33 posts tagged “islam”
This article is a refreshing article after the article I posted yesterday about the apparent roll back of Shia women's rights about to occur under Afghan law. Although the situation in Afghanistan is regrettably still the same, what is refreshing is to once again read that the apparent lack of women's rights in Islam is not a universal occurrence and is more related to patriarchal customs rather than the true interpretation of the Qur'an.
Sadly fundamentalist Christian , Jewish
and Hindu
sects/dominations are currently plagued by the rolling back of women right's in
their respective religions, with increasing violence against women being
condoned in the name of religion. I hope this apparent trend will not
continue and I hope that women will not accept these views which are being
forced upon them in the name of religion.
There is no excuse for violence against women, even in the name of religion.
- Chezza
Doha, Qatar - How is it that one religion – Islam – seems capable of undermining women and promoting them at the same time?
Anyone attempting to take stock of the position of women in the Muslim
world cannot help but be confused. One finds stories in the media all
the time about injustices committed against Muslim women, such as
"honour" killings, child marriages and discriminatory legal judgments
in matters of divorce, custody and inheritance.
On the other hand, one also comes across stories about the remarkable
strides made by Muslim women in education, career development and
political activism in countries as diverse as Bangladesh, Morocco and
Turkey.
How can we make sense of such a dichotomous picture?
The answer is simple: by distinguishing the religion of Islam from the Muslims who practice it.
Those who study the Qur'an know that Islam elevated the rights of women
beyond anything known in the pre-Islamic world. In fact, in the seventh
century Muslim women were granted rights not granted to European women
until the 19th century, such as property ownership, inheritance and
divorce.
That said, Muslims who codified the Qur'an and Hadith
(sayings of the Prophet Muhammad) into Islamic law did not succeed in
expunging the patriarchy of the pre-Islamic world from their practices.
This distinction between the faith and the various manifestations of its practice is a subtle but extremely important one.
When a Westerner is trained to pick up on the distinction, he/she comes
to recognise that the Muslim woman who criticises Muslim practices is
not usually rebuking her heritage in favour of Western ideals – the
kind of rebuke that hits best-seller lists in the West and that feeds
Western stereotypes about the religion – but is instead encouraging
other Muslims claiming allegiance to Qur'anic teachings to live up to
its highest principles.
This inward criticism and call to action is often called Islamic
feminism, a promising paradigm which supports change from within, and
not in imported formulas.
While adopting the Qur'an at its core, Islamic feminism challenges two
main norms: the patriarchal cultural customs mistaken for Islamic
teaching and patriarchal interpretations of certain Qur'anic verses.
The project of disentangling what is true Islamic teaching from
cultural traditions historically practiced in a Muslim territory is an
ongoing project for Muslim feminists.
Arifa Mazhar, the manager of gender issues for the Pakistan-based Sungi
Development Foundation, whose goal is to effect policy and
institutional changes relating to development by mobilising
marginalised local communities, declared at the International Congress
on Islamic Feminism in Barcelona in 2008: "Instead of debating Islam,
we should be debating culture and its impact…. There are a lot of
social taboos and tribal traditions that oppress women, and they have
little to do with Islam."
Islamic feminism's second challenge is to attempt to reinterpret verses
in the Qur'an – especially given the present context – that have been
misinterpreted or over-generalised.
One example is the disproportionate weight given to the few Qur'anic
verses giving men authority over women within family structures versus
the many others that emphasise equality between men and women. Islamic
feminism encourages women to study the words of the Qur'an for
themselves, and to judge whether the misogyny and failure to take women
seriously prevalent in some customs is a matter of Islamic doctrine or,
indeed, of cultural impositions on such doctrine. Islamic feminism thus
provides the grounds for changing civil and national law in ways that
prove progressive for women.
Sisters in Islam, a leading Muslim women's rights group in Malaysia,
has been trying to reform the issue of polygamy. Rather than calling
for the abolition of polygamy, for example, it calls only for its
restriction to certain situations – such as obtaining permission from
the first wife and from the court – and is working on public surveys
that would provide empirical evidence of the negative effects of
polygamy on society.
Rooted in Islam and the Qur'anic spirit of equity, Islamic feminism
provides a credible political voice for women. It gives women's
organisations, women's rights advocates, and gender scholars in the
Muslim world legitimate grounds for action – and change – as fulfilment
of society's religious obligations.
###
* Amal Mohammed Al-Malki is an assistant teaching professor of English at Carnegie Mellon University in Qatar and a member of the Qatar National Competitiveness Council, which promotes reform and transparency in the national economy. This article first appeared in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) as part of a series on Muslim women and their religious rights.
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 31 March 2009, www.commongroundnews.org
It appears that the Afghan parliament has passed laws which severely impact on the human rights of Shia women in Afghanistan.
At present the final document has not been published, but the law is believed to contain articles that rule women cannot leave the house without their husbands' permission, that they can only seek work, education or visit the doctor with their husbands' permission, and that they cannot refuse their husband sex. There may also be laws which grant custody of children to fathers and grandfathers and not to their mothers or grandmothers.
Some female Afghan MPs are furious that the law was rushed through so quickly and made the following statements about the law.
Shinkai Karokhail, a woman MP who campaigned against the legislation said, "It is one of the worst bills passed by the parliament this century. It is totally against women's rights. This law makes women more vulnerable."
"It's about votes," Ms Karokhail added. "Karzai is in a hurry to appease the Shia because the elections are on the way."
"There are moderate views among the Shia, but unfortunately our MPs, the people who draft the laws, rely on extremists," Ms Karokhail said.
Even the law's sponsors confirmed that the legislation is so that Karzai will win Shia votes. Ustad Mohammad Akbari, a prominent Shia political leader, said: "It's electioneering. Most of the Hazara people are unhappy with Mr Karzai."
Another female MP, Senator Humeira Namati claimed it wasn't even read out in the Upper House, let alone debated, before it was passed to the Supreme Court. "They accused me of being an unbeliever," she said.
As an Australian woman it is difficult to imagine living as a woman under the described conditions. I am afraid I cannot respect a culture and/or a section of a religion that treats their women this way. Surely this cannot be how these women wish to be treated.
I understand that sometimes we do not understand some aspects of a country’s culture or religion and what we see as oppression, is not actually oppression at all. But I am afraid in the examples stated in this apparent legislation, I cannot see anything but the terrible oppression of women who are treated as possessions and slaves to their male masters. It would be fine if the woman was lucky enough to marry a kind and loving husband who fostered a relationship based on mutual respect, but if a woman was not to marry such a loving husband the outcome for the woman would be tragic.
I am afraid I do not want my Australian soldiers fighting and dying in Afghanistan so that the governments we are said to support can pass such archaic laws against the rights of women.
- Chezza
Hamid Karzai has been accused of trying to win votes in Afghanistan's presidential election by backing a law the UN says legalises rape within marriage and bans wives from stepping outside their homes without their husbands' permission.
The Afghan president signed the law earlier this month, despite condemnation by human rights activists and some MPs that it flouts the constitution's equal rights provisions.
Jon Boone reveals Afghanistan's new law denying women's rights Link to this audio
The final document has not been published, but the law is believed to contain articles that rule women cannot leave the house without their husbands' permission, that they can only seek work, education or visit the doctor with their husbands' permission, and that they cannot refuse their husband sex.
A briefing document prepared by the United Nations Development Fund for Women also warns that the law grants custody of children to fathers and grandfathers only.
Senator Humaira Namati, a member of the upper house of the Afghan parliament, said the law was "worse than during the Taliban". "Anyone who spoke out was accused of being against Islam," she said.
The Afghan constitution allows for Shias, who are thought to represent about 10% of the population, to have a separate family law based on traditional Shia jurisprudence. But the constitution and various international treaties signed by Afghanistan guarantee equal rights for women.
Shinkai Zahine Karokhail, like other female parliamentarians, complained that after an initial deal the law was passed with unprecedented speed and limited debate. "They wanted to pass it almost like a secret negotiation," she said. "There were lots of things that we wanted to change, but they didn't want to discuss it because Karzai wants to please the Shia before the election."
Although the ministry of justice confirmed the bill was signed by Karzai at some point this month, there is confusion about the full contents of the final law, which human rights activists have struggled to obtain a copy of. The justice ministry said the law would not be published until various "technical problems" had been ironed out.
After seven years leading Afghanistan, Karzai is increasingly unpopular at home and abroad and the presidential election in August is expected to be extremely closely fought. A western diplomat said the law represented a "big tick in the box" for the powerful council of Shia clerics.
Leaders of the Hazara minority, which is regarded as the most important bloc of swing voters in the election, also demanded the new law.
Ustad Mohammad Akbari, an MP and the leader of a Hazara political party, said the president had supported the law in order to curry favour among the Hazaras. But he said the law actually protected women's rights.
"Men and women have equal rights under Islam but there are differences in the way men and women are created. Men are stronger and women are a little bit weaker; even in the west you do not see women working as firefighters."
Akbari said the law gave a woman the right to refuse sexual intercourse with her husband if she was unwell or had another reasonable "excuse". And he said a woman would not be obliged to remain in her house if an emergency forced her to leave without permission.
The international community has so far shied away from publicly questioning such a politically sensitive issue.
"It is going to be tricky to change because it gets us into territory of being accused of not respecting Afghan culture, which is always difficult," a western diplomat in Kabul admitted.
Soraya Sobhrang, the head of women's affairs at the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, said western silence had been "disastrous for women's rights in Afghanistan".
"What the international community has done is really shameful. If they had got more involved in the process when it was discussed in parliament we could have stopped it. Because of the election I am not sure we can change it now. It's too late for that."
But another senior western diplomat said foreign embassies would intervene when the law is finally published.
Some female politicians have taken a more pragmatic stance, saying their fight in parliament's lower house succeeded in improving the law, including raising the original proposed marriage age of girls from nine to 16 and removing completely provisions for temporary marriages.
"It's not really 100% perfect, but compared to the earlier drafts it's a huge improvement," said Shukria Barakzai, an MP. "Before this was passed family issues were decided by customary law, so this is a big improvement."
Karzai's spokesman declined to comment on the new law.
During Friday evening prayers a suicide bomber detonated a bomb in a Pakistani mosque killing 50 people and injuring 153 people.
The mosque was frequented by tribal police and paramilitary officers fighting against the Taliban and other Islamist militants in Khyber, as well as local residents.
Pakistani security officials said they suspected the bombing Friday was to avenge operations against Taliban and other Islamist militants aimed at securing NATO supplies into Afghanistan.
Fifteen security personnel were killed in the attack, while 20 tribal police and two paramilitary forces were wounded.
A bombing such as this clearly shows that when it comes
to Islam and the people who practice Islam, there are different ideologies
practiced in the name of Islam. It is sad to think that people who were
peacefully practicing their religion in a holy mosque, were targeted by people
who supposedly belong to the same religion. The mind of such a terrorist
must truly be twisted if he honestly believes he will be judged favourably by
Allah.
I cannot imagine that the god of any religion would judge in favour of the killing of people who were in the act of worshipping that god. Just as a cannot believe the Christian god would be in favour of a Christian man shooting people while they worshipped in a UU Church in the US. Where the congregation's only crime was that according to the shooter they were too liberal for the shooter's liking. A congregation that "liberally" believed in love, compassion and tolerance.
The logic of such violence is totally twisted and should not be seen to represent the ideals of a whole religion and the people who practice that religion. It should be clear that such people have taken the religion and used it to further their own causes which in reality have little to do with the religion in its entirety.
As the following article explains, there is more than one form of Islam and the majority of Muslims are in favour of peace and non-violence.
At a gathering of experts in international humanitarian law (IHL) in Geneva this week, much of the focus was on countries and societies where Muslims form a majority of the population. There was also a discussion of terrorism, and how groups that engage in terrorism can be dealt with in relation to IHL. Much of this discussion centered on terror in and from Islamic societies.
This is understandable to a large extent, given the massive media coverage of the terror that has become such a common and disfiguring part of many Muslim-majority societies. It would be the same if a discussion of modern anti-Semitism ended up talking mostly about Christian Europe and Russia; or a discussion of covert operations for regime-change addressed the actions mostly of the United States and Great Britain in the past 50 years; or if a review of settler-colonialism and ethnic cleansing centered largely on modern Israel and Apartheid South Africa.
Some historical concepts are indelibly associated with some parts of the world. The association of terrorism with Islamic societies is a sign of our times. When I was asked to speak on these issues, I suggested that the best way to get an accurate and complete picture of Islamist political trends and the role of terror in Muslim lands was to acknowledge six ways to approach Islam, that help to define it. These sometimes converge, and often do not:
First, Islam as a religion, which has many varieties around the world;
Second, Muslims as individual men and women who seek the comfort of dignified citizenship within stable statehood;
Third, Islamism as a widespread phenomenon of political mobilization and expression that transcends countries and religious movements;
Fourth, nationalist Islamism, that operates with a view to liberating oneself from foreign occupation or to changing a state's policies;
Fifth, social and community Islamism that sees individuals living their lives and organizing their local communities according to Islamic dictates of justice, modesty, compassion and generosity;
Sixth, Salafist militants and terrorists like Al-Qaeda and smaller groups that have sprung up around the world, that see themselves fighting a global defensive jihad to protect the Islamic umma (community) from foreign domination or internal subversion and corruption.
When I hear people speak about "what's wrong with Islam" or "Islam and the West", my immediate response is to remind them that there is no such thing as a single "Islam" that can be diagnosed, analyzed or engaged as a monolithic whole. The variety and dynamism of changes in Islamic societies, and in the hearts and minds of individual Muslims, is staggering these days. This is understandable, given the intensity of the degradation that many Muslim-majority societies have suffered in the past half-century of foreign manipulation, domestic mismanagement, and abuse of political power, and local deterioration of social, environmental and economic conditions.
The six different forms of Islamist identity and expression that I suggested above evolve constantly, reflecting changing realities at the local level in most cases. Turkey has become the world's most impressive democratic, constitutional and largely secular Muslim-majority society, and one of the few where the military and security forces are largely under civilian oversight. Egypt, on the other hand, sees Islamism spread throughout society mostly in the form of the increasing piety of individuals and the activism of groups at the community level - while Islamist parties like the Muslim Brotherhood engage in formal politics, knowing very well that the military-dominated ruling elite will always control policy.
It is noteworthy that the overwhelming majority of Muslims and Islamist groups has rejected the violent strategy of the small Salafist militants such as Al-Qaeda. But it is also worrying that the core grievances of both the militants and the non-violent majority are virtually identical. Salafist militants decide to bomb foreigners and Muslims alike, but most disgruntled Muslims deal with their predicament of imprecise citizenship rights in slightly incoherent and often corrupt countries by trying to lead more pious lives, while challenging the status quo and the power elite as they can.
If we disaggregate Islamic societies or Muslim-majority countries into our six categories of individuals, community, political, transnational and nationalist groups, core religious values, and a handful of extremists, we would appreciate that most Muslims and Islamist groups have responded to their individual and national predicaments with patience, rationality and non-violence.
Most of them - individuals and movements alike - are still trying to express their grievances and articulate the positive values (justice, equality, accountability, rule of law, compassion) that they would like to see define their lives and societies. The handfuls of criminals and anarchists in the Islamic world should not detract from the reasonable aims of the majority any more than anti-Semites, settler-colonialist fascists or criminals should be allowed to define the entirety of Christian Europeans, Israelis, South Africans, or Americans and British.
Rami G. Khouri is published twice-weekly by THE DAILY STAR.
I find it sad that women are still oppressed and are not seen as equals in all of the world's major religions. It seems the more fundamental a religion becomes, the more oppressive it is to women. Even in Christianity and Judaism today there are actually moves by some to wind back the progress women have made in their respective religions. Some branches of these religions have become more oppressive to women, which is a very worrying trend in these supposedly more enlightened times.
Congratulations to all of the women among the many faiths who are not prepared to be oppressed by other members of the religions they belong to.
International Women’s Day (March 8) is a good time to reflect on the efforts of women of faith to reform or repeal texts and practices within their religions that contribute to women’s inequality or oppression.
For those of us in the United States and Europe, of Christian and Jewish traditions, the effort has focused on reinterpreting texts, working for the inclusion of women in ministry, for non-sexist language, and for the elimination of violence against women. The effort has not been easy; Christian and Jewish women still have a long way to go and we’ve experienced a fair amount of derision and even lost jobs, but none of us has actually risked our lives or ended up in jail as a result of this work.
Some of the most prophetic among us have found some acceptance. The Philadelphia Eleven, Episcopal women who were “irregularly” ordained in 1974, ushered in regular ordination by 1976 and the consecration of the first woman bishop, Barbara Harris, in 1989. Roman Catholic women began ordaining themselves in 2004 after an initial irregular ordination by a male bishop in 2002.
While these women (who number about 50 priests and five bishops) have been excommunicated, they are living proof that the institutional church has only the power we give it. They go about the business of ministry and service with skill and good grace.
Increasingly, Buddhist women have been seeking full ordination within the various branches of Buddhism. In Korea, Taiwan, and China, Buddhist nuns have been fully ordained for centuries, in an unbroken lineage back to the Buddha. In other countries and branches of Buddhism, the practice of fully ordaining women has not survived. Buddhist women have organized for ordination, and these are increasing. Thai Theravada Buddhism, which is linked to the state, has been most resistant to these ordinations, and Tibetan Buddhism under the Dalai Lama has been considering reviving the tradition, but as of today, no final decision has been made.
Muslim women—and feminists—are following a different and complicated path. This was brought home last month when I participated in a five day international conference in Malaysia which brought together 250 women from 47 countries, many of them predominantly Muslim with strong links between religion and state. The conference launched the Musawah Movement, a loose network of Muslim women’s groups working to ensure that Muslim family law recognizes and operationalizes the equality of women within the family. Muslim feminists are as diverse as other feminists which was reflected throughout the conference; Muslim feminism is not new. This conference, for example, was the result of 20 years of research and advocacy by a Malaysian group called Sisters in Islam (SIS). Zainah Anwar, the coordinator of Musawah (equality in Arabic) said:
Musawah is in some ways a vindication of a long and difficult struggle to find liberation within my faith and to translate into action my utter belief in a just God. This is the last frontier in the feminist movement to break the theological stranglehold of the patriarchs that prevents Muslim women from enjoying equal rights.
For Sisters in Islam finding liberation in their faith has involved a two-prong strategy: theological education and political advocacy. SIS takes religion seriously. In its early years, SIS reached out to Islamic scholars, studied the Qur’an and came to adopt a modernist methodology of interpreting the Qur’an and the Hadiths. Those of us with less knowledge of Islamic scholarship are unaware of the fact that since the mid-19th century (and before), Islamic scholars have offered modernist methodologies of interpreting Islamic texts that have been developed independently but share some characteristics of modern biblical interpretation.
Abdullah Saeed, the Sultan of Oman Professor of Arab and Islamic Studies at Melbourne University and a conference speaker, offered a methodological framework for interpretation that included understanding the Qur’an as a text influenced by the history of the time in which it was written and requiring analysis of how it was and is received as an element of legitimacy. He notes that progressive scholars and classic modernists in Islam emphasize “core Islamic values of justice, goodness and beauty” and engaging both Islamic tradition and modernity on the issues of human rights, social justice, gender justice, and pluralism.” It is this tradition that Sisters in Islam and Islamic feminist scholars including Norani Othman, Fatima Mernissi, and Riffat Hassan have engaged.
Not all at the conference (nor in the broader Muslim feminist community) are in sync with a theological approach to Muslim feminist advocacy. There was loud grumbling on the second day of the conference from feminists who want nothing to do with religion. For them, the task of Muslim feminism is to secure pluralism and democratic legislation in Muslim countries, based solely on human rights theory and treaty obligations.
Zainah Anwar weighed in on this approach in an opinion piece in the International Herald Tribune:
The decision of so many activists to ignore religion has had undesirable consequences. It has left the field wide open for the most conservative forces within Islam to define, dominate and set parameters of what Islam is and is not.
Anwar makes sense. In many Muslim-majority countries civil family law is based on Shariah. To try to change those laws without addressing its underlying religiosity and offering a respectful but different understanding of the Qur’an is unlikely to succeed. Moreover, in some countries where Shariah is not accepted as civil law, Shariah courts exist within the Muslim community and Muslim women are urged by their families to take issues of family law to these courts rather than civil courts. There have also been efforts by Muslim conservatives in the UK and Canada to pass legislation that would make Shariah courts the legal arbiters of family law for Muslims. These moves have been opposed by Muslim women and human rights advocates although some mainstream political leaders have naively assumed that recognition of such religious courts was an act of respect for cultural diversity.
Shariah is already interpreted differently from country to country, used and abused to justify practices that limit women’s human rights. Women are stoned to death and imprisoned for adultery, and even for reporting rape. Custody laws, which automatically award children to husbands, keep women in abusive marriages. In some countries, women can be divorced without their consent and with no provision for support. So-called honor killings go unpunished; girls’ education is limited or forbidden; women are beaten with impunity by husbands, fathers and sons.
One moderator of a “talk show”-format session, in which women leaders described their personal efforts to change conditions for women, called them “warriors.” In some quarters of feminism and religion, such a word would raise hackles. We are a “kind and gentle people.” But in other circles we combine a fierce sense of bravery and rage, a willingness to do battle for women with the instruments of reason, scholarship, and compassion in pursuing justice and equality. Let us celebrate all the strategies women use to survive and thrive.
Reactions like this really do annoy me. Here is an Anglican Archbishop trying to invite open dialogue between people so that they can understand each other better and he is being criticised for it.
What is some of the Jewish community so afraid of? If they have an issue with some of the things former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami has said, then they should go along to the event and voice their grievances.
This man is not a Nazi criminal, he is a man living in a country in the Middle East who has grievances about the way Israel has and is treating the Palestinians. I do not believe he has said that Jews are, "an old, incurable wound on the body of Islam, a wound that really possesses demonic, stinking, contagious blood' the reference was in regards to the State of Israel and from where he is situated he has a right to stand up for the Palestinians and his religion of Islam. I am sure plenty if people around the world have said some rather nasty things about Iran and Islam and I don't see us banning them from speaking.
How on earth can we achieve any form of meaningful peace if we cannot speak to our so called enemies.
- Barney Zwartz
- March 18, 2009
MELBOURNE Anglican Archbishop Philip Freier is under fire from the Jewish community for hosting a function for former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami while he is in Melbourne this month.
Jewish Community Council of Victoria president John Searle wrote to Dr Freier saying the Jewish community found it inconceivable that the Anglican Church would host "such a man" or even meet him.
He declined an invitation to attend and asked Dr Freier to reconsider.
Mr Searle told The Age that although Mr Khatami, president of Iran from 1997 to 2005, was regarded as a reformist, he was a sponsor of terrorism, a Holocaust denier and leader of a country that has often threatened to "wipe Israel off the map".
"Only last year, this supposed champion of dialogue called Israel 'an old, incurable wound on the body of Islam, a wound that really possesses demonic, stinking, contagious blood'."
Mr Khatami is being brought to Australia by La Trobe University's Centre for Dialogue and will give a public lecture on March 26.
The Jewish Community Council has resigned from the centre's board of advisers in protest.
Dr Freier said he had invited Jewish leaders along with other groups who suffered persecution in Iran - Christians and Baha'is - so they could raise their concerns with Mr Khatami.
He said Anglicans were not unaware of the difficulties for minorities in Iran since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, and he was not an apologist for Mr Khatami, but if people were ready to engage in discussion he wanted to oblige.
He had been asked by La Trobe University to host a meeting, to be held at his home. "President Khatami speaks of dialogue as being foundational, so it's important to be able to speak and listen. He has been the guest of the Archbishop of Canterbury at Lambeth Palace and he has high-level access while in Australia," Dr Freier said.
As president, Mr Khatami was regarded as less confrontational with the West than some others.
He said in Iran yesterday he was withdrawing as candidate for president against the hardline incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to avoid dividing the reformist vote.
Professor Joseph Camilleri, director of La Trobe's Centre for Dialogue, said the Jewish community's response was an over-reaction. He said Mr Khatami was "a major intellectual of the 21st century" and that he would be discussing his influential theory of the importance of dialogue in international affairs, but not Israel or Iran.
"The JCCV is completely out of step with the mainstream thinking of informed Australians," he said. "I told them I think they are shooting themselves in the foot."
Mr Searle agreed that differences over Mr Khatami could increase tension between Melbourne's Muslims and Jews, whose relations are at their lowest ebb in years over Israel's incursion into Gaza in January.
Last month the Executive Council of Australian Jewry cut formal ties with the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils after AFIC chairman Ikebal Patel refused to recant his claim that the former victims of the Holocaust were perpetrating "much worse atrocities" in Gaza.
The controversy over Mr Khatami's visit comes as US President Barack Obama tries to open channels to Tehran and reduce hostility between the two countries amid international concerns that Iran is on the verge of developing a nuclear bomb.
I think the more people who read and understand this fact the better.
Sadly there will always be people with bad intentions who will hijack religion, no matter what the religion it is for their own selfish gains. Tragically there will always be people who will be deceived by these undesirables who pose as experts.
Also there will be those who make generalisations about a whole group of people based on the actions of a few and some of these people will spread hatred against "others" based on these false generalisations.
Peace.
The Darul-Uloom Deoband in India, considered the most influential school for Islamic law in Asia, on Monday denounced terrorism as being against the teachings of Islam and said it was likely to impose a fatwa against it during a conference of clerics from India and abroad, media reports said.
The head of the powerful seminary, Maulana Marghoobur Rahman, said terrorism was completely wrong and thoughtless, and contradicted Islam's concept of peace, the NDTV network reported, quoting from his address to 10,000 clerics from religious schools - known as madrassas - and foreign delegates.Speaking at the institution, some 150 kilometers north of New Delhi, Rahman also criticized the Indian government, saying that policing of madrassas and students was unjustified and went against the secular character of the country. Meanwhile, scholars said the conference was likely to decide on a fatwa against terrorism and adopt a declaration denouncing terrorism.
The conference will also ask the Muslim community to stay away from acts of terrorism and organizations that encourage violence in the name of religion.
It was the first time in the school's 150-year history that such a conference against terrorism was held.
The seminary was established in the late 19th century and has adherents from Afghanistan and Pakistan to the whole of South-East Asia. The Taliban have often claimed adherence to the Deoband school, which has been strongly denied by the scholars there.
Deoband spokesman Asif Siddique told the NDTV that misconceptions linked with Islam and madrassas needed to be removed.
"We want to make the public conscious (about terrorism). The disease of (terrorism) has been diagnosed in a wrong way. Whenever any incident of terrorism happens, there is an effort to link it to Muslims or those studying in madrassas," he said.
"This is totally wrong. I must emphasize that the real
disease must be diagnosed, then only is the cure possible," Siddique said.
Muslim scholars decry terrorism - BBC News
An influential group of Muslim theologians in India have denounced terrorism, saying it is completely against the teachings of Islam.
Their statements were made at a meeting held at the Darul-Uloom Deoband, a powerful Islamic school more than 150 years old.
Scholars from 6,000 religious schools attended the meeting.
The Deoband school promotes a brand of Islam which some say was an inspiration to Afghanistan's Taleban.
The school has always denied this.
Opening the conclave the head of the Deoband school, Maulana Marghoobur Rahman, described terrorism as a thoughtless act which is against the teachings of Islam.
He said that the killing of innocent people of any religion was prohibited by the Koran, the Muslim Holy Book.
Many participants said they want to change popular perceptions in which, they say, terrorism is being equated with Islam.
Others said that while Muslims should not be harassed because of anti-terrorism operations, the community also needed to be more introspective.
Many Islamic seminaries across India have come under the scanner of the federal authorities in the wake of recent terror attacks.
Set up in 1866 in north India the Darul-Uloom Deoband is the most influential Muslim religious school in south and south-east Asia.
Much has already been said about the reference in Obama’s inaugural address to America as “a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers.” In light of Pew and Gallup survey data showing that large numbers of Americans believe that the United States is a “Christian nation”, feel that it is necessary to believe in God to be a moral person, and say they would not vote for an atheist to serve in our highest public office – the president’s assertion was, in a word, astonishing.
At the 5 February National Prayer Breakfast, the president expanded on
this theme. Acknowledging that faith has too often been used as a
pretext for prejudice and intolerance, he focused on “the one law that
binds all great religions together…the Golden Rule – the call to love
one another, to understand one another, to treat with dignity and
respect those with whom we share a brief moment on this earth.”
He pointed out that he wasn’t raised in a particularly religious
household. His father was born a Muslim and by adulthood had become an
atheist; his maternal grandparents were non-practicing Methodists and
Baptists; and his mother was “sceptical of organised religion”.
Nevertheless, he revealed that this non-religious mother was “the
kindest, most spiritual person I’ve ever known”, and was the one who
taught him to love, to understand and to do unto others as he would
want done unto him.
Later in life, after living and working as a community organiser on the South side of Chicago, Barack Obama became the Christian he is today. He is clear about his faith. In his Prayer Breakfast remarks, though, he expressly acknowledged the broad array of belief systems – religious and humanist too – that profess some variant of the Golden Rule. Emphasising that common bond, he called on religious and secular Americans alike to transcend difference, and to focus beyond belief – on actions – to make the world a better place.
Obama has touched on these matters before. Addressing an evangelical
Christian gathering in June 2006, the then-senator from Illinois said:
“Because I do not believe religious people have a monopoly on morality,
I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and
who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values
without pretending that they’re something they’re not.” He also said
that in a democracy the religiously motivated must translate their
concerns into “universal rather than religion-specific values,” and
that their proposals must be subject to argument and “amenable to
reason.”
In affirming that non-believers deserve a place at the table, Obama is
treading on ground no president has dared explore before. With a
sensibility forged from his strikingly diverse background, he embodies
the promise – albeit perhaps distant – of an end to both
inter-religious and secular-religious discord.
Obama acknowledges the significant role of faith in the lives of so
many, including his own; he likewise recognises that sceptics and
non-believers can be genuinely good human beings. Respecting religious
faith in its myriad manifestations, he invokes the Golden Rule as a
common denominator that, broadly speaking, ought to represent the
universal yardstick for our actions in this world.
In so doing, he honours – equally – the believer and the non-believer,
the churchgoer and the secular humanist, to the extent that each does
unto others, as he would have them do unto him.
###
* Michael Felsen is president of Boston Workmen’s Circle and board member of the Humanist Chaplaincy of Harvard University. An earlier version of this article appeared in Forward and is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission.
Source: Forward, 18 February 2009, www.forward.com
May peace and love be with you.
The Nobel Peace Prize for 2006
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2006, divided into two equal parts, to Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank for their efforts to create economic and social development from below. Lasting peace can not be achieved unless large population groups find ways in which to break out of poverty. Micro-credit is one such means. Development from below also serves to advance democracy and human rights.
Muhammad Yunus has shown himself to be a leader who has managed to translate visions into practical action for the benefit of millions of people, not only in Bangladesh, but also in many other countries. Loans to poor people without any financial security had appeared to be an impossible idea. From modest beginnings three decades ago, Yunus has, first and foremost through Grameen Bank, developed micro-credit into an ever more important instrument in the struggle against poverty. Grameen Bank has been a source of ideas and models for the many institutions in the field of micro-credit that have sprung up around the world.
Every single individual on earth has both the potential and the right to live a decent life. Across cultures and civilizations, Yunus and Grameen Bank have shown that even the poorest of the poor can work to bring about their own development.
Micro-credit has proved to be an important liberating force in societies where women in particular have to struggle against repressive social and economic conditions. Economic growth and political democracy can not achieve their full potential unless the female half of humanity participates on an equal footing with the male.
Yunus's long-term vision is to eliminate poverty in the world. That vision can not be realised by means of micro-credit alone. But Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank have shown that, in the continuing efforts to achieve it, micro-credit must play a major part.
Oslo, 13 October 2006
We have seen some very nasty displays as the US election draws closer. Rather than show more negative attitudes I wanted to show some examples of voicing an opinion or opposing a negative reaction in a reasonable and non-violent manner.
This first one is from the UK. In July of this year Bishop Gene Robinson who is gay and has a same sex partner had started his sermon at a church in Putney Sth London when a protester rose and shouted down Bishop Robinson.
Parishioners protested the heckler first
with clapping hands, then with voices joined in a hymn of praise, "Thine be the glory, risen, conquering
son"
. There was no
shouting back and no shoving and the protester was gently escorted out. When the incident was over, Bishop Robinson continued.
"Pray for that man," he said.
Link to Original BBC video and an Article.
Please note: I have not posted this clip as a statement in regards to gay rights.
This next example is the Alaskan Women Against Sarah Palin rally held in September. I was hoping to have the video of just the interviews with some of the women at the protest, but I could only find this one that also has the report about the opposition to the rally. The rally starts 5 minutes into the video. However the first 5 minutes is worth watching, as it gives a contrast between the attitude of some of the people against the rally and the women who took part in the rally.
I haven’t posted this video to say Anti-Palin supporters are more civil than Pro-Palin supporters, but to display people who are expressing their concerns in a reasonable manner without the rhetoric.
One protester does make mention of Palin in regards to banning books, from what I have read there is no conclusive proof that this actually occurred.
At a McCain rally in Virginia, three people were handing out "Obama for Change" bumper stickers with the Communist sickle and hammer and the Islamic crescent, saying Obama was a socialist with ties to radical Islam. Several McCain supporters, Muslim and Christian alike, challenged the people distributing the propaganda. They were also challenged by Daniel Zubairi, a Muslim McCain grassroots organiser in Woodbridge, Virginia who explained to them that the campaign didn't "endorse that behaviour," Eventually the people handing out the propaganda left the rally.
There have been some cynics who have said that this whole exercise was probably staged so that the McCain campaign didn’t appear to be racist. I have no idea if that is the case, however staged or not staged it is still an example to all on how to properly conduct oneself in such a situation. Be firm and assertive and try not to be aggressive.
I know I have stuffed up on a number of occasions and lost my cool here at Vox. I believe we can all learn something from these examples.
I always like to post different perspectives on issues, especially when they are voices which are seldom promoted by the mainstream media.
I found this interview with Hamza Yusuf interesting:
Hamza Yusuf
Hanson was born in Washington State and raised in northern California. After
exploring religion at an early age, he entered Islam at 18 and set out to study
in England, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Algeria, and finally
West Africa. He became fluent in the Arabic language and then began his studies
of the traditional Islamic sciences under the tutelage of some of the greatest
Muslim scholars of our age.
After a sojourn of ten years abroad, Hamza Yusuf returned to the U.S. and took
degrees in Nursing and Religious Studies. In 1996, he co-founded the Zaytuna
Institute in order to teach the traditional sciences of Islam to people in the
West. He serves as the director of the Institute and has translated several
texts from Arabic for the Institute's curriculum.
He is recognized today as one of the most influential voices for Islam in the
West and has advised several world leaders including the President of the
United States and the head of the Arab League. Hamza Yusuf resides in northern
California with his wife and children.
The entire interview is interesting, however if you haven't got time to watch it all I would suggest you at least watch the last video in which there is a discussion regarding Islam and other religions.
My Groups
-
Voxaholic Updated: 30 minutes ago
-
Life and Photos Updated: 1 hour ago
-
Islam Updated: 1 hour ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
