The Common Cause of Bernard Lewis and Usama bin Laden

Here's a thought-provoking article by S. Parvez Manzoor in which he serves up a nice dose of the painful truth. It seems to be based on a lecture that he gave in the not too distant past, although I've been unable to determine when or where. Personally, I could do without the untranslated German words, and for those of you who feel likewise, Gesellschaft is usually translated as "society" and Gemeinschaft as "community". I'm not going to provide any hints as to what my hopefully thought-provoking title is getting at, since I want to encourage everyone to read the article in order to find an answer...

---

From Gesellschaft to Gemeinschaft:
or
Engagement beyond Dialogue

by S. Parvez Manzoor

The senseless violence and terror of our times has acquired an 'Islamic' face. Rather than as faith, civilization or culture, Islam is now perceived, thanks to the umpteen mechanisms of representation that our civilization commands, as the ideology of Islamism. But most lamentably for an age that prides its secularity, Islam now provides an excuse for the return of the Manichaean rhetoric in the language of politics. Little wonder that all uncontrollable passions today either have to do with the assertion of Islam or with its containment.

Naturally, this both grieves and perplexes ordinary Muslims, the overwhelming majority, who feel appalled by this secular transubstantiation of a sacred faith into a politics of immediate return. It grieves us because the messianic violence perpetrated in the name of Islam represents a total negation of the Islamic values. It perplexes us because, though carried out in the name of jihad, the doctrine of inner struggle, purification and penance, the Jihad of our zealots is, like the worst caricature of the Islamophobic imagination: it is little more than an 'ideology of holy war'. Its champions are far too willing to sacrifice, at the altar of their home-grown politics of parochial causes, primeval passions and selfendorsing piety, every vestige of Islamic faith, reason, compassion and law! Little wonder that divorced both from Islamic ethics and its juristic norms, cut off from all sources of Islam's humanity and morality, the jihadi enterprise can only redeem itself in the moral wasteland of modern nihilism.

Though saddened and perplexed, we find little comfort in discovering that the Islamic face of terror is nothing but a secular mask; that our jihadis are, in terms of their methods and tactics at least, direct disciples of the revolutionary anarchists of late nineteenth-century Europe. Or, as has been expressed far less circumspectly: "If Osama bin Laden has a precursor; it is the nineteenth century Russian terrorist Sergei Nechaev."¹ Like Communism and Nazism, then, radical Islamism is a modern heresy.

Far more difficult to dismiss, however, is the following statement which claims that 'the conflict between Al-Qaeda and the West is a war of religion. The Enlightenment idea of a universal civilization, which the West upholds against radical Islam, is an offspring of Christianity. Al-Qaeda's peculiar hybrid of theocracy and anarchy is a by-product of western radical thought. Each of the protagonists in the current conflict is driven by beliefs that are opaque to it.'² The globalisation regime promotes, we are made to believe, a passionate, tribal politics of difference as well as an overbearing imperial rule. Whether right or wrong, this sombre insight must compel us to seek a future beyond the logic of Terror and Empire. We must not allow ourselves to become hostages to the unleashing of opaque passions. This, I presume, is the rationale behind the present gathering. This, most certainly, is my reason for being here.

To move beyond the responsibility of dialogue is also to advance from the logic of Gesellshaft to the emotion of Gemeinschaft. The forces of modernity and globalisation, it is evident, are quite successful at the creation of a world gesellschaft, a network of economic, social and legal institutions that are universal in scope. Their contribution to the emergence of a world gemeinschaft, a human community united in the pursuit of common moral goals, is far less impressive. The search for a human community however entails a reflection on the problem of world-order; for, the moral and the political are quite simply impossible to disentangle in this discourse. By rejecting all theocratic and redemptive visions of global order, but at the same time pursuing a politics of common humanity, we can set definite limits and conditions for any dialogue between civilisations.

As a Muslim, therefore, I would like to exercise my right to question the credentials of 'political Islam'; its claim to represent my own tradition. I would openly challenge its cardinal assertion that in the Islamic scheme of things, religion and politics are one; that faith without a polity does not come to fruition. That there always exists, at a deeper level of consciousness, an organic link between worldviews and political goals, is not a point of contention. This, after all, is a trivial insight that is valid as much for Islam as for any other faith or civilisation. No, I question this claim when it comes with the label of Islamic specificity. Whether it be the war cry of a beleaguered fundamentalism or that of an equally intransigent Islamophobia, I challenge it on the grounds of history.

Only from the canons of a dogmatic theology may we envision one and a half millennia of Islamic history, in all the four corners of the ancient, medieval and modern worlds, as an eternal wandering in the no-man's land of spurious, sub-Islamic, existence! Or, conversely, the historical Muslim state, with its flagrant disregard of the Islamic rule and the manifestly 'un-Islamic' conduct of its rulers, could only have convinced the believers that it was an incarnation of their faith if they had been brain-dead! Clearly, Islam produced its own criteria for distinguishing norm from history, ideal from reality and power from authority. In fact, Islam succeeded in transforming itself into a civilization mainly by securing a separation of faith and governance. To claim therefore that Muslims were strangers to the logic of historical compromise, or that Islamic doctors always chose Divine Governance over Caesar's rule is to revel in a fundamentalist fantasy or to draw an Orientalist caricature. Ironically, in the propagation of this ahistorical vision, western scholars and Muslim radicals have found a common cause. It is here that we find Bernard Lewis in bed with Usama bin Laden!

The same goes for the claims about Islam's putative incompatibility with democracy or secularism. To take secularism first. Like a darling child secularism has many names. It has been conceived, either humbly, as a rejection of ecclesiastical authority, a model for pluralism, a theory of society, a doctrine of governance; or augustly, as a philosophy of history, a creed of atheism, an epistemology of humanism; or even more grandiosely, as a metaphysics of immanence that corresponds to the ultimate scheme of things. Needless to say, not everyone championing the cause of secularism ascribes to these claims, nor is every expression of the secularist, this-worldly, conscience and morality inimical or antithetical to Islam. As long as secularism does not lay claim to being a metaphysics, as a theory of 'all that is', inasmuch as it does not behave as if it were a doctrine of redemption (Heilslehre), Islam can cohabit with it. As for secularism being a form of government that guarantees freedom of religion in pluralistic societies, even Muslims find it preferable to the suppression of religious conscience that is hallmark of theocratic rule.³ At any rate, Islam's compatibility with secular politics may not remain an issue for long, for all politics is in some sense secular politics and if the Muslims aspire to become actors in history, they'll have to adapt to the ways of the world.

As for democracy, what militates against its growth in Muslim societies is not any hurdles set up by the Islamic doctrine, but the refusal of current regimes to grant their Muslim citizenry the most fundamental of rights - freedom of conscience and religion–which the secular state takes for granted. Secularism in the Muslim context is construed not as a formal separation of church and state but as an absolute ban on Islamic political conscience, an adamant denial of its right to partake in public debate and propose public policies–no matter how peacefully and 'democratically' this civic conscience articulates its societal aspirations! In the final analysis, it is not an issue of Islamic obduracy or militancy but that of the despotic, absolutist and undemocratic nature of the secular Muslim regimes (and the civilisation in power that sustains them). A democratic Muslim state, it is my belief, is better equipped to meet all the challenges of secular morality and appease all the demands of Islamic conscience!

Despite all the goodwill on the part of the part of our hosts, I fear, we may find ourselves in a situation where, paradoxically, engaging with the Islamic world is not the same as engaging with the Islamic conscience. While economic, diplomatic, strategic and other concerns would require that the logic of gesellschaft be predominant in this dialogue with 'official Islam', it is my hope that another encounter, within the warmth and congeniality of gemeinschaft, also takes place between the European Geist and the Islamic conscience; a conscience which is not bound by territoriality and whose quest for meaning stretches beyond the horizons of politics and history.

It is in this vein that I conclude by citing an eminent Historian of religion, W. C. Smith, whose words, fifty years after they were first uttered, have still not lost their actuality. He says: "If it is a question whether Islam can adjust itself to Western civilisation, it is also a question whether Western civilisation is able to develop so as to include Islam."⁴

Let's hope that our efforts to conduct a practical conversation, here and now, also help us discover a common moral ground and a sense of community which, according to the Islamic tradition, comes from being the children of Adam.⁵

---

Notes
1. Gray, John: Al-Qaeda and What It Means to Be Modern. London, Faber and Faber, 2003. p 21.
2. Ibid. p. 117.
3. Bencheikh, Sohaib: Marianne et le Prophète. Paris, Bernard Grasset, 1998. The author who is the ‘mufti of Marseilles’ is critical of those French policies which do not fully extend the regime of laicité to Islam.
4. Smith, W.C.: Islam in Modern History. New York, Mentor Books, 1957. p. 217. Further, despite the apocalyptic mood of our times, some Western scholars are also pleading for a more inclusive and irenic attitude towards Islam. Vid. Bulliet, Richard: The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization. New York, Columbia University press, 2004.
5. Koran: 33:72.

Bart D. Ehrman and Misquoting Jesus

A recent comment, as well as a posting on Seeker's Digest, made me realize that I never got around to making more comments on my pick for last month's Book-of-the-Month. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, by Bart Ehrman, is a fascinating look at how the text of the New Testament was altered over time and the questions this raises in regards to whether it contains the authentic words of Jesus—peace be upon him.

This latest work by Dr. Ehrman is written much more for the layman than his previous book on this topic, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, which is a much more dense and scholarly read. Indeed, Misquoting Jesus is a fascinating and captivating read that is accessible even to those with little or no knowledge of the textual history of the New Testament. As I said previously, "Not only does it give a general historical overview of the textual criticism of the New Testament, along with three glaring and in-depth examples of textual corruption, but it also contains an intriguing autobiographical account of Bart Ehrman's journey from being a naive Born-Again Christian to becoming a world-renowned scholar of Biblical manuscripts."

In this regard, I encourage everyone to listen to the recent interview [Duration: 38:26] with Bart Ehrman, which was conducted earlier this month by Terry Gross of NPR's "Fresh Air", and read Did Jesus Really Say That? which is a recent interview with him that appeared in The Charlotte Observer. Since Bart Ehrman's early "Born Again" Christian faith was closely tied to the text of the New Testament, listening to him explain his path to agnosticism is somewhat disturbing, but hardly surprising.

For those of you who can't afford, can't wait or don't want, to purchase Misquoting Jesus, the essence of its discussion of the "three glaring and in-depth examples of textual corruption", which I mentioned above, can be found in the texts of Dr. Ehrman's Kenneth W. Clark Lectures, which he gave at Duke Divinity School in 1997. The transcripted texts of these two lectures, entitled Text and Tradition: The Role of New Testament Manuscripts in Early Christian Studies, can be found here and here. One of the most interesting of these rejoinders, and the most well-argued as well, is Ehrman's analysis in "Mark 1:41 and the Angry Jesus"—which can be found in the text of Lecture 1.

Also, I've taken the liberty to scan and post page 113 of Misquoting Jesus as another enticing sample, since it contains an interesting example of a textual variation in the New Testament text that relates directly to the divinity of Jesus—or lack thereof.

Again, I strongly encourage everyone—especially Jews, Christians, Muslims, students of comparative religion and other seekers of truth—to read Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why in its entirety. Most certainly it will contain information and documentation of which you were heretofore unaware. Likewise, The Teaching Company has several [(1),(2),(3),(4)] courses by Bart D. Ehrman on various subjects related to Christianity. These excellent university-level lectures are available in several formats including VHS tape, audio CD and DVD, and provide a great way to educate oneself while commuting, exercising or simply in lieu of watching television. Since new copies of these courses might be a bit too expensive for some, experience has taught me that used copies of many of these courses can often be found, at quite a savings, on eBay.com.

Deen On...

"The Burning Question" on the BBC

From DeenPort.com, I learned that the BBC World Service is "asking a number of high-profile figures what they would ask if they could ask just one question - and who they would put it to." After reading Karen Armstrong's response, I thought it was worth repeating:

"I'd like to ask the Prophet Muhammad what he thinks of the current situation.

I think I know what he would say, but I would like Western people to hear the Prophet's abhorrence of these actions done in his name, abhorrence with the intolerance and hatred and violence that he dedicated his life to transcending.

I'd also like to hear him tell Muslims who believe that he would have endorsed these vile actions to look more seriously at the compassion of the Koran.

As for the West, he would say: 'Look at the message of the Koran' - which is all about treating all people equally, and that includes my Muslims in disadvantaged parts of the world who are struggling to make sense of lives in violent and hopeless situations."

Karen Armstrong is the author of numerous books on or related to Islam, including: A History Of God: The 4000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, The Battle for God, Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet, Islam: A Short History, Holy War: The Crusades and Their Impact on Today's World, The Gospel According to Woman, and Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths.

Even though I can find plenty to criticize in some of her books, which are generally those that deal with issues closest to the core of Islam, I also feel that Karen Armstrong is a sincere commentator. Although she, like Professor John Esposito, is not the apologist for Islam that those on the Right sometimes make her out to be, she is certainly a welcome sympathetic voice whose books have enriched the on-going dialogue that the world is having about Islam.

Enjoy...

Moderated Comments at MereIslam.info

To reiterate what I announced a couple of months ago, I want to let my readers know that even though I have enabled the ability for readers to leave comments, I do have some policies in this regard, which remain as I described them on October 25, 2005:

Against my better judgment, I've decided to turn Comments back on.
However, please keep in mind that this weblog is not a democracy, but rather
a personal forum for expressing views and opinions on topics of my choosing.
Thus, as the benevolent dictator of the petty cyberfiefdom of Mere Islam, I
reserve the right to delete any comments that are blasphemous, profane,
slanderous to Islam, or contain anything else that I feel is inappropriate,
completely lacking in merit or unduly sloppy.

Also, since Blogger.com recently began providing the ability to moderate comments, I have enabled that capability as well. This means that your comments will not be posted immediately, but only after being approved by yours truly. In that light, the previous paragraph should be modified so that "disapprove" is used in lieu of "delete".

Deen On...

Sister Ginny in Action

Sister Ginny Quick, of the Ginny's Thoughts and Things blog, recently appeared on WKRN (Nashville, TN) television news. The report is about "remarkable technology" that assists the blind and, in the case of Ginny, helps them help others. You can view the video of the WKRN report by clicking here.

Personally, the technology that Ginny demonstrated was different than what I expected. This is because I once observed the desktop PC of a blind computer programmer in the data center where I used to work, and she had both a Braille keyboard and Braille monitor—which I found fascinating. For those of you who haven't seen one, the way a Braille monitor works is instead of displaying an image on the screen using light, Braille characters are produced on a flat metal surface using metal pins which protrude from it to form characters. These characters are then read by hand—and here are some technical details on various models.

My guess is that the audio/voice-recognition that Sister Ginny uses in the video is a vast improvement over a Braille monitor, although the latter probably continues to have some utility. Anyway, it's nice knowing that there continues to be more and better technology developed which helps improve the lives of the seeing-impaired.

My thanks to the Amon Hen blog for this piece, since that's where I found it...

Trinitarians: Searching for Evidence of Divine Plurality

Below is an extended extract from pages 21-23 of Al Tawhid: Its Implications for Thought and Life, by the late Dr. Isma'il Raji al Faruqi, on the topic of The Offense of Christianity. I'm including this piece not only because it's interesting and beneficial, but also because I plan to use it as a reference for some future postings, insha'llah. The main point that I'm interested in is the fact that Christian theologians, in trying to find textual support for the Trinity, scoured the pages of the Old Testament trying to prove that God is plural! Not only that, but according to the historical doctrines of orthodox Christianity, the Trinity is much more than "a way of talking about God" or a simple recognition of various alleged Divine "manifestations"—explanations which are commonly put forward in dialogues with Muslims—but we'll leave that discussion for another day, insha'llah. In the mean-time, please read and reflect on this thoughtful and assertive, albeit rather brief, explanation of how Christians eventually "raised paradox above self-evident truth":

The offense of Christianity against transcendence was even greater.
Islam charged Christianity with extending the nontranscendent concept
to God's "fatherhood of the Jewish kings" to Jesus and giving it, besides
its moral signification of compliance with God's commandments, the
de-transcendentalizing ontological connotation of unity of substance be-
tween God and Jesus. Indeed, Christian catholicity defined itself with
terms of this "substantial" identity of Jesus with God, as distinct from
plurality of their "personalities," characters and consciousness. Obviously,
the source of this new departure from transcendence of the divine being
within the Semitic stream was not the Jewish inheritance of Christianity.
This had given Christianity the concepts, not their connotation. Neither
was gnosticism the source of that departure, whose argument "If he suffer,
he was not God; if he was God, he did not suffer" was hurled against
their fellow Christians in defence of transcendence. The source must
be the non-Semitic influence of the "mystery religions." It was from this
source that Christianity derived its "suffering God" who saves by dying
and returning to life and whose mana (grace) is imparted to the com-
municant thought sacrament.
This anti-transcendence influence on Christianity at its formative stage
was partly responsible for its success among non-Semitic peoples un-
familiar with the notion of God as "totally-other." It is equally responsi-
ble for the misinterpretation of innocent Hebrew and Aramaic concepts
current among Jesus' contemporaries. Barnash or bar-Adam meant a well-
bred and hence virtuous person. But it acquired in St. Paul a mysterious
metaphysical dimension. Any righteous person could claim what Jesus
did, namely, "I and my father (God) are one," in the sense of total com-
pliance with God's will. Christians, however, took this to mean that Jesus
claimed divine status. Whereas Kurie, D. Kurios, Mar Mari and Maran
were among Semites attributable to anyone in authority, Christians took
this attribution to Jesus by his Semitic disciples as their evidence of assum-
ing him to be God. Finally, Christian theologians, taking all these
elements for granted, searched the Hebrew scripture for evidence of plural
divinity, With tvpical intellectual clumsiness, Augustine, Tertullian and
many others thought they found in the plural pronouns of Genesis, "Let
us create man according to our image" (Genesis: 1:28) the evidence for
three persons in the deity! This has remained a Christian "argument"
to the present day held by such a notable thinker as Karl Barth. Indeed,
Barth shamelessly claimed that maleness and femaleness were intrinsic
to the divine nature because Genesis had reported immediately after the
above-mentioned statement, "Male and female created He them" (Genesis
1:28). Since the former statement ends with the word "image," he thought,
the latter statement must be an apposition to the term and hence indicating
maleness and femaleness as constitutive of the divine image! Chris-
tians have committed themselves to divine non-transcendence so resolute-
ly that it had become with them an idée fixe, enabling Paul Tillich to
declare sub specie eternitatis that the transcendent God is unknown and
unknowable unless He is concretized in an object of nature and history.
Since this was the state of "God's transcendence" in Christianity, the
language expressing it was equally improper. Although Christians never
ceased to claim that God is transcendent, they spoke of Him as a real
man who walked on earth and did all things men do, including the suf-
fering of the agonies of death. Of course, according to them, Jesus was
both man and God. They never took a consistent position on Jesus'
humanity or divinity with accusation of apostasy and heresy. That is
why their language is always confusing, at best. When pinned down,
every Christian will have to admit that his God is both transcendent and
immanent. But his claim of transcendence is ipso facto devoid of grounds.
To maintain the contrary, one has to give up the laws of logic. But Chris-
tianity was prepared to go to this length too. It raised paradox above
self-evident truth and vested it with the status of an epistemological prin-
ciple. But under such principle, anything can be asserted and dis-
cussion becomes idle. The Christian may not claim that the trinity is a way
of talking about God; because if the trinity discloses the nature of God
better than unity, a greater plurality would do the job better. At any rate,
to reduce the "Holy Trinity" to a status of in percipi is heretical as it
denies una substantia as metaphysical doctrine.

We have a lot more to come on this and other comparative religion topics, insha'llah. So please remember to check back regularly and...Deen On.

The Qur'an and Higher Criticism

Here's an excellent piece from the late Dr. Isma'il R. Al Faruqi in regards to so-called "higher criticism" of the Qur'an. This long quotation is taken from note 142 on pages 244-245 of his now out-of-print and hard-to-find Christian Ethics: A Historical and Systematic Analysis of Its Dominant Ideas (McGill University Press, 1967):

Some orientalists have criticized Islam for asserting the divine origin of the Qur'an alleging that such assertion precludes any literacy of higher criticism which is essential. But Islam has never prohibited literary of higher criticism of the Qur'an. On the contrary, the Qur'an openly challenged the Muslims and non-Muslims to criticize, or even imitate, any of its verses. The discipline itself of Arabic literary criticism derives its principles from the literary forms of the Qur'an. Instead of being the object of criticism, the Qur'an is the highest ideal of literary Arabic. Nonetheless, the sciences of the Qur'an have always included disciplines which seek to analyze its language into Arabic and dakhil or gharib (borrowed non-Arabic words and phrases), the Qurayshi and non-Qurayshi Arabic, and its verses into equivocal and unequivocal, abrogating and abrogated, literally real and metaphorical, problematic and apparently-contradictory, etc., etc. The science of tafsir (exegesis) includes such disciplines as the analysis of the situational contexts in which the Qur'anic verses were revealed (time, place, and cause of revelation, sha'n al nuzul), of distinguishing the new revelations from those which were known to previous Prophets, etc. etc. Any look at the table of contents of an al Itqan fi 'Ulum al Qur'an by Jalal al Din al Suyuti, for example, would satisfy the most fastidious historian of criticism. When the Christian orientalist is not impressed with all this scholarship, it means that he has been looking for a different kind of criticism altogether, perhaps for the kind which the Bible underwent during the last one hundred years. But even here, all the criticism which has been built around the New Testament, for instance, is far surpassed on the Islamic side by Muslim criticism of the Hadith. The science of the Hadith stands absolutely without parallel in the whole history of criticism, and has given rise to disciplines such as 'Ilm al Rijal (the science of biography), 'Ilm al Isnad (the science of reportative narration) which are utterly unique in the history of thought. The Hadith of the Prophet, having been subject to edition, change, and outright forgery, is comparable from the standpoint of literary criticism to the traditions of Jesus reported in the Gospels. But whereas New Testament criticism did not come about until the nineteenth century, Hadith criticism had produced a magnificent bloom in the eighth and ninth centuries. The Old Testament has also been subject to the same criticism and this has led to startling conclusions, not the least of which are those which shattered the old view of revelation, and prophethood, the Biblical construction of early Jewish history, and forced an allegorical interpretation of morally unacceptable narratives. Now Muslims and others have for fourteen centuries looked in vain for any passages in the Qur'an, whether in its reportative news or akhbar or in its narratives, that suggest the slightest need for such revision. And the challenge still stands. The orientalists' persistent question of where the Qur'an got its ideas of past history and of other religions is not precluded by the divinity of its status. For the Qur'anic revelation has for the most part been situational, and the investigation of which problems of spirit and or history did revelation come down to refute, to add to, to solve, or to judge, is an old question with all exegetes. From the beginning, the divinity of the Qur'an has rested, and has been understood as resting, on the sublime, numinous quality of its religious and moral message, the divine sublimity of its language and words being merely additional accompaniments of divine speech. But this is precisely the position which Christian criticism has been and still is struggling to achieve in favour of the Bible whose Vergegewartigung or re-presentation baffles every thinking Christian every morning and evening.

In a similar vein, please read Who's Afraid Of Textual Criticism?

Deen On...

Prophetic Methodology and the Perennialists

The other day while browsing content-rich Seeker's Digest, a posting on the fuloos blog entitled Sheikh 'Abd Al Wahid Yahya (Rene Guénon) caught my eye. It explains, based on a lecture by Martin Lings, how Rene Guénon, one of the key patriarchs of the Perennialist school, concluded that since the post-Christian West would not be receptive to Islam and Sufism, that Hinduism was the religion that had the best chance of gaining acceptance among them. Without even addressing my reservations about making such a sweeping judgment about Western society which, like all other societies, is made up of individual souls, I couldn't help but wonder what would have happened if the Prophet Muhammad—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—had adopted this approach.

Indeed, if this is the way Almighty God works, then after the first few years (or maybe just days and weeks) of the Prophet's—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—message of pure Abrahamic monotheism being rejected by the pagan Meccans, he would have thoughtfully concluded that since most of them weren't going to be receptive, he should begin teaching them Hinduism...and may Allah save us from such foolishness.

Anyone who has read the Qur'an, or even the Bible for that matter, should know that the prophets weren't religious relativists, but rather were conveyers of absolute Divine truth. The frustrations of preaching to a hard-hearted and non-receptive people for many years never caused any of God's prophet and messengers—peace be upon them all—to change their tune. So even though Rene Guénon concluded that "some of these people were nonetheless virtually intelligent and would be capable of responding to the truth if it were clearly set before them", he reached an erroneous conclusion about what constitues truth and how it should be conveyed. Indeed, I feel that any Muslim who knows their Deen should find Martin Lings singing the praises of Hinduism—"the oldest living religion"— on behalf of Rene Guénon dubious and disturbing at best. What are we to think of professed Muslims who, once they concluded that the message of Islam would not be widely accepted in the West, advocated confronting "the Western world with the truth on the basis of Hinduism"?

Personally, I would encourage everyone to consider the fact (and that's what it is—like it or not) that deciding to present the so-called "truth" using another religion when one's own religion is rejected is highly un-traditional, especially within the confines of the Abrahamic faiths. Indeed, it's something unheard of until the moral and religious relativism of the modern age. Thus, when put under some scrutiny, the Perennialists' call for people to follow one of the "living traditions" of the Great World Religions, regardless of which one, is exposed as a philosophical product of modern times which advocates a highly un-traditional methodology.

Food for thought...wa Allahu 'alim.

King George and the U.S. Constitution

Joseph L. Galloway, a long-time and highly respected war correspondent that some readers may recognize from We Were Soldiers Once...and Young, has sounded off once again (so please click on the following link to read the entire article):

The U.S. is Not a Monarchy
by Joe Galloway - December 22, 2005

I hope every recalls how, back during the Monica Lewinsky affair and a slough of other Clinton-related scandals, Republican pundits—especially those of the talk radio variety—were reminding us on a daily basis of the importance of the concept of "Rule of Law" in the functioning of a society. Well it certainly seems that they've changed their tune now that they're on the other side of the fence...

Here's a key excerpt from the above article:

"George W. Bush is not the emperor of America or the king of the 50 states of the union. He, like us, must live by the rule of law. He is bound by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In the end, he works for us."

"As Ben Franklin wrote more than two centuries ago: 'Those who would give up essential liberty in the pursuit of a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.'"

Deen On...

Free the CPT - Appeal for the Christian Hostages in Iraq

I recently received a request to publicize an appeal, included in full below, for the release of Tim Fox and the other three Christian Peacemaker Team (CPT) members currently being held hostage in Iraq. Even though I'm unable to translate it into Arabic as requested, I did manage to find an Arabic version of a similar appeal for these four hostages, which can be found here. I encourage everyone, especially my fellow Muslim brothers and sisters, to please make an effort to make as many people aware of this appeal as possible and to pray for the safe release of these well-intentioned, innocent and clearly anti-war and non-combatant hostages.

To those who are holding these four Christians hostages in Iraq, I would like to appeal to them both as fellow human beings and as Muslims by saying the following:

• We recognize the suffering and death that has been caused in Iraq by the unjust and unlawful invasion by the United States and her allies. However, the four people that you are holding hostage were and are completely opposed to the invasion of Iraq and the on-going war that it brought about. Due to this, it would be unjust to make them pay the penalty for crimes that others committed. Indeed, Almighty God says in the Qur'an: "No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another" (39:7), so please take this into heartfelt consideration. Punishing innocent people for the crimes of others is something that the Zionists do in Palestine, thus no Muslim would never want to emulate such unjust actions. Rather we should seek to emulate the teachings of our noble Prophet—salla Allahu 'alayhi was salam—who taught that mercy and forgiveness are always better, even when justice is called for. In contrast to a case where guilty criminals are detained for their crimes, in this case there's no real question of what justice demands, since punishing these four people who only wanted to promote peace in Iraq would be a grave injustice.
  


• Please realize that the four Christians that you are holding hostage are certainly not spies, since they went to Iraq on their own free will in order to help promote peace and bring an end to the war. Please know that in the United States, in spite of the current Bush administration and some of this country's other shortcomings, people here are allowed to openly oppose their government and its policies. Thus there can be no doubt that these four members of a Christian Peacemaker Team would be able to travel to Iraq on their own accord and without cooperation from the U.S. government. You may have concluded that by the mere fact they were in Iraq that they must have somehow been cooperating with, or were being assisted by, the United States government—but this certainly isn't the case.
  

We pray that you take these words to heart, as well as the following words from a close friend of one of the four men that you are holding hosage:

---

An Open Letter to our Brothers holding Tom Fox and other CPT members in Iraq:

Dear Brothers in the one God:

It is early morning in America. I am a Quaker and I am trying to find words to stay your hand. I can only say that hatred is blind and love is unconditional.

Many people from our nation have come to your nation in blind hatred and killed innocent people. Tom Fox is not one of these people. He came to your nation with all his human fears, because his love was unconditional. He came to ask his own people not to kill you. He came not to judge you, innocent or guilty, but to say live together in peace and find a better way. He did not come to change your government, but to change our own people's hearts towards you.

He came to your country in the same light that Rachel Corrie went to Palestine to stand in the way of Israeli tractors destroying Palestinian homes. To spare Tom Fox and his companions is to show the Israeli people that it was wrong take the young life of Rachael Corrie.

I ask you to stay your hand, because we will still love you, no less or no more, if you break our hearts by taking the life of these good people who love you.

I ask you to stay your hand because you can. When you stand before your God, next to the American who wore an army uniform, next to the one who drove the tractor that killed Rachael Corrie, and our God asks each of you, why have you taken the lives of innocents, what difference will there be in your answer? When, some day, and I pray after a long life of loving works, Tom stands before our God and is asked why he placed his life in your hands, I think you know his answer. Because hatred is blind and love is unconditional.

"Whoever has saved a life, it will be as if he has saved the life of all mankind" (Quran 5:32)

Gods love and mercy to thee

In unmovable Friendship

Lorcan Otway
A member of the committee of Ministry and Counsel for the New York Quarterly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (also known as Quakers)

---

More information and appeals in Arabic can be found here:

Frithjof Schuon on the Problem of Evil

This article is well worth a read [69KB Adobe Acrobat file]:

The Problems of Evil and Predestination
by Frithjof Schuon

"From the standpoint of a piety nourished by anthropomorphism, the question of predestination and the question of evil are the two great problems. But from the standpoint of metaphysical knowledge, the only problem is that of expression through language..."

Islamophobia and the Next Holocaust

Here's a link to a nice piece by Ziauddin Sardar, which is the cover story in the latest issue of New Statesman:

The next holocaust
by Ziauddin Sardar
New Statesman - 5th December 2005

Here are some key excerpts from the article, which are followed by some of my own comments:

"Islamophobia is not a British disease: it is a common, if diverse, European phenomenon. It is the singular rock against which the tide of European liberalism crashes."

"But the overall factor in the fear and loathing of Turks, Richter says, is old-fashioned racism. 'I am afraid we have not learned from our history. My main fear is that what we did to Jews we may now do to Muslims. The next holocaust would be against Muslims.'"

"'It's economic injustice and inequalities that successive generations of Moroccan and Algerian Muslims have suffered in employment, housing and educational opportunities, as well as downright racism at the hands of French society,' he says. 'They have no means to survive. It is all about survival.'"

"Throughout our journey, we were surprised at how openly prejudiced people were against Muslims."

"Minorities are fine as menial workers, a subordinate class. It is when minorities seek to be upwardly mobile, to live the modern liberal dispensation in their own, distinctive way as self-assured, equal members of the national debate - and that was the desire of all the young Muslims I met - that the problems start and latent prejudice comes to the fore."

---

In spite of the valuable and disturbing (although unsurprising) observations of this article, I can't help but comment on Sardar's description of Ibn Rushd (a.k.a. Averroes), since what he says—as well as what he doesn't say—about him speaks volumes about his attempts to portray Islam as "progressive"—something which I consider to be inherently dishonest. Although to call Ibn Rushd a "philosopher" is certainly fair, calling him a "humanist" is rather questionable. This is because he certainly didn't adhere to the cosmological view that "man is the measure of all things", which is pretty much the hallmark of humanism and what is usually meant when this label is applied today. However, if by "humanist" Sardar simply meant that Ibn Rushd had rationalist tendencies and recognized the dignity and worth of all human beings to a degree not found in most other medieval thinkers (whether Jew, Chrisitian or Muslim), then I can accept that...although I think that there are plenty of other descriptions that would be more fitting.

However, what's even more telling about the last paragraph of the article is that Ziauddin Sardar fails to mention that Ibn Rushd was a respected jurist of the Maliki school who, in spite of some aberrations in the field of theology, endorsed a classical Islamic worldview with many of the trimmings, such as hijab for women, that liberal Muslims like Sardar seem to have such a problem with. Based on what Ziauddin Sardar has said in the past, I really doubt that that he's ready to embrace the fiqh of Ibn Rushd wholesale, thus Sardar’s endorsement comes across as somewhat half-hearted, if not outright devious and hypocritical. In case anyone is wondering what Ibn Rushd's scholarly views are, there's a two volume [(1)(2)] English translation of his well-known work of comparative fiqh entitled Bidāyat al-Mujtahid wa Nihāyat al-Muqtasid. Taking a detailed look at this detailed work of Islamic jurisprudence, which was produced very much within a traditional framework, should make one realize that if pushed, Sardar's endorsement of Ibn Rushd as a role model for modern Muslims would most likely become a pick-and-choose affair—as is usually the case whenever religious liberals are confronted with a religious text or traditional view. On these same grounds, I certainly object to the attempt to make Ibn Rushd seem like an erstwhile "progressive" by labeling him a "liberal", since this seems wholly inappropriate no matter how you slice it.

In the end, however, in spite of having trouble with some of the adjectives that Ziauddin Sardar chose to employ, I certainly endorse the spirit of what he was trying to get at. Indeed, not only was medieval Islam much more "tolerant" than medieval Christianity, I firmly believe that it is inherently more tolerant since its scripture and prophetic tradition clearly teach that other religions must be tolerated (although this, contrary to popular belief, doesn't amount to endorsing their current form as a viable alternative to Islam and way to salvation). Likewise, I think that our Ummah as a whole, including some of our 'ulama, needs to start focusing their attention on the "honourable and ethical", since it's the apparent lack of these two qualities, as well as mercy—the quality which is the hallmark of Islam, that has done so much to taint the image of Islam in the present age...wa Allahu 'alim.

Deen On...

The Moor Next Door

Today I happened to come across a blog by a young Algerian that has some worthwhile material. Not only does The Moor Next Door have several [(1)(2)(3)] articles on the rise of so-called Islamism in Mauritania, a phenomenon that I find both somewhat surprising and rather disturbing, but he's posted on some other somewhat obscure subjects as well. These include On Bernard Lewis, Historical Maturity: The Case of France, The Arabs Before Islam: Educate Yourself!, What is to Be Done With Arabism?, Disscussion on Islam and Democracy in Algiers...and he has a book list as well.

Which reminds me...yesterday I discovered that Omar K. Neusser, well known for his work on the LivingIslam.org website, has a weblog entitled LivingIslam - IslamicTradition, which I've added to my BLOG LINKS on the right-hand sidebar.

Enjoy and Deen On...

Robert Fisk's New Book

The other day at the bookstore I couldn't resist trading forty frogskins for a copy of Robert Fisk's new weighty tome. Although I'm yet to reach a conclusion on whether it's weighty in its insights and analysis, The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East deserves this accolade simply for weighing in at a hefty 1136 pages.

So far, I've only read the introduction and the first chapter—which essentially describes Bob Fisk's three interviews with Osama Bin Laden. I've already come across some oddities of Arabic transliteration, which include writing mishwak for miswak (but maybe they pronounce it mishwak in some dialects?) and using the letter "k" to indicate both of the Arabic letters kaf and qaf. I think Mr. Fisk should be quite careful about this latter error, since he could very quickly become Robert Fisq—and if you understand some Arabic, you'll hopefully get this joke.

More importantly, I've already come to the conclusion that this book will serve as further proof that Robert Fisk doesn't really understand Islam, nor can he relate to a staunchly religious worldview (whether it's Jewish, Christian or Muslim)...but other than that it's been a very interesting read so far. I'd even surmise that it's even interesting enough to motivate me to actually read it cover-to-cover, but we'll see about that, insha'llah.

Robert Fisk certainly deserves praise for his coverage of the Middle East over the past few decades, since he has been very evenhanded in condemning terrorism and atrocities regardless of who carried them out (including Israel and the Unitded States). Likewise, he condemns religious extremism and bigotry whether being done in the name of Judaism, Christianity or Islam. Due to all of this, one can fairly say that he's relatively unbiased, especially when compared to most of the reporters who work for the major news agency. Personally, even though I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that he's spent a great deal of time in the region, speaks Arabic and has a sincere compassion for the people of the Middle East, I think Robert Fisk is motivated by a sincere drive to tell the truth and expose the wrongs committed by the powerful against the less-powerful...and may Almighty God reward him for that.

However, I think one area where bias comes out in Robert Fisk's reporting is in his portrayal of religious people and their beliefs. This is because he's such a staunch secularist and agnostic, and possibly even an atheist, that he doesn't seem to be able to scrounge up any sympathy for people who adhere to a sincere belief in God and a formal religious tradition. Indeed, in some of his writings Bob seems to imply that religion, and not just religion extremism, is a big part of the problem rather than part of the solution. That having been said, we still have to give him credit for not being any more biased against Islam than he is about other religions...which is a blessing in this day and age where Islamophobia seems to be almost ubiquitous in the media.

Insha'llah, I may decide to write a review of The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East if I can ever find the time to read the entire thing. I just wanted to let my readers know that Robert Fisk's latest publication is now on the shelves in case they want to learn more about recent Middle Eastern history and the so-called "War on Terror" by someone who is been on-site for almost all of the significant events that have taken place there over the past thirty years...

Deen On....

The Tampa Tribune - "Muslims Look To Islamic Traditions"

The article linked to below was published last week in The Tampa Tribune in regards to the recent Zaytuna Minara Program that took place in Tampa:

Muslims Look To Islamic Traditions
by Julie Pace
The Tampa Tribure - November 21, 2005

Although this article is generally fair, it seems as though most newspapers still can't manage to post an article about Muslims without mentioning something negative...but Truth is still manifestly clear from error and history remains in good Hands.

Deen On...

The Slaves of God vs. The Slaves of Mary

While doing some research the other day, I came across a website run by some RCs that call themselves Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. This doesn't come as a surprise to me, but I think it might raise the eyebrows—if not outright shock—some people that aren't that informed about Roman Catholic beliefs and practices. As Muslims, since we consider ourselves to be "Slaves of Almighty God", seeing that others are calling themselves "Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary" makes it rather clear that there are those who have embraced the relative at the expense of the Absolute...and I pray that God guides them before it's too late.

I thought mentioning this find might be a worthy follow up to some comments that I posted [(1)(2)] in regards to the literal understanding of the Eucharist by the RCC—and I consider all of this to be part of an on-going effort to educate Muslims, as well as others, about Christian beliefs. In regards to this, I'm currently working on a somewhat lengthy posting regarding some aspects of Christianity, and some Google searches in regards to this is what caused me to find the above mentioned site. They actually have a nice overview of the various Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church, which is worth taking a look at if you're into such things.

In closing, I'll also mention that on my way to work some mornings I pass by the Mary, Queen of the Universe shrine, which is just outside of Orlando, Florida. Needless to say, this seems to be another case of confusing the relative with the Divine, since the only monarch of the Universe that Muslims recognize is Almighty God—Rab al-'Alamîn.

Deen On...

Islam and the Perennial Philosophy

A couple of days ago, Omar K. Neusser, of the LivingIslam.org website, posted some excellent comments regarding the Islamic view of Perennialism. Included in his comments were links to another more detailed article by him on the same subject, which can be found here:

On The Common Eternal Principles, And That Islam Reigns
by Omar K. Neusser

This insightful article provides an informative look at the Perennialist philosophy from an Islamic perspective, so I recommend taking a look at it. Additionally, I also highly recommend reading Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller's On the validity of all religions in the thought of ibn Al-'Arabi and Emir 'Abd al-Qadir, since it's remains the definitive text on this subject for explaining the view of traditional Sunni Islam.

Over the past year or so, this blog has had three [(1)(2)(3)] raging debates about Perennialism and where it stands from an Islamic perspective. This all got started with the posting of Shakespeare and Islam and continued with Martin Lings...Into the Mercy of His Lord, but was recently reignited when I posted A Critical Reading of Martin Lings' Prophetic Biography. Earlier this evening, I posted the same set of comments on two [(1)(2)] of these blog entries since I dealt with issues which were commented upon in both. Please read and reflect on them as time permits...

Deen On...