Suhaib Webb on the Danish Cartoons

Imam Suhaib Webb, the notable American Muslim scholar, has provided some wise and balanced advice in response to the question, "Please tell me as to what you think we can do as Muslims on the issue of the Cartoons?" Also, since the Danish cartoon controversy unfortunately surfaced in recent days, an excellent answer by Ustadh Abdul Sattar has been posted on SuhaibWebb.com which states that "It is time for Muslims to stop burning flags, and start burning their desires". Amîn!

Deen on...

BBC: Sharia - The Clear Path

The BBC has seen fit to post an excellent overview of the Islamic shari'ah by Sidi Faraz Rabbani of Seeker's Digest and SunniPath fame.

Sharia: The Clear Path
What is the the Philosophy of the Shariah?
By Faraz Rabbani
BBC Religion & Ethics - February 13th, 2008

While on the subject of the shari'ah, and in light of the recent remarks by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, I'll mention that there is some interesting discussions ([1][2]) going on which point out that separate Jewish religious courts already exist in the UK. However, this article, although from an oft-Islamophobic source, argues that Muslims are going further in their demands for official recognition of their religious courts than British Jews ever have...but Allahu 'alim on that.

I'll say that I was disappointed by the sensationalist—if not outright incorrect—title on the Pixelisation blog which claims "British Jews Support Dhimmitude" since nothing in the posting, nor in any statement that I've heard coming from a Jewish spokesperson in Britain, seems to support such a claim. Perhaps it would have been better if the author explained what type or interpretation of "Dhimmitude" that Jews (and was he making a sweeping and generalized statement about all of them?) in Britain allegedly "support".

As usual, Sidi Abdal Hakim Murad had some wise and level-headed thoughts to offer on the subject of Islamic shari'ah courts in Britain and the Archbishop of Canterbury's statement...so please read them here.

The BBC Religion & Ethics entry on Sharia actually contains four ([1][2][3][4]) parts, and I'm relieved that they didn't call it "Sharia Law" since that sounds rather redundant to me.

Deen on...

Media Matters and "Gunny" Bob

Here's a link where you can get the latest updates on the bigotry and hate-mongering being spewed by radio talk show host "Gunny" Bob Newman. This is the guy who last year said, while hosting his The Gunny Bob Show, that he wants "every Muslim immigrant to America...to be required by law to wear a GPS tracking bracelet." Well here's the full quote:

"I want every Muslim immigrant to America who holds a green card, a visa, or who is a naturalized citizen to be required by law to wear a GPS tracking bracelet at all times. And the FBI and the NSA should monitor their phones and their emails, all communications — electronic — at all times, as well as bug their places of work and their residences. If they don't like the idea, or if they refuse, throw their asses out of this country. All mosques and community centers as well as Muslim organizations must be monitored."

It's sad seeing a person who seems to take pride in the fact that he is spreading hate and misinformation, but the good news in all of this is that his comments generated "intense public criticism".

Deen on...

An Unvowelled Qur'an...With Vowels!

Well sometimes you just have to laugh at the incompetence of these Islamophobic clowns—especially the ones who author books while remaining not only painfully ignorant of their subject matter, but horribly bigoted. Well lucky for me (and my readers), I've found an example of this that's easy enough to demonstrate. The other day, I was in a local bookstore flipping through a copy of Discovering God: The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief, by Rodney Stark, when this claim on page 361 caught my eye:

"A page from the Qur'an. For all that it is beautiful, this traditional Arabic script lacks short vowels, which often causes confusion as to which of several possible words actually is intended."

Unfortunately for this obviously ignorant author, the Qur'anic text pictured in the book is clearly vowelled! Yes, indeed, the image shows a portion of Surah As-Saffat (Qur'an 37) which includes most of ayah 35, all of ayah 36, and most of ayah 37, and there are many a fatha, damma and kisra (i.e. Arabic "short vowels") clearly visible in the text—as well as many occurrences of other diacritical marks (i.e. sukun and shadda) as well.

Admittedly, the Qur'anic manuscript in question is written in Maghribi script, which is mostly used in North and West Africa, thus the vowels are written as horizontal slashes rather than the more common slanted ones...but any Arabic reader can see that they are very plainly there. The fact that other idiosyncrasies of the Maghribi script can also be seen in this image (i.e. no dot over a terminal nun, one dot instead of two over a qaf, and no dots over a terminal qaf), does not take away from the fact that it is very much a vowelled text.

And let me make it clear: I am not disputing Stark's claim (page 362) that "there are no short vowels and no diacritics in the earliest surviving texts" but only demonstrating that the author was so inept that he chose for his example a text which has both short vowels and diacritics. For a brief discussion of the vowelling of the earliest Qur'anic manuscripts, please see The Qur'anic Manuscripts page at Islamic-Awareness.org—which clearly demonstrates that Qur'anic manuscripts from the first century of Islam exist in much more abundance (and are much more accurate!) than New Testament manuscripts from the first century of Christianity. Needless to say, Mr. Stark's attempts to defend the integrity and reliability of the New Testament text in the book in question are both vacuous and laughable. Reading such material makes it ominously clear that Rodney Stark is not a disinterested scholar, but rather a religions propagandist. One wonders where the commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" fits into all of this...

A glaring mistake as described above is much easier to understand once one actually reads what the author writes about Islam in the main text of the book. Suffice it to say, in spite of the fact that the Wikipedia entry on Rodney Stark says that one of his "hallmarks is writing with respect about the religions he studies", it becomes quickly apparent that he is more than willing to twist historical material to fit his pre-conceived and bigoted notions. I will let two examples suffice: 1) On the same page of Discovering God that shows the Qur'anic image we've just discussed, he writes: "When Muhammad died unexpectedly in 632, apparently there was no written Qur'an"; and 2) he has a book entitled The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success—which seems to indicate that Mr. Stark could very well be reading history with one eye closed and a crack pipe in hand.

If you want to see the copyrighted Qur'anic image from the book in question, just do the following: 1) Login to Amazon.com; 2) go to the main page for Discovering God: The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief, by Rodney Stark; 3) click on Search inside this book; 4) enter "vowels" in the blank search field; 5) click on the Go button; and 6) once the results appear, click "on Page 361".

Maybe I can be faulted for picking on an easy target—and Islamophobic troglodytes like Stark seem to be a dime a dozen these days, but such activist authors just bring it upon themselves. When I get time, I might post more examples of the egregious errors and blatant distortions in the writings of Rodney Stark. For now, however, this will have to suffice as an exposé of his sheer buffoonery...

O'Reilly Shamefully Ignorant of the Bible

It should come as no surprise that Islamophobe and Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly recently made it obvious that he is painfully ignorant of the Bible. Not only is this brand of scriptural ignorance par for the course for many Catholics, but it also is a warning sign for those who think it's worthwhile to listen to the patently ignorant opinions of bigoted "talking heads" in the mainstream media. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers"—thus watching television news must be even worse.

The details of O'Reilly's recent case of foot-in-mouth disease are discussed in "Culture Warrior" O'Reilly, who chided Dean over Book of Job misidentification, says Revelation "was written—what? Five thousand years ago?"—which is just another very worthwhile contribution by the Media Matters for America website. Keep in mind that Bill O'Reilly really looks like a hypocrite on this one since, as the previous title mentions, he once belittled Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean for being ignorant of the Bible!

Yes, it seems that O'Reilly did not have any idea that the Book of Revelation (a.k.a. the Apocalypse of John), which is the last canonical book in the Christian New Testament, was written only in the first century of the Common Era. One would think that someone with a degree in history, as O'Reilly does, as well as a mere schoolboy's knowledge of the Bible, would be able to do some quick math and determine that Revelation was written about 1,900 years ago, not 5,000 (i.e. it's now the year 2007 and the book was written 60 to 100 years after Jesus). However, the fact that O'Reilly said, "Five thousand years ago" just shows how painfully ignorant he is. After reading this, I think I need to start a new blog category called Biblical Ignorance, which will include this posting as well as English in Jesus' Time?—A Glaring Anachronism.

The other aspect of O'Reilly's statement on this matter that I found disturbing, although unsurprising, was his simplistic and uncritical acceptance of the claim that the Book of Revelation discusses, if not predicts, the current events in the Middle East...which O'Reilly calls "interesting" (and if you want to read a scathing and critical rebuttal to the claims of Biblical prophecy, read this). Personally, what I find both "interesting" and disturbing is that books and authors who are critical of this Bible-based apocalyptic outlook do not get more air time. As I mentioned in Forcing God's Hand With Three Sixes, which also discusses some textual problems related to the Book of Revelation, I continue to be fascinated by the fact "that otherwise intelligent people are still being duped by the shallow and simple-minded proofs of Biblical prophecy." Yes, the uncritical acceptance of half-baked theology fascinates me, but the fact that for a long time now these views, held my millions of uncritical pew-warmers in the United States, are having a profound impact on not only U.S. foreign policy, but on domestic policies (including freedom of religion) within this country, really disturbs me. On that note, those who are interested should take a look at Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, by Michelle Goldberg (a long review can be found here), On the Road to Armageddon: How Evangelicals Became Israels Best Friend, by Timothy P. Weber, Christian Zionism: Road-Map to Armageddon?, by Stephen R. Sizer, and the already mentioned Forcing God's Hand: Why Millions Pray for a Quick Rapture—and Destruction of Planet Earth, by Grace Halsell (with an off-site review here).

Remember, as Norman O. Brown wrote when discussing the power apocalyptic and eschatological imagery of the Qur'an, "eschatology can break out at any moment"...

"Islamofascism" in its Historical Context

Here's a link to an excellent article by Imam Zaid Shakir in which he puts the term "Islamofascism" in its historical context:

Who are the Fascists?
By Imam Zaid Shakir

There's no doubt that Islamofascism is a loaded term that is intended to instill fear in the hearts of the misinformed. Although it was allegedly first used as far back as 1980, in the post-9/11 world where Islamphobia is very much in vogue, it has now gained widespread popular usage. While there's also no doubt that militant Islamic extremism is a problem that needs to be dealt with (and by that I mean harshly AND intelligently—both in the military and intellectual arenas), to claim that this nascent movement has the capability to threaten, much less destroy, all of Western civilization is clearly ludicrous—as Imam Zaid clearly demonstrates in the article.

Whether this word was first used as part of a deceitful attempt at "Big Lie" propaganda, as Imam Zaid surmises, or whether those who coined it were simply suffering from paranoid delusions and an imbalanced view of history, the term is clearly inappropriate. Not only does it exaggerate the threat of the various (and far from unified) militant "Jihadi" groups, but it conflates differing ideologies—thus being typical of the inaccuracies regularly produced by Islamophobes. More seriously, however, it devalues the horrific actions of real fascists, especially the Nazis and their systematic attempt at eliminating European Jewry.

On that note, please read Holocaust Denial Undermines Islam, by Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, and take its message to heart since it contains advice that many Muslims seemingly need to hear. As I regularly tell people, if you're willing to accept sloppy and ideologically-driven revisionist history which allegedly proves that the Holocaust didn't happen, well then you should (if you want to remain intellectually consistent) also accept the revisionist histories that present organized "evidence" showing that, amongst other things, there were almost no Arabs living in Palestine when the Zionists first arrived and that the Qur'an was originally written by Jewish and Christian authors a couple of centuries after Muslims claim their religion was founded...and other such poorly contrived nonsense. So let's not raise our noses and eyebrows too high at the hate-based antics of the Islamophobes, since there are some troubling intellectual trends within the Dar al-Islam begging for widespread correction as well.

Also, those interested in the ideological pedigree of so-called "Politcal Islam" and neo-Salafism, the article How Marx turned Muslim, by John Gray, is a good place to start. While some forms of militant and political Islam no doubt share their totalitarian traits with certain fascist ideologies, their actual intellectual roots, like it or not, are firmly wrapped around the Leftist totalitarian creeds which manifested themselves in the previous century.

Deen on...

A Detailed Response to a Brain-Washed Marine

I just finished reading Who Wants to "Rule All the World"?: Response to an Angry Marine, by Gary Leupp, a professor of history at Tufts University. It's a well-formulated, fact-based and detailed response to two letters from an intellectually challenged Marine Gunnery Sergeant whom the Islamophobes have managed to play like a flute. As is to be expected, this man is not only painfully misinformed about Islam, but grotesquely biased in his analysis.

Professor Leupp does a great job of exposing the ignorance and double-standards which the letters present. Some of his more commendable and welcomed comments include:

“Recall by the way how the Nazis accused the Jews of trying to control the world and Germany. Do you see no resemblance between such charges and your statements about Muslims trying to ‘rule all the world’ and ‘rule over all’ America?”

“These days those who stereotype Muslims and essentialize Islam not only don't know what they're talking about but are vilifying and dehumanizing others in order to justify more war.”

Please take the time to read Who Wants to "Rule All the World"?: Response to an Angry Marine and forward the link to everyone you know who's also mired in Islamophia and the myopic double-standards and simple-minded bigotry that it produces—or is it the other way around? Needless to say, such intellectual Neanderthals are easy targets, but they—due to their activities in the public domain that are often intended to produce change in government policies as well as popular opinion—bring it upon themselves...

Deen On...

Arab Christian Victims of Islamophobia

Well it seems that a gang of aspiring rocket scientists vandalized an Arab (Assyrian) Christian church in Detroit thinking it was a mosque. In spite of the fact that there were a "number of crosses adorning the building," the words "1 God Jesus" and a cross were painted on a wall by the vandals...so obviously these Neanderthals thought they were defacing a non-Christian institution. If they had only managed to kill themselves in the process, this would have been a incident worthy of submission to the Darwin Awards...but alas.

Based on the stupefying level of ignorance prevalent in your typical Islamophobe, I don't find this hate-mongering misadventure surprising in the least. Disgusting? Yes. Surprising? No. Keeping in mind that after the 9/11 attacks a number of Sikhs in America were mistaken for Muslims and violently attacked (and even killed in at least one case), only makes this ugly incident in Detroit easier to believe. For those wanting to know more, articles detailing this hate crime can be found here and here.

For my non-Muslims readers who don't know, please let me explain: Not all Arabs are Muslims and not all Muslims are Arabs...and vandalizing places of worship is wrong regardless of who we're talking about. Thus please realize that the word Arab identifies someone as a member of an ethno-linguistic group, not religion or ideology. While it is true that most Arabs—roughly 90%—are Muslims, about 5%-10% (depending on which statistics you believe) of Arabs are Christians. Additionally, there are also Arabs who are Jews, atheists and adherents of every other religion and ideology under the sun. This is easy enough to comprehend once one realizes that being an Arab is an ethno-linguistic, not religious, classification.

Also, in spite of anti-Islamic propaganda to the contrary, when Islam spread, Muslims didn't offer people the choice of converting or being put to the sword. If this were true, there would have been no Christians or Jews left in the Middle East, but—believe it or not—there are substantial Arab Christian minorities living in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Palestine and Egypt...and there are even Arab Jews in Morocco and Yemen...after over fourteen centuries of Muslim rule. And it's worth noting that this is a much better record than pre-Enlightenment Christianity had in regards to dealing with adherents of other religions, and the fact that the actions of some Arab Christians in the modern Middle East have sometimes been less than stellar as well.

For those wanting to know more about the Christian Arabs of the Middle East, I suggest reading The Arab Christian: A History in the Middle East, by Rev. Kenneth Cragg, From the Holy Mountain: A Journey among the Christians of the Middle East, by William Dalrymple, Who Are the Christians in the Middle East?, by Betty Jane Bailey and J. Martin Bailey, and (now out-of-print) The Forgotten Faithful, by Said K. Aburish. Although these books tend to be rather one-sided, they do offer detailed and interesting information about Arab Christians and their current plight in the contemporary Middle East. While you're at it, you also might want to take a look at Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People, by Jack G. Shaheen, and "Evil" Arabs in American Popular Film, which document how Arabs have been demonized by Hollywood to a degree that would make Joseph Goebbels proud.

That having been said, we need to also address the "All Muslims are Arabs" myth, which is a very common misunderstanding. Generally, the fastest way to expose this myth as completely false is to put forward the fact that only about 15% to 20% of the Muslims in the world are Arabs. Indeed, there are more Muslims in India than there are Arab Muslims, and yet still more Indonesian Muslims than Indian Muslims! Believing that Islam is only a religion for Arabs is a fallacy that was spread by the enemies of Islam early in its history. This mistaken assumption is possibly based on the fact that most of the first generation of Muslims were Arabs, the Qur'an was revealed in Arabic and the Prophet Muhammad—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—was an Arab. However, both the teachings of Islam and the history of its spread show that the early Muslims made every effort to spread their message of Abrahamic monotheism to all nations, races and peoples. Yes, from the very beginning, followers of the Prophet Muhammad—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—came from a wide spectrum of individuals. There was Bilal, the African slave; Suhaib, the Byzantine Roman; Ibn Salam, the former Jewish Rabbi; and Salman, the Persian—which is a rather diverse group of followers even by today's standards.

Also, since children of Adam are one universal brotherhood, Islam teaches that Almighty God's final revelation is meant for all people regardless of race, nationality or linguistic background. Taking a look at the Muslim World—from Nigeria to Bosnia and from Malaysia to Turkey—should be enough to prove that Islam is a universal faith—as well as the fact that significant numbers of Europeans and Americans of all races and ethnic backgrounds continue to embrace Islam.

Anyway...back to the misguided attack on the Arab Christian church in Detroit...which seems to have been carried out by Christians who made a spray-painted effort to teach the Arab congregation that there's "1 God Jesus"...well if I was morally deficient enough to adopt the twisted methodology of Islamophobic propagandists like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, at this point I would start asking questions like: "What's wrong with Christianity?" and "Why aren't Christian leaders condemning this?"...and then ignore it when they do.

Since we're on the subject of Islamophobia and its oft accompanying double-standards, I suggest taking a look at the humorous (and very sarcastic) Call that humiliation?, by Terry Jones, which appeared in The Guardian Unlimited on Saturday.

Deen on...

Brian Whitaker - "In God's name"

On Monday, there was an excellent article on one of my pet peeve topics...the God-versus-Allah issue:

In God's name
by Brian Whitaker
The mainstream media should take a closer look at whose agenda they are following when they use the word 'Allah' to mean 'God'.
Guardian Unlimited - January 22, 2007

Some key excerpts from the article:

"Arab Christians worship 'Allah' too, and the first verse of the Arabic Bible informs us that 'In the beginning Allah created heaven and earth.'"

"By opting for 'Allah' they are aligning themselves, in effect, with those who view international politics in terms of a clash of civilisations and even seek to bring it about."

"Since (Edward) Said wrote his influential book, however, we have also seen the rise of another phenomenon which might be called 'reverse orientalism', where Arabs and Muslims deliberately 'other-ise' themselves in order (they hope) to better resist western influence...Consequently, the pressure to turn God into 'Allah' when writing about Muslims comes from two opposing but equally suspect directions...This is not so much a clash of civilisations as a collision of bigotries, and news organisations should not play along with it. If they are referring to God, then 'God' is what they should say."

He also uses the following quotes from Dr. Umar F. Abd-Allah's article One God, Many Names:

"From the standpoint of Islamic theology and salvation history, it is simply unacceptable to deem the Biblical God and that of the Qur'an to be anything but the same..."

"Muslims, Christians and Jews should have no difficulty agreeing that they all turn to the God of Abraham, despite their theological and ritual differences. Historical arguments between their faiths have never been over what name to call Abraham's God."

Brian Whitaker mentions that Dr. Umar Abd-Allah, "criticises English-speaking Muslims who insist on talking about 'Allah' instead of 'God' since that "serves only to reinforce the groundless claims of the religious right." In One God, Many Names, Dr. Umar also makes the following useful observations--especially for those involved in Islamic outreach (da'wah):

"It is natural for English-speaking Muslims to have a special attachment to the word 'Allah'... but it rarely has that same effect on non-Muslim, non-Arab listeners..."

"'Allah' continues to evoke a wide range of deeply ingrained cultural prejudices and negative associations, conscious or subconscious. On the other hand, 'God' creates an immediate associative response in most non-Muslim native speakers of English that would be virtually impossible for 'Allah' to evoke even after years of positive exposure."

For the sake of da'wah, please take this to heart!

Deen On...

Some Advice for Muslims Involved in Outreach

In response to a recent posting on DeenPort, I was prompted to rant and rave on a topic that I feel is of utmost importance if we want to make progress in overcoming misconceptions that non-Muslims have about Islam and make our outreach efforts more effective. This was something of a follow up to my recent posting in response to the question: Do Catholics and Muslims Worship the Same God?, and here's what I had to say:

---

As-salamu 'alaykum,

Well I'll second Arfan Shah's opinion that you need "some more explanation on the word Allah". Actually, I would strongly recommend simply using "God" in lieu of "Allah". No, I take that back. Rather, I would very, very, very strongly recommend that you use the word "God" instead of "Allah" or, at the very least, offer a well thought out explanation of the word "Allah" that makes it clear that it means "God"—the same God that Jews and Christians believe in (which is not meant to imply that these two abrogated religions don't have serious flaws in their understanding of God). Likewise, I would omit all, and I do mean ALL, of the Arabic terminology and instead translate these words into 100% pure English. Based on my experiences, both prior to converting to Islam and well over a dozen years being active in Islamic outreach (i.e. da'wah), I know that such an approach is usually much more effective than confusing non-Muslims with words that they don't understand and aren't in a position to appreciate.

In His Noble Book, Almighty God informs us that He never "sent a messenger except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make things clear to them" (Qur'an 14:4), so I sincerely feel—needless to say—that Muslims ought to employ the same modus operandi in their da'wah efforts. One would think that it's rather obvious that we should speak to people in a language that they can actually understand, but the fact that this needs to be explained speaks volumes about the state that much of our Ummah is in these days. Please understand that this isn't meant to imply that knowing the Arabic language isn't an important (even essential) part of understanding Islam or that the deep meanings of Qur'anic Arabic can necessarily be translated into English (or any other language, for that matter). Rather, I'm only trying to point out that one needs to strive to keep things simple when presenting Islam to non-Muslims who are more than likely misinformed about it. Based on the fact that you named your article "My Simple Guide to Islam", I think that we're probably in agreement on this point.

Before getting involved in any efforts to present Islam to non-Muslims, especially in an age where Islamophobia is rampant in the media and on the Internet, one needs to be keenly aware of the misinformation many people have been subjected to in order to avoid playing into the hands of the enemies of Islam. As I touched upon in a recent blog posting, there's no doubt that one of the main tactics that Christian missionaries and Islamophobes are using in order to "poison the well" of Islam (i.e. get people to reject it before they even take it into honest consideration) is to claim that "Allah" as a pagan god or, at a minimum, portray Him as a completely different God than Jews and Christians worship. As one can plainly see by reading the comments and opinions expressed by non-Muslims here (which represents a fairly typical mixed bag of opinions), this tactic has been rather effective. This can be confirmed by not only doing some Google searches, but by simply listening to the opinions voiced on conservative (and sometimes even liberal) news outlets. In my opinion, that this misunderstanding about Allah is nearly all-pervasive is very much backed up by what I've personally observed in my interactions with non-Muslims. Even as a relatively open-minded truth seeker who was already willing to admit that my previous religion of Christianity had some substantial flaws, it still took me about a year to struggle through the misconceptions that I had about Islam, including the one in question. Thus any Muslim involved in dealing with non-Muslims needs to understand and be sympathetic to the fact that English-speaking non-Muslims sometimes wonder, "If Allah is really God, then why don't you just call Him God?" I've actually been asked this question (and they probably just think it more than they actually ask it!), which I feel is a great indicator of the frame of mind that we often have to deal with. Every age has its issues, misunderstandings, hang-ups and pet peeves—and this seems to be the one for our age.

Unfortunately, Muslims are to blame for a lot of these misunderstandings, since not only are a lot of our so-called "da'wah" efforts not very well thought out, but many Muslims are grossly misinformed and narrow-minded on this subject as well. A good example of this comes from an article about a seemingly well-intentioned but rather misguided Muslim teacher, Israr Khan, that appeared in The Daily Mail several months ago. While I certainly agree with his view that Muslim children should not be singing Christmas carols, his handling of the situation was (at least as portrayed in the article) not only ill-mannered, rough and unwise, but his condemnation of "God" played directly into the hands of the enemies of Islam and smacked of henotheism as well. Indeed, Israr Khan's stating, "Who is your God? Why are you saying Jesus and Jesus Christ? God is not your God - it is Allah" is the type of thing that makes me want to cry out in frustration (or collapse in anguish, since it really does break my heart). Not only do such statements serve to confirm the misconceptions and misinformation that many, if not most, non-Muslims have been exposed to, but they should make one wonder how a "Muslim teacher" living in the West became so bigoted and misinformed in the first place.

Even though I would normally hesitate to base my view of a Muslim on one (non-Muslim) newspaper article, the point here isn't about an individual but about a particular "our God is better than your God" mentality that I've been opposing for many years. In regards to our brother Israr Khan, I'll say "Allahu 'alim" and simply point out that I don't find this story hard to believe, not because of him personally, but because of my own personal experiences. I don't know if he's an anthropomorphic "Salafi" who might be accused (in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way) of "worshipping the sky god of Najd", a Muslim who has fallen victim to a narrow cultural and tribal religious mentality, or simply a well-intentioned and pious man who has been unjustly slandered by The Daily Mail. That's all beside the point, since the sad fact that I want to make clear is that I've had the unenviable experience of coming across quite a few "walking, talking da'wah disasters" (as a convert friend of mine in Kuwait once labeled them) in my fourteen plus years as a Muslim. Even though they almost always counter these feelings and clarify their real views when properly questioned—the universality of the Islamic message being something that almost all Muslims take to heart, unfortunately it often seems that Muslims believe in an anthropomorphic tribal deity that they perceive to be "the god of the Muslims", thus we cannot just blame Islamophobic misinformation for this rather grave misunderstanding.

In order to improve the situation, if it was up to me I would require that every Muslim who wants to get involved in making outreach to non-Muslims in the English-speaking world read Dr. Umar Faruq Abd-Allah's article One God, Many Names and pass a detailed test on it. This Nawawi Foundation article is a masterpiece in regards to clarifying misconceptions that many Muslims have, largely due to linguistic double-standards, intellectual laziness or popular myths, and contains a wealth of information useful to anyone involved in talking about the Deity in any language. It's essentially written with a Muslim audience in mind with the aim of informing them about an important topic and thus to turn them into better-informed ambassadors of Islam...so please read it.

To me, One God, Many Names was really a breath of fresh air, especially coming from a convert who is, relatively speaking, up there in years. This is because, based on what I've seen, many converts over the years seem to forget about their old pre-conversion questions, obsessions and sensibilities once they get fully immersed in the beauty of Islam and the Arabic language...having left behind the facile and childish debate whether "Allah" is really God a long time ago. I admit that I've even caught myself falling into this trap, but when I see clear examples of Muslims being bull-headed and thus turning sincere people away from Islam and making our enemies cheer, then I snap out of it and jump in with both feet (at least some of the time). So in the future, whenever you encounter a Muslim da'i wannabe who is laboring under misconceptions about how the Islamic understanding of God should be explained to non-Muslims, refer them to One God, Many Names, by Dr. Umar Faruq Abd-Allah...and thank God that we still have such wise and articulate scholars in this trying age.

On a side note, I've sometimes considered asking Muslims who are resistant to the views which I've expressed above how they think most Muslims would feel if someone refused to use the word "Allah" when speaking to them and instead used the word for God from another language because they felt that it was much superior? My guess is that they would think that this would be ridiculous, misguided and very offensive-and rightfully so. Hopefully a word to the wise is sufficient in this case, thus I won't attempt to explain this hopefully clear point in detail. On the other hand, this question also serves as a response to the hate-mongers who claim that "Allah" is some false pagan deity, since one wonders how Arabs, regardless of their religion convictions or world-view, would be able to talk about God if they completely stopped using the word "Allah" when they spoke, since it's simply the word for "God" in the Arabic language. Indeed, not only do contemporary Arabic-speaking Jews, Christians and Muslims use this blessed word, but it has been used by all Arabs from time immemorial to refer to the Deity, from the theologically depraved pagan Arabs to the free-thinking neo-Platonic Arab philosophers of the High Middle Ages...since "Allah" is simply the word for God in the Arabic language. As I touched upon in Accidental Paganism Based on a Name, this entire polemic is as ridiculous as asking English-speaking people to stop using the word "God" because it has pagan German origins, since how then, pray tell, would we talk about God in English if we couldn't say the word "God"? Food for thought, I hope...

Before closing, I also want to address the issue of translating the Islamic Testification of Faith (i.e. Shahadah), since this presents some challenges that often lead to misunderstandings. Personally, I prefer to state the Shahadah as: "There is no god but God and Muhammad is the Messenger of God", although I find other all-English formulations, such as "There is nothing divine except for Almighty God and Muhammad is the Messenger of God" acceptable as well. However, I find the use of translations of the Shahadah that mix English and Arabic words to be somewhat questionable since they, based on my personal empirical observations, often confuse non-Muslims. Indeed, I've heard Shaykh Hamza Yusuf clearly state that such translations of the Shahadah are indeed "problematic". This is because the statement "There is no God but Allah" could be (and sometimes is) taken to imply that Muslims are claiming that the "God" that English-speaking Jews and Christians believe in doesn't exist (or is a false god) and "Allah" (the deity of the Arabs) is the only true God. This is certainly not how it's meant, but that's how it often comes across, so in order to avoid being counterproductive in our outreach efforts, one has to be sensitive to the state-of-mind and point-of-view of the audience that one is addressing.

On this note, I'll also point out that the article in question uses both "no God but Allah" and "no god but Allah" (the differences in upper and lower case being significant) in its translations of the Shahadah. This is worthy of note, since these slightly different formulations can both carry different subtle implications and thus spawn varied misunderstandings. Although I've already mentioned the pitfalls that the "There is no God but Allah" formulation presents, one should understand that saying "there is no god but Allah" could be taken in a rather different way (i.e. as an implication that Allah is something less than a full Deity since He's only a "god" with a lowercase "g"). It's due to all of these complications that I feel it's a good idea to stick to using "god" and "God" when translating the Shahadah into English (and I often quip that the ones that don't are really only partial translations), since when both of the words used to express divinity come from the same language, some of these difficulties are clearly avoided. No doubt, the original Arabic formulation is beautifully unhampered by any of these problems, which is why it remains not only a deep and profound theological statement, but the deepest truth ever revealed to mankind...so let's get busy spreading it amongst them in a meaningful way.

In conclusion, I'll clarify that I'm not calling on Muslim to completely stop using the word "Allah" when speaking to non-Muslims (much less amongst themselves), but just trying to make them aware of the dire misunderstandings that exist and the state of mind of their audience. I'll even admit that it's probably even a good idea to use the word "Allah" a bit around non-Muslims, since this sometimes serves to make it clear that this is just another word for Almighty God. However, I would hesitate to do this in initial presentations or discussions with non-Muslims, since they're most probably been exposed to the misinformation that I described above. So a distinction should be made between making presentations to (probably misinformed) non-Muslims and simply going about our daily lives as Muslims (i.e. performing our salat, reading the Qur'an, doing our dhikr and carrying on conversations sprinkled with Arabic terminology).

On a positive note, I feel that the views that I advocate above are really catching on amongst English-speaking Muslim scholars, especially the well-known converts that are active in da'wah. Not only does Dr. Umar's article make this clear, but several months ago, I asked another knowledgeable, well-known and well-respected Muslim scholar about the issue of effective outreach to non-Muslims, and he agreed that we should certainly use the word "God" when presenting Islam to English-speaking non-Muslims, otherwise we'll just end up being misunderstood. He then stated, with wise and sound logic, that "God is Allah and Allah is God" so it's certainly nothing that a thinking person should get hung-up on or confused about. I also recall, back from the years that I spent as a hot-headed young "Salafi" in Kuwait, hearing a Shaykh that had spent many years in America explain to some of my fellow narrow-minded cohorts that if they used the word "Allah" in their da'wah to non-Muslims, they'd probably just be misunderstood...and that's the point that I want to get across.

Here endeth the lesson. To those of you who read all of this lengthy rant, I want to say, "Thanks!" since I sure feel better after getting that off my chest...

Good News, Urgent Eid News and Hate News

Well the good news is that the current issue of Newsweek magazine has an excellent full-page article on Ingrid Mattson, a Canadian convert to Islam and current President of ISNA, as part of their Who's Next in 2007 feature…and you can view it on-line here. Not only is this an excellent piece of much-needed good press for Muslims, but I also think that selecting Dr. Mattson to serve as the head of ISNA was an excellent choice. Based on her writings, she seems to be a well-informed, thoughtful and no-nonsense woman...and I wish the Ummah had many more like her. She’s currently in the process of finalizing her first book, The Story of the Qur'an: Its History and Place in Muslim Life, which is due to be published in early 2007.

As far as urgent news, since 'Eid-ul-Adha is just a few days away, don't forget make a Udhiyah/Qurbani donation for needy Muslims somewhere in the world. Personally, I like the Islamic Relief website, since it lets you choose where you want your donation to go from a pretty hefty list of Muslim populated countries. For the benefit of non-Muslims, I'll include Islamic Relief’s explanation that: "Udhiyah/Qurbani is an Islamic religious practice performed at the time of Eid al-Adha (the 10th day of the Islamic month of Dhu al-Hijjah) involving the slaughtering of an animal; usually a sheep, goat, or cow. The event commemorates the devotion and commitment of Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) to God Almighty...Muslims believe that Eid al-Adha is a day of celebration and remembrance of God Almighty. Not all of us, however, are in a position to enjoy this day. Islamic Relief collects funds from donors, and performs Udhiyah/Qurbani on their behalf and distributes the meat to the needy. For many of the beneficiaries, this is the only time of the year they are able to eat meat."

And on the subject of hate news, I encourage everyone to read Dr. Maxtor's recent blog posting (via Islamophobia Watch) about an Islamophobic and hate-mongering blogger in Florida who made a call to "kill all Muslim kids". I'd love to know how this ethically and intellectually challenged individual would explain how his moral code is essentially any different than the murderous terrorists that he detests, but I surmise that he’s not mentally capable of delving into such an attempt at unbiased thinking…wa Allahu ‘alim.

Deen On...

Accidental Paganism Based on a Name?

Well M. S. M. Saifullah and company at Islamic-Awareness.org have updated a couple [(1)(2)] of their excellent articles which refute hate-mongers, such as Robert Morey, and their half-baked and dishonest assertions that Allah is a pre-Islamic "moon god"—so please take the time to have a look at them as well as their other articles [(1)(2)(3)] on this topic.

The only potential insight that I want to offer in the whole "moon god" debate is that the underlying premise behind all of these polemics seems to be that Islam is accidentally a pagan religion due to its use of the word "Allah" for the Supreme Deity instead of an allegedly more suitable word—which these linguistically challenged Protestants rather conveniently assume to be the English word "God". Indeed, dishonest pseudo-scholars such as Robert Morey (and please take the time to read this Christian exposé of him, as well as the first article mentioned above in order to see plenty of hard evidence that he resorts to "forgery, deception, suppression of evidence and deliberate misquotation" in a desperate attempt to prove his pre-conceived notions) essentially assert that in spite of the fact that Muslims intend to worship the God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus, that they are, alas, still actually worshipping a pagan god. Needless to say, both at first blush and after detailed consideration, this type of thinking seems not only patently unfair, but to be a product of monstrous double-standards. Indeed, not only does the fact that the Qur'an repeatedly and consistently [(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)] affirms that the God of Prophet Muhammad—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—and the earlier Hebrew prophets is one and the same push such an accusation into the realm of the unreasonable and unfounded, but it's also painfully ironic that the immense hypocrisy that's latent in this hateful diatribe eventually comes back to bedevil the religion of the slanderer himself!

No doubt, what's really worth noting about this nonsensical contention, other than the fact that for years to come it will probably continue to serve as a monumental example of the type of gross intellectual dishonesty and diabolical pseudo-scholarship that some strands of conservative Protestantism have a knack for producing, is the fact that the sloppy reasoning which it employs, if applied to the words used for "God" in the Bible, completely undermines the Christian faith that these textual charlatans are trying to defend!!! This is because both the Hebrew words for God (i.e. 'El, 'Eloah and 'Eloyhim) and the Greek word for God (i.e. Theos) were originally used for pagan gods! This is even true for the English word God and its various derivatives, which originally referred to "Germanic pagan deities" worshipped in pre-Christian northern Europe.

To top all of this off, modern speakers of Romance languages, such as Spanish, French and Portuguese, might be shocked to find out that their words for God (respectively Dios, Dieu and Deus) are all derived from Deus, which is a Latinized form of the name of the Greek god Zeus!!! Put that in your etymological pipe and smoke it, Robert Morey!

Consequently, based on Robert Morey's own logic (and I use the word loosely), for well over a thousand years the overwhelming majority of Christians in the world were therefore accidentally worshiping the god Zeus as they celebrated the Christian mass in Latin. And when Robert Morey finally came along, in all of his intellectual humility, and pointed out how others had gotten things all wrong…well he was using a word for God that was originally pagan in origin too! I mean really, isn't the sloppy thinking and unintended consequences of some hypocrites just simply amazing?!?

These devastating points don't even address the significant fact that Jesus himself, in spite of what some people seemingly believe, used the word Alaha (sometimes spelled Elah) when he spoke in his native Aramaic. Does that mean that he too was accidentally worshipping one of the Canaanite deities because Alaha is derived from a word that was originally used by pagans? And keep in mind that even in Jesus' time, many Aramaic speakers were pagans, not Jews. So instead of wallowing in such drivel, an intellectually honest person would—after actually considering the linguistic evidence—conclude that the various Semitic languages (Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic) all use words for "god" and "God" that are very similar in origin, spelling and their root meanings. All of this evidence, coupled with the fact that all believers should find comfort in the certitude that all of these words have as a common ancestor the word for "God" that was originally revealed to Adam and the other early prophets, should be enough to squash the mistaken belief that there's some problem with any of these words when it comes to using them to refer to The One True God. For an excellent and detailed discussion of the various names of God, I highly recommend reading Dr. Umar Faruq Abd-Allah's One God, Many Names—and taking its recommendations to heart.

I'd like to mention that one could well argue that "Allah" is the most theologically superior of the just-mentioned Semitic words for "God", since as a contraction of the definite article "Al-" (i.e. "the") and the word "Ilah" (i.e. "god/God") it literally means "The God"—thus leaving almost no room for any of the ambiguity in regards to Divinity that crept into both the Bible and Christian Trinitarian theology. Indeed, on this level, the word "Allah" stands in stark contrast to the Hebrew words 'El, 'Eloah and 'Eloyhim, which are used in the Old Testament to refer to pagan deities as well as the One True God of the Children of Israel. However, in order to avoid slipping into anything that might appear to be rather pointless "My Word for God is Better Than Yours" antics, for balance I'll just mention that the Greek word for God, in a grammatical sense, is quite similar to the Arabic word, since it too is constructed from the definite article (i.e. "Ho") and the word for god (i.e. "Theos"), thus it (i.e. "Ho Theos") also rather unambiguously means "The God".

All of this should be abundantly clear to a native speaker of any of the languages just mentioned, since the word for God in any person's native language is most often very near and dear to their heart—and thus simply means GOD in spite of what others may feel about it. In spite of what the specific word might actually be, as long as a person is a true monotheist, the word they use for God is good enough—and this is certainly the case if they're intending to worship the God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad—peace be upon them all. Indeed, Almighty God, as Muslims understand Him, doesn't throw people into Hell for linguistic misunderstandings—especially when the only real misunderstanding is in the minds of some bigoted hate-mongers.

A wise shaykh once told me, in regards to some of these debates and antics, what essentially means: "Allah is God and God is Allah, so let's just leave it at that"—and a word to the wise is sufficient.

"Adore not the sun and the moon,
but adore God who created them..."
— Qur'an 41:37

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...

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