Sometime in February 1989, about a dozen or so Muslim community leaders from around the country met in New York City to discuss the controversy caused by Salman Rushdie's postmodern screed called The Satanic Verses. After long discussion, delegates crafted a statement affirming "the freedom of thought and expression guaranteed to all people in this country," yet claiming that "it is hightly imprudent and inconsiderate for an individual to completely ignore the religious sensitivities of his fellows in humanity while exercising his freedoms." The statement went on to say that Islam "does not condone violence or the incitement to violence directed against [The Satanic Verses'] author and those associated with its publication." This meeting, I was told, was an idea thought of and largely paid for by a wealthy businessman.

Sometime afterward, a committee was formed to further discuss the essence of the Rushdie controversy. After a couple of weeks of occasional conference calls, the committee concluded that the person and life of Prophet Muhammad was not very well represented in the English language and that the impact The Satanic Verses would potentially have on the public understanding of the Prophet and Islam in general is empowered to a large degree by this dearth of relevant literature. The available body of literature in English on the life the Prophet, besides the incendiary portrayals in many public school history texts, was either of orientalist vintage (mostly academic and crusading in tone) or of Muslim-world vintage (mostly third-world in production, menancingly weak in language and style, and long on sermonizing, short on soul and depth), the notable and peerless exception being Martin Lings' biography of the Prophet, which many committee members never heard of. I was on this committee. And its "findings" were hardly stunning, uneffecting the earth's rotation. But the solution the committee prescribed�to produce authentic source materials about the Prophet Muhammad�unearthed for all to see a more important, if not pathetic, "finding," namely, the existence of an authoritarian notion that a committee can come to a conclusion, push a button, and expect the faithful to run to their word processors and write a book or books�produce literature, in other words.

While this committee focused on the Prophet, the attitude, as I have seen it throughout my Muslim committee life, pervades deeply through a generation of Muslim institutional leadership that is, thank God, starting to dissipate. Meanwhile, the impact on the literary front is remarkably stunting. I felt then, as I feel now, that my brothers on the committee were living with a contemptible notion of the relationship between religion and culture. Like a snowflake in Hell, the committee evaporated. Nothing was accomplished. The sun rose as expected.

Now cartoonists have had their day. The cartoons are indeed disfigurements of the Noble Prophet. So they offended a lot of Muslims. Because these Muslims were offended that someone would carelessly associate the Prophet with violence, many Muslims went out and made violence. Now, it could be me, but I find that odd.

The overreactions to these cartoons that I have seen show an unsightliness that is antithetical to the personality and message of Prophet Muhammad. But what the intense dudgeon does reveal is a funk uncovered by the cartoons, a funk perhaps associated with a variety of things, like economic and political cul-de-sacs systemic in the Muslim east. The intelligentsia of the Muslim world needs to honestly unpack the meaning of the reactions to these cartoons because clearly something else is afoot.

Nearly every Muslim knows that disparagement of the Prophet of Islam is hardly new. Just as Medieval Europe created fear-fantasies about Jews, "Christ-killers" who apparently ate children, so too did they produce a miasma of animus directed toward the Prophet Muhammad.

Karen Armstrong points out, in her biography of the Prophet, that the energy against the Prophet Muhammad was not so much as a reaction to the marshal and political prowess of the world Islamicate as it was a theological quandary: "How had God allowed this impious faith to prosper? Could it be that he had deserted his own people." An explanation was required as to how this religion could have been so triumphant, producing a civilization of incomparable breadth that was at once prayerful and cosmopolitan.

Eighth century "biographies" of the Prophet Muhammad appeared at the outset of Islam's spread. The polemics kept coming, penned along the way by such venerable names as Dante, Voltaire, and, more recent, translators of the Muslim scripture, such as Rev. Rodwell. If the polemics failed to reach the level of theology, they at the very least have become a cultural meme that has survived to this day. Armstrong says, "In the West we have a long history of hostility towards Islam that seems as entrenched as our anti-Semitism, which in recent years has seen a disturbing revival in Europe. At least, however, many people have developed a healthy fear of this ancient prejudice since the Nazi Holocaust. But the old hatred of Islam continues to flourish on both sides of the Atlantic and people have few scruples about attacking this religion, even if they know little about it."

The Muslim response to the Medieval venom was, in the main, intellectual, secure, and civil - a reaction that reflects not weakeness but "psychological invincibility" of Muslims of the time, as the late Prof. Fazlur Rahman (University of Chicago) so aptly observed in his book Islam. The violent reactions to these cartoons today reflect, I'm afraid, vincibility.

Now this needs to be explored.

Regardless of the potted histories, these were part of a wider picture: rulers, emperors, kings all in ongoing feudal battles to unify their empires. It doesn't really compare with todayís issues. Irrefutably, they were hierarchical unifying powers, not powers specifically intentioned to divide, conquer and create mischief.

Inadvertently, you do raise a good parallel about tolerance and intolerance.

One last point OmarG: you never did explain your comments about the Friday Khutba and paganism and idolatry. When will you respond to this?

Arshad: The point I raise is that the common people lived peacefully alongside each other - it did not start out as a civil war. Many modern day civil conflicts have, more often then not, been created, funded or stirred by many of the British (and now US or UN) programs around the world - this is classic Divide and Conquer. In India the British (through) the East India Trading company lived amongst the Indians for years. They sat on the floor, wore traditional clothes and ate with their hands; they learnt the traditions, religious customs and ëplayed alongí. It was exactly this learning that they used with the British Army to turn brother against brother during Partition.

There is an attempt to ëdivide and conquerí the Muslims in addition to alienating us from the non-Muslim world. We need unity amongst ourselves so that we can tackle the non-Muslim world ñ we need to stop falling into the trap of labelling our particular ëflavourí.

We are all Muslims.

Avenger,

You keep on going back to 'us and them'. No matter how bad Aurugzeb was, you are ok with him because he was a devout muslim. So, when Aurongzeb destroyed temples it was ok? Is that a standard of coexistence? This is the point West is making aginst muslim mentality and they are somewhat right.

The hypocricy on our part is that when US is trying to force their way of life on to Iraq, we are saying how dare they. And, we praise Aurongzeb when he tried to destroy the way of life that was present in India. Great!

And, just like in Aurongzeb's India, common man is generally living piece with each other in the West (well, at least they were to a certain extent). The people in power with their policy came in the way. Same as Aurongzeb.

My friend, 'us and them' attitude is never going to give us coexistence. It is only going to lead to hatred, destruction and death.

The way people talk you would think Musliims were out killing non-Muslims, it is Muslims who have died as a result of the rioting and protests.

>>The issue is about the attempt to fracture the Islamic world and wider, to alienate the Islamic world from the West and its neighbours.

Again, you ARe implying that it is better to live with dictatorship who suppreses ethnic disorder than to live with freedom and have the messy negotiations between the groups as how to get along? The process is indeed messy and possibly exploited by outsiders, but in the long term, a genuine departure from inter-ethnic violence through good will and inter-ethnic understanding and relations is far, far better than suppressing violent passions through even more violent force, a la Saddam.

As for Ranjit Singh, Wow. Let's love his actions against people just because he was able to offer some resistance to the British... A choice between a ruler who demolishes my mosques and massacres people to another ruler who just wants to profit trade routes and take a cut in the local commerce to get rich, but will otherwise leave me alone?? Ah, choices choices...

Arshad: I am accused of an 'us and them' attitude. Why should this be incorrect? Allah tells us that Muslims are different and distinct from non-Muslims. You also said ìNo matter how bad Aurugzeb was, you are ok with him because he was a devout muslimî ñ I am sorry my friend, I never said this. I never gave my opinion on him. We hear what we want to hear and see what we want to see, we choose not to take heed of what we dislike.

Did you read my other words:

"The issue is about the attempt to fracture the Islamic world and wider, to alienate the Islamic world from the West and its neighboursÖ There is an attempt to ëdivide and conquerí the Muslims in addition to alienating us from the non-Muslim world. We need unity amongst ourselves so that we can tackle the non-Muslim world ñ we need to stop falling into the trap of labelling our particular ëflavourí.

We are all Muslims."

Allah prescribes for us unity and tolerance; this is the best of all things. The example of Aurungzeb shows when we transgress the limits Allah prescribes for us, in spite of our individual piety; it is not the best of all things.

There should be no confusion, the Qurían repeatedly reminds us that there is a difference and clear distinction between the believers and the non-believers. Muslims are asked to live in peace and harmony with the non-believers so that we may invite them to the way of Islam. When the Ummah is attacked, persecuted and tortured, where we are violated and our religion condemned, Allah tells us to "fight in the cause of Allah" ñ the Ummah is one family and one Muslim should feel the pain another feels.

Name me one Prophet who did not take jihad against the non-Muslims, who did not differentiate between those who submit to the will of Allah and those who did not

Sometimes a little revolution is a good thing.

OmarG: I have only one comment for you.
Please explain your previous comments about the Friday Khutba, pagansim and idolatry.

For my friends, the essence of my comments are that we are guilty of falling into the Divide and Conquer trap. We should show unity in the face of discord and when the fight comes looking for us, we should fight in the cause of Allah. I repeat my post from above:

So, in dismantling the threat of an Islamic Empire, there really is only one tried and tested option available to the West; fear, dis-unity and factionalising the Muslims into progressives, moderates, extremists, fundamentalists, Islamo-facists, Wahabists, Mohammedans, Jihadists, Shia, Sunni, Sufi. It is not a co-incidence... all you are asked to do is pick a team.

Muslims are one force, one people and one Ummah. That is the legacy of the Holy Prophet. The insults and attacks on Muslims are clearly designed with one effect, regardless of their stated ëintentionsí.

Food for thought:

Military Arms Exports in 1995: rank / country / value ë000,000 US$

1- United States 15,600
2- United Kingdom 5,200
3- Russia 3,300
4- France 2,200
5- Germany 1,200
6- Israel 775

There are currently around 193 independant countries in the World, in 1950 there were only 82.

Here you go, not that it will help you: instead of the worship of Allah, the khatib wants us to worship hijab; instead of understanding the Quran, they want us to understand Sayed Qutub, or [insert name of political theorist or activist here], instead of telling us to love our neighbors, they tell us to worship an overseas culture...yada, yada, yada. Sure, not all mosques are that bad, butI've heard it enough to be tired of this foreign khutba stuff that's so far from the spirit of the Quran.

As for fracturing the ummah, how can you account for the civil war between Ali and Aisha? The rise of the Tahirids in Persia and Central Asia? The Buyid capture of the caliphate, the Abbasid revolution and so much more fragmentation that happened when the West had no clue about the Near East? We Muslims fragment ourselves much more than any Westerner could dare dream to achieve. After the Prophet, the ummah has *never* been unified: Muslim tribes fought Abu Bakr, some Sahaba opposed Umar, other Sahaba assasinated Uthman! When, indeed did this mythical "unity" ever exist? And, how will you achieve it today with 1.5 billion Muslims who are all very different from each other? You can only do it through violent dictatorship, something you admired Saddam for simply because he forced different groups to live without fighting each other. Your vision is a failure, thus your vision will never occur in the future, because it has indeed, never happened in the past. Good luck with that.

I have been reading the news about the cartoons riots in Nigeria, Pakistan, Indonesia, and so on. Muslims are now targeting innocents, kiolling people who had nothing to do with the drawings, burning churches and you all know the rest of the story.

Do Muslims have any shame at all? is there ever going to be an end to the sick excuses? What will Muslims not do to have a reason to hate and murder?

On the other hand, they are doing exactly what their prophet did. Like prophet, like followers.

Mr Khan, these acts are Muslims acting in a very Islamic way. Violence and hate are the very soul of Islam. Just look around and think about these things. It doesn't take a genious, only a little honesty.

John Kactuz

>I have been reading the news about the cartoons riots in Nigeria, Pakistan, Indonesia, and so on. Muslims are now targeting innocents, kiolling people who had nothing to do with the drawings, burning churches and you all know the rest of the story.

Have you ever seen someone insult another person straight to their face. There are lots of different responses but there are two general types:
- The guy that rolls his eyes and walks away...he is insulted but he lets it slide
- The guy that punches the insulter right in the face for calling him short/ugly/dumb/etc.

The guy that walks away is generally self-confident and has nothing to prove; so he doesn't care if some stranger insults him. The guy that freaks out is generally insecure with himself in relation to everyone else. He generally cares a lot about what other people think and he doesn't want to lose face.

While most Muslims are very, VERY sure of their beliefs, it seems apparent that large parts of the Muslim community are very insecure with what the rest of the world thinks about Islam. When there is any type of insult against Islam/Allah/Mohammed, embassies are burned to the ground and people are killed in their own protests.

This is why the rest of the world is saying, "lighten up." You don't need to care so much what ignorant people think.

You're mistaken, Kac. It is not the essence of Islam. It is a problem of the world, not of the core of the religion. What constitutes as essence and core is a religion that believes in salvation through torture, humiliation, and murder, an act that the faithful enact by drinking "blood" and eating "body" and other pagan loans and satanic and vodoo rituals. You're a poor man, Kac, who requires proof in the problems of others, which is an honest response given the impossibility of a hall-of-mirror theology borrowed and refried. No faith there, only false hope kept alive by fake prophecies and the idiots who send checks to keep them going.

Avenger,

I apologize for misunderstanding you. But, I still disagree about treating non-muslims differently.

Kactuz,

Speakiing of honesty, can you prove that the Prophet acted this way in his life time? If you cannot, then you are slandering.

I don't support the violent protests. Can you give me an example of a religion whose followers did not use violence to squash their opponents on time or another? If you are from the Judeo-Christian faith, there are plenty of examples of violence in the scriptures. Does that make all the Jews/Christians violent?

Avenger,

Too many people and too many "leaders" want to drive wedges between the communities within our world today. In my own country of the United States, I can assure you that the politics of division is all too common, and it is not directed solely at Muslims. Far from it.

However, I'm not sure I agree that the cartoons were an attempt to divide the Muslim community. If anything, they showed that the idiot cartoonists were guilty of assuming that all Muslims are the same, and that they can be fit into inappropriate stereotype. In that regard, the cartoons actually seem to be an attempt to drive a wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims. I fear that, as a result of the violence that has ensued, they have had a great deal of succeess in that regard.

I share your resentment and disapproval of the cartoons, but not your justification for violence. You only lower yourself to the cartoonists' standards through violent acts. If we engage in a race to the bottom, no one wins.

"just another voice" wrote: "some Muslims are intolerant of ANY thing that they percieve to be defamation of Islam."

Yes, just like some Christians in America killed black girls because the concept of equality was threatening.

And Jews in Israel, like abused children, now bully those who remind them of their own weakness 6 years ago. Should we really emulate the "tolerance" of the IDF leader who shot a dead girl a dozen more times to "confirm" the kill?

"Go teach tolerance to those who would resort to violence, beheading etc"

True. Why behead when you can drop a smart bomb at night and kill innocent civilians searching for the bogeyman, "Mr. Terror."

It's amazing how much Isreal emulates 1930s Germany: using "law" to do immoral things, demonizing religious practices, using the need for "racial purity" and "lebensraum" for the "volk." Sharon would have been Adolf's drinking buddy.

"all in the name of Allah and the religion of peace."

Indeed. Germans were Christians, mostly, and the light-unto-other-nations is now America's pitbull.

Ain't life grand?

Trevor,

You're absolutely right on all counts, and I'm saying that as an American Christian. But I also have to say that I've come to the conclusion that it's not the "isms" of the world that I should worry about; it's some of the "ists."

Christianity would be a wonderful thing if more Christians would actually practice it. I'm sure some could say the same about Islam.

Trevor, why do issues invlolving Muslims always seem to come down to the Arab-Israeli issue? Why, oh why? Cartoons in Denmark so obviously equal Israel/Palestine, eh!

.

OmarG: In spite of your ostrich like denial of the issues, there are sides being drawn here.... the question is, do you even know what side you're on?

As many others have said, it sounds like you are more than a little confused to me? Anyone can throw stones like a silly little child, where exactly do you stand on the issues Dave?

What, you're asking me another question again, when you yourself have not answered mine challenging your view on the "unity" of Muslims through history?? Tell me truly that you're not the kind of person who like to take and take but never give...

>>the question is, do you even know what side you're on?

I hope I am not the right side. Just because there are Muslims are one side DOES NOT mean they are on the correct side. And, there are Muslims on both sides, whether you accept them as Muslim or not is of no concern to people.

Trevor, 2 wrongs do not make a right. The relevance of the past is two-fold. To learn from it and not to repeat it.

Equating past occurances of violence to the current Islamic sponsored violence in an attempt to explain it is folly! Just because it happenned in the past or some 'other' religion did it, is the same as the old addage of jumping off the bridge because others are.

The over arching point of contention is that the rest of the world is suppossed to say or not say, behave or not to behave in accordance with the Islamic faith!!

All in the name of Allah and the religion of peace.

>Equating past occurances of violence to the current Islamic sponsored violence in an attempt to explain it is folly!

I would say he is trying to justify the killings of today by the killings of 50 years ago (the black killings).

>It's amazing how much Isreal emulates 1930s Germany: using "law" to do immoral things, demonizing religious practices, using the need for "racial purity" and "lebensraum" for the "volk." Sharon would have been Adolf's drinking buddy.

Would you post some article links that back up this claim. BTW...what does the Arab-Israeli issue have to do with the Christian posting of a Mohamme cartoon?