The crisis in Egypt has re-ignited the debate of whether moderate Islam is a reality or just a show. Political and religious dissatisfaction, especially in the Third World, demonstrate the need for a new leadership philosophy. In an NBC interview shortly after Faisal Shahzad's 2010 arrest, I was asked, "Do you think more moderate Muslims need to stand up against radical Islam?" "Absolutely!" I replied. In response, I was asked: Well, what exactly is a moderate Muslim? In the absence of a unified voice from the Muslim world and with time running out, it seems few have a clear idea. However, for well over a century the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has practically defined, through the Quran and Prophet Muhammad's life, what it means to be a moderate Muslim.
First, a moderate Muslim recognizes that Islam requires complete separation of mosque and state. The Quran does not endorse any particular government philosophy, but instead requires that justice, not religion, be the determinative factor when governing (4:59). Extremists, like the Wahabbis, ignorantly preach that Islam requires the imposition of sharia on non-Muslims. But since the Quran categorically forbids all religious compulsion (2:257), such an imposition find no Islamic justification.
Contrary to Faisal Shahzad's ambitions, the Quran requires a Muslim to obey and be loyal to those in his charge. Prophet Muhammad added, "You should listen to and obey your ruler, even if you [despise him]." While national loyalty does not forbid dissent, that dissent must be expressed legally and peacefully -- never violently. Critics like Robert Spencer claim Islam allows Muslims to engage in taqiyya, treachery against non-Muslims. However, the Quran unequivocally forbids lying or hiding the truth and Prophet Muhammad instructed, "It is obligatory for you to tell the truth."
Moderate Muslims reject violent jihad, recognizing that true Jihad is the struggle to attain nearness to God through good works. Would-be Portland bomber Mohamad Mohamed apparently never read the Quranic verse, "... whosoever killed a person... it shall be as if he had killed all mankind" (5:33). If Mohamad Mohamed felt persecuted, the Quran requires that a Muslim facing persecution must sooner emigrate than retaliate (4:98). Even after facing 12 years of actual persecution in Mecca, Prophet Muhammad rejected all forms of terrorism, instead ordering his followers to migrate to preserve the peace.
In response, critics cite the abrogation argument, asserting that later "violent" verses of the Quran abrogate earlier "peaceful" verses. Far from abrogating any verse of the Quran, these so-called violent verses permit self-defense and mandate the protection of universal religious freedom. For example, the Quran states, "Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made..." (22:40). A moderate Muslim recognizes that the Quran permits (not commands) self-defense if attacked after emigration. The next verse commands Muslims to indiscriminately protect all places of worship. This teaching is neither unjust, nor does it nullify any prior verses.
Therefore, a moderate Muslim recognizes that Prophet Muhammad promoted freedom of religion and speech for all mankind, without threat of punishment for blasphemy or apostasy. This is one reason why Ahmadi Muslims vehemently reject anti-blasphemy legislation and instead support both the First Amendment and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Moderate Muslims also recognize the equality and empowerment of women. Prophet Muhammad clearly stated that education is a fundamental right for Muslim women. His first wife Khadija was an accomplished entrepreneur and his wife Ayesha was a prolific jurist. While Islam urges both sexes to dress modestly and guard their eyes, women are enjoined to cover their heads and wear an outer garment to conceal their beauty from strangers. Her dress encourages society to focus on her intellectual merit rather than her physical characteristics. Indeed, a December 2010 New York Times article reported that American Muslim women have "achieved a level of success and visibility unmatched elsewhere." Modestly dressed Muslim women are active in every sphere of life as doctors, lawyers, journalists, engineers, politicians, as well as mothers and wives. Furthermore, the Quran is clear that both sexes are equal in matters of spiritual salvation (4:125).
Additionally, a moderate Muslim recognizes that Islam does not monopolize salvation. Rather than condemn non-Muslims to eternal hell, the Quran declares that God's prevailing mercy offers salvation to all Jews, Christians and people of other paths who believe in God and do good works (2:63). Extremists await a bloody Messiah who will kill all non-Muslims to attain worldly Islamic domination. However, moderate Muslims recognize that a prophet's only responsibility was the delivery of the message. Compulsion was categorically forbidden. Consequently, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community are Muslims who believe in the Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian. Ahmad, like Jesus, came to end religious wars, and unify mankind under one flag of peace and tolerance.
This definition of moderate Islam has fared extremely well for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. In just a century, Ahmadi Muslims have established themselves in nearly 200 countries with millions of adherents, hundreds of schools and dozens of hospitals. Their membership includes the Muslim world's first Nobel Prize winner in Dr. Abdus Salam and the only Muslim President of the UN and World Supreme Court in Sir Zafrullah Khan. Perhaps most importantly, they live as loyal and productive citizens to each of their respective countries, demonstrating that moderate Islam practically thrives in this world -- not just in theory. As organizations the world over scramble to define moderate Islam, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community extends an invitation to adopt a century old tried and true method -- and you don't even need to be Muslim to endorse it.
This Op Ed originally appeared in the Washington Post "On Faith" Section on Feb. 2.
Follow Qasim Rashid on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MuslimIQ
Moderate Muslim Leaders Beat Extremists - Newsweek
Moderate Muslims in Islam? Look Here by Eboo Patel - ABC News
Bret Stephens: Our 'Moderate Muslim' Problem - WSJ.com
How moderate Muslims in Africa view NYC mosque debate - CSMonitor.com
IslamAhmadiyya - Ahmadiyya Muslim Community - Al Islam Online ...
Ahmadiyya Muslim Community - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1) Do you know if there are qualifications and time limits mentioned elsewhere (outside the book)?
Yes, there are.
2), 3), and 4)
As you probably know, there is a heirarchy in the Koran commentary. The major schools of fiqh claim for themselves, with the backing of the political leaders of the Islamic state and its law enforcement apparatus, the ultimate authority on what the Koran means:
Umdat al Salik:
b7.0 SCHOLARLY CONSENSUS (IJMA)
[….]
b7.2 When the four necessary integrals of consensus exist, the ruling agreed upon is an authoritative part of Sacred Law that is obligatory to obey and not lawful to disobey. Nor can mujtahids of a succeeding era make the thing an object of new ijtihad, because the ruling on it, verified by scholarly consensus, is an absolute legal ruling which does not admit of being contravened or annulled."
So all Koranic interpretations by scholars who are not mujtahids are secondary to the interpretations of the major schools, being the product of recognized mujtahids.
I quote Shafii fiqh. The scholar who translated Umdat claims, without contradiction from the distinguished warrantors of the translation, that all four Sunni schools have a 75% overlap of agreement on Koranic interpretation.
That gives my quotes a certain amount of weight, but certainly not universality. That is not possible in any religion or ideology. We cannot allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good.
If it is, I definitely would have heard the news. Just confirming, is that what you implied?
Secondly, in your statement..
"backing of political leaders of the Islamic state and its law enforcement apparatus"
- There is no Islamic state at present. An Islamic caliphate would exist only if all the muslim population of the world was united under one, deserving, and most knowledgeable leader. Such a situation does not exist and is unlikely to form, nor is there a need to put aside worshipping priorities to go about establishing such a state.
And there most definitely is no weightage for 'political leaders' and their approval. In fact those scholars who showed even the slightest interest in politics (ie signs of being sell-outs, in exchange for power) have lost respect among the scholastic community.
Cont'd..
============
No. Umdat is a commentary on Shafii fiqh, a handbook ( a mere 1,232 pages), a manual to be used as a handy reference to the body of Shafii law. The warrants assert two things:
1) The translation is accurate
2) That Umdat is a faithful reflection of Shafii belief and practice.
- There is no Islamic state at present
============
You are confusing an Islamic state, which does exist, with the Caliphate, which does not.
Saudi Arabia and Iran and Pakistan are all Islamic states, by their own definition. They each have different approaches to the combining of man made law with Sacred law. In KSA and Iran, Islamic law is the highest source of authority. In Pakistan, that is in flux--due in part to the blasphemy law controversy.
In KSA, the King generally agrees to have the police enforce whatever the scholars and Imams demand to satisfy their interpretation of the Koran. In Iran the scholars and jurists rule directly under the controversial doctrine of Wilayat al Faqih that Khomeini promulgated for his convenience.
http://nowlebanon.com/NewsArchiveDetails.aspx?ID=100216
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardianship_of_the_Islamic_Jurists
Cont'd
...Lastly its true that, when the major schools agree on something, its binding, but there are certain instances when scholars and schools differ (as you have said only 75% similarity).
If i have understood you correclty, you have taken the statement saying that when the major schools of thought agree on something then its binding' (which does apply to most things)
and combined it with the statement that 75% of similarity exists between these schools
and then used these two statements to look at selected quotes (eg objectives of jihad) from the book. Am i correct?
K, by putting two and two togehter yourself (in the case of this controversial topic), you have made the ruling yourself without the counsel of a scholar who is likely to catch clauses you and I miss. Now this is usually ok to do, but in the case of such controversial topics, best discussed with a scholar.
But, before that, to make sure you looked carefully,
Are you aware of any other clauses from discussions about the same topic, in this book itself? (assuming you have read the whole thing, I havent) One needs to be sure of someone's veiwpoint before quoting them, correct?
And, have you searched for discussions of this topic by any other scholars who have authenticity, so that you catch any other possible clauses you may have missed?
==============
Yes I have and still am in that process. What I have found so far is that there are individual scholars who have issued statements that contradict the consensus of the four madhabs in one area or another, but no one who claims the authority to replace the accepted interpretation with a new one. The political side of the Islamic Umma is broken. Sharia was designed to be enforced by a central authority, which Islam always had. Without it, it is difficult to amass enough consensus to bring about significant change, because of differences between Islamic countries.
Like rewriting our Constitution, it takes a lot of moxie to even attempt it. To take the analogy further, many legal scholars propose changes to the Constitution, but few actually put forward a bill in Congress to do the deed. Reinterpreting a major concept in the canonical fiqh would be comparable.
Cantinued--
I was hoping to start such a conversation here at Huffpo. It hasn't happened yet. I still hope that someone will suggest that Umdat represents a vision of Islamic law that is out of date and it should be clearly labeled as history, not present doctrine.
I am aware that Muslims are having this conversation among themselves. I think it would be good for all to bring it out into the open. It would refute those who say Islam cannot reform.
Having said all this, remember that my qualifications and methods are not the subject here, Sharia law is. If anyone wants to bring contradictory law to the conversation to disprove anything in Umdat, fine. Until they do, I will assume Umdat is correct, as the warrantors claim. I am merely reporting what Islamic scholars claim to be true.
To Puncastle -Salam- I think the Ahmadi's would agree that the Prophet (s) is the last. I think they make a distinction between legal-Prophethood (Nubuwwa) and Prophesy per se. This is a common distinction you can find within the Islamic Philosophical tradition. The words that the Islamic mystics use for it is Wilaya, Kashf or Ilham- all of which is a type of divine inspiration. I'm not saying the Ahmadi's are right, I'm just saying that you cannot disprove their position by quoting a few hadith because ultimately it's a question of faith (particularly in the Mahdi). Even the verse from the Qur'an you quoted is subject to interpretation. So even if the terminology can be confusing- if a group prays and fasts and follows the Qur'an by the letter and interprets it in a holistic and sane way-- there is no grounds for having suspicion and a bad opinion of them. New movements and ideas with new leaders come about as a test to wake us up and encourage us to be better, not to tear down. "And suspicion in some cases is a sin" (47:12).
It is important to look at the context behind each verse- but really one but needs to take the Qur'an as a whole because it explains itself. This is what the Qur'an says to do in verse 3:7.
5:51- the word for friend in Arabic is Sadeeq/Rafiq. The word used in this verse is Awliya- which means spiritual leader. It is the same word the Muslim mystics use to describe the people who have attained a high degree of consciousness/spiritual awareness. The verse is telling the Muslims that, because they have a divine Prophet in front of their face- there is no need to seek spiritual and practical counsel from others- esp in a time of struggle.
Concerning 9:123 and 9:29, there are also these verses in the same vein: "Will you not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do you fear them? No, should fear God more." (9:13)
"But if the enemy inclines toward peace, you also incline towards peace, and trust God, he hears and knows all" (8:61)
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, God does not love the transgressors" (2:90)
Jizya does not mean religious tax. It means tribute given by a party as a token that they will maintain the peace and refrain from resuming hostilities. Also 9:29 does not mention the word Islam.
One can easily quote a vareity of setiments ranging from tolerance and love to intolerance and ultra- belligerence towards other human beings, And we should be open about discussing both. Entirely celebratory opinions really don't ring true , to be polite about it, to a modern ear.
Pre-emptive opinion: One can make similar statements regarding some other religious traditions, granted.
And it is important to discuss and criticize other religious ideology-- in other,relevant forums.
5:51: “O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them for friendship is of them.”
9:123: “O you who believe! FIGHT those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find HARSHNESS in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the pious.”
9:29: “FIGHT against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not Islam as the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah [religious tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
Employing terms, such as HARSHNESS, FIGHT, SUBMISSION, and SUBDUED, these Surahs from the Qu'ran certainly allow for Muslim extremists to find support for fighting and subduing Christians and Jews. Qasim's inattention, if intentional, is complicit, otherwise unfortunate: Reticence in the face of evil, emboldens the latter.
"And the LORD said unto Moses, 'Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from "Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people." (Deut)
"Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword." (Deut. 13)"
"Thus saith the LORD , I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (I Samuel 15)"
"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (Timothy 2)
And I think you'll find that pointing out that the Bible is "just as bad" is not actually a very effective way of promoting Islam.
However, in the New Testament, you will NOT find a single scripture that says to "let them (non-believers) find HARSHNESS in you", or "SUBDUE" the non-believer, as is stated in the Qu'ran.
If fact, consider these three representative New Testament scriptures in which Jesus says,
(Matthew 5:44) "But I say unto you, LOVE YOUR ENEMIES, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which spitefully use you, and persecute you;"
(Luke 6:27-37) "But I say to you which hear, Love your enemies, DO GOOD TO THEM WHICH HATE YOU."
(Mark 12:31) "And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. The second is this, 'You shall love your YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' There is no other commandment greater than these."
(Luke 6:31) "DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU."
We don't all have to believe the same things, but as Americans whose country was largely founded and codified as a bastion of religious freedom, it behooves us to allow worship as one chooses, without the threat of VIOLENT retribution. Hence, we should love and forgive each other, not be harsh, or subdue each other into submission, simply due to difference in belief.
and unlike the Bible, it always follow-up with forgiveness.
Indeed, these are very challenging words for humans to follow; but Jesus' edicts are certainly more loving and forgiving than an "eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" and they far surpass "Let them (disbelievers) find Harshness in you", "FIGHT and SUBDUE" those who don't believe as you do, etc.
It is important to keep in mind that we are talking about what "holy" scriptures literally advocate, not what people imagine that they advocate.
I live in Australia, a country in which all peoples are free to follow there beliefs inclusive of Ahmadis (and in my opinion rightly so).
The Ahmadi motto of love for all hatred for none stands in stark contrast to the statement on alislam.org (their official website) attributed to their leader Masroor Ahmad which states with reference to the Baha’is “we should always avoid these people”1
And all due to a second hand fable about a couple of unknown Baha’is which Masroor uncritically accepted from his forefather and used to pass judgement on an entire 5-7 million people.
Kind regards,
Daniel De Mol.
1 http://www.alislam.org/friday-sermon/20090130.html#summary-tab
Indeed, these are very challenging words for humans to follow; but the Christ's edicts are certainly more loving and forgiving than an "eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" and they far, far surpass "Let them (disbelievers) find Harshness in you", "FIGHT and SUBDUE" those who don't believe as you do, etc. It is important to keep in mind that we are talking about WHAT the scriptures literally advocate, not what people imagine that they advocate.
It is true Sunnis and Shias have been fighting each other over the centuries, however as far as declaring each other kafir, well it is a mixed bag. Many of the mainstream scholars of both have accepted each others group as Muslim though with deviated theology. However both reject unanimously the claim from Mirza Ghulam of being the Messiah.
I'm not Christian, so I look at it fairly objectively:
The official name of the Mormon church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
I've been to their main visitor center in Salt Lake City, where they have a huge statue of Jesus. For a time (I don't know if this is still the case) the Book of Mormon was promoted by calling it "another testament of Jesus Christ". I know a few Mormons, and they say they're Christian.
Therefore, I would say "Mormons are Christian."
The fact that other Christians have opinions that Mormons are not "doing it right", or whatever -- are simply opinions.
Mormons have as much right to call themselves Christian as anyone does, I would say.
Ditto Ahmadis, with respect to being Muslim ... they have the right to self-define as Muslim, just as Mormons have the right to self-define as Christian, I would say.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be the "Ahmad" refered to in the Qur'an, when Jesus said that another prophet will be coming, whose name shall be Ahmad (referring to the Prophet Muhammad). The name Ahmad is a variant of the name Muhammad.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Christianity co-opted Judaism.
Islam co-opted Christianity and Judaism
Ahmadiyya Islam is co-opting Sunni and Shia Islam.
And so it goes...
As Martha Stewart says--It's a good thing. Religions evolve by standing on their predecessor's shoulders. America is providing the tolerant atmosphere--freedom and security--that is needed for the free market in religion to flourish. Good for us.
Christianity co-opted Judaism.
Islam co-opted Christianity and Judaism
Ahmadiyya Islam is co-opting Sunni and Shia Islam.
And so it goes...
As Martha Stewart says--It's a good thing. Religions evolve by standing on their predecessor's shoulders. America is providing the tolerant atmosphere--freedom and security--that is needed for the free market in religion to flourish. Good for us.
Quite frankly, the "separation of mosque and state", the "empowerment and equality of women", as well as the "freedom of speech/religion" part sounds great to a liberal like me, but I wonder: What is the moderate Ahmadiyya's point of view on homosexuality? Could one of the Ahmadis on here please elaborate on that?
Thanks!
Let the world know that these people who call themselves "Ahmadiyya Muslims" are NOT MUSLIMS AT ALL. To be and remain a muslim, the basic and the first proclamation is that you have to attest to the Muslim Proclamation of Faith that says that THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH and PROPHET MUHAMMAD IS THE LAST AND FINAL MESSENGER.
This so called group claims that their leader Ghulam Ahmed Mirza is a messiah and this itself takes them out of the fold of islam.
Beware of these groups who call themselves muslims....they are not...they are free to call themselves 'Ahmadiyyas' but not 'muslims'.
Further is has been clearly already establish that this penal code does not exist in the Quran and this ancient practice is not part of a Muslim faith, so he or she does not have to accept this interpretation of early Muslim leaders. Temporarily scholars such as Professor Tariq Ramadaan, has spoken eloquently, on this subject. However, the Islamaphobes have no interest in a alternative view.
Back in those days apostate, just like modern time, was considered and act of treason. There were no sophisticated intelligence apparatus to do a lie detector test to determine who is a traitor., heck even in our so-called civilized world one is easily called a traitor, e.g Julian Assange.
However, if one really look in the Quran to support this argument, it actually says the opposite. that even during warfare, if the enemy seek asylum and are willing to make peace it must be granted to them. Quran 9:6. "If one amongst the Pagans Ask thee for asylum, Grant it to him."
http://www.tariqramadan.com/Muslim-Scholars-Speak-Out.html
I am critical of all the religions I am familiar with. On these pages, I identify myself as a critic of Islam.
What's interesting about that is the reception my criticism gets. Some Muslims like you Knocker, almost never respond to the issue at hand--always preferring ad hominem slurs as in the post above. But some Muslims here respond to the content of my criticism with rational defense and no personal attack.
However, non-Muslim defenders of Islam, with a few exceptions like Doug Sandlin, are much more likely to respond with naked ad hominem attacks.
They are "more Catholic than the Pope".
I appreciate that acknowledgment.
As I've said elsewhere, as much as I tend to disagree strongly with your opinions, just as you tend to do with mine, I respect both you and your almost-always civil manner of communication (you've had a "slip" or two, here or there; me, too -- though you and I both get fairly high marks for keeping the dialogue civil, if nothing else, I'd say).
And, as I've said before, I don't consider myself a defender of Islam (Islam is a big religion; it certainly doesn't need my help ...) as much as a "critic of fact-challenged criticism of Islam".
I know you and I disagree, almost always, on what is factual or not, as well -- but that's part of what hopefully keeps the mutual dialogue interesting and informative for everyone reading.
I just consider some of the focus of anti-Islamists to be both prejudicial and distracting from the core issues (of neutralizing and hopefully eradicating all religious extremism and its negative effects) ... hence my steady stream of comments.
Also, you and I both supply plenty of information with which people can use as beginnings for their own research, which I consider useful to getting to the truth, and what, if anything, we may want to do about it, for us all.
And so, civil, respectful dialogue, between those of us who disagree, is a key part of this overall process.
Thanks again, Jan.
Now why would the Ahmadiyya feel the need to reject something that--according to Sunnis and Shia--is nonexistent?
“Our hope is to emphasize to our fellow Americans,” Sayed said, “that it is the religious duty of a Muslim to be loyal to the country where he resides…Number two that there are negative influences being exerted — upon especially the Muslim youth in the United States — by people like al Awlaki on the Internet and third the press pays attention to violent acts that people commit in the name of Islam….If we just sit by, more and more these extremists will take hold the banner of Islam and say this is what Islam is.”
http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/05/muslims-loyalty/#ixzz1DCg2wrJj
a) There is no mandatory death penalty in the Qur`an for any crime.
b) The death penalty for apostasy in fact conflicts with the Qur`an.
The truth of the above statements can be seen by examining the verses: 5:32-33, 45, 2:178 and 4:88-91.
Now for some perspective:
Deuteronomy 13:6-9 "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying: Let us go and worship other gods (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other, or gods of other religions), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SLsJwtxBil8
Is that you BTW?
In some areas religion grows up a little bit. Yes, it takes all together too long.
And yes, we still have some people (like Judge Roy Moore) who tell us that homosexuals should be put to death. There doubtless are some few fundamentalists who think that they should be allowed to put apostates to death. But they do not speak for the faith.
Unfortunately, governments whose courts are based on Sharia consider apostasy a death penalty offense. They claim it is Islamic.
At least there is a debate starting about the topic. You have formidable competition, but I hope your position will prevail in the years to come.