New report that exposes the people who fund and stoke anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States

As a federal inquiry begins in the killing of three Muslim students in North Carolina and an Islamic center in Houston, Texas, was intentionally set on fire Friday, we look at a new report that exposes the people who fund and stoke anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States. The investigation by the Center for American Progress is called "Fear, Inc. 2.0, The Islamophobia Network’s Efforts to Manufacture Hate in America," an update of a 2011 report. We are joined by the report’s co-author, Yasmine Taeb, Islamophobia project manager at the Center for American Progress.

Watch: http://publish.dvlabs.com/democracynow/ipod/dn2015-0216.mp4?start=2550&end=3015

NERMEEN SHAIKH: As a federal inquiry begins in the killing of three Muslim students in North Carolina and an Islamic center in Houston, Texas, burns down in a fire still under investigation, we turn now to a new report that exposes the people who fund and stoke anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States. The investigation by the Center for American Progress is called, quote, "Fear, Inc. 2.0: The Islamophobia Network’s Efforts to Manufacture Hate in America."

NARRATOR: This is how the Islamophobia network operates. A group of foundations and donors provides the money—to date, more than $57 million. That money is given to a selection of tightly knit organizations that rely heavily on a handful of so-called experts that orchestrate misinformation about Islam. That misinformation then spreads to a larger network of activists, politicians, media and more, creating an echo chamber around the false idea that Islam is a violent religion.

MATT DUSS: And I think defining Islam writ large as a threat, as many in the Islamophobia network do, is simply wrong and will lead to bad policy.

NARRATOR: The Islamophobia network has real consequences for Muslim Americans. There’s been a nationwide push for laws targeting Muslims. In New York City, the NYPD conducted a spying program that covertly monitored and mapped the city’s Muslim communities. And in Boston, a Muslim doctor was assaulted after the Boston Marathon bombings.

AMY GOODMAN: This new report is an update on a 2011 investigation we covered here on Democracy Now!. For more, we’re joined from Washington, D.C., by Yasmine Taeb. She is co-author of "Fear, Inc. 2.0.: The Islamophobia Network’s Efforts to Manufacture Hate in America" and the Islamophobia project manager at the Center for American Progress. Last week, she wrote an article headlined "Connecting the Dots: The North Carolina Murders and Anti-Muslim Hysteria." She is also an attorney specializing in national security.

Yasmine, welcome back to Democracy Now! Talk about this new report. What have you found new in these last few years?

YASMINE TAEB: Sure. Well, thank you so much, Amy, for having me. So, as you mentioned, in 2011 CAP first released their first report, their Islamophobia report, that detailed, basically—chronicled the tightly knit network, group of funders, organizations, activists, elected officials and media commentators, that are essentially fanning anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States. And what we found in our new report is that this network is not only working to marginalize a community of three million Americans by promoting discriminatory policies, but also we detailed how these policies are impacting the lives of ordinary Americans. So, for example, we know that the effect of the anti-Muslim hysteria that this network generates is in an uptick in the number of hate crimes. To give you an example, for instance, in the aftermath of the hysteria that was created over the construction of the so-called Ground Zero mosque in New York City, hate crimes in New York City against Muslims in 2010 were 300 percent higher than they were in 2009. And again, we’re seeing this now, whether it was in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings or in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attack and the rise in ISIS, etc. I think shedding light on this network was something that we wanted to do in 2011 in the first report, but in this second report we detailed how the policies, the discriminatory policies that this network is promoting, is in fact hurting the lives of average Americans.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Yasmine Taeb, before we conclude, could you say a little about the recommendations that your report makes?

YASMINE TAEB: Sure. So, as Amy has mentioned and as you played the introductory video, since 2001, there has been over $57 million that’s been contributed to this fearmongering, anti-Muslim, anti-Islam organizations by eight very wealthy donors. What we’re trying to do and what was part of our recommendations is, obviously we’re trying to identify not just the funders, but also the organizations, the activists, the misinformation experts and all the politicians that are intimately connected to this network. We’re trying, one, to dry up the money. That’s obviously our main goal, because if we eliminate the money trail, if we eliminate these millions of dollars that are being donated to these organizations, that essentially their living is now just to promote discriminatory policies against three million Americans, I mean, that itself would be profound, if we can eliminate this money trail. But also, some of the other recommendations we made throughout the report was pushing back against these discriminatory policies. So, for example, anti-Sharia legislation. We’ve had more than 100 anti-Sharia bills introduced in the United States in more than 30 states. And this has been primarily due to this network pushing these discriminatory policies.

AMY GOODMAN: Yasmine Taeb, we want to thank you very much for being with us, co-author of this new report, "Fear, Inc. 2.0.: The Islamophobia Network’s Efforts to Manufacture Hate in America," that’s been put out by the Center for American Progress. We will link to your report and your article, "Connecting the Dots: The North Carolina Murders and Anti-Muslim Hysteria," at democracynow.org.

@ @ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @

Fear, Inc. 2.0
The Islamophobia Network’s Efforts to Manufacture Hate in America

SOURCE: AP/Matt Rourke

Endnotes and citations are available here:

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/report/2015/02/11/106394/fear-inc-2-0/

See also: Fear Inc. interactive: Explore the $57 Million Network Fueling Islamophobia in the United States

At its core, the United States is a nation built on a few fundamental values. The values of freedom of religion and basic civil liberties are enshrined in the Bill of Rights and have been upheld time and time again by the U.S. Congress and courts. A basic respect for the rights of minority groups throughout the country—whether these minorities are ethnic, religious, political, geographic, or social—are inherent in the founding principles of the United States. All Americans—progressives and conservatives alike—share these core values that have formed the backbone of an inclusive, multidimensional society for nearly 250 years.

But the journey toward a more perfect union has not always been smooth. During World War II, for instance, Japanese Americans were unjustly interned because they were seen as “others.” In 1960, many opposed the election of President John F. Kennedy because they erroneously believed that his Catholic faith meant that his first loyalty would be to the Pope rather than the Constitution—and that if the two ever came in conflict, he would take orders from the Pope.

More recently, American Muslims in the United States have been targeted, profiled, or seen as suspect because of their faith.

In 2011, the Center for American Progress published “Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America” in order to identify and expose the organizations, scholars, pundits, and activists comprising a tightly linked network that spread misinformation and hateful propaganda about American Muslims and Islam. The report found that seven charitable foundations spent $42.6 million between 2001 and 2009 to support the spread of anti-Muslim rhetoric. The efforts of a small cadre of funders and misinformation experts were amplified by an echo chamber of the religious right, conservative media, grassroots organizations, and politicians who sought to introduce a fringe perspective on American Muslims into the public discourse.

In the three years since “Fear, Inc.” shined a light on the Islamophobia network and exposed the network’s key members, a number of them have been marginalized by the mainstream media and politicians. For example, the American Conservative Union publically reprimanded misinformation expert Frank Gaffney and made it clear that he is no longer welcome at their annual Conservative Political Action Conference. Conservative politicians from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to former presidential candidate Mitt Romney have pushed back against the “sinister accusations” of the Islamophobia network. And the anti-Muslim caucus in Congress took a huge hit by losing some of its loudest members, such as Reps. Allen West (R-FL) and Michele Bachmann (R-MN).

Unfortunately, in both the United States and abroad, some have seized on CAP’s 2011 report as evidence to support their own negative perceptions about the United States, claiming that the United States is indeed hostile to Muslims and Islam. To be clear, the Islamophobia network that CAP identified in 2011 is not indicative of mainstream American views. In fact, the views of anti-Muslim actors stand in stark contrast to the values of most Americans. The findings of the 2011 report, as well as this report, should not be misconstrued as a sign of widespread public antipathy toward the Muslim community in the United States, although concerns remain about the rise of anti-Muslim attitudes in the United States during the past few years. Instead, these two reports reveal how a well-funded, well-organized fringe movement can push discriminatory policies against a segment of American society by intentionally spreading lies while taking advantage of moments of public anxiety and fear. We are seeing this dynamic play out yet again in the aftermath of the attack on French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, as former elected officials and certain media commentators have used the terror attack as an opportunity to call for increased profiling of the American Muslim community.

Although the first report succeeded in identifying and marginalizing many members of the Islamophobia network, a number of these misinformation experts are still able to disproportionately influence public policy in America. From hate-group leader David Yerushalmi’s impact on anti-Sharia legislation across the country to Islamophobe William Gawthrop’s influence on the FBI’s training manuals, it is clear that the well-funded and well-connected individuals within the Islamophobia network still have the ability to promote bad public policies that ultimately affect all Americans.

Islamophobia in the United States takes many shapes and forms. It takes the form of a general climate of fear and anger toward American Muslims, as seen in the “civilization jihad” narrative, the religious right’s rhetoric, and the biased media coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing. It comes out in cynical political efforts to capitalize on this climate of fear, as seen in state-level anti-Sharia bills introduced across the country and in far-right politicians’ grandstanding. And perhaps most dangerously, it manifests itself in institutional policies that view American Muslims as a threat, as seen in the FBI training manuals that profile Islam as a religion of violence.

But while the Islamophobia network has launched a variety of attacks on the American Muslim community during the past several years, the general public has also been more vigilant, and both progressives and conservatives have effectively rejected many of these anti-Muslim efforts. The public pushback—from New York City to Lansing, Michigan, and from Boston to Birmingham, Alabama—has been crucial in keeping the Islamophobia network where it belongs—on the fringes of American society. And while anti-Muslim groups continue their efforts incessantly, there has been a rise in religious and interfaith groups pushing back against Islamophobia.

Although the American public largely dismisses such prejudiced views, the Islamophobia network’s efforts to target American Muslim communities remain significant and continue to erode America’s core values of religious pluralism, civil rights, and social inclusion. The rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, offers the Islamophobia network a new opportunity to leverage unrelated geopolitical events in order to create a caricature of Islam, foment public anxiety, and push discriminatory policies against American Muslims. The Islamophobia network’s new effort to equate mainstream American Muslims with the perverted brand of Islam promoted by ISIS is a reminder of the ongoing vigilance needed to push back against the anti-Muslim fringe.

This report examines several key elements of the Islamophobia network, including:

The civilization jihad narrative and theories of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the U.S. government
The Islamophobia network’s influence among the religious right and faith groups combating anti-Muslim sentiment
The impact of the Islamophobia network on law-enforcement training
The response to the Boston Marathon bombing and the narrative of Islamic extremism
Politically motivated Islamophobia and pushback by mainstream conservatives
The first “Fear, Inc.” report sought to expose elements of the Islamophobia network by giving the mainstream public the information it needed to refute the claims and distortions made by the network’s misinformation experts. This report identifies the Islamophobia network’s ongoing efforts to promote policies that violate and contradict core American values and interests. The defense of these core values remains ongoing. As this report demonstrates, it only takes one individual with disproportionate influence to negatively affect the treatment of an entire group of American citizens.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/report/2015/02/11/106394/fear-inc-2-0/

Matthew Duss is the President of the Foundation for Middle East Peace. Yasmine Taeb is an attorney specializing in national security. Ken Gude is a Senior Fellow with the National Security Team at American Progress. Ken Sofer is the Associate Director for National Security and International Policy at American Progress.

To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact:

Print: Allison Preiss (economy, education, poverty)
202.478.6331 or apreiss@americanprogress.org

Copenhagen Attack Witness Inna Shevchenko Debates Scholar Tariq Ramadan on Religion and Free Speech

Danish police have shot and killed a man they say carried out attacks on a synagogue and an event promoting free speech in Copenhagen.
Watch:
http://publish.dvlabs.com/democracynow/ipod/dn2015-0216.mp4?start=883&end=2550

Local media identified the suspect as 22-year-old Omar al-Hussein, who had reportedly been released from prison just weeks earlier. Two other people have also been charged with aiding him. The presumed target of the attuacks, Swedish artist Lars Vilks, has received death threats for depicting the head of the Prophet Muhammad on a dog. Vilks was unharmed, but a Danish film director was shot dead and three police officers injured. Hours later, the gunman attacked a synagogue, killing a guard outside and injuring another two police officers. The attacks in Copenhagen come a month after the massacre at the Paris offices of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo. We speak with Inna Shevchenko, a speaker at the Copenhagen free speech event when the attack took place. Shevchenko is a leader of the international women’s protest group Femen, which often demonstrates topless against what they perceive as manifestations of patriarchy, especially dictatorship, religion and the sex industry. We are also joined by Tariq Ramadan, professor of contemporary Islamic studies at Oxford University and author of a number of influential books on Islam and the West.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Danish police have shot and killed a man that they believe carried out attacks on a synagogue and an event promoting free speech in Copenhagen on Saturday. Local media identified the suspect as 22-year-old Omar al-Hussein, who was born and raised in Denmark. According to Danish television, he had been released from prison just weeks earlier. Danish police have also charged two other people with aiding the gunman. The bloodshed began on Saturday when a gunman attempted to shoot his way into a café hosting a discussion on art, blasphemy and freedom of expression. The BBC aired audio from the event at the moment of the shooting.

INNA SHEVCHENKO: I realize that every time we talk about activity of those people, there will be always, "Yes, it is freedom of speech, but..." And the turning point is "but." Why do we still say "but" when we—

[gunfire]

AMY GOODMAN: You are listening to an audio recording from Saturday’s shooting in Copenhagen. That first voice you heard, just before the gunfire, was Inna Shevchenko, a leader of the international women’s protest group Femen. She’ll join us on the show in a moment. Also speaking at the event was the Swedish artist Lars Vilks, the presumed target of the attacks, who has received death threats for depicting the head of the Prophet Muhammad on a dog. Vilks was unharmed in the attack, but a Danish film director named Finn Nørgaard was shot dead. Three police officers were also injured.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Hours later, the gunman attacked a synagogue, killing a guard outside and injuring another two police officers. The attacks in Copenhagen came a month after gunmen attacked the offices of the newspaper Charlie Hebdo, killing 12 people in Paris. France’s ambassador to Denmark, François Zimeray, was at the café when Saturday’s attack took place.

FRANÇOIS ZIMERAY: [translated] I don’t know if they are strong words, but this is simply what one feels when you hear bullets and see their impact. I was very impressed today to be able to calmly see what I went through yesterday in these few seconds. In these moments, you think it’s all over. You don’t have any feelings. You don’t think of anything, but try and understand what’s happening. And what I understood then was that the same event was taking place as in Paris. And probably, if the Danish police didn’t succeed in—five policemen wounded—didn’t succeed in their job, I wouldn’t be here today.

AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about the Copenhagen attacks, we’re joined by two guests. Inna Shevchenko is with us. She was speaking at the free speech event in Copenhagen when the attack took place Saturday, leader of the international women’s group Femen, which often demonstrates topless against what they perceive as manifestations of patriarchy, especially dictatorship, religion and the sex industry. She is speaking to us now from Paris, where she has just gone from Copenhagen.

And we’re joined once again by Tariq Ramadan, professor of contemporary Islamic studies at Oxford University, author of a number of influential books on Islam and the West, including Western Muslims and the Future of Islam and also the book In the Footsteps of the Prophet: Lessons from the Life of Muhammad. Professor Ramadan was named by Time magazine as one of the most important innovators of the 21st century. He’s joining us from Doha, Qatar.

But I want to go first to our guest in Paris, Inna Shevchenko. Describe the scene on Saturday. What exactly were you talking about when the shots opened fire? And explain where they came from.

INNA SHEVCHENKO: Thank you for having me, first. Well, when everything happened in Copenhagen, when terrorists entered the place, just a few seconds before, I was mentioning that very often it is an illusion that we can fully enjoy freedom of speech. I was sitting on the stage together with Lars Vilks and one of the organizers of the event. And then I mentioned such a phenomenon as "but" when we talk about freedom of speech. And as you can hear on the record, once I mentioned that there will be always opinion, "Yes, OK, we are fine with freedom of speech, but..." and then the shots started. And ironically, I think, it started in this event, because I think that those shots and this attack was definitely a huge "but" to our freedom of speech.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Inna, has it been established that the Swedish cartoonist who was on the panel with you—was he the presumed target? Has that been made certain?

INNA SHEVCHENKO: Well, police didn’t give us any information, because they simply do not have it. Lars Vilks personally explained that he thinks he was a target of the event. But as we talked later with police, and police explained that the target of the event could be either Lars Vilks or also the reason to attack this event could be also the presence of one of the representatives of Femen, who is receiving also lots of threats a lot. But I think that right now we should not talk about who exactly personally was a target. The target was the idea, the idea that all of us were carrying in that room, the idea of freedom of speech and freedom of expression and being free to celebrate it, to enjoy, to laugh, to speak about it, to scream about it in the streets. So the target of those extremists are our ideas.

AMY GOODMAN: Tariq Ramadan, speaking to us from Doha, Qatar, if you could respond to what has taken place right now in Copenhagen? We last talked to you, of course, after the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris.

TARIQ RAMADAN: Look, once again, it’s exactly the same scenario, and we have to take the same clear position and condemn what happened. And I really think that the target of this young guy was the event itself, what was the—which is the freedom of expression and things that are perceived as insulting Islam. And what we have to say as Muslims, what we have to say as Muslim scholars and in world, that this is betraying our principles, and this cannot be acceptable. So, once again, it’s the clear position that we have to take.

And beyond this, I think that instead of putting religions on one side and people supporting freedom of expression, we need to understand, and not to be misled or mistaken about our common enemies, that there are people, dogmatic minds, going towards violence and promoting violence, that are against freedom of expression. And we have to be clear that these are our enemies. And for me, as a Muslim, what is happening in—because you were mentioning this in your headlines—what is happening in Syria and Libya, this is all against the principles of our religion, so the Muslims should be clear on that, while at the same time we have to have the big picture and to say, "Let us come together to be against the use of religions to kill."

But at the same time, and it’s not a "but" that is undermining the condemnation, but stressing the fact that the picture is very complex, and we also have to be clear about the killing of Muslims and not to be quiet when, for example, 200 people have been killed in Nigeria, or the three people who have been killed in North Carolina, and it took two days for President Obama to come and to say something about it. And the silence here is not acceptable. So it’s not this against that, but we have to be not—we should not be selective in our condemnation.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Tariq Ramadan, you’ve been following the position of Muslims in Europe for decades. Is it your sense, as some claim, that more and more young Muslims in Europe are turning to a more radical form of Islam and also violent acts like the one we just witnessed in Copenhagen?

TARIQ RAMADAN: I think that there is something completely new that we are—it’s very difficult for us to understand, is this attraction towards what is happening through the social media. And yes, there are more people being involved with it. We never had such a thing as people going—we had, yes, of course, people going to Bosnia or going to al-Shishan or going to even Palestine, but it was—they were few, it’s a handful number. So I don’t think that we had this before. Now, at the same time, we have to be very cautious. It’s not because they are killing and they are getting the headlines that they are something, you know, that is representing Muslims. It’s a tiny minority. It’s on the margin. The people are not even going to the mosques. They are not within the community. This young guy was just in prison a few weeks ago. And it’s the same in France. We have to be very cautious. It might be that we have more young people being involved, but still this is completely disconnected from the Muslim communities in the West.

And then, because you are asking this question, without trying to find justification, because it’s not justifiable, we need to come to some of the reasons that we can find, to go upstream and to try to solve the problem—so, for example, anything that has to do with a better teaching of Islam. We need institutionalizing the Muslim presence in the West and in Europe by having a teaching vision that is clear on the things that could be accepted within the diversity of the Islamic teaching and the things that are unacceptable. So this kind of informal teaching that we have of Islam and this in-between, it’s not helping.

On the other side, we also have to deal with political issues, because when, in Europe, we are presenting that they are at war with our values, the people are in touch with the international scene, and they are seeing what is happening, and sometimes which kind of international policies are promoting—are promoted by the West, the United States or the European countries. And we also have to be clear that we are giving some value to this political analysis. It’s not as if nothing is happening around the world; people are being killed, and European and Western powers are involved in wars around the world.

AMY GOODMAN: Inna Shevchenko, if you could weigh in here? Also, comment on the fact that at this Krudttønden café where the free speech event took place, people stayed to continue the event, is that right, afterwards? Again, a Danish filmmaker was killed in this attack, Finn Nørgaard.

INNA SHEVCHENKO: That’s right. That’s right. We were—as we gathered there to celebrate freedom of speech, we continued to celebrate freedom of speech, with certain conditions that we all have right now. We have new conditions for being able to celebrate and to enjoy freedom of speech, and we have to be—we have to know that today we can be targeted. We can hear sounds of Kalashnikov around us whenever we draw or laugh or speak, enjoying freedom of speech, and there are new conditions today, and we have to accept it.

But what—you know, what happened at that event, it was horrible. It was horrible to hear shots of Kalashnikov just behind the door of the room where you were simply talking about pluralism and about being able to explain—to express whatever ideas you care without harming physically anybody. And then we heard shots. And, of course, the situation was terrible, and people were running and trying to hide under the tables and in the corners. It was chaotic.

Then the shots finished, and the situation—we understood what happened. And one of the participants proposed to continue the debates. People, the audience, were so proud to be on that side of the fight, not to be—not to represent a dogmatic side of the fight that, unfortunately, I should mention, and unfortunately for Tariq Ramadan, unfortunately, religions do represent dogmatic part of this discussion. And we represented at that event, and millions of people today in Europe are expressing that they represent, liberalism and pluralism. And what—right now we are in the middle of ideological war between pluralism and dogmatism. And unfortunately for all of us, religion does play a big, big part in dogmatism and in dogmatic side supporting it. Even though, again, I’m not going to please, maybe, Tariq Ramadan, I definitely see how many religious people also become victims of those extremists, but I think that we should not deny the other side of religion that is giving to us today. And unfortunately, this is not the most peaceful side.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Inna, you’ve also suggested that Europe—Tariq Ramadan, why don’t you respond to what Inna said?

TARIQ RAMADAN: I think that the starting point of our discussion is not to be dogmatically liberal against religion. What I’m hearing now, it’s a dogmatic mind rejecting all the religions and all the dogmatic religious cultures or religious teachings as being dogmatic. That’s very superficial. And I’m very, very cautious with some dogmatic liberal minds saying freedom of expression is on our side. Please, I don’t think that you are going to solve the problem. And this is the problem I have with your organization, Femen. You are dogmatic in the way you are rejecting all religions. You don’t see that within religions and the religious traditions you have millions, hundreds of millions of people who are open-minded and trying their best and they are supporting freedom of expression. So don’t be like this, because by promoting this mindset, you are creating the problems; you are not solving or trying to find solutions.

So, once again, I would say, I am on the side of freedom of speech. And then, this, I think, we have to promote. And I said this, you know, at the very beginning. I was myself involved in the discussion about the cartoon crisis in Denmark at the very beginning. I was there, and I met with journalists. Even the journal, the newspaper, the Jyllands-Posten, they published my book on the prophet that you mentioned in English, they published it in Danish, because they wanted to show we are also—we want to give this right picture, we are not only against. So I think that we need to find new alliances and not this binary vision, "it’s religions versus open-minded people." No, it’s open-minded people against all type of instrumentalization, and even sometimes the liberal values of instrumentalizing in a very dogmatic way, as I’ve said.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Inna Shevchenko, could you respond to what Tariq said and also elaborate on the suggestion you’ve made that Europe needs to change its policies in light of what’s happened? And you’ve spoken of ideological warfare. Could you elaborate on that?

INNA SHEVCHENKO: Yes, first of all, I want to respond to Tariq. And, you know, I think that definitely what you are doing well, you are trying to turn my words right now around. And I think that what we all are saying and what is the main idea of what we all are caring and what we were caring at this event, that we all should be able to express our ideas, whether you are religious or not. And to say that we are rejecting all religions is definitely to be superficial, as you say. We’d never reject religious people, who can care liberal ideas, and there are plenty of them, including a lot of friends that I have who are religious—and, as well, Muslim, who are supporting secular ideas and who do agree that Charlie Hebdo did have a right to draw Muhammad.

And as I know—as far as I know, you don’t agree that this is a freedom of speech. You call it insulting. And in one of the texts of your blog, you said that those terrorists are victims of society. And I think this is a big danger in your speeches. I think that you definitely objectively should recognize the side of all liberals, that we provide the solution that respects opinion and right to believe, to think, to speak about whatever they want. Religious you are or not, you have right to express your ideas. You have right to talk about that.

But what we propose, we don’t carry Kalashnikovs in our hands. And one small group, even small group of our community, do not care—do not carry Kalashnikovs in our hands. What we do carry, we carry a much more powerful weapon: We carry our ideas of respecting right of everybody to express their ideas. And we propose a real solution. We don’t say the situation is too complex and we should just sit and be desperate about it. What we do say, we say that we have to educate each other, that everybody has a right to laugh at whoever, whether Muhammad, it is Jesus or Marine Le Pen or Obama, whoever. We have right to laugh. We have right to criticize. We have right to express our opinion. And this right should be respected. And this right should not be—should not be criticized and said as—and named as superficial, not at all.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Tariq Ramadan, your response?

TARIQ RAMADAN: No, no, no, once again, this is a distortion of what I said. What I said is superficial is to put religions on one side and then to come to say, "I have nothing against religious people, but I am against religions." I have been following many of your statements about religions and connecting religions with patriarchy, with very narrow-minded people. That’s fine, if we start with what you are saying now, that we are coming together, and we are promoting the point that it’s freedom of speech. And yes, freedom of speech means that we cannot deny the fact that if I feel insulted, that’s fine. The question is not if I feel insulted; the question is: What am I doing out of it? And what I’m saying is that I take a critical distance. I let the people speak the way they want. And this is the starting point of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that I agree and I’m happy with all what I hear, but I acknowledge the fact that the people have the right to say. That’s the point, and you cannot deny this.

Now, the question here is, very often in all the discussions that we had and through your organization is to be aggressive in the way you are promoting it. It’s not helping. That’s the point that I’m making. It’s not—if you say to people, you know, "I respect religious people I don’t like, and I reject religions," I think that, once again, that’s your right, you can say it, but it’s putting the people into boxes in a way which is what I am saying is superficial.

Now, the point that I want to make—you are celebrating freedom of speech. Yes, we have the right to laugh, and this should be a right, yes, I’ve said that. Now, I don’t want a young guy, 22 years old, to put us in a situation where there is no way for us to have a bigger discussion, which this discussion is. He was wrong. He betrayed the Islamic principles. We have to say this in a clear way. Now I want the big picture and say: What are the reasons that are pushing some people to go that way? And what is our common response to be?

NERMEEN SHAIKH: I want to turn—Tariq Ramadan, if you’ll allow me, I want to ask about some of the reasons, some of the speculation for the reasons that people are—young Muslims in Europe are turning to violence. The French interior minister, Bernard Cazeneuve, visited Copenhagen Sunday to express solidarity after the attacks, that were reminiscent of the attacks in Paris on Charlie Hebdo, the satirical weekly newspaper. Cazeneuve said more must be done to prevent vulnerable members of society from, quote, being "brainwashed" by Internet propaganda.

BERNARD CAZENEUVE: [translated] This morning, I saw the same sadness I witnessed back in Paris in January in people’s terrified eyes, the same sadness, the same dread, the same dignity and the same mediation and the same sorrow. In the face of terrorism, we are first and foremost united by feelings like those of important democrats, those attached to democracy, to the values of the founding fathers of the European Union. When we call for more regulation for Internet in order to prevent websites and blogs promoting terrorism from brainwashing the most vulnerable citizens in our countries—and doing so efficiently, I have to say—this is realistic. We are adapting our strategies in the face of a very acute problem, and we need to do that with lucidity and to get ready to face a real threat for a long time.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: That was French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve. You each have about 30 seconds to respond. Inna Shevchenko, could you comment on what the minister said?

INNA SHEVCHENKO: Sure, of course. We should—

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Oh, I’m afraid we’ve lost Inna for the moment. Tariq Ramadan, could you comment on what the minister said and explain whether you think it is Internet propaganda that’s seducing young, vulnerable Muslims in Europe?

TARIQ RAMADAN: No, that’s clear. He is right on one thing, is that now we know that there is the Internet propaganda, and this is attracting some of the young Muslims, even converts and things like this. But this is not the only reason, and it cannot only be this. We also have to deal with domestic policies in the West, where you have this frustration. Anyone can use this to instrumentalize religion as a weapons against the other, let alone the discussion on the international scene. You know, when France is saying, "We are not at war," yes, you are not at war with them, but you are at war in the Middle East, and you are involved in political actions and wars around, so you also have to deal with this. So, this is not to justify what was done, but this is to explain that if we don’t deal with the reasons, we are missing the point.

AMY GOODMAN: On that note, we’re going to—we’re going to have to wrap up, although I do think perhaps we have Inna right at this moment.

INNA SHEVCHENKO: Yes, can I come back?

AMY GOODMAN: If you could respond for 30 seconds, yes, to what the French interior minister said?

INNA SHEVCHENKO: Do you have me right now?

AMY GOODMAN: Yes, we hear you fine.

INNA SHEVCHENKO: Yeah, sorry, sorry. Yeah, well, you know, I think that generally to say—again, let me still come back a little bit to the main point and to what Tariq said and mentioned, and then go back to Bernard Cazeneuve. You know, the thing is that right now I clearly do hear that Tariq Ramadan is condemning violence of terrorists, who are unfortunately doing it in the name of his religion. And right now we can see how many of those terrorists are appearing. And I think that one of the reasons why it is happening right now, because so many people, including Tariq Ramadan, are spending much more time to condemn cartoons of Charlie Hebdo or Lars Vilks than to criticize and then to say directly to terrorists that the part of Islam that is saying that you have to fight infidels and everybody else who doesn’t belong to this religion and this idea should be forgotten or denied, clearly. They should not be said just they are terrorists and they’re not part of our community. There are a few brave Muslims who are saying, great people who are—great thinkers who are saying, "Yes, they are Muslims. They do represent our religion. And we should clearly say that this part of the religion should be mortified and should be denied." The solution is—just to say they are not Muslims and they don’t belong to Islam, this is just—

AMY GOODMAN: Inna Shevchenko, we’re going to have to leave it there. I want to thank you for being with us. She was speaking at the free speech event in Copenhagen’s Krudttønden café when the attack took place on Saturday, a leader of the international women’s protest group Femen, which often demonstrates topless against what they perceive as manifestations of patriarchy. She was joining us now from Paris, where she’s gone from Copenhagen. And I want to thank Professor Tariq Ramadan, professor of contemporary Islamic studies at Oxford University, author of a number of books, speaking to us from Doha, Qatar.

Filed under: War on Terror, Religion, Islam, Women's Rights

http://m.democracynow.org/stories/14999

Growing European concerns about Muslim migrants

A protest by Pegida which drew just 150 people was dwarfed by a counter-demo of about 2000 on Feb 8, 2015.
For the last couple of months, weekly anti-Muslim demonstrations have been taking place in several German cities. Led by Pegida, the acronym for its German name of Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of Europe, the protests began in Dresden and have spread to other cities.

These marches have attracted counter-protests that often outnumber the anti-Muslim demonstrators. Oddly, only 0.5 per cent of Dresden’s population is Muslim. And although a demo in Leipzig drew 25,000 marchers, the numbers have fallen since. One reason is that the leader of the movement, Lutz Bachmann, was revealed to be a closet neo-Nazi when a photograph of him with a Hitler moustache and haircut surfaced.

Even though many German Muslims are of Turkish origin who mostly speak German and are fairly well integrated, it is the new wave of asylum seekers from Syria who have caused alarm.

And while Europeans as a whole tend to be uncomfortable about the presence of Muslims living in their midst, they forget that countries like Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Pakistan are hosts to far larger numbers of refugees. In fact, one in four of those living in Lebanon today is a Syrian refugee.

Although these protests show signs of dying down, disquiet over the rising Muslim presence in Europe is growing. A few days ago, almost all British newspapers carried front-page stories to inform readers that the Muslim population in England and Wales had nearly doubled in ten years, rising from 1.55 million in 2001 to 2.71 million in 2011.

But more than its size, it is the composition of the population that is causing concern in Britain: 1 in 3 Muslims is under 15 years of age, compared with 1 in 5 overall; and 4pc of Muslims are over 65 compared with 16pc overall. These numbers translate into a relatively young cohort, many of whom will be reaching reproductive age soon. Given the generally larger size of Muslim families, many fear that the numbers will keep rising at a higher rate than the general population.

Although only one Briton in 20 is Muslim, the public perception is that the numbers are four times this figure. One reason for this skewed estimate is that the Muslims are a very visible minority who tend to congregate in urban areas. An increasing number of Muslim girls and women have taken to covering themselves either in headscarves or in full burqas or niqabs, while the men often sport long, easily identifiable beards.

And while other migrants generally dress like locals and blend in, Muslims tend to stay apart, with religious and cultural factors perpetuating this divide. Every few weeks, incidents to do with the sexual exploitation of young white girls, alleged terror plots, or the willingness of many young Muslims to join the Islamic State enhances the negative image many Brits have of Muslims and Islam.

If growing numbers of Britons, with all their tolerance, can feel this hostility, then things are far worse in much of Europe. In France, the recent Charlie Hebdo killings have boosted the right-wing, Islamophobic Front National’s poll ratings. As it is, widespread dissatisfaction with immigration policies has made the party a force to reckon with.

From Sweden to Netherland, anti-Muslim sentiments are rising, fed by images of horrors committed by organisations like Boko Haram, the Islamic State and the Taliban. Hardly have the images of one atrocity faded that another is headline news. This steady barrage of horror stories, combined with the perception that Muslims in Europe constitute a fifth column prone to join extremists groups and attack the host communities, has hardened attitudes. Now, even liberal politicians need to toughen their stance on immigration to address widely held public concerns.

One result of growing prejudice is to make it harder for young Muslims to get jobs. In France, Muslim unemployment goes up to over 40pc in some areas. In Britain, only 20pc are in full time employment, compared with 35pc overall. But then 18pc of Muslim women are at home, while only 6pc of British women fall in the category of full-time housewives. And while 24pc of all Muslims are educated to degree level, the figure is 44pc for Hindus.

Housing is another issue that divides the communities. Relatively few Muslims live in homes they own, with the majority in assisted housing. Some council estates are breeding grounds for crime, with gangs fighting each other in vicious turf wars. Racism is rife, and bullying common. In these conditions, many Muslim kids band together for protection; some of them are then radicalised in local mosques or online.

In countries across Europe, the link between poverty, unemployment, overcrowded ghettos and Islamic radicalism has been well established. But there are no easy answers. The reality is that nobody planned this influx or encouraged it. But laws regarding the right to asylum, and to bring in spouses, have opened the door to growing numbers of legal immigrants. And then of course there are illegal ways that involve people smugglers and dangerous routes.

In a 2013 poll conducted by the British Social Attitudes, 62pc of those surveyed said they were worried that an increasing Muslim population would weaken Britain’s national identity. In 2003, 48pc voiced a similar concern. And an online survey conducted by The Daily Telegraph suggests that 88pc of its readers are worried by the presence of large numbers of Muslims. However, the Telegraph is a right-wing newspaper, so many of its readers would tend to be anti-immigration.

Muslims in Europe are thus caught between a rock and a hard place. Their faith and their culture sets them apart from the host community. This isolates them and erects walls at a time when they should be building bridges.

Growing European concerns about Muslim migrants
by Irfan Husain, dawn.com

• 
• 

یورپی مسلمانوں کے بڑھتے ہوئے مسائل

گزشتہ دو ماہ سے جرمنی کے کئی شہروں میں مسلمانوں کی مخالفت میں مظاہرے ہورہے ہیں۔ PEGIDA( یورپ میں اسلام کے پھیلائو کی مخالفت کرنے والے محب ِ وطن یورپی شہریوں کی تنظیم)کی قیادت میں ان احتجاجی مظاہروں کا آغاز ڈرسڈن سے ہوا تھا ، لیکن اب ان کا دائرہ دیگر شہروں تک بھی پھیل چکا ہے۔ ان مظاہروںکے رد ِعمل میں بھی مظاہروں کا سلسلہ شروع ہوچکا ہے اور ان میں شرکاکی تعداد اسلام مخالف مظاہروں کے شرکا سے زیادہ ہے۔ عجیب بات یہ ہے کہ مسلمان ڈرسڈن کی آبادی کا صرف اعشاریہ پانچ فیصد ہیں۔ اگرچہLeipzig میں ہونے والے ایک مظاہرے میں پچیس ہزار شرکا شامل تھے لیکن ان کی تعداد میں بتدریج کمی دیکھنے میں آرہی ہے۔ اس کی ایک وجہ اس مسلم مخالف تنظیم کے رہنما کے بارے میں ہونے والا انکشاف تھا کہ وہ نیونازی کے قریب لگتے ہیں۔ اس کا گمان اُس وقت ہوا جب ان کی ایک ایسی تصویر منظر ِعام پر آئی جس میں ان کی مونچھیں اور بالوں کا سٹائل ہٹلر سے مشابہہ تھے۔
بہت سے جرمن مسلمانوں کا تعلق ترک خطے سے ہے اور وہ نہ صرف جرمن زبان بولتے ہیں بلکہ مقامی کلچر سے بھی خود کو ہم آہنگ کرچکے ہیں۔ اُن کی وجہ سے اس ملک میں کبھی کوئی مسئلہ پیدا نہیں ہوا لیکن شام سے ہجرت کرتے ہوئے پناہ کی تلاش میں آنے والے افراد کی وجہ سے خطرے کی گھنٹی بج اُٹھی ۔ یورپ کے افراد مجموعی طور پرمسلمانوں کو اپنے درمیان پاکر بے چینی محسوس کرتے ہیں لیکن وہ بھول جاتے ہیں کہ بہت سے مسلمان ممالک، جیسا کہ لبنان، اردن، ترکی اور پاکستان نے بھی بڑی تعداد میں مہاجرین کو پناہ دے رکھی ہے۔اس وقت لبنان میں رہنے والا ہر چوتھا شخص شام سے آنے والا مہاجر ہے۔ 
اگرچہ یہ احتجاجی مظاہرے دم توڑرہے ہیں لیکن یورپ میں مسلمانوں کی موجودگی سے پیدا ہونے والی بے چینی میں اضافہ ہورہا ہے۔ چند دن پہلے کم و بیش تمام برطانوی اخبارات نے پہلے صفحے پر کہانیاں شائع کرتے ہوئے اپنے رہنمائوں کو خبردار کیا کہ گزشتہ دس سال کے دوران انگلینڈ اور ویلز میں رہنے والے مسلمانوں کی تعدادمیں دوگنا اضافہ ہوچکا ہے۔2001ء میں یہ تعداد 1.55 تھی جبکہ 2011ء میں یہ بڑھ کر 2.71 ملین ہو گئی۔ تاہم آبادی کے بڑھتے ہوئے حجم سے بھی زیادہ جو چیز تشویش ناک ہے وہ اس آبادی میں عمر کا تناسب ہے۔ برطانیہ کی مجموعی آبادی میں پندرہ سال سے کم عمر افراد کا تناسب 5:1ہے مگر مسلم آبادی میں یہ تناسب 3:1ہے۔ اسی طرح پینسٹھ سال سے زائد افراد برطانوی معاشرے کا سولہ فیصد ہیں لیکن صرف چار فیصد مسلمانوں کی عمر پینسٹھ سال یا اس سے زائدہے۔ ان اعدادوشمار سے یہ حقیقت سامنے آتی ہے کہ یہاںمقیم مسلمان نسبتاً جوان ہیں۔ ان میں سے بہت سے جلدہی بلوغت کی عمر کو پہنچنے والے ہیں۔ چونکہ مسلمان خاندانوں کا حجم عام برطانوی خاندانوں سے کہیں بڑا ہوتا ہے، اس لیے ماہرین کو خدشہ ہے کہ مسلمانوں کی آبادی مجموعی برطانوی آبادی کی نسبت کہیں تیزی سے بڑھے گی۔ اس کے علاوہ مسلمانوں کی آبادی میں موجودہ اصل تعداد سے کہیں بڑھ کے محسوس ہوتی ہے۔ حقیقت یہ ہے کہ یہاں مسلمانوں کی آبادی کا تناسب 20:1ہے لیکن عام تاثر یہ ہے کہ یہ تناسب 4:1ہے۔ اس غلط تاثر کی وجہ یہ ہے کہ مسلمان آبادی میں واضح طور پر دکھائی دینا اپنا مذہبی فریضہ سمجھتے ہیں۔ زیادہ تر مسلمان لڑکیاں اور عورتیں سرکو ڈھانپتی ہیں یا نقاب یا برقع پہنتی ہیںجبکہ مسلمان مرد اپنی طویل داڑھیوں کی بدولت دور سے ہی پہچانے جاتے ہیں۔ 
برطانوی معاشرے میں دوسرے مذاہب اور ممالک کے تارکینِ وطن بھی رہتے ہیں لیکن وہ مقامی کلچر میں ضم ہوکر اپنی مذہبی شناخت کو اجاگر نہیں کرتے۔ کم وبیش ہرہفتے سفید فام لڑکیوں کو جنسی طور پر ہراساں کرنے، مبینہ طور پر دہشت گردی کے منصوبے بنانے یا داعش کی صفوں میںشامل ہوکر مشرق ِ وسطیٰ میں جہاد کی غرض سے جانے والے مسلمانوں کے نام سامنے آتے ہیں۔ ان سرگرمیوں سے برطانوی معاشرے میں مسلمانوں اور ان کے مذہب کے بارے میں منفی تاثر تیزی سے پھیل رہاہے۔ اگرچہ یہاں برداشت اور تحمل کا لیول بہت بلند ہے اور مذہبی منافرت کی ہرممکن حوصلہ شکنی کی جاتی ہے لیکن اگر مسلمانوں سے نالاں برطانوی شہریوں کی تعداد میں اضافہ ہوتا گیا تو مسلمانوں کے مسائل مزید بڑھ جائیں گے۔ حالیہ دنوں فرانس میں چارلی ہیبڈو ہلاکتوں کی وجہ سے اسلام مخالف دائیں بازو کے فرنٹ کو نیشنل سروے پول میں بلند ریٹنگ مل گئی ہے۔ یہ حقیقت ہے کہ تارکین ِ وطن کی بڑھتی ہوئی تعداد کی وجہ سے دائیں بازو کی پارٹیاں طاقت ور ہوتی جارہی ہیں۔
سویڈن سے لے کر ہالینڈ تک، مسلمانوں کے خلاف جذبات میں اضافہ ہوتا جارہا ہے۔ اس آگ پر بوکوحرام، داعش اور طالبان کے وحشت ناک مظالم مزیدتیل گرارہے ہیں۔ اس صورت ِحال کی وجہ سے ایسی خبریں اور مضامین عوام کی توجہ کھینچ رہے ہیں کہ مقامی مسلمان ان انتہا پسند تنظیموں کا آلہِ کار بن کر میزبان ممالک کے لیے پریشانی پیدا کردیں گے۔ اس تشویش کی وجہ سے میزبان معاشروں کا مسلمانوں سے برتائو سخت سے سخت ہوتا جارہا ہے۔ حتیٰ کہ لبرل سیاست دان بھی ایمی گریشن کے قوانین کو سخت بنانے کی بات کررہے ہیں۔ اس رویے کی وجہ سے نوجوان مسلمانوں کو ملازمت تلاش کرنے میں بھی دشواری پیش آرہی ہے۔ فرانس کے بعض علاقوں میں مسلمانوں میں بیروزگاری کی شرح چالیس فیصد تک پہنچ چکی ہے۔ برطانیہ میں بھی صرف بیس فیصد مسلمان کل وقتی ملازمت کرتے ہیں۔ اس کے علاوہ اٹھارہ فیصد مسلمان خواتین صرف گھر میں رہتی ہیں جبکہ مجموعی طور پر برطانوی خواتین میں سے صرف چھ فیصد ہوم وائف ہیں۔ صرف چوبیس فیصد مسلمان ڈگری لیول تک تعلیم یافتہ ہیں جبکہ یہاں رہنے والے چوالیس فیصد ہندو ڈگری لیول تک تعلیم یافتہ ہیں۔ 
ہائوسنگ بھی ایک مسئلہ بن کر معاشرے کو تقسیم کررہا ہے۔ بہت کم مسلمانوں کے اپنے گھر ہیں۔ یہاں بھی کچھ جرائم پیشہ افراد کے گروہ زمین کے لیے لڑتے رہتے ہیں۔ اس کے علاوہ کچھ علاقوں میں نسل پرستی بھی بڑھ رہی ہے۔ ان حالات کی وجہ سے مسلمان نوجوان آپس میںمل کر رہتے ہیں۔ ان میں سے کچھ کو مساجد سے یا آن لائن انتہاپسندی کی تعلیم بھی ملتی ہے۔ اس کی وجہ سے گروہ کے دیگر نوجوان بھی یہ راہ اختیار کرلیتے ہیں۔ دیکھنے میں آیا ہے کہ یورپی ممالک میں رہنے والے مسلمانوں کی غربت، بے روزگاری اور غربت زدہ علاقوں میں رہنے اور انتہا پسندی میںگہرا تعلق ہے۔ تاہم ان مسائل کا کوئی آسان حل نہیں ہے۔ قانونی طریقے سے پناہ کے متلاشی آتے ہیں لیکن غیر قانونی طریقے سے آنے کے راستے بھی مسدود نہیں۔ ڈیلی ٹیلی گراف کا کہناہے کہ اس کے اٹھاسی فیصد قارئین مسلمانوں کی موجودگی کی وجہ سے پریشانی محسوس کرتے ہیں۔ درحقیقت اس وقت یورپ میںرہنے والے مسلمانوں کے لیے کڑا وقت آرہا ہے۔ ان کا عقیدہ اُنہیں مقامی معاشرے میں پوری طرح ضم ہونے سے روکتا ہے ۔ اس کے علاوہ دنیا کے دیگر خطوں میں مذہبی انتہا پسند تنظیموں کی کارروائیوں کا خمیازہ بھی انہیں بھگتنا پڑتا ہے۔ 

More on RELIGION, HUMANITY, CULTURE, ETHICS, SPIRITUALITY & PEACE http://faithforum.wordpress.com http://www.youtube.com/user/Abbujak http://peace-forum.blogspot.com

Is There a Common Ground between Buddhism and Islam?

By Alexander Berzin

Theoretical Approach
There are many difficulties and dangers in exploring the common ground between any two religious or philosophical systems. One of the main difficulties concerns which theoretical approach one takes in terms of the academic discipline of comparative religion. I’d like to mention a scheme for classifying different approaches to such comparisons in Christian theology, as outlined by Kristin Beise Kiblinger in an article, "Buddhist Stances toward Others: Types, Examples, Considerations," published in Buddhist Attitudes to Other Religions.

In this article, Kiblinger outlines three approaches: exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism.

The exclusivist approach is that only one religion has the true path to salvation or liberation. Although other religions may treat the same topics in common with us, nevertheless their positions are false. Many Buddhist texts have this attitude toward not only non-Buddhist views, but even toward other Buddhist ones.
According to the inclusivist approach, there are many paths to salvation or liberation, but one is superior. In other words, other religions may share common grounds with us, and although all are valid, ours is better than theirs. Some followers of the various Tibetan traditions tend to have this toward other Tibetan traditions – they all lead to enlightenment, but ours is the best.
According to pluralism, there are many paths to salvation or liberation, and none of them is superior. This is the nonsectarian view, which just presents the various positions of different religions concerning topics in common, but with no ranking of them.
Within the inclusivist and pluralist approaches, there are degrees of how much one accepts real differences and how deep these differences are thought to be.

Type one emphasizes similarities, and although it recognizes differences, it downplays them by recasting differences as being similarities, equivalencies, or unimportant side issues. It views other religions as doing the same thing that we do, just in a different way – in a sense, they are following our religion without actually knowing it. For instance, Gelug explaining Nyingma dzogchen practices in terms of Gelug anuttarayoga theory.
Type two respects genuine differences and finds dialogue as a valuable tool to stimulate growth, whether or not it considers its own religion as superior.
For type one (they’re actually asserting what we do, just in a different way), the danger is that it can be presumptuous, arrogant and narcissistic – it assumes that we know what their religion actually means better than they do. In terms of the inclusivist variety of this, which believes that our religion is superior, this view can take the form that the other religion is actually aiming toward our goal, without their knowing it. Or they are just a lower stage of our path. With those types of attitude, there is nothing that we can learn from them, but only many things they can learn from us. The subcategories of this are:

All or most religions are heading toward the same goal; and although their path is not as good as ours, it will in the end naturally lead to the same goal as ours does.
They need to be led in the end to our path to reach the same goal we attain with our path and which they were aiming for, but could not get to if they followed only their own path. An example within Buddhism is the anuttarayoga tantra assertion that sutra or the lower tantras can only lead you to the tenth-level bhumi- mind (the tenth bhumi), but then you need anuttaryoga methods to actually reach enlightenment.
Other variants for type-one inclusivism (the one that downplays differences and says they are actually similarities) are to assert that:

Words, concepts and doctrines are inexact expressions of meditational experiences, and all religions are talking about the same experience.
There is a common core theory or core assertions of all religions, and only cultural and historical circumstances account for the differences. For example, the usual presentation of the various forms of Buddhism in different countries – India, Southeast Asia, China, Japan, Tibet, etc.
Further, when we explore a possible common ground between Buddhism and Islam, it touches on the topic of conversion.

With an exclusivist view, then if only our religion is true, then for you to be saved, you need to abandon your religion and adopt ours.
With an inclusivist view, it’s OK for you to follow your religion, because it is actually a lower form of our religion, and in the end either you will naturally come to realize our view (for example, Chittamatrins practicing anuttarayoga tantra will naturally become Prasangikas when they reach the mind isolation stage of the complete stage practice), or we will have to convert you at the end.
With a pluralist view, each religion leads to its own ultimate goal, and they are all praiseworthy – with two variants: the goals are equivalent; or they are not equivalent – and none is superior. So no need for conversion. This would be like if you follow Buddhist practices, you get to Buddhist heaven, not Muslim paradise; and if you practice Muslim practices, you get to Muslim paradise, not a Buddhist heaven.
As for type two inclusivism and pluralism (the type that respects differences between religions, while accepting that they are all valid, whether it considers itself superior or not), the delicate issue is how to understand another religion and compare it to your own religion.

Can you understand another religion exclusively in its own terms, or do you need to put their assertions in terms from your own belief system in order to make them intelligible?
If you do the latter (put their assertions in terms from your own belief system in order to make them intelligible), can you do this without this approach devolving or degenerating into type one, with which you assert that their beliefs are just variants of your own?
On the other hand, if you can find common issues or themes that two religions, such as Buddhism and Islam share, then even if you need to express these themes and the approach of the other religion in the conceptual framework of your own system, you can understand and respect the differences. You can respect the differences with a tolerant nonjudgmental attitude, without asserting that your own religion is the best and without having a condescending attitude toward the other religion. It is on the basis of such understanding and respect that you can establish religious harmony.

This is the approach His Holiness the Dalai Lama takes. When asked, “What is the best religion?” His Holiness replied, “That set of beliefs and practices that helps you to become a kinder, more compassionate person.”

Historical Perspective
The Historical Muslim Approach toward Buddhism
Now, let’s look more specifically at Buddhism and Islam. Concerning Islam, in addition to my own research on the topic, I have also drawn from a book written by Reza Shah Kazemi called Common Ground between Islam and Buddhism, with forewards by His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad of Jordan. I have especially drawn relevant quotations from the Quran from Dr. Kazemi’s work.

Historically, both the Muslims and the Buddhists (and here let’s limit ourselves to the Indo-Tibetan forms of Buddhism), have adopted an inclusivist approach. The Muslims, for example, included Buddhists as People of the Book, the same as Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians. How did this come about?

During the Umayyad Caliphate (661-750 CE), the Arabs spread their rule and their religion, Islam, throughout the Middle East. Thus, at the beginning of the eighth century, the Umayyad general Muhammad bin Qasim conquered the predominantly Buddhist region of Sind, in present-day southern Pakistan. The Buddhists and Hindus of Brahmanabad, one of its major cities, requested that they be allowed to rebuild their temples and maintain religious freedom. General Qasim consulted with the governor, Hajjaj bin Yusuf, who in turn consulted the Muslim clerics. The religious clerics, in what became known as the “Brahmanabad settlement,” declared Buddhists (Hindus too) as People of the Book.

The Umayyad governor Hajjaj decreed: “The request of the chiefs of Brahmanabad about the building of Buddhist and other temples, and toleration in religious matters, is just and reasonable. I do not see what further rights we can have over them beyond the usual tax. They have paid homage to us and have undertaken to pay the fixed tributary poll tax (Ar. jizya) to the Caliph. Because they have become protected subjects (Ar. dhimmi), we have no right whatsoever to interfere in their lives and property. Do permit them to follow their own religion. No one should prevent them.”

Subsequently, the Buddhists were allowed to rebuild their temples and monasteries, and were granted the status of non-Muslim protected subjects, as long as they paid the tributary poll tax. The Umayyad Caliphs and later the Abbasid Caliphs ruling from Baghdad (750 – 1258 CE) and subsequent Muslim rulers of India held in principle this same policy, although, of course, it was not always followed by all rulers or generals. Nevertheless, the implication of this ruling is that Buddhism was not analogous to the pagan polytheistic religions, whose followers were not granted such privileges.

Now, you could argue that granting Buddhists legal recognition was more political than theological, stemming more from pragmatism than subtle philosophical analysis. This was probably so. After allowing the rebuilding of the Buddhist and Hindu temples, the Arab governors taxed the pilgrims who came to worship at them. But nevertheless, the scholars of Islam did not, and still do not regard this “pragmatic” policy as violating or compromising any fundamental theological principle of Islam. The implication of granting Buddhists legal recognition, political protection and religious tolerance is that the spiritual path and moral code of the Buddhist faith derive from a higher authority, namely an authentic revelation of God.

What was the basis for declaring the Buddhists as People of the Book? Was it merely on the basis of shared customs of worship? For example, in the beginning of the eighth century, the Iranian historian al-Kermani wrote a detailed account of Nava Vihara Monastery in Balkh Afghanistan and described some of the Buddhist customs in terms of analogies in Islam. He described the main temple as having a stone cube in the center, draped with cloth, and devotees as circumambulating it and making prostration, as is the case with the Kaaba in Mecca. He did not, however, discuss any of the Buddhist beliefs.

So is there a doctrinal basis for declaring Buddhists as People of the Book? This is an important question since, if Buddhists are recognized as being People of the Book, then they are implicitly to be included in the spectrum of “saved” communities, as expressed in the following verse from the Quran (2:62): “Truly those who believe and those who are Jews, and the Christians and the Sabeans – whoever believes in God and the Last Day and performs virtuous acts – for such, their reward is with their Lord. No fear or suffering will befall them.”

This indicates the common ground between Buddhism and Islam according to the Quran – belief in God and the Last Day of Judgment and in performing virtuous, constructive acts. Even if the views are not the same, Islam regards them as at least similar enough to be compatible. As it says in the Quran (2:137): “And if they believe in the like of that in which you believe, then they are rightly guided.” This approach, then, is clearly inclusivist. Buddhists too will reach the salvation taught in Islam, because they follow similar views.

The question is what are the boundaries of what can be included in the concepts of God, a religion revealed by God, the Last Day of Judgment, the oneness of the truth, and so on? On both the Muslim and Buddhist sides, there have been some clerics who make the definitions of these quite strict. But some have left them quite flexible as well.

The Historical Buddhist Approach toward Islam
Before we explore the boundaries of these concepts, let us look first at the historical approach of the Buddhists toward Islam. The singular Buddhist textual tradition that mentions any Islamic customs or beliefs is the Sanskrit Kalachakra Tantra literature, which emerged in the late tenth and early eleventh centuries CE, most likely in the area of southeastern Afghanistan and northern Pakistan. At that time, the Buddhists in this area were facing the threat of a possible invasion by the rulers of Multan, in central Pakistan. The Multan rulers followed an eastern form of Ismaili Shia, a subsect of Islam. Multan, in alliance with the Fatimid Caliphs in Egypt, was the rival of the Arab Abbasids for gaining control of the Muslim world. The Buddhists and Hindus in southeastern Afghanistan and northern Pakistan were caught in the middle of this rivalry.

[See: The Kalachakra Presentation of the Prophets of the Non-Indic Invaders – Summary.]

The Kalachakra texts mention some of the beliefs and customs of the potential invaders. Some beliefs that are described seem to be specific to the Ismaili thought of the time, such as the list of prophets; while others contradict that thought, such as adding Mani, the founder of Manichaeism, to that list. Most of these beliefs, however, are fundamental to Islam as a whole. Some concern ethical behavior and echo Buddhist assertions of ethical discipline, although the literature does not identify them as being similar. These points, however, could be considered common ground between the two religions. For instance, in The Essence of the Further Tantra of the Glorious Kalachakra Tantra (dPal dus-kyi ‘khor-lo’i rgyud phyi-ma rgyud-kyi snying-po, Skt. Shri-Kalachakra-tantrottaratantra-hrdaya) , it says, “They have one caste, do not steal, and speak the truth. They keep clean, avoid others’ wives, follow definite ascetic practices, and remain faithful to their own wives.”

Elsewhere, we find more of an inclusivist approach when the Kalachakra texts start to describe the invaders’ beliefs in Buddhist terms. For example, The Regal Abridged Kalachakra Tantra (bsDus-pa’i rgyud-kyi rgyal-po dus-kyi ‘khor-lo, Skt. Laghu-Kalachakra-tantra-raja), II.164cd, states: “Created by the Creator is everything that arises, moving and unmoving. From pleasing him, as the cause for liberation for the Tayis, there is heaven. This is indeed the teaching of Rahman for men.” “Tayi,” a name that the Kalachakra texts apply to the invaders, is the Arabic word (Persian: Tazi) used for the Arab invaders of Iran. “Rahman,” the Compassionate One, is an epithet of Allah.

Pundarika elaborates on this verse in Stainless Light: A Commentary Explaining “The Regal Abridged Kalachakra Tantra,” (bsDus-pa’i rgyud-kyi rgyal-po dus-kyi ‘khor-lo’i ‘grel-bshad dri-ma med-pa’i ‘od, Skt. Vimalaprabha-nama-laghu-Kalachakra-tantra-raja-tika), “Now, as for the assertions of the Tayi invaders, the creator Rahman gives rise to every functional phenomenon, both moving and unmoving. The cause for liberation for the Tayis, namely the white-clad invaders, is pleasing Rahman, and this definitely brings a higher rebirth (in Paradise) for men. From not pleasing him, comes (a rebirth in) Hell. These are the teachings of Rahman, the assertions of the Tayis.”

Pundarika elaborates further: “The assertion of the invader Tayis is that humans who die experience happiness or suffering in a higher rebirth (in Paradise), or in Hell, with their human bodies, through Rahman’s decision.”

The common ground, here, between Buddhism and the Buddhist understanding of Islam is rebirth in heaven and hell based on one’s ethical behavior. It is interesting, concerning these passages, that the Kalachakra texts do not comment on the assertion of a creator, nor on the role of the creator in determining the afterlife based on whether or not a person pleases him. On that last point, by the way, concerning Allah’s judgment based on whether or not someone pleases him, the Buddhist presentation is not fair. According to a hadith (accounts of Muhammad), Allah said, “O My servants, it is but your deeds that I reckon up for you and then recompense you for.”

In any case, the Kalachakra texts focus merely on the nature of the afterlife and the effect on it by a person’s deeds in this life in general. In discussing the issue in this way, the texts reveal an inclusivist approach in identifying the invaders’ assertion of an eternal rebirth as a faulty view that is explained more correctly in Buddhism. The Regal Abridged Kalachakra Tantra, II.174, states: “Through an (eternal) afterlife, a person experiences (the results of his) earlier committed karmic actions of this world. If that were so, then depletion of humans’ karma from one birth to another would not occur. There would be no exiting from samsara and no entering into liberation even in terms of immeasurable existence. That thought, indeed, appears among the Tayis, although dismissed by other groups.”

If we want to look at this point concerning eternal damnation within a larger Buddhist context, the common ground between the Buddhist and Muslim views becomes a little wider. However, it becomes wider because you can view the Muslim position on rebirth and liberation as a step leading to the Buddhist one. In Buddhist terms, then, you could say that Islam speaks only of liberation from the suffering of suffering or from the worse rebirth states. This liberation is a higher rebirth in a paradise. This, after all, is the initial scope of motivation in the lam-rim graded stages of the path. Buddhism goes on to speak of liberation from the all-pervasive suffering of rebirth, which is the aim of the intermediate scope of motivation. In this light, following Islam becomes an initial step in following Buddhism.

But, you can look at the Muslim assertion of eternal suffering in a different way, so that it is not so different from the Buddhist view. In the Kalachakra texts, the objection to the Muslim concept of hell is that once in the fires of hell, it is eternal and that you can’t get liberated from that. But if one looks at Buddhist descriptions of samsara, one wants to get out of it like getting out of a burning building. Also samsaric rebirth will be eternal unless one does something about it, namely turning to the Dharma.

The nineteenth century Nyingma master Mipam (Mi-pham ‘Jam-dbyangs rnam-rgyal rgya-mtsho.), in his Illumination of the Vajra Sun, Clarifying the Meaning of the Words of “The Glorious Kalachakra Tantra”: Commentary to Chapter (Five), Deep Awareness (dPal dus-kyi ‘khor-lo’i rgyud-kyi tshig don rab-tu gsal-byed rdo-rje nyi-ma’i snang-ba, Ye-shes le’u’i ‘grel-chen), followed an even stronger inclusivist approach than the original Kalachakra literature. Hinting that, with skillful means, Buddha taught methods for leading Muslims to enlightenment, Mipam wrote, “The non-Indic invaders have two (philosophical points) that they hold. They hold external phenomena to have the nature of a collection of atoms, and they hold the existence of a self of a person that temporarily takes birth or that has an aspect that takes birth in samsara. The goal is to achieve the happiness of the gods as the fruit. Aside from this, they do not assert any other type of nirvana.”

Mipam goes on to point out that the invaders’ assertion of the atomic nature of matter fits into the Buddhist beliefs. He explains that the Vaibhashika and Sautrantika schools of Hinayana Buddhism assert indivisible, partless atoms; while the Chittamatra and Madhyamaka schools of Mahayana Buddhism assert atoms that are endlessly divisible.

Concerning the self or soul, Mipam continues, “Knowing their dispositions and thoughts, Buddha taught sutras of what they (the invaders) could accept. For instance, in The Sutra of Carrying Responsibility (Khur ‘khu-ba’i mdo), Buddha said that persons carrying responsibility (for their actions) do exist, but without speaking of the soul of a person as being either permanent or impermanent. These points are true on the face of their (the invaders’) assertions. Buddha’s intended meaning is that persons do exist as continuities of a self that bears responsibility for karma, but which is merely imputed onto a continuum and, by nature, is neither permanent nor impermanent.

In the occasion of a dream, which arises merely from habits of mind, the embodied individual experiencing joy and sorrow is nonexistent. Since this is mere appearance, (the individual’s) impermanence in that case is not even like that of the nature of an impermanent thing. This is because it is without the nature of an individual. On merely being examined, it is (obviously) an object with no interpolations of permanent or impermanent, so it is taught. By this teaching of the Thusly Gone One, (the invaders) gave up the dharma of the invaders and subsequently became Vaibhashikas holding a Buddhist system.”

The inclusivist attitude here is that Buddha gave teachings that would accord with the invader’s assertions, and through this skillful means, he would lead the invaders to liberation. Muslims would clearly find this offensive and this attitude would clearly not lead to religious harmony.

Common Grounds on the Basis of Buddhists Being Considered People of the Book
Let’s return to the implications of Islam considering Buddhists as People of the Book in order to examine further common grounds. As we saw, the common grounds from this assertion are that Buddhism is a religion revealed by a higher authority, namely God. That, of course, brings in the question of God as the source of the revelation and the person who received that revelation and shared it with the world.

Both the Buddhists and the Muslims follow an inclusivist approach concerning this question about revelation. For example, the Kalachakra commentary Stainless Light explains, “Concerning the invaders, Muhammad was an avatar of Rahman. The indicator of the invaders’ teachings, he was the guru and master of the invader Tayis.” In Hinduism, an avatar is an incarnation of the soul of a god into another form. Thus, Muhammad being an avatar of Rahman parallels the Hindu assertion of Krishna as an avatar of the god Vishnu. In Buddhist terms, this analogy would be equivalent to asserting that Muhammad was a Nirmanakaya emanation of Allah.

On the other hand, could Buddha be considered a prophet or messenger of Allah? The Persian historian, al-Biruni, accompanied Mahmud of Ghazni on his early eleventh century CE invasion of the Indian subcontinent. Based on what he learned there, al-Biruni wrote A Book about India (Ar. Kitab al-Hind). In it, he described the basic Buddhist customs and beliefs and noted that the Indians regarded Buddha as a prophet. That does not necessarily mean that he was suggesting that Muslims should accept Buddha as a prophet or messenger of Allah. Nevertheless, the Quran (4:163-164) says: “Truly We inspire you, as We inspired Noah, and the prophets after him, as We inspired Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the patriarchs, and Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and as We bestowed unto David the Psalms. We have mentioned to you some Messengers sent previously, while other Messengers we have not mentioned to you.” Buddha could be included among those messengers not explicitly mentioned.

For example, according to the presentation of the twelve enlightening deeds of a Buddha, a Buddha comes at different times, when beings are ripe, and teaches Dharma differently in each age, in order to suit the beings there. Although there are a thousand supreme Nirmanakaya Buddhas for this eon, with an enormous number of eons between each of them, there are many Supreme Being Nirmanakayas that come in between. Both of these groups of Nirmanakayas could be labeled “Messengers of the Dharma.” Also each Buddha uses skillful means for teaching the Dharma differently for different people. For some, Buddha even taught that there was a self. Islam, too, has its own version of teaching with skillful means. The Quran (14:4) says, “And We never sent a messenger save with the language of his people, so that he might make it clear to them.”

We must be careful here. Although Islam could accept Buddha as a messenger of God; the Muslims, as well as the Christians and Jews, would be quite offended if told that Muhammad, Jesus, Abraham and David were Nirmanakya Buddhas or avatars of Allah. This is a major drawback of the inclusivist approach to comparative religion. However, how are we to understand the Buddhist assertion that Nagarjuna revealed the Prajnaparamita teachings that Manjushri entrusted to the nagas, who hid them under the ocean? Or the assertion that Asanga received the widespread action teachings on love, compassion, and bodhichitta from Maitreya, when he was taken to Tushita heaven? How are we to understand the pure vision and revealed treasure text teachings in the Nyingma tradition? Are these Buddhist assertions so different from the Muslim assertion of prophets revealing the word of God?

As for God, the only aspect that Buddhism refutes is that of an omnipotent creator that can create without being affected or influenced by anything, even by the wish to create.

[See: Engaging in Bodhisattva Behavior, Chapter 9 (118-125).]

It does not refute other qualities of God, or even creation itself. For instance, anuttarayoga tantra explains that each individual’s clear light mind is the creator of all appearances that that person experiences, and this is influenced by both this person’s individual karma and by collective karma. Moreover, as deepest truth, the clear light mind is beyond words and concepts, as is Allah. The Quran declares: “Glorified be Allah above and beyond what they describe.”

Nevertheless, there are ninety-nine names of Allah, and these refer to Allah’s essential qualities. Similarly, in A Concert of Names of Manjushri (‘Jam-dpal mtshan-brjod, Skt. Manjushri-nama-samgiti), Manjushri refers to the clear light mind in its primordial state, and the verses of this Kalachakra text explain its qualities.

[See: A Concert of Names of Manjushri.]

Like Allah, the clear light mind Manjushri, is (58) “the primordial one, the highest one, beginningless,” (100) “He’s the one without a beginning or an end.” And like Allah, the clear light mind Manjshri is (97) “the unmanifest one, the one not appearing, the one with no sign that would make him seen.” Further, Allah is One, and similarly, the clear light mind Manjushri is (47) “non-dual, the speaker of non-duality.”

One of the essential qualities of Allah is al-haqq – the real, the true, what is proper, also in an ethical sense. This has a conceptual affinity to Dharma in the sense of dharmata – deepest truth, deep awareness Dharmakaya. The clear light mind Manjushri is (55-56) “the hallowed Dharma, the ruler of the Dharma … the superb imperishable sphere of reality.” Elsewhere, (47) “He’s what’s perfectly so, the lack of identity-nature, the actual state,” (157) “He’s the purity and glory of the deepest truth.”

Allah is always referred to as al-Rahman, the compassionate one, and al-Rahim, the merciful one – compassionate in the sense of being compassionate to create, and merciful in saving others from suffering. In dzogchen, the quality of rigpa, pure awareness, that makes appearances is referred to as “compassion.” Moreover, Manjushri, the clear light mind, is (38) “composed of great love, he is the foremost mind of great compassion,” (88) “He’s the agent fulfilling the aims of all limited beings. The wisher of benefit, he’s the one with parental affection toward limited beings.”

Also, like Allah, clear light mind Manjushri is (152) “the one worthy of offerings, worthy of praise, the one for prostration…. worthy of shows of respect, most worthy of veneration, worthy of homage.”

All these features concerning Allah, the clear light mind, revelation of the truth, compassion, and so on, indicate a common ground between Buddhism and Islam, in addition to basic shared ethical principles. Many other features could also be mentioned, such as recitation of dhikrs in Islam and of mantras in Buddhism, an emphasis on charity, study, honest livelihood, and so on. If we approach all these common features in a respectful pluralistic manner, without being judgemental and without trying to include each other’s teachings as mere variants of our own, then we have a firm basis for religious harmony.

Is There a Common Ground between Buddhism and Islam?
Page last updated: May 6, 2014 © 2003-2015 The Berzin Archives

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/study/islam/general/common_ground_buddhism_islam.html

Historical, Cultural, and Comparative Studies – Buddhism and Islam

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/x/nav/n.html_1867868580.html

More on RELIGION, HUMANITY, CULTURE, ETHICS, SPIRITUALITY http://www.youtube.com/user/Abbujak http://peace-forum.blogspot.com

Obama and Modi: Ethics of Different Gods

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has come to power by promising development and growth. United States President Barack Obama, after a series of meetings with him about developmental investments that America as a nation can involve itself in, gave a public lecture saying if a nation’s civil society does not follow religious tolerance, development itself will be hampered.

The leaders of the Sangh Parivar must understand that the development that Narendra Modi promised to Indian masses is nothing but the capitalist mode of development, which has its roots in Western Christian ethics. The father of capitalist economic theory Adam Smith before he wrote the base book of capitalist development-- The Wealth of Nations—wrote a much more fundamental book—The Theory of Moral Sentiments. This book laid down moral and ethical codes that need to be nurtured in civil society for capitalism to take a positive course of human development.

A number of Western scholars also wrote about the ethics that a given civil society should follow in order to develop the capitalist model of development, and the relationship between civil societal moral ethics and positive capitalist development. They based their thoughts on the spiritual ethics evolved in the Christian West.

They all banked up on the Biblical ideology of moral ethics and production. The first and foremost moral code that Bible prescribed for all human beings is that they all should live by ‘’the sweat of their brow’’. This gave a dictum to the individual to realise that labour is most dignified in the scheme of God.

In Narendra Modi’s Hindutva, or even in the entire Hindu divine scheme, labour is not a dignified process. Even in the scheme of the Hindu Gods—Brahma to Ram—productive labour is not a divinely dignified task. Let us assume that Modi sets himself to develop India in the ‘’Rama Rajya’’ model , nowhere Ram as god has given a dictum to every individual to work, produce and live. After all god’s directive is more powerful than that of a prime minister.

The second ethical directive that a civil societal culture that ensures development and sustained productivity comes from Jesus himself. He said: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." This makes for a civil society that respects such division of resources of individuals and companies, and that they should earn and pay the tax that is due to the state and give whatever they can to the poor, in the name of god. This is a moral obligation of the rich.

The Indian companies and the rich have no respect for moral directions that come from an universal God. They have constructed their own gods. The Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh calls them national gods and hence the rich do not pay taxes and do not spend on the poor. In their scheme of Ghar Wapsi no Indian should get into the ghar of universal God/Allah. This is where Obama’s intervention came from.

The rich that follow immorality stock money in foreign banks, while the poor keep dying for want of food and shelter and the state says that it does not have money to take care of the poor and destitute because the rich are not paying taxes. Since the welfare notion of giving something to the poor is seen by the rich and their economists as a waste. In their view ‘’the working people have no right to beg’’ either. The Indian rich have no sense of shame and guilt because for them their own spiritual system does not compel them to have sense of shame and guilt.

Obama’s source of third ethic is that of God creating all people—men and women—equal. The right to equal share in everything that God has given has become a natural right in the West. The earliest rights theorist John Locke proposed the ‘’natural rights’ theory based on that ethic. No thinker from India could propose such a theory till date. Parroting Western theories that engendered in a different social base does not help India much. After all every theoretical formulation would have a social base of its own.

Narendra Modi’s belief system does not have such an equal rights theory in its ethical and moral source at all. That was one reason why he could easily forget his Chaiwala roots and wear the golden name pinstriped suit worth Rs ten lakhs. Modi’s pretence that he would take Indian development, in the direction that the Western systems have taken, has no social basis. It is because of this fundamental difference between Obama and Modi’s social base that Obama felt compelled to make the Siri Fort speech.

If Obama were to indulge in a display of gaudiness, as our PM did, his own wife and children would have disapproved, and more surely his church. The equivalent of Obama’s church to Modi is his RSS shakha (one hopes he would attend it in diamond studded khaki knickers). What Obama speaks and does reflects his church culture and what Narendra Modi speaks and does reflects his shakha culture. President Obama has powers to veto even the senate decisions but Prime Minister Modi as a loyal Swayamsevak does not have any powers to veto ghar wapsi or church burning programmes.. We know that even if Modi proposes something for the Indian poor the Sangh would dispose it.

Modi was addressing the president of America as Barak—Barak...Barak... nineteen times he was not doing that not because he was his school mate in Vadnagar or Hawaii but because Obama was/is a black African American and Modi was/is a red Indian (though an OBC), not the one that Columbus discovered in America, but the original Indian claiming to be infused with the blood of the Aryan.

The blacks and Dalit bahujans of India share many things, including historical cultural humiliations. We respect the African Americans, their leader Martin Luther King Jr. as much as our leader Mahatma Jotirao Phule, who wrote about our slavery way back in the nineteenth century taking inspiration from black struggles. Modi has never acknowledged Phule’s role in our nation.

The people of India cherish Obama’s Siri Fort speech as it was intended to protect the religious and social rights of Dalit/Tribal/OBCs (Muslims, Christiana) of India. They do not want to go to a ghar wherein they cannot even enter in—leave alone sit and sleep. We thank Michelle Obama, the first lady of America, for understanding our problem and advising her husband to do what he did in India.

Kancha Ilaiah Obama and Modi: Ethics of Different Gods
http://thecitizen.in/NewsDetail.aspx?Id=2529&Obama%2Fand%2FModi%3A%2FEthics%2Fof%2FDifferent%2FGods

Islam & Secularism

Some people consider Atheism [الإلحاد] and Secularism [علمانية, دنيوية] as same, which is wrong. Atheism is based upon disbelief in God, where as Secularism is a political ideology which keeps a balance between faith and political affairs of state by keeping them separated. The term secularism could be defined in three distinct ways:
One is atheism. Karl Marx, French sociologist Emile Durkheim and German sociologist and philosopher Max Weber believed that, through functional differentiation, scientific knowledge and de-mystification, the world moves toward atheism and disbelieving in God. Their view has, of course, turned out to be false.

Secularism has also been believed to mean limiting religion to the private domain. This is impossible, because religion is not like special clothes that we can set aside as soon as we leave home. Such eminent sociologists as Robert Bellah, Charles Taylor, Jürgen Habermas and José Casanova believe that the presence of religion in the public domain is useful and desirable. But explaining and justifying any claim in the public domain must be done by resorting to reasoning, not religious texts and holy people.

The third meaning of secularism, is separation of church and state, or religion from government -- not atheism or elimination of religion from the public discourse.

The etymology of the Arabic word for secularism can be controversial in itself. Some scholars pointed out that originally there was no Arabic term to describe the secular and secularism and therefore some neologisms were spawned. Secularism was translated into Arabic either as "‘alamaniyah" [علمانية], which is derived from "‘alam(world or universe)", or as "‘ilmaniyah"[علمانية], which is derived from "‘ilm(science or knowledge)". The term "‘alamaniyah" [علمانية] first appeared at the end of the nineteenth century in the dictionary Muhit al-Muhit written by the Christian Lebanese scholar Butrus al-Bustani. It has been suggested that the use of other translations, such as "la diniyah [لا دينيه] (non-religious)", that implied the exclusion or marginalisation of religion, would have met with outright rejection by Muslims, for whom (according to the principle al-Islam din wa-dawlah, [دين ودولة ]Islam is religion and state) the division between the temporal and the spiritual is literally unthinkable.

Moreover, some refer to "‘almaniyyah" [علمانية] which is derived from the word "‘alam", and others prefer "dunyawiyyah" [دنيويه], which is derived from "dunya(دنيا temporal)", in contrast to "dini(ديني religious)".

The definition and application of Secularism, especially the place of religion in society, varies among Muslim countries as it does among European countries and the United States. Secularism is often used to describe the separation of public life and civil/government matters from religious teachings and commandments, or simply the separation of religion and politics. Secularism in Muslim countries is often contrasted with Islamism, and secularists tend to seek the ideology of promoting the secular political and social values as opposed to Islamic one. Among western scholars and Muslim intellectuals, there are some debates over Secularism which include the understanding of political and religious authorities in the Islamic world and the means and degree of application of sharia in legal system of the state.

As the concept of Secularism varies among secularists in the Muslim world, reactions of Muslim intellectuals to the pressure of Secularization also varies. On the one hand, Secularism is condemned by some Muslim intellectuals who do not feel that religious influence should be removed from the public sphere. On the other hand, Secularism is claimed by others to be compatible with Islam. For example, the quest for Secularism has inspired some Muslim scholars who argue that secular government is the best way to observe sharia; "enforcing [sharia] through coercive power of the state negates its religious nature, because Muslims would be observing the law of the state and not freely performing their religious obligation as Muslims,"[citation needed] says Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, a professor of law at Emory University and author of "Islam and the secular state : negotiating the future of Shariʻa". Moreover, some scholars argue that secular states have existed in the Muslim world since the Middle Ages.

Nevertheless, many Muslim-majority countries define themselves as or are regarded as secular, and many of them have a dual system in which Muslims can bring familial and financial disputes to sharia courts. The exact jurisdiction of these courts varies from country to country, but usually includes marriage, divorce, inheritance, and guardianship. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_secularism ]
Keeping in view wide divergent views, both may be viewed/read, some are referred here for proper comprehension of the issue:
Mutual friends: secularism and Islam:
On the first page of his book, Islam and the Secular State, Abdullahi an-Na'im writes: "In order to be a Muslim by conviction and free choice, which is the only way one can be a Muslim, I need a secular state." http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/apr/14/religion-islam-secularism
Secularism is opposed to Islam:
The prominent Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, in his book How the Imported Solutions Disastrously Affected Our Muslim Nation, states the following:
Secularism may be accepted in a Christian society but it can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society. The New Testament itself divides life into two parts: one for God, or religion, the other for Caesar, or the state: "Render unto Caesar things which belong to Caesar, and render unto God things which belong to God" (Matthew 22:21). As such, a Christian could accept secularism without any qualms of conscience. Furthermore, Westerners, especially Christians, have good reasons to prefer a secular regime to a religious one. Their experience with "religious regimes" - as they knew them - meant the rule of the clergy, the despotic authority of the Church, and the resulting decrees of excommunication and the deeds of forgiveness, i.e. letters of indulgence.

For Muslim societies, the acceptance of secularism means something totally different. Since Islam is a comprehensive system of `Ibadah (worship) and Shari`ah (legislation), the acceptance of secularism means abandonment of Shari`ah, a denial of the Divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions. It is a total falsification to claim that Shari`ah is not proper to the requirements of the present age. The acceptance of a legislation formulated by humans means a preference of the humans’ limited knowledge to the Divine guidance: [Say! Do you know better than Allah?] (Al-Baqarah 2: 140).

For this reason, the call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shari`ah is a downright apostasy. The silence of the masses in the Muslim world about this deviation has been a major transgression and a clear-cut instance of disobedience that has led to a sense of guilt, remorse, and inward resentment, all of which have generated discontent, insecurity, and hatred among committed Muslims because such deviation lacks legality.

Secularism is compatible with the Western concept of God which maintains that after God had created the world, He left it to look after itself. In this sense, God’s relationship with the world is like that of a watchmaker with a watch: he makes it then leaves it to function without any need for him. This concept is inherited from Greek philosophy, especially that of Aristotle who argued that God neither controls nor knows anything about this world. This is a helpless God as described by Will Durant. There is no wonder that such a God leaves people to look after their own affairs. How can He legislate for them when He is ignorant of their affairs? This concept is totally different from that of Muslims.

We Muslims believe that Allah, Glory be to Him, is the sole Creator and Sustainer of the Worlds. He is Omnipotent and Omniscient; that His mercy and bounties encompass everyone and suffice for all. In that capacity, Almighty Allah revealed His divine guidance to humanity, made certain things permissible and others prohibited, commanded people observe His injunctions and to judge according to them. If they reject this guidance and follow their own whims and man-made laws, then they commit transgression against Allah’s laws. [http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-the-scholar/ideologies-movements-and-religions/175438.html]

"ISLAM AND SECULARISM" By Asghar Ali Engineer (Secular Perspective)

Is Islam compatible with secularism? This question is quite important in the present context, particularly in 21st century. Both non-Muslims and orthodox Muslims feel that Islam is not compatible with secularism. Fundamentalist Muslims totally reject secularism as anti-Islamic and haram. Maulana Maududi, founder of Jamat-e-Islami-e-Hind had said, while leaving for Pakistan in 1948, that those who participated in secular politics were raising flag of revolt against Allah and His Messenger. The Saudi `Ulama, too, denounce secularism as strictly prohibited in Islamic tradition. Read full article >> http://ecumene.org/IIS/csss13.htm
Secularism and How to Deal with it:
Secularism is an ideology which either denies that there is a God, prophethood and revelation or declares that the role of these is limited to the personal and inner life of man and that in the political or social sphere of human life, God, prophethood or revelation cannot by their very nature play any fundamental role. Even a cursory glance through the Qur`an and Hadith is enough to show everyone that this ideology conflicts with the very mind and heart of Islam. Yet in all parts of the Muslim world many "Muslims" are consciously or unconsciously accepting this un-Islamic ideology. There even exist political movements that have either established or are trying to establish secularist systems of government in various Muslim countries: Kemalists in Turkey, Baathists in the Arab world, Mujahideen-e-Khalq in Iran, some groups affiliated with the People`s Party in Pakistan.  Keep readinng >> [ http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Secularism.htm ]
Why Secularism Is Compatible with the Quran and Sunnah -- And an 'Islamic State' Is Not?
Extremist Islamic groups such as ISIS, Boko Haram, al-Qaeda and the al-Nusra Front in Syria, have transformed the holy Quran into a manifesto for war, terrorism and bloodshed. These groups use the most modern weaponry and technology, and their crimes have created worldwide concerns. Their goal is to return the Islamic world to the medieval age.

At the same time, the corrupt dictatorial Arab regimes in the Middle East, particularly the Arab nations of the Persian Gulf, have transformed the democratic Arab Spring into a sectarian war between the Shiites and Sunnis, in order to prevent democracy from taking roots in their own nations.

Simultaneous with such developments, a Western-made "industry" called Islamophobia not only presents the Holy Quran as the manifesto of fundamentalist warmongers (that claim to represent Islam) and their rigid interpretation of its teachings, it also reduces Islam to its skewed "interpretations." This reductionist approach has been popular among the Orientalists. The approach also claims that formation of an Islamic government is a necessary condition for a society to be Islamic. The author will argue in this essay, against these claims >>> http://goo.gl/dIXE8F
Definitions: The State, Secularism And Islam
In his book, Philosophical Investigations, the Austrian-British philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein states that words have no meaning other than their "applications." Thus, to prevent any confusion, we must first define what we mean by the key concepts that are employed here.

The state is an organized structure that is impersonal, has well-defined boundaries, rules a specific population and has the exclusive right to use legitimate violence. Paul Dragos Aligica, a senior research fellow at George Mason University, puts it this way:

The state is an organization monopolizing the legitimate use of force or claiming a monopoly on the use of coercion in a given geographic area and over a political entity, and possessing internal and external sovereignty. Recognition of the state by other states, and thus its ability to enter into international agreements, is often considered a crucial element of its nature.

The term secularism has been defined in three distinct ways. One is atheism. Karl Marx, French sociologist Emile Durkheim and German sociologist and philosopher Max Weber believed that, through functional differentiation, scientific knowledge and de-mystification, the world moves toward atheism and disbelieving in God. Their view has, of course, turned out to be false.

Secularism has also been believed to mean limiting religion to the private domain. This is impossible, because religion is not like special clothes that we can set aside as soon as we leave home. Such eminent sociologists as Robert Bellah, Charles Taylor, Jürgen Habermas and José Casanova believe that the presence of religion in the public domain is useful and desirable. But explaining and justifying any claim in the public domain must be done by resorting to reasoning, not religious texts and holy people.

The third meaning of secularism, and the one that we use in this article, is separation of church and state, or religion from government -- not atheism or elimination of religion from the public discourse......... keep reading >> http://goo.gl/dIXE8F

Waging war against Muslim state for political reasons prohibited in Islam:

In books of Hadith, there are a large number of traditions which foretell the setting in of corruption in the Muslim rulers of later times, yet Muslims were strictly forbidden to wage war on them in the name of political reform. The Muslims were rather enjoined to keep their distance from them, to take to the hills (that is, to stay away from political activities) and to devote themselves to tending their sheep and goats. That is to say that they had to abandon the path of political confrontation in favour of continuing their activities in non-political fields, such as education, Da’wah, the service of the Qur’an and Hadith, etc.

In the first phase of Islam, it was Abdullah ibn Zubayr who violated this prohibition. He engaged in an armed confrontation with the Umayyad ruler, Yazid ibn Muawaiya, in the name of reform in politics. It resulted in the loss of precious Muslim lives and resources. At that time, Abdullah ibn Umar, son of the second Caliph and companion of the Prophet, was in Makkah, yet he did not take part in the fighting. Some companions of Abdullah ibn Zubayr met him and asked him to join in the battle. The conversation that took place on this occasion has been recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari under three references.

One account has been thus recorded: Nafe narrates that during the (Fitna) revolt by Ibn Zubayr, two persons came and said to Ibn Umar that people were being killed, while he, the son of Umar (the second caliph) as well as a senior companion of the Prophet, refused to take part in the campaign. They asked him what prevented him from doing so. He replied: “I refrain from joining in this battle because of God’s express command never to shed the blood of one’s brother: it is unlawful.” Both replied: “Has not God enjoined us to fight till persecution (Fitna) ceases?” Abdullah ibn Umar then retorted: “We fought till Fitna ceased. Religion became only for God, and now you want to fight so that Fitna may return, and religion will no longer be for God.” (Fathul Bari, Kitab at-Tafsir, vol. 8, p.32, Kitab al-Fitan Vol. 13, p. 49).

From this account we learn that war against persecution as commanded by God was limited in its scope and of a particular nature. It had to be directed against those leaders who had established a system of religious persecution; who were not ready to grant to believers in monotheism the liberty to practise their faith. The companions of the Prophet waged war against such oppression, first of all in Arabia, and then in major parts of Asia and Africa, and succeeded in bringing it to an end. Thenceforth, believers in Islam had full freedom to practise their religion and to invite others to answer its call.

From this account we learn that war against persecution as commanded by God was limited in its scope and of a particular nature. It had to be directed against those leaders who had established a system of religious persecution; who were not ready to grant to believers in monotheism the liberty to practise their faith. The companions of the Prophet waged war against such oppression, first of all in Arabia, and then in major parts of Asia and Africa, and succeeded in bringing it to an end. Thenceforth, believers in Islam had full freedom to practise their religion and to invite others to answer its call.

After the successful conclusion of this movement against religious coercion, the believers began living in an atmosphere of religious freedom. But during the reign of the Umayyads, when the rot of corruption had begun to set in, certain Muslims, referring to this verse of the Qur’an, engaged themselves in armed conflict with the rulers. To all intents and purposes, the battle was for a good cause: they wanted to oust these corrupt caliphs and replace them with men who were virtuous and just. But, in reality, their actions proved counter-productive.

The Prophet Muhammad, may peace be upon him, foresaw that the effort at political reform would, in effect, culminate in nothing but destruction. It would only replace a lesser evil with a greater evil. That is why he had issued a stern, prior warning, expressly commanding his people to confine their activities to non-political fields and to opt for a policy of avoidance as regards corruption in political institutions.

In books of Hadith a number of traditions have been recorded on this subject under the heading of Fitna. It was thanks to these traditions that, after the development of the Islamic sciences (in terms of which commentaries on the traditions were written), religious scholars arrived at a consensus that it was totally unlawful to revolt against an established Muslim government, regardless of how justified such action might appear to be.  

The famous traditionist, Imam al-Nawawi, has commented on the tradition regarding fitna as recorded in Sahih Muslim:

These traditions clearly convey that we should not enter into any confrontation with political rulers. Even if we find in them any major deviation from Islam, our responsibility will be limited purely to the giving of advice in private. According to the consensus of Muslim scholars, so far as revolt and armed confrontation are concerned, even if the rulers in question are corrupt and tyrannical these actions are unlawful (Haram). (Sahih Muslim, with the commentary of an-Nawawi, Kitab al-Imarah, vol. 12, p.229).

From this commentary, we learn that the waging of war against Fitna in no way meant the replacing of non-Muslim governments with Muslim regimes. Its actual purpose was to put an end to the use of intellectual and ideological coercion, so that God’s servants might be at liberty to perform their devotions to God and communicate God’s message in an atmosphere of freedom. Waging war against Muslim rulers will certainly result in a revival of the coercive system, for the rulers will not hesitate to resort to oppression in order to keep their political power intact. The upshot will be that the old Fitna will re-emerge in a new garb. That is why the Prophet Muhammad, may peace be upon him, strictly forbade such action and Islamic scholars arrived at a consensus that according to the Islamic Shari’ah, insurrection against an established Muslim government was unlawful. Even in unavoidable situations, Muslims are required to strive peacefully and to refrain entirely from launching violent movements aimed at unseating those in positions of authority.

This is undoubtedly an important Islamic injunction. It has great wisdom behind it. To put it briefly, the kings of ancient times made every effort to politicize religion. And when they found the adherents of any given religion placing obstacles in their path, they went all out to crush them. In a similar way, even today, certain factions attempt to Islamize governments, then those rulers who become their targets, wreak all kinds of havoc on Islamists in order to save their political power.

The solution to this problem, as laid down in Islam, is to refrain from setting oneself on a collision course with the rulers. If any evil is found in them, the course to adopt is to give advice, privately, at the individual level, and to avoid all public condemnation or armed clashes. This sage counsel was given by Islam, so that the basic task of propagating and consolidating the religion might continue unhampered in non-political fields.

The manner of working of the traditionists gives us a good historical example. The gigantic task of the compilation of the traditions in the first phase of Islam lasted from the time of the Umayyad empire till that of the Abbasid Empire. Without doubt, the rot had set in the Muslim rulers. But the Islamic scholars of this period did not launch any movement against them. Remaining aloof from politics, they continued to serve the cause of the Hadith. It is the result of this wise policy on their part that today we possess in compiled form the precious treasure of the Prophet’s traditions. If the traditions of those days had opted to set themselves up against these Muslim rulers, they would have met the same fate as that of Abdullah ibn Zubayr, Husain ibn Ali, Nafs Zakiyya, etc. any political jihad engaged in by these traditionists would have come to the same disastrous end. All the people concerned would have been assassinated by the rulers,—as had happened with other political opponents. And then the inestimable wealth of the traditions would have been buried along with the traditionists, in whose memories they had been preserved.

From a study of the Qur’an and Hadith, we find that the actual target of a religious mission is the Islamization of the individual rather than the State. The domination of Islam at the level of the state is only an offshoot of the religious mission and not its actual target.

The Qur’an has clearly stated that, for believers, political power is a gift from God, and not a goal to be striven for. That is why the Qur’an observes:

“God has promised those of you who believe and do good works to make them masters in the land as He had made their ancestors before them, to strengthen the faith he chose for them and to change their fears to safety. Let them worship me and serve no other gods besides me. Wicked indeed are they who after this deny Me”(24:55).

The same point has been made in a tradition of the Prophet: Just as you will be, so will be your rulers. (Mishkat al-Masabih).

In actual fact this tradition tells us of a law of nature. The political power of a country depends upon its people. Any system which has the acceptance of the public will perpetuate itself, while a system which is anathema to the people will prove unsustainable. In a truly Islamic society, an un-Islamic political regime cannot take root, and cannot therefore be self-perpetuating. That is why Islam has enjoined the targeting of individuals for Islamic reform. If in any society a large number of people follow Islam, both in the letter and in the spirit, such a society will on its own come under the direction of political power based on Islam. This separation of Da’wah activism and political confrontation was crucial. It was by virtue of this separation that the propagation of Islam continued unhampered for a period of a thousand years after the emergence of Islam, until the number of Muslims rose to one billion. Without this, the great achievement of the dissemination of Islam could never have become a reality.

The wisdom of this teaching of Islam has become clearer than ever today. In present times two revolutions have taken place contemporaneously. After a long historical process, religious freedom has been held to be an irrevocable right of human beings all over the world. Today, the right to believe, practise and propagate any religion of one’s choice has become an established right of human beings. This freedom has only one condition: that in the availing of these rights, one should not engage in violence of any sort. The adoption of violence will render the practice and propagation of one’s religion impossible, whatever the part of the world that might be.

Another great revolution of our times has come in the form of modern communications, which has rendered the spread of Islam much more effective than hitherto. The print and electronic media, as well as other means of communication, have opened all the doors to the global dissemination of the message of Islam. Now the task of Da’wah in the present age has been so greatly facilitated that it seems as rapid and easy as the diffusion of the sun’s rays across the earth.

["Islam Redisciverd" by Molan WaheedudDin Khan, http://aftabkhan-net.blogspot.com/2015/01/rediscovering-islam-with-maulana.html] 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Related  Topics:

• RELIGION CAUSE WARS?
• Tribulation and Discord in Muslim World & Future
• Learning & Science
• Islamic Society & Culture
• Rise & Decline of Muslim
• Caliphate: Redundant or Relevant? 
• Sectarianism

Jihad, Extremism

• Jihad: Myth & Reality
• Takfir- Docrine of Terror
• Islamic Decree [Fatwa] Against Terrorism
• Tolerance
• Rebellion by Khawarij Taliban & Shari’ah in Pakistan   
• Rebuttal to  Anti-Islam FAQs
• Islamic Scholars in modern age علماء اور دور جدید

More related sites/links:

• Islam and the State: A Counter Narrative: The situation which today has been created in the whole world for Islam and Muslims by certain extremist organisations is the evil consequence of the ideology taught in our religious seminaries, and also propagated day and night by Islamic movements and religious-political parties. The true understanding of Islam in contrast to this has been presented by this writer in his comprehensive treatise on Islam: Meezan. http://peace-forum.blogspot.com/2015/02/islam-and-state-counter-narrative.html
• http://freebookpark.blogspot.com/2015/02/institute-of-islamic-studies-and-centre.html

Why Pakistan, Why Islamic Democracy? 

• http://pakistan-posts.blogspot.com/p/why-pakistan.html
• http://pakistan-posts.blogspot.com/2013/04/shariah-or-democracy-conflict-or.html

The percentage of Muslims who say they want Shari’a to be “the official law of the land” varies widely around the world, from fewer than one-in-ten in Azerbaijan (8%) to near unanimity in Afghanistan (99%). But solid majorities in most of the countries surveyed across the Middle Eastand North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia favour the establishment of Shari’a, including 71% of Muslims in Nigeria, 72% in Indonesia, 74% in Egypt and 89% in the Palestinian territories.

At the same time, the survey finds that even in many countries where there is strong backing for Shari’a, most Muslims favour religious freedom for people of other faiths. In Pakistan, for example, three-quarters of Muslims say that non-Muslims are very free to practice their religion, and fully 96% of those who share this assessment say it is “a good thing.” Yet 84% of Pakistani Muslims favour enshrining Shari’a as official law. These seemingly divergent views are possible partly because most supporters of sharia in Pakistan– as in many other countries – think Islamic law should apply only to Muslims. Moreover, Muslims around the globe have differing understandings of what sharia means in practice.

The survey – which involved more than 38,000 face-to-face interviews in 80-plus languages with Muslims across Europe, Asia, the Middle Eastand Africa – shows that Muslims tend to be most comfortable with using sharia in the domestic sphere, to settle family or property disputes. In most countries surveyed, there is considerably less support for severe punishments, such as cutting off the hands of thieves or executing people who convert from Islam to another faith. And even in the domestic sphere, Muslims differ widely on such questions as whether polygamy, divorce and family planning are morally acceptable and whether daughters should be able to receive the same inheritance as sons.

In most countries surveyed, majorities of Muslim women as well as men agree that a wife is always obliged to obey her husband. Indeed, more than nine-in-ten Muslims in Iraq (92%), Morocco (92%), Tunisia (93%), Indonesia (93%), Afghanistan (94%) and Malaysia (96%) express this view. At the same time, majorities in many countries surveyed say a woman should be able to decide for herself whether to wear a veil.

Overall, the survey finds that most Muslims see no inherent tension between being religiously devout and living in a modern society. Nor do they see any conflict between religion and science. Many favor democracy over authoritarian rule, believe that humans and other living things have evolved over time and say they personally enjoy Western movies, music and television – even though most think Western popular culture undermines public morality.

According to the Pew Research Center’s 2012 report “The World’s Muslims: Unity and Diversity.” The current report focuses on Muslims’ social and political attitudes, and it incorporates findings from both waves of the survey.

Relatively few Muslims say that tensions between more religiously observant and less observant Muslims are a very big problem in their country. In most countries where the question was asked, Muslims also see little tension between members of Islam’s two major sects, Sunnis and Shias – though a third or more of Muslims in Pakistan (34%) and Lebanon (38%) consider Sunni-Shia conflict to be a very big problem.

Support for making Shari’a the official law of the land tends to be higher in countries like Pakistan (84%) and Morocco (83%) where the constitution or basic laws favour Islam over other religions.

In many countries, Muslims who pray several times a day are more likely to support making sharia official law than are Muslims who pray less frequently. In Russia, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and Tunisia, for example, Muslims who pray several times a day are at least 25 percentage points more supportive of enshrining sharia than are less observant Muslims. Generally, however, there is little difference in support for sharia by age, gender or education.

According to another survey conducted by British High commission in Pakistan published in April 2013more than half of young Pakistanis believe democracy has not been good for their country and nearly 40 percent are in favour of having Islamic Shari’a rule. Just 29 percent chose democracy as the best system for Pakistan, a constitutional Islamic republic, with 38 percent favouring Shari’a, saying it was the best for giving rights and freedom and promoting tolerance. When asked to pick the best political system, both Shari’a and military rule were favoured over democracy. It is evident that the biggest issue facing Pakistan today is the lack of a social consensus over the direction people want the country to go in. Should Pakistan, as a society and state, be organized as a military dictatorship, a theocracy or should it head toward a stronger democratic culture that respects the place of Islam in society? The absence of this consensus is tearing society apart. Hence there is a need to understand the difference between 'Sham, Pseudo democracy’, 'Western democracy'  and true 'Islamic Democracy':  Keep reading >> http://pakistan-posts.blogspot.com/2013/04/shariah-or-democracy-conflict-or.html