Progressive Islam

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:03:33 GMT

Keith Ellison is Proud to be Named Vice-Chair of Bipartisan Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus
“I am proud to join Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) today in launching the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus,” Congressman Ellison said.

The mission of the Caucus is to promote lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) equality. The Caucus will work toward extending equal rights, repealing discriminatory laws, the eliminating hate-motivated violence. The Caucus is dedicated to the improved health and well-being for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.

“I am honored to join this caucus because of my lifelong commitment to fighting all discrimination. I believe when my gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender neighbor suffers from discrimination, then I suffer, and so does our whole community. Every member of our society contributes to the health, wealth and generosity of our community. Only when we recognize, protect, and, celebrate that will we realize all our citizens’ potential,” Ellison concluded.

Thu, 06 Mar 2008 09:38:01 GMT

Americans are asking for Political Asylum...Why don't we hear about it?

There is no country in the world that understands propaganda more than the United States. Billions are spent at the Pentagon on what you hear and repeat. The mainstream news is a psychotronic parade as the democrats bumble and the reporters comment as though they are on the Bush administration payroll.

The truth is not reported. The public responds as a story of importance makes breaking news only to see it squashed in the next 72 hours. Americans are asking for political asylum and you are not hearing about it.

The government is torturing American citizens who are Whistleblowers- myspace Darren Gelbard, youtube Monarch Katherine Moore, and DIA Topoff to see electronic warfare torturing a U.S. citizen in 2007. Or, for those of you who think these victims are conspiracy theorists, there are the ADS military tests on youtube, 60 Minutes, and CNN. People being hit out of thin air by a ray beam. For real!

Weapons that can harm or kill you from a distance, without leaving marks if the operator so desires, are being used on people in their homes. There are interviews with U.S. citizens who are victims and with a Baghdad surgeon in which he states there are bodies in Iraq he and his team of ten Doctors have seen that are being killed by..."No bullets, no shots..arms cut straight off...we don't know what kind of weapon it is." A Baghdad Orchestra player also stated he saw bodies where..."Only the face was burned, no eyes..and the teeth. The rest of the body was untouched.

The Washington Post released an article called Mind Games in which the victims of psychotronics and V2K described what it was like to have someone mentally and physically torture you using communications and electronic warfare from a distance. And Russia is trying to ban Space weapons after Congress changed the bill that would have banned psychotronics years ago. This is the most dangerous game. Weapons that no individual can defend themselves against. Weapons that manipulate people and that torture and can kill you in your home with no warning from a distance.

Tags: 60 minutes, 9/11, cnn, darren gelbard, holocaust, human rights, immigration, politics, space weapons, torture, washington post, white house

Current Location: United States

Post secret, Muslim-style.

Sun, 06 Jan 2008 21:45:34 GMT

Can Quran Really Be an Interfaith Document?

Mon, 31 Dec 2007 05:24:39 GMT

Salaam Aleikum Everyone

I hope you are having beautiful holidays and had a blessed Eid.

I have a question which is really gnawing at me at the moment. You see, as progressive Muslims, I believe we are all here trying our best to do something positive for Islam's role in the world and the ever-present issue of coexistence. I find elemts of koran that are beautifully conducive to that. Other times, I don't.

Here is a prime example:

In Surah Baqara, there is long passage about the Israelites (Banu Israel) that clearly refers to their rejecting of later prophets (Jesus and Muhammed, PBUT). It then goes on to say about the Jews (verse 96):

"And you will most certainly find them to be the greediest of mankind for like and (greedier) than the idolaters..."

Its hard to read the condemnations that are found in koran but its particularly hard for me to see where we can have an opening to speak to Jews and other non-Muslims when this sort of text can be brought up.

Any thoughts? Any tafsir?

Thanks very much in advance,

Rafal

taking Shahada

Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:15:19 GMT

Salaam,

I am planning, Inshallah, to take Shahada today and I want to know how progressive Muslims think the best way to do it. IE- do I need to have any witnesses or an imam present?

Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:03:52 GMT

Muslim A Day Dot COm

Wed, 30 May 2007 11:41:57 GMT

For those of you who like my new site http://www.muslimaday.com

It's a photo of a Muslim each day, from all over. The latest shows a muslim with a pinkish mohawk. fun.

There is an LJ feed now, check it out: http://syndicated.livejournal.com/muslim_a_day/

Add it, and enjoy :)

My name causes national security alerts. The Commercial

Mon, 18 Dec 2006 05:53:33 GMT

Thank you yet again to "Ben Thal":http://myspace.com/bejaru for his night-long production of this, the first HijabMan commercial. I also appreciate him allowing me to use his music towards the end. Oh, and for convincing me to order those chicken wings and pineapple-topped pizza at 3 AM a couple nights ago. It totally hit the spot, man.

Also check out the "store":http://www.hijabman.com/store for 4 a few new shirts posted, as well as some bumper stickers towards the bottom!

Look for more ads in the coming weeks! Feel free to share this one in the meantime.

_Can I get an alhamdulillah?_

New to this Community

Wed, 29 Nov 2006 04:07:25 GMT

Hi! I'm new to lj and wanted to start exploring who and what is out there... I just got back from working overseas in Jordan and traveling in Palestine, Lebanon, and Turkey. I'm actually looking for a dose of something a bit more progressive than what I encountered there in my daily musings. Brought up in a Muslim home in California, I'm always seeking intelligent thoughts and perspectives. :)

Sat, 11 Nov 2006 18:24:24 GMT

cross-posted to a few muslim communities:

Hi there! I have some questions, and I'm interested in seeing what sort of response I get here

after two excellent documentaries, "Mystic Iran: The Unseen World" and "Inside Islam" (which was not so excellent, history channel trash, but they can't depart too openly from actual fact, so the excellence of the subject matter shines through, despite arthur kent's pathetic attempts to speak on subjects he obvious has no background in) and after just reading about a million book library they've found in timbuktu I'm beginning to develop enthusiasm for islamic culture in general. as I watched I couldn't help thinking how much the american transcendentalist movement resembles sufism and the more mystical elements of islam - I think rumi would have been right at home alongside emerson and cummings and whitman.

I have several questions, and I'm a bit sleepy so I'll try to keep them orderly, but I'm just going to throw them out here. to preface them: I theologically resemble a hindu, an animist, a transcendentalist, a unitarian...politically I follow the consistent life ethic (anti war, the death penalty, abortion, animal cruelty), and I am gay. do with all that what you will, I'm just trying to give you some background on me.

I've been told that as long as one acknowledges the oneness of divinity one is, if not muslim, regarded as at least somewhat close. I've heard that hindus in muslim india were called "people of the book", though I understand that has to do as much with political expediency as anything. I've also heard that to be a muslim one must only sincerely acknowledge the oneness of god and acknowledge Muhammed as his prophet. I believe, as a pantheist, that god is technically one, and I'm certainly willing to consider Muhammed divinely inspired - but I strongly suspect that almost nobody is going to say this makes me a muslim, am I right? if so, what more specific definition of who is a muslim could you offer?

I'm very interested in Sufism. how is sufism regarded in various muslim countries? I'm particularly interested in Turkey as a place to potentially live for a few years, so any information about religion and culture there would be much appreciated. I know sufis are a minority, but how do the different schools of islam interact? is it like, say, two christian denominations? I know the quakers are a very small minority of christians, but they aren't viewed with hostility - is it the same way with sufis, or what?

regardless of my status as a potential muslim or not, I am very much interested in becoming better versed in islamic culture - I hope to learn arabic in the future, and I was wondering if anyone could offer me advice on better understanding and entering into dialogue with the muslim community at large. can a speaker of modern "standard" arabic understand the classical arabic of the Koran? if it's only a moderate difference, like modern english compared to chaucer or even shakespeare, I'd be much encouraged. I know there are different dialects - and my goal (in life as well as my specific question about arabic) is to maximize the number of people I can positively engage with. is it futile to expect to learn arabic and be able to understand most of the dialects, and/or to also study the wealth of learning furthered by mediaeval and modern arabic scholars? I'm a history buff, and a *huge* draw to the language would be if it would open up to me the fabled muslim learning of the middle ages. I'm blessed to have an international language like english as a first tongue, (though I deplore how it *became* an international language) - and I want to learn other languages that could function like that. I want to talk to as many and diverse people as possible, and arabic seems like a great language for that, am I right or just confused?

how widely is arabic spoken in the muslim world as a second language? do iranians learn arabic for business like people in the west learn english? I know this is probably a stretch, but what about in turkey? I don't know if I'm going to be any good with languages (I only know the barest minimum of latin, and a smattering of phrases in the romance languages) so I want to be sure that if I commit to learning a language, it will be one I can expect a lot of people to know.

if I do end up spending significant time in the muslim world (years, or maybe even a permanent move) I'd want to be sure I was safe...again, I'm a gay man, and I'm sure most people are not going to consider me a muslim, though if calling the One Creator Allah instead of Brahma will help, I'm certainly willing to learn more about worshipping our Creator in the muslim manner...I just don't want to be accused of dissembling for convenience, and if mysticism would still be considered false, I don't see a point in putting one cultural veneer on over another - our prayers go to the same heaven in my mind...but I digress - if I were theoretically to learn arabic, would I be safe as an american (or former american) in africa or the middle east? as I stated earlier I am a pacifist, I have never supported american foreign policy - I sympathise greatly with the palestinian people...but I don't know if the nation of my birth would be a stigma or not. I'm not outrageously gay - I dress conservatively, I'm uncomfortable with conspicuous eroticism and would certainly be willing to confine any expression of my affection (if that were even an issue) to wherever it was culturally acceptable. can I expect to live unmolested and be treated as a peer? I honestly have no idea whither I'd be welcomed or stoned to death in most countries. Turkey being modern/secular (and thus presumably safer for westerners) and having a beautiful culture in general, I'm interested in it - but also in persian and arabic culture as well. sorry if I'm rambling...I guess what I want to know is, if I gave it my best shot to meet people on their own terms, would friendship with the average muslim (in any region or a specific one) be possible, or would I be an annoying westerner at best? would religious jewellery or admitting to anyone I'm gay be strictly against the rules, or is it like here in america where most people are live and let live? I don't want to seem as though I think muslims are intolerant or anything, but I *do* want to be sensitive to the various cultures I'm considering engaging.

anything else you think of feel free to add! thanks for listening and your help =)

fyi

Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:57:09 GMT

100 sources on women, Islam, & the Middle East

Help me with a paper?

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:14:07 GMT

1. As a Muslim, what are your views on the "war on terror?" Do you think your views are typical of Muslims in the Western World?
2. What is the place for women's activism in Islamic countries? What support do you find in the Qur'an for your view?
3. Is a Muslim woman acting in accord or in opposition to her faith when she works for educational and political opportunities in the new Afghan government?

If you could take a little time to help me out with this, I will be forever in your debt. If you do decide to answer, if you could include a little biographical information for inclusion in the paper, that would be terrific. (i.e. Were you born a Muslim? Where were you born? Your age?)

Ramadan Mubarak!

Ramadan

Sat, 23 Sep 2006 20:33:21 GMT

"Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh"

May the peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be with you.

Young, Hip, and Muslim?

Mon, 21 Aug 2006 23:14:23 GMT

Salaam Aleykoom!

I'm a young American Muslim who is sick and tired of only hearing about Islam in headlines. So I've started a new line of clothing and gifts that is geared towards young, modern Muslims who are ready to make their own headlines. Some political, some funny, some religious, and lots of ARABIC! So check it out, please spread the word if you dig it, and check in periodically for new designs.

And if you like it, WEAR IT WITH PRIDE!

American Muslim

Shukran!!

Wondering

Mon, 07 Aug 2006 13:52:51 GMT

So I'm a little disheartened to hear that even one of my favourite moderate voices in Islam, Khaled Abou El Fadl doesn't approve of "Western Dating" as he called it, and stated in his book, The Great Theft, that all scholars agree on this.

What is it about "western dating? Do they think that it's just a bunch of humping like jack rabbits that they don't approve of? Or do even the moderate scholars think that you should just see someone, think they are cute or funny and ask them to marry you.

Just wondering what everyones thoughts were on the subject.

Interview from PBS with Amina Wadud

Sat, 05 Aug 2006 23:39:45 GMT

Amina Wadud led prayer service with men and women praying alongside each other. Asra Q. Nomani participated as well.

What are the conditions for this worldwide resurgence of Islam that we're seeing today?

I guess I don't see that the resurgence of Islam is as recent as it has been popularized in the context of America. I actually see it as part of a continuum throughout Islamic history, where Islam has contracted and expanded at different times in response to a number of factors internal to Islam and external.

Obviously, this most recent resurgent movement has a strong relationship to the liberation from colonialism. And so that doesn't place it as [a] recent event in history, but somewhere in the last 50 to 70 years. ... So that would mean that, although there have been elements of this resurgence for at least 50 to 70 years, it has become more obvious globally in the last 30 to 40 years.

And to what do we attribute that?

I think the globalization of the economy, as an aftermath of colonialism, has pretty much universalized capitalism. The way to negotiate one's relationship to the overall economic structure has been to identify one's political agenda to either be with or against that overall globalization of economy. And the democratic systems have shown themselves to be the most amenable to that.

The question of Islam and democracy has been a very strong component of the resurgence, articulation of Islam. That is also one of the reasons why it's deemed to be a political resurgence, even though I think that the stronger components have to do more with sort of a psychospiritual re-identification of the Muslim self in the context of modernity. Modernity means politics, as well as economics. But also it has to do with the basic definition of what it means to be human.

And the notion of modernity comes because of the increased communications planet-wide? How does modernity fit into this?

I think the historians clock modernity over a period of 200 years. So it's a little hard to just encapsulate it into our current usage. ... I myself am a postmodernist, so I tend to say this is a postmodernist resurgence, in that all of postmodernity has been about rethinking or reconfiguring the past so that it's commensurate with a much more pluralistic and dynamic future. And I think that Islam and Muslims have been participating in that. Whether or not they have consciously identified it as postmodern is beside the point.
She is professor of Islamic studies at Virginia Commonwealth University and author of Qur'an and Woman: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman's Perspective. An internationally known scholar on the subject of women in Islam, Dr. Wadud is also an expert on influences of Islam in America. She has spoken about these issues on television broadcasts internationally and is fluent in Arabic. This interview was conducted in March 2002.

I think postmodernity is really part of the reconfiguration of the idea of unity across the planet ... meaning a greater homogeneity. Postmodernism has allowed us to understand that unity across the planet will be much more diverse -- and that includes Islamic diversities. So the more recent manifestations of Islamic resurgence is very intimately tied to reconfigurations of identity, not only among Muslims, but across others.

That's why I say that it dovetails very well with a reformation of what it means to be [a] human being. And therefore, it relates to issues like human rights, because now we are questioning, "Well, what does it mean to be human? And therefore, how do we ascertain what are human rights?" Then Muslims have to ask, "Are these human rights commensurate with our own tradition? Are they in contradiction to our tradition, et cetera?" So the basic identity of a Muslim now is being aligned with rethinking what it means to be a human being in modernity.

You have talked about "progressive Muslim" -- I forget exactly the term you used. What do you mean by "progressive?"

There is a very strong articulation among a select body of Muslim intellectuals and activists to literally progress Islam from some of the places where its thinking and its vitality have been throttled from the dynamism that I think is inherent in Islam. I think Islam itself is a progression. I think it progresses, in one sense, metaphysically, before the beginning of historical Islam, but certainly, in a radical way, with the first revelation to the prophet Muhammad.

The idea of that progression being arrested by a number of disruptions, like colonialism, has caused what we in the West have sometimes identified as a resurgence. But actually, in a sense, it has just been a reclaiming of our own trajectory. Our trajectory is to continue to move towards the betterment of our own humanity, as representatives or trustees or agents of the divine.

There are times when we have lost sight of that. And as a consequence, we have simply mimicked that which we have brought from the past or that which we have seen so palpably around us, and have not grappled intellectually with the ways in which our heritage has actually thwarted our possibility of moving forward in the continued trajectory that I think is part of the dynamic of Islam.

... There are thinkers who will intentionally grapple with the complexity of preserving the integrity of the Islamic tradition ... combining it in a dynamic way with what it means to encounter all of these complexities of modernity or postmodernity. I consider these people to be progressive intellectuals, and I consider that their articulations have many common features and that their goals are very similar, in that they are trying to preserve Islam. But they're not trying to preserve a singular understanding of Islam that came from, say, the Medina time of the prophet.

So how do you both sustain the integrity but allow for, and in fact promote, dynamism? That's progressive Islamic thought.

How have women specifically contributed to this revitalized thinking?

I think the question of women's participation in the active reformation of Islamic identity is important now, simply because there are more women who are involved in the process. ... I think that something about the coincidences of modernity itself have made it a mandate upon women to step up to the plate, and recognize their responsibility for the sake of their own identity development and for the welfare of all of humanity, that the distortion that has characterized patriarchy....

... My contention is that patriarchy is one way of survival, but that its time has ended; that it is no longer possible for us to save the planet, to sustain our lives on the planet, to be able to have healthy relations, whether in families or in communities at large or between nations, if we maintain our projection on a patriarchal framework. We need one which is a lot more cooperative. I think that this is one of the reasons why it has been palpable that more women have been involved in many areas of progression, not just in terms of Islam, but also coincidentally in terms of Islam.

Islam, its original articulation, is very patriarchal. There are aspects of Quranic articulation that corroborate the patriarchy of the time. Yet I do [not think] that patriarchy is an aspect of Islam's universality. I think it is a functional displacement, which allowed for it to fit into the time. ...

So it has something to do really with the culture in which it finds itself?

Yes. It is a time-space displacement. For religion to be understandable -- let alone implementable, which is the intention of Islam, to be a living reality -- then the articulation of the religion takes a shape that is very common to its context. The question about whether or not that context is universal, however, I think is an important part of what we're asking in progressive Islamic thought.

And the conclusion has been that the context of the revelation of Islam in that its historical beginning was indeed very patriarchal. However, that context does not encapsulate the full breadth of the potential for Islam. It is just one manifestation, and from it we may get clues, but in it we should not be stuck.

But there are places in the world where patriarchy is indeed deeply culturally embedded, and is using Islam as its bolster. I'm thinking about patriarchy in Malaysia, in Nigeria, and in Egypt.

The idea that patriarchy has a grip on human development is not unique to Islam. And certainly the way in which this grip has been abused -- that is, the way in which it has been utilized in order to justify abuse -- I think the idea of a link between Islam and patriarchy is not inherent in Islam itself, but inherent in the context of Islamic origin. So it is very easy to go back in Islamic history or tradition, or even in [Islamic] intellectual development, and find justification for maintaining patriarchy and giving it an Islamic slant.

The question is -- and I certainly think that the most important work that is before us in terms of progressive Islamic thought -- is to wrestle the eternal system away from its contextual foundation. And that foundation is a time-space reality, that is, Islam had to come into being into the mundane world, but it is not the universal. In order to be able to cast the universal into its many, or say, its pluralistic guises, we have to be able to determine that patriarchy is in fact a limitation, it's not a liberation.

With regard to women, is there a gender bias against women inherent in Islamic law, or Sharia, as is perceived in the West?

From my perspective, Sharia is thoroughly patriarchal. ... You cannot legislate with regard to the well-being of women without women as agents of their own definition. And Sharia was not concerned with that construction. Sharia was happy to legislate for women, even to define what is the proper role of women, and to do so without women as participants. So obviously that is a major flaw. And the only way for that aspect of Sharia to be corrected would be a radical reform in the way in which it is thought.

So in countries like Malaysia, where there is a call to re-institutionalize Islam and Sharia, at least for the Muslims of Malaysia, there could be dire consequences for the women?

And there have been dire consequences wherever Sharia has been implemented, unless the very idea of Sharia itself has also been interrogated. If Sharia is the way in which we utilize our sources and our tradition -- that would mean the Sharia tradition itself -- the way that we utilize these traditions in order to come up with just and fair articulations of the divine will in our context, has to be a part of the re-implementation of Sharia.

Unfortunately, the majority of the places that talk about re-implementing Sharia means to literally pick up a system from before -- its decisions, its conclusions, its codes -- and apply those in situations that are absolutely incongruent with the original circumstance in which they were made. So it's a little bit easier to assume that, well, let's put it this way: Islam is not singularly a correct thought or orthodoxical system. It isn't just satisfied with right ideas about belief. It is necessary to have orthopraxis. It is necessary to have right actions. The idea, then, behind Sharia originally was how do we arrive at those right actions? That idea is still good and necessary.

It is true, however, we were not always able to promote right actions for all time and all places by our efforts in earlier centuries or in diverse circumstances. So we need to have a dynamic notion of Sharia, which includes past jurisprudence; obviously includes our primary sources; but includes all of these things, with radical reformation in thought, so that they are interrogated as to their applicability in our new circumstances.

Are you a voice in the wilderness about this?

No. In fact, this is not my strong point, because my area is really theology. As the Quran is one of the sources of Islamic law, I am advocating the need for reinterpreting the Quran in order to help to develop more inclusive, generally equitable laws. But the idea of law formation is a weak point for me.

However, this is one of the strongest aspects of Islamic reformist thought with regard to progressive Islam. And there are women who have been engaged in Islamic reform whose avenue of approach has been almost 100 percent the Sharia reform methodology. So I am in support of that voice.

Are there men who are on that bandwagon too?

Absolutely. And there's been a very poor link between the commonality of progressive Islamic discourse with regard to men's work on a variety of areas and women's work, in that the two need to be articulated as simultaneous dimensions of the same reality. One of the ways in which we are representing reform in Islam is by our ability to be able to make it meaningful to women and men equally.

In your view, is there justification, Islamically, Quranically, for committing what I would call criminal acts, killing innocents, and perpetuating here in this country a notion of Muslims as terrorists?

The idea of terrorism and Islam I think has been broken apart, very clearly, with regard to the works of many Muslims since the horrific events on Sept. 11. In fact, Muslims, I think, have stepped forward to make that articulation loud and accurately, pinpointing the idea that its origin is anything but the text or the heart or the spirit or the soul of Islam. That that voice has not necessarily been as coherent, in terms of the public discourse in America, where Islam still gets to be equated with terrorism -- I think too much -- is unfortunate.

But there is no lack of work that's being done to demonstrate that there are explicit prohibitions against the actions of killing innocents in the Quran, and there is in fact an entire Quranic ethos about the value of all human life and the responsibility to support that life, and the responsibility to [r]age against evil -- primarily within our own selves -- as our primary struggle or jihad. So there is no relationship between terrorism and Islamic sources.

But are there not also statements in the Quran about fighting those who fight you, for example? And that could be taken in a very allegorical way. There are also, there is also the example of the prophet -- who was a warrior, who led armies.

Certainly, the history of Islam includes periods of time where Islam, as a minority community, was up against considerable odds. And the responsibility for actual armed struggle in order to survive and in order to preserve itself was legitimated and it was legitimated in the text. Again, we have the understanding that the text has both a context and a universal objective. So my critical ideas about textual analysis include being aware, when a passage or a concept or an idea is an idea whose time is not eternal, but rather whose time is immediate.

In other words, yes, there were commandments to fight. And these were commandments relative only to an immediate circumstance. That circumstance has to be understood in order to even make an application of that verse. We do not have similar circumstances in a pluralistic world. And so it is not possible to seek guidance from aspects of text which are not universal in their own intent.

But are there not Muslims who would say, "That's your interpretation?"

Yes. Absolutely. I am advocating the need for reinterpreting the Quran in order to help to develop more inclusive, generally equitable laws. That people will take things out of context from the text, and that people will take aspects of Quranic articulation or statements or passages and disregard overall Quranic intent with regard to justice and equality, human well-being and human dignity, is unfortunately one of the problems we are grappling with in modernity.

America is a good example of people from all over the world coming together and suddenly facing each other and finding out that the Islam that one was practicing has so many cultural aspects to it that are not in common with other Muslims from Pakistan or from Chicago. Let's talk about Islam in America.

Certainly Islam in America represents a very significant alternative to our understanding of Islam in the past. One, because you have the advantage of certain civil liberties that guarantee the right to full practice of your religion. But, two, you have an ethos which has presumed that religions, in the sense of pluralist practice, were going to basically be Judaic and Christian. So the idea of truly practicing plural religions -- Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Bahaism and Islam -- has, in some ways, been disruptive of the very ideas of the freedom of religion that we're guaranteed. Yet Muslims have been more free to practice here than in their own countries, in some instances.

So again, you have in the U.S. a situation a set of complexities that means that, in some ways, you can understand better, what is the nature of the struggle of Islam in modernity? The nature of the struggle of Islam in modernity is to be able to preserve its own identity and yet to parallel its integrity as Muslims as human beings, to parallel that integrity commensurate with all other peoples.

So you have, at one and the same time, people who are American and Muslim, combining those two things in ways that involve their cultural backgrounds and their spiritual motivations. The two are not always one and the same.

It is possible that Muslim cultures, in the past and in the present, have been reflections of the Islamic worldview or Islamic spiritual objectives. But it also possible that those cultures have had slight variations that give them their own cultural breadth and reality and beauty, but are not necessarily exclusive to Islam.

So the idea of bringing all of this to the American front, including a large population of people who embrace Islam by choice -- unencumbered by a cultural connection, but yet members of a culture themselves -- means that here in America we grapple more with what aspect of Islam is cultural and what aspect of Islam in fact transcends or shapes or develops culture. These are not always one and the same, and they are also not something that everybody agrees on, in all of its various manifestations.

What does the African-American Muslim community add in its own separate distinctive way to this discussion?

I think the African-American Muslim situation is also complex and also diverse. African-Americans were the single ethnic group that joined the American ranks without choice -- in other words, we were brought to this shore by force -- in some ways [that] stamps us with an identity as Americans in a way that we cannot ever shed.

It doesn't mean, however, that we have always been in agreement with all aspects of mainstream American ideology, especially American policy, and certainly American racist perspectives. So therefore, we have been, at one and the same time, American and at odds with the mainstream American culture.

To choose Islam -- whether it be of our parents' generation or to choose Islam in my generation or to choose Islam as younger people are choosing -- to choose Islam is no stranger than to be African-American for us. Because it says identity is a question of your assertion of self with regard to the outer world, and that the motivation for your identity is your inner world, that is, your perspective on God and humanity.

African-Americans articulate that in their living experience of Islam, but it is not always singularly a manifestation of culture. And that's where cultural Islamics that combine to enhance their own identity of culture in a Muslim way sometimes are at odd with African-American Muslims who are not binded by a singular cultural expression or see that Islam is culture itself.

Some might say it must be hard enough to be African-American in U.S. society; why add Islam as an additional oddity or difficulty or burden?

We have not had the expectation that the affirmation of our identity rest in our home environment. We have always had the expectation that the affirmation of our identity rests in the stability of our development of our own self. And therefore Islam is the penultimate mechanism for developing ourselves with regard to our human identity in relationship to the divine.

So in fact, Islam enhances our chances or our opportunities to survive in the context of the West, particularly in the context of America. Islam facilitates our struggle as African-Americans. And many people in the community have understood this. African-Americans who will not ever enter fully into orthodox Islam and engage in all of its practices actually support a lot of basic ideas that are Islamic. So there is sort of a harmony between being African-American and being Muslim, even when African-Americans don't become Muslim. There is no incongruence between Islam [that's seen], and there's no idea that this is something outside of their culture.

And what about African-Americans as the host Muslim community here, and the immigrant Muslim community coming in?

I have always thought that the African-American Muslim community did not service the post of host very well. And the reason may be because we are still struggling for our full rights in the context of the American civil liberties. So we were not situated.

In America, when Muslim immigration began in earnest some time at the end of the nineteenth century, we [were] still struggling to gain our right position as full Americans in this country. To then take the responsibility of caring for others that have come has meant that we haven't been in the best position to do that. And I think that the experience of host has been assumed for us, whereas we have not been able to assume it.

I've heard that there were some tensions between these communities.

I think there are tensions between African-Americans and immigrant Muslims. But I do not think that the sole cause of those tensions is because African-Americans have not been host to immigrant Muslims. We have been those people who were here before, but not necessarily in the active role of host.

I think the tensions also arise because African-Americans are very astute to practices of racism and discrimination; it is our history. Immigrant Muslims will come to this country aimed at mainstreaming themselves with regard to American privilege. [This] has sometimes meant, as with other immigrants, that they have assumed the mainstream ideology regarding rights and privileges. They have therefore imbibed some of the prejudices or the stereotypes with regard to oppressed peoples in this country. And instead of alleviating them, especially with Islam as the cause of their alleviation, they have perpetuated them.

And so African-American Muslims collectively have been very sensitive to discrimination from different ethnic groups who are Muslim. ...

Which would be un-Islamic, wouldn't it?

Which would be un-Islamic in the core. And African-American Muslims definitely have been attracted to Islam's equality, especially racial equality, economic equality. And, at least in new ways, we were understanding its gender equality.

But the idea that there has been inequality in treatment between various Muslim groups means that African-Americas are less forgiving of racial prejudice among Muslims than they might be from people who have no guidance, i.e., from people who are not Muslim.

Could you talk about the search for identity and its consequences?

I think at any place where one feels a loss of identity, the tendency to be able to go within one's past, one's culture and one's historical intellectual tradition, say, in the case of Islam, offers a certain amount of solace. In fact, you will notice that the neo-conservative Islam will often say, Islam has given women its rights 1400 years ago. And by making that assertion, that is, by claiming a priority in women's rights, it is no longer necessary to struggle with new articulations of women's rights. It offers a safety net and a cushion.

So I find it quite understandable that, for many Muslims whose identity is being challenged by all of the movements in modernity in terms of colonialism and the end of colonialism, in terms of the globalization of economy and the globalization of democracy and also the globalization of a single articulation of democracy, that Muslims have gone to that which is their historical strength.

That is a very sort of pristine articulation of Islam. And the beauty of that pristine articulation is that it is a coherent system that claims and fulfills its promise of completion. However, the completion, in one time, is not the completion in all times. So what they fail to do is be able to grapple with what in fact is a dynamic completion of Islam in our time. They simply take advantage of the experiences of Islam, a cohesion from the past. ...

With this neo-conservatism, what does that look like in social and political terms?

In social terms, the manifestations of neo-conservative Islam are an enhancement of Islamic symbols: external symbols of dress, and a certain uniformity in dress has come about in the last 30 years, that is unlike any time in Muslim history. And the idea that that uniformity in dress is in fact Islamic through and through, as opposed to a cultural and historical specific form of dress, is incredible, if you think about it. Because cultures are losing their own indigenous expression of modesty and all adopting the singular, homogenized form of dress.

But certainly, on the political arena, the idea of neo-conservative Islam has been very problematic. Because there is where political theory has to grapple with the reality of the nation-state. And an Islamic empire is not an Islamic state, although now, Muslim nation-states are on-the-ground realities. So it creates a great deal of conflict in terms of what is the political articulation of Islam.

Muslims will, in a neo-conservative sense, grapple with foundational ideas about sovereignty belongs to God, and not know how to implement them into active systems in modernity. And so they will thwart the possibility of other systems arriving at sort of a new, indigenous articulation, and in fact prevent that, and implement more totalitarian political regimes, and then say, this is one of the mechanisms for protecting or preserving pristine Islam.

So in the political sense, I think it wreaks havoc. On the social sense, I think it sort of lends itself towards symbols -- our tendency to be able to make those symbols seem as concrete manifestations of the full breadth and reality of Islam.

It seems that the head scarf means something different everywhere you go. I'm just wondering if this is about the evolution of the head scarf from some sense of modesty now to some sense of identity and a statement of identity. Is that what's been happening?

I think that Islamic codes of dress, particularly the most common identified feature of Islamic dress for women, which is the head covering or the hijab, is a strong symbol that many factions of Islamic society will revolve itself around with many different intentions and with many different expectations. If the overall thrust of Islam with regard to social decorum is one of modesty, the idea that you can associate modesty with any singular item of dress is ludicrous. Nevertheless, as symbols go, the idea of the hijab as a symbol representing a particular kind of Islamic modesty is very much in vogue. And if it is both Islamic and modest, then people will attach themselves to it. Both women and men will attach themselves to it as, in fact, real.

The symbol has become justification of itself, whereas before it was supposed to be a manifestation of modesty. And the idea that it's become uniform is also one of the ways at which we simultaneously use it as a symbol of identity, but at the same time are simultaneously locked into restrictions of our identity development, with the assumption that again, that this is the right way to do it. Therefore, it implies that any other way to do it is in fact wrong. And one does not want to confess to being wrong.

So the idea of struggling with modesty is in fact the element that is Islamic. And that the hijab might be one of the ways in which this modesty has manifest itself does not mean that modesty is equal to the hijab. The hijab has no hierarchy over the concept of modesty. So it is at one and the same time a mixed symbol that people will identify for the sake of religion, but also for the sake of personal identity with that religion, even though in and of itself, has no religious meaning.

This is a paradox, because it's seen also as sometimes a symbol of oppression, and sometimes a symbol of liberation.

The head covering as a form of oppression comes to the end of whether or not a person or a collective of people in one cultural context has the right to choose. And when it is taken as a manifestation of correct Islamic modesty, there is no choice that you can have. You cannot be Islamic and modest unless you wear this form. And so it will be enforced, not only from outside, but also enforced from within. People will assume, women will assume, that they have to dress this way in order to be Islamic. And from the outside, governments and/or social groups will enforce it as a manifestation of Islam: this is the way to present yourself as Islamic.

If we understand modesty as something that is not fixed in time, but is the primary principle that is being promoted within the Quran, for example, then we will recognize that there are many ways to symbolize this. And that the choice, to be able to adopt this particular one, or to reject this particular one, is in fact of equal merit. But the idea of attaining to the reality of modesty cannot be fixed in any one particular item. That's very hard for Muslims to grapple with, because again, the whole idea of identity reformation is being contested; not only from within Islam but from without as well.

How would you analyze the changing meaning of the head scarf in Turkey over the last 10 years?

The Turkish situation is fabulous in terms of showing the complexity. Because some form of Islamic head covering has always been a feature of Turkish life, even in the massive modernization movements that were part of the 1930s and 1940s and 1950s, because women in the villages still retained some form of Islamic head covering. With the urbanization of many cultures because of new economies, the idea of that dress became backwards and it represented the old ways of thinking and the village ways of thinking, and not quite being modern.

Certainly, the Islamic resurgent movement in its global aspect included a resurgence of ideas that were clustered around certain symbols; that actually gravitated towards those symbols. The idea of Islamic head covering then became a marked separation between those within Turkish society and government who wanted to claim secularism as a basis of their identity as Muslims and as moderns, and there were Muslims, women and men, who said, our identity as Muslim is not in contestation with modernity, there is no need to become secular; and again the head scarf or the hijab becomes a symbol of that contestation.

And how would you analyze the evolution of the head scarf in Iran over the last 20 years?

The situation with Iran is also a different dynamic, that includes a crossroads with some of these similar uses of symbols, because the women gravitated towards the chador during the revolution as a way to distinguish themselves from secularism and from Westernism, which had become embedded in some notions of modernity.

So when they adopted the hijab as a form of revolution against these ideas, it then became a feature of Iranian Islamic articulation. Whether or not the women ever intended it to be, again, eternal, there became no choice. The new Islamic regime decided that it was mandatory, and therefore people had to sustain it.

Women did, however, also find that it simultaneously liberated them into the opportunities to present their ideas and their concerns in the public forum, and to be able to address the idea of genuine reform with regard to women's rights. So this is again one of the ways in which we see that nothing is ever simple. Everything is very complex with regard to Islam and modernity.

What do you see as the key lessons that women like yourself in America could send back out to the Muslim world, the key rethinkings, reappraisals, that could take place?

We have certain religious rights in America which means that it is possible within the context of civil society to assume responsibility as an agent before Allah -- and not to have men, Muslims, non-Muslims, people of different ethnic origins, determine for us what it means to be Muslim. We have the full choice -- not only to decide for ourselves -- but also to implement it in our lives, and to make it a part of a collective expression that we can use to promote a universal understanding of the right to be human and the right to be able to come to our own identity.

Malaysia. I was wondering if you could talk through the process that you took Sisters in Islam through, from their formation in the late 1980s. ...

My experiences with Sisters in Islam was, I think, one of the most unique and fortuitous opportunities of my life. It happened to come at the end of my graduate studies, which was particularly focused on the issue of Quran and gender. When I came to Malaysia, within one month I had met members of Sisters In Islam and been invited to the group. And the group was grappling with what would be our method of reform for Muslim women; not only in the context of their own Malaysian society, but in the context of Islam and modernity.

And one of the things that I presented to them was the origins of the idea of women's equality and liberation in our primary sources. Once armed with this authority, it is possible then to contest a number of voices which try to return women to lives that are very narrow and restricted, and then to define these narrow and restricted lives as Islamic. It was no longer possible for a whole set of external articulations of Islam to determine for us what it means to be Muslim. And to move forward as Muslims in the search for Muslim dignity was an aspect of Sisters In Islam, which was unique in that environment. Before, searching for women's rights took on a very secular guise, or searching for Islam took on a very conservative guise.

So the idea of the two things -- that is, a progressive Islamic identity as part of what it means to be Muslim, and therefore not causing us to go outside of our religion, but rather something we draw from our religion and that we draw as not only our right but our obligation as Muslims, empowered us, as a group, to be able to act in specific ways with regard to policy reforms, domestic violence issues, the issue of equality, and international networking on issues of law and women's integrity as Muslims.

... And what was the actual process of work?

What I encouraged them to do actively, was to reread the Quran, to do a careful reading, and in doing that reading, to come to understand the very hermeneutics of meaning. How do we derive a certain understanding from the Quran? And in this case, I challenged patriarchy as only one, and not necessarily the best, means of reading and understanding the Quran.

It was very simple after that to actually go to the Quran and interrogate its verses. Because you see the possibilities of liberation, the ideas of women's equality, laid down, sometimes in explicit terms, in the text. But you also see places where these can be decontextualized, distorted, or disrupted, in order to be able to sustain that patriarchal interpretation.

So once I encouraged them towards this kind of methodology, it sort of became our modus operandi, that we said justice is mandatory in the Quran, and that until and unless we are experiencing justice in our lives as Muslim women, then we have not been following the Quranic mandate.

Were you looking for a message you wanted to find though?

I personally began my research, in terms of Quranic studies, simply to determine whether or not the experiences of Muslim women in all parts of the world as I had traveled were in fact the experiences of Islam towards women. In other words, I looked for a source that would most closely point me to, what was the divine intention towards women? If the divine intention was backwardness, prohibitions, narrow confines and subservience, then that was truly Islam, and I personally [did] not want to have anything to do with it.

But if the true articulation was more than that, then Islam became something even more meaningful for me. So for me, the more I studied in the Quran, the more liberated I became, and the more affirmed I became as a Muslim.

Fri, 04 Aug 2006 00:59:18 GMT

I was bored and I created a Reza Aslan community. I am a hot progressive Muslim scholar groupie. So, uh, there's nothing there yet, but I'ma gettin on that, alright? haha. Just thought it might be of interest to some.

http://www.livejournal.com/community/rezaaslan

Is your mosque a Pepsi mosque?

Fri, 04 Aug 2006 00:31:48 GMT

http://hijabman.com/journal/coke-mosque-or-pepsi-mosque

"Does the fact that we are selling, thus encouraging the consumption of unhealthy foods run contrary to what seems to be our favorite slogan, “Islam isn’t a religion; it’s a way of life”? If Islam is a [good] way of life, why is it that we sell high-fructose corn syrup laced with artificial colors and flavors in our places of worship?!"

Rich year, huh?

Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:29:56 GMT

This year's been real rich in all kinds of attacks on religious people so far, from the infamous cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad to the highly-advertised and spinned "The Da Vinci Code" film.
The problem is "the certain people" were "deeply shocked" at that "terrible Muslim rampage" which of course quite naturally followed the cartoon publication and republication. "Barbarians!" - shouted some representatives of so-called "civilized Europe", not noticing the real barbarian in this case.
A gay star Sir Ian McKellen (who played in "The Da Vinci Code" one of the main characters), while at the Cannes Film Festival in France, managed to say that he entirely supports Dan Brown's (the author of the book "The Da Vinci Code") plot that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, because it would prove the prophet wasn't a homosexual and that Christians all over the world should be happy with this idea. Saying that, the actor as if emphasized "If you, my dear Christians, think Jesus wasn't married, then he was a gay!". Funny and acid. And completely
inappropriate.
The French paper "France Soir", which reproduced a set of Danish caricatures depicting the Prophet Muhammad, said it had decided to republish them "because no religious dogma can impose itself on a democratic and secular society", fogetting that in "a democratic and secular society" live a great lot of different people, with different religious and cultural sets of beliefs, and even if you don't share, don't approve and don't understand these beliefs you mustn't forget you live in society and if you live in society you must show respect to any member of it regardless of his origin and creed. It is highly disgusting that some members of "modern society" are just not aware of that simple rule and by their hostile behavior they kindle the flame of an ethnic conflict.
Jacques Lefranc, managing director of "France Soir" was fired. That was a good step. No one has a right to justify his immoral and antisocial conduct by taking refuge in "democracy and freedom of speech" -- these poor terms are being highly abused these times. Almost every journalist nowadays immediately mentions them to apply to his dirty work -- and sometimes it works. I am glad that it didn't work this time. The cartoon scandal must be a good lesson to such pretenders.
But if society can fight certain criminals in the journalist circles, it almost can't fight the big and powerful machine of Hollywood. The Hollywood criminals have strong money ammunition and with this powerful weapon you can shoot the whole army of your potential enemies. And who is the Hollywood's potential enemy? Oh they're so many! Look at the Christians. Their god is so merciful, so kind -- and totally boring. What does he give them? And look at our Big Green Dollar God -- he gives you anything. Anything you just wish for. "The Da Vinci Code" has grossed more than 200$ million -- who cares about God, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and so on? But wait, we earned 200$ million on the name of Jesus so that's okay -- thank you Jeez.
With Big Green Dollar God you can say and do what you want -- you will not be punished because it's His Majesty Big Green Dollar God -- the most merciful of all gods. You may not pay respect to anyone at all
but they'll all be respecting you even more than themselves -- because you're very strong, because you worship Big Green Dollar God. You're not a part of society -- you live in your own small but incredibly powerful society of Big Green Dollar God.
So if you're going to ask me how to fight this machine anyway because it has to be fought I'll say the only way to fight this monster -- not to be silent. To unmask the real purposes of Hollywood producers hidden beneath "the creative process". And always remember their opinions and views are that of a minority -- that's why they scream so loud to be heard.

T. H. Harrier
http://t-h-harrier.livejournal.com/

Question.

Thu, 20 Apr 2006 01:39:03 GMT

(x-posted to islamic_history)

Apologies if this has been discussed in here already, but I'm looking for information on schools adjacent to mosques, popular in the 1800s and early 1900s (and maybe much earlier?), called kutbs (or qutbs, or qutabs)? I may have the name wrong, but I know it's from the Arabic root for "book" (k-t-b).

My understanding is that a kutb was a school established by a mosque, where the Qur'an was used as a vehicle to teach children to read and write, but unlike a modern-day madrassa it wasn't intended as an Islamist response to other forms of education. Scholars in villages were affiliated with the mosques, so the kutb was where parents sent their children to learn basic literacy. Is "kutb" the correct name for this kind of school? And am I correct in my description of it?

A friend told me his grandmother attended one in the Nile Delta region in the late nineteenth century, and I'd like to learn more about it.

Assalam Brothers and Sisters

Sun, 09 Apr 2006 23:09:27 GMT

Siblings in Islam,

I am a new Muslim, still learning, seeking Allah's guidance. But I am definitely of the "progressive" persuasion. I am of the belief that there are many in this world who bask in Allah's grace, though they may know Him by a different name, and may praise Him by a different tradition. The Will of Allah reaches far beyond the Nation of Islam, for it touches all things. I know this because I have felt His guidance all my life, though only recently come to Islam. I have started this new journal to document my progress through the Holy Koran. My hope is that others may keep me on a straight path, while benefiting from my fresh perspective. I invite your input, and I hope I will come to know many of you.

Come in thirst. Go in peace.
Davi

Dear Ummah

Wed, 08 Feb 2006 06:53:06 GMT

Dear Ummah:
They're cartoons. Offensive cartoons made by bigots. So what? We're not the only group to get made fun of. Christians and Jews and pagans have been calling Muhammad a false prophet since Muhammad's own time, peace be upon him, they've called him a terrorist, they've even called him a paedophile. So what's the big deal about a cartoon where Muhammad has a turban that looks like a bomb, or whatever? This isn't even one of the most offensive things they've done. Obviously this isn't idolatry, because they're making fun of him. And depiction of the Prophet, alone, is nothing new at all. The Shiah do it, and I've seen many artistic depictions of Rasulullah, with or without the flame covering his head. So no, this is NOT about idolatry. This is about a hissy fit.
The Muslim community has bigger things to worry about, and they're mostly problems originating within Islam, but we seem unwilling to deal with those problems. We just bitch and moan about little things, like this, or Amina Wadud's woman led prayer, or Nike having a logo that superficially resembled the name of Allah. Iran's holocaust comic idea is disgusting.
There was a woman, who every day used to throw SHIT, that's right, human waste, on Rasulullah. She used to THROW SHIT ON OUR BELOVED PROPHET, and one day, she didn't. Do you know what Muhammad did? He went and checked on her to see if she was okay. He didn't kill her or yell threats or even insult her. He checked on her, because he was a kind man, and he expects us to be kind too. She was so moved by that that her perceptions of him changed and she accepted Islam. Muhammad isn't here now. He can't go offer peace to these people and those who support them. We are supposed to follow his example though. So, when you see these people throwing shit on our Prophet, don't throw insults at them. Be a kind person, like Muhammad. Follow his example, and change their perception of Islam.
Sincerely,
A concerned fellow Muslim,
Bilal.

can someone explain this viewpoint, please?

Thu, 26 Jan 2006 02:30:36 GMT

I do not understand Islam enough to know what this man's assertion is based on. Can anyone briefly tell me, please? Thank you!

'No nudity for sex'
09/01/2006 14:56 - (SA)

Cairo - An Egyptian cleric's controversial fatwa claiming that nudity during sexual intercourse invalidates a marriage has uncovered a rift among Islamic scholars.

According to the religious edict issued by Rashad Hassan Khalil, a former dean of Al-Azhar University's faculty of Sharia (or Islamic law), "being completely naked during the act of coitus annuls the marriage".

The religious decree sparked a hot debate on the private satellite network Dream's popular religious talk show and on the front page of Sunday's Al-Masri Al-Yom, Egypt's leading independent daily newspaper.

Suad Saleh, who heads the women's department of Al-Azhar's Islamic studies faculty, pleaded for "anything that can bring spouses closer to each other" and rejected the claim that nudity during intercourse could invalidate a union.

During the live televised debate, Islamic scholar Abdel Muti dismissed the fatwa: "Nothing is prohibited during marital sex, except of course sodomy."

For his part, Al-Azhar's fatwa committee chairman Abdullah Megawar argued that married couples could see each other naked but should not look at each other's genitalia and suggested they cover up with a blanket during sex.

China's Uyghur minority in Toronto

Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:46:33 GMT

Uyghur food finally arrives

Dec. 14, 2005. 06:40 AM
JENNIFER BAIN

Let me introduce you to Toronto's almost invisible minority.

They are Uyghurs and they number about 150. They have one political organization and one restaurant. They also have a knack for cooking fiery lamb kebabs and homemade noodles.

You might vaguely remember when the Uyghurs (pronounced wee-gers) first captured headlines here. It was June 2004 and seven Uyghur members of a Chinese acrobatic troupe defected and claimed refugee status, saying they were fleeing political persecution and ethnic discrimination.

See, Uyghurs are Muslim Turks whose Central Asian country, East Turkistan, was annexed by China and turned into a province called the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in 1955. The oil- and gas-rich region is four times the size of California. It claims borders with Russia and Mongolia on the north, China on the east (it's outside the Great Wall), Pakistan and India on the southwest, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan and Tajikistan on the west, and Tibet on the south.

Like the Tibetans, Uyghurs want their country, culture, religion and language back. But instead of having the famous Dalai Lama as a champion, they have Rebiya Kadeer, a little-known human rights activist and former political prisoner now living in the United States.

And they have Mohamed Tohti, the Toronto-based president of the Uyghur Canadian Association. It's Tohti who invites me to the Silk Road Restaurant.

Toronto's first Uyghur restaurant is on a bland stretch of Horner Ave. east of Browns Line in an Italian area of Etobicoke. But that's okay by owner Hayrat Kurban, who opened Silk Road in September in the affordable area that he also calls home.

The space is Spartan, the menu small, the prices low, the meat halal. The menu is presented in Chinese or in photos. There's "lagman #1" and "lagman #2" — boiled handmade noodles with beef, lamb or vegetables. There are soups (lamb or chicken), shish kebabs (lamb or beef) and polos (rice platters, also called "pilows," with lamb or chicken). And there are four combo deals, for a top price of $12.59.

Tohti orders lamb shish kebabs and lagman with lamb. Kurban's teenage daughter Dildana Heyireti pours us Chinese black tea.

I fell for Uyghur food a few years ago in Beijing, where it's considered regional Chinese fare and is better known as Xinjiang food (Xinjiang means new territory/frontier). I was dubious that my cumin-spiked lamb kebabs and Afghani-style flatbreads would be thrilling, but the bewitching taste lingers. I ate in complete ignorance of Chinese-Uyghur politics.

"In Canada, we would like to make more of the public aware about Uyghurs and the problems, and we'd like to introduce our culture," allows Tohti. "Back home, we would like an opportunity for Uyghurs to decide the future peacefully. We would like to restore our independent nation."

The kebabs arrive on long, wide, silver skewers. Normally I'd use a fork to slide the meat off the skewers on to a plate, and then pop them into my mouth, but that's not the Uyghur way.

With one hand, Tohti raises the skewer parallel to his mouth, grips the kebab closest to the end with his teeth and deftly slides it off the pointed edge and into his mouth.

"You like the taste?" he asks.

I like the taste. The tender lamb has the right amount of flavour-boosting fat and is spiced with cumin seeds, red pepper flakes, salt and pepper.

"Uyghurs are Muslim — we just don't eat pork," says Tohti. "We drink, we're quite liberal, but we don't eat pork regardless. Religion has never been a slogan for Uyghurs — just a lifestyle."

Most Uyghurs follow the moderate Sufi strain of Islam. (Tohti and Kurban later shake my hand, something traditional Muslim men would never do.)

Tohti was born in Kashgar at the crossroads of the Silk Road. He got a free university education in biology — thanks to the post-Cultural Revolution times — and went to teacher's college. He was later fired for teaching English and fled to Uyghur-friendly Istanbul in 1991. While at a conference in New York City in 1998, he stepped over the border and sought asylum in Canada.

He settled in Toronto, eventually sponsoring his wife and son to join him, and buying a house in Mississauga. Tohti, a microbiologist, now does contract marketing work for energy and telecommunications companies.

But his most important work has been founding the Uyghur Canadian Association in 2000 to help refugees (83 so far) settle in. Tohti says Toronto's 150 Uyghurs live mainly in Etobicoke and North York, with pockets in Mississauga, Scarborough and downtown. Montreal has about 180 Uyghurs (and two Uyghur restaurants). Vancouver has about 50, and Calgary has eight — for a total community of less than 400.

"We are just a very invisible minority in Canada," laments Tohti, whose association marked International Human Rights Day last Saturday with a protest at the Chinese consulate in Toronto.

It's a lot to chew on. And chew we do, as our lagman arrives.

Kurban's wife makes the noodles from flour, water and salt. The dough is divided into small balls and then stretched by hand. "This is more tasteful for me than spaghetti," says Kurban, "and easier to digest."

The noodles are boiled until very soft and then served under a bed of fried vegetables (bell and hot peppers, cabbage, onion, tomatoes) and meat (in this case lamb) with a lamb soup "sauce." We mix the elements together.

"Usually English people don't like it like this — they like it fried together," observes Kurban, who ran a restaurant in the oil city of Karamay. "All English people like soft noodles that are easier to eat." (He's generalizing about English-speaking Canadians.)

Adds Tohti: "For ourselves, we make it a little harder than this and thicker than this. We prefer to eat by chewing."

Tohti speaks Uyghur, not Mandarin. He says the 10 million Uyghurs back home are now minorities because of Chinese migrants. Political to the core, he refuses to eat Chinese food, even here. "As a nation we don't go to Chinese restaurants."

At home, his family eats only "Uyghur food" — wheat, meat and vegetables. Turkish-style breakfast is tea with home-baked bread, cheese, olives, honey, raisins and almonds. Lunch is fried vegetables with rice or noodles, dumplings or kebabs. Dinner features soup, lagman and polo (rice platters).

Kurban, meanwhile, hopes to expand Silk Road's menu. He won't let his no-frills restaurant be photographed until he moves somewhere larger and decorates it with Uyghur items.

Fair enough. At least we can all try Uyghur food now, and give some thought to the Uyghur situation here and in China.

"We are much united as a community,'' says Tohti. "If there's happiness, we share. If there's sadness, we share."

And if there's food, they share.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1134473177474

PMU

Fri, 26 Aug 2005 01:40:12 GMT

Now I see that Omid Safi, Hussein Ibish, and Sarah Eltantawi resigned from the PMU Board two days ago. What's going on? Are these just personal conflicts, or is there some kind of philosophical debate that I'm missing?

I don't mean to make this an issue of personalities, but I've appreciated the contributions of all three of those individuals (Safi in person and in print; Ibish on CNN etc. -- I know less about Sarah Eltantawi) and I'm wondering if this fragmentation is the natural consequence of getting larger or if the group/movement is already imploding before it's really gotten off the ground.