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.
Monday, 14 March 2011
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.
Friday, 4 March 2011
Meta Tag
asian chat asian dating asian matchmaking asian online asian wife beautiful bride bride bride guide brides canada chat canadian dating canadian match chat community chat now chat rooms chat site chat video christian dating city dating dating dating and matchmaking dating chat dating customs dating friends dating girls dating in canada dating in uk dating personals dating service dating singles dating uk dating website dream match european brides european dating find match finder friend foreign bride free chat rooms free chatting rooms free dating chat free dating site free friend finder free matchmaking free online dating site free phone chat free uk chat rooms friend finder dating friend finder uk friends chat friendship bible friendship club horoscope matchmaking indian chat indian shaadi international dating internet chat internet matchmaking local chat looking for love love dating love personals male personals marriage personals match match personals matchmaker matchmaker sites matchmaking agency matchmaking services matchmaking dating service meet personals meet your match mobile chat online bride online chats online dating online dating services online friend finder online matchmaking people chat personal sites personals online professional matchmaker personal websites punjabi shaadi romantic proposals safe dating seniors dating shadi shaadi uk single chat singles singles chat room singles dating sites singles in canada singles online singles services singles websites speed dating true dating uk chat rooms uk photo personals web chat rooms wedding grooms woman personals world dating brides weddings canadian bride usa brides
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)