Somebody named Dennis Prager wrote a frankly bigotted op-ed for the LA Times asking “Muslims” 5 questions. The questions are fairly easy to answer in themselves, but the stupidity of the whole framework is what is objectionable. Why is it that our media personalities cannot think their way out of a paper bag? Why don’t high school civics courses alert them that there might be a problem with stereotyping everyone that you categorize as belonging to a particular group?

Prager begins his “questions” directed, apparently at all 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, by referring to the recent riots in France. He is thus framing his questions with the implication that those Muslims are all trouble-makers and have something to answer for. But the alienated in-between young African- and North African-French are mostly not very involved in religion and a lot of them couldn’t tell you how to pray to save their lives.

Prager’s first question is why “Muslims” are so “quiet” (implied is: “about terrorism emanating from other Muslims”). Of course, Muslims have been anything but quiet about terrorism and all sorts of Muslim leaders and groups have repeatedly condemned it. Muslims haven’t been “quiet.” Prager hasn’t been listening.

Moreover, the mere assertion that an act was done in the “name of Islam” would not necessarily connect it to Islam in the eyes of other Muslims. All kinds of crazy things are done in the name of Judaism and Christianity and Buddhism. Why didn’t the American Buddhists demonstrate when Aum Shinrikyo let Sarin gas loose in the Tokyo subway? Did American Catholics demonstrate against Franco’s policies in Spain? Why should American Catholics even feel responsible for those things? Why should Indonesian or Bangladeshi Muslims demonstrate about something that happened in distant Jordan, which had some local context they don’t even understand? People who are actually Muslims don’t take seriously small groups of cranks who do bizarre things in the name of Islam.

And let’s turn the tables on Prager. Let’s ask why he is so quiet.

Let’s take the following item:
‘ Jewish settlers began attacking Palestinians as they returned home yesterday from the funeral of an Israeli soldier, shooting dead a 14-year-old girl and wounding several others in the West Bank city of Hebron, Palestinians said.

They said the settlers began attacking shortly after the funeral in Hebron’s Old City, throwing stones at houses and cars, and breaking windows.

Nizin Jamjoum, 14, was standing on the balcony of her home when she was shot in the head and died, said her brother Marwan, 26, who was injured.

At least six Palestinians were hurt, including one who was stabbed, Palestinians said.’
Has Prager ever joined a demonstration against the fascist actions of the far rightwing Israeli settlers who are stealing Palestinian land every day and from time to time killing them? Does he care about Nizin Jamjoum or her family? Nizin was a little girl. Her parents doted on her. They fed her and raised her. She played with brothers and sisters. She said cute things that made everyone’s dimples come out. And then an armed colonist shot her dead, in the head. Her cranium was crushed, her brain oozed out the back of her little head. Does Prager care?

Then he asks, Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Christian?

Prager is not only stereotyping an ethnic group, he is profoundly ignorant. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a much more violent group than Arafat’s Fateh, was led by Christian George Habash. In fact, the PFLP had to hire Eastern Orthodox priests to minister to its fighers. Christians in the Middle East, whether Palestinian Christians, or Maronite Christians in Lebanon, have been just as much parties to the violence in the region as Muslims. And, of course, Israeli Jews haven’t exactly been pacifists.

Then he asks, Why is only one of the 47 Muslim-majority countries a free country?

Well, gee, Dennis. Let’s see.

There is the legacy of European colonialism, which ruled most of the Muslim world with an iron fist and established modern bureaucratic practices that were authoritarian, which the post-colonial states inherited. (If you want to understand the Pakistani military, you have to understand the colonial British Army of India).

And, the Russians invaded Muslim Central Asia in the 19th century. They first subjected those peoples to Tsarist absolute monarchy, and then to Stalinism. Vladimir Putin and Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan both have authoritarian tendencies, and it is because they both come out of the old Soviet system. You want to blame Islam for this?

It wasn’t just colonialism. Neo-colonialism has played a key part. Iran was a parliamentary democracy in the early 1950s. Then its prime minister asserted Iranian ownership of Iran’s own oil. And the UK and the US objected to this step, and sent in the CIA to overthrow the elected government of Iran, and install an absolute monarchy for all the world like Louis XIV! Courtesy of Dwight Eisenhower and Winston Churchill.

The political scientists now think that democracy is best sustained where the per capita income is at least $8000 a year. It isn’t an absolute requirement, but it seems to help. There are a lot of poor Muslim countries because they are in resource-poor regions (arid parts of Africa and the Middle East).

Why bring ethnicity into it? Is that really the likely explanation? Prager could ask the same question about the Chinese. Why is only one Chinese-majority society (Taiwan) moving toward democracy? Does he think it really has something to do with being Chinese? Authoritarianism in East Asia used to be attributed to Confucianism, but then Japan and South Korea (and lately Taiwan) challenged that thesis. Things change. If we were in the 1930s Prager could ask what was with those Fascist Catholics.

Whatever the answer is to Prager’s question, it has little or nothing to do with the religion of Islam per se.

Prager’s number 4 is Why are so many atrocities committed and threatened by Muslims in the name of Islam?

Prager’s list is skewed to begin with. He lumps together localistic national liberation movements (Chechnya) and individual crimes of passion with the guerrilla movement in Iraq, and attributes them all to “Islam.” In Prager’s weird world, everything Muslims do is in the name of Islam.

I append below a list of the number of murders per year in a fair number of the world’s countries, and have put the Muslim-majority countries in bold. They cluster at the bottom, not the top. If we wanted to think in Prager’s warped way, we’d have to ask what is with those Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians, that they are so murderous.

Prager’s number 5 is Why do countries governed by religious Muslims persecute other religions?

Countries governed by religious anythings have persecuted other religions. This is true not only for religious ideologies but also for secular ideologies like Communism and Fascism. Make an idea into an “-ism” and boom, you get gulags. Religion or no religion. You think Muslims were tolerated in Franco’s Spain? And, by the way, why can’t a Muslim guy marry a Jewish girl in Israel if the two love each other? Hmmm. Could it be that the rabbis are unsympathetic to young love? Prager doesn’t seem to know that Terry Nichols of the Oklahoma City bombing was in fact part of the Christian Identity Movement, or that fanatical Christians have killed abortion doctors in the name of Christianity.

There is something seriously wrong with the questions themselves. They come out of a weird mindset that lumps Malaysians with Moroccans, Kyrgyz with Sudanese, and Uigurs with Moro Filipinos, all just because they have a common heritage in one of the great world religions; it isn’t as if their actual local practices and beliefs are all exactly the same.

The questions are symptomatic of prejudice and sloppy thinking. They demean Americans by the posing of them. Muslims as individuals haven’t done anything wrong, and don’t have to answer Prager’s silly questions.

Informed Comment
Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan.

- – -

This entry is sourced from Living Tradition

Something foul is happening in this country as we move deeper into this post 9-11 world. The growing racist hatred and denigration currently directed at Muslims is indicative of a deep sickness. The most disturbing aspect of this malady is that it is being deliberately induced. The strategists behind the campaign may be motivated by their selfish service to a foreign power, they may be motivated by an attempt to justify massive security budgets, they may be motivated by a deep hatred of Islam. Whatever their motivation, they know that the climate they are creating is one that is often characterized by pogroms, and sometimes by genocidal slaughter.

This climate is fueled by fictitious e-mails speaking of fictitious diatribes uttered by fictitious Imams urging the Muslim faithful to indiscriminately kill the “infidels.” It is fueled by the reckless jingoism of hatemongering radio personalities. It is fueled by government misinformation campaigns that create a public perception of imminent danger to the people of this country from a technologically backwards, politically divided, socially truncated Middle East. It is also fueled by the ill-conceived, strategically counterproductive actions of a handful of misguided Muslims who call themselves Mujahideen.

If the current climate deepens and manifests in concerted campaigns of violence against the Muslims of this country it will not be an anomalous situation. The genocide that destroyed the Indian nations that once occupied this land took place in a similar climate. In the 1880s Chinese immigrants were shot in the streets of some western cities and hamlets like stray, rabid dogs. Those pogroms could only take place because a climate of hatred and bigotry had been created. The internment of the Japanese during World War Two took place in a climate of hate that was cultivated throughout the 1930s. Finally, it was in a climate of bigotry and hatred that dehumanizing violence was visited upon successive generations of African Americans.

During such times, it takes a tremendous amount of courage to resist and demand that the country live up to the meaning of those lofty words that accompanied her inception, “We hold these words to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

This week one of the giants who dared to make such a demand has passed on. On December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks made the fateful decision refusing to stand to surrender her seat to a white passenger on a Montgomery, Alabama bus. For that decision, she will forever stand in our memories. Many Muslims, especially those who are new to this country may ask, “What do we find to honor in this non-Muslim lady? She did not do anything big.” Let us be explicit in answering that query. In the climate of hatred that provided the context for Rosa Parks’ simple act of defiance, many people were being brutally murdered for far less. In that climate, what she did was monumental, and she suffered because of it. She and her family were harassed relentlessly in the aftermath of her arrest. The pressure became so great that in 1957 her husband, Raymond Parks, suffered a nervous breakdown. That same year she left the south to reside in Detroit, Michigan.

That said, her act of defiance in and of itself could be considered small. It was not even the first incident of its kind in Montgomery. However, God decreed that on that day, Rosa Parks would sit. And because she sat Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. stood up; because she sat the city of Montgomery, Alabama stood up; because she sat the South stood up; because she sat a nation’s conscience was roused.

In the ensuing agitation, civil and voting rights legislation was passed, affirmative action legislation was passed, a black man ascended to the bench of the Supreme Court, and most significantly, for most of those reading this message, immigration laws were amended allowing a flood of Muslim immigrants to enter this land. Now the political winds are changing and the current mood is a harbinger of a struggle ahead for American Muslims. We may well face the kind of climate faced by Rosa Parks deep down in Dixie. That climate will challenge us in ways that it challenged Mrs. Parks.

History remembers Rosa Parks favorably, just as it remembers the legions that preceded her in demanding a dignified existence for African Americans in this country. As we embark on our struggle to maintain our dignified existence here, we should ask ourselves, “How will history remember us?” The answer to that question lies in how we respond to another question, the simple question that was presented to Rosa Parks, “Will we stand or will we sit?”

- – - – -

This article was sourced from http://www.zaytuna.org Please feel free to visit the Zaytuna Institute website for more wonderful information on Islam in America.

I, for one, am aware of the website that Shairul Fazleena is referring to. Although she asserts that she is not endorsing the apostates’ cause, let us state here very clearly that her suggestion that the Malaysian government should ‘review’ their policy with regard to apostates is tantamount to mocking the Deen itself.

It is without a doubt that apostasy is a very serious offence in Islam, and there are no ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ about it. However, individuals like Shairul are from the flock of ‘liberal Muslims’ who prefer to abandon the Qur’an and Sunnah injunction with regard to apostates in favour of their ‘values’ from the West concerning freedom of religion.

The major difference between the Hindu and the Muslim perception of God is the ‎common Hindus’ belief in the philosophy of Pantheism. Pantheism considers everything, ‎living and non-living, to be Divine and Sacred. The common Hindu, therefore, considers ‎everything as God. He considers the trees as God, the sun as God, the moon as God, the ‎monkey as God, the snake as God and even human beings as manifestations of God!‎

Islam, on the contrary, exhorts man to consider himself and his surroundings as examples ‎of Divine Creation rather than as divinity itself. Muslims therefore believe that everything is ‎God’s i.e. the word ‘God’ with an apostrophe ‘s’. In other words the Muslims believe that ‎everything belongs to God. The trees belong to God, the sun belongs to God, the moon ‎belongs to God, the monkey belongs to God, the snake belongs to God, the human ‎beings belong to God and everything in this universe belongs to God.‎

Thus the major difference between the Hindu and the Muslim beliefs is the difference of ‎the apostrophe ‘s’. The Hindu says everything is God. The Muslim says everything is God’s.‎

Thus the major difference between the Hindu and the Muslim beliefs is the difference of ‎the apostrophe ‘s’. The Hindu says everything is G-o-d. The Muslim says everything is G-o-‎d-’s. If the Muslims and the Hindus can work out on the difference of apostrophe ‘s’, then ‎the Muslims and the Hindus can become closer, Insha’Allah.‎

To gain a better understanding on the concept of God in Hinduism, let us analyse the ‎Hindu scriptures. ‎

The most popular amongst all the Hindu scriptures is the Bhagavad Gita. Consider the ‎following verse from the Gita;‎

‎”Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods ‎and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own ‎natures.” [Bhagavad Gita 7:20]‎

‎“Ekam evadvitiyam”‎
‎“He is One only without a second” [Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:1]1‎

‎“Na casya kascij janita na cadhipah.”‎
‎“Of Him there are neither parents nor lord.” [Svetasvatara Upanishad 6:9]2‎

‎“Na tasya pratima asti”‎
‎“There is no likeness of Him” [Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:19]3‎

‎“Na samdrse tisthati rupam asya, na caksusa pasyati kas canainam.”‎
‎“His form is not to be seen, no one sees Him with the eye.” ‎ [Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:20]4 ‎

‎“Na tasya pratima asti”‎‎
“There is no image of Him” [Yajurveda 32:3]5‎

‎“Shudhama poapvidham”‎
‎“He is bodiless and pure” [Yajurveda 40:8]6‎

‎“Andhatama pravishanti ye asambhuti mupaste”‎
‎“They enter darkness, those who worship the natural elements” (Air, water, fire, etc.)‎

‎“They sink deeper in darkness, those who worship sambhuti (created things; table, chair, ‎idol etc.).” [Yajurveda 40:9]7‎

‎“Sages (learned priests) call one God by many names.” [Rigveda 1:164:46]‎

Among the various attributes of God in [Rigveda 2:1:3];‎

Brahma, which means ‘The Creator’ or ‘Khaliq’ in Arabic.‎
Vishnu, which means ‘The Sustainer’ or ‘Rabb’ in Arabic.‎

Muslims can have no objections if Almighty God is referred to as ‘Khaliq’ – ‘The Creator’ – ‎‎‘Brahma’ or ‘Rabb’ – ‘The Sustainer’ – ‘Vishnu’. ‎

However if it is said that Brahma is Almighty God who has four heads or Vishnu who has ‎four arms, the Muslims take strong exception to it. Muslims can never accept any image ‎of God. ‎

As mentioned earlier, this also goes against [Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:19] and ‎‎[Yajurveda 32:3]; ‎

‎ ‎ ‎“Na tasya pratima asti”‎
‎“There is no image of Him”.‎

‎“Ma cid anyad vi sansata sakhayo ma rishanyata”‎
‎“O friends, do not worship anybody but Him, the Divine One. Praise Him alone.” [Rigveda ‎‎5:1:81]8‎

Brahma Sutra of Hinduism:‎

‎“Ekam Brahm, dvitiya naste neh na naste Kinchan”‎
‎“There is only one God, not the second; ‎
Not at all, not at all, not in the least bit”.‎

Compiled by Shah Kirit.

References:

‎1. [The Principal Upanishad by S. Radhakrishnan page 447 and 448] and [Sacred Books of the East, volume 1 ‘The Upanihads part 1’ page 93] ‎

‎2. [The Principal Upanishad by S. Radhakrishnan page 745]‎ and [Sacred Books of the East, volume 15 ‘The Upanihads part II’ page 263] ‎

‎3. [The Principal Upanishad by S. Radhakrishnan page 736 and 737] and[Sacred Books of the East, volume 15 ‘The Upanihads part II’ page 253] ‎

‎4. [The Principal Upanishad by S. Radhakrishnan page 737]‎ and [Sacred Books of the East, volume 15 ‘The Upanihads part II’ page 253] ‎

‎5. [Yajurveda by Devi Chand M.A. page 377]‎

‎6. [Yajurveda Samhita by Ralph T.H. Griffith 538]‎
‎ ‎
‎7. [Yajurveda Samhita by Ralph T.H. Griffith 538]‎

‎8. [Rigveda Samhita vol. 9 pages 2810 and 2811 by Swami Satya Prakash Sarasvati and ‎Satyakam Vidyalankar]