secular Muslims search for voice

I consider it offensive to speak of the "Muslim community" or the "Jewish community" or the "Catholic community". None of these are communities. Many or most of those lumped together are not religious in any meaningful sense. In the case of recent immigrants, such terms conflate people of vastly different origins and cultures.

These terms should be restricted to purely religious issues, and applied only to practising members of the religions in question. Otherwise, they themselves become the background for stereotyping and racism.

It's good to see the Germans calling themselves "ex-Muslims", rather than pretending that some "Muslim identity" remains even if you are secular. There may be an Afghan or Tunisian or Indonesian or Swedish or Canadian identity or cultural heritage for non-believers, but not a "Muslim" one.

ETA: I had a closer look at this German site. They link to rabid Islamophobic sites - really bad ones, calling for "eradication of Islam", etc. Why can't people just be humble atheists without becoming jihadist crusaders against their old religion? What a bunch of losers.

[ 10 March 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Aren't you a non-believer, unionist? Do you have no Jewish identity?[/b]

---

Good point. I'm Jewish, even though I consider God as a sad old drunk and the Jewish religion as one of the most backward ones socially and ideologically speaking. But I am most decidedly [b]not[/b] part of any so-called "Jewish community", nor are the vast majority of my Jewish friends and relatives. I venture to say that in Israel as well, there is no such thing as a "Jewish community".

So maybe my previous comments were too extreme in relation to identity, but I would still resist strenuously any official attempt to define a "Jewish (or Muslim or Buddhist or Lutheran) community" and enact policies in that context.

Posted by unionist:

quote:

---

Why can't people just be humble atheists without becoming jihadist crusaders against their old religion? What a bunch of losers.

---

Human nature may have something to do with it.

Ex-smokers often become the foremost crusaders against the evils of smoking. Ex-Trotskyists become neo-Conservatives decrying the evils of islamism, communism or whatever.

When you have been hurt or felt oppressed by something, it's pretty natural to lash out against it and not be able to see anything but bad in it.

The proliferation of “secular” Muslim groups and organizations and the mushrooming of (entrepreneurial) "Islam reformists" throughout the Western world is not all entirely the product of hazard. Nor is their over-representation in mostly right wing Western media reporting.

There are more than one Reports (on how do deal with Islam psot 9-11) commissioned by the USA and its agencies from the Rand Corporation, a conservative Think Tank linked to corporate, media and militarist interests, notably the Carlyle Group.

The first report was called “Civil Democratic Islam: Partners Resources and Strategies” :

[url=http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1716.pdf]http://www.ra...

The report categorized Muslims (to the surprise of Muslims themselves) into: radical fundamentalist, scriptural fundamentalist, conservative traditionalist, reformist traditionalist, modernist, mainstream secularist and radical secularist. Then it recommended to the USA government to:

1) “Support the modernists first, enhancing their vision of Islam over that of the traditionalists by providing them with a broad platform to articulate and disseminate their views. They, not the traditionalists, should be cultivated and publicly presented as the face of contemporary Islam.

2) “Support the secularists on a case-by-case basis.

3) “Encourage secular civic and cultural institutions and programs.

4) “Back the traditionalists enough to keep them viable against the fundamentalists (if and wherever those are our choices) and to prevent a closer alliance between these two groups.

5) “Within the traditionalists, we should selectively encourage those who are the relatively better match for modern civil society. For example, some Islamic law schools are far more amenable to our view of justice and human rights than are others.

6) “Finally, oppose the fundamentalists energetically by striking at vulnerabilities in their Islamic and ideological postures, exposing things that neither the youthful idealists in their target audience nor the pious traditionalists can approve of: their corruption, their brutality, their ignorance, the bias and manifest errors in their application of Islam, and their inability to lead and govern.” (P. 47-48)

After making these recommendations the Report goes on to say: “Some additional, more-direct activities will be necessary to support this overall approach, such as the following:

1) “Help break the fundamentalist and traditionalist monopoly on defining, explaining, and interpreting Islam.

2) “Identify appropriate modernist scholars to manage a website that answers questions related to daily conduct and offers modernist Islamic legal opinions.

3) “Encourage modernist scholars to write textbooks and develop curricula.

4) “Publish introductory books at subsidized rates to make them as available as the tractates of fundamentalist authors.

5) “Use popular regional media, such as radio, to introduce the thoughts and practices of modernist Muslims to broaden the international view of what Islam means and can mean.” (p. 48)

Three key factors are crystal clear about this report: 1) It seeks to redefine Islam, 2) to find and promote Muslim leaders and intellectuals of their choice, and 3) involve Western governments in reorganizing and transforming Islam; by persuasion, when possible, and by force, when necessary.

Then we have another Rand Corporation study by the same Rand Corporation that suggested that Sunni, Shiite and Arab, non-Arab divides should be exploited to promote the US policy objectives in the Muslim world.

The recently released Rand study - titled “US Strategy in the Muslim World After 9/11” – was conducted on behalf of the US Air Force. One of the primary objectives of the study was to

quote:

---

identify the key cleavages and fault lines among sectarian, ethnic, regional, and national lines and to assess how these cleavages generate challenges and opportunities for the United States.

---

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GHA20050...

In this context one can understand this surge of "secular" Muslim groups and “Islam reformists” in the West.

Regarding the recommendation which calls basically for divisiveness between non-Arab Muslims and Arab Muslims, I was stunned to read the following in the Opinion section of the Toronto Star:

quote:

---

"...Muslim woman's authenticity is now determined by her way of dress or a head covering. The hijab...has become a political tool that is used against women who choose not to wear one...This ideology is fanned by the wave of "Arabization" that has invaded my homeland. Pakistani women have adopted Arab-style clothing and Arab names. Some even say that unless you speak Arabic, you can't be a good Muslim. Hello? Where does this leave the majority of Muslims in the world who are non-Arabs? "

-Raheel Raza, (who sits on the board of the "secular" Muslim Canadian Congress) in "Opinion", the Toronto Star, March 8, 2007

[url=http://www.thestar.com/article/189406]http://www.thestar.com/article/189...

---

Am I suggesting any link between what Ms Raheel Raza or the Muslim Canadian Congress and any Rand Report ? I am not. I only find this trend of divisiveness Arabs versus Pakistanis (or other non Arab Muslims) disturbing.

It is obvious that the interests of the USA are the ones pursued by the Rand Reports, not Muslims’ interests. The Rand reports called for divisiveness, pitting Muslims against Muslims, non-Arab Muslims against Arabs, Shia against Sunnis, de-clawing Islam of any remnant of duty to resist occupiers and invaders and creating a docile, subservient version that pleases the USA. The poor status of women, the lack of democracy and human rights in the Muslim world have been there prior to 9-11, aided and abetted by the USA and the West. They are being used now as pawns to advance imperialist, neo-colonialist, corporatist interests. With the help of witting and unwitting “Muslims”. Of course some have only good intentions; but many are being duped.

quote:

---

Letter in March 12th GLOBE:

Not Muslims only
NADEEM JAMALI

Saskatoon -- It was refreshing to read the article about ex-Muslims in Germany (Muslims Find Their Voice Outside Religion -- March 10). It made me wonder about the chances of Canada's "ex-Muslims" finding the courage to emulate their German counterparts... Geneva

---

Here: bohajal (posted 10 March 2007 02:59 PM)

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=001734]h...

And here:

quote:

---

German Jews Feud Over Criticizing Israel

Fight Mirrors Similar Debates in Britain and Australia

Ben Weinthal | Fri. Mar 09, 2007

Berlin - A declaration criticizing Israeli territorial policies is roiling the German Jewish community and raising questions about the limits of open debate on matters in relation to the Middle East.

At issue is a declaration published in January in one of the country's most widely read Jewish newspapers, Die Jьdische Zeitung (The Jewish Newspaper). The statement, titled "Berlin Declaration Shalom 5767" - a reference to the current year in the Jewish calendar - and organized by a member of the presiding committee of the Central Council of German Jews, Rolf Verleger, called on Germany's government to do more to press Israel to make concessions, and asserted that the "root of the problem is the continuing Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory since 1967."

---

From the Jewish Daily Forward:

[url=http://www.forward.com/articles/german-jews-feud-over-criticizing-israel...

[ 12 March 2007: Message edited by: bohajal ]