In the years since 9-11, every Muslim has been compelled to confront his or her identity.
Matters were brought into particularly sharp relief for me on that day, because I was in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia when the Towers fell. Within hours, I discovered my sentiments of loss and sorrow were not widely shared, either by Saudi colleagues or by fellow Muslim expatriate workers, many of whom had been trained in New York City like myself.
This came as a terrible shock to my Pollyanna naiiveties at the time. I realized the version of Islam my parents had given to me wasn't widely accepted. Our faith always centered on pluralism, deep reverence for other monotheisms and an acknowledgement of our beliefs as Muslims to have been informed by the believers preceding Islam, as the Qur'an explicitly acknowledges.
On my 2001 return from Saudi Arabia, I began to record my experiences in a manuscript that would become my first book, In the Land of Invisible Women. Realizing I would be representing two versions of Islam- mine, and that espoused by Sunni Wahabi theocracy of Saudi Arabia -I needed to broaden my reading around key areas.
It was in my reading that I discovered the political ideology termed Islamism, and the many strains of contemporary radical Islam, both violent and non-violent. I learned unlike my own experience, many Muslims struggled with a pervasive sense of inferiority influencing all their beliefs, sense of justice and identities leading to deep and rather novel resentments. The fascist supremacy of Islamist ideologues was therefore a predictably appealing, if very frightening development, which, to my perspective was completely alien to the Islam I knew.
In the wake of 9-11, I saw Osama bin Laden feted as a hero in Pakistan. On one 2008 trip I recall a Pakistani driver in Karachi explaining to me why, years after 9-11, Pakistani families still named their newborns Osama. He was still recognized by many as a 'defender' of Islam, a 'warrior-savior'.
Nothing could be more offensive to my beliefs as a Muslim or my principles as a human being. This was extraordinarily difficult to reconcile with the knowledge that Islam condemns murder, and particularly the execution of non-combatant civilians in any setting. In my mind Bin Laden and his sympathizers had renounced Islam by their acts and represented nothing more than violent terrorists.
Over time the Islamist voice has become increasingly prominent, both in the West and the East: whether advancing the intrusion of ritual symbolism of Islam into the public space - for instance the battle for the niqab in the public arena in France, the demands for the veil to be permitted in FIFA soccer tournaments - or the most recent debacle involving the vilification of the NYPD for their counter terrorism efforts drawing false accusations of Muslim profiling.
Banning Lady Gaga from performing in Indonesia, or violent protests against Muslim writer Irshad Manji, the examples of Islamist actions are countless. Pakistan, the country of my parental heritage, is especially disturbing because Islamists are in full control of the constitution, judiciary and public discourse, resulting in some of the worst abuses against minorities anywhere in the world.
Throughout the world, the Islamists' goal is one and the same: to stoke the fires of unwitting Muslims into believing in their own manufactured sense of victimhood as a means to exploit both the uninformed Muslim and, often times, the liberal democracies where we make our homes.
Claiming persecution, discrimination, profiling or victimization liberal democracies are pressured in relinquishing not only their own sense of identity but also significant concessions in a shared public space which truly belongs to everyone, irrespective of faith and not merely the 'victimized Islamist Muslim'. It is this last fallacy, of collective victimhood, that most fuels my drive to expose Islamism for what it is - a weak yet vicious imposter for a great religion, an imposter which seeks to exploit and devour both Muslims and non Muslims it its pursuit for power and dominance.
In this country Islamist organizations seek to drown out the complex, heterogeneous and multifaceted community of Muslims in America. Their goal is to promote a unified sense of disadvantage and debasement of Muslim Americans. In fact, demographic data point in exactly the opposite direction- Muslims in America are more rapidly economically mobile than anywhere else in the world making it very hard to equate this reality with a fantasy of a disadvantaged marginalized American minority. They struggle to claim the right to represent all Muslims and become the owners of the Muslim American narrative but anti Islamist Muslims like me are here to challenge and ultimately overturn their audacity.
This very belief lead to my defense of the NYPD, a defense rooted in Islamic principles which demand every Muslim meet his duty to his society, its protection, cohesion and enhancement. I wrote about this in the Wall Street Journal at some length. Unfairly vilifying the NYPD in the way the AP reports have accomplished -published without balanced context or true expert analysis - has been enormously destructive to post 9-11 New York.
In my practice as a physician I am honored to attend to a great many law enforcement officials, whether the NYPD policeman on patrol, commanders operating counter terrorism task forces, federal bureau officials, or many other experts. Understanding their work and the toll it takes on them makes clear to me the enormous sacrifice these Americans (many of whom are also Muslim) and their families make to safeguard us at times of crisis and in between. We cannot tear these institutions (which the public likes to forget are made of individuals) in this fashion. That is the height of ingratitude and ignorance.
As a Muslim it is very simple to argue theologically against the Islamists. Islam is nothing if not justice. Any injustice committed or pursued in the name of Islam is anathema to the believing Muslim and counter to the ideal which is Islam. Muslims must remember their duty not only to themselves or their Maker but also to their society wherever they find themselves.
There is no place for Muslim claims of supremacy. The Prophet Mohammed (SAW) himself admonished his followers not to make claims of supremacy over Moses, or indeed any other messenger of God. The Qur'an repeatedly reminds the Muslim that 'to each is sent a Law and a Way' and to each they must 'judge themselves by their Law and their Way'. Islamist Muslims overlook this.
Our role as believers is to cooperate and collaborate and enhance the world, not to oppress, discriminate, exclude or persecute others. Major Muslim democracies around the world, foremost Pakistan and Indonesia have departed from these foundational principles and in doing so have renounced their rights to call themselves Islamic.
They are operating as Islamist Supremacists who legally persecute Muslim and non-Muslim minorities to extinction through execution and do so with impunity. Worse they seek to propagate extraordinarily vicious blasphemy laws into the wider field of international law through the Organization of the Islamic Conference seeking to confine and then suffocate free speech- which, along with free press is the bulwark of any vibrant democracy.
These are not the ways of Muslims. These are the ways of fascists. Fortunately organizations like The Lawfare Project provide anti-Islamist Muslims like me a platform from which to challenge these abuses and misuses of international law and a critically intelligent means to understand the impact of Islamist Lawfare.
In my position of privilege and opportunity, if I do not oppose this, I am failing in my duty to American society and in failing American society, I fail as a Muslim. I am reminded of a saying attributed by the Prophet Mohammed by one of his companions recounting it to an early believer:
"Whoever sees a wrong and is able to put it right with his hand, let him do so; if he can't, then with his tongue, if he cant, then with his heart. That is the bare minimum of faith".
This, having both hand, tongue, and heart, I am committed to I live by.
Much of this article was recently published following my interview with National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro, Fellow at The Clarion Fund, concerning my motives to confront contemporary radical Islamism. You can read our animated dialogue here. My thanks to Ryan Mauro and all his colleagues at Clarion Fund's Flagship Educational Website http://www.radicalislam.org/ which has been exploring anti-Islamist Muslims and their growing voice. I am grateful for their efforts and the opportunity they provide me.
Follow Qanta Ahmed, MD on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MissDiagnosis
I have spiritual beliefs. I believe there is more than just the physical world. But I reject the idea that the spiritual world is only correctly described in centuries old books. And I reject the idea that these beliefs never change and that I can never discover things for myself. The idea of simply believing but never needing to understand is outdated and needs to go...worldwide. So we can develop a modern spirituality based on our own discoveries and not just on outdated authority.
Furthermore, I would submit that the Qur'an does not state "cover your head" rather it tells women to be modest and cover themselves. It varies from culture to culture as do cultural dresses from country to country. It is not about Muslim men 'controlling themselves'....it is about the call to Muslim women to be modest and focus on Muslim character and qualities that have nothing to do with appearance...but soul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
The duo of Mo and Al, possessed with divine wisdom (and lacking in the common version) decided to conduct the same experiment with women as prisoners and men as guards. You can imagine the consequences.
I am sure you can make it across the room without breaking a sweat, but if all of those 50 present knew that they could grope you and get away with it -- they'll probably try. I suspect that's what happened with Lara Logan and others.
Are things a bit clearer now?
P.S. I replied to you earlier explaining the verse, but it didn't appear. We'll try another time.
From what I understand there appear to be two factions of Muslims…They seem to be living in different worlds despite living together in the same country and in many cases in the same household …which is very surprising. They have the same God…. They follow the same religious document…. Perhaps they happen to use different hemispheres of their brains to interpret the content of the document.
Examples? …. There are many… but the most glaring ones pertain to the relation between man and woman. In one faction ..call them `A` there is equality and respect, understanding and love in good measure between the two genders, and in the other faction… call them `B`, not much respect, not much understanding, not much love, and in some extreme cases disrespect, forced understanding.. And… you know what.
Other example pertains to tolerance/intolerance of other religions. In one faction `A` there is tolerance in good measure, and in the other faction `B` little tolerance of other religions, diminishing in the extreme case to zero tolerance …which means people of all other religions must perish.
The problems of the Muslims got further compounded as a result of American Interferences.. interferences of two kinds …the selfish and arrogant kind + Policeman kind.
You might ask the question …What can be the explanation? …
(To be continued)
.So in summary there are three problems… Disrespect to women + Religious extremism + American interferences.
What can be solution?
I can think of nothing better than :
Peace marches on a global scale – spearheaded by women and supported by men of type `A` - to create a global awareness of the problems. There could be some protestors/attackers of type `B`as we saw in Egypt recently…. But not to worry…in course of time the supporters `A` must outnumber the protesters `B` … I guess their women would be in `A`. The marches must be peaceful and non violent, and well publicized by the media. The target finally should be to lead towards the coming together of all those who created the conflicts, to arrive at solutions.
( For further reading refer my response in 11 parts (about 2700 words) to a recent news blog entitled ``Pakistan/ Drone strikes are violations of Sovereignity`` on huffingtonpost (blog posted on 4th June 2012)
This article will shed light on this subject and the dangerous of going along such rosy islm!c dreams.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4243003,00.html
According to polls undertaken in Egypt in 2008 and in 2010 by Gallup, some 95% of Egyptians want Islam to have greater influence in politics, 64% want Islamic Law to be the basis for legislation, 54% support public segregation of men and women, 82% support stoning as punishment for adultery, and 84% endorse the death penalty for those who shun Islam.
In 1979, in the name of noble human rights ideals, Jimmy Carter abandoned the Persian Shah, paved Khomeini’s way to Tehran, and with his own hands turned Iran from America’s most important ally in the Persian Gulf to an Islamic Ayatollah republic.
Qur'an 33: 53 -- Believers, do not enter the houses of the Prophet for a meal unless you are given leave. But if you are invited, enter; and when you have eaten, disperse. Do not engage in familiar talk, for this would annoy the Prophet and he would be ashamed to bid you go; but Allah is not ashamed. If you ask his wives for anything, speak to them from behind a curtain. This is more chaste for your hearts and their hearts. Nor is it right for you that ye should annoy Allah's Apostle or that ye should marry his widows after him at any time. Truly such a thing is in Allah's sight an enormity.
Mo's friends weren't [quickly enough] getting used to the idea of Mo being better than them; and would assume that they were welcome as before; go about high-fiving li'l Ayesha; some were even entertaining the idea of checking out his women.
But, Allah is not ashamed to tell the truth about them.
**Check**
However, the above verse simply means that his visitors should remain in the living room, and if they needed anything from the wives (such as a glass of water), they should not enter the inner apartments, but the wives will hand it to them by moving the curtain slightly.
At times decency and decorum prevent my replying to all his insults as I do not want to ridicule and insult others.
----------------------
While it is true that I have had comments that were deleted by the moderators (everyone has), I suspect that a comment that survives moderation is "fair." As such the apologists have nothing to complain about.
This is the usual refrain of 'any criticism of Islam is indecency and a breach of decorum.'
I have dearly missed you! How have you been? You know I still pray that one day I will have the profound and deep wisdom you have and the internet will play a very crucial role in that:) I have to give you a sarcastic jab as it has been too long:)
It's good to see that Islam doesn't teach ingratitude to the host country. Bin Ladin and his ilk must be followers of another religion they invented. They call it Islam for convenience sake but they are blasphemers. One thing bothers me though. Why don't Muslims en masse speak out against these hijackers of their religion?
On Saudi Arabia. It's a mistake to believe for a moment they are our friend. They are exporters of Wahabi terrorism. Their motto is you are welcome to carry out your terrorism wherever you want so long as you leave our sybaritic lifestyle alone. We'll be happy to fund it.
----------
Muslims do.
Documentary reveals hidden side of British mosque where extr em!st women urge MSM to k!11 non-believers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1051073/Caught-camera-Hidden-British-mosque-female-preachers-urge-Muslims-kill-non-believers.html#ixzz1xtsKPAuO
Both sides ( Western world and Islam) should try and deal with the extremism in their midst.
The West, like it or not, is a fact of life, Muslims should try to use the media; they have got to learn to lobby like the Jews, and they have got to have a Muslim lobby, if you like ....this is a jihad, an effort, a struggle, that is very important.
If Muslims want to change the media, then they have got to make people see that Islam is a force to be reckoned with politically and culturally.
Similarly, the West has got to learn that it shares the planet with equals and not with inferiors. This means giving equal space in a conflict such as that between Israel and Palestine.
It doesn't mean just using governments to get oil: you promote Saddam Hussein one day, and the next day he becomes public enemy number one.
There should be no more double standards, because double standards are colonialism in a new form. Western people have also got to disassociate themselves from inherited prejudices about Islam.
Muslims can run a modern state in an Islamic way, and this is what the West has got to see... There are all kinds of ways in which people can be modern, and Muslims should be allowed to come to modernity on their own terms and make a distinctive Islamic contribution to it.
==========
That's a reasonably good description of the problem.
We have paid close attention to how Muslims view Islamist modernity in Muslim majority countries and it causes us to wonder if the Muslims living in the West agree with Western modernity or Islamist modernity.
These competing models are mutually exclusive on a fundamental level--the nature of justice, the proper relationship between religious dogma and national law and the description of basic human rights.
At bottom, the conflict between Islamism and the West is about these issues; the terrorism and invasions are symptoms, not causes.
Example please?
===========
..." Sharia does not recognize the universal principal of Western law that only the state has the authority to inflict violence, and specifically assigns to the male head of household quasi-state rights to inflict violence on his wife.
No civil proceeding of any kind can be sanctioned under American (or any Western) law if the explicit or implicit threat of violence intimidates one of the parties to the negotiation.
Yet violence is embedded in Muslim family law in a radically different way than any Jewish or Christian law. The difference is so extreme and so well document that comparison itself is invidious; as a Jew, I take offense when Sharia is compared to Halakha.
[…]
How does one balance the Constitutional guarantee of religious liberty with the fundamental obligation of the state to protect individuals (in this case Muslim wives) against violence? This is not an abstract problem; according to Muslim women’s organizations, domestic violence is endemic in Muslim communities.
http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2012/06/14/the-sad-silence-about-muslim-wife-beating/
--------------------
Neither does the NRA. I remember responding to this before but you never really got back to me. This idea of a state monopoly on violence is VERY overstated. The 2nd Amendment enshrines the exact opposite principle.
---------------------------------
as a Jew, I take offense when Sharia is compared to Halakha.
-------------
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Relationships/Spouses_and_Partners/Domestic_Violence.shtml
--------------------
How does one balance the Constitutional guarantee of religious liberty with the fundamental obligation of the state to protect individuals (in this case Muslim wives) against violence?
-----------------------------
I don't understand why this issue requires a balancing act.
"In fact, Westernized Muslim scholars strive to justify the practice on Islamic legal grounds. Muslim traditional society is a nested hierarchy in which the clan is an extended family, the tribe an extended clan, and the state an extended tribe. The family patriarch thus enjoys powers in his realm comparable to those of the state in the broader realm."
.
An essay by two Michigan State University Law students, Bassam A Abed & Syed E Ahmad, is cited often on Islamic web sites as a credibly modern interpretation of Surah 4:34. Abed and Ahmad begin with the legal principle that sanctions wife-beating, namely that the husband is the “governor” or “administrator” of the family.
"The translator’s use of the term “protectors” in the first line of the aforementioned quote is in reference to the Arabic term of qawaamoon (singular:qawaam). Qawaamoon has been defined in various manners by different scholars and translators. Abul ‘Ala Maududi, has defined qawaamoon as “governors” and as “managers”. Qawaam “stands for a person who is responsible for the right conduct and safeguard and maintenance of the affairs of an individual or an institution or an organisation [sic].”
http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2012/06/14/the-sad-silence-about-muslim-wife-beating/2/
(I think the 2nd amendment, and corporal punishment in homes and schools suggests otherwise).
Are you asserting that the halakha and the "sharia" are so radically different that even making the comparison is offensive?
I'd be interested in seeing your thoughts on the discussion of wife-beating in Jewish law.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Relationships/Spouses_and_Partners/Domestic_Violence.shtml
Any takers? I won’t hold my breath; no Muslim religious authority has ever abjured Surah 4:34, because Muslim theology states that it is the uncreated word of God, dictated to Mohammed by the Archangel Gabriel, and to abjure this one passage would call into question the divine nature of the Koran as a whole."
http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2012/06/14/the-sad-silence-about-muslim-wife-beating/3/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr-vt2DTCFw
Until you do, there is NO discussion to be had.
"the battle for the niqab in the public arena in France, the demands for the veil to be permitted in FIFA soccer tournaments"
Hijab and niqab are essential cultural components for a great deal of Muslims. Expecting the right to wear the clothing that one desires, and to maintain cultural identity is hardly a radical Islamist agenda. Compulsory usage of those garments has been employed by Islamists in many places and points in time but that is not the case in the examples you have cited.
"This very belief lead to my defense of the NYPD, a defense rooted in Islamic principles which demand every Muslim meet his duty to his society, its protection, cohesion and enhancement."
We, as Muslims, undoubtedly have an obligation to our society wherever that may be, to protect and encourage positive change. We must naturally root out and report any suspicious behavior to organizations such as the NYPD. However, that does not excuse civil rights violations by the NYPD in their surveillance of peaceful Muslims based solely on their faith. That is profiling and that is illegal and unethical. That same Islamic obligation to our society means that - in the context of the lives of American Muslims - we must also serve to uphold the due process of law and protect our own rights as well as our neighbors - Muslim or
"The veil is not mentioned in the Quran and it isn't compulsory in Islam!"
On the other hand, whenever a veil ban is even mentioned, (and, FWIW, I oppose veil bans too, though probably not for the same reasons you do) the first argument is how the veil is a vital part of Islam and to ban it would be to trample the religious rights of Muslims.
So, as a Muslim you might be able to help me out. Is this a case of "diverse interpretations", where some Muslims say it's mandatory, others say it isn't, and nobody's really right or wrong? Is it a case where "real Islam", i.e., the strict, non-watered down version, requires women to wear the veil and\or headscarf, and those are the religious rights that are being trampled? Is the case, perhaps, something a bit more complicated than either of those examples, and if so, how?
I oppose veil bans not because veils are a component of Islam and I actually speak against the practice within Islamic circles. I oppose veil bans because they are sourced in bigotry and fear and only seek to inhibit personal liberties.
"Real Islam" - that is the true spirit of the Quran - informs men and women to be modest. The only diverse interpretations that require it are based in misogynistic remnants of Arab culture that followed Islam around the world. This is a case of "real Islam" being trampled by Islamism or political ideology and civil liberties being trampled in reaction to that Islamism, not Islam.