World Muslim Congress

Re: Muslims together - Ahmadiyya Muslims (72 Sects)

2012-02-14T19:30:00.000-06:00

Comments from Iran, Hannan, Aurangzeb, Ayaz and Armoghan listed below.

As Muslims we practice hearing out each other, so, you find from wise to ugly statements, but "usually relevant" to the thread, it is all a part of living in a free world.

You are welcome to join World Muslim Congress by sending an email to WorldMuslimCongress-subscribe@yahoogroups.com and you can also see some of the information at http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/

ABOUT 72 SECTS IN ISLAM AND WHO EARNS GOD'S GRACE

Diversity is natural and intentional, nothing is alike, and to be different is to be human and that is apparently God's plan. The world will never be 100% Muslim, Christian, Hindu or otherwise, however everyone hopes for it as conclusion.

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) understood human nature more than anyone else. No wonder Islam is also referred to as the Deen of fitra.

So the number 72 implies diversity and a large number, but not precisely 72. Oddly that number is also used as a selling point by pervert clergy in their pornographic Khutbas, some of which we have watched recently.

Who will go to hell?

God does not stereo type any group; it is always the individual who gets the rewards or punishment; that is clearly established in Islam, is it not?

It is like the class room, most of the students will pass, and some will be ranked among top three or top ten. The entire class will never score 100, only a few will fail, and they have the option (repent and ask for forgiveness) to retake (not repeat the mistakes) the exam and pass, there is an opportunity to redress.

So we will have 72 groups with varying beliefs and each one of them is urged to do his or her best, and one of them will earn the ranks, all others will make it with an exception of one or two who will bear the burden of their wrong doing. Ahmadiyya, Bohra, Shia, Sunni, Ismaili, Sufi, Wahabbi, Deen Muhammad are the magnificent groups at this time, and no group will be punished. God does not believe in collective punishment, it will be always the individuals. Exception: The Sodom and Gomorrah community, which we need to, understand as the facts on the dirt are different than interpreted heretofore.

There is no pre-judgment in Islam and only Allah and the individual will know what is in one's heart. Allah gives the individual all the opportunities in life, but will not pre-judge any one, that is the wise reason why we have to believe in the Day of Judgment to prevent societies from becoming God.

Allah maintains professional confidentiality to prevent an individual from becoming judgmental towards fellow being. When God is through with the accountability on the appointed day, he will make the decision which no one but God and the person will know. God does not announce it to the public about who is going to hell or heaven, the only way to find out is if you are in their company.

The state does not have the authority to judge one's faith, it is Allah's prerogative. The state as a representative of the people can punish the individual for externalities like theft, breaking a contract, rape and being destructive.

What the Mullah's of Pakistan, Bangladesh, India (Muslims), Indonesia, Iran or Saudi Arabia has done is usurp authority of God, they have no right to pre-judge or declare anyone. God boldly goes against these governments and Mullahs by telling them in their face without blinking an eye; that, whether you are Jew, Christian, or whatever, he will recompense you for the good you do, and assure everyone, not to worry. Do we get that?

Islam is so beautiful a religion; it is in tune with human nature and honors freedom of thought. Sadly, a majority of us have not gotten Islam, to the bulls among us, it is enforcement and punishment. Do they realize what 113 of the 114 Suras flow from? He is the creator, he is closer to us than our jugular veins, and he understands and knows us and wants us to behave to keep his creation in harmony.

May Allah just give us the capacity to think or take the brain back for lack of use.

Jazak Allah Khair

Mike Ghouse
Muslims Together building cohesive societies.

Dear sirs,

Assalamu Alaikum.Malik Ghulam Ali, a Judge of Appellate Division of Supreme Court has said in this regard ( in Rasail wa Masail in vol 6/7 , main author Sayyid Maududi) that this tradition has not been reported in Bukhari or Muslim or Muatta.It has been narrated in Tirmizi or Nasai (? ) through a weak chain.

f it is taken as true it means that all Muslims from all sects who believe in the Quran and Sunnah sincerely will be saved.The Hadith does not name any specific sect.

Shah Abdul Hannan

That Hadith is correct and authentic. The complete Hadith is:

Prophet (pbuh) said that previous nations (Jews and CHristians) got split into 71 sects, and my Ummah will get split into 72 sect. But all these sects will wind up in Hell Fire except one. When asked which sect will be the saved one, he (pbuh) said that the one which had the same belief as his and his companions.

But keep in mind that none of these sects will be considered out of the folds of Islam, as Qadianis are. Qadianis commit Kufr and cannot be a sect of Islam. These sects will be of Muslims, but would have invented and added new things in Islam. After their punishment is over in Hell, they too will qualify for the Mercy of Allah and sent to Jannah.

The distinction of the saved sect is that because its belief will be correct, it will not go to Hell at all, and Allah by His Mercy will send them directly to Jannah.

Aurangeb

<<<Please read and reflect on Ayat 62 of Surah Al-Baqarah, that states: "Verily, those who believe (in the Quran), And those who follow the Jewish faith, and the Christians, and Sabians - all who believe in God, and the Last Day and do righteous deeds - shall have their reward with their Sustainer>>>

Obviously the Qur'an-illiterate National Assembly members who declared the Ahmadi Muslims as non-Muslims did not know this ayat! Those who would love to ABROGATE this ayah---their lips have been permanently sealed by Allah, the Most High, forever--- because He RE-revealed almost the same ayah in 5:69! Now they feel cornered—and have not way to go except to knock at the door of the powerhouse of all evils in the Muslim world-- the "Ulema"--who are always ready to do 'halalah' with anyone who needs an immediate catharsis—no problem!

Irfan

<<< However, we have instructions in numerous Ahadeeth, as well as Quran, to seel knowledge of Islam from those who have acquired it, and follow the Ulama leaders. Qadianis on the other hand, insult the Ulama of Islam.>>>

Where can I find this verse where we are told to follow these fire-brand â€œUlemaâ€?Â I am aware of the â€œahl adhdhikrâ€ (the People of the Zikrâ€"the Qurâ€™an) whom we need to ask if we want to know something according to the Qurâ€™anâ€"NOT some Qurâ€™an-illiterte â€œUlemaâ€ who represent a little truth and a MUCH falsehood!!!

The real Ulema fear Allah much.Â Most of these â€œUlemaâ€ that you are referring to are merciless, insensitive butchersâ€"their hearts have become rock and their eyes have turned stone dry after following and disseminating all kinds of falsehood!Â They do nothing but fitna and corruption on earth.Â They are hate-mongers and must be condemned for what they do.

Aurangzeb, how come you did not comment on the hadith Jari Khan sahib quoted?Â These ahadith are from your favorite booksâ€"the ones you are dead set to call â€œSahihaynâ€ (Two Authentic Ones)!

Irfan

AsslamoAliakum

Dear Qurashi saab Allah (S W T ) in Quran also called Kaafir it means if some one believe on another man mad prophet we can not call theme Muslims.You Can read Mr Mirza Ahmed books what ever he said about him self as a Muslim we can not call him Muslim .

There is no Place in Islam for another Prophet after Our Sweet last Madni Prophet Hazrat Muhammad Peace be upon Him.

Even there is No Shazli or Nazli Nabi.If some one brings then they have different religion then Islam even they read Quran,Kalama ,Pray five times a day and perform Hajj.

But before we do all these practises our Imman have to Say Ya Rasool AllahYou are the Last Messenger and there is no any kind of Messiah or Nabi after you.

If you still about Mr Mirza books i can send it to you.

Regards
Ayaz Khan

These are all self-constructed Hadith being quoted here. Can someone reference the book from which this Hadith is quoted? So much of misinformation on this thread!

From the personal Desk of

Armoghan Qadir Shah

Re: Re- Muslims together - Ahamdiyya Muslims (Nasrullah)

2012-02-13T18:43:00.001-06:00

(please note, I am bcc'ing email addresses, you are welcome to share with anyone, but I will restrict it to my group, unless the emails are in public circulation)

WAS,

Zia Bhai,

Thanks for sharing the enlightening piece by Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthal. Not only the crown verse, but the verses "None enters Paradise he be a Jew or a Christian." (2:111), and, "Nay, but whatsoever sunrendereth his purpose to God, while doing good to men, surely his reward is with his Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them, neither shall they suffer grief." (2:112) is the essence of Islam.

The evangelical Christians claim that only through Jesus one would go to God is no different than the claim of evangelical like Muslims, who believe they have the secrets to Jannah and others don't.

Neither Jesus, nor Muhammad wanted humanity to follow them in their external manifestations, they wanted us to become forgiving, loving and a Rahmat to fellow beings... when you do that blessings pour on you, you will be free from malice, ill-will, hate, prejudice and that is pure bliss. Indeed, that is the bottom line of Islam, Christianity and all other religions. Ritual are critical and are the guiding posts, but that is not what makes one a Christian or a Muslim, they are merely supplements and the verse 2:112 stands on it.

Thanks for sharing and I hope, as Muslims we live the example of Prophet Muhammad and all other prophets... to respect others, to pray for the well being rather than ill-will...Lets pray to be good Muslims, non-judgmental Muslims submit to Allah, rather than compete with him. Ameen!

Mike Ghouse

In a message dated 2/13/2012 1:15:45 P.M. Central Standard Time, ziahshah@gmail.com writes:

Dear Mike

Asslam o Alaikum wa Rehmatullah

I appreciate your sentiments of religious tolerance very much. The first British Muslim, Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthal, expressed something very similar and he linked his ideas to the Crown verse and the subsequent verse of the Holy Quran beautifully. I have colored the translation of these verses in his article into red. Here I link his article with the said commentary of the Crown verse; it is towards the end of the article:

http://www.themuslimtimes.org/2011/07/religion/islamophobia/tolerance-cultural-side-of-islam-by-pickthall-the-first-british-muslim

Best Regards!

Zia H Shah MD

Chief Editor: Alislam-eGazette

Chair of Religion and Science for the Muslim Sunrise

Chief Editor: The Muslim Times (An International News Blog)

http://www.themuslimtimes.org/

http://www.alislam.org/egazette/

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 1:52 PM, <MikeGhouse@aol.com> wrote:

AA

Nasrullah Bhai,

I guess you missed reading my note from earlier... Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) listened to a variety of faiths, his faith did not change. As a follower, I am engaged with Atheists to Zoroastrians and every one in between, my faith in Islam has gotten stronger and stronger... not by denigrating or devaluing others faiths, but by appreciating them, that they also, like me, praise the God.

Ahamdiyya Muslim's pledge is the same La Ilaha Illalah Muhamaddur Rasool Allah as yours and mine. Irfan and I have shared more details... within each strand of Islam, we differ, Shia, Sunni, Alhle--- different things, Wahhabi, Ismaili and Bohra, we have to allow the difference of Ahamdiyya, we are all in this together with variation. Aren't we?

Shame on those Muslims who push God from his chair and take over judgment from him. I am answerable to God for my Aamals, just as you. No one is going to bear others burden. Is it wrong?

Declaring other Muslims Kafir is shirk, you are not God. You are committing a major shirk by declaring them wrong, and they are wrong as well to call other Muslims as non-Muslims. Who the hell are you or me to declare other Muslims not Muslims? No ulema, no scholar, no Imam has that right but Allah, do you agree with it?

When you can kiss ass with Jews, Christians and others, at least be nice to Ahamdiyya, it is the human thing and the right thing to do. Let them believe whatever they want to believe, what is it to you or I? What do you lose? Are you responsible for their belief? Your idea of Ahmadies going to hell is as legitimate as the idea of Christians believing (by the way they are a larger majority) that you and I go to hell if we don't follow Jesus? Does that make them right? Does it make you right?

I hope you understand the essence of Islam and Quraan, it is not a political entity, it is a deen that bring peace to mankind, it is universal, aalameen, all inclusive, all embracing religion.

Discussion is different than being judgmental, please become a discussant sans judgement...

Jazak Allah Khair

Mike Ghouse

(the previous notes is pasted below)

Dear Mike,

Please add one more line and ask people to stop lying about finality of Prophet Mohmmad ( PBUH). You are the moderator and every thing discuss on this forum is your responsibility and you will be answerable at the day of judgment that you did not stop people who are lying about the finality of prophet ( PBUH). This is a very serious issue. if you are not clear about finality of Prophet Mohammad ( PBUH) then let us know.

Nasrullah khan

To: worldmuslimcongress@yahoogroups.com; DallasPaksitanis@yahoogroups.com; PaksitaniAmericans@yahoogroups.com
From: MIKEGHOUSE@aol.com
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:37:35 -0500
Subject: Dallas Pakistanis :: Re- Muslims together - Ahamdiyya Muslims

RASHID, AURANGZEB AND MOHAMMAD

What you do with your notes, and who you email is your business, but as a moderator of World Muslim Congress and Dallas Pakistanis, I have the responsibility to keep the discussion intact and not let it degenerate into a gossip, or accusatory exchanges. I have an obligation to keep this forum worth being members of.

Rashid Jahangiri - Please note that your comments will not be posted on the groups, as they are not discussions. If you write in civil terms, it will be posted. Please consider reciting ÇåÏöäóÜÜÜÜÇ ÇáÕøöÑóÇØó ÇáãõÓÊóÞöíãó (1:6) before you write.

Aurangzeb Khan - most of your postings get posted as long as you remain in the realm of discussion, when you resort to an un-civil language, your item will not be posted. Please consider reciting ÇåÏöäóÜÜÜÜÇ ÇáÕøöÑóÇØó ÇáãõÓÊóÞöíãó (1:6) before you write

Mohammad Mahmood - I pray for you to have a strong emaan. Do you know, following the example of the prophet I have had discussions with every religious scholar, and every time, my faith deepens knowing that every one is seeking the truth; and that is to find peace within and peace with others. I hope you have a strong enough faith to hear all points of view... if you are afraid to know about Ahmadiyya, you should not be a part of it. Please consider reciting ÇåÏöäóÜÜÜÜÇ ÇáÕøöÑóÇØó ÇáãõÓÊóÞöíãó (1:6) before you write.

As a Muslim, I have an obligation to speak up against injustice towards fellow beings, including Ahmadiyya, Shia, Sunni, Bohra, Ismaili and others. Justice is the core value of Islam, where there is justice, there is peace aka Islam. I hope you stand up for every one as well.

Some one wrote earlier, what you believe, most of it is by default. There are 2 Billion Christians and a billion Hindus - they are so because they were born in their faith and you are a Muslim because your born in your family. A good percentage convert as well, and most of it is their choice. If you were born in an Ahmadiyya family, you would have been one... denigrating them is not what Islam teaches. May God help you remove the bias, ill-will and prejudice you have against other human beings.

Jazak Allah Khair

Thank you.

- - - - -

Thanks for the note. As a Muslim, I'm involved in interfaith dialogue with people of all religions; wasn't that a tradition of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)?

Prophet had conversations with Christians, Jews and his own Pagan family members, in his own Mosque despite the fact that they had rejected everything prophet believed. Did he run off? Was he worried about other people's judgment? He even let them pray in his Mosque, their own prayers that he did not agree with, didn't he?

Didn't prophet teach us to speak with others in respectable ways? If he did not, I am okay with your approach towards Ahamdiyya.

I continue to speak and write in all places of worship and humbly share, that Alhamdu Lillah, today there are more Atheists, Baha'i, Buddhist, Christians, Hindus, Jains, Jews, Sikhs, Wicca, Native Americans and Zoroastrians who are less biased towards Muslims as they learn with me.

In the tradition of Prophet Muhammad, the peace maker, I am pleased to follow in his footstep in mitigating conflicts and nurturing goodwill. If I am dealing with every religious group, it would be wrong for me not to engage with Ahmadiyya Muslims. As a Muslim, I am conditioned to believe that Imam Mahdi will come someday, where as the Ahmadiyya are conditioned to believe that that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmed is the promised Messiah. I am sure you are conditioned a certain way as well. We don't have to be agreeing to be good to fellow Muslims. Other than this difference, I do not see much to fight over.

Many a Muslims kiss ass with Jews and Christians, but have a deep hatred for fellow Muslims; the Ahmadiyya Muslims.

If I were to kiss ass of conservative Muslims, I would have had a larger following, however, I am content with the majority, indeed an overwhelming majority of Muslims who are moderate and are sane people. They want to get along with everyone, don't want to be judgmental about others, and don't reduce Allah and Muhammad, from Rabbul and Rahmatul Aalameen to Muslimeen. You are welcome to do it, I have no problems with it. I believe in free will (Q2:256).

God is not yours or my property, and we do not own Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) or Islam either – they are for the Aalameen, just like the air and water, they belong to all of us, every one of us. Neither you nor I can posses them and reduce them to ours.

I have an open mind to hear different points of view and there are many like me. If you are not secure enough in your faith, please don't read, just hit the delete button.

On Sunday, I am speaking at the Ahmadiyya Mosque in Allen at Noon about Prophet Muhammad, the ultimate peace maker. Any one is welcome to hear. If you organize a group, I will be happy to speak at your place. A part of it is at: http://www.indianmuslimobserver.com/2012/02/prophet-muhammad-pbuh-peace-maker.html

Jazak Allah Khair

Mike Ghouse

Mike Ghouse is committed to building a cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. A writer, thinker and a speaker and is available to speak on pluralism, politics, Islam, peace, cohesive societies and a variety of topics. Check out 4 websites and 27 Blogs indexed at
www.MikeGhouse.net. Current articles atwww.TheGhousediary.com

Re: Muslims together - Ahamdiyya Muslims

2012-02-13T17:06:00.002-06:00

( THIS IS NOT AN ARTICLE, BUT A DISCUSSION)

AA

Mateen and members of the discussion

Thanks for keeping up with the discussion, I have always longed for civil discussions among Muslims, and I am glad we do our best to carry that out at World Muslim Congress. Your contribution is appreciated as well. This should be the spirit of discussion.

You noted, "But please do not enforce Qadiani beliefs into Islam." First of all who is enforcing anything on any one? It is a mere discussion, however, If you meant, "don't share their belief" I can understand that and I am not sharing any one's belief, as all beliefs are their own.

May I ask, why reject their belief, and for what?
You have referenced books and research work on it,
but let's make it simple.

Did Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) say that his Ummah will be eventually split into 72 ( 73) groups? If it is a wrong Hadith, let me know. If he did say that, why are we not being inclusive? He did not tell anyone to ex-communicate those who do not follow the authority of his authorized agents. He did not even define the circle or daera of the 72 - 72 was just a metaphoric number to indicate too many.

Prophet did not know what is Sunni or Shia either, they did not exist then. All of us from Ahamdiyya, Bohra, Sunni, Ismaili, Shia, Sufi, Deen Muhammad, Wahhabi and other variations have over be 90% commonalities - with no more than two or three differences. There are those among us who put their foreheads on the graves of Aulia Allah, believe that the promised Messiah has come, ask for help from others, other than Allah, there are those who have destroyed the house where Prophet Muhammad was born, it was a collective heritage of Muslims... we are different and we need to hold a large umbrella over all of us. Lets' reciting bismilla every moment mean some thing to us, let prophet be a rahmat to all of us, let one pray with hands folded, dropped or raised... they all worship Allah.

Ahmadiyya are not taking away anything from any one, they are living their own lives, indeed, their good work is enhancing the collective good works of Muslims. They have earned a good name around the US communities with their initiatives and they add value to the overall Muslim community.

My only gain from this effort is for us Muslims to earn the title of Amin, Kind, merciful and good human beings. Our stance towards Ahmadiyya Muslims takes away the fullness of goodness about Muslims. We have strayed away from being non-judgmental to judgmental beings. We have to do the inner Jihad and rid of our pettiness, ill-will and malice. Am I wrong? Are you willing to rise above the fray?

I am a Muslim, and I do not judge people and hope you don't either.

Jazak Allah Khair

Mike Ghouse
Muslims Together committed to build cohesive Societies

Dear Mr. Ghouse, I am reading this discussion with interest. I am sorry to say, it appears that you and your participants of this discussion are unaware of the truth and facts about this topic. I suggest you and the participants should read a very informative and well researched book "Qadiani Mazhab ka Ilmi Mahasaba" by Prof. Muhammad Ilyas Burney of Usmania University, Hyderabad. This book (of 9944 pages)

which I have is published by Sheikh Muhammad Ashraf, Aibak Road, Kashmiri Bazar, Lahore Pakistan. This book, which was first started as a humble thin pamphlet (in 1352 Hijri) is now more authentic source about Qadianism. The writer quoted from only Qadiani literature. books, papers, magazines and other documents, some of which are not even known to an ordinary Qadiani. I am sure if you (I hope you read Urdu) and others after reading this book, will realised that "hein kuakab kuch, bazar aatey hein kuch" . Mr. Ghouse, I appreciate your good intentions of creating harmony among different faiths. But please do not enforce Qadiani beliefs into Islam. Let them enjoy their own path and thinking, they have the right to do so without

interfering in our religion. May Allah show you all the right path "..siraatal lazina 'an 'amta 'alay him,

ghairlul magzhuubi 'alaiy-him wa laz zaalliin, amen".

To: worldmuslimcongress@yahoogroups.com; PakistaniAmericans@yahoogroups.com; dallaspakistanis@yahoogroups.com
From: MIKEGHOUSE@aol.com
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:44:07 -0500
Subject: MuslimsTogether :: Re: Muslims together - Ahamdiyya Muslims (Nasrullah)

This will be posted to the groups.
Civil discourse is always welcome.

Thank you Mushtaq

Mike Ghouse

In a message dated 2/13/2012 1:29:49 P.M. Central Standard Time, mamalik50@aol.com writes:

Dear Mike Ghouse

Perhaps you are not aware that Ahmadi Khalifas label all Kalima Reciters as Kafir who do not believe i the Nabuwwat of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani. For more details click the following articles;

 Declaring other Muslims as outside the fold of Islam:

1. Qadiani group declares all other Muslims as being kafir and outside the fold of Islam.

2. Mirza Bashir Ahmad's book declares other Muslims as kafir and non-Muslim in Islamic law.

3. But Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad regarded other Muslims as Muslims.

 They establish an autocratic khilafat, contrary to the teachings of Islam and of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad:

1. Brief Review.

2. Detailed article with references.

 Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not claim to be a prophet: A detailed section.

MUSHTAQ MALIK
mamalik50@aol.com

-----Original Message-----
From: MikeGhouse <MikeGhouse@aol.com>
To: worldmuslimcongress <worldmuslimcongress@yahoogroups.com>; PakistaniAmericans <PakistaniAmericans@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Feb 13, 2012 12:52 pm
Subject: Re- Muslims together - Ahamdiyya Muslims (Nasrullah)

Nasrullah Bhai,

I guess you missed reading my note from earlier... Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) listened to a variety of faiths, his faith did not change. As a follower, I am engaged with Atheists to Zoroastrians and every one in between, my faith in Islam has gotten stronger and stronger... not by denigrating or devaluing others faiths, but by appreciating them, that they also, like me, praise the God.

Ahamdiyya Muslim's pledge is the same La Ilaha Illalah Muhamaddur Rasool Allah as yours and mine. Irfan and I have shared more details... within each strand of Islam, we differ, Shia, Sunni, Alhle--- different things, Wahhabi, Ismaili and Bohra, we have to allow the difference of Ahamdiyya, we are all in this together with variation. Aren't we?

Shame on those Muslims who push God from his chair and take over judgment from him. I am answerable to God for my Aamals, just as you. No one is going to bear others burden. Is it wrong?

Declaring other Muslims Kafir is shirk, you are not God. You are committing a major shirk by declaring them wrong, and they are wrong as well to call other Muslims as non-Muslims. Who the hell are you or me to declare other Muslims not Muslims? No ulema, no scholar, no Imam has that right but Allah, do you agree with it?

When you can kiss ass with Jews, Christians and others, at least be nice to Ahamdiyya, it is the human thing and the right thing to do. Let them believe whatever they want to believe, what is it to you or I? What do you lose? Are you responsible for their belief? Your idea of Ahmadies going to hell is as legitimate as the idea of Christians believing (by the way they are a larger majority) that you and I go to hell if we don't follow Jesus? Does that make them right? Does it make you right?

I hope you understand the essence of Islam and Quraan, it is not a political entity, it is a deen that bring peace to mankind, it is universal, aalameen, all inclusive, all embracing religion.

Discussion is different than being judgmental, please become a discussant sans judgement...

Jazak Allah Khair

Mike Ghouse

(the previous notes is pasted below)

size=2 width="100%" align=center>

Dear Mike,

Please add one more line and ask people to stop lying about finality of Prophet Mohmmad ( PBUH). You are the moderator and every thing discuss on this forum is your responsibility and you will be answerable at the day of judgment that you did not stop people who are lying about the finality of prophet ( PBUH). This is a very serious issue. if you are not clear about finality of Prophet Mohammad ( PBUH) then let us know.

Nasrullah khan

To: worldmuslimcongress@yahoogroups.com; DallasPaksitanis@yahoogroups.com; PaksitaniAmericans@yahoogroups.com
From: MIKEGHOUSE@aol.com
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:37:35 -0500
Subject: Dallas Pakistanis :: Re- Muslims together - Ahamdiyya Muslims

RASHID, AURANGZEB AND MOHAMMAD

What you do with your notes, and who you email is your business, but as a moderator of World Muslim Congress and Dallas Pakistanis, I have the responsibility to keep the discussion intact and not let it degenerate into a gossip, or accusatory exchanges. I have an obligation to keep this forum worth being members of.

Rashid Jahangiri - Please note that your comments will not be posted on the groups, as they are not discussions. If you write in civil terms, it will be posted. Please consider reciting ÇåÏöäóÜÜÜÜÇ ÇáÕøöÑóÇØó ÇáãõÓÊóÞöíãó (1:6) before you write.

Aurangzeb Khan - most of your postings get posted as long as you remain in the realm of discussion, when you resort to an un-civil language, your item will not be posted. Please consider reciting ÇåÏöäóÜÜÜÜÇ ÇáÕøöÑóÇØó ÇáãõÓÊóÞöíãó (1:6) before you write

Mohammad Mahmood - I pray for you to have a strong emaan. Do you know, following the example of the prophet I have had discussions with every religious scholar, and every time, my faith deepens knowing that every one is seeking the truth; and that is to find peace within and peace with others. I hope you have a strong enough faith to hear all points of view... if you are afraid to know about Ahmadiyya, you should not be a part of it. Please consider reciting ÇåÏöäóÜÜÜÜÇ ÇáÕøöÑóÇØó ÇáãõÓÊóÞöíãó (1:6) before you write.

As a Muslim, I have an obligation to speak up against injustice towards fellow beings, including Ahmadiyya, Shia, Sunni, Bohra, Ismaili and others. Justice is the core value of Islam, where there is justice, there is peace aka Islam. I hope you stand up for every one as well.

Some one wrote earlier, what you believe, most of it is by default. There are 2 Billion Christians and a billion Hindus - they are so because they were born in their faith and you are a Muslim because your born in your family. A good percentage convert as well, and most of it is their choice. If you were born in an Ahmadiyya family, you would have been one... denigrating them is not what Islam teaches. May God help you remove the bias, ill-will and prejudice you have against other human beings.

Jazak Allah Khair

Thank you.

- - - - -

Thanks for the note. As a Muslim, I'm involved in interfaith dialogue with people of all religions; wasn't that a tradition of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)?

Prophet had conversations with Christians, Jews and his own Pagan family members, in his own Mosque despite the fact that they had rejected everything prophet believed. Did he run off? Was he worried about other people's judgment? He even let them pray in his Mosque, their own prayers that he did not agree with, didn't he?

Didn't prophet teach us to speak with others in respectable ways? If he did not, I am okay with your approach towards Ahamdiyya.

I continue to speak and write in all places of worship and humbly share, that Alhamdu Lillah, today there are more Atheists, Baha'i, Buddhist, Christians, Hindus, Jains, Jews, Sikhs, Wicca, Native Americans and Zoroastrians who are less biased towards Muslims as they learn with me.

In the tradition of Prophet Muhammad, the peace maker, I am pleased to follow in his footstep in mitigating conflicts and nurturing goodwill. If I am dealing with every religious group, it would be wrong for me not to engage with Ahmadiyya Muslims. As a Muslim, I am conditioned to believe that Imam Mahdi will come someday, where as the Ahmadiyya are conditioned to believe that that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmed is the promised Messiah. I am sure you are conditioned a certain way as well. We don't have to be agreeing to be good to fellow Muslims. Other than this difference, I do not see much to fight over.

Many a Muslims kiss ass with Jews and Christians, but have a deep hatred for fellow Muslims; the Ahmadiyya Muslims.

If I were to kiss ass of conservative Muslims, I would have had a larger following, however, I am content with the majority, indeed an overwhelming majority of Muslims who are moderate and are sane people. They want to get along with everyone, don't want to be judgmental about others, and don't reduce Allah and Muhammad, from Rabbul and Rahmatul Aalameen to Muslimeen. You are welcome to do it, I have no problems with it. I believe in free will (Q2:256).

God is not yours or my property, and we do not own Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) or Islam either – they are for the Aalameen, just like the air and water, they belong to all of us, every one of us. Neither you nor I can posses them and reduce them to ours.

I have an open mind to hear different points of view and there are many like me. If you are not secure enough in your faith, please don't read, just hit the delete button.

On Sunday, I am speaking at the Ahmadiyya Mosque in Allen at Noon about Prophet Muhammad, the ultimate peace maker. Any one is welcome to hear. If you organize a group, I will be happy to speak at your place. A part of it is at: http://www.indianmuslimobserver.com/2012/02/prophet-muhammad-pbuh-peace-maker.html

Jazak Allah Khair

Mike Ghouse

Mike Ghouse is committed to building a cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. A writer, thinker and a speaker and is available to speak on pluralism, politics, Islam, peace, cohesive societies and a variety of topics. Check out 4 websites and 27 Blogs indexed at

www.MikeGhouse.net. Current articles atwww.TheGhousediary.com

Muhammad (pbuh) the Peace Maker -Slides

2012-02-12T17:57:00.001-06:00

Slides -http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeghouse/sets/72157629293229287/show/

http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2012/02/prophet-muhammad-pbuh-peace-maker.html

- - - - -
Mike Ghouse is committed to building a cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. A writer, thinker and a speaker and is available to speak on pluralism, politics, Islam, peace, cohesive societies and a variety of topics. Check out 4 websites and 27 Blogs indexed at www.MikeGhouse.net. Current articles at www.TheGhousediary.com

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), the peace maker.

2012-02-09T22:20:00.000-06:00

This is an outline of my talk.
Details at the talk.

Are you a Rahmat (Kindness/Mercy) to your family, your spouse, your friends, your neighbors, your nation and your world? Do you believe Prophet Muhammad was a mercy to mankind? If he was, can the world see a reflection of him in you?

No one should be afraid of a Muslim, because a Muslim has to be truthful, peaceful, honest and trustworthy. Are you willing to follow the prophet?

Continued

TEXAS FAITH: Across religious spectrum, voters are increasingly identifying themselves as Republican. Why?

2012-02-07T18:12:00.003-06:00

Every religious group is clamoring to have their personal religious interests take precedence over the interests of America. In the long run it is not sustainable and does not bode well for America. There are two critical factors in the play to explain the voter shift towards Republicans; unemployment and religion.

TEXAS FAITH: Across religious spectrum, voters increasingly identifying themselves as Republican. Why?

Across almost every major religious group, the share of voters identifying with or leaning toward the GOP has either grown or held steady. So what's going on? Why has the number of religious voters identifying themselves as Democrats declined - and as Republicans risen? Why do you think this is happening?

We asked our panel of Texas Faith experts to weigh in. Their responses follow:
MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas
There are two critical factors in the play to explain the voter shift towards Republicans; unemployment and religion.

Every religious group is clamoring to have their personal religious interests take precedence over the interests of America. In the long run it is not sustainable and does not bode well for America.

There is a positive correlation between the swap among unaffiliated Independents and Democrats. The 4% loss to Democrats comes from the 4% gain to the unaffiliated independents; there is also an identical 4% increase in Republican leaning independents from 39% to 43%. The major contributing factor seems to be the unemployment. Per the department of Labor, the unemployment grew from 6% in July 2008 to 9.2% in July of 2011 and the shift has occurred during the same period. Disenchantment factor seems to be in the play.

While the Republican base has remained even at 28% in the survey period, the loss has occurred in the Democratic Party, moving away towards independents. Which throws a challenge to the Democratic Party that it was a performance based change and the gain will shift back with new and improved results, which is yet to be surveyed.

Not sure, how big a factor unemployment is when you review the new analysis in the same survey that claims, "the share of voters identifying with or leaning toward the GOP has either grown or held steady in every major religious group."

The biggest gain for the Republican leaning registered voters comes from Mormons, Jews and White Catholics respectively. That is 12, 9 and 8 points. Is it easy to draw conclusions?

Is Romney a factor for a 12% gain for the Republicans among Mormons? That is the highest singular gain among all religious groups.

What percent of the 9% Jewish shift towards Republicans is attributable to Democratic President's stance towards Iran? What percentage goes towards his call for the 1967 borders and stopping the settlements?

The White Catholics have the third largest leaning towards Republicans with 8%. Is it the abortion issue or the same sex marriage? We cannot entertain political candidacy as Gingrich and Santorum had not announced their candidacy during the entire survey period, where as Mormons know Romney was going to run.

America was founded on liberty from religious persecution and we should consciously not let a religious ideology dominate the nation, we are the final frontier land of freedom and we should preserve it, unless we have the promised moon colony ready to flee.

Let people have the freedom to choose and not let the government regulate what we eat, drink, wear, believe or who we marry.

. . . . . .

The other panelists responses at: http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2012/02/texas-faith-across-religious-s.html

. . . .

Here's the link for the Pew study: http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Trends-in-Party-Identification-of-Religious-Groups.aspx

. . . . . .

Additional Notes: I am glad to see the spread in party identification – 34% identify themselves as Democrats with an additional 14% independents who lean towards Democrats giving them a 48% political share, where as 28% identify themselves as Republicans with an additional 16% who lean towards Republicans giving them a share of 44% and that leaves an 8% true independents. Where are you in this affiliation game?

. . . . . .

Mike Ghouse is a thinker, writer speaker and an activist of pluralism, interfaith, co-existence, peace, Islam and India. He is a frequent guest at the TV, radio and print media offering pluralistic solutions to issues of the day. His websites and Blogs are listed on http://www.mikeghouse.net/

Standing up with Jews

2012-02-06T12:52:00.002-06:00

If we can learn to stand up for, and stand with every human being who is at a disadvantage or being taken advantage of, then we can hope for a world of justice where no one has to live in apprehension, discomfort or fear of the other. It is the same idea repeated and revived by several great reformers of the world including but not limited to Zarathustra, Moses, Krishna, Buddha, Confucius, Muhammad, Nanak, Bahaullah, Gandhi, MLK and others.

I hope to complete the list of work that I have done, however small it might be for people other than my own niche. I was asked by several friends to do this to inspire others to open up and do it.

Here is the little work I have done for Christians:

http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2012/01/standing-with-christians.html

Continued

Mike Ghouse is an activist and a speaker committed to cohesive societies, all his work is linked and indexed at www.MikeGhouse.net

Standing with Christians

2012-02-06T12:51:00.005-06:00

Jesus Christ’ ultimate dream was to create a kingdom of heaven on the earth; it is the idea where no human has to live in apprehension, discomfort or fear of the other under one God. It is the same idea repeated and revived by several great reformers of the world including but not limited to Zarathustra, Moses, Krishna, Buddha, Confucius, Muhammad, Nanak, Bahaullah, Gandhi, MLK and others.

Then the best among us would be someone who works towards this goal and believes in the Golden rule, "treat others as you would want to be treated."

I am grateful to God for the blessing and encouragement to stand for others. As an example I am setting a site to list some of my work from an Atheist to Zoroastrian and every one in between.

The following lists a few items of standing up with Christians continued

Mike Ghouse is an activist and a speaker committed to cohesive societies, all his work is linked and indexed at www.MikeGhouse.net

A commitment to Israel and Palestine dialogue

2012-02-06T09:26:00.002-06:00

Who am I to worry about Israelis and Palestinians? What inspires me to be involved in the Israel Palestine conflict? The following is the story of my struggle to see a cohesive world, the story will take you through different emotions but at the end, I hope you feel a sense of completeness of the story. Please let me know. Thank you.

I believe at the heart of the world peace is the Israel Palestine conflict, it is the mother of all conflicts, and if we can find a solution to this, peace is on the horizon ready to shine on us.

Until we can see our own faults, peace for both people becomes a forlorn hope. The burden to find solutions falls on all of us, but particularly Jews, Muslims and Christians.

Continue....

TEXAS FAITH: How do we create a common good today?

2012-02-01T10:17:00.005-06:00

We hear plenty about how political bodies can shape it, but I'd especially like to hear what other institutions could play a role. And how they could shape the common good, or perhaps are shaping it.

Ten Panelists respond:

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas

Fifty years ago, President Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country" and President Obama's theme in the 2012 State of the Union -- "Government and citizens are responsible together for the common good, even as they celebrate individualism and free markets." -- completes that equation.

Indeed, welding two of the greatest statements from the last fifty years can shape the common good and uplift the American spirit from the doldrums. Each one of us is individually responsible to achieve that with the state as a mere catalyst.

One of the few things that made us a great nation is the belief in "Live and let live." It is an epitome of responsible capitalism. We have slipped away from that. Some of the Americans who made it big on Wall Street were consumed by greed and messed up the goose that gave them the golden eggs. Instead of walking away with millions in bonuses, they could have reinvested that money in keeping the jobs of fellow employees. Then they would have continued picking the Golden Eggs, kept the jobs, survived the corporations and kept the economy going.

A few among us have been misled for perceived political gains of someone else, and attack those who have made it. Instead of denigrating Mitt Romney for cashing in on his investments, we should applaud and look up to him as a model of prosperity. Isn't that the American Dream?

The biggest victim of the bad economy is our attitude. It is tearing the social fabric of America. Our belief in "live and let live" has become corrosive, and we have let a few politicians shamelessly divide us.

Together as Americans, we can restore America individually and collectively. Chief Seattle, a Native American said this perfectly, "All things are connected. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. Man did not weave the web of life; he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the webs, he does it to himself."

We have to ask ourselves, what I am doing as an individual to maintain the harmony and cohesiveness of one nation under God with liberty and Justice for all.

We must question our politicians and the clergy who deviate from our foundational value, which is: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Isn't that ideal the one that has made us a great nation? We need to align ourselves with it. Martin Luther King Jr. expressed it so well that we must be judged by the content of our character rather than the external manifestations.

Yes, we can restore the common goodness and uplift the soul of America by asking and correcting ourselves, whenever we feel less of the other Americans regardless of their religion, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity or economic status. The question is what have I done to preserve the cohesiveness of America?

To view all the ten responses, please visit Dallas Morning News’s Religion Blog at:
http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2012/01/texas-faith-how-do-we-create-a.html

. . . . . .

. . . .

American Muslims reject separate ‘sharia’ law system

2012-01-31T11:26:00.000-06:00

Indeed, Muslims like all other people of faith would love the personal form of Sharia, guidelines regarding one’s relationship with the creator, however, the American Muslims believe that American Laws will serve the relationships between the individual and others. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ghouse/sharia-law-not-in-america_b_653250.html

Mike Ghouse
# # #
American Muslims say they reject separate ‘sharia’ law system

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/interviews-american-muslims-reject-separate-sharia-law-system-194357992.html

By Liz Goodman

A new study based on interviews with more than 200 North American Muslims concludes that a recent spate of state laws banning "sharia law" from the court system may be an overreaction to a non-existent threat.

Oklahoma, Tennessee and Louisiana each passed laws or referendums to ban state judges from considering sharia and other foreign laws last year, and more than 20 other states have debated similar legislation. Newt Gingrich has called for a federal law to ban sharia, while his fellow Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum has said sharia law is an "existential threat" to America.

The qualitative study, by University of Windsor law professor Julie MacFarlane and published by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding think tank, is the first to ask American Muslims what they think of sharia, or Islamic religious law. MacFarlane interviewed 101 Muslim men and women, 41 imams and 70 community leaders and specialists about their uses of Islamic law in everyday life. (About a quarter of the respondents live in Canada, but MacFarlane found no significant difference between the Canadian and American responses.)

MacFarlane asked the respondents whether they thought American courts should apply Islamic law to non-Muslims in the legal system. All of them said no.

Three imams out of the 41 surveyed said they wanted a parallel Islamic family tribunal where Muslims could go to sort out their legal problems. But this idea was unpopular with every other respondent, who were content with the separate and secular civil court system. The study's sample was not random, and MacFarlane's findings are not generalizable to the American Muslim community as a whole. But the research still offers a rare look into Muslim attitudes about sharia.

MacFarlane began her research after a small group of Muslims in Toronto petitioned the government in 2003 to set up a separate Islamic family tribunal where Muslims could get binding legal decisions on family law issues. (The city already had such a tribunal for Catholic and Jewish Canadians.) The request--which ultimately was denied--sparked protests in Canada as well as in far-off London, Vienna and Paris. Protesters said the tribunal would violate the separation of church and state. In America, a well-organized network of experts warn of the threat of "creeping sharia," whereby American Muslims--who make up less than 1 percent of the population--attempt to infiltrate courts with Islamic law.

Most of the Muslims MacFarlane interviewed use religious law for family issues such as divorce, marriages, and inheritances in tandem with the regular court system, not instead of it. She focused her research on Muslims who are divorced, interviewing 101 people in that situation. Ninety-five percent of those 101 people said they signed both a nikah, or religious marriage contract, as well as a civil marriage license. Those who had a legal marriage also all formally divorced in courts, after receiving religious permission to do so from an imam. Some imams would not grant a religious divorce until the couple first brought in the civil divorce decree.

"For most American Muslims, sharia represents a private system of morality and identity, primarily focused on marriage and divorce rituals," MacFarlane writes.
Most of the people who signed only a nikah, and not a civil marriage document, were recent immigrants to North America, MacFarlane told Yahoo News. (A nikah-only marriage is not recognized as legal in North America.) In a handful of cases, nikah-only marriages were used when a man was already married and wanted to have multiple wives. Some imams tolerated or encouraged this informal bigamy, MacFarlane says.

MacFarlane's sample isn't representative of the Muslim community as a whole. About 75 percent of the respondents were immigrants to America or Canada, and nearly all of them had at least a college degree. Half were of South Asian descent, 30 percent of Middle Eastern descent, and 10 percent of African descent. The remaining 10 percent were Caucasian converts and African Americans. (African Americans are estimated to make up about 35 percent of the total American Muslim population.)

MacFarlane's findings will be published in a book by Oxford University Press in April.

Prejudices about Islam will be shaken by this show

2012-01-25T00:49:00.000-06:00

By Karen Armstrong

22 January 2012

Ever since the Crusades, when Christians from western Europe were fighting holy wars against Muslims in the near east, western people have often perceived Islam as a violent and intolerant faith – even though when this prejudice took root Islam had a better record of tolerance than Christianity.

Recent terrorist atrocities have seemed to confirm this received idea. But if we want a peaceful world, we urgently need a more balanced view. We cannot hope to win the "battle for hearts and minds" unless we know what is actually in them. Nor can we expect Muslims to be impressed by our liberal values if they see us succumbing unquestioningly to a medieval prejudice born in a time of extreme Christian belligerence.

Like Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Christians, Sikhs and secularists, some Muslims have undoubtedly been violent and intolerant, but the new exhibition at the British Museum – Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam – is a timely reminder that this is not the whole story.

The hajj is one of the five essential practices of Islam; when they make the pilgrimage to Mecca, Muslims ritually act out the central principles of their faith. Equating religion with "belief" is a modern western aberration. Like swimming or driving, religious knowledge is practically acquired. You learn only by doing. The ancient rituals of the hajj, which Arabs performed for centuries before Islam, have helped pilgrims to form habits of heart and mind that – pace the western stereotype – are non-violent and inclusive.

In the holy city of Mecca, violence of any kind was forbidden. From the moment they left home, pilgrims were not permitted to carry weapons, to swat an insect or speak an angry word, a discipline that introduced them to a new way of living. At a climactic moment of his prophetic career, Muhammad drew on this tradition. Fleeing persecution in Mecca in 622, he and the Muslim community (the umma) had migrated to Medina, 250 miles to the north. Mecca was determined to destroy the umma and a bitter conflict ensued. But eventually Muhammad broke the deadly cycle of warfare with an audacious non-violent initiative.

In March 628, to general astonishment, he announced that he was going to make the hajj.

This meant that he had to ride unarmed into enemy territory, yet 1,000 Muslims accompanied him. The pilgrim party narrowly escaped being massacred by the Meccan cavalry, and eventually entered the sacred territory of Mecca where they simply sat down beside their camels and refused to move. Knowing that they would lose all credibility if they slaughtered pilgrims on this holy ground, the Meccans negotiated a truce and Muhammad accepted humiliating conditions that filled the Muslims with dismay. But the Qur'an proclaimed that this apparent defeat was a "clear triumph" because, like Jews and Christians, the Muslims had acted in a spirit of peace, self-restraint and forbearance. Two years later, hostilities ceased and the Meccans voluntarily opened their gates to the prophet.

Clearly the Qur'an did not despise Jews and Christians; this affinity with "the people of the book" was also central to the Muslim cult of Mecca. The Arabs firmly believed that they, too, were children of Abraham, because they were the descendants of his eldest son Ishmael – a regional view shared by the Bible. It was said that Abraham and Ishmael had rebuilt the Ka'bah, the sacred shrine of Mecca, when it had fallen into disrepair, had dedicated it to their God, and then performed the rites of the hajj. Many Arabs thought that Allah, their high God, was the God worshipped by the people of the book, and Christian Arabs used to make the hajj pilgrimage to the Ka'bah alongside the pagans.

The Arabs had no conception of an exclusive religious tradition, so they were deeply shocked when they discovered that most Jews and Christians refused to consider them as part of the Abrahamic family. The Qur'an still urged Muslims to respect the people of the book and revere their prophets, but decreed that instead of facing Jerusalem when they prayed, as hitherto, they should turn towards the Ka'bah built by Abraham.

Like Abraham, who had not belonged to a closed-off cult, they would take no pride in an established institution and, as Abraham had done, focus on the worship of God alone. Hence the Muslim hajj is all about the Abrahamic family – not Muhammad himself. Pilgrims re-enact the story of Hagar and Ishmael, symbolically returning to the era that preceded religious chauvinism.

Alas, all traditions lose their primal purity and we all fail our founders. But the British Museum's beautiful presentation of the hajj can help us understand how the vast majority of the world's Muslims understand their faith. Socrates, founder of the western rational tradition, insisted that the exercise of reason required us constantly and stringently to question received ideas and entrenched certainties. The new exhibition can indeed become a journey to the heart of Islam and also, perhaps, to a more authentic and respectful western rational identity.

Source: Guardian

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamMuslimsAndIslamophobia_1.aspx?ArticleID=6466

Texas Faith: What do you think about Tebowing?

2012-01-24T16:24:00.003-06:00

Tebow told Fox Sports last fall that he knows about the criticism, but he's more focused on those who draw inspiration from his public prayers. Said Tebow: "It's not my job to see people's reasons behind it, but I know [of a kid] with cancer that tweeted me, 'Tebowing while I'm chemoing' -- how cool is that?" Tebow said. "That's worth it right now. If that gives him any encouragement or puts a smile on his face, or gives him encouragement to pray, that's completely awesome."

With this phenomenon swirling around us, and the Super Bowl approaching, here is this week's question: What is your view about his public praying and the Tebowing phenomenon that has built up around it?

Eleven Texas Faith panelists respond, please visit Dallas Morning News at http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2012/01/texas-faith-what-do-you-think.html

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas

Tebowing phenomenon has several parallels in our society.

When things are not going well, hope is the only thing that drives the average person to live-on, and look forward to the light at the end of a tunnel. We are in a tunnel now with the highest unemployment a generation has witnessed in a long time; someone we know closely does not have a job, lost his or her house, and is struggling to take care of the family to keep a roof above the head.

God is the last resort for those who believe in divine intervention, we expect miracles, and we day-dream about a positive change in our lives. When someone like Tim Tebow expresses that call to God in public, we feel it in our guts and we relate with it.

We are an untapped reservoir of kindness, and were looking to release that energy. When Tebow rested his knee on the ground with millions of us watching, he instantly became a catalyst and has released that energy in us, and emotionally, we connected with him. This is something we wanted to do, but did not know how.

The last such phenomenon was witnessed on the evening of Tuesday November 4, 2008 by most Americans regardless of their political, ethnic or religious affiliation. I choked and felt the tears in my eyes, the tears of Joy. I was happy to think of the prospect of America becoming a great nation once again, in those few bare seconds I was imagining prosperity knocking on every American door fulfilling the dream of millions of Americans with a Job, health and education for their children. A sense of safety permeated through my body, getting the chills to know that in a few hours the Obama presidency would be a reality. America once again will be a strong, healthy and a prosperous nation. I was still trying to understand my feelings of joy when someone on NPR said it was like "birthing", birthing it was.

Birthing it is. Tebowing has unleashed hope in us, and I hope and pray that our economy recovers and absorbs the unemployed among us to take care of our families. I have interacted with several of my friends from Atheists to Zoroastrians and every one in between; most of them see it as a positive change. Tebow has made us conscious of the need for humility and need for prayers.

Let's pray that all our presidential candidates including the incumbent, to make an effort to visit every place of worship across the width and breadth of our land and kneel in humility towards the creator and sincerely beg to remove the ill-will towards each other. Can we do that? Yes we can, we are in this together and no American should feel apprehensive, discomfort or fear of the other. May God open our hearts and minds towards each other to look with kindness and goodwill, and give hope to each other, Amen!

. . . . . .

Mike Ghouse is committed to building a cohesive America, where no Americans has to live in apprehension or fear of the other. He is a speaker, thinker and a writer and offers pluralistic solutions on current issues. His work is listed at www.MikeGhouse.net

Satanic Verses - six different takes on the topic

2012-01-23T09:15:00.000-06:00

I am pleased to share different takes on the issue of freedom of speech and Satanic Verses. If you want to have an opinion on the topic, it is good to read six pieces appended below in the link.

Maulana Wahiduddin’s view is my view as well. Indeed, I have written in identical terms about Tasleema Nasreen (http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2010/03/taslimas-article-sparks-violence-in_01.html ) and the Pastor who wanted to burn the Quraan (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ghouse/muslims-proact-against-qu_b_705571.html) .

I would have written two articles identical to Maulana Wahiduddin, and Praveen Swami, thanks to both of them to write it out, they have said precisely what I wanted to say. Aijaz Syed has articulated some great points.

I applaud Sultan Shaheen to put together diverse opinions on the issues, just as I have done over the years. Unless we have all the cards placed on the table, our opinion or solutions remain incomplete without factoring in all aspects of the issue. However, I would not have taken the approach of Sultan Shahn’s own opinion.

Muhammad Yunus’ piece is incredible one on the topic; however his highlight is on the life of Prophet. I have held the same opinion as Yunus and it is good to read his research on the topic. Reverence for Prophet is beautiful but making a God out of him was not his message. He was the ultimate consummate peacemaker and wanted us, the whole humanity to live in peace by learning about each other (49:13) and respecting everyone equally (last sermon). It's his message that he wanted us to value. The best among us is one who is sincere, humble, and pious and does well to fellow beings by his virtues and not by his birth. We don’t need miracles to prove his prophet hood, our faith should be strong enough in his message, which in itself is a miracle, the prophet wanted to create cohesive societies where no human was above the other. It’s the same message you find in all the great wisdom, Islam is not a new religion, prophet had said that repeatedly, It's your character not the familial or racial thing that needs to judged. He even said that to his daughter, you earn your ticket to paradise through your deeds, in what you do to your fellow beings and not because you are his daughter.

As Muslims, and as part of the human family, our role ought to be to mitigate conflicts and nurture goodwill for creating a society where no one feels injustice is done to them, and ultimately no one is apprehensive of the other. As Praveen Swami has written, no one can cast the first stone. We all have to sit down and do what is good for all of us in the long run.

Take the time to read them all, they will contribute to your thought process.

Mike Ghouse is a speaker, writer and thinker committed to building cohesive societies and offers pluralistic solutions on current issues. His work is indexed in the links at www.MikeGhouse.net

…………………….. ………………

Muslim reactions to Salman Rushdie: No Thought Crime in Islam, says Maulana Wahiddudin Khan

By Maulana Wahiddudin Khan

Jan 15, 2012

According to international norms, everyone has the right to express his views in a peaceful manner, says MAULANA WAHIDDUDIN KHAN

Salman Rushdie is once again in the news. Born in India and now settled in the UK, he has been invited to the Jaipur Literature Festival that is being held from January 20 to 24. On hearing of this, a Muslim religious organisation reacted by issuing a statement demanding that the government of India should not allow Rushdie’s entry into India. According to them, he has committed blasphemy in his book The Satanic Verses, and his visit to India will hurt the sentiments of Muslims here.

According to my way of thinking, the demand by this Muslim group is completely uncalled for. They have the right to stop Rushdie from coming to their own campus, but they have no right to ban his entry into Indian soil.

Follow The Constitution

India is a democratic country which is guided by a secular constitution and Muslims should know the framework of the Indian Constitution. Any demand that is alien to this constitutional framework will undoubtedly be invalid and unacceptable to the Indian government.

Moreover, this kind of demand is un-Islamic. It is against the Islamic spirit. If Muslims want to represent Islam, they must take the visit of Rushdie as an opportunity to invite the British author to enter into a dialogue, so that they may discuss the controversial point with him, and try to impress upon him their point of view. This visit to India by Rushdie gives them the chance to remove any misunderstanding of Islam by presenting their case before him in a rational manner.

There is a very relevant verse in the Quran on this subject. It reads: “If any of the non-believers seeks your protection, then let him come so that he may hear the words of God, then convey him to a place of safety” (9:6).

What The Quran Says

The verse focuses on a very important Islamic principle, that Muslims should welcome everybody. According to this principle, Muslims should organise meetings with the British author. They should put their point of view before him in a rational manner, then try to present to him their point of view and their objections to his writings.

If Rushdie is not convinced, they should make Dua for him and according to the Quranic teaching, see him off amicably, without rancour.

We are living in an age of freedom. According to international norms, everyone has the right to express his views in a peaceful manner. Muslims also have right to put their point of view before Rushdie, just as he has the right to express his views — both have an equal right.

Spirit Of The Age

It is not good for Muslims to go against the spirit of the age. If they do so, they will only harm the religion of Islam. They will prove by this act that George Orwell was right when he said that Islam believes in “thought-crime”, although Islam is completely free of this blame.

If Rushdie has published a negative book, Muslims by their negative reaction are giving the false impression that Islam does indeed believe in “thought-crime”. I would, therefore, like to reiterate that Muslims should take this opportunity to have a dialogue with Rushdie and try to present the Islamic point of view to him rationally, so that he may understand the true picture of Islam.

Source: The Times of India, New Delhi

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamIslamAndSpiritualism_1.aspx?ArticleID=6380

…………………….. ………………..

Acceptance of The Satanic Verses Episode of The Classical Sira is Shirk knd Kufr

Face value acceptance of the episode of Satanic Verses and other colorful, dramatic, and vindictive accounts of the Classical Sira (the Prophet’s early biography) stand shirk, kufr and nifaq (hypocrisy) in present day objective vocabulary.

Islamic theology must be treated historic critically because of its undeniable historical moorings;

The eternal and universal paradigms of the Qur’an must be regarded as the font of guidance for all humanity for all times.

By Muhammad Yunus, NewAgeIslam.com

co-author (Jointly with Ashfaque Ullah Syed), Essential Message of Islam, Amana Publications, USA, 2009.

“Thus we made for every messenger an enemy - Satans from among men and jinn, some of them inspiring others with seductive talk (in order to) deceive (them), and had your Lord pleased, they would not have done it. Therefore, leave them and what they forge” (6:112).

“Thus we made for every messenger an enemy among the criminals - but enough is your Lord (O Muhammad,) as a Guide and Helper” (25:31).

The biggest problem with Muslim scholars and theologians is that on one hand they regard the Qur’an as the infallible word of God and ultimate font of wisdom and guidance, and on the other, they claim the divinity/integrity of their theological discourses that were pieced together by early scholars/Imams - in most cases by one or few individuals, with resources as scanty as their era could pool. The case of the alleged satanic verses is a glaring example.

The episode was first put together from oral accounts by Ibn Ishaq (d. 768), one of the earliest biographers of the Prophet Muhammad (d. 632). al-Tabari (d. 926), one of the earliest and most renowned exegetes, drew on Ibn Ishaq’s manuscript (not preserved for later times) to relate the story, which suggests that as the Prophet was preaching to an elite (Quays) audience, a revelation came down venerating the three most popular pagan deities (Lat, Uzi and Manta) in the underlined words below: "Have you considered al-Lat and al-‘Uzi (53:19), and another, the third (goddess), Manta (53:20). These are the exalted birds whose intercession is approved.”

The story further suggests that the venerating words were later expunged from the Qur'an and replaced with what we find in it today: “What! For you the male sex and for Him the female (53:21)? Behold, such would indeed be the most unfair division” (53:22).

Ibn Hisham (d. 834), who edited and published Ibn Ishaq’s work, and the early compilers of the Hadith (Imam al-Bukhari, d. 870, and Muslim, d. 875) who both succeeded Ibn Ishaq and preceded al-Tabari, make no mention of this episode, indicating their suspicion about the authenticity of the narrators in the transmission chain (isnad) dating from the Prophet’s era. More importantly, the story is not substantiated by the Qur’an and, in fact, contradicts its repeated assertion on the incorruptibility of its text (6:34, 6:115, 18:27, 41:42, 85:22), and is therefore not tenable, unless the Qur’an were to falsify itself – which it did not [1]. Some Muslim scholars have, however, made a sweeping connection of this episode with the Qur’anic generic verses 22:52/53, which relate to Satan’s influencing the desires (tamanna) of the prophets and messengers in general and not to Satan’s tampering with the revelation. Salman Rushdie has treated the episode as a fantasy, as it veritably deserves, although he has been provocative possibly to gain appeal among the Western audience. Fame, ambition and wealth remain the chief motivators of the mortals – no matter how intellectually gifted. And the naïve dances in the tune of such instigators disregarding the Qur’anic reminders under the caption above and thus turn the knave into a hero and celebrity. But this is beside the point.

Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa against Salman Rushdi might have been prompted by his desire to pose as the leader of the global Muslim community, or it might as well have been aimed at pre-empting enlightened scholarship from digging into the Islamic theology. Theologians lose their theological clout once the human element of theology is exposed and so they abhor any theological scrutiny. $

The truth is, as in all ancient religions, theological discourses are embedded with legends, fantasies, fables, tales, parables and all forms of embellishments, characterized by the era in which they evolved. The embellishments were incorporated – as part of the literary culture and paradigms of the era - to aggrandize and lionize the founder of the religion its leaders, to demonize the perceived enemies, to fire the imagination of common-folk and to fill them with awe and admiration for their prophet/ religious leaders. Islam has been no exception. Thus, despite the Qur’an’s repeated assertions of the Prophet’s incapability to show any miracles (6:37, 11:12, 13:7, 17:90-93, 21:5, 25:7/8, 29:50), the most authentic of Sunni Hadith compilation – that of Imam al-Bukhari credits him with the following miracles: $

The Prophet's touching/ rubbing of the mouths of two empty water skins enabled the latter to fill all the empty water skins of his companions [2].

Flowing of water from his fingers [3].

Rising up of water from a dry well at Hudaibiya to help quench the thirst of one thousand and four hundred of his companions [4].

Manifold increase in the quantity of meal served to guests at the Prophet's invocation [5].

Continuous one week rain with flooding immediately after his invocation [6].

Audible crying of the stem of a date palm tree in the Prophet's mosque [7].

Increase in the amount of dates in a garden after the Prophet went round it [8].

Splitting of the Moon at the Prophet's command [9]. $

Similarly, the Qur’an testifies that the Prophet was unaware of his mission before the revelation commenced (10:16, 29:48, 42:52), and that the Meccans had no clue whatsoever of his vocational assignment as he later claimed, and accordingly they took him for a joke (21:36, 25:41), called him an impostor (30:58), crazy (44:14, 68:51) and a crazy poet (37:35/36); and ridiculed the Qur’anic revelation (18:56, 26:6, 37:14, 45:9) as the legends of the ancients (6:25, 23:82/83, 27:67/68, 68:15, 83:13) and a jumble of dreams (21:5). However, disregarding these copious, repetitive, compelling and irrefutable Qur’anic testimonies regarding the obscurity of his early life, the following tale of the circumstance of his birth became very popular not long after his death:

“When the planet al-Moushtari past, a line of light darted for the second time from Amina's body in the direction of far away Syria and it illuminated the palace of the town of Busra. At the same time, other prodigies astonished the world: the lake Sowa suddenly dried up; a violent earthquake made the palace of Chosroes the Great tremble, and shattered fourteen of its towers; the sacred fire, kept alight for more than a thousand years, went out in spite of the exertions of its Persian worshippers, and all the idols of the universe were found with their heads bowed down in great shame” [10]. $

Another area of major contrast is the profound veneration of the Prophet in the traditional accounts and the Classical Sira (The Prophet’s biography). The Qur’an describes him as a human being like others (18:110, 41:6), places him at a spiritual parity with other Prophets (2:136, 2:285, 4:152), its Speaker, God, does not speak to him directly except through the agency of archangel Gabriel, threatens to “seize him by the right hand (69:45), then sever his aorta” (69:46) were he to tamper with the revelation, and warns his wounded followers at the end of Uhud battle (625) in the face of a rumor about his fatality that “Muhammad was merely a messenger, other messengers had passed away before him and(and asks them,) if he died or was killed would they turn on their heels?(3:144). As a sharp contrast to these and other similar enunciations asserting the absolute remoteness of God from the person of the Prophet, the traditional account illustrated below venerate him as an integral part of God’s creative scheme, thus (God forbid) transgressing the transcendence of the Almighty:

“Muhammad said: ‘The first light which Allah created was my light.’ They say that when Allah created His divine Throne, He wrote on it in letters of light: ‘There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. ‘When Adam went out of Paradise, he saw the name Muhammad coupled with the name of Allah written on the leg of the Throne and everywhere in Paradise” [11]. $

Any orthodox Muslim or Islam critical scholar will know numerous such accounts that are knit together to aggrandize and virtually deify the Prophet. In the medieval ages these accounts did not stand out as odd or exaggerated as the literary style of the era admitted such embellishments as part of the prevalent linguistic art – the most predominant art form of the era. Thus, contemporaneous accounts extol King Solomon by reporting that he bedded with all his one hundred wives one night [12], and ii) Sir Key of King Arthur’s court claimed before the full house that he threw a stone ‘as large as a cow’ to dislodge the ‘stranger’ (a human being), who had leaped up to the top of a tree, two hundred cubits high in a single bound [13].The simple people of the era who heard these accounts made no effort to objectively evaluate them. They had grown up in a literary environment that was far more geared to creating an emotional and sensational impact than recording historical facts. So they let these ‘tall’ accounts pass over their heads and waited to know the bottom lines. But in today’s objective and analytical vocabulary these embellished accounts sound untrue, highly exaggerated, bizarre and fantasized. $

The Muslim ulama suffer ambivalence, or rather a pathetic disorientation in their mindset. Groomed in the medieval theological discourses in their madrassas, they venerate the medieval embellished accounts but at the same time they hold on to the truth of the Qur’anic revelation that keeps absolutely clear of the embellished medieval accounts that sound like fables, legends and fantasies today. The legend of Satanic Verses is one such account.

If the Muslim ulama continue to venerate the embellished accounts of their medieval theological corpuses, and do not treat them as closed corpuses - tales, fables and gossips in today’s objective vocabulary, they will be acting like some of the Beduin Arabs of the Prophet’s era, who were intense (ashaddu) in kufr (denial) and nifaq (hypocricy) (9:97-98) – because they cannot simultaneously venerate the Qur’an and a theological corpus that in its face value contains tales, fables, embellishments and legends such as the Satanic Verses and other similar episodes that are antithetic to the Qur’anic message.

This is no trick of arguments. The early biographers relied entirely on the oral reports – or rather poetic imageries that constituted the news of the era. Thus, the work of the early biographers suffered internal incoherence as different poets left differing accounts and it was simply impossible for the early biographers to produce a coherent record from the materials on their hands. This can amply be demonstrated by the following examples of inconsistency and emotional outbursts of Ibn Hisham’s work:

i) One section of the work shows a martyred companion of the Prophet, Khabib, articulating his deep parting emotions in a poetic imagery as he stood on the gallows just before he was hanged [14]. Another section contradicts this imagery suggesting that the martyr was weeping unceasingly as he stood on the gallows [15].

ii) The work quotes the parting dialogue between the propagandist poet Ka‘b Ibn Ashraf and his wife, just as he was coming out from ‘under the blanket’ at the call of Abu Naila, who had gone to his house to kill him [16]. The poet was killed suddenly, and it is inconceivable that his widow would tell the parting words of her slain husband to those who killed him. The quoted words were obviously speculative.

The same holds for the works of al-Waqidi (d. 206/822) and Ibn Sa‘d (d. 230/845) In fact, these early biographers have been sharply criticized by many Muslim scholars of their own era [17].

Conclusion: It is high time that the Muslim theologians and scholarship acknowledge that the accounts reported in the Prophet’s early biography are laid out in the literary style and mental framework and imageries of the era - that was characterized by what we shall today call, fantasy, fable, imaginations and speculations verging on the fantabulous, the grotesque and the bizarre. While some examples are quoted above, the following extract on the Prophet Muhammad’s conversation with Adam in the first heaven reported in one of Ibn Hisham’s versions loudly testifies to its apocryphal character:

“Then I saw men with lips like those of camels. In their hands were balls of fire which they thrust into their mouths and collected from their extremities to thrust into their mouths again. I asked, ‘Who are these O Gabriel?’ He said, ‘these are men who robbed the orphans.’ I then saw men with large bellies the likes of which I have never seen before even on the road to the house of Pharaoh where the greatest punishment is meted out to the greatest sinners. These are then trodden upon by men who when brought to the fire run like maddened camels. Those whom they tread upon remain immobile…. I then saw women hanging from their breasts and asked, who are these, O Gabriel? He said, ‘These are women who fathered on their husbands’ children, not their own.’… He then took me into Paradise where I saw a beautiful damsel with luscious lips. As I was attracted by her, I asked her, ‘To whom do you belong?’ She answered, ‘To Zayd Ibn Harithah.’” [18]

It must be admitted that it will be a gross injustice and insolence of the highest order to undermine the earlier biographic works or their authors. Their works fired the imagination of their audience and fed religious inspiration and zeal to millions and millions of people down the generations until this very era. Practically all the converts to Islam had identified their religion with their Prophet and found it far easier and inspiring to glorify their religious leaders with whom they could associate rather than probe the message he left for them. This propensity of icon-worship imperceptibly found its way into Islam and resulted in an explosive proliferation of hymns and accounts glorifying the Prophet Muhammad. However, the Muslim ulama must understand that God had assigned a singular role to the Prophet - that is to convey God’s Message [19] - the Qur’an with clarity [20]. If the ulama insist on a regime of oral theological devotion – loving the Prophet, showering him with praises, narrating his biography in a literalist fashion, researching on issues like Satanic verses and the miraculous powers and military genius of the Prophet, observing his birthday with great fanfare, praying for him in all their prayers and so on but totally ignore the functional aspect of his message – the social, moral and ethical paradigms of the Qur’an, they have virtually reduced the Prophet into a cult leader and Islam into a cult of Muhammad that will repel the seekers of Divine guidance from Islam and freeze Islam into the seventh century Arabia. Face value acceptance of the episode of Satanic Verses and other colorful, dramatic, vindictive and venerating accounts of the Classical Sira (the Prophet’s early biography), read and propagated in today’s objective vocabulary may thus stand shirk, kufr and nifaq (hypocrisy) – though God knows best; and the practice must be deconstructed in favor of preaching the Qur’anic message – rid of its historical moorings.

Notes:

1. http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamIslamicShariaLaws_1.aspx?ArticleID=6316

2.Sahih al-Bukhari, English translation by Mohsin Khan, New Delhi, 1984, Vol.4, Acc.771.

3. Ibid., Vol.4, Acc.772-776, 779.

4. Ibid., Vol.4, Acc.777.

5. Ibid., Vol.4, Acc.778, 781.

6. Ibid., Vol.4, Acc.782.

7. Ibid., Vol.4, Acc.783-785.

8. Ibid., Vol.4, Acc.780.

9. Ibid., Vol.4, Acc.830, 831.

10. Sliman bin Ibrahim and Etienne Dinet, The life of Muhammad, London 1990 , p. 19.

11. Maxime Rodinson, Muhammad, English translation, 2nd edition, London 1996, p. 304.

1. 12. Sahih al-Bukhari, (2 above) Vol.7, Acc. 169.

13. Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, USA 1988, p. 23.

14. Ibn Hisham, Sirrat un Nabi, Urdu translation by Gholam Rasul, Delhi 1984, Vol.2, Chap.124, p. 197.

15. Ibid., Vol. 2, Chap.124, p. 198.

16. Ibid,, Vol.2, p. Chap.109, p. 35.

17. To quote Rafique Zakaria:

“He (Ibn Ishaq) has been sufficiently meticulous in the collection of facts, but sometimes he does not distinguish between facts and fiction. That is why many of his contemporaries denounced him... Malik, one of the founders of four schools of Muslim theology, who was a contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, called him ‘a devil’. Hisham bin Umara, another prominent theologian of the time said, ‘the rascal lies.’ Imam Hanbal, one of the greatest jurists of Islam refused to rely on the traditions collected by him. There were many other learned men who held similar views about Ibn Ishaq’s works. The same is more or less true of his successors like al-Waqidi, Ibn Sa‘d…” - Muhammad and the Qur’an, London 1992, p. 12.

18. Muhammad Husayn Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, English translation by Ismail Ragi, 8th edition, Karachi 1989, p. 143.

19. 5:99, 7:158 13:40, 42:48.

20. 5:92, 16:82, 24:54.

January 21, 2012

Muhammad Yunus, a Chemical Engineering graduate from Indian Institute of Technology, and a retired corporate executive has been engaged in an in-depth study of the Qur’an since early 90’s, focusing on its core message. He has co-authored the referred exegetic work, which received the approval of al-Azhar al-Sharif, Cairo in 2002, and following restructuring and refinement was endorsed and authenticated by Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl of UCLA, and published by Amana Publications, Maryland, USA, 2009.

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamIslamicIdeology_1.aspx?ArticleID=6444

………………….. ………………………….

Salman Rushdie: Indian Muslims Should Stop Fighting Phantoms, Take Up Real Issues

By Aijaz Z. Syed

20 January, 2012

When I first heard of Salman Rushdie I was at university.

The Satanic Verses had set off a perfect storm in India and around the world. The book was banned in India following fiery protests by Muslims. Many died in Mumbai when police opened fire on angry protesters. Then came Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa sanctioning the novelist's death, sparking a global debate on free speech and "excessive" Muslim sensitivity.

One day, discussing artistic freedom in one of his lectures, Prof. Isaac Sequiera, who headed the English department at Osmania University and taught us American literature, launched a blistering broadside against Khomeini's fatwa and attempts by "some people" to curtail free speech. Prof. Sequiera was one of those brilliant teachers who would draw you to the class day after day. Yet it wasn't easy to stomach his critique of the Muslim response to Rushdie's book, comparing it to the infamous Spanish Inquisition. Was it the same thing?

The church burned “heretics” on mere hearsay — and everyone who didn't subscribe to its worldview — at stake. When Galileo suggested Earth was round, rather than flat as the church insisted, he was given a chance to reconsider his opinion while he spent the rest of his life behind bars.

Rushdie, on the other hand, has repeatedly abused his creative license, and the gift of creativity, to assail a billion people's revered icons. As someone born in a Muslim family, he knew what he was doing and its possible consequences.

No freedom is absolute — not even in the anything-goes West. Blasphemy is a serious crime in many European nations including in Denmark. Every freedom is qualified. Every right comes with responsibility. You can't go around happily waving your big stick and hitting people in the name of freedom. The freedom of your stick ends where my nose begins. And if you think you have a right to offend, well, others have an equal right to take offense. If Rushdie is free to exercise his creative freedom to attack people's sacred icons, shouldn't his victims too have a right to exercise their freedom of action to deal with him?

Of course, I couldn't say all this to my teacher. Blame it on my moral timidity or the fact that I was painfully shy and the only Muslim in the whole class. That was nearly two decades ago. Today, as this row over Rushdie's participation in the Jaipur literary festival rages on, I am amazed by the fact how little has changed in this whole debate over the past two decades. The latest report is Rushdie has cancelled his visit to India for the Jaipur festival due to security reasons.

The Muslims are upset over the invitation being extended to someone whose name has become a curse word for them. On the other hand, the increasingly shrill voices in the media are crying themselves hoarse as they invoke India's fabled tolerance while ignoring the sentiments of the minority community.

Indeed, more than their concern for the nation's secular ethos, it's their intolerance of all things Muslim that has them batting for Rushdie. They defend his right to visit his “motherland” oblivious of the fact that the man has repeatedly heaped abuse and scorn on the same motherland and its icons in his books, from Midnight's Children to Shame to The Moor's Last Sigh.

The late Premier Indira Gandhi took Rushdie to court over Midnight's Children which describes her as a “black widow.” He was forced to expunge parts of the book that had Sanjay Gandhi accusing his mother of killing his father, Feroz Gandhi, by neglecting him. Rushdie argued in court that it was only fiction, only to be snubbed by the judge who pointed out that Indira and Sanjay Gandhi were real people.

In the case of Satanic Verses too he hid behind the same fig leaf launching cheap attacks on the Prophet, peace be upon him, and his blessed household, outraging his billion-plus believers.

The outrage was deliberate, just as most of his books have been deliberately offensive and provocative. He loves to provoke and offend because it sells in the West. And Islam and its icons and followers have been a fair game for centuries. Free speech? Gimme a break! Freedom and free speech have nothing to do with it. Even the so-called liberals and Hindutva fanatics cheering for the author and lecturing Muslims on tolerance know it. They love him because the Muslims loathe him.

That said, the way this whole issue has been handled by Muslim leadership — if there's such a thing as Muslim leadership — makes one extremely uncomfortable. Except for Asaduddin Owaisi, the young leader of MIM who saved the day once again, not one Muslim talking head could survive the likes of Arnab Goswami of Times Now, India's answer to Fox News. Once again the bumbling lot did not merely fail to present their case explaining why Rushdie isn't welcome, they managed to make a laughingstock of the whole community.

This week CNN IBN's Sagarika Ghose had two Muslim “leaders” pitted against two “liberals” on the panel. One gentleman, an eminent lawyer associated with the Babri Masjid case, had one hand on his earpiece the whole time as he struggled to make sense of the brutal attacks by the anchor and her guests. And studio guests and audience couldn't understand half the things the other gentleman, a former Maharashtra MLA, kept muttering in a chaotic mix of Urdu and English talking of an “international conspiracy” against Muslims. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Do these guys really represent and speak for a 200-million-strong, diverse community? More important, why do Indian Muslims get repeatedly bogged down in the same old, festering issues when we have far more serious challenges and problems staring us in the face?

As much as I am repelled by Rushdie, I can't help being intrigued by the question that has been raised by others: Why now? Rushdie has apparently been quietly and frequently visiting India over the past few years. Does it have something to do with the assembly elections in five states, including Uttar Pradesh, next month as some suggest? Given the propensity of political parties to raise such issues to excite the easily excitable Muslim public opinion so they could soothe it later, the possibility cannot be dismissed.

Of course, Rushdie will remain unwelcome as long as he remains unrepentant. And by protesting against his abuse, Muslims are only exercising their democratic rights and the suggestion that they're undermining India's future is ridiculous. We cannot, however, allow characters like Rushdie and controversies like these to define us and our agenda forever. We must choose our battles wisely. For we have far bigger wars ahead of us.

From our political and economic dispossession to our situation in education and employment sectors, the level of our deprivation is simply overwhelming. A TV documentary this week, again on CNN IBN, on the legendary weavers of Benares, literally fighting for survival with their emaciated, starving children, should be a must-watch for every Muslim. It's the same story with the once-famous artisan communities in UP, from Aligarh to Moradabad to Bareilly and Kanpur, and general state of affairs across the Gangetic belt. Indeed, the condition of Muslims in north India, once the power center, is today the worst in the country. When will Muslim leaders and those who claim to champion the community take up these real issues? When will we stop expending all our time and energy on fighting phantoms and chasing chimeras?

Aijaz Zaka Syed is a Gulf-based commentator. Write him at aijaz.syed@hotmail.com

Source: Arab News

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamWarWithinIslam_1.aspx?ArticleID=6441

………… …………

Satanic Verses Controversy: Salman Rushdie & India's New Theocracy

By Praveen Swami

21 January, 2012

India's secular state is in a state of slow-motion collapse. The contours of a new theocratic dystopia are already evident.

In 300CE, the historian and cleric, Eusebius, fearfully recorded the rise of a new “demon-inspired heresy.” “From innumerable long-extinct blasphemous heresies,” he wrote, the new religion's founder “had made a patchwork of them and brought from Persia a deadly poison with which he infected our own world.”

Manichaeism, a new religion which posited an eternal struggle between good and evil, had dramatically expanded across the ancient world. Less than half-a-century after its rise, though, the faith had been all but annihilated. Bahram II massacred its followers in Persia; in 296, the Roman emperor, Diocletian, decreed its leaders “condemned to the fire with their abominable scriptures.” Khagan Boku Tekin, the Uighur king, made Manichaeism the state religion giving it a home — but even this last redoubt collapsed in 840.

Eusebius' own Christian faith, by contrast, flourished after it won imperial patronage: the word of god grows best in fields watered by the state's pelf, and ploughed by the state's swords.

Salman Rushdie's censoring-out from the ongoing literary festival in Jaipur will be remembered as a milestone that marked the slow motion disintegration of India's secular state. Islamist clerics first pressured the state to stop Mr. Rushdie from entering India; on realising he could not stop, he was scared off with a dubious assassination threat. Fear is an effective censor: the writers Hari Kunzru and Amitava Kumar, who sought to read out passages from The Satanic Verses as a gesture of solidarity, were stopped from doing so by the festival's organisers.

In a 1989 essay, Ahmad Deedat, an influential neo-fundamentalist who starred in the first phases of the anti-Rushdie campaign, hoped the writer would “die a coward's death, a hundred times a day, and eventually when death catches up with him, may he simmer in hell for all eternity.” He thanked Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi for his “sagacious” decision to ban The Satanic Verses. Now, another Indian Prime Minister has helped further Mr. Deedat's dream.

The betrayal of secular India in Jaipur, though, is just part of a far wider treason: one that doesn't have to do with Muslim clerics alone, but a state that has turned god into a public-sector undertaking.

Underwriting faith

Few Indians understand the extent to which the state underwrites the practice of their faith. The case of the Maha Kumbh Mela, held every 12 years at Haridwar, Allahabad, Ujjain and Nashik, is a case in point. The 2001 Mela in Allahabad, activist John Dayal has noted in a stinging essay, involved state spending of over Rs.1.2 billion — 12,000 taps that supplied 50.4 million litres of drinking water; 450 kilometres of electric lines and 15,000 streetlights; 70,000 toilets; 7,100 sanitation workers, 11 post offices and 3,000 phone lines; 4,000 buses and trains.

That isn't counting the rent that ought to have been paid on the 15,000 hectares of land used for the festival — nor the salaries of the hundreds of government servants administering the Kumbh.

Last year, the Uttar Pradesh police sought a staggering Rs.2.66 billion to pay for the swathe of electronic technologies, helicopters and 30,000 personnel which will be needed to guard the next Mela in 2013. There are no publicly available figures on precisely how much the government will spend on other infrastructure — but it is instructive to note that an encephalitis epidemic that has claimed over 500 children's lives this winter drew a Central aid of just Rs.0.28 billion.

The State's subsidies to the Kumbh Mela, sadly, aren't an exception. Muslims wishing to make the Haj pilgrimage receive state support; so, too, do Sikhs travelling to Gurdwaras of historic importance in Pakistan. Hindus receive identical kinds of largesse, in larger amounts. The state helps underwrite dozens of pilgrimages, from Amarnath to Kailash Mansarovar. Early in the last decade, higher education funds were committed to teaching pseudo-sciences like astrology; in 2001, the Gujarat government even began paying salaries to temple priests.

In 2006, the Delhi government provided a rare official acknowledgment that public funds are routinely spent on promoting god. In a study of its budget expenditure, it said it provided “religious services, i.e. grants for religious purpose including repairs and maintenance of ancient temples, contribution to religious institutions and for memorial of religious leaders like Guru Nanak Birth Anniversary, Dussehra Exhibitions [sic., throughout]”.

The study did not reveal precisely how much had been spent on what kind of religious promotion. It did, however, note that spending on a broad category called “cultural, recreational and religious activities” had increased steadily — from Rs.526.5 million in 2003-2004, to Rs.751 million in 2006-2007. In 2006-2007, these kinds of activities accounted for 0.74% of Delhi's overall budget — ahead of, say, environmental protection (0.17%), mining and manufacturing (0.59%), and civil defence (0.12%).

India's clerics, regardless of their faith, have long been intensely hostile to state regulation of religion — witness the country's failure to rid itself of the faith-based laws that govern our personal lives. In the matter of the perpetuation of their religion, though, the state is a welcome ally.

The contours of the bizarre theocratic dystopia that could replace the secular state are already evident. The state tells us we may not read the Satanic Verses, or Aubrey Menen's irreverent retelling of the Ramayana; it chooses not to prosecute the vandals who block stores from stocking D.N. Jha's masterful Holy Cow, James Laine's history of Shivaji, or Paul Courtright's explorations of oedipal undertones in Hindu mythology.

Regulation on what we eat, drink

It doesn't end there: the state regulates, on god's behalf, what we may eat or drink — witness the proliferation of bans on beef, and proscriptions on alcohol use in so-called holy cities. It ensures children pray in morning assemblies funded by public taxes, provides endowments for denomination schools and funds religious functions. It pays for prayers before state functions, and promotes pseudo-sciences like astrology. And, yes: it censors heretics, like M.F. Husain or Mr. Rushdie.

Even the rule of law has been contracted-out to god's agents. Last week, a self-appointed Sharia court issued orders to expel Christian priests from Jammu and Kashmir; neither the police, the judicial system nor political parties stepped in. In many north Indian States, local caste and religious tyrannies have brutally punished transgressions of religious laws. In 2010, the National Crime Records Bureau data show, a staggering 178 people were killed for practising witchcraft.

For decades now, Indian liberals have shied away from confronting theism, choosing instead to collaborate with the marketing of allegedly tolerant traditions. Back in 2005, the Human Resource Development Ministry set up a committee to consider how state-funded schools could best promote tolerance. Lingadevaru Halemane, a linguist and playwright, made clear the committee was chasing a chimera. “These days,” he argued, “whichever religion dominates in the area, they open the schools.” Local culture, he said bluntly, “will be dominated by the dominant group.”

Spurious secularism

Leaving aside the question of whether India's religious traditions are in fact tolerant — a subject on which the tens of thousands of victims of communal and caste violence might have interesting opinions — this spurious secularism has served in the main to institutionalise and sharpen communal boundaries. It has also allowed clerics to exercise influence over state policy — insulating themselves from a secularising world.

The strange thing is this: India's people, notwithstanding their religiosity, aren't the ones pushing the state to guard god's cause. India's poor send their children to private schools hoping they will learn languages and sciences, not prayer. Indian politics remains focussed on real-world issues: no party campaigns around seeking more funds for mosque domes or temple elephants.

Eight years ago, scholar Meera Nanda argued that “India is a country that most needs a decline in the scope of religion in civil society for it to turn its constitutional promise of secular democracy into a reality.” “But,” she pointed out, “India is a country least hospitable to such a decline”. Dr. Nanda ably demonstrated the real costs of India's failure to secularise: among them, the perpetuation of caste and gender inequities, the stunting of reason and critical facilities needed for economic and social progress; the corrosive growth of religious nationalism.

India cannot undo this harm until god and god's will are ejected from our public life. No sensible person would argue that the school curriculum ought to discourage eight-year-olds from discovering that the tooth fairy does not exist. No sensible person ought argue, similarly, that some purpose is served by buttressing the faith of adults in djinns, immaculate conceptions, or armies of monkeys engineering trans-oceanic bridges. It is legitimate for individuals to believe that cow-urine might cure their cancer — not for the state to subsidise this life-threatening fantasy.

In a 1927 essay, philosopher Bertrand Russell observed that theist arguments boiled down to a single, vain claim: “Look at me: I am such a splendid product that there must be design in the universe.”

The time has come for Indian secular-democrats to assert the case for a better universe: a universe built around citizenship and rights, not the pernicious identity politics the state and its holy allies encourage.

Source: The Hindu

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamIslamAndTolerance_1.aspx?ArticleID=6434

……………… ………………………

Satanic Verses: Rafiq Zakaria’s open letter to Salman Rushdie published in 1988

By Rafiq Zakaria

23 October, 1988

Rafiq Zakaria, Islamic scholar and well-known congressman, vigorously defends Rajiv Gandhi’s decision to ban The Satanic Verses in this open letter to its author Salman Rushdie published in The Illustrated Weekly Of India, 23 October, 1988.

DEAR MR RUSHDIE...

I have read with interest your open letter to our Prime Minister Mr Rajiv Gandhi, in which you have pleaded for a review of the ban on your book The Satanic Verses.

You have made fun of the fact that the order was issued by the finance ministry. Well, your information is half-baked. It was reported in the press that the decision was taken by the entire cabinet; but as the ban is to be executed by the customs, which falls under the finance ministry, no other ministry could have issued it.

This aside, it is for Rajiv Gandhi to reply to your letter: he may ignore it as most heads of government do.

I am not one of those, who has not read your book. I have, and am interested to know from you the replies to some questions, as I feel they may help me to understand you better and also for you to plead your case more effectively. We, in India. are ever so worried about communal violence, which erupts on the slightest pretext, we cannot allow a writer, whatever be his motive, to provoke it.

You say in your letter to Mr Gandhi that you ‘strongly deny’ that your book is ‘a direct attack on Islam’. Further, that ‘the section of the book in question .... deals with a prophet who is not called Muhammad’.

I have read your book. Like you, I have also been a student of Islam. Your statements, therefore, surprise me. I feel you are going back on your own objective just to get the ban lifted. Maybe I am wrong. I will, therefore, appreciate if you will clarify your position by replying openly to the following questions:

1. What is the significance of the title of your book The Satanic Verses? Has it not some historical connection? Do not the verses which refer to the three goddesses, condemned as Satanic and repudiated by Allah, the same as your reference to them in your novel? Your words are so clear that no other inference seems possible: “These verses are banished from the true recitation, al-qur’an. New verses are thundered in their place.” “Shall He have daughters and you sons?” Mahound recites. “That would be a fine division!” “These are but names you have dreamed of, you and your fathers. Allah vests no authority in them.”

2. Is Jahilia not the same word as used in Muslim annals for “the era of ignorance”—Jahilia means ignorance—the era before the advent of Islam? Your description is so apt:

“The city of Jahilia is built entirely of sand, its structures formed of the desert whence it rises. It is a sight to wonder at: walled, four-gated, the whole of it a miracle worked by its citizens, who have learned the trick of transforming the fine white dune-sand of those forsaken parts—the very stuff of inconstancy—the quintessence of unsettlement, shifting, treachery, lack-of-form—and have turned it, by alchemy, into the fabric of their newly invented permanence. These people are a mere three or four generations removed from their nomadic past, when they were as rootless as the dunes, or rather rooted in the knowledge that the journeying itself was home.”

3. Whom had you in mind when you delineated the character of Mahound? Do your descriptions of his various activities not fit those of the Prophet Muhammad? I can quote passage after passage to show the coincidence, but it will be too lengthy; moreover most of them are so offensive that I shudder to reproduce them.

4. From where have you drawn the names of the three goddesses: Lat, Uzza and Manat? They are certainly not the products of your imagination? No one reading about them in your book can think otherwise.

5. Is Hamza not the same as Prophet Muhammad’s uncle of the same name? And are his encounters with Hind, as depicted by you, not representative of what happened in the early annals of Islam?

6. Is Abu Simbel in your novel not a reflection of Abu Sufiyan, the inveterate enemy of the Prophet? And Hind, whom you characterise so graphically, not his wife?

7. Is Salman—your namesake—called Persian in your book, not the same as Salman Farsi, a companion of the Prophet?

8. Is Bilal not the first Muezzin of Islam, whom you describe as “the slave Bilal, the one Mahound freed, an enormous black monster, this one, with a voice to match his voice”?

9. Is Zamzam, referred to in your novel, not the well held sacred by Muslims? Here is your description: “The city’s water comes from underground streams and springs..., next to the House of the Black Stone.”

10. Does the description of the “Black Stone” in your novel not fit that of Ka’aba? Here are your words: “The graves of Ismail and his mother Hagar the Egyptian lie by the north-west face of the House of the Black Stone, in an enclosure surrounded by a low wall.”

These are some of the coincidences; there are many others. You, unlike most authors, have not mentioned that the characters in your novels do not bear any resemblance to persons living or dead. Can you, with your hand on your heart, say that they really don’t resemble the characters and situations in the life of the Prophet of Islam. And if they do. what should the authorities do to control a likely occurrence which you as well as I know may disturb the tranquillity of the land.

I have not referred to your section on Ayesha; I found it rather confusing, where you have cleverly mixed fact with fiction. This does not apply, I feel, to your section on Mahound, which represents, to use your own words” the result of five years of work on Islam, which has been central to my life’. Apart from the Muslim politicians, whom you mention in your open letter to Mr Gandhi, you will be surprised that some of our best intellectuals-both writers and poets—have come out against you: they are J P Dixit, Nissim Ezekiel, Jean Kalgutkar, Vrinda Nabar, Vaskar Nandy, V Raman and Ashim Roy. In a letter to The Indian Post they refer to your statement that you knew Islam best and that was why you had talked about it and observe: ‘How does he ''talk”about this religion? Its founder is named Mahound. Rushdie has not invented this name. This was the name given to the Prophet Mohammed by his European detractors as a term of abuse (‘Ma’ from ‘Mahomet’ added to ‘hound’) and used frequently in various European eschatologies as a creature belonging to the lowest depths of Hell, as the Devil himself.’

After analysing your treatment further, they summarise your approach thus:

How has Rushdie treated the other pillars of Islamic faith? Ayesha, the youngest wife of the Prophet and the one who is regarded as one of the highest authorities of the Traditions is shown as “clad only in butterflies, leading an entire village, lemming-like into the Arabian Sea”. The Ka’aba, regarded by the Muslims as the only consecrated spot on earth, is treated no better. Disguised as the “Tent of Black Stone called Ten Curtains”, it has twelve prostitutes with names of the twelve wives of Mahound to add ''the tempting spices of profanity”. These “tempting spices” were apparently necessary to increase the number of pilgrims. Then what else remains of the basic core of the Islamic faith? The prophet is the Devil, the law-givers are sexual perverts, and the Ka’aba and the Haj examples of depravity and greed. The Koran is of course only a collection of satanic verses.

The signatories conclude:

‘We, the undersigned, are all non-Muslims. We are, therefore, obviously not subscribers to the Islamic faith. We believe that any critique of that faith has to be restrained, reasoned and full of the spirit of respecting diverse cultures and faiths. India’s unity and harmony demands it. It is for such harmony and unity that we demand that the ban on this book be not lifted.’ What have you to say, Mr Rushdie, to these friends who are no friends of Mr Rajiv Gandhi and are known upholders of freedom of expression?

Lastly, as one born to Muslim parents and brought up, I think, under Islamic traditions, may I ask you whether you honestly believe that your book will not upset Muslims. Mr Khushwant Singh, who holds you in high esteem, advised your publisher, Penguins, against its publication as he felt that it would injure the religious feelings of Muslims and may disturb the law and order situation. Mr Zamir Ansari, Penguins’s representative in India, confirmed this to me though he said a confidential advice sought by Penguins should not have been publicised by Mr Singh. But that is another matter. The fact remains that Mr Singh is no friend of the Government of India—in fact he is one of its most bitter critics—and his opinion has been unequivocal. So is that of Mr M V Kamath, an eminent journalist, who never finds anything right with Mr Rajiv Gandhi. He said that Mr Rushdie’s book is full of ‘despicable ideas’. If Nehru was alive he would have banned it.

I ask you in the same manner as you have asked Mr Gandhi, our prime minister, whether you consider this ban as really uncalled for, in view of the danger that many persons in public life feel it poses to communal harmony and peace in India. Is democracy a licence to do or undo anything by anyone or everyone?

Some idealists in the past might have dreamt of it; but is it really practical?

May I also remind you that it was Lord Macaulay who incorporated the need for such a ban in our legal system to prevent disorder; it is not Mr Rajiv Gandhi’s invention. Mr Soli Sorabjee, whose legal eminence is undisputed, has argued against the ban; but he is a poor judge of public reaction. That is why,like his mentor Mr Nani Palkhivala, he wanted to be in politics but gave up the idea. The Times of India, in its editorial, has answered both you and him effectively:

‘No, dear Rushdie, we do not wish to build a repressive India. On the contrary we are trying our best to build a liberal India where we can all breathe freely. But in order to build such an India, we have to preserve the India that exists. That may not be a pretty India. But this is the only India we possess.'

Do not pontificate, Mr Rushdie; be logical and face the facts. Answer your critics if you can.

Yours truly,

Rafiq Zakaria

Source: The Illustrated Weekly of India

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamWarWithinIslam_1.aspx?ArticleID=6443

…………………… ………………..

Salman Rushdie's Indian Mullah critics, listen to the message of Satanic Verses

Sultan Shahin, Editor, New Age Islam

Salman Rushdie's Indian Mullah critics, the beardless as much as the bearded, have reason to celebrate. They have forced the government into surrender to their demand of keeping Rushdie away. How much ill-will they have created against Muslims in the country in this process, of course, does not matter to them. They are in a state of Jihad against India, the same as their Pakistani counterparts. Read the Urdu press where most of the columnists are Mullahs, some openly bearded, some with their beards well hidden in their stomachs. You would seldom find a good word about India. Nothing positive at all.

Salman Rushdie is a sideshow. It just came in handy as he was coming this time on the eve of important Assembly elections. This gave them an opportunity to show to their patrons how they could bully even the mighty Congress party into submission again. These Mullahs had only recently forced politicians to announce reservations for Muslims. From 4.9 percent (the Congress) to 18 percent (the Samajwadi). This has completely vitiated the atmosphere. A Hindu-Muslim polarisation is emerging where there was none. This would only benefit the enemies of India among the Hindu obscurantists. But, of course, the Mullahs do not care. Indeed they need the other; both sets of enemies of India feed on each other.

As for Salman Rushdie, does his novel Satanic Verses not offend me? Of course, it does. Are my religious sensibilities not hurt? Of course, they are. Particularly the fact that he gave prostitutes of Mecca the names of our beloved Prophet’s wives whom we revere even more than our mothers. But I think I am more hurt reading newspapers everyday when I see Mohammads reportedly committing the most heinous crimes; they lie, cheat, loot, rape, murder, massacre, do everything dreadful you can imagine. More than fifty percent of male Muslims are named Mohammad or Ahmad and as everybody knows we are the most corrupt people on earth. Prostitution is a profession Muslims women are very good at. Even when forced into business by devilish Muslims, Muslim prostitutes command a premium. Looking for prostitutes rich and corrupt Saudi men prefer to go to Muslim Indonesia rather than non-Muslim Thailand, for they can engage in halal prostitution there. Even today some of these prostitutes, I am sure, have the names of our dear Prophet’s wives and our dearest, most revered mothers. Like the name Mohammad or Ahmad among Muslim men, prophet’s wives’ names are the most popular among Muslim women.

So why should I be particularly offended if an atheist cultural Muslim and a great writer out to poke fun at us, seeking to grab our attention, in order to convey his message, tries to offend us by using that particular literary device. The important thing for me is to look at where he is pointing. All great men and women, scientists, artists, reformer, prophets, offend and blaspheme. That is part of their job profile. Prophet Mohammad was the greatest blasphemer, as was Jesus Christ before him, Moses and Mahatma Buddha, Hazrat Noah, even earlier and so on. They all blasphemed their ancestral religions, cultures, traditional mores. They all offended the religious sensibilities of their people. Their scandalised people were always their bitter opponents, often trying to kill them, before converting to their ideas, accepting their message and becoming stalwarts of the new Deen.

The Juhala, that our so-called Ulama are, cannot possibly read and understand The satanic Verses or any other piece of literature for that matter. Not many even among those who do normally read and enjoy literature are able to follow Rushdie’s fantasies to the end. Rushdie is a difficult read for many. But for the Mullahs the book would not have sold so much and would not be available for free on the internet.

Satanic verses is a book of fiction that contains dream sequences within the dream of a demented person. It is wrong to treat it as a discourse on Islam. However, like all dreams, realities do enter into the dream sequences. The episode of Satanic Verses is most likely pure fiction and creation of the determined enemies of Islam in its infant years. Deeply offended by Prophet Mohammad’s many blasphemies against their gods and goddesses, belief in whom was a part of Prophet Mohammad’s ancestral religion, the Quraish leaders, later stalwarts of Islam, wanted to kill him or defame him and his message in any way possible. They did many things in this context. Satanic verses could be just a part of that effort at maligning the messenger of God. But the fact remains that Arab Muslims of that period mentioned it and it was one of the relatively less known parts of Islamic history until Mullahs made Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses an issue.

Mullahs claim to be hurt with the publication of the book. But there are things that hurt other too. Don’t they know that the very existence of the Holy Quran and Muslims hurts the religious sentiments of many Christians; the message of the Gospels hurts many Jews and so on. Hindus, being the most ancient, have the right to claim feeling hurt at the existence of every other religion. So what do we do? Kill each other? Don’t let one come into other’s country. Live separately? Throw rotten eggs at each other? As Ahl-e-Hadeesis do and suggest we should.

This may be news the Mullahs that others too can feel hurt. But they do. An ordinary Muslim like me too feels hurt, for instance, sometimes. I feel hurt the most when I find a Muslim, particularly one calling himself Mohammad, lying, cheating, killing, raping. No matter how offended the Quraish of Mecca were with the Prophet’s blasphemies, they never accused him of lying or cheating or any other misconduct. No one called him intolerant of even his worst enemies and his own blasphemers. They continued to consider him Al-Ameen (The Trustworthy). Never was a word breathed about him by his enemies about even the remotest sexual misdemeanour on his part. If anyone really loved Mohammad, as Mullahs claim Muslims do, they would follow him. But we Muslims, well, we can kill and die in Mohammad’s name, saving his honour, but follow him, no we can’t do that. Too difficult. Impossible. Not in our DNA. So what do we do? We create an image of Mohammad, a deviant, pervert, cruel Mohammad, whom we can follow. This is precisely what Salafi Arabs did and today’s Salafi Muslims follow.

It is only Arab Muslims, the Quraish descendants of the original inveterate enemies of Islam, who captured power after killing all members of his family in the 48th year of his demise, who started spreading stories of his “sexual prowess”, paedophilia, and other perversions, even his brutality and intolerance of Jews and other non-Muslims to justify their own predilections. Nothing in his character or the Holy Quran shows any of this intolerance or brutality or perversion. But it is the Arab Muslims who have told and even in contemporary Saudi Arabia tell stories defaming the Prophet to justify their own perversions and cruelties and intolerance. Read the classical Sira written by Salafi Arabs.

Now when an atheist Rushdie or other non-Muslims pick up these stories and tell it in their own way, make what they would make of it, we feel hurt. But do we have a right to feel hurt, particularly when we are not calling Salafi Muslims, who spread these malicious stories in the first place, with the names they deserve. The most popular televangelist among Muslims is one Dr Zakir Naik, a darling of Salafis, who sends God’s blessings to Yazid, the killer of the Prophet’s family, every time he quotes him or takes the name of this accursed person in some context. He justifies all kinds of sexual perversions in the name of Islam. But what of him. So do Saudi Ulema and Qazis, religious scholars and judges. It is the Ahl-e-Hadeesis, not a word criticising whom can appear in the Muslim Press, who finance and organise Zakir Naik’s perversions.

Now take the very name of this Saudi-financed sect, Ahl-e-Hadees. Does the very term Ahl-e-Hadees not offend an ordinary Muslim who believes that the Holy Quran is his primary scripture? Ahl-e-Hadees means people or Muslims who believe in Hadees, that is the so-called sayings of the Prophet that were collected and concocted hundreds of years after the demise of the Prophet. This was done clearly because the Quran could not be changed and another scripture was required to serve the purpose of rulers. These descendants of the inveterate enemies of Islam had to of necessity rule in the name of Islam. Their ancestors had converted to Islam after the Prophet’s victory at Mecca obviously so they could defeat the new religion from within and capture its power, use the energies it had generated for Arab expansion and imperialism.

It is this that Salman Rushdie is pointing to in his own perverted way. The victory at Mecca and the conversion of the entire city to Islam. Some must have obviously converted impressed by the bloodless victory, completely unexpected generosity of the Prophet who – unprecedented for Arabia in such situations – announced a general amnesty for all including the vicious war criminals, and so on. But many of the elite who had lost power apparently joined as an attempt at a shot at power working from within. And how successful they were! In 24 years one member of their Umayyads clan became the all-powerful Caliph of Islam. Usman bin Affan was a generous and pious man and an early Muslim. He had fought for Islam and sacrificed a lot. But he appointed all his relatives, the former elite of Mecca, as administrators in every position of power, including Muawiah the son of Abu Sufian and the father of Yezid as the governor of all-important Syria.

Now Salman Rushdie’s demented character is imagining this newly all-Muslim Mecca where clearly many have joined Islam out of convenience and not conviction. Apart from the political elite, professional prostitutes could be another such group. Islam has no room for prostitution or any kind of illicit sex. They can’t be a happy lot. Some of them must have already had the very popular names of the wives of the Prophet, as they do today. Mischievously, Rushdie gives all of them these names. He is trying to tell us that the rot in Islam dates to the day the Prophet announced a general amnesty and allowed all of the Meccans to covert.

Did the Prophet have a choice? He was a fount of compassion for humanity, Rahmat-ul-lil-Aalemeeen (A Blessing for all the worlds). He could have at least punished the war criminals and thus saved Islam and his own family from future decimation. But this is the speculation of an ordinary mortal blessed with hindsight, knowing what happened soon after. The Prophet was a prophet. There is no point speculating on that, questioning his decision. But one thing is clear in the light of what happened later: the rot started from that day of Victory and general amnesty and permission for all to convert. Of course, the Prophet could hardly have told them not to convert. He had been appointed as messenger in order to convert them to Islam and they were now willing to convert; whatever his reservations might have been, he could hardly say no.

What is Rushdie’s goal? What has he set out to achieve in The Satanic Verses? In his own words, Rushdie has set out "to name the unnameable, to point out frauds, to take sides, start arguments, shape the world and stop it from going to sleep." And he doesn't care "if rivers of blood flow from the cuts his verses inflict". He does not recognise any jurisdiction except that of his Muse. But the world Rushdie is going to shape is full of "walking corpses, great crowds of the dead, all of them refusing to admit they are done for, corpses mutinously continuing to behave like living people, shopping, catching buses, flirting, going home to make love, smoking cigarettes." And this is why he has decided to use the technique of extreme provocation.

What is the task before Rushdie that is so important? Worth paying the ultimate price for a 'poet's work'? What does he actually do in his Verses? Well, he has tried to sow doubt and confusion in the minds of the faithful. He has asked questions that they are too dead to think about. Certainty is death, for Rushdie. Confusion, fife. This man must be a manifestation of the Satan then, the faithful would naturally say. After all, sowing doubt and confusion in the minds of believers is precisely the task allotted to Shaitan in the divine scheme of things. But what his Muslim critics have, of course, forgotten is the repeated Quranic injunction to think and consider the revelations and not to believe in them unthinkingly. But why and what would you think if you have no doubt, no confusion, no questions?

One thing, however, we should learn from this tragic point in our history to which Rushdie’s demented character is directing our attention. Having too many Muslims is not necessarily a good thing. Let us stop trying to convert people unnecessarily and feeling elated at even the likes of Chander Mohan converting to Islam, even if they do so merely to commit rape of a respectable lady. Also, let us stop forcing our children to adopt our religions. Religion should not be, indeed cannot be hereditary. Let us teach our children the essentials of all religions and let them choose when they grow up, when they are capable of understanding the nature of religion, spirituality, divinity and so on. Too many Muslims are not necessarily a good thing for Islam. This to me is the message of Satanic Verses and I think this is a message worth pondering over. Had Salman Rushdie not been forced to bear the crescent of being a Muslim, he would probably not have felt forced to define and explain his identity in terms of why he was or was not a Muslim. This business of his feeling forced to convert to Islam to save his life and then reconverting to atheism when he discovers that Mullahs cannot be appeased even with his conversion is a shameful business. Shameful for him, shameful for the rest of the Muslim community! He has paid enough price for being born in a Muslim family. Now let us let him be.

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamWarWithinIslam_1.aspx?ArticleID=6446

…………. ……………….

Standing with Christians

2012-01-19T06:39:00.001-06:00

Then the best among us would be someone who works towards this goal and believe in "treat others as you would want to be treated."

Thank God for blessing me with the idea of standing up with everyone. As an example I am creating a site to list some of my work from an Atheist to Zoroastrian and every one in between.

Here I am listing a few things to stand up with Christians, as usual the right wingers in other faiths have harassed me for doing this or even demanding why I did not do it for them, by God, given my little life, as a volunteer, I have done as much as I can.

My mentors in pluralism are Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Mother Teresa and I dedicate this collection to them:

. . . . . .

An appeal to Indonesian Muslims
Friday, December 18, 2009 will be noted as a sad day in the history of Indonesia. On this day, a group of people on their way out from attending an Islamic New Year parade attacked the Santo Albertus Church under construction in Bekasi. http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2009/12/appeal-to-indonesian-muslims.html

. . . . .

The appeal is published in Jakarta Post
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/12/31/letters-an-appeal-indonesian-muslims.html

. . . . .

Religious conflict in India

Eleven Churches have been razed to ground following a reported attack on Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati, a political party leader. Shamefully this is a normal thing in India and it needs to be stopped before it escalates.
http://wisdomofreligion.blogspot.com/2007/12/orissa-religious-conflict.html

. . . . .

Appeal for Justice to Pakistani Asia Bibi and Mercy to mankind

As peace makers, we cannot cause people to dig in their heels and take positions, we have to mitigate conflicts and nurture goodwill for the ultimate good of all. I hope, you understand the avoidance of such language in the petition. http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2011/01/appeal-for-justice-to-pakistani-asia.html

. . . . .

A Muslim’s Christmas, Huffington PostAs a Muslim I will be celebrating Christmas, recommitting myself to listen to Jesus and follow his path. And in my Islamic tradition, I will reflect on chapter 19 of Quraan, dedicated to Maryam, Mother Mary, and pray on his birthday. I will pray that we all honor his message of creating peace and building cohesive societies where no one has to be apprehensive of the other. Amen!Continued: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ghouse/a-muslims-christmas_b_1167258.html

. . .. . .

A tribute to JesusThis column is dedicated to Rev. Petra Weldes of the Center for Spiritual Living in Dallas. Some of my conversation with her inspired me to write this tribute to Jesus and what it means to be religious.http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2009/12/tribute-to-jesus.html

. . . . . .

Iran’s death penalty for Christian pastor violates treaties, KoranIndeed there is absolutely no punishment for apostasy in Quraan; one is free to become a Muslim and free to leave the faith. After all no one is to bear the burden of the other, he alone is responsible for his belief.

http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2011/10/irans-death-penalty-for-christian.html

. . . . .

Muslims condemn Blasphemy attack in Kerala
Evil continues to thrive, when good people do nothing about it. Our role as Muslims is to mitigate conflicts and nurture goodwill and work towards building social cohesion, so all the humanity can co-exist in harmony. http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2010/07/muslims-condemn-blasphemy-attack-in.html

. . . . ..

Where is the Muslim outrage?

Mike Ghouse, November 30, 2007
As a Muslim I am outraged at this nonsense going on in Sudan and Saudi Arabia.When Prophet Muhammad’s cartoons were published, few Muslims around the world were outraged to the point of becoming destructive. They burned the embassy in Syria and destroyed property elsewhere. http://www.mikeghouse.net/Articles/Where-is-the-Muslim-Outrage.asp

. . . .

Afghan blasphemy caseSpokesman says Karzai has last word in Afghan blasphemy case Mike Ghouse Note: It takes conviction to do the right thing and one must subscribe to the idea of nothing but truth. Karzai needs to pardon, rather, apologize for his governments infringement of individual liberty. There is no compulsion in Islam and one needs to be free to practice what one believes. http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2008/02/afghan-blasphemy-case.html

. . . . . .

Building Respect for Christmas

A handful of Jews, Muslims and others show belligerence towards the celebration of Christmas and have vandalized Christmas trees, shame on them. http://wisdomofreligion.blogspot.com/2010/12/building-respect-for-christmas.html

. . . ..

Citizenship, Islam and AmericaLaw is one thing and practice is the other. As an American and as a Muslim, I have to be critical of both groupings and work toward creating cohesive societies where no citizen has to live in apprehension, discomfort or fear of the other. Here is a summary of 2011 and what we can aspire for 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ghouse/citizenship-islam-and-ame_b_1174834.html

. . . . Religious Freedom, international coalition

Religions help us sustain peace and balance in the society in the times of our spiritual, physical and societal ups and downs. Living for the sake of others is not a charity or even a noble thing to brag about; it is indeed the pragmatic thing to do.
http://wisdomofreligion.blogspot.com/2010/04/religious-freedom-international.html

. . . . . .

Japanese Unificationists Believed to Be Resisting Confinement
http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/Articles/Religious_Persecution_in_Japan.asp

. . . ..

Muslim-Christian dialogue: An Islamic viewhttp://wisdomofreligion.blogspot.com/2010/03/muslim-christian-dialogue-islamic-view.html

. . . . . .

Top Muslim Declares All Christians 'Infidels'

It is quite possible, the Grand Mufti of Al-Azhar university Ali Gomaa did not say anything like the alleged words listed below. These guys at Middle East Forum may have cooked it up. They have done it before and that is their business. http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2011/11/top-muslim-declares-all-christians.html

. . . . .

Ninth Church Vandalized in MalaysiaWe appeal the Malaysian Government to reign in this immediately.http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2010/01/ninth-church-vandalized-in-malaysia.html

. . . .

Muslims, Christians and The Lost TombOne question that concerns me is the depth of the faith, rather paucity of the faith of the believers. One’s faith must be really weak to be frightened by a movie, and I often wonder, how will it offend the faith of millions? It is not just Christians, Muslims will be offended too. That is nearly 3.4 billion people of the world comprising 2.1 Billion Christians and 1.3 billion Muslims. http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2007/03/faith-and-lost-tomb.html

. . . . .

Spitting on Christians in JerusalemJudging from the title, I hope you did not jump to the conclusion, that Muslims are the ones spitting on Christians. In this case the culprits are extremists from a different tradition.

http://wisdomofreligion.blogspot.com/2010/01/spitting-on-christians-in-jerusalem.html

. . . . . .

A Church in Saudi Arabiahttp://wisdomofreligion.blogspot.com/2008/03/church-in-saudi-arabia.html

. . . . .

Mike Ghouse committed to building cohesive Societies and offers pluralistic solutions on current issues. His work is all listed at www.MikeGhouse.net

. . . .

Family of man thought to be al-Qaeda operative is known for interfaith work in Plano, Texas

2012-01-19T04:55:00.000-06:00

Family of man thought to be al-Qaeda operative is known for interfaith work in North Texas

By Jeffrey Weiss and Jason Trahan

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/plano/headlines/20120118-family-of-man-thought-to-be-al-qaeda-operative-is-known-for-interfaith-work-in-north-texas.ece

For the Salam family’s fellow volunteers in North Texas interfaith activities, the idea that they could have a son in al-Qaeda seemed preposterous.

“He could not be in al-Qaeda, knowing his parents,” said Mike Ghouse, president of the Foundation for Pluralism in Dallas.

And yet, according to The Associated Press, when Moeed Abdul Salam died in Pakistan late last year, he was an al-Qaeda operative. Pakistani officials say he killed himself with a hand grenade. An Islamic media group said troops killed him.

His family lives in Plano, in a two-story house on a suburban street. A woman inside the house on Wednesday would not open the door or speak to a reporter.

That doesn’t surprise Christopher Parr, former chairman of the Plano Multicultural Outreach Roundtable, where Moeed Salam’s mother, Hasna Shaheen Salam, is a co-chair.

“She doesn’t want to talk about it because it is too painful,” he said.
The Salams had never mentioned a son in Pakistan, he said. Other members of the roundtable learned about his death only when contacted by an AP reporter. That’s when Parr called his friend, he said.

“She said they didn’t know where he was or what he was doing,” he said.
Parr met Shaheen Salam, a fellow Rotarian, several years ago. Not long afterward, she joined the Plano roundtable, where she was a liaison to the North Texas Muslim community, Parr said.

According to public records, Shaheen Salam lives in the Plano home with her husband, Mohammed. The house is worth about $400,000. Moeed Salam’s driver’s license also lists that address. In addition, the home is the address of record for several businesses, at least one of them closed because of bankruptcy in 2005.
Bankruptcy documents listed secured debt of $186,000 and unsecured debt of $980,000. They listed at least $442,000 owed on at least 17 credit card accounts.
According to a piece Shaheen Salam wrote for the January 2011 edition of the “Lone Star Crescent,” a Texas Muslim publication, she herself had traveled to Pakistan in 2010. According to the article, she went there to facilitate the adoption of an infant girl by her daughter, a Dallas physician who was unable to make the trip. She makes no mention of Moeed Salam.

Moeed’s brother Monem Salam is a graduate of the University of Texas at Dallas, a former Morgan Stanley money manager in Dallas and a former executive council member of the Islamic Society of North America. The society was an unindicted co-conspirator in the federal criminal case against the North Texas-based Holy Land Foundation. Foundation leaders were convicted of funneling money to Hamas.
According to the AP, Moeed Salam, who was 37 when he died, had not lived in Plano for many years. He attended boarding school in Connecticut, attended college at the University of Texas in Austin, and had moved overseas at least eight years ago.

However Moeed Salam’s thoughts about the West had mutated, Ghouse said that the family remained more than casually involved with volunteer work in North Texas and beyond. Shaheen Salam has served as a president of the Texas Muslim Women’s Foundation. And a few years ago, Ghouse said, she had taken wheelchairs to Afghanistan.

“The one thing I can tell you is that his parents had nothing to do with it,” he said of Moeed Salam’s apparent al-Qaeda connection. “His mother would not have put up with it.”

Mohamed Elibiary, a Muslim interfaith advocate, said the family members “were pillars of the community as I was growing up” in North Texas.

“The family members are victims in all this,” said Elibiary, a Department of Homeland Security adviser who has assisted the FBI in multiple investigations of homegrown terrorism. “They did everything to try to set a good example, not only inside their own family but by being good citizens and good Muslims.”

Staff writer Brooks Egerton contributed to this report.
jweiss@dallasnews.com;
jtrahan@dallasnews.com

Mike Ghouse
Committed to a cohesive America
www.MikeGhouse.net=

Texas Faith: Beyond King, who has has had major impact.

2012-01-18T17:27:00.002-06:00

Beyond King, which religious leader has had a major impact on American Politics and culture. Ten Texas Faith Panelists share their thoughts, here is Mike’s perspective, to see them all including this, please go to Dallas Morning News:
http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2012/01/texas-faith-beyond-king-which.html

Mike Ghouse, President, Foundation for Pluralism

I am pleased to share about a few Pluralist individuals who are making a difference in the religious landscape of Dallas Fort Worth.

Pluralism is an attitude of learning to respect the otherness of others, and accepting the God given uniqueness of each one of us. As we do that, conflicts fade and solutions emerge to create a cohesive America where no one has to live in apprehension, discomfort or fear of the other. In the context of religion, we define Religious pluralism as, learning to respect every which way one honors or worships the divine and accepts each path to be a valid one without denigrating any.

Pastor Bob Roberts of Northwood Baptist Church from Keller, Texas was clear when he opened up his church to a thousand Muslims for celebrating Ramadan. He said, you have your beliefs and your faith and I have mine, no matter how you view Jesus.

I take him as a son of God and my redeemer and the Muslims understood that and still talk about his eloquence. About a year and a half ago, when Pastor Jeffress said his famous line, Quraan is an evil book written by a false prophet; Bob Roberts wrote an op-ed in Dallas Morning News countering the poor understanding of the other Pastor, there were huge discussions on it honoring Bob Roberts for leading the way in accepting the otherness of other.

Pastor George Mason of Wilshire Baptist Church has helped me understand and propagate the grace aspect of God, it is not just your actions and deeds that are enough, but God’s ultimate grace is needed for salvation. This is one of the differences in understanding between Muslims and Christians and his teachings have built some bridges of understanding.

The Pastor of the Unification Church, Rev. Sun Myung Moon who is making a genuine difference in the world of Pluralism by practicing respect for other faiths in his congregations and organizations throughout the world.

I am highlighting Pastors Roberts and Mason, because they are Baptists of big Churches. There is a bias against Baptists out there in the market that I hope to remove. Each religion has its own share of bigots and we need to see that clearly.

Indeed, our first Unity Day event’s Christian prayers were led by Late Rev. Roy Harrell another Baptist Minister. There are many more great pastors I admire for their work; Rev. Bill Matthews, Rev. Petra Weldes, Rev. Diane Baker, Rev. Eric Folkerth, Rev. Dennis Hamilton and several others who are making a difference in our area.

The open mindedness of Swami Nityananda Prabhu of Hare Krishna Hindu Temple; a panelist on this forum is admirable. Where ever I run, people love to talk about his teachings from Bhagvad Gita on my Radio Show, called Wisdom of Religion. He has indeed opened up minds of non-Hindus to see the wisdom of Hinduism.

Dr. Imam Zia Shaikh of Irving Islamic Center has broken many records of stereotyping Muslims; one of the situations was when he led the Pledge of Allegiance in one of the annual Unity day programs. I was rather surprised to hear from a few calling me up to tell that, they did not expect a Muslim Imam to lead the pledge of Allegiance and they said we will not stereotype Muslims any more.

He is active in interfaith and perhaps one devoted and a committed Muslim who has attended every interfaith program in the last five years and he has demonstrated in respecting the other otherness of other.

Same goes with Dr. Imam Yusuf Zia Kavakci of Richardson Mosque, who is considered one of the 100 recognized Muslims Scholars in the world. The Muslims in Dallas Fort worth hear and see the open mindedness of these two scholars towards other faiths. Both of them are nurturing the values of pluralism in their congregations; that is thousands of Muslims in our area who are influenced by their teachings.

Each one of them is all about affection for life, non-discriminatory caring. They do not favor one person over the other for the heck of it, instead, they look at the good deeds, which Prophet Muhammad [pbuh] described as the good you can do to other beings, the goodness you bring to God's creation.

Mike's note: There are many more individuals who have done tremendous work in the Dallas Forth Worth Metroplex, God willing, I hope to write about them as well.

Mike Ghouse is committed to building a cohesive America, where no American has to be apprehensive, uncomfortable or fear the other. He is a speaker, thinker and a writer offering pluralistic solutions on issues of the day and a frequent guest on Sean Hannity Show on Fox and a regular guest on National syndicated radio show and Dallas Media. With over 1000 published articles he has two books poised to be released. Most of his work is indexed at www.MikeGhouse.net

Dallas school districts controversial use of religious buildings

2012-01-14T11:00:00.002-06:00

Its about Muslim participation in civic affairs.

Dallas Morning News writes a report on the topic and includes some of my comments in the article following my notes.

The School District’s decision to hold the commencement ceremonies at churches, synagogues, mosques and other religious buildings without restrictions does not bode well in the long haul.

A few religious places will be generous in their offer; however, it implies an association with that place of worship and carries the baggage in the long haul. What if the new pastor is a bigot and has a problem with gay or lesbian kids or kids of other faiths. It is always the individual that drives the society towards ill-will or goodwill. Why do we need to subject ourselves to such whims?

We are a pluralistic society and deeply want our kids to grow up and interact with the real world out there that comprises people of different faiths, races, ethnicities and sexual orientation. A religious building does not offer such an environment, even with a few exceptions.

The Federal court just rejected a referendum in Oklahoma to ban families from seeking guidance from international or Sharia law to resolve disputes among family members even though 70% of the voters had approved it. In California proposition 5 met the same fate years ago and the Farmers Branch overwhelmingly approved the anti-immigration bill, which is in the courts now.

I would suggest the board members not to vote for this motion; the school will end up squandering money on legal suit rather than children’s education.

As a pluralist, I do welcome this, but since we are still not there we have to hold this off.
- - - - -
Mike Ghouse is committed to building a cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. A writer, thinker and a speaker and is available to speak on pluralism, politics, Islam, peace, cohesive societies and a variety of topics. Check out 4 websites and 27 Blogs indexed at www.MikeGhouse.net. Current articles at www.TheGhousediary.com
###

ACLU warns Dallas ISD against plan to allow graduations at churches
By TAWNELL D. HOBBS Staff Writer thobbs@dallasnews.com
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/headlines/20120113-aclu-warns-dallas-isd-against-plan-to-allow-graduations-at-churches.ece
Published: 13 January 2012 12:26 AM

The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas is warning Dallas ISD to “tread cautiously” on loosening restrictions to allow graduations at churches and other religious facilities.

Dallas school trustees discussed the proposal at Thursday’s board briefing. Two of eight trustees voiced concern about the plan, which will be considered Jan. 26.
The change would eliminate a clause that prohibits commencement exercises from being held at churches, synagogues, mosques and other religious sites without permission of the superintendent, and only under extenuating circumstances when no other nonreligious facility is available.

District officials said the change is being proposed because some schools have for years been using churches for graduations. The schools, which were not aware they were violating board policy, raised the issue with district administration, they said.
But the ACLU of Texas said in a news release Thursday that it cannot understand why DISD would consider changing what the group calls a “neutral policy.” It also noted that such a change could result in legal proceedings.

“DISD should tread cautiously in this area,” Lisa Graybill, ACLU of Texas’ legal director, warned in the news release. “The current policy provides a safeguard to ensure commencement exercises are held in appropriate, nonsectarian locations where all students, their families, and school personnel feel equally comfortable. Changing the policy could ultimately result in a constitutional challenge and costly litigation.”

The ACLU of Texas also submitted a public information request to the school district, asking for information that includes costs for off-site events and the reason for the proposed change.

Board President Lew Blackburn said that neither he nor school attorneys have a problem with the proposal. Blackburn said that he has attended graduations at churches and that nothing religious occurred.

Several Dallas school trustees, including Bruce Parrott and Carla Ranger, said they were unaware of the ACLU’s misgivings when they discussed the matter at Thursday’s meeting. Parrott and Ranger voiced concerns about the proposal during the discussion.

pointed to a similar situation that involved the separation of church and state in the Irving school district last year. The ACLU of Texas had contacted that district with questions about a plan to hold graduations at The Potter’s House church. In response, district officials decided against the move.

“We don’t need to be involved with any lawsuit,” Parrott said. “We’ve got a policy; let’s just adhere to the policy.”

Ranger voiced similar concerns.

“We all know there have been problems in other places because of this very issue,” she said. “Removing this would put us in a situation that we don’t want to be in.”
The vast majority of religious leaders contacted Thursday agreed that the school district should not make such a change.

“I would suggest the board members not to vote for this motion; the school will end up squandering money on [a] legal suit rather than children’s education,” Mike Ghouse, a Muslim and president of the Foundation for Pluralism in Dallas, said in an email.

The Rev. Daniel Kanter of First Unitarian Church of Dallas said in an email that “it could make people uncomfortable to have their graduations in a house of worship, and we shouldn’t be putting citizens in that situation.”

He added: “Unfortunately, some people of faith might also have prohibitions about attending events in a house of worship other than theirs.”.

But the Rev. Trey Graham, senior pastor of First Baptist Church Melissa, said in an email that he “applauds the school board” for considering the change. He said the district shouldn’t be deterred by possible legal action by the ACLU.

“The elimination of this restriction makes sense for the school district financially, logistically and relationally,” Graham said. “Financially, school districts can often save money by utilizing church facilities at lower cost than other large meeting places.”
Graham said that his church’s facilities are often used by school, civic and community groups that need meeting space. “We consider the use of our church’s space by outside groups as another way to positively impact our communities,” he said.
Staff writer Holly K. Hacker contributed to this report.

Faith leaders on DISD proposal

Several religious leaders from North Texas, including regular contributors to The Dallas Morning News’ Texas Faith blog, weighed in on a proposal to allow Dallas ISD schools to hold graduation ceremonies in religious facilities. Here are excerpts from their comments:

Ric Dexter, Northeast Texas area leader in SGI-USA, a Buddhist lay organization

“I can’t imagine any religious facility that would be willing to remove or cover over a symbol of their reason for being, simply not to offend some of the graduates. While most Christians would have no problem with a crucifix as a backdrop, I wonder if they would feel as comfortable with Shiva or Buddha overlooking this important moment in their children’s life.”

Trey Graham, senior pastor, First Baptist Church Melissa

“Our church’s facilities, on multiple campuses, are often used by school, civic and community groups who need meeting space at times that do not interfere with our regular church ministries. We consider the use of our church’s space by outside groups as another way to positively impact our communities. The threat of legal action by the ACLU should not deter school board personnel from making this sensible change.”

Katie Sherrod, Episcopal lay leader, Fort Worth

“I don’t know what freedom of religion and freedom from religion is worth, but way too many U.S. soldiers have died to defend those American values. However much money the district might save by using religious buildings doesn’t even come close to being worth sacrificing that. While Christian children and parents might be OK with sitting under an image of the crucified Christ, I doubt it would be comfortable for Jewish children and their parents, given how often the crucifixion has been used as an excuse to persecute Jews. And I’m trying to imagine how some Christians would feel about having their child’s graduation in a mosque.”

Mohamed Elibiary, spokesman, Islamic Asssociation of North Texas/Dallas Central Mosque

“We would advise DISD to slow down its consideration to change the current neutral graduation venue policy and instead launch a broad stakeholders’ feedback effort. It is a fact that some faith communities with larger percentages of new immigrant constituencies will view this policy change as biased towards certain denominations, such as megachurches, with the large facilities to lease to the school district in the first place. Public schools were partially established more than a century ago so that various segments of the American public can find that uniting neutral ground that reminds all that despite numerous differences, we are still all equal Americans, civically speaking.”

Mike Ghouse, a Muslim and president of the Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas

“It implies an association with that place of worship and carries the baggage in the long haul. What if the new pastor is a bigot and has a problem with gay or lesbian kids or kids of other faiths? It is always the individual that drives the society towards ill will or goodwill. Why do we need to subject ourselves to such whims?

“We are a pluralistic society and deeply want our kids to grow up and interact with the real world out there that comprises people of different faiths, races, ethnicities and sexual orientation. A religious building does not offer such an environment, even with a few exceptions.”

Holly K. Hacker

Mitt Romney, you can do this, others don’t have the balls.

2012-01-14T10:44:00.002-06:00

I was concerned with Romney's statements earlier on that bordered on bigotry, but he has done very well with his response to a question by a woman, "Do you believe in the divine saving grace of Jesus Christ?"

"I would hope that there are people in our nation that have different beliefs. There are people of the Jewish faith and the Islamic faith and other faiths who believe other things, and our president will be president of the people of all faiths," he said.

"We welcome people of other faiths. I happen to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and my savior, but I know other people have differing views and I respect those views, and I don't believe those qualify or disqualify people for leadership in our nation," he said.

http://www.politico.com//blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/romney-gets-a-faith-question-in-sc-110840.html

Indeed I am working on developing leadership programs to train our future leaders to be free from bigotry at America Together Foundation.

Here is an item I wrote way back and you ~nearly pass my test of Pluralism.

We are one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. We are represented by every race, nationality, ethnicity, language, culture and religion. We see God as one, none and many and in every form; male, female, genderless and non-existent, being and non-being, nameless and with innumerable names. Americans together are committed to preserve this pluralistic heritage of America.

http://americatogetherfoundation.blogspot.com/2011/11/americans-together-documentary_11.html

You may really like this Pluralism Prayer, if you can subscribe to this, you have won me as an individual and I will do these prayers for you in one of your debates or fund raising.

Text: http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2011/12/pluralism-greetings-and-prayer-at.html

Actual Prayer in Carrollton City Hall – Congressman Kenny Marchant has listened to this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mc9D9guPMY&feature=youtu.be

Americans Together building Cohesive societies

OUR MISSION

Our Mission is to build a cohesive America, where no American has to live in anxieties, discomfort or fear of the other.

OUR VISION

It is our individual and collective responsibility to keep law and order and faithfully guard the safety of every citizen. Hate, prejudice and stereotyping are some of the many root causes of disrupting the peace in a society and it is our duty to track down the source of such ill-will and work on mitigating it.

We believe humans are open to choices and will make best choices if the path is paved for them. It has been our experience through our annual events like Unity Day, Reflections on Holocaust and Genocides, Thanksgiving, Conferences, that our participants have walked out with a commitment to be less biased, less prejudiced and willing to stand up for the others for the sake of general good of mankind.

We are committed to enhance the efforts nationally, one brick at time in building a cohesive America, where each one of the 312 Million Americans feel safe in their homes, at their jobs, places of worship and in the public places.

Mike Ghouse is committed to building a cohesive America where no American has to live in apprehension, discomfort or fear of the other – www.MikeGhouse.net

ROMNEY, YOU CAN DO THIS, OTHER BIGOTS DON'T HAVE THE BALLS
http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2012/01/mitt-romney-you-can-do-this-others-dont.html

OTHER ROMNEY LINKS :: I WROTE 11 ITEMS ON ROMNEY?

Mitt Romney, you can do this, others don’t have the balls.
http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2012/01/mitt-romney-you-can-do-this-others-dont.html

- - - - -
Evangelicals are ganging up on Romney
http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2012/01/texas-faith-evangelical-leaders-finding.html
- - - - -

Romney wins New Hampshire
http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2012/01/romney-wins-new-hampshire.html

- - - - -

Gingrich next exit, Romney has to contend with Paul
http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2011/12/gingrich-next-exit-romney-has-to.html

- - - - -

The Ghouse Diary: IOWA REPUBLICAN CAUCUS NOTES
http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2012/01/iowa-republican-caucus-notes.html
- - - - -

Texas Faith: How should Huntsman and Romney handle their Mormonism?
http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2011/06/texas-faith-how-should-huntsman-and.html

- - - - -
Embarrassing Presidential debate on 11.12.11
http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2011/11/embarassing-presidential-debate-on.html
- - - - -
PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE ON FOX
http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2011/08/presidential-debate-on-fox.html

- - - - -
Perry will be the nominee if he keeps up

http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2011/09/perry-will-be-nominee-if-he-keeps-up.html
- - - - -
Trust, Democrats and Republicans.
http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2011/08/trust-democrats-and-republicans.html
- - - - -
Bigotry of Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain and other Republicans http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Bigotry-of-Newt-Gingrich--by-Mike-Ghouse-110622-717.html