| |
Jawaid Iqbal, left, and Syed Rahimuddin, center, urge Shahan Zaidi to support the lawsuit against the leaders of the Islamic Center of Northridge. The suit accuses mosque leaders of violating California laws governing nonprofit board elections, open membership and financial transparency. (Bret Hartman, For The Times / January 31, 2011)
On a Friday afternoon in October, men in black security T-shirts and matching cargo pants roamed the parking lot and perimeter of the Islamic Center of Northridge as worshipers arrived for weekly prayers.
Several Los Angeles Police Department patrol cars were parked nearby as officers kept a watchful eye on a demonstration out front. About 30 men yelled and held up signs. One waved a small American flag as another denounced the mosque’s religious leader as a devil.
Worshipers, looking uncomfortable, hurried past and into the building.
It’s a scene reminiscent of others across the country where new and existing mosques have faced heated opposition in recent months. But the protests at the Islamic Center’s main mosque in Granada Hills are different, not demonstrations by anti-Islamic groups but a struggle between rival Muslim groups over control of the institution.
The two sides, each made up mainly of Pakistani and Afghan immigrants, are battling in court over leadership elections and greater openness at the Granada Hills mosque and an older satellite center in Northridge. The dispute has taken on an ugly, ethnically charged tone, including heated rhetoric about which group is more American in dress, accent and behavior.
The parties have traded accusations of radicalism as each side tries to discredit the other, sometimes using comparisons and accusations that American Muslims are more accustomed to hearing from critics outside their communities.
In one lawsuit, a dissident group accuses the mosque leaders of methods that “resemble Taliban-style tactics one might presume to exist only outside the boundaries of the United States.”
The suit also quotes a threatening, profane voicemail message it says was left for one of the plaintiffs, in which the caller allegedly said, “Don’t
Islam basically, is a secular religion which means it allows freedom to other religions under its canopy. Secularism is neither atheism nor socialism. It is a concept that stands for freedom to all the religions and denominations to practice their faith and traditions. The society and the Islamic government in Spain were secular as Christians, Jews and Muslims were treated as equal citizens. They were free to pursue their religious obligations without any let or hindrance from the state or the society.
There exists indisputable convergence between Islam and secularism on such splendid values as fundamental rights, equality, Social justice, freedom of expression and tolerance. Secularism and Islam both support capitalism. Secularism is defined as the political concept of bourgeois democracies. It is primarily not an economic concept. Secularism has no objection if the factories, land and banks etc are owned by a few individuals or by the state.
Two episodes from the life of the second caliph of Islam Hazrat Umar amply illustrate the close interconnection between Islam and secularism in matters relating to the freedom of expression. One was the explanation of caliph to the objection of a Muslim about the longer size of his apparel than given to others from the war booty.
The second is about the esteem for other religions shown by Caliph Umar when during his visit to Jerusalem (637 A. D.), he declined to pray inside the Christians
The Muslims were bloodthirsty and treacherous. They conducted a sneak attack against the French army and slaughtered every single soldier, 20,000 in all. More than 1,000 years ago, in the mountain passes of Spain, the Muslim horde cut down the finest soldiers in Charlemagne’s command, including his brave nephew Roland. Then, according to the famous poem that immortalized the tragedy, Charlemagne exacted his revenge by routing the entire Muslim army.
