Muslim Heretics Conference

Libyan Liberal Muhammad Al-Houni on Statements by Archbishop of Canterbury: If Europe Adopts Shari’a, It Will Revert to Pre-Enlightenment Era

In a February 26, 2008 article in the Arab liberal e-journal Elaph, Libyan-European liberal thinker and entrepreneur Muhammad ‘Abd Al-Muttalib Al-Houni wrote that the recent statements by Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams on implementing shari’a law in Britain constituted dangerous encouragement to fundamentalists in their war against the Enlightenment. He added that such statements could have very grave repercussions for the struggle for freedom in Muslim countries as well.

The following are excerpts from Al-Houni’s article:

Would Europe Have Islamic Courts, or Would We Send European Judges to the Taliban to Learn Shari’a?

“I recently read a statement by the head of the Anglican Church [Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams], the upshot of which was that there was nothing wrong with the British legal system adopting some laws from Islamic shari’a and their implementing them for British citizens of the Islamic faith.

“There has already been a great clamor [and argument] between supporters and opponents of these statements, so I thought that I, as a Muslim citizen of Europe, would take up this thorny subject and attempt to understand this statement and its implications. [I do this] in order to shed light on what would happen in Europe if its countries were to adopt the kinds of measures that the English archbishop is demanding.

“I do not think that this demand that some laws from Islamic shari’a be adopted into European law is [meant] to include shari’a criminal law - that is, punishments such as killing the apostate (a Muslim who converts to another religion), amputating a thief’s hand, cutting off a brigand’s opposing hand and foot… stoning the adulterer to death, publicly flogging wine drinkers, killing homosexuals by throwing them from a high place, or allowing a relative of a [murder] victim to deal with the murderer, instead of the state.

“I imagine that the archbishop is referring [only] to Islamic shari’a laws regarding personal status. So let us imagine these laws being implemented in European courts.

“First of all, on the procedural side, there would need to be Islamic courts in European countries to adjudicate in all disputes involving European Muslim citizens - or else a large number of European judges would have to be sent to the Taliban to learn shari’a thoroughly enough to implement its laws.

“Also, European countries seeking to implement shari’a would need to submit their reservations regarding any international conventions they may have signed. This is because they will have to:

“1) Permit polygamy for European Muslim citizens, and not punish them for it - [even though] this is considered criminal under European law;

“2) Permit European Muslim citizens to beat their wives to discipline them, as the Koran urges;

“3) Allow men to unilaterally decide to divorce without requiring any court proceedings, as this is a right guaranteed [to men] by shari’a;

“4) Give daughters [only] half the inheritance rights that sons have, while widows receive only an eighth of the inheritance;

“5) [Not] consider women’s testimony the equal of men’s in shari’a courts;

“6) Deprive a divorced woman of custody of her children if she remarries;

“7) Allow European Muslim citizens to marry in traditional marriages without the need to officially register these marriages;

“8) Eliminate adoption, since it is contrary to shari’a;

“9) Force a woman whose Muslim husband converts to another religion to divorce him, because he is an apostate;

“10) Prevent European Muslim women from marrying non-Muslims…”

Adopting Shari’a Would Undermine the Concept of Citizenship

“If [Archbishop Rowan's] intention is to introduce some or all of these laws from Islamic shari’a into Europe’s legal systems, it would mean the following:

“1) The concept of citizenship in Europe will change. There will be [different] classes of citizenship and of citizens, with some citizens being exempt from having the general law applied to them because they belong to a particular religion or belief. There will be a Muslim [class of] citizen, a Christian [class of] citizen, a Buddhist [class of] citizen, a Confucian [class of] citizen, and so on. Each will apply his own laws… Thus, faith will not be an individual freedom or belief; it will [come to] have extremely serious public ramifications.

“2) If some or all of these laws were implemented and recognized by European legislative bodies, it would not only seriously damage human rights legislation - it would spell the end [of this legislation]. This is because everything I mentioned above is a negation of human rights principles.

“3) Recognizing all, or [even] some, of these laws would take European societies back to the age before the Enlightenment and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As a result, the West would revert to barbarism.”

Is the Anglican Church a Partner in Fundamentalism?

“While I maintain that the European countries will never accede to these catastrophic demands - for reasons more practical than humanist - the fact that they were proposed by the British archbishop sends the wrong message to the Islamic world. The gist of this message is that there is no contradiction between Islamic shari’a and Western civilization if [shari'a] applies [only] for Muslim citizens.

“What is the Anglican Church trying to achieve, and what interest does it have in such cartoonish proclamations? I believe that it wants achieve the following goals:

“To absolve itself of responsibility in the eyes of fundamentalist Muslims, who will be persuaded [by the Church's statements] that the clash is not between Christians and their Church [on the one hand] and Muslims [on the other] but a clash between Muslims and secular states. This will create greater hostility among Muslim citizens of European countries to their [host] countries, and will lead to increased violence and terrorism in the future…

“These statements [by the Archbishop of Canterbury] also mean that the Church - or at least part of it - still does not believe in human rights legislation, and takes every opportunity to cast doubt on the universality and comprehensiveness of the humanist principles [underlying] it.

“Lastly, it this means that the mosques that are controlled by extremist Muslims in Europe do not have a monopoly on fundamentalism and on preventing [Muslim] citizens from assimilating into public life. Rather, the Church itself has, through these statements, become a charter member in this dangerous game.”

How Can Muslim Secularists Oppose Shari’a When the Anglican Church Supports It?

“Although the demands announced by the bishop are far from implementation in a Europe that long ago distanced itself from medieval values and thought, the reverberations of these demands will have a grave [impact] on the Islamic world.

“The Islamic world has been suffering from fundamentalist attacks on what is left of secular society in their countries. These fundamentalists want to implement a shari’a law that contravenes human rights, taking as their model and inspiration the seventh-century state [established by] the Prophet Muhammad in Medina.

“At present, these [fundamentalists] are picking fights with the secularists in Islamic countries, and their attitude is: ‘How can you oppose shari’a law in your own countries when we see that the Anglican Church is seeking its implementation in Europe?

“This message is wrong, and it is detrimental to all pleas for modernism and secularism in the Islamic world. Such [pleas] are weak enough as it is, overpowered as they are by the tsunami of Islamist extremists who accuse [those who voice] them of subordination [to the West], treason, and heresy. Such statements by some Anglican clerics are nothing less than support for the ideas of Islamist extremists, and are also an attempt to make fundamentalist religious thought triumph over secular thought in the Islamic countries.

“I believe that monotheistic religious fundamentalists, whether Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, can, despite the deep-seated historical hostility among them, ally with each other and join efforts to wage war on Enlightenment thought… The[ir ideologies all] contain the same germ - the claim to absolute truth that applies to all times and all places.” [1]

---

[1] www.elaph.com, February 26, 2008.

MEMRI: Latest News

Major survey challenges Western perceptions of Islam

Feb 27, 2008

WASHINGTON (AFP) — A huge survey of the world’s Muslims released Tuesday challenges Western notions that equate Islam with radicalism and violence.

The survey, conducted by the Gallup polling agency over six years and three continents, seeks to dispel the belief held by some in the West that Islam itself is the driving force of radicalism.

It shows that the overwhelming majority of Muslims condemned the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001 and other subsequent terrorist attacks, the authors of the study said in Washington.

“Samuel Harris said in the Washington Times (in 2004): ‘It is time we admitted that we are not at war with terrorism. We are at war with Islam’,” Dalia Mogahed, co-author of the book “Who Speaks for Islam” which grew out of the study, told a news conference here.

“The argument Mr Harris makes is that religion in the primary driver” of radicalism and violence, she said.

“Religion is an important part of life for the overwhelming majority of Muslims, and if it were indeed the driver for radicalisation, this would be a serious issue.”

But the study, which Gallup says surveyed a sample equivalent to 90 percent of the world’s Muslims, showed that widespread religiosity “does not translate into widespread support for terrorism,” said Mogahed, director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies.

About 93 percent of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims are moderates and only seven percent are politically radical, according to the poll, based on more than 50,000 interviews.

In majority Muslim countries, overwhelming majorities said religion was a very important part of their lives — 99 percent in Indonesia, 98 percent in Egypt, 95 percent in Pakistan.

But only seven percent of the billion Muslims surveyed — the radicals — condoned the attacks on the United States in 2001, the poll showed.

Moderate Muslims interviewed for the poll condemned the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington because innocent lives were lost and civilians killed.

“Some actually cited religious justifications for why they were against 9/11, going as far as to quote from the Koran — for example, the verse that says taking one innocent life is like killing all humanity,” she said.

Meanwhile, radical Muslims gave political, not religious, reasons for condoning the attacks, the poll showed.

The survey shows radicals to be neither more religious than their moderate counterparts, nor products of abject poverty or refugee camps.

“The radicals are better educated, have better jobs, and are more hopeful with regard to the future than mainstream Muslims,” John Esposito, who co-authored “Who Speaks for Islam”, said.

“Ironically, they believe in democracy even more than many of the mainstream moderates do, but they’re more cynical about whether they’ll ever get it,” said Esposito, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University in Washington.

Gallup launched the study following 9/11, after which US President George W. Bush asked in a speech, which is quoted in the book: “Why do they hate us?”

“They hate… a democratically elected government,” Bush offered as a reason.

“They hate our freedoms — our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.”

But the poll, which gives ordinary Muslims a voice in the global debate that they have been drawn into by 9/11, showed that most Muslims — including radicals — admire the West for its democracy, freedoms and technological prowess.

What they do not want is to have Western ways forced on them, it said.

“Muslims want self-determination, but not an American-imposed and -defined democracy. They don’t want secularism or theocracy. What the majority wants is democracy with religious values,” said Esposito.

The poll has given voice to Islam’s silent majority, said Mogahed.

“A billion Muslims should be the ones that we look to, to understand what they believe, rather than a vocal minority,” she told AFP.

Muslims in 40 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Middle East were interviewed for the survey, which is part of Gallup’s World Poll that aims to interview 95 percent of the world’s population.

AFP: Major survey challenges Western perceptions of Islam

Muslim reformer’s ‘heresy’: The Islamic state is a dead end

From Nigeria to Indonesia, Sudanese law professor spreads ideas of a secular state and human rights.

By Jane Lampman | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

from the April 2, 2008 edition

Reporter Jane Lampman profiles Islamic reformer Abdullahi An-Na’im.

Abdullahi Ahmed an-Naim has seen what can happen to an Islamic reformer: His mentor was executed in 1985 in Sudan; he himself had to flee the country. Still, the self-described “Muslim heretic” has no trouble traveling the Islamic world spreading his controversial message:

There is no such thing as an Islamic state.

A secular state and human rights are essential for all societies so that Muslims and others can practice their faith freely, he tells his co-religionists.

“My motivation is in fact about being an honest, true-to-myself Muslim, rather than someone complying with state dictates,” says Mr. Naim, a professor of law at Emory University in Atlanta since 1999. “I need the state to be neutral about religious doctrine so that I can be the Muslim I choose to be.”

So committed is this scholar to opening the door to free debate within his faith that he helped organize the first “Muslim Heretics Conference” in Atlanta over the weekend. Some 75 Muslims, engaged in various reform projects, gathered to discuss issues related to sharia (Islamic law), democracy, and women’s rights – and how to cope with dissent and its consequences.

“We celebrate heresy simply to promote innovative thinking,” he says. “Every orthodoxy was at one time a heresy.”

Naim’s personal project involves what he calls “negotiating the future of sharia.” As Islamic societies struggle to define themselves in a globalized world and some talk of creating Islamic states to codify sharia, he says the state and religion must be kept separate. But religion should still have its place in political life, allowing Muslims to express principles of sharia as they see fit. He believes this is truly Islamic, and that articulating the reasons why will help ordinary Muslims not be taken in by political slogans.

“I know for a fact that Abdullahi has a following among young Muslims in places like Malaysia and Indonesia,” says John Esposito, head of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. “These people are often marginalized in their societies, but over time, these positions can become mainstream.”

Naim’s view is not just a theory picked up in the United States, but the result of painful personal experience. “As a Muslim from Sudan whose people have suffered tremendously from confusion over this issue, my mission is to clarify it so other Muslim societies don’t go down the same road to come to the same dead end,” he says in a phone interview. He has watched Sudan’s institutions virtually collapse under fundamentalist Islamic rule and seen the disillusionment firsthand.

While a law student at the University of Khartoum in 1967, Naim heard a talk by a Sufi Muslim thinker, Mahmoud Mohamed Taha. “That lecture turned my life around,” he says, and he joined Taha’s Islamic reform movement.

But when Sudanese strongman Jaafar al-Nimeiri was about to introduce sharia by decree in 1983, he jailed Taha, Naim, and others for 18 months. Taha was put on trial and executed.

The essence of the Sufi’s message had been that certain verses in the Koran represented the universal, eternal message of Islam, while others were relevant to a particular historical context and no longer viable. “Specifically [he argued] for equality for women, freedom of religion, and equality for non-Muslims,” Naim says. After fleeing the country, he translated Taha’s work, “The Second Message of Islam,” into English.

Naim later became director of Africa Watch, monitoring human rights on the continent, and in 1995 began teaching at Emory. He’s written books on human rights and sponsored social-change projects promoting human rights in local communities in Yemen, Tanzania, and Southeast Asia.

A new book just released in English, “Islam and the Secular State,” represents the culmination of his life’s work, he says.

Islam teaches that every Muslim stands before God and is responsible for making his own moral choices in observing sharia. The Koran does not prescribe a form of government, but speaks only of the community of Muslims. The book argues that there has never been an Islamic state.

“You will not find any reference to an Islamic state or to state enforcement of sharia before the mid-20th century – it’s a post-colonial discourse based on a European-style state,” he explains.

While Iran, for instance, claims to be a republic, implying popular sovereignty, a council of clerics is supposed to ensure that it is Islamic. But that council is made up of fallible humans as political as everyone else, he argues. “How is it that 30 years after the revolution they cannot trust the Muslim citizens to make the choice as to who is likely to be faithful to Islamic values and to represent them?”

Further, Iran and Saudi Arabia both claim to be Islamic states, but to each other they are heresies, he adds. So what does Islamic mean? To call a state Islamic is to attempt to silence political or theological dissent, he says.

“Most Muslims have an intuitive feeling about this but can’t articulate it, so when confronted by Islamists who say this is the will of God, they are defenseless,” Naim says. “My hope is that with this book, we give people confidence to respond that “this is not Islam, it is your view of Islam.”

For some time, Naim has been visiting countries across the Muslim world from Nigeria to Indonesia, testing his ideas in public gatherings, which may range from 25 to 800 people. Before he set out, early manuscripts of his book were translated into Indonesian, Bengali, French, Persian, Russian, Swahili, Turkish, and Urdu and uploaded onto a website.

Only once has he felt physically threatened – after a talk in northern Nigeria – although people have tried to shout him down. “I try to persuade gently, to give examples from Muslim history that people understand, and that helps,” he says.

One huge challenge is the negative connotation in the Muslim world of “secularism,” often seen as being antireligion.

Yet Radwan Masmoudi, director of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy in Washington, believes Naim’s goal of separating political and religious institutions is what a majority of Muslims want. Gallup’s recent global poll showed “that 80 to 90 percent of Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia want democracy,” he says, but similar majorities also want sharia to be a source, or the only source, of law in their countries.

“This is the struggle of our time, coming up with a modern interpretation of sharia that is true to Islamic principles but also to democratic values,” he adds.

Muslim reformer’s ‘heresy’: The Islamic state is a dead end | csmonitor.com

Islam and American politics

By CLAUDE SALHANI (Editor, Middle East Times)

Published: April 04, 2008

SEX, RACE AND RELIGION - Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama have got everyone in America discussing in the three taboo subjects of sex, race and religion. (Philadelphia Inquirer/MCT via Newscom)

TOOLBAR

Print Story

Add Comments

The 2008 presidential elections in the United States have brought three topics which our parents repeatedly told us should not, under any circumstances, be discussed in polite company: sex, race and religion. But with a woman, an African American – with rumors that he might be Muslim – running for president of the United States, all three issues have surfaced and have become the topic of great debate.

Of particular interest and scrutiny has been the question of religion, mainly Islam, although during the earlier stages of the election, candidates included a Mormon and a Protestant minister. Still, it was the question of Obama’s religious affiliation that attracted, and continues to attract much media attention.

The controversy surrounding Illinois Senator Barack Obama having allegedly attended a “madrassa” and the fact that he might have been a Muslim has put both the candidate and Islam on the center stage of American politics. Long debates were held over the issue of the possibility that a Muslim would be sitting in the Oval Office. Questions were asked if a Muslim could be a good president. For example, here is what Republican presidential candidate John McCain replied when asked that very question in a September 2007 interview:

“I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles … personally, I prefer someone who I know has a solid grounding in my faith. But that does not mean that I’m sure that someone who is a good Muslim would not make a good president.”

For the record, a “madrassa” is simply the Arabic word for school. The question therefore should be: “Did Obama go to an Islamic madrassa?” In which case the answer is, “no.”

The question that seems to bother many Americans is not so much if Senator Obama is a Muslim or not, rather, the issue is centered more on a question stemming from a disease which has been plaguing the United States ever since September 11, 2001. The disease is called Islamophobia. The symptoms consist of the false belief that everything relating to Islam is tied to terrorism.

The question of Obama’s religious affiliation, in fact, came up during a roundtable discussion titled, “Islam and American Politics: Deepening the Dialogue,” on Capitol Hill on Thursday. It was convened by the Community of West and Islam Dialogue of the World Economic Forum and Georgetown University.

The first question tackled by the panel composed of respected scholars and experts in theology and Islam was focused on, “How is Islam emerging in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign?”

American Muslims are growing in numbers and as a political force. The U.S. Muslim population today is estimated to be between 2 and 3 million strong. African Americans account for only about one-third; the vast majority of the remaining are first and second generation immigrants that have come to the United States from about 70 different countries. Perhaps somewhat surprising to most Americans is the fact that the single-largest group of U.S. Muslims do not originate from the Arab world, but are rather from South Asia: Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. Arabs and Iranians come in second and third place.

The U.S. Muslim populations tend to reside in or near major cities, such as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago or Detroit. They are on average better educated with about one-third holding advanced degrees, as compared to less than 10 percent of the national average. Their income is also higher than the average U.S. household income. Two-thirds of all Muslim households in the United States earn more than $50,000 per year. The U.S. median income is about $42,000 per year.

How Muslim Americans vote is of course a point of great interest to U.S. politicians. Here the situation is somewhat confusing: according to one survey 63 percent of Muslim Americans identify with the Democrats, 11 percent with the Republicans, and 26 percent consider themselves independent. However, in previous elections, the majority of Muslim Americans tended to favor the Republican platform because of the emphasis the GOP places on family values.

Obama has more going for him than his religious affiliation. It is his charisma that seems to attract voters – non-Muslims and Muslims alike, although he seems to be favored by U.S. Muslims who tend to gravitate toward him. This prompted one of the panelists to say, “Previously the Muslims gravitated toward George W. Bush. So their record of gravitating to political leaders needs to be watched very carefully.”

Islam and American politics - Middle East Times

COUNTERING THE WESTERN ANTI-ISLAM MEDIA SPIN

Dr. Adalat Khan

DR. ADALAT KHAN

author’s email

author’s web site

view author’s other articles

April 04, 2008

It is sad to note that now a days in the Western Media Islam bashing has become fashionable and oft and on we see provocative articles, cartoons, videos and other propaganda items against Islam and the Muslims. A latest slur is the fifteen minutes video by the racist anti-immigration right wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders called fitna. This film features violent imagery of terrorist attacks in New York and Madrid set against passages from the Holy Quran that are distorted and taken out of context. Under the guise of freedom of speech irresponsible politicians such as Wilder are stirring hatred against Muslims not only in their own country but throughout the world. Wilder is not alone in this malicious spin, but it would seem that an organized crusade by the vested interests in the West has been unleashed to demonise Islam and Muslims. It is reported that a theatre in Germany is staging a play based on the infamous book Satanic Verses of Salman Rushdi, while a few weeks ago Pope Benedict was seen baptizing the conversion of a Muslim journalist from Egypt during Easter. It was the same Pope who last year delivered a lecture in which he gave hateful interpretation to the Prophet Muhammad´s mission. In year 2006, a Danish newspaper published cartoons of Prophet Muhammad linking him to bombs and terror. In fact a mega liar Ayaan Hirsi Ali an anti-Islamic slanderer was awarded many awards including Norway’s Human Rights Service’s Bellwether of the Year Award, the Danish Freedom Prize, the Swedish Democracy Prize, and the Moral Courage Award for commitment to conflict resolution, ethics, and world citizenship etc. Interestingly this is the same person who concocted lies just to gain Dutch citizenship. In May 2006, the television program Zembla reported that Hirsi Ali had given false information about her real name, her age and the country she arrived from when originally applying for asylum. The program also presented evidence that she was untruthful about the main reason for her asylum application being forced marriage. Hirsi Ali admitted that she had lied about her full name, her date of birth and the manner in which she had come to the Netherlands. One may wonder why the West is demonizing Islam. It is in fact an organized and systematic Western campaign to malign Islam and impose their hegemony over the Muslim world. Now a question arises what the Muslim can do to counter these insults? The following are some of the potent ways through which the Muslims can effectively protect its religion and faith:
1. MUSLIMS MUST TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT QURAN AND ISLAM:
Muslims should calmly and professionally respond to the cowardly media assaults by coming up with films, news, books, blogs, and other media in countering the lies and educating the world about the truth and what Quran and Islam stands for. Muslims have the talent and resources and must fight back with wisdom and mature arguments clarifying points raised as well providing truth and facts about Islam and the Quran. Who knows anti-Islam propaganda like these may offer opportunities for non-Muslims and convert to Islam. In fact it has been proved the more the West vilifies Islam more Westerners specially Christians are converting to Islam.
2. BOYCOTT WESTERN PRODUCTS AND SERVICES:
There are 1.3 billion Muslims in the World and if a country or some of their politicians and journalist portray Islam negatively, then the Muslims should boycott their products and services. Let us say No to the Dutch products must be the slogan of every Muslim and every Muslim must boycott their products. Muslims governments must also respond by cancelling contracts assigned to these anti-Islamic governments and companies. I am confident these materialistic Westerner will never ever dare again to insult Islam if we boycott their products and services. They have no right on our money and economy if they do not respect our religion. Boycott is more potent than physical attacks and suicide bombing as the later is doing disservice to Islam and not the West.

3. PEACEFUL PROTESTS:
Every Muslim in the world must register a peaceful protest against malicious propaganda against Islam, Quran, Prophet Muhammad and Muslims. Protest we must as it is not a freedom of speech but abuse of the freedom to defame other´s religion. Isn´t it a crime in the West to abuse Jews or deny holocaust? Then why are the Western governments allowing the insult of a religion dear to more than a billion human beings. The answer is that the Western governments themselves encourage such elements to defame Islam as they help them with their own agendas.
4. DIALOGUE WITH THE WEST:
Dialogue is the best way to resolve issues and problems. There is a need for a dialogue by the head of states of the Muslims states, intellectuals, NGOs and other parties to persuade the Western governments, journalists, and even those who deliberately wish to defame Islam and Muslims through stereotypical assumptions and misguided pronouncements. These dialogues must be actively initiated and pursued by the Muslims themselves and given wide coverage in the media so the world also knows that the Muslims want a dialogue with all civilizations of the world.
5. UNITY AMONG MUSLIMS:
Last but not the least the Muslims must realize that if they do not unite they will have to face forever the Western Islamophobia. Muslims must be so united that with one call they take a unified action against those defaming Islam and spreading lies about Quran and Prophet Muhammad. If other nations especially Westerners can unite why not Muslims who have one God, one Prophet, one religion and one belief.
Islam, Quran, Prophet Muhammad and Muslims have been the target of Western media attacks since centuries. Such irresponsible and hateful pronouncement will not help anyone but stir hatred and more conflicts in the world which is already choking with wars and miseries. The Western media must not add fuel to the existing conflicts as it will also engulf them. Neither should they attack Islam in the name of freedoms of expression and speech. They have the right to speak but no one has the right to abuse others religion and ideals. One can disagree with Islam or with what some Muslims do without having to be hateful. It is the duty of every Muslim to counter the Western Propaganda through proactive actions. Inaction is not the answer rather the Muslims must tell the truth and confront those who are spreading lies about Islam, Quran, Prophet Muhammad, and Muslims. This can be the best Jihad which we must embark on.
Dr. Adalat Khan is the president of Mina Resources Sdn Bhd a leading training organization providing various training services who can be reached at e-mail mina@streamyx.com or visit the website: www.mina.edu.my http://www.selfgrowth.com/experts/dr_adalat_khan.html

American Chronicle | COUNTERING THE WESTERN ANTI-ISLAM MEDIA SPIN

Islam misunderstood
4 Apr 2008, 0035 hrs IST,S M Murshed

The public at large has grave misconceptions about Islam. These were initiated by the western media and then repeated ad lib till they assumed the character of axiomatic truth, which then became a part of one’s vocabulary. The principal myth propagated is that Islam exhorts its followers to jehad or holy war and belligerent Muslims are termed as jehadis. Among the notable proponents of this myth has been the Holy Father of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI.
The Pope said on September 12, 2006 at the University of Regensberg, Bavaria that while Sura 2.256 of the Qur’an mentions there is no compulsion in religion, in the later verses there is an incitement to Holy War. The Qur’an contains no such incitement; there is no mention in it of any Holy War. The Pope forgot momentarily that a Holy War was a purely Christian concept and the call for it, i.e. the first Crusade, was given in 1095 AD by Pope Urban II, who granted all those taking part in it, the soldiers of the Church, absolution from all their sins as a reward.
The Pope has not troubled himself to mention the specific verse or verses in the Qur’an that he alluded to. One must, therefore, divine what the Pontiff had in mind from the Arabic word jehad, which is commonly, and wrongly, regarded by the non-Muslim world in general, and the western world in particular, as meaning a Holy War of the Muslims.
Jehad means striving or struggling for any just and righteous cause and most emphatically, it does not mean war. The word occurs 41 times in the Qur’an and not once can it be construed to be an exhortation to war. Those familiar with the Urdu language will know that the term is used in daily life in conversation, for instance, when it is said that after considerable jadd-o-jehad one has been able to overcome some bad habit like smoking or drinking. But conceivably when a struggle has to be undertaken literally on a war footing in a just cause, the war becomes jehad, such
as, for instance, the Palestinians are fighting to expel foreigners, who, with Anglo-American support, have usurped their land.
Some terrorist organisations have, however, adopted the term jehadi, attributing their cause to a struggle for justice, for redressing an imagined wrong done to their fellowmen. In the instances where it has been so used, it is a misnomer and no Quranic support can be found for it.
The transition from jehad to terrorism becomes all too easy, giving currency to the fallacious aphorism: All Muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims. It is Islamic terrorism, they say.
Of the people killed in terrorist attacks in India in the year 2007, less than one-third were killed by Muslim organisations, while the rest were killed by others - notably Left-wing extremist groups, the ULFA in Assam and the PLA in Manipur.
In the UK, for years we witnessed terrorist violence unleashed by the Irish Republican Army. The first plane to be hijacked in the world, from the USA to Cuba, was by an American and the first suicide bomber was presented to the world by Sri Lanka. The Air India aircraft to be blown up in Lockerbee, Scotland, was by Punjabi militants. And, above all, we have two of the world’s greatest terrorists in George W Bush, with his reckless bombing, and subsequent rape of Iraq and earlier in Adolf Hitler, who killed millions of Jews.
Surely the Gita or the Bible cannot be blamed for much of the terrorist activities in the world, which has, meanwhile, learned to blame only the Qur’an. All Muslims are not terrorists, only a minority is. Why is it that all the terrorists are not identified by their religious denominations while the term ‘Islamic terrorism’ comes glibly to one’s tongue in identifying a section of them on the assumption that terrorism is ingrained in Islam?
The writer was former advisor to the governor of J&K.

Islam misunderstood-Editorial-Opinion-The Times of India