Book Review: The Syrio Aramiac Reading of the Quran by Christoph Luxenberg

This odd book is neither accessible nor academic, it does not appear to be addressed to the ordinary reader, nor to the scientific academic community. For an ordinary reader it’s overwhelming with extensive multilingual references, scripts and footnotes. For academics it’s overreaching in scope, lacking in focus, full of opinions and not presented in a manner that lends itself to peer review. I conclude it’s a hodgepodge of opinions presented as science and designed to impress and overwhelm ordinary readers. The central hypothesis of the book, the origins and development of the Arabic language is far from proven, agreed upon or established science.

Christoph Luxenberg, the name the author wrote under, presents an unfounded assumption that the early Quran manuscripts were written in Syrio Aramaic script. This central assumption drives much of the work of the book. Yet, this assumption can’t be supported by manuscripts, archaeological or historical evidence. A critical thesis presented in the book is that the Quran was never meant to be a “scripture”, rather it’s a liturgical poems for communal recitations. The Author supports this hypothesis with linguistic analysis of the Arabic word Quran and its relation to Syriac Aramaic words and how the sound “ya” in Aramaic was confused when writing Arabic with the sound “ah”. Few other similar minor arguments led the author to jump to this conclusion as an established fact. The author chose not to address numerous differences of narratives between the Quran on one side and what the Author references as Scripture, namely the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. The Author simply chose to ignore all references in the Quran to the humanity of Jesus and the Quran’s insistence that Jesus is not divine and simply convinced himself that he, the Author, is single handedly dismantling the myth of the divinity and is correcting centuries old misunderstandings of it.

The Author puts forward more thoughtful analysis into various words used in the Quran and proposes Syrio Aramaic explanations for them such as الرقيم, قسورة، عتل، زنيم. The analysis of the points or dots on the letters and the possible connections to Aramaic in the early manuscripts is interesting but clearly needs to be subjected to historical critical peer review.

One of the author most far fetched or rather more outlandish theories comes in his interpretation of the Arabic word يسر and يسرنا where the author imposes a Syrio Aramaic reading on this straight forward Arabic meaning of to easing or make easier and insists that it means “translate”. The author then proceeds to suggest interpretations that the Quran itself states that it was translated.

The Author attributed parts of the Sura of Mary, specifically Quran 19:24 to the non canonical Gospel of Pseudo Matthew.  Historians date Pseudo Matthew to around 800 AD/CE, it is therefore hard to argue that it was influential in the Mecca region nearly 160-190 years earlier. The author presented no evidence of a connection, yet proceeded to offer further interpretations to Sura 19 based on his unfounded and unsupported assumptions.

Moving beyond his stated specialty in Syrio Aramaic language, the Author proposed corrections for Arabic words that he didn’t attribute to Syrio Aramaic origins in a short chapter titled "Misread Arabic Expressions". While he offered  interesting arguments based on his logic for his “corrections” of the placement of the dots for Sura 17:64, his approach indicated a weak methodology of research. The threshold or the substantiation for altering texts whose immediate intent may have not been clear appears to become the Author’s opinion.

The Author then proceeded to state in Chapter 15: “Now that it has become clear from the preceding analysis of individual samples of the language of the Koran that already in normal linguistic usage the Koran text has been in part so misread and misinterpreted by Arabic philologists and exegetes, it will no longer be surprising it meanwhile deeply anchored notions in the Islamic tradition, indeed religious contents, have been partially based on equally misunderstood Koran text.” This one unwieldy sentence betrays an approach of antagonism towards Islam disguised as scientific critical study of the language of the Quran.

On the topic of the so-called Virgins of Paradise or حور العين , the Author offered a fascinating discussion, in what appeared as a standalone paper or essay that was incorporated in the book. His approach to this particular part appeared  more restrained,  less opinionated and more engaging. He concluded that the concept of virgins of paradise was a misreading of the original Quranic texts.

The author concluded with detailed analysis of two short Suras 96 & 108 offering cogent arguments to possible Syrio Aramaic roots and reasoned interpretations. The author then, lacking substantiation, absurdly, offered the First Epistle of Peter as a root for Sura 108 and suggested erroneously that the text is rooted in an invitation to partake in a Christian Communion and to receive a Eucharist. The Author’s failed to offer any evidence of the First Peter being particularly important in the Syriac Christian history in terms of number of Syriac manuscripts or other indication of influence. The alleged connection to Eucharist was presented with no support whatsoever.

The coming decades will no doubt present the Muslim world with an increasing number of western historical critical studies of the text of the Quran and fundamentals of Islamic history. The work in this book sadly belongs to the category of orientalist islamophobia, and is not serious scientific work. This book is essentially an expression of the unfounded opinions of one man that, presented with the ornaments of a scientific study, but is certainly not that. This work does the field of historical critical study of Islam a great disservice. 

Ayman S. Ashour

Islam: The Truth, Not the Facts!

In the years that followed 9/11, Arab and Muslim Americans have experienced a sharp rise in cases of psychological diseases and mental disorders. Researchers attributed much of this to the anti-Muslim backlash that ensued post-9/11 and was reinforced by the Iraq war. In the current decade the new wave of global spectacular terrorists attacks is making things worse. My own direct observation from own dealings, as well as through observations on social media, is that the problem is spreading into Europe’s  Muslims and indeed to the Middle East itself.

Those who attributed the problem primarily to the anti-Muslim backlash in the West would benefit from looking at Egypt where youth sentiments of depression and dissatisfactions with life are rampant. Young Muslims in the West and elsewhere are looking at the horrors committed in the name of their religion and are unable to reconcile the Islam they thought they belonged to and believed in with the various texts and citations offered by multitudes of sources from ISIS to various TV sheikhs, Imams and Mullahs.

I'm often challenged by both Muslims and Islamophobes to explain how I reconcile my belief in Islam with numerous stories in Islam’s sacred texts that condone violence and discrimination. Much of the inter-Muslim discourse focuses on citations: the prowess in finding citations that would help a point of view prevail over others. Ping pong of citations is what most discussions on Islam rapidly descent into.

Islam, like other major world religions, has relied on an oral tradition. Even after the printing press, the vast majority of the world Muslims learnt their faith from oral traditions. Cultural norms and traditions have naturally coopted the oral teachings of Islam in various countries. Female genital mutilation or FGM has been accepted as an Islamic tradition in Egypt, Sudan and other East African countries, even though it's also practiced by Christians and others too.

Going back to the early days of Islam and those who accepted Mohammad as a Prophet and Islam as a faith, I ask myself why!  Why did those early Muslims accept Mohammad? Islam may indeed have spread through the sword in some parts of the world, but it also spread, in vast areas around the world, through word of mouth. Why did the people of Mecca accept Islam? Why did Islam spread in India, Malaysia and Indonesia? Why do I accept Islam?

I have no doubts that the early Meccans were attracted to certain ideas of Islam: equality, justice, compassion, honesty, and fairness in dealing with others. I'm almost sure that Islam wouldn't have spread as it did if people were told that they would be killed if they were to alter their decision and leave Islam at some point.

For me, the truth of Islam is in its simplicity, its humanity, in its compassion and in its mercy. Derivatives of compassion and mercy happen to be the two most repeated words in the Quran. The truth of Islam is in the equality of all human beings before God, in the freedom of human beings to pursue their path to God.

Discourse that regresses from the truths of Islam to debate the facts of Islam is of little interest to me and historically has actually played little role in Islamic history. The battles of texts and citations that dominate much of the discussion in today's Islam in Islamdom would have been alien for most of the fourteen centuries of the history of Islam. Often times those who engaged in them were marginalized or worse.

The obsession over the texts and citations is a primary factor for the dissonance that we see; the loss of identity and center that stems from a loss of faith. Modern day Islamdom has created an Islam that prescribes the rituals that a man must follow to get, along with his loved ones, to heaven. The early Islam that was embraced by Muhammad's early followers did not emphasize a bargain with God to get to heaven.

The Christians and Jews in the West have had several centuries to look beyond disputes over facts to get to the truth of their beliefs. Many of the stories of the Old Testament have largely been discounted by most believing Christians and Jews in the West, the very same stories dominate a large amount of Islamic discourse.

Many Christian scholars in the West, and indeed most Bible Colleges, accept as given than many parts of the Gospels have not been written by the people whose names they carry. Divinity schools across the US doubt the authenticity of the stories of the Virgin Birth, the Trip to Egypt to escape the decree killing children of Jesus’ age, the Bethlehem birth, and many other stories in the New Testament. Yet, believing Christians in the west have reached a comfortable place with the their sacred texts. Some believe in the literal words of the bible, most don't. There is little ping pong going on between the disagreeing parties. Christians are not asked to justify their belief in the truth of their faith through arguments over texts and disputes of facts.

It's hard to be optimistic about a reform movement coming to Islam from the majority Muslim countries where religion remains a tool of authoritarian governments and closed societies. Some of the best writings on Islam are coming out of US Muslim scholars. These scholars remain engaged in the battle of citations and using traditional Islamic jurisprudence methods to push back against authoritarian interpretations of Islam. Future generations of scholars may look beyond texts and citations and may one day offer a way for the truth unencumbered by debates over facts.

Ayman S. Ashour

This article first appeared on Egyptian Streets. 

On Hate Crimes, War Crimes and Terrorism

Words and classifications help us understand the many events before us. In the Middle East especially, words are of extreme importance and people often get stuck on words as we attempt to make sense of a the chaos that has become the norm the region is living through. The word terrorist is used to describe violence, that many times people identify with its perceived causes. The Palestinian struggle for freedom and dignity, along with the underlying hate for Israel and racist hate of Jews often expressed as hate for Zionism but not Jews, are primary examples where millions of people find the label terrorist applied to acts they either understand,  justify or actively support.

Many of these people look at the brutal bombing of Gaza or the Iraq war of 2003 and subsequent killing of innocent people and cry out "this is terrorism, Israel is terrorist, USA is terrorist" they can't understand why this ugly painful label is applied one way but not the other. 

I would never actually label a state as a terrorist, it may sponsor terrorism or provide material aid to terrorism but a state can't actually in my view be a "terrorist". What escapes many people in the Middle East is that War Crimes, is actually a more serious accusation than terrorism, for war crimes such as the disproportionate use of lethal destructive force by Israel on Gaza is a more serious charge than terrorism. Israel is a state, that has a representative government and an organized army. Clearly the responsibility, it must carry must be far more than a lone terrorist or a mere terrorist gang, even one as powerful as Hamas. For in the case of Gaza, it's Israel that has the obligation to protect the civilians under its occupation. Israel has refused to recognize an independent Palestine State and it no longer disputes any land in Gaza, so under International Law, Gaza is occupied, therefor the civilian population of Gaza must be protected by Israel. The war crimes here are very serious indeed. This is well beyond terrorism, this is war crime!

Come to tragedy of the execution style killing of three young Muslim Americans in Chapel Hill, NC and again people in the MidEast want to see it called terrorism, for this has become the ugliest word one must use. Many voices from the racist right wing in the USA have started crying out, this is just a dispute between neighbors over parking, while millions of others, like me, see it as an abhorrent and blatant hate crime of the type born out of the bigotry and racism espoused by the likes of Ann Coulter and her friends. Hate Crime or a dispute over parking is the battle that is going on in the US social media; for a simple parking dispute would wash the blood off of the hands of the heroes of Islamophobia from across the USA political spectrum from the Bill Mahers to the Coulters and fanatical white supremacists and Christian nation types. Hate crime is a serious charge against the savage killer personally and the discourse created by the likes of Bill O'Riley and Fox News and its  principal owner Mr. Rupert Murdoch.

Was the Chapel Hill tragedy terrorism? Linguistically speaking because it frightens people, for it is terrifying indeed to see people getting killed, so in a way we can see the link to the word terror. Yes it aimed to terrify the Muslim and Arab American community of course, so there can be an argument for application of the terrorist label. However, I see the label Hate Crime, here, carrying far more weight than terrorism, for in terrorism the choice of victims is often arbitrary, accidental where, the very deliberate nature of this heinous crime was no accident. An hate crime, the deliberate selection of three beautiful young people at the prime of their lives, this is hate, in its worst and ugliest form, perpetrated by a human being whose heart and brain were blinded with bigotry. The ugly killer did not aim to change government policy, nor did he have an obvious political goal, he simply aimed to exterminate those he hated. This is a hate crime and to call it anything else would lessen its ugliness.

I wish there is a way the kind of work I've witnessed first hand, and played a small part in, by the Massachusetts Governor Task Force Against Hate is adopted elsewhere and possibly by the Federal Government. The discourse of Fox News, whose hands now are soaked in blood, must be challenged as an urgent national priority and effective US style campaigns against hate must be extended to cover all hate. It must no longer be acceptable for the likes of Bill Maher and Ann Coulter to go spreading hate and bigotry with no financial accountability, for had they espoused their same venom towards other racial or religious groups, they and their sponsors would have been in financial ruins.

Ayman S. Ashour

Je suis Charlie

I have not seen any of the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo, I will not see them, I don’t want to see them. What Charlie Hebdo has to say about my religion doesn’t interest me in the least. They can mock my faith all they want, it does not matter to me, they can have their heartfill lampooning my religion; I’m not angered and my faith, Islam, isn’t impacted by their words or cartoons. The terrorists who carried out the butchery in Paris and those who hailed or even merely  justified their cowardly act damage Islam more than any of the cartoons at Charlie Hebdo ever can.

By contrast, the so called American Freedom Defense Initiative anti Islam posters spark a completely different feeling in me, they offend me, I feel insulted. The courageous Egyptian American journalist Mona Eltahawy, in an act of civil disobedience, sprayed the ugly hateful posters with pink paint, she was arrested. The New York Metro is used by tens of thousands of Muslims daily, people use it to get to their places of work, kids use it to get to their schools and colleges: here the freedom of expression of hate for my faith interferes with my right not to be subjected to such hate, I can chose not to buy Charlie Hebdo, but I have to use the Subway, it is my subway, my public space, my infrastructure! Eltahawy’s used pink spray paint to signify her rejection of the laws that permitted the hate speech in a public infrastructure, she stood there, elegantly dressed peacefully spraying pink, while a woman associated with the bigoted ad attempted to use her umbrella as weapon against her. Eltahawy was taken into custody and faced a long legal battle for breaking the law, she received wide support from Muslims and non Muslims alike, thousands of people joined her cause, civil disobedience campaigns confronted the hateful ads wherever they appeared. Eltahway refused to pay even one dollar and was prepared to go to prison for her defiance of the unjust application of the laws that permitted hate speech in a public space.

My native country Egypt has blasphemy laws banning the belittling and disrespect of religions. Yet, Egypt has only three sanctioned, officially recognized religions, Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Islam, in Egypt means only Sunni Islam, so Shia’a Islam, which is the faith of well over 100 million people is publicly discredited and belittled. Shia’a mosques are not allowed in Egypt. While Judaism is an officially sanctioned religion in Egypt, anti semitism is rampant and Jews are talked of often with words like impure, filthy and pigs. Former President Morsi lectured his adherents publicly to teach their children to hate Jews, while Morsi is currently facing several charges ranging from spying to jailbreak, there are no charges against him for belittling or disrespecting Judaism. Such charges will never get filed because they would surely bring Morsi only sympathy. In Egypt, the State itself launches campaigns against what it deems to be false religions such as the Baha'i faith. In short, we only ever hear of the anti blasphemy laws being applied when it comes to Sunni Islam and Christianity. Blasphemy, disrespect and belittling of other faiths is tolerated and often encouraged as matter of state policy.

For Egyptian Christians, like most Christians, a fundamental belief is that Jesus Christ was crucified to offer salvation to those who believe in him. Yet Muslims strongly reject every word in this notion, Jesus was never crucified and there is no such a thing as Salvation through belief in his crucifiction. Muslims claim to respect Christianity but, in fact, what is respected in Islam, is an Islamic Christianity, entirely different from that the Christians themselves actually believe. Muslims believe the bible was corrupted and Christians have essentially been misguided..... well if that is not belittling and disrespectful, I am not sure, what is. Similarly Christians do not believe Islam is a religion of the same God and those Christians who politely concede that Mohammad was a Prophet, use the word prophet to mean a sage, a wise man, a man with blessing but not a messenger of God. Manifestly, the belief in Islam is a disbelief in Christianity and the belief in Christianity is a disbelief in Islam. To belief in one faith we reject the other. To Christian ears the Friday Muslim sermon blaring out on loud speakers addressing Christianity is disrespectful of the Christianity actually practiced by the Christians, it is blasphemous to them.  

Back to the West and France in particular, where secularist values dominate; the laws and cultures grant people the total right to chose, and to change, their faith, to state it publicly or keep it private, to practice their faith or not, to gather for worship etc. We, Muslims in the West have gained from this freedom, we enjoyed it and lived it and were able to build our mosques and schools.  In our mosques, we teach that Christians believe in a corrupted bible and Jesus was not divine, thoughts and ideas contrary to Christianity. We teach that Jews have deviated from God and exasperated Moses, what we teach is, in reality, offensive to most non Muslims.

Words such as ‘I am not afraid of retaliation….It perhaps sounds a bit pompous, but I’d rather die standing than live on my knees.’ These were the words of Charlie Hebdo cartoonist Stephane Charbonnier, they carry a religious zeal to them. Just like a Muslim magazine in France has the right to ridicule and belittle and disrespect the beliefs, morality and values of a large percentage of the population around them, others have similar right. Muslims wish to offer sermons and write articles on the evil of homosexuality, a practice that is permitted in the west, why would gays not be allowed to respond. Do I wish for the Law in the USA or France to ban me from reciting Quran Surah 112 in mosques because it is blasphemous to Christianity, for it categorically states that God has no sons.  In order for Islam to exist as a minority religion in the West, it requires the very freedom that Stephane Charbonnier was willing to die for. Like him, I too, I am prepared to give my life for my right to recite my Holy Quran and will not allow any authority to censor me from it. The religious notion that morality is only a product of faith is challenged, not only by the atheists’ acts of charity but also by their willingness to die for the values they believe in.  

Honest condemnations of the terrorist attacks in Paris came fast and furious, the #JeSuisCharlie hashtag dominated social media.  Many Muslims saw the offensive cartoons for the first time and were offended by the work of the dead cartoonist. The #JeNeSuisPasCharlie (I’m not Charlie) hashtag emerged, aided by some non Muslim writers as well. We, as Muslims, need to confront a simple fact; not an insignificant number of us believe that the killing of those who insult the Prophet, be they Muslim or not, is their just comeuppance.  Recall the Salaman Rushdi Fetwa, indeed the death penalty or life in prison would be the likely outcome in most Muslim countries for publishing less offensive material than what appeared in Charlie Hebdo.

Condemnations with "but" or allocation of any level of blame on the victims come across to my ears as indecent and frankly are more disturbing than silence ….  for I’m Charlie because Charlie stood for my freedom to practice my religion as I want to, to recite my Quran without fear of the majority culture around me.

I’m Charlie because I want to practice my beliefs in my mosques, the way I choose, with no censorship by others and I want for others to practice what they believe in away from me, even if it is offensive to my eyes and ears.

I’m Charlie for Charlie’s courageous stance for freedom is actually far closer to my faith than the cowardly act of those terrorists who butchered Charlie

I’m Charlie and Je suis Charlie with no reservation!

Ayman S. Ashour

Jehan Sadat - My Hope For Peace - Book Review

This new book by Jehan Sadat, widow of the late President Anwar Sadat of Egypt, reads like combination of timely essays and an autobiography that reads easily. The essays include impassioned well reasoned and referenced defense of Islam as a religion of peace and equality distancing Islam from violence and women subjugation. While Jehan Sadat religious belief of what Islam is, or rather her (our) versions of Islam are closely aligned, this part came across weaker than it could because of excessive generalizations. It is abundantly clear that a small majority or substantial minority of Egyptians doesn’t share Jehan Sadat or my versions of Islam.

Another essay like portion of the book covered Egyptian feminist movement and famous Egyptian feminists of the last one hundred years.  This was well researched and presented and only lacked those leftist feminists that suffered on the hands of Egyptian rulers. While she addressed the struggle for women suffrage, the omission of those who struggled for women suffrage in the early 1950’s and were subjected to regime hostility came across as an obvious omission. Similarly, while “we” may dislike and disapprove of Islamist ideology, leaving out Egyptian women leaders who advocated Islamist policies is another glaring shortcoming, in an otherwise good essay. Needless to say, such leftist and Islamist women suffered under both presidents Nasser and Sadat.

Separate from the essays, two central themes dominate the book, one is the history of President Sadat, including her life as a first lady, and another her life as a widow and an independent woman post his assassination.  Jehan Sadat aimed to portray her late husband actions in the best possible light and primarily as a man of peace, her defense of his actions was total. While this is understandable and perhaps it would be unthinkable for her to comment negatively on the rule of her beloved husband, this part came across somewhat weak. I found it difficult that Jehan Sadat did not recognize that her late husband presided over a totalitarian police state and that many people were imprisoned and tortured during his rule. Moreover, those were not only sectarian Islamists as she claimed but also many who opposed him including leftists, liberals and Coptic Christians. Indeed Sadat took a hostile position against Sana Hassan (author of Enemy in the Promised land) who strongly advocated for peace with Israel, Hassan was the wife of an Egyptian diplomat, Tahseen Bashir, who was pressured by Sadat to divorce her.

While it may help Jehan Sadat view of her husband to portray Sadat as a man of peace, who worked tirelessly for peace for decades, somehow I felt as an Egyptian American who lived the Sadat era, that Jehan Sadat wasted an opportunity at shedding more light on a man who, was clearly an Egyptian patriot, but was more about being practical and goal oriented than being a man of peace. Sadat moved quickly to achieve his goals and his actions could have been more objectively analyzed, while remaining sympathetic. Nonetheless Jehan Sadat had many fascinating tales of President Sadat.

The most enjoyable parts of the book and the parts that come across most honest and revealing are those about Jehan Sadat herself, a real pleasure to read. Jehan Sadat, did not put herself on a pedestal and tried to defend her actions, she rather allowed her fears, uncertainties, weaknesses to show. The tales of her move from Cairo to the US and her life in the US, including receiving her first pay check, her first bank account, her first time arranging her own accommodation in Washington DC are all fascinating to read. Jehan comes across a courageous and determined woman, with deep faith and lots of humanity.

While, the essay and the defensiveness of Anwar Sadat have some obvious weaknesses, this does not reduce from the overall value of My Hope For Peace. Jehan Sadat, is not only a fascinating woman, she clearly is a talented writer with a gift for easy prose that flows. I highly recommend the book and I very much hope, that Jehan Sadat would write again

AA

October 12, 2012

On Blasphemy And Freedom!

Years ago, I watched “Life of Brian”, a Monty Python movie mocking Jesus Christ. I remember laughing in the movie theater along with a majority Christian audience in England. Over the years, as my Islamic faith deepened, I would no longer watch this movie let alone laugh at or own it, I find it objectionable for its portrayal of the Jesus like character.  As a Muslim I consider Jesus, like Mohammad, sacred, both are human beings chosen by God to be His prophets and messengers to all of humanity.

Commencing on September 11, 2012 we have seen days of angry protests and violence following the, peculiarly timed, airing of a video clip titled “Innocence of Muslims” by a Salafi TV station in Egypt. The violence was combined with demands by religious and political leaders in Egypt for action against the makers of the movie in the USA. The angry convulsions turned into loud demands for legal action and changes to international law to ban insults to religions and religious figures.

In an attempt to understand the so-called “Muslim rage”, I watched the “Innocence of Muslims” video on YouTube. Needless to say, I found it as offensive as any cheap insult or remark one receives from hateful or ignorant types. It did not mean a great deal to me that someone who hates Islam produces a movie that insults my Prophet in a vulgar manner. Mohammed, the Prophet of Islam, is sacred and beloved to me, I hold him in unparalleled esteem; but I also accept that some 80% of humanity do not believe in him, his message or believe in Islam.

To many Muslims, the word “prophet” carries huge religious meaning, a sacred or revered messenger from the almighty God. Many Muslims are unaware that, for most Christians, saying “we respect Jesus as prophet…” is sacrilege.  While the core beliefs in Christianity of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus and his divine status are not accepted by Islam, most Christians take “prophets” to mean wise men, inspired by God, but not divine!  So it can be clearly seen how religious beliefs, especially historical ones, are incompatible and how easily acceptance of one belief can be blasphemous of the other. In other words to deny the divinity of Jesus and simply label him a wise man maybe as offensive to a Christian as telling a Muslim Mohammad was a wise and good man but not a messenger of God. Belief in Islam by definition is blasphemy of Christianity and vice versa, the same applies to Judaism and other religious beliefs.

“O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah (God)  is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah (God) is Knowing and Acquainted.”  The Holly Quran 49:13

“There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah (God) has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah (God) is Hearing and Knowing.” The Holly Quran 2:256

The beauty of Islam, with its fundamental advocacy for equality, justice and freedom is virtually absent from the language of those who speak in its name calling for punishment of atheists and whose language focuses almost exclusively on the limitation of equality, limitation of freedoms and selective justice.

So, as I look at my personal belief in Islam and the recent Muslim rage events, I find myself reflecting on two very different but related questions: first is there a distinction between representation of religious figures, offensive or not, and incitement against the killing of fellow human beings of whatever faith? And a   second question: would a new international law banning blasphemy towards Jesus outlaw the teaching of Islam to our kids in the west? Answers to both questions are blatantly obvious: incitement to kill someone for their beliefs, no matter how distasteful to others, is wrong! And so would be banning the teaching or preaching of a religion because it disagrees with the basic tenants of another majority faith.

So while many call for change in international laws to punish those who publish material deemed offensive to religion, I find myself wondering how Islamic is it, to ban such material and punish its makers. Thus, I actually call for changing Egypt’s laws to allow such cheap rubbish as the Innocence of Muslims to be made in Egypt itself.  And for its makers to go about their sorry hateful lives in peace as long as they are are not inciting violence. Would such freedom hurt Egypt or Islam? Would Muslims anywhere rush away from Islam believing the trashy material shown on the video? Would Egyptians then not have the right to boycott people, businesses and TV channels that promote such insulting material?

Would a disgruntled unhappy Islam hater take advantage of this law then produce more hateful anti Islam material? Maybe, but let them! We each have our own narratives and our Islam becomes stronger not weaker with freedom!

Legalize offending religious beliefs for the sake of Islam, please!

AA

September 23, 2012