Muslim Heretics Conference

East Meets West: Encountering Islam
Tariq Ramadan talks about Muslims in Europe. Azhar Usman is a Muslim Comic. Lupe Fiasco is a Muslim Hip Hop Artist. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a critic of Islam. Ausma Khan publishes Muslim Girl Magazine.

Tariq Ramadan is a Swiss-born philosopher who travels throughout the Islamic world trying to build bridges between European Muslims and conservative clerics. He’s the author of “In the Footsteps of the Prophet” and tells Steve Paulson that Muhammed’s life offers many lessons for today’s Muslims.
Azhar Usman is a Muslim stand-up comic and part of the “Allah Made Me Funny” Comedy Troupe. He tells Jim Fleming that he sees himself as belonging to a long tradition of socially conscious comedians. And we hear excerpts from his comedy routine.
Lupe Fiasco is a rap star and a devout Muslim. His debut album “Food and Liquor” was nominated for 3 Grammy Awards. Fiasco talks about his music and his faith with Anne Strainchamps, and we hear selections of his music.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a famous critic of Islam. Born in Somalia, Hirsi Ali emigrated to the Netherlands where she served in the Dutch Parliament. She and Dutch film-maker Theo Van Gogh made a film called “Submission” which so offended some Muslims that a fanatic killed Van Gogh and called for the death of Hirsi Ali, who now lives in the United States. She talks with Steve Paulson about why she believes Islam is inherently incompatible with Western values.
Ausma Khan is an international human rights lawyer and editor of a magazine called “Muslim Girl.” She tells Anne Strainchamps about the topics covered in the magazine and how it can help young Muslim women talk with their parents.

Public Arts : East Meets West: Encountering Islam (2008-08-23)

by Vincent Gioia

Persecution of Christians and Jews is not new in this world. Although such condemnation for religious beliefs goes back thousands of years, Nazi Germany developed it into an art form with the wholesale murder of Jewish people. Of course, the Nazis didn’t limit atrocities to Jews, they spread their horror around but Nazis were mainly interested in eliminating the Jewish population.

In their hatred of Jews, they were not alone; Muslims aided and abetted the Nazis since they shared a belief system that relegated Jews to the category of “dogs and apes”, as the Koran teaches Islamic adherents. However, unlike the Nazis, Muslims disdain all religions other than Islam. While Muslims complain bitterly about any perceived insult to Islam and any acts of disrespect for the Koran, it is not only accepted but prescribed by Islam to destroy the Holy Bible and those who worship the word of God as opposed to the Islamic reverence of Allah.

Muslims have succeeded in intimidating much of the world so that by actual and the threatened violence the Western World accepts restrictions on freedom of expression lest Muslims be offended. The prime mover of this pressure on the world is the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). With the help of endless petrodollars and fear of violating political correctness, the OIC has managed to have their way across the globe; they have also become the largest lobbying body of nations within the United Nations and are urging an anti-Christian and Jewish agenda with full force.

The Organization of the Islamic conference has actually succeeded in attaining passage of UN resolution in the General assemble called “Combating Defamation of Religions.” This harmless sounding title is in reality a deceptive name for targeting men and women of faith who speak out in any way against Islam or reveal the atrocities committed in the name of Islam on behalf of Allah. If Muslims had their way, not only would discrimination against Christians and Jews be practiced universally but any proclamation of a faith other than Islam would be punishable by imprisonment or even death. Supreme Court Justice Scalia said in a recent dissent, “America is at war with radical Islamists”; in this he was not only correct, he was issuing a warning to the world that to overlook or ignore the intrusion on civil rights by these enemies of freedom would result in the worst form of tyranny not seen since the Nazi regime.

As the American Center of Law and Justice wrote recently:

“We are seeing worldwide persecution of Christians as part of the radical Muslim mission to “take the world for Islam” - by purging Christianity from the face of the earth.

“In Saudi Arabia, a Muslim father violently cut out his young daughter’s tongue and burned her alive upon learning she had become a Christian. In Africa, a leading Gospel singer was seized, stuffed into a cargo box - with a single hole for air - and left for a month to go crazy or die. After two years, she was released, fled her captive country, and was granted political asylum in Denmark. In Iran, a couple was tortured for reading the Bible. Two men in Algeria were tried and convicted for possessing Christian books. And today we face extremely dangerous threats everywhere because of the one posed by the OIC.”

Dr. Andrew Bostom, editor of the book The Legacy of Jihad about Islamic anti-Semitism, warns that the 57 Muslim nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference are trying to impose Islamic blasphemy law — which includes the death penalty for those who “blaspheme” the Muslim prophet Muhammad — as the universal standard across the world. These sentiments of the OIC were repeated more brazenly by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. During a sermon in response to the Danish Muhammad cartoons which were published February 2006, Qaradawi demanded action from the United Nations in accordance with Sharia-based conceptions of blasphemy: “…the governments [of the world] must be pressured to demand that the U.N. adopt a clear resolution or law that categorically prohibits affronts to prophets-to the prophets of the Lord and his Messengers, to His holy books, and to the religious holy places.”

Not Only Is Freedom Of Speech Threatened By Muslims, So Is Religion - Commentary: The Post Chronicle

An octogenarian with 86 wives, Pa Bello Mohammed Abubakar, has dismissed the fatwa (death sentence) passed on him by a foremost Islamic group, the Jamatu Nasril Islam.

Skip to next paragraph

File

Pa Abubakar

The JNI had on Thursday reportedly given Abubakar, a prince from the Masaba ruling house in Bida, four days to repent and revert to four wives, failing which he stood condemned according to Islamic law.

The JNI’s Central Fatwa Committee, in the statement signed by its chairman, Sheikh Usman Abubakar Babantunle, and Secretary-General, Abdulkarim Mu’azu, stated that any Muslim who married more than the approved number of wives at a time either by mistake or out of ignorance could choose four of the lot and ask for Allah’s forgiveness. The report, which quoted Babatunde as saying that Abubakar challenged any Muslim scholar to produce any order restricting marriage to only four wives, stated, “He would wish to also know that there is punishment that Allah (S.W.T) has prepared here in this world or the hereafter for any Muslim who has transgressed this boundary to have more than four wives.”

He added that although Abubakar “refered to the Holy Quran Suratun Nisa’I, in which Allah says women of your choice, two, three or four… vividly, he is ignorant of the proper meaning of this verse according to the Standing Fatwa Committee of JNI.”

However, in a telephone interview with our correspondent, Abubakar said he was not moved by the threat. He declared, “I am fully aware of the death threat, but I am not shaken. If I believe that Allah is the giver of life and He alone can take life, I should not be cowed by any threats to my life.”

A defiant Abubakar challenged the Moslem Ummah or jury, as well as others who believe that his action was contrary to the teachings of Islam, to come out with proofs. He said, “There is nowhere in the Quran, or any religious scripture for that matter, where it is said that any man can take another person’s life.” He also described those who issued the death threat as anti-Islam.

Abubakar also lamented what he observed as the frequent misinterpretation of doctrines by religious leaders, most of whom he accused of using religion for their own selfish interests. “God has used me to affect many lives positively. Therefore, no death threat can take me away from the path of truth, justice and honour,” he said.

The Secretary-General of the Nigeria Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, Dr. Abdul Lateef Adegbite, was said to be out of the country when our correspondent visited his office on Friday.

Also, the Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Mike Okiro, and the Force spokesman, Mr. Agberebi Akpoebi, could not be reached for comment as they were said to have travelled out of Abuja. Attempts to reach the Minister of Information, Mr. John Odey, and officials of the Presidency were also futile.

But the spokesman of the Niger State Police Command, Mr. Richard Oguche, told our correspondent on the telephone that the police would protect Abubakar from harm. He said, “It is our duty to protect lives and properties. He has the right to life and there is no law that permits that he should be killed. If a group of persons threaten his life, we cannot fold our arms and allow him to be killed.”

The Punch: JNI’s death threat: I’m not moved – Man with 86 wives

He is one of the world’s foremost scholars of Islam and the Middle East. Bernard Lewis shares his thoughts on Iraq, “Islamofascism,” the roots of terrorism, and the two biggest misperceptions about the Muslim faith.

From the Jan./Feb. 2008 issue of Foreign Policy: “A World Without Islam,” by Graham Fuller.

Remove Islam from the path of history, and the world ends up exactly where it is today.

Foreign Policy: What do you see as the biggest misperception about Islam?

Bernard Lewis: Well, there are two. Sometimes one, sometimes the other, predominates. It depends when and where. I would call them the negative one and the positive one. The negative one sees Muslims as a collection of bloodthirsty barbarians offering people the choice of the Koran or the sword, and generally bringing tyranny and oppression wherever they go. And the other one is the exact opposite, what you might call the sanitized version, which presents Islam as a religion of love and peace, rather like the Quakers but without their aggressiveness. The truth is in its usual place, somewhere between the extremes.

FP: Do you believe in the “clash of civilizations” theory of Samuel P. Huntington, that the Islamic world and the West are destined to butt heads?

BL: Well, I don’t go into destiny; I’m a historian and I deal with the past. But I certainly think there is something in the “clash of civilizations.” What brought Islam and Christendom into conflict was not so much their differences as their resemblances. There are many religions in the world, but almost all of them are regional, local, ethnic, or whatever you choose to call it. Christianity and Islam are the only religions that claim universal truth. Christians and Muslims are the only people who claim they are the fortunate recipients of God’s final message to humanity, which it is their duty not to keep selfishly to themselves—like the Jews or the Hindus or the Buddhists—but to bring to the rest of mankind, removing whatever obstacles there may be in the way.

So, we have two religions with a similar self-perception, a similar historical background, living side by side, and conflict becomes inevitable.

FP: You write in your chapter about radical Islam that most Muslims are not fundamentalists, and that most fundamentalists are not terrorists. That’s not self-evident to everyone, so can you just explain it a little further?

BL: Naturally we hear about the acts of terror. Nobody ever wrote a headline saying “a million people went peacefully about their business yesterday and did nothing.” Terrorism is very much the news of the moment and it is also the threat of the moment. It is a real menace, and I don’t wish to understate that or diminish it in any way. But if one assumes that that’s all there is to Islam, that’s a grave mistake, because terrorism only comes from one brand of Islam, and even that one brand of Islam is not entirely committed to terrorism. But for a terrorist movement, you do need mass support.

FP: I noticed that you use the term “Islamofascism” in the conclusion of your book. That term has been hotly debated. What do you think? Is it harmful or useful?

BL: Well, I don’t use it; I discuss it. I think one has to confront that this is a term that is used. I don’t like it because it’s insulting to Muslims. They see it as insulting to link the name of their religion with the most detestable of all the European movements. It’s useful in the sense that it does distinguish real Islam from “Islamofascism,” but I still feel that the connection is insulting, and I prefer to use the term “radical Islam.”

FP: A lot of analysts, and this is especially something you hear from political leaders in the Muslim world, say that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism—that these are completely separate issues. Is that a view that you subscribe to? Some people say that terrorism is largely caused by occupation or a response to U.S. policy, not Islam.

BL: Well, I can’t subscribe to it since the terrorists themselves claim to be acting in the name of Islam. There was one Muslim leader who said, not long ago, that it is wrong to speak about Muslim terrorism, because if a man commits an act of terrorism, he’s not a Muslim. That’s very nice, but that could also be interpreted as meaning that if a Muslim commits it, it doesn’t count as terrorism.

When a large part of the Muslim world was under foreign rule, then you might say that terrorism was a result of imperialism, of imperial rule and occupation. But at the present time, almost the whole of the Muslim world has achieved its independence. They can no longer blame others for what goes wrong. They have to confront the realities of their own lives at home. A few places remain disputed, like Chechnya and Israel and some others, but these are relatively minor if you’re talking about the Islamic world as a whole.

FP: Iraq, which used to be ruled by a Sunni ruler, is now being governed by Shiites. What does that mean in the context of Islamic history?

BL: I think it means a great deal. But what is important in Iraq is not that it’s being ruled by the Shiites, but that it’s being ruled by a democracy, by a free, elected government that faces a free opposition. It proves what is often disputed, that the development of democratic institutions in a Muslim Arab country is possible. A lot of people say, “No, it’s impossible. It can’t work. They can’t do it.” Well, it’s difficult, but it’s not impossible, and I think Iraq proves that. What is happening in Iraq I find profoundly encouraging. Of course, it is the ripple effect from Iraq that is causing alarm among all the tyrants that rule these countries [in the region]. If it works in Iraq, it could work elsewhere, and this is very disturbing [for tyrants].

FP: As someone who has spent so much time studying the Ottoman Empire, the history of Islam, and the region, is the future of Islam something that has a deep meaning to you personally? Where do you see the Muslim world headed in the next decade?

BL: I’m not a religious person. But I find things that are good and encouraging. Islam over the last 14 centuries has brought dignity and meaning to millions of drab and impoverished lives. It has created a great civilization that has gone through several different phases in several different countries. It is now going through a major crisis, and it could go either way. It could descend into a fanatical tyranny, which would be devastating for Muslims and a threat to the rest of the world. Or they may succeed in developing their own brand of democracy. When we talk about the possibility of democracy in the Islamic world, it doesn’t have to be our kind. Our kind results from our own history and institutions. It’s not a universal model. They can, and I think will, develop their own brand of democracy, by which I mean limited, civilized, responsible government. And there are signs of that.

Bernard Lewis is professor emeritus at Princeton University and the author of dozens of books, most recently Islam: The Religion and the People (Upper Saddle River: Wharton School Publishing, 2008), coauthored with Buntzie Ellis Churchill.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4455&print=1