The Council of Islamic Ideology quite often receives queries from Muslims in the West. The number of these queries has increased considerably after 9/11. Recently, a Muslim organization in Australia sent a sort of distress call saying that the western media and scholarship are posing some questions about Islam to which Muslim scholars must respond. In fact these questions are not new, but the present context, especially the issue of terrorism has made them extremely problematic. There are two types of Muslim responses; one simply denying them as accusations against Islam and Muslims, and declaring that Islam is a religion of peace, religious freedom and co-existence. The others refer to the historical experience and to those Islamic teachings that do not allow blind trust in the enemies of Islam. The Islamo-phobia voiced in Western media takes advantage of these Muslim responses and challenges the loyalty of Muslims as citizens in the Western countries.

The Organization appealed to the Council to consider the issue seriously and help develop a reasonable Muslim response to this crisis. The Council organized a panel discussion on 26 September 2005 on this subject. The Panelists were Dr. Manzoor Ahmad, Dr. Khalid Alvi and Mr. Mahboob Sada. Dr. Manzoor Ahmad, a member of the Council of Islamic Ideology, is a well-known thinker and philosopher who has studied and taught for several years in UK and USA and has written extensively on the subject. Dr. Alvi, presently the Director General of the Da 'wa Academy, International Islamic University, Islamabad, has worked closely with Muslim communities in UK and has dealt with these issues. Mr. Sada is the Director of Christian Study Centre, Rawalpindi and has been working for Christian Muslim relations for several years. The discussion was mediated by Dr. Muhammad Khalid Masud, whose theoretical work on the issues of migration, minorities and global ethics is well-recognized. Justice Haziqul Khairi, Haji Hanif Tayyib, Mawlana Abdullah Khilji, Justice Rashid Ahmad Jullundhri, Justice Munir Ahmad Mughal, Sayyid Daman Ali Shah, Sayyid Zakir Hussein Shah Silawi, Dr Said Bibi, and Allama Aqeel Turabi, the members of the Council participated in the discussion. Dr. Khakawani, Allama Iqbal University, and Mr. Khalid Rahman, Institute of Policy Studies and others also participated in the discussion.

1. Jihad and the spread of Islam
2. Religious Freedom and Punishment for apostasy
3. The nature of relations with the non-Muslims, legitimacy of treaties between Muslims and non-Muslims, and the issue of the loyalty of Muslims living in non-Muslim countries to their host countries.

Dr. Khalid Alvi
Dr Alvi explained that these questions are not new, but their significance cannot be properly understood without placing them in the specific present global context. Western countries have a special agenda of global hegemony which they believe they have almost completed. They find that the only resistance to their political agenda that remains to be tackled is coming from Muslims. Hence the West is targeting Islam and Muslims on intellectual, social and civilization levels. It is their conviction that as long as Islam exists, Globalization cannot be fully achieved.
Ever since its encounter with Muslims at the time of colonial expansion, Europe experienced a tough cultural and intellectual challenge in Islam. The questions about Islam raised today were in fact raised at that time first. For example, in India, under the British the questions about Jihad and apostasy were the subjects of debate. There were Muslims like Sir Syed, Chiragh Ali and others who called for a reinterpretation of Jihad. Similarly, the question of death apostasy has been continuously debated. In Pakistan, Mawlana Mawdudi, Justice S A Rahman and others have analyzed the issue from diverse perspectives. The debate on these and similar issues continues because differences exist among Muslims on to the nature of paradigm to be adopted for interpretation. Should it be Islamic or secular? The Western paradigm is secular. The Islamic paradigm is defined by Islamic tradition. No solution is possible outside this paradigm.

Having explained his fundamental principle and paradigm, Dr. Alvi, proceeded to highlight certain facts from Islamic history to explain the Islamic position on these issues.

Islam is the first and only religion that defined its position about other religions clearly. It declared Islam to be the foundation of Islamic social system. The Prophet Muhammad, peace be on him, formed the principle of distinction and the criterion of Islamic society. The Qur'an explains in detail in the Chapter Bayyina that what separates Muslims from the idol worshippers, the non-believers and the People of the Book is the belief in the Prophesy of Muhammad. The Muslim community was based on this distinction and thus is described as a community of Call (da 'wa) for the Prophesy of Muhammad.

As a missionary, a society finds itself in either of the following two situations: first where the majority denies the call, second where only a minority is resisting the call. Therefore, the relationship with the deniers (non-Muslims) creates either of the two situations: the situation of weakness, where the deniers form majority, and the situation of Muslim dominance. From this perspective, Muslims can be defined either a majority or a minority community. The non-Muslims are similarly either peace seekers or aggressors. Historically, all missionary movements encounter aggressive denial by the leaders of the community. The Qur'an calls this aggressive political opposition al-mala', and they are never seekers of peace. Islam's experience was not different. The Quresh opposition was political and aggressive. One can speak of peace and friendship with ordinary non-Muslim population, but not with the aggressive enemies. They only understand the language of war and power, as that is their practice.

Now to answer the question posted by the subject of the panel discussion, looking at the situation as explained above, the relationship between Muslims and others are defined in two ways: the situation of weakness and the situation of dominance. When Muslims are weak, they must define their relationship with others in view of three values: call for Islam, patience and perseverance, and to live without trespassing the limits set by the host society. In other words, Muslims must continue their mission for Islam, must not violate the laws of the country where they live, and should face hardship with patience. On the other hand, when in power, the Muslims must abide by the values of Tolerance and Freedom of expression. It is a fact that Muslims in the past as well at present have been more tolerant of others than any other religious tradition. The European nations, as vanguards of enlightenment and modernity, have practiced unprecedented intolerance during their colonial period. Regarding the principle of freedom of expression, including freedom of religion, Islamic law allows this freedom in accordance with the legal status of a non-Muslim in a Muslim state. Muslim jurists defined this legal status on the basis of the nature of existance of a non-Muslim community under the rule of Islam. Their rights differed in the case of conquest and treaty. There could be a third type of status where the non-Muslim community is neither conquered, nor under a treaty. Rights in this third type cannot be the same as in the case of conquest and treaty. Islam expects reciprocal treatment from non-Muslim states. Muslim in the West must enjoy the same freedom as the non-Muslims enjoy in the Muslim countries.

Regarding the Muslims in Britain, one must understand the situation of Muslim youth in that country. The efforts to assimilate Muslims in the British society were never free from racial discrimination, contempt, bigotry and hate. The question of identity became crucial to the Muslim youth. They realized that they had no place in a society based on secular paradigm. Racial prejudice led to a discriminatory treatment of young Muslims. The police kept record of every young Muslim; they were not allowed basic human rights as enjoyed by others. Consequently, Muslim youth was systematically radicalized. The more they sought their own identity the more they were isolated by the establishment. Now as a minority, Muslims have a right to religious freedom, religious identity and to follow their personal religious laws. This should never be termed as disloyalty.The question of death penalty for apostasy and establishment of friendship between Muslims and others needs further study. Present situation has added some details to the doctrines of the Muslim jurists. They require further discussion.

Dr. Alvi offered his own analysis on these two issues. Regarding the question of capital punishment for apostasy, he suggested that a distinction must be maintained between a silent conversion and conversion as an act of aggression. Regarding the issue of relationship, a distinction is to be made between personal and state relations. Treaties cannot be based on mistrust. Regarding the issue of loyalty, he maintained that Muslims as citizens in Non-Muslim countries are living under a pact and as Muslims they are bound to abide by their pacts. He concluded that all pacts and relations are governed in Islam by the paradigm of loyalty to God and the Prophet, and no relationship is legitimate if based on a violation of this paradigm.

Dr Manzoor Ahmad
Dr. Manzoor Ahmad began by saying that the purpose of this panel discussion was to explore these questions. The panel was not to find arguments to defend Islam against these questions. It was in fact an opportunity for examining our situation. Defensive arguments reduce one's position to apologies. It leaves no space for dialogue. One of the basic requirements for dialogue is that both parties are mentally prepared to review their positions. The issues under discussion are real life issues. They cannot be reduced to abstract principles and doctrines. Humans do not live by general laws and principles.For instance, take the issue of religious freedom. One cannot simply state it in general terms. One needs to relate it to the practice. Freedom of religion relates as much to the treatment of the followers of one religion with others as it has to do with how within one religious tradition the followers treat each other. If Muslims expect others to convert to their religion, they must allow this freedom of conversion to Muslims. That is why the issue of apostasy continues to be debated. It is still crying for analysis in simple terms. Political solutions that define freedom for Muslims differently than for non-Muslims are no longer feasible. How can we speak of rights for Muslims in non-Muslim societies, if we cannot allow the same rights to non-Muslims in our societies?

The question of freedom within a religious tradition is even more complex. Who has the right and authority to decide about the faith of a Muslim? What is the legitimacy of a fatwa of kufr against a Muslim? These Fatawa are generally about the details of a certain creed, not about the basic articles of faith. These details are a matter of debate where opinions may differ. How can one be stigmatized as unbeliever on these bases? These are matters for a serious scholarly discussion.

These and other doctrines are based on a paradigm that has become debatable. When we say Islamic paradigm, we must be aware that in Islamic thought there are multiple Islamic paradigms, the paradigm of theology, Ash'ari paradigm, Mu'tazili paradigm, philosophers paradigms. In Islamic law also we have different paradigms among the schools of law. One of these paradigms is that of Qiyas, which is deductive and analogical. The weakness of this paradigm is that it supposes each and every text of the Qur'an and Sunna to be a valid basis of Qiyas, but in fact it is the jurist who selects this text to serve as a basis for Qiyas. That opens the debate about how to determine the meanings of the selected text and who determines that meaning.

Islamic thought is rich with diverse paradigms; it is for the Muslims today to study these paradigms and to develop new paradigms to respond to the current issues. Muslim scholars in the past have been doing the same and they would never expect us to adhere strictly to their paradigms.

Dr. Mahboob Sada
Mahboob Sada was distressed by the fact that the twenty first century was welcomed allover the globe as a century of peace but it ushered in with extremely horrible disasters. There are more than one hundred countries suffering from wars, even devastated by cold wars. Humanity is the victim. The agonizing irony is that some of the people are seeking justifications for this terror and hate. Some feel satisfied to call it a clash of civilizations; others term it a war of vested interests. These justifications sanctify the spirit of revenge, intolerance and impatience. No religion ever teaches such values, but in practice these values are forgotten.

It is incumbent on us to examine the causes that make us forget theses values. We have to look at the textbooks in our schools. Instead of stories about religious tolerance these textbooks focus on other details. The common man, even in Britain, does not believe that Muslims are terrorists. The question is what happened.

It is a duty of the Council to analyze what went wrong. It should prepare literature that promotes tolerance and forbearance. Social change requires serious thinking and action. Our family system is under stress; it suffers from a sense of insecurity. Even parent and children do not seem to be ireating each other with tolerance and respect.

Islam can certainly play a positive role. Islam stands for human dignity, regard for other religions and respect for human beings.

Dr. Baqir Khakawani agreed with Dr. Alvi's idea of distinction between the position of dominance and weakness. He explained that today Muslims are not in a dominant position, even in Muslim countries. Islam does not regulate their lives. Islam is marginalized. The fact that Islam is not a personal religion and does not separate worldly matters from religion is forgotten in a secular paradigm.

Justice Haziqul Khairi, a member of the Council, called for a pragmatic approach. There is no doubt that the present world is unipolar. But we cannot argue that we should relate with others on the basis of our weak and dominant positions. Would it be justified if Pakistan if dominant behaved in the same manner as the US is behaving? He agreed with Dr. Alvi that the situation demands pragmatic attitude. Sir Syed and Iqbal, the two great leaders of Muslim community, adopted pragmatism in their relations with the British. That served Muslim interest better than confrontation could. Muslims are living today in a global world. They are signatories to Human rights charter. They must abide by this charter as they should abide by their constitution. Pakistani constitution allows religious freedom. Muslims have freedom to preach their religion in other countries. Consequently we find that Islam is spreading rapidly in the West.

Dr. Shagufta Umar, International Islamic University, Islamabad, appreciated the organization of the panel discussion. She stressed the need for a more focused study of problems Muslims in the West, looking at the actual laws that govern them. We need to formulate the regulating principles of relationship consequent upon that study.

Haji Haneef Tayyib, a member of the Council suggested that panel discussions of this type need to be held in other cities in Pakistan. More and more religious scholars should be involved in such discussions. We should aim at a thorough discussion of these issues so that clear positions emerge on these questions. Once clear formulations have been made those should be made part of the syllabus. Today Islam and Muslims are in a very critical position. It is the dominant nations who are war mongering. They are manufacturing weapons. They are forcing wars on other nations. And yet it is Islam and Muslims who are blamed for terror and intolerance.

CONCLUSION
The three panelists concluded the discussion with three perspectives on the issues. Dr Alvi took a political perspective and explained that present day Muslims are living in a hostile environment which only aims to eliminate their religion and culture because it is the main hindrance to Globalism. He clarified that Islam provides a comprehensive system of defining relations with others. At present Muslims are in a minority and weak position. They should admit this position and should base their relations on the principles of tolerance and should not violate the laws of their host countries.

Dr. Manzoor Ahmad spoke from the perspective of strategy. He viewed the present situation as a global change that requires Muslims to seek new paradigms. Such an effort is Islamically justified because Muslims have been developing new paradigms to deal with new situations. He particularly stressed the weakness of the Qiyas paradigm that limits the perception of the problem, narrows the range of choices and ignores the possibility of a positive outlook.

Dr. Mahboob Sada stressed the social perspective. He argued that Islam provides a positive model for relationship based on human dignity with others in this globalized world. Muslims may define their dealings with others on the principle of respect and mutual peace.