allah reward you all and this nation for its restraint. As it is the American Muslim community feels beleagured, ostracized, marginalized and scared; those of you who came out in our support made a big difference.
Now I turn to the difficult task of making the events of Sept. 11th intelligible. I need your patience and your understanding to accomplish this. It is important to clarify that in spite of its gross inhumanity, the attack on America is certainly not the most egregious of crimes against humanity. The Spanish inquisition, the holocaust, the genocide in Bosnia, the systematic elimination of the native American population, the ethnic cleansings in Africa, and Cambodia, and even the atrocities against the Bosnians are in sheer number of casualties much bigger crimes. One may also recall that in India nearly 50,000 Sikhs were slaughtered in less than a week as revenge for the assassination of Indira Gandhi in early 1980s. The attack on American is significant because of its spectacular nature, its target – the world’s sole superpower – and the fact that a part of it was caught on tape.
Why are Muslims Angry at the US?
There are several theories being advanced by various commentators explaining why Muslims generally hate the United States. The silliest of them is the one that the Bush administration and the conservative elements in America entertain. They insist that Binladen and other Islamic militants hate America because they hate American values of freedom and democracy. Nothing can be further from the truth. Indeed most Muslims are great admirers of democracy and freedom and insist that these values are not only consistent with Islam but were the bedrock of the glorious Islamic civilization. They point to the diversity, tolerance and harmony at the peak of Islamic civilization to substantiate their claims.
As Islamic awareness increases in postcolonial Muslim societies and Islamic activists try to rebuild their civilization they find that the economically motivated alliance between secular authoritarian regimes in the Muslim world and the West, in particular the US, is the biggest barrier to freedom, democracy and self determination. Turkey, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait are just a few examples of states were non-democratic regimes thrive and repress popular movements with US support.
In 1953 a CIA coup replaced the democratic government of Muhammad Mossadeq in Iran with a monarchy so that Iran could become a client serving US interests in the Middle East. In Algeria the west financed and legitimized a military coup that prevented Islamists from coming to power after winning an election. In the 1960s, and again in 1990s Turkey forced Islamists out of power, even after they had won popular mandates, with the tacit support from the US. Even now all that American establishment can think of, as an alternate to the Taliban in Afghanistan is the reinstatement of a senile monarch, not the establishment of democracy.
The utter lack of peaceful channels for protest and dissent in the entire Arab world has slowly radicalized most moderate Islamic oppositions. The use of brutal force by secular regimes has further incited reactionary violence from Islamic militias. There is also a false notion circulating that Islam and democracy are incompatible. Today nearly 650 million Muslims live in democratic societies. As of now there are two Muslim nations with over a 100 million people that have women heads of state – Indonesia and Bangladesh. The US has not had one in over 220 years!
It is not a hatred of democracy and freedom but the desire for one that has made many Muslims hate the US whom they blame for the perpetuation of undemocratic polities in their world. Surely there are some Muslims who argue that democracy like everything Western is UnIslamic and evil. Fortunately such misguided people are few and have very little influence in the Muslim World.
Many Muslims also believe that the US is inherently opposed to Islam and Muslims. Binladen for one has claimed that by maintaining troops in Saudi Arabia (to protect the monarchy from any popular revolutions) the US actually occupies the two most important Muslim holy sites, Mecca and Medina. And through Israel, which is seen as an outpost of Western imperialism in the Arab world, the US occupies Jerusalem the third most holy Muslim city.
Add to this the systematic destruction of Iraq, the death of over half a million Iraqi children through US sponsored sanctions, and the daily atrocities, assassinations and dispossession of the Palestinians by a US armed and funded Israeli army, it is not difficult to imagine why US is not seen as a beacon of freedom and virtue in the Muslim World.
Does this mean that angry Muslims are allowed to perpetrate collateral damages that include over 5000 innocent Americans? Certainly not. The purpose of this article is not to condone what happened on September 11th. What happened was horrible, inhuman and unIslamic. But reflection over Muslim grievances can help us understand how even devout people can be driven to commit themselves to terror. Systematic repression dispossesses people of their humanity, inciting them to commit inhuman acts.
Americans must take these grievances seriously and address them in good faith and that, in my opinion, is the best way to fight resentment, anger and the resulting violence.
How Can Islam permit/incite terror?
Any observer of the Palestinian problem, who does not nurse malice towards Islam, will understand why many Palestinians would resort to suicide bombings against Israel. Surely, if we were to equip them with F-16s and Apache helicopters they would also fight fair and square with Israel. As far as killing of innocent civilians is concerned, the Israeli army kills many times more Palestinian children than the casualties caused by suicide bombers. Those are realities of the region. Islam however, is irrelevant to the Israeli-Palestine violence.
Distorted interpretations of Islam are used by Hamas and Islamic Jihad as a rhetorical instrument for mobilization of resistance and justification of their actions. Islam specifically forbids suicide (Quran 4:29) and the killing of civilians, women and children (Bukhari: Book of Jihad). The important point is that it is not the Islamic belief of Palestinians that leads them to suicide bombing but rather the logic of the circle of violence and the hatred many of them now nurse against their occupiers. Also remember that Japanese pilots in World War II and Tamil Elam Tigers (of Buddhist and Hindu religions) have used suicide bombing more often than Muslims. Long before Hamas emerged, a suicide bomber had assassinated Rajiv Gandhi, India’s Prime Minister.
Islam, according to Max Weber, Freidrich Nietzsche and Hegel is the most practical, rational and realistic of all religions. It is this realistic element in Islam that does not fully advocate pacifism, permitting the use of force. The theory of Jihad (Struggle in the path of God) forbids violence except when 1) Muslims are not allowed to practice their faith (freedom of religion is threatened) 2) when people are oppressed and subjugated (in pursuit of freedom) and 3) when people’s land is forcibly taken from them.
Islam allows a range of responses. One can forgive the oppressor or one can respond in kind. There are Quranic sources encouraging both positions.
And slay them wherever you find them, and drive them out of the places from where they drove you out, for persecution is worse than killing (2:191).
Tell those who disbelieve that if they cease persecution of believers that which is past will be forgiven them (8:38).
There is no hierarchy of verses in the Quran. Those who privilege the first verse over the second will wage war to fight injustice. And most militant Muslims invoke this verse in the defense of their actions. But then there are Muslims who privilege the second verse and seek diplomatic end to persecution through forgiveness. The two verses above are exemplary of the tension between realism and idealism in Islam. But in the final analysis Islam is what Muslims make of it.
While war in search of justice and to escape persecution is permissible in Islam, what happened on Sept. 11th certainly is not. I wonder how those Muslims responsible for the slaughter of American civilians would rationalize their actions in the light of this Quranic verse:
He who has killed one innocent soul, it is as if he has killed all humanity. And he who has saved one soul, is as if he has saved all humanity (Quran 5:32).
To my mind there is absolutely no justification and no way of rationalizing what happened on Sept. 11th. I am convinced that Islam does not shape the perpetrators’ values and their beliefs. Islam is a religion of peace and I pray that good Muslims (Quran 11:116) will rescue Islam from the clutches of those who use it for their political purposes.
Until Americans revisit their foreign policy practices and good Muslims challenge distorted interpretations of Islam consistently we may not come out of the circle of terror and counter-terror.
In the wake of the September 11 attacks, Americans are asking, why are some Muslims so angry at the US that they would perpetrate such an inhuman act? And how could Islam be a source of motivation or justification for such an act? Muqtedar Khan, Ph.D. offers some insights.
October 29th, 2001
Dear Americans,
I hope this memo finds you all well on the way to recovery. I pray that God, who is most merciful and most benevolent, will be with you every step of the way as you recover from the collective anguish and fear precipitated by the events of Sept 11. God promises in the Quran (2:286) that He does not burden a soul beyond its capacity to bear pain. He will keep his promise.
The catastrophic attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have raised several questions about Islam and militant Muslims. The chief among them are, why are some Muslims so angry at the US that they would perpetrate such an inhuman act? An even more puzzling question is how could Islam or any religion be a source of motivation or justification for such an act?
Before we answer the above questions, I want to thank all those wonderful Americans (specially President Bush) who came out to protect American Muslims, their mosques and their properties from a xenophobic backlash. I congratulate you for displaying such humanity and safeguarding the American way even under such adverse and challenging circumstances. May Allah reward you all and this nation for its restraint. As it is the American Muslim community feels beleagured, ostracized, marginalized and scared; those of you who came out in our support made a big difference.
Now I turn to the difficult task of making the events of Sept. 11th intelligible. I need your patience and your understanding to accomplish this. It is important to clarify that in spite of its gross inhumanity, the attack on America is certainly not the most egregious of crimes against humanity. The Spanish inquisition, the holocaust, the genocide in Bosnia, the systematic elimination of the native American population, the ethnic cleansings in Africa, and Cambodia, and even the atrocities against the Bosnians are in sheer number of casualties much bigger crimes. One may also recall that in India nearly 50,000 Sikhs were slaughtered in less than a week as revenge for the assassination of Indira Gandhi in early 1980s. The attack on American is significant because of its spectacular nature, its target – the world’s sole superpower – and the fact that a part of it was caught on tape.
Why are Muslims Angry at the US?
There are several theories being advanced by various commentators explaining why Muslims generally hate the United States. The silliest of them is the one that the Bush administration and the conservative elements in America entertain. They insist that Binladen and other Islamic militants hate America because they hate American values of freedom and democracy. Nothing can be further from the truth. Indeed most Muslims are great admirers of democracy and freedom and insist that these values are not only consistent with Islam but were the bedrock of the glorious Islamic civilization. They point to the diversity, tolerance and harmony at the peak of Islamic civilization to substantiate their claims.
As Islamic awareness increases in postcolonial Muslim societies and Islamic activists try to rebuild their civilization they find that the economically motivated alliance between secular authoritarian regimes in the Muslim world and the West, in particular the US, is the biggest barrier to freedom, democracy and self determination. Turkey, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait are just a few examples of states were non-democratic regimes thrive and repress popular movements with US support.
In 1953 a CIA coup replaced the democratic government of Muhammad Mossadeq in Iran with a monarchy so that Iran could become a client serving US interests in the Middle East. In Algeria the west financed and legitimized a military coup that prevented Islamists from coming to power after winning an election. In the 1960s, and again in 1990s Turkey forced Islamists out of power, even after they had won popular mandates, with the tacit support from the US. Even now all that American establishment can think of, as an alternate to the Taliban in Afghanistan is the reinstatement of a senile monarch, not the establishment of democracy.
The utter lack of peaceful channels for protest and dissent in the entire Arab world has slowly radicalized most moderate Islamic oppositions. The use of brutal force by secular regimes has further incited reactionary violence from Islamic militias. There is also a false notion circulating that Islam and democracy are incompatible. Today nearly 650 million Muslims live in democratic societies. As of now there are two Muslim nations with over a 100 million people that have women heads of state – Indonesia and Bangladesh. The US has not had one in over 220 years!
It is not a hatred of democracy and freedom but the desire for one that has made many Muslims hate the US whom they blame for the perpetuation of undemocratic polities in their world. Surely there are some Muslims who argue that democracy like everything Western is UnIslamic and evil. Fortunately such misguided people are few and have very little influence in the Muslim World.
Many Muslims also believe that the US is inherently opposed to Islam and Muslims. Binladen for one has claimed that by maintaining troops in Saudi Arabia (to protect the monarchy from any popular revolutions) the US actually occupies the two most important Muslim holy sites, Mecca and Medina. And through Israel, which is seen as an outpost of Western imperialism in the Arab world, the US occupies Jerusalem the third most holy Muslim city.
Add to this the systematic destruction of Iraq, the death of over half a million Iraqi children through US sponsored sanctions, and the daily atrocities, assassinations and dispossession of the Palestinians by a US armed and funded Israeli army, it is not difficult to imagine why US is not seen as a beacon of freedom and virtue in the Muslim World.
Does this mean that angry Muslims are allowed to perpetrate collateral damages that include over 5000 innocent Americans? Certainly not. The purpose of this article is not to condone what happened on September 11th. What happened was horrible, inhuman and unIslamic. But reflection over Muslim grievances can help us understand how even devout people can be driven to commit themselves to terror. Systematic repression dispossesses people of their humanity, inciting them to commit inhuman acts.
Americans must take these grievances seriously and address them in good faith and that, in my opinion, is the best way to fight resentment, anger and the resulting violence.
How Can Islam permit/incite terror?
Any observer of the Palestinian problem, who does not nurse malice towards Islam, will understand why many Palestinians would resort to suicide bombings against Israel. Surely, if we were to equip them with F-16s and Apache helicopters they would also fight fair and square with Israel. As far as killing of innocent civilians is concerned, the Israeli army kills many times more Palestinian children than the casualties caused by suicide bombers. Those are realities of the region. Islam however, is irrelevant to the Israeli-Palestine violence.
Distorted interpretations of Islam are used by Hamas and Islamic Jihad as a rhetorical instrument for mobilization of resistance and justification of their actions. Islam specifically forbids suicide (Quran 4:29) and the killing of civilians, women and children (Bukhari: Book of Jihad). The important point is that it is not the Islamic belief of Palestinians that leads them to suicide bombing but rather the logic of the circle of violence and the hatred many of them now nurse against their occupiers. Also remember that Japanese pilots in World War II and Tamil Elam Tigers (of Buddhist and Hindu religions) have used suicide bombing more often than Muslims. Long before Hamas emerged, a suicide bomber had assassinated Rajiv Gandhi, India’s Prime Minister.
Islam, according to Max Weber, Freidrich Nietzsche and Hegel is the most practical, rational and realistic of all religions. It is this realistic element in Islam that does not fully advocate pacifism, permitting the use of force. The theory of Jihad (Struggle in the path of God) forbids violence except when 1) Muslims are not allowed to practice their faith (freedom of religion is threatened) 2) when people are oppressed and subjugated (in pursuit of freedom) and 3) when people’s land is forcibly taken from them.
Islam allows a range of responses. One can forgive the oppressor or one can respond in kind. There are Quranic sources encouraging both positions.
And slay them wherever you find them, and drive them out of the places from where they drove you out, for persecution is worse than killing (2:191).
Tell those who disbelieve that if they cease persecution of believers that which is past will be forgiven them (8:38).
There is no hierarchy of verses in the Quran. Those who privilege the first verse over the second will wage war to fight injustice. And most militant Muslims invoke this verse in the defense of their actions. But then there are Muslims who privilege the second verse and seek diplomatic end to persecution through forgiveness. The two verses above are exemplary of the tension between realism and idealism in Islam. But in the final analysis Islam is what Muslims make of it.
While war in search of justice and to escape persecution is permissible in Islam, what happened on Sept. 11th certainly is not. I wonder how those Muslims responsible for the slaughter of American civilians would rationalize their actions in the light of this Quranic verse:
He who has killed one innocent soul, it is as if he has killed all humanity. And he who has saved one soul, is as if he has saved all humanity (Quran 5:32).
To my mind there is absolutely no justification and no way of rationalizing what happened on Sept. 11th. I am convinced that Islam does not shape the perpetrators’ values and their beliefs. Islam is a religion of peace and I pray that good Muslims (Quran 11:116) will rescue Islam from the clutches of those who use it for their political purposes.
Until Americans revisit their foreign policy practices and good Muslims challenge distorted interpretations of Islam consistently we may not come out of the circle of terror and counter-terror.
Muslims Must Develop an Intolerance for Intolerance
Muslims Must Develop an Intolerance for Intolerance
We made you a nation of moderation and justice (Quran; 2:143)
To advocate what is right and forbid what is wrong (Quran, 3:110).
In the aftermath of Sept. 11th, ordinary Americans displayed an extraordinary resolve to preempt any backlash against American Muslims. President Bush described those who commit acts of bigotry as those who are from among the worst of people. American leaders at all levels took special measures to ensure that the lives, the mosques and the properties of Muslims were safe. Under extremely testing circumstances, the American people displayed a remarkable commitment to tolerance and intolerance for bigotry. In this display of respect for diversity, Muslims need to catch up with the Americans.
As moderate Muslims struggle with extremists like bin Laden and the Taliban to interpret and represent Islam, they must adopt a policy of containment towards anyone and everyone who seeks to advocate hatred towards any community. Moderate Muslims must not hesitate to confront those who make bigoted comments.
One of the biggest challenges that American Muslims face is the demonization of Islam. American Muslims often accuse American media and Hollywood of taking isolated cases of Muslim extremism as a pretext to label all Muslims as extremists. We demand that American media and policy makers stop painting with a wide brush and treat individual Muslims, each Muslim group, and every Muslim country on its merit. In the past few weeks, Americans have demonstrated that they have become sensitive to this and one can clearly discern a new sensitivity in the way Islam is treated and how Muslims are portrayed.
Muslims too must reciprocate. While many Muslims acknowledge the support and sensitivity of most Americans, some Muslims continue to embarrass everyone with the narrowness of their vision and the crudeness of their sentiments.
Sheik Muhammad Al-Gamei'a, the former Imam of the Islamic Cultural Center of New York, in one sentence called all Muslims stupid and all Jews as best equipped for terror. He said, “Muslims just aren't smart enough to carry something like that off [Sept. 11 attacks], only the Jews are capable of planning such an incident.”
Another Imam is said to have made disparaging remarks about Jews a few years ago; a videotape of which was recently played on local TV. He has since apologized and expressed horror at his own words. And for that he deserves to be applauded.
But statements such as these make Muslims look irrational, hateful and purveyors of conspiracy theories. When such statements are made by Islamic scholars, who hold or have held important religious positions, it not only gives Islam a bad name but also raises the question, what have these scholars been teaching their congregations?
In pluralist societies, where different ethnic, racial and religious communities live in close embrace, such bigots must not be allowed to hold influential positions.
Bigotry is a sign of ignorance and lack of ethical sensitivity. It is extremely disturbing that some Muslim scholars and Imams are displaying this anti-social trait. It is time moderate Muslims rebelled against the tyranny of intolerance in some Muslim pockets. Wasn’t there anybody in the congregations of these two mosques who would dare to stand up and tell these Imams that such sentiments have no place in the Muslim as well as the American milieu?
Sept. 11 will have a devastating impact on the future of the Islamic community. While most Americans are being extremely tolerant towards Muslims, they are also becoming more vigilant. There will be closer scrutiny of individual Muslim leaders, Muslim organizations and Muslim activities in America. The near future will be a very testing period for the American Muslim community. They will not only have to prove their loyalty to America but also their innocence.
American Muslims are in a unique position today. They know and understand the Muslim world and they know and understand the US as well. They can constitute a bridge of understanding, dialogue and peace between America and the Muslim world. The Muslim world is their origin and America is their destiny. If they do not serve as harbingers of harmony and the promoters of peace between the two, they will be betraying their past as well as their future.
To play this central role, American Muslims must not allow themselves to be marginalized either in American politics or in the Muslim world’s public sphere. If American Muslims wish their voices to be heard in America, and their advice respected and followed, the first thing they have to develop ASAP, is an extreme intolerance for intolerance and extremists.
We cannot ask the nuts to bolt their traps; censorship is neither Islamic nor the American way. But when bigots speak up, moderate and responsible voices in the American Muslim community must immediately condemn them. Let them know that those who espouse intolerance will never be our heroes.
American Muslims must avoid the impulse to blame the US (or Jews or Hindus) for all Muslim miseries. We must develop a balanced attitude towards the US. We must be critical of the US but also self-critical. We must be always willing to express our disagreements with US policies but we must also not be stingy in expressing our solidarity with the US. We must condemn all efforts, in the media or by the government that seek to profile Muslims. But simultaneously we must also be ready to condemn those who defile the old glory.
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) spent the first 40 years of his life speaking the truth and became famous as Al-Amin (the truthful) before he started preaching the Truth. Muslims must follow in his path and start condemning intolerance within, even as we demand tolerance from without.
We made you a nation of moderation and justice (Quran; 2:143)
To advocate what is right and forbid what is wrong (Quran, 3:110).
In the aftermath of Sept. 11th, ordinary Americans displayed an extraordinary resolve to preempt any backlash against American Muslims. President Bush described those who commit acts of bigotry as those who are from among the worst of people. American leaders at all levels took special measures to ensure that the lives, the mosques and the properties of Muslims were safe. Under extremely testing circumstances, the American people displayed a remarkable commitment to tolerance and intolerance for bigotry. In this display of respect for diversity, Muslims need to catch up with the Americans.
As moderate Muslims struggle with extremists like bin Laden and the Taliban to interpret and represent Islam, they must adopt a policy of containment towards anyone and everyone who seeks to advocate hatred towards any community. Moderate Muslims must not hesitate to confront those who make bigoted comments.
One of the biggest challenges that American Muslims face is the demonization of Islam. American Muslims often accuse American media and Hollywood of taking isolated cases of Muslim extremism as a pretext to label all Muslims as extremists. We demand that American media and policy makers stop painting with a wide brush and treat individual Muslims, each Muslim group, and every Muslim country on its merit. In the past few weeks, Americans have demonstrated that they have become sensitive to this and one can clearly discern a new sensitivity in the way Islam is treated and how Muslims are portrayed.
Muslims too must reciprocate. While many Muslims acknowledge the support and sensitivity of most Americans, some Muslims continue to embarrass everyone with the narrowness of their vision and the crudeness of their sentiments.
Sheik Muhammad Al-Gamei'a, the former Imam of the Islamic Cultural Center of New York, in one sentence called all Muslims stupid and all Jews as best equipped for terror. He said, “Muslims just aren't smart enough to carry something like that off [Sept. 11 attacks], only the Jews are capable of planning such an incident.”
Another Imam is said to have made disparaging remarks about Jews a few years ago; a videotape of which was recently played on local TV. He has since apologized and expressed horror at his own words. And for that he deserves to be applauded.
But statements such as these make Muslims look irrational, hateful and purveyors of conspiracy theories. When such statements are made by Islamic scholars, who hold or have held important religious positions, it not only gives Islam a bad name but also raises the question, what have these scholars been teaching their congregations?
In pluralist societies, where different ethnic, racial and religious communities live in close embrace, such bigots must not be allowed to hold influential positions.
Bigotry is a sign of ignorance and lack of ethical sensitivity. It is extremely disturbing that some Muslim scholars and Imams are displaying this anti-social trait. It is time moderate Muslims rebelled against the tyranny of intolerance in some Muslim pockets. Wasn’t there anybody in the congregations of these two mosques who would dare to stand up and tell these Imams that such sentiments have no place in the Muslim as well as the American milieu?
Sept. 11 will have a devastating impact on the future of the Islamic community. While most Americans are being extremely tolerant towards Muslims, they are also becoming more vigilant. There will be closer scrutiny of individual Muslim leaders, Muslim organizations and Muslim activities in America. The near future will be a very testing period for the American Muslim community. They will not only have to prove their loyalty to America but also their innocence.
American Muslims are in a unique position today. They know and understand the Muslim world and they know and understand the US as well. They can constitute a bridge of understanding, dialogue and peace between America and the Muslim world. The Muslim world is their origin and America is their destiny. If they do not serve as harbingers of harmony and the promoters of peace between the two, they will be betraying their past as well as their future.
To play this central role, American Muslims must not allow themselves to be marginalized either in American politics or in the Muslim world’s public sphere. If American Muslims wish their voices to be heard in America, and their advice respected and followed, the first thing they have to develop ASAP, is an extreme intolerance for intolerance and extremists.
We cannot ask the nuts to bolt their traps; censorship is neither Islamic nor the American way. But when bigots speak up, moderate and responsible voices in the American Muslim community must immediately condemn them. Let them know that those who espouse intolerance will never be our heroes.
American Muslims must avoid the impulse to blame the US (or Jews or Hindus) for all Muslim miseries. We must develop a balanced attitude towards the US. We must be critical of the US but also self-critical. We must be always willing to express our disagreements with US policies but we must also not be stingy in expressing our solidarity with the US. We must condemn all efforts, in the media or by the government that seek to profile Muslims. But simultaneously we must also be ready to condemn those who defile the old glory.
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) spent the first 40 years of his life speaking the truth and became famous as Al-Amin (the truthful) before he started preaching the Truth. Muslims must follow in his path and start condemning intolerance within, even as we demand tolerance from without.
Immigrant American Muslims and the Moral Dilemmas of Citizenship
Immigrant American Muslims and the Moral Dilemmas of Citizenship
America’s prosperity and freedom attract them and, once they are here, its policies and its attitudes toward Muslims and Islam alienate them... They love to live in America, while many of them love to hate America.
By M.A. Muqtedar Khan Ph.D.
The demonization of Islam in mainstream American media compels Muslims to become sensitive about their identity. All their activities are motivated by this identity and geared toward defending their faith from a perceived American assault. They rarely, if ever, get opportunities to live as American citizens endeavoring to maximize liberty, equality and prosperity.
Similarly the negative image of America in the eyes of most Muslims, a consequence of its foreign policy in the Middle East, elicits paradoxical responses from American Muslims. America’s prosperity and freedom attract them and, once they are here, its policies and its attitudes toward Muslims and Islam alienate them. Becoming American citizens presents an unusual moral dilemma for American Muslims. They love to live in America, while many of them love to hate America.
I once asked the president of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) at one of his talks in Washington, DC to spell out the obligations of naturalized Muslim citizens to their new country—America—keeping in mind the Qur’anic injunction (Qur’an; 9:4) that promises made must be kept (pacta sund servanda). While asserting that he was not an Islamic scholar and therefore unqualified to give an authoritative answer, the president of ICNA proceeded to give an interesting reply.
He said that, in the opinion of many scholars whom he had consulted, becoming a citizen should be understood as signing a treaty between a Muslim individual and the United States. Therefore all Muslims who make this compact with the U.S. are obliged to fulfill their obligations as proper citizens, obey the law, pay taxes and so on. He also recommended that since the U.S. has offered the option to decline military draft to new citizens, Muslims could take this option to save themselves moral dilemmas if called to fight against Muslim states. If for some reason, he said, Muslims do not like the society of the United States they must terminate their treaty and leave.
However, he added, “of course Muslims are not obliged to obey laws and policies which are specifically against Islamic beliefs.” He also recognized the opportunity for dissent and change that the U.S. constitution provides its citizens and recommended that Muslims avail themselves of this opportunity.
To most Muslims in the audience, the answer seemed rational, sensible, and even enlightened. Nevertheless, I am personally not very satisfied with his analysis. When Muslims become naturalized citizens they do not inform the U.S. government that their acceptance of U.S. citizenship is conditional. They do not make it clear to the U.S. that they will remain good citizens as long as no explicitly anti-Islamic law or policy is legislated or implemented.
Many Muslims see Islam and the U.S. in a state of conflict.
I am sure that the U.S. government would not agree to any such conditions, since after all it is the Muslim individual who is seeking association (citizenship) and not vice versa. Thus many Muslims who see Islam and the U.S. in a state of conflict have enormous problems in beginning to think of themselves as American Muslims.
They want the prosperity and the freedom of America, but not its foreign policy or its liberal culture. And Muslim leaders who oppose political assimilation without opposing naturalization inadvertently place Muslims in a morally delicate situation.
There are no simple solutions to this moral dilemma. It will have to be resolved at the theological level. Changes in American attitudes and policies toward Islam and Muslims will also be helpful in this transition to citizenship within the mind of each American Muslim. The theological discussion will have to take American Muslims beyond the dar-ul-Islam (house of peace) and dar-ul-harb (house of war) dichotomy.
The disappearance of the institution of the Caliphate, the emergence of many Muslim states—articulated as Islamic (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, Afghanistan) or as secular democracies (Turkey, Egypt, Malaysia, Indonesia)—and the rapid globalization of the nation-state as a result of decolonization have allowed many new terms to be invented within Muslim discourses on international relations.
These are words like dar-ul-aman (house of order) and dar-ul-kufr (house of unbelief). The term dar-ul-aman emerged in the context of Muslim politics in India.
The Case of India
India, which is a secular democracy and allows Muslims complete freedom to practice their religion and live by Islamic shariah (law), cannot be labelled dar-ul-harb since it is not hostile to Islam. Since it does not have any specific treaties with obligations to Muslims it does not qualify as dar-ul-sulh (house of treaty) or dar-ul-ahad. So, increasingly, Muslims have begun to refer to India and such countries as dar-ul-aman, house of order, where there is peace and tolerance and freedom of religion. But this term has been restricted to India in its use, perhaps because of its subcontinental origins.
Dar-ul-kufr is a state or territory which is predominantly non-Muslim but which neither has a treaty with Muslims nor is at war with them. The West has often been referred to as dar-ul-sulh , and by some as dar-ul-kufr depending upon political contingencies.
Those groups who wish to emphasize conflict between Islam and the West choose to describe the West as dar-ul-kufr, and those who choose to emphasize the peaceful and cooperative relations between Islam and the West call it dar-ul-sulh. These terms are also used in similar political discourses with respect to America.
Many American Muslims, particularly the African-American Muslims, are proud to be American citizens. They are indigenous to America and Islam has given them the dignity and self-esteem to make their lives meaningful, even as they struggle against racial discrimination.
Immigrant Muslims who share their sentiments are grateful for the opportunity that America has given them to prosper and practice their faith. They believe that America is dar-ul-sulh and that America, in many of its practices, is much more Islamic than many contemporary Muslim states.
Some immigrants, however, are of the opinion that since this is a country where Islamic shariah is not applied, it is dar-ul-kufr, the house of unbelief. In my opinion this position is held by a minority of Muslims (from both indigenous and immigrant Muslims), but this minority is more active in Muslim politics and has a disproportionate impact on the American Muslim discourses.
America’s prosperity and freedom attract them and, once they are here, its policies and its attitudes toward Muslims and Islam alienate them... They love to live in America, while many of them love to hate America.
By M.A. Muqtedar Khan Ph.D.
The demonization of Islam in mainstream American media compels Muslims to become sensitive about their identity. All their activities are motivated by this identity and geared toward defending their faith from a perceived American assault. They rarely, if ever, get opportunities to live as American citizens endeavoring to maximize liberty, equality and prosperity.
Similarly the negative image of America in the eyes of most Muslims, a consequence of its foreign policy in the Middle East, elicits paradoxical responses from American Muslims. America’s prosperity and freedom attract them and, once they are here, its policies and its attitudes toward Muslims and Islam alienate them. Becoming American citizens presents an unusual moral dilemma for American Muslims. They love to live in America, while many of them love to hate America.
I once asked the president of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) at one of his talks in Washington, DC to spell out the obligations of naturalized Muslim citizens to their new country—America—keeping in mind the Qur’anic injunction (Qur’an; 9:4) that promises made must be kept (pacta sund servanda). While asserting that he was not an Islamic scholar and therefore unqualified to give an authoritative answer, the president of ICNA proceeded to give an interesting reply.
He said that, in the opinion of many scholars whom he had consulted, becoming a citizen should be understood as signing a treaty between a Muslim individual and the United States. Therefore all Muslims who make this compact with the U.S. are obliged to fulfill their obligations as proper citizens, obey the law, pay taxes and so on. He also recommended that since the U.S. has offered the option to decline military draft to new citizens, Muslims could take this option to save themselves moral dilemmas if called to fight against Muslim states. If for some reason, he said, Muslims do not like the society of the United States they must terminate their treaty and leave.
However, he added, “of course Muslims are not obliged to obey laws and policies which are specifically against Islamic beliefs.” He also recognized the opportunity for dissent and change that the U.S. constitution provides its citizens and recommended that Muslims avail themselves of this opportunity.
To most Muslims in the audience, the answer seemed rational, sensible, and even enlightened. Nevertheless, I am personally not very satisfied with his analysis. When Muslims become naturalized citizens they do not inform the U.S. government that their acceptance of U.S. citizenship is conditional. They do not make it clear to the U.S. that they will remain good citizens as long as no explicitly anti-Islamic law or policy is legislated or implemented.
Many Muslims see Islam and the U.S. in a state of conflict.
I am sure that the U.S. government would not agree to any such conditions, since after all it is the Muslim individual who is seeking association (citizenship) and not vice versa. Thus many Muslims who see Islam and the U.S. in a state of conflict have enormous problems in beginning to think of themselves as American Muslims.
They want the prosperity and the freedom of America, but not its foreign policy or its liberal culture. And Muslim leaders who oppose political assimilation without opposing naturalization inadvertently place Muslims in a morally delicate situation.
There are no simple solutions to this moral dilemma. It will have to be resolved at the theological level. Changes in American attitudes and policies toward Islam and Muslims will also be helpful in this transition to citizenship within the mind of each American Muslim. The theological discussion will have to take American Muslims beyond the dar-ul-Islam (house of peace) and dar-ul-harb (house of war) dichotomy.
The disappearance of the institution of the Caliphate, the emergence of many Muslim states—articulated as Islamic (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, Afghanistan) or as secular democracies (Turkey, Egypt, Malaysia, Indonesia)—and the rapid globalization of the nation-state as a result of decolonization have allowed many new terms to be invented within Muslim discourses on international relations.
These are words like dar-ul-aman (house of order) and dar-ul-kufr (house of unbelief). The term dar-ul-aman emerged in the context of Muslim politics in India.
The Case of India
India, which is a secular democracy and allows Muslims complete freedom to practice their religion and live by Islamic shariah (law), cannot be labelled dar-ul-harb since it is not hostile to Islam. Since it does not have any specific treaties with obligations to Muslims it does not qualify as dar-ul-sulh (house of treaty) or dar-ul-ahad. So, increasingly, Muslims have begun to refer to India and such countries as dar-ul-aman, house of order, where there is peace and tolerance and freedom of religion. But this term has been restricted to India in its use, perhaps because of its subcontinental origins.
Dar-ul-kufr is a state or territory which is predominantly non-Muslim but which neither has a treaty with Muslims nor is at war with them. The West has often been referred to as dar-ul-sulh , and by some as dar-ul-kufr depending upon political contingencies.
Those groups who wish to emphasize conflict between Islam and the West choose to describe the West as dar-ul-kufr, and those who choose to emphasize the peaceful and cooperative relations between Islam and the West call it dar-ul-sulh. These terms are also used in similar political discourses with respect to America.
Many American Muslims, particularly the African-American Muslims, are proud to be American citizens. They are indigenous to America and Islam has given them the dignity and self-esteem to make their lives meaningful, even as they struggle against racial discrimination.
Immigrant Muslims who share their sentiments are grateful for the opportunity that America has given them to prosper and practice their faith. They believe that America is dar-ul-sulh and that America, in many of its practices, is much more Islamic than many contemporary Muslim states.
Some immigrants, however, are of the opinion that since this is a country where Islamic shariah is not applied, it is dar-ul-kufr, the house of unbelief. In my opinion this position is held by a minority of Muslims (from both indigenous and immigrant Muslims), but this minority is more active in Muslim politics and has a disproportionate impact on the American Muslim discourses.
Bye Bye, Bill of Rights!
Bye Bye, Bill of Rights!
Dr. Muqtedar Khan examines how the Washington is curtailing civil rights in the United States.
The US constitution was framed with the explicit purpose of strengthening the Federal government in order to protect among other things the integrity of the Union. But in the debates that ensued before the ratification of the new constitution, the anti-federalists pressed for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in order to protect individuals and states from the leviathan that would emerge from the new constitution. But we all know the sacred history of the American constitution -- the social contract par excellence -- and we do not need a Johnny come lately like me to remind us of this. Or do we?
Since Sept. 11th, the two nations most affected by it, America and Afghanistan, have been rapidly hurtling in the opposite direction on the highway of freedom. With each passing day, with every victory for the US and its allies, Afghanistan is becoming more and more of a free state.
Some of the new legal measures taken to preempt further attacks on America are unfortunately clipping away at the Bill of Rights. Every new legal measure seems to raise a new civil rights concern. In the following section I shall examine how the new measures affect the Bill of Rights.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The new terrorism bill not only allows law enforcement officers to secretly search homes and offices of people (with the collusion of judges), it also permits federal agencies to hold people without charges for seven days. These new provisions nullify each and every safeguard in article four.
Amendment V
No person shall …. . be deprived of life, liberty … without due process of law.
The executive order that allows the government to try and punish suspects using military style tribunals – a legal term for kangaroo courts -- and even execute them using very low standards of evidence is an assault on an important clause of the fifth amendment.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury … and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him;
The terrorism act of 1996 had permitted the use of “secret” evidence to prosecute and deport terrorists. The idea of secrecy was incorporated in that law to safeguard the intelligence sources of the evidence, such as a mole in a terrorist cell. But in the few cases it was used, almost all judges threw the cases out after perusing the evidence as insufficient. FBI and INS were using the term “secret,” in secret evidence as a substitute for evidence itself. The case of Mazen Najjar, a Palestinian from Florida who was detained for three years from 1997-2000 and then set free when a judge ordered his release after finding no evidence against him, adequately illustrates how this law could and was abused. The secret evidence act that still remains in the law books and is being used by the present administration violates many of the provisions of the sixth amendment.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The American constitution does not safeguard the rights of citizens alone. It also safeguards the rights of all those who are subjects of US laws, i.e. those who reside within the territorial borders of the US. The tendency of the new administration and the new terrorism bill to differentiate between citizens and non-citizens with regards to civil liberties is a gross violation of the ninth amendment, which in my opinion protects the unenumerated rights of permanent residents and legal as well as illegal aliens.
Perhaps my fears are exaggerated. But believe me there is no exaggeration here when I say that we are rapidly slipping down the scale of liberty and freedom.
Dr. Muqtedar Khan examines how the Washington is curtailing civil rights in the United States.
The US constitution was framed with the explicit purpose of strengthening the Federal government in order to protect among other things the integrity of the Union. But in the debates that ensued before the ratification of the new constitution, the anti-federalists pressed for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in order to protect individuals and states from the leviathan that would emerge from the new constitution. But we all know the sacred history of the American constitution -- the social contract par excellence -- and we do not need a Johnny come lately like me to remind us of this. Or do we?
Since Sept. 11th, the two nations most affected by it, America and Afghanistan, have been rapidly hurtling in the opposite direction on the highway of freedom. With each passing day, with every victory for the US and its allies, Afghanistan is becoming more and more of a free state.
Some of the new legal measures taken to preempt further attacks on America are unfortunately clipping away at the Bill of Rights. Every new legal measure seems to raise a new civil rights concern. In the following section I shall examine how the new measures affect the Bill of Rights.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The new terrorism bill not only allows law enforcement officers to secretly search homes and offices of people (with the collusion of judges), it also permits federal agencies to hold people without charges for seven days. These new provisions nullify each and every safeguard in article four.
Amendment V
No person shall …. . be deprived of life, liberty … without due process of law.
The executive order that allows the government to try and punish suspects using military style tribunals – a legal term for kangaroo courts -- and even execute them using very low standards of evidence is an assault on an important clause of the fifth amendment.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury … and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him;
The terrorism act of 1996 had permitted the use of “secret” evidence to prosecute and deport terrorists. The idea of secrecy was incorporated in that law to safeguard the intelligence sources of the evidence, such as a mole in a terrorist cell. But in the few cases it was used, almost all judges threw the cases out after perusing the evidence as insufficient. FBI and INS were using the term “secret,” in secret evidence as a substitute for evidence itself. The case of Mazen Najjar, a Palestinian from Florida who was detained for three years from 1997-2000 and then set free when a judge ordered his release after finding no evidence against him, adequately illustrates how this law could and was abused. The secret evidence act that still remains in the law books and is being used by the present administration violates many of the provisions of the sixth amendment.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The American constitution does not safeguard the rights of citizens alone. It also safeguards the rights of all those who are subjects of US laws, i.e. those who reside within the territorial borders of the US. The tendency of the new administration and the new terrorism bill to differentiate between citizens and non-citizens with regards to civil liberties is a gross violation of the ninth amendment, which in my opinion protects the unenumerated rights of permanent residents and legal as well as illegal aliens.
Perhaps my fears are exaggerated. But believe me there is no exaggeration here when I say that we are rapidly slipping down the scale of liberty and freedom.
The Islamic State and Religious Minorities
The Islamic State and Religious Minorities
The Taliban are gone but they have left us with several serious questions about the future of religious minorities in Islamic states in particular and religious states in general.
By Muqtedar Khan, Ph.D.
Today there are at least three major conceptions of religious states – Jewish, Islamic and Hindu. Israel strongly identifies itself as a Jewish state; Nepal is a Hindu state and India under the growing influence of Hindu Nationalism is toying with the idea of Ram Rajya – Hindu statehood. Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Sudan and Afghanistan under Taliban claimed to be Islamic states.
Religious states face a significant challenge from diversity. They seek to advance and establish a specific normative social agenda. In order for these states to be successful it is important that the population share the ideological beliefs of those who hold power. The presence of diversity and difference of opinion between the populace makes it necessary for the state to privilege one element of the citizenry over others thereby institutionalizing discrimination and intolerance.
The Challenge of Diversity
Islamic states inevitably treat non-Muslim citizens as less than equal curbing their access to power and religious freedom. Even in Israel, which is a democracy, religious minorities face discrimination. In 1976 when Israel captured Jerusalem, 28% of its population was Christian and now only 2% of Jerusalem’s inhabitants are Christians. Christians may become extinct in their own holy city and the primary reason for this is the religious importance of Jerusalem to Jewish state. This is a sobering example of how in spite of democracy a religious state can marginalize religious minorities.
Malaysia is an example where religious ideology and democracy mix very well. Malaysia is 65% Muslim and strongly identifies itself as an Islamic state. It is a very active member of OIC (Organization of Islamic Conferences). In spite of its Islamic identity, Malaysian Muslims share power and wealth with Christians, Buddhists and Hindus who are all equal citizens of the country and have equal rights and duties.
But religious minorities in some Islamic states, such as Afghanistan under the Taliban, suffer institutionalized discrimination because of these states’ legalist orientation and their obsession with the Islamic jurisprudence. Some of the legalist positions in Islamic states are so strict that non-Muslim minorities find it a challenge to live normal lives. Blasphemy laws and apostasy laws are well known for the problems they cause minorities. Narrow interpretation of the role of women in Islamic societies has also restricted the scope of possibilities for non-Muslim women.
The Objectives of an Islamic Society
The Maqasid al Shariah (the objective of the Islamic law/way) are falah (welfare) and hayat-e-tayyabah (good life) for the members of the community. But when contemporary Islamists operationalize this divine vision of the Islamic state, they define the Islamic state as that which implements the Islamic law. Islamic law is divine in its origin, and since God does not need the consent of his creation, Contemporary Islamists insist on imposing Islamic law even without consent. Due to colonization, and prior to it, due to the decline of Islamic intelligentsia, Islamic legal tradition remains fossilized and is still struck in the middle ages. Islamic state therefore becomes a reduced to a coercive institution seeking to enforce a system of laws that were deduced from Islamic sources several centuries ago.
The irony of this reality is that in seeking to impose Islamic law and create an Islamic state, Islamists are actually in direct opposition to the spirit and letter of the Quran. The Quran is very explicit when it says “there is no compulsion in religion,” (Quran 2: 256). Elsewhere the Quran exhorts Jews to live by the laws revealed to them in the Torah. In fact The Quran expresses surprise that some Jews sought the arbitration of the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him) rather than their own legal tradition (5:43). The Quran also orders Christians to live by their faith; “So let the people of the Gospel judge by that which Allah has revealed therein, for he who judges not by that which Allah has revealed is a sinner,” (Quran 5:47). From these verses it is abundantly clear that an Islamic state must advocate religious pluralism even to the extent of permitting multiple legal systems.
Democratic polities are much better at dealing with minorities who do not subscribe to state ideology because they are based on constitutional guarantees of human rights conceived at the level of the individual – the smallest minority. In a sense on some issues, such as the bill of rights in the American system – the individual over rules even the majority opinion. Contemporary Islamic states have yet to develop a legal framework that ensures that there is no compulsion in religion and no discrimination against religious minorities even though the above-identified sources provide a clear Quranic foundation for guaranteeing religious freedom beyond even the scope of the American bill of rights.
Lessons from Medina
Unlike the present day Islamists, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), when he established the first Islamic state in Medina – actually a Jewish-Muslim federation extended to religious minorities the rights that are guaranteed to them in the Quran. Prophet Muhammad’s Medina was based on the covenant of Medina, a real and actual social contract agreed upon by Muslims, Jews and others that treated them as equal citizens of Medina. They enjoyed the freedom to choose the legal system they wished to live under. Jews could live under Islamic law, or Jewish law or pre-Islamic Arab tribal traditions. There was no compulsion in religion even though Medina was an Islamic state. The difference between Medina and today’s Islamic states is profound. The state of Medina was based on a real social contract that applied divine law but only in consultation and with consent of all citizens regardless of their faith. But contemporary Islamic states apply Islamic law without consent or consultation and often through coercion.
It is a sad commentary on contemporary Islamists that while democracy is a challenge to contemporary Islamic states, it was constitutive to the first Islamic state in Medina established by the Prophet of Islam.
The Taliban are gone but they have left us with several serious questions about the future of religious minorities in Islamic states in particular and religious states in general.
By Muqtedar Khan, Ph.D.
Today there are at least three major conceptions of religious states – Jewish, Islamic and Hindu. Israel strongly identifies itself as a Jewish state; Nepal is a Hindu state and India under the growing influence of Hindu Nationalism is toying with the idea of Ram Rajya – Hindu statehood. Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Sudan and Afghanistan under Taliban claimed to be Islamic states.
Religious states face a significant challenge from diversity. They seek to advance and establish a specific normative social agenda. In order for these states to be successful it is important that the population share the ideological beliefs of those who hold power. The presence of diversity and difference of opinion between the populace makes it necessary for the state to privilege one element of the citizenry over others thereby institutionalizing discrimination and intolerance.
The Challenge of Diversity
Islamic states inevitably treat non-Muslim citizens as less than equal curbing their access to power and religious freedom. Even in Israel, which is a democracy, religious minorities face discrimination. In 1976 when Israel captured Jerusalem, 28% of its population was Christian and now only 2% of Jerusalem’s inhabitants are Christians. Christians may become extinct in their own holy city and the primary reason for this is the religious importance of Jerusalem to Jewish state. This is a sobering example of how in spite of democracy a religious state can marginalize religious minorities.
Malaysia is an example where religious ideology and democracy mix very well. Malaysia is 65% Muslim and strongly identifies itself as an Islamic state. It is a very active member of OIC (Organization of Islamic Conferences). In spite of its Islamic identity, Malaysian Muslims share power and wealth with Christians, Buddhists and Hindus who are all equal citizens of the country and have equal rights and duties.
But religious minorities in some Islamic states, such as Afghanistan under the Taliban, suffer institutionalized discrimination because of these states’ legalist orientation and their obsession with the Islamic jurisprudence. Some of the legalist positions in Islamic states are so strict that non-Muslim minorities find it a challenge to live normal lives. Blasphemy laws and apostasy laws are well known for the problems they cause minorities. Narrow interpretation of the role of women in Islamic societies has also restricted the scope of possibilities for non-Muslim women.
The Objectives of an Islamic Society
The Maqasid al Shariah (the objective of the Islamic law/way) are falah (welfare) and hayat-e-tayyabah (good life) for the members of the community. But when contemporary Islamists operationalize this divine vision of the Islamic state, they define the Islamic state as that which implements the Islamic law. Islamic law is divine in its origin, and since God does not need the consent of his creation, Contemporary Islamists insist on imposing Islamic law even without consent. Due to colonization, and prior to it, due to the decline of Islamic intelligentsia, Islamic legal tradition remains fossilized and is still struck in the middle ages. Islamic state therefore becomes a reduced to a coercive institution seeking to enforce a system of laws that were deduced from Islamic sources several centuries ago.
The irony of this reality is that in seeking to impose Islamic law and create an Islamic state, Islamists are actually in direct opposition to the spirit and letter of the Quran. The Quran is very explicit when it says “there is no compulsion in religion,” (Quran 2: 256). Elsewhere the Quran exhorts Jews to live by the laws revealed to them in the Torah. In fact The Quran expresses surprise that some Jews sought the arbitration of the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him) rather than their own legal tradition (5:43). The Quran also orders Christians to live by their faith; “So let the people of the Gospel judge by that which Allah has revealed therein, for he who judges not by that which Allah has revealed is a sinner,” (Quran 5:47). From these verses it is abundantly clear that an Islamic state must advocate religious pluralism even to the extent of permitting multiple legal systems.
Democratic polities are much better at dealing with minorities who do not subscribe to state ideology because they are based on constitutional guarantees of human rights conceived at the level of the individual – the smallest minority. In a sense on some issues, such as the bill of rights in the American system – the individual over rules even the majority opinion. Contemporary Islamic states have yet to develop a legal framework that ensures that there is no compulsion in religion and no discrimination against religious minorities even though the above-identified sources provide a clear Quranic foundation for guaranteeing religious freedom beyond even the scope of the American bill of rights.
Lessons from Medina
Unlike the present day Islamists, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), when he established the first Islamic state in Medina – actually a Jewish-Muslim federation extended to religious minorities the rights that are guaranteed to them in the Quran. Prophet Muhammad’s Medina was based on the covenant of Medina, a real and actual social contract agreed upon by Muslims, Jews and others that treated them as equal citizens of Medina. They enjoyed the freedom to choose the legal system they wished to live under. Jews could live under Islamic law, or Jewish law or pre-Islamic Arab tribal traditions. There was no compulsion in religion even though Medina was an Islamic state. The difference between Medina and today’s Islamic states is profound. The state of Medina was based on a real social contract that applied divine law but only in consultation and with consent of all citizens regardless of their faith. But contemporary Islamic states apply Islamic law without consent or consultation and often through coercion.
It is a sad commentary on contemporary Islamists that while democracy is a challenge to contemporary Islamic states, it was constitutive to the first Islamic state in Medina established by the Prophet of Islam.
Who are the "moderate Muslims"?
Who are the "moderate Muslims"?
The term moderate Muslims is not only becoming important in the post September 11 discussion of Islam and the West, it is also becoming highly contested. What do we really mean when we brand someone as a moderate Muslim? Indeed the more interesting question is what does the word mean to Westerns, looking-in to Islam, and to Muslims, looking out from within Islam?
By Muqtedar Khan, Ph.D.
As one who identifies himself strongly with the idea of a liberal Islam and also advocates moderation in the manifestation and __expression of Islamic politics, I believe it is important that we flush out this “political identity”. In an era when who we are determines what we do politically, it is imperative that we clarify the “we” in politics.
American media uses the term moderate Muslim to indicate a Muslim who is either pro-western in her politics or is being self-critical in her discourse. Therefore both President Karzai of Afghanistan and Professor Kahlid Abul Fadl of UCLA wear the cap with felicity, the former for his politics the latter for his ideas.
Muslims in general do not like using the term, understanding it to indicate an individual who has politically sold out to the “other” side. In some internal intellectual debates, the term moderate Muslim is used pejoratively to indicate a Muslim who is more secular and less Islamic than the norm, which varies across communities. In America, a moderate Muslim is one who peddles a softer form of Islam – the Islam of John Esposito and Karen Arm Strong – is willing to co-exist peacefully with peoples of other faiths and is comfortable with democracy and the separation of politics and religion.
Both, Western media and Muslims, do a disservice by branding some Muslims as moderate on the basis of their politics. These people should general be understood as opportunists and self-serving. Most of the moderate regimes in the Muslim World are neither democratic nor manifest the softer side of Islam. That leaves intellectual positions as the criteria for determining who is a moderate Muslim, and especially in comparison to whom, since moderate is a relative term.
Both Muslims and the media are generally on the mark when they identify moderate Muslims as reflective, self-critical, pro-democracy and human-rights and closet secularists. But who are they different from and how?
I believe that moderate Muslims are different from militant Muslims even though both of them advocate the establishment of societies whose organizing principle is Islam. The difference between moderate and militant Muslims is in their methodological orientation and in the primordial normative preferences which shape their interpretation of Islam.
For moderate Muslims Ijtihad is the preferred method of choice for social and political change and military Jihad the last option. For militant Muslims, military Jihad is the first option and Ijtihad is not an option at all.
Ijtihad narrowly understood is a juristic tool that allows independent reasoning to articulate Islamic law on issues where textual sources are silent. The unstated assumption being when texts have spoken reason must be silent. But increasingly moderate Muslim intellectuals see Ijtihad as the spirit of Islamic thought that is necessary for the vitality of Islamic ideas and Islamic civilization. Without Ijtihad, Islamic thought and Islamic civilization fall into decay.
For moderate Muslims, Ijtihad is a way of life, which simultaneously allows Islam to reign supreme in the heart and the mind to experience unfettered freedom of thought. A moderate Muslim is therefore one who cherishes freedom of thought while recognizing the existential necessity of faith. She aspires for change, but through the power of mind and not through planting mines.
Moderate Muslims aspire for a society – a city of virtue -- that will treat all people with dignity and respect. There will be no room for political or normative intimidation. Individuals will aspire to live an ethical life because they recognize its desirability. Communities will compete in doing good and politics will seek to encourage good and forbid evil. They believe that the internalization of the message of Islam can bring about the social transformation necessary for the establishment of the virtuous city. The only arena in which Moderate Muslims permit excess is in idealism.
Today, the relationship between Islam and the rest is getting increasingly worse. Muslim militants are sowing seeds of poison and hatred between Muslims and the rest of humanity by committing egregious acts of violence in the name of Islam. In this precarious environment, it is important that everyone finds and nurtures the many wonderful examples of moderate Muslims one can still find.
Chandra Muzaffar in Malaysia, Tarik Ramadan in Europe, Maulana Waheeduddin Khan and Asghar Ali Engineer in India, Khalid Abul Fadl and Louay Safi in the US, Karim Soroush and Muhammad Khatami in Iran and many many more who are committed to their Jihad (struggle) to revive the spirit of Ijtihad. Fortunately the tradition is alive globally; it needs the support and the attention of all who aspire for peace and understanding.
The term moderate Muslims is not only becoming important in the post September 11 discussion of Islam and the West, it is also becoming highly contested. What do we really mean when we brand someone as a moderate Muslim? Indeed the more interesting question is what does the word mean to Westerns, looking-in to Islam, and to Muslims, looking out from within Islam?
By Muqtedar Khan, Ph.D.
As one who identifies himself strongly with the idea of a liberal Islam and also advocates moderation in the manifestation and __expression of Islamic politics, I believe it is important that we flush out this “political identity”. In an era when who we are determines what we do politically, it is imperative that we clarify the “we” in politics.
American media uses the term moderate Muslim to indicate a Muslim who is either pro-western in her politics or is being self-critical in her discourse. Therefore both President Karzai of Afghanistan and Professor Kahlid Abul Fadl of UCLA wear the cap with felicity, the former for his politics the latter for his ideas.
Muslims in general do not like using the term, understanding it to indicate an individual who has politically sold out to the “other” side. In some internal intellectual debates, the term moderate Muslim is used pejoratively to indicate a Muslim who is more secular and less Islamic than the norm, which varies across communities. In America, a moderate Muslim is one who peddles a softer form of Islam – the Islam of John Esposito and Karen Arm Strong – is willing to co-exist peacefully with peoples of other faiths and is comfortable with democracy and the separation of politics and religion.
Both, Western media and Muslims, do a disservice by branding some Muslims as moderate on the basis of their politics. These people should general be understood as opportunists and self-serving. Most of the moderate regimes in the Muslim World are neither democratic nor manifest the softer side of Islam. That leaves intellectual positions as the criteria for determining who is a moderate Muslim, and especially in comparison to whom, since moderate is a relative term.
Both Muslims and the media are generally on the mark when they identify moderate Muslims as reflective, self-critical, pro-democracy and human-rights and closet secularists. But who are they different from and how?
I believe that moderate Muslims are different from militant Muslims even though both of them advocate the establishment of societies whose organizing principle is Islam. The difference between moderate and militant Muslims is in their methodological orientation and in the primordial normative preferences which shape their interpretation of Islam.
For moderate Muslims Ijtihad is the preferred method of choice for social and political change and military Jihad the last option. For militant Muslims, military Jihad is the first option and Ijtihad is not an option at all.
Ijtihad narrowly understood is a juristic tool that allows independent reasoning to articulate Islamic law on issues where textual sources are silent. The unstated assumption being when texts have spoken reason must be silent. But increasingly moderate Muslim intellectuals see Ijtihad as the spirit of Islamic thought that is necessary for the vitality of Islamic ideas and Islamic civilization. Without Ijtihad, Islamic thought and Islamic civilization fall into decay.
For moderate Muslims, Ijtihad is a way of life, which simultaneously allows Islam to reign supreme in the heart and the mind to experience unfettered freedom of thought. A moderate Muslim is therefore one who cherishes freedom of thought while recognizing the existential necessity of faith. She aspires for change, but through the power of mind and not through planting mines.
Moderate Muslims aspire for a society – a city of virtue -- that will treat all people with dignity and respect. There will be no room for political or normative intimidation. Individuals will aspire to live an ethical life because they recognize its desirability. Communities will compete in doing good and politics will seek to encourage good and forbid evil. They believe that the internalization of the message of Islam can bring about the social transformation necessary for the establishment of the virtuous city. The only arena in which Moderate Muslims permit excess is in idealism.
Today, the relationship between Islam and the rest is getting increasingly worse. Muslim militants are sowing seeds of poison and hatred between Muslims and the rest of humanity by committing egregious acts of violence in the name of Islam. In this precarious environment, it is important that everyone finds and nurtures the many wonderful examples of moderate Muslims one can still find.
Chandra Muzaffar in Malaysia, Tarik Ramadan in Europe, Maulana Waheeduddin Khan and Asghar Ali Engineer in India, Khalid Abul Fadl and Louay Safi in the US, Karim Soroush and Muhammad Khatami in Iran and many many more who are committed to their Jihad (struggle) to revive the spirit of Ijtihad. Fortunately the tradition is alive globally; it needs the support and the attention of all who aspire for peace and understanding.
Memo to Osama bin Laden
Memo to Osama bin Laden
"I would rather live in America under Ashcroft and Bush at their worst, than in any “Islamic state” established by ignorant, intolerant and murderous punks like you and Mullah Omar at their best."
A thought-provoking, controversial, pre-war article by Muqtedar Khan, Ph.D., February 12, 2003
This is an American Muslim’s response to the Tape recorded message dated February 11th, 2003 by fugitive-terrorist Osama Bin Laden.
Mr. Binladen,
In the name of Allah, The Most Merciful, the Most Benevolent.
I begin by reciting some important principles of Islam to remind you that there is more to Islam than just a call to arms.
1. Islam was sent as mercy to humanity (Quran 4:79).
2. Do not make mischief on the earth (Quran 29:36).
3. People, We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes that you might know one another. The noblest of you before God is the most righteous of you. (49:13)
4. There are among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) upstanding nations that recite the message of God and worship throughout the night, who believe in God, who order honor and forbid dishonor and race in good works. These are the righteous. (3:113-114).
I am writing this to make it clear that there are Muslims in America and in the world who despise and condemn extremists and have nothing to do with Bin Laden and those like him for whom killing constitutes worship.
Islam was sent as mercy to humanity and not as an ideology of terror or hatred. It advocates plurality and moral equality of all faiths (Quran 2:62, 5:69). To use Islam, as a justification to declare an Armageddon against all non-Muslims is inherently un-Islamic – it is a despicable distortion of a faith of peace. One of Allah’s 99 names in the Quran is “Al Salam” which means Peace. Thus in a way Muslims are the only people who actually worship peace. Today this claim sounds so empty, thanks to people like you, Mr. Bin Laden. You and those like you are dedicated to killing and bringing misery to people wherever they are. God blessed you with the capacity to lead and also endowed you with enormous resources. You could have used your influence in Afghanistan to develop it, to bring it out of poverty and underdevelopment and show the world what Islam can do for those who believe in it. You chose to provoke and bring war to a people who had already been devastated by wars.
Yes many innocent people lost their lives in America’s war on Afghanistan and many more might lose their lives in Iraq. This is indeed regrettable. But we must never forget as to how the West is divided over this and how nations and people within nations are agonizing in Europe and in America over this decision to go to war in Iraq. While many Americans and Europeans oppose the war, Muslim nations have already agreed to cooperate in this war. No Muslim leader has tried to play the role of a statesman on this issue. It is a tragedy that there is not a single Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter or Nelson Mandela in the entire Muslim world who would stand up and speak for justice!
Before we rush to condemn America we must remember that even today millions of poor and miserable people all across the world are lining up outside US embassies eager to come to America, not just to live here but to become an American. No Muslim country today, can claim that people of other nations and other faiths see it as a promise of hope, equality, dignity and prosperity.
Yes, we American Muslims will continue to challenge the Bush administrations’ proposal to wage war against Iraq. We think a regime change in Washington is as necessary as a regime change in Baghdad, but that is an intramural affair. Once the war is declared, make no mistake Mr. Saddam Hussein and Mr. Bin Laden, We are with America. We will fight with America and we will fight for America. We have a covenant with this nation, we see it as a divine commitment and we will not disobey the Quran (9:4) – we will fulfill our obligations as citizens to the land that opened its doors to us and promised us equality and dignity even though we have a different faith. I am sure Mr. Bin Laden, you can neither understand nor appreciate this willingness to accept and welcome the other.
Sure at this moment out of anger, frustration and fear, some in America have momentarily forgotten their own values. I am confident that, God willing, this moment of shock and insecurity will pass and America will once again become the beacon of freedom, tolerance and acceptance that it was before September 11th. On that day Mr. Bin Laden, you not only killed 3000 innocent Americans, many of whom were also Muslims, but you signed the death warrants of many innocent people who will die in this war on terror and many more who will live but will suffer the consequences, the pain and the misery of war. Before September 11th, the US was giving aid to Afghanistan and was content to wait for the Iraqi people to free themselves and the rest of the world from their dictator. On that day you changed the rules of the game and Muslims in many places are suffering as a direct consequence.
When the Prophet Muhammad (saw) and his companions fought in the name of Islam, Allah made them victorious and glorified them in this world. They made Islam the currency of human civilization for over a millennium. You and your men on the other hand face nothing but defeat, global ridicule and contempt and run and hide like rats in caves and dungeons. You live in the dark. Your faith neither enlightens you nor enables you to live in the light and you have made Islam the currency of hate and violence.
Let me tell you that I would rather live in America under Ashcroft and Bush at their worst, than in any “Islamic state” established by ignorant, intolerant and murderous punks like you and Mullah Omar at their best. The US, Patriot Act not withstanding, is still a more Islamic (just and tolerant) state than Afghanistan ever was under the Taliban.
Remember this: Muslims from all over the world who wished to live better lives migrated to America and Muslims who only wished to take lives migrated to Afghanistan to join you.
We will not follow the desires of people (like you) who went astray and led many astray from the Straight Path. (Quran 5:77).
I conclude by calling upon you Mr. Bin Laden and your Al Qaeda colleagues and Mr. Saddam Hussein to surrender to International Courts and take responsibility for your actions and protect thousands of other innocent Muslims from becoming the victims of the wars you bring upon them.
"I would rather live in America under Ashcroft and Bush at their worst, than in any “Islamic state” established by ignorant, intolerant and murderous punks like you and Mullah Omar at their best."
A thought-provoking, controversial, pre-war article by Muqtedar Khan, Ph.D., February 12, 2003
This is an American Muslim’s response to the Tape recorded message dated February 11th, 2003 by fugitive-terrorist Osama Bin Laden.
Mr. Binladen,
In the name of Allah, The Most Merciful, the Most Benevolent.
I begin by reciting some important principles of Islam to remind you that there is more to Islam than just a call to arms.
1. Islam was sent as mercy to humanity (Quran 4:79).
2. Do not make mischief on the earth (Quran 29:36).
3. People, We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes that you might know one another. The noblest of you before God is the most righteous of you. (49:13)
4. There are among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) upstanding nations that recite the message of God and worship throughout the night, who believe in God, who order honor and forbid dishonor and race in good works. These are the righteous. (3:113-114).
I am writing this to make it clear that there are Muslims in America and in the world who despise and condemn extremists and have nothing to do with Bin Laden and those like him for whom killing constitutes worship.
Islam was sent as mercy to humanity and not as an ideology of terror or hatred. It advocates plurality and moral equality of all faiths (Quran 2:62, 5:69). To use Islam, as a justification to declare an Armageddon against all non-Muslims is inherently un-Islamic – it is a despicable distortion of a faith of peace. One of Allah’s 99 names in the Quran is “Al Salam” which means Peace. Thus in a way Muslims are the only people who actually worship peace. Today this claim sounds so empty, thanks to people like you, Mr. Bin Laden. You and those like you are dedicated to killing and bringing misery to people wherever they are. God blessed you with the capacity to lead and also endowed you with enormous resources. You could have used your influence in Afghanistan to develop it, to bring it out of poverty and underdevelopment and show the world what Islam can do for those who believe in it. You chose to provoke and bring war to a people who had already been devastated by wars.
Yes many innocent people lost their lives in America’s war on Afghanistan and many more might lose their lives in Iraq. This is indeed regrettable. But we must never forget as to how the West is divided over this and how nations and people within nations are agonizing in Europe and in America over this decision to go to war in Iraq. While many Americans and Europeans oppose the war, Muslim nations have already agreed to cooperate in this war. No Muslim leader has tried to play the role of a statesman on this issue. It is a tragedy that there is not a single Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter or Nelson Mandela in the entire Muslim world who would stand up and speak for justice!
Before we rush to condemn America we must remember that even today millions of poor and miserable people all across the world are lining up outside US embassies eager to come to America, not just to live here but to become an American. No Muslim country today, can claim that people of other nations and other faiths see it as a promise of hope, equality, dignity and prosperity.
Yes, we American Muslims will continue to challenge the Bush administrations’ proposal to wage war against Iraq. We think a regime change in Washington is as necessary as a regime change in Baghdad, but that is an intramural affair. Once the war is declared, make no mistake Mr. Saddam Hussein and Mr. Bin Laden, We are with America. We will fight with America and we will fight for America. We have a covenant with this nation, we see it as a divine commitment and we will not disobey the Quran (9:4) – we will fulfill our obligations as citizens to the land that opened its doors to us and promised us equality and dignity even though we have a different faith. I am sure Mr. Bin Laden, you can neither understand nor appreciate this willingness to accept and welcome the other.
Sure at this moment out of anger, frustration and fear, some in America have momentarily forgotten their own values. I am confident that, God willing, this moment of shock and insecurity will pass and America will once again become the beacon of freedom, tolerance and acceptance that it was before September 11th. On that day Mr. Bin Laden, you not only killed 3000 innocent Americans, many of whom were also Muslims, but you signed the death warrants of many innocent people who will die in this war on terror and many more who will live but will suffer the consequences, the pain and the misery of war. Before September 11th, the US was giving aid to Afghanistan and was content to wait for the Iraqi people to free themselves and the rest of the world from their dictator. On that day you changed the rules of the game and Muslims in many places are suffering as a direct consequence.
When the Prophet Muhammad (saw) and his companions fought in the name of Islam, Allah made them victorious and glorified them in this world. They made Islam the currency of human civilization for over a millennium. You and your men on the other hand face nothing but defeat, global ridicule and contempt and run and hide like rats in caves and dungeons. You live in the dark. Your faith neither enlightens you nor enables you to live in the light and you have made Islam the currency of hate and violence.
Let me tell you that I would rather live in America under Ashcroft and Bush at their worst, than in any “Islamic state” established by ignorant, intolerant and murderous punks like you and Mullah Omar at their best. The US, Patriot Act not withstanding, is still a more Islamic (just and tolerant) state than Afghanistan ever was under the Taliban.
Remember this: Muslims from all over the world who wished to live better lives migrated to America and Muslims who only wished to take lives migrated to Afghanistan to join you.
We will not follow the desires of people (like you) who went astray and led many astray from the Straight Path. (Quran 5:77).
I conclude by calling upon you Mr. Bin Laden and your Al Qaeda colleagues and Mr. Saddam Hussein to surrender to International Courts and take responsibility for your actions and protect thousands of other innocent Muslims from becoming the victims of the wars you bring upon them.
American Foreign Policy A Threat To American Security?
American Foreign Policy A Threat To American Security?
"America's exclusively self-regarding outlook, its arrogant unilateralism, its unwise and untrustworthy rhetoric and its belligerent posture, is alienating and angering people in the East and the West."
By Muqtedar Khan, Ph.D., June 17, 2003
The world is becoming anti-American. Not only do most people across the planet look upon the US with disfavor, they also dislike President Bush, who is not the most popular leader even in America where Tony Blair is more trusted and admired than him. More and more people are less keen on cooperating with the US in foreign policy or in the war on terror. Growing anti-Americanism will not only undermine the war on terror, but its extreme manifestations in the Muslim World is attracting new and numerous recruits to the ranks of Al Qaeda and their associates. Experts are in agreement that the primary reason why people now hate America is American foreign policy. Its exclusively self-regarding outlook, its arrogant unilateralism, its unwise and untrustworthy rhetoric and its belligerent posture, is alienating and angering people in the East and the West.
A recent poll of people’s perceptions of America taken by the Pew Research Center in 20 countries (online at http://www.people-press.org/), indicates that since last year America’s popularity has declined considerably across the globe. Even in traditional allies such as Turkey, 83% of the population views the United States negatively. Last year this number was only 55%. In Europe, America’s, long time ally and cultural mate, majorities of people disfavor the US. According to the Pew study, there are two basic reasons why anti-Americanism is becoming a global culture; they are US foreign policy and the persona of President Bush.
September 11, 2001 essentially identified two goals for American foreign policy - eliminating immediate security threats to the nation and its interests and winning the hearts and minds of the Muslim World. This essentially translated into taking care of Al Qaeda and the Al Qaeda phenomenon. While Al Qaeda posed grave threats in the short term, Al Qaeda phenomenon – the rise of anti-Americanism in the Muslim World, which attracted recruits to Al Qaeda and associates – posed a more severe and long-term challenge. President Bush and his foreign policy team were correct in their initial diagnosis, but unfortunately the policy decisions that they have made since have merely contributed to enlarging rather than shrinking the Al Qaeda phenomenon.
The Pew study essentially confirms the claims of most policy analysts outside the government. The war on Iraq has conveyed the impression that the US is determined to exercise force against Arab and Muslim nations more as a revenge for September 11 than as a strategy to prevent more attacks. The problems that Iraqis have faced during the continuing US occupation and the failure to find the huge stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction that Bush and Powell claimed Iraq possessed has hurt American credibility and raised serious questions about its motives and its policy objectives. The continuing chaos in Afghanistan and the post Iraq-war threats to first Syria and then Iran has created a climate of apprehension and resentment against America.
Citizens of Pakistan, America’s primary ally in the war on terror, Nigeria and Indonesia feel that their country is next on the US list. The fear that the US is out to attack other countries makes the global security environment less stable. It discourages cooperation, makes the world unsafe for Americans to travel and do business and radicalizes moderates. It increases the flow of material and moral support to militant groups, weakens and places American allies and pro-democracy intellectuals and groups on the defensive. In general anti-Americanism makes it difficult to promote peace and stability and fight extremism.
Rather than ensuring American security, it seems that American foreign policy, particularly its invasion and now occupation of Iraq, have created conditions which put the US and its interests at greater risk.
President Bush is surrounded by policy hawks that view September 11 as an opportunity to reassert the prerogatives of the American Empire through unilateral use of force. They wish to reshape the world to perpetuate America’s imperial aspirations. Unfortunately for them the world is unwilling to cooperate. The harder they push the more resentment they will generate and the more difficult it will become to save the empire and its interests at minimal costs.
It is time to take the world seriously and reassess the tactics that have been employed until now. Perhaps the President may do well to change his foreign policy team as he did with his economic policy team. At the least he must return the foreign policy portfolio to the State Department and insist that the Department of Defense execute, not make foreign policy. The President might also do well to focus on allaying the fears of the global community and reassure them that the US is neither threatening them nor is it going to pursue interests at the expense of everyone else.
It is time the US once gain became the invisible empire, managing the world through multilateralism, diplomacy and leadership and by defining self interest as shared interests. The current strategy of in your face politics is seriously damaging US reputation and alliances and undermining US security.
"America's exclusively self-regarding outlook, its arrogant unilateralism, its unwise and untrustworthy rhetoric and its belligerent posture, is alienating and angering people in the East and the West."
By Muqtedar Khan, Ph.D., June 17, 2003
The world is becoming anti-American. Not only do most people across the planet look upon the US with disfavor, they also dislike President Bush, who is not the most popular leader even in America where Tony Blair is more trusted and admired than him. More and more people are less keen on cooperating with the US in foreign policy or in the war on terror. Growing anti-Americanism will not only undermine the war on terror, but its extreme manifestations in the Muslim World is attracting new and numerous recruits to the ranks of Al Qaeda and their associates. Experts are in agreement that the primary reason why people now hate America is American foreign policy. Its exclusively self-regarding outlook, its arrogant unilateralism, its unwise and untrustworthy rhetoric and its belligerent posture, is alienating and angering people in the East and the West.
A recent poll of people’s perceptions of America taken by the Pew Research Center in 20 countries (online at http://www.people-press.org/), indicates that since last year America’s popularity has declined considerably across the globe. Even in traditional allies such as Turkey, 83% of the population views the United States negatively. Last year this number was only 55%. In Europe, America’s, long time ally and cultural mate, majorities of people disfavor the US. According to the Pew study, there are two basic reasons why anti-Americanism is becoming a global culture; they are US foreign policy and the persona of President Bush.
September 11, 2001 essentially identified two goals for American foreign policy - eliminating immediate security threats to the nation and its interests and winning the hearts and minds of the Muslim World. This essentially translated into taking care of Al Qaeda and the Al Qaeda phenomenon. While Al Qaeda posed grave threats in the short term, Al Qaeda phenomenon – the rise of anti-Americanism in the Muslim World, which attracted recruits to Al Qaeda and associates – posed a more severe and long-term challenge. President Bush and his foreign policy team were correct in their initial diagnosis, but unfortunately the policy decisions that they have made since have merely contributed to enlarging rather than shrinking the Al Qaeda phenomenon.
The Pew study essentially confirms the claims of most policy analysts outside the government. The war on Iraq has conveyed the impression that the US is determined to exercise force against Arab and Muslim nations more as a revenge for September 11 than as a strategy to prevent more attacks. The problems that Iraqis have faced during the continuing US occupation and the failure to find the huge stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction that Bush and Powell claimed Iraq possessed has hurt American credibility and raised serious questions about its motives and its policy objectives. The continuing chaos in Afghanistan and the post Iraq-war threats to first Syria and then Iran has created a climate of apprehension and resentment against America.
Citizens of Pakistan, America’s primary ally in the war on terror, Nigeria and Indonesia feel that their country is next on the US list. The fear that the US is out to attack other countries makes the global security environment less stable. It discourages cooperation, makes the world unsafe for Americans to travel and do business and radicalizes moderates. It increases the flow of material and moral support to militant groups, weakens and places American allies and pro-democracy intellectuals and groups on the defensive. In general anti-Americanism makes it difficult to promote peace and stability and fight extremism.
Rather than ensuring American security, it seems that American foreign policy, particularly its invasion and now occupation of Iraq, have created conditions which put the US and its interests at greater risk.
President Bush is surrounded by policy hawks that view September 11 as an opportunity to reassert the prerogatives of the American Empire through unilateral use of force. They wish to reshape the world to perpetuate America’s imperial aspirations. Unfortunately for them the world is unwilling to cooperate. The harder they push the more resentment they will generate and the more difficult it will become to save the empire and its interests at minimal costs.
It is time to take the world seriously and reassess the tactics that have been employed until now. Perhaps the President may do well to change his foreign policy team as he did with his economic policy team. At the least he must return the foreign policy portfolio to the State Department and insist that the Department of Defense execute, not make foreign policy. The President might also do well to focus on allaying the fears of the global community and reassure them that the US is neither threatening them nor is it going to pursue interests at the expense of everyone else.
It is time the US once gain became the invisible empire, managing the world through multilateralism, diplomacy and leadership and by defining self interest as shared interests. The current strategy of in your face politics is seriously damaging US reputation and alliances and undermining US security.
Ayat 18 of the Quran
Reflections on Surah 39, Ayat 18 of the Quran
By Muqtedar Khan PhD.
"Those who listen to the Word (the Quran) and follow the best meaning in it: those are the ones whom Allah has guided and those are the one's endowed with understanding." - Quran 39:18
This verse has a very important message for those who tend to use a literalist approach to Islamic injunctions. The verse suggests that many meanings are decipherable from the text of the Quran. It also suggests that some meanings are better than others. Most importantly the verse recommends that we follow the best of meanings.
At face value this may seem like a simple command. But consider this dilemma: When more than one understanding of a Quranic injunction is possible, how do we conclude which is the best meaning? What criteria should be employed to determine which is the best of meanings?
Invariable the tendency is to turn to past interpretations of the Quran and privilege the opinion of past scholars. The practice of hero-worship of past scholars determines which interpretation is accepted.
I believe that this traditionalist approach is counter-productive. It merely recycles past opinions without actually making Islam relevant to specific times and circumstances. This is not intended as disrespect to past scholars or past opinions. It is only a reminder that all interpretive opinions are contextual.
I recommend that contemporary maslaha, or the public welfare in our time, should be the criterion that determines what is the best meaning of any Quranic injunction.
Through Shura [consultation] we can reach an understanding of what constitutes public good and that consensual concern should guide our selection of Quranic meanings.
Let people advance competing interpretations of the Quran. Let there be freedom of thought and creativity. Let there be difference of opinion. Let there be debate. This will only enrich the Ummah and make the Islamic world vibrant and alive.
Which interpretation becomes authoritative, let local communities decide through Shura. If there is a need for a global ijma*on a specific issue, then we can have a global conference and bring different global perspectives to the forum and once again let the best case for the well being of humanity prevail as the authority that determines which is the most beautiful, most compassionate, most fair and most reasonable understanding of Islam.
Wallahu Alam - And God knows best.
By Muqtedar Khan PhD.
"Those who listen to the Word (the Quran) and follow the best meaning in it: those are the ones whom Allah has guided and those are the one's endowed with understanding." - Quran 39:18
This verse has a very important message for those who tend to use a literalist approach to Islamic injunctions. The verse suggests that many meanings are decipherable from the text of the Quran. It also suggests that some meanings are better than others. Most importantly the verse recommends that we follow the best of meanings.
At face value this may seem like a simple command. But consider this dilemma: When more than one understanding of a Quranic injunction is possible, how do we conclude which is the best meaning? What criteria should be employed to determine which is the best of meanings?
Invariable the tendency is to turn to past interpretations of the Quran and privilege the opinion of past scholars. The practice of hero-worship of past scholars determines which interpretation is accepted.
I believe that this traditionalist approach is counter-productive. It merely recycles past opinions without actually making Islam relevant to specific times and circumstances. This is not intended as disrespect to past scholars or past opinions. It is only a reminder that all interpretive opinions are contextual.
I recommend that contemporary maslaha, or the public welfare in our time, should be the criterion that determines what is the best meaning of any Quranic injunction.
Through Shura [consultation] we can reach an understanding of what constitutes public good and that consensual concern should guide our selection of Quranic meanings.
Let people advance competing interpretations of the Quran. Let there be freedom of thought and creativity. Let there be difference of opinion. Let there be debate. This will only enrich the Ummah and make the Islamic world vibrant and alive.
Which interpretation becomes authoritative, let local communities decide through Shura. If there is a need for a global ijma*on a specific issue, then we can have a global conference and bring different global perspectives to the forum and once again let the best case for the well being of humanity prevail as the authority that determines which is the most beautiful, most compassionate, most fair and most reasonable understanding of Islam.
Wallahu Alam - And God knows best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)