Scorekeeping condemnations

      Comments Off on Scorekeeping condemnations

This article was first Published on Tuesday, February 5, 2008 at – :

http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2008/02/scorekeeping-condemnations.html

Scorekeeping condemnations

Moderator Mike Ghouse comments : The following two articles are a good example of score keeping by any two groups, in this case the Jewish and Muslim Communities.

The two articles are:

i) Jews know how to protest and
ii) where are the condemnations

God has blessed me with the friendship of people from all faiths, (friends from every symbol on the foundation for pluralism website and more) and it amazes me the amount of bias that is prevalent among people.

Muslims (a few) tend to paint Jews with a broad brush and certainly the opposite is also true, I have witnessed it and have accounted for it in my writings. One of these days, when I have the funds, I would like to launch research on determining percentages. I believe until I am proven wrong, the same percent of fanatics can be found in every group, religious, civic, ethnic or nationalistic and that I believe is less than 1/50th of 1%. The average Jew or a Muslim when in company of Neocons** instinctively assumes that there is no moderate on the other side. It is a darn shame. But when you reason them, they see that they blurred on the truth.

I know it is bias because when you are with the others as friends, you will develop an understanding and prejudices fade away.

Well, there are two organizations in the US, fairly large ones who oppose the war in Iraq and who are taking action, as much as the Palestinians and Muslims are doing about the Gaza. I had posted that piece by Jewish Alliance for Peace and Justice. This is the same broken record the Neocons play; that Muslims have not condemned 9/11 – there is plenty condemnation, but they don’t even see it, the Media has to bring the truth to the American Public and the world. What does it take?

The truth is there as many Jews as Muslims (percentages) who seek peace; there as many Jews as Muslims who do nothing about anything; either they don’t care or too selfish to think about others; there are as many extremists in Jews as in Muslims who would do harm to the other for a selfish short term again.

What we need to do it drop the prejudices first, look for facts and not fiction shoved down our throats by our Neocon* brothers.

* Neocons are extremists in every group be it Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jews or others. These babies are afraid of every little thing that happens around and take advanatage of the opportunity and mint money by frightening the easy prey through books and their talks. I wish the frightened rats don’t open their check book until they demand that the necons work for peace, mitigate conflicts and nurture goodwill and promise to stay out of the frightening business and building chaos.

The following two articles are a good contrast….

Sharia in UK ‘unavoidable’

      Comments Off on Sharia in UK ‘unavoidable’

This article was first Published on Friday, February 8, 2008 at – :

http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2008/02/sharia-in-uk-unavoidable.html

Sharia law in UK is ‘unavoidable’
Dr Williams says Muslims should have a choice in legal disputes

Mike Ghouse – Please note the only authentic references for Muslims are Qur’aan and the Hadith (sayings and practices of Prophet Muhammad ), everything else is a derivative. Sharia is simply de-coding the concepts of Qur’aan. Although Prophet Muhammad himself prayed as he preached, Sharia puts together the how-to of prayers, and is simply an interpretation. However issues such as Divorce, Property inheritance, Apostasy and treatement of women appears to be in variance with Qur’aan. The basis for Qur’aan is justice, when there is justice people live (without any fear) in peace, harmony and prosperity. As far as the Sharia in public life is concerned, the civil laws will take care of the Justice issues. The rest of the sharia is about one’s devotion to God and how it is carried out, and it usually remains in the private domain.

“Dr Williams noted that Orthodox Jewish courts already operated, and that the law accommodated the anti-abortion views of some Christians.”

The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK “seems unavoidable”.

Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4’s World at One that the UK has to “face up to the fact” that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

He says Muslims should not have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.

‘Sensational reporting’

In an exclusive interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, ahead of a lecture to lawyers in London on Monday, Dr Williams argues this relies on Sharia law being better understood.

At the moment, he says “sensational reporting of opinion polls” clouds the issue.

An approach to law which simply said – there’s one law for everybody – I think that’s a bit of a danger

Dr Rowan Williams
Archbishop of Canterbury

He stresses that “nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that’s sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well”.

But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said “there’s one law for everybody and that’s all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts – I think that’s a bit of a danger”.

“There’s a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law.”

‘Other loyalties’

Dr Williams added: “What we don’t want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people’s religious consciences.”

‘Custom and community’

Dr Williams noted that Orthodox Jewish courts already operated, and that the law accommodated the anti-abortion views of some Christians.

“The whole idea that there are perfectly proper ways the law of the land pays respect to custom and community, that’s already there,” he said.

People may legally devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process.

Muslim Sharia courts and the Jewish Beth Din which already exist in the UK come into this category.

The country’s main Beth Din at Finchley in north London oversees a wide range of cases including divorce settlements, contractual rows between traders and tenancy disputes.

Dr Williams’ comments are likely to fuel the debate over multiculturalism in the UK.

Last month, the Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, said some places in the UK were no-go areas for non-Muslims.

Dr Williams said it was “not at all the case that we have absolute social exclusion”.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm

Turkey to lift ban on scarf

      Comments Off on Turkey to lift ban on scarf

This article was first Published on February 7, 2008 at – :

http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2008/02/turkey-to-lift-ban-on-scarf.html

Mike Ghouse Notes: Women should have the freedom to choose to wear or not to. Turkey had gone completely off on freedom, those who wanted to wear the scarf should have the freedom to do so, one should consider the amount of nakedness for public safety, but not covering the head.
reference: http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2007/07/burqa-to-no-burqa.html

ANKARA, Turkey: Lawmakers voted early Thursday to approve a constitutional amendment allowing female students to enter universities wearing Islamic head scarves — a move that many secular Turks view as an attempt to impose religion on their daily lives.
Lawmakers voted 401-110 in a preliminary vote in favor of the government’s proposed amendment to the secular constitution. The government has defended its plan as a reform needed to give its citizens religious liberty and bring Turkey in line with European Union human rights guidelines.
A second and final round of voting was slated for Saturday.
The government has the backing of a nationalist opposition party and together they have more than the two-thirds majority in the 550-seat assembly required to make the change.
The head scarf issue is a source of tension in Turkey and has divided the population among those who consider the ban an affront to the religious freedoms of pious Muslims and those who fear removing the ban would erode Turkey’s secular education system.
The vast majority of Turkey’s 70 million people are Muslim, but they are divided over the role of Islam in politics and daily life.
Secularists regard the head covering as a political statement and argue it has no place in schools. They also fear that lifting the ban at universities would pressure all female students to cover themselves up.
On Wednesday, about 200 people gathered near the parliament building to protest the government’s proposal as lawmakers convened. Hundreds of riot police, reinforced by armored vehicles, set up barricades to prevent them from marching to parliament.
“We won’t allow the head scarf!” and “Down with the AKP!” the group chanted, referring to the acronym of the ruling party.
More than 125,000 people, mostly women, marched in Ankara over the weekend to denounce plans to lift the ban. University deans from dozens of private and state universities also gathered in the capital last week to show their opposition.
The issue also symbolizes the divide between the Islamic-oriented government and the country’s military backed secular establishment.
The military, however, has not played a prominent role in the debate, although generals have periodically spoken up against what they view as moves to undermine secular principles introduced by the national founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

Burhan Kuzu, a ruling party legislator denied secularism was being weakened. “If the proposed changes amount to what they say they amount to, I would be the first one to oppose them,” he said.
To ease concerns, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s party has said that a loosening of the ban would be limited to universities, and would not be expanded to high schools or public offices.

Will John McCain Apologize?

      Comments Off on Will John McCain Apologize?

This article was first Published on Saturday, February 9, 2008 at – :

http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2008/02/will-john-mccain-apologize.html

Every TV appearance I have watched in the last two months, even if it was for two minutes, Senator McCain unfailingly delivered his vitriol, “The greatest danger facing the world is Islamic Terrorism” and Governor Romney, who is off the radar now, used “Islamic Jihaad” to appease the right wing of the Republican party.

Senator McCain in his lust for power looses the basic American decency and courtesy to show respect for his fellow Americans who number 6 Million and I am one. It is an ironic number to remember.

When I turned the TV off, the words of Edmund Burke’s quote came alive as a sad image, which was pointed out by a speaker at the Holocaust Museum recently. “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

Well my friends, I am doing my part. Indeed the world needs to be informed again and again about the Holocaust and how it began. Martin Niemöller’s poem (first they came for the Jews…) resonates with me every day, when I see the eerie silence on the part of Media when a linguistic atrocity is committed right in front of their eyes.

When our President claimed they hate us for our freedom, not one media person asked for the proof or the polls, they consumed it gullibly. They, whoever they might be, do not hate America or Americans. Just as we do not hate any people but their governments, others do the same.

Manufacturing hate and fear to earn the support is shameful, but unfortunately that is the reality concocted by the Bush administration and the rightwing Republicans have imbibed it.

I am a Muslim and I am for America like 6 million other Muslims. We are Republicans and Democrats, we are religious as well as not religious, we are conservatives and liberals but mostly moderate just like most of the Americans.

Each one of us is contributing towards the peace and prosperity of our nation. We are taking the initiatives and putting in our efforts for one nation under God with liberty and justice for all.

On 9/11, I manned a Radio station for eight hours getting the Dallas community on the air, grieving with fellow Americans, organizing blood drives, wrote articles to prove to the enemies like Osama Bin Laden that all Americans are on the same side, irrespective of personal faith.

Since then every year, with the support of the Muslim community, I have dedicated my time on 9/11 to unite people, to bring people of all faiths, races and ethnicities to come together and pray for the safety and security of America, and rededicate our pledge to one nation under God with liberty and justice for all. To call Islam or Muslims as terrorists is offensive to me; I am not one, neither the six million of us are. If there is one, we are going to turn them over to the FBI, safety and security of our nation is as important to the 6 millions of as it is to the 294 Million others.

The fear mongers manufacture enemies to polarize the electorate for crass political advantage; Native Indians, African Americans, Jews, Wicca, Atheists and now Muslims are being targeted by them. Such short term gains are deleterious to peace and long term prosperity. As Americans, we need to stand up for each other for the good of every American.

Our leaders should demonstrate their leadership in building goodwill among all Americans and make America a model nation for coexistence and harmony. We need to make peace and prosperity as our goal and our leaders should take that pledge to mitigate conflicts and nurture goodwill. Every one will win at the end.

I expect Senator McCain to drop the hate rhetoric and apologize to Muslims in America, or at least have the decency not to use the words “Islamic Terrorism” or “Muslims Terrorism”. Call Terrorism for what it is, do not suffix or prefix or hang my religion to the evil acts; fear mongering is also evil. I am a Muslim and all the Muslims that I know in America are working hard to keep us safe and secure. If you do not have moral courage to apologize, the least you can do is restore decency in your language.

Two decades ago, when I chose to become an American, I found myself in tune with the Republican party; liberty, less government, fiscal responsibility, capitalism, security and peace through strength. Today, the party is not the same and it does not reflect those values any more. When the Presidential candidate and a few (or more) Republicans resort to this divisive rhetoric, it puts many Republicans like me to re-evaluate being Republicans.

Additional comments:

I have received a ton of emails today from several clergy men and women who have undertaken it upon themselves to forward this article to many of their friends. However, I have received the following concern from a dear friend “Indeed, Islamic terrorism is one of the greatest dangers facing the world today. I’m mystified if you don’t see that and agree with that. You are usually a strong campaigner against Islamic terrorism. You did not suggest that McCain said that Muslims or Islam is the greatest threat. You quote him as saying Islamic extremists are the greatest danger.”

Here is the idea behind writing this piece.

My contention is that we must call Terrorism for what it is; a disgraceful evil. Let’s not dilute it by suffixing or prefixing with another word like religion, in this case Islam or Muslim. This mistake leads to development of attitudes that are detrimental to peace and co-existence in our nation. A criminal father kills his daughter for not being able to have the animalistic control on them… on the same day there were other similar incidents in the paper… but one becomes Muslim Fascism or Islamic terrorism and others didn’t even hit the radar. It is building of these attitudes that we need to guard the public from. This was a malignant attitude and it is not good for social health of our society.

Osama Bin Laden is not only an enemy of America, he is a bigger threat to Islam and Muslims around the world as he has put so many lives on jeopardy and gone completely against the principles of Islam, where saving one life is like saving the whole humanity. His followers or those who subscribe to his criminal mind set are terrorists.

By giving a label of Islam to a criminal like him, we are diluting the strength of the purpose in getting that criminal. Osama is our target and we need to go after him and his gang Al-Qaeda, the specific group. By adding the word Islam or Muslim, we are wrongly implicating the religion and its followers, and impotenting our ability to hit the target, we are not focused any more.

It is our President’s escapism and gutlessness to deal with the terrorist that he jumped from Afghanistan to Iraq, and then he wanted to yet jump on Iran. He wanted to get some success some where, by God, go get him. And now, John McCain shamelessly claims that he will get Osama, the question is why did he not get him or put the plan to the President and push for it and save our nation a trillion dollars and 4000 lives and a Million Iraqi lives on our conscience? If you have the time understand our failures in dealing with the terrorism, here is an essay for you. http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2007/05/laser-barking-at-terrorists.html

Let our words mitigate conflicts be it within the family, friends, community or the society at large and that is what it takes to gradually build sustainable peace and attitudes of co-existence.

References:

  1. http://www.mikeghouse.net/Articles/Republican-or-Democrat-which-way.asp
  2. http://www.mikeghouse.net/Articles/John-Mcain-the-Bush-lite-Neocon.asp
  3. http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/UnitydayUSA_2007.asp
  4. http://www.mikeghouse.net/Articles/Did-Senator-McCain-Betray-America.asp
  5. http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2007/05/laser-barking-at-terrorists.html


Additional Articles on the subject added on 2/9/08 below:

Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer and a Moderator. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing Pluralism, politics, Islam, Religion, Terrorism, India and civic issues. His comments, news analysis, opinions and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website www.MikeGhouse.net. He can be reached at MikeGhouse@aol.com or (214) 325-1916

Prophet Muhammad’s Images

      Comments Off on Prophet Muhammad’s Images

This article was first Published on Saturday, February 9, 2008 at – :

http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2008/02/prophet-muhammads-images.html

To be a Muslim is to be a peace maker; one who constantly seeks to mitigate conflicts and nurtures goodwill for co-existence and world peace – God wants his creation to be in peace and harmony, and that is the chief purpose of Islam; peace. http://www.worldmuslimcongress.com/

Prophet Muhammad’s (pbuh) Images
http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2008/02/prophet-muhammads-images.html

I am pleased to append the following two articles for the purpose of understanding the conflict about Prophet Muhammad’s images. Please free to forward and post it on your website of Blog.

1. Why Islam Should Tolerate Images – by B.R. Gowani
2. Wikipedia, Prophet Muhammad, and Muslims – by Sheila Musaji

Much has been written on the subject, a few things are worth reiterating;

1. Arrogance is the root cause of all evil, and the anecdote is humility through prayers.
2. Arrogance breeds a sense of immortality in mortal beings
3. Arrogance causes one to treat the other less than full and creates conflict.
4. Arrogance and spirituality are inversely proportional
5. Arrogance is the first kill in all religions – through the prayers.

Prophet Muhammad is one of the arrogance busters of the world and lived the example of his teachings. Unlike the Kings and heads of state that lived a vainglorious life by putting their pictures or busts in every public space and feel egged one, the prophet who was the head of the state, fountain-head of religion and the society, did the very opposite of it. He asked people not to do that. He wanted people to focus on God the creator and not Man the mortal, over a period of time he did not want people to convert Muhammad to become a God like figure. That is one of the greatest lessons in humility he taught us. I salute him for teaching us that humility. Ya Nabi Salaam Alaikum.

Thank God, Muslims have listened to him and they worship no one but God. His teachings are safe and we need to sense the humility it brings to us, humility is the step from which co-existence is reached.

Mr. Gowani has made a thoughtless comparision,”The Hindu deities are personalized and so are friendly as opposed to the Islamic God who comes out as some stern authoritarian dictator like Yahweh, the God of the Torah, i.e., the Old Testament.”

Every religion presents all aspects of God, God is myriad of qualities, one has to read the whole page (or book) to grasp them all, however, one should never forget the dominant ultimate aspects; Grace and Kindness. God shows his wrath to those who kill other humans, his creation; If there is no punishment, what holds the individual from making a habit of killing? What will happen to the ensuing chaos? In Hinduism God is creator, destroyer and sustainer and Mr. Gowani elected not to give the whole picture. God is most certainly compassionate and kind, and that is highlighted more often than the stern aspect of God.

When someone else wants to identify the prophet through an image or a picture, how can we stop him or her? If they do in a remote Island, we cannot prevent it either. The advice prophet gave to worship no one but God was for Muslims, let’s follow that as individual Muslims. If others refrain out of courtesy that is welcome, but never should be push any one to do it. There shall be no compulsion; Islam is about choices and freedom.

Mike Ghouse
http://www.worldmuslimcongress.com/
http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/

CAIR : Hate Hurts America

      Comments Off on CAIR : Hate Hurts America

This article was first Published on Saturday, February 16, 2008 at – :

http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2008/02/cair-hate-hurts-america.html

Mike Ghouse :: I am pleased to see that the corporations understand the social responsibility and encourage those who promote peace. Something must be done to discourage hate speech without curbing the freedom of speech. The Muslims in Canada and the United States have done well in self-regulating the hate sermons from their pulpits and hope Muslims around the globe realize their own faith and that hate should have no place in religion or religious activity. I commend CAIR’s efforts in contributing to peace in America.

Hate Hurts America Campaign

SAM’S CLUB DROPS ‘SAVAGE NATION’ RADIO SPOTS
Growing list of companies reject host’s rhetoric

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 2/15/08) – The Hate Hurts America Community and Interfaith Coalition (HHA) today announced that Sam’s Club, a division of Wal-Mart and one of the nation’s largest warehouse clubs, has joined a growing list of companies that have stopped advertising or refuse to place their ads on Michael Savage’s “Savage Nation” radio program.

HHA, a group of religious and civic organizations seeking to challenge hate speech on talk radio, was formed as a result of Savage’s rhetorical attacks on religious and ethnic minorities. Coalition members are calling on advertisers nationwide to stop airing commercials on his nationally-syndicated program.

SEE: Hate Hurts America

Advertisers that have already stopped airing or refuse to air commercials on “Savage Nation” include ITT Technical Institute, Chattem, Inc. (owners of Gold Bond, Icy Hot, and Selsun Blue), Union Bank of California, Intuit (parent company of TurboTax and QuickBooks), and GEICO Insurance, US Cellular, Sprint Nextel, Sears, Universal Orlando Resorts, AutoZone, Citrix, TrustedID, JCPenney, OfficeMax, Wal-Mart, and AT&T.

Late last year, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called on radio listeners of all faiths to contact Savage’s advertisers to express their concerns about the host’s anti-Muslim bigotry. CAIR is a member of the Hate Hurts America Community and Interfaith Coalition.

SEE ALSO: National Radio Host Goes on Anti-Muslim Tirade (CAIR)

Savage has a long history of rhetorical attacks on a variety of minority groups. He says he has lost at least $1 million in revenue because of the advertiser campaign.

For example, last month Savage said on air: “Bring them in by the millions. Bring in 10 million more from Africa. Bring them in with AIDS. Show how multicultural you are. They can’t reason, but bring them in with a machete in their head. Go ahead. Bring them in with machetes in their mind.”

SEE: Michael Savage (Media Matters)

The Hate Hurts America Community and Interfaith Coalition includes public officials and civil rights advocates, as well as representatives of the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Latino, and Asian communities.

Interfaith a Moral Duty

      Comments Off on Interfaith a Moral Duty

This article was first Published on Saturday, February 16, 2008 at – :

http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2008/02/interfaith-moral-duty.html

Interfaith Dialogue a Moral Duty to Finding Common Ground

It is this open, free, and dignified dialogue that allows the followers of various religious traditions to affirm their diversity and discuss their similarities and differences, and it is what Islam requires from its followers. Muslims have a moral and religious obligation to engage in interfaith dialogue with other communities of faith, and they must do that by maintaining ethical standards required by the Qur’an, including the directive to “argue with [the followers of the revealed books] in ways that are best and most gracious.”

Interfaith Dialogue a Moral Duty to Finding Common Ground

Extreme voices in the three religions that claim the monotheist heritage of Prophet Abraham–Judaism, Christianity, and Islam–are busy sowing the seeds of confrontation and hate. They have recently taken the advantage of the politically rooted tensions between western and Middle Eastern countries to develop misunderstanding and mistrust among the followers of these religions.

Quoting selectively from Islamic sources, they have painted Islam as an intolerant religion that urges its followers to hate people of other faiths. This depiction belies both the historical record of Muslims dealing with the followers of other faiths, and, most importantly, the Qur’anic message itself. Although historical Muslim societies were imperfect, there are plenty of examples to show that Islamic values inspired Muslims to develop multi-religious societies in which people of diverse religious backgrounds lived in considerable harmony. The tolerance of Medieval Muslim Spain and the invitation extended to Jews expelled from Jerusalem to return to the city upon the defeat of the Crusaders are two shining examples.

The Qur’an reiterates a fundamental truth taught by all the prophets who were sent by God to guide human endeavors. It asserts that true and honest living is the assured way for spiritual and social harmony, and for protecting the long term self interests of every human being.

The Qur’an further asserts that humans are fallible and can never be free of error in understanding and judgment. Human knowledge is imperfect, and subject to bias and error. Knowledge of intentions and inner thoughts are beyond human capacity, and so is the knowledge of the final destiny of individuals. People of faith must show humility and put their trust in divine wisdom and the absolute justice of God, and must focus on doing what is right and just, instead of sitting in judgment on the eternal salvation of others. The Qur’an is clear that only God knows who is true and sincere in worship and service, and who has gone astray.

“Your lord knows best who strays from his way: He knows best who they are that receive His guidance.” (6:117)

“And we granted them clear signs in matters (of religion): it was only after knowledge had been granted to them that they fell into schisms, through insolent envy among themselves. Verily your lord will judge between them on the Day of Judgment as to those matters in which they set up differences.” (45:17)

The duty of the faithful is, therefore, not to judge others and look down on those who have different understanding and faith, but respect their choices and try his or her best to live an upright life and manifest the values of his and her faith through good work and good deeds.

“To you we sent the scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the truth that has come to you. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, he would have made you a single People, but (his plan is) to test you in what he hath given you; so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is he that will show you the truth of the matters in which you dispute.” (5:48)

The Qur’an came to confirm the truth revealed in early scriptures, and the people of the book, the followers of the revealed scriptures, have a special place in the Qur’an, particularly those who carry the Abrahamic legacy. Significant portions of the Qur’an focus on the story of the Biblical prophets and their followers, the Jews and Christians. It presents their stories as the story of the journey of faith, reminding the followers of the last revelation of the ups and downs in the struggle of the early communities of faith.

Some commentators have stressed the down side of that story by focusing on the Qur’anic critique of the People of the Book. The Qur’an has pointed out several excesses and mistakes committed by the followers of the Biblical prophets, and warned the followers of Prophet Muhammad against committing similar excesses.

Yet the Qur’an is also full of stories of great struggles and shining examples of the followers of early prophets whose commitment and devotion were crucial for establishing the Monotheistic traditions and translating divine guidance into social practices: The strong faith of Saul (Talout) and those who stood firmly with him (2:249); the devotion of the people of the Trench who remained true to their faith in the face of a horrifying aggression committed by ruthless enemies (85:1-11); and the unwavering commitment of the followers of Christ to the ethical code and compassionate spirit he brought to humanity (61:14). Prophet Muhammad repeatedly emphasized that his mission confirmed those of early prophets. He directed early Muslims to seek refuge in Abyssinia, pointing out that the country was ruled by a just Christian King. This was the beginning of an excellent relationship and strong alliance between Muslims and Christians in Abyssinia that lasted for a thousand years.

Therefore, Muslim attitude toward the followers of other religions, particularly the People of the Book, should not be one of self-righteousness and pride, but one of compassion, mutual respect, and concern for the wellbeing and welfare of other communities. The Qur’an encourages Muslims to cooperate for the common good and to search from a common ground, based on mutual respect and help.

“Say: O People of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you: that we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah.” If then they turn back, say: “Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah’s Will).” (3:94)

The common ground Muslims are asked to seek with the followers of other religions is a society in which people are free to worship God. In such open society Muslims must display positive attitude and unwavering respect of the followers of other faiths. Dealing with respect and positive engagement does not mean that differences in doctrine and interpretation do not matter. Rather, it means that those differences must be addressed through free and open dialogue.

It is this open, free, and dignified dialogue that allows the followers of various religious traditions to affirm their diversity and discuss their similarities and differences, and it is what Islam requires from its followers. Muslims have a moral and religious obligation to engage in interfaith dialogue with other communities of faith, and they must do that by maintaining ethical standards required by the Qur’an, including the directive to “argue with [the follower of the revealed books] in ways that are best and most gracious.”

http://blog.lsinsight.org/2008/02/interfaith-dialogue-moral-duty-to.html

Texas : Adopting Shariah

      Comments Off on Texas : Adopting Shariah

This article was first Published on Saturday, February 16, 2008 at – :

http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2008/02/texas-adopting-shariah.html

Texas : Adopting Shariah
The law of the land: Adopting Shariah is no way to bridge cultures
06:37 AM CST on Friday, February 15, 2008

Mike Ghouse: I am pleased to hear that the North Texas Muslim leaders said that “their religious doctrine calls for Muslim migrants to abide by the laws of their host country. These are the words for everyone to live by.”

Sharia laws are derivatives from Qur’aan and the sayings of Prophet Muhammad on living a life of Justice and peace. As with every group, the extreme interpretations by certain institutions and individuals, and their perpetuation have become contentious. The conflicts are in the areas of divorce, apostasy and women where fine tuning of our understanding is needed.

The basis for Qur’aan is justice, when there is justice people feel secure and live in peace, harmony and prosperity. As far as the Sharia in public life is concerned, our civil laws are just and are good for every one. The rest of the Sharia is about one’s devotion to God and how it is carried out, and it usually remains in the private domain.

American and Canadian Muslims value and trust our justice system and feel comfortable with our civic laws.
##

It’s hardly surprising that British politicians and tabloids are thoroughly roasting the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, for remarking last week that partially adapting Islamic Shariah law into the U.K. legal code “seems unavoidable.”

A big surprise, though, was the ripple effect his comments had in North Texas. American Web sites and blogs, including that of Fox News commentator Sean Hannity, came alive with a bizarre discussion of Islamic law already being imposed in our courts.

First, let’s debunk the myth: Shariah is not now and should never be a part of the Texas legal code. We live in a secular society where the laws are designed specifically not to be influenced by religion or reflect a religious preference.

The question arose when an Arlington Muslim couple, Rola and Jamal Qaddura, filed for divorce in 1999. After prolonged court battles, they agreed to arbitration by a private Richardson-based group, the Texas Islamic Court. The arbitration agreement wound up in the 2nd Court of Appeals in Fort Worth, which upheld its validity in 2005.

Throughout the case, our courts never relinquished judicial control. And that’s how it must always be. In the eyes of the law, the Texas Islamic Court has zero judicial authority and was brought in only as a private civil arbiter, a common practice.

The British and U.S. secular legal systems are rooted in the Magna Carta. The law of our land should never adapt to the ebb and flow of migrants from countries where other legal codes prevail – particularly not a religious code like Shariah, which authorizes harsh treatment of women and severing the hands of thieves.

Editors and reporters from this newspaper met 14 months ago with North Texas Muslim leaders, including, coincidentally, one of the arbiters in the Qaddura case. They said their religious doctrine calls for Muslim migrants to abide by the laws of their host country. These are words for everyone to live by.

Considering the rising tensions between Muslims and Christians across Europe, it’s hard to criticize the archbishop of Canterbury for trying to strike a conciliatory tone. But adaptation to Shariah is no way to bridge our cultures.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-sharia_15edi.ART.State.Edition1.46053d3.html

Executing Terrorists

      Comments Off on Executing Terrorists

This article was first Published on Saturday, February 16, 2008 at – :

http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2008/02/executing-terrorists.html

9/11 Justice: Executing terrorists not in nation’s best interest
07:03 AM CST on Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mike Ghouse: Executing the 9/11 Terrorists is perhaps the easiest thing to do, however the editors have prudently suggested to keep them in solitary confinement for life and deny them the only satisfaction they yearn for; to be the martyrs. Heck, they are no martyrs.

This certainly will hold a few potential candidates from martyrdom and cause a few in the cells to ponder and renounce violence, as some 300 of them did in Yemen about three years ago.

It further sends a clear signal to the terrorists that we are not like them who shamelessly slaughter innocent humans and hang them on the bridges and place the disgusting video on the internet. They need to know that we are a civil society and value life, but will prevent the individual from becoming a threat to the society.

Recommended reading: http://mikeghouse.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/05/laser-barking-at-terrorists.htm

##

The U.S. government’s plan to seek the death penalty against six Guantánamo Bay detainees in the Sept. 11 attacks is bound to have enthusiastic public appeal. It might seem fitting punishment for anyone found responsible for nearly 3,000 deaths, 600 more than in the Japanese ambush at Pearl Harbor.

Yet the effort to assign guilt for the barbaric Sept. 11 raids – this generation’s own “day of infamy” – should not end in an execution chamber. That would not be in this nation’s best interest.

Carrying out the death penalty would put the government’s questionable and untested military tribunal system on trial simultaneously. It’s a test the nation could not afford to fail as it tries to assert moral authority in the war on terror.

Justice could not be served in a trial stemming from coerced confessions. One of the six suspects, alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, has undergone CIA interrogation that included waterboarding, a practice widely considered torture and prone to produce unreliable information. American and international legal traditions demand better. And make no mistake: Trying these suspects will have global implications.

The military tribunal also could very well curtail traditional rights of defendants, such as open-court proceedings and challenging government evidence. While some deviation from standard court procedures might be tolerable for security reasons, a high-stakes capital punishment trial is not the time to grope for a balance.

There is a better option for the American people, although it’s admittedly a hard case to make in light of emotions that will remain forever raw on the subject: Terrorists who bring savagery to our shores should spend the rest of their lives isolated in secure prison cells.

Advantages are many. For one, the government could gain truly useful information through methodical interviews. Second, unending solitary confinement could lead a terrorist to reflect on and renounce fanaticism, which would pay rich propaganda dividends. Third, imprisonment would have deterrent value by denying Islamo-terrorists a reward they crave – the glory of martyrdom for their twisted cause.

Finally, no one should underestimate the punitive value of condemning someone to look at four bare concrete walls for the rest of his life.

In the words of the judge who pronounced a life sentence on terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui two years ago: “You will die with a whimper.”

Ijtihad Now

      Comments Off on Ijtihad Now

This article was first Published on Saturday, February 16, 2008 at – :

http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2008/02/ijtihad-now.html

Ijtihad, the intellectual effort to understand a new situation and make sense out of it is alive and puzzled with sentences like, “Muslim thinkers are demanding the right to individual interpretation.” The question is, who are we demanding the right from?

We have fallen into the trap that “some one” owns and controls our faith. Let’s clarify that first, on the Day of Judgment; it is our deeds that determine how we would be judged by the Lord. Please remember, it is not our teacher’s knowledge, the wealth of our family or the spiritual status of some one other than me or you. On that day, you are on your own and the salvation comes from enough good things you have done to benefit the humankind. Given that, the responsibility to understand the religion squarely falls on each one of us. The stress is on individual responsibility and contribution for a better world.

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was clear on these items:

  1. Qur’aan is book of guidance and that is the only reference for Muslims besides the example of his own life,
  2. No one was assigned to interpret the book for us, nor he created a clergy system to administer the religion,
  3. He was a signatory to Pluralistic laws of the Madinah pact along with the Jews and Christian leaders of the time, whereby he was a secular & a pluralistic administrator working with other faiths functioning under his administration, while he was also the head of the religious institution.
  4. The separation of church and state was the form of his administration.

Wikipedia “ Ijtihad (Arabic اجتهاد) is a technical term of Islamic law that describes the process of making a legal decision by independent interpretation of the legal sources, the Qur’an and the Sunnah. The opposite of ijtihad is taqlid, Arabic for “imitation”. A person who applies ijtihad is called a mujtahid, and traditionally had to be a scholar of Islamic law, an Islamic lawyer or alim.
To become a mujtahid in theological terms is similar to having a doctorate in divinity in Islamic kalam, or in legal terms to reaching the status of a high or supreme court judge.

Ijtihad is alive in every spehere of life, we make decisions in our daily dealings based on Justness and truthfullness, the core aspects of Islam and for that matter, every religion.

Thanks to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) for freeing us from the shackles of the clergy, thanks to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) for liberation from ignorance and thanks to him for helping us imbibe the simplicity of God’s plan – Justice and liberty for all.

Indeed, to be a Muslim is to be a peace maker; one who constantly seeks to mitigate conflicts and nurtures goodwill for peaceful co-existence. God wants us to live in peace and harmony with his creation; life and matter. Indeed that is the purpose religion.

Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer and a Moderator. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing Pluralism, politics, Islam, Religion, Terrorism, India and civic issues. His comments, news analysis, opinions and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website http://www.mikeghouse.net/. He can be reached at mailto:MikeGhouse@gmail.com

###