As is the case with most of the populist information about Islam going around in media, publications and the Internet, the record of family rights and women’s rights, at times, appears to be exceedingly negative too. Incidents involving Muslim women and children are often used as a basis for condemnation of individual rights in Muslim countries. What is not obvious to an outsider, though, is the difference between cultural practices and Islamic directives.

In Eastern countries, quite a few hurdles need to be overcome before domestic violence can be addressed effectively. For one, it is often considered inappropriate to take what are known as ‘family matters’ to the authorities for help. In many cases, the known corruption in the authorities themselves is a hurdle for people to get safety – in fact, it is quite common in a country like Pakistan to not report to police since the chances are that the victim will be put under more strain and problems due to weaknesses in the system.

The good news nevertheless is that situation is improving towards betterment. In many western countries, as well as in some Eastern ones, authorities and individuals are attempting to curb domestic violence. For instance, a new organization called “The Committee of Social Protection” in Saudia Arabia has embarked on a drive to educate health workers about domestic violence and abuse. This is important because health workers are usually in a position to first identify such cases and report to proper authorities. It still needs to be seen whether it leads to any positive results or not, nevertheless, the effort is a first step towards improving the states.

In a different effort, Mohammed Baobaid, a Yemeni immigrant in London, Canada, received the Everyday Hero award from Center for Research on Domestic Violence against Women and Children. Baobaid founded the program ‘Muslim Family Safety Project’ to have the Muslim community address domestic violence effectively. According to London Free Press, he is reported to have said, “Ninety per cent of my conversations with the leaders were not about the Canadian framework on women abuse but about Islam's position on woman abuse.” In London Free Press’s words:

Everyday Hero award is not the only recognition – he has also been praised by London’s imams for his efforts, giving his struggle a religious backing, and reinforcing that effective application of Islamic principles ought to improve societies towards good.

On August 29, a few days before commencement of Ramadan this year, President Bush sent greetings to Muslims in America and around the globe. The text of message was short but apt. The President specifically recognized American Muslims in the US and thanked them for their contributions.

Like every year, President Bush also hosted an Iftaar dinner this Ramadan – a tradition first started by President Clinton and continued since then in the White House. (Iftaar is the breaking of the fast by Muslims at sunset.) At the Iftaar dinner, the President mentioned achievements of Muslim civilization and acknowledged Muslims’ contribution to America in various fields:

However, this year, he recognized efforts of professor Maysam Ghovanloo in particular. Mr. Ghovanloo holds M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Michigan. Among his various innovations includes development of technology to help disabled control devices using their tongue. In particular, Mr. Ghovanloo’s work centers on creating a virtual keyboard instead of the physical one that could be operated using the tongue. President Bush’s acknowledgement of his efforts comes in the following words:

The President finally ended his address with the following note:

MI5 has recently published a report on the research it carried on identifying British terrorists. The report not only stated that terrorist attitude is independent of one’s religion, it also asserted lack of religious practice as a common trait among terrorists. In Guardian’s own words:

This is a groundbreaking study because unless the real reason for terrorists to get involved in criminal activities is understood, they cannot be countered effectively. This study sets the stage for disallowing a stereotypical approach to the issue, usually linked directly or indirectly to Islam, and instead sets base for deeper studies.

MI5’s report is not the only work in this domain making such claims. While this report comes from a security agency, research works on exploring the causes of terrorism have been published in academia as well.

Robert Pape, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago and the author of “Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism”, wrote an article for “the Age” in which he summarized his research on the causes of suicide bombings. He studied suicide attacks from 1980 to early 2004 and identified that more than a half were conducted by secular groups and individuals.

He explained the cause of the suicide attempts rooted not in religion but motivated by a will to resist and combat foreign occupations. In Mr. Pape’s words:

His analysis of Al-Qaeda is summarized in following words:

The success of winning against terrorism depends highly on understanding the motivations of the terrorists as well as breaking of stereotypes that seem to have been created in the West especially after World Trade Center attack and London bombings. Religion, in particular Islam, is not responsible and should not be seen as the source of terrorism – this is evident both from the MI5 report as well as from Robert Pape’s research. It is, however, often employed as a tool to aid rationalization of such activities in the eyes of novices and outsiders.

Last month, newspapers all over the world broke the story of Faiza Silmi, a Muslim woman who was denied French citizenship on grounds of her ‘radical’ practice of Islam. On top of that, French minister for urban affairs, Fadela Amara – herself a Muslim – called Ms. Silmi’s face veil “a prison” and a “straitjacket.” This is despite the fact that Ms. Silmi wears it out of choice.

A family forms the foundation of a society, and it ought to be preserved. Modesty is one of the means, and perhaps the most important means, of achieving that goal. And headscarf is one of the many components of that modesty. However, it is not only headscarf that is the focus of Islamic teachings - it is in fact modesty. For this reason, in its order, Quran first addresses males and tells them to "lower their gaze and guard their modesty" and then moves to address women. Exploring the headscarf, the author narrates:

The author also recounted her experiment of trying out a headscarf in shalwar kameez, dress worn by men and women in eastern countries. Her experience and learning are worth a read as they shed light on the feelings of a western non-Muslim woman in veil for the first time.

In the article “Not Only Is Freedom of Speech Threatened by Muslims, So Is Religion” published in The Post Chronicle on August 22, the author Vincent Gioia alleges:

This is not what Quran teaches. Mr. Gioia has not only misunderstood Quran's verses but also misrepresented it without providing any evidence. Quran has mentioned a people from amongst the Israelites of old that disobeyed God concerning Sabbath and thus were turned into apes. The verses state:

Quran is not alone in this address, Bible has also mentioned the desecration of Sabbath by Israelites, for instance in Ezekiel 20. Nehemiah is also said to have reminded Israelites about God’s calamity when their forefathers transgressed limits of the Sabbath:

In short, wrath of God having fallen on Israelites is a historical fact that is alluded to in both Bible and Quran.

In another place in Quran, God clarifies that from amongst Jews and Christians, “God turned some to apes and swine.” (Quran 5:60) Whether this turning into apes and swine was physical or it is an application of a linguistic style to indicate that those people lost their intellect is open to interpretation, and scholars have argued for both.

However, to generalize these historical incidents regarding specific people towards all Jews and Christians is an implausible stretch that neither these verses allow nor Quran preaches. If such were the case, then essentially all sins of the people of old could be brought forward to hold their descendants accountable for them, which is against the teachings of the Quran. Quran is very clear that those who committed the sins are the only ones to be held accountable for them.

Not only that, God also commended those Jews and Christians in Quran who were upright, remembered God and performed good deeds – the statement is more general than the one regarding apes and swine:

It should be clear from these verses that God in fact appreciates those Jews and Christians who are dedicated to good in this world. His judgment of people is not based solely on whether they are Jews, Christians or Muslims, but more so on their belief in God and the last day and their actions and deeds. Another verse indicates the following:

At the same time, God’s message in Quran is intense in inviting one to continuously search for truth and accept it irrespective of where it comes from. It is He who sent previous scriptures and it is He who sent a new one. Consequently, His classification is not based on association with existing religious dominations since when the Quran’s revelation started, no one was technically the same as a ‘Muslim’ as we know today. God’s invitation was to Jews, Christians and Polytheists alike, and when He differentiated between various factions and groups, the differentiation was based on their belief in Him, the last day, their actions and, most importantly, their acceptance of truth and resolve to live by it.

Danish Intellligence Agency recently advised authorities to avoid using words like 'jihad' and 'martyr' while talking about terrorism. Before that, the US state department had issued an internal memo advising against the use of the term ‘jihadis’ or ‘jihadists’ to describe terrorists who use Islam to justify their actions. The use of these terms has been frustrating to many, like me, who see terrorist groups attacking civilians wrongly; rationalizing it through religion even though Islam has no sanction whatsoever for such acts.

The term Jihad literally means ‘to strive’. It is used, often along with ‘in the way of God’, to describe a struggle taken for God’s sake. This struggle can vary from personal to national – the term can be used to describe an effort one makes for self-improvement or a large scale project undertake for a society’s betterment.

The use of these terms to describe terrorists has also caused confusion both in the Muslim world as well as in the West. A Muslim unaware of terrorists’ motivations and actions is bound to accept their actions religiously valid. Perhaps, it is for this reason that in the last few years, support for groups such as Taliban and Al-Qaeda has dropped significantly.

While there are theological reasons to reject Taliban and Al-Qaeda actions that involve acts such as suicide bombings and attacks on civilian targets, it is equally important to understand the social shift in Muslim attitude. Many western scholars and groups wrongly club all Muslims together and label them all terrorists. But the research data indicates otherwise.

Pew Global Attitudes Project published a report last year on global trends subtitled “Sharp Decline in Support for Suicide Bombings in Muslim Countries”. The study noted a decrease in support for suicide bombings and similar tactics since 2002 in seven of the eight countries in which data was available. The chapter on Muslim attitudes starts with the following summary:

The overall point to note is that Muslims themselves are against suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilians. Many Western groups and authors, such as Craig Winn, tend to label all Muslims as terrorists. But the reality is very different, and far more promising than that. Such groups and authors, whom I see on an extreme too when they club all Muslims together, do not realize that many Muslims governments themselves are fighting terrorists. For instance, the governments and militaries fighting terrorists in Pakistan and many other countries are Muslim too. So are the lawyers who prosecute them and judges who convict them!

Bombings in China this week during the Olympics were yet another tragedy committed in the name of Islam with the toll reported to have been risen to eight dead and four injured as of this writing. Our prayers are with those who passed away and were injured – this is indeed a tragic incident.

JihadWatch.org and websites with similar ideologies would have you believe that this is indeed caused by Islam. However, I want to have you believe otherwise because, as I explain below, this is not true at all. Even though Muslims have committed these atrocities, Islam does not endorse any such bombings or violence. Quran advocates justice to Muslims in following words: “O believers! Be steadfast in the cause of God, bearing witness in equity; and let not a people's enmity incite you to act otherwise than with justice. Be always just. That is nearer to righteousness. And fear God. Surely, God is aware of what you do.” (Quran 5:8)

Turkistan Islamic Party (TIF), the group that has threatened attacks at China Olympics, is in fact a separatist movement. In their own words, they are fighting against repressive Chinese government for their rights. While their method is unjustified, the motivation for their attacks should still not be ignored to understand both whether Islam purports such a viewpoint and to find the real reason for their actions. Reuters reported that a video dated Aug 1 had its speaker describing “barbarism exhibited by China towards Muslims and East Turkistan, justifying the jihad that is declared against the communist regime.” In addition, the speaker also said that, “China ... rejects Islam and forces Muslims into atheism by capturing and killing Islamic teachers and destroying Islamic schools.”

Robert Pape, a scholar of political science at the University of Chicago, published an article in 2005 titled "Why the bombers are so angry at us" in which he summarized the results of his research on suicide bombings. He wrote, “what more than 95 per cent of all suicide terrorist attacks around the world have in common is not religion, but a specific political goal to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland or prize greatly.” He further wrote, “Although terrorist leaders may harbour other goals, history shows that the presence of foreign combat forces is the principal recruiting tool used by terrorist leaders to mobilize suicide terrorists to kill us.”

Repression is what TIF is fighting for in these bombings and they probably see Olympics as an opportunity to build their identity, and have their demands met. The actions of these bombers are primarily politically motivated and use of religion, if any, is perhaps in order to justify their conscience or set a stage in front of the world. Jihadwatch.org and similar groups would go by the very words that are uttered by the bombers but would not attempt to find their real motivation. Bombers have some conscience too and they need to fight it one way or another, the easiest is to satisfy oneself religiously so the conscience does not prick as much. That frees one to achieve their end goal which, in this case, is two fold: Firstly, retaliation against the government because the group deems government to be unjust; and secondly, the fight for their separation.

Islam, however, is clear about the loss of life and strongly pushes to save it. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is reported to have forbidden killing of any civilian in battlefields so much so that he is reported to have even forbidden damage of civilian property.

The case of Faiza Silmi, who was denied French citizenship on grounds of her ‘radical’ practice of Islam, was covered extensively in media and gained widespread publicity. Her choice to wear a niqab, a veil covering face and the head, caused her application for French citizenship to be rejected. In Economist’s words, “This is the first time the court has refused nationality on the grounds of religious expression.” It was further claimed by French authorities that Ms. Faiza lived “in total submission to the men in her family.”

At the same time, International Herald Tribune (IHT) also published a deeper analysis in which Ms. Silmi clarified, “I want to tell them: It is my choice. I take care of my children and I leave the house when I please. I have my own car. I do the shopping on my own. Yes, I am a practicing Muslim, I am orthodox. But is that not my right?” More importantly, the question of what constitutes private religious practice and public life is further confused by the ruling. Not only that, IHT also mentions she being served tea by her husband during their interview and she picks her up veil when driving to pick up children from school.

While all of this was going on with France taking a strong stance on socio-religious issues, the French government issued instructions to enable Islamic finance and make appropriate changes to the structure. Islamic finance prohibits gains in form of interest money and dividends from stocks of companies that indulge in interest based business, pork and alcohol related products. By enabling Islamic finance, the government essentially supporting Muslim beliefs, which of course are religious in nature and would therefore stand contradictory to secularism. In addition, these prohibitions are not only applicable at an individual level but in fact cover the society.

It is hard to see that France finds a woman's wearing a face veil opposed to secularim whereas it does not find Islamic finance so. Although religious is nature, wearing a face veil nonetheless is still a personal choice. It is not even close to having the kind of effect that Islamic finance will have on French society. Purely from a philosophical standpoint, if Islamic finance is not banned (rather supported), then it is only logical that the citizenship of a woman not be denied at least on the grounds that face veil clashes with France's 'secular' values.

It is also interesting to note that while face veil has been labelled 'radical' by government spokespersons. On the other hand, Islamic finace was not even discussed and instructions already issued to enable it. On the economic side, this seems to be primarily because the French government finds economics of Islamic finance very lucrative. In a paper by Standard and Poor addressing France's gap with Britain on Islamic finance, the financial benefit to France in light of current global recession is too strong for it to miss on this opportunity.

A few days ago, I learnt about a book "Prophet of Doom" by Craig Winn representing Islam as a religion of terror. The official site of the book explains how the author went about getting material for their book. If you go to Amazon and read the reviews, you will find many who simply love the book because "it opens their eyes" to Islam, and many who hate the book because it is against Islam. The book's website contains quite a lot of anti-Islamic material and many slanders against Quran, which I am not going to address — one thing I would add though is that after reading what he had to say about Quran, I am convinced the author did not understand it at all in the first place to be able to do justice with it. For instance, he claims that if Muslims "were to shed their yoke of ignorance", and read Quran, they "would also discover that the Qur’an is poorly written. There are countless meaningless words, foreign words, and missing words which is why translations differ so significantly — everyone is guessing as to what Muhammad thought Allah was trying to say."

I am a student of Arabic and by no means an expert on classical Arabic. Nonetheless, with my level of Arabic, I can vouch that this is not true at all. In fact, most of the language of Quran is quite simple and the text is simpler than most modern standard Arabic text I have come across — however, I will save this discussion for a later day.

The fundamental flaw that I see with the methodology of the author is the way he has understood Islam. He earlier wrote a book titled, "Tea with Terrorists," which explains how he initially learnt about this religion:

The whole problem with both these books is that they are an understanding of the terrorists, who have an agenda and they want to achieve that. And the percentage of such people is small amongst Muslims. A billion and a half Muslims and most of them are not only living peacefully in many Western countries but also contributing heavily to the societies. I only wish the author had also made all this effort to find out why those who oppose terrorism do so even though both groups read exactly the same scripture? But unfortunately, that has not happened, and what this book is doing is promoting a terrorists' manipulated version of Quran and Islam! Consequently, I wrote them a letter (I am attaching below) but haven't received a response to date.

Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 1:32 AM
Subject: Terrorists as the source of Islam?

May peace be upon you,

I came across the website and read about the book ‘prophet of doom’. From what I have understood so far, Craig Winn chose to interview terrorists, and published their version of Islam in his book. I wish he had taken the effort to interview those Muslims (like myself) who have studied Quran, hadith, sira and tarikh and still not only believe but also preach, to Muslims and non-Muslims alike, that Islam does not allow terrorism and condemns terrorists. Not only that, such Muslims are out there in an effort to salvage Islam from terrorists who twist the verses of Quran and use other sources selectively in order to recruit innocent Muslims and wage war against the West.

I would have loved it much more had Craig Winn done a fair job and not only exposed the terrorists but also investigated Islam from this other viewpoint, which represents perhaps more than 99% of the Muslim population. While Mr. Winn has tried to prove that Quran states all Muslims are bad, he forgets that Quran also states that all non-Muslims are not alike, and there are those that are dedicated to God:

Not only that Quran states that there is no compulsion in religion (2:256) and that whoever kills another soul with the exception of as punishment for murder or for causing mischief in land, it is as if he killed the entire mankind (5:32).

Mr. Winn can reject these verses if he likes, but then he has chosen to accept the interpretation of the terrorists and when moderates like me suggest interpretations of Quran as against terrorism, he has chosen to reject those even though it is belief of a majority of Muslims.

Lastly, Muslims accept Quran as the book of sources and the only piece of text that has reached the present day with the authenticity unsurpassed by other texts. Consequently, Islam’s beliefs are formed on the basis of Quran and not on the basis of hadith, tarikh and sira – the latter are only sources of practices, for instance, how to offer prayers, perform pilgrimage, observe fasts etc.

I hope Mr. Winn and your team will acknowledge that the book unfairly presents the terrorist version and consequently causes more problem than solving. It also distorts Islam since it looks only from one point of view – all the material seems to have been drawn by the teas Mr. Winn had with terrorists – I wish he had some with people like me.

My prayers for you and the team,
Muhammad Omer Iqbal
www.omeriqbal.com

Last week's edition of Newsweek ran a story on payday loans (Payday Loans Can Be a Trap.) The article explained the unfairness of payday loan system, and how the borrower can end up paying significantly large sums of money than they borrowed. For instance, one example quoted had a borrower pay $8000 on a $350 loan!

Although the article talks about only one type of unfairness in the system, it nonetheless explains the intrinsic unfairness of payday loans. In one of my articles, (Interest vs Risk-Sharing in Business Partnerships) among other issues I also pointed out that interest is inherently unfair, and consequently interest-based transactions are prohibited in Islam (although Quran does not explicitly cite any reason). The Newsweek article on payday loans provides a good perspective on unfairness of loans in modern economy.

Needless to state, this is not an attempt to justify Islam's ban on interest using this reasoning.

Last year in September, Ali Sina, an ex-Muslim, and Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, one of the leading scholars of Pakistan, were requested to engage in a debate around the criticism that Mr. Sina had launched against Islam. Both accepted the proposal with Dr. Khalid Zaheer, a former professor of Lahore University of Management Sciences and currently an academic at Al-Mawrid institute, representing Mr. Ghamidi. The debate last a few months and continued until earlier this year.

The text of the debate is quite interesting to say the least. Dr. Zaheer's premise was that Quran is the book of God, and it is only Quran and Sunnah that he would defend Islam upon. From the very beginning, he made it clear that all discussions should take place with this assumption in mind. On the other hand, while Ali Sina started off with criticism on Quran, very soon the bulk of his arguments was based on Muslim beliefs and practices and his understanding of Islam based on hadith, history, and other works on Islam.

Ali Sina boasts a reward of $50,000 to anyone who 'proves' him wrong on charges he has brought against Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), and 'proves' that Muhammad (pbuh) is the true messenger of God. In the beginning of the debate, Ali Sina agreed that the debate is not for polemics but for finding out the truth. But unfortunately, in the exchange that he carried with Javed Ahmed Ghamidi and Dr. Khalid Zaheer, the tone was nothing but libels against Islam, discrediting all arguments brought forth by the scholars. In addition, the arguments brought forth by the Dr. Zaheer were often not addressed and instead, derogatory charges were brought against Muslims time and again.

It is also interesting that Ali Sina held Dr. Zaheer and entire Muslim community guilty of actions of some Muslims. For instance, threats for apostasy made against Ali Sina led him to conclude that that was what Islam preached and that was what all the Muslims wanted. Irrespective of Dr. Zaheer's negation that apostasy in Islam ought not to be punished, Ali Sina not only insisted upon it but also concluded that all Muslims are, in fact, simply mendacious. Obviously, any debate which accuses the other party of lies when they present their opinion is not quite a debate rather merely an invective. Such was the tone on which this discussion ended.