Salaam 100

‘Salam 100’ to promote Muslim dialogue with world

AMMAN: Jordan has formed a committee of 100 Muslim scholars to address through dialogue “critical issues” affecting Muslims around the world, a statement said on Saturday.

The committee, called “Salam (peace) 100”, aims to “enable peaceful debate and discussion, using the power of ideas as a means of calming conflict and finding a resolution to problems of the gravest importance.” The statement said controversies such as the 2005 Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), have “exposed the lack of intellectual leadership” in the Muslim world. This “must be addressed with the utmost urgency to prevent further rifts in human understanding. The committee proposes to conquer immediate and future fears and misapprehensions, which are so easily exploited by extremists of every kind.” The committee is headed by the uncle of King Abdullah II, former crown prince Hassan. It groups Muslim figures from around the world, including the director general of the Islamic Organization of Education, Science and Culture, Abdulaziz Othman Altwaijri, and former Yemeni prime ministers Abdul Karim al-Eryani and Haider Abu Bakr al-Attas.

It pledged to promote “a rational and equitable understanding of hearts and minds”. “We actively seek to address core disputes of international concern, to assuage anger, and to prevent unacceptable provocations”, the statement said. In 2004, Jordan launched an initiative known as the “Amman Message” in a bid to encourage fellow Muslims to reject extremism and embrace tolerance and acceptance.

Sounds promising, but it would appear this group has been around since last May. Why are they taking so dang long to do anything? Urgency? Phhhhh. Where is the flurry of papers, iniatives and plans? Googling "Salam 100" turns up close to nothing.

Free our Talib

From the LA Times, who apparently know a bit about arabic noun declension.

Some will object that Lindh pleaded guilty knowing he could receive this sentence. His plea was entered, however, under what one can only call extreme duress. A poll of potential jurors in the Eastern District of Virginia at that time found that more than a third were ready to sentence him to death without even hearing the case against him. His lawyers cut the best deal they could, but Lindh has spent nearly a quarter of his life in custody for his foolish decision to pursue his religious convictions by aiding another country in its civil war. Without relief, he will spend another dozen years, at least, behind bars.

The concept of mercy spans testaments and faiths, and any system of justice requires the embrace of mercy for leavening and legitimacy. In this case, justice has been served by Lindh's time in prison. Now Bush is uniquely positioned to grant mercy, for while many will long argue over the effectiveness if his war on terror, none question his commitment to it. By giving Lindh a commutation, Bush could prove that his war is, as he often and properly asserts, not against Islam but against those who seek to harm America. Lindh never sought to harm his country; he has served long enough. Bush should send him home.

Esquire magazine wrote an excellent piece last year that explores Lindh's background, his conversion to Islam, his zealousness that drove him to Afghanistan, and his life at present in jail. Reading things like this, it makes me take a step back to examine my life. Lindh and I are almost the same age. We come from similar family backgrounds, and sought to escape the white mundaity that was suburbia, although his path to a turn mine didn't before returning to Islam. Malcolm X peaked both our interests in Islam. And yet, he ended up in prison, not allowed to speak arabic, at the same time I was safely attending classes at University and flirting with the idea of putting on hijab, my big jihad. Granted, our similarities are probably only superficial, but it does make me ponder the choices I've made and where I've ended up.

I hope the brother has found some stability at last and that he can grown and mature in his deen. It'll be interesting to see if anything becomes of his case.

Tariq Ramadan speaking out

From the Washington Post's Muslims Speak Out section, Tariq Ramadan answers two questions about jihad and apostacy, as well as the the omni present "treatment of women in Islam" schtick. Can't say enough good things about this guy. I'm saving his jihad response for future reference in debates against those who insist that it is nothing more than terrorism. Also, I need to find the work of Jalal ad-Dîn as-Suyutî he mentions. That's one of the things I love about Islam. This deen has such a rich and deep intellectual history, you're always finding something new to explore

The concept of “jihad” has different meanings and a scholar such as Jalal ad-Dîn as-Suyutî (15th century), while studying its scope, highlighted 80 different dimensions, uses and objectives related to its place in Islamic teachings. Its root “ja-ha-da” means “making an effort”, “exerting oneself” in order to promote good or to resist wrongdoing, evil or oppression. Every individual trying to resist her/his own negative temptations is engaged in “jihad” and the first time the word is used in the Qur’an (25:52), it refers to an intellectual and spiritual resistance by the means of the Qur’an itself.

In all its dimensions, the essence of “jihad” is “to resist” in the name of justice and dignity. When there is an armed aggression, Muslims have the right to protect themselves and to defend their rights. Here “jihâd” means “qitâl” (armed struggle). The use of violence and weapons must be adjusted to the nature of the aggression itself: an armed aggression may justify an armed resistance if there is no other way to come to a peaceful agreement. But the use of violence and weapons must be proportionate and never target innocent people, women, children, the elderly, and even fruit trees as Abû Bakr, the first successor of the Prophet, stated following Muhammad’s teachings. Jihad never means “holy war” in order “to impose” or “to propagate” Islam everywhere. In fact jihâd and qitâl mean exactly the opposite of what we commonly think: rather than being the justifying instruments of war, they are the imposed measures to achieve peace by resisting an unjust aggression.

In specific situations – when one faces an army and has no weapons or other means to resist – it may be understandable and justifiable to consider sacrificing one’s life in attempts to reach the armed soldiers. Here we are not far from a kind of suicide but it is related to three specific conditions: 1. It must be in a time of declared war; 2. when no other means of resisting are available; 3. the targets must be exclusively the army of the enemies and its armed soldiers. Today’s suicide bombers who are killing innocent people are not only not respecting the Islamic teachings as to the ethics of war but are in fact indulging in anti-Islamic actions.

Resources for muslim apologists

If you've spent anytime in the online world, you've most likely come across the sentiment that muslims are all complicit in terrorism and that we don't ever say anything against terrorism. I know I've blogged about my frustrations as the resident muslim apologist of Christian Forums, where I heard this claim at least once a week. It gets really old, but over time, I developed a list of muslim organizations and statements about terrrorism and violence that I could easily copy and paste.

Now, the American Muslim online zine has done a much better job. Anyone who discusses Islam and muslims online should bookmark these lists for easy reference:

Muslim Voices Against Extremism and Terrorism - Part I - Fatwas

Part II - Statements by Organizations

Part III - Statements & Articles by Individuals

Part IV A few Quotes

Part V The Muslim Majority

Selective Hearing of Muslim Voices Against Extremism and Terrorism

Claim that all terrorists are Muslims ignores history