#interfaith does not mean asking the other religion to stop being what it is in terms of doctrine

[straynoahide]

I can't find my old reblog of this for some reason but, the gist in interfaith relations: Judeo-Christian reconciliation can never be built on the basis of prioritizing one worldview over the other. This message is inherently biased and tone-deaf against Christianity.

What "emphatically is or isn't" in Scripture is not really something someone outside a faith group has a vote in when it comes to a supernaturalist worldview, that's not how it works. We don't believe in things because they are literally in a text. Exegesis takes more.

Christianity will never not interpret its own worldview and doctrines in its own sacred texts, that the Hebrew Bible has come to be. The Logos and the Trinity are Eternal truth to Christians and they don't begin appearing in the NT, they begin with Creation, of course.

Judaism's canon has a similar problem with regards to Samaritanism and with regards to 'itself', to the Israelite religion at the time each part was drawn from, across centuries, amidst older oral traditions.

When your Torah is the Pentateuch, the Nevi'im of the Hebrew Bible become re-interpretations and revisions of historical events that a group (now) external to you disagrees with, and it irks you. This is what prophecy is. Any of these "bibles" are polyphonic, they are libraries of traditions, and prophecies are necessarily revisionist of past events from a 'literal' perspective, sometimes contradictory, sometimes unfulfilled not by textual design. Christian doctrine began as a schismatic form of Jewish thought and it is inextricable from the existence of Jewish tradition to begin with.

I am really not bothered by this because I know it is possible to share a corpus of literature as Scripture, while still having separate beliefs and worldviews. It isn't inherently disrespectful, "irksome" maybe, because that has a lot to do with internal life and not interfaith stuff.

One doing something right only means the other doing something wrong if you see doctrinal differences as adversarial, which should not happen in an interfaith framework that respects being different. I'm not bothered when someone says, "in my religion, this man does not meet the criteria for a Messiah", bc that's not about me.

Please do not inherently see Christian affirmation as Jewish negation, just because Christians have wanted to make antisemitic, political uses of doctrine.

I'm not Christian or Jewish so take what I say with a grain of salt.

But I think a big stumbling block in interfaith relations between Christianity and Judaism is the Christian practice of back tracing Christian doctrine into Jewish texts, cultural motifs, and practices.

Like somebody opening up the Tanakh and looking for the Trinity or Christ would probably irk me a bit. Or seeing a Christ where there emphatically is not one. It all sort of suggests that Jews are doing Judaism wrong.

[samwisethewitch]

An Open Letter to Christian Witches

On this blog, I often champion the idea that witchcraft is a practice, not a religion, and that a witch can practice any religion, provided that religion does not explicitly forbid witchcraft. I still very much believe this, and the point of this post is not to tell Christians that they can’t be witches. However, as a non-Christian witch who has been deeply traumatized by Christianity, I do wish Christian witches would be a bit more mindful of how they show up in witchy spaces.

Recently, I’ve noticed a pattern of self-identifying Christian witches dominating the conversation and centering their own beliefs in spaces dedicated to witchcraft. Now, I wholeheartedly believe that this is unintentional, and most of these Christian witches seem like lovely people. But it’s still deeply frustrating and upsetting to be promised a safe space and support from other witches, only to be preached at.

Or be told that I’m doing witchcraft wrong because my ethics are not the same as someone else’s.

Or be told that I don’t understand Christianity, despite having spent the first two decades of my life fully immersed in it.

Or have my trauma invalidated because, “Not all Christians are like that!”

Or spend the majority of our time together reassuring and comforting a Christian witch who is uncomfortable with the inclusion of pagan and/or occult elements in a ritual.

These are all genuine experiences I have had with Christian witches in 2021. And in every single one of these situations, the Christian witch had a very negative reaction to any kind of constructive criticism or request that they be more mindful of the diverse beliefs and experiences in the space. Any suggestion that their actions may be causing discomfort for others was met with defensiveness, if not straight-up denial. The result is a situation where Christian witches are at the center of every discussion and demand (knowingly or not) coddling or hand-holding from teachers and facilitators, while those of us who are not Christian are left deeply uncomfortable but unable to express that discomfort without upsetting someone or being accused of creating conflict.

And I get it. I really do. Because for most of the people in the above scenarios, this was the first time they encountered a situation where their religion wasn’t the norm. But what I need Christian witches to recognize and be mindful of is that this discomfort of being surrounded by people who do not share your beliefs is something those of us who are not Christian experience every day.

In the Western world, and particularly in the United States, Christianity is a religious hegemony. (A hegemony is a group with total political, social, economic, and/or military dominance in a given area.) Everything in Western society was designed for Christians, to serve a Christian worldview, and to reinforce Christian hegemony. Everything from our government to our business practices to our media reinforces Christian values. For Christians, this creates the sense of comfort and security that comes from being part of the in-group. For non-Christians, it meas being constantly bombarded with someone else’s religion. For former Christians with church-related trauma, it means reliving that trauma constantly.

Here’s a look at an average day in my life as a formerly-Christian pagan with religious trauma. Please note that this is not an exaggeration — this is a description of what I experienced on the day I wrote this post.

I get up and, because I live with Christian family members, I walk past exactly five images of Jesus and/or the Virgin Mary on my way from my bedroom to the front door. On my commute to work, I drive past at least a dozen churches, including the one I used to attend, where my religious trauma occurred. I stop at a red light, and the car in front of me has a bumper sticker with an image of a cross and the message, “If this offends you now, just wait until you see it on judgement day!” I happen to know that these bumper stickers are for sale not at a local church, but at a privately owned, nominally secular business. When I get to work, the woman who greets me at the front gate is wearing a crucifix necklace.

I work in diversity education. When I get to the office, my boss asks me to join the local Interfaith council because I am the only person in our department who isn’t Christian. My current big project at work is trying to get a transgender speaker to visit our organization and help us lead a workshop to work towards amending a history of transphobia in our organization. My boss tells me today the she isn’t sure the speaker I arranged will be approved, because our administration might not think it is in line with our organization’s values. When she says this, I know she means evangelical Christian values. She doesn’t have to spell it out — there’s a chaplain down the hall from our office.

After my lunch break, my coworkers are talking about a church event one of them attended over the weekend. I do not contribute to this conversation. It has been several months since I attended an in-person religious event with people who shared my faith. As I’m leaving the office at the end of the day, I pass a Bible study group that has set up in our recreation area. On my drive home, I pass the funeral home where my grandfather’s memorial service was held earlier this year. The programs for that service had the Lord’s Prayer printed on them. My grandfather was an atheist.

This is my level of exposure to a religion I not only don’t believe in, but have been actively hurt by, on a daily basis. This is my normal. I’ve learned to live with it, tune it out, and self-soothe, because there is no other option.

When I’m finally able to be around other witches, many of them are coming from similar experiences. I am finally in a space where I can be vulnerable, where I can talk about what I really believe, and where I can receive support from like-minded people. But if there is even one Christian witch in the group, it’s highly likely that this space too will be dominated by Christian hegemony.

It’s a noted fact that a person exists within a hegemony, they have very little ability to tolerate challenges to this hegemony due to a lack of exposure. This is the origin of the term white fragility, which sociologist Robin DiAngelo uses to describe the discomfort and defensiveness white people feel when confronted with “racial discomfort” such as being asked to consider racism as a system they are complicit in and benefit from rather than as the actions of lone extremists. White fragility is something I have personally experienced as a white woman involved in antiracist work, and it’s something I have taken years to work through and am still actively working on. Since DiAngelo popularized this term, similar terms have been used to point to similar phenomena in other hegemonic groups, as in the cases of male fragility/fragile masculinity, cishet fragility, and yes, Christian fragility.

I’m not trying to argue that all hegemony is the same, and I am definitely not trying to say that my personal religious trauma is anywhere near the level of pain caused by the mistreatment of Black and brown people by white supremacist society. My point here is simply that being part of the dominant group breeds a very low tolerance for exposure to other groups.

Christian witches are members of a hegemonic group entering a space historically occupied by marginalized people, which creates an imbalance of power. (And yes, you can benefit from hegemony even if you are marginalized in other areas. Identity is multi-faceted. Queer Christians, disabled Christians, Christians of color, and yes, Christian witches still benefit from Christian hegemony.) The only way things are going to get better is if Christians are willing to do the work themselves of building tolerance for religious discomfort. The rest of us can host as many interfaith and secular events as we want, but if Christians aren’t able to tolerate the inclusion of other belief systems, we’ll never truly be on equal footing. Until Christians stop centering the Christian experience, it will continue to dominate interfaith spaces, including witchy spaces.

TLDR: I’m asking Christian witches to be mindful of the privilege they bring into interfaith spaces. I’m asking you to be willing to feel uncomfortable, and to recognize that your discomfort does not invalidate the work your facilitators have put into creating the space and/or program. If you truly can’t stand the discomfort, I’m asking you to politely excuse yourself instead of demanding emotional labor from other witches.

[blessedarethebinarybreakers]

Answer asap (I feel bad saying that, but I'm stuck). Do you have any resources for dating/not dating non-christians? A dear friend of mine told me they care for me, and I feel the same for them, but... all the resources online warn again and again not to date non-christians lest they endanger my faith. I feel like going forward with this would be ignorant at best and would set us both up for heartbreak. And I fear my fear itself would lead to me trying to convert them. But I still care for them.

Hey, anon! Thanks for reaching out -- the rhetoric among many Christians against interfaith relationships, particularly with the argument that they’re “unequally yoked,” is something I haven’t addressed in years, and have been meaning to discuss again. 

Little disclaimer at the start that this stuff is so contextual, and it’s personal -- I don’t know your life as well as you do, or this friend of yours like you do. Maybe what i say doesn’t fit you and your situation. 

_____________

To begin, I firmly believe that interfaith relationships can be and often are truly beautiful, holy partnerships. (This includes relationships in which one or multiple members identifies as an atheist / otherwise doesn’t ascribe to a particular religion.) 

When both (or all) members are respectful of one another’s beliefs, and find as much joy in learning as in teaching their partner(s), their unique perspectives can deeply enrich one another. You can bear good fruit together that glorifies God and nourishes others. 

This being said, you definitely want to at least begin working through your worries and fears before starting to date this person. If you enter the relationship overwhelmed with fear or guilt about dating them, it’ll bring a lot of resentment and angst. The rest of this post points out things you’ll want to reflect on and read up on before entering this or any interfaith relationship -- and offers resources that can help.

_________

Interfaith Partners: Always “Unequally Yoked”?

I’m sure you’ve seen a certain phrase on those websites you mentioned, drawn from 2 Corinthians 6:14 -- “unequally yoked.”  I’m going to end this post with some alternative ways of interpreting this verse, but what Christians who advise against interfaith relationships take it to mean is something like this:

Just as two animals yoked to the same plow should be of equal strength and on the same page so that one doesn’t do more of the work, or get tugged away from the work by the other one, two partners should also be of equal “spiritual” strength and on the same page when it comes to their faith...

And of course, these people will say, a person who is Christian is definitely spiritually stronger than any non-Christian -- and a non-Christian might just pull them away from The Way, getting them to skip church or prayers or even stop being Christian entirely.

But there are a lot of assumptions there that don’t hold true in every relationship, right? First off, who says every Christian is necessarily “spiritually stronger” than every non-Christian? To claim that is to assume that non-Christians don’t also have access to spirituality or to the Divine -- which I’m going to push against throughout this post. 

Furthermore, the assumption that a non-Christian partner will definitely harm your own Christian faith doesn’t have to be true, as I’ll get to in a second.

So yeah, keeping these assumptions about an interfaith relationship being inherently “unequally yoked” in mind, and with a plan on returning to this phrase at the end, let’s move on to specific things you should think about before entering an interfaith relationship. 

______________

Must a non-Christian partner “endanger” your faith -- or can they enrich it?

If being open to learning about how our fellow human beings perceive the world, humanity, and the divine “endangers one’s faith,” perhaps that kind of faith was not made to last. Perhaps it has to give way in order to birth a new, deeper faith -- a faith that is bold enough to wrestle with God as Jacob did; broad enough to survive questions and doubts and times of grief; and wise enough to perceive the Spirit blowing wherever She will (John 3:8), not only among Christians.

If your partner truly respects you and your faith even if it’s different from theirs, they’ll do what they can to help you be the best Christian you can be -- or at the very least, they will give you the space and time you need to go to church, pray, etc. And you will do the same, helping them to be the best Muslim, Buddhist, or simply person they can be.

I highly recommend asking this friend of yours before you start dating what their thoughts are on your being a Christian, and/or on Christianity in general.

Is it something that makes them happy for you? is it something that makes them deeply uncomfortable? or something that they don’t have strong feelings one way or the other on? .

How “involved” would they be open to being in your faith? Would they be interested in going to church with you, as long as they could trust you weren’t trying to force them into anything? Would they enjoy talking about your varying beliefs together and how they impact your lives? Or would they never ever want you to bring up Christianity (which I imagine for you would be a deal breaker)? .

Be open and honest with one another about what expectations you each have about things like boundaries around discussing faith, about time and space you each want for practicing your faith, etc. As you seem aware, it’s better to get all this clear before you start dating, to avoid problems later down the road! 

For an example of what such discussions might look like, I found this story from Robert Repta, a Christian man married to a Jewish man. Their union, he says, has included working out what it means not only to be gay persons of faith, but also persons of two different faiths:

“Ultimately, what happened was that in our struggles to find ourselves, we ended up growing closer together. We both supported and challenged each other. We began asking each other bigger life questions and talking about religion, God, science. Both of our lives were evolving, and what started to happen was that we started seeing the similarities in our core beliefs more than the differences. Some of those beliefs even evolved along the way.

We both believed in God. We both believed that God is love. We volunteered together. He would occasionally come with me to church, and I would occasionally go with him to the synagogue. Eventually, I could see that the common thread between us was unconditional love. The same unconditional love of God.”

_____________

On pressuring a non-Christian partner to convert -- assumptions about Christian superiority & fearing for their afterlife destination

It’s really good you recognize that it might end up being hard for you not to try to get this person to convert! Before dating them, you should keep reflecting on this and decide whether that’s something you can let go of or not. If it’s not, then you’re probably right in thinking this relationship won’t work out. 

It would be highly disrespectful to this person you care about to pressure them to become a Christian in order for you to feel okay about being with them. (And for more thoughts on how evangelism and conversion as carried out by many Christians isn’t what Jesus had in mind, see this post.) Doing so would imply a lot of things, including that you don’t think they’re a worthy or equal partner unless they make this big change, that whatever beliefs or ideologies they currently hold are inferior to yours, etc.

In order for your interfaith relationship to go well, you would need to come to understand non-Christians as being equally made in God’s image, equally worthy of dignity, equally capable of doing good in the world. You’d have to come to believe that there is much of value within their own religion / ideology that you as a Christian could learn from. 

Let’s bring in our lovely Christian/Jewish couple from before: as his relationship with David developed, Robert discovered that 

“God is not conformed to this world we live in; God does not belong solely to the Pentecostals or the Baptists, to the Jews or Gentiles, to Muslims or Zoroastrians. Two of the most profound self-identifiers God calls himself in the Bible is “love” and “I am.””

Here are a few resources that can help you explore the idea that other religions are as valid as Christianity and also have much wisdom to bring to the world:

I highly recommend you check out the book Holy Envy by Barbara Brown Taylor to help you explore how you can be a devout Christian and learn from and form mutual relationships with persons who are not Christian. You can check out passages from the book in my tag here. .

You might also like my two podcast episodes on interfaith relationships (in general, not romantic ones, but the same material applies) -- episode 30, “No One Owns God: Readying yourself for respectful interfaith encounters” and episode 31, “It's good to have wings, but you have to have roots too": Cultivating your faith while embracing religious pluralism.” You can find links to both episodes as well as their transcripts over on this webpage. .

There might also be some helpful stuff in my #interfaith tag or #other faiths tag if you wander around. .

Simply getting to know whatever religion this friend does belong to (or what ideologies and value systems they maintain if they’re atheist / non-religious) can also be super helpful. Ask them what resources they can think of that can help get to know their religion as they experience it. Attend worship service (virtually works!), seek out folks on social media who share their religion, etc. I bet you’ll find a lot that you have in common -- and hopefully you’ll find some of the differences thought-provoking and enriching to your own understandings of Divinity!

I’m guessing a lot of your worry stems from the assumption that non-Christians don’t go to heaven. If you believe that not being a Christian leads to hell after death, it’s very hard to view non-Christians and their beliefs as equal to your own!

That Holy Envy book discusses this genuine fear many Christians have on behalf of non-Christians, and how to let it go.  .

Here’s a post with links to other posts describing the belief that many faithful and serious Christians hold that non-Christians don’t all get whisked to hell. .

And a post on the harm done by fearmongering about hell. .

Finally, a little more on the academic side but if you’re interested in some history behind Christian views of hell that can help you see that there really is no one “true” belief here, check out the links in this post.

_______

Reinterpreting “unequally yoked”

I said we’d get back to this, and here we are! While the easiest to find interpretation of 2 Corinthians 6:14′s “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers” is that it argues against interfaith marriage, there are other ways to read this text.

I adore this article I found on the passage from a Christian minister who is married to a Hindu monk -- “Unequally Yoked”: How Christians Get Interfaith Marriage Wrong.” Incredibly, Rev. J. Dana Trent writes that when she and her now-husband dug into 2 Corinthians 6:14 to see what it was all about, she found that 

“An ancient scripture meant to deter us from getting involved with each other actually brought us together. Our core beliefs in God became the focus of our study and relationship, not the issues that divided us.”

She also explains that biblical scholars say this verse isn’t even specifically about interfaith marriage -- which becomes clear when you read the full chapter surrounding it! It’s more general -- about the hazards of “working with” an unbeliever.

And what exactly is an unbeliever? Paul and other “believers” of these very early days of Christianity had a different definition than we might today -- an “unbeliever” wasn’t synonymous with “non-Christian,” because Christianity hadn’t even solidified into an actual religion yet! Instead, a nonbeliever was "anyone exposed to but was not faithful to Christ’s teachings—someone not characterized by devotion, love, peace, mercy, and forgiveness.” 

In other words, if a person in those early days was told about the good news of Jesus that entailed things like liberation of the oppressed and love of neighbor, they didn’t have to “become a Christian” to accept that good news. And thus, Rev. Trent continues,

“Today, my husband’s deep Hindu faith has taught me to dig deeper into what Jesus would have me do. Perhaps Paul might have even considered me an “unbeliever,” as I claimed to be a baptized Christian, but my life did not inwardly and outwardly reflect the Gospel. Since marrying Fred, I re-attuned my life to Christian spiritual practices: spending more time in contemplative prayer, practicing non-violence through a vegetarian diet, limiting my consumption, and increasing my service to others.

Much to many Christians’ dismay, it took a person of another faith—a seemingly “unequally yoked” partner, to strengthen my Christian walk.”

Isn’t it beautiful to hear how this relationship between a Christian minister and Hindu monk has born good fruit for both of them? They help one another become the best Christian and best Hindu they can be, respectively. They are both so deeply committed to faith -- that doesn’t sound like an “unequal yoking” to me.

______

Whew, this got long! But it’s a big topic, and one I hope you’ll take the time to explore. Bring God into it; bring your friend into as much as they’re comfortable. And feel free to come back and ask me more questions as you go.

If anyone knows of other articles or other resources that explore the good fruit that can come from an interfaith partnership, please share! 

[confrontingbabble-on]

“On a Sunday afternoon, humanist chaplain Greg Epstein stands in front of about 90 people in an MIT auditorium. It’s an eclectic group, with young kids and college students, thirty-something parents and gray-hairs all attending because of a shared disbelief—no one here has faith in God.

“People who don’t happen to believe in a god, or affiliate with a traditional religion, still want to support one another in living out our positive values.”

”Religion isn’t just fading from campus, though���all throughout the city, faith is dying out. It’s a notion that once seemed unthinkable. Not so long ago, religious institutions permeated city life, forming communal centers for the pious and the profane alike; they simply were the community. Increasingly, though, religion’s power is giving way to the church of scientific inquiry. Religion’s importance in people’s lives is on the decline across the country, but the Bay State is on the trend’s leading edge, tied with New Hampshire for the official title of least religious state, according to the Pew Research Center. Massachusetts is tied for third in what statisticians call “religious nones,” people who say they’re not affiliated with any religion, at 32 percent of residents. Compare that to the 33 percent who said religion is “very important” in their lives. Or the 40 percent who told Pew in 2014 that they’re “absolutely certain” they believe in God—the lowest among the 50 states. Or the scant 23 percent who attend a religious service every week.The result of all of this is that Boston—the cradle of Puritanism in Colonial America, known as the most Catholic city in the nation during the 20th century—has become a secular town in the 21st. Many people, young and old, are concluding that religion doesn’t fit their ethics or their lives. They judge religion for the times it’s created conflict rather than bridging divisions. They believe in equality for women and LGBTQ people, and they won’t join patriarchal or anti-gay religions. New belief systems now dominate the city: higher education’s critical thinking, science’s demand for evidence, technology’s drive for results, liberal politics’ notions of progress and social justice. Some of this is a reaction to national politics—an expression of Boston’s sense of itself as a besieged liberal bastion—but it’s also a rejection of the Old Boston, the Irish-Catholic city on a hill.

“Prior to 2002,” ...“the archbishop of Boston had a direct line to any Massachusetts politician he wanted to talk to.” That time is long gone, says Margaret Roylance, vice president of Voice of the Faithful, a group of lay Catholics formed in 2002 to press for church reforms. “I don’t think the church is the 800-pound gorilla that it was. Politicians are not afraid to support something the church opposes...”

There was a time, of course, when religion and the church taught Bostonians morals and how to treat one another. Scripture, from the Bible to the Koran, provided foundational guidelines for humanity and social justice, not to mention the basis for the Golden Rule. Church leaders also taught us the value of hard work and kept us in line. Not so much anymore. “Catholic church leaders used to have a kind of moral force in Massachusetts,” says Stephen Prothero, a professor of religion at Boston University. Big civic debates in Boston, such as whether to host the Olympics, would have included the Catholic leadership’s opinions. Now they don’t.

“In the olden days, you’d always go to Catholic leadership,” Prothero says. “Nowadays, I just don’t see why you would. They used to matter. I just don’t think they matter anymore. I think the moral capital has been spent.”

Even many Catholics who’ve stayed in the church don’t much care what the leadership thinks anymore. “Catholics, whether on the progressive or conservative end of the scale, none of them really trust the bishops to do the right thing,” Roylance says. The sex-abuse cover-up “made us look at them differently...”

The sex-abuse scandal may have hurt all churches in Boston, not just Catholic ones, says Stephen Kendrick, senior minister at First Church Boston, a Unitarian Universalist congregation. He recalls talking about Catholic clergy sex abuse in one of his first services after taking over First Church in 2001. “I said it’s going to affect us, because it makes a whole generation of people feel distrustful of authority and particularly religious authority,” he says. “I think that’s a particular challenge in Boston. That is a wound that is not healed. And it affects every religious institution in this city.”

As shattering as the sex-abuse scandal has been, it’s hardly the only reason people are leaving Catholicism—in one national survey, only 32 percent of former Catholics named the scandal as one of the reasons they left. In fact, among the religiously unaffiliated in general, 60 percent said they left their childhood faith because they simply stopped believing in the religion’s teachings.

Friday night comes as a time to relax instead of attend Shabbat services, and Sunday brunch beckons the family instead of a 9 a.m. service. In other words, Kendrick says, “What happened to the Catholic Church in the last 20 years didn’t just happen to the Catholic Church.”

They’ve seen the surveys that show the number of religious nones exploding and the number of professed Catholics declining. “The power of the Catholic Church to move a civic agenda or political agenda is much reduced...”

From...https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2018/12/11/boston-given-up-on-god/

[waytooinvested]

I've been reading your fic and mostly I love it, but I got to the part with Mr Busby and it made me kind of uncomfortable... I was wondering what your feelings on religion are, considering how he's written? He seemed so nice at first, why did he get so harsh?

Hi anon,

Firstly I reallyappreciate you sending this ask, because if people don’t likesomething I’ve written I’d much rather they say so so I have a chanceto explain/discuss, so thank you! If you want to talk about it moreplease feel free to message me off anon, I won’t be offended at all:)Just for now though I’ll explain as best I can (below the cut as it’s a bit long):

Firstand foremost I am not at ALL anti-religion! I’m not personallyreligious but I spent a lot of my childhood in interfaith communitiesthat were all about understanding between religions, and I have ahuge amount of respect for the people I met through it.  Thestoryline with Delia’s parents was not supposed to be about trashingreligion. I think the main point here is that being religious (ornot) doesn’t fundamentally make someone a good or bad person. TheNonnatuns are incredible women and their faith is a huge part ofthat. They show religion in the best light, and I hope I get thatacross at least in a small way in my fic (I tried to make clear inthe part with Sister MJ in chapter 26 that it was a negative view ofthe Busbys rather than religion as a whole, but if you stopped at thebit with Delia’s father you might not have seen it).

But people do exist onthe other end of the spectrum – it is very easy to twist religionand use it for your own ends if you are a certain sort of person(just look at the Westboro Baptist Church), but that doesn’t makereligion itself wrong. This is what Mr Busby does. His views on Godand religion say far more about him than they do about Christianity.I’m very sorry if that was unclear and I seemed to be attackingChristianity generally, that wasn’t at all my aim.

Moving on to why I madehim so harsh:

When I came up with theidea for this story it came with a rather substantial snag – thereare a limited number of reasons that Delia could be left to be lookedafter by Patsy after her accident. I considered a lot of options, butmost of them didn’t work well. I won’t go into all of them or we’llbe here all night, but for example: I could have killed her parentsoff, in which case they couldn’t possibly have come to reclaim her.But that has its own issues – the death of both parents would havea huge impact on who Delia was as a person and involve a trulyenormous personal trauma in her past, and would  beg the question ofwhat happened to her next – if the death was recent enough for herto have left home she’d have an awful lot of recent grief to dealwith, if it was long in the past she’d have to have been brought upby someone else, which would put us back to square one, because thenwhy weren’t the surrogate family present post-accident?

I could also just havehad her parents move abroad, which might have been the preferredoption, except then they would be bound to have contact detailsfairly readily available, could be called back and again, Patsydoesn’t get to keep caring for Delia.

I went for the optionof sending them far away AND making them estranged because it gave aplausible excuse for them not to be easy to track down (infrequentcontact = no easily available address, no alarm at Delia not gettingin touch) and a plausible excuse for Delia to end up estranged fromother parts of her family (like the childhood cousins – but spoileralert there so I won’t say more). Making them as harsh as they werewas a difficult decision, and in some ways I regret it because I didlose one or two regular readers around that point in the story and Isuspect it upset people, which I never wanted to do. But I did havemy reasons, justifiable or not.I wrote Mr Busby as I did becauseI think it would take a lot for parents to do what I needed them to.Disowning a child is a big deal, and not done lightly. Certainly notby caring, reasonable parents. So, they couldn’t be caring andreasonable. Neither of them, because if one was and the other wasn’tit begs the question of why the nice one went along with it for somany years and so completely. The issue of Delia’s wanting to workand her sexuality are most easily and severely sanctioned from aconservative religious viewpoint rather than general societal norms,so that’s what I went with. A lot of young people even today do getcut off from their families using the same excuse.

Although she ismanipulative and unpleasant, all Mrs Busby’s behaviour is motivatedby a desire to keep Delia close, so on her own she would never justlet her go. She would keep bullying and manipulating and doingwhatever she could to make Delia stay with her, and to try to shapeher into the daughter she wanted, all under the dubious excuse of‘it’s for your own good/because I love you’. That is something we see(to a much, much lesser extent) from canon Mrs Busby, and I wanted tokeep some character traits true to canon, even if they were vastlyexaggerated for the sake of this fic; but in order to make that workthere had to be another guiding influence. Enter Mr Busby, who is inthe general way meek and amiable (it helps him and his wife coexist,without that trait they’d never survive as a couple – there isn’troom for two such domineering personalities), but at his core is MUCHcolder, and very much believes that love has to be earned. Theharshness of his temper means that his wife is likely to back downand agree with him when he flares up – hence why she agreed toleave in the first place, and why communication with Delia was sosporadic. I know the scenes with him and Delia as a child were prettybad, but they were a way to demonstrate that dynamic, and set thestage of his ruthlessness early in order for it to make sense when helater decided to cut Delia off entirely. It ALSO meant that when itcame to a conflict between them about Delia staying with Patsy in thepresent day he could make both himself and Mrs Busby leave Deliabehind without much of a fight, because if he was a different sort ofperson to just leave his amnesiac daughter would be unthinkable.

I could continue, butthis answer is already becoming an essay… I would just say pleasegive the rest of the fic a try and hopefully it’ll be enough to makeamends for that part – if you want to skip it the Busbys are goneby chapter 26! Also if there’s anything else you’re uncomfortablewith/want to ask about (or if you think I’ve written something reallyoffensive that I should change – I am open to criticism and willingto rewrite if I’ve unwittingly written something reallyobjectionable) please PLEASE message me directly so we can go overit! That goes for anyone who reads my fics and is upset by them. I amvery much open to good OR bad feedback, so don’t hesitate. I valuethe feedback to help me be the best writer I can be :)

[chestnutpost]

These Are The Types Of Islamophobia Fox News Is OK With

This post was originally published on this site

“Think about it. [Rep. Ilhan] Omar wears a hijab,” Fox News host Jeanine Pirro looked straight into the camera and told her viewers Saturday night. “Which, according to the Quran 33:59, tells women to cover so they won’t get molested. Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?”

Her on-air comments, which explicitly questioned Omar’s loyalty as an American lawmaker simply because of her religious beliefs, were widely criticized, with civil rights groups nationwide calling for Pirro’s resignation. Her employer even condemned her comments in a statement released on Sunday, saying they “do not reflect those of the network.”

Omar (D-Minn.), one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress, later thanked the network on Twitter for its condemnation. Shortly after that, Pirro released a statement defending her segment, saying that she did not call Omar un-American and that her “intention was to ask a question and start a debate, but of course because one is Muslim does not mean you don’t support the Constitution.”

But to say Pirro’s comments do not reflect Fox News’ position is far from the truth. For years, she has propagated anti-Muslim disinformation without any consequence — and so have her colleagues throughout the network. Fox News has amassed a well-documented history of spewing anti-Muslim propaganda with impunity.

Pirro has been a one-woman source of Islamophobic sound bites

In a 2016 segment of “Fox News Live,” Pirro advocated for mosques to be surveilled and supported Newt Gingrich’s call to “test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported,” as he told the network’s Sean Hannity.

In 2015 she invited a Steve Emerson, a “high-profile Muslim-basher,” according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, to discuss his since-disproved theory about so-called no-go zones in the U.K. and France; he claimed Muslims who refuse to assimilate reside in enclaves that are beyond the control of local law enforcement and even bar non-Muslims from entering.

After the 2015 Charlie Hebdo attack in France, Pirro’s show promoted bigoted inaccuracies — among many during Fox News’ coverage. The network was forced to issue not one but four corrections in a single day for wildly inaccurate reporting about Muslims in Europe.

That year, she went on a seven-minute Islamophobia-riddled tirade in which she said a “reverse Crusade” was in progress against white Christians. In another instance, she called for the mass murder of Islamists — a label used to describe politicians who run on political platforms influenced by the Islamic faith.

A few days after the 2015 National Prayer Breakfast, a national interfaith event held in Washington, D.C., Pirro again took to her show and collectively blamed Muslims, a community of 1.6 billion people, for a series of terrorist attacks. She berated then-President Obama to “stop defending Islam” and to “start protecting Americans.”

“Consider this: The first World Trade Center attack in 1993, by Muslims. The USS Cole bombers were Muslim. The Fort Hood shooter was Muslim. The shoe bomber was Muslim. The underwear bomber was Muslim. The Boston bombers were Muslim. The Sept. 11 hijackers were Muslim,” she said. “Mr. President, please identify what other violence is being committed against Americans in the name of any other religion, or is it just coincidence?”

At Fox News, numerous other hosts and guests have traded in anti-Muslim bigotry, lies and fearmongering

Fox News has repeatedly pushed anti-Muslim conspiracy theories, hosted numerous Islamophobic personalities and consistently weaved in blatant hate and bigotry in its coverage of Muslims. A Fox News spokesperson has not provided a comment for this article.

Media Matters, a nonprofit research center dedicated to monitoring and correcting misinformation in American media, has long documented Fox News’ Islamophobic history.

“It’s definitely not isolated to her show. That’s a given,” said Rebecca Lenn, Media Matters’ director of external affairs. “Fox News has definitely been a leading driver of the anti-Muslim fervor in the media landscape for a long time. There is no doubt, taking a step back, that bigotry and extremism are at the very heart of the network, and that’s becoming even more of a reality since the network has positioned itself as Trump’s go-to propaganda network.”

There is no shortage of examples of blatant anti-Muslim rhetoric broadcast on Fox News. 

On “Fox & Friends,” co-host Brian Kilmeade claimed in 2017 that “all terrorists are Muslims.” In another episode of the same program that year, co-host Pete Hegseth had some advice for the Muslim community, saying, “If you don’t want to be portrayed in a negative light, maybe don’t burn people alive and set off bombs and things like that.”

“Muslim immigration means more Islamic terrorism,” said Pamela Geller on Sean Hannity’s show in 2017. The Southern Poverty Law Center designated her “the anti-Muslim movement’s most visible and flamboyant figurehead.”

“You have to admit, there is a Muslim problem in the world,” Jesse Watters said on “The O’Reilly Factor” in 2017.

The anti-Muslim hatred goes back for years. In 2010, when Muslim Americans wanted to construct an Islamic center known as Park51 in lower Manhattan, Fox News commentators regularly demonized idea in a number of segments. In August of that year, Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson said New York Muslims should “give up their rights” in order to be “good neighbors.” One month later, Fox News host Bill Hemmer said the center “could also be the first stop for a radical jihadist who comes to America who wants to go pray.”

While Obama was running for president and throughout his time in the White House, Fox News anchors continually recycled the narrative that he was a Muslim (he isn’t), insinuating that just being of the Islamic faith would be problematic.

As with Pirro’s recent smear against Omar, Fox News contributor Eric Bolling claimed in 2012 that Obama was a Muslim who “answered to the Quran first and to the Constitution second.”

Other examples of Fox News’ perpetuation of anti-Muslim hysteria include pushing the conspiracy that Sharia, a religious framework that Muslims adhere to in everyday life, is set to take over the U.S. government and replace it with a violent, backward legal framework. (No national Muslim organization has ever called for Sharia to supersede American courts. In fact, the sheer idea goes against how Sharia actually works.)

Lenn said Pirro’s latest comments are just another example of an overarching problem at Fox News that is unlikely to end anytime soon.

“Fox News’ condemnation of her remarks is definitely disingenuous. Pirro is going to continue to push these narratives forward, and so will other Fox News hosts,” Lenn said. “No doubt has Fox News at its core driven the Islamophobia problem that we see today and has mainstreamed it.”

The post These Are The Types Of Islamophobia Fox News Is OK With appeared first on The Chestnut Post.

from The Chestnut Post https://thechestnutpost.com/news/these-are-the-types-of-islamophobia-fox-news-is-ok-with/

[newageislam-blog]

Open Letter to Maulana Firangimahali: Why Do Moderate Ulema Stay Silent When Terrorists Claim - 'Islam Has Never Been A Religion Of Peace, Not Even For A Day'?

I have been watching you on television channels in the last few days, defending Islam as a religion of peace, calling the so-called Islamic State “un-Islamic,”, expressing sentiments and opinions that I entirely agree with. But this has made me wonder why do you and your fellow ulema keep completely silent when self-styled Khalifa al-Baghdadi and his followers say repeatedly that “Islam has never been a religion of peace, not even for a day,” and that “it has always been a religion of war and conflict.”

I didn’t see you or any other ulema questioning your Nadwi colleague from Lucknow, the influential Salman Nadwi when he became the first Indian Muslim alim (Islamic scholar, singular of ulema) in July 2014 to convey his allegiance to the same Khalifa, addressing him as Ameer-ul Momineen, leader of the global Muslim community. No wonder, his name now figures in the list of ulema who have influenced Indian Muslim youth who have joined and some even migrated to the so-called Islamic State.

I didn’t see you questioning the notorious tele-evangelist Dr. Zakir Naik when he said: “all Muslims should be terrorists” or when he said: “Quran allows Muslims to have sex with female slaves.” Indeed, you all kept quiet when Naik made hateful remarks like the following: “People in the west eat pork and hence behave like pigs. Pigs are the only animals in the world that invite their friends to have sex with their partners. Westerners also do the same.” Naik has made insulting other religions in the guise of comparative study or interfaith dialogue his speciality. But I find almost the entire fraternity of Muslim ulema coming out in his defence when it was discovered that his discourse inevitably inspired several people around the world who took to the path of terrorism.

Worst of all, you and all other ulema kept quiet when Maulana Abdul Aleem Islahi of Hyderabad asked Muslims to pray for the Islamic State. In a press release available online he said: “Condemnation of their (Islamic State’s) action may not be called sagacity and will be considered against the spirit of Islam. … they have tried to fulfil the dream of a large section of Muslims and their determination has infused a new life into the concept of Caliphate. Their announcement (of caliphate) has surpassed Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Maulana Abul Ala Maududi’s powerful writings and speeches about Caliphate and has realized the concept practically. … This has sparked a new life in the dormant political life of Islam and this might have certainly heartened religious Muslims as more or less after one hundred years Caliphate has come to existent (sic). In other words, Islamic Caliphate is no longer a concept but seems to have become a reality.”

Most disturbing of all is your and other ulema’s complete silence over a seemingly very well-reasoned, coherent fatwa, citing verses from Quran and narrations of Hadith, of the Hyderabadi Maulana, seeking to prove that Islam asks beleaguered Muslims to fight and not sit helplessly when they perceive being under attack by non-Muslims whom he calls “infidels” and “idol-worshippers” or kafirs and mushriks respectively.

In a booklet entitled “Use of Force in the light of Quran,” written in response to Dr. Nejatullah Siddiqi’s essay renouncing offensive violence in the name of Islam, Maulana Islahi, says:

The summary of whatever Dr Saheb (Dr Nejatullah Siddiqi) has written is that … no matter what the flag bearers of Hindutva may do, taking any step against them or confronting them with the use of force will be wrong from the point of view of Shariah and harmful for the Muslims.

On Page 10/11, in a chapter entitled “Jihad is not violence,” he says, “In the light of the Quran and hadith, calling punishment for crime violence is very wrong. It is an un-Islamic idea. In fact, the punishment that is given for preventing the criminal from committing crimes is not violence and atrocity but a benevolent act and a blessing. However, whatever meaning the word ‘violence’ may convey, calling violence permissible only in two situations by Dr (Nejatullah Siddiqi) Saheb is also extremely erroneous and is akin to striking a hard blow at the purpose of the prophethood of the holy Prophet. Please see Surah Tauba, Chapter 9 of the Quran, verse No. 29:

“And fight against those who do not have faith in God and in the Day of Judgment and declare haram what God and his prophet have declared halal, and among those people of the Book do not accept the true faith until they pay the Jizyah with their own hand and are subdued.” (Quran 9: 29)

“In this verse, fight has been ordained against those under three conditions until they pay jizyah: a) they do not profess faith in God and Day of Judgment; b) do not accept as haram what God and his prophet have declared haram; c) do not accept Islam as their religion.”

One of the cornerstones of moderate Islam is the often-quoted verse “La ikraha fiddin,” (Let there be no compulsion in religion.):  Quran 2: 256.  But the way Maulana Islahi turns it around is worth noting. He says: “This does not mean that ahl-e-Kufr, (infidels) should be left totally free on earth with their un-belief and should not be made accountable. If this were true, what do we mean when we say that the religion of God has been revealed to dominate the world?

“It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikoon (polytheists, idolaters, etc.) hate it.” (Quran. 9: 33)

“What will this verse mean then and what relevance will the obligation of jihad have?

“It is the duty (of Muslims) to struggle for the domination of Islam over false religions and subdue and subjugate ahl-e-kufr-o-shirk (infidels and polytheists) in the same way as it is the duty of the Muslims to proselytise and invite people to Islam. The responsibility to testify to the Truth and pronounce the Deen (religion) God as entrusted with the Muslims cannot be fulfilled merely by preaching and proselytising. If it were so there would be no need for the battles that were fought.

“And fight them until there is no fitnah (mischief) and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah. And if they cease – then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.” (Quran. 8:39)

“Jihad has been made obligatory to make the Deen (religion) dominate and to stop the centres of evil. Keeping in view the importance of this task, the significance of Jihad in the name of God has been stressed in the Quran and Hadith. That’s why clear ordainments have been revealed to Muslims about fighting all the Kuffar (infidels).

“United, fight the polytheists as they fight against you.” (Quran. 9:36)

On Page 17, Maulana Islahi says: “Let it be known that, according to Islamic jurisprudence, fighting the infidels (kuffar) in their countries is a duty (farz-e-Kifayah), according to the consensus of ulema.”

Maulana’s entire essay is a call for the Indian Muslims to fight the forces of Hindutva. But none of you ulema, Maulana Firangimahali Saheb, have refuted Maulana Abdul Aleem Islahi, as you have not denounced Dr. Zakir Naik or Maulana Salman Nadvi. Not even when it became known that Maulana Islahi had inspired the Indian Mujahedin group. Perhaps your problem is that you cannot, as you yourself cannot but believe in what Maulana Islahi says. What Maulana Islahi or Zakir Naik are saying is primarily based on the current theology, the theology that you all have studied and teach in your madrasas and universities. How you can you condemn that.

The most authoritative book of Islamic jurisprudence to date, Al-Mausu’ah al-fiq-hiyah al-Kuwaitiyyah (Kuwaiti Encyclopaedia of Islamic Jurisprudence), prepared in Kuwait by a consensus of ulema from all schools of thought, after nearly half-a-century’s effort, and whose Urdu version was released on 23 October 2009 by Vice President Hamid Ansari in Delhi, defines Jihad thus: “Terminologically, Jihad means to fight against a non-Zimmi unbeliever (a kafir who is not paying jizya to an Islamic State), after he rejects the call towards Islam, in order to establish or raise high the words of Allah.”

Clearly, the consensus Maulana Islahi claims for his Islam supremacism, exclusivism and xenophobia is not wrong. Making Islam dominant over all other religions is indeed the goal of all ulema, past and present. All the intolerance and xenophobia of political Islam flows from there. It’s only when one studies these theological tomes one can see that it is not possible for you ulema to refute your Jihadi ideologues in any meaningful way. Making dishonest, false statements of peace and pluralism to the non-Muslim media is also allowed under the Doctrine of Taqaiyya mainly derived from the Quranic verse: 3:28: “Let not the believers take the disbelievers as auliya (supporters, helpers, etc.) instead of the believers, and whoever does that will never be helped by Allah in any way, unless he does it out of fear or taqaiyah (pious dissimulation). And Allah warns you against Himself (His Punishment) and to Allah is the final return.” This doctrine used to be mainly part of Shia jurisprudence, but it seems Sunnis have also adopted it under the onslaught of global media that is now asking informed questions.

Nothing is thus going to change, unless all you ulema are prepared to move forward from your present position, renounce the theology of violence and exclusivism, intolerance and supremacism, that exists today in the form of Islamic theological literature and help us ordinary folk evolve a new theology of peace and pluralism. Islam is undoubtedly a religion of peace and pluralism, love for all and spiritualism. It does indeed teach harmonious co-existence. But Islamic theology of today, as taught in madrasas and universities, doesn’t. The theology that you ulema have studied and teach to our hapless children is a theology of supremacism. Islam is in crisis today. It has become practically synonymous with terrorism.

Wake up, Maulana Firangimahali Saheb, and start taking remedial action at least now. If you can’t do that, at least stop deceiving the world through your peaceful pronouncements. We are now living in a world of internet. Scholarship is available on fingertips. Everyone is a scholar. You can’t hide anything.

To tell you the truth, you are not deceiving any one, not the least our children who are running away to the so-called Islamic State, even when you call it the “un-Islamic State.” Intelligent, educated, they all know the truth. You recite peaceful Meccan verses of pluralism, co-existence, good-neighbourliness, exhortations of patience in times of adversity, etc., in your appearances on television or when forced to issue a fatwa against terrorism. But you teach in your madrasas, tafasir (interpretations) of Quran like, say, the Tafsir Jalalain, considered one of the most authentic. It explains the Doctrine of Abrogation, widely accepted by ulema, whereby peaceful Meccan verses are said to have been abrogated by the later Medinan verses of war. By and large the doctrine is based on the following verse of the Quran: 1: 106, in which God says: “None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?”

The so-called sword verse alone, according to Jalalain, abrogates no less than 19 Meccan verses exhorting peace and patience in the face of persecution. This Verse (Quran 9:5) says: “When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.”

One of the Jalals, Jalal al-Din ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr al-Suyuti (1445-1505) interprets 9:73 (O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination) as a case of postponing the fight until Muslims become strong. His argument is that “when Muslims were weak, God commanded them to be patient.” Another revered Quran exegete, taught in all madrasas and departments of Islamic studies in universities, is Ibn-e-Kathir(1301-1372). He says that the sword verse (Quran 9: 5) “abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term…” Similarly, Ibn Juzayy (d. 1340), another respected Qur’an exegete says: The Verse of the Sword’s purpose is “abrogating every peace treaty in the Qur’an.””

Then there are ahadith (plural of hadith, so-called sayings of the Prophet pbuh) that terror ideologues use to justify terror and you Maulana Firangimahali and your fellow ulema consider akin to revelation.

Take, for instance, the most widely quoted hadith in this context: “I have been commanded to fight all mankind till they testify that there is none worthy of worship but Allah, and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer perfectly and pay zakat. If they do this, they have protected their lives and their wealth from me except for Islamic laws and their reckoning will be with Allah the Almighty.”

— Sahih Bukhari (Vol.1. Book 2, Number 24, page 402) as well as (Sahih Muslim, 31:5917), the two books of Hadith considered the most reliable and authentic by all ulema.

My problem with this Satanic Hadith is: Can the prophet (pbuh) do or say something against the express exhortations of the Holy Quran, as he seems to be doing in this case, violating the universal declaration of Quran, quoted above, Quran 2: 256; “La ikraha fiddin,” (Let there be no compulsion in religion) and many other similar Meccan verses of peace, pluralism and co-existence, teaching Muslims to be patient while facing persecution? I would say, NO, the Prophet can never do or say anything that violates universal declarations of the Quran, which is the word of God revealed to him.

But you Maulana Firangimahali and your fellow ulema would say the following: “this hadith (“saying” of the prophet) is as good as a revelation and since it came, like similar war-time verses, later than the previous universal declarations of freedom of religion, pluralism and co-existence, it has abrogated not only the above but many other peaceful verses revealed earlier at Mecca when the foundation of the religion of Islam was being laid.”  You all will say this because all the universally revered exegetes of Quran say the same thing, except Mu’tazilah (rationalist) scholars like Abu Muslim Al-Asfahani. You read these secondary Islamic literature, the exegeses and interpretations by Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, (Jamie Al-Bayan: 7/646), Ibn-e-Kathir (1/207 and 2/774), Jalalain (51 mention of abrogation in numerous places in Tafsir al-Jalalain), Al-Qurtubi (Al-Jamie Li Ahkam Al-Quran 10/157), etc., believe in these analyses and exegeses unquestioningly, and teach this in your madrasas. Tafseer Ibn Katheer:

Do you know how many children in India have started calling their parents kafir? And for good reason. On the one hand  you teach the children Jihad in the sense of Qital against all infidels and polytheists (kuffar and Mushrikeen) and on the other ask them to practice peace and pluralism, and co-exist with the same kuffar and Mushrikeen. Please be honest, call for war against the so-called infidels and idol-worshippers, as Maulana Abdul Aleem Islahi, Khalifa Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and other Jihadi ideologues do, or renounce your theology of violence and supremacism and let us common Muslims evolve a new and coherent theology of peace and pluralism, co-existence and acceptance of all religions as valid paths to eternal salvation.

Yours Sincerely,

A concerned Muslim

Sultan Shahin is the Founding Editor of a Delhi-based, multilingual, progressive Islamic website NewAgeIslam.com. He considers Islam a spiritual path to eternal salvation, one of the many, not a political ideology of world-domination.

Visit here: Progressive Muslims

Source URL: http://newageislam.com/radical-islamism-and-jihad/sultan-shahin,-founding-editor,-new-age-islam/open-letter-to-maulana-firangimahali–why-do-moderate-ulema-stay-silent-when-terrorists-claim—-islam-has-never-been-a-religion-of-peace,-not-even-for-a-day-?/d/108181