Getting "Progressively" Worse...

Last week we explored how so-called "Progressive Muslims" have resorted to character assassination and other antics in order to justify some of their flimsy, if not totally baseless, Islamic opinions. Well it seems that their taste for slander, mockery and general intellectual dishonesty remains unquenched. Not only have they now resorted to mocking one of their own simply because he disagrees with them on some issues and won't do as they please (Gee, whatever happened to tolerance?), but they've also blasted "Islam's top scholars" for "consistently" coming up with "absolutely bizarre and stupid pronouncements". While one certainly might question whether "Islam's top scholars" collectively reside in the three places mentioned (which serves as just another example of how "Progressives" are often sloppily misinformed), I question whether anyone at MWU has the requisite Islamic knowledge for demonstrating that any such pronouncements are "stupid". Not that they'd want to, since attempting to actually prove something would contradict their postmodern world view in which everything, especially religion, is just a matter of subjective personal opinion. This explains why their rhetoric is often laden with assertions and generalities, but rather light on proofs and specifics.

In spite of their rather condescending view of traditional Muslim scholars, it's now clear that they'll turn to one themselves if they feel they can find support for their ongoing (and seemingly rather frustrating) quest for Islamic authenticity. Yes, it's rather ironic that these "Progressive Muslims" are trying to use the fatwa of a traditional Muslim scholar in an attempt to lend some respectability to their latest publicity stunt. We should probably emphasize "trying", since rather unsurprisingly the "Progressives" have been distorting and misquoting the one piece of alleged evidence that they did manage to scrounge up from a contemporary traditional Muslim scholar (the fact that they seem to prefer the television version of the fatwa over the actual fatwa demonstrating that they truly are "Progressive"). As Sheikh 'Ali Jumu'a of Al-Azhar: The Real Fatwa makes abundantly clear, the conclusions of MWU were "not based on actually reading the fatwa of the sheikh in Arabic or English", but it was "at best a third hand report". In spite of the mounting evidence that they're manipulating and misusing the fatwa, the MWU headline still deviously claims that the Sheikh has ruled "in favor of woman-led prayer of mixed-gender congregations". As anyone who has read the actual fatwa knows, the main problem with this claim is that it simply isn't true. This could certainly lead one to believe that they're not as concerned about truth as they are about putting forward their political (and that's what it is) agenda.

From what I've seen, this type of intellectual desperation permeates the views of so-called "Progressive Muslims". One thing to notice is that they usually don't like to discuss the details of an issue, whether a fatwa or actual Islamic textual evidence, but are much happier operating in the realm of vague generalities. When they do actually try to deal with the Devil who's in the details, it's almost always done in a pick-and-choose way (i.e. bringing Qur'anic verses, fatwas and even selections from the much maligned hadith literature which seem to support their views, but simply ignoring everything that does not). The old adage that "Even the Devil can quote scripture", based on Matthew 4:6, is worthy of sincere consideration here.

In spite of the fact that their methodology is clumsy, unbalanced and illogical, they also tend to be obsessed with proving that they're more rational and intellectual than their allegedly "rigid", "close-minded" and "blind-following" traditional Muslim counterparts. A fine example of this is the article in which they accuse "Islam's top scholars" of being "stupid" and having "2 + 2 = 5" reasoning skills, since it's really just a shallow attempt to claim intellectual superiority without offering any proofs or sound arguments (which explains their childish arithmetical ploy). As I see it, if anyone has some explaining to do in regards to rationality and logic, it's so-called "Progressive Muslims". This is because their methodology certainly seems to be: 1) coming to a conclusion (e.g. it's okay for a woman to lead Friday Prayer); and then 2) scrounging to find evidence to support it. Needless to say, this flies in the face of not only the scientific method, but the accepted methodologies of Islamic jurisprudence as well. Perhaps this is why I find their attempt to use some rather vague and undefined arithmetic to prove a point so utterly sad. As I see it, a much better equation for explaining at least one of their recent endeavors might look something like this: "Western-influenced Desires" + "Manipulated Fatwa of a Muslim Scholar" = "Previously Decided Upon Conclusion".

If "Progressive Muslims" want to establish some sort of credibility within the Muslim Ummah, they're going to have to do better than this (and please realize that they're already the darlings of the enemies of Islam). While it's easy enough for them to claim that they have superior intellects and sharper reasoning skills, such claims seem rather shallow once one is familiar with the dubious and often intellectually dishonest ways which they attempt to justify their Islamic views. Not only that, but anyone who puts even the slightest credence in the Qur'anic (or even Biblical) view of history should realize that we're all in a march towards the Last Days in which the moral and religious state of humankind is going to get progressively (no pun intended) worse. Keeping that in mind, it seems that when it comes to a movement that wants to cast aside over 1,400 years of qualified and God-fearing scholarship, the rational course of action would be to remain rather skeptical of them and err on the side of traditional Islamic conservatism. Personally, I'm highly skeptical of any new fangled religious movement which seems to be just another cohort in the legions of influences that are whittling away at anything that hasn't caved into modernity (or postmodernity) and is authentically Islamic. I pray that Almighty God heals their hearts and helps them overcome any animosity that they have towards this Deen due to their own negative experiences with some fallible Muslims...wa Allahu 'alim.

Torture at Abu Ghraib Still Only "Alleged"

I happened to read this today and found it interesting that some people still believe, in spite of all of the photographs, witness testimony and even court martial convictions of U.S. solders, that the torture that took place in Abu Ghraib prison is still only "alleged". Yes indeed, talk show host Neil Boortz recently wrote: "We've heard much about torture in recent months ... the alleged torture of Muslim prisoners in Iraq" [emphasis added]. I don't think it's unfair to speculate that Neil Boortz might be in the Freudian "denial stage" in regards to the grief he's experiencing over failed U.S. policies in Iraq.

Amal Press - Engaging Minds Everywhere

I've just received notice that the Amal Press website is back in full swing. Their new and improved website includes an enticing list of forthcoming publications, some very nice PowerPoint presentations related to Islam, and some reading lists as well. They've also published a collection of essays entitled With God on Our Side: Politics & Theology of the War on Terrorism [Preview], which I can't wait to get my hands on. Enjoy...

The New Testament: Errancy versus Inerrancy

The article "Biblical Inspiration" & Modern Day Textual Criticism, by 'Abdullah David, has recently been updated on the Islamic-Awareness.org website. I'd certainly classify this article as a "Must Read" for anyone interested in comparative religion, the history of the Biblical text or even the Qur'anic view of the Bible (which, as Muslims, we all need to be informed about). This article focuses in on, as Christian authors seldom do, some of the problems facing those trying to authenticate the text of the New Testament. It includes a valuable discussion of the Evangelical Protestant doctrine of "Biblical Inerrancy", which rather ironically admits that the New Testament text in use today contains errors. This is because even though advocates of this precarious doctrine insist that scripture was inerrant when originally written under the influence of inspiration, they also admit "there may be errors in the Scriptures as we now possess them" and that inerrancy is "only for the original autographic text". As "Biblical Inspiration" & Modern Day Textual Criticism demonstrates, since even Christians admit that they don't have the "original autographs", what's the point in insisting that they're infallible? Likewise, where is the proof that the New Testament manuscripts of today are faithfully transmitted representatives of the alleged "original autographs"? These are tough questions, since not only are there wide and significant variations (1, 2, 3, 4) in the early Greek manuscripts and fragments of the New Testament (1, 2, 3), but there's a significant gap of time between the dates of the earliest known manuscripts and the lives of Jesus', 'alayhi as-salam, followers.

'Abdullah David addresses the issue of this problematic time gap, which is rightly referred to as a large "stumbling block", head-on and presents some of the issues that surround "the history of the text before AD 200". Anyone familiar with Evangelical polemical defenses of the New Testament should be aware that they often place considerable emphasis on the sheer number of early Greek New Testament manuscripts in order to shore up their flimsy case. In spite of their efforts, however, they're never able to overcome the significant gap of time between the oldest manuscripts and the time in which Jesus, peace be upon him, and his followers actually lived. Thus not only do they not have the original autographs, but they don't even have anything even closely resembling an authentic chain of transmission back to the original authors (who remain largely anonymous). Unsurprisingly, long before the modern methods of textual criticism, Muslim scholars regularly pointed out that the various books of the New Testament are completely without an authentic riwayah (i.e. chain of transmission), in contrast to the Qur'an and authentic hadith literature, thus they are essentially hearsay and carry no weight as evidence. This is certainly valid criticism, since no one should have to base their salvation on questionably transmitted texts written by anonymous authors. Since Almighty God is a loving and merciful God who wants His creatures to know the truth and have surety of faith, that's simply not the way He works. Even the Evangelicals seemingly recognize this since their scholars have toiled for centuries to close the gap between the so-called "original autographs" and the manuscripts that exist today...but to no avail.

It is of great significance that experts in the field inform us that "the most serious textual corruptions occur in the first century of the text being transmitted", since in regards to the New Testament, the "oldest known archetypes are separated from the autographs by more than a century". As with their claims about the "original autographs", I have to agree with the statement that the "critics of the NT writings have been surprisingly naive in this respect".

In light of all this, I strongly encourage everyone to take the time to do a detailed reading of "Biblical Inspiration" & Modern Day Textual Criticism, by 'Abdullah David.

Answers to Five Questions

Well here are my answers to the five questions that Levantine Historian directed towards me:

1.] Which intelligent U.S. Radio show should the British listen to on the net?

Well now that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Don Imus and Michael Savage all have shows, it seems that the term "intelligent U.S. Radio" might be an oxymoron before we know it. Fortunately, there are some good alternative radio shows still out there, especially on the net. MeccaOne is certainly one of the best, if not the best, Muslim radio shows that I know of, but I almost always miss their live broadcasts. However, since I don't think you're looking for a Muslim show, I'll mention that I'm a big fan of National Public Radio (NPR). I especially enjoy the monologues of Garrison Keillor of Prairie Home Companion, although lately the show unfortunately seems to include a lot more music than when I first started listening to it (so be prepared to turn down the volume). I discovered the show while driving around running errands on Sunday mornings and found it to be a refreshing alternative to other Talk Radio shows (which I rarely listen to anymore). Even though it's not a net radio show per se, portions of the show can be listened to on their website. Overall, I really appreciate Keiller's storytelling skills, his sense of humor and his often interesting political views (not that I necessarily agree with them). Overall, I'd simply call the show good clean hometown entertainment. Another worthwhile radio show, which is probably more worthwhile since it's more than just entertainment, can be listened to via DemocracyNow.org. It offers an excellent alternative to government-sponsored and corporate-approved (or vice versa) mainstream news. Overall, I'd recommend that Muslims spend their time listening to Islamic lectures when they have a chance, since there's so much ^cilm out there these days that it's hard to keep up with it. Not only are there a lot of quality tapes and CDs available from traditional Muslim scholars, but there's a ton of audio available for download out on the Web that can be burned to audio CDs or transferred to an MP3 player. I literally have dozens, if not hundreds, of hours of listening yet to do...

2.] Convince me Florida is better than the West Coast?

Although I've lived in Florida about ten years, I still find California (the laid back and tolerant attitude, the weather and the geography) much more appealing than Florida. This shouldn't be taken to mean that I think Florida is a bad place to live, since it certainly has it's merits. It's just too flat and too humid for my taste. Additionally, it has a significant "redneck" element and the beaches have too many sharks and hardly any waves. The fact that I'm originally from Coronado, California, probably makes me somewhat biased in this regard.

3.] Which book written by a non-Muslim should be compulsory reading for Muslims?

I had to ponder this one for awhile, but then the obvious answer hit me: Marshall Hodgson's three volume magnum opus The Venture of Islam (1, 2, 3). This is a very well-written and informed history of our Ummah, and it's fair and balanced as well. I've heard it recommended, or at least mentioned in a positive light, by Sidi Hamza Yusuf Hanson, Imam Zaid Shakir and Shaykh Nuh Keller. It's a monumental work that one has to be rather determined to read cover-to-cover (which I certainly haven't done), but each chapter can still be very informative when read in isolation. Before embarking on this endeavor, I recommend reading Chapter 3 of Albert Hourani's Islam in European Thought (not to be confused with his lecture of the same name, which is the first chapter of this book). This chapter is entitled "Marshall Hodgson and the venture of Islam" and consists entirely of a sixteen-page essay that offers valuable background information about and interesting opinions on this multi-volume history. I recall seeing The Venture of Islam on the curriculum at Zaytuna Institute and Sidi Hamza Yusuf remarking that they'll continue to use it in their history classes "until a Muslim writes one that's better". That having been said, I can't resist mentioning a "compulsory read" written by a non-Muslim that's not about Islam. In this category I'd choose Passion of the Western Mind, by Richard Tarnas, since it's extremely helpful in understanding how the Western intellectual tradition developed. I really like the way the author explains the concepts of Greek thought and many other philosophical concepts. This book is very readable and accessible compared to most other books on the subject, so it's a great choice for anyone who wants to gain a good foundational understanding of Western thought (and it certainly won't hurt Muslims living in the West if they're conversant in this area).

4.] What is your favourite novel and why?

Definitely Gates of Fire: An Epic Novel of the Battle of Thermopylae, by Steven Pressfield, since it's everything that a historical novel should be. As somewhat of a history buff, I don't think this subject matter could have been dealt with in a more thoughtful, moving and historically accurate way. I haven't read a novel in years that I couldn't easily put down and forget, but this masterpiece not only kept me on the edge of my seat, but stayed with me as well. Far from being a novel purely about war, the author manages to address some philosophical questions in a respectable manner throughout the book. It's these underlying questions and his presentation of the warrior ethic that I feel make the book powerful and unique. Looking back to the example of not only all the prophets of God but to the companions as well, may Almighty God bless them and grant all of them peace, I think we, as Muslims, need to strike a balance between two extremes that we often see today. One extreme is the somewhat limp-wristed, overly apologetic and pacifist brand of Islam where all forms of military action are disallowed except self-defense as a last resort (i.e. jihad al-nafs is the only type of jihad), and the other is the rabid militant brand of Islam which justifies and advocates violence in ways that are completely contrary to the tenets of Islam. As I see it, we should strive to be chivalrous warrior-pacifists who don't care if we're personally abused but who always stand up for the rights of Allah and the rights of others—especially those weaker and less fortunate than ourselves (thus we certainly don't try to regain our so-called "honor" by shooting people in the back, mistreating captives or stabbing young women). Certainly the Spartans aren't necessarily a model for Muslims to follow, but the Gates of Fire is still a valuable look at not only the reality of war but what it means to be a noble warrior.

5.] What kind of American are you? [e.g. Dutch, Italian, Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Afro, Native etc.] And how much do you know about your 'roots'?

Even though my surname Squires is rather English, I'm pretty much a mixture of various sorts of Anglo-Saxons. If you look at the surnames of my eight great-grandparents you'll see Squires, MacKenzie, Shipp, Wilson, Bethea, Manning, Holland and Manning again. A few generations further back, you'll find MacLeod, Ellerbe, Hart, Lee, Crawford and Gillespie, so based on that I'm a mixture of English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh immigrants (with one strand of French Huguenots as well). Although my family's roots are mainly in South Carolina, my maternal grandmother's family was from Missouri and my paternal grandmother from Decatur, Alabama. In most cases, I'm able to trace my family lines back to the original immigrant to America or to just prior to the American Revolution. The reason that I know all of this about my 'roots' is because my great-grandmother was a genealogist and wrote a book called Ancestral Key to the Pee Dee. At one point in my life, mostly due to the fact that I've always been interested in history, I took the time to study the history of my family and even do some research on my own.

“Wisdom is Yemeni, Faith is Yemeni" - Using Islam to Fight Terrorism

Here's a somewhat long, but very worthwhile, article on Qadi Hamoud al-Hitar's efforts to reform hot-headed militant extremists in Yemen by using reasoned, balanced and Islamically-informed dialogue:

TERRORISTS IN REHAB
Yemen uses the pages of the Qur’an to re-educate its jihadis
by Gregory D. Johnsen

Some excerpts of the article include:

As al-Hitar has often pointed out, the Qur’an contains 124 verses that call on Muslims to treat non-Muslims with charity and grace, and only one that urges them to fight.

Since the Religious Dialogue Committee was formed it has released 182 suspected militants back into society, and as al-Hitar says “none have returned to violence.” The idea, according to al-Hitar, is simple: the committee uses dialogue as a way to “uproot the intellectual causes and reasons for terrorism, because terrorism has faulty intellectual foundations.”

“These people,” al-Hitar said recently in an interview with the Yemen Observer, “had some surahs (chapters of the Qur’an) and hadiths memorized, but they had fixed misguided doctrine in their minds. They ignored the rules for determining what a Qur’anic text means and thereby made incorrect interpretations of many Qur’anic verses, strictly adhering to these mistaken beliefs.”

But not everything has been easy for al-Hitar. He has received numerous death threats, while U.S. support for his project remains ambiguous at best.

If you enjoyed this article, you may find my Using the Koran to Fight Terrorism posting and this other article informative as well. We pray that Almighty God blesses Qadi Hamoud al-Hitar in his noble efforts...Ameen!

Rwandan Survivors Turning to Islam

This article is somewhat old, but certainly not stale, especially that Hotel Rwanda has now been released:

Islam Attracting Many Survivors of Rwanda Genocide
Jihad Is Taught as 'Struggle to Heal'
By Emily Wax
Washington Foreign Post Service - September 23, 2002

Readers should be aware of the fact that both the Hutus and the Tutsis were overwhelmingly Christian; Rwanda having the highest percentage of Christians of any African country.

Why and How has Islam Become a "Dry Religion" Today?

I really loved this response by Sidi Yahya Rhodus, who currently studies at Dar al-Mustafa in Yemen, to the following question which he was asked during a DeenPort interview: “You spoke about the fact that many people have made Islam a ‘dry religion’ today. Why has this happened and how can we change this?”

Sidi Yahya's response: “Part of this has happened because of people not taking from true, living scholars and traditional sources. Once they lost taking Islam from it's traditional sources they give Islam their own interpretations which is, in most cases incorrect. Certain things that they think are not part of Islam, actually are, but they don't realize it. Islam rectifies someone inwardly and outwardly. There are sciences that are related to the outward, such as Fiqh, and there are sciences that are related to the inward, such as Ihsan or Tazkiya. What are the attributes he should have? What are the various diseases of the heart? How does he attain certainty? So, if we only give people the outward aspect of Islam and ignore the inward, there will be a void.

One of the modern people said that the West is form without content and the East is content without form. The geographical center of Islam, Mecca, falls between the East and the West. Islam has both aspects. Islam has Shariah and Islam has Haqiqa. Islam has the inward and Islam has the outward. Every single human being on the earth will be able to find his path and what he truly desires in Islam, and this is the greatness of our tradition. So, when we neglect certain aspects of Islam, in particular the aspect of the soul, it becomes dry. The soul is in need of sustenance just as the minds and outward bodies do.”

At Starbucks with Some "Progressives"

I really enjoyed this well-written, humorous and very believable description of a meeting some "Proggies" recently had, which was held, rather unsurprisingly, at a Starbucks Cafe rather than a masjid:

An afternoon with the progressives, observations and conclusions

Based on what I've seen, the observations made about the mentality of liberal Muslims in this story are very valid, although rather sad. Even before I became a Muslim, I could never understand why anyone would want to try and take solace in self-contradictory liberal religion. Due to its half-hearted and ill thought out nature, I think it probably offers them more internal strife than it does contentment...wa Allahu 'alim.

Exposing the Slander of "Progressive, Liberal and Feminist" Muslims

I came across the article linked to below on Living Tradition, via SunniSister (which has moved to a new domain), and it is a sound and thorough exposé, in typical Hajj Gibril F. Haddad style, of the underhanded antics so often found coming from so-called "Progressive Muslims".

This time, in an attempt to shore up their desperate, far-fetched and intellectually dishonest position about women leading men in the performance of the ritual prayer (salât), these "Muslim liberals" have taken to slandering a companion of the Prophet, salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam. Such attempted character assasinations are nothing new, since they've often been used by Mu'tazzilah, Shi'a and other heretics in an attempt to cast doubts upon the veracity of hadith texts that stand in the way of some of their misguided positions.

As usual, the plan of the "Progressives" backfires when brought under a critical eye, since instead of undermining the reliability of Abu Bakrah (not to be confused with the great companion and first caliph Abu Bakr al-Saddîq), they end up exposing their own lack of credibility and manifest deficiencies in Islamic knowledge. This is the latest (as far as I know) of several worthwhile articles (1, 2) by Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad dealing with modernist reformulations of Islam:

Abu Bakrah and the Feminists
by G.F. Haddad

Here are some pointed excerpts from the above article in which Hajj Gibril Haddad rocks the world of "Progressive Islam":

“Not most but all of what rears up its head today as progressive, feminist, liberal, South African liberation theology, Syrian do-it-yourself(-dare-to-be-ignorant), contemporary, top of the pops re-readings, is in fact a banale catalogue of ancient heresiographical history. All of those strange and new positions or the arguments that prop them up have long crumbled to dust in the vaults of deviant Usul! The sooner we learn about the historical non-Sunnis that specialize in Companion-character-assassination, the sooner we can identify the near-totality of the mashrab of today's "progressive" dona ferentes.”

“If the same Abu Bakrah were reporting, let us suppose, something that said, "Woman was the first creation and she is man's boss, godfather, and capo di tutti capi here and hereafter," the same critics would have made him infallible.”

Proof: The Teachings of Islam Do Condemn Terrorism

Muslims are well aware of the fact that various Islamophobes often selectively quote certain Qur'anic verses in order to support their agenda of proving that Islam is inherently violent if not outright evil, so the article linked to below is quite useful in that it provides a wealth of texts that these critics, rather dishonestly, choose to ignore. In spite of the fact that over 1,400 years of God-fearing Islamic scholarship has harshly condemned suicide, the wanton killing of non-combatants and other abhorrent actions that are currently associated with so-called "Islamic terrorism", many agenda-driven enemies of Islam still continue with their dishonest misuse and abuse of the Muslim scripture. Unfortunately for them, the clear and unambiguous texts mentioned in the article below demonstrate once again that the unqualified interpretation of the Qur'an by non-Muslim ignorami and hate-mongers is totally without merit:

Muslim Sacred Texts Condemning Wanton Destruction and Indiscriminate Killing
Compiled by Suheil Laher

So You Want to End Terrrorism?

Linked to below is an article containing some excellent analysis of the roots of terrorism and the future of democracy in the Middle East. In spite of the article's title, most of it doesn't have to do with the current Syrian occupation of Lebanon:

Don't Stop With Syria's Occupation
by Juan Cole
AntiWar.com - March 8th, 2005

Some key excerpts include:

I don't use the phrase "Islamic terrorism" because "Islamic" refers to the essentials of the religion, and it forbids terrorism (hirabah). But if Bush rejected the idea that radical Muslim terrorism came out of religion or culture, he was right.

Zionist movement threw up a number of terrorist organizations that engaged in bombings and assassinations on a fair scale. That is, frustrated Zionists not getting their way behaved in ways difficult to distinguish from frustrated Muslim nationalists who didn't get their way.

So it is the combination of Western occupation and weak states that produced the conditions for radical Muslim terrorism.

Democratic countries have often produced terrorist movements. This was true of Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United States in the late 1960s and through the 1970s. There is no guarantee that a more democratic Iraq, Egypt, or Lebanon will produce less terrorism.

I'm all for democratization in the Middle East, as a good in its own right. But I don't believe that authoritarian governance produced most episodes of terrorism in the last 60 years in the region. Terrorism was a weapon of the weak wielded against what these radical Muslims saw as a menacing foreign occupation. To erase that fact is to commit a basic error in historical understanding. It is why the U.S. military occupation of Iraq is actually a negative for any "war on terror." Nor do I believe that democratization, even if it is possible, is going to end terrorism in and of itself.

You want to end terrorism? End unjust military occupations.

---

So that my motives for posting this article aren't misunderstood, I should probably mention that the intentional killing of non-combatants, even in the face of "unjust military occupations" and other forms of oppression, is never Islamically justified. On the contrary, what the pure teachings of Islam require in this case is either patience (sabr) or finding an Islamically lawful (halal) way to resist. Such decisions aren’t made based on the emotional whims of uneducated Muslims nor the unqualified legal opinions of angry engineer “insta-scholar” renegades, but are contingent on the informed opinions of traditionally-trained scholars who adhere to one of the traditional schools of Sunni jurisprudence.

Likewise, Americans need to understand that the citizens of other countries are just as human as they are, for better or for worse, thus to exploit, abuse and kill them in large numbers over a number of decades and still somehow expect that there will never be a backlash is not only naïve and contrary to human (any human’s) nature, but it’s hypocritical as well. Indeed, ever since the violent struggle to establish their republic over 200 years ago, Americans have seen fit to not only resist injustice, exploitation and invasion on their own soil, but have also employed military force on a grand scale to many other countries in order to ostensibly protect their own interests (often at great expense to the citizens of the other country). As long as most Americans are willing to turn a blind eye to some of the darker aspects of their history, it's unlikely that the so-called "War on Terror" will ever be over.

This is because as long as the U.S. government, without being pressured by its citizens from below, continues to pursue policies that are not only unjust and exploitive of others, but contrary to the interests of the United States, it will continue to foster a geo-political atmosphere that will cause terrorism to not only continue, but grow and thrive. If, as the U.S. sometimes claims, they really want to "drain the swamp in order to kill all the mosquitoes", they need to be candid and admit that the name of the swamp is "Long-term Exploitation and Injustice". Even though most of their experts admit that they'll never be able to “win” by killing every terrorist cell one-by-one (as much as some in the U.S. government and military would seemingly like to try), but only by completely draining the swamp which is the product of their own ill-conceived and immoral policies. Once one understands this, it's obvious that the U.S. doesn't really want to bring the war on terrorism to a just and moral conclusion, but rather they want to continue on their course of self-righteous global domination and just try to limit the damage that terrorists can do to their plans. If you can’t see this, then you simply don’t know (or are unable to come to terms with) what’s really going on.

Ignorance is bliss, as they say, so if you’re not aware of some of the nastier and heinous things that the U.S. has done since it’s first imperial war began back in 1898, then it’s high time that you turn off FoxNews and start reading some scholarly history texts that don’t leave out some of the more unpalatable aspects of America’s past.

Secrets of al-Madinah

I found some interesting links that provide incredible information about al-Madinah al-Munawwrah (map - photo) including a detailed map of al-Rawdah, with an index, and a map of al-Baqi'a cemetery (photo - photo). Any of us blessed enough to visit Masjid al-Nabawi al-Sharif, salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam, could find this information very useful, insha'llah.

The Feminine Element in Islam

I came across this useful and perceptive article the other day:

Mercy and “The Feminine Element” Within the Prophetic Character [111 KB Adobe Acrobat File]
by Fareeha Khan

For anyone interested in the roles which femininity and feminine attributes play in Islamic theology and metaphysics, I highly recommend the unique and insightful study by Sachiko Murata entitled: The Tao of Islam: A Sourcebook on Gender Relationships in Islamic Thought. Even though this book is not without its flaws, it contains some excellent analysis in regards to gender roles in Islam and very penetrating reflections on the overall "spiritual cosmology" of Islam. If you ever come across a fair-minded but misinformed person who feels that Islam is inherently misogynistic, this is a good book to place in their hand, insha'llah.

Addressing Madhhab Misconceptions

A couple of days ago, someone with the profile name Hmmm posted some very worthwhile comments on the Living Tradition weblog that address some common misconceptions about fiqh and the madhhabs:

“...the rulings of the traditional schools are not static. No school believes that it's fiqh is eternal and immutable - it cannot be denied that an understanding of the Shariah is subject to change and adaptation in the light of changing events - hence ijtihad in the mu'amalat (civil matters) and within the madhabs is still open. This also means that the Shafi school is not the school that follows all of the rulings laid down by Imam Shafi straight out in, say, his Umm - it refers to the group of scholars who took his framework of jurisprudence and adopted it to try and discern the Shariah. Indeed, later mujtahids such as Imam Nawawi are relied upon for major issues in that particular school. To follow the rulings of individuals from 1400 years ago with no flexibility would be silly.”

The misconceptions addressed above are often mentioned with a plea to "reopen the gates of ijtihad", seemingly implying that no Muslim scholar has been allowed to make ijtihad since about the third Islamic century—which is utterly ridiculous. I look forward to seeing more thoughtful comments from Hmmm, whoever he or she is...

FBI Report: No "True" Al Qaeda Found in U.S.

In the same vein as my Let Facts Refute Islamophobic Paranoia posting of February 2nd, 2004, the following article should help quell suspicions about American Muslims:

FBI Report: No "True" Al Qaeda Sleeper Agents Found in U.S.
by Brian Ross
ABC News - March 11, 2005

Even if they end up finding an Al Qaeda cell operating in America, this shouldn't be blamed on the 99.999% of Muslims in America who have nothing to do with this violent and fanatical brand of Islam.

New Hamza Yusuf CD: "Who are the Rightly-Guided Scholars?"

This new title by Sidi Hamza Yusuf Hanson, produced by Alhambra Productions, sounds interesting...

Reflections on Arabic Letters

Below are links to a series of musings on the twenty-eight letters of the Arabic alphabet that Al-Ahram Weekly (Egypt) published about a half-dozen Ramadans ago. The thoughts are based on material collected from Ibn al-Manzhur's Lisan al-'Arab, one of the most—if not the most—authoritative lexicons of the Arabic language:

• Alif is for Apple


• Seen is not Heard


• 'Ayn is an Eye


• Yaa is not Zed

Interview with Robert Fisk in Beirut

This interview [downloadable 13.6 MB MP3 file] with veteran Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk is worth listening to. I haven't listened to all of it yet, but most of the initial discussion focuses on the recent assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. As usual, Robert Fisk is splendidly candid and lets us know what's really going on in the Middle East. His characteristically insightful, intelligent and even-handed coverage of the Middle East over the past quarter century has endeared him to many and made him a host of enemies as well. Robert Fisk's book Pity the Nation is certainly one of the best, if not the best, book on the Lebanese Civil War. One reason for this is that Mr. Fisk, who currently writes for The Independent [U.K.], was on location for almost all of the war, just like he's been for much more recent wars in the region. In spite of his heartfelt outrage due to all of the senseless killings and war crimes that he's covered, including the Sabra and Shatila massacres (the grisly aftermath of which he personally witnessed), this Arabic-speaking journalist-author manages to remain very fair and balanced. From what I've seen and heard over the years, old Bob Fisk calls 'em like he sees 'em whether dealing with Muslims, Christians, Sunnis, Shi'a, Palestinians, Israelis, secularists or fundamentalists. In spite of the fact that he's been accused of being "pro-Muslim" (even "pro-Terrorist") by various U.K. conservatives and American ignorami simply because he isn't a bigot who is openly anti-Muslim (and this increasingly seems par for the course in the simplistic "You're With Us or Against Us" world of both George W. Bush and Osama Bin Ladin), Mr. Fisk continues to put forward a rather secular-humanist anti-religious perspective that is intolerant of fundamentalism, whether it be the Jewish, Christian or Muslim variety. An underlying current that I gather from his writings is that Robert Fisk seemingly (and rather sadly) sees all religion as simple-minded silliness—and a lot of so-called "religious" people have only themselves to blame for that. In spite of his sometimes adversarial take on religion, Muslims and others often welcome his insights and commentaries. This is because as someone who understands the history, language and culture of the Middle East, Robert Fisk offers an often compassionate and knowledge-based perspective of events that puts to shame the often ignorant and oversimplified views expressed in the mainstream media.

In spite of the significant differences in our world views, we pray that journalist and author Robert Fisk continues his laudable efforts to further publicize the war crimes of Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon—crimes which even an Israeli investigation found him "personally responsible" for back in 1982. Robert Fisk has written quite a number of articles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) about the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacres which were carried out by Lebanese Christian militiamen while the Israeli army, at a minimum, looked the other way while offering seemingly tacit approval. The more one reads about all of this, it seems
increasingly scandalous how the media is trying to keep Americans ignorant of these facts. Even worse are those on the so-called "Religious Right" that know the facts but just don't seem to care (since, after all, it was just "smell bad" Palestinian Muslims that got massacred). For religiously sensible and morally sensitive individuals who are aware of the facts surrounding the Sabra and Shatila massacres, the troubling question of "why do we ignore them?", as Chris Tolworthy ably demonstrates, still looms large.

Sister Ginny Quick Needs Our Help

As recently posted by Umm Zaid, Yusuf Smith, Sidi Faraz Rabbani, Levantine Historian and Alexandalus, please be aware that our friend and sister in Islam Ginny Quick, along with her brother and sister-in-law, lost nearly all her possessions in a house fire just a few days ago. She was left with only the clothes she was wearing when she fled: a pair of pyjamas, a jacket, a hijab and a pair of shoes...Ginny is blind, and is the only Muslim in her family. She lives in Tennessee, the nearest big town being Clarksville, and she has recently escaped from a violent, possibly exploitative, marriage...She has a guide dog, which helped her escape from the fire and is also safe. However, Ginny and her family are in need of money, clothes and many other household items since they really lost basically everything in the fire. For information on how to help, please click here.

[The above text was borrowed, in the interest of time and with some minor modifications, from Yusuf Smith's Indigo Jo Blogs via Alexandalus.]

CLAIM: "Islam is NOT a religion of peace"

In his devilish desperation to slander Islam, I once read an article in which a Christian missionary put forward the claim that since the Arabic word sullam means "ladder" or "stairs", and it comes from the same S-L-M root as the word Islam, then this latter word doesn't mean, or isn't related to, "peace". Of all the faulty claims about the word Islam (often grossly pronounced "iz-lum", rather than "is-laaam", by many obviously language-challenged 'mericans) that I've heard in recent years, this one probably represents the most depraved and illogical. Without letting the fact (which any Arabic dictionary will tell you) that salam is indeed the word for "peace" in the Arabic language, this false da'wah desperado issued a claim that just a little honest research would have done away with. This is because the Arabic verb salima/sulima, meaning "be safe" or "be secure", is also based on the same S-L-M root. Thus it shouldn't take much to realize that the essential meaning of sullam is a "way to safety" or "implementation of security" (which is the function that ladders and stairs often perform). Please make some sincere du'a that we have more time to deal with these types of distortions and slanders, since there sure are a lot more where this one came from. As I often say: If Islam is just made up of a bunch of baseless claims and farfetched beliefs, then why do they have to lie about it so much?

Anyway, what got me started on this topic is the fact that my friend Shibli Zaman recently wrote an excellent response to some incorrect claims regarding the Arabic word Islam. Unfortunately, even some Muslims are misinformed about some of the deeper etymological meanings of this word, which Brother Shibli readily demonstrates with some excellent examples from one of the most authoritative classical references on the Arabic language. Insha'llah, we look forward to more quality responses from Sidi Shibli Zaman as soon as he gets his NESSIA website back up and running. In case you missed the first link, his entire article can be found here [in Adobe Acrobat .pdf format].

Warsh Recitation CD and Maliki Resources

Lamppost Productions has made some significant additions to their website and store. They are now offering a CD of Qur'anic recitation in Warsh by Qari Abdel-Karim Boudkik, one of Morocco's best recitors. They've also added quite a few articles by Ustadh Abdullah bin Hamid Ali, including some key ones on Maliki fiqh, most of which were previously available but now seem to better organized and more accessible now that they're all in one location.

Speaking of Maliki fiqh, please have a look at these images of the cover and first two pages of a Maghribi text of al-Akhdari, which is one of the most commonly used entry level texts in the Maliki madhhab. My mother-in-law brought this to me from Morocco awhile back and I was impressed by its originally handwritten — if not practically drawn — text. This method of writing Arabic, with the dot under the faa, no dots on a terminal nun and other such idiosyncrasies, might seem a bit strange to Muslims from the East, but you should still be able to notice how the name of the Prophet—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—is decorated with such loving detail. Ma sha'llah. You can just feel the years of 'ilm and taqwa that are behind these pages. Even though we probably don't want to do away with our printing presses anytime soon, when you take something like this to heart you can sense that we've somehow lost something in becoming more modern, efficient and hasty...wa Allahu 'alim.

Muslim in America - Orlando, Florida

I recently found out that a good friend of mine got profiled by one of the local fish wraps a couple of months ago. I was rather pleased with the article, since it presents a pretty sympathetic view of what a lot of Muslims have gone through in this country since 9/11:

Muslim in America
by Leigh de Armas
Orlando Weekly - 12/23/2004

Shaykh Abdurrahman Sykes is a rising star of Islam in Central Florida, where he serves as a full-time Muslim chaplain in a nearby Federal prison and is well-known as a frequent guest speaker at fundraisers and related events. I find it impressive that both he and his wife, who is also a convert, are originally from different areas of the world that used to practice severe forms of racial oppression: the American South (North Carolina to be more specific) and South Africa, which is just another example of how people can rise above the ignorance and bigotry that their society tries to hand-off to them...and Allah guides whom He will.

As a former Evangelical preacher and cancer survivor, Abdurrahman Sykes certainly is a living example of the power of Islam in people's lives and an inspiration for many. I feel a special kinship with him not only because we both spell our Abdurrahman adopted first names the same way (and there seem to be at least a half-dozen ways to spell it in English and even two in Arabic), but because we're often mistaken for each other. I'm not sure why other than the fact that we're both Caucasian and around six feet tall, since his beard is usually a lot longer than mine and I have a lot more gray hair (although I'm a bit younger). Seemingly to some people, all of us white converts look alike (and I experienced that while in Kuwait as well). I'm not complaining or drawing any conclusions, but just making an observation...Allahu 'alim what some people are thinking (or maybe they're just not thinking).

Anyway, I just wanted to share this profile of Muslim life in Central Florida.

The Handshake Dilemma

A lot of you out there, both Muslim men and Muslim women, can probably relate to this article:

Let's not shake on it
Some would call a refusal to shake hands downright rude. Others see it another way.
by Muhammad Athar Lila
The Globe and Mail - March 2, 2005

Here are some short excerpts followed by some of my own comments :

Offensive? Absurd? Chauvinistic? Welcome to the dilemma that is my life.

I can already hear you thinking: "This guy's pretty extreme. It's just a handshake. Is he a Wahhabi or something?"

No, I'm not an extremist. And no, I'm not some Saudi-sponsored preacher trying to promote a narrow-minded view of religion.

It comes down to this: During his lifetime, the Prophet Muhammad, whom Muslims look to as a perfect role model, never shook hands with women he was not related to.

From what I've seen, we Muslims usually don't do a very good job of explaining this rather touchy ruling. If we have the opportunity (and we usually do), we should always explain that this rule goes both ways (i.e. Muslim women don't shake hands with members of the opposite sex, except close relatives, either). Thus it has nothing to do with one gender being superior to the other (as some people, with their heads full of Islamophobic misinformation, readily assume), but it has everything to do with modesty and chastity—virtues which are not only all but forgotten in Western society, but often mocked as well. Like many slippery slopes to temptation, Islam nips this one in the bud by only allowing physical contact between spouses and close relatives—full stop (which is how they say "period" in the UK).

For those out there for whom the textual proofs of Islam aren't good enough, we'll also mention that Orthodox Jews have the same belief (i.e. physical contact between non-married men and women is forbidden), based on rulings which they derive from the Tanakh (a.k.a. Old Testament). Not only that, but hand shaking between men and women is something relatively new even in the once Christian West. Take for example this statement from a manual on Victorian etiquette: "An unmarried lady should not shake hands with gentlemen indiscriminately. When introduced to a gentleman, never offer your hand".

More Muslims need to be aware of these things so they realize that we're not the ones who are compromising our Divinely-revealed values, but rather we're preserving the standards that the West used to have. Part of the problem (if not all of the problem) is that most people in the West, even church-going ones, have a very secular world view that is almost totally devoid of the sacred (in spite of occasional lipservice). Indeed, almost any religious requirement meant to prevent sexual immorality is viewed as an aspect of a repressive culture or backward superstition. Even though they might utilize things like conservative dress (i.e. wearing choir robes in church or portraying the Virgin Mary with her head covered) for reasons of religious symbolism or nostalgia, the practical aspects are almost always lost on them.

A recent example of this can be seen in Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ in which Mary Magdalene nonchalantly removes her head covering. The way in which this was done in the movie shows that Mel Gibson apparently believes that women back then covered themselves purely for symbolic reasons. The notion that a modest and chaste woman would not want to be uncovered in public out of her love and fear of God seems completely alien to Mel Gibson. Thus not only is he an unqualified interpreter of a Semitic society that he obviously doesn't understand, but he, like most Westerners, is totally divorced from the moral outlook that only Islam, for the most part, has managed to preserve.

When it comes right down to it, we should find it mind boggling that Christians even ask us about why Muslim women dress the way they do since the answer is right there in their Bible where Jesus, peace be upon him, says: "But I tell you, everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that since adultery is a major sin (or at least it used to be according to most denominations), then one should take reasonable measures to prevent it. Historically, that's how most Christians saw it and why it should come as no suprise that up until a couple of decades ago, women in Christian countries covered themselves up rather well when out in public.

Before closing, I just have to mention that when I was looking through Rules of Conduct for All Occasions: A Book of Etiquette for Proper Victorian Gentlemen and Women I also came across this: "An unmarried young woman, up to the age of thirty, must always accompanied by a chaperone when she goes out. This is to ensure that she is innocent, and to compel others to respect her innocence." Needless to say, times sure have changed in the past hundred years or so. Which reminds me...the other day, while visiting a local YMCA (and keep in mind that the "C" stands for "Christian") I happened to notice that they were advertising a dance for teenagers. Although the dance was to be chaperoned and warned of a strictly enforced dress code (Ah, those darn fundamentalists imposing their values on others!) the fact that a "Christian" organization thinks that it makes good moral sense to get teenagers of the opposite sex together so that they can shake and gyrate in front of each other while sensual music is being played just proves once again that quite often we operate in a whole different moral universe than they do. What a blessing to be a Muslim and not to be seeing the world through those old fuzzy goggles anymore! May Almighty God have mercy on us all...

786 Has Me Hoping for Some Blue Moon

Earlier this evening, I happened to be checking out the MeccaOne website and came across this new halal remake of an old classic tune:

786: In The Still of The Night Remix

In spite of the fact that it's done without musical instruments (which is why it's halal), I think it sounds pretty close to the original. Not that this old prude thinks we Muslims should be spending too much of our time (but okay, maybe a little) listening to such stuff, I still have to admit that I'm impressed. Not only did they get the vocals right, but I think the Ramadan-related lyrics were a nice touch. Now I'm anxiously awaiting for them to do a remake/remix of Blue Moon by The Marcels, which even in the original was almost all vocals—and I'm confident that they could Islamicize the words to that old tune quite easily. Maybe they could rename it New Moon and have it focus on the anticipation of an upcoming Ramadan. Just a thought (and now a potentially copyrighted one). Lighten up, that was a joke (unless, of course, they end up really making lots of money). Gee, I just can't seem to give up on the wisecracks tonight. Anyway, it was strange how Blue Moon just popped into my mind out of nowhere right after I finished listening to this new remix. Please pass this request for Blue Moon along to 786 if anyone out there knows them.

Pharisee Nation: Christians Without The Beatitudes

Here's a much needed but not often heard point-of-view by a Jesuit priest:

Hypocrite Nation
by John Dear

"I said. “Jesus says, ‘Blessed are the peacemakers,’ which means he does not say, ‘Blessed are the warmakers,’ which means, the warmakers are not blessed, which means warmakers are cursed..."

"With that, the place exploded, and it seemed like 500 students stormed out and the rest started chanting, “Bush! Bush!"Bush!”

"So much for my speech. Not to mention the Beatitudes."

I can relate to his frustration. However, maybe he wasn't aware that some New Beatitudes have been discovered and these are the ones that the Bush administration is actually following.

(Note: For those of you who think Rush Limbaugh is an intellectual, believe Sean Hannity is objective and rely on FoxNews to tell you the truth, the article which that last link points to is being unashamedly sarcastic and ruthlessly satirical. I don't mean to make light of a very serious moral situation, but rather I'm simply trying to make a point by employing a little humor. If you think I could make my point more effectively by being more prudish, please let me know.)

A Couple of Unedited Bookcase Images

As requested by Muslimah da'i and author extraordinaire Umm Zaid, here are images of a couple of my all too many bookcases. The top image is of my miscellaneous bookcase and the bottom one contains Islamic books: