Thursday, 19 November 2015

SENEGAL SET TO STOP TERRORISTS DISGUISING IN ISLAMIC DRESS

West African country may follow Chad and Cameroon in banning full-body cloak, saying decision is question of national security



Senegal is considering banning women from wearing the burqa, amid rising fears of Islamic extremism in the west African country.

The interior minister, Abdoulaye Daouda, said women would no longer be allowed to wear the Islamic dress, which leaves only the eyes exposed. Daouda said the decision was a question of national security and was designed to prevent terrorists from using the burqa as a disguise.

An estimated 92% of Senegal’s population is Muslim. Although the country has not suffered a terrorist attack recently, authorities are concerned that the Islamic militant group Boko Haram, based in north-eastern Nigeria, may be trying to extend its range. This month, police arrested five people suspected of having ties to Boko Haram as part of a nationwide crackdown.

Senegal is not alone in west Africa in banning the burqa. This year Cameroon and Chad, also with large Muslim populations, issued similar orders citing similar reasons. “Senegal is just following the trend,” said Martin Ewi, a senior researcher at the Institute for Security Studies.

He said the ban, though difficult to enforce, had been reasonably effective in both countries. “You still have the villages and far corners of the country where people don’t always respect the ban,” he added.

However, the ban was not a foolproof solution, Ewi warned. Two days after Chad instituted a ban, two burqa-clad bombers blew themselves up in N’Djamena, killing at least 27 people including several police officers. “They deliberately wore the burqa to attract the attention of the police,” Ewi said.

The burqa ban has been the subject of debate within Senegal, with commentators struggling to balance the national security imperative with religious freedom. “Its imposition in Senegal will cause social instability … there is a delicate line between preventive measures and respect for individual freedoms,” said Khadim Mbacke, a Dakar-based researcher.

Mbaye Niang, a Muslim leader and member of parliament, said the new law was designed to protect Islam. “We should not allow someone to cover their entire body like terrorists do. This is a tradition of some countries but it has nothing to do with Islam,” he told the local newspaper Le Quotidien. The reason terrorists use this method was because they wanted to attack the religion, he added.

Farid Essack, a religious studies scholar at the University of Johannesburg, said that context was key and the justifications used in Muslim countries did not necessarily apply elsewhere.

“In some political contexts, I find [the banning of burqas] deeply disturbing and an extension of Islamaphobia. I don’t think that the Chadian response is a manifestation of Islamophobia,” he said. “Chad … has had several bombings, a number of them were seemingly perpetrated by [fully covered] men, and I don’t think that it is unreasonable, in that context, to insist people should not be completely veiled in public.”

Credited to Simon Allison

Saturday, 29 August 2015

Discourage Your Husbands From Corruption, Sultan Urges Muslim Women


sultan of sokotoThe Sultan of Sokoto, Alhaji Muhammad Abubakar Sa’ad, has urged Nigerian Muslim women to support the current fight against corruption by discouraging their husbands from engaging in corruption.


The Sultan made the statement on Friday while speaking at the 30th Anniversary of the Federation of Muslim Women Association in Nigeria (FOMWAN) in Ilorin.
The anniversary was celebrated at the Banquet Hall of the University of Ilorin where various Muslim organisations from Ghana, Ivory Coast and the United Kingdom came to felicitate with the Nigerian branch of FOMWAN.
The Sultan pointed out that the change needed in Nigeria should start from home, “for it to be positive and succeed”.
Alhaji Abubakar advised the women to always abide by the dictates of Islam, and not support their husbands who might want to indulge in corrupt practices.
He called on the women to discourage their husbands from unlawful means, if the current change clamoured by Nigerians would be positive.
In his speech, the Kwara State Governor, Abdulfatah Ahmed, also told the gathering that ethnic disunity and religious imbalance in the nation could be traced to lack of good leaders.
He, however, urged the women to hand down good morals to their children, for them to be good and responsible leaders of tomorrow.
Both leaders also called on Nigerians to ensure that the present fight against corruption by the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari was successful.

Credit to Channels TV 

Muslim Students Demand Apology, Adjustment Of Nov/Dec WAEC Timetable





Muslim students under the aegis of Muslim Students Society of Nigeria (MSSN), have faulted the timing of some subjects of WAEC examinations for Nov./Dec private candidates.

The zonal coordinator of the group in the southern states, Alhaji Mushafau Alaran, who stated this while addressing a news conference in Abeokuta, the Ogun State capital yesterday, pointed out that the timetable placed some subjects at a period when Muslims would be observing Jumat prayers.
According to him, the emphatic reference shows that on Oct. 11, the Forestry 2 (Essay) holds between 13 and 15hours. On Oct 18, Government 2 Essay also falls on the same time. Others include Further Mathematics, Applied Electricity 2 and Applied Electricity 1.
According to the MSSN, this was a deliberate act which translates to taking Muslims for granted and disrespect for the religion.
“It should be noted that Jumat prayer is an obligation that all Muslims must observe”, he said, demanding an apology and adjustment of the timetable.

Credit to Daniel

Monday, 3 August 2015

GHB's Idea Of A Syumul (Universal) Islam Is A Product Of Fantasy, Says Mahfodz



KUALA LUMPUR: Pas' splinter Gerakan Harapan Baru (GHB) is a "deviant" movement with an Islamic brand for those living in a fool's paradise.

Worse, its approach is centred on DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng's political ideology, said Pas ulama chief Datuk Dr Mahfodz Mohamed.

"GHB's idea of a syumul (universal) Islam is a product of fantasy. It is not real.

"Understandably, their spiritual adviser is Lim Guan Eng," said Mahfodz in a speech during a ceramah event at Desa Pandan here.

Mahfodz also said GHB was deviant in a way it believed Pas could not win without DAP following the dissolution of the opposition pact Pakatan.

"Pas is an Islamic party. Win or lose, that is up to Allah. Not DAP. That is why GHB is deviant and "rosak akidah" (of aberrant faith)," said Mahfodz.

He said GHB did not have a party constitution and it would be mindboggling for anyone to shift their struggles onto a platform without a clear direction.

"There is nothing black and white about the party. What are their Islamic objectives?

"GHB is a movement made of those bitter over their losses in the party polls. They are just like children."


Also present at the ceramah was Pas president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang.

Muhammadiyah’s ‘progressive Islam’: Guideline or tagline?

Muhammadiyah, the country’s second largest Muslim organization, will hold its 47th national congress (muktamar) in Makassar, South Sulawesi, this week. The congress will set up a new agenda for the next five years, including electing a new leader who will replace two-time chairman Din Syamsuddin.

Muhammadiyah’s challenges and plans include internal consolidation of leadership, bureaucratic improvement and dealing with external issues of globalization, poverty and lack of education, low quality of human resources and the upcoming integrated ASEAN economic community.

In response to such challenges, Muhammadiyah’s central board in the past years reformulated its movement through the notion of Islam berkemajuan, a hot topic among its members and activists.

 “Progressive Islam”, a loose translation of Islam berkemajuan, is clearly a part of the efforts to cope with challenges among its followers and among Indonesian Muslims, challenges which include poverty, injustice and human resources.

The translation itself is still problematic. Amin Abdullah, a former rector of the UIN Kalijaga, Yogyakarta, described in 2011 the slight differences between Islam berkemajuan, which emerged in the early 20th century, and Islam progresif as understood by academics. But let’s just focus on the similarities.

Since the establishment of Muhammadiyah in 1912, its founder Kyai Haji (revered cleric and haj) Ahmad Dahlan fully understood that Islam is compatible with the idea of being progressive, and that Islam encourages its followers to be the best and reach the highest quality of life in political, economic, social, cultural and religious terms.

The idea of being progressive is deeply entrenched in Muhammadiyah’s history. During the colonial period, shortly after Muhammadiyah’s establishment, meetings held by Ahmad Dahlan with his students included proposals to build hospitals and orphanages.

One student, the future cleric KH Syuja, had laughed, saying it was impossible at the time. He later acknowledged confidence in the plans: Dutch people who built hospitals and orphanages, he wrote, “are ordinary people who also eat rice. If others can do it, I am sure we can do it too.” History has recorded the program as a brilliant achievement for a new-born Muslim organization at the time.

 The idea of fastabiqulkhairat (competition in goodness) also deeply inspired Muhammadiyah’s activities. As a former chairman of Muhammadiyah, Buya (revered ulema) Syafii Maarif said, doing good deeds through the establishment of massive numbers of Muhammadiyah schools and clinics is not the main focus of the organization — it is their quality and thus continued improvement.

According to Muhammadiyah’s manifesto at its 46th national congress of 2010 in Yogyakarta, Islam berkemajuan should sow the seeds of truth, goodness, peace, justice, welfare and prosperity.

Islam upholds human dignity of both men and women without discrimination — and inflames awareness against war, terrorism, violence, oppression, backwardness and all forms of destruction and degradation of life such as corruption, abuse of authority, crimes against humanity and exploitation of nature.

Attempts to summarize the spirit of Islam berkemajuan based on the teachings of Ahmad Dahlan and the writings of his students and companions reveal five features of the concept.

First is pure faith (tauhid), the central doctrine in Islamic teachings. Muslims committed to tauhid should have high social, intellectual and spiritual awareness. They should be optimists and hard working honest persons with no fear except of Allah. They should have the conviction that life is part of worshiping God.

Secondly, he or she should have a deep understanding of the primary sources of Islam, the Koran and the Prophet’s sayings or hadith.

Third, there should be an institutionalization of charity aimed to solve problems based on the scripture and hadith. For instance, the establishment of hospitals and orphanages are part of the practice of surah Al-Ma’un. The establishment of Muhammadiyah itself is proof of faith as mentioned in surah Ali Imran: 104: to organize others to do good deeds, and prohibit them from committing sins.

Fourth, focus on the present and future. Islam berkemajuan prefers to solve present problems and prepare for the future rather than praise the glories of past Islamic kingdoms. Thus, Muhammadiyah should be well-prepared to overcome current problems and benefit the most from today’s developments. Globalization and an integrated ASEAN economic community, for example, provides benefits such as through trade, science and global citizenship, though with negative impacts such as trafficking in persons, drug abuse, conflict and insecurity.

The rapid development of information and technology also provide tools for Muhammadiyah to contribute through innovations and creativity for Indonesia’s development.

Fifth is a focus on being moderate and cooperation-oriented. Amid the resurgence of sectarianism and violent extremism the spirit of Muhammadiyah in its early years were open-mindedness, moderation, tolerance and promotion of dialogue among different groups and beliefs.

For example, in one gathering Ahmad Dahlan invited a leader of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) to explain the purpose of the party and their responses toward social and economic problems at that time. At Muhammadiyah’s first hospital Ahmad Dahlan himself asked for the assistance of a Catholic physician, since the Muslim community at the time had no doctor.

These examples show that openness and cooperation in social matters is a part of Islamic teaching apart from egalitarianism and self-confidence to promote ideas and beliefs.

Overall, in its post-centennial era, Muhammadiyah must play a pivotal role to make Indonesian society more developed and prosperous. The spirit of Islam berkemajuan becomes a guideline for Muhammadiyah elements to be more proactive, responsive and provide solutions to current problems. To this end Muhammadiyah needs a modern and responsive management, led by strong and capable leaders, comprising a self-confident chairman and solid collegiality among its 13 leaders — along with a strong vision for the future. Otherwise, the notion of its progressive Islam will be a mere tagline rather than concrete action.
____________________________

... the spirit of Muhammadiyah in its early years were open-mindedness, moderation, tolerance and promotion of dialogue ...

Credit to Ahmad Imam Mujadid Rais, Jakarta

We must talk about Islam: A faith that affects everyone should be susceptible to critique by all



Eight months after it suffered one of the worst terrorist attacks in French history, the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo continues to provoke wrongheaded, confused and even cowardly analysis that disregards the facts and betrays a failure to understand – or a refusal to recognize — the stakes we in the West all have in what the publication stands for: freedom of expression.

Lest we forget those facts: on Jan. 7, the brothers Cherif and Said Kouachi burst into the Paris headquarters of Charlie Hebdo, and, shouting “Allahu akbar!” systematically gunned down staff members and others present.  After doing so, they announced “We have avenged the Prophet Muhammad!  We have killed Charlie Hebdo!”  Their motive: the cartoonists had satirized, on many occasions, the Prophet Muhammad, whose depiction Islam forbids.  Put succinctly: inspired by their religion, the Kouachi brothers murdered cartoonists for drawing cartoons.  They murdered for Islam.

Now for the latest broadside against reason (and the magazine’s few, grief-stricken survivors) — a documentary produced by journalist Max Blumenthal and a British videographer, James Kleinfeld, called “Je ne suis pas Charlie.”  The title is meant to refute the popular slogan (Je suis Charlie, or I am Charlie) adopted by the almost 4 million French citizens, who, to defend free speech, marched peacefully across France a few days after the massacre.  (Disclosure: I have friends among Charlie Hebdo’s staff.)

“Je ne suis pas Charlie” purportedly aims to explain why not all French citizens – and in particular, many in the country’s Muslim minority – approve of the slogan.  But the documentary does something else: it delivers a strongly biased narrative of events in France after the crime that exculpates Islam, de facto inculpates the victims in their own deaths, and will surely comfort and encourage future potential assassins contemplating the execution of similar atrocities.  As Blumenthal and Kleinfeld have it, the Kouachi brothers’ crime also occurred as the inevitable, if regrettable, outcome of France’s colonial history and the marginalized status of the country’s Muslim community.

“Je ne suis pas Charlie” contains such an abundance of errors and unsubstantiated assertions that it confronts its critics with a crisis of plenty.  For starters, it gets simple, easily verifiable facts wrong: 12 people, including six staff members and a police officer, died in the shooting, not “13 staff members;” the Islamist terrorist Amedy Coulibaly took hostages in a kosher supermarket in Paris not “later that day,” but two days after the assault on Charlie Hebdo; Coulibay was inspired not by Al Qaida in Yemen, but by ISIS; the “Je suis Charlie” march took place not on January 8, but on January 11th; that day, not “tens of thousands” marched through Paris, but as many as 1.6 million; and “laïcité” (roughly, “secularism,” but more on that below) is not only a “traditional French value” but the constitutionally enshrined law of the land.

The film turns on the semantically fraudulent bunk concept of “Islamophobia” – that is, that criticizing Islam amounts to a form of racism.  Proclaiming a message for the entirety of mankind, Islam, obviously, is not a race, but a religion, and one with followers of all skin colors on every continent.  It is, thus, a faith that potentially concerns everyone and should be susceptible to critique by all.

It is vital to understand one thing: freedom of speech means nothing if we are not at liberty to express ourselves about the most contentious issue of all, religion, be it Islam, Christianity, or Judaism. “Islamophobia” and “Islamophobic” are bludgeoning terms of political jargon wielded to suppress free speech and render Islam off-limits for anything but accolades, or, at least, neutral acceptance.  Those who denounce “Islamophobia” are pursuing an agenda, seeking to carve out a critique-free haven for their ideology, or else serving, at times unwittingly, as the “useful idiots” of such people and some pretty unsavory regimes.

Blumenthal (the film’s narrator) and some of the French, including French Muslims, he interviews use the terms “Islamophobic” and “racist” copiously and interchangeably.  One woman in a Muslim headscarf tells him that the more Islamic one’s clothes look, “the more people are racist toward you.”  Another confusedly, and in utter seriousness, declares that Muslim women in traditional Islamic dress “wear the stigma of their race as their clothing.”  A graduate student at the university Sciences Po declares that a “teacher who wants to exclude teenage girls” – in high school, presumably – “because they’re wearing the veil, it’s not because they fear or are scared, it’s just because they are Islamophobic,” right after having declared them “racist.”

The (manifestly nonsensical) conclusion these speakers leave us with: “race” can be put on or taken off, just like a hat.  Or a headscarf.

Blumenthal never mentions the 2004 French law prohibiting all conspicuous religious symbols (the wearing of Christian crosses as well as Islamic headscarves) in public schools.  Teachers “excluding” students in Islamic dress are following the law, whether they approve of it or not.  The legislation, passed after much controversy, is meant to prevent confessional divisions and discord from arising in public schools, where students should view one another as equal citizens of the French republic, not as Muslims, Catholics, or whatever.  Be as religious as you want to be, but don’t introduce your faith into a public environment where it can incite strife.  It also protects those unwilling to wear the headscarf by providing them a space in which they may not legally do so.

The film does not explain how French laïcité differs from American-style “secularism,” without an understanding of which the issues surrounding Islam in France are incomprehensible.  The French Revolution of the late eighteenth century was, of course, atheistic, but laïcité as it is now understood came into being with the 1905 law separating church and state that eliminated Catholicism’s influence in public schools and forbade the government from funding religions.

Laïcité is key to the French concept of citizenship: regardless of their faith (or the lack of it), all French citizens, legally speaking, stand equal before the law, a once-revolutionary idea in a Europe that had suffered catastrophic sectarian warfare.  Laïcité also, and more broadly, discourages communautarisme — the formation of ethnic or religious communities that could harm the comity among citizens the constitution seeks to ensure.  Laïcité benefits French Muslims most of all.  As a religious minority, they are the ones with, theoretically, something to fear from the Christian majority.  The presence of laïcité in the constitution, though, means French Catholics or Protestants cannot pass laws favoring Christianity over Islam – or any laws at all regarding religion.

“Two months after the rallies, France is a changed nation,” declares Blumenthal. “Celebrations of free speech have been replaced by police crackdowns on those accused of defending terrorism,” and “mainstream politicians” are using laïcité to “justify sweeping restrictions on Muslims in public spaces.”
The Charlie Hebdo massacre did not “change” France, but somewhat boosted support (which was already growing) for Marine Le Pen’s far-right party, the National Front.  The National Front performed worse, though, not better, than expected in regional elections in March, winning not a single département.  The soldiers the film shows on patrol in Parisian streets have been a feature of life in the capital for years.  The French “Patriot Act” the National Assembly passed in May continues to spark debate about possible abuse, but has not resulted in mass incarcerations.  And all the public conversation about Islam has actually led to higher, not lower, approval ratings for Muslims in France.  There is no new, post-Charlie-Hebdo anti-Muslim climate of oppression, even if after the massacre there was an increase in attacks on mosques.

“Police crackdowns?”  If Blumenthal indeed understands the differences between free-speech laws in France and the United States, he does not tell us anything about them or the controversial prosecutions to which they have led for many years.  Indeed, he never mentions (if he even knew) that Charlie Hebdo has itself confronted judicial persecution deriving from these same restrictive laws and, for instance, had prevailed in court when sued for “insulting Muslims” by the Grand Mosque of Paris and the Union of French Islamic Organizations.

What of the “sweeping restrictions on Muslims in public places?”  Strangely, such “sweeping restrictions” have escaped the notice of the media, both French and foreign.  And for good reason: there have been none.  Late in the film, an interviewee speaks of fearing “deportations” (of Muslims) – a baseless statement.  It should be pointed out that the Kouachi brothers and Coulibay were French citizens, not foreign intruders liable to expulsion.  The same goes for most Muslims in France.

Blumenthal portrays a Muslim community under siege, not just from the police, but from “racist invective from mainstream pundits in prime-time media.”  The pundits instanced are something other than “mainstream,” to put it mildly, and the video clips, cherry-picked from among some of the most extreme (and emotional) declarations made in the aftermath of the attacks.  In an interview about his film, Blumenthal contends that “half the French government” is “preaching racism or bigotry,” and that the French authorities are using laïcité as a “weapon” against Muslims.  Declarations of this sort reflect either ignorance of what has been going on in France since January, or an agenda — specifically, the agenda of those crying Islamophobia! to silence critical discussion of the faith.

The distortions owe much to his biased selection of interviewees, none of whose strong political affiliations (all well-known in France) does he identify for American viewers.  One of Blumenthal’s interviewees, for instance, is Alain Gresh, an editor at the far-left publication Le Monde diplomatique and a longtime purveyor of “Islamophobia” alerts; predictably, he labels Charlie Hebdo Islamophobic.  Another is Houria Bouteldja, the divisive founder of a party denounced for promoting communautarisme and even racism against French whites.  She embarrasses herself by declaring that Muslims are living as “hostages” in France, warns us that the government “has its sights set on the Muslims,” and, trampling over history, geography, and demographics too obvious to point out here, accuses the French republic of “choosing” as its “legitimate social group” the “figure of the Christian, white, European person.”  The few folks Blumenthal shows expressing support for Charlie Hebdo speak early in the film and are quickly forgotten.

ADVERTISEMENT

The inescapable conclusion unsuspecting viewers draw from this tour de force of “analysis”: France is heading for fascism, even civil war; and Charlie Hebdo is playing its part in an unjust assault by the morally corrupt French majority against a hapless Muslim minority.  The real issues at hand – how Muslims in Europe are to adjust to the profoundly secular societies in which they now live, how Europeans are to react to large, relatively new populations in their midst professing values that clash with their own – are never addressed.  The film never asks, in fact, whether conflict and widespread fear are inevitable when some people prove by their actions their willingness to kill for dogmas found in ancient texts.

Yet the most telling moment comes when Blumenthal asks, while the camera pans selections of the magazine’s cartoons (without any explication or the context provided by captions he neither shows clearly nor translates), “Is it possible for a Muslim to identify with a publication that demonized the Prophet Muhammad, in almost pornographic fashion?”

There you have it: for Blumenthal, Charlie Hebdo deserved it.  The implicit message: Cartoonists (and the rest of us) had better respect Islam, or else . . . or else, well, all bets are off.  Whatever violence ensues is inevitable, the result of almost “natural” forces beyond our control.

Progressive and liberal to the core, the artists of Charlie Hebdo were certainly not asking anyone to “identify” with their work.  Those who disliked it were free not to look.  Blumenthal never even interviews Charlie Hebdo’s survivors to get their perspective, never delves into the raunchy French tradition of irreligious satire (of which Charlie Hebdo is the heir) that extends all the way back to the French Revolution and even before, and certainly, based on what we see in the film, never bothered to try to understand the satire Charlie was publishing.  If he had, he would have learned that the magazine drew the Prophet Muhammad only as news events dictated (and far less frequently than it did, say, the Pope or various politicians), and satirized the Islamist fundamentalists exploiting their faith for political reasons.  It never attacked France’s Muslim community.  Charlie Hebdo has always “punched up” not “punched down.”

Always.

(For an inside look into the editorial process behind the magazine’s Islam coverage, readers of French should check out the highly informative account provided in “Eloge du Blasphème” by former Charlie Hebdo staffer Caroline Fourest.)

Let’s step away from Blumenthal’s awful artifact of journalistic malpractice and return to the facts.  Islamist terrorists assassinated cartoonists in Paris for drawing cartoons they deemed blasphemous.  Western societies are now dealing with a conflict between free speech and faith-based intolerance that will intensify as immigration and the Internet break down our borders.  We cannot, must not, cravenly shy away from this conflict, proposing convoluted counter-narratives that effectively exculpate assassins and promote or condone the self-imposition of the faith-mandated restrictions such assassins (and their useful idiots) would impose on us all in the name of “respect” for religion.

We need to muster up the courage to face the facts — and speak frankly about them.

We either defend free speech or we lose it.


Credit to Jeffrey Tayler

Wednesday, 13 May 2015

Indian Muslims in the Age of Muslim Uprisings

Muslim lands and Muslim communities are in a state of violent and intense political transformations across the Muslim heartland. States are destabilized, national identities are being deconstructed, sectarian and ideological fault lines are getting exacerbated and radicalism, extremism and state oppression is escalating. In this ocean of despair, one finds the Indian Muslim community, an island of calm moderation. Its not a small island either, it is a pretty big chunk. Indian Muslims are about 180 million and constitute nearly 15 percent of the Indian population. If Indian Muslims of today were an independent country, they would be the fifth or sixth most populated country in the world.

Lagging Behind

India is growing, but it is leaving behind its largest minority. India's economy has done extraordinarily well in the past 20 years, but Muslims not only enjoy a lesser share of these gains, their relative economic condition has suffered significantly compared to everyone else, in spite of spectacular national growth. It should be obvious to anyone who looks at macro indicators that Indian Muslims will constitute a bigger and bigger share of the population while simultaneously holding a smaller and smaller share of the economy.

The publication of the Sachar Commission Report in late 2006, and subsequent surveys, confirmed what many had feared or suspected for a long time: That Indian Muslims were lagging behind the rest of the country on nearly all indicators of development, income, education, representation in state institutions and in government.

Perceptions were now an unquestionable reality. The economic and developmental boom that India had experienced since the 1990s had bypassed the Indian Muslim community. Many Muslims who were part of the educated middle class and had benefitted from family members working in the Gulf were forced to acknowledge that while their personal circumstances may be tolerable, the over all economic condition of Indian Muslims was deplorable.

In addition to lagging behind in the economic sphere, Muslims are also falling behind in their share of the national political pie. The victory of BJP, a Hindu nationalist party with extremely hostile attitude towards religious minorities, and Narender Modi, their national leader as PM, has emboldened the many Hindu extremist groups that now act freely.

Minorities are harassed on a regular basis, violence and forced conversions are now frequent, and enforcement of Hindu dietary laws on the rest of the nation is the new fad of the nation. This trend cannot promise stability and Muslim moderation for an extended period. There is a limit to the extent that disenfranchisement, marginalization and harassment of a large minority can be sustained without causing irreparable damage to the body politic.

Change in Outlook

The Muslim political mindset, too, has been influenced significantly by these developments. The Sachar report by highlighting the state of underdevelopment of the Muslim community has re-prioritized Muslim political goals. Symbolic and identity issues such as the restoration of the Babri Mosque, which was destroyed by Hindu extremists, support for Urdu the language of a large number of Indian Muslims and Muslim Personal Law protection do not resonate as much with Muslims as jobs, education and political participation. Development and not identity has become the more important goal across the spectrum. In the last two-to-three decades the Indian Muslim community has invested heavily in education as this is evidenced by the emergence of many minority professional colleges, especially in the South.

There is a growing awareness among the younger Muslim elite that they are being left behind by a rapidly developing and advancing India, and the negligence of the Indian government towards Muslims means that they must fend for themselves. This sensibility is affecting how Indian Muslims are thinking about mainstream political parties and also explains the emergence of some of the new Muslim political parties such as the Welfare Party modeled on Turkey's own AKP. Both old and new Muslim parties from the AIMIM in Hyderabad to the Welfare Party increasingly are framing their political goals in the context of material and economic underdevelopment of Muslims rather than in religious terms.

Tipping Point

India is growing and there is enormous wealth available both to the state as well as the civil society, and if good will prevails, a fraction of it can be used to correct the negative trajectory of Muslim reality in India. The state can not only provide the resources to jump-start Muslim development, but it can also do more to protect them from extremist movements acting on prejudice.

Muslims, too, are acting sensibly at the moment, maintaining moderation and trying to move away from constructivist politics based on identity to rational politics based on materialism. While the former can exacerbate identity politics, the latter can align rival and diverse groups in pursuit of wealth and prosperity.

But I fear that if the current government of Narendra Modi allows radical groups to unleash violence and intolerance towards religious minorities without taking strong measure to restore law and order, we might reach a tipping point. A tipping point where Muslims will be forced to accept a subordinate status, combined with various levels of routinized and institutionalized discrimination -- or that the tipping point would trigger a nationwide movement either like the Arab uprising, or the more dangerous ISIS like rebellion. We are not there yet.

Terrorism is globalizing but it has not engulfed India in the kind of violence that Pakistan and Iraq suffer. ISIS has no appeal for Indian Muslims. India's growth and the hope of trickle down is also stemming the possibility of an uprising.

The tipping point is quite far, but I fear that the window of opportunity to address the Muslim question in India is shrinking. I hope commonsense prevails and that this government, which made promises of good and inclusive governance, will ensure that we never reach that dreaded tipping point.


This article was first published by Turkey Agenda.

Monday, 9 March 2015

Some Muslims predict Jesus will defeat ISIS

All right, it might not start until 2016, these things can be awfully hard to predict exactly. However, surprising as it may seem, one way or another the end of ISIS is in sight, and it’s all resting securely in the hands of Jesus, peace be upon him.

There has been a great deal of mainstream media attention lately, both video and print, regarding the fact that ISIS is recruiting based on the promise that their fighters are actually participating in the rapidly approaching end of the world.
At the same time, mainstream orthodox Muslim websites are already predicting Jesus’ return as early as 2022, starting an Islamic prophetic clock set to run over the next 7 years, in the purportedly rapidly approaching run-up to Armageddon.
The good news is that even if they’re wrong, those claims ISIS is making about their own role in Islamic end-time prophecy spell their own certain end. Because even though ISIS claims they’re fighting on the side of the angels, it’s obvious they’re not,and it should become progressively clearer to even the most misguided Jihadi that either ISIS is wrong about Armageddon or that they’re on the wrong side, because of all the things Muslims know are supposed to happen.
And if it turns out they’re right, then we can all rest assured that by the time the dust has finally settled there will be no question left about who’s side they are really on, because it’s all going to be about Jesus.
Frankly, although I’d like to believe the orthodox predictions are correct, I think they’re premature, and that ISIS is crazy-stupid. We had a very informative event up here in Calgary last month hosted by the US State Department, where Dr. Michael Ryan of the Middle East Institute shared his valuable insights into ISIS’ recruiting strategy. We learned that ISIS actually complains in their internal communiqués about their difficulty recruiting informed Muslims, because “Islam makes them tend towards life and their community”. They find more success attracting Muslims they call “losers” — ignorant about their Islamic faith and marginalized by drugs, alcoholism, crime, mental illness or recent life-changing events. That’s not the sort of Muslim you would expect to know much about the religion, or to make good life — or end-of-life — choices either. Given that, I think we can discount their validity of their “good-guy” claims, even despite their despicable and deplorable actions which should in themselves be sufficient.
But even if we considered that they might be right about the impending apocalypse, what sort of events should the next few years bring according to confirmed Islamic eschatology?
  • First, the Euphrates River should soon be uncovering a mountain of gold, with the Arabian Peninsula becoming filled with meadows and rivers.
  • Then, some Muslims throughout the world will be inexplicably transformed into apes and pigs because of their attempts to make lawful some rather significant major sins. Personally, I think that one’s aimed squarely at al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al Shabab and ISIS and their associates, and their rather liberal views regarding murder, tumult, oppression and slavery.
  • Then shortly thereafter you can expect the coming of the Mahdi, his uncovering of the Ark of the Covenant and his evangelism of a significant proportion of the world’s Jews, who will wake up and realize that they shouldn’t be ignoring and allowing Israel’s oppressing Muslims and Christians in Palestine.
  • Then, you will see the coming of al-Masih ad-Dajjal –the false Messiah or anti-Christ– the descent of ‘Isa ibn Maryam [‘alayhis-salam] –that’s Jesus– and his defeat of the anti-Christ followed by the coming of Ya’juj and Ma’juj –Gog and Magog–,followed by:
  • The rising of the sun from the west
  • The appearance of the Beast of the Earth
  • The wind that will take the souls of the believers
  • The ruin of al-Madinah –Medina–
  • The destruction of the Ka’bah –Mecca– by the Abyssinians
  • And the fire that will come from the Yemen to gather the people in Sham before the coming of Judgement Day.
I think you’ll all have to admit, that’s a lot to pack into the next seven years and it’s going to be hard to miss.
And with that 7 year clock running, if it all doesn’t start happening soon, you can expect to see ISIS supporters starting to slip away.
But if it does come true, what sort of a man is the Mahdi supposed to be? Muslim prophecies are actually frighteningly clear, and do seem to predict the current state of affairs in the Levant, hold out hope for the rest of us and promise an end to ISIS.
At the end of time, a severe tribulation will descend upon my Ummah from their ruler. A worse tribulation will not have been heard of before, until the earth’s expanse is constricted upon them, and until the earth is filled with tyranny and oppression, so that the mu’min will find no refuge from the oppression.
Then, Allah [‘azza wa-jall] will send a man from my descendents who will fill the earth with equity and justice as it had been filled with oppression and tyranny. The inhabitants of the heavens and the earth will be pleased with him. The earth will not withhold any of its growth, but will bring it out, neither will the sky withhold a drop, but Allah will pour it out upon them in showers. He will live among them for seven years, or eight, or nine. The living will wish that the dead were brought to life again to witness the great good that Allah brought about for the people of the earth.
There will be at the end of time a trial that will sort out men as gold is sorted out from metal. So do not revile the people of Sham, but revile their evil ones, for among them are the Abdal [great righteous people]. A flood is about to be released upon the people of Sham that will split their unity, so that even if foxes attack them, they would defeat them.
At that time, a man from my household will come out with three banners. The one who estimates highly will say that they are fifteen thousand. And the one who estimates lower will say that they are twelve thousand. Their sign will be: “Amit, amit [kill, kill].” They will meet in battle seven banners, and under each of those banners will be a man seeking the kingdom. Allah will kill all of them, and restore to the Muslims their unity and bounty, and their far ones and near ones.
And what about Jesus? Even though Muslims and Christians disagree about what he is, with Christians claiming he’s God and Muslims declaring he’s not, everybody agrees about what sort of a person he was, is and will be: a man who fulfilled the Jewish Covenant and taught benevolent compassion to his followers, his example remaining a source of hope and inspiration to all humankind for the rest of time.
Can anyone conceive that that person –or Person– when he –or He– descends to lead us, could conceivably countenance the despicable and deplorable acts of ISIS?
God Forbid, it could never happen, not even if the world ends tomorrow or lasts for another thousand years.
Bottom line, I have served God and loved Jesus my entire life, and I followed Jesus into Islam when I realized I became a worse man by worshipping Him and a better man by following him. And my greatest hope for today is that Muslims and Christians are all starting to look forward to his return, because regardless of when that happens his example and his words can guide all of us to a better place together, with the help of God.
Because regardless of what the next years bring or which faith we follow, we are all waking up and realizing that we all need Jesus, peace be upon him.
Credit to Dr. David Liepert

Harassment Follows NY Muslims at Schools

A high number of Muslim students in the US western state of California fall victim to bullying from classmates, a CAIR report said in 2013
Amid soaring Islamophobic sentiments across the US, a number of New York Muslim students have been complaining of being discriminated against by their colleagues
"When people get to know us, they come to realize that we are just like regular people,” Saad Shuaib, who attends the Academy of American Studies, a public high school in Astoria, told the New York Times on Saturday, March 7.
“They see we live our normal lives just like them. It’s just that instead of going to church or a synagogue, we go to a mosque.”

The fifteen-year-old Shuaib is one of Muslims students who are trying to tell people they are "normal Americans" who happened to be Muslim.
Sandra Ibrahim, 14, is another Muslim student who had to remove her Islamic headscarf after facing regular harassment at Louis Armstrong Middle School in East Elmhurst in Queens.
“People started saying things like: ‘You are not one of us. Why would you do that now? You were supposed to do this later,’ ” Or like, ‘Are you even ready for it?’ It was just really rude,” Sandra said.
Making a compromise between religion and secular education, Sandra is among dozens of Muslim teenagers who attend Islamic school each weekend at the Muslim American Society community center.
“They say, ‘Your father is ISIS, are you ISIS?’ ” Ahmed Jamil, president of the community center, said of the taunts the Muslim boys had described, using another acronym to refer to the so-called Islamic State (ISIL).

“The kids have a good relationship with their classmates, but if the classmates dislike you for whatever reason, and then you look Muslim or your name is Ziad or Mohammed, it’s easy for them to accuse you,” he added.
“And I am surprised those middle school kids are saying the word itself — ‘You are a terrorist.’ ”

A few days ago, New York Muslims have jubilantly welcomed Mayor Bill de Blasio’s decision to add two Muslim holidays to public school calendar, something he described as a simple “matter of fairness.”
Feeling Safe
While some Queens Muslim students have been complaining of discrimination, others said that they feel safe in the easternmost city.
“I’m wearing it right now and nobody even asks me a question about why I am wearing it,” said Salma Rashwan, 14, who began to wear the hijab in eighth grade.
“I have a lot of friends who are Muslim and they don’t get bothered at all,”
Although there are no official figures, the United States is believed to be home to between 6-8 million Muslims.
With the recent murder of three young Muslim students in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, the burning of an Islamic Center in Houston, Texas, which authorities ruled as arson, and the numerous reports of personal harassment, Muslims feel they are targeted in the States.
A recent Gallup poll, however, found 43 percent of Americans Nationwide admitted to feeling at least “a little” prejudice against Muslims.
Another Economist/YouGov poll found that a large majority of Americans believe that US Muslims are victims of discrimination amid recent attacks against the community.
“I was insecure for about one to two years, completely,” said Sandra who began to remove her headscarf without telling her parents.
“And I didn’t know how to control any of it.”
Meanwhile, her parents agreed that she could take off her hijab to avoid bullying.
“I don’t want her to always feel that she was an outsider,” her mother, who wears a headscarf, said.
“The bullying was getting a little bit out of hand, and I didn’t want her to get harmed. And she would still have time to wear it.”
Helen Ponella, who started as principal of Louis Armstrong in February, refused to comment on Sandra's complains.
However, the principal said in a statement: “Creating a school environment where students feel physically and emotionally safe is our top priority and we do not tolerate bullying.”
In other Astoria public schools, Muslim students, especially girls, have been complaining of similar harassment.
“There was some teasing, but it was friendly,” Salma Serour, 13, said of the reaction when she started covering her hair.
“They called me Humpty Dumpty, but I thought it was pretty funny too.”
Nayerra Zahran, 14, who is the only veiled girl at Our World Neighborhood Charter School, said that some students have tried to pull off her hijab.
They said, “‘Muslims, you stink,’ ” she said.
“They sprayed Axe, perfume and everything. They used to say, ‘Oh, are you Bin Laden’s daughter?’ And it really didn’t make any sense.”
Credit to Onislam.net

The murder of Ahmed Al-Jumaili in Texas should be a front-page story

In the quiet moments before Ahmed Al-Jumaili died, he and his wife stepped out of her family's apartment, in a small complex in a suburb of Dallas, to photograph the first snowfall he'd ever seen.
Al-Jumaili had hesitated to leave his home in Iraq, but his wife had urged him to come to the US, where he'd be safer. She'd gone ahead to Dallas not long after their 2013 marriage, but he stayed in Iraq to work and save for their new life. Finally, last month, he followed her to Texas, where she had family, and left behind the chaos of Iraq.
On Thursday, the last night of his life, three and a half inches of snow fell on Dallas, the most since 1942. It was almost midnight when he and his wife stood outside to take photos of this new sight, in the country that was to be his new home. As they lingered, what residents would later describe to police as two to four men, moving on foot, entered the small complex. One or more of the men raised a rifle and shot Al-Jumaili. Police would later find bullets lodged in nearby cars as well. He died a few hours later at a nearby hospital; he was 36 years old and had been in the US for three weeks.

An echo of Chapel Hill's murders, and the silence that first greeted them


Neither police nor Al-Jumaili's family are yet claiming a motive, but focus has naturally fallen on the growing trend of violence against Muslims in the United States. Dallas Police Major Jeff Cotner said police considered hate crime a "possibility." A local Methodist pastor, as well as a representative from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, have both said the local community already fears as much.
And yet Al-Jumaili's killing has received strikingly little attention, other than a few mostly brief media reports, and the statements of faith leaders in Dallas hinting at a climate of hostility toward Muslims there.
This is a silence that has accompanied the recent wave of hostility against Muslims in America. Just three weeks earlier, when a man in Chapel Hill gunned down three Muslim-American college students, it took a grassroots social media campaign — #MuslimLivesMatter — to compel coverage of murders that were initially treated as a "parking dispute," and of the growing fear that Muslims are made to feel in this country.
Yes, perhaps the murder will turn out to be unrelated to Al-Jumaili's faith or background. It could have been a random attack, or even, as police say they are considering, an accident. But it seems odd that Americans, who pride themselves on inclusiveness and tolerance, would be so blithe and so uninterested that, in a time of increasingly overt hatred toward a minority group, yet another member of that group has been murdered for no apparent reason, in his third week in this country, while photographing snow with his wife.

"We're here to stand up for the American way of life"


When Ahmed Al-Jumaili left Iraq for America, in February, his wife Zahara greeted him with a homemade sign: "I've waited 460 days, 11,040 hour, 662,440 minuts for this moment. Welcome home." The English that was to be their new language was imperfect, but the expression on Zahara's face universally recognizable.
Whether he knew it or not, Al-Jumaili was also arriving in Dallas at a moment when hatred of Muslims was spilling over. A few weeks earlier, in the nearby suburb of Dallas, thousands of local residents had gathered to protest a Muslim community conference held at a local event center. Meant to raise money to build a center dedicated to promoting tolerance, it was organized by the local school system and called "Stand With the Prophet Against Terror and Hate."
Protesters waved anti-Muslim signs and American flags for hours, surrounding roads and sidewalks leading to the conference and forcing local Muslim families who attended to endure a gauntlet of hate. "Go home and take Obama with you," one sign read. Many referenced the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris.
"We don't want them here," a woman at the protests told a local TV reporter. One man explained, "We're here to stand up for the American way of life from a faction of people who are trying to destroy us."
What happened a few weeks later, when unknown men entered Al-Jumaili's apartment complex and killed him, might have had nothing to do with those protests. But the possibility that it wasn't a coincidence has received strangely little attention.
After the murder, a local Methodist pastor named Wes Magruder told the Los Angeles Times that he and others in his community feared a connection.
"There are more and more Iraqis coming here to Texas," Magruder told the newspaper.
A local representative of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Alia Salem, was more circumspect about suggesting a motive, but made what is in some ways the more salient point: that Muslims in the area, and in America, are increasingly made to live in fear of violence.
"Because of recent incidents targeting American Muslims, including the murder of three young Muslims in North Carolina, we urge law enforcement authorities to address community concerns about a motive in this case," she said.
Salem has set up a crowd-funding page to raise money for Zahara, who had planned to rely on her husband for financial support. What else can they do?

A wave of hatred is becoming a wave of violence

Alia Salem's concern, that the murder will deepen fear among American Muslims for their safety, even if it was not a hate crime, makes more sense if you consider the broader context.
The rise of ISIS in the Middle East, and attendant media coverage, has coincided with Islamophobia's growing acceptance in mainstream American discourse.
Media outlets, particularly on TV, are increasingly promoting overt bigotry against Muslims, stating over and over that Islam is an inherently violent religion and that peaceful Muslims are somehow to blame for ISIS. Hateful stereotypes are treated as fair game; the question of whether Muslims are somehow lesser human beings is raised as a valid or even necessary debate.
The politics of Islamophobia are ascendent as well. These attitudes initially spiked after President Obama's election — a continuation of the dogwhistle politics that Obama is a secret Muslim, or at least suspiciously un-hostile toward Islam — but are now resurfacing. State legislatures are passing laws banning "sharia" or "foreign law," a barely-veiled expression of official legislative hostility to Islam and to Muslim-American communities.
Elements of the Republican party have been hijacked, at state and national levels, by a fringe group of anti-Muslim activists who see Islam itself as a threat. While some leading Republicans resist their agenda, others embrace it; Louisiana Governor and presidential hopeful Bobby Jindal has falsely claimed that Muslims in the UK have set up "no-go zones" that police refuse to enter and where sharia law prevails, and that Muslim immigrants coming to the US are an "invasion" and "colonization."
In January, Warner Brothers released American Sniper, an Iraq War film that portrays Iraqis as an undifferentiated mass of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers who can only be confronted with violence. In one scene, the film's protagonist and namesake shoots an Iraqi woman and child to death — an act the film tacitly approves by later showing them as having carried a grenade. The morality of killing Iraqi civilians is raised only so that the hero protagonist can shout down whoever has had the gall to question his decisions by explaining that those civilians were no innocents. The film went on to become one of the most successful war films in American history, to be nominated for the Academy Award for best picture, and to inspire a wave of death threats against Muslims and Arabs.
These sentiments are translating into physical violence. Thankfully, so far most of that violence has targeted Islamic buildings rather than people — a series of mosques and Islamic cemeteries have been vandalized — though even this is rightly perceived by Muslims as a threat of more deadly attacks.
In November, someone opened fire on a California mosque as several worshippers prayed inside. In December, a man in Kansas City wrote on his SUV that the Koran was a "disease worse than Ebola," then drove it into a 15-year-old Muslim boy in front of a local mosque, severing his legs and killing him. Then the Chapel Hill murders. And now this.
In late January, shortly before Al-Jumaili arrived in Dallas, a state legislator from a different part of Texas protested the state capital's Muslim Capitol Day, meant to promote tolerance, by demanding that any Muslim "publicly announce allegiance to America and our laws" before entering her office. "We will see how long they stay in my office," she said.
Her stunt likely seemed silly to many Americans — another far-flung legislator saying something outlandish — but it was surely not perceived as such by the 2.6 million Muslims in America, for whom such statements are neither isolated nor fringe at all, but rather part of a concerted and deliberate campaign to promote anti-Muslim fear and hatred that has coincided with anti-Muslim violence.

Ahmed Al-Jumaili's murder should concern all Americans. Why doesn't it?

Zahara Al-Jumaili welcomes her husband to America (Photo via LaunchGood fundraiser for the Al-Jumaili family)
Zahara Al-Jumaili welcomes her husband to America (Photo via LaunchGood fundraiser for the Al-Jumaili family)
While Muslim American circles are acutely aware of the growing hostility and even danger facing them and their families, this has received less attention in American media and politics than one might expect.
The absence of concern may be easier to see if you consider, briefly, how we might view these killings if the identities of the killers and their victims were reversed.
If Islam had been the religion of the shooter rather than the religion of the victim, if police suspected a motivation of Islamic extremism rather than a possible motivation of anti-Muslim extremism, the murder would have been enormous national news. But because the shooter was perhaps instead motivated by extremist Islamophobia (again, at this point an unconfirmed but widespread perception), and because it was the victim rather than the killer who was Muslim, it hardly caused a blip.
In February, when a man known for railing against religion murdered the three Muslim-American college students in Chapel Hill, Muslim-Americans asked on social media why the crime was not considered an act of terrorism. Had the killer been a Muslim who killed three non-Muslim with an apparent religious motivation, it would have been instantly labeled as terrorism - and there would surely be a beltway political controversy if President Obama failed to denounce it as such within hours. But because the religious identities were reversed in this case, it did not "count" as terrorism, and the press has shown very little interest in compelling a response from the White House.
In Dallas, the killer or killers' names are not yet known, and so there are no clues to motivation beyond the larger climate of anti-Muslim hate that has pervaded the US, including Dallas, and the absence of any evidence suggesting a different motivation. All the same, Muslim-Americans could not be blamed for asking the same questions they asked after Chapel Hill. Why do so many Americans seem so unconcerned by this? Would this wave of hate and violence be so ignored if it were targeting Christians or Jews, and if not then why do our lives matter less?
Those in America who truly hate Islam enough to use violence are a tiny fringe. Still, the problem of Islamophobia in America is larger than them, and it would be wrong to focus only on those most extreme voices. So too would it be wrong to focus only on those in more powerful positions, the Bill Mahers and Bobby Jindals who use their platforms to push an Islamophobia that is less extreme but still encourages those who take it a step further.
In many ways, the onus of responsibility lies with the larger mainstream that neither promotes nor resists Islamophobia, that immediately classifies the murder of three Muslim-American students as a "parking dispute" and doesn't bother to even acknowledge the dead-of-night murder of Al-Jumaili. The absence of concern for or even knowledge about the rising wave of anti-Muslim hatred, deliberately or not, enables it to proceed.
Americans have a national responsibility to protect their own. Even if it turns out that Al-Jumaili's death had nothing to do with his religion, it is at this point a very real possibility that he was another Muslim targeted in the United States for this faith, and the national shrug that has met this possibility — the fact that most Americans have no idea this man was shot to death on Thursday night while photographing his first snow — shows that we, as a country, are not fulfilling that responsibility.
Credit to Max Fisher