Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Hedieh Mirahmadi Speaks at UC Irvine
Hedieh Mirahmadi
Last night, I attended a speaking appearance by Hedieh Mirahmadi at UC-Irvine. Mirahmadi is an Iranian-American Muslim, who is president of the World Organization for Resource Development. She is an advisor to various agencies in the US Government on Muslim-related matters. The title of her talk was "Confronting the varieties of Islam". Her appearance was sponsored by the Center for Democracy and Progress in Religious Studies.
Mirahmadi spoke for about 15 minutes then took questions form the audience of about 30-40 people. In her talk she divided Islam as a religion from Islamism, which she defined as an effort to impose Islamic law and remove non-Muslims, which in turn, she strongly opposes. Her position is that the Muslim community must face up to the issue of violent extremism, which seems to be an off-limits subject for discussion (my words). She said that moderate Muslims need to organize to challenge the Islamists, but that they need help from the non-Muslim community.
Mirahmadi defended her faith-particularly during some hard questioning from some members of the audience. She didn't say it, but I came away with the definite impression that she feels Islam has been "hijacked" by the extremists. She referred to Salafists as the principle propagators of extremism and a culture of hatred.
As stated, her talk was only 15 minutes, after which she told the audience to fire away. And fire away they did. Some questioners aggressively asked her about tenets of Islam/and or the Koran that encouraged violence against others.
I got the first question and asked her if she thought organizations like CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, the Islamic Circle of North America, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and the Muslim American Association could be trusted by the government as faithful partners in combating extremism.
"No."
She added that these groups were principally concerned with inserting themselves between the government and the Muslim community, which they had a right to do, but that they were not being helpful in combating extremism. (I am paraphrasing.)
Another questioner challenged her to show any Muslim country that was living up to her ideals of Islam in being fair and equitable to non-Muslims. When Indonesia was mentioned , the questioner responded that Indonesia had a record of poor treatment of Christians and Chinese. (I can't speak to the Christian angle, but I do know that Chinese in Indonesia and Malaysia have often been used as scapegoats and have been targets for violence over the years.)
When challenged about the issue of dhimmitud, she was somewhat evasive, explaining that Muslims had to pay Zakat, but that non-Muslims had to pay Zizya. It was an unsatisfactory answer.
Another questioner, a Middle Eastern man (not Muslim), asked her about references in the Koran to Jews being "pigs" and "apes". He specifically mentioned the sura in which it was mentioned. Mirahmadi tried to say that it could be an issue of translation and asked if the man knew Arabic (He did.) Later, the man brought up the Arabic wording on his laptop and read it to her. Mirahmadi stuck to her response of various interpretations. At some point, she mentioned that Salafiusts had inserted their own wording into translations.
Another questioner raised the issue of Khaybar, where Jews were massacred by Mohammedan forces. Mirahmadi stated that there were other accounts that indicated that Khaybar was a battle-not a mass execution.
I should say at this point that Mirahmadi struck me as consistent in her denunciation of extremism within Islam. She mentioned that when she dealt with the US government, she couldn't even use the term "Islamist". She had to say "radical extremist". She referred to the Holy Land Foundation Trial and stated that one Muslim organization held deeds to some 200 US mosques (NAIT). She made references to the "unindicted co-conspirators of the Holy Land Foundation trial and the so-called charities. She derided efforts to stop open discussion of extremism by use of the label "Islamophobia".
Important point: Mirahmadi stated that when she has spoken to Muslim university students on many campuses, they have told her that certain deans have resisted their requests to establish university-recognized Muslim groups since they already have the Muslim Student Association on their campuses. That remark was echoed by a young Muslim student in the audience who was looking for an alternative at UCI. (The MSU of UCI was not in attendance last night.)
On the other hand, Mirahmadi is a Muslim, and she defended her faith. It was in dealing with questions about troubling aspects of Islam as mentioned above, that she came across as unconvincing. It seemed that she was resorting to talking points that Muslims who are involved in interfaith discussions use when asked about these issues of concern. She did not get flustered, however. She is personable and very impressive.
Another point of interest: Earlier in the day, Mirahmadi spoke at UCLA (She also appeared on Dennis Prager's radio show.) At UCLA, she became involved in a back and forth with a law professor (I believe of Turkish origin) who attempted to make the case that Muslim extremism was a result of "grievances" like occupied land, etc.) Mirahmadi strongly disagreed saying that Muslims had to face the fact that there is a big problem in their midst that they must deal with. (I am relating what was told to me by someone who was at both events.)
As to solutions, she urged the non-Muslim community to support true moderate Muslims, to empower them to speak out and have more of an influence. She optimistically stated that this problem could be overcome in 10-15 years through education, the Internet, promoting true moderate clerics, programs, etc . As I said, it sounded very optimistic to me.
In summary, I think Mirahmadi is a Muslim who deserves support in her effort to speak out against extremism. She defends her religion, which is understandable. I don't agree with everything she said, but I don't see her as the enemy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Personally, I agree with your conclusion, Gary, but the problem is Takya (sp?) and distinguishing one from another.
.
She sounds like an honest, capable, sincere, Muslim woman. Distinguishing, as she does, between Islam as a religion, and Islamist politics, there is no need for all of us to admire each and every tenet of her faith. We only have to honor her right to practice it, and insist that those tenets will not become civil or criminal law in this country.
She needs to learn a little more history on Islamic-Jewish relations. Depending on which century you pick, they were sometimes bosom buddies, and Jews certainly found most of the caliphates more hospitable than Christian Europe.
Khaybar was both a battle and a massacre, although everyone wasn't killed, but it was a political battle with a potential military weak point, ruthlessly pursued. That precedent did not prevent either the Rashidun or the Ummayad caliphs from accepting Jewish aid against the Byzantines and the Visigoths, and providing Jews and honored place in the caliphate. THAT precedent didn't stop the Almohades and some of the Fatamids from promoting a mystical anti-Semitism.
Dhimmitude is a political status, relevant to comparing the caliphate to the Byzantine and Sassanid empires. It has nothing to do with the religious precepts inherent to Islam -- particularly among those who agree that Islam is not to be permitted status us a political power, any more than the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Buddhist or Hindu faiths are.
Post a Comment