Free Muslims meet with the Congressman Tom Tancredo
By jadedmara Posted in User Blogs — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I'm copying this email in full. Not much more can be said on my end.
(Washington, DC July 26) The Free Muslims Coalition (FMC), a national Muslim
organization with 15 chapter, will meet this Wednesday with Congressman Tom Tancredo of
Colorado about a recent comment in which he suggested that the United States should bomb
Islamic Holy sites in Mecca as a deterrent against the terrorists.Following the congressman's statements, he was immediately criticized by the White House
and the Muslim leadership world wide. In response to the criticism, Spokesman Will
Adams stated "We have an enemy with no uniform, no state, who looks like you and me and
only emerges right before an attack. How do we go after someone like that?"The Free Muslim Coalition (FMC) is not interested in joining the chorus of Muslim
organizations who attacked Congressman Tancredo. Instead, we intend on having an
honest discussion about resolving this controversy. FMC understands that Congressman
Tancredo represents the frustration of millions of Americans who on a daily basis watch
in horror as dozens of innocent people are murdered in the name of Islam.FMC will convey to Congressman Tancredo that many Muslims share his frustration about
the senseless killing of innocent people in the name of our beloved religion. The Free
Muslims have said time and time again that the war on terror is more than a military
battle, it is also an ideological battle and only Muslims can defeat the cancer of
terrorism and extremism that is spreading throughout the Muslim world. The Free Muslims
recognize that the Muslim leadership in America and abroad has failed in challenging and
discrediting the ideology that leads to extremism and terrorism but we are now trying to
reverse our past mistakes by aggressively challenging the terrorists and their evil
ideology.FMC understands that Congressman Tancredo was only speaking hypothetically based on the
theory that America must threaten the terrorists with what matters to them most.However, what congressman Tancredo does not understand is that the terrorists don't care
if the United States destroys their holy places. The terrorists are heartless criminals
and as far as they are concerned the holy places are just buildings that can be rebuilt.In fact, they will use Congressman Tancredo's comments as more ammunition for their
arsenal. Most likely, the terrorists will take Congressman Tancredo's words out of
context to gain more recruits by convincing gullible Muslims that they are defending
them from "crusaders" who want to "destroy Islam."FMC president Kamal Nawash will ask Congressman Tancredo to join Muslims who want
nothing more that to eliminate the terrorists and the ideology that leads to extremism
and terrorism. Nawash said that "Jews, Christians, Muslims and the entire civilized
world must join forces to defeat this evil that hides behind religion to justify the
murder of innocent people."Please help the Free Muslims Coalition fight terrorism by making a contribution at:
http://www.freemuslims.org/support/donate.php
For more information, visit our website at www.freemuslims.org
Sometimes I have to wonder if this group is just sucking up; their comments are so almost always right on the money.
For further Redstate discussion on this topic, please look here, here , here , here , here , here , and here . Whew!
Thoughts?
The Free Muslims Coalition are far from the first to advocate "modernizing" Islam in this way.
First of all, many Christians "pick and choose" from the Bible in the sense that not everyone is a literalist and some believe that the Bible is full of parables and not literal truth. You may completely disagree with that position, but it exists.
Modernizing movements in Islam, in the late 19th century in South Asia and in North Africa, were one response to colonialism that existed side by side with a slightly different response (Wahhabism, Salafism). There are weird ways in which these two movements agreed on some points, mainly at taking away centuries of precedent and allowing rational thought to inform clerical rulings. I can't think of the best way to explain it, but the way I see it is the the "fundamentalist"/Wahabbi/Salafi way of looking at it was that the Quran was completely literal, and if one took that through to its rational conclusion it would lead to a lot of the jihadist ideology we see today. The modernist movement went with the Quran being full of parables (albeit perhaps being the literal word of God...just God giving us parables as opposed to strict fact). Rational thought then would lead to other conclusions that are perhaps more modernizing...basically what the Free Muslims Coalition has said.
That "rational" movement emerged at two points in history - one during the Hellenic Age, the other during the colonial era. The one that emerged in the 18th/19th century may not have lived as a strong independent movement into today, but as many Muslims live in modern, secular, democratic governments, they've pretty much come to the same conclusions themselves.
Islamic thought is definitely not a monolithic whole. There were four main schools of thought during the medieval era (uh..Hanafi, Hanbali, Salafi...I don't remember) that had very different ways of thinking about Islam. I'm far from being an Islamic scholar so I can't pontificate on this point very well, However, from my understanding, not all fatwas or clerical rulings were applicable to all regions of Islam back then..it really depended on what the Islamic government considered to be a legitimate school of thought. These days, in the West, Muslims are free to ignore any fatwas from ..well, the crazies.
I think the position of many modernizing Muslims is best described as "adaptive fundamentalism". Basically, adaptive fundamentalists disregard centuries of precedent, the hadith (a collection of the Prophet's sayings), and other acrophyia, and stick to the Qu'ran. However, being "adaptive", they stick to the Qu'ran as a guiding light as opposed to the utter, literal truth.
It's really not so rare as you think, at least in non-Arab parts of the Islamic world. However, I definitely have no insight into what's the dominant ideology around the world.
I believe you, that between the earliest 'Islamic' wars, and today's 'Islamic' wars, that there was a long period of rationality. You don't build great libraries and make great scientific progress by imposing the kind of government the Taleban imposed.
However I fear that outside the US, that alternate tradition is being wiped out by Saudi dollars, and that the Free Muslims will be viewed (or at least portrayed) as radicals corrupted by American liberalism.
I welcome their efforts, though, and hope they succeed in gaining influence for their alternatives to the Saudi-funded sect.
This group does sound pretty good. That's why I'm disappointed when their webpage makes it sound like they're a minority in the religion. See their discussion of "modern Islam" for an example of why I say that.
It sounds to me like they're trying to pick and choose from the Koran, deciding which parts apply in the "modern" world while ignoring the inconvenient parts, and I don't imagine that's a universal position in Islam any more than editing the Bible is popular in Christianity.
I wish the Free Muslims the best of luck in reforming their coreligionists, but I imagine they have hard work ahead.