INQUIRER Volume 5, Issue 03, March, 2002, Long Island Secular Humanists Box 119, Greenlawn, NY 11740, Email: LISecHum@aol.com . A Thumbs Up Publication Editor: Gerald Dantone, Art Design: John R. Wilmarth Copyright LISH 2000 (All articles in this newsletter may be reprinted by organizations affiliated with the Council for Secular Humanism with a reciprocating reprinting agreement with LISH, so long as the article is used in full and with complete crediting. Edited versions can be used with written permission.)
LISH members, our monthly meetings (Calendar) are your chance not only to see and hear a stimulating discussion on an exciting subject, but also to meet with your fellow secular humanists on Long Island.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1) Enabling Sexual Abuse in the Clergy
2) Letters to the Editor
3) Quickies
4) A Response to Ibn Warraq: The Inner Struggle, the True Jihad, By Humayan Chaudhry
5) A Response to Mr. Humayan Chaudhry, By Ali SinaLISH MEETING INFORMATION
The 7PM Friday March 15 LISH forum at the Plainview-Old Bethpage Public Library, 999 Old Country Road, Plainview, Nassau County, will feature DJ Grothe, Field Director of the Council for Secular Humanism. The topic will be “Voltaire: Enlightenment Activism.” Don't miss this lecture on the founding father of activism on behalf of civil liberties, and religious skeptic - the great Voltaire.
The Friday, April 26 LISH forum at the Plainview Library will feature Norm Allen of African Americans for Humanism. Don't miss this outstanding opportunity to meet one of the great humanist leaders in the US.
Note: The AHA's Annual Conference will be held on May in Houston , TX. To register call 1 800 837 3792 or go to www.AmericanHumanist.org for info.
Visit LISH on the web: http://www.homestead.com/lishweb and also at http://wwwhumanist.comENABLING SEXUAL ABUSE IN THE CLERGY Gerry Dantone
Sexual child abuse should not be an issue that definitively demonstrates the moral emptiness and irrelevancy of belief in the god concept: Sexual abuse can be perpetrated by a person of any belief system or a non-believer - that should be understood. However, an all too common story has become allegations of not only child sexual abuse by those representing one religious organization or another, but the cover-up of those charges by the religious institutions and groups accused. This does seem to imply more than the fact that abuse will sometimes occur; why, then, is abuse systematically ignored by the perpetrator's religious group, particularly if he is a cleric?
Stories about such abuse touch many groups. Areas where Mormonism is the rule have been called hotbeds of child abuse by government prosecutors. Polygamy in many groups is a cover for statutory rape and worse. Genital mutilation is the norm for many sects. Child abuse is suspected in many closed societies where there is little recourse for children to reach out to protective agencies or groups.
In a country under sharia law where four male witnesses are required to convict a male rapist, and where the victim's testimony is inadmissible, rape that leads to pregnancy can lead to execution of the victim for “adultery” if the rape cannot be proven.
Therefore it is not truly shocking to read that a Boston priest, John Geoghan, who was convicted of child molestation, was enabled by numerous supervisors, including Cardinal Bernard Law, Bishop Thomas Daily, Bishop Robert Banks, Bishop William Murphy, Bishop John McCormack, and Bishop Alfred Hughes, according to a story from the Associated Press. They all either fielded complaints about Geoghan, disciplined him or both. According to his own notes, Bishop Banks was told in 1989 by a psychiatrist that “you can't afford to have him in a parish.” He was not removed until 1993. So far, approximately 130 people have charged that Geoghan fondled or raped them.
The difference in this case according to an attorney expert in these kinds of claims is that the details of the archdiocese's attempts to avoid scandal have been made public by the court.
The Boston Globe has now made public that in the past decade at the Boston archdiocese had settled claims of sexual molestation involving at least 70 priests “under an extraordinary cloak of secrecy.” (The Associated Press reported in February 2002 that the Diocese of Manchester, NH has just named 14 priests accused of sexual molestation over 25 years, with one of those priests still working until this announcement!) Bishop Daily, now of the Brooklyn archdiocese, said in a deposition that he didn't report the allegations to the police because he was “under the very distinct impression that there was a question of immunity for such matters.” Imagine: A Bishop believing that the clergy are immune from laws against rape! What else are they immune from - murder? Is this what Church leaders are complaining about when they state that there is no freedom of religion in this country? Do they mean that clerics should be above the law? Answer: Yes!
The US is not an aberration for the Roman Catholic Church. In a previous issue of the INQUIRER, it was reported that sexual abuse of nuns was a problem in a number of countries and that the Church has not responded well to such claims. The Associated Press reported in January 2002, that the Catholic Church in Ireland agreed to contribute $110,000,000 to a fund created to compensate victims of sexual abuse by clergy, numbering from 3000 to 7000 potential claimants. The entire fund is expected to be about four times as much ($430,000,000) with the government footing the balance, enraging child abuse activists. Over 20 clerics and nuns have been convicted in Ireland for abuse, and the Church has fought for years to minimize their financial exposure. In Ireland the State funded the Church to operate orphanages and schools in their version of vouchers and faith-based charitable choice.
With all this in mind, and this problem becoming common knowledge, the idea that the NYC government is now going to encourage such cover-ups is sickening.
Douglas Montero of the NY Post reported in January 2002 that City Council Bill 933, for year 2001, would have required, in its original state, that employees of all private or public schools call the police whenever a sexual allegation is made. Sources in the now-sainted Giuliani administration did not support this law being applied to private religious schools. The bill was altered and put on the Nov. 6 ballot and approved by referendum: But only public schools were required to conform. Private schools were not required to conform.
What possible reason is there to NOT require police intervention in cases of alleged sexual abuse in private schools, particularly when public schools have this requirement, and the history of private religious schools and institutions is so dubious?
Here is the answer: The appearance of piety is more important than the well being of persons, even children, to the religious organizations.
This is the problem that goes deeper than the fact that there will always be some bad apples in every group. When a religious group has a vested interest in the appearance of morality, true morals are sacrificed. Belief or disbelief is irrelevant to one's character, sexual preferences or sexual problems. All society can hope for is that all abuse is dealt with properly, fairly and effectively. Instead, organizations that make the claim for righteousness based on having a certain faith or belief, or those with an exalted position in the religious hierarchy inevitably will fall short because belief and faith have nothing to do with morality, and false and public piety have everything to do with immorality. They believe that to admit that a fellow believer or cleric has fallen taints their own beliefs and claims about faith and their religious organization - and they're right. [TOC]LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
1/16/02 Re: (Your article where you write) “...Domestically, Attorney General John Ashcroft has frightened both liberal and conservative Americans with his disregard for civil liberties, though he has directed most of his energy toward non-citizens.”
According to Gerry, non-citizens are less deserving of civil liberties than citizens. It is my understanding that as a non-citizen, but permanent resident of the USA, the only privilege not available to me is voting. Could you please Gerry expand on your assertion that "it was more acceptable that his energy was directed to non-citizens." Even if you didn't express yourself accurately and just meant "residents or citizen of other countries," could you please expand on your opinion that residents of other countries deserve less civil liberties? Abel Valls via Internet
Response: I cannot expand on that because I do not have that opinion. Perhaps my phrasing was less than perfect but I was saying that people are upset with Ashcroft even if he were to confine his assault on civil liberties to non-citizens. That is no comfort to freedom lovers. If civil libertarians were not concerned about the rights of non-citizens, why would we bring it up at all? G.D.
1/18/02 Re: How Many Dead? A number of people, including conservative Christian columnist Cal Thomas, were calling on the U.S. to drop nuclear bombs on Afghanistan--an idiotic suggestion, but one that was made in all seriousness. Obviously, compared to what many were calling for, the United States has gone about its military action in a way that minimizes civilian deaths.
To insist that a war can be waged with no significant loss of lives is itself a form of religious mysticism -- an unrealistic demand for the impossible. The sanitized version of war that the article's author is apparently calling for exists only in his or her imagination.
Helping rebuild Afghanistan is certainly an example of American compassion. Perhaps the article should have mentioned the millions of dollars the United States has already spent on food aid, and the millions more it will spend in the near future. Moreover, by removing the murderous and warlike Taliban regime, the U.S. is saving countless thousands of future Afghani lives. That's something that articles like the one cited above, in their zeal to assume some kind of magnanimous guilt, studiously ignore. Cyber via Internet
Response: I did not know that Cal Thomas had suggested nuclear weapons but I have seen Leonard Peikoff (Objectivist leader) suggest it on TV. As far as the conduct of the war, I believe the point of the article was that the reporting avoided the tough issue of Afghani civilian casualties. I do not think the article was directed at US policy, but instead the media. This was not a judgment that the US was careless or disregarded civilian casualties - the evidence so far is that the US was very conscious and concerned with civilians. However it cannot be denied that the media shied away from reporting on this issue so that US citizens were handicapped in making an accurate assessment. I agree that the removal of the Taliban will most likely save more lives than were lost during the war. But we just want the facts. G.D.
12/6/01 Hello, Thank you for the articles from the Long Island Secular Humanist Newsletter. I'd like to offer my thoughts on some of the ideas discussed in the newsletter.
In general, I think the policies which include criticizing the Christmas holidays and objecting to the use of the word "God" in the public, are counter-productive to the aims of Secular Humanism. These are negative tactics and therefore will attract negative results. I prefer more positive approaches.
My first idea is to adjust our thinking about the use of the word "God". We should publicize a policy that wherever Humanists see the word God, they will substitute the word "Good". This seems very simple, but it's a very powerful way to allow people to adjust their mind set. Who can argue with the idea of: "In Good we trust?" As a Humanist, I feel that the word "God" is already tied to the word "good". The adjustment is a small, but powerful one. It is how the mind sees the meaning of "God" which makes the big difference. As the years go by, this policy, if *highly publicized*, will go far in gradually changing people's thinking. The change must be gradual, in my opinion, a slow realization of the truth, in much the same way that many of us have gradually become Humanists, as little by little, the light dawned.
My second idea concerns our attitude toward Christmas. I have come to look upon the story of Christmas as a beautiful myth. I've adopted Christmas as a myth surrounded by thoughts of goodness and love. I continue to celebrate Christmas as a symbol of love. The thought should be: "Christmas is Love." In this way, I don't have to give up my precious memories and the enjoyment of all the usual traditions of lights and music, which go with the holiday. I don't deny the Christmas holiday. I *use* it to foster my feelings about love and goodness. In the same way, I am able to join non-Christians in their holidays as well. I am able to see the stories behind their holidays as celebrations of goodness and love. I don't accept the dogma, but I embrace the ideas of goodness and love, which grow out of the dogma. In the same way that Greek and Roman myths have been preserved to enhance our literature, the myths of modern day religions can be used to enhance our moral and ethical ideals.
When Humanists go about objecting to established religious dogmas and objecting to beautiful, inspiring songs like "God Bless America", they turn their beautiful ideas about ethics and goodness into the negative connotations. It seems to me that the purposes of Humanism would be better served by simple adjustments of thought similar to the ones I've described above. These new attitudes about old customs, *if publicized enough*, will have a more positive effect on the world than the crushing and obliterating of cherished customs. Humanists will be making use of already established customs to foster their own principles of goodness, love and peace.
I realize that I have not dealt with the subject of the separation of church and state here. My feelings are that the objections of Humanists mentioned above (objections to the public use of the word "God" and to observations of Christmas holidays) are similar to objecting to the cosmetics of our public buildings instead of worrying about what is going on inside those buildings. When the "cosmetics" affect the political actions, then it is the time to worry. I doubt if the word "God" or the holidays have affected our political policies. Sincerely, Terry Cagney via Internet
Response: When you suggest that we should adjust “our” response to the word God so that we substitute the word “good,” I assume you mean it is humanists who should do the adjusting. I believe humanists have already done the appropriate adjusting (in theory at least); that's what makes us humanists. It is others who need to accept this adjustment. If you mean that humanists should seek to change signs reading “God Bless America” in our schools to read “Good Bless America,” I say great and good luck, but expect as much animus as if you tore down the sign altogether! Still, this is a tactic that should be considered. It certainly is a humanist alternative.
Regarding viewing Christmas and the holidays as celebrations of goodness and love, many humanists just do not think that this is the case. If Christianity were all about love and good ethics, this would be a legitimate argument. However, the primary teaching of Christianity is salvation via grace, which can only be had by faith in Jesus as God. The non-Christian is not saved and instead is condemned to the “lake of fire.” (See Mark 16:16) Christians may be in denial over this aspect of their religion, but humanists and others are not. It is hard to embrace a holiday that is the starting point for a belief system that promotes disrespect and enmity towards non-believers. There is a reason why non-believers are the most despised class of persons in America.
Also note that the article, “Why God Bless America is Inappropriate…” only dealt with religious expression on the part of the government, nothing else. It is of utmost importance that the wall of separation not be breached further, for the sake of the religious and the non-religious. G.D.
12/13/01 I think that the short-term action that the US is taking right now is appropriate (attacking Al-Qaeda). However, I think that we need to put in place a better long-term plan, placing us very actively on the side of freedom and democracy. I think that we need to be more active regarding festering trouble spots around the world, and try to help make the situation better, before we end up as terrorist targets for simply doing nothing and maintaining the status quo. As the only remaining superpower, we are thrust into the position of active world leadership, whether we like it or not.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is probably the biggest festering sore in the world. We need to have the intestinal fortitude to take strong action and fix the problem. We are giving billions each year in aid to Israel (more per capita than any other country in the world). This should give us at least a little bit of influence with Israel (except that many of our politicians appear to be very intimidated by the Israeli lobby). The Palestinians have been occupied and imprisoned in squalor for the last 34 years. They have very little left to lose, and are suicidally desperate. If Americans were there in place of Palestinians, I am very sure that we would not be just throwing tea into Boston harbor, or just throwing rocks at tanks. It is time to take aggressive action to broker a just settlement. Bill Pelton via Internet
Response: Agreed. In this conflict it will be difficult to balance justice with freedom and democracy since Palestinians leaders generally show little interest in liberty, democracy and respect for human life. On the other hand, a rare Middle East democracy, Israel, has not treated Palestinian citizens equally. A horrible situation. G.D.
1/1/02 The Center at Amherst offers some excellent courses. However, the cost of plane fare, room and board, on top of tuition and books is rather daunting. What about the possibility of one or more courses being given in our area, say Long Island, Queens or Manhattan? A meeting room at one of the hotels facing LaGuardia airport would draw attendance from Long Island, New York City, and even New Jersey and Connecticut. Do you think there is any merit to this? Mac Taub, Forest Hills, NY
Response: This is a good idea and one that should be passed along to the Center for Inquiry at Amherst. What kind of courses would interest local humanists? G.D.
2/13/02 On the question of the Geneva Convention and related matters, I was happy to see that you picked up on it. As a combat veteran of the Koran war, I was out-raged that Bush was so dumb that he ignored almost 100 years of international treaties protecting the common soldier. Just imagine what I would have felt like if I was in Korea when I read that the president of the US didn't give a crap for the Geneva Convention! What an ignorant sonofabitch! Ed Tolley, Jr. via Internet
Response: If we treat detainees poorly, our prisoners may be treated similarly. Even if other countries fail to abide by the Geneva Convention, the US not abiding by it will be exploited in a number of ways by others. G.D.
2/17/02 Re: Darwin Day Event: Great meeting!!! Very informative! Interesting speakers. Check out an interesting article in the March 2002 issue of Scientific American (pg.30) entitled "Down With Evolution" by Roger Doyle. It gives a state-by-state ranking of how effective the teaching of evolution is in each state. The results are quite surprising in some cases. The Midwest does really badly as well as the South. Only 8 out of 50 states have a "very good to excellent" record. Pretty pathetic!!! Regards, Al Tobin, Long Island, via Internet
Comment: Indeed, the state of science education is a sad one. G.D. [TOC]
2/18/02 The Darwin Day meeting on Sunday was nourishing both for the body and soul (figure of speech). Arno Arrak, Long Island via Internet
Comment: I'm glad you enjoyed the day! Let's do it again! G.D.
___________________
QUICKIES! Gerry Dantone
Item: According to the SF Gate News, Richard McCaslin of Carson City, NV., was arrested dressed in a hooded costume with Phantom Patriot written on the chest and carrying an arsenal of weapons, in January, 2002. He had invaded the Bohemian Grove in Sonoma County searching for pagan owl worshipers sacrificing children. He admitted setting fire to the mess hall.
Comment: How devious of those pagan owl worshipers to deviously mislead the unsuspecting righteous! They're so clever that they can kill numerous persons without anyone ever noticing! How do they do it?
Item: According to the NY Times: Pope John II has declared that civil lawyers who are Roman Catholic must refuse to take divorce cases. “We cannot surrender to the divorce mentality,” said the Pope to the Roman Rota, the tribunal that hears marriage annulment cases. Catholic judges “must find effective means to favor the marriage union…”
A papal spokesperson said that this was an application of a principle of “not allowing us to cooperate with something that is evil.” Divorced Catholics who remarry cannot receive communion.
As an example of the Pope's opposition to divorce, in October the Pope met separately with Vincent Fox, the President of Mexico, and the President's wife, Marta Sahagun, because they were both previously divorced before marrying each other.
Comment: Imagine anyone else refusing to meet with a head of state and their wife at the same time because they had previously been married to other persons! If this were anyone but the Pope, no one would be blamed if they said that this concern was perverse. The right thing to do would have been for President Fox to tell the Pope, “Get over it!” Instead, the Pope gets accommodated! Mr. Fox and his wife are known to be devout Catholics, but I suppose they'll be burning in hell with the Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, attorneys who handle divorce cases, judges who rule on them and of course, atheists. The Pope has NOT announced that he will not meet with those Bishops who have been part of child sexual abuse cover-ups. And there's at least one judge who has some issues with the Pope. Read on…
Item: According to the Associated Press, Justice Antonin Scalia believes that Catholic judges who follow their church's teaching that capital punishment is wrong should resign! Scalia, a devout Catholic, told Georgetown students that the church has a long history of endorsing capital punishment. Pope John II now considers the Death Penalty part of the “culture of death.” “In my view, the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation rather than simply ignoring duly enacted constitutional laws and sabotaging the death penalty,” he said in Chicago on 1/25/02. A week later he said, “Any Catholic jurist (with such concerns)… would have to resign… You couldn't function as a judge.”
Comment: This is a fascinating insight into the mind of Justice Scalia who ironically is a major threat to Church-State separation. He is right that if a judge feels compelled to obey religious teachings dogmatically in making his decisions, he should resign. A judge cannot rule solely on the basis of his religion in a manner that affects others. However, if a judge believes something to be immoral or unethical (or cruel and unusual) for sufficient reasons unrelated to his Church's teachings, a judge would have secular non-religious grounds for his decision, and perhaps be justified in making that decision. Judges must indeed take the Constitution as the highest authority when making decisions, not scripture or religious orthodoxy. To the extent that a judge cannot be fair and secular in approach to secular law, he should not be a part of the secular law interpreting process. In the case of Capital Punishment, Scalia may have forgotten that there have been many secular reasons advanced to oppose it. One also wonders if Scalia applies these standards across the board or reserves a secular outlook (though not necessarily a humanistic outlook) for the death penalty only.
Item: The Dr. Pepper Company has been marketing new cans with the Pledge of Allegiance written on it - except for the “under God” part! Of course, a number of evangelicals are upset since after all, this country was “founded under God.” Students at the Bible Baptist Academy have made it a campaign, ignoring the fact that “under God” is not in the original pledge, and that not all Americans believe that this country was “founded under God.” Nationwide, the complaints are small - 200 complaints after 18,000,000 cans were produced. Michael Martin, director of communications for the company said, “We think we have a message that is resoundingly patriotic, a non-denominational, bipartisan message that we are a united nation.”
Comment: It is obvious that omitting “God” from the Pledge insults very few. It is not an insult! The whole purpose of inserting “under God” was to insult non-believers. It couldn't be clearer that the best move is to restore the Pledge to the way it was originally intended.
It is also clear that the religious right does NOT want the secular to express their love of country and would do anything they can to prevent such a thing. In that way they can then chastise them for being un-American. It is disgraceful.
To congratulate Dr Pepper on their fine cans, one can write Michael Martin, c/o Dr. Pepper, 3501 Legacy Dr., Plano TX, 75024. Phone #1-800-696-5891; the email is Michael_Martin@dpsu.com
For the original story go to http://www.dallasnews.com/texassouthwest/ap/stories/AP_STATEGS_0804.html. This site is cached at www.google.com if you cannot find it otherwise.
Item: ABC News reported that Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered partially nude statues in the Great Hall of the Justice Department covered because he didn't like standing in front of them. The statues were installed in the 1930s; now drapes will cover them when Ashcroft speaks to the cameras. When former Attorney General Edwin Meese once released a report on pornography in the 1980s, photographers dove to the floor in order to capture the image of him raising the report in the air with the nude statue behind him.
Comment: However, if the statues were packing guns, no problemo… [TOC]A RESPONSE TO IBN WARRAQ: THE INNER STRUGGLE, THE TRUE JIHAD, Humayan Chaudhry
Ibn Warraq, author of "Why I am Not a Muslim," a book that is commercially available through major booksellers in the United States and abroad, recently wrote an article that was published in the LISH Inquirer and which summarizes his basic philosophy.
Because his book represents a point of view that is different and controversial, to say the very least, Mr. Warraq has gained a degree of public notoriety and infamy in recent years.
His deceptively simple treatise, that the basic tenets of Islam support violence in all its forms and that the faith preaches a "fascist" philosophy while espousing global designs, is based upon a paranoia and a gross misunderstanding of a faith solemnly adhered to by 1.3 billion people, or one-fifth of humanity. His views call out for correction because they are based upon arguments that lack contextual analysis or scholarly understanding. I welcome this opportunity to address Mr. Warraq's assertions and distortions about Islam.
ks upon the United States on September 11 were horrific, abhorrent, inhuman, and terribly misguided. That individuals would hijack Islam, a faith of peace and love, for their own political designs has led to condemnations from the vast majority of Muslims in the United States and throughout the world. In the words of Peter Steinfels of the New York Times "Authentic Islam, the world has been told repeatedly in recent days, condemns terrorism, rejects violence against innocent civilians and advocates peace. The message has come from many of the highest Muslim religious authorities, from American Muslim organizations, from the pope, from the president and from many others. (The) message is welcome. It accurately reflects the view of millions of Muslims appalled by the carnage of Sept. 11, and especially of Muslims who have crossed oceans to begin new lives with their families in the United States. It counters stereotypes and forestalls vengeful and senseless attacks against Muslims."
An exceptionally small minority of Muslims, mostly illiterate individuals or those without a full understanding of Islam, expressed support for the attack and cited a litany of allegations against the West including everything from the Crusades to Colonialism.
This vocal minority of supporters was initially able to drown out the silent majority and its message of condemnation of the attack, as in predominantly Muslim nations like Pakistan, but the official and largest response of Muslims throughout the world has been one of shock and denunciation. As a member of the Medical Corps of the U.S. Air Force Reserve, I took special note of the fatwas (Islamic religious decrees) that were issued by leading Muslim scholars and clerics in the United States shortly after the United States began bombing Afghanistan, which declared President Bush's war on terrorism to be a war that should be supported by the 10,000 Muslims in the U.S. military because it is a just and noble war, consistent with the tenets of justice in Islam.
The problem with the attacks on September 11 is neither Islam nor the houses of worship used by Muslims the world over. The problem lies with individuals like Osama bin Laden, possessing considerable wealth and local followings, who hold extreme views of the faith and who play upon the insecurities of the illiterate and the oppressed of the world. In the West, it has become fashionable to say, "9/11 has changed everything."
The events of September 11 have also "changed everything" in the Islamic world, where the majority of Muslims (the silent Majority) and their leaders have been dutifully observing their faith and who now realize that there are dangerous and unstable elements within their population. Many Islamic countries (such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) are looking hard at the fringe elements within their society, as many others (such as Egypt) have done in years past. More welcome has been the inclination by Muslims and non-Muslims alike to try to learn more about the faith and to better understand "true" Islam.
As Huston Smith has said, "Of all the non-Western religions, Islam stands closest to the West closest geographically, and also closest ideologically; for religiously it stands in the Abrahamic family of religions, while philosophically it builds on the Greeks." This misunderstanding of Islam by the West has many reasons and many roots, not the least of which is the misinterpretation of words. When I was in high school in New York, many of the history textbooks referred to Islam as "Mohammedanism," a term that is inaccurate and offensive because Muslims believe Allah (the Arabic word for God that is used by Christian and Muslim Arabs alike) created the faith, with Muhammad simply acting as a messenger of God. Muslims believe Muhammad was the last prophet (the "Seal of the Prophets" before him) in a long line of prophets beginning with Adam and including such figures as Moses, Noah, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Mary, Jesus and John the Baptist. Unlike Jews, but like Christians, Muslims believe in the holy birth of Jesus to the Virgin Mary but differ with Christians because they do not consider Jesus to be the Son of God or even God, arguing that all men and women are children of God. Because Jesus physically suffered the most as a prophet at the hands of his oppressors, Muslims revere him nearly as much as Muhammad.
Mr. Warraq's article is entitled "Jihad," (Ed.'s note: This was the LISH title for the article, not Mr. Warraq's) which he quotes from a Western dictionary of Islam as meaning "a religious war." In actuality, the word jihad is best understood as referring to the inner struggle that all Muslims deal with to try to be good, pious Muslims. In this more accurate definition of jihad, the inner struggle includes talking softly whenever possible, thinking of God and good works often, avoiding conflict, caring for the poor and invalid, donating money to charity on a regular basis, avoiding backbiting, maintaining honesty and sincerity, and being just and fair to family, friends, guests and neighbors. As to the use of force, Huston Smith observes, The (Quran) teaches forgiveness and the return of good for evil when the circumstances warrant -"Turn away evil with that which is better" (42:37) -but this is different from not resisting evil. Far from requiring the Muslim to turn himself into a doormat for the ruthless, the (Quran) allows punishment of wanton wrongdoers to the full extent of the injury they impart (22:39-40). Justice requires this, (Muslims) believe; abrogate reciprocity, which the principle of fair play requires, and morality descends to impractical idealism if not sheer sentimentality. The important question is the definition of a righteous war.
(The Quran states): "defend yourself against your enemies, but do not attack them first: God hates the aggressor" (2:190).
Mr. Warraq claims that the "ultimate aim (of Islam) (Ed.'s note: The Warraq article says “jihad”, not “Islam” in this context) is to conquer the entire world and submit it to the one true faith, to the law of Allah." The best way to counter this blatantly false and misleading charge is to quote, again, from the Quran: "Let there be no compulsion in religion (2:257). To everyone we have given a law and a way. And if God had pleased, he would have made (all humankind) one people (people of one religion). But He hath done otherwise, that He might try you in that which He hath severally given unto you: wherefore press forward in good works (5:48). "Muslims are freely allowed in the Quran to marry Jews and Christians, people who have a special place in Islam because they are "People of the Book" (the holy scriptures of the Old Testament and the New Testament), who may freely retain their religion and need not convert to Islam. These facts also go against Mr. Warraq's weakest assertion, that "Islam treats non-believers as inferior beings who are expendable in the drive to world hegemony."
Islam is traditionally known in the West to be a violent religion but this is not so historically or even recently. A U.S. State Department analysis of terrorist attacks around the world over the last decade before September 11 identified Latin America, not the Middle East, as by far the source of the greatest number of terrorist attacks. Many of the perceptions held in the West of Islam date to Crusader myths and misunderstanding. Mr. Warraq does a great injustice to Muslims and non-Muslims alike when he lifts words and sentences wholly out of context from the Quran as evidence of his theories. He omits all that does not support his argument, carefully selecting out of context that which may.
Mr. Warraq broadly labels all defenders of the faith as "apologists" and falsely claims that any Muslim (he makes no distinction between the Islam practiced by the majority of Muslims and that practiced by fringe elements) would see any of the World Trade Center suicide attackers as "martyrs." In fact, Islam strongly forbids suicide and cites the value of every human life, Muslim or otherwise.
Mr. Warraq calls upon moderate Muslims to "stand up and be counted" and urges them to speak up against the barbarism of the September 11 attacks. He calls upon moderate Muslims to "show their pride" by giving blood and other aid. Millions of Muslims have stood up and voiced their condemnation of the September 11 attacks. I was among the many who donated blood, sent in monetary contributions and attended multi-faith meetings and gatherings with countless Muslims of many nationalities to express our solidarity against the barbaric attacks, in which innocent Muslims on the ground and in the Twin Towers also died.
I consider myself to be a pious Muslim who tries to follow that which is outlined in our Holy book. Many Muslims, myself included, take offense at another term frequently bandied about to describe those who act in the name of Islam, "Islamic fundamental."
Because the term implies that those who follow the Quran "to the letter" are fanatics or extremists, it does a disservice to millions upon millions of Muslims who strive for that inner struggle (jihad) to learn about and understand God and be the best Muslim possible. In fact, all Muslims strive to follow all the tenets of the faith but that does not make them a fanatic or an extremist. In this more accurate paradigm, those who commit horrendous acts are not Islamic fundamentalists at all but Muslims who have strayed from the path of peace and justice enjoined in the Quran and who instead have a false interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.
I am reminded of the words of the Prophet Muhammad, who is said to have commented in a famous hadith (or saying), "Do you love your Creator? Love your fellow-beings first." There can be no better way to think of Islam, a faith that remains strong and vibrant because of the good it brings to peoples lives and not because of the violence its detractors claim it advances. It is for these reasons that Islam counts itself as the world's (and America's) fastest growing religion.
Footnotes: 1) Smith, H. The World's Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions. New York: Harper Collins. 1991. pp. 254-5.
2) Al-Suhrawardy. The Sayings of Muhammad. With Foreword by Mahatma Gandhi. New York: Citadel press. 1990.
(Humayun Chaudhry, a physician, is a graduate of New York University and Harvard University and Board Member of the Multi Faith Forum of Long Island, New York.) [TOC]A RESPONSE TO MR. HUMAYAN CHAUDHRY, Ali Sina
__coming soon______________
Be Sure to Watch "Humanist Perspective" hosted by Joe Beck, on Cablevision Public Access on channel 71 on the Woodbury system, channel 70 on the Hauppauge system and channel 70 on Brookhaven Cablevision, every Wednesday @ 6:30 PM.
NEW YORK AREA SKEPTICS (NYASk)
The New York Area Skeptics is a terrific organization that should appeal to many secular humanists. The group deals with claims of the paranormal, medical quackery and any other topic that calls for a critical examination. Typically meets the last Tuesday of the month at the Plainview-Old Bethpage Public Library, 999 Old Country Rd., Plainview, Nassau County. For info visit the website @ www.nyask.com.
Become a Member of LISH
Membership in LISH has its benefits! Membership entitles one to: use of the LISH Freethought library (contact librarian Bill Mohrman, 516 795 3318; for a catalogue and requests, or if you want to register a book for others to borrow); voting rights; mailed newsletters; invitations to non-public functions, dinners, and perhaps movies and plays as well! Email for details
____________
All articles in this newsletter may be reprinted by organizations affiliated with the Council for Secular Humanism, American Atheists, or the American Humanist Association, with a reciprocating reprinting agreement with LISH, so long as the article is used in full and with complete crediting. Edited versions can be used with written permission. [TOC]