Sameer stopped by my workspace the other day. He is a Muslim from a Middle Eastern country who has lived in America for many years. If you asked him, he would say I was the nicest person in the world. He wanted to talk about a CNN program he had just seen, where people were objecting to the building of a proposed mosque near Ground Zero in New York.
"It's just a community center," Sameer told me, "To get kids off the streets. It will have clubs and a theater with a room for people who want to pray. And people are objecting to it!"
As I listened, Sameer continued. "The Prophet treated everyone with respect," he said. "He even said that Paradise is at the feet of mothers."
I could have asked him how many Paradises Islam has, since Muhammad also said that Paradise was under the shadow of his sword, but I didn't go there. Instead I countered, "Well, the Quran also commands men to beat disobedient wives. I'm not sure that is showing them much respect."
Sameer was quick to respond, "That's not what that verse means," he said. "I heard a Shaykh say it means that if a wife is doing something wrong, the husband can give her a gentle, loving tap on the shoulder to say, "Honey, don't do that - do it this way."
"But Sameer," I replied, "You know Arabic. The verb used by the Quran is daraba. That is the verb used when American fighter aircraft demolish an Al Qaeda stronghold in Pakistan. That's the verb used to describe Israeli gunships destroying the home of a Hamas suicide bomber in Gaza. It means anything but 'giving a gentle tap on the shoulder.'"
An injured look came across Sameer's face. "Wallahi, by God," he said, "I don't know about that. But the Shaykh said it just means to give her a loving tap, nothing more."
After Sameer left, I turned to a friend who had overheard the conversation. "Do you know what I find frustrating about conversations like that?" I asked. "It's the realization that he doesn't really want to hear what I have to say. He's not interested in what I think about Muhammad or Islam."
"I know," she replied. "It reminds me of conversations I had with Palestinian friends when I spent some time in the Middle East. You soon learn not to even try to talk about particular subjects, because the conversations only go one way."
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Al Jazeera: Christian Muslim Coexistence
Dr. Mohammed El Samak, well-known in Lebanon for his role in inter-faith dialogue, was a July, 2010, guest on the Al Jazeera TV program Shariah and Life. The subject of the program was Muslim and Christian Coexistence.
Dr. Samak began the interview by saying that the Quran makes many favorable references to Christians, and quoted three of them. Surat Al Imran states, "Some of the People of The Scripture stand for the right; they quote the verses of God through the night while engaged in prayer (3:113)". Surat al-Maidah declares, "The strongest enemies of the Muslims are the Jews and the idolaters, and those closest to the Muslims are the Christians. That is because they include monks and priests, and they are not proud (5:82)." The same chapter says, "We sent Jesus and gave him the Gospel to confirm the Torah that came before him. Let the Christians judge by what God gave them (5:46,47)."
I noted here that Quranic verses quoted by Muslims as evidence of tolerance and coexistence towards non-Muslims often come from a textual context that teaches the exact opposite. This is the case in each of the three verses read by Dr. Samak.
The first one, verse 113 of Surat Al Imran, praised Christians who spent the night in prayer. What is the context of that ayah; that is, what is the theme of the passage from which it is taken? Verse 110 declares that Muslims are the best people ever created, in contrast to the rebellious and disobedient People of the Scriptures (the Jews and Christians). The next verse declares that the People of the Scriptures are cowards easily defeated in battle, and the verse following states they have incurred the wrath of God because they did not accept the Quran. Next comes the verse quoted by Dr. Samak, ayah 113, in which it is acknowledged that a minority of the Christians and Jews are not as reprehensible as the others. The verse immediately afterward concludes that these righteous People of the Book are those who followed the Prophet Muhammad. In other words, the only good Christians and Jews are those who become Muslims. All the others, according to ayah 116, will face the punishment of Hell.
What is the context of Dr. Samak's second quote, that says in al-Maidah verse 82 that those closest to the Muslims are the Christians? Ayah 72 of the same Surah declares that Christians are Kuffar for believing in the Divinity of Jesus. (Muslims often deny that the Quran describes Christians and Jews as Kuffar, but the Arabic verb used in this text unmistakedly indicates that they are). The following verses deny that Jesus was more than a Prophet, and declare that he cursed his own people for believing he was the Son of God. Hell will be the eternal abode of the Christians and the Jews, unless they accept the Prophet Muhammad and believe what was revealed to him. Next comes the verse quoted by Dr. Samak, acknowledging that some Christians espouse the values of loving-kindness and humility towards Muslims. The verse immediately after adds that these good Christians are those whose eyes overflowed with tears when they realized the true message of Muhammad, and the following verse agains warns that those who did not believe Muhammad would be the Dwellers of Hell. Again, as in the first example, the only good Christians are those who convert to Islam; all others are damned.
The final quote, ayahs 46 and 47 from al-Maidah, which states that "Christians should judge by what God gave them", comes just after a passage stipulating that the hands of both male and female thieves should be cut off (5:38). The Quran continues that Christians and Jews refused the message of Muhammad because they claimed they had their own messages. It acknowledges, in the verse quoted by Dr. Samak, that Christians who do not convert to Islam can live according to the dictates of their Gospel, but warns in the next ayah that these Christians will try to subvert Muslims and are not to be trusted. The section continues by warning Muslims not to take Christians or Jews as friends or allies, and declares that any Muslim who does so is no better than them.
Dr. Samak said many good things in the remainder of the interview. He reminded his Arab viewers that Christianity had existed there long before Islam, and that Christians were an indispensable part of the fabric of Arab society. He deplored the violence that targeted Christians in Iraq as well as parts of Egypt, and reminded his fellow Muslims that Christians in Arab countries often migrated to the West because of the professional ceilings placed over them in their own homelands.
What struck me, however, was that the favorable things said by Dr. Samak are because he is an educated human being, a humanitarian, not because he is a Muslim. As a follower of Muhammad, he is forced to recite verses from the Quran that presumably reinforce his positon, even though a child with a 6th grade education can read those same verses in context and realize they say the opposite of what Dr. Samak wants them to say.
There are two ways to look at both the Quran and the life of Muhammad. The first is to do as Dr. Samak did in this interview, to choose specific phrases from the Quran or selected stories from the life of Muhammad to prove the point the individual is trying to make. As with all religious texts, this is easy to do. One could even use this method to argue that the Bible teaches atheism, because a phrase taken from Psalm 14:1 says, "There is no God."
The other way is to look at the trajectory of the entire book, as well as that of Muhamad's entire life. It is difficult to deny that even though the first revelations claimed by Muhammad were religious in nature, the final revelations as exemplified in the Verses of the Sword in Surat al-Tauba (surah 9) are military actions against non-Muslims. It is also impossible to deny that during Muhammad's life the entire Jewish population of Medina, tribes who had lived there for centuries, were expelled or murdered simply for refusing to accept him as a Prophet, and that within a few years of his death all the Christians and Jews of Arabia were annihilated for the same reason.
I believe many Muslims are truly interested in the rights of non-Muslims living in Muslim countries and are aware of the limitations of these rights. I also believe these Muslims face a dilemma. As Muslims they must believe that Muhammad was a Prophet from God and the Quran is a text from God, and are unable to publicly criticize either. It's very difficult for them to look objectively at how their own Prophet and Sacred Texts treated non-Muslims, and as a result move in an opposite direction. In other words, comparatively few Muslims (although the number is dramatically increasing) have the courage and honesty to really leave Muhammad behind.
Dr. Samak began the interview by saying that the Quran makes many favorable references to Christians, and quoted three of them. Surat Al Imran states, "Some of the People of The Scripture stand for the right; they quote the verses of God through the night while engaged in prayer (3:113)". Surat al-Maidah declares, "The strongest enemies of the Muslims are the Jews and the idolaters, and those closest to the Muslims are the Christians. That is because they include monks and priests, and they are not proud (5:82)." The same chapter says, "We sent Jesus and gave him the Gospel to confirm the Torah that came before him. Let the Christians judge by what God gave them (5:46,47)."
I noted here that Quranic verses quoted by Muslims as evidence of tolerance and coexistence towards non-Muslims often come from a textual context that teaches the exact opposite. This is the case in each of the three verses read by Dr. Samak.
The first one, verse 113 of Surat Al Imran, praised Christians who spent the night in prayer. What is the context of that ayah; that is, what is the theme of the passage from which it is taken? Verse 110 declares that Muslims are the best people ever created, in contrast to the rebellious and disobedient People of the Scriptures (the Jews and Christians). The next verse declares that the People of the Scriptures are cowards easily defeated in battle, and the verse following states they have incurred the wrath of God because they did not accept the Quran. Next comes the verse quoted by Dr. Samak, ayah 113, in which it is acknowledged that a minority of the Christians and Jews are not as reprehensible as the others. The verse immediately afterward concludes that these righteous People of the Book are those who followed the Prophet Muhammad. In other words, the only good Christians and Jews are those who become Muslims. All the others, according to ayah 116, will face the punishment of Hell.
What is the context of Dr. Samak's second quote, that says in al-Maidah verse 82 that those closest to the Muslims are the Christians? Ayah 72 of the same Surah declares that Christians are Kuffar for believing in the Divinity of Jesus. (Muslims often deny that the Quran describes Christians and Jews as Kuffar, but the Arabic verb used in this text unmistakedly indicates that they are). The following verses deny that Jesus was more than a Prophet, and declare that he cursed his own people for believing he was the Son of God. Hell will be the eternal abode of the Christians and the Jews, unless they accept the Prophet Muhammad and believe what was revealed to him. Next comes the verse quoted by Dr. Samak, acknowledging that some Christians espouse the values of loving-kindness and humility towards Muslims. The verse immediately after adds that these good Christians are those whose eyes overflowed with tears when they realized the true message of Muhammad, and the following verse agains warns that those who did not believe Muhammad would be the Dwellers of Hell. Again, as in the first example, the only good Christians are those who convert to Islam; all others are damned.
The final quote, ayahs 46 and 47 from al-Maidah, which states that "Christians should judge by what God gave them", comes just after a passage stipulating that the hands of both male and female thieves should be cut off (5:38). The Quran continues that Christians and Jews refused the message of Muhammad because they claimed they had their own messages. It acknowledges, in the verse quoted by Dr. Samak, that Christians who do not convert to Islam can live according to the dictates of their Gospel, but warns in the next ayah that these Christians will try to subvert Muslims and are not to be trusted. The section continues by warning Muslims not to take Christians or Jews as friends or allies, and declares that any Muslim who does so is no better than them.
Dr. Samak said many good things in the remainder of the interview. He reminded his Arab viewers that Christianity had existed there long before Islam, and that Christians were an indispensable part of the fabric of Arab society. He deplored the violence that targeted Christians in Iraq as well as parts of Egypt, and reminded his fellow Muslims that Christians in Arab countries often migrated to the West because of the professional ceilings placed over them in their own homelands.
What struck me, however, was that the favorable things said by Dr. Samak are because he is an educated human being, a humanitarian, not because he is a Muslim. As a follower of Muhammad, he is forced to recite verses from the Quran that presumably reinforce his positon, even though a child with a 6th grade education can read those same verses in context and realize they say the opposite of what Dr. Samak wants them to say.
There are two ways to look at both the Quran and the life of Muhammad. The first is to do as Dr. Samak did in this interview, to choose specific phrases from the Quran or selected stories from the life of Muhammad to prove the point the individual is trying to make. As with all religious texts, this is easy to do. One could even use this method to argue that the Bible teaches atheism, because a phrase taken from Psalm 14:1 says, "There is no God."
The other way is to look at the trajectory of the entire book, as well as that of Muhamad's entire life. It is difficult to deny that even though the first revelations claimed by Muhammad were religious in nature, the final revelations as exemplified in the Verses of the Sword in Surat al-Tauba (surah 9) are military actions against non-Muslims. It is also impossible to deny that during Muhammad's life the entire Jewish population of Medina, tribes who had lived there for centuries, were expelled or murdered simply for refusing to accept him as a Prophet, and that within a few years of his death all the Christians and Jews of Arabia were annihilated for the same reason.
I believe many Muslims are truly interested in the rights of non-Muslims living in Muslim countries and are aware of the limitations of these rights. I also believe these Muslims face a dilemma. As Muslims they must believe that Muhammad was a Prophet from God and the Quran is a text from God, and are unable to publicly criticize either. It's very difficult for them to look objectively at how their own Prophet and Sacred Texts treated non-Muslims, and as a result move in an opposite direction. In other words, comparatively few Muslims (although the number is dramatically increasing) have the courage and honesty to really leave Muhammad behind.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
The Challenge of al-Qaeda's Inspire Magazine to the Muslim Community
No-one seems to know how to respond to al-Qaeda's Inspire magazine. Stephen Colbert tried to be funny, as comedians always do. Peter Hoekstra tried to be blustery, as politicans always do. But the real challenge posed by the magazine and the ideology it represents is neither to American comedians nor politicians. It is to the Muslim Ummah, the community of Muslims worldwide, a challenge to look honestly at who Muhammad really was and how he responded to those who resisted his claim that he was a Prophet sent from God.
Stephen Colbert along with the rest of Western media might laugh at "How to Build a Bomb in Your Mom's Kitchen", but a much more serious editorial was written by American turned Jihadist Shaykh Anwar al-Awlaki. Entitled "The Cartoon Crusade - the Dust Will Never Settle Down", the editorial contains a list of Western non-Muslims, as well as former Muslims who have left Muhammad behind, who deserve to be killed because they criticized Muhammad. The reason for this death sentence is simple and straightforward. "The medicine prescribed by the Messenger of God," writes Shaykh Anwar, "Is the execution of those involved. A soul that is so debased as to enjoy the ridicule of the Messenger of Allah...does not deserve life, does not deserve to breathe the air created by Allah, and enjoy a life provided for by Allah. Their proper abode is hellfire. The Messenger of Allah called for the assassination of Kab ibn Ashraf, and there are other incidents of his companions killing those who spoke against him. There was a blacklist of names of people in Makkah that were to be killed even if found hanging onto the clothes of the Kabah, the holiest site in Islam. This list included, among others, women who sang poetry defaming Muhammad."
And here is the challenge posed by Anwar al-Awlaki to Muslims everywhere. Muhammad killed people who criticized him. As noted here, the social critics of Muhammad's day - the Bill O'Reillys and the Arianna Huffingtons - were the poets. They were our bloggers, cartoonists and film-makers, the cynics and the skeptics. And those who did not believe Muhammad was a prophet of God and who expressed their views in their poetry were killed. Anwar's simple proposition is as follows. Muhammad is our Prophet, our model and our example. He killed those who criticized him. Why should we not do the same?
There are two important things to notice here. The first is that Muhammad's earliest biographers, in contrast to writers such as Tariq Ramadan, Reza Aslan, Muhammad Haykal and Omid Safi today, rarely tried to explain the actions of Muhammad and his companions. They simply recorded what they did. In one example from Ibn Ishaq's The Life of Muhammad, a warrior named Amr bin Umayya recounted that Muhammad sent him to Mecca to kill an enemy named Abu Sufyan. Amr was recognized before he could carry out the mission and forced to flee the 250 miles back to Medina. While spending the night in a cave he encountered a one-eyed shepherd tending his sheep. When Amr identified himself as a follower of Muhammad, the shepherd replied, "I will never become a Muslim nor pay any attention to their religion."
Amr's unspoken response was, "I'll teach you." He continued, "As soon as the shepherd was asleep, I killed him in a more horrible way than any man has ever been killed. I put the end of my bow in his one eye, and bore down on it until I forced it out at the back of his neck." The next morning Amr came across one of the shepherd's companions. He tied his thumbs together with a bow string and took him as a prisoner back to Medina. When Muhammad saw the prisoner, he "laughed so hard one could see his back teeth". When Amr told him the rest of the story, "the Prophet blessed me".
Why did Amr kill the shepherd in such a gruesome manner? Why did Muhammad find the story so hilarious? The biographer does not tell us, but simply recounts the event.
The same is true of the poets and poetesses killed by Muhammad for criticizing him in their poetry. Modern writers go to great lengths to try to explain and justify Muhammad, but his original biographers did none of this. They merely recorded what he did.
The second thing to notice is that many Muslims do not even bother to try to explain what Muhammad did - they simply deny it. Google Asma bint Marwan, the Jewish poetess killed by Muhammad as she lay sleeping with her nursing child because Islam's Prophet felt threatened by her poetry. Muslims such as this one argue the story never happened because her name is not collaberated in the Hadith. Rather than honestly deal with the unsavory aspects of Muhammad's character and behavior, they simply deny them.
And here is the problem. Most Muslims believe in the Prophet they wish had existed. The Jihadists follow the Muhammad who really existed. When confronted with the arguments of the Jihadists, the so-called moderate Muslims have no answer. The Anwar al-Awlakis of this world are the true Followers of Muhammad. And the willingness or unwillingness of ordinary Muslims to critically confront their own Prophet could determine, in my opinion, the future of Western civilization.
Stephen Colbert along with the rest of Western media might laugh at "How to Build a Bomb in Your Mom's Kitchen", but a much more serious editorial was written by American turned Jihadist Shaykh Anwar al-Awlaki. Entitled "The Cartoon Crusade - the Dust Will Never Settle Down", the editorial contains a list of Western non-Muslims, as well as former Muslims who have left Muhammad behind, who deserve to be killed because they criticized Muhammad. The reason for this death sentence is simple and straightforward. "The medicine prescribed by the Messenger of God," writes Shaykh Anwar, "Is the execution of those involved. A soul that is so debased as to enjoy the ridicule of the Messenger of Allah...does not deserve life, does not deserve to breathe the air created by Allah, and enjoy a life provided for by Allah. Their proper abode is hellfire. The Messenger of Allah called for the assassination of Kab ibn Ashraf, and there are other incidents of his companions killing those who spoke against him. There was a blacklist of names of people in Makkah that were to be killed even if found hanging onto the clothes of the Kabah, the holiest site in Islam. This list included, among others, women who sang poetry defaming Muhammad."
And here is the challenge posed by Anwar al-Awlaki to Muslims everywhere. Muhammad killed people who criticized him. As noted here, the social critics of Muhammad's day - the Bill O'Reillys and the Arianna Huffingtons - were the poets. They were our bloggers, cartoonists and film-makers, the cynics and the skeptics. And those who did not believe Muhammad was a prophet of God and who expressed their views in their poetry were killed. Anwar's simple proposition is as follows. Muhammad is our Prophet, our model and our example. He killed those who criticized him. Why should we not do the same?
There are two important things to notice here. The first is that Muhammad's earliest biographers, in contrast to writers such as Tariq Ramadan, Reza Aslan, Muhammad Haykal and Omid Safi today, rarely tried to explain the actions of Muhammad and his companions. They simply recorded what they did. In one example from Ibn Ishaq's The Life of Muhammad, a warrior named Amr bin Umayya recounted that Muhammad sent him to Mecca to kill an enemy named Abu Sufyan. Amr was recognized before he could carry out the mission and forced to flee the 250 miles back to Medina. While spending the night in a cave he encountered a one-eyed shepherd tending his sheep. When Amr identified himself as a follower of Muhammad, the shepherd replied, "I will never become a Muslim nor pay any attention to their religion."
Amr's unspoken response was, "I'll teach you." He continued, "As soon as the shepherd was asleep, I killed him in a more horrible way than any man has ever been killed. I put the end of my bow in his one eye, and bore down on it until I forced it out at the back of his neck." The next morning Amr came across one of the shepherd's companions. He tied his thumbs together with a bow string and took him as a prisoner back to Medina. When Muhammad saw the prisoner, he "laughed so hard one could see his back teeth". When Amr told him the rest of the story, "the Prophet blessed me".
Why did Amr kill the shepherd in such a gruesome manner? Why did Muhammad find the story so hilarious? The biographer does not tell us, but simply recounts the event.
The same is true of the poets and poetesses killed by Muhammad for criticizing him in their poetry. Modern writers go to great lengths to try to explain and justify Muhammad, but his original biographers did none of this. They merely recorded what he did.
The second thing to notice is that many Muslims do not even bother to try to explain what Muhammad did - they simply deny it. Google Asma bint Marwan, the Jewish poetess killed by Muhammad as she lay sleeping with her nursing child because Islam's Prophet felt threatened by her poetry. Muslims such as this one argue the story never happened because her name is not collaberated in the Hadith. Rather than honestly deal with the unsavory aspects of Muhammad's character and behavior, they simply deny them.
And here is the problem. Most Muslims believe in the Prophet they wish had existed. The Jihadists follow the Muhammad who really existed. When confronted with the arguments of the Jihadists, the so-called moderate Muslims have no answer. The Anwar al-Awlakis of this world are the true Followers of Muhammad. And the willingness or unwillingness of ordinary Muslims to critically confront their own Prophet could determine, in my opinion, the future of Western civilization.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Islam and the World Cup
I'm sure many Muslims were included in the thousands of Spainiards who crowded Madrid's Plaza de Colon today to celebrate their team winning the World Cup. They would have been part of millions of Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Jews, atheists, and human beings of all stripes and colors who watched the final match together in cafes and sports bars from San Francisco to Kathmandu. And that's the way it should be. There's nothing like a major sports event to bring people together in spite of religious, political, racial, and cultural differences.
So why were two Somali Muslims recently killed and dozens arrested by Hizbul Islam, the Party of Islam, for the crime of watching Kas al-Alim, the World Cup? Ask any Western-educated Muslim, and they will assure you the Hizbul Islam is a small, radical, extreme group that in no way represents the true teachings of the peaceful religion of Islam. The reality is that Hizbul Islam takes the example and sayings of their Prophet Muhammad very seriously, and he is the one who ruled 1400 years ago that watching the World Cup is Haram, prohibited for Muslims.
Those who follow the Arabic media and are interested in such things might have observed over the past few weeks that Shaykhs and scholars throughout the Arab world have been preaching sermons and issuing fatwas condemning the World Cup and forbidding Muslims from watching it. They gave at least nine reasons for their rulings:
1. The Standard Committee on Issuing Fatwas ruled here that watching the World Cup is prohibited for Muslims because prizes are won and gambling takes place. According to an authentic Hadith in the Sunnan Abu Daud collection and noted elsewhere, Abu Huraira relayed that Muhammad said the only types of competition for which Muslims are permitted prizes are archery, and horse and camel racing. The reason, of course, Muslims could compete and win prizes in these areas is because they are included in warfare and Jihad. Al Qaeda recently produced a propaganda film on Jihadist websites that asked the question, "Which of these two goals is the best, scoring a goal in football, or fighting the Infidels in the Jihad of God?" The first scene was of a player scoring a goal in the World Cup, and the second was an IED obliterating an American military vehicle. The film left no doubt which goal its producers deemed most noteworthy.
2. Responding to a question from a TV viewer as to whether it was permissible to watch matches of the World Cup, Shaykh Abu Ishaq al-Huwayni replied it was not. The Prophet of Islam, said the Shaykh, allowed Muslim men only two types of enjoyment. He could enjoy his wives, and his horses. Enjoyment of his wives, of course, meant sex, and enjoyment of his horses was related to going to war and practicing Jihad. Any other form of amusement was Haram. In another authentic Hadith, Caliph Umar Ibn al-Khattab commanded the Muslims of the Levant to train their sons in archery and horsemanship to prepare them for Jihad.
3. Football players in the World Cup wear shorts that reveal their thighs, and Muslim men are not allowed to wear clothing over the knee. In his Arabic TV show, Shaykh Abdallah Shakir warned Muslim men against bringing immorality into their homes by allowing their women to watch these improperly dressed men on the soccer field. Included in the many authentic Hadiths that do not allow men to show their legs is one from al-Bukhari in which Zurah bin Abdel Rahman relayed that the Prophet passed in front of him and saw his thigh. Muhammad's admonition was, "Shame on you. Do you not know that the thigh is part of your private parts?"
I would imagine that you (and as I) were not concentrating on the thighs of the Spanish and Dutch players battling for the World Cup victory this afternoon. We were concentrating on their teamwork and skill of handling the football. Only the deranged hearts of mentally and morally bankrupt Shaykhs could imagine that Muslim men and women around the world were lusting after the exposed upper legs of the players as they raced up and down the field. As they have veiled their women, the Ulema would cover the arms and legs of the players in the World Cup as well. In another Arabic TV show, Shaykh Nabil al-Awdi argued that it was improper to watch World Cup matches because sometimes the cameras panned the spectators and showed unveiled women. Again, only people such as the Shaykh himself would be fixated on the women watching the match rather than the match itself.
4. Shaykh Yusuf Hamd argued on his TV show that watching the World Cup contradicts the important Islamic principle of Al Wala Wal Bara. "Wala" means establishing allegiance with Muslims, and "Bara" means standing against the Kuffar or non-Muslims. Muslim soccer fans might, God forbid, admire non-Muslim players and this is not allowed in Islam. Even worse, the Muslim might prefer a non-Muslim player over a Muslim player. Muslims are commanded to "love other Muslims in God", and to "hate the Kuffar in God".
5. Shaykh Muhammad bin Salih al-Uthaymeen pronounced during his televised Friday sermon that watching the World Cup was not allowed for Muslims because it meant aggrandizing the Kuffar. No matter how much non-Muslims have advanced, said the Shaykh, they cannot be admired because they are still Infidels. No matter how good the non-Muslim player is, he cannot be praised by a Muslim; this is against Islam. In another impassioned Friday sermon, Shaykh Abu Talhah was in tears when he proclaimed that the worst thing about the World Cup matches was that Muslim youth were admiring unbelieving, immoral, ungodly players (in other words, non-Muslims). Some of them have even cursed the Prophet, bemoaned the Shaykh, reminding his audience that Caliph Umar bin Khattab said that he hated Christians because Christians had cursed the Prophet. How could young Muslims admire Christian or Jewish players who did not follow the Prophet or love his Quran?
6. Shaykh Abu Talhah gave another reason in the same sermon why watching the World Cup was forbidden to Muslims; spectators were trying to be like the West, whereas Muslims are to oppose the West in every way. Soccer was a Western sport, said the Shaykh, and the World Cup was organized by Western countries. How could Muslims possibly participate? The World Cup did not follow the laws of Islam in its rulings, so how could Muslims take part? The Prophet, declared Abu Talhah, announced that he was taking his sword against the Kuffar, and that those who shared their lives in any way were the enemies of Allah. The clear message of the Shaykh was that those who fought non-Muslims were better than those who did not. (One wonders if the Shaykh refuses to drive an automobile, fly in an airplane, use the Internet, or watch TV since to do so would also make him like a Westerner?).
7. Numerous Shaykhs bemoaned the fact that watching World Cup matches was a waste of time that kept Muslims from performing the daily prayers. In a creative way to counter this (and in accordance with an Islamic principle that sometimes Muslims must choose between the lesser of two evils), the Society of the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Evil in Saudi Arabia (the Mutawa) organized vehicles and volunteers to spread carpets in front of cafes and coffee shops at prayer time so that Muslims watching World Cup matches could run out, quickly say their prayers, and return having lost only five minutes of viewing time!
8. The next reason is, as could be expected, the most important of all. Muslims are forbidden from following the World Cup because it is (drumroll please), a Zionist Jewish plot to distract Muslims and lead them astray! Shaykh Yusuf al-Ahmad said during a televised discussion of the World Cup that the Protocols of Zion clearly teach Muslims that Jews are continually devising schemes against them; the World Cup is just another example. Jews were determined to win any competition at any cost, said the Shaykh, and this was what happened in the World Cup.
9. The Shia have another reason to avoid the World Cup. According to Shia tradition, after Sunnis killed Muhammad's grandson Hussein during the Battle of Karbala in 640 AD, they beheaded him and kicked his head around like a football. For this reason some Shia scholars dislike soccer in general and the World Cup in particular.
How would Western Muslim writers such as Reza Aslan (No god but God), Tariq Ramadan (In the Footsteps of the Prophet), Omid Safi (Memories of Muhammad), or Sunbul Ali-Karamali (The Muslim Next Door) respond if you told them that Muhammad would not allow Muslims to watch the World Cup? Let me venture a guess. They would first tell you this was a lie. If you presented the evidence I've given above, they would change their tune to say this is only an extremist one-sided view of Islam; the beauty of Islam is that it allows many viewpoints and differences of opinion.
I think a more realistic understanding is to acknowledge this is one of many examples that Islam, as envisoned and practiced by Muhammad, is incompatible with 21st century Western civilization. If Muslims are willing and able to ignore the commandments and instructions of their Prophet that no longer make sense, more power to them. I just think they would be better off completely leaving him behind.
(The material given above was presented by Rashid on the TV program Daring Question. Arabic-speakers can watch the original program here.
So why were two Somali Muslims recently killed and dozens arrested by Hizbul Islam, the Party of Islam, for the crime of watching Kas al-Alim, the World Cup? Ask any Western-educated Muslim, and they will assure you the Hizbul Islam is a small, radical, extreme group that in no way represents the true teachings of the peaceful religion of Islam. The reality is that Hizbul Islam takes the example and sayings of their Prophet Muhammad very seriously, and he is the one who ruled 1400 years ago that watching the World Cup is Haram, prohibited for Muslims.
Those who follow the Arabic media and are interested in such things might have observed over the past few weeks that Shaykhs and scholars throughout the Arab world have been preaching sermons and issuing fatwas condemning the World Cup and forbidding Muslims from watching it. They gave at least nine reasons for their rulings:
1. The Standard Committee on Issuing Fatwas ruled here that watching the World Cup is prohibited for Muslims because prizes are won and gambling takes place. According to an authentic Hadith in the Sunnan Abu Daud collection and noted elsewhere, Abu Huraira relayed that Muhammad said the only types of competition for which Muslims are permitted prizes are archery, and horse and camel racing. The reason, of course, Muslims could compete and win prizes in these areas is because they are included in warfare and Jihad. Al Qaeda recently produced a propaganda film on Jihadist websites that asked the question, "Which of these two goals is the best, scoring a goal in football, or fighting the Infidels in the Jihad of God?" The first scene was of a player scoring a goal in the World Cup, and the second was an IED obliterating an American military vehicle. The film left no doubt which goal its producers deemed most noteworthy.
2. Responding to a question from a TV viewer as to whether it was permissible to watch matches of the World Cup, Shaykh Abu Ishaq al-Huwayni replied it was not. The Prophet of Islam, said the Shaykh, allowed Muslim men only two types of enjoyment. He could enjoy his wives, and his horses. Enjoyment of his wives, of course, meant sex, and enjoyment of his horses was related to going to war and practicing Jihad. Any other form of amusement was Haram. In another authentic Hadith, Caliph Umar Ibn al-Khattab commanded the Muslims of the Levant to train their sons in archery and horsemanship to prepare them for Jihad.
3. Football players in the World Cup wear shorts that reveal their thighs, and Muslim men are not allowed to wear clothing over the knee. In his Arabic TV show, Shaykh Abdallah Shakir warned Muslim men against bringing immorality into their homes by allowing their women to watch these improperly dressed men on the soccer field. Included in the many authentic Hadiths that do not allow men to show their legs is one from al-Bukhari in which Zurah bin Abdel Rahman relayed that the Prophet passed in front of him and saw his thigh. Muhammad's admonition was, "Shame on you. Do you not know that the thigh is part of your private parts?"
I would imagine that you (and as I) were not concentrating on the thighs of the Spanish and Dutch players battling for the World Cup victory this afternoon. We were concentrating on their teamwork and skill of handling the football. Only the deranged hearts of mentally and morally bankrupt Shaykhs could imagine that Muslim men and women around the world were lusting after the exposed upper legs of the players as they raced up and down the field. As they have veiled their women, the Ulema would cover the arms and legs of the players in the World Cup as well. In another Arabic TV show, Shaykh Nabil al-Awdi argued that it was improper to watch World Cup matches because sometimes the cameras panned the spectators and showed unveiled women. Again, only people such as the Shaykh himself would be fixated on the women watching the match rather than the match itself.
4. Shaykh Yusuf Hamd argued on his TV show that watching the World Cup contradicts the important Islamic principle of Al Wala Wal Bara. "Wala" means establishing allegiance with Muslims, and "Bara" means standing against the Kuffar or non-Muslims. Muslim soccer fans might, God forbid, admire non-Muslim players and this is not allowed in Islam. Even worse, the Muslim might prefer a non-Muslim player over a Muslim player. Muslims are commanded to "love other Muslims in God", and to "hate the Kuffar in God".
5. Shaykh Muhammad bin Salih al-Uthaymeen pronounced during his televised Friday sermon that watching the World Cup was not allowed for Muslims because it meant aggrandizing the Kuffar. No matter how much non-Muslims have advanced, said the Shaykh, they cannot be admired because they are still Infidels. No matter how good the non-Muslim player is, he cannot be praised by a Muslim; this is against Islam. In another impassioned Friday sermon, Shaykh Abu Talhah was in tears when he proclaimed that the worst thing about the World Cup matches was that Muslim youth were admiring unbelieving, immoral, ungodly players (in other words, non-Muslims). Some of them have even cursed the Prophet, bemoaned the Shaykh, reminding his audience that Caliph Umar bin Khattab said that he hated Christians because Christians had cursed the Prophet. How could young Muslims admire Christian or Jewish players who did not follow the Prophet or love his Quran?
6. Shaykh Abu Talhah gave another reason in the same sermon why watching the World Cup was forbidden to Muslims; spectators were trying to be like the West, whereas Muslims are to oppose the West in every way. Soccer was a Western sport, said the Shaykh, and the World Cup was organized by Western countries. How could Muslims possibly participate? The World Cup did not follow the laws of Islam in its rulings, so how could Muslims take part? The Prophet, declared Abu Talhah, announced that he was taking his sword against the Kuffar, and that those who shared their lives in any way were the enemies of Allah. The clear message of the Shaykh was that those who fought non-Muslims were better than those who did not. (One wonders if the Shaykh refuses to drive an automobile, fly in an airplane, use the Internet, or watch TV since to do so would also make him like a Westerner?).
7. Numerous Shaykhs bemoaned the fact that watching World Cup matches was a waste of time that kept Muslims from performing the daily prayers. In a creative way to counter this (and in accordance with an Islamic principle that sometimes Muslims must choose between the lesser of two evils), the Society of the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Evil in Saudi Arabia (the Mutawa) organized vehicles and volunteers to spread carpets in front of cafes and coffee shops at prayer time so that Muslims watching World Cup matches could run out, quickly say their prayers, and return having lost only five minutes of viewing time!
8. The next reason is, as could be expected, the most important of all. Muslims are forbidden from following the World Cup because it is (drumroll please), a Zionist Jewish plot to distract Muslims and lead them astray! Shaykh Yusuf al-Ahmad said during a televised discussion of the World Cup that the Protocols of Zion clearly teach Muslims that Jews are continually devising schemes against them; the World Cup is just another example. Jews were determined to win any competition at any cost, said the Shaykh, and this was what happened in the World Cup.
9. The Shia have another reason to avoid the World Cup. According to Shia tradition, after Sunnis killed Muhammad's grandson Hussein during the Battle of Karbala in 640 AD, they beheaded him and kicked his head around like a football. For this reason some Shia scholars dislike soccer in general and the World Cup in particular.
How would Western Muslim writers such as Reza Aslan (No god but God), Tariq Ramadan (In the Footsteps of the Prophet), Omid Safi (Memories of Muhammad), or Sunbul Ali-Karamali (The Muslim Next Door) respond if you told them that Muhammad would not allow Muslims to watch the World Cup? Let me venture a guess. They would first tell you this was a lie. If you presented the evidence I've given above, they would change their tune to say this is only an extremist one-sided view of Islam; the beauty of Islam is that it allows many viewpoints and differences of opinion.
I think a more realistic understanding is to acknowledge this is one of many examples that Islam, as envisoned and practiced by Muhammad, is incompatible with 21st century Western civilization. If Muslims are willing and able to ignore the commandments and instructions of their Prophet that no longer make sense, more power to them. I just think they would be better off completely leaving him behind.
(The material given above was presented by Rashid on the TV program Daring Question. Arabic-speakers can watch the original program here.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Kicking Jesus in the Ass - and Drawing Muhammad
It's been out a few years, but yesterday was the first time I heard Hayes Carll's song, "She Left Me for Jesus". The lyrics go like this:
We've been dating since high school, we never once left this town.
We used to go out on the weekends and we'd drink till we drowned.
But now she's acting funny, and I don't understand.
I think that she's found her some other man.
She left me for Jesus, and that just ain't fair,
She says that he's perfect, how could I compare?
She says I should find him, and I'll know peace at last,
If I ever find Jesus, I'm kicking his ass.
She showed me a picture, all I could do was stare,
At that freak in his sandals, with his long pretty hair,
They must think that I'm stupid, or I don't have a clue,
I bet he's a Commie, or even worse yet a Jew.
She's given up whiskey, and taken up wine,
While she prays for his troubles, she forgot about mine.
I'm gonna get even, I can't handle the shame.
Why, the last time we made love, she even called out his name.
It could have been Carlos, or even Billy Ortez,
But if I ever find Jesus,
He's gonna wish he was dead. Amen.
I'm a Christian. How did I feel when I heard someone singing about kicking Jesus in the ass? To be honest, a little uncomfortable. It sounded disrespectful to someone for whom I hold great respect. If I were a singer, that tune probably wouldn't be on my play list.
But how I felt is irrelevant, of concern to no one but myself. The important thing is how did I react, what did I do? Other than posting this article, nothing at all. I didn't send death threats to the singer, nor organize boycotts of his concerts. I didn't even issue veiled warnings that some of my less moderate coreligionists might be unable to control their rage and harm him. He's an artist, after all, and has my full support to write and sing about Jesus anyway he wants. If I take his lyrics seriously, I can even commiserate with the jilted guy whose girlfriend found religion and left him behind.
Most readers of this blog are well aware of Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons a few years ago, and the more recent "Draw Muhammad Day". This response to a cartoon of Muhammad meeting with a psychiatrist was typical. Who knows how many thousands of people have published articles or given speeches around the world about how offended they were by these drawings? The common theme in them all is that it is unfair and impermissible to treat in this way the Prophet who is so beloved by his followers.
I don't think Muslims are being honest with themselves or with us. I think the real reason they act as they do is not their love for Muhammad, but their need to protect him. As I have noted here, the life of Muhammd raises many questions for anyone seriously considering whether or not he was a Prophet of God. To this day, Muslims continue to avoid those questions and choose instead to express their hurt and outrage at those who reach and express conclusions about Muhammad that are not the conclusions they would want them to reach.
We've been dating since high school, we never once left this town.
We used to go out on the weekends and we'd drink till we drowned.
But now she's acting funny, and I don't understand.
I think that she's found her some other man.
She left me for Jesus, and that just ain't fair,
She says that he's perfect, how could I compare?
She says I should find him, and I'll know peace at last,
If I ever find Jesus, I'm kicking his ass.
She showed me a picture, all I could do was stare,
At that freak in his sandals, with his long pretty hair,
They must think that I'm stupid, or I don't have a clue,
I bet he's a Commie, or even worse yet a Jew.
She's given up whiskey, and taken up wine,
While she prays for his troubles, she forgot about mine.
I'm gonna get even, I can't handle the shame.
Why, the last time we made love, she even called out his name.
It could have been Carlos, or even Billy Ortez,
But if I ever find Jesus,
He's gonna wish he was dead. Amen.
I'm a Christian. How did I feel when I heard someone singing about kicking Jesus in the ass? To be honest, a little uncomfortable. It sounded disrespectful to someone for whom I hold great respect. If I were a singer, that tune probably wouldn't be on my play list.
But how I felt is irrelevant, of concern to no one but myself. The important thing is how did I react, what did I do? Other than posting this article, nothing at all. I didn't send death threats to the singer, nor organize boycotts of his concerts. I didn't even issue veiled warnings that some of my less moderate coreligionists might be unable to control their rage and harm him. He's an artist, after all, and has my full support to write and sing about Jesus anyway he wants. If I take his lyrics seriously, I can even commiserate with the jilted guy whose girlfriend found religion and left him behind.
Most readers of this blog are well aware of Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons a few years ago, and the more recent "Draw Muhammad Day". This response to a cartoon of Muhammad meeting with a psychiatrist was typical. Who knows how many thousands of people have published articles or given speeches around the world about how offended they were by these drawings? The common theme in them all is that it is unfair and impermissible to treat in this way the Prophet who is so beloved by his followers.
I don't think Muslims are being honest with themselves or with us. I think the real reason they act as they do is not their love for Muhammad, but their need to protect him. As I have noted here, the life of Muhammd raises many questions for anyone seriously considering whether or not he was a Prophet of God. To this day, Muslims continue to avoid those questions and choose instead to express their hurt and outrage at those who reach and express conclusions about Muhammad that are not the conclusions they would want them to reach.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Nomad - Ayaan Hirsi Ali
I wonder if Ayaan Hirsi Ali's well-known atheist friends, including writers Christopher Hitchings, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins, were surprised when she suggested in a chapter entitled "Seeking God but Finding Allah" of her new book Nomad that Christians should engage in active dawa to convert Muslims to Christianity just as Muslims do to convert Christians to Islam. If they weren't, others certainly were. Susanne Pari, who identifies with Ayaan as a woman who was born Muslim but chose atheism over Islam, writes in the San Francisco Chronicle that Ayaan, "Veers off the track of reason by advocating the revitalization of Christian conversion as a solution. This is not only strange but goes against all that Hirsi Ali has come to believe in. It's the kind of idea one has in the middle of the night that seems genius, but in the light of morning is too embarrassing to tell anyone about". Susanne adds that, "This is not a novel solution. It is an ancient one that has failed, time and again, to produce peace."
I'm not as quick as Susanne to jump to conclusions. Before simply dismissing Ayaan's proposal whole hog out of hand, I'd suggest looking a little more closely at exactly what she said, why she might have said it, and how it could be implemented.
First of all the why, which is always the most interesting. It is possible that Ayaan was saying the following, "I'm an atheist, as any rational and clear-thinking human being should be. But I realize that most people don't have the intellectual capability or spiritual honesty to reach the truth of God's non-existence as I have. To these beings of lesser mental capacity, I suggest that if they have to have a god they choose the god of the Christians, since he is at least a little kinder and gentler than the god of the Muslims."
But that doesn't ring true to me. It doesn't register with the humility I sense in Ayaan's writings, nor does it make sense morally. I can't imagine myself urging Sadhus in India to convert Muslims to Hinduism, or Bhiksu monks in Thailand to convert Muslims to Buddhism. There must be another reason.
Here is my theory. I don't think ex-Muslims make good atheists. The true religion of atheism requires one to believe that time, calculated in billions of years, plus an extraordinary amount of chance, equals all that exists. Mathematically, that formula is: time + chance + nothing = everything. I don't think it comes naturally for Muslims, who from birth are taught God's greatness and power, to adopt the hard-core atheism that seems to come easily for Western born sceptics and intellectuals.
I'd even go a step further. It seems strange for me to see Ayaan Hirsi Ali at atheist conferences, presented as the newest poster child of some of the West's famous nonbelievers. I don't think she is at ease there. It comes across as exploitation, similar to the Republicans' parading Paula Jones around the country after she settled her sexual harassment case with President Bill Clinton.
Wafa Sultan is another ex-Muslim writer who is often described as now an atheist. I listened carefully to her on three ninety-minute interviews on the Arabic TV program Daring Question with host Rashid. She said she does not follow any organized religion, but stopped far short of declaring herself an atheist. Like Ayaan, she acknowledged that if she did choose a deity it would be the God of Christianity.
I don't think Ayaan and Wafa have parked themselves in the camp of atheism. I would suggest instead that they, similar to many of us, are on a spiritual journey that has not yet ended, and where they are now is not necessarily where they will be ten years from now. They have given up the God created by Muhammad ("I am a Prophet of God, and if you don't believe me Allah will be very angry at you"), but are unwilling to exchange him for a God of apples, trees, and snakes in the Garden of Eden.
Next, what exactly did Ayaan say? I don't think she was suggesting Sunnis become Baptists and Sufis become Pentecostals. The church, in my opinion, has placed far too much emphasis in insisting that membership requires believing certain things rather than being a particular type of person. Jesus, on the other hand, required a certain type of action. He told people to treat others as they would like to be treated, and the wealthy to give their money to the poor. People were to forgive their enemies, and do good to those who mistreated them. My guess is that Ayaan realizes the Golden Rule is non-existent in Islam but the central core of Christianity, and that people will have to leave Muhammad behind if they want to experience this new kind of life.
Now the how; that's the hard question, but Aayan at least partially provides the answer. She wants Christians to simply become involved with Muslims. She suggests this on an organizational level, but I would add it also needs to be on an individual basis. Once before a trip to Lebanon, I was warned not to engage people in conversation about religion and politics, because the scars of the recent Civil War were still too fresh and hatreds ran too deep. To my surprise, I found out that people there - Muslims as well as Maronites - wanted to talk about what they believed. I don't think the situation is different in the West.
I heard an interesting story the other day. A Jewish man began visiting the church I now attend. He was not necessarily interested in the Christian message, but something kept him coming back. Perhaps the same things attracted him as did me, and about which I wrote here. One day he came forward to participate in the Holy Communion service. The pastor, who was telling the story, said, "I looked up, and there he was. What was I supposed to do? I knew he wasn't a Christian, but I wasn't going to turn him away so I offered him the bread and wine."
Later that man said that as he ate the bread and drank the wine, he knew that Jesus had died for him, and he was now a Christian. My response to the story was that if anyone had tried to argue the man into belief in Jesus, it would have been impossible. You can't talk someone into believing something they don't believe. But when you invite people to participate in what you believe, mysterious things can happen. I think that might have been a little of what Ayaan Hirsi Ali was talking about.
I'm not as quick as Susanne to jump to conclusions. Before simply dismissing Ayaan's proposal whole hog out of hand, I'd suggest looking a little more closely at exactly what she said, why she might have said it, and how it could be implemented.
First of all the why, which is always the most interesting. It is possible that Ayaan was saying the following, "I'm an atheist, as any rational and clear-thinking human being should be. But I realize that most people don't have the intellectual capability or spiritual honesty to reach the truth of God's non-existence as I have. To these beings of lesser mental capacity, I suggest that if they have to have a god they choose the god of the Christians, since he is at least a little kinder and gentler than the god of the Muslims."
But that doesn't ring true to me. It doesn't register with the humility I sense in Ayaan's writings, nor does it make sense morally. I can't imagine myself urging Sadhus in India to convert Muslims to Hinduism, or Bhiksu monks in Thailand to convert Muslims to Buddhism. There must be another reason.
Here is my theory. I don't think ex-Muslims make good atheists. The true religion of atheism requires one to believe that time, calculated in billions of years, plus an extraordinary amount of chance, equals all that exists. Mathematically, that formula is: time + chance + nothing = everything. I don't think it comes naturally for Muslims, who from birth are taught God's greatness and power, to adopt the hard-core atheism that seems to come easily for Western born sceptics and intellectuals.
I'd even go a step further. It seems strange for me to see Ayaan Hirsi Ali at atheist conferences, presented as the newest poster child of some of the West's famous nonbelievers. I don't think she is at ease there. It comes across as exploitation, similar to the Republicans' parading Paula Jones around the country after she settled her sexual harassment case with President Bill Clinton.
Wafa Sultan is another ex-Muslim writer who is often described as now an atheist. I listened carefully to her on three ninety-minute interviews on the Arabic TV program Daring Question with host Rashid. She said she does not follow any organized religion, but stopped far short of declaring herself an atheist. Like Ayaan, she acknowledged that if she did choose a deity it would be the God of Christianity.
I don't think Ayaan and Wafa have parked themselves in the camp of atheism. I would suggest instead that they, similar to many of us, are on a spiritual journey that has not yet ended, and where they are now is not necessarily where they will be ten years from now. They have given up the God created by Muhammad ("I am a Prophet of God, and if you don't believe me Allah will be very angry at you"), but are unwilling to exchange him for a God of apples, trees, and snakes in the Garden of Eden.
Next, what exactly did Ayaan say? I don't think she was suggesting Sunnis become Baptists and Sufis become Pentecostals. The church, in my opinion, has placed far too much emphasis in insisting that membership requires believing certain things rather than being a particular type of person. Jesus, on the other hand, required a certain type of action. He told people to treat others as they would like to be treated, and the wealthy to give their money to the poor. People were to forgive their enemies, and do good to those who mistreated them. My guess is that Ayaan realizes the Golden Rule is non-existent in Islam but the central core of Christianity, and that people will have to leave Muhammad behind if they want to experience this new kind of life.
Now the how; that's the hard question, but Aayan at least partially provides the answer. She wants Christians to simply become involved with Muslims. She suggests this on an organizational level, but I would add it also needs to be on an individual basis. Once before a trip to Lebanon, I was warned not to engage people in conversation about religion and politics, because the scars of the recent Civil War were still too fresh and hatreds ran too deep. To my surprise, I found out that people there - Muslims as well as Maronites - wanted to talk about what they believed. I don't think the situation is different in the West.
I heard an interesting story the other day. A Jewish man began visiting the church I now attend. He was not necessarily interested in the Christian message, but something kept him coming back. Perhaps the same things attracted him as did me, and about which I wrote here. One day he came forward to participate in the Holy Communion service. The pastor, who was telling the story, said, "I looked up, and there he was. What was I supposed to do? I knew he wasn't a Christian, but I wasn't going to turn him away so I offered him the bread and wine."
Later that man said that as he ate the bread and drank the wine, he knew that Jesus had died for him, and he was now a Christian. My response to the story was that if anyone had tried to argue the man into belief in Jesus, it would have been impossible. You can't talk someone into believing something they don't believe. But when you invite people to participate in what you believe, mysterious things can happen. I think that might have been a little of what Ayaan Hirsi Ali was talking about.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Nomad by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Memories of Muhammad by Omid Safi - a Study in Contrast
An interesting experience is to read two books simultaneously about the same subject written by authors with widely-differing viewpoints. That is what I am doing now with Nomad by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Memories of Muhammad by Omid Safi.
I recently spent a year in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. I know this is 100% subjective, but I would often look at Saudi men and visualize individuals whose minds were locked shut like a steel trap. When I would look at Saudi women, even though I could only see their eyes behind their black veils and abayas, I would see people of tremendous untapped potential. Although I know none of them personally and am acquainted with them only from their writings, I have the same impression of Omid Safi and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Omid begins his book by discussing the "problem" people have with Muhammad. Have you ever had the experience of feeling uncomfortable around someone, but when you try to talk to them about it they turn the conversation around to make you feel guilty for your feelings of unease? There is nothing about them, in their opinion, that could justify the way you feel so the problem must be with you! Omid is a master of that. The discomfort we feel about Muhammad, and in particular how he treated women and non-Muslims and how his followers treat women and non-Muslims today, is our problem.
Omid informs us, "With the exception of the most bigoted, most Christians today, including the Catholic and Protestant authorities, have rightly come to see that Muslims, Jews, and Christians all worship the same God." I guess I am one of those most bigoted; here I present my case that we do indeed worship two different deities. He describes bookstore titles such as "the truth about Muhammad" that are "marred by a host in inaccuracies, prejudicies, and flat-out lies", but does not take the time to elaborate any of them. I assume he is talking about Robert Spencer's biography by that name, and I look forward to Omid's careful refutation of its contents.
Omid mocks critics of Muhammad for coming up with nothing new in 1000 years. "One thousand years ago, the polemics were about violence, sex, and heresy. Today the polemics are still primarily about violence, sex, and heresy. One cannot help but wonder at how unoriginal these polemics have been over the course of the last thousand years. If the subject matter was not so offensive, perhaps one could joke that in one thousand years they could have come up with a new polemic!" Perhaps the reply is simply that Muslims have not come up with satisfactory answers during those 1000 years.
My former Islamics professor at Temple University, the late Isma'il al-Faruqi, used to say that people who rejected the message of Islam and its Prophet were "either malicious or ignorant". Raised and educated in Palestine, Dr. al-Faruqi did not have the smooth eloquence of America's defenders of Islam in the 21st century. They have newer terms such as "Islamophobes" and "polemicists" to describe people who do not think Muhammad is a Prophet of God, who believe his followers are his victims, and who are prepared to say why.
Omid informs us, "If there is one verse of the Qur'an that has shaped the historical grace-filled understanding of the Prophet, it is the verse in which God addresses Muhammad: We sent you as a mercy to all the universes (Qur'an 21:107)." Ironically, that is the verse that helped me realize the difference between the meaning of mercy in the Quran and in the Bible. In related Quranic verses, Allah defined his mercy. Muhammad was to invite people to Islam and warn them against associating anything with Allah (this was a specific warning to the Christians not to believe that Jesus was God). If they did not accept the invitation, Muhammad was to pronounce a declaration of war. Within a few short years, the Jewish and Christian communities that had lived in Arabia for hundreds of years experienced the "mercy" of Muhammad. Without exception they were slaughtered or exiled, never to return.
What I find interesting about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in comparison, is my impression that she is on a spiritual journey that has not yet ended. Her mission is not to dismiss critics of "truths" she has chosen to believe and needs to defend. She describes herself as a nonbeliever in God, and yet she is not the kind of "hard atheist" so common in the West.
In a chapter of her book called "Seeking God but Finding Allah", Ayaan writes, "If Muslims can be helped to reexamine the bedrock ideas of Islam, they may then admit that the Prophet Muhammad's example is fallible, that not everything in the Quran is perfect or true, and that this doctrine can be adjusted so that the mental pain that comes of trying to apply it in the modern world is diminished. I have a theory that most Muslims are in search of a redemptive God. They believe that there is a higher power and that this higher power is the provider of morality, giving them a compass to help them distinguish between good and bad. Many Muslims are seeking a God or a concept of God that in my view meets the description of the Christian God. Instead they are finding Allah."
As I read Ayaan's carefully reasoned arguments, and compare them with Omid's silly statement that only "the most bigoted" non-Muslim would conclude Muslims and Christians and Jews do not happily worship the same God, I realize they have taken two completely different approaches to Islam. Hers, which is simply but boldly leaving Muhammad behind, has resulted in exile, death threats, and security protection. His, which is defending Muhammad and describing detractors as Islamophobes, has secured a professorship at the University of North Carolina. It's not difficult to determine which of the two is a hero to me.
I recently spent a year in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. I know this is 100% subjective, but I would often look at Saudi men and visualize individuals whose minds were locked shut like a steel trap. When I would look at Saudi women, even though I could only see their eyes behind their black veils and abayas, I would see people of tremendous untapped potential. Although I know none of them personally and am acquainted with them only from their writings, I have the same impression of Omid Safi and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Omid begins his book by discussing the "problem" people have with Muhammad. Have you ever had the experience of feeling uncomfortable around someone, but when you try to talk to them about it they turn the conversation around to make you feel guilty for your feelings of unease? There is nothing about them, in their opinion, that could justify the way you feel so the problem must be with you! Omid is a master of that. The discomfort we feel about Muhammad, and in particular how he treated women and non-Muslims and how his followers treat women and non-Muslims today, is our problem.
Omid informs us, "With the exception of the most bigoted, most Christians today, including the Catholic and Protestant authorities, have rightly come to see that Muslims, Jews, and Christians all worship the same God." I guess I am one of those most bigoted; here I present my case that we do indeed worship two different deities. He describes bookstore titles such as "the truth about Muhammad" that are "marred by a host in inaccuracies, prejudicies, and flat-out lies", but does not take the time to elaborate any of them. I assume he is talking about Robert Spencer's biography by that name, and I look forward to Omid's careful refutation of its contents.
Omid mocks critics of Muhammad for coming up with nothing new in 1000 years. "One thousand years ago, the polemics were about violence, sex, and heresy. Today the polemics are still primarily about violence, sex, and heresy. One cannot help but wonder at how unoriginal these polemics have been over the course of the last thousand years. If the subject matter was not so offensive, perhaps one could joke that in one thousand years they could have come up with a new polemic!" Perhaps the reply is simply that Muslims have not come up with satisfactory answers during those 1000 years.
My former Islamics professor at Temple University, the late Isma'il al-Faruqi, used to say that people who rejected the message of Islam and its Prophet were "either malicious or ignorant". Raised and educated in Palestine, Dr. al-Faruqi did not have the smooth eloquence of America's defenders of Islam in the 21st century. They have newer terms such as "Islamophobes" and "polemicists" to describe people who do not think Muhammad is a Prophet of God, who believe his followers are his victims, and who are prepared to say why.
Omid informs us, "If there is one verse of the Qur'an that has shaped the historical grace-filled understanding of the Prophet, it is the verse in which God addresses Muhammad: We sent you as a mercy to all the universes (Qur'an 21:107)." Ironically, that is the verse that helped me realize the difference between the meaning of mercy in the Quran and in the Bible. In related Quranic verses, Allah defined his mercy. Muhammad was to invite people to Islam and warn them against associating anything with Allah (this was a specific warning to the Christians not to believe that Jesus was God). If they did not accept the invitation, Muhammad was to pronounce a declaration of war. Within a few short years, the Jewish and Christian communities that had lived in Arabia for hundreds of years experienced the "mercy" of Muhammad. Without exception they were slaughtered or exiled, never to return.
What I find interesting about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in comparison, is my impression that she is on a spiritual journey that has not yet ended. Her mission is not to dismiss critics of "truths" she has chosen to believe and needs to defend. She describes herself as a nonbeliever in God, and yet she is not the kind of "hard atheist" so common in the West.
In a chapter of her book called "Seeking God but Finding Allah", Ayaan writes, "If Muslims can be helped to reexamine the bedrock ideas of Islam, they may then admit that the Prophet Muhammad's example is fallible, that not everything in the Quran is perfect or true, and that this doctrine can be adjusted so that the mental pain that comes of trying to apply it in the modern world is diminished. I have a theory that most Muslims are in search of a redemptive God. They believe that there is a higher power and that this higher power is the provider of morality, giving them a compass to help them distinguish between good and bad. Many Muslims are seeking a God or a concept of God that in my view meets the description of the Christian God. Instead they are finding Allah."
As I read Ayaan's carefully reasoned arguments, and compare them with Omid's silly statement that only "the most bigoted" non-Muslim would conclude Muslims and Christians and Jews do not happily worship the same God, I realize they have taken two completely different approaches to Islam. Hers, which is simply but boldly leaving Muhammad behind, has resulted in exile, death threats, and security protection. His, which is defending Muhammad and describing detractors as Islamophobes, has secured a professorship at the University of North Carolina. It's not difficult to determine which of the two is a hero to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
