An interesting question and answer about some relevant issues today...
> Greetings:
> I have been reading several articles you wrote on the Islam For Today
> website and I'm interested in learning a little more of your views on
> the issue of Islamic extremism. I have seen that several authors have
> described moderate Muslims as lost to complete Westernization; would
> this be a fair characterization or is there some middle ground? What
> sort of beliefs characterize a adherent to Islam who is neither
> hard-line nor virtually secular? I've also seen some discussion of the
> roots of such extremism and the bad fruit produced from it. What kind
> of beliefs and which sects are producing such things? Wahhabbism seems
> to get blamed a lot, I don't fully understand the difference or why it
> is blamed. Last, I'm wondering what sort of recourse there is to
> reclaim Islam from such an end. The consensus seems to be that
> educating both Muslims and non-Muslims is key to changing the Western
> perception that Islam is violent; does that seem to be the best option?
> Thanks very much for taking time to answer my questions. Please let
> me know if I need to clarify in any way.
> Michael
>
>
Michael...
Thank you for taking interest in my articles. I hope they were of some use
to you.
Yes, this is a very confusing issue actually, because of all the varying and
different opinions about it out there. The biggest problem with this issue
of "extremist", "moderate", "liberal," etc., starts with definitions.
Westerners (I am also one so I include myself in this category!) like to
apply typically western labels to Islam, which often don't fit. For example,
the term fundamentalist was originally a term used for far-right Christian
groups and connotes a certain type of "reject the world" brand of
Christianity. However, it has become synonymous with Muslim terrorists
(please don't ever use the label "Islamic terrorists" because this is an
oxymoron. Nothing in Islam can be associated with terrorism, however with
Muslims, unfortunately, it can be).
So we have this problem of definitions. Fundamentalist means one who follows
the fundamental teachings of the religion. MOst practicing Muslims - whether
extremist or liberal - believe they are following the fundamental teachings
of the religion. So, in essence, we are all fundamentalists! So there is the
this initial probelm with definitions.
Greetings:
> I have been reading several articles you wrote on the Islam For Today
> website and I'm interested in learning a little more of your views on
> the issue of Islamic extremism. I have seen that several authors have
> described moderate Muslims as lost to complete Westernization; would
> this be a fair characterization or is there some middle ground?
No, this is not a fair characterization. First off, what does that mean -
lost to complete Westernization? What aspects of westernization? The dress?
The culture - if you say culture, what aspects of the culture? We have to be
more specific when we make that claim, because Islam is not a culture, it is
a religion based on worship of God alone. The law in Islam, the shari'ah,
connotes in arabic - 'a wide road', meaning that the law itself is quite
flexible. But it is not a law that can be made up by oneself but must be
followed. See as Muslims we believe that it is not the divine that must
adapt to the human being, but the human being that must mold himself
according to the will of the divine -- this is how human beings perfect
themselves, by literally making themselves "godly", thus, the essence of
Islam -- the striving for self-perfection. The models of that
self-perfection are the prophets of God - Adam, Abraham, Noah, Jesus, Moses,
etc., culminating in the final prophecy of Muhammad.
What
> sort of beliefs characterize a adherent to Islam who is neither
> hard-line nor virtually secular? I've also seen some discussion of the
> roots of such extremism and the bad fruit produced from it. What kind
> of beliefs and which sects are producing such things? Wahhabbism seems
> to get blamed a lot, I don't fully understand the difference or why it
> is blamed.
There is no extremism in Islam. There is extremism among Muslims, but Islam
cannot have extremism because by defiintion it is a middle path. God says in
the Qur'an "Thus have we made of you an Ummah (community) justly balanced,
that you might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness
over yourselves." Here, the Muslims are given their task of essentially
being the voice of reason between the extremes. Now, clearly, Muslims in the
current age are not living up to their historical role as a middle nation
and a witness, however, we must always make sure that we separate Islam and
Muslims. Islam is a perfect way of life, complete and fully sufficient as a
solution to all of humanity's problems. Muslims, however, we are human and
prone to error. Islam is a tool, if it is used and adhered to correctly, the
results will speak for themselves, however, we cannot equate these two -
because one is a religion and one is a people that may or may not apply that
religion correctly.
Fundamentalists usually lack the correct knowledge of Islam because of the
way they were taught. They are usually taught nothing but law, and almost
always come from one of the sects associated with Wahhabism. Wahhabism has
bred violence since its early days, but even going back almost to the
beginning of Islam there has been this extremist faction who the Prophet
vehemently condemned and warned about. His warning was so severe about these
people because he knew the damage they were capable of. The worst enemy is
always the one from within! Essentially, traditional Islam - true, moderate
Islam is that which has been passed down from the Prophet to his companions
to the generations of pious scholars, followed by the majority of the Muslim
community. This is known as the ahl sunnah wal jama'at (people of the way of
the Prophet and the majority of his followers, ( or something of the
like...) ). This group, the majority, is made up of what evolved in the
early years of Islam into 4 schools of Islamic jurisprudence, or what this
majority bases their practice of the religion on - all going back to the
correct teachings from the Qur'an and the Prophet's life, which is the
"living Qur'an" or the Qur'anic example. So this is the moderate majority of
Muslims which is still moderate, and still following these 4 schools of law.
However, Wahhabism, which is based on the heretical teachings of a man named
Muhammad Abdul-Wahhab, essentially came and declared war on this main group
of Muslims claiming that most of them were polytheists. He also said that
Muslims didn't have to follow the 4 schools and essentially could interpret
everything how they saw fit, which actually meant only following their
scholars. This is a source of extermism b/c it is a break from the moderate
way of the Prophet and his companions and followers. It is a break from
sound and authentic knowledge and prone to aberration. There are other
factors involved in extremism and it is a very complex issue, I am just
mentioning one of the major factors here...
Last, I'm wondering what sort of recourse there is to
> reclaim Islam from such an end. The consensus seems to be that
> educating both Muslims and non-Muslims is key to changing the Western
> perception that Islam is violent; does that seem to be the best option?
The way to reclaim Islam must come from Muslims, but the West can help. The
West has for so long supported Wahhabism, which ultimately comes back to
bite them. The Saudis for example, are the main exporters of
Wahhabism around the world without a doubt. This is their brand of Islam and
although not all Wahhabi's are violent, it is their teachings that provide
the fuel and justification for violence. Yes, education is also important,
but more importantly Muslims have to be re-educated about their own
teachings, following the traditional ahl sunnah wal jama'at body of
knowledge. Moreover, Muslims must stop focusing so much on legalist aspects
of our faith and focus more on the spiritual aspects and get back to doing
the work of self-perfection, namely, tasawwuf (Sufism). This is only my
opinion of course, but this is what I see as important steps.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Friday, November 26, 2010
Is Islam Peaceful or Harsh? Abrogation and the Verse of the Sword...
This is another entry about the dire importance of scholarship today to understand things in their proper context. The following is an excerpt from a question to Ustadh Faraz A. Khan about abrogation, and specifically in reference to the famous 'verse of the sword.' The answer is poetic and enlightening, and incredibly important given the number of accusations today about Islam being a violent religion based on certain hadith that are not properly understood....
"This question is of course far too broad to be addressed in this discussion, but perhaps it is sufficient to examine the three verses dealing with peace that you mention in your question.
1) “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for Allah loveth not transgressors.” (2:190)
In his Qur’anic exegesis, Imam Fakhr al-Din Razi rejects the opinion that this verse was abrogated, and interprets the phrase “do not transgress limits” as a timeless prohibition of breaking covenants, deception, or attacking non-combatants such as women, children, or the elderly. This interpretation of “trangression” is affirmed by major commentators of the Qur’an, such as Imam Biqa`i, who adds under trangression “to continue fighting with a people that want to make peace, even though they had initiated fighting in the first place.”
[Razi, Mafatih al-Ghayb; Biqa`i, Nadhm al-Durar]
2) “But if the enemy inclines towards peace, you too incline towards peace.” (8:61)
The great exegete Imam Zamakhshari denies that this verse was abrogated, as many claimed. Imam Biqa`i also interprets the verse as applicable to all times.
[Zamakhshari, Kashshaf; Biqa`i, Nadhm al-Durar]
It is also important to keep in mind what we mentioned above, namely, that many of the early Muslims [salaf] that understood the verses of fighting as abrogators of the verses of peace did so based on a very broad definition of abrogation, which would include specification or limiting general verses or making exceptions to general verses. And many later scholars would often simply cite those early Muslims as stating that such-and-such was “abrogated.” The intent was not that the earlier verses of peace had no application anymore, but rather that their application was no longer broad and general for all situations. This is why several later scholars [as we have seen] rejected the notion of abrogation of these verses, based on their more formal definition of “complete annulment of a legal ruling,” which certainly is not the case with verses of peace.
This also sheds light as to what our illustrious early Imams might have meant with statements such as, “No one is allowed to give explanation [tafsir] of the Book of Allah until they understand abrogation.” That is, unless they understand which verses serve to limit the scope of other verses, specify the generality of other verses, make exceptions to other verses, and completely annul the rulings of other verses. It is no wonder, then, that commentary on the Qur’an was not allowed without understanding this very broad meaning of “abrogation.”
3) “There is no compulsion in religion.” (2:256): The concept that this verse was abrogated is directly related to the understanding - or misunderstanding - of the following hadith.
“I was ordered to fight people…”
One well-known hadith that is often misunderstood is as follows:
“I was ordered to fight people until they bear witness that there is no deity except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; establish the ritual prayer; and pay almsgiving. So if they do that, their lives and wealth are safe from me, except for a right recognized in Islam. Their accounting, however, will be with Allah.” [Bukhari, Muslim]
Unfortunately, this text is often grossly misinterpreted as calling for continuous “holy war” against all non-Muslims until and unless they become Muslim. But examination of context and scholarly interpretation reveals that the hadith by no means refers to all people and is not calling for any sort of war, holy or unholy. The key to understanding the hadith, then, is to understand who exactly is meant by the word “people” in the statement, “I was ordered to fight people.”
This same hadith has various narrations as recorded by different hadith scholars. Imam Nasa’i’s narration reads: “I was ordered to fight the polytheists” rather than the word “people,” and it is an established principle in hadith methodology that various narrations of the same hadith serve to clarify its actual meaning. Hence, the narration of Imam Nasa’i indicates that the word “people” in the first narration does not refer to all people, but rather a specific group of people, namely, certain polytheists. This understanding is confirmed by both the Qur’an and the Sunna, as many incidents in the life of the Prophet [peace and blessings be upon him] clearly show that all of humanity was not intended in the hadith.
This understanding is also confirmed by our codified legal tradition, which is a reflection of the Qur’an and Sunna. Imam Abu Hanifa and his legal school limited this hadith to only the polytheists among the Arabs. And Imam Malik and his legal school limited it to only the Quraysh tribe among them. [Ibn Battal, Sharh al-Bukhari]
That is to say, according to both schools of law, all non-Arabs are excluded from the hadith - whether polytheists, atheists, Jews, Christians, or otherwise. Among the Arabs, any group that does not worship idols are also excluded, whether Jews, Christians, Magians, or otherwise. Only Arab polytheists - or perhaps just the tribe of Quraysh among them - were being addressed by the Messenger [peace and blessings be upon him]. Incidentally, the Hanafi and Maliki schools historically and up to today have constituted the vast majority of the Muslim world.
Imam Kasani, the eminent 6th-century Hanafi jurist, explains that the reasoning of this position is based on the difference between Arab polytheists and all other peoples, including People of the Book [i.e., Jews and Christians, Arab or non-Arab] and non-Arab polytheists. With respect to peoples other than Arab polytheists, it is hoped that by mutual coexistence between them and Muslims, they will be drawn to Islam after reflecting over the beauty of the religion and its Sacred Law [shari'a]. [f: And that hope is sufficient; whether they become Muslim or not is irrelevant to the Hanafi and Maliki perspective that they are not addressed by the hadith.]
The nature of Arab polytheists, however, was to reject anything that conflicted with their customs and traditions, deeming all else to be madness and worthy of scornful ridicule. They were a people - as repeatedly mentioned in the Qur’an - that refused to reflect over anything but “the ways of their forefathers.” Therefore, because the Messenger of Allah [peace and blessings be upon him] was from their same tribe and knew them intimately, he gave them no option but acceptance of Islam or fighting [f: And this statement, of course, was after years of being oppressed by those Arab polytheists].
[Kasani, Bada'i al-Sana'i]
The great early Hanafi jurist and legal theorist, Abu Bakr al-Jassas, confirms this understanding with respect to both the above hadith as well as the related verse, “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256). In fact, he states that all the early Meccan verses of peace and forbearance with respect to non-Muslims remain in effect and are not abrogated with respect to all peoples other than the Arab polytheists. And with respect to all the later verses commanding Muslims to fight the polytheists, they abrogate the early verses of peace only with respect to the Arab polytheists.
This understanding is also confirmed by the early Hanafi scholar Abu Layth al-Samarqandi, who comments on the verse “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256), “That is, do not compel anyone whatsoever to this religion, after the Conquest of Mecca and after the Arabs become Muslim [i.e., the Arab polytheists of that time].”
[Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur'an; Samarqandi, Bahr al-Ulum]
"This question is of course far too broad to be addressed in this discussion, but perhaps it is sufficient to examine the three verses dealing with peace that you mention in your question.
1) “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for Allah loveth not transgressors.” (2:190)
In his Qur’anic exegesis, Imam Fakhr al-Din Razi rejects the opinion that this verse was abrogated, and interprets the phrase “do not transgress limits” as a timeless prohibition of breaking covenants, deception, or attacking non-combatants such as women, children, or the elderly. This interpretation of “trangression” is affirmed by major commentators of the Qur’an, such as Imam Biqa`i, who adds under trangression “to continue fighting with a people that want to make peace, even though they had initiated fighting in the first place.”
[Razi, Mafatih al-Ghayb; Biqa`i, Nadhm al-Durar]
2) “But if the enemy inclines towards peace, you too incline towards peace.” (8:61)
The great exegete Imam Zamakhshari denies that this verse was abrogated, as many claimed. Imam Biqa`i also interprets the verse as applicable to all times.
[Zamakhshari, Kashshaf; Biqa`i, Nadhm al-Durar]
It is also important to keep in mind what we mentioned above, namely, that many of the early Muslims [salaf] that understood the verses of fighting as abrogators of the verses of peace did so based on a very broad definition of abrogation, which would include specification or limiting general verses or making exceptions to general verses. And many later scholars would often simply cite those early Muslims as stating that such-and-such was “abrogated.” The intent was not that the earlier verses of peace had no application anymore, but rather that their application was no longer broad and general for all situations. This is why several later scholars [as we have seen] rejected the notion of abrogation of these verses, based on their more formal definition of “complete annulment of a legal ruling,” which certainly is not the case with verses of peace.
This also sheds light as to what our illustrious early Imams might have meant with statements such as, “No one is allowed to give explanation [tafsir] of the Book of Allah until they understand abrogation.” That is, unless they understand which verses serve to limit the scope of other verses, specify the generality of other verses, make exceptions to other verses, and completely annul the rulings of other verses. It is no wonder, then, that commentary on the Qur’an was not allowed without understanding this very broad meaning of “abrogation.”
3) “There is no compulsion in religion.” (2:256): The concept that this verse was abrogated is directly related to the understanding - or misunderstanding - of the following hadith.
“I was ordered to fight people…”
One well-known hadith that is often misunderstood is as follows:
“I was ordered to fight people until they bear witness that there is no deity except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; establish the ritual prayer; and pay almsgiving. So if they do that, their lives and wealth are safe from me, except for a right recognized in Islam. Their accounting, however, will be with Allah.” [Bukhari, Muslim]
Unfortunately, this text is often grossly misinterpreted as calling for continuous “holy war” against all non-Muslims until and unless they become Muslim. But examination of context and scholarly interpretation reveals that the hadith by no means refers to all people and is not calling for any sort of war, holy or unholy. The key to understanding the hadith, then, is to understand who exactly is meant by the word “people” in the statement, “I was ordered to fight people.”
This same hadith has various narrations as recorded by different hadith scholars. Imam Nasa’i’s narration reads: “I was ordered to fight the polytheists” rather than the word “people,” and it is an established principle in hadith methodology that various narrations of the same hadith serve to clarify its actual meaning. Hence, the narration of Imam Nasa’i indicates that the word “people” in the first narration does not refer to all people, but rather a specific group of people, namely, certain polytheists. This understanding is confirmed by both the Qur’an and the Sunna, as many incidents in the life of the Prophet [peace and blessings be upon him] clearly show that all of humanity was not intended in the hadith.
This understanding is also confirmed by our codified legal tradition, which is a reflection of the Qur’an and Sunna. Imam Abu Hanifa and his legal school limited this hadith to only the polytheists among the Arabs. And Imam Malik and his legal school limited it to only the Quraysh tribe among them. [Ibn Battal, Sharh al-Bukhari]
That is to say, according to both schools of law, all non-Arabs are excluded from the hadith - whether polytheists, atheists, Jews, Christians, or otherwise. Among the Arabs, any group that does not worship idols are also excluded, whether Jews, Christians, Magians, or otherwise. Only Arab polytheists - or perhaps just the tribe of Quraysh among them - were being addressed by the Messenger [peace and blessings be upon him]. Incidentally, the Hanafi and Maliki schools historically and up to today have constituted the vast majority of the Muslim world.
Imam Kasani, the eminent 6th-century Hanafi jurist, explains that the reasoning of this position is based on the difference between Arab polytheists and all other peoples, including People of the Book [i.e., Jews and Christians, Arab or non-Arab] and non-Arab polytheists. With respect to peoples other than Arab polytheists, it is hoped that by mutual coexistence between them and Muslims, they will be drawn to Islam after reflecting over the beauty of the religion and its Sacred Law [shari'a]. [f: And that hope is sufficient; whether they become Muslim or not is irrelevant to the Hanafi and Maliki perspective that they are not addressed by the hadith.]
The nature of Arab polytheists, however, was to reject anything that conflicted with their customs and traditions, deeming all else to be madness and worthy of scornful ridicule. They were a people - as repeatedly mentioned in the Qur’an - that refused to reflect over anything but “the ways of their forefathers.” Therefore, because the Messenger of Allah [peace and blessings be upon him] was from their same tribe and knew them intimately, he gave them no option but acceptance of Islam or fighting [f: And this statement, of course, was after years of being oppressed by those Arab polytheists].
[Kasani, Bada'i al-Sana'i]
The great early Hanafi jurist and legal theorist, Abu Bakr al-Jassas, confirms this understanding with respect to both the above hadith as well as the related verse, “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256). In fact, he states that all the early Meccan verses of peace and forbearance with respect to non-Muslims remain in effect and are not abrogated with respect to all peoples other than the Arab polytheists. And with respect to all the later verses commanding Muslims to fight the polytheists, they abrogate the early verses of peace only with respect to the Arab polytheists.
This understanding is also confirmed by the early Hanafi scholar Abu Layth al-Samarqandi, who comments on the verse “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256), “That is, do not compel anyone whatsoever to this religion, after the Conquest of Mecca and after the Arabs become Muslim [i.e., the Arab polytheists of that time].”
[Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur'an; Samarqandi, Bahr al-Ulum]
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Islam, God and the shining light of love
by William C Chittick
Source: The Huffington Post
Nov 23 2010
“God is love,” the New Testament teaches, and Muslim theologians would respond, “But of course.” The problem is that we are not God. As Jesus said, “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God ” (Mark 10:18). There is no authentic love but one, that is, God. This is tawhid, the assertion of divine unity that is the foundation of Islamic thought.
Religious discussions of love sometimes address how it descends from its divine status and intermingles with human affairs. In any case, everyone recognizes its attractive power, even if they disagree as to what it is and where it comes from. Rumi mentions the two extremes of disagreement in the verse,
For the elect, love is a tremendous eternal light,
for the common people, love is form and appetite. (Divan 18197)
“The elect and the common people” is an expression used in all branches of Islamic learning to distinguish between the experts and the uninformed. For Rumi, the experts are the prophets and saints.
To think that love is “form and appetite” is to imagine that it derives from the realm of sense perception and biological processes. Rumi has nothing against form and appetite, but he sees the distinctiveness of human nature to lie in its openness to the tremendous eternal light.
“Eternal” (qadim) means unchanging. The word is contrasted with “newly arrived” (muhdath), which means dwelling under the sway of time and alteration. God is eternal, and everything other than God — the universe and all it contains — fades away. We change, the eternal light stays the same. We have the appearance of reality, but every appearance disappears.
The Quran says that God is “the light of the heavens and the earth” (24:35). The heavens are the high realms of spiritual beings (such as angels and souls), and the earth is the low realm of bodily things. Nothing appears without light. The more intense the light, however, the more difficult it is to see, which explains why the spiritual realm is invisible. No one can imagine the upper limit of physical light, much less that of nonphysical light, which is the consciousness that animates the heavens and the earth.
Spiritual traditions speak of ascending levels of nonphysical illumination, beginning with the obscure sparkles that typify everyday awareness and culminating in the infinite light of the eternal Self. In the Quran’s retelling of the story of Moses and the Burning Bush, the light said, “I indeed am God; there is no god but I” (20:14): There is no god but God’s very Self, the light of the heavens and the earth.
Rumi’s verse, in short, refers to the axiom of tawhid, the fact that there is no true light but the divine light and no true love but the divine love. Everything in heaven and earth is the reverberation of the loving light. Each thing arrives newly and departs just as quickly. In relation to the universe, God is like the moon in relation to flowing water. As Rumi puts it,
The creatures are like water, limpid and pure,
shining therein the attributes of the majestic God…
Ages have passed, and this is a new age.
The moon is the same, but the water is not.
(Mathnawi 6: 3172, 3175)
Our scientific worldview is rooted in the measurable, but love and God are immeasurable. Scientific theories that speak of love naturally tend to agree with Rumi’s common people: Love is form and appetite, feeling and emotion, impulses in the brain — all these can be measured. The Quranic and Biblical worldviews see love as none other than the only reality that truly is. The word “reality,” of course, fails to stir the heart, and “love” calls for commitment. Those who answer the call can transform themselves and the world.
Among the many mentions of love in the Quran, the favourite verse of love-theorists is this: “He loves them, and they love Him” (5:54). This verse puts the Islamic worldview in a nutshell: God brought the universe into existence because of his love for human beings. Human beings fulfil their calling by loving God.
The radiance of love’s eternal light gives rise to the universe. The goal of love is to overcome separation, to bridge gaps, to bring the two lovers together as one. If love is to do its work, people must recognize the light and love it in return.
“He loves them” brought them into existence. Their recognition of the light feeds “They love Him.” Once love intervenes, form and appetite lose their lustre.
The final goal of lovers is to join the shining light at its source. The power that works this transformation is love. One of the many Quranic names of God is “friend” (wali), an Arabic word that combines the senses of “lover” and “helper.” Both meanings can be seen in the verse, “God is the friend of those who have faith. He brings them out of the darkness into the light” (2:257).
Source: The Huffington Post
Nov 23 2010
“God is love,” the New Testament teaches, and Muslim theologians would respond, “But of course.” The problem is that we are not God. As Jesus said, “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God ” (Mark 10:18). There is no authentic love but one, that is, God. This is tawhid, the assertion of divine unity that is the foundation of Islamic thought.
Religious discussions of love sometimes address how it descends from its divine status and intermingles with human affairs. In any case, everyone recognizes its attractive power, even if they disagree as to what it is and where it comes from. Rumi mentions the two extremes of disagreement in the verse,
For the elect, love is a tremendous eternal light,
for the common people, love is form and appetite. (Divan 18197)
“The elect and the common people” is an expression used in all branches of Islamic learning to distinguish between the experts and the uninformed. For Rumi, the experts are the prophets and saints.
To think that love is “form and appetite” is to imagine that it derives from the realm of sense perception and biological processes. Rumi has nothing against form and appetite, but he sees the distinctiveness of human nature to lie in its openness to the tremendous eternal light.
“Eternal” (qadim) means unchanging. The word is contrasted with “newly arrived” (muhdath), which means dwelling under the sway of time and alteration. God is eternal, and everything other than God — the universe and all it contains — fades away. We change, the eternal light stays the same. We have the appearance of reality, but every appearance disappears.
The Quran says that God is “the light of the heavens and the earth” (24:35). The heavens are the high realms of spiritual beings (such as angels and souls), and the earth is the low realm of bodily things. Nothing appears without light. The more intense the light, however, the more difficult it is to see, which explains why the spiritual realm is invisible. No one can imagine the upper limit of physical light, much less that of nonphysical light, which is the consciousness that animates the heavens and the earth.
Spiritual traditions speak of ascending levels of nonphysical illumination, beginning with the obscure sparkles that typify everyday awareness and culminating in the infinite light of the eternal Self. In the Quran’s retelling of the story of Moses and the Burning Bush, the light said, “I indeed am God; there is no god but I” (20:14): There is no god but God’s very Self, the light of the heavens and the earth.
Rumi’s verse, in short, refers to the axiom of tawhid, the fact that there is no true light but the divine light and no true love but the divine love. Everything in heaven and earth is the reverberation of the loving light. Each thing arrives newly and departs just as quickly. In relation to the universe, God is like the moon in relation to flowing water. As Rumi puts it,
The creatures are like water, limpid and pure,
shining therein the attributes of the majestic God…
Ages have passed, and this is a new age.
The moon is the same, but the water is not.
(Mathnawi 6: 3172, 3175)
Our scientific worldview is rooted in the measurable, but love and God are immeasurable. Scientific theories that speak of love naturally tend to agree with Rumi’s common people: Love is form and appetite, feeling and emotion, impulses in the brain — all these can be measured. The Quranic and Biblical worldviews see love as none other than the only reality that truly is. The word “reality,” of course, fails to stir the heart, and “love” calls for commitment. Those who answer the call can transform themselves and the world.
Among the many mentions of love in the Quran, the favourite verse of love-theorists is this: “He loves them, and they love Him” (5:54). This verse puts the Islamic worldview in a nutshell: God brought the universe into existence because of his love for human beings. Human beings fulfil their calling by loving God.
The radiance of love’s eternal light gives rise to the universe. The goal of love is to overcome separation, to bridge gaps, to bring the two lovers together as one. If love is to do its work, people must recognize the light and love it in return.
“He loves them” brought them into existence. Their recognition of the light feeds “They love Him.” Once love intervenes, form and appetite lose their lustre.
The final goal of lovers is to join the shining light at its source. The power that works this transformation is love. One of the many Quranic names of God is “friend” (wali), an Arabic word that combines the senses of “lover” and “helper.” Both meanings can be seen in the verse, “God is the friend of those who have faith. He brings them out of the darkness into the light” (2:257).
Friday, November 19, 2010
Find Your Own Name...
"Abraham learned how the sun and moon and the stars all set.
He said, No longer will I try to assign partners for God.
You are so weak. Give up to grace.
The ocean takes care of each wave
till it gets to the shore.
You need more help than you know.
You're trying to live your life in open scaffolding.
Say Bismillah, In the name of God,
As the priest does with a knife when he offers an animal.
Bismillah your old self
to find your real name."
Rumi
From Coleman Barks “The Essential Rumi”
He said, No longer will I try to assign partners for God.
You are so weak. Give up to grace.
The ocean takes care of each wave
till it gets to the shore.
You need more help than you know.
You're trying to live your life in open scaffolding.
Say Bismillah, In the name of God,
As the priest does with a knife when he offers an animal.
Bismillah your old self
to find your real name."
Rumi
From Coleman Barks “The Essential Rumi”
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Where Does the Sweetness Lie?
I am often questioned about the title of this blog, Sweet Sujud, and what it means. The idea for the name came from my own experience living as a Muslim for the past 11 years as well as a comment a friend of mine once made in his attempt to describe what surrendering to God can actually feel like.
The act of sujud (prostration) itself in many ways is the hallmark of the Islamic faith. When people see Muslims in a state of prostration, even those with little familiarity with the faith can identify them as Muslims. The prostration is an act that helps to facilitate total realization of the state of self-surrender, i.e. willing servanthood, to God by putting the body, as a reflection of what lies in one's heart, in a state of utter humility (face on the floor) and self-deprivation. As with all matters in life, there exists an intimate connection between mind, heart (soul) and body; with the body being a vessel for the purification of both the heart and mind, or its opposite. Thus, the prostration -- as the climax of the prayer cycle itself -- acts in many ways as the ultimate posture of devotion and willing self-surrender to God. Thus, the worshipper is able to 'feel' servanthood in all his physical being, rather than just professing with his/her tongue or accepting it in theory. Combined, the knowledge of what it means to prostrate, the faith and desire to prostrate before God in an act of servanthood, and the physical act of putting oneself in the most humble of postures allow the worshipper to feel a sensation of peace and alignment that can only be described as 'sweetness.'
Ultimately, the sweetness is not of the tongue, but of the heart, so let us forgo the need to be seen by others, and focus on humbling our hearts before God with every sweet sujud....
The act of sujud (prostration) itself in many ways is the hallmark of the Islamic faith. When people see Muslims in a state of prostration, even those with little familiarity with the faith can identify them as Muslims. The prostration is an act that helps to facilitate total realization of the state of self-surrender, i.e. willing servanthood, to God by putting the body, as a reflection of what lies in one's heart, in a state of utter humility (face on the floor) and self-deprivation. As with all matters in life, there exists an intimate connection between mind, heart (soul) and body; with the body being a vessel for the purification of both the heart and mind, or its opposite. Thus, the prostration -- as the climax of the prayer cycle itself -- acts in many ways as the ultimate posture of devotion and willing self-surrender to God. Thus, the worshipper is able to 'feel' servanthood in all his physical being, rather than just professing with his/her tongue or accepting it in theory. Combined, the knowledge of what it means to prostrate, the faith and desire to prostrate before God in an act of servanthood, and the physical act of putting oneself in the most humble of postures allow the worshipper to feel a sensation of peace and alignment that can only be described as 'sweetness.'
Ultimately, the sweetness is not of the tongue, but of the heart, so let us forgo the need to be seen by others, and focus on humbling our hearts before God with every sweet sujud....
Challenging Falsehood....
Below is an example of anti-Islam rhetoric spewed by someone who is of the belief that Islam is 'anti-woman.' The response is provided by Sheikh G.F. Haddad. It is only an excerpt from his website, www.livingislam.org, and shows the importance of scholarship and knowledge and why this is the best - and only - way to combat the ruthless anti-Islam rants that are being spewed all over the Internet today. It is also an important reminder of why we can never interpret the Qur'an and hadith on our own without the help of erudite scholarship, and more importantly, why we cannot rely on literalism.
The initial charge is the writer, the 'comment' is the response by the Sheikh...
MEN'S SUPERIORITY
Comment: The true title of this section should be: “Men's greater share of responsibilities.”
The Qur'an expresses the equality of the works of the sexes and the oneness of origin of the sexes in the following verses.
"And their Lord answereth them, 'I will not suffer the work of him among you that worketh, whether of male or female, to be lost. The one of you is the issue of the other." (Q 3:195) Rodwell.
"Mankind fear your Lord, who created you of a single soul, and from it created its mate." (Q 4:1) Arberry
So while the Qur'an holds the works of men and women in equal regard and acknowledges that they are completely interdependent as to their very existence, they are not regarded as having equal worth as people.
Comment: This is a lie. The Qur'an clearly states: {O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female_. Verily the best of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you.} (49:13).
The men are a step above the women and superior to them as is clear from the following two verses.
"And it is for the women to act as they (the husbands) act by them, in all fairness; but the men are a step above them."[7] (Q 2:228) Rodwell "Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other."(Q 4:34) Dawood.
Comment: Here are Muslim translations of the same two passages but _in full_, indicating that the context in each of the two verses denotes superiority of men in maintenance and financial responsibility. Imam al-Sha`rani said, “If the man does not work and support his wife then he loses that degree.”
The famous commentator Ibn Kathir commented on (Q 4:34) saying:
"Men are superior to women, and a man is better than a woman."[8]
8. Ibn-Kathir, commenting on Q 4:34.
Comment: As we already said, the Qur'an states: {O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female_. Verily the best of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you.} (49:13). This is enough to silence the lie that men and women in Islam “are not regarded as having equal worth as people,” which is the premise of the present section.
As for commentary, al-Tabari said the best explanation for 2:223 is that of Ibn `Abbas: "The degree mentioned by Allah Most High here is the exemption, on the man's part, of some his wife's obligations towards him and his indulgence towards her, while he is fully obligated to fulfill all his obligations towards her, because the verse came right after {And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness}. Hence Ibn `Abbas said: 'I would not like to obtain all (astanzif) of my right from her because Allah Most High said {and men are a degree above them}.'"
The initial charge is the writer, the 'comment' is the response by the Sheikh...
MEN'S SUPERIORITY
Comment: The true title of this section should be: “Men's greater share of responsibilities.”
The Qur'an expresses the equality of the works of the sexes and the oneness of origin of the sexes in the following verses.
"And their Lord answereth them, 'I will not suffer the work of him among you that worketh, whether of male or female, to be lost. The one of you is the issue of the other." (Q 3:195) Rodwell.
"Mankind fear your Lord, who created you of a single soul, and from it created its mate." (Q 4:1) Arberry
So while the Qur'an holds the works of men and women in equal regard and acknowledges that they are completely interdependent as to their very existence, they are not regarded as having equal worth as people.
Comment: This is a lie. The Qur'an clearly states: {O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female_. Verily the best of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you.} (49:13).
The men are a step above the women and superior to them as is clear from the following two verses.
"And it is for the women to act as they (the husbands) act by them, in all fairness; but the men are a step above them."[7] (Q 2:228) Rodwell "Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other."(Q 4:34) Dawood.
Comment: Here are Muslim translations of the same two passages but _in full_, indicating that the context in each of the two verses denotes superiority of men in maintenance and financial responsibility. Imam al-Sha`rani said, “If the man does not work and support his wife then he loses that degree.”
The famous commentator Ibn Kathir commented on (Q 4:34) saying:
"Men are superior to women, and a man is better than a woman."[8]
8. Ibn-Kathir, commenting on Q 4:34.
Comment: As we already said, the Qur'an states: {O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female_. Verily the best of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you.} (49:13). This is enough to silence the lie that men and women in Islam “are not regarded as having equal worth as people,” which is the premise of the present section.
As for commentary, al-Tabari said the best explanation for 2:223 is that of Ibn `Abbas: "The degree mentioned by Allah Most High here is the exemption, on the man's part, of some his wife's obligations towards him and his indulgence towards her, while he is fully obligated to fulfill all his obligations towards her, because the verse came right after {And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness}. Hence Ibn `Abbas said: 'I would not like to obtain all (astanzif) of my right from her because Allah Most High said {and men are a degree above them}.'"
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Meaning Making in Islam
by Abd. Lateef Krauss
The role of meaning is of paramount importance in human life (Frankl, 1963). Human beings have a natural inclination to understand and make meaning out of their lives and experiences. It is one of those attributes that makes us distinctively human. As Dewey (1933) wrote, “Only when things about us have meaning for us, only when they signify consequences that can be reached by using them in certain ways, is any such thing as intentional, deliberate control of them possible (p. 19).” Meanings are the cognitive categories that make up one’s view of reality and with which actions are defined. Meanings are also referred to by social analysts as culture, norms, understandings, social reality, definitions of the situation, typifications, ideology, beliefs, worldview, perspective or stereotypes (Lofland and Lofland, 1996). Life experience generates and enriches meanings, while meanings provide explanation and guidance for the experience (Chen, 2001).
A person draws meanings from, or gives meanings to events and experiences. That is, experiencing starts to make sense as the person performs his or her psychological functioning of translating it into how he or she thinks and feels. It is individuals’ subjectivity, or phenomenological world, that forms the very core for meaning origination and evolvement. People have the freedom to choose meaning (McArthur, 1958) through their interactive experiencing with various internal and external contexts (Chen, 2001). As such, meaning is the underlying motivation behind thoughts, actions and even the interpretation and application of knowledge. Meaning is also arrived at through the learning process.
As a convert to Islam, how I construct meaning represents perhaps the greatest difference between my worldview prior to Islam and my post-conversion Islamic worldview. My Islamic worldview facilitates meaning through the tawhidic paradigm by connecting everything in life – every word, act, thought, and event – to the highest source of all, the ultimate reality, God. This means that everything that happens in life is to be responded to according to that which is pleasing to God and in line with his revealed laws. We do not make decisions based solely on our feelings, desires and appetites. Rather, we employ the intellect, which is grounded in knowledge of religion and God, to decide that which is pleasing and acceptable to the Creator, and, as such, optimal for us on all levels. The goal, the ultimate success, the ultimate happiness and contentment is transformed into a spiritual one and is manifested in a life of closeness and intimacy with the Divine, detailed by God-consciousness in every act and thought.
How this differs from my pre-Islamic worldview is that it removes the lower self (ideally) as a guide so decisions are not made according to appetites and selfish desires, but according to that which we believe is best for us, for our lives both here and hereafter. We cease following the direction of the lower self and instead open our hearts to the guidance of our higher self, the one in tuned to the divine will. For that which is best for us cannot be left to the lower self to decide, for that self can only lead us to spiritual destruction. Thus, all of our trust and hope is placed in God and our conviction that He is the best one to guide us being the Creator of all things, the Loving, the Merciful, and the one who wants the best outcome for us which is closeness to Him in this world and direct vision of him in the life after death.
Meaning making, therefore, takes on a whole new form from this worldview. The lens – our cognitive schema – of how we see the world changes. We begin to see with the eyes of the spirit, the eyes of the heart. We judge not according to what we find pleasing or desirable, but according to the knowledge of what God finds pleasing and desirable. As such, we begin the striving, the journey toward the acquisition of the divine attributes. We live a life of effort to reform our own personalities to reflect the attributes. As a real-life example, the one who most perfectly manifested these attributes, we follow the way and life of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and his successors. In so doing life becomes one of ongoing self-purification, self-perfection and self-improvement. Meaning making, therefore, is spiritualized. We become highly tuned to everything happening around us.
We find meaning and make meaning of every experience through self-examination. We start by looking inwardly at ourselves and examining how we react to situations around us. We take stock of our feelings, our frustrations, our likes and our dislikes. We examine our minds and look at what we spend time thinking about. We constantly look for ways to improve ourselves. In sum, everything means something because according to our worldview, God sees everything, knows everything, and everything we do is counted—either for us or against us. Every moment thus contributes to our success or failure. This means that as Muslims, we must acquire the attribute of awareness, of always knowing what is happening around us and within us at all times.
Islam helps us to construct meaning on the premise that everything is purposeful because it directly determines our fate both in this world, and the eternal world after death. We approach life as an opportunity because of the knowledge that every moment can either help us or hurt us, depending on what we choose to do with it. In this way, the Islamic worldview puts meaning making in our own hands through the gift of free will, and links the process with the development and refinement of the self.
The spiritualized Islamic worldview brings energy to life and a balance that I did not previously have. The key to it is consciousness and remembrance of God. When we are conscious of God, of his omnipotence, greatness and mercy, we are always aware of ourselves. We are constantly in a state of humility because of the knowledge that He created us at of nothing for no other reason than the love to be known, worshipped and trusted by us. We are also aware that God’s mercy will always help us along on our path when we make a sincere effort to dedicate ourselves to Islamic self-improvement. This awareness includes the belief that heaven is not only the goal for the hereafter, but for this life as well, achieved by closeness to God. As such, by remaining conscious of God, we invite and invoke goodness from both the earthly and spiritual realms, and light a way for ourselves to engage in continuous self-refinement.
An example of how Islam contributes to meaning making is my initial understanding of how a Muslim is to approach something as seemingly mundane as eating. According to my pre-Islamic worldview, eating was an activity undertaken to satisfy hunger. It was never much more than that. Although I understood food as a blessing, I did not approach eating as a spiritual act. How could I? The only knowledge I had of it was that it was an activity undertaken to satisfy a physical need. When I came to Islam, however, I learned that even eating could be a spiritual activity when undertaken with the right intention, in accordance with Islamic law, by way of the Prophet’s (SAW) example and with a deeper understanding of the act itself.
According to the Islamic worldview, every morsel of food is a blessing, a gift, sustenance that comes from God. The food we eat is usually also a blessing for those who grow it, manufacture it, process it and sell it – those who derive their livelihood from it. Food, when consumed with consciousness of God can be a source of barakah – or blessings and divine grace. Therefore, we are more inclined to be less wasteful in our eating, to take less and think of others who also want to eat. Through the spiritual practice of fasting, Islamic worldview also teaches us what it is like to not be able to eat. This alone is enough to make most people appreciate food and increase their gratitude to God when they eat. In addition, there are so many etiquettes (adab) of the Prophet on how to approach and eat food that help us to understand its spiritual role in our lives, such as the proper way of sitting, chewing, handling food, passing it to others, the prayers to recite before eating it, while eating it, after eating it, the way to conduct oneself while eating, the way to wash ourselves after eating, etc. As we can see, something as fundamental to our lives such as food, or eating, when approached from the Islamic worldview becomes a highly meaningful activity that is intimately linked to our personal sense of mission as Muslims.
So what about something as spiritually rich as formal worship? If eating as an activity can be approached with spiritual intelligence, an act of God consciousness and worship, then what about something like our prayer (solat), which to the Prophet (SAW) was not only the comfort of his eyes but a heavenly ascension every time he engaged in it? What does prayer mean to us? Do we approach it as a heavenly ascension, so powerful as to move us to a higher state, or is it just something we have to get through to achieve a place at the heavenly table when it’s all over?
Meaning of Islam is cultivated in us through the knowledge and wisdom found in our tradition, and through teachers that have been blessed with it and continue to pass it on. We must seek them and their works to help us develop meaning in our lives as Muslims. It is an important time for us to make meaning from this way of life. All around us meaninglessness and its culture are fueling the spiritual suicide that is engulfing the world and victimizing people from every race and religion.
Ultimately, meaning of Islam must be individualized and owned by each of us uniquely, based on our individual relationship with Allah. We must find intimacy with Him, strive to love Him, to rely on Him, to seek Him, and to depend and trust Him completely. Lasting and real meaning of Islam cannot come from a movement or someone’s agenda—it can and must come from the knowledge of Truth, and submission to it through the way of life based on it. It must be spiritual, not political. Our uniqueness as an ummah is that our purpose, our basis for deriving meaning in all of life is spiritually based, grounded in heavenly laws and aspirations. When we read the beautiful supplications of our Prophet (SAW) to his Lord, we can feel the intimacy that he had with the All-Merciful. This is the spring of meaning for those who have surrendered themselves, and an important element of our way of life that helps us persevere through difficult times.
REFERENCES
Chen, C.P. 2001. On exploring meanings: Combining humanistic and career psychology
theories in counselling. Counselling Psychology Quarterly 14:4.
Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think. New York, NY: Heath Books.
Frankl, V. 1963. Man’s search for meaning. Boston: Beacon Press.
Lofland, J. and Lofland, L. 1996. Analyzing Social Settings. Third Edition. Wadsworth
McArthur, H. 1958. The necessity of choice. Journal of Individual Psychology, 14,
153– 157.
The role of meaning is of paramount importance in human life (Frankl, 1963). Human beings have a natural inclination to understand and make meaning out of their lives and experiences. It is one of those attributes that makes us distinctively human. As Dewey (1933) wrote, “Only when things about us have meaning for us, only when they signify consequences that can be reached by using them in certain ways, is any such thing as intentional, deliberate control of them possible (p. 19).” Meanings are the cognitive categories that make up one’s view of reality and with which actions are defined. Meanings are also referred to by social analysts as culture, norms, understandings, social reality, definitions of the situation, typifications, ideology, beliefs, worldview, perspective or stereotypes (Lofland and Lofland, 1996). Life experience generates and enriches meanings, while meanings provide explanation and guidance for the experience (Chen, 2001).
A person draws meanings from, or gives meanings to events and experiences. That is, experiencing starts to make sense as the person performs his or her psychological functioning of translating it into how he or she thinks and feels. It is individuals’ subjectivity, or phenomenological world, that forms the very core for meaning origination and evolvement. People have the freedom to choose meaning (McArthur, 1958) through their interactive experiencing with various internal and external contexts (Chen, 2001). As such, meaning is the underlying motivation behind thoughts, actions and even the interpretation and application of knowledge. Meaning is also arrived at through the learning process.
As a convert to Islam, how I construct meaning represents perhaps the greatest difference between my worldview prior to Islam and my post-conversion Islamic worldview. My Islamic worldview facilitates meaning through the tawhidic paradigm by connecting everything in life – every word, act, thought, and event – to the highest source of all, the ultimate reality, God. This means that everything that happens in life is to be responded to according to that which is pleasing to God and in line with his revealed laws. We do not make decisions based solely on our feelings, desires and appetites. Rather, we employ the intellect, which is grounded in knowledge of religion and God, to decide that which is pleasing and acceptable to the Creator, and, as such, optimal for us on all levels. The goal, the ultimate success, the ultimate happiness and contentment is transformed into a spiritual one and is manifested in a life of closeness and intimacy with the Divine, detailed by God-consciousness in every act and thought.
How this differs from my pre-Islamic worldview is that it removes the lower self (ideally) as a guide so decisions are not made according to appetites and selfish desires, but according to that which we believe is best for us, for our lives both here and hereafter. We cease following the direction of the lower self and instead open our hearts to the guidance of our higher self, the one in tuned to the divine will. For that which is best for us cannot be left to the lower self to decide, for that self can only lead us to spiritual destruction. Thus, all of our trust and hope is placed in God and our conviction that He is the best one to guide us being the Creator of all things, the Loving, the Merciful, and the one who wants the best outcome for us which is closeness to Him in this world and direct vision of him in the life after death.
Meaning making, therefore, takes on a whole new form from this worldview. The lens – our cognitive schema – of how we see the world changes. We begin to see with the eyes of the spirit, the eyes of the heart. We judge not according to what we find pleasing or desirable, but according to the knowledge of what God finds pleasing and desirable. As such, we begin the striving, the journey toward the acquisition of the divine attributes. We live a life of effort to reform our own personalities to reflect the attributes. As a real-life example, the one who most perfectly manifested these attributes, we follow the way and life of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and his successors. In so doing life becomes one of ongoing self-purification, self-perfection and self-improvement. Meaning making, therefore, is spiritualized. We become highly tuned to everything happening around us.
We find meaning and make meaning of every experience through self-examination. We start by looking inwardly at ourselves and examining how we react to situations around us. We take stock of our feelings, our frustrations, our likes and our dislikes. We examine our minds and look at what we spend time thinking about. We constantly look for ways to improve ourselves. In sum, everything means something because according to our worldview, God sees everything, knows everything, and everything we do is counted—either for us or against us. Every moment thus contributes to our success or failure. This means that as Muslims, we must acquire the attribute of awareness, of always knowing what is happening around us and within us at all times.
Islam helps us to construct meaning on the premise that everything is purposeful because it directly determines our fate both in this world, and the eternal world after death. We approach life as an opportunity because of the knowledge that every moment can either help us or hurt us, depending on what we choose to do with it. In this way, the Islamic worldview puts meaning making in our own hands through the gift of free will, and links the process with the development and refinement of the self.
The spiritualized Islamic worldview brings energy to life and a balance that I did not previously have. The key to it is consciousness and remembrance of God. When we are conscious of God, of his omnipotence, greatness and mercy, we are always aware of ourselves. We are constantly in a state of humility because of the knowledge that He created us at of nothing for no other reason than the love to be known, worshipped and trusted by us. We are also aware that God’s mercy will always help us along on our path when we make a sincere effort to dedicate ourselves to Islamic self-improvement. This awareness includes the belief that heaven is not only the goal for the hereafter, but for this life as well, achieved by closeness to God. As such, by remaining conscious of God, we invite and invoke goodness from both the earthly and spiritual realms, and light a way for ourselves to engage in continuous self-refinement.
An example of how Islam contributes to meaning making is my initial understanding of how a Muslim is to approach something as seemingly mundane as eating. According to my pre-Islamic worldview, eating was an activity undertaken to satisfy hunger. It was never much more than that. Although I understood food as a blessing, I did not approach eating as a spiritual act. How could I? The only knowledge I had of it was that it was an activity undertaken to satisfy a physical need. When I came to Islam, however, I learned that even eating could be a spiritual activity when undertaken with the right intention, in accordance with Islamic law, by way of the Prophet’s (SAW) example and with a deeper understanding of the act itself.
According to the Islamic worldview, every morsel of food is a blessing, a gift, sustenance that comes from God. The food we eat is usually also a blessing for those who grow it, manufacture it, process it and sell it – those who derive their livelihood from it. Food, when consumed with consciousness of God can be a source of barakah – or blessings and divine grace. Therefore, we are more inclined to be less wasteful in our eating, to take less and think of others who also want to eat. Through the spiritual practice of fasting, Islamic worldview also teaches us what it is like to not be able to eat. This alone is enough to make most people appreciate food and increase their gratitude to God when they eat. In addition, there are so many etiquettes (adab) of the Prophet on how to approach and eat food that help us to understand its spiritual role in our lives, such as the proper way of sitting, chewing, handling food, passing it to others, the prayers to recite before eating it, while eating it, after eating it, the way to conduct oneself while eating, the way to wash ourselves after eating, etc. As we can see, something as fundamental to our lives such as food, or eating, when approached from the Islamic worldview becomes a highly meaningful activity that is intimately linked to our personal sense of mission as Muslims.
So what about something as spiritually rich as formal worship? If eating as an activity can be approached with spiritual intelligence, an act of God consciousness and worship, then what about something like our prayer (solat), which to the Prophet (SAW) was not only the comfort of his eyes but a heavenly ascension every time he engaged in it? What does prayer mean to us? Do we approach it as a heavenly ascension, so powerful as to move us to a higher state, or is it just something we have to get through to achieve a place at the heavenly table when it’s all over?
Meaning of Islam is cultivated in us through the knowledge and wisdom found in our tradition, and through teachers that have been blessed with it and continue to pass it on. We must seek them and their works to help us develop meaning in our lives as Muslims. It is an important time for us to make meaning from this way of life. All around us meaninglessness and its culture are fueling the spiritual suicide that is engulfing the world and victimizing people from every race and religion.
Ultimately, meaning of Islam must be individualized and owned by each of us uniquely, based on our individual relationship with Allah. We must find intimacy with Him, strive to love Him, to rely on Him, to seek Him, and to depend and trust Him completely. Lasting and real meaning of Islam cannot come from a movement or someone’s agenda—it can and must come from the knowledge of Truth, and submission to it through the way of life based on it. It must be spiritual, not political. Our uniqueness as an ummah is that our purpose, our basis for deriving meaning in all of life is spiritually based, grounded in heavenly laws and aspirations. When we read the beautiful supplications of our Prophet (SAW) to his Lord, we can feel the intimacy that he had with the All-Merciful. This is the spring of meaning for those who have surrendered themselves, and an important element of our way of life that helps us persevere through difficult times.
REFERENCES
Chen, C.P. 2001. On exploring meanings: Combining humanistic and career psychology
theories in counselling. Counselling Psychology Quarterly 14:4.
Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think. New York, NY: Heath Books.
Frankl, V. 1963. Man’s search for meaning. Boston: Beacon Press.
Lofland, J. and Lofland, L. 1996. Analyzing Social Settings. Third Edition. Wadsworth
McArthur, H. 1958. The necessity of choice. Journal of Individual Psychology, 14,
153– 157.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Half of U.S. Teens Have Mental Disorders
If this study is accurate, this is really serious....
National Institute of Mental Health: Half of U.S. Teens Have
Mental Disorders
Oct. 18 (LPAC)--Corroborating Lyndon LaRoouche's recent comments
on the degeneration of the nation's young, a study released by
the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) says that fully
one-half of all Americans aged 13-19 have some mental disorder;
and that in more than 22% of them, the disorder is so severe that
it impairs their daily activities. ``The prevalence of severe
emotional and behavior disorders is even higher than the most
frequent major physical conditions in adolescence, including
asthma or diabetes," the study says.
The study published in the {Journal of the American Academy
of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry} reports that 51% of boys and
49% of girls have mood, behavior, anxiety and/or substance-use
disorders.
Many regional surveys conducted in the United States have
indicated that about one in four to five children experience a
mental disorder sometime in their life. But until now, no
nationally representative surveys had been conducted to determine
if these prevalence-rates of a wide range of mental health
problems hold true across the nation.
Kathleen Merikangas, PhD, of NIMH and colleagues analyzed
data from the National Comorbidity Study-Adolescent Supplement
(NCS-A), a nationally representative, face-to-face survey of more
than 10,000 teens ages 13 to 18.
The NIMH says more research is needed to better understand
the risk factors for developing a mental disorder in youth, as
well as how to predict which disorders may continue into
adulthood. In addition, the researchers acknowledge the need for
more prospective research to figure out the complex interplay
among socioeconomic, biological, and genetic factors that may
contribute to the development of mental disorders in youth.
Before that further research is completed, will will we stop
the descent into a deranged dark age? [fhb]
National Institute of Mental Health: Half of U.S. Teens Have
Mental Disorders
Oct. 18 (LPAC)--Corroborating Lyndon LaRoouche's recent comments
on the degeneration of the nation's young, a study released by
the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) says that fully
one-half of all Americans aged 13-19 have some mental disorder;
and that in more than 22% of them, the disorder is so severe that
it impairs their daily activities. ``The prevalence of severe
emotional and behavior disorders is even higher than the most
frequent major physical conditions in adolescence, including
asthma or diabetes," the study says.
The study published in the {Journal of the American Academy
of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry} reports that 51% of boys and
49% of girls have mood, behavior, anxiety and/or substance-use
disorders.
Many regional surveys conducted in the United States have
indicated that about one in four to five children experience a
mental disorder sometime in their life. But until now, no
nationally representative surveys had been conducted to determine
if these prevalence-rates of a wide range of mental health
problems hold true across the nation.
Kathleen Merikangas, PhD, of NIMH and colleagues analyzed
data from the National Comorbidity Study-Adolescent Supplement
(NCS-A), a nationally representative, face-to-face survey of more
than 10,000 teens ages 13 to 18.
The NIMH says more research is needed to better understand
the risk factors for developing a mental disorder in youth, as
well as how to predict which disorders may continue into
adulthood. In addition, the researchers acknowledge the need for
more prospective research to figure out the complex interplay
among socioeconomic, biological, and genetic factors that may
contribute to the development of mental disorders in youth.
Before that further research is completed, will will we stop
the descent into a deranged dark age? [fhb]
Monday, October 11, 2010
Prophet Muhammad's (SAW) Kindness to Animals (...all animals!)
The Prophet Muhammad not only preached to the people to show kindness to each other but also to all the living creatures.
The Arabs before Islam had some customs regarding the animals like cutting tails and manes of horses, of branding animals at any soft spot, and of keeping horses saddled unnecessarily. The Prophet Muhammad forbade such customary performances.
When The Prophet Muhammad saw any over-loaded animal, he would pull up the owner and say: "Fear Allah in your treatment of animals."
One of Muhammad's companions came to him with the young ones of a bird in his sheet and said that the mother bird had hovered over them all along. The Prophet Muhammad commanded the man to replace her offspring in the same bush.
During a journey, somebody picked up some birds eggs. The bird's painful note and fluttering attracted the attention of the Prophet Muhammad who asked the man to replace the eggs.
As the Muslims' army marched towards Mecca to conquer it, they passed a female dog with her little puppies. The Prophet Muhammad not only commanded that the soldiers should not disturb her, but he posted a man to see that this was done.
The Prophet Muhammad also used to command mercy for all animals such that they are well-fed, well-watered, not forced to carry too heavy a burden, and not tortured or maimed for one's enjoyment. Muhammad stated, "Verily, there is heavenly reward for every act of kindness done to a living animal."
Three narrated Hadiths concerning the animals
In His teachings, it is narrated that the Prophet Muhammad said,
(1) 'While a man was walking on a road he became very thirsty. He found a well, he went into it, drank, and came out. Upon coming out of the well he found a very thirsty dog that was breathing hard and quickly. The man said: 'This dog has become stricken with the same degree of thirst which had stricken me.' The man went down into the well and filled his shoe and then held it in his mouth until he climbed out and gave the dog water to drink. Allah thanked the man for his good deed and forgave his sins.' Upon listening to this story, One of Muhammad's companions asked, 'O Messenger of Allah, are we rewarded for taking care of beasts?' Muhammad said, 'There is a reward for you in every living creature.
(2) 'A woman was punished because of a cat. She neither provided it with food nor drink, nor set it free so that it might eat and drink'.
(3) [The Prophet Muhammad passed by a very weak camel that his stomach quite touched its back (due to the lack of food). Upon seeing this he said:] "Fear Allah in these unspeaking animals! Ride them while they are in good health."
The Arabs before Islam had some customs regarding the animals like cutting tails and manes of horses, of branding animals at any soft spot, and of keeping horses saddled unnecessarily. The Prophet Muhammad forbade such customary performances.
When The Prophet Muhammad saw any over-loaded animal, he would pull up the owner and say: "Fear Allah in your treatment of animals."
One of Muhammad's companions came to him with the young ones of a bird in his sheet and said that the mother bird had hovered over them all along. The Prophet Muhammad commanded the man to replace her offspring in the same bush.
During a journey, somebody picked up some birds eggs. The bird's painful note and fluttering attracted the attention of the Prophet Muhammad who asked the man to replace the eggs.
As the Muslims' army marched towards Mecca to conquer it, they passed a female dog with her little puppies. The Prophet Muhammad not only commanded that the soldiers should not disturb her, but he posted a man to see that this was done.
The Prophet Muhammad also used to command mercy for all animals such that they are well-fed, well-watered, not forced to carry too heavy a burden, and not tortured or maimed for one's enjoyment. Muhammad stated, "Verily, there is heavenly reward for every act of kindness done to a living animal."
Three narrated Hadiths concerning the animals
In His teachings, it is narrated that the Prophet Muhammad said,
(1) 'While a man was walking on a road he became very thirsty. He found a well, he went into it, drank, and came out. Upon coming out of the well he found a very thirsty dog that was breathing hard and quickly. The man said: 'This dog has become stricken with the same degree of thirst which had stricken me.' The man went down into the well and filled his shoe and then held it in his mouth until he climbed out and gave the dog water to drink. Allah thanked the man for his good deed and forgave his sins.' Upon listening to this story, One of Muhammad's companions asked, 'O Messenger of Allah, are we rewarded for taking care of beasts?' Muhammad said, 'There is a reward for you in every living creature.
(2) 'A woman was punished because of a cat. She neither provided it with food nor drink, nor set it free so that it might eat and drink'.
(3) [The Prophet Muhammad passed by a very weak camel that his stomach quite touched its back (due to the lack of food). Upon seeing this he said:] "Fear Allah in these unspeaking animals! Ride them while they are in good health."
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Does the Quran Really Sanction Violence Against 'Unbelievers'?
by Kabir Helminski
Recently some prominent talk-show hosts, Sean Hannity among them, have been referring to certain verses in the Quran that appear to call for Muslims to kill non-Muslims. These verses have too often been quoted with what appears to be a willful disregard for the context in which they occur, thus inflaming the emotions of listeners, perpetuating grave misunderstandings, and contributing to the potential for violence on all sides.
Though we may not be able to influence those who are hell-bent on hatred, an explanation is owed to all reasonable people who are interested in the truth of the matter and are not looking to create enemies. The vast majority of Muslims deserve to be seen as allies in a common quest for social justice and human dignity -- assuming, of course, that we as Americans have the same goals in mind.
A careful and unbiased study of these and other verses, in their proper context, will reveal that the exhortations to fight "idolaters" and "unbelievers" are specific in nature and are not general injunctions for the murder of all those who refuse to accept Islam as their way of life.
Among the most often cited verses is this one: "Kill the idolaters wherever you find them, and capture them, and blockade them, and watch for them at every lookout..." (Quran 9:5).
According to Islamic belief, the Quran was "revealed" to Muhammad in a process of dialog with the Divine, and some parts of the Quran refer to specific situations, while other parts offer universal spiritual principles. To understand this passage, we must take into account the historical circumstances at the time of its revelation.
The "idolaters" (Arabic: mushrikeen) were those Meccan "pagans" who had declared war against Muhammad and his community. The Meccan oligarchs fought against the Prophet's message from the very beginning. When they realized that the flow of converts to Islam was increasing, they resorted to violent oppression and torture of the Prophet and his followers. The Prophet himself survived several assassination attempts, and it became so dangerous for the Muslims in Mecca that Muhammad sent some of his companions who lacked tribal protection to take asylum in the Christian kingdom of Abyssinia. After 13 years of violence, he himself was compelled to take refuge in the city of Medina, and even then the Meccans did not relent in their hostilities. Eventually, various hostile Arab tribes joined in the fight against the Muslims, culminating in the Battle of the Trench, when 10,000 soldiers from many Arab tribes gathered to wipe out the Muslim community once and for all. As we know, the Muslims survived these challenges and eventually went on to establish a vast civilization.
At the time Verse 9:5 was revealed, Muhammad and his followers had begun to establish themselves securely. They had returned triumphantly to Mecca without violence, most Meccans themselves had become Muslims, and many of the surrounding pagan Arab tribes had also accepted Islam and sent delegations to the Prophet pledging their allegiance to him. Those that did not establish peace with the Muslims were the bitterest of enemies, and it was against these remaining hostile forces that the verse commands the Prophet to fight.
The verses that come immediately before 9:5 state, "Those with whom you have treaties are immune from attack." It further states, "Fulfill your treaties with them to the end of their term, for God loves the conscientious." Now, in its proper context, verse 9:5 can be properly understood.
This was a guidance to the Prophet at that specific time to fight those idolaters who, as 9:4 mentions, violated their treaty obligations and helped others fight against the Muslims. It is not a general command to attack all non-Muslims, and it has never signified this to the overwhelming majority of Muslims throughout history. Had it been so, then every year, after the "sacred months are past," (The "sacred months" are four months out of the year during which fighting is not allowed) history would have witnessed Muslims attacking every non-Muslim in sight. This yearly slaughter never occurred. Though the present verse is only one example, none of the Quranic verses that mention fighting justify aggression nor propose attacking anyone because of their religious beliefs. Nor were forced conversions recognized as valid under Islamic law.
The fundamental Quranic principle is that fighting is allowed only in self-defense, and it is only against those who actively fight against you. Indeed, Islam is a religion that seeks to maximize peace and reconciliation. Yet, Islam is not a pacifist religion; it does accept the premise that, from time to time and as a last resort, arms must be taken up in a just war.
If the enemy inclines toward peace, however, Muslims must follow suit: "But if they stop, God is most forgiving, most merciful" (2:192). Also read: "Now if they incline toward peace, then incline to it, and place your trust in God, for God is the all-hearing, the all-knowing" (8:61).
How then do we explain the early spread of Islam through military conquest? In the two decades following the death of Muhammad, Muslim armies challenged and largely overcame the world's two greatest powers, the Persian and Byzantine empires. Were these conquests truly justifiable according to the Quranic principles outlined above? It is a complex question and not one to be readily answered within the limits of a blog post such as this.
It deserves to be understood, however, that the Muslims fought imperial armies, not civilians, and were forbidden to harm non-combatants or destroy property. Islam guaranteed religious freedom for Christians, Jews, and other minority sects, even while they obliged these "protected" minorities to pay a small tax in exchange for being absolved from military service.
Now 14 centuries have passed, and it needs to be recognized that the Quran does not have an inherent, built-in agenda for aggression or domination. The vast majority of Muslims are content to live and let live. In fact, that is part of their religion. Relations with other religious communities are based on acceptance and encouragement to follow the best of your own religion:
To each community among you has been prescribed a Law and a way of life. If God had so willed He would have made you a single people, but His plan is to test you in what He has given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which you differ. (5:48)
And Muslims believe that the God of Islam is not other than the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus and that the diversity of religions is according to Divine plan: "Truly those who keep the faith, and the Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabaeans -- whoever believes in God and the Last Day and performs virtuous deeds -- surely their reward is with their Lord, and no fear shall come upon them, neither shall they grieve." (2:62)
Perhaps these verses help to explain why in the city of Jerusalem, which has been ruled by Muslims for most of the last 13 centuries, the sacred sites of Jews and Christians have been protected, and those communities themselves have for the most part been able to live in peace together with Muslims. The assertion that Islam or the Quran inherently call for a "war on unbelievers" is sheer fallacy and fantasy. Peace be with you.
Recently some prominent talk-show hosts, Sean Hannity among them, have been referring to certain verses in the Quran that appear to call for Muslims to kill non-Muslims. These verses have too often been quoted with what appears to be a willful disregard for the context in which they occur, thus inflaming the emotions of listeners, perpetuating grave misunderstandings, and contributing to the potential for violence on all sides.
Though we may not be able to influence those who are hell-bent on hatred, an explanation is owed to all reasonable people who are interested in the truth of the matter and are not looking to create enemies. The vast majority of Muslims deserve to be seen as allies in a common quest for social justice and human dignity -- assuming, of course, that we as Americans have the same goals in mind.
A careful and unbiased study of these and other verses, in their proper context, will reveal that the exhortations to fight "idolaters" and "unbelievers" are specific in nature and are not general injunctions for the murder of all those who refuse to accept Islam as their way of life.
Among the most often cited verses is this one: "Kill the idolaters wherever you find them, and capture them, and blockade them, and watch for them at every lookout..." (Quran 9:5).
According to Islamic belief, the Quran was "revealed" to Muhammad in a process of dialog with the Divine, and some parts of the Quran refer to specific situations, while other parts offer universal spiritual principles. To understand this passage, we must take into account the historical circumstances at the time of its revelation.
The "idolaters" (Arabic: mushrikeen) were those Meccan "pagans" who had declared war against Muhammad and his community. The Meccan oligarchs fought against the Prophet's message from the very beginning. When they realized that the flow of converts to Islam was increasing, they resorted to violent oppression and torture of the Prophet and his followers. The Prophet himself survived several assassination attempts, and it became so dangerous for the Muslims in Mecca that Muhammad sent some of his companions who lacked tribal protection to take asylum in the Christian kingdom of Abyssinia. After 13 years of violence, he himself was compelled to take refuge in the city of Medina, and even then the Meccans did not relent in their hostilities. Eventually, various hostile Arab tribes joined in the fight against the Muslims, culminating in the Battle of the Trench, when 10,000 soldiers from many Arab tribes gathered to wipe out the Muslim community once and for all. As we know, the Muslims survived these challenges and eventually went on to establish a vast civilization.
At the time Verse 9:5 was revealed, Muhammad and his followers had begun to establish themselves securely. They had returned triumphantly to Mecca without violence, most Meccans themselves had become Muslims, and many of the surrounding pagan Arab tribes had also accepted Islam and sent delegations to the Prophet pledging their allegiance to him. Those that did not establish peace with the Muslims were the bitterest of enemies, and it was against these remaining hostile forces that the verse commands the Prophet to fight.
The verses that come immediately before 9:5 state, "Those with whom you have treaties are immune from attack." It further states, "Fulfill your treaties with them to the end of their term, for God loves the conscientious." Now, in its proper context, verse 9:5 can be properly understood.
This was a guidance to the Prophet at that specific time to fight those idolaters who, as 9:4 mentions, violated their treaty obligations and helped others fight against the Muslims. It is not a general command to attack all non-Muslims, and it has never signified this to the overwhelming majority of Muslims throughout history. Had it been so, then every year, after the "sacred months are past," (The "sacred months" are four months out of the year during which fighting is not allowed) history would have witnessed Muslims attacking every non-Muslim in sight. This yearly slaughter never occurred. Though the present verse is only one example, none of the Quranic verses that mention fighting justify aggression nor propose attacking anyone because of their religious beliefs. Nor were forced conversions recognized as valid under Islamic law.
The fundamental Quranic principle is that fighting is allowed only in self-defense, and it is only against those who actively fight against you. Indeed, Islam is a religion that seeks to maximize peace and reconciliation. Yet, Islam is not a pacifist religion; it does accept the premise that, from time to time and as a last resort, arms must be taken up in a just war.
If the enemy inclines toward peace, however, Muslims must follow suit: "But if they stop, God is most forgiving, most merciful" (2:192). Also read: "Now if they incline toward peace, then incline to it, and place your trust in God, for God is the all-hearing, the all-knowing" (8:61).
How then do we explain the early spread of Islam through military conquest? In the two decades following the death of Muhammad, Muslim armies challenged and largely overcame the world's two greatest powers, the Persian and Byzantine empires. Were these conquests truly justifiable according to the Quranic principles outlined above? It is a complex question and not one to be readily answered within the limits of a blog post such as this.
It deserves to be understood, however, that the Muslims fought imperial armies, not civilians, and were forbidden to harm non-combatants or destroy property. Islam guaranteed religious freedom for Christians, Jews, and other minority sects, even while they obliged these "protected" minorities to pay a small tax in exchange for being absolved from military service.
Now 14 centuries have passed, and it needs to be recognized that the Quran does not have an inherent, built-in agenda for aggression or domination. The vast majority of Muslims are content to live and let live. In fact, that is part of their religion. Relations with other religious communities are based on acceptance and encouragement to follow the best of your own religion:
To each community among you has been prescribed a Law and a way of life. If God had so willed He would have made you a single people, but His plan is to test you in what He has given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which you differ. (5:48)
And Muslims believe that the God of Islam is not other than the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus and that the diversity of religions is according to Divine plan: "Truly those who keep the faith, and the Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabaeans -- whoever believes in God and the Last Day and performs virtuous deeds -- surely their reward is with their Lord, and no fear shall come upon them, neither shall they grieve." (2:62)
Perhaps these verses help to explain why in the city of Jerusalem, which has been ruled by Muslims for most of the last 13 centuries, the sacred sites of Jews and Christians have been protected, and those communities themselves have for the most part been able to live in peace together with Muslims. The assertion that Islam or the Quran inherently call for a "war on unbelievers" is sheer fallacy and fantasy. Peace be with you.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
If That 'Mosque' ISN'T Built, This Is No Longer America
OpenMike 9/11/10
Michael Moore's daily blog
I am opposed to the building of the "mosque" two blocks from Ground Zero.
I want it built on Ground Zero.
Why? Because I believe in an America that protects those who are the victims of hate and prejudice. I believe in an America that says you have the right to worship whatever God you have, wherever you want to worship. And I believe in an America that says to the world that we are a loving and generous people and if a bunch of murderers steal your religion from you and use it as their excuse to kill 3,000 souls, then I want to help you get your religion back. And I want to put it at the spot where it was stolen from you.
There's been so much that's been said about this manufactured controversy, I really don't want to waste any time on this day of remembrance talking about it. But I hate bigotry and I hate liars, and so in case you missed any of the truth that's been lost in this, let me point out a few facts:
1. I love the Burlington Coat Factory. I've gotten some great winter coats there at a very reasonable price. Muslims have been holding their daily prayers there since 2009. No one ever complained about that. This is not going to be a "mosque," it's going to be a community center. It will have the same prayer room in it that's already there. But to even have to assure people that "it's not going to be mosque" is so offensive, I now wish they would just build a 111-story mosque there. That would be better than the lame and disgusting way the developer has left Ground Zero an empty hole until recently. The remains of over 1,100 people still haven't been found. That site is a sacred graveyard, and to be building another monument to commerce on it is a sacrilege. Why wasn't the entire site turned into a memorial peace park? People died there, and many of their remains are still strewn about, all these years later.
2. Guess who has helped the Muslims organize their plans for this community center? The JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER of Manhattan! Their rabbi has been advising them since the beginning. It's been a picture-perfect example of the kind of world we all want to live in. Peter Stuyvessant, New York's "founder," tried to expel the first Jews who arrived in Manhattan. Then the Dutch said, no, that's a bit much. So then Stuyvessant said ok, you can stay, but you cannot build a synagogue anywhere in Manhattan. Do your stupid Friday night thing at home. The first Jewish temple was not allowed to be built until 1730. Then there was a revolution, and the founding fathers said this country has to be secular -- no religious nuts or state religions. George Washington (inaugurated around the corner from Ground Zero) wanted to make a statement about this his very first year in office, and wrote this to American Jews:
"The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy -- a policy worthy of imitation. ...
"It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens ...
"May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants -- while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid."
3. The Imam in charge of this project is the nicest guy you'd ever want to meet. Read about his past here.
4. Around five dozen Muslims died at the World Trade Center on 9/11. Hundreds of members of their families still grieve and suffer. The 19 killers did not care what religion anyone belonged to when they took those lives.
5. I've never read a sadder headline in the New York Times than the one on the front page this past Monday: "American Muslims Ask, Will We Ever Belong?" That should make all of us so ashamed that even a single one of our fellow citizens should ever have to worry about if they "belong" here.
6. There is a McDonald's two blocks from Ground Zero. Trust me, McDonald's has killed far more people than the terrorists.
7. During an economic depression or a time of war, fascists are extremely skilled at whipping up fear and hate and getting the working class to blame "the other" for their troubles. Lincoln's enemies told poor Southern whites that he was "a Catholic." FDR's opponents said he was Jewish and called him "Jewsevelt." One in five Americans now believe Obama is a Muslim and 41% of Republicans don't believe he was born here.
8. Blaming a whole group for the actions of just one of that group is anti-American. Timothy McVeigh was Catholic. Should Oklahoma City prohibit the building of a Catholic Church near the site of the former federal building that McVeigh blew up?
9. Let's face it, all religions have their whackos. Catholics have O'Reilly, Gingrich, Hannity and Clarence Thomas (in fact all five conservatives who dominate the Supreme Court are Catholic). Protestants have Pat Robertson and too many to list here. The Mormons have Glenn Beck. Jews have Crazy Eddie. But we don't judge whole religions on just the actions of their whackos. Unless they're Methodists.
10. If I should ever, God forbid, perish in a terrorist incident, and you or some nutty group uses my death as your justification to attack or discriminate against anyone in my name, I will come back and haunt you worse than Linda Blair marrying Freddy Krueger and moving into your bedroom to spawn Chucky. John Lennon was right when he asked us to imagine a world with "nothing to kill or die for and no religion, too." I heard Deepak Chopra this week say that "God gave humans the truth, and the devil came and he said, 'Let's give it a name and call it religion.' " But John Adams said it best when he wrote a sort of letter to the future (which he called "Posterity"): "Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present Generation to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it." I'm guessing ol' John Adams is up there repenting nonstop right now.
Friends, we all have a responsibility NOW to make sure that Muslim community center gets built. Once again, 70% of the country (the same number that initially supported the Iraq War) is on the wrong side and want the "mosque" moved. Enormous pressure has been put on the Imam to stop his project. We have to turn this thing around. Are we going to let the bullies and thugs win another one? Aren't you fed up by now? When would be a good time to take our country back from the haters?
I say right now. Let's each of us make a statement by donating to the building of this community center! It's a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization and you can donate a dollar or ten dollars (or more) right now through a secure pay pal account by clicking here. I will personally match the first $10,000 raised (forward your PayPal receipt to webguy@michaelmoore.com). If each one of you reading this blog/email donated just a couple of dollars, that would give the center over $6 million, more than what Donald Trump has offered to buy the Imam out. C'mon everyone, let's pitch in and help those who are being debased for simply wanting to do something good. We could all make a huge statement of love on this solemn day.
I lost a co-worker on 9/11. I write this today in his memory.
Michael Moore's daily blog
I am opposed to the building of the "mosque" two blocks from Ground Zero.
I want it built on Ground Zero.
Why? Because I believe in an America that protects those who are the victims of hate and prejudice. I believe in an America that says you have the right to worship whatever God you have, wherever you want to worship. And I believe in an America that says to the world that we are a loving and generous people and if a bunch of murderers steal your religion from you and use it as their excuse to kill 3,000 souls, then I want to help you get your religion back. And I want to put it at the spot where it was stolen from you.
There's been so much that's been said about this manufactured controversy, I really don't want to waste any time on this day of remembrance talking about it. But I hate bigotry and I hate liars, and so in case you missed any of the truth that's been lost in this, let me point out a few facts:
1. I love the Burlington Coat Factory. I've gotten some great winter coats there at a very reasonable price. Muslims have been holding their daily prayers there since 2009. No one ever complained about that. This is not going to be a "mosque," it's going to be a community center. It will have the same prayer room in it that's already there. But to even have to assure people that "it's not going to be mosque" is so offensive, I now wish they would just build a 111-story mosque there. That would be better than the lame and disgusting way the developer has left Ground Zero an empty hole until recently. The remains of over 1,100 people still haven't been found. That site is a sacred graveyard, and to be building another monument to commerce on it is a sacrilege. Why wasn't the entire site turned into a memorial peace park? People died there, and many of their remains are still strewn about, all these years later.
2. Guess who has helped the Muslims organize their plans for this community center? The JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER of Manhattan! Their rabbi has been advising them since the beginning. It's been a picture-perfect example of the kind of world we all want to live in. Peter Stuyvessant, New York's "founder," tried to expel the first Jews who arrived in Manhattan. Then the Dutch said, no, that's a bit much. So then Stuyvessant said ok, you can stay, but you cannot build a synagogue anywhere in Manhattan. Do your stupid Friday night thing at home. The first Jewish temple was not allowed to be built until 1730. Then there was a revolution, and the founding fathers said this country has to be secular -- no religious nuts or state religions. George Washington (inaugurated around the corner from Ground Zero) wanted to make a statement about this his very first year in office, and wrote this to American Jews:
"The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy -- a policy worthy of imitation. ...
"It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens ...
"May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants -- while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid."
3. The Imam in charge of this project is the nicest guy you'd ever want to meet. Read about his past here.
4. Around five dozen Muslims died at the World Trade Center on 9/11. Hundreds of members of their families still grieve and suffer. The 19 killers did not care what religion anyone belonged to when they took those lives.
5. I've never read a sadder headline in the New York Times than the one on the front page this past Monday: "American Muslims Ask, Will We Ever Belong?" That should make all of us so ashamed that even a single one of our fellow citizens should ever have to worry about if they "belong" here.
6. There is a McDonald's two blocks from Ground Zero. Trust me, McDonald's has killed far more people than the terrorists.
7. During an economic depression or a time of war, fascists are extremely skilled at whipping up fear and hate and getting the working class to blame "the other" for their troubles. Lincoln's enemies told poor Southern whites that he was "a Catholic." FDR's opponents said he was Jewish and called him "Jewsevelt." One in five Americans now believe Obama is a Muslim and 41% of Republicans don't believe he was born here.
8. Blaming a whole group for the actions of just one of that group is anti-American. Timothy McVeigh was Catholic. Should Oklahoma City prohibit the building of a Catholic Church near the site of the former federal building that McVeigh blew up?
9. Let's face it, all religions have their whackos. Catholics have O'Reilly, Gingrich, Hannity and Clarence Thomas (in fact all five conservatives who dominate the Supreme Court are Catholic). Protestants have Pat Robertson and too many to list here. The Mormons have Glenn Beck. Jews have Crazy Eddie. But we don't judge whole religions on just the actions of their whackos. Unless they're Methodists.
10. If I should ever, God forbid, perish in a terrorist incident, and you or some nutty group uses my death as your justification to attack or discriminate against anyone in my name, I will come back and haunt you worse than Linda Blair marrying Freddy Krueger and moving into your bedroom to spawn Chucky. John Lennon was right when he asked us to imagine a world with "nothing to kill or die for and no religion, too." I heard Deepak Chopra this week say that "God gave humans the truth, and the devil came and he said, 'Let's give it a name and call it religion.' " But John Adams said it best when he wrote a sort of letter to the future (which he called "Posterity"): "Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present Generation to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it." I'm guessing ol' John Adams is up there repenting nonstop right now.
Friends, we all have a responsibility NOW to make sure that Muslim community center gets built. Once again, 70% of the country (the same number that initially supported the Iraq War) is on the wrong side and want the "mosque" moved. Enormous pressure has been put on the Imam to stop his project. We have to turn this thing around. Are we going to let the bullies and thugs win another one? Aren't you fed up by now? When would be a good time to take our country back from the haters?
I say right now. Let's each of us make a statement by donating to the building of this community center! It's a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization and you can donate a dollar or ten dollars (or more) right now through a secure pay pal account by clicking here. I will personally match the first $10,000 raised (forward your PayPal receipt to webguy@michaelmoore.com). If each one of you reading this blog/email donated just a couple of dollars, that would give the center over $6 million, more than what Donald Trump has offered to buy the Imam out. C'mon everyone, let's pitch in and help those who are being debased for simply wanting to do something good. We could all make a huge statement of love on this solemn day.
I lost a co-worker on 9/11. I write this today in his memory.
Monday, September 06, 2010
“If They Can Burn It, We Can Read It”
“If They Can Burn It, We Can Read It.”
A UCC Minister’s Response to Burning the Qur’an.
Posted on August 19, 2010 by Zachary
There are some things that really get under my skin. One of those things is religious intolerance, be it from Christians, Muslims, Jews, Agnostics, Pagans, Pastafarians, or the like. Larry Reimer, a minister of the United Church of Gainesville, has decided to read scripture from the Qur'an in worship service in response to a local Qur'an burning.
It’s good to know that I’m not the only one, then, who sees Gainesville, Florida’s Dove World Outreach Center’s plan to burn as many copies of the Qur’an as possible a stab in the heart to groups of religious followers that care about tolerance. Larry Reimer is a minister at the United Church of Gainesville, a deep advocate of civil rights, and the man responsible for what seems to be a very intelligent response to Dove’s outlash at Islam.
“If they can burn it, then we can read it,” said Reimer from an armchair across from mine in his office, lined with bookshelves and photos from many events canvassing the years. On a side table next to me, there’s a statue of the Buddha, along with various other spiritually-themed trinkets that seem to indicate that this office does not belong to a spiritually firm-handed man.
Reimer, along with other Gainesville religious leaders, will read scripture from the Qur’an as part of worship services on Sunday, September 12.
When asked about how he came about with the idea, “Almost right away, members of the congregation here asked me, ‘what are we going to do about this?’ Originally, I had the intention of giving [Dove Center] no more attention in the media. But as I thought about it, I asked myself what we could do that would be effective and proactive in promoting cooperation among our religious relatives.”
I prodded further about religious relatives. “Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all part of the Abrahamic tree of faith. We all believe in the same God, and in many aspects we are all trying to accomplish the same goals. And in Islam, there are things that I think any follower of any other religion could learn from. Take prayer, for example. In Islam, one prays at least five times a day. The discipline to do that? Few of us have it. And like Christianity and Judaism, there is a strong call to love God and your neighbor.”
We chat on for a bit about the differences and similarities that each of the Abrahamic religions have when he says to me, “You know, we learn best from our rival siblings. We might not always agree with them, but they always point out our shortcomings. And in the end, we have the most in common with them. We pull from one another and make each whole.
“Look at FSU and UF, or Michigan and Ohio State. All students who grew up together, went to the same high schools, and in reality should be the most understanding of one another. Now that they’re on opposite sides of the stadium, they act like they have nothing in common. But they do, and if each member stopped for a minute and thought about it, they would realize they’re the same students, with the same dreams, looking and hoping to do the same things when they graduate.”
Then I ask him why he thinks these negative attitudes toward Islam exist. “The average American inherently assumes that Islam is violent and decidedly anti-American because we haven’t taken the time to experience Islam from an individual perspective or as a faith up close. A friend of mine was in Egypt when news of Dove Outreach’s Qur’an burning hit, and he told me that it was represented as mainstream Christianity, much in the same way that the violent acts we hear about here are represented as mainstream Islam. Here, Islam is still associated with terrorism. The acts of September 11th were not acts that were Islamic in nature. They were acts of fanatical extremists. And fanaticism is not confined to any one faith. I think that there’s no better time than September 12th to remind ourselves of this, and to read from Qur’an in worship to point out how much we really do have in common.”
Then I asked him the big one. If you could preach to the members of Dove Outreach Center for even five minutes, what would you say? “The danger to our faith comes not most from outside, but from the shadows within. We must pay attention to our neglect to look at ourselves, instead of automatically pointing the finger elsewhere. God’s call is for constant opening.”
Already, Larry has been interviewed for the New York Times. As of now, Fifteen religious leaders in Gainesville have agreed to share verses from the Qur’an on Sunday, September 12th. And he thinks that more will follow. “I’m not trying to make this a national or international event, but I feel that those who understand that allowing [the Qur'an burning] to pass silently by allows Dove Outreach to win in the fight against tolerance and religious compassion will stand up and share scripture from the Qur’an.”
Not a moment too soon. In the words of German poet Heinrich Heine written in 1820, now enshrined on a plaque at the site of Nazi Propoganda Minster Joseph Goebbels’ book burnings, “There, where they burn books, they will in the end burn people.”
A UCC Minister’s Response to Burning the Qur’an.
Posted on August 19, 2010 by Zachary
There are some things that really get under my skin. One of those things is religious intolerance, be it from Christians, Muslims, Jews, Agnostics, Pagans, Pastafarians, or the like. Larry Reimer, a minister of the United Church of Gainesville, has decided to read scripture from the Qur'an in worship service in response to a local Qur'an burning.
It’s good to know that I’m not the only one, then, who sees Gainesville, Florida’s Dove World Outreach Center’s plan to burn as many copies of the Qur’an as possible a stab in the heart to groups of religious followers that care about tolerance. Larry Reimer is a minister at the United Church of Gainesville, a deep advocate of civil rights, and the man responsible for what seems to be a very intelligent response to Dove’s outlash at Islam.
“If they can burn it, then we can read it,” said Reimer from an armchair across from mine in his office, lined with bookshelves and photos from many events canvassing the years. On a side table next to me, there’s a statue of the Buddha, along with various other spiritually-themed trinkets that seem to indicate that this office does not belong to a spiritually firm-handed man.
Reimer, along with other Gainesville religious leaders, will read scripture from the Qur’an as part of worship services on Sunday, September 12.
When asked about how he came about with the idea, “Almost right away, members of the congregation here asked me, ‘what are we going to do about this?’ Originally, I had the intention of giving [Dove Center] no more attention in the media. But as I thought about it, I asked myself what we could do that would be effective and proactive in promoting cooperation among our religious relatives.”
I prodded further about religious relatives. “Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all part of the Abrahamic tree of faith. We all believe in the same God, and in many aspects we are all trying to accomplish the same goals. And in Islam, there are things that I think any follower of any other religion could learn from. Take prayer, for example. In Islam, one prays at least five times a day. The discipline to do that? Few of us have it. And like Christianity and Judaism, there is a strong call to love God and your neighbor.”
We chat on for a bit about the differences and similarities that each of the Abrahamic religions have when he says to me, “You know, we learn best from our rival siblings. We might not always agree with them, but they always point out our shortcomings. And in the end, we have the most in common with them. We pull from one another and make each whole.
“Look at FSU and UF, or Michigan and Ohio State. All students who grew up together, went to the same high schools, and in reality should be the most understanding of one another. Now that they’re on opposite sides of the stadium, they act like they have nothing in common. But they do, and if each member stopped for a minute and thought about it, they would realize they’re the same students, with the same dreams, looking and hoping to do the same things when they graduate.”
Then I ask him why he thinks these negative attitudes toward Islam exist. “The average American inherently assumes that Islam is violent and decidedly anti-American because we haven’t taken the time to experience Islam from an individual perspective or as a faith up close. A friend of mine was in Egypt when news of Dove Outreach’s Qur’an burning hit, and he told me that it was represented as mainstream Christianity, much in the same way that the violent acts we hear about here are represented as mainstream Islam. Here, Islam is still associated with terrorism. The acts of September 11th were not acts that were Islamic in nature. They were acts of fanatical extremists. And fanaticism is not confined to any one faith. I think that there’s no better time than September 12th to remind ourselves of this, and to read from Qur’an in worship to point out how much we really do have in common.”
Then I asked him the big one. If you could preach to the members of Dove Outreach Center for even five minutes, what would you say? “The danger to our faith comes not most from outside, but from the shadows within. We must pay attention to our neglect to look at ourselves, instead of automatically pointing the finger elsewhere. God’s call is for constant opening.”
Already, Larry has been interviewed for the New York Times. As of now, Fifteen religious leaders in Gainesville have agreed to share verses from the Qur’an on Sunday, September 12th. And he thinks that more will follow. “I’m not trying to make this a national or international event, but I feel that those who understand that allowing [the Qur'an burning] to pass silently by allows Dove Outreach to win in the fight against tolerance and religious compassion will stand up and share scripture from the Qur’an.”
Not a moment too soon. In the words of German poet Heinrich Heine written in 1820, now enshrined on a plaque at the site of Nazi Propoganda Minster Joseph Goebbels’ book burnings, “There, where they burn books, they will in the end burn people.”
Friday, September 03, 2010
Islamic Medicine and the Story of Prophet Musa (as)
Once, Prophet Musa/Moses (as) became ill. The Bani Israel (Children of Israel) came to him and realizing what his illness was, advised him: "If you consume such and such medicine you will recover from your sickness." "I shall not seek any cure but will instead wait till Allah (SWT) cures me without the help of any medicine," said Prophet Musa/Moses (as) to them. His illness became prolonged whereupon Allah (SWT) revealed to him: "By My Majesty and Glory! I shall never cure you till you have consumed the medicine which they had recommended to you."
Prophet Musa/Moses (as) asked the Bani Israel to treat him with the medicine that they had previously suggested. They treated him and shortly after that, Prophet Musa/Moses (as) regained his health. However, this incident left Prophet Musa/Moses (as) with a feeling of complaint and dejection but Allah (SWT) revealed to him: "You desired to annul My Wisdom by means of your trust in Me! Is there one, other than Me, who has placed the medicinal and beneficial effects in plants and various things?"
Prophet Musa/Moses (as) asked the Bani Israel to treat him with the medicine that they had previously suggested. They treated him and shortly after that, Prophet Musa/Moses (as) regained his health. However, this incident left Prophet Musa/Moses (as) with a feeling of complaint and dejection but Allah (SWT) revealed to him: "You desired to annul My Wisdom by means of your trust in Me! Is there one, other than Me, who has placed the medicinal and beneficial effects in plants and various things?"
Proofs Against Corruption in Islam...
Ironic, considering things like this go on all the time in the Muslim world.... Here's two hadith that emphasize how much things like nepotism and corruption are despised by Allah SWT...
“He who hires a person and knows that there is another one who is more qualified than him has betrayed Allah and His Prophet and the Muslims.” - Bukhari
‘Whoever is in charge of running Muslim affairs and hires a person on the basis of nepotism has deserved the curse of Allah and will not accept whatever justice he does beyond that.” - Muslim
“He who hires a person and knows that there is another one who is more qualified than him has betrayed Allah and His Prophet and the Muslims.” - Bukhari
‘Whoever is in charge of running Muslim affairs and hires a person on the basis of nepotism has deserved the curse of Allah and will not accept whatever justice he does beyond that.” - Muslim
The Loss of Muslim Spirituality?
Why Ramadan in Egypt means overeating and John Travolta on TV
By Justin D. Martin – Wed Sep 1, 3:38 pm ET
Cairo – During the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, Muslims are supposed to refrain from eating, drinking, and sexual activity (among other things) while the sun is out. Along with a renewed emphasis on charitable giving, Ramadan is meant to remind Muslims about the pain of hunger and refocus their reliance on Allah.
But here in Egypt, home to more than 80 million Muslims, Ramadan is ironically often marked by overconsumption – of both food and TV.
For weeks, I’ve seen advertising for a new Egyptian mini-series called “I Want to Get Married,” starring Hend Sabry, probably the most famous actress in the Arab world. Billboards, TV spots, and online promotions have heralded the comedy series, now airing during Ramadan. The program parodies the very real, frustrating process young Egyptians endure in finding a spouse their highly nuclear families approve.
The marquee series is just one on a long playbill of special programs that entertain Muslim families and help them pass Ramadan hours. Indigenous TV producers, news networks, and channels that beam Western movies all up the ante during Ramadan, the sweeps month, in a way, of the Muslim world. As I write this, MBC 2, a pan-Arab satellite channel that shows mostly American movies, is offering “Ladder 49,” a firefighting film with John Travolta and Joaquin Phoenix, a film the channel probably wouldn’t offer at 11:00 a.m. on a Thursday outside of Ramadan.
Less fasting, more TVEgypt has been criticized for its reliance on television, truncated work hours, and overconsumption of food during Ramadan. Egypt literally changes the time that the sun sets to make fasting easier; the country changed clocks back one hour on August 10, Ramadan eve, and will roll the clocks forward again after Ramadan ends.
Relatives of mine, Muslims living in Turkey and who visited me during Ramadan this year, were shocked by many of the ways Egyptians mark the holy month. Charitable giving does increase in Egypt during Ramadan, but so do marketing, consumption, and exploitation. Many Egyptian merchants raise prices to take advantage of the greater number of family gatherings.
An NPR story on the Egyptian time change for Ramadan discussed the country’s “Ramadan Effect,” a month-long slump in the economy, as Egyptian Muslims spend more time eating, watching television, and less time working, and use of imported goods soars. Many Egyptian Muslims, and, admittedly, many Muslims elsewhere, gain weight during Ramadan. NPR quoted sociologist Said Sadek, who lamented that Ramadan is like “thirty days of Christmas eve, full of banquets and food. Egypt consumes three times its normal food consumption during the month of Ramadan…[Egyptians] are semi-drugged by media, by food, banquets....”
Some Egyptians are embarrassed by the TV-induced hypnosis and gorging that subdues their compatriots during the holy month. My wife and I recently hosted a Muslim iftar, a meal marking the end of a day of fasting, and, when discussing the inertia and TV consumption that often accompanies Ramadan in Egypt, a young Muslim guest said, “Ramadan is supposed to be about working harder, not less.”
I have to admit that as a non-Muslim living in Egypt, I enjoy the spoils of Ramadan. I get better TV programming for a month without bearing the daylight sacrifices.
Nothing compared to American ChristmasAnd, to be fair, I must say that commercialism during Ramadan – in Egypt or elsewhere – is nothing compared to American Christmas. I’m often surprised by how Ramadan, a month-long affair, drives much less TV advertising and useless trinket-buying in Muslim countries than Christmas does in the United States. There’s none of this “Christmas in July” nonsense, no collective counting down the shopping days until loved ones demand gifts. Sure, McDonald’s in Muslim countries whips up cheap and toxic Ramadan meals, but the whole ordeal feels less compromised than Nordstrom in November.
American Christmas, though, doesn’t bill itself as a time of self-denial – far from it. Ramadan, on the other hand, is when Muslims are asked to pass the time with prayer, not TV premieres. Muslims are called to read one-thirtieth of the Koran each day during Ramadan, not slouch on the sofa watching “Ladder 49.”
The good news, my Muslim cousin reminded me, is that the poorest Egyptians enjoy more entertainment and eat better during Ramadan, too. A rising tide expands all bellies, I suppose. I don’t doubt that many of Egypt’s poor look forward to Ramadan as a month of media distraction and a time when the country’s better-off pay more attention to their afflictions.
On a recent evening, there was a Ramadan-inspired show at a fountain-lined string of lovely outdoor cafés in my neighborhood here in Cairo. The venues had TV screens off to the side flickering muted music videos and movies. There was little personal reflection and virtually no self-denial. But if you have a slightly broader expectation of what Ramadan should be, it’s probably OK.
By Justin D. Martin – Wed Sep 1, 3:38 pm ET
Cairo – During the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, Muslims are supposed to refrain from eating, drinking, and sexual activity (among other things) while the sun is out. Along with a renewed emphasis on charitable giving, Ramadan is meant to remind Muslims about the pain of hunger and refocus their reliance on Allah.
But here in Egypt, home to more than 80 million Muslims, Ramadan is ironically often marked by overconsumption – of both food and TV.
For weeks, I’ve seen advertising for a new Egyptian mini-series called “I Want to Get Married,” starring Hend Sabry, probably the most famous actress in the Arab world. Billboards, TV spots, and online promotions have heralded the comedy series, now airing during Ramadan. The program parodies the very real, frustrating process young Egyptians endure in finding a spouse their highly nuclear families approve.
The marquee series is just one on a long playbill of special programs that entertain Muslim families and help them pass Ramadan hours. Indigenous TV producers, news networks, and channels that beam Western movies all up the ante during Ramadan, the sweeps month, in a way, of the Muslim world. As I write this, MBC 2, a pan-Arab satellite channel that shows mostly American movies, is offering “Ladder 49,” a firefighting film with John Travolta and Joaquin Phoenix, a film the channel probably wouldn’t offer at 11:00 a.m. on a Thursday outside of Ramadan.
Less fasting, more TVEgypt has been criticized for its reliance on television, truncated work hours, and overconsumption of food during Ramadan. Egypt literally changes the time that the sun sets to make fasting easier; the country changed clocks back one hour on August 10, Ramadan eve, and will roll the clocks forward again after Ramadan ends.
Relatives of mine, Muslims living in Turkey and who visited me during Ramadan this year, were shocked by many of the ways Egyptians mark the holy month. Charitable giving does increase in Egypt during Ramadan, but so do marketing, consumption, and exploitation. Many Egyptian merchants raise prices to take advantage of the greater number of family gatherings.
An NPR story on the Egyptian time change for Ramadan discussed the country’s “Ramadan Effect,” a month-long slump in the economy, as Egyptian Muslims spend more time eating, watching television, and less time working, and use of imported goods soars. Many Egyptian Muslims, and, admittedly, many Muslims elsewhere, gain weight during Ramadan. NPR quoted sociologist Said Sadek, who lamented that Ramadan is like “thirty days of Christmas eve, full of banquets and food. Egypt consumes three times its normal food consumption during the month of Ramadan…[Egyptians] are semi-drugged by media, by food, banquets....”
Some Egyptians are embarrassed by the TV-induced hypnosis and gorging that subdues their compatriots during the holy month. My wife and I recently hosted a Muslim iftar, a meal marking the end of a day of fasting, and, when discussing the inertia and TV consumption that often accompanies Ramadan in Egypt, a young Muslim guest said, “Ramadan is supposed to be about working harder, not less.”
I have to admit that as a non-Muslim living in Egypt, I enjoy the spoils of Ramadan. I get better TV programming for a month without bearing the daylight sacrifices.
Nothing compared to American ChristmasAnd, to be fair, I must say that commercialism during Ramadan – in Egypt or elsewhere – is nothing compared to American Christmas. I’m often surprised by how Ramadan, a month-long affair, drives much less TV advertising and useless trinket-buying in Muslim countries than Christmas does in the United States. There’s none of this “Christmas in July” nonsense, no collective counting down the shopping days until loved ones demand gifts. Sure, McDonald’s in Muslim countries whips up cheap and toxic Ramadan meals, but the whole ordeal feels less compromised than Nordstrom in November.
American Christmas, though, doesn’t bill itself as a time of self-denial – far from it. Ramadan, on the other hand, is when Muslims are asked to pass the time with prayer, not TV premieres. Muslims are called to read one-thirtieth of the Koran each day during Ramadan, not slouch on the sofa watching “Ladder 49.”
The good news, my Muslim cousin reminded me, is that the poorest Egyptians enjoy more entertainment and eat better during Ramadan, too. A rising tide expands all bellies, I suppose. I don’t doubt that many of Egypt’s poor look forward to Ramadan as a month of media distraction and a time when the country’s better-off pay more attention to their afflictions.
On a recent evening, there was a Ramadan-inspired show at a fountain-lined string of lovely outdoor cafés in my neighborhood here in Cairo. The venues had TV screens off to the side flickering muted music videos and movies. There was little personal reflection and virtually no self-denial. But if you have a slightly broader expectation of what Ramadan should be, it’s probably OK.
Monday, August 30, 2010
The Real Agenda...
Tea Party Reveals Real Reason Behind Mosque Opposition Frenzy
Ahmed Rehab ahmedrehab.com
Leaders of astroturf groups opposing the Not-At-Ground-Zero-Muslim-Center can't seem to decide on an argument. They have thrown everything and the kitchen sink at us in the way of fabricated reasons.
First, they tried the "legal" route. When it became apparent that American Muslims had a constitutionally guaranteed right to religious, cultural, and communal services in lower Manhattan just like everyone else, they invoked the "sensitivity to the 9/11 families" line.
When it was argued that there is nothing insensitive about Muslims with no connection to 9/11 establishing a center two blocks away (unless you assume collective guilt), and that Muslims died in the Twin Towers, too, they tried to smear the center's imam as a radical.
When it was revealed that imam Feisal's 37-year track record was so consistently antithetical to radicalism that it earned him the "moderate model imam" accolade from this administration, the Bush administration, the FBI, and the New York interfaith community, they tried the "sacred ground" argument.
When it was revealed that the center was not actually "at" Ground Zero and that there were offices, delis, dollar stores, bars, and a strip club in the same vicinity that no one was taking issue with for being on sacred ground, they tried the foreign funding route.
When it was revealed that the imam has no intention of receiving funding from foreign governments or groups, or even individuals with a less-than-stellar reputation, they tried the sensitivity route again.
It seems that they just can't decide on the public strategy to keep Park51 from taking its rightful place among Manhattan's blossoming diversity.
Privately, however, there seems to be little such confusion. The reasons there are given clearly, and it turns out it is precisely what many of us have argued all along: opposition organizers are motivated by an ideological belief that "Islam is evil and must be stopped; America is Judeo-Christian."
That's it.
That is the undisguised rallying cry on the private email listservs, the blogs, and the viral youtube videos administered by the right-wing oppositional leadership. On the prime time networks, they openly lie to the American people about harboring an anti-Muslim agenda, perhaps wishing to avoid being exposed for their religious intolerance.
Not for long.
Check out the uber-creepy Tea Party email below, released by no less than teaparty.org.
In it, the Tea Party folks argue that America is exclusively "Judeo-Christian" and that Islam should be "expelled from our shores."
And that's just for starters.
The rest of the email displays a fundemental disdain for a pluralistic America and reveals chilling levels of Islamophobia and hatemongering.
It poses the freakish question: "Will 'blanket tolerance' be the downfall of the Judaic/Christian basis of the American society?"
It quotes select passages from of the Quran out of context, a game that can just as easily be played with the Torah or the Bible.
It then suggests to its members that Muslims at large -- not terrorists, mind you, but Muslims at large -- plan for the "complete annihilation of the west," for "our demise," for "our destruction," and that they are "working dilligently" to "celebrate the day America will be no more." It warns that "the United States Judaic/Christian roots are being 'God Shocked,'" and wonders if "the courts should hand down a litmus test" for religions before they are "expelled from our shores."
So let me ask you again? Do you still think that the sudden rise in anti-mosque hysteria is really about sacred ground? Sensitivities to 9/11 victims? Funding sources?
Or is it about the rise of an ideological anti-Islam movement and the desire to curb, if not outlaw, religious freedoms for Muslims?
What would it take to wake the media up, if not this blatant piece of evidence? Will the media now pay attention? Is it remotely interested in the facts that are practically smacking it in the face? Where is the FOX News coverage of everything "Mosque at Ground Zero," the same FOX News that desperately scrutinizes Imam Feisal's every utterance in the hope of unearthing a controversial statement? Laura Ingraham, are you listening?
Re: Tea Party - Truth Behind 911 Mosque
From: teaparty@teaparty.org
On: Friday, August 20, 2010 8:46 PM
The American people find articulating their concern over the proposed Mosque near the sight of the 911 attacks problematic. On one hand, many view the First Amendment a shield of protection for religious freedom, on the other hand, some view the First Amendment as providing a haven for religions with a hostile political agenda wrapped in cleric's robes.
Is it any wonder that there is so much confusion on this matter? Most Citizens of the United States have never experienced the driving and all consuming force of a Theocratic government with its crushing Theo-political tenet.
The American religious experience is the usual Sunday morning 'hymn singing'; passing the offering plate, an off tempo choir and the occasional neighborhood revival. The 'Church supper and bake sale mentality' gives way to a much colder and more formidable view of religious practices, which are not only unfamiliar, but also antithetical to the 'Sunday Go To Meeting' crowd.
The United States Judaic/Christian roots are being 'God Shocked' by the concept that a religion can and does demand world domination by any means, including violence if necessary.
The Koran states: Sura 61:9 He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islamic monotheism) to make it victorious over all (other) religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, and disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah and His Messenger Muhammad) hate (it). (Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur'an, Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996)
Allah's Messenger said: "By Him (Allah) in Whose Hand my soul is, surely the son of Mary [Isa (Jesus)] will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims), and will judge mankind justly by the Law of the Quran (as a just ruler) and will break the Cross and kill pigs and abolish the Jizyah [a tax] ...." (Bukhari 3:2222) .
The growing confusion among Ministers and their Congregations over the nature of legitimate Islamic worship and the practice of Taqiyya[1] is causing serious questions regarding the constitutionally protected practice of religion, if that religion is detrimental to the welfare and domestic tranquility of the very nation whose constitution protects it.
The emerging question is: Should the first amendment protect the practice of a religion which has a hostile political agenda wrapped in cleric's robes? Should the U.S. Constitution protect a religion whose focus is converting the United States from a Democratic Republic into a Theocracy lead by religious cleric's who are antithetical to what made this nation great and what keeps it great? Is this the change America should have or needs?
How can the Citizenry demarcate a concept which holds the well established fact that millions of the Islamic faith have called for a Holy Jihad and thereby demand the complete annihilation of the west? Yet, this same Citizenry is expected to open their arms to that very same religion, welcoming them as friends, protecting them with the same Constitutional protection Synagogues and Churches have enjoyed for over 234 years.
To make matters worse, this same Citizenry is expected to grant permission to build a Mosque on American hallowed ground, thereby, offering sanctuary and worship for the same religion which was instrumental in the 911 attacks.
Will it become necessary for the courts to hand down a litmus test for religion? If a religion passes the litmus test, then and only then that religion is welcome and protected?
However, if the religion in question fails the litmus test... will that be reason enough to expel the failed theological expression from our shores?
Should 'We The People" give haven to religions whose main purpose it to install a system of Theo-political colonization? Shall the American people welcome with open arms a religion having untold millions of members demanding the beheading of western infidels? Shall the People of America grant safe haven to those who cheerfully work for the day Israel, the United States and all other non-Islamic states are finally eradicated off the face of the earth?
These bothersome questions are not ones of religious rights, but rather of the will of the people. Will the people tolerate everything?
Will 'blanket tolerance' be the downfall of the Judaic/Christian basis of the American society?
Is there nothing which will compel We The People to stand up and say: "It stops here and no further," shall this be America's crucifixion?
Or, shall the American people create a feathered bed for all those who plan our demise, who work diligently for our destruction and for those who will celebrate the day America will be no more.
Stephen Eichler J.D.
America's Legal Analyst
[1] The practice of precautionary dissimulation whereby believers may conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya
Ahmed Rehab ahmedrehab.com
Leaders of astroturf groups opposing the Not-At-Ground-Zero-Muslim-Center can't seem to decide on an argument. They have thrown everything and the kitchen sink at us in the way of fabricated reasons.
First, they tried the "legal" route. When it became apparent that American Muslims had a constitutionally guaranteed right to religious, cultural, and communal services in lower Manhattan just like everyone else, they invoked the "sensitivity to the 9/11 families" line.
When it was argued that there is nothing insensitive about Muslims with no connection to 9/11 establishing a center two blocks away (unless you assume collective guilt), and that Muslims died in the Twin Towers, too, they tried to smear the center's imam as a radical.
When it was revealed that imam Feisal's 37-year track record was so consistently antithetical to radicalism that it earned him the "moderate model imam" accolade from this administration, the Bush administration, the FBI, and the New York interfaith community, they tried the "sacred ground" argument.
When it was revealed that the center was not actually "at" Ground Zero and that there were offices, delis, dollar stores, bars, and a strip club in the same vicinity that no one was taking issue with for being on sacred ground, they tried the foreign funding route.
When it was revealed that the imam has no intention of receiving funding from foreign governments or groups, or even individuals with a less-than-stellar reputation, they tried the sensitivity route again.
It seems that they just can't decide on the public strategy to keep Park51 from taking its rightful place among Manhattan's blossoming diversity.
Privately, however, there seems to be little such confusion. The reasons there are given clearly, and it turns out it is precisely what many of us have argued all along: opposition organizers are motivated by an ideological belief that "Islam is evil and must be stopped; America is Judeo-Christian."
That's it.
That is the undisguised rallying cry on the private email listservs, the blogs, and the viral youtube videos administered by the right-wing oppositional leadership. On the prime time networks, they openly lie to the American people about harboring an anti-Muslim agenda, perhaps wishing to avoid being exposed for their religious intolerance.
Not for long.
Check out the uber-creepy Tea Party email below, released by no less than teaparty.org.
In it, the Tea Party folks argue that America is exclusively "Judeo-Christian" and that Islam should be "expelled from our shores."
And that's just for starters.
The rest of the email displays a fundemental disdain for a pluralistic America and reveals chilling levels of Islamophobia and hatemongering.
It poses the freakish question: "Will 'blanket tolerance' be the downfall of the Judaic/Christian basis of the American society?"
It quotes select passages from of the Quran out of context, a game that can just as easily be played with the Torah or the Bible.
It then suggests to its members that Muslims at large -- not terrorists, mind you, but Muslims at large -- plan for the "complete annihilation of the west," for "our demise," for "our destruction," and that they are "working dilligently" to "celebrate the day America will be no more." It warns that "the United States Judaic/Christian roots are being 'God Shocked,'" and wonders if "the courts should hand down a litmus test" for religions before they are "expelled from our shores."
So let me ask you again? Do you still think that the sudden rise in anti-mosque hysteria is really about sacred ground? Sensitivities to 9/11 victims? Funding sources?
Or is it about the rise of an ideological anti-Islam movement and the desire to curb, if not outlaw, religious freedoms for Muslims?
What would it take to wake the media up, if not this blatant piece of evidence? Will the media now pay attention? Is it remotely interested in the facts that are practically smacking it in the face? Where is the FOX News coverage of everything "Mosque at Ground Zero," the same FOX News that desperately scrutinizes Imam Feisal's every utterance in the hope of unearthing a controversial statement? Laura Ingraham, are you listening?
Re: Tea Party - Truth Behind 911 Mosque
From: teaparty@teaparty.org
On: Friday, August 20, 2010 8:46 PM
The American people find articulating their concern over the proposed Mosque near the sight of the 911 attacks problematic. On one hand, many view the First Amendment a shield of protection for religious freedom, on the other hand, some view the First Amendment as providing a haven for religions with a hostile political agenda wrapped in cleric's robes.
Is it any wonder that there is so much confusion on this matter? Most Citizens of the United States have never experienced the driving and all consuming force of a Theocratic government with its crushing Theo-political tenet.
The American religious experience is the usual Sunday morning 'hymn singing'; passing the offering plate, an off tempo choir and the occasional neighborhood revival. The 'Church supper and bake sale mentality' gives way to a much colder and more formidable view of religious practices, which are not only unfamiliar, but also antithetical to the 'Sunday Go To Meeting' crowd.
The United States Judaic/Christian roots are being 'God Shocked' by the concept that a religion can and does demand world domination by any means, including violence if necessary.
The Koran states: Sura 61:9 He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islamic monotheism) to make it victorious over all (other) religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, and disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah and His Messenger Muhammad) hate (it). (Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur'an, Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996)
Allah's Messenger said: "By Him (Allah) in Whose Hand my soul is, surely the son of Mary [Isa (Jesus)] will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims), and will judge mankind justly by the Law of the Quran (as a just ruler) and will break the Cross and kill pigs and abolish the Jizyah [a tax] ...." (Bukhari 3:2222) .
The growing confusion among Ministers and their Congregations over the nature of legitimate Islamic worship and the practice of Taqiyya[1] is causing serious questions regarding the constitutionally protected practice of religion, if that religion is detrimental to the welfare and domestic tranquility of the very nation whose constitution protects it.
The emerging question is: Should the first amendment protect the practice of a religion which has a hostile political agenda wrapped in cleric's robes? Should the U.S. Constitution protect a religion whose focus is converting the United States from a Democratic Republic into a Theocracy lead by religious cleric's who are antithetical to what made this nation great and what keeps it great? Is this the change America should have or needs?
How can the Citizenry demarcate a concept which holds the well established fact that millions of the Islamic faith have called for a Holy Jihad and thereby demand the complete annihilation of the west? Yet, this same Citizenry is expected to open their arms to that very same religion, welcoming them as friends, protecting them with the same Constitutional protection Synagogues and Churches have enjoyed for over 234 years.
To make matters worse, this same Citizenry is expected to grant permission to build a Mosque on American hallowed ground, thereby, offering sanctuary and worship for the same religion which was instrumental in the 911 attacks.
Will it become necessary for the courts to hand down a litmus test for religion? If a religion passes the litmus test, then and only then that religion is welcome and protected?
However, if the religion in question fails the litmus test... will that be reason enough to expel the failed theological expression from our shores?
Should 'We The People" give haven to religions whose main purpose it to install a system of Theo-political colonization? Shall the American people welcome with open arms a religion having untold millions of members demanding the beheading of western infidels? Shall the People of America grant safe haven to those who cheerfully work for the day Israel, the United States and all other non-Islamic states are finally eradicated off the face of the earth?
These bothersome questions are not ones of religious rights, but rather of the will of the people. Will the people tolerate everything?
Will 'blanket tolerance' be the downfall of the Judaic/Christian basis of the American society?
Is there nothing which will compel We The People to stand up and say: "It stops here and no further," shall this be America's crucifixion?
Or, shall the American people create a feathered bed for all those who plan our demise, who work diligently for our destruction and for those who will celebrate the day America will be no more.
Stephen Eichler J.D.
America's Legal Analyst
[1] The practice of precautionary dissimulation whereby believers may conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Ramadan Inspiration
Ramadan means no water during workouts for Husain Abdullah
By MJD
NFL practices this time of year are designed for maximum sweat production. Coaches are trying to build up stamina and endurance. Players push themselves to the limit, in pursuit of jobs and starting spots. It's also really, really hot.
And starting on Aug. 11, the beginning of the Islamic month of Ramadan, Minnesota Vikings safety Husain Abdullah(notes) will be going through these practices without the benefit of water. Or food. Or any other kind of hydration.
During Ramadan, observing Muslims like Abdullah will fast for 30 days; eating or drinking nothing while the sun is out. Food and drink are permitted after dark and before sunrise, but during the day, there's nada -- not a tiny little sip of water, or the smallest release of Powerade's mystic mountain blueberry. From the AP:
Even while sprinting in the heat and humidity during drills, sometimes in full pads, Abdullah is adamant about his faith. He will not allow himself so much as a cup of water until the sun sets and before it rises.
“I’m putting nothing before God, nothing before my religion,” Abdullah said. “This is something I choose to do, not something I have to do. So I’m always going to fast.”
Abdullah's worked with the team's nutritionist on a way to keep himself healthy through Ramadan with a couple of big meals when it's dark, and a protein shake in the middle of the night. Of course, they know better than I do, but I think about these intense workouts in 90-degree heat, and as soon as I even imagine doing it without water, my kidneys start to shut down.
"Last year it occurred in early September, and we saw a dip in his performance," coach Brad Childress said. "We said, 'What's wrong with Husain Abdullah? It doesn't seem like he has enough spunk.
"I think we have our arms around it now and know when he is going to wake up and when he is going to eat and what we can pack on him before the sun comes up."
I'm in awe of his commitment, and I'm glad he is doing what feels right. That said, I ask him to please, please be as careful as he goes through this. We've seen way too many times that heat-related illnesses are real, extreme and unforgiving dangers.
By MJD
NFL practices this time of year are designed for maximum sweat production. Coaches are trying to build up stamina and endurance. Players push themselves to the limit, in pursuit of jobs and starting spots. It's also really, really hot.
And starting on Aug. 11, the beginning of the Islamic month of Ramadan, Minnesota Vikings safety Husain Abdullah(notes) will be going through these practices without the benefit of water. Or food. Or any other kind of hydration.
During Ramadan, observing Muslims like Abdullah will fast for 30 days; eating or drinking nothing while the sun is out. Food and drink are permitted after dark and before sunrise, but during the day, there's nada -- not a tiny little sip of water, or the smallest release of Powerade's mystic mountain blueberry. From the AP:
Even while sprinting in the heat and humidity during drills, sometimes in full pads, Abdullah is adamant about his faith. He will not allow himself so much as a cup of water until the sun sets and before it rises.
“I’m putting nothing before God, nothing before my religion,” Abdullah said. “This is something I choose to do, not something I have to do. So I’m always going to fast.”
Abdullah's worked with the team's nutritionist on a way to keep himself healthy through Ramadan with a couple of big meals when it's dark, and a protein shake in the middle of the night. Of course, they know better than I do, but I think about these intense workouts in 90-degree heat, and as soon as I even imagine doing it without water, my kidneys start to shut down.
"Last year it occurred in early September, and we saw a dip in his performance," coach Brad Childress said. "We said, 'What's wrong with Husain Abdullah? It doesn't seem like he has enough spunk.
"I think we have our arms around it now and know when he is going to wake up and when he is going to eat and what we can pack on him before the sun comes up."
I'm in awe of his commitment, and I'm glad he is doing what feels right. That said, I ask him to please, please be as careful as he goes through this. We've seen way too many times that heat-related illnesses are real, extreme and unforgiving dangers.
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
Too Good to be True: A Positive, Level-headed Article about the "Ground-Zero Mosque"
Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Imam Behind the 'Ground Zero Mosque'
By BOBBY GHOSH – Tue Aug 3, 6:00 pm ET
The last legal hurdle to the proposed Islamic center near the site of the World Trade Center has been removed, but ignorance, bigotry and politics are more formidable obstacles. The unanimous vote Tuesday, Aug. 3, by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission means the building that currently occupies 45-47 Park Place can be torn down, clearing the way for Park51, a project known to its critics as the "Ground Zero Mosque." Criticism spans the gamut, from the ill-informed anguish of those who mistakenly view Islam as the malevolent force that brought down the towers to the ill-considered opportunism of right-wing politicians who see Islam as an easy target. (Ironically, Islam's roots in New York City are in the area around the site of the World Trade Center, and they predate the Twin Towers: in the late 19th century, a portion of lower Manhattan was known as Little Syria and was inhabited by Arab immigrants - Muslims and Christians - from the Ottoman Empire.)
With city authorities now out of the way, it is the people spearheading the project who must bear the enormous pressure to give up their plans and scrap the building. They are being accused of sympathizing with the men who crashed the planes on 9/11 and of designing the project as, in Newt Gingrich's reckoning, "an act of triumphalism."
And yet Park51's main movers, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan, are actually the kind of Muslim leaders right-wing commentators fantasize about: modernists and moderates who openly condemn the death cult of al-Qaeda and its adherents - ironically, just the kind of "peaceful Muslims" whom Sarah Palin, in her now infamous tweet, asked to "refudiate" the mosque. Rauf is a Sufi, which is Islam's most mystical and accommodating denomination. (See the very best #Shakespalin tweets.)
The Kuwaiti-born Rauf, 52, is the imam of a mosque in New York City's Tribeca district, has written extensively on Islam and its place in modern society and often argues that American democracy is the embodiment of Islam's ideal society. (One of his books is titled What's Right with Islam Is What's Right with America.) He is a contributor to the Washington Post's On Faith blog, and the stated aim of his organization, the Cordoba Initiative, is "to achieve a tipping point in Muslim-West relations within the next decade, steering the world back to the course of mutual recognition and respect and away from heightened tensions." His Indian-born wife is an architect and a recipient of the Interfaith Center Award for Promoting Peace and Interfaith Understanding. (Can Sufism defuse terrorism?)
Since 9/11, Western "experts" have said repeatedly that Muslim leaders who fit Rauf's description should be sought out and empowered to fight the rising tide of extremism. In truth, such figures abound in Muslim lands, even if their work goes unnoticed by armchair pundits elsewhere. Their cause is not helped when someone like Rauf finds himself being excoriated for some perceived reluctance to condemn Hamas and accused of being an extremist himself. If anything, this browbeating of a moderate Muslim empowers the narrative promoted by al-Qaeda: that the West loathes everything about Islam and will stop at nothing to destroy it. (See Daisy Khan explain the role of women leaders in Islam.)
Rauf and Khan have said Park51 - envisaged as a 15-story structure, including a mosque, cultural center and auditorium - will promote greater interfaith dialogue. The furor over the project only underlines how desperately it is needed.
By BOBBY GHOSH – Tue Aug 3, 6:00 pm ET
The last legal hurdle to the proposed Islamic center near the site of the World Trade Center has been removed, but ignorance, bigotry and politics are more formidable obstacles. The unanimous vote Tuesday, Aug. 3, by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission means the building that currently occupies 45-47 Park Place can be torn down, clearing the way for Park51, a project known to its critics as the "Ground Zero Mosque." Criticism spans the gamut, from the ill-informed anguish of those who mistakenly view Islam as the malevolent force that brought down the towers to the ill-considered opportunism of right-wing politicians who see Islam as an easy target. (Ironically, Islam's roots in New York City are in the area around the site of the World Trade Center, and they predate the Twin Towers: in the late 19th century, a portion of lower Manhattan was known as Little Syria and was inhabited by Arab immigrants - Muslims and Christians - from the Ottoman Empire.)
With city authorities now out of the way, it is the people spearheading the project who must bear the enormous pressure to give up their plans and scrap the building. They are being accused of sympathizing with the men who crashed the planes on 9/11 and of designing the project as, in Newt Gingrich's reckoning, "an act of triumphalism."
And yet Park51's main movers, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan, are actually the kind of Muslim leaders right-wing commentators fantasize about: modernists and moderates who openly condemn the death cult of al-Qaeda and its adherents - ironically, just the kind of "peaceful Muslims" whom Sarah Palin, in her now infamous tweet, asked to "refudiate" the mosque. Rauf is a Sufi, which is Islam's most mystical and accommodating denomination. (See the very best #Shakespalin tweets.)
The Kuwaiti-born Rauf, 52, is the imam of a mosque in New York City's Tribeca district, has written extensively on Islam and its place in modern society and often argues that American democracy is the embodiment of Islam's ideal society. (One of his books is titled What's Right with Islam Is What's Right with America.) He is a contributor to the Washington Post's On Faith blog, and the stated aim of his organization, the Cordoba Initiative, is "to achieve a tipping point in Muslim-West relations within the next decade, steering the world back to the course of mutual recognition and respect and away from heightened tensions." His Indian-born wife is an architect and a recipient of the Interfaith Center Award for Promoting Peace and Interfaith Understanding. (Can Sufism defuse terrorism?)
Since 9/11, Western "experts" have said repeatedly that Muslim leaders who fit Rauf's description should be sought out and empowered to fight the rising tide of extremism. In truth, such figures abound in Muslim lands, even if their work goes unnoticed by armchair pundits elsewhere. Their cause is not helped when someone like Rauf finds himself being excoriated for some perceived reluctance to condemn Hamas and accused of being an extremist himself. If anything, this browbeating of a moderate Muslim empowers the narrative promoted by al-Qaeda: that the West loathes everything about Islam and will stop at nothing to destroy it. (See Daisy Khan explain the role of women leaders in Islam.)
Rauf and Khan have said Park51 - envisaged as a 15-story structure, including a mosque, cultural center and auditorium - will promote greater interfaith dialogue. The furor over the project only underlines how desperately it is needed.
Sunday, August 01, 2010
Be People with Minds of Your Own...
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well and that if they do wrong you will do wrong. But (instead) accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong if they do evil."
Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 1325
An important hadith for our times....
Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 1325
An important hadith for our times....
Sunday, July 18, 2010
For Parents: Understanding the L.E.T.S. Phenomenon
The following is an excerpt from a magazine interview on parenting and popular media:
(Q) In your opinion, do you think that Reality TV featuring young children opens doors to pedophilia? (You would probably answer that "some may run the risk of doing so," so maybe you can elaborate on well-constructed shows that protect the dignity of children as compared to those that leverage on young children's vulnerability).
(A) This is a really difficult question to answer, because scientifically it is a bit difficult to make the claim that reality TV leads to pedophilia. That being said, however, I think there is a bigger issue at play and Reality TV is just one aspect of it. There has been an explosion in reported cases and incidents of pedophilia and sex crimes against children across the planet in recent decades. Now there are many possible factors that could be contributing to it, but one factor without a doubt is the explosion of what I like to call the L.E.T.S. phenomenon -- the Latest Expendable Teenage Superstar. This is the Britney Spears phenomenon; the young – too young, sexy, anorexic, paper cut-out superstar that is good for a few million in sales before they are discarded for the next, big upcoming LETS. I’m not sure if people in Malaysia heard the news, but the most recent controversy is over a new LETS named Miley Cyrus. She starts in the hit Disney Channel show Hannah Montana. This young woman is 15 years old and is now embroiled in ‘controversy’ over racy photos in a popular U.S. magazine named Vanity Fair, in which the young woman is seductively shown wrapped in a bed sheet. The thing about the LETS phenomenon is that the girls are getting younger and younger. The next big up and coming star is another 15 year-old named Selena Gomez, also a Disney product. The irony is that others like Britney, Christina Aguilera, Hillary Duff and Justin Timberlake are all former Disney products. Disney is becoming a major contributor to the LETS phenomenon. As we see, for many of them, like Britney, life gets pretty gruesome and by the time they are in their 20s many of them are burned out, on drugs, broke, divorced, etc.
The LETS phenomenon most definitely creates a very dangerous norm, that is, it not only objectifies woman more than they are already, but now involves teens as well, for these girls are only 15 years old! Fifteen year olds wrapped in bed sheets on the cover of magazines is as pretty close to exploitation as it gets. Soon it will be 14 year olds, then 13, then 12 -- the trend is getting younger and younger. So when does it become a ‘contributor’ to pedophilia? I don’t know, but again, look at the statement that they are making by using such young girls as sex symbols. Having a popular, half-naked 15 year old in seductive poses in adult magazines is not about selling children’s shows for Disney! It’s about the sickening reality of sexual attraction to very young women and girls, and when it becomes a norm and part of the culture, we can see what the results have been.
If you notice, many of the young, female music stars now are young and young-looking, which is what they are selling. They’re taking pretty, young girls and using their sexual allure to sell records, videos, and everything else. Of course, the bottom line is still about economics but it just shows the lengths they are willing to go now to sell – pushing the boundaries of what’s considered decent, ethical and acceptable. Being old is not cool and now, being 30 is old! That’s why we see older stars trying to desperately to appear young – the lengths people are going to in order to appear young is astounding. They are even injecting poison into their bodies and faces to attempt to slow down the aging process (e.g., Botox). Youth truly is king and getting old is very uncool. That is the message that Disney and others are constantly sending by plastering LETS across the TV’s and every other form of mass media.
(Q) In your opinion, do you think that Reality TV featuring young children opens doors to pedophilia? (You would probably answer that "some may run the risk of doing so," so maybe you can elaborate on well-constructed shows that protect the dignity of children as compared to those that leverage on young children's vulnerability).
(A) This is a really difficult question to answer, because scientifically it is a bit difficult to make the claim that reality TV leads to pedophilia. That being said, however, I think there is a bigger issue at play and Reality TV is just one aspect of it. There has been an explosion in reported cases and incidents of pedophilia and sex crimes against children across the planet in recent decades. Now there are many possible factors that could be contributing to it, but one factor without a doubt is the explosion of what I like to call the L.E.T.S. phenomenon -- the Latest Expendable Teenage Superstar. This is the Britney Spears phenomenon; the young – too young, sexy, anorexic, paper cut-out superstar that is good for a few million in sales before they are discarded for the next, big upcoming LETS. I’m not sure if people in Malaysia heard the news, but the most recent controversy is over a new LETS named Miley Cyrus. She starts in the hit Disney Channel show Hannah Montana. This young woman is 15 years old and is now embroiled in ‘controversy’ over racy photos in a popular U.S. magazine named Vanity Fair, in which the young woman is seductively shown wrapped in a bed sheet. The thing about the LETS phenomenon is that the girls are getting younger and younger. The next big up and coming star is another 15 year-old named Selena Gomez, also a Disney product. The irony is that others like Britney, Christina Aguilera, Hillary Duff and Justin Timberlake are all former Disney products. Disney is becoming a major contributor to the LETS phenomenon. As we see, for many of them, like Britney, life gets pretty gruesome and by the time they are in their 20s many of them are burned out, on drugs, broke, divorced, etc.
The LETS phenomenon most definitely creates a very dangerous norm, that is, it not only objectifies woman more than they are already, but now involves teens as well, for these girls are only 15 years old! Fifteen year olds wrapped in bed sheets on the cover of magazines is as pretty close to exploitation as it gets. Soon it will be 14 year olds, then 13, then 12 -- the trend is getting younger and younger. So when does it become a ‘contributor’ to pedophilia? I don’t know, but again, look at the statement that they are making by using such young girls as sex symbols. Having a popular, half-naked 15 year old in seductive poses in adult magazines is not about selling children’s shows for Disney! It’s about the sickening reality of sexual attraction to very young women and girls, and when it becomes a norm and part of the culture, we can see what the results have been.
If you notice, many of the young, female music stars now are young and young-looking, which is what they are selling. They’re taking pretty, young girls and using their sexual allure to sell records, videos, and everything else. Of course, the bottom line is still about economics but it just shows the lengths they are willing to go now to sell – pushing the boundaries of what’s considered decent, ethical and acceptable. Being old is not cool and now, being 30 is old! That’s why we see older stars trying to desperately to appear young – the lengths people are going to in order to appear young is astounding. They are even injecting poison into their bodies and faces to attempt to slow down the aging process (e.g., Botox). Youth truly is king and getting old is very uncool. That is the message that Disney and others are constantly sending by plastering LETS across the TV’s and every other form of mass media.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
The Problem with Negativity...
I just finished reading a post from a Muslim commenting (or lamenting) about politics in Malaysia. Though somewhat insightful and factual, much of the article, like too many we read today, was one-sided and negative. It made me reflect. Is all this negativity that we pre-occupy ourselves with getting us anywhere? Can it possibly lead to anything positive?
I have a good friend, a convert, who some look down upon because they say he's not a 'real' Muslim; after all, he converted to marry a Muslim woman. Even though he keeps up with his fardu 'ain and his other responsibilities, he doesn't look the way other more 'religious' Muslims look. The funny thing about my friend is that he has a heart of gold. He spends his days and nights working on scientific projects aimed at helping the Muslims and the world at-large improve their well-being through science-based development. He is a child of the 'atoms for peace' era where the dreams of the young people were to develop the entire world using science and technology, including nuclear energy. He's a holdover from that era and still believes that science and technology is the greatest weapon in the hands of those wanting to do good for ending poverty and other humanitarian crises. He puts his money where his mouth is. He is a freelancer who works with anyone who has the same goals and aspirations.
The interesting thing about my friend is that he doesn't get bogged down in the endless negativity plaguing the Muslim community, where everyone is a scholar, everyone is a critic and everyone has something to say but few actually DO anything to improve things. We have some brilliant critics in our midst. They spend hours on the web, blogging about how bad everyone else is, even their own countries, but couldn't tell you five good things they actually did in their lives. My friend has taught me an invaluable lesson and has reminded my about the importance of a unfettered, brilliant mind guided by a pure heart. This combination has the power to transform people and nations and is the greatest weapon against ignorance, greed, racism and every other evil out there. The Prophet (SAW) never spent a moment of his time talking about how bad his enemies were. He hated negativity and spoke about it in the following hadith: "Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should say something good or keep quiet."
My theory is that we spend so much time on the negative because we have little positive to offer. We lack ideas and the creative ability to envision a better future. We don't really believe in Allah's promise of success through surrender and trust in Him. We need to learn, acquire knowledge and act on it. We need to envision something better and take small steps to work towards it, without expecting all the worldly rewards that so many are selling themselves everyday to attain. My friend is an inspiration for what good ideas and good intentions combined can do towards helping the less fortunate and building a better world.
This has been a great reminder to myself -- shut up and do something, no matter how small, to improve this world. Until we act, nothing will change.
I have a good friend, a convert, who some look down upon because they say he's not a 'real' Muslim; after all, he converted to marry a Muslim woman. Even though he keeps up with his fardu 'ain and his other responsibilities, he doesn't look the way other more 'religious' Muslims look. The funny thing about my friend is that he has a heart of gold. He spends his days and nights working on scientific projects aimed at helping the Muslims and the world at-large improve their well-being through science-based development. He is a child of the 'atoms for peace' era where the dreams of the young people were to develop the entire world using science and technology, including nuclear energy. He's a holdover from that era and still believes that science and technology is the greatest weapon in the hands of those wanting to do good for ending poverty and other humanitarian crises. He puts his money where his mouth is. He is a freelancer who works with anyone who has the same goals and aspirations.
The interesting thing about my friend is that he doesn't get bogged down in the endless negativity plaguing the Muslim community, where everyone is a scholar, everyone is a critic and everyone has something to say but few actually DO anything to improve things. We have some brilliant critics in our midst. They spend hours on the web, blogging about how bad everyone else is, even their own countries, but couldn't tell you five good things they actually did in their lives. My friend has taught me an invaluable lesson and has reminded my about the importance of a unfettered, brilliant mind guided by a pure heart. This combination has the power to transform people and nations and is the greatest weapon against ignorance, greed, racism and every other evil out there. The Prophet (SAW) never spent a moment of his time talking about how bad his enemies were. He hated negativity and spoke about it in the following hadith: "Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should say something good or keep quiet."
My theory is that we spend so much time on the negative because we have little positive to offer. We lack ideas and the creative ability to envision a better future. We don't really believe in Allah's promise of success through surrender and trust in Him. We need to learn, acquire knowledge and act on it. We need to envision something better and take small steps to work towards it, without expecting all the worldly rewards that so many are selling themselves everyday to attain. My friend is an inspiration for what good ideas and good intentions combined can do towards helping the less fortunate and building a better world.
This has been a great reminder to myself -- shut up and do something, no matter how small, to improve this world. Until we act, nothing will change.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Malaysia’s Young ‘Nuclear Ambassadors’
by Mohd Daniel Davis
June 4—Like an old general addressing his army before
an important battle, Prof. Noramly Muslim, father of
Malaysia’s 1970s civilian nuclear power program that
has never been enacted, gave us a crystal-clear mission.
“Malaysia hopes to have nuclear power by 2021.
You are now our ambassadors for nuclear power in this
country. I want you to be proactive and become opinionated
citizens who will speak up to the media by writing
to the newspapers and magazines when people come out
and attack nuclear power as unsafe. After this, I want
you to give advanced reasons rather than just layman
reasons for the usage of nuclear power in this country.”
Professor Noramly gave the the closing speech at the
2nd Nuclear Power and Engineering Summer School
program, held May 17-27, in collaboration with National
University of Malaysia (UKM) and the Korean
Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST).
In the 1970s, Noramly was the founding director general
of the Pusat Penyelidikan Atom Tun Ismail (PUSPATI),
now renamed the Nuclear Malaysia Agency.
Back then, Malaysia’s brightest students were sent overseas
for training in nuclear science and engineering.
This first generation of nuclear experts is now retiring.
Now, here we were, at the Nuclear Summer School,
a fresh generation of mostly young, under 35, working
professionals, who hope to further their studies at the
world’s top nuclear universities.
Three professors from KAIST, and one from the
Korean Institute of Nuclear Safety (KINS), were invited
to UKM to lecture on nuclear reactor design, fuel,
instrumentation, and radioactive waste management.
The program attracted numerous professionals from
Malaysia’s research and energy industry, including,
Tenaga Nasional Berhad (Malaysia’s main electricity
supplier), Nuclear Malaysia Agency (responsible for
handling Malaysia’s experimental reactor), Atomic Licensing
Board, and other government and private educational
institutions.
Malaysia, sandwiched between Thailand and Singapore,
has long prided itself as being a leader among developing
countries, demonstrating how to progress in a
multicultural society without racial conflict. In the
1970s, when oil prices were soaring, Malaysia initiated
its own civilian nuclear power plan under the umbrella
of President Eisenhower’s 1953 Atoms for Peace program.
Its first experimental nuclear reactor, Triga, was
built in the early 1980s. The 1-MW reactor has been primarily
used for isotope production for agricultural and
medical use, and research into radioactive applications
of fertilizers, crops, and the study of soil sedimentation.
Today, with no coal reserves, oil reserves expected
to last for only five more years, and natural gas a bit
longer, Malaysia is looking back wistfully at the shelved
nuclear program that Noramly and his colleagues initiated
nearly 40 years ago.
South Korea Leads the Way in SE Asia
Few could have believed that South Korea could
beat out the United States, France, and Japan last year for
a $20 billion contract to build state-of-the-art 1,400-MW
nuclear power plants in the United Arab Emirates by
2020. It was a first for the South Koreans. How could this
small Asian country have beaten traditional nuclear
heavyweights? South Korea has come a long way since
its first 563-MW Kori-1 reactor in 1978. It now has 20
nuclear power plants, which produce 40% of the nation’s
total electricity. This has sparked heightened interest in
other developing countries, especially, in Southeast Asia,
where Korean-built nuclear plants are cheaper. It costs
only $3 billion for the South Koreans to build a unit, while,
the cost for United States to build one will be $5-6 billion.
What about the doubts that many people express
about “nuclear waste”—fears which largely stem from
the hysteria of the anti-nuclear crowd and the mass
media hype about Chernobyl and Three Mile Island? I
am reminded of the powerful message that Prof. Jong
Kim of KAIST gave a year ago, during a public lecture
at UKM. South Korea initially had problems finding a
suitable place for the nuclear waste from their power
plants. Jong explained:
“In the end we simply asked any areas which wanted
to have the nuclear waste facility to submit their entries.
Four areas submitted their entries; the winner went to
the area with an 80% resident approval for building the
nuclear waste management facility. The technical aspect
of it had been solved long ago. It is relatively safe. If it
wasn’t safe why would South Korea build not only one
but 20 nuclear power plants? What is left for other
countries is only the political will power to do so. . . .”
To date, people who live in areas that operate a nuclear
power facility are healthy and happy, as is evident
in France, for example, where over 70% of the energy
is generated by nuclear power.
As a physics undergraduate, and the youngest “nuclear
ambassador” attending the summer school program,
I feel the following points needs to be addressed
with urgency:
• With nuclear power, the Malaysian monthly
household electricity bill will be reduced from the average
RM100-200 per month, to an average of only
RM40-50 per month. This is because nuclear power
plants can generate a stable base load of electricity 24
hours, 7 days a week, with shutdowns only every 18
months to service and re-fuel, during their 50-60 year
lifetime. Electricity generation using nuclear power
costs only $.39 per KW-hour versus $.54 for coal, $1.47
for natural gas, and $1.95 for oil.
• Nuclear power produces 10 grams per KW-hour
of CO2 (this figure, from the South Koreans, includes
uranium ore mining and nuclear plant construction),
against 991 grams per KW-hour of CO2 produced using
coal, and 782 grams of CO2 for oil. So for those worried
about CO2 emissions, nuclear has the least greenhouse
gas emission in the energy industry.
As young nuclear ambassadors, how then will we win
over other youth to take up nuclear as a career? We must
catch them in their final school years, and inspire
them with the future of a Nuclear Malaysia. But this will
not happen unless Malaysia makes a clear decision to go
nuclear. The youth are not stupid. They have seen their
parents’ generation, which answered the nuclear call in
the 1970s, rot in the government nuclear establishments,
without being allowed to produce a single kilowatt of
electricity or to launch hi tech industries as South
Korea has done. Until Malaysia makes a clear commitment
to go nuclear, the youth will boycott nuclear as
having no future in Malaysia.
Malaysia often brags about being the role model for
other developing countries. This is only partly true (with
its successful urbanization and some low-tech industries).
But it is impossible to live and raise a family on the
low salaries most young people receive, even as graduates,
without considerable financial assistance from their
parents. But, by partnering with South Korea in nuclear
power plants and other technologies, such as cars and
electronics, Malaysia can achieve the stated government
aim for a high-wage, hi-tech transformation of the economy.
South Korea stated loud and clear at the summer
school, that it is eager to work alongside Malaysia.
In the words of Prof. Kun Jai Lee, a senior professor
from KAIST, in his closing speech: “Korea will gladly
help Malaysia to build its first nuclear power plant.
Since your government has stated that it aspires to have
the first nuclear power plant by 2021, we don’t have
much time to waste!”
As Malaysia’s newly appointed “nuclear ambassadors,”
we were impressed. This is an offer from our
Asian technological “big brother,” which has proved to
the world its mastery in safely harnessing nuclear
power, that is simply too good to refuse. What on Earth
is stopping Malaysia from making the simple decision
to Go Nuclear? Half of Malaysia’s population, like me,
is under 23 years old. We want an answer and a future.
(From: Executive Intelligence Review - June 18, 2010)
June 4—Like an old general addressing his army before
an important battle, Prof. Noramly Muslim, father of
Malaysia’s 1970s civilian nuclear power program that
has never been enacted, gave us a crystal-clear mission.
“Malaysia hopes to have nuclear power by 2021.
You are now our ambassadors for nuclear power in this
country. I want you to be proactive and become opinionated
citizens who will speak up to the media by writing
to the newspapers and magazines when people come out
and attack nuclear power as unsafe. After this, I want
you to give advanced reasons rather than just layman
reasons for the usage of nuclear power in this country.”
Professor Noramly gave the the closing speech at the
2nd Nuclear Power and Engineering Summer School
program, held May 17-27, in collaboration with National
University of Malaysia (UKM) and the Korean
Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST).
In the 1970s, Noramly was the founding director general
of the Pusat Penyelidikan Atom Tun Ismail (PUSPATI),
now renamed the Nuclear Malaysia Agency.
Back then, Malaysia’s brightest students were sent overseas
for training in nuclear science and engineering.
This first generation of nuclear experts is now retiring.
Now, here we were, at the Nuclear Summer School,
a fresh generation of mostly young, under 35, working
professionals, who hope to further their studies at the
world’s top nuclear universities.
Three professors from KAIST, and one from the
Korean Institute of Nuclear Safety (KINS), were invited
to UKM to lecture on nuclear reactor design, fuel,
instrumentation, and radioactive waste management.
The program attracted numerous professionals from
Malaysia’s research and energy industry, including,
Tenaga Nasional Berhad (Malaysia’s main electricity
supplier), Nuclear Malaysia Agency (responsible for
handling Malaysia’s experimental reactor), Atomic Licensing
Board, and other government and private educational
institutions.
Malaysia, sandwiched between Thailand and Singapore,
has long prided itself as being a leader among developing
countries, demonstrating how to progress in a
multicultural society without racial conflict. In the
1970s, when oil prices were soaring, Malaysia initiated
its own civilian nuclear power plan under the umbrella
of President Eisenhower’s 1953 Atoms for Peace program.
Its first experimental nuclear reactor, Triga, was
built in the early 1980s. The 1-MW reactor has been primarily
used for isotope production for agricultural and
medical use, and research into radioactive applications
of fertilizers, crops, and the study of soil sedimentation.
Today, with no coal reserves, oil reserves expected
to last for only five more years, and natural gas a bit
longer, Malaysia is looking back wistfully at the shelved
nuclear program that Noramly and his colleagues initiated
nearly 40 years ago.
South Korea Leads the Way in SE Asia
Few could have believed that South Korea could
beat out the United States, France, and Japan last year for
a $20 billion contract to build state-of-the-art 1,400-MW
nuclear power plants in the United Arab Emirates by
2020. It was a first for the South Koreans. How could this
small Asian country have beaten traditional nuclear
heavyweights? South Korea has come a long way since
its first 563-MW Kori-1 reactor in 1978. It now has 20
nuclear power plants, which produce 40% of the nation’s
total electricity. This has sparked heightened interest in
other developing countries, especially, in Southeast Asia,
where Korean-built nuclear plants are cheaper. It costs
only $3 billion for the South Koreans to build a unit, while,
the cost for United States to build one will be $5-6 billion.
What about the doubts that many people express
about “nuclear waste”—fears which largely stem from
the hysteria of the anti-nuclear crowd and the mass
media hype about Chernobyl and Three Mile Island? I
am reminded of the powerful message that Prof. Jong
Kim of KAIST gave a year ago, during a public lecture
at UKM. South Korea initially had problems finding a
suitable place for the nuclear waste from their power
plants. Jong explained:
“In the end we simply asked any areas which wanted
to have the nuclear waste facility to submit their entries.
Four areas submitted their entries; the winner went to
the area with an 80% resident approval for building the
nuclear waste management facility. The technical aspect
of it had been solved long ago. It is relatively safe. If it
wasn’t safe why would South Korea build not only one
but 20 nuclear power plants? What is left for other
countries is only the political will power to do so. . . .”
To date, people who live in areas that operate a nuclear
power facility are healthy and happy, as is evident
in France, for example, where over 70% of the energy
is generated by nuclear power.
As a physics undergraduate, and the youngest “nuclear
ambassador” attending the summer school program,
I feel the following points needs to be addressed
with urgency:
• With nuclear power, the Malaysian monthly
household electricity bill will be reduced from the average
RM100-200 per month, to an average of only
RM40-50 per month. This is because nuclear power
plants can generate a stable base load of electricity 24
hours, 7 days a week, with shutdowns only every 18
months to service and re-fuel, during their 50-60 year
lifetime. Electricity generation using nuclear power
costs only $.39 per KW-hour versus $.54 for coal, $1.47
for natural gas, and $1.95 for oil.
• Nuclear power produces 10 grams per KW-hour
of CO2 (this figure, from the South Koreans, includes
uranium ore mining and nuclear plant construction),
against 991 grams per KW-hour of CO2 produced using
coal, and 782 grams of CO2 for oil. So for those worried
about CO2 emissions, nuclear has the least greenhouse
gas emission in the energy industry.
As young nuclear ambassadors, how then will we win
over other youth to take up nuclear as a career? We must
catch them in their final school years, and inspire
them with the future of a Nuclear Malaysia. But this will
not happen unless Malaysia makes a clear decision to go
nuclear. The youth are not stupid. They have seen their
parents’ generation, which answered the nuclear call in
the 1970s, rot in the government nuclear establishments,
without being allowed to produce a single kilowatt of
electricity or to launch hi tech industries as South
Korea has done. Until Malaysia makes a clear commitment
to go nuclear, the youth will boycott nuclear as
having no future in Malaysia.
Malaysia often brags about being the role model for
other developing countries. This is only partly true (with
its successful urbanization and some low-tech industries).
But it is impossible to live and raise a family on the
low salaries most young people receive, even as graduates,
without considerable financial assistance from their
parents. But, by partnering with South Korea in nuclear
power plants and other technologies, such as cars and
electronics, Malaysia can achieve the stated government
aim for a high-wage, hi-tech transformation of the economy.
South Korea stated loud and clear at the summer
school, that it is eager to work alongside Malaysia.
In the words of Prof. Kun Jai Lee, a senior professor
from KAIST, in his closing speech: “Korea will gladly
help Malaysia to build its first nuclear power plant.
Since your government has stated that it aspires to have
the first nuclear power plant by 2021, we don’t have
much time to waste!”
As Malaysia’s newly appointed “nuclear ambassadors,”
we were impressed. This is an offer from our
Asian technological “big brother,” which has proved to
the world its mastery in safely harnessing nuclear
power, that is simply too good to refuse. What on Earth
is stopping Malaysia from making the simple decision
to Go Nuclear? Half of Malaysia’s population, like me,
is under 23 years old. We want an answer and a future.
(From: Executive Intelligence Review - June 18, 2010)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)