In the Shade of Islam

The Vampire: what it means to be human

2012-01-22T19:10:00.003-05:00

No… I am not a Twilight fanatic, but there is something about Vampire folklore and mythology that has always fascinated me.

I am not particularly intrigued by the Vampire himself, but by his symbolic quality and how he relates to human nature through history.

I see the Vampire similarly to the nafs (the lower ‘self’) – an extreme embodiment of all primitive human desires – lust, hunger, violence, instant gratification etc.

When we think of Vampires today, we usually think of Twilight’s Edward Cullen, a shiny, charming, selfless and seemingly attractive romantic hero who would rather die before he’d let anything happen to his human girlfriend Bella. But Edward wasn’t always prince charming.

In ‘ancient’ and more contemporary folklore, Vampires were basically considered vile, blood-thirsty creatures that possessed a rather unhealthy, amplified appetite for sex. In basic terms, Vampires were villains, not heroes.

In modern and post-modern fiction, however, Vampires took on a new face. They changed and mutated over the course of history. As social perceptions of human nature began to change into the era of enlightenment and post-enlightenment, so did the mythology surrounding the Vampire.

He evolved from being the evil monster, to ‘the monster inside’, to a monster with a ‘human face’, to an outright hero who is seeking full integration into mainstream society.

Now there are many takes on the Vampire myth. Film used the Vampire character to illustrate various historical and social phenomena, like anti-Semitism (“Nosferatu”, 1922), female sexuality and even immigration (integration). Yet the parallels are most striking when the Vampire is perceived in relation to ‘the self’.

Into the late 1700s and through the 1800s, Vampires were still the evil blood-sucking monsters from ancient folklore. They were an anathema to Victorian purism. This is very evident in the early ‘Dracula’ films (“Dracula”, 1931). But as society became more sexually and morally ‘liberated’, the Vampire adapted new identities. He became more and more acceptable in society. Today, he’s even celebrated. He is an idol.

Like the nafs, the Vampire is no longer suppressed within our deep sub-consciousness. It is no longer held hostage by the ‘super-ego’. It is liberated. It is no longer being repelled, but fully embraced. And we can see this clearly manifested in contemporary vampire-human romance stories - like Buffy, Twilight, Moonlight and others.

But there is something even more interesting to the modern Vampire. While he is certainly embraced and loved, the hero is a reformed character with a dark past. There are still Vampires who ‘give in’ to their desires, and do what ever it is that Vampires like to do; kill, drink blood, and choose promiscuous life styles. The hero, on the other hand, is a Vampire that fights those urges and subsequently appears more human.

That is the fascinating bit. The Vampire could only be fully ‘integrated’ and ‘human’ when he began to fight his primitive ‘self’. Being human therefore means resisting the nafs.

In a society completely ‘liberated’ to follow it’s free-will and fulfill every individualistic desire, the Vampire as a symbol of our ‘darker self’ is once again being used in popular culture to tell us something about our own human nature; that we should restrain the Vampire within us, that we should control our desires and let the ego subside, so that we may elevate our ‘humanness’.

This is of course a very general interpretation of the Vampire myth, but I think it’s a clever way of looking at social change and collective human psychology throughout the ages. I suppose it is one of the many reasons why folklore and myth are such an integral part of human history, and it is perhaps why the vampire has become a symbol of immortality. He just doesn’t die – neither does the nafs.

Individual people still perceive the Vampire under their own terms, however. It seems to me that the current obsession with Vampire fiction comes from our collective social anxiety and/or fear of death. A society that literally spends billions of dollars on cosmetics, plastic surgeries and medical procedures to maintain youthfulness will naturally be very intrigued by a character that looks twenty-five “forever”. I see this being true for women in particular, but also increasingly men.

Although, if you’re at all familiar with Vampire folklore, you already know that ‘immortality’ is just an optical illusion. Vampires die. Not on their own, of course, but they can be killed. You just drive a wooden stake through their heart, and poof… they turn to dust. Metaphorically speaking, we can kill the nafs too, drive a stake through its heart. But we can only do that once we become dust ourselves; for now, we must struggle against it.

Blogging confessions and other issues

2012-01-17T15:26:00.001-05:00

Writing a blog is tricky. Writing is tricky period. I am not a native English speaker, and though I try to be expressive with my words, I am not the best writer out there. Not even one of the better ones. Bloggers write much more eloquently then I, so forgive me if my writing seems otherwise very confrontational and at times even cynical.

I think there are people who have visited my blog in the past, and found my ways of using words to be blunt or offensive.

You see, I do try to paint a master piece but instead end up with a substandard literary caricature.

Therefore, you must assume that the caricature was not intentional, and I am sorry if I have offended anyone personally.

In the end we are all human beings, we have past histories and perspectives that shape our subjective perceptions of the world we live in, and sometimes our subjectivity gets in the way of our ability to see greater (objective) truths. That is perhaps what happened to me.

I try to put forth discussions on topics we (as a society) consistently push on the back burner – topics I am usually very passionate about – and I am not at all sorry about that. What I am sorry about is that some people misunderstand that passion for hate.

It is probably harder to understand where I am coming from, provided I do not share much about my life, past and present, on this blog. But that is only because I believe the world is more important than I, and there are more valuable things to discuss then my boring life. Though, I do manage to squeeze in something about myself from time to time.

I’d like to admit my shortcomings, and I’d like to be more self-critical. In the course of time, I’d like to say that I ‘used to be’ ignorant, but that would make me a believer in ‘progress’; so instead, I say that the more I learn the less I really know. Sounds like an oxymoron, and perhaps it is, but it makes sense to me at this point. Like Socrates used to say, ‘all I know is that I know nothing'. I suppose there is great truth and wisdom in that statement.

Communication is the key to understanding. As our world becomes increasingly one-dimensional, as the dialectic paradigm shifts toward a monocultural iconoclastic reality, we have to understand and remember that humans are inherently multi-dimensional and extremely complex beings.

I am not one-dimensional.

I am Muslim, but I stand for and advocate many diverse social causes. And I don’t like to constrict my views nor my ability to learn by ascribing to specific labels. I usually fit in between many different labels. Because each label carries with it a set of meanings, a particular framework, I do not feel that I fit into any of those neatly manufactured boxes.

You see, there are people who still function within the old dialectic, who polarize people into two camps, the ‘us’ and ‘them’ camps. The infamous “you’re with us or against us” mentality is paralyzing our discourse, and destroying any chance of reconciliation. I may have strong opinions, but it doesn’t mean I will not consider alternative views. I do listen to people with different ideas and positions to my own, it doesn’t mean I’ll embrace their argument, but I will certainly take it into consideration. I mean that is how we used to learn. But today, people are not ready for this discourse. If you don’t agree with them one hundred percent, they will not bother talking to you, or they will call you a bigot. Why is that?

There is this video I came across that illustrates my point exactly. Gloria Allred, a self-described ‘progressive feminist’, says “if you’re not a feminist, then you’re a bigot". She describes this scenario as ‘being pregnant’ – you either are pregnant or you are not pregnant. Muslims make the same mistake. I made the same mistake. If you’re not a believer, you’re a kafir. It’s our greatest tragedy as human beings, not being able to see inside our own little windows of reference, and realize how small our window really is. Now, I like to reference multiple windows, to get a clearer view of the ocean of truth that lies out there.

What Allred doesn’t realize is that while a woman is either pregnant or isn’t, each pregnancy is unique and different. Every woman perceives and experiences pregnancy in her own way. And although I don’t call myself a feminist, I advocate for women’s rights, I advocate against human trafficking, I advocate for girls’ education and equal opportunity in society. Yet Allred’s view of feminism is extremely essentialized. Simplified.

Feminism, in theory, is extremely broad, and encompasses a variety of issues. Certain issues I simply cannot identify with – like homosexuality. There are many variations of feminism I often find myself nodding to, and others rejecting. Therefore, choosing not to label myself feminist, is not out of hate for the feminist herself, or my ignorance of the term, but because I do not identify with its liberal framework.

It is true, however, that we can never escape from our own subjectivity. That no matter how many windows we reference, we still perceive reality from our own vision of truth. I call myself Muslim after all. But that is not the problem. Realizing our own subjectivity is what allows us to look for the objective; yet people who believe they are being objective are denying themselves the right to see what is really outside of their window.

Dawkins, for example, seems to imply that macro-evolution is fact, that science is the only objective way of understanding our world, and that religion is simply a primitive trait humans have made up to deal with the messy world around them. This way of thinking creates another bipolar paradigm. Religious people are less intelligent, and (macro) Evolutionists are more intelligent. Religious people rely on blind faith, and Evolutionists don’t – so they are right, and religious people are wrong. Science is certainly one way of perceiving the world, but it is not the only one.

I find most religious people to be much more open-minded then some evolutionists claim to be. Being religious doesn’t make you deficient in intellect; it is how you choose to interpret your religiosity which can restrict your ability to ask questions. But the same goes for atheistic views. This new atheism that Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins proselytize around the world restricts people’s understanding of the world to what can be measured and put under the microscope. But how does one measure concepts like ‘love’, ‘justice’, and ‘truth’?

Economics used to be a social science. Today it has been turned into a scientific machine, measuring ‘progress’ in profit and GDP. But the wealthiest and most industrialized countries are also among the least happy, as some quantitative studies show. But how can we measure happiness?

In Islam, happiness is not a state of being, it is a feeling. One can feel happy, but one can never ‘be’ happy. Coming back to feminism though. Feminist scholars in development studies, like Amartya Sen, have criticized this limited and artificial approach to doing economics. GDP doesn’t give us an accurate measure of well-being. And here I can strongly agree with the feminists. But perhaps this doesn’t come through as often in my writing since I am quite critical of the feminist manifestation of Islam. And I am not anti-science; I simply don’t see it as a superior world view in relation to religion.

Coming back full circle. Being objective in my views is impossible. Each author carries her or his own bias, and you must understand that although we like to believe in the ‘one world’ mantra, we have our differences. Communication and understanding is not built upon our things in common, but our things in dispute and in disagreement. That is where we build effective skills and effective wisdom.

So forgive me, if I have been ‘ignorant’ in the past, and forgive me for continuing to be ‘ignorant’ of most things I haven’t yet discovered. Please continue to share your reactions and opinions with me so that we can all learn together.

With Peace,

Corporations as psychopaths

2012-01-11T20:18:00.003-05:00

There is a great documentary film, also referenced in Patel's book, called The Corporation (2003). The film explores the idea of corporate 'personhood' and its morally irresponsible character. As you will see, the corporation exhibits disturbing behavioral abnormalities, reflective of a social psychopath. Patel lists some of those abnormalities below:

(The symptoms of a psychopath; Source: Patel Raj, "The Value of Nothing:
How to Reshape Market Society and Redefine Democracy", p. 42)

Incidentally, the "Occupy Wall Street" (OWS) movement has waged an anti-corporate personhood campaign in several states across the US. It is a big step toward regulating and restraining the biggest psychopaths in our system, and hopefully make our socio-economic environment a little safer.

"The Value of Nothing"

2012-01-11T01:19:00.003-05:00

Raj Patel’s book, “The Value of Nothing: How to Reshape Market Society and Redefine Democracy”, is truly an invaluable piece of writing. Patel provides us with a critical analysis of the current global economic crisis and explores the multiple dimensions of free-market capitalism and its disastrous effects on our planet.

He opens up this discussion with a quote by Oscar Wilde; “nowadays people know the price of everything, and the value of nothing.” With this, Patel is arguing that the price of ‘stuff’ does not reflect its real value. There are hidden ‘externalities’ that are not accounted for in the relatively “cheap” price of a Mc Donald’s big Mac, for example. The environmental externalities are extreme. If we count in deforestation of land that is used to grow the subsidized corn that is over feeding the cows which are actually used in the beef patty; the cost to clean up industrial pollution and spills within our environment add up to a 200$ sandwich. And we pay for those externalities, whether we eat that sandwich or not. So the real value of the big Mac is far more then the actual price. And not to mention the obesity rates and health complications that come with the consumption of such unhealthy foods.

The Value of Nothing, gives us insight into this deceitful, unjust and psychopathic socio-economic system that is destroying the essence and nature of humanity and our natural environment. Patel gives us some historical context to the current economic model, with Smith, Keynes, the Chicago school of economics and of course Greenspan. He argues that over the decades, we had become accustomed to living within the neo-liberal rhythm of booms and busts, and comfortable, dancing to their uncertainties. While Greenspan was left disillusioned after the 2008 crash, he somewhat admitted that his perception of the global economy was wrong – that it was not so fine-tuned after all. Yet, Patel argues, we collectively, continue to suffer from “Anton’s Blindness”. We can't admit our own blindness.

Patel writes; “seeing the world through markets not only distorts our sense of our selves, but projects our own disability onto everyone else.” (p. 21). But he doesn’t just ‘complain’ about the dreadful state of our world. Patel also gives us hope, and ideas for possible solutions.

He is very much a Marxist, socialist. He calls for the socialization of markets which are driven by need, instead of profit. He talks a lot about the global food crisis and our inability to distribute resources fairly and equally. He also speaks on the ‘commons’, what they represented in the past, and how we could translate this idea into the future.

“The problems caused by the mismatch between prices and values do not stem from the lack of skilled practitioners, but from the deep failure of the market to value the world properly… we currently put value on anything through smacking a price on it; but we have allowed the corporations, rigid property schemes and profit-driven markets to create a deeply flawed system for valuing the world.” (p.170 and 173)

So the solution is going back to the basics. To sustainable living and respect for local knowledge and autonomy… back to the ‘commons’.

There are many other great points he made throughout the book, but I tried to keep this review short, for your sake. Some other themes he explores: homoeconomicus, the meaning of ‘freedom’ under capitalism, the value of diamonds v. water, and global food sovereignty.

"As If I Am Not There"

2012-01-06T22:23:00.004-05:00

Today I spent a good one hour and forty minutes crying my eyes out, watching a film called, As If I Am Not There (2011). It is an independent film, directed by Juanita Wilson, based on the true stories and testimonies, revealed during the International Criminal Tribunal, of rape victims during the war in Bosnia (1992-1995).

The film relates to the experiences of women in war, and documents the crude realism of rape and clearly the deep psychological implications of this gruesome, violent, and dehumanizing act.

As If I Am Not There is a unique film because, for the first time, we experience the Bosnian war through women’s eyes. We never see what happens to the men as they are separated and lead away from their wives, daughters, and mothers on-screen, though we clearly hear the shots being fired in the background. Implicitly, we understand their fate. Yet the fate of the women is much more implicit, and in your face. One rape scene is especially brutal.

Samira (Natasa Petrovic), the lead character is beaten, gang raped and urinated on, and in the end forced to live with the consequences of this traumatic experience – not just psychologically, but physically too. She was pregnant.

Her story is not at all rare, and is a testimony to many women who were forced into sexual slavery, and forced to bare their rapists’ children during this war.

Rape is a strategic weapon of war, and it was used systemically and premeditatedly in the Bosnian war for the first time. Today, the same is happening everywhere around the world, including Chad, Somalia, Sudan and many other places.

At one point in the film, when the group of women are about to be ‘exchanged’ and ‘set free’ from the camp, Samira is told by the Serb General that "her part in the war was over." However, what the audience ends up taking away from this film is that the war never ended for these women. The physical scars may have healed, but the psychological scars are vivid in Samira’s deep, green, sorrowful eyes – when she gives birth to the trauma, and sexual abuse she underwent, in a physical child.

The film is truly arresting, deeply philosophical and morally complex. It is a film definitely worth your time.

Utopia means 'no place'

2011-12-27T15:11:00.003-05:00

It seems that the world has drifted into a trance of utopianism. Whether they be secular or religious, people have crafted new visions of the world that no longer resemble or aspire to resemble reality.

At a time when secularists are scrambling for progressive ways to advance humanity toward the pinnacle of evolutionary enlightenment, religionists of many brands have themselves evolved into idealist thinkers and radical utopians.

There are two ways of understanding ‘utopia’ – the commonly referenced way and the correct way. Contrary to the popular understanding of the term utopia, it doesn’t mean ‘the perfect place’. That is what it may advertently describe, but utopia actually means ‘no place,’ and most people have either ignored the correct meaning or simply shrugged it off in place of a ‘progressive’ version that fits into the post-modern evolutionary paradigm.

Before the complete monoculturation and secularization of knowledge, people had a much more authentic approach to understanding human nature and the realities of the world around them. They understood that a ‘prefect place’ does not and cannot exist on this planet. Sir Thomas More’s fictional Utopia (1516) is a prime example of this. Yet it is exactly this text that inspired enlightenment thinkers to reconstruct this ideal or ‘perfect place’ and translate it into our own reality (as evident in later promotions of Marxian communism). Utopia was no longer just an impossible fantasy, but an attainable goal for humanity to strive towards. In other words, humanity no longer had to wait for heaven, it could and should create a heaven on earth.

Every classical interpretation of religion is utopian in the sense that it describes some kind of an ‘ideal’ society, or at least it established the framework for a ‘perfect’ society; however, most religions recognized the inherent fallacy of utopianism because they understood the realities of human nature. Human beings are either sinful, or forgetful or brutish, or otherwise destined to suffer in this world do to their delicate and fragile animal-like attributes. Classical religion understood that we had a potential to become greater, and it encouraged humanity to strive toward that goal, but ultimately it taught humanity that it was impossible to be ‘perfect’, and therefore a ‘perfect’ social order was also out of the question. That is why religion consoled its believers with another-worldly, heavenly place where everything will indeed be perfect for them.

In contrast to the classical religious understandings of ‘utopia’, new visions of utopian societies have emerged among many religious groups in the last century – including Muslim groups.

Specific Muslim groups that call for a ‘pure Islam’ are in fact utopian. These particular Muslims are radical visionaries that have set out to recreate a perfect society that they believe existed during the time of the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him); yet much of that Islamic history has been extremely romanticized and, in the process, dangerously distorted.

Let’s take a small pause here and reflect on what this really means.

We must understand that prophet Muhammad was a realist. He understood things for what they were, not what he wanted them to be. He understood the realities around him, and he strove to improve the conditions of his community based on those realities. He didn’t seek to impose a utopian vision of human nature, nor of life. He understood that even he was only a human being, and repeatedly stressed this fact to his companions (as evident in many of his narrations).

But the ‘purists’ romanticized, iconoclastic view of Islamic history doesn’t permit us to view the Prophet and his companions as mare human beings – they became in a way infallible and ‘perfect.’ Today’s revivalists have in fact done to Islam that which they blame ‘secularism’ for – they have deprived it of a soul, and a reality.

These revivalist movements across the world, and their accompanying visions, are no accident of course. They were born out of a proselytizing secularism itself, and hence acculturated much of its idealist thinking.

The reality is that we cannot re-create a society that looks like the one at the time of the prophet (peace be upon him) and his companions. The reality is that we live in a world that makes us believe we can. But we can’t.

This is not only true of revivalists, but of reformers too. It is just that with the reformers it is more apparent, do to their relative understanding of Islam and close ideological resemblances to secular liberalism.

The parallels between secularist and revivalist utopian thinkers are striking. Both wish to create a ‘global community’ – the one world motto, or in the revivalist’s case the one ummah – that is uniform in its philosophy, language, culture etc. The secularist utopia is one where humanity eventually evolves out of religion, while the revivalist utopia is one where everyone evolves into an ideal global religious community. Placed on a continuum, these very real utopian ideals stand as polar opposites (it is in part what fueled the entire 'clash of civilizations' theory). Islam is at neither of these two extreme ends.

We have to realize that Islam is above all about realism. Both the secular and religionist utopias do not recognize the inherent diversity that exists within humanity. The diversity in culture, language, philosophy etc. The revivalist utopia is one in which every Muslim would dress, talk, live like an Arab; and the sad thing is that many Muslims around the world have developed this Arab-envy or inferiority-complex. I can empathize, because I was there once.

In fact revivalist dogma undermines Arab culture itself by dividing classical Islamic history into the ‘jahiliya’ and what came after it, even though Islam itself never claimed to be a ‘new’ religion, but a continuation of the old revealed religions (as I have discussed prior in this article). It was there to correct bad practices, but it didn’t do away with the good. All cultures have good and bad aspects to them, Islam is there to correct the bad; it is not there to monopolize on cultures and make them feel inferior. And here I am talking about ‘culture’ in the anthropological sense of the word.

The great paradox of utopianism is that it almost always creates the opposite - dystopia and terror. Every ideology that had a utopian vision in this world has turned out to be a great misfortune for humanity at large. Hitler’s utopian vision turned out to be a nightmare for the Jews of Europe. Stalin’s utopia erected many concentration camps around the Soviet Union in which millions of his fellow citizens died, building up his ‘ideal society.’ American imperialists share a similar vision of dystopia and terror, and so do the Muslim revivalists (‘Islamists’).

As Muslims, we should be able to recognize the inherent destructiveness that comes from this utopian thinking. We have to get real about the world we live in. We have to understand the prophet as he really was, not as we imagine him to have been. Only when we face reality in this way, can we confront problems head on. We have to realize that ‘utopia’ really means ‘no place’ – and that a 'pure Islamic society’ will never exist in this world.

My insignificance

2011-12-21T17:07:00.001-05:00

Nothing we say or think is truly original, for many people have thought the same thoughts and spoken the same words before; and many have written sonnets, breathtaking poetry, and books on the things we have written - ages ago.

Is it not true that our thoughts are just someone else’s opinions? Does it even matter what I believe or think when greater minds have come before me and expressed everything so much more eloquently and beautifully then I?

… so, when I walk this earth, I remind myself to breathe gently, because beneath me lie the greater souls.

Everything I/we know, or believe I/we know, is ultimately from God. We know nothing more then what He has taught those before us.

It is only left for us to seek it out, to learn and realize our insignificance.

Rooted in 'being'

2011-12-06T00:35:00.002-05:00

(Image Source)

Just like a tree grows, changes and whithers in the cold, so does the human. We appear to change with the seasons, our emotions and rationalisms often getting the best of us. We appear in a constant battle with our own whits and desires, striving to become.

We want to grow to our fullest potential, strong, beautiful, bold. And although we appear to be evolving, changing and progressing in the course of nature, our roots remain firmly planted in the same dusty ground. There is something fundamentally human that stays constant throughout this entire process of perceived change - something rooted in the depth of our very being - something called fitrah.

"[Adhere to] the fitrah of Allah upon which He has created [all] people. No change should there be in the creation of Allah..." (Qur'an 30:30; Sahih International Translation)

'All-American Muslim': the good and the bad

2011-11-28T16:14:00.003-05:00

What can I say? 'All-American Muslim', despite its initial flaws and shortcomings, has managed to raise some very interesting questions and broaden the public perspective and discourse on American Muslims.

We are three episodes in, and I have to say I am enjoying the conversations already. Beyond the clear obsession and continued sensationalization of the 'hijab' (headscarf) and Muslim women, there are the occasional scenes which make this show worth while.

The good:

I. 'All-American Muslim' raises two very important questions in terms of identity. What does it mean to be 'American', and also, what does it mean to be 'Muslim'? Is there even a definitive and clear answer to these complex questions? Identity politics have become increasingly important and potent in the age of globalization or the perceived 'Americanization' of the world; yet the meaning of 'American' remains rather ambiguous and open-ended.

And as far as being Muslim goes, the question is whether one can be Muslim and at the same time be promoting very un-islamic ideals like opening a club/bar and wearing revealing/sexy clothing, and generally not observing religious obligations like prayer, fast etc.? Some Muslims would say yes, and others would say no. I guess it all depends whom you ask.

Generally speaking however, the Islamic tradition recognizes three levels of faith; islam (Muslim), iman (Mu'min) and ihsan (Muhsin). Islam, therefore, and those whom we call 'Muslims' are at the most basic level of spiritual development. In one of the prophetic narrations (hadith), Muhammad (peace be upon him) was asked by a man to define the three levels of faith, and this is what he said:

"...In the meanwhile a man came there, and sat near his knees and said: Messenger of Allah, what is al-lslam? - to which he (the Prophet) replied: you must not associate anything with Allah, and establish prayer, pay the poor-rate (Zakat) and observe (the fasts) of Ramadan.
...He (again) said: Messenger of Allah, what is al-Iman (the faith)? He (the Prophet) said: That you affirm your faith in Allah, His angels, His Books, His meeting, His Apostles, and that you believe in Resurrection and that you believe in Qadr (Divine Decree) in all its entirety.
... The man (again) said: Messenger of Allah, what is al-Ihsan? Upon this he (the Prophet) said: (Al-Ihsan implies) that you fear Allah as if you are seeing Him, and though you see Him not, verily He is seeing you." (Sahih Muslim, Book 001 Number 0006)

So everyone who professes faith in one God, and testifies that Muhammad was God's messenger, and performs the very basic pillars of the religion is essentially a Muslim; but very few Muslims grow spiritually to become fully God-conscious Muhsineen. And reaching the levels of ihsan is a cumulative process for the Muslim, to be able to believe in God as if you see God, you must still fulfill all previous obligations of prayer, fast, alms-giving etc. It's not an evolutionary, Darwinian process where the highest level of faith is where you leave the ritual behind and focus only on the spiritual effects of absolute belief. Ideally, a Muhsin would embody all three categories of faith.

II. The show also highlights another important issue within the Muslim community, which I believe requires much more intra-faith dialogue between Muslims themselves - conversion. I think we have to approach this topic with much more sensitivity, compassion and understanding then we have in the recent past. Some Muslims have very unrealistic expectations of converts, that they do not of those who are born into the religion. When a Muslim chooses not to practice 'it is a conscious choice' for them, yet when a convert is discovering certain Islamic practices and is unable to fulfill them at a certain time, we start doubting their intentions and loading another burden on their consciousness, making it even more difficult for them to accept Islam wholeheartedly. And ironically enough, it is mostly those Muslims who choose not to practice Islam that are being most critical of converts.

III. Moreover, 'All-American Muslim' successfully and realistically portrays the range of belief/non-belief within their carefully selected sample of Arab-American Muslims. I think this range of belief is exemplary of many other Muslim communities in America, whether they be Arab or not. We have Muslims who go out to clubs, who have tattoos, who drink and party, and date. We have Muslims who wear short mini-skirts and smoke and don't see anything wrong with plastic surgery for example. Then we have Muslims who don't drink, don't tattoo and don't smoke or party in revealing clothing. Then we have those in-between. This is good because it provides non-Muslims viewers a contrasting picture of Muslims in America - Muslim men are not 'bad bearded terrorists' and Muslim women are not voice-less, oppressed, inarticulate rag-heads.

The bad:

I. There seems to be persistent emphasis on women and the hijab. I understand that some questions ought to be answered for the purpose of non-Muslim viewers, but I just hope that this show won't degenerate into another sensational media representation of the 'Muslim Woman and the veil.' I really hate it when Muslim women's identities are reduced to the headscarf. I mean yes, it is an important aspect of who we are, but it is not the only note worthy aspect of a Muslim woman's identity.

But hey, we are only on the fourth episode, so let's continue watching and looking at how this show develops and progresses in the future. I do hope that the goods will outweigh the bads in the end.

With Peace,

'Freedom and democracy' for all - except America

2011-11-18T13:13:00.005-05:00

Your thoughts and comments?

Note on previous post

2011-11-17T18:08:00.001-05:00

You may notice a small change in my previous article. “American Muslim” is no longer “American-Muslim.”

It was pointed out to me that the hyphen doesn’t belong in between those two words, because in the English language it is commonly used to describe people’s ethnicities, and because ‘Muslim’ is a religious identity, the phrase should not be hyphenated.

Honestly, I didn’t pay too much attention to my English grammar here, and I must admit I was wrong for not doing so. Islam is not a nationality or ethnicity, and that hyphen basically makes it one.

English is my third language. I try my best to write and express myself as clearly as possible, and if/when I do make such mistakes I hope that my readers will kindly correct me.

Some people may find this change insignificant, but I thought it would be important to make those small changes to my previous post so that my point becomes more evident to the non-Muslim reader. I am usually the person who is very particular about labels, but this time I stand corrected. I am glad it was brought to my attention though, and I will pay better attention next time.

'All-American (Arab-Lebanese-Shiite) Muslim'

2011-11-14T12:36:00.003-05:00

"One nation, under suspicion" -
interesting caption (image source)

If you’re an American Muslim, chances are you’ve probably hared and/or read about the new buzzing ‘reality’ show on TLC called ‘All-American Muslim.’ In case you haven’t, here is a short preview.

There are probably too many reviews, critiques and praiseworthy articles plastered on the internet about this show already, either condemning or celebrating the airing of the first episode last night. Certain liberal non-Muslim media outlets have already branded the series a success, while the actual American Muslim community has provided their own critical perspective to the discourse.

As an American Muslim woman myself of European descent, I will use this insignificantly small platform to express my concerns and hopes for the show regularly, discussing the good’s and bad’s as we go along, hoping that even my voice will be heard, understood, and accepted.

My political-science professor always used to make a joke in class about the effects of television and media on our society, quoting, out of all people - or should I say ‘cats’, Garfield when he said “if you saw it on T.V., then it must be true.” Sadly, I think this is the prevailing mentality among people in the World, including America. People’s opinions, world views and general sentiments toward the ‘other’ are easily shaped and confronted through the mass media. Television is a powerful political tool, and almost every government has used it effectively to its own advantage; manufacturing threats, spreading hate propaganda, or retaining an undying support for one group or another. Television, in other words, is used to mobilize mass opinion about an issue or a group of people. And it is doing no less with ‘All-American Muslim’.

As many American Muslims have rightfully pointed out in their own critiques, ‘All-American Muslim’ is not the correct title for this cast, setting or show. It should have been called ‘All Arab Lebanese American Shiite Muslim.’ Interestingly, the producers chose to portray the majority of American Muslims through its ethnic, religious and immigrant minority. The show is set in Dearborn, Michigan; a city which best represents this minority American Muslim demographic.

They even chose to homogenize all Arabs by handpicking only a few members of the Lebanese community, most of whom if not all are Shi’a, to represent the "all-American Muslim" experience. This is where the show fails miserably in my eyes. ‘All-American Muslim’ may well be ‘all-American’ but it certainly is not all Muslim.

An average non-Muslim American viewer would never have recognized these subtle problems, because TLC is only perpetuating the age old media stereotypes about the Muslim community in America. All Muslims are Arabs, immigrants (or first-generation Americans), and perhaps that Shi’a Islam is the ‘better’ or more legitimate version of Islam.

My point here is not to delegitimize the Arab, Lebanese, Muslim, Shi’a community in Dearborn, but to point out that they are only a very small part of the very large, diverse and multi-faceted American Muslim social fabric.

‘All-American Muslim’ is also all-American Orientalist. The opening scenes in the first episode are filled with ‘mysterious-looking’ fully-veiled women, and a young Muslim girl rollerblading in her abaya and hijab. TLC describes ‘All-American Muslim’ as “a powerful series that goes inside the rarely seen world of American Muslims to uncover a unique community struggling to balance faith and nationality in a post 9/11 world.”

If TLC’s aim was to portray these families as regular Americans who happen to be Muslim, then this statement makes no sense. Their show’s description and the airing of the first episode last night testify to the fact that Muslims are still, very much portrayed as the exotic ‘others’ in American society. The reality is that ‘our’ struggles are no different then any other religious or ethnic minority group in the history of the United States. We are going through the very same struggles as have Africans, Italians, Irish, Germans, Poles, Jews, and Japanese in the past decades and even centuries. So what makes the Muslim experience here so unique?

In that very same statement, TLC is also asserting that Islam is not inherently American. But the truth is that most American Muslims have been born in the US; their ancestors lived on this soil for generations, and they experience absolutely no struggle between their ‘faith and nationality.’ They are and have always been both Americans and Muslims. There may be a struggle between nationalities in some immigrant Muslim communities, but this again plays into the role of immigration and how American Muslims have no deep roots in American society - in other words, American Muslims are the 'outsiders'. This is one of the reasons why it would have been brave to include an African-American Muslim family in the cast.

There is one thing ‘All-American Muslim’ did accomplish, even in it’s first episode, however. TLC did manage to show its viewers a more complex and diverse representation of Muslim faith, and how each individual chose to practice or not-practice his or her religion. Yet even with this range of belief and non-belief, Islam itself was rendered monolithic.

I realize these are only introductory snap shots of a long series at hand, but I still remain wary of its future implications. I see the potential benefits of having a show like this on air, but I am also aware of its pitfalls and disastrous effects on the broader American Muslim community. We have to look through and past the cultural expressions of a Lebanese Shi’a Islam, and some social-class issues (not every American Muslim family can afford to live in a huge 4000 sq.ft. home), if we want to understand the real, reality of Muslims in America.

Did any of you watch the first episode of ‘All American Muslim’? What were your reactions?

The bigger picture

2011-11-06T23:34:00.001-05:00

Sometimes we get so stuck on the logistics of things that we fail to grasp the bigger picture. I have been asking myself, why do some converts to Islam, particularly women, feel alienated from the Muslim community after their initiation of faith? And why do some of them, eventually, fall out of the religion altogether? I mean they must have seen the beauty in Islam to accept it in the first place, but what is it that pushed them away?

And I do silently read many of their blogs; I follow their thoughts and their struggles through this very spiritually complex and tiring process.

I believe I have found the answer to my question, but please do correct me if I am wrong.

In their writing, I see much emphasis placed on the Muslim community itself, which may be the initial cause of that strain in their relationship with religion, and their negative experiences within the diverse Muslim social fabric could have added that final push which made them jump over the cliff and reconsider Islam completely. And in some cases, I can’t even blame them.

The funny thing is, I have learned more about Islam from converts then I have from “born” Muslims. I see myself in their struggle. In the end, each and every one of us has that unique journey upon which they discover Islam in its true light, and re-claim it for themselves. You know, the time you actually start to own your Islam and make it fully comprehensible to your world view.

Unfortunately, however, some Muslims do not understand this process at all. They expect a convert to just know everything instantly. They don’t understand that, perhaps, some things will take time, to heal, to adjust, to change, to accept, to own. Except, the “born” Muslim would go through this journey unnoticed, through their early childhood, their teenage years and finally into their adulthood. Yet somehow, we expect converts to just ‘be there’ and ‘own their Islam’ right off the bat.

It doesn’t work that way.

Along the way I remembered a relevant story, whose source, however, I cannot recall right now. But it goes something like this. In early Islamic history, a wealthy man came to a respectable Sheikh and told him he wished to convert to Islam, except, he didn’t feel like he should have to pay zakat. (Now many Muslims today would be like – “No, you can’t be a Muslim…zakat is one of the pillars of your faith and if you don’t accept even one of those pillars, you cannot be truly Muslim etc...” ) The Sheikh told the man, ‘alright, just say your shahada and you are Muslim.’ The man did, and for the first couple of years he didn’t pay zakat, like he said he wouldn’t; but later on in his Islamic journey he realized he was wrong, and he changed his ways. He began to pay Zakat.

What I am trying to say is that we shouldn’t push people away from Islam by focusing on the little/big things they may be missing now – we should be encouraging them to move forward in their journey, and God willing, they will see their mistakes in front of them as they walk along. As have we.

I believe I was part of that group that always jumped the gun on these things. Perhaps I may have judged too soon. Perhaps I may have been too harsh in my ways, and I shouldn’t have been.

Sure correct belief and correct practice are central to Islamic teaching. Yes, every pillar is critical and equally important. Surely I wouldn’t be the one to say it’s futile and unnecessary to fulfill all our obligations as Muslims; however, we do not know what’s truly going on in people’s lives. We should encourage them on their path to seek truth, even if we think they are going in a slightly crooked direction; even if we think they are ‘wrong.’ Remember, it is not we who guide, Allah guides us all. All we can do is point them to the ‘right’ direction – one that is filled with much more mercy and patience.

Let’s stop pushing our converts away with petty issues. Let’s welcome them, and let’s try to show them the beautiful example of our prophet, in our own actions. How we choose to respond to their efforts is what makes or breaks their faith. We can keep on saying “well look at the religion don’t look at the followers,” but truth is, we can no longer ignore “the followers.” We should be talking about our own shortcomings as a community and we should be talking about ways of improving our selves and those around us. Let’s get past the logistics, and start focusing on the bigger picture.

These moments are history

2011-10-27T00:46:00.002-04:00

Can’t you just feel the tides of change crashing onto the sleeping shores of our drowning souls? These moments are history. Change is everywhere, and I feel like time needs to slow down. I need some space to absorb everything that is happening around me, it’s overwhelming. I feel bewildered, a little ecstatic too.

It’s like the whole world is awakening to a beautiful sunrise, after a long, deep sleep. Like our souls have been hibernating all this while in ignorance, and now they are ready to face reality, to leave the illusions of inner consciousness behind and accept what has been in front of them all this time. Reality.

I guess that would be a very romantic way of putting it, but I am talking about the change happening within all of us, on the microcosmic level, and also the changes within our world. It is so good to see these inner changes transcribed into our macrocosmic reality. Our world is changing. For the better, I hope.

Change is a constant. Like time, it always ‘was’. Sometimes positive, other times negative; yet over the past two, three decades, change has accelerated exponentially. Change has been mostly negative, but now… now the tides seem to be turning.

Or maybe they just so appear? May be the tides are simply washing out a dead part of history, that has been murdered and shoved under the rocks and buried in our collective consciousness a long time ago? May be the saying is true, that ‘the more things change the more they stay the same’?

This powerful awakening should be our indication that such a thing as ‘progress’ does not exist in the natural human order. We are fallible creatures, bound to repeat our own mistakes over and over again, never to learn from the ‘past’… yet what is past but current history. Did we not awake to such beautiful mornings before? Did we not just go to sleep again when all was quiet, and now… now we are retracing our old steps, trying to find a way to end this noisy quagmire that just won’t let us rest?

We call this a ‘revolution.’ Why? Because it keeps spinning, round and round and we always end up at the same place. May be a little disoriented and lost at first, but we eventually find our way forward, and we march. We get tired and we let things spin out of control again. We fall asleep, to rest, and then… then it starts all over again.

So what truly changes over time - nothing, just speed.

Other ways of thinking

2011-10-12T17:28:00.002-04:00

I have a question. Why does society tend to discriminate against people with mental or neurological disabilities or illnesses? Could this stigma have been born out of our social bias toward rationalism? Thus, anyone who does not live up to the 'rational' ideal is deemed 'dumb', 'retarded', 'stupid' or simply 'less than'?

Although, as a Muslim, I believe that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the last prophet and the last mercy to human kind, hypothetically speaking, if anyone claimed to be a 'prophet' in today's day and age, they would be immediately dismissed as 'crazy.' This person would be diagnosed with some severe psychological disorder, and put on meds, strapped to a strait-jacket and institutionalized. Why? Because in today's scientific, atheistic, secular world-view we completely dismissed the idea that 'rationalism' is not the only way of looking at the world; that there are other ways of seeing reality, not just through our rational and sensory faculties.

What if some people who are presumed 'mentally ill' are actually seeing the world much more clearly then we are? I am not saying that a psychopathic killer could be one of those people, but why are we reluctant to entertain such a possibility?

I believe people had a much greater grasp of reality in the classical period of human history than we do today - partially because we refuse to free our minds and hearts from this metaphorical modern strait-jacket of absolute rationalism, because we refuse to accept other ways of thinking.

This may also be why religion and more critically ‘faith’ is undervalued in today's society. After all, neo-atheism comes very close to condemning religious people to the ‘loony bin’ for believing in a God/Creator.

What do you think?

Reflections

2011-10-09T01:04:00.002-04:00

I apologize for the lack of updates on this blog, but I’ve just been overwhelmed with life. These past few weeks have been a little hectic. So just a small foreword, this will be an unusually casual post from me. I’ve had many different post-ideas floating in my head, but everything is just jumbled up in my brain at the moment, and I cannot bring myself to write something articulate enough, or worthy enough to be called a blog-post.

In the meantime however, I will tell you that I’ve developed a new talent of sorts to pass time and sooth my very uppity nerves after a long day of negotiations with my four year old nephew, who just happens to be a naturally gifted deal-broker. Kids are the greatest politicians, I swear. Having spent this time with my little one is almost like having spent it in an introductory diplomacy class 101, minus all the academic baggage and course work.

But yes, about my ‘talent’; I’ve been making beaded jewelry, toggle bracelets to be more precise.

these are just a few I made for fun

Working with the intricate and delicate array of glass and metal beads had made me think of something strange, yet profound. I’ve been thinking about the fact that very little of our ‘stuff’ these days is made by hand, with true inspiration and talent. With great care and precision, thought and focus. By and large, everything we own is made and manufactured in huge factories around the world. Even warfare has become so impersonal that we use drone (not even human operated) airplanes to kill people ‘overseas.’ Even machine guns have become too ‘personal’ for our ‘modern’ taste.

I realized how desensitized we have become to our common, miserable, human condition – to suffering. Even war had some meaning ‘back in the day,’ killing someone was personal. The art of archery, for example, was held in high esteem. Archers were very highly regarded in many societies for their great qualities. Everyone had a skill they practiced. Today, we have lost all that. War is totally meaningless in the greatest sense of the word. Today, we kill for the sake of killing.

I’ve also been thinking about the probability of becoming more self-sufficient. We have become so dependant on this parasitic system, that we can’t even grow a vegetable garden for our own personal use anymore. I may sound a little “old-fashioned” but truly, I have no problem being called that anymore. This system no longer values skills – it only values profit. No one cares about your talents and abilities, all the corporations care about is how much money you can make them; what happens as a result is that people start losing their acquired skills. They just become ‘parts’ of this global ‘machine’ that keeps fueling this system of extreme interdependency. People’s lives are wasted away in some four-walled cubicle – I mean look at the ‘development’ projects in India – the call centers?

I find this extremely sad, so I’ve made some small steps in my own life to reaffirm my independence and dignity, as an individual and as a human being. I wish to give back to society, and not the corporate system, and I feel I am making those small contributions now by watching my nephew, by not paying any taxes to the corporate state and by learning how to become more self-sufficient in the long run. That’s my new personal, long-term goal in life, and I know it won’t be easy to do – but what is left for me to do is to try.

Anyway, I hope to get back to regular blogging soon, with more interesting and beneficial entries that (hopefully, God-willing) we all can benefit from. And, just to let you all know, your ideas are always welcome and appreciated.

With peace,

"Mainstream (practicing) Muslims are violent, radical"

2011-09-21T02:12:00.006-04:00

A fresh batch of “counter-terrorism” training documents (including PowerPoint presentations), acquired by “Danger Room" (at Wired.com), reveals the extent to which anti-Islamic propaganda and rhetoric has influenced and saturated the American psyche.

According to these documents, the “FBI is teaching its counterterrorism agents that “main stream” [sic] American Muslims are likely to be terrorist sympathizers; that the Prophet Mohammed was a “cult leader”; and that the Islamic practice of giving charity is no more than a “funding mechanism for combat.” (Source)

These are some of the graphs presented:

in other words, "Muslims are still the violent barbarians" (Graph Source)

"Islam is stagnant" and "Devout Muslims are violent" (Graph Source)

In another, longer, ppt. presentation called "Doctrinal basis for Jihad", the author, William Gawthrop, atempts to demonize the practice of 'Zakat' (alms giving) as a form of "warfare/terrorism funding mechanism." And he even added "Jihad" (i.e. "holy war") as the sixth pillar of the Islamic "ideology" (apparently Islam is not even a religion).

Saying that Islam promotes violent warfare,
and the 'devout' are more inclined to violence (Source)

What I also found interesting in this "training program", is that ‘moderates’ and ‘mainstream’ Muslims are distinguished and defined by the very same ‘extremist’ terminology that is being critiqued, albeit reversed. If you take a look at the graph below, ‘Moderates’ are the “hypocrites/innovators/apostates” which are also deemed non-violent. Where as the “devout/pious” (practicing) Muslims are “violent” and potentially dangerous.

"moderates" non-violent vs. "devout" violent (Graph Source)

(Source, see above)

If you ask me, this is pretty darn scary! Especially if you look at the incarceration rates and false 'terrorism' charges laid against so many Muslims in the years following Sept. 11. due to racial profiling yes, but also due to ‘devoutness’ profiling. I suppose this may explain, why. What else is apparent from these presentations is that, at least Gawthrop, would want Muslims to move into a secular direction, and ultimately apostate form the religion, since there is absolutely no way for a Muslim to be devout and non-violent; even though millions of peaceful ‘mainstream’ Muslims testify to the atrociousness of such lies and propaganda. I, a practicing American Muslim, am appalled (but sadly not surprised) that something like this could even pass the board and be presented as competent material for “counter-terrorism” training!

What are your reactions to these graphs?

Moral relativism and its discontents

2011-09-14T00:34:00.002-04:00

The NY Times published an interesting article yesterday about the state of our American youth today in terms of morality and ethics. It is part of a larger study on the state of American youth conducted by a group of researchers including sociologist Christian Smith. They interviewed young adults across America about various moral issues, and found the results to be rather ‘depressing’ – as David Brooks states.

But I am not the least bit surprised. I have been blogging about the disastrous effects of moral relativism and emotivism for a long time now, and this ‘depressing’ outcome is only natural.

Let’s see what the study says.

“The default position, which most of them came back to again and again, is that moral choices are just a matter of individual taste. “It’s personal,” the respondents typically said. “It’s up to the individual. Who am I to say?”
Rejecting blind deference to authority, many of the young people have gone off to the other extreme: “I would do what I thought made me happy or how I felt. I have no other way of knowing what to do but how I internally feel.”
Many were quick to talk about their moral feelings but hesitant to link these feelings to any broader thinking about a shared moral framework or obligation. As one put it, “I mean, I guess what makes something right is how I feel about it. But different people feel different ways, so I couldn’t speak on behalf of anyone else as to what’s right and wrong.”

[ALSO]

…Smith and company found an atmosphere of extreme moral individualism — of relativism and nonjudgmentalism… Allan Bloom and Gertrude Himmelfarb warned that sturdy virtues are being diluted into shallow values.
…In most times and in most places, the group was seen to be the essential moral unit. A shared religion defined rules and practices. Cultures structured people’s imaginations and imposed moral disciplines. But now more people are led to assume that the free-floating individual is the essential moral unit. Morality was once revealed, inherited and shared, but now it’s thought of as something that emerges in the privacy of your own heart.” (“If It Feels Right”; David Brooks)

We can draw two things from this study; one, that extreme individualism, emotivism and nonjudgmentalism have become the new all-encompassing social norm in America (but I’d argue this statement holds true for much of the globalized world), and two, that relativism cannot sustain a morally structured and sound society.

I’ve already argued in another post that, at least for Muslims, morality is defined in relation to God, not ‘feelings’ nor the ‘self.’ Morality therefore transcends the individual ‘I’, it transcends ‘time’ and ‘history’, ‘culture’ and etc. When Morality becomes truly Objective and Absolute, one will do what is ‘right’ even if it were against his/her own ‘self’ (to borrow our prophet’s peace be upon him great wisdom). So it doesn’t matter what your feelings are, if your objective is to do what is morally good, then you will do it regardless of your relative/ subjective emotions.

But who is the real culprit in this degenerative social phenomenon? The article doesn’t really go into this subject, so I’ll briefly comment on it here.

Secular liberalism is closely related to all these ideals; individualism, relativism, nonjudgmentalism, placing much focus on the ‘self’ (as Freud so religiously preached), and of course a neo-liberal capitalism that celebrates a very unhealthy hyper-consumer culture. And above all, pride.

I mean think about it, secular humanists and neo-atheists are rigorously augmenting against religion why? Because we are supposedly ‘indoctrinating’ and ‘brainwashing’ our youth to think morally - to think selflessly, to be kind to their neighbors, to their parents, to respect elders? No, because a Moral society, by definition, necessitates an Objective and Transcending Source – in Islam this Source is Allah. And Brooks seems to acknowledge this problem in the last paragraph; “morality was once revealed, inherited and shared, but now it’s thought of as something that emerges in the privacy of your own heart.”

What happens when there no longer is an Anchor for our morality? We see what we see today… something short of chaos. Family values have completely withered, premarital relations have become absolutely normal, everyone is evading their responsibilities and duties toward the other, elders are disrespected, and all authority is rejected. We are in a state of social anarchy. Morality has been disintegrated into whimsical wants and desires. Humanity has fallen to the levels of an animal.

But we are not just mare animals. We have the potential of becoming something much greater. We have a choice, in the end. We should be asking ourselves, whether we are making this choice because we ‘feel’ it is right or because we ‘know’ it is right because certain Objective Truths exist in this world, and these Truths tell us it is the right choice to make?

How many of us are unafraid/ready to be judged? If we cannot even take some criticism from fellow human beings, how are we going to handle Judgment from the Almighty?

Is there more to the human than the animal?

2011-09-09T02:08:00.008-04:00

I just revisited one of my old philosophy books and rediscovered yet another great contemporary philosopher who seems to share my concerns about enlightenment humanism and the term ‘progress.’ His name is John Gray. Here is a short quote from one of his more famous works “Straw Dogs”:

What he is basically saying here is that humanism, the ideology, places man at the center of the universe, and leads him on a path of inexhaustible rationality, improvement, development, and progress. Yet Gray argues the contrary. He believes that there is no progress – we are what we are.

He strays into some contested territory in his book when he supposes that human beings are purely instinctual beings; we follow our desires and have no capacity for self-control or moral behavior. We shouldn’t even try to be ‘better’ or more ‘moral’ – we should just accept the ‘real’ (animal) us. Obviously, I disagree with that. Although I do not see humanity going in a positive direction toward some utopian progression to achieving ‘enlightenment’ on earth, I also do not see ‘man’ as a mare animal.

I think humanism carries a very Euro-centric, white, male bias which prevents it from seeing this simple reality that there is no such thing as a one-way evolutionary road toward ‘progress.’ At a time when Europe was experiencing the “Dark Ages,” people in other parts of the world, like Muslim Spain and the Islamic caliphate, were thriving. How can it be then that all of humanity is moving into one direction only?

Perhaps now, with the globalization or universalization of Western values and principles, this imagined humanist utopia may seem more plausible. Yet the gravitational point or epicenter of this ‘progress’ or ‘development’ is, again, no where else but Europe/America. The same geo-political area where humanism was founded. While there may be a general spiral upward in 'development', the gap between the rich and the poor has never been as wide in history. Someone may be ‘progressing’, but at the expense of whom?

Yet, somehow, I feel that human beings are fully capable of doing ‘better’ and being ‘better’. I believe we have the capacity of becoming morally conscious and ethical beings, however, I do share Gray’s pessimism of ever achieving absolute harmony, peace and justice in this world.

Southwell, "Words of Wisdom" page 356

Any thoughts?

Secularizing religion

2011-09-05T19:13:00.003-04:00

Why do we continue to use politicized secular labels and terminology to define our religious identities?

It doesn’t make any sense to me. We wouldn’t call a Christian Sunni or Shi’a, nor would we call a Muslim Protestant or Catholic. So why is it completely acceptable to call Muslims/Christians etc. liberal or conservative?

The more I’ve been thinking about it, the more absurd it all sounds. Shouldn’t religion be defined by its own truths and ideological idioms? This social dialectic which sprung from the European reformation has transformed Christianity (religion) into a soul-less body of political dogmatisms, and killed the very essence and meaning of what it means to be religious in the most organic sense of the word.

In the post-reformation age, ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ became terms which signified how much, or how little, ‘religion’ one was willing to incorporate into his/her world view. Naturally, in a predominantly secular world, the less religious you were the better. Consequently, however, ‘conservatives’ became further alienated from the political paradigm, and associated with negative or bad terms such as extremism.

I believe the same mistake is being repeated by modernist reformers (and revivalists) in Europe today – those who call themselves liberal/conservative Muslims. These are modern manifestations of a ‘political Islam’ which do not correspond to nor represent the realities of the religion of Islam. These strategically manufactured terms are used by many secular politicians, academics and islamophobes alike, to distinguish between those Muslims whom they find good/acceptable (the liberals) and those whom they find unacceptable/threatening (the conservatives).

In reality, these terms have no place within the religious discourse. In one German immigration Magazine article, the columnist, called them ‘punch-words’ that is ‘catch-words’ we use argumentatively, yet it would be best if we discard them all together. We should not call ourselves ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ Muslims, because we are politicizing our religious identities in the process. The ‘liberals’ whether consciously or unconsciously, the columnist argues, are imposing this unhealthy dialectic upon the Muslim community. We are pressured to adhere to the acceptable liberal norms. We are expected to pray less, party more, consume alcohol, date and have premarital relations, while maintaining that homosexuality should be permissible – then and only then would we be ‘good’ or ‘acceptable’ Muslims.

Religion speaks of great moral Truths, of Absolute Truth and universal, time-withstanding and enduring principles. Secularism, on the other hand, is concerned with the temporal and changing circumstances of this unpredictable world. I really like how Güvercin put it;

[the following is in German] “In einer auch geistig vollendeten Marktwirtschaft, die neuwertige Angebote verlangt, täglich frisch auf den Tisch, ist die dauernde Wahrheit ein Skandal.”

[English Translation] “In a spiritually perfect market economy, which calls for/demands new deals (to be put forth) fresh on the table daily, the enduring truth is a great misfortune.”

And he adds: [in German] “Ein liberaler oder konservativer Islam ist eine ähnlich inhaltslose Ärgerlichkeit, wie ein liberales oder konservatives Christentum. Sowohl im Islam wie im Christentum geht es um die Wahrheit, die den Einzelnen aufruft und verpflichtet. Sie steht jenseits und über den wechselnden politischen Konstellationen.”

[English Translation] “A liberal or conservative Islam is a similarly meaningless annoyance as a liberal or conservative Christianity. Both Islam and Christianity are about Truth, which calls the individual and obliges (him or her). It stands beyond and above the changing political constellations.”

Politicians in Germany and elsewhere in Europe claim to promote ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ in the name of secular liberalism, and (unfortunately) some Muslims have jumped onto their bandwagon commercializing these very same ideals. Yet what they do not realize is that their conception of ‘freedom’ is one where religion and Truth are absent from the definition.

The ultimate goal of a ‘liberal Islam’ is a fully secularized Islam which no longer remains concerned with the Eternal, but it places its complete focus on the temporal/changing political circumstances. What ever is ‘in’ – so to speak – goes.

For these reasons, we should stop identifying ourselves by these problematic labels. The self-proclaimed ‘liberal Muslims’ (the conservatives are only a byproduct of the liberal initiative) should think about the consequences of their labeling. ‘Liberal Islam’ is like a loaded gun for the fascists and islamophobes – all they have to do is pull the trigger. All these haters have to do is utilize these labels to their political advantage and call Muslims out accordingly.

This is especially hazardous in an ongoing ‘war-on-terror.’ Those who practice their religion are branded the ‘conservatives’ the ‘extremists’ and the potential ‘terrorists.’ It makes the islamophobes’ jobs much easier when fellow co-religionists are branding themselves by these fallacious and potent political labels, and distinguishing themselves from the Islamic tradition.

Oliver Roy, another European scholar of ‘political Islam,’ wrote a couple of books on the topic, in which he was practically routing for the eventual ‘secularization of Islam.’ He deems it inevitable. [see “Secularism confronts Islam,” and “Globalized Islam”] The current political atmosphere in Europe and America celebrates and hopes for such an outcome, where Islam would be reduced to a mare political identity, just like Christianity was reduced to politics after the reformation.

It is our responsibility to speak against this politicization process – this secularization process. Everyone admits that the path of secularization for Muslims is much more complicated and difficult then it was for Christianity because of the inherent political tradition that already exists within Islam. We already have indigenous political terminology, we have opinions and multiple schools of thought in Islam by which we define ourselves as Muslims – the labels ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ are meaningless and unnecessary. In this context they are even dangerous and explosive, because they divide the Muslim community and give ammunition to the fascists and islamophobes that are working hard to smear the religion of Islam across the globe.

Something to ponder on

2011-08-18T02:33:00.000-04:00

Imam Zaid Shakir had this particular status on his public facebook page which I thought was marvelous and would benefit many of us, so I’m sharing it on my blog.

“It has been said that the enemies that are waging a relentless war against our hearts are four: the ego, Satan, our whimsical desires, and the world itself. The most dangerous of these enemies is the ego. The soul in its unrefined, unconstrained, immature state is the ego. That it is the more dangerous than even Satan is illustrated by the fact that during Ramadan, Satan and his dupes are chained up.” (Zaid Shakir)

Isn’t it interesting how during this holy month all our shortcomings are highlighted and brought forward for us to ponder upon and refine? We know it can’t be Satan that’s stopping us from carrying out our religious duties during Ramadan, so it must be ‘us’. Indeed, the ego is man’s greatest enemy!

Collective responsibilities

2011-08-17T01:20:00.017-04:00

I hope this post finds you all in the best of health and imaan, insha’Allah. I hope your month of Ramadan, thus far, has been filled with blessings and long nights spent in prostration, seeking Allah’s mercy and forgiveness.

I’ve just been reflecting on my current situation, where I am in life, and I came to realize how self-absorbed we tend to become over the course of our time in this world, and how this broken society encourages everyone to think and care only about themselves. It’s all about me, me, me, never about my parents, extended family, neighbors, friends or community.

I’ve been taught in school to pursue my own dreams and aspirations, to shoot for the stars. I’ve been encouraged and driven to do everything I can to make those dreams a reality, even if my own parents and family were not completely content with my choices.

At the surface, this may be all well intended, however this unhealthy promotion of individualism and neglect for the people around you is quite detrimental. As a human collective, we have responsibilities and duties towards each other. And by focusing only on our own dreams, on our own worldly successes, we are ignoring our duties towards the collective whole.

I am technically un-employed. I think many recent college graduates can relate to my situation, having been on this ‘self-absorbed high,’ and not having acquired enough work experience, we are not very marketable for jobs, even with a college degree. I have a foreign name, I am a woman and I do not exactly follow their 'professional dress code' as a covered, practicing Muslim. So, do to all of these factors (some of them anti-immigrant, some sexist in nature and others islamophobic) looking for any type of employment has been a challenge. At the beginning I used to be disheartened and very disappointed in my self. After all, everything that I have been pumped up to believe in this society, is not exactly working out. My dreams have all been flushed down the toilet, together with the collapsing world economy. For the time being, however, I have been investing my time and energies in raising and looking after my sister’s two kids.

In our current socio-economic system, raising children is looked very much down upon. Women who choose to be stay-at-home moms are often labeled negatively, because this type of work (un-paid work) has absolutely no value in the capitalist world-view. You are not generating any income, and therefore are not investing any of your money back into the economy – which is actually how the cyclical capitalist economy functions and keeps going.

So I thought to myself, why should I continue calling myself 'un-employed,' raising two children is one heck of a job! It is the most difficult job in the world, and yet I am technically job-less, and undervalued in society because of it. I chose to sacrifice and put my ‘dreams’ on hold for the sake of my sister’s children (and eventually for the sake of the greater community because these children will grow up to be responsible individuals themselves - God willing). To be raised with strong values and morals, not the kind they instill into the children’s heads in public schools and on trashy tv shows.

Allah is Most merciful! What ever situation we are inflicted with in life, remember that Allah knows Best what is good for us. Through this experience, I have learned how important it is to be there for your family. To fulfill those responsibilities and duties we have towards our loved ones, our neighbors and greater community. Naturally, however, we cannot help others if we do not help ourselves first, so I’ve been utilizing all my time positively (I hope), by reading books and further educating myself, hoping for Allah’s guidance through this and all times.

The greatest and most difficult job of raising children, raising our new generations, has been also greatly neglected in the modern (Western) world. Our kids have been left to complete strangers to nurture them and teach them what it means to be a good person, Muslim/Christian/Jew etc. and human being. Our youth has lost all respect for their elders, and are taught to rebel against every traditional institution, including religion and their own families. Our youth has been swayed by their pounding impassible materialistic ideals, which have also inspired this corrupt sense of privilege and entitlement. They think they deserve to have everything without having to work for it, without taking any regard for collective society.

And I thought to myself, and thanked God for opening my heart once more, how wonderful it would be if we all fulfilled those social responsibilities towards each other, like we are taught to do in Islam. Even our current perception of ‘Human rights’ is very narrow and individualistic. People carry this sense of entitlement, that they deserve 'individual rights', that they should be able to do what ever they want to do with their bodies, with their lives. But they forget that everything we own, even our bodies and our lives, belong only to our Creator.

We are to use these gifts in a way to better the collective human condition, to be able to sacrifice our selves for the sake of social justice, peace and equilibrium. In this manner someone who sees himself as a homosexual, for example, and says it is a basic 'human right' for him to do what he wishes with his body and life, how is he contributing to the well-being of humanity? Like wise, we who chose to pursue different worldly ambitions, should reflect on our own states and ask ourselves whether or not we are doing enough to fulfill our duties and responsibilities toward the people (also the natural environment including plants and animals) around us.

Prayer: symbolism and significance

2011-08-11T00:44:00.005-04:00

Maintaining one’s attentiveness in prayer can be a real challenge, especially when the ritual act itself becomes a bit robotic, mundane, repetitive and meaning-less. I know that many non-Arabic speakers, including myself, find it difficult to keep their focus during salah/prayers because of the simple fact that they don’t understand what they are reciting at all times. But then again, I know of fluent Arabic speakers experiencing the same problem.

What I have found to be beneficial in resolving this issue, apart from reading translations of the Qur’an, is learning the symbolism of salah and what each position, each motion actually stands for. Instead of looking at salah as an ‘act,’ I see it as a holistic experience, both physical and spiritual. When we actively think of the motions during prayer, we tend to keep our consciousness connected to the act itself. Moreover, if we understand the purpose and meanings behind these acts, our prayer will be much more rewarding and fulfilling, insha’Allah.

(diagram created by me for visual effect)

Generally speaking, it seems that our rational faculty and our psychological or emotional capacity are always pinned against one another. In the modern, contemporary world, reason always takes precedence to emotion, which has traditionally been identified with the ‘heart’ or soul. So it was very interesting, for me at least, to learn the significance of each position in salah and its inherent symbolism with regards to this ancient dichotomy.

For example, traditionally, the heart was considered the central locus of the human soul - the gravitational point where the horizontal and vertical meet. Reason is associated with the temporal, where as the spiritual heart/soul is associated with the Eternal. It is no surprise then that we are closest to Allah in prostration (“…prostrate and draw near [to Allah ]” 96:19). We are physically positioned in such a way that the heart is above our head, and it is the only time where the Eternal takes precedence over the temporal.

As we go through these motions, it might help to remember that one is standing directly in front of her/his Creator. Thus, when one performs these motions, he should do so with utmost humility. Prayer is humbling, or at least it should be. We descend our heads to the dusty ground, reminding our ego how small it truly is. If we rush through these motions and do not consciously think about their significance, then we will not make these connections between the body and our soul, nor will our soul truly reach God in the process. And that is our ultimate goal in prayer – maximizing God-consciousness.

As human beings we spend most of our time walking, standing and sitting in an upright position, where our heads are always above our hearts. Our reason determines and dictates most of our actions. Yet salah, takes us back to our primordial states of being, aiming to reconnect our physical and spiritual ‘selfs’.

I have read and listened to a number of symbolic interpretations of salah, so undoubtedly this short reflection is not the only way of looking at it correctly. I chose to touch upon this particular interpretation because it helped me stay connected and concsiouss during salah. Also it tied well together with my previous posts on trying to preserve that balance that is inherent in the Islamic message.

Especially in a world where the balance has overwhelmingly been tipped toward the temporal or rational side of human 'beingness' – it is important that we not forget our spiritual or Eternal component of existence.

Ramadan wishes

2011-08-01T15:18:00.000-04:00

As’salaamu aleykum, greetings and peace to all who frequent this page. Having been down with an unusual cold (in the middle of summer) for the past few days, I haven’t had the chance of updating my blog before Ramadan. And now that the month is finally here and upon us, I will be spending much more of my time reflecting and pondering on my own physical, spiritual as well as intellectual states, which means that I will not be posting as frequently as I’d like to.

I want to wish everyone a happy and healthy month of Ramadan. May it be a blessed month, filled with empathy, joy, kindness, charity, worship and devotion to the Almighty Creator and Sustainer of the universe. And may Allah accept your (and my) fast.

Happy Ramadan!

Science v. religion

2011-07-23T23:01:00.012-04:00

And here is another interesting excerpt from “The Inner Journey.” It is taken from an interview with Seyyed Hossein Nasr, by Philip and Carol Zaleski on “Traditional Cosmology and Modern Science.”

It caught my attention because it addresses a very hotly contested topic in the contemporary world – the compatibility of science and religion. Are or are they not repelling forces? Nasr explains that the battle isn’t truly between ‘science’ itself and ‘religion’, but ‘modern science’ (manifested in secularism) and traditional cosmology. The real issue is that we are consistently defining ‘cosmology’ in modern terms, where as Islam (as well as many other religions) understood 'cosmology' in a broader, much more holistic sense. He says: “Modern cosmology is a generalization of modern physics, whereas cosmology as it is understood traditionally is knowledge of the cosmos – not just knowledge of the material world generalized to include the whole of the astronomical world.” (page 107)

Many contemporary scholars of Islam have signed off on the idea that secular/modern science and Islam are perfectly compatible with each other - evidently trying to 'fit in' with the secular world. Nasr seems to disagree. Here is what he says on the matter:

“I want to avoid two extremes, one of which is often held by certain people. One is that there is no conflict between modern science and religion, or traditional cosmology. There is a conflict, a very profound conflict. Modern science wants to study the whole of creation while abstracting the Divine Principle from it. Of course, modern science is now breaking up, and we might have another paradigm in the future, but the paradigm that has dominated from the seventeenth century until now is one in which the effect is studied without the supreme Cause. No matter how much you study the cosmos you never run into the supreme Cause because it is excluded by definition from the modern scientific view. Science defines itself in such a way as to be not interested in, and not related to, metaphysics. But what it discovers, to the extent that it corresponds to an aspect of reality, has a metaphysical significance. But that significance cannot be discovered through science itself. It can only be discovered by a person who knows those metaphysical principles. To say that there is no conflict between modern science and religion would reduce religion to faith alone and thus destroy the element of knowledge in religion. You end up with a secularization of knowledge, which leads to the catastrophes which humanity is faced with today.” (page 108)

He continues, with an assurance that he is also against the notion that science and religion are in complete conflict with one another. Nasr notes that “it’s theoretically possible to rediscover a metaphysical point of view into which you can absorb all that is positive in the attainment of modern Western science without doing injustice to the science.” (page 108) And he gives the classic example of being a good biologist while rejecting Darwin’s theory of evolution (specifically macroevolution).

The most important thing for us to realize then is, that modern science does not and cannot provide us with absolute answers. We have to go beyond the modern world view of ‘rational’ dominance if we want to understand the Truth about the Real cosmos (as per its traditional meaning) and all contained within.

The feminist and I

2011-07-19T14:28:00.000-04:00

It seems that we have completely lost our sense of orientation; we have confused our public and private spheres. Do we even have private spheres in this day and age?

We have been completely exposed to the elements, our most intimate thoughts and desires laid bare before the world to see. Is there any shame?

I do believe in women’s rights, but there has to be some kind of a limit. “Bitchiness” may be a feminist trait, but humility is a human virtue. Which one are we striving for?

Self-expression, self-actualization, self-respect and self-esteem do not have to come with the price of virtuousness. Do they?

I am a woman, I stand up for my rights, I strive to fulfill my human potential, yet I refuse to be a “bitch.” Am I a traitor?

Call me what you wish.

As a fellow woman who speaks her mind as you speak yours, I stand firm behind my beliefs like you stand behind yours. If you want to be branded a feminist, fine by me. But us women who choose not be labeled as such – don’t patronize us, don't call us stupid “dumbasses”. If you were fighting for women’s rights as you espouse, you’d respect my choice not to be associated with your beliefs.

Truth is, you’re not fighting for women, you're fighting for your own feminist ideology!

The 'holy' v. 'unholy' city

2011-07-16T22:31:00.006-04:00

As promised, I’m sharing one of my favorite passages from the book I’ve been reading most recently – “The Inner Journey: Views from the Islamic Tradition.” In one of the essays, called “Light from the Center,” Gai Eaton describes the ‘holy city’ from the traditional Islamic perspective. Specifically, he explores the city's spiritual dimensions and broader symbolic meanings. To the believer, the ‘holy city’ is supposed to be the ‘locus of remembrance’ – the center which draws us back to the transcendent and the eternal, reminding us that all is from God; from the food we eat to the ‘goods’ we produce. As follows, he compares this ‘holy city’ to the ‘unholy’ modern metropolis of extreme individualism and an untethered hyper-consumerism.

Eaton’s argument rests upon the idea of tawhid (unity). The Islamic principle of unity is central to our understanding of nature and the essence of our very being, as well as its transcendent relationship with the Eternal and Real. The modern city shatters this universal unity; it forces humanity to forget its true nature, to forget its Divine center, and loose itself to an excessive material hedonism.

Excerpt taken from “The Inner Journey: Views from the Islamic Tradition,” essay by Gai Eaton:
“Look then upon the modern city, the epitome of “civilization,” in which enmity, separation, and dispersion are already present. Not only is there universal fragmentation, the complete absence of any organic unity, but the priorities have been reversed. We are sometimes puzzled by the fact that Muhammad, in a saying regarding the “sings of the end” – the end of the world, the end of all things – included “the construction of tall buildings.” Yet there is, surely, no mystery here? If we see buildings dedicated to the pursuit of money or personal power and prestige rising high above the mosque or the church, then it is easy to understand that this titanic presumption might presage and merit universal destruction. Seek a church in a Western city and you will discover it like a gemstone, half-buried under pebbles. The orientation of the citizens is no longer upward, the orientation indicated by minaret or spire, but horizontal, exclusively worldly.

The arrogance, pretentiousness, and emptiness of those glass and concrete constructions which dominate our modern cities may remind the Muslim of a Qur’anic verse in which it is said of him whom God leaves to go astray that: “He causes his breast to be tight and constricted as if he were climbing up to the heavens” (6:125). The heavens, still far distant, mock this puny effort. The “unholy city,” dwarfing the people who inhabit it as a giant anthill dwarfs it’s builders, has not only reversed all traditional priorities; it has negated all human values, for nothing here is built on a human scale. It might be compared to a suit of clothes ten times too big for the wearer. It does not fit us, nor does it belong in the physical landscape into which it has been inserted. It belongs nowhere and to no one. When the sacred is banished from the sight, so is the human; so too is all that is natural and God-given. We are left, finally, with a shell fit only for destruction.” (pages 60-61)

What are your thoughts?

"My Fellow American"

2011-07-13T01:22:00.003-04:00

I am posting this video by request of Ms. E. Potter, from the Unity Productions Foundation (UPF), who has e-mailed me and asked me kindly to share it on my blog.

First of all, I’d like to thank Ms. Potter and the UPF for this wonderful initiative which seeks to address the very real problem of ‘islamophobia’ within the U.S, from a mixed non-Muslim/Muslim perspective. As per their website, the “my fellow American” project aims to spread a more positive message about Islam and Muslims in America, and dispel existing false stereotypes through the use of social media.

As we know, the media can be a powerful tool of persuasion in today’s technologically dependent society. It is the mainstream media who crafted and nurtured these false stereotypes about Muslims and Arabs in the first place. It is the media which keeps these myths alive. So the use of social media as a weapon to combat these hate filled messages and the extreme political right’s perverted visions of a religiously-cleansed America, can prove to be very potent indeed.

I am sharing this video in hope of instigating a fruitful discussion that will bear new solutions to this potentially dangerous phenomenon. ‘Islamophobia’ is well and alive in America, as in Europe. Our first step toward combating this issue is recognizing it, to see it as a form of anti-semitism. We can do that by simply talking about it, and making people aware of its presence. We can do so by drawing parallels between the anti-semitism of Nazi Europe and the rising tide of fascist movements in ‘the West’ who share a common thread of ‘anti-islamic’ sentiment.

There is one issue I do have and would like to discuss, however. America is often idealized in terms of social relations. It is often described as a ‘melting pot’ of sorts, a pluralistic, multicultural utopia. We tend to gloss over decades of civil and religious struggles that pre-dated the tragedies of 9-11. Unfortunately, racism is quilted into the fabric of American history; it is a very real part her past. From the first colonizers who discriminated against the Natives, to the ‘white masters’ and their ‘black slaves’ to the Irish immigrants and later the Eastern European immigrants (many of Jewish decent), to the African Americans. Then it was the Japanese-Americans during WWII, and now it’s Arabs and Muslims.

Also, a ‘melting pot’ analogy does not serve us any good purpose for dispelling islamophobic sentiments; mainly because it calls for ‘assimilation’ rather then ‘integration’. This issue has arisen in Europe on multiple occasions, and assimilation is not the answer. As my professor always used to say, America is more like a ‘salad bowl’ – you have all your ingredients, and they are well marinated together, but each ingredient retains its unique taste. A tomato will still taste like a tomato even though it’s sprinkled with a little salad dressing.

Despite the written message, which could be misleading, I think the video portrays a more ‘salad bowl’ representation of America and American Muslims; which I believe is a healthier representation.

So take some time, watch the video, tell me what you think, and share it along.

Remembering Srebrenica

2011-07-11T23:11:00.015-04:00

Many people have told us to ‘get over it’, to ‘get on with life’, make terms with the past and move on already. It has been 19 years since the war began in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and exactly 16 years today since the largest massacre took place in Europe since World War II. Srebrenica remains etched in all of our hearts and minds, despite the waning of time, and despite people’s irrelevance to our continuous psychological suffering.

July 11, 1995, remains an excruciatingly deep and sorrowful wound in our collective psyche. Each year this wound is severed and reopened as new graves are dug out and prepared for yet another mass burial of several hundred identified remains – remains of someone’s father, mother, brother, son or daughter.

And so today, yet another 613 remains were laid to rest. The youngest was only 11 years old.

Potocari 7.11.11 - Image Credit

The truth is, as long as our country remains partitioned along ethnic and religious lines, as long as the “Serb Republic” exists and is openly recognized by the international community, these wounds will never completely heal nor disappear. As long as this collective denial captivates the Serbian memory within Bosnia (and abroad), as long as Genocide (not only in Srebrenica but in all of Eastern Bosnia) is not recognized and talked about in the affirmative tense, as long as perpetrators walk free, and as long as justice is being blatantly evaded, Bosnia will not be able to ‘move on.’

I mean, imagine if someone were to deny the holocaust? We feel that the negation of the genocide in Bosnia undermines the wholesome truth of that bloody four-year long conflict. Today, the Serbs, as well as the international community, are downplaying the statistics, and are trying to reconstruct a relativist caricature of the conflict that would validate a flagrant denialism. They are trying to level the political playing field, so to speak, make everyone equally responsible for the atrocities that were carried out, en mass, during the four years of war. But the reality is different. Around 200,000 people were killed, and millions were displaced while tens of thousands were ethnically cleansed from the region that became known as the ‘Republika Srpska.’

As many of our officials have stated beforehand, Milosevic is dead, yet his dream lives on. The Dayton ‘Peace Accords’ were supposed to stop the blood shed not sanction the creation of an illegitimate state entity that was built upon countless mass-graves of dead Bosnian Muslims. In fact, by allowing the RS to exist, Serbs as well as the international community are persistently legitimizing genocide in the region. They are supporting the whole-sale slaughter of Muslims in Europe despite their petty efforts to administer justice through mediocre trials and arrests of ‘dangerous’ war criminals.

Ultimately, we cannot afford to ‘get on with it’ and simply ‘move on’ while these issues remain unchallenged and unresolved. We have to keep speaking up, we have to keep letting our voices be heard. Those men, women and children did not die in vein. Not speaking about these issues would be tantamount to forgetting. And if we forget, we risk repeating our own tragic history. It has happened before, and surely it would happen again.

Islam and the re-conceptualization of 'culture'

2011-07-08T16:44:00.006-04:00

Is ‘cultural relativism’ just another name for ‘good’ old fashioned nationalism and/or racism? Many scholars in the field of humanities and social sciences have been debating this issue recently, namely the problems surrounding the prevailing anthropological definition of ‘culture’ and the questions surrounding the emerging ‘global culture’ that increasingly resembles a homogenizing capitalist/consumerist utopia.

Although we assume that the English language is quite straight forward and simple, it’s not. We often throw around words and use them descriptively without realizing their underlying meaning and broader political function. We never stop to think about the deeper meanings, the socio-political baggage, and historical context that come with each and every word we utter. We have ingrained this reality of linguistic complexity with regards to the Arabic language for example, knowing that one word may have multiple meanings, yet the English language has never been understood as such. English is a very complex language, and many of the terms we use to describe varying past and present phenomena have roots in the Latin and Greek traditions. All terms carry certain historical, socio-political connotations – including the term ‘culture.’

Until very recently, various cultural nationalisms pervaded international relations. This highly chauvinistic, euro-centric ideology dominated the socio-political sphere for the past two centuries, where groups of people primarily identified themselves by their nationality – that is their common shared values or their ‘culture’. Within this context, ‘culture’ was defined as a ‘complex whole’ – a ‘thing’ that doesn’t change or evolve over time. It is a structural system that defines a particular way of life, or as Edward B. Taylor originally defined it, “Culture or Civilization, taken in its widest ethnographic sense, is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society’.” But there are several issues with this definition. Apart from being ethno-centric and particularistic, it seeks to divide and "ghettoize" people by their ethno-racial backgrounds in an increasingly multidimensional ‘pluralistic’ world.

There are, of course, varying humanist conceptions of the term ‘culture’ which include a more ‘universalist’ albeit elitist application of the term. Essentially, the humanist definition includes a rather Darwinian understanding of the word – meaning that ‘culture’ is a cultivating process, which generally evolves from a primitive to a high stage. The high stage being the ‘industrial’ stage of civilization reflective in the modernist project the ‘first world’ has been pursuing for the past century or so. It is also reflective in the globalization of a ‘global culture.’ For example, due to global free-market practices, English has become the primary language of communication, while at the same time the number of languages spoken world wide is beginning to shrink. Evidently, the humanist conceptualization of ‘culture’ is linked to the ‘Western’ or ‘First World’ hemisphere. It presumes that ‘culture’ (like everything else) will progress only in a positive direction. Like human beings, ‘culture’ or ‘civilization’ will evolve to a higher or better stage. Yet, I couldn’t disagree more.

In the first definition, ‘culture’ has been used as a definitive marker of human difference – like race. It is the contemporary way of expressing notions of racism, only through a façade of ‘cultural exceptionalism’. Though we cannot deny the very real fact that those ‘differences’ exist, we should not forget that we are all in essence human. Within this pool of diversity, humanity shares a variety of common denominators. While the humanist understanding of ‘culture’ recognizes this common denomination, it seeks to cultivate an elitist, absolutist culture that is ‘good’ for all of humanity irrespective of their differences.

While the anthropological definition emphasizes on the ‘otherness’ of peoples, the humanist version is too preoccupied with the ‘self.’ What we have to begin seeing is a little of the ‘self’ in the ‘other’ while at the same time recognize that we are in some ways different. Culture is definitely not a ‘thing’ that defines all aspects of a peoples’ life. It can change and evolve over time, but it can also regress and degenerate. Contrary to the popular humanist belief, the history of human civilization is a tragic one. Though we did ‘progress’ in the material sense of the word, we have largely regressed socially and spiritually. Even humanism itself evolved from a religious to a secular/radical atheist perspective. So when I speak of humanism in the contemporary world, I speak of its secular, neo-atheist brand.

Islam and ‘culture’:

Islam recognizes this ‘universality’ in humanity, but it also recognizes our differences. Islam is a universal religion, and the Qur’an was sent as a mercy to the whole of humankind – man, woman, every nation and tribe. God speaks objectively in the Qur’an as the anchor of ‘universal’ principles that hold true for human nature in general. Yet God Himself says in the Qur’an, “O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another” (49:13). Within this unity, there is diversity. Within one body, there are multiple organs, and each serves a separate function. Likewise, humanity, although one, is comprised of different peoples.

On a couple of occasions I have been asked whether or not I consider Islam a ‘culture’ in itself? At the time I gave my answer I said yes, due to my shortsighted view and understanding of Islam. But as I re-conceptualize and re-define the term ‘culture’ for myself, it no longer makes sense to call Islam a ‘culture.’ Actually, back then, I saw Islam from a very ‘nationalistic’ point of view. I liberally equated Islam with Arab culture. To be Muslim therefore meant to be more ‘Arab’ - dress in an abaya, use Arabic words more frequently in conversations and etc.

Recognizing, however, that Islam accommodates diversity, and allows room for ‘cultures’ (in the plural) to exist separately, prompted me to see that Islam cannot be defined in nationalist terms. While we are to have a healthy pride of our shared Muslim identity, we should not let it evolve into an unhealthy nationalist ideology. In the end, Islam is one. To be Muslim is to embody the universal principles of the Qur’anic message, yet we are allowed to interpret specific laws within the ‘shar’ia’ relative to our own diverse (‘cultural’) experiences. In other words, I can be a Muslim woman practicing hijab and not have to wear an abaya. As long as I dress modestly (according to the Islamic conception of the word modest) and follow the general guidelines of dress in the Islamic tradition, I’ll be as much Muslim as my Arab sister wearing her ‘cultural’ garb.

But, what do you all think? Can Islam be understood as a ‘culture’ in itself?

Mocking justice

2011-07-05T00:43:00.008-04:00

As you may have heard, Ratko Mladic, the man who was responsible for countless heinous crimes against Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) as well as Bosnian Croats (Catholics) and other non-Serb civilians in Eastern as well as North-Western Bosnia, including genocide, has been officially indicted and has made his first appearance before the UN International court on June 3, 2011 (which you can watch in full length on the ICTY youtube channel).

When I heard of his arrest, I was overcome with a mix of emotions. Everyone, well studied in the history and current politics of the former Yugoslav region, will affirm that Serbia’s leadership always knew where Mladic (as well as the other top war criminal Karadzic) was hiding. Indeed he was hiding in Serbia. And it is only due to strictly political reasons that both criminals were ‘sold out’ to the international court. Serbia has a personal state objective and desire to become part of the European Union. And if you paid close attention, Mladic’s arrest came only several days after the head prosecutor, Brammertz, warned Serbia to step up its ‘cooperation on war crimes’ if it wished to retain qualification for entering the EU. In sum, I - like so many other Bosnian Muslims - felt betrayed and remain doubtful as to how this entire legal fiasco will enfold.

Personally, I am expecting more of the same old. I expect more show trials, more superficial ‘punishments', and more injustice. Surely the European community and the big G8 will feel somewhat ‘redeemed’ and ‘relieved’ that their diplomatic skills have finally ‘paid off’ – they ‘caught’ the most wanted man of Europe. They are ready to wash their bloodied hands and cleanse their past sins, as they were directly responsible for and participated in the ‘Bosnian conflict’ by lifting the embargo on the Serbian (former Yugoslav) army and enforcing the embargo on an unarmed Bosniak civilian population. They were fully aware of what was happening in Bosnia during those four years of war. With this full awareness, they helped create and carve the ‘Serb Republic’ – the political poster child of a bloody genocidal war that claimed many innocent lives.

Certainly, watching his second appearance today (July 4, 2011) in front of the international court was making my stomach turn into twists and knots. What I begin to feel is a great sense of injustice that overwhelms me. It is simply laughable how these apparent war criminals are given such precedence in these unwisely bureaucratic manifestos (they call trials) while all proofs of criminal acts have been presented by the accused himself in 1995 on video tape, live, for the entire world to see. It is absolutely ridiculous how Mladic, as well as Milosevic prior to him, have been allowed to turn these trials into spectacles of injustice - a pure mockery of all those who died in the genocide.

In my opinion, these ‘men’ do not deserve a spectacle; they do not deserve to be put on a tedious trial that will provide us no actual, heartfelt justice, but only a mockery of justice – a spit in all of our faces.

In his second hearing today, Mladic refused to listen to the charges laid out against him (again), and therefore created a dramatic scene which compelled the head judge to remove him from the court proceedings. Again, the criminal was in absolute denial. Nevertheless, I will reiterate some of those charges in this post. His indictment lists over seventy incidents of murder spread across twenty different municipalities (including the one I am from). It also states that general Ratko Mladic and his forces exerted physical, psychological and sexual violence on the non-Serb populations, abused and tortured them in fifty-eight separate concentration camps across Eastern and North-Western Bosnia (or what is today called the “Republika Srpska”). Apart from these individual charges that have been alleged against him, the indictment cites that

“from 12 May 1992 until 30 November 1995, Mladić participated in a joint criminal enterprise to permanently remove Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat inhabitants from the territories of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) claimed as Bosnian Serb territory. Mladić acted in concert with other members of this JCE including: Karadžić, Momčilo Krajišnik, Slobodan Milošević, Biljana Plavšić, Nikola Koljević, Mićo Stanišić, Momčilo Mandić, Jovica Stanišić, Franko Simatović, Željko Ražnatović and Vojislav Šešelj. Each of these individuals, by acts or omissions, contributed to achieving their shared objective.” (case information sheet, page 2)

Also, for more information please visit the ICTY (International Court Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia) website which provides records of all the legal proceeding with regards to this case and many others.

Conveniently enough, Mladic was plead ‘not guilty’ to all the charges presented against him by the prosecution. Overall, I think this hearing was unsuccessful, and blatantly humiliating. Now, we will have to wait ever more patiently and watch how this entire debacle will develop and unfold, as Mladic takes his ‘requested’ time to prepare for a marvelously idiotic defense. I, however, am not very optimistic.

Let me also add, that I speak from a purely bias perspective, as a survivor, as a Bosnian Muslim, as a non-official, yet as a human being. Although I do not blog too often on these issues, my heart aches for justice. I will keep on speaking, however, as a unique voice, whether someone will choose to hear it or not.

"The Inner Journey: Views from the Islamic Tradition"

2011-06-28T22:36:00.001-04:00

I’ve picked up a new book called “The Inner Journey: Views from the Islamic Tradition” which contains a great selection of works by various scholars and poets from within the Islamic tradition, including al-Ghazali, Rumi, Abu Yazid Bistami, Gai Eaton, Tim Winter, Seyyed Hossein Nasr and others who’ve been trained in the traditional sciences and known for their extensive scholarship on Islamic issues.

What ever your preconceived notions are about ‘Sufism’ (the modern phenomenon), the roots of traditional thought are rich and multifaceted; so it is important to realize that the ways of the tasawuf were many, and very much part of this valuable and deep Islamic tradition. I am making this small disclaimer right off the bat because many of these scholars and students of knowledge mentioned have been ascribed the label of ‘Sufism’. However, what was meant by ‘tasawuf’ in the tradition is very different from what ‘Sufism’ has increasingly become defined as and how it is being practiced. Unfortunately many of our traditions have been corrupted by innovative and alien practices over time. Practices, like the whirling dervishes, have been commercialized and sold for a good sum of money to an already ignorant public, who’ve readily accepted this comodification of our religion as a sign of ‘progress’ and ‘development.’ Although the foreword to this book incites the idea of modern progressive reformism, the traditions speak loudly for themselves.

There are many wonderful excerpts in this book which I will share on my blog as I go along. I’ve found the works of many of these scholars to be profound and enlightening in many ways. We may not agree with everything all the time, yet we can respect their deep knowledge and perhaps draw a few good, heartfelt lessons from their prolific writings.

Here is a short hadith qudsi, included in the compilations, which I found extremely beautiful and touching;

“He who approaches near to Me one span,
I will approach near to him one cubit;
And he who approaches near to Me one cubit,
I will approach near to him one fathom,
And whoever approaches Me walking,
I will come to him running,
And he who meets Me with sins equivalent to the whole world,
I will greet him with forgiveness equal to it."
[-Hadith Qudsi, from Muslim quoted in Mishkat al-masabih]

Insha’Allah you will find it beneficial.

Reconceptualizing Reform

2011-06-20T23:46:00.005-04:00

Is reform necessarily a ‘bad’ thing? I think Muslims have shied away from the ‘r’ concept because of the loud ‘pro-regressive’ voices out there monopolizing reform and defining it in purely religious terms. Due to these withdrawal symptoms, however, the fate of the Muslim community has been resting completely in various modern reformers’ (progressives, liberals, ultra-conservatives) hands.

I believe it is very important that traditional/‘mainstream’ Muslims speak up on this issue, and reclaim their faith, because if we don’t, what some have already been forecasting as the ‘Islamic reformation’ may actually become an imminent reality.

There are many scholars in the West and leading authorities on Muslim-West relations foreshadowing a coming ‘Islamic reformation.’ Like globalization, they claim that religious reform is inevitable and indubitable; all religions change over time, and so did/will Islam. They also argue that religious reform is a sign of general ‘progress’ and development – that reform is Islam’s path to enlightenment.

Yet, as with globalization, we have been pre-conditioned to believe that we cannot resist these modern currents of change. We are lead to believe that ‘religious reform’ is natural and therefore unstoppable. But, as with globalization, there are ways in which we can alter the course of these ‘reformist’ currents. Our first step toward this process would be reconceptualization of reform as a social rather then a religious concept. We have to reconstruct our way of thinking with regards to the ‘r’ word – demonopolize it.

Because ‘reform’ has been viewed through a purely religious/spiritual lens, Muslim communities worldwide have been ignoring the many problems that are endemic to our larger society. We refused any form of ‘change’ period. Yet social change is absolutely essential if we want to live our lives to a full Islamic potential.

Social reform has been at the heart of Islamic teaching. The Islamic message came as a ‘reminder’ – calling humanity back to the fundamentals of justice, peace and God. Islam came to reform the contemporary society, and remind it of its fragility. It reminded humankind to stop creating disorder on earth, to live peacefully with one’s neighbor, to respect diversity, and to respect the natural environment that sustains us all. It came to remind us of pure monotheism.

In the Islamic tradition, there are two very important concepts associated with ‘reform’; islah (reform) and tajdid (renewal). Both are fundamental components of Islam’s worldview. ‘Islah’ is associated with ‘spiritual reform’ (but not the kind advocated today). In the Qur’an ‘islah’ is repeatedly used in reference to various prophets, including Muhamamd (peace be upon him), calling their communities back to God’s path (e.g. 7:170; 11:117), and to live their lives in accordance to God’s laws, to enjoin good and forbid evil (e.g. 3:104,110). And tajdid is a term based on the traditions of the prophet. In this regard, ‘renewal’ really means ‘restore’ not ‘renovate’. The purpose of ijtihad was not to reinterpret Islam to suit modern norms, but to reappropriate the organic vision of Islam as preserved in its revealed sources.

Realistically speaking, many of the issues we contest and debate about today have already been exhausted centuries ago. Homosexuality and inter-religious marriage are nothing new. Even ‘globalization’ which has been accelerated - no doubt - in the recent decades due to technological advances, is arguably nothing ‘new’ since people have traded and interacted globally since the day dawned (e.g. silk road). The issue of ‘pluralism’ and Islam’s position on other religions has already been explored, and explained a long time ago. Multiculturalism is also nothing new. The concepts may have been coined and defined more recently in history, but the phenomena were pre-existing.

It is no co-incidence that Islam’s conception of human nature includes ‘forgetfulness.’ Unlike in Christianity, where man is born ‘sinful’, in Islam man is born forgetful. Therefore, it is our job to remind. These problems were there, and Islam provided us with the necessary guidelines for ‘universal’ social ‘reform’ – no matter what ‘age’ we happen to live in.

Widespread corruption and injustice, abuse and oppression, usury and many other issues need to be addressed in our communities. Fact is we have many problems, and we should be working on solutions.

In this respect, ‘reform’ is not bad at all. It is vital to humanity’s success.

Conversely, being able to establish positive social reform, will allow us to ‘renew’ our faith and return to the path of God.

I know I have written a lot on this topic recently, but I would appreciate your thoughts on this post. I have been reading some more on this issue, and seem to be learning something new every day. I know this topic can be confusing because in Islam social and spiritual reform go hand in hand. That is why perhaps many Muslims shy away from ‘reform’ all together. The more I think about it, the problem is not whether or not ‘reform’ is a bad thing (in itself), but in which ‘direction’ reform should go?

"A fiqhiconomic model" for economic justice

2011-05-29T02:09:00.003-04:00

I’ve dug out an excellent journal article I read a couple of years ago by Salah El-Sheikh called “The Moral Economy of Classical Islam: A FiqhiConomic Model” (2008). El-Sheikh gives a comprehensive overview of what constitutes an ‘Islamic’ economy. In other words he explores the traditional Islamic moral and legal paradigm on what constitutes a ‘just’ economy according to the ‘shariah’ (Islamic path/way).

Before I start, I think it’s important to realize (as El-Sheikh doesn’t mention this) that Islam never truly specified an economic system for the Muslims to uphold and follow. Islam doesn’t give us a blue print for a perfect economy; however it does provide us with a strong foundation of moral and ethical principles that should be at the core of any ‘just’ system.

From a classical Islamic perspective, a just and moral economic model is built upon three main principles; a) it has to minimize/eliminate “unjustified enrichment”, b) it has to be gharar-free (avoidance of unjustified jahl or absence of necessary knowledge) and c) the process has to be consensual and fair.

I believe these principles can be considered ‘universal’ or not essentially ‘Islamic’ in nature; however what makes this model ‘Islamic’ is the jurists’ usage of the Qur’an and prophetic sunnah as a basis of building their just economic system. On this basis, “unjustified enrichment” is tied to the concept of ‘riba’ (often translated as interest on a loan). El Sheikh defines ‘riba’ in two ways (1) ‘Riba al-Fadl’ and (2) ‘Riba al-Nasi’a’.

Thus, “unjustified enrichment” can mean two things. It can refer to an illegitimate gain by deferring delivery of an exchanged article that is quantitatively equal in value to the exchanged countervalue. Or it can mean a ‘loan interest.’ This kind of ‘riba’ is also called the “Qura’nic riba” as it was prohibited directly in various Qur’anic verses.

The second principle ‘gharar’ which applies to the ‘unjustified absence of knowledge,’ is intended to protect a party from being ‘cheated’ due to a lack of necessary information in a possible exchange agreement. Basically, both parties may not suppress any important information that may lead to “unjustified enrichment” for one party or the other. And lastly, in this particular model of a ‘moral’ and ‘just’ economy the transactions have to be completely consensual and fair with the intention to minimize inequities, and legal disputes between parties.

The market was always central to the “Islamic state”. Together with the mosques and public baths, the markets were fundamental to the ‘Muslim’ city establishment. And indeed, the market place was vibrant and flourished during the classical period of Islamic history. However, it was successful and ‘superior in performance’ not only because it upheld those three main moral juristic principles. As El-Sheikh explains, it is also due to “the thorough system of legal mechanisms and procedural safeguards, which the classical jurists structured in their sales contracts…”. Despite the overwhelming Orientalist portraiture of the Islamic economy being a ‘free-market’ one, perhaps mirroring what constitutes a ‘capitalistic’ economy, the classical ‘Islamic’ economy had many checks and balances in place to regulate the market activities and make sure that these basic moral principles were upheld.

Accordingly, what modern critics of capitalism have coined as ‘fair trade’ is in fact an old Islamic principle of economic justice. Although business had individual freedom to trade consensually and fairly, the state regulated their transactions. The “Islamic state” (I put it in quotes because there was no ‘state’ in the modern sense of the word) appointed a muhtasib “who was responsible for checking weights, measures, and currencies, investing and dealing with fraud and generally unlawful market practices, including illicit speculation and misleading information…”. In this manner, the market would not be entirely left to its own corrupting devices (as we have currently in place thanks to Adam Smith’s concept of the ‘invisible hand’ and a completely deregulated free market capitalism).

So to answer a common question, Islam does not support unfettered ‘free-trade’ practices (capitalism in a nutshell). It does not support complete state owned and regulated markets either (communism in a nutshell).

One of the main critiques of the ‘Islamic’ economic model is that it can only provide ‘short-term’ financing options. I am not sure how we would translate this model into the modern economic paradigm, since relatively little has been written on this topic. Keeping in mind, that Islam never specified an economic system per se, it was up to Muslims to try and construct the most just and fair system of their particular time period. Realistically speaking, we cannot ‘reconstruct’ a classical Islamic society/economy in today’s world (although ‘revivalists’ believe/dream they can). Realistically we can start ‘reforming’ the current economic system by implementing more ‘fair’ and ‘just’ practices. Realistically we can work on providing Muslims with more financing options which adhere to the ‘Islamic’ moral and ethical values.

Our ‘modern’ economic systems have failed, and I believe it is time we start defining new and more ‘just’ alternatives. From the Islamic perspective, this is one of those issues where the law is somewhat mandible to the historical time period. Since we no longer live in Islamic cities like those in the classical period, we have to think of ways of applying and incorporating our ‘just’ principles into a contemporary setting. How do we ‘reform’ the modern system? El Sheikh seems to be arguing that the ‘Islamic’ economic model is compatible with both capitalism and market socialism – I disagree.

The way I look at it is that capitalism’s ‘end’ is maximizing profit, and according to Marx, socialism’s ‘end’ is “communism” (or in essence labor). The classical model defines an economy whose ‘end’ is justice. Any economic model whose aim is to establish anything other then economic justice and fairness, is inevitably doomed to fail. Communism failed, and so did ‘socialism with a human face; (in the Check Rep.), while capitalism is slowly crashing onto itself. Obviously our current practices are not working (evident from the 2008 crash), as I have repeatedly stressed in previous posts on this blog, so it is time we build an economic model that serves humanity with real fairness and complete moral justice.

"Death of the Liberal Class"

2011-05-20T22:42:00.002-04:00

On many occasions I have been denounced, insulted and labeled a hypocrite by liberals and progressives alike with regards to my position on homosexuality and ‘gay rights.’

I am not sure if they realize this or not, but they tend to judge my beliefs and positions by their standards and principles. Something very typical of liberals.

As Rusell Jacoby writes; “stripped of a radical idiom, robbed of a utopian hope, liberals and leftists retreat in the name of progress to celebrate diversity. With few ideas on how a future should be shaped they embrace all ideas. Pluralism becomes a catchall, the alpha and omega of political thinking. Dressed up as multiculturalism, it has become the opium of disillusioned intellectuals, the ideology of an era without an ideology.” (The End of Utopia: Politics and Culture in an Age of Apathy; 1999)

So this ideology which theoretically celebrates all ideas, is still an ‘idea’ in itself. It is an idea which seeks to exert itself onto the collective psyche. Liberals expect everyone to think within this utopian ‘ideal’ – “I support your beliefs, therefore you should support mine”.

I am a rather conservative and, by definition, ‘orthodox’ person when it comes to my religious beliefs and practices. I am a Muslim; this means that my beliefs are shaped by Islam not some other foreign ideology. Islam also happens to define my political, economic and social outlooks and life in general.

There is this prevailing belief in modern culture, that if you ascribe yourself to one religion or another you somehow limit your ability to reason and think ‘outside of the box.’ To the contrary, I believe Islam encourages me to think outside of my comfort zone, to battle my own wishes and desires for a greater moral good. Islam gives me a moral framework to work with, one which serves the ‘greater good’ of all creation – humanity as well as the environment. Being true to my Islam and being ‘conservative’ or ‘orthodox’ in this sense, requires that I also be quite ‘unorthodox’ (in the modern sense) in my politics.

In other words, my social framework is very conservative, yet my socio-political outlook is very ‘socialist’ (for the lack of a better word to describe it). If I want to use modern terminology to describe what Islam advocates for a politico-economic system it would, I believe, come closest to socialism. But Islam isn’t socialism, nor is it liberalism, nor is it some modern ideology of progressivism. Islam already articulates my belief system, my socio-political ideology, thus I see no need to attach new labels onto my Muslim identity. There is no ‘modern’ equivalent to Islam, so it is fruitless for me to try and explain my views in the modern lingo. It’s far more complex then just calling oneself a liberal or conservative, a socialist or what ever else have you.

So back to the question of homosexuality. If I did call myself a ‘liberal’ and didn’t support ‘gay rights’ you’d have every right to call me a hypocrite, and ‘insert derogatory term here.’ But I call myself a Muslim, and therefore will stand behind my values, which do not support or encourage homosexuality. I am not being a hypocrite by upholding my system of beliefs; despite the liberal/pluralist beliefs telling you otherwise.

When you think about it, liberalism as progressive multiculturalism is non-sustainable in the long run, and as Chris Hedges argues in his new book “Death of the Liberal Class” it has been dead and rotting for the past few decades.

I couldn’t have articulated his ideas any better, so here are a few short excerpts from the book explaining the failures of liberalism – or more specifically the liberal class which he defines as the (US) Democratic party, the press, universities, labor movement, culture and liberal religious institutions (the church)

               “Liberal and radical movements at the turn of the century subscribed to the fiction that human diligence, moral probity, and reform, coupled with advances in science and technology, could combine to create a utopia on earth. It was, as the historian Sidney Pollard wrote, “the assumption that a pattern of change exists in this history of mankind… that it consists of irreversible changes in one direction only, and that this direction is towards improvement.” No longer would the poor have to wait for heaven. Justice and prosperity would arrive through human institutions.” (page 84)

And Hedges continues by explaining the difference between ‘classical liberalism’ and the ‘new’ kind of liberalism that dominates academic and social circles today.

               “While these two belief systems shared some of the same characteristics, including respect for individual rights, the new liberal class was and remains distinctly utopian. It places its faith in practical state reforms to achieve a just society. Classical liberalism, while it embraced the goals of enlightenment, was colored by a healthy dose of skepticism about human perfectibility and acutely aware of the nature and potency of evil. Modern liberalism lost this awareness. Human institutions and government were seen as mechanisms that, under the right control, would inevitably better humankind.” (page 84)

According to Hedges, the liberal class committed social suicide by relying profoundly on the ‘state’ for progress. As the state gradually evolved into the ‘corporate sate’ the liberal class began embracing corporatist values and tactics of social reform. Basically the liberal class dissolved into the corporate state by embracing unfettered capitalism, globalization, and imperialism as a means of influencing power. While there was a short-lived resurgence in the 60s with the civil rights movements and so on, Hedges argues that this ‘new-left’ that emerged was still reiterating the utopian visions of materialism, hedonism and an overwhelming focus on self-indulgence and human progress.

               “The counterculture of the 1960s, like the commodity culture, lured adherents inward. It set up the self as the primary center of concern. It, too, offered affirmative, therapeutic remedies to social problems that embraced vague, undefined, and utopian campaigns to remake society (page 110).”

Ultimately, liberalism has failed, and the liberal class has become a useless appendage. When it had a chance, the liberal class did not fight back (before the draconian systems of corporate capitalism were secured in place); now “it continues to peddle the naïve belief that technology and science will propel us forward into greater eras of human prosperity and save us from ourselves” (page 194). It operates from within the compounds of state capitalism itself, and is an active agent in the continuous exploitation of morality in the name of practicality and economic strategy. Morality has been sacrificed in lieu of progress.

The book is definitely worth reading. Chris Hedges is actually a self described socialist and on the ‘left’ side of the spectrum himself, so he presents a very unique perspective to the discourse. I encourage you to read his other works as well including, “Empire of Illusions” and “War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning,” also his book “I don’t believe in Atheists.”

Surely, if we talk about politics, I have no objections to his ideas, yet as a Muslim I am still faithful to the Islamic moral principles, and uncompromising in my values. I am no apologetic and will not forsake my beliefs in the name of political correctness. For some, my political and religious beliefs may seem at odds or hypocritical, but for me they are perfectly harmonious. In the end, no human being is free from bias, let’s remember that, including I.

War and Capitalism

2011-05-16T00:23:00.008-04:00

If you really think about it, the world has been in a permanent state of war since WWI. Wars have been waged in the name of capitalism, not ‘democracy’, for decades now. These wars have generated immeasurable death, destruction, pain and human suffering around the world. The systematic industrial killing machine destroys human life (and the natural environment) far more effectively then ‘pre-modern’ warfare.

War reduces all to speaking the political sound-bite language of nationalism and patriotic cant – it is a disease.

War is profit. The arms industry and various private contracting companies made (and continue to make) trillions of dollars in this so called ‘war-on-terror’ alone. It seems to be in capitalism’s best interest to keep the world – the ‘poor’, ‘third-world’ countries that is – in a constant state of war. After all, human life has been completely stripped of value and sanctity; it is just another ‘cheap’ commodity that can easily be disposed of through what they call ‘collateral damage.’ What matters in the end is not the people or the soldiers fighting these unnecessary wars, but money and profit, pride and of course power.

The corporations have thirty-five thousand lobbyists in Washington and thousands more in other state capitals successfully ‘bribing’ the government, and shaping legislation according to their will and pleasure.

That, and of course the illusion of ‘public opinion’, which is largely shaped by the mass media, which in turn is monopolized by the government that is run by the corporate mafia, give a sense of ‘justification’ for these wars – a hopeless illusion’ of ‘security’ which is sold to them through fear.

Fear is the main ingredient of all wars. Fear makes people do unimaginable things. Fear makes people willing to give up their rights and ‘liberties’ for the promise of security. Fear ensures that we no longer ask uncomfortable questions of those who carry out these fake promises of security, and ensures that the corporations’ aims remain unchallenged. Fear keeps us (common people) caged in like livestock.

Yet it is we, the irrelevant livestock, that are used as bait, pinned against one another to fight their bloody wars of profit. It is never the power elite who actually experience the realities of war. Perhaps if they were participating agents in their own wars, they would be less likely to wage them.

However that is sadly not the case. Hollywood and the corporate media have perverted the truth. Their pornographic display of war and violence create a rather pleasurable experience in the psyche of the inexperienced sheeple they control. The sheeple they program to fight the ‘real’ wars for them; the sheeple that rally their ‘wars’ on and support the corporate killing machine, with their money and lives, go into these wars thinking they will come out like another hero from ‘platoon’ or ‘saving private ryan.’

Yet those who have come to know real war will not be so easily fooled. We know what war does to human bodies. We know how war looks like. We know how a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) shatters human flesh, and we know how bullets pierce fragile human bodies. We know the color of children’s blood, and we know the smell of death… we know death.

War is not meant for entertainment, yet it is served to us as such, daily.

I am writing this post in wake of the nineteenth anniversary of a war that took the lives of my family members, neighbors and friends. On May 16, 1992, over sixty people were killed in a matter of fifteen minutes, in a small town in Bosnia - my home town. I am writing this post because I know war, I know fear and I know death.

I am writing this post because, around me, I see a continuous blind support for the manufactured ‘war on terror’ by many Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

If you really want to fight ‘terrorism’ fight against war itself. Fight against this killing machine that keeps generating ‘terror’/fear which justify unnecessary wars, that take the lives of millions of people world wide every year. Fight against ‘terrorism’ in your heart, the one which has made you fall in love with materialism and this worldly hedonistic cult of the self that the religion of ‘capitalism’ fervently espouses. Fight against the ‘terrorism’ that makes you complacent to this current system of corruption, and exploitation, this ‘terrorism’ which has reduced humanity to a mare object, which has reduced your identity to a bar-code on the back of your credit-card.

I am writing this post because I still believe that human life is ‘price-less’. And because I value humanity, I take my stand against Capitalism and the corporate war machine. I hope you will never have to ‘experience’ war, but I also hope that you will stand against this exploitative totalitarian system and make sure that no-one else has to experience war either!

'Osama bin Laden' is an idea, and ideas are bulletproof

2011-05-03T11:21:00.005-04:00

I am sure you all must have heard the news by now, Osama bin Laden, or what he used to be known as Tim Osman, has allegedly been assassinated by special US forces on Sunday May 1, 2011. You can pretty much search the entire internet for the standard story of the unfolding events, all the celebrations and cheers of victory for having killed a man that was probably never involved in or responsible for the 9/11 attacks but was conveniently framed for the attacks given his past relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency.

Well what ever the case, let’s not celebrate just yet. Osama bin Laden is not just a man, Osama bin Laden is an idea, and ideas are bulletproof. His death does not necessarily indicate an end to the ‘global war on terrorism,’ nor an end to his vision or ideology.

This so called ‘war on terror’ is no conventional war. It is a battle of ‘isms’, a battle of the psyche, or as many love to say “a battle for the hearts and minds” of the people. You do not win such a war by simply executing the ‘head’ of a very complex and highly elaborate network of people who share this common ‘dissenting’ ideology.

Ideological wars are won with words and arguments, ideas and policies not bullets and bombs.

The ‘war on terrorism’ was never about bin Laden – the man – it was about a principle. 9/11 was a huge embarrassment to the United States, and the ‘justice’ that has been reportedly served is nothing but another provocation of US imperial power. The public execution of bin Laden - the man - was in fact a symbolic redemption for the US, in which she retook her leadership throne and loudly exclaimed to the world that she is the mighty leviathan. Not even the world’s most notorious man, the “most dangerous” terrorist, could escape her wrath. His death is a statement: “even if it takes 10 years, we will get you; so don’t mess with us.”

But his idea lives on. As long as this staggering inequality remains in the world, as long as the global oppression persists, as long as meaningless wars are fought in the name of 'democracy', 'development' and ‘freedom’, as long as the imperial powers mingle in Arab/Muslim affairs, you will have a bin Laden somewhere in this world.

Don’t ever take politics at face value. Actions will speak louder then words. But I guess we will just have to wait and see. Yes, Osama bin Laden (an already dead man) has officially been killed…. what’s next?

"Western" Muslims

2011-04-30T14:12:00.005-04:00

I don’t think most “Western” Muslims (myself included) realize how narrow our views on life, politics, philosophy and religion are until we start branching out and re-reading/re-thinking our world view from a critical perspective.

Truth is, those of us born and raised in Europe or what we generally consider the ‘West’ are brought up with a very ‘white’, Euro-centric understanding of the world; one that is very heavily influenced by post-enlightenment thinking. Seldom do we find Christianity itself practiced in its orthodox, pre-reformation form and context; even the ‘orthodox’ or ‘evangelical’ Christians are a modern, post-reformation phenomena. Christianity had been fundamentally uprooted and changed in light of humanist philosophy. Some of the most famous ‘founders’ of humanist thought were in fact Christian reformers; which brings me to a second point.

The Euro-centric world view is inextricably linked to its Judeo-Christian-Greco-Roman roots. The fact that our entire systems are built upon ancient Platonic principles later influenced by Christian ideas of a ‘corrupt’ human nature (man is born sinful), synthesized and combined with elements of the ‘un-orthodox’ Jewish Kabbalah and even Hermeticim, narrows our understanding and way of thinking to a very well defined, ‘western’ philosophical tradition.

So trying to understand Islam through this very narrowly defined prism is going to be very difficult and almost impossible. I was very fortunate to receive a good liberal arts education that helped me discern my Islamic and non-Islamic roots. I am undeniably European and have been influenced by this euro-centric ideology for most of my life, and having had the opportunity to study and re-think my own secular traditions helped me understand Islam in a much more profound way. In other words, when I tried to study Islam through this very distorted world view I never understood its essence for what it truly was. I understood it in the way it was apparent to me at that time. It is not until I changed my lenses that I began to fully comprehend my own deficiencies and misunderstanding of Islam.

Being born into the religion was never truly relevant, because I was never conformed to live by its principles.

Some people are not ready to take off their distorted visions in order to understand the ‘other’ from his own unique perspective; rather they try to force their own visions onto the ‘other’, sometimes knowingly, and other times unknowingly.

For example, in the post-reformation age, mysticism has become vastly accepted by Christians and major religions in the West. It was the ‘universally’ acceptable way of reconciling traditional religious beliefs with secular humanist thought excluding the heavy baggage of ‘orthodoxy.’ Today, we find that those people who are trying to understand Islam from their own short-sighted perspectives are more inclined toward spiritually-corrupt mysticism. Accordingly, they can modify Islam to their own visualizations and perceptions of the religion from a very specific Greco-Roman-Judeo-Christian point of view.

To be fair, many times Muslims commit the same mistake when trying to understand the ‘West’. These two entities can never successfully understand each other until they are ready to swap their lenses and critically analyze their own traditions.

While the “Western” Muslim’s problem lies in the difficulty of understanding Islam from its own point of view, the “Eastern” Muslim’s difficulty lies in his inability to look at his own history realistically.

I see most Muslims today as ‘idealists’ – unable to critically look at their own past and admit that the early Muslims were people with temptations and trials like the rest of us – even though our prophet himself was a realist. We have a way of essentializing our own past and painting it in the most simplistic artificial terms. Muslims have to realize that being realistic doesn’t mean being disrespectful. We have to be able to critically analyze and understand the lessons of past generations so that we can become more successful at solving modern issues facing our communities today. We can no longer bury our heads in the sand and pretend that everything is going to be great. Unless we apply those noble Islamic principles into our lives we will never resurrect our ‘golden age’ – it will remain buried in our ignorance and Muslims will drown in their nostalgic idealism.

Both are essentially doing themselves a great disservice by trying to force their limited visions of Islam onto the religion itself. Islam encompasses a much greater view of the world and the whole universe then we can grasp with our shortsighted understanding. Respectfully, to be able to understand ‘the other’ we have to look at them from their own perspectives and not force our own understandings onto them.

I realize this is a very rough draft of a very complex issue, so feel free to add your thoughts on the topic. I may expand on these points in a future post, if my readers find it interesting and beneficial.

Shariah

2011-04-21T19:03:00.001-04:00

When we think about modernity and life in general, we think of ‘motion.’ We are constantly struggling to ‘move ahead’ and ‘move forward.’ We are racing against time. Generally, people want to accomplish something, and give their existence some meaning through walking straight ahead, and reaching some kind of a personal goal in life. We usually perceive life as linear, like time. We are born, we live, and at some point in that simplified linear existence we die.

Islam gives humanity a much more rounded approach to life. It’s about moving forward, yes, but ultimately it’s about ‘returning’ to our point of gravity, our origin – returning to our Lord. Muslims are said to walk the ‘straight path’ – but where does this path lead? Or even, what is the ‘straight path’?

Most people interpret shariah as ‘islamic law,’ yet to a practicing Muslim the meaning goes beyond legalistic terminology, it goes beyond black and white rules and interpretations of Islamic jurisprudence. Shariah is also a symbolic road or path; a path of balance which will lead the practicing Muslim back to his/her Lord – to Reality and absolute Truth.

The laws are more like the road signs we look for along the way to help us navigate through life as we search for our way back to the Real.

Thus the ‘shariah’ is both centrifugal and centripetal. It pushes us forward in life, and at the same time pulls us back to our gravitational center, leading us back to our ‘unseen’ (true) state of being. After all, according to Islam, this world is but a reflection of the ‘real’ and only death will reunite us with Truth. We emerge from the ‘unseen’ (transcending reality) and we disappear into it once again.

Captivated by our individual subjectivities, which by nature distort our ‘reality’, we need some kind of an objective standard to fall back on. For the Muslim, this objective standard is resonant in the divine laws, which are drawn from two primary sources of Islamic knowledge – the Qur’an and the prophetic sunnah. Think of it this way; what would happen if we all decided to subjectively interpret road-signs when we go out there to drive in the ‘real world’? Wouldn’t there be many more deaths and accidents? Allegorically, we can apply the same logic to ‘shariah’ – if everyone could subjectively interpret Islamic laws, then they would no longer serve their purpose. The ‘road signs’ would not lead us to the one place we need to go.

Accordingly, those ‘controversial’ hadd punishments in Islamic law are the expression of principles which cannot and should not be changed according to our subjective experiences. Nevertheless, it is not to say that the punishments should be inflicted whenever possible, but that the principles (i.e. justice) should always remain in tact and serve their full purpose.

Especially in today’s anti-Islamic climate, it is important that we defend our Islamic principles and don’t allow subjective opinions to undermine the shariah through fear mongering, terrorizing and unwarranted labeling. Also, it is important to note that the recent manufactured threats of ‘shariah creeping into the West’ are completely unfounded – one, because shariah is a spiritual path as much as it is a legal code for the practicing Muslims, and two, this law does not seek to impose itself on “non-believers” so there is nothing the fear mongers need to be worried about. On the contrary, under Islamic rule Christians and Jews were allowed to maintain their legal obligations under their own religious traditions – yet unfortunately Muslims are increasingly pressurized to conform to secular laws and discard their religious practices in the name of modernity.

Islam, being a theocentric faith tradition, does not separate the religious and social realms. A Muslim embodies the shariah by living Islam in the social realm – therefore denying Muslims the right to practice ‘shariah’ as such, is denying Muslims the right to practice their religion.

Unfortunately, due to rigorous anti-shariah campaigns and their misrepresentations and demonizations of the concept, many non-Muslims as well as Muslims have failed to grasp the holistic meaning of this very important Islamic term. It is not just about law and punishment, but about a holistic, spiritual way of life. Shariah is a Muslim's road to salvation.

Infantilized adults and adult-children

2011-04-04T23:19:00.005-04:00

(image credit)

When I look at the world today, compared to only two decades ago, I can see a major shift in the way people perceive their purpose in this world, and how the majority chooses to live their lives. Muslims are not exempt from this phenomenon.

Perhaps one of the obvious explanations is globalization (and/or modernization). The rising tide of western-originated ideas about life and death are washing the shores of impoverished souls, who were overcome by the strength of this new ideology that is sweeping them into the depths of materialism, hedonism, and secular humanism.

We no longer have a goal, a purpose greater then this material world. We all live for here and now. We no longer think of the eternal bliss that awaits those who persevere through this life, albeit with great suffering, but for an ultimate prize – paradise. We no longer consume, but are consumed instead.

We are obsessed with staying young, and are afraid of the first signs and wrinkles of old age. And because we live for this world, we live in constant fear that it may end – we are afraid to die. Spending just one day (let alone years of one’s life), watching television commercials, will leave you in awe of how many billions of dollars are spent to promote imaginary ‘flawlessness’ and perfection – an idealized image of eternal 'infancy' – an induced childishness.

People are stuck in the early stages of human development – ‘grown-ups’ are no more ‘grown’ then the children they bare. Everyone just wants to live the ‘good’ life, have some ‘fun’ – fun and absolutely no responsibility, no commitment. Everything that takes some ‘effort’ to work – like marriage – doesn’t last because everything today is about ‘instant gratification.’ I mean, drive-thrus are great and all, but they make Americans fat and lazy. And when the food still doesn’t come out ‘fast enough,’ there are always plenty more petty law suits waiting to be filed.

Simultaneously, however, as adults are being duped into lifelong puerility, children are told to grow-up exceedingly fast. Little girls of six, seven and eight years old are sold ‘bras’ and told by the consumer culture to look, ‘cute’ and ‘sexy.’ Consequently, with the consumerization of the child, comes the psychological and ideological shaping of the so-called adult.

It seems as though these people have been hypnotized into a whole other dimension of surreal existence. They no longer function in the ‘natural’ order of life. They imagine themselves to be young and invincible, forever. They live in a world of obsessive narcissism. They are rebellious adolescents, on a quest to liberate themselves from ‘grown-up’ responsibilities in favor of self-obsessive avariciousness. They want their new toys, and spend nights camping outside a store to claim their new apple i-phones. ‘Life’ (for them) is about going ‘wild,’ drinking, partying, and hoping to make new ‘sexual scores.’ It’s sad!

As much as we would like to think this is a uniquely ‘American’ (or ‘Western’) problem – it is not. Muslims are as much affected and consumed by this disastrous ideology as any other community in the world.

Perhaps we should remember Ali ibn Abi Talib’s (may Allah be pleased with him) wise words, when he once said, “detachment [from the dunya/material world] is not that you should own nothing, but that nothing should own you.”

Yet, these words may appear long over-due. We are past being ‘consumed.’

Paradoxically, there are also Muslims who are completely delirious and paranoid of the consumer-toxic culture that they have demented themselves into complete social seclusion. Isolated from the ‘real’ world, they dedicate their entire lives to dying, and in essence forget how to ‘live’. And by ‘live’ I mean become good, God-conscious Muslims, by performing generous acts and increasing the wellness of their fellow human beings.

Neither extreme is particularly healthy, and as Muslims we have been blessed with a clear path (shariah) that shows us the way toward attaining balance and equilibrium, so that we may find purpose in this temporary life (dunya), and keep our focus firmly fixed on the prize of akhira/jannah (paradise). If we learn to walk the tightrope of life, we will accept that eventually we have to walk our way to the ‘other side.’ Rumi once said that “death is our wedding with eternity.” I find his words powerful and extraordinarily beautiful. No one would be afraid to die in such bliss. When we realize our mortality, our finite nature as mare specks of dust in this grand Universe, then ‘death’ doesn’t seem so scary – getting old doesn’t seem at all frightening.

Thinking of death makes me appreciate my time on this Earth. Death is what gives life purpose. An ideology which seeks to demonize that which is only ‘natural’ denies us our essence, our soulful purpose, our objective as human beings. Such an ideology is non-Islamic – no, it is in fact anti-Islamic. So, as the famous saying goes, 'live today as if you were to die tomorrow'!

The problem of evil

2011-03-31T11:44:00.001-04:00

What is 'evil'?

Is evil simply the absence of good – like darkness is the absence of light, and cold is the absence of heat? Doesn’t evil exist only because people have God absent from their hearts?

What do you think?

"The murderers of 'god'"

2011-03-29T12:26:00.003-04:00

taken from: "Words of Wisdom" by Gareth Southwell

How ever we choose to comprehend this quote, it remains one of the most revolutionary sayings man has come up with in modern times. In his parable, Nietzsche tells us that ‘we’ are responsible for the death of ‘God’ and the only thing that will redeem us and release us from this burdensome guilt was the ‘Übermensch’ (“superhuman”). While Nietzsche tells us that ‘god is dead’ he doesn’t pronounce that this is an unequivocally ‘good’ thing. What happens when man no longer bows to something higher than himself?

Nietzsche says, “… how shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it?” (Die fröhliche Wissenschaft, 1882)

And indeed, today’s neo-atheism seems to promote this ‘Übermenschlich’ (superhumanly) ideal, where the ego has become the sole master of its own will. Kindled and nurtured by a unique secular humanist philosophy, man has set forth on a soulless journey toward supreme self-actualization, toward realizing a kind of “divinity”… or so the neo-atheist envisions, subconsciously.

Surely, they will never admit to their ‘religiosity,’ and despite Nietzsche’s ideas being non-traditional and irreligious in the orthodox sense, they were prophetic nonetheless. Up until modern times, man has always believed in something greater then himself, whether it be ‘gods’ or some other supernatural ‘deity,’ yet humanism introduced mankind to a completely new world view – one in which man occupied the ‘godly’ throne.

As it states in the humanist manifesto, “man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams, that he has within himself the power for its achievement. He must set intelligence and will to the task.”

My point here is not to augment that ‘God’ can indeed be murdered, but that those who forsake God in the name of human will and rational power are deceiving themselves into believing that it can be done. After all ‘God is Dead’ is one of the most famous atheist t-shirt slogans. Even if they kill one ‘vision’ of who god is – they are bound to invent new ways and practices to supplement that sensational vision with another. Except in their vision, ‘god’ is the individual ‘I.’

For this precise reason, I am highly critical of some Muslims adopting the humanist credo, because ultimately it contradicts Islamic teachings on the most fundamental levels. The Muslim’s goal is to increase God-consciousness, not kill it.

Arguing from ignornace

2011-03-23T14:16:00.001-04:00

If you read ‘liberal-Muslim’ literature, you will often come across this one argument that is used to justify various amendments to classical/’orthodox’ jurisprudential majority opinions and rulings. The argument goes like this, “…I have concluded that there is nothing in the Quran that explicitly prohibits/commands (insert issue here); therefore it should be permissible…”

There is no greater logical fallacy then assuming that something is either permissible or forbidden do to our ignorance (un-awareness) of it – it is called ‘argumentum ad ignorantiam’.

In other words, simply because something is not mentioned in the holy text (Qur’an), it doesn’t mean we can start assuming things to be permissible. Progressives use this fallacious approach to understanding legal Islamic matters in many cases where ‘women’s issues’ are concerned. For example, issues pertaining to hijab or marrying non-Muslim men. They say, ‘well, it doesn’t say anywhere in the Qur’an that this is not permissible, therefore we can assume that it is.’ However, one can easily refute such a claim by indicating that “it doesn’t say it is permissible either” – but where do we go from here?

Traditionally, ‘orthodox’ scholars have consulted all evidence (including ahadith/prophetic sayings and traditions) before making such crude decisions about God’s will and law, but unfortunately, we do not see the same humility practiced by modern scholars of Islam. Before we can delve into the shady, gray areas of law and jurisprudence, it would be wise not to use such amateur arguments to justify amendments to very clear rulings on hijab and marriage; and I wish more bloggers would take heed to the prophet's advice, when he said;

"...Both legal and illegal things are obvious, and in between them are (suspicious) doubtful matters. So who-ever forsakes those doubtful things lest he may commit a sin, will definitely avoid what is clearly illegal; and who-ever indulges in these (suspicious) doubtful things bravely, is likely to commit what is clearly illegal. Sins are Allah's Hima (i.e. private pasture) and whoever pastures (his sheep) near it, is likely to get in it at any moment." (Narrated An-Nu'man bin Bashir, Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 267)

Time

2011-03-11T16:48:00.004-05:00

When people critique Islam, they usually critique it on the merit of ‘time’ – that is historicity. In other words, they critique Islam’s message in relation to the pre-existing religious doctrines of that particular historical time period, or to the current status quo.

What they do not realize, however, is that for Muslims ‘time’ is conceptualized in relation to God, and not the material world. This is why Muslims will often say that the Islamic message is ‘eternal’ and ‘time-less.’

I thought it would be interesting to explore the meaning of ‘time’ in the Islamic context and how it relates to our current perception of ‘time’ when we use it to describe certain events, past or present.

So, I begin this post with asking what is ‘time’? St. Augustine, who drew much of his philosophical inspirations from Muslims like Abu Sina, once said, “if no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know.” And it’s true. Everyone thinks they can grasp ‘time’ and what it means, yet when we try to explain and rationalize it to ourselves and others, we are left quite confound and confused.

There are a variety of ways of looking at ‘time’ and we can generally draw some common threads or core principles in our defining process, that is how it (time) relates to events, when they occur and how long they last. Essentially, ‘time’ is viewed as a linear concept that has been broken into three dimensions – past, present and future. As physical time progresses, we place these events onto the linear sequence and conceptualize time psychologically by generalizing what we perceive to be present events. Yet what is ‘present’?

We relate both past and future to the ‘present,’ what ‘was’ is no longer, and ‘what is to come’ is still being anticipated in the present tense. So both of these concepts are understood relative to our current situation; however, change is occurring constantly, so do we really even have a ‘present’? Thus, could ‘time’ simply be the awareness and consciousness of this process of continuous change? Is this what we mean by ‘present’?

Islamic philosophy conceptualized ‘time’ as a fluidity or continuity. It is important to note that Islam never claimed to be anything ‘new,’ it simply came to reaffirm the ‘truth’ and Allah tells us to search for Truth wherever it may be, including in the older scriptures – namely the Tawrat (Torah), Zebur and Injil. As Allah says in the Qur’an; “'Nothing is said unto thee [Muhammad] other than what was said to all the messengers who preceded thee' (Q.41.43).” So even if there is change, everything stays the same in the greater sense. This is the reason why Muslims still practice the tradition of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) even though he lived in 7th Century Arabia.

Even as everything around us changes, the Muslim is taught to live in stillness, in the ‘eternal’ moment of the present. Like Le Gai Eaton said “…it is in this spirit of serenity that the Muslim is required to observe and endure the vicissitudes of time and history, fortified by a quality of stillness and of timelessness which is at the heart of his faith.” (Islam and the Destiny of Man, p. 33).

Stillness is not stagnation. It simply means we are continuously conscious of this process as an ‘eternal’ entity, which is changeless and ‘timeless.’

Consequently, however, we might never grasp what ‘time’ really is. But this leaves me with another question, if 'time' is eternal, does it mean we exist outside of 'time'?

Same-sex Marriage

2011-03-02T17:35:00.003-05:00

I have tried avoiding this issue, but because a number of people have been going down the ‘progressive’ route and pressuring Muslims to conform to the new age liberal interpretation of ‘human rights,’ which include the acceptance and endorsement of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, I felt a need to respond.

Last week there was an article on the BBC about same-sex marriage among ‘Muslims’ in the UK, and their desire to engage into this life-long commitment and partnership through ‘Islamic’ means, namely nikah. Various ‘progressive’ Islamic organizations have challenged the traditional/classical rulings on this matter and reinterpreted Islamic teachings to ameliorate their current liberal norms and secular societal expectations.

Currently, they seek to integrate ‘gay marriage’ into the Muslim paradigm, and allow marriage contracts between two members of the same-sex to take place in mosques and other holy places of worship under the banner of Islam.

A few days ago, a friend of mine, who is a Muslim chaplain at a university, held an event on this topic and invited members of different faiths to discuss and debate the issue from their individual religious perspectives. What I’ve noticed, over and over again, at these public sponsored events, is a defeatist religious conformity to secular liberalism. It is always religion that needs ‘reforming,’ and never society.

When she asked me what I thought about the issue, I said, “homosexuality has become ‘normal’ in today’s society, and when something becomes ‘normal’ people start making up excuses for it.” And the same goes for ‘gay-marriage.’ Also drawing from my previous posts on ‘enlightenment thinking’ I added, “the whole point of the Islamic message (as I understand it) is to fight the 'ego' not illuminate it. Modern society and enlightenment thinking teach us the opposite effect.”

I realize that there are people who struggle with same-sex attractions and are part of our broader Muslim community. We should not ostracize them for this mare fact. There are many Muslims who realize the greater message of Islam – tawhid – and struggle in the way of God, for the sake of God, and never fall pray to their ‘egos.’ There is a wonderful website for same-sex attraction (SSA) Muslims, called Eye on ‘Gay Muslims’, who realize their predicament, yet hold fiercely onto the traditional Islamic teachings and maintain that homosexual acts are forbidden. Here is their analysis of the BBC article.

What I really love about their work is that it emphasizes the importance of authentic and organic Islam and Islamic scholarship. Accordingly, this Islam teaches them and us that Allah doesn’t hold people accountable for ‘feelings,’ but intentions, deeds and actions. Thus, even if there is such a thing as a gay gene, it is of no significance. We all have different primitive urges and desires, but this doesn’t mean we should act upon them.

Modern, secular, liberal society tells us we should, and today we have many ‘progressive’ Muslim pseudo-intellectuals supporting this way of thinking, and are subsequently eroding the essence of Islamic thought – which is to realize greater God-consciousness.

I encourage you to visit the SSA Muslim website and familiarize yourselves with their difficulties. We need more compassion and empathy in this world and in our communities. We should empathize with their struggle; however, we should not endorse homosexuality and seek out ‘Islamic’ evidence to support sinful behaviors. It seems to me that anything today can be labeled ‘Islamic’ as long as we place the word ‘islamic’ in front of another noun, verb, or adjective. So we have to ask ourselves, are these things truly ‘Islamic’?

I’d really love to know what you think about this subject. Do you think the tradition of ‘ijtihad’ should be resurrected, and modern interpretations of Islam that accommodate humanist philosophy should be accepted in the Muslim community? Do you believe homosexuality, and same-sex marriage should be tolerated by Islam?

Eclipsing truths, illuminating lies

2011-02-23T23:18:00.000-05:00

In many ways, the former Yugoslavia embodies the tragedies of the current world order. It is a small clone of the larger paradigm, of corruption, economic degeneration, political demagoguery, fascism and propaganda, mass brainwashing, and indiscriminate killing even genocide.

I am sharing this essay of mine because I am tried of ultra leftist intellectuals (including Noam Chomsky) and Serb nationalists pulling a grand facade over the entire Bosnian conflict just so they can highlight a specific event that changed the course of the war, and secured NATO’s prolonged (indefinite) presence in the region. I am referring to the indiscriminate NATO bombing of Belgrade in 1999, which is always used as a convenient example to support their sentimental anti-American position; however, at the same time they are distorting and essentializing a very complex history of war and ethnic strife in the Balkans.

By shifting and focusing our attention on this sole event during the Yugoslav breakup Chomsky and others like him cast a shadow over the entire reality of that war. The Breakup began in 1991, and the bombings were carried out in 1999. There is an entire eight year prelude to that controversial event, and a lot of bloody experiences are deliberately masked over in an attempt to demonize one major player in this tragic history – America.

I am no fan of NATO (the forces of evil) or any of the international policies that were manufactured during the Yugoslav conflict by the ‘international’ (European) community. Everything played out in their (Western) greatest interest – that is pretty self-evident. However, I will not let truth be buried under the rubbles of one questionable "catastrophe."

So below is a short history lesson to all of those who wish to forget the real forces of conflict that lead to the disintegration of the former Balkan republic. Below I outline the causes of the Yugoslav breakup. Among them was a great economic collapse. We can see these greater forces at play today on the global scale. We can see that with economic uncertainty comes great political instability, and if history can be our guide, we are heading for major global chaos and disaster.

"The Dream of a Greater Serbia":

In the name of unity and brotherhood, the socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia was born in the rubbles and aftermath of the Second World War. Its conception and fortitude was possible only under the imperative leadership of the charismatic and independent minded communist leader Josip Broz Tito, who held the newly formed country together with an iron fist. Unlike other Eastern European nations, like Czechoslovakia and Hungary, which were embroiled in the midst of the political and ideological saga of the Cold War period, Tito led Yugoslavia on an unaligned path toward stability and independence from Stalinist dogmatism and American neo-imperialism. His death in 1980, would inevitably mark the beginning of the bloodiest conflict in Europe since WWII, and lead Yugoslavia toward violent separatisms and civil war. The rise of nationalism and the weakening communist influences in the late 1980s, coupled with a very poor economic situation allowed for one man to change the course of Yugoslavia's history forever. His name was Slobodan Milosevic. "No sooner had Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic discovered how effective demagogic nationalism was in a post Communist world he began reducing the rights of non-Serbs within Serbia" (Paxton 668). His dream was to create a 'greater Serbia.'

Unquestionably, a complex combination of causes and events prompted the break up of the former Yugoslavia after Tito's death, however, it is Milosevic and his supporters who hastened this process through a rigorous 'ethnic cleansing' campaign which resulted in the largest genocide on European soil since the Holocaust.

In 1989, Milosevic began his hateful campaign in the autonomous province of Kosovo, where he resurrected ancient hatreds and reinvented a political language which revived the ethnic tensions that were largely suppressed for decades during Tito's regime. As the centrality of the government in Yugoslavia shifted further into Belgrade and Milosevic began to realize his dream of creating a bigger Serbia, the disintegration of Yugoslavia seemed inevitable. The looming economic crisis largely contributed to the widespread dissent toward the 'new' Yugoslavia. "By the early 1980s, there was deepening resentment on [all] sides of the [economic] debate, and everyone felt 'exploited' by the system" (Ramet 56). However, economic inequality and instability was only fueling the interethnic frictions and antagonisms - it would take a man like Milosevic to put the final act of nationality policy and cement the ugly fate of the former Yugoslavia.

It would be impossible to completely divorce economics from the forces of political nationalisms which swept through the former Yugoslavia. "Nationalist demons had been set loose" and there was no way of containing them (Paxton 671). The secession of republics began in June of 1991, when Slovenia, and shortly thereafter Croatia, declared their independence from the new Serb dominated Yugoslavia. Both were met with great resistance from the federal (Serb) army, directed from Belgrade, yet had a relatively good outcome compared to the neighboring Bosnia and Herzegovina. Things would complicate tremendously once the war spreads with the Serb aggression into Bosnia.

The concept of the 'greater Serbia' was largely an ethno-national concept rather than a historic one. It is not synonymous with the historical Kingdom of Serbia, since the kingdom itself did not include the autonomous region of Vojvodina, Bosnia, the Krajina, and Slovenia, although they each had a large ethnic minority Serb population. Thus, the 'greater Serbia' can be best summed up with Milosevic's own words "where ever there is a Serb, there is Serbia." Bosnia and Herzegovina, at the time it declared independence, in March of 1992, had a thirty percent Serb minority population, who were very much opposed to the idea of separatism (Best 497 and Paxton 670). They wished to be included in the greater national Serb schematic dictated from Belgrade, however the majority Muslim population, which constituted over forty percent of Bosnia's population did not agree. Radovan Karadzic, a Bosnian Serb leader, used this opportunity to rally the Serbian cause within Bosnia and adopt the same nationalist rhetoric used by Milosevic within Kosovo. Karadzic began to dream the same dream of a great Serbia, and fought a costly battle to incorporate Bosnia into that vision.

Emir Suljagic in his memoir "Postcards from the Grave" illustrates the dimensions of this dream, which only turned into a bloody nightmare for much of Bosnia's Muslim and Croat/Catholic populations. Suljagic namely dedicates his book to the genocidal conflict in Srebrenica. He explained the situation and the sentiments of much of the Bosnian Muslim population in a post Communist Yugoslavia very well when he says: "people were stunned by the fact that they had become so worthless overnight and found this difficult to accept. Those people did not understand that their survival depended on how quickly they grasped that it was not possible to bring anything from the old world into the new. The old world was irreversibly lost and the new one was ruled by scum, criminals, former prisoners, [and] corrupt policemen…" (Suljagic 27). This was the new reality of a broken Yugoslavia. Srebrenica became known as one of the sites of a major genocide on European soil since the Holocaust where (most commonly cited) over 8000 men and boys, but also including some women and children, were massacred in less than forty-eight hours. As a result, the Western world, still living in the legacy of the Second World War pressured Milosevic to halt the carnage and make peace.

The Dayton Agreement was singed on November 21, 1995 between the three parties (the Serbs, Croats and Bosniak Muslims) however peace remained very elusive. Through indiscriminant bombings on Belgrade, and great pressure from the NATO powers, Milosevic was forced to wake up to reality. His dream would be put on hold until 1999 when he revoked the same brutal policies in Kosovo.

The reality was indeed different. A number of troubling developments during the 1980s lead to the ultimate demise of Tito's Yugoslavia - thus it would be erroneous to claim that Milosevic carried all the responsibility of its disintegration. While, economic difficulties, and historic ethnic tensions certainly were at play, Milosevic brought all of these issues together and manipulated nationalist ideology to rise to power and realize his dream of the 'greater Serbia.' Scholars continue to debate the exact rational explanation of the tragedies that befell ex-Yugoslavia, and perhaps there is more to this conflict than rationality can truly explain.

* Best , Anthony, Jussi M. Hanhimaki, Joseph A. Maiolo, and Kirsten E. Schulze. International History of the Twentieth Century and Beyond. 2nd. New York: Routledge, 2008.

* Suljagic, Emir. Postcards From the Grave. Saqi Books in association with the Bosnian Institute, 2005.

* Paxton, Robert. Europe in the Twentieth Century. 4th. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.

* Ramet, Sabrina. Thinking about Yugoslavia: Scholarly Debates about the Yugoslav Breakup and the Wars in Bosnia and Kosovo. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Finding our way back to 'reality'

2011-02-23T01:00:00.008-05:00

I’ve just bought a new book that I am really looking forward to reading called “Empire of Illusion” by Chris Hedges. Thanks to technology overpowering our perceptions of ‘reality’ with things like ‘kindle’ and ‘ipads’ (and what ever else have they) book stores are already closing in America; which makes me always vary because books are the springs of knowledge and literacy, and if those springs dry up, people will be reduced to dehydrated dummies ready to be controlled, brainwashed and crash tested by their corporate masters at their leisure.

Since I have not yet read the book, I cannot give you a full review of it, but I did find a good online lecture by Hedges which you must watch if you were at all interested in the content I have been posting lately. He is extremely articulate, and most of his ideas are just spot on. He and I do not come to the exact same solution to the problem, since I do not see socialism as a viable contender to the current system, but his overall analysis of the current socio-economic situation is just remarkable and worth your time. His words bring us back to ‘reality,’ so to speak, and I imagine so will his book.

Take a listen, and let me know what you think.

Religious liberalism and economics

2011-02-17T23:23:00.005-05:00

In today’s market, religion has become a cheap commodity. People can shop for beliefs, find good deals on discounted practices, and when they change their mind, or something doesn’t sit well with them, they can return everything and receive a full refund for their spiritual purchase.

The global liberal market is arguably a religion in itself, and ‘faith’ is just a product that can be used and abused to increase global revenue and profit.

All of today’s prevalent ‘isms’ are held collectively under the umbrella of ‘liberalism’ – a popular religious ideology that allowed for the transactions of faith to take place. This modern religion which shares no common threads with the so-called paranoid, mythological traditional belief systems of the past, is unique in that ‘god’ is not some supernatural being hovering over its creation ready to exert its great wrath upon them, nor is ‘god’ a paternal, fatherly figure. ‘God’ is the ‘I’ – and no-one can hold ‘I’ accountable for its actions, except 'I' itself.

It works quite fascinatingly; a self-fulfilling prophecy of humankind’s inability to see beyond ‘himself’ and his material world. Liberalism is a self-sustaining ideology where ‘god’ is practically irrelevant.

Adam Smith, often credited as the father of the liberal market as we know it, once used a very interesting term to describe the self-sustaining nature of the marketplace. He called it the ‘invisible hand.’ This theory, developed in the late 18th Century, argued that the market should not be controlled, rather it should be left to its own devices; and when problems do occur we should just let the market be, for it will fix itself by that ‘invisible hand.’

Liberalism gave power to the individual, to the private market. The deregulation of the market consequently brought about the deregulation of all social institutions, including ‘organized’ religion. The individual consumer now had the ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ to choose what ever she wanted to believe, as she was no longer bound to outdated, often patriarchal traditions. After all, she was ‘enlightened.’

The market, or more specifically ‘economics,’ is suffering from something that social scientist have termed ‘physics envy.’ Traditionally, economics was a social science, meaning it was a relative study of society just like history and politics. However since the liberal revolution in the 19th and 20th centuries, it has claimed legitimacy in the 'new-world' through its impulsive marriage with ‘science.’ The market became the ‘absolute’ truth for everyone. Accordingly, the market now walking hand in hand with science, could ‘legitimately’ set forth on a path of ‘sacred trust’ to civilize the rest of the world, and bring to them the wonders of scientific/economic ‘progress’ – which would ultimately lead the ‘poor barbarians’ to their ‘enlightenment.’

Don’t you find it interesting that this supposedly ‘non-religious’ entity would use such a spiritually charged term as ‘enlightenment’ to describe it’s process of ‘development’ – which in fact is the secularist concept of nirvana?

Enlightenment is often described as a higher form of consciousness. Buddha, for example, used the word to define our detachment from the material, or transcendence over worldly needs and pleasures. Even Islam, has a concept of ‘enlightenment’ which we call ‘tawhid’ that brings humanity closer to the ‘Real,’ and requires us to transcend the material world in order to understand it. But secular ‘enlightenment’ is fundamentally contradictory to the traditional concept. The Market has promised humanity, that only through acquiring and accumulating more material wealth, and through understanding and feeding our ego with utterly useless commodities, the quicker we will reach that desired stage of modern ‘enlightenment.’

Thus, when you notice these drastic differences between the traditional and modern world views, you will perhaps be able to understand why it’s problematic to call oneself a ‘progressive-Muslim’ or ‘liberal-Muslim.’ You can never reconcile these ideologies, and attempting to do so will most likely lead you away from ‘religion’ all together.

Because the market decentralized and deregulated ‘religion,’ people started inventing new liberal religions to fill their ‘godless’ void. Religions like Unitarian Universalism were formed in the midst of spiritual chaos, in a world where religious beliefs were bought and sold together with the material goods and services of the liberal market. They wanted to legitimize their new-found liberal idealisms, and at the same time claim a belief in ‘god.’ But having already accepted science as their guide to absolute truth, they molded an image of ‘god’ that is very poorly defined, and often quite contradictory. On one hand, they believe that this deity ‘programmed’ everything in advance by the process of evolution, yet somehow human beings retain absolute free will. But I ask myself, if you’ve been pre-programmed how much of free will do you really have?

The neo-liberal religions never concerned themselves with ‘life after death’ nor any other metaphysical reality that was often an integral part of traditional religions, including Islam. Liberalism only cares for the here and the now. They are guilty of judging the past through the eyes of the present. They judge ancient scriptures through the lens of scientific truths which creates a grand recipe for major distortions and misunderstanding of the ancient texts. The way people used to think and speak in the early centuries of human civilizations can not be paralleled with the present. They spoke in poetic, allegorical, metaphorical linguistics. Their texts should not be studied in the same way we study a book today – it would just seem utterly unreasonable and futile if our goal is to understand what ‘they’ thought (and not what we think).

Furthermore, the liberal religion operates on a philanthropic agenda. At the surface it seems very noble, but once we scratch and dig deeper, we will find that ‘victimology’ is a major pillar of their faith. When we look at history, the only way liberalism was successful was when they found some ‘victim’ to allegedly rescue. First through colonialism, by ‘saving’ those poor barbarians and civilizing them, then the ‘black slaves’, then it was women, and most recently homosexuals.

The problem with victimology is that it denies people ‘dignity’ and ‘self-worth.’ It takes away their power, and gives it to their ‘liberators.’ As long as African-Americans retained that ‘slave’ mentality they always saw themselves as ‘victims.’ And of course you had white-liberals striving hard to ‘save’ them, and ‘enlighten’ them. However, once the black-power movement took root in America and the rest of the world, once the 'colored' people reclaimed their dignity and power, the liberals were loosing faith again, and were pushed to the sidelines. The same is happening with women’s liberation movements around the world. As soon a woman steps up and reclaims her dignity, stands up for her womanhood in the eyes of her own tradition and beliefs, then she can no longer be a crutch to the her ‘liberators.’

We have heard of many critical theories regarding liberalism, but seldom do we recognize it as a religion. Liberalism is an evangelical force which seeks to convert all of humanity to its sacred secular progressive calling. A recent article I read on the “Journal of Liberal Religion” that discussed why Unitarian Universalism is dying laid out a general framework for the Unitarian/Liberal agenda:

1. Liberals select a few token groups among the many possible: blacks, women, gays and lesbians, etc. (In Marxist terms, these are our token proletariat groups.)
2. They define these groups as "victims" (rather than, say, survivors or warriors).
3. In return, they give special attention to these token "victims" within their small circles of influence.
4. The "victims" are presumed to feel grateful for this ...
5. ... and the liberals feel virtuous.

And the author adds, “this remains the salvation story of political liberalism - and ideologically-driven "anti-oppression" schemes, which remain willfully unaware of the self-serving oppression of their own schemes.”

However, as more and more people stand up to their victimizers and seek to define their own religion in their own traditional terms, then this liberal ideology is bound to expire.

Finally, on matters of conceptualizing the ‘divine,’ liberal religions tend to read traditional scripture from a very market oriented perspective. They often bring up the issue of ‘god’ being depicted as a displeasing character in the ancient religious text. They often critique the Qur’an, for example, for its mention of hell and punishment and ‘torture.’ They challenge us by saying, ‘how can you find those verses beautiful?’

I have to say that I do find even those ‘ugly’ verses quite poetic and beautiful, because I see them for what they are not what liberal religion wants me to see. In those verses, I see a God who is ‘Just’ not ‘cruel;’ a God that holds creation accountable for their ‘evil,’ even when humankind has failed in maintaining justice in this world. I see hope in those verses, I see love and care, even mercy. What humanity can never deliver – absolute justice – God will.

But it all makes sense. Liberal religion like the global market, is guided by the ‘invisible hand’ that never holds anyone accountable for their evil. Everything is supposed to ‘fix itself’ – but really it never does. So I ask, how can an ‘unjust’ ideology ever deliver us sincere justice?

Let me conclude with saying this; don’t allow yourself to be another ‘victim’ of the liberal market – new world order religion. Reclaim your power and your dignity. Reclaim your ideas and your true religion. My religion is Islam, and I am a Muslim who will always speak out against injustice. Today, I see injustice in liberal imperialism, and if I cannot change it with my hand, than I will try and change it with my tongue, and if not with my tongue then I will change it in my heart. I hope you will do the same.

Relevant Reading: “The History of Development: from Western Origins to Global Faith” by Gilbert Rist.

Peace,

The evolution of social darwinism

2011-02-13T17:40:00.001-05:00

I’m the kind of person who always swims against the tide. When I see a stream of people swimming one way, I turn around and start swimming in the opposite direction.

Today, due to the process of globalization, Western modern and post-modernist influence and pro-enlightenment thought are spreading across the world. Everyone is essentially being converted to a ‘godless’ secular belief system. People are indoctrinated to adapt and assimilate into the dominant social dynamic; they are dictated and told how to build their political systems, how to carry out their economic transactions, how to run society in their image, and how to forget their own indigenous past, their rich history, their own unique ideas, religions, beliefs, political systems and ways of life. Like a sponge, what ever the secular world spills we (the non-secular people) are expected to absorb.

Racism used to be widely accepted at one point in history. The euro-centric, ‘white’ ideas about social Darwinism pervaded human relations. People of color were seen as ‘second-class’ citizens, and candidly labeled ‘primitive’ and ‘backward.’ The enlightened white supremacist fervently believed that he was at the pinnacle of human evolution, and that all these ‘colored’ people needed to be catching up to the ‘modern’ white man’s model of ‘enlightened’ existence.

They needed to be less ‘colored,’ less themselves, and more like their ‘white’ masters. However, luckily, since the abolishment of slavery, and the civil rights movement here in America, it is no longer permissible to express racist sentiments based on people’s skin color openly in public.

But there is this illusion which persists; just because this phase of social Darwinism may be over, it doesn't mean that everything is folly and jolly again. True, no-one is being openly discriminated against based on their racial, physical make-up (or so we are lead to believe), but I would argue that the social Darwinist project is far from being complete.

Even though the white man may not openly hate on the ‘colored’ peoples of the world, the ‘white’ supremacist world view still dominates the discourse on human relations. Secularism, humanism, evolutionism, capitalism, socialism, fundamentalism and all other ‘isms’ which had their origins in Europe – beyond the ‘frontiers of faith’ – are being systematically induced into the larger human body, and spread so that the whole world may be infected by these ‘euro-centric’ ideologies, norms and moral standards.

Thus, we have a problem. Because everything is happening so fast (the acceleration of the process of globalization, and the spreading of these ideologies), the human body could not create the necessary resistance to these alien invasions in time. And so humanity became indelibly sick. Unable to defend itself, some of its main organs have already begun to give away.

You see, social Darwinism never disappeared, it simply ‘evolved.’ It no longer discriminates against physical variations, but ideological variations. The white man’s enlightened way is once again the pinnacle of humanity’s intellectual evolution, and all the other ‘oriental’ traditions and beliefs are judged as ‘primitive’ and ‘backward.’ We the ‘non-white’ ‘non-modernist’ ‘non-enlightened’ thinkers are still stupid for believing in our own religious traditions, and for believing in God.

Consequently, those who refuse to submit to the dominant world view, who fight for their own right to ‘believe’, to build their own political systems based upon their own values and moral structures, to do away with ‘interest’(riba) and paper money and run their own economic establishments, are in fact committing heresy in the eyes of the ‘enlightened’ man and woman.

Just take a look at the process of ‘modernization’ across the world, and the ‘white’ man’s struggle(burden) to ‘develop’ those poor, backward ‘third-world’ societies. It is clear that the ‘euro-centric’ standard has remained the ‘first-class’ socio-political order, and everyone else still needs to measure-up to this supposedly 'superior' way of life.

But even as the tide overwhelmingly pushes the world into one direction, I dare to swim the ‘other way’ – my way – the Islamic way.

All I can say is be careful which measuring stick you are pressed against, and which ideologies or ‘isms’ you embrace. Don’t allow your self to be pulled and dragged down the stream with the ignorant.

'The Anti-Christ': a different way of looking at the 'dajjal' prophecy

2011-02-12T21:42:00.003-05:00

I have been reading a lot lately. You could say I've had too much time on my hands - for which I am still grateful for (everything is for a reason) - so I spent most of it buried in books and research. I have come across some amazing works, among them Muhammad Asad’s (Leopold Weiss) autobiography called “The Road to Mecca” (2004 ed.) which is quite an exceptional read, if you're looking for something intellectually fulfilling, and interesting at the same time.

I found his unique interpretation of the ‘dajjal’ prophecy particularly intriguing. I won’t spoil it for you, so you must read it for yourself. Below is a short excerpt from the book featuring a short dialogue on the topic between a ‘curious’ young beduin, his teacher and Muhammad Asad. When you finish, tell me what you think about Asad’s description of the ‘anti-Christ,’ and do you find his methodology and allegorical approach to interpreting prophecy acceptable?

"'Tell me, o Shaykh, why is it that the faranjis ('white' people) always wear hats that shade their eyes? How can they see the sky?'

'That is just what they do not want to see,' replies the shaykh, with а twinkle in my direction. ‘Perhaps they are afraid lest the sight of the heavens remind them of God; and they do not want to be reminded of God on weekdays ...'

We all laugh, but the young beduin is persistent in his search for knowledge. 'Then why is it that God is so bountiful toward them and gives them riches that Не denies to the Faithful?'

'Оh, that is simple, my son. They worship gold, and so their deity is in their pockets ... But my friend here,'-and he places his hand on my knee - 'knows more about the faranjis then I do, for he comes from among them: God, glorified be His name, has led him out of that darkness into the light of Islam.'

‘Is that so, О brother?' asks the eager young beduin. 'Is it true that thou hast been а faranji thyself?'-and when I nod, he whispers, ‘Praise be unto God, praise be unto God, who guides aright whomsoever Не wishes ... Tell me, brother" why is it that the faranjis are so unmindful of God?'

‘That is a long story,' I reply, 'and cannot be explained in а few words. All that I can tell thee now is that the world of the faranjis has become the world of the Dajjal, the Glittering, the Deceptive one. Hast thou ever heard of our Ноlу Prophet's prediction that in later times, most of the world's people would follow the Dajjal, believing him to be God?'

And as he looks at me with а question in his eyes, I recount, to the visible approval of Shaykh Ibn Butayhid, the prophecy about the appearance of that apocalyptic being, the Dajjal who would be blind in one eye but endowed with mysterious powers, conferred upon him by God. Не would hear with his ears what is spoken in the farthest corners of the earth, and would see with his one еуе things that are happening in infinite distances; he would fly around the earth in days, would make treasures of gold and silver suddenly appear from under ground, would cause rain to fall and plants to grow at his command, would kill and bring to life again: so that all whose faith is weak would believe him to be God Himself and would prostrate themselves before him in adoration. But those whose faith is strong would read what is written in letters of flame on his forehead - Denier of God - and thus they would know that he is but а deception to test man's faith ...

And while my beduin friend looks at me with wide-open eyes and murmurs, 'I take my refuge with God,' I turn to Ibn Bulayhid: 'Is not this parable, О Shaykh, а fitting description of modern technical civilization? It is "one-eyed"; that is, it looks upon only one side of life - material progress - and is unaware of its spiritual side. With the help of its mechanical marvels it enables man to see and hear far beyond his natural ability, and to cover endless distances at an inconceivable speed. Its scientific knowledge causes "rain to fall and plants to grow" and uncovers unsuspected treasures from beneath the ground. Its medicine brings life to those who seem to have been doomed to death, while its wars and scientific horrors destroy life. And its material advancement is so powerful and so glittering that the weak in faith are coming to believe that it is а godhead in its own right; but those who have remained conscious of their Creator clearly recognize that to worship the Dajjal means to deny God…’

'Thou art right, О Muhammad, thou art right!' cries out Ibn Bulayhid, excitedly striking my knee. 'It has never occurred to me to look upon the Dajjal prophecy in this light; but thou art right! Instead of realizing that man's advancement and the progress of science is а bounty from our Lord, more and more people in their folly are beginning to think that it is an end in itself and fit to be worshipped.'" (p. 292-293)

Thinking outside the box

2011-02-08T20:50:00.002-05:00

This is going to sound a bit strange, may be a lot strange, but imagine what would happened if humanity were to die tomorrow. Everyone just suddenly dies and a new race of alien people came to earth and observed how we lived our lives. What if we just disappeared and left everything the way it is now. What would these aliens think of us?

Imagine they visited every single home in America and Europe, and Asia and Africa, and took a peek into our living rooms. They would probably conclude that we were idol worshipers – that we worshiped a ‘black box,’ or now a days a ‘flat box,’ that we proudly called a ‘TV’. They would ask themselves, why are these ‘shrines’ set up in such an order that the 'box' always appears in the center of attention?

And they would probably think we were obsessed with this strange material called plastic, because they would soon discover that our waste dumps are filled with undecomposed bottles.

They might even think we were ‘intelligent’ when they see our savvy technology, our tall buildings and flying objects (airplanes), but upon seeing how destructive we were to our own natural environment, they would surely think of us as fools.

And if they came across our most valuable asset, which we hide in secrecy and put away in little black boxes or securely locked metal safes – money – they would probably find a monopoly board and start playing with it. ‘Why do they lock away paper?’ they would ask themselves.

The point is, sometimes, we have to step out of our imaginary reality in order to reflect on our own state of ‘being.’ And if we truly and deeply looked at ourselves, and how much disorder and damage we are creating on this earth through wars and disease, and greed and immorality, wouldn’t it motivate us to do a better job at living?

I don’t know, maybe. What do you all have to say about this (strange) imagery?

Double-Standards

2011-02-06T23:02:00.002-05:00

I’m so sick of this particular brand of Muslims acting oh so ‘tolerant’ of other people’s beliefs and affiliations and at the same time smoldering their fellow Muslims for their own unique positions and views on Islam.

I don’t get it, if you’re so tolerant of vastly alien beliefs, accepting promiscuity and gay marriage, Zionism and radical atheism, why do ‘salafis’ seem so threatening?

If you want to be true to your tolerance, stop labeling fellow Muslims ‘wahabis’ and mocking them all the while presenting yourself as this holy mother Theresa. Seriously!

I'm critical, that's pretty self-evident from my posts, but at least I keep it consistent.

Democracy: a critical analysis

2011-02-04T15:24:00.003-05:00

What is 'democracy'?

The way many people, in the general public as well in the academia, define this term is rather simplistic and highly essentialized. Most commonly democracy is seen as a form of government that is lead ‘by the people’ and ‘for the people.’ But I must ask if this is really true?

Democracy has been reduced to ballots and votes, which are mare components of this abstract idea in principle. No one seems to realize that ‘democracy’ has simply been a nice way of saying, ‘here! you have a choice of electing someone, from a handful of rich elitists who can afford to stage these outrageously expensive campaigns, to be your president and to rule over the disenfranchised poor masses.’ In other words, ‘democracy’ is simply a euphemism for organized corporate elitist freebooting.

In America, for example, it is the super rich business owners and top-level managers in large corporations who exert the most influence in the federal government and therefore manipulate policy in order to shape their common greedy, selfish interests. The corporate leaders have been able to transform their economic power into policy influence through special-interests, lobbying, buying off presidential candidates through large campaign donations as well as their mass hypnosis campaign or brainwashing of the public opinion through the mass media.

The same theory can be applied on the global scale. Thanks to the rapid acceleration of the process of globalization, the elitists have succeeded in shaping not only national interests, but also international foreign policy. Take Dick Chaney and Halliburton as one good example. These global financial goliaths are raping and pillaging the ‘developing world’ from their resource and redirecting them back to the elite core structure, and there is no one to stop them. There are indeed no ‘checks’ nor ‘balanced’ to keep the elite from becoming the masters of world transactions.

As one Muslim scholar put it, "democracy has become the 'rule of the rich for the rich' in what amounts to financial prostitution. But the rich do not themselves directly rule... they do it by proxy and deception in the form of support extended to popular politicians and political parties over whom they exercise invisible control... In fact, the world economy is a new sophisticated form of economic slavery that operates by way of awesome deception." (Imran N. Hosein. “Jerusalem In The Qur‘an” p. 125 online edition)

Democracy is therefore best left as a theory on paper to be discussed among academics and not implemented among the people, because as a ‘(un)just’ world system it has failed beyond epic proportions.

And as for the Islamic perspective on this issue, it is fallacious to compare democracy to the Islamic principle of ‘shura’ (consultation). Surely Islam allows “limited democracy” (and I use this term here very loosely) or consultation between the leaders and the masses, but ultimately it is neither the people nor the ruler who reserve the right to make the laws of the land, but God. However, shariah should not be made into a legal straitjacket, but should serve as a framework by which Muslims build a just and peaceful society. Some laws are universal and timeless, while others can be amended to the particular socio-historical situation of the people. Shariah is the path to Divine justice.

I know many people use this term in a highly derogatory sense, do to its demonization and gross misrepresentation by the popular press and media, but it is a system of justice which holds man accountable to someone greater than man himself. Even if human beings are inclined to commit disorder and crime in defiance to their regimes, they still have to be accountable to God who is the ultimate Judge on all of our affairs. If people realized this greater sense of obligation in keeping a balanced and peaceful society here on Earth, and constantly being aware that God is watching them, then people would think twice before creating unlawful chaos and bloodshed at the cost of the innocent.

Spiritually as well as socially Muslims have been decapitated by the great beast that promotes this superficial ideal of ‘democracy’ across the world. We have lost our indigenous, authentic, organic system of rule and government and are now forced to accommodate to the popular demands of the ‘super-class’ rich elitist who run the entire global enterprise. Billions of people are becoming poorer, and dying of starvation, unable to practice their traditional ideals and virtues because this so-called ‘democracy’ has left man to scramble by himself - everyone for himself.

And that is great injustice! We should not be sheepishly chanting for ‘democratic’ rule or ‘liberalism’ because these are the exact consequences that arise. What we should be chanting for is grater justice and authentic rule which we have been denied by ‘democracy’ for the past century. We should be able to have a say in who we choose as leaders, but our leaders should also be held accountable to a Higher Power, and we the people should be able to live in dignity without fear and economic oppression.

I sincerely hope that people realize what they are implying when they utter the word ‘democracy’ in today’s global environment. I hope that we can move away from this flawed system and march forward to build a more just future.

Dissent in Egypt

2011-02-03T12:28:00.005-05:00

The images coming out of Egypt for the past few days have been absolutely momentous and historic to say the least. I am completely enthralled to see these revolutions happening in my life time, and am extremely anxious to find out where they will lead us.

I am also saddened, however, to see these largely peaceful protests turning violent thanks to bribed pro-Mubarak thugs, posing as civilians attacking, shooting at, and killing innocent anti-government protesters. I am sad that innocent blood has been shed.

epitome of peaceful protest (Image Credit)

However, I must commend the perseverance and courage that these young Egyptians have displayed over the past week. I commend their honorable efforts, and I stand with them every step of the way.

I realize that the end outcome may not be completely satisfying for all of us, but these steps need to be taken in order for humanity to realize its greater potential, and to realize its worth and dignity. Dissent is our only path toward greater truth and justice.

But as I surf the on-line blogger community I have come across some really disappointing, and utterly shameful views on the developments in the Middle East.

The usually hostile and very outspoken people, who condemn the injustice perpetrated across the “Muslim world” by the “Western” imperialist hegemons, have fallen silent and/or rather hostile and critical of their fellow Muslims who support this popular uprising.

These are clear double-standards. Where is the justice? Why should it be looked upon differently, when a non-Muslim does the oppressing juxtaposed to a Muslim? Injustice is injustice no matter who is perpetrating it, and the good people have a right to stand up to that evil, and enjoin what is right.

Do you seriously think that these academics and sheikhs, working for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, are going to give out any fatwas in support of dissent and revolt? A corrupt entity which itself oppresses its people in the name of fear and monarchical might, is certainly not going to advocate for the permissibility of protest and certainly not a revoltution.

I believe Dr. Omar Zaid sums it up pretty well in his book “The Hand of Iblis: An Anatomy of Evil,”
“When considering the chauvinist mind-set of those who worship the North‘s DWM Foreign Relations and Wall Street canons, and especially the successful collusion of first, second and third world kleptocrats with the New Imperialism that marginalizes four-fifths of humanity with impunity, we may conclude that mankind‘s Imams—on the whole—have failed to follow the compassionate path towards egalitarian virtue despite the rhetoric proffered by congruencies of worshippers in Humanist cathedrals and mosques of World Peace and Modernity—despite their orthodox cultures of approved divines, academics and abstracted state entities of invented traditions with their so-called Declarations of Human Rights. The one-fifth of the world‘s cultures that have followed Mr. Huntington‘s scheme of post-Cold War dominoes by failing to honor Divine Law as they scramble for chairs at triumph‘s plunder-feast, are like so many piglets at a sow belly sortie minus the noble souls such squealers generally grind into the same mire that served Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the Bush clan, as well as morons who lead wannabe-in-the-arms-of-70-virgins‘ zealots.” (p. 65, e-book)

We have to realize that the entire world order is built upon these pretentious, corrupt principles of a godless world, which places human rule above all Divine ordainment. Indeed, today’s rulers are just like the pharaohs of the past, imagining themselves as demigods among their people.

Humanity is being oppressed by the masses, injustice has spiraled into epidemic proportions, and we, the children of Adam, are loosing our battle against evil.

And let us reflect on the words of Abu Bakr, the first caliph and ruler of the Muslim community, who said:
“O people! I have been put in charge over you, but I am not the best of you. If I act well, then help me, and if I act badly, then put me right. Truthfulness is a trust and lying is treachery … Obey me as long as I obey Allah and His Messenger. If I disobey Allah and His Messenger, you owe me no obedience.” (Sirat Ibn Hisham)

I believe these simple words epitomize justice and truthfulness. These words are ideals by which Muslims rulers should govern by. If our rulers do not uphold the basic principles of Divine justice, then we as Muslims do have a right to speak out against them. And which government entity today is upholding these virtuous Islamic ideals?

Man should not be made a slave to these abstract ‘State’ entities, nor their rulers. Islam made man accountable only to God, and therefore, humankind needs to free itself from these phantom occults which deny us our God-given rights to justice and peace. Our fellow Tunisian and Egyptian youth have shown us the way how. May Allah free us from tyranny, forgive our wrongs and grant us justice!

I really like how brother Dawud at 'Muslimology' put it. He says, "The revolution in Egypt is carried out by the youth and that says something about the global, intergenerational divide that we are witnessing between a generation that came out of colonial rule and a generation never experienced colonial rule and has been reawakened to Islam, but wants to go further in their lives then the local mosque. Bani Israel disobeyed Musa alayhi salam because they had a slave mentality, and Allah commanded them to wander the desert for 40 years, a period of time in which, the old generation of slaves died and a new mentality took its place, one that would lead to political leadership and autonomy for Bani Israel. We are seeing a similar situation today."

Is it not time, that we, the new generations of Muslim youth, leave this slave mentality behind us and stand up for what is right and just?

Split 'reality'

2011-01-29T00:54:00.008-05:00

We live in a dualistic world, a world of extremes.

We live in a world of double meanings, and grand illusions. Our minds have comfortably accustomed themselves to thinking within these dual, dialectic expressions of ‘being’ - black and white, ying and yang, good and evil, dark and light, male and female and so forth.

That means if someone doesn’t identify with a particular idea or thing, one is automatically presumed to belong to the ‘other,’ extreme opposite of that idea or thing one is being compared to.

If I am not a feminist, then I must be a lover of patriarchy. If I am critical of capitalism I must be a socialist. If I say I am no longer a fan of Islamic revivalism, I must be a heretic. If I’m not a ‘liberal,’ I am a ‘conservative’ or ‘literalist.’ If I don’t believe in the narrowness of the literalist meanings of the Islamic message, then I must belong to some modern ‘Sufi order.’ If I don’t like black coffee, I must love it very creamy… well that bit is true, I do like my coffee pretty light and sweet.

Sometimes it feels as though humanity is suffering from a unique type of paranoid schizophrenia, split between two practical illusions of ‘reality’, unable to see the ‘absoluteness’ of being, and constantly being pulled from one extreme to another.

(Image Credit)

Humanity is in need of guidance – in need of help – and I am convinced that Islam provides humanity with a solution.

But in case you wanted to know, I am not a feminist, nor am I a lover of patriarchy. I am a woman’s rights advocate. I want woman to develop her full potentiality of being a woman, which is sometimes the same as and sometimes very different from what it means to be a man.
I’m not a liberal nor am I a conservative; I’m an independent, more of a ‘centrist’. I am extremely critical of capitalism; yet do not espouse the secular, godless ideal of socialist dogmatism either. I am a person who believes in social justice and the collective good. This means that we often have to sacrifice our own good for the good of others. I don’t believe in individualism, but I’m not an extreme collectivist either, after all an individual has obligations and responsibilities toward oneself; and if we do not fulfill these primary responsibilities to ourselves then we are in no position to fulfill our responsibilities to others.

I do not identify with any one particular ‘sect’ of Islamic thought. I am not a shi’a or sunni, nor am I ‘sufi’ in the modern sense, nor am I tablighi or deobandi or what ever else have you. I am Muslim. Struggling on her way to find truth in God, and make sense of her current reality. For me, this means I obey His universal laws, but it also means, I incorporate spirituality and speculative thought in the way I practice those laws. I do not separate law from spirituality. I believe in both, because the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) practiced both, and so did the best generations that followed him. Prophet Muhammad called himself Muslim – so that is what I call myself – Muslim, nothing more nothing less.

Treading the middle way in Islam requires that we accept a little bit of both ‘extremes’ in order to find a good and healthy balance in life – be it in faith, or social affairs. Rejecting one extreme doesn’t make me part of another. I reject all extremes.

The basic principle of Islamic orthodoxy is balance. Balance between belief and practice; and if we truly study the meaning of tawhid, the unity of God, we would see that God does not lie in any of these double meanings. God lies in the oneness of Being. And everything in this world consists of two faces, except God, who is One. So if we want to look for truth in these extremes, we will never find it. God is harmony, beauty, equilibrium.

As Allah is "Apparent" yet "Mysterious" and "unimaginable," Islam is also 'apparent,' yet it may take us an entire life time, or more, to figure out the mysteries that lie behind it. We will never know the 'truth' until we wake up from this 'illusion' and death gives us ultimate meaning to life.

So I struggle to detach myself from this schizophrenic model of ‘reality,’ and embrace the whole circle of life by accepting Islam to be my guide in this quest for Absolute truth and the only Reality there is – God.

I suppose one thing I am for certain is a realist. I live in the context of the world as it ‘is’, not how I’d like it to be.

Even though this world is only a ‘reflection of the Real,’ we have to recognize the ‘reality’ of this reflection so that we can eventually find our way to the middle. Idealism only allures humankind into deeper delusions, and takes us further away from the ‘Real.’

Finding this balance is our cure. And struggling to main our balance, or sanity as troublesome schizophrenics, is truly a life long endeavor. He who gives up, or gets tired, will easily be swayed back into the world of extremes, into the world of duality and split ‘reality.’

So I struggle, and I don’t give up.

Viva la revolucion!

2011-01-28T23:14:00.004-05:00

(Image Credit)

Those who kneel before God, can stand before the people! I stand with you Egypt!

Egyptian Revolution Jan 25th 2011 - Take what's Yours! from JoeChaban on Vimeo.

Beautiful sayings

2011-01-25T14:22:00.002-05:00

“Step out of your own self and keep your distance from it. Practice detachment from your possessiveness, and surrender everything to Allah. Become His doorman at the door of your heart, obeying His command by admitting those He instructs you to admit, and respecting His prohibition by shutting out those He instructs you to turn away, so that you do not let desire back into your heart once it has been removed.” (Abdulqadir Al Jilani)

“Verily, I constantly renew my Islam until this very day, as up to now, I do not consider myself to have ever been a good Muslim.” (Ibn Taymiyyah)

“Goodness lies in the person who doesn’t see goodness within himself.” (Ahmed bin Hanbal)

“The world is like salt-water; whenever you increase in drinking it, you will also increase in thirst!” (‘Isa, Jesus, aleyhi salam)

“Nothing is difficult if you seek it through your Lord, Nothing is easy if you seek it through yourself.” (Ibn Ata’allah)

"Never be without remembrance of Him for His remembrance gives strength and wings to the bird of the Spirit." (Rumi)

Analyzing psychoanalysis: Liberalism, Revivalism and Islam

2011-01-23T23:51:00.005-05:00

At the turn of the twentieth century, Europe was going through a momentous process of social, economic and psychological change. A new and all encompassing ideology of life and morality quickly gripped the hearts and minds of the youth who felt suffocated under the outdated, strict Victorian style bourgeois system.

Vienna, Austria, came to symbolize this historic shift in many ways. It was a city of great paradoxes, of political and social change, of cultural transformation and psychological frustration. The golden age of classical Victorian idealisms, of scientific rationality and certainty was waning, as the new generation of Viennese youth came to exemplify the growing insecurity of the new all-pervasive “psychological man.”

Die Jungen, as they came to be known, challenged the old moralistic stance, and began an 'oedipal revolt' against the restrictive middle class norms. The consequence of this historic cultural shift in Vienna at the turn of the century manifested itself in the "crisis of the liberal ego," which was exhibited in forms of narcissism and hypertrophy. The youth, stuck between two polar ideological extremes, found themselves torn between their ‘new progressive values’ and the old societal expectations.

Ultimately, we see the abolishment of Victorian values in Europe and a new ‘liberal’ revolution through out the continent, which was built on a sound foundation of Freudian psychoanalysis. “The crisis of the liberal ego” as it were called, was a crisis between the ‘id’ (the primitive desires of man i.e. sexual) and ‘super-ego’ (society). Freud had argued that the only way to deal with this crisis was to develop a strong ‘ego’ or sense of ‘self.’ Hence, many European philosophers began advocating for a particular framework of morality which favored advancement and realization of individual self-interests above the collective good. Individualism secured a strong and sound ‘ego,’ and therefore progress and success in the dawning new era.

At the turn of the twenty-first century, however, we found ourselves at yet another social crossroads. The popularity of ‘social liberalism’ was increasingly being tested, questioned and challenged, as religious fundamentalism began to take the platform for extreme social change, yet again. The process became inverted. Where as religion played a minimal role in 20th century Europe during the rise of ‘social liberalism’- where the only legitimate ‘god’ was the individual ‘self’ - religion was back in the spotlight in the late twentieth century and into the twenty-first. Various people began to seek remedies for godlessness, and found many religious ‘revivalisms’ very appealing, including Islamic revivalism.

Unlike the earlier psychological crisis, this one could only be solved by the suppression of the ‘ego’ – not its realization. Freudian psychoanalysis, created the precedence to this new age social revolution. Individualism and godlessness brought about religious revivalism.

It is important to note, however, that while God quickly came back into the picture, religion as we knew it was left behind with the classics. This new religious revivalism was contingent on Freudian psychology that placed great emphasis on the ‘superego’ (society). Islamic revivalism, I would argue, has also fallen prey to this ideological battle. Revivalists became obsessed with altering existing social norms, that they forgot spirituality all together.

Both of these social phenomena are extremely unhealthy for humanity, in my opinion. One is highly focused on the self, and the other on society.

Islam has taught humankind to suppress both the ‘ego’ and ‘superego’ – and naturally the ‘id’ – in order to realize tawhid. The ‘ego’ or ‘nafs’ in Islam, is considered the lowest level of ‘self-awareness’ where as Freud had considered it the absolute sense of self-awareness. Islam teaches humankind, that only through knowing God, does a human gain complete self-awareness, therefore she/he is constantly struggling to suppress her/his other primitive ‘selves’ in order to rise to that level of consciousness.

When we place our focus, not on the ‘ego’ but on God, we are able to fulfill all the obligations and responsibilities toward society. Islamic justice, unlike ‘social liberalism,’ is not about individual rights, but about collective responsibility. When we become more God-conscious, we become more aware of what those responsibilities are – and ultimately we strive to fulfill them.

Why do many Muslims hold such negative views about 'Sufism'?

2011-01-21T13:31:00.005-05:00

The truth is, looking back at my own journey, I now realize how deeply delusional I was in my approach to practicing Islam. How blindly swayed I was by the modern ‘revivalist’ thinkers and their ideas about a ‘pure Islam,’ their obsessions with haram/halal and bid’ah, but also their soaring attempts at de-legitimizing the way of the tasawuff.

Taken by me: Famous Fountain in front of
Gazi Husrev Beg Mosque Sarajevo, Bosnia

I was delusional because this ‘pure Islam’ – supposedly free of all cultural influences – is nothing more but a pure manifestation of strict ‘Arabism’ itself. However it is not to say that I don’t believe in only one Truth and only one Islam; it is just that I finally realized that the Islam they endorsed was not the ‘right’ one. I was delusional because while I was focusing so much on the legal aspect of my faith, constantly worrying about the ‘haramness’ of things, I was loosing my soul to yet another ‘modern’ system which promoted itself as true ‘Islam’ but wasn’t.

I can look back now and see that a lot of the Muslim youth fell into the same trap, I had fallen in, dug out for us by the ‘revivalists.’ While our identity felt threatened and challenged by the various social forces that pressured young people to conform to modernity, ironically, many of us took refuge in the narrowness of another modern literalist interpretation of Islam. My words are probably not going to strike a very pleasant note with those who are still very much influenced by the literalist way of thinking, but I feel it’s important to address the ‘other’ extreme of the ‘Muslim’ ideological spectrum – a perspective which has to a certain extent cultivated the religion into a revised modern image of its true self.

It took me a while, but I’m glad my journey has taken me this far, and I hope to ensue my spiritual travels with a much broader vision and understanding of God, in the future.

I’ve come to question a couple of things – things like, do we all have to dress, talk and act like Arabs to be considered ‘good’, ‘pious’ Muslims? Or why have Muslims drifted so far away from God and spiritualism? Why is ‘spirituality’ viewed so negatively in our societies?

In one of the books I was reading called “Islam and the Destiny of Man” the scholar, Gai Eaton (an agnostic scholar who converted to Islam in 1951), quotes Ibn Taymiyyah (AD 1328) to have “maintained that Islam combined the Mosaic law of justice with the Christian law of grace, taking a middle way between the severity of Judaism and the mercy of Jesus; and he said that while Moses had proclaimed God’s Majesty and Jesus His Goodness, Muhammad proclaimed His Perfection.” (p. 44)

Islam is not just about following rules of fiqh, which are important no doubt, but Islam is also about mercy and compassion – about spirituality.

I think many Muslims have been looking at Christianity for all this time and thinking how overly obsessed Christians have become with Jesus and divine-transcendence, that they themselves have completely shunned and overlooked the idea of the ‘spirit’. But they forget that almost every great classical Islamic theologian and scholar was described as a ‘Sufi’ – including the four great scholars of Islamic jurisprudence. Even Ahmad ibn Hanbal expressed great admiration for the path of the tasawuff, although he did caution people that it is not an easy path to tread.

Of course, there are also Muslims who take ‘spiritualism’ to a whole different level and fall into the ‘progressive’ trap of today’s ‘ultra-radical reformists’ who have crafted this ‘cult of honesty’ which promotes multiple realities and truths to our ‘being’. Like Le Gai Eaton described in his book, “the cult of ‘honesty’ has now gone so far that many people believe that nothing they do matters as long as they are honest and open about it and never pretend to be better than they are; moreover, to conceal what one has done suggests that one is ashamed of oneself, and how could this be in an age in which the ‘self’ is a god – possibly the only god there is?” (p. 177)

Eaton described three stages of spiritual evolution; fear, love and knowledge. It is unfortunate to say that many of us get stuck on the first stage do to our lack of knowledge of Islam and our inability to accept spiritualism as part of the religion. We never learn how to love God.

I believe that the path of the tasawuff can lead us to that goal, and help us gain the knowledge that is necessary to love God, above all. As someone once said; “during the time of the prophet (peace be upon him) tasawuff was a reality without a name, today tassawuf is a name but few know its reality.”

What tradition refers to ‘tasawuff’ is what many of us call ‘Sufism.’ I must acknowledge that many of the modern ‘Sufi’ orders have introduced practices which contradict the prophetic tradition (such as inflicting pain on the body, and going into ‘trances’); however, to me ‘tasawuff’ just means having a good character and increasing our awareness of God. It means obeying Allah’s orders, fearing His might and hoping for His mercy. It means finding our way to love God, and tranquilize our hearts as we search for deeper meaning in ‘truth’ and try to understand our current ‘reality.’

It is also what many refer to as ‘Islamic psychology.’ In other words, it is the unique way Islam views the ‘ego,’ the ‘soul’ and society juxtaposed to ‘modernist’ and Freudian ideas about the ‘self.’ And its needless to say that these two world views are fundamentally opposed to each other. Where as Islam calls for the ‘suppression’ of the ‘ego,’ modernity calls for its complete ‘illumination.’

Perhaps we can all go back now and look at our own, individual journeys, and see how much of that truth lies within us. Have we forsaken our souls? Have we left them behind, or lost them somewhere on our long journey? Let’s reflect how far we’ve come in this life, and see how we can make our journeys more pleasant and more worthwhile. How can we increase our awareness of God Almighty, and how can we become better human beings?

Finally, I’d highly recommend you all read this wonderful and intellectually rich masterpiece by Charles Hasan Le Gai Eaton, “Islam and the Destiny of Man.” It is exceptionally beautiful.

With Peace,

"Treatise for the Seekers of Guidence" Imam al-Muhasibi

2011-01-18T13:11:00.005-05:00

I have been reading this wonderful book called “Treatise for the Seekers of Guidance,” a compilation of sayings and lessons about spirituality by Imam al-Muhasibi (781-857), translated by imam Zaid Shakir.

The book begins with a biography of Imam al-Muhasibi, who as a scholar had a profound influence on traditional Islamic thinkers that later defined what majority of us accept as ‘orthodox Islam.’ His ‘Risala al-Mustarshidin’, on which this book is based, speaks of the importance of speculative theology and the development of an intellectual foundation in trying to come up with the proper terminology and methodology for understanding Islam – all of which were ultimately tied back to the two most important sources in Islam, the Qur’an and the prophetic sunnah.

His methodology “allowed Imam al-Muhasibi to articulate a theory of human development and salvation that focused on concepts such as, fear, hope, divine grace, gratitude, God-consciousness, obedience, self-restraint, and asceticism coupled with an understanding of devotional acts that moved them beyond serving as ends divorced from any greater moral or ethical concerns, to become a means for both personal reformation and the basis of a deeper relationship with God.” (p. xviii)

What I love about his work is that it always brings us back to our own selves. He urges Muslims to reflect back into their own souls, and look into the darkest depths of their inner ‘self’ in order to find meaning in light and Truth, to gain God-consciousness and seek knowledge humbly, where ever it may be. Because only through the grace of God can our souls find true inner light and peace.

Here are some of my favorite quotes from Imam al-Muhasibi’s “Risala al-Mustarshidin:”

“One who rectifies his inner self with an awareness of God’s surveillance and sincerity; God adorns his outer self with devotional acts and adherence to the prophetic way.” (p. xxiii)

“Anyone divested from the world finds his divestment in proportion to his knowledge, his knowledge in proportion to his intellect, and his intellect in proportion to the strength of his faith.” (p. xxiii)

“People differ in worldly divestment in proportion to the soundness of [their] intellects, and the purity of [their] hearts. The most virtuous are the most intelligent and those who best understand God.” (p. xxv)

“Upon whoever God bestows the gift of sound intellect, enlivens with knowledge after bestowing faith upon him, bestows heart-vision through certainty, and gives insight into his own faults; [for such a person] God has facilitated all of the characteristics of righteousness. Therefore, seek righteousness through God-consciousness, and take knowledge from reverent people.” (p. 124)

“Seek certainty by means of sound investigation in places conductive to contemplation. God mentions in the Qur’an, Thus did we show Abraham the unseen wonders of the heavens and the earth in order that he would be among those possessing certainty (6:75). The Messenger of God, peace be upon him, said, “Learn certitude! Verily, I am learning it.” (p.128)

“Know that the gnostics established the principles of insight into the [soul’s] states upon the witness of knowledge through God, and a sound understanding of the divine law. Will you not consider the saying of the prophet, peace be upon him, “Whoever acts on the basis of his knowledge, God will bequeath unto him knowledge that knows not.” The sign of this is that additional knowledge leads to greater fear and greater adherence to the prophetic example. Whenever its possessor increases in knowledge he increases in fear, and each time he increases in action he increases in humility.” (p. 129)

“Only those who struggle against the base impulses of their soul, for the sake of God, attain to that station.” (p.141)

“I have found that the corruption of the heart leads to the corruption of religion. Have you not considered the saying of the Messenger of God, “Surely in the body is an organ, if it is sound the entire body is sound, and if it corrupts the entire body is corrupt, surely it is the heart.” The meaning of the heart here is the religion, for it is religion that determines the soundness or corruption of the limbs.” (p. 153-154)

“Beware of intellectualizing faith, acting on your whims, leaving the truth, acknowledging falsehood, and then seeking forgiveness while failing to repent. You should know that no knowledge or action is pleasing [to God] except that whose foundation is rooted in certitude, whose branches are elevated by truthfulness, whose fruits grow in impeccability, whose proof is established in fear, and whose secrets are veiled by reverence.” (p. 218)

Why do people convert in and/or out of religion?

2011-01-14T00:42:00.003-05:00

And I don’t mean this in any derogatory way, believe me. I am just curious, what makes people convert to any given religion, including Islam?

May be my convert friends can help me understand some of the reasons as to why people choose to convert?

The reason I am asking this question is because I have come across many people who convert in and out of religions and change faith affiliations like it were a dirty pair of socks - not to sound all rude or anything. I apologize in advance if people get offended, that is not my intention - I just don’t know how to put it into words any better.

To me, religion is something very sacred, and I take it very seriously, but sometimes I feel that people make a whole mockery out of it - and God. Now they are in, and the next thing you know they have found something wrong with a religion and leave it. I ask myself, why don’t these people do the research before they proclaim themselves one faith or another? Why say you are this or that, and then later change your mind, because you’ve come across something that doesn’t agree with your intuition?

I realize people evolve and change over time, but why do some converts of any faith have unrealistically high expectations for themselves when entering a new religion - just to be drastically disappointed over and over again, once they are in?

As a person who was born into Islam, I don’t think I truly understand what it is like to convert in or out of a faith tradition. I mean, I can tell you all about what motivated me to start practicing Islam, but I have really no clue how people proceed and decide to completely change religions, so I’m asking you to enlighten me – please.

Revisiting 'evolution' theory

2011-01-12T15:07:00.002-05:00

I have come across this interesting website called “science against evolution,” which I have also added under the “useful links” tab, that I highly recommend for everyone to explore. It’s a very intellectually rich and very resourceful site, with a rather unconventional perspective, that uses science alone to critique and challenge the widely accepted theory of ‘evolution.’

I know, most people will shake their head in disdain and utter disappointment that someone could even think about challenging this standard theory of life's origins. In their eyes, I am probably considered ‘blind,’ ‘stupid,’ ‘fundamentalist’ and so forth – but I find it imperative to question everything, including certain scientific theories. Just like I questioned many aspects of my own existence, including God and religion, I will also question scientific theory. That is just what I do.

(Image Credit)

I find it extremely funny that humanists and other evolutionists find it perfectly acceptable to question God, religion and all other aspects of life and society, yet when someone dares to question the theory of ‘evolution’ they start throwing “holy humanist water” (figuratively speaking) on you with great contempt.

Let me just quote something from the website that I found very interesting, and I welcome you to share your thoughts on the matter too.

“Scientific truth never changes. Yes, we know more about gravity now than Newton did, but our new scientific knowledge enlarges our understanding. It doesn’t contradict what we previously knew about gravity. Science hasn’t changed its position on whether or not gravity makes things fall up or down.

Scientific “truth” about evolution is often contradictory because it wasn’t true in the past, or isn’t true now, or both. Therefore, science students are being taught that scientific truth changes whenever anyone has a new opinion. Scientific truth has been redefined by the scientists in power to be the consensus of whatever scientists are in power.

It is important to make a distinction between what we know from scientific experiments and the personal opinions of people who perform scientific experiments for a living. When scientists claim that their opinions are scientific facts in an attempt to ride the coattails of scientific credibility, then we must point out the scientific errors in their opinions.” ("Theistic Evolution")

What do you think? Why has it become so unacceptable and almost taboo for people to question the validity of ‘evolution’ theory? Do you think that secular humanism is simply another ‘religion’ which espouses blind faith in a theory without substantial and let me add scientifically ‘consistent’ facts to prove its authenticity?

As with everything else, who is doing the defining for us? Scientists are also human beings; don’t they have a bias of their own? Why is it acceptable to question whether or not something was ‘created’ juxtaposed to having ‘evolved’? Isn't this entire creationism vs. evolution debate purely religious in nature?

Deconstructing womanhood

2011-01-11T12:30:00.006-05:00

It is true that civilization has always favored the masculine over the feminine traits. The broadly defined feminine characteristics have always been described as weak, fragile, passive, dependent and limp. It is true that civilization has dangerously over-valued the male’s brutishness, aggression, domination and his supposed inability to relate feelings. After all, feelings are so feminine, and any man who expresses the slightest hint of femininity is considered a “woose” – excuse my French – in our societies.

But woman trying to be accepted as ‘equal’ by further amplifying the value of male characteristics and traits does her self a great disservice. She is not liberating herself, to contrary, she is simply devaluing her femininity and womanhood even further.

Man has always been the measuring stick for society. His force and strength mirrored the coherence and power of his community and people. If man was weak, the community was weak, and vice-versa. It logically follows then, that woman, who wished to be valued in this society, had to exhibit a more ‘masculine’ character; despite, initially, being stigmatized for doing so.

Woman, who was taught that she should be weak, dependent and disposable, wanted to constantly prove herself to man – that she can be just like him. She can be independent, dominant, confident, more-self oriented, insensitive and rational. However, she is unaware that by embracing a more ‘masculine’ character, she is directly or indirectly devaluing her true human nature.

During this time, feminism has successfully deconstructed the female identity and her womanhood, while there has never been a parallel attempt to deconstruct manhood. What it means to be a man has largely remained the same over the centuries, yet the feminist approach leaves the definition of ‘woman’ open-ended and very unclear.

...except she smashed her womanhood (Image Credit)

Because there was no simultaneous deconstruction of the dominant male identity, woman is still, to this day, competing with that ancient man’s world. She is still making herself believe that by ‘sticking it’ to the man she is perceived as liberated and powerful. Without an identity, woman is forced to mirror her image to that of the man, yet again.

Without realizing it, woman has given up her humanity to catch up to a social construct of masculine dominance. And this is why feminism has failed in my eyes.

What needs to happen is a re-definition and re-conceptualization of manhood. When we accept that a man can cry and a woman can lead, that a man can love peace and woman can wage war, that man can be emotional and woman can be insensitive, and that we can apply these same things reversely to both, only then can we call each other human beings – whether we be man or woman.

The goal in life is not to be more like a man, or less like a woman, but to be more human. And if we want to be human we have to embrace a little bit of both – the feminine and the masculine. Being woman, therefore, means being human which requires her to accept femininity as part of her wholesome personhood.

What society has taught us to value, is not necessarily what we should value. These stereotypical male/female dichotomies and superficially over-simplified traits and characteristics each sex should exhibit are also constructs of this male dominant system. When we accept these constructs and try to live up to their unrealistic expectations of man, we are setting ourselves up for failure. Both man and woman should be aware that only by reuniting the perceived 'feminine' and 'masculine' can humanity rediscover it's soul.

The politics of murder

2011-01-09T19:20:00.000-05:00

Isn’t it interesting how every single US media outlet is referring to the Arizona shooter as some unstable psychopath with ‘mental issues’ and not what he really is – a terrorist?

Doesn’t this incident perfectly exemplify a case of terrorism? Wasn’t the alleged shooter, Jared Loughner, using violence (bullets) to actualize some type of political objective; which is essentially one definition for terrorism?

Although the motives behind the shooting are being withheld from the public, I believe the motive is pretty obvious? Which “deranged” everyday shooter would pick a political figure as their primary target for murder? He obviously had issues with congresswoman Gifford’s political objectives in Arizona, a state which has been a political hotspot for tea party propaganda and anti-immigration policy for months now.

The facts around this story all spell terrorism, yet everyone seems to be avoiding calling it so. Why?

If Loughner had been Muslim and yelled ‘Allahu Akbar’ before pulling the trigger, would that have made him a terrorist?

***In case you haven't heard of the story, here is a short overview on BBC.

Back in Europe: islamophobia

2011-01-01T15:53:00.003-05:00

Taken by me: flying over Greenland

So, I’m in Europe. It has been quite a wild experience getting here in this crazy December weather. I’ve spent two days and nights stranded at the airport, trying to catch some dreams on the floor while waiting hours to get my flight rebooked all because of a huge snowstorm that ironically never came until the one day I had to travel – eighteen inches of snow and gusting northern winds. But I am here at last. It’s about ten below zero, and extremely freezing in this part of Scandinavia. While getting used to the cold weather was not as bad as I thought it would be, getting used to the cold stares I’ve been getting from the Nordic people is something else completely.

Taken by me: the snow storm

As far as I could see, I was the only covered Muslim woman in the entire airport, on the flight and in the city. I couldn’t help but feel very uncomfortable, and the fact that people kept adamantly giving me these freezing cold stares each time they went by made my experience here that much less homely, warm and welcoming.

Each time I travel to Europe, for some reason, I appreciate America a little more. It’s weird and kind of ironic, given I am an avid critic of America and its politics. But the moment I arrived, I realized something – a striking fear of Islam - that islamophobia in Europe is even worse then I thought. And I find it very irrational indeed. I cannot explain the feelings in mare words, but the way people have been staring at me is quite unsettling and troubling. They truly stare as if I had dropped from a different planet. I kept asking myself, why do I seem so threatening? Why does my scarf cause such a scare among these people?

I went out a couple of times, to the city and back, and each time I have had the same unwelcoming experience – more awkward stares and less then friendly people.

It’s not to say that America has absolutely no faults and problems of its own, but I find the American people at least, in general, to be much more used to diversity and open to learning, understanding and friendly dialogue. Although I’ve had mixed responses and bad experiences back in the US, they have never made me feel completely dehumanized and foreign. And the paradox here lies in the fact that I am European.

I thought it would be interesting to note that my country of origin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, was until a few days ago the biggest ghetto in Europe, due to the traveling and visa restrictions that were in place to prevent people from traveling freely across Europe. Thankfully, as an American citizen, I never had to deal with such inconveniences. But even though these restrictions had been lifted, Bosnia still remains a second class European country because of its ‘underdeveloped’ status. Essentially, it is not meeting the Western standard of what it means to be ‘civilized.’

I suppose one of my chief problems with this Western model of ‘developmentalism’ and ‘progress’ is its encroachment of religious freedoms to practice, and the corresponding policies that are forcing people to assimilate to the local secular culture, which has no place left for religious tradition. Because Islam is being revived in Bosnia, the country itself is not being accepted into the circle of the European elitists; and because I am visibly Muslim, I am not recognized as European (or European/white enough).

Most of the ultra-radical Muslim reformers do not seem to recognize the dire consequences of their preachings. I have seen what ‘Islamic reform’ looks like in Bosnia, and I am seeing its problematic side effects spreading across Europe today.

Islam was dying a slow and excruciating death, while the reformers had been dealing with and selling its soul to the secular modernists.

The situation in Europe is truly troubling, in my opinion, and the forceful push for ‘reformation’ generates more islamophobia, fear of traditional Islam, and therefore does a great disservice to Islam and to all believing Muslims in the West.

How I became Muslim

2010-12-25T21:54:00.003-05:00

I grew up with a particular ‘Euro-Islamic’ identity. This highly cultural, secular, privatized interpretation of Islam influenced how I thought about God, and how I practiced, or didn’t practice my religion. I was Muslim since birth, but only in name. Growing up, I was starved of the rich spiritual and God-conscious life that Islam truly promoted.

Today, progressive Muslims are deliberately and consciously trying to recreate this already existing ‘Euro-Islam’ (and American Islam), and I find this extremely problematic for many reasons.

Like many of today’s European converts to Islam, I couldn’t help but be both European and Muslim at the same time. But being simply European Muslim (or American Muslim) is not the real issue here. The issue is that this European identity began taking over people’s understandings and perceptions of Islam and spirituality. Culture dominated the way Islam was being interpreted. Thus, religion became something extremely personal, something you leave behind at your doorstep. Each day you walked out of your house, to go to work or school or whatever other public duty you needed to accomplish in your life, Islam was left behind.

When you found yourself more out then in your own house, you found Islam playing a less and less significant part in your life. For more then half of the day, every day, your religion becomes extremely impoverished, and limited to the few hours you spend awake in your own home, before you fall asleep and wake up, just to leave it yet again stranded at the door the next day.

It became enough to say I am Muslim to be considered one. It didn’t matter if one drank alcohol, went to parties, danced with the opposite sex, and celebrated Christmas with one’s non-Muslim mates doing all of the above. Eventually people stopped praying because they couldn’t find the time or place to perform their duties as Muslims outside of their homes. Gradually, people started to venture further and further away from prophetic example. The Euro-Islam, that always was and reformers want it to be, is a new construct of a secular brand of religion which leaves God further and further behind in one’s life and reality.

Since I began finding myself, and looking for answers, I became more and more conscious of this ‘fake’ Muslim identity. I know people will get furious with my choice of words here, but it felt quite superficial to me. I began questioning everything I knew, or didn’t know, about my religion. Who is God; how do I pray to this God; what is Truth; what is my purpose in this life; in essence, what does it mean to be a good Muslim?

I began to find that a lot of what I knew about Islam was heavily influenced by that secular European, Bosnian Islam. I learned that to be a good Muslim, I had to go beyond ‘la ilahe ila Allah.’

In the beginning I was a huge skeptic of the ahadith, and relied wholly on the Qur’an for guidance. I had the same distorted, primitive views that reformers espouse today – that the ahadith are polluted with human error, and misogynistic conceptions of womanhood and gender relations. But I soon learned that my inadequate and scarce knowledge of Islam made it impossible for me to understand the Qur’anic message, in its highly complex and transcending nature. I learned that I cannot look at the ahadith out of context individually and by themselves without consulting the Qur’an, and vice versa. The more I learned of the extremely intricate and incredible web of scientific knowledge that went into the study of ahadith I began to appreciate them even more. Alhamdolillah.

One of my greatest personal jihads was fighting against these cultural interpretations of Islam which prevented me from seeing the beauty of traditional Islamic taught. My secular upbringing and the cultural interpretations of Islam truly restricted my abilities to know and understand Truth.

What is being emphasized today, propagated by the progressives and modernist reformists, is a return to that restricted cultural understanding of Islam. That cultural version of Islam I was struggling with and broke free from once already. While Euro-Islam or American-Islam is not comprised of one particular Muslim cultural community, it is molding its interpretations to a de-centralized, de-territorialized broader cultural Islam.

It is extremely hard to make people, who are still stuck in the cultural mentality, understand how dangerous and self-defeating this ideology really is. And what is shared by all cultural Muslims is a sheer arrogance in accepting anything other then what their particular culture dictates as truth.

Just to give an example from the opposite extreme of the Islamic spectrum, Saudi Arabia. Simply because Saudi patriarchal culture prevents women from driving cars, it doesn’t mean Islam prevents women from driving cars. Likewise, just because European or American secular culture encourages women not to veil, it doesn’t mean Islam discourages women from veiling. But once people have internalized this cultural brand of Islam, it is hard to convince them that what they are doing is not within the perimeters of the Islamic, prophetic tradition.

I am not saying that there is absolutely no room for culture. There are certain things within Islam which are universal and the same for all Muslims no matter where they come from; however there are other issues which are malleable and adaptable. Islam is not a cult – we don’t have to ‘Arabize’ Islam in order to be good Muslims – but we cannot completely modify it to our cultural standards, be they secular, feminist or ultra-patriarchal, either.

It is a hard struggle to assume as a born Muslim, let alone a convert. It’s hard to understand that one doesn’t have to give up who he/she is to be able to practice Islam as it was taught by the prophet (peace be upon him). I am European, and American and Bosnian. I am a woman, and I am independent. I use my reason, and logic, and I am an advocate for women’s rights. I am a human rights advocate, and an anti-war advocate. I am a genocide survivor, and I am a global citizen. I am many things, but on top of it all, I am a Muslim who follows in the footsteps of her prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). I can be myself, without leaving the tradition of the prophet for a modern cultural interpretation of Islam.

Traditional Islam is not what it is painted to be, by many. It is not stagnant or barbaric or outdated. It’s very dynamic and rich and beautiful, even modern. It allowed me to break free from the secular cultural Islam I was raised with, and allowed me to see a much greater Truth and a path toward realizing this Truth. Euro-Islam and/or American-Islam want to limit my understanding of God to another deprived set of secular cultural principles, and I won’t allow myself to be shackled to these superficial, spiritually-deprived identities again.

Maybe it's time we start redefining what it means to be European or American, instead of what it means to be Muslim.

Revivalists vs. Reformers

2010-12-22T21:50:00.004-05:00

I was doing some more research, and general reading on the various reform movements, and came across this very interesting article by Abdelwahab El-Affendi, a senior research fellow at the University of Westminster in England. The Article is called “The People on the Edge: Religious Reform and the Burden of the Western Muslim Intellectual” (2009).

It gives a great overview of all the variants in reformist ideology and thought that are being propagated by various groups and people here in North America and Western Europe. He mainly illustrates their failure to authenticate a more ‘religious’ rather then intellectual authority, which ultimately sabotages their entire reform movement, because people do not hold these intellectuals as credible leaders in the broader Muslim community.

While I don’t agree with everything he says, I found his analysis worth reading.

The following are excerpts from el-Affendi’s essay which I found very pertinent because they define the different movements and their agendas. So here they are.

The Reformists and the Western superiority complex:
“The efforts of U.S.-based Muslim intellectuals to undermine Islamic authoritarianism could warrant an “even more ambitious agenda following up on changes in Islam’s ideology with changes in leadership and religious practices.” Much justifies these ambitions, but ambition must not be allowed to shift to illusion. To move from a valid appreciation of the increasing importance of the intellectual contributions of Western Muslims to a “wag the dog” theory that ascribes to them a leadership role in religious reform may be as misguided (and as dangerous) an illusion as the idea that creating an American colony in Iraq would be an advertisement of America’s love for democracy and an inspiration for freedom lovers throughout the Muslim world. Both illusions spring from the same quintessentially Western overconfidence, even arrogance, of which Muslim Westerners are not immune.” (page 20)

“The excessive confidence of the spokespersons of Western Islam contrasts sharply with the doubly precarious Muslim presence in the West, in terms of both the relatively hostile environment and the pressures of secular political and intellectual hegemony. In an environment where the best Muslim is the “integrated” (read “invisible”) one, Muslim selfconsciousness here is a fairly recent development. It has crystallized in adverse circumstances of turmoil and conflict that make the preoccupation with survival and adaptation one of its central features.” (page 21)

The Revivalists (or neo-traditionalists): (People like Muhammad Asad, Abu’l-Ala Maududi, Sayyid Qutub)“…the prevalent attitude among neotraditionalists is mistrust of Islamic revivalists and modernists… These ethically challenged proponents of identity politics, the neotraditionalists argue, are not the answer for Islam’s crisis. They tend to instrumentalize religion and “to define themselves sociologically, rather than theologically.” Their version of instrumentalized Islam is spiritually, artistically, and humanly impoverished and narrowly partisan.” (page 30)

Revivalism vs. Reform:
“… the predominant type among Western-based Muslim intellectuals is a reformer who believes that Islam needs more input from modernity, not less.” (page 30)

“… revivalists (neo-traditionalists) further distinguish themselves from the traditionalists by redefining the tradition into purist terms, while the former tend to accept the tradition more or less as it is handed down. Those in the third category, the modernists, seek to redefine the tradition along lines that are similar to the revivalists but tend toward liberal and accommodating interpretations of that tradition.” (page 31)

Radical Modernists: (In this camp are people like Tariq Ramadan, Zia Sardar, Fazlur Rahman)
“Radical modernism represents an attempt to advance the modernist project further by interrogating the tradition in more radical ways…. They sought merely to exploit the differences and conflicts within orthodoxy to eliminate or discredit those aspects of the tradition that have become difficult to defend in the modern era. They selectively pick and choose from various accepted authorities to support their modernizing (usually liberal) agenda.” (page 31)

“What unites the intellectual figures and schools within this trend of radical modernism is an approach that seeks to work within the confines of orthodoxy while working hard to redefine it. It attempts to develop a radical rereading and reinterpretation of traditional Islamic sources by adapting traditionally approved approaches and methods of interpretation, even though they often come with readings that those in the religious establishment find difficult to accept.” (page 35)

Ultra-radical Modernists (progressives): (In this category we find Khaled Abou el Fadl, Fatima Mernisi, Amina Wadud, Irshad Manji)
“These ultraradical modernists have decided to launch a frontal attack on traditionalism, as was done by the Egyptian scholar Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, who stirred controversy with his book The Concept of the Text (1990), in which he advocated treating the Qur’an as a “human” text and using the tools of modern literary criticism to decipher it… Also a key figure in this category is UCLA’s Khaled Abou El Fadl” (page 36)

“The more irreverent and iconoclastic progressives are not afraid of openly defying mainstream orthodoxy or deliberately courting controversy. They are ready to go well beyond the current limits of orthodoxy by arguing for positions that unapologetically advocate a break with tradition in such areas as gay relationships, complete gender equality, and opposition to many Islamic legal sanctions.” (page 40)

Secular West promoting ultraradical Islamic Reform:
“Major research institutions in the West also encourage work in this (ultraradical) area. An endless stream of works on themes such as “liberal Islam,” “Islamic liberalism,” and “Islamic reformation” is now being produced by printing presses the world over.” (page 41)

“The accelerated adaptation that Western Muslims are pushed to make to survive has galvanized them into serious rethinking and reflection, which, in turn, have moved the worldwide debate on Islamic reform to a new higher level.” (page 45)

Conclusions on reform:
“… such a deliberate drive for a reformation that is based on copying another (Christian) experience in another religious tradition in another era is condemned from the start to the loss of innocence: it is no longer religious reform but social engineering and intellectual tinkering.” (page 46)

Image Credit

What are your thoughts on the matter? Do you think el-Affendi's analysis gives us an accurate portrayal of the current reformist tide? Would you say such revivalism or reform is healthy for Muslims in the West and elsewhere?

I believe this is something we should all be thinking and having intrafaith dialogue about, because whether we realize it or not, we have all been thrust directly into the middle of this cataclysmic debate.

Where do you find yourself standing in this discourse? It's important to know because we, the mainstream Muslims, can turn the tide into either direction. I stand firm in opposition. I recognize that there are many problems in our Muslim communities we should be addressing, however we have to start solving these issues by changing our selves - not changing Islam. We need to reform ourselves, not Islam.

Progressivism, Humanism and Islam

2010-12-19T23:58:00.005-05:00

I find the whole ‘progressive Muslim’ agenda to be absolutely contradictory to the entire essence of Islamic philosophy – theology, ontology, epistemology and other branches of philosophical thought – about God, Truth, morality, and the beginnings of the Universe.

And no matter what angel I try to look at it from, the “progressive” pill just seem too hard to swallow. Here is why.

Progressive Islam seems to be on a spiritual death march toward Western secular humanism and moral relativism, both of which are products of the enlightenment and post-modern eras. In this “progressive” world view, the testimony of faith is a real act of bearing witness to the reflection in the mirror – “there is not god but ‘I’, and ‘I’ am his/her messenger.” Basically, I am Muslim because I said so. You can’t judge me – you are not God. Although their slippery-slope of an argument doesn’t make them at all aware that every other person becomes his/her own ‘god’ – in a distorted sense – so why not judge?

While most of the leading progressives are not completely abandoning the idea of ‘God’ just yet, they are calling for a complete ‘deregulation’ of religion – if you will. Humanism celebrates ‘rationality’ and the relativism of moral values and ethics. Life is what you want it to be, not what any ‘god’ or other supernatural ‘being’ want you to believe it is. Morality is relative to the individual person. Society may shape our values, but we choose what it means to be moral, based on the time and place in history. Because everything revolves around the person, in the end, there is no need for God. After all, this notion of ‘god’ is an outdated, superstitious, fringe figment of humankind’s wondrous imagination.

So I find myself pondering, how does one tread a path of spiritualism – which this ‘progressive Islam’ allegedly espouses – when its entire philosophical framework requires humankind to denounce the existence of a God?

Islam is the other flip side of that coin – the opposite of this spiritually bankrupt “progressive” philosophy. The Islamic testimony of faith is a declaration of strict monotheism, “there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His messenger.” Islam is a rational faith tradition, but not based on ‘rationalism’, it is logical but not based on ‘logic.’ It is a religion which incorporates reason and spirituality, the being and the spirit, the matter and the soul. It does not take precedence to logic over divine Wisdom, because humankind does not seem to realize the limits of its finite intellectual capacity. Morality, as well as Truth is relative only to the Omnipotent, All Knowing Creator of the Universe.

Allah warns Muhammad (peace be upon him) in the Qur’an, and Muslims in general, about following this ‘relative’ path of interpreting Islam based on our finite rational faculty.

“Then We put you, [O Muhammad], on an ordained way concerning the matter [of religion]; so follow it and do not follow the inclinations of those who do not know.” (45:18)

“And if you obey most of those upon the earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allah. They follow not except assumption, and they are not but falsifying.” (6:116)

And from these, and many other verses like it, God tells us that most of these interpretations are false. Additionally, He tells us that there is only one siraat al mustaqeem.

“Mankind was [of] one religion [before their deviation]; then Allah sent the prophets as bringers of good tidings and warners and sent down with them the Scripture in truth to judge between the people concerning that in which they differed. And none differed over the Scripture except those who were given it - after the clear proofs came to them - out of jealous animosity among themselves. And Allah guided those who believed to the truth concerning that over which they had differed, by His permission. And Allah guides whom He wills to a straight path.” (2:113)

"And, [moreover], this is My path, which is straight, so follow it; and do not follow [other] ways, for you will be separated from His way. This has He instructed you that you may become righteous." (6:153)

“Progressive Islam” would like to have us believe that we can all live in our own truth – that all those wild interpretations out there are all Islam. But this cannot be. Allah revealed one religion to the prophet(s). Islam is one, while interpretations are many. Let’s be careful not to conflate the two.

Ultimately, the existence of a God necessitates a philosophy of moral absolutism, because if Truth were relative it would undermine Allah’s Magnificence and Omnipotence. It boils down to human ‘free will’ and how much of this ‘will’ we are able to exercise in reality. The traditional Islamic position holds that “human power and act are both created by God, and so human action is God's creation (khalq), but it is also human acquisition (kasb) of God's action, which is reflected in human volition.” (“Theological Conceptions”)

In other words, religion is bound by limits, limits in human reason, limits in perception, but also limits in exercising our ‘free will.’ And this anarchist ‘progressivism,’ like humanism, rejects all limitations of divine law. Everything becomes permissible simply because ‘I’ said so.

Do you see how this philosophy promotes a dangerous path into oblivion? It is a march toward secular humanism and moral ‘egoism’ – toward a world which can no longer contain a Supreme God, because ‘relativity’ leaves us all to interpret reality, truth and the purpose of life as we see fit. And judging from the Qur’anic message, most of these interpretations are wrong.

So what does that leave us with? Help me understand.

Faith and identity

2010-12-17T11:00:00.005-05:00

I went to an all women’s Catholic college, and I loved it, for what ever it is worth. It was there, during my freshman year, that I decided to start veiling and observing hijab. I was just going through my own “self-discovery” phase; although since then, I have become very much settled with my multi-faceted and very complex identity. It was also that year when I met with the Campus Minister – a lovely woman who shared my great passion for religion and faith in God. I admired her, although we had very different backgrounds and meanings of who God is.

She always told me, when I came through that door one day, that I was God’s sign of her prayers being accepted and answered. Though I never knew what she prayed for, she seemed happy that I, a veiled Muslim woman came knocking on her door, asking for a place to perform my salah. It was a relatively small institution, and I was the only Muslim woman in a headscarf on campus. There was less then two percent of a Muslim population on the campus, overall.

In any event, she made sure that I had a place for prayers, and worked hard to incorporate a diverse religious perspective at the college campus. Suffice to say, she was there only during my freshman year. Obviously the very Catholic institution, founded by a group of nuns some 75 years ago, didn’t like the idea of an inter-religious dialogue on the holy premises of an important Christian college.

But the minister never gave up on me, nor did I ever give up on her. During that year, she organized many more events, familiarizing people with Islam, as well as other faith traditions. She invited people form a local seminary to speak about what Muslims believed in, and the shared heritage we all had together with the Christians and the Jews. She tried her best to make me feel welcome at the campus, and I will never forget her for that. She was a strong woman, and a strong believer. I may have disagreed with her beliefs fervently, but she displayed the good character of ‘Isa (aleyhi salaam), that we should also strive to emulate. In turn, I also tried to represent our prophet Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) example as best as I could.

We had many great conversations, and she even accepted a Qur’an from me as a gift. My maturity and self-confidence grew during that time I spent with her talking. I was beginning to accept who I was.

She said something to me that I will always cherish and remember, because it is so important to understand, no matter what faith you ascribe to. “One cannot completely understand, debate or explain ones own faith, unless one knows oneself first.”

Before we can even begin to comprehend religion, we have to know who we are and where we stand. If you do not know your own position in your faith, then you are in no position to explain your faith to others.

With her, I learned to be myself, to be proud of my hijab, to be proud of the fact that I was the only covered women in the entire college, and the only visible Muslim in a Catholic institution.

After she was pressured to leave the college ( and I presume it is because of her efforts to bring more interfaith dialogue to the campus), she was replaced by a series of interns who rotated through her old position, until finally the College hired a very "typical" Catholic woman, who wasn’t so happy to see me there at all. One time she even became offended when I stood up to hug her at an event, out of respect. She pointed to her necklace which held a small golden cross on it, with a hint of paranoia – as if I were the devil incarnate that should have been running at the sight of such a symbol.

Well, it is then that I understood that she was not like the strong woman who preceded her during my freshman year. She did not fully understand who she was, nor did she know what her position and standing was with her faith.

If we are not guided by true faith, then we are guided by the ego (primitive desires). We are guided by fear – a fear of that which we have not yet discovered, a fear of exposing our fragile, and confused ‘self’ to a mysterious and outlandish perception of religion and God of the ‘other.’

But why on earth am I sharing this story with you? Because I have realized that the stronger people are in faith, the more settled they are in their own skin, the more respectful (although critically analytical) they are to knowledge other then their own.

As ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah be pleased with him) once said: “The more you increase in knowledge, the more merciful you become to others."

And I found this message resonating through my sub-consciousness. I have found myself looking back at my own actions and reflecting on them. And to say the least, I have changed. The more knowledge I gathered, the more merciful I became – alhamdolillah – at least I’d like to think I have.

And as you may have figured it out, I am bad at ending posts like these, so I will ask you what did you get from it? What’s the moral of this story? You tell me...

Is sunnah part of revelation?

2010-12-15T15:04:00.005-05:00

If you think the ‘sunnah’ – which has been recorded in the prophetic ‘ahadith’ tradition – is somehow irrelevant to your Islamic spiritual development, then I want you to consider the following.

I. Allah subhanu wa ta’ala says in the Qur’an, “…and Allah has revealed to you the Book and wisdom (hikmah) and has taught you that which you did not know…” (4:113)

Also in surat Al ‘Imran,

“Certainly did Allah confer [great] favor upon the believers when He sent among them a Messenger from themselves, reciting to them His verses and purifying them and teaching them the Book and wisdom, although they had been before in manifest error.” (3:164)

Evidently Allah mentions not one, but two important springs of Islamic knowledge – the book (Qur’an) and the hikmah (Wisdom). This means that the prophet not only taught us the verses of the Qur’anic revelation (The unmediated word of God Himself), but he was also teaching us the wisdom behind them (the hikmah). This ‘wisdom’ has clearly manifested itself in the prophetic deeds and actions – the sunnah. It is therefore undeniable that we should accept both the Qur’an and the ahadith as our primary sources of knowledge.

From this, we can conclude that Allah revealed to Muhammad more then just the Qur’an itself. How do we know this? We know from the Qur’an that Muhammad never spoke at his own behest in matters of faith.

In surah An-Najm, Allah says: “Your companion [Muhammad] has not strayed, nor has he erred. Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination.” (53:2-3)

Consequently, if the prophet never spoke from his own inclination, then all of those rules, laws, and statements of wisdom, must have had a source other then the prophet himself. And we can conclude form the above argument that this source must have been Allah Most Wise.

Likewise, another great example is the fourty hadith Qudsi. You will notice that the source of these ahadith is Allah Himself.

Furthermore, Allah repeatedly tells the Muslims to obey Him and His Messenger, in the Qur’an.

“Say, "Obey Allah and obey the Messenger; but if you turn away - then upon him is only that [duty] with which he has been charged, and upon you is that with which you have been charged. And if you obey him, you will be [rightly] guided. And there is not upon the Messenger except the [responsibility for] clear notification."(24:54)

Also, “O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.”(4:59)

And, “He who obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah; but those who turn away - We have not sent you over them as a guardian.” (4:80)

So clearly, Allah does not want Muslims to follow solely the Qur’an but also the Prophet’s sunnah (what is wajib (obligatory) and mandub (recommended) in Islam).

Moreover when Allah promised to safeguard and preserve the message, He didn’t specify the ‘book’ itself, rather He uses the word ‘dhikr’.

Allah says in surah an-Nahl, “[We sent them] with clear proofs and written ordinances. And We revealed to you the Dhikr (message) that you may make clear to the people what was sent down to them and that they might give thought.” (16:44)

“Verily, it is We who have sent down the Dhikr (revelation), and surely We will guard it.” (15:9)

People of knowledge have concluded that what is being preserved is not only the book but the wisdom as well. How so? Well, if the ‘book’ needed to be explained in order to be understood, then it is only logical to conclude that the wisdom would also be preserved together with the message.

II. But even if the first part may be convincing enough, most people who doubt the sunnah, doubt it because of individual hadith they may disagree with; however most do not recognize the various levels of authenticity of these ahadith, or their contextual significance. I’d presume they never read the entire collection in the first place to be able to make such crude dismissals of important texts. (I obviously haven’t either, but I am here to explain what I have learned from those who have read these texts in their entirety and studied them in much more depth then we could begin to imagine).

The muhaddithun did not ‘interpret’ the sunnah, they collected it and preserved it. They developed such a sophisticated science in the process, making sure that what ever they collected through the ‘chain of narrations’ (isnad) was completely trustworthy. And later scholars of ahadith ranked them in importance of authenticity.

How do we know or trust that these sayings are exactly reported as they had been spoken by the prophet himself? The same way we know the Qur’an had been preserved – through oral tradition and memorization. Most companions memorized these ahadith and taught them to future generations of Muslims, until they were written down and compiled not long after – about three hundred years after the prophet’s (peace be upon him) death.

Now, I cannot begin to understand how some people today can completely ignore these important sources of Islamic knowledge, and dismiss the companions and scholars as some ‘misogynistic,’ volatile, oppressive men when Allah Himself has praised them in the Qur’an as one of the best generations in Islamic history.

“And the first forerunners [in the faith] among the Muhajireen and the Ansar and those who followed them with good conduct - Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever.” (9:100)

So just because some Reza Aslan, or Fatima Mernisi, or Khaled abou el-Fadl say that the prophet’s (peace be upon him) companions were misogynists, should we take their word for it? Why would Allah be praising them and making a place for them in Heaven, if they were such awful people? Are you telling me Allah is a misogynist (authubillah)? That is one crazy assumption to make if you are a true believer in Islam!

Sure they were only human beings, but that doesn’t automatically make someone more prone to committing evil. Yes they made mistakes, and yes they were sinners, but you know what the big difference between them and us is? They went back to the prophet (peace be upon him) and asked Allah for forgiveness and guidance for their wrongs. While we, on the other hand, have developed a superiority complex over these classical generations, unable to humble ourselves in front of their knowledge, thinking that we are oh so mighty for having ‘liberated’ women to wear bikinis and burn their bras, tearing down their veils and giving the middle finger to tradition. I don’t believe this is what the prophet (peace be upon him) taught us, nor is it what Allah has commanded Muslims in the holy Qur’an.

From the Qur’anic evidence above, I believe it is clearly obvious that Muslims have to include the ahadith – the sunnah of the prophet – as a primary source in their Islamic spiritual development. It is not up to our ‘self’ to decide what ‘God’ meant with the Qur’an – God has already provided us with His Wisdom through the Prophet, and it is up to us to take it, and learn from it.

In the end, may Allah forgive me if I have wronged, and may He guide us all onto His Straight path. Amiin.

***Qur'an translation used: Sahih International version

Islam is a lot like doing math

2010-12-11T19:48:00.003-05:00

Searching for truth is a lot like trying to solve a math problem. You can get many different answers ('truths') by evaluating one simple mathematical expression, but there is only one correct answer (Absolute Truth) in the end which matters.

How would you go about solving the following arithmetic expression: 9 + 2 x (5-3) ^2 - 8 ÷ 2 = ?

It all depends on your methodology right? But if every mathematician had his/her own way of solving this problem, then we would be in big trouble. Most engineers use math for just about everything they do, and so do architects. Imagine if there were no rules in mathematics, and everyone could come up with their own way of solving the expression above, whom would we trust to build the various structures we use everyday? Most of them wouldn’t probably be built in the first place, because the math was wrong. But I would trust the one whose bridge is the safest, and whose foundation is the strongest. In other words, the one who did his math right.

So we can easily do some quick calculations of our own and come up with 238. But is this correct? All I did was follow the logical order (from left to right) – first add 9 and 2, multiply it by the (5-3), raise it all to the second power, subtract 8 and divide it all by 2.

Obviously I am wrong, because there is a basic rule of operations which I must follow in order to arrive at the absolute answer – PEMDAS (Parenthesis, Exponents, Multiplication, Division, Addition, and Subtraction). When I do the correct math I get 13.

So looking for our own truth works much the same way. There are various interpretations of Islam, today, which claim to be ‘true,’ but there is only one which comes with the rules that will give us the right answer. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) gave us these rules (teaching us what Allah has revealed to him); therefore, if we follow these rules, chances are we are going to find our absolute answer, and if we choose to follow our own (often flawed) logic, then we might end up with some answer but it will not be the right one.

Reconciling faith

2010-12-08T18:53:00.009-05:00

Reconciling personal idealisms with a particular faith tradition can be quite challenging, extremely frustrating and very emotionally draining, especially if one is going through a personal self-discovery phase, trying not only to find answers to one’s moral groundings but trying to find one’s ‘self’ in the midst of a dynamic process of change and uncertainty.

During this transitional period of reconciliation, many Muslims get hung up on the usual moral dilemmas which often seem to collide with their intrinsic, most basic understandings of ‘justice,’ and they fail to pull through this maze of subconscious egotistic impulses that eventually hold them back from a more grandiose realization of Truth.

So what happens is that they begin to reconcile the tradition to their individual idealisms instead. The process becomes inverted because quite frankly it is much less strenuous and exhausting. One begins to accept this facile trade as a triumphant dissolution to the entire moral paradox.

Yet what happened was that they began to re-mold, flex and change the faith itself so that they may feel content with this new hybrid of lies, and distortions which developed as a result of the inability to struggle with their own rebellious ‘self.’

Some of the most puzzling and most contested moral dilemmas, with regards to Islam, is its clear condemnation of homosexuality, prostitution, fornication, alcoholism among others. In reality, it is impossible to reconcile these concepts.

But some people amazingly succeeded to do so by the implication that who ever challenges their victorious mirage of false interpretations of the holy text is taking the place of ‘God’ for judging their errors. They have become almost immune to constructive criticism, because they have fortified their ideals, and started believing in them, and accepting them as ‘the truth.’ So that every assessment of their personal idealisms becomes a personal attack on their individual ‘self.’ And who are ‘we’ to judge them, only God can judge - right?

No, I am not claiming that authority of ‘God,’ but I will tell them, as a fellow Muslim, that they are wrong, because it is Allah who made such acts forbidden… so who are they to say it is permissible?

(Image Credit)

Islam has always been about suppressing the animal within one's ‘self’ – fighting with one's ego and searching for the meanings of justice through our Creator’s guidance. But many of us have been raised to believe that we should nurture the ‘self’ and build its confidence, for it is the only way to increase our own ‘consciousness.’ We have been encouraged to bring out the animal within us, because in this world the only theory which counts is Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” model of moral behavior. And sure, we do increase our own self-awareness, but in the process we loose the scope of reality through God-consciousness.

Once we delve too deep within the sub-conscious then we risk looseing our grasp on reality, justice and Truth.

Tawhid doesn’t just mean belief in monotheism, attaining tawhid means surrendering the ‘self’ to the One God. Once you are ready to do that, only then will you have attained true faith in Allah.

"O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both. So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort [your testimony] or refuse [to give it], then indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted." (Qu’ran, 4:135)

Radicalism Defined

2010-12-04T22:49:00.002-05:00

Radical has become a big, nasty cuss word. People gasp in contempt when ever they hear this word being uttered, and cover their ears in disgust whenever this term is being discussed in their presence. Others add this word to their shortlist of other ‘bad words’ with which they label people whom they are in great disagreement with. Anyone who thinks very differently can, in some ways, be labeled as ‘radical.’ But who is a “radical” - really? How do we define this term generally – void of all the bias and stigma attached by the ones doing the labeling?

Radical simply translates to ‘fundamentally different.’ The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines radical as “very different from the usual or traditional;” also, “favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions.” Some of the synonyms are “revolutionary” and “extreme.”

So keeping in mind this definition, I will proceed with my argument which basically advocates that there is nothing wrong with being ‘radical,’ and that in fact, in today’s environment we should be more radical in our approach to solving major world problems.

In medical terminology, using ‘radical’ in association with a procedure, means going to the ‘root’ of the cause and eliminating this cause at it’s very source to prevent the problem from re-occurring and damaging the person’s health in the future.

This analogy can be applied to our current world system. Humanity is one body, and looking at the various issues we have, we can conclude that this body is extremely sick and is in need of critical medical attention. How can we make humanity healthier becomes the main question?

Thus far, we have been tending these problems by placing temporary ‘band-aids’ on them and hoping that the system will heal itself – and that the body would be functional again.

But imagine a person with cancer. Can this person ever get a chance of health unless the medical expert goes to the source of the problem, and eliminates it? No. Depending what type of cancer this person may have, surgery, chemotherapy or a combination of both will be necessary to root out this sickness. Only by the treatment of the cancer itself can the person survive and have a chance at health and life again.

Now imagine humanity. Can we ever become functional unless we go to the root problems and try to eliminate them? I would argue, no.

The first thing we need to do is establish a diagnosis for the sickness. What is the diagnosis for humanity’s problems today? If we go beyond war, disease, poverty, and etc. which are just by-products of the social cancer itself, and study the actual root cause of all of these individual problems, then we will easily conclude that global (neo-liberal/free-trade) capitalism is the root cause for much of the suffering humanity is going through today.

Once we recognize the problem, we have to start looking for treatments. The next question then becomes, can we defeat the exploitative and unjust nature of neo-liberal capitalism simply by inventing new policies to fix the problems it has caused to the health and well-being of humanity? Or, do we actually need to root out capitalism itself?

I will argue the latter.

I have always been a global thinker. I like to look at the broader trends and problems and try to find solutions to them rather then address them on a much smaller individual front. To me, looking only at your immediate problems may help soften your suffering and help you (individually) have a better life; however, it will not change the situation that has brought you to that state in the first place. Meaning, chances are, that you are going to return to that same state at some point or another in your life.

For example, ever since neo-liberal Capitalism became the domineering world system, there have been several financial disasters, starting with the great depression in the 1930s , to the 1987 crash termed the infamous “Black Monday,” to the so called “Asian mini-crash” in 1997 and of course the most recent in 2008. Evidently, we have failed each time to ‘fix’ the system. We tried placing those small ‘band-aids’ on the financial ‘booboos’ and let the system heal itself, only to expect more falls and injuries later.

And much of humanity has become numb to the countless injuries it has sustained through out the decades. Continuous exploitation, degradation, rape and humiliation, has made humanity weak. Too weak to fight back, just like a person with stage IV cancer, humanity is loosing its will-power to live.

Our weakness is manifested in our lack of morality. We have truly been seduced by the cheap ‘goods’ we receive for our compliance to the capitalist system. We have become so blind to our own pain. This compliance has become a powerful anesthetic to our increased suffering.

Because of this, I believe we need to start thinking more radically. If we don’t, if we continue trying to ‘fix’ the ‘un-fixable’ system, the cancer will eventually eat us up – it will kill us. I find it only natural to be radical toward such perceived ‘normality.’

My argument is that we should be fighting this very dangerous and corrupt social cancer, but we should not stoop to the level of immorality that we have been inflicted with ourselves. In other words, capitalism which seeks to demoralize us, and have us believe that human life is disposable, is wrong – and that we should start our fight with increasing the value of life itself.

There has been a lot of discourse lately on radicalism and the entire ‘radicalization’ phenomenon occurring within the Muslim communities, particularly the youth, in the West. It has largely been portrayed as a serious problem, and one that deserves our utmost, serious, attention. It is propagated as a very big issue we need to be solving very soon if we’d like to prevent more 9/11s on American or otherwise ‘Western’ soil.

That is something the perpetrators of this system would like to have us believe; however, as I have argued above I see it only as natural to resist this system.

What I do not agree with however, is the indiscriminant taking of life, by those who choose to make this fight a violent one. We can never justify the taking of an innocent life. Unjust murder is humanity's self-inflicted wound.

Looking at it from this Islamic perspective, we can conclude that the taking of life is strictly prohibited. Allah (Most Merciful) says in the holy Qur’an:

“…if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people…” (Qur’an 5:32)

So when we wish to become dissidents to the system, it is required of us to think ‘radically’; however, we have to do so justly and ethically.

Allah says: “O ye who believe! stand out firmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do.” (Qur’an 5:8)

In other words, we have to deal justly, and preserve justice in this world, even if it may go against our own selves, and our interests. We have to do so in the parameters of Islamic ethics and morality, which places a great value on human life and life in general.

I see nothing wrong with being called a ‘radical’ or thinking in ‘revolutionary’ terms. Islam itself was revolutionary, and brought with it many great changes to society, during the time of ignorance and epidemic injustices. So what is wrong with wanting to stand against global injustice today (of course staying true to Islamic ethics and morals and the prophetic teachings)?

Why are Muslims afraid to think in these terms again? Perhaps because our imaan is very weak, our knowledge very limited and our will gone? Perhaps… but it doesn’t mean we should give up and continue tending those ‘booboos’ with weak ‘band-aids.’ We should make it our priority to re-learn Islamic tradition and speak out against injustice, even if – as a result – we may decrease our ‘standard of living.’ Can we sacrifice our cars and our big houses and everything that we contain inside for the sake of humanity’s well-being, for the sake of justice?

If you were diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, wouldn’t you give up everything you have to pay for your treatment to get better?

Overcoming the system: being muslim

2010-11-28T00:12:00.004-05:00

The following are excerpts taken from one of my favorite and most inspirational essays called "The Power of the Powerless" by Vaclav Havel (1978):

The System:
“The post-totalitarian (dictatorial but not in the traditional sense) system touches people at every step, but it does so with its ideological gloves on. This is why life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the working class is enslaved in the name of the working class; the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his ultimate liberation; depriving people of information is called making it available; the use of power to manipulate is called the public control of power, and the arbitrary abuse of power is called observing the legal code; the repression of culture is called its development; the expansion of imperial influence is presented as support for the oppressed; the lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become the highest form of democracy; banning independent thought becomes the most scientific of world views; military occupation becomes fraternal assistance. Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing.” (Havel, page 30)

The Individual:
“Individuals need not believe all these mystifications, but they must behave as though they did, or they must at least tolerate them in silence, or get along well with those who work with them. For this reason, however, they must live within a lie. They need not accept the lie. It is enough for them to have accepted their life with it and in it. For by this very fact, individuals confirm the system, fulfill the system, make the system, are the system.” (Havel, page 31)

Identity, morality and 'dissent':
“The profound crisis of human identity brought on by living within a lie, a crisis which in turn makes such a life possible, certainly possesses a moral dimension as well; it appears, among other things, as a deep moral crisis in society. A person who has been seduced by the consumer value system, whose identity is dissolved in an amalgam of the accoutrements of mass civilization, and who has no roots in the order of being, no sense of responsibility for anything higher than his or her own personal survival, is a demoralized person. The system depends on this demoralization, deepens it, is in fact a projection of it into society.” (Havel, page 45)

So how do we search for the truth when our whole existence has been wrapped in a blanket of lies? Havel suggests “dissent” – meaning resistance – even in the most minute and indirect ways possible. Being a practicing Muslim, and living my life in accordance with the Qur’an and sunnah of the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) makes me a complete “stranger” to the domineering system. When I re-assert my identity as a Muslim, I reject the demoralization of my personhood. I reject being objectified by the elitists. How so, you may ask?

Well, this system requires us to think a certain way (supply/demand), dress a certain way (latest fashion), speak a certain way (ignorance), and act a certain way (blend in with the masses). As a Muslim I deplore the system. I think of communal social justice, modesty, increasing my knowledge of truth, and being recognized as a ‘stranger’ among the masses.

How many times do people say, that they are too “weak” and “insignificant,” too “powerless” to fight or change the system? Yet what they do not realize is that by keeping silent and conforming to the system, they are aiding the system. How many times do people complain about how “exploitative” the world capitalist system is, yet go ahead and stay in line all night long in front of a Wal-Mart on a “black Friday” eagerly awaiting their discounted deals? Do they not realize their power? The power they are blindly and sheepishly displacing into the corrupt system itself?

Our resistance to the “norm” is our “dissent” – the true power of the “powerless.” We need to realize how strong the potential of the general masses is – our own individual potentials. How much power we all have… if we just put it to proper use.

Seeing the truth requires us to recognize the lie, and we can recognize the lie only by becoming “dissidents” to the normative system; a system which has been presented to us as a ‘perfect way of life’ and is all but.

Why do you think there is such a strong and very arrogant condemnation of public religious expressionism for Muslims in the West? Being visibly Muslim is a direct threat to the system which requires us to be imprudent, ignorant, obedient and above all submissive.

Islam frees the person from such detrimental ties to worldly systems that enslave the essence of our temporary human existence. Islam is about submitting to God alone, so it naturally opposes this system we are forced to assimilate into.

And I wouldn’t want to assimilate. Assimilation is a process by which a free person becomes a degraded, dehumanized sheep that is hoarded back to its faceless flock – a process by which a person becomes part of the masses and in so doing, looses his/her own identity. It is a process which blends people into this neo-dictatorial system, and makes them an active catalyst, a key ingredient, to the entire exploitative corruption scheme.

Being Muslim is therefore liberating, because it allows a person to function and live outside of the web of lies being spun by the world elitists; it allows a person to see truth, and live independent of the post-totalitarian world system.

Have you slaughtered your “Isma’il”?

2010-11-17T21:07:00.007-05:00

First of all, I hope you all have had a blessed ‘Eid al-Adha. ‘Eid Mubarak to all - Taqabal Allah mina wa minkum!

(Image Credit)

Many people have a very basic and vague understanding of this Muslim holiday, ‘Eid al-Adha (the festival of sacrifice). Even most Muslims understand this holiday in very practical terms; that is, at the completion of hajj, you are supposed to slaughter a sheep, goat, cow or camel and distribute the meat to the poor in your communities. From a purely humanitarian perspective, I absolutely love this aspect of ‘Eid. The more wealthy people, who can afford to sacrifice one of these animals, fulfill their duty and responsibility as Muslims toward the less fortunate in their communities. I believe it is a beautiful gesture and an honorable act of communal justice.

However, most Muslims don’t realize that this sacrifice is not only supposed to be physical in nature, but also very spiritual and symbolic. When prophet Ibraheem (aleyhi salaam) went to Mount Mina, blind folded and intently convinced to kill his only child for the sake of God, he was ready to sacrifice something extremely dear to him in this duniya. SubhanAllah, he was willing to kill his only son (at that time) Isma’il. Imagine having to give up something so great, for the sake of Allah, but Ibraheem (aleyhi salaam) was willing to do it.

Children, in Islam, are described in the Qur’an and Sunnah as one of the greatest riches of this temporary life, and to give up that desire, that one thing that matters most in life, is indeed a very great sacrifice, and trial of one’s faith in Allah.

Each and every one of us has his or her own “Isma’il” in this world, something that we hold very closely and dearly to our hearts, something which may be stopping us from fulfilling our responsibility towards Allah, and bringing us closer to this deen.

The animal we sacrifice during ‘Eid is a symbol of our carnal, animalistic desires – and only those who cut the throat not of the sheep or goat or cow or camel, but the animal in themselves have truly made their greater sacrifice. This is also why the prophet (peace be upon him) called ‘Eid al-Adha the greater of the two ‘Eids.

And Allah says in the holy Qur’an: “It is not their meat nor their blood that reaches Allah: it is your piety that reaches Him…” (Qur’an 22:37)

So if you have not slaughtered your ‘ego,’ or that something which is stopping you from submitting yourself fully to Allah and His Absolute Truth, then you have not truly sacrificed your ‘animal.’