Author Archives: Editors

‘When philosophy needed Muslims, Jews and Christians alike’ By Peter Adamson

Posted on by
Reply

If you were asked to name the most important philosopher of 10th-century Baghdad, you would presumably not hesitate to say ‘al-Farabi’. He’s one of the few thinkers of the Islamic world known to non-specialists, deservedly so given his ambitious reworking of Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics and political philosophy. But if you were yourself a resident of 10th-century Baghdad, you might more likely think of Yahya ibn ‘Adi. He is hardly a household name now, but was mentioned by the historian al-Mas‘udi as the only significant teacher of Aristotelian philosophy in his day. But ibn ‘Adi is not just a good example of how fame wanes across the centuries. He is also a fine illustration of the inter-religious nature of philosophy in the Islamic world.

Ibn ‘Adi was a Christian, as were most of the members of the group of philosophers who wrote commentaries on Aristotle at this time in Baghdad. The Muslim al-Farabi, who was apparently ibn ‘Adi’s teacher, was an exception to the rule. Completing the ecumenical picture, ibn ‘Adi was involved in an exchange of letters with a Jewish scholar named Ibn Abi Sa‘id al-Mawsili, who wrote to him with questions about Aristotle’s philosophy that he was hoping to have cleared up. Admittedly, Baghdad was an exceptional place, the capital of empire and thus a melting pot that drew scholars from all over the Islamic world. But philosophy was an interfaith phenomenon in other times and places too. The best example is surely Islamic Spain, celebrated for its culture of convivencia (‘living together’). Two of the greatest medieval thinkers, the Muslim Averroes and the Jew Maimonides, were rough contemporaries who both hailed from al-Andalus. After Toledo fell into the hands of the Christians, the Jew Avendauth collaborated with the Christian Gundisalvi to translate a work by the Muslim thinker Avicenna from Arabic into Latin.

That last example is a revealing one. Philosophy in these times often involved representatives of different faiths because it often presupposed translation. Hardly any philosophers of the Islamic world could read Greek, not even Averroes, the greatest commentator on Aristotle. He and other Muslim enthusiasts for Hellenic wisdom had to rely on translations, which had mostly been executed by Christians in the 8th to 10th centuries. Knowledge of Greek had been maintained by Christian scholars in Byzantine Syria, which explains why Muslim patrons turned to Christians to render works by Aristotle, Ptolemy, Galen and many other ancient thinkers into Arabic. Thus the very existence of Hellenic-inspired philosophy in the Islamic world was a manifestation of inter-religious cooperation.

read more

posted by f. sheikh

Transcript of Dr. Shoeb Amin’s talk on April 9th, 2017

Posted on by
12
Attendees:
Nasik Elahi, Imtiaz Bokhari, Fayyaz Sheikh, Noor Salik, Mushtaq Ahmad, Ajaz Uddin, Ramesh & Kanta Ubriani and Jamila Amin.
Speaker: Shoeb Amin
After a brief presentation describing my recent visit to Najaf & Karbala I started what I hope was first of many Sunni-Shia intra-faith discussions. Factors that may have been in place long before the events of Ghadir e Khum and those following the Prophet’s death, like tribal rivalries (Ali, Abu Bakr, Umar &Uthman were all from different sub tribes of Quraysh tribe ) and jealousies; events happening after Ayesha was accidentally left in the desert returning from an expedition( Ali advised the Prophet to divorce Ayesha on the prophet’s solicitation of Ali’s advice) and Fatema’s eventual marriage to Ali after proposals from Abu Bakr and Umar were turned down.  Then the actual events of Ghadir e Khum and the Saqifah were presented, two of the most important event that were the beginning of the Shia-Sunni split.  The materials I used were derived from Reza Aslan’s “No god but God”, Barnaby Rogerson’s “Heirs of the Prophet”, some other books I have read in the past and the articles from the following links.
1) https://www.al-islam.org/ghadir/incident.htm
The above is the Shia view of the events of Ghadir e Khum
2) http://duas.org/ghadirkhutba.htm
This is another Shia source and it claims to have the complete speech at Ghadir e Khum with a long list of references at the end , some of them by authors respected even by Sunnis. The problem is the whole speech is a composite of many parts, each presented by a different source; no one authority has the whole speech and it is not clear who is the author of which part.
3) https://gift2shias.com/2013/10/24/hadith-of-ghadir-khumm-a-sunni-perspective/
This 40 page article lays out the Sunni view of Ghadir e Khum. One may read all the pages or just the following to get the gist of it: pages 4,8,9,18,19,and 37.
Of course there are many more sources a reader can consult and then make their own decisions as to what transpired that day.
Then the events following the death of the Prophet and the declaration of Abu Bakr as the Khalifa at Saquifah was presented. For that I used the above quoted two books and the following link besides many other accounts I have read. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saqifah
At the very outset of my talk I said that my intention was not to decide which one is the “real” Islam but to inform one side what the other believes in and why; hopefully that may lead to a better understanding of the other’s position and perhaps even some respect. 
I understand that Shias would have wanted Ali to be the first successor to the Prophet – or even the second or third – but what happened 1400 years ago cannot be reversed and holding that grudge against present day Sunnis is non productive. By the same token, because of the split those events created, a different theology and different religious practices developed in Shi’ism over time and most of those also cannot be reversed. So calling Shias by the many pejorative terms is equally non-productive.
Muslims go to churches and synagogues telling their congregants how we all have the same prophets, how we are all people of the Book and how we are tolerant of other religions ( lakum deenakum walaya deen is oft quoted in those interfaith dialogues). Why can’t we extend the same acceptance to each other and the same respect to each other? We are more similar than we are to Christians and Jews with whom we proudly have interfaith dialogues. The only other alternative is the continuation of blaming, hating, fighting and killing each other for the next 1400 years.

Role of Religion in violence:

Posted on by
2

Role of Religion in violence:

By Dr. Syed Ehtisham

A Historic review of its Genesis

“Organized religion is like organized crime, it preys on people’s weaknesses, generates huge profits for its operators and is almost impossible to eradicate”

Mike Hermann

The above quote is defeatist. It appears to advocate accommodation
Violence in the current day and age is regarded by most mainstream Muslims as a reaction to inequity, injustice, and disempowerment, real or perceived. Stronger nations attack weaker ones when the latter have either refused to be compliant with the objectives of the former or have actually managed to hurt their economic interests.
In Western countries, violence is attributed variously to fanaticism, clash of cultures, poverty, lack of education etc. Muslim residents of Western countries, by and large, condemn acts of violence against innocent people, but would want the people in the West to understand the reasons why a person would deliberately sacrifice his life.
Examples of violence by the strong on the weak are many and come from the very earliest times of known history. Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Persian, Arab, British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese, Italian, and Russian empires come easily to mind. They invaded the weaker people to exploit resources of their countries. World wars were fought for the resources of colonies. Post WWII, with weakening of the Colonial powers, the USA took up the role and intervened directly by naked aggression and through surrogates.
Christians were persecuted by Romans, and Muslims by their own people. But violence in the name of religion was first definitively documented in the late fifteenth century Papal B which authorized the king of Portugal “to attack, conquer and subdue Saracens, pagans and other non-believers who were inimical to Christ; to capture their goods and territories; to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to transfer their lands and properties to the king of Portugal and his successors”.
The common thread that runs through all aggression is greed or fear that the new creed would supplant the old one and control mode of production. When resources were no longer at stake diverse beliefs were tolerated as during the period of Muslim rule in India. The British did send preachers to “spread the word of God” and when natives killed an odd missionary, gunboats followed.
Resistance to aggression against heavy odds is equally common.
All animals practice aggression against their own kind, and against other kinds, to a greater or lesser degree. The complexity of the practice appears to be directly related to intelligence. Lower orders kill, generally members of other species, for food. Others may injure/wound rivals for the affections of a female or to control several comely ones, but generally do not kill them.
Violence for greed is the exclusive domain of Homo sapiens.
I will be accused of committing heresy, but am not. All religions are based on the fear of the unknown. They were, and are practiced to propitiate the supernatural for the individual/common good. In any case religious persons do not require any rationale to castigate difference of opinion. All “non-divinely” inspired religions worshipped natural phenomenon, lightening, rain, storms, earthquakes, fire, floods, sun, and moon etc. Male dominance had not taken firm roots, so they had female deities in nearly equal numbers.
“Divinely inspired”[i] religions exhort us to fear God, the Day of Judgment, reward for good, retribution for evil, sight unseen. God has sent messengers with a set of instructions on a body of beliefs, code of behavior, on how to propitiate Him, with out a word on how to find or recognize Him. One is expected to believe in His existence with out reason or rationale. We are told that our faculties are not developed enough or God has not endowed us adequately enough to be able to do so. God remains largely unknown.
All religions reacted to the prevailing milieu, and confronted the established order. They appealed mainly to the disempowered, the destitute and the poor. The rich, the powerful, and the learned had all the privileges already. They ignored the emergent creed, did not see any good reason for change, which would, in any case, affect their interests adversely, and tried to suppress the new forces with naked force, bribes and temptation, whatever would work. The prophet of Islam was offered riches, women, and positions of authority, if he would only give up his “pointless” preaching. They failed in every instance with all the prophets.
Religions initially attempted to eradicate social evils, and economic inequities. The ruling classes took measures to preserve their authority. They controlled the “ administration, the legislature, and the judiciary”[ii]. They treated the poor abominably, indulged in slavery, tightened their stranglehold by such measures as exorbitant interest rates, forced and bonded labor, serfdom, and claim on the major part of the produce of the peasantry. The ruled had no recourse. All the levers of power were in the hands of the ruling class. If they ran away and were caught, the punishment would be worse than death. If not caught, starvation would be the fate of most.
It must be clearly understood that religion did not hit at the root of privilege. It only aimed at amelioration of the living conditions of the powerless. Private property remained sacrosanct. Slavery was not abolished; the owners were exhorted to treat them humanely. Women remained the underclass, though they were lulled with meaningless honors like the paradise is at the feet of mothers or that their word was law as in ancient India[iii]

Written and shared by Dr. Syed Ehtisham

Islamophobia

Posted on by
1


Islamophobia

The standard definition of Islamophobia is “prejudice against, hatred towards, or irrational fear of Muslims.” Islamophobia is enshrined in many hate speeches in the United States as well as in Europe. Just as some people are anti-Semitic or hate the evangelical Christians or African Americans, today in the West some are Islamophobic. Famous evangelist Franklin Graham told NBC news following the 9/11 attacks: “We’re not attacking Islam but Islam has attacked us. The God of Islam is not the same God. He’s not the son of God of the Christian or Judeo-Christian faith. It’s a different God, and I believe it is a very evil and wicked religion.” Pastor R. Parsley of the huge World Harvest Church of Columbus, Ohio, a spiritual adviser to John McCain, said: “The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion [Islam] destroyed, and I believe 9/11 was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.” Though many Christians have expressed hate against Islam, today in USA there are blunt critic of Islam, behaving as an enemy of Muslims living in the West. Though President Barack Obama was impelled to take aim at nativism in his final State of the Union address on Tuesday, January 12, 2016, offering a not-so-veiled jab at politicians, specifically GOP presidential candidates, who called for keeping Muslims from entering the country and have denigrated other minorities. President Obama said:

[The U.S. needs] to reject any politics that targets people because of race or religion, [not as] a matter of political correctness, [but to maintain the country’s values.] It’s a matter of understanding what makes us strong. …The world respects us not just for our arsenal; it respects us for our diversity and our openness and the way we respect every faith. …When politicians insult Muslims, when a mosque is vandalized, or a kid bullied, that doesn’t make us safer. That’s not telling it like it is. It’s just wrong. It diminishes us in the eyes of the world. It makes it harder to achieve our goals.

Noam Chomsky, the noted activist and MIT professor emeritus, remarked in an interview on January 25, 2016 with The Huffington Post, “The Republican Party has become so extreme in its rhetoric and policies that it poses a serious danger to human survival. … Today, the Republican Party has drifted off the rails.” Chomsky said the GOP and its presidential candidates are “literally a serious danger to decent human survival.” GOP presidential candidates have been aggravating the situation in their debates by making commitments that if they are elected, Muslims would be banned from immigrating to the United States; and that those already living, even as citizens, would be sent back to the countries from where they came. Muslims in the United States are seriously concerned whenPresident Trump issued an executive order to ban the immigration of Muslims from 7-Muslim majority countries, which, though has been temporarily suspended by the Federal Appeals Court. Such rhetoric is creating unrest amongst Muslims, and what we see in Western Muslims and the impact of conflicts in Muslim world, is consequentially going to be a dangerous situation as visualized by Professor Chomsky.

Efforts to deny any link between violent acts of terrorism and the religion of Islam are widespread in the news media as well as government circles. It is a well acknowledged fact that terrorism in the West is usually perpetrated by a handful of misguided individuals, who happen to be Muslims with connections to radical networks abroad, as has been proved in the case of the woman terrorist Tashfeen having connections in Saudi Arabia. Many experts in foreign affairs do notbelieve that Islam is on a collision course with the West or that it is inherently inimical to the modern age. It is, rather, the negative attitude of the Western media towards Islam which has created Islamophobia, scaring Western Muslims. The media, spreading fake news and articles on partly quoted Qur’anic verses, creates an atmosphere of “backfire effect.”

Is Something Going Wrong with the Muslims?

We are aware that billions of Muslims are not motivated by their faith even to hate, let alone to kill those who do not fully share their religious outlook. Many Muslim religious scholars teach that Islam is a religion of peace. But we cannot ignore that terrorists today are mostly Muslims who justify their atrocities on religious grounds. Rodney Stark argues in The Triumph of Faith:

Responses to Muslim terrorism have long generated confessions that terrorism exists because Americans, and Westerners in general, have offended Muslims in many ways, including by supporting Israel, that they really have only themselves to blame. In the immediate wake of the 9/11 attack, former president Bill Clinton cited the Crusades as one of “our crimes against Islam.” More recently, while speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, and in the aftermath of televised beheadings by ISIS terrorists, President Obama also stressed Christian guilt for the Crusades.

But it also seems important to point out that most Muslim terrorism is against other Muslims. It seems unlikely that even the most ardent apologists for Islam would suppose that either Western or American misdeeds are the reason why Sunni Muslims kill and are killed by Shi’ite Muslims. It is time to raise an important question: Is something going wrong with Muslims that every terrorist act points towards them? One of many other reasons is that the rise of a far more intense and militant Islam—justified and promoted as the need of the hour during America’s proxy war with the Soviets—seems primarily to have been a source of modern terrorism. Traditional Islam, isolated during European colonial rule until the end of the nineteenth century, was relatively lax and accommodative to worldliness. When modernity broke down that isolation and oil money enriched the Saudi Arabs, the result was not the proliferation of a new rational “enlightenment,” but the rise of national and international Islamic religious leaderships. These new religious leaders and scholars of Islamic Shari’ah, partly in a reaction against secularism and partly in response to Muslim economic/industrial backwardness, generated a kind of militant commitment to a variety of intense forms of Islam. It appeared in the form of intensification rather than a regression into a peaceful and pious past. We can say that modernity in the world of Islam resulted in an increase of religiousness instead of a modernity of rational and scientific enlightenment.

What is in Store for the Muslims!

The prospects for a harmonious relationship between Islam and the West seem uncertain. A period of cordial relations between the fanatically intense and militant Muslims and the allied American and British Westerners lasted for a very short period of a decade or so. Soon after the fall of the Soviet Union, voices were being raised by thinkers and politicians in the West that this was the time to take care of “Islamic Civilization.” It was being argued by the socio-political experts that after the demise of Marxism the only ideology that could pose a threat to American supremacy was Islam. Works and interviews with Bernard Lewis appeared, followed by the famous book of Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Making of World Order, and many debates and discussions. Before a well-planned clash of civilizations could be ignited, the “Desert Storm” campaign against Saddam Hussein was administered as a testing ground. For me it is neither pride nor a matter of glorification—as since my childhood I have hated war from the core of my heart—that the concept of “Jihad for war” is so powerful in Islam that within a short period it shattered two great empires soon after the advent of Islam, and went a long way towards bringing the Soviet empire to its knees. It took ten years for the U.S. think tanks to find a new way to tackle the jihadi ideology by turning the mujahedeen into terrorists, engaging them to destroy their own believers of liberal and traditional Islam. The West has created an atmosphere of uncertain chaos in the Muslim world by adopting a careful and safe role for themselves and the deadly start of a horrible World War for the Muslims, right from the footage of September 11, 2001.—

MIRZA ASHRAF