Insha’Allah, or God Willing, I hope to shed some light on what I understand is a critical relationship between “ancestral religion”, culture and Christianity.  For this column I focus on “ancestral religion” and culture.  If the Swiss psychoanalyst Carl Jung is correct, all this interplay of “ancestral religion” and culture now resides in our individual psyches.

Yet, I have come to understand a clear distinction between Islam and culture (of which one component is “ancestral religion”), or, the “way of life” of our fore-fathers.  Theologians tell us that all human beings are prone to practice polytheism, or “ancestral religion” – from the worship of trees, to rocks (i.e., inanimate objects) to human beings, even.    

I write about Hellenism and Hellenization for now.  The latter is an outgrowth of the former; there is a reciprocal relationship between the two, much like saying there can be no chicken soup without chicken.  The next column, Insha’Allah, is a critical relationship between Hellenism and Christianity.

If the Swiss psychoanalyst Carl Jung is right, then this interplay between religion and culture is situated within our individual psyches; he notes we have “killed the gods – and now they return to us as mental diseases and psychological complexes”[1].  Psychological complexes are a good thing, as long as one recognizes or is conscious of it.   We all have a psychological complex of some kind, according to Jung.

There is the old adage that every one of us has to “wrestle with our demons” – that is, the gods, - in our individual lives.  I have come to know that there is a relationship between ancient Greek Philosophy – that is, the rationalistic notion that the gods (that is, Zeus, Poseidon, and so on) are responsible for our personality, or what motivates us – and the “ancestral spirits” or “demons” of Babylonian religion, or polytheism.  Whatever “religious” practices polytheists engaged in and continue to engage in, as a group, in their daily lives to summon the “demons” of the sky and the earth, the Greek philosophers “rationalized” it within their minds through their language.

I surmise that the ancient Greek philosophers materialized – through language – what is clearly “immaterial”, or matters pertaining to the “Unseen”.  The Ancient Greek philosophers tell us about “the gods” and their “interactions” with human beings - There is Zeus, the “Father of gods and men”; there is Poseidon, the god of the sea, or the “Earth shaker”, to name a few. The Greek philosophers were the first “rationalists” – they aimed solely to “grasp” through logic what is clearly ungraspable. 

Practicing Muslims believe in the “Unseen”; we know the “devils” are around us and we cannot see them, but are advised not to practice polytheism, thereby summoning them.   We ask Almighty Allah (SWT) to protect us from the Shaitan, or Satan, and his “minions”, the “devils”.   Almighty Allah (SWT) is the Supreme Guide for every single human being, and if anyone takes anything else for a guide in worship, then Almighty Allah (SWT) leads them astray.  And who is the Best Guide but Almighty Allah (SWT)?

Hellenism, and therefore, Hellenization, occupies a unique position in Western civilization – which is summed up in one word – rationality.  Anyone of us who have been “educated” in elite colleges and universities and who now occupy the highest echelons of government, whether it be law, religion, or the arts – have been “Hellenized” and have gone through the “process of Hellenization”.  Whether Hellenism or the process of Hellenization is either good or bad is not the issue here.   

What is Hellenism?  I use the definition of Hellenism put forth by Professor David E. Aune, The Walter Professor of New Testament & Christian Origins, The University of Notre Dame:

“The term ‘Hellenism’ itself is a modern designation for the dominance of Greek language and culture over non-Greek societies in the ancient world, particularly during the three centuries following Alexander the Great (356-323 BCE) to the triumph of Rome … ‘Hellenism’ or ‘the Greek way of life’ is a one-word summary of Greek social and cultural identity’”[2] (italics mine). 

The prime objective of education is to impart the values of that civilization, many of which have come and gone.  The essential value of Western civilization at the highest peak of Hellenism is the Greek language; and the highest peak of Hellenization is the Greek culture.  Anyone who mastered the Greek language and who consciously admired Greek culture in those days, were classed among the elites, and, further, they thought of themselves as “superior” to those who were not educated in either Greek language or culture. 

Professor Aune provides a clear example of Greek society and culture and its effects on non-Greek society and culture (i.e, that of the Jews):

“The Greek conception of deity is strikingly different from that of the Jews (a non-Greek society).  For Greeks generally, the gods were immanent and active in the world, rather than transcendent and passive.  While the God of the Jews is considered the creator of all that exists, for Greeks the cosmos is eternal and the gods originate in time.  While Judaism conceives of God as omniscient and omnipresent, the gods of the Greeks are more powerful and wiser than humans, but can only be in one place at a time”[3].

 The professor goes on to illuminate the interplay of Greek cultural activities and non-Greek cultural activities:

“Greek religion tended to focus on sacrifice, prayer, processions, and festivals, and each city-state typically had its own distinctive religious calendar.  Greek sacrifice, performed both publicly and privately, centered on the slaughter of certain kinds of domestic animals, parts of which were burned on an altar and parts of which were eaten by those offering the sacrifice.  Sacrificial protocol involved the knowledge of what kind of animal each diety required (e.g., Athena preferred cows, while Demeter preferred pigs).  A further distinction was made between the sacrificial protocol for sky dieties and earth dieties…[4]”

The professor goes on to illustrate the apparent tensions between those who adhere to Greek culture and those who do not, in this case, the Jews:

 “There was such an extreme of Hellenism…and increase in the adoption of foreign ways, because of the surpassing wickedness of Jason, who was ungodly and no true high priest, that the priests were no longer intent upon their service at the altar”[5].  Jason of Cyrene, a Hellenistic Jew who lived around 100 B.C. and is said to have written a history of the Macabees[6], a Jewish rebel army, made the Jews conform to the Greek way of life[7].

I focus here on the Jews, whom Almighty Allah (SWT) Chose as His people.  Almighty Allah (SWT) introduced the Jewish people at the time of Musa (alahis-salam) to His Law (italics mine).  Now that Almighty Allah (SWT) Deputed the last and final prophet for all mankind – Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam) with another set of Laws for all mankind - those living now until the Day of Judgment, - all human beings, whether they be “Jew” or “Christian”, can eventually be practicing Muslims, if they heed to the true message of Islam.  

Both the elites and a large percentage of the common people of the Jews succumbed to Hellenization, or, the worship and adulation of the Greek gods, or the Greek “way of life”.  This acculturation, in turn, led to ignorance, that is, of God’s Law, given to Moses.  As time went by, however, the common people were so immersed in Greek culture that they eventually forgot it; they didn’t practice God’s Laws in their daily lives.  One author tells us that Hellenization played a key role to the erroneous conception among the common people about Jesus (p) and his relationship to God:

 “The Hellenization of a large segment of the Jews was the primary cause of their ignorance, which helped spread misconceptions concerning Jesus and his relationship to God.  Following the cultures of the Gentiles, the ignorant among them developed the god-complex and, as a consequence, forgot the absolute indivisible nature of God that distinguishes Him from the typical pagan diety[8]”.

 The common people abandoned God’s Laws given to Moses, and thus were eventually prey to the process of Hellenization. 

The essential guidepost of Hellenism, according to many scholars involved in a critical study of religion and culture, is an educational process whereby the invader injects their social practices or “way of life” upon the natives’ (the Jews’) “way of life”, thereby disturbing their established “way of life”, that is, the worship of One God. 

Hellenization is the by-product of Hellenism.  Both the Jews and the Gentiles (non-Jews) came in contact with Hellenism and the cultural process of Hellenization.  I focus on the Jews now in this column; I focus on the Gentiles in the next column, Insha’Allah.  Logic follows, then, that I am a Gentile.  I no longer see myself as a Gentile; I am now a practicing Muslim.

Those who invaded the Jews, the Greeks first and then Romans, are convinced that their “way of life” is “superior to the Jewish way of life”.   The invaders are certain that, at some point in time, even after the invasion, the natives (the Jews) will come to know that their “way of life” is inferior to theirs.  Consequently, either the invaders will enact political policies, by force if necessary, to educate the natives (the Jews) to their “way of life”, or their parents, seeing the advantage of “re-educating” the native to the invader’s “way of life”, will make every effort to enroll their children at the invader’s educational institutions.     

 Hellenization is not only an educational but a cultural process.  The invaders, who recognize and tout themselves as “torch-bearers of civilization” colonize (almost exclusively, by force through violence) a region populated by “native peoples” (the Jews) whom the invaders regard as “backward” or “mentally and culturally inferior”, due to their “way of life”.  The invaders establish political, educational and economic institutions that aim to educate whom they regard as “natives” (the Jews).  The “native” then is faced with two choices: either to regard the invader’s “civilized way of life” as their own through assimilation or not.  Usually, the invaders’ political will manifests itself through either outright organized violence (by this I mean by cannons, guns, etc.), or through “soft power” – through the media, etc., that essentially cajoles the “natives” to slowly recognize it is to their advantage (whether political, economic or social) to adopt the invader’s “civilized way of life”, with the notion that by the passage of time the “natives” will come to understand it is to their advantage to adopt the invader’s “civilized way of life”.   Through this cajoling process more and more “native peoples” will eventually find the invader’s “civilized way of life” a legitimate vehicle to attain upward mobility (that is, political, economic and social status).  

I speak of the Jewish Nation in this column as the “natives”. The invaders were the Greeks, then Romans.  The Romans conquered Greece, beginning with Macedonia, in 197 B.C.  Within the next fifty years, the Romans captured all of Greece.  Then the Romans “borrowed Greek thought and culture”, spreading it throughout the Roman Empire[9].  The Jews were then subject to Hellenization.       

The modern-day notion of colonization, as reflected in the “Arab Spring” that seem to be spreading throughout the Middle-East at this time, is in no way associated with Greek language and culture, yet the process of acculturation is the same.  At some point in the future, the vast majority of Arabs will be educated according to the Enlightenment model of politics and society, and acculturated into the morals and values of the Enlightenment. 

The Enlightenment ushered in the notion of “popular government” throughout Europe in the 18^th century, but not without the de-Hellenization of Christianity, and thus its societies.  The language of the Enlightenment is not the language of Hellenization, of Greek language and culture; its philosophers took great pains to sever the language of Greek philosophy from that of Christianity. 

The language of Hellenization, of Greek language and culture, is no longer enforced uniformly via the invaders’ political state.  Critics of modern-day colonialism now say the invaders (i.e., the Europeans) with their notion of culture, or “way of life”, is upsetting the “native’s (everyone else’s) way of life”.  The language of modern-day colonialism is the deliberate imposition of the invader’s “culture” or “way of life – commercialism, technology, and the like; the language of “established religion” (i.e., Christianity) is no longer in use today.  Here in the United States, for example, young immigrants with “foreign languages” such as Spanish that hail from South America and other lands are often cajoled into learning the dominant language of English so as to be prepared to take advantage of the possibility of upward social mobility through American schools and universities that teach its own cultural values.

Thanks for reading.  Whatever is accurate in this column is from the Mercy of Almighty Allah (SWT), and anything inaccurate in this column is from my own self.

The writer is a recent revert to Islam and can be reached at:  hd72201@gmail.com  

“God, having thus created man, put into him a light which is called reason, which was to unite the flesh, the sense, and the soul in a single end – to work for the service of God (emphasis mine – for Almighty Allah’s [SWT] Sake Only)[1]”.

I have only to thank Almighty Allah (SWT) for securing a copy of the Gospel of Barnabas, as I have read other books whose authors have said that this Gospel is the closest account of the true message of Jesus (peace be upon him!) as any Christian is able to examine, and for those of us who have reverted to Islam (through Almighty Allah’s [SWT] Guidance) this text is indeed an eye-opener.

 I must say at the outset that I mistakenly believed that, if this Gospel is authentic (and I leave that to present and future theologians), Jesus (upon whom be peace!) uttered these words out of his own desire.  This I no longer believe.  Nothing of what Almighty Allah’s (SWT) prophets, along with the last prophet and Messenger of Almighty Allah (SWT) for all mankind until the Day of Judgment – Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam), - said and done is of their own desire, or their own selves.  Had I not come to believe and trust in the Messenger-ship of Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam), I wouldn’t have come to understood proper Almighty Allah’s (SWT) Majesty and Power.  For He alone has the Power to do All Things. 

I and others who “grew up” with the Christian faith have at some time or other learned that Jesus (peace be upon him!) is reported to have said to his Companions “Love thy neighbor as thyself”.  Jesus (peace be upon him!) certainly did not utter these words of his own desire.  A correct understanding of this instance of Christian morality (or Christian ethics) is to say that Almighty Allah (SWT) Commanded Jibril (alaihis-salam), or whom I now refer to as the “Holy Spirit” to transmit this message to his Chosen prophet so that his Companions may come to know and understand this message and to consequently transmit this message to others.  I say here that I do not know the circumstances under which Almighty Allah (SWT) revealed this message to Jesus (peace be upon him!).  I had also arrived at a startling conclusion that to believe that Jesus (peace be upon him!) uttered these words out of his own desire, I would be committing shirk (or associating partners with Almighty Allah [SWT]) – thereby equating this prophet of Almighty Allah [SWT] with Allah [SWT] Himself).  May Almighty Allah [SWT] protect me from this!  This phrase I have come to know, if I am accurate, is associated with many principles underlying Greek philosophy (which I take now to be the systematic study of “human desires”). 

A similar Revelation regarding mercy and kindness to one’s neighbors is found within the Muslim tradition as well:

‘”Ibn ‘Umar (RA) reported that the Prophet of Allah, upon him be peace, said, “Jibril, upon him be peace, continued telling me about (how important it is to do good toward one’s) neighbors until I thought he was going to tell me that they have a share in one’s inheritance as well.[2]”

Christians say that “God is Love” but that this Attribute of Almighty Allah (SWT) is not in the slightest manner associated with any human desire.  What I’ve said here will be of some import to the purpose of this column.  And I want to say here that I’m not writing this column to “show off” or to be recognized by anyone. 

I have encountered many gems of information within the pages of the Gospel of Barnabas. I have read it with great interest about this text since embracing the faith of Islam; however, the expressed purpose of this column is to elucidate somewhat on the quote mentioned above, as I believe it has much to say about the true essence of what it is to conduct oneself - in a manner that is pleasing to Almighty Allah (SWT) Only.

I am speaking of one of the most pressing of issues that I and others face in a world awash with materialism (which is now associated with the “culture of immorality”), and atheism; and here I’m speaking of what my true purpose of life really is. 

I have come to understand that the answer to this very question has oriented me to examine my “inner-life” (which many in the West refer to as a “conscience”) along with the manner in which I then conduct myself among others and also assist others in need.  It occurred to me that the above-mentioned quote has answered my question.  The answer to this question is not to be found in academic text-books.  I will say that those of us who struggle consistently to attain a strong Iman (or faith) in Almighty Allah (SWT) will come to cultivate this “inner light of reason” and come to know this true reality.

The answer is that each of us is here to worship the One, the Irresistible – Almighty Allah (SWT) – and then to struggle at the expense of our very selves to let others know what those who have Iman know – that ultimate salvation and thus the only route to what Christians refer to “the Kingdom of God” is worship Almighty Allah (SWT), Who is Alone and without partners in His Dominion.  To believe sincerely in Almighty Allah (SWT) and the Messenger ship of Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam) is to achieve success in this world and the next.  

The “True Reality” underlying this statement, taken from the Gospel of Barnabas, I believe, is that this “light of reason” can only come about and become stronger once a person worships Almighty Allah (SWT) – The One, The Irresistible – with a “pure” intention to worship Him without partners.  I believe, and have come to understand, that this “light of reason” is not linked with my desires – whether it be biological (in the case of food, drink, or lust), or social (whether it be for fame or to be recognized by others).   An “impure” intention is associated with our desires, as when we “intend” to do this or that during the course of the day. 

 Our desires are inextricably associated with human reason and logic, while a “pure” intention is devoid of human reason and logic.  A person who lives according to her or his “impure” intentions in order to attain what she or he wants will receive what she or he earned – the life of this world only.  Other people will recognize this person when her or his name is mentioned in company (usually after that person’s death).  A person who lives according to her or his “pure” intentions (and we strive to do so in our lives) – either through prayer or fasting or helping others – for the Pleasure of Almighty Allah (SWT) Only – is focused on the Life to Come after death and will get what they earned.         

Every teacher eventually asked us, as children, what we wanted “to be” when we grow up.  Many of us may have said that we wanted to be a musician, or a doctor, or a lawyer, or any one of many professions out there.  Anyone who then invests themselves in, for example, becoming a doctor have spent four years in college, then maybe four years in medical school, and then maybe three years in “rotation” at hospitals as “interns”; you get the drill.  The one who invests themselves in this particular pursuit is without doubt “sacrificing” their own “selves” to attain this goal – they then have a purpose in life.  That person’s “purpose” is to become a doctor; and that person is “dead set” on attaining this goal.  If you then ask that person “why” that person want to become a doctor they may say they want to be the “best doctor” out there, or they want to be “recognized” as such; they may want to be an “excellent researcher” who “wows” her or his colleagues at medical symposiums with their medical research. 

 This person who strives to become a doctor “in the future” has at one point in her or his life made a “firm” but “impure” intention to attain this goal.  That person has only to use her or his “desires” to achieve this “goal”.

I add here that this “drive” for recognition by others is the strongest of all human desires.  The German philosopher Hegel has elucidated on this type of human desire throughout his writings; it is a very strong human desire indeed.  According to Hegel, a person is not “conscious” of her or himself without an “Other”, whether it is persons or inanimate objects:

“According to Hegel, the relationship between self and otherness is the fundamental defining characteristic of human awareness and activity, being rooted as it is in the emotion of desire for objects as well as in the estrangement from these objects…” (italics mine)[3]. 

This “drive” for “recognition” arises from our selves.  We “intend” to want others recognize us.  This is an instance of an “intention” mixed with “desire”.  

This “drive” for “recognition” occurs to us as an “end” towards which we direct much of our effort or action.  This “drive” is rooted in a “desire” to attain some “goal” that is not yet within reach.  “Desire” is a “feeling” that impels one to the attainment of something, either within “immediate reach”, or for objects “not seen” or “imagined”.   

Our imagination and drive for recognition, then, is rooted in our “selves” as “desire”.   These examples are instances of the philosophy of humanism.  This is referred to in some circles as our “social self”.

There are even times when interns work a whole day at hospitals during their own rotations, only to realize at the end of their shift that they haven’t eaten at all!  Thus there is a more primordial aspect of our “self” – our “biological self”.   We “feel” hungry and thus “desire” for something that “satisfies” our “appetite”.   

Modern philosophers and psychologists “define” modern man as a “cross” between two worlds – the “biological” and the “social”.  Yet there is no consensus among modern thinkers as to what man “really is”.  Is man exclusively “social” or “biological”?   One scholar quaintly describes this “split” between “biological” and “social” man in this manner, even venturing to declare that our definition of man is of our own imagination:

“Our modern view of the person is characterized by a tenuous modus vivendi between the insights of traditional humanism and those of scientific naturalism.  We need the traditional concept of the core self; it is the bedrock upon which our entire moral and legal system is based, yet we do not really believe that there is such a thing.  It is a phantasm, a chimera, at best a reification.  It works, but it does not exist (italics mine)[4].   

How is modern man able to reconcile the “core self”, that of traditional humanism, a philosophy that postulates that all values in this world are human values, and scientific naturalism? 

The philosophy of “secular humanism”, I contend is the most attractive of all human philosophies that I believe is a direct contradiction to Revelation:

“Secular Humanism is a secular ideology which espouses reason, ethics, and justice, whilst specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making”[5]. 

The philosophy of “scientific naturalism” tells us that the body and the five senses are not created by Almighty Allah (SWT) but are “aligned” or “intertwined” with “Nature” by virtue of the philosophical doctrine of “scientific naturalism”.  Scientific naturalism is a world-view or belief that “Nature is all there is”, setting the stage for believers of this philosophical approach to utilize the faculty of reason alone to explain “observable effects” exclusively by referring to hypotheses of “natural causes”, without the aid of “spiritual explanations”.  A key foundation of this philosophical approach assumes that “…nature had to do its own creating, and that the means of creation must not have included any role for God”.  Students of this approach to science “…are not supposed to approach this philosophy with open-minded skepticism, but to believe it on faith”[6]. 

It is Decartes’ dualistic conception of the human being as mind/body that sets the stage for the modern definition of man; in other words, this mind/body dualism sets the stage for a “conscious self” within a “body”.  Yet most of us would conclude that we are somehow “one” by virtue of our intentionality and purpose:

“’This experience of unity of body, mind and spirit is itself no mere illusion.  Philosophical arguments have undermined any theory that purports to demonstrate that the human being is, in fact, two distinct realities, namely, a “person” and a (sub-personal) body.  Any such theory will, unavoidably, contradict its own starting point, since reflection necessarily begins from one’s own conscious awareness of oneself as a unitary actor”’[7].

Zaid Shakr, one of many influential Muslim scholars in the United States today, once remarked that Decartes was the “first doubter”.  It seems to me that he arrived at his philosophy – that man is a “self-thinking subject” and everything else is “extension” by doubting his Creator. 

 At the intersection of the mind (reason) and the body (sense) is the spirit, or ruh that Almighty Allah (SWT) “implanted” into the soul of every human being through His Infinite Knowledge Only.  This spirit, or ruh, acts to unite the mind and the body.    This spirit, or ruh, is the “light of reason” mentioned in the Gospel of Barnabas.  And we recognize this “light of reason” only by worshipping the One that put it there – Almighty Allah (SWT).   This “light of reason” is not akin to “human reason”, as exemplified by logic.  As a matter of fact, this “light of reason” is devoid of logic.  Yet this “light of reason” is the vehicle through which the human being “works for the service of God”.  For this “light of reason” to grow within our breasts, our “intention” to “work for the service of God” must be pure, for the Pleasure of Almighty Allah (SWT).

May Almighty Allah (SWT) Guide me to strive, with my utmost ability, to worship Him Alone with a “pure” intentional heart, as long as I am alive.

The writer is a recent revert to Islam and can be contacted at:  hd72201@gmail.com     

“God, having thus
created man, put into him a light which
is called reason, which was to unite the flesh, the sense, and the soul in
a single end – to work for the service of God (emphasis mine – for Almighty Allah’s [SWT] Sake Only)[1]”.

I will say at the outset that I was misled into believing modern philosophy, a body of
human knowledge relating to the secular world, to be sacrosanct.

I take the opportunity to cite a quote from the English translation of the Gospel of Barnabas to emphasize
my error in judgment.

The quote cited above is so simple but profound for myself and those who yearn for a faith in the Oneness of Almighty Allah
(SWT) and a sincere belief in His final prophet and Messenger for all mankind until the Day of Judgment – Muhammad
(sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam). I say all this as a personal reminder for me and, hopefully, for our readers.

The ramifications of this quote has strengthened my conviction that modern philosophy is  subordinate to the True Reality,
that is, the Revelation from Almighty Allah (SWT) that is reflected in the sayings and actions of the last prophet and Messenger of Almighty Allah (SWT) for all mankind – Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam).

I now understand modern philosophy in its proper perspective.  What do I mean by this?  I say here that Revelation- the Noble Qu’ran and the Sunna of Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam), the final prophet and Messenger for all mankind until the Day of Judgment - is heretofore my guide; Revelation is heretofore my purpose for living here in this mortal world and is the bedrock of hope for felicity in the Here-After.  Every other worldly pursuit, whether it is the vocation of philosopher or plumber, is secondary.

I have deliberately singled out “modern” philosophy – typified by the European Enlightenment - whose fundamental core is
the conviction that the individual is “an agent of change” by virtue of his new-found ability to “subordinate” and “control” Nature, chiefly for selfish ends.  Antecedent to this “subordination” and “control” of Nature is the conviction that man’s “mysterious soul[2]” is “intelligible” with the aid of the “mental faculty” of human reason alone, so as to achieve some “mastery” over his fate.

I now understand, with more certainty, that “modern” philosophy is a body of work written by men who sought to “unravel” for themselves the “inner workings” of Nature and his “mysterious soul”, via the scientific method in order to explain, to his satisfaction, his relationship to Nature and society with the aid of the “mental faculty” of human reason alone.  This new understanding of human reason as a “mental faculty” characterized as “’an original spontaneity of thought”, an agency, a force, an “immediate activity’” engaged in “the power and task of shaping life itself’”[3].   And this new understanding of reason as a
“mental faculty” ushered in an historic rise of modern science, commerce and industry the likes of which the world has ever experienced.
The zeitgeist of the European Enlightenment (for it is in Europe that this “intellectual climate” occurred and achieved “perfection” within the late 19^th century) revolutionized man’s relationship to Nature.  Man’s relationship to Nature is
reflected in his discovery of “Nature’s Laws” with the aid of human reason.  “Sir” Isaac Newton’s   achievements, as reflected in his “Laws of Motion”, readily come to mind.
But man’s use of his reason as it pertains to “imagined” political and social “realities” – as typified by the systematization of modern political science, along with the social sciences, is troublesome at best, and it is within this quarter of
intellectual activity that we witness the “elasticity” of human reason.
We witness the “elasticity” of human reason when we consider that the philosophical architects of the European Enlightenment assumed the responsibility of understanding human reason as a “tool” or “instrument” to “fashion” for themselves “imagined”
relationships between man and the modern political state and to society.  And it is here, within this intellectual activity, that an earnest effort to “understand” the “mysterious soul” with the aid of human reason gained prominence and legitimacy.   This
attempt to “explain” man’s “mysterious soul” is human reason “run amok”.

It is now safe to say that, because of the “elasticity” of human reason, everyone is a philosopher today.  Ask two people to
explain to you the genesis of some “social phenomena” or other, such as “racism” and you will get two totally different answers.  There is one answer to this genesis of racism:  it is a disease of the heart.

The nature of “evil” is now a question to be answered via human reason.  “Evil”, more than ever during this period of
intellectual history of Europe, must be “intelligible” by human reason.  The answer to a question beginning with the
question “Why” is now answered cavalierly by human reason alone.

I say that the zeitgeist of the European Enlightenment – typified by the “elasticity” of human reason as it pertains to
the political and the social sciences, is subordinate to this “light” of “reason” to which the Gospel of
Barnabas refers.  Its desired effect – this “elasticity” of human reason, is to “dim” or threaten my “light
of reason” within my heart.  In short, philosophy for me can be a dangerous thing.
I’m in no way asking myself and others to dismiss or disregard “reason” as a “faculty of the mind”, for to do so is to withdraw from the world; Almighty Allah (SWT), in His Infinite Mercy, has “equipped” us, so to speak, with five senses, typified
by organs of sight, hearing, touch, smell and speech.  What I’m saying here is to understand that, at the end of the day, the “light” of “reason” is of more significance than our “mental faculties” called “reason”. Almighty Allah (SWT) has granted us the ability to think so as to navigate the world around us and consequently engage in worldly pursuits.   Human reason, typified by the “faculty of the mind”, can easily question Revelation. This is my personal reminder.

The historical period of intellectual activity termed “The Enlightenment”, I believe, distracted me from the True Reality:  that Almighty Allah (SWT) “equipped” me, by reason of His Infinite Mercy, this precious “light” of “reason” that can only be strengthened through His Laws or Commandments – one of which is prayer, or salaat.   This “reason” or “faculty of the mind” as the modern philosophers allude to, deluded me into thinking that it is “unreasonable” to devote myself entirely to Almighty Allah (SWT) through the five daily salaat.

Many of us now find it “unreasonable” to struggle to read the Holy Qur’an with sincerity of heart, for the Pleasure of Almighty Allah (SWT). Many of us now find it “unreasonable” to hate the things that are offensive to Almighty Allah (SWT) for His Sake Only.  Many of us find it “unreasonable” to be dutiful to our parents for sole purpose of gaining Almighty Allah’s (SWT) Pleasure.  I now hurry for the morning prayers, or fajr, at the masjid with other brothers, whenever Almighty Allah
(SWT) Allows it.
I can no longer apply questions of “Why is so-and-so” to the Revealed Truth as enshrined in the Noble Qu’ran and the Sunna
of the final prophet and Messenger for all mankind until the Day of Judgment – Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam). This is my personal struggle I must uphold with all my strength.

I now understand clearly that generations of impious persons defaced or distorted the Shari’ah that Almighty Allah (SWT), in His Infinite Mercy, revealed to prophet Musa (alaihis-salam) for Bani Israel.    Almighty Allah (SWT), in His Infinite
Mercy for all of mankind, entrusted His final prophet and Messenger Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam), with His Laws and Commandments that will remain accessible to all who believe in Almighty Allah (SWT) and the final prophet and Messenger of Almighty Allah (SWT) – Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi- wa-salam), until the Day of Judgment.
The “reason” or “rationality” to which I adhere is the “light” that Almighty Allah (SWT) created for each human being to know who their Lord, or Rabb is.

I have now come to understand that modern philosophers refer to “reason”, or “rationality”, as a “faculty of the mind”.
The truth is that the “light” of “reason” that Almighty Allah (SWT) “implanted”, by His Infinite Mercy, within my heart is meant to inform my moral conduct in this mortal world.  Actions are based on intentions.

I now know that “reason” or “rationality”, in Truth, is not primarily a “faculty of the mind”, for this classification inevitably leads to a brain-body duality.

That “rationality”, characterized in modern philosophical circles as a “faculty of the mind” is a modern description and is associated with the French philosopher Rene Decartes, who arrived at his conclusion by doubting his Lord, Almighty Allah (SWT).   Decartes’ “description” of “rationality”, I now understand, is a distraction from the Truth, for the Truth is that, in Reality, “reason” defies description; that, in Truth, “reason” is not a mental concept.  In Truth, the most significant “reason”, or
“rationality” is that “light” implanted by Almighty Allah (SWT) through His Infinite Knowledge and situated in the heart of
every human being.  And I’m not referring to the “heart” as the physical heat beating in our chests.

Whenever I decide, as a matter of faith, that I value
this “reason” as a “faculty” above the “light” of “reason” that  lead to a faith in Almighty Allah’s (SWT) Oneness, along with His Commandments, I join others who believe that success in this world, whatever the endeavor, lies in felicity in the Hereafter. I am ever more careful not to “tilt” or “exercise” my “mental faculty” of “reason” over and above this “light” of “reason”  I now
guard myself against pride, for fear of disregarding the Oneness of Almighty Allah (SWT), as enshrined in the Sunna of the last prophet and Messenger for all mankind to the Day of Judgment – Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam). It is
pride that aims to disrupt my “light” of “reason”.
Some days ago I watched an interesting discussion on MSNBC, with Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough, concerning the dearth of disparity between men and women, both financially and socially.  Among them in attendance were other commentators who chimed in on the possible “reasons” why such a disparity exists.  The foundation for this discussion is a book – part memoir and part manifesto for women - written by Ms. Brzezinski:  Knowing your value:  Women, Money and Getting What You Want.

I learned so much at a recent Jumu’ah that I wish to share it with my readers.  The Imam began his sermon by referring to the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.  The Imam focused on the phrase “…the pursuit of happiness”.
He refers to this “pursuit of happiness” as a red herring, a myth, something not to be believed.   There is no need, the Imam said, to “pursue” happiness.  The Imam wished to tell us that “happiness” is not an “endless pursuit”.

Mika Brzezinski wants to remind women that they must find their worth, their value.  Women, she argues, must find
their worth in order to find “happiness”.  What Mika is saying here is that women are “worthless” within American
society.  They don’t say what they want.  They don’t tell their bosses (we are speaking here of men) they are worth more than they are paid for their jobs.  They don’t understand they are not worthy of demanding for better pay.  Men outpace women in this category.

Women are thus engaged in “endless pursuits” for “happiness” within a society wherein they gain their “worth” from the opinion of others, chiefly men.

One commentator, a man, remarked that a woman must demand her worth to her boss, even if she comes off as “too jerky”.

A woman need not “misbehave” or “act inappropriately” when demanding better pay.

A woman’s happiness, her moral conduct, is not an “endless pursuit”.  The source of a woman’s happiness is the Noble Qu’ran and the Sunna of Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam).  Almighty Allah (SWT), in His Infinite Mercy, grants a woman her worth.  It is true that a woman must interact with her co-workers, etc., but the source of her worth is ultimately not to be found
in human relationships.
I am grateful to Almighty Allah (SWT) for all the scholars of the Muslim tradition, among them the Imams at the local masjids.

I implore any Muslim who yearn for religious knowledge to read with zeal at least one Tasfir, or commentary of the Holy Qu’ran. I refer here to Maa’iful Qu’ran, written by Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi and translated for English readers by
Profs. Muhammad Hasan Askari and Muhammad Shamin.

May Almighty Allah (SWT) Bless the author of the Ma’ariful Qu’ran, for it is only within the opening pages of this Tafsir where I finally understood there is human knowledge through reason, that is, the “orderly” interpretation of a collection
of sensory information we gather from our sense of touch, smell, taste, hearing and speech.   Then there is a dimension of knowledge, or Wahy, that is limitless, unlike that of human reason.

Maulana Shafi’s explanation of the two “chambers” of “reason” or “rationality” at the opening pages is  revealing.  I use the word “chambers” here for ease of understanding, and must be understood at face value only.

I use this classification here to illustrate that human “rationality”, that is, the “faculty of mind” that is human reason and nourished daily by the five senses of sight, hearing, touch, smell and speech, undoubtedly has its limits, for
there is knowledge that our five senses cannot grasp[4].  In other words, Revelation, or Wahy, begins where human “rationality” or human “reason” ends.  Human reason must not ask “Why” questions as it pertain to Revelation.  This is the limit.
For whatever reasons, modern philosophers “sidestepped” or dispensed with the “light of human reason as identified with this “light” within the human heart, this “light” that will only grow brighter through a person’s communication with Almighty Allah’s (SWT) Revelations, in favor of human reason alone.  And this precisely should not be so.
A failing to understand Revelation with human reason alone chiefly because it is devoid of logic provides no justification for dispensing with Revelation altogether.

Isn’t it the case that Almighty Allah (SWT), in His Infinite Mercy, equipped every human being with human reason and
logic?  Surely this is the case.  Yet natural philosophers, for whatever reason (and Almighty Allah [SWT] is the Judge in this regard), contended that “Nature” itself designed them.  Consequently, natural philosophers harked to “Nature” to somehow reveal its contents and to explain our “mysterious souls”.  They have declared that “Nature” has somehow “equipped” human beings with human reason and logic, echoing an evolutionary design.  In other words, their ideas once convinced me
that my existence on this Earth is simply an accident.
For, like human reason, whereby we gather information about the world around us through the five senses and of which we are “certain”, Revelation, or Wahy, gives way to a “certainty” or “rationality” for the human being, provided that she or he believes in, among the key articles of the Muslim faith, Life after Death:

“To begin with, it is totally senseless to discuss the issue of Wahy with a person who, God forbid, does not acknowledge the very existence of God.  But, for a person who believes in the existence of Allah Almighty and has faith in His perfect power, it is
not at all difficult to understand that Wahy is a rational need, that it is possible and that it is there for real”(italics mine) [5]

The writer is a recent revert to Islam and can be contacted at:  hd72201@gmail.com

A few weeks ago I and other brothers listened attentively one evening to a Bayan, or lecture, conducted by one of our learned scholars of Islam at a musjid here in Elmont, New York.  The topic:  anger.

I’m not referring to the manifestation of anger, however; and I’m sure this learned scholar was not concerned about that, either, as his mission that night was to inform us of strategies for “diffusing” anger, as enshrined in the Sunna of the Beloved Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam), the one Deputed by Almighty Allah (SWT) as the Seal of the Prophets, for all mankind until the Day of Judgment.   And who better understands each of us than the One Who created each of us, along with the Heavens and the Earth and whatever it contains, from the first man, Adam (alaihis-salam), from which Almighty Allah (SWT) created the whole mankind, male and female, to those of us that have been born aforetime and those of us who were born and are still living, to those of us who will be born after we, who are currently living, are in the graves, etc., etc., until a Day when the whole mankind will be raised up and Judged by Almighty Allah (SWT)?   

The manifestation of anger is a “feeling” of anger, and is based solely on an interpretation of what we see with the naked eye, or hear with our ears, within a social context, as when we witness two persons shouting at each other, with hands flailing to and fro.  We are here talking about the Unseen, and only Almighty Allah (SWT) is aware of both the Unseen and of all of what He has Created.   This learned scholar spoke to us about the machinations of the Shaitan, or, the Bruised One.  The Shaitan incites us to anger through his whispering.  And Almighty Allah (SWT) Knows Best.       

The learned scholar who conducted the Bayan that night informed us that this “feeling” of anger is in Truth instigated by the Shaitan, the Bruised One, when he whispers in the hearts of mankind.     Almighty Allah (SWT) has informed us in the Holy Qur’an that the Shaitan disobeyed Almighty Allah’s (SWT)  Command by refusing to prostrate unto Adam (alaihis-salam) through arrogance and puffed-up pride; besides, he remonstrated  that he is made of fire, and Adam (alaihis-salam) is made of clay.  And Almighty Allah (SWT) clearly informs us that the Shaitan is our “worst enemy”.  The Reality of the Creation of Adam (alaihis-salam) informs us that Almighty Allah (SWT) Fashioned Adam (alaihis-salam) from clay, or the mud of the Earth.  The Gospel of Barnabas, one written by Barnabas himself who was one of Isa’s (alaihis-salam) closest Companions, has written that Isa (alahis-salam) is reported to have said that the Shaitan despises the human being through pride[1].   

Muslims believe that whatever the Noble Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam) said during his Prophet-hood until he left this mortal world is the Truth from Almighty Allah (SWT), and what his Companions witnessed as to what actions the Noble Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam) did that informed his excellent conduct is the concrete guidance for those who want to understand the “sweet taste” of Eeman and therefore the only way to gain a closeness to Almighty Allah (SWT).

So the manifestation of anger, as witnessed by the five senses, is not the Truth, for what we see of events here in this mortal world is only apparent. 

This learned scholar reminded us that one of the most learned of all the scholars of Islam – Maulana Mufti Muhammad al-Shafi’I (rahmatullah-alaihi) – once remarked that if someone doesn’t feel anger that person may as well be a donkey. 

At the end of the Bayan this learned scholar informed us that a Pew research study concluded that by far the angriest of people are today’s Muslim teenagers.    

 We’re staring at a “which comes first:  the chicken-or-the-egg” scenario:   Is the foundation for a strong sense of self (by this I mean the development of a strong “rational” self) the way to “diffuse” anger?  As a Muslim I say no.

 Now this “rational” self is a concept wherein we are “naturally” rational creatures.  This “rationality” is a “faculty” or “power” of the mind whose mission is, according to Freud, to “control” the passions – one of which is anger, and thus allows the individual to navigate today’s secular societies.  Is the development of a strong “personal identity” more important than the development of a “strong Muslim”, or vice-versa?  In other words, is the development of a “personal identity”, of secular individualism, of more importance than a “Muslim identity?”   Humanist philosophers have postulated a “subject” or “I” and object (both animate and inanimate) dichotomy that has served the scientific development of the social sciences, including psychology. 

I go on to say that the “diffusion” of anger, the method of which is enshrined in the Sunna of the Noble Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam) and the “control” of anger during our sojourn here within modern, democratic societies today should not overlap, if the person’s intention to “control” her or his anger is to seek the Pleasure of Almighty Allah (SWT). 

Is the “diffusion” of anger, as enshrined by the Sunna of the Noble Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam) of more significance in this society for Muslim teenagers than the development of a secular, “personal identity”?, wherein a person, through the “faculty” or “power” of the mind, can effectively “control” her or his passions, one of which is anger?   I certainly think so.  My sincere opinion on this issue is that a “Muslim identity” is the foundation for a strong “personal identity” or “sense of self”, thereby “diffusing” anger “when calamity strikes” by remembering Almighty Allah (SWT), The Most High, The Most Great.                  

One report on the issue of anger among Muslim teenagers in the U.S. declares that they are “…more religious and more willing to defend Islamic extremists than are their elders”[2].  How is it so that a Muslim teenager, with a strong “Muslim identity” that is infused into her or his “sense of self”, is more willing to “defend Islamic extremists than are their elders?”

One concerned Muslim author wondered aloud whether we (the Muslim community) should investigate “…what is it about the non-Muslim lifestyle that attracts the [Muslim] kids so much?”  We are losing a whole generation of Muslim teenagers, this author says, to the whims and fancies of today’s secular world-view – through peer-pressures at public schools and rapid technological progress (i-pods, i-phones, smart phones, etc., etc.), along with “…how the culture appeals to all those budding desires…”   Those of us who care to empathize with the pressures of adolescence – to conform to social “cliques” or “groups” – understand only by harking back to our own experiences as teenagers.   The author suggests some ideas on how to turn the tide of such a secularized “world-view” among young Muslim teenagers, such as encouraging concerned parents to tap into their young adult’s self-absorbed condition or “narcissism” in a constructive way, in other words, to give them your attention.  One factor that is key to a healthy Islamic life-style among young Muslim teenagers, this author declares, is to adhere to the Delphic Oracle “Know Thyself”:   “We complain about our kids having an identity crisis.  To be frank, most of these kids don’t even know who they are…  forget about who they are as Muslims (italics mine), they don’t even know their own personalities”.   The author goes on to say that a key foundation to being a strong Muslim is to be a strong person, to know who you are “at your very core” so as to pinpoint and actualize their own potential “characteristics and values” that “will remain unchanged no matter what situation you’re put in”[3].

I say the reverse:  a “strong Muslim identity” is the foundation for a strong personality, for a “diffusion” of anger, through a sincere remembrance of Almighty Allah (SWT), is of more significance than of “controlling” anger without the sincere remembrance of Almighty Allah (SWT).  This doesn’t mean that a teenager should not be angry at all; they are, after all, not plants.  We are “naturally” prone to anger, as the materialists are wont to say, but only that we manifest that anger at something or someone else, and this manifestation is only apparent.  What the Christian say about “turning the other cheek” is applicable here.  Almighty Allah (SWT) Commands that we act mercifully towards others, even to those who are our enemies.  An Alim, who conducted a khutbah some weeks ago, illustrates this point.  There is a member of your family who despises you, who tells you they don’t want to see you, but your sincere belief in Almighty Allah (SWT) compels you to visit that person anyway, to find out how she or he is doing.

A corollary to the humanistic conception of the “I”-“object” distinction is “ressentiment”.   The term is often used within a context whereby one person exhibits hostility towards another; the English equivalent is “resentment” as in one person “resenting” another over someone or for something a person has.  Ressentiment is generally described as a hostility directed at one which one identifies as the ‘cause’ of one’s frustration, that is, an assignment of blame for one’s frustration.  The term, however, has a special significance within the annals of philosophical and psychological discourse, indicating at once a “social context”.  There is, say social scientists, “a special relationship between a sense of inferiority and the creation of morality”[4].  

 The creation of “morality” is based on our whims and desires, specifically in reference to “dominating” others through “ressentiment”.  For anger is a key ingredient to injustice and domination.  A person who sincerely believes in Almighty Allah (SWT) cannot be angry at all, at anyone or anything, even in the face of extreme hardships (May Almighty Allah [SWT] Elevate us to this stage!)  Previously, I have spoken about the political ideology of Marxism, one predicated on “ressentiment”.   Somehow, a poor person should, or even have the right, to be “angry” at a person who is financially well-off.  But Marxism goes further.  The followers of Marxism envision a “dialectical materialism”, where history is to proceed where one “social group” - the have-nots, engage in perpetual conflict (through violence, if possible) with another “social group” – the ones financially well-off, until there finally will be no economic disparity among all mankind.   The “ressentiment” of one social group against another, however, cannot be viewed within the abstract; this conflict is not something one thinks about; this conflict is real.  So anger is a key ingredient in any social conflict, even though it is not apparent. 

Frantz Fanon, a philosopher and psychiatrist, took it a step further.  His philosophical orientation was a unique blend of Nietzschean philosophy, which postulates a “will to power” – that is, a “willing beyond ‘good and evil’”, Hegelian philosophy, which postulates a “master-slave morality”, and Marxism.  The “will to power” gives rise to what Fanon refers to a “new species” – individuals who are capable of a unique “equilibrium” of the passions (considered by others as “positive” and “negative”) in order to live fully as a human being, without the trappings of government or society with its legal and moral rules (devised by individuals who benefit morally from such rules) of what is “good” and what is “evil”.  What differentiates Fanon from the rest, however, is his concrete application of the Hegelian “master-slave morality” to the colonial situation in Africa, the Caribbean, and Latin America, with Whites (with a master morality), dominating the Blacks (with a slave morality). Fanon wants to invert this moral equation and thus give those with slave moralities the impetus to “free” themselves from colonial domination.  Thus, once again, anger and even violence is necessary for this social transformation.         

There are many definitions of morality as there are people today.  One person defines it as X, while another defines it as Y, ad infinitum.  There are many definitions among people of what conduct is “good” and what conduct is “evil”.  We find ourselves in a most damning situation where we, as human beings, are defining for ourselves and acting upon what is “good” and what is “evil”.  Almighty Allah (SWT), through the Holy Qur’an and the Sunna of the Noble Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam), Commands human beings to perform “Good Deeds” and to refrain from “Evil Deeds”, or else face Eternal Ruin.  Such “Good Deeds” should not be based on our personal whims and desires, while our “Evil Deeds” are.   Almighty Allah (SWT) has informed us through His Book that human beings are prone to Evil but that we must refrain from doing so, if we are to be vicegerents on Earth.

This study concerning the attitudes of young Muslim teenagers toward “religious extremism” is of no surprise when we adults consider the bewildering number of global political and social upheavals affecting the Muslim Ummah today, especially Muslim teenagers.  Many of these conflicts are based on anger.  Along with the horrific events of 9/11/01 that exacted thousands of innocent souls here in the United States, a Florida fundamentalist pastor here in the U.S., Terry Jones, authorized that a Holy Qur’an be burnt after declaring, through a mock trial on March 20^th, 2011, that the Holy Qur’an is found guilty of “…crimes against humanity”, before “…sentencing it to death by execution”.   The author of this article, Emily Dobler, declared that “His stupid mock trial led to the death of 12 people”, and further, “He disgraced the religion and practically spit in all Muslims’ faces”[5].  We adults are also witnessing here in the United States a Congressional Homeland Security Committee hearing on “Muslim radicalization”, conducted by its current chairman, New York State republican representative Peter King.  We are also witnessing a national debacle in France concerning a ban on “burqas”, presumably enforced to preserve the French social identity of secularism and equality; and as I write this there has already been an incident on French soil whereby a Muslim sister has been fined for wearing it in public. 

We, as adults however, are no longer “adolescents”; we are not so easily swayed or confused by these geopolitical events, thereby becoming “resentful” at the detractors of this glorious religion.  For those who are Guided by Almighty Allah (SWT) to explain to others what Islam really is (and May Almighty Allah [SWT] Grant each of us the ability to do so), they are not worried about such events, if only to understand that we, the Muslim Ummah, must hold on to “the Rope of Allah (SWT)”.  We are, however, talking here about children and adolescents.

Our task is to learn this glorious religion with sincerity, practice it sincerely, cajole those who have strayed away from this glorious religion, and convince others about the spiritual benefits of this glorious religion.  This requires effort.  This requires going back to fundamentals.  And we must pay attention to our Muslim teenagers, for they are angry at their parents, and of what they see around them.

May Almighty Allah (SWT) Guide us in this worth-while effort, Ameen.

The writer is a recent revert to Islam and can be contacted at:  hd72201@gmail.com 

[2] Kelman, J.  Some Young American Muslims Take Extreme View.  Overall Picture Looks Good, Survey Reveals.

Posted May 23, 2007.

http://www.newser.com/story/2420/some-young-american-muslims-take-extreme-view.html

[3] The Lost Boys (and Girls):  Bringing Back Young Muslim Teens, by Zainab for MuslimMatters.org

http://www.teenperspectives.com/saving-muslim-teens

[4] Ressentiment. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment

[5] Dobler, Emily.  Pastor needlessly spurs violence after burning of Muslim holy book.  The Tarter.  April 11, 2011.

http://thetarter.org/2011/4/11/forum/koran_burning

We often hear from parents and educational authorities that reading is fundamental. 

Those of us who respond to their advice seriously understand one thing:  that there are both obvious and implicit consequences arising from the art of reading, moving from the fundamentals to a complete mastery over a book based on one’s interpretation it; first, the child learns to recognize each letter along with its accompanying sound; then she learns to recognize words; then she begins to learn established rules of grammar along with their meaning – the noun, the verb, the object, and so on.  Then she learns the meaning of the word; then she begins to use words in appropriate contexts; then she begins to read whole sentences.  But this is not all.  The child then begins to learn the meaning of whole sentences along with whole paragraphs; then the child begins to read books.  But this is not all.  Soon the child begins to understand or comprehend what she or he is reading in books; then the child begins to ascertain the author’s tone and intent – that is, the author’s motivation for writing the book.  So today’s educational scholars say there is a developmental chart to effective reading, from a child right up to adulthood through old-age.  

We see at once a progression, from letters to whole words to sentences to paragraphs to relationships between paragraphs to understanding the book the child is reading to an educated guess as to the author’s motivation for writing the book she or he is reading.  Eventually then, adults understand that reading becomes an art-form.

I was once reading a book in the musjid one recent late afternoon that details the fundamentals of Islam, while a hafiz of Qu’ran was busy correcting young boys and girls (both genders sitting separately, of course) who busied themselves with correct pronunciation of Arabic letters.  Nonetheless, this hafiz of Qu’ran was able to listen attentively to each child’s pronunciation within the cacophony of sounds while correcting each child without effort.  This hafiz of Qu’ran would often “twist” a child’s ear when necessary or hit the child’s head with a pencil.  

He then turned to me, perhaps because I admired the children’s effort at learning Arabic.  He then told me I was becoming a fundamentalist because I was absorbed in the fundamentals of Islam.  I was reading a text entitled “Taleem-ul-haqq”.  It details the correct manner of ablution, prayer, and so on.  

The word “fundamentalist”, as it pertains to religion, has become a dirty word these days and has gone through numerous permutations in meaning.   Our readers are acquainted with religious terms – such as Jihad - that have originally been used by learned religious scholars many centuries ago in an age of Almighty Allah’s (SWT) prophets (peace be upon them all!), the rightly guided Khalifas, only to be disfigured and distorted by modern detractors – many of them atheistic philosophers – in the early seventeenth and eighteen centuries.   There is an active debate among scholars as to the historical circumstances that gave rise to a separation of religion and science in Europe during this time, with the latter gaining legitimacy and the former losing its influence on European societies.  While scientific reasoning triumphed, resulting in dramatic technological progress, prophetic revelation waned and rendered insignificant.      

We at once remember the case of Timothy McVeigh, who was the mastermind behind the detonation of a truck-bomb in front of a large building in Oklahoma City in April of 1995, resulting in 168 deaths and 450 injuries.  This incident has since been referred to as the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Sources say that this young man, who enlisted in the U.S. Army for a time and was awarded by the military for his status as a “top-scoring gunner”, became increasingly disenchanted with the U.S. government, going so far as to plan assassinations of Attorney Generals and Judges.  Mr. McVeigh harbored a deep resentment, over time, of an infamous incident in Waco, Texas, during which the Federal Government executed a search warrant for religious cult leader David Koresh, during which a gun-battle ensued.  Consequently, 76 people, along with 20 children and David Koresh himself, died in a fire at the compound, in February of 1993.  Timothy McVeigh is described as a fundamentalist because he translated his anger – precipitated by well-worn political ideologies of dissent - at the U.S. government into action.  This young man destroyed a Federal Building and was summarily convicted of killing countless innocent people.  He remained unrepentant up to his execution in late 2001[1].  

It is now clear that this young man is a “fundamentalist” in the sense that he believed he did the right thing.  I am not a mental health expert by any means, but I venture to say that a confluence of destructive political and religious ideologies influenced his thinking, and no one was able to convince him otherwise.             

So I ask myself:  will I, as a “religious fundamentalist”, plot one day to drive a truck-bomb near a Federal Building here in any state in the U.S. with the intent of detonating it, thereby killing innocent lives because of the U.S. government’s perceived imperialist goals in the Middle East?  Of course not.  Yet a vast majority of Americans, with the help of today’s media, believe that “Muslim fundamentalists”, such as me, will one day create mischief by fomenting violence and killing innocent lives.

Religious scholars now say that many of us have replaced the simplicity of Islam with destructive political ideologies such as Marxism and Communism.  There is simply no relationship between the simplicity of faith and practice and such political ideologies.  Implicit in such ideologies are germs of human resentment that only tarnishes human hearts and minds.  Many of us are unaware that such political ideologies guide us and others to self-destructive ends.

I simply want to learn, through faith and practice, the fundamentals of Islam, such as the correct manner of making ablution for the salaat, or prayer, along with the correct manner of making the salaat, based on what the Noble Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam) taught his Companions; and that is all.  I want to learn as much I can about this glorious religion and to practice it sincerely for the Sake of Allah (SWT) Only, and that is all.  That I am on the road to becoming a “Muslim fundamentalist” simply doesn’t mean that I’m going to one day create mischief on the Earth by blowing myself up along with countless others. 

The fundamentals of Islam, when implemented sincerely by a Muslim into faith and practice, is the only secure foundation from which she or he is able to formulate countless hypothetical situations she finds herself with on a day-to-day basis, without hesitation.  The fundamentals of Islam are the only secure foundation from which a Muslim may want to pursue advanced studies in Islam.  A Muslim may find themselves in real-life situations that impede her or him from practicing this glorious religion without hesitation, such as what to do when there is no water available for ablution in order to perform the salaat, and so on.   

In modern politico-philosophical usage the term “fundamentalist” implies a return to a “pure state of innocence”, much like that of a new-born babe.  A child is born and is thus uncorrupted by society.  Think of the reverse, that of a man seeking a return to that of a child – much like a blank slate.  This mental reversal almost always implies an emotional consequence as well –as manifested by resentment, or anger at either modern democratic society or its government.   It is here that political ideologies – whether that of Marxism or Communism – comes into play.  Almost always a person tries to explain by means of political ideologies the various “causes” of the deterioration of modern, democratic societies.  One such criticism is that modern, democratic societies are “atomistic”, thereby rendering each individual as living in a “void” apart from religion and even persons they meet on a daily basis.  Some individuals explain the deterioration of modern societies in Neitzschean terms – that God is dead, that people in modern, democratic societies are akin to “herds”, meaning that everyone is “conditioned” in a manner that befits modern, democratic governments, thereby stunting individual creativity.  If man is a “political animal”, as Aristotle remarked, then the person muses that modern, natural governments, with its laws (perceived as restrictions on individual creativity) “creates” societies where every-day life for everyone is “mundane”.  We often read bumper-stickers that say:  “I owe, I owe, I owe; so off to work I go”.

While such explanations of the state of modern, democratic societies are attractive and can be worn much like a “mental helmet” on a daily basis, such explanations are couched in humanistic terms, which dictate that I am the fashioner of my own fate, that I treat my will as independent of Almighty Allah’s (SWT) Commands and the Sunna of the Noble Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam), Whom Almighty Allah (SWT) Deputed as a mercy for all mankind. 

Karl Marx, among other modern political philosophers, succumbed to the ideology of humanism, thereby offering his interpretations on the “causes” of “atomistic”, democratic societies – unbridled capitalism.   Such political explanations have resulted in many wars during the middle of the twenty-first century – the United States, for example, waged a propagandistic war as well as military expeditions against the spread of Marxism and Communism throughout the world.

Such political ideological explanations are nothing more than materialistic interpretations of history and of society (italics mine).  These explanations have nothing to do with anything else.  What religious scholars do know, and I agree with them, is that all of us have lost the remembrance of Almighty Allah (SWT); that His Attributes of essence and of action encompasses all things, even what we instinctively call “natural” events such as tsunamis, earthquakes, etc.  That a strong faith in Almighty Allah (SWT) and His Rasool (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam) escapes human reason is no justification for abandoning it.  I, for one, have come to understand that such materialistic explanations of history and society are bound exclusively by physical laws only.  Consequently, many of us cling to “apparent” cause-and-effect explanations of political and social reality; and we are not even certain of what “causes” what.  Almighty Allah (SWT) is far above such laws and far above His Creation!   Anyone who has a firm foot-hold on faith in Almighty Allah (SWT) is not lost in the “maze of multiplicity”.  And anyone who believes sincerely in “La ilaha illallah” will surely abandon this “mental helmet”, much like salt dissolves in water!

There is much talk about “Islamo-fascism” and “radical Islam” these days.  I pay them no mind.  I ignore the pundits, not because of resentment, but because what they say on television is of no merit to me.  That is not the Islam I have come to know.  Islam is a threat to society, but not in the way the pundits take it to be.  Islam is revolutionary because when someone sincerely believes in Almighty Allah (SWT) and His Rasool (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam), then that person’s heart becomes clean of the rust accumulated by sin over the years.  

About a month and a half ago a Grand Mufti from India conducted a bayan, or talk, at Masjid Hamza here in Elmont, New York in Urdu.  Many scholars, along with worshippers, were in attendance that evening.  For ease of communication another scholar translated his bayan into English.  The Grand Mufti remarked that “the kafirs (non-believers) are on top”, that is, they are in control of the current political climate world-wide.  Nonetheless, the Grand Mufti also remarked it is our utmost duty to convince others about the simplicity of Islam bit by bit, until everyone has heard of Islam.  

Learning the fundamentals of Islam and putting them sincerely into practice is the only means by which Muslims transmit the simplicity of Islam to others.

Some of us find the assessment that the kafirs (disbelievers) currently hold the reigns of political, economic and social power hard to swallow.  The Grand Mufti is right on target that night:  the kafirs (non-believers) currently hold the reigns of secular political, economic and social power. 

Sheikh Hamza Yusuf remarked some years ago that the “Golden Age” of Islam is long gone.  There are no Khalifas around at this time.  The Ottoman Empire dissolved during the early twenty-first century.  Many of us deny that this assessment is the case.  Believe it. 

Almighty Allah (SWT) has clearly spelled out, in the Holy Qu’ran, three types of people in this world:  those who believe, those who don’t believe, and those who deliberately harbor belief but are steeped in disbelief; that is, they say they believe in Almighty Allah (SWT) but in reality they don’t.   Some of us seize on the opportunity to cast such people in Manichean terms – by rationally categorizing people in boxes. 

Only Almighty Allah (SWT) is able to Judge each of our hearts.  I cannot tell a person walking on the street that they are a kafir, because in reality I don’t know.  

Last week a few brothers and I went to a Dunkin Donught’s store in Elmont, New York.  One brother spoke of the wonders of Almighty Allah (SWT), whereby scientists are now beginning to unravel the complex manner of communication among bees.  I remarked that there are scientists who know that they do not and cannot know Who is the Power behind all power, Almighty Allah (SWT), and as a result they rest in the arrogant assumption that they are masters of their own fate (italics mine).  But as I left their company later on that morning I realized that I cannot make that judgment.  I cannot judge people’s hearts.   

There have been throughout the ages many scientists who, while working in scientific laboratories and are discovering many new types fo information about Nature, conclude that there must be some Power that is responsible for the workings of the Universe and in consequence become believers.  There are also those who refuse to believe, and there are those who claim they are believers but in reality they are not.  It is Almighty Allah (SWT) that elevates and debases human hearts.  But none of us can judge the spiritual state of another person’s heart. 

The only duty we, as Muslims, have is to tell others about Islam.  But there is more.  We also have to remind Muslims who are straying from the Truth to get back on the straight path.  We have much work to do.  We will fail in our duty because of our ignorance of Islam.  We don’t know the fundamentals.

So there is one problem:  many of us don’t know the fundamentals of Islam, and therefore we do not practice it sincerely.  And if we fail to practice Islam sincerely, we certainly are unable to tell others about Islam.  If we, as Muslims, cannot tell others about Islam, then how are they to know the correct information about Islam?  Almighty Allah (SWT) is able to transform human hearts and therefore transform human lives.  If that is the case, and it is true, then only by learning and practicing the simplicity of Islam are we equipped to tell others about this glorious religion.

That same morning other brothers were discussing some ayats of the Holy Qur’an.  One brother talked about the meaning of the word “shaheed” – or witness.   He remarked that the true meaning of the word has eroded over time, and now there is but a limited meaning of the word today.  I then began to shake my head in shame. There are Muslims who fight in the Name of Almighty Allah (SWT), but are they only claiming to do so?  Are they doing so for their personal desires only?

We cannot know. We are now living in confusing times.  What we think is true is actually false.  What we think is good for us is in reality bad for us. 

We need to get back to the fundamentals of the Islamic faith.   Only then are we able to sincerely practice this glorious religion, and only then can we inform others about Islam.  

Whatever benefit I and others gain from this column is only from Almighty Allah (SWT).

The writer is a recent revert to Islam and can be contacted at:  hd72201@gmail.com             

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

There are times when I relate to readers what I believe to be a key important issue that point to critical times for the Muslim Ummah, so that, Insha’Allah, I and others become acutely aware of it and begin to take the road to some, and perhaps, greater introspection.  The core issue about which I am about to relate concerns the Greater Jihad, or “Jihad-e-Akbar”.  I became aware of it because I thought this core issue was related in some way to derivate issues that confront the Muslim Ummah. 

 It was after fajr prayer at a Masjid in Elmont, New York, that a dear brother of mine, whom I’ve known for a number of years, invited me for coffee.  I replied in the affirmative.  Two other brothers, one of whom is an active participant at this Masjid – Masjid Hamza – decided to join us.  Three of us decided to have cups of coffee, along with a light breakfast, at a Dunkins Donut store, I’d say about 10 miles away.  I will not mention these brothers’ names, for privacy’s sake.

 As most of us have experienced at one time or other when two or more persons gather together, enjoying a light breakfast with coffee – I for one enjoyed a cup of coffee along with a raisin-bagel with jelly and cream cheese – we found ourselves speaking at length and with some passion about what we all thought were critical issues facing the Muslim Ummah today.   We extrapolated a few issues candidly, based on personal experiences and observations – as Muslims living in the United States. 

One brother talked at some length about what I refer to as a derivative issue he wanted to “get off his chest” - extravagance.  He went on to say there are a group of Muslims, and I won’t identify them here, that spent millions of dollars on a large, private jet (how can a large jet be a private one, I asked?), while beyond their shores millions of Africans, including children, are without shelter, food or drink.  Why not spend millions on those who have nothing to eat and are the most destitute, he says?  Another brother chimed in, saying that he is tilting the scale to the extreme.  He says this group of Muslims goes to great lengths at preserving and protecting the sacredness of Hajj, one of the key pillars of Islam, whereby millions of Muslims strive to cleanse their hearts through repentance to Allah (SWT), Lord of the worlds.

Whether Muslim or non-Muslim, we’ve all been guilty of extravagance from time to time.  I emphasize at this juncture that extravagance is no exclusive to effects upon which we then cast judgment, but that is eventually manifested for some of us to witness. There are times when we eat too much, talk too much and spend too much on things we don’t need at all.  As an example, I mentioned that some guys go out of their way to purchase large-screen plasma TV’s for one day only – to watch the Super-bowl.

 So how does a Muslim achieve and maintain this “critical balance” that reduces the need, that craving, for excess, I asked myself?   Besides, aren’t we, as Muslims, primed to be excellent models of moral conduct – a critical component of which is balance - for all mankind?   Aren’t the Holy Qu’ran and the Sunna of the Noble Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam) the prescription for success for all mankind in this world and the Next?

I believe now that this craving one gets for excess is related to one issue:  that we, as human beings, find it very difficult to monitor our own souls, or what Muslim scholars refer to as nafs, due chiefly to our social surroundings.  

The nafs, as I had alluded to sometime prior to this one, to this column, is not related to the philosopher’s conception of the soul, one that is defined epistemologically – what we see – and what we infer from human behavior itself – desires  for food, drink, sex and the like.  The human soul, philosophers contend, is related to the body, and it is.  What philosophers don’t talk about, simply because they are indifferent to it, is that Allah (SWT), in His Majesty and Power, Created for each human being a spirit that permeates each of our entire body. In sum, Muslim scholars say that the nafs is what is referred to as the human soul when it – the spirit that Allah (SWT) Created for each of us - becomes inextricably linked with our entire body.         

 I added one word to the candid conversation that morning with the brothers that I thought precipitates excess for us all – anxiety. 

Modern social scientists think of “anxiety” as a “concept”, in keeping with that irresistible scientific craving to find a definition for concepts in general.   Many modern psychologists, and indeed, many early psychoanalysts, including Freud, have tried to “pinpoint” what “anxiety” is as a “concept”.  I bet modern philosophers and psychologists who occupy influential positions at colleges and universities debate what “anxiety” as a “concept” is even to this day.  I try to keep in mind as I write this column that anxiety leads to excess, but that “something” “caused” the anxiety.  Because this “Cause” of anxiety is not discernable to us, we immediately infer that “anxiety” - in-and-of-itself - leads one to excess.     

 Mental health experts, that is, some of whom are professors of psychiatry and psychology who are paid to “pinpoint” what anxiety is as a concept through endless rigorous intellectual debate at colleges and universities, interact with clients during their professional lives, to “unravel” possible “multiple causes” for their client’s anxiety in comfortable settings, based solely on what they’ve heard from him or her.  Professional therapists do the same.  All professional mental health experts agree, and they generally find, - and this is rather simple, - that clients are usually “anxious” or “agitated” – and therapists see that their clients are agitated about “something”, but that the therapist understand that the client they are working with at that moment remain “unaware” of what that “some-things” are.  The mental health expert’s job, at some point in the therapy session – and this suggestion may be months in duration - is to suggest to the client the “possible sources” of their anxiety (and here I emphasize “possible sources” here).  What I’m trying to say here that there is no “One Cause” for their client’s anxiety.  Again, this “One Cause” is unknown to us through the senses and human reason.        

 So, what is this “something” or “things” that are “causing” a client’s anxiety?   Such “multiple causes”, many mental experts say, is “out there” (thereby postulating an “inner” and “outer” dichotomy for the individual), or is “related to” experiences as we interact socially with others on a daily basis within   modern, democratic societies.  I add here that the mental health profession is not “hard science”; it does not rely exclusively on facts, but is rather an art.  

So, the “multiple sources” of anxiety, modern philosophers, psychologists and social workers say, are to be found, first and foremost, within a person’s emotional relationship with their parents, along with a professional “hunch” on what the possible consequences of that emotional relationship on the client are, that are presumed to “cause” or precipitate their client’s anxiety.  So, mental health experts “zero in” on that particular nexus of relationships – the family constellation, if you will - that has “negatively” affected their client’s up-ended “world-view”, of themselves and others, so to speak.  A large portion, if not all, of a therapist’s professional training revolves around the family constellation. 

I also include here the “relational” impact of modern, democratic society on the family.  In a key sense, then, modern democratic societies, mental health experts say, has an indirect impact on a person’s emotional state, although the mental health’s chief concern is the client’s emotional state within the family constellation.  We can say here that the wider, democratic society “triggers” a client’s emotional state, which mental health experts assume stems originally from the client’s particular nexus of relationships within the family.   And as the Chase commercial says, “relationship is everything”.  So, we enter into “future relationships” that go awry because of our “earliest relationships” with our parents, etc., etc., etc.

Psychiatrists contend that there are biological bases to anxiety, but I won’t treat the biological bases of anxiety at all, mainly because I don’t know the intricacies of bio-chemistry and the like.      

So what if we consider a “moment” when one of us is alone, whether in a dark or a lit room.   We are certainly “isolated” from relationships with people, and in this case, another person.  Wouldn’t that person be anxious even then, even though no-one sees or is near her or him? 

There are moments when persons harbor heinous thoughts such as suicide, murder and the like, but don’t act on them.  So how do these persons prevent themselves from committing such heinous acts, and why do others proceed to commit these heinous acts?

Here I center on a person’s heart.  I’m not talking about a person’s physical heart, the one that beats in our chests.  I’m talking here about what Muslim scholars throughout the ages refer to as a person’s nafs.   Our nafs, Muslim scholars say, is the center of good and evil actions; in other words, the spirit that Almighty Allah (SWT) Created for each of us is inclined to either good or evil (italics mine). 

We are here talking about topics that ancient and modern philosophers are not concerned with, and never will be.  As one scholar of religion puts it, ancient philosophers were not concerned with “divine things[1]”.  So, in a sense, ancient philosophers have “materialized” what is clearly “immaterial” – the soul -, chiefly because they were “lovers of wisdom”.  Modern philosophers, psychiatrists and psychologists, in turn, have picked up where they left off, but have now treated the “soul” as a “concept” they talk frequently about, chiefly because they get paid to do so.  A key example of a modern conception of the soul taken to excess is what Freud termed the “ego”.  This concept, the ego,  is elusive, as all concepts are in the mental health field, principally because no one, not even the modern philosopher, can “pinpoint” exactly what an “ego” is, to everyone else’s satisfaction.

So, according to Muslim scholars, the nafs is a person’s central core, but a spiritual one.   The nafs is inclined to either good or evil.  It is the spiritual center of a person’s being.  The nafs is a person’s spirit that Allah (SWT) “implanted”, for lack of a better word, (and Allah [SWT] Knows Best by virtue of His Knowledge Alone) and that permeates a person’s entire body.  Heretofore, the nafs, according to Muslim scholars, is the spiritual center from which a person makes an intention to perform good deeds and avoid evil deeds.  Such actions are then which are manifested behaviorally on a daily basis that what modern philosophers and mental health experts call our “instincts” and “desires”.   A person who is unaware of her or his spiritual center will consequently not be spiritually aware that she or he should intend to perform good deeds and avoid evil deeds; in other words, that person will not know the difference between good and evil actions and deeds.  Whenever a person’s nafs is inclined to good, the person does good deeds and thus gains Allah’s (SWT) Pleasure, and whenever a person’s nafs is inclined to evil, the person does evil deeds (as manifested by her or his limbs) and thus deserves Allah’s (SWT) Punishment.

The Noble Prophet Muhammad (salla-lahu-alaihi-wa-salam) – whom Almighty Allah (SWT) raised among the Arabs as the Seal of the Prophets (May Allah be pleased with them all!) – is the Last Prophet of Allah (SWT), who, by the permission of Allah (SWT), has guided mankind to the whole Truth.  This saying of the Noble Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam), or Hadith, is the key to what sways each person’s nafs to either good or evil deeds, provided that the person considers its meaning with sincerity of faith:

“‘Abdullah ibne-Mas’ud Radiyallahu ‘anhu narrates that Rasulullah Sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam said:  Verily in the heart of man, a thought is stirred by the Shaitan, and a thought is stirred by an angel.  As for the thought stirred by the Shaitan, it instigates towards the doing of evil, and falsifying the Truth.  And as for the thought stirred by the angel, it urges towards the good, and confirmation of the Truth…”[2]

Muslims believe and understand, as a matter of faith, that their and each person’s nafs is indeed inclined to either good or evil thoughts. 

How does a Muslim strive to maintain this balance of good and evil thoughts?  The Muslim tradition tells us that our nafs become “balanced” when our heart remains at rest, by remembering Allah (SWT), The Mighty, The Majestic, The Wise.  The constant remembrance of Allah (SWT) is called Zikr:

 “And guideth unto Himself all who turn to Him in penitence, who have believed and whose hearts find satisfaction in the remembrance of Allah.  Verily in the remembrance of Allah do hearts find content!”[3].

Here is another:

“And he whose sight is dim to the remembrance of the Beneficent, We assign unto him a devil who becometh his comrade”[4].

 And here is another:

 “Hakim Tirmizi writes:  ‘Zikr (remembrance of Allah [SWT]) moistens the heart and softens it.  A heart that is devoid of Zikr becomes dry and hard, due to the excessive heat of lust and base desires.  All parts of the body likewise become stiff and abstain from submission to Allah; if you try to bend them, they break like a piece of wood, which can be used as firewood only”[5].

I am not a Muslim scholar, but I can safely say that the remembrance of Allah (SWT) leads the human heart to contentmentment. And anyone who believes in Allah (SWT) and His Rasool (sallalahu-alaihi- wa-salam) knows that Zikr is essential in this regard (emphasis mine).

I say this with all sincerity, for myself and other Muslims who happen to read this:  a sincere belief in Allah (SWT) and His Rasool (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam) is essential for these critical times.  It’s gonna be a bumpy ride from now on.  I say this sincerely, to myself and to other Muslims:  Hold on to the Rope of Allah (SWT).

A few Fridays ago I attended Jumu’ah prayers at the same masjid I referred to previously in this column - Masjid Hamza, in Elmont, New York.  The brother who gave the khutbah on that Friday advised us to read Tafsir, or commentaries on the verses of the Qu’ran, done by the most pious Muslims of the Muslim Tradition.  I decided to do just that.  I asked a Muslim scholar at another Masjid, – one not far away, to loan me a Tasfir for a time.  This scholar, without hesitation, loaned me a Tasfir, written by Maulna Mufti Muhammad Shaf’i (rahmatullah- alaih) and carefully edited by another scholar for English readers – Maa’riful Qu’ran.  I read the commentary on Surah Fatihah, or what some scholars refer to as “The Mother of the Book” – the Qu’ran.    I have had this book for about a month now, and I read it with care.

There are many treasures contained therein, and I’ve only read in detail his commentary on Surah Fatihah alone!

 I center here on Imam Shaf’i commentary - on the relationship between EEman and Islam.  I understood then that the foundation of the Muslim faith is the Kaliman Tayyibah:  There is no god but Allah (SWT), Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam) is the Messenger of Allah (SWT).  There is no Islam without this sincere belief in this Kalimah Tayyibah.  Without this faith there is no Eeman, and hence no good deeds. 

 Imam Shaf’I (rahmatuallah-alaih) goes on to say that there is a reciprocal relationship between EEman and Islam.  This learned scholar mentioned that without Eeman, there is no Islam.  Islam without Eeman, this learned scholar has written, is kufr , or hypocricy[6].  So what is Islam, I asked myself?   In simple terms, an example of Islam is the prayer itself, the manner in which our limbs submit to Allah (SWT), The Lord of the Worlds.  I understood then that Islam is not “dead weight”, but is dynamic, and that Islam stems from Eeman, which resides within the human heart.  Islam is peace.  A person finds peace within her or his heart through Islam.

 Based on what I’ve read in Imam Shaf’I’s Tafsir, there is no comparison to what the media tells me about Islam. What I do want to say here, however, is that there are many Muslims by name only who don’t practice Islam (emphasis mine).  A sincere, practicing Muslim will never even think of strapping bombs to her or his waist, walk cavalierly within a crowd, and suddenly detonate it, thereby killing him or herself along with countless others.   This is happening globally, and with increasing frequency.  Why?  My thinking is that a great many of us don’t take the time to introspect and remember Allah (SWT), The Mighty, The Majestic, The Merciful; and as a result, those who fail to do so commit heinous acts.  Muslims by name only remember Allah (SWT), The Mighty, The Majestic, The Merciful, only to proceed to commit heinous acts that leads to the annihilation of innocent human beings.  This is entirely abominable, in my view.  This is Islam without Eeman.

I remember watching one plane hitting one of the Twin Towers here in New York City on that morning of September 11^th, 2001.  I was a new revert to Islam at that time.  I kept on saying to myself that Muslims couldn’t possibly have done this.  Now I know that Muslims by name only may have done these heinous acts of destruction.  A Muslim by name only is on the verge of hypocrisy, if not a hypocrite. 

 So when Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, who is a visible Muslim scholar of Islam, wrote an interesting piece that I believe is related to the Greater Jihad, or “Jihad–e-Akbar”.  It is entitled A Time for Introspection[7].  I concur with a few main points in his article, even though he has been vilified by others, including Muslims. 

This learned Sheikh has outlined six main points in this article:

 The learned Sheikh has written this: 

1. “Unfortunately, the West does not know what every Muslim scholar knows; that the worst enemies of Islam are from within”;
2. that “Our Prophet said, peace be upon him, ‘Beware of extremism in your religion’;
3. that “In the case of many of these extremists even the non-Muslims recognize that no religion of any weight could sanction the taking of innocent lives”;
4. that “…there are invariably people who have never taken a true spiritual path to God and nor have they studied the humanities”;
5. that “Our real situation is this:  we Muslims have lost theologically sound understanding of our teaching”; and
6. that “The reality is we are an Umma that no longer realizes that Allah is the Power behind all power… (emphasis mine)”[8]

First, I expound here on number three.  During the aftermath of this horrific incident I told myself that no-one of any religious stripe would say that any religion sanctions this type of behavior, and here I’m not referring to the act itself.  I was raised a Christian, and I knew this, if only this.  I expound on number one a bit.  The Muslim Umma is disintegrating.  This process has happened to Bani Israel, under the stewardship of Prophet Musa (alaihis-salam), to one faction of the Jews whom Isa (alaihis-salam) ministered to, and to the Muslim Umma under the stewardship of Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam) and at this present time, until the Day of Judgment; and the Prophets (peace be upon them all!) cannot be blamed for this!  Secularism is a clear and present danger to the Muslim Umma, as it was in the past.  Number two is crystal clear; steer away from either what the learned Sheikh termed “excess and neglect”; for the previous nations committed this error.  Number four is clear enough; for we have not been striving to know this religion of Islam through learning from other learned scholars.  Number five is also true; we know nothing about Islam, as far as its true teachings are concerned; for if we do not know the true teachings of Islam, we cannot tell others about the true teachings of Islam.  And number six tops it all and is the essence of Tauhid or the Oneness of Allah (SWT); we easily lose grip of One Reality:  that Allah (SWT) is the Power behind all power.

 All this is due, in my opinion, to the conclusion that we, as Muslims, do not guard our nafs by constantly remembering Allah (SWT); and, as a result of this, we often do what we are forbidden by Allah (SWT) to do; and to achieve this end we must begin to engage in the ”Greater Jihad” or Jihad-e-Akbar”. 

 I make an appeal, first, to myself, and then to other Muslims as well:  We, as an Umma, fail to  guard our nafs because we are not clear on this point:  All is from Allah (SWT); our intellect, our reason, our eyes, our ears, our limbs, our whole body belongs to Allah (SWT); and we must be vigilant concerning what we do with our limbs.  We are here for a short time, to use our faculties according to Allah’s (SWT) Commands, for He is All Merciful, and He Alone is able to Guide us; He has given us the prescription – that is, the Holy Qur’an and the Sunna of the Noble Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam),so run to it. We do not even own the faculties of our own minds! 

Death is certain.  And none of us knows the Hour. 

We are losing sight of what the Noble Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam) has said and done in this mortal world, for humanity’s sake.  We are losing sight of the Sunna of the Noble Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam).  I’m not talking about rocket science when I say all this, you know.

The Muslim tradition tells us that a sure means of guarding our nafs is through “Jihad-e-Akbar”, so run to it and practice it.  I say this for myself and for other Muslims. 

There is much talk about Jihad in both the global press and the media.  There is very little we, as Muslims, know about its sacred meaning; and if we do, we fail to appreciate its benefits.  Non-Muslims know nothing about it; and if they do know something about it, they have gained and continue to gain a distorted perception of it.

 Kamran Rifat has forcefully written that detractors who objected to the true teachings of Islam after the Prophet’s (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam) death deliberately tarnished the sacred word of Jihad, along with its sanctified meaning.  He identifies four categories of Jihad:  Jihad by the sword, Jihad by the hand, Jihad of the tongue, and Jihad of the heart[9] .   Jihad of the sword is referred to as the “lesser Jihad”, while Jihad of the heart is the “Greater Jihad”. 

The word Jihad is not sacred anymore, in my humble estimation.  The sacred meaning of the word has been tarnished over the centuries; it has now become a mental concept, only to be manipulated by today’s detractors to further their own ends.  Everyone in the global media and the press today have their own interpretation of Jihad.   All are misleading and are diametrically inconsistent with the truth – that Jihad is nothing but war against the non-believers.   David Cook has written this to support this claim:  “In reading Muslim literature – both contemporary and classical – one can see that the evidence for the primacy of spiritual jihad is negligible”[10].

 According to Mr. Rifat, if one looks at the sacred meaning of the Arabic language, the meaning of Jihad has no demarcation or limitation, yet its sacred meaning will remain in-tact.  The word “Jihad”, the author indicates, is derived from the word “Johad”.  The core sacred meaning of the word “Johad”, the author tells us, is to set a destination, target, or goal, for yourself and to work hard, strive and make every effort to achieve it.  Allah (SWT)’s Message in the Holy Qu’ran entails what the real purpose of life is.  Here is how this author puts it:

 “Look, you were not born all by yourself but by My Will and Affection.  There is a universal and centralized purpose behind your creation and your existence in this fatal world, and that is to worship Almighty Allah so that you can achieve the target of understanding the Magificence of your True Lord.[11]”

For Muslims by name only, the end does not justify the means, so how is it that when they destroy themselves by destroying innocent lives they will gain the felicity of the Hereafter?

The sacred meaning of “Jihad-e-Akbar” also can be gleaned by a much publicized but authentic Hadith.  Here is now Mr. Rifat puts it:

 “In an incident, authenticated by many religious scholars, when the Prophet’s Companions returned victorious from the war at Badr, they humbly informed the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) that, they have accomplished the greater Jihad (Jihad-e-Akbar).  Today, whatever they have done to achieve that goal and to reach the destination envisaged by Him and their hearts have accepted it and, if required, they were willing to sacrifice their lives for this purpose.  At that point in time Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) stopped them and said:  ‘do not think like this, whatever you have done today it is Jihad of a lesser category.  Come; I will guide you about the greater Jihad (Jihad-e-Akbar).  Bewildered, all of them asked,  ‘Is there another form of Jihad as well?’  Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said:  ‘Yes.  The greater Jihad is to suppress the temptations which arise within your own self and to abstain from doing what is not required and to act the way it should not have been; striving for it is the real target and goal and to make your best effort to achieve it’”[12].  

 Detractors (both ancient and modern – by this I mean contemporary media outlets and the press) focus exclusively on one facet of Jihad – Jihad by sword.  A little bit of Biblical scriptural information will help to clear things a bit.  The Bible (that is, the Old Testament) informs us that Allah (SWT) authorized Bani Israel to fight the enemy under the stewardship of Prophet Musa (alaihis-salam) – but only in self-defense.  Common sense demands that if someone threatens you to take your life, you react in self-defense to protect your own life; you are neither a donkey nor a plant.  Unfortunately, many people confuse self-defense with Jihad of the sword[13].  

 I remind myself and I remind other Muslims:  Come back to Allah (SWT).  Repent to Allah (SWT).  No-one is able to forgive sins but Allah (SWT).  Engage constantly in the Zikr (remembrance of Allah [SWT]).  Come to know “Jihad-e-Akbar” for yourself.  

 Whatever inaccuracies I have written in this column, it is from my own self.  Whatever good I have written in this column is from Allah (SWT).

The writer is a recent revert to Islam and can be contacted at:  hd72201@gmail.com  

[2] Muntakhab Ahadith. A selection of Ahadith Relating to the Six Qualities of Da’wat and Tabligh.  Compiled by Hadrat Maulana Muhammad Yousuf Kandhlavi (Rahmatullahi ‘Alaih).  Annayyar, Pakistan.

[3] Faza il_E_Amal. Stories of Sahabah. Revised Translation of ’Hikayaat-e-Sahabah by Sheikul Hadith Maulana Muhammad Zakariyyah Kahdhalvi. Idahara Ishaat-E-Dinayat., pg. 520.         

[4] Ibid, pg. 525.

[5] Ibid, pg. 541.

[6] Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shaf’i. Ma’ariful Qur’an. (1996).  (Surah Al-Fatihah, Al-Baqarah) Translated by Prof. Muhammad Hasan Askari, Prof. Muhammad Shamim. Revised by Justice Mufti Muhammad JTaqu Usmani. Maktaba-e-Darul-Uloom, Karachi, Pakistan., pg. 105.  

[7] Sheikh Hamza Yusuf.  A Time for Introspection.

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/shhamza_sept11.htm

[8] ibid.

[9] Rifat, Kamran Muhammad.  Jihad in Perspective.  Religion and Spirituality.

http://www.booksie.com/religion_and_spirituality/article/kamranrifat/jihad-in-perspective

[10] ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

I will say at the outset that I harbored no opinion regarding the protesters’ massive uprising for democratic change in Egypt.  I will be honest with readers when I say that I was a bit saddened by this event, even though I can imagine the protesters’ euphoria as they talk exuberantly about a revolutionary proposition that, through collective effort or will, may be a reality unheard of among their parents and grandparents:  the eventual ouster of Hosni Mubarak, who has ruled Egypt for thirty years.

I was a bit saddened because I feared some protesters would supplant their faith in Allah (SWT) and His Rasool, Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam) with a faith in secular democracy.  I feared that some protesters will quit reminding themselves of faith in Allah (SWT) and His Rasool, Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam).  I feared all the mosques in Egypt would become eerily empty after a transition to a secular democracy.  I feared the protesters will fill the mosques and speak only of the reality of a secular democracy.  I feared some protesters will begin to follow their own desires as they begin the process of forming a new secular, democratic society. 

I throw out the complicated jargon intellectuals and media pundits use when talking about a secular democracy, along with its merits:  the establishment of a free press, of an independent judiciary, executive and legislative branch of government; the need for a secular democratic government to be “responsive” to the “will” of the “people”; how to establish a “strong” civil society where, as U.S Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton pointed out at a recently-held Munich Security Conference Plenary Session, “…truly representative institutions resolve differences not in the streets, but in city halls and parliament buildings.”   For, as the U.S. Secretary of State points out, the transition to democracy can be “chaotic” and in turn cause “short-term instability”; and, further, the U.S. Secretary of State reminded her audience that revolutions in the past have overthrown dictators, only to witness the “hijacking” of the democratic political process through the emergence of “…new autocrats who use violence, deception, and rigged elections to stay in power or to advance an agenda of extremism”[1].

There is a chance that the protesters will wake up one morning, only to be bewildered and frustrated by the emergence of new military generals who adopt political agendas similar to the ones advanced by Hosni Mubarak himself[2].  Then there is a chance that the protesters will once again return to the streets of Cairo, of Tahrir Square, to clash violently with the military loyal to those associated with the now deposed “dictator” Hosni Mubarak.  There is a chance that the military generals will not capitulate to the protesters’ demands for free and fair elections.  There is a chance that no stable political parties will emerge from this revolution.  In short, there is a chance for more chaos, more killing, more flailing of arms on the part of mothers who wail at the sight of their dead sons and daughters lying scattered in the streets of Tahrir Square.

Proponents of a secular democracy often tell us about its merits:  individual freedom – a vital prerequisite for an “open” society, greater economic opportunities and eventual prosperity among the citizenry, a greater demand for technological “progress”, and so on.  They don’t tell us about its demerits:  a greater chance that daughters and sons will forsake their parents in favor of their own desires due to the realization that their parents no longer have “rights” over them as sanctioned by the Commandments of Allah (SWT), a greater chance that some will forsake their prayers, a greater chance for youngsters seek “entertainment” through pornography, drinking alcohol, music, etc.

I am not criticizing any elements of a secular democracy as I write this column.  I am certainly not advocating a violent clash with the status quo or, to put it another way, “the powers that be”.

I am saying that a “genuine” democracy is possible, if only some percentage of the Egyptian society adhere strongly to the Commandments of Allah (SWT) and the Sunna of the Noble Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam).  With the Help of Allah (SWT), such a percentage of practicing Muslims in Egypt can steer those who identify themselves as Muslims only by name.

I pray, by Allah (SWT), that there will not be some protesters out there in Egypt who will believe there is Paradise on Earth, and the only vehicle in which to realize this version of Paradise is to follow their own lusts and desires.  Those who do so will gain prosperity in this mortal world and receive nothing but Punishment in this world and the Next, which is Eternal. 

 The Best Community the world has ever known is the immediate Companions of the Noble Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam), along with the first Muslim Community.  The worst communities or societies are those that do not conform to a strong faith in Allah (SWT), which can only be realized by practicing the Sunna of the Noble Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam), whom Allah (SWT) Appointed as a mercy to all mankind from now until the Day of Judgment.

 There is no good deed without faith, in the human heart, in the sincere declaration:  “There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah”. 

A community that sincerely declares this faith is not a secular but a “genuine” democracy.  And such a community, with patience and perseverance, is able to gently persuade others to adopt the Muslim faith.  

The individual human psychology that results from a constant interaction with a secular democracy promotes arrogance, vice, harshness and anger towards others.  A secular democracy teaches the human being no distinction between virtue and vice.  A secular democracy teaches human beings either that the Benevolent Creator created the Universe and, God Forbid!, stepped away from His Creation and Allows it to run its course, as in the case of a person winding a clock or watch.  A secular democracy teaches the human being that there is no God.  A secular democracy teaches the human being that she or he is simply a “complex” machine, with muscles, tissues and a brain.  A secular democracy teaches the human being that she or he is without purpose, like molecules colliding with each other.       

Malek Bennabi, who is seldom known among modern Islamic intellectuals and whom many observers believe is among those who sincerely strove to put a “genuine” democracy in practice through an infusion of Islamic values, identified three key concepts or elements of a secular democracy: 

a. as a feeling towards one’s self;

b.  as a feeling towards others, and; 

c.  as a cluster of social and political conditions necessary for the formulating and the blossoming of similar feelings in the individual[3].

Proponents of a secular democracy, principally the philosophers of the French Revolution that occurred more than 320 years ago, declared that “faith” is reduced to “feeling”.  As far as the Shari’ah is concerned, a practicing Muslim “believes” and “trusts” in the sayings and actions of the Noble Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam) without the need for personal observation[4].  People in a secular democracy declare that Muslims are worshipping “their” god.  The truth is that Allah (SWT) is Rabb, Who Nurtures everything that exists[5]. 

A reduction of “faith” to “feeling” neglects the true consequence of the Muslim faith:  that even in the dead of night, a true Muslim cannot think of committing evil acts, or vice, that displeases his Rabb.  A true Muslim loves someone for the sake of Allah (SWT  and hates someone who conducts her or himself in a manner that runs counter to the Commands of Allah (SWT) for the sake of Allah (SWT).

The difference between the “Islamic democratic concept” and “either the French, Russian or Chinese democratic concepts” is that “Islam endows man with a significance that transcends any political or social value (italics mine).”   The Islamic democratic concept, according to Bennabi, begins with the question:  what do I know about Islam?  Malek Bennabi asks the question:  Can Islam “augment the sentiment toward one’s self and towards others, one that is compatible with the foundation of democracy within the individual’s psychology, and can it create social conditions that are favorable to the preservation and development of the democratic sentiment as well as its efficaciousness?”  Bennabi’s conclusion is that “if there exists a democratic tradition in Islam, it ought not to be sought in the letter of a constitution but rather in the spirit of Islam in general”[6]. 

People generally think that Islam is “dead weight”.  People think that Muslims want to impose Shar’iah Law on them.  People think that Shari’ah Law will usurp their individual freedom.

Islam is dynamic.  Islam transforms the heart of the human being because faith, or Iman, entails a belief in Allah (SWT) and in the actions and sayings of the Noble Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam).  Islam orients the human heart towards Almighty Allah (SWT).  Allah (SWT) Loves the human being.  Without faith, or Iman, there is no Islam. 

Islam is the outward manifestation of faith, or Iman.  A practicing Muslim cannot think of strapping bombs around her or his waist and walk into a crowd of people, killing her or himself and killing others in the process.  A practicing Muslim understands, in her or his heart, that all mankind are Allah’s (SWT) Creatures.  And a practicing Muslim believes that a secular democracy is not the incubator for a genuine individual psychology.  A genuine individual psychology is one nourished by faith. 

A practicing Muslim believes in a “genuine” democracy, a “sacred” democracy.

The writer is a recent revert to Islam and can be contacted at:  hd72201@gmail.com

[2] Nick Meo.  Egypt protests:  fears that the army will install a ‘new Mubarak’ to keep its power and privilege.  February 19, 2011. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/nick-meo

[3] Yahia H. Zoubir.  Democray and Islam in Malek Bennabi’s Thought. 

http://i-epistemology.net/attachments/618_V15N1%20Spring%2098%20-%20Zoubir%20-%20Democracy%20and%20Islam%20in%20Malek%20Bennabis%20Thought.pdf

[4] Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi.  Ma’ariful Qur’an:  A comprehensive commentary on the Holy Qur’an.  Vol. 1 (Surah Al-Fatihah, Al-Baqarah).  (1996).  Maktaba-e-Darul-Uloom, Karachi – 14., pg.102, §1.

[5] Ibid, pg. 64,§3.

[6]http://i-epistemology.net/attachments/618_V15N1%20Spring%2098%20-%20Zoubir%20-%20Democracy%20and%20Islam%20in%20Malek%20Bennabis%20Thought.pdf

“It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira (radi-allahu-anhu) that the Messenger of Allah (sallalahu-alihi-wa-salam) observed:  ‘The Satan comes to everyone of you and says:  Who created this and that?  Till he questions:  Who created your Lord? When he comes to that, one should seek refuge in Allah (SWT) and keep away (from such idle thoughts)[1]

A popular on-line encyclopedia defines “doubt” as a status between belief and disbelief, a “middle-way” between trust and distrust or lack of sureness of a fact or decision[2].  We sometimes hear someone say something, we judge the “truth” or “falsity” of her or his statement, and we “reject” or “delay” a commitment or action based on what we’ve heard from that person.  Doubt involves our use of our mental faculty of “reason” to “weigh” the “evidence” of a statement or proposition of what we’ve heard from someone based on our own experience.  In other words, we use our mental faculty of “reason” to either believe or not believe what we hear from someone. 

Others say that belief about what someone says or does is not based on “evidence” at all; besides some of us think that a “lack” of “evidence” of the veracity or certainty of what someone says about something is a true test of belief, based on our faculty of reason. 

Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi (Rahmatullah ‘Alaih) has mentioned that “science” involves testing the veracity of a statement, usually by a large group of persons trained in rational methodologies.  If I say to someone, for example, that I have a white shirt in my possession, that person will want to see the shirt to confirm that I do indeed have a white shirt in my car; and if that person invites others to see that white shirt, then she or he will walk away “certain” that it is indeed a white shirt. All this confirmation, or human knowledge, is based on human reason and observation alone.  Nonetheless, the Maulana goes on to mention that there is a limit to human reason and observation.  There are things “the knowledge of which can neither be acquired through senses nor through reason”.  According to the Maulana, Allah (SWT) selects one of His servants to reveal His Word, and this Word is Wahy[3].  Wahy involves belief in the person (designated by Allah [SWT] ) who makes statements about the Unseen.  These persons are Allah’s (SWT) prophets (peace and blessings be upon them all!).  It goes without saying, then, that a disbelieving person is one who does not believe in Allah’s (SWT) prophets (peace and blessings be upon them all!), along with what they’ve said or done.  Science and reason is rich in width and length, but lacks depth[4].

At times we rely on the imagination to compare things to our own human experience.  Our human imagination is only able visualizing what we’ve already experienced.  Our human imagination cannot grapple with “universal concepts” or “Absolutes”.   Our human experience is limited to our material existence, which are bound by the laws of physics which is in itself a part of Nature which Allah (SWT)  Created.  Allah (SWT) is not bound by the laws of physics[5].

We only understand “universal” concepts, but we cannot point to it through human experience.  Our mind is capable of formulating concepts relating to “material objects” through human observation and intuition only.  The doctrine of nominalism, proposed by William of Okham, tells us that particulars, and not universals, are “real” to us[6].

Wahy, or revelation, are not a collection of concepts.  The Holy Qu’ran is not a textbook we encounter in schools, universities, or in everyday life.  Concepts arise from our human imagination.  Concepts do not address the Unity of existence.

I have tried earlier to impress upon readers of the dangers of the “religious” imagination.  I have argued that one critical danger inherent in the religious imagination relies on a philosophical foundation put forth by a prominent philosopher of religion. The critical danger of the “religious” imagination, I argued, lies squarely upon a “symbolic” relationship between sensory object (s) – that which we see in every-day human experience (such as a painting or sculpture) – and The Divine as represented by “The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit”.  Thus, the essential vehicle by which Roman Christian adherents maintain their faith in a Transcendent God are through sensory, empirical objects that purportedly “represent” or “symbolize” The Divine via an active use of the human imagination.

I have come to the realization, through personal introspection, that as long as a person does not strive for faith in Allah (SWT) and believe sincerely in the sayings and deeds of the Prophet (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam), is unaware of the messages what the prophet (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam) has brought while a mortal being on earth or have heard of Muhammad’s (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam) but refuse to believe in what he (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam) has brought, then she or he remains unaware of the whisperings of the Shaitan.

The Devil’s greatest trick, some say, is convincing humanity he doesn’t exist.  

I now remember a song I and other school-children sang while in Catholic grammar school.  The song is entitled The Devil Is A Sly Old Fox.   Here it is:   

The Devil is a sly old fox,

if I could catch him

I would throw him in a box

I'd lock the door and throw away the key

for all the tricks he's played on me.

I'm glad I've got salvation.

I'm glad I've got salvation.

I'm glad I've got salvation.

                            I'm trusting in the Lord[7].                               :

The British philosopher David Hume has written that some ideas gain considerable “strength” in the human mind, culminating in a “chain” of ideas associated with the previous one, and while the French philosopher Decartes did not believe in the human imagination even though he admits ideas are “innate”, Hume believed in the human imagination[8].  I don’t wish to speculate on either Decartes’ or Hume’s religious leanings here, but as a practicing Muslim I now believe this narration.  I include an excerpt here: 

“‘Abdullah ibne-Mas’ud Radiyallahu ‘anhu narrates that Rasulullah Sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam said:  Verily in the heart of man, a though is stirred by the Shaitan, and a thought is stirred by an angel.  As for the thought stirred by the Shaitan, it instigates towards the doing of evil, and falsifying the Truth.  And as for the thought stirred by the angel, it urges towards the good, and confirmation of the Truth…[9]”    

Hume contends that all our ideas originate from human experience alone.  I, as a practicing Muslim, believe that as a matter of faith Allah (SWT) is beyond human experience.  What I’m saying here is that Religious Knowledge – all that is revealed to the Noble Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam) - is not accessible by human intellect, human reason or human experience.  Our intellectual, moral and experiential capacities are limited to the phenomenal world only – the world of appearances (of sensory, inanimate objects, of persons, of relations between persons, etc.).   Our imaginations and experiences cannot grasp Allah’s (SWT) Majesty and Power. 

Many detractors said in the past and continue to say at present that the Noble Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam) was a human being and as such behaved like other men.  The Noble Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi- wa-salam) was a man, a mortal being, like others before him.  However, the Noble Prophet Muhammad’s (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam) moral conduct was unlike other men.   Those who interject believe that all the prophets of Allah (SWT) were like other human beings, like you and me.  Practicing Muslims believe this is not so; Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam) is the final prophet of Allah (SWT).  Many of us assent to various but erroneous views put forth by moral philosophers in the past, many of whom refuse to believe in prophetic revelation due to their faith in human reason, who equated Isa’s (alihis-salam) moral conduct with other men, perhaps because of their conviction, based on earlier convictions by others, that Isa (alihis-salam) was either the “son” of Allah (SWT) or Allah (SWT) Himself (May Allah [SWT] forgive me when I write this!).     

Charles Monroe Sheldon (1857-1946), a pivotal leader of the Social Gospel movement here in the United States,  put forth a view of Christian theology whereby he asked his adherents, when confronted with a moral issue or the manner in which they should conduct themselves in a given situation, to consider the moral principle:  “What would Jesus do?[10]”  Some writers now contend that many persons trivialize this moral principle by reducing it to a fad -by fashioning T-Shirts and wrist-bands[11] -, without a serious inquiry as to how Isa (alihis-salam) conducted himself on a day-to-day basis.      

I’ve often heard others refer to Isa (alihis-salam) as “Jesus Christ, Superstar”.  In point of fact, “Jesus Christ, Superstar” is the title of a Broadway show that opened here in New York City in 1971[12]. 

None of what all the prophets of Allah (SWT) (peace and blessings be upon them all!) have said and done while mortal beings here on earth are based on their imagination, personal whims or desires.  Those who interject now and those who lived during the prophet Muhammad’s (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam) sojourn on earth refused to believe in what he (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam) said and did, and so they do not believe in prophetic revelation. 

I now turn my attention to the dangers of the “political” imagination. 

I have tried to show in the previous article that we often “crave” to explain what we see in the phenomenal world of sensory objects through general concepts that, according to Kant, we formulate in our minds.  We thus are able to explain, according to Kant, what a “chair” (a general concept) is because of the definition associated with this general concept – that it has “four legs”. 

We begin with a hypothetical example to grasp what the “political” imagination entails and how it manifests itself on a daily basis. I warn readers that I present only a hypothetical example to illustrate my point.       

I am a teenager who decides to “run away” from my parents’ home on account that I believe that they don’t understand my feelings; they are intentionally “cramping my style”.  I strongly believe that my parents are obstructing me from “doing whatever I want, whenever I want”.  I believe my parents are exercising “political tyranny” by obstructing my “moral freedom”.  Many of us borrow this relatively modern mental concept of “liberty”, or “moral freedom”.

Moral philosophers of the European Enlightenment, chiefly Locke, Rousseau and others, considered seriously the idea, now formulated as a “moral concept”, that the “political liberty” as exemplified as “natural rights” of man or “moral freedom” of the individual is the “first cause” or “moral law principle[13]” deemed essential for a “free society”.  Man, therefore, is “naturally free” from external restraints.  Man is “naturally free”, moral philosophers say, because man lives in a “in a natural state” and in that “natural state” men are “free” to do whatever he wishes, as long as he is not obstructed by anyone. Therefore, both moral philosophers advocated for a “natural society” stripped of religion to accommodate “free individuals in a state of nature”.

Both Locke and Rousseau agreed with this “moral first cause” for an orderly, democratic society, but were deeply divided as to the true meaning of “political liberty”.  While Locke believed the individual has certain “natural rights” that cannot be usurped by “society or by any external authority (the political state)”, Rousseau believed that “natural rights” are the “rights possessed by the people living in a ‘state of nature’ and not surrendered, only modified, in the social contract by which they agreed to live together in society”[14].  Rousseau believed, unlike Locke, in the significant role the society plays in the development of individual liberty, and not vice-versa.   Rousseau was concerned with fashioning the “right kind of society” that “is conducive to living a fully human life[15]”.  In other words, Rousseau believed that to attain individual, personal liberty, one has to live in constant harmony with others in society who assent with each other that they are free.  I cannot be free until you are free, ad infinitum. 

Rousseau advocated an educational model for citizens of this “new society”, a society without moral constraints put forth by the Christian religion.  Rousseau’s “picture” of this new education entails an education stripped of religion, which moral philosophers of day associate with “superstition”.  Rousseau was chiefly concerned, however, with a method by which persons living in this new “natural society” stripped from “religious superstition” – its arts and sciences that had come about from human intellect and reason -, return periodically to her or his “natural state” or the “soul at rest with nature”.  In other words, Rousseau understood that persons living in this “new society” often “lose themselves” or experience “moral disequilibrium” from time to time.

Islam is not a religion.  Islam is a way of life.  Islam is the outer manifestation of Iman, or Faith.  Iman is based squarely on a sincere belief in the Unseen, relying on the Authority of Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam), the final Messenger of Allah.

My mother and I discussed recently the moral of the Prodigal Son, described as one of Jesus’ (p) parables contained in the Book of Luke (15:11-32)[16].  It is a story of a younger son of a Jewish family who decides to leave home and so he asked his father for his share of the wealth, while his older brother decided to stay home with his father.  After wasting his fortune in “wild living” (i.e., prostitution) in a far-off land (he became unsuccessful), he became desperately poor and was forced to work as a swine-herd.   This young man returned home, and his father was glad, and his father prepared a celebration for his return.  His older brother heard the celebration, and became upset, because his father had never prepared such a lavish celebration for him.  The boys’ father explained that the older brother returned, in a sense, from the dead.

I had not really understood the parable of this story until I found a sincere faith in Islam.  I had been reminded of this story since childhood, but never fully understood it sincerely until now.  I told my mother that he moral of this story is that this older brother repented to Allah (SWT) for his errors, and returned to his father.  Had he not repented to Allah (SWT) he would not have turned away from this detrimental moral path.  This parable illustrates that God is Willing to forgive those, especially youngsters, who repent to Him.   

We now come to what I believe to be the significant danger of the “political” imagination – man’s exercise of his free will.

Muslims believe in “limited free will”, that is, our will and moral actions as circumscribed by Allah’s (SWT) Commands as enshrined in the Holy Qur’an and prescribed by Iman and based on the sayings and actions of the Sunna of our Noble Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam)the final Messenger of Allah (SWT) for all mankind .      

I include here the essential points of what modern philosophers of religion term “Mohammadan Fatalism[17]”.  A thoughtful reading of the following passage allows us to understand that limited free-will is the kernel of faith:  

“…though there have been defenders of free-will among Mohammedan teachers (italics mine), yet the orthodox view which has prevailed most widely among the followers of the Prophet has been that all good and evil actions and events take place by the eternal decrees of God, which have been written for all eternity on the prescribed table.  The faith of the believer and all his good actions have been decreed and approved, whilst the bad actions of the wicked though similarly decreed have not been approved (italics mine)”[18].

 Faith in Allah (SWT) and our Noble Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam) does not amount to fatalism.  We, as Muslims, believe that whatever we do in this mortal world stems from faith alone – the way we address and treat our parents, our neighbors, and ultimately the society in which we inhabit.  

“And verily you, [O Muhammad] are on an exalted [standard of] character.” (Quran, 68:4)

I pray that that what I’ve written here is for Allah (SWT) Alone.

The writer is a recent revert to Islam, and can be contacted at: hd72201@gmail.com   

http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=001&translator=2&start=0&number=0242 

[2] Doubt.  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubt

[3] Ma’ariful Qu’ran by Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi’ (Volume 1).  [1996]. Maktaba-e-Darul-Uloom, Karachi.  Translated by Prof. Muhammad Hasan Askari, Prof. Muhammad Shamin. Revised by Justice Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani. Pgs. 1-2.    

[4] The Concept of Intellect in Islam. 

http://www.islamfrominside.com/Pages/Articles/The%20Concept%20of%20Intellect%20in%20Islam.html

[5] Allah’s Being & the Limits of Human Imagination. Written by Sheikh Salman al-Oada.

http://en.islamtoday.net/print/3820  

[6] William of Ockham, on the Difference between Intuitive and Abstractive Cognition.

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/ockham.html

[7] http://www.calvinclark.com/Lyrics/TO99.TXT

[8] Essay sample on: Hume and Decartes on the Theory of Ideas.

http://www.essaysample.com/essay/T001319.html

[9] Muntakhab Ahadith.  A Selection of Ahadith Relating to the Six Qualities of Da’wah and Tabligh. 

Compiled by Hadrat Maulana Muhammad Yousuf Kandhlavi (Rahmatullahi ‘Alaihi). 

[10] Charles Sheldon.  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sheldon

[11] Snider, Brian. What would Jesus do?  

http://www.jesus-is-Lord.com/wwjd.htm

[12] Jesus Christ, Supestar.  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_Superstar  

[13] Principle.  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle

[14] The Philosophical Concept of Liberty.

http://www.answers.com/topic/liberty

[15] Rousseau: Freedom and the General Will, pgs. 167-168.

http://spruce.flint.umich.edu/~simonchu/dissertation/chap3.pdf

[16] Parable of the Prodigal Son.  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son

[17] Fatalism.  The Original Catholic Encyclopedia.

http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Fatalism

[18] ibid.

“Imagine”.  

This is the title of a song, released in late 1971 associated with U.S. counter-culture icon John Lennon and is universally recognized as a plea for “world peace”[1].  It gained instant global success here in the United States and sent ripple-effects overseas for one salient reason:   a growing uneasiness among the masses here in the United States about the protracted war in Vietnam.   U.S. soldier casualty, according to one source, set the figure at 58,000, while that of the North Vietnamese is estimated at 1.1 million, with 1,170,000 injured[2]. 

The masses here in the United States reacted, sometimes violently, at their government’s “failed” military involvement in Vietnam, one that began in 1964 and ended in 1975.  Other more important political and social issues swelled the ranks of those opposed to the Vietnam War - the civil rights movement is but one example.  However, social historians now say that many political and social “ideas” associated with neo-liberalism, socialism and communism directed its adherents to demand that their government “dismantle” a political ethos of unbridled individualism they deemed responsible for global capitalistic exploitation and colonization to usher in a new, “collectivist vision” of brotherhood for all. 

“Imagine” asked the masses here in the United States over thirty years ago, who had become disillusioned through years of war in Vietnam, to “imagine” a world with no religious, political, social and economic boundaries.  

It is difficult to separate the message from the messenger here:  John Lennon asked the masses here in the United States to take an “existential ‘leap of faith’ and drop all the antiquated belief systems and political ideologies…”[3] that he claimed prevent him and the masses from “living in the moment”.   

“Imagine” aimed to address the existential concerns of the democratic masses, here in the United States, that grew weary of a protracted U.S. military involvement in Vietnam.  Specifically, the democratic masses related the Vietnam War with the U.S. government’s deliberate attempt at furthering its global political imperialistic goals. 

Existentialism is first and foremost a philosophical idea, borne of the human imagination.  The philosophy of existentialism is a “world-view” that emphasizes a person’s subjective experiences – her emotions and feelings (e.g., of the certainty of death or of hope and despair) to the exclusion of any “objective” standards of Truth, be they religious (God [we say ‘Allah (SWT) Forbid!’]), political, economic or social.  The role of the human imagination within an existential context is reduced largely to a philosophical view of man himself as an “isolated” being living in a “meaningless” Universe and by virtue of this acute realization attempts to live by experiencing his emotional ups-and-downs (feelings of dread and anxiety because of the “reality” of his death – considered the “end”).  Consequently, this philosophical idea emboldens its adherent to attempt to fulfill his own desirous actions (both moral and political), for which he believes he “owns” and for which he himself is responsible.   Human beings have the capacity, through the imagination, to imagine what they are and what they “ought to be” (or should be), or should have been.  Through the imagination, human beings imagine what they are not[4].       

The modern European philosophical tradition related to the practical concerns of republican governments here in the United States and elsewhere has led to a more strident reliance on the secular, political moral impulse of human beings and a weakening of the religious moral impulse.  Both impulses, that is, the religious and the political, rely on the unique nature of the human imagination. 

I am not concerned here with the dangers of the political imagination, however.  I will deal with the dangers of the political imagination in time, Insha’Allah.  I focus, then, on the religious imagination.  

I now turn to the modern definition of an “idea”.  I use, as an illustration, the definition employed by a source that distills eloquently the philosophy of mind authored by Immanuel Kant.  According to the Glossary of Kant’s Technical Terms, “Ideas are special concepts which arise out of our knowledge of the empirical world, yet seem to point beyond nature to some transcendent realm[5]”.   According to the same source, mental concepts are “the active species of representation by means of which our understanding enables us to think”[6].   General concepts are ideas that point to the empirical world – what we see around us.  Abstract concepts are ideas not associated with the empirical world.   

Here is an every-day meaning of a general concept.  Everyone understands the general concept of a chair when we see one; a chair has four legs.  We need not go further here.   We know the general concept of a chair because we have learned to do so in the past.  Picture yourself in grammar or pre-school school all over again, with the teacher pointing out to us a piece of paper with the word “chair” inscribed on it and pasted on to the actual object to which it designates - the chair itself.  I say all this to illustrate that our mind “grasps” definitions of a concrete object by means of general concepts. 

According to the definition given by Kant, general concepts are limited to our knowledge of the empirical world - what we see.  General concepts allow us to “retain” definitions associated with the concrete object – think of a glass of water, with the glass representing a general concept and the water itself as the definition associated with a particular general concept.  Consequently, we then associate a general concept with a concrete object so when we see the object once more we know what the definition of that object is. In a nutshell, ideas are categorized as general concepts, but that these concepts are anchored to what we see – the empirical world.  Yet there is more.  Kant puts forth another type of concept in another category – that is, there are concepts “that seem to point beyond nature to some transcendent realm”.    This “transcendent realm”, according to Kant, refers to “metaphysical beliefs”, such as “God”, “freedom, and “immortality”.  What Kant is saying here is that the human imagination also grants our minds the capacity to formulate abstract concepts, those that do not point to anything we have ever seen (such as the Reality of the “transcendent realm”).  Abstract concepts do not refer to the empirical world in any matter whatsoever, to anything we have seen or will see while here on Earth.  Nevertheless, such concepts exist in our minds.  The faculty of the imagination then, according to Kant, is responsible for forming mental concepts[7] - both general and abstract. 

The human imagination is viewed today as a mental ability to form, without effort, mental images that…act(s) as the foundation of knowledge[8].  The human imagination is “a world where…images are nested in the mind to ‘form a mental concept of what is not actually present to the senses’”[9].   We retain an image of a chair, a concrete object, we saw yesterday, but this image in our minds is not “the object as it is, in-itself”.    We can never know what the chair is “in-itself”, for example, but the “appearance” or “image” of the chair in our minds.  Our image of the concrete object in our minds is a “representation” of the concrete object, a chair, for example.  Such images, “representations” of concrete objects tend to remain in the human mind after viewing concrete objects. We then remember, or recall, a concrete object we saw, a chair for example, the day before.  In sum, whenever we see a concrete object, the “image” that is “retained” in our mind is a “representation” of the concrete object, even for days or weeks after we’ve seen it.

Modern philosophers of the mind tell us that the foundation of knowledge is due to general concepts alone because they are restricted to concrete objects alone. They say that human knowledge is that which is gained from our sense organs (for example, the eyes).  They tell us whatever we see, or “perceive” a concrete object via our sense organs (for example, our eyes), our mind generates an “image” that is a “representation” of what concrete object we perceive.

Zaid Shakr, one of the most influential clerics here in the United States, once noted that the French philosopher Rene Decartes is among the first doubters.  Decartes embarked on a personal experiment wherein doubted his senses (his eyes, ears, etc.) along with every image “registering” in his mind as a result of stimuli arising from concrete objects around him, along with his belief in God Himself (we say Allah [SWT] Forbid!).  Descartes major contribution to the modern philosophy of the is this:  Cogito ergo sum:  “I think, therefore I am”.  

I note here in passing that Rene Decartes modern philosophical world-view rests on the shoulders of giants in the annals of medieval philosophy, among them Abu al-Hassan al-Basrî al-Ash‘arî (871-934), Fakhr al-Dîn Râzî (1147-1209)[10] and Abu Nasr al-Farabi (870-950)[11]. Their guidance in these matters was a belief in the Holy Qu’ran and the Sunna of our Noble Prophet Muhammad (May the peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny).  

Philosophy has become “modern” in the sense that what the human mind cannot know for certain via the senses, for example, the Reality of the Unseen as dictated by all of Allah’s (SWT) last and final Prophet Muhammad (salla-lahu-alaihi-wa-salam), is discarded as useless for human intellectual and social fulfillment for an “unswerving faith” on experimental science.  

As far as the Muslim is concerned, the Unseen is not logical to our minds[12]; we cannot explain it to others.   Yet we, as Muslims, firmly believe in the Unseen, even though we cannot see it for ourselves while we are here on Earth. 

My original intent for writing this article is to articulate the “pitfalls” of the human imagination.  I now change my intention to say that the human imagination is downright dangerous as it pertains to religion.     

Is it possible for a Muslim to believe in what is clearly illogical to our minds?  Yes.  My point here is this:  A Muslim need not employ her or his mind or specific method of human understanding, through “images” that are “representations” or “symbols” of concrete or material objects, etc., to “think” of the Unseen, but only to “believe” firmly in its reality.  The starting-point of faith for the Muslim is to “believe” in, not “think about”, Allah (SWT), His Angels, His Books, our eventual Resurrection, etc.  To the Muslim, there is no need to have “images”, or “representations” of the Unseen in our minds while we are here on earth.  Some Christians say that “Faith” is “evidence of things not seen”.  We say Muslims are in no need of “grasping” with our minds this “evidence” while we are here on Earth.

The annals of Medieval Christian tradition took this “evidence of things not seen” to a dangerous level.  There are countless volumes of medieval Christian texts with paintings of Devils, Angels, etc.  I, for one, do away with such nonsense, and I never want to see them ever again.       

I once told an Imam that the greatest travesty that occurred in the history of civilization was the attempt by others to “materialize” what is Unseen by either depicting what they think the Unseen appear to them - their mental “images” or “representations” - of concrete objects in their minds unto paper or by sculpturing it by hand (meaning, depictions of Angels, etc.)   I was raised a Christian and attended churches and have become familiar with “religious” paintings and sculptures that adorn them. 

We are certainly able to “retain” images of concrete objects we have seen in the past, in the form of general concepts that pertain to the empirical world – what we see.  We can also “retain” images of “what we have never seen before” – that is, what Kant refers to as “the transcendent realm” – which are referred to as abstract concepts.  We now turn to the human imagination as it pertains to abstract concepts.  

We must keep in mind once again that, in modern terms, the human imagination is a unique faculty of the mind in that that it allows us to “see”, or “perceive” concrete objects in the empirical world.  According to Kant, we only perceive the “appearance” of concrete objects; we cannot come to know a   concrete object “in-itself”.  What we see, or perceive, according to Kant, is the “appearance” of a concrete object that is “registered” as the “image”.  The human mind naturally craves for definitions of concrete objects and thus we “think of” or “conceive” of general concepts to understand, or to give a definition to, concrete objects we perceive.   However, Kant tells us our mind generates abstract concepts (e.g.  “The transcendent realm”, i.e., the Unseen) that do not point to anything we see, or have ever seen before with our eyes.  

According to Kant, the ideas pointing to abstract concepts are illusions; thus goes the saying that the mind sometimes “play tricks” on us at times.  According to Kant, a person has illusory thoughts or ideas of objects no one has ever seen before.  Modern philosophers of religion adopt Kant’s critical stance on human reason as it pertains to “some elements of religion” – the “transcendent realm”, or the Unseen, or miracles, for example.  Modern philosophers of religion, in brief, adopt a dim, if any, positive view on the religious “imagination”.  

Perhaps the only method by which a religious “imagination” can escape the specter of mental illusion, according to one author, is to “retain” some kind of “material image” of a concrete object (be it a painting or sculpture).  Early Christian theologians combined natural religion with the human imagination to explain religious matters, of things not seen on Earth, to explicate how God relates with His Universe. 

Peter Jonkers, professor of religion at the Faculty of Catholic Theology of Tilburg University, the Netherlands, asserts that the religious “imagination” is crucial for our capacity to be “closer” to the Divine by means of pious devotion.  My central inquiry is in response to an article[13] Mr. Jonkers had written on the need to re-inject this religious “imagination” within the discussion concerning the philosophy of religion; in other words, the religious “imagination” is crucial for religious piety and devotion. Is religious imagination possible, he asks, in the modern age where human reason occupies a central foundation for a philosophy of religion? 

I, as a Muslim, believe the religious “imagination” is certainly not necessary for faith in Allah (SWT) and the Unseen.  I, as a Muslim, believe that Allah (SWT) defies any description or conception that arises in my mind (which implies that He is not a figment of my imagination).  Muslims say that whatever we “think” of Allah (SWT), He is not what we “think” of him.  We do not complete the sentence:  “Allah (SWT) is _____”.  Allah (SWT) is far above any description we ascribe to Him!

 There is not much “religious imagination”, if at all, when I ponder on the Divine message contained in the Holy Qu’ran.   Muslims believe that the Holy Qur’an is like no other text, such as that written by scholars who inject their own prejudices.   Muslims believe that Almighty Allah [SWT] revealed the Holy Qur’an to Muhammad (salla- lahu-alaihi-wa-salam) via Jibril (ali-his-salam).  

Roman Christian theologians tell us that the object we see (such as a sculpture or painting) is not the “transcendent realm” itself (or as I call it “the Unseen”) but is a “representation” or “symbol” of the object itself.  Muslims waste no time in replying there is no need for “material objects” that purport to remind them of Allah (SWT).  I seek refuge in Allah (SWT) from this!  

I include word on this relationship between the object itself and whether that object is the “transcendent realm” itself.  We remove, for sake of argument, the “symbolism” to which early Christian theologians refer.  This direct relationship is what is referred to anthropomorphism.  Anthropomorphism is the mind’s spontaneous tendency to ascribe earthly characteristics (shape, etc.), or attribute to the Divine. 

Mr. Jonkers tell us that “…these anthropomorphic images (of the “Trinity” as represented as painting or sculpture) are by no means similar to the real, Transcendent object (the Trinity) they represent”[14].    How is this possible?  Mr. Jonkers say it is possible to envision a kind of religious imagination that takes into account the “essential dissimilarity between the Transcendent essence of the Trinity and its image (in our mind)”: 

“The only possibility to escape the danger of illusion is by keeping in mind that the image of the Trinity as human beings is symbolic…A symbol is indeed a product of imagination, yet it can never substitute the object it symbolizes”  (italics mine)[15].

Mr. Jonkers is implying here that the image of a concrete object (such as a painting or sculpture) we “retain” in our minds is a “symbol” of the “transcendent realm” – of God, His Angels, the Unseen, etc.  In this way, we escape the anthropomorphism inherent in ascribing earthly attributes to the Divine.

I remember attending a neighborhood church in Kingston, Jamaica, the West Indies, with other youths one Sunday morning.  As was usually the case, we were sitting in pews observing Mass, with persons in line up to take “the body of Christ”.  The members of the congregation receives this “body of Christ” as the pastor (or priest) places it on the congregant’s tongue.  I though this process of placing a “white wafer” of some type on a person’s tongue amusing, and I nearly burst out in laughter!

I took the opportunity once, while in college, to do a little research on this subject.  It turns out that this “white wafer” is supposed to “symbolize” the “body of Christ!”   This practice is traced to a religious concept called “Transubstantiation[16]”.  As I write this I refrain from finding a speck of amusement here. 

I believe the Holy Qur’an appeals to the human heart first, then the human mind.  Because the human heart is inclined to good as well as evil, the state of the human heart determines our mental well-being.  

The human heart, I believe, is related to the human mind – and Allah [SWT] Knows Best.  I believe the various religious images extant in the human imagination are directly related to the religious images gone astray in the human heart.  I believe that a person’s heart becomes imbued with “religious images” of the Divine and/or the Unseen as she or he views concrete objects such as Christian Art or sculpture.  The central question, then, is when viewing such Christian Art or sculpture creates a danger to the human imagination and cripples the spiritual condition of the human heart.  My awareness of this insight is based on the insight put forth by William Elmont Blyden, author of the classic text Islam, Christianity and the Negro Race[17].   Mr. Blyden’s contention is that Christian Art, those religious relics of European civilization as revealed in “Aryan” Art, has had a debilitating effect on the African personality, thereby rendering those Africans who are Christians inferior to Europeans, while for those Africans ascribing to the Muslim faith, their personalities were as robust as ever. 

My conversion to Islam occurred when I stepped into a masjid some ten years ago on Jamaica Avenue in Queens, New York, with a brother who invited me, only to see there were neither paintings nor sculptures there.

I say all this to relate an episode in my life while I was in college where I began to consider seriously the relationship (if any) between the subject (anyone going to church) and bowing towards a concrete object (a painting or sculpture – say, the Virgin Mary holding a child).  I juxtaposed these life-episodes with my eventual reversion to Islam when I stepped in the masjid with another brother one Friday afternoon some ten years ago and saw worshippers lined up behind a lone person (I now know that person is the most knowledgeable of all on Islam), the Imam, with all bowing and prostrating to Allah (SWT), who is Unseen and without Partners in His Kingdom.

I now consider the question:  so what is the reason for these paintings and sculptures in the first place?

Up until then I had abandoned some rudimentary practice of prayer from time to time as a Catholic and have had to struggle to make prayer five times per day.  But I never took seriously some passages from the Old Testament of the Holy Bible on the topic I consider in this column, until now.  I include a few verses of the Holy Bible[18] here:

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in the heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” (Exodus 20:4).

“You shall not make idols for yourselves or erect an image or pillar, and you shall not set up a figured stone in your land to bow down to it, for I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 26:1).

“Beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth. And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven” (Deuteronomy 4: 16-19).

I, as a Muslim, believe and testify there is no similarity between the Creator, Allah (SWT), and His creation, whether in “images” or “symbols”.  I was struck when I read the following words in Ma’ariful Qur’an, a comprehensive commentary on the Holy Qur’an:

“…the Companion ‘Adi ibn Hatim (radi-allahu-anhu) relates that when he embraced Islam and presented himself before the Holy Prophet (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam) with a cross hanging round his neck, the Holy Prophet (sallalahu-alaihi-wa-salam) asked him to remove this idol”[19].

Early Christian theologians tell us that the “symbolism” of a concrete object (the most similar of which is the “crucifixion of Christ”, as symbolized as a cross) do not lead others to the error of anthropomorphism or polytheism.  I reject this view; a person who reduces the Divine to a “symbol” is insulting the Most High!

Nu’aim Al-Kuza’I, the teacher of Al-Bukhari[20], said:

“Whoever likens Allah to his creatures is a disbeliever, and whoever denies the Attributes that Allah ascribes to Himself is a disbeliever.  It is impossible to liken Allah to any of his Creatures[21]”.

When someone inquired Imam Malik about the manner in which Allah (SWT) Himself rose over the Throne, he said:

“Allah’s action of rising over the Throne is known, the manner in which this was done is not known (italics mine), the belief in this matter is obligatory, and inquiring about this matter in religion is an innovation, or Bid’ah[22]”.

Then he addressed the inquirer thus, “You are but an evil person”.  Then he asked the people around him to send him out.  Umm Salama (radiallahu-anha), the Prophet’s wife, is reported to have made the same statement[23]”.

The writer is a recent revert to Islam and can be contacted at:  hd72201@gmail.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagine_(album)  

[2] How many people died in the Vietnam War?  Answers.com WikiAnswers

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_died_in_the_Vietnam_War

[3] http://ev.ca.campusgrid.net/home/Teachers+&+Staff/Staff+Directory/Staff+Web+Pages/Charles+West/English+4/20041215143651.pdf

[4] Lippens, Ronnie.  The Interstitial and Creativity:  Bergson and Fitzpatrick on the Emergency of Law.  Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology.  2010, Vol. 2. (2) 1-21.

http://www.jtp.crim.org/July_2010/The-Instititial-and-Creativity-Bergson-and-Fitzpatrick-on-the-Emergency-of-Law.pdf

[5] Glossary of Kant’s Technical Terms.  http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/ksp1/KSPglos.html

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Imagination definition by Babylon’s free dictionary. 

http://dictionary.babylon.com/imagination/ 

[9] http://csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/imagination.htm

[10] Ali Mesbah.  Subject-Object Relation in Mulla Sadra’s Theory of Knowledge.

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Tkno/TknoMesb.htm

[11] Al-Farabi’s Doctrine of Education: Between Philosophy and Sociological Theory.

http://www.muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm? ArticleID=1080.

[12] Jum’uah khutbah, Muhammadi Masjid, Elmont, New York.

[13] Jonkers, Peter.  Illusory Imagination versus Nihilistic Reason.A Historical-Philosophical Case Study of the Role of Imagination in Religion.  Proceedings of the 14^th Conference of the European Society for Philosophy of Religion, Cambridge, UK, 2002.

http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000056/article.pdf

[14] ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Transubstantiation.  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

[17] Blyden, William Elmont. Islam, Christianity and the Negro Race.  (1994). Black Classic Press.

[18] Bible Verses about Graven Images. 

http://www.openbible.info/topics/graven_images

[19] Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi.  Ma’ariful Qur’an:  A comprehensive commentary on the Holy Qur’an.  Vol. 1 (Surah Al-Fatihah, Al-Baqarah).  (1996).  Maktaba-e-Darul-Uloom, Karachi – 14., pg.87

[20] The Concise Collection of Creed & Tauhid.  Darussalam Publishers & Distributors. (2001).

[21] Ibid, pg. 382.

[22] Ibid, pg. 378.

[23] Ibid, pg. 378-379.

The central question today is whether we, as Muslims, can impart to our neighbors, friends and consequently the wider society of non-Muslims the "true" nature of being a Muslim.

I, as a Muslim believe that Allah’s (SWT) Legislation, the Sharia, is the only path to human happiness.  Nonetheless, I understand clearly that I, as a Muslim, live among non-Muslims here in the United States - a non-Muslim land.  Muslims living in Europe are also living in non-Muslim lands.  We, as Muslims, must respect the laws of the land we reside in. 

My conclusion on this matter is not based on some political ideological basis.  I am certainly not disturbed by the fact that I, as a Muslim, am living in the United States, a non-Muslim land.  The United States Constitution gives no deference or loyalty to any religion.  I respect that.  I do not imagine in any way that I wish to establish Sharia Law here in the United States by force.   I have no capacity to do so, and I’m certainly not aligning myself with anyone who thinks they can do so.  Doing so would be following a blind horse.  At some point both I and the blind horse will fall off a cliff.

Imam Zaid Shakr, a resident Islamic scholar at the Zaytuna Institute here in California, has written a clear and lucid article articulating a clear distinction between religion and political ideology, and I recommend all Muslims to read it.  The danger, the Imam contends is reducing the sacred textual verses of the Holy Qur’an that is theological and eschatological in meaning, to a personal, political program of action.  I include an excerpt of the Imam’s article to support this narrow view:   

“Politicized readings of our texts can be seen as part of the growing tendency to reduce Islam to a political ideology.  The implications of this reduction are grave.  Perhaps the gravest of those implications is turning the primary focus of Islam away from the spirit or soul and orienting it towards the world, thereby reducing the sacred understanding to the level of the mundane.”[1]

Partly what the Imam is saying here is that too often we apply our personal intentions to the sacred text of Islam, the Holy Qur’an that are clearly theological in scope to bolster our personal political cause of action. 

 Secular scholars know the writings of Karl Marx.  Marx is best known for offering a lengthy critique of capitalism, the economic engine of all industrialized nations.  It would be false, however, to conclude that Karl Marx is solely responsible for the Russian Revolution of 1917.  Vladimir Illych Lenin, along with other compatriots, transformed Marx’s theoretical critique of capitalism to a clear political program of action for political conditions existing within the Soviet Union at the time.  According to a lengthy article on the subject, Lenin realized the workers in the industrialized nations did not inculcate a revolutionary class-consciousness Marx had predicted due to increased poverty, but instead adopted “bourgeois” values instead of supporting the communist cause[2] .  Similarly, it would be incorrect to suggest that Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who criticized Thomas Hobbes’ contention that man “in the state of nature…has   no idea of goodness he must be naturally wicked; that he is vicious because he does not know virtue”, is solely responsible for the French Revolution.  One lengthy article goes on to say that the “cult that grew up around Rousseau after his death, and particularly the radicalized versions of Rousseau’s ideas that were adopted by Robespierre and Saint-Just during the Reign of Terror, caused him [Rousseau]to become identified with the most extreme aspects of the French Revolution (italics mine)[3].      

I suggest that we, as Muslims, commit ourselves to the fundamentals of the Muslim faith.  We must desist from what we “think” the fundamentals of the Muslim faith are; the fundamentals of our faith are what we believe them to be.  “Religious fundamentalism” somehow implies that religious persons are bent on toppling political institutions by any means necessary.  This is far from the truth.  Political ideologies are not based on pre-existent moral or ethical standards[4].  Islam advances strict guidelines for war, which must be based on spiritual guidance.  Suicide bombers are certainly not spiritually guided; they indiscriminately murder innocent men, women and children to advance personal, narrow political views.

We can only know of the fundamentals of our faith by consulting with the scholars of our faith.  Many scholars of our faith visit the masjid for lectures and the like, along with the chance of visiting other scholars.  Our scholars are found exclusively at the masjid.  The masjids today are largely empty most of the time.

The masjid is the place where we seek the resident scholar, the Alim or Hafiz of Qu’ran, for answers to our questions. To be a Muslim is to believe in daw’ah, or propagation of our faith to non-Muslims.  How are we to perform daw’ah to non-Muslims without sound knowledge from our scholars? 

This “commitment” as a Muslim must not be confused with “human ideologies”.  This “commitment” must stem from the human heart and inspired by the Holy Qur’an and the Prophet’s Sunna.  “Human ideologies” refer in one way or another to our intellectual imaginations about the best path to human happiness through political, economic or social activities, and of what these various spheres of human activity ought to be for everyone within our midst.  Muslims must refrain from committing the error of “intellectual masturbation”.  

There are as many political ideologies as there are people and their imaginations.  Secular scholars tell us about democracy, oligarchy, capitalism, socialism, communism, etc.  Secular scholars today are now talking about “Islamism”.  None of these political ideologies leads anyone to true human happiness.   Muslims must desist from overlapping these human ideologies with their faith.  I, for one, see human ideologies as idol-worship.

I admit that I once thought Frantz Fanon as my “hero”.  I no longer view him as a “hero”.  Frantz Fanon was a fiery revolutionary of the 1960’s who poured all his intellectual and physical energies to define political colonialism of non-European peoples as a stifling force.  Fanon’s main objective was to work earnestly or lay a foundation for a day when all non-European peoples liberate themselves from European political colonialism.  In Fanon’s day, people identified with his philosophical ideology of human liberation because they identified with Fanon as a savior, and they thought Fanon had all the answers for the best path to human liberation.  In a real sense, Fanon sympathizers see fanon as a god. This is far from the truth.  Fanon himself tells us he does not come to us with timeless truths[5].  Fanon is no Prophet.  Muslims believe that everyone, even Fanon himself, will be judged by Allah (SWT) on the Day of Judgment, and His Judgment will be meted out to all human beings including ourselves, philosophers - secular or otherwise -, poets, and the like, after the end of time as we know it to be.   

Muslims must desist from making mischief on the Earth.  I, for one, desist from adding to it.

Much of the tremendous human bloodshed we see around us today – in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, etc., is due to political ideologies.  The holocaust is directly attributed to Nazism, a nascent political ideology that has led Adolf Hitler and his compatriots to exterminate millions of Jews and other non-whites in Germany, including Muslims.  One lengthy article goes on to say that many adherents of Nazi political ideology centered on Nietzche’s conception of politics for political inspiration, even though Nietzsche himself scorned anti-Semitism and German nationalism[6].  Here is what the article has to say on this subject:

“The real problem with the labeling of Nietzsche as a Fascist, or worse, a Nazi, is that it ignores the fact that Nietzsche’s aristocratism seeks to revive an older conception of politics, on which he locates in Greek agon…One an affinity like this is appreciated, the absurdity of describing Nietzsche’s political thought as ‘Fascist’ or Nazi, becomes readily apparent”[7].

Clearly we, as Muslims, have work to do.  We must work on our spiritual selves.  The most important aspect of Jihad, according to the Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him and his progeny) is the “greater” Jihad – a sense of self-improvement through moral, spiritual and intellectual endeavors, which must to be subordinate to any political and/or military aspect of Islam –the “little” Jihad [8].   

The writer is a recent revert to Islam and can be contacted at:  hd72201@gmail.com

http://web.mac.com/jawziyyah/TheJawziyyah_Institute/Blog/Blog_files?Religion%20 or %20Ideology.pdf

[2] Marxism-Leninism. New World Encyclopedia.

http://http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Marxism-Leninism   

[3] Jean-Jacques Rousseau.  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau

[4] Islam: Religion or Ideology?

[5] Fanon and the Epidemiology of Oppression.  lundi 30 novembre 2009, par Zia Sardar. 

http://frantzfanoninternational.org/spip.php?article193  

[6] Influence and reception of Friederich Nietzsche.  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_and_reception_of_Friedrich Nietzsche

[7] ibid.

[8] Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet. 

http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/ma_violence.shtml