Decision making......Worth a thought....

A group of children were playing near two railway tracks, one still in use while the other disused. Only one child played on the disused track, the rest on the operational track.

The train is coming, and you are just beside the track interchange. You can make the train change its course to the disused track and save most of the kids. However, that would also mean the lone child playing by the disused track would be sacrificed.. Or would you rather let the train go its way?

Let’s take a pause to think what kind of decision we could make…

A group of children were playing near two railway tracks, one still in use while the other disused. Only one child played on the disused track, the rest on the operational track.

The train is coming, and you are just beside the track interchange. You can make the train change its course to the disused track and save most of the kids. However, that would also mean the lone child playing by the disused track would be sacrificed.. Or would you rather let the train go its way?

Let’s take a pause to think what kind of decision we could make…
Most people might choose to divert the course of the train, and sacrifice only one child. You might think the same way, I guess. Exactly, to save most of the children at the expense of only one child was rational decision most people would make, morally and emotionally. But, have you ever thought that the child choosing to play on the disused track had in fact made the right decision to play at a safe place?

Nevertheless, he had to be sacrificed because of his ignorant friends who chose to play where the danger was. This kind of dilemma happens around us everyday. In the office, community, in politics and especially in a democratic society, the minority is often sacrificed for the interest of the majority, no matter how foolish or ignorant the majority are, and how farsighted and knowledgeable the minority are. The child who chose not to play with the rest on the operational track was sidelined. And in the case he was sacrificed, no one would shed a tear for him.

The great critic Leo Velski Julian as well as Sourav who told the story said he would not try to change the course of the train because he believed that the kids playing on the operational track should have known very well that track was still in use, and that they should have run away if they heard the train ‘ s sirens.. If the train was diverted, that lone child would definitely die because he never thought the train could come over to that track! Moreover, that track was not in use probably because it was not safe.. If the train was diverted to the track, we could put the lives o f all passengers on board at stake! And in your attempt to save a few kids by sacrificing one child, you might end up sacrificing hundreds of people to save these few kids. While we are all aware that life is full of tough decisions that need to be made, we may not realize that hasty decisions may not always be the right one.

‘Remember that what’s right isn’t always popular… and what’s popular isn’t always right..’

Everybody makes mistakes; that’s why they put erasers on pencils.

Australia



Questions posted on an Australian Tourism Website and smart-alec Aussie answers...

__________________________________________________

Q: Does it ever get windy in Australia ? I have never seen it rain on TV, how do the plants grow? ( UK ).

A: We import all plants fully grown and then just sit around watching them die.

________________________________________________

Q: Will I be able to see kangaroos in the street? ( USA )

A:Depends how much you've been drinking.

________________________________________________

Q: I want to walk from Perth to Sydney - can I follow the railroad tracks? ( Sweden )

A: Sure, it's only three thousand miles, take lots of water.

_________________________________________________

Q: Are there any ATMs (cash machines) in Australia ? Can you send me a list of them in Brisbane, Cairns, Townsville and Hervey Bay ? ( UK )

A: What did your last slave die of?

__________________________________________________

Q: Can you give me some information about hippo racing in Australia ? ( USA )

A: A-Fri-ca is the big triangle shaped continent south of Europe .

Aus-tra-lia is that big island in the middle of the Pacific which does not

... Oh forget it. Sure, the hippo racing is every Tuesday night in Kings Cross. Come naked.

__________________________________________________

Q:Which direction is North in Australia ? (USA )

A: Face south and then turn 180 degrees. Contact us when you get here and we'll send the rest of the directions.

_________________________________________________

Q: Can I bring cutlery into Australia ? ( UK )

A:Why? Just use your fingers like we do...

__________________________________________________

Q: Can you send me the Vienna Boys' Choir schedule? ( USA )

A: Aus-tri-a is that quaint little country bordering Ger-man-y, which is

Oh forget it. Sure, the Vienna Boys Choir plays every Tuesday night in Kings Cross, straight after the hippo races. Come naked.

__________________________________________________

Q: Can I wear high heels in Australia ? ( UK )

A: You are a British politician, right?

__________________________________________________

Q: Are there supermarkets in Sydney and is milk available all year round? ( Germany )

A: No, we are a peaceful civilization of vegan hunter/gatherers.

Milk is illegal.

________ __________________________________________

Q: Please send a list of all doctors in Australia who can Dispense rattlesnake serum. ( USA )

A: Rattlesnakes live in A-meri-ca which is where YOU come from.

All Australian snakes are perfectly harmless, can be safely handled and make good pets.

__________________________________________________

Q: I have a question about a famous animal in Australia , but I forget its name. It's a kind of bear and lives in trees. (USA )

A: It's called a Drop Bear. They are so called because they drop out of Gum trees and eat the brains of anyone walking underneath them.

You can scare them off by spraying yourself with human urine before you go out walking.

__________________________________________________

Q: I have developed a new product that is the fountain of youth. Can you tell me where I can sell it in Australia ? (USA )

A: Anywhere significant numbers of Americans gather.

__________________________________________________

Q: Do you celebrate Christmas in Australia ? (France )

A: Only at Christmas.

__________________________________________________

Q: Will I be able to speak English most places I go? ( USA )

A: Yes, but you'll have to learn it first

D64bd2e26eb3477fa9ec4a6385030f

A History of Hegemony

From the Aust Financial Review - Review 25 Sep 09 at p.10:

Walter Russell Mead commentating on George C. Herring's book 'From Colony to Superpower: US Foreign Relations Since 1776', Oxford University Press, 2008 "...in 1900, approximately 9 per cent of the population of the southern hemisphere was Christian. By 2000, 24 per cent was Christian. And just as US missionaries have been the primary (although far from the only) agents in spreading this faith, the distinctively American religion of Pentecostal Christianity (born in Los Angeles at the Azusa Street revival of 1906) has been the largest and most energetic element in the greatest expansion of any religious faith in documented history".

Tough language

1) The bandage was wound around the wound.
2) The farm was used to produce produce.
3) The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
4) We must polish the Polish furniture.
5) He could lead if he would get the lead out.
6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.
7) Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was
time to present the present.
8) A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.
9) When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
10) I did not object to the object.
11) The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
12) There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
13) They were too close to the door to close it.
14) The buck does funny things when the does are present.
15) A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.
16) To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
17) The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
18) After a number of injections my jaw got number.
19) Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.
20) I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
21) How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?

 

Shariah – The Light that never goes out

 

Why does the term "Shariah" cause so much consternation? It is a misunderstanding and fear of the unknown. Certain sections of the community seem to have no issue when the term Shariah is used in relation to Banking and Finance, that is ‘Shariah compliant Banking’, but when the term is used in conjunction with ‘Law’ or ‘Court’, objections are raised with such great fervour.

The principles of Shariah are those principles of humanity, kindness and humility which flow through all the major religions. Shariah is an Arabic word meaning the path to be followed acknowledged a positive, literally ‘the way to a watering place’, which in the desert environment of Arabia was essential to life.  For Muslims, it is the path not only leading to Allah (also the term used for God by Arabic speaking Christians and others), but the path believed by all Muslims to be shown by Allah, through Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be upon Him). 

The concept rests on the proposition that the Shariah is the law of God set down for all time in the divine revelation. Muslims, by virtue of being Muslims, acknowledge the responsibility to seek to apply God's will and live in consonance with that law irrespective of the conduct of others, both at the individual and the collective level. The emphasis is upon obligations rather than upon rights, and upon the divine origin of the law. The Shariah is not, therefore, 'law' in the normally accepted sense of the term: it contains an infallible guide to ethics and is a code of community obligations. Respect for human rights and human dignity are intrinsic to Islam. Love of justice cannot be separated from respect for human dignity.

In Surah 4 Nisaa Ayah 135, the Quran states:

O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the desires (of your hearts), lest you swerve, and if you (distort) justice or decline to do justice, truly Allah is well acquainted with all that you do.

The principles of Shariah are derived from the Quran, and for me are summarised as follows: to respect and honour your parents; to strive for justice and truth with my wealth and existence; to give alms to the poor, destitute, orphans and for public welfare; to be honest and fair in financial and economic dealings; to hold firmly to principles, but be flexible in methods; and to treat everyone with civility, giving greetings to all. The term Shariah has been soiled by extremists who think codified Shariah is the same as the revelation of Quran – quite clearly it is not.  Each generation must look at the revelation anew, and apply with the prevailing conditions.

These principles flow from the Quran which I hold firmly to be the word of God.  I admit that I don't understand everything in the Quran; its divine meaning is at times beyond my limited comprehension, but I have faith in it and the reason for what Allah has sent down through the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). The Quran is for those who think, ponder and reflect.

I believe the Quran sets down the minimum standards of behaviour and as a rational thinking person, I make choices which build upon these. My intention is to live by these standards in a manner which is kind, just and forgiving of others. With regards to ‘righteousness’, Surah 2 Al Baqarah Ayah 177 in the Quran states:

It is not righteousness that you turn your faces toward East or West; but it is righteousness:

  • to believe in Allah and the Last Day and the Angels and the Book and the Messengers;
  • to spend of your substance out of love for Him for your kin for orphans for the needy for the wayfarer for those who ask and for the ransom of slaves;
  • to be steadfast in prayer and practice regular charity;
  • to fulfil the contracts which you have made; and
  • to be firm and patient in pain (or suffering) and adversity and throughout all periods of panic. 

Such are the people of truth the Allah-fearing.

Islam is a permissive religion, and verses of the Quran and the practice of the Prophet lay down what is permissible conduct, behaviour and expectations. There are checks and balances with this permissiveness – because with rights comes responsibilities. The responsibilities were carved out in the circumstance surrounding the revelation of verse and within the Quran itself. As a rational thinking Muslim, I balance the consideration of what were the circumstances when the Quran was revealed, with living in modernity, and with the law of the land, which in this case is under Australian Law.

I strive to do good and refrain from evil acts in my daily life in accordance with my Muslim conscience. As a Muslim I live in a community, and my actions are mindful of my fellow citizens. Rights are not absolute and Islam makes this clear. A number of people may disagree with my view and my response is: to you be your belief, and to me, my belief.

Finally, life is full of challenges.  The Quran inspires me with the tale of the toils and travails of other Prophets, who, while being blessed as being the conveyors of God's message, also had human frailties.

I take solace in these very simple words, which appear a number of times in the Quran:

‘Persevere in any good effort and do not fear to face difficulties and hardship, as success comes only after hardship’.

In the next post, I will outline a model for a Shariah Mediation system which can be used in Australia. With that I bid you peace, salaams.

The Medina Charter

A Short Note On The Medina Charter by Kassim Ahmad

The Medina Charter, written and promulgated by Prophet Muhammad for the multi-religious ten thousand-strong citizens of the city-state of Medina in 622 A.D is truly a remarkable political-constitutional document. The claim made by Professor M. Hamidullah that it was the first written constitution (FN1) in the world is not without basis. Aristotle's Constitution of Athens (FN2), written on papyrus, discovered by an American missionary in Egypt in 1890 and published in 1891, was not a constitution. It was an account of the constitution of the city-state of Athens. Other legal writings on the conduct of ancient societies have been found, but none can be described as a constitution. The Medina Charter is the first, and in this it preceded the American Constitution of 1787, considered by Western authorities as "a landmark document of the Western world … the oldest written national constitution in operation" (FN3) by more than a thousand years! It also preceded the English feudal bill of rights, the Magna Carter of 1215, by almost six centuries!

Not only is the Madina Charter important in the sense that it is the first written constitution; it is also modern in the sense that it was promulgated for a plural society, giving equal rights to every citizen as well as giving them a say in governmental matters, as we shall see.

Considering all these, it is amazing that those Muslim leaders and writers who talk and write about the Islamic state seldom refer to this important seminal political document of Islam.

It is to be remembered that Muhammad had become a prophet, reciting God's revelations to his fellow-Meccans, for twelve years before he and his followers migrated to Yathrib, two hundred and ten miles to the north of Mecca. There was going to be another ten years to his mission before he completed the delivery of the Divine message to the Arabs and to mankind in God's final scripture, the Quran. So this Medina Charter was provisional in the sense that it could not contain all the provisions of statecraft contained in the Quran. Yathrib was later to known as "The City of the Prophet " or simply Medina. The reason for the migration was the growing opposition of the Quraisy aristocracy to his teachings and the receptive attitude shown by some Yathrib pilgrims to Mecca at this time.

The whole text of the Charter has been reproduced, word for word, by Ibn Ishaq and Abu Ubaid in their respective books from the original preserved by Ibn Abi Khithamah. (FN4)

The Charter consists of 47 clauses, but due to different numbering, Prof. Hamidullah counts it to be 52 (FN5). Clauses 1, 2 and 39 state the formation of a sovereign nation-state with a common citizenship, consisting of various communities, principally Muslim Arabs from Mecca (the Muhajirin or Immigrants), Muslim Arabs from Yathrib (the Ansar or Helpers), other monotheists form Yathrib (i.e. the Jews) and others who must be at that time still pagans. These constitute a unified citizenry (Arabic term, ummah), having equal rights and responsibilities, as distinct from other peoples.

It should not escape anyone's notice that these two clauses established the first modern nation-state in the world. Although Medina was just a city, its Charter was to last until the beginning of the Umayyad Dynasty in 1661. Western historians cite the Treaties of Westphalia in 1648 as the beginning of the modern nation-state era. (FN6)

The Charter provided a federal structure with a centralized authority, with the various tribes in various districts constituting a unit and enjoying autonomy in certain matters of a social, cultural and religious character. Provision for this district autonomy is repeated for each district. (Clauses 3 through to 11 and 26 through to 35) In fact, many matters were left in the hands of the autonomous units, except state security and national defense. (Clauses 17, 36 (a) and 47) Provisions for these centralized subjects are made in Clauses 13, 15, 17 and 44. Only in cases of disputes the units could not resolve, recourse for their decisions had to be made to the Prophet, whose decision was final. (Clauses 23 and 41)

As Prof. Hamidullah rightly stated, " … this new constitution … brought with it very important, and -- to Arabia at least -- very revolutionary change and improvement, by providing the people with a central public institution for seeking justice, in place of everyone seeking it with the power of his own hand or, at best, that of his family. This epoch-making innovation … brought an end for all times to the chaos of tribalism and which laid the basis for a wider institution, viz a State." (FN7)

It should be noted that this loyalty to the State by its plural citizenry constituted a nationalism, or more exactly a patriotism, that is approved by Islam, contrary to what some modern Muslim ideologues assert. It is in line with the teaching in the Quranic verse, "O people, We created you from the same male and female and rendered you into distinct peoples and tribes that you may recognize one another. The best of you in the sight of God is the most righteous." (FN8)

There were twenty districts each with a chief (naqib) and deputy chiefs (`arif) and its meeting place (saqifah). The city at this time had a population of about ten thousand. Of these, the Muslims made up only a few hundred; half of it were monotheist Jews, the rest being polytheists. (FN9)

It is noteworthy that the Charter ordained equality to its members and protected them against oppression. (Clause 16). The State proclaimed the brotherhood of believers and gave each one a right and support to give protection to any individual, excepting an enemy. (Clause 15). It also extended help to its members in debt or in financial difficulties in regard to payment of ransom or blood-money. (Clause 12). It prohibited help or refuge to be given to a murderer. (Clause 22).

A very important human right is given in Clause 25 where freedom was guaranteed for each community to practice its own religion. The implication of this clause is that each individual was also free to choose his or her religion, in line with the clear teachings of the Quran. (FN10)

Another important principle of statecraft is consultation with the people in all matters. This is stated in Clause 37(a). Unlike in modern democratic polity, the voice of the people, vox populi, regardless of whether that voice represents right and truth or not, is given the highest value. This is a basic flaw in Western democracy. Another important principle of just governance is that no quarter is given to an injustice or wrong-doing. In the Charter, this is stated in Clause 47.

As I stated above, this constitution is Muhammad's ijtihad at formulating a constitution when he was confronted with the task of administrating the city-state of Medina. At this time, he had not yet received the full Quran. He had therefore to fall back on customs and precedents, and he did. In any case, all constitutions are provisional in the sense that it must be adapted to changing times.

A trace of Arab tribalism can be detected in two clauses where a member together with his family were to be punished because of a crime he committed. (Clauses 25 and 36(b)) This clearly contradicts another clause which states that no evil-doer is punished except for the crime he commits. (Clause 46)

Perhaps, in the light of present Muslim interest in an "Islamic state", we should point out that this important constitutional document of Islam does not anywhere use the term "Islamic state" of "Islamic society". The major principles governing an Islamic society are, of course, present -- principles like justice, brotherhood and unity of believers, unity and cooperation among zitizens of the state, freedom of religion, strict adherence to pacts entered into between parties, cooperation to do good and to prevent evil, encouragement for high moral conduct, consultation as a method of government. It is also interesting to note that what has been called "Hudud laws", being part of Islamic Law, is also nowhere mentioned in the document.

It should be noted that the Charter, this first Islamic political-constitutional document, was given to the people of Medina in the name of Muhammad the Prophet (Clause 1) and also in the name of God as well as Prophet Muhammad. (Clause 47) Why two different ways of phrasing the ultimate source of power? It is to be remembered that during the Western Middle Ages, the Church ruled supreme in the name of God, and God's name was, of course, much misused by hypocrites and opportunists. The modern Western practice of replacing God with the people has, of course, not helped matters very much. In the name of the people, oppression, wars, colonialism and aggressions have been launched.

Thus, even in this modern age of science and technology, mankind cannot ignore a power that is greater than itself. Mankind has an autonomous right to live, and to live happily, but he must do that in a lawfully created Universe. It is in this sense that the Charter was given in the name of Muhammad the Prophet, who represented the principle of the good and of right reason, which is higher than the individual man. Likewise, in Clause 47 God's name was put first, as God represents the highest Good and the highest principle of right reason. This is necessary to conduct Man to higher and ever higher achievements.

APPENDIX
THE MEDINA CHARTER (FN11)

In the name of God the Compassionate, the Merciful.

(1) This is a document from Muhammad the prophet (governing the relations) between the believers and Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib, and those who followed them and joined them and labored with them.
 
(2) They are one community (umma) to the exclusion of all men.
 
(3) The Quraysh emigrants according to their present custom shall pay the bloodwit within their number and shall redeem their prisoners with the kindness and justice common among believers.

(4-8) The B. ‘Auf according to their present custom shall pay the bloodwit they paid in heatheism; every section shall redeem its prisoners with the kindness and justice common among believers. The B. Sa ida, the B. ‘l-Harith, and the B. Jusham, and the B. al-Najjar likewise.

(9-11) The B. ‘Amr b. ‘Auf, the B. al-Nabit and the B. al-‘Aus likewise.

(12)(a) Believers shall not leave anyone destitute among them by not paying his redemption money or bloodwit in kindness.

(12)(b) A believer shall not take as an ally the freedman of another Muslim against him.

(13) The God-fearing believers shall be against the rebellious or him who seeks to spread injustice, or sin or animosity, or corruption between believers; the hand of every man shall be against him even if he be a son of one of them.

(14) A believer shall not slay a believer for the sake of an unbeliever, nor shall he aid an unbeliever against a believer.

(15) God’s protection is one, the least of them may give protection to a stranger on their behalf. Believers are friends one to the other to the exclusion of outsiders.

(16) To the Jew who follows us belong help and equality. He shall not be wronged nor shall his enemies be aided.

(17) The peace of the believers is indivisible. No separate peace shall be made when believers are fighting in the way of God. Conditions must be fair and equitable to all.

(18) In every foray a rider must take another behind him.

(19) The believers must avenge the blood of one another shed in the way of God.

(20)(a) The God-fearing believers enjoy the best and most upright guidance.

(20)(b) No polytheist shall take the property of person of Quraysh under his protection nor shall he intervene against a believer.

(21) Whoever is convicted of killing a believer without good reason shall be subject to retaliation unless the next of kin is satisfied (with blood-money), and the believers shall be against him as one man, and they are bound to take action against him.

(22) It shall not be lawful to a believer who holds by what is in this document and believes in God and the last day to help an evil-doer or to shelter him. The curse of God and His anger on the day of resurrection will be upon him if he does, and neither repentance nor ransom will be received from him.

(23) Whenever you differ about a matter it must be referred to God and to Muhammad.

(24) The Jews shall contribute to the cost of war so long as they are fighting alongside the believers.

(25) The Jews of the B. ‘Auf are one community with the believers (the Jews have their religion and the Muslims have theirs), their freedmen and their persons except those who behave unjustly and sinfully, for they hurt but themselves and their families.

(26-35) The same applies to the Jews of the B. al-Najjar, B. al-Harith, B. Sai ida, B. Jusham, B. al-Aus, B. Tha'laba, and the Jafna, a clan of the Tha‘laba and the B. al-Shutayba. Loyalty is a protection against treachery. The freedmen of Tha ‘laba are as themselves. The close friends of the Jews are as themselves.

(36) None of them shall go out to war save the permission of Muhammad, but he shall not be prevented from taking revenge for a wound. He who slays a man without warning slays himself and his household, unless it be one who has wronged him, for God will accept that.

(37) The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery. A man is not liable for his ally’s misdeeds. The wronged must be helped.

(38) The Jews must pay with the believers so long as war lasts.

(39) Yathrib shall be a sanctuary for the people of this document.

(40) A stranger under protection shall be as his host doing no harm and committing no crime.

(41) A woman shall only be given protection with the consent of her family.

(42) If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise it must be referred to God and to Muhammad the apostle of God. God accepts what is nearest to piety and goodness in this document.

(43) Quraysh and their helpers shall not be given protection.

(44) The contracting parties are bound to help one another against any attack on Yathrib.

(45)(a) If they are called to make peace and maintain it they must do so; and if they make a similar demand on the Muslims it must be carried out except in the case of a holy war.

(45)(b) Every one shall have his portion from the side to which he belongs.

(46) The Jews of al-Aus, their freedmen and themselves have the same standing with the people of this document in purely loyalty from the people of this document. Loyalty is a protection against treachery. He who acquires ought acquires it for himself. God approves of this document.

(47) This deed will not protect the unjust and the sinner. The man who goes forth to fight and the man who stays at home in the city is safe unless he has been unjust and sinned. God is the protector of the good and God-fearing man and Muhammad is the apostle of God.
 
FOOTNOTES:
  1. The First Written Constitution in the World, Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, 1968. First published in England, 1941.
  2. Translated by Frederic G. Kenyon, Internet. !996 The Avalon Project.
  3. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th Edition, 1991.
  4. The First Written Constitution in the World, p. 9. The translation of the whole text for A. Guillaume's Life of Muhammad is appended at the end.
  5. Ibid., pp. 19-20.
  6. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th Edition, 1991.
  7. The First Written Constitution, p. 18.
  8. Quran, 49:13.
  9. Ibid., pp. 12-13.
  10. There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinguished from the wrong way." (2:256) Note that this statement of complete religious freedom comes immediately after the grandest statement of God's power to be found in any scripture. It is indeed significant!
  11.   This text is taken from A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad -- A Translation of Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, Oxford University Press, Karachi, 1955; pp. 231-233. Numbering added.

Islam’s besieged moderates are making themselves heard

 

By Professor Yasir Suleiman
 

To say that Islam and the Muslims of Europe and North America are under pressure is an understatement. In fact, Muslims feel under siege. On one side of the squeeze are certain non-Muslims who do not wish Islam to be seen as a religion of peace, moderation and ethical values that cuts across faiths traditions and cultural systems.

Whether out of Islamophobia or political convenience, people of this persuasion love to demonise Islam and Muslims as the main sources of violence and terrorism in the modern world. They have succeeded in turning this image of violence and terrorism into a dangerous stereotype, a self-evident truth that needs no substantiation. The fact that the majority of Muslims speak against violence and terrorism, regardless of its origins or the identity of its perpetrators, cuts no ice with these confirmed Islamophobes and political opportunists.

From the other side, Islam and Muslims have come under attack from within the fold by a small minority of extremists who wish to hijack the peaceful message of Islam, replacing it with bloodthirsty assertions about what true Islam really is. These Muslims believe that interpretations of Islam that speak of peace, moderation and the ethics of justice and toleration are acts of surrender to the power of anti-Muslims who wish to destroy Islam from within.

The logic of both parties is the same: a moderate Islam that is willing to live in harmony with itself and at peace with others if they are willing to do the same, is a historical aberration, a posture of dissimulation and deceit, or an abominable act of surrender to the enemy. The implacable enmity of these two camps to a moderate Islam loyal to its universal truths and values paradoxically makes it the most radical form of the religion.

The term “radical” has been endowed with negative meanings these days, but I am using it in its old-fashioned sense of being revolutionary and thought-provoking. When moderation becomes the new form of positive radicalism in matters of faith, culture and civilisation, then we know that the extremists have either won or, I would like to believe, pushed themselves to the outer limits of extremism, to a point where the only platform is the politics of hatred and fear. When those who are bitter enemies of each other hate you for more or less the same reasons, you must be doing something right. This situation reflects the reality of moderate Islam.

Contextualising Islam in Britain: Exploratory Perspectives is the first report of its kind in the UK and the outcome of a community-led project in which 26 Muslims took part in a series of colloquia over nine months. Reacting against the discourses of extremism from within and outside the Muslim community, the project engaged the energies of a cross-section of Muslims in the UK: men and women, young and old, heritage Muslims and new Muslims.

The project aimed to reflect the diversity of the Muslim communities in the UK in faith, culture and ethnicity. Led by the University of Cambridge, in association with the universities of Exeter and Westminster, the project created a space where Muslims could meet, discuss, debate, agree and disagree in an atmosphere of mutual respect and critical self-reflection.

Funding came from the Department for Communities and Local Government, but the project remained independent of both the British government and the universities. This strongly guarded independence was important to the success of the project; it meant that members of the project were able to set their own agenda, determine membership without interference, and choose their own title for the report.

The government recognised that interfering in the project would not only be met with resistance but would also lead to an outright rejection of the report by the Muslim community, its primary audience.

Members of the project did not feel they had to apologise for the universal truths of Islam. These were presented as they are. However, an attempt to place the Sharia in its historical setting was felt to be important in developing an authentic understanding of Islam that is capable of responding to emerging questions and needs. The overriding question members posed to themselves was, what does it mean to live as a faithful Muslim in Britain today?

As the discussions in the project developed, the group engaged and debated a range of topics that emerged from this central question. The simple issue of living in multicultural, plural and “secular” Britain developed into a range of related issues: what are the different meanings that “secular” can have, and how are these contested? What does the Quranic commitment to pluralism mean in our current context? What is the relationship between the overall objectives of Sharia and the political and ethical vision expressed in international human rights instruments?

Another important area of discussion was citizenship. What do Islamic traditions have to say about citizenship, and how might Muslim scholarship develop this notion further? How are discussions about citizenship created in Britain today? What does or should active citizenship imply, and what might the barriers be to exercising this citizenship in wider society?

In response to these questions, the report stresses the importance of allowing the free expression of religious voices in the public sphere, and expresses strong support for an accommodative approach by the state in religious matters.

The report also emphasises the importance of political engagement through democratic channels, the need to strengthen civil society institutions as a protection against the power of the state, as well as the legitimacy of secular democracy as a framework within which to hold power to account. Active citizenship implies a commitment to the ethical responsibilities of citizens in relation to the Quranic notion of humans as vicegerents of God.

The report sets out to counter the stereotypical interpretations of some Islamic concepts, including jihad, Sharia, fiqh, khilafa, dar al-Islam and dar al harb that have entered the English language with streamlined, ossified or distorted meanings. Even the term fatwa has acquired a narrowed meaning in English, almost replacing that of “legal opinion” with “death sentence”. Locating these concepts in their historical settings, the report seeks to outline some of their alternative meanings to correct and enrich the public understanding of Islam.

Contextualising Islam in Britain is an “exploratory report”, as its subtitle says. Reaction to this well-crafted and balanced document has been largely positive, although those who oppose Islam from the extreme ends of the spectrum, on the inside and the outside, have criticised it as a whitewash or as an act of public surrender to government power.

These two groups could not be further from the truth, and the fact that some who refused to take part in the project have expressed strong interest in joining a second phase is a ringing endorsement of it.

This change of mind and heart shows that the report is timely and that it resonates with Muslims in their search for authentic, faith-based answers to their modern-day problems.

-- Professor Yasir Suleiman is director of the Alwaleed Bin Talal Centre of Islamic Studies at the University of Cambridge. Contextualising Islam in Britain is available for download at www.cis.cam.ac.uk/CIBP.html. This article appeared in The National.

Source: Middle East Online