A World Without Islam

Salaam and Peace to you all:
A friend emailed me about this article a few days ago. It is a worthwhile reading. Here is an abstract from the Foreign Policy web site

"..... A World Without Islam
By Graham E. Fuller	January/February 2008
Imagine, if you will, a world without Islam—admittedly an almost inconceivable state of affairs given its charged centrality in our daily news headlines. Islam seems to lie behind a broad range of international disorders: suicide attacks, car bombings, military occupations, resistance struggles, riots, fatwas, jihads, guerrilla warfare, threatening videos, and 9/11 itself. Why are these things taking place? “Islam” seems to offer an instant and uncomplicated analytical touchstone, enabling us to make sense of today’s convulsive world. Indeed, for some neoconservatives, “Islamofascism” is now our sworn foe in a looming “World War III.” But indulge me for a moment. What if there were no such thing as Islam? What if there had never been a Prophet Mohammed, no saga of the spread of Islam across vast parts of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa? Given our intense current focus on terrorism, war, and rampant antiAmericanism—some of the most emotional international issues of the day—it’s vital to understand the true sources of these crises. Is Islam, in fact, the source of the problem, or does it tend to lie with other less obvious and deeper factors? For the sake of argument, in an act of historical imagination, picture a Middle East in which Islam had never appeared. Would we then be spared many of the current challenges before us? Would the Middle East be more peaceful? How different might the character of EastWest relations be? Without Islam, surely the international order would present a very different picture than it does today. Or would it? IF NOT ISLAM, THEN WHAT? From the earliest days of a broader Middle East, Islam has seemingly shaped the cultural norms and.... ..."

The idea of a world without Islam is a 'comforting thought' to many, suggesting to me that they have no clue what on earth is going on, and that their knowledge of history. politics and religion is marginal at best. The author, on the other hand, argues that wiping Islam from the collective memory of mankind may not result in a dramatically different world today.

I tend to agree with the author, not because he is a former vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council at the CIA, but because I always strongly believed that most of the conflicts are fueled by economy and ethnicity rather than religion. Religion in political conflicts is just a useful banner to get the less educated, and more emotional recruits, who may not understand the economics underlying the 'need for war' or in fact may object to a war that has economic and/or ethnic basis, or a war for the sake of expanding the reach of a superpower. In other words, the greedy plan most of the wars, and the faithful fight it for them.

This does not mean that all wars are unjust, or that patriotism is foolish. There are definitely wars worth fighting, and causes worth dying for. But the majority of wars were also definitely fought for announced causes that did not reflect the full story.
Some of the wars that seemed well justified to many include the American Civil War, World Wars I & II, and even the current Afghanistan War. But examples for the less-well-justified wars are more abundant: the Crusades, the Ottoman conquests in Europe, American recruitment and support of Mujahedeen to fight godless Soviets in Afghanistan (1979-89), Western- and Arab-supported Iraq War against Iran (1980-88) , North-South war in Sudan (1983-2005), and finally the Iraq war with Neoconservatives getting Fundamentalist Christians to back it as part of the ultimate struggle between Evil Islam and Good Christianity, etc. The economic and ethnic components may differ in magnitude from one war to the other, but in all these cases, religious aspects were inflated by all sides to gain moral and material support, and to keep the war going on.
Anyway, I liked the article because it resonated with my thoughts. See what you think.

Khaled

Links:

• Foreign Policy Magazine (Abstract only - Full text if you are a subscriber)
• Very heated debate about the article in The Wall Street Journal blog site
• PDF with the full text of the article that I came across using Google Search.

A ‘Holy’ constitution: Part one

This is a follow up on a previous post that presented Mike Huckabee’s idea for a ‘Bible-inspired’ constitution for the US. A comment from ‘anonymous’ agreed with Huckabee suggesting that the US is a Christian Nation.

Is America a Christian nation?

A nation with Christian majority: yes; a Christian Nation: NO.

The notion of the US being a Christian Nation is just an illusion in the minds of hyper-religious individuals, living in a circle of like-minded people, who are totally oblivious to the real world, and how diverse it is.

Most Americans are part of a religious group for predominantly social and cultural purposes. Religion forms only a minor part of the daily drive and behavior of a large number of Americans. Recite the Ten Commandments, and the Sermon on the Mount, then take a good look around you. Does this look like a society that makes God’s words a part of its everyday life?

Within American Christians there is a lot of diversity, and beyond few core theological ideas (e.g., Divinity of Christ and Trinity) there are not many governance and legal concepts that a majority of Christians agree upon. Abortion, gay rights, war, social justice, immigration, definition of marriage, right to end life, welfare, healthcare, education, tax code, etc, are all issues that testify to the political diversity of American Christians. I know that some hard-core Christian conservatives will say all these divisions and social problems are modern, and are probably caused by ‘liberals and their godless agendas’, but one need only to remind them that deeply religious American Christians fought on both sides of the battles over ending slavery, suffrage movement and racial civil right. One each side were devoted Christians who believed that God’s words were in total agreement of what they were fighting for.

Is a ‘Holy’ Constitution even a viable idea?

Adherence to one ‘political’ interpretation of the Bible puts anyone at odds with as many American Christians as it would with non-Christians. Most American Christians may not even be comfortable having their own faith ‘codified and integrated in a political framework’. They believe because this is what they want to do, not because it is the law of the land. From a personal experience, and regardless of their religious affiliation, the majority of people would rather live in a ‘godless’ society that gives them the freedom to believe in God their own way, than to live in a Holy-book ruled society that forces them to believe in God in a way that is even slightly different from what they are personally comfortable with.

Our founding fathers lived at a time when less religious diversity existed in America, and there could have been less resistance to including some faith-based articles in the constitution, but they did not go that route. They appreciated that, in the long run, a faith-based constitution would end up more divisive than having full separation between church and state. Practically, I think they probably would not have been able to agree on any single faith-base constitutional article either.

If we were stuck with a religious constitution, that constitution would have been like a yoyo, swinging from one extreme to another every 20-30 years. Could you imagine the people of fifties and sixties abiding by the constitution that the Prohibitionists lived by? Can the ‘Huckabees’ of our time honor and respect the constitution that the hippies lived by?

The constitution would have lost the ‘semi-sacred’ status that binds Americans around it today. Constitutional disputes would have not been settled in the Supreme Court but in bloody battle fields all over this country. A holy constitution would have repeatedly split Americans into two nations, one believing in ‘the Biblical constitution de jour’, and another nation that has a constitution like our current one. Bloodshed would have been inevitable. And as we have learned from the Crusades, the Inquisitions, and from modern day fundamentalist fanatics here and overseas, defending the word of God gets ‘the soldiers of God’ a little bit too excited. After all, they are always at peace with what they inflict on us because they only want us to see the light; they only want to save our souls. The arrogance that comes from thinking that only you know what God wants, leads one to believe they know what is good for every body else.

If we did not have the wise founding father we had, we would have had a couple more centuries of bloody fighting and suffering and, finally, we would have had ended up exactly where we are today, with a great constitution that separates church and state. A religion-based constitution will self-destruct no matter what religion or holy book becomes the basis for that constitution.

Please spare us the suffering. God’s place is not in the Constitution. It is in our hearts. God gently steers us in the right direction, not coerce us on it. The path to salvation is a personal choice, not a national policy.

Khaled

Barack the non-Muslim

I went to Obama's headquarters and picked up a yard sign and a bumper sticker yesterday. In the old days, these were free, but now you have to pay. I'll be supportive of whomever gets the nomination, but Obama is my main man. I think that he has the best chance to heal this country and get past all the old fights that have grown so tiresome. I'll write more about Obama later, insha Allah.

But I wanted to bring up the issue of Barack's denouncement of emails that claim he is a closet Muslim. Apparently, these emails treat Barack as a Manchurian candidate who was brainwashed at a "madrassa" in Indonesia as a child. They also claim that Barack has a brother named Roy who is a Muslim (this is the first that I heard that).

The media loves this storyline. On CNN the other night, they had a big banner - Obama vehemently denies that he is a Muslim. And everyone in the media seems to equate being Muslim as being a pedophile or being a Communist (i.e., something to be loathed). It angers me greatly.

I have seen some Muslim bloggers tackle the issue. Sheila Musaji raised the issue a few weeks ago, wondering " Is the “M” word the new "N" word? And, is it “politically” correct to use it disparagingly. Was the “Muslim” word more insulting to Obama than using the “N” word would have been?" Umar Lee wrote a hypothetical response as to how he wished Barack would respond to the "Barack is a Muslim" meme. This apparently caused quite a stir when people thought it was Barack's real response.

Now, though, the issue of whether Muslims should be insulted that everyone is equating being a Muslim as something undesirable is coming to the fore. Garry Trudeau had a nice cartoon recently addressing the issue. And the Chicago Tribune's religion writer had a nice take on it on her blog:

The repeated and false claims that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is a closet Muslim have prompted the candidate to reiterate that he is a committed Christian.

But he stops short of saying that being Muslim wouldn’t be a bad thing. In addition to setting the record straight about his own faith, should Obama also give a shout-out to his Muslim brothers and sisters and defend Islam?

Some say that if Barack defends Islam, the Republican noise machine will use it as "proof" that he is in fact a closet Muslim. I wish he would stand together with Muslim Americans, but I have been through enough elections to be a bit more practical about these types of issues to focus on the bigger picture and that is to get Obama elected than to be upset over what is in essence, a minor point. I just ask myself, will Obama be better for the Muslims than Hillary or McCain or the others? I think that answer is very clearly yes.

‘Fixing’ the Constitution

Salaam and Peace to you all:

Over the past several months, the Republican presidential candidate Huckabee made several references to his idea regarding our American constitution. In a nut shell, the US constitution needs to be amended and repaired to in line with God’s word in the Bible [Read more about this].

[this video was added after initial posting date, for viewers convenience]

It is an interesting and thought provoking idea. After all, in a democratic country the majority has the final say on how the country is run. So, if he wins, and he gets support from the Congress, he can submit to the people of the USA a referendum to change the Constitution.

As a believer in God, that puts me, and many other Muslims, in a strange position. Should an American Muslim feel comfortable with a change in our constitution in a more 'Godly' direction? I know that some Muslim groups in the south showed support for public portrayal of the Ten Commandments in government offices 2 years ago. there is also some Muslims that support Huckabee [Click here for an example]. How would these Muslims feel about a ‘Bible-conforming’ constitution. Is that better than a ‘godless’ Constitution? Would it make any difference that Huckabee has less than friendly views of other religious beliefs, and some of his major advisors are definitely not Muslim-friendly [see this article] and some are downright contemptuous of Muslims [The Real Huckabee, The Nation, Issue 1/28/08].

Would it be even ‘democratic’ to change the Constitution in that direction?

khaled

Leadership revisited - Eid prayer in our community

Disclaimer: It is not my intention to pick on any of our local St. Louis religious leadership in this post. I know several - if not all - of them to some extent, and I do have great respect for all of them. I am not saying anything here that I would not say to any of them to their face. If any of them reads this post, their response will be posted as as - no editing and no censorship.

Salaam and Peace to you all:

As I alluded to in my last post leadership, especially in a minority community, should aim as creating some sense of unity and common destiny in its followers. With the diversity we see in the Muslim community: ethnic, generational, economic, religious practices (jurisprudence schools, adherence , etc) it is mandated on any figure in leadership position to reach out to other and ‘different' groups to try to work out obstacles in the way of creating a sense of common destiny. This does not mean compromising core beliefs, but it means having enough religious and practical knowledge to bridge gaps and create a feeling that we are one body - if a limb is sick, the rest of the body responds with fever and aches. After all, out Prophet, peace be upon him, has taught us that explicitly.

Their religious knowledge should also let them prioritize issues properly. Unity of the community should take precedence over minor jurisprudence issues that do not tarnish core beliefs.

Now, we move to the Eid prayer issue. In this city (St. Louis), our last Eid (Feast of Sacrifice, at the end of Pilgrimage) was celebrated on 3 different days. Those who celebrated it on the same day, did that in total isolation from many others celebrating on the same day. It felt that we have absolutely no sense that there is one Muslim community in this city- what a horrible symbol we set for ourselves, and our children.

Many young Muslims cerebrated with their families, while their closest friends celebrated on a different day altogether. The number of the congregants was smaller than it should have been. What is worse, each congregation had a strong 'ethnic' tint - another blow to our prestige and self respect. I have not talked to any Muslim since then that did not have some bad taste regarding what happened on one of our two only Muslim festivities.

I am sure all the decision-making religious leadership has acted in good intentions, and had some good reasons, in their own mind at least. But the bad taste in my mouth tells me that good intentions and religious knowledge did not help achieve the ultimate goal of Muslims: feeling like one.

Good leadership does not only need knowledge. More importantly, it needs the ability to use the knowledge to know what and when to compromise. It needs the ability to go to its followers and tell them that we need to compromise a minor issue that we may be comfortable with, for a greater goal - unity of the area Muslims in this case. The clergy in this town need to get together and help promote the feeling of our oneness regardless of race, economics, Sunnah/Shi'a affiliations, etc.

If the religiously-knowledgeable educated leadership cannot bring itself to do that, how on God's earth could the rest of us do it ????

Khaled

Leadership in the Muslim community

Salaam and Peace to you all:

I have frequently been part of discussions about leadership of the Muslim community. This morning, as I listened to the radio, the show mentioned the leadership of the African Americans in the context of the recent election issues. For a second I was not sure that American Muslims have any leadership to speak about.

To me, a leader is the one who knows about the community, has a strategy and long term goals, senses where the heart and the mind of the community is, then takes the lead in making things happen to bring their community a bit closed to where the communities goals are. Leader should also feel accountable and be accountable to their communities when they fail. They must have a vision for their communities, and may try to effect cultural changes in their communities that may lead to the overall success in the long run. For the Muslim community some of these cultural changes may include: political activism, awareness of individual's civil rights, voting, civic activities participation, and awareness and responsiveness to Muslim community at large with some sense of unity and common destiny.

For the Muslims of America, there is a couple of organizations that have achieved some national status: ISNA (Islamic society of North America) and CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) are the ones that come to my mind, and while both have done a lot for the community, CAIR seems to be the only one that have achieved some change in the status of Muslims in the US. Whether at the national level, or the local level, and even when CAIR chapters are run by less than a handful of volunteers, they managed to have an impact on the status of Muslims in the US. CAIR has been considered a formidable advocate and representative of American Muslims to the extend that it has been in the cross hair of many anti-Muslim organizations and a primary target for their slander and hostility - an indirect proof of CAIR's effectiveness, and rising significance.

Despite their small numbers, CAIR volunteers seem a lot more effective than most other Muslim organizations which may be attributed to a well defined mission with clear goals (defending civil rights of Muslims together with educating the public about Islam whenever possible). They also have generally be very independent in setting their goals and mode of operation from the more traditional control figures. Their goals, however, do not require ongoing communication with the Muslim community at large on regular basis. CAIR is an effective advocacy group but, by my earlier definition of leadership, may no be a leadership organization.

While it may be untrue in some places, the presence of ISNA was not much felt in two American Muslims communities that I lived in. ISNA did not seem to be any noticeable presence or control, and is rarely a factor in deciding anything within an American Muslim community. There presence in the media is a lot more limited, compared with CAIR despite wider membership and more abundant resources. For me, ISNA never came across as a leadership organization that impacted me or my community significantly.

What about local leadership:, imams, Shura Council members, Mosque Boards chairpersons, not only in St. Louis, but across the US? Should I/we be expecting leadership in its big sense from them? Are they even capable of representing Muslims in their communities? or are they just managing the Mosques and the religious education activities? Should we even look up to them for leadership in the larger sense of the word?

These are questions for which I have some answers based on my personal experiences. And, to put it nicely, the picture does not look very rosy to me. But, with my limited experience, it is not fair to generalize. Any one out their with more thoughts, or more experience with the Muslim community leadership?

khaled

First Posting: Goals and Rules

Salaam /Peace to you all:

I am hoping this will be a place where we can talk about issues relevant to the Muslim community in America and Canada freely, and respectfully. Muslims and non-Muslims are all welcome to suggest topics and participate in a vigorous and productive discussion.

While any topic is welcome, there has to be some reason why that topic is relevant to Muslims. Any idea will be open to discussion with the goal of better understanding of our own thoughts, and better understanding of the others, Muslims and non-Muslims.
This forum will be moderated, and censored if necessary. Ideas will not be censored, and any and all of the following will shamelessly be censored:

• Racist opinions and comments
• Proselytizing, preaching, or attempting to convert anyone from any belief to any other belief.
  
• Slanders and obscenities.
  
• Global insults to a religion, ethnicity, race, etc.
• Personal insult to identifiable individual (great latitude will be granted to criticism of any and all)
  
• Comments without obvious goal other than incitement or provocation of hatred.
• Explicit denial of obvious facts (e.g., existence of a country or a people), or denial of established historic facts.
• Others as may seem reasonable.
• Frivolous topics and comments of no conceivable practical value
  

I believe that even the most opposing opinions can always be discussed with frankness, decency and civility. I will do my best to maintain such standards without restricting the freedom of discussion.
Khaled