You're Being Lied To

In the Presidential debate this evening, John Kerry paraphrased this quote from Richard Clarke's book Against All Enemies:

"Having been attacked by al-Qaeda, for us now to go bombing Iraq in response would be like our invading Mexico after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor."

Ouch! It seems to me that the Bush Administration continues to be less than candid about its actions leading up to the war on Iraq. I think a lot of people need to be reminded that Bush and his cronies didn't say they thought Saddam Hussein had WMD, rather they said that they had "irrefutable evidence" that he did—and that they knew right were to find them. I wonder why the Kerry-Edwards campaign isn't showing those sound bytes in their campaign ads, since I'm sure Michael Moore has a few of them on hand. On top of the lies about WMD (or lack thereof), the Bush Administration has continued to dishonestly link the invasion of Iraq with the so-called "War on Terror". I can't believe that more people aren't aware that the biggest piece of so-called evidence that the Bush Administration employed in order to link Saddam Hussein with al-Qaeda was a complete sham. In mentioning that they had evidence that al-Qaeda was operating in Iraq, they usually (but not always) failed to mention that the areas that it was operating in were the autonomous Kurdish regions that were not under the control of Saddam Hussein. So even though al-Qaeda was technically "in Iraq", it had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein - and this is based on the information that the Bush Administration put forward. This, quite simply, was a gross misportrayal of information in order to convince the American people that al-Qaeda had ties to Saddam Hussein. This was a willful and devious distortion of the facts in order to mislead. In short, it was pure propaganda. The scary part about this isn't that they're lying to us, since all governments lie, but how easily they're duping large portions of the American public. America was founded on the belief that citizens should be critical of their government, especially when it's a strong Federal government. These days, however, "patriotism" in the minds of a lot of people just means waving the flag and going along with the government regardless of how ill-conceived their policies might be. Unfortunately, ever since the buildup to the invasion of Iraq, the performance of the American press has bordered on dereliction of duty. As someone once said, the best type of censorship is being afraid to speak the truth. It seems that the networks clearly realize that their ratings stay higher if they just play softball with the Bush Administration, since doing otherwise would seem un-patriotic to many Americans—and ratings is what it's all about. It's no longer about being critical and investigating the truth in order to enable the citizens of the republic to make informed political decisions. If this was the case, the Bush Administration would be in big trouble. Actually, the truth is already out there for anyone who is willing to do a little bit of reading and research. Indeed, the arguments of the Bush Admistration are so vacuous and their propaganda so shoddy, I really can't see how a reasonably intelligent person who takes a bit of time to investigate the facts and analyze the situation can't see through the smoke screen. I'm starting to conclude that many people out there just don't want to see. Many, if not most, of them seem to think that they're getting a semblance of the truth by watching FoxNews or CNN. Believe me, if you think the corporate news networks are telling you what's really going on, then you really don't know what's going on. A typical response that I receive after explaining the above incongruencies to people is, “So you support Saddam Hussein?” or “So you agree with al-Qaeda?” What a bunch of morons. Sorry, but I don’t know any other way to put it.

Remember this on Election Day: "If voting really changed anything, they'd make it illegal."

State Terrorism v. Vigilante Terrorism

Here are some insightful thoughts from a good friend of mine who is a first year law student. We expect to hear more great things from him in the future, insha'llah:

The Moral Culpability of State Terrorism v. Vigilante Terrorism on the Basis of Mens Rea Intent:

"I find it interesting that many "conservatives" are keen to prosecute and punish domestic and international capital offenders (many of whom happen to be people of color) by adopting relatively inflexible (albeit fair) mens rea conditions. However, when defending abusive state authority suddenly the most lenient and accommodating mens rea standards are applied to government officials and their henchmen. These right-wing sycophants desperately seek to discover the "humanitarian motives" of their government officials by seeking to ascertain their "intent", which is presumably lodged in the deepest recesses of their sub-conscious. Why the double standard? Why is every conceivable excuse and "defense" put forward by commissars defending abusive state authority and virtually no excuse or defense put forward for alleged capital offenders who are being tried by the State, most of whom happen to be black? This sort of racist bigotry, jingoism and hypocrisy should be exposed for what it is. As a general rule I believe the following elementary moral truism ought to be universally applied to individuals and state governments: One assumes moral/legal responsibility for the actual and foreseeable consequences of his or her actions. An American/Israeli/Pakistani/Russian/Syrian jet bomber that fires missiles into a densely populated refugee camp ought to be held responsible for the murder of any "non-combatants" killed even if the "intent" was only to kill an eighty year old paraplegic terrorist leader. Collateral damage is merely a euphemism for reckless murder, notwithstanding the free-thinking mental acrobatics and philosophical gymnastics of the Alan Dershowtiz's of the world. I plan to adduce massive amounts of evidence to expose this sort of criminal sophistry."

Criminal sophistry indeed. As long as the innocent people doing the dying have been sufficiently dehumanized by the mass media, then killing them seems to be no big deal to most Americans. Speaking of "mental acrobatics", "philosophical gymnastics" and Alan Dershowtiz, please take the time to read the THE DERSHOWITZ HOAX. Even though I was already aware of many of the antics of Alan Dershowitz, I was rather surprised how slimy he really is and how low he would stoop. In this collection of articles, Norman Finkelstein completely dismantles Dershowitz and exposes him as the plagiarist that he is.

"Militants" & "Reformists" - Flip Sides of the Same Coin

My thought for the day:

"I’d like to mention something that I think many of those who advocate a “reformation” of Islam, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, fail to understand. This is the simple fact that the “liberal” and “reformed” Islam which they advocate actually follows the same basic methodology of Osama Bin Laden and other militants. This is because they both adhere to a “Do-It-Yourself” and “Pick-and-Choose” approach to the religious texts of Islam which casts aside about 1,400 years of understanding and interpretation by remarkable and rightly-guided Muslim scholars. Once this approach is accepted, textual interpretation tends to head wherever one already wants to go—whether the Reformist Left of Ziauddin Sardar or the Militant Right of Osama Bin Ladin. Yes, these two modernist approaches to the religion of Islam are really flip sides of the same coin."

Originally posted in my Ziauddin Sardar, C. S. Lewis and “Mere Islam” blog entry.

Why does Ann Coulter think that Jesus Christ smelled bad?

I wrote this several months ago in response to Ann Coulter's column entitled The passion of the liberal:

---

I think the most ironic thing about Ann Coulter's implication that Muslims "smell bad" (i.e. "...kill everyone who doesn't smell bad...") is that it was made in regards to a movie which contained quite a number of sweaty, dirty, olive-skinned Middle Easterners wearing robes and head scarves—one of whom was playing the role of Ann's own "Lord and Savior Jesus Christ". An obvious conclusion that can be drawn from this is that if Ann Coulter could ever be submitted to a double-blind smell test, which contained her stereotypical Muslim and Jesus Christ, she would conclude that Jesus Christ smells bad, since he too was an olive-skinned, dark-haired Middle Easterner speaking a guttural Semitic language.

Well I guess it's pretty clear that Ann didn't realize the implications of her racist diatribe. It seems that columnists who gained their fame by spewing hate and ideological bias rather than insightful thought tend to get in a lot of trouble—and Ann certainly has a knack for doing that. I'd just love to know which Muslims Ann thinks "smell bad". Is it the white Muslims, the black Muslims, the Asian Muslims or only the Arab Muslims—which make up only about 15% of the world's Muslim population? If she picks one or more of these ethnic groups, then is she willing to explain why she should not be labeled a racist? If she picks all of them, well then, I guess she must "smell bad" along with all of the Caucasians that happen to be Muslim (and there are quite a number of them). The fact that Ann's logic stinks doesn't count in this regard. Anyway, Ann's hateful statement, along with other hateful statements that she's made, only make it obvious that she still perceives adherence to the religion of Islam in racist terms. She obviously doesn't get the idea that Islam is a world religion which, like Christianity, embraces peoples of all ethnic groups and races. I'd be willing to guess that Ann might be surprised to know that in spite of the blonde-haired and blue-eyed Jesus that is shown in some Hollywood movies, and some Bibles as well, Christianity is not just a white man's religion—even though some who aren't much further right than Ann would seemingly like to have it that way.

In her The passion of the liberal column, Ann remains true to form in exposing both her ignorance of history and of religion. Her knowledge, if you can call it that, seems to be based on popular myths and media propaganda rather than any respectable scholarly sources. For example, the idea to "kill everyone" was an idea that the Old Testament brought to the Middle East long before Muslims showed up. I wonder if Ann has ever read the Old Testament? Hasn't Ann Coulter ever heard of the Crusades? As far as I know, the only religious text which contains a story of a God-approved murder-suicide of civilians is the story of Samson in the Bible (Judges 16:23-30). Even in recent times, the largest massacre of civilians in the Middle East was carried out by Philangist Meronite Christians in Lebanon (with Israeli assistance, of course). This more than proves my case, since Ann didn't present any evidence to support hers. In regards to religions who like to "kill everyone", dare I mention the fact that the Hutus and Tutsis, who savagely massacred each other several years ago, were overwhelmingly Christians who lived in a country which contained Africa's highest percentage of Christians? Need I mention the blood thirsty Serbs who used a three-fingered Trinitarian salute when massacring tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslims?

Needless to say, and this might stretch Ann's ability to reason to the limit, if the Muslims had "killed everyone" when they conquered the Middle East, the Lebanese Christians who massacred about 1,800 Palestinians back in 1982 would not even have existed. Perhaps Ann would enjoy reading what happened to non-Christians and non-Christian religions that refused to accept Christianity back during the Dark Ages. It might ease her conscious to know that these forced conversions and massacres were sometimes based on St. Augustine's understanding of Luke 14:23 "...compel them to come in, that my house may be filled". Ultimately, however, I don't base my conclusions on Jesus, his teachings or the beliefs of the majority of Christians on the actions of a few seemingly misguided and fanatical Christians. Conservatives please take note that if Ann was honest enough to adhere to the same approach in regards to Islam, this wouldn't make her a liberal. Rather it would simply make her intellectually honest. Don't hold your breath…

Even Ann's crassly worded summary of Jesus' message is off the mark—and off of Matthew too. When asked directly how to achieve eternal life, Jesus—being the great teacher that he was—gave a rather clear and unambiguous answer: Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as you love yourself (Matthew 19:16). No need for bloody atoning deaths and triune Godheads, but rather the simple Semitic monotheism of Abraham. Likewise, those lofty and wise words of Jesus are a pretty good summary of the teachings of Islam. Ann might be able to see this if she could just stop being so hateful and bigoted for just a second or two. She seems as full of bigotry, rage and distorted thinking as the fanatical militants that she seemingly loves to hate. It's disturbing to know that Ann resorts to four letter words even when it comes to explaining the message of Jesus. Is nothing sacred anymore? Seemingly not to Ann.

In spite of all of these shortcomings, I think the most noteworthy part of Ann's recent column is her selective use of verses from the Bible and Qur'an. Nothing shows her intellectual dishonestly, double standards and shallow intellect more than this. Is Ann completely unaware of some of the verses of the Bible, including the New Testament, that have been used to inspire violence? Does she think that it's intellectually honest to take a portion of a verse, such as "slay the enemy where you find him", without knowing at least a little something about it's context, meaning and understanding amongst mainstream Muslims? Since this would involve Ann Coulter reading a book or article about Islam that wasn't written by a hate-filled ideologue bigot, I guess we can discount that as an option. The fact that Ann doesn't seem to realize that verses from the Bible can be, and have been, used and abused as well just begs the question: is she just pathetically ignorant or a complete hypocrite?

By the way, Ann's one attempt in her column to actually provide a reference for one of her assertions was, unsurprisingly, incorrect. Indeed, the chapter and verse numerical reference that she gave for the Qur'anic verse was off by quite a few numbers. See cited "Surah 9:92" even though that's not the verse she quoted. So not only did Ann mess up the major theme of her column, it seems that she dorked up the one reference as well! It seems rather ironic that such a person would have the nerve to accuse Liberals of sloppy thinking and intellectual dishonestly.

Be careful Ann, you might learn something. When I first heard that Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ was going to be in Latin and Aramaic, I was optimistic. I was hoping that it might make it clear that the Aramaic word (Alaha) that Jesus Christ used for "God" is quite similar to the Arabic word (Allah) for "God" that Muslims often use, since they both have Semitic origins. I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know how clearly the Aramaic word "Alaha" (God) is spoken. However, if this linguistic detail was in any way made clear, Ann Coulter, who has seemingly seen the film, completely missed it. Based on what I've read, Ann Coulter remains painfully misinformed about both Jesus, Islam and the Middle East—and she seemingly wants to stay that way. Dealing with the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, not King James English, and the word he used for God was "Alaha" just might be too much for Ann. Indeed, this Aramaic word obviously sounds more similar to that word that Muslims use for God than the word in the English language. I mention this lest some forget that Judaism, Christianity and Islam all came from the "smell bad" Middle East, not from Western Europe.

Using Ann's logic, and I use the term loosely, I should conclude that all conservatives are uneducated, bigots with poor reasoning skills just because a few of them display these qualities. Since Ann loves to paint with a broad brush and taint all Muslims due to the actions of a few, she shouldn't be offended when the same broad brush is applied due to the rantings of a single conservative columnist. The simple fact that seemingly respectable publications carry Ann Coulter's child-like and intellectually insulting column is a sad statement on the intellectual state of American conservatives. Even if they're all too dense to pick up on all of Ann's intellectual goofs, they should be sensitive enough to know hate when they read it. Her column in defense of Gibson's film was about as un-Christian in tone as anything any decent person would want to read. This should come as no surprise, however, since the xenophobic neo-Imperialist right that Ann Coulter supports has more in common with the arrogant self-righteousness of Pontius Pilate and Imperial Rome than the humble, austere and compassionate Middle Eastern Semitic monotheism of Jesus Christ. That's obvious to any fair-minded person...

Edward Said's Favorite Poem

The following was the favorite poem of the late Edward Said (1935-2003):

------------------

Waiting for the Barbarians
by Constantine Cavafy (1864-1933), translated by Edmund Keeley

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum?

The barbarians are due here today.

Why isn't anything happening in the senate?
Why do the senators sit there without legislating?

Because the barbarians are coming today.
What laws can the senators make now?
Once the barbarians are here, they'll do the legislating.

Why did our emperor get up so early,
and why is he sitting at the city's main gate
on his throne, in state, wearing the crown?

Because the barbarians are coming today
and the emperor is waiting to receive their leader.
He has even prepared a scroll to give him,
replete with titles, with imposing names.

Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today
wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas?
Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts,
and rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds?
Why are they carrying elegant canes
beautifully worked in silver and gold?

Because the barbarians are coming today
and things like that dazzle the barbarians.

Why don't our distinguished orators come forward as usual
to make their speeches, say what they have to say?

Because the barbarians are coming today
and they're bored by rhetoric and public speaking.

Why this sudden restlessness, this confusion?
(How serious people's faces have become.)
Why are the streets and squares emptying so rapidly,
everyone going home so lost in thought?

Because night has fallen and the barbarians have not come.
And some who have just returned from the border say
there are no barbarians any longer.

And now, what's going to happen to us without barbarians?
They were, those people, a kind of solution.

------------------

Edward Said, a Palestinian Christian intellectual, was the author of Orientalism (1979), Covering Islam (1981), Culture and Imperialism (1993) as well as numerous other books and essays.

Hubris Along the Tigris

Why West is losing
by Eric Margolis
Toronto Sun - Sun, September 12, 2004

It's nice to know that there are a few people out there who know what's going on. Unfortunately, none of them seem to be advising the Bush administration. The article linked to above discusses the recent book Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. Margolis describes the book as a "goldmine of information and brilliant analysis. It breaks taboos and sweeps away the clouds of lies about al-Qaida, Iraq and Afghanistan." Indeed it is. As the article mentions, "America's politicians and media continue to gravely deceive the public about the so-called war on terrorism...Now the definitive book on terrorism has appeared that should be mandatory reading for every thinking person." I agree. The only caveat that I'd add is in regards to the observation that "we are fighting a worldwide Islamic insurgency", which should be understood as the militant modernist heresy that it is. Indeed, the narrow re-interpretation of Islam by modern militant Jihadis flies in the face of over 1,400 years of intellectual tradition and conventional understanding by Muslim scholars. It's our duty as Muslims to make this fact—and that's what it is—clear. If my blog sounds repetitive on this point, well it's meant to be. I have every intention of repeating this often overlooked piece of information until I'm blue in the face, so please get used to it. This militant Jihadi movement is simply a very unfortunate passing trend, much as the Crusades were in Western Christianity. Both of these ill-conceived and bloody movements lasted for decades, were supported by a large portion of the common believers and by select theologians as well. In the final analysis, however, neither of them are representative of the faith, and certainly not the founder of the faith, from which they spawned.

U.S. diverts plane because Cat Stevens on board

U.S. diverts plane because Cat Stevens on board

"The Inner Ring", by C. S. Lewis

Below is a link to a brilliant, insightful and humorous essay by C.S. Lewis which I recommend highly.

"The Inner Ring", by C. S. Lewis

An HTML version of this article can be found here.

Reflect and enjoy...

Sufism and its Potential Role in US Policy

Understanding Sufism and its Potential Role in US Policy
Edited by Zeyno Baran

Reading Between the Lines

Reading between the lines
As Frankfurt prepares to celebrate Arab literature, Brian Whitaker deconstructs US claims of a Middle East 'knowledge deficit'
Monday September 13, 2004 - The Guardian (UK)

Ziauddin Sardar, C. S. Lewis and “Mere Islam”

In regards to my recent BOOKS: Not Just for Idiots and Dummies blog, the following comments were posted:

As-Salaamu 'alaikum, one to avoid is Introducing Islam by Sardar
& Malik, published in the UK by Icon. It contains a lot of the same
liberal modernist propaganda which Z. Sardar has taken to
pushing in papers like the New Statesman and certain other
left-wing newspapers.

By the way, why do you call your blog "Mere Islam"?

I started to respond to these comments and questions in brief, but before I knew it I had several paragraphs which were enough for a full-blown blog entry in front of me. Due to that I decided to post them here.

---

wa 'alaykumu as-salam wa rahmatullah,

Thanks for your comments. I strongly agree with you about the writings of Ziauddin Sardar and that his books should be avoided when introducing Islam to non-Muslims—if not altogether. However, there are many books out there that are probably a lot more dangerous than his. It’s a sad statement on the lack of integrity of many people today that quite a few of the books that are found on the shelves in bookstores, which attempt to “explain Islam” to non-Muslims, are often written by "experts" who are openly hostile to the Islam that they're attempting to explain. The same isn't true of the neighboring shelves of books in the Christianity and Judaica sections, at least not in anything close to the same ratio.

Coincidentally, in regards to Ziauddin Sardar, just the other day a friend sent me a link to an essay by Sardar entitled, Can Islam change? (New Statesman). Even though I've read Ziauddin Sardar's writings before, I was rather surprised how far he goes in this article in disagreeing with agreed upon aspects of Islam and praising the half-baked movement of so-called "Liberal" and "Progressive" Muslims. Some of the examples he gives about what Muslims are doing in the world certainly don’t sound like improvements to me. Rather, they seem to indicate that the Ummah has hit an all time low and we’re in a downward spiral towards the Last Days. In spite of these shortcomings, I think the article made a significant point in demonstrating how dissatisfied many Muslims are with the so-called "conservative" movements. I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with being Islamically conservative, since that's often the safest and most intellectually honest way to go, but it has to be done with wisdom, compassion and a healthy respect for the spiritual and intellectual legacy of Islam. Far too often these days conservativism seems to be synonymous with being a rigid, self-righteous and puritanical numbskull. No doubt, in many places our so-called "Islamic leaders" are not only out of touch with the modern world, but they have a crass political agenda as well. Many of our leaders are not equipped to deal with the myriad of contemporary challenges that we’re facing in an intelligent and wise way that promotes love of God, love of neighbor, tolerance and charity. We’ve got to reject the hate-filled rhetoric that’s coming from too many sectors, bypass those who have their heads buried in the sand, abandon the paranoid conspiracy theories and replace the violent worldly ideology that has permeated our Ummah with an authentic Islamic vision.

The problem, as I see it, is that the outward aspects of Islam have been emphasized at the near complete expense of the inward, which has taken place due to a modernist and puritanical re-interpretation of Islam. Muslims need to tap into their great spiritual legacy and regain their appreciation for the peerless transmission of traditional knowledge that is the hallmark of this Ummah. Following a bunch of sour-faced prudes who view Islam simply as a stale collection of dos and don’ts isn’t going to help the spread of Islam in a modern world starved for spiritual nourishment. There are still many excellent knowledgeable and pious Muslim scholars throughout the world and I pray that Almighty God raises up a great reviver amongst them in the not-too-distant future.

Before moving on, I’d like to mention something that I think many of those who advocate a “reformation” of Islam, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, fail to understand. This is the simple fact that the “liberal” and “reformed” Islam which they advocate actually follows the same basic methodology of Osama Bin Laden and other militants. This is because they both adhere to a “Do-It-Yourself” and “Pick-and-Choose” approach to the religious texts of Islam which casts aside about 1,400 years of understanding and interpretation by remarkable and rightly-guided Muslim scholars. Once this approach is accepted, textual interpretation tends to head wherever one already wants to go—whether the Reformist Left of Ziauddin Sardar or the Militant Right of Osama Bin Ladin. Yes, these two modernist approaches to the religion of Islam are really flip sides of the same coin.

It probably won't surprise any Christians, or anyone familiar with English literature or comparative religion in the 20th century, that I came up with the name Mere Islam after thinking about a certain title by C. S. Lewis. When I decided to establish this weblog, I wanted to come up with a catchy title that would express the purpose, message and spirit that I had in mind for it—which is explaining Islam to non-Muslims, reflecting on Islamic spirituality, discussing aspects of comparative religion and trying to make sense of life in the modern world. Although this is not exactly analogous to what C. S. Lewis did in his classic Mere Christianity—and I certainly in no way intend to compare my religious views or my (lack of) writing skills to those of C. S. Lewis—hopefully I did manage to come up with a catchy title. As I intend it, Mere Islam means "Islam just as it is—straight from the mouth of a Muslim"—unadulterated by the bigotry of Islamophobes, the snide remarks of pundits and the distortion of Orientalists. By that I certainly don't claim to be speaking for all Muslims, but rather I'm only presenting my own subjective views—views which hopefully fit within the limits expounded by the large majority of Sunni Muslims for the past 1,400 years.

Speaking of C. S. Lewis, a couple of months ago a traditional Islamic scholar that I respect immensely recommended reading The Screwtape Letters to the Muslims attending his class. This was done in the context of a discussion about understanding how the Devil works and how he deceives us, and this erudite scholar felt Lewis’ book would be valuable in this regard. I still haven’t read the entire book, but I have read enough to see that it is a unique work that does indeed have some religious value. This is in spite of the fact that it has some severe flaws in regards to certain aspects of theology, a proper understanding of monotheism and other perspectives that a Muslim will find to be rather erroneous. Personally, one of the main shortcomings that I see in C. S. Lewis' writings is that he didn’t express much knowledge of other religions – especially Islam. He lived in a time when cultural arrogance and racism were nearly all-pervasive in English society, so I can't help but wondering whether C. S. Lewis would have had the moral courage to rise above his cultural milieu if the pure Abrahamic monotheism of Islam was ever properly explained to him. Based on the fact that many of his arguments for faith in God are not specifically Christian, but simply put forward a generic pro-theism stance, and many of his explanations of Christian doctrines are rather shallow, especially from the perspective of a pure monotheist, I find it rather sad that C. S. Lewis never explained (as far as I know) why he didn’t consider Islam. I only hope that Almighty God might count C. S. Lewis amongst those who never received the pure message, but I hardly know if that’s the case.

Keep in mind that C. S. Lewis is generally understood to be a "popular theologian", since he was a professer of English literature and writer by trade, thus formal theology was not his specialty. Although C. S. Lewis' books remain widely popular with Christians, he is one of the favorite whipping boys of atheists and secular humanists, who often see his arguments in favor of Christianity as shallow, incoherent and poorly argued. I recall reading a review of one of his books in which someone quipped that "C. S. Lewis couldn't reason his way out of a wet paper bag." While I think that's a bit of an overstatement, my own conclusion is that Mere Christianity is popular because it simply makes Christians feel good about their beliefs, even though it doesn't hold up under the scrutiny of truth seekers who really understand the issues at hand. For one thing, as Christians often do, C. S. Lewis considers Christian doctrines and explains his beliefs, but totally ignores the negative implications of those beliefs. I noticed a similar trend recently when I saw an episode of a new television special by PBS.org entitled, The Question of God: C. S. Lewis & Sigmund Freud. While the show contained some thought provoking dialogue, mainly by a select group of intellectuals who discussed major aspects of belief in God, much of it was rather shallow. For one thing, responses to some of the rather bold (and dubious) Christian claims were not even included. Indeed, there wasn't a believing theist, whether Jew or Muslim, invited to the table in order to articulate the fact that one can maintain a deep, coherent and satisfying belief in Almighty God without adhering to specifically Christian doctrines. It seems that the folks at PBS wanted to avoid such difficulties altogether—at least in one episode. When this initially became apparent, I thought I'd just bite my lip and consider the documentary to be about the debate between theism and atheism within the confines of the Western intellectual tradition. However, that sentiment collapsed when brief discussions of Zen Buddhism were included. I should admit that I haven't seen each portion of the entire The Question of God: C. S. Lewis & Sigmund Freud documentary, so I hope that I'm not judging it too harshly based on just one somewhat disappointing episode.

Lost in Arabic Translation

Lost in Arabic Translation
by Souheila Al-Jadda
The Christian Science Monitor - September 16, 2004

Here are some interesting exerpts from this article:

"...the word meaning "appear" sounds like bada. The word meaning "start" sounds like badaa, with a slight guttural inflection...But there is a big difference in saying, "He appeared to shoot," and "He started to shoot." It could mean the difference between an acquittal and a conviction...only 54 of 279 Arabic speakers employed by State are fluent. Of those, only six were fluent enough to appear on Arabic television programs...A former military translator...came forward to say she had mistranslated a letter from the Syrian government...She translated the letter as saying that the Syrians gave him permission to visit another country, Qatar. Later...she realized that the word "Qatar," could also mean "homeland" or "region."...Alouni said he was discussing the "Nawawi 40," a commentary of 40 of the Islamic prophet's sayings compiled by Imam Nawawi, a revered 13th century Islamic scholar. But in Arabic, the word "nawawi" also means "nuclear," and the interpreter thought Alouni was referring to 40 nuclear weapons."

From what I've read, lack of competent Arabic translators is a problem that has plagued the U.S. State Department and intelligence agencies for decades. There's an episode in the new novel Harbor, by Lorraine Adams, which Umm Zaid in her recent review describes as follows:

"The law enforcement agents of the novel have genuinely good intentions -- to stop and prevent foreigners from commiting acts of terrorism on our soil. But, ignorant of Arabic and Islamic customs, the agents follow the trail of the wrong people. Ignorant of naming customs, the agents assume the immigrants are using code names or aliases. They have a translator on staff -- a Jordanian who is unable to decipher the guttural Maghrebi Arabic the Algerians speak, which is a mixture of French, Arab, and Berber words. Has Aziz really said what the agents think he has? Is Ghazi's reading the Qur'an the signal they believe it is? Harbor asks, where does petty theft end and terror begin? How far are petty criminals willing to go in the pursuit of the buck? And the Muslim and / or immigrant reader wonders, could this happen to me?"

This should serve as food for thought who any one who doesn't realize that, when it comes to the Middle East, the U.S. government is stumbling, bumbling and tripping all over themselves.

Speaking of bumbling, last month's issue of the Columbia Journalism Review has a nice article (see link below) which describes how a lot of journalists were duped by the lies of the notoriously corrupt Ahmad Chalabi. He was telling them what they—and the Bush Administration for that matter—wanted to hear so critical thinking and skepticism quickly took a back seat to amassing evidence, however weak, to justify military action against Iraq. In spite of this being pretty much common knowledge now, especially since Chalabi has been hung out to dry, this article provides a lot of details that I haven't seen elsewhere and does it from the perspective of someone who knows the journalistic trade.

How Chalabi Played the Press
by Douglas McCollam

It comes as no surprise to me that Judith Miller, a self-appointed "expert" on Islam and the Middle East, fell prey to Ahmad Chalabi and is mentioned in the above article. If you want to see incompetence exposed and raked over the coals, PLEASE read the scathing review, by the late Dr. Edward Said, of Judith Miller's God Has Ninety-Nine Names: Reporting From a Militant Middle East. Frankly, I find it rather hard to believe that Miller's career survived in the aftermath of this dressing down by the well-known Palestinian Christian author of Orientalism. In spite of this devastating review and Miller's continued bigoted, misinformed and shallow journalistic slant, just after 9/11 she was one of the "experts" on Islam that was regularly showing up on CNN and other news networks. It just goes to show you how simplistic and uninformed most of the dialogue is that's going on about the Middle East.

A Devil Theory of Islam
by Edward W. Said
A review of God Has Ninety-Nine Names: Reporting From a Militant Middle East, by Judith Miller

Be careful or you might just learn something...

Sleep is Better than Prayer?

One stanza of the Muslim call to prayer (adhan), which is broadcast from the minarets of mosques just after dawn, proclaims, "Prayer is better than sleep". However, it seems that there are "Muslims" out there who don't feel this is the case.

Unholy row over muzzling Egypt's many muezzin
Attempts to reduce decibel level for call to prayer stir strong debate
by Agence France Presse (AFP)
Wednesday, September 15, 2004

Well, I'm sure there have always been lazy Muslims who didn't feel like waking up early for fajr prayer in the morning. As such, the presence of such Muslims in this day and age should come as no surprise—and it's actually rather well known. However, this is the first time I've ever heard of Muslims in a Muslim country actually complaining about the call to prayer. It seems that they're using their personal lack of faith as an excuse to change something that has been going on for about the past 1,400 years. Yes indeed, some "Muslims" out there have their priorities in this temporal life all mixed up. Pray for them...

This seems to be just another one of those not-so-insignificant signs that the Time is drawing nigh...

NOT Free to Practice Her Faith AND Play Basketball

Please see the links below. Is this just another sign that we don't live in a free country that supports the Judeo-Christian (and Islamic) values of modesty? Far too many people out there still think that Muslim women only practice modesty because their fathers, husbands or the Taliban force them to. Just a few decades ago, virtues like modesty and chastity were appreciated by most people in this country. Now, however, wanting to be "free to do whatever I want" is the dominant ideology, thus what used to be understood as virtues are now seen as vices. Likewise, religious piety, devotions and restrictions are seen as forms of oppression, rather than something that truly liberates the spirit from the servitude of created things.

In this case, I'm happy to see that this new American convert to Islam is not compromising her faith and using good judgment as well.

Muslim player who wanted USF uniform exemption quits team
Fox Sports, 9/15/04

If you want to read an excellent article on the Islamic headscarf (hijab) from the perspective on an American Muslim woman, please check this out:

Unveiled Frustrations: Notes to Non-Muslims from a Muslim Woman
by Saraji Umm Zaid

This is a thoughtful article which I feel articulately and forcefully expresses the views of many, if not most, Muslim women who wear the hijab. Thank you, Umm Zaid, for putting the "experts", critics and "Progressive Muslims" in their place.

"Monkey See, Monkey Do" - Not An Islamic Ideal

The other day, a friend mentioned that a fellow Muslim had declared that we should be careful about condemning the recent massacre of innocent schoolchildren in Russia by so-called "Islamic militants" because "some scholars" have issued "fatwas" (non-binding legal opinions) that such operations are sometimes acceptable under Islamic Law. They then referenced part of a Qur'anic verse which basically means, "… then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him." (Qur'an 2:194). Essentially, this is the age old "an eye for an eye" legal maxim that dates back to not just the Old Testament, but to the Code of Hammurabi as well. While this maxim might be rightfully employed in individual cases of justice, using it to justify mass murder and collective punishment is quite a stretch. Being informed that a Muslim in my community adhered to such shoddy logic rather shocked and disgusted me even though I'm well aware of the half-baked and ethically shallow justifications of suicide bombing espoused by some Muslims. In spite of that, being ambivalent about the massacre of innocent schoolchildren seemed to expose a moral depravity that's sunk to all new levels. It's not that this simple-minded and morally confused Muslim was a rabid militant; far from it. What scared me was the fact that they would so quickly and uncritically surrender their morality—indeed their basic human dignity—simply because of the existence of a "fatwa" by some unnamed "scholar".

I'd like to take this opportunity to announce to the ladies and gentlemen of the Muslim Ummah, just in case they haven't heard: We've got a moral and spiritual crisis on our hands. No, it's not a conspiracy theory, a Zionist-Crusader plot or atrocities being carried out by Mossad agents dressed up like Muslims. There's no real need for elaborate conspiracies, since if they want to bomb us, murder us and rape us, the past few decades have shown that they can do this with near impunity in full view of the entire world community. In spite of some grave historical injustices, Muslims must take most, if not all, of the blame for the current crisis and only Muslims can provide a long-term and viable solution to this problem within our house. The time for finger pointing is over. Like it or not, we have militant extremists within our midst who are out there committing the most horrendous acts of barbarity in the name of Islam — and we have far too many Muslims living right under our noses who aren't even sure if such acts are wrong. Indeed, some of them have been bamboozled into thinking such criminal acts are Islamically sanctioned. It's high time that we, as an Ummah, snap out of this Freudian denial stage and start dealing with this problem ourselves. If we don't, somebody is going to do it for us — and it ain't gonna be pretty. Actually, it's gotten ugly already — and a quick look at the headlines being generated by the so-called "War on Terror" should be enough to confirm this.

Let's all take a moment to recognize that being patient with ignorance, humble in the face of stupidity and tolerant of legitimate scholarly differences of opinion are one thing, but endorsing complete moral depravity is quite another. Yes, believe it or not, the mass murder of innocent schoolchildren is completely unlawful in Islam; nothing justifies it. The fact that this even needs to be explained to members of our Ummah speaks volumes about the state we're in. This shouldn't be taken to mean that I'm unaware of the genocide that Russia has been carrying out in Chechnya. Indeed, they've killed far more innocent women and children than Islamic militants ever have. However, the Russians are not our teachers and it's not their example that Muslims are supposed to follow. Our methodology is not "monkey see, monkey do", but rather the unassailable moral high ground of our noble Prophet — may God bless him and grant him peace.

On that note, a discussion of the classical understanding of Qur'an 2:194 is in order, since this is one of the verses that the extremists use to justify their murder and mayhem. No doubt, the first thing we should do when we come across someone using a Qur'anic verse as a blunt instrument is turn to the classical exegesis of the verse and see how qualified Islamic scholars have understood it in the past. It should come as no surprise that neither al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, nor al-Qurtubi, who are three of the greatest scholars of our rich hermeneutical tradition, mention anything in these verses that could be used to justify the acts that were recently committed in Russia. Even a cursory look at Qur'an 2:194 reveals that it essentially provided a dispensation for fighting in the sacred months, months in which fighting was normally forbidden. This verse in no way opens up the door for going to extremes — which is also strongly condemned in Islamic Law — and ignoring God's limits.

It's reckless to assume that a dispensation for fighting under certain conditions negates all of the other Islamically mandated rules of warfare, but this is seemingly what the extremists believe. A much more coherent understanding of this dispensation to fight is that if attacked, one can fight during the sacred months but only in an Islamically lawful way (i.e. no killing of non-combatants, women, children, etc.) Indeed, the Qur'an is quite clear that there are limits that are not to be transgressed (Qur'an 2:190 and 5:87), and these limits are made quite clear in the noble Sunnah. A useful analogy can perhaps be drawn using the verse which allows Muslims to eat the food of the People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians). Upon hearing this Qur'anic ruling, do we assume that all other previously mandated dietary prohibitions are thereby suspended in regards to the food of the People of the Book, so that we can drink their wine and eat their pork? Certainly not. However, this is essentially what the militant Jihadis are doing with Qur'an 2:194.

Not only is their logic flawed, but they seem to lack even a basic understanding of the Prophetic way, which is to be patient while enduring injustice, gentle in the face of harshness and merciful whenever possible. If our methodology in life is just to return the harm of whoever harms us, we're no better than a bunch of animals. Instead of striving to be the "best (religious) community raised up for mankind" (Qur'an 3:110), these days Muslims seem to be struggling to avoid being one of the worst. What happened to the spiritual state (hal) of the Companions, the mere site of whom would cause people to embrace Islam? What happened to the noble chivalry (futuwwa) of Saladin that earned the respect of the Crusaders? What happened to the magnanimity shown upon the conquest of Mecca? If contemporary Muslim Jihadists conquered a disbelieving city, does anyone think for a moment that they'd even consider showing a drop of the mercy that the Prophet — may God bless him and grant him peace — so graciously employed in such abundance? Recent events have clearly demonstrated otherwise. If bloody revenge was ever justified, it was when the young Muslim community was first being established in al-Madinah and the very existence of Islam was at stake. So if barbarity and the killing of non-combatants wasn't justified back then, on what basis could one sincerely believe that it's justified now? Reflect on that…

So what are the limits if this Pandora's Box is opened that says we can do to "them" whatever they do to "us"? If they rape, kill and mutilate our little girls are we going to do the same to theirs? To me it's shocking and despicable that we even have to explain such things to seemingly God-fearing Muslims. We seem to be plagued by a tendency to rip a single Qur'anic verse out of context and then build an entire methodology upon it — complete with simplistic understandings and shallow interpretations. In regards to massacring Russian schoolchildren, ostensibly in revenge for crimes that the Russian government and army have undeniably committed, the Jihadi militants seem to conveniently forget about Qur'an 53:38. This verse establishes a moral principle that is well known in Islam, which is that "no bearer of a burden shall bear the burden of another". Take that into consideration before someone dupes you into thinking that killing innocent people, much less children, can somehow be justified as an act of revenge. Unfortunately, we also have Neanderthal pundits, commentators and non-Muslim religious leaders here in America that endorse the one-sided and baseless Qur'anic interpretations of these Muslim extremists. They want to convince the world, or at least the American people, that such extremist interpretations are inherent to Islam. Once a monolithic Islam is identified as the problem, rather than an aberrant interpretation of it, they can justify their bloody campaigns against a largely innocent Muslim community. Ironically, in adopting the same heretical school of Qur'anic interpretation as Osama Bin Laden, they seek to justify the very atrocities that they claim to abhor—but that's a topic for another day.

No doubt, Muslims are facing a deep spiritual crisis. Islam has been hijacked and turned into an ideology in pursuit of worldly success instead of a religion meant to purify the soul and focus one's life on Almighty God. That's really the jist of it, I feel. The key to winning the so-called "War on Terror" is winning the war on ignorance. By equivocating the "War on Terror" label, I hope it's obvious, based on what's already been stated, that I don't deny that there are "Muslim terrorists" out there. Rather, like many people, I'm rather cynical about the conduct of what so far has been a rather selective war on terrorism. Indeed, a blind-eye is being turned to other great atrocities in the world and problems that cost far more human lives are being ignored. In the hands of ideologues who seemingly believe that military force can solve many of the world's complex problems, the "War on Terror" has been expanded to include not only countries that are seemingly uninvolved, but carried out in gross violation of the very international laws that the terrorists are guilty of violating. Unfortunately, we live in an age where well-intentioned criticism is often considered un-patriotic—especially when coming from a Muslim. Being a good citizenship these days seems to mean shutting up and climbing on the bandwagon. Critical thinking and moral courage seem to be in short supply. Finding a semblance of them is as tough as finding an honest man in Congress. We only hope that our attempts to understand the motives for a crime are never understood to be endorsements of it. In order to develop reasonable, coherent and viable solutions to the plague of ignorance and extremism that we're facing, we need to study the sources, context and motives behind the crimes. Simple solutions are bogus solutions, and most of the tough problems facing the human race can't be solved by using military force.

As a God-fearing and morally upright community, we've got to join together and bring our resources to bear in order to refute with a vengeance these extremist "Protestant Muslims" and their flaky "Do-It-Yourself" religion that has cast aside over 1,400 years of peerless scholarly tradition. In this undertaking, it's crucial that we stay balanced, moderate and true to our blessed tradition. We don't want to come across sounding like a bunch of limp-wristed peaceniks that condemn violence in all forms and preach that Islam only teaches peace. Rather, we need to explain the high moral standards of our faith; that it is a religion that primarily emphasizes not only the infinite mercy of God but encourages mercy between all human beings. Indeed, Islam condemns terrorism, murder, hijacking, kidnapping, taking the law into your own hands and so on. None of this is compromised by the fact that we also have a "Just War" theory which is extremely similiar to the ones advocated not only by various churches, but by international law as well. Our beloved Prophet was sent as a mercy to the worlds (Qur'an 21:107), so we have to save Islam from the reckless few that have made a large part of humanity feel that it's a scourge rather than a blessing.

Pray hard…

BOOKS: Not Just for Idiots and Dummies

I've never been a big fan of The Complete Idiot's Guide series, nor the Dummies books, but this changed recently. The following statement by Sidi Hamza Yusuf Hanson initiated this change:

I would certainly recommend some of the decent books that have come out—even The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Islam and The Dummies Guide [sic] are excellent works that have come out. Silly names but they are actually very good material. I looked at both of those books because I wanted to just make sure the information was accurate and I actually benefited from them, and I’ve been studying for twenty-five years. They’re good books and they are well organized and they are easily available. I saw a woman on an airplane the other day reading The Idiot’s Guide to Islam [sic] and I asked her, why are you reading this? She said, well I just feel like there is so much in the news and I really want to understand this better because I feel there is a lot of misunderstanding and lack of communication. That is the hallmark of intelligent people. I would call it The Intelligent's Guide to Islam instead of The Idiot’s Guide. [laughter] It’s the idiots that don’t bother to actually find out about the world that they live in and what other people think and feel.

A few days after hearing these remarks, I flipped through several of these books at a local bookstore. Having done that, I have to agree with Sidi Hamza's assessment that, in spite of their titles, these are very useful books for presenting Islam. Not only were the two books on Islam helpful, but I found the The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Koran and The Koran for Dummies quite informative as well. All of these books turned out to be far above my expectations, even after Hamza Yusuf's endorsement. Overall, both of The Complete Idiot's Guides appealed to me more than the Dummies books, but that's just my personal preference and subjective opinion. I especially liked The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Koran, since it not only covered the subject well but had some refreshingly intelligent things to say about the Koran and its relationship with previous scriptures. I was definitely pleasantly surprised.

I recommend donating a copy or two of each of these books to your local library if they don't already carry them. Just a few minutes of sitting and flipping through these books could really overcome a lot of ignorance and misinformation—especially if in the hands of a sincere truth-seeker.

Enjoy...

---

GRAMMAR NOTE: If you're wondering what [sic] in the above passage means, it's a grammatical device which is most often used in direct quotations. In short, it indicates that the passage is being quoted literally in spite of the fact that it contains an error, misspelling or is otherwise inaccurate. In the above statement by Hamza Yusuf, he didn't get both book titles exactly right, so I added [sic] to the transcript of his originally oral statement to indicate that these erroneous titles were intentionally retained. The correct title of The Dummies Guide is actually Islam for Dummies, not that this detracted from Hamza Yusuf's statement since it's obvious what he was referring to. My "Grammar Jihad" continues...

Common Errors in English

This is a useful website:

Common Errors in English

My Favorite Sufi Aphorism

One day, a rich man came to Rabi'a al-'Adawiyyah and said, "For many years I've lived a very spoiled, arrogant and sinful life. If I repent now will God forgive me?"

Rabi'a replied, "No, but if God forgives you, you will repent."

---

This is one of those sayings which just drives the literalists bonkers—and no, I don't have an isnad for it. While on the surface this hikmah might seem to be flirting with theological error, but it's chock full of wisdom anyway—like it or not. Yes, truth can often be expressed in paradox, but just don't take it too far. On the other hand, the neo-Pharisees (you know who I'm talking about) are regularly frustrated when dealing with the often esoteric, subjective and experiential nature of religious truth. They seemingly can't handle the fact that they can't dot all their i's and cross all their t's, thus they opt for superficiality, literalism and rigid formalism. This has aptly been labeled the "boy scout" approach to religion (i.e. reducing it to just a bunch of rules to follow while depriving it of any spiritual depth), where the tough questions and dilemmas of life are rarely entertained. This problem certainly isn't unique to Islam, since many religions and many people tend to be rather superficial in their approach to life's higher truths - if they ever really address them at all. Too many people just want to keep their heads buried in the sand. The Qur'an seems to talk about such people a lot. As we might say in America, they're content going through life "fat, dumb and happy". Pray for them...

Anyway, it seems to me that one sees the truth in this statement of Rabi'a, my God be pleased with her, more through human experience than by mere logic. Anyone who has tried to "earn their way to heaven" by their own self-righteous effort, but has crashed and burned a few times, should be able to appreciate this. Yes, it's all about depending on Allah and His grace abounding — not on our own selves. I can speak from experience that one of the biggest traps that people fall into is attributing their own "good deeds" to themselves instead of understanding them as blessings from God. Indeed, there is no power or strength except for Almighty God—and He alone grants success!

From what I've seen, this hadith is not heard often enough: The Prophet said, "Do good deeds properly, sincerely and moderately, and receive good news because one's good deeds will not make him enter Paradise." They (i. e. his companions) asked, "Even you, O Messenger of God?" He said, "Even I, unless and until God bestows His pardon and Mercy on me." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 474). I seem to recall a translation which said, "...unless God's mercy covered me like a blanket", but I'm not certain.

By the way, Rabi'a al-'Adawiyyah (born 714 CE, died 801 CE) lived in Basra, which is in present day Iraq. She was one of the earliest and most prominent Muslim mystics, being a contemporary of Hassan al-Basri, and there are many awesome sayings and spiritual insights attributed to her. Some of these can be found in Early Sufi Women (Translated by Rkia Cornell, Fons Vitae, 2000, 433 pages), which contains both Arabic text and English translation.

Deen On...

BOOK: Fumblerules

Fumblerules, by William Safire

This thumbnail sketch of the pitfalls of English grammar is not only humorous, but a creative masterpiece as well. Even though it has been expounded upon in book form and is all over the Internet, I felt it's worth sharing again here. Quite often the people who need it most won't come across it if left to their own browsing habits and Google searches. This serves as my latest volley in the on-going "Grammar Jihad" that I'm waging against unwary Muslims - and anyone else who happens to read my posts. William Safire is the Pulitzer Prize-winning language columnist for The New York Times and author of a number of books including Fumblerules (which I was surprised to learn is listed as Out of Print on Amazon.com. Gee, what's the world coming to?).

• No sentence fragments.

• Avoid run-on sentences they are hard to read.

• A writer must not shift your point of view.

• Reserve the apostrophe for it’s proper use and omit it when its not needed.

• Write all adverbial forms correct.

• In their writing, everyone should make sure that their pronouns agree with its antecedent.

• Use the semicolon properly, use it between complete but related thoughts; and not between an independent clause and a mere phrase.

• Don’t use no double negatives.

• Also, avoid awkward or affected alliteration.

• If I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a thousand times: Resist hyperbole.

• If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is.

• Avoid commas, that are not necessary.

• Verbs has to agree with their subjects.

• Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky.

• And don’t start a sentence with a conjunction.

• The passive voice should never be used.

• Writing carefully, dangling participles should be avoided.

• Unless you are quoting other people’s exclamations, kill all exclamation points!!!

• Never use a long word when a diminutive one will do.

• Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.

• Use parallel structure when you write and in speaking.

• You should just avoid confusing readers with misplaced modifiers.

• Place pronouns as close as possible, especially in long sentences—such as those of ten or more words—to their antecedents.

• Eschew dialect, irregardless.

• Remember to never split an infinitive.

• Take the bull by the hand and don’t mix metaphors.

• Don’t verb nouns.

• Always pick on the correct idiom.

• Never, ever use repetitive redundancies.

• "Avoid overuse of ‘quotation "marks."’"

• Never use prepositions to end a sentence with.

• Last but not least, avoid clichés like the plague.

In regards to "kill all exclamation points", I recently read someone who said that using exclamation points is the grammatical equivalent of laughing at your own jokes.

Some grammarians have taken unwarranted issue with some of Safire's rules - which aren't really his anyway. I don't think that William Safire means for all of them to be taken in an absolute sense, since there are always exceptions. However, at a minimum, all of them are good general rules that reside on the fringes of absoluteness.

By the way, ever hear the story of the first American to attend Oxford University? His first morning on campus he walked up to a distinguished looking English gentleman and asked, "Excuse me sir, but can you tell me where the library is at?" The Englishman sternly replied, "Young man, at Oxford University we never end a sentence with a preposition!" Hearing that, the American freshman retorted, "Okay. Can you tell where the library is at, jackass?"