Muslim Heretics Conference

Jordan slams Dutch MP’s Islam film

3 hours ago

AMMAN (AFP) — Jordan on Monday condemned an anti-Islamic film by a Dutch lawmaker and demanded firm action from The Netherlands, a day after MPs called for ties between the two countries to be severed.

“We respect freedom of expression, but what happened was an abuse of this freedom and it is rejected and condemned,” State Minister for Information Nasser Judeh told the state-run Petra news agency.

He said Foreign Minister Salah Bashir has asked the ambassadors to Brussels and Vienna to meet the president of the European Parliament and other officials in a bid to “prevent future attempts to insult Islam and the Prophet Mohammed.”

Far-right Dutch deputy Geert Wilders posted the 17-minute film entitled “Fitna” (Discord in Arabic) on the Internet on Thursday, featuring violent imagery of attacks in New York and Madrid intertwined with Koranic texts.

Earlier, parliament issued a statement calling on the Dutch authorities “to take a firm position towards such actions that hurt the feelings of hundreds of millions of Muslims.”

“Jordan is shocked and condemns all attempts to sow sedition and provoke Muslims under the pretext of freedom of expression,” the statement said.

Judeh accused Wilders of “seeking nothing but to provoke people,” Petra reported.

The film prompted 53 Jordanian MPs on Sunday to submit a petition to Prime Minister Nader Dahabi demanding that the government expel the Dutch ambassador to Amman and sever diplomatic links with The Netherlands.

Several Muslim countries have also condemned the film, which followed the February reprinting in Danish newspapers of a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed deemed insulting to Islam.

Earlier this month, 48 Jordanian MPs urged the government to sever ties with Denmark in protest.

Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen sought on Monday to temper anger in the Muslim world at the film.

“We know the worries and the feelings that surround this film in the international Muslim community, but hurt feelings should not be an excuse for aggression and threats,” a statement from Verhagen said.

He issued the statement after meeting 26 ambassadors from the 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which warned last week that the film’s aim was to provoke unrest.

 

Copyright © 2008 AFP. All rights reserved. More »

AFP: Jordan slams Dutch MP’s Islam film

A Conversion Heard Around the World

Posted on March 27, 2008

By Thomas Haidon

 

On the world stage, and under the auspices of Pope Benedict, Magdi Allam, a staunch Egyptian critic of radical Islam, became a member of the Roman-Catholic faith. The significance and symbolism of this conversion cannot be understated, particularly in the current climate of Islamic-Catholic affairs. In embracing Roman Catholicism and rejecting Islam, Mr Allam (a formerly self-avowed secular Muslim) breached one of the most fundamental precepts of traditional Islam by committing the “crime” of apostasy.

At the same time Allam has made a potentially empowering statement in support of the freedom of religion and universal human rights. The implications of this event will unfold over the coming days and weeks. It is likely that the conversion of Mr Allam will hold significant implications for Mr Allam (particularly for his personal safety and relationship with the Muslim and non-Muslim world), and for the wider state of affairs governing Muslim-non-Muslim relations. It provides both challenges and opportunities for Muslims and non-Muslims to confront the “uncomfortable” aspects of Islam that are rarely discussed in the West.

At the foundation of any ensuing controversy behind Mr Allam’s conversion is traditional Islamic law. All major jurisprudential schools of traditional Islam criminalize “apostasy” and are in general accord that the punishment of death is mandated for the male, born to Muslim parents, who takes up another religion to Islam. While there may be some academic dissonance among so called moderates and reformers, the law is well settled. As such, Allam’s conversion essentially makes him a target for traditionalists and Islamists (not only “run of the mill” jihadists).

In trying to grasp the situation, some commentators have begun to draw parallels between Mr Allam with the case of author Salman Rushdie, born into Shi’a Islam accused of blasphemy and apostasy by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Rushdie has been the subject of several fatwa (Islamic legal judgments), from Sunni and Shi’a scholars calling for his execution, which have resulted in attempts on his life.

While there are some clear parallels between Mr. Allam and Mr. Rusdhie, these comparisons are not entirely congruent. While Rushdie is considered an apostate by many Muslims and Muslim governments, he has not made a formal and public declaration of his apostasy like Mr. Allam. Through his works including “Viva Israele!”, and his unabated criticism of radical Islam, Mr. Allam had already been painted by traditionalists and Islamists with the “blasphemy” and “intellectual apostasy” brush. Mr. Allam’s formal declaration of “apostasy” makes him an innate apostate according to Islamic law, and therefore severely exacerbates his already tenuous relationship with the traditional Muslim world. Mr. Allam’s conversion will be treated with greater invective among Muslims because of its public nature and linkages to the Catholic Church and Pope Benedict. In other words, the situation of Mr. Allam is likely to be more dire than that of Mr. Rushdie. In traditionalist and Islamist eyes, Mr. Allam is likely to be perceived as far more “dangerous” than Rushdie.

While Mr. Allam, may become a target of Al-Qaeda, he is likely to be the subject of fatwa from terrorists connected with the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and the conservative factions of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, given his Sunni and Egyptian connections. Clearly, Mr. Allam will require, and is most deserved of, state protection. Unfortunately, Mr. Allam’s conversion is also likely to result in professional implications and may result in a backlash from Western media outlets, analysts, and policy-makers who continue to deny the existence of the problems stemming from Islam and who advocate for “constructive engagement” with Islamists. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others provide for excellent case studies to demonstrate just how difficult the path of activism for ex-Muslims can be.

In terms of the wider context, this event is likely to serve as a potential flash point in the current context of deteriorating Islamic-Catholic relations. The Pope’s recent comments about Islam and the maltreatment of Christians in Muslim countries has been indicative of the Holy See’s insistence on reciprocity as a governing principle in Islamic-Catholic relations. This “defiance” has been met with hostility in the Muslim world, even among “moderates.”

In traditionalist and Islamist circles, Pope Benedict and the Catholic Church will be viewed as the primary enabler of Mr. Allam’s conversion, and will only contribute to the Muslim world’s warped views about the Pope and the role of the Church. Given the overarching Muslim hysteria around the Danish cartoons and the papal statements, the conversion of Mr. Allam before the Church is likely to be viewed as further “provocation.” Indeed, this event will contribute to the shifting framework of inter-faith dialogue, which is shifting from the standard approach of “polite dialogue“ and focus on “the common aspects of the Abrahamic faiths,” to an uncomfortable, but necessary discussion on the core tenets of religion, particularly Islam.

In many ways, the Allam conversion, and the controversy that is likely to ensure, will present both challenges and opportunities for ongoing Muslim-non-Muslim relations. First, it provides yet a further test of the Muslim commitment to universal human rights and, to a degree, compatibility with “Western values.” Earlier, opportunities arose in the context of the Pope’s initial remarks on Islam, and the publication of the Danish cartoons. These opportunities were wasted, and the perceived divide between Islam and the West has only grown. For Western Muslims in particular however, the Allam conversion affords an opportunity to demonstrate a respect for the universal human freedom of religion, which is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This necessarily requires the express rejection of the traditionalist Islamic approach to the issue. Will the Muslim world embrace this opportunity?

The Allam conversion also has the potential to shift the current policy and discourse in the West. It highlights once again the inherent conflict between universal human rights and the notion of “collective rights” (the rights of a group or cohort, which often trump individual rights) that is currently a central theme of debate in the international arena, particularly between Muslim countries and non-Muslim countries on the role of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. Shari’ah and its implementation epitomizes the notion of “collective rights”; that is the marginalization of individual rights in order to benefit the wider Muslim community. The Allam conversion and ensuing controversy could have the effect of encouraging public debate on this issue, and increasing awareness of the incompatibility of shari’ah with universal human rights. Perhaps this is an overly optimistic perspective, given the general reluctance and failure of policy makers in the West to confront the foundations of Islamism.

The public conversion of Allam may also lead to increased internal Muslim debate on the issue of “apostasy,” and encourage frank discussions with non-Muslims on the issue that move beyond the rhetoric that is the current framework of “inter-faith” dialogue. The immediate Muslim reaction appears to be disingenuous. The Vice President of Coreis, which purports to represent the Muslim community in Italy, failed to address the issue head on, but instead stated that he “respected” Mr. Allam’s decision, but questioned the “high profile way he chose to do it.” History tells us, however, that apostates are generally always regarded with vehemence in the wider Muslim community. The reaction over the coming days and weeks will be telling, particularly if the level of Mr. Allam’s activism escalates. It also affords the Catholic Church the opportunity to affirm the anti-Islamist overtones that has served as a hallmark of Pope Benedict’s tenure.

Importantly, this event could also serve as an empowering precedent for other Western Muslims, who may be inwardly secular, to follow Mr. Allam’s path. Mr. Allam is arguably the most prominent Muslim to convert publicly to another faith. For many Muslims, traditional Islam is an intellectual and spiritual prison; the example of Mr. Allam could help provide the impetus for Muslims to leave Islam. Undoubtedly, Mr. Allam will bring needed vigor to the ex-Muslim and secular Muslim movement. Given his connections with moderate Muslims in Italy, including liberal Muslim thinker Sheikh Abdul Palazzi of the Italian Muslim Assembly, Mr. Allam could also help foster connections between moderate Muslims and the ex-Muslim movement, to which common understandings exist. Mr. Allam has been a staunch supporter of legitimate moderate Muslims. Moderate Muslims have an obligation to reciprocate that support and to give real effect and meaning to the oft repeated Qur’anic injunction (that is so often used to attest to purported Islamic tolerance by Muslim apologists): “[l]et there be no compulsion in religion.”

Genuine moderate Muslims should stand in solidarity with Mr. Allam in the spirit of universal human rights. Mr. Allam has been a consistent supporter and enabler of Moderate Muslims and reformers. Mr. Allam has demonstrated immeasurable courage and fortitude in rejecting Islamic tyranny, and should not stand alone. It is simply not enough, however, for Moderate Muslims to pay lip service to Mr. Allam. Moderate Muslims must work harder to develop Islamic solutions to the problems of Islam, in order to create an environment for change. Collectively, we continue to fail to do so, despite the earnest efforts of a number of scholars. A primary objective of moderate Muslims and reformers should be to create an environment where is it is possible for Muslims to talk about Islam’s problems and its sources, and moreover to provide for safe mechanisms which enable Muslims to leave Islam, without the fear of repercussion. Currently, there is no such mechanism. {The Muslim Heretic Conference][1] being held in Atlanta later this month provides a further opportunity to advance this thinking.

CrossAction News / A Conversion Heard Around the World

Muslims embrace label as heretics
By CHRISTOPHER QUINN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 03/29/08

Muslims gathering in Atlanta this weekend call themselves heretics half-seriously.

Remember, said Emory professor Abdullahi An-Na’im, opponents of Muhammad and Jesus called them heretics. So-called heresy can accomplish great changes, he said.

Corky Gallo/Emory Law School

 

Emory professor Abdullahi An-Na’im hopes the meeting sparks positive change and openness.

About 75 Muslim bloggers, writers and free thinkers from the United States and abroad are expected this weekend at the Muslim Heretics Conference, where they will talk about democracy, women’s issues and critical thinking. They hope their discussions will spark positive changes and open conversations that will echo around the world.

“We want to rehabilitate the notion of heresy as a creative force,” said An-Na’im, who wrote “Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari’a,” which is a defense of secular governments for Muslims.

It has been published in six languages. An-Na’im has lectured on the issue around the world, including in his native Sudan, where a mentor from his early life was killed by the Islamist government.

He said new communication technologies such as the Internet are opening the Muslim world to new ideas, and repressive governments can no longer control the flow of information. So there is a great deal of ferment going on in the world of thought among the planet’s 1 billion-plus Muslims.

Iranian-born Fereydoun Taslimi of Atlanta, who also helped organize the conference, said, “We plan to do it every year, a gathering of people who like to discuss issues and keep the momentum and networking of Muslims going.”

The organizers have been talking about such a conference for months, he said. In January, they decided to put the word out and see how many people would show. Registration for the conference is closed.

Some Muslims have criticized them for using the title Muslim Heretics Conference, Taslimi said.

“But we decided to stick with it, in that we feel we are against the kind of actions that are being committed in the name of Islam,” such as violence and repression, he said.

Taslimi said some of the same critics a few years back complained about the use of the words “Islamic reform,” but have adopted the phrase when discussing issues where their religion and the modern world intersect.

Jill Carroll, an author and the director of the Boniuk Center for Religious Tolerance at Rice University in Houston, said such conversations are happening with increasing frequency and are important.

“Every religion has to confront the social and political realities of the time,” she said.

“There is a growing conversation of, what is our role in the 21st century. We have to interpret our faith newly.”

Muslims embrace label as heretics | ajc.com

Reactions in the Egyptian Press to the Establishment of the Middle East Freedom Forum in Cairo
By: L. Azuri

Introduction

The Middle East Freedom Forum, a research institute for Egyptian affairs, was established in Cairo in November 2007. Its founder and director is Magdi Khalil, a Coptic-American human rights activist and an editor of the Egyptian Christian weekly Watani. The institute was launched at a large symposium in Cairo titled “Where Is Egypt Headed?”

The symposium was attended by many of Egypt’s leading liberal intellectuals, among them Ahmad ‘Abd Al-Mu’ti Hijazi, professor of Arabic literature at the University of Paris and former culture editor of the Egyptian weekly Roz Al-Yousef; Salah ‘Issa, editor of the weekly Al-Qahira, published by the Egyptian Culture Ministry; Egyptian intellectual Tarek Heggy; Dr. ‘Abd Al-Mun’im Sa’id, director of the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies; Dr. Hala Mustafa, editor of the Al-Ahram Center’s quarterly Demokratiyya; Egyptian MP Dr. Osama Al-Ghazali Harb, editor of the monthly Al-Siyassa Al-Duwaliyya; Dr. ‘Imad Gad, Israel affairs expert at the Al-Ahram Center; Egyptian philosopher Dr. Mourad Wahba; and Islamic scholar Gamal Al-Bana.

The symposium dealt with numerous issued pertaining to Egypt’s future, including press freedom, Muslim-Copt coexistence, citizenship and human rights, Egyptian culture, the secular state, political Islam, Egypt’s relations with the U.S. and Israel, the future of political parties in Egypt, and the Egyptian judicial system. [1]

Reactions to the symposium in the Egyptian press were mixed. Some articles criticized it, claiming that Magdi Khalil was serving U.S. interests, as was his “mentor” Dr. Sa’d Al-Din Ibrahim, director of the Ibn Khaldoun Center. [2] Others praised Khalil’s initiative, calling the institute a worthy endeavor that will benefit Egyptian society.

Following are details about the symposium and excerpts from the reactions to it in the Egyptian press.

Where Is Egypt Headed?

In his address at the symposium, Magdi Khalil declared that the Middle East Freedom Forum was an independent research institute, and would be free of external pressures even though its main offices were located in Washington. He stated that the institute’s activities would be fully transparent, and would meet scientific, ethical, professional, and national standards. He expressed hope that the institute would serve to promote overall enlightenment in Egypt.

Khalil added that the institute would publish reports on the state of human rights in Egypt that would be more objective than those published outside the country. However, he added that the institute would not limit itself to scientific observation, but would also seek to encourage civil activism. He emphasized that the institute’s board of directives included several active researchers, in order to enable the public to follow human rights violations in Egypt. [3]

Main Topics Discussed at the Symposium

The Future of the Egyptian Press

The issue of the Egyptian press was addressed at the symposium by Salah ‘Issa, editor of the Egyptian Culture Ministry weekly Al-Qahira. ‘Issa argued that Egypt was currently in transition from a “semi-democratic” to a fully democratic regime. He added that currently the press seemed to be the only Egyptian institution that was fairly effective and enjoyed considerable freedom. In the period following the 1952 revolution, he said, the Egyptian government owned most of the national press, and thus controlled 90% of the readership and 90% of the journalists, the latter operating under its guidance. Recently, however, the government has given the press a greater degree of freedom. ‘Issa assessed that the “recruited” press of the revolutionary era was gradually becoming a free and bold press that engages the readers’ intellect, not only their emotions - a change, he said, that has been accompanied by a lifting of the constraints on the media, since nowadays no one but the military in Egypt is immune to criticism. ‘Issa also mentioned the advent of an independent press, which he said was professional and loyal to its readers and presented a wide range of reports and opinions.

Reviving Islamic Discourse

Reformist Egyptian philosopher Gamal Al-Bana expounded his view on the renewal and revival of Islamic discourse. He argued that religious discourse in the Muslim world today had reverted to the Salafi interpretations of centuries past, which had suited the circumstances of that era, but were no longer relevant now that freedom of belief is considered a fundamental right. He concluded that Islamic thought should be renewed by reliance on the Koran and the Prophet’s Sunna only, not on the opinions of scholars and commentators. Al-Bana added that the goal must be the individual, and that Islam was only a means to an end.

Egypt-U.S. Relations

Al-Ahram Center for Strategic and Political Studies director Dr. ‘Abd Al-Mun’im Sa’id led the discussion on the future of Egypt’s relations with the U.S. and Israel. He said that both Egypt and the U.S. had derived greater benefit from their reciprocal relations than either had from its relations with any other country. Egypt’s peace accords with Israel, for example, would not have succeeded but for the close relations between Egypt and the U.S. The U.S., on its part, benefited from Egypt’s standing in the Arab, African and Islamic arenas, which helped it strengthen its position in Afghanistan, in the first Gulf War, and in the Cold War.

Sa’id acknowledged that Egypt-U.S. relations had also known periods of tension, and assessed that there would continue to be conflict over various issues, including the peace process, the crisis in the Gulf, extremism in the Arab world, and questions of democratization.

The Future of Democracy in Egypt

This topic was addressed at the symposium by Egyptian MP Dr. Osama Al-Ghazali Harb, editor of the monthly Al-Siyassa Al-Duwaliyya. He stated that there was a consensus in Egypt that democracy was the solution to all the country’s problems, and added that democracy was no longer the concern of only the Egyptian elite. It is also the concern of the country’s lower classes, he said, which have realized that it may hold the solution to their economic problems, and to Egypt’s problems of corruption and social inequality.

Harb named three factors that had to be taken into consideration in assessing the future of democracy in Egypt: First, Egypt has a distinguished tradition of liberalism, since it has had multiple political parties for over a century. Second, external forces were pressuring Egypt to become more democratic, and third, Egypt is currently at a low point in its history in terms of democracy, since it is ruled by an undemocratic regime that inhibits multiparty politics and does not recognize the freedoms of civil society.

Harb pointed out that several parties - Al-Wafd, Al-Tagammu’, the Nasserist Party, and the Democratic Front - have formed a coalition calling for democracy. The regime, however, remains adamant in its opposition to democracy, as evident from its decision to let the Muslim Brotherhood into the parliament and from its control over the media. He added that democracy would not come to Egypt through Islamist extremism.

The Future of Education in Egypt

Dr. Kamal Mughith of Egypt’s National Center for Social Research criticized the state of education in the country, saying that it was still based on the model of the kuttab - the traditional Muslim school. He explained that Egypt’s curricula were still dominated by Islamic teachings that were at odds with the concept of citizenship, and that textbooks were not only rife with historical inaccuracies but that they completely ignored Coptic history and sites holy to the Christians.

Dr. ‘Imad Gad of the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies said that for decades, the Egyptian school system and media had drummed into the public that the conflict with Israel could only be solved by military means. This, he said, is why the hostility towards Israel was bound to persist.

The Egyptian Judiciary

Dr. Tharwat Badawi, lecturer on law and constitution at Cairo University, said at the symposium that the Egyptian judiciary had to be independent and must elect its own members without intervention by the executive branch.

The National Association for Human Rights and Development director, attorney Amir Salem, who is also defense attorney for Ayman Nour, imprisoned former leader of the oppositionist Al-Ghad party, said that although the judiciary had long been struggling for independence, it was still under the direct influence of the executive branch. This, he said, was because the president remained head of the Council of Judicial Bodies, while the justice minister heads the Supreme Judicial Council. Salem added that many judges serve as advisors to various ministries, which compromises their objectivity.

The Future of Egypt as a Civil versus Religious State

In an address that dealt with this topic, Egyptian reformist intellectual Dr. Sayyed Al-Qimni argued that the model of the religious state had no future. Al-Qimni pointed out that even Hamas had refrained from implementing shari’a, even though the first article in its covenant declares its commitment to that ideal. This, he said, was because Hamas recognized that traditional principles are not compatible with the present time. Nevertheless, Egypt’s institutions, from the schools to the media, the mosques and the churches, still promote only one perspective - the dominance of religion - so that the citizens are never exposed to other points of view.

Egyptian diplomat Mahmoud Qassem said that Egypt was a civil state in religious guise, but that this guise was becoming more dominant every day, threatening to completely transform the essence of the Egyptian state. He added that Egypt’s present regime was using the trappings of religion to gain legitimacy and to remain in power as long as possible, while other forces in Egypt (namely the Muslim Brotherhood) were striving to establish a religious state in the full sense of the term. [4]

Reactions in the Egyptian Press

Khalil is the Heir of Dr. Sa’d Al-Din Ibrahim

The founding symposium of the Middle East Freedom Forum evoked mixed reactions in the Egyptian press. The opposition weekly Al-Usbu’ attacked Magdi Khalil, saying: “Remember the name Magdi Khalil. He is a Coptic Egyptian political science scholar who lives in Washington, and who is touted as the heir [of Sa'd Al-Din Ibrahim]. [This epithet] was given him by his associates and by some academics and human rights organizations, [because] he is playing a role similar to that played by Sa’d Al-Din Ibrahim, director of the Ibn Khaldoun Center. [This role is one of] complete submission to American dictates, and of unflagging efforts to carry them out, even if they contravene the supreme interests of the [Egyptian] state.

“However, there is a clear distinction between the disciple [Khalil] and his mentor [Ibrahim]. [Unlike the mentor], the disciple does not have elaborate and long-standing relations with the decision makers abroad - meaning that he must, at least for the time being, take a moderate approach towards the Egyptian regime and its institutions. This is in contrast to Sa’d Al-Din Ibrahim, whose close [ties] with Washington rapidly led him into confrontation with [the regime].

“Magdi Khalil preferred to concern himself with problems that probably exist in every society, even in America’s racist society. He began to fan the flames of strife with his articles and [public] appearances, [portraying] Egypt - the land of tolerance - as a country [torn] by ethnic conflict. He constantly harps on the same issues: political reform, the Coptic [issue], and various questions of Islam and its institutions in Egypt - because these are the issues that concern Washington…” [5]

The Middle East Freedom Forum Was Founded to Serve Khalil’s Private Interests

Hani Labib, columnist for the Egyptian weekly Roz Al-Yousef, likewise attacked Khalil and his institute: “Magdi Khalil [is adept at] exploiting all types of media to promote his private goals. [His main goal] is to cultivate his image as an enlightened and liberal reformist, though his views and ideas indicate that he is the exact opposite… He has managed to convince public opinion that he is an outstanding academic and intellectual…

“The Middle East Freedom Forum was created in the guise of a commercial enterprise, like… a translation company or publishing house. It [was founded] as part of the covert rivalry between [Khalil] and [Coptic activist] Michael Mounir… It is also a branch of Khalil’s business in the U.S., and it receives funding and ideological support from ‘Adli Abadir [leader of the Switzerland-based association Copts-United]…

“The interesting thing about Magdi Khalil is that he sees [absolutely] nothing positive about Egypt, and spreads [all sorts of] strange ideas. For example, he always accuses the Egyptian Copts of helplessness and submissiveness, [complaining] that the Copts abroad must take care of all their concerns. He ignores [the fact] that the Copts’ problems and concerns should not be handled by commercial [companies], or in the international arena. [Rather, they should be handled] along with the civil and national rights of all Egyptian citizens. Moreover, he portrays the Coptic elite in Egypt as a faceless group disdained by the Egyptian government… disregarding the considerable differences [of opinion] that exist within the Coptic [community]…”

About the symposium, Labib wrote: “The [symposium] dealt with many general issues, and was attended by numerous public figures, but the discussion rapidly deteriorated into an ugly ethnic argument. The argument was provoked by a small group of Copts from abroad, headed by Magdi Khalil. These [people] have for years [claimed] that the Egyptian regime would never allow them to hold conferences in Egypt like they do abroad… [This last symposium] proves that, contrary to their claims, nothing is stopping them from meeting in Egypt. [Furthermore,] Magdi Khalil’s symposium took place in the same week as the National Human Rights Council conference, which Khalil failed to attend. This proves that the sole objective of his symposium was to undermine the official council’s conference, by holding a rival conference… [6]

The Middle East Freedom Forum Symposium - A Brave Step towards Progress, Democracy, and a Civil State

The head of the Evangelist community in Shubra, Rif’at Fikri Sa’id, was supportive of Khalil’s initiative, writing in the Christian weekly Watani: “In light of the fundamentalism, and the religious and ideological backwardness that surround us on every side, and with the mounting [chorus] of clamorous voices calling for extremism and discrimination against the other, Egypt needs intensive, serious and dedicated efforts from its civil [society] organizations. The Middle East Freedom Forum, headed by Magdi Khalil, is a new [light] illuminating the long path towards enlightenment - a path that requires years of serious and unceasing work aimed at achieving true democracy and inculcating the ideal of a civil state.

“The theme chosen by Magdi Khalil for his conference - ‘Where is Egypt Headed?’ - is very important, for it deals with the country’s future. [Unfortunately] the future generally interests no one but a handful of progressives who strive for culture and progress. Most people are mired in the past - [clinging to] traditions long since obsolete in attempt to convince us that the only way forward is through a return to ancient [times]. Others content themselves with assessing and interpreting the present, thus spending their time lamenting our unfortunate situation. Aware of this state of affairs, the Middle East Freedom Forum has taken a bold and original step: It is not [merely] interpreting the past, but has initiated an appraisal of Egypt’s future by some of the country’s leading thinkers and academics. The real crisis, and the source of the problems and ills of our Arab region… is that backward thinking prevails, while the [rest of the] world progresses… It is no surprise that others have made progress while we have remained backward.

“Today, more than ever, we must relinquish the conspiratorial mentality, which is still [typical] of quite a few Egyptians. Whenever they hear a progressive idea, a call for [the establishment of] a civil state, or [an argument] against reactionary and outdated [notions], the reactionaries [object], and question the motives of those calling for progress. They use expressions like ‘agents of the West,’ ‘American conspiracy,’ and ‘implementation of the Zionist-American agenda.’ They [characterize Khalil's forum] as Coptic, or as affiliated with the Coptic diaspora, even though most of the Copts [living abroad] are Egyptian through and through, and are working for Egypt’s benefit, trying to advance it and to help it become a true civil state…

“Today we must encourage anyone who works for the advancement of Egypt, whether he be Christian or Muslim. We all share the same interests - just as the danger of backwardness, and of hatred towards progress and enlightenment, threatens to destroy all of us, Christians and Muslims alike…” [7]

Secular Coptic intellectual Kamal Zakhr Moussa also condemned the criticism leveled at Magdi Khalil and his institute. He wrote: “Magdi Khalil, an activist of the Coptic Egyptian [diaspora], opened a research institute here in Egypt… [and launched it] with a well-attended symposium dealing with the question ‘Where is Egypt Headed?’ This is further proof that Egypt is receptive to different ideological trends, and is not afraid [to let people express themselves ] openly - as long as this is done in a public and transparent manner, and [as part of the promotion of] civilian [rights].

“The [supporters of the] totalitarian [regime], however, hurried to accuse Khalil and his institute of being new [agents] of the American gang that is infiltrating Egypt - a gang [often] referred to as ‘the American administration’ - now that [the previous American agent], Sa’d Al-Din Ibrahim, has failed [in his mission]… [They make this accusation] even though Magdi Khalil graduated from the economics and political science faculty [at an Egyptian university]. Before emigrating, he worked as an analyst for the Central Bank of Egypt, and for six years wrote weekly for the Al-Ahram economic supplement…

“Our brothers, the [supporters of the] totalitarian [regime], are demanding that the Coptic diaspora cease holding conferences outside [Egypt]. They tell [these Copts] to come [back] to Egypt, if they dare. But when the Copts do [hold conferences] in Egypt, they are accused of [representing an American] infiltration… This raises an important question: doesn’t the campaign [against the Copts] serve the interest of regional powers that wish to defeat Egypt and undermine its stability? And another question: Why this attack on public figures whose only common denominator is their Coptic [identity]? Is it a coincidence, or is it motivated by hidden racism?…” [8]

*L. Azuri is a research fellow at MEMRI.

---

[1] Al-Misriyoun (Egypt), November 27, 2007.

[2] Dr. Sa’d Al-Din Ibrahim currently resides in Qatar and works for the Arab Democracy Foundation, which was established by Princess Moza, the wife of Qatar’s emir.

[3] Al-Ahram Al-Arabi (Egypt), December 8, 2007.

[4] Watani (Egypt), December 9, 2007.

[5] Al-Usbu’ (Egypt), December 1, 2007.

[6] Roz Al-Yousef (Egypt), December 8, 2007.

[7] Watani (Egypt), December 16, 2007.

[8] Roz Al-Yousef (Egypt), December 7, 2007.

MEMRI: Inquiry and Analysis Series - No. 429

KEBABBLE
Turkey seeks a more modern Islam
By Fazile Zahir
“We are not here as Turkish Muslims to put ourselves in the service of Islam, but to put Islam in the service of life.”
- Fethullah Gulen, Turkish Islamic scholar and writer
FETHIYE, Turkey - The level of surprise with which the world’s media greeted the news that Turkey’s highest religious authority, the Diyanet, has instructed a commission of scholars to re-evaluate the Hadith (oral traditions relating to the words and deeds of the Prophet Mohammad) with respect to modern society, seems all out of proportion to the actual exercise the Ankara school is conducting.
The Western media are of course keen to promote moderate versions of Islam, but the tradition of ijtihad (legal interpretation) is

nothing new to Turkish religious thinkers. In 2006, the Diyanet had already started a process to filter the Hadith to delete misogynistic statements.
This new project is an even more ambitious attempt to carry out a fundamental revision of the Hadith and has taken the theologically radical step of ignoring later conservative texts in favor of earlier more liberal ones and by being prepared to evaluate the sayings of the Prophet within a historical framework.
The Turkish state has come to see the Hadith as having a negative influence on a society that is in a hurry to modernize and some scholars are convinced that it obscures the original values of Islam.
Turkish Islam has always had a very different face and practice to Arab or African Islam for many reasons. Ottoman expansion forced Muslims to embrace and co-exist with Christian and other groups. This tradition of diversity allowed for the inclusive societal model, the millet system, a type of religious federalism. The empire was a melting pot, incorporating various ethnic and religious groups including Kurds, Croats, Asiatic tribes, Buddhists, Christians, Bektashi/Alevi and others. Through years of interaction, relations have softened between groups and Muslim ideals continually evolved.
Turkish modernization began at least a century before Kemalism. In the 19th century, the Ottomans produced a new secular civil law, a constitution, a parliament in 1876, and Western-style schools and universities for both sexes. They also encouraged sophisticated intellectual debate. In 1895, Descartes’ Discourse on Method was translated into Turkish under the auspices of the sultan.
Many other Western classics, as well as the political debates of the day in Europe, became part of Ottoman intellectual life. All this was embraced not just by the secular young Turks, but also by more open-minded Islamists. Fethullah Gulen, a modern-day key reformist and Sufi thinker extends tolerance toward secularists and non-believers in Turkey and sees this approach as a way to revive the multi-culturalism of the Ottoman Empire.
Prior to Islam, Turks were shamanistic and it was these pagan shamans who became the first proletyzing foot soldiers of Islam among the nomadic Turkish tribes, they were the Sufi order. Even at these early times, Turkish Muslims accepted and embraced the pre-Islamic traditions and combined them with their own in a form of Sufi mysticism.
Turkey’s Sufism has a non-literal and inclusive reading of religion and the Turkish understanding of Islam is very much punctuated by the tolerance of mystical poet Jalaladdin Rumi, love of Sufi poet Yunus Emre and reasonability of the Ottoman “saint” Haci Bektasi Veli. The main premise of this Turkish Islam is moderation, Sufi tradition is based on the philosophy that all creatures should be loved as God’s physical reflection and objects of the Creator’s own love.
There is no place for enemies or “others” in this system. Gulen, Turkey’s best-known and most modern Sufi philosopher, rejects the idea that a clash between the “East” and “West” is necessary, desirable or inevitable and frequently emphasizes that there should be freedom of worship and thought in Turkey.
Religious scholars in Turkey are largely a different breed to their counterparts in other Muslim countries. Rather than being ulema (priests) or practical men like engineers and medical doctors as they are in Egypt and Pakistan, they are mostly writers, poets, academics and artists who are open-minded and keen to discuss new ideas. These writers are not didactic in their writings but rather narrative in style and eclectic in terms of their sources. As early as 1951, an American scholar of religion W C Smith made the following comment: “Whereas the Arab dream is of restoration, the modern Turks consciously talk of novelty.”
Others attribute Turkish moderation with the important role of the 25% of Alevi Muslims who practice a religion that is confessional and based on adoration, but which does not seek to conquer. It is a fusion form of Islam that considers a person’s relationship with God to be relevant to the private sphere and which believes that women are equal to men. The tolerant approach of these people often referred to as “Islamic protestants”, allows them to maintain both a Kemalist tradition and a progressive religious spirit alive within the Turkish population.
Others see the growth of prosperity encouraging a relaxation of the religious laws.
Economic stability and security give one the luxury of picking and choosing while defining a personal identity. Turkey has recently experienced previously unknown economic growth for 20 quarters consecutively. Islamic social movements represent the “coming out” of now wealthy and visible conservative business men anxious to combine their private religion with the roles they now have in the public sphere. They are keen for their values to be reflected in Turkey’s new secular constitution and have been active in pushing forward human rights and freedom of expression in the headscarf debate that has gripped Turkey for the past six months.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party are now confidently in control of Turkey. Until this last election their power had previously been predicated on their “giving up” or “delaying” their “Islamic” demands on society in return for being allowed to govern. Now, with the huge electoral endorsement of 2007, they are moving forward with a program to allow Turkey more freedom of religious expression.
The recent headscarf debate has been resolved in a typically Turkish way, the government changed the law so university students can attend wearing a scarf - but their teachers still can’t. Even then only 30% of universities adhered to it and the rest carried on doing their own thing. Chaos did not ensue, there was some confusion and then the stoical Turkish people just get on with the new status quo, adapting as they always do to religious evolution without hardly creating a ripple in society. Turkey has the incredible capacity to do nothing less than recreate Islam, changing it from a religion whose rules must be obeyed, to one designed to serve the needs of people in a modern secular democracy.
Fazile Zahir is of Turkish descent, born and brought up in London. She moved to live in Turkey in 2005 and has been writing full time since then.

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs

A new generation awakens

By Jim Wallis

Published: March 12, 2008

Last month, I spoke at the Park Street Church in Boston, where the premier evangelist of the Second Great Awakening, Charles Finney, preached in 1831. The Billy Graham of his day, Finney called people to faith in Jesus Christ and then to enlist in the antislavery campaign. Finney actually pioneered the “altar call” that Billy Graham would later make famous. Why? So he could sign up his converts for the antislavery campaign. The other famous antislavery crusader of the time, the more secular William Lloyd Garrison, delivered his first abolitionist speech in this same church when he was only 23.

I faced a packed church of hundreds of twenty-something evangelicals who want to be a generation of new abolitionists - focusing on the most vulnerable people in our world today. They suspect that Jesus would likely care more about the 30,000 children who die globally each day due to unnecessary poverty and preventable disease than he might worry about gay marriage amendments in Ohio. This emerging generation is the leading edge of a new movement of “progressive evangelicals.”

The young evangelicals are not alone, but are part of a broader new and spiritually rooted progressive movement that includes the religious from many traditions, the “spiritual but not religious,” and also secular youth who hunger for a moral dimension to public life.

On the road, I also meet a new generation of young Catholics who are discovering their own church’s social teaching about “the common good,” as well as seminary students in mainline Protestantism forming “beatitudes societies” to study the core teachings of Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount.

Alongside them are young black pastors who don’t want to just sing the old anthems of the civil rights movement, but to make their own history for justice. Next-generation Hispanic Pentecostals and Catholics see issues like immigration as key religious and moral questions; and the sons and daughters of Asian-American immigrant Christians are not just focusing on assimilation like their parents did but are reaching out into their communities. All these are making the vital connection between evangelism and social justice, and were represented that night at Park Street, where the sense of history and the possibilities of this moment were palpable.

I see parallel movements of young people eager for “Jewish renewal” also connected to social justice, a prophetic new generation of Muslims who are standing up to extremism, and others who claim more diverse spiritual roots or even secular convictions but use the words “moral” and “movement” in relation to politics. I can feel the energy of a movement when I am with this new generation. This new generation is applying its faith to the greatest moral challenges of our time. When politics fails to resolve or even address the great issues, what often occurs is that social movements rise up to change politics, and the best ones have historically had spiritual foundations. Today, these issues include both global and domestic poverty, pandemic diseases that ravage the developing world, extreme violations of human rights in places like Darfur, the alarming threats of climate change and the imperatives of “creation care,” the need for a more ethical response to the genuine threats of terrorism, and a foreign policy more consistent with our best moral values.

Historians call these moments “great awakenings” when the revival of faith leads to big changes in society like the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, child labor law reform, and, most famously, civil rights. That we may be on the edge of such a time again has been almost entirely missed by a media obsessed with the political horse race, including changing religious voting trends.

But a new faith-inspired movement for social justice may be on the way, with a younger generation of believers as its cutting edge. And however they vote this time, the mobilization of that constituency could develop the capacity that elections rarely have by themselves - to really change politics.

Several weeks ago, a brief debate erupted in this presidential season about the roles of Martin Luther King Jr. and President Lyndon Johnson, and was mistakenly described as an issue of race.

It was not, but it did point to the complicated relationship between social movements and elected politics. A new generation of the faithful who speak of “movement politics” is beginning to understand that relationship.

Jim Wallis is author of “The Great Awakening” and president of Sojourners

A new generation awakens - International Herald Tribune

Religious Leaders Welcome Saudi Proposal

By LILY HINDY – 4 hours ago

NEW YORK (AP) — Several Jewish, Christian and Muslim leaders reacted warmly to a proposal for dialogue among the religions by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, welcoming the overture from the leader of the strict Muslim country as a major development in interfaith relations.

Specifics of the initiative, including whether Israelis could take part, remained unclear — leading some to caution against too much optimism. Abdullah’s proposal comes at a time of stalled peace negotiations and heightened Middle East tension. It also comes amid Muslim anger over cartoons published in Europe seen as insulting the Prophet Muhammad and in the wake of the pope’s controversial baptism of a prominent Muslim convert.

But Abdullah said Saudi Arabia’s top clerics gave him a green light — crucial in a society that bans non-Muslim religious services. Saudi Arabia, which follows a severe interpretation of Islam known as Wahhabism, is also home to Islam’s two holiest shrines in Mecca and Medina.

“The idea is to ask representatives of all monotheistic religions to sit together with their brothers in faith and sincerity to all religions as we all believe in the same God,” the king said Monday night in Riyadh at a seminar on “Culture and the Respect of Religions.”

The king’s call — the first of its kind by an Arab leader — was described as a “dramatic and important development” by Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, the largest branch of American Judaism.

The Rev. James Loughran, director of the Catholic New York-based Graymoor Ecumenical & Interreligious Institute, also welcomed the proposal, saying he was “elated.”

Muhammad al-Zulfa, a member of the Saudi Consultative Council — an appointed body that acts like a parliament — said it was “a message to all extremists: Stop using religion.”

It was long overdue, said Michael Cromartie, chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, which monitors religious freedom globally and makes policy recommendations.

“I don’t care who you put in the room — the fact they’re having the conversation can only help,” he said. “It’s a courageous thing for the king to do. One should not expect Utopia, but it’s a start to have an open and free dialogue in a country with a reputation for religious oppression.”

How the dialogue could impact the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is far from clear. Saudi Arabia and all other Arab nations except Egypt and Jordan do not have diplomatic relations with Israel and generally shun unofficial contacts.

“My cautionary note would be, ‘Let’s see what he really means,’” said Lawrence Schiffman, chairman of New York University’s Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies. “We need more details.”

Abdullah said he planned to hold conferences to get the opinion of Muslims from other parts of the world, and then meetings with “our brothers” in Christianity and Judaism “so we can agree on something that guarantees the preservation of humanity against those who tamper with ethics, family systems and honesty.”

Abdullah framed his appeal in strictly religious and ethical terms, aimed at addressing the weakening of the family, increasing atheism and “a lack of ethics, loyalty, and sincerity for our religions and humanity.”

A Saudi official with knowledge of the proposal said it was not intended to have a regional political angle, saying “the initiative is not aimed at the Middle East but at the whole world.” The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

But Abdullah, considered a reformer in Saudi politics, has in the past proposed peace deals with Israel, saying his country and other Arab nations are willing to recognize the Jewish state as long as it gives up land to Palestinians.

Abdullah even met with Pope Benedict XVI in November, the first encounter between a pontiff and reigning Saudi king. Benedict has stressed common family and moral values as a way to bridge differences and build relationships with other religions.

But Benedict has also upset many Muslims.

Most recently, the pope on Easter baptized Muslim convert Magdi Allam, an Egyptian-born journalist who has denounced Islam. Aref Ali Nayed, director of the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Center in Amman, Jordan, criticized what he called “the Vatican’s deliberate and provocative act of baptizing Allam on such a special occasion and in such a spectacular way.”

In an audiotape released last week, al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden accused Benedict of playing a “large and lengthy role” in what he called a “new Crusade” against Islam. Bin Laden also warned of a “severe” reaction for Europe’s publication of the Muhammad cartoons.

Some analysts suggested the king’s initiative was the culmination of increased dialogue among world religious leaders since the Sept. 11 attacks. The majority of the hijackers involved in the attacks were Saudis, and bin Laden himself hails from the country.

John Esposito, founding director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University in Washington, said that the Saudi religious establishment has been very active in post-Sept. 11 interfaith dialogue, but to have this kind of appeal from the king is particularly significant.

Still, it was not clear whether Abdullah’s call would be followed by steps in the kingdom to relax the ban on non-Muslim worship services, as well as symbols from other religions, such as crosses and Bibles.

Religious practice is so restricted in Saudi Arabia that even certain Muslim sects, such as Sufis and Shiites, face discrimination, while conversion by a Muslim to another religion is punishable by death.

Associated Press writers Eric Gorski in Denver, Aron Heller in Jerusalem, Frances D’Emilio in Vatican City and Donna Abu-Nasr and Abdullah Shihri in Riyadh contributed to this report

The Associated Press: Religious Leaders Welcome Saudi Proposal

Egyptian-born Italian journalist Magdi Allam (L), who was a non-practicing Muslim, walks away after being baptized by Pope Benedict XVI during Easter Vigil mass in Saint Peter’s Basilica March 22, 2008, in Vatican City.

Marco Di Lauro / Getty

Magdi Allam is Italy’s answer to Ayaan Hirsan Ali, the Somalian-born Dutch writer and politician forced to live under police protection for her repeatedly stark public criticism of Islam. Like Hirsan Ali, the Egyptian-born Allam was raised in a Muslim family, before emigrating as a teenager to Europe, where he eventually became famous for railing against what he sees as fundamental flaws in his native religion. The Rome-based journalist has faced repeated death threats from Islamic radicals, and travels to speaking engagements in Italy and abroad with an armed security detail. Needless to say, neither Allam nor Hirsan Ali show signs of toning down their criticism.

A recurring topic of Allam’s articles were cases of Muslims who were threatened with death for seeking to convert to Christianity. And now, Allam has himself become a Roman Catholic, converting in a baptism rite inside St. Peter’s Basilica, a ceremony conducted by no less than Pope Benedict XVI. Allam has held a unique public role as the most prominent Muslim commentator — and critic of Islam — right in the Vatican’s backyard. Church officials may be pleased that Allam has so publicly joined the Catholic flock, but he is unlikely to become any kind of mediator in the Vatican’s attempts to start a dialogue with Islam.

That is because Allam is seen as almost belligerently anti-Islamic. After studying sociology at Rome’s La Sapienza University, Allam began writing for the Italian daily La Repubblica, covering the first Gulf War and chronicling everyday life of the country’s growing Muslim population. Initially, he wrote favorably about multiculturalism, and warned about the risks of racism against Muslims in this heavily Catholic nation. But after 9/11, now writing for another major newspaper, Corriere della Sera, he became an increasingly harsh critic of Islam, both inside and outside of Italy. He warned against the “Islamization” of Europe, and urged opposition to the building of new mosques in Italy. In his provocatively titled 2007 book Viva Israel: From the ideology of death to the civilization of life, my story, he described his transformation from hating Zionists as a youth to realizing “that hatred easily comes to include all Jews, then all Christians, then all liberal and secular Muslims, and at the end all Muslims who do not want to submit to Islamic radicals’ will.”

This and other writings have led to widespread criticism among Muslims in Italy, who say he depicts only the worst of Islamic faith and culture. Not surprisingly, Allam has won the admiration of some of Europe’s prominent conservatives and critics of Muslim immigration. He has been compared to Hirsan Ali, herself an avowed atheist who long ago renounced her faith, and now divides her time between Europe and the United States. Allam also struck up a friendship with Oriana Fallaci, the late Italian journalist and writer, who in recent years wrote anti-Muslim screeds and warned against Europe becoming “Eurabia.” Fallaci, a Catholic by birth, was a non-believer through her adult life, though reportedly was exploring questions of faith as she battled terminal cancer. In 2005, she met privately with Pope Benedict, but was still said to be an atheist when she died the following year.

Allam is the latest example of Benedict’s attempts to re-engage contemporary European secular culture as well. The official Church line is that the decision for the Pope to perform the baptism himself was not extraordinary. Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi emphasized that Allam was just one of seven adults baptized Saturday during an Easter vigil mass, saying that the Pope performed the rite “without making any ‘difference of people,’ that is, considering all equally important before the love of God and welcoming all in the community of the Church.” Nonetheless, Allam’s public conversion is another reminder that the Vatican is not shying away from the more prickly questions in its complicated relations with Islam. Benedict has made what he calls a “frank” public conversation with the Muslim world a high priority of his papacy, arguing that Islam should address the violent minority within its ranks by incorporating the theories of “natural law” the way Christianity did with the Western ideas of the Enlightenment.

While scores of top Muslim scholars have engaged the theologian Pope on this and other topics, some radical leaders see him as a prime nemesis. In an audio tape released last week, Osama bin Laden accused Benedict of playing a “large and lengthy role” in a “new Crusade” against Islam, which included the publication in Denmark of cartoons denigrating the prophet Muhammed. Father Lombardi dismissed the accusation, noting that Benedict repeatedly criticized the offensive cartoons.

The Holy See’s diplomacy in the Muslim world stretches well beyond the Pope’s words. High on the agenda is the Vatican push for the right to build Christian churches in Muslim-dominated countries. Officials in Rome have been heartened over the past two weeks with news of the first Catholic church opening in Doha, Qatar, and negotiations underway to potentially build one in Saudi Arabia. Still, Church officials say that the question of religious freedom must ultimately also mean freedom to change religion, and note that some Muslims insist that conversion from Islam is apostate, and punishable by death. In 2006, Abdul Rahman, an Afghan convert to Christianity, fled his native country after death threats and arrived in Rome, where he received political asylum from the Italian government and the support of the Pope.

A Muslim Critic Turns Catholic - TIME

Islam and Free Speech

By PETER HOEKSTRA
March 26, 2008; Page A15

The Netherlands is bracing for a new round of violence at home and against its embassies in the Middle East. The storm would be caused by “Fitna,” a short film that is scheduled to be released this week. The film, which reportedly includes images of a Quran being burned, was produced by Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch parliament and leader of the Freedom Party. Mr. Wilders has called for banning the Quran — which he has compared to Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” — from the Netherlands.

After concern about the film led Mr. Wilders’s Internet service provider to take down his Web site, Mr. Wilders issued a statement this week that he will personally distribute DVDs “On the Dam” if he has to. That may not be necessary, as the Czech National Party has reportedly agreed to host the video on its Web site.

Marked for death: Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Reasonable men in free societies regard Geert Wilders’s anti-Muslim rhetoric, and films like “Fitna,” as disrespectful of the religious sensitivities of members of the Islamic faith. But free societies also hold freedom of speech to be a fundamental human right. We don’t silence, jail or kill people with whom we disagree just because their ideas are offensive or disturbing. We believe that when such ideas are openly debated, they sink of their own weight and attract few followers.

Our country allows fringe groups like the American Nazi Party to demonstrate, as long as they are peaceful. Americans are permitted to burn the national flag. In 1989, when so-called artist Andres Serrano displayed his work “Piss Christ” — a photo of a crucifix immersed in a bottle of urine — Americans protested peacefully and moved to cut off the federal funding that supported Mr. Serrano. There were no bombings of museums. No one was killed over this work that was deeply offensive to Christians.

Criticism of Islam, however, has led to violence and murder world-wide. Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for Muslims to kill Salman Rushdie over his 1988 book, “The Satanic Verses.” Although Mr. Rushdie has survived, two people associated with the book were stabbed, one fatally. The 2005 Danish editorial cartoons lampooning the prophet Muhammad led to numerous deaths. Dutch director Theodoor van Gogh was killed in 2004, several months after he made the film “Submission,” which described violence against women in Islamic societies. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Dutch member of parliament who wrote the script for “Submission,” received death threats over the film and fled the country for the United States.

The violence Dutch officials are anticipating now is part of a broad and determined effort by the radical jihadist movement to reject the basic values of modern civilization and replace them with an extreme form of Shariah. Shariah, the legal code of Islam, governed the Muslim world in medieval times and is used to varying degrees in many nations today, especially in Saudi Arabia.

Radical jihadists are prepared to use violence against individuals to stop them from exercising their free speech rights. In some countries, converting a Muslim to another faith is a crime punishable by death. While Muslim clerics are free to preach and proselytize in the West, some Muslim nations severely restrict or forbid other faiths to do so. In addition, moderate Muslims around the world have been deemed apostates and enemies by radical jihadists.

Radical jihadists believe representative government is un-Islamic, and urge Muslims who live in democracies not to exercise their right to vote. The reason is not hard to understand: When given a choice, most Muslims reject the extreme approach to Islam. This was recently demonstrated in Iraq’s Anbar Province, which went from an al-Qaeda stronghold to an area supporting the U.S.-led coalition. This happened because the populace came to intensely dislike the fanatical ways of the radicals, which included cutting off fingers of anyone caught smoking a cigarette, 4 p.m. curfews, beatings and beheadings. There also were forced marriages between foreign-born al Qaeda fighters and local Sunni women.

There may be a direct relationship between the radical jihadists’ opposition to democracy and their systematic abuse of women. Women have virtually no rights in this radical world: They must conceal themselves, cannot hold jobs, and have been subjected to honor killings. Would most women in Muslim countries vote for a candidate for public office who supported such oppressive rules?

Not all of these radicals are using violence to supplant democratic society with an extreme form of Shariah. Some in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark are attempting to create parallel Islamic societies with separate courts for Muslims. According to recent press reports, British officials are investigating the cases of 30 British Muslim school-age girls who “disappeared” for probable forced marriages.

While efforts to create parallel Islamic societies have been mostly peaceful, they may actually be a jihadist “waiting game,” based on the assumption that the Islamic populations of many European states will become the majority over the next 25-50 years due to higher Muslim birth rates and immigration.

What is particularly disturbing about these assaults against modern society is how the West has reacted with appeasement, willful ignorance, and a lack of journalistic criticism. Last year PBS tried to suppress “Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center,” a hard-hitting documentary that contained criticism of radical jihadists. Fortunately, Fox News agreed to air the film.

Even if the new Wilders film proves newsworthy, it is likely that few members of the Western media will air it, perhaps because they have been intimidated by radical jihadist threats. The only major U.S. newspaper to reprint any of the controversial 2005 Danish cartoons was Denver’s Rocky Mountain News. You can be sure that if these cartoons had mocked Christianity or Judaism, major American newspapers would not have hesitated to print them.

European officials have been similarly cautious. A German court ruled last year that a German Muslim man had the right to beat his wife, as this was permitted under Shariah. Britain’s Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, stated last month that the implementation of some measure of Shariah in Britain was “unavoidable” and British Muslims should have the choice to use Shariah in marital and financial matters.

I do not defend the right of Geert Wilders to air his film because I agree with it. I expect I will not. (I have not yet seen the film). I defend the right of Mr. Wilders and the media to air this film because free speech is a fundamental right that is the foundation of modern society. Western governments and media outlets cannot allow themselves to be bullied into giving up this precious right due to threats of violence. We must not fool ourselves into believing that we can appease the radical jihadist movement by allowing them to set up parallel societies and separate legal systems, or by granting them special protection from criticism.

A central premise of the American experiment are these words from the Declaration of Independence: “All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” There are similar statements in the U.S. Constitution, British Common Law, the Napoleonic Code and the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights. As a result, hundreds of millions in the U.S. and around the world enjoy freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and many other rights.

These liberties have been won through centuries of debate, conflict and bloodshed. Radical jihadists want to sacrifice all we have learned by returning to a primitive and intolerant world. While modern society invites such radicals to peacefully exercise their faith, we cannot and will not sacrifice our fundamental freedoms.

Mr. Hoekstra, who was born in the Netherlands, is ranking Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Islam and Free Speech - WSJ.com

By Thomas Haidon

On the world stage, and under the auspices of Pope Benedict, Magdi Allam, a staunch Egyptian critic of radical Islam, became a member of the Roman-Catholic faith. The significance and symbolism of this conversion cannot be understated, particularly in the current climate of Islamic-Catholic affairs. In embracing Roman Catholicism and rejecting Islam, Mr Allam (a formerly self-avowed secular Muslim) breached one of the most fundamental precepts of traditional Islam by committing the “crime” of apostasy.  At the same time Allam has made a potentially empowering statement in support of the freedom of religion and universal human rights. The implications of this event will unfold over the coming days and weeks. It is likely that the conversion of Mr Allam will hold significant implications for Mr Allam (particularly for his personal safety and relationship with the Muslim and non-Muslim world), and for the wider state of affairs governing Muslim-non-Muslim relations. It provides both challenges and opportunities for Muslims and non-Muslims to confront the “uncomfortable” aspects of Islam that are rarely discussed in the West.

At the foundation of any ensuing controversy behind Mr Allam’s conversion is traditional Islamic law. All major jurisprudential schools of traditional Islam criminalise “apostasy” and are in general accord that the punishment of death is mandated for the male, born to Muslim parents, who takes up another religion to Islam.   While there may be some academic dissonance among so called moderates and reformers, the law is well settled.  As such, Allam’s conversion essentially makes him a target for traditionalists and Islamists (not only “run of the mill” jihadists).  In trying to grasp the situation, some commentators have begun to draw parallels between Mr Allam with the case of author Salman Rushdie, born into Shi’a Islam accused of blasphemy and apostasy by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Rushdie has been the subject of several fatwa (Islamic legal judgments), from Sunni and Shi’a scholars calling for his execution, which have resulted in attempts on his life.

While there are some clear parallels between Mr Allam and Mr Rusdhie, these comparisons are not entirely congruent.  While Rushdie is considered an apostate by many Muslims and Muslim governments, he has not made a formal and public declaration of his apostasy like Mr Allam.  Through his works including “Viva Israele!”, and his unabated criticism of radical Islam, Mr Allam had already been painted by traditionalists and Islamists with the “blasphemy” and “intellectual apostasy” brush.  Mr Allam’s formal declaration of “apostasy” makes him an innate apostate according to Islamic law, and therefore severely exacerbates his already tenuous relationship with the traditional Muslim world.  Mr Allam’s conversion will be treated with greater invective among Muslims because of its public nature and linkages to the Catholic Church and Pope Benedict.  In other words, the situation of Mr Allam is likely to be more dire than that of Mr Rushdie. In traditionalist and Islamist eyes Mr Allam is likely to be perceived as far more “dangerous” than Rushdie.  While Mr Allam, may become a target of Al-Qaeda, he is likely to also be the subject of fatwa from terrorists connected with the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and the conservative factions of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, given his Sunni and Egyptian connections.   Clearly, Mr Allam will require, and is most deserved of, state protection. Unfortunately, Mr Allam’s conversion is also likely to result in professional implications and may result in a backlash from Western media outlets, analysts, and policy-makers who continue to deny the existence of the problems stemming from Islam and who advocate for “constructive engagement” with Islamists. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and others provide for excellent case studies to demonstrate just how difficult the path of activism for ex-Muslims can be.

In terms of the wider context, this event is likely to serve as a potential flash point in the current context of deteriorating Islamic-Catholic relations.  The Pope’s recent comments about Islam and the maltreatment of Christians in Muslim countries has been indicative of the Holy See’s insistence on reciprocity as a governing principle in Islamic-Catholic relations. This “defiance” has been met with hostility in the Muslim world, even among “moderates”. In traditionalist and Islamist circles, Pope Benedict and the Catholic Church, will be viewed as the primary enabler of Mr Allam’s conversion, and will only contribute to the Muslim world’s warped views about the Pope and the role of the Church.  Given the overarching Muslim hysteria around the Danish cartoons and the papal statements, the conversion of Mr Allam before the Church is likely to be viewed as further “provocation”. Indeed, this event will contribute to the shifting framework of inter-faith dialogue, which is shifting from the standard approach of “polite dialogue“ and focus on “the common aspects of the Abrahamic faiths”, to an uncomfortable, but necessary discussion on the core tenets of religion, particularly Islam.

In many ways, the Allam conversion, and the controversy that is likely to ensure, will present both challenges and opportunities for ongoing Muslim-non-Muslim relations.  Firstly, it provides yet a further test of the Muslim commitment to universal human rights and, to a degree, compatibility with “Western values”.  Earlier, opportunities arose in the context of the Pope’s initial remarks on Islam, and the publication of the Danish cartoons. These opportunities were wasted, and the perceived divide between Islam and the West has only grown. For Western Muslims in particular however, the Allam conversion affords an opportunity to demonstrate a respect for the universal human freedom of religion, which is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.   This necessarily requires the express rejection of the traditionalist Islamic approach to the issue. Will the Muslim world embrace this opportunity?

The Allam conversion also has the potential to shift the current policy and discourse in the West. It highlights, once again the inherent conflict between universal human rights and the notion of “collective rights” (the rights of a group or cohort, which often trump individual rights), that is currently a central theme of debate in the international arena, particularly between Muslim countries and non-Muslim countries on the role of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. Shari’ah and its implementation epitomises the notion of “collective rights”; that is the marginalisation of individual rights in order to benefit the wider Muslim community. The Allam conversion and ensuing controversy could have the effect of encouraging public debate on this issue, and increasing awareness of the incompatibility of shari’ah with universal human rights. Perhaps this is an overly optimistic perspective, given the general reluctance and failure of policy makers in the West to confront the foundations of Islamism.

The public conversion of Allam may also lead to increased internal Muslim debate on the issue of “apostasy” head, and encourage frank discussions with non-Muslims on the issue, that move beyond the rhetoric that is the current framework of “inter-faith” dialogue.  The immediate Muslim reaction appears to be disingenuous.  The Vice President of Coreis, which purports to represent the Muslim community in Italy, failed to address the issue head on, but instead stated that he “respected” Mr Allam’s decision, but questioned the “high profile way he chose to do it”.  History tells us however, that apostates are generally always regarded with vehemence in the wider Muslim community. The reaction over the coming days and weeks will be telling, particularly if the level Mr Allam’s activism escalates. It also affords the Catholic Church the opportunity to affirm the anti-Islamist overtones that has served as a hallmark of Pope Benedict’s tenure. 

Importantly, this event could also serve as an empowering precedent for other Western Muslims, who may be inwardly secular, to follow Mr Allam’s path.  Mr Allam, arguably is the most prominent Muslim to publicly convert to another faith.  For many Muslims, traditional Islam is an intellectual and spiritual prison; the example of Mr Allam could help provide the impetus for Muslims to leave Islam.  Undoubtedly, Mr Allam will bring needed vigour to the ex-Muslim and secular Muslim movement.  Given his connections with moderate Muslims in Italy, including liberal Muslim thinker Sheikh Abdul Palazzi of the Italian Muslim Assembly, Mr Allam could also help foster connections between moderate Muslims and the ex-Muslim movement, to which common understandings exist. Mr Allam has been a staunch supporter of legitimate moderate Muslims.  Moderate Muslims have an obligation to reciprocate that support and to give real effect and meaning to the oft repeated Qur’anic injunction (that is so often used to attest to purported Islamic tolerance by Muslim apologists): “[l]et there be no compulsion in religion”.

Genuine moderate Muslims should stand in solidarity with Mr Allam, in the spirit of universal human rights. Mr Allam has been a consistent supporter and enabler of Moderate Muslims and reformers.  Mr Allam has demonstrated immeasurable courage and fortitude in rejecting Islamic tyranny, and should not stand alone.  It is simply not enough, however, for Moderate Muslims to pay lip service to Mr Allam. Moderate Muslims must work harder to develop Islamic solutions to the problems of Islam, in order to create an environment for change.  Collectively, we continue to fail to do so, despite the earnest efforts of a number of scholars.  A primary objective of moderate Muslims and reformers should be to create an environment where is it is possible for Muslims to talk about Islam’s problems and its sources, and moreover to provide for safe mechanisms which enable Muslims to leave Islam, without the fear of repercussion.  Currently, there is no such mechanism. The Muslim Heretic Conference being held in Atlanta later this month provides a further opportunity to advance this thinking.