Pamela K. Taylor
Co-founder, Muslims for Progressive Values

Pamela K. Taylor

Taylor is co-founder of Muslims for Progressive Values, former director of the Islamic Writers Alliance and strong supporter of the woman imam movement. She blogs at A Modern Muslim

 ALL POSTS

An Example of How Islam Can Help Afghanistan

Q: Eight years after the U.S. attacked Afghanistan, fighting continues. Religious extremists in the Taliban and al-Qaeda retain significant power there. What is our moral responsibility to the people of Afghanistan? If religion is part of the problem there, how can it be part of the solution?

The Taliban are famous for their strict religious interpretations and their totalitarian style of government. They believe that by "helping" others to stay on the straight and narrow path of what they judge to be Islamic requirements they are saving their neighbors, both in this world and in the next. This vision of Islam -- narrow, and often brutal, controlling, intolerant -- has unfortunately become associated in the West with Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan.

An alternative vision of what Islam means when it says to help your neighbors can be found in Abdul Sattar Edhi, who founded the Edhi Trust. Edhi's motto is "Live and Help Live." He makes no distinction between people on the basis of religion, ethnicity, nationality, or ability, extending a helping hand to all in need. His understanding of Islam is tolerant and expansive, focused on helping those who are in most dire need live happier, healthier lives.

Edhi started his foundation with a mere $55 investment in 1951. Today,
the Edhi Trust runs some 300 centers across Pakistan, providing medical aid, family planning and maternity services, services for the mentally ill, for refugees, for the physically handicapped, for the destitute, adoption services for abandoned infants, and emergency relief assistance. They are one of the only relief organizations in the region to own air ambulances, which allows them quick access to even the most remote areas of the country.

Like the Taliban, Edhi lives a simple life, dressing in cotton clothes, making his home in a small apartment. He spends his free time in his centers sharing meals with the people he is helping.

The Edhi Trust has just expanded operations into Afghanistan. One can only hope that more Afghanis turn toward his caring, tolerant, service oriented vision of Islam, and away from narrow, punitive vision of God and religion.

As for the U.S. role in Afghanistan... we will no doubt make far more strides toward democracy, personal dignity, and basic civil and human rights for Afghani citizens, by helping people like Edhi than we will fighting the Taliban with attendant civilian casualties to cause outrage against us, or by propping up corrupt regimes that include all the old warlords that had been terrorizing the Afghani people, and who were the catalyst that spurred the growth of the Taliban.

By Pamela K. Taylor  |  October 7, 2009; 8:51 AM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Religion Must Be Part of Afghan Solution | Next: Our Mistakes Haunt Us In Afghanistan

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



And this, you see, is the intent of the second rhetorical question: when do you know that you are on the wrong side of Truth v doctrine? If we can answer this, then we can speak truth to the ideologues and say, based on this criteria for knowing that one is on the wrong side, you and I are on the wrong side.

Proposed solutions:

My book is better than your book
My god's name is better than you god's name
My economic success proves I am better
My political success proves I am better
I look cuter than you so I am better
etc etc.
Also failed approaches
We are all the same.
All ideologies are essentially the same.
We can't talk about it because it is a matter of faith.
etc etc.

Included in this question, though, is that is there only one way to know, only one way to be, only one way to live or is the diversity of solutions itself a solution.

I believe the latter, but that has implications to the older ways - promote diversity not mono-ideology.

hariaum

Posted by: Navin1 | October 9, 2009 3:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

What goes on in any "religious" authoritarian ecomonic/political system has nothing to do the tenets of any religion. The Taliban uses Islam as an cover for their sins of power, greed, and inhumanity. This is very much the same in Jewish, Hindu, and Christian authoritarian systems. Other "religions" are used in secular authoritarian systems such as fascism, racism, etc. One truely religious person or program will not prevail against the Taliban, for they will simply interpret their actions as against the law and stop it. Sorry, but goodness will not prevail against such strong evil.

Posted by: schaeffz | October 9, 2009 1:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Montedoro, there are multiple interpretations of the Shariah... historically there have been hundreds of different schools of thought; currently there are four predominant Sunni schools of thought and several Shi'a school of thought as well. So to say that everyone agrees with Talibani interpretation of what the shariah says is simply wrong. A lot of Taliban positions have come under fire from traditionalist Muslim scholars... everything from their denial of education to young girls, restrictions on medical services to women, dress requirements for both men and women, and so on. Perhaps more important, a wide swathe of Muslims are challenging the predominant schools of thought in Sunni Islam (and I'm sure there is a correspondent challenge to the schools of Shi'i Islam). Various classical rulings are being challenged as unsound and unIslamic.

Furthermore, while the idea of theocracy is currently popular in the Muslim world, it certainly has not always been that way, nor shall it always be that way. Again, the vast majority of Muslims want religious freedom (according to a recent Gallup poll and reported in Who Speaks for Islam, by Dalia Mogahed and John Esposito).

So no, I do not think the taliban represent "true" Islam, or even the majority of Muslims opinion of what "true" Islam is.

Posted by: momtotsan | October 9, 2009 9:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I stated a rhetorical question. My premise is that all people are essentially equal. There are differences between persons, but I do not believe the human race can be divided into this or that group as persons. On the other hand, the ideology they hold can and should be judged. Hindus and muslims are equal as persons but their ideology distinguishes them.

My rhetorical question is how does one know. There are so many people that say my religion is defined by that good person, not the many people that support evil. There are those that say that your religion is bad because of the few evil and not represented by the many who do good. Thus this article above seems to say we should see islam as a peaceful religion because of this one man. I believe religions should be judged by their stated ideology and the results of those ideologies on the behavior of its followers. The first reflects the religion's construct of satva and the latter to the religion's construct of karma. Perceptions without data are too unreliable to rely on to seek the truth.

I do have prejudice, but I try to focus it on ideas not persons.

So the rhetorical question stands. How does one know? Also, another rhetorical question of interest to me, how does one know if one is a nazi - not a nazi in name but simply on the wrong side of morality but so indoctrinated that you can't tell.

hariaum

Posted by: Navin1 | October 8, 2009 11:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

You write: "The Taliban are famous for their strict religious interpretations and their totalitarian style of government." Actually, the Taliban are famous for their strict application of Shariah law, not "interpretation". As a belief system based on the Koran and the sayings of Muhammad, Islam is pretty well fixed, and has been so for over a thousand years. We do not see competing interpretations of Islamic doctrines (with the exception of the Sunni/Shia split). What we see is a more strict or less strict adherence to Islamic doctrine. This may sound like a fine point, but it is crucial. It means that the vast majority of Moslems agree with the Taliban on what the doctrine is. They just don't like it, and don't apply it in their daily lives. But, they have a very difficult time arguing that the Taliban are theologically wrong. That is why the Taliban have so much support among the Afghan and Pakistani populations. They all want shariah. It is only a question of how much.

Posted by: Montedoro | October 8, 2009 8:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hello Navin,

"So who defines islam. The one man that does good for his fellow muslims, or the many that kill off the infidels?"

You betray your prejudices more and more. How is it that there is only "one man" that does good, and yet there are "the many that kill off infidels"? Do you not count the countless that are peaceful and non-violent muslims, or do they not count because they make no news.

You speak of Hindu religions as if they are all wise and peaceloving. Yet you do not mention the countless and growing nationalists that nurture and feed anti-islamist sentiment, and act violently against them.

Islam, like anything, is defined by the perceptions of those viewing it. This is powerfully affected by media messages. And so you become a voice of it, speaking of the one good muslim and the many bad ones.

Our karmas bring about our lifes experiences. You know this if you follow your religion, as you have said in these forums. So they bring you to face either your good muslim or your bad one. I suspect that your path has brought you to the dark side, navin...

hariuam

Posted by: justillthennow | October 8, 2009 12:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

So who defines islam. The one man that does good for his fellow muslims, or the many that kill off the infidels? If a man who says he acts because of islam is good, you say this is the real islam, if a man who says he acts because of islam is bad, you say this is hijacked islam. How does the infidel tell if standing before him today and then in the next generation is the good islamist (doing the good that is in his heart) or the bad (doing good to trap you)?

hariuam

Posted by: Navin1 | October 8, 2009 1:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment

P. K. T.:

Ye saith, "... vision of Islam --.. has unfortunately become associated in the West with Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan ..."

Note: ALEXander The great [pbuh] was/is the "Son Of Man!"!

Fact: Via "IT" it is "HE" [Alex, Lover Of ZEUZ Dad/Mom et al] whom conquored AFGHANSTAN 300 BC; because ISLAM was not Available as a Abe-Based-Mono?-Gods-System.

AfghaNS worshiped [and FEARED] JINN! KALI! DURGA! SATAN! DEVIL etc.. duribf Pre-Ekectric & [ironically] Pre-Atomic Folks!

Soo, Now; SUDDENLY EX-PAGANs, Idols Worshipers, hath got 'AL - LAH' , a nice 'Sounding-Name' as if exclusively for their (not OUR) 'ALLAH' god system ,stolen from the Israelites which was common Coleqqual for Yid's to hath sayth/speak in JER/US-A-LEM [i.e., Jesus Times; pre-islamic], "Ya Ala"!

Interesting: Now "JUDEO-abe-ISLAM had , as The-UMMAH (Of Al Islam on Earth) borrowed "IT" [Israelite Sabras 'Ya"ALLAH" pre-islamic expression as if now theirs {Allah/GOD...};

Example: like also now suddenly singing/yelling their "HALLAL" is same or better than their Hallal/meaning"KOSHER" but not anymore? et al...???

PS: Righteous Sweet America {& Friendly's} , needs NOT/NO be Mr./Ms. Nice Guy anymore!

Hark America! NAPALM 'ALL/EVERY/ANY their "Opium-Fields" For next Three-3 Years; which the Taliban Agents Tricles Here [U.S.] & Then Satanically Kills Ye Kids HERE & destroys Family Lives [Happiness Wreckers]!!! Worse than a Human Terrorist per se! Soo

Bomb; Before 'Harvist' and during Season; Justly keep NAPALMING, NAPALMING their [Opiut] "Killer-Fields" for Cash Potentials Globally for The "RELIGIO-MAFIAOSO's [international] hiding in Mosques & Caves etc..

Note: BIN LADEN IS [Really] DEAd! HALALLUYA!

Posted by: bloglady | October 7, 2009 8:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company