by Raymond Ibrahim
Pajamas Media
June 3, 2009
During the pope's recent Mideast visit, the media reported that he has "deep respect for Islam." That exact phrase appeared in the Associated Press, AFP, BBC, Jerusalem Post, Washington Times, and Al-Jazeera.
Yet he said no such thing; instead, he mentioned his "deep respect for the Muslim community." There's a world of difference between respecting a religious group and respecting their religion, and the pontiff knows this.
As a Christian — indeed, as pope — by evoking his "deep respect" for Muslims, Benedict probably meant that Muslims, who believe in one God, pray, fast, and follow a strict set of moral principles, are, from a religious perspective, worthy of "deep respect."
Even the non-religious uphold this position. In fact, that is what makes the secular West unique: the right to follow any (or no) religion is guaranteed, is "respected."
Due to this, however, a subtle conflation has come to dominate our way of thinking: respect for people's right to believe any religion has somewhere along the line — and thanks to political correctness — morphed into respect for the religion itself (excluding, of course, cheek-turning Christianity, the secular West's "punching bag"). It was therefore only natural for the (increasingly sloppy) media to portray Benedict's respect for Muslims as respect for Islam.
But is this logical? Does respecting a person's right to believe necessarily lead to respecting what they believe?
Consider: billions of non-Muslims adhere to other religions or are simply atheistic; by default, this means they do not believe in the veracity of Islam. A Christian following Christian doctrine, such as the Trinity, cannot also believe that the Koran, which fiercely denounces the Trinity, is the word of God, while an atheist believes all religions and their scriptures are not divinely inspired (i.e., all euphemisms aside, are built on lies).
At the same time, however, Christians and atheists cannot "empirically" prove their position; faith is required — even for the atheist (accounting for the origins of the universe requires "faith"). As such, it is only logical that non-Muslims should respect Muslims' right to believe what they will — and, ideally, vice versa.
But short of truly believing Islam's first premise — that the Koran is the verbatim word of God and Muhammad his messenger — how can one "respect" Islam itself, considering it is entirely built around this assumption? In other words, if you yourself believe a particular system of belief is built atop lies, how can you personally respect it?
If the Koran was not dictated by an angel to Muhammad, what is it? If Muhammad was not sent by God, who was he? As with all who profess to be men of God, Muhammad must have been either who he said he was (prophet of God) or else the antithesis: a false prophet, a fraud. The first possibility is not a logical option for active non-Muslims. Nor are silly "postmodern" mantras — "just because I do not believe something does not necessarily mean it is not true, in its own existential way" — very meaningful.
Of course, this position applies to all religions and their founders. Without believing that the Bible is the inspired word of God, everything contained therein becomes suspect, including the person (and nature) of Jesus. As Christians themselves have long maintained, Jesus can only be viewed as lord, liar, or lunatic — nothing in between. Likewise, Muhammad was either messenger, mendacious, or moonstruck. Admittedly, most people are not comfortable thinking out such thoughts to their logical conclusions; they're happy to end it with an "it's not for me" attitude, without any further ado.
So why scrutinize Islam and its founder in the first place? Because unlike all other major religions, Islam is daily associated with violence, beheadings, misogyny, child marriage, and hostility for infidels and their ways. Pseudo-respect from non-Muslims shields it from open analysis.
Moreover, though non-Christians must ultimately conclude that either Jesus or (as Islam maintains) the Gospel writers were deceivers or delusional, the fact remains: As with most religions, Christianity revolves around the spiritual, the metaphysic; true or false, it does not intrinsically impose itself on politics. Islam, on the other hand — as embodied in Islamic law — is politics, indeed, dominates all aspects of human affairs.
As such, Islam's connection to "unpleasant" daily headlines becomes clear once non-Muslims allow their thoughts to develop logically and sequentially. Stripped of its hagiographic veneer, the history of Islam is the history of a warlord and his followers who conquered, subjugated, and plundered much of the old world, insisting that God told them to do it. For Muslims, it is only logical to rationalize this 1,400-year jihad as a means to an end — the establishment of Islamic law, from a Muslim perspective, the embodiment of all good. Non-Muslims do not have this luxury and must interpret the origins and essence of Islam a bit more cynically.
But why this philosophical exposition in the first place? To show that, while there have been countless talking heads, books, debates, seminars, and hearings dedicated to evaluating whether Islam is intrinsically at odds with the modern world, good old-fashioned common sense could have put the matter long to rest:
After all, do you really find it shocking that a comprehensive way of life, where right and wrong are meticulously based on the improvised "law" of a seventh-century warlord — who, according to your own inevitable conclusions, was an opportunistic liar or deluded megalomaniac — just so happens to be riddled with complications, especially vis-à-vis the 21st century?
This seemingly simple consideration has profound implications. Former Al-Azhar Muslim scholar and imam Mark Gabriel abandoned his faith by simply musing on such matters:
Did the true God of heaven give him Islam, or did Muhammad invent it? ... Did Muhammad express the heart of the true, merciful God, or did he merely express the dark corners of his own faulty human heart? The implication shook me to the core: If the true God never spoke to Muhammad, then I am a slave to the manipulative imagination of a desert tribesman from the seventh century! These were dangerous thoughts, and I had crossed a dangerous bridge in my mind that all Muslims are taught to walk away from.
In closing, let us respect everyone's right to believe what they will; however, let us at least be sincere to our own convictions. It's one thing to let political correctness stifle free speech; it's quite another to let it stifle the development of our very own thought processes, to the point that we fail to connect such clear dots in the privacy of our own minds.
And while we're at it, let's not distort the well-measured words of the pope, who most surely knows the distinction between respecting the Muslim community and respecting Islam.
Raymond Ibrahim is the associate director of the Middle East Forum and the author of The Al Qaeda Reader, translations of religious texts and propaganda.
Originally published at: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/respecting-the-faithful-vs-respecting-the-faith/
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Will and can the reformation come to Islam?
A few weeks ago, Fehmi Koru/Taha Kivanc wrote about how he happened to sit next to "Islam expert" Reza Aslan at some gathering, as another lucky encounter.
While Koru was mentioning Aslan, he described him as someone a "little confused." I am not sure how much Koru is familiar with his writings, but his "little confused" remarks urged me to read his long overdue book. I know it seems as if I, somehow, suggest that if there is something Mr. Koru disdains, it becomes worth paying attention to because I will likely find some jewels. I do not mean that necessarily. What I mean is, I remembered the book again.
I know Reza Aslan from his writings in the Daily Beast, also from talk shows and news hours on American TV that he joins occasionally. His sharp-witted humor with quick and intellectually superb arguments and jokes made him kind of a star.
So as I started to read Aslan’s "No god but God" book from 2006, first it seemed the book was one of those books which talks about the miraculous history of Islam and the flawless life of the Prophet Mohammad that I have read over again. Though, at some point in my life, I realized that whenever I read about the Prophet’s life and his wonderful actions, I was usually getting disappointed, because he was always so faultless and perfect and that comparison usually crushed my faulty life.
Here, however, Aslan brings an authentic look to the Prophet Mohammed’s life. We see that Mohammad’s pre-Islamic life wasn’t watertight. For example, his participation in pagan rituals, something that unheard of, actually is not contrasting with Koranic verses. Aslan is also analyzing the political aspects of the Islamic movement, with many checks and balances that Prophet Mohammed was paying attention to while he was constructing his religion.
As the book flies by, one feels like reading a real history, rather than some fairy tales. However, Mr. Koru can be relaxed, Mr. Aslan is still making the case ’for’ Islam, though a new Islam that is clean from its new idolsÑbigotry and fanaticismsÑthat have replaced Mohammed’s original vision of tolerance, against hatred and discord.
Mr. Aslan claims Prophet Mohammed was a social reformer before anything else. The Prophet’s first message was simple: the Day of Judgment was coming and those who did not "free the slave" or "feed others in times of famine" would be surrounded in fire. Mohammed was demanding economic justice, and trying to attract plebs, before challenging the leadership of Mecca. The messages of social and economic reforms were coming before monotheistic teachings.
With the unprotected of Mecca, whose rights he first started to advocate, Mohammed was also going after the "elite young men," from "the most influential families in the most influential clans," who felt the same discontent with Meccan society as Mohammad did. And this majority of less than thirty-year-old was relatively an easy target.
Not directly challenging the leadership of the Meccan society, and bringing a new religion to the already crowded religious field of Mecca, Mohammad was not making the powerful angry. After all, religion was what Mecca was making money out of. Therefore the more religion there was, the more merrier/money for them.
One of the most courageous assertions of Aslan is his challenge of the history and of the seemingly "strong" hadiths, or Mohammed’s sayings. Many of the hadiths, Aslan explains, even the ones that have been narrated by the Muslim and Bukhari, the most trusted two books, contrast with Mohammed’s own behavior and actions. The egalitarian (male-female equality) face of the early Islamic teaching and rituals seem to have taken the biggest beating by the male-dominated Orthodox Islam hadith transmission exercise throughout Islamic history.
Although Mohammad’s biographers present him as repeatedly asking for and following the advice of his wives, even in military matters, many hadiths have been transmitted intentionally to enable men to be superior and care for women as if they, with much-celebrated Koranic commentator Fakhr ad-Din ar-razi’s words, "were created like animals and plants and other useful things [not for] worship and carrying the Divine commands."
The reason of the huge difference between Mohammad’s approach and orthodox Islam, Aslan says, is that for fourteen centuries, the science of Koranic commentary has been the exclusive domain of Muslim men. Even the "untouchable" Omar, the second Caliph, was evidently ready to destroy this equality of Prophetic view.
Omar’s misogynist tendencies were apparent from the moment he ascended to the leadership of the Muslim community. He tries (and fails) to confine women to their homes, and institutes segregated prayers and forces women to be taught by male religious leaders, which all are an apparent and direct violation of the Prophet’s exercise. Incredibly, Omar also instituted a series of severe penal ordinances aimed primarily at women; "chief of among these was the stoning to death of adulterers, a punishment that has absolutely no foundation in the Koran."
Today, it is clear that Islam needs a reformation with a daring and unyielding interpretation for the modern world.
Today’s Islam can be enough for many who live in their backyard and haven’t changed their environment for centuries; however Islam feels stretched and falls short for those who are struggling to merge their values and beliefs with contemporary life.
Like other religions, Islam has encountered many historical and social adaptations on the way, and it also needs a course of elucidation.
As Aslan claims, and I believe, the voice of moderation, contrary to the common belief, is winning against the voice of extremism. Though this is not sufficient. The voice of moderation also needs tools to prove Islam has answers to many of today’s challenges that it can participate and live together with modern life that desperately lacks currently. When can the reformation come to Islam and who will lead the charge to reinterpret it more courageously to make it open its arms all humanity? And can it really make this historic leap forward? These are the questions.
I am curiously following Fehmi Koru about what to read, who to follow and not. It has been very useful so far.
Source: ILHAN TANIR
While Koru was mentioning Aslan, he described him as someone a "little confused." I am not sure how much Koru is familiar with his writings, but his "little confused" remarks urged me to read his long overdue book. I know it seems as if I, somehow, suggest that if there is something Mr. Koru disdains, it becomes worth paying attention to because I will likely find some jewels. I do not mean that necessarily. What I mean is, I remembered the book again.
I know Reza Aslan from his writings in the Daily Beast, also from talk shows and news hours on American TV that he joins occasionally. His sharp-witted humor with quick and intellectually superb arguments and jokes made him kind of a star.
So as I started to read Aslan’s "No god but God" book from 2006, first it seemed the book was one of those books which talks about the miraculous history of Islam and the flawless life of the Prophet Mohammad that I have read over again. Though, at some point in my life, I realized that whenever I read about the Prophet’s life and his wonderful actions, I was usually getting disappointed, because he was always so faultless and perfect and that comparison usually crushed my faulty life.
Here, however, Aslan brings an authentic look to the Prophet Mohammed’s life. We see that Mohammad’s pre-Islamic life wasn’t watertight. For example, his participation in pagan rituals, something that unheard of, actually is not contrasting with Koranic verses. Aslan is also analyzing the political aspects of the Islamic movement, with many checks and balances that Prophet Mohammed was paying attention to while he was constructing his religion.
As the book flies by, one feels like reading a real history, rather than some fairy tales. However, Mr. Koru can be relaxed, Mr. Aslan is still making the case ’for’ Islam, though a new Islam that is clean from its new idolsÑbigotry and fanaticismsÑthat have replaced Mohammed’s original vision of tolerance, against hatred and discord.
Mr. Aslan claims Prophet Mohammed was a social reformer before anything else. The Prophet’s first message was simple: the Day of Judgment was coming and those who did not "free the slave" or "feed others in times of famine" would be surrounded in fire. Mohammed was demanding economic justice, and trying to attract plebs, before challenging the leadership of Mecca. The messages of social and economic reforms were coming before monotheistic teachings.
With the unprotected of Mecca, whose rights he first started to advocate, Mohammed was also going after the "elite young men," from "the most influential families in the most influential clans," who felt the same discontent with Meccan society as Mohammad did. And this majority of less than thirty-year-old was relatively an easy target.
Not directly challenging the leadership of the Meccan society, and bringing a new religion to the already crowded religious field of Mecca, Mohammad was not making the powerful angry. After all, religion was what Mecca was making money out of. Therefore the more religion there was, the more merrier/money for them.
One of the most courageous assertions of Aslan is his challenge of the history and of the seemingly "strong" hadiths, or Mohammed’s sayings. Many of the hadiths, Aslan explains, even the ones that have been narrated by the Muslim and Bukhari, the most trusted two books, contrast with Mohammed’s own behavior and actions. The egalitarian (male-female equality) face of the early Islamic teaching and rituals seem to have taken the biggest beating by the male-dominated Orthodox Islam hadith transmission exercise throughout Islamic history.
Although Mohammad’s biographers present him as repeatedly asking for and following the advice of his wives, even in military matters, many hadiths have been transmitted intentionally to enable men to be superior and care for women as if they, with much-celebrated Koranic commentator Fakhr ad-Din ar-razi’s words, "were created like animals and plants and other useful things [not for] worship and carrying the Divine commands."
The reason of the huge difference between Mohammad’s approach and orthodox Islam, Aslan says, is that for fourteen centuries, the science of Koranic commentary has been the exclusive domain of Muslim men. Even the "untouchable" Omar, the second Caliph, was evidently ready to destroy this equality of Prophetic view.
Omar’s misogynist tendencies were apparent from the moment he ascended to the leadership of the Muslim community. He tries (and fails) to confine women to their homes, and institutes segregated prayers and forces women to be taught by male religious leaders, which all are an apparent and direct violation of the Prophet’s exercise. Incredibly, Omar also instituted a series of severe penal ordinances aimed primarily at women; "chief of among these was the stoning to death of adulterers, a punishment that has absolutely no foundation in the Koran."
Today, it is clear that Islam needs a reformation with a daring and unyielding interpretation for the modern world.
Today’s Islam can be enough for many who live in their backyard and haven’t changed their environment for centuries; however Islam feels stretched and falls short for those who are struggling to merge their values and beliefs with contemporary life.
Like other religions, Islam has encountered many historical and social adaptations on the way, and it also needs a course of elucidation.
As Aslan claims, and I believe, the voice of moderation, contrary to the common belief, is winning against the voice of extremism. Though this is not sufficient. The voice of moderation also needs tools to prove Islam has answers to many of today’s challenges that it can participate and live together with modern life that desperately lacks currently. When can the reformation come to Islam and who will lead the charge to reinterpret it more courageously to make it open its arms all humanity? And can it really make this historic leap forward? These are the questions.
I am curiously following Fehmi Koru about what to read, who to follow and not. It has been very useful so far.
Source: ILHAN TANIR
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Court reinstates breastfeeding fatwa scholar at Al-Azhar University
CAIRO: The Administrative Court annulled Al-Azhar’s disciplinary committee’s decision to expel Ezzat Attiya, president of the hadith department at the university, after he issued a controversial fatwa concerning breastfeeding in 2007.
“No one can argue with a court order …we respect the Administrative Court and follow its orders without thinking twice,” said Sheikh Fawzy El-Zefzaf, head of the religions dialogue committee at Al-Azhar.
Attiya was expelled in 2007 when he suggested that symbolic breastfeeding could be a way around strict segregation of males and females. He had drawn on Islamic traditions which forbid sexual relations between a man and a woman who has breastfed him.
However, the court’s ruling did not come as a surprise to Sheikh Mahmoud Ashour, former deputy of Al-Azhar and member of the Islamic Research Center.
“This is only natural … I was sure that this was going to be the court’s decision,” Ashour said, “Attiya didn’t make anything up, it is stated in the fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) books and it’s a topic of debate among Islamic scholars with some supporting it and others opposing it,” he explained.
Both clerics agree that Attiya is an exceptional teacher and speaker. “Attiya is a great teacher and is well educated, informed and knowledgeable, plus he is a great speaker at lectures and discussions so he is always a plus to Al-Azhar University,” said Ashour.
In 2007 when the disciplinary committee had made its decision, both Islamic thinker Gamal El-Banna and Sheikh Khalid El-Gindy condemned the fatwa but maintained that Attiya shouldn’t have been expelled.
Attiya first made his statement regarding the issue on Al-Arabiya, a Dubai-based news channel, where he said that that after five breastfeeding sessions the man becomes a symbolic relative of the woman and the two were allowed to be alone together and the women could remove her headscarf in his presence.
The statement has caused a media frenzy and an uproar from Islamic scholars forcing Attiya to issue a retraction and apology. In his apology, Attiya stated that breastfeeding a male colleague at work is reserved only for a special situation and that only a minority of scholars had supported this position.
Source: thedailynewsegypt.com
“No one can argue with a court order …we respect the Administrative Court and follow its orders without thinking twice,” said Sheikh Fawzy El-Zefzaf, head of the religions dialogue committee at Al-Azhar.
Attiya was expelled in 2007 when he suggested that symbolic breastfeeding could be a way around strict segregation of males and females. He had drawn on Islamic traditions which forbid sexual relations between a man and a woman who has breastfed him.
However, the court’s ruling did not come as a surprise to Sheikh Mahmoud Ashour, former deputy of Al-Azhar and member of the Islamic Research Center.
“This is only natural … I was sure that this was going to be the court’s decision,” Ashour said, “Attiya didn’t make anything up, it is stated in the fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) books and it’s a topic of debate among Islamic scholars with some supporting it and others opposing it,” he explained.
Both clerics agree that Attiya is an exceptional teacher and speaker. “Attiya is a great teacher and is well educated, informed and knowledgeable, plus he is a great speaker at lectures and discussions so he is always a plus to Al-Azhar University,” said Ashour.
In 2007 when the disciplinary committee had made its decision, both Islamic thinker Gamal El-Banna and Sheikh Khalid El-Gindy condemned the fatwa but maintained that Attiya shouldn’t have been expelled.
Attiya first made his statement regarding the issue on Al-Arabiya, a Dubai-based news channel, where he said that that after five breastfeeding sessions the man becomes a symbolic relative of the woman and the two were allowed to be alone together and the women could remove her headscarf in his presence.
The statement has caused a media frenzy and an uproar from Islamic scholars forcing Attiya to issue a retraction and apology. In his apology, Attiya stated that breastfeeding a male colleague at work is reserved only for a special situation and that only a minority of scholars had supported this position.
Source: thedailynewsegypt.com
Controversy over the ’hadith reform’ (Turkey)
If you are well versed enough in the Turkish language to follow the Turkish media (and also happen to have the stomach for it), I strongly recommend reading Milli Gazete.
The daily newspaper of Milli Görüş, the Islamist movement of Necmeddin Erbakan, which is currently represented by the marginal Saadet, or Felicity, Party, Milli Gazete acts almost like a party organ. It often tries to convince its readers that the 82-year-old Erbakan’s victory over the forces of "global Zionism" is imminent. The writers of Milli Gazete dislike two groups in Turkey. The first, as you can guess, is the hard-line secularists. The second group, which you might not guess right away, is what the hard-line secularists themselves most despise: the "moderate Islamists," such as the incumbent Justice and Development Party, or AKP, and Islamic individuals or groups with "modernist" attitudes. For Milli Gazete, these misguided Muslims are the enemies within who dilute the Islamic cause and make it subservient to the demands of the Western infidels.
Reform or reinterpretation?
One of the heavyweights of Milli Gazete is Mehmet Şevket Eygi. To his credit, Eygi has some good insights about pious Muslims in Turkey, such as his critiques of their "lack of a sense of aesthetics." But on matters of theology and jurisprudence, he is way too conservative. Any deviation from the classical sources and norms of Sunni Islam is, for him, a dangerous heresy.
For some time, Eygi has been harshly criticizing the "hadith reform," as he, and the Western media, call it. This is a project initiated by Turkey’s official Directorate of Religious Affairs (also known as the Diyanet) and its aim is to revise, re-catalog and re-interpret the sayings, or hadiths, of Prophet Mohammed. Right after it began in 2006, the project made global headlines because it aimed to deal with some of the misogynistic statements in the classical hadith literature, spurring Western media, from the BBC to the Christian Science Monitor, to start talking about a "reform" in Islam.
In the Western sense, that wasn’t an incorrect statement. One of the project’s goals was to put some apparently misogynist hadiths into their rightful historical context and thus keep them from being used in the modern world to suppress women’s rights. But the term "reform" does not sound nice to Muslim ears. When they hear this word, most Muslims think that it is about excluding a fundamental part of their religion for some secular, if not completely wicked, agenda. Therefore, from the very beginning, Diyanet officials took great pains to emphasize, "This is not a reform at all."
But they could not persuade Eygi. He has been repeatedly writing about "this treacherous project carried out by Orientalists, free thinkers and even atheists," and calling on fellow Muslims to take a stand against it. "They are deleting our Prophet’s words simply to succumb to the Europeans," he argued in one of his articles, continuing:
"O Muslims! You are in deep sleep. You sleep in bed, you sleep when you are awake, you sleep when you talk. You sleep on land you sleep on the sea. But they are not sleeping! They are working day and night to delete the prophet’s hadiths!"
This ranting went on for a while, and led Diyanet Deputy President Prof. Mehmet Görmez to write a long response, which Eygi published in his column last Friday. Prof. Görmez took great pains to argue that devout Muslims (rather than "Orientalists and Jesuit priests") were carrying out the project and that its aim was not to delete the hadiths of the prophet, but to interpret them rightfully. If Eygi continued with his "unjust accusations," Prof Görmez warned, he might be held responsible for this in the eyes of "divine justice."
Whether this will convince Eygi and other conservatives in the Muslim world remains uncertain. What is certain is their reaction to the idea of "reform." Since the 19th century, modernist Muslims have repeatedly faced this hostility: They have been accused of being paid agents of the West, crypto freemasons with sinister goals and apostates who sold their souls to the devil.
Two lessons
There are two lessons to be inferred from this. First, Muslim would-be reformers should be careful in how they frame their arguments. There are tools for change within the Islamic tradition, and using them is more legitimate and efficient than pushing for revolutionary steps.
The second lesson is for Westerners. They, too, should be careful with the language they use. And they should not engage in religion building that is really not their business. Their concern over extremely conservative, sometimes violent, interpretations of Islam is quite understandable. But they should also understand that they only empower those interpretations by appearing, at least in the eyes of oversensitive beholders, as the architects of reform in a religion they don’t subscribe to.
Source Hurriyet.com.tr
The daily newspaper of Milli Görüş, the Islamist movement of Necmeddin Erbakan, which is currently represented by the marginal Saadet, or Felicity, Party, Milli Gazete acts almost like a party organ. It often tries to convince its readers that the 82-year-old Erbakan’s victory over the forces of "global Zionism" is imminent. The writers of Milli Gazete dislike two groups in Turkey. The first, as you can guess, is the hard-line secularists. The second group, which you might not guess right away, is what the hard-line secularists themselves most despise: the "moderate Islamists," such as the incumbent Justice and Development Party, or AKP, and Islamic individuals or groups with "modernist" attitudes. For Milli Gazete, these misguided Muslims are the enemies within who dilute the Islamic cause and make it subservient to the demands of the Western infidels.
Reform or reinterpretation?
One of the heavyweights of Milli Gazete is Mehmet Şevket Eygi. To his credit, Eygi has some good insights about pious Muslims in Turkey, such as his critiques of their "lack of a sense of aesthetics." But on matters of theology and jurisprudence, he is way too conservative. Any deviation from the classical sources and norms of Sunni Islam is, for him, a dangerous heresy.
For some time, Eygi has been harshly criticizing the "hadith reform," as he, and the Western media, call it. This is a project initiated by Turkey’s official Directorate of Religious Affairs (also known as the Diyanet) and its aim is to revise, re-catalog and re-interpret the sayings, or hadiths, of Prophet Mohammed. Right after it began in 2006, the project made global headlines because it aimed to deal with some of the misogynistic statements in the classical hadith literature, spurring Western media, from the BBC to the Christian Science Monitor, to start talking about a "reform" in Islam.
In the Western sense, that wasn’t an incorrect statement. One of the project’s goals was to put some apparently misogynist hadiths into their rightful historical context and thus keep them from being used in the modern world to suppress women’s rights. But the term "reform" does not sound nice to Muslim ears. When they hear this word, most Muslims think that it is about excluding a fundamental part of their religion for some secular, if not completely wicked, agenda. Therefore, from the very beginning, Diyanet officials took great pains to emphasize, "This is not a reform at all."
But they could not persuade Eygi. He has been repeatedly writing about "this treacherous project carried out by Orientalists, free thinkers and even atheists," and calling on fellow Muslims to take a stand against it. "They are deleting our Prophet’s words simply to succumb to the Europeans," he argued in one of his articles, continuing:
"O Muslims! You are in deep sleep. You sleep in bed, you sleep when you are awake, you sleep when you talk. You sleep on land you sleep on the sea. But they are not sleeping! They are working day and night to delete the prophet’s hadiths!"
This ranting went on for a while, and led Diyanet Deputy President Prof. Mehmet Görmez to write a long response, which Eygi published in his column last Friday. Prof. Görmez took great pains to argue that devout Muslims (rather than "Orientalists and Jesuit priests") were carrying out the project and that its aim was not to delete the hadiths of the prophet, but to interpret them rightfully. If Eygi continued with his "unjust accusations," Prof Görmez warned, he might be held responsible for this in the eyes of "divine justice."
Whether this will convince Eygi and other conservatives in the Muslim world remains uncertain. What is certain is their reaction to the idea of "reform." Since the 19th century, modernist Muslims have repeatedly faced this hostility: They have been accused of being paid agents of the West, crypto freemasons with sinister goals and apostates who sold their souls to the devil.
Two lessons
There are two lessons to be inferred from this. First, Muslim would-be reformers should be careful in how they frame their arguments. There are tools for change within the Islamic tradition, and using them is more legitimate and efficient than pushing for revolutionary steps.
The second lesson is for Westerners. They, too, should be careful with the language they use. And they should not engage in religion building that is really not their business. Their concern over extremely conservative, sometimes violent, interpretations of Islam is quite understandable. But they should also understand that they only empower those interpretations by appearing, at least in the eyes of oversensitive beholders, as the architects of reform in a religion they don’t subscribe to.
Source Hurriyet.com.tr
Friday, May 22, 2009
BMI told stewardess to wear Muslim robe
A BRITISH air stewardess was sacked for refusing to fly to Saudi Arabia after she was ordered to wear a traditional Islamic robe and walk behind male colleagues.
Lisa Ashton, a £15,000-a-year stewardess with BMI, was told that in public areas in Saudi Arabia she was required to wear a black robe, known as an abaya. This covers everything but the face, feet and hands. She was told to follow her male colleagues, irrespective of rank.
Ashton, 37, who was worried about security in the country, refused to fly there, claiming the instructions were discriminatory. She was sacked last April.
“It’s not the law that you have to walk behind men in Saudi Arabia, or that you have to wear an abaya, and I’m not going to be treated as a second-class citizen,” Ashton said last week.
“It’s outrageous. I’m a proud Englishwoman and I don’t want these restrictions placed on myself.”
Saudi experts and companies that recruit women to work in the country say it is a “myth” that western women are required to walk behind men. There is no requirement for them to wear the abaya in public, though many do.
Earlier this year an employment tribunal in Manchester ruled that BMI was justified in imposing “rules of a different culture” on staff and cleared it of sexual discrimination. Ashton has consulted Liberty, the human rights organisation, and may seek a judicial review of the decision.
Ashton joined BMI in March 1996, flying to the Caribbean, the United States and India. Based in Manchester, she was told in the summer of 2005 that BMI was starting a service to Saudi Arabia and she might be required to work on it.
The Foreign Office was then advising visitors of a “threat of terrorism” in the country. Ashton did not want to travel there because of the security risks, and was offended by the rules for staff travelling to the region.
A BMI document circulated to staff who might travel to Saudi Arabia stated: “It is expected that female crew members will walk behind their male counterparts in public areas such as airports no matter what rank.”
Staff were also given abayas and were required to put them on when leaving the aircraft. Ashton, a practising Christian, was advised by union officials that it was considered a part of the uniform and she could face disciplinary action if she did not wear it.
Ashton said she did not want to fly to Saudi Arabia, but wished to continue flying long-haul routes. The firm said she could transfer to short-haul flights but that would have meant a pay cut of about 20%. She declined to switch to short-haul flights.
On June 13, 2007, she was told she was rostered for a flight from London to Saudi Arabia and refused to go. She was dismissed for refusing to fly and for making it clear she would not travel to Saudi Arabia.
Her letter of dismissal said it was “proportionate” to ask female employees to walk behind men out of respect for Saudi culture. BMI has also defended its decision to require female staff to wear abayas.
The Foreign Office advises women to dress “conservatively” but does not specifically advise wearing an abaya in public places. It also does not refer to any rule or convention that western women should walk behind men.
In a legal case in 2002 Colonel Martha McSally launched a legal action over American military orders that female servicewomen should wear an abaya in public places in Saudi Arabia when American women diplomats and the wives of servicemen were not expected to wear the garment. The Senate subsequently passed legislation that prohibited defence officials from requiring female personnel to wear abayas.
In the employment tribunal decision over Ashton’s case it was ruled there was no evidence that women would regard BMI’s requirements on wearing the abaya, or walking behind men, as “placing them under any disadvantage”. Ashton’s case was dismissed.
The firm said last week the tribunal ruling was “self-explanatory” and would not comment.
Since leaving BMI, Ashton has embarked on a musical career. She said one of her first songs, Shame, Shame, Shame, performed by the band Looby, was inspired by the airline.
Source: Times on Line
Also a good comment made on the section 'Have your say'
If BMI had dimissed a black employee for refusing to walk behind white employees when they flew to pre-apartheid South Africa, would British unions and the Manchester government have argued that the black employee should accept South Africa's "different culture"? What utter rot.
Notadhimmi, USA,
Lisa Ashton, a £15,000-a-year stewardess with BMI, was told that in public areas in Saudi Arabia she was required to wear a black robe, known as an abaya. This covers everything but the face, feet and hands. She was told to follow her male colleagues, irrespective of rank.
Ashton, 37, who was worried about security in the country, refused to fly there, claiming the instructions were discriminatory. She was sacked last April.
“It’s not the law that you have to walk behind men in Saudi Arabia, or that you have to wear an abaya, and I’m not going to be treated as a second-class citizen,” Ashton said last week.
“It’s outrageous. I’m a proud Englishwoman and I don’t want these restrictions placed on myself.”
Saudi experts and companies that recruit women to work in the country say it is a “myth” that western women are required to walk behind men. There is no requirement for them to wear the abaya in public, though many do.
Earlier this year an employment tribunal in Manchester ruled that BMI was justified in imposing “rules of a different culture” on staff and cleared it of sexual discrimination. Ashton has consulted Liberty, the human rights organisation, and may seek a judicial review of the decision.
Ashton joined BMI in March 1996, flying to the Caribbean, the United States and India. Based in Manchester, she was told in the summer of 2005 that BMI was starting a service to Saudi Arabia and she might be required to work on it.
The Foreign Office was then advising visitors of a “threat of terrorism” in the country. Ashton did not want to travel there because of the security risks, and was offended by the rules for staff travelling to the region.
A BMI document circulated to staff who might travel to Saudi Arabia stated: “It is expected that female crew members will walk behind their male counterparts in public areas such as airports no matter what rank.”
Staff were also given abayas and were required to put them on when leaving the aircraft. Ashton, a practising Christian, was advised by union officials that it was considered a part of the uniform and she could face disciplinary action if she did not wear it.
Ashton said she did not want to fly to Saudi Arabia, but wished to continue flying long-haul routes. The firm said she could transfer to short-haul flights but that would have meant a pay cut of about 20%. She declined to switch to short-haul flights.
On June 13, 2007, she was told she was rostered for a flight from London to Saudi Arabia and refused to go. She was dismissed for refusing to fly and for making it clear she would not travel to Saudi Arabia.
Her letter of dismissal said it was “proportionate” to ask female employees to walk behind men out of respect for Saudi culture. BMI has also defended its decision to require female staff to wear abayas.
The Foreign Office advises women to dress “conservatively” but does not specifically advise wearing an abaya in public places. It also does not refer to any rule or convention that western women should walk behind men.
In a legal case in 2002 Colonel Martha McSally launched a legal action over American military orders that female servicewomen should wear an abaya in public places in Saudi Arabia when American women diplomats and the wives of servicemen were not expected to wear the garment. The Senate subsequently passed legislation that prohibited defence officials from requiring female personnel to wear abayas.
In the employment tribunal decision over Ashton’s case it was ruled there was no evidence that women would regard BMI’s requirements on wearing the abaya, or walking behind men, as “placing them under any disadvantage”. Ashton’s case was dismissed.
The firm said last week the tribunal ruling was “self-explanatory” and would not comment.
Since leaving BMI, Ashton has embarked on a musical career. She said one of her first songs, Shame, Shame, Shame, performed by the band Looby, was inspired by the airline.
Source: Times on Line
Also a good comment made on the section 'Have your say'
If BMI had dimissed a black employee for refusing to walk behind white employees when they flew to pre-apartheid South Africa, would British unions and the Manchester government have argued that the black employee should accept South Africa's "different culture"? What utter rot.
Notadhimmi, USA,
Friday, May 15, 2009
Taliban threatens politicians in troubled Swat, says report
ISTANBUL - Pakistani Taliban warned local politicians in the troubled Swat Valley that they and their families would be attacked unless they quit their posts protesting against the continuing army offensive in the region.
Speaking to Qatar-based Al Jazeera network yesterday, Muslim Khan, a Pakistani Taliban spokesman, gave members of the national and regional assemblies a three-day deadline to denounce the military assault on Taliban fighters.
The warning came hours after suspected Taliban militants stormed a depot in northwest Pakistan that handles supplied for NATO troops in neighboring Afghanistan and torched eight trucks. Also yesterday Pakistan’s embattled President Asif Ali Zardari called for global help to avert a humanitarian catastrophe. "The warning signalled a dark turn in the unfolding events in Swat where the Pakistani army is battling Taliban fighters. They [Taliban] can make these threats and people will take them very seriously," Al Jazeera’s correspondent said.
Trapped residents
Hundreds of thousands of civilians have escaped the punishing offensive in the Swat valley, fleeing Taliban fighters who have terrorized the population in a bloody campaign to enforce Islamic law, or Shariah, and expand their control. Residents trapped in Mingora, the district's main town, told Agence France-Presse by telephone that militants had planted mines and were digging trenches. "People are becoming mentally ill, our senses have shut down, children and woman are crying, please tell the government to pull us out of here," said one shopkeeper contacted by AFP who did not want to give his name. "Forget the lack of electricity and other problems, the Taliban are everywhere and heavy exchanges of fire are routine at night."
Airstrikes targeted Taliban bastions across Swat, which has sunk from a stunning ski resort favored by Westerners to a crucible of Taliban violence, where ground troops have yet to take control. Helicopter gunships also swung into action in the neighboring district of Lower Dir, where the military has been on the offensive since April 26 after Taliban fighters advanced to within 100 kilometres (60 miles) of Islamabad.
A military spokesman reported "heavy fighting" in Swat's northern mountains at Peochar, the suspected stronghold of firebrand Taliban commander Maulana Fazlullah, where airborne commandos on Tuesday opened a new front. Overall, the military says more than 750 militants and 33 troops have been killed in its operations.
Source: Hurriyet
Speaking to Qatar-based Al Jazeera network yesterday, Muslim Khan, a Pakistani Taliban spokesman, gave members of the national and regional assemblies a three-day deadline to denounce the military assault on Taliban fighters.
The warning came hours after suspected Taliban militants stormed a depot in northwest Pakistan that handles supplied for NATO troops in neighboring Afghanistan and torched eight trucks. Also yesterday Pakistan’s embattled President Asif Ali Zardari called for global help to avert a humanitarian catastrophe. "The warning signalled a dark turn in the unfolding events in Swat where the Pakistani army is battling Taliban fighters. They [Taliban] can make these threats and people will take them very seriously," Al Jazeera’s correspondent said.
Trapped residents
Hundreds of thousands of civilians have escaped the punishing offensive in the Swat valley, fleeing Taliban fighters who have terrorized the population in a bloody campaign to enforce Islamic law, or Shariah, and expand their control. Residents trapped in Mingora, the district's main town, told Agence France-Presse by telephone that militants had planted mines and were digging trenches. "People are becoming mentally ill, our senses have shut down, children and woman are crying, please tell the government to pull us out of here," said one shopkeeper contacted by AFP who did not want to give his name. "Forget the lack of electricity and other problems, the Taliban are everywhere and heavy exchanges of fire are routine at night."
Airstrikes targeted Taliban bastions across Swat, which has sunk from a stunning ski resort favored by Westerners to a crucible of Taliban violence, where ground troops have yet to take control. Helicopter gunships also swung into action in the neighboring district of Lower Dir, where the military has been on the offensive since April 26 after Taliban fighters advanced to within 100 kilometres (60 miles) of Islamabad.
A military spokesman reported "heavy fighting" in Swat's northern mountains at Peochar, the suspected stronghold of firebrand Taliban commander Maulana Fazlullah, where airborne commandos on Tuesday opened a new front. Overall, the military says more than 750 militants and 33 troops have been killed in its operations.
Source: Hurriyet
All pigs must die because they descend from Jews
All pigs must die
because they descend from Jews:
According to Egyptian Islamic scholar
by Itamar Marcus & Barbara Crook, May 13, 2009
All pigs alive today are descendants of the Jews who were turned into pigs by Allah, according to a senior Egyptian religious leader. Since all pigs are descendants of Jews, it is obligatory to kill all pigs, says Sheikh Ahmed Ali Othman.
Presumably if pigs were merely animals, they would not face destruction. It is their Jewish ancestry that condemns them to death.
The Jordanian newspaper Al-Hakika al-Dawliya adds that this is not the only opinion. It cites Sheikh Ali Abu Al-Hassan, head of the Fatwa Committee at Al-Azhar [Sunni Islamic university], who believes that all the Jews who were turned into pigs by Allah died out without reproducing, and therefore there is no relationship between today's pigs and Jews.
The following is the transcript from Al-Moheet Arab News Network:
"CAIRO -- Sheikh Ahmed Ali Othman, supervisor of the Da'awa [Islamic Indoctrination] of the Egyptian Waqf [Islamic Holy places], has issued a Religious Ruling (Fatwa) that pigs in our time have their origins in Jews who angered Allah, such that He turned them into monkeys, pigs, and Satan-worshippers, and it is obligatory to kill and slaughter them [the pigs].
Othman based his ruling on the respected Quranic verse, 'Say [to the People of the Book - Jews and Christians], Come and I shall make known to you who receives the worst retribution of all from Allah: those whom Allah has cursed and upon whom He has poured His wrath, whom He has made into monkeys and pigs, and who have served abominations. Their place is worst of all, and their deviation is the greatest of all...' (Quran, sura 5, verse 60)
Sheikh Othman noted that this verse concerning the nation of the prophet Moses descended [from Allah to the Quran], and the books of commentary confirm this. There are two opinions among the Ulama [Islamic scholars] in this regard: The first is that the Jews, whom Allah transformed and turned into pigs, remained in that state until they died, without producing descendants. The other opinion is that the Jews who turned into pigs multiplied and produced descendants, and their line continues to this day. Sheikh Othman also cited Hadiths (traditions attributed to Muhammad) as support...
The Jordanian newspaper Al-Hakika al-Dawliya quoted Othman: "I personally tend towards the view that the pigs that exist now have their origins with the Jews, and therefore their consumption is forbidden in the words of Allah: 'A carcass, and blood, and the flesh of a pig are forbidden to you....' Moreover, our master Jesus, peace be unto him - one of the tasks that he will fulfill when he descends to earth is the killing of the pigs, and this is proof that their source is Jewish.
Sheikh Othman said that whoever eats pig, it's as if he ate meat of an impure person, and stressed that this Religious Ruling is backed by the Islamic Sages of Al Azhar, but they are afraid to say this publically... so the Sages won't be accused of Anti-Semitism.
Sheikh Ali Abu Al-Hassan, head of the Fatwa Committee at Al-Azhar [Sunni Islamic university], said that the first view is accurate, because when Allah punishes a group of people he punishes only them. When Allah grew angry with the nation of Moses, He turned them into pigs and monkeys as an extraordinary punishment... but they died out without leaving descendants."
[Al-Moheet Arab News Network, May 10, 2009]
[Al-Hakika al-Dawliya, May 9, 2009]
Source: Palestinian Media Watch
because they descend from Jews:
According to Egyptian Islamic scholar
by Itamar Marcus & Barbara Crook, May 13, 2009
All pigs alive today are descendants of the Jews who were turned into pigs by Allah, according to a senior Egyptian religious leader. Since all pigs are descendants of Jews, it is obligatory to kill all pigs, says Sheikh Ahmed Ali Othman.
Presumably if pigs were merely animals, they would not face destruction. It is their Jewish ancestry that condemns them to death.
The Jordanian newspaper Al-Hakika al-Dawliya adds that this is not the only opinion. It cites Sheikh Ali Abu Al-Hassan, head of the Fatwa Committee at Al-Azhar [Sunni Islamic university], who believes that all the Jews who were turned into pigs by Allah died out without reproducing, and therefore there is no relationship between today's pigs and Jews.
The following is the transcript from Al-Moheet Arab News Network:
"CAIRO -- Sheikh Ahmed Ali Othman, supervisor of the Da'awa [Islamic Indoctrination] of the Egyptian Waqf [Islamic Holy places], has issued a Religious Ruling (Fatwa) that pigs in our time have their origins in Jews who angered Allah, such that He turned them into monkeys, pigs, and Satan-worshippers, and it is obligatory to kill and slaughter them [the pigs].
Othman based his ruling on the respected Quranic verse, 'Say [to the People of the Book - Jews and Christians], Come and I shall make known to you who receives the worst retribution of all from Allah: those whom Allah has cursed and upon whom He has poured His wrath, whom He has made into monkeys and pigs, and who have served abominations. Their place is worst of all, and their deviation is the greatest of all...' (Quran, sura 5, verse 60)
Sheikh Othman noted that this verse concerning the nation of the prophet Moses descended [from Allah to the Quran], and the books of commentary confirm this. There are two opinions among the Ulama [Islamic scholars] in this regard: The first is that the Jews, whom Allah transformed and turned into pigs, remained in that state until they died, without producing descendants. The other opinion is that the Jews who turned into pigs multiplied and produced descendants, and their line continues to this day. Sheikh Othman also cited Hadiths (traditions attributed to Muhammad) as support...
The Jordanian newspaper Al-Hakika al-Dawliya quoted Othman: "I personally tend towards the view that the pigs that exist now have their origins with the Jews, and therefore their consumption is forbidden in the words of Allah: 'A carcass, and blood, and the flesh of a pig are forbidden to you....' Moreover, our master Jesus, peace be unto him - one of the tasks that he will fulfill when he descends to earth is the killing of the pigs, and this is proof that their source is Jewish.
Sheikh Othman said that whoever eats pig, it's as if he ate meat of an impure person, and stressed that this Religious Ruling is backed by the Islamic Sages of Al Azhar, but they are afraid to say this publically... so the Sages won't be accused of Anti-Semitism.
Sheikh Ali Abu Al-Hassan, head of the Fatwa Committee at Al-Azhar [Sunni Islamic university], said that the first view is accurate, because when Allah punishes a group of people he punishes only them. When Allah grew angry with the nation of Moses, He turned them into pigs and monkeys as an extraordinary punishment... but they died out without leaving descendants."
[Al-Moheet Arab News Network, May 10, 2009]
[Al-Hakika al-Dawliya, May 9, 2009]
Source: Palestinian Media Watch
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Islamist Terrorism, Terror and Iraq
A briefing by Shimshon Issaki
April 30, 2009
http://www.meforum.org/2136/islamist-terrorism-terror-and-iraq
Shimshon Issaki is a leading expert on Islamic terrorism. He served for 44 years in the IDF and other Israeli security agencies as an intelligence analyst and operations officer, retiring with a rank equivalent to brigadier general. His new book, Terror and Iraq: How We Can Better Combat Islamic Terrorism, evaluates al-Qaeda's strategies and tactics. On April 30, Mr. Issaki addressed the Middle East Forum via conference call.
Shimshon Issaki opened with a holistic overview of al-Qaeda, from its roots in the battle against the Soviets in Afghanistan to its far-reaching terrorist activities during the past two decades.
According to Mr. Issaki, al-Qaeda opposes Christians, Jews, and even other Muslims who do not subscribe to Osama bin Laden's Wahhabi ideology; it seeks to attack and "overthrow all regimes that are non-Muslim," or that adhere to an unacceptable brand of Islam. Its preferred instrument is terrorism.
Mr. Issaki claimed that 9/11 could have been averted "if things had been done in the right way," but he sees similar barriers hindering intelligence work seven years later. In particular, he stated that Barack Obama's release of documents on enhanced interrogation techniques has done "irreversible damage to security because [terrorists] are learning how to behave" during questioning.
Asked whether American-Israeli intelligence cooperation has changed since President Obama took office, Issaki reported that it remains "very good," since "the interests [of the U.S. and Israel] are the same interests, the targets are the same targets, and the experience is the same experience."
However, he noted that significant differences of opinion between the United States and Israel have emerged over Iran, Hamas, and other strategic issues. Mr. Issaki said that the Obama administration may be "correct to explore all the possibilities. But where is the time limit? For how long?" He lamented that nothing has been done to deal with Iran since the U.S. election.
Finally, Mr. Issaki warned that al-Qaeda's demise in Iraq has been greatly exaggerated. Recent events show that the organization still is capable of generating chaos there, to the undisputed benefit of Iran.
Summary account by David Rusin.
Source: The Middle East Forum
April 30, 2009
http://www.meforum.org/2136/islamist-terrorism-terror-and-iraq
Shimshon Issaki is a leading expert on Islamic terrorism. He served for 44 years in the IDF and other Israeli security agencies as an intelligence analyst and operations officer, retiring with a rank equivalent to brigadier general. His new book, Terror and Iraq: How We Can Better Combat Islamic Terrorism, evaluates al-Qaeda's strategies and tactics. On April 30, Mr. Issaki addressed the Middle East Forum via conference call.
Shimshon Issaki opened with a holistic overview of al-Qaeda, from its roots in the battle against the Soviets in Afghanistan to its far-reaching terrorist activities during the past two decades.
According to Mr. Issaki, al-Qaeda opposes Christians, Jews, and even other Muslims who do not subscribe to Osama bin Laden's Wahhabi ideology; it seeks to attack and "overthrow all regimes that are non-Muslim," or that adhere to an unacceptable brand of Islam. Its preferred instrument is terrorism.
Mr. Issaki claimed that 9/11 could have been averted "if things had been done in the right way," but he sees similar barriers hindering intelligence work seven years later. In particular, he stated that Barack Obama's release of documents on enhanced interrogation techniques has done "irreversible damage to security because [terrorists] are learning how to behave" during questioning.
Asked whether American-Israeli intelligence cooperation has changed since President Obama took office, Issaki reported that it remains "very good," since "the interests [of the U.S. and Israel] are the same interests, the targets are the same targets, and the experience is the same experience."
However, he noted that significant differences of opinion between the United States and Israel have emerged over Iran, Hamas, and other strategic issues. Mr. Issaki said that the Obama administration may be "correct to explore all the possibilities. But where is the time limit? For how long?" He lamented that nothing has been done to deal with Iran since the U.S. election.
Finally, Mr. Issaki warned that al-Qaeda's demise in Iraq has been greatly exaggerated. Recent events show that the organization still is capable of generating chaos there, to the undisputed benefit of Iran.
Summary account by David Rusin.
Source: The Middle East Forum
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
