Muslim Heretics Conference

By : SITI NURBAIYAH NADZMI
2009/02/18

‘I only led prayers when I was invited to,’ said Amina.

After kicking up a storm in the Muslim world by leading a mixed gender congregation, Dr Amina Wadud would seem to have a formidable persona. SITI NURBAIYAH NADZMI discovers a gentle person behind the name.

“WHO?”
Dr Amina Wadud. She led a mixed gender prayer in New York, a few years ago.
My colleague’s eyes almost bulged out of their sockets when I told him I would be interviewing the controversial Muslim scholar.
A few seconds lapsed before he launched into a tirade on the woman who chose to be an imam to a congregation.
He was not the only one to be upset. While a handful were excited about the prospect of meeting her — one even took a photo with Amina for her own album — many of my colleagues were upset, enraged and rattled by Amina’s action in March 2005. The wound bleeds afresh.
Unknown to many, Amina taught Quranic Studies at International Islamic University Malaysia between 1989 and 1992 when she published her dissertation Qur’an and Woman: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman’s Perspective.
It was also during the same period that she co-founded the NGO Sisters-In-Islam together with, among others, an analyst with Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS), Askiah Adam, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia sociologist Norani Othman, and artist Sharifah Zuriah Al-Jefri, who was then a cultural advisor at the US Embassy.
Amina was a speaker at the recent Musawah: Equality and Justice in the Family conference where she presented a paper titled “Islam Beyond Patriarchy Through Gender Inclusive Qur’anic Analysis”.
A mouthful, one would think, and unless one is a sociologist, it was a bite too big to chew.
But curiosity was a hungry animal and it fed on me. I had to know why Amina Wadud did the thing that earned her the most damning label in Islam: heretic.
Her actions received worldwide attention at both ends of the spectrum.
Renowned ulamak Yusuf Al-Qardhawi berated her on Al-Jazeera, calling her action unIslamic and heretical; while Eygptian ulamak Gamal al-Banna argued that her actions were supported by Islamic sources, and were, therefore, orthodox.
It was confusing, but the majority voiced their opposition to her actions through fatwas and more criticism. Amina, meanwhile, remained reclusive and refused to give her side of the argument.
When I asked to interview Amina, Sisters-In-Islam, which organised the Musawah conference, imposed one condition — that I read her books first.
I was only given two days to finish The Qur’an and Woman and Inside the Gender Jihad Women’s Reform in Islam.
Given that both are works of academic research, it was near impossible.
The Qur’an and Woman, however, was an interesting read. Here, Amina looked into something most Muslims, learned or not, fail to uphold, which is to read the holy text and understand it.
The book asked an important question: do we accept the given knowledge without question? If so, that’s not learning.
Due to the timelessness of the Quran, Amina wrote that the holy text must be re-read by scholars of various disciplines, otherwise there is a grave danger that its meaning and value would be lost through time.
Prior to the interview, I was warned by those who knew her that she might be difficult, standoffish and daunting.
I tried not to be intimidated by these warnings. What came later was an enlightening experience.
With a PhD in Quranic Studies and almost 30 years poring over the holy text, Amina has every reason to be a scholar snob on her subject.
But she did not come across as someone bursting with self-righteousness, consumed by feminist ideals.
Instead, she was more of a teacher, patiently listening; choosing her words after careful thought.
Amina abhors generalisation. To her, it is an insult to deem all ulamaks as stereotypes in ideas and conduct.
“They are intellects and they have their reasons,” she said.
Not once during the interview did she refer to herself as an imam.
“I only led prayers when I was invited to,” explained Amina, who now lives in Jakarta and is collecting material for her next book on gender ethics.
Dressed in a cotton Indonesian batik blouse and sarung, with a dark green scarf over her head, the 180cm-tall African-American scholar also opened up a little more about herself over lunch, reminiscing about family, living abroad and Malaysian food.
She still craves fish head curry and roti canai. “The stalls here are the best,” she said.
She enjoyed living in Taman Tun Dr Ismail in the early 1990s.
“I’m never one for loud and busy cities. I prefer a quiet neighbourhood. Taman Tun was perfect then. But recently my friend took me there and I discovered this huge shopping mall…” she gestured, quite overwhelmed by how much the area has developed.
As for the fame that came with controversy, Amina said she initially had difficulties dealing with it, especially when strangers would come up to her asking to be photographed together and permission to post the picture on Facebook.
“I don’t think much of it now. The reality is that, when you come home, you have to do the dishes, cook and do the laundry.”
Was I swung to believe that Muslim men could be led in prayer by women after the interview with Amina, asked some colleagues and friends.
It took Amina 11 years of theological research on leadership before making the commitment to lead a mixed gender congregation.
Do I subscribe to the idea? I can only say that I do not have the knowledge yet.

The New Straits Times Online…….

Labour bares its appeaser’s teeth to unbending Muslims

MINETTE MARRIN

Has Jacqui Smith for once done something right? Was our beleaguered “second home” home secretary wise to drive away from our shores the unappealing Dutch politician Geert Wilders? Surely the government has a duty to keep out any troublemakers it chooses, if that appears to be in the national interest.

Those who mutter indignantly that the eccentric Wilders is a democratically elected politician in a European Union country miss the point. At a time of real danger no one cares about niceties like that, not even those who are protesting about it. Besides, all kinds of wholly undesirable people have been elected to European parliaments. Being an elected European politician is not the best of calling cards.

Those who insist that freedom of speech within the law must be absolute are also missing the point; there are times when public order trumps free speech, as the wildest of libertarians must agree. Careless talk can cost lives and grown-up governments have a duty of pragmatism.

So if the home secretary rightly judged that Wilders is a man likely and possibly anxious to stir up serious trouble, then she was right to have him put on the next plane home at Heathrow last Thursday. But did she judge rightly? Or was she guilty of the poor judgment, moral funk and cultural appeasement that we have come to expect of new Labour?

Wilders was told in a letter from the Home Office that he is not welcome here because his statements about Muslims and their beliefs “threaten community harmony and therefore public safety”. He may not be entitled to know what that means, but we certainly are. Yet the government has been very coy about explaining.

What I think it means was that some British Muslims – enough to cause trouble and bad publicity for the government – would get upset and angry if both Wilders and his film appeared; there were protests worldwide when his film was released in Holland last year and, reportedly, threats of organised protest here. So Wilders was kept away because of tacit threats from some British Muslims who won’t accept criticism of any kind. I don’t think the ban had much to do with the equally, but differently, agitated feelings of the non-Muslim majority: if Smith had considered them, she might have realised that it was equally inflammatory not to let Wilders in.

Admittedly Wilders is not the kind of visitor most people would want. It is difficult to avoid thinking the man must be as aggressively silly as his preposterous cockscomb hairdo; he has urged the Dutch government to ban the Koran as “fascist” and he is facing prosecution there for incitement to hatred and discrimination. He seems to be entirely the wrong man to make a balanced, thoughtful case about anything. But freedom of speech is not only for the sensible. And there seems to be no suggestion that his film Fitna breaks any laws here. Indeed it has, in his absence, been shown to a tiny audience in the House of Lords, without any interference from the police.

Many of those who so passionately denounced Wilders’s film here last week haven’t actually seen it. We can only suppose, therefore, that their indignation was fuelled by a desire to display anti-racist credentials. David Miliband, our gaffe-prone young foreign secretary, was quick to point out that Fitna is “ a hate-filled film designed to stir up religious and racial hatred and is contrary to our laws”. But he then had to admit that he hadn’t seen it either.

I have seen the film, twice. It is very short and anyone can find it easily on the internet. It did not strike me as contrary to our laws, stringent though they now are, and no one but Miliband seriously makes that claim.

It is unsophisticated and one-sided and likely to upset people, yet I do not think it is factually untruthful. It juxtaposes certain texts from the Koran, commanding the faithful to kill infidels, apostates, homosexuals and so on and to take over the world, with news footage of Islamist terrorists carrying out these commands and film of Islamist supporters cheering them on.

Admittedly the film does not try to distinguish between Islamist terrorists and ordinary law-abiding Muslims, or to show how Muslims have lived together peacefully with others all over the world for centuries. So Fitna is extremely unbalanced and, in that sense, misleading. However, what the film does show are precisely the things, I believe, that deeply worry a lot of non-Muslims.

Again and again we are told that Islam is a religion of peace and equality; how does that tally with some of what the Koran says?

What makes such anxieties really toxic is the feeling that they are suppressed and ignored by our government. Critics of Islam, however reasonable, know they are likely to fall foul of the many new Labour laws against freedom of expression, in particular against incitement to religious hatred, which was enacted under Muslim pressure.

Yet despite these laws, which silence critics of Islam, Muslims are allowed to teach views that are illegal in public mosques. The awkward truth is that certain teachings in the Koran are against the law in this country – teachings about homosexuality and the position of women, for example. In some places the Koran and some other Muslim teachings are sexist, homophobic and likely to incite religious hatred.

To call the Koran “fascist” as Wilders has done is stupid, empty and needlessly offensive. However, to say that some of its teachings, taken literally, are unacceptable in this country is merely to report a fact.

Wilders’s visit was a disastrously missed opportunity. Keeping him out will anger many of the silent majority. Had he been allowed in, his silliness would have been exposed. More importantly, thoughtful and sophisticated British Muslims offered to debate his film. They could have discussed publicly what Muslims believe and whether they take literally the bloodthirstier parts of the Koran – although how they square these theological circles is beyond me, as is the mystery of how Christians dispense with the nastiest bits of Exodus and Leviticus. But this was a perfect moment for British Muslims to educate the public about themselves.

And it was an opportunity for the government to prove that it is not prepared to appease any threatening minority, but will stand up for freedom and tolerance. But it was an opportunity this government was incapable of taking. It doesn’t even understand the importance of it.

minette.marrin@sunday-times.co.uk

Labour bares its appeaser’s teeth to unbending Muslims | MINETTE MARRIN - Times Online

Exclusive: Radical Muslim Chaplains – Root Causes of Islamic Fanaticism and Terror

Dr. Sami Alrabaa

Nabeel Al Awadhi, a Kuwaiti Muslim, calls himself an “’alem” (scientist, Islam-expert), theologian, writer, chaplain, and a pious Muslim who shows Muslims the right path to Paradise.

Nabeel Al Awadhi

He wrote in the daily Al Watan, (February 8, 2009), “We Arab Muslims must start thinking of producing nuclear bombs. We can finance that with our petrodollars, and use Egyptian brains to make that dream come true. Our prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, ordered us, ‘to prepare every thing possible to fight the infidels’ (meaning Christians, Jew, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.). These people understand only the language of power. We’ll tell the world: ‘Aslem Taslam (either you submit to Islam, or you’ll have to die.”

Nabeel Al Awadhi is stuffing the brain of one his fans with explosive stuff

As Ali, a Kuwaiti, read that he said, “Oh my God! Who is going to operate our oil industry, electricity and water plants? They are all operated mostly by non-Muslims, at least in the Arab oil countries.”

In Hawalli mosque, he said in a Friday preach (January 9, 2009), “It is not true that the Americans liberated Kuwait in 1991. It was Allah. He simply used the American troops to liberate our country. Therefore, we must thank Allah, not the Americans.”

On Kuwait TV, he told his audience (February 2, 2009), “I know of many cases of Muslims who were infected with cancer. They drank Zamzam water (from “holy” Mecca) and were completely cured. You just need to believe in it, believe in Islam and his prophet.”

“The man is checking out “Islamic medicine books” and ignoring modern scientific book behind him”

Very often, Al Awadhi narrates the following “Islamic miracle:” after a house in Cairo completely burned down, the fire fighters found a copy of the Koran. It was barely touched by fire. It survived the fire. “Do you know why? Because it is Allah’s book. It is the only true holy book on the earth.”

Al Awadhi also preaches that Muslims do not need to read any other book than the Koran. It has everything: “Instructions on how to abide by Shari’a, the law of Allah, and all kinds of scientific theories, which the West is using to develop all kinds of technology” (in Al Watan, November 17, 2008).

Occasionally, Al Awadhi repeats the following myth. A valiant pious Muslim went to Napoleon Bonaparte, (after the latter invaded Egypt in the 18th century) and told him, “You’re not a just ruler.” According to Al Awadhi, Bonaparte was angry and ordered jailing the man in a small cell, and asked his soldiers to bring a hungry lion and release it into the cell. They did so. The following day, the soldiers opened the cell and were astounded. The man was still alive; he was sitting on one end of the room and the lion on the other end.

The soldiers asked the man, “What happened? Why didn’t the lion devour you?” The man looked at them with a triumphant smile and said, “I was praying as you released the lion into the cell. Allah prevented the lion from coming close to me.” Then they asked him, “Weren’t you scared?” “Actually I was only afraid that it (lion) would tarnish my ablution. That is all,” the man said.

Al Awadhi ends the story by saying, “After learning about the story, many French soldiers at the time converted to Islam. Allahu Akbar!”

Al Awadhi ends most of his preaches by calling Allah to infect all non-Muslims with AIDS and hit them with natural devastating catastrophes. He also comforts his fellow Muslims by saying, “Our prophet Muhammad will sit next to Allah on the day of judgment and convince Him that all good Muslims should enter Paradise.” 

By the way, Al Awadhi works for the Ministry of Islamic Affairs in Kuwait and gets a monthly salary of 9,000 petrodollars.     

Al Awadhi is in good society. He cherishes and ad nausea repeats what his fellow radical chaplains disseminate among Muslims.

Sheikh Muhammad Al Tabtaba’i, dean of the Shari’a (Islamic studies) College at Kuwait, promulgated in the daily Al Qabas (August 4, 2003), “Labor strikes are forbidden in Islam. Muslims should be grateful to their employers who give them jobs, and if they do not like the job and its pay, they should leave it.” He also said, “We reject the Western concept of freedom. It is un-Islamic. The only thing that is Islamic is obedience to Allah.”

Sheikh Yousef Al Badri, at Al Azhar University, rushed to support Al Tabtaba’i. He issued a fatwa (Al Sharq Al Awsat daily, May, 4, 2008) in which he condemned demonstrations against the regime of President Husni Mubarak. “Mubarak’s governance has brought prosperity and peace to Egypt. Demonstrating against Mubarak equals disobedience to Allah.” 

Sheikh Saleh Al-Lehadan, head of the Saudi Fatwa Council, issued a fatwa (Saudi TV, January 15, 2009) in which he bans demonstrations. “Demonstrations are an infidel fad. Good Muslims pray instead of demonstrating.”

Kamil Al Najjar criticizes in Al Hiwar Al Mutamedden (Modern Dialogue), all those radical fatwa sheikhs. “We Muslims thank Allah for everything, for the good and for the bad. But we never thank those (infidels) who invented for us the car and the airplane, for example. On the contrary, we even condemn them. After taking off, the Saudi, Kuwait, and Egyptian airlines begin their flights with a verse from the Koran that reads, Thank Allah who puts all this under our service….”

Al Awadhi and his fellows are the kind of sheikhs who dominate the fatwa-market in the Muslim world. They have free access to all print and audio-visual media. Their stories and hallucinations are voraciously consumed by illiterate and half-illiterate Muslims of which the Arabian Peninsula, in particular, has quite a few.

The man on the right asks, “What is the latest book you have read?

The man on the left answers: “Book? I heard of this word. Could you help me and tell me what it is.”

Unless Muslim consumers of Al Awadhi’s hallucinations and those of his ilk are exposed to basic modern common sense information, the war on terror will remain futile. Only properly informed Muslims would make “Islam experts” like Al Awadhi ineffective, and hence they will root out the weed of fanaticism.

Al Awadhi and his peers are perfect coaches of fanatic Muslims. Further, fanaticism is the pre-stage to blindly maiming and killing. Young men and women who listen to Al Awadhi and his fellow chaplains are perfect candidates for becoming suicide and car bombers. There lie the root causes of terrorism.  

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Dr. Sami Alrabaa, an ex-Muslim, is a professor of Sociology  and an Arab-Muslim culture specialist. Before moving to Germany he taught at Kuwait University, King Saud University, and Michigan State University.

Family Security Matters » Publications » Exclusive: Radical Muslim Chaplains – Root Causes of Islamic Fanaticism and Terror

Indian Ulema have no time to lose, must call militant Quranic surahs obsolete 

By Sultan Shahin

The so-called Indian Mujahedeen have used in their notorious e-mails certain Quranic verses to justify killing of innocent civilians. These are the same verses that enemies of Islam’s pacific and humane philosophy have been traditionally using for centuries to demonise Islam. Muslims who go berserk and want to simply smite all and sundry in their crazy stupor also routinely use these verses to justify their fanaticism and probably also to brainwash the still-not-so-crazy to their cause.

New Age Islam urges Indian Ulema to come out with explicit, unequivocal statements that the Quranic verses like the following - “Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks”- are now obsolete: they were meant for a specific situation during the Prophet’s life and do no apply today.

Also, they must clarify that the Muslim perception and belief that they alone are worthy of going to Heaven is total bunkum, according to Muslim precepts. Muslims are no better or worse than any other community. Islam has as much failed to create a New Man or for that matter a New Woman as any other reformist religion or philosophy.

The best place in the world to experience this is Saudi Arabia – the birthplace of Islam. The country takes its very name from the name of its monarch. What kind of human equality before God is that? Equality of all human beings before God is supposed to be Islam’s USP (Unique Selling Proposition), the reason Islam spread in the world with the speed of wildfire. And Saudi Muslims live under a autocratic monarch who also claims to be the Custodian of Islam’s two holiest shrines in Mecca and Medina. Also, in their racism of the pre-Islamic Jahiliya, they treat foreign Muslim workers in their land, who are sustaining their economy, with contempt, calling them Kharjis (foreigners) and normally even refusing to pray in the same mosque as them.

An Islam-supremacist view of Muslims around the world and their treatment of all other religions as inferior is causing enormous ill-will towards them. If they were any better than others, they won’t treat others with contempt anyway. This in itself is proof that they are not better. It is a common belief that no matter how good a human being a person professing to any religion other than Islam maybe, he is not good enough in the eyes of God to go to heaven and no matter how roguish a Muslim is he is going to end up eventually in Heaven. This is absurd from an Islamic viewpoint. Allah in Quran recognises all religions and asks Muslims to treat all prophets of God – by one count, 124,000 - as deserving the same veneration as Prophet Mohammad and their followers as Ahl-e-Kitab (People of the Book), worthy of all sorts of social interaction including marital relations with Muslims.

It is this that leads Bulandshahri – quoted in a Jihad Watch article reproduced below as an example of how non-Muslims react to present-day Muslim worldview – to claim:

“Even though the disbelievers may carry out many good deeds and render great services to mankind, these deeds will not be recognized on the Day of Judgment on account of their disbelief.” By contrast, Allah will improve the condition of the believers (vv. 2, 7, 35).

Indian Ulema have no time to lose. Our youth are going stray. As a result of the Ulemas’ indolence and worse, they are acquiring self-destructive ways, are becoming a menace to society.

Some people are wondering today and asking questions in Television discussions: “How can educated, sophisticated Muslims with a career and a good life to look forward to, join Jihadi organizations and destroy it all?” I am not at all surprised, however. I saw this coming at least a couple of decades ago. Not out of any clairvoyance, though, just a chance encounter with a British teenage Jihadi in the mid-1980s.

I spent a lot of time in England in 1980s. I was alerted to the coming catastrophe by a chance encounter with a young Jihadi in a progressive Pakistani friend’s house in Nottingham. This Jihadi, a student of Nottingham university and probably in his 20s, was talking to my friend’s teenage children in a room adjoining the one we were sitting in. I overheard some of his talk and went in to share his discourse. He continued when I told him I was also interested in learning what he was talking about. He was an Ahl-e-Hadeesi. The gist of his talk was that only Muslims belonging to his sect were true Muslims and that the rest were Kafiroon (unbelievers) and Mushrikeen (deviants). I asked him what would he do with the rest of Muslims, 99.9 percent of the Muslims in he world who were not Ahl-e-Hadeesi and thus really unbelievers and deviants. He replied with a nonchalance that took my breath away. Without batting an eyelid, he said: “Kill them.”

My friend was also listening in the other room. His blood-pressure rising, he came and told him to get out of his house and never to show his face again, even though he was a relative. He asked his kids to stay away from him and never to invite him in again. But from all I know I doubt if he was able to save his kids from being radicalized. This was a period when Omar Bakri, of Al-Mohajiroon, later a spokesman of Osama bin Laden, was a rage among Muslim students on university campuses in Britain. He was one of the few people in the world to be able to fill the Wembley Stadium in London with his admirers and followers.

Not to be left behind Muslim elders too were inviting Jihadis from all over the world. I distinctly remember listening to fiery speeches from crazy Algerian and Egyptian fundamentalists, in a so-called Muslim Parliament meeting. Muslim exclusivism was in full flow. Islam-supremacism had made many Muslims lose their heads altogether. These people simply did not seem interested in living in the here and now. And, of course, there were others interested in helping them reach the Hereafter. But in the process many innocent people, Muslims included, suffer horribly.

It is no surprise to me, therefore, that this killer virus has infected a section, hopefully a very small section, of Indian Muslim youth too now. Any fashion that catches the imagination of the West eventually reaches here. Marxism is a case in point. But the responsibility for Islamic fundamentalist virus rests a great deal with responsible Muslims and particularly Ulema. They have made a good beginning now by repeatedly denouncing terrorism as un-Islamic. But they will need to go further and declare in unequivocal terms that certain Quranic verses, being situational in nature as all Quranic verses are, have become obsolete and can no longer be quoted to justify violence against the so-called Kafirs.

In fact, a close reading of the Holy Quran suggests that there are no people on earth that can truly be called Kafir, except, of course, individuals like the revered scientist Richard Dawkins and our own beloved writer Khushwant Singh, who insist on claiming that they don’t believe in the existence of God. But then Quran asks us to treat Kafirs with great deal of respect and never to hurt their sentiments. Urdu poets have, therefore, rightly used the word Kafir to denote a rather recalcitrant beloved.

The Ulema also need to put to rest the Islam-supremacist world view of a lot of Muslims. Any one who looks at others with contempt, for whatever reason, cannot possibly prove a well-adjusted member of human society. It needs to be debated openly among Muslims if they truly are a chosen people. Muslims need to be told in no uncertain terms that they are not a chosen people. Indeed God threatened to replace them with better people if they did not measure up to His expectations. They didn’t and it would not be too far-fetched to say that probably God has already carried out that thereat. He has replaced Muslim influence in the world with that of people whose societal vision is much closer to the egalitarian, democratic Islamic worldview than that of Muslims who are struggling with monarchy, dictatorship, military rule, corruption and oppression of the weaker elements in their society.

URL: http://newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=787

Please also see:

‘Muslims should abrogate verses of war in Islamic Law’

at:  http://newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=951

Postscript: Some verses from The Holy Quran used for brainwashing our youth and leading them on to what they are told is the path of Jihad and the way to Heaven are being reproduced below from a compilation made by Dr. Shabbir Ahmed of Florida along with his occasional commentaries (available at www.ourbeacon.com). While they may have great historical value and help us understanding the roots of our religion and the difficulties the Prophet had to face in carrying out his task and feel grateful for his perseverance and patience, most of them are clearly not applicable to us verbatim in our present situation and in the present age. Let us pinch ourselves hard and try and remember that we are not living in the sixth century Arabia, but in the 21^st century post 9/11 world. There is no way we can go back in time and migrate to Prophet’s Arabia and help fight his battles and earn Allah’s blessings and probably a good accommodation in Heaven. We will have to find other ways of achieving that.

2:216 Fighting is ordained for you, even though it is hateful to you. But it may happen that you hate a thing that is good for you, and it may happen that you love a thing that is bad for you. For, God knows and you know not. [See 2:190-193, 22:39]

2:217 They ask you about fighting in any Month of Security. Say, “Fighting in the prescribed Months of Security is a great transgression. (2:194). However, repelling men from the Way of God, and rejecting His Command of peace in those Months and turning people away from the Masjid of Security and the Prescribed Way of Life, and evicting its people from there, are greater offences in the Sight of God. Persecution is a crime far greater than killing.” They will not cease from fighting against you until they make you revert from your Way of Life, if they can. He among you who goes back from his Deen and dies in disbelief these are the ones whose works are rendered vain in this world and the Hereafter. These are the companions of Fire, to abide therein.

2:244 Fight in the Cause of God, and know that God is Hearer, Knower.

[This is propagated as a verse of universal value, even forgetting the verse which says: Fight only in self-defence and against oppression since God does not love aggressors. 2:190-194]

8:37 God will distinguish the bad from the good, then pile the bad on top of one another and cast them together in the Hellfire. They are truly the losers. [The clans of rejecters will join hands to fight the believers, but the battleground will become Hell for them]

8:38 (O Prophet) Tell the disbelievers that if they cease hostilities, all their past will be forgiven. But if they return, they will meet the example of the old nations.

8:39 Fight and subdue those who persist in aggression until persecution is no more, and absolute freedom of religion is established. People must be able to adopt a religion only for God’s Approval, and as free choice (2:193, 12:108). If they cease from aggression, God is the Seer of their actions, and therefore you shall leave them alone.

2:246 (Sustained commitment to the Divine Order with wealth and person is not an easy undertaking.) After the times of Moses, some leaders of the Israelites promised their Prophet (Samuel), “If you appoint a king for us, we will fight in the Cause of God.” The Prophet said, “Is it your intention to refrain from fighting if it was decreed to you?” They said’ “Why should we not fight in the Cause of God when we have been driven out of our homes with our children?” Yet when fighting was ordained for them, they turned away all but a few. God is Aware of the wrongdoers.

3:13 (Only recently at Badr) there was a sign for you in the two armies that met in combat. One was fighting in the Cause of God, the other denying Him. With their own eyes the two armies saw each other as twice their number. But God strengthens people with His support according to His Laws. This must be a lesson for people of vision for all times.

3:167 And that He might mark out those afflicted with hypocrisy. They had been told, “Come! Fight in the Cause of God, or at least defend (the city).” They answered, “If we knew that confrontation was forthcoming, we would have indeed joined you.” On that day they were closer to disbelief than belief, uttering with their mouths something that was not in their hearts. But God was best Aware of what they were trying to conceal.

3:168 Those who sat at home said of their brethren, “If they had listened to us they would not have been slain.” Say (O Messenger), “Then avert death from your own selves if you are truthful.”

3:169 Think not of those, who are slain in the Cause of God, as dead. Nay, they are living! And by their Lord they are well provided for. [2:154, 3:156]

3:170 They are happy in the Bounty that God has given them - and pleased for those left behind, who have not yet joined them - that upon them shall be no fear, nor anything to regret.

3:171 They rejoice because of the favor from God and the Bounty. For, God never fails to reward those who have conviction in His Laws.

3:172 For those who respond to God and the Messenger even after harm has struck them - and continue to work for the betterment of humanity and live upright, is a tremendous reward. [8:24]

3:195 Thus their Lord accepts and answers their prayer, “Indeed, I never let the work of any worker, male or female, go vain. You are members, one of another. Hence, those who emigrate, and are driven from their homelands, and suffer harm in My Cause, and fight, and are slain, I shall certainly blot out their faults, erasing the imprints of their misdeeds on their ‘self’. And certainly, I shall admit them into Gardens with streams flowing beneath - a handsome return from God’s Presence. For, with God is the fairest return of actions. [2:186]

2:191 Subdue them regardless of their tribal affiliations, and drive them out of where they drove you out. For persecution, (terror, torture, oppression) is a crime even more grievous than killing. Do not fight against them near the Masjid of Security (a haven of amnesty) unless they attack you therein. But if they attack you there, then you shall fight against them. Such has to be the rebuttal of those who reject (the Standard of Peace).

2:193 Hence, fight them only until there is no more harassment, and Deen may be adopted for the sake of God alone. And if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against those who replace peace with aggression.

2:194 You may fight during the Months of Peace and Security if you are attacked, for, a violation of sanctity will activate the Law of Just retribution. So, the one who attacks you should expect retaliation in like manner. Be mindful of God, and know that God is with those who live upright.

2:195 (Defence of the Divine Order calls for sacrifice of wealth and person.) Hence, keep open your resources in the Cause of God, and let not your own hands throw you into destruction. Be beneficent! Indeed, God loves the doers of good. [You might throw yourselves into destruction by withholding contributions to this noble Cause]

4:74 Let them fight in God’s Cause, all those who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoever fights in God’s Cause, be he slain or be he victorious, We shall soon give him an immense reward.

4:75 What has happened to you that you do not fight in the Cause of God? Defenceless men, women, and children are being oppressed and crying, “Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors, and raise for us protectors and helpers.” [God does not fight in person, or send His armies or angels physically. 22:39]

4:76 Believers fight in the Cause of God, that is, for the removal of tyranny and in self-defence (benign aggression). And the rejecters of the Truth fight in tyranny and for their selfish desire to oppress people (malignant aggression). So fight against those friends of Satan. Surely, Satan’s plan is feeble because the selfish desire fails before the Divine Law of Requital.

4:77 Have you seen those who have been told, “Curb your hands, and establish the Divine System and set up the just Economic Order?” But as soon as the Command came to fight, some of them feared men as they should have feared God, or even more. They say, “Our Lord! Why have You ordained fighting for us? If only You had granted us a little more delay!” Say, “Brief is the enjoyment of this world, whereas the life to come is the best for those who live upright. None of you shall be wronged a hair’s breadth.”

4:78 Wherever you may be, death will find you, even if you live in fortified castles. When something good happens to them, they say, “It is from God.” And when affliction befalls them they say to each other, “This is from you O fellow-man!” Tell them, “All things happen according to God’s Laws.” What is amiss with these people, they do not understand a thing?

4:84 (O Messenger) Fight in the Cause of God. You are responsible only for yourself. Inspire the believers (to conquer all fear). God may well curb the might of the unbelievers (who are bent upon destroying the System). For God is the Strongest in Might, and Strongest in the ability to deter. [2:151]

4:91 You will find others who desire peace for their people and make peace with you. But at the slightest opportune moment they come to fight against you. If they neither leave you alone, nor offer peace, nor hold their hands, subdue them regardless of which group they belong to. In their case, God has given you a clear Authority to fight.

5:33 The just punishment for those who wage war against God and His Messenger and endeavor to commit bloody crimes on earth, is that they be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet severed on alternate sides, or be entirely banished from the land. Such is their disgrace in this world, and an awful suffering awaits them in the Hereafter.

8:43 God made them few in your vision. Had He made them appear more numerous (and you got intimidated by their great numbers), you would have been discouraged. And you would have disputed among yourselves (whether fighting them at Badr was a good idea). But God saved you from faltering. He is fully Aware of what is in the hearts.

8:44 When the two armies faced each other, He made them appear few in your eyes, and made you appear weak in their eyes (3:12). God willed that to be the Day of Distinction. All matters go back to God’s Laws as their source.

8:45 O You who have chosen to be graced with belief! Whenever you meet an army, be firm and remember God much, that you may be successful. [8:10]

8:57 When you encounter them in war, deal with them to set an example for those who come after them, that they may remember.

8:59 Let not the rejecters suppose that they can get away with their violations. They cannot escape the Law of Requital.

8:60 Make ready for them all the power you can muster, and all the equipment you can mobilize so that you may deter the enemies of God, and your enemies. And others beside them whom you know not, God knows them. Whatever wealth and effort you spend on your defences, will be your spending in the Cause of God, and it will be repaid to you generously. And you shall not be wronged.

8:65 O Prophet! Inspire the believers (to conquer all fear of death) in times of war. If there be twenty of you who are patient in adversity, they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be one hundred of you, they shall overcome one thousand of those who are bent upon denying the Truth. This is because the rejecters of the Truth are people who cannot understand (the Eternal rewards that motivate the believers).

8:66 For the time being, however, God has lightened your burden, for He knows that you are weak. And so, if there be one hundred of you who are steadfast in adversity, they should be able to overcome two hundred; and if there be one thousand of you, they should be able to overcome two thousand by God’s Leave. For, God is with those who are steadfast in adversity.

9:12 If they keep breaking their pledges after their treaty, and assail your System, then fight the chiefs of the disbelievers. They have no respect for their binding oaths. This action will help restrain them from aggression.

9:13 Will you not fight a folk who keep breaking their solemn pledges and did everything to drive out the Messenger, and did attack you first? What! Do you fear them? Nay, it is God alone Whom you should more justly fear, if you are truly believers.

9:14 Fight them! God will punish them at your hands, and He will humiliate them, and give you victory over them, and He will soothe the bosoms of those who believe.

9:16 Do you think that you will be left alone without God distinguishing those among you who strive in His Cause, and take none for ally except God, His Messenger, and the believers? And God is Aware of what you do.

9:29 Fight back against those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what God and His Messenger have prohibited, nor do they acknowledge the True Deen - among those who were given the Scripture, until they pay Jizya in humility.

9:32 They (Jews and Christians) seek to extinguish God’s Light (the Qur’an) by their utterances. But God will not allow this to pass, for He has willed to spread His Light in all its fullness even though the rejecters may detest it.

9:33 He it is Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the True Religion (Deen = The System of Life), that He may cause it to prevail over all religions and systems of life, even though the idolaters may detest it. [9:31-33, 13:31, 14:48, 18:48, 41:53, 48:28, 51:20-21, 61:8-9]

[Commentary by Dr. Shabbir Ahmed: “the Qura’nic Deen will prevail over all other systems of life. This refers to religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and all other forms of religion, including the sects that are now present in Islam. But next to religions, the Qur’anic Deen will also prevail over all political systems of the world such as Communism, Secular Democracy, Theocracy, Monarchy and it will rule over all ways of life as Humanism, Socialism and so on. This will happen as humanity willingly realizes the supremacy of The Qur’an”.]

9:36 God has ordained twelve months in one year. This has been God’s Ordinance since the day He created the heavens and the earth. Four of these Months are Sacred, forbidden for all warfare. This is the Firm Religion, the right way. So, do not wrong yourselves by fighting during the Sacred Months. However, you may fight the idolaters in any or all these months if they fight against you in any or all of them (2:194). And know that God is with those who restrain themselves.

9:38 O You who have chosen to be graced with belief! What is amiss with you that, when called upon, “Go forth in the Cause of God,” you cling heavily to the ground? Do you choose pleasure in the life of this world rather than in the life to come? The enjoyment of this life is but a paltry thing compared to the Hereafter.

9:39 If you did not go forth in God’s Cause, He (His Law) will afflict you with a painful doom. He will replace you with another nation. You cannot harm Him in the least. All things transpire according to the Laws appointed by God. [Only the competent nations live honorably on earth. 21:105, 24:55]

9:41 Go forth lightly armed, or heavily armed and strive with your wealth and person in the Cause of God. This is best for you if you but knew.

9:44 Those who have conviction in God and the Last Day, do not ask you for exemption from striving with their wealth and persons. And God is Aware of those who live upright.

9:47 Even if they had gone forth they would have only caused trouble and run to and fro seeking sedition among you. In your ranks are some apt to listen to them and in your ranks are spies of the enemy. God knows the wrongdoers.

9:48 They have sought to create dissension among you before, and raised difficulties for you (O Prophet). They did that till the Truth came and the Decree of God prevailed, though they detested it.

9:49 Of them is he who says, “Grant me leave, and do not draw me into trial.” Have they not fallen into trial already? In fact, Hell is all around the disbelievers.

9:52 Say, “Can you expect for us other than one of two things?” - (Victory or martyrdom). On the other hand, we expect for you that God will send His retribution from Himself, or by our hands. Wait then expectant, and we shall hopefully wait with you.”

9:53 (Some hypocrites want to make financial contributions.) Tell them, “Your contribution is not accepted whether you pay willingly or unwillingly. You are a people who drift away from the System at the first opportune time.”

47:4 If you meet the disbelievers in battle, then, strike at their Command centres. Until you have subdued them, then, bind them firmly. And thereafter, must be an act of kindness or ransom when the battle lays down its weapons. And if God willed, He could indeed punish them Himself, but that He may let you test one by means of another (as to which nation remains vigilant.) And, as for those who are slain in the Cause of God, He does not render their actions vain.

[8:37, 38:40. Commentary by Dr. Shabbir Ahmed (available at www.ourbeacon.com)]: “Free the captives as an act of kindness or ransom, such as in exchange for your men in their captivity. There is no third option. Fadharb ar-riqaab is usually rendered as ‘smite their necks.’ A little contemplation, however, makes it plain that in a battle of swords and arrows no commander would order his soldiers to aim for the necks alone. Therefore, the stated term has been used idiomatically, indicating knocking out the command centres. It is interesting to note that even in today’s encounters with high technology this principle is given a top priority.”

*************************

The JihadWatch article referred to above is being reproduced below along with the comments it inspired:

************************************************

September 21, 2008

Blogging the Qur’an: Suras 47, “Muhammad,” and 48, “Victory”

“Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks”

The Medinan sura 47 is alternatively known as Al-Qital, “The Fighting” – and indeed, it is much preoccupied with war against unbelievers. It affirms of those who oppose Islam that Allah will “render their deeds vain” (vv. 1, 8-9, 28, 32). Bulandshahri explains: “Even though the disbelievers may carry out many good deeds and render great services to mankind, these deeds will not be recognized on the Day of Judgment on account of their disbelief.” By contrast, Allah will improve the condition of the believers (vv. 2, 7, 35).

Teachings such as these lead to the common Islamic idea that Islamic purity will lead to worldly prosperity, and unbelief conversely to ruin in this life. For Allah protects the believers, while the unbelievers have no protector (v. 11). In a hadith in An-Nasai’s collection – one of the six collections Muslims consider most reliable – Muhammad prays, “O Allah, I seek refuge with you from unbelief and poverty.” Someone asked him, “Are they equal?” Muhammad answered, “Yes.” This connection is often clearly refuted by reality, but is tenaciously held nonetheless.

Then come instructions to behead the unbelievers when the believers meet them in battle (v. 4). The literal understanding of this verse is paramount among Islamic commentators. Ibn Kathir says that it means that when Muslims “fight against” unbelievers, they should “cut them down totally with your swords.” The Tafsir al-Jalalayn spells it out further: “in other words, slay them — reference is made to the ‘striking of the necks’ because the predominant cause of being slayed is to be struck in the neck.” Zamakhshari takes “strike at the necks” to mean that Muslims should strike non-Muslims specifically on the neck rather than elsewhere, so as to make sure they are dead and not just wounded.

The twentieth-century Qur’an translator Abdullah Yusuf Ali likewise takes the injunction literally, justifying it by saying, “You cannot wage war with kid gloves.” However, Muhammad Khatib, a modern Sunni commentator, says that this command applies only to Muhammad’s day, although Shi‘ites “think it is a universal precept.” Modern-day Sunni jihad groups such as Zarqawi’s Al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in Iraq a few years ago pointed to this and other Qur’anic verses as justifications for their beheadings.

The same verse goes on to call for the taking of prisoners and allowing for “either generosity or ransom” of prisoners of war. This has been enshrined in Islamic law:‘Umdat al-Salik, a manual of Islamic jurisprudence certified by Al-Azhar University in Cairo (the most respected authority in Sunni Islam) as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community,” lays out four options for prisoners, in line with this verse: “When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph considers the interests … (of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner’s death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy” (o9.14).

Then comes an oft-repeated refrain: Don’t the unbelievers travel around the earth and see how Allah has destroyed earlier unbelieving peoples (vv. 10, 13)? Allah will admit the believers to the gardens of Paradise, while the unbelievers will eat as the cattle eat and drink boiling water that will cut their bowels to pieces (vv. 12, 14-15). Some listen to Muhammad but are insincere (v. 16), and some even ask that a chapter of the Qur’an be sent down for them – but when one is sent down that commands fighting, they draw back (v. 20). Ibn Kathir explains that “Allah mentions that the believers were hoping that Jihad would be legislated. But when Allah ordained it, many of the people turned back” – and he explains why they did so in a way that makes it clear that the jihad in question involves hot war: they drew back, says Ibn Kathir, because of “their fear, terror, and cowardice concerning meeting the enemies.”

Then come more excoriations of unbelievers, with familiar charges reissued: Allah has cursed the unbelievers and made them deaf and blind (v. 23); their hearts are locked so that they cannot understand the Qur’an (v. 24); and they apostatize from Islam because Satan beguiles them (v. 25). This life is mere “play and amusement,” but those who obey Allah will not have to give up their worldly goods (v. 36), but they should not hesitate to spend money in Allah’s cause (v. 38).

Sura 48 is also from Medina. The “victory” from Allah in v. 1 is for some the Muslim conquest of Mecca late in Muhammad’s life; for others it is the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, which Muhammad concluded on disadvantageous terms with the pagan Quraysh tribe of Mecca before he conquered that city. Umar, one of Muhammad’s closest followers, asked him about this three times, got no answer, and then went away in fear that a passage of the Qur’an would be revealed about him! But instead there came this sura, telling Muhammad that Allah would forgive his past and future sins (v. 2) and would admit the believers to Paradise (v. 5), while the hypocrites and polytheists will go to hell (v. 6).

Those who pledge loyalty to Muhammad pledge loyalty to Allah (v. 10). Those who refused to go with Muhammad to meet the Quraysh, fearing that they would be massacred, make excuses, but Allah knows that they hoped Muhammad and the Muslims would not return (vv. 11-12). Allah tells Muhammad to tell them that they will be called upon to fight against a powerful people, unless they submit to Islam; if they fight then, they will be rewarded (v. 16). Islamic scholars differ as to which powerful people is meant – some suggested the Persians and Byzantines. The blind, lame, and ill need not fight in jihad warfare, but those who do will go to Paradise (v. 17). Allah is pleased with the believers who pledged fealty to Muhammad under the tree (v. 18) – Ibn Kathir says there were 1,400 Muslims who did so, under a tree near Hudaybiyya. Allah sent them as-sakinah (v. 18), which is the presence of God in the Old Testament but is understood simply as “tranquility” by Muslim commentators. He also promises the believers much booty (v. 19), which they soon collected in the raid on the Jewish settlement at the oasis of Khaybar.

The unbelievers, if they fight the Muslims, will flee (v. 22). Allah protected the believers from the unbelievers at Hudaybiyya, giving them “tranquility” (vv. 24-26) — and the truce he concluded with the Meccans at Hudaybiyya will allow Muhammad and the Muslims to visit the Ka’aba (v. 27). Those who follow Muhammad are merciful to believers but harsh to unbelievers (v. 29) – a stark contrast to Jesus’ injunction in the Sermon on the Mount to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44).

Next week: Sura 49, “The Chambers”: “The (true) believers are those only who believe in Allah and His messenger and afterward doubt not, but strive with their wealth and their lives for the cause of Allah.”
(Here you can find links to all the earlier “Blogging the Qur’an” segments. Here is a good Arabic Qur’an, with English translations available; here are two popular Muslim translations, those of Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, along with a third by M. H. Shakir. Here is another popular translation, that of Muhammad Asad. And here is an omnibus of ten Qur’an translations.)

New Age Islam: Mapping an Agenda for the Twenty-first Century………….Islam and terrorism, Islam, terrorism, Political Islam and the west, Radical Islamism and the West, Islamic extremism in Pakistan, Islamic fundamentalism, Modern secular moderate Islam, Kashmir independence movement in India and Pakistan, Islamic tolerance and co-existence with other religions, Understanding Islam today, Rethinking Islam in 2ast century, Islamic Fundamentalism, Islamist terrorism and extremism, Islam and Hinduism, Islam and Christianity, Teachings of Koran and Hadith, Pakistan and Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, Sunni and Shia Islam, Iran and Saudi Arabia, American neo-con politics and Islam

At the end of the day, one goes back to basics to understand what the Quran and Islam are about.

ALL Muslims are encouraged to seek and pursue learning as a life-long passion. And like many Muslims in this country, as one ages, one seeks more spiritual enlightenment.

I, like my friends and relatives, do my best to attend tafsir and other religious classes, but I will admit that I think I’m running around in circles in this city in pursuit of spirituality and piety.

I suppose other Muslims are content with, and are more attuned to, the classes we have in the city.

But I want to attend Islamic classes which teach Muslims not just the interpretations of the Quran and Hadiths, Aqidah but also about Islamic architecture, sciences, philosophy and literature.

However, I keep being told that the latter belongs in the jurisdiction of Muslim scholars, not minions like a harried writer such as I.

I was actually told this: “Cukup la kelas tafsir dan Fardhu Ain. Yang nak tinggi-tinggi sangat kenapa? Alif Ba Ta tak pass lagi nak PhD pulak.”

If it’s one thing that gets my goat it would be someone or some people saying I can’t do A B C because I’m not X Y Z. I am a great believer that learning belongs to everyone and that learning about my faith is not just about doa-doa (supplications) and rituals.

I am a student of my faith, and I think it’s my constitutional, personal, human, everything right to find out about Islam. It is also my belief that religious classes should be enjoyable for all.

My mother will slaughter me for saying this, but my days of attending datin kelas mengaji are over. Yes, they are nice, yes they are there to learn about Islam, which is a lot better than this poor soul here, but at the end of the day, it’s like being in high school.

If it’s not about you, it’s who your husband is. In either case, I fail. Argh! I had attended another round with friends at another place and – I kid you not – everything was either bida’ah or involved a jin.

Yes, as a Muslim who has read, memorised, understands and accepts Ayatul Qursy (a verse from Surah Al Baqarah) and the three Quls (the Surahs Al-Ikhlas, Al-Falaq and Surah An-Nas) I know that there are beings which exist alongside us, but we cannot border on syirik (when a Muslim believes in an entity other than Allah).

Still, when my friend told me that she believed the ustaz was right, that there was a jin inside her knee, I lost the plot. I told her she had gout, thanks to the rubbish she ate, and that there was no jin!

Our argument amused our friends greatly. I still stand by my principle: no jin in knee. Only jin teh tarik and junk food.

It’s not without effort, I must say in my defence. I have pestered friends; I even called up Islamic institutions, only to be told (1) classes are only for scholars (ngarr) (2) there are no such classes at their establishment; and I have even gone to their libraries only to be told members of the public are not allowed to borrow books.

And the Government wants us to be global and well-read citizens. (Dina bangs head on table). There is no culture of learning in this country. Only shopping. And tenders. Argh, argh, argh.

After meeting a very handsome Dr M, who was a professor in one of our higher institutions of learning and is now an editor at a local publishing company, who understood my frustrations, and told me to calm down – learning will come to me … I didn’t need to chase it … one day – I came across a very interesting post on the following blogs: Marina Mahathir’s, Rocky’s, Zaidel B’s, Jordan Macavay’s and Art Harun’s.

The Let’s Read The Quran campaign which began in January and will end, aptly, on Valentine’s Day this year is a simple, effective and heartfelt campaign for everyone – Muslims and their non-Muslim brothers and sisters – to understand what the Quran and Islam are about.

Click on the link (www.altafsir.com) each morning and begin your day listening to recitations of chosen verses and chapters from the Quran.

My favourite chapter is the most basic but nonetheless most important one – Al Fatihah. It brought back memories of my first ustaz and my childhood in Terengganu.

The one month of reading what my peers had written in their blogs has been very satisfying. I may not have met Anas Zubedy, but I enjoyed reading about his late grandfather, who taught him how to recite the Quran.

Zaidel B’s blog showed another side to his macho personality, though the name of his blog (Lipas Sepi? Zaidel!) is very questionable.

There were other blogs that I had not read before, so off I went to explore their posts on Islam and what reading the Quran meant to them.

I enjoyed this one month because I felt that the stories were very personable, real and authentic. What a pity this has to end this weekend.

I suppose at the end of the day, one goes back to basics. This will suffice for now, until the path of learning opens up for me.

If the good Prophet Mohamed cannot go to the mountain, the mountain will go to him, then my teacher will appear on my lap … errr, in my life. I can only pray he’s as cute as the good professor.

• Happy belated Thaipusam, Federal Territory Day, Valentine’s Day, whatever day!

An enjoyable insight into Islam

Arab Liberals: The Arab and Muslim World Condemns Human Rights Violations Only When Perpetrated by Non-Muslims

In response to the sweeping condemnation in the Arab and Muslim world of Israel’s actions in Gaza, and the calls to prosecute Israeli leaders for war crimes, liberal Arab writers have accused the Arabs and Muslims of hypocrisy. The liberal website www.elaph.com has published two articles in this vein, by Egyptian liberal Kamal Ghobrial and by Kuwaiti liberal Fahker Al-Sultan. Both writers point out that the Arab and Muslim world is quick to express outrage over atrocities and human rights violations when Arabs or Muslims are victimized by non-Muslims, but turns a blind eye - or even condones the violations - when the victims are non-Muslims, or when Muslims prosecute their own brothers, as happened in Saddam’s Iraq and is happening today in Darfur. The writers argue that this double standard stems from the problem of hatred for the other, and especially towards Jews. Al-Sultan emphasizes the role of the traditional Islamic mentality - and of political Islam, which exploits this mentality - in promoting inflexible xenophobic and antisemitic attitudes.

Following are excerpts from the two articles:

“According To These Courageous Jihadists, Only [Muslim] Blood Is Valuable, While the Blood Of Others Is Basically Worthless And Can Be Spilled Without A Qualm; More Than That, Spilling It Is A Kind Of Sacrifice Through Which One Can Attain Paradise“

Kamal Ghobrial wrote: “…[There are] courageous [heroes] who zealously [defend] human [values], especially when it comes to Muslim blood - for, according to these courageous jihadists, only [Muslim] blood is valuable, while the blood of others is basically worthless and can be spilled without a qualm. More than that, spilling it is a kind of sacrifice through which one can attain paradise.

“[I would like to remind] all these people… that [Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir] is accused of spilling the blood of his own Sunni Muslim people. The arm of justice has reached him in order to hold him to account for crimes perpetrated during his presidency against thousands of innocent people. [These crimes] outraged everyone - except, of course, the Arabs, who are outraged only in specific circumstances and in response to deliberate incitement.

“Will we witness demonstrations in the Muslim and Arab capitals and cities calling for international justice to be carried out and demanding that the accused [i.e. Bashir] be immediately turned over to the [international] court to receive the punishment he deserves…? Or will we see the opposite?

“[I believe that,] once we calm down from our emotional reaction [to the plight of] our children and brothers in Gaza, whose blood is being spilled… we will see the avenging angels of the [Arab] television networks, who support terrorism, make an [ideological] U-turn for the second time this year. They will drop the refrains about defending human rights, and rally to the defense of the accused [i.e. Bashir]. More than that… they will claim that the allegations against him are part of the global conspiracy against the Arabs and the Muslims.

“The essential and baffling question is this: The [Arab and Muslim] outrage that is being witnessed by the region and the world - does it [really] stem from human sentiment and solidarity with the Palestinian people? If the answer is yes, we would expect to see the same reaction to the [plight of the] Darfurians… [However, it turns out that the Arab reaction to atrocities depends upon who the perpetrator is].

“The Palestinians were victimized by the Zionist and American enemy… while the Darfurians were victimized by their own leader [who is a Sunni Muslim. It follows that the support for the Palestinian people] does not stem from love for the Palestinians… but from hatred for the other… for Zionists or Christians.

“If the perpetrator of massacres against Kurds and Shi’ites in Iraq, and later [of massacres] in Kuwait, i.e. Saddam Hussein… is [considered] our hero and a leader of the Arab nation, then we will [obviously] disregard his crimes, and wake up only when some [non-Muslim] comes along to rescue us from his brutal jaws…

“[Another] example is the Muslim Brotherhood. Today, they are recruiting thousands in every Egyptian city and collecting money for the residents of Gaza… However, they, the Gama’a Al-Islamiyya, and the [Islamic] Jihad did not bat an eyelid [at the crimes of Bashir and Saddam]. Instead, they encourage terrorism in Egypt, kill its citizens, soldiers, and security officers, and especially target Copts and foreigners…” [1]

“Why Is It That Offenses Against the Dignity Of Arabs And Muslims Are ‘Blatant And Obvious’ Only When the ‘Perpetrator’ Is Israel? Why This Racial Discrimination In Defending Human Rights?”

In his article, Fakher Al-Sultan accused traditional and political Islam, as well as its leaders, of encouraging hatred towards the other, and especially towards Jews. He too argued that it is the identity of the perpetrator that determines whether the Arab and Muslim world will condemn human rights violations or ignore (or even encourage) them.

He wrote: “The Summer 2006 Israel-Hizbullah war in Lebanon is a striking example that shows the need to [examine] the essence of a popular religious outlook [prevalent] among Arabs and Muslims - namely the tendency which was legitimized [by the religious principle] of rejecting all non-Muslims. [This tendency is part of] the traditional religious outlook of [various] branches [of Islam]. It is manifested in [the ideology of] political Islam, and is taken to extremes in the actions and policy of Hizbullah…

“The sweeping popular support enjoyed by Hizbullah [in 2006] - was it sincere and natural, or did it stem from the fact that the enemy was the state of Israel, ‘the racist religious Jewish [state]?’ Perhaps it had to do with the traditional religious outlook of political Islam - [that is,] with the way [in which political Islam] views other religions, especially the Israeli Jew?

“In fact… why are the Muslims and Arabs categorically interested in the fate of the Lebanese and Palestinians, but are not so intensely interested in the fate of other Arab and Muslim peoples, such as the Iraqis, Sudanese, Afghanis, Somalis and others, who have faced much more severe persecution, terrorism and military [violence]?…

“The traditional religious outlook, which is being manipulated by political [forces], has covertly granted categorical religious legitimacy to any struggle against the Jews or Israel. It has also infected the Arabs and Muslims with egomania, so that all backwardness and all killings are [automatically] blamed on the other - on the foreigner or the non-Muslim, and especially on the Jew.

“The [Arab] nations, other than the Lebanese and Palestinians, are not confronting the Israeli ‘enemy,’ but are fighting a domestic enemy. Consequently, the Arab and Muslim interest in their fate… is shamefully [negligible], and in most cases, [the reaction is complete] indifference…

“When Saddam Hussein invaded and devoured Kuwait in 1990, he deliberately evoked the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, claiming that the way to the liberation of Jerusalem passes through Kuwait… [He did] this because it was clear to him that the popular Muslim view, which is rooted in [the Muslims'] traditional historic-religious outlook, rests on a basic principle which intensifies the hostility towards the Jews and the state of Israel.

“[Saddam] took full advantage [of this fact]… [In this way,] the Iraqi tyrant… managed to enlist the support of the Arab and Muslim peoples, especially the Sunnis [who espouse] the traditional religious outlook. However, at the same time, he accidentally exposed the fallacy and preposterousness of this outlook, and of the politically manipulated devoutness, which are based on the principle of ’support your brother, whether he is the oppressed or the oppressor,’ especially when the ‘enemy’ is Israel.”

“We therefore have to ask: What will be the fate of the Muslim peoples who are doomed to [be the victims of] home-grown oppression, terrorism, tyranny and extremism? Why shouldn’t they receive the same amount of popular assistance and religious support [as the Lebanese and Palestinians], in order to confront their own dictatorial and oppressive regimes?

“Why [do we witness] these populist Islamist attacks on the actions and policies of Israel and the U.S. - [who are accused of violating] the rights of the peoples, such as the Palestinians and the Lebanese - while at the same time there is conspicuous silence in the face of the inhuman atrocities and tortures carried on in almost all prisons in the Arab and Muslim countries? Why this strange silence in the face of human rights violations of all kinds, including the rights of women and children, the rights of foreign workers, and the political and social rights of individuals and peoples?

“Why is it that offenses against the dignity of Arabs and Muslims are ‘blatant and obvious’ only when the ‘perpetrator’ is Israel? Why this racial discrimination in defending human rights? Why distinguish one enemy from the other when the results of the oppression are the same?

“[This approach] is mostly the fault of the traditional religious outlook and of political Islam. The religious scholars who promote this kind of outlook and interpretation are responsible for perpetuating this discriminatory [approach], which can be very simply characterized as inhuman racism. [The proponents of] this approach do not come out against oppressors and against various acts of oppression [as such], but only against acts of oppression perpetrated by Jews, and only because it corresponds to their [religious] outlook, serves their populist goals and furthers their political agenda.

“This approach… finds in the struggle against Israel fertile grounds for promoting its totalitarian religious slogans that correspond to its ideology. It characterizes every crisis as a struggle between what is completely lacking in religious validity and what is absolute religious truth. According to shari’a, [this truth] must be defended even it this contravenes our national and social interests and comes at the cost of thousands of innocent lives.

“Whenever there is a confrontation involving the state of Israel, the politically-manipulated traditional religious mentality… must always draw a dichotomy between the believers, representatives of Allah, and the representatives of Satan, [who are] traitors, agents, infidels and polytheists. This mentality [always] discerns a struggle between the forces of truth and the forces of falsehood, and uses the religious texts as a whip [to enforce its views]. This is meant to prevent any potential criticism against the Muslim side of this burning religious confrontation between the Jews and the Muslims…

“Therefore, the proponents of this type of religious devoutness, [i.e.] those who espouse the traditional religious outlook [and the proponents of] political Islam in some of the Arab countries and societies that are controlled by religious slogans and mystical fantasies, impose the familiar old [method of] resolving their confrontation with the non-Muslims, and especially the Jews. That is, they [hold that] the Muslim public must choose between joining the Muslim side [of the struggle], which is the side of the truth, and joining the [opposite] side, which is the side of falsehood - for there is no room for any intermediate ‘grey area’ view.

“In their opinion, every individual [is one of two things]: either a Zionist, agent and traitor, or a Muslim who believes in Allah and in the plan of politically guided traditional Islam, and who is convinced that Allah will [eventually] give the Muslims victory and eliminate the Jews and their state…

“Hizbullah’s abduction of the two Israeli soldiers in the summer of 2006, as well as Hamas’ actions [in 2009, and its decision] to continue firing its wretched rockets [into Israel] - should they not be subjected to objective and comprehensive criticism?

“More than that - should we not subject these two movements [as a whole], their leaders and their ideology, to criticism? Is it correct to deal with such profound and violent crises only by criticizing the Israeli side, while disregarding the political behavior of the religious groups…?

“[These groups] claim that their conduct and policy are based on transcendental religious methods that may not be criticized, since they [emanate] from the true and original divine [source], and represent a divine stance opposing the stance of the devil.” [2]

MEMRI: Special Dispatch - No. 2239

MUMBAI: Dismayed at the al-Qaida threat to India, Muslim scholars have denounced the terror outfit as a “ruthless army of agent provocateurs”. Both

clerics and secular activists agree that the threat is a tactic to win the sympathy of Pakistan, which is under pressure to crack down on terror camps inside its territory.
Condemning the threat, the scholars said al-Qaida’s bluff must be called. “They claim to represent Islam and protect Muslims. I ask them, `Which Islam is this?’ This is a political game and has nothing to do with Islam or Muslims as Islam doesn’t sanction its believers any right to issue threats,” Islamic scholar Asghar Ali Engineer said.
Senior cleric Abu Zafar Hassan Nadvi Azhari, who studied Islam at several seminaries, including the famous Cairo-based Al-Azhar University, is equally outraged. “Yeh hemaqat hai aur hemaqat ka ka koi jawaz nahi hota (This is stupidity and it has no logic),” Maulana Azhari, who likened the al-Qaida with radical Hindutva outfits like the Bajrang Dal and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, said. “They are two sides of the same coin. They talk in the same language of intimidation and threat,” the cleric said, adding that al-Qaida was harming the interests of Muslims across the world.
Secular activist and Urdu columnist Hasan Kamal agreed: “By appearing as Pakistan’s saviour, al-Qaida is making that country more vulnerable. It shows their sheer ruthlessness and lack of respect for dialogue.” Kamal, in a recent column, lambasted the al-Qaida-backed Taliban order for closing girls’ schools in some parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Muslim scholars also believe that the al-Qaida threat might be out of desperation. “An India-Pakistan conflict always suits such forces. India has shown admirable patience and restraint by not attacking Pakistan after the 26/11 terror strike. The al-Qaida sees this as their defeat but we must not get caught in their trap and allow them to succeed,” counselled Akhtarul Wasey, a teacher of Islamic Studies at Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.

Muslim scholars slam al-Qaida-India-The Times of India

February 3, 2009
by Supna Zaidi
Muslim World Today

With the inclusion of Ingrid Mattson, President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), in the national prayer service this week, it seems it is again time to re-evaluate America’s desire to forge alliances with “moderate” Muslims. Various news sources report that Mattson’s invitation raised criticism due to ISNA’s alleged connections to terrorism. (http://www.islamist-watch.org/article/1292 )

It is a fact that ISNA is a listed un-indicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist financing case and one of a number of “individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood.” It is also a fact that Mattson and heads of other “moderate” Muslim organizations have failed to criticize Hamas by name.

Yet, defenders of Ingrid Mattson, like Mark Pelavin, director of inter-religious affairs for the Union for Reform Judaism has called Mattson “a really important voice denouncing terrorism.”

In a Fox News article, Palavin states, “Clearly, Dr. Mattson has been welcome throughout the government,” he said. “I haven’t found anyone anywhere who’s found anything Dr. Mattson has said that’s anything other than clearly denouncing terrorism in quite explicit Islamic terms.”

Without realizing it, Palavin hits on the crux of the problem. By definition terrorism simply refers to the use of violence to achieve a political end. It includes no evaluation, let alone criticism of the motivation behind the violence or the political end desired.

The “war on terror” is an ideological conflict that the Islamist movement has initiated by re-asserting Islam as a socio-political system to counter western cultural, political and economic influence in the Muslim world by bounding society under Islamic law. As a 20^th century phenomenon it grew out of a growing sense of inferiority Muslims felt upon heavy losses endured at the end of the first world war. This sense of loss was exacerbated by the subsequent rise of a variety of autocratic rule that suppressed the growth of civil society, and socio-economic development in the newly formed nation states, giving Islamists room to propagate their message.

Today, the Islamist movement is internally conflicted. Where one side seeks to further the violence initiated by men like Osama bin Laden, while the other prefers non-violence. Non-violent Islamists prefer to work legally through political system with parties, and candidates to persuade the public with their message in elections. Non-violent Islamists further their cause by creating the need among Muslims for a “Muslim voting bloc,” and actively strive to increase the number of Muslim voters in the West through proselytizing, civic engagement and in lobbying.

It is possible that Mattson falls into this latter category considering the history of ISNA and some of her own statements.

ISNA was founded in 1981 by the Muslim Student’s Association (MSA) of the U.S. and Canada. The MSA is a Muslim Brotherhood creation meant to recruit Muslim youth to Islamism. As one past member of MSA stated:

“We are told America’s foreign policy is based on racist neo-imperialism; we are taught that national security is a foul epithet to be reviled; we are told the Jews and Israel are to blame for the hatred against us”.

Moreover, ISNA co-founder and convicted terrorist Sami Al-Arian acknowledges that he was a Muslim Brotherhood member in 1981. It is shocking that the U.S. government continues to embrace ISNA despite a 1991 memorandum made available through discovery in the first HLF case that lists ISNA among a list of Islamist organizations supporting the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda in the US. (see a copy of the memorandum here).

Steven Emerson, A well-respected terrorist expert has stated that ISNA is “a radical group hiding under a false veneer of moderation”; “convenes annual conferences where Islamist militants have been given a platform to incite violence and promote hatred” (for instance, al Qaeda supporter and PLO official Yusuf Al-Qaradawi was invited to speak at an ISNA conference); has held fundraisers for terrorists (after Hamas leader Mousa Marzook was arrested and eventually deported in 1997, ISNA raised money for his defense); has condemned the U.S. government’s post-9/11 seizure of Hamas’ and Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s financial assets; and publishes a bi-monthly magazine, Islamic Horizons, that “often champions militant Islamist doctrine.”

ISNA has learned to tone down the violent rhetoric and Mattson’s rise in the Islamist ranks, as a white female convert might be intentional effort to appear progressive after 9/11. This is the same year Mattson became Vice-President of ISNA. Like all Islamists, Mattson blames the West for the problems in the Muslim world today. Note her response to the following question during an interview with CNN:

“CHAT PARTICIPANT: At what point in history, if known, did the Islamic nation turn from a philosophical and educated state comparable to the Greeks to the now third world state it is in?

MATTSON: Well, the decline began with the colonization of the Muslim world by European powers. One of the first things the colonialists did was to dismantle the institutions of what we could call civil society. The Muslim world has until now not recovered from that dismemberment of its society”.

And like other Islamists, Mattson prefers that Muslims live under Islamic law. She states in her work , “Stopping Oppression: An Islamic Obligation”:

“Before colonialism, authority was acquired by religious leaders in a much more subtle process, and religious leaders who advocated extreme hostility or aggression against the state were usually marginalized. After all, most Muslims did not want to be led into revolution, they simply wanted their lives to be better. In general, the most successful religious leaders were those who, in addition to serving the spiritual needs of the community, were able to moderate how state power was exercised on ordinary people, and in some sense, acted as intermediaries between the people and state.” (emphasis added)

In the same article Mattson paints a picture of men like Osama bin Laden as charismatic revolutionaries who win the support of the oppressed masses because they have no one else to turn to, regardless of how unfounded violent interpretations of Islam men like Osama advocate. Again it is only the strategy of Islamists that Mattson objects to, not their grievances against the West or their end goal of Muslims living under Sharia as defined by one supra-national body, known as a fiqh council.

Thus it makes sense that she can denounce terrorism on the one hand, and remain silent regarding Hamas on the other. Hamas’ actions are not those of a terrorist organization, but freedom fighters fighting a colonizer on “their” land - Israel.

As the President of ISNA, Mattson is responsible for the activities and statements of the organization. ISNA was founded in 1981 by the Muslim Student’s Association of the U.S. and Canada, another controversial and Saudi-funded organization. Though most mosques are not official ISNA members, ISNA provides materials such as books and periodicals following the Wahhabi ideology to a large percentage of mosques throughout the United States. Kaukab Siddique, the editor of New Trend, an extremist Islamic periodical that is nonetheless opposed to Wahhabi domination of American Islam, states that: “ISNA controls most mosques in America and thus also controls who will speak at every Friday prayer, and which literature will be distributed there.”

ISNA has demonstrated repeatedly that its goals in the United States are no different from the Muslim Brotherhood’s goals in Jordan, Egypt, Syria, or England for that matter. Its leadership is generally either an outgrowth of the MB salafist ideology in the Middle East or an outgrowth of the similar Deobandi ideology of the Indo-Pakistani region.

In 2005, ISNA chose not to participate in the May 14 “Free Muslims March Against Terror,” an event that supported the end to terrorism. ISNA has been accused of supporting Hamas and was investigated by US law enforcement for possible terrorist connections. Its tax records were requested in December 2003 by the Senate Finance Committee. U.S. Senators Charles Grassley and Max Baucus of the Senate Committee on Finance listed ISNA as one of 25 American Muslim organizations that “finance terrorism and perpetuate violence.”

There is no reason either Ingrid Mattson, or ISNA should have been the representative face of Islam at the national prayer service inaugurating President Obama’s first days in office. As the President of ISNA in the United States and Canada, Mattson is responsible for the activities and statements of the organization. Under her watch, ISNA Canada invited a terrorist with Jamaat Islami connections to speak at their conference in 2008, and has featured Tariq Ramadan as a speaker.

Mattson’s presence challenges today’s definition of what the elusive “moderate” Muslim is. Being a moderate requires more than simply denouncing violence. American-Muslims who do not politicize their faith, respect individuals of all other faiths or not faith and defend the secular principles that put all Americans on equal footing are the individuals US. agencies should seek out. They do exist: Consider Zuhdi Jasser, Stephen Schwartz, and Sheikh Kabbani. Otherwise, we will continue to lose in this war on terror by relying on Americans whose loyalties lie elsewhere.

200902033550 | “Moderate” Muslims versus American-Muslims | / | Global Terrorism

By Mohamed Elshinnawi
Washington, D.C.
11 February 2009

Just four days before President Barack Obama’s inauguration in Washington, D.C., on January 20th, an international group of young Muslim activists gathered in Doha, Qatar, to launch what they described as a global Muslim movement for peace, justice and the common good.

Young Muslim leaders gathered from around the world to spark social change in their communities and advocate improving relations with the United States

Participants ended their two-day meeting with a document they called “An Open Letter to the World Leaders of Today from the Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow.” A series of policy recommendations, the document was addressed to both Muslim and non-Muslim leaders around the world.
Americans were among more than 300 young Muslim activists from 76 countries who attended the 2009 Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow Conference. Organizers of the Doha meeting, a nonprofit consortium of Muslim and interfaith groups, promoted it as a catalyst for social change in the Islamic world and as a signal that Muslims - like non-Muslims - support political pluralism, freedom, social justice and combating extremism.
Young Muslim-Americans hope for change
Zeba Khan is a young Muslim-American who went to Doha. During the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, Khan helped set up a group called Muslim-Americans for Obama. She says that from Obama’s election victory and from the Doha conference, she has gained new hope that relations between the United States and the world’s Muslims will improve.
“I saw change in the United States with his overwhelming win, and people in America, regardless of their faith, reject the notion of fear-mongering. Then to go to Doha and see Muslims of all backgrounds and from all countries, whether they are Muslim countries or non-Muslim countries, and to have a common identity and a belief that: Yes, we can change the situation. The dynamic does not have to be negative.
“We can build a positive relationship among ourselves and with people of other backgrounds and faiths. And that, to me, is the kind of change that I have not seen before, and it was inspiring just as much as the change that was happening in the U.S.”
Countering violent extremism
Discussions at the conference focused on ways to counter violent extremism. Seventy-five percent of the young Muslims at Doha agreed in a conference survey that Muslims and non-Muslims must share responsibility for combating extremism, noting that both extremist interpretations of Islam and the foreign policies of western governments have contributed to the radicalization of Muslim youth.
Eighty-six percent of participants agreed that while hundreds of Islamic religious leaders condemned the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States, they were not heard clearly because Islam has no central religious authority like the Vatican.
The conference also discussed policy recommendations to provide Muslim youth with educational and employment opportunities that would help deter violent extremism.

The conference comprised a group of young, engaged Muslims, including Haroon Moghul, a doctoral candidate at Columbia University in New York City

Haroon Moghul is a doctoral candidate at Columbia University in New York, where he is studying the intellectual history of Islam in colonial Asia. He says the Doha conference convinced him young Muslims can lead the change in their respective societies and help bridge the gap between the U.S. and the Muslim world.
“There was a feeling that the relationship between the Muslim world and the U.S. is perhaps the most important relationship, in terms of political and cultural relations, and that there is now a new president and hopefully there is a possibility for a change and we should capitalize on that,” he says. “I think more broadly, it is about saying that many of the problems we face do connect to how countries deal with each other.”
Moghul says the young Muslims gathered in Doha expressed hope for a more democratic Muslim world. And they are counting on President Obama to abandon what they called the gunboat diplomacy of the previous U.S. administration and find a new way forward with the Muslim world based on mutual interest and respect.
Human rights, diplomacy top young Muslims’ agenda
In their open letter, published online at Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow’s Web site and in several major international newspapers, the young Muslims at the Doha conference urged world leaders to promote development and human rights rather than war. The letter urges Obama and other world leaders to prioritize youth and minority development, to respect mutually held values and to pursue honest dialogue and diplomacy to resolve conflicts.

In an open letter, Sayyeda Mirza-Jafri and other participants urged world leaders to prioritize youth development, respect mutually held values and pursue honest dialogue and diplomacy

Sayyeda Mirza-Jafri, another young Muslim-American at the Doha meeting, is already working to build new bridges between Islam and the west. She has managed a collaborative philanthropic project that aims to enhance understanding of Islam and Muslims in the United States using multimedia communications and grass-roots educational events. She says she welcomes President Obama’s message pledging to find a better way forward with the Muslim world.
“I think it is a welcome, wonderful, embracing message, and I think Muslims from around the world - despite their socioeconomic differences and geographic variation - welcome this. They see it as a positive sign. They are waiting to see how the words match the action. And there is good will, there is openness, there is engagement and a very positive, warm feeling [in response] to his wonderful speech.”
The Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow program was established in the United States shortly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The nonprofit group held its first major international conference in New York City in 2004, when some 125 young Muslim leaders convened to discuss ways of improving the image of Islam in the U.S.
The group expanded its work to Western Europe, and in 2006 it held its second conference in Denmark on the challenges of Muslim integration into Western society.

VOA News - Young Muslim Activists Launch Global Peace Movement

In his inaugural address, a cosmopolitan and well-traveled President Barack Obama reached out to the Muslim world, acknowledging its presence, influence and contributions to Western society.

His gesture was mostly well received by Arabs and Muslims, all too often stereotyped as terrorists, underdeveloped and out to destroy the West.

His Western listeners and viewers would do well to read a captivating new book by an American journalist featuring the Arabs’ contributions to the sciences and philosophy that helped catapult the West from Medieval and Crusading fundamentalism into “real” civilization.

“The House of Wisdom: How the Arabs Transformed Western Civilization” is a 320-page treasure trove of information for the uninitiated that packs a powerful punch of science, history, geography, politics and general knowledge at a time when so much disinformation about the Arab world is swirling around in various media.

Ignorance is not bliss, author Jonathan Lyons argues, retracing the venom spewed by the early Crusades that has, ironically, been carried down the centuries through xenophobic and paranoid expressions like “war on terror,” “Islamophobia” and “Islamofascism.”

“Antipathy for the followers of Islam was particularly charged in those parts of Western Europe most distant from Muslim life…the less the Christians knew about the infidel, the more they hated him,” he wrote.

Lyons, a former reporter and editor for the Reuters news agency with over two decades’ experience covering the Arab and Muslim worlds (not necessarily one and the same), delved into the subject with the meticulous care and dexterity of a physician performing nano surgery.

“There’s that old saw in journalism and non-fiction - “show ‘em, don’t tell ‘em,” he explained.

And he told ‘em eloquently and articulately in his treatise.

“In The House of Wisdom,” I am trying to show that the notion these days of a clash of civilizations, which really only took hold after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, is not without serious shortcomings,” he explained.

He does much if it by revealing the stories behind the transplanting of Arab knowledge to the medieval West, often by intrepid Europeans who deliberately set out to pursue Islamic astronomy, mathematics, medicine, cartography, etc., not long after the holy war known as the First Crusade, he added.

His book is an invaluable resource, a portable encyclopedia, on the dynamic and thriving Arab culture and sciences including chemistry, physics, algebra, engineering and architecture that were adopted by a reluctant and suspicious West seeped in church-imposed dogma and intransigence.

“Already, European building and architecture had begun to show a marked technical improvement, as had the art of draftsmanship. This sudden upturn, as well as the appearance of specific skills and techniques not present earlier, dates to the direct transfer of practical technology from the master builders and masons of the East. In at least two well known cases, Arab artisans arrived in the West and shared their knowledge.”
Asked what prompted him to write the book, the 50-year-old Lyons pointed to a confluence of factors.

“For one, the sophistication that you encounter when - and if - you really listen to people in the Muslim world,” he said. “While interviewing the ayatollahs in Qom for my previous book, “Answering Only to God: Faith and Freedom in 21st-Century Iran,” I was struck by the ‘classical’ nature of their arguments, their speech, and their thinking in general. At times, it was like reading Aristotle - very formal, very logical, very structured.”

Lyons said this sophistication was at odds with just about everything one hears and reads in the West about the Islamic world, adding that his own personal experiences in Iran, Egypt, Turkey, and elsewhere led him to question traditional notions of East-West relations.

“Muslim conquest and empire building also restored ancient ties among historic centers of civilization across a huge landmass. This created an invaluable melting pot for intellectual traditions that had been forcibly kept apart for centuries by political divisions: Hellenistic learning that evolved in Greece and, later, Alexandria, on the one hand, and Sumerian, Persian, and Indian wisdom on the other. Muslims, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, the star-worshipping Sabaeans, and assorted other pagans were all able to exchange ideas and teachings.”

Once Lyons started exploring the subject, he knew he would focus instead on science and philosophy.
“The case is so strong, as you know, but the characters and stories involved in the Western assimilation - one could just as easily say cultural theft - were just too compelling,” he told this writer. “I felt I had to open the reader to their stories.”

From the outset, Lyons was determined not to make this a book about Arab or Muslim scientific and philosophical achievements as much as to show the enormous and largely unacknowledged ways in which those achievements reached and then shaped what we call “the West.”

Along the way he had to tell the story of Muslim science, but largely as the context in which to set the process of Western assimilation, he said.

“Aristotle’s great works of cosmology and physics, already widely read in Arabic for centuries, remained largely unknown in the West, as did the insightful and provocative commentaries of the Muslim philosophers, particularly the peerless works of Avicenna and his rationalist successor Averroes. These texts, which reflected hundreds of years of debate within the Islamic tradition but were unknown in the West, would have an immediate and powerful impact on young minds across Europe. Soon they would be all the rage at Paris, Oxford and other universities.”

Although his formal study of Arabic while on assignment in Cairo was short-lived, Lyons’ depth of knowledge and ability to put the data he collected in context is amazing. He did his homework with incredible diligence and wrote the book — published this month by Bloomsbury Press - in a style that leaves the reader thirsting for more.

“The Muslim conquest had already brought the Arabic language to the western edge of Europe, and it quickly became the accepted medium of high culture and often of everyday life within and among the Muslim, Jewish and Christian communities of Al-Andalus (modern-day Spain).”

Jonathan Lyons (Richard Mallory Allnutt@2008)

Lyons, who teaches courses on Islam and how to cover it journalistically at George Mason University in Virginia, is completing a PhD in sociology of religion.

Interested browsers/readers can learn more at www.jonathanlyonsportfolio.com.

• Iran

Magda Abu-Fadil: The House of Wisdom: How the Arabs Transformed Western Civilization