* Themes
QUR'AN FOR TODAY
GLOBAL POLITICS
Submit an Article here
Modern Islamic ART
Online Discussion Forums
ARTICLES
NEWS
STATEMENTS
Home Page
* Links
< Write me an emial >
Muslim Watch on Empire
Minaret of Freedom
Muslim Wake-Up
Karamah
Alt.Muslim
* The Association of Muslim Social Scientists (UK)
Tariq Ramadan طارق رمضان
Islamic Research Foundation International
Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
Counter Currents
IJTIHAD:independent thinking
International Movement for a Just World
HAJJ
Qur'an Liberation and Pluralism
Globalization Muslim Resistance
Qur'an and Women
Humanism in the Renaissance of Islam
Humanism in Islam
Believing Women in Islam
More Books and Articles
Islamic Humanism
Quran Exposition
Quran Index
Quran Glossary
Dervish
God, Faith and a PEN
TAWHID = LIBERTY
ZNet Blogs
Did Prophet Muhammad ordered 900 Jews killed ?
The Free Man and Freedom of the Man in Islam
Human Rights in Islam
A Call for Islamic Protestantism
Dr Asghar Ali Engineer's Articles
Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights
THE SHURA PRINCIPLE IN ISLAM
Civil Society in Islamic Political Thought
Islam and the Challenge of Democracy
Riffat Hassan
Islamic Feminism
|
Warning! Hatred Hurts Hearts 
|
|
|
Faith and Reason
9/26/2006 - Religious Social - Article Ref: DW0609-3118
Number of comments: 8
Opinion Summary: Agree:3 Disagree:2 Neutral:3
By: Irfan Husain
Dawn* - I have a theory about riots: those out on the streets often don't have a clear idea what they're rioting about. And invariably, they have a lot of time on their hands.
After all, how often do you find an employed person asking for leave to join the demo of the day? But when you have time to kill, you'll join any crowd that's out to protest, no matter what the cause. When Salman Rushdie's 'Satanic Verses' inflamed the Muslim world, how many people demonstrating had actually read the book? I must confess that neither had I, but it wasn't for lack of trying: struggling manfully, I ploughed through the first hundred pages before admitting defeat. So I never actually read the passages that gave rise to the famous fatwa. But I doubt very much if the people who rioted even saw the book.
The same is true for those up in arms about the Pope's address at the University of Regensburg. I have printed out the speech, and must confess that it's heavy going. The offending section is a tiny part of the paper, and it remains a mystery why Pope Benedict needed such an obscure quotation in his discussion of faith and reason. Having said that, he has addressed an issue that needs to be debated: how should believers reconcile their faith with the dictates of reason? According to him, modern Christianity has bridged the gap, while Islam hasn't.
We can debate his conclusion, and criticize his choice of supporting material, but we can hardly deny his right to hold an opinion. When Muslims demonstrated their opposition to his views, many of them carried placards threatening the Pope with death. In fact, the London police are seeing if they can prosecute some demonstrators for inciting others to violence. It seems that our stock response to the slightest provocation consists of death threats and violent demonstrations. These undignified protests reinforce the worst prejudices others have about Muslims. After all, why should some cartoons in an obscure Danish newspaper, or a papal address at an unknown German university, send hundreds of thousands pouring into streets around the world?
When we were children, when somebody said anything offensive, we would chant: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me." As we grew older, we learned that some words are deadlier than any sticks or stones, festering long after bruises and wounds have healed. But we were also taught to be stoical, and not to complain.
In a letter to the Guardian of September 20, San Cassimally of Edinburgh writes: "As a Muslim, I am much more saddened and shocked by the murder of the Somali nun than by what the Pope said in Regensburg... even if he knew exactly what he was doing."
I would add that I am far more horrified by the endless Muslim-on-Muslim killing going on in Iraq than by anything the pontiff could possibly say. According to UN estimates, an average of a hundred Iraqis are being killed every day, almost invariably by other Iraqis. And all too often, many of the victims are tortured to death. When Israel killed a thousand Lebanese civilians in a month of senseless bombing, Muslims (and others with a conscience) around the world were rightly incensed. But approximately the same number of Muslims are being killed by other Muslims every 10 days in Iraq, and there are no protests anywhere. Before the invasion of Iraq, when Saddam Hussein tortured and gassed his own people with impunity, I do not recall any Muslims condemning him publicly.
Applying these same double standards, when NATO forces accidentally kill Afghans, we are furious. But when the Taliban kill innocent Afghans in suicide bombings, and assassinate teachers for teaching girls, we look the other way. Similarly, when the Iranian authorities rig elections and suppress their own people, we are silent spectators. But when President Ahmedinejad is seen as standing up to the West, we applaud him loudly.
This kind of moral inconsistency is reflected in the treatment non-Muslims generally get in Muslim countries. For instance, while the 300,000 Iraqi Christians were treated as equal citizens in Saddam's secular regime, two-thirds of them have fled the increasingly Islamic nature of the present government. In Pakistan, we are regularly and correctly pilloried by human rights organizations for the wretched social and legal status of our minorities. Saudi Arabia, while funding Wahabi mosques across the West, refuses to permit non-Muslims to build their places of worship on its soil.
I am often asked why Muslims in Pakistan get so worked up about Bosnia, Chechnya and Palestine. I try and explain in terms of the ummah, and the feeling of connectedness between, say, Indonesian Muslims and Turkish Muslims. But I fear this is only a small part of the real answer. The truth is that the problems we face in much of the Muslim world are often so intractable that we escape reality by looking abroad. Matters like poverty, disease, political instability and institutional meltdown are too difficult to be tackled by the inefficient and corrupt elites much of the Muslim world is cursed with. To deflect blame, they fulminate against the West for its perceived anti-Islamic attitudes.
It is this mindless, knee-jerk anti-West sentiment that sustains the extremist groups, and is now propelling us to a very real 'clash of civilizations'. As Islam becomes more heavily politicized, it is evoking a strong reaction in the West. More and more, the Muslims who have migrated to Europe and America, as well as their children, are being seen as a fifth column. The sight of perpetually angry Muslims from London to Lahore, marching with placards calling for the death of somebody or the other, is moving normally liberal people to anger.
For me, the really worrying part of the Pope's address was his demand for the subordination of reason to theology:
"Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought: to philosophy and theology."
Sorry, but I'm not buying this, Your Holiness. This is precisely why I don't think faith and reason can ever be reconciled. [Irfan Husain writes for Dawn, an English daily newspaper from Pakistan] Islamic Humanism Response to Irfan Husain: Sorry Irfan, the problem you have truely descriped in your essay is because of the lack of reconciliation between reason and Islamic faith. they both are reconciliable and must be reconciled but not by submitting one to the other. any thing beyond the common reason can be trusted as faith otherwise any nonsense canbe assigned to the faith by saying that faith and reason are not reconciliable. the problem that we have in current real Islam is the submittion of reason to faith. reason according to Islam comes from dialogue (shura) where there is no coercion. This look may ideal but one of the duties of a muslim is to struggle for the realization of this ideal like many ideals. therefore, the accommodation between faith and reason is a process (rathe than a given product) which needs to be achieved by stablishing autonomous spaces of dialogue. something that we muslims have be deneid for a long part of our history
|
|
|
The logic of war against terrorism: as we have learnt from Israel and the US
Terrorists use civilians as their shelters, so we can kill civilians (by mistake, of course) to defeat terrorism! Bombing thousands of civilians by a ‘state’ is not terrorism mainly because the carnage is not intentional! Producing and using weapons of mass destruction in massive scales is not a crime, but aiming to produce them is! For every victim of terrorism in the West, it is justified to kill hundreds of civilians in the East as the unavoidable causalities of war against terrorism! Democracy is good if a puppet comes out of the ballot! Terror means any threat against civilians in the US and its allies! The more power you have, the less you are terrorist! 
|
|
|
Both sides of conflict, the US and the Iranian regime, have common concerns which can help us understand their allegedly unreasonable behaviours over something not really awesome (the ability to produce nuclear bomb). That common concern is the growth of independent strong opposition to both theocracy and the US hegemony. The opposition is hardly reflected in Western Media let alone the Iranian media. The opposition has become highly autonomous and strong since the collapse of governmental reformism by Khatami. A simple glance into the society, despite strong censorships, can show us the importance of the issue. Just about 50% of people, according to official data publicized by the regime, boycotted the last election. 15% voted for Rafsanjani a pragmatist corrupt clergy who is in favour of compromise with the US and 35% voted for Ahmadi-Nejad, as he was highly unknown with strong slogans against corruption. One could say this is similar to the US patterns of election, but we should remember that Iran under Mullah’s regime is supposed to be a mass society with at least 90 % turnout for elections. Besides, in comparison with the elections that led to the overwhelming victory of reformists during 1997-2000, this formally reported portion of boycotters is significant. To this fact, one can add huge number of reports about the growth of opposition among workers (who are experiencing job lost, low wages, and the lack of rights for having unions), students, weblogers, the youth, and revolts by ethnic minorities in Provinces like Kurdistan, Khuzestan, and Baluchistan just during the last year.
The growth of opposition is very important for both sides of power, especially for the US, as the opposition can bring about an autonomous democratic alternative to the whole region; a non- or anti- American democracy without affiliation to any Leftist or Rightist ideology for the first time in the whole history of region. Iranians are not alienated from such a prospect. They are the first nation in the East who had a revolution for constitution exactly one century ago. With two other following revolutions against unjust dictatorship (one for the nationalization of Oil in 1951-2 and the other in 1979), they have a great record of demands for freedom. Iranians among other Muslim societies have a particular position in terms of their historical experiences. They have experienced both corrupt secular and corrupt religious governance. Moreover, their main reactions to both have bean highly active directed from within their culture. Iran has a long history of despotism but at the same time, it has a long great history of opposition. In the American side, the growing opposition to the invasion of Iraq, the economic and political crises in the US, and the failures in Iraq are real matters for the Bush administration.
Regarding the above domestic dilemmas for the both sides of conflict, one can easily understand why both need to exaggerate the importance of nuclear issue. They need to create a new crisis to overlook the current real crises. Can they tackle the crisis after investing too much of their energy and rhetoric? Or would they lose their control over the crises? This depends how global civil society, peace movement, Iranian and American people will react.
|
|
|
IRAN: AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL CALLS FOR RELEASE OF BUS WORKERS
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
Public Statement
AI Index: MDE 13/007/2006 (Public)
News Service No: 030
2 February 2006
IRAN: AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL CALLS FOR RELEASE OF BUS WORKERS
Amnesty International is calling on the Iranian authorities to release immediately hundreds of Tehran bus workers who were detained last week apparently to pre-empt threatened strike action. Although some of the workers have been released, hundreds are reported still to be detained without charge or trial at Tehran’s Evin Prison.
The arrests began after the executive committee of the Union of Workers of the Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company, which represents workers employed by the United Bus Company of Tehran (Sharekat-e Vahed), called for a strike on 28 January in support of various union demands. These included the release of the union’s leader, Mansour Ossanlu, who has been detained without charge or trial since 22 December 2005, the introduction of collective bargaining and for the bus company, which is run by the Tehran local authority, to grant a pay increase.
According to reports, leaflets announcing the strike were widely distributed in Tehran on 24 January 2006 and one member of the union’s executive, Hosseini Tabar, was detained for about four hours while helping with this. Next day, six other members of the union’s executive committee - Ebrahim Madadi, Mansour Hayat Ghaybi, Seyed Davoud Razavi, Sa’id Torabian, Ali Zad Hossein and Gholamreza Mirza’i - were summoned to appear at the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Tehran. When they did so on 26 January, they were arrested when they refused to call off the strike and taken to Evin Prison. Interviewed by the official IRNA news agency, the Mayor of Tehran reportedly described the union as illegal and said that the authorities would not permit the strike to go ahead. The United Bus Company’s management threatened workers who supported the strike call with the loss of their jobs.
The authorities then carried out mass arrests of union members on 27 January, the eve of the threatened strike, detaining some workers as they completed their shifts and others at their homes. Those detained included the wives of Mansour Hayat Ghaybi and Seyed Davoud Razavi, and a third union leader, Yaghub Salimi.
Security forces raided Yaghub Salimi’s home after he was interviewed by a Berlin-based radio station but he was absent at the time. However, his wife and their children were beaten and detained. Mahdiye Salimi, aged 12, described her ordeal later in a radio interview. She said that three women and five children had been arrested, that they had been beaten and that her two-year-old sister had been injured when she was pushed roughly into a security forces vehicle, and that her mother had been kicked in the chest. Mahdiye Salimi was released, together with her mother and young sister, when Yaghub Salimi gave himself up to the security forces. The other children and women who were detained are also now reported to have been released.
Hundreds more union members are reported to have been arrested on the day of the strike, 28 January, with most of these also being taken to Evin Prison. Workers were reportedly beaten with batons, punched, kicked and threatened to force them to work, including by members of the volunteer Basij force who had apparently been brought in replace striking workers, and security forces reportedly used tear gas and fired shots into the air. Further arrests were reported on 29 and 30 January.
Currently, only some 30 to 50 of those detained are reported to have been released, apparently after they agreed under duress to sign guarantees that they would not participate in strikes or other protest actions. As many as 500 others are believed still to be held at Evin Prison without access to lawyers or family. Some are reported to have started a hunger strike on 29 January to protest their detention. Another strike has been called for 2 February 2006.
Amnesty International is concerned that those detained are being held solely on account of their peaceful activities as trade unionists and as such are prisoners of conscience who should be released immediately and unconditionally. The right to form and join trade unions is well-established in international law, notably under Article 22 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 8 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Iran is a state party to both of these treaties.
Iran is also a member of the International Labour Organization and bound by its requirements, including the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association’s ruling that it is not legitimate for states to restrict the right to strike during disputes concerning workers’ occupational and economic interests. States can restrict the right to strike only in cases of acute national emergency (and then for a limited period only), which is clearly not the situation which prevails in Tehran. Freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining are core principles of the ILO’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, which requires all state parties “to respect, to promote and to realize, in good faith and in accordance with the Constitution, the principles [of the Declaration].”
Background Information
The union representing Tehran’s bus workers was banned after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, then reactivated in 2004 although it is not legally-recognized. On 22 December 2005, police arrested 12 of the union’s leaders at their homes but quickly released four of them. Further union members were arrested on 25 December while staging a bus strike in Tehran to call for the release of their colleagues but they and all those arrested earlier were released in the following days with the exception of Mansour Ossanlu. He continues to be detained and to be denied access to a lawyer, and is said possibly to be facing serious charges of having contact with exiled opposition groups and instigating armed revolt.
Seven union members, including Mansour Hayat Ghaybi; Ebrahim Madadi; Reza Tarazi; Gholamreza Mirza’i; Abbas Najand Kouhi and Ali Zad Hossein, were reportedly summoned to appear before a Revolutionary Court in Tehran on 1 January 2006 to face public order charges but their trial was postponed when other union members protested outside the court.
On 7 January, five drivers were reportedly detained when bus company workers staged another strike but later freed.
For further information please see Urgent Action AI Index MDE 13/002/2006 which can be found at http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130022006?open&of=ENG-IRN
|
|
|
Should we trust Iran?
I think most of the arguements around the issue of Iran's nuke case are trapped into a false controversy between the Western powers and ffice:smarttags" />Iranian regime. If United States has used nuclear bombs and Israel has stocked them unaccountably, this won't justify permiting Iran to approach to this potential. If we look at the issue from an independent green, humanist and peaceful point of view, we would conclude that Iran must be stopped as its political system is more undemocratic and even antidemocratic than the current Western political systems and is based on an islamo-fascist ideology. At the same time world society must put pressure on the US, Israel, Russia and North Korea to abandon their nuclear weaponry. Of course, Iran's president has claimed, that its projects are peaceful", but who can trust someone who believes is surronded by a "divine eura" and is the delegate of God on earth? As a Muslim who believes in God I personally, do not.
  
|
|
|
Iranian leader insults Islam
Iranian leader insults Islam
Iranian leader's racist rhetoric
Editorial, Oct. 28. Tarek Fatah, Communications Director, Muslim Canadian Congress, Toronto
In demanding that Canadian Muslim leaders condemn the inflammatory remarks made by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, you put an unfair burden on us. However we recognize the spotlight in which the Muslim communities live.
On behalf of the Muslim Canadian Congress, we denounce Ahmadinejad's remarks without reservation. Let me assure you that the MCC and many Muslims don't consider the current dictatorial regime in Tehran to be a friend of the Palestinian people.
The mullahs who control Iran with an iron grip merely use the pain of the Palestinian occupation for their own advantage in diverting people's attention from other pressing matters. They talk about wiping out Israel, but in reality the only people they have wiped out are fellow Iranians by the tens of thousands. After a reign of terror that killed thousands and drove many more into exile, they have used torture, arbitrary arrest, vigilante justice and murder to silence fellow Muslims in Iran.
Before President Ahmadinejad postures as the self-appointed guardian of the world's Muslims, and feigns solidarity with Palestinians, he better answer for the disappeared Muslims in Iran. He insults Islam by usurping it to serve his own narrow political interests.
With friends like the Iranian ruling ayatollahs, the Palestinians do not need enemies.
But let us also not get carried away and use his speech to make Iran into another Iraq. While the Iranian mullahs posture about pan-Islamism and display their racist, hateful view of the world, U.S. President George W. Bush doesn't do any better. While Iran misuses Islam to oppress its people, America abuses "democracy" to advance his agenda.
Next-door Iraq serves as a window of truth where both Iran and the U.S. have helped destroy a nation.
With Bush and Blair on one side and the ayatollah-Osama bin Laden axis on the other, Canada's Muslims are caught between the devil and deep sea. While we unreservedly condemn the Iranian president, we cannot remain silent about Israel's continued occupation of Palestinian territories.
We also condemn Bush for posturing as a deliverer of freedom while occupying Iraq.
Tarek Fatah, Communications Director, Muslim Canadian Congress, Toronto
|
|
|
The Openning
1. The Opening
بِسْمِ اللّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
1. In the name of the “Existence”, the ultimate source of Beneficence, and Generosity
الْحَمْدُ لِلّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ
2. The "Existence", the ultimate nurturer of the myriad worlds, deserves to be deliberately appreciated.
اَلرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
3. The ultimate source of Beneficence, and Generosity
مَالِكِ يَوْمِ الدِّينِ
4. The ultimate Sovereign of the period of history when mankind would lead their lives according to the nature of the Existence on their own free will.
إِيَّاكَ نَعْبُدُ وإِيَّاكَ نَسْتَعِين 5. We purely "realize" You (the Existence) and we purely rely on You, [at the most basic level of our life]. اِهْدِنَا الصِّرَاطَ المُسْتَقِيمَ 6. Guide us to the straight course. صِرَاطَ الَّذِينَ أَنعَمْتَ عَلَيهِمْ غَيرِ المَغضُوبِ عَلَيهِمْ وَلاَ الضَّالِّينَ 7. The course of those whom You have blessed with the best of life; not those who have incurred the rage of Existence, nor the misguided. 
|
|
|
112. The Uniqueness
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
In the name of the "Existence”, the ultimate source of Beneficence, and Generosity
قُلْ هُوَ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ
1. “The Existence” is unique in essence [and free from contradictions].
اللَّهُ الصَّمَدُ
2. The Existence is self-contingent [sovereign and self-organized]
لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْوَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌ
3. The relationship between “the Existence” and human being can not be reduced to or even exemplified with the relations like those of father and child [let alone master and slave]. And, nothing bears a resemblance to the Existence but herself.
|
|
|
VOCABULARY
Akhirat:ffice ffice" /> |
the sustainability اخرت
|
Allah: |
the Existence الله
|
Dunya: |
the ephemerality دنیا
|
Shaytaan: (Satan) |
the extinction شیطان |
Nass: the Multitude الناس
|
|
|
Suicide terrorism is not primarily a product of Islam
Editorial Reviews
Book Description
Suicide terrorism is rising around the world, but there is great confusion as to why. In this paradigm-shifting analysis, University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape has collected groundbreaking evidence to explain the strategic, social, and individual factors responsible for this growing threat.
One of the world’s foremost authorities on the subject, Professor Pape has created the first comprehensive database of every suicide terrorist attack in the world from 1980 until today. With striking clarity and precision, Professor Pape uses this unprecedented research to debunk widely held misconceptions about the nature of suicide terrorism and provide a new lens that makes sense of the threat we face.
FACT: Suicide terrorism is not primarily a product of Islamic fundamentalism.
FACT: The world’s leading practitioners of suicide terrorism are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka–a secular, Marxist-Leninist group drawn from Hindu families.
FACT: Ninety-five percent of suicide terrorist attacks occur as part of coherent campaigns organized by large militant organizations with significant public support.
FACT: Every suicide terrorist campaign has had a clear goal that is secular and political: to compel a modern democracy to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.
FACT: Al-Qaeda fits the above pattern. Although Saudi Arabia is not under American military occupation per se, one major objective of al-Qaeda is the expulsion of U.S. troops from the Persian Gulf region, and as a result there have been repeated attacks by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden against American troops in Saudi Arabia and the region as a whole.
FACT: Despite their rhetoric, democracies–including the United States–have routinely made concessions to suicide terrorists. Suicide terrorism is on the rise because terrorists have learned that it’s effective.
In this wide-ranging analysis, Professor Pape offers the essential tools to forecast when some groups are likely to resort to suicide terrorism and when they are not. He also provides the first comprehensive demographic profile of modern suicide terrorist attackers. With data from more than 460 such attackers–including the names of 333–we now know that these individuals are not mainly poor, desperate criminals or uneducated religious fanatics but are often well-educated, middle-class political activists.
More than simply advancing new theory and facts, these pages also answer key questions about the war on terror:
• Are we safer now than we were before September 11? No
• Was the invasion of Iraq a good counterterrorist move? No
• Is al-Qaeda stronger now than it was before September 11? YES
Professor Pape answers these questions with analysis grounded in fact, not politics, and recommends concrete ways for today’s states to fight and prevent terrorist attacks. Military options may disrupt terrorist operations in the short term, but a lasting solution to suicide terrorism will require a comprehensive, long-term approach–one that abandons visions of empire and relies on a combined strategy of vigorous homeland security, nation building in troubled states, and greater energy independence.
For both policy makers and the general public, Dying to Win transcends speculation with systematic scholarship, making it one of the most important political studies of recent time.
About the Author
Robert A. Pape is associate professor of political science at the University of Chicago, where he teaches international politics and is the director of the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism. A distinguished scholar of national security affairs, he writes widely on coercive airpower, economic sanctions, international moral action, and the politics of unipolarity and has taught international relations at Dartmouth College and air strategy for the U.S. Air Force’s School of Advanced Airpower Studies. He is a contributor to The New York Times, Foreign Affairs, The New Republic, and The Washington Post and has appeared on ABC’s Nightline and World News Tonight, National Public Radio, and other national television and radio programs.
|
|
|
Does Secularism Secure Peace?
fficeffice" />
In order to find the answer, one just needs to have quick look at the history of the most secular century, the 20th century. Fascism was based on social evolutionism. Marx dedicated his most famous book to ffice:smarttags" />Darwin and considered his ideology as science. USSR’s crimes, the massacres in Cambodia, Chinese government’s dictatorship, many slaughters by the so-called secular governments in Middle East, including Israel, and in Latin America have been shaped against humanity in the name of development, socialism, nationalism and promoted by racism, chauvinism. They have killed innocent people much more than what religions have done in the whole history. However, this does not mean that "religion secures peace". But it means that rejecting “religion" does not guarantee peace. Whether believing in any idea results in peace depends on how you interpret your religion or your secular ideology or your own historical identity in general. It is possible to establish a killing machine based on any religious teaching or secular ideology. Yesterday based on civilization of the whole world by the white men (during colonization era), and then rival Imperialism and State Socialism, and today based on Islamic teaching and who knows maybe tomorrow based on democracy itself. Woops! Sorry! Seems it has happened already. Isn’t Bush butchering civilians in Iraq in the name of democracy? He says they are casualties of war on terrorism. it means tens of thousands civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are just killed unintentionally and casually. So no apologies! My question to him; if a terrorist comes and takes your family as hostages in the white house will you bomb the terrorists and your family together and say your family was killed unintentionally? See the answer here.
Anyway, my idea is that whatever you believe, whether a religion or a secular discourse, you really need to be clear about the basics of your faith on the issues like peace and human rights. Then expose them in public and get involve in communication with your fellow believers and non-believers.
I think anybody who has studied the history of Islam will agree with me that we do not have one single "Islam" as a single historical phenomenon. Even for the events happened or not happened during Muhammad’s life, there are lots of disputes among Muslim scholars themselves. So we have "Islams". Anybody who talks about Islam must emphasize that she is talking about her own interpretation of Islam. So others can agree or not. My claims that “Islam = peace” is exactly comes from my interpretation of my identity as Muslim. Of course, there are some, like Mullahs and their followers, who may disagree and justify violence based on their interpretations. But I don’t believe that "any body has any exclusive rights in interpreting any religion, any historical event, any ideology or concept like democracy or human rights. I do not believe that if any specific interpretation of history/religion which has become popularized and dominant due to the supports from those who are in power in order to justify their governance based on manipulating history, is the truest version of that religion or ideology just because of its popularity. Popularity does not bring authenticity unless it is gained in a very free, open society where anybody without any fear is able to expose herself.
Similarly, we do not have a single definition of "democracy". Neo-cons’ definition of democracy is in contradiction with Chomsky's definition and both may be at odds with Gandhi's, and Shirin Ebadi’s (the Muslim lady who won the Nobel peace prize). Therefore, we do not need to give up our interpretation of our religion or ideology or identity because there are so many other interpretations which might be at odds with or different from ours. What we need to do is to clarify our definitions and get involve in a free, equal and coercion-free sphere of dialogue with others. If we do not have such spheres, we need to build them; one way is such public online forums, or offline ones in our communities. If the disputers do not want to get involve or want to impose their ideas by censoring us or by ignoring or disempowering us, so we will struggle for our basic rights, and other people can see if we are right or not. If our interpretations are well equipped with evidences and reasons we are not afraid of any sentimentalist disputer, even of losing the struggle for our rights in short term. At least we have exposed ourselves and modified our knowledge in the course of action. Ideas are not just pre-established theories in our minds. They become refined and reformed through our practices. Through my practice to expose my preliminary interpretation of Islam I have become more articulated and more clear than before, but still need more and more experience.
So whatever we believe on; we just need to understand that the production of any knowledge/idea is not something exclusive. We need to acknowledge that the history of most religions has experience lots of hegemonic periods in which the free thinkers of those religions or ideologies have been disempowered/ excluded by those who were in power and their ideologues. We need to discover the voices which have been deprived of enough opportunity to have their says in history. We need to start understanding any faith objectively, fairly and without prejudice or hatred due to our daily experiences of the bad manners of its followers which are themselves victims of mass deceptions (mainly organized by their clergies). Please See, the statement about non-deliberative nature of Islam. (= my interpretation of Islam that I call it Islamic humanism in order to emphasize its humanistic, egalitarian and peaceful nature).
However, I do not care about anti-Islam or pro-Islam sentimentalists. They have right to expose themselves. They have implicitly helped me to be more sensitive about my ideas. I have seen many similarities between the anti-Islamism and Islamic extremism. Both endorse the exclusion of the "Other", in understanding the original message of Islam and its today's duties. What Quran says and what is the original message of Islam is the subject of collective understanding and not collective subordination.
Submission to truth (the literally meaning of Islam) is meaningless without contemplation. You can find many verses in Quran which ask people to think about the meanings. The authenticity of truth comes from itself and not from the speakers. We are not supposed to follow the messages of Quran or Muhammad merely because they are told by an unquestionable source. We are supposed (as Muslims) to contemplate them as an important historical experience, like any other historical experience. Quran itself is full of historical experiences and asks people to think about them (for example the stories of rise of fall of civilizations due to the withdrawal of morality, responsibility and accountability).
But what makes us specifically Muslims and not just simply historians? The answer is that, becoming a Muslim is not a product of a sudden decision. It’s a process. The more we contemplate, the more we understand and internalize its basics (as far as we find them useful and inspiring for our life). The more we internalize them we find ourselves in a common destiny with those who have done this before or those who have been the victims of a historical ignorance in doing this. I am not prescribing this for any body. It is possible to reflect on any other faith or ideology, but we don’t have time to study all ideas. As someone who has grown up in a so-called Islamic context, I have always felt the responsibility to contemplate and to reconsider my historical identity. "No body can and have right to stop me. I study, reflect, express and question, so I do exist".
|
|
|
Muslim leaders in call for action |
Muslims protest against terror at a rally in Leeds | Britain's top Muslims have branded the London suicide bombings "utterly criminal, totally reprehensible, and absolutely un-Islamic".
A joint statement of condemnation came as 22 leaders and scholars met at the Islamic Cultural Centre, in London. | from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4684885.stm
|
|
|
Islamic Humanism has two pillars in relation to humanity-society:
Islamic Humanism has two pillars in relation to humanity-society:
- Self autonomy (khalifattollahi)
- Alter accommodation
fficeffice" />
Alter, here, means the ‘Other’, the other subject which can be nature, or other persons or other cultures
Human being are created and endowed with self autonomy to find the truth and to act in relation to each other. Such autonomy is comparable to God’s autonomy; human beings regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, culture, social status, are the Caliphs of God on the earth. Any behaviour and action is merely valuable or condemnable regarding the level of autonomy. The more we have autonomy in conducting our actions the more we are responsible and accountable to ourselves and others. The more autonomy we have, the more we will be able to create values. The more we are determined by the willingness of others, the less our actions are valuable. So, since human beings are all created equally free and autonomous from the beginning to be able to maximize the values, they are supposed to maintain their autonomy in a way not to limit other people’s autonomy. So the best way to realize such a balance which can produce the maximum of autonomy for all members of society equally, they need to be alter accommodative. This means everybody needs not only to be sympathetic to other people’s interests and concerns, but also is required to deliberately organize the most reliable, honest and equal relations with others especially those who are disempowered.
Therefore, human rights, democracy and justice must be all inclusive and nobody should be excluded due to political authority, economic inequality and social discriminations. Spirituality/morality cannot be gained completely in a society where there are groups, even if minority, who are experiencing exclusion, discrimination and injustice, violence etc. In such a situation, the only way left to enhance spirituality and morality is to struggle for the Self and the disempowered Other’s rights in the most peaceful and non-violent manner (Jihad). The most devastative and dangerous enemies of Islam, are those who do violence, injustice, and discrimination in the name of Islam. Struggling with religious dogmatism, extremism, and patriarchalism through increasing the consciousness of our fellow Muslims who are enchanted by many Mullahs and Clergies is the first priority for Progressive Muslims. There are Imams or Mullahs who might condemn terrorism and violence but their basic knowledge of Islam is corruptive and in contradiction with the abovementioned pillars. They consider for themselves exclusive right for interpreting the messages of Islam. Their knowledge is not discussed in free public spheres and carries lots of aggressive, violent elements that many of them might not be detected in the first place.
|
|
|
Stop violence, terror, war, kidnapping, and torture in the name of my faith (Islam = Peace and Submission to Truth) or in the name of my ideals (Democracy and Justice).
fficeffice" />
These are all criminal means, and in absolute contradiction with both Islam and Democracy. Those who commit these crimes are not Human, let alone Muslim, Christian or Secular.
|
|
|
[next page]
|
