Qasim Rashid2013-05-18T16:07:23-04:00Qasim Rashidhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=qasim-rashidCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Qasim RashidGood old fashioned elbow grease.Do You Even Hear Muslims When We Condemn Violence?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.31255642013-04-22T13:40:55-04:002013-04-22T13:40:45-04:00Qasim Rashidhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/qasim-rashid/
So let me start with the standard roll call: As an American Muslim, I condemn all violence in the name of religion. Terrorism has no religion and Islam is no exception. If the Tsarnaev brothers are guilty of the Boston bombings, then I hope they are brought to justice.
Is that condemnation clear enough? Because I'm pretty sure a whole lot of people instead read blah blah blah blah blah.
Here's the deal. It is a shame that we had to employ 9,000 officers, put our lives on hold for five days, and sacrifice $1 billion in Boston revenue to catch these culprits. It is a shame that Muslim women were assaulted in retaliation, and that's even before we knew who the suspects were. And it is a shame I received threats of anti-Muslim violence and that even my non-Muslim but non-white friends called me, fearing for their safety.
And now the public lynching and double standards against Islam begin. Mental illness was the culprit during Newtown, Conn., Oak Creek, Wis., and Aurora, Colo. More than 70 percent of America's 64 previous mass shooters were white American men. But not one pundit, nor any politician, nor any Muslim has ever asked why White Americans or Christian Americans are not aggressively condemning these acts of terror. After all, why ask such a ludicrous question? Anyone with a functioning cerebrum could comprehend that these terrorists represent only themselves.
But why do our brains shut down when the slightest indication exists that the culprit might maybe possibly be Muslim? No sooner did the Boston tragedy occur -- and even before the slightest indication emerged regarding who perpetrated the attack -- but I received dozens of emails and messages asking why "moderate Muslims" aren't condemning the attack?
Muslims condemned 9/11, we condemned 7/7, we condemned the Fort Hood tragedy, we condemned the underwear bomber, we condemned the Times Square bomber, and now yet again we find ourselves condemning the Boston Bombers on the mere suspicion that they were "motivated by Islam."
And this is why I am unsure if people hear Muslims when Muslims declare -- in response to every violent act or attempt at violence -- that Islam condemns all forms of religious violence and terrorism. Because even after condemning the Boston bombers, I receive messages that the condemnation wasn't "loud enough" or "clear enough" or passionate enough." " In other words, all they heard from me was blah blah blah blah blah.
And the fact is Muslims have gone far beyond mere condemnation but taken action. The Muslims for Life campaign has raised over 25,000 blood donations in the past two years to honor 9/11 victims. The #MyJihad campaign serves to demonstrate Jihad's true meaning. The Muslims for Peace campaign champions true, peaceful Islam. I could go on but hopefully you get the picture.
America is not under threat from radical Islam, but it is under threat from radical ignorance. This ignorance is a far more powerful and far more destructive force than any act of terror. I speak having experienced the horrific after effects of such ignorance.
Some 40 years ago, Pakistan decided to succumb to such ignorance and direct its wrath against my peaceful and pluralistic Muslim sect -- the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. What began as passive discrimination advanced to laws banning our freedom of expression and worship, to now open violence against all religious and belief minorities in Pakistan -- Ahmadi Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Shiite Muslims, Baha'is, and atheists. Pakistan went from a relatively peaceful nation entirely alien to terrorist attacks, to one that suffers through 3,000 civilian deaths from terrorists annually and now devoid of religious freedom.
If Americans have any hope of winning the "war on terror," it won't come from demonizing American Muslims, or Islam in general. It will come from education through interfaith dialogues, joining together in service of humanity, and recognizing that we are all equal human beings in search of similar goals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It will come from all Americans rejecting ignorance and uniting even stronger against extremism that tries to divide us.
The path of radical ignorance is a one way street; if we go down this path, don't expect to come back so easily. As I said, I've tried reasoning with extremists in Pakistan to give up discrimination and favor tolerance.
But all they seem to hear is blah blah blah blah blah.]]>God's Man on Earthtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.28369422013-03-12T18:21:20-04:002013-05-12T05:12:01-04:00Qasim Rashidhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/qasim-rashid/
On the contrary, His Holiness Mirza Masroor Ahmad, the world's only Khalifa and head of the worldwide Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, continues his lifelong Divinely appointed tenure to the office of Khilafat.
To put it directly, in Islam a Khalifa is God's man on earth. He accepts God's will and marches on despite illness, suffering, persecution or any other form of hardship. God's man on Earth does not resign. Instead, only God Himself removes them when the Khalifa eventually passes away. Muslims believe that the Khalifa is divinely appointed as the Holy Spirit guides the election. In essence, it is divine Will with human participation. Resigning is therefore not appropriate. In secular terms it is like an elected monarchy, but a monarch who is obliged to adhere to the tenets of absolute justice and universal equity.
Likewise, a man of God is different than God's man on earth. A man of God is a voluntary position or status -- such as the imam of a mosque. God's man on Earth, however, is an appointed position and therefore a required obligation for the one appointed. The essence of this divinely appointed spiritual leadership is unity of mankind under divine guidance and divine protection.
Despite extreme hardship, the first four Khalifas after Prophet Muhammad's demise maintained their offices until their deaths and therefore maintained unity among Muslims. Likewise, despite immense persecution, the first four Khalifas after Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's demise, who Ahmadi Muslims believe is the Messiah, maintained their offices until their deaths. The current and Fifth Khalifa, His Holiness Mirza Masroor Ahmad, was elected to Khilafat in 2003. Despite being exiled from Pakistan for his faith, increasing persecution against Ahmadi Muslims worldwide and baseless propaganda warning of the "dangers of the Caliphate," the Khalifa has unwaveringly maintained his office.
The Prophet Muhammad declared, "Your leadership will be a reflection of you [the people]." Thus, in the rare cases where chaos, disorder and loss of life may be involved in a Khalifa's election or even removal, it in fact reflects the electing society's spiritual and moral decay. A corrupted people are incapable of electing a righteous Khalifa. In other words, corruption indicates an absence of Divine guidance and protection, and thus a loss of unity through the institution of Khilafat. In the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, during the election of the Second Khalifa, a party chose to reject Khilafat. Those Muslims have since denied themselves of this Divine blessing. Those Muslims who chose to maintain spiritual allegiance to Khilafat, however, have benefited from its continued growth and guidance. But perhaps the most classic example of a dispute in Khilafat in Islamic history occurred after the demise of Ali, the Fourth Khalifa. Infighting and corruption among Muslims not only eventually led to the Sunni-Shiite split, it also meant the end of a unified Khilafat altogether.
And Muslims have since been unable to re-establish Khilafat for a simple reason: Human hands cannot establish a Divine institution. Prophet Muhammad explained clearly that Khilafat is established on the precepts of Prophethood to carry on the Prophet's mission after the Prophet's demise (Masnad Ahmad, 14:163 #18319).
It is on this teaching of Prophet Muhammad that Ahmadi Muslims adhere to the institution of Khilafat, established in 1908 after the demise of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the Messiah. Despite the mockery, persecution and declarations that Ahmadi Muslims are kafir, this era of Khilafat has already lasted beyond a century, is established in more than 200 nations worldwide and continues to thrive. It is no accident that while the Muslim ummah has been unable to re-establish Khilafat for some 1,400 years, the man who claimed to be the long-awaited Divinely appointed Messiah did in fact re-establish Divinely guided Khilafat -- and has been the only one to do so.
So as we await the next pope's election, worry not about whether a Divinely appointed individual exists. He does. His name is Mirza Masroor Ahmad, and he is God's man on Earth.]]>Who Will Take a Bullet for Sherry Rehman?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.27629672013-03-07T14:04:15-05:002013-05-07T05:12:01-04:00Qasim Rashidhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/qasim-rashid/
Last month, Pakistan took the unprecedented step and charged their own ambassador with blasphemy -- a crime that carries the consequence of fine, prison time, and even execution.
As Rehman valiantly fights to improve her nation's image, implores America that her country is moderate and tolerant, and courageously defends Pakistan's domestic and foreign policy, the motherland -- of all places -- proves her wrong.
But state-sanctioned persecution of Rehman is not a surprise -- it's an inevitability and just the latest in a long trend. Pakistan loves to shoot -- literally or figuratively -- anyone or anything who stands up for Pakistan.
In 1992 Pakistan figuratively shot their own Constitution when the Supreme Court championed the nation's draconian blasphemy law in Zaheerudin v State. In a landslide decision, the Court upheld the law without citing a single Pakistani statute, ordinance, or decision. Instead, the Court enforced an invented precedent for all Pakistanis that "might makes right" when they wrote, "The [Ahmadis] who are non-Muslims want to pass off their faith as Islam? ...[a] [Muslim] believer... will not tolerate a Government which is not prepared to save him of such deceptions or forgeries..." Not two decades later this precedent would inspire a "Muslim believer" to haunt Pakistan's highest offices. To protect their beloved blasphemy law, rather than their nation's founding principles of pluralism, Pakistan shot its own Constitution.
In 1996 Pakistan figuratively shot their only Nobel Laureate, God particle pioneer Dr. Abdus Salam, when they literally defaced his tomb to remove the word "Muslim." Dr. Salam was a devout Ahmadi. Thus, Pakistan legally forbids anyone from calling Dr. Salam a Muslim--even after his death. To protect their beloved blasphemy law, rather than celebrate one of histories greatest scientific achievements, Pakistan shot its own citizen.
In 2011, Pakistan's 1992 Supreme Court decision that "might is right" inspired an extremist who violently shot and murdered Punjab Governor Salman Taseer. Taseer condemned Pakistan's blasphemy laws and declared his public mission to see them repealed. The nation did not tolerate this. Governor Taseer's assassin, Mumtaz Qadri, simply embraced the Supreme Court's words that "...[a] [Muslim] believer...will not tolerate a Government which is not prepared to save him of such deceptions or forgeries..." and took vigilante action accordingly. To protect their beloved blasphemy law, rather than allowing the democratic process to proceed, Pakistan shot its own Governor.
In 2011, again, an inspired extremist in Pakistan shot and murdered Shabazz Bhatti, the nation's only Christian federal minister. Bhatti, like Taseer, opposed Pakistan's blasphemy law and made no secret of his intentions to repeal them. Last week, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper courageously inaugurated Canada's first Religious Freedom Ambassador from the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community Canada headquarters in Maple, Ontario. Harper declared, "Shahbaz Bhatti worked tirelessly to defend the vulnerable not only his fellow Christians, but also Hindus, Sikhs, Ahmadi Muslims, and all other minorities. He did so knowing that it placed him under a constant and imminent threat to his life." To protect their beloved blasphemy law, rather than allowing freedom of conscience the chance to reign free, Pakistan shot its own federal minister.
What began in Pakistan with the persecution of Ahmadi Muslims in the 1970s and 1980s, soon spread to the persecution of Hindus, Christians, Shias, and Sufis in the 1990s and 2000s, and is now consuming Pakistan's remaining few pluralistic government officials in the 2010s. In just the past three years alone Pakistan has shot and killed over 119 Ahmadi Muslims, over 200 Shia Muslims, and at least two major politicians. Pakistan continues to shoot its Christian and Hindu citizens, and anyone not deemed the right kind of Muslim -- all to protect their beloved blasphemy law.
And now, as Pakistan shoots its own ambassador in the back, who will take a bullet for Sherry Rehman?
The answer is simple but its performance requires courage. It's a job no one person can do, but instead requires the collective effort, courage, and compassion of all people of all faiths and of all people of no faith. No other logical choice exists but to unite as one community against religious discrimination, oppression of conscience, and violence. As long as Pakistan's blasphemy law lives, those who stand up for freedom and tolerance will continue to fall at the hands of Supreme Court endorsed extremists. Only by working together -- above dogmatic differences and beyond religious bigotry -- can we make the motherland truly deserving of its name, the Land of the Pure.
It is time we joined collectively to take a bullet for the sake of humanity, in hopes our children won't have to.
This piece originally appeared in The Daily Times Pakistan.]]>7 Things About Prophet Muhammad: A Clarificationtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.25630082013-01-28T18:58:32-05:002013-03-30T05:12:01-04:00Qasim Rashidhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/qasim-rashid/7 Things That May Surprise You About Muhammad," author Lesley Hazleton offers unique insights into Prophet Muhammad's life. Giving credit where it is due, I've enjoyed Hazleton's TED talk on Prophet Muhammad, and many of her writings on Islam. In fairness, however, several of her "7 Things" are incorrect. This article mentions and clarifies these matters.
1. He was born an orphan.
Hazleton accurately summarizes Prophet Muhammad's early years but perhaps it is semantically more accurate to say "he was orphaned as a young child." The foster mother who cared for him as an infant and young child was a woman named Haleema. Prophet Muhammad loved her dearly.
2. He married up -- and for love.
Hazleton accurately summarizes Prophet Muhammad's marriage to Hazrat Khadija, but I offer two minor matters of clarification.
First, while Hazleton is correct that the marriages were "a means of diplomatic alliance," Prophet Muhammad was in fact married 11 times, not nine times, after Khadija's death.
Second, Hazleton writes that Muhammad had "[no children] with any of his later wives." Perhaps she meant to say "no children who lived to adulthood" as Prophet Muhammad in fact had at least 11 children with his later wives, each of whom died in infancy or when only a few years old.
3. His first reaction to becoming a Prophet? Doubt and despair.
Hazleton accurately states Prophet Muhammad's fear upon the Angel Gabriel's appearance to him. Imam Bukhari records Prophet Muhammad's initial reaction.
Allah's Apostle returned with the Inspiration, his neck muscles twitching with terror till he entered upon Khadija and said, 'Cover me! Cover me!' They covered him till his fear was over and then he said, 'O Khadija, what is wrong with me?' Then he told her everything that had happened and said, 'I fear that something may happen to me.' Khadija said, 'Never! But have the glad tidings, for by Allah, Allah will never disgrace you as you keep good relations with your Kith and kin, speak the truth, help the poor and the destitute, serve your guest generously and assist the deserving, calamity-afflicted ones.' [1]
Khadija then took Prophet Muhammad to her cousin, Waraqa ibn Nawfal, a Christian Nazarene priest and Biblical scholar. Waraqa further reassured Prophet Muhammad not to fear, but recognized that he experienced precisely what past true Prophets of God experienced. He declared to Prophet Muhammad:
This is the same angel who appeared in times long past to Moses. Would that I might still be alive when you will be turned out of your native city. I could then help you to my heart's content.' Prophet Muhammad responded, 'Shall I be banished from my native city?' Waraqa replied, 'Any man who came with something similar to what you have brought was treated with hostility; and if I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly. [2]
Sadly, Waraqa bin Nawfal died shortly thereafter, but his predictions and recognition of Muhammad's truth were fulfilled in their entirety.
4. He led an early form of Occupy Wall Street.
Hazleton inaccurately compares the Occupy Movement and Prophet Muhammad's propagation of Islam. The two are substantively opposites.
For example, despite facing immense social, economic, and civil injustices Prophet Muhammad wholly forbade causing any form of public disorder or interruption. He did not form any public protests, marches, or resistance movements. No "Occupy Mecca" or "Occupy Kaba" existed. Instead, he preached quietly among family and friends during the first three years of his ministry.
When active persecution began, Prophet Muhammad ordered his companions to worship privately in their homes as to avoid public disorder as much as possible. When persecution intensified, he ordered his followers to migrate to Abyssinia (modern day Ethiopia) and seek refuge under the righteous Christian King Negus. When persecution yet further intensified, he and his companions were boycotted and exiled from Mecca for a near three year period. They lived in a barren valley on the brink of starvation. Even during this intense period of suffering he forbade any form of public protest and disruption. Finally, when persecution reached its climax, he still forbade any form of public protest, and migrated with his companions secretly and peacefully to Medina -- some 240 miles away -- all to preserve peace and avoid public disorder.
Yes, Prophet Muhammad protested social and economic inequality, but not by any comparison to the Occupy Movement. Rather, it was through prayers, patience, and private preaching for peace.
5. He was a pacifist -- at first.
Hazleton mischaracterizes Prophet Muhammad's decisions on when to, and when not to, fight. Dictionary.com defines a pacifist as one who "is opposed to war or violence of any kind."
Though he loathed violence, Prophet Muhammad openly and repeatedly declared his willingness to take up arms to defend his Jewish allies in the Charter of Medina, defend all Christians in his letter to St. Catherine's Monastery, and to follow the Qur'anic commandment to defend all "Synagogues, Churches, Temples, and Mosques" from "being torn down." (22:41) That is, Muhammad considered fighting a last resort but would employ force if it meant defending universal religious freedom. This does not make him a pacifist "at first" or ever, but instead demonstrates his logical rationale, practicality, and recognition that at times, force is needed to ensure self-defense and universal freedom of conscience.
6. He knew how to say he was wrong.
Hazleton is correct that Prophet Muhammad did not let ego dictate his decisions, but her "satanic verses" example is incorrect. In fact, the entire "satanic verses" incident is fabricated. Addressing this alleged incident, esteemed historian and Islamic scholar Hadhrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad cites accepted and ancient scholars, concluding: [3]
...this story is entirely a fabrication, and its forgery is clearly evident from every rational aspect. Hence, the great Muhaddithin and leaders of Hadith, such as 'Allamah 'Ainī, Qazi 'Ayad and 'Allamah Nawawi have expounded with conclusive argumentation that this occurrence is false and nothing more than a fabricated Hadith. Thus, 'Allamah 'Aini writes in debate of this issue: 'This story is evidently negated, both in light of narration and common sense.' [4]
Then, Qazi 'Ayad writes:
'Prudent and reliable individuals have not accepted this narration due to the fact that the narration of this story is confusing, and its authenticity is very weak. Moreover, the manner of its narration is also weak and feeble. In addition, no narrator has successfully traced this narration to the Holy Prophet or any of his companions.' [5]
Furthermore, 'Allamah Nawawi writes:
'Nothing of this narration is correct, neither in the aspect of narration nor in the aspect of common sense.' [6] On the other hand, many A'immah-e-Hadith (scholars of Hadith) have not even made mention of this occurrence. For example, the Sihah Sittah has not even hinted towards it, though mention of the recitation of Surah An-Najm and the prostration of the Quraish is present in it. It is apparent that this narration passed the eyes of the Muhaddithin, who rejected it with belief of its forgery and unreliability. In the same manner, many great Mufassirin [commentators of the Holy Qur'an], such as Imam Razi have declared this instance vain and devoid of truth. [7] Moreover, among the mystics, sagacious ones, the like of Ibni 'Arabi, have stated, 'There exists no truth in this occurrence.' [8]
Thus, no such verse was revealed that compromised the worship of one God and not a shred of evidence traces the incident back to Prophet Muhammad or any of his companions.
Hazleton would more accurately have stated that Prophet Muhammad employed Qur'anic guidance to take consultation from his companions before making a decision. This proved fruitful on many occasions. For example, during preparation for the Battle of Badr, Prophet Muhammad chose a particular camp location for his army. One of his companions suggested an area that would provide a better tactical advantage. Prophet Muhammad, recognizing his companion was correct, readily agreed and moved the entire camp. On another occasion while leading prayer, Prophet Muhammad completed zuhr (afternoon) prayer after only two rakaats instead of the correct four. When his companions inquired whether the prayer had been changed, Prophet Muhammad realized his mistake and immediately completed the full prayer.
7. His tragic failure came at the end.
Hazleton is incorrect both when she states that "he died without designating a successor," and that Prophet Muhammad "paved the way for the divisiveness between Sunni and Shiite that persists today."
First, the Sunni-Shia split did not occur until roughly 30 years after Prophet Muhammad died. While three decades is not terribly long, Muslims remained united through four separate Khalifas during that time, demonstrating that their ultimate divisiveness was their own doing, not Prophet Muhammad's.
Second, the early Muslims did in fact follow Prophet Muhammad's guidance and united under Abu Bakr as the first Khalifa. Before his demise Muhammad declared, "It does not behoove a people who have Abu Bakr among them to have anybody other than him as their imam." [9] Today -- centuries after the Sunni/Shia split -- Muslims argue and dispute over what a hadith may or may not have meant. But actions speak louder than words, and actions demonstrate that all Muslims did in fact unite willingly under the Khalifa of the time, Abu Bakr.
Third, Shia Muslims today claim that Prophet Muhammad clearly appointed Ali as his successor. If that is the case, then the onus is still on Muslims for not obeying Prophet Muhammad's orders. In other words, whether we believe the Sunni rendition or the Shia rendition -- both renditions prove that the split occurred because of a disagreement among Muslims, not because of any failure on Prophet Muhammad's behalf.
Finally, and all of the above notwithstanding, Islam is a religion which forbids compulsion. Islam is not a political ideology or sovereign nation that demands absolute loyalty. What religion on Earth did not divide into sects over dogmatic disagreements after its founder's demise? The Sunni/Shia split -- while not desirable -- is a reflection of Islam's protection of freedom of conscience and permission to have disagreements. To allude to such protection as a "tragic failure" is incorrect.
Summary: In short, Hazleton has historically provided worthwhile analysis on Islam and Prophet Muhammad and should be commended and appreciated for doing so. In this piece, however, Hazleton commits a few errors, and I hope these clarifications help set the record straight.
Footnotes:
[1] Sahih Jami' Bukhari Vol. 1, Book 1, #3.
[2] Sahih Jami' Bukhari Vol. 4, Book 55, #605.
[3] Mirza Bashir Ahmad, Seal of the Prophets Volume 1 209-11 (2011) available at http://www.alislam.org/holyprophet/Seal-of-Prophets-Vol-1.pdf.
[4] 'Umdatul-Qārī Sharḥu Ṣaḥīḥil-Bukhārī, Vol. 19, pg. 313, Kitābu Tafsīril-Qur'ān, Sūratul-Qamar, Under the verse "Fasjudū lillāhi wa'budūhu" [An-Najm (53:63)], Dārul-Iḥyā'it-Turāthil-'Arabī, Beirut, Lebanon, Edition 2003.
[5] Sharḥul-'Allāmatiz-Zarqānī 'alal-Mawāhibil-Ladunniyyah, By Muḥammad bin 'Abdul-Bāqī Az-Zarqānī, Vol. 2, pg. 25, Bābu Dukhūlish-Sha'bi wa Khabriṣ-Ṣaḥīfah, Dārul Kutubil-'Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebehon, First Edition (1996) (emphasis added).
[6] Al-Minhāju bi-Sharḥi Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim bin Al-Ḥajjāj, p. 533, Kitābul-Masājid wa Mawāḍi'iṣ-Ṣalāh, Bābu Sujūdit-Tilāwah, Dāru Ibni Hazam, First Edition (2002).
[7] At-Tafsīrul-Kabīr, By Imām Muḥammad bin 'Umar bin Al-Ḥusain Fakhr-ud-Dīn Ar-Rāzī, Vol. 23, pg. 44-48, Tafsīru Sūratil-Ḥajj, Verse 53, Dārul-Kutubil-'Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon, Second Edition (2004).
[8] Sharḥul-'Allāmatiz-Zarqānī 'alal-Mawāhibil-Ladunniyyah, By Muḥammad bin 'Abdul-Bāqī Az-Zarqānī, Vol. 2, pg. 25, Bābu Dukhūlish-Sha'bi wa Khabriṣ-Ṣaḥīfah, Dārul-Kutubil-'Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebehon, First Edition (1996).
[9] Tirmidhi:3673]]>Richard Dawkins Follows Prophet Muhammad's Teaching on Freedomtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.23635272012-12-26T22:55:16-05:002013-02-25T05:12:01-05:00Qasim Rashidhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/qasim-rashid/probably has a more damaging effect on a child's mental well-being than sincerely believing in hell."
Dawkins' comparison is nothing short of ridiculous. Those convinced and suffering from the belief in hell can always choose not to believe -- as many do when older. Those who suffer sexual abuse can never "undo" the experience no matter how much time passes. It is much simpler to forget a fabricated hell than a real-life hell. Dawkins -- himself the victim of sexual abuse and not the victim of mental abuse regarding hell -- unfortunately ignores this fact.
Meanwhile, to remedy this alleged mental abuse of hell, Dawkins proposes that children not be taught about any particular faith, and instead enjoy full liberty upon adulthood as to whether they wish to believe in God, or not.
Dawkins' bizarre aforementioned comparison aside, as one who believes in God, I agree that every human being should have a carte blanche right to choose first, whether they even believe in God, and second, if so -- to which faith they choose to reach that God.
Dawkins, likely inadvertently, has endorsed (without crediting) a principle Prophet Muhammad championed 1400 years prior. The Qur'an categorically condemned any form of religious compulsion by declaring in no uncertain terms, "There shall be no compulsion in religion" (2:256). This remarkable verse extends beyond just religion as the word translated into "religion" is deen. Deen encompasses any form of thinking, ideology, or intellectual perspective--not just religion. Islam forbids compulsion regarding any of them.
Likewise, the Qur'an, in 22:39-41, commands Muslims to protect all houses of worship -- temples, churches, synagogues, and mosques -- so that freedom of conscience remains free. That is, the Qur'an provides muscle to ban compulsion of conscience. It is the only ancient scripture -- religious or secular -- to both specifically champion, and also provide muscle, to protect universal freedom of conscience.
Moreover, Dawkins should be pleased to know that the Qur'an condemns employing mental trauma to coerce belief. In 10:100 the Qur'an says, "And if thy Lord had enforced His will, surely, all who are on the earth would have believed together. Wilt thou, then, force men to become believers?" That is, if God does not Himself compel mankind -- who the hell is any individual to do so? The Islam that Prophet Muhammad taught -- in vast contrast to some extremist regimes we see and condemn today--was an Islam that championed universal freedom of conscience, and forbade everyone from compelling anyone.
But speaking of hell, in comparing Islam's afterlife concept to Dawkins' concept of no after life -- it is only Dawkins' teaching that would frighten children -- or adults. Dawkins would have children believe that after we lose consciousness and die, our bodies simply rot, are eaten by worms and insects, emit a putrid odor, and our self-awareness is destroyed into an eternal agnostic void of nothingness. All our joys, pleasures, friends, loved ones, families--everything we ever held near and dear is all left to eventual death and destruction, never to be seen or heard from again.
Islam, instead, teaches that once we lose consciousness and die, our bodies are no longer needed, but our consciousness lives on through our souls. God judges our souls by our willful actions in this life -- namely our service to God and our service to humanity. Those who commit violence, injustice, and treachery are likewise held accountable for their willful informed actions. That said, Islam does not monopolize salvation but instead repeatedly declares that non-Muslims can and will enter heaven. Finally, Islam teaches that hell is not an "eternal place of torment and damnation," but a limited place, described as a "nursing mother," in which our souls are spiritually cleansed and eventually admitted to paradise. In Islam, heaven, not hell, is eternal. And heaven affords us that opportunity -- if God wills -- to eternally reunite with our loved ones and relive our joys, free of pain and suffering.
In comparing Dawkins' version of death to Islam's version of life after death, it is Dawkins who needs to follow his own advice and not torment children -- or adults -- with such a horrifying, depressing scenario of oblivion.
And those who insist that Dawkins' version is "reality" while Islam's version is "fantasy" fall into the same trap as believers who insist their version alone is "reality" while all others are "fantasy." But rather than dwell on this dispute, we instead return to the principle on which Dawkins agrees with Islam: Freedom of conscience must remain free.
Yes, whether he admits it or not, Dawkins is endorsing Prophet Muhammad's teaching. And while hell just might have frozen over, perhaps we can work together to a world of freer consciences and fewer mental abuses.]]>Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.23341402012-12-20T10:32:13-05:002013-02-19T05:12:01-05:00Qasim Rashidhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/qasim-rashid/
Islam's answer to the question of suffering does not serve to "justify" or mitigate the pain associated with the horror of losing a child. Nor does it serve to apply blame to any person, entity, or worldview. Rather, it provides a perspective that directly answers: Why do bad things happen to good people?
First, suffering is not some experience that exists on its own. Rather, it is intimately intertwined with our growth as a species -- with the experiences we call pleasure. Recognition of suffering delineates between good and bad, pleasure and pain. As the old saying goes, necessity is the mother of innovation.
That is, the greater degree of self-awareness we achieve, the greater degree of loss and gain we recognize. For example, imagine a grown, mature adult, devastated at being sent to his room for misbehaving, instead of being allowed to play outside. This would seem obscure. Now, imagine the same scenario but the person is my 3-year-old. For a 3-year-old child's awareness, this behavior makes more sense.
Likewise, imagine a person who loses his residence, mode of transportation, and anything more than the clothes on his back -- but carries on as if nothing has changed. This would seem obscure. Now imagine the same scenario but the person is an infant child. For an infant child's awareness, this behavior makes more sense.
Suffering is painful, but not inherently unjust. It would be unjust only if it existed on its own, with no complimentary level of pleasure. Without suffering, pleasure would also cease to exist. Such a scenario in which we are all equal -- knowing neither pleasure nor pain -- is counter to reality. With individuality and intelligence comes recognition of gain and loss -- and thus recognition of pleasure and pain. The two are inseparable.
But what is God's role in this?
Well, for the atheist this is a non-issue. God cannot be blamed because God does not exist. Chance created everything; chance determined that a random person would have experiences that would motivate him to murder 26 individuals who per chance were his victims on that fateful day. That is not to say atheists even slightly endorse, justify or anything less than condemn this horrible act. It merely points out that if God has no role, then any pleasure or suffering we understand is mere chance. Our free will may influence this chance to some degree of certainty, but when abused, that same free will may make things that much more unpredictable -- as this horrific shooting exemplifies. The only escape to end the cycle of pleasure and pain is when we all ultimately lose consciousness and die.
For the believer, however, God plays a substantive role. Prophet Muhammad, who suffered the deaths of 11 children, taught that when bad things happen to good people -- or to any people -- to maintain patience while expressing grief, and to maintain trust in God. In a famous letter he wrote to one of his companions, M'uaz bin Jabal, when M'uaz's son died, Muhammad wrote, "If you get to know, how much return and recompense has been granted to you for [your loss], then this loss would appear very meager in your eye."
In other words, for believers, this life is both sacred and transitory to the next life, in which pleasure exists independent of suffering, and we will be recompensed for what was taken from us in this life.
None of the above mitigates the pain and suffering every person -- particularly the family members -- feels after the Newtown tragedy, or after any tragedy. Nor should it. But it does explain why suffering exists -- as a byproduct of our increased awareness and increased pleasure, not independent of it. For the believer and atheist alike, death is an escape from this cycle of pleasure and pain. But for the believer, death is not an end, but a transition to an eternal life in which pleasure reigns supreme, and pain is left behind, alone.
A version of this article appeared in the Washington Post.]]>Gunning for a Safer Americatag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.23270072012-12-19T10:22:36-05:002013-02-18T05:12:01-05:00Qasim Rashidhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/qasim-rashid/26 innocent souls to rest, we ask yet again -- for the 19th time in the past 60 months alone -- is this the America we envisioned?
Please spare me the "it isn't the right time to talk about gun laws" talking point. In fact, the right time was much earlier -- like after Oak Creek, Boulder, or after Representative Giffords' assassination attempt. But perhaps we are waiting for the 20th mass shooting to react.
Author Lois McMaster Bujold writes, "The dead cannot cry out for justice. It is a duty of the living to do so for them." Charlotte, Daniel, Rachel, Olivia, Josephine, Ana, Dylan, Dawn, Madeleine, Catherine, Chase, Nancy, Jesse, James, Grace, Ann Marie, Emelie, Jack, Noah, Caroline, Jessica, Avielle, Lauren, Mary, Victoria, Benjamin, and Allison can no longer cry out for justice -- but we must.
The problem, however, stems much deeper than gun control, and delves into personal accountability, or the lack thereof, in our country.
We lead the world in gun possession -- three times as much as the second-place nation -- indicating our nation loves individual liberties. Meanwhile, with a world-leading rate of incarcerations, our nation also loves imprisoning and stripping its citizens of those individual liberties.
We rightfully mourn that 20 innocent children died in this brutal and preventable act of gun violence. Meanwhile, we unjustly ignore that every day, thousands of innocent children die a slow, agonizing, and preventable death due only to hunger.
We proudly wear "support the troops" stickers and bumper stickers -- hoping and praying every soldier returns home safe and sound. Meanwhile, we ignore that we live in an America in which gun violence since 1968 has killed more Americans than all Americans killed in all wars in American history -- combined.
The current system is broken. The entire world, and at least half of Americans can see that, and America needn't be held paralyzed by the other half. The path to change comes via an idea Congress considers mythological -- compromise.
And compromise abhors embracing extremes. Thus, two impractical ideas should be done away with: ban all guns categorically and to require all to have a gun.
Compromise fortunately pushes both sides to another method many Americans consider mythological -- personal accountability.
Applied, compromise recognizes that one in five Americans suffers or periodically suffers from some sort of mental illness. That being the case, compromise protects the 80 percent from the 20 percent by restricting them from carrying or purchasing guns in the first place.
Compromise recognizes that assault rifles belong in the battlefield, not in Marshall Field's. I appreciate the gun enthusiasts precious desire to hunt big game, but not only is that "right" not a constitutional guarantee, my kid's life is infinitely more important than your 12-point buck.
Finally, compromise closes loopholes; for example, at gun shows where purchasing guns is far easier than buying a car. It standardizes gun purchasing through a national federal venue, runs uniform criminal background checks, and requires a 28-day waiting period like Canada. And because even a car loan requires guarantors while any fool can buy an assault rifle at Walmart, compromise requires the gun purchaser to also provide credible references and guarantors.
This debate isn't just about gun violence. It is about ensuring only the most responsible people handle guns, therefore maximizing risk mitigation. Martin Luther King delivered a moving 1963 eulogy for martyred children, "We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produces the murderers."
Thus, this discussion is about better ensuring the pursuit of liberty, the right to safely attend school, a Gurdwara, a mall, or a hospital, and the right to never have to bury your child. Indeed, unless we learn to compromise for responsible gun control -- we'll only continue to compromise life and liberty.]]>Prophet Muhammad's Rules of Wartag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.21693092012-11-26T11:00:31-05:002013-01-26T05:12:01-05:00Qasim Rashidhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/qasim-rashid/
Prophet Muhammad is history's first major figure to condemn collateral damage in word and deed. His advanced rules of war established 1,400 years ago a yet unmatched humanitarian standard. And herein lies the solution to modern conflict. The Quran first describes when fighting is permitted:
Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged... Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, 'Our Lord is God' -- And if God did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down temples and churches and synagogues and mosques... (22:40-41).
Thus, the permission -- not commandment -- to fight is defensive. And that fighting protects temples, churches, synagogues, and mosques -- which is to say, universal religious freedom.
While critics and extremist groups both love to cite Quranic excerpts like "kill them where ye find them," they ignore that such verses clearly refer to treatment of those who would violently persecute Christians, Jews, or any person because of his faith. Indeed, Muhammad commanded the following uncompromising rules of war:
O people! I charge you with ten rules; learn them well... for your guidance in the battlefield! Do not commit treachery, or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.
Thus, Muhammad's rules of war permit defensive fighting against active combatants while forbidding harm to anyone or anything else -- human, animal, or property. Contrast this with Hamas rocket attacks and PIJ terrorist attacks -- the distinction is clear. Likewise, as Gaza's death count rises, Israel also has blood on its hands. According to Muhammad's rules of war, no justification exists for either side to attack civilians, property, animals, or anyone who is not an active combatant.
And even against combatants, Muhammad put Muslims on notice. Once, Usama bin Zaid overcame an enemy soldier in hand-to-hand combat. The soldier implored Usama for amnesty just as Usama prepared to deliver the deathblow. Usama heard but ignored the plea and killed him anyway. Learning of this, Muhammad vociferously condemned Usama's act as repulsive to Islamic rules of war.
Mind you, this combatant persecuted Muslims, helped exile them from Mecca, pursued them to murder them, and even then Muhammad required Usama to accept his amnesty plea -- knowing full well the plea could be a lie.
Muhammad assumed this risk because he refused to forsake any opportunity for peace. After Muhammad, the Khalifa Umar, and centuries later, the legendary Muslim General Salahuddin, again demonstrated these principles. Both insisted Jews return to Jerusalem -- as equals -- whereas they suffered immense persecution under Christian rule.
Even ardent critics of Islam such as Sir William Muir admit that Muslims treated POWs with immense dignity. Captives were well fed and ransoms were according to their means. Indigent captives, meanwhile, "were allotted ten boys to be taught the art of writing" as a ransom.
A ransom of education -- an example Hamas and PIJ have forgotten, and one Israel doesn't know.
History demonstrates that Muhammad's rules of war -- when applied with justice -- lead to peace. If applied today, Muhammad's rules can end not only collateral damage, but war itself.
This article originally appeared in The Daily Beast.]]>America's 90 Million Voter Problemtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20186972012-11-01T15:35:39-04:002013-01-01T05:12:01-05:00Qasim Rashidhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/qasim-rashid/
And I've certainly played my part in this abysmal turnout. This November is my first time voting in a presidential election, despite my third opportunity to do so. So what changed my mind? The Founding Fathers? The high stakes? The barrage of political ads airing in my swing state of Virginia?
The answer is none of the above. I find political ads annoying. Let's not kid ourselves--stakes are always high in a presidential election. And while I love my country, something about our Founding Fathers shedding their blood to vote while destroying Native Americans takes the air out of my sail.
So why vote? Well, let me explain with an analogy. Think, for a moment, about your religious beliefs. Perhaps you are a conservative Christian. Maybe you're a reformed Jew. You could be Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Mormon, a Pagan, Buddhist or perhaps an atheist. Now, contemplate your reaction if you went to the polls to vote but were turned away -- on account of your faith or faithlessness -- and nothing else.
Imagine the anger, humiliation and helplessness you'd feel.
Now, let's add some salt on the wound. Imagine if you could vote, but it meant you had to sign a form first, declaring your own heresy. For Christians the form might declare, "I, ______, hereby declare Jesus Christ to be false and heretical." (God forbid). Muslims might be forced to write, "I, ______, declare that Muhammad was not a Prophet of God." (Again, God forbid). Atheists may have to declare, "I, ______, declare that I believe in God as my savior and consider anyone who rejects God to be a liar destined for hell." (God...er...the Constitution forbid such compulsion). Yet, if that were all it took for you to vote, would you do it?
I didn't think so.
But as a member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, this is the reality I face at the poll booth in Pakistan -- along with roughly 4 million other Pakistani Ahmadi Muslims. For some 30 years now, Pakistan has effectively disenfranchised Ahmadi Muslims solely because we believe the long-awaited Messiah has come in the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Rest assured, I am not about to preach dogma to you. But this background puts in perspective this grotesque human rights violation.
For Ahmadi Muslims to vote in Pakistan, we must fulfill one of two federally enforced requirements. Option one: declare yourself a kafir, i.e. a non-believer, a non-Muslim. Doesn't seem too enticing? Option two isn't much better: declare Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the Messiah and the founder of the Ahmadiyya Community, to be a false prophet. If that also isn't alluring, a third option exists -- don't vote and let the political process remain in the hands of those who legitimize state sanctioned persecution of religious minorities.
And the consequences have been devastating.
Voter disenfranchisement has enabled Pakistan to pass anti-blasphemy laws that prescribe fine, prison time and death for Ahmadi Muslims -- and Christians, Hindus, Shiites and atheists -- who "offend" the majority. In the last decade, this growing persecution has resulted in more than 3,000 civilian deaths from terrorists -- every single year. What began in Pakistan as systemic persecution of Ahmadi Muslims 30 years ago has now exploded (pun intended) into an annual 9/11.
Our government is far from perfect, but at least we can vote without the proverbial (or literal) gun to our heads. So I say to the 90 million Americans who won't vote this year -- don't take this right for granted. If nothing else, vote for the simple reason I am voting this election -- because I can.
This article originally appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.]]>Why Muslims Hate Americatag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19050812012-10-06T19:19:41-04:002012-12-06T05:12:01-05:00Qasim Rashidhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/qasim-rashid/America is about freedom, free speech, and democracy--why do Muslims hate us?" The question is not at all why they hate us, but why don't we get it.
Many of age Americans remember Sept. 11, 2001--a day we justly cried out for freedom, free speech, and democracy. Fewer, however, remember Sept. 11, 1973 when America backed dictator Augusto Pinochet's forces to overthrow and kill Chile's democratically elected President Salvador Allende.
Many of age Americans remember March 20, 2003, the day America preemptively invaded and obliterated Iraq to unseat dictator Saddam Hussein--while killing 100,000 Iraqi civilians. Fewer, however, remember the December 1983 meeting between Donald Rumsfeld and Hussein, designed to emphasize America's "close relationship" with Iraq as an ally. The regime America destroyed in 2003, American tax dollars built two decades prior.
Few Americans remember that America long supported Libya's dictator Moammar Gaddafi before citing democracy to wash our hands clean. We championed Egypt's dictator Hosni Mubarak before demanding his arrest and conviction. We supported Pakistan's dictator General Zia--who helped Talibanize Pakistan and was the brainchild of Pakistan's infamous blasphemy laws that suffocate free speech. A mysterious plane crash ended Zia's reign, robbing our State Department the opportunity to personally crucify him.
In viewing America through this foreign policy lens, freedom, free speech, and democracy suddenly seem blurry. So why do "they" hate us? It should be obvious by now. Opportunistic clerics find little difficulty pointing to this suspect American government foreign policy as examples of the American people worldview. Citizens of such nations view anti-Islam propaganda emerging from the United States as stemming from the US. government itself--not private citizens. Thus, the U.S. Embassy in Libya needed to actively disassociate from the vitriol spewed in Innocence of Muslims--not to apologize for free speech, but to clearly demonstrate that they did not endorse the message conveyed.
And this is not just about "thin-skinned" Muslims. Americans must recognize that our free speech model is unique--and not just unique from the Muslim world. European nations, for example, impose limitations that Americans would consider First Amendment violations. In Germany, publicly denying the Holocaust earns a prison sentence. The United Kingdom enforces anti-trolling laws, making it illegal to create a website for the sole purpose of mocking a living person. Citing cultural supremacy, France has banned Muslim women from wearing a veil in public--enforcing a government-mandated dress code. (Yet, France strangely applies a different standard to justify publishing vitriolic anti-Islam cartoons).
Our image in many Muslim majority nations is that of a people who support dictators when convenient for oil and economic gain and overthrow them when not--all the while preaching the free speech, democracy, and freedom that we don't practice.
But lest we be guilty of speaking in generalities, "they" who hate us, still actually represent the vast minority of the Muslim world. Last June, several dozen Muslim leaders representing numerous different Islamic organizations convened at a Capitol Hill summit on Islam and world peace. His Holiness, Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, head of the worldwide Ahmadiyya Muslim Community delivered the keynote address, after which the House passed a bipartisan resolution commending him for promoting "individual and world peace, and individual and world justice." Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia thanked Ahmad for "supporting a special envoy to advocate for religious minorities in Middle East." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi remarked, "You spoke out on violence and tolerance even among Muslims because calling for the destruction of churches and synagogues is a violation of human rights." Likewise, Minn. Congressman Keith Ellison added, "We're honored by your presence...under your leadership the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has been a true blessing for us here in the U.S."
Free speech is crucial to any society's growth and maturation--but must be exercised responsibly. And since true freedom abhors enforced civility, Muslims must actively educate themselves. Ignorance to America's free speech principles and anger at America's unjust foreign policy are not excuses for Muslims to respond to mockery with violence. Islam categorically forbids such violence. Prophet Muhammad, accordingly, demonstrated a life of patience in the face of insults and persecution--even forgiving those who previously attempted to assassinate his person. Why then, should violence be the response to those who attempt to assassinate his character?
So please, enough of the questions. Muslims do not hate America. Muslims in the East, like non-Muslim Americans in the West, both hate injustice. Peace is possible despite free speech differences--but only by joining together against injustice.
This piece was originally published here in the Washington Post.]]>The Honorable Lord Krishna: A Prophet Of Allahtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.17590492012-08-09T11:35:53-04:002012-10-09T05:12:04-04:00Qasim Rashidhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/qasim-rashid/
The obvious question that emerges is that if the same God sent Lord Krishna and Prophet Muhammad, why do Islam and Hinduism have notable theological differences? Simply put, Islam only argues that the original core teachings of Hinduism and Islam are the same -- the unity of God and the obligation to serve mankind. Furthermore, nothing in the Quran, Sunnah or Hadith declares that Lord Krishna was not a prophet. Thus, this short article offers nine points to consider -- together -- that Lord Krishna is a true prophet of God, a prophet whom Muslims also revere along with their fellow Hindu neighbors.
1. First, the Quran is the only ancient scripture that specifically mentions and praises other faiths. While the Quran mentions Jews and Christians specifically, in numerous places, likewise, it mentions Hindus in a group known as the Sabians. Sabians refer to non-Abrahamic traditions -- Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Taoists, etc. Thus, recognition of Hinduism exists in the Quran.
2. Islam teaches six Articles of Faith. The Fourth Article of Faith is the belief in all of God's prophets. This simple Article of Faith provides further credence to recognizing Lord Krishna as a prophet sent to the Indian subcontinent.
3. The Quran is clear that God's Divine guidance is not exclusive to any one people. Rather the Quran says that God sent "messengers to every people" (10:48) and "We raised among every people a messenger" (16:37). Prophet Muhammad further declared that God has sent no less than 124,000 prophets to mankind throughout history (Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, 5, 169) of which only 28 are mentioned in the Quran. None of those 28 prophets are mentioned as being sent to the Indian subcontinent. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable that Lord Krishna is one of the many prophets God sent with His Divine message.
4. Segueing from the previous point, the Quran clearly declares, "And We sent some Messengers whom We have already mentioned to thee and some Messengers whom We have not mentioned to thee..." (4:165). Thus, to declare that Lord Krishna is not a prophet simply because the Quran does not mention him is a meritless argument.
5. Remarkably, Prophet Muhammad declared, "There was a prophet of God in India who is dark in color and his name was Kahan [Krishna]" (History of Hamadan Dailmi Chapter Al-Kaaf). Some critics allege this is not a Sahih (authentic) hadith, and while their assessment could be valid, their conclusion that the hadith should be discarded is invalid. Basic Islamic jurisprudence holds that if a hadith does not contradict the Quran, then it may be accepted as valid. As mentioned earlier, nothing in the Quran, Sunnah or Hadith declare that Lord Krishna was not a prophet of God. Thus, Prophet Muhammad's testimony provides clear guidance of Lord Krishna's status in Islam -- that of a prophet. In fact, a renowned early 19th century Muslim scholar, Muhammad Qasim Nanotwi also was of the opinion that considering the evidence and this hadith, Lord Krishna was a true Prophet of God (Dharam Parchar Pg 8 & Debate Shah Jahan Pur Pg 31).
6. Islam's Third Article of Faith is the Belief in God's Books. This is why Muslims revere the Injeel (Gospels) and Torah (Old Testament). Thus, it is only logical that Muslims also revere the Gita and Vedas, Hinduism's holy scriptures from which Lord Krishna taught.
7. Earlier I mentioned that both Islam and Hinduism teach the unity of God and service of mankind -- a message both Prophet Muhammad and Lord Krishna taught. In fact, the Vedas state, "There is only one God, worship Him" (Rig Veda, 6.45.16) and "Do not worship any one beside Him" (Rig Veda 8.1.1) and also, "God is only one, not a second" (Chandogya Upanishad Ch. 6.2.1). Furthermore, countless verses in the Vedas teach the service of mankind. For example, "Oh Noble men! We do not commit violence. We do not hurt others. We do not quarrel either. We of course chant Vedas and act according to its dictates" (Rig Veda 10.134.7) and "Every man should protect the other in all respects" (Atharva 6.64.1). Again, while admitted theological differences exist between Islam and Hinduism today, no doubt exists that Prophet Muhammad and Lord Krishna both taught God's unity and service to mankind.
8. Furthermore, Lord Krishna's scriptures clearly prophesize Prophet Muhammad's advent in multiple places. We provide just two. Bhavisyath Purana 3:5-8 states, "A spiritual reformer will come from a foreign land (outside Bharat) with his disciples. His name will be Mahamad. He will dwell in a desert." Likewise, "His [Mahamad's] followers will perform circumcision. They will not keep their hair in the form of Choti as the Brahmans do. They will keep beard. They will bring about a revolution. They will call with a loud voice [i.e. Adhaan]. They will eat meat of animals other than that of swine. They will attain purity through Jihad. Their civilization will be called Muslay [Muslim]." For the sake of brevity we will avoid further commentary on these verses as they speak volumes on their own. Suffice it to say, however, that these verses further support the argument that the same God who sent Prophet Muhammad, sent Lord Krishna. Earlier we provided Prophet Muhammad's hadith validating Lord Krishna, and now we provide Lord Krishna's holy scripture validating Prophet Muhammad. What further proof do we need that Prophet Muhammad and Lord Krishna are brothers cut from the same mold?
9. Finally, in the Quran, God gives Prophet Muhammad the auspicious title of Khataman Nabiyeen or Seal of the Prophets (33:41). While some limit this title's meaning to "last," from Hadith and authentic Arabic lexicon it is clear that the true import of "Seal" is Greatness and Validation. That is, Prophet Muhammad is called not only the greatest prophet, but also the Validation of all prophets. Thus, it makes perfect sense why Prophet Muhammad specifically called Lord Krishna a Prophet -- part of his purpose in coming was to declare to the world that God did not abandon any people. Rather, God sent His guidance and prophets to all people. In doing so, Prophet Muhammad validated Lord Krishna's truthfulness -- something no prophet of any faith outside of Islam has done. Thus, as human beings we must honor and revere all those prophets because the same God sent each of them -- Lord Krishna being no exception.
In short, Prophet Lord Krishna was a noble, righteous, beloved one of God. Far from theological division, he is a source of unity and accord between Hindus and Muslims.]]>The Wrong Kind of Muslim: An Untold Story of Persecutiontag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.15864852012-06-14T13:32:38-04:002012-08-14T05:12:09-04:00Qasim Rashidhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/qasim-rashid/
"In the end, they killed eight of my brothers, and shot 20 more."
I listened silently as Yusef related the events of that ominous October day in 2005, in his hometown of Mong, Pakistan. The two men belonged to a Taliban offshoot. The 50 innocent worshipers were Ahmadi Muslims. In Pakistan, Ahmadi Muslims are nothing more than the Wrong Kind of Muslims, and therefore declared worthy of death.
But Pakistan remained silent.
And the story did not end in Mong. Not long after, eight Christians from Gojra, Pakistan would be burned alive on account of their faith. Every day, another Hindu woman is kidnapped, raped and forcibly "converted" to Islam. Wait until Maharram and Shiite Muslims become the national target of choice. If you are an atheist, you ostensibly don't exist -- and if you are street smart, you won't exist in the public eye. Then on May 28, 2010, the Taliban returned to brutally murder another 86 Ahmadi Muslims, and one Christian -- in broad daylight with police watching.
And Pakistan remained silent.
But Pakistan was not always like this. My father, born just three years after Pakistan's birth, tells me of a time when millions flocked to Pakistan as the land of opportunity. Today, as one-third want to leave, Prime Minister Gilani callously retorts, "Why don't they leave then, who is stopping them?" My father reminds me of a time when Pakistan's founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah specifically appointed non-Muslims to his cabinet to champion Pakistan's pluralistic platform. Last year, Pakistan's only non-Muslim federal Minister, a Christian named Shabazz Bhatti, was assassinated because he specifically championed Pakistan's pluralistic platform. Likewise, Governor Salman Taseer -- the single politician to speak up for Ahmadi Muslims -- was brutally murdered for doing so. My father tells me when the dream of Pakistan was to give India's persecuted Muslim minority the priceless opportunity to build the world's greatest, most tolerant nation. Today, Pakistan endows Salman Taseer's assassin as a hero and sentences the doctor who helped kill Osama bin Laden to 33 years in prison.
Yet Pakistan remains silent.
I ask my father about Pakistan's beautiful beginnings because they are things I have never seen. By the time I was born in Rawalpindi, Pakistan in the early '80s, I was already a constitutional kafir (legally declared non-Muslim). I was a criminal by age 2 because uttering asalaamo alaikum to my father, while being a legally declared non-Muslim, was a crime. By age 4, I was liable to receive capital punishment from the Pakistani government simply for believing that Muhammad is only the greatest prophet, but not the last prophet.
In my adopted country, America, I needn't deal with such bigotry. Here, no one calls me the Wrong Kind of Muslim, no one can silence my words and no one can silence my right to believe -- or not believe -- as I wish.
But for millions of Ahmadi Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Shias and atheists living in Pakistan, what began as state sanctioned persecution of the Wrong Kind of Muslims has now spread into an all out war against anyone not deemed the right kind of human.
We must remain silent no more.
While the silenced suffer in deafening agony, I am striving to make their voices heard. My humble effort launches with my story, "The Wrong Kind of Muslim," for which I am building a base on kickstarter.com. My sincere hope is that this book gives voice to the millions who have had their voices ripped away -- ripped away through terrorism, rape, burnings, unjust laws, an apartheid government and a silent majority.
And I hope you do not remain silent.
It won't be long before another helpless curtain is all that remains between another madman with a Kalashnikov and dozens of innocent human beings. A bigger Kalashnikov in response is not the answer. But, the voice of reason and compassion through the power of the pen is more powerful a weapon than any force on Earth can withstand.
Join me, The Wrong Kind of Muslim, to give those innocent people a voice. Help me ensure that from now on, millions do not go silently into the night.]]>Geert Wilders, Marked For Death: A Muslim's Responsetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.15378842012-05-23T17:19:33-04:002012-07-23T05:12:05-04:00Qasim Rashidhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/qasim-rashid/Expelled from Britain, banned from Indonesia, denounced by the UN Secretary General ... Wilders is unbowed and unapologetic."
After having read his book, another word to describe Wilders comes to mind: uninformed.
Wilders promises many things in his book, above all that, "we must speak the truth." Wilders does not fulfill his promises, however, and his disregard for truth is the most astounding. While one opinion editorial cannot possibly respond to an entire book, I illustrate below some of the more grotesque misrepresentations that Wilders proposes. Still, this article is not censorship; read his effort at your leisure.
Wilders' errors manifest in three manners. First, he misrepresents material secular facts. Next, he makes countless reference-less pejorative accusations against Prophet Muhammad and the Quran. Finally, Wilders repeatedly misrepresents Islamic history, again without references. Though at times he cites legitimate sources like Karen Armstrong and Pew Research, he largely avoids references altogether or actively references anti-Islam hate websites for his most important points. If someone applied Wilders approach to criticize Christianity, they would present KKK members as authentic Christians, Bible-bash with anti-Christian hate websites and fabricate data to show Christianity's alleged existential threat to humanity.
First, Wilders' inability to cite basic secular facts accurately indicates the unlikelihood that he can relate complex religious history and dogma properly. Wilders claims, "America -- unlike the Netherlands, Canada, [Europe] -- does not have hate speech laws, thanks to its First Amendment" (p. 25). This is patently false. While the First Amendment does protect offensive speech, it does not protect hate speech that is obscene, defamatory, incites to riots or fighting words. Likewise, the Supreme Court held in Virginia v. Black (2003) that cross burning with the intent to intimidate was hate speech devoid of First Amendment protection.
Wilders continues with numerous misrepresentations against Muhammad and the Quran. For example, he claims without reference that Muhammad instigated violence while in Mecca (p. 35-36). He ignores the fact that Muhammad specifically forbade Muslims to fight in Mecca, and they obeyed, instead escaping assassination and brutal persecution to Medina--some 240 miles away. Wilders further claims, again without reference, that in Medina, Muhammad established a "political dictatorship based on his Koranic revelations" (p. 36). Yet, he ignores the secular Charter of Medina that the Muslims and Jews of Medina both willingly signed and ratified; a Charter that ensured equal protection, universal religious freedom and secular governance.
Finally, Wilders describes, again without reference, the Battle of Badr as when Muhammad "defeated a Meccan escort" and "robbed and massacred" them. He ignores the fact that 313 men without adequate weaponry defended themselves a few miles outside of their homes in Medina against an army of 1,000 soldiers who traveled 240 miles to obliterate them. The winning Muslim army captured 70 POWs, and while the Arab custom for POWs was permanent slavery or death, the Muslims allowed each POW to purchase his freedom. Wilders further claims Muhammad broke a 10-year truce to march on Mecca with a "merciless army" and to "bring his theocracy" (p. 39-40). He ignores the fact that Muhammad marched only because the Meccans first broke the Treaty of Hudaybia with a pre-emptive attack. Even upon reaching Mecca, Muhammad forbade fighting provided the Meccans accept one condition--universal religious freedom. The army that Wilders describes as a "merciless" did not raise a single sword.
Each of the above examples is but the tip of the iceberg of Wilders' misrepresentations.
For those seeking authentic Islamic scholarship, no shortage of honest and objective research exists. Scholar Karen Armstrong, former UN President Sir Muhammad Zafrullah Khan, historian Michael Hart, and theologian Dr. Philip Jenkins are all great resources to consider.
I sympathize with Wilders' desire to eradicate extremism, bigotry, violence, hatred and fascism. I loathe that he receives death threats from those claiming to be Muslim, and look forward to a day when he can live without such concerns. My advice to him, however, is that he should adhere to truth and justice, rather than perpetuate the very extremism he claims to fight. He has already been expelled from several countries due to his antics. And by the looks of how his poll numbers are dropping, he is also being expelled from many free and pluralistic minds.]]>Israel and Iran Need Diplomacy, Not Destructiontag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.13261472012-03-08T16:57:00-05:002012-05-08T05:12:02-04:00Qasim Rashidhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/qasim-rashid/
Ernest Hemingway, widely regarded as the author of one of history's greatest wartime novels, once wrote, "Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime. Ask the infantry and the dead." Hemingway wrote these words after having suffered through both WWI and WWII. Considering the escalating tensions between Israel and Iran, WWIII now seems a more inevitable reality than ever. And like its predecessor wars, WWIII will not only involve the unjustified instigator and justified defender, but countless innocents. And regardless of which nation is deemed the unjustified instigator -- the world will suffer another lost generation.
When our arrogance makes us ignorant to the horror that is war -- WWIII will have begun. Recall with humility, then, that WWI and WWII killed 20 million and 60 million respectively -- roughly 3 percent of the then world population -- and wounded many millions more. Recall then, that plants still do not grow -- some 75 years later -- at ground zero in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even ignoring the incomparably more damage nuclear weaponry causes, know then that 3 percent of the world's population today means at least 210 million people -- nearly triple that of Iran and Israel's combined populations.
Decades earlier, President Kennedy famously said, "Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind." And everyone from Margaret Thatcher to Ronald Regan endorsed this perspective. This mature thinking and noble approach to international conflict helped both the United States and Soviet Union successfully avoid nuclear war for decades -- ultimately reaching a peaceful mutual resolution. Critics contend that this peace was only successfully achieved after the Soviet Union's economic collapse, and neither Israel nor Iran would find such an end amenable.
Humoring this contention, however, the proper comparison is not one of economic strength versus economic collapse. Rather, the comparison is between existence and worldwide annihilation -- and no sane individual would prefer the latter option to merely rebuilding an economic infrastructure. Indeed, when asked what weapons might be used in WWIII, Einstein thoughtfully replied that though he was unsure, he was quite certain that WWIV would be fought with sticks and stones.
No doubt recognizing the irreparable harms a nuclear war would cause, President Obama, too, delivered this same message on March 5 when he met with Prime Minister Netanyahu -- diplomacy with one another, not destruction of one another, must be our guiding principle. After all, if children celebrating Dr. Seuss's birthday can appreciate this, then hopefully, our world leaders can as well.]]>The Islamic Solution to Stop Domestic Violencetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.13073052012-03-05T11:31:56-05:002013-02-21T10:17:24-05:00Qasim Rashidhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/qasim-rashid/
In Virginia, I provide pro bono legal support to victims of domestic and sexual violence. Virtually all of our clients are female. Every nine seconds -- nearly 10,000 victims daily -- a woman in the United States is abused. In America, domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women, more than car accidents, muggings and rape -- combined. Would those who blame Islam for domestic violence also blame Christianity every nine seconds?
Before addressing this question, consider Dr. James Q. Wilson's perspective -- America's pre-eminent social scientist. He cites the medical fact that the part of the brain that stimulates anger and aggression is larger in men than in women. Likewise, the part of the brain that restrains anger is smaller in men than in women. Simply put, men are far more prone to violence and far less capable of self-restraint than women.
But this is not a "cop out" argument. Part of the problem is that our laws only punish men after the violence has already occurred. We implement educational and rehabilitation programs to decrease and diminish other illnesses, allowing the individual to function in society without harm to him or herself or to others. Likewise, stopping domestic violence means acting to eliminate even initial infractions.
Pre-emptive deterrence is the key. And this precisely is the wisdom behind verse 4:34 to decrease and stop violence against women. The verse in its totality describes a process of restraint, anger management and reformation.
The verse begins by defining a family unit, holding the husband accountable as the household's guardian and provider. This obligation gives him certain authority, privileges and a requirement of magnanimity -- but never the right to employ domestic violence. The verse then urges women to also act virtuously, and protect the family unit by cooperating with their husband, listening to him in all good things and to not publicize private family matters.
Next, verse 4:34 employs the process of anger management, reformation and reconciliation. This process may only be employed after a wife has initially and deliberately undermined or attempted to destroy the family, as indicated by the words, "as for those on whose part you fear disobedience." But "disobedience" does not mean any random disagreement a wife may have with her husband. Arabic lexicon provides the correct understanding as that of a wife who has deserted her husband altogether or has unjustly attempted to destroy the family. Once a wife deliberately engages in this form of behavior, then the Quran describes a process to peacefully reconcile the dispute.
The first step, anger management, obliges the husband to merely admonish his wife of his concern, essentially encouraging the parties to admit that a problem exists. This forces a man to strictly control himself in hopes that his wife will also incline to reconciliation. Should this fail, the second step is separating beds for up to four months. This act further diminishes the chances of domestic violence, as a man physically separates himself from the emotionally charged situation for an extended period of time. If the wife engaged in an action to which the husband over reacted, then his extended time apart will help him realize the foolishness of his own behavior. Likewise, if the wife indeed engaged in an improper act, then her husband's separation will encourage her to realize the unreasonableness of her behavior. Either way, this step avoids violence altogether while actively promoting reconciliation.
Employed effectively, these two steps help reconcile the vast majority of domestic disputes. Should the first two steps fail, however, the Quran allows -- never commands -- men to consider the third step, translated as "to chastise them." But to understand "chastise" as sanctioning violence ignores the lengthy process employed in the first two steps to eliminate violence, the proper meaning and scope of "chastise," and the precedent of peaceful reconciliation Prophet Muhammad himself established.
First, it is unmerited to suggest that the Quran requires such extensive lengths to avoid violence, only to ultimately permit it.
Next, Arabic lexicon demonstrates that the word translated "chastise," i.e. daraba, employs definitions like "to heal," having nothing to do with violence. While daraba may also mean, "to strike," the proper scope of "strike" is best understood through Prophet Muhammad's example. Prophet Muhammad explained that for that man incapable of controlling his anger -- the first two required restrictions notwithstanding -- any act, such as a "strike," must heal and "not so much as to leave a mark."
Elaborating on this, Prophet Muhammad explicitly admonished Muslims, "Do not beat your wives." He led by example and never struck his wives, therefore demonstrating in word and in deed that Muslim men cannot harm women for any reason.
As an alternative, Islam also encourages arbitration to actively foster reconciliation while reducing and eliminating the chances for domestic violence.
Thus, verse 4:34 describes a human nature-based process of reducing environmental triggers and curbing biological urges. This verse forces men to control their anger, remove themselves from emotionally charged situations that may lead to domestic violence, while admonishing women to also incline towards reconciliation.
As for women who fear harm from their husbands, Islam gives women an even easier path: demand their husbands stop their egregious behavior, or file for divorce. Islam was the first religion and Prophet Muhammad was the first statesman to ensure women had the right to unilaterally divorce. A Muslim man who violates his duties to protect, provide and care for his wife risks losing his wife altogether, while still being liable to provide for her financially. The Quran ensured these protections to women 1,400 years ago. Thus, Muslim men who abuse women do so in spite of the Quran, ignoring the Quran's required and lengthy pre-emptive methods to peacefully reconcile.
Finally, remember that domestic violence occurs because men let their anger rule their behavior. If the nearly 10,000 American women who are abused daily received the pre-emptive protections that verse 4:34 offers, then how many women would actually be subject to domestic violence at all?]]>