Self-Identification as a Muslim

I've had an odd conversation with someone on Daily Kos, the topic of which was one's self-identification with a particular religion, in this case, Islam. The original comment read, in part:

I don't think that any Muslims have authority to tell another Muslim that he's not a Muslim if he believes he is. I think each person has a right to determine his own religion.

My original response to this was the following:

Muslims can and do have the authority to tell another person that he or she is not a Muslim. Granted, this power should be used rarely, if at all. However, self-identification as a Muslim is not accepted within the Muslim community, and in some countries, such as Singapore, Muslim converts are tested as to their knowledge and practices of Islam before they are officially registered as a Muslim.

There are several reasons why self-identification is not allowed in Islam. One reason is because there are some groups, such as the Ahmadiyya, who are deviant offshoots of Islam who wish to be recognized as part of the greater Muslim community. The Ahmadiyya fail in this test because they have some beliefs regarding their founder that go against Muslim beliefs (specifically, against the Qur'an). Despite their wish to self-identify as Muslims, orthodox Muslims do not recognize the Ahmadiyya as part of the Islamic community.

A second reason is because some people wish to infiltrate the Muslim community by pretending to be Muslims. A recent case of this happened last year, when Chris Gaubatz [also see here] pretended to be a Muslim in order to obtain an internship at CAIR, where he stole thousands of pages of documents. (The most "damning" thing the documents spoke of was CAIR's goal of trying to get as many Muslims placed as Congressional interns as possible. The right tried to make hay of the story, but were ridiculed by virtually every group that has some sort of political interest, where they all agreed that they too had the same goal.)

Because of these and other concerns, Muslims don't accept self-identification. A person may self-identify as a Muslim, and they may truly be Muslim (only Allah (swt) actually knows what is in his or her heart), but that doesn't mean that we, the Muslim community, have to take their word for it. As with many other religious claims, we would tell that person, "Prove it!"

To which that person responded:

I don't care if self-identification isn't used among Muslims. Most Jews don't accept it. Some Christians don't accept it, but I see no other policy which is reasonable. As long as you don't accept group responsibility, which I don't, then self-identification is the the right approach to take. If someone claims they are an X, then they are that religion.

And I replied:

You may not care but that's not how it's going to be among Muslims. One person's opinion is not going to trump a consensus opinion among both Muslim scholars and non-scholars based upon 1400 years of experience. We have our reasons, as I mentioned above, and I believe them to be good reasons.

To be sure, as I also mentioned above, the naming of a person or group as a takfir (an apostate) is an act that is fraught with peril for the person who does so, as I wrote about on one of my blogs (Why Muslims Don't Pronounce "Takfir"). However, the minimum requirement to be accepted as a Muslim among Muslims is a public declaration of the shahadah in front of two Muslims. But even there, it is still possible for someone who does not have the proper intentions to deceive. Hence, our rejection of self-identification.

To which that person replied:

OK, I still don't care. If someone raised a Muslim decides he's an Atheist or a Christian or whatever, that's what he is. I think all of these regulations on who gets to count as a Jew, Muslim, Christian, etc... are offensive and illiberal.

My final comments are:

If someone raised a Muslim decides he's an Atheist or a Christian or whatever, that's what he is.

Which is fine by me. I'm not arguing this point.

I think all of these regulations on who gets to count as a Jew, Muslim, Christian, etc... are offensive and illiberal.

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. There's nothing to stop a person from self-identifying or becoming a Muslim, but that doesn't mean that the Muslim community must recognize that person as a Muslim. If that's "offensive and illiberal" so be it. The Muslim community expects certain standards to be met in terms of both beliefs and practices. Muslims themselves may fall into and out of a state of Islam throughout their lives (although we do, of course, hope to die in a state of Islam when that time comes, insha'allah). It's not terribly difficult to be recognized by other Muslims as a Muslim, but we do follow our rules, not the rules other people think we should follow.

One Day in Ramadan

Earlier this month, I had been asked to provide an insider's perspective on Ramadan. That person had written:

I would like to know more about Ramadan ... I mean I could look it up in Wikipedia ... However, I would like to know not only about the event itself, but the event and the event [sic] from a more personal view.

This diary tries to present a small glimpse into the Ramadan experience.


4:30 a.m. - The alarm goes off to wake my wife and I up to start the new day. We eat some breakfast, take our respective sets of pills, then brush our teeth. The break of dawn doesn't begin until 5:45, but we stop all eating and drinking ten minutes earlier to make sure that, by 5:45, any remaining food or liquid in our mouths will have been swallowed.

This is my eleventh Ramadan; the first time I fasted for Ramadan was back in 2000. I had reverted to Islam only a few months earlier so, when I approached some friends at the mosque and asked them how I should prepare for fasting, they correctly advised me, "You don't." There is no correct way to prepare for fasting; you just plunge ahead and do it. The first four days of my fast were excruciatingly painful. My stomach had never gone through a full day without any food. On the fifth day, my stomach started to understand that there was not going to be any meals until supper, so the hunger pains began to let up. However, I still dealt with the issue of thirst, especially for the next nine days or so, when I ultimately discovered that the best thing to do was to keep my mouth shut, literally. Talk as little as possible (not always possible for a teacher), and breathe primarily through my nose. After that, fasting became easier. That first year, I lost a lot of weight, forcing me to buy a new, smaller belt during the middle of the month.

Fasting is about depriving one's self of some of the basic physiological necessities of life. But when one doesn't feel any hunger pangs or thirstiness during Ramadan, as I rarely do anymore, other issues come to the forefront. In recent years, I have begun to notice "themes" during Ramadan, spiritual lessons regarding different subjects that have tied into Ramadan. Ramadan is a time when there is an emphasis on feeling empathy for those who are less fortunate than ourselves. In the last few years I had had some relatively minor health issues to deal with during Ramadan (severe head aches toward the end of the day, and sticky mucus at the back of my sinuses that gave me some difficulty in breathing early in the morning). These discomforts have reminded me of those people who have little or no access to health care, something that perhaps some people take for granted, but an issue that can become the focal point of other people's lives. This year's theme has centered around family, as I suspected it would. With the sudden passing of my father-in-law earlier this year, my wife's family has worked to give more emotional support to some of the family members who have taken the loss of "Abah" the hardest.

One aspect about Ramadan that many non-Muslims don't grasp is the close connection there is between fasting and zakat, the giving of charity, which is another pillar of Islam. The two are closely connected in that both are about purification. Fasting helps to purify the body, while zakat helps to purify one's wealth. In Islam, income and wealth need to be "pure," meaning that the source or manner in which the wealth and income has been obtained must be halal. Muslims often work through moral quandaries in deciding whether to take certain jobs: Can she work as a cashier when the grocery store sells pork and alcohol? Can he work in a hotel that is attached to a casino? Can she become a teller at a bank that relies upon interest for its primary source of revenue? To help purify that money, Muslims donate some of their personal wealth each year to help the poor.* In Singapore, it is not uncommon to see people or even businesses donating food to the poor as part of their effort to give charity. (The most common food given away here is rice porridge with chicken; however, one year, I walked through a shopping center where a business was about to give out fried chickens to a long queue of people who were waiting to take some home for their dinner that night. That was one of the few times recently where I grew hungry during the day - the smell of all that chicken was very strong.)

In many countries with significant Muslim populations, the month of Ramadan has become commercialized although, at least here in Singapore, that degree of commercialization is nowhere near the level of the American Christmas season. Some countries increase the number of cooking shows and "crazy soap operas" on television (as an Internet friend living in the UAE put it). In Singapore, the commercial side of Ramadan means shopping in the Malay Village section of Geylang and Sims Roads. The difference between the Christmas and Ramadan shopping seasons, though, is that Muslim shoppers aren't necessarily looking for gifts to give. In Singapore, at least, gifts are only given to children during the Eid festivities, and the gifts are almost always some money. (I was shocked when, last year, my wife's grandmother gave me a gift of money for Eid; money, if it is given to adults, is almost always for older relatives, like parents, aunts and uncles, and grandparents, who may be living on fixed incomes.) Instead, Muslim shoppers normally buy merchandise to prepare their families and their homes for Eid. Thus, apparel like color-coordinated Baju Melayus for men and Baju Kurungs for women, home furnishings (curtains, cushion covers, rugs, etc.), and all sorts of traditional cookies are some of the most popular items sold at the Ramadan markets.

But ultimately, Ramadan is a religious observance, in which mosques become a little more crowded for all of the prayers other than the Friday noon congregational prayer (which remains consistently full year-round). In Singapore, evening tarawih prayers are often conducted at housing block void decks because there is not enough space in the mosques to accommodate everyone who wishes to perform them. Religious talks are often given publicly, some of which are broadcast on television, as well as Qur'an recital competitions. The hope of every Muslim during Ramadan is that each of their daily fasts are accepted by Allah (swt), in addition to all of the good deeds that they may have performed.

7:12 p.m. - I had actually fallen asleep on the bed late in the afternoon when my wife rushed into the bedroom. "Wake up! The adhan is playing!" she said as she handed me a glass of Coke Zero (not the traditional drink to break one's fast with ;) ). I swallowed a little bit of the pop while giving a prayer of thanks for having made it through another day in Ramadan. A few minutes later, my wife and I ate our dinner for the evening.

* The percentage varies depending upon the type of asset that is "zakatable," but for most Muslims who live in cities, the percentage tends to be 2.5%. Also, various assets are subject to zakat, while others are not, such as family homes. The calculations to determine zakat can become rather complex, depending upon what the person owns. BTW, zakat is a wealth tax, not an income tax.

Update: I am pleased to say that this essay has received some recognition on a few major websites. On Street Prophets, where it was originally published, the essay was immediately promoted to the Front Page. On Daily Kos, the essay was one out of only seven diaries "rescued" by the DKos volunteers. (Rescued diaries, for those who don't know, are those diaries that did not make the "Recommended List" but are deemed an overlooked "must read" essay; at DKos, it's a very high honor to have one's diary rescued as it too is mentioned on the Front Page.)

The Fine Line

Several recent diaries over at Daily Kos have touched on the topic of Islamophobia. One question a number of people, both diarists and commenters, have wrestled with is whether Islamophobia is racism or bigotry. But even more fundamentally, one diarist asked, if someone publicly disagrees with Islam, does that make him or her a bigot? What follows is my answer:

As a Muslim, even I would say that not all publicly expressed disagreements with Islam classify a person as a bigot. But there is a fine line between bigotry and non-bigotry; on the Internet, this bigotry - Islamophobia - is usually expressed through the tone of the person's writings. The writer usually takes an attacking, accusatory mode, and rarely allows him or herself to acknowledge that he or she is wrong, let alone that the Islamic/Muslim point has merit. Moreover, the bigot/Islamophobe has no real desire to learn about Islam or Muslims. They already know what they know, so to speak, and are content to remain in a state of ignorance. For a Muslim to correct them would be "to confuse the issue with facts."

Ironically, this is the correct tact to take with Muslims: instead of attack, attack, attack (and showing we Muslims just how ignorant and closed-minded you really are), try asking questions instead and creating a dialog. Instead of assuming that Western conventional wisdom is correct for interpreting Islam and Muslim society, try asking Why? Most often, Western conventional wisdom is wrong in that it doesn't understand why the way things are (with respect to the Qur'an, with respect to Islamic practices, with respect to Muslim society, and so on). Context matters, and most Muslims understand that context far better than non-Muslims do. So don't be afraid to admit to yourself that maybe, just maybe you don't really know the subject as well as you think you do and that you may very well be wrong, and respectfully ask a Muslim for their point of view.

Very few Muslims, if any, would think of a person who comes across as sincerely desiring to learn about Islam and Muslims as an Islamophobe.

Baker Fail

I had a good laugh over this pic. More can be found here.

Zakat vs. Sadaqah

There seems to be some confusion among non-Muslims about who's eligible to receive charity from Muslims. The quotation in question is from Al-Maqasid, the book on fiqh by Imam Nawawi (631 - 676 A.H. / 1234 - 1278 CE), who wrote:

"It is not permissible to give zakat to a non-Muslim." (Al-Maqasid, 4:13)

Not surprisingly, the quotation is being misused by Islamophobes such as Bobby Spencer and others. Their problem seems to be that they focus solely on zakat while ignoring the fact that there's also sadaqah, the voluntary charity that can be given by Muslims to anyone. What follows below is the thread of a conversation over at Daily Kos where this issue came up. The first comment was written by a person calling themselves "Berkeley Moon":

Do you know, for example, that Islam compares wealth in a society to blood in the body? It must be circulated in a healthy society/body. If too much blood is congealed in one place in the body, the body dies. The body also dies if there is too little blood in a part. It is the same with a society. Too little or too much wealth in a part of the society means the society sickens and may die.

To which "Old Man Mountain" wrote:

Interesting... Can you please quote the verse(s) that outline this concept? Thanks.

I responded:

There is no specific verse in the Qur'an... that mentions this concept; there may be some ahadith that do, although I couldn't find anything through an online search of the best of the hadith databases (USC's MSA website). However, you can find the concept fleshed out in The Secret of Islam, pp. 17-18.

To which "Old Man Mountain" replied:

That link appears to outline... the justification for zakat tax. Now I've done some reading up on this in the meantime, and it seems that although there are some exceptions (like if there is potential to make a convert), by and large...

"It is not permissible to give zakat to a non-Muslim" (Al-Maqasid, 4:13).

I'm just an old guy, sometimes grumpy, but I just don't see what is so "beautiful" about that - unless of course one is a Muslim. I must say the teacher above sure makes it sound flowery.

And here is my latest (and, insha'allah, last) response:

I think part of the problem... is that there's a lot more to this topic than what you've read. First, the passage I linked to used the analogy of wealth in a society to blood within one's body with respect to zakat; however, the passages where I'm familiar with this analogy are normally on the topic of Islamic business practices. The use of this analogy is applicable to both areas.

Next, the quotation you used, "It is not permissible to give zakat to a non-Muslim." (Al-Maqasid, 4:13), is from a book on fiqh or Islamic jurisprudence. It's not a quotation from the Qur'an, if that's what you were thinking.

In Googling the quotation (because I was unfamiliar with it off-hand), I see that it's used in a negative manner by Islamophobes; what I don't see is that these same people don't have a more full understanding about charity within Islam. Zakat is merely one form of charity within Islam. Zakat is the compulsory charity that is required of Muslims; non-Muslims are not expected to pay any zakat whatsoever. In this regard, I don't have any problems with the idea that "it is not permissible to give zakat to a non-Muslim." It is a charity raised by and distributed back to the Muslim community.

However, zakat is only one type of charity in Islam; the voluntary, non-compulsory form of charity in Islam is known as sadaqah. Sadaqah can be given to anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim. Whereas zakat is a prescribed amount (2.5% of one's wealth), sadaqah is limitless. In Islam, even a smile is sadaqah. :) So there's more to Islamic charity than just zakat.

Do You Want "Other" Wars?

BUSH: The danger to our country is grave. The danger to our country is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons.

[VARIOUS SPEAKERS]: Weapons of mass destruction, weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction.

BUSH: Well, our people are gonna find out the truth. And the truth will say that this intelligence is good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind.

RUMSFELD: There are a lot of people who lie and get away with it, and that's just a fact.

[Scary music, flag-draped coffins, ugly statistics, injured Iraqi civilians, more ugly statistics.]

BUSH [joking in front of an audience]: Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere. [Audience laughs.]

BUSH: Nope, no weapons over there! [Audience roars with laughter.]

QUESTIONER: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years--

McCAIN: Maybe a hundred.

BUCHANAN: There's no doubt John McCain is going to be a war president. Can anyone see John McCain as sort of a peactime Calvin Coolidge president? It's preposterous! His whole career is wrapped up in the military, national security; he's in Putin's face, he's threatening the Iranians, we're gonna be in Iraq a hundred years.

RITTER: The Bush Administration has built a new generation of nuclear weapons that we call "usable" nukes. [TEXT: Cochran statement.] And they have a nuclear, you know, posture now which permits the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons in a non-nuclear environment if the Commander-in-Chief deems US forces to be at significant risk.

If we start bombing Iran, I'm telling you right now it's not gonna work

McCAIN: Bomb Iran? Heh-heh. [singing, to tune of Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann"] Bomb, bomb, bomb, anyway, heh-heh.

RITTER: My concern is that we will use nuclear weapons to break the backbone of Iranian resistance, and it may not work. But what it will do is this: it will unleash the nuclear genie. So to all those Americans out there tonight who say, "You know what? Taking on Iran's a good thing,"

McCAIN: My friends, I know how to handle the Iranians, and I'll handle them.

RITTER: And if we use nuclear weapons, the genie ain't going back in the bottle until an American city is taken out by an Islamic weapon in retaliation. So tell me, you want to go to war with Iran: Pick your city. Pick your city. Tell me which one you want gone. Seattle? LA? Boston? New York, Miami? Pick one! Because at least one's going.

And that's something we should all think about before we march down this path of insanity [repeating "insanity" as pictures flash on screen.]

MIKA BRZEZINSKI READING WES CLARK ARTICLE: "The truth is that, in national security terms, he's largely untested and untried" -- John McCain, this is what you're talking about -- "he's never been responsible for policy formulation. He's never had leadership in a crisis or in anything larger than his own element on an aircraft carrier or in managing his own Congressional staff.

It's not clear that this is going to be the strong suit that he thinks it is. McCain's weakness is that he's always been for the use of force, force, and more force. In my experience, the only time to use force is as a last resort. When he talks about throwing Russia out of the G8 and makes ditties about bombing Iran, he betrays a disrespect for the office of the Presidency."

McCAIN: And I'm sorry to tell ya that we're gonna be in further wars. . . . And we were in two wars today, combatting it, and there are other places in the world where we may have to. These young people that are in this crowd, my friends, I'm gonna be asking you to serve.

There's gonna be more wars. There's gonna be more wars. We're in a greater struggle that is gonna be with us for the rest of this century.

It's a tough war we're in. It's not gonna be over right away. There's gonna be other wars. I'm sorry to tell you, there's gonna be other wars.

[Scary music, scary statistics, scary pictures.]

BUCHANAN: "He will make Cheney look like Gandhi."

HT: NWTerriD at Daily Kos

The History of the Humble Olive

There's an interesting diary on "the history of the humble olive" over at Daily Kos, of all places, that was rather interesting. Be sure to check it out. Personally, I love olives and olive oil, and I can easily go through a bottle of olives while eating cottage cheese (another favorite food), using the olives as a garnish. Tasty! Here's a brief quotation from the diary:

The Olive was a native to Asia Minor and spread from Iran, Syria and Palestine to the rest of the Mediterranean basin around 6,000 years ago. It is among the oldest known cultivated trees in the world (being grown before the written language was invented). It was being grown on Crete by 3,000 BC and may have been the source of the wealth of the Minoan kingdom. The Phoenicians spread the olive to the Mediterranean shores of Africa and Southern Europe. Olives have been found in Egyptian tombs from 2000 years BC. The olive culture was spread to the early Greeks then Romans. As the Romans extended their domain they brought the olive with them (but not the olive branch! They were fond of conquering). A little known fact is this: 1400 years ago the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, advised his followers to apply olive oil to their bodies, and himself used oil on his head.

Update to "Physician, Heal Thyself"

My blog post from the other day, Physician, Heal Thyself, got a mixed reaction. Personally, I felt it was one of my better posts in quite some time. And initial reactions were quite positive. Being selected for Ijtema was an honor, being the first time they had noticed me. And then, when I cross-posted the diary over at Street Prophets, it was quickly promoted to the "front page," which happens for noteworthy diaries (and was another first-time honor for me). Moreover, my essay inspired another man to write the diary, Can America Respect Islam?, which also generated a lot of comment.

However, when I posted this essay over at Daily Kos, the diary was largely ignored. I'd like to say that this was because I posted it at the wrong time of day (during the middle of the night over in the US), but the next diary posted after mine got well over 500 comments and immediately made it to the "Recommended Diaries" listing. C'est la vie.

What I wanted to do here was to highlight three sets of comments between myself and others from both Street Prophets and Daily Kos that I thought were of interest. The first comment was by StarWoman on Street Prophets, who wrote:

Cultural arrogance, alas, has long been part of American culture.

The real problem is not that American needs to promote its own values and cultures to the world, but that the world needs to promote its values and cultures to the U.S.

Amen to that.

Do you have any suggestions as to how the rest of the world can do that?

My response:

Start with TV

In S'pore, we have documentaries and TV series that focus on different parts of the world. Two weekly programs that my wife and I watch every now and then are "Japan Hour" and "Dynamic Korea." (In fact, I caught the tail end of this week's "Dynamic Korea" about an hour ago.) These are programs that focus on cultural aspects of these two countries; "Japan Hour" is primarily about food and inns, while "Dynamic Korea" covers a broader variety of topics. Now the distance between Singapore and these two countries is about seven hours' flight, which is exactly how long it took me to fly from NYC to Switzerland back in 2001. So, although it's all part of eastern Asia, it's still a considerable distance from here (like crossing the Atlantic).

Of course these are only two programs. Much of the news here focuses on the arc of Asia from Pakistan to Japan, occasionally from the Middle East and Australia. The BBC World Service gives the British perspective, CNN the American, CNA (Channel News Asia) the Asian. With respect to sports, S'poreans prolly have a better knowledge of the placement of teams in the English Premier League and the Spanish Primera Liga than they do of their own teams in the "S League." I catch sports broadcasts for cricket, rugby, badminton, table tennis, billiards, and several other sports, in addition to the traditional slew of American sports. (About the only American league that's not shown here consistently is the NHL, although the broadcasters will show the Stanley Cup finals. Also, I got really upset this summer when the Tour de France wasn't broadcast, which I've watched every other year here.)

So if I were going to expand American horizons by showing them the world, I'd start with TV first.

The second set of comments was started by "DreadWolf" at Daily Kos, who wrote:

I've worked with Muslims for many years and have mutual respect for those I know personally.

I think you are actually contributing to the problem, though perhaps unintentionally. For most Americans who do not work with Muslims, all they hear from the Muslim community is cries of victimization. Though there is certainly much America can do, I notice you do not mention anything the Muslim world could or should do to address the discord. Sadly, that one-sidedness is the common theme that usually comes through quite clearly from Muslim advocates.

For example, your main message is that Americans should try to learn more about Muslim/world values and culture, but you preface it with "we're not necessarily interested in yours".

Whether intended or not, that comes across as an air of superiority, and Americans pick up on it quite well. It only reinforces the existing perceptions.

My response:

...I notice you do not mention anything the Muslim world could or should do to address the discord. Sadly, that one-sidedness is the common theme that usually comes through quite clearly from Muslim advocates.

I believe the "one-sidedness" only appears that way because American culture is so self-absorbed. The rest of the world is plugged into all of the world; we frequently know what's going on elsewhere and not just at "home." American culture is mostly plugged into America, with a little bit plugged into western Europe and Japan. Take the news, for example. Most Americans get their news from American networks: CNN, Fox, the three primary networks. How many news networks do they get from overseas? I live in SE Asia; I get CNN, BBC and Channel News Asia (plus two business news networks, plus a couple other stations/minor networks). The Asian networks normally cover everything that happens from Pakistan to Japan, plus the Middle East and Australia on occasion. You'll be lucky if you find that coverage on CNN. The Muslim world discusses the "discord" fairly frequently; one of the local TV channels here often discusses social problems among the local Muslim community, such programs being aired during prime time. The problem isn't that the issues aren't being discussed locally or internationally (ever catch the Doha Debates?), it's that Americans don't pay attention - and that makes it seem "one-sided."

For example, your main message is that Americans should try to learn more about Muslim/world values and culture, but you preface it with "we're not necessarily interested in yours".

You must remember, the rest of the world knows far more about America and American culture than the typical American knows about what it's like in the rest of the world. They've already been able to judge American culture and values, and have largely found it lacking. (A lot of Americans find their own culture lacking; I'm sure I don't need to provide you with any examples.)

Whether intended or not, that comes across as an air of superiority, and Americans pick up on it quite well. It only reinforces the existing perceptions.

This as to, say, all the Americans telling the rest of the world how superior American culture and values are to their own? The Muslim world in particular tends to view everything with a moral lens. The ends and the means. It's not so difficult for the rest of the world to see American culture for what it is: shallow, vapid, arrogant and ignorant. L.C.D. The point of Kaplan's argument was that Americans used music (jazz and rock) to help smooth out their differences with communist societies. "Hey, those Americans can play really good jazz, no? They can't be all bad." Today, Muslim society - and the rest of the world - get an extremely steady stream of American culture - in all forms of media. And having viewed that stream of culture with their moral lens, they have to question the type of values that produce that culture. It's as if Americans were saying, "Hey, come be decadent with us." Why would Muslims want to debase themselves to the American cultural level? If that comes across as an "air of superiority," then that's a good thing.

The last set of comments was started by "pico," who was reviewing the post as part of the "Diary Rescue" the Daily Kos staff do every day (highlighting noteworthy diaries that might otherwise be missed by the "Kossack" community; there are so many diaries being published on Daily Kos every day that it's quite easy to miss some of the better ones):

...[W]hile I agree with much of what you say, here's one point of disagreement:

[America] perhaps even needs to tone down the amount of "culture" it bombards the world with.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that, since there's no monolithic America that exports culture: what goes around the world goes via individual artists, groups, and companies. Are you suggesting, for example, that bands agree not to tour as much? Otherwise I'm not sure what you mean.

My response:

You're right when you say there's no "monolithic America" when it comes to culture. Much of the culture exported comes in drips and drabs (the individual artists and groups), and that's not going to ruffle too many feathers. It's the corporations, acting singly and together, that can cause problems.

For example, when I lived in Korea, there was a law at the time which stated that foreign films (read, "Hollywood") could only have x% of all movie showings. The law was put into place to help protect the Korean film industry, which has been growing over the decades and now produces some quality films. However, the government wanted to make sure the Korean theaters weren't overwhelmed with the numerous Hollywood productions that could otherwise flood into that country's cinemas. Hollywood had been trying to lift that restriction for some time (I don't know if it's been lifted since I left there).

The practical benefit to the Korean public was that they got to watch the better movies made in America. Hollywood wasn't going to waste their percentage of theater showings by sending over schlock; they sent over the better movies. Hollywood still made a significant chunk of change from the film rentals; they just didn't make as much as they would have wanted. And the Korean film industry was given some breathing space, which has helped the industry to grow. (Hopefully, Korean movies are making their way to the US because some of them are quite good.)

TV is in a similar situation, in which you have large, powerful corporations that are able to sell broadcasts of many TV series. However, that problem is somewhat muted in that American networks aren't able to dominate, say, Asian TV as much as Hollywood can dominate the theaters in that there are significant numbers of native-language networks that broadcast here as well. Still, you could easily spend all day watching American television (and movies) here in Asia. And that's the problem I find when America bombards the world with its culture.

Pico's response:

Fair points

Although it seems the scaling-back effort still has to come from other nations, right? I can't imagine how one would ask film producers not to market their films overseas: but you've given a good example of how a nation can stem the flow of Hollywood into its theatres.

Conversion vs. Reversion

I got an e-mail this morning from a man who read some of my comments on Daily Kos. He questioned why I used the word "revert" instead of "convert." Below is the comment he is referring to, which I wrote, except that he has capitalized all the times I used the word "revert":

“Yes, I'm well aware that people REVERT to Islam for petty reasons. That's not my point. My point is that Muslims would want people to have the right intention for REVERTING to Islam instead of a petty reason. In Islam, one's intention to behave in a certain way carries considerable weight, both in this life and the Hereafter. How much more forgiveness might Allah (swt) grant to one who REVERTED to Islam for His sake than for a person who REVERTED for a petty reason, like marriage or business?”

His letter:

I notice that you speak of Christians and others “reverting” to Islam and elsewhere put ‘“conversion”’ in quotation marks. Obviously you are making a point. What is it? That we once were all Muslim, and hence those who are not (really, no longer) within the dar al Islam are infidels?

And my response:

I wouldn't exactly put it the way you've described it, especially with the use of the word "infidel," which I rarely if ever use.

Some Muslims will talk about people converting to Islam, others (perhaps the majority) talk about "reverting" to Islam. I use the latter word. The reason why Muslims like me use "revert" instead of "convert" is due to some passages in the Qur'an.

The Qur'an states that mankind was brought forth before Allah (swt) long before we were born. In one particular passage, it is said that mankind swore an oath confirming that Allah (swt) is the one God:

"When thy Lord drew forth from the Children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants, and made them testify concerning themselves, (saying): 'Am I not your Lord (who cherishes and sustains you)?'- They said: 'Yea! We do testify!' (This), lest ye should say on the Day of Judgment: 'Of this we were never mindful': Or lest ye should say: 'Our fathers before us may have taken false gods, but we are (their) descendants after them: wilt Thou then destroy us because of the deeds of men who were futile?'" (7:172-3)

In this regard, Muslims believe that through this oath we all became Muslims prior to birth. It is after birth where we may lose our innate sense of the oneness of Allah (swt) (such as through the teachings of our parents, teachers and others). In that sense, those people who come back to Islam (such as myself) are not "converts," but "reverts."

Another explanation, by Muhammad Asad:

"According to the Qur'an, the ability to perceive the existence of the Supreme Power is inborn in human nature (fitrah); and it is this instinctive cognition - which may or may not be subsequently blurred by self-indulgence or adverse environmental influences - that makes every sane human being 'bear witness about himself' before God."

So, in this respect, yes, we were all once Muslims, but after birth some of us are taught to be other than Muslim.

Salaam 'alaikum (peace be unto you).


JDsg

Myth #278 of Islam

I had an odd conversation recently over at Daily Kos, albeit on an old topic. The comment that I responded to said, in part:

Another is the limitation that Koran only be used in the original Arabic, so that many followers are actually unaware of the actual or precise content of their own holy book - a true "reformation" problem.

I've heard this argument before: Many Muslims, not being Arabic speakers, don't know what's really in the Qur'an and, presumably, if they did know, would be appalled at the real contents and leave the religion. Not that this is what the guy at Daily Kos actually wrote but, as I said earlier, I've heard this particular argument before. Regardless, the argument as quoted above is still a load of crap. But, being the polite person that I am, I wrote the following response:

This is one of those odd myths of Islam that has little relationship to reality. Yes, the Qur'an is only the Qur'an when it's published in Arabic. Yes, formal prayer (salat) is performed only in Arabic. No, we Muslims do understand what is in the Qur'an. For one thing, there are such things known as "translations." ;) And even in those places in the Qur'an where there can be multiple meanings to a particular word (fairly commonplace in a language that is highly metaphorical), some of the translators will provide the other possible meanings in the footnotes to clarify matters. And then, of course, many (if not most) Muslims learn Arabic anyway, if only to understand the Qur'an in the original language.

The real reformation is in trying to remove all the ignorance and misunderstandings from the minds of non-Muslims and providing a true knowledge of Islam in its place.

Here is the original writer's response to me:

Catholics said the same thing before vernacular.

Sorry, but I don't think the little boys memorizing their Koran in Pakistani madrassas are so aware as you suggest. At minimum, the necessity of a conduit to the words themselves reinforces outside authority - as it did prior to Luther in Germany.

And the imported imams at European mosques in the likes of Hamburg and London are not always reliable interpreters of subtle concepts to their second generation immigrant followers; teachers for whom German or English may be a second or barely understood language.

I know as well, Jewish boys learning their Bible in Hebrew at yeshiva, are far from the level of comprehension that would permit them their own individual understanding.

And on understanding one's holy books generally, that is a swamp all by itself, and I doubt that the world's Muslims have a special leg up. Learning a "highly metaphorical" book, if even without language problems is rather challenging.

And I didn't mean to suggest anything I didn't explicitly say, but to the larger issue - you don't think Islam is unique, as I said... or are you just trying to pick a fight?

And my first thought was "little boys?" Why would we base the argument about comprehension of the Qur'an on "little boys?" No one expects perfect comprehension of any religious text from any child. They may understand the text well, but probably not as well as most adults. And as for "imported imams," while I granted that there may be cases such as he suggested (where "German or English may be a second or barely understood language"), this hasn't corresponded to my experience with "imported imams." I don't think this guy really understands all of the duties an imam plays within the local community. To be an imam is more than just leading prayers or teaching classes. The "imported imams" I have known had pastoral duties similar to what any priest or minister would perform outside of their churches. In such an environment, where dealing with other people is the primary responsibility, being fluent in the local language is an absolute requirement. So I responded:

No, not trying to pick a fight...

...just trying to give some straight dope to a topic that's often misunderstood. You are not the first person who's raised this particular - and IMO, erroneous - argument before.

Yes, of course, when kids are learning the Qur'an at a very young age, they are often taught by rote. But little boys eventually become big boys, and most of them learn the meaning of the Qur'an, either in their own language or by having learned classical Arabic. I wouldn't expect little kids to have comprehension necessarily of any particular religious text, but I would expect this of adults.

As for "imported imams," what you said may be true for some, although the "imported imams" that I've met have all been fluent in English. Even so, there are many other educational resources available worldwide besides imams, native or imported. One of the things that has struck me in my travels and in meeting other Muslims from around the world (from about two dozen countries so far) has been the similarity of understanding about Islam. It hasn't really mattered how one has learned about Islam (from one's parents, from an imam, from a madrassah, from the Internet, and so on), most Muslims have very similar understandings about Islam. Of course, there are disagreements on particular details, but considering the potential for confusion that could result, the disagreements are, for the most part, not that common.

What I'm trying to say is that, you've made this assumption that Muslims don't understand the Qur'an very well, and that this assumption doesn't correspond with reality. But don't take my word for it; go talk with Muslims in your neighborhood and see what they have to say.

There's been no further response to this last comment so far. I do think that this particular myth about Islam - Muslims don't understand their own Qur'an - is based on wishful thinking. After all, how would they know what's in the Qur'an? Are they so knowledgeable in classical Arabic that they've no need for relying upon translations from others? Have they even read a translation of the Qur'an? I think the fundamental problem can be summed up (yet again) by the Qur'anic ayah:

Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance." Wert thou to follow their desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor helper against Allah. (2:120)

Muslims Across the U.S.

This is an interesting map that I came across just a few minutes ago (the map is part of a Daily Kos diary, "So...where are all the Jews?". This map shows, on a county-by-county basis, where the American Muslim population is located as a percentage of the total resident population of the U.S. The data comes from the 2000 census. There are some fairly large populations of Muslims in places where I would expect (Michigan, Metro NY and DC), and a few where I wouldn't have expected (NW Ohio, NE Oregon (?), and two counties in New Mexico (??)). Also nice to see is that there is at least one county in every state that is shaded yellow (0.1 to 0.7% of the population), even in the upper mid-west and Alaska, where you wouldn't necessarily expect to find large numbers of Muslims. Of course, we have a long way to go before the map starts turning more yellow or, insha'allah, orange or brown.

For a listing of all the various maps for different religions practiced throughout the US, see here.

Explain America to Chinese University Students

The following appeared on Daily Kos. As a lecturer here in Asia, I've been asked very similar questions to the ones posted below. If you have an account with Daily Kos, please go ahead and answer any of the questions there. If you don't have an account (and DKos has a 24 hour waiting period on new accounts before that person can post a comment), I'd be more than happy to transfer any comments from here to there.


Hello to my American friends (or friends living in the U.S.),

I am teaching a course in American Culture (it is a survey course about the U.S.) at a university in China and I have received some questions from students. I am hoping to draw upon your first-hand experience of the U.S. to help me answer at least some of these questions. Respond to as many questions as you like, even if it's just one. Any answers I get will be useful. I have typed in the questions in the students' own wording and spelling so there is a bit of Chinglish in some of them and some questions have assumptions built right into them. Just reading the questions gives you an idea of what Chinese students want to know about the U.S. and how they think.

I appreciate your help. Thanks!

1. Why do most Americans think that the war of Iraq is right?

2. What's the biggest difference between English and Americans?

3. What is the function of the bank? Is there a most important bank who controls the whole economy of the country and what is it? If there is, how does it works? What functions does it have?

4. What kinds of crime did a person commit can sentence the person to death?

5. Who is the most influential philosopher in US history? How did he affect the US ideology?

6. Do most of the Americans like George W. Bush?

7. I wonder who it is that support Bush Administration firmly; and why? Because they have seen how badly Bush is and what indeed did Bush do to the world especially the Iraq. It's hard to understand.

8. Can Arnold Swasinger (California state master) be the next President?

9. What do the Americans usually do after work?

10. Do Americans usually go to a cinema for films?

11. Why soccer is not so popular as basketball in America? What is their general attitude toward soccer?

12. Why American government allow citizens to sell and buy guns?

13. Do most Americans have race prejudice?

14. How do most Americans think of China? Do they think China has many places to travel to visit?

15. What's the attitude of Americans towards the Chinese living in America?

16. What kind of person do most American people like?

17. I want to know something about their attitude toward the other country.

18. What's the American's attitude towards Japan?

19. American's attitudes towards their children's independence when they are 18 years old?

20. How about the attitude to the lives in America?

21. How do Americans think about fashion and individual character?

22. We have a kind of bias that American people tend to be utilitarians. Are they?

23. Heard that there is certain religion worships Satan. And their ceremonies and activities are very exclusive and crew (cruel?). Why they're not genocided?

24. How do they learn history?

25. Will most Americans get further education after they get BS or BA?

26. How to apply for a USA university and what would the application cover?

The "Manifesto" against Islamism

There's a diary over at Daily Kos about a "manifesto" written and signed by the usual suspects (Rushdie, Manji, Ibn Warraq, Hirsi, etc.), along with a few others whom I'm not familiar with. The "manifesto" speaks against that "...new totalitarian global threat: Islamism."

What I found amusing in the commentary is how quite a few people were saying "Huh?" after reading the "manifesto." So much for clarity of expression by "We, writers, journalists, intellectuals..."

I've written a few comments to this diary (as JDsg), one of which appears below:

I agree that these people [Rushdie, Manji, Warraq, Hirsi, etc.]are not reformers of Islam. For the vast majority of Muslims, one look at the names of the signatories will cause them to ignore this "manifesto" altogether. These people do not speak for us and, in many cases, have as much credibility as a turnip.

But many of these signatories are popular among non-Muslims because they say what non-Muslims want to hear, as in the case of this "manifesto." What, did anyone think that this was written with Muslims as the intended audience? It was written for non-Muslims, for them to say, "Oh, if only the Muslims were like them."

So sad. Too bad.

"The More Things Change..." More Comments Regarding the Danish Cartoons

The controversy over the Danish cartoons, while it has muted somewhat over the past few weeks, has been a subject of continuing discussion at various blogs and websites. If you're not familiar with Random Platitudes, a relatively new blog, I recommend that you visit. RP is a Danish historian and lecturer who has been doing a series of posts over the history of the cartoon affair. While I don't agree with everything he's written, some of his posts provide valuable insight into Danish psychology and how the history of Denmark has shaped their thinking toward xenophobia.


Next, I originally found the following quotation on one of the diaries at Daily Kos. Guess which newspaper originally published it?

"You have to admit Germany its clear right to rid itself of its Jews. But one must insist that it happens in a decent manner."

That's right, Jyllands-Posten. This is from an editorial in reaction to Nazi Germany's Kristallnacht (the "Night of Broken Glass," in which the Germans rampaged against the Jews, their businesses, synagogues, and other properties). (See also Denmark, Where Are You? A Story About Longing for another essay that refers to this quotation.)

Yes, it seems that the more things change, the more they remain the same. Most organizations indoctrinate their employees to follow the company's customs and ways of thinking (e.g., "the HP way," "the Microsoft way," and so on), and it would surprise me not in the least that the editorial staff of Jyllands-Posten today would have the same basic conservative, xenophobic bent that their predecessors had back in November 1938.


Finally, I came across the following brief essay, published on February 8 at Sojourners. The essay shows that many Europeans suffer from a racist superiority complex over anyone who pretty much isn't a white Western European. (The racist taunts that European soccer fans make, referred to in the essay, are a frequent occurence, and happened as recently as this weekend, when fans of Spanish League Zaragoza taunted Barcelona's Eto'o, a fantastic striker from Cameroon. Eto'o almost walked off the field in disgust.)

Cartoons a Symptom of Deeper Prejudices in Western Europe
by Tomek Krzyzostaniak

Twelve cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed, printed last September in the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten and republished in January by major newspapers in Norway, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and the Netherlands, have sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Protests intensified last weekend in several Middle Eastern countries, and included outbreaks of violence and the burning of Danish and Swedish Missions. Many Muslims object to the cartoons because Islam forbids the creation of any image of the prophet, and the cartoons portray Mohammed as a terrorist. Along with anger there are feelings of confusion from those who imagined Europe as a tolerant and welcoming place.

The fictional haven was clearly shaken by the riots in France last year. If Europe is so culturally tolerant, how could so many minorities be so upset? Europeans from Slavic nations have understood the Western European superiority complex better than others. My uncle Andrzej Lewandowski, like many other Polish businessmen, faces derogatory comments and ill treatment from his French and German counterparts on a consistent basis when traveling. Even though Poland is a full member of the European Union, the Western nations have consistently placed limitations on the ability of Poles to work and study in their countries. French President Jacques Chirac called Poland and other Eastern European nations "irresponsible" and "infantile" for their positions on Iraq, hardly words one uses to address equals and allies.

The treatment of Slavs in Western Europe is quite polite when compared to behavior toward non-Christians and non-whites. Evidence of this is most notable in soccer stadiums. In Britain, renowned for its politeness, a black player was taunted by fans making monkey noises, reported international news sources. This would have shocked some except that this kind of incident had already occurred countless times in Italy, Spain, Germany, and the Netherlands.

Though many fans are able to tolerate players as long as they perform well on the soccer field, they show their true colors when voting. In Austria, the Freedom Party, a far-right populist party that opposes immigration and "multicultural experiments," is part of the governing coalition. In France an extremist candidate won 18% of the popular vote in the 2002 presidential elections. Both Denmark and Norway, where the cartoon fiasco originated, have significant anti-immigration party participation in their parliaments (12% and 15% respectively). In Germany the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party quadrupuled its 2002 national election results and gained 1.6% of the vote. Though the numbers are still small the rise in popularity of far-right parties is alarming, and they have fared even better in local elections. In 2004 the NDP captured 9.2% of the vote in state elections and sent 12 delegates to the state parliament of Saxony.

There are countless examples of racism and intolerance in Western Europe, from governments banning headscarves to firebombings of synagogues in Brussels and Antwerp. These expressions of discrimination in areas of perceived acceptance unfortunately remind me of my hometown of Madison, Wisconsin. Looked upon by the rest of the country as a bastion of liberalism, Madison is also no haven. Last month when Middleton High School (predominately white and wealthy) faced off against Madison East (predominately people of color and poor), the Middleton fans began to chant "food stamps" and "Oscar Meyer" in reference to the economic standing of their opponents. The students issued a halfhearted apology and were not disciplined by school administrators. While this is a far cry from firebombs and beatings, it does expose a sad truth about a tolerant society.

As long as minorities - racial, ethnic, economic, or otherwise - represent a small number, it is comfortable for white citizens to speak boldly about acceptance and equality, but the moment more than one or two of "them" show up, true feelings emerge. These cartoons, stupid though they may be, are just one example of a much larger problem.

More Torture Photos from Abu Ghraib Prison

Some new photos have been released showing more scenes of torture that had happened at Abu Ghraib prison, over at Daily Kos. Please be advised that the photos are graphic, with plenty of blood and male nudity (genitals have been blacked out).

Your American tax dollars at work.


Update: The photos can also be viewed through The Sydney Morning Herald and BoingBoing. Also, Amnesty International has a flash video that connects the dots on American torture (especially concerning the Maher Arar case).

"Jesus (pbuh) Would Lose the War on Terror"

I've just visited the Daily Kos for the first time, and I came across an article by "advisorjim," entitled "Jesus would lose the war on terror." Now this little excerpt just cracked me up. I hope no one is offended by this, but I thought the visual imagery created by this turn of phrase was just a hoot. In this excerpt, "advisorjim" is having a discussion about politics and the Bush administration with his father:

I don't know if this exchange had dad reeling a bit, or if he just wanted to change the subject, but either way he moved on to why he voted Republican. Republicans were the Christian candidates, to which I responded "Republicans don't have a monopoly on Christianity." "They're more Christian then Democrats," dad retorted a bit sardonically. Obviously he and I disagreed. I offered to support my position by saying that I was pretty sure how Jesus would feel about torture and the death penalty, and that I didn't think he was a fan. Dad replied that the War on Terror was different, and that the only way to win was to kill, maim, or torture whoever we had to to get the information we needed. "Arabs only respect one thing--strength. And we just have to kick the shit out of them, and torture them, and do whatever we have to do to get them to give up."

"Is that what Jesus would do?" I asked.

"Jesus would lose the war on terror," he replied.

Hence the title of this diary. Republicans are more Christian, but Jesus would lose the War on Terror. I was tempted to respond using that line from Major League ("Are you saying Jesus Christ couldn't hit a fastball!?), but I was a little dumbfounded by the statement. It was a very unpleasant look at the twisted, ugly innards of the soul of the Republican party. Suddenly I knew what it must be like to be Ann Coulter's gynecologist. All I could think to say was "Um...wow."