"On Faith" panelist Pamela K. Taylor is co-founder of Muslims for Progressive Values and director of the Islamic Writers Alliance. She is a member of the national board of advisors to the Network of Spiritual Progressives, and served as co-chair of the Progressive Muslim Union for two years. Taylor is a strong supporter of the woman imam movement, which seeks the full participation of Muslim women in every aspect of life, including the pulpit. In July 2005, she became the first woman in centuries to officiate Friday prayers in a mosque when the United Muslim Association of Toronto and the Muslim Canadian Congress invited her to serve as guest imam. (This event followed a number of services, sermons and prayer sessions led by women held in private venues because no mosque agreed to host them.) In February 2006, when the former Grand Mufti of Marseilles visited Toronto, he requested that Taylor lead him in congregational prayer as an unequivocal demonstration of his support for female imams. Taylor has also been active in interfaith dialogue for 20 years, both in local initiatives and speaking at numerous conferences, universities, and churches. She received her MTS from Harvard Divinity School, and writes regularly on spiritual matters and the Islamic faith. She has essays in Nurturing Child and Adolescent Spirituality: Perspectives from the World's Religious Traditions (2006) and the forthcoming The Veil: Women Writers on Its History, Lore, and Politics (2007). She has written hundreds of articles and opinion pieces for newspapers, magazines, and journals, and is an award winning poet.
Close.
Pamela K. Taylor
co-founder, Muslims for Progressive Values
"On Faith" panelist Pamela K. Taylor is co-founder of Muslims for Progressive Values and director of the Islamic Writers Alliance. She is a member of the national board of advisors to the Network of Spiritual Progressives, and served as co-chair of the Progressive Muslim Union for two years. Taylor is a strong supporter of the woman imam movement, which seeks the full participation of Muslim women in every aspect of life, including the pulpit.
more »
It seems incredible that it is not obvious to everyone reading the quotes above from the various scriptures that ALL scripture was written by human politicians. Politicians have always been psychological manipulators. Only the gullible fall for it. A paedophile duped 1.4 billion gullible people! If you're not smart enought to see through the scam, at least make an effort.
frank- islamic is an adjective used to describe a noun
we can be islamic thinkers- but not islamics
we are muslikms, adherents to islam
progressive muslims (and i speak only for myself)
are those who read the quran with an open and understanding heart- and intentions for finding the highest ideals contained within, and aspiring to integrate those ideals into our consciousness-
we look to read the qur'am in our own lifetime-
for and by ourselves- and not what some man in the 10th century decided it should mean for us-
unfortunately, many who have no real knowledge of islam, look with jaunduced eyes filled with bad intentions- as soon as they find some comment they shout AHA! i am provng my own ugly suspicions!
not realizing that if they read one more line, they would find exhortations to peace- high calibers of behavior, and forgiveness.
their hearts will not be ligted up by the verses they find- it is not the fault of the book, but the state of mind of the interpreter
you are finding what you want to jutify your own bias because that is all you are looking for-
it is sad, but we all have our own lessons to learn.
there are mean spirited little hearts across the world looking to justify their own hateful agendas- i have no more relation to them than to the haters here-
and i can forgive your sad state until you try to attack me, or incite others to do so.
So you do not believe or do not really care what one of the major tenets of Islam is? i.e. A good Muslim must believe in angels aka "pretty wingy thingies".
Concerned -- perhaps I should have been clearer: all of the people who have contributed to the organization are on that list. For obvious reasons, I am not going to list their names here as that would be an invasion of privacy (and perhaps illegal even -- I am not a legal or financial person, but it seems to me that records like that may be priviledged information.) If you would like more detail information, I suggest you write to the other founder Ani Zonneveld (www.a-n-i.net) who has been handling financial matters.
As for angels... I really don't think about them very much. I can't see them, they don't really impact my life. Either they are real or they are a metaphor for how the Divine interfaces with this temporal plane. Allahu Alim (God knows.) I'm much more concerned with living my life, raising my kids, doing my work, trying to be a good person, trying to make things around me better and so on.
When Islam was reformed by the Sufis many of them were killed! Although Sufis have their roots in Islam, they are not accepted by mainstream Islam. Although Sufism has its origin in Islam, it is too spiritual for the mainstream Islamics because it does not bother with politics, and bypasses Mohammad on their way to God, whom they prefer to call Al-haqq (one of the names for God in the Quran), not Allah. It is Sufis who can offer the best Islam for inter-religious dialogue.
Hmmm, being a subscriber of Yahoo group site does not make you a member of an organization. Bottom line, you do not have an official list of contributors or benefactors. So again, where do you get your funding?
So you also believe in angels aka "pretty wingie thingies, tinker bells, guardians of the flyby nighties" or "ugly wingy thingies" aka devils, satans, demons of the demented, as per the tenets of Islam?
Your response about financing is greatly appreciated.
Now how about addressing the first ten qualities of the Islamic heart? e.g. do you believe in angels aka "pretty wingy thingies" as required in the third quality? I find it amazing how religions are so dependent on these mythical "tinker bells". And who came up with the names?
Joe Smith's private "tinker bell", Moroni must have been a real charmer!!!!
On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages.
Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."
PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
How much of the progressive Muslim values comes from the Quran, Hadiths and Sira alone, and how much of it is simply taken from the UN Charter of Basic Human Rights?
HH,
Surah 9, particularly 9:5 and 9:29 was revealed after Hunain and Taif, thus your explanation is erroneous.
By then Muhammad had defeated his foes - there would be no more battles or opposition to him for the rest of his life.
Except for a few battles where the Meccans were retaliating against Muslim aggression - e.g. raiding their caravans, the Muslims were the aggressors.
Muhammad even broke the Treaty of Hudaibiyya under flimsy excuse.
But most tellingly, it was the timing of the revelation of surah 9 that betrays Muslim aggression.
After he conquered Mecca unprovoked and in violation of the Treaty, he attacked Hunain, a tribe that was defending themselves in their own territory. Then he attacked Taif, the allies of the Hunain.
Then he revealed Surah 9 - to unilaterally cancel all the treaties he had made to other tribes and to prepare the Muslims for GLOBAL DOMINATION.
Janet, thank you for bringing this to my attention. We will be sending a letter of protest to this imam, and I will try to get other Islamic orgs here in the US to do the same.
Concerned -- at present we have no external funding. We are operating on a shoestring budget of donations made by our members. (The members list is available at our yahoogroups site.) Further, we are very much against foreign funding of American Muslims groups, as it does indeed tie hands, even if there are supposedly no strings attached.
Frank -- please note point 2 -- regardless of creed, ie faith (or lack thereof).
The framework underlying fighting in Islam is self-defense, and all verses which call on the believers to "fight the unbelievers" must be understood in this framework.
Time and again, over and over and over again, I either read or hear from people that Islam calls for the murder of "infidels," or all those who are not Muslim. This perception is so pervasive, so entrenched, and I really do not know from where it comes. Yes, there are Muslims who do believe this: 19 of them crashed three planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, killing nearly 3,000 of my innocent American brothers and sisters. But, I don't know from where they got this idea.
"It is the Qur'an, you idiot!!!" I am quite sure some of you just screamed that to your computer screen. Really? Where? I do not know of one verse which directs the believers to kill all "infidels." Yet, I am constantly reminded of the contrary, such as this verse:
"Now when you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks until you overcome them fully..." (47:4).
Or this one:
"O you who have attained to faith! Fight against those unbelievers who are near you and let them find you adamant, and know that God is with those who are conscious of Him" (9:123).
Or this one:
"O Prophet! Strive hard (lit., make "jihad") against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be adamant with them... " (66:73).
Yet, perhaps the "poster child" of all the verses in the Qur'an which are cited as evidence that Islam calls for the murder of infidels is this one, the so-called "Verse of the Sword":
"Slay the pagans wherever you may come upon them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place..." (9:5).
Case closed? Wrong. These verses have a context, and when understood in their proper context, it will become quite clear that the verses cited above are not a carte blanche for Muslims to kill all non-Muslims.
Before I address specific verses, however, a few general principles of the Qur'an when it comes to fighting must be explained. Also, I rely almost exclusively upon Muhammad Asad's explanation of the Qur'an as my source material. Let us begin, then.
In the Qur'an, the principle of fighting is purely self-defensive. According to all available Traditions, the earliest verses revealed with regards to fighting are these:
"Permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged and, verily, God has indeed the power to succour them; those who have been driven from their homelands against all right for no other reason than their saying, 'Our sustainer is God!'" (22:39-40).
Along with this verse is 2:190, which says:
"And fight in God's cause against those who wage war against you..."
Thus, it is quite clear that fighting is to be done in self-defense. Now, anyone can commit acts of terror and aggression and say, "it's in self-defense." In fact, that is precisely what Al Qaeda is doing: they claim by killing 3,000 people in New York City and Washington, D.C., they are "defending" the Muslim nation against "Zionist and Crusader" aggression against the Muslims. What sheer rubbish.
The Qur'an clearly states, in the remainder of 2:190 it says:
"...but do not commit aggression, for verily, God does not love aggressors."
"Committing aggression" includes killing innocent civilians in Tel Aviv, Beslan, New York, Baghdad, or wherever. Furthermore, when the enemy ceases its hostility, fighting must cease:
"...but if they desist, then all hostility shall cease, save against those who [willfully] do wrong" (2:193).
Another verse repeats this insistence that hostility must cease when the enemy stops its aggression against you:
"But if they [the enemy] incline to peace, incline thou to it as well, and place thy trust in God: verily, He alone is all-hearing, all-knowing! And should they seek but to deceive thee [by their show of peace] - behold, God is enough for thee! He it is who has strengthened thee with His succour, and by giving thee believing followers" (8:61-62).
Thus, even if the enemy is feigning a peaceful posture, the Muslims are still commanded to cease hostility and "place their trust in God." Thus, it is quite clear that fighting is in self-defense, and aggression is not allowed. Now, Muslims have waged wars of aggression in the past, for sure, and they even called them "jihad against the infidels" in order to justify their desire for territorial expansion. In fact, one of the most pertinent examples of this was the Ummayad Dynasty, which enacted a policy of "jihad" as perpetual warfare. But, such a policy is not Islamically correct, and as the collapse of the Ummayad Dynasty showed, not sustainable.
Still, the point of the matter is, the framework underlying fighting in Islam is self-defense, and all other verses which deal with fighting or call on the believers to "fight the unbelievers" must be understood in this framework. Yet, this begs the question: why are these verses even in the Qur'an at all? Why fight at all? What was the historical context of these verses of the Qur'an which tell the believers to "fight the unbelievers"? It was a very violent one.
From the very beginnings of his ministry, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was opposed by his people. In fact, on the first day he openly called his people to Islam, his own uncle cursed him by saying, "May you perish!" And why? Because he called his people to abandon their worship of idols and worship instead the One God of Abraham. This was unacceptable, however, to the Meccan oligarchy.
At first, the Meccans simply ignored the Prophet's call. Yet, he would not relent, and Islam began to gain a growing, yet still small, number of followers. This began to alarm the Meccan oligarchy, because fundamentally, the message of Islam was a direct challenge to the status quo, one which greatly benefited those in power in Mecca. The Quraysh, the Prophet's main tribe, were the guardians of the Ka'ba, or the main shrine in Mecca. This shrine was originally built by Abraham and his son Ishmael for the worship of the One God. Over time, it was defiled by 360 pagan idols, gods worshiped as intermediaries between man and the Creator.
Prophet Abraham (pbuh) began the practice of an annual pilgrimage to this shrine, and the Arabs followed in this tradition. Quraysh, being guardians of the Ka'ba, would host the pilgrims, but also sell their goods to the pilgrims. In fact, they made rules that entrenched this economic monopoly. One of the prime examples of this is that pilgrims can only circumambulate the Ka'ba with clothes made by Quraysh. If they could not afford such clothes, they must circumambulate naked. Thus, the idolatrous system in Mecca had a direct economic benefit for the Meccan oligarchy. Moreover, their occupation as guardians of the Holy Shrine made their stature among the Arabs even more elevated.
The Prophet's message of "there is none worthy of worship except God" was a direct challenge to this power structure. If the Arabs abandon their worship of the pagan gods, the Quraysh's logic went, Quraysh's economic monopoly vanishes. Moreover, "there is none worthy of worship besides God" also challenged their non-chalant attitude toward the enormous injustice of Arab society in the Seventh Century. When someone pledges that there is none worthy of worship except God, they necessarily accept God's way of doing things and running their lives. Preventing injustice and having concern for the poor and less fortunate is an essential aspect of Islamic ethics, and this was a challenge the Meccan oligarchs were not willing to take up. Thus, they opposed the Prophet's message.
When ignoring the Prophet did not work, they began to actively oppose it. The Prophet, however, enjoyed the protection of his uncle Abu Talib and the clan of Bani Hashim, thus they could not harm him physically. There are some who claim that the only reason the Meccans opposed the Prophet was because he reviled their gods. This is not exactly true. Indeed, the Prophet did revile their gods. Yet, the Qur'an directed him to stop, when the pagans threatened to revile God in revenge:
"But do not revile those [beings] whom they invoke instead of God, lest they revile God out of spite and in ignorance: for goodly indeed have We made their own doings appear unto every community. In time, [however], unto their Sustainer they must return: and then He will make them [truly] understand all that they were doing" (6:108).
Thus, the Prophet stopped, but the Meccans did not stop their opposition. In fact, it only increased. Seeing that they could not harm the Prophet physically, they resorted to physical torture of anyone who converted to Islam. In fact, they killed two people, Sumaya and Yasser, when they refused to give up Islam. The situation became so bad that the Prophet sent away around 70 of his companions, including his own cousin Ja'afar ibn Abi Talib, to Abyssinia for asylum.
Even physical torture did not stop the flow of converts to Islam. Thus, the Meccans boycotted the Prophet, his clan Bani Hashim, and all those who followed Islam. The Meccan oligarchy prevented anyone from buying from or selling to anyone associated with the Prophet. They could not marry to or from Bani Hashim. They were banished to some mountain tracts just outside of Mecca, and there they stayed for three years. When the Sacred Months would come, during which all hostilities must cease, the Meccans would raise the prices of their goods to such an extent that the Muslims could not buy anything. Many Muslims, including the Prophet, went hungry, and his uncle Abu Talib and wife Khadija died as a result of this boycott.
After the boycott ended - and with his main source of support, Abu Talib, now dead - the persecution of the Prophet increased exponentially. Now, not just the elite of Mecca attacked the Prophet, but even young children hurled dust and insults at the Prophet. The Prophet soon realized that there was no hope left for the Meccans to accept his message, and he thus looked to the South, to the sister city of Ta'if, for aid and support. He was immediately rejected, and the leaders of Ta'if sent the street children after him to pelt his legs with stones, bloodying them severely. The situation was so dangerous for the Prophet that he could not return to Mecca except under the protection of Mut'im ibn 'Adi, one of Mecca's most powerful leaders, who pitied the Prophet.
When the Meccans learned of Mut'im's pact of protection, they came to him and asked, "Protector or follower?" He replied, "Only a protector." They said to him, "If you would have said 'follower,' we would have fought you." This to one of the most powerful men of Mecca, showing the deep enmity the Meccans had for the Prophet. When all hope was lost, an unexpected boost came from the North. The people of Yathrib, a city more than 250 miles away, had accepted Islam and now asked for the Prophet to come to them. He took an oath of allegiance from them, and he ordered his followers to emigrate to Yathrib, soon to be called Madinat-un-Nabi, or City of the Prophet. After the Prophet made sure all of his followers left Mecca safely, along with returning the property his enemies had entrusted to him (because of his impeccable honesty), the Prophet himself emigrated to Medina along with his trusted friend Abu Bakr.
Yet, the hostilities did not cease with the Prophet now expelled from Mecca. After he left, the Meccans seized all the property of the Muslims which was left behind in Mecca, including that of the Prophet, and enriched their caravans with it. This was a blatant act of war, and thus the Prophet raided the caravans of Quraysh to get their property back. This led to the first major battle between the Muslims and the Meccans, the Battle of Badr. The Meccans were handle defeated by the Muslims. This enraged the Meccans, and they returned less than two years later with a larger, more powerful army to crush the Muslims at foot of Mount Uhud.
At first, the Muslims easily defeated the Meccans, but when 50 archers disobeyed the direct order of the Prophet, the Meccans regrouped, and the Muslims were defeated. The Prophet himself was severely wounded in the ensuing chaos, and he was nearly killed. Yet, this small victory did not satisfy the Meccans. They returned once more with the largest army ever assembled in the history of the Arabs - 10,000 strong - composed of all the hostile tribes of the Arabian Peninsula. The pagans marched directly for Medina, seeking to wipe out Islam once and for all. This effort also did not succeed, and the pagan Arab army was sent back in defeat.
On top of the relentless attacks and hostility toward the Muslims from the direction of Mecca, many surrounding Arab and Bedouin tribes were also hostile to the Muslims, and they joined in the fight against the Prophet. In fact, these Arab tribes sought to assassinate the Prophet on many occasions. The hostility did not cease until the signing of the Treaty of Hudaybiyah in 628 C.E., and it was only after the Meccans broke the treaty (contrary to some modern accusations) that the Prophet finally marched on Mecca and conquered it in 630.
It was in this terribly hostile environment that the verses commanding the Muslims to "fight the unbelievers" were revealed. This was the historical context of verse 9:5 and others like it. Quite clearly, the verses are commanding the Muslims to defend themselves against the aggression of their enemies, and they are not commands for the Muslims to "kill all infidels."
There is typically an economic/financial part of any agenda/group. Could you tell us who supports your Progressive Values Group?? For example, John L. Esposito is supported by a large grant from Prince Al-Waleed, who is a member of the Saudi Royal Family, and a entrepreneur and international investor. He has amassed his fortune through investments in properties and stocks. As of 2007, his net worth is estimated at US $20.3 billion and he is ranked by Forbes as the 13th richest person in the world, and the second richest Arab. He has been nicknamed by Time magazine as the Arabian Warren Buffett.
I doubt if Mr. Esposito ever criticizes Sunnis or Islam considering his major benefactor.
I applaud the work you have done in working out the principles progressive Muslims stand for. With 1.5 billion Muslims around the world, most of whom live as good citizens and in peace and harmony with people of other faiths, it is vital to have a set of guiding principles for the whole Muslim community worldwide, that is in keeping with the best Islam has to offer, and not what can be interpreted in ways that does not do the image of any religious system any good.
Dom Bede Griffiths had deep respect for the work done by the Sufi mystic, Ibn al Arabi. It is important for non-Muslims to know more and more about the spirituality of Islam, and to seek common ground based on it. Thank you for the work you do as a Muslim in trying to provide common ground.
Turkey is a model for Muslim countries. Turkey was FOUNDED as a secular state by a military general. Hence when their military protects secularism, and Turks take to the streets in defence of secularism, they are merely DEFENDING THEIR CONSTITUTION.
‘Defending the secular faith’ by Stephine Irvine (BBC)
WHY IS THE TURKISH ARMY SO DETERMINED TO DEFEND SECULARISM, THE SEPARATION OF RELIGION AND STATE?
SECULARISM IS FUNDAMENTAL TO TURKEY'S IDENTITY AS A NATION.
TURKEY WAS FOUNDED IN 1923 BY MUSTAFA KEMAL ATATURK, A MILITARY GENERAL, in what had been the Ottoman Sultanate.
ATATURK WAS DETERMINED THAT THIS MAINLY MUSLIM NATION would be a modern, SECULAR COUNTRY, and he introduced wide-ranging reforms, including the emancipation of women, the introduction of western dress, legal code and alphabet, and the ABOLITION OF ISLAMIC INSTITUTION.
Turkey's ruling elite and the powerful military have seen it as their job to protect what Ataturk set up.
The army has not been afraid to intervene militarily whenever it sees fit - it has led three direct coups against elected governments in Ankara.
When, 10 years ago, Turkey elected its first pro-Islamic party to government - the Welfare Party - the military campaigned to force it out of office. The following year the party was banned by the courts.
But despite the efforts of the establishment, it seems that Islamic parties are popular in Turkey, and in 2002 the Justice and Development (AK) party of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan won a landslide victory.
The party has its roots in political Islam, but insists it respects the secular principles of the constitution.
The army has tolerated its position in government, but the prospect of one of its members taking up the highest post in the land is causing it great concern.
The staunchly secular elite of Turkey believes a president whose wife wears an Islamic headscarf would have Ataturk turning in his grave.
(Anonymous: The headscarf is viewed as a sign of fundamentalist Islam in Turkey.)
Either Americans cut this type of behavior off in its infancy or it will spread, and we will all be gagged. Please write your representatives about this.
What did you leave out of your progressive agenda?
"We denounce and renounce the Koran's militaristic and anti-female agendas!!!!" Get back to us when you are able to make that statement.
And you also need to address what steps you are taking to cleanse the Koran of other Dark Age concepts.
To get you started:
"30 qualities are connected to the heart"
(ten at a time) from the 77 Branches of Faith (Islam) is a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true faith (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings."
"1. Belief in Allah"
No problem but "aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc." should be added.
"2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."
No problem but evolution and the Big Bang cannot be ignored and the "akas" for Allah should be included.
"3. To believe in the existence of angels."
A major item to delete. Angels/devils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.
"4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."
Another major item to delete. There are no books written in Heaven just as there are no angels to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.
Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line. Today we call them fortune tellers.
Prophecies are also invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.
"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."
Mohammed spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic violence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallucinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.
"6. To believe that Allah Most High has knowledge of everything from before-hand and that only that which He sanctions or wishes will occur."
This is invalidated by the natural/inherent/God-given gifts/attributes of the human race i.e. Free Will and Future.
As per the theologian Edward Schillebeeckx,
Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)
We must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman
doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God/Allah the great scapegoat of history.”
"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human
activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the
historical future is not known even to God/Allah; otherwise we
and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."
"7. To believe that Resurrection will definitely occur."
The spiritual resurrection occurs at each death. There will be no physical resurrection from common sense considerations i.e. Heaven is a spirit state i.e. no bodies to include those of Jesus, Mary, Moses etc.
"8. To believe in the existence of Heaven."
Acceptable but it exists only as a spirit state.
"9. To believe in the existence of Hell."
Maybe, maybe not. Some say if one dies is significant sin, that person’s soul will simply no longer exist since God/Allah does not tolerate imperfection in the Kingdom.
"10. To have love for Allah Most High."
Of course, just like there is love of all creatures, spiritual and living. Again there has to be an all-inclusive statement for Allah, i..e. aka God, Yahweh, Mother Nature, Jehovah
well pam that was one big load of crap! i asked for it in practical terms. you accept all live which is islam speak all islamic life. so when did you or your bothers march in oppisition to those jews being murdered? i read al jiz and not one word. why dont you really be progressive and just say that those parts of the koran i noted are evil and if you are a good islamic you must never accept them? you wont do that will you? here are a few, not all, but a few. disavow them here and now. and dont tell me that i am vile for reciting them, as other islamics have said, they are the words of the islamic god passed down from the islamic prophet. if you dont like what your god said, take it up with moho.
The Hadith No. 284, The Muslim, volume one, says that any Jew or Christian, who heard of Muhammad but did not convert to Islam, and died in disbelief, would rot in hell! Thus Islam withdraws from all Jews and Christians the right to believe in their faiths, and pratice them as such.
"The unbelievers of the People of the Book and the idolators shall be in the Fire of Hell therein dwelling for ever; those are the worst of creatures. But those who believe, and do righteous deeds, those are the best of creatures..." (XCVIII: The Clear Sign: 5)
Here those Jews and Christians, who spurn Islam, have been lumped together with the idolators such as the Hindus, and classified as 'the worst of creatures'. Therefore the Koran commands:
"O believers, take not as your friends those of them, who were given the Book before you, and the unbelievers, who take your religion in mockery and as a sport..." (V: The Table: 60)
"The true believers say: Has not God ordered a chapter that commands the holy war" (Sura 47:22); or elsewhere: "Kill the idolaters wherever you find them, imprison them, besiege them, ambush them" (Sura 9:5); and, "Make war on unbelievers" (Sura 9:29). "When you come upon unbelievers, massacre them, tighten the bands of the captives that you will have taken. Then you will set them free, or you will release them for a ransom" (Sura 8:57).
"To Allah, there are no animals viler than those who do not believe and remain unbelievers" (Sura 8:57). That is why it is necessary to Islamize them by force and by humiliation. And those who resist Islam and its founder must be chastised, according to the Koran: "Here is the fate of those who fight Allah and his messenger: you will put them to death or you will make them suffer the torture of the cross; you will cut their hands and their feet alternately. They will be driven from the country" (Sura 5:37).
"Do not display cowardice, and do not call the infidels to peace when you are superior to them" (Sura 47:22). THIS ALLOWS THEM TO MAKE PEACE SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE WAR AGAIN LATER.
4.89": They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
"4.90": Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.
"4.91": You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority.
Here are a few things you can say you are sorry for and return what islam stole. they are the horrible acts committed by islam which caused the west to have to stop you. they are the blessed crusades, and what you did to have them happen.
The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.
GIVE WHAT YOU TOOK BACK, BUT SAY YOU ARE SORRY FIRST.
that is the first step to show you are more than just words and double speak. you and i both know that your assertion of peace for all means all innocent and that the only innocent under islam are islamics. so an islamic baby is innocent, but a jew baby in an ice cream parlor in israel is evil and the islamic that blows that baby up is an islamic hero.
so tell us your koran is wrong when it says hate and murder and convert by the sword, and then we have a starting point for a real dialogue.
1) adultery in an of itself is not a punishable crime according to the Qur'an. The crime is public lewdness -- and the requirement is four eye witnesses to the act. The other means of "proof" is confession. The classical scholars ruled that pregnancy does not count as a sufficient proof of adultery (obviously, as it could have been non-consensual, the child could be the husband's, and so on). If the person does not make a public show of their adultery they may be committing a sin, but they are not committing a crime. The situations in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria, and Pakistan are ahistorical, and a travesty of justice by any definition. To me this is one of the most critical issues for the West to apply pressure on so-called Islamic states. (Un-Islamic states is more accurate.)
2) the punishment of stoning for adultery is non-Qur'anic. Either the hadith about the prophet stoning adulterers are fake, or he went beyond what the Qur'an teaches. I haven't really examined those hadith in depth, and can't comment on whether they are sound or not.
Personally, I find the hudud (the punishments mentioned in the Qur'an) to be outmoded and agree with Tariq Ramadan that they should not be implemented in this day and age. (Note, that is not saying I agree with everything Tariq Ramadan has ever said, or even all his reasoning on this particular point, but I do agree that the Hudud are no longer appropriate.)
3)And this is the most important from my point of view. Since the Qur'an says quite clearly there shall be no compulsion in religion, I believe that any punishment for sins can only be voluntary, not mandated by the state. Since adultery is a sin, that means it is an issue of morality and conscience, and should be left to the individual's conscience.
In the case of public indecency, as I said above I believe that the hudud punishments are no longer appropriate or applicable.
For those who think this is is position held by only Western Muslims... witness the millions of demonstrators supporting secularism in Turkey this past weekend. Obviously, there is a battle in the Muslim world over the role religion should have in the state. The example of those countries that have tried to mix their understandings of shariah in with the governance of the people ought to be sufficient to convince anyone that secularism is essential.
Until such time as that is achieved, I believe moderate, liberal, and progressive Muslims would be well advised to try and ameliorate the situation by providing alternative interpretations that are humane.
Sorry for being awol for those seeking responses --
Muslims for Progressive Values has been refining the statement of principles, which should now be posted on our website. For your ease, here they are:
1) We accept as Muslim anyone who identifies as such. The veracity and integrity of that claim is between the individual and God, not a matter for the state, nor an issue which other individuals can or should judge.
2) We affirm the equal worth of all human beings, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, creed, sexual orientation, or ability. We are committed to work towards societies that ensure equality of social, political, educational, and economic opportunity for all.
3) We believe that freedom of conscience is not only essential to all human societies but integral to the Qur’anic view of humanity. As such, we resist the legislation of morality and endorse the separation of religion and state in all matters of public policy. We believe that secular government is the only way to achieve the Islamic ideal of freedom from compulsion in matters of faith.
4) We support freedom of expression and freedom of dissent, even when that expression may be offensive and that dissent may be blasphemous. In particular, we believe that concepts of patriotism, orthodoxy, or loyalty to one’s faith group must not be used to silence dissenting voices in the political, artistic, or religious spheres.
5) We support women's agency and self-determination in every aspect of their lives. We believe women’s full participation in society at every level and equality among genders is enshrined in the Quran.
6) We endorse the human rights, civil rights and civil liberties of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-sexual individuals.
7) We affirm that justice and compassion should be the guiding principles for all aspects of human conduct. We repudiate militarism and violence, whether on an individual, organizational, or national level; we support efforts for universal health care, universal public education, the protection of our environment, and the eradication of poverty around the world.
8) We call for critical inquiry and dynamic engagement with Islamic scripture, traditional jurisprudence, and current Muslim discourses. We promote interpretations and rulings that reflect basic Qur’anic principles of tolerance, inclusivity, mercy, compassion, and fairness.
9) We recognize the danger of religious extremism in all faith groups. We view the politicization of religion and the intrusion of religion into politics as twin threats to civil society and humane civilization. We will resist the intrusion of religion into politics and the exploitation of religion for political ends.
10) We affirm the diversity of inspirations that motivate people to embrace a commitment to justice and compassion, including a profound faith rooted in religious traditions, ethical imperatives developed throughout the centuries, and secular and humanist values shared by many Muslims today. As such, we will to engage with and contribute to other philosophical and spiritual traditions and progressive movements in pursuit of the aforementioned goals and principles.
What is it about the ideology of Islam that makes young men do what this one did?
Why is it that Pamela is trying to explain to Americans how to be tolerant, instead of spending her time and energy countering the violent part of Islam? Is this what she means by calling herself a "progressive"?
I personally don't want to hear another word from her, and I fail to understand why the Washington Post has given her a platform for all her misinformation.
If you want to see how Islam is actually practiced in places like Somalia, Saudi Arabia, and among immigrant communities in Europe and Africa, then read Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. If you have some vague postmodernist idea that all cultures are of equal value, read this book. The book is Ayaan's autobiography. You will understand the destructive role of Islam in the lives of Muslim women, and why people get hooked into this particular ideology. The book provides balance to Pamela Taylor's fairy tale version of Islam. Would that the WashingtonPost would run articles by Hirsi Ali and others, to balance out their articles by Taylor, Armstrong and Ramadan. Perhaps the Post is too afraid to run such articles.
Jesus Christ says in John 3:19,20 - And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
will one of you islamics tell us what a progressive islamic really is? what makes you progressive? do you still follow the koran's commands to force conversions, or murder or torture? what makes you more progressive than other islamics that think its great to murder jews because they are jews?
and will one of you put those quoted parts of the koran into context so they dont meand murder and torture non islamics?
and when will hyou apologize for your conduct leading up to the crusades and give the lands you stole back?
and why can islamics live in israel but you ban jews from islamic countries?
islam has a lot to answer for.
and other than a smiling bug eyes liar pretending to be progressive - what the heck is an islamic progressive.
Please read the article on "Myth of Proverbial Wedding" at the Islamic Center of Greater Toledo web site. The author rejects this story of Ayesha' marriage with Muhammad at 7 0r 9 years. He gives references to his argument that anybody can look up. http://www.icgt.org/SpecialArticles/Main.htm
you are not going to like the answer glen. one requires living up to a higher standard as is required by jesus, and the other allows the base nature of man as an animal to allow them to hate, murder and even rape. 1 billion islamics pick lack of control, hate for those who are not islamic and sex with 9 year old girls.
This is a good discussion because it centers on the character of the person one is following. We have the character of Mohamed vs. the character of Jesus Christ. Who do you want to follow? Do you want to follow Jesus Christ the only man to live a sinless life who said things like "he who is without sin throw the first stone" or a man having sex with 9 year old girls and advocating torture and Jihad? Come on this should be a no brainier.
i never said any of them was inspired by anyone. i just think that each religion has the right to say what is part of its own holy books and if anyone does not like it, too darn bad. as a result each religion is judged by the books it says are holy.
hey were is that context for islam on the quotes that i was asked to provide?
and what is a progressive islamic. do they still believe him holding parades for those that murder women and children?
“I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.” Would your
anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:
x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran
x=Frank Collins
who cares what contemporary anyone thinks - it was accepted by the church a lot closer in time than anyone alive today can claim. the bible is what the bible is. want to change it, start your own religion and write one yourself.
As per many contemporary NT scholars, Matthew 4: 1-11 was a later addition to the gospels, an embellishment, or as Professor Crossan would say, "prophecy turned into history rather than history remembered". See his book, The Historical Jesus for added details. Also see:
And since "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" do not exist, the temptation of Jesus by Satan followed by attention by angels are sufficient to put this story in proper perspective i.e. an embellishment to make OT fortune telling fit the NT story.
soja - you are right on. but you will not get anywhere here. islamics are the eternal victims, crying about how they are hated as the hate and murder themselves into spreading islam.
According to the Bible, this is how Jesus dealt with temptation:
Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. After fasting for forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”
Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’ ”
Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple, “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written: “ ‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’ “
Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’ “
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendour. “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’ “
Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.
All Comments (120)
It seems incredible that it is not obvious to everyone reading the quotes above from the various scriptures that ALL scripture was written by human politicians. Politicians have always been psychological manipulators. Only the gullible fall for it. A paedophile duped 1.4 billion gullible people! If you're not smart enought to see through the scam, at least make an effort.
May 5, 2007 5:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 5, 2007 05:41
frank- islamic is an adjective used to describe a noun
we can be islamic thinkers- but not islamics
we are muslikms, adherents to islam
progressive muslims (and i speak only for myself)
are those who read the quran with an open and understanding heart- and intentions for finding the highest ideals contained within, and aspiring to integrate those ideals into our consciousness-
we look to read the qur'am in our own lifetime-
for and by ourselves- and not what some man in the 10th century decided it should mean for us-
unfortunately, many who have no real knowledge of islam, look with jaunduced eyes filled with bad intentions- as soon as they find some comment they shout AHA! i am provng my own ugly suspicions!
not realizing that if they read one more line, they would find exhortations to peace- high calibers of behavior, and forgiveness.
their hearts will not be ligted up by the verses they find- it is not the fault of the book, but the state of mind of the interpreter
you are finding what you want to jutify your own bias because that is all you are looking for-
it is sad, but we all have our own lessons to learn.
there are mean spirited little hearts across the world looking to justify their own hateful agendas- i have no more relation to them than to the haters here-
and i can forgive your sad state until you try to attack me, or incite others to do so.
violence can also be verbal-
and is no more justified than the physical
peace
May 4, 2007 11:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 4, 2007 23:51
amusing- concerned the liberated is instructing on how to be a good muslim.
May 3, 2007 3:45 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 3, 2007 03:45
"pretty wingy thingies"
The ad infinitum use of that implies you find it terribly clever.
IDIOT!
May 2, 2007 9:02 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 2, 2007 09:02
Pamela,
So you do not believe or do not really care what one of the major tenets of Islam is? i.e. A good Muslim must believe in angels aka "pretty wingy thingies".
May 1, 2007 11:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 1, 2007 23:43
Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially
Part II on heterosexual marriage:
http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp
May 1, 2007 10:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 1, 2007 22:42
Concerned -- perhaps I should have been clearer: all of the people who have contributed to the organization are on that list. For obvious reasons, I am not going to list their names here as that would be an invasion of privacy (and perhaps illegal even -- I am not a legal or financial person, but it seems to me that records like that may be priviledged information.) If you would like more detail information, I suggest you write to the other founder Ani Zonneveld (www.a-n-i.net) who has been handling financial matters.
As for angels... I really don't think about them very much. I can't see them, they don't really impact my life. Either they are real or they are a metaphor for how the Divine interfaces with this temporal plane. Allahu Alim (God knows.) I'm much more concerned with living my life, raising my kids, doing my work, trying to be a good person, trying to make things around me better and so on.
May 1, 2007 8:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 1, 2007 20:28
When Islam was reformed by the Sufis many of them were killed! Although Sufis have their roots in Islam, they are not accepted by mainstream Islam. Although Sufism has its origin in Islam, it is too spiritual for the mainstream Islamics because it does not bother with politics, and bypasses Mohammad on their way to God, whom they prefer to call Al-haqq (one of the names for God in the Quran), not Allah. It is Sufis who can offer the best Islam for inter-religious dialogue.
May 1, 2007 6:43 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 1, 2007 06:43
Pamela,
Hmmm, being a subscriber of Yahoo group site does not make you a member of an organization. Bottom line, you do not have an official list of contributors or benefactors. So again, where do you get your funding?
May 1, 2007 4:04 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 1, 2007 04:04
Jihadist,
So you also believe in angels aka "pretty wingie thingies, tinker bells, guardians of the flyby nighties" or "ugly wingy thingies" aka devils, satans, demons of the demented, as per the tenets of Islam?
May 1, 2007 4:00 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 1, 2007 04:00
Oy vey Concerned,
Foreign funding of US religious entities is not acceptable but okay for religious entities and NGOs outside the US to get funds from the US?
Tinker bell? Why not Peter Pan too? Fortune teller? Still can be found in US carnival sites and newspaper astrology page everyday, prophesising.
This Islamic heart is charmed, but the mind remain unconvinced by your requirements and arguments for reform in Islam.
At least you recent posts are getting more interesting.
May 1, 2007 3:53 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 1, 2007 03:53
Pamela,
Your response about financing is greatly appreciated.
Now how about addressing the first ten qualities of the Islamic heart? e.g. do you believe in angels aka "pretty wingy thingies" as required in the third quality? I find it amazing how religions are so dependent on these mythical "tinker bells". And who came up with the names?
Joe Smith's private "tinker bell", Moroni must have been a real charmer!!!!
April 30, 2007 11:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 23:31
On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages.
Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."
PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
April 30, 2007 10:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 22:31
How much of the progressive Muslim values comes from the Quran, Hadiths and Sira alone, and how much of it is simply taken from the UN Charter of Basic Human Rights?
April 30, 2007 9:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 21:30
HH,
Surah 9, particularly 9:5 and 9:29 was revealed after Hunain and Taif, thus your explanation is erroneous.
By then Muhammad had defeated his foes - there would be no more battles or opposition to him for the rest of his life.
Except for a few battles where the Meccans were retaliating against Muslim aggression - e.g. raiding their caravans, the Muslims were the aggressors.
Muhammad even broke the Treaty of Hudaibiyya under flimsy excuse.
But most tellingly, it was the timing of the revelation of surah 9 that betrays Muslim aggression.
After he conquered Mecca unprovoked and in violation of the Treaty, he attacked Hunain, a tribe that was defending themselves in their own territory. Then he attacked Taif, the allies of the Hunain.
Then he revealed Surah 9 - to unilaterally cancel all the treaties he had made to other tribes and to prepare the Muslims for GLOBAL DOMINATION.
Thus, your own history betrays you.
Qasim Omar
April 30, 2007 9:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 21:26
Janet, thank you for bringing this to my attention. We will be sending a letter of protest to this imam, and I will try to get other Islamic orgs here in the US to do the same.
Concerned -- at present we have no external funding. We are operating on a shoestring budget of donations made by our members. (The members list is available at our yahoogroups site.) Further, we are very much against foreign funding of American Muslims groups, as it does indeed tie hands, even if there are supposedly no strings attached.
Frank -- please note point 2 -- regardless of creed, ie faith (or lack thereof).
April 30, 2007 9:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 21:22
The framework underlying fighting in Islam is self-defense, and all verses which call on the believers to "fight the unbelievers" must be understood in this framework.
Time and again, over and over and over again, I either read or hear from people that Islam calls for the murder of "infidels," or all those who are not Muslim. This perception is so pervasive, so entrenched, and I really do not know from where it comes. Yes, there are Muslims who do believe this: 19 of them crashed three planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, killing nearly 3,000 of my innocent American brothers and sisters. But, I don't know from where they got this idea.
"It is the Qur'an, you idiot!!!" I am quite sure some of you just screamed that to your computer screen. Really? Where? I do not know of one verse which directs the believers to kill all "infidels." Yet, I am constantly reminded of the contrary, such as this verse:
"Now when you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks until you overcome them fully..." (47:4).
Or this one:
"O you who have attained to faith! Fight against those unbelievers who are near you and let them find you adamant, and know that God is with those who are conscious of Him" (9:123).
Or this one:
"O Prophet! Strive hard (lit., make "jihad") against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be adamant with them... " (66:73).
Yet, perhaps the "poster child" of all the verses in the Qur'an which are cited as evidence that Islam calls for the murder of infidels is this one, the so-called "Verse of the Sword":
"Slay the pagans wherever you may come upon them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place..." (9:5).
Case closed? Wrong. These verses have a context, and when understood in their proper context, it will become quite clear that the verses cited above are not a carte blanche for Muslims to kill all non-Muslims.
Before I address specific verses, however, a few general principles of the Qur'an when it comes to fighting must be explained. Also, I rely almost exclusively upon Muhammad Asad's explanation of the Qur'an as my source material. Let us begin, then.
In the Qur'an, the principle of fighting is purely self-defensive. According to all available Traditions, the earliest verses revealed with regards to fighting are these:
"Permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged and, verily, God has indeed the power to succour them; those who have been driven from their homelands against all right for no other reason than their saying, 'Our sustainer is God!'" (22:39-40).
Along with this verse is 2:190, which says:
"And fight in God's cause against those who wage war against you..."
Thus, it is quite clear that fighting is to be done in self-defense. Now, anyone can commit acts of terror and aggression and say, "it's in self-defense." In fact, that is precisely what Al Qaeda is doing: they claim by killing 3,000 people in New York City and Washington, D.C., they are "defending" the Muslim nation against "Zionist and Crusader" aggression against the Muslims. What sheer rubbish.
The Qur'an clearly states, in the remainder of 2:190 it says:
"...but do not commit aggression, for verily, God does not love aggressors."
"Committing aggression" includes killing innocent civilians in Tel Aviv, Beslan, New York, Baghdad, or wherever. Furthermore, when the enemy ceases its hostility, fighting must cease:
"...but if they desist, then all hostility shall cease, save against those who [willfully] do wrong" (2:193).
Another verse repeats this insistence that hostility must cease when the enemy stops its aggression against you:
"But if they [the enemy] incline to peace, incline thou to it as well, and place thy trust in God: verily, He alone is all-hearing, all-knowing! And should they seek but to deceive thee [by their show of peace] - behold, God is enough for thee! He it is who has strengthened thee with His succour, and by giving thee believing followers" (8:61-62).
Thus, even if the enemy is feigning a peaceful posture, the Muslims are still commanded to cease hostility and "place their trust in God." Thus, it is quite clear that fighting is in self-defense, and aggression is not allowed. Now, Muslims have waged wars of aggression in the past, for sure, and they even called them "jihad against the infidels" in order to justify their desire for territorial expansion. In fact, one of the most pertinent examples of this was the Ummayad Dynasty, which enacted a policy of "jihad" as perpetual warfare. But, such a policy is not Islamically correct, and as the collapse of the Ummayad Dynasty showed, not sustainable.
Still, the point of the matter is, the framework underlying fighting in Islam is self-defense, and all other verses which deal with fighting or call on the believers to "fight the unbelievers" must be understood in this framework. Yet, this begs the question: why are these verses even in the Qur'an at all? Why fight at all? What was the historical context of these verses of the Qur'an which tell the believers to "fight the unbelievers"? It was a very violent one.
From the very beginnings of his ministry, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was opposed by his people. In fact, on the first day he openly called his people to Islam, his own uncle cursed him by saying, "May you perish!" And why? Because he called his people to abandon their worship of idols and worship instead the One God of Abraham. This was unacceptable, however, to the Meccan oligarchy.
At first, the Meccans simply ignored the Prophet's call. Yet, he would not relent, and Islam began to gain a growing, yet still small, number of followers. This began to alarm the Meccan oligarchy, because fundamentally, the message of Islam was a direct challenge to the status quo, one which greatly benefited those in power in Mecca. The Quraysh, the Prophet's main tribe, were the guardians of the Ka'ba, or the main shrine in Mecca. This shrine was originally built by Abraham and his son Ishmael for the worship of the One God. Over time, it was defiled by 360 pagan idols, gods worshiped as intermediaries between man and the Creator.
Prophet Abraham (pbuh) began the practice of an annual pilgrimage to this shrine, and the Arabs followed in this tradition. Quraysh, being guardians of the Ka'ba, would host the pilgrims, but also sell their goods to the pilgrims. In fact, they made rules that entrenched this economic monopoly. One of the prime examples of this is that pilgrims can only circumambulate the Ka'ba with clothes made by Quraysh. If they could not afford such clothes, they must circumambulate naked. Thus, the idolatrous system in Mecca had a direct economic benefit for the Meccan oligarchy. Moreover, their occupation as guardians of the Holy Shrine made their stature among the Arabs even more elevated.
The Prophet's message of "there is none worthy of worship except God" was a direct challenge to this power structure. If the Arabs abandon their worship of the pagan gods, the Quraysh's logic went, Quraysh's economic monopoly vanishes. Moreover, "there is none worthy of worship besides God" also challenged their non-chalant attitude toward the enormous injustice of Arab society in the Seventh Century. When someone pledges that there is none worthy of worship except God, they necessarily accept God's way of doing things and running their lives. Preventing injustice and having concern for the poor and less fortunate is an essential aspect of Islamic ethics, and this was a challenge the Meccan oligarchs were not willing to take up. Thus, they opposed the Prophet's message.
When ignoring the Prophet did not work, they began to actively oppose it. The Prophet, however, enjoyed the protection of his uncle Abu Talib and the clan of Bani Hashim, thus they could not harm him physically. There are some who claim that the only reason the Meccans opposed the Prophet was because he reviled their gods. This is not exactly true. Indeed, the Prophet did revile their gods. Yet, the Qur'an directed him to stop, when the pagans threatened to revile God in revenge:
"But do not revile those [beings] whom they invoke instead of God, lest they revile God out of spite and in ignorance: for goodly indeed have We made their own doings appear unto every community. In time, [however], unto their Sustainer they must return: and then He will make them [truly] understand all that they were doing" (6:108).
Thus, the Prophet stopped, but the Meccans did not stop their opposition. In fact, it only increased. Seeing that they could not harm the Prophet physically, they resorted to physical torture of anyone who converted to Islam. In fact, they killed two people, Sumaya and Yasser, when they refused to give up Islam. The situation became so bad that the Prophet sent away around 70 of his companions, including his own cousin Ja'afar ibn Abi Talib, to Abyssinia for asylum.
Even physical torture did not stop the flow of converts to Islam. Thus, the Meccans boycotted the Prophet, his clan Bani Hashim, and all those who followed Islam. The Meccan oligarchy prevented anyone from buying from or selling to anyone associated with the Prophet. They could not marry to or from Bani Hashim. They were banished to some mountain tracts just outside of Mecca, and there they stayed for three years. When the Sacred Months would come, during which all hostilities must cease, the Meccans would raise the prices of their goods to such an extent that the Muslims could not buy anything. Many Muslims, including the Prophet, went hungry, and his uncle Abu Talib and wife Khadija died as a result of this boycott.
After the boycott ended - and with his main source of support, Abu Talib, now dead - the persecution of the Prophet increased exponentially. Now, not just the elite of Mecca attacked the Prophet, but even young children hurled dust and insults at the Prophet. The Prophet soon realized that there was no hope left for the Meccans to accept his message, and he thus looked to the South, to the sister city of Ta'if, for aid and support. He was immediately rejected, and the leaders of Ta'if sent the street children after him to pelt his legs with stones, bloodying them severely. The situation was so dangerous for the Prophet that he could not return to Mecca except under the protection of Mut'im ibn 'Adi, one of Mecca's most powerful leaders, who pitied the Prophet.
When the Meccans learned of Mut'im's pact of protection, they came to him and asked, "Protector or follower?" He replied, "Only a protector." They said to him, "If you would have said 'follower,' we would have fought you." This to one of the most powerful men of Mecca, showing the deep enmity the Meccans had for the Prophet. When all hope was lost, an unexpected boost came from the North. The people of Yathrib, a city more than 250 miles away, had accepted Islam and now asked for the Prophet to come to them. He took an oath of allegiance from them, and he ordered his followers to emigrate to Yathrib, soon to be called Madinat-un-Nabi, or City of the Prophet. After the Prophet made sure all of his followers left Mecca safely, along with returning the property his enemies had entrusted to him (because of his impeccable honesty), the Prophet himself emigrated to Medina along with his trusted friend Abu Bakr.
Yet, the hostilities did not cease with the Prophet now expelled from Mecca. After he left, the Meccans seized all the property of the Muslims which was left behind in Mecca, including that of the Prophet, and enriched their caravans with it. This was a blatant act of war, and thus the Prophet raided the caravans of Quraysh to get their property back. This led to the first major battle between the Muslims and the Meccans, the Battle of Badr. The Meccans were handle defeated by the Muslims. This enraged the Meccans, and they returned less than two years later with a larger, more powerful army to crush the Muslims at foot of Mount Uhud.
At first, the Muslims easily defeated the Meccans, but when 50 archers disobeyed the direct order of the Prophet, the Meccans regrouped, and the Muslims were defeated. The Prophet himself was severely wounded in the ensuing chaos, and he was nearly killed. Yet, this small victory did not satisfy the Meccans. They returned once more with the largest army ever assembled in the history of the Arabs - 10,000 strong - composed of all the hostile tribes of the Arabian Peninsula. The pagans marched directly for Medina, seeking to wipe out Islam once and for all. This effort also did not succeed, and the pagan Arab army was sent back in defeat.
On top of the relentless attacks and hostility toward the Muslims from the direction of Mecca, many surrounding Arab and Bedouin tribes were also hostile to the Muslims, and they joined in the fight against the Prophet. In fact, these Arab tribes sought to assassinate the Prophet on many occasions. The hostility did not cease until the signing of the Treaty of Hudaybiyah in 628 C.E., and it was only after the Meccans broke the treaty (contrary to some modern accusations) that the Prophet finally marched on Mecca and conquered it in 630.
It was in this terribly hostile environment that the verses commanding the Muslims to "fight the unbelievers" were revealed. This was the historical context of verse 9:5 and others like it. Quite clearly, the verses are commanding the Muslims to defend themselves against the aggression of their enemies, and they are not commands for the Muslims to "kill all infidels."
HH
April 30, 2007 8:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 20:35
Pam,
There is typically an economic/financial part of any agenda/group. Could you tell us who supports your Progressive Values Group?? For example, John L. Esposito is supported by a large grant from Prince Al-Waleed, who is a member of the Saudi Royal Family, and a entrepreneur and international investor. He has amassed his fortune through investments in properties and stocks. As of 2007, his net worth is estimated at US $20.3 billion and he is ranked by Forbes as the 13th richest person in the world, and the second richest Arab. He has been nicknamed by Time magazine as the Arabian Warren Buffett.
I doubt if Mr. Esposito ever criticizes Sunnis or Islam considering his major benefactor.
April 30, 2007 8:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 20:16
Dear Ms Taylor
I applaud the work you have done in working out the principles progressive Muslims stand for. With 1.5 billion Muslims around the world, most of whom live as good citizens and in peace and harmony with people of other faiths, it is vital to have a set of guiding principles for the whole Muslim community worldwide, that is in keeping with the best Islam has to offer, and not what can be interpreted in ways that does not do the image of any religious system any good.
Dom Bede Griffiths had deep respect for the work done by the Sufi mystic, Ibn al Arabi. It is important for non-Muslims to know more and more about the spirituality of Islam, and to seek common ground based on it. Thank you for the work you do as a Muslim in trying to provide common ground.
April 30, 2007 8:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 20:07
Turkey is a model for Muslim countries. Turkey was FOUNDED as a secular state by a military general. Hence when their military protects secularism, and Turks take to the streets in defence of secularism, they are merely DEFENDING THEIR CONSTITUTION.
April 30, 2007 7:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 19:46
‘Defending the secular faith’ by Stephine Irvine (BBC)
WHY IS THE TURKISH ARMY SO DETERMINED TO DEFEND SECULARISM, THE SEPARATION OF RELIGION AND STATE?
SECULARISM IS FUNDAMENTAL TO TURKEY'S IDENTITY AS A NATION.
TURKEY WAS FOUNDED IN 1923 BY MUSTAFA KEMAL ATATURK, A MILITARY GENERAL, in what had been the Ottoman Sultanate.
ATATURK WAS DETERMINED THAT THIS MAINLY MUSLIM NATION would be a modern, SECULAR COUNTRY, and he introduced wide-ranging reforms, including the emancipation of women, the introduction of western dress, legal code and alphabet, and the ABOLITION OF ISLAMIC INSTITUTION.
Turkey's ruling elite and the powerful military have seen it as their job to protect what Ataturk set up.
The army has not been afraid to intervene militarily whenever it sees fit - it has led three direct coups against elected governments in Ankara.
When, 10 years ago, Turkey elected its first pro-Islamic party to government - the Welfare Party - the military campaigned to force it out of office. The following year the party was banned by the courts.
But despite the efforts of the establishment, it seems that Islamic parties are popular in Turkey, and in 2002 the Justice and Development (AK) party of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan won a landslide victory.
The party has its roots in political Islam, but insists it respects the secular principles of the constitution.
The army has tolerated its position in government, but the prospect of one of its members taking up the highest post in the land is causing it great concern.
The staunchly secular elite of Turkey believes a president whose wife wears an Islamic headscarf would have Ataturk turning in his grave.
(Anonymous: The headscarf is viewed as a sign of fundamentalist Islam in Turkey.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6603141.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1023189.stm
April 30, 2007 7:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 19:30
Janet:
Interesting link. Here is another current piece on Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the media.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042500387.html
April 30, 2007 6:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 18:31
Imam in Johnstown, Pennsylvania calls for death of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/
news/rss/print_503977.html
Either Americans cut this type of behavior off in its infancy or it will spread, and we will all be gagged. Please write your representatives about this.
April 30, 2007 5:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 17:36
Pam,
What did you leave out of your progressive agenda?
"We denounce and renounce the Koran's militaristic and anti-female agendas!!!!" Get back to us when you are able to make that statement.
And you also need to address what steps you are taking to cleanse the Koran of other Dark Age concepts.
To get you started:
"30 qualities are connected to the heart"
(ten at a time) from the 77 Branches of Faith (Islam) is a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true faith (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings."
"1. Belief in Allah"
No problem but "aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc." should be added.
"2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."
No problem but evolution and the Big Bang cannot be ignored and the "akas" for Allah should be included.
"3. To believe in the existence of angels."
A major item to delete. Angels/devils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.
"4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."
Another major item to delete. There are no books written in Heaven just as there are no angels to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.
Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line. Today we call them fortune tellers.
Prophecies are also invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.
"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."
Mohammed spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic violence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallucinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.
"6. To believe that Allah Most High has knowledge of everything from before-hand and that only that which He sanctions or wishes will occur."
This is invalidated by the natural/inherent/God-given gifts/attributes of the human race i.e. Free Will and Future.
As per the theologian Edward Schillebeeckx,
Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)
We must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman
doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God/Allah the great scapegoat of history.”
"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human
activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the
historical future is not known even to God/Allah; otherwise we
and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."
"7. To believe that Resurrection will definitely occur."
The spiritual resurrection occurs at each death. There will be no physical resurrection from common sense considerations i.e. Heaven is a spirit state i.e. no bodies to include those of Jesus, Mary, Moses etc.
"8. To believe in the existence of Heaven."
Acceptable but it exists only as a spirit state.
"9. To believe in the existence of Hell."
Maybe, maybe not. Some say if one dies is significant sin, that person’s soul will simply no longer exist since God/Allah does not tolerate imperfection in the Kingdom.
"10. To have love for Allah Most High."
Of course, just like there is love of all creatures, spiritual and living. Again there has to be an all-inclusive statement for Allah, i..e. aka God, Yahweh, Mother Nature, Jehovah
April 30, 2007 3:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 15:34
did you quit the board or are the question to difficult becasue you cant lie your way through them?
April 30, 2007 2:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 14:06
well pam that was one big load of crap! i asked for it in practical terms. you accept all live which is islam speak all islamic life. so when did you or your bothers march in oppisition to those jews being murdered? i read al jiz and not one word. why dont you really be progressive and just say that those parts of the koran i noted are evil and if you are a good islamic you must never accept them? you wont do that will you? here are a few, not all, but a few. disavow them here and now. and dont tell me that i am vile for reciting them, as other islamics have said, they are the words of the islamic god passed down from the islamic prophet. if you dont like what your god said, take it up with moho.
The Hadith No. 284, The Muslim, volume one, says that any Jew or Christian, who heard of Muhammad but did not convert to Islam, and died in disbelief, would rot in hell! Thus Islam withdraws from all Jews and Christians the right to believe in their faiths, and pratice them as such.
"The unbelievers of the People of the Book and the idolators shall be in the Fire of Hell therein dwelling for ever; those are the worst of creatures. But those who believe, and do righteous deeds, those are the best of creatures..." (XCVIII: The Clear Sign: 5)
Here those Jews and Christians, who spurn Islam, have been lumped together with the idolators such as the Hindus, and classified as 'the worst of creatures'. Therefore the Koran commands:
"O believers, take not as your friends those of them, who were given the Book before you, and the unbelievers, who take your religion in mockery and as a sport..." (V: The Table: 60)
"The true believers say: Has not God ordered a chapter that commands the holy war" (Sura 47:22); or elsewhere: "Kill the idolaters wherever you find them, imprison them, besiege them, ambush them" (Sura 9:5); and, "Make war on unbelievers" (Sura 9:29). "When you come upon unbelievers, massacre them, tighten the bands of the captives that you will have taken. Then you will set them free, or you will release them for a ransom" (Sura 8:57).
"To Allah, there are no animals viler than those who do not believe and remain unbelievers" (Sura 8:57). That is why it is necessary to Islamize them by force and by humiliation. And those who resist Islam and its founder must be chastised, according to the Koran: "Here is the fate of those who fight Allah and his messenger: you will put them to death or you will make them suffer the torture of the cross; you will cut their hands and their feet alternately. They will be driven from the country" (Sura 5:37).
"Do not display cowardice, and do not call the infidels to peace when you are superior to them" (Sura 47:22). THIS ALLOWS THEM TO MAKE PEACE SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE WAR AGAIN LATER.
4.89": They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
"4.90": Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.
"4.91": You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority.
Here are a few things you can say you are sorry for and return what islam stole. they are the horrible acts committed by islam which caused the west to have to stop you. they are the blessed crusades, and what you did to have them happen.
The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.
GIVE WHAT YOU TOOK BACK, BUT SAY YOU ARE SORRY FIRST.
that is the first step to show you are more than just words and double speak. you and i both know that your assertion of peace for all means all innocent and that the only innocent under islam are islamics. so an islamic baby is innocent, but a jew baby in an ice cream parlor in israel is evil and the islamic that blows that baby up is an islamic hero.
so tell us your koran is wrong when it says hate and murder and convert by the sword, and then we have a starting point for a real dialogue.
April 30, 2007 12:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 12:58
On adultery --
Several points to be made on this subject.
1) adultery in an of itself is not a punishable crime according to the Qur'an. The crime is public lewdness -- and the requirement is four eye witnesses to the act. The other means of "proof" is confession. The classical scholars ruled that pregnancy does not count as a sufficient proof of adultery (obviously, as it could have been non-consensual, the child could be the husband's, and so on). If the person does not make a public show of their adultery they may be committing a sin, but they are not committing a crime. The situations in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria, and Pakistan are ahistorical, and a travesty of justice by any definition. To me this is one of the most critical issues for the West to apply pressure on so-called Islamic states. (Un-Islamic states is more accurate.)
2) the punishment of stoning for adultery is non-Qur'anic. Either the hadith about the prophet stoning adulterers are fake, or he went beyond what the Qur'an teaches. I haven't really examined those hadith in depth, and can't comment on whether they are sound or not.
Personally, I find the hudud (the punishments mentioned in the Qur'an) to be outmoded and agree with Tariq Ramadan that they should not be implemented in this day and age. (Note, that is not saying I agree with everything Tariq Ramadan has ever said, or even all his reasoning on this particular point, but I do agree that the Hudud are no longer appropriate.)
3)And this is the most important from my point of view. Since the Qur'an says quite clearly there shall be no compulsion in religion, I believe that any punishment for sins can only be voluntary, not mandated by the state. Since adultery is a sin, that means it is an issue of morality and conscience, and should be left to the individual's conscience.
In the case of public indecency, as I said above I believe that the hudud punishments are no longer appropriate or applicable.
For those who think this is is position held by only Western Muslims... witness the millions of demonstrators supporting secularism in Turkey this past weekend. Obviously, there is a battle in the Muslim world over the role religion should have in the state. The example of those countries that have tried to mix their understandings of shariah in with the governance of the people ought to be sufficient to convince anyone that secularism is essential.
Until such time as that is achieved, I believe moderate, liberal, and progressive Muslims would be well advised to try and ameliorate the situation by providing alternative interpretations that are humane.
April 30, 2007 12:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 12:17
Sorry for being awol for those seeking responses --
Muslims for Progressive Values has been refining the statement of principles, which should now be posted on our website. For your ease, here they are:
1) We accept as Muslim anyone who identifies as such. The veracity and integrity of that claim is between the individual and God, not a matter for the state, nor an issue which other individuals can or should judge.
2) We affirm the equal worth of all human beings, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, creed, sexual orientation, or ability. We are committed to work towards societies that ensure equality of social, political, educational, and economic opportunity for all.
3) We believe that freedom of conscience is not only essential to all human societies but integral to the Qur’anic view of humanity. As such, we resist the legislation of morality and endorse the separation of religion and state in all matters of public policy. We believe that secular government is the only way to achieve the Islamic ideal of freedom from compulsion in matters of faith.
4) We support freedom of expression and freedom of dissent, even when that expression may be offensive and that dissent may be blasphemous. In particular, we believe that concepts of patriotism, orthodoxy, or loyalty to one’s faith group must not be used to silence dissenting voices in the political, artistic, or religious spheres.
5) We support women's agency and self-determination in every aspect of their lives. We believe women’s full participation in society at every level and equality among genders is enshrined in the Quran.
6) We endorse the human rights, civil rights and civil liberties of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-sexual individuals.
7) We affirm that justice and compassion should be the guiding principles for all aspects of human conduct. We repudiate militarism and violence, whether on an individual, organizational, or national level; we support efforts for universal health care, universal public education, the protection of our environment, and the eradication of poverty around the world.
8) We call for critical inquiry and dynamic engagement with Islamic scripture, traditional jurisprudence, and current Muslim discourses. We promote interpretations and rulings that reflect basic Qur’anic principles of tolerance, inclusivity, mercy, compassion, and fairness.
9) We recognize the danger of religious extremism in all faith groups. We view the politicization of religion and the intrusion of religion into politics as twin threats to civil society and humane civilization. We will resist the intrusion of religion into politics and the exploitation of religion for political ends.
10) We affirm the diversity of inspirations that motivate people to embrace a commitment to justice and compassion, including a profound faith rooted in religious traditions, ethical imperatives developed throughout the centuries, and secular and humanist values shared by many Muslims today. As such, we will to engage with and contribute to other philosophical and spiritual traditions and progressive movements in pursuit of the aforementioned goals and principles.
April 30, 2007 11:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 11:54
What is it about the ideology of Islam that makes young men do what this one did?
Why is it that Pamela is trying to explain to Americans how to be tolerant, instead of spending her time and energy countering the violent part of Islam? Is this what she means by calling herself a "progressive"?
I personally don't want to hear another word from her, and I fail to understand why the Washington Post has given her a platform for all her misinformation.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/
article1725993.ece
April 30, 2007 11:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 11:37
If you want to see how Islam is actually practiced in places like Somalia, Saudi Arabia, and among immigrant communities in Europe and Africa, then read Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. If you have some vague postmodernist idea that all cultures are of equal value, read this book. The book is Ayaan's autobiography. You will understand the destructive role of Islam in the lives of Muslim women, and why people get hooked into this particular ideology. The book provides balance to Pamela Taylor's fairy tale version of Islam. Would that the WashingtonPost would run articles by Hirsi Ali and others, to balance out their articles by Taylor, Armstrong and Ramadan. Perhaps the Post is too afraid to run such articles.
April 30, 2007 10:40 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 10:40
Jacob:
their mothers' names were "MOM", and "MA'AM".
And "That woman who said I'd never do anything with my life"
Peace MON!
April 30, 2007 10:16 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 10:16
Jesus Christ says in John 3:19,20 - And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
April 30, 2007 9:46 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 09:46
will one of you islamics tell us what a progressive islamic really is? what makes you progressive? do you still follow the koran's commands to force conversions, or murder or torture? what makes you more progressive than other islamics that think its great to murder jews because they are jews?
and will one of you put those quoted parts of the koran into context so they dont meand murder and torture non islamics?
and when will hyou apologize for your conduct leading up to the crusades and give the lands you stole back?
and why can islamics live in israel but you ban jews from islamic countries?
islam has a lot to answer for.
and other than a smiling bug eyes liar pretending to be progressive - what the heck is an islamic progressive.
April 30, 2007 9:46 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 09:46
Please read the article on "Myth of Proverbial Wedding" at the Islamic Center of Greater Toledo web site. The author rejects this story of Ayesha' marriage with Muhammad at 7 0r 9 years. He gives references to his argument that anybody can look up. http://www.icgt.org/SpecialArticles/Main.htm
April 30, 2007 9:40 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 09:40
Frank:
I'm sorry, how exactly am I being the victim here?
April 30, 2007 9:26 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 09:26
you are not going to like the answer glen. one requires living up to a higher standard as is required by jesus, and the other allows the base nature of man as an animal to allow them to hate, murder and even rape. 1 billion islamics pick lack of control, hate for those who are not islamic and sex with 9 year old girls.
April 30, 2007 9:17 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 09:17
This is a good discussion because it centers on the character of the person one is following. We have the character of Mohamed vs. the character of Jesus Christ. Who do you want to follow? Do you want to follow Jesus Christ the only man to live a sinless life who said things like "he who is without sin throw the first stone" or a man having sex with 9 year old girls and advocating torture and Jihad? Come on this should be a no brainier.
April 30, 2007 9:05 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 09:05
i never said any of them was inspired by anyone. i just think that each religion has the right to say what is part of its own holy books and if anyone does not like it, too darn bad. as a result each religion is judged by the books it says are holy.
hey were is that context for islam on the quotes that i was asked to provide?
and what is a progressive islamic. do they still believe him holding parades for those that murder women and children?
April 30, 2007 7:10 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 07:10
It is all about attestations.
“I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.” Would your
anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:
x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran
x=Frank Collins
April 30, 2007 3:06 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 03:06
who cares what contemporary anyone thinks - it was accepted by the church a lot closer in time than anyone alive today can claim. the bible is what the bible is. want to change it, start your own religion and write one yourself.
April 30, 2007 12:52 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 00:52
Soja,
As per many contemporary NT scholars, Matthew 4: 1-11 was a later addition to the gospels, an embellishment, or as Professor Crossan would say, "prophecy turned into history rather than history remembered". See his book, The Historical Jesus for added details. Also see:
http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/139_Jesus_Tempted_Thrice
And since "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" do not exist, the temptation of Jesus by Satan followed by attention by angels are sufficient to put this story in proper perspective i.e. an embellishment to make OT fortune telling fit the NT story.
April 30, 2007 12:21 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 00:21
soja - you are right on. but you will not get anywhere here. islamics are the eternal victims, crying about how they are hated as the hate and murder themselves into spreading islam.
April 29, 2007 11:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 29, 2007 23:58
HL
According to the Bible, this is how Jesus dealt with temptation:
Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. After fasting for forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”
Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’ ”
Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple, “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written: “ ‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’ “
Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’ “
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendour. “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’ “
Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.
(Matthew 4:1-11)
April 29, 2007 10:05 PM