See, Muslims Aren't All Bad After All

Hear's a heartwarmer:

A Gesture of Love
SkyNews - November 07, 2005

"The parents of a Palestinian boy killed by Israeli soldiers have donated his organs to three Israeli children."

Ahmed Bedier (CAIR) Debates on Cartoons

Ahmed Bedier, CAIR's representative in Florida, recently debated conservative Christian activist Randall Terry on Orlando's CBS affiliate WKMG Local6 regarding the global reaction to the cartoons of Prophet Muhammad—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam.

Bedier corrected and answered Terry's baseless position that rioters in the Muslim world are reacting violently to the slander of Prophet Muhammad—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—because they're following his (i.e. Prophet Muhammad's) example of "killing anyone who mocked him". Randall Terry is the founder of Operation Rescue and Society for Truth and Justice. Terry most recently acted as spokesman for the parents of Terri Shiavo.

To watch this entire debate, click here [55.5MB Windows Media File]. For continuing updates and more details, please visit Ahmed Bedier's blog at AhmedBedier.com.

This posting was largely based on a CAIR-FL e-mail bulletin.

Norman Finkelstein & Former Israeli Foreign Minister Debate

Democracy Now! has posted the complete transcript and audio [42MB MP3 file] of a recent debate between Norman Finkelstein, author of Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, and Shlomo Ben-Ami, former Israeli Foreign Minister and author of Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy.

This little trialogue makes it rather clear that there isn't much dispute over the historical facts of what has happened since 1948 in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, nor is there much doubt about who has international law on their side—and just in case anyone is wondering...it ain't the Israelis. All of this will probably come as quite a surprise to some people, so please make efforts to circulate this debate as much as possible—remembering to make it clear that this debate isn't just between a couple of Israeli bashers, but involves a Jewish American scholar whose parents were concentration camp survivors and a former Israeli Foreign Minister.

Below, I've posted some key excerpts from the debate (which includes adding some emphasis to some statements), but please take the time to read the complete transcript or listen to the audio. We all need to make efforts so that more people become aware of such balanced and frank discussions of the facts surrounding this conflict.

Here are the excerpts:

---

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, I agree with the statement that there is very little dispute nowadays amongst serious historians and rational people about the facts. There is pretty much a consensus on what happened during what you can call the foundational period, from the first Zionist settlements at the end of the 19th century 'til 1948. There, there is pretty much of a consensus. And I think Mr. Ben-Ami, in his first 50 pages, accurately renders what that consensus is.

I would just add a couple of points he makes, but just to round out the picture. He starts out by saying that the central Zionist dilemma was they wanted to create a predominantly Jewish state in an area which was overwhelmingly not Jewish, and he cites the figure, I think 1906 there were 700,000 Arabs, 55,000 Jews, and even of those 55,000 Jews, only a handful were Zionists. So that's the dilemma. How do you create a Jewish state in area which is overwhelmingly not Jewish?

«««snip»»»

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Briefly, because we don't have time, there were four key issues at Camp David and at Taba. Number one, settlements. Number two, borders. Number three, Jerusalem. Number four, refugees. Let's start with settlements. Under international law, there is no dispute, no controversy. Under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it's illegal for any occupying country to transfer its population to Occupied Territories. All of the settlements, all of the settlements are illegal under international law. No dispute. The World Court in July 2004 ruled that all the settlements are illegal. The Palestinians were willing to concede 50% — 50% of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. That was a monumental concession, going well beyond anything that was demanded of them under international law.

Borders. The principle is clear. I don't want to get into it now, because I was very glad to see that Dr. Ben-Ami quoted it three times in his book. It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war. Under international law, Israel had to withdraw from all of the West Bank and all of Gaza. As the World Court put it in July 2004, those are, quote, "occupied Palestinian territories." Now, however you want to argue over percentages, there is no question, and I know Dr. Ben-Ami won't dispute it, the Palestinians were willing to make concessions on the borders. What percentage? There's differences. But there is no question they were willing to make concessions.

Jerusalem. Jerusalem is an interesting case, because if you read Dr. Ben-Ami or the standard mainstream accounts in the United States, everyone talks about the huge concessions that Barak was willing to make on Jerusalem. But under international law Israel has not one atom of sovereignty over any of Jerusalem. Read the World Court decision. The World Court decision said Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory. Now, the Palestinians were willing, the exact lines I'm not going to get into now — they are complicated, but I'm sure Dr. Ben-Ami will not dispute they were willing to divide Jerusalem roughly in half, the Jewish side to Israel, the Arab side to the Palestinians.

And number four, refugees. On the question of refugees, it's not a dispute under international law. Remarkably, even fairly conservative human rights organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, in 2000, during the Camp David talks, they issued statements on the question of the right of return. And they stated categorically, under international law every Palestinian, roughly five to six million, has the right to return, not to some little parcels, 1% of Israel, which Israel is about — which Israel would swap, return to their homes or the environs of their homes in Israel. That's the law. Now, Dr. Ben-Ami will surely agree that the Palestinians were not demanding and never demanded the full return of six million refugees. He gives a figure of 4-800,000. In fact — I'm not going to get into the numbers, because it's very hard to pin it down — other authors have given figures of the tens of thousands to 200,000 refugees returning. That's well short of six million.

On every single issue, all the concessions came from the Palestinians. The problem is, everyone, including Dr. Ben-Ami in his book — he begins with what Israel wants and how much of its wants it's willing to give up. But that's not the relevant framework. The only relevant framework is under international law what you are entitled to, and when you use that framework it's a very, very different picture.

AMY GOODMAN: If you can bear to make this response brief, Dr. Shlomo Ben-Ami.

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Yes, yes. Okay, the last third part of the book, as Dr. Finkelstein says, there is the diplomat, and this same diplomat still behaves in a way as a historian when he says in this book that Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well. This is something I put in the book. But Taba is the problem. The Clinton parameters are the problem, because the Clinton parameters, in my view —

«««snip»»»

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: The Holocaust has become not only a defining issue — event for the Jewish people, but something that Israel has — not Israel, but perhaps some politicians in Israel have abused. Begin used to compare Arafat to Hitler. He must have been probably a very nasty guy, but certainly not Hitler, just as I don't think that Saddam Hussein was Hitler. I think that President Bush father likened him to Hitler. We are — we go very lightly with these things. I mean, we do these kind of comparisons unnecessarily. The capture of Eichmann, for example, was very important to David Ben-Gurion, because he wanted a sort of pedagogical exercise for the young generation.

I explain this in the book, why he needed to reconcile himself with the Shoah, which didn't interest him very much at the beginning. He was much more concerned with other issues. He suddenly discovered that through the ethos of the new Israel, of the Sabra, you cannot build a cohesive nation, because people were coming from different parts of the world, so you needed to resort to Jewish memory, to Jewish values, to Jewish catastrophe, as a way to unite the newborn nation.

Today, it seems to me that the problem of anti-Semitism, when it happens, for example, in France, and synagogues are being attacked, etc., if this happens through the hands of Muslim youngsters in the suburbs of Paris, for me it is very difficult to define this as anti-Semitism. I can define it as hooliganism and manipulation of the conflict in the Middle East in order to perpetrate all kind of nasty acts against Jewish holy places, but this is not what we understand as anti-Semitism, which is a European malady, as it were. I think it was there always. It will continue to be there, but I am not in the business of counting how many incidents happen, because there is an institute in Tel Aviv University that will tell you how many incidents happen every year. I don't believe also that the number of incidents, as such, is the reflection of whether or not anti-Semitism is growing. I believe that it is there, I believe it will stay there as a sub-cultural current in many European societies, but I'm not scandalized by anti-Semitism today.

I can see more xenophobia against North Africans, against foreigners throughout Europe. And in a way, in a way, I can even see a reconciliation of Europe with its Jewish past. There is hardly a European country where you will not find today a museum of Jewish history. Not in only Germany, you will find it in Poland, in France, all over the place. So, Judaism is being endorsed more and more, or the Jewish history, as part of the whole European legacy. The problem today is, in my view, much more that of the Arab, the Muslim immigrants from North Africa, from the Middle East and other parts.

AMY GOODMAN: Being discriminated against.

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Yeah, absolutely.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Totally agree. No disagreement at all.

«««snip»»»

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Well, let me tell you what is my description of terrorism. Terrorism, in my view, is an indiscriminate attack against civilian population. If I, personally, or my son, God forbid, is being attacked, being in uniform in Palestinian territories, by a Hamas call, I would not define this as terrorism. I will define as terrorism if they go into a kindergarten or a mall, explode themselves and cause injuries and death among civilian population. This to me is —

Now, the problem of the response of a state is much more difficult to define, because a state needs to go not against the civilian population. It needs to go against military targets, ticking bombs. This is what states can do and should do. The problem is that when you have a fight, not against armies, which is the case of Syria, Egypt, we never spoke about terrorism, state — Israeli state terrorism against the Egyptians. We spoke about wars between two military sides. This is very difficult in the conditions prevailing in places like Gaza or the West Bank, where you have militias, you have arsenals of weapons, etc., and the army attacks them and there is collateral damage to civilian population. To me, this is very difficult to define as state terrorism. It is attacking military objectives or sort of military objectives, an army which is not a real army but can cause damage and you need to fight back and defend your population, and it is very, very unfortunate that civilians are hit. But if Israel targets intentionally civilians, this is a different matter. This can be defined as terrorism. I don't believe that we have done it. Normally, the practice is that things happened collaterally.

AMY GOODMAN: I would like to get your response, Professor Finkelstein, and also if you could include in that, you have a chapter in Beyond Chutzpah called "Israel's Abu Ghraib."

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, on the issue of terrorism, I agree with Dr. Ben-Ami's definition. It's the indiscriminate targeting of civilians to achieve political ends. That's a capsule definition, but I think for our purposes it suffices. What does the record show? Let's limit ourselves to just the Second Intifada, from September 28 to the present. The period for that period, the record shows approximately 3,000 Palestinians have been killed, approximately 900 Israelis have been killed. On the Palestinian side and the Israeli side — I'm now using the figures of B'Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories — on the Palestinian and the Israeli side roughly one-half to two-thirds of the total number were civilians or bystanders. And if you look at the findings of the human rights supports — B'Tselem, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Physicians for Human Rights in Israel, and so forth — they all say that Israel uses reckless indiscriminate fire against Palestinians, and B'Tselem says when you have so many civilian casualties, you have, you know, 600 Palestinian children who have been killed, which is the total number of Israeli civilians killed. 600 Palestinian children killed.

They said when you have so much, so many civilians killed — I don't particularly like the phrase "collateral damage" — when you have so many civilians killed, B'Tselem says it hardly makes a difference whether you are purposely targeting them or not, the state has responsibility. So, you could say Israel — using numbers, now — is responsible for three times as much terrorism in the Occupied Territories as Palestinians against Israel. That's the question of terrorism.

Let's turn to an ancillary issue: the issue of torture. Now, the estimates are, up to 1994-1995, that Israel tortured — and I'm using the language of Human Rights Watch and B'Tselem — Israel has tortured tens of thousands of Palestinian detainees. Israel was the only country in the world, the only one, which had legalized torture from 1987 to 1999. The record on torture, on house demolitions and on targeted —

«««snip»»»

AMY GOODMAN: And the issue of torture of tens of thousands of Palestinians by Israel?

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: To tell you the truth, I don't know about the numbers, and we have seen different governments in — the British have done it. What the British did in Palestine in the '30s, there is nothing new in what we did that the British didn't do before us, and the Americans now in Iraq and elsewhere — what I find very, very uncomfortable is really this singling out Israel that lives in a very unique sort of situation in comparison with other countries, but —

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Norman Finkelstein makes the point, "Israel's Abu Ghraib," so that's making reference to what America did in Iraq.

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Okay, okay. But if you — if you would come from another planet and examine the resolutions of the U.N., the Security Council, you might reach the conclusion there is only one sinner in this planet, and it's the state of Israel, and not anybody else.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: But I am quoting your own human rights organizations. You know, B'Tselem is not the United Nations.

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Okay, that's okay. I mean, I'm not — but it speaks in favor of Israel that we have human rights, we have B'Tselem, and we criticize ourselves.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Right.

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: And we want to change things, but the solution —

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I will agree with that, but then you have to say it doesn't speak too much in Israel's favor that it's the only country in the world that legalized torture. It was also the only country in the world that legalized hostage taking. It was also the only country in the —

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: It wasn't legalized —

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, yes. As your chief justice called it, “keeping Lebanese as bargaining chips.” Israel was the only country in the world that's legalized house demolitions as a form of punishment. Those things have to also be included in the record.

«««snip»»»

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: B'Tselem did an interesting comparison. It compared the British policies of torture in Northern Ireland with Israeli policies of torture. In the 1970s, there were thousands of terrorist attacks by the I.R.A., and B'Tselem's comparison showed that the Israeli record is much worse than the British on the question of torture. That's the facts.

Today's Reuters Inteview with Hamza Yusuf Hanson

I just learned about this:

US Muslim scholar says Iran attack would be insane
By Talal Malik
Reuters - 14 Feb 2006 16:46:15 GMT

Excerpt: "Yusuf said the dispute over cartoons of Prophet Mohammad published in European newspapers, which sparked violent protests, had degenerated into a brawl and said both Muslims and free speech supporters had been insensitive...'Criticise Islam all you want - but don't denigrate sacred symbols and sacred beliefs,' he said, adding that the response of some Muslim protesters had been no better...'Stomping on the Danish flag was no response -- the flag has a religious symbol on it. So, it has just become reduced to a brawl,' he said."

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf is scheduling to appear at the Oxford Union tomorrow evening, and the event is supposed to be covered by CNN and Reuters.

Media Matters: Attacks on Muslims/Islam

Here's a very useful resource for monitoring attacks on Muslims and Islam in the U.S. media:

MEDIA MATTERS: Attacks on Muslims/Islam

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Daniel Pipes: Turning Muslims Into Jews

Just another observation regarding the subtle ironies of the cartoon that Daniel Pipes included in his article on the Danish "free speech" controversy. Please note that although this cartoon was drawn by J.J. McCullough, it obviously has received Pipe's stamp of approval, so he's just as guilty for buying into the racist stereotypes it subliminally presents.

That having been said, please notice that in his zeal to make a political statement, the artist who drew the cartoon allowed his racism to slip in. This becomes obvious once one notices the fact that J.J. McCullough, seemingly without even realizing it, gave the Muslim in the cartoon the same racist characteristics as the Jew that is being caricatured by the Muslim! Indeed, they both share a hooked nose, exaggerated teeth, facial hair and an angry scowl—all elements strangely reminiscent of Nazis caricatures. Also, notice the stark contrast between the Muslim's features and those of the cute and cuddly Dane. So what this cartoon seems to be trying to tell us is that Muslims are hateful anti-Semites that have double-standards, but this is how Muslims really are—then the same negative characteristics that Muslims are condemned for using are applied to them. I just wanted to bring attention to this glaring (and probably subconscious) oversight, which in the final analysis is really a double-standard within a cartoon intended to expose double-standards!

The above mentioned blunder is far from the only problem which undermines the cartoon in question. As I mentioned in my recent Danish Cartoons, Double-Standards and Daniel Pipes, the cartoon "gets the basic facts wrong" in regards to what's going on in the Danish cartoon controversy. This is because "no one is calling for laws which provide only Islam with special protection against being mocked and insulted. Additionally, and even more deceptively, his article's cartoon implies that Danish caricatures are rather soft and benign, while Muslim ones are outrageously offensive and over the top."

Reflecting on all of this made me recall S. Parvez Manzoor's article Turning Jews into Muslims: The Untold Saga of the Muselmänner. In this ground-breaking and insightful essay, we are informed that Jews in the Nazi concentration camps who had "lost all will to survive...were given by their fellow inmates the scornful epithet of die Muselmänner (the Muslims)! Leaving aside the morally intractable issues of genocide and anti-Semitism, what this grim and disquieting tale reveals is that, alas, the human propensity for despising the other takes precedence over our capacity to love, and that to the venom of collective self-worship neither the murderer nor the murdered, neither the 'Aryan' nor the 'Semite', is immune!"

Well it seems that J.J. McCullough and Daniel Pipes add the latest twist to this ugly human phenomenon, since in their fervor to expose the racism and double-standards of their stereotypical Muslim, they fell victim to the very vices they were attempting to condemn. Indeed, the outrageous irony in all this is that Daniel Pipes & Company have now turned Muslims into hook-nosed Jews!

Deen on, fellow Muselmänner...

A Point to Ponder: Is God Dead in Europe?

Here's some information that's very relevant to the reaction of Europeans to the Danish cartoon controversy. Indeed, in the post-Christian West, where most people's sense of the sacred is essentially dead and where only seemingly hypocritical and politically correct forms of moral outrage survive, it's very nearly impossible for many Europeans—their minds full of stereotypical images and misinformation about Muslims—to really comprehend why Muslims are so upset by the recent charicatures of Prophet Muhammad—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam. This is certainly an aspect of this entire saga that needs to be comprehended in order to make sense of what's going on, so please take note of the following (and the article title is a clickable link):

Is God Dead in Europe?
By James P. Gannon
USA Today - 08 Jan 2006

Excerpt: "'Common wisdom has it that alcoholics outnumber practicing Christians and that more Czechs believe in UFOs than believe in God — and common wisdom may be correct...'"

Excerpt: "A series of Eurobarometer surveys since 1970 in five key countries (France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy) shows that regular church attendance fell from about 40% of the population to about half that figure. Declines were sharpest in predominantly Catholic nations."

Excerpt: "But some who do see the emergence of a post-Christian era in Europe that has profound consequences for the continent and perhaps is an ominous portend for the United States. Where Europe has gone, America could be going — and that is a prospect that is frightening Christians and sharpening the religious divide in this country."

Excerpt: "Western Europe, the cradle of modern Christianity, has become a 'post-Christian society' in which the ruling class and cultural leaders are anti-religious or 'Christophobic...'"

Excerpt: "Among the consequences of Europe's abandonment of its religious roots and the moral code that derives therefrom is a plunge in its birth rates to below the replacement level. Abortion, birth control, acceptance of gay marriage and casual sex are driving the trend. Europe is 'committing demographic suicide, systematically depopulating itself'...United Nations population statistics back him up."

Excerpt: "In his 2001 book, The Death of the West, conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan argues that a European-style 'de-Christianization of America' is the goal of many liberals — and they are succeeding.'"

I should also mention that I flipped through up George Weigel's book The Cube and the Cathedral: Europe, America, and Politics Without God, which is mentioned in the article, the first time I saw in on the bookstore shelf. I immediately went to the index in order to find entries on Islam and Muslims. After reading some of what Weigel had to say on these topics, it quickly became apparent that he's an overt xenophobe, an unabashed Islamophobe and an insidious racist. In the book, he tries to portray Muslim immigration to Europe as some sort of Islamic invasion—indeed, as a follow up to the Ottoman invasion which was halted at Vienna 1683.

Amongst other things, George Weigel is particularly concerned about Europe's falling birthrate, especially because immigrant Muslims account for such a high percentage of the births. This phenomenon, in which white Christians are failing to maintain their population in Europe and the numbers of Muslim immigrants are steadily increasing, George Weigel labels with the provocative term "demographic suicide", since he obviously feels that the days of Old Europe are close to being over unless true Europeans take decisive action to reclaim their Christian heritage. Needless to say, the mere fact that he equates an increase in ethnic diversity with the "suicide" of Europe is rather disturbing. Indeed, those of us who are aware of the not too distant past are justified in wondering (and worrying) what efforts some Europeans might eventually be willing to take in order to keep Europe "pure".

There's much more that could be said here, but the main points which I want to bring attention to, since they're key aspects in understanding the ongoing Danish cartoon controversy, is the near complete loss of a sense of the sacred amongst much of Europe's formerly Christian population—hence their lack of comprehension over anyone, Muslim or otherwise, taking offense at religious mockery. This is not to imply that those who published the cartoons didn't understand that they'd be deeply offensive to Muslims, but rather simply to recognize that there seems to be a state-of-mind prevalent amongst Europeans that causes them to be incapable of comprehending religoius sentiments. Additionally, the increased prevalence of what is essentially a siege-mentality amongst many Europeans, those who feel their culture is being threatened by Muslim immigration from mostly former colonial lands, is something that needs to be recognized for what it is. Keep these points in mind as we watch these ugly trends develop further...

Deen On...

In Religious Tolerance News...

Just when you thought you'd seen it all:

Israel Plans to Build 'Museum of Tolerance' on Muslim Graves
By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem
The Independent (UK) - 09 February 2006

As Rolled-Up Trousers put it: "You better believe it baby..."

Invaders Destroy Baghdad!

Well I hope my somewhat sensationalist headline caught your eye. Regardless of what you might have initially thought, the article is only indirectly related to the invaders that are currently in Baghdad. Rather the article is a short history of the tragic sacking of Baghdad by the Mongols in 1258, with a follow up discussion of the British invasion of Iraq during the First World War. This article was published last year, but I didn't come across it until the other day:

INVADERS
Destroying Baghdad
by Ian Frazier
The New Yorker - April 25, 2005

Enjoy...

On The One Hand...And On The Other

From StudioBendib, All Rights Reserved

Wise Words on the Cartoon Controversy

Imam Zaid Shakir has written a must-read article on the ongoing cartoon controversy. I encourage everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim, to read this article and reflect on it. If anyone was wondering what a real Muslim scholar might have have to say in regards to the current saga, especially in regards to the reaction of Muslims, well here it is (and the title is a clickable link):

Clash of the Uncivilized: Insights on the Cartoon Controversy
by Imam Zaid Shakir
Zaytuna Institute - February 9th, 2006

I'm not going to include any excerpts since not only is the entire article key, but I'm afraid they might cause some people to forget to actually read the entire article in toto.

Finally, I'd just like to say: Thank God we have wise men like Imam Zaid! I pray that Almighty God protects and preserves him, and all of the other scholars and sages of our Ummah, since we certainly need them during trying times like these!

Other valuable articles by Imam Zaid Shakir can be found at his New Islamic Directions website.

Read On, then Deen On...

Danish Cartoons, Double-Standards and Daniel Pipes

Well surprise, surprise, surprise. Daniel Pipes, the world's most prominent anti-Muslim hate-monger, has finally piped up and posted an article giving his point-of-view on the on-going Danish cartoon saga. He's obviously trying to capitalize on the current cartoon crisis in order to put forward his xenophobic agenda, which a close analysis of his Cartoons and Islamic Imperialism article makes rather clear. Based on the fact that he's the respected spokesman for so many Islamophobes around the world, you'd think he'd be able to articulate a decent defense for his paranoid positions. Please try to keep this in mind when you see how easy it is to un-spin his half-baked assertions—and it is always easy when the facts are on your side. So without further adieu, here's what Daniel Pipes, glaring hypocrite and Islamophobe extraordinaire, had to say:

"Will the West stand up for its customs and mores,
including freedom of speech, or will Muslims
impose their way of life on the West? Ultimately,
there is no compromise: Westerners will either
retain their civilization, including the right to
insult and blaspheme, or not."

It’s quite ironic that he finds it so easy to ignore the fact that eleven European countries (including ones that he lists as standing with Denmark in his article), as well as his own State of Israel, have laws which make public denial of the Holocaust a crime. Based on Pipes' own thinking, such an undermining of free speech should have spelled the end for Western Civilization. Why didn't Pipes whine that this violated the Western "customs and mores" that he claims to value so highly? Without a decent response to these questions (and if he had one, he would have used it), I'll just say that the "H-word" certainly comes to mind.

When the U.S. House passed a constitutional amendment banning flag burning as a form of free speech ([1][2]), why didn't Pipes and his cohorts surmise that this was tantamount to medieval Islamo-Fascist oppression that would cause American freedom to come to an end? Likewise, many U.S. states have laws, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld as constitutional back in 2003 ([1][2]), prohibiting burning a Christian cross. Why didn't Daniel Pipes and his fellow hypocrites complain that this compromised Americans' right to free speech and that they were now on a slippery slope towards the end of Western Civilization? Like always, the one-eyed Dajjalian approach of hate-mongers becomes apparent whenever the facts get in the way of their agenda.

Actually, the cross burning ban is a bit more of a sticky issue, since opposing it might have aired some of the dirty laundry that the United States of America has in her closet. These are painful truths that many people, excluding most African-Americans, are almost wholly ignorant of. Maybe xenophobes and monoculturalists realized that opposing a ban on a form of racial hatred might end up making more people aware of what used to go on in the American South ([1][2][3][4][5][6]), including George W. Bush's home state of Texas, just a generation or two ago. I had mixed feelings about posting these very disturbing images ([1][2][3][4][5][6]), but felt that it was high time for many people out there to not only get a dose of reality, but to eat a slice of humble pie.

I want these people to look at what allegedly civilized Christians were able to do to fellow human beings when these "others" had become fully dehumanized in their eyes. They turned killing people into a blood sport, much as the Nazis did, but unlike most Nazis, some of these Americans even brought their children along to watch the brutal spectacle, sometimes even wearing their Sunday best. Take a look at their eyes and stare into their smiling faces and reflect on the question: Could this be you?

I think this is a particularly valuable reflection in light of the despicable mutilations of the American mercenaries (which they were, not simply “civilians” as some claim) in Fallujah back in 2004, who were burned and then hung from a bridge—and acts of mutilation are something which the teachings of Islam expressly forbid ([1][2][3]), by the way. This is because it’s become rather obvious that a lot of the talking heads out there seem to think that only Muslims ever do this type of thing. Well the wake up call is here folks, so please reflect on it. Let the fact that such actions, or any hateful and bigoted rhetoric that could lead to them, are never justified, while also realizing that certain people—regardless of their race, creed or color—are capable of such things.

Such blood lust is not a Muslim thing, a Christian thing or a Western Civilization thing, but just a savage thing. However, believing that it's just uncivilized Third World "others" who engage in such dastardly deeds (which essentially amounts to what I call the “my little Johnny would never do such things” syndrome) just makes one an ignorant bigot much like the people standing in some of the shocking photos included above. In reality, these photos are just the tip of the iceberg, since not only was lynching a widespread and socially acceptable practice throughout the American South until the early years of the 20th century (read this and this if you doubt me), but such events as the Holocaust and the ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims need to be taken into consideration as well. So if you really want to see horrifying displays of what some members of modern European civilization have been capable of, search for some pictures of Auschwitz, Treblinka, Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen and other such camps—not to forget or downplay the much more recent killing fields of Srebrenica. Maybe all this will help some people get off their self-righteous high horses and realize that we face a human problem here, not a Muslim one. It's disturbing to me that so many people are ignorant of, or choose to willfully ignore, their own country's, society's or religion's crimes of the past…but hopefully, after seeing these pictures ([1][2][3][4][5][6]), fewer are ignoring it anymore. Actually, I hope that I’ve turned the convenient little fantasy world which some people live in upside down…

Moving on...later in the his Cartoons and Islamic Imperialism article, with typical intellectual dishonesty, Daniel Pipes goes on to say:

"More specifically, will Westerners accede to a double standard by
which Muslims are free to insult Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism,
and Buddhism, while Muhammad, Islam, and Muslims enjoy immunity from
insults?"

Well who has called for anti-blasphemy laws (for lack of a better term) that would apply only to Muslims? Exactly no one that counts, which excludes anything that some misguided and militant Muslims might have called for—and I haven't heard such things from them either. Really, I'm yet to hear any Muslim call for laws that would only protect Islamic beliefs and practices from public scorn and derision. Once this is realized, it should be obvious that the cartoon which Mr. Pipes includes in his article gets the basic facts wrong, since no one is calling for laws which provide only Islam with special protection against being mocked and insulted. Additionally, and even more deceptively, his article's cartoon implies that Danish caricatures are rather soft and benign, while Muslim ones are outrageously offensive and over the top. Pipes, as he often does, is purely propagandizing here. This would probably be enough to make Julius Streicher proud, but there’s even more to come:

"Muslims routinely publish cartoons far more offensive than
the Danish ones. Are they entitled to dish it out while being
insulated from similar indignities?"

With this, Pipes has stooped so low that he's seemingly become convinced that two wrongs do indeed make a right. Which is not surprising coming from a Zionist, since their logic seems to be that since Jews were ethnically-cleansed in the Holocaust, they have the right to ethnically-cleanse Palestine. Such twisted reasoning seems born of the fact that such propagandists are aware that when you can’t make a case because the facts are against you, which in this case are the actual details about curbs on the freedom of speech currently in place in the Western world as explained above, just throwing out misinformation is usually the recommended course of action. Informed spin-meisters are aware that many television watchers out there are rather uncritical and myopic, thus it's unlikely they'll even notice that what Daniel Pipes is actually arguing for in this case is a juvenile "We're doing it because they do it too!" justification.

Pipes' statement also shows that he, and all those who think like him—and there are plenty of those—view Muslims as some monolithic whole, thus we’re all to blame for the actions of a misguided few. If we can just snap these bigots out of indulging in this one particular logical fallacy that would indeed be a lot of progress—since they seem to fall victim to it an awful lot.

Before continuing, I just want to say that if Muslim governments have any common, if not political, sense (and no, I won’t be naïve and appeal to their sense of decency), they'll crack down on all such hateful cartoons and offensive ant-Semitic material, since not only are such things counterproductive to everyone on both sides, they're Islamically forbidden as well. For everyone's sake, I hope the current crisis brings some positive change in that regard, insha'llah.

On that note, please realize that the existence of anti-Semitic Muslim cartoonists and the actions of violent angry Muslim mobs in various locales doesn't nullify the fact that many of those who are defending free speech and the so-called Western way of life are having hypocritical double-standards—so please stop using the recent violence as a way to divert attention from the real issue. Various pundits are claiming that European Muslims want special treatment under the law, although at least one specific religion is already getting preferential treatment. They claim Muslims only want their religion to be protected from insult, but true and decent Muslims want all religions protected from insult (which is a Qur'anic concept by the way). They say that they have the right to insult and blaspheme whatever they want, but the right to burn a cross is outlawed in the U.S. and seventy-five percent of Americans support a constitutional ban on desecration of their nation's flag. Thus in the final analysis, it's clear that not only do we have de facto censorship (i.e. Danish Paper Rejected Jesus Cartoons) in the Western world, but we have de jure censorship as well. So in spite of all of their self-righteous and paranoid spin, it remains rather clear who is being intellectually dishonest here. I wonder if Mr. Pipes finds it disconcerting that, according to his own logic, three-quarters of the people in the heartland of democracy constitute a threat to Western Civilization?

Looking back on all of this, the alarm bells should have sounded as soon as Pipes tried to accuse Muslims in Europe—who remain a small, and largely poor, disenfranchised minority—of some sort of "Imperialism"—which is not just outrageous, but insidiousness of the highest order. Anyone who knows something about the past two hundred years of Middle Eastern history should be aware of the fact that the cruel, racist and exploitive legacy of European colonialism in Muslim Lands bears some responsibility, but certainly not all, for the situation that Muslims face in much of Europe today. An intellectually honest person would want to address the real issues caused by past Imperialism that has not only already occurred, but is still going on (albeit in a somewhat different form) in both Iraq and Israel today. In lieu of presenting the facts, Daniel Pipes instead opted for spouting off paranoid delusions about some phantasmic "Islamic Imperialism". Indeed, such delusional outbursts, regardless of how hard he tries to present them as rational, should alarm us to the fact that the Daniel Pipes' of the world truly have a lot in common with the likes of Julius Streicher.

Read, Reflect and Deen On…

Muslims and the Holocaust

Due to the ongoing cartoon controversy, we've been hearing a lot of talk about not only Europe's "New anti-Semitism" which is directed towards Muslims, but despicable and hateful anti-Semitic acts by some Muslims have been brought to the world's attention as well. Since the new president of Iran also seems to have a view of the Holocaust that's based on popular myth, half-baked theories and sloppy revisionist history, I think this is a subject that many Muslims are in dire need of being educated about. The problem is that in the age of mass media and the Internet, many people are now confusing being duped by agenda-driven propaganda with proper academic research and education.

Insha'llah, the article linked to below will be a good first step in curing Muslims of the ignorance that many of them have about the Holocaust, which is a mutawattir historical fact, and what it should mean to Muslims. I was very happy to find this fine article, since it articulates a point-of-view that more Muslims not only need to hear, but need to stand up and loudly proclaim as well:

On Holocaust Exploiters, Deniers, & Heroes
by Mas'ood Cajee
January 27, 2006

Excerpt: "On the other side, too many Muslim and Arab intellectuals and leaders continue to fail in adequately addressing the Nazi holocaust and its implications for today in meaningful, humanitarian terms."

Excerpt: "An intelligent and compassionate regard for the victims of the Nazi holocaust - Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, the disabled, and others - on the part of contemporary Muslims is critical for preserving ethical and communal integrity, for a just resolution of the Palestinian question and for the future - if there is to be one - of Western Muslims."

Excerpt: "Like their Christian counterparts, the Muslim men and women who rescued Jews during the Holocaust are among history's true heroes, whose stories we should be telling our children and grandchildren. They represent the best of the Abrahamic and Islamic tradition and spirit. May God grant us true moral courage like the rescuers in the face of hardship and adversity. May God - the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful - free us of denying or exploiting the suffering of others."

Yes, my dear fellow Muslims, it's time to put the Jew-hating, anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial to rest. Sure, you can still oppose Zionism (which is not to be confused with the actual religion of Judaism) and the inhumane policies of the State of Israel, but don't fall into the trap of becoming a one-sided, angry and bigoted hatemonger of everyone that's a member of a particular ethno-religious group. Not only would you not like it if they did the same thing to you, but you'll be falling into the same trap as the Islamophobes who blame all Musims, indeed Islam itself, for the misguided actions of a few militant radicals. Let's avoid both the logical fallacies and the hate-mongering, since they often go hand-in-hand, and get busy trying to make the world a better place. That may sound quaint, but it's really what we're all here for...

Deen On...but please don't forget to read the article.

Hate-Mongers Beware...

All hate-mongers out there need to realize that one of their kindred spirits, Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher, was found guilty at the Nuremberg Trials and sentenced to death even though he never directly participated in the Holocaust. Rather he used his Der Stürmer newspaper to warn of the supposed "insidious dangers" that Jews posed, thus building up hatred of Jews amongst the German people. His hate-mongering and "inciting the extermination of Jews" got him convicted of crimes against humanity for which he was executed by the Allies on October 16, 1946.

I wonder if any of the hate-mongering Muslim-hating hypocrites out there, like the ones who seemingly think freedom of speech should be absolute, want to defend Julius Streicher's right to free speech? I doubt it, since these same defenders of freedom didn't seem bothered when their allegedly absolute freedom was curtailed in order to prevent Jewish sensibilities from being unsettled. Well you can't have it both ways...unless you're a complete hypocrite.

And just to make sure that I'm not misunderstood, I want to state clearly that the Nazi extermination of six million Jews (and roughly three million non-Jews) is a mutawattir substantiated historical fact. The half-baked theories that attempt to deny it are driven by self-serving and hateful agendas that have the historical veracity of other such revisionist histories, such as the ones that claim there were only a few Bedouins living in Palestine when the first Zionists settlers arrived. Again, you can't have it both ways...either you accept half-baked revisionist history or you don't...and I don't.

Personally, I feel that idea that Muslims are the "New Jews"--since it's okay to hate them, stereotype them, claim they have a propensity towards violence, have no moral values and pose a threat to society at large--is very substantiated, thus I don't think that internment camps (or worse) are out of the question if another large scale terrorist attack takes place on U.S. soil or elsewhere. Indeed, one well-known pundit has actually tried to make a case for the mass arrest, internment and deportation of Muslims and Arabs (and I say that because the author seems to think...or at least she did when she wrote the book...that being Muslim is some sort of "Racial" thing). This conclusion-based pick-and-choose piece of historical scholarship (and I use that word loosely) is entitled In Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II and the War on Terror.

The book's author, Michelle Malkin, who is essentially an Ann Coulter wannabe, has managed to extend her fifteen minutes of fame by being a hate-monger. She currently has one of the most popular conservative (or neo-conservative) blogs on the web which produces a steady stream of Islamophobic postings. As with her book, morally-challenged Michelle is quite a master at ignoring everything that doesn't support her case while presenting everything that seemingly does--regardless of how unreliable, far-fetched or ambiguous. All I can say is that Julius Streicher, and Joseph Goebbels for that matter, would be proud.

It's at times like these that I really feel thankful to Almighty God for guiding me to Islam. Sure, most of us get frustrated by the often misguided antics of Muslims these days, but just look at the hate-mongers out there whose daily work consists of making the world a more hateful and less tolerant place...and they're doing so by misrepresenting a religion and overgeneralizing the acts of some of its misguided followers. Not good things to have on your record unrepented from--since that door's always open--when The Horn blows...which just makes me think: Thank you God for guiding me to Islam!

Finally, as our previous posting Islamophobia and the Next Holocaust explained, hatred and distrust of Muslims is rife in Europe...so don't ever think it could never happen again. If you think I'm just being paranoid, ask a Bosnian Muslim.

Deen On...

Why Muslims Are Angry...

For everyone out there wondering why some Muslims around the world are so angry, I’ve gathered a few links that articulate very well what the rage over the recent cartoons is all about. Personally, I think the primary reasons, aside from the general post-colonial trauma that much of the Muslim World still suffers from due to their exploitation by European powers for so many years, are quite obvious: double-standards and hypocrisy. Thus in reality it’s not about the cartoons per se, but about all the hypocrisy and double-standards surrounding the debate about them. That being understood, all four of the articles that I’ve linked to below touch on these two factors, but this first one is the most glaring:

Danish Paper Rejected Jesus Cartoons
The Guardian Unlimited (UK) - Monday February 6, 2006

People need to realize that it’s certainly not all Muslims that are angry, and hopefully nothing close to even most of us, but I think many of us are really just dismayed and fed up by the double-standards, hypocrisy and sloppy thinking that goes on in regards to Islam on a daily basis. However, I want to again make it clear, as I did earlier, that such frustrations are no excuse for violence—and now there’s even evidence to suggest that much of the Muslim protest that has been going on is not violent:

Cartoon Anger is a Misrepresentation
by John Simpson
BBC World Affairs Editor - 6 February 2006

Anyway, all of the calls for Muslims to “Get out!” and to “Go back to where you came from!” are to be expected from the Islamophobic and hate-mongering Right, but now it seems to be spreading to the Left as well, all in the name of defending freedom of speech. Considering this, as well as a lot of the comments and emails that I’ve been reading, convinces me that a lot of people just don’t see what’s going on and have a lot of trouble seeing an issue in a level-headed manner, much less from someone else’s perspective. However, there are exceptions to this, since the two articles listed below really grasp what’s going on and clearly demonstrate that a lot of bigoted pundits out there really don’t. Please take the time to read these articles:

These Cartoons Don't Defend Free Speech, They Threaten It
by Simon Jenkins
Comment - The Sunday Times - February 05, 2006

Excerpt: "Civilisation is the story of humans sacrificing freedom so as to live together in harmony. We do not need Hobbes to tell us that absolute freedom is for newborn savages. All else is compromise...Speech is free only on a mountain top; all else is editing...We do not go about punching people in the face to test their commitment to non-violence."

Danes Finally Apologize to Muslims (But for the Wrong Reasons)
by Rachard Itani

Excerpt: “You can curse the Prophet of the Muslims at will and with total impunity. However, approach the holocaust at your own risks and perils…There is a word for this in the English language: hypocrisy…This whole affair is nothing but an over-reaction to a simple cartoon, you say? Not if you remember a certain other cartoon that appeared in the British newspaper, The Independent, on 27 January 2003. It depicted Prime Minister Sharon of Israel eating the head of a Palestinian child while saying: "What's wrong? You've never seen a politician kissing babies before?" Jews in Britain and around the world erupted with indignation…Muslims deserve nothing more nor less than for Christians in the U.S. and Europe, and Zionist Jews in Israel, to simply abide by the golden rule: treat others as you would have others treat you. So far, Christians and Zionist Jews have proven that they only abide by the alternative definition of this rule: ‘They who have the gold, make the rule.’”

Finally, let’s all try to keep in mind that two wrongs don’t make a right. I’m a bit tired of getting emails and reading Islamophobic blogs which talk about how Arab newspapers run anti-Semitic cartoons, etc., and so on, ad nauseam. Well guess what folks…that’s wrong too! We’re not a bunch of Neanderthals, well at least not all of us, thus we don’t make a habit of blindly defending members of our "tribe" (whether nation, race, religion or political party) regardless of what they’re doing. This is because life is all about ethics (adab) and morals (akhlaq), and it seems like a lot of people out there, on both sides of this issue, could use some serious lessons in both.

I request that everyone who feels they have a profound misunderstanding of Muslims, or who has been duped into hating Muslims, read and reflect on the articles mentioned above.

It's times like these that often bring this warning to mind: Eschatology Can Break Out At Any Moment...

An Idiot's Guide to Offensive Cartoons

Well I couldn't resist weighing in on the ongoing cartoon saga. The first thing I want to say is: the violent, idiotic and un-Islamic behavior has got to stop. The following Qur'anic verse says about all that needs to be said in regards to how God-fearing Muslims should react when in a situation like we're currently facing. Unfortunately, it seems that far too many hot-headed Muslims out there seemingly haven't even heard, much less reflected on, this noble ayah:

"You will certainly be tried and tested in your possessions and in your souls;
and you will certainly hear much that will grieve you,
from those who received the Book before you (i.e. Jews and Christians)
and from the pagan idolaters.
But if you persevere patiently, and guard against evil,
then that will be a determining factor in all affairs."
- Qur'an 3:186

So even though Muslims are certainly allowed to speak out, protest and boycott, all such actions should be well within the guidelines of Islamic law and the highest standards of etiquette (adab). Maintaining self-restraint in the face of the disgusting bigotry, hatred and blasphemy that we're facing today is what it means to "perservere patiently", which is what the Prophet-salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam-did when he was mocked, ridiculed and spat upon by the pagan opposition. In regards to the call to "guard against evil", well I think avoiding killing and arson certainly fall well within that category. Insha'llah, this is all clear to those who reflect.

To be sure, patience doesn't mean adopting a quietist approach in which we do nothing, but neither does it mean having an angry and violent knee-jerk reaction that amounts to violating Islam in order to defend it. The key here, as usual, is balance and moderation...and Islam places a very high value on moderation—and that will remain true until the Day of Judgment in spite of the actions (ignorant or otherwise) of some misguided Muslims. Likewise, as I've emphasized before, Islam is not a "Monkey See, Monkey Do" religion, thus we don't engage in Bolshevik-style protests as some non-Muslims do whenever something occurs that offends their secularized sensibilities.

Notice: Muslims must break out of this modern legacy of being their own worst enemy. It seems that whenever Islam is maligned or attacked, some Muslims react in ways that, in the minds of most non-Muslims, only confirm the negative stereotypes that many non-Muslims already have. There's no doubt that this is very true in regards to the current controversy. Sure, these acts are being done by an idiotic minority of Muslims, but they get a lot of coverage in the media which in turn spawns more ill-will towards our entire Ummah. I'm quite sure that some of these angry Muslim protesters complain about media bias, but then they go out and fan the flames themselves and thus enforce the stereotypes by their own misguided actions. This results in more hostility towards Muslims, which eventually leads to more provocative actions by ethically-challenged and Sunnah-ignorant Muslims...so essentially what we end up with is a vicious circle.

Well it's time for this cycle of un-Islamic behavior and stupidity to stop. Since seeing angry mobs of Muslims, like the ones shown today in Beirut, Pakistan, Afghanistan, London and elsewhere, irks all decent and level-headed Muslims to no end, I suggest letting these frustrations motivate you to spread the authentic Nur-based knowledge of this Deen and help some of these angry people break out of the trap they're in. Make up your mind to do something...NOW! If you don't know what to do, then just be a good example for the Ummah.

Our religion is beautiful and merciful in spite of the fact that many Muslims today are severely confused about what Islam stands for. Likewise, even though many non-Muslims today might not realize it--and the actions of some Muslims are certainly to blame for this--our Prophet Muhammad-salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam- was a mercy to humanity and a supreme example of magnanimity, compassion and patience. Thus the question arises of how he would react to being satired and lampooned in cartoons or having his teachings besmirched by the foolhardy example of some of his latter-day followers?

Plenty of examples could be put forth, including the fact that he forgave all those who had persecuted him for years when he finally conquered Mecca. However, even more analogous to what's going on today is what he-salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam-did after being insulted, beaten and attacked by the people of Ta'if when he went to preach to them. After fleeing from an angry stone-throwing mob, with open wounds on his body and his shoes full of blood, he made the following supplication (du'a):

"O God! I complain to You of my weakness, my scarcity of resources
and my humiliation before the people. O Most Merciful of those who
show mercy. O Lord of the weak and my Lord too. To whom have you
entrusted me? To a distant person who receives me with hostility? Or
to an enemy to whom you have granted authority over my affair? So
long as You are not angry with me, I do not care. Your favour is of
more abundance to me. I seek refuge in the light of Your Face by
which all darkness is dispelled and every affair of this world and
the next is set right, lest Your anger or your displeasure descend
upon me. I desire Your pleasure and satisfaction until You are
pleased. There is no power and no might except by You."

So if any Muslim out there is wondering how to react to the current tribulations, well there you have it. Pray the above prayer, reflect on the noble character that it took to pray such a humble supplication in such a situation and then ask other Muslims to do the same . As I said before, this doesn't mean you shouldn't take action in other ways, but just make sure you try to be an upright, polite and shining example for this Ummah when you do so. All Muslims just need to realize that history is in good hands, thus patience and wisdom are the first things that are really called for, not stupid, angry, counterproductive and violent protests.

Patiently Deen On...

Maliki Matters

Well there's some new Maliki madhhab material to be found out there in Cyberspace, and I'm going to put some out there myself as well. Although the material that I have certainly isn't new, it's not well known out of Maliki polemical circles—those downtrodden souls who have to defend praying with their arms at their sides in a world of seemingly ever-present hadith-bombers.

In regards to new material, Lamppost Productions—that beacon of Maliki knowledge—has recently posted Prayer and Purification according to the Maaliki School of Islamic Jurisprudence, by Abdullah bin Hamid Ali. Keep a close eye on this site, since their list of forthcoming, insha'llah, materials is rather tantalizing considering that it includes such titles as The Sunnah of Dhikr Beads in Rebuttal to Sheikh Albaani and Ibn Taimiyah's Defense of the Four Imams. In addition to all this, Sidi Abdullah bin Hamid Ali has a forthcoming translation of Ibn al-Jawzi's Daf' Shubah al-Tashbh bi Akaff al-Tanzih as well, which is expected out sometime in 2006. It's entitled The Attributes of God and is being published by Sidi Aftab Malik's Amal Press.

Additionally, there's a new Yahoo! group called [MalikiFiqhGroup] that has a wealth of information in its files section, including not only Maliki-specific materials but a highly analytical and proof-based blockbuster of an article entitled The Sunni Belief About the Graves of the Blessed Awliya' of Allah, which I've uploaded here for easy access. It's a translation of some responses to questions which were fielded by the late Shaykh as-Sayyid Muhammad ibn `Alawi al-Maliki—and it's certainly not just his "al-Maliki" appellation that endears him to us. Before reading this article, I suggest putting any pre-conceived notions and takfiri tendencies to rest, otherwise it might end up being too large a dose of the painful truth.

The subject of possibly distasteful polemics serves as a nice lead-in for announcing the fact that I've uploaded a twenty-six page article by Dr. Sherman A. Jackson entitled Setting the Record Straight: Ibn al-Labbad's Refutation of al-Shafi'i [2,661 KB Adobe Acrobat file]. Please be aware that I've done this in the spirit of honest intellectual inquiry, not to fan the flames of inter-madhhab rivalry, and thus to defend the positions of the often misunderstood madhhab to which I adhere. This is a madhhab which adheres to the view that the muttawatir actions of the Ahl al-Madinah were often a more sound repository of the actual and final sunna practices than uncontextualized ahad hadiths.

Unfortunately, the article demonstrates that reluctance to appeal to the 'amal of the Ahl al-Madinah in the face of hadith evidence was a trap that some Maliki scholars fell into—a slip which essentially made them unwitting crypto-Shafi'is. This, I felt, was the most beneficial realization and fascinating aspect of the article. Although I agree (which is not meant to imply that my unqualified opinion matters) with Dr. Jackson that Ibn al-Labbad's (born 250/864, died 333/944) argumentation on specific points is "forceful and in most instances convincing", it's the big picture of his methodology that exposes light on a hidden danger that all Malikis need to be aware of.

As Sherman Jackson explains, in employing hadith to refute the Shafi'is, the young Ibn al-Labbad downplays the Maliki distinction between sunna and hadith. He thus unwittingly falling into "Shafi'ism"—by which is meant "the tendency to conflate sunna with hadith". Although it's made clear [page 145] that, overall, Ibn al-Labbad "was not completely disabused of the proto-Maliki approach, he did see it as something of a liability in anti-Shafi'i polemics". And it seems that he wasn't the only Maliki to do so, since others eventually moved further away from employing the Madinan 'amal as a proof when "pressure from non-Maliki opponents began to mount", as Dr. Jackson explains [page 141-142]:

Elsewhere I have alluded to the growing hegemony of 'Shafi'ism'
by virtue of which later Maliki apologists tended to ignore or play
down such sources as Madinan practice ('amal) and explain Malik's
doctrine purely in terms of hadith. In a more direct fashion, Yasin
Dutton has also drawn attention to this phenomenon, giving a well-
documented example of it in the case of the Maliki position on
sadl (holding one's hands at one's sides during prayer). Dutton's