God, Faith, and a Pen: Living in the Light of His Love

Slander At The House Of The Prophet

2010-03-12T01:28:00.000-06:00

In the Name of God, the Subtle, the Loving

This article was published at Reading Islam.

After Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) emigrated to the city of Madinah and established the new Muslim community there, the emigrants became known as the "Muhajireen" and the Muslims who had received them in Madinah as the "Ansar."

"Help me, O Muhajireen!"

"Help me, O Ansar!"

Those were the cries from two Muslims who had a dispute with each other at a well during one of Prophet Muhammad's expeditions. A number of other companions responded, and a fight was about to ensue. The Prophet, upon learning of this dispute, came running to quell this fight. He told them to abandon these tribal calls, and he calmed the situation between them, reminding them of their Islamic brotherhood. The matter would have ended, had it not been for Abdullah ibn Ubay, the leader of the hypocrites, who resented what had happened between them. He said to his people sitting with him, "They (the Muslims) have outnumbered and shared us our land. If you fatten your dog, it will eat you." He then swore that when they return to Madinah, "the most honorable among you will expel the lowest out of Madinah." By this, he meant the Muslims.

The son of Abdullah ibn Ubay, after learning of this, became very angry. When the Muslims returned to Madinah, he stood at its gate, sword unsheathed. When his father attempted to enter Madinah, he put his sword to his chest and said, "By God! The Prophet is the honorable one, and you are abased! By God! You will not enter Madinah until the Prophet gives you his permission!" Word was sent to the Prophet, and he gave permission to Abdullah ibn Ubay to enter. This further enraged him; the once King of Madinah had to be given permission to enter his own city. He was looking for something with which to attack the Prophet, and that thing came not too much later.

Back when the army was encamped, Lady Aishah, wife of the Prophet, lost her necklace, and after she went to retrieve it unnoticed, the army had left her behind. Deciding to stay put until they discover her absence, she fell asleep. Safwan ibn al-Muattil, a trusted companion of the Prophet, who had started the trip after the army had left,discovered Aishah all alone, he expressed surprise, but did not carry on conversation with her. He lowered his camel so that she could ride on it, and he guided it back to Madinah. Now was the chance for Abdullah ibn Ubay to get back with the Prophet.

"Safwan and Aishah? By God, neither was safe from the other."

That was all he said. The rumor mill, however, did not cease thereafter, and soon, people accused Aishah of adultery. Some of these people were righteous upright Companions, including Hamnah bint Jahsh, the Prophet's cousin, and Hassan ibn Thabit, the Prophet's poet. For her part, Aishah did not know of the things being said about her, as she fell ill as soon as they returned to Madinah. The Prophet, however, did hear what was being said, and it disturbed him so much so that, according to Lady Aishah, "I was hurt by the fact that I did not see the tenderness I used to see from the Prophet while I was sick. He would enter upon us and ask all of us, 'How are all of you doing?' then he would leave."

As the rumors spread, more disputes sprung up among the tribes of Aws and Khazraj, the two main tribes of Madinah, and it almost led to them fighting one another. Throughout this entire time, no revelation from God had come to the Prophet to clarify the matter. One day, Aishah felt a little better, and she was going out to the open desert to relieve herself with Umm Mistah, the Prophet's first cousin. Umm Mistah tripped, and she then cursed her son, Mistah. Lady Aishah was shocked and said, "What an evil thing you have said. How can you curse a person who has witnessed the Battle of Badr?"

Umm Mistah was shocked, "My dear child, did you not hear what he is saying about you?"

Aishah replied in the negative, and when she was told about the slander against her, she became even more ill than before, with some narrations stating that she fainted. She sought permission to go to her parents' house, and the Prophet granted her permission. At her parents' house, Aishah said that she "cried and cried until the morning came. My tears could not stop nor could I taste the sweetness of sleep."

All I can say to you is what the father of Yusuf said. 'Patience is beautiful.'

More time had passed with no answer from God, and so the Prophet went to Aishah and said, "I have heard about you such and such. So, if you are innocent, then Allah [God] will clear you of this charge, and if you have slipped into a sin then seek Allah's forgiveness and repent to Him, for whenever a servant of God commits a sin, admits to it, and repents, Allah accepts his repentance from him."

Aishah was so shocked that her tears ceased flowing. She then said to her father, Abu Bakr, "Respond to the Prophet on my behalf. Answer him! Say something!"

With pain in his voice, he replied, "I cannot speak right now."

Her mother also could not respond. Therefore, she took it upon herself and said:

I know by Allah that you have heard these rumors, and that these rumors have settled in your heart and soul, and you have believed it already. So, if I were to tell you that I'm not guilty, you wouldn’t believe me. And, if I were to admit to a crime that I did not commit, then you will believe me and think that I did it. So, all I can say to you is what the father of Yusuf said, [Patience is beautiful, and from God alone I seek help to bear what you are saying.] (Yusuf 12:18)

At that moment, the revelation came to the Prophet declaring Aishah's innocence, and the Prophet laughed in elation. He then said to her, "Aishah, verily Allah has declared your innocence!"

The story of the Slander is an extremely important incident in Islamic history, one that needs to be told to our congregations and gatherings time and time again. It has numerous lessons for us on how to behave and act properly. Something that many Muslims have forgotten is one of the primary missions of Prophet Muhammad. He said, "I have been sent to perfect good character" (Al-Bukhari). The uprightness of our moral character is foremost in Islam. In fact, Prophet Muhammad also said, "I have heard that by his good character a person can reach the degree of the one who stands in prayer at night, and the one who is thirsty from fasting in the heat of the day." (At-Tirmidhi)

The story of the Slander illustrates what can happen when our moral character lapses. First, notice how the Prophet forcefully quashed the old ways of tribalism after the two Companions disputed with each other and called out to their tribal brethren. He said, "How can you resort to the call of the Jahiliyah [pre-Islamic time of ignorance], and I am among you? Leave such things, for it is rotten" (Al-Bukhari). No matter how much we disagree with one another — and there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with our fellow Muslims — we must never resort to being disagreeable over a silly dispute.

Yet, what the story of the Slander really teaches us is about leaving aside rumors and idle talk, which is another important part of good character. The Prophet Muhammad said, "Part of the excellence of a person's Islam is that he leaves what does not concern him." (Malik)

God Himself taught us a number of lessons from this incident, such as the following verse of the Quran which means:

[When you heard the lie, why did believing men and women not think well of their own people and declare, "This is obviously a lie"?] (An-Nur 24:12)

We think that talking about other people is "no big deal," as God says. But, it is a big deal: in the sight of God, it is an awful thing!

Why did the believers quickly accept the possibility in their minds that, God forbid, Lady Aishah would commit such an evil act? Why didn't the believers give their sister the benefit of the doubt? Why didn't the believers take the Prophet's advice and "leave what does not concern [them]?" Also, notice how vague the initial attack against Lady Aishah's character was; "By God, neither was safe from the other." However, by continually talking and spreading rumors, it turned into an obvious slander and lie against the Prophet's own wife! We must learn this lesson.

God continues in the same chapter of the Quran what means:

[When you took it up with your tongues, and spoke with your mouths things you did not know [to be true], you thought it was trivial but to God it was very serious! When you heard the lie, why did you not say, "We should not repeat this — God forbid!- It is a monstrous slander"?] (An-Nur 24:15-16)

Again, this goes to showing good moral character towards our brothers and sisters, not to spread rumors about them. It is always tempting to hear "dirt" on other people, and it is fun to learn something about someone. Indeed, it is fun for the person "dishing" out the dirt to see the reaction on the face of the person being told the story. However, the challenge of our religion and way of life is to resist this and follow the better angels of nature. The challenge is to say, as God commands us, "We should not repeat this — God forbid!..." We think that talking about other people is "no big deal"; but, it is a big deal: in the sight of God, it is an awful thing!

God also says in another chapter of the Quran what means:

[Believers, no one group of men should jeer at another, who may after all be better than them; no one group of women should jeer at another, who may after all be better than them; do not speak ill of one another; do not use offensive nicknames for one another. How bad it is to be called a mischief-maker after accepting faith! Those who do not repent of this behavior are evildoers.] (Al-Hujurat 49:11)

And He further emphasizes in the same chapter what means:

[...and do not spy on one another or speak ill of people behind their backs: would any of you like to eat the ﬂesh of your dead brother? No, you would hate it!] (Al-Hujurat 49:12)

Again, it is tempting to speak ill about other people, but we must resist this temptation.

The Prophet Muhammad said, "Do you know what backbiting is?" His Companions replied, "God and His Messenger know best." He then said, "It is to say something about your brother that he would dislike." Someone asked him, "But what if what I say is true?" The Messenger of God said, "If what you say about him is true, you are backbiting him, but if it is not true then you have slandered him." (Muslim)

We must be careful of what we say, for it can destroy us without even knowing. In fact, the Prophet once said, "Whoever can guarantee me the control of what is within his beard and what is between his legs, I will guarantee him paradise" (Al-Bukhari). It is a tough challenge, but one with an enormous payoff.

All of this can be gleaned from the story of the Slander, and it is a very important lesson for us. We must read and teach this story again and again, and we must remember God's words that mean: [God warns you never to do anything like this again, if you are true believers.] (An-Nur 24:17)

And let us also always remember that our Prophet said: "I was sent to perfect moral character" (Al-Bukhari). Let us not disgrace our Prophet by our lack of moral character.

The Faithful Fight Against Terror

2010-03-08T18:36:00.001-06:00

In the Name of God, the Subtle, the Loving

This article was published today on Middle East Online.

It was so good to see this time that CNN covered the event: Last week, a prominent Muslim cleric, Muhammad Tahir ul-Qadri, issued a fatwa, or religious edict, against terrorism in general, and suicide terrorism in particular. Although edicts such as these have been issued in the past, this particular fatwa is important in that the scholar who authoried it is the founder of the Minhaj-ul-Quran International movement, with centers in 90 countries.

And it is important in that he goes as far as saying that suicide terrorists are "kafirs," or unbelievers. As Dr. Tahir ul-Qadri, a 59-year-old cleric from Pakistan, said in a recent phone interview, "Until now, scholars who were condemning terrorism were conditional and qualified what they said. I didn't leave a single, minor aspect that, in the mind of radicals or extremists, can take them to the direction of martyrdom."

Manan Ahmed, assistant professor of Islam in South and Southeast Asia at the Institute for Islamic Studies in Berlin told CNN: "This is a landmark theological study -- a careful and systematic treatment of a thousand years of legal tradition dealing with armed resistance against the state, rules of engagement, aspects. The fatwa itself ... is categorically and comprehensively against terrorism in any form and for any cause."

This import religious edict has come two years after the Deoband Declaration, which is famous through out the Muslim world, but went almost completely unreported. The Darul Uloom at Deoband, founded in 1866, is the most influential Muslim religious school in South and Southeast Asia. It is, in fact, the second most important institute of Islamic learning after Al Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt. The statements, declarations, and fatwas that come from this institute hold great influence in the Muslim world.

At its "All India Terrorism Conference," held on February 25, 2008, the institute declared:

[At] this All India Anti-Terrorism Conference attended by the representatives of all Muslim schools of thought organized by Rabta Madaris Islamiah Arabia (Islamic Madrassa Association), Darul Uloom Deoband condemns all kinds of violence and terrorism in the strongest possible terms.

Maulana Marghoobur Rahmad of Darul Uloom said, "There is no place for terrorism in Islam. Terrorism, killing of the innocent, is against Islam." This is particularly significant as many extremist leaders, such as Mullah Omar of the Taliban, have claimed to be associated with Deoband's religious schools.

There has been much heard from critics of the Muslim community that "the voices of condemnation against terrorism and violence among the Muslim community are completely silent." Many times, people ask, "Where are the moderate Muslims speaking in condemnation?" And the implication is made that there must be a silent and tacit approval of the atrocities committed in Islam's name.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Actually, there is a long history of Muslim voices loudly and forcefully condemning terrorism and violence for centuries, beginning with the Prophet Muhammad himself. The problem is, so many people choose not to hear them.

From issuing fatwas against terrorism and violence, and collaboration with law enforcement officials in fighting the spread of extremism, to fighting extremism -- even using Rock and Roll music -- Muslims the world over have been fighting the good fight against the vicious murderers who claim to be fighting in the name of Islam. Far from being "silent co-conspirators," the overwhelming majority of Muslims have completely rejected the worldview of Al Qaeda and their neo-Kharijite ilk. and are actively engaged in the struggle against them.

When the U.S. government officials failed to heed the warnings of the Christmas Day bomber's own father, it did not make critics of Islam and of Muslim communities pause to acknowledge that Muslims are at the forefront in the struggle against violent extremism and terrorism. And Muslims should be: not only because of the fact that the overwhelming majority of the victims of terrorist attacks by Muslims are innocent Muslims themselves, but that their faith demands that they stand up to injustice, even if it be from within their own community.

Some may ask, what is one more fatwa going to do? Do terrorists even listen to the numerous fatwas that are issued which condemn their actions? Most probably do not. But the fatwas that are issued, such as the one last week by Muhammad Tahir al-Qadri, are not aimed at them, but rather to instruct any potential recruits of these terrorist criminals.

The more Muslims understand that the path of terror and violence that the criminals are calling them to does not lead to virgins but to condemnation, the less likely they will follow that path. And that means t the swamps in which the terrorists breed will dry up all the sooner. And the day can not come too soon that they all fade away into oblivion.

Remembering Sister Aminah Assilmi

2010-03-06T12:30:00.000-06:00

In the Name of God, the Sublte, the Loving

It was a confusing time in my life. I had struck out on my own - going to college - for the very first time in my life. All of the support structures that sustained me throughout my adolescence were now gone, and I had to fend for myself. And the fortress that I thought was my faith turned out to be a castle of salt and sand. When confronted with a different faith view, namely that of my fellow classmates and dormmates at Marquette University, I began to seriously doubt my the veracity of my own faith. I had not yet chosen to become a Muslim at that time; the choice had been made for me before, and at that time, I was having doubts.

Enter Sister Aminah Asslimi. I did not meet her personally, but I attended a debate she was having with journalist Deborah Scroggins at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee. The debate was about the hijab, and Sister Assilmi did a fantastic job, truly defending Islam in a way that was dignified, magnanimous, and scholarly. Yet, what struck me was the firmness of her conviction in our faith; the strength of her fortitude; the stubbornness of her love of Islam, despite losing almost everything as a result of her conversion. It left an indelible mark.

Thus, it was with tremendous sadness that I learned that Aminah Assilmi, stalwart of the American Muslim community, passed away in a single car accident on March 5. Reports indicate that she died instantly, and her son, who was with her, was injured and transferred to a hospital in Knoxville, Tennessee. Assilmi was a tremendous force in the American Muslim community: President of the International Union of Muslim Women based in Reno, Nevada. She was also a renown scholar, tireless advocate, prolific writer, and well-known speaker. In fact, she died on her way home from a speaking engagement in New York.

The story of her conversion to Islam is absolutely amazing, and it is tale of blessing, strength of conviction, and tenacity on the path of truth. It is an inspiration for all Muslims, converts and those born into the faith alike. Perhaps her most famous accomplishment was her role in the development of the U.S. Postal Service's 2001 issuing of the "Eid" stamp. In fact, she was planning on starting a campaign to have the stamp re-issued with a new design in time for its ten year anniversary. The International Union of Muslim Women has a number of notable accomplishments as well, including getting millions of signatures on petitions that were presented to the United Nations in support of the thousands of women were brutally raped in Bosnia as part of the campaign of terror and ethnic cleansing against Bosnian Muslims.

In addition, she was also trying to build a Center for Muslim Women's Studies, which would serve as a place where converts could learn about Islam and its basics, a place of retreat, and as a summer camp for Muslim children. Her loss is a tremendous one indeed.

Aminah Assilmi once said, "I am so very glad that I am a Muslim. Islam is my life. Islam is the beat of my heart. Islam is the blood that courses through my veins. Islam is my strength. Islam is my life so wonderful and beautiful. Without Islam I am nothing, and should Allah ever turn His magnificent face from me, I could not survive." Although she is now back with the Lord she loved so much, and in this we should rejoice, it is still painful to know that we will no longer have the benefit of her tireless struggle on behalf of all American Muslims, and for their sisters in particular. I pray that others take up her worthy causes, and that our community supports their work.

To God we belong, and to Him we shall return. As a parent who has lost his child, I know full well the pain that her family must be feeling as they face the reality that they will no longer be with their beloved mother and grandmother. I share some of that pain, knowing that I can no longer have the privilege of calling myself her brother in faith, now that she has passed. But, her work lives on, and the memory of her undying faith and love for God will be with me always. May the Precious Beloved Lord shower her with His Love, Grace, Mercy, and Blessing.

Why I Found "You Found Me"

2010-03-05T01:44:00.001-06:00

In the Name of God, the Subtle, the Loving

I was a little nervous when I looked to add the song to my library. Whenever I consider adding a song to my iPod, I do research on the song: I look at the lyrics; I research the meaning of the song, if such information has been published. The sounds, melodies, and music of a song attract me to it, but then I want to make sure that the song has an important message, or, at least, is not vulgur or against my sensibilities. I try to do this as much as possible. Such was my process when I looked at "You Found Me," by The Fray.

The song has haunted me ever since I purchased it. As lead singer and pianist Isaac Slade said in an interview, "You Found Me is a tough song for me. It started from just a song with a lot of hate towards God." In another interview, he said: "If there is some kind of Person in charge of this planet - are they sleeping? Smoking? Where are they? I just imagined running into God standing on a street corner like Bruce Springsteen, smoking a cigarette, and I'd have it out with Him."

Now, I am not comfortable with this premise: "having it out" with God. In fact, I am even more uncomfortable with his depiction of God in this song: I found God on the corner of 1st and Amistad...All alone, smoking his last cigarette. The anthropomorphism is a bit too much for me. But, this is not my view of God, but his. And when he meets God, he says "Where you been?" in a manner, in my imagination, that is confrontational. That is not how I would meet God.

Had this situation been presented to me (as outlandish as that is to me), I would not have been confrontational with God. I would have just collapsed into His arms, crying into His shoulder, soaking His shoulder and arms with my tears, muffling my screams in His chest.

Perhaps the beginning of this song is too much disrespect for God, and that should preclude me from even listening to it. I can understand this feeling. God is so Holy, so Transcendent, so Precious that he should not be treated this way in a rock song.

But, I tried to see beyond this and listen to the conversation that this person had with God, a conversation which many, many people have with God every single day. So many people ask God, Where were you when everything was falling apart? That question is even put forth in Biblical scripture: "My God, my God! Why hast thou forsaken me?" In fact, this question has led so many people to abandon faith and the belief that there can even be a God. That's why I listen to this song: to confront this question and conversation and see how I deal with it.

I wanted to hear Isaac Slade ask God:

Where were you when everything was falling apart?
All my days were spent by the telephone that never rang
And all I needed was a call that never came

He continued:

Lost and insecure, you found me, you found me
Lying on the floor surrounded, surrounded
Why'd you have to wait? Where were you? Where were you?
Just a little late, you found me, you found me

He then continues in his complaint to God: about losing a very important person in his life, the one person - according to him - is the only one who's ever known/Who I am, who I'm not, and who I wanna be/No way to know how long she will be next to me.

He goes even further, telling God:

The early morning, the city breaks
And I've been calling for years and years and years and years
And you never left me no messages
You never sent me no letters
You got some kind of nerve taking all I want!

He then asks again:

Lost and insecure, you found me, you found me
Lying on the floor, where were you? Where were you?

Although God, Who has given the singer the gift of life, has every right to cast him down as an insolent ingrate, knowing my Precious Beloved, He would not. He would simply listen to his complaints and let him vent, even if it is horribly disrespectful to do so.

I mean, the singer is fortunate enough to be alive and well enough to rail against God; he is fortunate enough to have survived his world falling apart; he is fortunate enough to be able to speak to God about his misfortunes and tragedies, even though God knows it all better than he does himself. Still, God just lets him scream out to Him.

And there is another side to this conversation: perhaps God did leave him messages, but the singer didn't bother to check them. Perhaps God did send him letters, but the singer threw them away as "junk mail." Perhaps God did call him on 1st and Amistad, but the singer never bothered to pick up the phone. We don't know that, because the singer doesn't tell us.

Still, the question, or problem, of evil has perplexed the faithful and unfaithful for centuries. The premise goes: if this world is run by an All-Powerful, Benevolent God (which it is), then how can this All-Powerful, Benevolent God allow so much suffering and evil to occur? As I said, this very question has led so many people to lose faith in a God altogether.

The way I see it, the Director knows what He is doing. It will all make sense in the end. Now, I cannot even begin to explain the reason behind all of the suffering in our world today, but I have faith that we are in Great Hands, and it will all work out in the end.

Indeed, this is a very difficult situation about which to write: I don't want to be tested with calamity. Whenever I think of the story of the Prophet Job (pbuh) and the enormous test he endured, it sends chills down my spine. I would never want that to happen to me.

But, at the same time, our family has been touched with calamity, and I have tried my best to be patient and faithful to the Lord. He knew what He was doing when our daughter succombed to the ravages of septic shock. All I can do is accept that outcome and be patient, hoping for reward from Him and a holy reunion with her in the Garden of Bliss.

That's why I would never have said to God: You got some kind of nerve taking my daughter from me!

Far from it!

All I would have done is look at His gleaming face and collapse into His soothing arms. And I know that I would have found nothing but restful tranquility and soothing comfort.

Final Word on the Pact of Umar

2010-03-02T19:38:00.000-06:00

In the Name of God, the Subtle, the Loving

This is the second part of the article refuting the accusation of "Dhimmitude" made by the Islamophobes. The entire article is posted on loonwatch. Check it out.

During the Middle Ages, a forged document–known as the Pact of Umar–came into existence; it stipulated certain very restrictive conditions that governed the lives of non-Muslims living under Islamic rule...

Today, the Islamophobes believe this document to be of critical importance, and it forms one of the pillars of their anti-Islam ideology. Notice how Spencer calls the document “the foundation for Islamic law regarding the treatment of the dhimmis.” Spencer et al. believe–or at least they would like you to believe–that Muslims are on the verge of once again implementing the Pact of Umar upon non-Muslims. Spencer’s goal, as enunciated by his comrade-in-arms Pamela Geller, is to “scare the bejeezus outta ya.” It is necessary then, these Islamophobic bigots argue, to get “them” before “they” get you. (Most forms of hate revolve around instilling senseless fear.)

The Pact of Umar Has Fallen into Disuse and Obscurity

Admittedly, the Pact of Umar did reach some level of significance during the Middle Ages. It is found in the books of many classical Islamic jurists, and was also implemented (inconsistently) to various degrees. (Please read this here.) Yet, the reality is that the Pact of Umar has fallen into disuse and obscurity. Whereas some of the medieval jurists gave importance to the document–such as Ibn Taymiyyah who went so far as to call it the foundation of Muslim-dhimmi relations–it is now virtually non-existent in modern day Islamic texts. Mention of the document has now been relegated to two basic categories: reprints of medieval texts, and responses to critics of Islam.

I myself contacted several Muslim clerics, asking them about their opinion on the Pact of Umar. The majority of them responded that they had no knowledge of the document (i.e. “I’d have to look it up”), or had only heard the name in passing. In fact, the Pact of Umar has in the Islamic world fallen into such disuse and obscurity that the vast majority of Muslims have never heard of it. Those who do know what it is almost invariably heard of it first from critics of Islam; many of them will then look up the Muslim responses to these anti-Islam attacks. (How many Christians–including priests–have heard of the Church’s doctrine of Perpetual Servitude?)

The idea, furthered by lunatics like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, that Muslims are secretly instructed in the Pact of Umar (the “stealth Jihad” is coming to get you!) is not only conspiratorial but absurd. Ninety-nine percent of Muslims have never heard of it–until of course Robert Spencer et al. inform them of it. Zaid Shakir, an Islamic scholar from the Zaytuna Institute, said:

There is this absurd idea spread by these bigots that Muslims want to implement this pact today. Most Muslims have never even heard of it! ^[1]

Robert Spencer et al. knows this very well. So don’t be fooled by this Islamophobic conspiracy talk. It is calculated fear-mongering...

Check out the rest of the article here.

Why Chris Brown Makes Me Cry

2010-02-25T11:45:00.001-06:00

In the Name of God, the Subtle, the Loving

I would always look forward to it...

It would be my weekend off from work: a much needed two-day reprieve after twelve straight days of work. My wife would go and drop off our second daughter to Arabic school on Saturday, and I would stay home with Bayan. I would hook up my iPod to the stereo system in our family room, and the music would blare all over the room.

And we would start dancing together.

No, by that time in her life, she could not stand or walk on her own. But, I didn't care. I would help her stand up straight, and we would dance to the music. A number of our favorite songs would play, and one of those favorites was Chris Brown's "Forever." She always loved that song. The beat was great, booming throughout the whole room. The music and melody was also fun; it was the perfect dance tune, and I almost could not help dancing to it.

Hands down, however, my (and her) favorite part of the song was when Brown would sing, "I won't let you fall, girl/Let you fall, girl..." At that time, I would carry her in my arms and spin around the room with her. She would extend her arms out and just close her eyes in pure enjoyment. Her soft, brown hair would sway in the wind created by my spinning in a circle. It seemed to me like she felt, at that brief moment, like she was flying and finally free.

For those few moments - before I got dizzy - she was free of her disability; free of the confinement of her cerebellar ataxia; free of the constant attack of the bacteria on her lungs. I loved to do that for her, because I loved to see the exhilaration on her face. I never got tired of it. Never.

So, now, when I put that song in my car (which, frankly, I don't know why I do), those memories come back. And they hurt. The tears flow. But, I still like to hear it, because I can see her again in my mind's eye. Even though it is incredibly sad for me, it is still nice to see her again.

The same sort of thing happens if I encounter a smell, or a sight, or a street corner, or a breathing machine or other medical machine at work. The memories of my daughter come crashing back, and it is painful. Only the Precious Beloved knows how much I loved my beautiful Angel; how much I adored her; how much my heart beat for her and the rest of my family.

Only the Precious Beloved knows how much she meant to me and my wife. Only the Precious Beloved knows how much I would go and do just to get a smile on her face.

When she was first diagnosed, and I faced head-on the reality that my daughter will not walk and I will likely outlive her, I made a conscious decision to push that as far away from my mind as possible. I made a conscious decision to make every day with Bayan as special as possible, her disability notwithstanding. And we did - both my wife and I did - and it made our life with her as beautiful and special as possible.

I miss those days...I miss carrying her around...I miss holding her in arms...I miss seeing her smile. I miss her so much.

That's why Chris Brown makes me cry. For, when I hear him sing "Forever," I think of the child who went back to her Lord, and it hurts.

How Is This NOT Terrorism?

2010-02-19T00:27:00.000-06:00

In the Name of God, the Subtle, the Loving

In Austin, Texas today, a man deliberately crashed his plane into a complex of government buildings, apparently as an attempt to attack the IRS. In a lengthy screed posted on the internet, the alleged attacker - software engineer Joseph Stack - railed against the government in general and the IRS in particular. He wrote, "Nothing changes unless there is a body count." He also wrote that "violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer," and "Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let's try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well."

Early this morning, Stack allegedly set his own house on fire, and he then drove to an airport and took off in a plane he owned. He flew that plane into the Echelon Building in Austin, causing a huge explosion and blowing out windows in the building and vehicles traveling on a nearby highway. Stack is presumed to have died in the crash, and two other people were taken to hospital with serious injuries.

How is this not an act of terrorism? How is this not an act of domestic suicide terrorism?

"No, no, no," I am told. "He has a grudge against the government, that's all." Police Chief Art Acevedo said, "I consider this a criminal act by a lone individual." Not terrorism.

That is interesting, because, this is how the USA PATRIOT Act defines terrorism as an act that: "appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping."

Doesn't this act precisely fit the definition of terrorism? Apparently Joseph Stack was so angry at the IRS for its actions against him - for auditing him for not paying taxes, etc.- that he sought out to "influence" the IRS by blowing up its offices. He wrote it himself: "Nothing changes unless there is a body count," and "Violence...is the only answer." Isn't this attempting to "influence the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping"?

Sounds like it to me.

Thankfully, at least one member of Congress agrees with me: "Like the larger-scale tragedy in Oklahoma City," said Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas, "this was a cowardly act of domestic terrorism."

Yet, most other people do not think this was an act of terrorism, but the act of a "lone criminal."

Joseph Stack flew a plane into a government building because of his anger against the government. But, he is not a terrorist. By using his plane to become a suicide bomber, Joseph Stack sought to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." But, he is not a terrorist. Joseph Stack used a plane as a suicide vest to "affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping." But, he is not a terrorist. He is just a crazy criminal.

That being said, take Joseph Stack and keep the exact same circumstances, but change his name to Yusuf Stack-Muhammad. What would happen then?

Psst: He would have been called a terrorist!

Thinking Out Loud About The French Veil Ban

2010-02-10T20:39:00.004-06:00

In the Name of God, the Subtle, the Loving

This post was also published on The Seeker blog.

I must admit that I have mixed feelings about the recommendation in France to ban, if only partially, the full face veil, or niqab. Clearly, there is barely concealed disgust for the niqab - and hijab, for that matter - in France. Yet, rather than completely ban the practice, which would fly in the face of the Republic's national motto of Liberte, egalite, fraternite, the parliamentary committee recommended a denial of public services to those women who choose to wear the niqab. Indeed, President Sarkozy said that the veil is "not welcome in France because it is contrary to our values and contrary to the ideals we have of a woman's dignity."

That is very interesting because, there are many billboards in France and elsewhere around the world with scantily-clad women used as props for product advertisements. How is this not also "contrary to the ideals...of a woman's dignity"? It also seems quite draconian to refuse treatment at a hospital, for example, for a gravely-ill Muslim woman simply because she is wearing a face veil. Many see this as a political ploy by the party of President Sarkozy to gain votes ahead of upcoming elections, riding the rising tide of anti-Muslim hysteria that is occurring all across Europe. Furthermore, I agree with the New York Times editorial which said, "People must be free to make these decisions for themselves, not have them imposed by governments or enforced by the police." The editorial went further saying that the "Taliban would be pleased" with such a ban, and "the rest of the world should declare its revulsion."

At the same time, however, it must be clearly emphasized that religion has nothing to do with the niqab. Yes, the women who wear it cite their religious beliefs as the motivating factor behind their choice to don the face veil, but there is nothing in Islam that mandates the niqab for women. The niqab is a cultural practice of several parts of the Arabian Peninsula and Central Asia. Personally, I am against Muslim women here in America or in other parts of the West wearing the niqab, on the basis of the fact that the face veil is not part of our culture. In fact, there must be a way to strike a balance between fidelity to the Qur'an principle of modesty and fidelity to the cultural norms of our people. Many Muslim women have struck this balance here in America quite well, wearing hijab with a distinctively American twist.

Yet, should we ban the face veil altogether? Who am I to say to a Muslim sister, "You cannot wear the niqab", even if I personally do not like or agree with it? If a woman wants to be covered completely except for her eyes, by what authority do I - or my society and government - deny that woman her personal choice? Isn't it the same as someone wanting to wear their hair orange? What about Lady Gaga's sometimes outrageous outfits which I strongly detest? If I was President for a day, would it be right for me to say she can't wear them? I am very hesitant to go this far.

"The niqab a special case," I am told. It is, according to French parliamentarian Guy Geoffroy, "contrary to a woman's rights" and "contrary to public order and security." Well, what about the right of a woman to choose what she wants to wear, whether it be burqa or bikini? Indeed, what if a man wore a woman's robe with a niqab? He could be hiding a suicide bomb vest underneath that robe, hiding his identity behind the veil. Yes, but that very same man could hide that very same suicide vest under a winter coat and wear a ski mask. So, should we ban winter coats and ski masks for men? Many people would think this preposterous. Yet, a majority of people in France support a ban of the face veil. Is this anti-Muslim bias? Perhaps partly. I am against the veil, but it cannot be cogently argued that I harbor an anti-Muslim bias.

At the same time, however, what if a man walked into a bank wearing a ski mask in the middle of summer? I suspect many people, myself included, would find this suspicious, even if the man said he likes to wear ski masks as a personal choice. Would it be unreasonable for the bank employees to ask the man to take off his ski mask? Hardly. Would it, then, be unreasonable for bank employees to ask a Muslim woman to reveal her face while in a bank? I think a reasonable right of society upon the citizen is to positively identify the citizen upon any transaction. So, what to do with the veil?

It is easy to avoid all these complicated questions and dilemmas by simply banning the veil altogether. But if this is allowed to happen, what would be next? What if a particular segment of the population has fallen out of favor, and the government issues a ban on their manners of dress? Or their particular foods? Or their language? It is a slippery slope toward oppression and denial of freedom. In many parts of the world, the rights of Muslims are being actively curtailed or are under threat of curtailment, with hardly a peep of protest. A prime example is the highly "un-neutral" Swiss ban on the construction of minarets. Muslims are the canaries in the coal mine: be silent on the denial of their rights, and any other group is vulnerable to the same usurpation.

So, the French should stop and think again about the ban of the veil and think these issues through. Not because of the fear of anger or violence from fundamentalists or terrorists, but, rather, because Liberte, Egalite, and Fraternite are at stake.

My First Day As A Democrat

2010-02-05T02:53:00.000-06:00

In the Name of God, the Subtle, the Loving

Tuesday February 2 was primary election day in Illinois, where various local and Congressional primary elections were held across the state. It was an important day, and I made every effort to vote before the polls closed. Thank God, I was able to make it despite a hectic job schedule, because voting for me is a religious duty.

The only thing is, in Illinois, the primary election is a closed election. This means that you must declare your party and get that party's specific ballot. For my entire adult life, I have been a registered Republican. I have even been both a Committeman and Assistant Committeeman in the local Republican Party organizations. I believed in the Republican Party and the principles for which it stood. I was proud to be a member of the Party.

But, on February 2, the "R" that was listed by my name officially changed to a "D." On February 2, I officially became a Democrat.

This is no surprise. My faith in the Republican Party was quickly fading, and I publicly declared this loss of faith more than one year ago. This feeling quickly accelerated during the 2008 Presidential campaign, when the Republican Party's tactics and stances against then Senator Obama were extremely distasteful to me.

Yet, watching the Republican Party's actions during the first year of the Obama Presidency has convinced me that I was absolutely correct in leaving the Party, a Party which has made me fell totally unwelcome. From failing to repudiate the rabidly anti-Islam voices within its midst, to continually obstructing almost everything President Obama has proposed, to embracing the extreme right wing as its most important base of support, the Republican Party of today is a shell of its former self.

The Republican Party of today is nothing like the Party of Lincoln. The Republican Party of today has completely abandoned its core principles. The Republican Party of today has clearly shown that it does not want people like me in its tent.

So, I left. But I could not make it official until February 2, 2010, when I put an "X" in the box labeled "Democratic."

I was a bit hesitant at first: it is difficult to change something I have been doing for so many years. I even thought - for a fleeting moment - of checking the "Republican" box, out of sheer cowardice. But, when I thought about the Republican Party of today, almost automatically, my hand moved to the "Democratic" box.

I was in the minority in the polling place: almost all of the election workers were clearly Republicans, and I even heard one of them joking, "Yeah, the machine is gonna shred the Democratic ballots." That statement brought both a smile to my face and a feeling of deep indignation all at the same time. For the first time, I felt partisan zeal for the Democratic Party. For the first time in a long time, I feel at home in a political party.

This is not to say that I will never vote for a Republican candidate. Far from it. If I feel that a Republican candidate is the right choice for my county board, city, governor's office, Congressional seat, or Senate seat, I will cast my vote for that candidate. But, judging by the candidates put up by the Republican Party lately, I do not think many Republicans will get my vote.

This is also not to say that I am completely enthralled by the current Democratic Party, either. Here in Illinois, the state is in complete financial ruin, and the Democrats are in complete control. On the National level, the Democrats totally bungaled the opportunities of unprecedented majorities in both houses of Congress, especially on the Senate side, and it has led to gridlock on some of the most important issues of our time, such as health care reform. In addition, there are some very powerful constituencies of the Democratic base with which I am not enamored either.

Nevertheless, I do not squirm when I say that I am Democrat, like I did when I said I was a Republican. True, I will not announce this out loud, especially in the Doctor's lounge at the hospital at which I work, which is a Conservative bastion. (Indeed, I frequently have to hold my tongue when I hear what is being said by my various colleagues) Still, judging by the upcoming leaders of the Republican Party, I do not think I will be coming back to the GOP any time soon.

Yes, I left the Party back in 2008, but it became official on February 2, 2010. It was my first day as a Democrat, and it felt very, very good.

Voting Is A Religious Duty

2010-02-02T18:14:00.000-06:00

In the Name of God, the Subtle, the Loving

This post was published on The Seeker today.

In the past few days and weeks, but most especially in the last 48 hours, I have been bombarded by numerous "robocalls" by various current and former elected officials urging me to vote in tomorrow's primary election. That is on top of the countless emails (one I just deleted as I wrote this). As much as my frustration is at an all time high with these disturbing and annoying phone calls, their aim is noble: getting me out to vote today. I intend to do just that, the calls notwithstanding.

In fact, I believe it is my religious duty to do so, and I told the congregation as much in my weekly Friday sermon last week. The Quran extols the believers because they "enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil."
The Prophet Muhammad repeatedly exhorted his followers to be the best in whatever they do. He once said, "God loves that you do something excellently." The Prophet also said, "If you see something evil, then try to change it yourself..."

Voting on February 2 encompasses all these religious duties. If we do not like the state of our economy, the state of our government, the state of our neighborhoods, then we must seek to change it for the better.
There are few better ways to effect that change than voting in elected officials who will do what is good for all. Islam demands that we Muslims be the best at whatever we do: that includes being the best citizens possible, and one of the critical functions of citizenship is voting in each and every election: large or small, primary or general, national or local. One of the best ways to "enjoin good and forbid evil" is to vote in every election.

Moreover, the Prophet Muhammad once said that "one does not truly thank God if he does not thank other people." Before I was even on this earth, countless brave men and women faced down fire hoses, batons, angry dogs, and the guile of a nation when they stood up for their long-denied right to vote. Before they stood up, scores of brave women stood up to the prejudice of their time to fight for their right to vote as well. Because of their sacrifices, I am given the opportunity to vote without obstruction, or baton, or poll tax, or voter examination. It would be horribly ungrateful of me not to take that opportunity and express my opinion and voice as a citizen. My faith demands that I not let the sacrifice of those before me to be made in vain.

Indeed, I do hate the "robocalls," and they even inspire me not to vote for the various candidates on whose behalf the calls are being made. Nevertheless, vote I must. My God and my faith told me so.

What the Media Has Not Told Us

2010-01-28T23:33:00.000-06:00

In the Name of God, the Subtle, the Loving

The response of the world to the crisis in Haiti has been overwhelming. Even poor countries, such as Zambia and Sierra Leone, have sent cash assistance to help the people of Haiti. Something to which the U.S. Media has not paid much attention is the amount of assistance that has come from the Arab/Muslim worlds.

The Arab American Institute has listed in a press release the assistance provided by Arab countries, and I thought it was important to highlight this fact:

ALGERIA

Granted $1 million in emergency humanitarian aid.

BAHRAIN

Sent a disaster relief team to provide aid, pledged $1 million in relief and the Bahrain Red Crescent Society appealed for donations for Haiti.

EGYPT

Allocated medical supplies and personnel.

JORDAN

Established a 12-bed military hospital in Port-au-Prince, and are also feeding children who enter; dispatched two planes carrying a mobile field hospital, rescue team, doctors and six tons of aid supplies that include food, medicine and clothing.

KUWAIT

Sent 100 tons of food, medical supplies, tents and blankets; donated $1 million, delivered through the country's Red Crescent Society;

LEBANON

Airlifted 25 tons of tents, 3 tons of medicine, vaccines and other supplies; sent aid workers to help in relief effort.

MOROCCO

Sent $1 million worth of medical and pharmaceutical supplies.

PALESTINE

Individuals donated money, food and clothing to the Red Cross.

QATAR

Mobilized 26-person rescue team of soldiers, police and medical professionals; sent 50 tons of aid.

SAUDI ARABIA

Donated $50 million, which will be directed through the United Nations.

SYRIA

Airlifted 30 tons of humanitarian aid.

TUNISIA

Allocated $1 million to the United Nations Emergency Fund that was created for Haiti relief.

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

Contributed over $2.6 million; three UAE charities donated more than 200 tons of medical equipment, tents and blankets, food and drinking water.

In fact, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Saudi Arabia is the third largest donor to Haiti, behind the United States and Canada. Saudi Arabia gave more money than Spain, Sweden, France, Norway, and Denmark.

But, of course, that doesn't make much news. But, if it was about terrorism...

If Prophet Muhammad Were in Haiti

2010-01-20T11:38:00.000-06:00

In the Name of God, the Subtle, the Loving

This article was published on the website Reading Islam. I have recently become a contributor to that site.

I recently had a heated discussion with a very dear and close relative of mine about the relief efforts in Haiti. When it was mentioned that some of the people of Haiti followed the religion of Voodoo, he remarked that we should not help them because they are not of the People of the Book (an Islamic term referring to Christians and Jews).

I took very strong exception to this because according to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), Muslims should help anybody and everybody, regardless of their faith tradition. Had Prophet Muhammad been alive today, I believe he would have said the same.

It goes without mentioning that it is our duty to help our fellow Muslim brothers and sisters whenever disaster strikes them. It is part of our duty as members of the Muslim Ummah (worldwide community). But, being a part of the Ummah has an additional obligation: to help anyone who needs help around the world.

One of the first things Prophet Muhammad said to the Companions was: "Spread peace, feed the hungry, keep strong the family tie, pray when other people are sleeping, and you will enter Paradise safely" (Al-Tirmidhi). This has been interpreted to be a general exhortation, not just to Muslims. We are supposed to spread peace to all those around us, and we are supposed to feed all those who are hungry.

Allah (God) says in the Quran that Muslims are {the best nation sent forth for humanity} (Aal-Imran 3:110). Note, the Lord did not say "the best nation for believers," but rather all of humanity. Another trait that Muslims should have is that they {give food - however great be their own want of it - to the needy, the orphan, and the captive} (Al-Insan 76:8). Again, notice that the verse does not mention the faith of that needy person, or orphan, or captive.

The traditions of Prophet Muhammad are consistent with these Quranic injunctions, and he further elaborated on the point that kindness and compassion is not linked to the faith of the recipient. One such tradition came into play when a companion of the Prophet was preparing some meat and insisted that some be sent to his Jewish neighbor. When asked about his insistence he replied that Prophet Muhammad had said "Gabriel has repeatedly recommended me to be good to my neighbor to the extent that I thought that he would include him [my neighbor] among my heirs" (Ahmad and Al-Tirmidhi).

This tradition clearly indicates the importance of kindness and giving to others, regardless of the fact that the recipient of this kindness is not Muslim. In a similar tradition, Prophet Muhammad also said: "A believer is not the one who eats his fill when his neighbor is hungry" (Al-Bukhari, Al-Hakim, and Al-Baihaqi). Once again, no mention of the faith of that neighbor, and during the time of the Prophet many Muslims had non-Muslim neighbors – as evinced by the above tradition.

There are many other traditions and sayings of Prophet Muhammad that exhort Muslims to compassionate giving, with no mention of the faith of the recipient. Such traditions include:

"Give food to the hungry, pay a visit to the sick and release (set free) the one in captivity (by paying his ransom)" (Al-Bukhari).

"I and the person who looks after and provides for an orphan, will be in Paradise like this," putting his index and middle fingers together (Al-Bukhari 8:34).

"The one who looks after and works for a widow and for a poor person, is like a warrior fighting for Allah's Cause or like a person who fasts during the day and prays all the night" (Al-Bukhari 8:35).

Some may concede that we should help non-Muslims so that the world may know the true, compassionate face of Islam. I say NO! We are not a missionary people who have an ulterior motive behind its charity work. We feed the hungry {for the sake of God alone…we desire neither thanks nor reward from you} (Al-Insan 76:9-10).

We feed the hungry because it is our duty, as believers, to help all those who are less fortunate. Yes, as members of the Ummah, it is our duty to help those fellow Muslims who are in need; but the concept of the Ummah is more transcendent: it exhorts us to help all people who need our help, Muslim or otherwise.

I overheard someone say, "If I had the choice to give charity to Haiti or Palestine, I would give to Palestine." I say, "Give to both," and I believe the Prophet Muhammad would have said the same thing. The people of Haiti have been absolutely devastated by the recent earthquake, and the reports and images coming out of that country have been absolutely heart-wrenching. They are our neighbors: if we have no compassion for these people, then we must check our faith.

Prophet Muhammad said "He who is not merciful to others, will not be treated mercifully" (Al-Bukhari). This saying clearly uses the word 'others' which can encompass people of any faith. In another saying, Muslims are told, "If any Muslim plants any plant and a human being or an animal eats of it, he will be rewarded as if he had given that much in charity" (Al-Bukhari). This saying is exceptionally clear in its use of "human being", which by definition encompasses all of humanity.

Had Prophet Muhammad been alive today, he would have been in Haiti himself, helping the people with his own blessed hands. Alas, he is not, but his people are: Islamic Relief and the Islamic Society of North America, among many other Islamic organizations, have pledged their support for the relief effort in Haiti.

We must support these efforts.

The people of Haiti are calling out for help. We must answer their call. Prophet Muhammad would have done so.

American Muslims and the Haiti Earthquake

2010-01-14T22:36:00.000-06:00

In the Name of God, the Subtle, the Loving

The pictures, sounds, and reports coming out of Haiti are utterly devastating. The scale of the disaster is only beginning to be comprehended. My heart goes out to the people of Haiti, and I pray that the Lord bring them comfort, shelter, healing, and strength. May He give them the power to weather this latest of storms to hit that country.

News reports of the myriad of aid agencies rushing to help the people of Haiti abound. Many of the reports I have seen have been about Christian organizations who have mobilized to help the people of Haiti. This is very good, and I know the people of Haiti will appreciate any help they can get. What has not been talked about, however, is the efforts of the American Muslim community to help the victims of the Haiti earthquake.

The Islamic Society of North America, the largest Muslim organization in America, has set up a Haiti Aid Fund and has encouraged American Muslims to contribute to that fund. American Muslim relief agency Islamic Relief, has also launched an appeal to help the victims of the earthquake in Haiti as well. Muslim leaders have called for Imams to discuss the crisis in Haiti during their Friday sermons this week. I also urge everyone to help out the effort as much as they can: either with their own efforts or by donating to one of the many aid organizations which are in Haiti providing emergency relief.

Dr. Ingrid Mattson, president of the ISNA said in a statement:

As Muslims, we believe that human suffering is not always explainable or understandable. We do know that innocent people suffer all the time, from sickness and natural disaster, and that in such cases, we are required to do two things: First, pray and remember, as the Qur’an says that “to God we belong and to Him we return.” Second, we must help those who are suffering.

The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, reported in a Sacred Hadith that if we want to be close to God, we should visit the sick and feed the needy. On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will say, “O son of Adam, I fell ill and you did not visit me.” The person will say, “O Lord, how could I visit you when You are the Lord of the worlds?” He will say, “Did you not know that So-and-so fell ill and you did not visit him? If you had visited him, you would have found Me with him [the hadith continues].”
We realize from this hadith that the path to closeness with God is, after worship, service to humanity. Perhaps the most needy collectivity of people in the world today are the Haitians after enduring this terrible earthquake. Helping the Haitians in this time of need is certainly a sign of religious sincerity. (Read the rest of her statement here.)

There is no way - unless you have no human heart whatsoever - to have no compassion for the suffering of the people of Haiti after this powerful earthquake. These are fellow human beings who have suffered a tremendous loss. You cannot help but feel their pain and heartache. No true religiosity; no true spirituality; no true God-consciousness will move you to look upon the suffering of other human beings - even if they have a different faith tradition - with cold-hearted indignance.

If any Muslim were to look at the suffering of the people of Haiti and say to himself or herself: "Who cares? They are kafara (non-believers). Muslims have suffered greatly, too", then he or she must check their faith and sincerity. Indeed, Muslims have suffered greatly for many, many years. But, caring for fellow Muslims does not preclude having compassion for the suffering of others across the world. In fact, the demand of our faith to care for our brothers and sisters in Islam demands of us to care for our brothers and sisters in humanity. The two are never mutually exclusive.

The Allah Controversy in Malaysia

2010-01-12T10:38:00.000-06:00

In the Name of God, the Subtle, the Loving

This article was published today on Middle East Online.

I had to stop and read the headline a second time: Roman Catholics in Malaysia sued for the right to call God "Allah." Speaking to Time magazine, Reverend Lawrence Andrew said, "We have been using the word for decades in our Malay-language Bibles and without problems." Now, they wanted to use the word in their publications. The Home Ministry of Malaysia banned the use of "Allah" for their Malay-language editions in 2007. After suing, the court agreed with the Catholics and overturned the ban.

Many Muslims across the country were outraged. "Why are the Christians claiming Allah?" asks businessman Rahim Ismail in Time. "Everybody in the world knows Allah is the Muslim God and belong to Muslims. I cannot understand why the Christians want to claim Allah as their god." Authorities claim that the Christians want to use "Allah" to confuse Muslims and help convert them to Christianity, a claim which the Catholics deny. The controversy, however, did not die. Tensions, in fact, have grown in the multiracial, multhiethnic country. Several churches were firebombed, and angry protests were held after Friday prayers, claiming that "Allah is only for [the Muslims]." The government has appealed the decision and has been granted a stay of the decision.

This turn of events have made me terribly sad; I shook my head in disbelief when I read of the church attacks. Violence never should be the manner by which disputes or disagreements are resolved. Some political observers feel that this inter-ethnic and religious violence plays into the government's hands. Main opposition figure Anwar Ibrahim said in an interview "This is the last hope -- to incite racial and religious sentiments to cling to power. Immediately since the disastrous defeat in the March 2008 election they have been fanning this."

I also shook my head in disbelief at the statements of some Muslims in Malaysia that "Allah is only for us" and that "We will not allow the word Allah to be inscribed in your churches." Do they not realize the utter fallacy of their statements?

"Allah" is the Arabic name for God, and it indeed pre-dates Islam and even Christianity. The pagan Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula called God "Allah," even though they worshipped hundreds of idols in addition. Christians all across the Arab World today use the word "Allah" for God, and if one were to read an Arabic Bible, he would find that God is indeed called "Allah."

Beyond this fact, however, is that "Allah" is also the name that Jesus Christ called God. "Allah" is the Arabic equivalent of "Elohim," which is Hebrew for God. The "im" is a plural appendage of respect, and so the word is "Eloh," which is very similar to "Allah." In addition, the Aramaic word for God is "Alaha," and Aramaic was the language which Jesus himself spoke. Moreover, the word "Allah" is found in the English version of the Bible which we read today. In Matthew 27:46 we read: "About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, 'Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?' - which means, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'" The word "Eloi" is the Aramaic form of the Arabic "Allah."

There are some who claim that "Allah" is not the Judeo-Christian God, but a false deity exclusive to the Muslims. Some have gone as far as claiming that "Allah" is the moon god of the pagan Arabs, which is utterly preposterous. Those who make such a claim want to exclude Muslims from their rightful place in the Judeo-Christian heritage and tradition. For Muslims to claim that "Allah is only for us" is incredulous as it is terribly inaccurate. "Allah" is the God of all of the Abrahamic faiths, whether it is Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.

One would have thought that the Muslims in Malaysia would welcome the decision of the court to allow Christians to use the word "Allah" for God, as it would be a point of common ground. "Allah" is not some tribal deity that can be exclusively claimed; He is the God of all, and rather than finding more ways to divide Christians and Muslims, members of both faith communities should be working hard to find ways they can come together. Mutually calling God by the name "Allah" would be a great start.

Religious Remedy is up to Woods

2010-01-08T12:29:00.001-06:00

In the Name of God, the Subtle, the Loving

This was posted on The Seeker today.

Religion can be a very powerful force for transformation, both positively and negatively. Religion can take a mass murderer and turn him into a saint; Religion can also - if used incorrectly - turn a saint into a mass murderer. Indeed, if an evil outcome is traced back to religion, it is because it was twisted, misused, and misunderstood. For me, religion is always a force for good when used correctly.

Should Tiger Woods turn to religion to help his rehabilitation? That is up to Mr. Woods. No one but he knows the extent that religion guided his conduct and action. Indeed, he has credited Buddhist teachings - his purported religious faith - to aid in his self-improvement. Yet, given the revelation of his marital infidelities, I wonder whether he took all of his religious teachings to heart.

Nevertheless, no one is perfect, and religion can help Mr. Woods climb from the abyss he has created for himself and into which he has fallen quickly and forcefully. It can be the analgesic to treat the pain of his wounds; the plaster cast to set his broken bones; the bandages to dress his gaping wounds; the antibiotics to treat the infections that may lurk in the darkness; and ultimately, it can be the ladder he can use to climb out of the darkness and into the light.

Which religion should he choose? Once again, that is up to Mr. Woods. Indeed, I am particular to one specific faith (as is Brit Hume, incidentally), but I reserve any judgment against whatever faith path Mr. Woods would choose, were he to do so. While we are on the subject of Mr. Hume's comments, it is true that there has been an outcry (mostly on the left) against Mr. Hume for his advice to Tiger Woods to "turn to the Christian faith" because the Buddhist faith does not offer "the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith."

Yet, what would be the response if a Muslim had declared on TV that Mr. Woods should convert to Islam because Islam offers "forgiveness and redemption" that Buddhism does not? Would Tucker Carlson equally defend such a statement? Or, would it be denounced as "terrorist propaganda"? One can only wonder.

20 Questions For The Terror Suspect

2010-01-07T22:57:00.000-06:00

In the Name of God, the Subtle, the Loving

When I think about Umar Farook Abdulmuttalib, there were a number of questions that I have for him. If I could have questioned him, these are the questions I would have asked:

1. Where did you get the money to pay for this ticket in cash?

2. Why is it only a one-way ticket?

3. Are you moving permenantly to the United States?

4. If so, why are you carrying no luggage?

5. Why do you have no carry on bag?

6. Did you ship your belongings ahead of time?

7. Do you have proof of this?

8. Why don't you have a coat?

9. Don't you know Detroit is cold in December?

10. If you are moving permentantly to the United States, why do you have a tourist visa?

11. Do you have family in the Detroit area?

12. With whom are you staying in Detroit?

13. Do you have an address at which you will be staying in Detroit?

14. If you are going to study in Detroit, which Univeristy is it?

15. Do you have proof that you are enrolled at this University?

16. If you are going to study, then why don't you have a student visa?

17. Where are you going to visit in Detroit?

18. What is the manner of your visit to the United States?

19. Do you have an itinerary for your proposed tourist trip in the United States?

20. Do you have proof of any hotels, resorts, or other tourist destinations that you have booked for your tourism in the United States?

All of these questions came off the top of my head just because I was faced with a 23 year old male buying a one-way ticket to the United States in cash. And I am not a trained security official. Furthermore, depending on his responses, more logical questions will come up. Note that none of these concerns had anything to do with the man's religious background.

So, with these glaring red flags missed by security officials, why are so many people talking about racial and religious profiling?

Muslims Fighting Terror: Update

2010-01-07T20:54:00.000-06:00

In the Name of God, the Subtle, the Loving

Thanks be to God, my article entitled "Muslims Fighting Terror" was reposted on the website of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. The link is below:

http://blogs.rj.org/rac/2010/01/muslims_fighting_terror.html

I pray I get an opportunity to write more with them.

A Glaring non sequitur

2010-01-01T15:41:00.000-06:00

In the Name of God, the Subtle, the Loving

The fact that the Christmas Day attack by the Nigerian man Umar Farook Abdulmuttalib failed was an enormous blessing. I attribute it to Divine intervention in two forms: first, the bomb failed to detonate; and second, brave and courageous co-passengers were able to apprehend the man and subdue him. As a direct result, the gaping holes in the security system that initially was claimed to have "worked" were exposed, and it is hoped that this horrific security breach can be fixed to the better.

Yet, before we have fully understood how the system failed, there are some who already have an idea how to prevent such attacks from happening again: "One hundred percent of all the terrorist attacks against the U.S. last year were carried out by Muslim jihadists. If that's the one common denominator, let's include that in the mix at airports that would trigger a secondary inspection." So said Steven Emerson, the executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, to ABC News' "Good Morning America." He called such tactics "smart screening."

Emerson continued, "I'm not saying to use it to the exclusion of other factors, but include it in the mix...The fact is there is a common characteristic. Let's be smart about this...Do smart screening. It'll stop terrorist attacks."

It does seem natural in the minds of many people: since "all terrorists have been Muslim," let's screen all the Muslims, and terrorism will disappear. Yet, as Michael German - former FBI agent and ACLU adviser - told "Good Morning America": "Terrorists come in all shapes and sizes, all nationalities. If you look around the country, there have been any number of white supremacists, neo-Nazi terrorists...[profiling] is unconstitutional, it's ineffective and it's actually counterproductive."

Further, if one looks into the case of the Nigerian suspect, it is glaringly clear that so many red flags were missed, and none of those red flags had anything to do with his Muslim faith. First of all, he bought his ticket from Lagos to Amsterdam to Detroit in cash; he left no contact information with the airline; he had no baggage to check for such a long flight. These facts alone should have set off alarm bells that something was not right. Right then and there, he should have been scrutinized further.

But there's more: in May 2009, Abdulmuttalib was banned from entering the UK after applying for a student visa to study at a bogus college; this information was not shared with U.S. authorities. In August 2009, CIA telephone intercepts indictated that "The Nigerian" was involved in planning a terrorist attack. According to Fox news, "CIA's Africa division had prepared a report on a young Nigerian man well before he allegedly attempted to blow up a plane over Detroit on Christmas Day, but the report wasn't distributed because the analyst in charge was waiting for pictures of the man..."

In November 2009, his own father reached out to the CIA in Nigeria and warned them about his son's radicalization and disappearance to Yemen. Subsequently, according to Fox News, the State Department sent a cable to the National Counterterrorism Center saying:"'Information at post (embassy) suggests subject may be involved with Yemeni-based extremists.'" At that point, his name was added to a terror watch list, but his U.S. visa, active at the time, was not revoked.

True, hindsight is always 20-20, but "smart screening" in this case would have been to scrutinize, not Abdulmuttalib's religion, but the peculiar facts surrounding the suspect's actions. Had this been accurately done, Abdulmuttalib should never have been allowed to board that Northwest Airlines flight.

Indeed, it is tempting to single out Islam and subject all Muslims to "special screening," as some are suggesting, to try to foil terrorist plots against the U.S. But, such tactics simply do not work. In the immediate aftermath of the Christmas Day attack, another Nigerian man was detained and security swarmed the plane after he spent too much time in the bathroom close to the end of the flight. In addition, two Middle Eastern men were removed from their flights for "speaking suspiciously" in a foreign language and watching a Hollywood movie with a suicide bombing in it. None of these incidents had anything to do with terrorism.

Ethnic or religious profiling, while easy to do, does not aid in the fight against terror. It tears at the fabric of our unity as a people and foments fear and mistrust. If we do this, then the terrorists will win.

My prayers for a very healthy, happy, prosperous, and blessed New Year to each and every one of you. Amen.

Muslims Fighting Terror

2009-12-31T20:15:00.001-06:00

In the Name of God, the Subtle, the Loving

It would have been an horrific act of mass murder. A Nigerian man allegedly attempted to ignite an explosive device aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 to Detroit, but the device failed, and he was quickly subdued by other passengers. I thank God the plot failed, and I commend the bravery and heroism of those passengers who risked their own safety to help avert a potentially terrible terrorist attack. An investigation into the alleged plot is currently underway.

This latest incident shows that our country, while much safer now, still faces threats both abroad and at home. Just recently, five young American Muslim men were arrested in Pakistan after attempting to join a militant group to fight American troops in Afghanistan. This was on the heels of the horrible mass shooting at Ford Hood. Although these incidents are serious and disturbing, one should not jump to the conclusion and blame all of Islam and Muslims for these plots and attacks. These men, if what is alleged against them is true, are criminals and must be prosecuted and punished as such.

As a matter of fact, the Muslim community has been instrumental in helping to stop some of these and other plots from coming to fruition. In the case of the five young Muslims from Virginia, one of the men's parents alerted the Council on American Islamic Relations, a Muslim advocacy group, after learning their son was missing and finding a "farewell" video. CAIR, in turn, notified the FBI, which led to their quick arrest in Pakistan. In addition, the father of the Nigerian man warned American officials of his son's extremist beliefs and terrorist connections. In fact, his name was added to a terrorist database, but he was not placed on a "no fly" list. Already, members of Congress are vowing to hold hearings over how and why this happened, and the government may also order a review.

The fact that these would be terrorists were all young and from well-to-do families highlights the need for increased study of why such people become radicalized and what needs to be done about it. Again, the Muslim community has played an important role in this respect. The Muslim Public Affairs Council has conducted a very important study about how young people become radicalized. It is freely available on their website (http://www.mpac.org/), and their findings provide an important tool in helping combat radical extremism. In addition, American Muslim organizations have pledged to redouble their already extensive efforts to combat extremist thoughts and ideologies, especially online.

Shahed Amanullah, editor of the prominent online Muslim news site "altmuslim," recently outlined how this can be accomplished: "First, we can cultivate an online Muslim presence that is far more sophisticated and engaging to those Muslims who are exploring their identities. Second, we must create online venues where those Muslims troubled by U.S. policies in the Muslim world can join together and engage constructively with lawmakers to help bring about the changes they seek. Third, we must shake any fear of being somehow 'less Islamic' than extremists and turn the tables on them through sound scholarship and articulation of principles that speak to the heart of Muslim youth."

Government can also help in this regard. One of the reasons some Muslims are afraid to engage extremists online is the fear, according to Amanullah, of being "targeted by authorities on suspicion of terror-related activities." Amanullah has actually brought this up to officials in the Department of Homeland Security, and he said: "while there is consensus that this perception is a problem, little has been done to date to address it." This must be rectified.

I echo the calls for an investigation and review of how the Nigerian man was able to bring in military-grade explosives onto a U.S.-bound plane, especially after his own father alerted American officials of his son's radicalism. Yet, what is important to bring up is that -- far from being "silent co-conspirators," as some are wont to call the Muslim community -- Muslims are an instrumental part of the fight against the terrorists and extremists who act in the name of their faith. Rather than send spies and agents provocateurs into their midst, anti-terror and law enforcement officials should reach out and work with the Muslim community hand in hand. They will find a willing and patriotic ally.

This was published today on the website Middle East Online.

Happy Birthday, Habeebee (My Love)

2009-12-30T05:00:00.019-06:00

In the Name of God, the Subtle, the Loving

Happy Birthday, habeebee
On this day, you came from Him to me
You filled my world with felicity
You brought my heart tranquility

Happy Birthday, habeebee

You brought so much light to my life
When I saw you, gone was my strife
You rid me of all the stress that was rife

Happy Birthday, habeebee
Your smile melted all ice and snow
The room would shine with your glow
My love for you never ceased to grow

Happy Birthday, habeebee
It pained me so much to see you fall
I had always wanted you to stand tall
But it never diminished my love at all

Happy Birthday, habeebee
It was so hard to watch you become so ill
My chest would tighten with your fever and chill
Every cough would make my heart stand still

Happy Birthday, habeebee
The day we lost you was the absolute worst
It was like no water with a horrible thirst
There is no greater torture, chapter and verse

Happy Birthday, habeebee
I thank my Lord that He gave you to me
I was blind, but with you I could see
I was caged, but you made me free

Happy Birthday, habeebee
You don't know how much we loved you
How much we still miss you
How much we adored you

Happy Birthday, habeebee
Every day without you is so hard
Some days we can't move a shard
Despite so many well wishes and regard

Happy Birthday, habeebee
To keep me calm, there is only one thing:
The knowledge that now you can sing
And you are flying in the presence of the King

Happy Birthday, habeebee
Happy Birthday, habeebee
Happy Birthday, habeebee

What Christmas Means To This Muslim

2009-12-25T00:00:00.007-06:00

In the Name of God, the Subtle, the Loving

No, I do not celebrate Christmas as my Christian friends and neighbors do. December 25 is like any other day for me. In fact, it is quite a boring day for me, because, the whole world is off, and I am not. Last year, I worked overnight on Christmas, and I was looking for some place to eat: NOTHING was open...not even the Dunkin Donuts or the Chinese restaurants! Thanks be to God, the Muslim-owned Mediterranean restaurant was open, and I was spared a night of ravenous hunger.

Yet, that does not mean that the day has absolutely no significance for me as a Muslim. As I walk the halls of one of the hospitals at which I work, I see several Nativity scenes on display, and it gets me to thinking about Jesus Christ (pbuh). It reminds me of him and what a powerful and wonderful Prophet and Messenger he was. Even though I don't celebrate Christmas, it does not mean I don't have Jesus in my life.

When I think about Christmas, which is a Christian commemoration of the birth of Christ, it reminds me of God's love for us.

What is a Prophet? He is a guide; he is an example sent to us by God to help us navigate the treachery of worldly life and the hypocrisy of the human condition; he is a direct link between the servants and the Master. When God sends a Prophet, it is manifest evidence of His undying love for us. So, even though I am not exchanging gifts on Christmas Day, the birth of Jesus Christ (pbuh) makes me very happy indeed.

The Precious Beloved showed us His tremendous love by giving us life when we were lifeless. The Precious Beloved showed us His tremendous love when He gave us breath when we did nothing to deserve or warrant such a gift. The Precious Beloved showed us His tremendous love by giving us the opportunity to make a good life on this earth. Yes, this worldly realm is full of difficulty; yes, it is full of evil; yes, it is full of temptation and strife and myriads of chances to fall.

But, the Lord did not leave us alone on this world; He did not leave us to fend for ourselves; He sent us guidance, principles by which we can live and navigate in this realm of treachery that is earth. That guidance comes in the form of scripture, and that guidance comes in the forms of human beings: the Prophets. And thus, when Jesus Christ (pbuh) was born, it was another manifestation of God's love: he was born so that we as humans can live better lives, in the way Our Heavenly Master wanted us.

Yet, there is more reason for me to be happy that Jesus Christ (pbuh) was born. For, if it was not for Jesus Christ (pbuh), our Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) would not have come. Jesus Christ (pbuh) was the latest in the long line of holy Prophets come to guide humanity, and it was necessary for Jesus Christ (pbuh) to come for my beloved Master Muhammad (pbuh) to follow him:

And [this happened, too,] when Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O children of Israel! Behold, I am an apostle of God unto you, [sent] to confirm the truth of whatever there still remains of the Torah, and to give [you] the glad tiding of an apostle who shall come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." (Qur'an 61:6)

"Ahmad" is the name of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). All of the Prophets are one; they all come from the same Source; they all hail from the One True God. And so, when one of them is born, I am not distressed in the least. Rather, I am very glad indeed.

And so, it may be true that I do not celebrate Christmas like my Christian friends and neighbors; it may be true that I do not decorate my home or light up a Christmas tree in my living room; it may be true that I will not be exchanging gifts this December 25. No, I do not worship Christ as God.

But, you must know, that when I think of Christmas, it makes me happy, for it reminds me of the blessed, glorious day my Master Jesus (pbuh) was born.

Merry Christmas!

2009-12-22T11:40:00.003-06:00

In the Name of God, the Subtle, the Loving

This article has been published today on the website Middle East Online.

I always get a chuckle from hearing the cries of the "war on Christmas" from some people in our country. They claim that there are forces that are actively trying to extract "Christ" out of Christmas, making it a secular holiday. They may point to the fact that many people choose to say "Happy Holidays" to their friends and neighbors, rather than "Merry Christmas," out of political correctness. Yet, when someone tells me "Happy Holidays," it also gives me a chuckle as well.

I know they mean well: they do not want to offend me if I am not Christian and do not celebrate Christmas. Yet, if a friend, colleague, or patient tells me "Merry Christmas," I would not be offended in the least. I would deeply appreciate it, because that person is wishing that I have a happy day on December 25. It is a very nice gesture.

That is because, throughout my life, Christmas Day is quite boring for me. I do not celebrate Christmas as my Christian friends and neighbors do. Thus, there is basically nothing for me to do, although this year I am taking call, so that will help pass the time at least. Growing up, my parents would attend religious conferences during the Christmas holiday, but, I would rarely attend the lectures. I would rather have fun with my friends and cousins. But, the problem was there was nothing to do: almost every store and attraction was closed for Christmas.

Last year, I took overnight call duty on Christmas night, and I was looking for something to eat before my shift started: the city was a ghost town; not even the Dunkin Donuts or Chinese restaurants (previously my saving graces) were open! Thank God, the Muslim-owned business was open, and I was able to eat something before I started work. So, when someone wishes me a "Merry Christmas," I am very happy.

Yet, even though I do not celebrate Christmas, that does not mean that I do not have Jesus in my life. Jesus Christ is very prominent in Islamic belief, and one cannot be a true Muslim if he or she does not love and believe in Jesus. He is mentioned more by name in the Quran than the Prophet Muhammad himself. There is an entire chapter of the Quran named after his mother the Virgin Mary.

The story of his birth is told twice in the Quran (3:42-47 and 19:16-33). In addition to the story of the birth, the Quran recounts how Jesus spoke in his infancy (3:46 and 19:29-33), healed the blind, those stricken with leprosy, and raised the dead back to life (5:110). The Quran even mentions that Jesus used to fashion birds out of clay and breathe life into them, all by the permission of God Almighty (3:49). In addition, the Quran recounts the story of what seems to be the Last Supper (5:112-116).

The Quran describes Jesus as being "honored in the world and the hereafter, and one of the intimates of God" (3:45) and "in the ranks of the righteous" (6:85). He is also described as "a word, from God, which God sent down to Mary, [and] a spirit from him" (4:171) and that Jesus was "strengthened with the Holy Spirit" (2:253, 5:110). Classical commentators have interpreted the "Holy Spirit" to mean either divine inspiration or the Angel Gabriel. Yet, with all this, Muslims still do not believe Jesus to be divine: "People of Scripture [i.e., Christians], do not go into excess in your religion, and do not say anything about God but the truth. The Messiah Jesus, the Son of Mary, was only a messenger ..." (4:171)

So, no one should worry about wishing me a "Merry Christmas," because if their prayer is answered, Christmas Day will be a very good one for me. I am also very happy to wish my Christian friends and neighbors a hearty "Merry Christmas" as well, for, even though we see Jesus through different religious lenses, the love for Jesus is one. And it is my hope that this can bring Christians and Muslims together in our country and our world.

Hard Work and an Easy Smile

2009-12-14T18:27:00.002-06:00

In the Name of God, the Subtle, the Loving

Ever since the tragedy of the attacks of September 11, 2001, American Muslims have made a conscious - and long overdue - effort to engage their fellow citizens and neighbors, to get involved in the issues that affect everyone in the country, and to work even harder to positively contribute to the American landscape. American Muslims have joined Neighborhood Watch programs, local PTAs, and civic organizations. They have reached out to their neighbors and have gotten to know them better. Not only have they benefited, but so has the nation as a whole.

Muslims have also gotten into politics, on both the local and national level, and there have been successes there as well. Case in point: the election of Andre Carson in Indiana and Keith Ellison in Minnesota, the only two Muslim members of Congress. Muslims have also been elected on the local level across the country. This despite the overt bigotry against Muslims that has reared its ugly head all across the world, and in this country as well. Yet, one would think that Muslims in the West - having noted such instances of Islamophobia - would learn from such lessons and not resort to such tactics themselves.

Hence my surprise when I researched last month's New York City council election between the Muslim Republican candidate, Mujib Rahman, and his openly gay Democratic challenger Daniel Dromm. Indeed, it was an uphill battle from the start: a conservative Republican running in a heavily Democratic district. Still, Rahman thought he had a chance, with one of the largest immigrant communities in the country residing in the district. And he had another tactic up his sleeve: to rouse the conservative base by highlighting his opponent's sexuality.

"The guy against me, he is a gay," Rahman tells someone on the phone. "That guy is a gay, people don't know," he repeats. Speaking to another voter, he says: "[Daniel Dromm], he don't know what family means...I am a family man, I have children like you do." Rahman also charged that Dromm has a "gay agenda," and Dromm said in response, "Imagine if I said that Mujib was promoting a Muslim agenda? There is no Muslim agenda. Muslim people want the same thing as everybody else." After all was said and done, the voters spoke loudly: Rahman was handily defeated by a vote of 75% to 25%.

Contrast this to the experience of Haroon Saleem, who was recently elected mayor of Granite Falls, a small mining town in Washington State. Residents of this town are suspicious of newcomers, and in the past, "it was very difficult to be accepted in this town," according to Sharon Ashton, a close confidant of Saleem, speaking to the Associated Press. But, Saleem was elected by a landslide, capturing 61% of the vote.

"That tells you how good and great of a community Granite Falls is," said Saleem. "They didn't care...I am who I am, and people love me for that, and I just love people. People know that I am smart, I am a businessman. In the big scheme of things, all these qualities have made me, got me to where I am today." And he won despite attacks on him regarding his name: a website named anybodybutsaleem.com emphasized the fact that he listed his name as "Sheikh H. Saleem" on his business licences and court documents. "Why would you not use your real name?" the site asked. It also attacked his honesty and integrity.

In the end, however, Saleem won with "hard work and an easy smile." Barbara Webster, who runs a hair salon near Saleem's bar, said: "He's always really been kind to me. I really didn't think of him as being Muslim. Some of the people in town - some of the older people in town - probably do, but I think for the most part, he overcame that."

These two election experiences illustrate a larger point: that, despite all the negativity associated with Islam and Muslims, people can and do accept Muslims into their fold. There is no need to resort to the tactics of Mujib Rahman in New York - highlighting the fact that his opponent "is a gay" - to gain acceptance or win elections. For the most part, "hard work and an easy smile" can do the trick.

Now, the case of Haroon Saleem does raise an important question: do Muslims have to compromise their principles and identity to fit in? After all, Saleem was the owner of a bar in Granite Falls, which few would call truly "Islamic." The answer is no. Omar Ahmad, who was elected to the city council in San Carlos, CA in 2007, believes civic engagement in the key to becoming accepted in the community. He told the San Fransisco Chronicle in 2008: "We have not effectively integrated into community life in the towns we live in. We are going to enjoy a change when we work shoulder to shoulder with our neighbors on local issues and start to have a dialogue." Such civic engagement, he said, is "a very Islamic thing to do."

For many years, and especially after September 11, Muslims have taken the brunt of a sometimes brutal smear and misinformation campaign. Their faith, their Prophet, and their way of life is under constant attack. Now, in the minds of many, the association of violence with Islam and Muslims is permanent, and I am certain this association was in part responsible for the successful minaret ban in Switzerland. Given this experience, it is unbecoming of our community to then use the same tactics when expedient, politically or otherwise.

"Repel [evil] with what is better," says the Qur'an. Then "he between whom and thyself was enmity [may then become] as though he had [always] been close [unto thee], a true friend!" 41:34. Haroon Saleem did so, and he won. And even though Daniel Dromm was not Muslim, he did the same thing and won as well. Would that Muslims pay heed to this lesson.

Excellent WSJ Article

2009-12-11T00:02:00.002-06:00

In the Name of God, the Subtle, the Loving

The Wall Street Journal published an excellent commentary by Salam Al Marayati about Maj. Nidal Hasan and the Qur'an. Definitely check it out:

Major Hasan and the Quran

Maj. Nidal Hasan's lawyer is considering an insanity plea as a strategy for his client. That might be the only legal option available to the man accused of the shooting rampage at Fort Hood. But Nidal Hasan should also consider a religious option: repentance.

He should take responsibility for his horrific act of violence. He should beg for forgiveness from God for murdering 13 people and injuring 31 more. He should apologize to the families of the victims. He should ask for forgiveness from his fellow members of the military, and from the American people, as he betrayed our entire nation—including Muslim-Americans who are paying the price for his shameful and un-Islamic actions.

Maj. Hasan is granted the presumption of innocence in our courts of law, be they civilian or military. His military-appointed lawyer will likely advise him not to confess to anything. Legally, that may be sound advice. But religiously that advice cuts against the grain of the divine value of justice. Maj. Hasan must take responsibility for committing two major sins in Islam—the murder of his fellow citizens and the violation of two oaths he took.

Read the rest of the article here.

"Dhimmitude" and "Perpetual Servitude"

2009-12-08T12:35:00.000-06:00

In the Name of God, the Subtle, the Loving

The website, LoonWatch, is a recent addition to my blogroll. It is an excellent website and resource for information and response to the vitriolic anti-Islam hatred of the likes of Robert Spencer, Wafa Sultan, and others. They have a favorite word called "dhimmitude," which is a play between "Dhimmi" and "servitude" and is meant to convey Islam's intolerance of non-Muslims. Below is an excellent summary of the very, very long article responding to this mistruth about Islam. The article, although extremely long, is a very worthy read and very informative.

Arab and Muslim apologists have furthered the myth of interfaith utopia as a means to undermine the state of Israel. Meanwhile, anti-Muslim xenophobes have propagated the counter-myth of Islamic persecution of non-Muslims. The latter have made a big hullabaloo about the word “dhimmi” and expanded it as a concept, using the neologism of “dhimmitude.” I have here protested the usage of the word “dhimmitude,” because it is an attempt to convey the (false) idea that dhimmis were reduced to servitude. The similarity of the words “dhimmitude” and “servitude” is no accident. Bat Ye’or, the anti-Islam ideologue who introduced the myth of dhimmitude to the West–and who is the god of “scholarship” for such demagogues as Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller–specifically uses the word “servitude” juxtaposed with “dhimmi”:

“Dhimmitude,” as Ye’or makes clear, is a status that results in a profound psychosocial adjustment in some ways akin to servitude.

FrontPage Magazine, the xenophobic fear-mongering machine hosted by David Horowitz, says (emphasis is mine):

“A thing without a name escapes understanding,” warns preeminent Islamic scholar Bat Ye’or of jihad and dhimmitude—the Islamic institutions of, respectively, war and perpetual servitude imposed on conquered non-Muslim peoples.

The irony would be comical, if it were not frightening. The amazing thing is that they use the word “perpetual servitude” which is exactly the term used historically by the Christian West to denote the position of infidels, including Jews and Muslims! One recalls the infallible Papal Bull that gave permission to Christians to “invade, conquer, storm, attack, and subjugate” to “reduce into perpetual servitude [perpetuam servitute] the Saracens [Muslims], pagans, and other enemies of Christ.” It is a truism that bigots often–in their haste to hate–end up throwing stones from glass houses. The sheer irony–of the self-proclaimed defenders of the Judeo-Christian tradition using the term “perpetual servitude” to beat the Muslims over the head with–should not be lost on the perceptive reader.

Dhimmis were not reduced to perpetual servitude, and it is thus incorrect to use this neologism of dhimmitude, which is a purposeful amalgamation of the two words. Infidels in Islamic lands were discriminated against yes, but they were free men; in fact, it was considered illegal by law–both secular and religious–to take away their freedom or to enslave them. Neither were they serfs owned by monarchs, barons, and other royals–nor of the the church–as they were in Christendom. Under the iron fist of Christian rule, infidels were traded as chattel by the Church and state, rented out and even mortgaged as if property.

Dhimmis on the other hand were not unfree serfs but free citizens, second class though they were. As discriminatory as it was to be a second class citizen, it was certainly worlds better than being an unfree serf or slave. Bernard Lewis commented on the status of the second-class dhimmi vis-a-vis the perpetual serf:

Second-class citizenship, though second-class, is a kind of citizenship. ^[140]

Professor Cohen opines:

According to the Islamic “law of the land,” the shari’a [holy law], the dhimmi enjoyed a kind of citizenship, second class and unequal though it was…[in contrast to] Jews living in Latin Christian lands, where competing legal systems complicated their status and where the “law of utility” inexorably led to arbitrariness and eventually to isolation of the Jews into a special category of persons, legally possessed by this or that ruling authority. ^[141]

As for the Pact of Umar, a few points restrict the effectiveness of it as a beating stick for anti-Islam ideologues: (1) The document itself is apocryphal, forged after the earliest Islamic period and thus unrepresentative of it; (2) The more discriminatory conditions in the Pact of Umar were considered by jurists to be optional and therefore more often than not ignored; (3) Practice differs from theory and–for a variety of reasons–the discriminatory conditions in the Pact of Umar were rarely and only sporadically enforced; (4) The inspiration for the Pact of Umar came from Christian law codes.

Dhimmis were forced to pay the jizya once yearly; the rate was usually (although not always) reasonable. On the other hand, the Christian authorities taxed infidels in their realm multiple times throughout the year, burdening them with hefty tallages beyond their abilities. The jizya guaranteed the state’s protection. On the other hand, Christendom forced the infidels to engage in shohad (bribery) in order to obtain protection, which was much more arbitrary than the jizya, oftentimes not enough to save them from persecution. After their economic capacity had been subsequently diminished, the Jews of Europe were expelled due to their insolvency and lack of utility. Their remaining property was seized by the state.

The concept of Perpetual Servitude established the idea that infidels were the property of the church or state; hence, all what they owned did not belong to them, but to the Christian authorities. Church leaders argued that all Jewish property could be seized except the absolute bare minimum necessary for their survival (as it was argued that they ought not to be allowed to die for fear that they would then not serve as Witness to the triumph of Christianity). Meanwhile, infidels in Islamic lands owned all their wealth and property–with the only requirement being that they pay a tax on it.

The Pact of Umar decreed some discriminatory “Jim Crow” laws, such as the command for dhimmis to stand in the presence of Muslims, the prohibition to build houses a certain height, etc. This fact has been used by anti-Islam ideologues such as Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, yet they ignore the even more discriminatory “Jim Crow” laws in Christendom, such as the requirement for the Jew to step out of the way of the Christian, to take one’s hat off and then bow to the Christian. Similarly Jews were not permitted to use sidewalks, carry walking sticks, or walk two a breast at a time. They were forced to enter the back doors of town halls, and forbidden to enter public gardens, or enter Christian quarters–a truly apartheid system. As such, the indignation of the anti-Islam ideologues–self-proclaimed guardians of the Judeo-Christian tradition–seems selective and biased. In any case, these regulations fell into disuse in the Islamic world; again, reality differs from theory.

As for the regulations in the Pact of Umar to wear distinctive clothing (ghiyar), this too fell into disuse. Furthermore, the Christian world had similar laws. However, there was a significant difference between the Islamic law of ghiyar and the Christian yellow badge. Professor Mark R. Cohen notes that the Islamic requirement was simply that Jews continue wearing their traditional clothing and not imitate the dress of the Muslims–something which not only were the Jews were content in doing but which was a part of their religion already, i.e. to dress differently than the gentiles. Meanwhile, the Christian laws forced Jews to wear specific clothing that they did not want to wear, and which made them sources of ridicule and persecution, such as yellow badges and pointed dunce-like hats.

The prohibition in the Pact of Umar of Muslim nicknames simply required the dhimmis to retain their traditional names, which they were again happy to do in accordance to their religious beliefs. Meanwhile, Christian law forced Jews to change their names. Names were sold to Jews; those Jews with money could afford nicer names, whereas poor Jews–or those who simply annoyed authorities–were stuck with names like Ass Head, Pickpocket, or Schmuck. In any case, the Geniza gives us proof that the ban on dhimmis taking Muslim nicknames was disregarded; meanwhile, historical records indicate that the Jews of Europe did very much have their names changed.

The Pact of Umar restricted the right of dhimmis to build new houses of worship or to repair existing ones. However, Islamic jurists argued that the restriction only applied to certain areas and not others; whatever the case, historical records prove that the law was routinely ignored, and churches and synagogues continued to be built “without opposition.” Furthermore, Christian Europe also passed laws that forbade Jews from building or repairing synagogues.

Public displays of religion were forbidden in both the Islamic East and the Christian West. However, Islamic authorities at least allowed dhimmis to practice their religion freely in private, without interference. Meanwhile, Christian laws impeded even the personal religious practices of the Jews. The Church attacked the Talmud, censoring it, banning it and even burning tens of thousands of copies. The Jews perceived this as an unprecedented “catastrophe.” Both Islamic and Christian authorities forbade infidels from proselytism, but the Church went even further by forcing infidels to attend compulsory Christian sermons, where intimidating Christian mobs would seek to force Jews to see the light of Christianity.

The Islamic and Christian worlds alike punished those infidels guilty of abusing the Prophet Muhammad and Jesus Christ respectively. Here too, however, major differences existed; the Christians resorted to collective punishment whereas the Muslims generally did not as a matter of law. Also distinctive to the Christian world were the irrational ritual murder libel, Black Death accusation, and the eucharist wafer scare. These witch hunts led to masscres of tens of thousands of Jews, and elimination of entire communities.

The Jews of Europe were barred from most professions, and thereby restricted to the hated and hateful occupation of money-lending–something which only increased their vulnerability to angry Christian mobs. Even this singular means of survival often came under attack by the Church, further reducing the Jews to a state of unemployment and abject poverty. Meanwhile, Jews of the Islamic Orient were permitted to–and did–join virtually any profession. This gave them great occupational diversification which made them much more financially secure than their counterparts in Europe.

Infidels in the Christian West, as perpetual serfs, were forbidden to own land. Dhimmis, on the other hand, were considered free persons and had the right to own property.

The Jews of Europe were forced into ghettos, and as perpetual serfs their freedom of movement was heavily restricted. Meanwhile, dhimmis did not live in such apartheid, and could reside wherever they wished, free to move about as they pleased.

Most importantly, the Jews of Europe were faced with much more persecution than their counterparts in the East. Under Christian rule, the Jews were faced with recurrent expulsions, forced conversions, and massacres.

In order to “prove” their point, anti-Islam ideologues such as Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller ignore the plight of infidels in Christian Europe:

The Jews were exceedingly oppressed during the middle ages throughout Christendom. In France, a Jew was a serf, and his person and goods belonged to the baron on whose demesnes he lived. He could not change his domicile without permission of the baron, who could pursue him as a fugitive…Like an article of commerce, he might be lent or hired for a time, or mortgaged. If he became a Christian, his conversion was considered a larceny of the lord, and his property and goods were confiscated. They were allowed to utter their prayers only in a low voice and without chanting. They were not allowed to appear in public without some badge or mark of distinction. Christians were forbidden to employ Jews of either sex as domestics, physicians, or surgeons…It was deemed disgraceful to an advocate to undertake the cause of a Jew. If a Jew appeared in court against a Christian, he was obliged to swear by the ten names of God and invoke a thousand imprecations against himself if he spoke not the truth. Sexual intercourse between a Christian man and a Jewess was deemed a crime against nature, and was punishable with death by burning…

Under the Roman law the Jews were the subject of severe restrictive laws and were classed in the enactments of the Christian emperors with apostates, heretics, and and heathens…Marriage with them was forbidden…and a Jew could not be the tutor of a Christian…

In the fifth book of the Decretals it is provided that if a Jew have a servant that desireth to be a Christian, the Jew shall be compelled to sell him to a Christian for twelve-pence; that it shall not be lawful for them to take any Christian to be their servant; that they may repair their old synagogues, but not build new; that it shall not be lawful for them to open their doors or windows on Good Friday; that their wives shall neither have Christian nurses, nor themselves be nurses to Christian women; that they wear different apparel from the Christians, whereby they may be known…
In England, the Jew could have nothing that was his own, for whatever he acquired he acquired not for himself but for the king..They were so heavily taxed by the sovereigns or governments of Christendom, and at the same time debarred from almost every other trade or occupation–partly by special decrees, partly by vulgar prejudice–that they could not afford to prosecute ordinary vocations. In 1253, the Jews–no longer able to withstand the constant hardships to which they were subjected in person and property–begged of their own accord to be allowed to leave the country. Richard of Cornwall, however, persuaded them to stay. Ultimately, in 1290 A.D. they were driven from the shores of England, pursued by the execrations of the infuriated rabble, and leaving in the hands of the kings all their property, debts, obligations, and mortgages. ^[142]

Update: Here is follow up to this article on LoonWatch.