Dr. Izzaldin Abuelaish, about whom I write here, recently gave this talk at the Sixth and I Historic Synagogue in Washington DC to a standing ovation. I encourage everyone to watch his moving speech.
When it was over, the Jewish moderator said to the spellbound audience, "Let us take a minute of silence to absorb the powerful and beautiful message of love, faith, hope, and action that Dr. Abuelaish gave us. Let's sit quietly for a minute before we ask our questions."
A minute later the floor was opened to questions, after the moderator reminded the audience, "Please ask only questions and keep your speeches to a minimum."
The first person to the microphone was a Palestinian woman. She knew she would be on c-span TV watched by the nation, and was conspicuously wearing her chic keffiyeh. Her "question", which begins at 43:15, was as follows, "Thank you, doctor, for your very profound message. I believe in your message of love and peace and everything you were saying tonight. I want to know your opinions on the following. First of all, the practicality of the colonization of Palestine. I'm working with a group of Arab-American activists who are calling for the dissolution of the Palestine Liberation Organization because they are helping the Israelis manage the occupation. I also want to know your opinion on boycott divestiture and sanctions of Israel. I want your thoughts about why the Palestinians are not taking to the streets to demand their freedom and their rights from their occupiers and oppressors and colonizers. Why aren't prominent Jewish Americans coming forth all across the world demanding as they did for South Africa and apartheid. Why aren't Jewish Americans, Jewish European, and Jews all over the world demanding peace and justice for the Palestinians? Thank you."
I can't imagine how this woman could have made a greater tactical blunder. It has famously been said that the Palestinians never miss the opportunity to miss an opportunity, and she blew this one. For the past forty-five minutes, Dr. Abuelaish had been speaking directly to the conscience of his Jewish audience. His simple but powerful message was, "I am a Palestinian doctor from Gaza, the first to work in an Israeli hospital. I have devoted my life to the care and healing of both Israeli and Palestinian patients. My life changed forever on January 16, 2009, when an Israeli bomb struck our Gaza family home and instantly killed my three lovely daughters. But I will not stop doing all I can do bring our two peoples, Palestinian and Israeli, together in peace."
It was a hard-hitting message to the heart, but the self-described "activist" didn't hear it. She was probably rehearsing her own speech the entire time he was talking, waiting for her opportunity to rush to the microphone. She wanted to talk about boycott divestiture! And in her two short angry minutes she completely undid all that the doctor had worked for 45 to accomplish in the hearts of his audience. The sad part is that she is completely unaware of what she did.
For six decades the Palestinians have fought the Israelis with wars, demonstrations, boycotts, United Nations and Arab League resolutions, skyjackings, suicide bombers, and Qassam rockets. As Dr. Phil often says on his TV show, "So how's that working out for you?" The simple reality is that Palestinians in Gaza are living worse today than ever, and as long as those rockets keep coming over or they have dreams of retaking Jerusalem, the Israeli government won't give a damn. And when someone comes along like Dr. Abuelaish, to plant a message with humility and dignity that can touch hearts and bring change, activists such as this young woman in her keffiyah chic and angry rhetoric rip out the seed before it can even begin to grow.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
The Experiment
Here's an interesting two-part experiment. It can be conducted by anyone at all, regardless of religious persuasion or lack thereof.
Part 1: Choose a Muslim neighbor, friend or colleague, and ask three simple questions. Although the answer to the first question might appear obvious, ask it anyway, "Are you a Christian?" Without hesitation she will reply she is not a Christian but a Muslim.
Question number two: "Christians believe that Jesus is God and died on the cross for our sins, so I assume you don't believe that. Is that correct?" Again without embarrassment she will inform you she does not believe Jesus is God, nor did he die on the cross for our sins.
Now the final question: "Could you give me a few reasons you don't believe that?" She won't have to think a minute before giving them. They will probably include the fact that Islam does not believe Allah can be associated with any created being, no individual can bear the sins of another, and the Quran says that Jesus did not die.
Now it's time for part 2. Ask a non-Muslim the same questions but with a slight twist, "Are you a Muslim?" When he says that he is not, continue with, "Muslims believe that Muhammad was a Prophet from God, so I guess you are saying you do not believe he was a Prophet. Is that right?"
Chances are you will already sense some discomfort, some hesitation in the reply. Your interlocutor might explain that he is an agnostic, that he knows Muslims believe Muhammad is a Prophet, or that he's not really sure. If he does agree that he does not believe Muhammad to be a Prophet, proceed with question number three.
"Could you give me a few reasons why you don't believe Muhammad was a Prophet of God?" I doubt if one American in a hundred could give an intelligent, cohesive reply.
If you do carry out this experiment, I'd love to learn the results. Leave a comment or send me an email.
PS - There are variations to the experiment. For example, ask the Jewish professor of religious studies at your local university (or any Jewish friend) if she is a Christian. When she replies she is not, confirm it is correct that she does not believe Jesus was God and learn her reasons. Then ask her if she is a Muslim. Again when she replies she is not, confirm it is correct she does not believe Muhammad was a Prophet of God, and again inquire about her reasons. The purpose of the experiment would be to see if she was as forthright in her second response as she was in her first.
Part 1: Choose a Muslim neighbor, friend or colleague, and ask three simple questions. Although the answer to the first question might appear obvious, ask it anyway, "Are you a Christian?" Without hesitation she will reply she is not a Christian but a Muslim.
Question number two: "Christians believe that Jesus is God and died on the cross for our sins, so I assume you don't believe that. Is that correct?" Again without embarrassment she will inform you she does not believe Jesus is God, nor did he die on the cross for our sins.
Now the final question: "Could you give me a few reasons you don't believe that?" She won't have to think a minute before giving them. They will probably include the fact that Islam does not believe Allah can be associated with any created being, no individual can bear the sins of another, and the Quran says that Jesus did not die.
Now it's time for part 2. Ask a non-Muslim the same questions but with a slight twist, "Are you a Muslim?" When he says that he is not, continue with, "Muslims believe that Muhammad was a Prophet from God, so I guess you are saying you do not believe he was a Prophet. Is that right?"
Chances are you will already sense some discomfort, some hesitation in the reply. Your interlocutor might explain that he is an agnostic, that he knows Muslims believe Muhammad is a Prophet, or that he's not really sure. If he does agree that he does not believe Muhammad to be a Prophet, proceed with question number three.
"Could you give me a few reasons why you don't believe Muhammad was a Prophet of God?" I doubt if one American in a hundred could give an intelligent, cohesive reply.
If you do carry out this experiment, I'd love to learn the results. Leave a comment or send me an email.
PS - There are variations to the experiment. For example, ask the Jewish professor of religious studies at your local university (or any Jewish friend) if she is a Christian. When she replies she is not, confirm it is correct that she does not believe Jesus was God and learn her reasons. Then ask her if she is a Muslim. Again when she replies she is not, confirm it is correct she does not believe Muhammad was a Prophet of God, and again inquire about her reasons. The purpose of the experiment would be to see if she was as forthright in her second response as she was in her first.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Quranic Numerology
For centuries the main Muslim argument for the Muajezat Al Quran, the miracle of the Quran, has been the challenge thrown out by Muhammad 1400 years ago, "You produce poetry this good if you don't think mine is from God (Quran 10:38)".
I've always thought the Prophet's argument (or Allah's depending on your perspective) was quite juvenile. Determining the best poet is like choosing the best musician on American Idol - it's all subjective. Not only that, in Muhammad's version of Saudi Arabian Poet the runner-up lost not only the contest but her head as well. Muhammad was so threatened by the poetry of the Jewish poetess Asma bint Marwan that he sent one of his brave Mujahidin to kill her at night as she laid in bed with her nursing child. Can you imagine what he would have done to someone who wrote poetry claiming it was from God and equal to his?
Actually, we don't need to imagine. When Muhammad conquered Mecca, the city from which he had fled 10 years earlier, he had a list of people who were to be killed "even if they were seeking protection behind the curtains of the Kabah". One of these was Abdallah bin Saad, who had previously copied Muhammad's revelations but then left Islam. According to these sources, Abdallah made suggestions to improve Muhammad's recitations, but when Muhammad accepted the improvements, Abdallah gave up all belief that the recitations were from God. The Prophet certainly didn't want to take a chance Abdallah would produce poetry similar to that he had heard from Muhammad, or spread the news of how he had improved Muhammad's recitations, so he was killed. A woman named Fartana committed the crime of "singing satirical songs about the Apostle", and she was killed as well. I find it interesting that on the one hand Muhammad would challenge people to produce poetry like his, and then on the other certainly kill anyone who tried. And I find it amazing that Muslims today see this as evidence of the inspiration of the Quran.
It's not really that difficult to produce poetry equal to the Quran. Surah 108 describes a mythical river in paradise named Kauthar and the first ayah is Innana Ataynaka Al Kauthar (We have given you Kauthar). In a conversation between a Kafir and a Mumin (a non-Muslim and a Muslim), the Kafir said, "I can produce poetry as good as the Quran, and here is an example: Innana Ataynaka Al Fauthar." When the Mumin asked, "What is Fauthar?", the Kafir replied, "It's the river next to Kauthar!"
With non-Muslims around the world beginning to examine not the poetry but the content of the Quran, and Muslims unable to respond to that criticism, they are increasingly resorting to other techniques to prove its miraculous nature with websites like this one. One of these techniques is numerology, or assigning spiritual significance to the repitition of a word in the Quran. Many online articles emphasize that the word Al Yaum, which means the day or today, is mentioned 365 times in the Quran.
I find it quite impressive that Allah would choose the calendar of the Kuffar rather than that of the Mumineen to express his miracle. It is the pagan Julian calendar that has 365 days, not the Islamic lunar calendar with ten days less. Muslims, of course, argue this only increases the validity of the miracle - it was intended to persuade the unbelievers!
Speaking of numerology, the word Muhammad is mentioned 4 times in the Quran. Guess how many times Khanzeer (pig) is mentioned? You are absolutely right. Now there's a miracle for you!
I've always thought the Prophet's argument (or Allah's depending on your perspective) was quite juvenile. Determining the best poet is like choosing the best musician on American Idol - it's all subjective. Not only that, in Muhammad's version of Saudi Arabian Poet the runner-up lost not only the contest but her head as well. Muhammad was so threatened by the poetry of the Jewish poetess Asma bint Marwan that he sent one of his brave Mujahidin to kill her at night as she laid in bed with her nursing child. Can you imagine what he would have done to someone who wrote poetry claiming it was from God and equal to his?
Actually, we don't need to imagine. When Muhammad conquered Mecca, the city from which he had fled 10 years earlier, he had a list of people who were to be killed "even if they were seeking protection behind the curtains of the Kabah". One of these was Abdallah bin Saad, who had previously copied Muhammad's revelations but then left Islam. According to these sources, Abdallah made suggestions to improve Muhammad's recitations, but when Muhammad accepted the improvements, Abdallah gave up all belief that the recitations were from God. The Prophet certainly didn't want to take a chance Abdallah would produce poetry similar to that he had heard from Muhammad, or spread the news of how he had improved Muhammad's recitations, so he was killed. A woman named Fartana committed the crime of "singing satirical songs about the Apostle", and she was killed as well. I find it interesting that on the one hand Muhammad would challenge people to produce poetry like his, and then on the other certainly kill anyone who tried. And I find it amazing that Muslims today see this as evidence of the inspiration of the Quran.
It's not really that difficult to produce poetry equal to the Quran. Surah 108 describes a mythical river in paradise named Kauthar and the first ayah is Innana Ataynaka Al Kauthar (We have given you Kauthar). In a conversation between a Kafir and a Mumin (a non-Muslim and a Muslim), the Kafir said, "I can produce poetry as good as the Quran, and here is an example: Innana Ataynaka Al Fauthar." When the Mumin asked, "What is Fauthar?", the Kafir replied, "It's the river next to Kauthar!"
With non-Muslims around the world beginning to examine not the poetry but the content of the Quran, and Muslims unable to respond to that criticism, they are increasingly resorting to other techniques to prove its miraculous nature with websites like this one. One of these techniques is numerology, or assigning spiritual significance to the repitition of a word in the Quran. Many online articles emphasize that the word Al Yaum, which means the day or today, is mentioned 365 times in the Quran.
I find it quite impressive that Allah would choose the calendar of the Kuffar rather than that of the Mumineen to express his miracle. It is the pagan Julian calendar that has 365 days, not the Islamic lunar calendar with ten days less. Muslims, of course, argue this only increases the validity of the miracle - it was intended to persuade the unbelievers!
Speaking of numerology, the word Muhammad is mentioned 4 times in the Quran. Guess how many times Khanzeer (pig) is mentioned? You are absolutely right. Now there's a miracle for you!
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Homegrown Terrorism and Deradicalization
Just google the terms "homegrown terrorism" and "violent radicalism" and you will see how seriously law enforcement and intelligence agencies are taking the threat of young Western Muslims becoming radicalized to the point that they either travel overseas to engage in militant Jihad or prepare to carry out acts of terror within their own countries.
There seem to be two broad approaches to the problem. One is to minimize or pay little attention to the belief system of the radical, and only put him or her on the radar screen when there is evidence they are actually planning a terrorist operation. This seems to be the general principle of law enforcement agencies, and theoretically fits in well with the American ideal that you can believe anything you want as long as you don't disobey the law. The second approach, adopted by the current administration with the appointment of radicalization czar Professor Quintan Wiktorowicz to the National Security Council, includes engaging Muslim scholars such as Dr. Tawfik Hamid, whom I have written about here, to deradicalize the belief system of young Muslims. The idea seems to be that moderate Muslims are to show extremist Muslims how they understand Muhammad, the Quran, and Jihad all wrong.
I have a problem with both approaches. My objection to the first is that belief is important, with one's system of belief laying the groundwork for action to come. The reason I could never be enticed in a thousand years by a FBI sting operation to set off a bomb in Times Square or bring down an aircraft with explosives hidden in my underwear is that there is nothing in my belief system allowing me to do that. If I believed it was a noble thing to do that would gain me the pleasure of Allah, it might be a different story.
My problem with the second approach is that when it comes to the Quran, the Hadith, and the Ghazawat or wars of Muhammad, the extremist wins every time. Anyone well-versed in Ilm Al Sharia, or Islamic law, will laugh at Dr. Hamid's protestations that the Quranic exhortations to kill Al Mushrikun, the unbelievers, only referred to the unbelievers of Muhammad's day because the Quran uses the definite article the unbelievers. The definite article is the default article in Arabic grammar; even a simple proverb like "Patience is a virtue" becomes "The patience is a virtue" in Arabic.
Here's a radical approach to deradicalization. The irreducible conviction of every Muslim, radical or moderate, is that Muhammad Rasoul Allah, Muhammad is the Prophet of God. That is either true or false. If it is true, we should all convert to Islam and become Muslims - you and I, Hilary Clinton, Charlie Sheen and Lady Gaga included. If it is not true, we should all exert considerable effort to present historical and moral evidence to the Muslim Ummah that Laysa Muhammad Rasoul Allah - Muhammad is not a Prophet of God (something I did here and in the following dozen or so posts). Were we to be successful, that might make the deradicalization of radicalized young Muslims much more effective.
The predictable and immediate response of many people to my suggestion above is that it is both impractical and impossible - Muslims, they say, will never abandon Muhammad. I think that is a condescending attitude that underestimates the intelligence of still-believing Muslims. We as non-Muslims, after all, have reached the conclusion that Muhammad was not a Prophet of God, and many thousands of ex-Muslims have done the same. Why should we assume we and they are more intelligent and capable of critical thought than those who still believe?
There seem to be two broad approaches to the problem. One is to minimize or pay little attention to the belief system of the radical, and only put him or her on the radar screen when there is evidence they are actually planning a terrorist operation. This seems to be the general principle of law enforcement agencies, and theoretically fits in well with the American ideal that you can believe anything you want as long as you don't disobey the law. The second approach, adopted by the current administration with the appointment of radicalization czar Professor Quintan Wiktorowicz to the National Security Council, includes engaging Muslim scholars such as Dr. Tawfik Hamid, whom I have written about here, to deradicalize the belief system of young Muslims. The idea seems to be that moderate Muslims are to show extremist Muslims how they understand Muhammad, the Quran, and Jihad all wrong.
I have a problem with both approaches. My objection to the first is that belief is important, with one's system of belief laying the groundwork for action to come. The reason I could never be enticed in a thousand years by a FBI sting operation to set off a bomb in Times Square or bring down an aircraft with explosives hidden in my underwear is that there is nothing in my belief system allowing me to do that. If I believed it was a noble thing to do that would gain me the pleasure of Allah, it might be a different story.
My problem with the second approach is that when it comes to the Quran, the Hadith, and the Ghazawat or wars of Muhammad, the extremist wins every time. Anyone well-versed in Ilm Al Sharia, or Islamic law, will laugh at Dr. Hamid's protestations that the Quranic exhortations to kill Al Mushrikun, the unbelievers, only referred to the unbelievers of Muhammad's day because the Quran uses the definite article the unbelievers. The definite article is the default article in Arabic grammar; even a simple proverb like "Patience is a virtue" becomes "The patience is a virtue" in Arabic.
Here's a radical approach to deradicalization. The irreducible conviction of every Muslim, radical or moderate, is that Muhammad Rasoul Allah, Muhammad is the Prophet of God. That is either true or false. If it is true, we should all convert to Islam and become Muslims - you and I, Hilary Clinton, Charlie Sheen and Lady Gaga included. If it is not true, we should all exert considerable effort to present historical and moral evidence to the Muslim Ummah that Laysa Muhammad Rasoul Allah - Muhammad is not a Prophet of God (something I did here and in the following dozen or so posts). Were we to be successful, that might make the deradicalization of radicalized young Muslims much more effective.
The predictable and immediate response of many people to my suggestion above is that it is both impractical and impossible - Muslims, they say, will never abandon Muhammad. I think that is a condescending attitude that underestimates the intelligence of still-believing Muslims. We as non-Muslims, after all, have reached the conclusion that Muhammad was not a Prophet of God, and many thousands of ex-Muslims have done the same. Why should we assume we and they are more intelligent and capable of critical thought than those who still believe?
Friday, March 25, 2011
Yasir Qadhi and America as Abyssinia
In this important article about influential American Muslim leader Yasir Qadhi, author Andrea Elliott compares him with another young American Muslim with a significant following, Anwar Al Awlaki. She writes that Qadhi sees America as Abyssinia whereas Awlaki views it as Mecca. The difference is worthy of note.
I've often noted that Western non-Muslims have no idea how important events in the Prophet's life are to Muslims. These references to Abyssinia and Mecca refer to the thirteen years Muhammad spent in Mecca before migrating north to Medina with about 100 fellow Muhajirun (immigrants). Muhammad's proposal that the Quraysh of Mecca accept him as a Prophet of God had fallen on deaf ears except for some mostly poor individuals and slaves who responded to his leadership. When the Quraysh turned against them, Muhammad sent 83 of them to Abyssinia, now the Christian country of Ethiopia. Their Christian ruler was the Negus, and he not only welcomed the newcomers with full hospitality but allowed them to practice their faith without opposition.
The Quraysh were not happy that their fellow tribesmen had migrated to Abyssinia, and sent two emissaries to persuade the Negus to repatriate them. Although Islam's oldest historical reference, that of Ibn Ishaq, states that the Quraysh wanted to get them back "so they could seduce them from their religion and get them out of the home in which they were living in peace", it is important to realize this history was written 200 years after the events took place and was based upon generations of undocumented oral history. Mecca was a slave-driven society, and it is probable the Quraysh simply wanted to get back the slaves who had believed Muhammad's promise that by abandoning their former masters and following him they would obtain the wealth of the Persian and the Roman Empires.
The Quraysh emissaries, whose names were Amr and Abdallah, had a careful strategy to ensure the success of their mission. Knowing that fine leather was treasured in Abyssinia, they gave leather skins to each of the Negus' generals asking them to present their petition to their ruler. The generals did so, but the Negus said he would not return exiles who had come to him for protection without questioning them first. When the Muslim immigrants were summoned before the Negus and he asked them to explain their new religion, they replied they had been idolaters before Muhammad persuaded them to worship only one God. When the Negus asked if they had anything written from this God they responded by reciting Surat Maryam from the Quran, the chapter of the Virgin Mary.
They could not have chosen a better chapter. It begins with the miraculous birth of John the Baptist to his aged parents and continues with the equally miraculous birth of Jesus to the Virgin Mary, adding a non-Biblical account of Jesus speaking as an infant. The surah goes on to describe the prophetic ministry of Moses and his brother Aaron before the Egyptian ruler Pharaoh, and freely intersperses Muhammad's conviction that he himself was a Prophet not only equal to but superior to all of those.
The Negus was impressed with the reading, and swore again that he would never betray the people who had come to him for protection. Amr and Abdallah, however, were not about to give up, and believing they still held the trump card informed the Negus that Muhammad and his followers did not believe that Jesus was God. The ruler responded by calling the Muslims again to ask them personally what they believed about Jesus.
Now the Muslims were in a quandary. Should they tell the truth and admit they did not believe Jesus was Divine, thus risking being forced back to Mecca? They decided to take another approach and informed the Negus their Prophet had informed them Jesus was "the slave of God, his Apostle, and his Word which he cast into Mary the Blessed Virgin". The Negus was pleased with their response, and reaffirmed his willingness for them to remain in his country as long as they wished. Children were born to the Muslims in Abyssinia, and they lived there in peace until some of them returned to Mecca some time later where soon afterwards they migrated with Muhammad to Medina. Others remained in Abyssinia for years, only returning at Muhammad's orders after he defeated the Jews at the Battle of Khaybar. Still others never returned but became Christians in Abyssinia, including Ubaydullah whose spouse later became one of Muhammad's wives.
How could Yasir Qadhi imagine that America is Abyssinia? In some ways the answer is obvious. America is the majority Christian country that opened its doors to Muslims fleeing oppression and poverty from all over the world. America has allowed them to prosper and practice their faith, and has rejected the call of those who suggest it should send them back. Muslims are indeed living in America today as their spiritual ancestors 1400 years ago lived in Abyssinia.
Anwar Al Awlaki sees it differently. America to him is Mecca, the city where Muhammad warned of the coming judgment of God. America-also-known-as-Mecca is the city that rejected the message of the Prophet, forcing him to flee until he could equip an army that would bring it to its knees. Just as Muhammad conquered Mecca ten years later with an army of ten thousand warriors, Anwar Al Awlaki and his army of Mujahidin are determined to obey the command of their Prophet to fight the Mushrikun and the Kuffar - those who reject the message of Muhammad - until only Allah is worshipped and his Deen established throughout the land (Quran 2:193).
Just as I've noted that we in the West have no idea how important Muhammad is to Muslims, I've also noted that the majority of Muslims follow the Prophet they wish had existed rather than the Muhammad who really did. Salafi leaders such as Yasir Qadhi and Anwar Al Awlaki are different in what they know exactly who Muhammad was and what he did. The position of Qadhi, in my opinion, is much weaker than that of Awlaki.
Muhammad never went to Abyssinia, and there is no indication his followers saw their stay there as anything more than a temporary respite from the troubles of Mecca. Rather than honestly state they did not believe in the divinity of Jesus and take the risk of being repatriated to Mecca, they couched their response to the Negus' questions about Jesus in terms that would satisfy him. There is no evidence that they tried to convert the Abyssinians to Islam, and there is also no indication they adopted the adversarial position to the Christians there that Muhammad later adopted towards the Jews of Medina.
I've written here that after reading Tareq Ramadan's What I Believe I really had no idea what he believes. The same is true of Yasir Qadhi. Even after reading Andrea Elliott's article carefully, not once but twice, I still do not know what he believes. Nor do I believe he would tell me if I asked.
Anwar Al Awlaki is, in more opinion, both more honest and more consistent. His message is short and sweet, "Watch out, America, we're coming to get you!" Although American law enforcement agencies might see Qadhi as their ally if not their friend, and view Awlaki as the enemy, I'm not sure the situation is that black and white.
I've often noted that Western non-Muslims have no idea how important events in the Prophet's life are to Muslims. These references to Abyssinia and Mecca refer to the thirteen years Muhammad spent in Mecca before migrating north to Medina with about 100 fellow Muhajirun (immigrants). Muhammad's proposal that the Quraysh of Mecca accept him as a Prophet of God had fallen on deaf ears except for some mostly poor individuals and slaves who responded to his leadership. When the Quraysh turned against them, Muhammad sent 83 of them to Abyssinia, now the Christian country of Ethiopia. Their Christian ruler was the Negus, and he not only welcomed the newcomers with full hospitality but allowed them to practice their faith without opposition.
The Quraysh were not happy that their fellow tribesmen had migrated to Abyssinia, and sent two emissaries to persuade the Negus to repatriate them. Although Islam's oldest historical reference, that of Ibn Ishaq, states that the Quraysh wanted to get them back "so they could seduce them from their religion and get them out of the home in which they were living in peace", it is important to realize this history was written 200 years after the events took place and was based upon generations of undocumented oral history. Mecca was a slave-driven society, and it is probable the Quraysh simply wanted to get back the slaves who had believed Muhammad's promise that by abandoning their former masters and following him they would obtain the wealth of the Persian and the Roman Empires.
The Quraysh emissaries, whose names were Amr and Abdallah, had a careful strategy to ensure the success of their mission. Knowing that fine leather was treasured in Abyssinia, they gave leather skins to each of the Negus' generals asking them to present their petition to their ruler. The generals did so, but the Negus said he would not return exiles who had come to him for protection without questioning them first. When the Muslim immigrants were summoned before the Negus and he asked them to explain their new religion, they replied they had been idolaters before Muhammad persuaded them to worship only one God. When the Negus asked if they had anything written from this God they responded by reciting Surat Maryam from the Quran, the chapter of the Virgin Mary.
They could not have chosen a better chapter. It begins with the miraculous birth of John the Baptist to his aged parents and continues with the equally miraculous birth of Jesus to the Virgin Mary, adding a non-Biblical account of Jesus speaking as an infant. The surah goes on to describe the prophetic ministry of Moses and his brother Aaron before the Egyptian ruler Pharaoh, and freely intersperses Muhammad's conviction that he himself was a Prophet not only equal to but superior to all of those.
The Negus was impressed with the reading, and swore again that he would never betray the people who had come to him for protection. Amr and Abdallah, however, were not about to give up, and believing they still held the trump card informed the Negus that Muhammad and his followers did not believe that Jesus was God. The ruler responded by calling the Muslims again to ask them personally what they believed about Jesus.
Now the Muslims were in a quandary. Should they tell the truth and admit they did not believe Jesus was Divine, thus risking being forced back to Mecca? They decided to take another approach and informed the Negus their Prophet had informed them Jesus was "the slave of God, his Apostle, and his Word which he cast into Mary the Blessed Virgin". The Negus was pleased with their response, and reaffirmed his willingness for them to remain in his country as long as they wished. Children were born to the Muslims in Abyssinia, and they lived there in peace until some of them returned to Mecca some time later where soon afterwards they migrated with Muhammad to Medina. Others remained in Abyssinia for years, only returning at Muhammad's orders after he defeated the Jews at the Battle of Khaybar. Still others never returned but became Christians in Abyssinia, including Ubaydullah whose spouse later became one of Muhammad's wives.
How could Yasir Qadhi imagine that America is Abyssinia? In some ways the answer is obvious. America is the majority Christian country that opened its doors to Muslims fleeing oppression and poverty from all over the world. America has allowed them to prosper and practice their faith, and has rejected the call of those who suggest it should send them back. Muslims are indeed living in America today as their spiritual ancestors 1400 years ago lived in Abyssinia.
Anwar Al Awlaki sees it differently. America to him is Mecca, the city where Muhammad warned of the coming judgment of God. America-also-known-as-Mecca is the city that rejected the message of the Prophet, forcing him to flee until he could equip an army that would bring it to its knees. Just as Muhammad conquered Mecca ten years later with an army of ten thousand warriors, Anwar Al Awlaki and his army of Mujahidin are determined to obey the command of their Prophet to fight the Mushrikun and the Kuffar - those who reject the message of Muhammad - until only Allah is worshipped and his Deen established throughout the land (Quran 2:193).
Just as I've noted that we in the West have no idea how important Muhammad is to Muslims, I've also noted that the majority of Muslims follow the Prophet they wish had existed rather than the Muhammad who really did. Salafi leaders such as Yasir Qadhi and Anwar Al Awlaki are different in what they know exactly who Muhammad was and what he did. The position of Qadhi, in my opinion, is much weaker than that of Awlaki.
Muhammad never went to Abyssinia, and there is no indication his followers saw their stay there as anything more than a temporary respite from the troubles of Mecca. Rather than honestly state they did not believe in the divinity of Jesus and take the risk of being repatriated to Mecca, they couched their response to the Negus' questions about Jesus in terms that would satisfy him. There is no evidence that they tried to convert the Abyssinians to Islam, and there is also no indication they adopted the adversarial position to the Christians there that Muhammad later adopted towards the Jews of Medina.
I've written here that after reading Tareq Ramadan's What I Believe I really had no idea what he believes. The same is true of Yasir Qadhi. Even after reading Andrea Elliott's article carefully, not once but twice, I still do not know what he believes. Nor do I believe he would tell me if I asked.
Anwar Al Awlaki is, in more opinion, both more honest and more consistent. His message is short and sweet, "Watch out, America, we're coming to get you!" Although American law enforcement agencies might see Qadhi as their ally if not their friend, and view Awlaki as the enemy, I'm not sure the situation is that black and white.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
A Model for Middle East Dialogue - and why it won't work
Some time ago I heard former Secretary of Defense William Cohen (white) and his wife Janet Langhard Cohen (African-American) discuss their book Love in Black and White. One thing they said caught my attention, "There needs to be much more dialogue in America between blacks and whites, but white people have to start the conversation."
I decided to try that the following day with an African-American colleague at work. We had been cordial, the usual professional relationship, but not close. I asked her if I could tell her a story, and simply recounted my experience of hearing William and Janet Cohen the previous evening. She gave me a quizzical look, as in "And why are you telling me this?", but listened to my story. It was the first of some good conversations, and we have become friends.
I was reminded of the Secretary and his wife's advice today on the subway. A young black man came through the car handing out cards. I noticed he was only giving them to African-Americans, and sure enough he walked past without offering me one. When he sat on the seat behind me, I turned around and asked if I could have one. It was an invitation to attend a play at a local college about the ancient Egyptian queen Hatshepsut entitled His Majesty herself.
As soon as he realized I was interested in what he had to say, he couldn't stop talking. He informed me he had also studied and written about Hatshepsut, and I told him I had visited her temple in Upper Egypt. He said he thought Hatshepsut was much more impressive than Cleopatra, and I agreed. Cleopatra, after all, slept her way into the history books with Julius Caesar and Mark Antony, but Hatshepsut did it all herself.
"There needs to be much more dialogue in America between blacks and whites, but white people have to start the conversation." Let's unpack this sentence a little. Why did the young man not initially hand me the card? The only reason I can think of is he could not imagine that an old white dude would be interested in a play a young black guy was advertising.
Throughout America's history, whites have held both wealth and power. What the Secretary and his wife were suggesting was that those in power, those who have traditionally held the upper hand, need to initiate dialogue with those who have been under their thumb. It's not going to be the other way around.
If that works in America, can it work anywhere? Could it work in Israel where the Israelis hold the power and the money and the Palestinians are under their thumb? Could it be successful in Egypt, where the Muslim majority places limits and restrictions on the minority Copts? Is the secret for success between the Israelis and the Palestinians for the Jews to initiate the dialogue, and could the Copts and Muslims in Egypt be reconciled if Muslims were willing to do the same?
I don't think so. The key ingredient for this model of dialogue is that each party must accept the other as equal. Because my belief system is that we are all created of equal value before God and each other, my mandate is to treat others as they would like to be treated by me. Throughout much of its history, America has strayed from this core conviction but it can return for the simple reason that it is a return to America's ideological roots.
What are the ideological roots of Islam? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Muhammad never envisioned his people living as a minority among a non-Muslim majority. His earliest message to impoverished slaves in Mecca was that if they followed him they would overthrow the rulers of the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires, and his final instructions to his followers in Medina were they were to continue to engage in Jihad fi Sabeel Allah, fighting for Islam, until only Allah was worshipped everywhere (Quran 2:193).
Again correct me if I'm mistaken, but Muhammad never intended for non-Muslims to live within a Muslim society in full equality. His instructions for Jews and Christians in Arabia, followed later by the Muslim generals who conquered Egypt, were very clear. Non-Muslims were to live as Dhimmis within the Muslim majority. Argue all you want about whether Dhimmi means "protected citizen" or "second-class citizen", but one thing is clear - it does not mean "equal citizen".
Twenty-five years ago, American government employees were not allowed to talk to the Palestine Liberation Organization. I was lying by a hotel pool in Tunis one day when a friend who worked for the BBC thought he would do something "illegal" - introduce me to a Palestinian official who was also at the pool. The official was Yasser Arafat's Public Affairs Chief, and we talked for an hour. I've never forgotten one thing he said, "We will regain Israel and Jerusalem even if it takes until 2050. The simple reason is we will have more children than the Israelis."
And that is why the "Cohen Model of Dialogue" can work in America, but will never work in Israel. As long as Palestinians harbour the hope that Israel will once again be theirs, with them in control and the Jews a minority, there will be no peace. The Jews remember what happened to them in Medina 1400 years ago, and it will not happen again. And as long as Muslims in Egypt see the Copts as less than them in any way, there will be no reconciliation.
Perhaps young Palestinians today are different than the official I met 25 years ago at the pool in Tunis. And perhaps young Egyptian Muslims are different than their ancestors who would allow their Muslim son to marry a Copt (with the stipulation that the children be raised Muslim and she receive no inheritance if he died), but would never allow their Muslim daughter to marry a Coptic man. If these young people are indeed different, which would include the willingness to distance themselves from the historical Muhammad, there can be hope for peace.
I decided to try that the following day with an African-American colleague at work. We had been cordial, the usual professional relationship, but not close. I asked her if I could tell her a story, and simply recounted my experience of hearing William and Janet Cohen the previous evening. She gave me a quizzical look, as in "And why are you telling me this?", but listened to my story. It was the first of some good conversations, and we have become friends.
I was reminded of the Secretary and his wife's advice today on the subway. A young black man came through the car handing out cards. I noticed he was only giving them to African-Americans, and sure enough he walked past without offering me one. When he sat on the seat behind me, I turned around and asked if I could have one. It was an invitation to attend a play at a local college about the ancient Egyptian queen Hatshepsut entitled His Majesty herself.
As soon as he realized I was interested in what he had to say, he couldn't stop talking. He informed me he had also studied and written about Hatshepsut, and I told him I had visited her temple in Upper Egypt. He said he thought Hatshepsut was much more impressive than Cleopatra, and I agreed. Cleopatra, after all, slept her way into the history books with Julius Caesar and Mark Antony, but Hatshepsut did it all herself.
"There needs to be much more dialogue in America between blacks and whites, but white people have to start the conversation." Let's unpack this sentence a little. Why did the young man not initially hand me the card? The only reason I can think of is he could not imagine that an old white dude would be interested in a play a young black guy was advertising.
Throughout America's history, whites have held both wealth and power. What the Secretary and his wife were suggesting was that those in power, those who have traditionally held the upper hand, need to initiate dialogue with those who have been under their thumb. It's not going to be the other way around.
If that works in America, can it work anywhere? Could it work in Israel where the Israelis hold the power and the money and the Palestinians are under their thumb? Could it be successful in Egypt, where the Muslim majority places limits and restrictions on the minority Copts? Is the secret for success between the Israelis and the Palestinians for the Jews to initiate the dialogue, and could the Copts and Muslims in Egypt be reconciled if Muslims were willing to do the same?
I don't think so. The key ingredient for this model of dialogue is that each party must accept the other as equal. Because my belief system is that we are all created of equal value before God and each other, my mandate is to treat others as they would like to be treated by me. Throughout much of its history, America has strayed from this core conviction but it can return for the simple reason that it is a return to America's ideological roots.
What are the ideological roots of Islam? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Muhammad never envisioned his people living as a minority among a non-Muslim majority. His earliest message to impoverished slaves in Mecca was that if they followed him they would overthrow the rulers of the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires, and his final instructions to his followers in Medina were they were to continue to engage in Jihad fi Sabeel Allah, fighting for Islam, until only Allah was worshipped everywhere (Quran 2:193).
Again correct me if I'm mistaken, but Muhammad never intended for non-Muslims to live within a Muslim society in full equality. His instructions for Jews and Christians in Arabia, followed later by the Muslim generals who conquered Egypt, were very clear. Non-Muslims were to live as Dhimmis within the Muslim majority. Argue all you want about whether Dhimmi means "protected citizen" or "second-class citizen", but one thing is clear - it does not mean "equal citizen".
Twenty-five years ago, American government employees were not allowed to talk to the Palestine Liberation Organization. I was lying by a hotel pool in Tunis one day when a friend who worked for the BBC thought he would do something "illegal" - introduce me to a Palestinian official who was also at the pool. The official was Yasser Arafat's Public Affairs Chief, and we talked for an hour. I've never forgotten one thing he said, "We will regain Israel and Jerusalem even if it takes until 2050. The simple reason is we will have more children than the Israelis."
And that is why the "Cohen Model of Dialogue" can work in America, but will never work in Israel. As long as Palestinians harbour the hope that Israel will once again be theirs, with them in control and the Jews a minority, there will be no peace. The Jews remember what happened to them in Medina 1400 years ago, and it will not happen again. And as long as Muslims in Egypt see the Copts as less than them in any way, there will be no reconciliation.
Perhaps young Palestinians today are different than the official I met 25 years ago at the pool in Tunis. And perhaps young Egyptian Muslims are different than their ancestors who would allow their Muslim son to marry a Copt (with the stipulation that the children be raised Muslim and she receive no inheritance if he died), but would never allow their Muslim daughter to marry a Coptic man. If these young people are indeed different, which would include the willingness to distance themselves from the historical Muhammad, there can be hope for peace.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Dishonesty!
Loonwatch has said that I am dishonest. For those not following the story, I came to the defense of Al Mutarjim at Translating Jihad when Loonwatch pointed out his mistake of using a passive participle "that which is translated" rather than the active participle "the translator" for his screen name. I continued in his defense when Loonwatch criticized him for translating the word Nikah as "sex" and not as "marriage", noting that I thought the word meant both.
At the addendum of this recent posting, Loonwatch said the following about me:
SATV’s dishonesty can be gauged by his conciliatory comment on our site. He said, "I believe that much of your response to Translating-Jihad was also quite good. I won’t speak for him, but I agreed with much of your grammatical analysis. Where I disagree is your assumption that people critical of Islam deliberately mistranslate Arabic.
SATV takes, however, a completely opposite attitude on his blog. Would SATV like to be honest and state on his blog that he agrees with our grammatical analysis of Al-Mutarjim’s “translation”?
Also, note here the invocation of a “whenever” and “anybody” argument once again: “your assumption that people critical of Islam deliberately mistranslate Arabic“. Here, we are talking about one particular person and one particular site. Each stands on its own merits. Al-Mutarjim specifically and Translating-Jihad specifically are deliberately mistranslating and obfuscating Arabic. The evidence speaks for itself, and SATV’s refusal to admit this speaks to his own dishonesty."
I have carefully read Loonwatch's grammatical analysis of the Fatwa that caused this duststorm, and I can say that I agree with that analysis. I agree that the primary meaning of the word Nikah is marriage, and I agree that the Mufti who issued the Fatwa was not advocating sex with young girls. I also appreciate Loonwatch's stated position of opposing the Mufti's argument that engagement with young girls is allowable in the 21st century.
Call it a platform, an agenda, a modus operandi - everybody has one. Al Mutarjim stated his openly and clearly when he said, "I resolved to work to expose this darkness, in order to defend this country and its inhabitants, and also to open the eyes of those already enslaved by Islam."
With this stated agenda, it is only natural that Translating-Jihad would feature articles that represent, from his perspective, "this darkness". My question to Loonwatch is, Why are you leaving this responsibility to Al Mutarjim? Why is is Al Mutarjim, and not Loonwatch, who points out the glaring inconsistency between the Arabic and English al-Qassam Brigades website coverage of the slaughter of the family at Itamar? Why does Loonwatch not find these articles, translate them correctly rather than simply criticize the translations of Al Mutarjim, and then explain how they do not represent the religion Loonwatch purports to be the true Islam?
I've never stated my agenda, but it's quite obvious to anyone who has been reading SATV for awhile that I believe most Muslims follow the Prophet they wish had existed rather than the Muhammad who really did, that Islam has a tight grip on them, and I hold great admiration for those who have the courage to break away.
So, Loonwatch, have I been honest enough? If so, let's share a beer together.....or would it have to be a coke?
At the addendum of this recent posting, Loonwatch said the following about me:
SATV’s dishonesty can be gauged by his conciliatory comment on our site. He said, "I believe that much of your response to Translating-Jihad was also quite good. I won’t speak for him, but I agreed with much of your grammatical analysis. Where I disagree is your assumption that people critical of Islam deliberately mistranslate Arabic.
SATV takes, however, a completely opposite attitude on his blog. Would SATV like to be honest and state on his blog that he agrees with our grammatical analysis of Al-Mutarjim’s “translation”?
Also, note here the invocation of a “whenever” and “anybody” argument once again: “your assumption that people critical of Islam deliberately mistranslate Arabic“. Here, we are talking about one particular person and one particular site. Each stands on its own merits. Al-Mutarjim specifically and Translating-Jihad specifically are deliberately mistranslating and obfuscating Arabic. The evidence speaks for itself, and SATV’s refusal to admit this speaks to his own dishonesty."
I have carefully read Loonwatch's grammatical analysis of the Fatwa that caused this duststorm, and I can say that I agree with that analysis. I agree that the primary meaning of the word Nikah is marriage, and I agree that the Mufti who issued the Fatwa was not advocating sex with young girls. I also appreciate Loonwatch's stated position of opposing the Mufti's argument that engagement with young girls is allowable in the 21st century.
Call it a platform, an agenda, a modus operandi - everybody has one. Al Mutarjim stated his openly and clearly when he said, "I resolved to work to expose this darkness, in order to defend this country and its inhabitants, and also to open the eyes of those already enslaved by Islam."
With this stated agenda, it is only natural that Translating-Jihad would feature articles that represent, from his perspective, "this darkness". My question to Loonwatch is, Why are you leaving this responsibility to Al Mutarjim? Why is is Al Mutarjim, and not Loonwatch, who points out the glaring inconsistency between the Arabic and English al-Qassam Brigades website coverage of the slaughter of the family at Itamar? Why does Loonwatch not find these articles, translate them correctly rather than simply criticize the translations of Al Mutarjim, and then explain how they do not represent the religion Loonwatch purports to be the true Islam?
I've never stated my agenda, but it's quite obvious to anyone who has been reading SATV for awhile that I believe most Muslims follow the Prophet they wish had existed rather than the Muhammad who really did, that Islam has a tight grip on them, and I hold great admiration for those who have the courage to break away.
So, Loonwatch, have I been honest enough? If so, let's share a beer together.....or would it have to be a coke?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
