[whataretheysaying] Mary Madigan: Moderate Muslims vs. Islamists

[Email subscription to blog articles]

Posted by Mary Madigan:
Moderate Muslims vs. Islamists
http://whataretheysaying.powerblogs.com/posts/1160495431.shtml


   What is an Islamist? According to [1]this definition, from the Cairo
   Declaration (on Human Rights in Islam):

     Islamism is a set of political ideologies that hold that Islam is
     not only a religion, but also a political system that governs the
     legal, economic and social imperatives of the state according to
     its interpretation of Islamic Law. For Islamists, the sharia has
     absolute priority over democracy and universal human rights: "The
     Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the
     explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this (Cairo
     Declaration (on Human Rights in Islam)." .[1]

   Moderate Muslims are a harder group to define. The [2]American Islamic
   Forum for Democracy (AIFD) calls itself 'moderate'. Their goals are to
   "practice their faith more freely and more Islamically (in a personal
   and secular fashion). They also seek to "make a small contribution to
   the body of thought which articulates an understanding of Islam which
   separates religion and state and is in complete harmony with the U.S.
   Constitution and [their] citizenship pledge."

   According to the the AIFD, the [3]majority of Muslims in the United
   States are not moderates. They're Islamists:

     Anti-Islamists are a minority among activist American Muslims.
     Internally, we are usually ignored or dismissed by the majority of
     our activist co-religionists when trying to engage them in debate
     regarding the dangers and toxicity of Islamism upon Islam. No
     matter how pious, anti-Islamists are often demonized as
     irreligious. All the while we try to argue that, to the contrary,
     there is no closer relationship a Muslim can have with God than one
     entirely free from government and clerical coercion...

   The AIFD was founded by M. Zuhdi Jasser, a former U.S. Navy Lieutenant
   Commander and medical officer. [4]Of the Danish Cartoon controversy,
   this "Jeffersonian Muslim" said:

     The Muslim mobs we see inflamed are not al-Qaeda, but they are
     enraged Islamists driven by a fear of losing the ideological world
     war to the West. They fear the West, which honors the individual
     first and the community second - put another way, America first,
     and the ummah second. They fear more than anything having to
     compete in a non-theological legislature by the legal merit of the
     logic of their principles, rather than from behind the corrupt
     cloak of their theological monopoly on sharia.

     The next question flowing from all this is, "How can we create a
     new dream for people so driven towards rage?" Dreams are the
     product of our imagination. If we can visualize something, then we
     can imagine it becoming a reality.

     And that is why I am so enthusiastic about the liberation of Iraq.

     If I were to live in the Middle East, all I would see around me in
     government would be thugs, despots, oil monarchies, and radical
     theocrats ruling the people in a sea of corruption. How would I be
     able to imagine freedom where there is none to be found? That is
     what we are doing in Iraq. We are giving people in that region a
     sense of what could be. Without a reality in which liberty can
     thrive, the vacuum is filled by corruption. The reality is replaced
     by false dreams of a world in which no freedom-loving Jeffersonian
     Muslim would ever want to live.

   Of the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), [5]Mr. Jasser
   says:

     CAIR (Council for American-Islamic Relations) and other Muslim
     organizations gain their public notoriety as supposed Muslim
     responses to the darkness cast over our community from radical
     Islamists. Its response, however, is all about victimization and
     little else.

   Of CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America (a group that counts
   as a [6]member Mr. Aslam Abdullah, [7]mentioned below), the moderates
   of the AIFD say:

     A terrible blow has been inflicted on the religion of Islam in
     America by the refusal of the religious "establishment" --
     including CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and
     other entities -- to abandon and denounce the radical legacy
     present in their formation and displayed in their long service.
     They hate Dr. Jasser because he dares to expose their continued
     devotion to radicalism and their refusal to abide by American norms
     of religious respect and public dignity.

   The Islamist establishment's ideals are subtle but clear. Of our
   secular laws and President Bush's authority, Islamist [8]Aslam
   Abdullah says:

     The truth will emerge from our quest of knowledge, experiences,
     wisdom and guidance from the divine. The truth will not be dictated
     by a few second bites of President Bush or Daniel Pipes or people
     like them.

     In the case of Islam, the truth is (as perceived by Muslims based
     on their general readings of the Quran) that Islam is a divinely
     revealed faith that commands its adherents to follow the principles
     of monotheism, justice, equality and peace in all aspects of their
     life.

     We have to understand our world in the context of these divinely
     revealed truths and develop suitable instruments to ensure that
     they are shared with the rest of the world.

   Of the Danish Cartoon controversy, the Islamist ISNA's [9]Aslam
   Abdullah says:

     What was done first by the Danish and later by Norwegian, French,
     German and many other European newspapers in publishing cartoons
     depicting Prophet Muhammad is nothing less than emotional torture,
     verbal violence and intellectual terrorism. In the name of freedom
     of speech, the most sophisticated professional class of Europe
     succumbed to the century old hatred against Islam and Muslims.
     Europeans and Americans are often taught that freedom of speech
     ends where the sensitivities of people begin. Seemingly, the
     teachers have forgotten the lesson themselves. Making fun of a
     religion is an exercise in emotional torture. Showing solidarity
     with those who promote such kind of torture is untamed violence and
     hurting innocent people all over the world is intellectual
     terrorism...

     ...The provocation of Danish and other European newspapers was
     foolish and full with hatred. There is no need for such provocation
     in a world that is fast becoming cosmopolitan in all its
     dimensions. Freedom of speech cannot be used as an excuse to hurt
     or insult others. Moreover, there exists double standards in this
     matter among most European and American journalists working for big
     media corporations. None of these advocates of freedom of speech
     would dare write against the foul practices of multinational or
     mega-corporations that often provide bread and butter to most
     working journalists. None of them would dare to expose the dirty
     trade practices, excessive exploitation and other violation of
     human rights of people working in such corporations. None of them
     would even touch the so-called issue of national security, even if
     the position of the power elite is against national interests.

     A case in point is the war in Iraq. Not many European or American
     journalists working for big corporation-controlled media have
     questioned the rationale behind going to war in Iraq. None of them
     have held accountable their leaders for costly mistakes. In fact,
     their anti-Islamic writings betray their loyalty to the power
     elites who are keen in promoting a hateful agenda against Muslims.

   Yet Islamists like Aslam Abdullah do condemn terrorism. Why?

   Condemning terrorism isn't a sign that someone is on "our side". It's
   just a sign that the person is a morally functioning human being, like
   most of the 6 billion inhabitants of our planet. When they condemn
   terrorism, Islamists are honestly establishing their cred as morally
   functioning human beings. That doesn't mean that they support
   democracy, equality, America or human rights.

   It doesn't mean that they're our allies.

   Islamists can condemn terrorism while still supporting bin Laden's
   goal of imposing Sharia laws around the world. If we join them in
   supporting their goal of imposing "divinely revealed" Sharia, if we
   voluntarily restrict our actions and speech for fear of offending
   these Islamist "allies" we will lose the war without a shot being
   fired.

   That's the peace and dialogue Islamists wholeheartedly support.

References

   1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism
   2. http://www.aifdemocracy.org/
   3. http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060801-093447-6247r.htm
   4. http://www.aifdemocracy.org/news.php?id=1676
   5. http://www.aifdemocracy.org/news.php?id=1936
   6. http://www.shuracouncil.org/News/view.asp?dismode=article&foobar=48&artid=58
   7. http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1160438709.shtml
   8. http://www.archives2004.ghazali.net/html/isna_convention_2004.html
   9. http://www.altmuslim.com/perm.php?id=1646_0_25_0_C43