Banu Islam

“I am a Muslim. I exist only to serve Allah (swt) and His creation.”
On the whole, humanity is rather immature. We are born this way and it normally takes us at least two decades, if not more, to reach a level of cognitive and behavioral maturity that is acceptable to ourselves and society. This level of maturity is taught to us through many means, one of which is the institution of religion. Most religions, including Islam, seek to mature humanity. In Islam, we Muslims mature through our submission to Allah (swt) by conforming to His rules and legislation, which is presented to us in the form of shari'ah. The rules and legislation by which we mature aren't onerous, but they do take a significant level of discipline and determination in order to be carried out successfully and consistently.

This "discipline and determination" is known to us as jihad. It is the greater jihad, the jihad by which we seek to control and contain our nafs, our ego. Those of us who are parents (and I am the father to a five-year-old daughter) see the need to control the nafs daily through our children. "Abah, I want this! Ibu, I want that!" As children get older, their desires become more sophisticated, but their maturity levels also increase as well, insha'allah. People usually get to a point where their material needs are met, but their maturity levels have also plateaued.

The problem is that these maturity levels may or may not have reached their full potential. Have each of us met that full level of maturity? For example, consider three types of behavior: drinking alcohol, gambling and tattooing. All three behaviors are considered both legal (usually) and acceptable within modern non-Muslim society. But even while these behaviors may be acceptable in non-Muslim society, they are considered unacceptable among Muslims.

Engaging in these behaviors are signs of immaturity. An immature person wastes his or her money on alcoholic drinks that can cause numerous individual and societal problems (let alone being a poison to one's body). Through gambling, an immature person wastes his or her money in the unlikely possibility of winning a large payoff. Through tattooing, an immature person "decorates" his or her body with art that is often regretted (and sometimes removed) later in life. A Muslim avoids these immature behaviors altogether, thus bypassing the pain these behaviors may cause to themselves and to others.

Instead of engaging in immature behaviors, the Muslim engages in mature behaviors, especially that of salat (prayer), sawm (fasting), and zakat (and saudaqah, the giving of charity). Each of these behaviors are not only mandated as part of the Five Pillars of Islam, but are of supreme importance for increasing and maintaining the maturity level of Muslims individually and as a society. Salat is of primary importance. It not only restores our focus on Allah (swt) throughout the day, but also helps us to remember (through the various surahs we recite in the individual rakah) what we need to do for society as a whole.

Sawm is similar to salat except that, instead of being an intellectual reminder, sawm is visceral. We feel the hunger that the less-fortunate undergo so that we may acutely understand their needs and be motivated to help society. And, whereas salat and sawm are reminders for action, zakat and saudaqah are the actions themselves, the actual giving of charity to the poor, either directly to those in need, or indirectly, to agencies who will help us distribute the charity to others.

It should be noted that the giving of zakat and, especially, saudaqah goes not only to other Muslims in need, but also to non-Muslims as well. Muslims must act as khalifa, guardians of the community and the environment, to help in the process of maturing humanity, whether the individuals are Muslims or not. In that respect we try to be like the tide, lifting all boats together. We are lifting not only our community but that of the non-Muslim community as well.

Ideally, our goal should be to strive to bring everyone up to the minimum levels (myself included) that are expected of all Muslims in Islam. There are probably very few people who don't fail in one aspect of Islam or another. Are we only meeting what is expected of us with regard to the five pillars (especially that of salat, sawm, and zakat/saudaqah) but of the other aspects of a Muslim lifestyle as well? For example, do we behave with the proper adab? Do we eat halal food consistently, especially in those places where halal food and drink is not so easily available? Do we cover ourselves properly, both men and women, and lower our gaze appropriately, both men and women? Do we minimize our exposure to the negative aspects of our culture (especially as broadcast through the media and entertainment industries)? Do we minimize our exposure to the negative aspects of our economy, such as with regard to interest and casino capitalism as a whole? (I realize this last part is extremely difficult given the pervasiveness of the global interest-based economy. Still, does one try?) Islam addresses all of these issues and provides solutions for the maturation of humanity, but do we listen and implement these solutions into our lives?

Just as parents set limits on their children's behavior, Islam has set limits on our behaviors. Some, the immature, may whine and complain about those limits (with a few going into outright rebellion and/or apostasy because their egos cannot handle those limitations). However, the majority of us understand how we benefit from such self-restraint. One has only to look at the troubles plaguing the non-Muslim world, created by their indulgence in various vices, to see what we can and do avoid: the loss of wealth through gambling or the purchase of alcohol and/or drugs, the increased chance of illnesses through the consumption of alcohol, drugs or other haram products, the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases, especially through zina, the loss and heartbreak of families split apart after cases of adultery, and so on. Moreover, these limitations are lifelong. We do not "graduate" from the limitations once we reach a certain age. Most, if not all, of these limitations will remain with us until death.

What also makes matters difficult is that many of these limitations have little or no ability to be enforced externally; they must be enforced internally. For example, governments can and do enforce some Islamic limitations (even by secular governments) to one degree or another. The sale of alcohol might be restricted to certain hours or prohibited altogether; the sale of various drugs may be strictly regulated or prohibited, depending upon the substance, and so forth. But other Islamic limitations are not enforced by various governments except in certain select cases; for example, riba, zina and adultery. Thus, the individual is left to him- or herself to maintain the limitations. This is the reason for the greater jihad. Can we maintain our ability as individuals and as a society to reach our full potential?

I began to write this essay last December while vacationing in Japan and reading one of Frank Herbert's Dune novels. It is unfinished, from my perspective, and perhaps I will finish it in the future, insha'allah. A couple months ago, I came across another essay, Psychology, Islam & Self-Control, that says much of what I'm trying to say here. I recommend that you read that essay as well.

Who is a Radical Muslim?

A few days ago, when I wrote my post CSM: Ten Terms Not to Use with Muslims, I had also cross-posted it to the website Street Prophets as well. The post there, not surprisingly, has generated a lot of commentary (44 comments so far). One person, "Sandbox" (an Islamophobe), has been trying to peddle their definition for a "Radical Muslim." I reject that definition, and I've explained why down below:

FYI, my definition of Radical Muslim is someone who wants to "legally" institute sharia law to govern the host country's Muslim community or who supports violent jihad as a way to settle international disputes.

First, I'm aware of your definition; you've written it before at DKos [Daily Kos]. I reject it. You paint Muslims with such an overly broad brush that, to us Muslims, your "definition" is meaningless. All Muslims would be "radical" by your definition. Here's why:

The notion that a Muslim is a "radical" if he or she wants to legally institute Shari'ah to help govern a country's Muslim community is patently absurd from both a theoretical and a practical perspective. First, as a Muslim jurist from Nigeria said in a BBC documentary, "Islam is Shari'ah; Shari'ah is Islam." This is true. The basis for Shari'ah is the Qur'an and Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). If one is a practicing Muslim, one will by definition be following Shari'ah. Much of Shari'ah is internalized, meaning that Muslims follow Shari'ah law in their own lives without sanction from the State (to give a Christian example, a person fasting during Lent is following the equivalent of "Christian Shari'ah"). In that regard, no one can stop Muslims from implementing some (probably most) aspects of Shari'ah. The aspects of Shari'ah that are externalized, i.e., need to be legally instituted, tend to be in the following areas: family law (marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc.) and criminal punishments (hudud). Here in secular Singapore, Shari'ah with regard to family law has been part of the country's legal code since the beginning. The Shari'ah Court system here was started over 50 years ago. Muslims are governed by Shari'ah; non-Muslims have their own code of laws. The system works very well. Only hudud isn't implemented here, and there is no pressing claim by Singaporean Muslims to implement it. So, practically speaking, Shari'ah in Singapore works very well. No one is considered to be a "radical" Muslim if he or she supports Shari'ah law. But people like you have tried to transform Shari'ah into such a bogey monster word that, without understanding how Shari'ah really works in the real world, you perpetuate misunderstandings between the Muslim and non-Muslim communities.

With respect to your second qualification, once again, by not understanding the difference between jihad and qital and harb, you malign a word that is very dear to Muslims. The other day I attended a seminar on fundamentalist and extremist Muslims. One non-Muslim participant's statement was a much better definition (IMO) than yours. He said, "Fundamentalists are people who are just trying to figure things out, versus extremists, who want to hurt other people." That works much better for me. By your definition, you would have to condemn the United States for the war in Iraq and Israel for its wars in Gaza and Lebanon because both countries have used "violent jihad" as ways to settle their international disputes. Somehow, I don't expect to hear any denunciations from you anytime soon.

The irony is that the real extremist Muslims are those people who would seem to be most like non-Muslims. At that same seminar, the professor who led it pointed out that one of the surviving 7/7 (London) bombers (whom he interviewed) did not know the basics of Islam such as how to pray or even how to perform wudu, the ritual ablutions that are required before prayer. Likewise, it's well known that the 9/11 terrorists were known to go drinking, gamble and visit strip clubs. These are not the actions of Muslims, but it is what non-Muslims might do. Your so-called "secular Muslims," the ones who non-Muslims support, are more likely to be extremists than observant Muslims. But you'd never know because they've hidden themselves in plain sight by acting like the rest of non-Muslim society.

CSM: Ten Terms Not to Use with Muslims

The Christian Science Monitor has an interesting article on ten terms not to use with Muslims. I am including the ten terms in the excerpt below, plus the second paragraph, the second sentence of which I think is very important to remember. More below.

I have learned much from my Muslim friends, foremost this: Political disagreements come and go, but genuine respect for each other, rooted in our respective faith traditions, does not. If there is no respect, there is no relationship, merely a transactional encounter that serves no one in the long term.

...

1. "The Clash of Civilizations." Invariably, this kind of discussion ends up with us as the good guy and them as the bad guy. There is no clash of civilizations, only a clash between those who are for civilization, and those who are against it. Civilization has many characteristics but two are foundational: 1) It has no place for those who encourage, invite, and/or commit the murder of innocent civilians; and 2) It is defined by institutions that protect and promote both the minority and the transparent rule of law.

2. "Secular." The Muslim ear tends to hear "godless" with the pronunciation of this word. And a godless society is simply inconceivable to the vast majority of Muslims worldwide. Pluralism – which encourages those with (and those without) a God-based worldview to have a welcomed and equal place in the public square – is a much better word.

3. "Assimilation." This word suggests that the minority Muslim groups in North America and Europe need to look like the majority, Christian culture. Integration, on the other hand, suggests that all views, majority and minority, deserve equal respect as long as each is willing to be civil with one another amid the public square of a shared society.

4. "Reformation." Muslims know quite well, and have an opinion about, the battle taking place within Islam and what it means to be an orthodox and devout Muslim. They don't need to be insulted by suggesting they follow the Christian example of Martin Luther. Instead, ask how Muslims understand ijtihad, or reinterpretation, within their faith traditions and cultural communities.

5. "Jihadi." The jihad is an internal struggle first, a process of improving one's spiritual self-discipline and getting closer to God. The lesser jihad is external, validating "just war" when necessary. By calling the groups we are fighting "jihadis," we confirm their own – and the worldwide Muslim public's – perception that they are religious. They are not. They are terrorists, hirabists, who consistently violate the most fundamental teachings of the Holy Koran and mainstream Islamic scholars and imams.

6. "Moderate." This ubiquitous term is meant politically but can be received theologically. If someone called me a "moderate Christian," I would be deeply offended. I believe in an Absolute who also commands me to love my neighbor. Similarly, it is not an oxymoron to be a mainstream Muslim who believes in an Absolute. A robust and civil pluralism must make room for the devout of all faiths, and none.

7. "Interfaith." This term conjures up images of watered-down, lowest common denominator statements that avoid the tough issues and are consequently irrelevant. "Multifaith" suggests that we name our deep and irreconcilable theological differences in order to work across them for practical effect – according to the very best of our faith traditions, much of which are values we share.

8. "Freedom." Unfortunately, "freedom," as expressed in American foreign policy, does not always seek to engage how the local community and culture understands it. Absent such an understanding, freedom can imply an unbound licentiousness. The balance between the freedom to something (liberty) and the freedom from something (security) is best understood in a conversation with the local context and, in particular, with the Muslims who live there. "Freedom" is best framed in the context of how they understand such things as peace, justice, honor, mercy, and compassion.

9. "Religious Freedom." Sadly, this term too often conveys the perception that American foreign policy is only worried about the freedom of Protestant evangelicals to proselytize and convert, disrupting the local culture and indigenous Christians. Although not true, I have found it better to define religious freedom as the promotion of respect and reconciliation with the other at the intersection of culture and the rule of law – sensitive to the former and consistent with the latter.

10. "Tolerance." Tolerance is not enough. Allowing for someone's existence, or behavior, doesn't build the necessary relationships of trust – across faiths and cultures – needed to tackle the complex and global challenges that our civilization faces. We need to be honest with and respect one another enough to name our differences and commonalities, according to the inherent dignity we each have as fellow creations of God called to walk together in peace and justice, mercy and compassion.

Of the ten terms, I agree very strongly with numbers 2 through 6 (Secular, Assimilation, Reformation, Jihadi, Moderate); also, with number 9, Religious Freedom. Here's why:

• "Secular" - To a Muslim, there is very little positive about this word. I've heard many non-Muslims complain over time that there must be some secular Muslims out there somewhere, not knowing that "secular Muslim" is a contradiction in terms. A Muslim does not lead a secular life; if only non-Muslims knew how often the name of God passes a Muslim's lips. About to start up the car? Bismillah! Just burped? Alhamdulillah! Something wonderful just happened? Masha'allah! Not sure if something's going to happen? Insha'allah! To be a Muslim means to lead a religious life; if non-Muslims can accept that then we can move forward together.
  
• "Assimilation" - This seems to be a term favored by the far right. At the very minimum, "assimilation" seems to mean for them a shared common language; hence the popularity of the "English Only" movement in several states around the U.S. Beyond that, to be honest, I'm not really sure what people expect when they want others to "assimilate." Does that mean going to the bar for drinks? Eating pork chops for dinner? Neither of those are going to happen with Muslims, obviously. The way the term is bandied about, it seems like "assimilation" really means "conformity." You must be just like everybody else. And if "we're" engaging in sinful behavior, don't rock the boat! Come and join in, too!
  
• "Reformation" - This is another common plea from non-Muslims: if only Muslims would reform their religion. Here's a clue: it ain't gonna happen! Actually, I find the suggested word ijtihad to be almost as offensive as "reformation." Too many weak Muslims pray for a renewal of ijtihad because they can't take their Islam straight. Ijtihad, when spoken of by non-Muslims and weak Muslims, has largely become synonymous with "reformation," with secularism.
  
• "Jihadi" - This is a perfect example of people twisting the meaning of words into something completely the opposite of its original intention. Jihad in Islam is such a positive force, and non-Muslims have completely perverted that positiveness. For more on the subject, see here.
  
• "Moderate" - "Moderate Muslim" isn't necessarily a bad term per se, but the real problem is that for most non-Muslims, a "moderate Muslim" really means a "secular Muslim." The way non-Muslims talk about Muslims, there's little to no difference between an observant Muslim (one who prays, fasts, etc.) and the al-Qaida types. That's what makes "moderate Muslim" such an offensive term. It doesn't help matters when governments promote this type of thinking, such as in the recently leaked British documents that "define" who is an extremist Muslim. (According to the British criteria, I qualify as an "extremist," an idea I find patently absurd.)
  
• "Religious Freedom" - Finally, the author's description of "religious freedom" as how American Protestants perceive it is spot on. Muslims ask for minor changes here and there to accommodate our lifestyle and non-Muslims become upset! Consider the recent case of a Domino's Pizza in the UK that recently switched to halal toppings, the first in the country to do so. "It's a disgrace. ... I can appreciate them having it as an option but to have it completely halal is just not on. I'm all for racial and religious tolerance but if anything this is intolerant to my beliefs and discriminatory against me. Instead I had to travel two miles out of my way to another branch – I was appalled." "This is a global pizza chain that is isolating western values and choice. It's alienating people and that's just not on. I'd been coming here for ages but now I'll go elsewhere because I can't get a pepperoni pizza, which is what I always have." (Actual comments from the original article.) The whining! It's amazing! At least here in S'pore, more and more restaurant chains continue to switch to halal foods. But in the intolerant West, religious freedom really means Christian freedom. Thank God for the East.
  

Update: Although I cross-posted this essay on Street Prophets back on March 31st, the discussion about the diary seems to have finally reached its conclusion (insha'allah!) nearly two weeks later. The essay received a total of 140 comments to date (a personal best; the most comments any of my previous diaries over at SP had gotten was a mere 60). So give that discussion a look-see if you're interested, but be sure to budget at least a half-hour's reading time. ;)

Kareem Salama: A Land Called Paradise

This was cute; I loved the kid who wrote, "Broccoli is my personal jihad." ;)

A Note to One of My Students

It's wrong again... I know.

Yes, it's wrong again. So? Are you making an effort? Are you trying to learn? Are you trying your hardest? Grades in the long run are meaningless. What I'm really concerned about is effort. You know that I'm a Muslim? You know what the real meaning of the word "Jihad" is? It means "struggle." As long as you commit yourself to a jihad over Accounts (or any other subject, or any other endeavor in your life), I can't ask for anything more.

Keep up the good work. I wish I had more students like you.

Update to "On Submission"

The following is a question I was asked with respect to my post "On Submission" over at Street Prophets, which I had cross-posted over at that website.

But, why did God give us free will in the first place, if all He wanted us to do with it was submit it to his?

I think the answer can be summed up simply as "We are to be tested by Him before we can be admitted to His good company." The Qur'an makes numerous references to the fact that Allah (swt) will test us in various ways prior to our deaths.

Be sure we shall test you with something of fear and hunger, some loss in goods or lives or the fruits (of your toil), but give glad tidings to those who patiently persevere (2:155)

Or do ye think that ye shall enter the Garden (of bliss) without such (trials) as came to those who passed away before you? They encountered suffering and adversity, and were so shaken in spirit that even the Messenger and those of faith who were with him cried: "When (will come) the help of Allah." Ah! Verily, the help of Allah is (always) near! (2:214)

And so on and so forth. According to one website, there are 54 ayat that deal with "trials and tests" alone. However, the question then might become, "why should He test us if He wants us to submit to His will?" Allah (swt) says in the Qur'an that:

If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! Wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe! (10:99)

In which case, what would be the point for mankind? Where is the merit in having striven during one's life? In Islamic theology, it is supposed that the angels have no independent will of their own, that they act and obey without any will or capacity to disobey. (Iblis (Satan), who refused to bow down before Adam (pbuh), is said in 18:50 to be of the Jinn and not a fallen angel as in Christian theology.) If Allah (swt) had wanted, presumably, mankind would not have been needed as He has all the angels He wants who are created to obey. In one hadith:

Abu Ayyub Ansari reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: "If you were not to commit sins, Allah would have swept you out of existence and would have replaced you by another people who have committed sin, and then asked forgiveness from Allah, and He would have granted them pardon." (Muslim; #37.6621)

So, He wants us to be around, to strive (jihad) so that we may join Him in the hereafter. In which case, we are then given the choice as to whether to accept Him and His message or not:

Say, "The truth is from your Lord": Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it)... (18:29)

We do have free will to make this choice, although that free will is not unlimited.

(With profit) to whoever among you wills to go straight: But ye shall not will except as Allah wills,- the Cherisher of the Worlds. (81:28-9)

As Yusuf Ali wrote in part in his commentary to this verse:

Allah is the Cherisher of the Worlds, Lord of Grace and Mercy, and His guidance is open to all who have the will to profit by it. But that will must be exercised in conformity with Allah's will (verse 29). Such conformity is Islam. Verse 28 points to human free will and responsibility; verse 29 to its limitations. (Footnote #5996)

Insha'allah, I hope this helps to answer your question. Wa allahu alim. (And God knows best.)

"Christian Ramadan"

An odd story out of the Netherlands:

To motivate young people to observe fasting and prayer during the 40-day Lent, Catholics are promoting the religious occasion this year as a "Christian Ramadan", the Daily Telegraph reported on Tuesday, February 12.

...

Der Kuil said the idea of "Christian Ramadan" was spurred by concerns that the Lent has become less important for Dutch over the last generation, especially since the Vatican loosened fasting strictures in 1967.

He notes that of the four million Dutch who describe themselves as Catholics and the 400,000 who attend Mass every week only a few tens of thousands still fast Lent.

Most Catholics now focus on charitable work during the 40-day feast.

Through the "Christian Ramadan" campaign, the organizers hope to bring back spirituality and sobriety to the Catholic tradition.

...

Der Kuil said they wanted to benefit from the increasing familiarity and popularity of the word Ramadan.

"The fact that we use a Muslim term is related to the fact that Ramadan is a better-known concept among young people than Lent."

...

Der Kuil recognized that through the campaign they came to realize the amount of similarities between Muslims and Christians.

"The agreements are more striking than the differences," der Kuil maintained.

"Both for Muslims and Catholic faithful the values of frugality and spirituality play a central role in this tradition."

(Source)

Several thoughts come to mind:

Does this mean that Christianity is so weak in Europe that a Christian concept such as Lent can only be understood by defining it through the terms of what many view as a rival religion?

If you have to define your own religion in terms of another's, then it's time to admit that the other side has "won," that Dutch Catholics should admit the truth and become Muslims.

That if your religion is so weak and your culture doesn't practice - literally - what you preach, then maybe it's best to get on the cases of your lapsed brethren for their own faults rather than bad-mouthing people from other religions who are more pious than you.

The real problem in Europe isn't "Multiculturalism" or "Shari'ah" or "Jihad" or "Eurabia" or any of the other bogey words that have come to symbolize the West's Islamophobia. The real problem is that most Muslims practice what they preach, that they live their religion (as we are supposed to), and that just scares the crap out of them. Because Europeans are afraid of religion. Because living a religious life will take them out of their comfort zone, introducing them to new routines and a new lifestyle. But especially because they realize that they live in a religious backwater. That despite all their material achievements and economic success, they've become spiritually backwards. The Quraish were in a similar situation during the last stages of the Age of Jahiliyah: economically successful, spiritually impoverished. Allah (swt) was merciful to the Quraish: they realized the truth before it was too late and became Muslim when they had the chance. The question now is whether Europeans (in particular, and the West in general) will do the same.

Insha'allah.

Quiz on Islam

A couple days ago, I created a quiz on Facebook regarding introductory information on Islam. You can either take the quiz here and see how well you did now, or try your luck on my blog. The degree of difficulty for this quiz is, IMO, rather easy, even for non-Muslims (Muslims should get 100%). I'll put the answers up in the comment section in a day or two, insha'allah.

Question #1: Which of the following is not one of the five pillars of Islam:
a) Fasting
b) Hajj
c) Jihad
d) Prayer

Question #2: Muslims fast during the month of:
a) Shawwal
b) Muharram
c) Rajab
d) Ramadan

Question #3: Muhammad (pbuh) was originally from which town:
a) Makkah (Mecca)
b) Medina
c) Ta'if
d) Yathrib

Question #4: The Islamic calendar begins with which event:
a) The year of Muhammad's (pbuh) birth
b) The year Muhammad (pbuh) received his first revelation
c) The Hijrah
d) The year of Muhammad's (pbuh) death

Question #5: The Qur'an was revealed to Muhammad (pbuh) over a period of:
a) One day
b) Thirteen years
c) Twenty-three years
d) Thirty years

Question #6: The name of the angel who revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad (pbuh) was:
a) Jibril (Gabriel)
b) Mikail (Michael)
c) Israfil (Raphael)
d) Izra'il (Azrael)

Question #7: Ritual prayer in Islam is known as:
a) Shahadah
b) Salat
c) Zakat
d) Sawm

Question #8: Muslims must pray how many times a day?
a) Once
b) Three times
c) Five times
d) Seven times

Question #9: Which of the following groups is not considered Muslim?
a) Sunni
b) Sufi
c) Baha'i
d) Shia

Question #10: The Arabic term for Islamic law is:
a) Fiqh
b) Jihad
c) Shari'ah
d) Khalifah

Jihad

This is such a broad topic that it's difficult to do it justice in a relatively short answer. First and foremost, as I suspect most of you know, jihad does not mean "holy war." Literally, it means "struggle." I think this becomes apparent in a related word, ijtihad or "reasoning." As we all know from school, working through a problem can be a struggle. Those of you who are musicians should understand jihad very well as practicing music can often be a struggle. From a Muslim perspective, virtually any aspect of life can be a jihad. And this is why Muslims get rather upset when non-Muslims mistranslate jihad, because jihad is a concept far broader than many non-Muslims understand and is very highly regarded among Muslims. Fighting back against those who oppress, in Arabic, is qital, which is a completely different term (see below). Qital is part of jihad, but it is far from being the whole of the concept.

Sunni Muslims have developed a hierarchy for jihad. There is:
* Jihad of the heart/soul (jihad bin nafs/qalb) - an inner struggle of good against evil in the mind, through concepts such as tawhid (the oneness of Allah (swt)).
* Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan) - a struggle of good against evil waged by writing and speech, such as in the form of dawah (proselytizing), khutbas (sermons), etc.
* Jihad by the pen and knowledge (jihad bil qalam/lim) - a struggle for good against evil through the scholarly study of Islam, ijtihad (legal reasoning), and through the sciences.
* Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad) - a struggle of good against evil waged by actions or with one's wealth, such as going on the Hajj pilgrimage (seen as the best jihad for women), taking care of elderly parents, or political activity for furthering the cause of Islam.
* Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) - this refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God).

Despite the hierarchy, most Muslims think of jihad in two forms: the Greater Jihad and the Lesser Jihad. This comes from a hadith, one variation of which reads:

"Some troops came back from an expedition and went to see the Messenger of Allah Muhammad (pbuh). He said: "You have come for the best, from the smaller jihad (al-jihad al-asghar) to the greater jihad (al-jihad al-akbar)." Someone said, "What is the greater jihad?" He said: "The servant's struggle against his lust" (mujahadat al-`abdi hawah).

The lesser jihad then is the physical fighting in the cause of Allah (swt). The greater jihad is the jihad an-nafs, the struggle against our own desires, our ego. This greater jihad gets into the very heart of the concept of "struggle," because that struggle permeates our lives. As my wife is fond of saying, "We strive to be better Muslims." And that striving is jihad.

Cross-posted at Street Prophets, Daily Kos, and Dunner's Learn About Islam.

Questions about Islam

I came across this post on the "About: Islam" forum. A man named Tim, who says he's struggling with his faith and had questions about life as a Muslim. The following is my reply:

I reverted to Islam almost seven years ago. Practicing Islam for me is a striving (jihad) to become a better Muslim. I submit to the will of Allah (swt) by trying to obey His laws and the example of the Prophet (pbuh) in all aspects of my life, to the best of my abilities. I stumble sometimes (we all do, being human), but I continue on.

What has it done in my life? What hasn't it done? :) It provides guidance for me; "the straight path," so to speak. On the one hand, Islam encourages my taqwa, my "God-consciousness," helping me to be more mindful of my relationship with Allah (swt); on the other hand, it helps guide me to live a better, more healthful life, so that I can avoid the mistakes in life that so many others make.

What makes it real to me? Islam is largely an "orthopraxic" religion, which means that we are mostly concerned with "correct practices." For example, of the five pillars of Islam, only the first, the shahadah, is more belief-oriented than a practice like the other four. (And even there, we recite the shahadah at least once in every prayer.) So, in living life as a Muslim, many of our practices makes Islam real for me.

Am I happy? Am I content? Yes, I am probably more content now as a Muslim than before. Obviously I felt a need was missing in my life that Islam filled for me (otherwise, I wouldn't have reverted). But I will also say that in the six+ years of my life as a Muslim, I've never thought at any point that I made the wrong decision. As for what waits for me in the hereafter, insha'allah, I'll go to Jannah (heaven), but that's for Allah (swt) to decide. In the meantime, I can only live my life as best I can as a Muslim.

If you're serious in your interest in Islam, I suggest that you start reading the Qur'an.

Juan Cole on Pope Benedict's Erroneous Speech About Islam

I came across some excerpts from Pope Benedict's recent speech a few days ago, primarily on red blogs that were cheering the Pope's statements about Islam, neither (the Pope and the bloggers) knowing that what the Pope had said was, in fact, erroneous. I hadn't had the time to write about these errors, but I've found that Professor Cole at Informed Comment has already done so. What follows is his entire post on the matter; he has done a very good job in correcting the Pope's errors. So much for papal infallibility. ;)


Pope Benedict's speech at Regensburg University, which mentioned Islam and jihad, has provoked a firestorm of controversy.

The address is more complex and subtle than the press on it represents. But let me just signal that what is most troubling of all is that the Pope gets several things about Islam wrong, just as a matter of fact.

He notes that the text he discusses, a polemic against Islam by a Byzantine emperor, cites Qur'an 2:256: "There is no compulsion in religion." Benedict maintains that this is an early verse, when Muhammad was without power.

His allegation is incorrect. Surah 2 is a Medinan surah revealed when Muhammad was already established as the leader of the city of Yathrib (later known as Medina or "the city" of the Prophet). The pope imagines that a young Muhammad in Mecca before 622 (lacking power) permitted freedom of conscience, but later in life ordered that his religion be spread by the sword. But since Surah 2 is in fact from the Medina period when Muhammad was in power, that theory does not hold water.

In fact, the Qur'an at no point urges that religious faith be imposed on anyone by force. This is what it says about the religions:

' [2:62] Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians-- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.'

See my comments On the Quran and peace.

The idea of holy war or jihad (which is about defending the community or at most about establishing rule by Muslims, not about imposing the faith on individuals by force) is also not a Quranic doctrine. The doctrine was elaborated much later, on the Umayyad-Byzantine frontier, long after the Prophet's death. In fact, in early Islam it was hard to join, and Christians who asked to become Muslim were routinely turned away. The tyrannical governor of Iraq, al-Hajjaj, was notorious for this rejection of applicants, because he got higher taxes on non-Muslims. Arab Muslims had conquered Iraq, which was then largely pagan, Zoroastrian, Christian and Jewish. But they weren't seeking converts and certainly weren't imposing their religion.

The pope was trying to make the point that coercion of conscience is incompatible with genuine, reasoned faith. He used Islam as a symbol of the coercive demand for unreasoned faith.

But he has been misled by the medieval polemic on which he depended.

In fact, the Quran also urges reasoned faith and also forbids coercion in religion. The only violence urged in the Quran is in self-defense of the Muslim community against the attempts of the pagan Meccans to wipe it out.

The pope says that in Islam, God is so transcendant that he is beyond reason and therefore cannot be expected to act reasonably. He contrasts this conception of God with that of the Gospel of John, where God is the Logos, the Reason inherent in the universe.

But there have been many schools of Islamic theology and philosophy. The Mu'tazilite school maintained exactly what the Pope is saying, that God must act in accordance with reason and the good as humans know them. The Mu'tazilite approach is still popular in Zaidism and in Twelver Shiism of the Iraqi and Iranian sort. The Ash'ari school, in contrast, insisted that God was beyond human reason and therefore could not be judged rationally. (I think the Pope would find that Tertullian and perhaps also John Calvin would be more sympathetic to this view within Christianity than he is).

As for the Quran, it constantly appeals to reason in knowing God, and in refuting idolatry and paganism, and asks, "do you not reason?" "do you not understand?" (a fala ta`qilun?)

Of course, Christianity itself has a long history of imposing coerced faith on people, including on pagans in the late Roman Empire, who were forcibly converted. And then there were the episodes of the Crusades.

Another irony is that reasoned, scholastic Christianity has an important heritage drom Islam itself. In the 10th century, there was little scholasticism in Christian theology. The influence of Muslim thinkers such as Averroes and Ibn Rushd reemphasized the use of Aristotle and Plato in Christian theology. Indeed, there was a point where Christian theologians in Paris had divided into partisans of Averroes or of Ibn Rushd, and they conducted vigorous polemics with one another.

Finally, that Byzantine emperor that the Pope quoted, Manuel II? The Byzantines had been weakened by Latin predations during the fourth Crusade, so it was in a way Rome that had sought coercion first. And, he ended his days as a vassal of the Ottoman Empire.

The Pope was wrong on the facts. He should apologize to the Muslims and get better advisers on Christian-Muslim relations.

Visiting a Mosque

The following is from an e-mail I received today from MAS-Arizona. The essay is written by a Christian minister who recently visited the Islamic Community Center of Tempe when they held an open house for the community. I'm putting this post up partly because of my pride in this masjid (it was where I first made shahadah), but also because I appreciated this minister's open-mindedness, which shows quite clearly in his writing.


VISITING A MOSQUE
By Tom Compton

My friend Chuck called to ask me if I'd like to go with him to an open house at a mosque in Tempe, AZ. Having never been in a mosque, I thought that it would be an interesting experience but wondered if I would need a bullet proof vest or an assault rifle to protect myself during the visit. After all, haven't we been warned by numerous government and Christian leaders that the Muslims are out to create a holy war against us infidels?

We parked our shoes on the ground floor of the mosque and walked up to the second floor into the prayer and worship room. There were about 50 visitors in attendance plus members of the mosque who filtered in during the open house portion of the service. After the open house, their regular Friday night service would be conducted. It was easy to spot the visitors because they were sitting in chairs. It was explained that during the service and prayer time the flock was either standing, sitting or bowing down on the floor. The men are in the front and the women in the rear with a curtain that could be drawn by the women if they wanted privacy.

The Imam, the Islamic equivalent of a pastor or priest, was giving a Power Point presentation on the fundamental beliefs of Islam. Part way through the presentation, the Imam said that they would break for a brief prayer session and we were invited to observe how this part of their worship is conducted. Muslims are required to pray 5 times a day, this one lasted about 10 minutes. A group of more than a dozen men came to the front to participate in the prayers. The chanting and prayers were in Arabic but there seemed to be a similarity to a Catholic worship service in that both services are composed of ritual elements.

The Imam continued with a discussion on the life of Muhammad and other prophets they recognize and revere: Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Interestingly, the Imam said that they recognized that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary with no earthly father. It seems curious to me that because of Jesus' uniqueness ascribed by Muslims that He should receive a higher status in Islam than he does. The Imam said Muslims recognize Mohammad as the last prophet of Allah (God) but claim not to worship him. Judaism doesn't recognize Jesus, but the Muslims do. Does this mean that followers of Mohammad are closer to God than those of Judaism?

Next, the Imam opened the floor for questions. The Imam and a woman who he identified as "his boss" meaning she was a layman from the mosque congregation, fielded the questions. One person asked about the apparent unequal treatment of women as exhibited by the women sitting in the back of the mosque and other examples demonstrated in the Muslim world.

It was explained by the Imam that because of the frequent bowing down during the service that having women in the front could be a distraction to the men worshippers who are to be focusing on Allah.

A statement by Muhammad sheds some light on the subject: "O People: It is true that you have certain rights in regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives, only under God's trust and with His permission...Do treat your women well and be kind to them, for they are your partners and committed helpers..."

Another visitor asked about the Islamic "Jihad" against Christians and if Muslims were committed to the destruction of infidels. It was explained by the Imam and the other lady that Jihad is not a word that just translates into "war". Its meaning could be better defined as "a struggle against something." Another person wanted to know about all the killing done by Muslims. The Imam said that their religion does not condone killing. In the Imam's accompanying notes to his presentation, a quotation attributed to the Prophet Muhammad's last sermon is noteworthy: "All mankind is from Adam and Eve. An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab; also, a white has no superiority over a black, nor a black has any superiority over a white - except by piety and good action..."

Another visitor in the audience recounted that when her family was based in Turkey they were treated beautifully by the Muslims in that country.

There is no doubt that there are some Muslims who want to "get" us. But, as I pointed out in some general comments I made to the assembly: the United States was also guilty of killing millions of innocent people needlessly in the steady stream of serial wars that the U.S. fosters and perpetuates. I said that as a follower of Christ that I could see no justification for what the U.S. has done in Iraq. I pointed out that the war in Iraq was not legal because our Constitution does not give the President the power to declare war. Only Congress has been given the power to declare war. Also, I pointed out that our President claims he is a Christian. His actions are certainly at a variance to the teachings of Jesus. No wonder the world is so mixed up about what Christians say they believe and what they advocate. Applause originated from a number of the members of the mosque after making my comments.

Upon my sitting down, another visitor jumped up to strongly disagree with me and question my patriotism. He claimed that he was a veteran and had defended our freedom. Then, a number of the visitors applauded him. It is a sad commentary to think how the American public has been brainwashed to think of Muslims as a threat to us. Any honest person when reviewing the facts will see how dangerous the United States' policy of wars for "democracy" really is. Many Americans believe that the United States is somehow morally superior to anybody else on the planet and is the universal dispensing agent of truth and justice. Applying Jesus' directive to love your neighbor as yourself still sounds valid to me.

If you have a chance to visit a mosque, don't hesitate to do so. I felt warmly received during my visit. Compare this to downright animosity received on occasion from some of my "bloodthirsty brothers in Christ" when standing outside their churches holding a sign that simply says: "Choose Life, Not War."

Tom Compton is a co-founder of We Hold These Truths and Strait Gate Ministries.