There's lots of talk about the "Muslim Problem" in the U.S. and abroad. Generally, I find that framing troubling. But recently some very ordinary experiences made me realize that there actually is what I can only call the real Muslim problem.
As I was driving to work on a recent Friday, I reflected on my week and several unrelated conversations -- only to realize that they were all connected. Though each experience (an e-mail, an event and a meeting about a program) was distinct, together they provided a chilling reminder of how many people in the U.S. view Muslims and those believed to be Muslim.
Early that week, I heard about bombings in Afghanistan, yet again. The news was about how the Taliban is ramping up its annual "Spring Offensive" in that war-torn country, targeting foreign invaders, their advisors, and all who help them militarily and in intelligence. Among their targets was Kabul, near the home of Jamila Afghani.
Jamila, a woman who is very dear to me, is becoming known for her peacebuilding efforts and for being one of Tanenbaum's Peacemakers in Action. She sacrifices much to do this work, willingly taking risks to pursue a dream of peace. Despite her achievements in working toward peace, this year's Taliban "Spring Offensive" struck close to home. When I heard about the bloodshed in Kabul, I reached out to connect and offer whatever support I could, as a person living freely, and ultimately far more safely, in New York City. Jamila's e-mail response speaks for itself:
Dear Joyce,Thank you very much for the email in this hard time and severe conditions, where once again our hearts shake and it appears how untrusted the situation in our city is. My son was on the way to home from school and was trapped in the gunfire. His school is located near a shipper where the Taliban fighters started attacks from under a construction building.
My husband was on his way to Kabul from Jalalabad where he conducted a peace and reconciliation training for the community, and was trapped in the cross fire in Pulcharki. I was on the way for a meeting.
It has really become horrible. Terrorists reached our doors and can do anything at any time -- we just depend on our luck.
We peacemakers do lots of efforts for small positive change, but these terrorists change the entire scenario in minutes. Believe me there is no peace of mind, no satisfaction of heart even for a minute.
We need your prayers.
Jamila
Jamila's son is 7 years old.
Here in the United States, we hear next to nothing about people like Jamila, who are moved by their religious beliefs to seek peace. Jamila is a devout Muslim whose programs teach Imams in Afghanistan how to promote respect for women in their sermons using texts from the Quran.
We don't know the Jamilas of the world, but we do hear about the Taliban, their brutal tactics, and how they are targeting our own forces. When reading about the Afghanistan war, many people begin to conflate all Muslims with the radicals that we hear about on a daily basis. But what about this wonderful woman and her family and friends, who use Islam as a rich resource to promote peace? Don't they deserve a place in our public consciousness?
Within days of receiving Jamila's e-mail, I attended a celebration of interfaith projects. While there, I spoke with several people. In two instances, I found that the person with whom I was speaking was openly stating views different from mine, but ones that they seemingly expected me to share. One of the speakers was a member of the Jewish community. The other was a Hindu woman.
The gentleman, someone I have known for years, readily told me how there are entire regions of the world from which he had never met a trustworthy Muslim (i.e., I'm pretty sure he would not trust Muslims from Afghanistan). The woman was a stranger, and she wanted to know whether I had problems with any particular religious group in my work (I said no). She then spoke passionately about a viral video she had just seen. It showed a fully covered Muslim woman in Britain vehemently condemning Western women's immodesty. My fellow attendee went on to express fear that Muslims intend to take over and force their ways on the West. I gently pointed out that no one individual can fully represent all the over 1 billion people who follow Islam.
But, as ever, there was more to learn. The next day, I met with a woman who is organizing an upcoming Shaykha Fest being held this June in New Jersey. Because of my work, I have familiarity with a good number of religious traditions, but I had been unaware of the Shaykhas in Islam, who they are and what they are doing to change their religious community worldwide. Shaykhas are female Islamic scholars or women who study Islamic sacred texts. The upcoming Shaykha Fest honors the legacy of such women and draws attention to the future of female Islamic scholarship by bringing together contemporary female scholars, thinkers and activists from around the world. This celebration of life and learning is part of what it is to be a Muslim in the modern world.
I could not help but be struck by the contrast. One day, the conversation is about a woman in a hijab who pursues peace in the face of the Taliban. The next it is about a man who stereotypes millions of Muslims because they come from a particular part of the world and a woman in a burqa who invokes fear. And then, it is about an event that celebrates women, scholarship and faith in Islam.
As I drove into work that Friday, I thought about Jamila, the people at the celebration, and the Shaykha Fest. So many lessons learned and re-learned.
For one, I was again reminded of the vast diversity among the followers of Islam and, indeed, of every religion. Within each tradition, there are faithful who worship differently and no one individual can ever represent the breath of belief and practice within the community.
Secondly, I also saw the power of fear, the dangers of turning generalizations into stereotypes, and the perils of hatred. These are the forces of division, if we give in to them.
And finally, I saw just how much we have to learn about one another. Then it struck me: the real Muslim problem is that we're so uninformed about each other and so often swayed by misinformation Imagine what would happen if we all practiced respectful curiosity and learned about each other -- including our American Muslim neighbors.
Isn't it time to get started?
Follow Joyce S. Dubensky on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TanenbaumCenter
Nomi Teutsch and Hannah Shirey: New York Faith Community and Sikhs of Kenya: A Partnership is Born
Joyce, why do you think that MSM men treat women badly?
Official intervention and recommendation by Pax Europa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Tke1AaH3rnA#!
Here is equality the MSM way
Shari'ah, as codified in Reliance of the Traveller.
The indemnity for killing a male Muslim is 100 camels.
The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man.
The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third of the indemnity paid for a Muslim.
The indemnity paid of a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth of that a Muslim
From the Hadith:
Women are definitly not equal to men.
Bukhari (6:301) - "[Muhammad] said, 'Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?' They replied in the affirmative. He said, 'This is the deficiency in her intelligence.'"
Bukhari (6:301) - continued - "[Muhammad said] 'Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?' The women replied in the affirmative. He said, 'This is the deficiency in her religion.'" Allah has made women deficient in the practice of their religion as well, by giving them menstrual cycles.
But we have to deny that there are any problems!
Yes there is diversity …. A substantial diversity…… And there are two ways to deal with it….First to reduce this diversity to the extent it is possible to reduce without clashing of egos….. and having taken the first step, the next step is to cope with this - remaining -diversity with a spirit of tolerance .It is the act of violence - caused by a certain lack of tolerance or a certain inability to cope with the diversities – which is the `virus` that is coming in the way of a solution to the problem. At the same time, those people who are suffering from this virus are to be treated with an understanding that they were once normal human beings ie without this virus.. and can regain that normalcy by `Education`… and it is in this respect that I consider this article as one of the really great articles written on the subject for some time.
Have you noticed that the majority of Muslims live in poverty? The oil wealth is held by a small fraction of the world's Muslim population and they are no more inclined to part with it than the wealthy in the U.S.
I gently pointed out that no one individual can fully represent all the over 1 billion people who follow Islam. .
Then it struck me: the real Muslim problem is that we're so uninformed about each other and so often swayed by misinformation
==========
Interfaith conciliation is a good thing and we should all hope that religions will become less and less exclusivist and supremacist as a result of the work by people like Ms. Dubensky.
However, ignorance is not the problem, but real disagreement on fundamental issues within Islam.
Jamila knows that she is working against traditional doctrines in Islam on the status of women. The British burqa wearer is on the other side and has a lot of support in fiqh. The Afghan Imams and the burqa wearer represent a major element of traditional Islamic doctrine--not misinformation as Ms. Dubensky blithely assumes.
Muslims also disagree on separation of religion and state, freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.
These deep disagreements have produced the equivalent of a civil war within Islam and attacks against Western sources of support to Muslims who prefer liberal democracy to traditional Sharia law.
Interfaith efforts that do not recognize that reality are doomed to be frustrated and ineffectual.
- The burqa is not an Islamic requirement.
- It is superficial to be fixated on clothing, the more important discussion has to do with the role of women in society which isn't so cut and dried.
-------------------------------------------------
Any "discussion" regarding the role of women in society presumes that we exist as an abstract collective whose contributions can be dictated by others and whose individual social, intellectual, emotional and spiritual needs have been paternalized and invalidated as though we were children.
I see that message from the religious right all the time that "Women should...," with proclamations that if we want personal fulfillment and to make contributions to society outside the home, there is something wrong with us.
- You are incorrect in your statement. It is actually considered as obligatory or at the least a duty. You haven't provided any reference to support your view.
I doubt you are a Shafii-muslim. Time and again your statements don't line up with the especially the Shafii madhab .
http://ibnfarooq.tripod.com/niqaab.htm
"Imam Shafi, Malik and Hanbal hold the view that niqaab (covering the face and the hands completely with only a small area for the eyes to see) as being compulsory (fard).
Imam Abu Hanifa says that niqaab is Wajib and the face and hands can be exposed provided that there is not fear of desire if one looks at the female face, otherwise if there is the slightest chance of desire developing in the looker (the meaning of desire is that the looker would see the female face and think that she is beautiful, sexual thaught is not what is meant) then exposing the face and hands is Haraam.
An interfaith meeting to be held as follows ( all main religions and atheist):
1) Jews to hold meeting in Jerusalem - inviting representatives of all faiths and atheists;
2) Hindus to hold meeting in Varanasi & Kashi - inviting representatives of all faiths and atheists;
3) Buddhist to hold meeting in BodhGaya - inviting representatives of all faiths and atheists;
4) Christians to hold meeting in Vatican - inviting representatives of all faiths and atheists;
5) Sikhs to hold meeting in Amritsar - inviting representatives of all faiths and atheists;
6) Jains to hold meeting in Ujjain - inviting representatives of all faiths and atheists; and
7) Muslim to hold meeting in Mecca and Medina - inviting representatives of all faiths and atheists.
Only 1 interfaith meeting cannot take place. Number 7. Islamic apartheid applies and non muslims will not be allowed in Mecca or Medina. And we talk of human rights is islam - it beyond joke.
Furthermore, if you tweak the questions just a little, I think it is possible to find multiple ways in which religions are exclusive towards other faiths. When the Temple in Jerusalem was still standing , there was an outer court for Gentiles, but past a certain point only Jews were allowed. There is an Ethiopian Church in Auxum (which some believe contain the Ark of the Covenant) where only certain people are allowed inside. There are Bahai meetings where non-Bahais are allowed to attend. Non-Mormons aren't allowed inside of Mormon temples. There are many different Hindu Temples (e.g. Jagannath Temple) where non-Hindus are not allowed inside.
And to go back to your original point, from my perspective, there is no religious objection to non-Muslims entering the Kaaba.
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=5101&CATE=239
In reality it is a (not totally unwise) political decision on the part of the Saudis. I honestly don't like the idea of Mecca and Medina becoming tourist locations (more so than they already are... I mean, they have McDonald's and KFC there....)
Al-Muwatta Hadith Hadith 45.18
The Expulsion of the Jews from Madina
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Two deens shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula."
Malik said that Ibn Shihab said, ''Umar ibn al-Khattab searched for information about that until he was absolutely convinced that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had said, 'Two deens shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula,' and he therefore expelled the Jews from Khaybar."
Sunan of Abu-DawoodHadith 2905 Narrated byAbdullah ibn Amr ibn al-'As
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: people of two different religions would not inherit from one another.
thank you. Your argument is with Mohammed not with Saudis
F&F
Judge people by what they say and do and not by what others say and do.In fact try not to judge. Try and keep an open mind as long as possible. New facts always emerge.
The Prophet had to fight a deadly war in order to survive, but as soon as he felt his people were probably safe, he devoted his attention to building up a peaceful coalition of tribes and achieved victory by an ingenious and inspiring campaign of nonviolence. When he died in 632, he had almost single-handedly brought peace to war-torn Arabia.
In the Koran, the only permissible war is one of self-defense. Muslims may not begin hostilities (2: 190). Warfare is always evil, but sometimes you have to fight in order to avoid the kind of persecution that Mecca inflicted on the Muslims (2: 191; 2: 217) or to preserve decent values (4: 75; 22: 40). The Koran quotes the Torah, the Jewish scriptures, which permits people to retaliate eye for eye, tooth for tooth, but like the Gospels, the Koran suggests that it is meritorious to forgo revenge in a spirit of charity (5: 45). Hostilities must be brought to an end as quickly as possible and must cease the minute the enemy sues for peace (2: 192-3).
Islam is not addicted to war, and jihad is not one of its "pillars," or essential practices. The primary meaning of the word jihad is not "holy war" but "struggle."
e.g....
"O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.” (Bukhari 34:432)
There is nothing wrong with a child being born to a maiden. The woman has the rights equal to that of a wife, equal treatment as the master, i.e. same foods, clothing and shelter Islam is more lenient with her than with a free women, i.e. she gets half the punishment for adultery. Her child is born free as well.
Narrated By Jabir ibn Abdullah : Musaykah, a slave-girl of some Ansari, came and said: My master forces me to commit fornication.
Thereupon the following verse was revealed:
"But force not your maids to prostitution (when they desire chastity)."
People like you ignorantly assume that Muslims can rape their female captives?
The verse referred to is Surah an-Nur 24:33, which prohibits men to force their maidens to prostitution. If they want to have sexual relations both have to agree.
Islam demands kindness towards slaves (Surah an-Nisa 4:36) Islam teaches to feed slaves with what we eat, dress them as we would dress and help them if we give them work beyond their power if a Muslim hits his slave he must free him/her
Mohammad (SAWW) didn't allow even the hitting of a slave, so who in the right mind can ignorantly assume that he allowed rape?
The reason Muhammad's people were not "safe" was because his raiders were raiding caravans.
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Root_of_Terrorism_a_la_Islamic_style
There was nothing "nonviolent" about his campaign, which included horrific war crimes and massacres:
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Genocide_of_Banu_Qurayza
When he died in 632, in fact a raiding expedition to Yemen which he had ordered was still in progress. There was nothing "self-defensive" about it and it resulted in a slaughter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition_of_Surad_ibn_Abdullah
When we study the Sira and the History of al-Tabari we find out the truth about Muhammad's rules of engagement.
And when we study Islamic sources it is very clear that Jihad is not "only for self defense:"
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Misconceptions_about_Jihad#Jihad_is_Only_Defensive.3F
A great God based and morality based religion is not worth the name religion at all if it does not support JIHAD that is : taking efforts, struggling hard and if necessary taking arms by the good against the evil.
Did not the Americans carry out Jihad in various countries fighting against aggression, oppression, occupation, persecution, tyranny, discrimination, human right violations and injustice. If Muslims do it as per strict religious rules why brand with a different name.
In Islam JIHAD signifies a physical, moral , spiritual and intellectual effort. There are plenty of Arabic words denoting armed combat, such as HARB (War), SIRA’A( Combat), MA’ARAKU (Battle) QITAL ( Killing).
The Quran could have easily used these words if was had been the Muslims’ principal way of engaging in this effort. Instead the Quran chooses a vaguer, richer word with a wide range of connotations. The Jihad is not one of the five pillars of Islam. It is not the central prop of
the religion despite the common view of non-Muslims.
But it was and remains a duty for Muslims to commit themselves to a struggle on all fronts- moral, spiritual and political---to create a just and decent society, where the poor and the vulnerable are not exploited, in the way that God had intended man to live.
Fighting and warfare might be necessary, a minor part of the whole JIHAD or struggle.
Selective reading by many readers like iloveusa makes them blind to the real Islamic spirit of Jihad
There is a well known saying of Muhammad(pbuh). He was returning from a battle. He said,
Quote “WE RETURN FROM THE LITTLE JIHAD TO THE GREATER JIHAD”.
The little Jihad he mentioned was the battle and the greater Jihad he mentioned was conquering the forces of evil in oneself and in one’s own society in all the details of daily life.
The Quran amplifies this forcefully, quote
“ Had God not driven back the people, some by the means of others, the earth had surely been corrupted ; but God is merciful unto all beings.”
When the people of a territory were chased out of their land like morbid dogs by the merciless hordes and aggressors ( as it happened in Palestine) the people of Palestine can engage in Jihad but strictly under the laws of Islam following their spiritual leader. You want a present day example , you got one.
The Quran says
“Fighting is an evil thing, but to bar people from God’s way, disbelief in Him and the Holy Mosque, and to expel its people from it ---that is more evil in God’s sight. And persecution is worse than
killing.” Holy Quran 2: 213. So the example the persecuted Palestinians have every right to do Jihad.
- Yes Joyce, in fact they deserve far more than merely "a place in our public consciousness."
They deserve every effort we can spare to improve their lives along with those of all other human beings.
And to do that most effectively as in any other project of any kind, we need to start by studying the world for what it is until we understand it, and then speak about it truthfully.
And we already know and understand very well that Islam is not "a rich resource to promote peace."
Islam has never been a resource for promoting peace since Muhammad created it.
The wonderful woman and millions of others like her deserve the benefits of the full power of our intelligence and understanding. That means we must acknowledge reality and not indulge in pretense - such as the ludicrous idea of Islam as a "resource to promote peace."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history
Jump to: navigation, search
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. It is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the groups conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Follow the definition and tell us who committed these acts of genocide
Actually, it would be the Enlightenment that brought an end to that. Islam was way past its prime by then. Did Muslim scholars exist and make some math advances and preserve some of the Greek tradition. Yes, but this has nothing to do with Islam. Anymore than a Hindu semiconductor engineers patents have to do with Ganesh.
Indian Genocide
Gerald Colby, Thy Will Be Done: the Conquest of the Amazon (1995)
800,000 Indians "disappeared into extinction" since 1900.
40,000 to 100,000 died, 1957-68.
Robin Hanbury-Tenison, A Question of Survival (1973): The Indian population of Brazil declined from a half million in 1900 to 80 thousand in 1957 to 50 thousand in 1973. Whether the 450,000 missing Indians were assimilated or exterminated is not certain, but a significant number were probably victims of genocide.
Robert Hitchcock & Tara Twedt: Indian population of Brazil declined from 1.0M to 0.2M between 1900 and 1957, a net loss of 800,000 (in Century of Genocide, Samuel Totten, ed., (1997))
Porter estimates that 100,000 Brazilian Indians were victims of genocide during the 1960s.
Darcy Ribeiro, "Indigenous Cultures and Languages in Brazil", in Indians of Brazil in the Twentieth Century, Janice Hopper, ed. (1967): 87 Indian tribes in Brazil went extinct between 1900 and 1957 (Out of an original 230) This, by the way, is the authoritative study of Brazilian Indian population, which is why every other author discussing the decline of Indian population uses 1957 as a milestone.
Rummel estimates the following Indian deaths:
Under republic (1900-30): 50,000 democides
Under Vargas (1930-45): 60,000
Under Dutra/Vargas (1945-64): 50,000
Under military (1964-85): 75,000
TOTAL: 235,000
http://necrometrics.com/20c300k.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
I made the statement:
"Islam has never been a resource for promoting peace since Muhammad created it."
Does anything in your comment have anything to do with this statement? No.
Using "tu quoque" does nothing to disprove a statement - it is merely an attempt to change the subject.
There is a need for education of cultures different from us. We also need to resolve the matter of our most frequent terrorist: those in the U.S. that are always saying: "be afraid; be very afraid of those not like you." They use fear as much as any terrorist, and more frequently than most, exploiting ignorance of other cultures with their words to cause fear and hate.
Constantly Muslims are enjoined to respect Jews and Christians, the "People of the Book," who worship the same God (29: 46).
In words quoted by Muhammad in one of his last public sermons, God tells all human beings, "O people! We have formed you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another" (49: 13)--not to conquer, convert, subjugate, revile or slaughter but to reach out toward others with intelligence and understanding.
So why the suicide bombing, the hijacking and the massacre of innocent civilians? Far from being endorsed by the Koran, this killing violates some of its most sacred precepts.
But during the 20th century, the militant form of piety often known as fundamentalism erupted in every major religion as a rebellion against modernity.
Fundamentalists often feel justified in ignoring the more compassionate principles of their faith.
It would be as grave a mistake to see Osama bin Laden as an authentic representative of Islam as to consider James Kopp, the alleged killer of an abortion provider in Buffalo, N.Y., a typical Christian or Baruch Goldstein, who shot 29 worshipers in the Hebron mosque in 1994 and died in the attack, a true martyr of Israel.
Walk into any Muslim college in Chennai ask the Muslim students to indicate their original Hindu caste on a plain piece of paper… you will come up with zero information. Over a period of about 800 years, they have destoyed the castes.
You do the same thing in a Christian college, every Christian student knows his Hindu caste. This is the revolution that Islam has brought about in parts of India including Hyderabad
It is true South Indian Christians loyally, faithfully, and proudly stick to their castes such as Mudaliar, Nadar, Pillai, Devar, Maravar, Vanniar, Naidu, Vellalar, Kallar, etc but in spite of the fact that South India Muslims had been converted from all castes right across the board, deep research shows that their original Hindu castes had totally disappeared ..
This has been one of the biggest achievements of Islam in parts of India. Dalits can raise their dignity, respect, economy and status by becoming Muslims.
Well educated Dalit leaders and politicians should have the courage to think about it and take a bold decision to suffer in the short run to achieve recognition in the future.
It may be partly true there are a few caste berriers among Muslims in North India, but that will disappear in course of time, but in Hindusim it is part of hindu scriptural law and laws on redemption after death and rebirth.
It is no wonder that most of the violence perpetrated by those being driven by god comes from the uneducated and impoverished. You don't need god to be peace loving, but you sure need dogma to convince others that violence is the only way to go.
Why do the voices in your head hate Jesus?