Do not insult Allah; He is your God too.

For the Post Dispatch Civil Religion Blog By Khaled Hamid

04/28/2008 6:38 pm

The icon of evangelical fundamentalist Christianity, Pat Robertson, would not waste a chance to restate that Muslims do not worship the same God that ‘Judeo-Christian’ believer’s do. I am not sure if most Jews agree with his Christian understanding of God, but that has never stopped him and others of the same mindset from making that claim.

To him, Allah is not God. It is just an Arab Muslim Idol. Not only that, but he comes up with whole Hollywood type story about the moon god who has three daughters that Muslims worship (see that and more equally ‘smart’ statements here http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/bringiton/falsereligions-index.aspx#3. This nonsense is ear-catching for his target audience, but is just - to put it mildly - stupid; plain and simple.

These statements prove that one may be famous, rich, and influential yet be totally ignorant and do not even know what they are talking about. That, unfortunately does not change the fact that many non-Muslims, especially in North America, that still think the same way, regardless of what they think of Pat Robertson.

Allah is the Arabic word for God (upper case ‘G’). It has its roots in Aramaic, one of the roots of Arabic Language, and has been used many centuries before Islam by Arab Jews and Christians. Not only that, it is the word used for God/Lord (upper case) in the Arabic translations of the Old and New Testament.

Take a look at this example from Genesis (http://www.ibs.org/) with the Arabic translation from http://www.biblegateway.com/. The words “God” and “Allah in Arabic, الله ” are highlighted:

¹ In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ² Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

³ And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. ⁴ God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. ⁵ God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning-the first.

And for an example from the Gospel of John:
¹ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
² The same was in the beginning with God.

Arab Christians use the word “Allah” (meaning God) in their prayers and worship. Many Arab Christians have the name “Abd-Allah”, meaning the “Servant-of-God”, the same name that many Muslims have. The image on the side is the Arabic script for ‘God is Love’, a common saying for Egyptian Christians. Notice the word on the right. It is Allah (for God).

The Arabic language has masculine and feminine forms. Like English, it also has single and plural forms, with a third form for a count of 2 of the same thing. The word Allah in Arabic has a very special status though. It is not defined as masculine or feminine, it exists only in the singular form, and it does not undergo any derivation. Grammatically it is treated as masculine, but it has no inherent gender.

The uniqueness of the word Allah in Arabic may be in part responsible for the occasional use of Allah by Muslims speaking in English, rather than the word God. The word god has multiple forms: upper case, lower case, plural and feminine forms (God, god, gods and goddess). It can be used to describe the absolute divine, but it can be used to describe a teen idol or a music diva. I personally prefer to use the word ‘God’, but I would always remind my listeners that it is the ‘upper case one’.

I know some people may be now thinking: Well, even if it means God it still does not mean that Muslims worship the same God Christians and Jews worship. So here is a brief primer on divinity in Islam.

Islam is a monotheistic religion (defined by some as ‘rigidly’ monotheistic). God in Islam has no form or shape that is amenable to human senses, but his presence can be perceived. Therefore, humans can sense the existence of the Divine, and believe in it. Any attribute of His that may have a human equivalent, is made with no attempt to make analogy or simile to humans.

This is expressed in a very short chapter of the Quran (Ch. 112, 1-4): “SAY: He is the One God: God the Eternal, the Uncaused, Cause of All Being. He begets not, and neither is He begotten; and there is nothing that could be compared with Him”.

In Islam, God is the ultimate abstract idea of a Divine Entity. He has no beginning, and no end. He is the creator of the universe and the sustainer of all that exists. He is the Master of the Day of Judgment. He cares about us, knows what we do, and wants us to succeed in this life, and in the life after.

If someone does not think that this is the God they worship, then that is their concern. As for those who grasped my description of what God means to Muslims, the next time one feels like saying something nasty about “Allah”, they should hold back. It is their God too.

Apostacy and Freedom of religion in Islam

By Khaled Hamid

04/22/2008 11:52 pm

This posting started as a response to good comments made by 2 readers following my last postings. You can read their comments here and here. I responded to the first under the same posting here, but the second response (by GF) got so long that I preferred to post it as a main entry. Their comments was detailed, documented and challenging. I hope my response clarifies some of the issue.

First, I am surprised that GF would take exception with the Egyptian Grand Mufti’s edict. I would imagine any one worried about Islam being a violent ideology should be happy that the most senior cleric of the most prestigious Islamic University in the world establishes that the proper Islamic response to apostasy (Redda or reversion away from Islam) is not a violent one, but a position of freedom of choice. That should be a solid argument against extremist Muslims who advocate violence. It brings down their position from one of ‘establishing God’s word’ to being ‘in violation of God’s word’.

The Ignoramuses of the world (be they Muslim, Christians, Jews, etc) will continue to do whatever they want no matter what clergy tell them. The moderate majority now knows the violent ones are wrong.

No interpretation of a holy book is considered divine no matter how famous their authors may be. As I mentioned in previous response, all the commentaries and legal interpretations in Islam are tools for those who wish to read them, but they are not God’s word, and denying their correctness or validity, or understanding them in the historic and political context they originated in does not make one an apostate.

I cannot help change the fact that some Muslims understand things differently. Diversity in understanding the Book of Revelations is an example in point on the Christian side. But I look as Holy books this way: God revealed His holy books on chosen Messengers but aiming at lay, mostly illiterate people. The Messengers did not select who followed them, and did not perform any ‘pre-admission’ testing for the believers. And in Islam God, definitely, did not mandate that scholars explain God’s words to His followers.

Actually one of the recurring Quranic criticisms for the early People of the Book (an Islamic term for Christians and Jews) at the time of Quran revelation was that they accepted the interjection of scholars and clergy between God and the believers. Yet, Muslims quickly (i.e., after few decades after the Prophet’s death) fell in the same trap. It is human nature, I guess.

But Islam is truly a lot simpler than most scholars would like us to believe. Unfortunately most believers want to rely on someone else telling them what God wants rather than make some effort on their own.

I was lucky that Arabic as my mother tongue. I can read the Quran easily. I can understand the very vast majority of the verses at face value. It is simple and easy to understand, as God himself promised four times in different verses (54: 17, 22, 32 and 40, “Hence, indeed, We made this Quran easy to bear in mind: who, then, is willing to take it to heart?”) As for the few verses that may have a word or two not in common use today, the overall meaning of the verse is more than obvious if one is too lazy to look up the exact meaning.

I have a strong feeling that GF understands enough Arabic. I suggest to he/her to read the verses mentioned in the comment made, and forget about the ‘famous interpreters’ that GF repeatedly mentioned. They occasionally help, but most of the time, they are just the way. Of course, there are other interpreters (modern and not so modern) who would understand the verses differently, but that makes my point stronger: we all need to do the homework ourselves understanding the original words of God, and we should not take anyone’s interpretation for granted, even if we end up sometimes wrong. Otherwise, taking someone’s else’s words for what God really wants may be convenient, but it makes that person almost ‘God’ for us.

A famous quote from one of the early Scholars (I do not remember exactly which one) was “If you do not know our proof, you should follow our conclusion”.

The reader listed some verses to make his point, and this is where this posting gets a bit technical (and possibly boring) for some readers, so forgive me. But an elaborate comment requires a detailed response.

The reader agreed that verses 6:96 and 4:90-91 are already interpreted by modern scholars in an agreeable way, i.e., punishment for apostasy is in the hereafter, not capital punishment in this life. This is how the text reads in Arabic anyway, so I will skip those.

The verse GF sees as problematic is 2:217. I read the Arabic, and I read the English translation of M Asad, and I see no indication that it carries capital punishment for apostate.

• “… [Your enemies] will not cease to fight against you till they have turned you away from your faith, if they can. But if any of you should turn away from his faith and die as a denier of the truth - these it is whose works will go for nought in this world and in the life to come; and these it is who are destined for the fire, therein to abide.”

Clearly, in Arabic as it is in this near literal translation, this is not talking about capital punishment, but about bad outcome on the Day of Judgment. Hell fire has never ever been mentioned in the Quran as a reference to punishment in this life. No commentator, regardless of their prestige or stature can tell other wise.

Regarding Verse 4:89

• “They would have you disbelieve as they themselves have disbelieved, so that you may be all like alike. Do not befriend them until they have fled their homes for the cause of God. If they desert you seize them and put them to death wherever you find them. Look for neither friends nor helpers among them“.

please read the preceding verse (4:88, and subsequent verses 4:90) before making judgment on this verse.

The word ‘they‘ in this verse refers to a group mentioned in the preceding Verse 4:88 as the Hypocrites, a group of Muslims that got in alliance with enemies of Muslims engaging in active acts of war. Finding and killing them was for their act of treason at time of war, not for apostasy

And despite this, the following verse 4:90 gives them the way out of the punishment as it states clearly: arriving and seeking protection with others (Muslims or otherwise) with which Muslims have a covenant OR coming back to the Muslims declaring their desire not to FIGHT Muslims - They were not required to declare their reversion to Islam. If they come back in peace “God does not allow you to harm them

The full text of verse 4:90 is here:

• “unless it be such [of them] as have ties with people to whom you yourselves are bound by a covenant, or such as come unto you because their hearts shrink from [the thought of] making war either on you or on their own folk - although, if God had willed to make them stronger than you, they would certainly have made war on you. Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them.“

I really do not see how anyone would interpret this as mandating capital punishment. If a commentator opted for that for historic or political reasons, this is definitely not binding for us, especially when God made His words so clear and unequivocal.

Verse 5:54 is the ONLY verse that talks specifically about the apostate (Murtadd, or those who abandon their faith as the verse describes them). It does not even mention death in any way:

• “O you who have attained to faith! If you ever abandon your faith,’ God will in time bring forth [in your stead] people whom He loves and who love Him - humble towards the believers, proud towards all who deny the truth: [people] who strive hard in God’s cause, and do not fear to be censured by anyone who might censure them: such is God’s favour, which He grants unto whom He wills. And God is infinite, all-knowing.”

Let me conclude by some Quran verses that explicitly commit to the freedom of faith. These teach the Prophet, and us, Muslims, how to behave when someone refuses to accept Islam, at any stage. They require no comment from me or anyone else.

• (2:256) THERE SHALL BE no coercion in matters of faith. Distinct has now become the right way from [the way of] error…
• (3:20) … Ask those who have been vouchsafed revelation aforetime, as well as all unlettered people, ‘Have you [too] surrendered yourselves unto Him [God]?’ And if they surrender themselves unto Him, they are on the right path; but if they turn away - behold, thy duty is no more than to deliver the message: for God sees all that is in [the hearts of] His creatures.
• (5:29) … if you turn away [from God’s way], then know that Our Apostle’s only duty is a clear delivery of the message [entrusted to him]
• (5:99) No more is the Apostle bound to do than deliver the message [entrusted to him]: and God knows all that you do openly, and all that you would conceal.
• (6:70) And leave to themselves all those who, beguiled by the life of this world, have made play and passing delights their religion…
• (6:107) Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed divinity to aught beside Him;_’ hence, We have not made thee their keeper
• (9:129) But if those [who are bent on denying the truth] turn away, say: ‘God is enough for me! There is no- deity save Him.
• (10:99) And [thus it is:] had thy Sustainer so willed, all those who live on earth would surely have attained to faith, all of them: dost thou, then, think that thou couldst compel people to believe,
• (16:082) BUT IF they turn away [from thee, O Prophet, remember that] thy only duty is a clear delivery of the message [entrusted to thee].
• (23:117) Hence, he who invokes, side by side with God, any other deity* for whose existence he has no evidence - shall but find his reckoning with his Sustainer: [and,] verily, such deniers of the truth will never attain to a happy state!

A point made by reader Logus referred to early (Mecca) chapters being softer and gentler than later chapters (Medina). It is the same incorrect point made by the Pope while referring to the conciliatory verse 2:256 listed above as being Mecca verse in a speech last year that causes a lot of distress to Muslims. The Pope was wrong as chapter 2 is a chronologically late (Medina) chapter although it is early in the Quran text arrangement, which does not follow chronological order. And so are some of the chapters used above (3, 5 , 6, and 9). Actually chapter 5 is the last long chapter of the Quran and has a special status as the final part of the revealed word of God. So the argument about gentle verses being early in Islam when there were fewer Muslims, while violent chapters came late, after Muslims became numerous enough to fight, is invalid.

All these verse, and many more, stress one key message: people choose whether to believe or not. God did not aim for all people to have the same faith. The Prophet (and his followers) are not to compel anyone to believe. Their job is to deliver the message. The rest, is our own personal choice.

Tags: Apostasy, Freedom pf Religion, Islam, Religious interpretation

When Muslims become Christians (from the BBC on Line)

From the BBC on Line - Commentary is mine.

It is obvious to Muslims familiar with the Quran that the death penalty for apostasy is not rooted in the Quran. Different Prophetic sayings were interpreted by many scholars as using the Death penalty if acts of treason were associated with the conversion from Islam, rather than as a punishment for apostasy itself. I was very happy to come across this article on the BBC web site presenting this topic in a very balanced and informative manner, especially to non-Muslims.

"Last week, British teacher Daud Hassan Ali, 64, was shot dead in Somalia. His widow, Margaret Ali, said her husband was targeted by Islamists who 'believe it is ok to kill any man who was born into Islam and left the faith'."

Whether the 'Islamists' really killed him for that reason of not is open to debate, especially in such a lawless country as Somalia. But I am aware that many Muslims really think that capital punishment is what Islamic law has for apostates. And according to the article, many British Muslims still think it is the Islamic law.

"A poll conducted by the Policy Exchange last year suggested that over a third of young British Muslims believe that the death penalty should apply for apostasy."

The author then clarifies that this opinion is not accepted by all Muslim Scholars, and that active treason was the crime for which capital punishment was applies.

"I was staggered to learn that the Quran does not say anything about punishing apostates and that its proponents use two hadiths instead to support their view. Hadiths are the recorded traditions and sayings of the Prophet which, in addition to the Quran, provide an additional source of Islamic law.
The hadiths which relate to apostasy are linguistically ambiguous and open to interpretation. Distinguished scholars told me that the hadiths actually speak about a death penalty for treason, not apostasy. And even then, they stressed the punishment is discretionary."

A Muslim scientist and an Imam goes on to say

"I believe the classical law of apostasy in Islam is wrong and based on a misunderstanding of the original sources, because the Quran and Hadith don't actually talk about a death penalty for apostasy."

This is supported by the recent statement along the same lines by the highest Edict authority in Al-Azhar (Cairo Egypt)

"Last year Egypt's Grand Mufti, Ali Gomaa, unequivocally told the Washington Post that the death penalty for apostasy simply no longer applies. It provoked a flurry of debate in Egypt and the wider Middle East."

The author then introduces a brief analysis of the political dimension of Muslim's attitudes towards apostasy

"Muslim attitudes towards apostasy are a metaphor for the wider struggle taking place within Islam, between those who argue for a progressive form of Islam and those who argue for more dogmatic interpretations.
Attitudes to apostasy may be a useful barometer for judging where it's headed."

Overall, a very well written and informative article.

Khaled

Read the full article on the BBC, click on the link below.

When Muslims become Christians

Is there room for a Muslim voice in our life?

(Posted on the Post Dispatch Civil Religion blog)

By Khaled Hamid

04/20/2008 10:29 pm

I believe that my role on this blog to to try to present what an American Muslim sees in his religion and how it interacts and coexists with other religions and belief systems. I made it clear from the beginning that I expect it will to be difficult to stay away from politics. It did not not take a lot of brains on my part to expect that. I will continue to shy from explicit political arguments, but it is impossible to avoid it totally as you may have guessed if you have read some of my latest postings and responses to comments by one reader (1, 2).

Our inclinations (likes and dislike) decide for us what we ’select’ to read and what we ’select’ to believe. If we trust our inclinations 100% of the time then we will always pick facts that support our views as further evidence that our views are correct, a circular logic trick. In that case, critical thinking in us dies. And life becomes a process of reinforcing what we have already known and believed. And that is not wise for those who seek the truth.

Google and other search engines are a blessing to humanity, but also a curse if we do not search with equal dedication to test all that we believe in rather than for what proves our predetermined point of view.

My humble advise to those who seek the truth is to make an effort to understand the issues for themselves, rather than take pre-digested opinions to adopt as their own. This stands true whether you are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, atheist, republican or democrat. Once you lock yourself in with like-minded people, and take as possibly true only what you knew before as true, then you are on a dangerous slope to being a ‘copy cat’ believer and that has its dangers.

God criticizes in the Quran (5:105) those who say “Enough for us is that which we found our forefathers believing in and doing”. To me, this verse encourages challenging any established dogma in which we believe just because our elders, teachers, clergy or forefathers passed on to us as ‘the truth, the whole truch and nothing but the truth’. I believe that God rewards us more for truth seeking than for truth reaching.

Moreover, a discussion with anyone - blog readers, colleagues or friends - is only worthwhile if the engaging parties start at a point where they are open to new facts so there position is at least modifiable. It also requires some background knowledge of the subject discussed. You are either debating or trying to learn basic facts. It is not very productive to do these in parallel, or in the reverse order.

I am bound, as a Muslim, to be challenged every now and then by vehement opposing opinions. I do encourage those who intend to engage in any discussion about what Islam is (and hopefully not about what some Muslims do) to read a couple of short essays I wrote using almost exclusively Quranic verse. The essays are heavily references and have an accompanying PDF file with all the used Quranic verse.

The essays are not preachy, and I do not expect anyone to accept them as the ultimate truth 9feel free to search for better source and let me no where these are). But I think they will present enough original scriptural material that may come handy if you engage I discussions about Islam. It may also bring to your attention some interesting facts about my religion, and will make it hard for someone to feed you half truth, or straight out lies, passing it as the only truth about Islam. Give it a try.

1. Islam Q&A introduction and why I composed the essays.
2. What is Islam?
3. Islam and social Justice.
4. Islam, violence and war.

All the Quran verse used in these essays are in one PDf file here.

Note: As usual you may leave comments here anonymously. If you would like to share your comments with wider audience, you may leave you comments on the PD posting itself.

Responses to comments from a conservative reader (Part 2 or 2)

For those of you who do not follow the Civil Religion Blog where I post on Islam, some of the comments from a very conservative reader warranted lengthy responses from me. I will post the comments and my response here (split as 2 postings). If you like to make a comment, please put it on the PD site for everyone's benefit.

Interesting response. First, if Islam is supposed to be so aiding to the poor, then could you please explain why God gave the Middle East most of the world’s oil? These so-called Muslim sheiks then should be sharing their wealth with the less fortunate, such as all those poor Muslims in Africa that have to risk their lives getting to European countries because they are starving. Why don’t those rich oil sheiks help those in Algiers and Somalia etc. rather than building themselves more castles, such as Saddam even, and all their worldly goods. What you say and what I see are not the same things. Second, so Republicans support pre-emptive war as a policy? Really? Have you heard of Vietnam or Bosnia, Kosovo, or WWI (Pres. Wilson). My don’t you have a selective memory.
If I recall, Pres. Bush went to war in the Middle East because the US was attacked on 9-11 by Muslims. Remember that event? And lastly on this point of attacking Republicans, could you please tell me why every murderous conflict going on in this world is Muslims killing Christians and others? Bottom line, why are Muslims killing people all over the world if it is a religion of peace? I don’t see any other religion with this problem of terrorizing the world.

Comment by A CENTRIST -- April 19th, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Here is my response:

Thanks for describing my answer as ‘interesting’.

- You asked why rich Muslim oil sheiks do not give enough to poor Muslims and Africans IF Islam - supposedly, as you put it - promotes social justice.
My cynical response was going to be: may be because they save money to buy billions of dollars worth of planes and ammunition from our weapons manufacturers as Bush asked them to during his last visit to our friends in the Gulf (remember that one?).
Or I could say: I will tell you if you tell me why Catholic priests sexually abuse children, or why the pious catholic Eric Rudolph committed his horrible terrorist acts, or why Timothy McVeigh did what his did on Oklahoma. Hope you get my point now.
And when it comes to money, the tremendous wealth of the Catholic Church and the Vatican is beyond dispute. Why the fancy churches, gold and artwork when money is needed for the poor children of God everywhere? The verses on rich people in the New Testament are obvious to everyone. Why aren’t most Christians taking the vow of poverty?
My TRUE answer is not the cynical one. It is this: may be because you and I do not know how much money they give that is not made public, or more likely, .may be because they are not very good Muslims, that are selfish, and want to rul otherse and get rich, but not obey the word of God.
You seem to deny that Republicans have pre-emptive war as a policy. I suggest looking into what has been called Bush Doctrine, and the latest changes in our Nuclear Stance policy regarding first use of nuclear weapons.
You provided a list of wars that you called pre-emptive (Vietnam, Kosovo and WWI) and blamed it on Democrats. Many will dispute the ‘pre-emptive’ nature of at least some of the wars you listed, but I was talking about the current policies, not those of past administrations. I was not talking about past political trends in Muslim community, but the one that is relevant now.
You state “Bush went to war in the Middle East because the US was attacked on 9-11 by Muslims”. I can only say, you are wrong. We went to war in Afghanistan because the Taliban helped few thousands Muslim extremist establish a base (Al-Qaeda) there. The Iraq war had nothing to do with 9-11. Most Americans and even many Republicans accept that now
You generalization that “Muslims” attacked US on 9-11 will not get an answer from me. It just goes to show how pre-judging clouds the perception of even simple facts.
You followed with the horrible statement (emphasis mine) ”… could you please tell me why every murderous conflict going on in this world is Muslims killing Christians and others? Bottom line, why are Muslims killing people all over the world if it is a religion of peace? I don’t see any other religion with this problem of terrorizing the world”.
Statements like these are not only hateful but lack any knowledge content. You have the right to make them but I would not waste energy responding to them.
I will leave it up to others to respond to that it they feel like it.

Comment by Khaled Hamid -- April 20th, 2008 at 5:18 pm

Responses to comments from a conservative reader (Part 1 or 2)

For those of you who do not follow the Civil Religion Blog where I post on Islam, some of the comments from a very conservative reader warranted lengthy responses from me. I will post the comments and my response here (split as 2 postings). If you like to make a comment, please put it on the PD site for everyone's benefit.

Dr. Hamid, I have another question. You spoke a lot about the First Amendment, freedom of speech. I am very disturbed lately with CAIR trying to silence voices that they say spread Muslim hatred. However, in this country we are supposed to have freedom of expression, yet CAIR doesn’t seem to agree. As far as I can tell, what these people are saying is an honest assessment. I find this extremely disturbing. Again, if they don’t like it here in America, perhaps even if they are Americans, why don’t they move to the Middle East where they won’t have to tolerate so-called hate speech.

As a Christian Catholic, we are attacked on a regular basis not only in the main stream media,
but also by such wonderful people as Bill Maher on HBO. As much as he makes me puke with his religious hate speech, as an American I understand that he has the right to mock my religion and I have the freedom to choose not to listen to him. If enough people agree, HBO will cancel his show. If not, then so be it. I don’t care what he says.

The Post-Dispatch regularly attacks the local leader of my faith, Archbishop Burke. They would never speak about Muslim leaders like they do about him. Most of us Catholics just take it all in stride. Many that have more character than I, just refuse to purchase the PD. That’s just the way America works.

Comment by A CENTRIST -- April 19th, 2008 at 1:13 pm

And here is my response:

A Centrist:
I will not debate every article, book and person that does not like Islam or does not understand it, and expresses it in the vast cyberspace,. You need to do you homework studying Islam if you care to know anything about it. I do suggest a very reasonable translation of the Quran with great commentary by M Asad called the Message of the Quran (http://www.amazon.com/Message-Quran-Muhammad-Asad/dp/1567441386). It is your choice whether to seek understanding Islam better or, alternatively, to select what reinforces some other held beliefs about Islam if you think you already know the truth.
I have come against Muslims and atheists who hold opinions about your own religion (Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular) that are similar to your attitude towards Islam. None of them made any effort to understand Christianity from neutral sources or from its original scripture before agreeing with every thing negative they hear about it. I hope you are better than they were.
There position was “Christianity is a horrible religion and nothing can change that because is the a fact. Period”. Think about it for a second from their point of view: Crusades, Protestant vs. Catholic massacres, intra-European wars, colonization of the Africa, Asia, the New World, near extermination of aborigines in many places, largest scale of slave trade in history, apartheid and racial segregation states not to mention two World Wars (and possibly a third if some of our current leadership have it their way) Not to mention IRA in northern Ireland, ETA in Spain, or Genocide in Rwanda (with the recent conviction of catholic clergy in genocide by the courts there).
Actually, even Nazi regime still counts as Christian for some people, I will leave it up to you to find their arguments and judge how valid it is about the Church and Papacy complicity with the Axis forces in WWII.
The links between Racism in the south of USA and in apartheid South Africa on one hand, and the Church on the other hand, (at least some churches) mount, in some people’s minds, to a solid historic proof that Christianity - in the core - supported those horrible regimes.
Of course I can tag along Serb and Croat atrocities in Bosnia, Army of God in central African nations, Lebanese Phalangist Christian massacres in Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps , etc. Before accusing me of being selective, I will tell you I am being selective, so you can see how bad your religion would look like if one wishes to be selective.
What to you is defined as a religion of love and peace is to others a religion of hegemony and White domination.
I do NOT subscribe to such opinion; neither does 99% of my Muslim community. Most of us understand that religion is one of many factors that shape history and politics. And when it does, is it a minor factor, dominated by economy, human greed and human desire for a sense supremacy material and moral, even if it is a fake one.
I happened to agree that Christianity is a religion of love and peace, NOT because you said it, but because I did my home work learning about it, not from Hagee, Falwell, Paterson Jim Crow law or from the opinions of the abundant zealots. I learned it from original scripture (in proper historic context) and from Christian friends and non-friends that I see around me every day.
Can you count 5 or 10 Muslims you know personally? If you can, have you tried to reach out and talk to them? Not to preach them, or convert them but to KNOW them?
And just to cover of the points you raise:
- CAIR is not against the first amendment, the same way Anti Defamation League is not against it. But, this is country where there are laws against hate, libel and slander.
Asking the courts of law to assess whether these laws apply in certain situations is NOT restriction of the freedom of expression.
- If someone accuses you in public of being a child molester because you are Catholic, do you consider that as actionable slander? If a school near you refuses your participation in their activities because you are Catholic, and they are worried about their children, what would you do?
- You mention that your friends ‘who have character more than you’ (in you own words, not mine) boycott the PD for its criticism of the local Catholic leadership. CAIR public campaign against Michael Savage and his hate speech got many decent people to boycott him and not advertise on his show. That is NOT violation of the first amendment. It is actually an exercise in it (the freedom of assembly part), by recruiting people with the same sense of decency to stop something that is indecent simply by not funding it with ad money. And, let me quote you verbatim again: “ that’s just the way America works”.

Comment by Khaled Hamid -- April 20th, 2008 at 5:45 pm

Can you read God’s mind? I know I can’t.

By Khaled Hamid

Posted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch Civil Religion Blog on 04/19/2008 2:47 am

I woke up early Friday morning to our house shaking. Realizing it was not in a tornado or something that required an immediate evacuation, I thanked God for the safety we were in and tried to go back to sleep. But this strange question popped up in my mind: Were there any gay parade scheduled in a near by city?
Of course, this is not my usual reaction to geological phenomena. It just happened that a couple of months ago I read something linking gays to earthquakes, and I wanted to write a posting about it. The latest realignment of tectonic plates in the Midwest seemed to be the right backdrop for that posting. Here it is.
Religious people feel a strong connection with God. A personal and warm sense of proximity to our creator gives many of us comfort, strength, and enough boost to carry on when the going gets tough. Some people, unfortunately, get a bit too close.

I, like many others, may occasionally feel tempted to gage how much God is happy (or unhappy) with me. If I have a good week at work, is it because God is smiling upon me? If my car breaks down in a very untimely fashion, is it because I did not focus enough on my duties to God? I think a tiny little bit of that is not bad. Being aware of God’s presence, and that He notices us, is not a bad thing as long as we do not jump to conclusions about Him immediately responding in a divine fashion to every thing we do - that is to say, as long as we do NOT claim we KNOW why God did, or did not do, something to us or to someone else (for example, neighbors’ car stolen because they do not go to church, or a boss deserving a serious heart attack for being mean to his/her employees).

"Why do Muslims vote Democrat?"

[This post is also published on the St. Louis Post Dispatch Civil Religion Blog]

A reader (Centrist) commented on my first posting asking 2 questions. I answered the first question last week. The second question was as follows:
"... why do Muslims vote Democrat. The Democrats support abortion on demand and gay marriage, two things that the Muslim religion is so opposed to."
I do not know how accurate it is to generalize in absolute terms that Muslims vote Democrat. But judging from my immediate circles, I would say a lot of them vote that way. I am aware of at least few Muslims that are hard-core republicans who are active in the party, and are fund raising for it. I admit, they are in the minority among the Muslims I know. As for those Muslims who vote Democrat, they do it for predominantly the same reasons that non-Muslim vote Democrat.
Social justice and collective social responsibility has been a pillar concept of the Muslim community since the birth of Islam. The Qur'an stresses that the wealth is a trust to some of us from God, but for the benefit of those who need help "... and spend on others out of that which He has made you trustees for, those of you who have attained to faith and who spend freely [in God's cause] shall have a great reward."(Chapter 57:7). The Qur'an does also repeatedly link true piety to generosity in spending of the most cherished of possessions: "... truly pious is he who believes in God, and the Last Day; and the angels, and revelation, and the prophets; and spends his substance - however much he himself may cherish it - upon his near of kin, and the orphans, and the needy, and the wayfarer, and the beggars, and for the freeing of human beings from bondage ..."(Chapter 2:177). Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, told the early Muslims that "the believers are like one body; if a part of it is sick or ailing, the rest of the body shall respond with aches and fever", and that "Not of us are those who sleep on a full stomach, knowing that their neighbors are hungry", bringing to the forefront of the believers' conscience the collective responsibility of the society towards its weakest and least fortunate elements. Omar, the second of the early civil leaders following the Prophet, established 'The house of treasury' where Alms (Zakat in Arabic), and charity (Sadaka in Arabic) revenues were distributed to the poor, the needy, for freeing men and women who were in bondage, and as pension for the elderly who are unable to to earn a living, Muslims or non-Muslim alike. My point is that social justice and essential elements of a welfare state where the underprivileged are entitled to basic services and care provided by the state was an early and central part of the Muslim conscience.
As for health care, as early as the first century after the Prophet's death, public hospitals were established and sponsored by the consecutive Islamic governments. From the very beginnings of Islam, commercial monopoly has been demonized and the the universal right of all community members to access natural resources (typify by water and grazing land - two major livelihood essentials in Bedouin desert life) were established.
Very few people in the US would dispute that these early practices of Muslim communities are closer to Democratic Party principles than to Republican Party principles. It is no wonder then that a significant portion of American Muslims, despite their relative affluence, would feel more aligned with the message of the Democratic party, thus they vote Democrat.
Islamic attitudes toward abortion are definitely more flexible than the strict 'pro-lifers'. In Islam, the physical and emotional welfare of the mother takes precedence over that of the fetus, even though I know of no Muslims who would give a blanket approval to the 'abortion on demand' mentioned by the reader Centrist. However, I personally think the 'abortion on demand' statement is an emotionally-loaded, and inaccurate way to describe the attitude of most Democrats, many of whom are practicing Christians.
As far as the gay marriage issue, I am opposed to it, and so are almost all my Muslim friends and acquaintances. But we are also opposed to many other issues such as unjust 'preemptive' wars, strengthening corporations at the expense of the individuals, attrition of civil right, unchecked executive powers, and last but not least, denying health care to several million American children because it costs a small fraction of what we spent in one day saving a failing big Wall Street firm.
Most of my Muslim friends are Democrats, and in addition to the economic and social justice causes, it was a lot more obvious to us that the Democratic party is more inclusive, more diverse and less elitist than the Republican Party. Most of us are not 'one-issue' voters, and we choose a party to run a country not to lead us to Heaven.
Despite all this, and as I mentioned early on, some Muslims still vote Republican albeit in minute numbers that are dwindling by the minute. But would that surprise any one seeing how Republican presidential candidates were after the likes of Pat Robertson and John Hagee?
Khaled

[I have put together in the past a more detailed Essay on Social Justice in Islam with more documentation of Quranic verses on the subject. It is available on line at: http://muslimdreamer.blogspot.com/2008/01/islam-and-social-justice.html]

Tags: American Muslims, elections, Islam, Politics, social justice

"Why would Muslims want to live in America? Why would not Muslim live in Saudi Arabia or some other Muslim country?"

[This is my second post on the Post Dispatch Civil Religion blog. Take a look, and you may leave comment on the PD site, or anonymously here.]

04/11/2008 2:34 am

This title reflects the first of 2 good questions posed by one of the readers (who named his/her Centrist) of my first blog posting about finding my Muslim voice. The part I am going to address in this post is quotes below (emphasis in the quote is mine).

“I saw a woman in a West County grocery store the other day with traditional Muslim dress, not a burka, but the only part showing were her eyes. That is fine, I have no objections with her choice.”

“… Our culture is so different in terms of outward sexuality and homosexuality that is so contradictory to the Muslim faith, that I don’t understand why they would not prefer to live in Saudi Arabia or some other Muslim country where they can live more easily which in the norms of their culture and religion.

I have a problem with Muslims coming here and not wishing to assimilate and try to get calls to prayer and footbaths etc. which kind of cross the line of seperation [sic] of church and state in our country.

My first question is, why don’t Muslims just live in Muslim countries and why do they choose to live in America or England where the culture is do different from what their religion espouses? Many of us fear that we will one day be forced to live under Sharia law such as Saudi Arabia or Iran if the Muslims take over our country.”

The reader’s second questions is equally interesting and is about Muslims and why they vote Democrat. Whether this assumption is right or wrong, that question will have to wait for another posting.

But for now, let us tackle the first question. There are a lot of points to cover so I will use almost a point format to cover the different issues raised in the comment:

• Niqab (Arabic name for attire that covers a womens face) is Not the traditional Muslim dress. It is a dress that some traditional Muslim women wear (although is is admittedly ‘mandatory’ in some societies, especially Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia which are hardly the beacons of democracy, freedom or individuality). We are not all traditional in that sense. Many practicing Muslims women with strong devotion to Islam do NOT wear niqab or burqa (burka is a word derived from a Farsi root). Some of them wear traditional western attire, and some wear a more conservative attire with long sleeves, below knee outfit with or without a head cover (Hijab in Arabic). The latter group would look more or less like many orthodox Jewish women, or catholic nuns (before the change in their dress code in Vatican II). They wear the typical attire that the Virgin Mary, the most revered woman in Islam, is portrayed in.
• And why should it be assumed that a Muslim has somewhere else to go and live. This statement is based, assuming best of intentions, on ignorance. Half of the American Muslims are ‘real’ Americans, born and raised here to American parents that may have been Muslims, Christians, Jews or atheists. Some are Black, White, Hispanic or of Middle Eastern and Indian ancestry. But some are of German, Irish or Chinese ancestry amongst many other possibilities. They did not chose to come to America. God created them here. They have no where else to go to, Muslim country or otherwise. And even if they do have another country to go to, why should they? Do we expect a Muslim born in this country to a Muslim family, or who has converted to Islam as an Adult, to leave America and look for another homeland just for the dress code?
• A homeland is more than place with a dress code that I like. The culture that defines someone by how they dress is a very shallow culture, and our American culture, mine and yours, is not shallow. That is why many people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, come to America. Moreover most of us, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, disagree with the society at large on one or more intellectually or practically pivotal issues. Take for example abortion, same sex marriage, the war in Iraq, affirmative action, universal health care, or even home schooling. Is there anyone out there who is willing to leave there homeland if the law of the land is opposite to their choice for a way of life? Should I assume that the reader Centrist would have to go and live in Denmark if his/her dress code is more on the nudist side; or to somewhere else where abortion is still criminalize if they were anti-abortion? People are not defined by one issue, neither should a homeland, especially by something as trivial as dress code.
• Centrist also has a ‘problem with Muslims coming here and not wishing to assimilate and try to get calls to prayer and footbaths etc‘. Without belaboring the point, I will restate that half of the American Muslims have not come here - they were born here.
• Assimilation deserves some comment. Every time I here it in this context it reminds me of the ‘Borg hives’ on Star Trek. The goal was “assimilating all species by incorporating their knowledge and technology into one Borg super collective”. None of us would ever desire to be part of that super powerful society for a simple reason: individuals lost their uniqueness, that is ‘the quality of being one of a kind’, i.e., different in some ways. Assimilation that does not retain the individuals identity is not only evil; it is doomed to failure in the long run.
• And, on the legal side of this, if a municipality accommodates some Muslim communities and issues a permit for a mosque to have the call to prayer, that is the municipality’s right (although I am not aware of any that did this in Missouri). If the council of elders is democratically elected, and feels comfortable giving their OK to that, then that is the stance they would like to face voters with in the next election. And that is called democracy in action.
• I am not even sure the reader Centrist is using that term “separation of church and state” correctly. Church bells ring every Sunday, and that is not violating the separation of church and state. The first amendment of the US Constitution states that “… Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. For a private business to make a free-will decision to establish footbaths for their Muslim clients, or employees, because the business owners feel morally good about being inclusive, or because it is good for their business, is a far cry from violating what the constitution enshrined in the first amendment. Any constitutional lawyer amongst the readers to chip in??

On a rather personally note, I am not a supporter of a dress code that covers the face. A big part of an individual’s identity is in the face. I am even sure I would not know how to communicate with someone covering their face. That is not just from the security point of view, but for many other practical reasons. The face communicates a lot more than words. My early medical training was in a Egypt at a time when some medical student started wearing niqab. The dean of medical school was decisive about it. If you wear a niqab, you were not allowed to get on the medical school campus. I am not aware of any women students that left medical school because of that. Niqab is not mandatory according to the very vast majority of Muslim scholars. It is actually forbidden during the most sacred of all Muslim events, Pilgrimage to the Holy Mosque in Mecca. It is still a very uncommon practice outside Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia were is it a dominant cultural habit to many, not a religious tradition. And therefore, many women stop wearing it when they are out of those countries.

Even in Iran, it is becoming less and less popular. For passports, drivers license, security Ids, and in courts of law the face must always show. If one woman wants to wear it in a West County grocery store, and the store does not have a problem with it, who am I to stop them?

Do I want wearing Niqab or burqa to be the law of the land for women here? NO.

The bottom line is this: this is a society where the rule of the law is king. If it is legal no one should expect others to change just to please the rest of us. But if Centrist’s argument is that this is a Christian Nation, and that only Christians should decide how it is run, then that is a violation of the first amendment. And that can be a topic for another post.

Khaled

[Note: The reader Centrist, in a second comment expressed deep unhappiness and disappointment that I did not respond right away to the comment. Since I am not a full time blogger or a journalist, and I am a full time professional, I will rarely be able to respond right away to comments (except to the most simple of questions). Other readers are welcome to participated in the discussion and have a dialog go on, but I will not oblige myself to respond in a particular time frame.Blogging is NOT about instant response. That is called instant messaging. I would rather take my time posting something that I put some thought into, than to response in a haste with a half-cooked one and a half sentences. Other bloggers may have the talent to do that and produce something good. This blogger does not. Sorry if anyone is disappointed. Khaled]

Tags: Cultural diversity, First Amendment, Islam, Islamic dress code, religious freedom

Jewish and Christian extremists must vigorously be exposed

A bit over 2 weeks ago I posted about about a fundamentalist Rabi inciting hate against Arabs in Palestine (see Jewish 'Mullah' Issues a racist 'Fatwa'). As usual, Becky Zoole contributed a very informative comment with useful links that I hope some of you followed. Part of her comment stated that

"... proper response is to refuse him the attention he desires, but to keep a close eye on his supporters. What's wrong is that whenever an equally lunatic fundamentalistic cleric who happens to be Muslim acts according to his nature, the Western world over-reacts."

I am completely in agreement with the spirit of her statements, but unfortunately, from a Muslim point of view, Extremist Jewish (and Christian) individuals and organizations need to be continually exposed as much as possible. They need to be held in the faces of the media and public as strongly as possible. Otherwise, the world view of the reality and the nature of extremism will continue to be what it is right now: unequivocally one-sided, and told only from an anti-Muslim point of view. And as I was contemplating how to approach a posting on the subject, I came a across an article in the New York times that 'broke the camel's back'.

The whole premise of the relentless anti-Muslim campaign is that Muslims are evil because they do things other humans (especially Christians and Jews) would not do. Moral supremacy of 'Judeo-Christian' culture is not, therefore, a racist concept; it is simply the fact of life.

The proof is out there for all to see: look at the 'news' every day: angry Screaming Mullahs, Evil Palestinians kidnapping innocent IDF soldiers, brain-washed Muslim children hurling stones at peaceful settlers. Muslims do all the bad things. The other side is civilized, well-versed in the rules of conduct, share the 'Judeo' part of out Judeo-Christian heritage, and more or less are, well ... like us.

Well, what do you think? Don't we need a balancing point of view?

• Rabbi Eliyahu: Life of one yeshiva boy worth more than 1,000 Arabs
• Rabbi endorses Jewish revenge attack
• In the newsletter, which was distributed to synagogues around the country, Eliyahu proposes "hanging the children of the terrorist who carried out the attack in the Mercaz Harav yeshiva from a tree."
• Safed's chief rabbi: State should have hanged 10 sons of terrorist
• Dichter to police: Demolish home of Jerusalem yeshiva terrorist
  

Some of you may think the bold red text color is 'too loud'. Of course it is loud, and loud we should be when be bring up Jewish and Christian fundamentalist to the spot light. So far, that have a free ride. They could get away with murder, but they never get the blame.
That pile of violent, uncivilized, racist statements did not catch the attention of many people. To most Americans, Israeli Jews have the right to get extremely angry at Arabs when 8 students are killed by a lone man. The call for revenge in the most horrible ways, inflicted on Arabs other than the murderer, is understandable even from a Rabbi; a man with official training and accreditation to interpret and advise the Jewish people. And that brings me to the New York times article that got me worked up.

What caught the attention of the NYT reporter was not what the fundamentalistic Jewish clerics have been saying and teaching in the occupied Palestinian lands and in Israel. what got the NYT attention was how Gaza people reacted to the massacre of 120 of their own in February 2008, over half of them civilians and children.
The title of the NYT article published on April 1, 2008 was to put it simply: obnoxiously annoying.

In Gaza, Hamas's Insults to Jews complicate Peace.

It is as if Palestinians do not even have the right to feel angry. Talking bad about Israel will not be tolerated by the civilized NYT journalist. To the NYT reader, this is yet another proof how Arabs and Muslims are 'so not cool'. No one, of course is claiming that the journalist is racist, bigoted or has blind and unconditional love for anything Israeli. And, because he is not an Arab nor a Muslim, no one will ever accuse him of having a hidden agenda. To most readers, he is just seeking the truth, and is just worried about prospects of peace.

The esteemed NYT journalist is worried because a Hamas guy is calling Israeli Jews “They have been traitors to all agreements ". The journalist states that "Incitement against Israel and Jews was supposed to be banned under the 1993 Oslo accords and the 2003 'road map' peace plan". He does not mention though that the worlds, including the US government complain repeatedly - but do not do anything more- about Israel not fulfilling term of these same agreements he is citing. He does not seem concerned that killing hundreds in Gaza over the last few months could be worse than 'incitement'. The media professional in the most influential newspaper in the world is concerned that Hamas may have "control over propaganda and education there, breeding longer-term problems for Israel, and for peace".

And I thought it could be that the occupation of the West bank is what complicates peace.
Or could it be that the siege of Gaza, and the lack of food and electricity is what complicates peace?
I even thought, in my little simple mind, that it may be the low flying fighter jets breaking sound barrier over small Arab towns by night, and the ongoing abuse of Palestinians at useless checkpoints in the west bank, or the on-going settlement expansion promised to the religious fundamentalist Shas party, or the thousands of the new houses advertised (for Jews only) in Arab East Jerusalem - I thought, all this may complicate peace. Stupid me!
But now that the wise man of the NYT has spoken, I can see the light.

With this kind of perception problems, putting one side's sins under the microscope, and sweeping the other side's sins under the carpet, do you think Muslims should stop paying attention to the other side's extremists?
As far as I am concerned, we should make every effort to show that our 'terrorist' extremists are not much worse than their government-tolerated, IDF-protected extremists.

Khaled

A Jewish American woman's struggles to help Palestinians

Anna in the Middle East

This is the name of a great website that Anna Baltzer has. Till few days ago, I did not who she was, and I saw her for the first time last Sunday. This Jewish American young woman, and a Fulbright Scholar, was giving a talk on the empowerment of Palestinian women, and the horror that all Palestinians suffer just to go through one more day in the hell of the Israeli occupation. Their resilience is amazing, and their determination is unbelievable, and is matched only by their hospitality.

I did not need to hear this from Anna Baltzer to realize it. I have always imagined it has to be the truth. How else would it be possible to maintain an identity, and win the hearts of millions that did not even know that your people existed? To be able to fight for a national homeland in the face of brutal occupation of unbelievable public relations mastery, that is supported blindly by the USA, Palestinians must be very special people. And it sure feels good hearing it from someone with first hand experience in Palestine.

Palestinians, like any other people, are not angels or saints. Some of them are even terrorists. But most importantly, they are collectively a great people of wonderful qualities, history and culture.
This is exactly how one would feel about Palestinians after attending the great presentation she gave in the United Methodist Church on Ladue street in Chesterfield, Missouri, arranged by St. Louis peace activist and member of the Women in Black Mrs. Betsy Hamra. The love Anna Baltzer have for Palestinians, out of her love for peace and justice, show in every sentence she uttered. This is not love from a distance, or based on a fantasy novel she read. She has actually lived with them for periods of time, seen their suffering first hand, and even learned their language to be able to know them with nobody interpreting for her their emotions and thoughts.

She showed a huge collection of pictures depicting Palestinian lives with great commentary, and she has many more on her web site photo section. She concluded with an emotional song that i will ask her if I can post in the future (if there are no copyright issues) on my blog. Many Muslim, Jewish and Christian attendees lined up afterwards to express how they felt about her presentation.

On a Sunday that concluded a gloomy week for any media observer with interest in the Israeli Palestinian conflict, her presentation and how she was received by the United Baptist Church community re-energized me.
There is a lot of good people still around. They just need to be lot louder than the bad ones.

Khaled

Parts of her presentation is available on Youtube, Here is a sample.



Links to Anna Baltzer's Web pages:

• Anna in the Middle East
• Anna's Eyewitness Reports from Palestine

For Anna's double-sided handout with facts and sources of information from her presentation click here.

Trying to find my Muslim voice

Last week I have not had a chance to put out new posts. Life was busy, and I was lucky to have my closest friends visit me in St. Louis for the first time in many years.
Several new posts will be coming out soon, but I want to let you know that today I have put out my first posting as a contributing blogger on the St. Louis Post dispatch 'Civil Religion' Blog.

Khaled Hamid forum is still my main blog, and its focus is different from the PD Religion blog. So, you will find several posting right here very soon. Actually, there is a lot I want to talk to you about.

For today, take a look at my first posting on the PD blog- finding my Muslim voice.
And, stay tuned for more on Khaled Hamid Forum.

khaled