The situation of the Copts in Egypt is worse than it has been for many years. On January 7, 2010, seven young Copts were gunned down as they left a Christmas Eve service in the town of Nag Hammadi. Two months later, 24 Copts were injured and 17 houses were looted and set afire in the Mediterranean coastal town of Marsa Matrouh after hundreds of Muslims stormed out of a local mosque inflamed by calls of jihad against the "enemies of Islam". There are more and more stories of churches being attacked simply because Christians want to repair existing structures or build new ones.
How is Al-Azhar, the oldest and most famous Islamic University in the world, responding to these attacks on Egypt's Christians? How is it using its influence and power to bring peace to a troubling situation? The answer might surprise you - although if you are not new to these matters, it probably will not.
Al-Azhar has a monthly magazine that regularly includes a free book in magazine format inserted into each copy. The book in December's edition (the month before the Nag Hammadi massacre) was entitled "A Scientific Report" by well-known vocal critic of Christianity Dr. Muhammad Amara. It is, according to the author, his response to a 52-page treatise called "Prepared to Answer" by a Samir Morqos that Amara considered an attack on Islam. There was no additional information given about the offending book, including its publisher, publication date, or how it can be obtained.
The problem is that no-one knows where this book is (if it even exists), or what it says about Islam other than what is alleged by Dr. Amara. There is an Egyptian Coptic intellectual named Samir Morqos who writes critically about the state of Coptic citizenship in modern Egypt, but he denies writing the book and says he knows nothing about it.
On a recent edition of the Arabic program Daring Question, host Rashid invited two Bible scholars to examine the scholarship of Muhammad Amara. After commenting that there are many well-known books that criticize Islam, in addition to television shows such as his own, Rashid wondered why Amara would not respond to one of those rather than stage an attack on a book that is not even available to the public. Shaykh Samuel replied that the alleged book was only the pretext for Amara's book. His real reason was to launch a full-frontal attack on the Bible and Christian belief that was neither scientific nor a report.
Rashid then quoted the following section from Amara's book: "The Torah is the book that was revealed by Allah to Moses. Moses was born, raised, died, and buried in Egypt, the land in which he received the revelation of the Torah. The Torah was revealed to him in hieroglyphics, which was the language of the Children of Israel in Egypt. Moses was buried in Egypt before Joshua led the Children of Israel into Canaan, and more than 100 years before the birth of the Hebrew language. The Hebrew language was originally one of the languages of Canaan. Where is a single copy of the Torah in hieroglyphics that was revealed to Moses?"
After noting that (as is often the case in Islamic "apologetics"), there was not a single source given for this information, Rashid asked his guests for their comments. Old Testament scholar Dr. Ashraf pointed out that most Muslims have no concept of the Christian and Jewish understanding of "inspiration", but understand "revelation" in the Islamic context. Just as Muhammad in Islam was merely an audible channel for the words of Allah given him by Gabriel, Muslims see Biblical authors such as Moses and David as being recipients of God's message in the same way. The idea of these men sitting down with a pen and scroll and expressing ideas in poetry and prose that became Biblical text is unknown to Muslims.
Dr. Ashraf then discussed Amara's claim that Moses received the revelation of the Torah in hieroglyphics. Egyptian hieroglyphics is a pictoral language that uses hundreds of symbols. When the early descendants of Abraham who became known as the Children of Israel went to Egypt about 1800 BC for a sojourn that lasted 400 years, they spoke a language of Canaan that was an extension of an even earlier language of Phoenicia. About 2000 BC the Mediterranean Phoenicians invented the world's first alphabet that contained letters instead of symbols. This language became the precursor of both ancient and modern Hebrew, and many of the letters still look similar. Just as there were 22 letters in the Phoenician alphabet, there are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet of the Old Testament.
The Egyptians were unwilling to share their language and its hieroglyphics, which was associated with their religion and their gods, with the Hebrew immigrants. The result was that the Hebrews preserved their own Canaanic language for their entire time in Egypt. It was the written language used by Moses and other literate Hebrews. There is absolutely no scientific, historical, or archeological evidence that, as claimed by Muhammad Amara, "the Torah was revealed to Moses in hieroglyphics".
Rashid then quoted a further section from Amara's book supporting the Muslim claim that the "Injil of Moses" has been corrupted: "Moses lived in the 13th century BC, whereas the first written recording of the Old Testament was by Ezra in the middle of the 5th century BC. That means that the Jewish Torah was passed by oral tradition for 8 centuries."
Again noting that Amara gave no source for this information, Dr. Ashraf pointed out that the Old Testament in numerous occasions reports that Moses himself wrote the Torah. In Exodus 17:14, Moses wrote down the account of Israel's battle with the Amalekites, Exodus 24:4 records Moses writing down all the instructions he had received from God, and Exodus 34:27 notes Moses writing down the covenant made by God with the people. Deuteronomy 31:24-26 states that the entire Torah was written by Moses on a scroll that was then placed in the ark carried by the Israelites so that it would remain with them.
Dr. Ashraf then referred to archeological findings discovered in 2006, which Rashid displayed on the screen, of tablets containing fragments of the Old Testament written in ancient Hebrew that archeologists date to the 10th century BC.
Rashid next quoted what Amara said about the New Testament: "The Messiah, peace be upon him, came with the Injil (Gospel) that was revealed to him in the Aramaic language. Where is a copy of this Injil? Not a single church of all the Christian denominations in the world possesses a single copy. They only possess a book they call the New Testament that goes not go back at all to Jesus. It contains simply stories written by numerous writers, each of whom gave his own version of what Jesus said and did and taught."
Again, in an attempt to apply the Muslim concept of revelation to Jesus, Amara is claiming that an "Aramaic Injil" descended from Allah to Jesus, this Injil has been lost to history, and all that remains as the New Testament is his "Seerah" or biography.
Shaykh Samuel, who is a New Testament scholar, responded that there never has been in Christian history and doctrine any teaching that an Injil was revealed by God to Jesus. Jesus himself is the source of the New Testament, and the four small books in it known as the Gospels were the accounts of his life written down by his disciples. Jesus, in the Christian tradition, is the Injil; it was not a message revealed to him from God as Muslims believe the Quran was a message revealed to Muhammad from Allah.
Rashid, who is an ex-Muslim, explained in more detail how Muslims understand the "revelation of Jesus". Just as Muhammad went to a cave where an angel held him tightly and commanded him to recite the words given to him, Muslims imagine that Jesus was given a message in the same way. The fact that no church throughout 2000 years of Christian history has viewed the Injil in this way is of no significance to the Muslim scholar.
Muhammad Amara also wrote, "Two of the four major Gospels in the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were written in the 2nd century AD by the followers of the associates of Jesus. Mark was a disciple of Peter, and Luke was a disciple of Paul. Neither of them witnessed the scenes about which they wrote."
Rashid pointed out that even Amara's expression "the followers of the associates" is Islamic terminology taken from Muslim history. Muhammad's "Sahabah", or associates were the people who lived close to him during his lifetime. The "Tabaeen" or followers were those who came afterwards. Again with no understanding of Christian history, Amara simply applied this understanding from Islam to Church History.
Shaykh Samuel explained that many people are only aware of the "Twelve Disciples" of Jesus made famous by art and literature, but the New Testament also speaks of larger groups of 70 and 120 people who believed in him. Mark, a young boy living in Jerusalem, was one of these and there is evidence that the famous Last Supper was held in the house in which he lived. He wrote his Gospel in Jerusalem specifically for a Roman audience. The medical doctor Luke wrote his Gospel in Antioch for a Greek audience. It is true, as Amara writes, that Mark was a close associate of Peter and Luke was a follower of Paul but that is evidence that what they wrote was under the careful scrutiny of both Peter and Paul, not embellished material created a century later. Luke himself in the opening verses of both Luke and Acts wrote of the care he took to ensure that what he wrote was historically accurate.
Rashid noted that the Hadiths in Islam are based upon their "isnad", or chain of reference. "Abu-Hurayrah recounted that Aisha reported that the Prophet said..." If the Hadiths are accepted as true by Muslims, why would Amara cast doubt on material that Mark and Luke learned from Jesus' closest friends?
As Rashid and his guests continued to counter the unsubstantiated and undocumentaed allegations of Muhammad Amara with historical and archeological evidence, I thought of the thousands and perhaps millions of young Egyptians who will never have the opportunity to watch the same program I did. Their only source of information is people such as Amara, whose invented versions of Christian and Jewish history are intended for no other purpose than to confirm the Quran's description of those people as "najiseen and kufaar", the unclean infidels who deliberately corrupted their Scriptures for their own selfish purposes. It's not difficult to see why young Egyptian Muslims quickly conclude the Copts are unworthy of full respect and equality as citizens of modern Egypt.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Islam - an Evil Religion?
I recently heard author Deborah Amos discuss her new book The Eclipse of the Sunnis. When talking about the persecution of Iraqi Christians in recent years, Deborah commented that their situation was not helped by Americans such as Franklin Graham describing Islam as a "filthy dirty religion".
The problem is, that is not what Graham said. He described Islam as an "evil religion". When that phrase caused a widespread backlash, Graham clarified his statement by saying (read the complete statement here), "I do not believe Muslims are evil people because of their faith. I personally have many Muslim friends. But I decry the evil that has been done in the name of Islam, or any other faith--including Christianity."
I have a couple of questions. First, why would a respected journalist like Deborah Amos blur the lines to make no difference between the description of an ideology as "evil" or its description as "filthy and dirty"? To me, there is a clear difference. An ideology, belief system, or religion can be described as "evil" if it damages people and produces victims. To change the words of a person who used that phrase and accuse him of describing that belief system as "filthy and dirty" turns the discussion away from what could be an intellectually honest argument to merely an invective personal attack.
Question number 2: many ex-Muslims use the word "evil" to describe Islam. The cover of Wafa Sultan's book A God Who Hates says, The Courageous Woman who Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks Out Against the Evils of Islam. Would Deborah Amos, or any other journalist who specializes in the Middle East, as easily say that Wafa described Islam as a "filthy dirty religion"? I am sure that Aayan Hirsi Ali, author of Infidel, and Mosab Hassan Yousef in Son of Hamas and many other well-known ex-Muslims would not hesitate to use the word "evil" in describing the religion they left behind. Do we as easily dismiss them by accusing them of calling their former religion "dirty and filthy"?
The third question is the most important. What is evil, and does Islam qualify as being evil? That is not a question that can be answered in a paragraph or a page, but requires a lot of serious discussion by people on both sides. That discussion, unfortunately, does not even seem to have a place in most of the media.
The problem is, that is not what Graham said. He described Islam as an "evil religion". When that phrase caused a widespread backlash, Graham clarified his statement by saying (read the complete statement here), "I do not believe Muslims are evil people because of their faith. I personally have many Muslim friends. But I decry the evil that has been done in the name of Islam, or any other faith--including Christianity."
I have a couple of questions. First, why would a respected journalist like Deborah Amos blur the lines to make no difference between the description of an ideology as "evil" or its description as "filthy and dirty"? To me, there is a clear difference. An ideology, belief system, or religion can be described as "evil" if it damages people and produces victims. To change the words of a person who used that phrase and accuse him of describing that belief system as "filthy and dirty" turns the discussion away from what could be an intellectually honest argument to merely an invective personal attack.
Question number 2: many ex-Muslims use the word "evil" to describe Islam. The cover of Wafa Sultan's book A God Who Hates says, The Courageous Woman who Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks Out Against the Evils of Islam. Would Deborah Amos, or any other journalist who specializes in the Middle East, as easily say that Wafa described Islam as a "filthy dirty religion"? I am sure that Aayan Hirsi Ali, author of Infidel, and Mosab Hassan Yousef in Son of Hamas and many other well-known ex-Muslims would not hesitate to use the word "evil" in describing the religion they left behind. Do we as easily dismiss them by accusing them of calling their former religion "dirty and filthy"?
The third question is the most important. What is evil, and does Islam qualify as being evil? That is not a question that can be answered in a paragraph or a page, but requires a lot of serious discussion by people on both sides. That discussion, unfortunately, does not even seem to have a place in most of the media.
The Eclipse of the Sunnis or What About Sunnistan?
I'm reading the moving book The Eclipse of the Sunnis by Deborah Amos. She describes the difficult lives of almost two million Sunnis who have fled to Syria from Iraq during the past few years and feel they have no country to return to. Unfortunately they are probably correct; there is little place for them in the new Shia-controlled Iraq. There is little more likelihood of their returning to the homes they left in Baghdad than Palestinians have of returning to the homes their families inhabited 65 years ago in Jerusalem.
I recently watched an interview in which Jordan's King Abdallah was asked about the possibility of the West Bank becoming a part of Jordan. The king quickly dismissed the idea, contending that Palestinians were not Jordanians and that they deserved their own country.
I have the distinct impression that most Arab leaders (including the King of Jordan) tend to deny present realities and ignore possible long-term solutions because of short-term challenges and difficulties. Here's a radical proposal: what if King Abdallah announced his willingness to step down from his throne and throw his support behind establishing a truly democratic secular country that included western Iraq where most of the Sunnis live, the West Bank, and present-day Jordan?
Before dismissing this as the most ridiculous idea you have ever heard, think of its possibilities 20 years down the road in comparison to 20 more years of the present situation (which in all honesty is probably not going to get better). Here are some things to consider:
1. Palestinians and Iraqis were once known as the most educated and secular people in the Arab world, although both of their situations have greatly deteriorated in recent years. Many of the Iraqi refugees in Damascus are secular, professional people, and large numbers of them are extremely concerned about the lack of educational opportunities for their children. The new country could provide those opportunities.
2. The United States and the European Union would strongly support this secular and democratic country. The United States in particular learned in Iraq the hard way that it could not impose democracy, but a new country that chose democracy and freedom would receive full Western support.
3. The Christians and other non-Muslim minorities of Iraq, who enjoyed a message of protection under Saddam that has totally been lost since his overthow, could flourish in a secular Arab state.
4. With the Palestinians of the West Bank now part of a functioning country, they could turn their attention to a viable relationship with Israel as a partner, not as an enemy.
5. Those citizens of neighboring Arab countries that yearn for more freedom could see an example in the new country that would embolden them to push for those liberties in their own countries.
6. Islam would be viewed as no more than one of the religions practiced by the citizens of this new country. A constitution would be written granting equal rights and opportunities to the entire citizenship of the country, with freedom for each citizen to believe whatever they choose.
Granted, this sounds like a wild dream, but I think it could be a good one.
I recently watched an interview in which Jordan's King Abdallah was asked about the possibility of the West Bank becoming a part of Jordan. The king quickly dismissed the idea, contending that Palestinians were not Jordanians and that they deserved their own country.
I have the distinct impression that most Arab leaders (including the King of Jordan) tend to deny present realities and ignore possible long-term solutions because of short-term challenges and difficulties. Here's a radical proposal: what if King Abdallah announced his willingness to step down from his throne and throw his support behind establishing a truly democratic secular country that included western Iraq where most of the Sunnis live, the West Bank, and present-day Jordan?
Before dismissing this as the most ridiculous idea you have ever heard, think of its possibilities 20 years down the road in comparison to 20 more years of the present situation (which in all honesty is probably not going to get better). Here are some things to consider:
1. Palestinians and Iraqis were once known as the most educated and secular people in the Arab world, although both of their situations have greatly deteriorated in recent years. Many of the Iraqi refugees in Damascus are secular, professional people, and large numbers of them are extremely concerned about the lack of educational opportunities for their children. The new country could provide those opportunities.
2. The United States and the European Union would strongly support this secular and democratic country. The United States in particular learned in Iraq the hard way that it could not impose democracy, but a new country that chose democracy and freedom would receive full Western support.
3. The Christians and other non-Muslim minorities of Iraq, who enjoyed a message of protection under Saddam that has totally been lost since his overthow, could flourish in a secular Arab state.
4. With the Palestinians of the West Bank now part of a functioning country, they could turn their attention to a viable relationship with Israel as a partner, not as an enemy.
5. Those citizens of neighboring Arab countries that yearn for more freedom could see an example in the new country that would embolden them to push for those liberties in their own countries.
6. Islam would be viewed as no more than one of the religions practiced by the citizens of this new country. A constitution would be written granting equal rights and opportunities to the entire citizenship of the country, with freedom for each citizen to believe whatever they choose.
Granted, this sounds like a wild dream, but I think it could be a good one.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Christiane Amanpour and Mosab Yousef (Son of Hamas)
Christiane Amanpour described her interview with Mosab Hassan Yousef, son of one of the founders of Hamas, as "fascinating", and her follow-up interview with a team of individuals the following day as "in-depth analysis". I thought a much more fascinating and in-depth discussion was the one held a few days later between Mosab and host Rashid on the Arabic program "Daring Question".
There are several reasons for this. One is that in the first interview Mosab was not using his native tongue. Although he speaks English commendably for one who learned the language as a young adult and was not educated in English-speaking schools, he is still not as fluent as other Arabs who have been speaking English extensively for many years. A second reason is that Mosab was definitely on the hot seat in the interview with Rashid. With Christiane, he was facing an interviewer curious to know why he chose to work with Shin Bet against Hamas. With Rashid he was forced to defend himself against a hostile Arabic-speaking audience that largely, whether Palestinian Christian, Palestinian Muslim, or non-Palestinian Arab, saw him as the worst of all people - a traitor, an agent, a collaborater with the hated Zionist enemy.
But there is a third, and much more significant, reason why Christiane's interview with Mosab seemed shallow in comparison to the one with Rashid. The seminal event in Musab's life, a journey that took six years, was his conclusion that Muhammad is not a prophet of God and the Quran is not a book from God. As with many ex-Muslims, Musab's first step in this journey was confronting the reality of the violence and cruelty of his own people, and realizing they were following the example of their Prophet and his God. The next step was meeting and speaking with Israelis - Jews, the worst of all creatures according to the Quran, the inveterate enemies of God and offspring of monkeys and pigs - and discovering they were people, human beings with values, aspirations, and hopes. The final step was finding an alternative way to think and live. Mosab discovered that the command of Jesus to "love your enemy and do good to those who hate you" was not a weak surrender to injustice but instead the most powerful form of resistance against injustice.
This, unfortunately, was what Christiane was not interested in discussing. When he told her that the "biggest gangster in the world is the god of Islam, the god of the Quran", she could have probed a lot deeper, but she didn't. She only said, "I'm not going to debate Islam with you, but as you know many Muslims say that is not written in the book and it's a matter of interpretation. But in any case, thank you for joining us."
Her unwillingness to engage him in his understanding of Islam, to even consider the reality that he might be right, is shared by every single journalist I watch or read. Without exception they consider themselves innovative, bold, and challenging, but they aren't willing to go beyond the taboos of our media and political culture and find out what people like Mosab really think about the faith with which they grew up. It's much easier to just ask more questions about what it was like working for Shin Bet.
Rashid wasn't like that. He was willing to push harder, and find out what really motivated Mosab. When confronted with the fact that many of his own people now consider him a traitor, Mosab replied, "I am not doing what my people want, but I am doing what they need." Mosab went on to express his hope that a new generation of young Palestinians will begin to see that humanizing the enemy, even learning to love the enemy while not accepting injustice, is a new way forward. Indeed, it is the only way.
There are several reasons for this. One is that in the first interview Mosab was not using his native tongue. Although he speaks English commendably for one who learned the language as a young adult and was not educated in English-speaking schools, he is still not as fluent as other Arabs who have been speaking English extensively for many years. A second reason is that Mosab was definitely on the hot seat in the interview with Rashid. With Christiane, he was facing an interviewer curious to know why he chose to work with Shin Bet against Hamas. With Rashid he was forced to defend himself against a hostile Arabic-speaking audience that largely, whether Palestinian Christian, Palestinian Muslim, or non-Palestinian Arab, saw him as the worst of all people - a traitor, an agent, a collaborater with the hated Zionist enemy.
But there is a third, and much more significant, reason why Christiane's interview with Mosab seemed shallow in comparison to the one with Rashid. The seminal event in Musab's life, a journey that took six years, was his conclusion that Muhammad is not a prophet of God and the Quran is not a book from God. As with many ex-Muslims, Musab's first step in this journey was confronting the reality of the violence and cruelty of his own people, and realizing they were following the example of their Prophet and his God. The next step was meeting and speaking with Israelis - Jews, the worst of all creatures according to the Quran, the inveterate enemies of God and offspring of monkeys and pigs - and discovering they were people, human beings with values, aspirations, and hopes. The final step was finding an alternative way to think and live. Mosab discovered that the command of Jesus to "love your enemy and do good to those who hate you" was not a weak surrender to injustice but instead the most powerful form of resistance against injustice.
This, unfortunately, was what Christiane was not interested in discussing. When he told her that the "biggest gangster in the world is the god of Islam, the god of the Quran", she could have probed a lot deeper, but she didn't. She only said, "I'm not going to debate Islam with you, but as you know many Muslims say that is not written in the book and it's a matter of interpretation. But in any case, thank you for joining us."
Her unwillingness to engage him in his understanding of Islam, to even consider the reality that he might be right, is shared by every single journalist I watch or read. Without exception they consider themselves innovative, bold, and challenging, but they aren't willing to go beyond the taboos of our media and political culture and find out what people like Mosab really think about the faith with which they grew up. It's much easier to just ask more questions about what it was like working for Shin Bet.
Rashid wasn't like that. He was willing to push harder, and find out what really motivated Mosab. When confronted with the fact that many of his own people now consider him a traitor, Mosab replied, "I am not doing what my people want, but I am doing what they need." Mosab went on to express his hope that a new generation of young Palestinians will begin to see that humanizing the enemy, even learning to love the enemy while not accepting injustice, is a new way forward. Indeed, it is the only way.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Mosab Yousef - Son of Hamas
I recently attended a Q&A session with the President of a Washington-based international think tank. When I suggested that the conflict between Islam and the Jews went all the way back to their refusal to accept Muhammad as their Prophet in Medina, the CEO disagreed. The schism between the two parties in seventh century Medina, he argued, was due to their having "violated the concordia" established by Muhammad.
As soon as I heard that phrase I realized that he, like almost everyone else in Washington from the President and his four-star Generals to the most junior State Department diplomats and Pentagon intelligence analysts, had learned Islam from Muslims or Muslim apologists. It could have been John Esposito at Georgetown, Akbar Ahmed at American University, my former professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr now at George Washington, or a hundred others. He had learned Islam from their perspective, rather than critically examining its texts for himself.
Your response is perhaps, "Duh? And your point is? Of course we learn about Islam from Muslims! Just like we learn math from mathematicians, history from historians, and French from French speakers. What's the difference?"
The difference is that almost every Muslim in the world has an idealized, wistful, and wishful view of their Prophet and his ambitions. Commenting on my post about some Muslim women in America who recently tried without success to overcome gender segregation by standing next to men at their mosque, one woman noted, "These women are courageously taking Islam back to its original form. Compassion, mercy and equality are not innovation. Oppression, tyranny and chauvanism are the innovations."
Her view of Islam as a religion of compassion and mercy is almost universal among Muslims, but is it correct? Here I argue that historically it is not. Muslims and non-Muslims learn an idealized view of Islam from Muslim teachers whose perspective is blinded by faith or from non-Muslim apologists who present only one side of the story. That was my experience as a student at Temple University. When Tariq Ramadan tells the story of Abu Bakr freeing slaves in Mecca, he speaks as a believer and ignores the crucial elements of the story that do not correspond to his idealized view of historical fact. When Karen Armstrong describes Muhammad's encounter with the angel Gabriel in the cave of Hira, she does so with such emotion you would think she had been there personally sharing the experience!
Imagine how different modern history would be if leaders had always done this. Suppose General George Washington's closest advisor was a British loyalist, or Abraham Lincoln sought counsel from Southern plantation slaveowners. What if Mahatma Gandhi listened to advocates of the British Empire before the Great Salt March in 1930, and Martin Luther King asked the opinion of the Klu Klux Klan before the Great March on Washington in 1963? How about if President Woodrow Wilson conceded to pacifists when the Germans were sinking passenger ships during World War I, or FDR sought the advice of Nazi sympathizers during WWII? What if Ronald Reagan cozied up to Communist Party members in determining his position towards the Cold War and the Berlin Wall? To bring it right up to date, what if President George W. Bush had listened to opportunistic Shia dissidents assuring him Iraqis would welcome American soldiers on rose-petal strewn streets if he toppled Saddam Husayn - oh, wait a minute, that's exactly what he did!
And that is why Mosab Yousef's new book Son of Hamas is a must-read (for those readers in countries where your political or religious leaders will not allow you access to this book, be sure to put it on your shopping list for your next visit to a country where you can). Mosab is only one of a rapidly growing number of intelligent young men and women who not only know Islam, but also see through and beyond it and who are leaving Muhammad behind. These are the people you want to teach you about Islam. It's amazing to me that Muslim apologists such as Reza Aslan receive a greater welcome in many government and academic circles than do ex-Muslim realists such as Mosab. Hopefully, that will change.
You perhaps noticed that I used the adjective "almost" twice in this posting in describing the view of Muslims towards their faith. There are Muslims who understand exactly what their Prophet wanted to accomplish, and who have dedicated their lives to completing his mission. They have well-known last names such as Mishal (Hamas), Nasrallah (Hizballah), Ahmadinejad (Iran), and bin Ladin and Zawahiri (cave-dwellers somewhere in Pakistan). All the more reason to listen really carefully to young men such as Mosab Yousef.
As soon as I heard that phrase I realized that he, like almost everyone else in Washington from the President and his four-star Generals to the most junior State Department diplomats and Pentagon intelligence analysts, had learned Islam from Muslims or Muslim apologists. It could have been John Esposito at Georgetown, Akbar Ahmed at American University, my former professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr now at George Washington, or a hundred others. He had learned Islam from their perspective, rather than critically examining its texts for himself.
Your response is perhaps, "Duh? And your point is? Of course we learn about Islam from Muslims! Just like we learn math from mathematicians, history from historians, and French from French speakers. What's the difference?"
The difference is that almost every Muslim in the world has an idealized, wistful, and wishful view of their Prophet and his ambitions. Commenting on my post about some Muslim women in America who recently tried without success to overcome gender segregation by standing next to men at their mosque, one woman noted, "These women are courageously taking Islam back to its original form. Compassion, mercy and equality are not innovation. Oppression, tyranny and chauvanism are the innovations."
Her view of Islam as a religion of compassion and mercy is almost universal among Muslims, but is it correct? Here I argue that historically it is not. Muslims and non-Muslims learn an idealized view of Islam from Muslim teachers whose perspective is blinded by faith or from non-Muslim apologists who present only one side of the story. That was my experience as a student at Temple University. When Tariq Ramadan tells the story of Abu Bakr freeing slaves in Mecca, he speaks as a believer and ignores the crucial elements of the story that do not correspond to his idealized view of historical fact. When Karen Armstrong describes Muhammad's encounter with the angel Gabriel in the cave of Hira, she does so with such emotion you would think she had been there personally sharing the experience!
Imagine how different modern history would be if leaders had always done this. Suppose General George Washington's closest advisor was a British loyalist, or Abraham Lincoln sought counsel from Southern plantation slaveowners. What if Mahatma Gandhi listened to advocates of the British Empire before the Great Salt March in 1930, and Martin Luther King asked the opinion of the Klu Klux Klan before the Great March on Washington in 1963? How about if President Woodrow Wilson conceded to pacifists when the Germans were sinking passenger ships during World War I, or FDR sought the advice of Nazi sympathizers during WWII? What if Ronald Reagan cozied up to Communist Party members in determining his position towards the Cold War and the Berlin Wall? To bring it right up to date, what if President George W. Bush had listened to opportunistic Shia dissidents assuring him Iraqis would welcome American soldiers on rose-petal strewn streets if he toppled Saddam Husayn - oh, wait a minute, that's exactly what he did!
And that is why Mosab Yousef's new book Son of Hamas is a must-read (for those readers in countries where your political or religious leaders will not allow you access to this book, be sure to put it on your shopping list for your next visit to a country where you can). Mosab is only one of a rapidly growing number of intelligent young men and women who not only know Islam, but also see through and beyond it and who are leaving Muhammad behind. These are the people you want to teach you about Islam. It's amazing to me that Muslim apologists such as Reza Aslan receive a greater welcome in many government and academic circles than do ex-Muslim realists such as Mosab. Hopefully, that will change.
You perhaps noticed that I used the adjective "almost" twice in this posting in describing the view of Muslims towards their faith. There are Muslims who understand exactly what their Prophet wanted to accomplish, and who have dedicated their lives to completing his mission. They have well-known last names such as Mishal (Hamas), Nasrallah (Hizballah), Ahmadinejad (Iran), and bin Ladin and Zawahiri (cave-dwellers somewhere in Pakistan). All the more reason to listen really carefully to young men such as Mosab Yousef.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
DC Muslim Women and the Front of the Mosque
In an unusual display of presidential involvement in a local matter, President Omama was quick to criticize the police department of Cambridge, Massachusetts, in July 2009, for arresting Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates in his home following an incident with a police officer. The President said, "I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting someboday when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact."
If the President was upset about that incident, he must be livid livid livid over the action recently taken by the police department in his own backyard of Washington D.C. On the weekend of 22 February, about 20 Muslim women engaged in a peaceful protest to be allowed to pray in the main prayer hall of their local mosque with the men. Mosque officials called the police, who gave the women the option of leaving or being arrested. The women called off the protest, but say their struggle will continue.
When the media asked Imam Sayyid Burmi the reason for men and women being forced to pray separately, he replied, "If I stand next to a woman, maybe the focus will change and no longer be on God the Almighty. That's why we put up the partition."
Before getting to the main point of this posting, which is that I'm waiting with bated breath for the President's response, let me throw out a few comments:
1. I'm sure Jannah bint Hannah, Fatimah Thompson, and the other women involved in the protest at their mosque have a high opinion of their Prophet as the world's greatest example of honoring women's rights. As I posted recently, I don't share that optimism. Nevertheless, congratulations to Jannah, Fatimah, and their friends for their courage.
2. The Imam's reason for the gender separation in prayer, that he might be distracted from focusing on God were he praying next to a woman, is a common Muslim response. Muslim men seem to have a hard time controlling their desires or emotions, but rather than develop that self-control find it much easier to just blame the women. After all, millions of Christian men pray next to women in churches every week without their "focus being changed". Why are Muslim men any different?
3. The Imam, however, was not being completely honest. The real reason for separating men from women in prayer is that Muhammad claimed that the prayer of a man was invalidated if a dog, mule, or woman passed in front of him when he was praying. Even his wife Aisha noted this was putting women on the level of dogs (Vol 1 Bk 9 Nr 490).
This is the same prophet who stated that a man needed to perform ritual ablutions after he had gone to the bathroom or touched a women (Quran 4:43). If a woman in Islam is placed on the level of feces, a mule, or a dog, it is not difficult to understand why any self-respecting Muslim man would not want her standing next to him in prayer. (By the way, your English-language copy of the Quran intended for Western audiences deliberately mistranslates 4:43. It probably says a man needs to wash himself after having "sexual relations" with a woman. The Arabic simply says if he "has touched" a woman, which would include her brushing against him in the prayer line at the mosque).
And now to the point of this posting. I'm waiting for the President's response. If he felt the need to comment on the arrest of a man in Massachusetts, he must have something to say about the police of Washington D.C. threatening to arrest women for wanting to pray with men in a public house of worship. The President's involvement in full equality for Muslim women in America is just as important and perhaps more so than his intervention in what he thought to be a racial incident in Cambridge, Mass.
But just in case we have to wait a while for the President's response, let's give it up for Fatimah and Jannah - and someone warn the good Imam Sayyid Burmi to watch out for the American Woman!
If the President was upset about that incident, he must be livid livid livid over the action recently taken by the police department in his own backyard of Washington D.C. On the weekend of 22 February, about 20 Muslim women engaged in a peaceful protest to be allowed to pray in the main prayer hall of their local mosque with the men. Mosque officials called the police, who gave the women the option of leaving or being arrested. The women called off the protest, but say their struggle will continue.
When the media asked Imam Sayyid Burmi the reason for men and women being forced to pray separately, he replied, "If I stand next to a woman, maybe the focus will change and no longer be on God the Almighty. That's why we put up the partition."
Before getting to the main point of this posting, which is that I'm waiting with bated breath for the President's response, let me throw out a few comments:
1. I'm sure Jannah bint Hannah, Fatimah Thompson, and the other women involved in the protest at their mosque have a high opinion of their Prophet as the world's greatest example of honoring women's rights. As I posted recently, I don't share that optimism. Nevertheless, congratulations to Jannah, Fatimah, and their friends for their courage.
2. The Imam's reason for the gender separation in prayer, that he might be distracted from focusing on God were he praying next to a woman, is a common Muslim response. Muslim men seem to have a hard time controlling their desires or emotions, but rather than develop that self-control find it much easier to just blame the women. After all, millions of Christian men pray next to women in churches every week without their "focus being changed". Why are Muslim men any different?
3. The Imam, however, was not being completely honest. The real reason for separating men from women in prayer is that Muhammad claimed that the prayer of a man was invalidated if a dog, mule, or woman passed in front of him when he was praying. Even his wife Aisha noted this was putting women on the level of dogs (Vol 1 Bk 9 Nr 490).
This is the same prophet who stated that a man needed to perform ritual ablutions after he had gone to the bathroom or touched a women (Quran 4:43). If a woman in Islam is placed on the level of feces, a mule, or a dog, it is not difficult to understand why any self-respecting Muslim man would not want her standing next to him in prayer. (By the way, your English-language copy of the Quran intended for Western audiences deliberately mistranslates 4:43. It probably says a man needs to wash himself after having "sexual relations" with a woman. The Arabic simply says if he "has touched" a woman, which would include her brushing against him in the prayer line at the mosque).
And now to the point of this posting. I'm waiting for the President's response. If he felt the need to comment on the arrest of a man in Massachusetts, he must have something to say about the police of Washington D.C. threatening to arrest women for wanting to pray with men in a public house of worship. The President's involvement in full equality for Muslim women in America is just as important and perhaps more so than his intervention in what he thought to be a racial incident in Cambridge, Mass.
But just in case we have to wait a while for the President's response, let's give it up for Fatimah and Jannah - and someone warn the good Imam Sayyid Burmi to watch out for the American Woman!
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Sudoku and Understanding Muhammad
For those who like simple analogies, here's one: understanding Muhammad is like doing a Sudoku (or crossword or jigsaw) puzzle. As long as you put down the correct number (or word or piece), everything flows smoothly until completion. Make one uncorrected mistake, and you find yourself forcing things to make them fit. You can do that for a few moves, but unless you correct the error it's impossible to finish.
To solve the Muhammad puzzle correctly, begin with a young man in Mecca with a very big dream. Leading trade caravans to Damascus as well as his interaction with caravans crisscrossing Mecca opened his eyes to a world much larger than his own. He knew that his family, beginning with his ancestor Qusay and great-grandfather Hashim, had successfully led their Quraysh tribe but that leadership had deteriorated in the generations preceeding his birth. Other Arab leaders had successfully united their tribes and formed kingdoms - there were at least eight at the time throughout Arabia and Yemen - in a way that no-one in Mecca had been able to do. Arab armies had for the first time gained an impressive vicory over the mighty Perisan Empire in present-day Iraq, and forced Ethiopian invaders from Yemen. Why could he not also unite the tribes of Mecca under his leadership and form a great kingdom?
It was a dream that developed into a powerful concept as the young Muhammad approached the age of forty. From Christians and Jews he learned that the great King David had been accepted by his people as a Prophet before he was crowned King at the same age. From them he also learned that one invisible God who spoke through his Prophet was much more powerful than the flimsy tribal gods whose images filled the Kaaba. He, Muhammad, would also become that Prophet-King, and his tribe would accept him as their leader with the words of Allah flowing through him to confirm his authority.
His initial message was a simple one, "I am the Prophet of Allah, who wants you to follow me. If you don't, he will be very angry at you." His promise to the many slaves of Mecca that obeying him would end in their enjoying the treasures of the Roman and Persian Empires (Bukhari vol 8 book 78 nrs 625, 626) gained him some converts. Their loyalty to their slaveowners was now divided, with the Quraysh soon turning against Muhammad instead of accepting him as their Prophet and King as he had anticipated. His messages grew more and more stident, with the short Quranic Meccan suras containing more than 140 verses vividly describing the hell awaiting those who refused him.
When it became clear that his own tribe would not accept him, he approached others for the same purpose. The Thaqif in Ta'if were no more interested than the Quraysh, and neither was any other tribe. After 11 difficult years, Muhammad met a few men from the Aus and Khazraj tribes in Medina, led by Abbas Ibn Ubada, who were envious of the prosperity of the Jewish tribes who had lived there for centuries. The Aus and Khazraj often robbed the Jews, who retaliated by warning that a Prophet would come to punish them. Abbas and his comrades responded to Muhammad's message by concluding they should attract him to their side before the Jews did. They pledged their allegiance and invited him to Medina as their leader. Muhammad gladly accepted, naively convinced the Jews there would also accept him as a Prophet.
Among those who migrated to Medina with Muhammad from Mecca was a group of common highwaymen known as the Saalik (link to "The Rise of Islam" and "The Earlier Followers of Mohammed at Mecca"). They had only been in Medina a few months before Muhammad began sending them as well as other Muslims on raids against caravans passing through the region. The Quraysh responded to these raids by sending out their armies against the Muslim forces, but were soundly defeated. Emboldened by his victories, Muhammad turned against the Jews of Medina and quickly exiled and murdered all of them. He continued to claim that Allah was speaking directly through him with revelations that allowed him to do whatever he wanted, from raping the wives of his victims to declaring unending war against anyone who opposed him. His promise of a sensual paradise to all who died in his wars was a powerful motivation to his warriors, and by the time Muhammad died at the age of 62 his dream of becoming ruler of Arabia had become true.
Now imagine putting together the jigsaw puzzle (perhaps even one portraying the face of Muhammad!) from the perspective of a Muslim believer or a western non-Muslim apologist for Islam (present and all recent American Presidents included). You believe that a noble young man of Arabia, heartbroken over the idolatry and human rights abuses of his people, was called by God to be the final Prophet of the one true religion. This peaceful Prophet suffered oppression and persecution for 13 years until he was driven from his home to a distant city. There he received direction from God to lead battles of defense against the persecutors who were determined to destroy him and his nascent community. He was guided to conduct raids against the trade caravans to recover the goods his followers had lost in Mecca. He was commanded to remove the Jewish tribes of Medina who opposed his righteous message. He was ordered to marry numerous wives to fortify his political and social unions, as well as to exemplify mercy to widows and divorcees. He was led to order the extermination of all Christians and Jews from Arabia, and was given God's plan to bring the entire world under submission to Islam.
It's not long, however, before you are forcing pieces of the puzzle to try to make them fit. How does a holy Prophet of God in his mid-50s sexually conquer and ejaculate into an innocent 9 year old child? Push that piece into place if you can. How does he tire of her within a few months and begin taking other wives? Force that piece into the puzzle (the first was the beautiful Hafsah, at 20 twice Aysha's age) . Imagine young men on a camel caravan returning from a successful trip to Damascus where they traded olives and figs for the goods their families would live on for the next year. Suddenly they are terrified by a calvary of men with swords held high shouting Allahu Akbar as they swoop down on them to steal their goods, kill some of them, and sell the others for slaves or ransom. Justify that as you push that piece into place.
To solve the Muhammad puzzle correctly, begin with a young man in Mecca with a very big dream. Leading trade caravans to Damascus as well as his interaction with caravans crisscrossing Mecca opened his eyes to a world much larger than his own. He knew that his family, beginning with his ancestor Qusay and great-grandfather Hashim, had successfully led their Quraysh tribe but that leadership had deteriorated in the generations preceeding his birth. Other Arab leaders had successfully united their tribes and formed kingdoms - there were at least eight at the time throughout Arabia and Yemen - in a way that no-one in Mecca had been able to do. Arab armies had for the first time gained an impressive vicory over the mighty Perisan Empire in present-day Iraq, and forced Ethiopian invaders from Yemen. Why could he not also unite the tribes of Mecca under his leadership and form a great kingdom?
It was a dream that developed into a powerful concept as the young Muhammad approached the age of forty. From Christians and Jews he learned that the great King David had been accepted by his people as a Prophet before he was crowned King at the same age. From them he also learned that one invisible God who spoke through his Prophet was much more powerful than the flimsy tribal gods whose images filled the Kaaba. He, Muhammad, would also become that Prophet-King, and his tribe would accept him as their leader with the words of Allah flowing through him to confirm his authority.
His initial message was a simple one, "I am the Prophet of Allah, who wants you to follow me. If you don't, he will be very angry at you." His promise to the many slaves of Mecca that obeying him would end in their enjoying the treasures of the Roman and Persian Empires (Bukhari vol 8 book 78 nrs 625, 626) gained him some converts. Their loyalty to their slaveowners was now divided, with the Quraysh soon turning against Muhammad instead of accepting him as their Prophet and King as he had anticipated. His messages grew more and more stident, with the short Quranic Meccan suras containing more than 140 verses vividly describing the hell awaiting those who refused him.
When it became clear that his own tribe would not accept him, he approached others for the same purpose. The Thaqif in Ta'if were no more interested than the Quraysh, and neither was any other tribe. After 11 difficult years, Muhammad met a few men from the Aus and Khazraj tribes in Medina, led by Abbas Ibn Ubada, who were envious of the prosperity of the Jewish tribes who had lived there for centuries. The Aus and Khazraj often robbed the Jews, who retaliated by warning that a Prophet would come to punish them. Abbas and his comrades responded to Muhammad's message by concluding they should attract him to their side before the Jews did. They pledged their allegiance and invited him to Medina as their leader. Muhammad gladly accepted, naively convinced the Jews there would also accept him as a Prophet.
Among those who migrated to Medina with Muhammad from Mecca was a group of common highwaymen known as the Saalik (link to "The Rise of Islam" and "The Earlier Followers of Mohammed at Mecca"). They had only been in Medina a few months before Muhammad began sending them as well as other Muslims on raids against caravans passing through the region. The Quraysh responded to these raids by sending out their armies against the Muslim forces, but were soundly defeated. Emboldened by his victories, Muhammad turned against the Jews of Medina and quickly exiled and murdered all of them. He continued to claim that Allah was speaking directly through him with revelations that allowed him to do whatever he wanted, from raping the wives of his victims to declaring unending war against anyone who opposed him. His promise of a sensual paradise to all who died in his wars was a powerful motivation to his warriors, and by the time Muhammad died at the age of 62 his dream of becoming ruler of Arabia had become true.
Now imagine putting together the jigsaw puzzle (perhaps even one portraying the face of Muhammad!) from the perspective of a Muslim believer or a western non-Muslim apologist for Islam (present and all recent American Presidents included). You believe that a noble young man of Arabia, heartbroken over the idolatry and human rights abuses of his people, was called by God to be the final Prophet of the one true religion. This peaceful Prophet suffered oppression and persecution for 13 years until he was driven from his home to a distant city. There he received direction from God to lead battles of defense against the persecutors who were determined to destroy him and his nascent community. He was guided to conduct raids against the trade caravans to recover the goods his followers had lost in Mecca. He was commanded to remove the Jewish tribes of Medina who opposed his righteous message. He was ordered to marry numerous wives to fortify his political and social unions, as well as to exemplify mercy to widows and divorcees. He was led to order the extermination of all Christians and Jews from Arabia, and was given God's plan to bring the entire world under submission to Islam.
It's not long, however, before you are forcing pieces of the puzzle to try to make them fit. How does a holy Prophet of God in his mid-50s sexually conquer and ejaculate into an innocent 9 year old child? Push that piece into place if you can. How does he tire of her within a few months and begin taking other wives? Force that piece into the puzzle (the first was the beautiful Hafsah, at 20 twice Aysha's age) . Imagine young men on a camel caravan returning from a successful trip to Damascus where they traded olives and figs for the goods their families would live on for the next year. Suddenly they are terrified by a calvary of men with swords held high shouting Allahu Akbar as they swoop down on them to steal their goods, kill some of them, and sell the others for slaves or ransom. Justify that as you push that piece into place.
Listen to the Prophet describe the beautiful virgins waiting for his warriors in paradise to satisfy all their sexual desires if they die in battle, (Quran 52:20 and numerous similar verses) and then sending them off to war to do just that. Push that piece into place. Watch him sending his female prisoners of war across the desert to be sold as slaves for weapons and horses. How do you force that piece into the puzzle? See him and his warriors lining up the young Jewish boys of Medina and examining them for pubic hair to decide whether they would be beheaded with their fathers or exiled with their mothers. Can you push that piece into place (Book 38, 4390)? Listen to the Prophet joyfully telling one wife that Allah has commanded him to marry his own daughter-in-law. Push that into place if you can. Go with him to visit another wife and then hear him lie to get her out of the house so he can sleep with the beautiful Egyptian slave girl he has recently given her. Can you force that into place? Watch him torture a young Jewish man to death for refusing to reveal the location of his wealth that Muhammad wants to steal, and then accompany the Prophet as he "marries" his wife the same night. Can you really push that piece into place? Listen to the Prophet bless and congratulate the companion who drove his spear through the body of a young Jewish poetess as she lay sleeping with her nursing child because she had written poetry he did not like. Try to force that piece into place if you can.
Some jigsaw puzzles have 1000 pieces, and one could easily find that many examples of Muslims trying to force each one into place as they attempt to defend their Prophet. There is, however, good news. Thousands of men and women who were born Muslim are giving up the impossible task (see here and here). They might be now Buddhist, Christian, atheist, or simply following their own conscience, but they are free. They come from many backgounds, but they could probably all echo the sentiments of Aayan Hirsi Ali who was once asked by Manji Irshad why she had chosen to leave Islam rather than become a "Muslim reformer". Aayan's simple response was, "I couldn't live with the dichotomy for five minutes." Many others are saying the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
