On October 12th of this month, 38 highly respected and theologically diverse clerics from the Muslim world wrote what is widely considered a respectful and engaging "Open Letter" to the Pope in response to his controversial comments about Islam made during his Regensburg address in September. Not only was the letter of historical significance, but it also represented an articulate and reasoned invitation to dialogue from Muslims with the Papacy on matters of theology and faith. The signatories included top scholars from Bosnia, Croatia, Egypt, the United States, the United Kingdom, Jordan, Kosovo, Oman, Russia, Turkey, Uzbekistan and Iran.

Around the same time, a single Muslim cleric in Australia, Sheik Taj Aldin al-Hilali, delivered a sermon to about 500 followers where he allegedly compared some women who do not dress modestly to uncovered meat being left out for a cat.

I wonder which story received more news coverage.

If we follow the Google news aggregator as a gauge, at the height of the news coverage of the Open Letter to the Pope, the story appeared in about 220 different news sites across the world. The only major English language news web site to carry the story on the front page was BBC. Most notably, the major US media outlets almost entirely ignored the event. With the exception of a front page story that week in the Christian Science Monitor and a small story aired on CNN, the letter came and went without much fanfare.

As the fury over Hilali's remarks continue to gain momentum, according to Google there are currently over 800 news services carrying the story. That is quadruple the coverage of the Open Letter. I would expect this to increase before it subsides. The cleric's remarks are drawing furious reactions from around the globe, and the life of the story is likely being extended by the already tense debate over Muslim women who wear veils in the UK.

The open letter signed by 38 scholars, who represent all eight major schools of thought in the Islam, is more representative of the global Muslim community than this one lone Australian cleric. However, judging by the prevailing media coverage any casual reader would think the exact opposite.

When Pat Roberston or Jerry Fallwell make embarrassingly ignorant comments, they are dismissed as the rantings and ravings of old senile men. When any Muslim cleric does something similar, in the court of public opinion Islam is guilty of the offense until proven otherwise. When it comes to the media, Muslims can hardly catch a break.

The sad reality is that if the 38 scholars who wrote the Open Letter really wanted the world to hear what they had to say, they should have first congregated in Cairo and burned an effigy of the Pope.

>>Digg this story

Yeah! Digg is a good site; now if you can conquer slashdot, shahed, that would be even more impressive than witty tooltips for images ;-) Kidding aside, a lot of commentors on Digg fit the classic definition of Islamophobe (however much I dislike the political abuse of the concept by the Usual Islamic Organizational Suspects (UIOS) )

This is the nature of the media today. It is no longer "If it bleeds, it leads." But, if it is "stupid or controversial too."

You refered to the speech by Pope Benedict. The paragraph that offended muslims was one small section compared to the entire 14 page document. Because it was "controversial," it was reported and we saw the violent out bursts including the murder of a nun in Somalia and the beheading of an Orthodox priest in Iraq.

The comments by the Sheikh Hilali blaming women who are raped because of the way they dress are not "alleged." I've read his speech. Now, Abduljalil Sajid of the Muslim Council of Britian is defending his statements. The leading Imam of Manchester England, Arshad Misbahi state that Sharia condones the killing of homosexuals. A Grand Ayatollah in Iran states it is acceptable in Islamic law to beat your wife.

The author of the article laments "in the court of public opinion Islam is quilty of the offense until proven otherwise." Well sir, what do you expect when leading religious leaders who speak for the religion make such "controversial" comments?

Why should non-muslims not think muslims believe this when leaders of your faith make these statements and justification is found in Sharia. Keller's "Reliance on the Traveler," a source of approved Islamic law states it is acceptable to kill homosexuals and to beat your wife.

I know muslims who would never condone such behavior. There are others out there who would because a religious figure said so.

I read the Open Letter to the Pope on Islamica Magazine's website. It was balanced, open, and fair. I hope such gestures for dialogue continue.

It could possibly help matters if those 38 religious scholars wrote an open letter adressing rape, wife beating, and killing homosexuals. I wonder if their views would be any different than those already stated.

Best regards,

ND

>>Keller's "Reliance on the Traveler," a source of approved Islamic law states it is acceptable to kill homosexuals and to beat your wife.

To be fair, Keller was just the translator. "Reliance of the Traveller" is a rather quite ancient book.

The fact that the views of Sheikh Hilali (with whom many many Australian Muslim leaders have disagreed with), Abduljalil Sajid, Arshad Misbahi and others are publicised proves the point. These views are picked up and disseminated for their shock value. Though they are from some promient leaders, there are equally prominent leaders who disagree and arguably more of them (listen to the podcasts of the Radical Middle Way or Q-News for more information).

Zahed,

Thanks for the info. I will check-out those out.

Best regards,

ND

OmarG,

Although it maybe an ancient text, it is still utilized today by the fact that Al-Azhar University recognizes it as an authentic source of Islamic law.

Best regards,

ND

OK, AND THE SOLUTION IS WHAT? It seems as if people automatically expect media to transmit what our preferred representatives say. No, they make thier own choices, most often based on what will earn a Pulitzer and especially what will sell subscriptions / issues. That is the system and it will not change. Muslims must adapt. Here's how:
* Indigenous-born Muslims who know slick PR (altmuslim is a good step towards this, and no, its not currying favor [pun intended])
* Muslim Moderate Shock Jocks: someone from among the Liberal / Moderate / Progressive representatives needs to be the Howard Stern of Western Muslims. Preferably both a "He" and a "She" [each is effective towards different demographics; even better if there's more than one: one with / without a scarf, one with / without a beard] does not need to be obscene. They just need to shoot thier mouths off fairly often and do stunts to get publicity. Old FOB men in suits couldn't get publicity if they publicly declared the trinity!

Oh, and drop the whole Leftist Indymedia gig; mainstream America is the one that needs to be reached, not the socialist Left AKA Silverspoons-in-our-mouths 'R Us.

ND, Reliance of the Traveller is a good source and answers many questions about hundreds of aspects related to sacred law. And the fact that al-Azhar recognizes it has little relevance to the point your making. It is a book authored by a mortal. There are good insights in it, and stuff that goes against modern sensibilities, stuff that I disagree with completely, like the stuff you mention. However, I don't feel the need to take it down from my shelf. However, the book has law value as well as historical value. To ban it or burn it would be crude, an unsophisticated apologia.

ND, can you do us a favor and offer Catholic books of any period of your choice that permit the burning to death of heretics or "suspected" witches (whether adults or children) or executing homosexuals or folks who refuse to pay the Church and the burning of their tillage or the undisguised approval of slavery? And tell us, with references, the modern Church's formal refutation, and the swiftness of those refutations, as swift as the pardoning of Galileo.

I don't ask this to start a polemic, but to evoke the ethic of "casting the first stone."

Migocup,

I can offer no books that defend the sinful acts that you mention i.e. killing heretics, burning people suspected of witchcraft, executing homosexuals, supporting slavery. I gather that you believe that these are things that the Catholic Church has approved of. As for an apology for the treatment of Galileo, I would refer you to the the Vatican website archives and the apology that John Paull II issued. He went further to apologise for sins that members of the Catholic Church committed througout the centuries as you may recall.

Christ would never condon such behavior and neither would I.

Though some of the things you mention may have been approved by the members of the Church or even carried out. None-the-less, it can be shown scripturally, doctrinally and by the example of our Lord Jesus Christ that such actions are not in keeping with living a true Christian example.

With all due respect Migocup, will there ever be an apology from the Islamic world for it's sins over the centuries?

Best regards,

ND

All that was in the past and can only become reduced to trying to sum up the total sins of either side. In effect, its totally unproductive. We (Muslim communities; Western ones concern me because in the end we have no influence over what Muslims in foreign societies do, at least until they arrive on our shores) have a serious image problem. Media is past of that problem. The past sins of long-dead Muslim nutcases or discredited Catholic practices does not intrinsically bear on this situation. Productive suggestions, anyone?!

Exactly, ND. You're the expert on Islamic texts and Islamic history, but afflicted with stupidity when it comes the history of your "church" followed by some dribble on "what would J. do". Well, J would not do half the things your "church" has done and FORMALLY CONDONED in his name, the most important of which is worship anything but his Maker. My only problem with your comment is the fake sense of mutual respect you attempt to evoke and your ridiculous finger-pointing everywhere but toward the experience of your church. Are you here to teach Muslims about Islam and Islamic history and texts, when you demonstrate nothing but tract-filled factoids authored by the master polemics of your ilk? Demonstrate what you know of your history. In other words, get some credibility.

Boy did I touch a nerve!

Stupidity, fake sense of mutual respect AND ridiculous finger-pointing......................DAMN! As for "factoids authored by the master polemics of your ilk" you'd better start looking at your own ilk with regards to your accusations about the Church. You yourself are a victim of it too and you don't even know it.

First, I've never claimed to be an expert on Islamic text nor Islamic history and I bet you aren't either. I simply pointed-out well know beliefs that non-muslims find offensive, nothing EXPERT about that either.

Second, as for the history of "your" Church, I am well aware of it. It is not perfect and I'm the first to admit it. But when someone decides to "cast the first stone" and I toss one back about your religion's "sins," the insults start to fly.

I came on this site because I thought I might be able to find open and EQUAL dialogue. I'm beginning to doubt that.

Muslim don't have a serious image problem. You have a DEVASTATED image problem. Non-muslims don't trust you. They are suspicious of you. They believe your religion is synonymous with violence, death, and terrorism. They think you'd become a terrorist if your religious leaders told you to.

I don't believe in your religion and you don't believe in mine. I'm not here to convert anyone and I don't want to be converted.

What I do believe is that there are good and decent muslims in America, fellow citizens. I know them. They are family and friends. I think the best way to promote understanding and mutual cooperation is through dialogue, open, equal and fair. If your are going to "toss the first stone," you'd better be able to catch the one I'm tossing right back. Fair and Equal.

As a wise person said on this site recently, "productive suggestions, anyone?!

The olive branch is extended.

ND

It was no surprise that the letter referenced garnered little American media attention. There was little that was obviously controversial in it; there were no exciting visuals attached to it; and there were few recognizable names (to most American non-Muslims at least) among its signatures. How might the letter have garnered more attention? First, it needed to be released much closer to the time of the controversy. Second, a shortened version of it could have been placed as a full-page ad in newspapers in major media markets around the country. Third, the letter could have released by or at least included the signatures of prominent American (and for European audiences European) Muslim celebrities. (I can think of several American Muslim celebrities mostly African-American.) Celebrities evoke greater feelings of familiarity and greater attention than anonymous scholars and religious leaders. Fourth, the letter could have been tied to some larger ecumenical or inter-religious project. As released, the letter has all the earmarks of an invitation to a private dialogue, not an attempt to convince a larger public to think differently about Muslims.

Understanding the critiques or stereotypes of the group in question and how they can best be combatted with contrary images and actions has been a problem for various minorities and seems to be one for American Muslims. (I would list some of those critiques, but I doubt that would be constructive.) Understanding the media is another. Most American media especially television are not interested in serious dialogue, discussion or education. To get that one needs to seek out C-SPAN or PBS. Instead, to attract American television media, one needs a compelling amalgamation of visuals, words and controversy that stops the roving channel surfer in his tracks. Comparing women who are not dressed according to Islamic standards of modesty to meat left outside stops people in their tracks. Anonymous Muslims writing a formal letter to refute claims or implications of a controversial speech weeks ago does not.

On my own blog I had posted in regards to the letter (which did not get much traffic) and I did a post in regards to one of the signatories (Mustafa Ceric) in which I have an outside link from a top post blogger, and 2 posts in regards to the "uncovered meat" post (oh and a new one today in regards to a typical idiots defense of this "uncovered meat" subject.

By far, the "uncovered meat" subject gets most of the attention here are the google searches that pull up my blog:

Search Views
sheik taj din al-hilali 2
"illegal immigration" carpentersville Il 2
sheikh taj aldin 1
Sheikh Taj Aldin alHilali comments 1
the percentage of divorce in arranged ma 1
ramadan memory for kids 1
sheikh taj din 1
Islamic Traditions 1
Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali 1
Taj Aldin al-Hilali 1

Yesterday
Search Views
Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali 6
Sheikh Taj Al-din Al-Hilali 4
Sheikh Taj Aldin Alhilali 3
divorce rates arranged 2
ceric mustafa 2
how did i spend my eid 2
Sheik Taj Aldin al Hilali 2
sheikh muslim comment 1
culture of love in Snow White 1
sheikh hilali tourist 1

It is so sad. 38 unbelievably intelligent scholars get swept under the rug. I guess they must have had something too good to say, or maybe no one can refute what they have to say.

I think that each and every one of those scholars need to be highlighted and featured throughout the blogosphere in the more popular blogs.

duh. if those 38 come out and nail the nutcase Aussie imam to the wall, they'll get press. We live in a market economy. You strike while the iron is hot.

Not so. During the cartoon crisis - there were many that spoke against the riots - they just weren't news.

Let's face it good never gets equal coverage to bad. I understand that, that's why it's up to the regular Ahmed to bring attention to these scholars.

Hi,

This is the Age of Islam in which you go by INSHALLAH and no human being such as Pope, Mullahs, Priests of any sort can stand between the person and Allah as every one has to give his own account to Allah otherwise it is the Islam of Satan as Christianity is.

Very few people know real Islam that is free of Shariah, fasting, Hajj and Prayer.