President Trump’s uncharacteristically monotonic speech to a gathering of Muslim leaders in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, went off without any gaffes, to the great satisfaction of his advisers. Trump’s speech was similar to that of President Obama in Cairo, eight years ago. Both Trump and Obama, acknowledged the obvious commonality of the Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam and rhetorically extended an olive branch to Muslims by paying respects to their faith of Islam. Trump also acknowledged that Muslims are the primary victims of terrorism, a point made by Obama too, which however, Trump and his supporters till date had taken great pains in avoiding.

But can one speech erase the litany of anti-Muslim statements? In 2011, Trump not only peddled birtherism but also insinuated that Obama was born Muslim. He then went on to spuriously assert that, “if you’re a Muslim, you don’t change your religion, by the way.” Trump also famously said, “I think Islam hates us.” The pinnacle of Trump’s anti-Muslim sentiments shone through in 2015, when he said, “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” This statement is at the core of several court challenges on Trump’s travel ban of people from several Muslim majority countries.

Although commentators noted the similarities between Trump’s and Obama’s outreach to the Muslim world, Trump’s speech has generally been panned by Muslim activists. While Obama spoke to students at the historic Al Azhar University in Cairo, Trump addressed mostly kings and despots in Riyadh. Terrorism in the name of Islam emanates from disaffected youth. Stoking the egos of the very leaders that have robbed these young people of their dreams cannot be seriously taken as a new path forward. If Trump wanted to make amends on his harsh anti-Muslim rhetoric and policies, then why not outreach to Muslims at home first? Trump appeared comfortable with the notion that Islam is a foreign religion with a glorious past. He seems uncomfortable accepting the reality that Islam is American, with a future intertwined with that of America.

Both Trump and his host, King Salman incorrectly alluded that Saudi Arabia is the heart of Islam. The geographical locations of the holy cities of Mecca and Madinah does not make Saudi Arabia Islam’s Vatican. To the contrary, Saudi Arabia exports a puritanical, Wahhabi, version of Islam, which forms the core teachings of many radical Muslim groups. While all Wahhabis are not terrorists, most Muslim terrorists have found ideological comity with them. The Saudi government may not be directly financing terrorist groups, but it is hard to imagine that an absolute monarchy, which tightly regulates all aspect of social life, is unaware of the money spigots sustaining Wahhabism at home and abroad. Saudi Arabia’s version of Islam is unrepresentative of the broader Muslim world and the export of this brand has been destabilizing many moderate nations.

Trump’s bellicose rhetoric towards Iran perhaps heralds a new era of Middle East conflict. While lecturing Muslims about unity, Trump and his Saudi hosts ignored the reality that Shias are as much part of Islam as Sunnis. Not having Iran, the largest Shia country, at the table where American relationship with the Muslim world is being discussed, is an omission with ominous foreboding. Peace in the Middle East will require a grand détente, not only between Israelis and Palestinians, but also between Saudi Arabia and Iran. In both cases, the U.S. will have to be perceived as an honest broker. Trump’s bear hug of the Saudis sent the wrong signal of America cheerleading for Sunni Arabs against Shia Persians. In addition, Trump’s willful disregard for Saudi Arabia’s complicity in the Yemeni humanitarian disaster undermined any perceived olive branch to Muslims.

Trump’s Saudi visit was much hypocritical ado about nothing. Many commentators failed to note that the four important words missing from Trump’s speech were – democracy, freedom and human rights. Securing a deal to sell more arms to a region already awash in arms is not a new turn for diplomacy. The arms deal may secure a few American jobs but those jobs will be built on the graves of more innocent souls, which in turn will fuel more radicalism, continuing a vicious cycle of reprisals and death in the Middle East.

Egyptian writer Mona Eltahawy in a New York Times article recounted her 2005 encounter with Mohammed Akef, the then spiritual leader of Muslim Brotherhood. When she suggested to Akef that the verses in the Quran regarding women’s dress have several interpretations, Akef replied, “…There are no different interpretations. There is just one interpretation.” A 2012 Pew survey indicated that nearly 6 out of 10 Muslims believe that, “there is only one true way to interpret the teachings,” of Islam, ranging from a high of 78 percent in Egypt to a low of 34 percent in Morocco. Do such attitudes reflect the core values of the Quran and the historical diversity among Muslims?

The 2012 Pew survey (“The World’s Muslims: Unity and Diversity”), which was conducted in 39 countries covering nearly 67 percent of the world’s Muslim population, showed strong consensus among Muslims regarding devotional practices.

Nearly 9 out of 10 fast during Ramadan, 7 in 10 give zakat (charity), and 6 in 10 pray five times each day. Almost 100 percent declare their faith in God and believe that Muhammad (salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) is God’s Prophet and Messenger. Nearly 9 in 10 believe in heaven/hell, fate (qadr) and angels; 8 in 10 believe the Quran to be the word of God. However, beyond such basic agreements, there is divergence in thought and actions, particularly as it relates to the religious pluralism.

Attitude of Muslims towards intra-faith pluralism is varied and often elusive.

Nearly 1 in 5 Muslims, do not consider Sufis to be Muslims, with a high mark of 44 percent in Egypt. Such opinions overlook the role played by Sufi orders in the spread of Islam. Equally concerning, nearly 1 in 4 Muslims do not consider Shias as Muslims. Egypt, the most populous Arab nation, tops the charts with 52 percent. However, in three countries where Shias constitute the majority of the population (Azerbaijan, Iraq and Lebanon), on average less than 6 percent of the respondents disregard Shias as Muslims.

The picture for inter-faith pluralism is also gloomy. A 2006 Pew report (“The Great Divide: How Westerners and Muslims View Each Other”) showed Muslims viewed Westerners as selfish, arrogant and violent, while Westerners viewed Muslims as fanatical, violent and arrogant. Examining the fallout from the publication of cartoons about Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper, the report noted,

“By wide margins, Westerners who had heard of the controversy believe that Muslim intolerance is principally to blame for the controversy, while Muslims, by even more lopsided majorities, see Western disrespect for the Islamic religion as the root of the problem. The clashing points of view are seen clearly in Nigeria, where 81% of Muslims blame the controversy on Western disrespect and 63% of Christians say Muslim intolerance is to blame.”

Not taking the time to understand each other creates the environment for toxic flashpoints.

WHO INHERITS HEAVEN?

Theological doctrines on salvation is an important issue in all religions. How such doctrines are put into practice may dictate attitudes towards interfaith relations. A2013 Pew survey titled, “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society” show that

on average (median) only 18 percent of Muslims believe that people of other faiths may inherit heaven. In Pakistan, Egypt, Iraq, and Malaysia 9 in 10 Muslims believe that “Islam is the one true faith leading to eternal life in heaven.” However, in Bosnia, Kazakhstan, Cameroon, Chad, and Mozambique, nearly 4 out of 10 Muslims responded that, “many religions can lead to eternal life in heaven.” Among American Muslims (“U.S. Muslims – Views on Religion and Society in a Global Context”), 56 percent believe that many religions can lead to eternal life.

On arguably one of the most important questions that consume people of all faiths there is impressive diversity of opinions. However, the parochial views in major Muslim-majority countries ought to elicit concerns.

Although hardline conservatives often deny the salvific value of other faiths, Muslim scholars Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Qayyim noted that while heaven is eternal, hell is not. Al-Ghazali and Ibn Arabi inferred that the mercy of God cannot be held in such low estimation as to conceive that salvation is only attainable by Muslims. Mohammed Hassan Khalil, in his University of Michigan doctoral dissertation, “Muslim Scholarly Discussions on Salvation and the Fate of ‘Others’,” concludes that given the wide variety of opinions about the salvific fate of people of other faiths, Muslims should avoid one-dimensional answers to questions regarding salvation. Verses such as, “If God had so willed, He would have made you one community,…(5:48)” and “Each community has its own direction to which it turns… (2:148),” suggests that pluralism is an integral part of Quranic values. Abdulaziz Sachedina, professor of Islamic Studies at George Mason University, in his book the “ The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism,” cites chapter 2 verse 213 to argue about the pluralistic vision of Islam, “Mankind was a single community, then God sent prophets to bring good news and warning, and with them He sent the Scripture with the Truth, to judge between people in their disagreements.”

In addition, Kurdish theologian Said Nursi (1877-1960) and author of the Quranic commentary “Risale-i-Nur,” asserts that if followers of other faiths perform a genuine worship of God, then “the manifestations of the unseen and the epiphanies of the sprit, revelation and inspiration,” are not exclusive to Islam and can be found in other divinely guided faith traditions. Contemporary Turkish scholar, Fethullah Gulen stressed in a Fountain magazine article titled, “The Necessity of Interfaith Dialogue,” that Muslims cannot remain prisoners of their history and act out of “political partisanship” while cloaking it in the “garb” of Islam. He noted that Islam made history’s greatest ecumenical call by stating in the Quran, “Say, ‘People of the Book, let us arrive at a statement that is common to us all…(3:64).” In his view, this verse provides a big tent under which, “followers of revealed religions could end their separation.”

WHAT IS PLURALISM?

Merely accepting diversity is not enough, asserts Harvard Pluralism Project’s Diana Eck. In a multi-cultural, multi-religious world, it is necessary to “celebrate diversity,” which requires knowledge of the “other.” This does not imply relativism, often associated with watering down of one’s beliefs. Eck notes, “Pluralism is the process of creating a society through critical and self-critical encounter with one another, acknowledging, rather than hiding, our deepest differences” and a commitment to nurture constructive dialogues. Practicing pluralism holds out hope for a deeper human shared dignity.

For many Muslims, religious pluralism evokes deep-seated fears about Western-inspired secular relativism, given the absence of exact Quranic or Hadith terms about pluralism. In his 2009 paper, “Diversity and Pluralism, A Quranic Perspective” (Islam and Civilizational Renewal, Vol. 1 No. 1, p. 29), Mohammed Hasan Kamali, former professor of law at the International Islamic University of Malaysia, advocates using al-ta῾ad-dudiyyah as the Arabic cognate for pluralism. Labeling every heterodox practice as “un-Islamic” erodes the fabric of the ummah and is the genesis of the takfiri attitude (calling Muslims as kafir or infidel), most violently manifested in terrorist groups. Decrying that Islam is the most misunderstood religion in the West, and yet succumbing to easy stereotyping of people of other faiths, leaves Muslims vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy. The Quran condemns such attitudes, “Do you order righteousness of the people and forget yourselves while you recite the Scripture? Then will you not reason? (2:44)”

INCLUSIVISM IN THE QURAN

The Quran states La ikraha fi-din, (There is no compulsion in religion…(2:256), where the use of “la” to start the verse indicates that the negation is inclusive of the past, present and future. This is akin to the use of La-ilaha (there is no god), in the Shahada (Declaration of Faith), which ends with the emphatic il-lal-lah (but God). Following la is the word ikraha, often translated as compulsion. The triliteral root for the word ikraha is kaf ra ha, the same root that produces the verb kariha, meaning dislike or hate. The word makruh, which not only literally means dislike, but is also used as a legal standard to denote actions that are displeasing to God, also comes from the same root. In other words, compulsion (ikraha) is forbidden because it is an action that is disliked or hated by God. “There is no compulsion in religion,” cannot then be viewed as merely a philosophical statement but rather a foundational value and an obligatory practice. Similar to 2:256, another Madinan verse also informs Prophet Muhammad (SA) that, “…, your only duty is to convey the message (3:20)” not compel people to convert. Thus, ideas about pluralism is not alien to Islam. Curtailing the freedom of conscience for any individual or group will be in defiance of the will of God.

The Quran also acknowledges cultural pluralism, “Another of His signs is the creation of the heavens and earth, and the diversity of your languages and colors (30:22).” In addition, the Quran notes that all Prophets and Messengers were sent to their people to preach in the tongue of the local population (14:4). The cultural, political, religious and economic pluralism, which we observe in all aspects of human civilization, is a purposeful divine action – “If God had so willed, He would have made you one community…(5:48).”

A contemporary scholar, Reza Shah-Kazemi noted in his paper “Tolerance” (in Amyn B. Sajoo, ed, A Companion to Muslim Ethics, London: I.B. Tauris, 2010),

“For Muslims, tolerance of the other is integral to the practice of Islam. It is not an optional extra, a cultural luxury. The Quran sets forth an expansive vision of diversity and difference, plurality and indeed of universality. This is all the more ironic since the practice of contemporary Muslim states, not to mention extra-state groups and actors, falls lamentably short of those expectations as well as of current standards of tolerance set by the secular West.”

Kazemi proposes developing pluralistic attitudes in Muslim societies as a, “principle at the very heart of the vision of Islam itself: a vision in which the plurality of religious paths to the One is perceived as a reflection of the spiritual infinity of the One.” InRisale-i Nur, commenting on the oft-cited Quranic verse of diversity (“People, We created you all from a single man and a single woman, and made you into races and tribes so that you should recognize one another,” 49:13) Nursi said, “Being divided into groups and tribes should lead to mutual acquaintance and mutual assistance, not to antipathy and mutual hostility.”

Mutual assistance is possible when there is mutual respect, which is fostered by an unequivocal commitment to engage with diversity, not just merely tolerating it.

IS THE QURAN ALSO EXCLUSIVIST?

Muslims who ignore the message of universality in the Quran often cite 3:19 and 3:85 as evidence that salvation belongs exclusively to Muslims. In 3:19, the Quran states, “True religion in God’s eye is islam.” Later in the same chapter, verse 85 reads, “If anyone seeks a religion other than (islam) complete devotion to God, it will not be accepted from him: he will be one of the losers in the hereafter.” Several translations (such as M.A.S. Abdel Haleem’s. “The Qur’an – A New Translation,” Oxford, 2004) used the lowercase “i” suggesting that islam is being used as a verb, which means submission or devotion to God. It is not being viewed only as the exclusive name given to the religion of Islam as it is practiced today. Even if literal exegesis is given preference, they still do not deny the truth contained in other religions. Several verses in the Quran present the act of freely submitting to God as a universal religion. In 10:72, Noah is commanded to submit (muslimin) and in 2:131, Abraham is asked to submit (aslim). Abraham and Jacob advise their sons to not die except in willing submission to God (muslimun) in 2:132. Japanese scholar, Toshiko Izutsu in “God and Man in the Koran” (Islamic Book Trust, p. 199. 2000) asserted that if islam is meant as submission and not a distinctive religious identity, then it closes the door of exclusivism and provides material for, “a very eloquent understanding of religious pluralism, one wherein all revelations throughout history are seen as different ways of giving to God that which is most difficult to give – our very selves.”

LI-TAA-RAFU (GETTING TO KNOW ONE ANOTHER)

The Quran in 2:113 and 2:120 condemns those Christians and Jews who assert that only their followers will be offered salvation by God. Why would the same Quran then endorse such exclusivist attitude by Muslims? Pluralism, as it is understood today, is certainly not a major theme in the Quran. And yet when placed in the context of state of human knowledge in the seventh century, the message of the Quran unequivocally celebrates diversity and encourages engagement (li-taa-rafu in 49:13). Persian poet Saadi Shirazi best surmises the Quranic ethos of pluralism in his celebrated poem Bani Adam,

“All men and women are to each other
the limbs of a single body, each of us drawn/from life’s shimmering essence, God’s perfect pearl;
and when this life we share wounds one of us, all share the hurt as if it were our own.
You, who will not feel another’s pain, you forfeit the right to be called human.”

(Gulistan, translated by Richard Jeffrey Newman (Global Scholarly Publications 2004).

Muslim scholars, political leaders and civic society must emphasize the pluralistic message of the Quran and urgently address the pervasive exclusivist attitude among many Muslims. Neglecting the pluralistic message of the Quran has allowed fringe groups to use anachronistic stereotypes about fellow Muslims, people of other faiths and entire nation-states, to unleash a form of violence rooted in extreme interpretations of Islamic eschatology (the study of end-of-time). From divisive identity politics to deranged messianic violence, all have their genesis in willful disregard of pluralism as a core Quranic value. It is not coincidental that societies that have embraced pluralism also tend to be more successful and peaceful.

Islamists, defined by AP as those who favor, “reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam,” view their interpretation of Islam as Islamic, often to the exclusion of other point of views. In the West, an amalgam of ideologues, from the far-right conservatives to the libertarian atheists, also insist that any and all bad action by Muslims are derived from Islam and thus Islamic. Several years ago, I wrote an article questioning the authenticity of using the label “Islamic” to characterize otherwise secular functions such as politics, art or finance. Labels such as, Islamic Republic, Islamic Finance, or Islamic State, are an exercise in hubris arrogantly suggesting that whatever takes place under such banners is sanctioned by Islam. Islamic Finance, for example, may reflect certain values of Islam, but in practice it often violates the spirit of Islam, if not its letter.

The Arabic for “Islamic” is “Islamiyyah,” a word that is not found in the Quran. When opining on the permissibility or the impermissibility of any action, classical scholars of Islam eschewed using “Islamic” or “un-Islamic” as a label. They often opted for legalistic terms such as “valid”, “accepted”, and “allowable” to determine Islamicity. This legal paradigm allowed for nuances and contextualization. For example, drinking alcohol is impermissible in Islam but if life depended on its consumption then an impermissible action becomes obligatory, as saving life takes precedence. Thus, the binary worldview of “Islamic” versus “un-Islamic,” does not find support in the sacred texts of Islam. Ironically, the proliferation of the label “Islamic” is traceable to the Islamist identity movements, such as the Muslim Brotherhood or Jamaat-e-Islam, which sprang up in the post-colonial Muslim world.

In not labeling ISIS or ISIL as an “Islamic” group, President Obama was refusing to play into the narrative of the extremists, who are desperately trying to cloak their heinous actions with the legitimacy of Islam. To President Obama’s detractors, this was not viewed as either smart or strategic, but rather capitulation. If you cannot label the terrorists properly, how can you defeat them, so they howled? This argument over labels has distracted us from the real debate over ISIS – not what to call it but how to defeat it.

In a controversial article Atlantic’s Graeme Wood asserts that “The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic.” In the same article, Wood goes on to state that “nearly all” Muslims reject ISIS. How can something be “Islamic” if “nearly all” Muslims reject it? Wood’s main source to determine the religious authenticity of ISIS is Bernard Haykel, a Princeton scholar of Islam. The fact that Wood did not interview Muslim scholars of Islam to determine the authenticity of the “Islamic” credentials of ISIS, is a major omission. In addition, the only Muslims interviewed by Wood are fringe characters, such as the notorious British extremist Anjem Choudary, who despite claims that he motivated many British youth to join the Syrian war, remains free to give lengthy interviews to British newspapers and casually chat with American journalists in coffee shops. The Muslims interviewed by Wood who purportedly were providing the Islamic rationale behind ISIS, do not command any pulpit or lead any congregation. How can someone with no pulpit and no congregation become representatives of a religious faith practiced by 1.6 billion people?

Haykel notes that ISIS is reviving medieval interpretations of Islam. The fact that ISIS has to rely on anachronistic traditions of Islam certainly places them on the fringe of a modern-day Muslim, a fact that Wood does not adequately weigh when insisting that ISIS is Islamic. Thus ISIS is certainly not universally Islamic although it may rely on using words and images that suggests some tangential connection to Islam. ISIS is as much Islamic as the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda is Christian.

Despite glaring weaknesses in his article, Wood perceptively points out important differences between ISIS and its parent al-Qaeda. While al-Qaeda remains focused on hitting distant targets, such as the U.S., ISIS is mostly aiming to teach a lesson to “deviant” Muslims in the region and cleanse the land they control from any un-Islamic influence. In other words, ISIS is more of an existential threat to Muslims and Arabs in the region than they are to Western Europe and America. Moreover, ISIS unlike al-Qaeda espouses a brand of eschatology that favors an apocalyptic end-of-time clash between Islam and non-believers. Understanding this ideological underpinning is crucial, as Wood rightfully asserts. Thus, by avoiding characterizing ISIS as “Islamic,” President Obama is denying terrorists the comfort of thinking that the rest of the civilized world will indulge them in furthering their messianic visions. Any armed conflict with ISIS will have to be evaluated on the basis of security for the homeland and stability for the region, not on any messianic vision.

What ISIS wants is less important. They are a violent group that craves and revels in violence. No surprises. Defeating ISIS will depend more on understanding the factors that gave rise to them and less on how to label them. Without the US invasion of Iraq, there will be no ISIS. Without the disastrous post-war polices of de-Baathification, the Sunni minority would not have felt marginalized and gravitated towards their own Sunni devils (al-Qaeda) shunning the Shia devils, who as part of the government in Iraq, were just as brutal. Thus, the primary factor behind the rise of ISIS is a foreign occupation, a lesson that seems to be lost in the hullabaloo over how to label ISIS.

The second factor favoring the rise of ISIS is the repeated failures in governance. Without the failure of the Assad regime in Syria, there will be no space for ISIS to incubate. Not just Assad, but the dictators that have ruled across Middle East and North Africa (MENA) have by-and-large failed to provide their citizens with good life. The UN Arab Development Report makes it clear that most of the nation-states in the region failed to make a smooth transition towards the new world order, which required both strong national identities and adherence to international charters. The lack of clear national identities is the result of forced repression of “cultural, linguistic and religious heterogeneity” that was a fact of life in the region. Pluralism remains an idea too foreign across much of the MENA region. As successive iterations in socialism, capitalism, democracy, and authoritarianism failed (sometimes due to internal follies and sometimes due to undue interventions by America and its Western allies), a “medieval” and thus out-of-context interpretation of Islam began to gain currency among the dispossessed. Islam is the solution, sounded plausible. Lack of human development (economic, social and political) is the root cause of terrorism, a narrative too often ignored in discussions about terrorism in the name of Islam.

But can Islam itself be absolved? Islam like other ancient faith traditions is replete with multiple and even contradictory interpretations, particularly in the realm of social contracts. Taking stock of Islam’s history of development and progress, one can easily detect interpretations that range from accommodationist (accepting of differences) to separationist (positing Muslim exceptionalism and apartheid). The fact that a small band of thugs and criminals are banding towards a separationist camp, is hardly a revelation. However, the fact that thugs now control vast swaths of land and have the capacity to inflict so much violence cannot be trivialized either. Thus, Muslim scholars, leaders and activist should challenge ISIS on their core ideology and discredit their interpretations as invalid and out-of-context. So far, this has not been done at a sufficiently large scale to make any difference.

The Organization of Islamic Conference, a transnational body made up of 57 Muslim majority countries had instituted an observatory for Islamophobia but none to study and debunk extremism in the name of Islam. Muslim groups in the West routinely publish reports on Islamophobia, which is an important problem to be addressed, but so far have not researched and debunked the twisted ideology that undergirds the deranged violence of those who perpetrate violence in the name of Islam. While ISIS is producing slick magazines and engaging in impressive social media campaigns (one report suggested 45,000 Twitter accounts by ISIS supporters), the Muslim apex bodies either governmental such as the OIC or non-governmental civic advocacy groups such as CAIR in the US or MCB in UK have not developed any comparable campaign to discredit and marginalize the fallacious ideology that ISIS and their ilk propagate. Neither condemnations by Muslim groups nor dropping bombs by Western and Arab governments is sufficient to defeat ISIS. Security operations and statements of condemnations have to go hand in glove with exposing and discrediting the corrosive ideology being propagated by ISIS.

The debate over labels is thus a red-herring. The call for more condemnations by Muslims often masks ugly stereotyping presuming that Muslims have a monopoly on religious violence. Furthermore, increased militarization as solution is being tone deaf to the lessons from history. The real solution remains the same today as it was after 9/11 – reversing the downward spiral of human development across MENA. President Obama has asked Muslims to do more and certainly more can be done to debunk the ideology of ISIS. But President Obama has fallen short of laying out how he and his Western allies will nudge governments across MENA to speed up reforms that are necessary to give people in the region hope thus giving them less reason to buy into the messianic apocalyptic vision of ISIS.

I admire Charlie Hebdo for standing up against threats to free speech, but I am saddened to see them pay such a heavy price for their beliefs. Cartoons and satire, even the most provocative ones, remain vital for a healthy civil society. Only the deranged are threatened by them. Charlie Hebdo wanted to spread a little laughter, albeit in ways that are were often distasteful and provocative.

The killers in Paris did not nothing to defend Islam’s Prophet. They made the faith of 1.6 billion look like a murderous cult that views beheadings, bombings, kidnappings, and mass killings as religiously sanctioned response to grievances. They forget that the pen is mightier than the sword. The very Prophet whose name they are purportedly defending said, “The ink of the scholar is holier than the blood of the martyr.”

It is indeed heartening to witness Muslim leaders condemn the barbarism in Paris that killed the editor of Charlie Hebdo and several of its cartoonists. The killers also gunned down two policemen, one of whom happened to be Muslim. However, beyond the condemnations lurks a murky question: Why is some of the most egregious violence being repeatedly carried out in the name of Islam? Charlie Hebdo had offended Jews, Christians and a myriad of political leaders. Why did only Muslims lash out in such a violent manner? Certainly Muslims have no monopoly on deranged individuals.

Imams and Muslim leaders have usually responded by asserting that such killers do not represent “real” Islam. While a modicum of truth is indeed inherent in this argument, it does not illuminate the situation. While many acts of violence are being perpetrated in the name of other faiths, by actors ranging from Christian militias in Africa to Buddhist monks in Burma, the acts of violence in the name of Islam shock the conscience like no other. The gunning down of cartoonists, the beheading of journalists, the bombing of schools — all are headlines from just the last two months!

The rage sweeping through certain parts of the Muslim world and the Muslim diaspora is indeed rooted in the pervasive feeling of helplessness and hopelessness. This culture is exasperated by a sense of perpetual victimhood that undergirds the narrative of most Islamist groups. (Islamists are defined as those who use Islam as a fundamental pillar of their politics.) Psychologists define victimhood as a mentality that makes one feel powerless to affect their own circumstances, so for every wrong suffered, they blame and lash out at others. While many Islamists are engaged in peaceful political struggles, their fanning of victimhood often triggers violence, particularly among the marginalized victims.

The grievances of the Islamists and their militant counterparts overlap. Both groups dream about the establishment of a utopian society with Islam and Muslims at the top of the totem pole. However, the peaceful Islamists and the militants differ in their means of achieving this goal. Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami want to transform society into voluntarily accepting Shariah as the law of the land. Militants such as the Taliban, al-Qaeda and ISIS want to implement Shariah by brute force and feel no moral outrage at the idea of killing others to achieve their goals.

Even moderate Islamists such as the AKP in Turkey seem threatened by free speech. In recent months the Turkish government has jailed journalists, cartoonists and even children who allegedly mocked the president. In Saudi Arabia a blogger was publicly flogged for allegedly insulting Islam. In Pakistan blasphemy laws are used as tool of political oppression. Such intolerance often gives way to the violence of extremists as the distinction between peaceful advocacy and deranged violence is too easily blurred because not enough commitment has been made to the principles of nonviolence, neither by the state nor by the Islamists. Even amongst the Muslim diaspora in the West, free speech and freedom of religion struggle to find unequivocal acceptance.

It is ironic that the very week that this heinous political violence erupts in Paris also marks the release of the epic film Selma, which chronicles the transformative power of nonviolence in the face of state violence. The Prophet Muhammad urged his followers to never be afraid of learning something useful and beneficial, even from those who do not share their faith.

Therefore it is time to look beyond condemnation. It is time for Islamists to unequivocally embrace nonviolence and distance themselves from all forms of militancy in the name of Islam. It is time for repressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia to open up their societies to free speech and free exercise of religion. It is time for Muslim democracies such as Turkey to end their paranoid attacks on freedom of the press. It is time for Islamic republics like Pakistan to repeal their blasphemy laws. It is time for Muslim imams to lead their flocks in recognizing free speech and free exercise of religion as integral part of Islam. It is time for Western societies to stop asking Muslims what they feel every time radicals perpetrate yet another spectacular act of violence. Only then will “Je suis Charlie” find real meaning.

http://www.wjct.org/fcc-july-07-2014/

Venue: Islamic Center of Northeast Florida
Date: July 4, 2014
(Note – It is customary to recite verses from the Quran in Arabic. In the interest of space and formatting, this write up omits the Arabic verses and only provides their English translations)

HOMILY (RECITED IN ARABIC)
Praise be to Allah (God)!  We praise Him and seek help from Him; we ask forgiveness from Him; we repent to Him ; and we seek refuge in Him from our own evil and from our own bad deeds. Anyone who has been guided by God, he is indeed guided; and anyone who has been misguided will never find a guardian(except God)to guide him. I bear witness that their is no deity except Allah, the Only One without partner.; and I bear witness that Muhammad is His Servant and Messenger. O Allah, let Your Prayers, Your Peace and Your Blessing be upon Your servant and Your messenger Muhammad and upon his family and all his companions.

“Faithful believers! Revere Allah with due reverence, and do not die without conscious submission to God.”  (3:102)

“O humanity! Be reverent toward your Lord, who created you from one soul and created its mate from it, and from these two disseminated many men and women.  Be reverent toward Allah by whom you ask (your rights) of each other and be reverent toward relationships; for Allah is watching over you.” (4:1)

“Faithful believers! Revere Allah and (always) say a word directed to the Right: That He may make your conduct whole and sound and forgive you your sins: he that obeys Allah and His Apostle has already attained the highest Achievement. (33:70-71).

As to what follows – The best of speech is the Book of Allah, The best of guidance is the guidance of Muhammad (SA).

“O my Lord! expand me my breast.  Ease my task for me.And remove the impediment from my speech.  So they may understand what I say.” (20:25-28).

INTRODUCTION
My dear brothers and sisters in Islam, The essence of fasting in Ramadan is to attain taqwa (God-consciousness). “O you who believe! Fasting is prescribed to you as it was prescribed to those before you, that you may attain taqwa.” (Qur’an 2:183)

Taqwa (God-consciousness) is a profound recurring value in the Quran. It is mentioned as a verb 166 times (e.g. tattaqu, ittaqu, etc.). Thus, taqwa is not merely an attitude, it is also a process. As an attitude, it helps us to orient our hearts and minds towards the Divine with love, devotion, and fear.

Our love is to Allah, which is the primary source of goodness and beauty. Our devotion is to Allah’s boundless wisdom and majesty. But even when in a loving and devoted relationship with Allah, we fear that we may fail to truly understand His divine intent and thus fail to have an appropriate relationship with Him.

Simply claiming love and devotion to Allah is not enough. We need to translate those feelings into action. Thus, to what extent we truly understand and internalize taqwa (God-consciousness) will be revealed in our character. Prophet Muhammad (SA) said, “God has sent me to perfect good manners and to do good deeds.”

If done right, taqwa ought to transform our character in a way that reflects the sublime values of the Quran – accountability, justice, kindness, mercy, love, equality, honesty, compassion, and fairness.

If done right, taqwa should prevent us from becoming reductionists i.e. reducing religious piety to a set of rituals or using arbitrary markers such as dress code as litmus tests of righteousness.

Rather we should be mindful that religious rituals, like praying and fasting, ultimately must bring about moral and spiritual upliftment. There are many aspects to moral uprightness. In the interest of time, I will touch upon only one aspect.

In 2009, our President, Barack Obama, delivered a historic speech in Cairo where he said, “America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

Today being besides being Ramadan is also Independence Day, I will devote this khutbah (sermon) to the topic of “Justice in Islam,” because justice is not only a foundational value of Islam it is also the value on which our country was founded 238 years ago today.

WHAT IS JUSTICE?
In Ayat 135 of Suran Nisa, Allah (SWT) says, “O you who have believe, be persistent in standing firm for justice as witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both. So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort [your testimony] or refuse [to give it], then indeed Allah is well, acquainted with whatever you do.”

The Quran is emphatic in stating that as believers we have to stand for justice and do so regardless of circumstance. In other words, we cannot cry injustice when we feel offended but stay silent when the rights of others are being violated.

For example, if you knew that the government is preventing Muslim women from wearing the hijab while getting a driver’s license, you will be outraged and perhaps voice your protest. But will you do the same if you learnt that Sikh men were being denied their religious right to wearing the turban? If you feel the same moral outrage for the Muslim sister as you feel for the Sikh man, then you have justice in your heart.

Verse 4:135 also states that we have to testify to the truth even if it is against ourselves or our loved ones. How many amongst us can honestly claim that we are courageous enough to hold our friends and family to the same standards that we use to pass judgment on others?

There are two main words that convey the idea of justice in the Quran – qist and adl.
Qist which is derived from the triliteral root qāf sīn ṭā occurs 25 times in the Quran. People who practice qist are described in the Quran as beloved of Allah (49:9). So, one of the ways to earn the love of Allah is to be just and fair in all aspects of our lives, whether dealing with friends, family, employees, employers, community members or even our enemies.

The other word for justice – Adl is derived from the triliteral root ʿayn dāl lām and it occurs 28 times in the Quran.

Every Jumuah (Friday), most khateebs will end their khutba by reciting, Ayat 90 from Surah an-Nahl (16), “Allah commands justice and the doing of good.” Thus there is no goodness without justice.

And in Ayat 8 of Surah al-Maidaha, Allah (SWT) says, “O you who have believed, be persistent in standing firm for Allah as witnesses to justice.” Later in the same verse Allah (SWT) commands us, “Be just, it is nearer to be being pious or conscientious of Allah.” Thus there is no taqwa (God-consciousness) without qist (justice).

Why are qist (justice) and taqwa (God-Consciousness) related? Because one of the central purposes of God’s revelation is to establish justice among people.

In Surah 57, Ayat 25 Allah says, “We sent Our Messengers with clear signs and sent down with them the Book (kitab) and the balance (mizan) in order to establish justice among the people (li-yaquman-nasu bil-qist).” The phrase ‘Our Messengers’ (rusulana) shows that justice is not only the goal of Islam but it is also the central purpose of all revelations and scriptures sent to humanity.

In hadith al-qudsi, the Prophet (SA) said that Allah said, “O My servants, I have forbidden injustice for Myself and forbade it also for you.  So avoid being unjust to one another.” (Saheeh Muslim).

INJUSTICE = LACK OF SUCCESS
Injustice not only takes us away from taqwa (God-consciousness) , but there is also a worldly price to pay. And the price is not only what our injustices may do to others. Perhaps the greater price for being unjust is that it is the primary cause of our own failures. In Surah Al-Anam Ayat 21 Allah (SWT) says, “Indeed the people who commit injustice are not successful.”

Now let us look at the state of justice across the Muslim world. Endless sectarian conflicts continue to cause the death of hundreds and thousands of innocent people, millions of people have been displaced, women face barriers to empowerment, minority groups are routinely traumatized, corruption is rampant and life in general is difficult. Which among the Quranic values of freedom, accountability, justice, mercy, equality, honesty, fairness etc. do you think is properly reflected in Muslim societies?

Two economists, Mahbub Ul Haq from Pakistan and Amartya Sen from India created a measurement called the Human Development Index, which measures education, health, life expectancy, wealth etc. for countries. The latest results show that not a single Muslim majority nation is in the top 25 in terms of their human development. In contrast, among the bottom 25, the vast majority of the countries are Muslim majority. And yet a state of besiegement in Muslim societies discourages public criticism and as a result we never seem to have constructive conversations about our own internal failures. In fact, those who attempt a critical study often get scorned.

Whether we acknowledge it or not, there is a gulf of separation between what our Holy Scriptures say and what we do. From the injustice of corruption to the injustice of racism and gender discrimination, these challenges are not unique to Muslims. However, the failures of Muslim societies seem particularly glaring for two reasons – First, the numbers are staggeringly bad, no major Muslim country has reached top rankings in any criteria related to human development, not in education, not in science and technology, and not even on public morality, as violence against women seem endemic across many parts of the Muslim world. Second, and more importantly such failures are happening despite the Quran and Sunnah providing us with clear guidelines on how to uphold the enduring and universal moral value of justice.

The practical lesson for us is that if we do not uphold justice, then we too as a community are likely to experience failures. Perhaps no other weakness of the Muslim ummah (community) hurts us as much as our inability to practice justice - qist and adl.

If you travel to the Muslim world, you will generally find masjids full and people fasting during Ramadan. People appear to be following religious rituals, then how is it that those same societies are also among the most corrupt? What good does the Quran do for us if we cannot use its teachings to create a society of orderliness where laws are willingly (not grudgingly) obeyed and if certain laws happen to be unjust then people strive peacefully and with wisdom to change them?

HOW TO PRACTICE JUSTICE?
Practicing justice means giving each individual what he or she deserves regardless of whether you agree with them or not, whether they practice your religion or not, whether they speak your language or not, whether they have the same color of the skin with you or not. It is easier to be fair towards your loved ones. Doing so is not justice. It may be love. But justice requires fairness towards all, including those we do not like.

Even when living as a religious minority, it does not absolve us of our most sacred of duties to practice qist and adl. In fact the responsibility to uphold justice is even more important when we are a religious minority because only the example we set by our actions can bear witness to the goodness of Islam. Leading by example should be a constant endeavor, whether we are doing so among ourselves as Muslims or we are doing so when in the company of people of other faiths.

But how do we as small religious minority make a difference? Firstly, by practicing justice in our own internal affairs. We cannot preach that which we do not practice. Secondly, working with others on issues of common concern. In Surah Al-Imran Ayat 64 Allah (SWT) gives us an action plan. 3:64 Say: “O People of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you.”

In our ritual worship we may not necessarily perceive a lot of common ground. For example, on the outside it appears that people of the Book do not pray, like we pray. Our theologies may also appear to be in conflict. Although People of the Book are monotheists like us, our conception of God is apparently unique. But these differences existed even during the time of the Prophet (SA) and yet Allah commanded us to seek common ground with people of other faiths. So where can we find that common ground? One place is around the idea of justice, qist and adl.

Every religion has the golden rule – do unto others as you would them to do unto you. Thus, we can come to common terms with people of other faiths on the idea of mutuality and justice.

Since 9/11 the American Muslim community has been subject to many challenges. Many of these challenges result from the unjust application of laws or the injustice in some of the laws themselves. American Muslims have spoken out against these practices with varying degrees of success. Sometimes our complaints yielded results and sometimes they did not. Sometimes we were the only ones complaining and sometimes we had others who joined us in our efforts.
The experiences of the past dozen years have been varied for us. Some of us were the direct victims of injustices while others knew friends and families that were the victims of injustices. Some of us sought relief through legal mechanisms while others sought relief using the power of persuasion.

This is the challenge of our time. On one hand we are the victims of many injustices but we are also the recipients of not only many random acts of kindness from our neighbors and co-workers but more importantly as Muslims we claim to be the recipients of God’s final message, which unequivocally calls on believers to advocate not only for their own rights but also those of others. And so my first question of the day for you today is this – How much time and effort have you expended to stand up for justice when the rights of others  are being violated?

CONTEMPORARY AMERICA
Just 2 days ago, we celebrated the 50^th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is viewed as one of the most impactful laws in the past century. It is safe to say that without that law being passed 50 years ago, you and I would not be sitting here today. Today we are celebrating 4^th of July, commonly viewed to be the date when the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, 238 years today.

Both the documents, the Civil Rights Act and the Declaration of Independence reflect the values of Shariah insofar that they aspire for adl and qist. The aspirations of these documents are indeed lofty and just. But in practice it took people of conscience and courage to translate those ideals into action. Hundreds and thousands of people, blacks and whites; Muslims and Jews; Protestants and Catholics; atheists and agnostics; all made sacrifices so that today we live in a country that is closer than ever before to its ideals of liberty and justice.

America’s imperfect present is a long way from its shameful past when slavery was legal and segregation was normal. But this did not happen without great struggle. From the Civil War to the Civil Rights movement, so many sacrificed so much so that we can live with dignity. How can we express our gratitude to them? After all gratitude is also an important Islamic value. In my view, by forging a fellowship of humanity centered on the universal principles of justice - adl and qist. 

CONCLUSION
There is nothing in Islam that says one cannot be a good Muslim, if he or she is also a good American. And nothing about American values says that one cannot be a good American by being a good Muslim.

So in my conclusion, I will lay out 5-core principles of Islam, which will illustrate the common ground between the values of Islam and the best aspirations of America. Such an understanding is important so that we are to be inspired by our faith to pursue justice for all in America.

1. Faith in the One Universal God: Islam is founded on the belief that there is only one God. The Declaration of Independence, not only acknowledges the existence of our Creator but goes on to state that our fundamental rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are unalienable (meaning cannot be dismissed by any human authority) because they come to us from our Creator.
2. Universality of all Faiths: Addressing the entire human race, the Qur’an states: “O humankind! We [God] have created you from a single [pair] of a male and a female and have made you into nations and tribes, so that you may come to know one another (not despise each other).” 49:13. Our first President, George Washington in a famous letter written in 1790 said, “May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants — while everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.” Religious pluralism and universality of all faiths has been part of the fabric of America. Occasionally the politics of the moment may make it difficult to see this value reflected in society. Our job is to practice this value of pluralism because our faith demands so and our country expects so.
3. Universal Human dignity: In today’s geo-political context of seemingly endless conflicts it may be hard to believe that Muslims are commanded to respect the sanctity of life and uphold due process.  “…if anyone slays a human being, unless it be [punishment] for murder, or for spreading mischief on earth, it shall be as though he had slain all humankind; whereas, if anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he had saved the lives of all humankind” 5:32.  The Quranic aspiration of due process finds home in the U.S. Constitution, for example, through the 5^th and 14^th Amendments. Due process is justice because due process safeguards all from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property.
4. Universal justice: Islam’s goal is voluntary submission to the will of God and the path to this submission is rooted in the pursuit of social, economic and political justice. “O you who believe! Stand out for justice, as witnesses to God,.. ”  4:134. The American ideals of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness did not prevent slavery or segregation or gender discrimination. It took a Civil War and cascades of social movements to set America free from its unjust practices. Martin Luther King, Jr. aptly noted, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” My second question of the day to you is – Are we going to be players or spectators in the continued evolution of America towards a more perfect union?
5. Acceptance of plurality in human societies: The Qur’an is quite explicit in reminding that if God willed, He would have made all mankind into one nation [11:118]. Likewise, the Qur’an states that had it been God’s will, He would have made all people believers, [10:99]. Forcing people to believe runs against God’s decree of free will. America too is founded on the principle of religious liberty. Not only religious liberty is guaranteed in U.S. Constitution, it is part of the founding history of America. Ben Franklin, one of the founding fathers of America wrote, “so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.” Religious consciousness is not possible without a commitment to be involved in the upliftment of the society where we live.

The Prophet’s mission was not to just teach us religious rituals but also to strive for the freedom and dignity of all people, not just Muslims, not just people of his own tribe, not just for rich and powerful but for all people. The Prophet (SA) beautifully and succinctly surmised, “The best among you is the best toward people, all people.”

The Prophet (SA) did not just preach, he led by example. He asked a black freed slave to call the believers to prayer and a slave’s son to command an army. He (SA) gave voice to the rights of underprivileged in society such as orphans and women so that they can gain public space in social, political, economic and even military affairs.

In this Ramadan, as we rightfully focus on our fasting and prayer, let us also reflect on how to use these rituals as springboards to enhance our commitment to justice. Doing so will help us attain taqwa (God-consciousness), which is the central purpose of Ramadan, and this will in turn help us ultimately gain the love Allah (SWT).

SUPPLICATIONS
Our Lord, let not our hearts deviate after You have guided us and grant us from Yourself mercy. Indeed, You are the Bestower. (3:8)

Indeed, Allah orders justice and good conduct and giving to relatives and forbids immorality and bad conduct and oppression. He admonishes you that perhaps you will be reminded. (16:90)

Recently a friend commented that even if the Muslim community engaged in a thousand interfaith dialogues, the headline that a Nigerian Muslim extremist group, Boko Haram, has abducted school girls threatening to sell them as slaves is enough to overshadow efforts at building bridges of understanding. Groups like Al Qaeda and Boko Haram claim to operate in the name of Islam while clearly being irreverent to its spirit and core values. On closer examination, much of the violence in the name of Islam is less motivated by faith and more so by poverty and desperation.

As smart and witty as Bill Maher is, he has a blind spot about religion in general and Islam in particular. On his recent ‘Real Time‘ show on HBO, Bill Maher asserted that extremism among Muslims is not limited to “a few bad apples.” Many Muslims are indeed committing gut wrenching violence in the name of Islam – from beheadings to suicide bombings. But Muslims are hardly alone. According to the U.S. Department of State, the Ugandan Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) is one of “Africa’s oldest, most violent, and persistent armed groups.” UNICEF estimates that at least 66,000 children have been abducted by the LRA, which wants to create a state based on the biblical Ten Commandments. In Burma, Human Rights Watch cites, “Buddhist mobs attacked Muslim communities …. At least 44 people were killed and 1,400 mostly Muslim-owned businesses and houses were destroyed.”

To prove his point, Maher trotted out the example of Ayann Hirsi Ali who suffered genital mutilation in her native Somalia. He went on to note, “which almost all women do in [Somalia] and many other Muslim countries.” Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a scourge in many parts of Africa and the Middle East. However, its practice cuts across religious boundaries. For example, in the Christian majority nation of Eritrea, 89 percent of women between the ages of 15 and 49 have experienced FGM. In Ethiopia, another Christian majority nation, 74 percent women have suffered from FGM. And yet FGM is almost unheard of in many Muslim countries.

Boko Haram translates as “Western education is forbidden” and yet education was a top priority for Prophet Muhammad. There are well over 40 sayings attributed to Prophet Muhammad exhorting the seeking of knowledge. Among the most succinct are,

“To acquire knowledge is binding upon all Muslims, whether male or female”

and

“Acquire knowledge and impart it to the people.”

The only stipulation was that knowledge be beneficial. In one of the famous hadith (traditions) of Prophet Muhammad he is reported to have said,

“God, His angels and all those in Heavens and on Earth, even ants in their hills and fish in the water, call down blessings on those who instruct others in beneficial knowledge.”

It is common for Muslim moms to remind children to recite the following Quranic prayer before any school exam,

“Rabbi zidni ilma” meaning “O my Lord! Increase me in knowledge” (20:114)

Neither in the Quran nor in Prophetic sayings has the Arabic word for knowledge “ilm” any qualifier that knowledge be Eastern or Western, religious or secular.

In the maelstrom over Maher and Boko Haram something is remiss. Muslims majority societies are generally lagging behind the rest of the world in education, gender equity and social justice. The 2013 Global Gender Gap Report shows wide disparity in Muslim majority countries between men and women across for key areas of health, education, economics and politics. No Muslim majority country cracks the top ten in gender equity while at the bottom end, 9 out of 10 countries are Muslim majority. The Human Development Index, a composite of education, life expectancy and income, shows Muslim majority countries as lagging behind with not a single Muslim majority country ranking in the top 25 while the majority in the bottom 25 being Muslim majority.

Bill Maher has plenty of reasons to be critical of Muslims. However, by focusing on Islam, a faith that comforts and motivates hundreds of millions of people to do the right thing, he is alienating the very people whose efforts will be critical in eradicating the root causes that create such monsters as Boko Haram and al-Qaeda. Critics of Maher will also need to focus on confronting the retrograde preachers, the strident Islamists and the incompetent secularists whose actions or lack thereof underpin the rise of extremism. Maher is wrong. But he is not the problem. If Muslim societies lead the world in education, freedom and social justice, we will not have to deal with the scourge of Boko Haram or feel slighted by the incoherent rants of Maher. To use the clearly un-Islamic behavior of Boko Haram as a ploy to attack Islam is despicable. But it pales in comparison to the abuse of Islam’s sacred texts the extremists have engaged in to justify their nihilism.

After giving the Muslim Brotherhood only a year in office, why did the Egyptian public turn against them? A New York Times article stated that before Morsi’s ouster there was erosion in support for the Brotherhood even in traditional strongholds. This was due to, “confusing economic policies of the Brotherhood-led government.” Another popular complaint against Morsi was that the Brotherhood was, “focusing too exclusively on his (their) Islamist base.”

The first complaint stems from the Brotherhood’s lack of governing experience. However, the second complaint is more foreboding as they go to the heart of the trouble with Islamist politics. Ambivalence about pluralistic values undermines democracy.

The Associated Press (AP) defines Islamists as, “advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam.” AP’s definition is useful but unsatisfying as it fails to distinguish between those who want the values of Islam to inform laws and those who want to impose their parochial interpretations of Shariah (the moral code and religious law of Islam). Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in the Middle East and North Africa and Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) in South Asia want the latter.

In contrast, other political forces in the Muslim world, such as the National Forces Alliance in Libya, favor laws to be guided by the values of Islam but do not wish to impose Shariah. This puts them squarely with the majority. John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed in “Who Speaks for Islam?” noted that “having an enriched religious/spiritual life” is an important priority for Muslims. Majorities in most Muslim countries want Shariah to be “a” not “the” source of legislation. This seems to be no different from the aspirations of a Christian majority country such as the United States. In 2006, Gallup Poll showed 46 percent of Americans saying they want the Bible to be “a” source of legislation.

The upsurge in support for Islamist politics is the confluence of two trends – a repudiation of the disastrous policies of past regimes and a growing view among Muslims that Shariah can be an effective bulwark against the oppressive corruption and monopolization of power by the elite. A recent Pew Poll shows that clear majorities support implementation of Shariah. However, Muslims do not have a unified understanding of what Shariah means in practice. In addition, the survey finds, “most Muslims see no inherent tension between being religiously devout and living in a modern society.” Muslims favor democracy, symbiotic coexistence with others and a system of governance that best reflects their own ethical values. Islamists like the ruling secularists they deposed have not been able to translate this aspiration into effective governance.

How to reconcile the desire for Shariah with the erosion in support for Islamists? The realpolitik of the Islamists that has left many disillusioned. In Egypt, the MB had left the powers of the military unrestrained, much to the chagrin of the Tahrir revolutionaries. In Libya, MB was viewed as pawns of foreign powers such as Qatar. In Bangladesh, the JI has been viewed with suspicion because of anecdotal accounts of their past collaboration with the Pakistani army in slaughtering hundreds of fellow countrymen during Bangladesh’s war of liberation. In Pakistan, the chief of JI described Hakimullah Mehsud, the leader of Pakistani Taliban a martyr.

In Turkey, the conservative AKP came to power as a result of the failures of the secular elite in ensuring broad economic prosperity. During its first two terms AKP succeeded by delivering stunning economic results. All that has begun to crumble as the AKP is now embroiled in corruption scandals and have begun to push conservative social policies going so far as to suggest how many children women should have. AKP’s foreign policy is in shambles. A recent headline in the influential Foreign Policy summed it best, “How Turkey Went From ‘Zero Problems’ to Zero Friends.”  AKP’s growing unpopularity even with religious conservatives, such as the influential Fetahullah Gulen, may represent a turning point in not only Turkish politics but Islamist politics globally.

The twentieth century marked the rise of political Islam, from Jamaat-e-Islami in the South Asia to Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East and North Africa. But once in power the Islamists, with the exception of the early period of AKP rule, have proven to be ineffective. They are prone to the same abuse of power that characterized the ruling elites they deposed. From Egypt to Bangladesh Muslims are increasingly uneasy. Beyond their utopian slogans that “Islam is the solution,” there is little track record and consensus about how to practically implement Shariah in a way that will deliver economic and social justice for all people. Islamists need to espouse a more secular vision that is inclusive of all people and not subservient to their base. Secularists need to spiritualize their politics by espousing public policies that better reflect the public’s aspiration that fulfill the objectives of Shariah. Politicization of Shariah and Shariahization of politics are a disservice to the faith of Islam and they have proven to be divisive thus far.

This article first ran on Turkey’s leading English daily, Today’s Zaman.

“No nation can rise to the height of glory unless your women are side by side with you. We are victims of evil customs. It is a crime against humanity that our women are shut up within the four walls of the houses as prisoners. There is no sanction anywhere for the deplorable condition in which our women have to live”― Muhammad Ali Jinnah, founder of Pakistan.

The first step to solving any problem is to recognize that there is one.

GENDER EQUITY GAP ACROSS THE MUSLIM WORLD

The World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap 2013 Report shows wide disparity in Muslim majority countries between men and women across for key areas of health, education, economics and politics. No Muslim majority country cracks the top 10 in gender equity. At the bottom end, 9 out of 10 countries are Muslim majority. Income level hardly explains such poor rankings. Among high income nations, 8 out of 10 bottom ranked countries are Muslim majority. Despite enormous wealth, countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and UAE have been unable to sufficiently close the gender gap. The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, almost all of which happen to be Muslim majority, ranks last below the less affluent Sub-Saharan Africa.

Yet the news is not uniformly bad. According to the World Bank, gender gap across MENA is reducing. Today more women than men attend universities and women mortality during childbirth is significantly below global averages. But despite progress in education and health, women are not empowered either economically or politically. Women account for only a quarter of the labor force, while in the rest of the world women workforce is about fifty percent. In Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan youth unemployment rates among women is twice that of men. More women are being educated but few have opportunities to start a career of their choice. Moreover, women hold only 9 percent of the seats in parliaments.

Faced with such dismal statistics, some countries such as Tunisia mandated that an equal number of women and men run as candidates on their electoral list. As a result women have secured one-quarter of the seats in Tunisia’s constituent assembly. In Bangladesh and Pakistan affirmative action has allowed women to account for nearly twenty percent of the parliamentary seats. In contrast, millions of women turned out to vote in the Egyptian parliamentary elections but, ultimately, made up only two percent of the lower house of parliament.

The anti-modern attitudes of many hardline Islamic preachers and the less the egalitarian vision of the Islamists only exacerbates the problem of gender inequity. For example, the fundamentalist, Darul Uloom Deoband seminary in India, issued a fatwa barring women from working as receptionists. While in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood, prior to its ouster, tried to undermine the work of the UN Commission on the Status of Women in stopping violence against women. This in a country where lack of women’s rights is endemic as evidenced by 8 in 10 Egyptian women reporting being sexually harassed. In Pakistan, after a video surfaced showing a teenage girl being flogged by the Taliban, Jamaat-e-Islami dismissed such reports as being a “Western conspiracy” and the beating incident a “small thing.”

AMERICAN MUSLIM EXPERIENCE

In the US, there are no formal studies about gender gap in the Muslim community. However, the Women and the American Mosque study from Hartford Institute, shows that despite greater religious, social and economic freedoms in America, only 18 percent women attend Friday prayers and this percentage attendance has not changed in over a decade. Only 6 in 10 mosques have at least one woman on their board and 13 percent of mosques do not allow women to serve on their boards. Only 14 percent mosques scored “excellent” for being women-friendly. Compared to the rest of the world, American Muslim women enjoy greater empowerment but accessibility to places of worship and leadership in Islamic organizations continue to be an issue.

Among big-5 American-Muslim organizations (ISNA, MAS, CAIR, ICNA, MPAC), only one (MPAC) has more than two women serving on their boards while one (MAS) has none. One national organization (ICNA) did not list the names of its board members or executives on their national website. It is unclear how many women, if any, serve on ICNA’s leadership teams. Only one (ISNA) has elected a woman to its top leadership positions. Women representation on boards of American Muslim organizations is quite anemic. With the notable exceptions of Muslim Advocates and ING, none of the major national American Muslim organizations are led by a woman in executive capacity. In contrast, the younger generation has proved more progressive. The Muslim Student Association elected a female to its top position long before any other national American Muslim organization.

One influential American imam recently noted, “Based on the few studies that we have about Muslims in America, we know that 12-18% of Muslims in the United States experience physical abuse, and 30-40% experience emotional abuse.” These numbers almost mirror the rates in the general American population. Gender issues ought to receive more attention. In London a group calling itself Imams Against Domestic Abuse have issued a report titled, “The End to Hitting Women” stating, “Under no circumstances is (such) abuse against women, in its various manifestations, encouraged or allowed in Islam.”

ISLAM AND GENDER EQUITY

The attitudes of many Islamic groups contravene normative Islam, which when taken holistically supports gender equity despite the presence of isolated texts that are mistaken as relegating women to subservient roles. Chapter 4, Verse 1 from the Quran notes, “People, be mindful of your Lord, who created you from a single soul, and from it created its mate.” This verse along with 7:189 and 42:11 assert without any ambiguity that men and women have the same spiritual nature and they are created out of a single soul (nafsin wahida) and our mates (azwaja) are a part of us (min anfusikum).

The Quran states that both genders are recipients of the “divine breath” since they are created with the same human and spiritual nature, “When I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My spirit (15:29).” Given that both men and women have the same spirit thus it is only natural that the Quran obligates them to the same religious and moral duties and responsibilities. In 3:195 the Quran states, “I will not allow the deeds of any one of you to be lost, whether you are male or female, each is like the other.” And in 4:124 the Quran notes, “If any do deeds of righteousness be they male or female and have faith they will enter paradise and not the least injustice will be done to them.” And finally 33:35 notes, “For men and women who are devoted to God– believing men and women, obedient men and women, truthful men and women, steadfast men and women, humble men and women, charitable men and women, fasting men and women, chaste men and women, men and women who remember God often– God has prepared forgiveness and a rich reward.”

The repeated and separate references to men and women, was a radically progressive idea at the time when the Quran was first revealed. Why the special emphasis on the female gender? To inform patriarchal societies, to which Prophet Muhammad first preached, that fulfilling the grand purpose of Islam requires justice and fairness towards both men and women. Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second Caliph in Islam, is reported to say, “By God, we didn’t use to think that women had anything until God revealed about them what He revealed in the Qur’an, and distributed to them what He distributed.” This statement shows that the Quranic message was a radical departure from the gender norms in sixth and seventh century Arabia.

The Quranic message was transformative with respect to gender equity, at least among the first generation of Muslims. The first person to believe in the message of Prophet Muhammad was a woman, his first wife Khadija. Two of Prophet Muhammad’s wives, Ayesha along with Umm Salama are among the greatest narrators of Prophetic traditions. Much of what Muslims practice today is transmitted via the scholarship of these two great women. Asma Afsaruddin in her book, “The First Muslims: History and Memory” notes that another women companion, Nusayba bint Kaab, was celebrated for her military skills as she took part in the battles of Uhud, Khaybar, Hunayan and al-Yamama and she was present at the signing of the Treaty of Hudhaybiyah. As a combatant in Uhud, she is said to have sustained wounds on her body while defending the Prophet. Praising her valor, Prophet Muhammad said her position on the battlefield that day was unsurpassed by anyone else, man or woman.

The most sacred place on earth for Muslims, Makkah (Mecca), was founded by Hajar, the wife of Abraham. Her diligence and faith was as remarkable as that of her celebrated husband. It was she who had to face the desolate desert with no water, no shelter, and no food but with responsibilities for an infant baby. It was she who negotiates a deal with the tribe of Jurhum who wanted to settle down around the well of Zam-Zam. Hajar exhibits faith, fearlessness and independence. The first martyr in Islam was a woman, Sumayah. The world’s first academic degree-granting institution of higher education, which is still in operation today, the University of Qarawiyyin in Fes, Morocco, was established by a woman, Fatima al-Fihri.

These examples from the early history of Islam show women participating in every walk of societal life. They were not excluded from public life despite being part of a culture, which prior to Islam, was quite hostile to women. So what happens later? With the passage of time, the public space gained by Muslim women begins to recede. Islamic scholars, mostly male, begin to formulate opinions about women that were less informed by sacred texts and more reflective of their cultural norms. Contemporary scholars have shown that what often passes as religious legacy is in fact a historical product of male subjectivities, a problem that is not unique to Muslims.

CONTESTED READINGS

Dr. Jamal Badawi in his short book, “Gender Equity in Islam” makes the following observation, “Nowhere does the Qur’an state that one gender is superior to the other. Some mistakenly translate “qiwamah” in 4:34 as superiority, when in reality it implies a greater degree of responsibility.” The aforementioned verse 34 in Surah an-Nisa (4) says, “Men shall take full care of women with the bounties which God has bestowed more abundantly on the former than on the latter, and with what they may spend out of their possessions.” The word “qawwamoona” in this verse has contested meanings. At-Tabari, who was lived only two centuries after the Prophet, conceptualized the relationship of qiwamah as being conditional upon the man being able to take care of the socio-economic needs of his wife. This cannot be generalized as any inherent superiority of men over women. In the Quran “qawwamun” is used three times and in all three occasions it is conjoined with the idea of justice and fairness. Thus, “qawwamun” gives limited and conditional right husbands to assume family leadership so long as their responsibilities are executed with justice and fairness.

Later in the same verse, 4:34, another word “waḍribuhunna” also has contested meanings. The verse reads, “And as for those women whose ill-will you have reason to fear, admonish them, then forsake them from physical intimacy, and then waḍribuhunna.”  The word waḍribuhunna is derived from the triliteral root ḍad ra ba, from which 55 verb forms result in the Quran. These verbs have wide variations in their meanings – from strike (idrib) to travel or put forth (darabu)  and yet Muhammad Asad translates waḍribuhunna as “beat them,” Yusuf Ali as “beat them (lightly)” and Pickthall as “scourge” and Thomas Cleary as “spank them.”

The fallacy of reading sacred texts literally is obvious. Literal reading causes words such as waḍribuhunna to be abused by some men to justify spousal abuse. Domestic violence is as much a real problem across the Muslim world as it is in other societies. World Health Organization says that violence against women is global health problem of epidemic proportions. In some Muslim majority countries the statistics are egregious. For example, in Pakistan, 80 percent of women reported experiencing domestic violence and 50 percent reported being physically battered. In Egypt, 85 percent of women report experiencing sexual harassment.

If waḍribuhunna is indeed beating and since hitting is criminal, does the Quran then sanction a crime on one hand and yet on the other hand speak about justice (qist) and mercy (rahma) as being the foundation of the relationship between a husband and wife? Such contradictions are inconsistent with the overall message of the Quran.

In Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon one of the definitions of daraba, the root to waḍribuhunna, is “to go away”. This then allows waḍribuhunna to have alternative meanings than the commonly understood “beat” or “strike.” Literally translating waḍribuhunna as “beating” contradicts the central Quranic message of fairness and mercy. Moreover, violence cannot be a cure for marital woes and thus any advice that suggests wife-beating as a way to marital bliss is absurd. In addition, there is no report that Prophet Muhammad ever struck or beat of his wives, even though he like most mortals encountered many marital challenges.

Contemporary Islamic studies scholar, Sadiyya Shaikh, notes that classical scholars such as At-Tabari and Ar-Razi both viewed 4:34 as a staged way to reduce marital conflicts in a culture where violence against women was rampant. At-Tabari went on to note that waḍribuhunna means striking without hurting. But Ar-Razi did not even allow that in his exegesis. He quoted a Prophetic saying stating that men who hit their wives are not among the better men. Ar-Razi suggested that 4:34 was not a license but a restriction on the prevailing male violence. Thus this verse is more descriptive of gender norms at the time of the Quranic revelation not prescriptive of how Muslims in contemporary times should practice spousal relations.

THE LIGHTNING ROD – HIJAB

There is an inordinate amount of obsession by both Muslim conservatives and by many non-Muslims (both on the far left and right), about a simple scarf on a woman’s head. Conservatives use hijab (or head covering) as a litmus test for a woman’s piety. Many non-Muslims view hijab as a sign of oppression. The Quranic verse suggesting hijab as sign of modesty for women actually starts with an admonishment to men, “Say to the believing man that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty…” (24:30) Men who flaunt such rules often turn around and blame the victim. One case in point, during the 2013 protests against Mohammed Morsi, during a four-day period ninety-one women were raped and sexually abused.

Like every other aspect of Islam, hijab is a choice. It is woman’s right to determine her own identity and it is her personal expression of devotion to God. It is between her and God. No compulsion can be used to wear or not wear hijab. The most important point about empowering women is to realize that they must be empowered to choose their own paths in life without fear, intimidation or coercion by anybody, neither the fiery mullah nor the radical liberal.

THE VISION OF ISLAM 

The goal in Islam is for believers to deepen their relationship with God. Social norms are a means to the goal of seeking nearness to God. In trying to deepen this relationship believers must strive to remove any spiritual obstacles that impede their path. The Quran notes God saying, “I will not allow the deeds of any one of you to be lost, whether you are male or female (3:195)” and, “If any do deeds of righteousness be they male or female and have faith they will enter paradise (4:124).”

Thus clearly, from the Quranic perspective, gender is no barrier to spiritual seeking. What then gives men the right to put hurdles in front of women when God places no such additional burdens on them?

An anecdote reported by Sadiyya Shaikh about Ibn Taymiyya and a woman named Umm Zaynab Fatima bint Abbas al-Baghdadiyya is illuminating. Umm Fatima was a spiritual leader, a jurist and provided practical legal responses to people’s questions. She studied with Ibn Taymiyya in Cairo during the fourteenth century. On one occasion Ibn Taymiyya praised Umm Fatima in public circles, not only for her intelligence and knowledge but also for her personal qualities of enthusiasm and excellence. Umm Fatima is known to have delivered public lectures in the mosque and this apparently troubled Ibn Taymiyya, “It unsettled me that she delivered lectures at the mosque and I wished to forbid her, he continued, “until one night I beheld the Prophet Muhammad in a dream and he rebuked me saying “This pious woman performs good works.”

The Muslim community is paying a price for not being able to shake off those cultural norms that have drowned out Islam’s egalitarian vision. Treating women with the inherent dignity that she was created with, ensuring that their rights are preserved and advocating that they are given equitable opportunities to succeed is necessary to uphold the Quranic vision, “O you who have attained to faith! Be ever steadfast in upholding justice,” (4:135).  The way forward requires leveling the playing field, by changing hearts and minds, if possible, or by instituting affirmative actions, when antiquated cultural norms prove too intransigent.

The World Economic Forum asserts a simple truth, “Countries and companies can be competitive only if they develop, attract and retain the best talent, both male and female.” Not only governments need to do more, but so do businesses, civil society and media. Empowering women should be as much a man’s responsibility, as it is a women’s aspiration.

This article was adapted from a Friday Sermon delivered at the Islamic Center of Northeast Florida on December 13, 2103. 

Guess where in the world candidates for political office are pandering to religious conservatives, using religious imagery in political advertisement and participating in political forums in houses of worship? Where some voters are unwilling to support candidates because they do not belong to the majority faith, dismissing a candidate because they are women, and using religious purity as a litmus test for eligibility? If you said Iowa, USA you will be correct. Cairo, Egypt also qualifies as the correct answer.

The nexus between politics and religion has been on the rise globally for quite some time now. It is an irony that it is the religious right in each country that often expresses the most misgivings about the rise of the religious right in other countries. In America, Republican presidential candidates, with support from the religious right, are the most vocal in their criticism of Islamist politics. On the other hand, Islamists are quick to conflate American hegemony in their region with a war against Islam. The mutual paranoia is palpable.

Elections are underway in Egypt for a new parliament. Openly vying for seats are political parties from the puritanical Salafis, to the conservative Ikhwanis (Muslim Brotherhood) and a plethora of smaller secular groups. After the first round of voting it appears that the religious right, Salafis and the Brotherhood together, will have majority control of the parliament. Similar Islamist victories in Tunisia and Morocco portend an unmistakable trend of increased intertwining of religion and politics in the region.

A recent Pew Research Center poll showed that while a majority of Muslims prefer a significant role for Islam in their politics, substantive differences persist across regions. Majorities in Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and Nigeria favor changing current laws to allow religiously sanctioned capital punishment for adultery, stealing and apostasy. In contrast, Muslims living under secular democracies in Turkey or Lebanon overwhelmingly reject fundamentalism and self-identify themselves as modernists, even when actively practicing their faith.

As politics face a rightward religious tug across the globe, it will be hasty to stereotype the trend. In the U.S., although the Christian right exerts an enormous influence in politics but the state remains neutral towards religion, the occasional display of Christmas trees in government buildings notwithstanding. Such institutional separation between state and religion is lacking across the Middle East, most disconcertingly in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Will the wave of popular opinions that favor a greater role for Islam in politics inevitably lead to a theocratization of the nascent Middle Eastern democracies? Chances are good that the new democracies in Tunisia or Egypt are unlikely to resemble Saudi Arabia or Iran, but neither will they be Jeffersonian.

Reformist scholars of Islam have asserted that Sharia ought not to be codified as state law. The reasons are tantalizingly simple. A state is a political institution, not a religious authority. A state has to be neutral and beneficial towards all its citizens, not just those who belong to the majority. The Muslim belief in the divineness of Sharia is obviously not shared by people of other faiths. Moreover, the interpretation of Sharia is a fallible human endeavor, often leading to conflicting juristic opinions, which then leaves unanswered the question of whose Islam should the state endorse.

While public policy may reflect the values of the citizenry, it should not be promulgated in the name of any one religion. Even when religious values inform a certain policy, the primary reason for enacting public policy must be secular. A wall separating religion from statecraft is good for both religion and state. Once a state begins to enforce the laws of any religion then the coercive power of the state becomes the primary factor in the determining how religion gets practiced. The state loses credibility and faith loses spirituality. The Quran unequivocally states that there is no compulsion in matters related to religion.

Even in the rough and tumble world of Middle Eastern politics there are faint signs of hope. The Islamist leaders in Tunisia have spoken about the secular democracy of Turkey as their aspiring model. A New York Times report quoted a conservative party leader in Egypt saying, “We don’t accept tyranny in the name of religion any more than we accept tyranny in the name of the military.” The yearning for freedom may ultimately overcome parochial religiosity in politics. From Iowa to Cairo, the world watches with trepidation.