Khalid Latif, a chaplain for New York University, here complains that moderate and peaceful understandings of Islam are being unfairly discounted: "As much as Muslims need to acknowledge the existence of a minority voice that is radicalized, so too does a broader society need to acknowledge the existence of a majority voice that is not radicalized and more importantly condemns radical thought."
That's just great, and I am happy to accommodate him in this. It is also worth noting, however, that a few years ago, when NYU students planned to display the Danish cartoons of Muhammad at a campus event, Latif wrote a letter to NYU President John Sexton, asking that he "not allow these cartoons to be displayed in any shape or form." Why not? Because "the potential of what might happen after they are shown is something else that should be considered and not taken lightly." For "the repercussions that would take place outside of the university setting are potentially huge. All over the world Muslims have been coming together over this issue and in New York they would not hesitate in doing the same thing."
This has been widely interpreted as a veiled threat, but let's give Latif the benefit of the doubt: let's just say that he was simply noting the possibility of violence, not threatening violence, if the cartoons were displayed at NYU. Even if that were the case, another problem remains: he was asking Sexton to make sure that non-Muslims changed their behavior to accommodate violent Muslims, rather than directing his efforts to violence-minded Muslims to try to get them to stop the violence.
And that has everything to do with what he is saying here. Because here again, he is saying that it is up to non-Muslims to take due notice of peaceful Muslims. But how effective or helpful are these peaceful Muslims when one of their foremost exponents refuses to stand up to his violent coreligionists, but instead demands that non-Muslims curtail their activities to accommodate them? If Latif is really concerned that non-Muslims don't believe his protestations of peace and moderation, this is why: his unwillingness or inability to stand up to the "radicals" either casts doubt upon his sincerity or demonstrates his impotence.
"My Take: Islam is a religion of peace, or it isn't," by Khalid Latif for CNN, October 11:
Last week, New York University hosted the Intelligence Squared Debates at its Skirball Center for the Performing Arts. Four panelists, two for and two against, presented arguments on the motion of "Islam Is a Religion of Peace." About 800 showed up to learn the answer.Problem is, there is no one answer.
The Muslim community is by no means monolithic and viewing us as one is problematic. We are diverse.
Yet we find ourselves in a moment in which we are very narrowly understood. That normative understanding is equated to something radical, despite the fact that 93 percent of Muslims are found to be far from radical according to recent Gallup surveys.
What becomes more problematic is that typically when one of us from that 93 percent steps up to speak, we are vehemently told that we either do not represent Islam or even more absurdly that we are not truly practicing Islam's teachings.
Zeba Khan, a panelist for the "Islam Is a Religion of Peace" last week, was met with such a response. She started off the debate by sharing her personal story about growing up in Ohio, attending a Hebrew Day School, and being raised by Indian parents in a Muslim household. "Just because you may not hear us," said Khan," doesn't mean we are not speaking."
Ayaan Hirsi Ali , speaking against the motion, followed Zeba and immediately said, "The problem with Islam is who speaks for Islam." She went on to say, "I concede (the radical voice) is a minority," and expressed her desire that someone like Zeba Khan actually would speak for Islam, but, in her opinion, could not and does not.
And so Zeba's voice, her interpretation, and all of her efforts were collectively dismissed since she did not fit into what Hirsi Ali believed Islam to be.
Maajid Nawaz, Zeba Khan's co-panelist for the motion, was dismissed just as easily. "This debate is not about making excuses for terrorism," he said. "This debate acknowledges that Muslims bear a responsibility in reclaiming their faith from a minority."...
Despite this, those opposed to the motion told him that it is his peaceful understanding of Islam that is rooted in misinterpretation, since it does not match up with the interpretation put forth by the radical minority, and thus somehow ignores the fundamentals of Islam since those groups somehow are the end-all be-all of what Islam actually means.
That a peaceful interpretation of the religion, or even one that is non-radical, can only exist by ignoring fundamental texts is flawed in its logic.
Characteristic of any text - whether religious or not - is its ability to be interpreted through the lens of its reader. Interpretations of the Quran that espouse ideas of tolerance, compassion and mercy have existed and continue to exist in the majority of Muslim communities since the advent of Islam 1400 years ago.
As much as Muslims need to acknowledge the existence of a minority voice that is radicalized, so too does a broader society need to acknowledge the existence of a majority voice that is not radicalized and more importantly condemns radical thought. There are those who make Islam to be something restrictive and radical, but there are many, many more who do not.
Moderating the panel last week, ABC News correspondent John Donvan said speaking to those against the motion, "You are making it sound like Islam is what you make it to be. Why then can it not be the peaceful Islam that we see being practiced by so many around the world?"
The answer, Mr. Donvan, is that it can be, and for the majority of us, it is.
The problem is that Muhammad himself, as portrayed in core Islamic texts, was a violent and totalitarian theocrat.
IN THE EARLIEST MUSLIM BIOGRAPHY OF MUHAMMAD, pages 511-517 (758-766 in the Arabic) WE LEARN HOW IN KHAYBAR MUHAMMAD ORDERED THE TORTURE AND BEHEADING OF A MAN IN ORDER TO GET HOLD OF A TREASURE, AND HOW THAT NIGHT MUHAMMAD TOOK INTO HIS PRIVATE TENT FOR CONSUMMATION OF "MARRIAGE" THE TORTURED MAN'S WIFE, WHOSE FATHER AND OTHER MALE RELATIVES MUHAMMAD HAD JUST KILLED:
MUHAMMAD, IN CORE ISLAMIC TEXTS, REJECTS RELIGIOUS PLURALISM
For example, in Sahih Muslim, a canonical hadith collection.
Book 19, No. 4366
It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah [Muhammad] (may peace be upon him) say:"I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN CORE ISLAMIC TEXTS, MUHAMMAD SAID: DEATH TO THOSE WHO LEAVE ISLAM
In Sahih Bukhari, the most canonical hadith collection, Muhammad said, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." Various other canonical hadiths attest that Muhammad called for death to those who leave Islam. That's why even today all the schools of Islamic law prescribe death for apostasy from Islam.
"Characteristic of any text - whether religious or not - is its ability to be interpreted through the lens of its reader".
What is this nonsense??? Empty words floating like vapor through the air and that again can mean anything you already intend them to mean, ultimately rejecting any responsibility for all evil that is done in the name of Islam by those who obey the commands and the examples of the Quran, the Hadith and the Sira.
Much like Khaled Abou El Fadl's statement that "ultimately the Quran, or any text, speaks through the reader", opening up for very inventive readings. I honestly admit I haven't a clue how they reach their conclusions: war becomes peace, intolerance becomes tolerance.
From page 464 (690 in the Arabic) of THE EARLIEST MUSLIM BIOGRAPHY OF MUHAMMAD, MUHAMMAD PRESIDES OVER THE BEHEADING OF 600 TO 900 JEWS:
IN CORE ISLAMIC TEXTS, WE LEARN THAT MUHAMMAD ALLOWED HIS SOLDIERS TO RAPE THEIR CAPTIVE WOMEN:
From Sahih Muslim, a canonical hadith collection:
Book 008, Number 3371:
Notice that Muhammad did not say, "do not rape your captive women." He merely says it does not matter if his soldiers withdraw before ejaculation, because souls destined by Allah to be born will be born regardless.
From Sahih Bukhari, the most canonical hadith collection:
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459:
Again notice that, in answer to his soldiers' queries Muhammad doesn't say "You must not force your captives to have intercourse with you." He says only that coitus interruptus, withdrawing prior to ejaculation, is pointless, because souls predestined to exist will exist regardless.
Again in Sahih Bukhari:
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137:
Thus Muhammad does not forbid his men to rape their captives, but merely says that it's better not to do coitus interruptus. His men should keep going till coitus is complete.
Moderating the panel last week, ABC News correspondent John Donvan said speaking to those against the motion, "You are making it sound like Islam is what you make it to be. Why then can it not be the peaceful Islam that we see being practiced by so many around the world?"
Well, Mr. Donvan, just where around the world is this peaceful Islam being practiced? In Iran? Turkey? Sudan? Egypt? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Nigeria? Indonesia? Lebanon? Bangladesh? Kosovo? Malaysia? No, not in any of those. And not one of the 56 or 57 members of the OIC has signed the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
O.K. maybe it's in the non-Moslem countries that Moslems are peaceful? In France? the U.K? Sweden? the U.S? the Philippines? Spain? India? Thailand? Sorry, no, not in any of those either.
IBN KATHIR, PERHAPS THE MUSLIM WORLD'S MOST POPULAR QURAN COMMENTATOR, SAYS ALLAH'S PARDON OF UNBELIEVERS WAS REPEALED BY QURAN CHAPTER 9 AND ITS VERSES OF THE SWORD
Kathir explains here (if you go there, scroll down to the bottom third of the page) that Quran 2:106, which advises Muslims to be tolerant toward unbelievers, has been canceled by verses in Quran Chapter 9 (which Muslim scholars generally agree was one of the last Quran chapters revealed). Kathir quotes part of Quran 9:5, but here's the whole verse:
And Kathir quotes part of Quran 9:29. Again, here's the whole verse:Notice that 9:29 does not say "fight in self-defense." It says "fight those who do not believe" in Islam.On Islam and the state of subjection referred to in 9:29, read Mark Durie's brilliant, concise, and very readable book, The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude, and Freedom.
Anyway, then Kathir says,
Khalid Latif,
There are now Critical Islam Experts who have studied very well all the important Islamic guiding texts and are almost, just or even more expert on them than many Believing Islam Experts.
And the nature of radical, fanatical, obsessively devoted followers of a religions makes them study these texts endlessly and as deep as possible.
So that speaks for both the Critical AND many Believing Islam Experts who believe the radical version of Islam does reflect much more what the originator of Islam, Muhammad or Allah, really meant.
But in words of Critical Islam Experts the Islamic holy texts are also very vaque, ambiguous, self-contradicting, incomplete, obsolete.
And so, if this has merit, we can see your argument and that of John Donvan, then the most important guiding texts of Islam are multi-interpretable. And yes, yes, they can be interpreted in a peaceful way!
But now the only conditions for being allowed the name Muslim is for a person to declare the Shahada and comply with the other 4 pillars of Islam.
And in this situation, that any idiot can easily declare him/ herself a Muslim you so-called moderate Muslims are stuck with something that you yourself can be blamed for;
Namely that you set no other conditions for being allowed to be called Muslims.
And many so-called radical Islamic idiots can interpret Islam differently and give you a bad name because of their bad deeds, acknowledged to be bad deeds by you.
But you are to be blamed, because you neglect, or refuse, to be separated from them by the expedient of:
Seceding from the Ummah, give yourself the name "Democratic" Muslims or "Peaceful Theocratic Muslims" and on use of THAT pose conditions. So that you can be very clear and evolving about what "Democratic Muslims" Or "Peaceful Theocratic Muslims" stand for and do NOT stand for.
And then self-professed "ordinary" Muslims can commit as many evil deeds as they want, without you having to answer for them, because you have a different trade-mark-name than they have.
In future it may be seen as stubbornness, lazyness, or deceit NOT to secede from the violent and cruel Muslims.
With a new trade-mark-name, use of which is dependent on your clear and evolving interpretations of Islam's most important guiding texts and your conditions.
And that stubbornnes, lazyness or deceit will mean you earn and deserve NO respect and NO trust from your fellow citizens.
And in future this it is what you will have to answer for to the majority of Democratic citizens. If the Critical Islamic Experts can persuade them of the true OR very messy nature of the Islamic most important guiding texts.
Actually, a very valid point by Jihad Watch.
"As much as Muslims need to acknowledge the existence of a minority voice that is radicalized, so too does a broader society need to acknowledge the existence of a majority voice that is not radicalized and more importantly condemns radical thought." -- Khalid Latif, a chaplain for New York University.
Deflection, pure and simple. Latif misses the point entirely. The "minority voice" contents itself to whimpering about being unfairly tarred along with their violent coreligionists. How about actually DOING something of significance instead of whining to show that you really mean it; how about a few beheadings or stonings of "radical" Muslims by "moderate" muslims, IN THE NAME OF ISLAM, for the crime of taking the lives of infidels, or exciting discrimination or violence against Jews or Christians? That might actually impress the rest of us. In the meantime, such continued protestations as we see here are merely becoming increasingly irritating for being the disingenuous excuse-making that they are.
Here are the stats of Poll Results, before and after debate:
If I read this right, the Against crowd went up by 30% "after" the debate!
Just shows to prove that more and more of us are listening to what Islam has to say about itself, and it ain't what we want to hear. The 93% who are allegedgly "peaceful" Muslims quietly practicing their faith around the world are failing in their representation of the violent texts of Islamic scripture. And why is it when these "peaceful" ones are challenged on the 160+ violent calls to Jihad against non-believers (including 'death for apostasy', "slay them" jihad, 'honor' killings of women, permissible rape of captive women, child brides, bigotry against Jews and Christians, homophobia, stoning for adultery, etc), they fail to adequately counter such violent texts? Rather, they usually end the "dialogue" with angry retorts that we do not understand the full meaning of these scriptures. I beg to differ, we in fact do understand them, and that is why they remain silent on Jihad violence and all the aggressive tenets of Islamic supremacy, including imposition Sharia law on the world. Their silence speaks volumes, Mr. Imam.
"You are making it sound like Islam is what you make it to be. Why then can it not be the peaceful Islam that we see being practiced by so many around the world?" (my bold) - in Donvan's summation
Making "Islam what you want it to be" is a lie. Islam cannot be what you make it to be without invoking heresy and/or apostasy. The penalty for this often can be death.
Islam is a violent doctrine that keeps its captives locked in fear. This is not appropriate behavior for a real religion, though it is common to tyrannies and cults. The illusion of 'freedom' in Sharia/Islam is just that, illusion, cruel deceitful illusion, a lie. For exposing this lie, we then are called names like 'bigots, islamophobes, haters, racists', etc. This is a common 'knee jerk' reaction from Muslims when called on it.
Lying does not engender peacefulness, rather the other way, it is hurtful and oppressive. That's the truth of Islam.
Islam is a religion of peace, peace that will be accelerated if you are an infidel.
Islam is truly a religion of peace - accelerated peace for the infidel.
It is now evident that a moderate Muslim is the guy who pins you down while the extremist saws your head off.
The Muslim community is by no means monolithic and viewing us as one is problematic. We are diverse.
..................
Muslims are indeed diverse. There are those Jihadists who take the texts of Islam entirely to heart and seek to oppress and murder Infidels. There are those Muslims who are conflicted and are not currently active in oppressing and murdering Infidels, but may do so in the future. There are those who do not plan on directly oppressing or murdering Infidels themselves, but applaud when their co-religionists do so—and may donate Zakat or practice Taquiyya in contribution. There are those Muslims who do not take the texts of Islam terribly seriously, finding them inconvenient. These last are very, very quiet—lest their more zealous Muslim brothers learn of their apostasy.
See? Nothing "monolithic" about Islam at all.
The qur'an is not moderate, to claim moderation in following islam means selective reading of the message.
These "moderate" followers of islam can compare to the "Christian" sect known as "Jehovah Witnesses". Much of what this sect follows is from their own teachings and writings, and do not even have need of a K.J. version of the Bible.
The "moderates" of islam are heading in that direction, and will not have a answer to the actions and deeds of those who take the qur'an as the true word of allah.
"...so too does a broader society need to acknowledge the existence of a majority voice that is not radicalized and more importantly condemns radical thought."--Khalid Latif
I will not acknowledge the existence of something* for which there is no evidence. Show me credible statistics, for example, showing that the majority of Muslims oppose sharia law, and that this majority is at least vocal in its opposition to sharia, and I will acknowledge the existence of such a "majority voice." However, the statistics from major polls and surveys from credible sources (PEW, World Public Opinion) show that the majority of Muslims want sharia law; only a small percentage oppose it.
*There is a problem here with the ambiguity of the word "radical." If Latif means that the majority of Muslims aren't "radicalized" in the sense that they aren't directly involved in terrorist attacks at the present moment, he would be correct. But supporting sharia (including desiring that a caliphate be reestablished, and including harshly punishing anyone who publicly criticizes Islam), is as far as I'm concerned a "radical" view--yet this is what the polls and surveys indicate that most Muslims want.
The peaceful muslims are the sea the radicals swim in, and the source of their recruits. Because the moderates know that they are not 'serious' muslims, they admire the serious ones (like Anwar al-Awlaki). As a young man becomes serious about Islam, he can easily be guided into the terrorist group. Alternatively he just becomes part the crowd of stone throwers protesting everything done by the U.S. and protecting the thugs.
In regards to a previous article, do you know anyone who is able to draw pictures of a superhero, dressed in a burqa, who is protecting people from these hideous crimes.
As I mentioned, my artwork is at the level of stick drawings. This would represent the person in the burqa in a positive way...should not be offensive to Islam. Please let me know.
This "Moderate Muslim" scam seems to be getting pimped a LOT today in the MSM; even so-called "Conservative" presstitute commentators, like David Warren, are shilling for it, even going so far as to pretend that "islam is a race, and not all Germans were Nazis!"
When in fact, while it may indeed still be a fact that not all Arabs are evil muslims, all Nazis were indeed evil, and all Nazis were indeed Nazis, just as all muslims ARE indeed still muslims!
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Saints+sinners+faiths/3714889/story.html
;-)