Trends and Flaws in Some Anti-Muslim Writing as Exemplified by Ibn Warraq

Jeremiah D. McAuliffe, Jr., Ph.D.

alimhaq@city-net.com speed.city-net.com/~alimhaq/miaha.html www.ampcast.com/drjihad

Bism Allah, al-Rahman, al-Raheem....

The 1995 book "Why I Am Not A Muslim" by Ibn Warraq (ISBN 0-87975-984-4) seems to me to illustrate a number of important issues for today's Muslim. These issues are related not only to how we understand and respond to those hostile to Islam. Disturbingly, Warraq's book does validly reflect back to us the severity of the ummah's current problems in the areas of religious education and Islamic practice.
In my general experience Muslims are often unskilled when it comes to responding to anti-Muslim polemic. In general, we only repeat back-- parrot-like-- what we have read in a few popular books, or what we have heard some impressive personality say. Many of us practice our religion only because "this is what our forefathers taught" and have failed to truly choose Islam in a mature and thoughtful manner. We understand and practice religion as do children and adolescents, rather than as adults. Because of this our skills and level of understanding are often inadequate to truly understand, and thus respond to, anti-Muslim propaganda. This is even more the case when we are confronted with valid criticism by anti-Muslims.
Warraq's book is easily one of the more vicious anti-Muslim writings I've ever read that is of recent publication. This stems from his strange combination of valid criticism of contemporary Muslim practice and Muslim attitudes with what seems to be a real ignorance of what is actually communicated by the Qur'an and sunnah.
Warraq's book is long, detailed, referenced and footnoted, but with extensive and glaring intellectual flaws. It would take a book twice as long as his to refute each of his errors. This paper shall first identify five general flaws that are present in Warraq's work and are also often seen in other anti-Muslim writing. I shall then discuss some issues and problems specific to Warraq's book. Throughout both parts I shall draw attention to areas that appear to me to be valid criticism.
PART I: FIVE GENERAL ERRORS COMMON TO WARRAQ AND OTHER ANTI-MUSLIM WRITERS
1. There is a failure to recognize that Islam emerges out of a past that is then integrated into Islam. Or rather, this is considered to be some kind of a flaw, rather than a simple fact of all human reality. Everything and everyone comes out of, is influenced by, and incorporates a cultural past. This would appear to be a simple fact of all reality, but seems to be a problem for anti-Muslims.
Islam, like anything in human experience, comes out of a very specific historical and cultural milieu. Thus, the word "Allah" was known and used before the Qur'anic revelation. Rituals and pilgrimages to the Ka'ba were practiced before the onset of the Qur'anic revelation and were then adapted for Muslim use. Muhammad (saws) knew of and interacted with the Jews and Christians and hanifs of the times-- he was aware of their theologies. Arabic, like all languages, incorporated words from other languages which are then in the Qur'an. This is all accepted in Islam, and causes no problems. It seems strange to me that it would. Be that as it may, it is common in anti-Muslim writings to use the above points as some kind of a negative proof against our claim that the Qur'an is a revelation from God and Muhammad is a messenger from God. Warraq is no exception, though the logic of such a position escapes me. Indeed, it seems absurd and in denial of simple reality. He also, like others hostile to (or just grossly ignorant of) Islam portrays Muhammad as a power-hungry hedonist-- perhaps not realizing that he is only repeating wartime propaganda from the Crusades?
2. There is a failure to treat the Qur'an and sunnah as a whole. Muslims themselves make this mistake, and so cannot be too upset when those hostile to Islam do it too. So, for instance, people will take ayats from the Qur'an with no reference to other qualifying ideas in the Qur'an and with no reference to the historical situation at the time of the incident of revelation. (And I didn't even mention the centuries of commentary on the Qur'an and sunnah!) We often see this in Muslims who are possessed of an inordinate hatred for our Jewish cousins, or an inordinate hatred of non-Muslims, or who are harshly judgmental towards their Muslim brothers and sisters who may understand the Qur'an and sunnah a bit differently than they do. Such people will cite verses related to times of war, take them out of context, and disconnect them from the ethos presented by the Qur'an and sunnah as a whole. This same error is then used by those hostile to Islam in order to portray the Qur'an as advocating things such as aggressive violence and abuse of women.
This error can be a manipulative technique used by both violent and sexist Muslims, and by anti-Muslims trying to prove that Islam teaches and encourages violence and sexism.
We must always remember, and confront anti-Muslims with the idea that the Qur'an and sunnah present to us a whole, a gestalt, a total world-view, and an élan. Islam presents a unified, integrated, consonant portrait of all aspects of human reality. It denies nothing about actual human behavior and experience and so discusses all aspects of it and how the parts interrelate and, most importantly, how it can be ennobled and improved. The Qur'an acknowledges human behavior as it is, and seeks to ennoble it.
Islam presents what we might call the tawheedian world-view. Anti-Muslims do not grasp this, or realize what it means, or ignore it. Many Muslims who have been influenced by other types of world-view such as the ethnocentric, nationalist or Newtonian-Cartesian also fail to truly grasp this.
What this means in this context is that we cannot even accurately discuss Islamic views on topics such as gender relations or warfare without also, at the same time, discussing Islamic views on economics, social justice, sexuality, political relations, etc. In Islam, the whole illustrates the parts, and the parts, in turn, illustrate the whole. Any discussion of particular ayats that may appear to countenance aggressive violence or sexism must also, at the same time, refer to other seemingly unrelated topics. In Islam, many topics that may seem unrelated to some people are in fact related and shed light on each other and cannot be discussed apart from each other.
In the US we have a saying: "He misses the forest for the trees". That is, the person is so caught up in details he misses the totality of what is in front of him or her, and so misunderstands that at which he or she is looking. A forest is a total ecosystem. Will the person who looks only at individual trees understand the dynamic system that is the whole forest? Of course not. So too, we have to "grasp the ethos" of the Qur'an and sunnah-- the tawheedian world-view-- attempt to communicate it to non-Muslims, and use it to rebut the misrepresentations of Islam put forth by anti-Muslims such as Ibn Warraq.
3. There is a failure to recognize Muslim self-criticism. The ummah as a whole knows this generation's practice of our religion is, at best, poor. (Though we certainly debate the causes and cures of this test from God and pray we are the generation to establish an Islamic Renaissance.) I know of no Muslim who would argue that we today exemplify-- by any stretch of the imagination-- the principles and ideals of Islam. Anti-Muslims (including Warraq) ignore this. They will then hold up to us a mirror that does indeed reflect back our poor submission to the will of God, but they attempt to then portray this as normative, exemplary Islam.
When we acknowledge our own faults and defects and poor practice we are freed to respond effectively to those who would turn our faults into a weapon against the Qur'an and sunnah. Our collective and individual sins and defects do not indict the Qur'an and sunnah, they indict us.
4. There is a confusion of Arab or others' cultural practices and customs with Islam. Again, this is something that many Muslims do themselves. Anti-Muslims such as Warraq will present unique ethnic cultural practices and beliefs that may appear negative or even repulsive to those from other cultural backgrounds. The manipulative technique is to then equate issues related that cultural practice to Islamic teaching, or to Islam's effect upon that particular culture. Such attitudes ignore the incredible cultural and ethnic variety of the ummah and the simple demographic fact that most Muslims are not Arab, but Indonesian. This cultural and ethnic variety is rather apparent in the United States and seems difficult to ignore.
Islam presents the unique idea of a community that we might call post-ethnic and post-nationalist. Islam calls humanity to a community based upon shared belief in tawheedian monotheism-- not upon blood, nor genetics, nor nationalist identity. Many people, however, express their ethnic and nationalist pride, identity or yearning in the name of Islam and use Islamic language and Islamic sounding rationalizations to cover up their true ethnocentric and nationalistic desires. We thus provide ammunition for anti-Muslim propagandists.
Muslims have failed to truly begin to disentangle Islamic ideals from socio-cultural expressions, and have not yet truly wrestled with the relation between Islamic principles-- applicable to all times and people-- and specific ethnic/cultural/nationalist realities that challenge today's ummah.
5. Perhaps the greatest general error in Warraq's writing, and in similar writings, is yet another error also practiced by many contemporary Muslims. It is a failure to recognize the importance of literary genre when approaching the Qur'an, or any text, for that matter. That is, what "type of book" is the Qur'an? The Qur'an is not a history book, nor is it a science text. At its most basic it is a book that addresses the issue of that Who (or which) transcends humanity-- and it uses stories to do so. More specifically, it uses parables: stories meant not just for entertainment, but for teaching. Any specific legal injunctions in the Qur'an can only be understood with reference to the stories of the Qur'an. No anti-Muslim even attempts such a thing. Many Muslims seem to forget to do this.
Muslims set themselves up for problems when they try to convince non-Muslims of the truth of the Qur'an by resorting to the "scientific facts" approach to the Qur'an, or by portraying the Qur'an as some kind of a history book. It is not. It is a type of literature we call "scripture" and needs to be read properly as a scripture. (Indeed, does not the Qur'an itself mention something of how to read it?)
We do not read a book of poetry in the same way that we read a book on the science of botany. They are two different literary genres. Interestingly, both types can communicate truth about reality, but by using different methods of communication and styles of literature. We can read a poem about a tree and say "Yes, that is true of trees". We can also read a scientific paper about a tree and say the exact same thing, but if we treated the poem like a scientific paper, or expect poetic beauty from a scientific paper we are going to be in big trouble rather quickly! So too, when Muslims treat the Qur'an as something it is not. We then have only ourselves to blame when anti-Muslims ridicule us by turning this against us.
When we understand the dynamics of literary genre and how that effects our understanding of any book whatsoever we are armed with a powerful weapon to refute the false statements of anti-Muslims.
**************************
The above five general points seem to be present in any type of anti-Muslim writing and Warraq's book is no exception. And yet, at the same time, Warraq does point out problems with contemporary Muslim practice and with contemporary Muslim theology that are, in my opinion, right on target. For instance, he writes on page 149 that "Blind dogmatism has shut Muslims off from the intellectually challenging and exhilarating research, debate, and discussion of the last century and a half." This appears to me to be true and at the heart of the issue. It is my opinion that Muslims are, in general, stuck within a Medieval theological mindset. In my opinion it is this collective failure to grow and develop theologically-- represented by the phrase "closing the doors to ijtihad"-- that gives birth to today's poor practice of Islam and thus anti-Muslim books. If we were known for our piety, as we are to be known, who but the insane would be hostile towards us?
In addition, Warraq, and similar writers, will list atrocities done by Muslims, or done in the name of Islam, as if this somehow necessarily reflects upon the actual teachings of the Qur'an in light of the sunnah. The illogic of such a move is obvious to any thinking person and can be easily dismissed.
These books, though ostensibly about Islam per se, are in actuality about the poor state of contemporary Muslim practice and religious education. At the same time, this lack of theological sophistication that helps fuel anti-Muslim polemic also leaves the vast majority of Muslims without the intellectual tools needed to respond appropriately to anti-Muslim polemic such as Warraq's.
PART II: SOME PROBLEMS SPECIFIC TO "WHY I AM NOT A MUSLIM"
In addition to the above general observations, and before we even begin to look at the actual text of Warraq's book we can identify two major problems from simply perusing the preface and the bibliography.
There are a number of reasons why people may write overtly anti-Muslim books and this needs to be identified. We always need to ask: "What is the author's agenda?" Some may write out of a genuine ignorance of Islam, others write in order to promote a theology other than Islam, such as Christianity, still others may be writing in a valid scholarly-critical manner for an academic audience. However, there are some who may write anti-Muslim polemic because they have been mistreated in the name of Islam and are, in actuality, expressing their anger and hurt over this abuse. Often, people who were abused as children in the name of religion will grow up to be rabidly anti-religious. This seems to be the case with Ibn Warraq who writes that he was born Muslim, but who now considers himself a secular humanist "who believes that all religions are sick men's dreams, false-- demonstrably false-- and pernicious." [emphasis mine] His acknowledgments extol triumph over "religious fascism". Such a thing does exist, and does nothing but damage the souls of men and women.
His religious education as a child consisted of rote memorization of the Arabic Qur'an without comprehension and even before he could read or write his native language. He writes that religious dogma "had been foisted on me." Clearly, none of this indicates an early religious education-- or really even any experience associated with religion-- that was pleasant and meaningful for him. (Though he doesn't say so, one could reasonably suspect that this "education" might well have been accompanied by liberal doses of harsh words, yelling, or maybe even hitting.) We know this type of early negative experience can have a profound and lasting psychological and emotional effect upon the person's adult attitudes, as it seems to have done to Ibn Warraq. The ummah as a whole may have contributed to the making of an Ibn Warraq by our own poor skills at religious education, by our own poor practice of Islam, and by our own theological backwardness and lack of sophistication.
2. There is a saying that "no one is so convinced as a convert." As a revert to Islam from Catholic Christianity I can attest to this. I find it mind-boggling that someone who has actually read about and understood what Islam is could reject it, much less be hostile towards it. To me Islam is entrancingly beautiful, gentle, integrated, consonant and holistic. It is beautiful like a work of art. Islam is scenic, and yet dynamic. It is both like an object that can be gazed upon, and a promise of what one can become. Islam strikes me as what people want, though they may not themselves know that.
So, to me, for a person such as Warraq who was born Muslim, and who was, in spite of abuses, presumably educated in Islam, to then become hostile to Islam and even all religion puzzles me. Would not the person be able, as an adult, to distinguish between abuse done in the name of Islam with what the Qur'an truly teaches and the sunnah of Muhammad (saws) actually illustrates? But when we actually check Ibn Warraq's references we find that he does not appear to have been educated in Islam at all. For all intents and purposes he refers only to what have been called "Orientalists"-- a label made famous by Edward Said's book "Orientalism".
Said's book is by now a modern classic. It details the self-centered-- perhaps even racist--influence and perceptions evident in many standard Euro-American writers on Islam and Arab culture-- writers who are accepted and cited uncritically by Warraq even though he is writing after publication of Said's important work. (Said is not a Muslim.)
As Ibn Warraq goes about his rather vicious attack on Islam he does not attack actual Muslim writers, scholars or thinkers, but utilizes only a certain type of non-Muslim writing about Islam. Indeed, it appears that Ibn Warraq never did learn to truly read the Arabic Qur'an as it appears he has had to rely upon translations of the Qur'an. In addition, with all the various Qur'anic commentaries written over a millennium and a half, he relies on the only one that is generally and easily available to English speakers: Yusuf Ali's. This is kind of strange. He does not substantively refer to one Muslim biography of Muhammad, nor to any of our literature on seerah. Names of classic Muslim writers-- Ghazzali, Hanbali, Malik, Bukhari, Muslim, Rumi, Tabari, etc.-- do not appear, or if they do it is without substantial analysis or a balanced presentation of the views of these prolific writers. Nor does Warraq refer to any contemporary Muslim writers such as Keller, Qaradawi, Rahman, Faruqi, Asad, Akbar, etc. Nor does he refer to balanced non-Muslim writing such as that by Karen Armstrong. How can such a work be taken seriously? It can't. But it does look impressive.
This brings up a number of thoughts even before we have really looked at the actual body of the text: Warraq is not going to be talking about Islam as it is practiced and debated about by real Muslims, nor even as it was taught to him, but only as it appears to some non-Muslims, many of whom have been roundly criticized by Edward Said and typed into an entire style of scholarship called "Orientalism". That is, Warraq is presenting how Islam might look to some who are outside of Islam and who, according to Said (of course, as well as many others, but Said gave it a name), appear to be bigoted, prejudiced, and perhaps even racist.
Essentially, Warraq's book isn't about Islam at all, nor about his experience being educated and raised as a Muslim. He states that he grew up in an Islamic country. Why then, are all of his references from the Euro-American non-Muslim traditions? I find this very odd. Presumably, he would have access to classical Muslim writing from his own (unidentified) culture. There is a surprising lack of personal anecdote in a book that at first glance seems so personal. We hear no stories about growing up Muslim. Is Ibn Warraq who he portrays himself to be? Another, similar book by an ex-Muslim also has strange peculiarities ("Answering Islam" by Abdul Saleeb and Norman Giesler) that cause me to wonder about the truthfulness of the author's biography.
Warraq's selective references must raise suspicions in our minds. Surely, it shows that he is not going to engage in a critical, responsible, balanced debate with Islamic teachings. And he doesn't. Indeed, he himself implies that his work cannot be considered serious scholarship. Discussing a biography of Muhammad by Count Henre de Boulainvilliers he writes that de Boulainvilliers had "no knowledge of Arabic and had to rely on secondary sources; thus his work is by no means a work of serious scholarship." (p. 19) By that standard, neither is Ibn Warraq's.
He writes: "This book is first and foremost an assertion of my right to criticize everything and anything in Islam-- even to blaspheme." So, this is not a book of critical thought, it is the yelp of a hurt child, an angry adolescent, a bitter and resentful adult.
I must acknowledge, Warraq's book is tough. Frankly, few Muslims would be able to respond to the material he presents. It is true that mainstream Muslim theology has failed to keep up with the times. The "closing the doors to ijtihad" was, in my opinion, a disastrous error and has left most of us-- even our traditionally educated scholars-- unprepared to respond to contemporary questions about Islam and unable to engage in effective da'wah with contemporary people. If Warraq did come from a traditional background where religious education consisted of the rote memorization of the Qur'an he indeed would be completely overwhelmed when first encountering non-Muslim methods of academic historical and textual critique and analysis. It simply isn't a part of most Muslims' experience or education. It is no wonder he was persuaded by the Orientalist literature.
However, what this means is that the average Muslim who reads this book may well come away from the experience shaken and unsettled. Now, to be sure, much of what Ibn Warraq says about Islam is easy to dismiss. His use of adjectives, such as "superstitious" when discussing the Hajj are rather easy-to-spot rhetorical devices. Many of his themes, too, will be familiar to any Muslim who has encountered Christian evangelicals. Some of these were discussed in Part I of this paper. For instance, in spite of the fact that the Qur'an describes itself as a confirmation and summing up of what has come before, Warraq, like evangelical Christians, will smugly write that "Muhammad brought nothing new" as if this is some kind of proof of Islam's being inauthentic.
WARRAQ FAILS TO DEFINE SIGNIFICANT CONCEPTS AND TERMS
Warraq not only uses adjectives that are as subtle as a club, he also fails to define important terms. For instance, as said, he describes Muslim rituals such as the Hajj as "superstitious", but he fails to enter into a discussion on the difference between a superstitious action and a ritual action. For anyone seeking to understand religious behavior and religious language such distinctions are of utmost importance and there is plenty of literature on the subject. It is especially important in light of the fact that standard Islamic teachings warn against anything that would hint of superstitious behavior. Ritual behavior is not the same as superstitious behavior though they may look the same to the outsider. Warraq doesn't even recognize that there is an issue here. He thus displays an elementary and incomplete education in general religious studies. Obviously, he does not present traditional Muslim views on superstitious behavior.
He labels behaviors without defining what he means by the label and so displays a partial and incomplete education on the issues he is trying to discuss. By choosing adjectives with negative connotations he is thus able bash Islam, albeit in an intellectually vapid and heavy-handed manner that lacks any style or finesse.
Another example of this failure to define important terms is Warraq's use of the word "myth" without defining or discussing the concept as it is used in general religious studies. For instance, he says that it is a myth that Muhammad was wise and tolerant, but without evidence as to why this is a myth and not history. He shows absolutely no awareness over the fact that myths are not "false". They easily, and often do, accurately reflect and contain within their structure and content authentic history. This is a very important issue in general religious studies. Another is his failure to articulate the difference between the use of the word "philosophy" in Euro-American traditions, and as it is used in Muslim traditions. (Since my background is in philosophy this really sticks in my craw.) In classic Muslim writing "philosophers" are people engaged in inordinate speculation about things that cannot be known-- the "unseen". In the West, philosophy refers, in essence, to the skill of critical, abstract thinking.
It is obvious to me that Warraq simply hasn't engaged in any serious religious studies or studies of religious language and behavior, much less related issues in philosophy such as ontology or epistemology. Or rather, his education has been partial and biased. This is often the case with both religious and irreligious extremists. He simply does not know what he his talking about. As the saying goes: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
WARRAQ IS NOT IMMERSED IN WESTERN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY
Warraq is not as familiar or conversant in Euro-American intellectual history as he portrays himself to be. This is devastating for him because he is relying on a subsection of that thought (i.e. the "Orientalist") to attack Islam, and all religions in general, but has no perspective on how that subsection fits in with Western intellectual traditions as a whole. He makes numerous errors.
For instance, he writes on p. 16 "On the whole, Western society in general and the media in particular are totally uncritical of religion." This is laughably absurd and just plain false. When one encounters such blanket statements-- especially ones that are so obviously false -- an alarm should sound in your head: "this guy has extremist tendencies".
The United States was founded partly on a critique of religious power, and Euro-American history is strongly influenced by the Protestant (uh, "protest") Reformation and religious traditions. It is Euro-American culture that gave us Marx, Freud, Neitzsche-- all powerhouses of scathing religious critique.
He states that the eighteenth century "readily adopted the myth of Muhammad as a wise and tolerant ruler and lawgiver." This would be news to anyone and Warraq doesn't provide proof for such a blanket statement, nor is he clear on exactly who readily adopted this myth.
While there were some sympathetic Western treatments of Islam before the twentieth century there was by no means a wide-spread assumption regarding Muhammad as Warraq states. There still isn't. Indeed, Warraq seems to contradict his own historical understanding by writing on page 22 that Carlyle's 1841 account of Muhammad "is often considered the first truly sympathetic portrait... by a Western intellectual." Presumably Warraq knows his centuries. How could this nineteenth century work be the first sympathetic portrait in the West when sympathetic "myths" were "readily adopted" in the eighteenth century? Warraq does not explain, but these types of sloppy errors must always cause the reader to pause and assess the author's competence in the subject matter.
Warraq manhandles Western intellectual history by citing obscure writers and overly simplifying the complexity of Western thought on issues such as "the noble savage" and "moral relativity". In addition, he attributes motivations to whole groups of Western intellectuals without the slightest evidence. For instance, he states that Christian writers of the last two centuries did not criticize Islam because "Christianity and Islam stood or fell together. They knew that if they started criticizing the dogmas.... of Islam, their own fantastic structure would start to crumble." (p. 24) An astounding statement, to be sure!
Another example of this just plain sloppy thinking and writing is on p. 116. Warraq states he wants to argue that "Monotheism is not necessarily philosophically or metaphysically superior to polytheism, given that no proof for the existence of one and only one God is valid." Now, the first part of this sentence may indeed be true, but notice his tricky use of the word "necessarily". Of course it isn't necessarily the case-- at least not that can be proven, but that has nothing to do with the quality of any arguments on behalf of the superiority of monotheism (though Warraq attempts no substantive philosophical or metaphysical discussion of the issue). That it follows from the second statement is simply false and nicely displays Warraq's illogic.
Though there is no scientific proof of God's existence, neither is there proof that God does not exist, nor are their proofs that any type of deity exists or does not exist. It simply isn't even a scientific issue subject to a laboratory type of testing. It is an issue of faith, and transcendence, and meaning in human life. Warraq shows no awareness at all of such issues, which he would need to discuss to truly undermine religion in and of itself, much less undermine Islam.
Another similar example of this sloppy illogic and partial education is when he discusses modern studies of Jesus (may our Lord's peace and blessing be on him). This one made me chuckle it was so off-base:
Many European and American scholars of the last 150 years or so have centered their attention on the topic of the "historical Jesus". The topic has recently been on the covers of popular US weekly news magazines. Of course, there are those who posit that Jesus never truly existed, though they may still respect the teachings of this (for them) fictional character. Serious scholars who doubt that a real person actually lived and taught are, to be sure, in a minority and to my understanding it is not actually considered a serious possibility. But Warraq, feeding his general anti-religion extremism, makes a mountain out of this molehill of speculative literature. In his zeal to grasp anything that might make all religions look bad he does nothing but clearly display his general ignorance of themes and trends in contemporary Christian theology.Many standard Christian theologians make a distinction between "Jesus" as a regular man and "The Christ"-- Jesus as an avenue of God's revelation to humanity. Warraq gets really confused on this. He picked out the phrase "Christ-Myth" from a book thinking that the phrase questions the historicity of Jesus. It does not. He then quotes someone discussing the issue: "Scholarly opinion still holds... to the postulate of an historical figure whose life story was very soon displaced by... mythmaking activity." Read it carefully. Warraq didn't. (I have to laugh at this. pp. 147-148) He doesn't grasp that the type of "mythmaking" being discussed here doesn't imply the complete cover-up or destruction of historical reality. The "mythmaking" discussed in this type of writing refers to stories that can contain within them some true history, or even true statements about reality. This is a sure tip-off to someone who has an incomplete education in general religious studies as well as Christian theology.
On p. 119: "One of the great achievements of Muhammad, we are told, was ridding Arabia of polytheism. But this, I have tried to argue, is monotheistic arrogance. There are no compelling arguments in favor of monotheism, as opposed to polytheism."
Read that quote carefully again. Does the last sentence connect with the first in a meaningful way? No. To rid a land of polytheism is in no way necessarily related to whether or not monotheism is indeed philosophically superior to polytheism. Indeed, from the first sentence one would expect Warraq to argue that Muhammad did not rid the land of polytheism.
Warraq is quite confused in his thinking and in his argumentation. What he has done here is something like this: "Americans, we are told, got rid of all blue automobiles. But this is automotive arrogance. There are no compelling arguments in favor of non-blue cars."
Either they got rid of the cars or not, the arguments for that are another issue.
Warraq resorts to simplistic explanations of motivations and dynamics in order to explain extremely complex social changes. And so fails to, at times, make the slightest sense.
He attacks like this because so many Muslims will argue that monotheism is "superior" to polytheism-- but this is not a philosophical argument used in the Qur'an, it is an item of revelation and so is accepted primarily on faith and only secondarily on reason. There is a big difference between the two! Our own lack of theological sophistication on such topics provides fuel for his anti-Muslim polemic.
He continues by recounting how some have noticed that when people move from polytheism to monotheism their old gods and goddesses may not actually disappear, but become a pantheon of angelic or demonic beings. (This can be clearly seen in some areas where Christianity merged with local custom, such as in parts of South America and Mexico, or in the religion of Santeria.) However, that this has happened in Islam is certainly not clear to me. Indeed, I've seen little if any evidence for such a thing.
For Warraq, the fact that the Qur'an declares the existence of angels and jinn does mean that Islam followed this same route. He quotes in support of his view the non-Muslim Edward Lane on the "five orders" of spiritual beings and other non-Qur'anic speculations about the jinn. In essence, what Warraq does is first cite a conclusion: pre-Islamic polytheism simply became Muslim belief in jinns and angels, and then tries to provide evidence to support his conclusion from secondary non-Muslim sources who are obviously reporting Islamic folklore, rather than the actual teachings of Islam from the Qur'an and sunnah.
(This is a good time to remind ourselves of one of Warraq's admitted agendas: to express his right to say anything at all about Islam he so desires. The truth about Islam has little to do with his true motivations for writing this book.)
In sections like this Warraq is not arguing against the foundations of Islam: the Qur'an and sunnah, but what some Muslims have said and thought about the Qur'an and sunnah. This is a move similar to arguing against the whole of Christianity based upon what only certain Christians-- such as those writing during the Inquisition-- teach about Christianity. We cannot ignore the variety within a religious tradition if we want to argue against that religious tradition as a whole. But this is precisely what happens in just about any anti-Muslim writing I've encountered, Warraq is no exception. For him to present a list of every atrocity done in the name of Islam throughout history says nothing at all about Islam itself, only about some Muslims.
There are many more examples like those described above in Warraq's writing. Suffice it to say that though he writes with an air of authority and uses many citations he simply doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground when it comes to the history of Western philosophical and intellectual thought about religion. I find it highly ironic that he relies on Western writers, but then fails to truly grasp the intellectual milieu out of which they arise, and to which they are responding. In addition, he takes the folklore of some Muslims, and the speculations of some Muslims, and the poor practice of some Muslims, and seeks to present such things as the foundational teachings of Islam (which are the Qur'an and sunnah-- all else is commentary) and so fashion a destructive critique of Islam. The only thing he destroys is the reader's respect for his intellectual abilities, which appear deeply flawed.
WARRAQ FAILS TO EVEN APPEAR BALANCED OR OBJECTIVE
You will not find in Warraq one substantial word regarding the persecution of the Muslims in Mecca: the economic boycott, the assassination attempts, the physical and verbal abuse. You will not read a substantial account of how Muslims were forced to emigrate to Abyssinia, and forced to leave their homes in Mecca for Yathrib (Mecca) due to the abuse they received only because they taught and practiced tawheedian monotheism. You will not find a substantial treatment of the Muslim views regarding treaties with other tribes while in Medina, nor the accounts of how those treaties were broken. You'll not hear about the Qur'aysh's murderous, genocidal hatred of the Muslims, nor how the new religion of Islam threatened their privileged and moneyed status. You will however read (p. 92) "[Muhammad] was no more than the head of a robber community, unwilling to earn an honest living" because he raided Meccan caravans. There is no hint from Warraq that Muslims were in a defensive position born of weakness. They were people who had been forced from their homes, not an aggressors with superior strength and positions of power!
Warraq doesn't even give the appearance of an objective critique of Muslim history and teachings. He doesn't even give much indication that he is at all familiar with Muslim accounts of history. He gives no account of why they are not accurate. He only cites from the most rabid anti-Muslim "Orientialist" polemic without ever explaining why it should even be accepted in the first place (remember, he is writing after Said's "Orientialism"). Muslim accounts are not only not accepted, they are barely mentioned.
Warraq is a historical revisionist, not unlike those who seek to revise the history of the Nazis in order to make them look less heinous. Warraq reverses this: he revises history to make Muhammad (saws) and the Muslims look like the most heinous of Nazis. He even describes Muhammad as a fascist.
WARRAQ'S PARANOIA AND SUSPICION OF SCHOLARS
To my mind, the section that really illustrates Warraq's flaws, failures, ignorance, and frankly, paranoid suspicion, is in a discussion of a book by Ann Elizabeth Mayer entitled "Islam and Human Rights" (pp. 187-191). It is in this section that the negative effects of Warraq's pathological hatred of Muslims on his intellectual skills and use of reason are so clearly displayed in all their tattered glory. It is actually kind of sad.
First, let's review a bit. 1) Warraq's purpose in writing this book is "first and foremost an assertion of my right to criticize everything and anything in Islam-- even to blaspheme." 2) In order to fulfill this agenda and express his hostility he will present only those quotes, citations and views of history that fulfill this agenda. Though the text looks like a serious work, it is not. 3) Because of this imbalance he fails to recognize the importance of certain terms and concepts in general religious studies and thus displays a level of education that is inadequate to the task he sets for himself, that is, if that task had anything to do with saying true things about Islam. 4) Also because of this lack of scholarly objectivity there are laughable errors in his understanding of Euro-American intellectual history, as well as in his understanding of Christian theology.
Mayer's book is about abuse, injustice, and oppression in "Muslim" countries. What Warraq can't stand is that Mayer properly makes the distinction between what Muslims may do in the name of Islam and what Islam's foundational beliefs, principles, ideals and teachings really are. He writes:
Like practically every single book and article published since February 1989, [note: he is indeed aware of this literature, he just chose to ignore it all] especially for the nonspecialist reader, Ms. Mayer's book is at pains to point out (1) that "Islam" is not monolithic, that there is no such thing as the Islamic tradition, or just "one correct Islam," or one correct interpretation; (2) that, in the Islamic human rights schemes examined... it is not Islam that is at fault, it is, at most, one particular interpretation of it ... (3) that there is no such thing as the sharia, i.e., Islamic law did not freeze at some arbitrary point in the past; and (4) that, deep down, Islam may not be hostile to rights and democracy, after all. (p. 189)
Well, I say as a Muslim, as someone with at least some formal education in the areas of philosophy, psychology and religious studies, this is true. Well, except perhaps for the fact that we did "freeze" our growth and development as represented by the phrase "closing the doors to ijtihad".
Mayer writes and studies in the field of law and human rights. Her book is for specialists, unlike Warraq's implication.
Though he describes Mayer's book as "excellent and very persuasive" Warraq just can't stand the fact that Mayer recognized these obvious truths quoted above and so hurls at her what can only be construed as rank insults to any serious writer or scholar.
When an author such as Mayer qualifies her own work with statements that give the lie to Warraq's perceptions he can only impugn the author's intellectual honesty and academic character as follows:
However, a close reading of Ms. Mayer's book reveals that after all she is only paying lip service, for ecumenical harmony, to the notion that there is no such thing as "Islam" about which we can make valid generalizations. [i.e. generalizations that are inimical to human rights]
Ms. Mayer is only possessed of "pious hopes" regarding the truth of her distinction between the foundational teachings of Islam and the injustice often done by people or political systems in the name of Islam. Her attempts to "exonerate" Islam (as if it is guilty of something) is "desperate" (p. 190) The evidence of her "desperation"? Her own preface wherein she writes as quoted by Warraq:
Even without studying the question of how Islam relates to human rights issues, my experience in work on behalf of the cause of human rights would have sufficed to convince me that Islam is not the cause of the human rights problems endemic to the Middle East....
Were I Ann Elizabeth Mayer I might well be outraged at such statements that impugn my own intellectual integrity in such a manner. I am also completely suspicious whether Warraq is reading her properly regarding core Islamic beliefs about which we can generalize. There are such core beliefs, obviously. They just are not as Warraq would have us believe, nor as his fevered brain has imagined them to be. Mayer knows this.
His paranoid suspicion of Mayer is quite telling, as he continues to make errors of logic and analysis when discussing her "desperate" attempts to distinguish between foundational Islamic principles and the atrocious behaviors done by many in the name of Islam.
It would be many weeks before I could obtain a copy of Mayer's book to check the validity of my suspicions. And so, I called Dr. Ann Elizabeth Mayer at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania to solicit comment on this. (Obviously, and from her online vitae, she is no academic/scholarly slouch!)
We had a very interesting conversation. Though she had not read Warraq's book others had told her of it. She had nothing kind to say about Warraq and writers like him. She considers Islam "beautiful" in its beliefs and is quite clearly distinguishing in her own work between the "political use of Islam in particular state systems that are oppressive" and the core values and principles of Islam that simply do not support the actions of those oppressive systems. People such as Warraq, she said, are completely intellectually bankrupt. They only have "an ax to grind". She scathingly described at length her contempt and disdain for writers and anti-Muslim "hate-mongers" such as Warraq, and stated she wished such people wouldn't even read her complex, balanced and scholarly works. She thinks that people such as Warraq eventually self-destruct, but that will not keep other hate-mongers from seizing upon his book to perpetuate anti-Muslim bigotry.
Mayer qualifies her own studies and makes disclaimers about exactly what she is studying. Any decent, honest, scholarly academician does this. Warraq clearly displays his perverse selection of facts to support his hostile agenda. He loves that Mayer documents human rights abuses in "Muslim" countries, but just cannot accept that Mayer does not blame core Islamic principles for these abuses.
It is also in this section that Warraq actually articulates, but then fails to recognize the significance of central issues pertaining to healthy or unhealthy Islamic practice. It is quoted above and, in essence, is the question: "Who's interpretation of the Qur'an is correct?" Had Warraq stuck with this question and made it the focus of his book he could have picked and chosen among trends within Islamic practice and theology that may actually merit and call out for everyone's hostility and disdain, not just Warraq's.
Well, there is really not all that much I need to add. Warraq damns himself.
Muslims talk a good talk about "unity", but the ummah is, in fact, sectarian. Who's vision and understanding of the Qur'an and sunnah is correct? The Sufi? The Wahabi? The Taliban's? Hamas'? The Khalifite? The Sunni? The Shia? Who is correct? Conservatives, modernists, traditionalists, etc. etc.?
Those who give witness that there is no god but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God need to realize that unity does not mean uniformity. But we need unity in front of those who are actively hostile towards us. And that means being honest with ourselves and with others about our faults and defects. We cannot allow our own poor practice of Islam to be used in attacks against the Qur'an and Mohammad's sunnah
It is unfortunate that in this day and age such overtly bigoted, ignorant, and intellectually dishonest books are still being written and published. However, in my opinion we need not fear them. Though such writings may anger us and hurt us, they can also challenge us to grow in our din. There is often mixed among the intellectual errors a mirror reflecting ourselves back to our view, and we may not like what we see, but we must face it with courage and honesty.
I pray that this short and by no means exhaustive paper will assist you to identify and respond to some of the errors we find in anti-Muslim writings, but I also pray that it has caused you to reflect on your own understanding of and practice of Islam.
And Allahu alim.
Jeremiah D. McAuliffe, Jr., Ph.D. alimhaq@city-net.com speed.city-net.com/~alimhaq/miaha.html www.ampcast.com/drjihad

Affected by a Righteous Neighbor.

Affected by a Righteous Neighbor
The Testimony of Umm Huda
By Susannah


Courtesy of The National Geographic Society ©Al-hamdu lillah (all praise be to Allah), I came from the darkness to the light, as they say, at the age of 19 when I became a Muslim. How I decided to be a Muslim and the long road that I traveled is a subject that I am often asked about, so in sha’ Allah (God willing), I will try to explain it here, and my hope is that my story will be one of inspiration for others.
I grew up as the typical American girl, born and raised in the United States in a middle-class family, which was composed of my parents and one younger sister. My father was in the military, so we moved around quite a bit, but eventually we settled in Virginia, and this was where I grew up primarily.
My family had a Christian background, but my parents, both of whom worked full time, did not have the time to take us often to church. Religion was confined mostly to holidays or whenever we would visit our grandparents. I vividly remember attending Sunday school as a small child; I remember being taught about Jesus and various other Christian virtues. However, when I became a teenager, these principles and ideas began to seem foreign to me, and I didn’t acknowledge them or implement them in my daily life at all.
My first introduction to Islam was in the ninth grade when my world history class went to Washington DC and toured the Islamic center there. It was a gorgeous spring day, all of us were wearing shorts and T-shirts, of course, and I remember being stopped at the entrance of the mosque. The woman told us, “You cannot enter Allah’s house dressed like this.” I remember that we all laughed, especially the boys, because a moment later the woman returned with long white skirts and scarves and insisted that we wear them into the mosque. How strange, I remember thinking to myself, what’s the big deal? We were given a brief talk by someone who couldn’t speak English very well; needless to say it didn’t leave a great impression, but as a carefree teenager at the time, religion was the furthest thing from my mind.
Approximately a year and a half later, a new family moved in next door to my house. One night shortly after they moved in, I was walking my dog. When Umm Ali, my new neighbor, noticed that I was walking towards the house next to hers, she immediately approached me. She insisted in a very kind way that I come and eat dinner with them. Now it was summer time, very hot and humid, and before me stood this woman covered from head to toe, a complete stranger, and suddenly she was insisting that I come and eat with her. At first I completely refused, but she stood her ground and eventually convinced me. When I asked her why was she so persistent she replied, “Islam teaches us to be respectful and kind to our neighbors. You are my neighbor now and I must extend to you this courtesy.”
I was quite shocked by this, but somehow it put me at ease. I felt that there was a real sense of sincerity in this gentle woman. From that evening on, Umm Ali and I became the best of friends. It was a new experience for both of us: she had never had a close friend who wasn’t Muslim, and I had never had a Muslim friend, so we enjoyed our differences and respected them. She had a great sense of humor and we used to laugh a lot. I adored her children and used to care for them as if they were my own nieces.
From time to time, we would discuss religion, but it was never in a forceful way. I used to ask her about her prayers and about her dress. During Ramadan, she invited me every night for iftar (the meal that breaks the fast), though I wasn’t fasting. Much of her da`wah (inviting to Islam) to me was through her actions, not her words. I began to respect and adore her so much as a person, woman, wife, and mother. It was very obvious to me that she was at peace with herself. At the time, I was still quite young, but I felt something starting to stir. It was more than a curiosity or affection; I was starting, even though I didn’t know it quite yet, to really take Islam seriously.
Much of the da`wah (preaching) that she made to me was through her actions, not her words...
Once I started studying in the university, I began to really think seriously about my life, its direction and purpose. What was my main objective in life? Why was I on this planet, to do what, to serve whom? I reflected upon my Christian roots, but they seemed so alien to me at that point. So I started to search.
I looked at Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism-so many “isms,” but I found a flaw in every one of them. Umm Ali was still with me at this time. She knew that I was troubled and needed guidance, but, as was always her loving way, she didn’t force me in anything. She was there for me, to listen to my frustrations and fears, always kind and always caring.
It was a time of great turmoil, and then one night I had a dream. In the dream I was surrounded by darkness from all sides, and in the distance I could see a great light, and under that light was my dear friend, and she was calling me, but I could not go to her. When I woke up, I was startled by this dream: What did it mean? After many long nights, I realized the meaning: the darkness was my life as I was living it and the light was Islam. It was then that I decided to take the Shahadah (public declaration of faith). I went first to Umm Ali and shortly after that to the mosque to make it official.
People often wonder why an American woman, born and educated in the United States, would ever accept Islam. Islam is so often maligned in the media, especially when it comes to issues dealing with women. So many people are confused when they know that I chose to accept Islam. No one forced me-it was my choice. Islam offered me what no other religion could: peace of mind and pure contentment. I knew and understood finally what my purpose in life was.
Islam answered every question I had because it does not have any “gray” areas. Everything is open and clear and therefore it makes a person feel truly comfortable. Islam offered me, as a woman, true freedom. Yes, freedom! Freedom because it is Islam that elevates women, giving them every kind of right: social, political, economical, etc. These are true rights prescribed by Allah that no individual or government can take from me. I feel totally empowered as a Muslim woman and I thank Allah everyday for guiding me to the straight path.

Another issue I am often asked about is my family’s reaction to my conversion. Over the years I have heard and seen it all in terms of this particular point. Overall, I have been quite fortunate. At first I think no one took me seriously. Because I was so young (only 19!), my family seemed to think that I was going through a phase, and that when I tired of it, I would return to “normal.”
I also made the mistake of keeping my conversion a secret from my family, so when they found out from a third party, that made it all the worse for them and me. There were many “animated” discussions, especially between my mother and myself, but thankfully they never turned their backs on me or disowned me in any way. I married the following year and moved out of my parent’s home, and it was then, I believe, that they finally realized I was totally serious (as my husband was, of course, a Muslim) and that this was my life’s decision.
Since my conversion to Islam, my life has taken a drastic change for the better. I no longer feel frustrated or confused. I know what the meaning of life is and my purpose here in this world. I used to waste my time always going out, going to the beach, spending long hours in the cinema or at concerts. I never used to do anything for Allah or for His pleasure, only for myself. Now I see how frivolous that all was.
My main goal now is to serve Allah Almighty, whereas before my goal was to serve myself and my selfish needs. I am now 31-a bit older and much wiser. I married nine months after I became a Muslim, and I now have two lovely daughters. My life now is complete, and since that great night I decided to be a Muslim, I have never looked back. The road was long and it was not always easy, but my faith and trust in Allah Almighty has always sustained me.

The Islamic and Christian View of Jesus: A comparison

From: www.islamicherald.com

The person of Jesus or Isa in Arabic (peace be upon him) is of great significance in both Islam and Christianity. However, there are differences in terms of beliefs about the life and the occurrences of this noble Messenger.
Source of information about Jesus in Islam.
Muslims take their information about Jesus from two main sources: the Quran, the direct word of God, as revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), as well as the Hadith, or the sayings and actions of Prophet Muhammad.Most of the information about Jesus is actually found in the Quran. It is interesting to note that contemporary scholars and scientists, Muslims and non-Muslims, have discovered that the Quran talks about scientific phenomena which could not have been known by humans when the Quran was revealed in seventh century Arabia. Accurate information about embryology is one such example.As a result, a number of non-Muslim scholars have concluded that the Quran can only be the Book of God.The Quran was memorized, written down and revised in the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). Today, anyone who calls him or herself a Muslim believes in the complete authenticity of the Quran.
Source of information about Jesus in Christianity
Christians take their information about Jesus from Bible, which for them includes the Old and New Testaments.This includes four biblical narratives covering the life and death of Jesus. These have been written, according to tradition, respectively by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They are placed at the beginning of the New Testament and comprise close to half of it.Encyclopedia Britannica notes that "none of the sources of his life and work can be traced to Jesus himself; he did not leave a single known written word. Also, there are no contemporary accounts written of his life and death. What can be established about the historical Jesus depends almost without exception on Christian traditions, especially on the material used in the composition of the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, which reflect the outlook of the later church and its faith in Jesus."Wayne A. Meeks, Woolsey Professor of Biblical Studies at Yale University, interviewed for the 1998 PBS documentary "From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians" adds: "there is only an interpreted Jesus, there are many interpreted Jesuses. So where do we begin? We begin not with Jesus, we have no access to him. We begin with the responses to Jesus, by his followers, by outsiders who heard about him.... We begin with those reactions as they're enshrined in the text we have."Below are the views of Islam and Christianity based on primary source texts and core beliefs.
ISLAM
1. Do Muslims believe he was a Messenger of One God? YESBelief in all of the Prophets and Messengers of the God, Allah as He is known in Arabic, is a fundamental article of faith in Islam. Thus, believing in Prophets Adam, Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon them) is a requirement for anyone who calls him or herself a Muslim. A person claiming to be a Muslim who, for instance, denies the Messengership of Jesus, is not considered a Muslim. The same is true of any other Prophet.The Quran says in reference to the status of Jesus as a Messenger:"The Messiah (Jesus), son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger before whom many Messengers have passed away; and his mother adhered wholly to truthfulness, and they both ate food (as other mortals do). See how We make Our signs clear to them; and see where they are turning away!" (5:75).Also in the Quran, God says:"People of the Book (Jews and Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, and attribute to God nothing except the Truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His command that He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and in His Messengers, and do not say: (God is a) trinity. Give up this assertion; it would be better for you. God is indeed just One God. Far be it from His Glory that He should have a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth. Allah is sufficient for a guardian." (4:171-172)2. Do Muslims believe he was born of a Virgin Mother? YESLike Christians, Muslims believe Mary, Maria in Spanish, or Maryam as she is called in Arabic, was a chaste, virgin woman, who miraculously gave birth to Jesus."Relate in the Book the story of Mary, when she withdrew from her family, to a place in the East. She screened herself from them; then We sent to her Our spirit (angel Gabriel) and he appeared before her as a man in all respects. She said: I seek refuge from you in Allah Most Gracious (come not near) if you do fear Allah. He said: Nay, I am only a Messenger from your Lord, to announce to you the gift of a pure son. She said: How shall I have a son, when no man has ever touched me, and I am not unchaste? He said: So it will be, your Lord says: ‘That is easy for Me; and We wish to appoint him as a sign unto men and a Mercy from Us’: It was a matter so decreed" (Quran 19:16-21).3. Do Muslims believe Jesus had a miraculous birth? YESThe Quran says:"She (Mary) said: ‘O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has touched me.’ He (God) said: ‘So (it will be) for Allah creates what He wills. When He has decreed something, He says to it only: ‘Be!’- and it is" (3:47).It should also be noted about his birth that:"Verily, the likeness of Jesus in Allah’s Sight is the likeness of Adam. He (Allah) created him from dust, then (He) said to him: ‘Be!’-and he was" (Quran 3:59).4. Do Muslims believe Jesus spoke in the cradle? YES"Then she (Mary) pointed to him. They said: ‘How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?’ He (Jesus) said: ‘Verily! I am a slave of Allah, He has given me the Scripture and made me a Prophet; " (19:29-30).5. Do Muslims believe he performed miracles? YESMuslims, like Christians believe the Prophet Jesus performed miracles. But these were performed by the will and permission of Allah, Who has all power and control over all things."Then will God say: ‘O Jesus the son of Mary! recount My favor to you and to your mother. Behold! I strengthened you with the Holy Spirit (the angel Gabriel) so that you did speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught you the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel. And behold: you make out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and you breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by My leave, and you heal those born blind, and the lepers by My leave. And behold! you bring forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the children of Israel from (violence to you) when you did show them the Clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: ‘This is nothing but evident magic’ (5:110).6. Do Muslims believe in the Trinity? NOMuslims believe in the Absolute Oneness of God, Who is a Supreme Being free of human limitations and wants. He has no partners in His Divinity. He is the Creator of everything and is completely separate from His creation.Allah says in the Quran regarding Trinity:"Surely, disbelievers are those who said: ‘Allah is the third of the three (in a Trinity).’ But there is no god but One God. And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them (Quran 5:73).Also:"People of the Book (Jews and Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, and attribute to God nothing except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a Messenger of Allah, and His command that He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and in His Messengers, and do not say: ‘Allah is a Trinity.’ Give up this assertion; it would be better for you. Allah is indeed just one God. Far be it from His glory that He should have a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth. Allah is sufficient for a guardian" (Quran 4:171).7. Do Muslims believe that Jesus was the son of God? NOAs mentioned above, Muslims believe that God is One and free of all partners and associates. He is above all that others associate with Him. All power and control are with Him. It is above His Majesty and Glory to take a son, partner or associate. He is independent of everyone and everything, while on the other hand, everyone and everything is dependent on Him."Say: "God is Unique! God, the Source [of everything]. He has not fathered anyone nor was He fathered, and there is nothing comparable to Him!" (Quran 112:1-4).The Quran also states:"Such was Jesus, the son of Mary; it is a statement of truth, about which they vainly dispute. It is not befitting to the majesty of Allah, that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter, He only says to it, ‘Be’ and it is" (Quran 19:34-35).8. Do Muslims believe Jesus was killed on the cross then resurrected? NO"And because of their saying, ‘We killed Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah’- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Jesus was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. The have no knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely they killed him not (Jesus, son of Mary). But Allah raised him (Jesus) up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he is in the heavens). And Allah is ever All-Powerful, All-Wise" (Quran 4:157-158).
CHRISTIANITY
1.Do Christians believe Jesus was a human being and Messenger of God? YES & NOWith the exception of Unitarian Christians, most Christians now believe in the Divinity of Prophet Jesus, which is connected to the belief in Trinity (which is discussed in point number six).They say he is the second member of the Triune God, the Son of the first part of the Triune God, and at the same time "fully" God in every respect.Early followers of Jesus never believed that he was God.2. Do Christians believe he was born of a Virgin Mother? YESA chaste and pious human woman who gave birth to Jesus Christ, the second member of the Trinity, the Son of God, and at the same time "fully" God Almighty in every respect.Christians believe however, that while she was a virgin, she was married to a man named Joseph (Bible: Matthew:1:18). According to Matthew 1:25, Joseph "kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus".3. Do Christians believe he had a miraculous birth? YES"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit" (Bible: Matthew 1: 18).4. Do Christians believe he spoke in the cradle? YES and NO?There is a second century Arabic apocryphal fable from Egypt called the Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ which mentions this:"...Jesus spake when he was in the cradle, and said to his mother: "Mary, I am Jesus the Son of God, the Word, which thou didst bring forth according to the declaration of the angel Gabriel, and My Father hath sent me for the salvation of the world."5. Do Christians believe he performed miracles? YES"And now, Lord, look upon their threats, and grant to thy servants to speak thy word with all boldness, while thou stretches out thy hand to heal, and sign and wonders are performed through the name of thy holy servant Jesus (Bible: Acts 4:30).Christians believe that Jesus performed these miracles because he was the Son of God as well as the incarnation of God. However, this passage clearly indicates that it was actually God acting through His servant Jesus.6. Do Christians believe in the Trinity? YESWith the exception of the Unitarian Christians, who do not believe in the Divinity of Christ, the Trinity, according to the Catholic encyclopedia, is the term used for the central doctrine of the Christian religion. The belief is that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three Persons or beings are distinct from each another, while being similar in character: uncreated and omnipotent.The First Vatican Council has explained the meaning to be attributed to the term mystery in theology. It lays down that a mystery is a truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine Revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains "hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness" (Const., "De fide. cath.", iv).\ The First Vatican Council further defined that the Christian Faith contains mysteries strictly so called (can. 4). All theologians admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is of the number of these.The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that of all revealed truths, this is the most impenetrable to reason.More specifically, the Trinity is mentioned in Matthew 28:19:"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit".One passage in Mark 12:28, 29, and 30 contradicts the "three in one theory" though. It says:"And one of the scribes came and herd them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked him, ‘What commandment is the foremost of all?’ Jesus answered, ‘The foremost is, ‘HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH’"7. Do Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God? YES"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him (Bible: John 3:16).However, it is interesting to note that the term "son of God" is used in other parts of the Bible to refer to Adam (Bible: Luke 3:38), Israel (Bible: Exodus 4:22) and David (Bible: Psalms 2:7) as well. The creation of God is usually referred to in the Bible as children of God.
The role of Paul of Tarsus in shaping this belief and the belief in Trinity
The notion of Jesus as son of God is something that was established under the influence of Paul of Tarsus (originally named Saul), who had been an enemy of Jesus, but later changed course and joined the disciples after the death of Jesus.Later, however, he initiated a number of changes into early Christian teachings, in contradiction, for instance, to true disciples like Barnabas, who believed in the Oneness of God and who had actually lived and met with Jesus.Paul is considered by a number of Christian scholars to be the father of Christianity due to his additions of the following ideas:- the idea that Jesus is the son of God,- the theory of Atonement,- the renunciation of the Law of the Torah which affected rulings about food and circumcision in early Christianity
His letters are the primary sources of information on Jesus according to the Christian tradition.Initially, Paul was a staunch opponent of Jesus. However, when he did join the followers of Jesus later on, he added many changes in the original teachings of Jesus in hopes of winning over the Gentiles (non-Jewish people), such as the three examples mentioned above.The original followers of Prophet Jesus opposed these blatant misrepresentations of the message of Jesus. They struggled to reject the notion of Divinity of Jesus for close to 200 years.One person who was an original follower of Prophet Jesus was Barnabas. He was a Jew born in Cyrus. He was a successful preacher of the teachings of Jesus. Because of his closeness to the Prophet, he was an important member of the small group of disciples in Jerusalem who had had gathered together following the disappearance of Jesus.The question of the Jesus’s nature, origin and relationship with God was not raised amongst Barnabas and the small group of disciples. The Prophet was considered a man miraculously endowed by God . Nothing in the words of Jesus or the events in his life led them to modify this view.The Gospel of Barnabas was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the Churches of Alexandria till 325 C.E. Iranaeus (130-200) wrote in support of pure monotheism and opposed Paul for injecting into Christianity doctrines of the pagan Roman religion and Platonic philosophy. He had quoted extensively from the Gospel of Barnabas in support of his views. This shows that the Gospel of Barnabas was in circulation in the first and second centuries of Christianity.Since Paul’s alterations to the original monotheistic message of Jesus were very appealing to the Gentiles, the true believers were unable to stop the misguidance.In 325 Common Era (C.E.), a council of Christian leaders met at Nicaea and made Paul's beliefs officially part of Christian doctrine. It also ordered that all original Gospels in Hebrew script which contradicted Paul’s beliefs should be destroyed. An edict was issued that any one in possession of these Gospels will be put to death.
The Gospel of Barnabas has miraculously survived though.
8. Do Christians believe he was killed on the cross? YESThis is a core Christian belief and it relates to the theory of atonement. According to this belief, Prophet Jesus died to save mankind form sin. However, this is not stated explicitly in the four gospels which form the primary source texts of Christianity.It was Paul of Tarsus, considered the real father of Christianity, who came up with this idea (see explanation above). It is found in Bible: Romans 6:8,9.Christians believe Jesus was spat on, cut, humiliated, kicked, striped, and finally hung up on the cross to endure a slow and painful death.

Lessons from Malcolm X.

By Shahid Athar MD

examines the man and his legacy.Transcript of a lecture diven on April 25, 1998 in Capetown at the 18th Annual Convention of the Islamic Medical Association of South Africa.

I thank all of you for inviting me to give this lecture in the memory of a great American and a great Muslim, Malcolm X, known to us as EL-Hajj Malik Shabaz. It is an honor for an immigrant Muslim who never met Malcolm X to give this lecture. This is due to the recognition of the fact that more and more Americans are turning to Islam and more and more Afro-American Muslims are returning to main-stream Sunni Islam. The dream of universal brotherhood of all American Muslims as envisioned by Malcolm X toward the end of his journey on this planet is coming true. More and more immigrant Muslims are embracing their Afro-American brothers and accepting Malcolm X, whom I called in a previous article "the Prince of Islam in North America," as a true leader of the Islamic movement in the U.S.A.
Today's American Muslims are not the first wave of Muslims who came here. Muslims have tried to come here ever since the 12th century. However, between the 16th and 18th centuries, millions of them were brought here against their own free will. Not only half of 6 million Africans but thousands of fair-skinned slaves of Turkish/Hispanic origin from Morocco, Portugal and Spain, now know as Mullengeons were Muslims.
They were robbed of their names, religion and language and a new identity was given to these once-free people who were made to work and live on plantations. Their sufferings during ocean voyages, on Caribbean holding islands, and upon arrival on the mainland are known to historians. The anger of the Afro-American soul, like that of Malcolm X before Hajj, is the direct result of the oppression that their forefathers suffered.
Thus the re-discovery of this "Lost Found Nation" and appearance of Master Fard and Elijah Mohammad was a situational necessity.

Historians have divided the life of Malcolm X into 3 periods - a) 1948 to 1964- the NOI period, b) 1964 - the Black Nationalist Period and c) 1964 to 1965 - the Universalist Islamic Period. However, I divide into only 2 periods, i.e., before Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca) and after Hajj. Hajj had transformed the black militant Afro-American Nationalist to a true Muslim, a Dayee (Muslim missionary) and an Imam (leader).
Malcolm X as the Militant Black NationalistIt is important to learn of his revulsion to the oppression and racism from his own words as how he felt the pain. In 1963, while still with NOI, he said:
"The problem itself was created by the white man and it was created because the white man brought us here in chains against our will. It was a crime. And the one who committed that crime is the criminal who should pay....You don't put the crime in jail, you put the criminal in jail. And kidnapping is a crime. Slavery is a crime. Lynching is a crime.
And the presence of 20 million black people in America against their will is a living testimony of the crime that Uncle Sam committed, your forefathers committed, when our people were brought here in chains.
"Now, you brought 20 million black people in this country who were brought here and were put in a political, economic and mental prison. This was done by Uncle Sam. And you think when you open the door a few cracks, and give this integration-intoxicated Negro a chance to run around the prison yard--that's all he's doing--that you're doing him a favor."
Similarly in January, 1963:
"We are trapped in a vicious circle of economic, intellectual, social and political death. Inferior housing, inferior education which in turn leads to inferior jobs. We spend a lifetime in this vicious circle. Or in this vicious cycle going in circles. Giving birth to children who see no hope for the future but to follow our miserable footsteps."
Malcolm X learned that though Christianity preached brotherhood, white America could not deliver it to the "people of color". Thus he said on February 16, 1965 at Corn Hill Methodist church:
"I believe in the brotherhood of man. But despite the fact that I believe in the brotherhood of man, I have to be a realist and realize that here in America, we're in a society that doesn't practice brotherhood. It doesn't practice what it preaches. It preaches brotherhood, but it doesn't practice brotherhood. And because this society doesn't practice brotherhood, those of us who are Muslim--those of us who left the Black Muslim movement and regrouped as Muslims, in a movement based upon orthodox Islam--we believe in the brotherhood of Islam."
Malcolm X at Hajj and AfterThe experience at Hajj taught him and teaches us that after becoming a legal Muslim by the declaration of Kalima, a Muslim must taste Islam by practicing it within a community of practicing Muslims. The brotherhood, justice and respect for each other's rights that he only dreamed and spoke in the past, was becoming a pleasant reality.
Thus in a letter from Saudi Arabia after Hajj, he wrote:
"Never have I witnessed such sincere hospitality and overwhelming spirit of true brotherhood as is practiced by people of all colors and races here in this ancient Holy Land, the home of Abraham, Muhammad and all the other Prophets of the Holy Scriptures. For the past week, I have been utterly speechless and spellbound by the graciousness I see displayed all around me by people of all colors.
"I have been blessed to visit the Holy City of Mecca, I have made my seven circuits around the Ka'ba, led by a young Mutawaf named Muhammad, I drank water from the well of the Zam Zam. I ran seven times back and forth between the hills of Mt. Al-Safa and Al-Marwah. I have prayed in the ancient city of Mina and I have prayed on Mt. Arafat."
"There were tens of thousands of pilgrims, from all over the world. They were of all colors, from blue-eyed blonds to black-skinned Africans. But we were all participating in the same ritual, displaying a spirit of unity and brotherhood that my experiences in America had led me to believe never could exist between the white and non-white."
"America needs to understand Islam, because this is the one religion that erases from its society the race problem. Throughout my travels in the Muslim world, I have met, talked to and even eaten with people who in America would have been considered white -- but the white attitude was removed from their minds by the religion of Islam. I have never before seen sincere and true brotherhood practiced by all colors together, irrespective of their color."
"You may be shocked by these words coming from me. But on this pilgrimage, what I have seen, and experienced, has forced me to rearrange much of my thought-patterns previously held and to toss aside some of my previous conclusions. This was not too difficult for me. Despite my firm convictions, I have always been a man who tries to face facts and to accept the reality of life as new experience and new knowledge unfolds it. I have always kept an open mind, which is necessary to the flexibility that must go hand in hand with every form of intelligent search for truth."
"During the past eleven days here in the Muslim world, I have eaten from the same plate, drunk from the same glass and slept on the same rug -- while praying to the same God -- with fellow Muslims, whose eyes were the bluest of blue, whose hair was the blondest of blond, and whose skin was the whitest of white. And in the words and in the actions and in the deeds of the white Muslims, I felt the same sincerity that I felt among the black African Muslims of Nigeria, Sudan and Ghana."
"We were truly all the same (brothers) -- because their belief in one God had removed the white from their minds, the white from their behavior, and the white from their attitude."
"I could see from this that perhaps if white Americans could accept the Oneness of God, then perhaps too, they could accept in reality the Oneness of Man -- and cease to measure, and hinder, and harm others in terms of their differences' in color."
"With racism plaguing America like an incurable cancer, the so-called Christian' white American heart should be more receptive to a proven solution to such a destructive problem. Perhaps it could be in time to save America from imminent disaster -- the same destruction brought upon Germany by racism that eventually destroyed the Germans themselves."
"Each hour here in the Holy Land enables me to have greater spiritual insights into what is happening in America between black and white. The American Negro never can be blamed for his racial animosities -- he is only reacting to four hundred years of the conscious racism of the American whites. But as racism leads America up the suicide path, I do believe, from the experiences that I have had with them, that the whites of the younger generation, in the colleges and universities, will see the handwriting on the walls and many of them will turn to the spiritual path of truth -- the only way left to America to ward off the disaster that racism inevitably must lead to."
"Never have I been so highly honored. Never have I been made to feel more humble and unworthy. Who would believe the blessings that have been heaped upon an American Negro?'"
"A few nights ago, a man who would be called in America a white man, a United Nations diplomat, an ambassador, a companion of kings, gave me his hotel suite, his bed. Never would I have even though of dreaming that I would ever be a recipient of such honors -- honors that in America would be bestowed upon a King -- not a Negro."
"All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of all the Worlds."
Thus my friends, I am not here to glorify Malcolm X but the glory belongs to God only. Thus let us study a few verses of the Book, also known to us as "The Guide and the Criterion," what we commonly call Quran revealed to Prophet Mohammad (P) over a 23-year period, still unchanged after 1,400 years, still being read by over a billion people and memorized by thousands. It continues to influence the life and morale of Muslims.
The Quran says:
"O you mankind! We have created you from a single pair of male and female and made you into nations and tribes so that you know each other (not despise each other). Verily the most honored in the sight of Allah is the one who is most righteous" (49:13).
The Quran also says:
"O you who believe! Be the maintainers of justice and bearers of witness for Allah's sake though it be against your own self, parents and relatives" (4:135).
And it also says "O you believe, stand out firmly for Allah as witness to fair dealing and let not the hatred of others incite you to act unjustly. Be just that is next to piety and fear Allah for Allah is well aware of what you do" (5:8).
Thus it is clear that above verses of Quran guided Malcolm X to righteousness, justice, giving up hate of white people, and standing up to his own godfather on moral issues.
When Malcolm X left the Nation and embraced true Islam, he was responding to the call of Islam.
"O you believe, enter into Islam wholeheartedly and do not follow the footstep of Satan as he is your open enemy" (2:208).
So was Malcolm X a militant Black nationalist or a true Muslim leader? Only history will decide. Islam erases the past as it did to that of Caliph Umar bin Khattab who was a violent man before accepting Islam.
After Hajj, if one's Hajj is accepted, all previous sins are forgiven and one becomes pure like a newborn baby. After Hajj, two good things can happen to a Muslim - one is to live a life of righteousness for the rest of his or her life or not to live long in this world of temptation and to fall prey to wrong. Malcolm X got both of them.
Thus let us bury the Malcolm before Hajj and keep the El Hajj Malik Shabaz alive. Quran says:
"Call not those who are slain in the way of God as dead, nay they are living, only you perceive it not" (2:154).
The Legacy of Malcolm XLet us summarize what Malcolm X did for us.
1. He challenged the African American, Africa, the World of Islam and all humanity to rise and unite.
2. He publicly exposed the false appointed leaders of the Black American and in the process demonstrated the real traits and reason of leadership, i.e., honesty, intelligence, a respect for logic, total submission to Islam, self-sacrifice, brotherhood and uncompromising morality.
3. He awakened the World of Islam to their constructive appointment with destiny. He also exposed the real enemies of Islam and how they must be constrained. His insistence that we must return to the real educational, economic, spiritual and social substance of Islam will not soon be forgotten.
4. He demonstrated that reading, learning and reason were indispensable qualities for the economic and social development of the masses.
5. He proved that mysticism had no place in the World of Islam.
6. He proved, as many before him, that death could be no barrier to the fulfillment of destiny.
7. He attested to the fact that racism has no place in Islam. On December 27, 1964, he said, "Well, this is why Islam is spreading. Islam has no color bar in it at all. There is nothing in Islam that teaches one to judge a man by the color of his skin. No matter what color you are in Islam, you are a Muslim - you are a brother."
We are reminded of the verses of Quran from Surah Al-Fajr as we ponder over the life and death of a great American Muslim.
"O you Soul at Peace Well pleased and well pleasing Return to thy Lord Return as My devotee Enter into My Heaven" To God We Belong To Him Is Our Return
Shahid Athar M.D. is Clinical Associate Professor of Internal Medicine and Endocrinology, Indiana University School of Medicine Indianapolis, Indiana, and a writer on Islam.
Read other articles by Dr Shahid Athar here.

The Last Sermon of the Prophet.

From: www.soundvision.com

The last sermon of the Prophet-peace be upon him- is known as Khutbatul Wada'. It is mentioned in almost all books of Hadith. Following Ahadith in Sahih Al-Bukhari refer to the sermon and quote part of it. See Al-Bukhari, Hadith 1623, 1626, 6361) Sahih of Imam Muslim also refers to this sermon in Hadith number 98. Imam al-Tirmidhi has mentioned this sermon in Hadith nos. 1628, 2046, 2085. Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal has given us the longest and perhaps the most complete version of this sermon in his Masnud, Hadith no. 19774.
This Khutbah of the Prophet-peace be upon him- was long and it contained much guidance and instructions on many issues. The Prophet-peace be upon him- gave this sermon in front of a large gathering of people during Hajj.
Whosoever heard whatever part of the sermon reported it and later some scholars put it together. It is a great khutbah and we should all pay attention to its message and guidance. Following are the basic points mentioned in this khutbah:

O People Lend me an attentive ear, for I know not whether after this year, I shall ever be amongst you again. Therefor listen to what I am saying to you very carefully and take these words to those who could not be present here today.

O People Just as you regard this month, this day, this city as sacred, so regard the life and property of every Muslim as a sacred trust. Return the goods entrusted to you to their rightful owners. Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. Remember that you will indeed meet your Lord, and that He will indeed reckon your deeds. Allah has forbidden you to take usury (interest); therefore all interest obligation shall henceforth be waived. Your capital, however, is yours to keep. You will neither inflict nor suffer any inequity.
Allah has Judged that there shall be no interest and that all interest due to Abbas Ibn ‘Abd al Muttalib (the Prophet's uncle) shall henceforth be waived.
Beware of Satan for the safety of your religion. He has lost all hope that he will ever be able to lead you astray in big things, so beware of following him in small things.

O People It is true that you have certain rights in regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives, only under Allah's trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat you women well and be kind to them, for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with anyone of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste.

O People Listen to me in earnest, worship Allah, say your five daily prayers (Salah), fast during the month of Ramadan, and give your wealth in Zakat.
Perform Hajj if you can afford to.
All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black, nor a black has any superiority over a white- except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim, which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not therefor, do injustice to yourselves.

Remember one day you will appear before Allah and answer for your deeds. So beware, do not stray from the path of righteousness after I am gone. People, no prophet or apostle will come after me and no new faith will be born. Reason well therefore, O people, and understand words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the Quran and the Sunnah (Hadith), and if you follow these you will never go astray. All those who listen to me shall pass on my words to others and those to others again; and may the last ones understand my words better than those who listened to me directly. Be my witness, O Allah, that I have conveyed your message to your people."

Prophet Muhammad's Manners.

From: www.imageofmuhammad.com

By Sheikh Rajab Deeb

Prophet Muhammad's Gentleness and Tactfulness:
Aisha stated that, ‘The Prophet never used foul language and never entertained people with obscene jokes. He was well behaved when he entered the market places. His habit was not to repel evil with mutual evil. He was forgiving and could grant pardon.' (Tirmidhi)
Husain the grandson of the Prophet asked his father, Ali , about the Prophet's conduct. Ali replied, 'He was always cheerful, gentle and mild. There was no rigidity or coarseness in his conduct. He was neither a faultfinder nor a boisterous person and he steered away from any kind of futile engagement.' (Tabarani)
The Prophet encouraged the achievers and never deprived anybody of hope. He refrained from boasting, hoarding wealth and involvement in matters that did not concern him as well as from using sharp rebukes and exposing people with the intention to disgrace and defame. (Tirmidhi)
While speaking, he addressed matters constructively with the objective of good for all. His audience remained motionless as they gave him their undivided attention. Birds could find a safe place to sit on their heads during these sessions (being so preoccupied in his comments). None of his listeners would interrupt while he spoke. They waited until he completed his discussion and the person who then requested to participate was allowed to address the group first, followed by the second and the third and so on. Participants were treated with respect - each was allowed to finish his statement without objection or interference - and everybody would listen to him attentively. Sometimes visitors to Madina were harsh as they questioned him about Islam, but he was always polite and tolerant towards them. When a person spoke in his company, he would not object unless the person spoke incorrectly, and then he would either stop the speaker or stand up and leave the conversation. (Tirmidhi)
The Prophet laughed at things that were humorous and was excited by things that excited his Companions. With regards to the needy, he encouraged those less needy to support them. He objected to being praised excessively and tolerated it only as a way of being shown thanks for his kindness. (Tirmidhi)
Prophet Muhammad smiled so spontaneously that each one of the Companions, as they gathered around him during their visits to his house, thought to be the favorite Companion. Jareer Ibn Abdullah said, 'I have not seen the Prophet, since I embraced Islam, without a smile on his face. I saw him smiling when he could not see me and he was smiling in my presence.' ( Bukhari )
Abdullaah Ibn Haarith said, 'I never came across a person who smiled as much as the Prophet. The Prophet regarded smiling with a brother as an act of charity. (Tirmidhi)
Anas Ibn Maalik , who served the Prophet for ten years in his house said, "He would listen carefully and attentively to questions or requests. He shifted his focus only after the person in need directed it away or the person left his presence. He held on to the hand that greeted him and waited for the other person to withdraw first. He shook the hand of anybody who extended it." (Abu Nu'aim)
Aisha related that at receiving news of the wickedness of an individual, the Prophet would ask, 'Why do people transmit such tales?' without accusing the messenger himself. (Tirmidhi)
Aisha said that the Prophet welcomed gifts offered to him. He rewarded this beautiful gesture by offering a gift in return. ( Bukhari )

Prophet Muhammad's Humility:
He said, "If I were to be invited to eat trotters of sheep or cows or if they were given to me as gifts I would proudly accept such gestures of goodwill." (Tirmidhi)
He said, "Don't commend me as Christians commend Jesus the sun of Marry. But say about me, the servant and the messenger of Allah." (Muslim)
The companions of Prophet Muhammad used to stay sitting when he come because they know how he feels bad when they stand for him. (Tirmidhi)
Aisha said, "Prophet Muhammad used to stitch his clothes, milk the goats and help in the chores inside the house.' (Bukhari and Muslim)
He said, "'None shall enter Paradise with a grain of boast or pride still in the heart." (Muslim)
Once a newcomer to his gathering was filled with awe and anxiety. When he detected this, the Prophet\said to the person, 'Please relax and be at ease! I am not a great monarch. I am only a son of a lady who ate cured meat.' (Ibn Majah)
The Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) never refused to listen to the problems of his followers. A poor old lady once told him that she desperately needed to talk to him about a problem. He comforted her by saying that he is prepared to meet her anywhere and on any road of Madina to discuss the matter that worried her. (Abu Dawud)

Prophet Muhammad's Sense of Humor:
A Bedouin called Zaahir was selling his commodities in the market. The Prophet approached him from behind and, clasping his arms around Zaahir , challenged him to release himself from the grip. Then the Prophet called to those who passed by, 'Who wants to buy this slave?' Laughing and still in the Prophet's grip, Zaahir responded, 'There is no market for me. Nobody would want to buy me,' because his old, deformed body made him unattractive. The Prophet replied, 'But by Allah, you are priceless and invaluable.' (Ahmad)
Jabir ibn Abdullah says, “After I accepted Islam, the prophet never prohibited me from attending his assemblies. Whenever he saw me he smiled or laughed.” (Tirmidhi)
Anas ibn Maalik relates, “Prophet s once told him jokingly, O two eared one.” (Tirmidhi)
Abu Hurairah reports, “The companions of prophet Muhammad asked, ‘O Messenger of Allah, you joke with us?’ He replied, ‘Yes, I do not say but the truth.” (Tirmidhi)
He loved Abu Umair and always played with him. One day the Prophet saw that he was depressed. The Companions told him that it was because his nughair (bird) had died. The Prophet tried to make him laugh and said, 'Abu Umair! What happened to Nughair?’ (Bukhari and Tirmidhi)
Anas ibn Malik relates that a person requested prophet Muhammad that he be given a conveyance. Prophet Muhammad replied, “The baby of a camel shall be given to you.” The person said, “What shall I do with the baby of a camel O’ Messenger of Allah?” (I want one for a conveyance). The prophet then replied smiling , “Every camel is the baby of a camel.” (Tirmidhi)
Hasan Basri says that an old woman came to prophet Muhammad and made a request, “O’ Messenger of Allah make pray for me that Allah grants me entrance into Paradise.” The prophet replied, “O’ Mother, an old woman cannot enter Paradise.” That woman started crying and began to leave. The prophet then said, “Say to the woman that one will not enter in a state of old age, but Allah will make all the women of Paradise young virgins. Allah says, “Lo! We have created them a (new) creation and made them virgins, lovers, equal in age.” (35-37). (Tirmidhi)
A woman came to the prophet grouching about her husband. The prophet asked her, "Isn't your husband the one whose eyes are white (which means in Arabic literature 'blind)?'" The woman then feared and said, "No, he is not." Then, she immediately went back to her husband and started looking at his eyes. Her husband felt strange. He asked her, "What wrong with you? Weren't you upset from me just an hour ago." She told him what happened with prophet Muhammad and they realized how he solved the problem between them by re-motivating the love emotions between them in this gentle truthful way.

Prophet Muhammad's Patient:
Anas was walking with the Prophet when a Bedouin approached them and took hold of the Prophet . The Prophet was wearing a garment which had a thick edging. The Bedouin pulled the garment violently and the edges left marks on the Prophet's body as a result of his pulling. The Bedouin demanded his portion of the Zakaat, shouting, 'Muhammad! Give the command (to the Companions) to give me the money of Allaah which Allah placed in your care!' Anas said the Prophetlooked at him and smiled. He instructed that the Bedouin be given from the money (in the community chest). (Tirmidhi)
A Bedouin entering the Mosque of the Prophet and starting to urinate. The Muslims were furious and wanted to punish the Bedouin, but the Prophet stopped them. He asked them to take a bucket of water and pour it over the urine. He reminded them, ‘Your mission is to facilitate matters, not to complicate them.' (Tirmidhi)
Anas Ibn Maalik was a domestic servant in the house of the Prophet. In praise of his employer he said, 'I served the Prophet for ten years. He never rebuked me during that period. He did not even say as much as (uff - a word that express annoying and anger). After I finished an assignment, he never asked me about the way I accomplished it and never suggested a better way than the way I did it. Sometimes I did not execute an assignment and he would not ask me to give reasons for the failure.' (Tirmidhi)

Prophet Muhammad's Generosity:
Hakeem Ibn Hizaam , requested money from the Prophet The Prophet gave him some money. After some time, he repeated the same request and the Prophet gave to him again. Then he came back a third time requesting assistance and the Prophet again assisted. But this time the Prophet taught him a lesson, saying, 'Hakeem, this money is a temptation. If you take it with the intention of not asking for more, you will find blessings in it. But if spend it lavishly, you will be deprived of its blessings. It is like eating to feed one's body and eating without reaching satisfaction. Remember, the hand that gives is superior (by Allah) to the receiving hand.' (Bukhari and Muslim)
Umm Salmah, the Prophet's wife, reported that one day Allah's Messenger came home looking disturbed. She asked him what the matter was. He replied that the seven coins he had received the day before had remained on the bed until evening and had not been distributed. He did not rest until they were given away.
Abu Dharr reported that one evening he was walking with Allah's Messenger when he said, "Abu Dharr, if the mountain of Uhud were turned into gold for me, I would not like three nights to pass and one dinar still be left with me, excepting what I would leave for paying my debts."
Ibn 'Abbaas says: "The messenger of Allah was the most generous among people in performing good deeds (No one could compare with him in generosity. He himself led a simple life, but in giving he would put a king to shame.) Particularly in the month of Ramadan, he would be more generous than any other month till the month ended. In this month when Gabriel came and recited the Quran to the prophet, at that time his generosity exceeded the wind that brings forth heavy rains". (Bukhari)
Anas says: "The messenger of Allah did not store anything for the next day". (Tirmidhi)
Umar reports that once a needy person came to ask prophet Muhammad for his need. The prophet replied: "I do not have anything at present. Go and purchase from Ali something on my behalf. When something arrives I will pay for it". Umar said: "O Messenger of Allah, whatever you possessed you have already given away. Allah did not make you responsible for that which is not in your means". The messenger of Allah felt annoyed at this saying of Umar . Thereupon a person from among the companions of Muhammad said: "O messenger of Allah, of Allah, spend whatever you wish, and do not fear any lessening from the Lord." The prophet then smiled and the happiness could be seen on his face due to the saying of that personi. Then he said: "Allah has commanded me to do this". (Tirmidhi)
Rubee says: "I brought to the messenger of Allah a tray full of dates, and some small cucumbers. Then he gave me a handful of jewellery". (Tirmidhi)

Creating a US Department of Peace

From: www.iviews.com

By: Robert C. Koehler*

Peace is a chant, a vibration, a leap of the human spirit into the 21st century and beyond. It's also HR 808 - radical common sense crafted into a bill and introduced this week into the new Congress by Dennis Kucinich.Let me describe for you, as best I can in this brief space, the heave of emotion this piece of legislation and the campaign to support it have set off in me the past few days. For this I thank and blame the Peace Alliance, which held a conference in D.C. over the weekend in support of the bill - well, it was half conference, fact-dense and nitty-gritty, brimming with info on bullying and suicide and war; and half revival, alive with music and global religion, full of God and Buddha and the spirit of the Founding Fathers and Gandhi and Martin Luther King and Jane Addams and Susan B. Anthony and many others.By the time the Rev. Michael Beckwith - this was on Sunday morning, a day and a half into it - invoked the idea of "a world that works for everybody," I felt an unbearable cry from the private depths of my heart: I believe! I believe! The cry pushed ferociously against an almost equal disbelief and I felt split in two - but maybe giving birth is always like that.That morning, the main headline in the Washington Post read: "At Least 125 Killed in Blast at Baghdad Market." This is so clearly not a world that works for everybody, and it's so clearly getting worse. "A suicide bomber detonated more than a ton of explosives in a market in central Baghdad late Saturday afternoon. . . . 'It's like a slaughterhouse. You can see blood everywhere. It's an unbelievable sight.'"Peace is not a lull between bomb blasts. But to envision the world that Beckwith and others at the conference invoked - to compress hope into a rending certainty that such a world is possible as well as necessary - peels away the numbness and cynicism that lets us live in this one. No wonder so few people are embracing it.And yet that's not true at all. A yearning for peace is at everyone's core, and the recognition of our complex, planetary interdependence is hardly controversial. Peace studies and nonviolent conflict resolution - the technology of peace - are gaining prominence in universities around the world. "There are new ideas on the world's horizon, as different from the twentieth-century worldview as the twentieth century was different from the nineteenth century," writes Marianne Williamson, founder of the Peace Alliance, in her book Healing the Soul of America. "We are ready to apply principles of healing and recovery, not just to our bodies, not just to our relationships, but to every aspect of life."Kucinich's legislation, which calls for the creation of a cabinet-level Department of Peace, funded at 2 percent of the Defense Department's budget, is just a step in the process. It's not a fabrication out of whole cloth. It would fund and coordinate programs already in existence, in schools, prisons and elsewhere; link the concepts of domestic and international violence; and give the U.S. government access to the latest thought and research on everything from safe schools to international arms control. Its implementation would acknowledge and further an awareness, a rationality, already taking hold. For instance: "It's a fraction of the cost to prevent a war than prosecute a war," Williamson pointed out at the conference. Somewhere in the corridors of power, a voice should be sounding, and advocating for, such common sense.Similarly, while the state of California, Williamson noted, spends $150,000 per year per juvenile delinquent, violence-prevention programs are funded at the level of $150 per youth. It's nuts - such an allocation of resources is as foolish and wasteful and wrongheaded as a suicide bomber in the marketplace. "Nothing is so dangerous for our security," Williamson said, "as large groups of desperate people."Yet the rationality of peace tends to just sit there - ho hum, what else is new? - while the headlines go off in our faces. Are we doomed to a violent politics, with all its news drama and illusion of instant transformation? Powerful interests, even government itself, seem locked into the mechanisms of war and human violence, however suicidal in the long, and now middle-distance, run. The creation of a Department of Peace would by no means extricate us from our dilemma, but it would signal our collective interest in making a start. Yet the bill faces enormous obstacles just to come up for debate. In the last session of Congress, it had 74 co-sponsors; with its reintroduction, 41 legislators are so far back on board. Its advocates will need enormous passion to keep the interest in it growing.This brings me back to that moment in the conference when a just, fair world - a world that works for everybody - flickered in my heart as more than an abstraction, and I felt myself clot with tears. Perhaps you'd cry too if you sensed how close we are to such a world, and how close we are to blowing it forever.

Robert Koehler, an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist, is an editor at Tribune Media Services and nationally syndicated writer. You can respond to this column at bkoehler@tribune.com or visit his Web site at commonwonders.com.

How Muslims Can Win The World Struggle (Overwhelm Them)

By: Maged Taman

The world struggle is between the fair and just and the so/so. The latter is those who are unjust and those who are just but want to go slow/slow. It is like the people who are rich and have health insurance some of them do not care about the other 48 millions who are not insured. They do not care if they to see Taman Health Plan that covers all Americans vanish or come true. For the majority who are Muslims, Christians and Jews who are fair and just let us act now and do not go slow. It is like Taman Health Plan mortality and morbidity in America can be cut down by this plan what we are waiting for. Let us have a just world for all:

1- Let us in all Muslim web sites write and repeat this two words "Justice and Equality For All".

2- Let these two words reciprocate as well in Christians and Jewish websites. Let them inspire us all.

3- Let us have a great conference about these two words "Justice and Equality For All".

4- Let us tell the Arab and Muslims streets their rights for these two words "Justice and Equality`For All".

5- Let us tell Jihadis we have better plans than what they call for.

6- Let us get America out of Iraq. Put it politely they have language barrier with the Arabs all along the road.

7- Let us have the Americans pretend nothing there and start from scratch with a new plan for Justice and Equality for all.

8- Let us entertain ourselves have a leader hiding in a website that has no face and let us follow his call.

9- Let us be our own leaders. Let us be the motivators and the followers. Let us be the generals and the soldiers.

10- Let us do it with no wars. Let us do it with overwhelming call for Justice and peace for all.

11- Let us have Hollywood do the scenario, the cast and the call.

Sounds like a poem to me, I do know what you think.

Lessons from a Dawah (Call To Islam) Barbeque.

From: www.latinodawah.org

By Isa Lima

I remember the last time I tried to participate in dawah work with Hispanics. We sort of went out into Culmore, the Spanish neighborhood close to the Darul Hijrah mosque in Virginia. We set up a barbeque and a table full of pamphlets. One bro was grilling burgers; another was yelling "FREE FOOD!" I was trying to give an overview of Islam to those who were coming, and other brothers were giving pamphlets out. If people showed a lot of interest and wanted to know even more than what the pamphlets said, we'd give them a Spanish translation of the Qur'an.
We were at some soccer fields. We gave out pamphlets along with food...we went on and on...all day. Some things I learned from that experience are the following:

1. Don't go out to give dawah with 12 ambitious well-intended, English-speaking brothers and one Hispanic brother. The Hispanic bro will collapse.
2. Learn Central American slang to communicate with Central Americans. It's a completely different language I tell you.
3. Be consistent. Come back to the neighborhood every weekend or whenever you can.
4. Don't show up wearing thobes. Otherwise, you will have to explain to Hispanics why such and such brothers are wearing "skirts," which aren't really "skirts."
5. Realize that you will be talking to drunkards, drug addicts, and people from the slap-a-ho tribe, and men lacking common knowledge of hygiene.
6. Don't bring too many sisters with you because you'll have to defend them from alcoholics. I'm serious.
7. Bring a truckload of Spanish translations of the Qur'an and pamphlets on Islam.
8. Bring big brothers in case you have to rumble with La Mara Sapatrucha or whatever the hell it's called. Latin Kings..la misma vaina.
9. Make sure the masjid has your name and number in case people come in asking for a Muslim to speak about Islam in Spanish. This goes the same for Portuguese speakers.
10. If any people accept Islam that don't speak English very well, try to set up a Spanish speaking Qur'an class.