I have been unsure as to what best to share concerning the recent atrocity in Paris. In the end this piece, written by a sincere follower of the Prophet Mohammad, seems best to capture what I feel needs to be said but can’t find the words to say. Nothing about the long and difficult history between France and Algeria nor hollow self-justifications which place the blame on the magazine can offset one of his key points:
[this act] is the ill doing of three fanatic Muslims who are more troubled by satirical depictions of Prophet Mohammed, than the image they’re going to give out to the world about Islam by committing such a horrific crime.
Below is an extract: for the full post see link.
Muslim fanatics have struck yet again! From what we know so far, two masked gunmen shouting “Allahu Akbar (God is great)” entered the offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris and opened fire, horrifically killing at least 12 people in the process. All this, because they made some satirical cartoons about Prophet Mohammed.
Just when you think that the world cannot get any more insane, you receive heart shattering news that the terrorists have more to offer. And yet again, yet again I find myself in an awkward position because the murderers happen to share my faith that I hold so dear.
I find myself in this position of clarifying that this gruesome act is not what my faith enjoins (in mere hope that I can change someone’s mind), not what my holy book – Quran enjoins, but is the ill doing of 3 fanatic Muslims who are more troubled by satirical depictions of Prophet Mohammed, than the image they’re going to give out to the world about Islam by committing such a horrific crime.
Where to start? What to say? Puzzlingly, I have so much to say, so much anger to vent out, yet words defeat me.
To misguided Muslims, please stop. Do you see the result of upholding the erroneous belief of persecuting people just so that your delicate religious sentiments won’t get hurt? Are they really so delicate, so fragile? To hell with such potentially dangerous beliefs, then!
In absolutely clear words, warranting no discussion, the Quran never enjoins people to murder or persecute those who mock Islam or any of its precepts. On the contrary, it advises us to resolve such issues either through peaceful and civil dialogue, or by simply ignoring such remarks.
. . . . .
I say this, and I say this with the utmost certainty, that if the Prophet Mohammad were to come here today, such fanatic Muslims would persecute him too! What, for one thing, his message was one of freedom of belief & expression, and some Muslims are just not all too ready for that.
Our deepest condolences to the families of the deceased.
Echos of Baha’u’llah in this:
“… if the Prophet Mohammad were to come here today, such fanatic Muslims would persecute him too!”
LikeLike
Islam as a religion is based on Quran, Hadith, and Sirat rather than just Quran alone.
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Freedom_of_Speech
I like to look up all three sources (Quran, Hadith/Sirtat, and Scholars) when looking at specific topics in Islam to get the complete picture of all Islamic sources rather than just what the article writers says. I like quotes from all the above mentioned sources, particularly Hadith/Sirat.
LikeLike
I am, of course, aware that there are three sources. I am slowly working my way through a book which unpacks in some detail the complex process by which different elements of Islamic scholarship made decisions about exactly which schools of thought to endorse and why. The book in question is Misquoting Muhammad: the challenge and choices of Interpreting the Prophet’s Legacy. by Jonathan A.C. Brown. You may have come across it. He explains, for instance (pages 128-29), that moderate thinkers ‘condemned violent extremism on the basis of sound interpretation of scripture. [They contended] that a main cause of religious extremism was a literal reading of the Qur’an and the Hadiths, without qualified ulama as guides or an understanding of the overarching principles of Shariah.’
My purpose in quoting the writer in question was to convey a moral response to the atrocity which addressed its compatibility with Islam at least in terms of the Qur’an. To draw more deeply on a complex tradition, available to me only in translation, would have been beyond my competence and would not, in my view, have replaced the power, as here, of a critique of that action from within the Muslim community.
LikeLike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Rights_in_Islam#Criticism
The main issue should be not violent extremism, but the values of Sharia and Islamic societies. While going out an violently killing non Muslims in non Muslims societies is only on the agenda of the fringe extremists, they do share lots of values with the more mainstream of Muslim societies that Westerns would find abhorrent and barbaric. For example, one could Google Anjem Choudary and his views of one world where everyone (Muslim and non) submits to a worldwide caliphate with sharia law. The only real difference between violent extremists and mainstream Muslims of the Muslims world is that the latter views Sharia as only enforcable by legitimate state actors (Islamic states) while the former thinks anyone and everyone can take Sharia into their hands.
Democracy, Human Rights, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, Freedom of Conscience, Freedom of Religion, LGBT Rights, and various issues related to Women are all issued within the Muslim World and the law codes of such countries.
The persecution of non Muslims, ex Muslims, LGBT people, and women as well as honor killings are all things that happen with state (Islamic state) sanction throughout the Muslims world.
There is an extreme rareness of liberal Muslims and liberal movements within Islam. For examples of liberal Muslims: Ani Zooneveld (Muslims for Progressive Values), Ahmad ad Dean (Minaret of Freedom), Ahmed al-Rahim (American Islamic Congress), Zuhdi Jasser (American Islamic Forum for Demoracy), Ahmad ad Dean, Ani Zooneveld, Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, Asra Quratulain Nonami, Ibrahim Al-Buleihi, Irshad Manji, Tarek Fatah, Necla Kelek, Raheel Raza, Zuhdi Jasser, Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, Khalid Duran, Al-Faitha Foundation, Muslims for Progressive Values, Progressive Muslim Union, Muslim Canadian Congress, Muslim Alliance for Sexual and Gender Diversity, Progressive British Muslims, American Islamic Congress, America Islamic Forum for Democracy, British Muslims for Secular Democracy, Center for Islamic Pluralism, Institute for the Secularization of Islamic Society, Liberal Islam Network aka Jaringan Islam Liberal, Muslim Wake Up!, Progressive Muslim Movement, Resurrgence of Islam aka Tolu-e-Islam, etc.
LikeLike
I think we talking at cross purposes here.
My purpose is to illustrate that, in terms of its core text, it is quite coherent with the spiritual essence of Islam to see any example of fundamentalism, violent or not, in the same way as we could regard Christian, or any other fundamentalism, as a mistaken attempt to revitalise a religion in a way that betrays its transcendental and timeless reality. The spiritual core of all faiths, in the Bahá’í view, distils down to the Golden Rule and a recognition of the unity of the whole human race at that spiritual level. Every great religion, we believe, is derived from the same God. The social teachings are simply guidance appropriate to the era in which it was revealed and on top of that there are a multitude of man-made (it’s usually men who make them) mutations introduced over long periods of time that conceal or distort that core spirit. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá stated, in a talk given in the United States: ‘. . . religion must be conducive to love and unity among mankind; for if it be the cause of enmity and strife, the absence of religion is preferable. . . . the religion of God is intended to be the cause of advancement and solidarity and not of enmity and dissolution. If it becomes the cause of hatred and strife, its absence is preferable. Its purpose is unity, and its foundations are one.’ There is more to say but it’s too long for a comment.
LikeLike
Is fundamentalism really about revitalizing religion as if there is such a thing as ecumenical fundamentalism? Fundamentalists are very sectarian in that they want to devitalize other religions and even other sects in their religion contrary to the definition you gave. Also, you can’t revitalize a religion in a person who never belonged to it in the first place. Fundamentalists dream of religiously monolith societies where everyone follows the same code of religious laws. While we lump fundamentalists together by common religion, really they should be categorized by specific sects.
What exactly is the spiritual essence of a religion or of a scripture? Is it something that is part of the texts of the scripture or the lifetime biography of the founder of the religion? Or is it some abstract thing that lies behind it?
It’s a bit of ret con to expect non Baha’is to see Baha’i teaching and principles in their scriptures, religions, and founders because it is backwards projection.
How can anyone really expect followers of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or any religion to actually live by the info in that comment given that their scriptures don’t actually tell them to do so? The Bible and Quran for example even have parts that contradict the views given in your comment. Note: Most religions other than Islam, just have their scripture to go by, but Muslims have Hadith and Sirat to go by as well fo more words and actions of their founder Muhammad.
The point being is that religious people can only really be expected to say and do things that their scriptures tell them to do and say and that the examples of people in the scriptures said and did. It really isn’t the product of distortion of the text, but rather the purported core spirit doesn’t actually exist in the text other than as an abstract projection retroactively on to it. If any core spirit exists in scripture as you say it is the text itself that disorts and conceals said core spirit.
Where exactly in the Quran, Hadith, and Sirat would one expect a Muslim to find this spiritual core of Islam of which you speak? Same can go for any other religion, but I’m mostly familiar with where the Bible is problematic too, so Jews and Christians specifically?
For example the worst offender would be: Kill all infidels/idolators/polytheists wherever you find them. (9:5)
LikeLike
The main issue is religious law and the radical Islamists who want to impose them on the West and all non Muslims.
Sharia Controlled Zone
No Alcohol
No Gambling
No Music
No Concerts
No Porn
No Prostitution
No Drugs
No Smoking
No Pork
No Improper Outfit
I had to Bing Image Sharia Controlled Zones to look up the above rules. The not listed rules would include no public displays of affection and no gays/lesbians as well. Sharia Controlled Zones and Gay Free Zones are both projects of radical Islamists. There are worldwide Islamist organizations, but lots more nation specific ones. Belgium, Finland, India, Netherlands, Philippines, United Kingdom, and United States are examples of countries where Islam is a minority religion, but have Islamist groups who want to turn their countries into Islamist ones under Sharia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_patrols
Sharia patrols have happened in Germany and the United Kingdom. This is because the radical Islamist don’t view their social teachings as “just guidance”, but laws with mandated temporal punishment.
LikeLike
Whatever the rights and wrongs of your particular points, I am not happy to see such an exclusive focus on Islam. Fundamentalism, extremism and fanaticism are to be found in just about all religions and quasi-religious and political ideologies. I feel it is somewhat sanctimonious for us to point the finger at the extremist elements of the Muslim community as though we are above reproach ourselves. For example, institutionalised racism is still a problem in many so-called developed countries including America, the UK and France. Our aim should be, in my view, to deal with these matters in a way that fosters unity rather than division, and this means recognising we are all in the same boat, tainted with the same flaws to various degrees and need all our united efforts to fix it before we sink.
I have just this minute come across a post you might also find interesting: it examines the proportion of terrorist attacks, amongst other examples of violent death, that can accurately be attributed to Muslims. See link. It’s not by any means as many as you think if the data he quotes are even close to accurate. Whether he is absolutely correct or not, and I don’t think he’s miles off the mark, it seems to me that we cannot escape the responsibility for taking as balanced and inclusive a view as possible on this issue, as on many others.
LikeLike
To say it is sanctimonious to point our fingers at other implies that one has to be perfect to criticize anyone or anything. Nobody said that the West was above reproach versus the rest of the world in the first place to say that criticism of anyone or anything outside the West makes the West perfect. For example, nobody would say the Allies were perfect, but they definitely were better than the Axis Powers.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShadesOfConflict
Nobody says that all or even any colpnflict is black and white. Most conflicts in the world tend to be gray and black, sometimes gray and gray or black and black. Conflict doesn’t imply that one side is completely perfect and the other side completely imperfect. It’s an ad hominem to say all criticism is false to shift from the validity of the criticism to the validity of the critic. No one has to be perfect to bring up correct and logical points.
For example, the West isn’t a utopia with regards to LGBT issues, but that doesn’t preclude the West from criticizing Belarus, Lithuania, and Russia and their LGBT propaganda laws. This especially don’t preclude us from criticizing countries like Uganda and others with even harsher laws.
No Alcohol
No Gambling
No Music
No Concerts
No Porn
No Prostitution
No Drugs
No Smoking
No Pork
No Improper Outfit
No Gays (not sure if this is male gendered or gender neutral)
No Apostasy
No Blasphemy
No Fornication
No Adultery
No Polytheism
No Atheism
No Idolatry
Most Islamists don’t have an intrinsic problem with infidels in and of themselves, but absolutely want them to live by the above rules or they will have problems with them. Their problems with the West is that since we have secular law codes with a belief in human rights that a lot of the above stuff is legal in the West.
Communism, Fascism, and Theocracy are three ideologies of forcing others to behave how you want them to. They are instill sickly based on coercion as the means to achieve any and all goals. They are also the three anti Western ideologies as the West is antithetical to their beliefs.
Communism is the belief that a perfect society is one in which the government owns all property and businesses and makes sure that everyone is given fre access to resources. Moderate communists are working towards making sure that th government does more to protect the environment, help the disadvantaged, and regulate corporations. Extreme communists want to destroy corporations and lead workers to take over the property and factories of the corporations. The personal ideal of communists is an intelligent, well read, down to earth working class person who organizes against rich property owners and steals from the rich to give to the poor. The “enemy” is seen as rich business owners for whom workers and consumers are less than human.
Fascism is the belief that one person, or one group, should have complete power over the government and the people. Fascists want a government that protects their interests while reducing the rights of others. Moderate fascists want to give more power to their favorite leaders and they want to reduce the rights and social supports of others (be they along religious, racial, or whatever lines). Extreme fascists want to back their leader in a violent overthrow of the government. The personal ideal of fascists is a physically strong soldier with unwavering loyalty to the leader. The “enemy” is seen as others and foreign powers who manipulate the government to get their agenda put above that of the nation’s citizens.
Theocracy is the belief that religion should rule the government and all laws should be religious laws. Moderate theocrats want to elect people of their religion into office and they want to change the laws so that what they consider a sin is always a crime. Extreme theocrats want to destroy anyone in gvoernment who isn’t their religion and rewrite the constitution to make their religion the established religion of the state. The personal ideal of theocrats is a pious, self righteous, warrior of God who acts only as his or her religious teachings dictate. The “enemy” is seen as decadent irreligious atheists and infidel believers in other heretical faiths who want to destroy the one true religious faith.
Communists, Fasicists, and Theocrats can be found in any and all religions or even no religion, but the issue is that the Islamic world doesn’t repudiate theocracy the same way the rest of the world does. Just look at how many countries have a state religion as opposed to seperation of church and state for example. These three ideologies share in common that they all want the government to do more to implement their respective agendas because people are too weak, dependent, and stupid to not need government interference in their lives. They all want a really big Communist, Fascists, or Theocrat Government to bring about their respective utopia. Also, Theocracy is an explicitly religious form of Fascism. They are also all bullies who enjoy telling people what to do, wannabe pampered Goverment officials who want more power, and meddling moralists who want to regulate people’s lives.
Current Communist societies are China, Cuba, North Korea, Laos, and Vietnam (Socialists ones are Bangladesh, Guyana, India, Portugal, Sri Lanka, and Tanzania). I used the word Communism, but my ciriticism can be generalized to Socialism as well. Current Theocrat societies are Mauritania, Sudan, Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Iraq, Maldives, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yeman, Aceh province of Indonesia, Northern Nigeria, and most of the United Arab Emirates. Also, Islam is the only religion that currently imposes its religious laws on people with the force of law as seen in the above countries.
It would be ideal to have a world without Communism, Facism, and Theocracy, but that’s not the world we live in. Individuals and societies subscribe to them whether in moderate or extremist forms. Communism, Fascism, and Theocracy are still the three biggest problems facing the world today.
LikeLike