Eboo Patel is a man of many hyphens — he's a Muslim, an Indian, an American. His new book is called Acts of Faith, and he's advocating a new way of understanding not just faith, but the interfaith model. Post your questions for him here... about young people, the lure of extremism, and how to inspire new activism.
Blog Of The Nation
I am a Muslim American, and I find it hard to be a Muslim American mostly because of news stories about Iraq's Sunni and Shiite daily blood-baths, Palestinian suicide bombings, Janjaweed chopping the heads of Kuffar, foiled and successful British terror plots, the carnage of 9/11, militant Muslims' desire for Sharia law which includes things like the validity of 'honor killings,' 'temporary marriages' 'wedding a 9 year old girl' and polygamy. Fatwas ordering the death of artists like Salman Rushdie and Theo Van Gogh don't make it easy either. The Islamic Republic of Iran'President Ahmadinejad makes it even more problematic by calling for Israel to be wiped from the map to inspire the 'hidden Imam' to reveal himself. Oops I forgot to mention the Taliban and Hezbollah's aggression against Israel in 2006....aside from these annoying little facts, Islam is very peaceful and quite nice, and shouldn't be judged by the actions of a few. Muslims world wide are responsible for so much peace and harmony.
The difference between the Christian Identity Movement and Islam is that the CI movement is going against the Bible and there is no defensible way to say that they are following it. Islamsist muderers are following the tenets of the Koran when they kill the kuffir. Islam is what the CI movement or the KKK would be if the Bible were written by those that worshipped evil.
If I could kill Osama Ben Laden with a Suicide bomb (and nothing else) I think I would. For the right goal is Suicide bombing inherently bad?
Eboo asked why we can't appeal to the disillusioned Muslim teens to make them into religious pluralists.
Here's why and it's a no-brainer: When you kill yourself and others in the name of Allah, you get 72 virgins and a pile of sweets.
That's a lot more appealing than sitting around trying to understand one another.
You just stated that religions don't condone extreme actions and there are many fatwa's against them. But at the same time I remember a story about a Fatwa that was given to Osma Bin Ladin from an Imam in Saudi Arabia which would allow him to kill 2 million American children. So is there is an issue of consistency, and is there any way to fix it?
So does Eboo condemn Saudia Arabia for its religious fanaticism? I.e. allowing only Islam, and lack of pluralism. I wouldn't call that a shadow puppet game, it's a government and spiritual home of Islam!
How does Eboo explain that?
But Mr. Patel, the leaders of Muslim nations do not stand up and denounce the attacks. After Sept. 11, this was seen and at that time and shown on television. Are you saying that the media doesn't show this feeling, or is it more likely the this feeling no longer exists in the Arab world?
I am the rector of an Episcopal church in Fairfield Calif and commend the work of Eboo Patel. Our youth group decided to focus on religious pluralism so we are planning to meet with Jewish youth and Muslim youth monthly in order to get to know them. At the end of the year we plan to take a field trip together, to someplace like the Museum of Tolerance in LA. We are currently looking for an imam to come and meet with us.
On a larger scale we are in the process of building a new church plant that will include a synagogue as part of the design, in order to show that other religions can share the same worship space in a spirit of promoting religious pluralism and respect.
Thanks for your work.
Interesting conversation as I am just in the middle of reading Asra Nomani's book "Standing alone in Mecca". Congratulations to Eboo Patel for his efforts. He said his and others' throat is sore from condemning terrorist activities. It seems that that msg is heard amongst liberals themselves but not in the wider public. But for a very FEW scholars that come and speak against terrorism, most people don't speak out as they seem to feel like they would be betraying their muslim brotherhood.
. i take serious exception to naming the al queda and the krishna movement in the same breath. the krishna movement has nothing to do with terrorism, violence. a disclaimer - i am / was / will never be a member of the krishna movement.
2. another issue needs to be addressed is the ease of naming 'muslim' and 'hindu' fundamentalist movements - because they dress so differently and can;t speak in a western/american accent. this greatly adds to the ease of seeing them as the 'hated other'. how many american's who lend their voice to anti-extremist protests include, at least in their minds, the christian fundamentalists?
3. another issue that needs to looked at is that the christian and jewish fundamentalist movements have garnered economic, political and social acceptance and power. just recently the pope declared EACH and EVERY OTHER way of worshipping god, except the catholic, to be faulty. and how much of outrage did it generate? NONE. is it not noteworthy that in substance this position is no different from that of osama bin laden, who feels every other conceptualization of god is wrong?
My comment is related to the San Francisco caller's comment and to Mr. Patel's answer about the desire to live among others equally with mutual respect. How does Mr. Patel explain the concept of dhimmitude as practiced in the Islamic world? Although the meaning in Arabic of the word "dhimi" is "protected", in reality it marginalizes those of a religious minority. If religious pluralism is such a wonderful concept, why is this not being pursued in any predominantly Muslim societies? When considering the high birth rates among the Muslim immigrant population throughou western Europe, it is quite possible that this could become a pre-dominant Muslim society in a couple generations. Basically a type of reverse assimilation. Would there be the same feel-good ideas of religious pluralism or would shari'a be introduced along with dhimmitude?
Your guest is a wonder and joy to listen to..
I would like to point out that part of the reason that Americans believe that Muslims do not protest outrages perpetrated by Muslim terrorists is that
the media do not make efforts to cover such protests.
How many people know that Tehranis were among the first on the planet in the street with candles to mourn the events of September 11th? But almost everyone knows about some Palestinians who shot off rifles in celebration.
Anti-American celebrations are just more dramatic than anti-terrorist protests, better sound bites.
It is just the nature of the media to misinform us.
Mark, you echoed my sentiments so well that I feel compelled to respond. It does seem that Muslim majority nations don't extend pluralistic views towards other minorities. The rights/privileges enjoyed by muslims in non-muslim nations is not enjoyed by non-muslims in muslim nations...period!
The greatest movie robot was robot Maria from the greatest robot movie ever, Fritz Lang's masterpiece, "Metropolis".
Richard Swanson
Chicago
I can't believe the ignorance being exhibited in these comments, especially from ostensible NPR listeners. If you're too lazy to do your own research to find the many voices in Islam who condemn suicide bombings and killing in the name of Allah, and the many MANY Muslims that denounced the September 11 attacks then there's really no hope for you.
All this talk about 72 virgins and
What's Wolf Blitzer more likely to report: an Imam issued a fatwa condemning suicide bombings, or Osama bin Laden issuing an edict that it's OK to slaughter Americans, or the Ayatollah of Iran calling for the death of Salman Rushdie? Duh. DUH!
DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH AND FIND THE TRUTH. If you want to remain ignorant then that's your own perogative, but don't expect me to remain passive in the face of your inability to gather information and think critically.
Ignorance crosses all boundaries. For every Muslim you find who thinks the Quran promotes killing infidels, you will find a Christian who thinks the Bible promotes killing infidels.
We (My wife and I) just hosted a muslim german boy who was born in Afghanistan for the high school year of 2006-2007; his family went to Russia when the Taliban took over in Afghanistan, later moved to germany where they became german citizens . their son came to us through a foreign exchange student organization (YFU USA.org)
we had an exceptional year hosting this young man, a truly practicing muslim ; he came here to a very rural NH town to live on a horse farm ,not his ideal choice but it worked very well ; he came for an American experience an that is just what he got, living with a retired couple in their 70's.
We shared our home ,culture,religion, no conversionwas done and was not about to be even tried, Aricher cultural exchange we could not have had !! He will always be my muslim son! your guest really impressed me with trhe program he has started.
I have born and grow up in Middle East (even though I am not a Muslim).
There are some Muslim scholars in Europe and United state that claim Islam's teaching is not base on violence and Islam is a peaceful ideology. Unfortunately, I have not seen this in their books and teachings. Per my 27 years experience of living in one Islamic country, Islam and Muslim leaders preach that 'Only Islam and Muslims are the real God's follower, and the rest of world is enemy of the God.' Per their teaching, a Muslim's duty is to force everyone else in the world to convert to Islam or kill them. They claim that God has created the world for Muslims and they must capture whole world! I do really feel angry when I see of their action of violence all over the world, and than your respectful radio guest who are Muslim scholars still are saying Islam is the religion of peace.
I am not against Muslims because I know most of them even have not read their holy books, and they have fear of questioning their faith, because this would make them to be a target from their own people.
By the end some quotes from Peaceful Islam:
Qur'an:9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
Qur'an:8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."
By the end, I pray that Truth will open every ones eyes,
and soften their hearts to realize the truth.
How come we have not seen quotes such as these from Sean? And I guess the next question would be, are they out of context?
I don't disbelieve that they are relevant and true, but even my family talks about how peaceful the real Islam is. Is it possible to simply buy the Qur'an or get a copy to read?
This was one of the most important, relavent, and most of all HOPEFUL discussions I've heard in quite some time - and I listen to a lot of NPR. Since 9/11, I've felt a sense of hopelessness when witnessing the kinds of totally reactionary backlash I've seen from the President all the way down to my employers. It seems to me that it would behoove us all to try to understand how we all got here in the first place, and Mr. Patel, in an extremely patient and tolerant manner, is helping us to do just that. Kudos and many thanks!
It seems to me that Muslims have a lot in common with Baptist Christians, and the strong belief that there is only one correct religion, and only one acceptable religion. I was satisfied in hearing that Eboo's mother supported the values of various faiths in raising her son. I am not a religious man personally, but from experience it is very frustrating listening to both sides claiming that one faith is the best and that non-believers in either faith could be considered infadels.
On Talk of The Nation today a young Muslim, Dr. Eboo Patel, was interviewed about his new organization the 'Interfaith Youth Core'I was delighted to here him speak. I was disheartened by many of the callers who tried to have him explain why Islam seems to be the only religion that has a penchant for terrorism. I would like to answer them.
There is a pervasive assumption that Islam is more violent than Christianity of Judaism. Recent history seems to bare this assumption out. I will not go into the recent anecdotal litany of Islamic radicals causing trouble. This assumption, nevertheless is wrong.
The trio of faiths listed above are none of them, either more or less violent than the other. All their holy books speak of violent militarism and God sticking up for the righteous fighters. All also speak to the necessity of doing good toward your fellow human beings. Helping the poor, not ignoring the widow or the orphan. The holy writings they adhere to in total can either be used to justify good or bad. So it is not the faith itself that causes the Crusader or Terrorist but the individuals application of the religion.
To say religion is evil is like saying science is evil. It is neither evil or good it is a set of ideas. What human beings do with it is either good or evil. Human justice does not exist outside human action. Justice does not exist within any text or book. A hammer can build a home or kill a man. Yet no one would argue whether or not the hammer is inherently evil of good. What it is used for is either evil or good.
Violence and religion have been intertwined throughout the millennia, from Moses and Judas Maccabeus, to Richard Cour d???Lion and his crusaders, to the Catholics and the Protestants slaughtering each other for 30 years in the 17th century down to todays Islamic jihadists. It is the nexus of a multitude of social, religious, political, and economic under currents that create religion-based violence not just religion. Violence is the problem not simply religion.
If you go into any of the violent examples provided above, religion is only a tool to justify violence, but never really the reason behind the violent activity. Political conquest, not conversion, is the real reason behind the violence. Currently Islam is in the nexus of currents that are out of its control. It is being used as convenient justification for what is in essense retaliation against the westernism, not Christianity or Judasim. The failed imperial states of the 19th and 20th century have brought about an environment of impoverished billions and pan continental civil wars. Islam spread quickly in the affected regions partially because of historical connection, and partly as a backlash against the departed imperial powers.
Today Islam is as much the victim of the collapse of the Imperial west as it is a perpetrator of its own collapse. The broad undercurrents of civilization flow regardless of election cycles in the US or the name of the current crop of religious fanatics. These vast undercurrents, like the movements of the ocean currents, are very hard to nail down. Constantly shifting they will bring and end of Islamic radicalism, as the did to the thousand years of Christian warfare. There will always be tools ready to help men justify conquest and killing. Religion is but one.
There is a more fundamental problem with Mr. Patel's vision of the world: "religious pluralism" is simply not possible for the simple reason that religions are based on exclusivity and separation. While the "tenets" of religion (that is, those values of religion that are currently in vogue) may be admirable and can inspire good, the fundamental teachings of the main religions are quite clearly that "we are right and you are wrong." Or as Mr. Patel put it "we have different visions of heaven and how to get there." One need only look a few weeks back at the Catholic Pope's decree that all non-Catholic Christian sects are "defective" to see the flaw in the vision.
While I agree that finding a common vision, tolerance, shaping youth, and the other goals of of Mr. Patel's organization are vitally important, I can't help but think we'd be a whole lot better off if we just left religion out of it and focused instead on the true fundamental rights and equality of all people -- not because a sacred text says so, but because it is just right.
The problem the pluralists will always have in trying to reach young people is that the fanatics always give easy answers to hard questions and true pluralist know there are no easy answers. On the other hand(see I'm doing it) I can only applaud Mr. Patel's efforts and hope that he can make a difference.
Thank you, Scott G, for your short history lesson and very illuminating reminder of the violence of all the major religions' followers, and how they/we have used and misused faith for political ends. I hope I am paraphrasing your explanation adequately. Also, thanks for Brad G, for his enlightening comments. I missed hearing this particular TOTN, but you both fleshed out some vague thoughts that I have had, and expressed them much more eloquently than I could have.
Occasionally, someone's comments will ring loud and true in my mind like a huge bell. Such is the case when I hear Eboo Patel. He hits a gigantic nail on the head. I think Eboo clarifies a concept for Americans and others who feel uneasiness with policies and approaches that the current administration is using and also with the media's slighted focus on where the danger really is -I think many others sense that we are more than slightly off track. The future of the world depends in large part on our ability to see the broader issue and who the 'enemy' really is.
As Eboo states, the true line is drawn between people who believe in pluralism and those who believe in totalitarianism. There are 'totalitarian' thinkers in many, many groups and cultures and not just the Middle East. As a 'recovered catholic' I was dismayed and even angered to hear the recent decree by Pope Benedict that Protestant denominations 'cannot be called churches' because they don't have 'apostolic succession.' Is this any less damaging to the concept of pluralism? Commenting about the decree, Father Augustine Di Noia, undersecretary for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said, 'The Church is not backtracking on ecumenical commitment. But, as you know, it is fundamental to any kind of dialogue that the participants are clear about their own identity. That is, dialogue cannot be an occasion to accommodate or soften what you actually understand yourself to be.' How does one continue to move toward worldwide Christian unity (ecumenical) and at the same time decree, We're right, you're wrong. Another example of the application of a religious belief doing more to harm the world than to help it as we have just become more and more divided.
If there is a God or any type of 'higher power,' is it even remotely logical that such a divine Creator would condone deep human beliefs which divide rather than unify? Beliefs which encourage eradication rather than mutual respect and loyalty? If so, than the divine would be an inherently cruel entity and the universe is merely a board game for its amusement.
Thank you for your wonderful work, Eboo. And for helping to clear the fog so that we may more easily recognize in our daily lives the true enemy to equal dignity and mutual loyalty - totalitarianism. The pluralists need to unite and speak out.
Comments
Discussions for this story are now closed. Please see the Community FAQ for more information.