Muslim response to Wilders

Muslim response to Wilders on Qur'aan

Using Prophet Muhammad’s model for peace.
Mike Ghouse, January 20, 2008
Commentary by Imam Zia-ul-Haq Shaikh

http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/Quraan/Muslim-response-to-Geert-Wilders-using-Prophet-Muhammads-Model.asp

“Geert Wilders, Dutch conservative lawmaker, has made a ten-minute film exposing the horrific passages of the Koran. Per AP Wilders refers to the selected verses as “fascist.’” http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/29496.html
First of all, as a Muslim, I want to thank Geert Wilders for making this documentary, the verses, as he has quoted certainly sound fascist. These verses have not only been misquoted for millennia, but were mis-translated with the intent of maligning Islam in the middle ages to protect the European kings and their kingdoms. My gratitude to Wilders comes from the fact that he is putting it on the spot light, so we have an opportunity to discuss and clarify them, hopefully for ever. Otherwise a whole lot of people would have believed in the wrong thing. Thank you my friend.
Prophet Muhammad was pelted with stones by a bunch of miscreants, he was bleeding, and his associates and angel Gabriel were requesting him to give permission to go get the bad boys, the Prophet said no, instead he asked them to pray with him that God gave goodwill and a good sense to the misled miscreants.
Following the model of Prophet of forgiveness and the belief that there is good in every human soul, we have to relentlessly stoke the goodness in humans. I ask fellow humans in general and fellow Muslims in particular to pray for Geert Wilders’ safety and well being.

Mr. Wilders, I have personally prayed for your safety and well being and request our Imams to do the same across the world. The report expressed that "You do not fear being slain, claiming 24-hour protection." Again, I admire you for your courage and conviction and request you to consider another aspect of the equation that nearly 1.5 billion Muslims believe.

Note to the Muslim Leadership:

As Muslims leaders, we have a responsibility to prevent mis-haps. To be a Muslim is to be a peace maker; one who constantly seeks to mitigate conflicts and nurtures goodwill for co-existence and world peace - God wants his creation to be in peace and harmony, and that is the chief purpose of religion. Islam is indeed peace.

Geert Wilder's is going to show a 10 minute documentary on the 25th - the hell may freeze over and all of us will be scrambling to defend.... if our Imams can address this in the Friday Sermons, and urge Muslims to follow the model Prophet has created, we can avoid a big mishap and turn this upcoming nightmare into a peace building effort. I request all Imams to call their counterparts around the globe to win this war with love and kindness and it is an opportunity God has provided to become leaders. If you like, please circulate.

A Prelude to Qur'aan Translations:

When the European Kings were threatened by the invading Arab armies in early part of the millennia, to safeguard and protect their Kingdoms, they gave birth to the idea of Islamophobia and their strategy was:

1. To label the Invading Kings as Muslim, as that was one of the ways to get their subjects to fight.
2. To mis-translate the Qur'aan to create a permanent wedge between the two communities
3. To paint the religion negatively and as a Mohammedan cult.
4. To reinforce this strategy they roped in the Pope to issue a fatwa approving crusades.

Their Blueprint worked well for them and the Arab Kings were pushed back and defeated. It is important to note that a majority of the kings were thieves and robbers, whose only purpose in life was to invade and annex the neighboring territories, loot their wealth, destroy their cultures and come back home stronger and erect a statue of themselves as Heroes. Very few of them wanted to spread their faith for the purpose of spreading piety and goodwill. Their goal was to control the resources and the people; in the process they destroyed civilizations, no different than today's Neocons.

The Neocons of middle ages were exceptionally successful in steering public opinion against Islam via the translations. The foundation they laid at that time has become the basis for building baseless theories against Islam. The kings happened to be Muslims that they were against, instead their propaganda turned against all Muslims and Islam.

Dahlia Sabry is researching on the effects of this work and reports that " it was found out that translating the meanings of the holy Qur'aan offered an opportunity to distort and misinterpret its meanings. This played a crucial role in framing a negative and an inaccurate image of Islam. The problem can be ascribed mostly to translations by non-Muslims, however, also partially to translations by Muslims."

Lex Mahumet pseudoprophete (English: "Law of Mahomet the pseudo-prophet") was the first translation of the Qur'aan into Latin by Robert of Ketton in 1142. Peter the Venerable persuaded Robert to join a team he was creating to translate Arabic works into Latin in hopes of aiding the religious conversion of Muslims to Christianity. It was the standard translation for Europeans from its release until the 18th century. This translation is loaded with inaccuracies.

Another Latin translation by Ludovicus Marracci was published in 1698. It was supplemented with quotes from Qur'an commentaries "carefully juxtaposed and sufficiently garbled so as to portray Islam in the worst possible light" (Colin Turner,1997 p. xii). The title of the introductory volume of such translation was A Refutation of the Qur'an. Such translations formed the foundation for a number of subsequent translations into English, French, Italian, German, etc. The first English translation was that of Alexander Ross published in 1649. In his introduction, Ross says "I thought good to bring it to their colours, that so viewing thine enemies in their full body, thou must the better prepare to encounter … his Alcoran" (p. A3).

Similarly, H. Reckendorf (1857) says in his Hebrew translation of the Qur'an, "I can now stop writing and ask God's pardon for the sin I committed when I profaned our sacred language and transferred to it the talk of lies and falsehood" (as cited in Abdul Aal, January 29, 2006, p. 78).In 1734, George Sale’s translation came out based on Marracci’s earlier notorious work. In 1861, J. M. Rodwell’s work provided a further example of a writer "gunning for Islam" (Turner, 1997, p. xii).

That was the story of Neocons who shamelessly wore the Christian label, similar inaccurate and brazen translations were made by Muslims as well. The Noble Qur'an, also informally known as the Hilali-Khan translation was published in early 1900's and is despicable.

http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/Quraan/Not-like-Jews-and-Christians.asp

Religions emerged to allay individual fears and bring a balance in one's life and peace for the society. It is obvious that the Kings of the past have raped the religion to their own advantage and we must not give them the religious label. Their purpose was simply expansion, exertion and oppression and religion did not figure in the conquests, they were far from it.

It is time for us to strip the wrongs people have ascribed to religion, every religion, and get to know the truth. I am amazed neither the Universities, nor the responsible Governments have under taken research project to dismantle the false castles of hate from the past. It is time now, and we have begun this process.

Further Geert Wilders adds "When taking the Koran seriously as divine revelation, a superficial review of the Koran’s extremist verses is not what meshes with democracies."
All the fourteen verses quoted below have one theme in common "Punishment" for those who do not follow the rules. Mr. Geert may understand this better, if he were to look at it from an universal perspective and not as Islam V. Christianity issue.

One can find ‘punitive’ verses in every holy book. However, the critical element overlooked is the most powerful and dominant aspect of the creator; Qur'aan 1:1 "In the name of God, The Most Gracious, The Dispenser of Grace." This verse is repeated 113 times in Qur’aan, more than any other verse.

For societies to function on equilibrium there must be law and order. When there is justice in a society, peace is a natural outcome. The Criminal and Civil laws are designed to bring net-peace to the society. For every violation of a rule, punishment is determined. If there were no punishment, then crimes go un-checked creating chaos in the society.

From a common man’s perspective, the word ‘painful doom’ appears to be cruelty coming from a kind God. Well, then what should hold any one from murdering and butchering the other. If you are a good guy who holds the temptations to steal someone else's hard earned goods, and the bad guys steal with no consequences to it, then every one may resort to stealing. What will happen to a society when every one is stealing, lying or cheating? No one would trust and everyone is frightened of the other.Imagine the nightmare in America, if we were to remove the punishment aspect from the United States Constitution, civil and criminal laws.

Religions emerged to allay individual fears and bring a balance in one's life and peace for the society. It is time for us to strip the wrongs people have ascribed to religion, indeed every religion, and find the truth for ourselves. I cannot believe that the Universities and responsible Governments have not undertaken the research to dismantle the false castles of hate from the past.

We have undertaken the work to fix 60 misrepresented verses, hopefully to mitigate the conflicts and nurture goodwill for co-existence, as citizens of the world, you and I, every one included, have the responsibility to watch for the trouble makers whose business is manufacturing enemies and cashing in on fears of ordinary people.

If you wish to read both the 14 misquoted verses and the corrected ones with commentary by Imam Zia-ul-Haq Shaikh and Mike Ghouse - Please click here

http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/Quraan/Muslim-response-to-Geert-Wilders-using-Prophet-Muhammads-Model.asp

Barking Neocons & Iran

Barking Neocons & Iran
Mike Ghouse, December 12,2007

Neocon may be the right word to describe the bullies of the world, there is a bully in every class room, organization, office, faith and politics.

1. You can detect them easily
2. They rely on the muscle power.
3. They refuse to dialogue with their opponent extremists.
4. They claim to preserve the values of the religion they wear.
5. They dig in their heels and entrench in their positions
6. They lack the skills to give any wiggle room to the other.
7. They are passionate in what they do.
8. They prefer to live a chaotic life.

Neocons come in various hues; Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Jews and others, and they cannot stomach the idea of peace. They strongly believe that since your enemy is my enemy, we will join to beat them up. The thought of joining to create peace is alien to them.

When a dog barks in the street, all the dogs eagerly join the chorus, many a times without any rhyme or reason... if they stop it, they feel something is not right and start all over again. Now that they have found out that Iran did not have the Nuclear program going since 2003 they are going nuts, they cannot handle a quieter world and will start barking; at the wrong tree again.

Creating chaos is entertainment to them, they have to keep themselves excited about ambushing on some one or the other. I wish they go watch a good movie instead.

Mike Ghouse

Here is a piece by Uri Avnery, a man who makes the sense.

How They Stole the Bomb From Us
By Uri Avnery, December 10, 2007

It was like an atom bomb falling on Israel.

The earth shook. Our political and military leaders were all in shock. The headlines screamed with rage.

What happened?

A real catastrophe: the American intelligence community, comprising 16 different agencies, reached a unanimous verdict: already in 2003, the Iranians terminated their efforts to produce a nuclear bomb, and they have not resumed them since. Even if they change their mind in the future, they will need at least five years to achieve their aim. SHOULDN'T WE be overjoyed? Shouldn't the masses in Israel be dancing in the streets, as they did on November 29, 1947, sixty years ago? After all, we have been saved!

Until this week, we have been regularly hearing that - any minute now - the Iranians will produce a bomb that threatens our very existence. Nothing less. Mahmud Ahmedinejad, the new Hitler of the Middle East, who announces every second day that Israel must disappear from the map, was about to fulfill his own prophecy.

A small nuclear bomb, even a teeny-weeny one like the ones dropped on Japan, would be enough to wipe out the whole Zionist enterprise. If it fell on Tel-Aviv's Rabin Square, the economic, cultural and military center of Israel would be vaporized, together with hundreds of thousands of Jews. A second Holocaust.

And lo and behold - no bomb and no any-minute-now. The wicked Ahmedinejad can threaten us as much as he wants - he just has not got the means to harm us. Isn't that a reason for celebration?

So why does this feel like a national disaster? A TWO-BIT psychologist (like me) might say: Jews have become used to anxiety. After hundreds of years of persecution, expulsions, inquisition, pogroms and then the Holocaust, we have little red warning lights in our heads, which come on at the slightest sign of danger. In such a situation, we feel at home. We know what to do.

But when the lights stay off and no danger appears on the horizon, we get the feeling that something suspicious is going on. Something is wrong. Perhaps the lights are out of order. Perhaps it's really a trap!

There is one little consolation in the new situation. While it seems as if the immediate danger of annihilation has disappeared, there is a feeling that we are alone, on our own again.

That is another sign of Jewish uniqueness: We are facing the entire world alone. As in the days of the Holocaust, all the Goyim have forsaken us. Face to face with the Iranian monster which threatens to devour us, we now stand here alone.

All our media are repeating this in unison, like an orchestra which does not need a conductor, because it knows the music by heart.

True, other peoples, too, can derive satisfaction from standing alone. Engraved in my memory is a British poster that was hanging on our walls in Palestine in the dark days after the fall of France to the Nazis, when Britain was left quite alone in the war. Under the grim face of Winston Churchill the slogan proudly proclaimed: "Alright then, Alone!"

But with us this has almost become a national ritual. As we used to sing in the good old days of Golda Meir: "The whole world is against us / That is an old melody / …And everybody who is against us / Let him go to hell…" At the time, one of the army entertainment teams even turned it into a folk dance.

In the last few years, a broad coalition against Iran has come into being. The Iranian bomb has become the heart of an international consensus, led by America, Queen of the World. With the consent of all its five permanent members, the UN Security Council has decreed sanctions against Tehran.

Now, before our very eyes, this coalition is crumbling. President Bush is stammering. Gone is the excuse for an American military attack on Iran, the dream of the Israeli government and the neocons. Gone is even the pretext for more stringent sanctions.

God knows, perhaps even the existing feeble sanctions will be abolished tomorrow.THE FIRST reaction of the Israeli leadership was vigorous and determined: total denial.

The American report is simply wrong, all the media proclaimed. It is based on false information. Our own intelligence community is in possession of much better data, which prove that the bomb is well on its way.

Really? All the intelligence in the hands of the Mossad is automatically transferred to the CIA. It is part of the mass of data on which the American report is based. It must be remembered that the published part of the report constitutes only 3% of the complete document.

So the American intelligence agencies must be deliberately lying.

There is no escaping the conclusion that murky political motives must lie behind their unequivocal findings. Perhaps they want to make up for the false reports which President Bush employed to justify his invasion of Iraq. Then they overestimated, now they underestimate. Perhaps they want to take revenge on Bush and believe that the time is ripe, since he has become a lame duck. Or they are adapting themselves to American public opinion, which cannot stomach another war. And, besides, their chiefs are, of course, all anti-Semites.

Even if the American intelligence operatives innocently believe that Iran has stopped work on the Bomb, it just shows how naive they are. They cannot imagine that the Iranians are fooling them. Who knows better than us how easy it is to hide an atomic bomb and deceive the whole world? After all, we have been at it for years.

But all this does not change the fact: this report pushes American policy in a new direction and changes the entire international constellation.

The war on Iran, which was to be the defining event of 2008, has turned for the time being into a non-event.WHAT ARE the results, as far as Israel is concerned? Why have our leaders been in a state of shock since the publication of the report?

The possibility of an independent Israeli military strike against Iran has vanished. Israel cannot wage war without the unreserved backing of the US. We tried once - the Sinai War of 1956 - and then President Dwight D. Eisenhower kicked our ass. Since then we have taken great care to obtain the blessing of the US before every war.

For the military and intelligence services, the report is an unmitigated disaster for another reason too. The Iranian bomb plays an indispensable part in the army's annual fight for its massive chunk of the budget cake.

For right-wing demagogues, the effect is even more disheartening. Binyamin Netanyahu has built his whole strategy on the Iranian scare, hoping to ride the Bomb right into the Prime Minister's office.

Furthermore, when the Iranian issue cools down, the Palestinian issue warms up. That is especially true in Washington DC. President Bush is in trouble, his fiascos in Afghanistan and Iraq are still dragging on. Any American effort to install a stable government in Iraq, with its Shiite majority, depends on the backing of Shiite Iran. Bush's dream of delivering a lightning stroke against Iran and thus leaving his imprint on history is going up in smoke.

What can he do in order to leave any positive legacy at all? The default alternative is Israeli-Palestinian peace. Perhaps he will now give stronger backing to poor Condoleezza. Perhaps he himself will get more involved. Fact: he is soon going to visit Israel for the first since entering the White House.

True, this effort has not much chance of success, but people in Jerusalem are worried nonetheless. That's just what we need - Bush acting like that anti-Semite, Jimmy Carter, who twisted Begin's arm and forced him to make peace with Egypt!

So what to do? One can instruct Israeli diplomats abroad to redouble their efforts to convince the governments that the situation has not changed, that one must fight against the Iranian bomb, whether it exists or not. But tell that to the Russians and the Chinese! The world's governments are happy to see the end of Bush's pressure - all except that happy couple, Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel, the new White House poodles now Tony Blair has gone.THE NEW situation poses a thorny dilemma for Ehud Olmert.

On the way back from Annapolis, he uttered some amazing statements. If the "two states solution collapses," he declared, "the State of Israel is finished". Nobody in the peace camp has yet dared to go as far as that.

Does he believe what he says, or is it just a new spin? That is the question that is now dominating the discourse in Israel. In other words: is he just trying to win time, or is he really going to work for a peace settlement?

All indications suggest that he is in no position to take any step whatsoever. If he tries to carry out the first phase of the Road Map and dismantle some settlement outposts, he will face not only the determined opposition of the settlers and their supporters, and the silent (but highly effective) opposition of the military, but also obstruction by his government colleagues. Before the first outpost is dismantled, his coalition will break apart.

Olmert has no other coalition handy. Ehud Barak has been trying again and again to outflank him on the right and cannot be relied upon in a crisis. The Labor Party is a chaotic, spineless and unprincipled body. The shrunken Meretz party has a faction of only five Knesset members, four of whom are competing with each other for the party leadership. The ten members of the Arab factions (that's what they are generally called, even though one Hadash Knesset member is a Jew) are outcasts, and no "Zionist" government could be seen to rely openly on their support. And in Olmert's own faction there are several extreme-right members who would obstruct any peace effort.

In such a situation, the natural tendency of a real politician like Olmert is to do nothing, to issue pronouncement left and right (in both senses) and try to gain time.

This week, the government announced plans to build 300 new homes in the odious Har Homa settlement, near Jerusalem. For someone like me, who has spent many days and nights demonstrating against the building of this particular settlement, that is bitter news indeed. It certainly does not indicate a turn for the better.

On the other hand, I have heard an interesting thesis from one of Olmert's inner circle. According to this, knowing that he is going to lose power, Olmert may tell himself: if I must fall, why not enter history as somebody who has sacrificed himself on the altar of a lofty principle, instead of just vanishing as a good-for-nothing political hack?

If he has no other way out, he might choose this solution - particularly as his immediate family is pushing him in this direction.

I would evaluate this possibility as "unlikely" - but stranger things have happened.

In any case, perhaps the peace forces should overcome their understandable reservations and try to influence public opinion in a way that would help Olmert turn in this direction. EITHER WAY, one thing is certain: that son of a bitch, Ahmadinejad, has screwed us again.

He has stolen our most precious possession: the Iranian Atomic Threat.

Uri Avnery is an academic, journalist, writer, peace activist and former three-term member of the Knesset.

This article can be found on the web at: http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery12102007.html

Commentstomike@gmail.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker and a Writer. He is president of the Foundation for Pluralism and is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing interfaith, political and civic issues. He is the founding president of World Muslim Congress with a simple theme: Good for Muslims and good for the world. His comments, news analysis and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website www.MikeGhouse.net. Mike is a Dallasite for nearly three decades and Carrollton is his home town. He can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com

For a full bio: http://www.mikeghouse.net/ProfileMikeGhouse.asp

Foundationless Castles

Foundationless Castles of Neocons

It is fascinating to read Anand Patwardhan's comments on the article in the Frontpage Magazine. Both the pieces are appended here below with a few comments from Rohit Chopra and myself. It is a long reading, it is worth it but if you have an interest.

From Mike Ghouse

There is no shortage of experts, they are manufactured by dozens. In April this year, I have had a dialogue with the folks at Front Page Magazine, run by Jamie Glazov and Robert Spencer that resulted in a symposium called one Islam . It is also available at: http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={63467012-3FCB-43B6-B384-B94C8F0C985F} The one thing good about them is their integrity in presenting your point of view, word for word.

Much of the knowledge of experts on Islam comes from a baseless foundation laid by the European Kings to malign the invaders from Arabia, thus Islam. There was seldom a king in the history of mankind who had no other business than expanding territories. The only way they could check the Arabs from conquering their lands was to use the poor subjects of their empires in defending their kingdom.

So they get the Pope (who compromised Christianity for political purposes) to go along with them in issuing a Fatwa that those Moslems are attacking the Christians and fan fanaticism to march on a holy war and slaughter those infidel Muslims (and Jews) who control the land Jesus walked on. How did the Pope authorize such a ridiculous thing to do? It goes against the very grain of Christianity that Jesus taught. I pray that Pope Benedict adopts the language of Jesus, that mitigates conflict and not agitate the world anymore. President Bush and his cohorts similarly use the Neocons to do their dirty work in establishing a baseless foundation (WMD's) and butchering over a million people. Their knowledge is based on lies as well. Are these anti-Christ?

The European kings had a plan, to build hatred against the Arab armies and blatantly went after their religion. Paid the idiot scholars or perhaps scared the devil out of them to mistranslate Qur'aan. Just like miserable Collin Powell declared the WMD's in the United Nations knowing well that it was a lie. Here is a small sample of their WMD lies about Qur'aan: Qur'aan Translations - http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/WorldMuslimCongress/Quran_Translations_Issues_031107.pps

The Arab kings (read Muslim) were not far behind either, they paid the translators to mistranslate Qur'aan as well to get the poor Muslims to go get killed and kill to save their King's tail in the guise of protecting Islam. However, Qur'aan itself has remained a safe document through the tradition of memorizing.

The Questions are unending, but the answers seem to take away the finger pointing at Religion, and move towards the individuals. I am yet to see a conclusionary statement that blames the religion for the crimes of humanity. It is always the powers to be, who use the poor suckers to do their bidding and religion is always available to be used, rather abused.

One of my personal missions is to shake the world up, and strip criminals from using religion for anything they do. We should feel the discomfort in labeling religion for the wrongs of the men, just as we feel odd driving without the seat belt on (for those who are used to seat belt). Religion is the most beautiful gift to mankind, every religion brings answers and peace to oneself and how to live with what is around; life and matter.

From Rohit Chopra:

One more Neocons 'expert' on political Islam crawls out of the woodwork. Here is Anand Patwardhan's review, on Chowk, of an interview with with Bill Warner, the Director – Center for the Study of Political Islam, conducted by Jamie Glazov on 7th February 2007 for Front Page magazine -- a conservative mouthpiece. As Patwardhan notes, the interview is full of dubious, not to mention prejudiced, claims, such as:

"The practice of suttee, the widow throwing herself on the husband's funeral pyre, came about as a response to the rape and brutality of the Islamic jihad as it sweep over ancient Hindustan." The first recorded instance of Sati belongs to 6th century C.E."

Artifice of Scholarship : CSPI on FrontPage
Anand Patwardhan, November 15, 2007

An interview of Bill Warner, The Director – Center for the Study of Political Islam, conducted by Jamie Glazov on 7th February 2007 for the Front Page magazine arrived in my email today. The tone set by Warner is exceedingly soothing right from the start – “reasonable” and “scholarly”. He describes the aim of CSPI as ‘the scientific study of the foundational texts of Islam—Koran, Sira (life of Mohammed) and Hadith (traditions of Mohammed).’ Glazov turns out to be a highly accommodating and agreeable interviewer. Warner takes much pride in the fact that his group was first to use statistics to study the Doctrine and History, or Theory and Practice, of Islam. He gives what he obviously considers compelling statistics about the true nature of Islam – a “war mongering doctrine”.

“Let’s turn to Bukhari (the Hadith) for the answer, as he repeatedly speaks of jihad. In Bukhari 97% of the jihad references are about war and 3% are about the inner struggle. So the statistical answer is that jihad is 97% war and 3% inner struggle. Is jihad war? Yes—97%. Is jihad inner struggle? Yes—3%.”

Is Warner right? Yes – 100%. Is Warner wrong? Yes – 100%. It is difficult to take a call unless one is an Islamic scholar or had Warner sighted the original sources for us to verify. He throws figures at us and hopes they stick. Usually they do. But only if they enhance the conventional wisdom, validate the embedded stereotypes. Here are some curious figures.

Parameter Doctrine - I Doctrine - II

War 451 65

Battle 264 4

Fighting 10 28

Total 725 97

Firstly, the figures are clickable links where everyone is encouraged to visit the webpage to ascertain the details. Later, we calculate the ratio of “violent” phrases in both the doctrines to arrive at the conclusion : Doctrine-I is about 750% more violent than Doctrine-II. Isn’t it a reasonable conclusion Mr. Warner? Isn’t it better than even what you have done?; since it sights independent sources that readers can verify. Warner would agree, unless he had felt encouraged beforehand to ‘click’ the figures in the above table to see what the templates I & II really stand for. Many readers too may stare at this revealed ‘Template reality’ in disbelief. Yet, these figures don’t prove or disprove anything. The lessons to be learnt here are : statistics is a tool, not a proof and when facts contradict “Theory”, Fiction-Peddlers like Warner ignore facts, whereas Fact-Seekers would either verify facts to disprove their authenticity or failing which would abandon the theory. Incidentally, fact-seekers will never or should never base the edifice of such a grandiose theory that condemns 1400 years of a sizable part of human civilization on such a wafer thin base.

Next major intellectual breakthrough Warner marshals in his approach to Islam is the recognition of dualism as its foundation. He posits thus,

“Endless ink has been wasted on trying to answer the question of what is Islam? Is Islam the religion of peace? Or is the true Islam a radical ideology?...... Is light a particle or is light a wave? The arguments went back and forth. Quantum mechanics gave us the answer. Light is dualistic; it is both a particle and a wave. It depends upon the circumstances as to which quality manifests. Islam functions in the same manner.”

Then he comes to the tactic of ‘abrogation’ relied upon by some clerics to resolve the contradictions in Quran. His shine of originality wears out too quickly when one realizes that some Islamic scholars had recognized both the dualism – a.k.a. contradictions and the need for their resolution – a.k.a. abrogation as early as 10th century C.E. The abrogating and abrogated verses were called by them Al Nasekh and Al Mansoukh respectively. Contradictions do get narrowed down when the chosen verses are set out in their context. The Sura 73, Spoils of War, and Sura 8, the Enshrouded, deal with the differing contexts of temporal and transcendent issues. However, it is true that contradictions themselves do not evaporate. Such conundrums exist even in Bible.

“...thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. -- Exodus 21:23-25

...ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. -- Matthew 5:39”

Where will Mr. Warner hide now when faced with the ignobility of logic deserting his beloved Christianity? What will he do when the devil of duality is discovered in his own sacred texts? Isn’t his punditry a foolery of pot calling the kettle black?

Quran was revealed to Mohammed over several years and was memorized or scribed on variety of materials like cloth, bone, leather, and stones by some among those followers who were present at the moment. Early verses and Suras of Quran are briefer, inward looking and peace seeking – in one word, transcendent. This was commensurate with the situation at Mecca where prophet was at the mercy of Quraish – an ‘idol worshipping’ and ‘offerings extracting’ clan to which prophet belonged. Fortune changed in Medina where accretion of temporal power made Mohammed confident of the success of his mission. Naturally, this is reflected in the later verses and Suras that deal at great length with material life, both private (of an individual) and public (as a member society). Mohammed had the good fortune of enjoying transcendent and temporal powers in his lifetime unlike Jesus Christ, but like many other prophets of the Old Testament. Jews were already subjugated by the Roman Empire when they faced the dissenting voice of Jesus in their religious affairs. The result is well known – crucifixion, instigated by Jews and perpetrated by Romans. If Jesus had succeeded in getting temporal authority during his lifetime, may be he would have left a much different ministry behind. Although that did not matter in practice as the quest for survival drove a temporal power to seek out Christianity, which had by now assembled a large body of faithful, when Roman Emperor Constantine converted in 327 C.E.

All the 3 Semitic religions uncompromisingly believe in one god and no other (Allah is an Arabic word for God), the dualism of conflict between god (good) and devil (evil), the judgment day (Qay_mat), and the hereafter in heaven or hell. The similarity between Judaism and Islam goes even further; both strictly treat creation and creator as distinct–i.e. dualism in life (Jesus termed as son of God is unacceptable), despise idolatry, have to follow stricter observances to qualify as followers, practice circumcision, and classify foods in to acceptable (Kosher/Halal) or unacceptable (Treif/Haram) – the last with a significant overlap. Significantly, Torah (first 5 chapters of Old Testament) confers special status on its followers – the chosen tribes of Israelites as does Quran for its followers. Old Testament is full of the trials and tribulations, often very violent and bloody, of the chosen people over millennia. There conflicts with tribes from Mesopotamia in North-East to Pharaohs in South-West mirror miseries and triumphs encountered while searching the Promised Land. Quran too, in later verses, much like Torah, records contemporary conflicts and political and social changes, and enunciates Islamic laws albeit on a much smaller canvas of time. Moreover, Quran accepts and mentions specifically Biblical prophets like Ibrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses), Yakub (Jacob), Ismail (Ishmael) etc., recognizes Jews as the people of the book and models its philosophy after Torah. If Quran accepts the earlier Hebrew Prophets, it is obvious to anyone that their god is same as the Hebrew god. In fact, Jews at Medina initially took Mohammed to be the prophet whose arrival was predicted in their texts. But when their attempts to take him under their wings and make him do their bidding failed, they turned antagonistic. When Warner overlooks or fails to mention this, his “scholarship” becomes suspect. Quran distinguishes between Believers and Unbelievers – ‘not acceptable’ to Warner’s thesis. Torah distinguishes between Chosen People and Others – meets with ‘silence’ from Warner. He dangles before us what he calls the shining precept of “his civilization” – “Treat others as you would be treated.” Probably, he meant to say “Love your neighbor as yourself.” However, during the crusades, Christians behaved - abandoning Christ - exactly like the Muslims, proving themselves remarkably prescient about what Warner was to say in Front Page interview several centuries later.

Another oft repeated ruse our interlocutor fails to disguise is to take a much abused word or phrase and to paint the whole canvas with it. He mourns,

“When Islam burst out of Arabia into a decaying Byzantine world, the unbelievers recorded it as an Arabic invasion. Similarly, the invasion of Eastern Europe was by Turks; the invasion of Spain was by Moors.”

Leave alone Turks or Moors, even Arabs were not or are not a monolith. Among Palestinians Fatah and Hamas are at loggerheads. In Iraq, many more Sunnis and Shias are dying in sectarian violence and suicide bombings than they ever did under Saddam. Syrians are jostling with Lebanon. These are real people with real identities and have real differences, difficulties and problems. Some of them originally created or fueled in the last 100 years by the policies and actions of the ‘British, US and some European’ governments. Calling them all Muslims diabolically seeks to obliterate their significant distinctions and obfuscate real issues. In all these conflict zones there are ‘bread and butter’ problems of control of resources, access to growth and development, yearnings of economic independence, desire for political freedom etc.

Iraq was invaded because it had links with Al Qaeda and possessed WMDs. Both were blatant lies and were proved to be so. It was then conveniently discovered that Saddam was a brutal dictator who used nerve gas against his own people. Saddam was a brutal dictator even in 1981-88, when Reagan found him to be a valuable ally against Iran that had dispatched Shah in 1979 into exile. He fielded Donald Rumsfeld in 1983 to meet Saddam and assure him of all help. The nerve gas supplied by the US regime was used by Saddam on Kurds during this period. Did anyone hear even a whimper from Reagan? The brutal and corrupt regime of Shah was installed and maintained after CIA overthrew the first democratically elected government of Mosadeh. Its crime was the nationalization of Iranian oil industry for the benefit of Iranian people by ending the cozy colonial arrangements of British and US oil companies.

What about that fountainhead of terrorism – Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda? When the then evil Soviet Empire was to be dislodged from Afghanistan – around the same period as Iraq’s Iran war – US connived with Zia Ul Haq, an army dictator who sponsored terrorist networks against India too, to create Taliban. Zia provided the software of indoctrination through bigoted madrassah and military training and US gave the hardware of money, arms and ammunitions. Osama Bin Laden was encouraged too to participate with a group of foreign scouts. Christians and Muslims collaborated in a grand strategy to defeat the atheist infidels of USSR. Nobody foresaw that both Taliban and Osama will be jobless once the Soviets withdrew. Here is a potent force of ideologically committed, well equipped and battle hardened “Jihadis”; and it is jobless. Only job they knew is to fight, fight the infidel.

Israel-Palestine conflict has been festering since 1949. It was created by Britain and US governments when they chose to plant Israel on the north western strip of Arabia. US controls huge territory in North America and could have easily given enough fertile land to Jews to establish their state. Jews would have had their promised land of peace and tranquility after being haunted in Middle East and Europe all through Millennia. With fertile land, favourable climate, water resources and their legendary ingenuity Jews would have forced Biblical rivers of milk and honey flow once again. But then the control over the oil in the Middle East would have been lost. Planting Israel where it stands today has provided the much needed strategic toehold to intervene in that region. Ever since then US always sides and is seen to side with Israel, one has to only read the often unanimous UN Security Council and general body resolutions on this conflict that were opposed and vetoed by it, to agree. Sooner rather than later these jobless ‘Mujahiddins’ were going to find jobs. Jobs they loved thanks to the training by US and Pakistan. They found their jobs in targeting US.

911 provided the perfect cover to attack Afghanistan and later Iraq. However, in case of Iraq the invasion was planned in February 2001, just a little over month into Bush presidency. Texas guys were hungry for Iraqi oil. ‘Preemptive’ war doctrine has become now accepted wisdom. Designer wars are next. US is constructing an embassy in Iraq to house 5,500 personnel. It would be the biggest embassy built by any country anywhere. Is it a sign of occupier planning to or wanting to leave in a hurry?

Rest of Warner’s interview is utterly churlish and full of hyperboles to deserve a lengthy treatment, but a few selected verbiages have been shown the trash bin where they belong.

1. “The practice of suttee, the widow throwing herself on the husband’s funeral pyre, came about as a response to the rape and brutality of the Islamic jihad as it sweep over ancient Hindustan.” The first recorded instance of Sati belongs to 6th century C.E.
2. “Blacks can’t accept the common bond they share with whites: that both Europeans and Africans were slaves under Islam.” The greatest democracy on earth failed to abolish slavery through out US until 1798 and granted adult franchise regardless of race only in 1870. De facto segregation was the norm until Martin Luther King and the 1960s civil rights movement happened.
3. “The history of political Islam starts with Mohammed’s immigration to Medina. From that point on, Islam’s appeal to the world has always had the dualistic option of joining a glorious religion or being the subject of political pressure and violence. After the immigration to Medina, Islam became violent when persuasion failed. Jihad entered the world.”

Christianity behaved no differently as will be seen from the following excerpts

“The Catholic Church brought uniformity to the faith and established it as a public institution rather than small communities of individual followers. The Church not only established strict laws and religious doctrine but it wiped out 'heretic' and divergent thoughts. Sometimes through violence as severe as the persecutions against the early Christians and other times through subtle adoption of pre-existing religious concepts, the Catholic Church virtually destroyed these other sects and Paganism along with it…… The Church too, as it began to become an institution of considerable power in the later 3rd century, used tactics as brutal as anti-Christian Emperors……. By the fall of the western Empire (476 AD), Christianity was not only the official religion of the Roman world, but it had supreme authority in matters of morality and human behavior. Censorship played a large role as well. Historical documents of an incalculable number were destroyed or edited in order to prevent anti-Christian, or perceived anti-Christian thought. It is hard to imagine how much written history, and evidence of the ancient world, was lost forever due to this manipulation…….. His mother, Helena, after Constantine executed his own son (Crispus) and wife (Fausta) in a very un-Christian manner, embarked on a pilgrimage to the eastern provinces…. In 390 AD, a massacre ordered by the Emperor of 7,000 people who revolted in Thessalonica resulted in his own 8 month penance. By the beginning of the 5th century, after just 400 years, the Church grew from a fledgling mystery cult into a power on nearly equal terms with the Roman Emperor himself.”

The temporal role of Mohammed was played by Emperor and Church in the case of Christianity.

4. “Around 60 million Christians were slaughtered during the jihadic conquest…. Half of the glorious Hindu civilization was annihilated and 80 million Hindus killed…. About 10 million Buddhists died….. In Africa over 120 million Christians and animists have died over the last 1400 years of jihad….. Approximately 270 million nonbelievers died over the last 1400 years for the glory of political Islam.”

Warner spouts figures like a CEO at an AGM, and mercifully gets his addition right. But his figure-work is as spurious as the cooking of accounting books by Enron and WorldCom.

A fine interpretative essay presented in a book form called ‘The Arabs in History’ is strongly recommended to those who want to recover quickly from the hangover of vitriol poured from Front Page.

“The introduction of paper, and the rapid spread of its use and then its manufacture, affected Middle eastern society in many ways. By making possible the cheap and rapid production of books, it brought about an intellectual and cultural impact comparable, albeit on a smaller scale, with that of the later introduction of printing press the West.” (Page 94).

In the ninth century, Sarraf, or money changer, developed in to a banker on a large scale, no doubt supported by wealthy traders with money to invest. We hear of banks with a head office in Baghdad and branches in the other cities of the empire and of an elaborate system of cheques, letter of credit, etc., so developed that it was possible to draw a cheque in Baghdad and cash it in Morocco. (Page 98).

“Dhimmis were well content with less. They were indeed second-class citizens, subject to both social and fiscal disabilities, and on a few rare occasions open to persecution. But by and large their position was infinitely superior to that of those communities who differed from the established church in Western Europe in the same period (9th Century). (Page 101).

“The Arabs brought to Sicily oranges, mulberries, sugar-cane, date-palms and cotton. They extended cultivation by careful irrigation, and to this day many fountains in Sicily, and especially in Palermo, still have easily recognizable Arab names.”

“Roger II (1130-54), known as ‘the pagan’ because of his favouring of Muslims, used Arab troops and siege engineers in his campaigns in Southern Italy and Arab architects for his buildings, who created the new and distinctive Saracenic-Norman style. His magnificent coronation mantle, woven in the royal Tiraz workshop of Palermo, bears an Arabic inscription in Kufic style and Hijara date 528.”

“It was at Roger’s court that the Moroccan-born al-Idrisi, the greatest of the Arab geographers, wrote his monumental compendium of geography, which he dedicated to the Norman king and which is known as Kitab Rujjar-the Book of Roger.” (Page 129-130).

“The new regime was relatively tolerant, and even some Spanish chronicles describe it as preferable to the Frankish rule in the north. The greatest benefit that it brought to the country was the elimination of the old ruling class nobility and clergy and the distribution of their lands, creating a new class of smallholders who were largely responsible for the agricultural prosperity of Muslim Spain. The serfs were better off, while many of the townspeople found a new life as converts to Islam.” (Page 132).

Does this sound like the description of ‘dualistic’, unreliable, bloodthirsty brutes that Warner would like us believe Muslims were and are? Before you conclude that the quotes above are rants from another Warner albeit from opposite side, it is revealed that the writer is Bernard Lewis, Cleveland E. Dodge Professor of Near eastern studies Emeritus, Princeton University.

The target audience of Front Page and CSPI are, of course, Americans. Though Warner has attempted to denigrate Islam and may be has succeeded with many common Americans, it is not his real agenda. The Bush-Cheney cabal has already achieved that goal as a stepping stone to Middle East oil control. There have always been sane, cogent and objective voices that have seen through the façade of this Bush administration and they are now growing in numbers after seeing through the lies endlessly cycled in mainstream media. These voices are represented by Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Norman Solomon, John Pilger, Michael Moore, Seymour Hersh, Rees Elrich, Michel Chosudovsky, etc. just to name a few. They are fine US, Canadian, British individuals. But they are providing evidence that runs against “conventional wisdom”. It requires efforts and time to weigh and understand their case. Slowly they are being heard. Their credibility is on the rise. That is the real threat Bush-Cheney regime faces. The regime change in US can only come from within when US citizens vote and vote decisively. It is to obviate this threat that a systematic campaign is on to discredit the messengers. That is why Warner repeatedly laments the ignorance and slavery of Western intellectuals.

“The victims find ways to blame themselves.”

“The victim is humiliated.”

“The victim feels helpless.”

“The victim turns the anger inward.”

“We hate ourselves because we are mentally molested and abused. Our intellectuals and artists have responded to the abuse of jihad just as a sexually abused child or a rape victim would respond. We are quite intellectually ill and are failing at our job of clear thinking. We can’t look at our denial.”

‘Discredit the messenger and the message will stand discredited.’ The US regime uses fear to make citizens and congress fall in line. NeoCon think tanks use scorn to shame the intellectuals and artists. This is not happening for the first time. In the 1950s, McCarthyism achieved the same purpose by discrediting opponents by derisively and hatefully calling them “commies” or “lefties”. To this day these remain pejorative terms.

‘All Muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims’. Many must have heard this smart “aphorism”. It sounds very agreeable and factual. It isn’t. Irish Republican Army, Euskadi Ta Askatasuna, Tamil Tigers, ULFA, etc. are held to be terrorist outfits but are not Muslim. Yet, Taliban, Al Qaeda, Chechens, and sundry others groups in Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia are considered terrorists and are Muslim. But it hides a subtle and more invidious implication. It is a Statistical implication. Regression analysis can tell us if two or more variables are correlated or not and what is the direction of their correlation. It also calculates the correlation coefficient that measures the degree of bonding. But it alone cannot determine causality – the cause and the effect. For example Rains and Floods are correlated. They are positively correlated – more rains may mean more floods and less rains less floods. This proposition also implies causality. Last year’s floods that inundated Surat-city were blamed on heavy rains. No one questioned. It sounds so obvious. It must be true. But someone decided to take a closer look. Floods turned out to be manmade. Rainy season water management or regulating water discharge in a controlled manner of an upstream dam on river Tapi was botched up. Obvious was not true after all. Similarly, one may find positive correlation between terrorists and Muslims. But that does not prove Muslims are the cause and terrorism is the effect, at least statistically. There could be other causes driving both terrorism and Muslims in tandem.

Everyone should look for and address these causes in earnest, Muslims more so than the rest. Muslims need to be proactive in this search and its proper articulation. Presence of religious fundamentalists among their ranks undermines their cause. They should avoid defending Islam from the position of worn out perspectives. It won’t help. Muslims need to think innovatively. First, they should consciously and vigorously resist their portrayal as only or decisively Muslims, both by others or by those among themselves, and describe themselves as Americans, Bulgarians, Kosovians, Turks, Iranians, Iraqis, Pakistanis, Indians, etc. In fact they already do this. Ummah has at best been an ideal throughout history otherwise one would not find conflicts among Muslims. Muslims have many allegiances like in any other community and religion is not the only one. Ways should be found to project this pluralism and heterodoxy effectively, both within the community and without. Secondly, they need to firmly make Muslim personal law contemporary, especially regarding the rights of women, as Turkey did long ago. In the dialogue with others too a paradigm shift is needed. They should focus on real contentious issues rather than falling prey to using old clichés of “Zionist conspiracy” or “Attack of Kaffirs”. Learning the language of modern age and preferably using English in their discourse will avoid being misreported, deliberately or otherwise. Confident and forward looking communities of Muslims, living in different countries, whether in majority or not, will be a real antidote to all the virulent NeoCon propaganda against them.

The Study of Political Islam By Jamie Glazov

CSPI Link : http://www.cspipublishing.com/
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=%7B6AA49466-2575-491F-B712-CEA90FCCCD0D%7D

FrontPageMagazine.com Monday, February 05, 2007

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI). CSPI’s goal is to teach the doctrine of political Islam through its books and it has produced a series on its focus. Mr. Warner did not write the CSPI series, but he acts as the agent for a group of scholars who are the authors.

FP: Bill Warner, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Warner: Thank you Jamie for this opportunity.

FP: Tell us a bit about the Center for the Study of Political Islam.

Warner: The Center for the Study of Political Islam is a group of scholars who are devoted to the scientific study of the foundational texts of Islam—Koran, Sira (life of Mohammed) and Hadith (traditions of Mohammed). There are two areas to study in Islam, its doctrine and history, or as CSPI sees it—the theory and its results. We study the history to see the practical or experimental results of the doctrine.

CSPI seems to be the first group to use statistics to study the doctrine. Previous scientific studies of the Koran are primarily devoted to Arabic language studies.

Our first principle is that Koran, Sira and Hadith must be taken as a whole. We call them the Islamic Trilogy to emphasize the unity of the texts.

Our major intellectual breakthrough is to see that dualism is the foundation and key to understanding Islam. Everything about Islam comes in twos starting with its foundational declaration: (1) there is no god but Allah and (2) Mohammed is His prophet. Therefore, Islam is Allah (Koran) and the Sunna (words and deeds of Mohammed found in the Sira and Hadith).

Endless ink has been wasted on trying to answer the question of what is Islam? Is Islam the religion of peace? Or is the true Islam a radical ideology? Is a moderate Muslim the real Muslim?

This reminds a scientist of the old arguments about light. Is light a particle or is light a wave? The arguments went back and forth. Quantum mechanics gave us the answer. Light is dualistic; it is both a particle and a wave. It depends upon the circumstances as to which quality manifests. Islam functions in the same manner.

Our first clue about the dualism is in the Koran, which is actually two books, the Koran of Mecca (early) and the Koran of Medina (later). The insight into the logic of the Koran comes from the large numbers of contradictions in it. On the surface, Islam resolves these contradictions by resorting to “abrogation”. This means that the verse written later supersedes the earlier verse. But in fact, since the Koran is considered by Muslims to be the perfect word of Allah, both verses are sacred and true. The later verse is “better,” but the earlier verse cannot be wrong since Allah is perfect. This is the foundation of dualism. Both verses are “right.” Both sides of the contradiction are true in dualistic logic. The circumstances govern which verse is used.

For example:

(Koran of Mecca) 73:10: Listen to what they [unbelievers] say with patience, and leave them with dignity.

From tolerance we move to the ultimate intolerance, not even the Lord of the Universe can stand the unbelievers:


(Koran of Medina) 8:12: Then your Lord spoke to His angels and said, “I will be with you. Give strength to the believers. I will send terror into the unbelievers’ hearts, cut off their heads and even the tips of their fingers!”

All of Western logic is based upon the law of contradiction—if two things contradict, then at least one of them is false. But Islamic logic is dualistic; two things can contradict each other and both are true.

No dualistic system may be measured by one answer. This is the reason that the arguments about what constitutes the “real” Islam go on and on and are never resolved. A single right answer does not exist.

Dualistic systems can only be measured by statistics. It is futile to argue one side of the dualism is true. As an analogy, quantum mechanics always gives a statistical answer to all questions.

For an example of using statistics, look at the question: what is the real jihad, the jihad of inner, spiritual struggle or the jihad of war? Let’s turn to Bukhari (the Hadith) for the answer, as he repeatedly speaks of jihad. In Bukhari 97% of the jihad references are about war and 3% are about the inner struggle. So the statistical answer is that jihad is 97% war and 3% inner struggle. Is jihad war? Yes—97%. Is jihad inner struggle? Yes—3%. So if you are writing an article, you can make a case for either. But in truth, almost every argument about Islam can be answered by: all of the above. Both sides of the duality are right.

FP: Why, in your view, is there so much ignorance about the history and doctrine of political Islam in the West?

Warner: First, let’s see how ignorant we are about the history of political Islam. How many Christians can tell you how Turkey or Egypt became Islamic? What happened to the Seven Churches of Asia mentioned in Paul’s letters? Find a Jew who can tell you the Jewish history of dhimmitude (second class citizens who serve Islam). What European knows that white women were the highest priced slaves in Mecca? Everyone knows how many Jews Hitler killed, but find an unbeliever who can tell you how many died in jihad over the last 1400 years.

We are just as ignorant about the doctrine of Islam. An FBI agent gets two hours of training on Islam and most of that is how not to offend the imam. We are fighting in Iraq. Who utilizes the political, military doctrine of Islam to plan strategy? Who can find a single rabbi or minister who has read the Koran, Sira and Hadith? What governor, senator, congressmen or military leader displays a knowledge of the political doctrine of Islam? Try to find a course available in a college about Islamic political doctrine and ethics. Graduates are schooled in Islamic art, architecture, poetry, Sufism, and a glorious history that ignores the suffering of the innocent unbelievers. Graduates read comments about the Koran and Hadith, but do not read the actual doctrine.

FP: So why this ignorance?

Warner: Let’s start at the beginning. When Islam burst out of Arabia into a decaying Byzantine world, the unbelievers recorded it as an Arabic invasion. Similarly, the invasion of Eastern Europe was by Turks; the invasion of Spain was by Moors. Our scholars were incapable of even naming the invaders.

Mohammed killed every single intellectual or artist who opposed him. It was fear that drove the vast majority of the media not to reprint the Mohammed cartoons, not some imagined sensitivity. Fear is a fabulous basis for ignorance, but that is not enough to explain it all. What accounts for the almost psychotic aversion to knowledge about Islam? Beyond fear is the realization that political Islam is profoundly foreign to us.

Let’s examine the ethical basis of our civilization. All of our politics and ethics are based upon a unitary ethic that is best formulated in the Golden Rule:

Treat others as you would be treated.

The basis of this rule is the recognition that at one level, we are all the same. We are not all equal. Any game of sports will show that we do not have equal abilities. But everyone wants to be treated as a human being. In particular, we all want to be equal under the law and be treated as social equals. On the basis of the Golden Rule—the equality of human beings—we have created democracy, ended slavery and treat women and men as political equals. So the Golden Rule is a unitary ethic. All people are to be treated the same. All religions have some version of the Golden Rule except Islam.

FP: So how is Islam different in this context?

Warner: The term “human being” has no meaning inside of Islam. There is no such thing as humanity, only the duality of the believer and unbeliever. Look at the ethical statements found in the Hadith. A Muslim should not lie, cheat, kill or steal from other Muslims. But a Muslim may lie, deceive or kill an unbeliever if it advances Islam.

There is no such thing as a universal statement of ethics in Islam. Muslims are to be treated one way and unbelievers another way. The closest Islam comes to a universal statement of ethics is that the entire world must submit to Islam. After Mohammed became a prophet, he never treated an unbeliever the same as a Muslim. Islam denies the truth of the Golden Rule.

By the way, this dualistic ethic is the basis for jihad. The ethical system sets up the unbeliever as less than human and therefore, it is easy to kill, harm or deceive the unbeliever.

Now mind you, unbelievers have frequently failed at applying the Golden Rule, but we can be judged and condemned on its basis. We do fall short, but it is our ideal.

There have been other dualistic cultures. The KKK comes to mind. But the KKK is a simplistic dualism. The KKK member hates all black people at all times; there is only one choice. This is very straightforward and easy to see.

The dualism of Islam is more deceitful and offers two choices on how to treat the unbeliever. The unbeliever can be treated nicely, in the same way a farmer treats his cattle well. So Islam can be “nice”, but in no case is the unbeliever a “brother” or a friend. In fact, there are some 14 verses of the Koran that are emphatic—a Muslim is never a friend to the unbeliever. A Muslim may be “friendly,” but he is never an actual friend. And the degree to which a Muslim is actually a true friend is the degree to which he is not a Muslim, but a hypocrite.

FP: You mentioned earlier how logic is another point of profound difference. Can you touch on that?

Warner: To reiterate, all of science is based upon the law of contradiction. If two things contradict each other, then at least one of them has to be false. But inside of Islamic logic, two contradictory statements can both be true. Islam uses dualistic logic and we use unitary scientific logic.

Since Islam has a dualistic logic and dualistic ethics, it is completely foreign to us. Muslims think differently from us and feel differently from us. So our aversion is based upon fear and a rejection of Islamic ethics and logic. This aversion causes us to avoid learning about Islam so we are ignorant and stay ignorant.

Another part of the aversion is the realization that there is no compromise with dualistic ethics. There is no halfway place between unitary ethics and dualistic ethics. If you are in a business deal with someone who is a liar and a cheat, there is no way to avoid getting cheated. No matter how nice you are to a con man, he will take advantage of you. There is no compromise with dualistic ethics. In short, Islamic politics, ethics and logic cannot be part of our civilization. Islam does not assimilate, it dominates. There is never any “getting along” with Islam. Its demands never cease and the demands must be met on Islam’s terms: submission.

The last reason for our aversion to the history of political Islam is our shame. Islam put over a million Europeans into slavery. Since Muslims can’t be enslaved, it was a white Christian who was the Turkish sultan’s sex slave. These are things that we do not want to face.

Jews don’t want to acknowledge the history of political Islam, because they were dhimmis, second class citizens or semi-slaves, just like the Christians. Jews like to recall how they were advisors and physicians to powerful Muslims, but no matter what the Jew did or what position he held, he was still a dhimmi. There is no compromise between being equal and being a dhimmi

Why should a Hindu want to recall the shame of slavery and the destruction of their temples and cities? After Hindu craftsmen built the Taj Mahal, the Muslim ruler had their right hands cut off so that they could not build anything as beautiful for anyone else. The practice of suttee, the widow throwing herself on the husband’s funeral pyre, came about as a response to the rape and brutality of the Islamic jihad as it sweep over ancient Hindustan.

Blacks don’t want to face the fact that it was a Muslim who rounded up their ancestors in Africa to wholesale to the white slave trader. The Arab is the true master of the African. Blacks can’t accept the common bond they share with whites: that both Europeans and Africans were slaves under Islam. Blacks like to imagine Islam is their counterweight to white power, not that Islam has ruled them for 1400 years.

Dualistic logic. Dualistic ethics. Fear. Shame. There is no compromise. These are the reasons we don’t want to know about Islam’s political history, doctrine or ethics.

FP So is there such a thing as non-political Islam?

Warner: Non-political Islam is religious Islam. Religious Islam is what a Muslim does to avoid Hell and go to Paradise. These are the Five Pillars—prayer, charity to Muslims, pilgrimage to Mecca, fasting and declaring Mohammed to be the final prophet.

But the Trilogy is clear about the doctrine. At least 75% of the Sira (life of Mohammed) is about jihad. About 67% of the Koran written in Mecca is about the unbelievers, or politics. Of the Koran of Medina, 51% is devoted to the unbelievers. About 20% of Bukhari’s Hadith is about jihad and politics. Religion is the smallest part of Islamic foundational texts.

Political Islam’s most famous duality is the division of the world into believers, dar al Islam, and unbelievers, dar al harb. The largest part of the Trilogy relates to treatment of the unbelievers, kafirs. Even Hell is political. There are 146 references to Hell in the Koran. Only 6% of those in Hell are there for moral failings—murder, theft, etc. The other 94% of the reasons for being in Hell are for the intellectual sin of disagreeing with Mohammed, a political crime. Hence, Islamic Hell is a political prison for those who speak against Islam.

Mohammed preached his religion for 13 years and garnered only 150 followers. But when he turned to politics and war, in 10 years time he became the first ruler of Arabia by averaging an event of violence every 7 weeks for 9 years. His success did not come as a religious leader, but as a political leader.

In short, political Islam defines how the unbelievers are to be dealt with and treated.

FP: Can you touch briefly on the history of political Islam?

Warner: The history of political Islam starts with Mohammed’s immigration to Medina. From that point on, Islam’s appeal to the world has always had the dualistic option of joining a glorious religion or being the subject of political pressure and violence. After the immigration to Medina, Islam became violent when persuasion failed. Jihad entered the world.

After Mohammed’s death, Abu Bakr, the second caliph, settled the theological arguments of those who wished to leave Islam with the political action of death by the sword. The jihad of Umar (the second caliph, a pope-king) exploded into the world of the unbelievers. Jihad destroyed a Christian Middle East and a Christian North Africa. Soon it was the fate of the Persian Zoroastrian and the Hindu to be the victims of jihad. The history of political Islam is the destruction of Christianity in the Middle East, Egypt, Turkey and North Africa. Half of Christianity was lost. Before Islam, North Africa was the southern part of Europe (part of the Roman Empire). Around 60 million Christians were slaughtered during the jihadic conquest.

Half of the glorious Hindu civilization was annihilated and 80 million Hindus killed.

The first Western Buddhists were the Greeks descended from Alexander the Great’s army in what is now Afghanistan. Jihad destroyed all of Buddhism along the silk route. About 10 million Buddhists died. The conquest of Buddhism is the practical result of pacifism.

Zoarasterianism was eliminated from Persia.

The Jews became permanent dhimmis throughout Islam.

In Africa over 120 million Christians and animists have died over the last 1400 years of jihad.

Approximately 270 million nonbelievers died over the last 1400 years for the glory of political Islam. These are the Tears of Jihad which are not taught in any school.

FP: How have our intellectuals responded to Islam?

Warner: The basis of all the unbeliever’s thought has collapsed in the face of Islamic political thought, ethics and logic. We have already mentioned how our first intellectuals could not even name the invaders as Muslims. We have no method of analysis of Islam. We can’t agree on what Islam is and have no knowledge about our suffering as the victims of a 1400-year jihad.

Look at how Christians, Jews, blacks, intellectuals and artists have dealt with Islamic doctrine and history. In every case their primary ideas fail.

Christians believe that “love conquers all.” Well, love does not conquer Islam. Christians have a difficult time seeing Islam as a political doctrine, not a religion. The sectarian nature of Christian thought means that the average non-Orthodox Christian has no knowledge or sympathy about the Orthodox Christian’s suffering.

Jews have a theology that posits a unique relationship between Jews and the creator-god of the universe. But Islam sees the Jews as apes who corrupted the Old Testament. Jews see no connection between Islam’s political doctrine and Israel.

Black intellectuals have based their ideas on the slave/victim status and how wrong it was for white Christians to make them slaves. Islam has never acknowledged any of the pain and suffering it has caused in Africa with its 1400-year-old slave trade. But blacks make no attempt to get an apology from Muslims and are silent in the presence of Islam. Why? Is it because Arabs are their masters?

Multiculturalism is bankrupt against Islam’s demand for every civilization to submit. The culture of tolerance collapses in the face of the sacred intolerance of dualistic ethics. Intellectuals respond by ignoring the failure.

Our intellectuals and artists have been abused for 1400 years. Indeed, the psychology of our intellectuals is exactly like the psychology of the abused wife, the sexually abused child or rape victim. Look at the parallels between the response of abuse victims and our intellectuals. See how violence has caused denial.

The victims deny that the abuse took place: Our media never reports the majority of jihad around the world. Our intellectuals don’t talk about how all of the violence is connected to a political doctrine.

The abuser uses fear to control the victim: What was the reason that newspapers would not publish the Mohammed cartoon? Salman Rushdie still has a death sentence for his novel. What “cutting edge” artist creates any artistic statement about Islam? Fear rules our intellectuals and artists.

The victims find ways to blame themselves: We are to blame for the attacks on September 11, 2001. If we try harder Muslims will act nicer. We have to accommodate their needs.

The victim is humiliated: White people will not talk about how their ancestors were enslaved by Islam. No one wants to claim the victims of jihad. Why won’t we claim the suffering of our ancestors? Why don’t we cry about the loss of cultures and peoples? We are too ashamed to care.

The victim feels helpless: “What are we going to do?” “We can’t kill 1.3 billion people.” No one has any understanding or optimism. No one has an idea of what to try. The only plan is to “be nicer.”

The victim turns the anger inward: What is the most divisive issue in today’s politics? Iraq. And what is Iraq really about? Political Islam. The Web has a video about how the CIA and Bush planned and executed September 11. Cultural self-loathing is the watchword of our intellectuals and artists.

We hate ourselves because we are mentally molested and abused. Our intellectuals and artists have responded to the abuse of jihad just as a sexually abused child or a rape victim would respond. We are quite intellectually ill and are failing at our job of clear thinking. We can’t look at our denial.

FP: So summarize for us why it is so crucial for us to learn the doctrine of political Islam.

Warner: Political Islam has annihilated every culture it has invaded or immigrated to. The total time for annihilation takes centuries, but once Islam is ascendant it never fails. The host culture disappears and becomes extinct.

We must learn the doctrine of political Islam to survive. The doctrine is very clear that all forms of force and persuasion may and must be used to conquer us. Islam is a self-declared enemy of all unbelievers. The brilliant Chinese philosopher of war, Sun Tsu, had the dictum—know the enemy. We must know the doctrine of our enemy or be annihilated.

Or put another way: if we do not learn the doctrine of political Islam, our civilization will be annihilated just as Egypt’s Coptic civilization was annihilated.

Since unbelievers must know the doctrine of political Islam to survive, CSPI has written all of its books in simple English. Our books are scholarly, but easy to read. As an example, anyone who can read a newspaper can pick up A Simple Koran and read and understand it. It is not “dumbed down” and contains every single word of the original.

Not only is the language simple, but logic has been used to sort and categorize. Context and chronology have been restored. The result is a Koran that is an epic story ending in triumph over all enemies of Allah. All of our books and philosophy may be found at our center's website.

Islam declares that we are the enemies of Allah. If we do not learn the political doctrine of Islam we will end up just like the first victims of Islam—the tolerant, polytheist Arabs of Saudi Arabia who became the Wahabbis (a very strict branch of Islam) of today, the most intolerant culture on the face of the earth.

FP: Bill Warner, thank you for joining us today.

Warner: Jamie, thank you for your kindness and efforts.

If you wish to become a member of the World Muslim Congress forum, a membership of about 1500 people from across the world comprising Muslim scholars, Imams, average Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Christians, Zoroastrians, Bahai, Sikhs a few Wicca, Jains and Buddhists. The membership is open to all. If we live in the world, let's live openly so we know each other. Send an email to: WorldMuslimCongress-Subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Same goes with the foundation for Pluralism with a membership of about 160. You have to really believe that all faiths are divine and each path is valid to be a member, if not you will run from the group. You are allowed to praise your faith as much as you want, but cannot denigrate any faith, so the membership will always be small on this group.

Both are moderated groups, and no more than 3 consolidated emails will come to you.

Say No to Intolerance and Islamophobia

Click here to write your comments


Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer and a Moderator. He is president of the http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/ and is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing interfaith, political and civic issues. He is the founding president of the http://www.worldmuslimcongress.com/ with a simple theme: "Good for Muslims and good for the world." His personal Website is http://www.mikeghouse.net/ and his articles can be found on the Websites mentioned above and in his Blogs: http://MikeGhouseforAmerica.Blogspot.com and http://mikeghouse.sulekha.com/ Mike is a Dallasite for nearly three decades and Carrollton is his home town. He can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com
For a full bio: http://www.mikeghouse.net/ProfileMikeGhouse.asp

VP Cheney to be impeached?

VP Cheney to be impeached?

I just came across this and glad to see that Dennis Kucincih is standing up for the truth. Nearly 3800 Americans have died, a Million Iraqi Citizens are gone and several million are made homeless... all based on lies. Please watch the presentation in the house about impeachment.

Mike Ghouse


The US news is censoring it, but US Representative
Dennis Kucinich has moved on the House floor to
initiate impeachment proceedings against Vice
President Richard Cheney.

In my opinion NOTHING is more important for the future
of the United States than the removal from office and
criminal prosecution of Cheney and others in the Bush
administration.

Please spread the word about this important and
heavily censored story.

The gauntlet has been thrown down. Kucinich makes
the case brilliantly. The process has begun...

Now it's up to us to make noise about this and force
the media to pay attention and make sure the rest of the
country knows.

Details:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/199.html

- Brasscheck

P.S. Please share this e-mail with friends and
colleagues.

That's how we grow.
Thanks.

Brasscheck TV
2380 California St.
San Francisco, CA 94115

Emerson, Pipes and Peace

Bush, Emerson, Pipes and Peace

Mike Ghouse, July 3, 2007

Steve Emerson, Daniel Pipes and their likes will hopefully figure out the path to peace based on historic precedence. They have not considered a perspective of co-existence, and instead have treaded on the path of “might” is the cure all for bringing peace.

Tyrants like Pharaohs, Alexander, Romans, Crusaders, Inquisitors, Genghis, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Saddam and Osama have attempted to force their way of life onto others by their evil might and failed. They have had short term gains, but were never able to sustain their evil empires.

God is always with the people, those bullies never succeeded in crushing the will of the people; the Jews, the Muslims, the Christians, the Zoroastrians, the Hindus and the like. The brave people, either fought for their life or gave it up at the Masada, they were butchered by Ferdinand but held on to their beliefs. Hitler planned on annihilating the entire Jewish population but failed. The mighty Russian empire could not do diddly with the Afghans, nor could our Almighty war machine crush the Vietnamese. Romans could not do it either and we are seeing the results in Afghanistan and Iraq, our actions are producing opposite of what we desire.

What makes one to believe that the sheer might will buckle people down? There is plenty to learn from history.

As Americans we need to speak up and adopt methods advocated by the great spirits like Gandhi, King and Mandela.

Creating fear and gaining support from the average American to believe that we can wrap bombs on our F-16’s and annihilate the percieved enemy completely, ought to be reviewed for its effectiveness.

These powerful ideas have generated more destruction, more anger and have bred hate and anger. I hope the Neo-cons realize this and spend their energy on bringing true peace and co-existence.

Anya Cardell writes (http://www.anyacordell.com). “This follows on the lecture last week by Steven Emerson at Congregation Beth Shalom in Northbrook, attended and warmly received by about 500, entitled ‘The Terrorists Living among us’. Both Pipes and Emerson have long histories of virulent anti-Muslim efforts. …so I'm not going to cite right now a bunch of similarly appalling assertions from Pipes, Emerson, and their cronies--but they are truly terrifying, adding to the 'open season' mentality currently profiling, stereotyping, smearing, and generalizing all Muslims. I have met the families of innocent men who were murdered in the hate-backlash of 9/11, and know that there are all-too-real consequences of such hate and fear-mongering. “Additionally, a requisite for war is demonizing and dehumanizing the Other, so that we can shrug, rationalize or justify what we call 'collateral damage', and how innocents are caught in the crosshairs or ensnared in big nets, (roundups, detentions, etc.), all in the name of 'security'.”

It is time; we listen to peace makers and seriously consider abandoning our failed approaches that has cost us American as well as non-American lives. We need to stop running amuck with a gun and blindly shooting every where hoping it will hit something. We need to earn the respect of nations through our efforts to bring peace through humility.

For our own sake we need to bring humility and remember that all of us will die this moment or the next, let’s work on bringing peace to the world and not cherish chaos and enjoy destruction.

I appeal to Emerson, Pipes and others to try what has worked. One of the comments that missed their thinking radar was when Karen Hughes wore a make shift Hijab when the President was re-visiting a Mosque in DC was made to appear like appeasement. By God, it is an age old tradition to dress up in host’s costumes, people and Presidents wear Yarmulke when the visit a Synagogue, wear other gear as a respect. That is called diplomacy and it has worked for over centuries.

Here are three articles to read and absorb the gamut of our current polices. Deep down, it appears our President is a good man when he is on his own longing for peace; he just needs to walk on the path alone and lead his few supporters instead of getting led.

References:

1. Laser Barking at the Terrorists: http://mikeghouseforamerica.blogspot.com/2007/05/laser-barking-at-terrorists.html
2. Steve Emersons's fantastic Obsession: http://aninsight.org/2007/07/steve-emersons-fantastic-obsession.html
3. Shoeless President: http://wahaudi.blogspot.com/2007/07/shoeless-president-bush.html
4. Hate Sermons from the Pulpit: http://wisdomofreligion.blogspot.com/2007/06/hate-sermons-from-pulpit.html

Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer and a Moderator. He is president of the Foundation for Pluralism and is a frequent guest on talk radio, discussing interfaith, political and civic issues. He founded the World Muslim Congress with a simple theme: "good for Muslims and good for the world." His personal Website is www.MikeGhouse.net and his articles can be found on the Websites mentioned above and in his Blogs: http://MikeGhouseforAmerica.Blogspot.com and http://MikeGhouse.Sulekha.com . He can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com . Mike lives in Carrollton with his family and has been a Dallasite since 1980.

__________________________________

The New York Sun

July 3, 2007 Tuesday
Shoeless President Bush
BYLINE: DANIEL PIPES

SECTION: FOREIGN; Pg. 7
LENGTH: 785 words

When President Eisenhower dedicated the Islamic
Center in Washington, D.C., in June 1957, his
500-word talk effused good will ("Civilization
owes to the Islamic world some of its most
important tools and achievements") even as the
American president embarrassingly bumbled
(Muslims in America, he declared, have the right
to their "own church"). Conspicuously, he included nary a word about policy.

Exactly 50 years later, standing shoeless,
President Bush rededicated the center last week.
His 1,600-word speech also praised medieval
Islamic culture ("We come to express our
appreciation for a faith that has enriched
civilization for centuries"), but he knew a
mosque from a church - and he had more on the agenda than flattery.

Most arresting, surely, was his statement that "I
have invested the heart of my presidency in
helping Muslims fight terrorism, and claim their
liberty, and find their own unique paths to
prosperity and peace." This cri du coeur signaled
how Mr. Bush understands to what extent actions
by Muslims will define his legacy.

Should they heed his dream "and find their own
unique paths to prosperity and peace," then his
presidency, however ravaged it may look at the
moment, will be vindicated. As with President
Truman, historians will acknowledge that Mr. Bush
saw further than his contemporaries. Should
Muslims, however, be "left behind in the global
movement toward prosperity and freedom,"
historians will likely judge his two terms as
harshly as his fellow Americans do today.

Of course, how Muslims fare depends in large part
on the future course of radical Islam, which in
turn depends in some part on its understanding by
the American president. Over the years, Mr. Bush
has generally shown an increased understanding of
this topic. He started with platitudinous,
apologetic references to Islam as the "religion
of peace," using this phrase as late as 2006. He
early on even lectured Muslims on the true nature
of their religion, a preposterous ambition that
prompted me in 2001 to dub him "Imam Bush."

As his understanding grew, Mr. Bush spoke of the
caliphate, "Islamic extremism" and
"Islamofacism." What euphemistically he called
the "war on terror" in 2001 by 2006 he referred
to with the hard-hitting "war with Islamic
fascists." Things were looking up. Perhaps
official Washington did understand, after all.

But such analyses roused Muslim opposition and,
as he approaches his political twilight, Mr. Bush
has retreated to safer ground, reverting last
week to decayed tropes that tiptoe around any
mention of Islam. Instead, he spoke inelegantly
of "the great struggle against extremism that is
now playing out across the broader Middle East"
and vaguely of "a group of extremists who seek to
use religion as a path to power and a means of domination."

Worse, the speech drum-rolled the appointment of
an American special envoy to the Organization of
the Islamic Conference, directing this envoy to
"listen to and learn from" his Muslim
counterparts. But the OIC is a Saudi-sponsored
organization promoting the Wahhabi agenda under
the trappings of a Muslim-only United Nations. As
counterterrorism specialist Steven Emerson noted
June 28 in the National Review, Mr. Bush's dismal
initiative stands in "complete ignorance of the
rampant radicalism, pro-terrorist, and
anti-American sentiments routinely found in
statements by the OIC and its leaders."

Adding to the event's accommodationist tone, some
of the president's top female aides, including
Frances Townsend and Karen Hughes, wore makeshift
hijabs as they listened to him in the audience.

In brief, it feels like "dejà vu all over again."
As Diana West put it in the June 29 Washington
Times, "Nearly six years after September 11 -
nearly six years after first visiting the Islamic
Center and proclaiming ‘Islam is peace' - Mr.
Bush has learned nothing." But we now harbor
fewer hopes than we did in 2001 that he still can
learn, absorb, and reflect an understanding of the enemy's Islamist nature.

Concluding that he basically has failed to engage
this central issue, we instead must look to Mr.
Bush's potential successors and look for them to
return to his occasional robustness, again taking
up those difficult concepts of the caliphate and
Islamic extremism. Several Republicans - Mayor
Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and (above all) Fred
Thompson - are doing just that. Democratic
candidates, unfortunately, prefer to remain
almost completely silent on this topic.

Almost 30 years after Islamists first attacked
Americans, and on the eve of three major
attempted terrorist attacks in Britain, the
president's speech shows how confused Washington remains.

Mr. Pipes ( www.DanielPipes.org) is the director of the Middle East Forum.

--------------------------------------------- --

Steve Emerson’s Fantastic Obsession

What would an investigative reporter turned director of a private intelligence operation, who is increasingly obsessed with proving that mainstream Muslim American organizations are radical, do when he fails to find evidence to support his obsession? Human decency and Ethical conduct dictate that he give up his obsession and admit that he was wrong. Steve Emerson, the director of the shadowy Investigative Project, thinks otherwise. Rather than doing the right thing and give up his bigoted endeavor, he decides to use fantasy to forge evidence and prolong his compulsive obsession.

http://aninsight.org/2007/07/steve-emersons-fantastic-obsession.html
Steve Emerson’s Fantastic Obsession

What would an investigative reporter turned director of a private intelligence operation, who is increasingly obsessed with proving that mainstream Muslim American organizations are radical, do when he fails to find evidence to support his obsession? Human decency and ethical conduct dictate that he give up his obsession and admit that he was wrong. Steve Emerson, the director of the shadowy Investigative Project, thinks otherwise. Rather than doing the right thing and give up his bigoted endeavor, he decides to use fantasy to forge evidence and prolong his compulsive obsession.

Emerson belongs to a network of anti-Muslim pundits who, driven by bigotry and exclusivist ideology, are bent on marginalizing Muslim Americans, and using unscrupulous tactics to distort the image of Muslims and instill fear of Islam and Muslims in the American public. Their strategy is to repeat their unfounded accusations against mainstream Muslim organizations so as to create a public record and then use it to incite federal officials and agencies against Muslim Americans. The idea is that if they can repeat a lie long enough, and use different media outlets to propagate their accusations, the lie in time becomes “believable” and takes the semblance of “truth.” Obviously, they have not heeded Abraham Lincoln’s wise advice: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”

In a recent article published in the National Review Online (June 28, 2007) under the title “Radical Outreach: Bush coddles American apologists for radical Islam,” Emerson lashes out against President Bush for appointing a special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Emerson made it clear that he resents Bush’s initiative, which is aimed at mending fences with the Muslim world, and faults OIC for being critical of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians under military occupation.

Emerson was particularly upset that President Bush distinguished between Muslims in general and fringe extremist groups whose attacks on innocent civilians have been condemned by Muslim communities throughout the world, and by mainstream Muslim organizations. By making a distinction between ordinary Muslims and extremists, Emerson proclaims, Bush advances the “very talking point [that] is the refuge of America’s supposedly [sic] mainstream Muslim organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Islamic Society of North American (ISNA).”

To undermine the distinction between mainstream Muslims and extremists, he goes to the website of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and picks up a news release that was published in 2004. The news release reported then the decision of the US Navy Chief of Chaplains to remove an article by Salman Rushdie that was intended to instigate Muslims against the West and westerners against Islam from the Navy website. I wrote to Rear Admiral Louis V. Iasiello, then the Navy Chief of Chaplains, asking him to reconsider the decision to publish such a divisive article. Chaplain Iaseillo realized that it was a mistake to republish the article and he ordered its removal.

Emerson takes the news release and turns its content upside down, and without any ifs, maybes, or buts he attributes to me the divisive argument advanced by Rushdie. Emerson writes: “In 2004, Louay Safi, a top ISNA official, went further, writing that the ‘assertion by ‘world leaders’ that the war on terrorism is not a war on Islam is nothing but a piece of propaganda and disinformation that was meant to appease Western Muslims and to maintain the coalition against terrorism.’”

Emerson ignores the context of the above statement and omits a key phrase that shows clearly that the quoted argument was that of Rushdie and not my own as he claims. Here is the paragraph which Emerson misquotes in its totality:

“Salman Rushdie's article ‘Yes, This is About Islam,’ originally published in New York Times, argues that the assertion by ‘world leaders’ that the war on terrorism is not a war on Islam is nothing but a piece of propaganda and disinformation that was meant to appease Western Muslims and to maintain the coalition against terrorism.”

Emerson misrepresentation of my position is not simply an error of omission, but a gross distortion of my words and a malicious attempt to put a spin on my statement so as to support his thesis of assigning anti-American views to Muslim American leaders, scholars, and organizations. My correct position is in complete opposition to what Emerson presented and is not easy to miss as it is spelled out in the subsequent paragraph. Here is my response to Rushdie’s argument:

“In his letter, Dr. Safi pointed out that the article not only insult the overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide, particularly American soldiers of the Islamic faith, who every day put their lives on the line . . . but its cynicism cannot be easily missed as it accuses the commander in chief, and virtually all senior members of the government, of duplicity.”

Mr. Emerson has in the past used innuendo and half-truths to malign mainstream Muslim individuals and organizations, but he has recently reached a new low as he is now willing to use fraud and fabrication to undermine Muslim Americans. His unscrupulous attacks and insinuations against Muslims in general and Muslim Americans in particular must be condemned by every American of conscience, as his hateful and divisive message would, if left unchecked, confuse the public and undermine the efforts to isolate extremism and defeat terrorism.

This article appears in the following publications:

Counterpunch
Official Wire
Media Monitor Network
Middle East Online
iviews
The American Muslims

----------------- ------------------

http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2007/05/laser-barking-at-terrorists.html

Laser Barking at Terrorists
Mike Ghouse April 20, 2007

http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2007/05/laser-barking-at-terrorists.html

This essay explores the mistakes our Administration has made in not facing the terrorist squarely; and instead acting out like cranky babies. The world communities will be with us, with their hearts in fighting the menace of terrorism, if we go after the individuals responsible for the crimes and not their families, their nation or their religion. We will achieve far greater success, if we learn to laser bark at the criminals, instead of barking at the universe.

Throw me in the ditch for the crimes I commit, inflict the punishment I deserve, but please do not unleash your fury on my family, my parents, my town or my religion. I should be responsible for my acts, and no one else. This should be a common principle and norm, we should abide by.

There is always a reaction to the biased phrase when some one is addressed as, “You people”. We have seen reactions by Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus or African Americans, Arabs, Caucasians and others when they hear that phrase, “you people” in that particular tone. For the wrongs I do, it should be, “Mike you goofed up” and not, “you guys”. When a Jewish councilman was addressed in that fashion in Dallas in 2006, all of us were offended, and I took the step to condemn the sayer of such a phrase through Dallas Morning News. I also make no exception if my fellow Muslims speak in that tone.

You face the battle with your kids when they go nuts, you do the best in disciplining them, and when they are cranky, they will do the thing they know how; to be unruly, challenging and sometimes even getting destructive. When you push a wild animal to the corner, he knows he is done with, but before he crumbles, he will charge on you and attempt to inflict whatever damage it can.


While the analogy of wild animal in the case of terrorists may not be perfect, more often than not we use an approach in delineating and classifying terrorists. We have to develop a nuanced and conscientious approach in dealing with terrorism. Some groups, such as al-Qaeda, are aimless, there is no negotiable goals or agendas that can be meaningfully contended with. Therefore, there is not a room for flexibility with them. However, there are many a movements that engage in terrorism, and have legitimate and genuine grievances as part of national resistance movement. Without addressing those grievances, no preaching or pressure would eliminate such terrorism, especially when many among these people have lost all hope for any solution or resolution and have been pushed to the wall.

While we must not condone any terrorism, we must also take the moral high ground by addressing the underlying grievances and problems and avoid pursuing policies, and undertaking ventures that provide new impetus to the terrorists, as it has unfolded in Iraq. We have to figure in the frustration game of new ones popping up and avoiding them. Pounding them with mega bombs will not cut it, we do not have a record in history of such successes; the Taliban’s are popping again. To create a just world for our own peace and peace for others requires giving due attention to their concerns without compromising our own deeply held values. We cannot become oppressors ourselves in the pursuit of peace. The world communities will be with us, with their hearts, in fighting the menace of terrorism, if we go after the individuals responsible for the crimes and not their families, not their nation or their religion. We will achieve far greater success, if we learn to laser bark at the right criminals, instead of barking at the universe. Others need to sense in our actions that we are not barking at them, and then they will be with us.

"If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies." There is no saner advice than Mother Theresa’s, and when we are overwhelmed with badness around, “The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas” Alfred Griswold.

The business of Terrorism has been around for a long time, however tracing it in the last century, the Haganah began its operations in the 20’s, then came the Irgunists and after Stern died in a shoot-out with British police in 1942, the mantle was picked up by future Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Shamir, then in November 1944, Lord Moyne, the British minister was assassinated in Cairo by the stern Gang. Once, Israel was established in 1948, the tables turned, the Palestinians were displaced and the PLO came into being and started their acts of terrorizing the innocent. The 1971 Munich Massacre was the ugliest one followed by the plane hijackings and other activities. While IRA continued terrorizing in Northern part of UK, the Tamil Tigers were wreaking havoc in Sri Lanka. By the way, we never called them Christian, Hindu or Buddhist Terrorists, why do we call Muslim Terrorists then? That is plain stupid and counter-productive, if our goal is peaceful co-existence.

Now, the International terrorism has become a daily affair. President Reagan made hero out of Osama, instead of being grateful, the ugly traitor turned the guns against us. He has done a lot of damage to us; The 1992 Bombing of WTC, the Embassy in Kenya, the Cole and the 9/11. Regionally, the Beirut Bombardment created Hezbollah in Lebanon and the political imbroglio generated Hamas in Palestine. While other outfits like Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-a-Mohammad got going in South Asia. Intoxicated with our might, we extended the invitation “Bring on” to those al-Qaeda terrorists and they are multiplying in Iraq now, aren’t they?

Fo-Sho-Hing-Tsan-King must have pondered over our situation in Iraq and mused about telling this to our President Years ago, “Conquer your foe by force, you increase his enmity; conquer by love, and you will reap no after-sorrow.” We completely violated the teaching of Jesus, Luke 6: 27, 28 – "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you."

We did not believe in this wisdom and decided not to deal with the terrorists, who would we deal with then? They are the ones who are disruptive. We always have the last option available to us, but our first choice should have been to engage them into a dialogue, we can certainly laugh about it, but looking at the results we have achieved, the dialogue option would have been more fruitful and less destructive. Our insolence in not engaging them as a part of a broader approach has produced more of them, than we can conquer.

We falsely believed, and still do, that our gunpowder can subdue everything in the world. I hope we realize that we have always won the right battles and the right wars, and have certainly lost the wrong ones in Vietnam and other places. We forget that dear God is mightier than our gunpowder. We have also forgotten making distinctions between movements of national resistance and groups given to apocalyptic-type agenda for destruction.

The wrong wars did not have a clear objective, nor did we know where to point the gun. We were trigger happy to destroy what we did not like. The way we have gone about in dealing with Terrorism is pathetic. Shame on us, we were indeed scared to speak up until November 7th, 2006.

The Elections changed it all, Thanks God, we are speaking now, and at least our mistakes are surfacing. “When we took over Baghdad, we had plans to rebuild Iraq, but wasted our time for over a year in preparing the blueprints, while we let the un-employed and the youth rot with nothing to hope for,” Rajiv Chandrashekharan from Washington post had reported. Our strategy was wrong and planning was helter skelter. It is easier to blame on a host of things on our failure than to acknowledge our mistakes. That is the first thing we have to do, to know where we were wrong, then figure it out how to fix them.

We can consider the following;

i) Announcement of the troop withdrawal date, as it would give a clarity to all parties,

ii) asking a non-parties to the war like; Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Brazil or Japan to call on a summit of key Arab leaders including the leaders, and opposition leaders of the three factions in Iraq,

iii) asking each one of the three groups to prepare a wish list that would stop the bloodshed

iv) monthly withdrawal of our troops replaced by troops of their choice to maintain law and order. This may dampen the Al-Qaeda presence.

Hope is the most important ingredient of life, without which life is utterly meaningless. It is the hope that determines destiny and fuels the drive towards it. A normal youth aspires to go to school, get the education, fall in love, have job, get married, have a house and raise children who would live a life better than himself or herself. Most people learn to live and be content with accomplishing any part of that elusive hope. Snatch all of it from a human being, what is left to derive satisfaction? Have we thought seriously and empathically about it?

It is wrong to assume that Muslims support terrorism. Why should they? They are getting the shaft triply because of the terrorists; i) they are blamed iii) their religion is maligned and iii) the world looks at them maliciously. Muslims are as terrorized by the terrorists as anyone else is. Heck, Muslims condemn terrorism three times as strong. The media does not put the Muslim voice out; heck the Muslims are frustrated with this situation. But condemn they do, more so than others. It is just not Muslims, you will find that the Jews, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists and others also condemn the atrocities committed in their names, but their voices are drowned as well. The bullies on both sides continue to reign. It has got to change, and the moderates need to speak up and the media ought to oblige to give the space, even if it is not sensational. **1

Once we are committed to a peaceful world of co-existence, we will start seeing the issues in more focused way. Dalai Lama says, “Because we all share this planet earth, we have to learn to live in harmony and peace with each other and with nature. This is not just a dream, but a necessity”. If we see the problems of the world as problems that need resolution - then our approach will crystallize and start thinking of solutions.

Let’s start with the war on Terror.

Osama Bin Laden and his gang destroyed our symbol of freedom and prosperity on 9/11, we screamed, “You people” implying Muslims. We also said, “Muslim Terrorists” and a whole lot of other phrases to “Islamofascist”. The right phrase would have been “Osama, you screwed up”.

Whose rears should we have hauled? To the world, we looked like maniacs with a cocked gun running amuck with no particular place to point it towards; anything that moved got bombed out, including a wedding party. We were shooting everywhere, and destroyed every thing in our reach. This is the wrong way to get the terrorists; Osama is still on the loose.

If we can laser shoot the tiny object 3000 miles away, we can get the six footer and his cronies. We can laser bark at the right tree and quit barking at the universe. We have excuses for our failure, and have sacrificed over 3000 of our sons and daughters and a million plus Iraqis, and the latter simply doesn’t count.

We could have done the right thing, but we did not have the guts to do it. When people cannot face things squarely, they go the route of “you people” and shoot in darkness hoping we would shoot some at least, what a delusion! The American people, generally caring and empathic, understand now that we didn’t go to Iraq with pure and sincere motivations to help them, rather with our own grandiose interest in mind, where the Iraqi people would be guinea pigs. That’s why the support for the war has disappeared so visibly. It is time to admit our mistakes and undo those by disengaging from Iraq; they will probably not do as much of damage as we have done

--- ---
**1 - Note added today, May 11th, 2007. The article was written on April 20th and was asked to be published in New York Times, Washington post, Dallas Morning News, Wall Street Journal and a few others. They are still toeing the line of the admin and would not publish it. Thanks to countercurrents and conservative voice to publish it. As a principle, I have published on this blog, after it got published elsewhere.

The Conservative Voice: http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/25016.html
Counter Currents: http://www.countercurrents.org/ghouse100507.htm

Mike Ghouse is a thinker, writer, speaker and a pluralist with the aptitude [you might like to use a different word] to find solutions. He believes that if we can learn to accept and respect the God given uniqueness of each one of the seven billion of us, conflicts fade and solutions emerge. Mike can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com and at the websites www.MikeGhouse.net and www.FoundationforPluralism.com and www.WorldMuslimCongress.com

# # # # # # #

Hate Sermons from the Pulpit
http://wisdomofreligion.blogspot.com/2007/06/hate-sermons-from-pulpit.html
Hate Sermons from the Pulpit.
Mike Ghouse, May 2, 2007


It is our duty to keep law and order and faithfully guard the safety of every citizen. Hate is one of the many sources of disrupting the peace in a society and it is our duty to track down the source of such hate and work on mitigating it. We have an obligation to maintain a balance in the society

We lose that balance and that elusive equilibrium if we let hate mongers, hate sermons and hate lectures creep in our societies.

The Muslims have been diligently cleaning up the hate sermons from happening in their communities in the United States and Canada. I can recall one incident last year in Canada where one such alleged hate monger Yaseen Sheikh was not allowed to land in Canada and was sent right back to his home; The United Kingdom. The Muslims are making serious efforts to prevent radical preachers from making any speeches in their communities and their Mosques. I am sure some one slips by here and there, but the vigil is there and the guard is on. Islam is about bringing a balance to the society, and American Muslims are vigorously fighting to prevent the Mosque pulpit to ever go into the hands of hate generators.

Hate peddling is unfortunately human, and doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with religion, any religion.

As all the religions teach to overcome hate, here are some quotes about doing unto others;

Bahai: Lay not on any soul a load which ye would not wish to be laid upon you, and desire not for any one the things ye would not desire for yourselves. Writings of Baha'u'llah

Buddhism: Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. Udana-Varga 5, 1

Christianity: All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. Matthew 7:1

Confucianism: Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state. Analects 12:2

Hinduism: This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you. Mahabharata 5,1517

Islam: No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself. Sunnah

Jain: "Living beings (souls) render services to one another" or in short "Live and let live."

Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary. Talmud, Shabbat 3id

Sikh: All humans are same and so we should treat them all the same – Guru Gobind Singh

Taoism: Regard your neighbor's gain as your gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss. Tai Shang Kan Yin P'ien

Wicca: Harm None

Zoroastrianism: That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself. Dadisten-I-dinik, 94, 5

As we pledge one nation under God with liberty and justice for all, we have to look into each other and look at ourselves, and lift ourselves up from the hate pit and come together on a level playing field of goodwill and generosity.

The business side of faith has thrived on ridiculing others faiths and manufacturing a devil out of thin air. There is a misplaced spirituality in operation; our faith is the best, because others aren’t. Wow, what logic! Arrogance and Spirituality are inversely proportional; one cannot be religious when there is an element of arrogance in it. Other faiths don’t have to be bad for mine to be good. My little daughter says if there is no negative selling how would the business of Church survive? How would you grow congregations and the monies that come with it? Shamefully hate and fear binds the people, even though much of it is manufactured. Who has the time to question? A majority of us do not really hate anyone, nor do we care for those sermons, we go there as a social event and often honoring the courtesy of invitation. However, the extremists among us cash on it, they know what binds us.

It is the human weakness that allows the propagation of hate, and we shamelessly abuse our holy texts to justify human killing and destruction of the world be it Armageddon, Jihad, Promised land or some such notion to satisfy one’s disruptive mindset. Whether it happens in Church, Mosque, Temple, Synagogue or any place of worship, the silent majority puts up with it and does not speak out. We go to the place of worship to rid ourselves of our sins – the elements of ill-will, malice, hate, anger and other entrapments. The pulpit has become a loading dock for malice and incitement to look down upon others who hold a different view.

Anya Cardell writes (http://www.anyacordell.com). “This follows on the lecture last week by Steven Emerson at Congregation Beth Shalom in Northbrook, attended and warmly received by about 500, entitled ‘The Terrorists Living among us’. Both Pipes and Emerson have long histories of virulent anti-Muslim efforts. Pipes invented what he calls ‘Sudden Jihad Syndrome’, which he defines as the sudden change of any normal appearing, apparently peaceful Muslim, who may turn on a dime into a radical terrorist. …so I'm not going to cite right now a bunch of similarly appalling assertions from Pipes, Emerson, and their cronies--but they are truly terrifying, adding to the 'open season' mentality currently profiling, stereotyping, smearing, and generalizing all Muslims. I have met the families of innocent men who were murdered in the hate-backlash of 9/11, and know that there are all-too-real consequences of such hate and fear-mongering. “Additionally, a requisite for war is demonizing and dehumanizing the Other, so that we can shrug, rationalize or justify what we call 'collateral damage', and how innocents are caught in the crosshairs or ensnared in big nets, (roundups, detentions, etc.), all in the name of 'security'.”

Should our places of Worship offer space for hate sermons or for bridge building lectures? I hope the sanctity of the synagogue is not violated by the Emerson, Pipes and his likes and no one ought to be allowed to preach hate towards other people.

It is in our interest and the interest of public safety that the sermons delivered at places of worship fill our hearts with love, generosity and goodwill and build bridges for a safe and peaceful nation.

What if we make our speeches in the place of worship a public record? To keep peace, law and order in our country, we need to consider hate speech as a crime. The speech that would permanently place wedges between our communities injects distrust and destroys the concept of one nation under God.

Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer and a Moderator. He is president of the Foundation for Pluralism and is a frequent guest on talk radio, discussing interfaith, political and civic issues. He founded the World Muslim Congress with a simple theme: "good for Muslims and good for the world." His personal Website is www.MikeGhouse.net and his articles can be found on the Websites mentioned above and in his Blogs: http://MikeGhouseforAmerica.Blogspot.com and http://MikeGhouse.Sulekha.com . He can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com. Mike lives in Carrollton with his family and has been a Dallasite since 1980.