What Defines A Muslim? (3) C'mon, Now, Really

Look. I think it all comes down to one very simple point that I made in Part 1. If you really believe God sent down the Qur'an, do what He says to do in it.

Honestly, though? Just do what you want; what you believe to be right. I'm not going to treat you any different or any of that which comes with a medieval outlook and "you're not one of us" BS. It's you and God. But please, claiming yourself to be 'Muslim' as you directly contradict the essence of Islam itself – the Qur'an – is, I think, as much of a crime as Osama Bin Laden's twisting of the Qur'an to fulfill his own sick fantasies. After all – he had an interpretation of his own, right? An interpretation that any sane person immediately condemned. They did not cast him out of Islam – only God can do that, and no human being can judge another – they did not accuse him of 'not being a Muslim anymore', but they condemned his interpretation. His action.

That is what I hope we can do here. Never condemn the person – never treat them but anything with the utmost respect, love, kindness. The way you want to be treated. But, for God's sake, do not condone their actions. Condemning a person and what they do are two very different things and that's the reason why I'm not a sick maniac whom you would be justified to call a self-righteous isolationist. Condemning PEOPLE, casting myself as God, determining who's right and who's wrong (and I hope I've made it quite clear) is not what I'm talking about.

I'm just saying, look within yourself and ask yourself if you can really justify what you're doing. I hope I've not offended anyone and that I've been able to get my message across clearly.

(Incidentally, I also regard with a jaundiced eye those who say my point of view is 'idealistic' and 'not caught up with the times'. So refusing a glass of wine and that flirty hunk is that difficult? Making time for God in your day is impossible? Come on. We have countless examples of faithful, practicing Muslims who manage to do it in spite of the barrage of urges to do otherwise! Why give ourselves the easy way out?)

In all, God gave us these instructions for a reason. C'mon, people. Let's follow them.

What Defines A Muslim? (2) The Interpretation Question

Okay all, here's part 2 of this series: my bound-to-come-short attempt at the definition of a Muslim. It was brought on by discussions on Twitter as well as, believe it or not, walking through a Saudi mall!

One thing that must be stressed here is that this is NOT meant to represent that I'm walking around with a checklist of Criteria To Be Met if someone Claims To Be Muslim - "or else". I'm just kind of annoyed at the extent the 'Muslim by name' phenomenon has reached. Here in the Arab world specifically, Saudi Arabia especially, it's getting kind of ridiculous. I once was speaking to a girl in my class; she mentioned that she didn't cover her hair when she traveled. I asked her, "Do you really believe that you should?" She said "Sure!" – and, when asked further about why she didn't back up her beliefs with actions, simply shrugged.

So is this a case of words not matching up with actions? Beliefs not translated into real, live, factual stuff? I think it is. I think it's an attitude of carelessness, a kind of laissez-faire picked up from the general attitude about religion nowadays. "It's what in your heart that counts." Of course it is – but what is in your heart and words and intentions are NOTHING without deeds to back them up, as well as vice-versa. That's just common sense. Why else is "those who believe" always, always directly followed by "and do good deeds" in the Qur'an?

So I really detest this attitude of "I know what I'm going to do but I'm too lazy to do it"… which is the first category of non-practicing Muslims. Frankly, if the girl had told me "no, I actually don't believe I should cover my hair" because she had researched the actual subject and had come to the conclusion (as many have) that covering one's hair is indeed unnecessary, I would've respected her far more.

This brings us to the second category: Muslims who claim that their interpretation of the sacred texts has enabled them to follow Islam as they see fit. Naturally and as a matter of course there are different understandings of how Islam ought to be practiced. As mentioned in Part 1, that's the beauty of it, and re-interpretation MUST be done if a true Islamic Reformation is to be accomplished. It's part of Islam and refuting the, unfortunately, all-too-often outdated, misogynistic, patriarchal, *insert synonym of BAD of your choice here* system and edicts Muslims have been following blindly for centuries because someone told them the door of interpretation was closed and that's it. I'm of the opinion that the decay and downfall of the Muslim world was in part caused by that cursed idea. It needs to be rectified, immediately – and responsibly. Let's not get carried away here.

So excuse me if I regard with a jaundiced eye the claims of people who drink, who don't pray, who have sex without being married. It's just, how exactly do you 'interpret' (impolitely: 'twist around') direct orders? Nothing ambiguous, just "do" and "don't do"?

Don't drink alcohol.

Direct punishment for those who have sex outside of marriage.

PRAY, for God's sake!

Do I really need to get verses in the Qur'an to back this up? Really, guys? (As always, I'd love to hear if you've got an interpretation that says it's OK for any of the above.)

(continued in Part 3 - I'd get sued for length otherwise.)

What Defines A Muslim? (1) An Introduction

(I'll be as clear-cut and to the point as possible today. Please do not be offended and if you have any comments you’d like to make after reading this piece, feel very free to comment below or contact me on my Twitter handle @TheLogicker.)

Okay, let’s get on with it. Today’s blog post shall be about the definition of a Muslim. Simple, right? You believe in God and that Muhammad is His Prophet; pray five times a day; fast for a month once a year; give to charity; and of course make the pilgrimage to Makkah. The five pillars of Islam, basically... But no.

Two conversations with two excellent people, both on Twitter, brought an opinion contrary to mine (dubbed the traditional viewpoint) to my attention, and which they agree upon: that it doesn’t matter what you do, as long as you identify as a Muslim. Basically, as long as you introduce yourself as “I’m Muslim” you can be doing whatever you want, five pillars optional. Just “be a good person” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) and you are welcome to the club.

No doubt their opinion is shared by many, but not by me.

I do see where they’re coming from. An isolationist, self-righteous, “we’re the only ones who are right” technique, an exclusive club in which only self-proclaimed members can join is not the way to go. We see it a lot today in Muslims and I guess that’s what spurred this small but growing movement on. Let us not abandon, isolate, hate. Let us embrace, let us love. But my lack of acceptance of this stems from my belief that there is quite a difference between loving someone and accepting them, and condoning what they do - and that is the difference which concerns us here. Melting into society, to the extent that there are no truly unique people anymore, is not the way to go either. It stands for something not good that it has started happening now.

Because we ARE different. God tells us that He has created us “in different peoples and tribes that you may get to know one another” (Qur’an Hujurat- ), and we should celebrate that difference. No, we do not want to go back to rampant racism, and superiority because of religious or ethnic background. We do not want to go back to “I’m right and you’re wrong” to be settled at the tip of a sword, and a world in which we fight over faith. We have come too far to return to that. But what we most certainly do not want to do is to water our faith down into a name, a label (is not the very worst thing we can do to ourselves is to self-label?), until it means nothing at all.

Let us begin with something I think we can all agree distinguishes a Muslim: belief in the Qur’an. If you’re going to disagree with me on that, really… Stop reading now, please. The Qur’an is what began identification of Islam as a distinct religion, is the revelation sent to the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, may peace be upon him - so to beat around the bush with anything resembling “I’m a Muslim but I don’t believe in the Qur’an” is going a tad too far. Really. (Any other opinions, of course, disagreeing with my previous statement I’d be glad to hear.)

Okay, the Qur’an. I’ve gotten into arguments with people (yes, it would be more polite to call it ‘a discussion’ but I’m being honest) when I tell them MUSLIMS FOLLOW WHAT IS IN THE QUR’AN: they say, “but who can determine what the Qur’an says in the first place? There are so many interpretations!” They are right, and that is the beauty of Islam: the multiple interpretations. The possibilities left open.

I’ll go off on a tangent here: the beauty of Islam is that it is a modern religion without having to be modernized. Islam does not truly need ‘reform’, or change, which is why I distrust any self-proclaimed reformation movements. I think a belief that a religion really needs such a thing would contradict the belief of its being from an all-Powerful, omnipresent, omnipotent Creator. If a religion so desperately needs to be changed from its core, it’s a clear sign to me that it’s just not the right thing to believe in. I’d abandon my faith in that religion - without a single qualm, I hope - because I refuse to belittle myself to the point of attaching myself to a belief system that’s been concocted by human hands.

Because really - would we ever need to teach God anything? Would we need to change anything that comes from He of the Ninety-Nine Names, a system we have been ordered to follow? No. All we can do is cut away the man-made trappings that’ve been draped on it over time - and boy, how those mundane trappings have obscured the crystal brilliance in this religion. The stem of this entire argument - of my entire professed belief as a Muslim - is that whatever discrepancies or faultiness we may see in Islam is nothing but the errors of people. Therefore we should have no qualms in accepting Islam as a whole: mind, body, and soul: the farthest thing possible than merely a label.

Gah. I’ve overstepped myself. Time to cut this off here and continue later - and, I assure you, God willing this will be continued. Like I said discussion is welcome. I’d love to hear your thoughts as I continue with this, so you can help me formulate my own ideas. Nothing in our heads is set in stone unless we deem it to be, and to deem anything in my head solid or beyond doubt is beyond naïve (aka: you of the opposite viewpoint, you have the chance to convince me yet ;).

I’ll see you soon.

(NEXT: The Interpretation Question)

Science vs. Religion, a Musing

It's an age-old cliche: science vs religion. Faith vs reason. As though the two are opposites; as though neither can live while the other survives (to quote Harry Potter tongue-in-cheek). As though they are locked at each other's throats in an eternal battle to the death. One will vanquish the other eventually, and for now the victor seems to be science. I mean, it's obvious, right? Religion is fast becoming irrelevant in the developing world for several different reasons.

First of all, no more fear of the unknown. People know why things happen now, without having to use God as an excuse. God is now considered to be a 'safety net'; a vain attempt to ward off the threat of looming death into something more friendly. Self-delusion, wasted hope, whatever you want to call it: in their opinion, that's religion. They want to see themselves as people who can depend on themselves, not on some foreign unseen deity in the sky.

Then there is the problem that people have with the whole 'organized religion' thing. Churchmen, sheikhs, rabbis; they are all seen as clinging to traditions of the past (whether the traditions are good or bad). Our century is all about shaking up institutions and religion is being treated no differently.

Finally, most people aren't choosing their religion anyway. They take the convenient way out - following their parents' beliefs, mostly without any real conviction. Religious holidays have become empty rituals to be followed half-heartedly, for example; church every Sunday, or the mosque every Friday - even Islam's five daily prayers - has become a drag. Because who's going to go for something they haven't been motivated for, haven't chosen, in the first place?

Why I'm Not Threatened By Science

So why am I, a religious person, not threatened by the looming scepter of science-come-to-steal-God? Or rather, why am I STILL a religious person?

I think it's because I'm Muslim. Let me explain.

In Islam you are ORDERED to seek knowledge, from the cradle to the grave. The bases of many sciences and arts - algebra; optics; the guitar -are of Muslim origin. Go here to find out more about Muslims' inventions: http://www.1001inventions.com

So knowledge is no threat to me. How so? Let's take the example of evolution first, and how it has unbalanced Christianity. (Meaning no offense to any particular religion, incidentally; this is just detailing the wider topic of just why religion has been rejected today.)

Now, the Church rejects the theory of evolution for many different reasons, mostly because it doesn't mesh with the way the Bible describes creation happened. First light, then the plants, then the animals (I'm not listing literally, I don't know the sequence by heart).

Evolution - modern scientific discovery - comes along and tips the Biblical account onto its head.

What does the Church do?

a) Embrace: this runs counter to its own teachings

b) Bluster: this means nothing except to those doing the blustering

c) Ignore.

Needless to say, c) is the preferred route.

But what would Islam do? Or what do I, as a Muslim, do?

First of all, never mind whether or not the theory of evolution is true. Arguing about it will send you down the proverbial rabbit hole (I've tried it) so unless you're a molecular biologist or the like and that stuff directly interests you, I prefer to take another stance.

I think that we have no right to outline and put down in concrete exactly how God created the world. He could have created it any way He wanted to, in His infinite wisdom and knowledge. I don't have a problem believing in the theory of evolution because I think that in the end, evolution itself proves the existence of God by violating one of the laws of physics:

The Beginning.

Something cannot come out of nothing.

Therefore, the nothing must have come out of something. The action of the Big Bang must have been caused by... something.

What is this something, how is this something, who is this something?

I believe it is God.

In the end, if God does exist, and He created this universe, and He created us, then learning about this universe and the nature of our own souls can hold no threat for us or our faith or our eternal souls, as long as we keep the essential thing in mind:

That everything has always come into being with a purpose.

:)

_________________

A good piece dealing with the same topic:

http://www.emel.com/article.php?id=79&a_id=2209&c=63&return=big%20bang

Islam and Violence (2): If You're Telling The Truth, Why Are Muslims Violent In The First Place?

Greetings and peace to everybody!

I don't think my previous post, and what it entailed, is enough in explaining why the core and truth of Islam is one of peace.

Listing down violent-sounding verses in the Qur'an, and detailing why they're actually not, is all very well. However, how does that resolve the question of "Why are Muslims violent anyway?" Sure, they may not supposed to be - but they ARE. Ha! says the New "Expert" on Islam: Explain that!

Today I will attempt to post the summation of my theory on that topic. I'll try to keep it short and concise as possible, which may be difficult because I haven't actually put it in words before, but I'll do my best.

The difference between violent Muslims and moderate Muslims is the difference between a medieval state of mind and a modern practice of religion, the difference between the way nation-states were formed in the past and the way they are now.

To make a long story short: you know how Islamophobes like to say "Islam is a political movement"?

Well, if you've been living in the fifth century it was. ALL religions were political movements. If you were in a country, you followed the same religion as everyone else. You believed what everyone else believed - or you were supposed to. After all, if you didn't, the nation would fall into anarchy and strife and would eventually go kaput, right? Right - because in those times, it was true. (More about that later.)

Delving in further, another branch of that thinking is the one that goes: Everyone has to be the same! Everyone has to look the same, talk the same; basically, all those trappings of the Dark Ages that the we've been trying to cast behind us with diversity and globalization and all that, that's been going on for a while and is the great gift of the modern world.

We indoctrinate our kids with it (if I had a penny for every cartoon character that's reached the enlightening conclusion of "IT'S GREAT TO BE ME!"...) and it's getting quite tiresome, actually.

But the reason I bear the achingly sweet Disney songs is that in the end, however cheesy they are, they are true. We humans are more alike than we realize. With the celebration of diversity and globalization and all that, and the tinny notes of "It's a Small World After All", we reach the most precious thing of all...

Tolerance.

That blessed idea that as humans, we're all together in the same boat, however different from each other we are; so we need to respect that. You may not necessarily like it - it doesn't have to appeal to you - but you need to put up with it because it's the right thing to do.

That, there, is Conclusion One. Modern world = (mostly) tolerance.

So what does this have to do with Muslims?

Well, to bring it along, there's a touchy topic in Islam. It's the issue of overzealous following of what medieval jurists who came centuries after the Prophet ordained.

That no more is open to interpretation: it's all been done already, you don't need to bother your head about it...

"Just sit down - there, right there! - take this book" (you struggle with the weight) "Now - don't think, just MEMORIZE!!! Shhh. No arguing. Memorization. Do you think you're better than all these learned scholars who wrote these books?! Huh? Do you?!

"I didn't think so. Now MEMORIZE."

I can say a lot more about this topic, but suffice it for the moment to say that that's why the medieval way of doing things - not the Islamic way, but the seventh-eighth century way - has stuck. People are so afraid of 'going against the Righteous Ancestors' that they won't put a toe out of the line that has been drawn by them.

This is Conclusion Two.

Keep in mind, and this is very important, I'm not dissing the Righteous Ancestors. I respect them for their tremendous awareness of God, their passion for their religion, the degree of which that we modern people can hardly hope to attain! I'm talking about the general medieval way of thinking. Which is what brings us to Conclusion Three...

US

vs

THEM.

Nation-states go to war with each other, right? Obviously. The difference between now and then is that nation-states were based UPON religion. This was the land of the believers, this was the land of the non-believers. If that nation-state invades you, it's the non-believers attacking you - not the people who are probably just want what you have and they don't.

That medieval mentality - the Righteous Ancestors' mentality, justified as theirs was and unjustified as it is now - has carried off into today. When the US invaded Iraq, it wasn't the US invading Iraq. It was THE NON-MUSLIMS BATTLING OUR MUSLIM BROTHERS! WE MUST GO AND FIGHT FOR OUR MUSLIM BROTHERS AGAINST THE NON-BELIEVERS!

I believe that may be a direct quote of Osama bin Laden; and just about every other terrorist there is out there. They ALL cite Iraq, or Afghanistan, or any of the countless Muslim countries the US has invaded as reasons to PICK UP YOUR WEAPONS AND GO FIGHT, YOU COWARDS! Not as "it's the US invading" - as a Christian country, as the NON-BELIEVERS invading.

So hostility is created towards Christians: a majority targeted for the actions of a minority. This is the issue: realistically, terrorists wouldn't have a game plan if the US hadn't invaded wherever they invaded.

I'm not justifying what they're doing. But, Americans: They don't 'hate you because they're free'. They 'hate' you because they see themselves as wronged, they want to get revenge, and they decide to use the verses in the Qur'an that a less learned person would accept their interpretation of without question, to justify their wanting to kill and kill and kill.

In the end, in Islam there really is no such thing as "Kill the infidel just 'cos he's an infidel". As illustrated in the previous post, there was always a reason: the oppressors, the ones who have fought against you, those who have broken the treaty...

That is why Islam is a religion of peace. And because this has gone on for so long, I'll leave it at that. (Short and concise? Dream on, Maryam...)

Finally, I just hope I got the message across.

To everyone:

PEACE.