On Hijab!

The War of the Women by Yahiya Emerick and Reshma Baig

A popular English saying says that “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.” The meaning being that if a woman feels like something unfair happened to her, her anger will be limitless. I’m not going to say that that is necessarily true or not, but I have seen shades of it in the world-wide war between women who wear the Hijab (head-scarf) and those who want to oppose it.

Why do I describe it as a war? If you have to ask then you haven’t been paying much attention to what women talk about in public meetings, articles, lectures, and even among themselves. The battle consists, quite interestingly, of four distinct war-fronts. There are 1) the women who wear Hijab out of conviction that it is the Islamic thing to do. Then there are 2) the women who wear it only because their mothers and grandmothers wore it; unaware of its true Islamic significance. The third group, 3) the non-Muslim feminists, rally against anything that covers up even one inch of the female form, but we already expected this from them. And finally, 4) there are the secular “Muslim” women, who almost never practice Islam anyway, but who have Muslim names and roots, who make it a point to appear at all Muslim gatherings with hair fashionably styled in full public glory.

For the sake of this article, one issue must be clear from the outset (so as not to ruffle the feathers of too many readers): An operative definition of the Hijab-wearing woman must be constructed. Albeit, as described above, not all Hijab wearers are alike. Women wear the Hijab for varying reasons. In reality, there also exists those noble and true Muslim sisters who wear Hijab because it is Islamically correct. They perceive it as intrinsically empowering. In addition, the Hijab is not a facade (the “I’ll wear Hijab then do whatever I like” attitude). The operative definition of a true Hijab wearing Muslim woman is one who correctly follows the guidelines of Qur’an and Sunnah and whose only motivation is to please Allah. (Qur’an 33:59) This type of Hijab wearing woman is intelligent, Allah-fearing, overcoming the temporal trappings of the life of this world, and ultimately very happy with her decision. She is not out to please anyone except her Creator.

Now as stated previously, there are the four groups in this Battle of the Scarf. But it’s not a fair war. Although it would seem that there are two factions on each side, in fact, the culturally-based Hijab wearing women are no help to their Islamicly-oriented sisters. The cultural Hijab-wearers don’t look at their Hijab as an Islamic duty, but rather as an affiliation with some old-country culture. And in fact, they wear it only out of habit.

Obviously, then, the daughters of such women, feeling more “American” than Arab, Indian, Nigerian (or any culture transmitted by family origin), never wear the Hijab themselves because it’s just “culture” and thus the cultural women are no help in the Islamic struggle. Their own offspring become some other “culture” just as they are only motivated by what they grew up with themselves.

Have you ever seen the women, walking in “full” Hijab, but then their two or three daughters, even if they’re teenagers, are dressed completely like non-Muslims? It’s incredibly common. I feel like asking those mothers. Why are you even wearing Hijab if it wasn’t important enough for you to pass on to your daughters?

So the Islamically-oriented Hijab-wearers are quite alone in the face of the assault by the feminists/secular “Muslimahs”. The relationship between those two erstwhile allies is strange. The agenda of the Western feminists has always been puzzling. They cry about equality and respect but then push for things that dehumanize women and put them at the mercy of merciless men. They’ll say women should be respected for their minds rather than for their bodies, but then they’ll say that women should go around in mini-skirts and g- strings. It’s funny how some ultra-Feminists argue with pride that the only professions in which women earn more money than men are prostitution and fashion modeling–then, while complaining against violence towards women, they try to encourage more women to be “empowered” by disrobing (utilizing work- place fashions that place more emphasis on the female figure rather than intelligence and qualifications).

Men are an aggressive lot. If you take away clothes from a woman, the man is not suddenly going to start respecting her. Rather he’s going to take it as a green light to chase after her. It’s interesting how so many male fashion designers are worshipped by Western, European, and now even “Muslim” women. (Armani, De La Renta, Gucci, Mizrahi, Lauren, etc…)

It doesn’t take an analyst from Fashion Avenue to figure out that a man will design clothes for women that fits one main criteria: That the outfit be pleasing and attractive to the eyes of a man. From this arises the catch- phrase: “powerful and sexy”. Some cultural “Muslims” with more of an interest in fashion (rather than their love for Allah) heed the call of Vogue, Glamour, and Cosmopolitan rather than the guidelines for dress in the Qur’an and Sunnah. Unfortunately, both “Muslim” men and women have fallen prey to the paradigms of worldly dressing. (Is it really dress for success or dress for sex?). Some brothers are ashamed of their wives and daughters wearing the Hijab in public (the “you look too dowdy with that thing on your head” syndrome.) Some women discourage their own Muslim sisters from wearing the Hijab saying that they’ll “never succeed” or “just look old-fashioned and oppressed”, or as I’ve overheard time and time again, “you only need to wear Hijab on Eid or at Jumu’ah prayer”. It must be added here that Muslim women are not being encouraged to dress dowdy, sloppy, or out of the “mode”. It is merely being asserted that what is touted as fashionable is not necessarily empowering–or flattering– in the real sense of the word. Islam arrived on the scene more than 1400 years ago to fortify a woman’s dignity; introducing the concept of “covering the parts that elicit desire”. Time and time again it is implored that “Allah is beautiful and loves beauty.” Our Creator made us beautiful and the dictates of “modern” fashion morph that beauty into something exploitative and ugly.

The feminists say that women should be free and independent, never relying on any man. So the message men extract from this is that now they can have as many lovers as they want and never have to be tied down to one woman ever again. Consequently, a woman who dates can expect to go from man to man for twenty years or more before she can succeed in tying one down in marriage. And now women have to dress even more alluring to attract men, and have to work harder to keep them around lest the “roving eye” spots another, younger, prettier catch. Women, as polls have shown, are more harried, stressed and suffering from acute eating and other disorders than ever before.

Feminists say that all spiritual traditions are male-oriented and have worked to keep women down. While this may be true in the case of Christianity, Hinduism and Judaism, these feminists have no knowledge of Islam. All they see is the stupid, chauvinistic cultural traditions of backward X,Y or Z Muslim country and they equate that with the teachings of Islam. Then pseudo- scholars from the West quote ayat and Hadith out of context and paint a picture of a barbaric religion which seeks death for all.

On the same level, there are also ethnic “Muslim” women out there who do more to disparage Islam and present apologetic misinformation than their non-Muslim associates. Case in point: In a recent New York Times article about the growing number of Hijab wearing women in America, a “Muslimah” doctor from Chicago is quoted as saying that “Hijab has nothing to do with Islam.” Her justification was that she was from Pakistan and it’s not important over there. This makes one wonder: Which version of Islam is that? Oh, the abridged version. (Qur’an 33:64-68)

At the same time there is the wave of Muslimahs in America who assert their identities as Muslims and are cognizant that the Hijab is a requirement. These are the sisters on the frontlines who you see in various workplace settings with their Hijabs. The Hijab, as many sisters have commented, changes everything. Peoples are compelled to see you as a Muslim and therefore must assess their own feelings about Islam and Muslims. Ill feelings and sincere understanding of the faith are put through the sieve that is the Hijab.

You can imagine the outrage feminists feel when they hear that women are leaving “liberated” Western-secular culture and accepting Islam. I once overheard one feminist say, “Why are they entering a religion that will oppress them.” It is so wired. If a woman walks down the street in a french- style head-wrap, nobody blinks an eye. If an old woman has a scarf or net wrapped around her head, nobody even looks. But the minute a woman walks in public with a scarf worn in typical Muslim style, people women mostly, absolutely freak out. Otherwise nice women will start muttering insults or even yelling.

Of course, no one says anything bad when they see a statue of Mary wearing a veil- and she always has a veil on. And no one yells at nuns, many of whom dress more Islamically than most Muslim women. So why the anger at the Hijab? You know, there’s an interesting experiment you can try, and it may also save you from committing sins. Whenever a pretty girl walks by, almost every man looks at her, right? In Islam this is discouraged, for obvious reasons. But the next time you see a pretty woman walking by a stationary group of people, don’t look at the pretty woman, (save yourself from a sin,) instead, look at the faces of the other women as the pretty woman passes by them. You’ll be amazed to see that it’s the women who are most blatantly and closely watching the young debutante prance by. And the glances of the women will follow long after the men have lost interest.

It’s amazing! Women judge each other by their looks and appearances more than you would imagine. Especially non-Muslim women, who see the new female as a potential rival for male attention. When a Muslim woman, dressed according to her conscience, walks by, you see these same women grimace and make ugly faces. Why are they so threatened by a covered woman even more so than a half-naked one?

Because the half-naked woman is only a rival for a man. The covered woman is a direct challenge to any woman’s whole being, sense of self and way of life. A modestly dressed, covered woman is a walking, talking challenge to the women (and men) who are sacrificing their Akhira for success on the terms of Dunya. A woman in Hijab who is a functioning member of society is a clarion call to everyone around her. She symbolizes a woman who is empowered by Allah (swt) rather than by the shabby, eclectic, pop-cultural, spiritually bankrupt throngs who pass as the icons of contemporary society.

The average non-Muslim woman sees nothing wrong with unmarried sexual relations, drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, dancing with men, walking around half-naked, maybe taking drugs, gossiping, lying, using foul language, etc… (Who are all those immigrant Muslim men who race to marry such women and ignore their noble Muslim sisters?)

While the Muslim woman, in Hijab, radiates the exact opposite! She doesn’t engage in those things and rather tries to be humble, self-controlled, full of nobility and goodness and spiritually motivated. Non-Muslim women freak out because they feel so much shame deep down that they are so rotten and unclean! (Culturally-oriented Hijab-wearers don’t threaten them much because they usually are rude, loud and without inner-purity, as well. There is a style of Hijab and a look of inner-purity which distinguishes the conscientious Muslimahs from all others. You can see Taqwa in a person’s face!)

A Muslim woman, whose inner-purity is reflected in her behavior, is more beautiful than even the most sensually dressed non-Muslim. So many men I know have said this, both Muslim and non-Muslim! Men love to run after the easy women for “conquests” but they want to marry someone who is pure more than anything else in the world! Non-Muslim women are filled with their shame/rage and it makes them attack Islam and things Islamic with a venom more deadly than any Orientalist ever had.

So many Western women, despairing of the lifestyle in which women have been reduced to mere sex-objects for men, are leaving the immoral lifestyle for the Islamic one in huge numbers. It doesn’t matter if they find good husbands or not. They’re accepting Islam because it’s real, because it speaks to them as women.

But still the non-Muslim women twist their hands in rage. Now, because there is a whole class of Muslim immigrants who grew up worshipping America and the West, associating its technological advancements with its values, the non- Muslim feminists have a useful new tool in their fight against the one thing that shows them how wrong they are. These allies are the women with Muslim names who don’t practice Islam, or who at the very most consider Islam to be a praying and fasting “religion” and little else.

These “Muslim” women, who may be victims of backward cultural traditions, think that the “Muslim” culture they came from is what Islam is about. Well, if that was true, I wouldn’t like Islam either. I’m sure you’ll agree that Muslims are sometimes the worst examples of what Islam categorizes as bad. But most of us are intelligent enough to realize that just because I have to pay a bribe to the policeman or if a woman has to abort her daughter in favor of a male child in the future– it doesn’t mean that Islam teaches that.

But there are a whole class of “Muslims” who can’t seem to make such distinctions. They can’t seem to understand where culture ends and Islam begins; they can’t seem to let go of cultural values and adhere to the teachings of the Qur’an; they can’t seem to wash away the taint of culture to expose the illumination of Islam. That would require a sacrifice on their part. (Oh my god! If they followed true Islam they might have to allow their daughters to marry people of a different ethnic group. Can’t have that now!)

Already the feminists have destroyed Christianity and Judaism. Read that sentence over one time. Those two religions are now in the dust-bin of history, despite a cough from them every now and then, because they’re effectively marginalized. The feminists, without even understanding that Islam is best for them, have brought secular “Muslim” women into their ranks to show the world that Islam should become as quaint and marginalized in society as Christianity is now.

Just on a side note, you know how Christian missionaries are roving all over the world and making thousands of new converts every day? They brag about it and Muslims complain about it because countries like Indonesia and Nigeria are in danger of becoming “Christian” countries in a few decades. But wait a minute! Who are the Christians converting and who is becoming Muslim?

The Christians are converting ignorant villagers, uneducated natives and people with Muslim names who don’t know anything about Islam. While those who are accepting Islam are Jews and Christians- Westerners who are highly educated and have lived the secular way of life all their lives! The dumb become Christian while the educated be come Muslim! There’s some food for thought!

Back to the war of the women: How have the feminists used these “secular Muslim” women? They have convinced some “Muslim” women that the path to money and power in this country is through bastardizing your own soul. By conforming to the heathen wishes of the majority, you can achieve loads of worldly success. That if you’re a working professional (in any field), that success can only be attained by ripping off the “oppressive weight” of your Hijab and donning a “powerful and sexy” power suit.

As many Hijab wearing, practicing Muslim sisters have commented, the Western feminist ideology only hurts those who are ready to sacrifice their Next Life for the success of the world. Our practicing, Hijab wearing sisters have proved time and time again that they can wear their Hijab and become teachers, doctors, nurses, accountants, principals, economists, professors, etc… On the same level, without sacrificing their identity as Muslims; they are accepting the challenge of success while not simultaneously sacrificing their Islam.

But the feminists have their ready slaves: there are “Muslim” women who are brought by the feminists to their seminars and meetings to give the “Muslim” voice (read: token “Muslim” woman who will lash out against Islam and emerge as the Renaissance Woman Who Emerged From Behind The Veil.) Because these women had no real belief anyway, they almost always parrot, quite shamelessly, the views of the feminists. Then these “Muslim” women become filled with the idea of a crusade against “oppression” in their ethnic communities. An Arab secular “Muslimah” will work her agenda in the Arab community; an Indo-Pak in that community, etc…

It’s easy for them to do this given that most of the Muslims who immigrated to this country are as of yet, unorganized and unaffiliated with any Masjid or organization. What’s more, we shoot ourselves in the foot because some of our centers are run by people who are also secular in their outlook and just want to be important in the eyes of their associates. (Qur’an 9:107-108)

The feminist “Muslimahs” set up clinics with free counseling (toward non-Muslim values), abortion facilities, women’s shelters and the like. (They get grants from universities, local governments and feminist organizations.) They say they’re helping, but by promoting values in the minds of the women they serve which are unIslamic, they really cause harm in the long run.

They literally make it seem as if all you have to do is remove the Hijab, wear a mini-skirt and give up Islamic teachings then all your problems will be solved. When the root of the problem to begin with is almost always someone in their lives, maybe themselves or their husbands, were not following Islam to begin with! The cure can never be the poison.

The culturally-based Muslim Hijab wearers are the most vulnerable. They are usually, and you know this is true, uneducated village-style women who will listen to anything that sounds “sophisticated”. Their Islam is usually a mixture of folklore, cultural traditions, superstitions and the like. They are the majority of women in the Muslim world. They’re not bad or evil or anything, they’re just completely unaware of real Islam. The feminists and the secular “Muslimahs” want to “liberate” them into the great world of today’s used, worn-out, vulgar, “modern” Western woman.

The women who have either accepted Islam or who rediscovered it after living in a Muslim family are often quite alone. Those who love Allah by their own conviction and who seek to follow Islam truly are the enemies of the feminists, and by extension, of the Shaitan. The Shaitan calls people to forget Allah, to forget that they’re responsible for their actions and to forget that this life is a short time of testing. He lures people with their animalistic desires and their cravings for the best in life. He whispers that there are no moral standards and that you can do as you please. Those who accept this call, whether with Muslim names or non-Muslim ones, descend to the level of intelligent beasts. (See Qur’an 7:16-17)

I have personally witnessed confrontations between those who wear Hijab by conviction and those secular “Muslimahs” who say it’s not required. Every single time, the secular “Muslimahs” have utilized an insulting and nasty tone. Arguing with their worst faces. Of course, one of the signs of a hypocrite is that they’ll get nasty in a disagreement, but then again, they don’t accept the Hadith usually anyway, unless it seems to agree with their positions. (Qur’an 33:36)

The Muslim women who don’t yet wear Hijab, but who desperately want to, sometimes may become afraid of the mean-spirit of the secular “Muslimahs.” Nobody wants to be pointed out and nobody wants to be yelled at. I feel bad for these women. Their hearts and minds are tugging them towards true Islam but the nastiness of mean, shame/rage filled people make them afraid to wear Hijab. And sometimes the conscientious Hijab wearers don’t always know when to be gentle and don’t always encourage their sisters in a thoughtful, sisterly way. This as a result of always having to be on the defensive.

This war will go on for as long as there are women who believe in and love Allah. Many a Muslim man, whose own faith was weak, has fallen to it and pressured his wife or daughters not to wear Hijab. But in the end, the purity is the proof. A Muslimah in Hijab always looks purer than a woman in a mini- skirt. And a Muslimah in Hijab who practices Islam, will always be happier and free of shame, while a “liberated” woman has nothing but the empty standards of fashion magazines, western-style therapy, and empty and temporary “love” affairs to look forward to.

There is one incident that we’ll never forget. We were once at a Muslim youth rally on the east coast. There were hundreds of Muslim college students in attendance. As we were moving through the crowd we came upon a group of Hijab wearing sisters. One of the sisters, a young woman of about 18 or 20 was stating, “One thing that scares the heck out of everyone is an articulate, well dressed, intelligent, and professional Muslim sister wearing Hijab”. It’s true. Because they present the alternative that every woman can attain. That is the real equality and the real standard of respect. (See Qur’an 33:35) The trouble is, so many people are so trapped in the sinful, immoral lifestyle of lies, substance abuse, irresponsibility and chaos, that their shame drives them merely further into rage.

We know of one mother, a Muslim woman, who sent her daughter to an Islamic school in Michigan. The daughter opened her eyes to Islam and wanted to wear her Hijab outside of school, in public, also. But her mother, who was a secular “Muslimah” forbade her to wear Hijab saying, “I won’t have my daughter being better than me.” May Allah help us and the Muslim women who strive to please their Maker and ultimate judge. Amin.

The authors would like to state that this article is not intended to disparage those Muslim sisters who do not take Hijab for whatever personal reason. It is understood that a sister will take Hijab when she is ready since there is no compulsion in Islam. At the same time, according to the Qur’an, Hijab is a fard and this fact cannot be overlooked. (Qur’an 33:59) Allah (swt) is the final judge. May he give us all courage.

Yahiya Emerick’s articles are reproduced here electronically with permission from the author. – H.A.

Meet Edina Lekovic, Communications Director for MPAC

by Sara Elghobashy

2/8/10 – 2:07 PM

Edina Lekovic’s passion for activism is one to be reckoned with. From her TV appearances to the leadership programs she helped create for the Muslim Public Affairs Council , it’s clear that Edina enjoys helping others and making a difference. And believe it or not – she has Peter Jennings to thank for all that. As the Communications Director of MPAC, Edina strives to create a more accurate image of Muslims in the media. But where did this passion originate and what can we expect from Edina in the future? elan is here to find out.

Who did you look up to growing up?

My first love was Peter Jennings. When I was a little girl, my parents didn’t let me or my sister watch too much TV. The only exception was watching the evening news with my parents. I was probably around 7 or 8 when I fell in love with Peter Jennings. The news became my window to the world. It established my passion for journalism and for helping people and for changing the way we see the world.

I also looked up to my sister, Munira. She was a year older than me and was very different from me. She was always very principled and clear about what she wanted, and I was not. Today my sister is still the person I look up to. She wrote a book called “Before the Wedding” and she has her masters in marriage and family counseling. What I continue to admire about her is that she is charting new territory. We were both raised with a strong work ethic. If you see something that needs to be done, get up and roll up your sleeves and do it. I really admire the fact that my sister continues to do that.

What is your biggest indulgence?

Honestly, HGTV. It’s totally addicting. It’s because my job and all the things I’m passionate about are so intense and cerebral and emotionally heart wrenching. My biggest indulgences are the opposite side of things. At the same time, my obsession with HGTV has helped my work because it helps you to see the possibilities. You can take something that’s ugly and old and outdated, and with some vision and creativity, you can change it to something else.

Other indulgences, I love “The Biggest Loser” for the same reason. It’s the power of what’s possible. I think I need to be reminded of the potential for change and what’s possible when you set your mind to it. I also love to go hiking and I like working out as a way of stress relief.

What is the first thing you do Sunday morning?

Try to stay in bed a little longer and then I listen to “This American Life” on NPR.

Did you have any nicknames as a child?

I had a couple. My parents had two for me, one that I hated and one that I liked. My parents are Montenegrin so they called me “Bootso.” It’s a term of affection, but in my mind it always meant little chubby one. The other one was “Edina Surafina.” Loose translation would be “girl with the pretty face.” It had a prettiness to it. Later in high school, my nickname from my friends was “Edlek,” which is my first name and my last name together. And my office colleagues call me “Eddie.”

How did your background prepare you for your career?

I grew up in a non-practicing Muslim home. We were not very tied to the mosque. We followed all the big rules but didn’t know much about Islam. The knowledge I got about Islam was from TV, news and movies. I carried big assumptions of my own. I believed that Muslim people were intolerant and women were oppressed. Taking that experience plus my journalism background, what inspires me to do the work I do now is that I understand where other people are coming from. I had the same lack of understanding and the same stereotypes. Developing pride in my identity and my love of my faith was combined with my experiences and my journalism background has helped me understand how to serve as a resource. I can share my own experience and in the end get better stories told that are multidimensional and nuanced and work to get Muslims included in articles that have nothing to do with Islam. A Muslim doctor on a health story. That sort of thing.

What are your professional goals?

I don’t know. I’ve never really planned for next steps in my career. I make du’a every day saying “Dear God, please let me be useful.” I am a strong believer that opportunities will present themselves. I am very blessed to be in a position to work in an organization in which I believe so passionately. I work to get Muslims more engaged and the media more engaged. So down the road, I would hope to continue to do that in one way or another.

In your opinion, what are the biggest challenges facing young, Muslims today?

If I had to think about one thing, I would say a very serious identity crisis. It’s not that they don’t know who they are. It’s that they’re being hit from all sides, which interferes with creating a space where they feel comfortable with themselves.  9/11 is the defining thing for their place in their community and country and I worry about the degree to which it is making them prematurely cynical rather than embracing the opportunities being presented to them. They’re getting more marginalized and are feeling alienated, but they’re also doing all this phenomenal work.

My greatest hope is young Muslims. They are doing the most innovative, forward thinking projects and writing and taking new career paths. They are the ones who are going to play the defining role in expanding the role our community’s place in the country. We’re on the cusp of something exciting. While on one hand, our youth are facing an unprecedented challenge to define who they are; on the other hand, they are the ones that will be the tipping point for our communities. Because of their talent and power, and even their frustration, they are going to make great changes. - ELAN

Ground Zero Mosque!

Obama backs controversial New York mosque project

WASHINGTON, Aug 14 — US President Barack Obama yesterday backed construction of a proposed mosque and Muslim cultural centre near the site of the September 11, 2001, attacks in New York — a project opposed by US conservatives and many New Yorkers.

“As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practise their religion as anyone else in this country,” Obama said at an event attended by diplomats from Islamic countries and members of the US Muslim community.

“That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community centre on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances,” he said.

Earlier this month a New York city agency cleared the way for construction of the centre, which will include a prayer room, two blocks from the site of the September 11 attacks, popularly known as “Ground Zero.”

“This is America and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable,” said Obama, who has made improving ties between the United States and the Muslim world a cornerstone of his foreign policy.

About 2,750 people were killed on September 11 when hijackers from the Muslim militant group al Qaeda crashed two passenger planes into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, an event that traumatised Americans and sparked the US invasion of Afghanistan and the Bush Administration’s “war on terror.”

Families of those killed in the attacks have mounted an emotional campaign to block the mosque, saying it would be a betrayal of the memory of the victims.

Conservative politicians such as former Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, a Republican former Speaker of the House of Representatives, have also called for the project to be scrapped.

Mark Williams, a spokesman for the conservative Tea Party political movement, said the centre would be used for “terrorists to worship their monkey god.”

With the rhetoric growing more heated, Obama decided yesterday to make his voice heard.

Obama was speaking during an iftar dinner he hosted at the White House. Iftar is the evening meal when Muslims break their daily fast during the holy month of Ramadan.

He said the First Amendment of the US Constitution had established the freedom of religion “and that right has been upheld ever since.”

Al Qaeda also was not synonymous with Islam, Obama said.

“Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam — it is a gross distortion of Islam,” he said. “These are not religious leaders — these are terrorists who murder innocent men, women and children.”

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has firmly supported the community centre project as have many religious organisations in the city. However, 53 per cent of New Yorkers oppose it, according to a Marist Poll this week.

At least one additional legal challenge looms but the city agency’s August 3 ruling will clear the way for construction of Cordoba House, which will include a 500-seat auditorium as part of a 13-storey Muslim cultural complex.

Since coming into office, Obama, a Democrat, has worked to reach out to Muslims, many of whom felt targeted by the “war on terror” and by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In a speech in Cairo in June 2009, Obama called for a “new beginning” in ties between the United States and Muslims, saying that extremists had exploited tensions between Muslims and the West and that Islam was not part of the problem. — Reuters - The Malaysian Insider

Does it matter what religion we belong to? — David D. Mathew

AUG 12 — Last Tuesday, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission voted 9 to 0 in favour of allowing the demolition of a building near the World Trade Centre site to make way for a 13-storey Islamic cultural centre and mosque.

Plans for the construction of the proposed mosque drew strong criticism from American politicians such as Sarah Palin who last month Tweeted to say:”Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in interest of healing”.

She tweeted again later, saying to New Yorkers:”Peaceful New Yorkers, pls refute the Ground Zero mosque plan if you believe catastrophic pain caused @ Twin Towers site is too raw, too real.”

Palin was not the only one opposed to the building of the mosque.

The National Republican Trust paid for a provocative advertisement called “Kill the Ground Zero Mosque” which replayed scenes from September 11 with a background voice saying”On September 11, they declared war against us. They want to build a thirteen-story mosque at Ground Zero. This ground is sacred. That mosque is a monument to their victory. The mosque at Ground Zero must not stand.”

Despite such opposition, the path is now finally open for the project to proceed.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, in a stirring speech given following the Landmarks Preservation Commission vote, stated that the government had no right whatsoever to deny Muslims the right to build a mosque.

“Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11 and that our Muslim neighbours grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values — and play into our enemies’ hands — if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists – and we should not stand for that,” Bloomberg said.

“On 11 September 2001, thousands of first responders heroically rushed to the scene and saved tens of thousands of lives. More than 400 of those first responders did not make it out alive. In rushing into those burning buildings, not one of them asked ‘What God do you pray to?’ ‘What beliefs do you hold?” the mayor said, before finishing by noting that political controversies may come and go but there is no neighborhood in New York that is off limits to God’s love and mercy.

It is difficult to be a Muslim in many Western countries.

Religious bigots are quick to play up fears and remind everyone of not only September 11 but also the dangers of creeping Islamisation.

Last year, a Muslim convert named Carole was barred from swimming in a public pool in France because she wore the burkini — a three-piece swimsuit she bought in Dubai consisting of a headscarf, tunic and trousers.

Early last month, France’s Lower House of Parliament overwhelmingly approved a ban on wearing burqa-style Islamic veils. This is part of a concerted endeavour by the French government to “protect French values”.

Let us strive not to make it difficult for people to be Christians or Hindus or Buddhists or any other religion in Malaysia.

Let us not allow a situation where people say that it is difficult to be a Sikh in Malaysia.

Let us stop asking the question “What God do you pray to?” when approving permits for religious places of worship.

Let us stop asking the question “What God do you pray to?” in all aspects of our lives.

It is a personal matter and one that should be respected as such.

In December 2005, while some members of the congregation were preparing for Christmas, the state authorities demolished a church of the Orang Asli in the Kampung Orang Asli Kuala Masai, Johor settlement.

This was done on grounds that the church was built illegally on state land despite the fact that the state had already promised the land to the Orang Asli as reserve land in exchange for the Orang Asli moving out of their original land located in the Stulang Laut area.

Let us strive to keep places of worship intact and bend over backwards to prevent destruction of the same. Destruction of places of worship must be a thing of the past.

If there is one country that could be a model for interfaith co-operation, it would be Malaysia.

But we have to start trusting each other. We’ve got to stop haggling over words used during worship, the number of places of worship each other has and the distance required between each place of worship.

Let us not forget that those who fought for this country’s freedom belonged to all faiths. Those who suffered at the hands of the Japanese belonged to all faiths.

Let us not forget that our multi-culturalism and multi-religionism are what makes us who were are.

Let us not forget that the Rukun Negara urges the belief in God. So who are we to curtail or halt the people’s wish to worship and believe in a God that they so choose.

Malaysia is a godly country. We are made up of so many religions. Perhaps it is the sum of all our prayers that has prevented Malaysia from descending into the dark realm of killings in the name of God, perpetual burnings of places of worship and violent religious mobs.

We put a toe into such waters shortly after the High Court ruling in the “Allah” case but matters calmed down without too much damage.

Let us take a lesson from New York and try to avoid similar situations from happening.

Let us defend the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion and learn to trust again.

Religious terms, mosques, churches and temples are not symbols of power or a matter of one-upmanship. They are our fellow man’s way of worship and nothing else.

Any act which infringes on the freedom of religion is not a lawful exercise of power but an exercise of tyranny and bigotry.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or the publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified. – TheMalaysian Insider

The destruction of an identity – PALESTINE

GENOCIDE – THE DESTRUCTION OF AN IDENTITY

1. There is something strange about the behaviour of Israel towards Gaza. Arrogance is of course a part of the Israeli character but beyond that they seem to have a long term plan. On the excuse that rockets had been fired at Israel from Gaza, Israel invaded that strip of Palestinian land, killing 1,400 Gazans, wounding many more and razing to the ground 20,000 homes, over 100 schools, hospitals and other Government buildings.

2. International pressure apparently forced Israel to stop the carnage and to withdraw from Gaza. A kind of peace appeared to have been established and numerous countries pledged billions to rebuild Gaza. After that, news about Gaza ceased to appear in the media and the assumption was that the pledges of aid were being honoured and rebuilding was in progress.

3. After months of silence in terms of media coverage, it was discovered that Israel had blocked aid material and aid workers from entering Gaza. Supported by Egypt, the border between that country and Gaza was closed. The crossing point at Rafah was guarded by Egyptian security personnel and only limited supplies were allowed to pass.

4. Then an NGO group called the Free Gaza Movement sent small boats to Gaza with supplies of food and medicine. Two or three boats got through but after that, of two other boats which tried, one was rammed by an Israeli naval ship, throwing the passengers and supplies into the sea. The other was boarded by Israeli commandos and forced to go to Ashdod port in Israel. The occupants were later released but nothing is known about what happened to the aid supplies.

5. It is clear that Israel with the support of Egypt was carrying out a siege of Gaza. Deprived of medical supplies and exposed in make-shift shelters to the harsh winters, many of the sick and wounded, the old and the small children died.

6. Hearing of the siege, the PGPO (Perdana Global Peace Organisation) of Malaysia suggested that a flotilla of passenger and cargo ships be sent to Gaza. In May 2010 the flotilla set sail but while the boats were still on the high seas, Israeli commandos attacked and killed nine Turkish aid workers on the Mavi Marmara, and injured many others.

7. The boats were forced by the Israeli warships to sail to Ashdod in Israel where the aid workers were detained but were subsequently allowed to make their way back to their own countries.

8. The boats remained at Ashdod. The Israelis reported that they themselves had sent the aid material to Gaza. How much of the material was sent is not known but certainly the Israelis found no weapons of any kind in the cargo carried by the boats. Otherwise they would have invited the world press to show these weapons as proof that the mercy workers were terrorists.

9. Since then Israel has threatened to regard any aid ship from Iran as warships and would attack them, while a Libyan ship with medicine and food is also threatened.

10. Why is Israel doing this? The ships never entered Israeli waters on the way to Gaza and there has been no evidence that weapons were carried. Nor were the people accompanying the cargo in any way connected with “terrorists”. There were old women and babies among the people on the MV Mavi Marmara.

11. But it is not only Gaza that the Israelis have put under siege. All the territories that should be under the so-called Palestinian Authority have also been made inaccessible.

12. When I and my small entourage tried to go to Palestine to see the destroyed village of Jenin and to go to Jerusalem, Israelis manning the border between Jordan and Palestine delayed us for more than two hours and so prevented us from seeing Jenin or going to Jerusalem as we had to leave Palestine by 6.00pm. It seems that Israel does not want visitors to visit Palestine and see what the Israelis are doing to Palestinian land.

13. As is well known, Israeli settlements have been built all over Palestinian territory. In addition roads were built which the Palestinians were not allowed to use. A high wall has been built not to separate Israel from Palestine but to break up the villages of the Palestinians.

14. The Palestinian Authority is an anomaly. The UN in 1948 had divided Palestine between the Jews and the Arabs to create two states – Israel for the Jews and Palestine for the Palestinian Arabs. The Arabs were hounded out of Israeli territory through threats of massacre as happened in Deir Yassin.

15. There should therefore be two states on Palestinian land – Israel and Palestine. But after the 6-day war launched by Israel supposedly because it feared attacks by Arab States, much of the Palestinian territory, including Gaza and the West Bank were occupied by Israel.

16. Even then after the attacks were stopped there should still be a state of Palestine on the parts not occupied by Israel. Somehow or other the state of Palestine ceased to exist. Instead there was created the Palestinian Authority and the world seem to accept this as a fait accompli.

17. During World War II much of France was occupied by Germany but the state of France continued to exist having its capital in Vichy. There is no reason why the state of Palestine could not exist even if its territory is much diminished. But the fact is that there is now no Palestine but only a Palestinian Authority.

18. With this the state of Palestine ceased to exist. However, despite the many Jewish settlements built on the remaining Palestinian land, despite obvious evidence of Israeli rule over much of Palestine such as Israeli check-points and control of Palestinian borders together with roads through Palestinian land reserved for Israelis, the world still thinks that there is Palestine and Palestinian land.

19. Although there is a Palestinian Authority, it has in fact no authority over any Palestinian land at all. The Israelis are free to do what they like in places said to be under the Palestinian Authority. Even the collection of taxes are done by the Israelis. At one stage the Israelis refused to hand over the taxes they collected to the Palestinian Authority.

20. Democracy was promoted as a solution to the Palestinian issue after Fatah was persuaded to go along with U.S. plans for a peace solution. However when elections were held Fatah lost to Hamas. Despite all the beliefs in democracy, the U.S. supported Israel in not allowing Hamas to form the Government of Palestine. Instead Fatah was recognised as the Government.

21. Frustrated by U.S hypocrisy Hamas set up a government in Gaza. Even though the Hamas Government was denied jurisdiction over all Palestinian territories, there was no way to dislodge its rule in Gaza.

22. The implication is that whereas the Israelis can build settlements and rule the part of Palestine supposedly under the Palestinian Authority, it cannot do the same in Hamas controlled Gaza. Israel must therefore find other ways of bringing Gaza under its control via the Palestinian Authority.

23. The invasion of Gaza by Israel was therefore to be expected. But so brutal was the Israeli war of occupation of Gaza that the world was revolted by it and forced the war to be stopped. But the Israelis were not going to be so easily frustrated. Without regard for its peace undertakings and international law Israel immediately blockaded supplies and contacts with Gaza by the outside world.

24. The strategy appears to be to weaken the resolve and spirit of the Gazans, to render them so physically weak that the next time Israel invaded the strip the Gazans would be incapable of strong resistance. Eventually it would have to surrender. With this the Israelis would be able to build settlements and exercise authority over Gaza as it has done over the other parts of Palestine.

25. If there should be a negotiation for a two-state solution, it is unthinkable that the Israelis would vacate their settlements or subject themselves to rule by a Palestinian state. They would physically be under Israeli rule and de facto if not de jure be a part of Israel. The bits and pieces of the remaining Palestinian land would still be under Israel control. There would be no recognisable Palestinian state. In fact agreements notwithstanding, there would be only Israel occupying the whole of the land once known as Palestine. There would be no Palestinian identity. Palestine and its history would be lost.

26. This is a form of genocide. A whole people will have been made to disappear very much as if they have all been exterminated. The world will forget there even was a Palestine.

27. My fear is that while the world may forget, the Palestinians and their descendents will not. They will always remember. And remembering they will continue their struggle, probably in ways that the world may have to pay a heavy price for. We are seeing some of it now but what we will be seeing would render peace for the world meaningless.

** Links are meant as brief guide for readers. Chedet.co.cc is not responsible for validity of content. – Tun Dr. Mhathir

New global ethic

.	A Muslim Century: Myth Or Reality?

By Rohana Mustaffa

PUTRAJAYA, May 27 (Bernama) — World renowned Muslim intellectual Prof Dr Ali Al’Amin Mazrui has several reasons the Muslim century should commence from sometime in the 1950s until the 2050s.

The first ‘raison d’etre’ or basis is that over half of the Muslim world population was under some kind of foreign rule for much of the first half of the 20th century.

These included those parts of the Muslim world which are known today as the four biggest concentrations of Muslims in the world.

These four largest Muslim concentrations are Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh dan Muslims in India.

And also under the colonial or foreign rule in the first-half of the 20th century were Malaya, Burma, half of the Arab world and almost the whole of Black Africa.

An additional reason is the creation of Pakistan in 1947 – large enough at that time to include what later that became a separate nation in the form of Bangladesh.

At the same time, said Prof Dr Ali, these were the days when half of the Muslim world was under the Sultans, Kings and Emirs. Sultans among the Malays became constitutional monarchs, but the Middle Eastern part of the Muslim world dealt with its monarchs by revolution starting with Egypt in 1952, Iraq in 1958 and Libya in 1969.

But the most influential of all the anti-monarchical revolutions in the Middle East in the second half of the 20th century was the one in Iran in 1969.

But the Iranian Revolution was not merely anti-Royalist as it was also pro-Islamic.

The nature of the Islamic revolution helped to push up Iran to a new global status.

POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC POWER

However the academician said even after all these anti-royalist upheavals in West Asia, the Muslim world still had more monarchs than any other civilisation.

Monarchical systems have continued to flourish in Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Jordan, Morocco, Oman, United Arab Emirates, northern Nigeria as well as Malaysia.

Prof Dr Ali, the Director of Institute of Global Cultural Studies, State University New York, USA, is well respected for his contribution towards the development of knowledge and Islamic intellectualism.

He revealed these facts in his lecture titled “A Muslim Century: Myth or Reality (In Search of Modern Pillars of Wisdom) for the inaugural lecture of the Putrajaya Premier Lecture Series (SPP) held recently.

SPP is the brain child of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak which will invite scholars, academicians dan renowned individuals to give lectures, sharing their knowledge, ideas and innovations with the audience.

Prof Dr Ali said the Muslims of South Asia have excelled in numbers and in cultural achievements. But particularly distinctive has been being ahead of the rest of the Muslim world in the political empowerment of women.

He cited the example of Benazir Bhutto who led the way as the first woman Muslim head of government in modern history. Bangladesh followed suit with two remarkable women who alternated as Prime Ministers for virtually two decades.

Bangladesh was for a while the only country in the world where both the head of government and the leader of the opposition were women.

Later, Indonesia raised the stakes by being Islam’s most populous country headed for a while by a woman – Megawati Sukarnoputri.

He said in this second half of the 20th century the Muslim world became economically exceptional because of Allah’s bounty of petroleum. Saudi Arabia and Iraq for example were blessed with the world’s greatest oil reserves. And the Organisation of Oil Exporting Countries (Opec) is at least two thirds Muslim in composition.

AMERICAN EMPIRE

Through his observation, Prof Dr Ali saw by the end of the 20th century all of Africa, Asia, and most of the Arab world were at least nominally independent of old-style colonialism.

But a whole new phenomenon had emerged – a different kind of empire under the United States of America.

Prof Dr Ali interpreted the history of the relations between the Muslim world and the West as a tumultuous transition from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after the end of World War I to the rise of the American Empire after the end of the Cold War.

The rise of the American empire subsequently exploited the Arab fragmentation. Muslims also confronted the alienating consequences of the end of the Muslim Caliphate.

In the face of this new international disequilibrium, humanity needs a new Global Ethic.

There is a compelling need for new criteria of right and wrong across civilisations.

One approach is for Islam to rediscover the seven pillars of wisdom and redefine them in the context of the new imbalances in the world system.

SEVEN PILLARS

In his lecture Prof Dr Ali proposed that ‘The Seven Pillars of Wisdom” outlined by T.E .Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) in his momentous work in 1926 be replaced by the new Seven Pillars of Wisdom for the rest of the Muslim century. (Prof Dr Ali has mentioned Lawrence, a British army officer who contributed to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire `a stranger in the Arab World’ who symbolised how strangers in our midst could change the course of our history).

He stressed that the first of the new pillars of wisdom has to be a quest for tolerance and minimisation of violence. He also posed questions:- Is Islam in this Muslim century conflict prone? Who forged the link between terrorism and political Islam?

The behaviour of every people, he said, was only partially determined by the ethical standards of its culture. Some cultures are born intolerant, some become intolerant and some have intolerance thrust upon them.

How much of the violence in the Muslim world is native born and how much has been thrust upon Muslims? Can the Muslim world transcend its conflicts and be an example to the world?

The second new pillar of wisdom to Prof Dr Ali is the optimisation of the economic well being of the people.

In this respect he questioned how egalitarian were the cultures of Islam and the Malay people and is Malaysia handling the challenge of ethnic pluralism with the imperative of mutual esteem?

EQUILIBRIUM

While the West in the 20th century had evolved the concept of the welfare state, Malays had evolved even earlier the concept of the welfare village.

Long before welfare socialism in Britain, Malays had developed a defacto system of collective responsibility for orphans, for the infirmed, for the aged, and for the needy.

Malayan communities had historically looked after their most vulnerable members.

The third pillar of wisdom is social justice.

Prof Dr Ali said it is a struggle to reduce ethnic and racial inequalities and a quest for a more humane equilibrium. If in terms of political violence in the world, racial prejudice and discriminatiom, Muslims are a people more sinned against than sinning.

The fourth new pillar of wisdom is a basic gender equality. This is a major change from the world of T.E Lawrence. How has Asian Islam treated women?

In no Muslim country are women more liberated than women are in the United States, but in some Muslim countries women have been more empowered than women have been in the United States, he said, and in this twenty-first century, as well as before, the Muslim world has produced women heads of government.

Prof Dr Ali turned to the environmental as the fifth pillar of wisdom – the quest for ecological balance and the protection of Planet Earth against excessive exploitation and devastation.

The Green movements of recent decades have also been inspired by the aesthetics for conservation.

The concept of “endangered species” has been a deference of biodiversity, rooted in the belief that a world with fewer species of animals and a smaller range of plants was a less beautiful world.

Muslims have often chosen green as the colour of Islam, partly because green was associated with peace.

But from the middle of the twentieth century the colour green has also been adopted by environmental movements, by those who are committed to keep the hills and valleys of Planet Earth forever green, he stressed.

IN SEARCH OF KNOWLEDGE

On the sixth pillar of wisdom, inter-faith dialogue and cooperation, Prof Dr Ali noted that Asia as a whole is the mother of all great world religions – Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

As for relations between Christianity and Islam in Asia, both religions are expanding in numbers and growing in influence. But can they co-exist peacefully? Christianity and Islam are divisive in both Asia and Africa only if they reinforce prior ethnic and linguistic divisions, he said.

Prof Dr Ali chose the quest for further wisdom as the seventh pillar of wisdom based on the fact that Allah first command to prophet Muhammad was the imperative Iqra (Read) and they were indeed about knowledge.

It was arguable that Islam was historically at its most creative when it was ready to learn mathematics from India, philosophy from ancient Greece, architecture from Persia, science from the Jews, and jurisprudence from the legacy of Rome.

Prophet Muhammad had called upon his followers to pursue knowledge “even as far as China.” and his wisdom is proven as China now is a great country.

In this aspect, Prof Dr Ali suggested the possibility of at the end of the twentieth century about an emerging alliance between Islam and countries of the Confucian heritage.

He stressed that wisdom begins when we understand ourselves. Wisdom matures when we aspire to higher human standards.

“Let us do so, guided by the Seven Pillars. As the book of Proverbs announced to the world two thousand years ago, `Wisdom hath builded a house; she has carved out her seven pillars.’ In our own modern ways, let us respond to those imperatives,” he said.

However perspectives on these new seven pillars of wisdom have to respond to the diversity among Muslims themselves, and between Muslims and others, he added.

There is also the shadow of Pax Americana and whither the American empire?

He forcasted that the United States may gradually be tamed by Islam as the Muslim century unfolds its remaining decades towards the year 2050. Out of the tensions between the United States and the Muslim world a more humane civilisation may eventually emerge.

– BERNAMA

Ignorance or sheer prejudice?

Seeing Muhammad as Both a Prophet and a Politician

By Laurie Goodstein

Dec 20, 2009

The religion with the most adherents on the planet is Christianity, and few people would say they are unfamiliar with the story of its founder and prophet, Jesus. The second largest faith is Islam, and yet there is boundless ignorance among non-Muslims about the story of its founder and prophet, Muhammad, even after 9/11 set off a global panic about whether Islam fuels terrorism.

Since then Muhammad has been defined by his detractors: who have called him a terrorist, a lunatic and most colorfully — by the Rev. Jerry Vines, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention — a “demon-possessed pedophile.” Even Pope Benedict XVI, whatever his intention, created an uproar by unearthing a remark from a 14th-century emperor who cited Muhammad’s contributions to religion as “only evil and inhuman.” Is this the prophet of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims?

It may be time then to put down the biographies of John Adams and Ronald Reagan and devote a little attention to Muhammad. But beware. Several new biographies picture Muhammad through the lens of a suicide bomber, and ultimately these books reveal more about suicide bombers than Muhammad.

To glimpse how the vast majority of the world’s Muslims understand their prophet and their faith, Karen Armstrong’s short biography is a good place to start. The volume is part of a series called “Eminent Lives”: small profiles of big-name subjects by big-name authors.

Ms. Armstrong, best known for “A History of God,” is a scholar and a former nun with a genius for presenting religions as products of temporal forces — like geography, culture and economics — without minimizing the workings of transcendent spiritual forces.

She profiles Muhammad as both a mystic touched by God on a mountaintop and a canny political and social reformer. He preached loyalty to God rather than tribe; reconciliation rather than retaliation; care for orphans and the poor; and in many ways, empowerment of women, which will be a surprise to some. The Koran gave women property rights and freed orphans from the obligation to marry their guardians: radical changes at a time when women were traded like camels.

Ms. Armstrong writes: “His life was a tireless campaign against greed, injustice and arrogance. He realized that Arabia was at a turning point and that the old way of thinking would no longer suffice, so he wore himself out in the creative effort to evolve an entirely new solution.” In a nod to her subtitle, “A Prophet for Our Time,” she argues that as of Sept. 11, 2001, we have entered a new historical era that requires an equally thorough re-evaluation.

This notion that we have entered a new era was one of the reasons that Ms. Armstrong decided to revisit a subject she had already covered in 1992 with “Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet.”

Muhammad (570-632) was born in a nouveau riche Mecca. Unlike most Arabs, the Meccans were not nomads but traders and financiers who profited from the caravans that stopped in Mecca for water from its underground spring. The site was holy to the Bedouin because it housed the Kabah, a cube-shaped granite building that was tended by Muhammad’s tribe, the Quraysh.

Muhammad was orphaned as a child and taken in by relatives, but his fortunes changed at the age of 25 when he married Khadija, an older widow who hired him to manage her caravans. At 40 Muhammad declared he had been seized by a terrifying force and commanded by God to recite scripture.

Khadija was his first convert. At first he shared his revelations with a small group of friends and family members, who became his disciples, “convinced that he was the long-awaited Arab prophet.” As Muhammad, who was illiterate, recited new passages, believers wrote them down: a compilation that became the Koran.

The Meccans were offended by Muhammad’s preaching that the ideal was submission. (Islam means submission.) He taught that the proper way to pray was to bow, forehead to the earth, “a posture that would be repugnant to the haughty Quraysh,” Ms. Armstrong notes. Muhammad also insisted that the Meccans abandon the worship of their three stone goddesses, because there was only one God, Allah.

Muhammad and his followers were exiled to Medina, 250 miles north of Mecca. He did not conquer Medina so much as form alliances and win converts. But there were epic battles with the Quraysh and other tribes, and Muhammad was a fighter and tactician.

“Muhammad was not a pacifist,” Ms. Armstrong writes. “He believed that warfare was sometimes inevitable and even necessary.”

This is why some passages in the Koran are rules for warfare. Terrorist groups cite these selectively — or contort or violate them. The Koran says not to take aim at civilians; some terrorist groups declare all Israelis to be combatants because Israelis are required to perform military service.

Ms. Armstrong declines to stand in judgment of events that have scandalized other biographers; as when Muhammad falls for the wife of his adopted adult son and takes her as his fifth wife. Ms. Armstrong writes: “This story has shocked some of Muhammad’s Western critics who are used to more ascetic, Christian heroes, but the Muslim sources seem to find nothing untoward in this demonstration of their prophet’s virility. Nor are they disturbed that Muhammad had more than four wives: why should God not give his prophet a few privileges?”

Muhammad ultimately took back Mecca and reclaimed the Kabah, still the destination for the Muslim pilgrimage. Ms. Armstrong argues that he prevailed by compassion, wisdom and steadfast submission to God. This is the power of his story and the reason that more parents around the world name their children Muhammad than any other name. – The New York Times

Biography – Reverend Jerry Vines

Jerry Vines was born in Carrollton, Georgia near Atlanta in 1937. Before attending seminary, he pastored his first church, Centralhatchee Baptist Church, at the age of 16. He was educated at Mercer University, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, and Luther Rice University before pastoring in churches in Alabama and Georgia. While pastor of Dauphin Way Baptist Church in Mobile, Alabama he was elected President of the Alabama Pastors’ Conference. He relocated to Jacksonville in 1982 to co-pastor the First Baptist Church with Homer G. Lindsay, Jr., and in June 1988, he was elected President of the Southern Baptist Convention and served two terms. During his first 20 years at First Baptist, he baptized 18,177 people and oversaw the building of an $8 million preschool building, a $16 million auditorium and four parking garages, totaling almost $14 million. Vines also was influential in starting the First Baptist Church Pastors’ Conference which drew thousands of ministers and church works from across the world. Vines announced his retirement from First Baptist in May 2005 and preached his last sermon as pastor of the church in 2006 at the close of the 20th annual Pastors’ conference. He has since started his own ministry, Jerry Vines Ministries. This ministry is an outreach to further educate pastors in different areas of the ministry. Vines is married to the former Janet Denney and they have four children and seven grand children.

Controversy

Vines sparked controversy in June 2002 for remarks he made at a Southern Baptist Convention conference that were critical of Islam. Referencing Ergun and Emir Caner’s book Unveiling Islam, Vines said that “Allah is not Jehovah… Jehovah’s not going to turn you into a terrorist that’ll try to bomb people and take the lives of thousands and thousands of people,” and that “Christianity was founded by the virgin-born Jesus Christ” while “Islam was founded by Muhammad, a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12 wives, and his last one was a 9-year-old girl.”^[1] This reference was to Aisha, who is said to have been about nine when her marriage to Muhammad was consummated, according to several hadith, or stories of Muhammad.^[2] The comments stirred a brief national debate on “Islamophobia” and the demonization of Islam in relation to the War on Terrorism. Vines initially defended his comments and invited “Muslim scholars to explain their own documents to us all.”^[3] He also refused to apologize for the statements or to meet with local Muslim leaders.^[3] He was heavily criticized, but was defended by fellow Baptist preacher Jerry Falwell, who wrote a letter supporting him. Falwell was asked about the letter during a 60 Minutes interview in October, and sparked an even greater outrage by declaring that he considered Muhammad a terrorist.^[4] He later apologized for his comments.^[5] When the story was covered by NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw on February 25, 2003, Vines finally broke his silence on the issue, claiming that his statements had been overemphasized in media reports, and that he had not intended to evoke hate. - Wikipedia

We are what we do – Dr. Ingrid Mattson

A Conversation with Ingrid Mattson

‘We Are What We Do’

ISNA’s new president Ingrid Mattson says American Muslims’ ‘special obligations’ are as important now as when 9/11 occurred.

BY: Interview by Dilshad D. Ali

When the Islamic Society of Northern American (ISNA) elected Ingrid Mattson, the director of the Islamic chaplaincy program at the Hartford Seminary and vice president of ISNA, as its president last week, Muslims and non-Muslims took note. Mattson is the first female to head the organization, which is the largest, most inclusive Muslim group in North America, with a sizeable political and social reach.

Mattson takes ISNA’s helm at a challenging time when American Muslims are struggling to promote their religion, encourage interfaith dialogue, create standards for their community, and separate themselves from the views of extremists. Mattson spoke with Beliefnet’s Islam editor Dilshad D. Ali about her goals for ISNA, why women’s rights isn’t her primary platform, and the new obligation American Muslims have in the fight against terrorism.

What does your election mean for the women in Muslim leadership roles? Does it have an impact on religious or spiritual leadership as well?

Certainly, it’s both things. First of all, women have been involved on the board of ISNA for many years. In fact, women were founding members of the Muslim Students Association–MSA national–more than 40 years ago. The presidency is looked at by many people as a form of religious leadership. And to that extent I do believe it’s a significant step for the Muslim community to choose a woman as a leader of this organization.

ISNA Secretary-General Sayyid Saeed was quick to say that you will lead “ritual worship” for women–and not lead prayer. What does that mean?

It means salat, the five daily prayers and the Jumaa (Friday) prayer–the congregational prayer. It doesn’t mean invocations or supplications or du’a, which are all other forms of prayer.

So you’ll lead prayer for women, but not for mixed gender groups?

That’s correct, and that’s what I’ve always done.

A lot of women are seeing this election as a victory for Muslim feminism. What does the term “Muslim feminism” mean to you?

Feminism–the idea that women have rights, that women and men should exert themselves to ensure that women have a meaningful way to achieve their rights–is a good concept. But it shouldn’t be a defining worldview. My agenda is not a narrow one of only looking at the interests of women. I’m looking at the interests of our whole community. We live in a world where we have to be concerned if anyone is suffering injustice. Muslim women shouldn’t be parochial in the sense of only being concerned about women’s issues.

One of the popular misconceptions about Islam is that women are seen as lesser figures, that they don’t have rights.

This perception that women in Islam are oppressed is based both on misinformation as well as am amplification of certain unfortunate tendencies in some parts of the Muslim world. It’s true that people have seen some Muslim authorities using Islam as a justification for the oppression or suppression of women. That’s a reality, we can’t deny it. But we have to balance those incidents with what’s going on in the rest of the Muslim world, in which most women are participating in their societies. We’ve seen that within recent times four Muslim-majority nations have had female heads of state. In most countries that I’ve traveled to, Muslim women are involved in all aspects of society.

Some conservative pundits see ISNA as a shield for shady practices, and as an organization that harbors radical thinking. What would you say to these critics?

I would say they have to support their views with evidence and not simply resort to vague conspiracy theories or general, unsubstantiated accusations. We are what we do. We’re an umbrella organization that’s inclusive of Sunni, Shi’a, and Sufi and provides a broad and open platform for all North American Muslims. And our goal is to bring the diversity of the Muslim community together so that we can get to know each other as the Qur’an compels us to. We want to offer the Muslim community the opportunity to know the greater American society, especially faith groups–to come to understand our Christian and Jewish neighbors and others and find ways that we can come together to do something good for this society.

What are your goals for ISNA? Where do you want to take the organization?

My major concern is institution-building and to emphasize the need for standards in our community. There is no ordination in Islam, no hierarchical church that determines what all communities should do. We don’t want to be that, but at the same time we can help the community develop some standards for religious leaders and our religious community. We can raise the level of professionalism in our communities and harness the energy and goodwill that is in our congregation.

Unfortunately, many of our communities are not functioning in a really dynamic and vital fashion. So we need to implement more training, provide educational opportunities for those running these institutions, and give models of successful communities that engage both their congregants and the broader community.

How do the standards you speak of differ from the fatwas that many imams, sheikhs, and Islamic organizations issue?

What I’m speaking about are skills of the religious leaders themselves. For example, our imams, our chaplains, and community leaders are called upon to mediate domestic disputes. Do these religious leaders have the qualifications and the knowledge to provide this advice and counseling? What about public speaking? Do they have the skills to engage the congregation? What about the Islamic centers themselves? Do they know how to organize adult-education programs that are engaging, interesting, relevant, and informative? This is what I’m talking about, not forming legal opinions.

You wrote an essay for Beliefnet after 9/11 about American Muslims having a special obligation to condemn violence committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. Five years later, have they lived up to that obligation?

I do believe that American Muslim communities have been good in this respect–have worked hard to write their opinions about terrorism, about extremism, about violence committed in the name of Islam. Unfortunately, those positions are not being heard by the general American public. Many Muslims engaging in public speaking find themselves in the frustrating position of being asked why Muslims do not condemn terrorism. Sometimes people are not hearing the message despite our best efforts.

That can be frustrating. I want to also make sure people understand that although American Muslims do have a responsibility to clarify their views on terrorism and violence done in the name of Islam, we don’t have control over these situations. We don’t have some sort of magic power over all Muslims in the world.

And at the same time it’s important that people understand that a justification for an action is not the same as the motivation or cause for an action. What I mean by that is that there may be Muslims around the world who claim that the actions they are taking are justified in Islam. But if we analyze the political context of that situation, we will see that in fact the cause of their actions is not a religious motivation, but it is a political reason. Because Islam is the dominant, normative discourse in their society, they will call upon Islam as a justification for their actions.

Have American Muslims successfully found ways to fight terrorism and also oppose the oppression of Muslims around the world?

I think we’re in a very difficult position in our time. Unfortunately, there are many groups that continue to try to use current conflicts to further political agendas that have nothing to do with fighting or preventing terrorism. And some of these groups are opposed to Islam and Muslims—ideologically and politically and are making it very difficult for Muslims to separate true Islam from extremism. These groups are encouraging the use of terms like “Islamic fascism” that simply confuse the issue further. So there’s still a lot of work that needs to be done.

Many Muslims in this country say they have repeatedly denounced acts of violence, and that they’re working with FBI and government officials and doing dialogues to get their point across. Why aren’t they being heard?

Because the actions of American Muslims are not being televised. What’s being televised are bombings from Iraq and kidnappings from Gaza and so on. We live in a time in which what is shown on TV is thought to be reality. Not many people read alternative publications or even mainstream newspapers anymore. So although we may be doing all of these good actions, and some of them may be publicized here and there, it’s not brought to the attention of the mainstream American audience. That’s just the reality of media and the dissemination of information in our time.

What’s the next obligation for the American Muslim community?

We have to keep exemplifying the right way of living as Muslims. We should be working with international organizations that monitor human rights in all places, including those places where our own government is suspected of violating human rights. We should be as diligent in doing our duty as citizens of our country in making sure that our government does not violate its values and laws and international law.

It’s a difficult time that we live in, but we need to recommit to universal human rights, to true engagement and realize that there are lots of great people out there working for peace and justice. We need to publicize those efforts so that we can get some hope to our youth.

A few weeks ago, I was working with an American Jewish lawyer who took a case of a Muslim inmate who was being denied his religious rights. And to me, working as a partner with this lawyer on this case was really encouraging and reminded me of how much good there is in this country. We need to continue reaching out to those people from every segment of American society who are interested in furthering the dignity of human beings and the stewardship of this earth. This is our work. That’s the only way we can go forward into the future.

- http://www.beliefnet.com/story/198/story_19898_1.html

Edina Lekovic

As MPAC’s Communications Director, Edina acts as a spokeswoman for the American Muslim community to media outlets, government officials, interfaith leaders, academic institutions, and community groups.

Edina has appeared on national media outlets, including CNN, BBC, MSNBC, and the History Channel. Since joining MPAC, Edina’s work has also been featured in several leading newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Associated Press, Chicago Tribune, and Los Angeles Times.

Edina has also participated in numerous national and international conferences and interfaith dialogues speaking on a variety of issues related to American Muslims. In December 2004, Edina represented MPAC at a United Nations seminar on “Confronting Islamophobia.”

In 2003, Edina was invited by the Malaysian government to be one of two U.S. representatives to the International Conference of Muslim Young Leaders, which served as a precursor to the annual conference of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC). In all settings, Edina works to enhance the political and social participation of the American Muslims by sharing tools and avenues for engagement that will lead to a future in which Muslims are a positive, contributing part of the American fabric.

Edina Lekovic, Communications Director

communications@mpac.org