Perfect Harmony and Equilibrium

By manifesting all the Divine Names without a trace of Lordship and thereby displaying perfect servanthood, perfect man becomes, one might say, totally ordinary. In him, nothing stands out, since he flows with all the created things in perfect harmony and equilibrium. He is like a tree or a bird in his ordinariness, following the Divine Will wherever it takes him, with no friction, no protest, complete serenity, no waves. He is so much at ease with the continual flux of secondary causes that he remains unnoticed by his contemporaries. There may be outstanding spiritual masters who attract disciples through their teachings and miraculous gifts, but the most perfect of the masters are never noticed except by those whom God chooses and guides.

- Ibn 'Arabi

Sheikh Hamza Yusuf on the Egyptian Revolution

The lack of an ideology, for me, is the most refreshing aspect of this uprising. The stale rhetoric of “Islam is the solution” that has marked countless demonstrations for decades is absent. The pathetic socialist slogans of the Libyan revolution as well as the Syrian and Iraqi Arab nationalist slogans are all conspicuously absent. Islam is not a political ideology and hence does not offer a political solution per se; basic morality in politics is the solution. Most Muslims would be content living under Finnish or Swedish forms of governance, with a few adjustments to the sexual liberties in those countries, and feel as if it were the time of Saladin, given that they are committed to eradicating poverty and hunger, serving the aged, and even ensuring rights for dogs and cats. If you torture a dog in Stockholm, you go to jail. In the jails of Egypt, people can be tortured with impunity by dogs of the state....

....Islam is not an ideology, political or otherwise. It is a revelation from God that explains and reminds people of their duties toward their Creator in honoring and worshipping God with gratitude for the gift of life and all the concomitants of that gift, and of their duties toward their fellow creatures as unique and protected creations of God. Those duties are well described in all the Books sent by God and enshrined most succinctly in the Ten Commandments. Politics involves making sure the mail gets out, allotting appropriate monies for public works, and ensuring the security of a people from internal or external threats; all of these can be done without recourse to any specific religious tradition.

...The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, left no specific system of government; rather, he taught “constitutional” principles upon which governance should be based. Many of those principles, quite revolutionary at his time, have become common coin for most people today: the idea of equality among races and gender, the concept of economic justice, and the right of an individual to be protected in his person and property from unjust search or seizure. These are constitutional principles accepted by most governments today; whether they are practiced or not is another matter. There are, however, two clearly articulated aspects of governance that do have relevance in any state run by Muslims. The penal code of Islam was developed specifically for an Islamic polity, but only a few actual punishments are agreed upon, and the circumstances of its various applications are highly nuanced in Islamic legal texts, with an aim to avoid their implementation whenever possible. The gross and often perverse so-called “Islamic punishments” meted out today-invariably on the poorest and most helpless in societies-have nothing to do with the Prophet’s teaching, peace and blessings be upon him. Commercial law is, undeniably, another developed area in Islamic law that has implications in the running of a state.

- Excerpted from "When the Social Contract is Breached on One Side, It’s Breached on Both Sides"

Spectrum of Various Islamic Scholars Views on the Egyptian Revolution

February 9th, 2011 3 Share Print

A wide spectrum of the views of various scholars’ views on the Egyptian Revolution.

Mufti Abdurrahman ibn Yusuf

The main thing we need to realize is that until we become worthy of having decent people above us, then no decent person will come above us. The Prophet (peace and blessings of God be upon him) said, “However you are, that’s the type of people that would be put above you.” Whatever is happening in the Muslim world is also because of our sins.

Look at the current day leaders today- you think you and I can do better than them once you’ve got that power and force? I think the simple way to understand that is, how much do we do in the position that we are in right now? In the limited power we are in right now. Are there people you owe money to and you haven’t give it to them yet? Think about it. Are there people you’ve wronged and not sought forgiveness for? Do you have some hatred in your heart for somebody and you’ve not been able to rectify it?

You see we are all sinning according to the scope we have. And the more scope you have the bigger the sins can be. We are sinning and weak in the limited scope we have and if we are given more scope, our sins will just increase.

In Sahih Bukhari, from Abu Musa al-Ashari that the Prophet (peace and blessings of God be upon him) said, “Allah gives rope to these oppressor, but when he then does seize them, then there is no escape.”

Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad

‎Shaykh Hasan al-Yusi spoke against the Sultan of Morocco: ”I just break the dishes made of earth, while you break Allah’s dishes- you break human beings.”

Shaykh Ahmadou Bamba of Senegal opposed the French and the moment the French put the chains on him, Allah gave him his spiritual opening. The French took him on a ship and forbade him from praying on the ship- the Shaykh stepped off the ship and began praying on the water.

Mufti Ali Gomaa

There is, however, always reason for hope and optimism. As the Quran teaches us: “With every difficulty, there comes ease.” It is with great national pride that I affirm my confidence and trust in the Egyptian people to retreat from violence and aggression to peace and calm. At that point, our nation will have to engage in some profound introspection and soul-searching to make sense of the new state of affairs. Until then, however, the lives and welfare of our countrymen - regardless of their political beliefs - must be our first priority.

There is no denying that we are on the edge of a new period of Egyptian political and social life. The youth of our nation have organised en masse to make their voices heard, and to demand changes. They have demonstrated great resolve in their pursuit of fundamental reforms. There is no doubt that reform is a necessity. Indeed, I have long called, through the Misr El Kheir Foundation, for comprehensive reforms in economics, health and social solidarity.

Imam Zaid Shakir

The vast majority of the people of Egypt have peacefully protested to make their voices heard. They are saying loud and clear, “We demand our dignity, we demand the right to choose our leaders in free and fair elections, and we demand that the wealth our land produces stays in our hands.” These are demands that should resonate with every American. Time will tell how far we have strayed from our foundational principles.

None of us can pretend to know what the Almighty has decreed concerning the outcome of this affair. However, we do know that He hates oppressors. May God bless and protect the people of Egypt and keep them in His care.

And we desired to bestow our grace upon those oppressed in the earth; to make them the leaders and to make them the rightful heirs. Qur’an 28:5

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf

Having said that, I believe we should maintain a good opinion of the scholars who either take a position or choose to remain silent-a valid option during fitnah. We must recognize that personal ijtihad in difficult times is to be respected. The Mufti of Egypt is an honorable and pious man; he understands the complexity of the situation, the dangers of instability, and the tragedies that can quickly arise when conflagrations take a life of their own. Moreover, his position is certainly consonant with a traditional approach that was taken by many of the great scholars of the past. While some may not agree with his opinion, Muslims should respect religious authority, acknowledge a scholar’s right to it, and not assume we know anyone’s intentions. God alone is the Judge of men’s hearts.

Fitnah is worse than killing, according to the Qur’an, and in this case, the fitnah is persecution. The Egyptians have been persecuted for too long, and while traditional scholars since the days of the early fitnahs have sided with stability in order to prevent bloodshed that often resulted in worse situations than the ones being opposed, in an age where peaceful protest is the only rational means of a people to redress the wrongs of their government, the scholars should not only support but acknowledge this change in the world. The situation in the Middle East is intolerable, and as John F. Kennedy rightly remarked, “If we make peaceful revolution impossible, we make violent revolution inevitable.”

3 Responses

Noor says:
February 10, 2011 at 9:53 pm

TJ Winters points to the example of Shaykh Ahmed Bamba, who in my estimation is the only person to have lead by his example and charisma a non violent campaign for self determination in the Muslim World. I think looking at today’s scholars one’s sees the various stances taken from our past. The seemingly lone stance of Imam Ahmad during the Minha, the death in prison of Abu Hanifah and the flight of Sufyan al Thawri for the complacent Alid support of political change. The persecution of Imam Shafi’i in the Yemen and Iraq, with fanaticism eventually the cause of his death in Egypt. We do not remember those who took no stance. Ibn Taymiyya for all his creedal faults is held high for precisely his willingness to participate in the struggle against the Tartars, while Al Ghazzali is doubted for his silence on the Crusades.

Where is the public counsel of the Ulema? Mufti Abdurrahman stated, “The main thing we need to realize is that until we become worthy of having decent people above us, then no decent person will come above us. The Prophet (peace and blessings of God be upon him) said, “However you are, that’s the type of people that would be put above you.” Whatever is happening in the Muslim world is also because of our sins.”

I wonder if his position would remain the same when discussing the Khilafate of the Ottomans, Abbasids, Ummayads or any of the petty dynasties of later times. I wonder if that hadith is applicable to the successors of the Prophet(saw)? Tough questions that the restrictions and waywardness of the bulk of Sunni Polity have had a difficult time answering. In a day and age when we no longer are dynastic its important to realize whom the Ulema serve. Nizamuddin Auliya stated, “When the ruler comes to my front door, I leave out my back door”. When the Tuglug emperor demanded his audience upon his return from a campaign he coined the now famous phrase, “Delhi is still far away”. The tyrant died before reaching the city. Saadi in his Gulstan states a story about the tyrant Hallaj. He came to a Holy Man and asked for him to supplicate for him. The Sage responded, “Oh Allah kill him now!!!”. When asked why he responded, “by dying now you cannot commit more sin, and we will not have to put up with your sins anymore”. While Democracy or constitutional reform will nor erase injustice or implement some rarefied idea of an “Islamic” state, it will, if successful, give an ounce more freedom that has not existed in our lands……ever. Moreover it will allow Ulema to be more than mere chattels of the state, and insha’allah Islam to be taught outside of political grievances.

Muslim Converts Lost in Translation

by Peter Gray

Source: Alt Muslimah

Jan 29 2011

Converts to Islam are important ambassadors for American Muslims; increasing their participation should sit high on the priority list of the larger Muslim community. Although many improvements have been made in convert outreach, far too many who are new to the faith lack a strong sense of authenticity as Muslims, and consequently end up slowly disengaging from the religion. Unfortunately the messages they receive from other Muslims often reinforce their alienation.

Changing the way we talk about Islam could go a long way toward cultivating a sense of belonging among these brothers and sisters, and deepening their personal connection to Islam. Whether we were born as Muslims or embraced the religion later in life, we are all students of faith. We may not realize, however, that those who have newly accepted Islam may look to us for guidance, taking our opinions to heart. In this sense, we sometimes become teachers for our fellow Muslims.

One trait shared by successful teachers is the ability to introduce new material without using technical language. By employing clear, familiar terms to lay out a new idea, the concept no longer appears foreign and inaccessible to the listener. This method works just as well in mosques as it does in classrooms, but Muslims rarely use it when “teaching” Islam.

When discussing religion, we tend to sprinkle our speech with Arabic terms and references to the Qur’an. Many of these words have been absorbed into languages like Urdu and Indonesian, but none have made their way into English. What might be a natural way of speaking for some Muslims can leave a convert struggling to keep up. While there is no need to start saying things like “Insha’Allah” (God willing) in English, minimizing theological jargon would do a lot of good.

The Qur’an reminds us that in religion, substance trumps terminology:

Say: “Invoke Allah (God), or invoke Ar-Rahman (the Most Gracious): by whichever name you invoke Him, [He is always the One- for] His are all the attributes of perfection.” (17:110)

Just as God remains unchanged by the names we use, so too do the principles of His religion. Even a single adjustment, like substituting “God” for “Allah,” will introduce a concept or message to a convert in a much more intimate and personalized manner.

Tellingly, it was the words of a non-Muslim that brought me back to Islam when I was faltering in my faith. On a whim one day, I bought a copy of “Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time” by Karen Armstrong. The entire book was brilliant; I was most affected, however, by Armstrong’s analysis of a verse from the third chapter of the Qur’an. I had read this verse before, but never with the translation she used:

For if one goes in search of a religion other than self-surrender unto God [Ar. “Islam”], it will never be accepted from him, and in the life to come he shall be among the lost. (3:85)

Armstrong then goes on to say:

This verse is often quoted to “prove” that the Qur’an claims that Islam is the one, true faith and that only Muslims will be saved. But “Islam” was not yet the official name for Muhammad’s religion, and when this verse is read correctly in its pluralistic context, it clearly means the exact opposite. (p. 87)

Armstrong’s analysis opened my eyes to the reductive way I had been thinking about Islam. In my mind, my religion boiled down to five pillars: belief in God and allegiance to Muhammad (“shahada”), prayer (“salat”), fasting during Ramadan (“sawm”), charity (“zakat”) and pilgrimage to Mecca (“hajj”). Being a Muslim, I assumed, simply meant following these pillars. Armstrong’s simple observation made me realize that “Islam” extends far beyond a checklist of rituals. To Muhammad’s companions, the word signified a state of being – not an institutionalized religion.

At that time, I was what some would call a non-practicing Muslim; after an early spell of enthusiasm, I had stopped praying, reading the Qur’an and visiting the mosque. Looking back, I see that my struggles reflected a larger problem in the Muslim community.

Many converts’ spiritual stagnation comes from the perception that Islam is cut-and-dry. Too many of us see our religion in purely legalistic terms, reducing it to a formula in our minds. As a result, we tend to present Islam to converts as if it were a pre-packaged product rather than a journey of growth and introspection. God forgive us – we have turned Islam into Islam™.

As a new Muslim, my spiritual “starter kit” basically consisted of the promise of paradise, a list of commandments and a glossary of Arabic words. This sustained me in the beginning, but before long I started to feel like an actor, mindlessly parroting lines from a script I barely understood. Instead of expressing Islam’s eternal values in my own life, I was trapped in a performance of someone else’s.

Language played a key role in my crisis. Concealed behind Arabic names, timeless ideas felt like artefacts to me, stripped of their relevance and narrowed in scope. As an English speaker, for example, it was easy to imagine the word Islam as representing only the formal name of a specific, monotheistic belief system. The English phrase “self-surrender unto God,” on the other hand, felt much more expansive and struck a powerful chord with me. Maybe there was more to this religion than I thought.

After finishing Armstrong’s “Muhammad” I began reading the translation of the Qur’an that she used, Muhammad Asad’s “The Message of the Qur’an.” These two books profoundly changed my faith by forcing me, for the first time, to place Islamic concepts in my own idiom, rather than resign myself to rigidly predefined ideas and rituals. “Translating” Islam into familiar terms left me with a much deeper attachment to this self-surrender.

Arabic will always remain important to our religion, and all Muslims should learn the language, not only the alphabet and grammar, if possible. However, we should not mistake the message for its medium. The Qur’an was revealed in Arabic so that Muhammad’s people would understand it. Too few of us follow this principle when communicating with converts. Overused and poorly explained, Arabic terms have become a barrier to their faith. If we learn how to talk about our religion in a more nuanced way – in English, we can give new Muslims an Islam that truly speaks to them.

Abandon Your Anger

A sober-minded man said to Jesus,
"What in this existence is hardest to bear?"
"O dear soul," he replied, "the hardest is God's anger,
from which Hell is trembling as we are."
"And what is the protection against God's anger?"
Said Jesus, "To abandon your own anger at once."



-- Mathnawi IV: 113-115
Version by Camille and Kabir Helminski
"Rumi: Jewels of Remembrance"
Threshold Books, 1996

GOD'S WIKILEAKS: Ready or not, all secrets will be revealed

by Hamza Yusuf

To God belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and the day on which the end of time will happen, a day on which prattlers will lose out. And you will see every people kneeling; every people will be summoned to its record: "Today you are being repaid for what you used to do. This record of Ours speaks about you in truth; for We have been transcribing what you have been doing." As for those who believed and did good works, their Lord will admit them into divine mercy. That is the evident success. And as for those who scoffed, were not My signs recited to you, yet you were arrogant, and were sinning people? And when it has been said that the promise of God is true, and there is no doubt about the end of time, you have said, "We do not understand what the end of time is; we suppose it merely speculation, and we cannot be sure." And the evils they did will be manifest to them, and what they used to sneer at will have surrounded them.
– Qur’an, 45:27-33

No matter what a Man’s foul character may be,
Though he imagines it is concealed from the people,
It shall be revealed.
– Zuhayr b. Abi Sulma, Favorite seventh century Arabian poet of Umar b. al-Khatab

In the seven years I spent with Mauritanians who are Bedouin people of the Sahara, what struck me most about them was the transparency in their lives. They live without walls, and hence what the Swiss psychologist Carl Jung termed the "shadow self," which holds our repressed weaknesses and darker side, seems wholly absent from their personalities. I never saw the Bedouins hide anything from me. Even when they go to relieve themselves, it is often in open space. Once I was with a particularly gruff Bedouin, and in the middle of our conversation, he turned around, walked a few paces from me, and, taking cover with his outer robe, he dropped his pants, squatted, urinated, cleaned himself with sand, returned, and continued the conversation.
Bedouins are entirely comfortable in their skin and completely unself-conscious. If I intruded on a Bedouin without warning, he did not suddenly become nervous or uneasy; he remained calm. Even after many years in "civilized" society, Bedouins retain an uncanny openness. Their homes in Nouakchott, the Mauritanian capital, always have open doors. A hungry person, upon smelling food being served, will sometimes walk in from the street, eat a meal with them, say little, and depart as unobtrusively as he appeared.
In societies that have walls, closets, and private bathrooms, we develop a keen sense of privacy early on. We also do things in private that we would never do in company. Some of us develop profoundly dark sides; a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde personality seems quite common in modern society. When we read the statistics in books like Pornified, we can only be horrified at the pervasiveness of people watching pornography; the man next to us in the grocery store line might return home only to settle in for "kiddie" porn on his home computer. Do an online search on registered sex offenders, many of whom are pedophiles, and you might find one living down the street from you. Too many people are hiding things. Wives often know the truth about their "upstanding" husbands, and men may have far more secrets than women, who undeniably have their own share.
So what's all the fuss about Wikileaks? These wikipeaks into the unseemly side of the American Empire have caused quite a stir – and quite a backlash. Julian Assange was arrested for what may end up being trumped up sexual charges in an obvious attempt at distracting people from the real story. The U.S. Attorney General is seeking excuses to bring charges against Assange for what the American media does routinely. Clearly, the war is on. Luke Skywalker-like hackers are whittling away with Wikileaks at the Empire, and the Empire is striking back.
What intrigued me is not so much what is revealed – after all, many of us knew, didn't we? And so far, the crimes and transgressions revealed are not as severe as what the earlier Pentagon Papers revealed. But they are far more disturbing. The recent release of diplomatic cables shows the duplicitous nature on a daily basis of the inner workings of American diplomacy – the "shadow self" of America. Our government demands transparency from corporations and from its citizens in detailed tax returns. Employers do background checks on us, and our credit histories and medical records are routinely reviewed by strangers. Even our time on the internet is now monitored in many places; our phones are tapped with judicial consent. So why should our governments, especially in democratic societies, be exempt from what is routinely done to us? They are public servants, aren't they?
Well, the fact of the matter, as the Wikileaks exposé so cogently reveals, is that they are not serving us – they are serving the Empire's corporate profit-making, its selling of arms, and its oil interests that fuel our cars and their private jets. The corruption in dealing with Afghanistan, highlighted in these recent leaks, had initially shocked some people. But, all things considered, Afghan corruption pales by comparison to our own corruption on Wall Street, not to mention Main Street. Despite the moral depravity we witnessed in the recent financial scandals, everything is back to business as usual. The fat cats are once again doling out multimillion-dollar executive bonuses with our bailout money, as if the party never ended. Our mail boxes are again being stuffed with those same ridiculous credit card offers that had stopped a couple of years ago. The banksters are back in business, thanks to Henry Paulson, Larry Summers, et al. who cleaned out the national treasury in broad daylight, while Congress and the Senate applauded their patriotism. Unbelievable. Jesse and Frank James are no longer robbing them as outlaws: they're on the board of directors. Al Capone must be turning over in his grave.
But something deeper is at work here. "We will show you Our signs on the horizon and within themselves, until it becomes clear to you that this is the truth; is it not enough that God is a Witness unto all these?" (Qur’an, 41:53). The computer has become the Achilles' heel of the secret keepers. They have to use it, and they depend on it, not only to hoard their secrets but to monitor and surveil the rest of us. The inherent weaknesses in the system are now enabling whistleblowers and hackers to bring some of their dark secrets to light. Until now, the defenders of the Empire used the secrets as they wished. Former vice-president Dick Cheney, for instance, had no qualms about using classified, top-secret information in outing Valerie Plame, the CIA agent. This was a retributive act against her husband, Joseph C. Wilson, who wrote a New York Times Op-Ed on the false information that Cheney and George W. Bush were promoting about sales of nuclear materials from Niger to Iraq. So when it suited him, Cheney used his own "wikileaks," but now that the ball's in the other court, suddenly they're crying, "Foul."
So leaks can obstruct justice, and leaks can redress wrongs – a double-edged sword, indeed. More leaks are said to come, and I for one am looking forward to it. It is good to see them squirm and scurry, as they feel, in their cockroach shadow lives, the light of the sun beginning to penetrate their subterranean worlds.
The Qur’an has its own "leaks" and clearly demands utter transparency. The Pharaoh's private conversations are recorded as well as the hidden statements of the Prophet's enemies, not to mention some of the family intrigue in the Prophet's own household. People with integrity have nothing to hide. Like the Bedouins, their transparency is their shield.
When the great and pious Filipino historian and Qur'an scholar Cesar Majul was dying, he remarked to his son, "I want you to know, I have never done anything in my life that you would be ashamed of." Now that's a real deathbed confession of a saint. Murabit al-Hajj, my own teacher, has lived a life of utter transparency. I slept in his tent for months. During that time, I saw him rise every night three hours before dawn and recite the Qur'an in night vigil. I never heard him say anything unkind or unflattering about anyone. A cousin of his who has known him for seventy years affirmed this as well. Murabit al-Hajj never complained or criticized the weather, the food, the company, or any of the hardships so evident in the lives of West African nomads. Once, a man from Geru, a nearby village, saw Murabit al-Hajj in a dream in which he was praying naked. Embarrassed, this man went to a well-known dream interpreter and told him the dream but not the identity of the naked man. The interpreter said, "That could only have been Murabit al-Hajj because I don't know anyone who prays in a completely pure-hearted state other than him."
We are born naked because we are without sin, but we are raised naked because we will be without secrets. The Prophet, peace be upon him, lived an utterly transparent life. Even his bathing habits are described by his wife. Nothing about his life is hidden from us. No split in his personality, no shadow developed by keeping unspeakable secrets, for he is the transparent man. No shameful Wikileaks necessary in his government or family life. God meant for his life to be an open book, as he is an exemplar for leaders until the end of time. Leaders are the servants of the people, and they should never fear public opinion or the light of day. They should be concerned only about doing what is right and lawful.
The Prophet, peace be upon him, wanted to keep private an opinion he had shared with Zaid, his ward and companion, about Zaid's difficult marriage that the Prophet, peace be upon him, had facilitated. However, the Qur'an revealed the confidential statement he had made to Zaid: "Remember how you said to the one God had blessed and you had favored, 'Keep your wife and be conscious of God,' then you kept to yourself what God would reveal, as you feared the people, though God is more worthy of your fear" (33:37). The Prophet, peace be upon him, did nothing sinful in wanting to conceal the conversation he had with Zaid. He was concerned that people would attack his character if they learned of his impending marriage to Zaynab, who was married at that time to his "adopted" son (through a pre-Islamic form of adoption that the Qur'an would later proscribe). People were unaware that Zaid and Zaynab's marriage was an unhappy one because Zaynab wanted to be wed to the Prophet, peace be upon him, and had only accepted the marriage to Zaid due to the Prophet's request of her to do so. So the Prophet, peace be upon him, had kept the matter quiet for fear that if people knew, it would detract from and undermine his essential spiritual message to the people. However, the Qur'an "leaked" this private conversation to the people through the very source of the conversation. Aishah said about the above verse, "Had the Prophet hidden anything from his revelation, it would have been this verse due to the heavy impact it had upon him." This "leak" was clearly designed to reveal the utter sincerity of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and his complete and total truthfulness and transparency about his own personal life as well as everything revealed to him. The Qur'an says to all of us:

If you are on a journey and cannot find a scribe, then let pledges be taken. And if one of you entrusts another one with something, let the one entrusted return his trust, conscious of God, his Lord. And do not conceal testimony; whoever conceals it is a sinner at heart. And God knows what you do. Whatever is in the heavens and the earth belongs to God. And whether you reveal what is in your selves or conceal it, God calls you to account for it. And God forgives whom God wills, and God punishes whom God wills, and God has power over all things. (2:283-284)

The Day of Judgment is the day when nothing is concealed. All secrets are to be revealed. The Qur'an informs us that a "digital book" (kitab marqum) contains all the actions of the evildoers in perfect order, and another "digital book" contains those of the righteous. Everyone on the Day of Judgment will have a full trial, but before the actual reckoning, we will all have to endure the ‘ard, which is the review of one's entire life with nothing omitted except those actions for which we repented and for which the repentance was accepted. Wikileaks is nothing in light of what will be revealed on that day. Tyrants will see all of their dastardly deeds, hoarders must carry all they hoarded, liars will be exposed, and traitors will have flags of treachery furled from their backsides announcing their vileness. What a day!
America prides itself on transparency. MBA students learn in school the necessity of fully transparent corporations, where the books are all in order, and nothing is hidden. Taxpayers are told to reveal all in their tax forms. And yet, there is a double standard, as the government reveals little until fifty years later, long after the secret-keepers are dead, when documents are declassified. The Federal Reserve, a private institution of bankers that controls our nation's money, has never been audited. Yet, we the peons can be audited with impunity.
We need more whistleblowers, not less. And we need to exalt the ones who, with honor and courage, risk everything so the truth can be known. Daniel Ellsberg had the courage to blow the whistle on the Pentagon in 1971, and now the Luke Skywalkers of the day are attempting to do it again, revealing the utter hypocrisy of our public "servants" who seem to serve only themselves and their corporate paymasters. We need a far more open and transparent society if we are to flourish. If a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" means anything at all, the people must not only be informed of what is being done in their names, they must also demand of their public servants full accountability.
A close friend in Arabia informed me recently that the Wikileaks revelations have created utter contempt for America in the region, and sadly the respect that was once there despite all the shortcomings of America is now largely gone. While it is hard to restore respect once lost, if it is ever to be regained, the place to start is this: admit one's mistakes and redress one's wrongs. Many of us live in profound denial of why America is perceived so poorly around the world. Even many Europeans look on us with disdain. Envy undeniably plays some part, but to suggest that envy is the only reason is a poor excuse – it is an attempt by a nation's ego to avoid the painful realities of imperial arrogance and the hubris of power. The ancient Greeks believed that arête, virtue, elevated human beings, but hubris brought them down. Hubris, in their understanding, resulted in até or reckless behavior, which unleashed nemeses, the divine forces that laid the haughty low.
I do not wish that upon my native land or fellow citizens, as I am a multi-generational American, and desiring disaster for people is not in my nature. But without real repentance and a change of business as usual, I don't see any other possibility. The Wikileaks controversy is another wake-up call among many to this nation. Perhaps if some of those apathetic and ill-informed people in America addicted to the pipes of the pied piper leading them into the cave of shadows and ignorance would forgo seeing Jackass in 3D and other mindless films at the multiplex and actually pay attention to these developments, some good might come of it. Benjamin Franklin, upon leaving the Continental Congress, was asked by a woman what kind of a government they had settled on. He is reported to have replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." Openness and transparency, not to mention admitting wrongs and redressing them, are all necessary to restore the republic that has clearly been damaged and profoundly threatened.

Answering Michael... Questions about Islam and Extremism

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.

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]

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).

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”

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....

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}.'"

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.

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]

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."

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.

"Be Peacemakers", Sermon by Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, Eid Al-Fitr 2010

Click to view

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.

“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.”