By Kashif Hafeez | HamaraPakistan1947

There are two types of extremisms which are moving side by side, parallel to each other. One is well known due to the Swat issue and the behavior of Taliban, i.e.,‘Religious Extremism’. On the other hand there is “Liberal Extremism”—an enormously fatal and dangerous one in its own kind.

This liberal extremism is the output of the liberal, materialistic and secular (read anti-religion) Western education system. The primary objective of this system is to produce mentally & ideologically slave generations which will not only be helpful but also become tools in spreading their own Western agendas.

This generation is definitely good in English but unaware of Muslim values and culture. It seems that insulting and abusing religious people is a fashion for them.

When Liberal Facists Are Challenged:

After reading several English newspaper articles and internet blogs, I have noticed the following stereotype aproaches with minute differences whenever these liberal extremists are challenged:

• I am an expert of ‘Pakistan History’.

• I have God gifted understanding of Jinnah’s views the knowledge of others about Quaid-e-Azam is doubtful.

• I have all the rights whatever I want to write but YOU are not allowed to disagree with me.

• I have the right to use whatever abusive language about YOU because you deserve it.

• I am a certified patriotic and YOU are an enemy of the country since maulvis opposed Jinnah before Partition.

• I am open minded, liberal, enlightened and YOU are closed minded, backward Mullah

• I am champion of secularism and YOU are a religious fascist

• I am at peak of intellectuality and YOU have even no intelligence.

• I know everything and YOU know nothing.

• I am an authority on all subjects if YOU dare challenge me then you are an idiot.

• If an Ahmadi officer dies in Swat Operation then he is a hero. For the several Muslim soldiers who got martyred, it was simply their duty.

• Irshad Manji (a lesbian), Asra Noamani (a lady having son without wedlock), Ayan Hirsi Ali (an atheist –co-producer & writer of film Fitna), Amina Wadud (who lead the mixed gender prayers drama) are their icons whereas Dr. Israr Ahmed and Jamaat-e-Islami people are criminals and can’t be tolerated at any blog.

I am reading and observing the above again and again from liberal & Ahmadi mouthpieces for the last few years and the fact is that now I am sick and tired of all these bhashans. Liberals and Ahmadies are living in their own utopia and fool’s paradise.

The Real Issues of Pakistanis:

They have no understanding of common Pakistanis’ problems. They always want to raise non-issues for their own vested interests and want to malign Pakistan’s image internationally.

What do you think what are the real issues of common Pakistanis, Blasphemy laws? Hudood Ordinance? Religious extremism?

No sir, a common Pakistani is facing the problems of day by day increasing Inflation and price hike, law & order, less salaries, lack of education, discrimination in education system, political instability, US intervention in Pakistani politics and state affairs, etc.

The problems which are portrayed by these so called “Liberals” are their own“mental blocks”. No common Pakistani has any concern with them. In the latest IRI survey religious extremism not even amongst the top 5 problems faced by the common Pakistanis. But these drum beaters always shout like a crow.

These liberals are short sighted people and just want to present and discuss what they want. They don’t give a damn about what others think and believe. They have no interest in common Pakistanis’ miseries, troubles and problems. They have their own agenda.

This “Mummy Daddy – Burger Group” tries to present themselves as intellectuals. Their hidden agenda is promoting vulgarity amongst Pakistani and Muslim youth. The evident example is www.naseeb.com where they developed the villages of Gays & Lesbians – Shame on them! This website is a mutation of so-called Liberalism and Ahmadiyat.

They have zero level tolerance against criticism. The use of abusive and indecent language is common by these liberal fascists and interestingly they believe that their opponents deserve this language, which shows their sick state of mind.

Ahmadi Propaganda

In the name of human rights they become Ahmadi mouthpieces. They even used Gojra incident in favor of Ahmadies. They portray that every practicing Muslim wants to kill Ahmadies but the fact is that every Muslim is in favor of protecting their rights under the Constitution of Pakistan and unanimously approved resolution of the national assembly in 1974, where they are protected as minority.

If someone wants to call them Muslim on the name of human rights then it’s not acceptable under the Constitution and for us, the people of Pakistan. Ahmadies are clearly non-Muslims but we believe that they should enjoy each and every right as a minority.

The mutation of Ahmadiyat and Liberalism is also evident from some blogs which could not be considered as mere ideological garbage centers. In these blogs and websites they promote all those values and norms which are against the teachings of Islam. Even some “poor couple” raised the questions like why Pig is haram? Why one should keep a beard when Gillette exists.

They want to prove themselves as champions of “Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan as an inclusive, liberal and secular state” but totally ignore the Quaid-e-Azam view of Pakistan become a test lab of Islam. See Quaid-e-Azam views about relationship of Pakistan & Islam in my following post [Quaid-e-Azam Ka Pakistan In His Own Words].

In Conclusion: Respect The Opposition

My submission to these mutants of Ahmediyat and Liberalism is that now kindly stop calling your opponents as terrorists, mullahs and fitnas. There is a need to develop an atmosphere of tolerance. We can live and tolerate each other in a civilized way. Both sides can visit each other blogs and post healthy comments and criticism.

Shayad kai utar jai, teray dil main mari baat

About Author: Kashif Hafeez writes at his english blog Kashifiat and this post was originally published at his blog on August 28, 2009.

In my latest article for CGNews’ special series on the impact of fear on the Arab-Israeli conflict, I explore the emotion of what I call “fear of the friend.” Less well known than fear of the enemy, fear of the friend can be equally problematic and harmful to peacemaking. I try to explain why this is so and what are the ways in which we can respond to and mitigate this fear. Hope you find it interesting.

You can read the article here. As always, if the spirit moves you, please let me know what you think.

I recently criticised Harry’s Place over its comments moderation policy. The occasion was a post by David T of Harry’s Place, defending the latter from an attack on it by Lindsey German of ‘Stop the War Coalition’. German described Harry’s Place as ‘a disgusting kind of blog which is very very much against Muslims’. David responded that ‘it is highly defamatory to those of us who run Harry’s Place to claim that we are “against Muslims”. That is a pretty outrageous lie.’ He went on to define Harry’s Place’s position as follows: ‘It is true that Harry’s Place has been highly critical of named Islamist and jihadist groups and their extreme Left enablers. We have, however, always been strongly supportive of the rights of all people, irrespective of their ethnicity, culture and religion.’

I posted the following comment in response to David’s post:

German’s accusation is totally unjustified, and you have every right to resent it. She – like many extremists on both sides – can’t tell the difference between being anti-Islamist and being anti-Muslim. HP’s regular posters are invariably enlightened and distinguish carefully between the two.

Having said that, the comments boxes here are frequently flooded by extremely nasty bigots who really do hate all Muslims. Their visceral expressions of chauvinistic hatred all too frequently seem to become the dominant theme in any discussion here. And to be honest, I think you’re far, far too reticent about tackling them. It allows people like German and Will Rubbish to claim you secretly agree with them.

Bob Pitt of Islamophobia Watch, a long-standing opponent of Harry’s Place who takes an almost diametrically opposed position on matters relating to Islamism, then quoted my criticism and commented on it at some length.

Before I respond to Pitt specifically, I should say a few words about the matter that is at issue here.

I consider Harry’s Place’s regular bloggers to be friends and comrades. In particular, I feel that David T and I are engaged in essentially parallel enterprises. As those familiar with my work know, I am a historian specialising on the former Yugoslavia who has devoted considerable effort to exposing and refuting the propaganda and disinformation put about by the supporters of Serb fascism and the former regime of Slobodan Milosevic. In particular, I have tackled the edifice of lies about the former-Yugoslav conflict erected by left-wing authors in the West who support or apologise for Serb fascism: their denial of Serb atrocities; their attempts to blame the war on various ‘Western imperialist’ conspiracies; their demonisation of the victims and opponents of Serb fascism, including its Serb victims and opponents; etc.

Similarly, David is an expert on Islamic extremism and in particular on its British exponents and apologists, and he has devoted considerable effort to exposing and refuting their propaganda and disinformation. He has tackled the edifice of lies about Islamism, Islamist terrorism and repressive regimes in Muslim countries erected by their left-wing, ‘anti-imperialist’ apologists in the West. Indeed, one of the things that distinguishes both the Serb fascists that I tackle and the Islamic fascists that David and Harry’s Place tackle is that they both have well established networks of Western, particularly Western left-wing, apologists and supporters. In fact, the two groups often share the same such apologists and supporters – groups such as Britain’s Socialist Workers Party, to which Lindsey German belongs; or Ramsey Clark’s International Action Centre in the US.

In other words, David T and the Harry’s Place bloggers and I are anti-fascists engaged in essentially the same anti-fascist project. However, one of the ways in which our opponents try to discredit us is by smearing us, respectively, as ‘Islamophobic’ or as ‘anti-Serb’. Yet, such smears stand the truth on its head. The Harry’s Place bloggers devote a lot of time to writing in support of Muslim victims of oppression and injustice; and of progressive groups and individuals in Muslim countries. They frequently write posts directed against non-Muslim fascists and bigots, such as the white-racist BNP as well as Jewish and US Christian extremists. Similarly, I devote a lot of time on my blog, Greater Surbiton, to writing in support of Serb democrats and anti-fascists. I frequently write posts directed against Croat, Turkish, Greek, white British, Islamic and other fascists and bigots. Some opponents will nevertheless try to insinuate anti-Muslim/Serb bias on our part by asking, ‘Ah, but why do you concentrate so much on those particular groups of bad guys ? Why don’t you focus more on other groups of bad guys ?’ They should ask themselves why such huge edifices of lies have been constructed by left-wing apologists for both Islamic and Serb fascism that some of us have to spend so much time demolishing them.

To determine if someone is a principled opponent of Islamic/Serb fascism or an anti-Muslim/Serb bigot, you need to ask the following questions: Does the individual in question support Muslim/Serb anti-fascists and democrats, or do they equate all Muslims/Serbs with fascism ? Do they claim that Muslim/Serb fascism is simply the counterpart of the fascism produced by other groups, or do they claim that Muslims/Serbs have a unique propensity toward fascism ? In sum, are they attacking Muslim/Serb fascists because they are fascists, or because they are Muslims/Serbs ?

David T, Harry’s Place and I pass the test, and this is the point I made in my comment about Lindsey German, quoted above. To repeat, I wrote:

German’s accusation is totally unjustified, and you have every right to resent it. She – like many extremists on both sides – can’t tell the difference between being anti-Islamist and being anti-Muslim. HP’s regular posters are invariably enlightened and distinguish carefully between the two.

When he quoted me, Bob Pitt left out this, the first part of my comment, which refuted the charge that Harry’s Place is guilty of anti-Muslim bigotry. Had he included these sentences, my comment would have undermined the accusation that Harry’s Place has an anti-Muslim agenda.

Pitt continues:

The failure of Toube et al to subject these repeated outpourings of hatred to any sort of moderation is certainly a disgrace. But perhaps the more fundamental question Hoare should address is why these Muslim-hating bigots are drawn like flies to Toube’s site in the first place.

This, too, requires some comment.

Where I strongly disagree with David and with Harry’s Place is not over politics, but over the question of comments moderation policy. Harry’s Place, broadly speaking, has an open comments policy with very little moderation. The result is, as I pointed out, that ‘the comments boxes here are frequently flooded by extremely nasty bigots who really do hate all Muslims. Their visceral expressions of chauvinistic hatred all too frequently seem to become the dominant theme in any discussion here.’

The reason why, to use Pitt’s phrase, ‘these Muslim-hating bigots are drawn like flies to Toube’s site in the first place’, is not that Harry’s Place is sympathetic to them, but because they are taking advantage of a widely-read blog that posts on issues relating to Islam and Islamism, and that has an almost entirely open comments policy. The problem is not, therefore, with Harry’s Place’s politics, but with its comments moderation policy. But it is unfair to single out Harry’s Place in this regard, when this is a general problem intrinsic to blogs that have open comments policies. For example, plenty of extremely nasty, bigoted and abusive individuals – anti-Semites and others – turn up to comment on The Guardian’s ‘Comment is Free’ site, without having their comments deleted. But it does not follow from this that The Guardian is anti-Semitic; merely that its comments moderation policy is too lax.

I believe that when faced with the problem of bigoted or abusive individuals flooding your blog, you should do one of two things: either simply delete their comments ruthlessly and restrict the discussion to civilised people, or systematically take them apart. Otherwise, you are essentially providing a forum in which such individuals can promote their hate-propaganda to a wide audience. However, the first of these options leaves you open to the charge of being undemocratic, while the second is extremely time consuming (Personally, I simply am not willing to devote the time that would be needed to respond to comments on my blog – blogging is an extremely time-consuming activity as it is –  which is one of the reasons why I don’t have comments at all. I don’t mind if I am consequently accused of being undemocratic. But this is not an option for a much larger blog such as Harry’s Place, which is intended to be a discussion forum).

I believe that, given the scale of Harry’s Place, its bloggers – who need to work and eat – can’t reasonably be expected to spend their lives fighting with the bigots, over and over again. But I believe that the need to prevent bigots and malicious individuals in general from hijacking a blog and using it to promote hatred against an ethnic or religious minority should outweigh any abstract belief in the principle of open comments.

The purpose of a discussion on a political blog such as Harry’s Place should be to enlighten and inform its participants and readers. There is nothing whatsoever to be gained from anti-fascists and bigots slugging it out, again and again, over the question of ‘are all Muslims evil ?’ A minimum of common values needs to be held by participants in a discussion for the discussion to be meaningful. I believe there is no point in talking to people who do not support rights for, or who are hostile to, entire categories of people – as defined by ethnicity, nationality, religion, class, gender, sexual orientation, etc. I would favour excluding such people from discussions at Harry’s Place.

(NB Anti-Muslim bigotry is NOT to be confused with criticising Islam as a religion or opposing special privileges for Muslims, both of which are entirely legitimate. The boundaries may not always be clear, but that doesn’t mean one shouldn’t try to draw them). 

I would also absolutely ban vulgar or abusive comments or those that defame individuals. As things stand, open comments policies – combined with the sense of impunity resulting from the cult of blogging anonymity – are gradually turning public discussion into a sewer.

Having said all this, I understand not just the Harry’s Place support for the principle of open comments, but also what Harry’s Place is reacting against. Harry’s Place is reacting against a left-liberal culture that seeks to apologise for, and stifle criticism of, Muslim fascism and reaction; that justifies Islamist terrorism as a somehow understandable response of Muslims to ‘Western imperialism’ or ‘Zionism’; that solidarises with repressive Muslim regimes in Iran and elsewhere on an anti-imperialist basis, rather than with their progressive domestic opponents; that seeks to restrict freedom of speech in order to suppress criticism of Islam that might ’offend’ Muslims. It is reacting against liberal moral relativists who seek to stifle protests in the West at sexism, misogyny and homophobia among Muslims on the grounds that such protest is ‘racist’. It is reacting against a creeping anti-Semitism that masquerades as ‘anti-Zionism’.

Harry’s Place has broken the left-liberal taboo about criticising Muslim fascism and bigotry. It is in this context of taboo-breaking that it has, in my opinion, opened the door too wide, and provided a forum in which not only can Muslim fascism and bigotry be scrutinised and condemned, but anti-Muslim bigots can turn up and spew hatred against Muslims in general.

There is no point in criticising Harry’s Place unless you recognise that this taboo needed to be broken. Unfortunately, Islamophobia Watch devotes a lot of effort to precisely the sort of moral-relativist exercises that Harry’s Place is legitimately reacting against: repeated, uncritical defences of the anti-Semitic, sexist and homophobic Islamist cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi combined with wholly hostile polemics against genuine progressives and human-rights activists from the Muslim world or Muslim backgrounds, such as Maryam Namazie, Irshad Manji, Ed Husain and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Al-Qaradawi’s and his supporters’ statements about Jews are broadly equivalent to the statements about Muslims made by the anti-Muslim commenters at Harry’s Place that are here under discussion (Some might say: ‘Oh, but we don’t really hate Jews/Muslims; we’re just criticising Zionism/Islam ! And that’s an ideology, isn’t it ?! So it’s ok to attack Zionism/Islam as viciously as possible…’ – yeah, right…). There is a big difference between merely allowing anonymous bigots to post comments on your blog without challenging them, and actually writing whole posts in uncritical defence of a prominent bigot.

Harry’s Place is, in large part, a response to the rise of Islamic fascism and left-liberal appeasement of it. It does some things wrong. But there is no point criticising the form that the solution takes if you yourself constantly contribute to the problem.

Margaret Wente wrote precisely the kind of column I would have liked to write, making to the same kind of arguments, and ultimately the same conclusion. We shouldn’t impose a ban on the burqa. It goes against my natural instinct, perhaps even against my cognitive rationalizing, but there it is. A year ago, or even farther back, I think there is no question that I would oppose the wearing of the burqa in Canada. But that doesn’t mean that I accept the fundamental problems associated with the symbol of political Islam.

The history of the burqa, also transliterated from Arabic as burkha, burka, or burqua [which is why you see so many variations on the spelling of other Arabic words in the media], is somewhat varied based upon which source you read. A completely enveloping outer garment, the covering is worn over normal clothing and removed inside the household. The burqa is a combination of the hijab, or head-scarf, with the niqab, or face-veil. The hijab, for instance, is frequently worn by many Muslims in Canada, and is a scarcely noticeable part of their attire, most probably because of the European, and particularly Eastern European tradition that also involves head-scarves. The face-veil portion of the burqa is called the purdah, a Persian word that rather appropriately means “curtain”.

Many westerners are puzzled as to why Muslim women would want to wear symbols of Islamic oppression in western society. There are, perhaps, arguments to be made based upon the religion itself. Those raised in Islamic societies believe in the hadith, a collection of edicts by the Prophet Muhammad, one of which is to teach men and women to dress modestly in public. While most Islamic societies have interpreted this as the reason for wearing the burqa, there is no specific mention of the garment in the Holy Qu’ran whatsoever.

For an explanation of the origins of the burqa in modern Islam, muslim writer Tarek Fatah explains:

There is no requirement in Islam for Muslim women to cover their face. Rather, the practice reflects a mode of male control over women. Its association with Islam originates in Saudi Arabia, which seeks to export the practice of veiling — along with other elements of its austere Wahhabist brand of Islam — to Muslim communities around the world.

[...]

Most of Canada’s growth in niqabi women can be traced to 2004, when a radical Pakistani female scholar by the name of Farhat Hashmi came to this country on a visitor’s visa. After arrival, she was twice denied a work permit. But that didn’t stop her from establishing a Muslim school in Mississauga, Ont. that prosletyzed Wahhabist norms — including the wearing of the niqab, leaving the workforce and embracing polygamy.

In Irshad Manji’s film “Faith without Fear”, there is a somewhat humourous scene when she is in Yemen, trying on burqa’s to see what it feels like to wear one. She asks for the most popular, most liberal style from the shopkeeper. The man nods and shows her a full array of garments, every single one a deep navy blue or a midnight black. There is something a little dehumanizing in not only the “modesty” inflicted upon women in the muslim world, but the lack of colour as well.

The fact is that Nicholas Sarkozy had quite a different reason for speaking about the burqa than might a Canadian. France is host to an estimated 5.5 million Muslims, although admittedly such numbers are difficult to confirm owing to the clandestine nature of North African refugees. Their presence in that country, therefore, is far more pronounced, and entrenched. In Canada few such neighbourhoods exists, and it is safe to say that many Canadians are far more likely to see your average “goth” girl in full black and white makeup, or a British-style “punk” rocker replete with 1983 mohawk, than they are to see a woman shopping in her burqa. Full disclosure here: I’ve never seen a woman in a burqa in Canada, and only quite recently saw a woman in a niqab walking out of the Vancouver convention centre.

But the truth is that we can’t ban the burqa. Not in a nation where we proclaim the fundamental value of our society is the freedom of the individual and the choice that comes with it. Just as we tolerate all other sorts of choices which we consider less than appealing, we have to accept the personal choices that comes with the freedom of a liberal society. The moment we start dictating what women can wear, or in this case can’t wear, we aren’t much different than the countries we criticize. I believe there is also a certain appeal, a natural rebellious instinct among many people, to do something simply because it is forbidden. It would be the ultimate irony to have women “rebel” by wearing a symbol of conformity because it is banned here.

As Margaret Wente says, we have to allow it. That doesn’t mean we have to like it.

Craig and Marc Kielburger are two incredible Canadians who truly know how to engage their supporters and those whom they support, to want to do more, give more, support more. The Kielburgers are the founders of Free the Children and ‘We’ Day, both of which NSB champions.

The work of the Kielburger’s is serious social entrepreneurship and yet they make the work an inspiring affair. In addition to feeling good for being a part of the movement, they also help supporters look good too. I participated in their recent ‘cut a thon’ in support of their organization, thus the fabulous salon pic. 

Me & Marianne from Free the Children

The Kielburgers’ international development and youth empowerment organization is the world’s largest focused primarily on children helping children through education. They build schools around the world, inspire youth to make a difference and help us all become more engaged in social issues.

Marc Kielburger, Princess Sophie, Craig Kielburger

The Kielburgers also hosted a day recently for some of their key students and supporters to help kick off the “Me Day” preparations. Her Royal Highness The Countess of Wessex, Princess Sophie was in attendance to give thanks for the commitment of the students and for the Kielburger’s efforts. She honoured exceptional Ontario student leaders actively involved in Free The Children’s youth programming, volunteerism and leadership initiatives and for living the “Me to We” philosophy We were proud to have been invited to be a part of the day and see the students appreciated for their efforts.

“We Day” is a one-of-a-kind event featuring inspirational and motivational speeches and performances by leading activists, speakers and entertainers. Past years NSB has worked with the Kielburger’s to bring General Romeo Dallaire, Olympian Mark Tewksbury, Astronaut Dave Williams, Activist Irshad Manji and more, to the Me to We stage to inspire thousands of students to action.

As their national Communications Partner, we encourage you to check out their 2009 We Day site and be a part of the movement to create a world of change with your daily choices.

Irshad Manji, the fiery feminist identified by the NY Times to be “Osama bin Laden’s worst nightmare,” gently accused her Abbotsford audience of slipping into “moral complacency.” Manji recently wrote The Trouble With Islam Today: A Muslim’s Call For Reform In Her Faith.

Her website www.irshadmanji.com offers free downloads in several translations for readers who may be living in an area where the book is banned or censored. Her pride was palpable when she announced that her book had been downloaded over a million times. A million!

Manji was part of the Canadian Voices speaker series presented by the Abbotsford Collegiate International Baccalaureate Program. Heavy vocal hitters in the past year included Peter Mansbridge (CBC’s Chief Correspondent and anchor of The National), Dr. James Orbinski (former President of Medecins Sans Frontieres), Stephen Lewis (Deputy Director of Unicef, Special Envoy for AIDS/HIV in Africa) and Roberta Bondar (first female astronaut and neurologist in space). The speaker series has provided a dynamic forum of empowerment, questioning and insight into individuals who have  created a global impact.

I think Irshad Manji was bang-on with her complacency dig. My moral laziness was emphasized when I went to see the documentary Chasing Rain (produced and directed by Dax Xenis) three days after being slammed by Manji for a bit of Islamophobia and not asking pertinent questions out loud. In a unique parallel, Chasing Rain was filmed in Uganda—Manji’s family was a refugee of Idi Amin’s Uganda. In 1972 Amin declared an “economic war” that included the expropriation of properties owned by Asians and Europeans. An estimated 80,000 Asians were explused from Uganda, and Manji’s family found a new home in Vancouver, BC.

Chasing Rain documented an ambitious project backed by Grassroots Assistance in Rural Development (GARD). It involved the construction of a 6,000 litre water storage tank in Adakingo, Lira, Uganda. The project quickly became a monster of exasperation with brief moments of exhiliration. Like Manji’s red-hot poker words of accusation, watching Chasing Rain was like being in the boxing ring with guilt. I thought of the shower I had before going to see it—hot enough to boil 50 lobsters, and long enough to have provided clean drinking water for over at least 100 Africans.

The project was initiated by Jeff Owen, a geologist who identified a need for better water sources while working on biosand filter projects in undeveloped countries. The large-scale rain catchment system he planned began with a few gross miscalculations. Owen guessed it would take 30 men one day to clear the dirt from the proposed area. It took three and a half months.

The North American standards for clean drinking water and sanitary living conditions quickly became evident and the connection between water and health was obvious. Canadian GARD volunteers found themselves knocked flat on their backs with diarrhea that kept them permanently on the squat toilets that they initially hoped to avoid.

Camera man Dax Xenis panned the area where villagers collected water for consumption in jerry cans. The pond was the equivalent of Habitant pea soup–murky sludge that even my dog would turn his nose up at. The locals walked for over an hour at times to this source of water, children often bearing the weight of awkward plastic jerry cans on their heads.

And we reward ourselves in Canada for surving Earth Hour, a whole hour without electricity! An hour without water, I bet we could do that too—but a lifetime? UNICEF estimates that there are 125 million children under the age of five without access to clean drinking water. I thought I got the short stick because my mother wouldn’t buy chocolate milk every week.

When I landed at the airport in Entebbe, Uganda last September, the power went off three times as baggage was loaded on the carousel. In my four months in Africa, not having electricity became more common than having it. What became evident was how big my sasquatch carbon footprint in Canada was (especially after flying for 19 hours, leaving my footprints permanently in the atmosphere from Vancouver to Amsterdam to Entebbe). I blushed with shame over my pre-Africa tanning bed sessions with the 280 watt bulbs that could have powered all of Entebbe for a month.

My footprint sunk even deeper into the quagmire with all the plastic bottles of water I drank in Uganda. I responsibly attempted to balance this number with recyclable glass bottles of beer.

But now what? How do I shift from moral and earthly complacency? As I unpacked groceries this afternoon (from earth-suffocating plastic bags because AGAIN I forgot the reuseable cloth ones), I became painfully aware of my 100,000-mile diet. Rosenburg blue cheese from DENMARK, bananas from ECUADOR, an avocado from MEXICO. Those little stickers on the fruit and vegetables further cemented my laziness. But can life be lived without bananas?

My actions are a see-saw. I walk  to work but I eat Ecuadorian bananas. I compost and recycle but buy wine from Australia. I will grow my own herbs this summer but I like hot baths that cover my kneecaps.

Awareness, it’s the fertilizer for growth, a therapeutic massage of my morals. What I do know is that there are bigger and better things to be done in this world, one banana at a time.

On mepeace.org, there are some great recommendations.  Here’s another. I recommend Irshad Manji’s book, The Trouble with Islam Today. She writes the book as an open letter to her fellow Muslims,  challenging them to join her in Operation Ijtihad (read the book to find out what this is).  She throws in a call to non-Muslims as well, urging us to be careful of the racism that comes from over-compensating.  This book is an inspiration to reaffirm our commitment to freedom of expression, individuality, and human rights for all.

Sadness. But not despair.

It is understandable that the bereaved are now mourning their fallen blood kin, and questioning the mission. There’s nothing wrong with questioning the mission, and particularly when it comes to the families who have lost one of their own to it.

Indeed, it is regrettable to see that even Irshad Manji, one of the lone muslim voices for women’s rights in the western world, has lost the faith:

There was a time when I believed. With every fibre of my feminist Muslim being, I believed in our Afghanistan mission. No longer.

On Sunday, the Taliban assassinated another Afghan women’s rights activist. It happened only days after the world learned of yet one more anti-female statute that Afghan President Hamid Karzai had signed into law. Critics accused him of caving in to warlords ahead of the coming elections. Only when Western voices amplified the protests of liberal Afghans did Mr. Karzai put the law “under review.” Human-rights advocates called it a triumph.

[...]

But now I must ask: Exactly what are our soldiers falling for? Shortly after Afghanistan held its first free election, Mr. Karzai faced an elemental test of democracy: defending freedom of worship for an Afghan convert to Christianity who found himself charged with apostasy. Mullahs called for his execution and judges obliged them — hardly surprising since the constitution Afghanistan of proclaims sharia law supreme.

What shook me is that Mr. Karzai didn’t publicly question their retrograde interpretation of Islam. He needed only to quote from the Koran, which states “there is no compulsion in religion.” Full stop.

There’s no denying that this is a dark hour in the morale for this mission. But I still believe it to be only one dark hour, and that there may be light ahead. Yes, we lost another soldier yesterday. All the worse because she was young, and beautiful, and strong. We’ve lost an ally, and a strong one, with the departure of Irshad Manji. And who, really, could blame her? Seeing the corrupt Afghan government willfully turn aside to it’s own incipient failings is one thing, but to ask feminists to prop up a regime that would see gender apartheid condoned by a so-called democratic government is ridiculous. The barrier, it would seem, is too high to climb over.

But I still believe that change can be won there, and that this is a lasting struggle that must be viewed as a generational one, and not merely a short intervention. If western forces believe that we can restore security to the nation under a Karzai government without eradicating the kind of fascistic tendencies of the elected legislature, it will cannibalize itself from the inside out and return to just another female apartheidist Islamic state.

Those who oppose the mission in general, however, may soon have little need to be concerned about what troops are doing in Afghanistan. The situation in Pakistan is worsening, and there is a strong possibility that soon a nuclear nation will fall to the hands of Islamic fascists.

On Thursday, February 26, Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) welcomed Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders and sponsored a viewing of his short film Fitna. Muslimah feminists Irshad Manji and Daisy Khan were on CNN commenting on the issue, specifically whether or not Geert Wilders should be welcomed by our government and how it impacts Muslims. You can see the movie here.

We have two Muslim women on CNN, commenting on something that is not the headscarf! We have two Muslim women speaking about politics (still very much a man’s domain). Regardless of whether or not we agree with them, we have two educated, professional, successful Muslim women expressing their own opinions. Regardless of what we may think of either of them, we have two Muslim women publicly talking about their faith.

I’m not a fan of Manji’s, so I had my reservations before watching the interview. As expected, she did use the opportunity to promote her own mantra of “Muslims don’t accept diversity and I’m living proof of it.” However, her response was articulate and her delivery forceful. And Daisy Khan obliterates the debate when she calls Wilder intellectually dishonest because he wants to ban the Quran, yet calls for free speech. Irshad contends and says Fitna gives freedom of expression a bad name.

This video is rather groundbreaking for a major American network because it shows Muslim women as regular Americans with an opinion about issues in the American media. It sends a powerful message: Muslim women are sought out to speak about issues that affect Muslims. As a community, we need to promote and encourage each other–men and women–to take an active presence in the public sphere, even if we do not necessarily agree with each other.

Manji and Khan are being represented as credible spokespersons on matters concerning the Muslim community; this is most obviously a success for women, especially because the issue at hand is not specifically a feminist one, but the Muslim community as a whole clearly benefits when women are represented as  being engaged in matters that effect Muslims. The fact that Manji and Khan also spoke about freedom of speech and human rights, issues that affect everyone no matter their religion or gender, is a slap in the face to critics who are so fixated on what they deem to be the oppressive state of women in Islam. At the same time, it was hard for me to watch this video without assuming that Khan and Manji would have to hurdle a question or two about “women in Islam.” I was relieved and a little surprised that no such question was raised.

I watched this video with my father, and he wondered why there were no Muslim men present, or why there wasn’t one female guest and one male guest. I thought it was an interesting observation and it made me wonder about the  significance of the segregation of sexes in Islam. By only making the platform available to women, do we pose the risk of inadvertently sending a message about Islamic culture? It is true that Manji and Khan spoke about  freedom of speech and human rights, but does their identification as Muslim women inadvertently illicit questions or observations from viewers about women’s rights in Islam? Let’s be honest, intentionally or not, CNN was showing a liberal viewpoint of women in Islam. This is obvious from their choice of guests, Manji much more controversial than Khan, but both western-educated and unveiled. Still, this video is successful in showing that Muslim women can partake in mature, thoughtful debate about issues in the news.

I liked how this interview stayed on topic and didn’t vilify either woman. It wasn’t set up to paint Manji as an outsider and Khan as a role model for example. In fact, while disagreeing on specific points, both women presented a united front by agreeing that Wilder’s film does freedom of speech a disservice. The only hint of any rivalry of the “who’s a better Muslimah,” or who’s version of Islam is right”  kind, was brought up by Manji when she said, “And I speak very much within the faith of Islam,” before discussing her viewpoint. An acute observer or anyone who knows anything about Manji, a lesbian and critic of traditional mainstream Islam, would assume that she is shunned by many members of her community. Once again, kudos to CNN for staying away from this angle, as it detracts from the significance of the interview.

When educated and articulate Muslim women are being consulted on matters of faith, it shows Islam does not favor men or stifle women, as is often portrayed in the media. When guests are invited in the media, they should be balanced and bring people who can comment on Islam, and that includes women. Doing so defies the media’s fixation on women in Islam as oppressed, underrepresented beings. It also brings much needed focus back to the root of the problem and suggests that just as in the history of Judeo-Christian societies, when women in Islamic societies are oppressed, it is the outcome of an unequal society, not the majority religion.

Another review of The Jewel of Medina. I’m wondering if in the author’s view, the only way to be “liberated” as a woman is to be jealous, sleep around, and to not enjoy your husband? And that “liberation” means no rules or restrictions? Just a flippant thought I know, but it occurs to me nonetheless.

I wanted to take a moment to publicize a local Vancouver event that will coincide with Thursday’s International Women’s Day. I will be attending, and I hope you will, too:

Join the Canada Afghanistan Solidarity Committee for a special event in celebration of International Women’s Day. On March 5th, 2009, we will screen “Faith Without Fear”, a documentary film by Canadian activist Irshad Manji, author of “The Trouble With Islam Today: A Muslim’s Call for Reform in her Faith”. The film touches on the themes of self-censorship and cultural relativism, two issues which often characterize debate over Canada’s role in Afghanistan.

To be introduced by Special Guest Speaker, Iona Campagnolo,
Former Lieutenant-Governor of British columbia
Thursday March 5th, 2009
7:00pm
Vancouver Planetarium Theatre
1100 Chestnut Street
Vancouver, BC

RSVP here.

کتاب “گرفتاری اسلام” نوشته “ارشاد مانجی“

هر دینی پیروانی دارد که مثل میمون رفتار می کنند. اما تفاوت اینجاست که تنها در اسلام معاصر است که «تقلید» بدل به نگرش غالب شده است. قرآن نه تنها اصلا کامل نیست، که آنچنان تناقض های عمیقی دارد که مسلمانانی که به پیروی از قرآن زندگی می کنند چاره ای ندارند جز آنکه تصمیم بگیرند بر کدام بخش هایش تأکید کنند و کدام بخش هایش را کم اهمیت تلقی کنند.

دانلود کتاب “گرفتاری اسلام” نوشته “ارشاد مانجی”

Kaum liberal mengidolakan kaum lesbian sebagai ”pembaharu”. Kelak, anak-anak Muslim berganti idola dari Aisyah menuju kaum lesbian. Baca Catatan Akhir Pekan [CAP] Adian Husaini ke-241

oleh: Adian Husaini

Sejumlah orang yang akan berdialog dengan kaum liberal saya beri saran agar jangan pakai dalil ayat-ayat Al-Quran. Sebab, banyak kaum liberal yang sudah tidak percaya lagi pada keotentikan Al-Quran, sehingga tidak ada gunanya dalil Al-Quran untuk mereka. Memang ada diantara mereka yang masih percaya Al-Quran sebagai wahyu Allah, tetapi banyak pula diantara mereka yang memiliki pandangan dan penafsiran yang berbeda.

Jika tafsirnya kita kritik, mereka pun tak segan-segan menyatakan, ”Itu kan penafsiran anda! Penafsiran saya tidak begitu!” Mereka banyak yang sudah berpandangan bahwa hanya Tuhan saja yang tahu penafsiran yang sebenarnya. Manusia boleh menafsirkan Al-Quran semaunya, dan semuanya tidak dapat disalahkan. Karena itu, ada yang menyatakan, bahwa perbedaan antara Islam dan Ahmadiyah, hanyalah soal perbedaan tafsir saja, karena itu jangan saling menyalahkan, karena semua penafsiran adalah relatif. Yang tahu kebenaran yang mutlak, hanya Allah saja.

Memang, soal utama antara Islam dan Ahmadiyah, adalah masalah tafsir. Tapi, ada tafsir yang salah dan ada tafsir yang benar. Semua manusia yang masih berakal (tidak gila), bisa saja menafsiran Al-Quran. Tapi, tidak semua tafsir itu benar, sebagaimana klaim kaum liberal. Ada tafsir yang salah. Misalnya, kalau ada yang menafsirkan ayat ”Wa-aqimish shalaata lidzikri”, bahwa tujuan salat adalah mengingat Allah. Maka, jika sudah ingat Allah, berarti tujuan sudah tercapai, dan tidak perlu salat lagi. Tafsir semacam ini tentu saja tafsir yang salah.

Contoh lain, dalam buku Eik Ghalthi ka Izalah (Memperbaiki Suatu Kesalahan) karya Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (terbitan Ahmadiyah Cabang Bandung tahun 1993), hal. 5, tertulis pengakuan Ghulam Ahmad yang mendapat wahyu berbunyi: ”Muhammadur Rasulullah wal-ladziina ma’ahu asyiddaa’u ’alal kuffaari ruhamaa’u baynahum.” Lalu, dia komentari ayat tersebut: ”Dalam wahyu ini Allah swt menyebutkan namaku ”Muhammad” dan ”Rasul”.”

Ayat tersebut jelas terdapat dalam Al-Quran (QS 48:29). Kaum Miuslim yakin seyakin-yakinnya, bahwa ”Muhammadur Rasulullah” di situ menunjuk kepada Nabi Muhammad saw yang lahir di Mekah; bukan merujuk kepada Mirza Ghulam Ahmad yang lahir di India. Jika Ghulam Ahmad membuat tafsir bahwa dia adalah juga Muhammad sebagaimana ditunjuk dalam ayat tersebut, maka tafsir Ghulam Ahmad semacam itu jelas tafsir yang salah.

Akan tetapi, kaum liberal akan menyatakan, bahwa Ghulam Ahmad juga berhak membuat tafsir sendiri, dan tidak boleh disalahkan atau disesatkan. Anehnya, kalau umat Islam punya pandangan dan sikap yang berbeda dengan kaum liberal, maka akan disalah-salahkan, dicap fundamentalis, radikal, tidak toleran, dan sebagainya. Jadi, kita dilarang menyalahkan yang salah, tetapi kaum liberal boleh menyalahkan pendapat yang tidak sesuai dengan mereka.

Sebagaimana pernah kita bahas dalam beberapa CAP, aksi kaum liberal dalam menyerang Al-Quran dari waktu ke waktu semakin brutal. Berlindung di balik wacana kebebasan, mereka tidak segan-segan lagi menyerang dan menistakan Al-Quran secara terbuka. Apa yang pernah terjadi di IAIN Surabaya tahun 2006, ketika seorang dosen menginjak-injak lazadz Allah yang ditulisnya sendiri, tampaknya hanyalah fenomena gunung es belaka. Sejumlah buku, jurnal, dan artikel terbitan kaum liberal di Indonesia sudah secara terbuka menyerang Al-Quran. Kita masih ingat, bagaimana jurnal Justisia Fakultas Syariah IAIN Semarang secara semena-mena menyerang Al-Quran, dengan menyatakan:

”Karenanya, wajar jika muncul asumsi bahwa pembukuan Qur’an hanya siasat bangsa Quraisy, melalui Usman, untuk mempertahankan hegemoninya atas masyarakat Arab [dan Islam]. Hegemoni itu tampak jelas terpusat pada ranah kekuasaan, agama dan budaya. Dan hanya orang yang mensakralkan Qur’anlah yang berhasil terperangkap siasat bangsa Quraisy tersebut.”

Yang kita heran, orang-orang ini adalah bagian dari kalangan akademisi yang seharusnya menjunjung tinggi tradisi intelektual yang sehat. Tapi, faktanya, mereka sering mengungkapkan pendapat tanpa didukung oleh data-data yang memadai. Belakangan ini, kaum liberal di Indonesia sedang gandrung-gandrungnya pada seorang wanita lesbian bernama Irshad Manji. Kedatangannya di Indonesia pada bulan April 2008 disambut meriah. Dia dipuji-puji sebagai wanita Miuslimah yang hebat. Seorang wanita alumnus UIN Jakarta bernama Nong Darol Mahmada menulis sebuah artikel di Jurnal Perempuan (edisi khusus Lesbian, 2008) berjudul: Irshad Manji, Muslimah Lesbian yang Gigih Menyerukan Ijtihad. Kata si Nong: ”Manji sangat layak menjadi inspirasi kalangan Islam khususnya perempuan di Indonesia.”

Hari Kamis (14/8/2008), saya diundang untuk menghadiri satu acara bedah buku tentang FPI di kantor Majalah Gatra. Tanpa saya tahu, penerbit buku tentang FPI tersebut (Nun Publisher) adalah juga penerbit buku Irshad Manji yang edisi Indonesianya diberi judul Beriman Tanpa Rasa Takut: Tantangan Umat Islam Saat Ini. Di sampul depan buku ini, Manji ditulis sebagai ”Satu dari Tiga Muslimah Dunia yang Menciptakan Perubahan Positif dalam Islam.” Disebutlah buku ini sebagai sebagai ”International Best Seller, New York Times Bestseller, dan telah diterbitkan di 30 negara.” Pokoknya, membaca promosi di sampulnya, sepertinya, buku ini sangat hebat.

Tapi, sebenarnya, isinya kurang memenuhi standar ilmiah. Banyak celotehan Irshad Manji, ke sana kemari, hantam sana, hantam sini, tanpa ada rujukan yang bisa dilacak kebenarannya. Maka, saya heran, bagaimana kaum liberal sampai membangga-banggakan buku karya Irshad Manji ini? Seperti inikah sosok idola kaum liberal, sampai dijuluki ”lesbian mujathidah”? Apa karena Manji sangat liberal dan secara terbuka menyatakan diri sebagai lesbi, maka sosok ini dijadikan idola?

Buku Manji ini menggugat sejumlah ajaran pokok dalam Islam, termasuk keimanan kepada keotentikan Al-Quran dan kema’shuman Nabi Muhammad saw. Manji secara terbuka menggugat ini. Ia katakan:

”Sebagai seorang pedagang buta huruf, Muhammad bergantung pada para pencatat untuk mencatat kata-kata yang didengarnya dari Allah. Kadang-kadang Nabi sendiri mengalami penderitaan yang luar biasa untuk menguraikan apa yang ia dengar. Itulah bagaimana ”ayat-ayat setan” – ayat-ayat yang memuja berhala – dilaporkan pernah diterima oleh Muhammad dan dicatat sebagai ayat otentik untuk Al-Quran. Nabi kemudian mencoret ayat-ayat tersebut, menyalahkan tipu daya setan sebagai penyebab kesalahan catat tersebut. Namun, kenyataan bahwa para filosof Miuslim selama berabad-abad telah mengisahkan cerita ini sungguh telah memperlihatkan keraguan yang sudah lama ada terhadap kesempurnaan Al-Quran.” (hal. 96-97).

Cerita yang diungkap oleh Manji itu memang favorit kaum orientalis untuk menyerang Al-Quran dan Nabi Muhammad saw. Cerita itu populer dikenal sebagai kisah gharanik. Riwayat cerita ini sangat lemah dan palsu. Haekal, dalam buku biografi Nabi Muhammad saw, menyebut cerita tersebut tidak punya dasar, dan merupakan bukinan satu kelompok yang melakukan tipu muslihat terhadap Islam. Karen Armstrong, dalam bukunya, Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet juga membahas masalah ini dalam satu bab khusus.

Kisah ”ayat-ayat setan” itu kemudian diangkat juga oleh Salma Rushdie menjadi judul novelnya: The Satanic Verses (Ayat-ayat Setan). Novel yang terbit pertama tahun 1988 ini memang sangat biadab dalam menghina Nabi Muhammad saw, para sahabat, dan istri-istri beliau. Menurut Armstrong, cerita dalam novel Salman Rushdi ini mengulang semua mitos Barat tentang Nabi Muhammad saw sebagai sosok penipu, ambisius, yang menggunakan wahyu-wahyunya untuk mendapatkan sebanyak-banyak perempuan yang dia inginkan. Para sahabat nabi juga digambarkan dalam novel ini sebagai manusia-manusia tidak berguna dan tidak manusiawi. Tentu saja, judul Novel itu sendiri sudah bertendensi melecehkan Al-Quran.

Karen Armstrong mencatat: ‘’It repeats all the old Western myths about the Prophet and makes him out to be an impostor, with purely political ambitions, a lecher who used his revelations as a lisence to take as many women as he wanted, and indicates that his first companions were worthless, inhuman people.”

Armstrong tidaklah keliru! Dan Umat Islam yang sangat menghormati Nabi Muhammad saw, tentu saja sangat tersinggung dengan penerbitan Novel Salman Rushdie yang sangat tidak beradab ini. Novel ini pun – dalam edisi bahasa Inggrisnya — sudah dijual di Jakarta. Rushdie diantaranya menggambarkan istri-istri Nabi Muhammad saw sebagai penghuni rumah pelacuran bernama ”Hijab”. Rushdie juga menyebut Nabi Muhammad – yang dinamainya ”Mahound” — sebagai “the most pragmatic of prophets.”

Penulis novel yang menghina Nabi Muhammad saw seperti Salman Rushdie inilah yang dijadikan rujukan oleh Irshad Manji dalam memunculkan isu tentang “ayat-ayat setan”. Memang, dalam bukunya ini pun Manji mengungkapkan , bahwa Salman Rushdie-lah yang mendorongnya untuk menulis buku ini. Manji menceritakan hal ini:

“Apa yang dikatakan Salman Rushdie padaku ketika aku mulai menulis buku ini teringat lagi saat aku berefleksi terhadap hidupku sejak penerbitan buku ini. Aku ingat ketika bertanya kepadanya kenapa dia memberikan semangat kepada seorang Miuslim muda sepertiku, untuk menulis sesuatu yang bisa mengundang malapetaka ke dalam kehidupannya, seperti yang telah menimpa dirinya. Tanpa ragu sedikit pun, dia menjawab, “Karena sebuah buku lebih penting ketimbang hidup.” (hal. 322).

Dalam bukunya ini pun Irshad Manji menjadikan pendapat Christoph Luxenberg sebagai rujukan untuk menyatakan bahwa selama ini umat Islam salah memahami Al-Quran, yang seharusnya dipahami dalam bahasa Syriac. Tentang surga, dengan nada sinis ia menyatakan, bahwa ada human error yang masuk ke dalam Al-Quran. Menurut riset yang baru, tulis Manji, yang diperoleh para martir atas pengorbanan mereka adalah kismis, dan bukan perawan. “Nah, bagaimana bisa Al-Quran begitu tidak akurat?” tulisnya.

Pendapat Luxenberg bahwa bahasa Al-Quran harus dipahami dalam bahasa Aramaik ditulisnya dalam buku “Die syro-aramaeische Lesart des Koran: Ein Beitrag zur Entschluesselung der Koransprache”. Pendapat ini pun sangat lemah dan sudah banyak artikel ilmiah yang menanggapinya. Dr. Syamsuddin Arif telah mengupas masalah ini secara tajam dalam bukunya, Orientalis dan Diabolisme Intelektual.

Menurut Syamsuddin, Professor Hans Daiber, misalnya, memberikan seminar terbuka tentang karya polemis itu selama satu semester penuh di departemen Orientalistik Universitas Frankfurt, dimana ia ungkapkan sejumlah kelemahan-kelemahan buku itu secara metodologi dan filologi. Salah satu kelemahan Luxenberg, misalnya, untuk mendukung analisis dan argumen-argumennya, mestinya Luxenberg merujuk pada kamus bahasa Syriac atau Aramaic yang ditulis pada abad ke-7 atau 8 Masehi (zaman Islam), dan bukan menggunakan kamus bahasa Chaldean abad ke-20 karangan Jacques E. Manna terbitan tahun 1.900!

Namun, meskipun sudah dijelaskan secara ilmiah, orang-orang yang memang berniat jahat terhadap Islam, tetap tidak mau tahu dan mendengar semua argumentasi ilmiah tersebut. Irshad Manji, dalam bukunya ini, malah menyandarkan keraguannya terhadap Al-Quran pada pendapat Luxenberg (seorang pendeta Kristen asal Libanon yang menyembunyikan nama aslinya). Kata Manji:

”Jika Al-Quran dipengaruhi budaya Yahudi-Kristen – yang sejalan dengan klaim bahwa Al-Quran meneruskan wahyu-wahyu sebelumnya – maka bahasa Aramaik mungkin telah diterjemahkan oleh manusia ke dalam bahasa Arab. Atau, salah diterjemahkan dalam kasus hur, dan tak ada yang tahu berapa banyak lagi kata yang diterjemahkan secara kurang tepat. Bagaimana jika semua ayat salah dipahami?” (hal. 96).

Tampaknya, penerbit buku Irshad Manji dan kaum liberal di Indonesia pun sudah tidak peduli dengan perasaan umat Islam dan kehormatan Nabi Muhammad saw. Mereka begitu mudahnya menokohkan wanita lesbian seperti Irshad Manji, yang dengan entengnya melecehkan Nabi Muhammad saw dan Al-Quran. Mereka mungkin sudah tahu bahwa umat Islam akan marah jika Nabi Muhammad saw dihina. Mereka akan senang melihat umat Islam bangkit rasa marahnya. Jika umat Islam marah, mereka akan tertawa sambil menuding, bahwa umat Islam belum dewasa; umat Islam emosional, dan sebagainya!

Kasus Irshad Manji ini semakin memahamkan kita siapa sebenarnya kaum liberal dan apa maunya mereka. Kita kasihan sekali pada manusia-manusia seperti ini. Apa mereka tidak khawatir, jika anak-anak mereka nanti ditanya oleh gurunya, siapa wanita idola mereka? Maka anak-anak mereka tidak menjawab lagi, ”Idola kami adalah Khadijah, Aisyah, Kartini, Cut Nya Dien, dan sebagainya” tetapi akan menjawab: ”Idola kami Irsyad Manji, sang Miuslimah Lesbian teman baik Salman Rushdie sang penghujat Nabi.” Na’udzubillahi min dzalika. [Depok, 13 Sya’ban 1429 H/15 Agustus 2008/www.hidayatullah.com]

Catatan Akhir Pekan [CAP] Adian Husaini adalah kerjasama antara Radio Dakta 107 FM dan www.hidayatullah.com

Foto: Aktivis JIL, Nong Darol bersama Irshad Manji. Foto diambil dari nongmahmada.blogspot.com

Sumber :Hidayatullah

Como definir a islamofobia hoje? No momento em que Geert Wilders, líder do Partido da Liberdade, na Holanda, é jurado de morte pela Al Qaeda, sofre processo em seu país por denunciar a “islamização da Europa”, que ele vê ameaçar a tradição ocidental da liberdade de expressão; e ainda é expulso da Inglaterra, onde desejava exibir no Parlamento seu filme Fitna (Parte 1 e Parte 2), proibido em diversos países, deve-se avaliar a validade de sua tese polêmica, que beira o sensacionalismo, assistindo ao próprio filme, antes que se possa tirar qualquer conclusão definitiva:

Por seu lado, o escritor Salman Rushdie, outro jurado de morte por antiga fatwa por seus Versículos satânicos, defende uma idéia semelhante à tese de Geert Wilders (que também levou Oriana Falacci a amargas perseguições no fim da vida), afirmando que a islamofobia é uma reação justificada, tal como a fobia diante do nazismo. Ele analisa a complexa questão na entrevista concedida à jornalista e escritora Irshad Manji, autora do lúcido ensaio Minha briga com o Islã:

Com desenvoltura ainda maior, outra dissidente muçulmana, que se define como mulher secular, a corajosa psicóloga americana Wafa Sultan, nascida em Banias, na Síria, lidera uma campanha solitária e sem precedentes para mudar a face do mundo apenas com sua mensagem vibrante e poderosa. Tendo presenciado, quando estudante de Medicina na Universidade de Alepo, em 1979, o assassinato de seu professor Youssef El Youssef, cujo corpo foi cravejado por centenas de balas, enquanto seus assassinos, membros do grupo terrorista Irmãos Muçulmanos, gritavam “Allah é grande! Allah é grande!”, ela passou a questionar que religião era aquela que transformava Deus em Monstro:

Na entrevista que concedeu à TV Al Jazeera de Qatar, em 21 de fevereiro de 206, a voz de Wafa Sultan ganha uma dimensão verdadeiramente profética, que o eco da gravação transmitida via satélite dos EUA torna ainda mais transcendente, ao anunciar que o crash que todos testemunham ao redor do mundo não é de civilizações, mas da civilização contra a barbárie; que civilizações não entram em choque, mas competem entre si, culpando a intolerância, o racismo, o antissemitismo, a homofobia, a misoginia, o primitivismo do Islã não pelo crash das civilizações, mas pelo crash na civilização: 

Finalmente, num debate na TV Al-Ayaht, de Chipre, em 29 de maio de 2008, a intrépida Wafa Sultan, depois de “examinar o Alcorão em seu microscópio” conclui ser impossível que alguém possa emergir dessa doutrina – nela acreditando –mentalmente sadio:

Para Wafa Suntan, antes de mudar o Islã é preciso mudar o mundo, isto é, mudar a percepção que o mundo ainda tem sobre ser o Islã apenas uma religião. É preciso, a seu ver, abrir os olhos do Ocidente sobre o que o Islã realmente é – não uma religião, mas um projeto político de dominação total. Somente quando o mundo entender o projeto fascista do Islã será possível reformar o islamismo e torná-lo, enfim, uma religião como as outras. No complexo emaranhado de tolerância e intolerância, racismo e anti-racismo, em que a liberdade encontra-se hoje enredada, urge, pois, distinguir na islamofobia o que é ódio ilegítimo do homem racista contra o diferente e o que é ódio legítimo do homem livre contra o totalitário.

This week anyone who’s anyone really wants to be in California at this year’s TED conference. If you haven’t yet been introduced to the concept of TED, it’s a big annual meeting of some of the world’s brightest minds on a whole range of subjects. You can watch talks from previous conferences at www.ted.com

Canada of course has it’s own share of thought leaders as you would expect. Quite some have had their views recorded by the Canadian Voices project – they are well worth listening too. Here are some of the more interesting ones that I’ve come across:

Matt Hern talks about reinventing education and why current education systems are not optimum for our children.

Irshad Manji is a muslim speaker who talks about the positive aspects of Islam and gives a different view of this religion than we usually see

David Suzuki is a top biologist and popular science speaker

Severn Cullis-Suzuki is David’s daughter and an activist in her own right. Famous for giving a speech to the United Nations as a teenager amongst other things.

Chantal Hérbert is a top Québec journalist and columnist working in both English and French

And now back to TED for a video of Mosche Safadie who built the famous river front “Habitat” appartment block for Expo ‘67:

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/219

At the 92 St Y, on Sunday night, I heard Irshad Manji, aka “Osama bin Laden’s worst nightmare”, interview Salmon Rushdie, aka Padma Lakshmi’s womanizing ex-husband, aaka one of the greatest living writers. The subject of their chat was Moral Courage. In fact, it was the first conversation in a series started by Manji, which aims to tackle the subject of ethical fortitude from several different angles. Manji, a reformist Muslim, questioned Rushdie, an Indian born devout Atheist, about the effects of the Fatwa, which Ayatollah Khomeini passed against him after the publication of his book, The Satanic Verses.

At the time of the book’s release, Islamic fundamentalists took offense at his descriptions of the prophet Mohamed, and the circumstances of his life. The fatwa called for the death of Rushdie, and when it was issued there were serious attempts to assassinate him, initiated by the government of Iran. As a result of this it was dangerous for Rushdie to travel to the Middle East, imposing a form of exile upon the man, although he was already living in the west. The attacks and threats even spilled over into England and were also used to intimidate his publisher and other colleagues. Rushdie was educated in India, then England and has since lived in Pakistan and here in the United States

A lot of my friends don’t like the man. Rushdie although well-versed in upper-class charm, has often been called sexist and elitist for good reason. However, like that old Woody Allen, it’s too hard to hate him, no matter how much I try. He is a great writer. His brilliant way with words is matched by his lucid mind. It is a rare gift to possess the ability to craft such unique characters and give them appropriate language styles, distinguishing one from the next so effectively that the reader can really get lost in the dreamscape of the novel, without remembering to be cynical. Agreeing to judge the artist, above the man (no matter how much he reminds me of Bridshead Revisited), let us move on to what the Muslim-Canadian-Feminist-Lesbian said to the Indian/British/American- Sexist-Atheist-Booker Prize winning Writer…

Although you could sense a note of resistance between the two, there also seemed to be a significant amount of respect flowing both ways. They both oppose censorship and bemoaned the way that our society has slinked into an Orwellian dystopia. They spoke against the type of moral relativism and political-correctness, which dissuades people from speaking out against things like honor killings, stonings and female genital mutilation. Rushdie said that in the past 20 years people have become more afraid to speak out about things. However, he also called our contemporary culture, “a culture of offense.” He claimed that because of the explosion of identity politics, people now define themselves by what they’re angry about. “Who are you if you’re not pissed off by anything?” Rushdie said.

He seems to want it both ways, and maybe we all do. One should be able to shout at someone else for offending their cultural, religious or gender identity, expecting a degree of “tolerance” or political-correctness. Yet, people should not just accept and respect each other, because their practices fit under the veil of some sort of culture. Now this is tricky terrain. I think the main point is that we can disagree, and even vocalize this, but the danger comes when we back our views with violence, whichever side we’re on. But again, the danger, If the US violently intervenes, for instance, when the Taliban oppress and kill women, this is an example of not tolerating or succumbing to moral relativism. When they attack us as infidels, is it the same example reversed? It is as though they are saying, we are Right, so we can use might, they are wrong, and so they can’t. Maintaining a sense of moral superiority is nice, but somehow not an effective argument against others who believe they are also superior. For all his pretty words, I’m curious as to how Rushdie would respond to this, and for all of her moral courage, how would Manji? I welcome their responses.