Tuesday, November 10, 2009

The Radical Imam Series - Introduction

Following the shooting at Fort Hood, a blog post appeared on a website which allegedly belonged to Shaykh Anwar Al-Awlaki. The post praised the shooter as a hero, stated his course of action was the only acceptable course of action, reasoned that Muslims are caught in conflict by living in America, and concluded that more and more Muslims must begin to leave the West.

I did not stand next to Al-Awlaki as he wrote these words. I have no idea if these words come from his thoughts or another. I do not know the state of mind in which he currently exists. I do not know if he faces duress from any external forces. I believe Al-Awlaki is currently in Yemen but even of that I am not sure.

I wish to address his specific message, regardless of its origin and motivation. Al-Awlaki is not simply another unknown mullah from overseas regurgitating the Bush-Cheney clash of civilizations dialogue from their opposing perspective. Rather, he is a name well recognized in the United States. He is a talented story teller, able to bring to life the stories of Muslims and Prophets who lived centuries ago. His descriptive prose, mindless tangents, and vast sums of knowledge have made his lectures popular and widely available in the U.S.

As such, I fear that these remarks might carry more weight within our community. It is necessary that we go beyond simply condemning the remarks and pushing them aside. We must confront the remarks and enlighten our youth and those less educated of the integral fallacies in its teachings.

Over the next series of posts, I wish to address these remarks and the concept of radical imams generally. My desire is not to indict or condemn Al-Awlaki as an individual. As I've already indicated, I do not have the necessary information to begin to form a judgment on Al-Awlaki. These posts only address the message which is allegedly tied to the shaykh.

I will address his post one subject at a time in the interest of brevity. This post will serve only as an introduction to this topic and supply the text of the message allegedly posted by Al-Awlaki.

As for the text of the message, it reads as follows:

Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. This is a contradiction that many Muslims brush aside and just pretend that it doesn’t exist. Any decent Muslim cannot live, understanding properly his duties towards his Creator and his fellow Muslims, and yet serve as a US soldier. The US is leading the war against terrorism which in reality is a war against Islam. Its army is directly invading two Muslim countries and indirectly occupying the rest through its stooges.

Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the US army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.

The heroic act of brother Nidal also shows the dilemma of the Muslim American community. Increasingly they are being cornered into taking stances that would either make them betray Islam or betray their nation. Many amongst them are choosing the former. The Muslim organizations in America came out in a pitiful chorus condemning Nidal’s operation.

The fact that fighting against the US army is an Islamic duty today cannot be disputed. No scholar with a grain of Islamic knowledge can defy the clear cut proofs that Muslims today have the right -rather the duty- to fight against American tyranny. Nidal has killed soldiers who were about to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in order to kill Muslims. The American Muslims who condemned his actions have committed treason against the Muslim Ummah and have fallen into hypocrisy.

Allah(swt) says: Give tidings to the hypocrites that there is for them a painful punishment – Those who take disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. Do they seek with them honor [through power]? But indeed, honor belongs to Allah entirely. (al-Nisa 136-137)

The inconsistency of being a Muslim today and living in America and the West in general reveals the wisdom behind the opinions that call for migration from the West. It is becoming more and more difficult to hold on to Islam in an environment that is becoming more hostile towards Muslims.

May Allah grant our brother Nidal patience, perseverance and steadfastness and we ask Allah to accept from him his great heroic act. Ameen

The message above is something I would expect from a neo-conservative's personal blog, obviously switching the Muslim and American actors. I condemn these remarks as vigorously as I would condemn those remarks.

May God guide us all and save us from the destructive power of ignorance and misdirected hatred.

Muslims in the Military

The attack on soldiers at Ft. Hood this past week reminds us of many things. As young men and women will be laid to rest, we are reminded that time is fleeting and life is fragile. As a sadistic gun man lies in recovery, we are reminded of the dangers of a broken mind. As American writers and thinkers respond to the attacks, we are reminded that our country is one that is both compassionately reasoned and fraught with wicked racism.

I’ve read quite a few articles on the incident and find myself both appalled and enlightened. In one article, a prominent Muslim leader Eboo Patel noted that we should not honor the shooter with the tag of “Muslim” and refer to him as the “murderer.” From an objective standpoint, I agree that both media and society should not choose to define Maj. Nidal Hasan by his religion. His defining characteristic which has brought him to the forefront of a nation’s attention is his act of murder.

Yet, there is danger in Patel’s words. There is danger that the Muslim community internalizes this message and chooses to define Hasan only as a murderer. The truth, for us, is that he was a Muslim. He was our brother in prayer. His mind struggled with madness as he bowed next to us. His heart fought a war with darkness as he broke fast with us. And, in the end, we as a community failed him.

It is not enough for us to discount our fellow brother as a “murderer” and pass him off to his fate. We have an affirmative duty in our faith to support each other. This man, who fell through the cracks, was a Muslim. We, as a community, must look internally and seek how we failed our brother. How did our community allow a brother to be so misled to think that such actions could ever be acceptable? How did our community miss the signs of mental illness, distress, and potentially murderous rage?

I cannot answer these questions. Hasan made his own choice in the end and perhaps there was nothing we could have done. I can, however, discuss something which may or may not have been a factor. But I think it’s a crucially important discussion especially given recent events. And that discussion is about Muslim soldiers in the American military.

There were allegations that Hasan faced racism, bigotry, and xenophobia by individuals in the armed forces. I’ve read similar reports from other soldiers. Considering the level of racism, bigotry, and xenophobia which exists towards Muslim in mainstream society, this is not a startling realization. It can be potentially difficult for a Muslim soldier to serve in the American army.

On the other hand, it is also very difficult for a Muslim soldier to find acceptance within the American Muslim community. Muslim soldiers are often demonized as “working for the non-believers” or attacking Muslim nations and killing Muslims. I find this ironic considering each of these complaints comes from individuals who work in America, pay taxes in America and, by extension, both contribute to the war effort and work for the non-believers. This irony should be enough to quell the debate but I know the self-righteous accuser rarely sees his own guilt so easily.

The Muslim community must accept and support its members who join the army. As I stated earlier, it might have had nothing to do with Hasan’s act but we cannot afford that chance. First, we must recognize that it is a difficult socio-political climate for a Muslim to be a soldier. Second, we must recognize the dangers of adjusting to life as a soldier, combat, and mental conditions such as PTS. Finally, we must recognize that there is absolutely nothing wrong with a Muslim serving in the American army under the principles of Islam. This final point is the point I wish to emphasize the most.

I’ve listened to many arguments against Muslims serving in the American military. They argue that Muslim soldiers lend direct support to the misdirected wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the Muslim world. Muslims, they believe, should refrain from supporting the war effort and remain in dissension to U.S. foreign policy.

I agree that U.S. foreign policy is severely misguided. President George W. Bush made numerous tactical errors in pursuing his wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Even before Bush, U.S. foreign policy had charted a direct course to our modern day conflict with short-sighted policies for the past fifty years. Not just Muslims but all Americans should speak out for a change in U.S. policy.

The wars, however, currently constitute an immutable setting. Whether or not Muslims participate in the army, we will still be at war. If every Muslim soldier leaves the army tomorrow, we will still be at war. That is the setting of our society right here and right now.

We can continue our activities to attempt to change the setting. But we cannot simply stop at that. Each of us needs to decide how we choose to operate given this setting. We can choose to draw away from society, hide in the shadows, and hope blindly. Or we can engage ourselves and do what we can to make sure the actions that are carried out in this setting are appropriate.

Less Muslim soldiers in the army will do nothing for the cause of Islam or our community. But an increase presence of individuals who understand Islam and the Muslim world can bring a different perspective to other soldiers. A PEW study showed that feelings of racism and bigotry towards Muslims greatly decreased among individuals with Muslim neighbors and friends.

If anything, in this setting where we are at war in the Muslim world, it would be better to have many, many more Muslims in the army than none at all.

We also must realize that, in this setting, each and every one of us in America is supporting this war effort. Our tax dollars, our labor, and our general contributions to society are the lifeblood by which this nation runs. There is no one in America who can levy this charge at a Muslim soldier without, himself, being a hypocrite. Given this, we have an added responsibility to (1) work to change the setting and (2) make as effective use of our work within the setting. Muslim soldiers are doing their part more effectively than the average Muslim. The rest of us, to put it plainly, need to shut up and step up our game.

The other arguments are even more misguided. My favorite misguided argument is that it is absolutely wrong to target or kill Muslim opponents. Muslim soldiers are condemned for fighting terrorist groups around the globe because these terrorist groups attest that they are Muslim.

To my brothers and sisters who apply this misguided logic to their daily lives, I would like to point out that hundreds of Muslims died on 9/11. Hundreds of Muslims died in the embassy bombings in Africa. Hundreds of Muslims have died in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq from terrorist attacks. Muslims have been killed in Indonesia, Egypt, and India.

These individuals with whom America fights are killing Muslims. They do not seem to care that they directly target Muslims. They place bombs in crowded markets and tourist resorts. They aim to kill civilians, regardless of their religion.

What exactly is your strategy to fight these men? Allow them to keep killing Muslims because they happen to be Muslims?

I recently was told to look to Muhammad Ali’s quote on this matter. He stated two things when he rejected being a part of America’s war in Vietnam.

“War is against the teachings of the Holy Quran… We are not supposed to take part in no wars unless declared by Allah or The Messenger [Muhammad (S.A.W.]. We don’t take part in Christian wars or the wars of any unbelievers.”

“I ain’t got no quarrel with them Viet Cong… They never called me nigger.”
I’ll address the latter quote first. The Vietnamese really had no conflict with African Americans. Ali was correct. But the groups that we are fighting today have a conflict with Muslims worldwide. They are killing Muslims worldwide, without discretion. No Muslim, in their right mind, can state they don’t have a quarrel with Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda, more than likely, wants you dead. In the interest of self-preservation, you might want to start right with that.

As for the first quote, there are several flaws with it. First, Muslims have taken part in wars after the time of the Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.). Wars that were not declared by the Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.). Wars such as the Riddah Wars, declared by the Caliph Abu Bakr Siddique (R.A.D.) which was a conflict that pitted Muslims against tribes which defected from the fledging Islamic state after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.).

I am a little unclear on what Ali might have meant by wars declared by Allah. I would assume he would be referring to wars which are sanctioned by Islam, such as battles of self-defense. Considering Al Qaeda and its offshoots are willfully targeted Muslims, self-defense is very applicable.

Furthermore, we do take part in the wars of the unbeliever. For example, during the Prophet Muhammad’s rule in Medina, the Muslim state held an alliance with a non-Muslim tribe. That allied tribe was attacked by an ally of the Quraysh, a dominant Arab tribe based in Mecca. In response to the attack of one non-Muslim tribe on another non-Muslim tribe, the Muslim army went to war and took Mecca from the Quraysh.

In the present scenario, war has been declared upon us by radical elements within the Muslim world. They strike at our Muslim brothers and sisters with greater ferocity and frequency than any American force. There is a war against Islam being waged but not by the West. The war is being waged from within by these radical elements.

In many ways, America is cleaning up our mess at the same time as it attempts to clean up much of its own mess. Many in our community enjoy pointing a finger at America for causing the current situation. America holds a great deal of blame. But no one holds more blame for the rise of these radicals than the Muslim community both here in America and abroad.

The traditions of our Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) teach us that a Muslim helps his brother whether he is an oppressor or oppressed. A Muslim helps an oppressor by stopping his oppression. We have failed to follow this tradition. We have failed our duty. America, the West, the East, the whole world holds no duty like this towards us. This is our obligation.

A couple of the other arguments I wish to only address briefly as this post is already too long. I have heard the argument that a Muslim soldier will, at times, have to put the commands of his officers before the commands of God. For one, that is a plausible scenario in nearly any situation where you have a superior directing you in any job. Secondly, I have worked for Muslims for the past three years and I’ve personally experienced situations where I was asked or told to do things which went against my ethics. This is a very weak argument. In the end, you always have a choice and you have to make that choice no matter your profession.

The last argument is the America is evil argument. I’ll only comment on it briefly because it’s the most asinine of all arguments. America did not plot 9/11. America is not setting off bombs in Muslim countries and blaming insurgents. America is not waging a war against the Muslim world in any fashion, shape, or form. The conspiracy theories fall far short of any reasonable burden of proof. When you are able to actually provide evidence for your claims, then I’ll pause and listen. But if I want to listen to insanity, the people I meet on the CTA are far more entertaining. (By the way, if America is evil, why are you here paying taxes and supporting this system?)

The bottom-line is that America is one of the only countries in the world where we can freely practice Islam in whichever shape we want without persecution. We can establish mosques, schools, and vibrant communities without fear of severe government interference. This nation is one of the few places in the world where it is acceptable to put God first, country second. That right is engrained in our Constitution. The U.S. system of governance is closer to the Islamic model than anything present in the modern day Muslim world.

Quite frankly, if the Taliban want to really establish an Islamic state, they should put down the guns, pick up some pens, and start taking some notes.
And God knows best...
- Edge

Monday, November 2, 2009

A Wedding Sermon?

Generally speaking, if a man wishes to speak about Islam then there is benefit for the believers. As we say in our traditions, a believer never tires of hearing goodness.

There is, however, a time, place, and ettiquette for all things. For example, we do not give a speech about the miracle and blessing of a new birth at an individual's funeral. Most of us understand this. It is, afterall, common sense.

I attended the wedding of my wife's sister this weekend. An invited speaker sat in the lobby waiting for his turn to comment about the marriage. I found it odd that he choose not to mingle actively with the wedding guests and enter the embrace of the wedding spirit. He was also vaguely familiar to me but I could not place a name to his face.

As an important disclaimer, neither the bride and her parents nor the groom and his family had invited this speaker. The story of how he came to be at this wedding is a different tale which need not be told.

As the time for the wedding cermony dawned, I sat with my wife to the right of the stage. We saw the speaker stride to the microphone and begin his talk. He spoke for over ten minutes but I will summerize his talk in several lines:


Assalamu Alaikum,

Yo Yo! Got a couple words for ya'll about weddings and marriage in Islam. Just so you don't get it confused, let's do a little cheer so I can spell it out for all my peoples!

First, give me a K!
Now give me an H!
Now give me an I!
Now give me an L!
Now give me an A!
Now give me an F!
Now give me an A!

What's that spell, folks?! That's right!
Wedding!

Oh, by the yeah, this event is all haram (religiously unlawful). Ya'll need to get your minds right!

Abu Talha out!

I'd probably respect the man a little more if that actually was the exact content of his speech. Unfortunately, for all those who attended, they were forced to listen to a man find some weak and delirous connection between harmony in marriage and why the Muslim Ummah must re-establish the khilafa (a central leadership authority or caliph). Then, he remarked about the un-Islamic nature of the wedding and made his exit.

Too late did I recognize the man as Mohammed Malkawi, who is otherwise known as Abu Talha. Malkawi is one of the leaders of the Khilafa hungry Hizb ut Tahirr group in Chicago. Regardless of how you feel about their ideology, tactfulness and respect are obviously not aspects of their methodology.

First, a political speech has no place at a wedding especially when neither the bride nor the groom have any interest in broadcasting Hizb ut Tahirr's message at this occassion. If Malkawi had the common sense to get approval from either the bride or groom before the fact, his speech would have been legitimate. Arrogantly, he chose not to do so.

Second, a wedding speech should be loving, personal, and touch close to home. The second speech given by an imam (religious cleric) close to the groom's family oozed with love, charisma, and left every person in the hall smiling. Alhumdolilah, the words of love quickly chased away Malkawi's speech like a brilliant sun chasing darkness as it emerges from a dark storm cloud.

Lastly, as for those last words, there is a time and place for Islamic advice. In this setting, it is important to note that families sat together and I personally viewed no instance in which single women and single men were mingling together at a common table. For the most part, tables were either all men or all women.

As Malkawi would have no way of knowing the individuals who mingled since he choose not to include himself, in any way, in the actual wedding party, it would have been Islamically appropriate for him to give the benefit of the doubt. In our traditions, the Muslim gives his fellow brother 70 excuses before assuming the negative. Furthermore, the original intent of the wedding had been to put men on one side and women on another but the dashingly handsome young man greeting guests failed to point this out in a timely manner. (Sorry everyone!!)

There was some music and no dancing. The vast majority of the guests were dressed well and modestly. It was a beautiful event and far better than many of the weddings I have attended in the past both in terms of enjoyment and conformity with Islamic principles. Was it perfectly along Islamic principles? No. But show me a man who calls himself perfect and I will show you a liar.

Rather than applaud the goodness in the wedding, however, we were forced to focus on what was still lacking. And if we only focused on what was lacking in each individual it would be the death of all compliments and recognition of goodness. Islam is a journey and man is inevitably flawed. Do you really think God's intent was to have us only point out each other's flaws at every turn as we attempt to cling to the steadfast path?

That being said, I disgreed more with the timing than the content of his last remarks which declared the wedding an unIslamic setting. It is proper in Islam to speak against what one percieves to be evil or wrong as a famous hadith states the following:

Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri: Allah's Messanger (S.A.W.) said, "Whoever amongst you sees an evil, he must change it with his hand; if he is not able to do so, then with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then with his heart; and that is the weakest form of Faith." (Sahih Muslim)

It's important to note both the words "must" and "change." By stating "must," this makes the above passage an obligation. To act against evil can often be difficult but one must at least recognize that evil in his heart and keep his heart from being attracted to evil.

Change, however, is the other operative word in the hadith. It is not simply that a man "must act" but that a man "must change." Malkawi's tactless words did not bring change to the crowd and only distanced hearts from Iman (faith or belief in Islam) by taking a polarizing and accusatory stance.

All change comes from God. From God also comes the Quran and our ability to reason. If we want to affect change, we need to properly implement the tools God has given us. If we fail to use the most basic tools granted by God, than we are not attempted to make legitimate change. We are acting rashly, disrespectful, and ignorantly.

From the Quran, we learn that God told the Prophet Musa (Moses) (A.S.) to approach the Pharoah gently. It is important that a Muslim be aware of his situation when forbidding evil and enjoining good. If one was to approach the Pharoah without gentleness, one would polarize the issue immeadiately and the Pharoah's heart would not incline towards Islam.

God was fully aware that the Pharoah would reject the message. This lesson to Musa (A.S.) however is a lesson to all of us. If we are commanded to approach the enemy of Islam gently, then how should one approach his own Muslim brother and sister?

Also from the Quran, there are many other passages of significant note. Here are two in particular:

Help you one another in Al-Birr and At-Taqwa (virtue, righteousness, and piety).
(5:2)


Let there arise out of you a group of people inviting to all that is good (Islam). (3:104)


These passages use the words "help" and "invite." It implies a sort of gentle and tactful approach. As Muslims, we must encourage each other and walk together as one so that we remain steadfast. We cannot condemn each other and create lines of division and polarization.

From our reason, we should all realize that standing in front of a wedding audience, in plain view and hearing of the bride and groom, is not the place to condemn the level of piety displayed at a wedding. Speak to the bride and groom seperately after the fact. Speak to the parents of the bride and groom seperately and in private. Speak to the guests in a smaller setting with kinder words which recognize the good and demonstrate constructive room for improvement.

In the end, God will change our hearts from goodness to evil and we ask that God preserve us. Our methodolgy should follow the path that is pleasing to God. That path is one which is gentle, helpful, encouraging, inviting, and not polarizing. None of us are perfect and we are all in this journy to struggle and strive together. All of humanity are one people and if we cannot learn to be gentle and tactful, as God has commanded, then we will forever be misleading each other.

And God knows best...

- Edge

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

What lies at the edge of skepticism?

I suppose the title is actually two questions. The first a figurative query which ponders the phrase the "edge of skepticism." The second more literal which asks why write this blog entitled the "Edge of Skepticism." I have little on my mind at the moment so I'll go ahead and entertain both questions.

In my rudimentary understanding of religion, philosophy, science, and sociology, I find at the edge of skepticism lies a narrow, snaking path towards the truth. For one who grew up in a family which adhered closely to religion and whose many friends affirm their faith before their name, skepticism might be a bit of a frightening word. To doubt faith, doubt morality, doubt God and His existence itself, one would suggest, would be to take a step in the path of disbelief. I, myself, would have suggested it.

Thus, on one side you have those who claim to hold no doubt. Their ideology is set in unbreakable stone that science and miracle could not change. They have retreated deep into the forest of doctrine where generations of their family have known every tree and corner. They have no need for a torch. In the darkness there is security.

I cannot enter the forest for I am fraught with doubt. A doubt that I once believed led me down many paths I'd sooner forget than discuss. Though I prayed, I found no relief for doubt. Though I learned, I found no facts to break the allure of answerless questions.

One the other side you have the skeptic. The one who is wedded to the question of why. And as any 5 year old would be more than happy to demonstrate, the question of why can continue ad nauseum. They do not seek the truth. They only want to destroy any remnant of belief to justify their own arrogant skepticism.

If I was not one who found security in that exclusive forest of doctrine, was I the arrogant skeptic? Have I been washed out into an endless ocean of questions by a fierce current of doubt?

For years, the question would haunt me. Then I began to realize I was neither drowning in the ocean or sheltered in the forest. I sat on the shore. The ocean's waves rolled gently over the soft sand. The towering trees providing shade from the midday sun.

I found it was not doubt that mislead me. Nor was it weakness of spirit. Rather, it was the suggestion itself. The suggestion that to doubt means to disbelieve. To doubt means to be a skeptic. A suggestion that so many have emphasized with pounding clenched self-righteous fists and judging tongues. A suggestion which paints the world as black and white.

How can I affirm my faith without first having doubt? Afterall, we ask God to carry us forward on the path of the steadfast. A path that is not shrouded in doubt and mystery would not require one to be steadfast.

It is in doubt that we find the miracle of faith. As a Muslim, we believe every person is born with a natural inclination to belief. Thereafter, the child's parents will make them a Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist, and so on. When we allow ourselves to truely and honestly balance on that edge of doubt and faith, we can feel our inclination pull us towards faith.

It is at the edge of skepticism, I find peace in my faith. In our inherent inclination, I find my proof.

As for the blog, my intent is mostly selfish. I have not written much lately and I find myself slowly losing one of my few talents. On this blog, I'll practice my craft and discuss any range of topics from theology to philosophy, current events to humorous and, more than likely, self-deprecating anecdotes.

Since my perspective comes from this figurative land located at the edge of skepticism, I decided it would be the perfect name for my blog.

Well, that and I typically use Edge as an alias to my ramblings on the internets. I guess that would have been a simpler answer to the initial question.

- Edge