Islamic Studies Chair for Carolina Students

CAIRO — The University of North Carolina (UNC) is creating an endowed faculty chair in Islamic studies to meet the growing hunger for information on Islam and Muslims in the post-9/11 world.

"At Carolina, we're proud that our academic strengths include the study of diverse religions since that helps our students and the public better understand other cultures," Holder Thorp, the university chancellor, told the Herald Sun on Monday, January 26.

Along with money granted from the state tax, fundraising effort would be led by Cemalnur Sargut, president of the Turkish Women's Cultural Association in Istanbul.

"We're grateful that our distinguished friends from Turkey are providing a new opportunity to further enhance the university's expertise in Islamic studies," Thorp said.

Named after Turkish writer Kenan Rifai, who advocated women education and development in the 20th century, the chair aims to raise awareness about Islamic studies and the Muslim world.

"It's not teaching religion the way you might do it in Sunday school," notes Dee Reid, director of communications of the College of Arts and Sciences.

"It's not for a practitioner of Islam, it's for an expert in Islamic studies…for the academic study."

Chartered in 1789, the UNC was the first public university in the US and the only one to graduate students in the 18th century.

Today, it is a public, multi-campus university dedicated to the service of North Carolina and its people.

It encompasses 16 diverse constituent institutions and other educational, research, and public service organizations.

Growing Interest

The Islamic studies chair aims to meet the growing interest among American students for information about Islam and Muslims.

"There's increasing interest in this among students," explains Reid, the College of Arts and Sciences communications director.

"I think since 9-11 there's been tremendous interest in learning Arabic and learning about people who practice Islam in different parts of the world," added the official.

"It's an emerging field. Students are tremendously interested in going abroad because of this."

A recent Pew Research Center and the Pew Forum poll showed that the majority of Americans know very little about the practices of Islam.

The Islamic studies chair has drawn a "wait-and-see" stance from the Christian groups at the university.

"I'd really rather not comment on it until I have a chance to look into it and think about it," Lee Sullens, campus minister with Carolina Baptist Campus Ministry, told the newspaper.

"We would be interested in understanding it more," agreed Miles O'Neill, campus director of Cornerstone Campus Crusade for Christ.

"It's not the type of thing we're going to protest."

Source : IslamOnline.net & Newspapers

Muslims get on the bus

By Rashid Abbara
Florida Muslims are putting ads on city buses to promote tolerance and teach their neighbours about Islam.

The voices of reason, moderation and tolerance in any faith must always be louder than those of extremists. Unfortunately, every time terrorists falsely claim Islamic justification for their violence, all Muslims are tarred with the same broad brush. The voices of mainstream Muslims condemning these unjustifiable acts are often drowned out by the inflammatory rhetoric of those same terrorists.

It is important that people of other faiths know that Muslims in America and around the world are speaking out against terrorism. That is why the South Florida Muslim community embarked on a campaign this fall, designed to reach out to our fellow Americans and teach them about Islam and Muslims.

Since November 25, and continuing for eight weeks, the Dade and Broward County transit systems in south Florida are displaying large, colourful banners about Islam on the sides of 120 buses. We thought the buses would be the most exotic way to promote our message. These large ads, floating around the city, are very visible to drivers and pedestrians. Similar campaigns in Chicago and New York have been successful and generated great curiosity. The public is used to seeing ads that promote products and services, but not ads like ours. This American Islamic awareness campaign is designed to bring positive awareness of Islam and Muslims to our fellow Americans.

Our campaign started on Thanksgiving, the beginning of the holiday season and gorgeous weather. This is a perfect opportunity for the Muslim community to bring positive awareness about Islam not only to Floridians but also to tourists to take back home.

It is time for mainstream Muslims to stand up and speak more loudly than the tiny minority of extremists who are dragging Islam's name through the mud. We hope that this positive, pro-active campaign will enhance understanding of Islam and encourage dialogue and mutual understanding.

At one fundraising event at a local mosque, we asked everyone to participate in the bus ad project and donate whatever they could afford, even if it was just one dollar. One child gave three dollars and said: "Now I could walk out and say I am a co-founder of this project that will defend Islam and Muslims." A Muslim man in his late 50s told us: "I don't have any money, but I could volunteer to drive the bus." It is this type of attitude that keeps us going. His words brought tears to my eyes, knowing that he is willing to do whatever it takes to demand respect and live righteously.

These are just small examples of ordinary Muslims who want to make a difference in this world. I remember a friend of mine telling me that it would be hard to raise $60,000 in a short period because the Muslim community cannot afford to sponsor another project in a period of economic hardship. I told him that we cannot afford to be misperceived as silent on the issue of terror.

Since its launch, our website, www.CallingIslam.com, has had more than 220,000 views. Our call centre has received hundreds of calls on our US toll-free number 1-888-ISLAM-55. Most callers had misconceptions about Islam and wanted to learn more about their Muslim neighbours.

It is through such initiatives that we will all come together as people of faith to marginalise the extremists so that the voice of moderation is heard loud and clear.

Source : Guardian.co.uk

Interview by Andrea Bistrich: Karen Armstrong (4)

So why aren't religious people compassionate? What does that say about them? Compassion is not a popular virtue. Many religious people prefer to be right rather than compassionate. They don't want to give up their egos. They want religion to give them a little mild uplift once a week so that they can return to their ordinary selfish lives, unscathed by the demands of their tradition. Religion is hard work; not many people do it well. But are secularists any better? Many secularists would subscribe to the compassionate ideal but are just as selfish as religious people. The failure of religious people to be compassionate doesn't tell us something about religion, but about human nature. Religion is a method: you have to put it into practice to discover its truth. But, unfortunately, not many people do.

Islam and the West

Discussing Western ideas of justice and democracy in the Middle East, British foreign correspondent of The Independent, Robert Fisk, says: "We keep on saying that Arabs ... would like some of our shiny, brittle democracy, that they'd like freedom from the secret police and freedom from the dictators-who we largely put there. But they would also like freedom from us. And they want justice, which is sometimes more important than 'democracy'". Does the West need to realize that Muslims can run a modern state, but it is perhaps not the kind of democracy we want to see?

As Muslim intellectuals made clear, Islam is quite compatible with democracy, but unfortunately democracy has acquired a bad name in many Muslim countries. It seems that the West has said consistently: we believe in freedom and democracy, but you have to be ruled by dictators like the shahs or Saddam Hussein. There seems to have been a double standard. Robert Fisk is right: when I was in Pakistan recently and quoted Mr Bush-"They hate our freedom!"-the whole audience roared with laughter.

Democracy cannot be imposed by armies and tanks and coercion. The modern spirit has two essential ingredients; if these are not present, no matter how many fighter jets, computers or sky scrapers you have, your country is not really "modern".

The first of these is independence. The modernization of Europe from 16th to the 20th century was punctuated by declarations of independence on all fronts: religious, intellectual, political, economic. People demanded freedom to think, invent, and create as they chose.

The second quality is innovation as we modernized in the West: we were always creating something new; there was a dynamism and excitement to the process, even though it was often traumatic.

But in the Muslim world, modernity did not come with independence but with colonial subjugation; and still Muslims are not free, because the Western powers are often controlling their politics behind the scenes to secure the oil supply etc. Instead of independence there has been an unhealthy dependence and loss of freedom. Unless people feel free, any "democracy" is going to be superficial and flawed. And modernity did not come with innovation to the Muslims: because we were so far ahead, they could only copy us. So instead of innovation you have imitation.

We also know in our own lives that it is difficult-even impossible-to be creative when we feel under attack. Muslims often feel on the defensive and that makes it difficult to modernize and democratize creatively-especially when there are troops, tanks and occupying forces on the streets.

Do you see any common ground between Western world and Islam?

This will only be possible if the political issues are resolved. There is great common ground between the ideals of Islam and the modern Western ideal, and many Muslims have long realized this. At the beginning of the twentieth century, almost every single Muslim intellectual was in love with the West and wanted their countries to look just like Britain and France. Some even said that the West was more "Islamic" than the unmodernized Muslim countries, because in their modern economies they were able to come closer to the essential teaching of the Koran, which preaches the importance of social justice and equity. At this time, Muslims recognized the modern, democratic West as deeply congenial. In 1906, Muslim clerics campaigned alongside secularist intellectuals in Iran for representational government and constitutional rule. When they achieved their goal, the grand ayatollah said that the new constitution was the next best thing to the coming of the Shiite Messiah, because it would limit the tyranny of the shah and that was a project worthy of every Muslim. Unfortunately the British then discovered oil in Iran and never let the new parliament function freely. Muslims became disenchanted with the West as a result of Western foreign policy: Suez, Israel/Palestine, Western support of corrupt regimes, and so on.

What is needed from a very practical point of view to bridge the gap? What would you advise our leaders-our politicians and governments?

A revised foreign policy. A solution in Israel/Palestine that gives security to the Israelis and justice and autonomy to the Palestinians. No more support of corrupt, dictatorial regimes. A just solution to the unfolding horror in Iraq, which has been a "wonderful" help to groups like Al-Qaeda, playing right into their hands. No more situations like Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay. Money poured into Afghanistan and Palestine. A solution to Kashmir. No more short-term solutions for cheap oil. In Iraq and in Lebanon last summer we saw that our big armies are no longer viable against guerrilla and terror attacks. Diplomacy is essential. But suspicion of the West is now so entrenched that it may be too late.

Interview by Andrea Bistrich: Karen Armstrong (1)

Karen Armstrong was a Catholic nun for seven years before leaving her order and going to Oxford. Today, she is amongst the most renowned theologians and has written numerous bestsellers on the great religions and their founders. She is one of the 18 leading group members of the Alliance of Civilizations, an initiative of the former UN General Secretary, Kofi Anan, whose purpose is to fight extremism and further dialogue between the western and Islamic worlds. She talks here to the German journalist, Andrea Bistrich, about politics, religion, extremism and commonalities.

ANDREA BISTRICH: 9/11 has become the symbol of major, insurmountable hostilities between Islam and the West. After the attacks many Americans asked: "Why do they hate us?" And experts in numerous round-table talks debated if Islam is an inherently violent religion. Is this so?

KAREN ARMSTRONG: Certainly not. There is far more violence in the Bible than in the Qur'an; the idea that Islam imposed itself by the sword is a Western fiction, fabricated during the time of the Crusades when, in fact, it was Western Christians who were fighting brutal holy wars against Islam. The Qur'an forbids aggressive warfare and permits war only in self-defence; the moment the enemy sues for peace, the Qur'an insists that Muslims must lay down their arms and accept whatever terms are offered, even if they are disadvantageous. Later, Muslim law forbade Muslims to attack a country where Muslims were permitted to practice their faith freely; the killing of civilians was prohibited, as were the destruction of property and the use of fire in warfare.

The sense of polarization has been sharpened by recent controversies — the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, over the Pope's remarks about Islam, over whether face-veils hinder integration. All these things have set relations between Islam and the West on edge. Harvard-Professor Samuel Huntington introduced the theory of a "clash of civilizations" we are witnessing today. Does such a fundamental incompatibility between the "Christian West" and the "Muslim World" indeed exist?

The divisions in our world are not the result of religion or of culture, but are politically based. There is an imbalance of power in the world, and the powerless are beginning to challenge the hegemony of the Great Powers, declaring their independence of them-often using religious language to do so. A lot of what we call "fundamentalism" can often be seen as a religious form of nationalism, an assertion of identity. The old 19th-century European nationalist ideal has become tarnished and has always been foreign to the Middle East. In the Muslim world people are redefining themselves according to their religion in an attempt to return to their roots after the great colonialist disruption.

What has made Fundamentalism, seemingly, so predominant today?

The militant piety that we call "fundamentalism" erupted in every single major world faith in the course of the twentieth century. There is fundamentalist Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism and Confucianism, as well as fundamentalist Islam. Of the three monotheistic religions-Judaism, Christianity and Islam-Islam was the last to develop a fundamentalist strain during the 1960s.

Fundamentalism represents a revolt against secular modern society, which separates religion and politics. Wherever a Western secularist government is established, a religious counterculturalist protest movement rises up alongside it in conscious rejection. Fundamentalists want to bring God/religion from the sidelines to which they have been relegated in modern culture and back to centre stage. All fundamentalism is rooted in a profound fear of annihilation: whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim, fundamentalists are convinced that secular or liberal society wants to wipe them out. This is not paranoia: Jewish fundamentalism took two major strides forward, one after the Nazi Holocaust, the second after the Yom Kippur War of 1973. In some parts of the Middle East, secularism was established so rapidly and aggressively that it was experienced as a lethal assault.

The fact that fundamentalism is also a phenomenon in politics was stressed only recently by former US president Jimmy Carter when he voiced his concerns over the increasing merging of religion and state in the Bush administration, and the element of fundamentalism in the White House. Carter sees that traits of religious fundamentalists are also applicable to neo-conservatives. There seems to be a major controversy between, on the one hand, so called hard-liners or conservatives and, on the other, the progressives. Is this a typical phenomenon of today's world?

The United States is not alone in this. Yes, there is a new intolerance and aggression in Europe too as well as in Muslim countries and the Middle East. Culture is always-and has always been-contested. There are always people who have a different view of their country and are ready to fight for it. American Christian fundamentalists are not in favour of democracy; and it is true that many of the Neo-Cons, many of whom incline towards this fundamentalism, have very hard-line, limited views. These are dangerous and difficult times and when people are frightened they tend to retreat into ideological ghettos and build new barriers against the "other". Democracy is really what religious people call "a state of grace." It is an ideal that is rarely achieved, that has constantly to be reaffirmed, lest it be lost. And it is very difficult to fulfil. We are all-Americans and Europeans-falling short of the democratic ideal during the so called "war against terror."

Best International Islamic Bank : HSBC Amanah (Euromoney)

HSBC Amanah is the global Islamic banking division of the HSBC Group, and was established in 1998 with the aim of making HSBC the leading provider of Islamic banking worldwide. With more than a hundred professionals serving the Middle East, Asia Pacific, Europe and the Americas, HSBC Amanah represents the largest Islamic banking team of any international bank.
HSBC has a rich tradition of community banking, and HSBC Amanah was established to serve the particular financial needs of Muslim communities. Our mission statement and corporate values reflect this vision.
The HSBC Amanah mission statement:
HSBC Amanah is committed to improving the lives of our customers worldwide by providing them with the highest quality Islamic banking solutions.

HSBC Amanah´s corporate values:
In developing our products and services, we are committed to the highest Shariah standards in the Islamic banking industry. We constantly strive to address the needs and concerns of our customers. Our teamwork with HSBC colleagues around the world harnesses the knowledge and resources of HSBC Group for the benefit of our customers. We are an organisation that demands and rewards excellence. We maintain high ethical standards in our business relationships and invest in the future of our communities.
HSBC Amanah considers Shariah compliance of its business operations as its most important & strategic priority. This is reflected in its Corporate Values, "In developing our products and services, we are committed to the highest Shariah standards in the Islamic banking industry." In addition to Global Shariah Advisory Board and Regional Shariah Committees, HSBC Amanah employs a team of qualified professionals to ensure that the guidance and advice received from the Shariah Committees is implemented in letter and spirit.
HSBC Amanah Global Shariah Advisory Board
The Global Shariah Advisory Board (GSAB) advises HSBC Amanah on research activities intended for further development of the Islamic finance industry. GSAB comprises of representative scholars from all Regional Shariah Committees (RSC) of HSBC Amanah in addition to other Shariah scholars of international standing. The presence of renowned scholars from various geographies at GSAB will provide an opportunity to achieve further harmonization of Shariah standards and practices of Islamic Finance Industry. The following independent Shariah scholars are currently members of GSAB.
Sheikh Justice (Retd.) Muhammad Taqi Usmani (Pakistan, Sheikh Hussain Hamid Hassan (Egypt), Dr. Muhammad Achmad Sahal Mahfudh (Indonesia), Dr. Mohammed Daud Bakar (Malaysia), Sheikh Dr. Mohamed Ali Elgari (Saudi Arabia), Sheikh Nizam Yaquby (Bahrain),and Dr. Mohammad Akram Laldin (Malaysia)
HSBC Amanah operations are closely supervised by four Regional Shariah Committees (RSCs) in addition to a Central Shariah Committee (CSC). The CSC supervises HSBC Amanah businesses as well as operations in UAE, Qatar, UK, USA and Bangladesh. The CSC comprises of following well-known scholars: Sheikh Nizam Yaquby, Sheikh Dr. Mohamed Ali Elgari and Sheikh Dr. Muhammad Imran Ashraf Usmani.

HSBC Amanah operations in Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore are supervised by following independent RSCs.
HSBC Amanah has won the Euromoney 2005 awards for Best Islamic Wholesale Bank and Best for Private Banking Services.
HSBC Amanah has won the following awards:
Euromoney awards : Best International Provider of Islamic Financial Services (2004), Best International Sukuk House (2004), Best Islamic Wholesale Bank (2005), Best for Private Banking Services (2005).
Award-winning transactions : Emirates ECA-backed financing 2001, (Euromoney, Jane´s Transport Finance, Institutional Investor, Airfinance Journal), Government of Malaysia Global Sukuk - 2002,(Euromoney, Institutional Investor, Asiamoney, FinanceAsia), Emirates IV, with Islamic Development Bank - 2003 and (Jane´s Transport Finance)

The "Islamic Economic" can be a new model to overcome the "bublle" economy

Director of the Bank Muamalat U Saefudin Noer, Wednesday, said that the "Islamic Economic" can be a new model to overcome the "bublle" economy that occurred at this time.

"Many countries now see the economic system of Islam to be a reference to the 'bubble or bublle' which occurs at this time," said Saefudin, to ANTARA when speaking in Jakarta, Wednesday.

Some countries have started to develop the economy of Islam, such as Hong Kong develops with the "Islamic Economic Center," he said.

One of the problems of the financial crisis that the United States is related to the industry "sub-prime mortgage" (KPR Subprima).

He also mentioned that the problems of the crisis that the world economy at this time, not only caused the system doubt the ability of capitalism to realize prosperity in the world, but also caused by the change in the moral ethics of the perpetrators of the financial world.

The capitalist-style economic actors is more likely to do engineering products for speculative profits, which tend to be ravenous (greedy), said Saefudin.

The main difference between conventional banks with Sharia bank is located on the basis of philosophy. The Sharia Bank does not implement interest in all activities, while the bank had kovensional implement interest. This system is a very profound difference to the products developed by the sharia banks, where interest rates to avoid the system, the system being developed is the buying and selling partnership which was held in the form of the results.
In addition, Saefudin also said that the bank also pro real sector, thus encouraging the state economy moving, so it can save from the crisis.
Drafts of the sharia is applied banks invest client funds in the bank first into the business, the business profit is distributed.
Unlike customers with savings in conventional banks, no matter whether the saving in the pipe to the business or not, the bank is still obliged to pay interest, he said.
Islamic banking in Indonesia, which first appeared is PT Bank Muamalat Indonesia (BMI) was founded in 1992 that this is not to get the injection of government funds during the crisis and 1998.
Experience that can be used as evidence that the economic system of Islam that is applied in BMI can be safe from the crisis that occurred in the sectors of the banking industry, he said.
"At the time of the banking crisis of 1998 and Indonesia have raised interest rates high tribes, so that there is a negative margin because the banks can not distribute the credit back and bad debts arising," jelasnya.Dia also revealed that the growth of sharia banks in Indonesia is very rapid, but " size "it is still small. "The growth of sharia banks of 60 percent last year, is still Sharia bank assets around 2-3 percent compared to conventional banks," he said.

While market alone sharia bank, BMI has controlled 35 percent market share, with most of the transactions system traksaksi murabahah (Sale-purchase), followed by mudharabah transaction system (for results) and transaction system Ijarah (lease). The challenge Sharia bank Indonesia's current need for greater capital to develop the business, human resources, which have not been able to offset growth and the office network. Saefudin also revealed that sharia banks will not do large-scale funding of the conventional banks are pengetatan liquidity crisis at this time. "We will not stop the funding, but the system needs to be improved Prudential (prudential) in the distribution of funds," he explained, reported by Republika.

Interview : Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (6)

The 20th century was a century in which the Muslim world experienced the hands of the West in the perception of the Muslim world -- a dismantling of some of its important constructs. The most significant of that was the dismantling of the Ottoman caliph. Because for the first time in the collective consciousness of Muslims, there is no caliph anywhere. And it was replaced-- especially in major population centers of the Muslim world, those that were important at the turn at the beginning of the twentieth century: Turkey, Egypt, Iran -- the traditional forms of rulership were replaced by militantly secular regimes. Not only secular regimes, but militantly secular regimes, which did not even support traditional values which were cherished by the people. In Turkey, for instance, Ataturk himself forbade the calling of the prayer in the Arabic language. They changed the script of Ottoman Turkish from Arabic script to the Roman script.
So the Muslim world felt that there was a deliberate attempt to create a split in that bond which Muslims had. ... So what happened created a split between Arabs and Turks ... and refigured the map and created new identities of people.
People [had] thought of themselves as part of a group. You had the family, the clan, the tribe and extended notion of a tribe, a people, a nation. So for example the Uzbekis were split geographically. So you have some Uzbekis in Uzbekistan, some in what we call Afghanistan.
The Pashtun people were split: some in Pakistan, some in Afghanistan. The Hazaris were split between Iran and Afghanistan. We tell these people, this segment of Uzbekis, Pashtuns and Hazaris, now think of yourself as a completely new identification based upon geography, which people did not have before. And this seeded conflict. ...
We did the same thing in Iraq, and the Kurds lost out. They are split between Iraq and Turkey. So the West planted the seed for some grave problems in the Muslim world. But at the same time, they robbed the Muslim world in the minds of the Muslims, from a sense of identity that was based upon people, and also a sense of pluralism that existed within the Muslim dialectic. So within, let's say, the Ottoman caliphate, they had a principle of different peoples.
So they had the notion that the sultan had political power over these different people. But these peoples had their different cultural norms, different religions. They had their different religious leaders, as long as political homage was paid to the sultan, and they didn't act in a way which was treasonous politically. They had their own court system, dealing with matters of religious affairs and so forth.
All was part of this of this grouping of people. So we had a method of pluralism which worked, which was successful. And there were instances of intermarriage between the people and so forth, but people lived harmoniously. It created what Samuel Huntington calls "torn societies."... Samuel Huntington describes a torn society as "a society whose leadership, those who hold the reins of the power, identify with a different set of cultural norms than the people on whom they govern."

And what would be the key implications that came of this fracturing, tearing apart, in the way Islam has been lived?

I think the major thing is that Muslims have been taught to think in certain ideas that are peculiarly Western -- the idea of nationalism, the idea of nation states. And in their attempt to fulfill their natural urge to perfect themselves as Muslims individually and collectively, they therefore try to create some peculiar hybrids.
Like the notion of an Islamic state, for instance. Several generations of Muslims now have been educated in ways that their mindset and ways of thinking, if not their language even, is very much Westernized. So they think in terms of Western ideas and concepts, even if they speak their own native languages.
So the urge therefore to develop an Islamic nation-state -- a concept which some people may regard as being an oxymoron, because the nation-state is not something which developed out of the Islamic tradition ... that the Islamic philosophical tradition was based upon identification of grouping of peoples, who had governed themselves according to living in certain ways and structured in a slightly different way. ...

There seems to be a growing conservatism, or conservative interpretation of Islam taking hold. Is that something you have seen, or agree with?
I think that in the 20th century there are certain waves that occurred. There was, at one point in time, a feeling -- in fact, when you go back to the first part of the twentieth century, there were some well-known voices who grew out of Islamic tradition but who were exposed to the West ... who felt the need to restate what it means to be a Muslim in the 20th century. They found many aspects of Western society to be highly admirable, and wanted to bring it to their own countries.
In fact, in the 1920s the Wafd party was founded in Egypt to introduce democracy into Egypt. And the Wafd party had on its platform Egyptians -- not only Egyptian Muslims but Egyptian Jews and Egyptian ... Christians from the Coptic Church on the platform.
So there was an attempt to meld the best of the of the East with the best of the West. These movements ... were interrupted by events of World War II and the rise of militant dictatorial regimes, which completely changed the sociological complexion, the political complexion of much of the Muslim world. During that period of time, I would say 1950s and 1960s, there was a time when these regimes had the upper hand. And they felt that the way to fast-forward as societies, in terms of the industrial development, was to emulate the West in all of its aspects.
Their policies didn't succeed. And this resulted in a reaction to much of these policies, because this newfangled way of doing things didn't work. Let's go back and revisit our traditions, and let's find comfort in those traditions. ...

Could you just explain to us the key things that Islam, Christianity and Judaism have in common -- what they share?

They share geography. They share Jerusalem, which is important to all. We share a common ancestor, Abraham, who was really the founder and the patriarch of all of us. And I think if we can revert back to the Abrahamic foundation, that is [where] we will find our common ground. Our languages are very similar -- Arabic and Hebrew and Aramaic ... . The ideas are very similar; and the fundamental impulse of belief in God, that God is the creator, that we are obliged to act in a way that is ethical and just and right. These are certainly among the important aspects of kinship between these three faith traditions. And I would even go further and say -- apart perhaps from some differences in the notion of God -- but as far as the idea of the common good, the idea of social justice -- [that] is shared with all faith traditions.
Source : Frontline : Muslims

Interview : Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (4)

Can you explain Sharia?

The word "Sharia" is the term given to define the collectivity of laws that Muslims govern themselves by. And there is a presumption that these laws recognize all of the specific laws mentioned in the Quran and in the practice of the prophet, and do not conflict with that. So any law, anything studied in the Quran or the hadith, is definitely [Sharia]. The idea is that it is divinely legislated, that the creator also has legislated certain things for us.
But in the community of Muslims, it was recognized very early on that the Quran and the hadith do not speak to all issues. And there are many issues which are not necessarily addressed in the Quran and the hadith, that the Quran is silent on. ... There is a recognition in the [science] of Islamic jurisprudence that there are issues which have to be obtained by analogy, by consensus, and other [subsidiary] sources of jurisprudence. But as long as they don't conflict with the Quran and hadith of the prophet, it's considered to be, quote, unquote, "Sharia."

The flexibility built in there, you know, the using of your own common sense, is that what allows different places to apply Sharia differently?

Well, I wouldn't phrase it quite that way. The correct phrasing would be that when people think about Islamic law, there's a presumption that all of Islamic law is Quranic, or emanates from the Quran and the hadith. The point is, and the truth of the matter is, what really defines Islamic law [is] the sum total of Islamic law as has been practiced by Muslims throughout the last 14, 15 centuries ... . Generally, it emanates from the Quran and the hadith. The Quran and the hadith are a limiting factor and a shaping factor. But any body of laws that includes and embodies the specific commandments and prohibitions mentioned in the Quran and the hadith, that does not violate any of these things, has been considered as Sharia, as Islamic. And this allows a lot of variation of opinion, in things which the Quran and the hadith are relatively silent on as long as the principles are maintained, of justice, et cetera.

My understanding of [the Sharia] rules about punishment for matrimonial infidelity [is that] you have to have four eyewitnesses, or several eyewitnesses to the [act] in order to demand the death penalty. It's almost inconceivable to me that you could ever produce that kind of eyewitness or evidence. But we hear that these kinds of punishments are meted out fairly regularly. Is the law being followed the way it's set [out]?

You cannot judge a whole body of law by one instance of criminal law. When people think about Sharia law, they often think about the penalties for certain crimes. They don't think about the sum total of Islamic law and its jurisprudence, which means the underlying structure and philosophy and understanding of how you arrive at what we call the Islamically correct decision. You do not define Sharia law by just a couple of penalties. ...
Islamic law has a few penalties for certain crimes. But the rules of evidence, as you mentioned in the case of adultery, require either the free confession by the individual and/or the existence of four witnesses who are of sound mind and who fit the description of qualified witnesses, which is very rare to obtain.
Much of what we see when we hear of events that apply Sharia law, what we see in Nigeria, for instance, or even in Pakistan, is a desire by much of the people to see the general principles of justice followed. ... It is a desire by the people to see their system of laws be more equitable. It is a call for correction of the overall system of social justice, of economic justice, which the Quran calls for, and the example of the prophet calls for.
You see, Muslims have an ideal. Part of their ideal is to follow what they call the example of the prophet, the Sunna of the prophet. So at an individual level, a human being who wants to perfect himself or herself looks to the tradition of the prophet, his individual practice, and tries to emulate the prophet as much as possible.
There is also a collective subliminal ambition that Muslims have, that at a collective level, they also embody the ideals of the community that the prophet developed in Medina. So when Muslims today speak of the attempt to establish an Islamic state, what they are really saying is that they would like to have a community that lives in accordance with the ideals, the relationships, the social contract, which the prophet had developed in Medina with his companions and how they had this amongst each other. ...

In what ways do Western values, morals, and cultural practices, intrude upon, and [in what ways] are they at variance with Islamic ideals?

I think there are two aspects to this question, in the broader sense of the word. There is Western values regarding governance; Western values regarding separation of powers; Western notions regarding what the role of government is in society; Western notion in terms of democratic institutions and principles and ideas. And to a large extent, Muslims are very enamored of these systems, and would like to implement them in their own societies ... because these principles and norms are completely in sync with the principles of the Quran and the teachings of the prophet. Muslims would like very much to implement these norms within their societies.
When you come to speak about things like behavioral norms, gender relationships, or the kind of things that people will do, this is a separate issue. And there is another aspect of the West, and that is the attitude of the West towards the non-Western countries, in terms of trying to be presumptuous in telling them how they should even live their lives in ways that they are not accustomed to -- like modes of dress, for instance. In the 1930s, when the first shah of Iran forced his soldiers at bayonet point to force Iranian women to take off the chador, for instance.
People don't like to be told how to dress. This is a matter of personal individual conscience. Even we here in the West do not insist that our students in public schools wear uniforms. We give them that level of freedom. People do not like to be told how to do certain things in their personal lives.

What are the key differences between being a Muslim in America and being a Muslim in the Muslim world?
There are many aspects to that. There is the political aspect, the sociological aspect, the social and family aspect, the economic aspect. So there are many aspects to the to the difference between living in a Muslim country as a native especially, and living in this country. ...
If I were to look at maybe the broadest difference: there is a sense of freedom in the United States. So one practices one's faith in the United States as an act of deliberate choice. If you are not [doing so, it's] not so much because of social pressure. There may be a certain amount of social pressure. But at a certain point in one's life, one is relatively free to live one's life as one chooses in this country.
And that sense of freedom makes one's religiosity or the defining lines of one's religiosity much sharper. Religion is a much more personal thing here. It is also a deeper experience within the personal envelope. One is forced to attach oneself to one's religion in a personally deeper way in terms of the existential issues -- it has to be anchored on a much deeper existential foundation.
Another aspect about living in the United States is that one experiences a lot of negative media attention to one's Islamicity. And that has resulted, and can result in a reaction one way or the other by many people. Many Muslims feel in this country like the Christians did in Rome when they were fed to the lions. And here the lions are the media. We hope that perhaps things will change in the United States, as they did in Rome, as well.
Source : Frontline : Muslims

Interview : Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (2)

If the message is the same, then how come the people don't agree with each other?

Well, God's perennial lament -- not only in the Quran, but in other scriptures as well -- is that people generally do not follow God's dictates and the guidance and the mandate that God has offered to humanity to follow. We tend to be recalcitrant. We tend to be disobedient to divine guidance. And if you look at human conflict, it has even existed within people of the same religious tradition. I don't need to remind you that even among those who call themselves Muslims there has been a lot of bloodshed.

We're finding that it's very hard to define who Muslims are. Every time we figure, oh, that's what it is, or that's who they are, there's an exception to the rule. There's a very traditional housewife-looking lady in Malaysia who's also an OB/Gyn who ministers to unwed mothers. We have girls in Turkey who are saying, "Look, we want to express ourselves as Muslims. We want to cover our hair." And we have a secular government that's discriminating against them -- women who want to cover, women who don't. Men who want to keep women in the house; men who agree that women have absolute opportunity to do what they need to do in society. How does this all fit?

The definition of the faith of Islam that I gave you before is the Quranic universal definition of the human being vis-a-vis the creator. There is a narrower definition of Islam which is used, which is those who follow the teachings of the prophet Muhammad. Now, according to that definition, their Islam is defined by what was commonly called the five pillars of faith. This is what theologians call the orthopraxy, or the orthopraxis. It means the practices which define you as a Muslim.
There are also five articles of creed, of belief, which theologians call the orthodoxy. That which defines you as a Muslim, if you adhere to these beliefs, [parallels] to, say, [Christianity] and Judaism, that in the Jewish faith, there is an orthopraxy, not much of an orthodoxy. As long as you abide by the rituals, the dietary laws, male circumcision, et cetera, et cetera, there is flexibility within the Jewish tradition on what you might choose to believe in to be considered as a member of the Jewish faith community. So there is flexibility in whether [you] believe in an afterlife, heaven and hell and so forth.
In the Christian faith, you have the opposite situation. You have a fundamental orthodoxy, which is, you have to believe that Jesus Christ is savior. If you believe wholeheartedly that Jesus Christ is savior, you are saved; you receive salvation. And there's a great flexibility on the ritual end. What you do in terms of prayers or dietary laws, circumcision, et cetera, there's flexibility on that.
In Islam, we have both an orthodoxy and an orthopraxy. The orthodoxy of the Islamic faith is defined as a belief in the oneness of God and the right attitude, the right understandings of God, as I mentioned earlier. A belief in the angels, beings created of light, who convey the divine commandments. The belief that God communicated to humanity via scriptures. And these scriptures are considered to be both oral and written form. ... And the belief that God also communicated his guidance and messages and teachings to humanity via human intermediaries, human messengers, we call them. prophets, or messengers.
And the last item of the Islamic orthodoxy is the belief in the last day. The last is a compound concept which means that this creation will, in fact, come to an end. So those of us who believe in the big bang theory, there will be a big implosion, in other words, at the end of time, so to speak, followed by a day of resurrection, where all the souls shall be resurrected; followed by a day of judgment, where all souls will be judged; followed by the obtaining of divine approval or divine disapproval. A pass grade or a failing grade. Those who get a passing grade will be in paradise. Those who get a failing grade will be in what we call hell. And the underlying theme of the last day is that we are all accountable for our ethical actions. ... That's the orthodoxy.
The orthopraxy of Islam is a declaration of faith: the statement that there is no God but God; that Muhammad is the messenger of God; the five-time daily prayer; the giving of alms, typically 2.5 percent of one's income or assets; the fasting of the month of Ramadan; and the going to pilgrimage, or hajj, once in one's lifetime, if one can afford it, financially and physically. Anybody who does these things is within the box of Islam.
There are other things, secondary things. Rules of dress and rules of behavior and rules of what may be considered right or wrong. And these come from cultural norms and from secondary sources of jurisprudence. But anybody who believes in these things and practices these things is a Muslim. ...
Source : Frontline : Muslims