Moderate Muslim spreads falsehoods about Secular Islam Summit

In "A Muslim-bashing feeding frenzy" at Religion and Spirituality.com, Mike Ghouse of the Foundation for Pluralism retails several obvious falsehoods about the Secular Islam Summit. And like CAIR, he completely ignores the question of whether or not he agrees with the St. Petersburg Declaration, which enunciates principles that any moderate Muslim ought to be able to endorse.

As a Muslim fighting for reform within our Muslim world, I watched the Secular Islam Summit, aired earlier this week on CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck show, with great anticipation. I believe in religious pluralism and the separation of mosque and state. I know Muslims need to speak up against extremism.
But that's not what we got with the "Secular Islam Summit," held at the Hilton Hotel in St. Petersburg, Fla. The summit was supposed to be about Islam, yet there was hardly a Muslim at the podium. With the exception of two panelists — Hasan Mahmud, director of sharia law at the Muslim Canadian Congress, and author Irshad Manji, who believes the Qur'an is the basis for being a Muslim — the summit was filled with Islam bashers, some of them ex-Muslims.

Ghouse fails to mention another Muslim who was there at the podium, Tashbih Sayyed, editor of Muslim World Today and a member of the Jihad Watch Board.

The event should have been called the Anti-Islam Summit. It's a shame CNN and Beck got suckered into giving so much air time to this fraudulent gathering of Islam bashers. The summit was just an attempt by extremists of another persuasion — hatred of Islam — who want to destroy Islam. Whether it was former Muslim "Ibn Warraq" with his book title, "Why I am Not a Muslim," or Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, a political and human rights activist, the theme was the same: They want one-fifth of humanity to disappear. At this "landmark Secular Islam Summit," there were no "moderate" Muslims.

Ghouse here seems to have lost track of what he just wrote. There were no moderate Muslims? What about Hasan Mahmud and Manji, whom he just mentioned?

And as for "They want one-fifth of humanity to disappear," this is just a smear. In fact, the St. Petersburg Declaration says, "We say to Muslim believers: there is a noble future for Islam as a personal faith, not a political doctrine..." To hear Ghouse tell it, it says, "We say to Muslim believers: disappear." Hogwash.

The intent of the conference was bad from the start.

What was bad about it, Mr. Ghouse? The affirmation of "the inviolable freedom of the individual conscience" and "the equality of all human persons"? Or was it the insistence on "the separation of religion from state and the observance of universal human rights"? Or could it have been the call to "eliminate practices, such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage, that further the oppression of women"? What exactly do you find objectionable, Mr. Ghouse? Be specific, please.

Due to this fact, mainstream Muslims, including progressive Muslims, chose not to participate in the conference. Days before the summit, I talked with leaders of groups challenging conservative interpretations of Islam, including Radwan Masmoudi, president of Islam for Democracy, an organization based in Washington, D.C. We decided not to attend the meeting. None of us wanted to become tools in the hands of the anti-Islam extremists. The need to be represented in the summit became less important than speaking out against the intent of the summit, which was Islam-bashing.

So affirmation of human rights and freedom of conscience is "Islam-bashing"?

In explaining his decision, Masmoudi told me: "The need for a new, progressive and modern interpretation of Islam for the 21st century is real and undeniable, as is the need for real reforms and democratization in Muslim societies. However, for that reinterpretation and reform to occur, the effort must be led by Muslims who are proud of their heritage, religion and culture and who are credible within their community. The people who attended the 'Secular Islam Conference' are neither, and that is why this conference was a complete waste of time and money, except perhaps to provide some anti-Islamic voices a podium from which to speak."

Fine. Then lead it yourself, Mr. Masmoudi. Issue an endorsement of the Declaration. Surely there is nothing in it to which you object, is there? You are allowing your distaste for the panelists to overshadow the real subject here, which is the reform of Islam. Ex-Muslims did the job, along with a few Muslim reformists, because people like you have not been and are not doing it. Instead of carping, you should be showing that you as a Muslim can do the job even better.

The speakers present were Islam haters such as Wafa Sultan, who achieved notoriety when she slammed Islam on Al-Jazeera last year. The Syrian-American Sultan was filled with rage and hatred for Muslims and Islam, even going so far as to declare, "You cannot be American and Muslim at the same time," an obviously false notion in a nation where a Muslim now sits in Congress.

This is mostly just a base ad hominem attack, but as far as Sultan's statement goes, unfortunately, the presence of a Muslim in Congress does not disprove it. The only thing that would disprove it would be a large-scale public renunciation, accompanied by actions, of the ideology of Islamic supremacism by Muslims. Mr. Ghouse offers a renunciation of this kind later in this article, saying, "I'm a Muslim. I do not want a global caliphate. And I absolutely do not want to throw Christians and Jews into the sea." I hope he will follow this up with active efforts within the Islamic community to foster the principles expressed in the St. Petersburg Declaration.

If the intent was honest, at least half of the speakers would have been Muslims.

The import of what you are saying here, Mr. Ghouse, that these Muslim speakers should have been happy to appear at the Summit with non-Muslims and ex-Muslims. Yet you yourself refused to go. So you're saying that others should have done what you wouldn't do yourself.

The integrity of the organizers and the intent of the summit are questionable and, indeed, downright dishonest.

You charge them with dishonesty after writing an article like this?

UPDATE: Mike Ghouse responds, and explains his position on the St. Petersburg Declaration, here.

« Previous Entry | Home Page | Next Entry »

Your Ad Here

16 Comments

thomas ato | March 15, 2007 9:01 AM

...effort must be led by Muslims who are proud of their heritage, religion and culture and who are credible within their community...

Same old, same old. Only mooselims can criticize or comment on islam, because only they understand. It seems that the secret decoder ring expires as soon as you become apostate.

As Robert rightly states, the only reason such conferences are being organized by ex-mawzlems is precisely because there is no movement for reform or change coming from within. And why? Because mooselims 'proud of their heritage, religion and culture' are unlikely to see any need to reform it are they? And if they did, within the all-encompassing, stifling conformity imposed by the imams, we know what happens to them, don't we?

They'll send you home if you're crazy - but not wanting to fly more missions means you're perfectly sane, so you're not going home.

greatcometof1577 | March 15, 2007 9:18 AM

This Declaration by Secular Islam Summit has turned out to be real useful even if it failure because it forces many of these so called moderate muslims to expose themselves.

awake | March 15, 2007 9:27 AM

Robert wrote:
"The import of what you are saying here, Mr. Ghouse, that these Muslim speakers should have been happy to appear at the Summit with non-Muslims and ex-Muslims. Yet you yourself refused to go. So you're saying that others should have done what you wouldn't do yourself."

Bingo. This supposed reform-minded gent was not happy with the format of the summit, a determination he made prior to it's occurence, and yet decided to sit it out.

So he proposed his own summit, with appropriate like-minded moderate Muslims, desiring reform, but who are proud of Islam, right?...Right?

Typical. These useful idiots will dispel the myth of the "moderate" Muslim all by themselves, faster than any westerner can.

bobnoxious | March 15, 2007 9:59 AM

Another example of an educated Muslim who is either lying or doesn't know his holy texts.

I am convinced by the uniformity in the thinking of many Islamapologists that they can't reason about their faith. They only see the burkha that covers the dark underbelly of Islam. They know the flesh is there, but won't look because its existence must be hidden at all times. When the burkha is publicly removed, they scramble to put it back. In anger, humiliation, and confusion they resort to the rhetorical weapons of children - name-calling, exxageration, and lying. But we and they have all seen it.

We must keep making them look at the naked truth.

Hugh | March 15, 2007 10:26 AM

Having been put to the most minimum of tests, Ghouse now reveals himself, in his attempt to denigrate and dismiss such people as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ibn Warraq and Wafa Sultan, in his scornful rejection of the contents of the St. Petersurg Declaration, a noble document that he should applaud, and whose represents the absolute minimum that should be expected of any so-called "moderate" Muslim.

Doesn't Ghouse's denunciation also call into question the sincerity of the "Foundation for Pluralism," a group busy collecting grant money of all kinds, an organization whose moving spirit, Khalil Muhammad, is quite a draw -- of the "I-wants-to-make-your-flesh-creep" school, who tells his preferred audiences on the naive and sentimental synagogue circuit that "extremists" are worrisome, but never fear, Khaleel Mohammed can be trusted to give you the straight dope, and his Foundation for Pluralism is Our Only Hope (never mind those horrible people with their St. Petersburg Declaration)and he's never steer you wrong, and by the way, please give a very large contribution to the Foundation for Pluralism to keep those "moderates" going and, just as important --where's my own check -- yes, that's K-h-a, not K-a. Or if you prefer so as to keep your name out of it for seucrity reasons -- I quite understand -- cash is also welcome.

Morgaan Sinclair | March 15, 2007 10:32 AM

This isn't a "moderate Muslim" spreading falsehoods. They are falsehoods, but this is not a moderate Muslim.

ed | March 15, 2007 10:57 AM

just another example of the bottom line in the thinking of these people....a bad Muslim trumps an ex-Muslim anytime. Their worst enemy is someone who leaves the religion.

lots of christian families have kids who have abandoned or moved beyond the faith of their parents, but the kid still has a place at the dinner table (i know there are exceptions but i'm broad brushing here). that's not so in islam.

XRDC | March 15, 2007 11:46 AM

From article above:

"You cannot be American and Muslim at the same time," an obviously false notion in a nation where a Muslim now sits in Congress.

Mutually exclusive terms? Can a true Muslim serve in Congress?

Take a look at this link (originally provided by KAOSKTRL)

http://islamqa.com/index.php?ref=11180&ln=eng&txt=POLITICAL

The attitude of Islam towards deviant (political) parties and those who indulge in them.

Whoever has an understanding of Islam, strong faith, Islamic integrity, farsightedness and eloquence, and is thus able to exert some influence on the direction of the party so that it will take an Islamic direction, may get involved in these parties or with the one which is most likely to be more receptive towards the truth – in the hope that Allaah will benefit others through him and guide whomsoever He wills to give up deviant political trends and follow the just politics of sharee’ah, thus bringing the ummah together on the Straight Path. But he should not follow their deviant principles.

-Fataawaa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah

According to this, Ellis has loyalty first and foremost to Allah’s cause. Something I’m sure neighboring Congressman (and presidential hopeful) Tancredo is aware of. Something the American people had better pay attention to.

-XRDC

Infidel Pride | March 15, 2007 12:49 PM

As a Muslim fighting for reform within our Muslim world, I watched the Secular Islam Summit, aired earlier this week on CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck show, with great anticipation. I believe in religious pluralism and the separation of mosque and state. I know Muslims need to speak up against extremism.

Translation: don't assume that we support Islamic supremacy just because we are about to condemn these 'Secular-Muslims'.

But that's not what we got with the "Secular Islam Summit," held at the Hilton Hotel in St. Petersburg, Fla. The summit was supposed to be about Islam, yet there was hardly a Muslim at the podium. With the exception of two panelists — Hasan Mahmud, director of sharia law at the Muslim Canadian Congress, and author Irshad Manji, who believes the Qur'an is the basis for being a Muslim — the summit was filled with Islam bashers, some of them ex-Muslims.

Translation: As long as they acknowledge the supremacy of Allah/Mohammed, any calls for reform by them are okay. But only within the framework of the supremacy of Islam and Islam alone.

The event should have been called the Anti-Islam Summit. It's a shame CNN and Beck got suckered into giving so much air time to this fraudulent gathering of Islam bashers. The summit was just an attempt by extremists of another persuasion — hatred of Islam — who want to destroy Islam. Whether it was former Muslim "Ibn Warraq" with his book title, "Why I am Not a Muslim," or Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, a political and human rights activist, the theme was the same: They want one-fifth of humanity to disappear. At this "landmark Secular Islam Summit," there were no "moderate" Muslims. The intent of the conference was bad from the start.

Translation: Encouraging Muslims to violate Quranic injunctions to conflate their 'religious' life with the rest of their life is bashing Islam. Encouraging, or even tolerating, Muslims to jettison Islam, is as good as wanting one fifth of humanity to disappear. In other words, once a person jettisons Islam, (s)he is as good as dead. (Or, if (s)he isn't, (s)he should be).

Due to this fact, mainstream Muslims, including progressive Muslims, chose not to participate in the conference. Days before the summit, I talked with leaders of groups challenging conservative interpretations of Islam, including Radwan Masmoudi, president of Islam for Democracy, an organization based in Washington, D.C. We decided not to attend the meeting. None of us wanted to become tools in the hands of the anti-Islam extremists. The need to be represented in the summit became less important than speaking out against the intent of the summit, which was Islam-bashing.

Translation: We Moderate Muslims only want to peacefully and 'democratically' Islamize you. (Note: If I were to use their rhetoric, I'd echo Excommie above and say that Moderate Muslims want all Infidels dead.)

In explaining his decision, Masmoudi told me: "The need for a new, progressive and modern interpretation of Islam for the 21st century is real and undeniable, as is the need for real reforms and democratization in Muslim societies. However, for that reinterpretation and reform to occur, the effort must be led by Muslims who are proud of their heritage, religion and culture and who are credible within their community. The people who attended the 'Secular Islam Conference' are neither, and that is why this conference was a complete waste of time and money, except perhaps to provide some anti-Islamic voices a podium from which to speak."

Translation: The injunctions that exist in the Quran (and maybe Sunnah - we haven't decided as yet whether we should include or exclude it) ain't arcane enough to fool enough Infidels, and therefore need to be re-phrased so that we can continue to implement the directives of the above without seeming to do it in a way that an observer can decipher. Only Muslims who approve of Mohammed's behavior while he massacred and slaughtered his enemies can pull this off. Only Muslims who can take pride in claiming for themselves what other cultures achieved before them can drive such an effort. Only Muslims who endorse the teachings of the Quran can participate in an exercise to reform the practices that are derived ultimately from the teachings of the Quran.

The speakers present were Islam haters such as Wafa Sultan, who achieved notoriety when she slammed Islam on Al-Jazeera last year. The Syrian-American Sultan was filled with rage and hatred for Muslims and Islam, even going so far as to declare, "You cannot be American and Muslim at the same time," an obviously false notion in a nation where a Muslim now sits in Congress.

Translation: Condemning Mohammed's marriage to 6-year old Aisha (okay, 9, that makes it so much more acceptable), or condemning thighing of toddler girls, as Wafa Sultan did on al-Jazeera, is slamming Islam. Also, Quranic verses, such as 2:190-193, 9:5,29,111, et al, are compatible with the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment, in the mind of this outstanding Mohammedan, which gets proved by the mere act of enough voters in a particular congressional district in MN electing a member of the Nation of Islam (which is, depending on the situation, either a un-Islamic cult when the spotlight is on their racism, or Islamic, when it comes to one of their members being elected to Congress).

If the intent was honest, at least half of the speakers would have been Muslims. The integrity of the organizers and the intent of the summit are questionable and, indeed, downright dishonest.

Translation: If the intent was compatible with Quran 16:105 (Only they invent falsehood who believe not Allah's revelations, and (only) they are the liars.), at least half of the speakers would have been Muslims. They would then have spread the truth, which is that only non-believers in Allah spread lies (see above); since they didn't, their intent is questionable, and downright dishonest (again, use the Q16:105 definition).

Also, when Mian Ghouse offers a renunciation later in this article, saying, "I'm a Muslim. I do not want a global caliphate. And I absolutely do not want to throw Christians and Jews into the sea.", that should be parsed exactly as one might parse a Clinton quote:

I do not want a global caliphate: The only true Caliphate were the rightly-guided Caliphs of Abu-Baqr, Umar, Uthman and Ali (or for Shia, Ali, Hussein, and their successors). To avoid confusing them with Caliphs that followed, I don't want a global Caliphate. However, a local shariah based civic establishment is a perfectly good alternative.

I absolutely do not want to throw Christians and Jews into the sea: Why should I? Look at all the money that is going to the ummah from Christian suckers, such as the US and Europe, and Jewish sucker, such as Israel. Given this goose with the golden egg, why should I be stupid enough to throw them into the sea? Let those dupes, er philanthropists pay us a Jiziya instead: all the better if they don't know it, as long as they have a military superiority over us.

Okay, I'm done with the translation exercise. The day such translations of Muslim-speak ain't needed for other Infidels, we'd have gotten somewhere.

Lame Cherry | March 15, 2007 1:47 PM

I found it amusing in he complains the summit was supposed to be about Islam, but Muslims were not there.
DUH!!!!! Where was this whiner trying to make a difference but like most Muslims sitting silent and enabling the murderers with silent applause.

Mike Ghouse | March 15, 2007 5:38 PM

Dear Mr. Spencer,

A whole lot of building is built on a wrong premise, when I sent the piece for publication, I had not seen the declaration.

I have just finsihed reading it again and I must say that I am pleasantly surprised.

I will support almost all of the St Petersburg declaration, with a few enhancements, if you wish me to respond to it for publication, I will be happy to do it.

Take a look at one of the columns I wrote on last night about Hindu Wedding challenged at: http://mikeghouse.blogspot.com.

We have gone a step further on religion on it. Hope to get that published, whoever is willing to publish it.

Mike Ghouse

jihadwatch | March 15, 2007 6:08 PM

Dear Mr. Ghouse,

Thank you for writing.

I am very glad to hear that you endorse almost all of the St. Petersburg Declaration. Which part do you reject? I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts about this, and would be happy to post them here.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Mike Ghouse | March 15, 2007 7:54 PM

Dear Mr. Spencer,

Please send me your email to MikeGhouse@aol.com or MikeGhouse@Gmail.com to send the article. I have responded to just about every question you had in it, as well as enhancement on 4 of the 15 items you have in the declaration.

Cordially,

Mike Ghouse

Mike Ghouse | March 15, 2007 8:03 PM

In today's pluralistic societies, we have to work with an all inclusive agenda. Islam is about Justice and creating a balance in society as all other religions are.

This ignorance is compounded further by the "hearsay" a few seem to have gained, based on which, they become experts in propagating hate towards others. There are extremists in every group, with no exception and perhaps the same percentage.

In the simplest words, religion is a system that helps an individual gain his or her own balance in life, repenting for bad and expressing gratitude for the good one receives brings that elusive sense of balance to the individual. If we aggregate each one’s efforts we have an orderly society.

Religion is abused as much as our civil laws. Any city library will have manuals on public safety, crime, traffic rules or business conduct. If every one follows the rules, we should have zero crime rates, right? Does that happen? Does any one follow the religion as prescribed? Let’s not blame religion for the ills of society. Let’s appreciate the goodness it has done to the mankind. If you think Religion is the source of conflict, I urge you to seriously think about the cause of every conflict, it is always an individual King, a politically motivated religious head, a dictator, or the heads of governments with malicious agendas or group of insecure men who just like to be destructive. It is never the religion.

There is beauty and wisdom in every faith. As a society, we have to learn about each other. Shame on us, we seem to thrill to find out about the bad things about others, for God’s sake, let’s take the time to learn Good things about others. There is plenty good out there, if we focus on it, it can overrun the evil.

Mike Ghouse
www.MikeGhouse.net
www.Mikeghouse.blogspot.com

joeblough | March 16, 2007 4:37 AM

In the simplest words, religion is a system that helps an individual gain his or her own balance in life, repenting for bad and expressing gratitude for the good one receives brings that elusive sense of balance to the individual. If we aggregate each one’s efforts we have an orderly society. ........ There is beauty and wisdom in every faith.

This is just plain false. There have been plenty of religions in the history of the world which have endorsed or actively practiced all sorts of degrading criminal acts, most prominent among which is human sacrifice, which has cropped up nearly everywhere at some point.

There was little "beauty and wisdom" in the Carthaginian cult of infant sacrifice.

Religion doesn't get a free pass. A religion has to be understood and judged like any other body of ideas. Some religions are downright terrible. All religions are not equal or even similar.

And "today's pluralistic societies" have an obligation to take a long hard look at any religious text that commands the believer to attack their neighbors, or even one that is open to such interpretation -- as Islamic texts very evidently are.

Mike Ghouse | March 16, 2007 2:44 PM

Joeblough,

Thanks for adding your comments. However, your last comment:

"And "today's pluralistic societies" have an obligation to take a long hard look at any religious text that commands the believer to attack their neighbors, or even one that is open to such interpretation -- as Islamic texts very evidently are."

It ain't there. Take a look at the 2 power point presenations APOLOGY and QURANIC TRANSLATIONS located on the home page of www.worldMuslimCongress.com

There is a lot of mis-information about many things, one among them is Islam. If those of us who call for a society of harmonious co-existence, we have to take the lead in understanding it correctly, including Muslims.

With the exception of the cults you have listed, all scripture based religions teach simple goodness, it is our understanding that is the problem, not the religion, any religion.

Mike Ghouse
www.WorldMuslimCongress.com
www.FoundationforPluralism.com
www.MikeGhouse.net