Muslim Heretics Conference

The Only Good Muslim is the Anti-Muslim

By M. JUNAID LEVESQUE-ALAM

For some, Barack Obama’s stature as a man of the left has fallen precipitously, like late autumn leaves shed by branches bowing to the will of winter.

Disappointment has often been self-inflicted. Supporters have dipped their pens deeply into the inkwell of Obama’s inspiring story and written their own lines on Afghanistan, oil drilling, or the death penalty - only to see these wishful words unceremoniously erased by presidential politics or the senator’s own views.

But for American Muslims and progressive allies, both eager to see an end to the vilification of Arabs and Muslims in the United States, Obama’s mantra of hope and change barely set in before it expired.

First we witnessed the embarrassing spectacle of micro-level ethnic cleansing when two Arab women with headscarves were whisked offstage ahead of a campaign photo-op in Detroit. Then we heard Obama call false claims about his purportedly Muslim identity “smears” – as if he was accused not of belonging to an Abrahamic faith observed by more than 1.2 billion people, but of slinking out of Congress to visit a brothel. Soon after we saw the senator genuflect before AIPAC and call for a permanently Israeli Jerusalem - a vision the Jewish state has assiduously tried to realize by macro-level ethnic cleansing, purging its Arab residents.

A more recent political maneuver also turned out to be a purge: the Obama campaign’s Muslim outreach coordinator, Mazen Asbahi, “resigned” this month after a brief stint of several days. The event went almost unnoticed.

But two sharply different responses to this episode - and the standing afforded to the authors of these responses - reveal that the senator is not alone in failing to stanch America’s anti-Islamic miasma. Rather, the shortcoming is a collective one, shared by many liberals whose prejudice against Muslims and Arab-Americans is surpassed only by an apparent disinterest in correcting it.

One response to the resignation came from James Zogby. An Arab-American Christian, Zogby’s credentials as a man rooted in his community are matchless. He helped found the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. He led non-sectarian campaigns to assist war victims in Palestine and Lebanon. And he serves as president of the Arab American Institute, a Washington, D.C. think tank.

Yet despite 30 years of community advocacy and experience, his views on Arab and Muslim issues appear in just two popular non-ethnic publications. One is The Huffington Post. The other is in Egypt.

Commenting on Asbahi’s short tenure, Zogby writes, “In the brief time he held his position we spoke almost daily. He learned so much and did so much to make Arab Americans and American Muslims feel included in the campaign.”

“Then,” Zogby observes, “it happened.” One of the many websites “monitoring” Muslims in America discovered that eight years ago Asbahi served on a board which included a controversial imam. Asbahi resigned from the board after two weeks.

Like vultures eyeing a wounded gazelle, the usual assortment of right-wing bloggers descended on Asbahi. They vilified him as a closet fundamentalist for once belonging to the Muslim Student Association, a well-established mainstream group with branches on dozens of college campuses across the U.S. and Canada.

Not to be outdone, the Wall Street Journal threatened to amplify the echo chamber, the walls of which reverberate with the hysterics of its associates in the right-wing “blogosphere.”

Faced with mounting pressure and bereft of support from any quarter, Asbahi and the campaign “agreed” he would relinquish his post.

This sequence of events comes as no surprise to anyone familiar with neoconservative methods. It is but a reenactment of previous attacks: the mendacious 2005 campaign to oust Columbia University professors who used Israel’s own archives to dismantle pleasant fictions about its history; the dissemination of e-mails containing crude anti-Semitic nonsense sent out in professors’ names to destroy their credibility; and the ongoing efforts to publicly intimidate universities into denying academics employment or tenure.

But amid the past few years of attacks, outrages, and, yes, smears, hurled at Muslims and Arabs in this country, one Muslim figure stands curiously unsullied: Irshad Manji. She, too, wrote about Asbahi’s dismissal, though we would do well to acquaint ourselves with the author first.

Unlike most of her coreligionists, Manji has been lavished with attention and awards by mainstream and liberal America. She garnered Oprah Winfrey’s first “Chutzpah” award, Ms. Magazine’s “Feminist for the 21st Century” seal of approval, New York University’s Wagner School “Moral Courage Project,” a column in The Huffington Post, production of a PBS documentary, and the list goes on.

In an era when Muslims find themselves boxed in by political attacks here and military assaults abroad, one wonders: what is Manji’s secret to success?

She wrote a book - and not just any book. Titled The Trouble With Islam Today, hers won applause not only from liberals but other, more interesting quarters. The Wall Street Journal praised it as “refreshingly provocative” and “deserv[ing] of the attention it is receiving.” Daniel Pipes declared, “Manji - a practicing Muslim - brings real insight to her subject.” Phyillis Chesler beamed, “Manji has written a bold, sane, passionate, compelling book.” And Alan Dershowitz announced, “Manji is a fresh, new and intriguing voice of Islamic reform.”

A fine example of damning with loud praise.

What could a Muslim have written that would delight supporters of bombing and torturing Muslims? What sweet words could have moved Daniel Pipes - who specializes in hyping anti-Islamic hysteria on Fox News and elsewhere - to welcome into his generous bosom the ideas of a “practicing Muslim?” What might motivate Alan Dershowitz, better known for backing the torture of Muslims than for reading their books, to plug Manji’s effort?

The answer lies in the content. The Trouble With Islam Today is an unhinged polemic that derides Muslims and demeans their faith. Examining a few of the book’s points should reveal what has caught the fancy of neoconservatives and liberals alike.

The author devotes two pages to comparing Osama bin Laden to Prophet Muhammad. “Is it mere happenstance,” Manji rhetorically asks, “that bin Laden spends so much time in caves, like the meditating [Prophet] did?” With penetrating and piercing logic - in the sense that one must penetrate one’s skull and pierce the cortex to succumb to it - she goes on in this vein, declaring “camel saddles” and “online transactions” twin evils. The “parallels” between Osama, the man who blesses the murder of innocent people, and Muhammad, the man who forgave the murderers of his closest companions, “continue to proliferate,” Manji insists, much to the delight of the Muslim-haters behind the curtains.

A good portion of the book is also dedicated to attacking the Quran (and the Quran alone), which the intrepid author does without any background in religious studies or a single footnote. But no matter. This book, Manji intones, is “profoundly at war with itself.” Religious texts should apparently read like do-it-yourself plumbing guides, bereft of subtlety or layers of meaning, particularly if you are trying to flush the whole thing down the toilet to boost your celebrity status among Islamophobes.

Manji’s fans must especially enjoy her excoriation of Muslims as fake victims. Muslims wallow in their “screaming self-pity,” she snickers,  as though one ought to see the fuselage of cruise missiles as half-full rather than half-empty as they fly en route to the nearest wedding celebration or apartment building.

Manji’s attacks on Muslims appear almost kind next to the beating she doles out to logic itself. She surmises that since Muslims have been more harmed by Muslims than non-Muslims (based on what data or criteria, we dare not guess), there is little reason to complain about atrocities authored under the “war on terror.” She does not add whether she also ordered families of Sept. 11th victims to get over themselves when the casualties were surpassed by that year’s domestic homicides - a case of “Americans having been more harmed by Americans than non-Americans.”

Finally, Manji enjoys ridiculing dispossessed Palestinians. Ignoring over two decades of work by Jewish scholars and human rights groups on Israeli ethnic cleansing and massacres, she neatly eliminates the Palestinians altogether by dubbing them Jordanians and hails Israel for its “compassion.” It must have been precisely this “compassion” that moved 23 ANC veterans, several of them Jewish, to compare the Israeli occupation with South African apartheid during a recent visit.

Now well-acquainted with America’s favorite Muslim, let us turn to her article on the departure of Obama’s former coordinator, Mazen Asbahi.

In a Huffington Post piece, she demonstrates no concern about the vilification enabled Asbahi’s dismissal. Indeed, she fails to mention it even once. Is this because Manji is too busy contributing to the problem to pause and reflect? Or is it because this would upset her core base - the neoconservatives who mount these smear campaigns?

Whatever the case, Manji performs her predictable pre-programmed attack routine, observing contemptuously, “…Mazen Asbahi has just resigned. I can’t say I’m disheartened. He’d been embraced by groups like the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Islamic Society of North America, renowned for their conservative politics and ‘moderate’ double-speak.”

Writing a piece occasioned by attacks on one Muslim, Manji manages to magnify the insult by attacking thousands of other Muslims.

According to her politics, anyone who does not dance to the detonation of cluster bombs is already suspect. So her invective aimed at groups representing thousands of American Muslims, which she never bothers to back up with arguments, is understandable.

Not yet satisfied with herself, she goes on to pant about “most” American Muslims being stuck in a 7th century - or perhaps 10th century, depending on her mood - “time warp.” Serving as 21st century America’s doctors, teachers, engineers, shopkeepers, and plant workers, Muslims have been too busy to notice this worrisome defect.
Concluding with a few shopworn words about “moral courage” and “revolutionary ethos,” Manji polishes off her attacks on the community by invoking vague platitudes about Muslim “reform.”
This is Manji’s sole gimmick: disingenuous calls for Muslims to move forward belied by support for those pulling America backward.

What does the liberal adulation of a professional Islamophobe - one openly adored by neoconservatives, no less - say about the state of American liberalism? Will liberals come to respect and support genuine Muslim and Arab voices, like Zogby and countless unrecognized figures? Or will they continue to lazily rely on self-professed stand-ins like Irshad Manji?

If liberalism persists on its present path, it will not only alienate a targeted community in America but pave the way for further persecution.

Perfectly illustrating this point is The New York Times’ fawning characterization of  Manji as “Osama bin Laden’s worst nightmare.” This is very far from the truth.

For years, many Muslim and non-Muslim voices have said bin Laden’s ideology is a freak phenomenon, fashioned in the ghoulish laboratory of Cold War politics and fed on a steady diet of American –Israeli assaults in the Middle East. At odds with more than 1,300 years of Muslim thought and history, these voices have insisted, bin Laden is a perversion of genuine Islam.

But Manji argues the opposite: bin Laden is a genuine product of Islam, which is itself perverted. Osama, we will recall, is for Manji the new Muhammad.

In showering attention and accolades on Manji, many liberals thus validate and promote the idea that extremist Islam is Islam itself. Could bin Laden dream of a greater gift? Could the neoconservatives?

Perhaps liberals find Manji’s message appealing because ascribing extremism to some innate feature of Islam “disappears” from view the consequences of American foreign policy. Invasion and occupation disappear. Torture and abuse disappear. Corpses of slaughtered civilians and carrions of neutralized nations disappear.

The desire to own a clear conscience, even one obtained through the muddiest logic, should never be underestimated.

There may be other answers: a fear of questioning the dominant narrative; of criticizing Israel; of discovering Islamic perspectives; of engaging the Other, who is often harangued but rarely heard.

Whatever the reason, American liberals would do well to stop glorifying anti-Muslim celebrities and start building relationships with honest Arab and Muslim voices.

We are waiting.

M. Junaid Levesque-Alam blogs about America and Islam at Crossing the Crescent (http://www.crossingthecrescent.com) and writes about American Muslim identity for WireTap magazine. Co-founder of Left Hook, a youth journal that ran from Nov. 2003 to March 2006, he works as a communications coordinator for an anti-domestic violence agency in the NYC area. He can be reached at: junaidalam1 AT gmail.com

M. Junaid Levesque-Alam: The Only Good Muslim is the Anti-Muslim

By Asghar Ali Engineer,

I was invited last week to Indonesia for a series of lectures by Asia Calling International Radio to speak on Islam, Democracy and Nation state. These days Indonesian intellectuals are rocked with questions we were faced with in early fifties in India. Also, all over Islamic world the question is being asked is Islam compatible with democracy and nation state? In Indonesia too, a largest Islamic country in the world the radical Islamists have raised this debate. The progressive Islamic thinkers there, are therefore, seized with these questions.

In a Asia Calling talk show where number of prominent public figures and diplomats were present these questions were raised by many. Also I spoke at Wahid Institute founded by former president of Indonesia and a leading scholar of Islam Abdur Rehman Wahid on experiences of Muslim minority in secular India. Indonesia, though a largest Muslim country in the world is still not an Islamic country but a Panchsila State. The doctrine of Panchsila was adopted during president Sukarno’s time.

But now Indonesia is under pressure to become an Islamic state where Shari’ah law would be the official law and religious minorities like Christians and Buddhists and others would become second-class citizens. Still, it seems, Indonesian people are resisting this demand and are hence keen to know the experiences of secular countries like India. Also what is the experience of nation building in South Asia including Pakistan and Bangla Desh. I was also asked to speak on the concept of human rights in Islam as in a democratic country human rights have fundamental importance. Indonesia, a largest Islamic country, is also faced with this question as minorities are coming under attack and their human rights are being violated.

Of course it is not at all correct to say that Islam is incompatible to democracy, I said in my talk. This myth is being spread by the supporters of authoritarian regime in the Islamic world. Kings, Sheikhs and military dictators are spreading such ideas, doesn’t matter if Islam gets bad name in the process. I firmly refuted this myth and maintained Islam does not come in the way of democracy; it is dictators and monarchs who come in its way.

We should remember, I said, that the Qur’an does not give any concept of state but a concept of society. Qur’an wants to establish a just society and what other way could be better suited to establish a just society than a democratic society. Also the Qur’an emphasizes equality of all human beings and equal dignity for all despite different languages, colours and race and nationality. How can it be achieved except through democratic society?

The authoritarian societies negate all these and hence not democracy but monarchy and dictatorship is un-Islamic, not democracy. During medieval ages, the concept like equal dignity, gender equality and human rights were just non-existent and hence monarchy was quite acceptable. It is no longer so. The modern society is emphatic about human equality without any distinction and human rights and gender equality are of great significance and hence democracy is the only way out for Qur’anic concept of just society to be realized Some people, especially radical Islamic groups do argue that the only just government could be through institution of khilafah. Let me say that the institution of khilafah has not been sanctioned by the Qur’an as pointed out above Qur’an does not recommend any form of government at all. The institution of khilafa was a result of historical situation. It was not even a part of Prophet’s (PBUH) Sunna.

That is why there were differences among Muslims about the question of succession. Even most prominent companions of the Prophet (PBUH) were not sure about the mode of succession of the successor. Shia’s maintain that the Prophet (PBUH) appointed his cousin and son-in-law Ali to succeed him. But only the supporters of Ahl-e-bait agreed with this view and others gathered in Saqifa Banu Sa’ida to discuss the question of his successor. There too there was no unanimity and after lot of suggestions and debates Umar proposed the name of Abu Bakr and did bay’ah on his hand and others followed.

Then there was no unanimity in electing the Caliph. Many said the Khalifah could be only from the tribe of Quraish of Mecca and Ansar of Madina who were from other tribes like Khazraj and Aus maintained that caliph should be from among them as they had helped the Prophet (PBUH) in Madina. It was also suggested that two persons be elected one from Quraish and one from Ansars. But this viewpoint was also rejected and ultimately Abu Bakr of Quraish was elected.

Then it was said that there could be only one caliph at one time but this concept also proved to be fragile as when the Abbasid defeated Umayyads, one of Umayyad’s family fled to Spain and founded another empire there and at a time there came into existence two caliphs and when Buwahids captured power and caliph became merely a nominal head, caliphate turned into sultanate. The institution of Caliphate also lasted only for thirty years and Mu’awiyah captured power without any sanction from Muslims as in the case of first caliph and what is more he nominated his own son Yazid against the wishes of all Muslims and against the wishes of prominent companions of the Prophet many of whom were then alive.

All this clearly shows that the institution of khilafah was a tentative historical construct, not the result of any divine injunction either based on Qur’an or Sunnah. Thus it cannot be argued that the institution of khilafah be restored and that is the only way out. Also, institution of khilafah, whatever way it came into existence was after all more democratic than monarchy or sheikhdoms and dictatorship which have no sanction of any kind at all.

Also, in case of electing a caliph tribal experience of the time was used as successor to a tribal chief was elected by the members of the tribe. There was no concept of one-man one vote at the time. In the institution of modern democracy one man one vote is the tried and tested method for electing public representative. New historical experience has resulted in new methods of election. There should be no hesitation in excepting and assimilating new experiences. During the period of Khilafat many institutions were readily borrowed from Roman and Sassanid empire like keeping salary register for soldiers from Iran. Earlier only share in the loot was given to those taking part in the fight.

Another question which is raised by Islamists is imposition of Shari’ah law. They argue that in democracy there are man made (human made) laws and Shari’ah law is divine law and this cannot be allowed in an Islamic state as only Shari’ah law should be enforced. This is also an erroneous concept. Shari’ah laws can be divided into two categories: ‘ibadat and mu’amalat (i.e. laws pertaining to salah, saum, haj etc. which are part of ‘ibadat.

Then the laws pertaining to mu’amalat which include relations between human beings and human beings. Laws about mu’amalat cannot be permanent. Of course no changes can be made as far as Shari’ah laws concerning ‘ibadat are concerned but as for mu’amalat laws cannot be permanent and parliament should be empowered to make laws in those respects. All modern democracies allow people to pursue their respective religions and do not interfere in their religious affairs. In all secular democracies also right to religion is a fundamental right.

Also, as far as ‘ibadat are concerned it does not require enforcement by any state but its importance lies in its voluntary nature. ‘Ibadat pertain to ones heart and soul and real ‘ibadat is one which is done most sincerely and from ones core of heart. It cannot be enforced. And it will cease to be ‘ibadat if it is enforced by a state machinery. This is what Qur’an also maintains when it says there is no compulsion in matters of religion.

Thus no Islamic state is required even to enforce provisions of Shari’ah. An Islamic state again would mean the majority of Muslim sect who live in that country would enjoy real freedom and those Muslims who belong to other sects would be persecuted. We see this right in the beginning of Islamic history. The Abbasids initially subscribed to the doctrine of createdness of Qur’an and all those who rejected this doctrine were severely persecuted. Even eminent Imam like Abu Hanifa was flogged for rejecting this doctrine.

In modern Islamic states too we see this phenomenon. In Saudi Arabia only Wahabi Muslims enjoy real freedom of religion Those who do not subscribe to this doctrine are persecuted or do not enjoy freedom like Wahabis to practice their religion. Similarly the Shias are persecuted in Sunni majority states and Sunnis in Shiah majority states. In Iraq a Sunni minority dominated and persecuted Shi’ahs and in Syria, Alawi minority dominate over Sunni majority as it wields political power.

Real freedom of religion is possible only in democratic state where all enjoy equal rights irrespective of caste, creed and colour. Large number of Muslims today live as minority in various secular democratic states in various Asian, African and Western countries and enjoy right to freely practice their religion. This it is not correct to maintain that you need an Islamic state to practice Islam freely.

Every democratic state permits Shari’ah laws pertaining to personal laws like marriage, divorce, property, inheritance etc. In secular India too Muslims are completely free to practice these laws. Indian Muslim refuse any reform in their laws and state does not insist on that though in many Muslim countries these laws have been reformed.

Now the question about criminal laws whether it would be permitted in a secular democratic state to be permitted. The answer is certainly no. In India the Britishers had abolished Islamic criminal laws in 19th century itself and enforced a criminal code drafted by their parliament. The Muslim Ulama agreed to abolition of the Islamic code and agreed to enforcement of common criminal code. Today in the modern world many Muslim majority countries have also taken similar steps. Criminal punishments are largely contextual. In the tribal Arab society certain punishments were thought to be more effective and hence they were recommended. The main purpose is to prevent crime and nature and extent of punishment can certainly change. Also, there is provision for tazir punishment also in Islam and the rulers did enforce tazir punishments too. So it is not matter of principle whether hudud laws are enforced or not. Main thing is to check crimes.

Thus it would be seen that a secular and democratic state is equally good as long as it permits Muslims to practice their religion. It is also important to note that the Indian Ulama voluntarily opted for a secular state as opposed to an Islamic state in the form of Pakistan in 1947 when India was divided. They vigorously opposed creation of separate Muslim country and preferred to have a secular democratic and multi-religious, multi-cultural country. And who knew Islam better than the Ulama of Darul Ulum Deoband.

An Islamic state itself, as pointed out before, is a historical construct and not a Qur’anic concept and hence it is in no way obligatory for Muslims to set up an Islamic state. Those who argue in favour of Islamic state cannot produce any argument from the Qur’an and Sunna. In every country there are certain forces who adopt majoritarian aggressive postures and want their religion to be associated with the affairs of the state. In India, for example, a section of Hindus want India to become Hindu Rashtra (i.e. Hindu nation) but secular Hindus resist that demand.

In any religious state all citizens of different religious persuasions cannot enjoy equal rights and no modern state can allow this. The very essence of modern polity is that all citizens irrespective of their religion should enjoy equal rights. Maulana Maududi of Jamat-e-Islami of Pakistan had argued that no non-Muslim can become head of the state or prime minister of Pakistan. He or she cannot even hold any key post in the government. Sure in secular states also no person from minority religion will find it easy to become head of the state but theoretically it is not ruled out. In India a Sikh, a non-Hindu became a prime minister and three Muslims could become president of the country.

Another objection raised by many Islamists is that in secular democratic states human rights are sacred and the very concept of human rights is un-Islamic. This is also not in keeping with the Qur’anic teachings. Firstly, most of the Islamic countries with few exceptions have signed the UNO’s Human Rights Declaration. Some countries who did not sign the declaration their objection was that one who renounces Islam cannot be put to death as freedom of religion is a fundamental principle of human rights.

However, as pointed out above Qur’an itself upholds right to freedom of religion and the Qur’an pronounced it much before modern world realized its significance. It is very strange that now some Muslims in contradistinction to Qur’anic principle, of which they should have been justly proud, reject the doctrine of freedom of religion as modern western and hence unacceptable. The Shari’ah rule that one who renounces Islam should be given death sentence is highly controversial and there is no unanimity on this among Muslim jurists. Maulana Aslam Jairajpuri, for example, disagrees with it and advances several arguments from Qur’an and Sunna to show death punishment for renouncing Islam is not justified.

In fact freedom and faith go together. One cannot genuinely believe in any religion unless one is completely free to accept or reject it. If one is forced to accept a religion it cannot be accepted by his heart and soul. He may accept it outwardly but his heart and soul may resent it. It is precisely for this psychological reason that Qur’an made principle of freedom of religion so important. The Shari’ah provision for death sentence was more for sedition than for renouncing religion. It was feared that a Muslim living in an Islamic state, if renounces Islam, he may join hands with the enemy and conspire against Islamic state. Punishment for sedition world over is death.

The fear of sedition was genuine because Muslim states were surrounded by Christian states and there was direct political, though not religious confrontation between the two and hence anyone renouncing Islam there was genuine fear that he may help the Christian state. The crusades are well known from 11th to 13th century. That period of confrontation between Muslims and Christians was most intense. Thus death punishment for renouncing Islam makes sense during that period. This context must be kept in mind but in the long run the Qur’anic doctrine of freedom of religion must be upheld.

As for other principles of human rights even the most orthodox Muslim cannot object to them. For example, equality of all human beings is very central to Qur’anic teachings too. Human dignity is sacred in Islam as well. Gender equality is also clearly enunciated in the Qur’an. Moreover, woman has been given equal rights for contracting marriage and husband and wife have been described as each others garment. All these are enshrined in declaration of human rights issued by the UNO. Those Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia who did not sign Human Rights’ Declaration also did not object to these provisions.

Those who argue that implementation of Shari’ah is an obligation of Islamic State should understand that Shari’ah evolved gradually and there were great deal of differences among the Muslim jurists on many issues. Thus Shari’ah, as one Islamic scholar Prof. Muhammad Mujeeb maintained, is a human approach to divine injunctions. That is very apt description of Shari’ah laws as evolved by many eminent jurists during first four centuries of Islam.

The great Urdu poet Iqbal from Indian sub-continent also maintained that every generation of Muslims should be entitled to rethink Shari’ah issues and in a Muslim majority country parliament will be the right forum to do so. He also maintained that ijtihad is the dynamic principle in Islam and ijtihad becomes necessary in changed conditions in modern society. Thus a democratic society with an elected parliament would be a better institutional arrangement for making Shari’ah more relevant to our contemporary world. Many new issues have arisen which need use of ijtihad quite urgent.

And where Muslims are a minority and live in secular democratic state should evolve their own forums to bring about necessary changes. Today more Muslims live in minority situation than in majority and hence they would have to evolve their own institutions to do ijtihad with the cooperation of Ulama and modern scholars. No secular democratic state can stop them from attempting these creative changes in their laws. All this has to be done within the framework of Islam. No changes can be brought outside this framework if they are to be accepted by Muslims at large.

To accept democratic state would be far more beneficial to Muslims and would enable Muslims to practice their religion faithfully and fearlessly than in so called Islamic state where sectarianism and fundamentalism will prevail. A democratic state is much better guarantee of genuine freedom of religion than a state based on any religion. This seems to be contradictory but in fact true.

Thus we must properly educate Muslim masses and prepare them for acceptance of democracy in Islamic world. They should be made aware that those who oppose democracy in the name of Islam are really serving certain vested interests rather than Islam. Islamic world is still reeling under the impact of feudal and medieval forces who serve their own interests in the name of Islam. Islam is quite compatible with democracy. It is rather interests of rulers of Muslim countries which are not compatible with democracy.

Indonesia, I said in my lectures, has achieved democracy after a long spell under dictatorship and it must be protected at any cost and all religious minorities also should be guaranteed full freedom to follow their respective religion. Tolerance of differences is an important principle of democracy and due tolerance should be shown to all different religious opinions too. It will not violate any Islamic principle at all.

Islam, democracy and violence | Indian Muslims

Interview with the Muslim Reform Thinker Amina Wadud:  “The Koran Cannot Be Usurped”

by Martina Sabra

Islam, gender equality and human rights are compatible – this is a basic conviction of Amina Wadud, author of several books about Islam and women. Martina Sabra interviewed the Islamic feminist at a recent conference about “Women power in Islam” in Germany

Professor Wadud, in 2005 you produced a world-wide media hype because you publicly lead a gender-inclusive prayer for Muslim men and women in New York. You received hate-mails from all over the world, there were even bomb threats. Looking back, what do you think about the events today, and what are your conclusions from what happened?

Amina Wadud: First of all, I wasn’t the first Muslim woman to lead a mixed prayer. But the Sharia has determined by majority opinion that men should be the leaders of all rituals in public. I have been working in concert with more progressive Muslims, who lead mixed prayers. This is something that has been going on among the Sunnis for some 20 years – so it is maybe not very well known, but it is practiced by others. The New York prayer was intentionally done to bring in the experience of women as prayer leaders. The rationale is that some of the rules which we have practiced are not rules which are part of the Koran or the Sunna but they have become a part of culture and history. And those things can be changed from a religious point of view.

There was a great deal of media sensation. But the prayer is a kind of worship, an intimate relationship with God, and it is difficult to do it just for the sensation. It is very difficult to organize mixed prayers, because you need Muslims who want to pray together, and you need a place. You want it as an expression of being a Muslim, but you don’t want it to be politicized. So in order to integrate these things, I sometimes rather say no when I am asked to perform a public gender-inclusive prayer. In private, smaller settings – yes.

Until the age of twenty, you were a Christian. Your father was a Methodist minister. Today you are one of the best-known Muslim reform thinkers worldwide. Why did you become a Muslim?

Wadud: I was always interested in theological ideas. As you’re saying, my father was a Methodist minister. I was raised as a Christian and very, very interested in ideas about God, about morality, about human nature and about spirituality. So before converting to Islam I was a Buddhist, and lived in an Ashram and practiced meditation, which I still practice today. When I was twenty, I stepped into a mosque not far from where I lived. I wanted to know about Islam. I am very interested in the relationship between the profane and the sacred.

For me, Islam gave me a language, and actually Arabic was an important part of it – it gave me the language of tawhid, the language of God’s intimate relationship with the creation, but also the power to bring harmony to things which are disparate. That for me is the epitome of surrender. Islam helped me to understand my experience with Christianity and Buddhism. It is a reasoned revelation. This is maybe not for everyone, some people have a more simplistic understanding of Islam. But this is how I lived it.

When I was given the opportunity to study a little bit about Islam, I was very impressed, especially with the Koran. For me, the Koran opened up a relationship between my logic, my reasoning, my understanding of the world, my love and desire for nature, and for the world beyond the world, for the unseen. And so I have developed my work specifically with the area of Koran and gender, and that is the area that I think it is sort of a gift to me because it is something that I love doing.

As a child, you witnessed the civil rights movement in the United States. As an adolescent, you say that you were very conscious about personal freedom and intellectual independence. Wasn’t that in strong contradiction with the conservative mainstream Islam of the seventies?

Wadud: Certainly, I faced many contradictions. The struggle to be Muslim was easiest at the beginning, when I made the transformation from my post-Christian, post-Buddhist state into being a Muslim. Then, knowledge was the main impetus. Now it is more difficult, there is more that I understand and therefore more responsibility. My perspective is part of a reform and that makes it sometimes difficult because it is not mainstream.

When I first began to work on things that I considered to be gender mainstream, or gender-inclusive, the notion of Islamic Feminism had not been discussed. I wrote “Qur’an and Woman” in the end of the eighties. In fact, many see the book as the beginning of female-centred exegesis of the Koran, which is an important part of what we now recognize analytically as Islamic feminism. Muslim women are not all interested in Islamic Feminism. Some of them are not even interested in being Muslim. For me, I have not had a problem with Islam so much as I had a problem with the way in which Islam is practiced. And that this kind of Islam can sometimes be aggressive against women’s full rights.

But again, you have to understand that this is a new phenomenon in its name. Whether or not women accept that name – I myself never go by feminist – I always go by pro-faith, pro-feminist, because I am trying to combine the two things: the relationship with God, and the relationship with God as a woman.

So when there is patriarchy we must dismantle the patriarchy, not to replace it with something equally unequal, but rather to truly establish relationships of reciprocity between human beings no matter what their agenda or their perspective and that’s where we are finding ourselves in a new terrain where this work is going in many different countries where women and men, Muslims and non-Muslims, but clearly understanding that it’s not possible for God to create a call to him, her or it, and that call does not equally include women and men.

In your writings, you often refer to Christian and Jewish religious thinkers, among others Paul Tillich and Martin Buber. In your books “Qur’an and Woman” and “Inside the Gender Jihad” you defend pluralism, the freedom of opinion and the right to be different from an Islamic perspective. According to your writings, the Koran should be re-read from a gender perspective and in the light of its historical context. Yet, the Koran is considered to be eternal and unchangeable. How does that match?

Wadud: I think that unless you have had a real connection with the Koran, you will not understand how it is a force in history as well as in spirit. You will not be able to understand that there is a cooperation between the reader and the text. You will say that there is some flaw with methodology. But you have to understand that the readers can use the text for whatever they want, because there is a dynamic relationship between the text and the interpretation. The text is both created in time but also evolves beyond time.

Could you give an example of how that works in practice?

Wadud: We are now participating in a global reform movement for a Muslim personal status law, and the very fundamental basis for that yields back to the egalitarian trajectory of the Koran. The Koran did not complete that in the context of the prophet’s lifetime. But the Koran is not usurped by even its own historical context. But some people have grown up in a culture where the Koran is used for a narrow and restrictive interpretation so they consider that interpretation the only interpretation. And that’s problematic from my perspective. My work has shown that the interpretation is never complete. Meaning is never fixed.

The Koran as an open structure – where do you draw the line between hermeneutics and arbitrariness?

Wadud: What has happened in modernity after the enlightenment is a more rigid demarcation of the text that loses its flexibility historically. So I don’t want the text to be limited to this post-enlightenment interpretation. I don’t want the long legacy of interpretative works to be disregarded. I do however see that the necessity for the inclusion of gender as a category of thought is something that is unique post-enlightenment. And in that respect what we are doing is that we are looking through our own historical lens, and our historical lens is as legitimate as any other historical lens, and our historical lens is also limited, in that we are not projecting into the future.

The American Muslim (TAM)

Anti-radical Islam reporter killed in south Russia

Reuters
Wednesday, 3 September 2008

Change font size: A | A | A

Gunmen in the Russian republic of Dagestan killed a television journalist who promoted an officially approved form of Islam, police said today.

Abulla Alishayev was the second journalist to die in three days in Russia’s north Caucasus, a region scarred by fighting between federal forces and Muslim rebels.

Unknown assailants shot Alishayev - an editor at an Islamic television station who made a documentary countering the radical Wahabist form of Islam - as he drove through Dagestan’s capital last night. He died today.

Analysts say predominantly Muslim Dagestan is fertile ground for radical Islam to attract disenfranchised young men, a trend they say could spread further through Russia’s north Caucasus.

“Alishayev received wounds to the shoulder and head. He was operated on, but his life could not be saved,” Dagestani police said.

Dagestan, with a population of about 2.5 million, lies between the Caspian Sea and Chechnya. It is one of the most heavily populated and poorest republics in Russia. Unemployment is widespread and power cute this winter paralysed the capital Makhachkala.

On Sunday the owner of an opposition Web site in the nearby republic Ingushetia died from gunshot wounds while in police custody. Police said Magomed Yevloyev was shot dead when he lunged for a gun. Human rights workers said they did not believe this story.

Anti-radical Islam reporter killed in south Russia - Europe, World - The Independent