|
Readers’ comments
I found your article very interesting and very worth reading.
I wonder how this self-appointed group came into being. What were their criteria for selecting their membership? Where are many of us who have been working in Islam all of our lives in progressive and honest Islamic ways, here in America and in the world? Do they even know who we are? Do they know that I am the only American born Muslim to be the director of the Islamic center in Washington, DC and also studied Islam in at al Azhar and Najaf? Just what do they know.
I have also called Fareed Zakaria a "lap dog" for his ways of attacking Islam and the drive for justice and peace in the Middle East (on BET and on other programs). He has found it too easy to take the Bush line on matters, as did the other family who were obviously currying favor with the Bush madmen. How is it that when I was the director of the Islamic Center in Wash, DC that people such as those at Georgetown, Haddad and Esposito never saw fit to have me speak on Islam, but they themselves and other Christian Arabs were allowed to speak for us?
There are just so many phony characters out there that I often want to speak on my own without others to have to bother with--yet, I wish for company in speaking the truth about Islam being a religion that is up to date, that it is not Islam that is wrong -- but at times the people who misrepresent it in the media in the west and also those people who do evil deeds and claim to be Muslims. But then again, all religions have those who go astray --but that is not the fault of the our religion or theirs.
Professor Sam Hamod, PhD
Editor, www.todaysalternativenews.com
shamod@cox.net
Dec. 13, 2004
You quoted Mr. Tariq Ramadan as saying: "I'm a European Muslim; I'm a Western Muslim. So it's obvious that when you speak like this you will have traditionalists and literalists saying that you are betraying the religion. So it is controversial within the religious community. But at the same time, I'm still too much Muslim for some Europeans and some Americans.” The first of his statement (ending with ... betraying the religion) is rather puzzling to me. I have not followed his writings, except a couple of interviews in recent days that got posted in the Internet or newspapers. Like many conscientious Muslim intellectuals, however, I was deeply offended by our government's black-listing of him, which probably had quite a bit to do with people like D. Pipes.
In one of my writings - Why I did not vote for Bush this time, or Fooled me once, shame on Bush - published in the Internet and some newspapers in the Indian subcontinent, I, therefore, deplored our government's decision in not allowing Ramadhan to enter the USA.
But as I hinted above, I am simply puzzled by the quotation above. Why would his identity as a European Muslim be viewed as "betraying Islam" by our traditionalists and literalists? He has probably misunderstood the two groups miserably. How many among these groups would entertain such notions? Such blanket statements show his self-promotional exaggeration, if not lack of comprehension, excuse my saying this for an icon nowadays amongst many Muslims. Could you kindly explain the point or get back to him to explain what he meant?
Dr. Habib Siddiqui
December 13, 2004
Thanks for your prompt reply re. TR's position (as you understood it).
My fear with the PMUNA is that most Muslims, whom you may like to refer as progressive or moderate Muslims may feel irritated by having had to redefine themselves under the banner of an organization like yours. The Muslim in the Qur'an is one who follows wasat - equilibrium or balance (moderation - away from extreme views). Do they need an epithet to prove their moderation?
Just as the Salafis of the last century haughtily or arrogantly identitied themselves as muhayyiddin (who believe in the unity of Allah) among Muslims, as if to suggest that rest of the madahib-oriented Muslims were not Muslims, the names like PMUNA may offend many Muslims, drawing the analogy that if they were not to join the organization are they going to be dubbed as non-progressives or non-moderates?
Believe me, many Muslim intellectuals, who are genuinely good/moderate/progressive Muslims (the likes of Seyyed Husany Nasr, Abdul Aziz Sachadena, M. Shahid Alam, Blankenship, Khalid Baig - just to name a few), may shy away from your organization under the same pretext. I also heard that to prove PMUNA's moderation, the group has even embraced many themes/agendas that are outright violations of the Qur'an (e.g., gay rights). I see a problem in trying to prove one's moderation by embracing themes that are not required. For years, many Jewish groups have stood the trials of time without having had to provoke anyone, including their own, by remaining Jewish, without compromising on fundamentals of their faith. Why we could not do that? Why we had to reinvent ourselves to appease others, who are, as you pointed out in your statement below, won't be satisfied anyway with anything less than our embracing their faith (something that the Qur'an warned Muhammad (S) some 14 centuries)?
Just some thoughts to ponder.
Dr. Habib Siddiqui
December 15, 2004
Ref. your article on Agenda of the PMUNA:
Islam is a religion before it is a way of life or a culture or even ummah consciousness. One has to be a Muslim first before he is a moderate, modern, progressive enlightened Muslim. But to be a Muslim, he has to be a believer in Allah and acknowledge the Holy Prophet and the Holy Quran as the last Messenger and the last Message of Allah to mankind.
I would like to see their launching statement of the PMUNA and the names of its founders. I would be grateful for a copy or for indication of its website.
Syed Shahabuddin,
President,
All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat
muslim@del3.vsnl.net.in
December 15, 2004
We Muslims should throw the ball back in their court and instead start using the phrase" Moderate religion" instead of moderate Muslim. Certainly when we see other faiths we see that they are nowhere close to being called moderate religion. There are Jews who believe that they are chosen people who will land in paradise regardless of their deeds. While Christians believe the way to salvation is belief that Jesus is your savior, and then you have license to do what ever you want to do. It was this thinking that caused the mass killing of Indians who inhabited South America and then after that they were forcibly converted to Christianity. Black imported as slaves to USA were mostly Muslims and were subjected to the worst crimes and treatment whole human history can record. Children of slave mother were sold for profit to different buyers from different states and the children never met their father, mother or siblings. When Christians conquered Muslim Spain the Muslims were told either you accept Christianity or we will kill you, they did the same to all the south America and to Muslim country of Philippines, whose last king's name was Suleiman.
While Islam is the religion of moderation as said in Quran that you are a ummat-e-wast i.e. a moderate religion. While to both Jews and Christians Muslims are infidels and hell bound. We on the other hand believe that those Jews and Christians who believe in ONE GOD and do GOOD DEEDS will go to paradise, because this was the teaching of all those prophets who came before prophet MUHAMMAD whether they are mentioned in QUran or not. And Prophet Muhammad told his beloved daughter that even you will not go to paradise just because you are my daughter.
Can any other religion say that. So our writers, speakers and others should start saying that Islam is the religion of moderation, instead of caving in and start to work or answer apologetically.
The new attempt of making PMU is to confuse and control Muslims first through a benign definition latter to enforce inclusion of homosexuality, exploitation and inability to dispute or disagree the govt’s point of view. Some of the members of PMU are already of a bad reputation like Dr.Muqtedar Khan.
The site www.amperspective.com is a good one.
Dr.Muhammad J.Khan
mjkhan11373@yahoo.com
December 15, 2004
Dear Brother Ghazali: I congratulate you on this well written article. Please keep up the good work. Let us be constantly mindful of our answerability in the Hereafter. May Allah Subhanahu wa Taala reward you for the work in His cause. I am forwarding it to some brothers on my list.
Jazakum Allah khyran.
Siraj Mufti
s.i.mufti@att.net
December 15, 2004
Very well-written, Ghazali Saahab: Congratulations and thanks for pulling all the facts and reactions together. Opinions remains open, as you express with your question at the end . Good point and well
made there, too.
Sabahat Ashraf
techwhirling@gmail.com
December 15, 2004
Dear Br. Ghazali: Your article too is very thought provoking and to the point. Thank you for sharing with us. However, we like to be "moderate " because it is the need of the time and not because of "they" want us to be moderate.
Their definition of moderate is different from Islamic definition of being part of "ummatul wasata or moderate path." Just as their definition of "fundamentalist" is meaning extremist while Webster's dictionary defines is "the one who returns to fundamental principles."
We Muslims are in business of pleasing Allah and His messenger and not East or West. wassalam
.Shahid Athar
www.islam-usa.com
December 15, 2004
I am reminded that in response to GWB's question after 9/11 "Are you with us or with them", Iran's Supreme spiritual leader Khameini saying " We are neither with you nor with them."
Thus we are neither with "western moderate" nor with any Muslim who goes to extremes in practicing or preaching Islam. wassalam.
Shahid Athar
December 15, 2004
Good definition: So where do we go after deciding who we are? We may not be "Western Moderates" or fanatics of either the secular or religious type, but we still have to know that we need to go from the "weakest form of Iman" (recognizing what is wrong in our hearts) to higher levels (like speaking out or acting to put things right). And if we see ourselves as the "true moderates", then we have an even higher responsibility, since we should be the ones that can talk to all sides (being equidistant from all) and help the cause of justice and peace.
We need organizations, forums, institutions...above all, we need a well-defined world view that we can put forward for people to understand what a true moderate Islamic view of things as they should be is. And so we ourselves and those that come after us have a framework to work within; in which we can bring up our children, so they don't develop a personality that either becomes westernized moderate or fanatic (remember, a lot of the most prominent fanatics are second-generation kids from the West) or just plain anti-religion.
Sabahat Ashraf
December 16, 2004
In response to the article Shahid Athar also sent his poem:
The Moderate Muslim
He is a moderate Muslim
He does not have a beard
Nor he wears long Arabic dress
But an army uniform or suite/tie
He is a moderate Muslim
He has no time to read Quran
He avoids going to a mosque
He does not like to be with terrorists
Sometimes he sips wine (for his heart)
He is a moderate Muslim
He feels guilty of being a Muslim
He criticizes Imams and Mullahs
He even apologizes for them
But, never Pipe, Emerson or Sharon
He is a moderate Muslim
He sometimes challenges Quran
He wants to re write Quran
He wants to modernize Islam
With beer and condom factories
He is a moderate Muslim
He praises western democracy
And militancy and occupation
Subjugation and humiliation
Of his own people back home
He is a moderate Muslim
He sheds tears for Russian children
But not for Iraqi or Palestinian ones
He is another zero in a billion plus
No good for Islam and Muslims
He is a moderate Muslim
He likes to be with his masters
Wagging his tails behind them
Agreeing to everything they say
“He will be raised with them”
He is one of them, not us
by Shahid Athar
December 15, 2004
American Muslims, the government, and lots of "groups"
Leila Montour
January 3, 2005
|
