I just wish Moses was still alive to argue the ownership of 95% plus of Mohammed's claim in a court of Law.

It is now more important than ever for greater numbers of individuals to stand up against fascism and extremism – no matter where it comes from. This is why groups like British Muslims for Secular Democracy (BMSD) – the organisation that I work for – have protested against both al-Muhajiroun (in their various guises) and Stop the Islamification of Europe.

The easiest way to have a secular democracy is for religion to be nothing to do with it.

That is something that people of all faiths and none can get behind.

@MeandYou

Perhaps you can cast some light on the 95% - or is that just another off the cuff statistic?

Don't be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking.

That jumped out from a speech by the late Steve Jobs and is very apt for many cultures and religions.

We shouldn't be stuck with Dogma's formed by people who are long dead. Instead, we should re-evaluate issues based on our understanding and the world we live in.

There are very few black and whites in most religions, the rest are all dogma's.

This is helpful. The Muslim Council of Britain, to name the most well known organization, has been pulling the wool over the eyes of mainstream liberal opinion ever since it got a name for itself at the time of the Salman Rushdie rioting.

Actually, wahhabism was a tiny, little known sect which drew its ethic from ancient bedouin culture, until Saudi oil made it possible for its adherents to proseletyse its beliefs and practices.

We need to be more literate in the history of islam because for now it is in the hands of people who prefer us to be ignorant about its shining tradition of tolerance and inclusiveness.

In the late 19th and the 20th centuries, right up to the 60s, gay European men travelled to Islamic countries in search of a freedom denied them at home. Gide and Wilde wrote extensively about their experiences in North Africa as did William Burroughs and Joe Orton sixty years later.
A distinctively eastern (and Islamic) sexuality is expressed musically in Ravel's Sheherazade and Szymanowski's King Roger.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

Tahmina
Thanks for this fascinating article. However, as much as I would like Islam to be expressed with a clearer separation of religious hierarchy and state, it seems that this is very much against the flow of thinking in the ulema and in most of present day politics. One colleague (not a Muslim) said to me "I can't see how you can argue against the fundamentalists from within Islam. If I was a Muslim I wouldn't be able to argue against them, because I think their reading and understanding of Islam has the weight of history and writing on its side". I think there's a large amount of truth in that.

Hailing from the post - Ottoman area, otherwise known as Montenegro,
I know of a few villages in the border regions to the south-east where homosexuality was vigorously promoted by the Turks, not that the inhabitants had any choice in the matter, after 438 years of forced occupation.
And whilst it could be said that the male Montenegrens might not have fully benefited from this act of 'entitlement', I do believe that the Ladies of Bar and Podgorica learnt much about our 'Turska Braca'.

Interesting article and it will be interesting how successful this bit actual is:

The purpose of Hussain's paper is to encourage people who carry the baton for totalitarian ideologies – including those who are inspired by Anwar al-Awlaki – to think again. The recent deaths of al-Awlaki and his demagogue Osama bin Laden only mean that part of the battle is won.

After all as is seen on here time and time again people are remarkably resilient to having their worldview challenged by rational argument and evidence.

Religious beliefs seem to be here to stay.

Therefore, anything to humanise their interpretation, anything to promote an inclusive sense of valuing all members of society, rather than punishing some purely for being as their God (presumably) made them, is surely good news for women and gay people.

I haven't noticed any reference to stigmatising lesbians in Islam. I just wondered if this is similar to the reason they escaped being legislated against in the UK, i.e. the ruler did not believe in their existence..?

This is the first time I've heard of the Ottoman empire being touted as a caliphate. Indeed, I thought the Ottomans were regarded as backward as it still ran feudalism. I thought the Arab empire was the model.

Admittedly, I've never understood the Islamists. Surely Iran is a living template for a caliphate regardless that they're Shia.

One colleague (not a Muslim) said to me "I can't see how you can argue against the fundamentalists from within Islam. If I was a Muslim I wouldn't be able to argue against them, because I think their reading and understanding of Islam has the weight of history and writing on its side". I think there's a large amount of truth in that.

And the same can be said of Christianity and Judaism.

Why not sidestep the whole issue and leap, breathless and bright eyed, into the 21st century and see that the secularisation of humanity is the step forward here. Not the adaptation of sharia or the variation from literalism.

Drop the dogma and feel the love.

I also hope this paper will get far-right groups to reconsider the history of Muslims in Europe, and make them realise the positive contribution Islam has made in countries like Turkey and Spain.

I wonder what the author means there. Scientific breakthroughs during Islam's Golden Age? Or the fancy architectural legacy in e.g. Spain?

I'm always wary when people talk about a religion - any religion - making "positive contributions" to the world.

@Tehimina

I also hope this paper will get far-right groups to reconsider the history of Muslims in Europe, and make them realise the positive contribution Islam has made in countries like Turkey and Spain.

As much as I support your agenda and liked the artcle, we don't need even more apologism for Muslim imperialism / colonialism in Europe (thats what it was). The invasion of Spain resulted in centuries of struggle to drive the occupiers out and encouraged Christian extremists. The Ottomans also have a long history of crimes against Europeans. Lets not gloss over the bits of history Muslims don't like.

@pretzelberg

I'm always wary when people talk about a religion - any religion - making "positive contributions" to the world.

There does seem to be a tendency to accept religion is behind the positives in these things, but is apparently never anything to do with the negatives.

giving proof of who is right and who is wrong just making the matter more complicated , we have to see the fact , the reality, the truth , and the truth is religions have seperated mankind , religion want to dictate our lives , i am not talking any particular religion like Islam , Jewish , or anything else but religion itself , all the religions same , they want to dominate the world ,

A useful reminder that Islam does not necessarily have to be a bad thing.

It can be almost neutral if people don't take its teachings too seriously.

Why have you chosen a negative word for a positive development? Why not „makes sharia claims highly impossible“?

The elite observed a different set of rules from the plebs - this is the gist of the article. Muslims have had painters amongst them for ages, maybe some restrictions existed on the subjects that could be covered because of religious mandates.

The Ottomans were considered Caliphs, when the empire was broken up for good, the Indian muslim went on an orgy of violence supposedly in grief.

There is no separation of state and religion in Islam - its earliest leaders were rulers as well as the last word on religious matters. Contrary to the fantasy portrayed here, muslims cannot be obedient to their religion and to the laws of a land where they are in a minorty. This statement is true of practically every religion.
The horror Ottoman rule in eastern Europe would give a less benevolent view of these posers who took the Byzantine titles of the infidels they so hated.

@nansikom

Out here gay rights trump christians' right to life any day, so you won't find any mention of that.

Thanks for the article.

In terms of broader social change, the Ottomans made strong attempts to integrate non-Muslim communities.

Too bad, the post Ottoman regime and its neighboring Greek government forgot about that noble sentiment in the immediate aftermath of their friendly war circa 1921 to 1923.

Ethnic cleansing anyone? India and Pakistan the partition - the prequel? A friendly exchange of communities?

Maybe the Ottomans were nicer to Orthodox Christians. Oops, forgot about the tax of Christian boys. Maybe the present Greek government is nicer. Oops, forgot about the nicely veiled suppression of minority groups and languages.

Same thing, different channel and different time slot.

Heymat, borne of the blood but lacking some of the heart-filled hate-fire.

It is legitimate to point out that in some respects the Ottoman Empire embraced secularism and reform, but the generalisations are wildly overstated.

1. The Tanzimat reforms were largely negated by the fierce opposition of the religious authorities. Many of the proposed reforms, including an elected Parliament and full equality for Jews and Christians were blocked. The Religious conservatives managed to get the Chief Reformer, Mustafa Resid, dismissed
2. Homosexuality may well have been decriminalised- that was certainly news to me- but slavery, polygamy and harems continued until late in the 19th Century. Again there was strong opposition from Muslim leaders to their abolition.
3. Many of the reforms that did take place- such as the abolition of public slave markets in the 1840s- only happened because of intense European pressure
4. The Ottoman Sultans were not averse to using religion when it suited them- they declared Jihad against the Italians in 1911 and the allies in 1914
5. As has been pointed out already, it was the ottomans, who were responsible for the Genocide of the Armenians
6. The Religious authorities, contrary to what the author claims, were able to ensure that Sharia was maintained on an equal footing with secular law
7. The (failed) attempts to integrate non-Muslims into the Empire again only start nwith the coming of the Young Turks..
8. Girls secular education only started when the secular-minded Young Turks took power

One could go on, but I hope the examples above are enough to show that the author views the Ottomans half-hearted and largely unsuccessful attempts to secularise their regime through spectacles with a peculiar shade of rose

@nansikom,

... organised the first genocide of the C20...

You're right about the genocide, but it wasn't the first of the twentieth century; the Herero and Namaqua one preceded it. (The BBC had a story about it a few days ago.)

pretzelberg said:

7 October 2011 12:10PM

I'm always wary when people talk about a religion - any religion - making "positive contributions" to the world.

That's because the religion you practice is a primitive form of totemism. It's all us versus them. atheists versus theists.

Totemism is also prevalent in the worst of Judeo-Christian and Islamic thought.

WarmachineUK

This is the first time I've heard of the Ottoman empire being touted as a caliphate. Indeed, I thought the Ottomans were regarded as backward as it still ran feudalism. I thought the Arab empire was the model.

Bin Laden often made reference to an 80+ year history of loss and his reference here was the fall of the caliphate to Kemal Attaturk. Also, when HizbTahrir in its various guises had websites up and running they had a calendar counting off days from the fall of the caliphate. For this hard line Islamism its the shameful loss of this power structure (whether it was corrupt or not is a different question) that is such a tragedy.

Robi

One colleague (not a Muslim) said to me "I can't see how you can argue against the fundamentalists from within Islam. If I was a Muslim I wouldn't be able to argue against them, because I think their reading and understanding of Islam has the weight of history and writing on its side". I think there's a large amount of truth in that.

And the same can be said of Christianity and Judaism.

That's true but to much less of a degree. E.g. The CofE has Catholic, Liberal and Evangelical aspects to it with a long line of Liberal theology and input. It has the cultural aspect of the enlightenment that focuses very heavily on individualism and other factors that mitigate against group fundamentalism. And Christianity never formulated theology as law, unlike shariah which is in large part legal jurisprudence. That writing is a sea anchor against that seems to me to keep the ship pointed towards fundamentalism far more than Christian theology is.

I know next to nothing of Ottoman history but, according to Wikipedia, the reformation or Tanzimat mentioned in this article was, to some extent, forced on the Ottomans by the European powers demanding equal rights for Christians in the Ottoman empire. (The equality record of these powers in their colonies is for another day.)

By the standards of its day, the Ottoman empire may not have been significantly worse than other empires, but there is no need either to romanticise it or to pin hopes for a more tolerant and generous Islam on it. Muslims are as smart as any other people - they can pick and choose and define whatever version of their religion they want, just as everybody else has done. There's no harm in knowing some history, but it isn't essential. Sometimes, you have to create your own reality, like Dick Cheney advised.

@WarmachineUK: The Ottoman Sultans declared themselves to be the Caliphs when they conquered much of the Muslim world in the 16th Century. They kept that title even after the Empire was abolished until 1924.

Not all Muslims accepted that they were the rightful Caliphs, but enough did to make the title credible for 400 years.

The ancient Greeks and Romans were pretty relaxed about homosexuality too, long before the Ottomans, but that doesn't mean those societies weren't barbaric by modern standards.

This article and the study it mentions are both just cherry picking.

Sharia law derives from the Koran and the Sunna. Contained in those texts - considered divine by Muslims- are myriad examples of discrimination against women and non-Muslims. Also written into those texts is a comprehensive system of oppression designed to prevent Muslims from changing their religion.

Divinely sanctioned violations of the principles of equality, non-discrimination, and live and let live abound -all held dear under contemporary liberalism.

Give up the charade.

British Muslims for Secular Democracy have about as many members as Al-Muj don't they?

dynamo1940
7 October 2011 12:17PM
A useful reminder that Islam does not necessarily have to be a bad thing.

It can be almost neutral if people don't take its teachings too seriously.

So the best Islam can be is not too bad provided people ignore most of it?

@ MinesAFosters
7 October 2011 12:40PM

So the best Islam can be is not too bad provided people ignore most of it?

Exactly.

@solfish

British Muslims for Secular Democracy have about as many members as Al-Muj don't they?

Well at least the author is trying to change that, or do you oppose Muslims who support secualrism?

Various Islamists are touting the Ottoman empire as a model of a caliphate, aka. "the sick man of Europe". That's hilarious. No wonder the moderates don't a caliphate.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

Religion is a source of enlightened behaviour in the same way that smallpox is a source of smallpox vaccine.

So the best Islam can be is not too bad provided people ignore most of it?

Brilliant.Lol.

Apologists for sharia are always strangely silent on Allah's command that daughters should receive only half what sons get in inheritance. Nor do they trouble themselves with His explicit although (let's be fair) qualified sanction of wifebeating. His prohibition on women marrying outside the faith is also left completely alone. As are other lopsided rights a married man enjoys over his wife.

And yet this is the sharia they are writing about. These are some of the few express rules laid out in the Holy text of Islam.

Adolf Hitler once said "Who, after all, speaks to-day of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

Certainly not Tehmina Kazi

Who, after all, speaks to-day of the annihilation of the Native Americans?

Europeans ethnically cleansed a whole continent., but I guess they can be ignored because they were not White Christians.

WestTexan

That's because the religion you practice is a primitive form of totemism.

I think not.

It's all us versus them. atheists versus theists.

Wrong again. What a bizarre misinterpretation of a very simply worded but innocent enough post by me.

This is the same old blame-the-west and romanticise-Islam in new clothing.

The Ottomans weren't as bad as some make out. But this article is a whitewash.

She doesn't mentrion that the allegedly liberal Ottomans didn't outlaw slavery until 1905, and only then because they had long been under severe pressure from France and Britain.

She doesn't mention that the Tanzimat reforms also arose from pressure from Europe and were opposed by many Muslims as a betrayal of Islam.

She writes that "the Ottomans made strong attempts to integrate non-Muslim communities." In fact, non-Muslims were treated as second-rate dhimmis by the Ottomans. Attempts by Bulgarians, Greeks, and others to leave the empire were brutally suppressed. And when Europe pressed for better treatment of non-Muslims it was resented by many.

She approvingly quotes a scholar who blames the west for the idea of an Islamic state, and who says that European-inspired Islamic states obscure Islam's true commitment to human rights. Wow. It takes some chutzpah to come up with an argument that credits Islam for human rights and blames Europe for sharia law! But there it is.

She says: "One of Islam's strengths is its relevance to all places and all times." It's neither more nor less intrinsically relevant to all places and times than Christianity, Druidism, wearing socks, remembering to clean your teeth, or stoning adulterers. It's a cultural practice, like Christianity, manufactured by humans and is as relevant or irrelevant to us as we choose to make it.

Overall, this is just more propaganda in the cause of saying how great Islam is for Europe.

Mert80

Who, after all, speaks to-day of the annihilation of the Native Americans?

Er, plenty of people.

Europeans ethnically cleansed a whole continent., but I guess they can be ignored because they were not White Christians.

Some of us don't ignore it.

An-Naim maintains that concepts such as human rights and citizenship are more consistent with Islamic principles

Nice try at the True Scotsman fallacy. Of course you can reconcile humans rights and Islam (or any other religion) because religion is all made up. With that kind of non-thinking you can justify anything.

nansikom said:

7 October 2011 11:47AM

The Ottoman Empire, lest we forget its brutality, organised the first genocide of the C20...

Shame on you!

So here we have the war of the propagandists, Kazi propagandizing one myth, and nansikom the opposite myth.

The propagandizing is identical to the incessant revision we see in the story of the European conquest of North and South America.

On one side its scheme was imperial: the epic advance of Civilization against Barbarism: the conquistador brings the Cross and the sword, the red man shrinks back before the cavalry and the railroad. Manifest Destiny. The white American myth of the 19th century, resurected in the 20th and 21st centuries in the dogmas of neoconservatives. After the myth sank from the histories deep into popular culture, it became a potent justification for the plunder, murder and enslavement of peoples, and the wreckage of nature.

In reaction to it came the manufacture of its opposite myth. European man, once the hero of the conquest of the Americas, now becomes its demon; and the victims, who cannot be brought back to life, are canonized. As Robert Hughes put it in Culture of Complaint:

On either side of the divide between Euro and native, historians stand ready with tar-brush and gold leaf, and instead of the wicked old stereotypes we have a whole new outfit of equally misleading ones...

This new stereotype, a rebirth of Rousseauist notions about the Noble Savage, brings a new outfit of double standards into play.

"One could do worse than remember the advice of the Brazilian novelist Jorge Amado," Hughes continues, "reflecting on the 500th anniversary of Columbus and the conquest of the New World: for some, he wrote, it means

the epic of discovery, the meeting of two worlds; for others, the infamy of the conquista and of genocide... One must set up and compare appearances and differences, because only in this way, by understanding what was great and will be an eternal glory, by disclosing what was wretched and will be a perpetual shame, only thus, in reflection and understanidng, can we both celebrate the epic and condemn the massacre, neither of which expunges the other. We are the product of both----the mixed peoples of America.

When hardline groups present Islam as a rigid political ideology, they end up doing a great disservice to Islam and Muslim communities. One of Islam's strengths is its relevance to all places and all times, which means that it can take on numerous expressions according to local circumstances.

All it proves is that Muslims, like Christians and Jews, can ignore swathes of their holy books and rise above them.

But anyone can read the Koran and see what it stands for. What claims it makes. The fact that religious believers in the monotheisms often do manage live in and help create just societies is a testament to the human capacity for cooperation (an essential thing that allowed our species to get this far), and isn't an alibi for religion

Er, plenty of people.

For example Winston Churchill was not one of that plenty of people:

"I do not admit... that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia... by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race... has come in and taken its place."

... organised the first genocide of the C20...

They were responsible for it but it wasn't the ideology they came up with. For the previous centuries it was different communities and religions living side by side ie multiculturism. Nationalism was sweeping through europe at the time where ethnic purity was the name of the game. Due to competing claims by the Greeks, Turks and armenians the bloodshed occured. If the Turks lost many of them would have been focibley relocated. The coexistance that occured for the previous centuries was forgotten about. It was the conversion of the Multiethnic Ottoman empire to the euro style nation states in such a small space of time that caused the bloodshed

Raymond82

For the previous centuries it was different communities and religions living side by side ie multiculturism.

What was I saying about apologism? You missed the whole bit about the Ottomans colonising other peoples land.

If I wanted to play devil's advocate I would point out that pretty much all of these progressive policies mentioned occurred towards the end of the Ottoman Empire rather than when it was at its height - wouldn't supporters of hardline Sharia Law use this of evidence of whay happens when you bring in liberal ideas?

@WestTexan

So here we have the war of the propagandists, Kazi propagandizing one myth, and nansikom the opposite myth.

What myth? The Ottomans were imperialists and colonialists who butchered and enslaved when they felt the need, just like West Europeans.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.