Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

They scrawled the words "Fuck yeah" on the pages of the Holy Koran and then they shot it full of holes. Last week a few American soldiers in Iraq thought it would be cool to use the Koran for target practice. The US commander on the ground, Major General Jeffery Hammond, has quickly apologized to try to repair the damage. I hope it will be enough, but I seriously doubt that fallout from this act of stupidity by a few soldiers can be contained.

I am a Muslim. I am an American. I am deeply offended. Those who know me know that I am not easily offended in these matters.

Muslims consider the words in the Koran to be the literal word of God. Korans in Muslim homes are kept in a place of honor, usually displayed on a stand made to hold the book on a mantle or another prominent place. Muslims consider it a grave insult if the Koran comes into contact with one’s feet or is desecrated in any other way. Every Muslim understands this. It is instinctive to protect the Koran.

So when an American soldier desecrates a Koran and riddles it with bullets, the message is clear: it does not need any translation. This isn’t the "cartoon controversy" where a bunch of radical Islamists thumped their chests in response. This will hit home with the moderate Muslims around the world. Moderate Muslims are not going to go out on the streets and march in protest. But they will understand the message coming from America. At a time when America needs the moderates in the Muslim world to rally to the cause and isolate the extremists, this kind of act will cause the moderates to sit on their hands.  I doubt very many Muslims around the world will care to make the distinction between the act of a few American soldiers and the policy of the United States. That kind of nuance is likely not going to translate well.

This kind of action is a victory for the hatemongers on both sides. It makes my conversations with Muslims in the country of my birth - Bangladesh - that much more difficult. I will trot out the standard line about how this was an act of a few and does not represent the attitude of the United States government toward the Muslims of the world. I will get a polite hearing, but I doubt anyone will believe me. Already I am confronted with Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay when I speak out against human rights violations in the Muslim world. At least in those cases I can make the admittedly weak case that those abuses were carried out in the overzealous response to terrorists acts - that those acts were targetted at who the United States thought posed a security threat to itself. In this case, however, there is no getting around the fact that the target is the over one billion Muslims around the world.

I am not so worried that this particular act will increase the level of terrorism against the United States. Those who would act in violence don’t particularly need this as an excuse to do their acts - if it wasn’t this, they would find another justification. But I do worry that the long-term goal of winning "hearts and minds" just took a major blow. I don’t know how many more such blows can be absorbed before the divide between the Muslim world and the West is irretrievably made permanent.

Those of us who stand with a foot in each culture have a responsibility to try the bridge the gaps of misunderstanding and mutual fear that have hightened since the September 11th attacks. But our voices are drowned out, along with the voices of the majority of those in the West and in the Muslim world who simply want to live in peace to raise their families, when this kind of act is carried out by a "strategic corporal" . This must stop.

UPDATE:  I crossposted this on Daily Kos last night. It has reached the recommended list and launched a vigorous debate in the comments. Now there are over 700 comments on the post and the debate continues. The diary has elicited strong opinions on all sides and quite a lot of insightful commentary.

I am always wary when religion and politics are mixed. I am especially wary when the politics of religion is disguised as charity. As a Muslim in America, and as a blogger, I have always attempted to raise the warning flag when I have seen a dangerous politicization of Islam, or when I have seen attacks upon Islam motivated by hate only. In the post-9/11 world I think it is important as a Muslim to explain the religion to non-Muslims in an attempt to foster understanding and hopefully some sanity.

Islam is one of the world’s major religions. It stands on its own. However, when the religion is politicized (as with all religions), bad things happen.

It is with the above in mind, I was quite perturbed when I came across a "Quran Distribution Project" at the blog Eteraz.org. The idea of this project is to donate 1000 copies of English translations of the Koran to "Western mosques and prisons". The project asks readers to donate money to raise $30,000 to help purchase the 1000 copies. Another post offers to give out a free copy of the Koran to Muslims who desire one, and directs non-Muslims to CAIR for their free complementary copy.

I will leave aside my concerns about a political blog raising money to distribute a religious text for a moment. I will focus on the project itself. The project aims to send copies of the an English translation of the Koran by a man named Mohammad Azad, who converted to Islam and became a citizen of Pakistan and Pakistan’s ambassador to the United Nations. The blog claims that his translation is more accurate than the "Saudi sponsored" translations. In fact, it claims that this translation is the most authoritative English translation of the Koran:

At the Eteraz.Org homepage you will see a large gray box asking for donations. We are trying to raise $30,000 to purchase 1000 copies of the Muhammad Asad Translation and Tafsir (Exegesis) of the Glorious Quran. This work is considered the most authoritative English translation/commentary and corrects a number of errors in the Saudi sponsored Qurans proliferating in the U.S.

…
This particular translation and exegesis is one of the most authoritative in the English language. The edition we are purchasing is also very aesthetically pleasing. Pictures: 1, 2, 3. This project will be the Islamic blogosphere’s first major money raising project. I believe it will be a success and will demonstrate that the global Islamic netroots is alive and powerful; and a force for positive action.

…

At the current time, the only English translation which provides in depth commentary on every verse is "The Noble Quran", distributed by the Saudi Arabian King Fahd Center For Printing of the Holy Quran. That translation does not provide any actual exegesis; merely references to various ahadith that relate to some of the verses. In that sense, it is not comprehensive; nevermind the fact that many of the ahadith themselves are far too nuanced for average Muslims with no scholarly background to understand. Hadith is a complex science that most Muslims, including myself, are not equipped to understand. It is no wonder that people reading this Quran often quote verses out of context and often for extremist causes.

The Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation does provide a commentary; however, most authorities believe that the Muhammad Asad commentary is far superior.

…

Studies by Quranic scholars have shown that the Saudi Translation interjects, via parantheticals and other devices, ideas and concepts which are foreign to the Quran, starting from Surah Fatiha itself. This is unacceptable. For example, in no previous English translation except the Saudi sponsored has Surah Fatiha contained a reference to Jews and Christians. Through the insertion of the phrases “such as the Jews” and “such as the Christians,” in Surah Fatiha, the Saudi rendition fixes the meaning of the expressions “those with anger upon them” and “those who are astray.” Such errors and additions in translations merely begin at Surah Fatiha.

Unfortunately, English speaking Muslims have not had a viable alternative because many of us receive our Qurans from free through the charity of the Saudi government. It is our hope to introduce copies of a better, more authentic translation into Muslim channels. For free, God willing.

The blog also has a separate post describing why this translation is better than the "Saudi sponsored" translation.

Let me point out that Muslims believe that the Koran can only be understood when read in the original Arabic. All translations of the Koran into other languages, including English, are considered to be "interpretations" and not translations. Having said that, it is important to debunk a lot of misinformation contained in the posts on this topic at Eteraz.org. If the argument for distributing the Koran, and asking readers for money, is that other translations are inadequate and there is a compelling need to push a particular translation, the argument has to be based on fact and not assertion.

First, it is not the case that the Muhammad Asad "translation" is considered the most authoritative English translation of the Koran. It is a worthy translation, one amongst many. The two most widely read and available English translations of the Koran are the Abdullah Yusuf Ali version and the Marmaduke William Pickthall version (I happen to have both). The Yusuf Ali version is widely regarded as one of the most authoritative versions in existence today. In fact, the "Saudi sponsored" translation that Eteraz.org cites is in fact the Yusuf Ali translation and not some wahhabi text serving the will of the Saudi government. It is also worth noting that Yusuf Ali was an Indian and not a Saudi. If I were to venture a guess, I would bet the few dollars in my pocket that if you counted up all English translations of the Koran ever sold, the Yusuf Ali version would come out on top by a large margin.

Second, Eteraz.org also claims that:

Studies by Quranic scholars have shown that the Saudi Translation interjects, via parantheticals and other devices, ideas and concepts which are foreign to the Quran, starting from Surah Fatiha itself. This is unacceptable.

He is once again referring to the Yusuf Ali version, and claiming that it is the "Saudi Translation". The Yusuf Ali version does indeed contain "parantheticals". So do many other versions, the Picktall and Shakir translations come immediately to mind. As an example of "parantheticals", please see the translation of Surah Fatiha (the first surah in the Koran) by Yusuf Ali, Pickthall and Shakir side-by-side at the University of Southern California Compendium of Muslim Texts project. Clearly, it is not "unacceptable" to use "parantheticals". Given the complexity of translating the Koran from its original Arabic to English, "parantheticals and other devices" are an accepted tool of translation.

Third, Eteraz.org claims that:

For example, in no previous English translation except the Saudi sponsored has Surah Fatiha contained a reference to Jews and Christians. Through the insertion of the phrases “such as the Jews” and “such as the Christians,” in Surah Fatiha, the Saudi rendition fixes the meaning of the expressions “those with anger upon them” and “those who are astray.” Such errors and additions in translations merely begin at Surah Fatiha.

This claim feeds the fear of the Saudi government as anti-Semites and anti-Christians. While it might be convenient to bring the politics of Saudi Arabia into this religious discussion, it must still be based in fact. Click here to read the English translation of Surah Fatiha at the Saudi King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qur’an. As is claimed, "phrases ’such as the Jews’ and ’such as the Christians’" are not "inserted" into the Surah Fatiha in the Saudi translation. As a note, there are many worthy translations (as I will list below) that the reader can examine other than the one available at the King Fahd Complex.

Fourth, Eteraz.org claims that:

Unfortunately, English speaking Muslims have not had a viable alternative because many of us receive our Qurans from free through the charity of the Saudi government. It is our hope to introduce copies of a better, more authentic translation into Muslim channels. For free, God willing.

The above statement is patently false. As I noted above, most English speakers use either the Pickthall version or the Yusuf Ali version. All the popular and scholarly English translations are available free online or via bookstores (and for you online types, Amazon is a great resource).

Finally, on a more humorous note, part of the reason Eteraz.org cited for pushing this particular translation of the Koran is that it contains "depth" commentary that helps the common man "understand" Islam. Many other translations (notably the Yusuf Ali translation) contain commentary. Of course, commentary on religious texts is always risky business. To bolster the argument, Eteraz.org presents us with commentary in his preferred translation that tries to tackle a troublesome passage in the Koran. Specifically, verse 34 of the fourth Surah, "The Women". In this verse, some translated versions seem to suggest that wives should be beaten if they are unfaithful. Eteraz.org explains why the commentary in the Muhammad Asad translation is "valuable":

However, the reason the Asad Quran is more valuable than the Noble Quran is because it offers a comprehensive commentary at the bottom of the page which The Noble Quran does not, and in that commentary, beating is invalidated.

It is this commentary, running throughout the Asad Quran, which is the reason for our support of the Muhammad Asad Quran. It is probably a good idea to expose more Muslims to commentary on Quranic verses, instead of letting them figure out what a verse means on their own, since more knowledge is better than less.

By reading the commentary in the Asad Quran, the reasonable Muslim will become convinced that beating is not a good idea. Meanwhile, The Saudi Noble Quran, which has no commentary, leaves the average reader with the impression that beating is OK.

I am not sure that I agree that is "a good idea to expose more Muslims to commentary on Quranic verses, instead of letting them figure out what a verse means on their own, since more knowledge is better than less." I kind of like the idea of figuring out things. I think suggesting that Muslims should rely on commentary rather than figuring things out sounds more like indoctrination than knowledge (as they say, when in doubt, use the source Luke!). Nonetheless, let’s go to Asad’s explaining away this passage (as quoted in Eteraz.org):

On the basis of these Traditions, all the authorities stress that this "beating", if resorted to at all, should be more or less symbolic - "with a toothbrush, or some such thing" (Tabari, quoting the views of scholars of the earliest times), or even "with a folded handkerchief" (Razi); and some of the greatest Muslim scholars ( e.g., Ash-Shafi’i) are of the opinion that it is just barely permissible, and should preferably be avoided: and they justify this opinion by the Prophet’s personal feelings with regard to this problem.

I am not sure whether this commentary is valuable or simply humorous. I guess a good Muslim will take away from this commentary that we should take a toothbrush or a folded handkerchief to our wives, and beatings "should preferably be avoided". Oh good, beating is ok then - as long as I’ve tried the toothbrush technique first!

I am always wary of any form of "thumping", whether it be "Bible thumping" or "Koran thumping". The project proposed by Eteraz.org seems to me to be Koran thumping.

If the goal is to spread an understanding of Islam, I recommend pointing readers to the many authoritative translations of the Koran as well as many worthy books on Islam. There is absolutely no need to push one version over the other - and certainly not on the basis of false or misleading assertions. For those readers who are interested in the Koran, feel free to peruse the following free online versions or versions that you can purchase on Amazon.com.:

Free Online versions:

• Side-by-side text of three major translations (Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, Shakir) at USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts.
• Four major translations (Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, Shakir, Palmer, Rodwell) available online at sacred-texts.com.
• Yusuf Ali, Pickthall and Shakir translations available separately at SUNY Buffalo.

Translations in book form available at Amazon.com:

• "The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an" by Yusuf Ali (leather-bound version). This is by far the most widely read and cited English text of the Koran.
• "The Glorious Qur’an" by Marmaduke William Pickthall.
• "The Qur’an" by H.M. Shakir.
• "The Message of the Qur’an" by Muhammad Asad.
• "The Koran: The Holy Book of Islam with Introduction and Notes" by E.H. Palmer and Reynold Nicholson

There are many other translations. Feel free to choose any one as a starting point. If you are doing scholarly research, you need to read multiple translations and preferably the original text of the Koran in Arabic.

Finally, there are a number of very good books on Islam. One of my favorites is No god but God, a recent book by Reza Aslan. No one book will give you an understanding of Islam or any religion - similarly, reading a translation of the Koran will not give you a full understanding of Islam. Like the study of any religion, the study of Islam is not a one-stop deal - the reader will benefit from multiple viewpoints and multiple sources. Anyone who pushes one at the expense of others is selling you something. Beware false prophets.

A few days ago I posted a piece on the right wing response to Jill Carroll’s release. In the comments section following that piece I started a discussion with Jim Benton that quickly turned to a discussion of Islam. He has posted a series of questions on his blog for moderate Muslims. I agreed over the weekend to try to give my answers. I am finally getting around to it. I have decided to post my answers here and then I will try to cross post on Jim’s blog with answers for each individual question.

To begin, I should state that I am not a Muslim scholar nor do I play one on TV. I am however a Muslim. I was born in Bangladesh (which was East Pakistan at the time) and grew up in an overwhelmingly Muslim but secular country. I have lived half my life (and most of my adult life) in the United States. I now find myself in the unusual and sometimes difficult position of being an American and a Muslim in these turbulent times. I am often asked the obligatory "Why do Muslims hate freedom?" question. To me that question is very similar to the "When was the last time you beat your wife?" question.

I am also often commended for being one of those "good" Muslims or a "moderate Muslim". So the only part of Jim’s questions I will take issue with is that he directs his questions to "moderate Muslims". To me, there are two kinds of Muslims: there are Muslims, and then there are Fanatics (I think this distinction probably exists in most organized religions). I happen to be a Muslim. Of course the current news is about the two sects of Islam: the Shia and the Sunni. There are many good books that discuss the two sects of Islam; for my part, I will just say that it is a political dispute that has lasted to this day. All Muslims share one holy book, The Koran, and any difference that exists between practicing Muslims is the work of man not of God.

A significant part of my thinking in terms of Islam is rooted in having seen and experienced man’s inhumanity to man first hand. As I mentioned, I was born in Bangladesh during a time when it was part of Pakistan. The word "Pakistan" means, for those who do not know, "The Land of the Pure". Bengalis, the ethnic group primarily in Bangladesh and in parts of India, were considered by many in the leadership of Pakistan at the time to be "napak", that is "impure". We were considered this largely because most Bengalis were converts to Islam from Hinduism. Bengalis retained their cultural identity through their conversion to Islam and a large minority in Bangladesh continued to practice Hinduism and other religions. The resulting war for the independence of Bangladesh saw perhaps the most egregious persecution of Muslims by Muslims in the twentieth century. Toward the end of the war, when it became clear that Pakistan was about to lose the war, death squads called "Al Badr" (this name should sound familiar to Iraq watchers) spread out across Bangladesh with the goal of finding and killing Bengali technocrats, scholars and intellectuals. The goal was to try to decimate Bengali culture that the Pakistanis felt was tainted, made impure, by our Hindu influence. One of the targets of Al Badr was my father, who if not for the courage and compassion of our Pakistani neighbors would have been murdered in front of his children’s eyes. Instead we watched in horror as my cousin was mercilessly beaten to an inch of his death for not revealing the whereabouts of my father and his family.

So, I know a little bit about what fanaticism can do, and I know a little of what Muslim Fanaticism can do. Now Jim, onto your questions:

1: Do you accept that the Qur’an is the final revelation of God, dictated, through Gabriel, to Mohammed?

I accept that The Koran is the divine word of God. The Koran was orally delivered by The Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and was not written down until after Mohammed’s death. During his life, the Prophet did not allow The Koran to be transcribed. To this day, Muslims accept that The Koran in its Arabic form is the word of God and any translation into other languages is considered an interpretation and not literal translation. You will find that most interpretions of the Koran into English or other languages differ in meaning simply because of the difficulty in translating Koranic Arabic precisely. A lot of the meaning, the tone, of phrases is lost once translated and the words certainly do not sound as poetic as they do in the original Arabic. Most Muslims, including me, will in the course of their lives learn to recite the Koran in Arabic.

1a: If you do not, what do you consider it is, and what authority do you believe it holds?

I think this is a N/A since I answered the first one in the affirmative

 1b: If you do, how do you explain the inconsistencies, contradictions, and specifically the scientific and historical errors, for example (all quotes are from Pickthal)

18:86:86 Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring

18:90.90 Till, when he reached the rising-place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had appointed no shelter therefrom.
And the many other places where the Qur’an supports a geocentric Universe…

Most misinterpretations of the Koran arise from people (both Muslims and non-Muslims) taking the Revelations in the Koran out of their historical context. Most scholars accept that the Koran is divided into two parts, the early Surahs and the Medina Surahs. Some Revelations in the Koran speak to what it means to be a Muslim while other Revelations are specifically given to Mohammed in response to a particular event. So, reading the Koran without putting the latter Surahs in their historical context is an exercise in failure and frustration. To make matters more confusing, the Surahs in Koran when they were transcribed were not done in a chronological manner. The order of the Surahs in the Koran is from largest to smallest, with the notable exception of Surah Fateha, which is the first Surah.

You cite two verses from the Surah Al Kahaf ( "The Cave" ). Both these verses relate to the travels of Zulqarnain (who a lot of scholars think might be Cyrus the Persian, although the Koran never specifies it). The Surah was revealed probably in response to three questions asked by the Quraish. I think you are misreading the phrases. The more supportable reading is that the traveler went in three directions, the East (18:90) ,  the West (18:86) and some other direction not specified in the Surah. This is the more plausible explanation if you read the Surah as a whole.

 2: Do you believe that Muslims should be under Shariah law — not obey it but be governed by it — either in Muslim countries or in Muslim communities existing in non-Muslim countries?

Shariah law does not come from the Koran. Shariah came about in the ninth century during a political struggle between the traditionalists and the rationalists. The Koran is not a book of laws, unlike texts in some other religions. In fact, early on, the political and religious was specifically kept separate. At some point in the ninth century all that changed with Shariah coming into being from specific cultural conditions of the day. Somehow the notion developed that we must live in the ninth century and these laws are immutable. That is bunk. The Koran itself does not support this notion of immutable human law. On the contrary, the Koran was tailored for the people and culture of the time and the progression of time and societal change should logically follow from a sound reading of the Koran. By the way, any notion that Shariah is divine law is simply false, and wholly unsupported by the Koran.

So, to answer your question, no, I do not believe we should be governed by Shariah. In fact, I think the only two countries that are governed by Shariah are Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, not exactly shining examples of Islamic enlightenment. I should also note the notion that there is one Shariah that should govern is also nonsense. There are at least four schools of thought in Shariah, and if you go back to the ninth century (if you must, I wouldn’t go there), you will find that you were free to choose which Shariah you wanted to follow, if any. Something then happened on the way to the Forum.

2a: In what ways do you see Sharia law as superior to secular law as promulgated in countries such as the US, Canada, and England — or in other Western countries if you know them better and would prefer to discuss them. In what ways, if any, do you see these secular legal systems preferably to Sharia?

Well, given that I don’t think Shariah governs, I think I get a pass on this question. I will note that Islam does not have a clergy class or a papacy. As such, the religion is meant to be a deeply personal thing as well as a communal thing without political structure. Islam should then be wholly consistent with most political systems.

2b: Should apostates be punished criminally if they merely leave Islam? What if they attempt to convince others of their position, with the possibility that they would leave as well?

Should there be a difference if
i) the apostate converts to another ‘religion of the book
ii) converts to a different religion entirely
iii) becomes an agnostic
iv) converts to an ‘Islamic heresy’
v) converts from Sunni to Shia or vice versa

If you have read my previous posts on Abdul Rahman, you probably know the answer I am about to give. Islam states that there should be no compulsion in religion. You cannot square that notion with killing a man for his beliefs. Besides, there is no Church in Islam and you cannot be excommunicated. You become a Muslim by internally having faith in Islam. It’s that simple. So, unless the Afghans have some cool new mind control tool, I dont know how they think they will determine whether a man claiming to be Muslim is a Muslim. So, the whole punishment for apostasy argument kind of falls on its face. Further, if you truly believe that this is a sin, and it may be, will not God make that judgment? I don’t know about the Afghanis, but I am much more comfortable leaving judgments about a person’s faith to God than to man, especially some illiterate judge in Afghanistan.

2c: Should blasphemy be punishable by law?

Again, this refers to Shariah law. Refer to my answers to earlier questions.

2d: As far as I know, neither the Qur’an nor the Hadiths specifically condemn rape, distinctly from other — consensual — sexual sins. If I am wrong, can you quote me a hadith or verse of a Sura where such a condemnation occurs?

I have not searched the Koran for rape, but there are many places in the Koran where it speaks specifically to the rights of women and orphans. As I mentioned above, the Koran is not a book of laws, however it does have a lot to say about women’s and orphan’s rights as these rights did not exist for women in Mohammed’s time. The Koran also forbids violence against women and that presumably would include the violent act of rape. Here are two verses from the Koran concerning women and orphans:

     4.127: And they ask you a decision about women. Say: Allah makes known to you His decision concerning them, and that which is recited to you in the Book concerning female orphans whom you do not give what is appointed for them while you desire to marry them, and concerning the weak among children, and that you should deal towards orphans with equity; and whatever good you do, Allah surely knows it.

     4.128: And if a woman fears ill usage or desertion on the part of her husband, there is no blame on them, if they effect a reconciliation between them, and reconciliation is better, and avarice has been made to be present in the (people’s) minds; and if you do good (to others) and guard (against evil), then surely Allah is aware of what you do.

Finally, according to Hadith, Mohammed once said "Heaven lies at the foot of one’s mother". I have always taken that to mean respect for women (my mother made sure it meant that).

2e: What rights should homosexuals have? Homosexual Muslims?

One important aspect of Islam is the notion that man was instilled with free will. The idea that there should be no compulsion in religion comes from that. Koran asks of the Muslim to seek guidance from God. God is the judge of whether one has lived a good life. Koran preaches treating people with dignity and self-respect. I would think that means all people, not just heterosexuals. I know a good number of Homosexual Muslims and I haven’t felt the urge to flog them recently. Not to turn things political, but the gay issue gets the masses running to the polling booth, but how many thinking people care, or should care, what you do behind closed doors. I care a lot more about high officials molesting the children of our society than who one chooses to love and care for. There’s plenty of hate in this world and we should not be in the business of getting in the way of people who want to make love not hate, be they Muslims, Jews, Christians, or any other religion.

2f: Many of the punishments that are supposedly based on sharia and on specific verses of the Qur’an or on Hadiths are seen as excessively harsh, and when countries have attempted to impliment them, there have been outcries against them, both from within and without the countries. Do you accept such punishments, and if not, how do you get around the Qur’anic verses that seem to call for them?

I think my discussion of Shariah above answers the first part of your question. As for the Koran, many verses that talk of punishment refer very specifically to a particular incident or battle. Most critics of Islam like to take those verses out of context and try to paint with a broad brush. This goes back to my earlier comments about reading the Surahs within their historical context. The Koran is not a straightforward text of laws and doctrine. It is a complex text and those who want to interpret certain verses to serve their own ends are free to do so. I interpret the Koran as it applies to my life in the 21st century as I believe God would want me to do. If I’m wrong, I guess I will see you and most other people in Hell.

3: What values, ethical or moral principles, philosophical ideas or other concepts in Islam cause you to remain a Muslim, rather than to either join another religion or to become ‘a secular good person’?

Three things:

• There is no compulsion in religion.
• Religion is between the believer and God. There is no middleman.
• Man is endowed with Free Will.

I am, and I hope most people are, not shopping for a religion. So the question of switching to another religion does not arise. There are great and horrible things in all religions. After all, religion may be based on Revelation, but the implementation is all man. I choose to look at the good in all religions and find things that unite us, rather than divide us. I also believe in The Bill of Rights - quite frankly, as a work of man it is almost divine in its humanity.

3a: In which cases do you consider Islamic values superior to Western ones on similar topics?

Who says Islamic values are non-western? And what specific western values do you mean? I think there are some basic human values that we all share. I point you to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which even Afghanistan is a signatory.

3b: In which cases do you consider Western values superior?

I refer you to my answer to the previous question.

3c: How can those Western values you prefer be joined onto an Islam many of whose believers consider is unchangeable.

As I stated above, Islam is not unchangeable. The first word in the Koran is "read". Islam acknowledges man has free will and free will means that you learn and explore and not close your mind.

3d: Is Islam compatible with democracy and democratic values?

Bangladesh has been a secular Islamic country since 1971. Bangladesh has had free (and mostly fair) elections since 1996 after overthrowing a military dictatorship in a bloodless coup. The notion that Bangladesh somehow is overrun with extremists is fantasy. Is the current Government in Bangladesh corrupt? Yes? Although it is more Tom Delay corruption than Mullah Omar corruption.

3e: If you feel it is, how do you answer an ultraconservative who argues as follows (referring to our ultraconservative "Islam Q&A" )

Answer : Praise be to Allaah.Yes, we must make this distinction. The one who rejects the law of Allaah and casts it aside, and replaces it with man-made laws and the opinions of individuals has committed an act of kufr which puts him beyond the pale of Islam. Whereas the one who adheres to the religion of Islam, but is a sinner and wrongdoer by virtue of his following his whims and desires in some cases, or pursuing some worldly interest, but admits that he is a wrongdoer by doing so, is not guilty of kufr which would put him beyond the pale of Islam.Whoever thinks that ruling by man-made laws is equal to ruling by sharee’ah, and thinks that it is OK to do that, is also guilty of kufr that puts him beyond the pale of Islam, even if it is only in one instance. Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah al-Ghunaymaan

I would ask the Shaykh to check his facts and read history. Shariah is man-made law. Anyone who does not know or understand that is simply ignorant.

3f: There are many tenets of Islam that I can wholeheartedly agree with, such as giving to the poor, the equality of all, taking care of relatives, etc. But in Islam, these commands seem to be limited to believers, thus ‘all Muslims are equal before God. Other religions are less strict in such dinstinctions. For example, Jewish and Christian charities, in most cases — not all — give benefits to those not of their faiths. Can Islam extend those ideas to non-believers as well?

The Koran does not support your assertion that Muslims should only give to poor Muslims. A poor man is a poor man, regardless of his creed. Islam very specifically preaches mercy to all, especially your enemy in battle. Rules of battle in Islam are surprisingly modern considering when the Koran was revealed. Some of these rules include the treatment of non-combatants, women, children, etc. For a very well known practical example of mercy, read about Salahuddin’s retaking of Jerusalem and contrast that with what had happened when the Crusaders had done the same thing. Incidentally, for our friends in the Middle East fomenting hatred, please note that the most famous of Muslim warriors, Salahuddin, was a Kurd.

3g: Several places in the Qur’an assume the existence of slavery, particularly the enslavement of prisoners of war. (Thus the first punishment for killing a believer accidentally is to free a believing slave. And there are several verses permitting a — male — Muslim to have sex with a slave.) Yet, today, slavery is viewed as barbaric, inhuman, and something that humanity has ‘put behind itself." How do you reconcile or accept this?

The Koran was revealed at a time slavery existed and women had no rights. The Koran progressively moved that society to grant women rights, grant orphans rights, and grant slaves rights. The most famous Muezzin (the one who calls to prayer) in Islam had been a slave (Hazrat Bilal). The verses in the Koran, again, need to be read in their historical context and the evolution within the Koran can be seen as moving a society from ignorance into knowledge. Sadly, some have decided that Islam did not need to evolve after the ninth century.

I hope you find the answers I’ve given to be satisfactory. I am sure I am not the only Muslim to have similar thoughts. When you look a little deeper into Islam, and beyond the caricatures and the Fanatics, you might find that the vast majority of practicing devout Muslims live a life of peace and tolerance. It may not fit the image of Islam some people want to see; it may not fit the Clash of Civilizations argument; but it reflects reality.

I will submit to you that most people in the world want the same things: a little bit of dignity, ability to live without fear of persecution, ability to raise their children in a safe environment, the ability to work and feed one’s family, and the occasional chance at laughter. Sadly, most of the world’s population lives in abject poverty while we play "my religion can beat up your religion" and the slaughter of millions happens right in front of our eyes. There is nothing Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Jewish about standing by as a large part of the world’s children starve to death.

Every Muslim in the world recognizes the title of this post. Those words begin every chapter (surah) but one of The Koran.  The Arabic words Rahman (most gracious) and Rahim (most merciful) are considered to be two of the ninety-nine attributes of Allah. Grace and Mercy are the foundation of the religion of Islam. The word Koran itself is generally translated to mean, "Read". This is the first word in The Koran - "Read". Ignorance is not consistent with being a Muslim.

We live in a world where much killing is committed in the name of religion. And, much killing today is being committed in the name of Islam, in the name of Allah. I recognize that the reader may now want to point out that much killing has been and is being committed in the name of other religions also. Why do I single Islam out today? The simple answer is that I am a Muslim. I am not ready to cast stones at others without taking down the glass in my own house.

The New York Times gives us today a glimpse into hell. The Times article gives us chilling commentary on evil manifested. I argued in an earlier post about the danger in Iraq from the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigade; but the Times article brings into the mainstream the atrocities these groups are committing in Iraq. They are not committing your run of the mill killings; they are using creative tools of the torture trade like electric drills. What kind of animal do you have to be to drill a man’s head for brutal pleasure?

They are committing these atrocities, the systematic killing of Sunni Muslims, with ruthless efficiency and in the name of Islam. I say to them: Read. I say to them that I have seen your faces before. You have killed in other places and at other times in the name of some cause or other. I have watched you kill mothers, fathers, husbands, wives and I have seen you kill children. I have watched you from a child’s hiding place as you nearly beat a man to death in search of my own father. I have seen your coward’s eyes behind the hot muzzle of your weapon. I have seen the blood on your hands.

Madness has been unleashed in Iraq and we have all been its enablers. I grieve for the ordinary citizen of Iraq. I say to you that this too shall pass. Reason lies at the end of this meat grinder. But I fear a lot of killing is left to be done before reason returns.