Jihad, Then and Now:
Washington Post Book Review

Geneive Abdo, Washington Post, 1/30/2008

THE JIHAD NEXT DOOR

The Lackawanna Six and Rough Justice in the Age of Terror

By Dina Temple-Raston

PublicAffairs. 288 pp. $26

THE FIRST MUSLIMS

History and Memory

By Asma Afsaruddin

One World/Ballantine. 254 pp. Paperback, $19.95

Policymakers, pundits and scholars have long puzzled over what inspires young Muslims to take the great leap toward radicalization. If Muslims living in dramatically different societies, in vastly different circumstances and conditions in the East and West, are similarly drawn to extremism, does this mean there is something inherently violent in the Islamic tradition? Do modern Muslims interpret the tenets of their faith depending upon the political and social context in which they live, or are they trapped in the Dark Ages?

Two new books attempt answers, both historical and contemporary, to these pressing questions. "The Jihad Next Door," by Dina Temple-Raston, is a detailed account of Yemeni Americans in Lackawanna in Upstate New York, whose only desire was to become more devout. Now, most are serving jail time for convictions on various terrorism-related crimes. The American-born Muslims admitted to having visited an al-Qaeda training camp in the spring of 2001, their confessions a dream come true for the U.S. government, according to Temple-Raston. The FBI and the Justice Department cast them as the first sleeper cell on U.S. soil. They were evidence, according to the government, that the so-called war on terror was real, and more important, that jihad had moved next door.

In this breezy, well-written detective story, Temple-Raston, the FBI reporter for National Public Radio, chronicles their journey from Lackawanna to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Once the men reach the al-Qaeda training camp, they become frightened and return to New York. Temple-Raston’s main point is that the Lackawanna six were victims. The jihad, she argues, existed only in their imaginations. When faced with the harsh reality of living in the camp, and ultimately engaging in violence against the United States, they abandoned their mission.

Temple-Raston outlines how easily young men practicing their faith at a local mosque and leading mundane lives can be convinced, however briefly, that taking their faith to the next level could be achieved by becoming warriors for al-Qaeda. A Muslim mentor in Lackawanna convinced the men through his teachings and regular study sessions that they lacked an understanding of true Islam. He coached them by analyzing verses in the Koran, and then lured them into believing that the ultimate test of their piety was a commitment to fight the United States on the battlefield a world away, just as Muslims had fought their invaders centuries ago.

But Temple-Raston fails to analyze why young Muslims—not only in Lackawanna but around the world—are vulnerable to religious interpretations that lead them toward violence. Do the Islamic sources advocate violence in certain circumstances, and if so, how have these texts been interpreted throughout history and how are they being interpreted in the modern world?

In "The First Muslims," Asma Afsaruddin, a professor of Arabic and Islamic studies at the University of Notre Dame, offers an eloquent and cogent explanation of the historical roots and meanings of many key concepts relevant to today’s discussion of contemporary Islam, including the role of jihad in the Islamic tradition. Through an exhaustive examination of medieval Arabic texts, Afsaruddin explains that from the time the Koran was revealed to the prophet Mohammad during what is known as the Meccan period, Muslims were forbidden to retaliate against their pagan foes.

Only after Mohammad established the first Muslim polity, Afsaruddin explains, was this Koranic verse revealed: "Permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged. . . . For, if God had not enabled people to defend themselves against one another, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques—in all of which God’s name is abundantly glorified—would surely have been destroyed." Afsaruddin also notes that the Koran forbids Muslims to initiate hostilities but permits self-defense when necessary.

Years later, as Islam spread, Islamic jurists held differing views about applying jihad to non-Muslim states. Afsaruddin concludes that the interpretations of terms such as jihad differed depending upon the juristic thinking of the time, which was highly influenced by current events. By the 12th century, for example, jurists considered jihad to be in abeyance, to be revived only in times of crisis. Quoting the Islamic philosopher Ibn Khaldun, Afsaruddin writes that he characterized the changing notions of jihad as due to "a change in the character of the [Islamic] nation from warlike to the civilized stage."

Afsaruddin’s goal in taking the reader through historical interpretations of jihad is that Islam, contrary to contemporary criticism, has never been frozen in time—and should not be. Muslims have interpreted their faith through the ages based upon the social and political context in which they lived. She reiterates this point throughout "The First Muslims" in her discussion of other concepts, such as how Muslims define infidels and how they distinguish between political and religious authority, and what constitutes an Islamic state. Her book should be required reading for any Muslim or non-Muslim who mistakenly believes the faith is immutable.

Understanding how Muslims view their lives and their faith today is now critical to the relationship between the Islamic world and the West. Educated Americans across the country are organizing salons and reading groups and compiling book lists in hope of enlightening themselves about a faith that was completely alien to them six years ago. But the greater challenge is to find sources as well-researched and measured as this book.

Geneive Abdo is a Fellow at the Century Foundation. This review was published in the Washington Post.

Jihad, Then and Now:

Jihad, Then and Now

By Geneive Abdo,

THE JIHAD NEXT DOOR

The Lackawanna Six and Rough Justice in the Age of Terror

By Dina Temple-Raston

PublicAffairs. 288 pp. $26

THE FIRST MUSLIMS

History and Memory

By Asma Afsaruddin

One World/Ballantine. 254 pp. Paperback, $19.95

Policymakers, pundits and scholars have long puzzled over what inspires young Muslims to take the great leap toward radicalization. If Muslims living in dramatically different societies, in vastly different circumstances and conditions in the East and West, are similarly drawn to extremism, does this mean there is something inherently violent in the Islamic tradition? Do modern Muslims interpret the tenets of their faith depending upon the political and social context in which they live, or are they trapped in the Dark Ages?

Two new books attempt answers, both historical and contemporary, to these pressing questions. “The Jihad Next Door,” by Dina Temple-Raston, is a detailed account of Yemeni Americans in Lackawanna in Upstate New York, whose only desire was to become more devout. Now, most are serving jail time for convictions on various terrorism-related crimes. The American-born Muslims admitted to having visited an al-Qaeda training camp in the spring of 2001, their confessions a dream come true for the U.S. government, according to Temple-Raston. The FBI and the Justice Department cast them as the first sleeper cell on U.S. soil. They were evidence, according to the government, that the so-called war on terror was real, and more important, that jihad had moved next door.

In this breezy, well-written detective story, Temple-Raston, the FBI reporter for National Public Radio, chronicles their journey from Lackawanna to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Once the men reach the al-Qaeda training camp, they become frightened and return to New York. Temple-Raston’s main point is that the Lackawanna six were victims. The jihad, she argues, existed only in their imaginations. When faced with the harsh reality of living in the camp, and ultimately engaging in violence against the United States, they abandoned their mission.

Temple-Raston outlines how easily young men practicing their faith at a local mosque and leading mundane lives can be convinced, however briefly, that taking their faith to the next level could be achieved by becoming warriors for al-Qaeda. A Muslim mentor in Lackawanna convinced the men through his teachings and regular study sessions that they lacked an understanding of true Islam. He coached them by analyzing verses in the Koran, and then lured them into believing that the ultimate test of their piety was a commitment to fight the United States on the battlefield a world away, just as Muslims had fought their invaders centuries ago.

But Temple-Raston fails to analyze why young Muslims — not only in Lackawanna but around the world — are vulnerable to religious interpretations that lead them toward violence. Do the Islamic sources advocate violence in certain circumstances, and if so, how have these texts been interpreted throughout history and how are they being interpreted in the modern world?

In “The First Muslims,” Asma Afsaruddin, a professor of Arabic and Islamic studies at the University of Notre Dame, offers an eloquent and cogent explanation of the historical roots and meanings of many key concepts relevant to today’s discussion of contemporary Islam, including the role of jihad in the Islamic tradition. Through an exhaustive examination of medieval Arabic texts, Afsaruddin explains that from the time the Koran was revealed to the prophet Mohammad during what is known as the Meccan period, Muslims were forbidden to retaliate against their pagan foes.

Only after Mohammad established the first Muslim polity, Afsaruddin explains, was this Koranic verse revealed: “Permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged. . . . For, if God had not enabled people to defend themselves against one another, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques — in all of which God’s name is abundantly glorified — would surely have been destroyed.” Afsaruddin also notes that the Koran forbids Muslims to initiate hostilities but permits self-defense when necessary.

Years later, as Islam spread, Islamic jurists held differing views about applying jihad to non-Muslim states. Afsaruddin concludes that the interpretations of terms such as jihad differed depending upon the juristic thinking of the time, which was highly influenced by current events. By the 12th century, for example, jurists considered jihad to be in abeyance, to be revived only in times of crisis. Quoting the Islamic philosopher Ibn Khaldun, Afsaruddin writes that he characterized the changing notions of jihad as due to “a change in the character of the [Islamic] nation from warlike to the civilized stage.”

Afsaruddin’s goal in taking the reader through historical interpretations of jihad is that Islam, contrary to contemporary criticism, has never been frozen in time — and should not be. Muslims have interpreted their faith through the ages based upon the social and political context in which they lived. She reiterates this point throughout “The First Muslims” in her discussion of other concepts, such as how Muslims define infidels and how they distinguish between political and religious authority, and what constitutes an Islamic state. Her book should be required reading for any Muslim or non-Muslim who mistakenly believes the faith is immutable.

Understanding how Muslims view their lives and their faith today is now critical to the relationship between the Islamic world and the West. Educated Americans across the country are organizing salons and reading groups and compiling book lists in hope of enlightening themselves about a faith that was completely alien to them six years ago. But the greater challenge is to find sources as well-researched and measured as this book.

Jihad, Then and Now- Washington Post

Muslim reformer still a target

By Jeff Jacoby  |  May 17, 2006

WHEN Ahmed Mansour learned a lawsuit had been filed against him by the Islamic Society of Boston, he had one urgent question: ”Will they put me in jail?"

The answer was no — in America, people don’t go to prison for publicly expressing their views. But Mansour had good reason to worry. He had learned the hard way that Muslim reformers who speak out against Islamist fanaticism and religious dictatorship can indeed end up in prison — or worse. It had happened to him in his native Egypt, which he fled in 2001 after receiving death threats. He was grateful that the United States had granted him asylum, enabling him to go on promoting his vision of a progressive Islam in which human rights and democratic values would be protected. But would he now have to fight in America the same kind of persecution he experienced in Egypt?

Mansour is just one of many people and organizations being sued for defamation by the Islamic Society of Boston, which accuses them all of conspiring to deny freedom of worship to Boston-area Muslims. In fact, the defendants — who include journalists, a terrorism expert, and the founder of the American Anti-Slavery Group, plus the Episcopalian lay minister and the Jewish attorney who together with Mansour formed the interfaith Citizens for Peace and Tolerance in 2004 — appear to be guilty of nothing more than voicing concerns about the ISB’s construction of a large mosque in Roxbury.

Unsettling questions have been raised about the ISB and its mosque project. For example:

Why did city officials provide the land for the mosque for just $175,000, when the parcel was publicly valued at $400,000? And where did that $400,000 figure come from, when the land’s value had earlier been assessed at $2 million?

What is the Islamic Society’s relationship to Yusef al-Qaradawi, a radical Islamist who praises suicide terrorism and endorses the killing of Americans in Iraq? For several years the ISB listed him as a trustee, though now it says that was an ”oversight." Was it also an oversight when a videotaped message of support from Qaradawi, who is banned from the United States, was played at a fund-raiser in 2002?

When it was reported that another trustee, Walid Fitaihi, had written that Jews are ”murderers of the prophets" who will be punished for ”oppression, murder, and rape of the worshipers of Allah," why did the ISB resist for seven months before unequivocally repudiating his words?

But if anything should raise eyebrows, it is the decision of the Islamic Society to pursue Mansour for his comments about the ISB at a press conference in 2004. He had gone to pray at the ISB’s current mosque in Cambridge, and described at the press conference what he had observed: ”I am here to testify that this radical culture is here, inside this society," he said. He had seen ”Arabic-language newsletters filled with hatred against the United States." Books and videos in the mosque’s library promoted ”fanatical beliefs that insult other people’s religions." A religious man, Mansour stressed that he was ”not against the mosque. . . . I’m against extremists."

If Mansour doesn’t have the expertise to form such opinions, it would be hard to say who does.

He holds three degrees from Cairo’s Al-Azhar, the foremost religious university in the Islamic world, where he was appointed a professor of Muslim history in 1980. He would probably be there still if his scholarship hadn’t gotten in the way. The deeper Mansour delved into the history of Islam, the clearer it became to him that the faith had been perverted into a ”false doctrine of hate" — a doctrine that has been spread across much of the Muslim world and that has fueled great cruelty and bloodshed.

His mounting opposition to Wahhabist radicalism drew the wrath of the powerful Al-Azhar sheiks, who removed him from his classroom and tried him in a religious court. For two years, he says, he was pressured to recant. In 1987 he was fired. Then the Egyptian government imprisoned him for two months.

Undeterred, Mansour continued to write and speak out against radical Islam. He has authored 24 books and more than 500 articles, many of them denouncing as heretical any Muslim creeds that ”persecute and kill peaceful humans and violate their human rights." The real infidels, he has argued, are those who share ”the traits of Osama bin Laden and his followers." Before fleeing for his life, he worked with Egypt’s leading human-rights activists, promoting democratic values, funneling assistance to persecuted Christians, and advocating for the reform of religious education.

This is the Islamic Society of Boston’s idea of an anti-Muslim conspirator? Then what, one wonders, is its idea of Islam?

Jeff Jacoby’s e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.

Muslim reformer still a target - The Boston Globe

KUALA LUMPUR: An ethnic Chinese Buddhist family was appealing to a Malaysian high court Tuesday, seeking to overturn an Islamic court ruling that found their late father had converted from Buddhism to Islam, prompting his burial as a Muslim.
The family of Gan Eng Gor said a Shariah court was wrong in ruling he had become a Muslim shortly before his death.
“We want a declaration that he is not a Muslim. Our main intention is to seek justice, not just for our family but for the rest of the non-Muslim community,” son Gan Hock Ming told The Associated Press on Monday.
The case was expected to be heard Tuesday at the High Court in southern Seremban state, Hock Ming said.
It is the latest in an increasing number of interfaith conflicts that have raised tensions in multiracial Malaysia.
On Monday, opposition lawmaker Lim Kit Siang urged the government to end “body snatchings” by Islamic authorities, warning they were aggravating racial polarization and hurting Malaysia’s multiracial harmony.
About 60 percent of Malaysia’s 27 million people are ethnic Malay Muslims. A quarter are ethnic Chinese, who are mostly Taoist, Buddhists and Christians, and 8 percent are ethnic Indians, many of whom are Hindus.
Last week, an Islamic Shariah court ruled that Eng Gor, 74, also identified as Amir Gan Abdullah, was a Muslim and should be buried under Islamic rites.
The man’s body was seized by Islamic authorities shortly after his death on Jan. 20 after a complaint by his eldest son, Abdul Rahman Gan, a Muslim convert. He claimed his father had converted to Islam last July. Other relatives disputed this.
Hock Ming said Islamic authorities claimed his bedridden father made an oral declaration in Arabic to accept Islam, but the family has medical confirmation that his father was unable to speak after a stroke in 2006. He said the alleged conversion papers were also flawed because they weren’t signed and certified.
“We hope the prime minister and the higher ups in the Islamic authorities review this case and ensure that the truth is unraveled,” Hock Ming said, calling for all conversions to Islam to be “fair and transparent.”
Authorities from the Islamic religious department in Seremban could not be reached for comment. No comment was available from the office of Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
Malaysia has a dual court system for civil matters with secular courts for non-Muslims and Shariah courts for Muslims. In interfaith disputes involving Muslims, the Shariah court usually gets the last word, making a favorable decision for non-Muslims less likely.

Shariah court’s Islamic conversion ruling challenged by Budhhist- Politics/Nation-News-The Economic Times

Their response—initiated by Yale Divinity School and endorsed by other liberal Christian leaders—apologized for the sins of Christians during the Crusades and for “excesses” of the global war on terror, without mentioning Muslim atrocities. It appeared to leave the fundamentals of Christianity—especially the deity of Christ—open for discussion.

It even seemed to acknowledge Allah as the God of the Bible.

“Before we ‘shake your hand’ in responding to your letter,” it stated, “we ask forgiveness of the All-Merciful One and of the Muslim community around the world.”

The very name of the Muslim communiqué—A Common Word between Us and You—is from a verse in the Quran that condemns “people of the Scripture” (Christians) for alleged polytheism (the doctrine of the Trinity).

Mohler said the agreement “sends the wrong signal” and contains basic theological problems, especially in “marginalizing” Jesus Christ. He also condemned the apology for the Crusades.

“I just have to wonder how intellectually honest this is,” he said. “Are these people suggesting that they wish the military conflict with Islam had ended differently—that Islam had conquered Europe?”

Neither Anderson nor Cizik could be reached for comment.

On the NAE Web site, Anderson asserts he signed the letter as a private individual, although he is identified as NAE president. He also seems to acknowledge problems with the statement.

“Sometimes we all sign onto things that are not all that we would like them to be,” Anderson wrote. “Even after we write and say our own words, we discover that we wish we had done better.”

Gary Bauer, president of the Campaign for Working Families, told CitizenLink the NAE leaders “have left the (card) table without their pants—that is, they’ve been taken and may not even realize they’ve been taken.” 

Bauer said he already was dismayed by the NAE’s recent controversial excursions into questionable areas such as global warming.

“Many of us have been concerned about the NAE getting into all sorts of areas where it has had no previous expertise,” Bauer said. “And now, I’m afraid, I see signs that they’re going down the same road that the National Council of Churches is going.” 

The National Council of Churches has embraced liberal causes and is affiliated with ultra-liberal groups, such as MoveOn.org and People For the American Way.

Sookhdeo called for Christian leaders who signed the letter to withdraw their names, saying the confession of guilt puts Christian communities in Muslim areas of the world at risk. 

“I find it difficult to understand how senior evangelical leaders in the West can join hands with other Christians who actually are betraying the Christian faith (and) their Christian brothers and sisters in the Muslim world,” he said.

Evangelical leaders pledge common cause with Islam- Christian Examiner Online

Op-Ed: Our jihad to reform: The struggle to define our faith (Stanford Times)

January 28, 2008
By Zaid Adhami

Recent events in the Muslim world raise urgent concerns and questions about the state of Islam in today’s world. Acts of terrorism committed “in the name of Islam” aside, both the Saudi rape case and the Sudan teddy-bear-teacher incident are disturbing examples of the troubling conditions of the global Muslim community.

In the Saudi rape case, the rape victim was sentenced to a much harsher punishment (prior to her pardon) for indecency and having an illicit affair than were the men who gang-raped her. This decision raises questions about the injustice of an oppressive and patriarchal Saudi government that dubiously claims to be Islamic in both letter and spirit.

Perhaps even more disturbing is the case of the British teacher in Sudan who was initially sentenced (again, before being pardoned) to imprisonment and lashing for allowing her students to name a teddy bear “Muhammad.” More alarming than the sentence were the mobs of Sudanese Muslims displaying their “piety,” as they called for the teacher’s death. This scene of angry and intolerant mobs mirrors a picture-perfect Hollywood scripting of Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations.”

For reflective Muslims, these events illustrate the betrayal of fundamental moral principles laid down by the Koran and by our beloved Prophet Muhammad. These incidents beg the question that Stanford Muslims hope to address in the coming weeks: Is the Muslim world in need of reform?

The answer seems to be an obvious yes. Yet when one hears “reform,” we are reminded of the Christian experience of reformation since the 15th century in Europe. The Muslim world does not share the historical and theological contexts that shaped Western reform. As such, we are in need of unique Islamic reform that draws on the long forgotten and corrupted principles articulated in the Koran and by Prophet Muhammad. The injustices committed in the name of our religion, coupled with ignorance and intolerance in some of our Muslim communities, make reform necessary.

Yet such a reform must be inherently rooted in Islamic principles and ideals. Our reform cannot be an attempt to appease our colonizers and masters, because any reform grounded on the wishes of Western ideologues (whether Christian fundamentalists or secular extremists) undermines the effort; rather, it must be based upon our Islamic principles in a sincere and faithful attempt to return to the essence of our religion and fulfill our duty to question, understand and live the principles of our faith. The Islamic notion of reform is not a transformation of the Islamic faith, but a reform of our understanding and articulation of our religion. Such a reform is a struggle to interpret and practice Islam in a way that is faithful to the texts yet compatible with contemporary realities. This struggle is not only essential if the Muslim world is to be part of the global community, but it is also true to the essential Islamic concept of jihad.

Often mistranslated as “holy war,” the Arabic term jihad literally means “a struggle.” The Islamic concept of jihad is a fundamental part of the faith that defines our purpose in life. Submission to God — the meaning of “Islam” and our purpose as human beings — is nothing other than jihad: a constant struggle to subdue our human capacities of aggression, injustice, greed, hate, lust, anger, arrogance and to strive towards God — an upward spiritual climb, toilsome and difficult, yet of absolute and utmost importance.

Yet the notion of jihad is to struggle in all senses of the word: internally and externally, personally, socially and politically. Therefore, it is inevitable that at times this struggle against the lower tendencies of human nature will be manifested in military conflict against injustices, and this is also undeniably a part of the faith; yet this is only one element of jihad, and arguably of much lesser importance than the struggle to reform one’s self before all else.

Part of the Muslim jihad, perhaps the most important after our inner spiritual struggle, is to understand and live our faith in a way that is not merely an external and superficial manifestation of Islam, but is true to the fundamental moral principles that are espoused in our texts. We must be cognizant of contemporary realities and challenges that the Muslim world and the global community face, and confront those realities and challenges with an understanding of our faith that goes beyond the intellectual stagnation that so often plagues our community.

Some of the biggest such challenges that the Muslim world must face up to in today’s world are those of intolerance and coexistence, extremism and terrorism, patriarchy and women’s rights, and the role of Shariah (Islamic law) in governance. To confront such challenges is our jihad. And that is exactly what the Muslim community at Stanford is doing. During Islam Awareness Series 2008, which runs from Jan. 31 to Feb. 24, we will have some of the most profound scholars of Islam in the nation tackle these issues and offer their insight as to our present situation and where we are headed.

For more information, please visit http://msan.stanford.edu.

Zaid Adhami ‘10 is the vice president of the Muslim Student Awareness Network (MSAN).

Op-Ed: Our jihad to reform: The struggle to define our faith (Stanford Times)

An Afghani journalist has been sentenced to death for writing an article on women’s rights, which was construed as offensive to Islam. Sayed Perwiz Kambakhsh, 23, from the northern Balkh province, was detained last October on charges of blasphemy and defaming Islam.

He allegedly wrote articles on the role of women in Muslim society and quoted verses in the Quran about women. The family said the articles were not authored by the journalist. They said he took them off the Internet and distributed them.

Dr. Hussein Yasa, editor-in-chief of an independent English daily in Afghanistan, told The Media Line that Afghani journalists are facing pressures and intimidation, especially in the north of the country. “Talking or writing about religious issues is very difficult in Afghanistan,” he said.  However, Yasa stressed that the situation is better now than under the Taliban, who would burn archives and hang television sets from trees.

“We did not have the concept of free journalism that exists now in Afghanistan. The concept of free media in Afghanistan only started after the fall of the Taliban in early 2002,” he said.

The sentence is being condemned by freedom of the press organizations. Kambakhsh’s family said the trial took place in secret and the journalist had no lawyer defending him.

The Committee to Protect Journalists said it was “appalled” by the death sentence meted out on Tuesday. “That a journalist should face execution is an utter disgrace to any democratic nation,” the organization said. It called on Afghan President Hamid Karazai to press for his immediate release.

The Institute for War and Peace Reporting says it was possible Kambakhsh was being punished to pressure his brother also a journalist, who has written extensively about alleged abuses by powerful commanders of armed groups.  Reporters Without Borders said the death ruling on Kambakhsh reflects the growing influence of fundamentalist Islam on intellectual debate. The blasphemy charges, it said, were a tool used by the authorities to restrict press freedom.

Death penalty for Afghan journalist ‘Insulting Islam’ by Media Line

Dutch Muslims urge calm over Qur’an film

By Michael Corder, Associated Press Writer

Houston Chronicle

THE HAGUE, Netherlands — A Dutch Muslim group appealed Thursday for calm at home and abroad in reaction to an anti-Quran film a right-wing politician says he is making.

Geert Wilders, leader of the far-right Freedom Party, says his film will portray the Quran as a “fascist book” that incites violence and intolerance of women and homosexuals.

The Dutch director of a previous film critical of Islam was murdered by a Muslim radical on an Amsterdam street in 2004, prompting a backlash that included the torching of several mosques.

The moderate National Moroccan Council said Thursday it will try to “neutralize the threat” posed by the upcoming film, which Wilders says is still under production.

“At the moment, practically all Muslim groups … are working to ensure a peaceful and responsible reaction” to the film, said the group’s chairman, Mohamed Rabbae, at a news conference in The Hague.

“We will have succeeded if, after the film, Mr. Wilders is frustrated,” Rabbae said. “If he sees there are no riots and Muslims are cleverer and more democratic than he thinks.”

Wilders has yet to find a broadcaster prepared to air the film once it is finished. But he has said that if he cannot find one, he will post it on the Internet.

Even though it is uncertain the film will ever be broadcast, the government has put cities on alert for possible violence. It has also warned its overseas embassies about a possible reaction similar to the one that erupted across the Muslim world over caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad printed in a Danish newspaper in 2005.

“That a 10-minute film that’s never been shown may lead to riots, boycotts and other bad things, says everything about the nature of Islam,” said Wilders in an open letter Thursday. “Nothing about me.”

Wilders’ party holds nine of the Dutch parliament’s 150 seats.

In the past, he has said that half the Quran should be torn up and has compared it with Adolf Hitler’s book “Mein Kampf.” He has claimed the Netherlands is being swamped by a “tsunami” of Islamic immigrants.

Wilders said his film will not closely resemble “Submission,” the short film written by right-leaning former Dutch lawmaker Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

“Submission” criticized the treatment of women under Islam, citing Quranic verses that appeared to justify abuse.

The film’s director, Theo Van Gogh, was murdered in 2004. A Muslim extremist shot him numerous times, slit his throat and used a knife to pin a letter to his chest threatening the life of Hirsi Ali. She now lives in the United States under 24-hour guard.

Rabbae said his group represents the majority of the more than 850,000 Muslims living in this nation of 16.3 million.

The group also will call on Dutch Muslims who feel victimized or insulted by the film to file criminal complaints against Wilders for racial or religious vilification.

Dutch Muslims urge calm over Qur’an film- by Michael Corder

How Do You Solve the Problem of Sharia?Canada grapples with the boundaries of legal multiculturalism.

By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Friday, Sept. 10, 2004, at 5:55 PM ET

This week has seen protests around Canada—and at Canadian Embassies worldwide—as citizens grapple with an issue that blurs the boundary between religious tolerance and oppression. The Ontario government is considering a proposal to allow certain family law matters—including divorce, custody, and inheritance—to be arbitrated by panels of Muslim clerics. Supporters of the proposal say that Canada’s commitment to cultural diversity requires that Muslim law be accorded the same respect as other legal systems. Opponents say Muslim law inherently conflicts with the basic freedoms guaranteed Canadians.

Marion Boyd, Ontario’s former attorney general, has been appointed by Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty to determine the appropriateness of these sharia, or Islamic law, tribunals. She’s in a tough spot. Ultimately, the question comes down to whether sharia is fundamentally different from other religious codes. And making that sort of determination should not be the responsibility of any democratic government.

The plan to use formal panels of imams and Muslim scholars to resolve family-law disputes is neither radical nor subversive. For one thing, Canadian imams have been informally using sharia law to settle disputes between Muslims for years. For another, a 1991 Ontario law known as the Ontario Arbitration Act permits Orthodox Jews and Christians to submit to voluntary faith-based arbitration. These agreements are then ratified by secular civil courts, so long as their rulings conform to Canadian law, and both parties were willing participants.

Ontario Muslims have merely sought to officially reap the benefits of the Arbitration Act, leaving the Ontario government with two unpleasant alternatives: They must either scrap the act altogether or unearth some principled justification for allowing some religious citizens, but not Muslims, to benefit from its protections. The question somehow comes down to whether sharia is too inherently sexist to be reconciled with Canada’s civil rights laws. And if anything definitive can be said about sharia, it’s that no such definitive pronouncements can be made.

It’s probably no surprise that some religious groups find themselves in the strange position of wholeheartedly embracing the wonders of sharia. For instance, this week B’nai Brith Canada endorsed the tribunals. And while Canadians are deeply divided over this matter, no one is more divided than the Canadian Muslim community. The Muslim Canadian Congress urged the Ontario government to reject the tribunals, describing sharia as uncodified, racist, and unconstitutional. The Canadian Council of Muslim Women similarly says, "We want the same laws to apply to us as to other Canadian women." But Syed Mumtaz Ali—the lawyer demanding that sharia be made available under the Arbitration Act—last month declared that Muslims cannot live under secular law alone: "Every act of your life is to be governed by [sharia]. If you are not obeying the law, you are not a Muslim. That’s all there is to it."

If you hear echoes here of religious citizens of the United States who claim they cannot be asked to abide by any secular law that conflicts with God’s law, you’ll begin to grasp the problem: How does a liberal democracy permit unfettered religious freedom without eventually becoming a theocracy?

Sharia is a centuries-old system of justice based on Quranic law, and while it includes general provisions about the importance of justice and equality, as practiced throughout the world it has been used to justify stonings, the flogging of rape victims, public hangings, and various types of mutilation. In her weird and provocative book, The Trouble With Islam, Canadian commentator Irshad Manji reminds us that on average, two women die each day in Pakistan from "honor killings" (a husband’s revenge for adultery, flirtation, or any perceived sexual shaming) and that, in Malaysia, women may not travel without the written consent of a male. Saudi Arabian women may not drive. Moreover, under sharia, male heirs receive almost double the inheritance of females. Spousal support is limited from three months to one year, unless a woman was pregnant before she was divorced. Only men can initiate divorce proceedings, and fathers are virtually always awarded custody of any children who have reached puberty.

Still, supporters of sharia tribunals in Canada have strong arguments—in addition to claims of basic fairness suggesting that if Catholics and Orthodox Jews can have divorces settled by religious courts, fundamentalist Muslims must be allowed to do the same. They insist that these religious arbitrations are voluntary. No one is forced into religious courts. They say that if a party to an arbitrated agreement is dissatisfied, she may always ask the civil courts to overturn it. And proponents urge that this is an opportunity to reform and revitalize sharia; creating a hybrid of Canadian-style freedoms and traditional values.

Perhaps most important, supporters of these tribunals argue that any aspect of sharia that conflicts with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would simply not be enforceable by the tribunals. The charter expressly provides that "Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons." Worries about a subclass of impoverished women and their abandoned children are misplaced, they insist, as is xenophobic hysteria over stonings or polygamy. Such measures violate the laws of Canada and are simply not available to sharia panels.

Truth be told, it’s pretty hard to tease out a meaningful objection to sharia panels under these circumstances. If participation is indeed purely voluntary, if all agreements are reviewable by civil courts, if parties are already submitting to these panels informally anyhow, and if any provision that violates the Canadian civil rights laws is null and void, what do Muslim and feminist groups find so appalling? At worst, some kind of toothless sharia-lite will govern. At best, a more equitable, kinder, gentler sharia may be forged.

But Canadian feminists argue that there is no such thing as purely voluntary arbitration. They insist that isolated immigrant women with limited English are coerced into appearing before sharia panels and never advised of their rights. Refusal to abide by the dictates of these panels results in being shunned in the Muslim community. Supporters of the panels, including B’nai Brith, say this problem can be easily solved by educating women about their rights under the law and enacting protections and safeguards into the arbitration process, including female arbitrators and formal records.

This raises another objection to sharia: Unlike other forms of religious law, there is little consensus on any standardized interpretation. It’s hard to advise women about their rights under a set of rules that are always subject to reinterpretation. Inadvertently setting his cause back a few steps, Mohammed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress—another group endorsing sharia in Ontario—recently claimed that: "There are only a handful of scholars in Canada who are fully trained in interpreting and applying Sharia law—and perhaps as few as one." All of which makes the sharia panels sound less like a court than a Magic Eight Ball. Elmasry confirmed that point when he added cheerfully that: "The arbitrators use gut feeling, they use common sense, and in many cases they are successful."

Despite this protest, it is hard to distinguish sharia law as uniquely more sexist, homophobic, or misogynistic than other religions. The brutal truth is that there are sexist and homophobic aspects to most religious law—including Orthodox Jewish and Christian law. (Indeed, some Orthodox Jewish women have used this period of review to question the appropriateness of grafting Jewish law onto the Ontario civil laws in the first place.)

Certainly anyone can waive the right to have a court settle a civil dispute, and religious Canadians have every right to submit privately to tribunals of any religious stripe to mediate their differences. The question is whether the state should be putting its imprimatur on these negotiated agreements.

This Canadian fondness for multiculturalism at any cost stands in stark contrast to the French approach to religious diversity. Last week, the French government began enforcing its controversial new ban on the wearing of overtly religious symbols—Muslim headscarves, large crosses, yarmulkes—in public schools. French democracy now means that everyone must subordinate their religious differences to their French citizenship, whereas Canadian multiculturalism means the civil law must bend and bend again to accommodate religious differences—even where those religious differences violate the spirit of Canadian equality. Somehow, the Canadians are prepared to sell the farm, while the French will settle for shooting all the animals.

When an official government policy of diversity and tolerance gives its official thumbs up to any legal system—Jewish, Muslim, or Martian—fraught with judgment and intolerance, the consequence is a legal hall of mirrors: A system of laws equally protecting the rights of religious minorities to treat one another unequally.

How do you solve the problem of sharia? - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine

Technorati Tags: Wilders,Anti-Islam,film,sharia

Anti-Islam film put on hold

AFP
Published:Jan 26, 2008

---

THE HAGUE - Dutch far-right deputy Geert Wilders said in an interview published today that his controversial anti-Islam film will air in a few weeks, later than he had previously announced.

“The film is not yet finished. It’s so much work. It will still take us a few weeks,” Wilders told De Telegraaf, the Netherland’s biggest selling daily.

Wilders announced last November he planned to make a short film showing that Islam’s holy book, the Koran, is “a fascist book” that “incites people to murder”.

The leader of the PVV party - which has nine of 150 seats in Parliament - initially said the film would air at the end of January.

De Telegraaf said it had viewed some opening images from the film, which for weeks has been breeding worry in the country.

“The opening shot shows to the left the cover of the Koran, and to the right the words ’Warning: this book contains shocking pictures’,” it said.

Then images such as “a decapitation in Iraq, a stoning in Iran and an execution in Saudi Arabia, where sharia (Islamic law) is applied” are shown, it said. “Those who find that shocking should not get angry with me, but with those people who did these things,” said Wilders.

“The film does not only talk about the Koran, it plays out within its framework,” he said. “The edges of the book will be permanently visible (in the film) and within this frame, we show images of what is described in the words of the Koran.”

Numerous Muslim associations have already urged Muslims in the country to stay calm and not allow themselves to be provoked.

Wilders has been under heavy police protection since the 2004 murder of Dutch director and columnist Theo van Gogh. Van Gogh was killed by a radical Muslim after he directed a film criticising women’s position in Islam.

The Times - Article