Sham Rights Versus Real Rights

 If you would like to download a pdf of the following material, then, please go to: "Sham Rights Versus Real Rights"

1.       God has not granted Zionists the Biblical right to Palestine or surrounding lands. To whatever extent anything has been granted (and this is a contentious issue), the granting was to those (whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim, indigenous peoples, Hindu, or otherwise) who were committed to submitting themselves to God, and this is something which Zionists have never shown themselves capable of doing in any way but a self-serving manner.

2.       Sykes and Picot didn't have the right in 1916 to arbitrarily divide up the Middle East on behalf of the British, French, Italian, and Russian governments.

3.       James Balfour didn't have the right in November 1917 to promise Palestine -- in part or whole -- to the Zionists via the latter's agent, financier, and protector (Lord Rothschild).

4.       The Nazis didn't have the right to help move and transport Zionists to Palestine in the 1930s -- which was Germany's preferred solution prior to developing subsequent forms of a “solution”.

5.       The British had no rightful mandate from Palestinians -- during the period of 1920 to 1948 -- to rule over Palestine, nor did the British have a right to be so incompetent when it came to preventing Zionists from committing acts of terrorism against, and stealing property from, the Palestinian people.

6.       The Zionists -- in the form of Haganah (1920), Irgun (1931), and/or the Stern Gang (1940) -- had no right to commit terrorist acts in Palestine during the period between 1920 and 1948. The very first hi-jacking of airplanes and the first terrorist bombings in the Middle-East were conducted by members of the foregoing organizations.

7.       Meyer Lansky (head of Murder Inc., the American mob-directed assassination bureau) had no right to ship weapons to Palestine. He was merely a Zionist thug helping fellow Zionist thugs through his forte of illicit, illegal, as well as ignoble activities, and the Zionists in Palestine knew the foregoing facts because such realities were the reason why Lansky was never granted citizenship in the Zionist entity created by the U.N. .

8.       The U.N. had no right to take land away from Palestinians in order to recognize a terrorist-based, Zionist government as a separate country in 1948.

9.       The Zionists had no right to declare that the geographical area known as Palestine was: “A land without a people for a people without a land” because such a claim was never true.

10.   The U.N. had no right to apportion the majority of land in Palestine (56%) to a minority people (Zionists, most of who came from outside Palestine, constituted less than a third of the population during the act of partition in 1948).

11.   The Zionists had no right in 1947-1948 to conduct ethnic cleansing in more than 70 Palestinian cities/towns/villages driving out 750,000 Palestinians from their homes, and killing thousands in the process.

12.   AIPAC (which, in 1959, became the renamed successor of the 1954-formed American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs) has no right to operate as a political entity within the United States as long as it fails to abide by the requirements of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

13.   Lyndon Johnson had no right to betray his country -- as both President and Commander in Chief -- when he chose to protect Zionist interests rather than to protect and to assist the American service people serving on the USS Liberty in 1967.

14.   Lyndon Johnston and James Angleton had no right to ensure that Zionists were able to illicitly secure the resources necessary to construct nuclear weapons.

15.   Zionists have no right to hold the world hostage to a threat of nuclear holocaust if such Zionists are not given what they desire.

16.   People who are acting members of any of the three branches of federal, state, or local government in America have no right to be citizens of both the United States and any other country simultaneously. This constitutes an inherent conflict of interest.

17.   With the possible exception of John Kennedy, all presidents from Truman to Biden have betrayed the rights of Americans by showing preference for the cause of Zionists over the needs of Americans. For example, the two-three billion dollars per year that has been given to support Zionists should have been directed toward re-building American infrastructure, or helping those in America who are sick, homeless, hungry, and/or jobless.

18.   Self-absorbed political narcissists such as: Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Tim Walz, Donald Trump, J.D. Vance, and Robert Kennedy, Junior have no right to support, aide, or abet the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent Palestinians, most of whom are women and children.

19.   The conflict between Palestinians and Zionists did not start on October 7, 2023. The Zionist-side of the conflict started in the late 1800s when people like Theodor Herzl (founder of the Zionist Organization) encouraged other Zionists to invade, settle, and colonize land which was not theirs, while the Palestinian side of the conflict began when the aforementioned invaders started stealing from, terrorizing, imprisoning, and killing Palestinians in the 1930s-1940s and who, as a result, were forced to exercise their right to defend themselves against a foe that was being financially supported, armed, as well as encouraged to become settler-colonialists in Palestine by, among others, America, England, France, and Germany.

20.   Zionism did not come into existence following the holocaust but arose prior to, and independently of, that set of events. However, never wishing to let a crisis go to waste, opportunistic Zionists have callously used the holocaust as a propaganda tool to further their own oppressive ends and, in the process, have misdirected attention away from the threat entailed by all forms of pathological tyranny -- including that of Zionism.

21.   Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House, had no right to invite an acknowledged war-criminal as well as a perpetrator of crimes against humanity to address the United States Congress, but he did have a fiduciary responsibility to the people of the United States (which he failed to exercise) to shield the latter from being exposed to anyone who had such a callous and malignant disregard for humanity. Moreover, one is sickened to know that there are hundreds of Representatives and Senators in the U.S. Congress who were willing to stand up 56-times to offer standing ovations indicating that they are fully on board with terrorism, murder, cruelty, theft, torture, and barbaric oppression so that the Zionist entities that have bribed those same governmental officials will be able to continue to interfere with the American political process.

22.   Zionists have no right to be anti-Semitic ... that is, Zionists have no right to harm, abuse, demonstrate bias and bigotry against, or exercise hatred toward Palestinians who -- unlike many, if not most, Zionists -- are actually a Semitic people.

23.   The leaders of Hamas had, and have, no right to place the lives, children, and property of millions of Palestinians at extreme risk in order to advance a morally questionable military and political strategy.

24.   Zionists -- especially the current Prime Minister -- helped to support, protect, and substantially finance Hamas leadership. Neither side of the foregoing destabilizing collusion had the right to actively deceive and manipulate the people of Gaza as well as people in the surrounding areas who only wanted to live in peace.

25.   England, France, Germany, Zionists, the United Nations, America, and the leaders of Hamas might have all manner of self-righteously proclaimed and dubiously obtained laws, rules, and mechanisms of power through which they conduct themselves as they like. However, those countries, organizations, and groups have never actually possessed anything but a self-delegated sense of delusional entitlement as their rationalization for oppressing and betraying the people of Palestine in the despicable manner which the aforementioned countries, organizations and groups have already done and continue to do.

26.   Miko Peled, Norman Finkelstein, Ilan Pappé, Dan Cohen, Max Blumenthal, Aaron Maté, Katie Halper, Lee Camp, Sam Seder, Noam Chomsky, and I.F. Stone -- as well as many other Jewish individuals who could have been mentioned and who have all spoken out against the Zionist project of ethnic cleansing, terrorism, colonialism, and brutal oppression that is taking place in Palestine -- are not the “self-hating Jews” whom Zionists have tried to induce people around the world to derisively dismiss, but, rather, the previously identified individuals are people who give expression to the moral courage, critical reflection, and intellectual rigor that is exemplified in the Jewish spiritual tradition, but, unfortunately, these same qualities seem to be entirely absent from what appears to be the morally bankrupt and corrupt, political-philosophical ideology which is known as Zionism.

27.   Zionists are, and always have been, an occupying force that has become lost in the obsessive, devolutionary, hysterical lawlessness of a colonial-settler way of existence which seeks to spread its pathogenicity everywhere it goes. Consequently, as an occupying power, they have no rights under International Law to defend themselves against those Palestinians who are pursuing the latter's inherent right to be sovereign individuals.

28.   Everyone has a right to sovereignty.

29.   No one has a right to: Ethnic cleansing, torture, terrorism, collective punishment, arbitrary detentions, or behaviors that deprive people of food, shelter, water, education, health care, and the capacity to communicate freely with others about matters that adversely, if not destructively, affect one’s right to sovereignty.

30.   A third of the people being decimated in Gaza and the West Bank are Christians.

31.   Consequently, those Christians who support Zionism are endorsing the idea of an alleged “right” to slaughter and oppress their own Christian brothers and sisters.

32.   Apparently, there are some individuals who believe they have the right to place their spiritual brothers and sisters at risk due to an assumed right to poke or prod Divinity to speed up the end-of-days dynamics in order to realize their own self-serving and delusional understanding of Armageddon at the expense of others. Such a perspective seems inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus/Isa (peace be upon him).

33.   One can only shake one's head in perplexity and dismay concerning those Zionists who claim a right to be outraged and anguished with respect to the holocaust and, yet, in such hypocritical fashion, those individuals also have become inexplicably entangled in perpetrating terrorist acts against the Semitic people of Gaza and the West Bank ... acts that cannot be distinguished from the moral atrocities which occurred during the Second World War.

34.   The United States has used its veto-powers at the United Nations to protect Zionism for 76 years. One of the many flaws of the United Nations is that this latter organization has enabled the United States to use that veto power to facilitate the destruction of all Palestinian rights by offering all manner of political, financial, economic, legal, scientific, and military support to Zionism which has been used for nefarious purposes and, in the process -- as collateral damage from such irresponsible actions -- the lives of those who are sincere explorers of the Jewish spiritual tradition have been adversely affected because Zionists have tried to obfuscate the difference between Zionism and Judaism.

35.   There is a substantial distinction to be drawn between Zionism and Judaism. The former (that is, Zionism) seeks to induce people to destroy spirituality for the sake of personal, worldly gain, whereas the latter (that is, Judaism) seeks to induce people to enhance spirituality independently of, and, if necessary, at the expense of worldly gain.

36.   The meme: “From the River to the Sea, Palestinians will be free” says nothing about annihilating Zionists. Rather, the meme alludes to the right of all people – including Palestinians -- to be free from tyranny, whether Zionist-caused or caused in some other manner.

37.   Unfortunately, those who object to the foregoing meme have become consumed with a classic case of projection in which such individuals fear that others will do to Zionists what Zionists have done, and are doing, to other human beings. Fortunately, there are many people – including Palestinians – who do not suffer from the same defects of thinking, feeling, and acting which characterize those who seek to project their own faults onto others and, as a result, notwithstanding the fictional narrative which has been created by Zionists, Palestinians are pursuing nothing more than for their basic human rights to be acknowledged and realized – aspirations which Zionists have no right to deny or disparage. 

-----

The foregoing perspective is not my idiosyncratic view concerning the situation in Palestine. It is shared by many individuals who have had their hearts sincerely opened up (i.e., the quality of Ikhlas) to the spiritual influence of Jesus/Isa (peace be upon him), and such people are referred to as Isawi or followers of Jesus/Isa (peace be upon him) by the Sufis (i.e., those who pursue the mystical dimension of Islam). In addition, the foregoing thirty-seven points also resonate with the position of those who have had their hearts sincerely opened up to the spiritual influence of Moses/Musa (peace be upon him) and who are referred to, by the Sufis, as Musawi, or followers of Moses/Musa (peace be upon him). For example, in the latter case, many things were said in an interview given by Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss which are consonant with what has been voiced during the previous five pages. The url for that interview is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2H-F0HVKDY .

Interestingly enough, the foregoing 37 points were written independently of the Rabbi’s interview since I only came to find out about his talk after the foregoing link had been forwarded to me by a fellow Sufi who, after reading the 37 points, responded by suggesting that I listen to the aforementioned interview and for which he had provided me with a link through which to engage the Rabbi’s commentary.

Shari'ah: A Muslim's Declaration of Independence - Part 12

A Few Comments Concerning The Issue of Regulating Public Space

There has been a great deal of confusion in the Muslim community swirling among questions about the possible relationship between, on the one hand, what may have been done in the lifetime of the Prophet -- as well as during the lifetimes of the Companions of the Prophet over the course of the reign of the first four caliphs -- in relation to the issue of regulating public space, and, on the other hand, what may be appropriate to do today in relation to the same issue involving the regulation of public space. The root of the term ‘hukumah’ [governance] refers to a process of seeking to assist an oppressor not to oppress, and such assistance includes helping those who would exercise this responsibility – that is, political and religious leaders … i.e., the government itself – to refrain from any inclination existing within such governance to oppress, exploit, or abuse those whom such governance is supposed to be protecting from these very problems.

The Qur’an says:

“And if there had not been Allah’s repelling of some people by others, certainly there would have been torn down cloisters, and churches, and synagogues, and mosques in which Allah’s name is much mentioned; and surely Allah will help the one who helps His cause; most surely Allah is Strong, Mighty. [Qur’an, 22:39-40]

Hukumah or governance is one of the means through which Allah repels the oppression of some people by others. Moreover, it is important to note that God alludes to the right of those who worship in cloisters, churches, synagogues, and mosques to all be free to remember, worship, and invoke the name of God in their own manner.

There is a Hadith which relates the story of Abu ‘l-Husayn, a companion of the Prophet, whose two sons had been converted to Christianity in Medina by two Syrian merchants and then accompanied those merchants back to Syria. When Abu ‘l-Husayn heard of this, he went to the Prophet and sought permission to go after his sons and bring them back – not only to Medina but to Islam. In answer, the Prophet recited the Qur’an: “There is no compulsion in Deen, truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error.”[Qur’an, 2:256] Upon hearing the foregoing, Abu ‘l-Husayn let his sons go their own way.

When Abu Bakr Sidiq (may Allah be pleased with him) was Caliph [died in the 13th year after hijrah and was Caliph from 632 A.D. to 634 A.D.] he sent the Muslim army into Syria. As he did so, he issued the following guidance:

“When you enter the land, kill neither old men, women, nor children. … Establish a covenant with every people and city who receive you peacefully, give them your assurances, and let them live according to their laws.”

The Prophet, as well as the first four caliphs, all made decisions concerning the regulation of the public space, but these decisions were not shari‘ah, per se. As has been pointed out repeatedly during this essay, shari‘ah is an expression of a person’s private spiritual journey in search of reality or the truth concerning human existence and the place of such existence in the scheme of things, whereas the decisions of the Prophet and the first four Caliphs were particularized applications of their understanding of, and insight into, the nature of Divine guidance which had been given to them and were intended to address the circumstances, history, conditions, problems, cultures, capabilities, and issues of those times.

As the Prophet was instructed to say:

“This is my way. I call to God– I and whoever follows me being certain.” [Qur’an, 12:108]

Just as the appropriate times for fasting, pilgrimage, and prayers are to be observed within a certain timeframe, so, too, there may be an appropriate timeframe or contingency-based set of considerations concerning the application of certain other facets of the Qur’an. However, in order to determine the truth of such matters, one needs to call upon Allah – not books of fiqh, jurisprudence, judicial precedent, or legislation.

In the Qur’an, the Jews are told that they should have judged matters in accordance with the guidance which had been given to them …

“And why do they make you – Muhammad – the judge when they have the Taurat wherein is Allah’s judgment?” [Qur’an, 5:43]

The Qur’an also indicates that Christians should be judging matters in accordance with the guidance [Injeel] which had been given to them …

“And the followers of the Injeel should have judged by what Allah revealed in it; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they who are transgressors.” [Qur’an, 5:47].

Moreover, the Prophet is also told in the Qur’an that if the Jews and Christians come to him for purposes of seeking judgment in a matter, then:

“… judge between them or turn aside from them, and if you turn aside from them, they will not harm you in any way; and if you should decide to serve as a judge, then judge between them with equity; surely God loves those who judge equitably.” [Qur’an, 5:42]

The choice of whether, or not, to decide issues which were brought to him by people from the Christian and/or Jewish community was up to the Prophet. He was made keeper over their affairs and, in fact, the Prophet was reminded – as noted in the foregoing commentary – that both the Christian and the Jewish peoples had been given their own means of deciding matters through the Torah of Moses and the Injeel of Jesus (peace be upon him).

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is no longer with us in a physical form. The Companions are no longer with us in a physical form.

For the most part, we do not have access to the intentions through which the Prophet or the first four caliphs made their decisions and judgments concerning the regulation of public space. If the Prophet were with us now as a physical presence to which we had ready access, one cannot be sure that he necessarily would decide matters today concerning the regulation of public space exactly as he did more than 1400 years ago when circumstances, conditions, history, culture, and needs were very much different than they are today. Yet, there are people today who have arrogated to themselves the presumption that they know what the Prophet would do or how he would decide matters concerning the regulation of public space if he were here with us in the present set of circumstances.

It is reported that a person wanted to place a book written by Imam Malik in the Sacred Mosque. Apparently, the idea behind that individual’s desire was so that people coming to the Sacred Mosque might discover the book, read it, and, God willing, learn something from its contents. When Imam Malik heard about the person’s desire to place one of the Imam’s books in the Sacred Mosque, Imam Malik indicated that he was not in favor of such an action.

Imam Malik is reported to have said: “The companions of the Messenger of Allah disagreed about the branches and dispersed to different countries, and each one is correct.” He further commented: “The people have handed over to them positions, and they heard hadith and they examined reports, and each people takes what was handed over to them, and they yield to Allah with it. So, leave the people alone and what they choose for themselves in every country.”

The Qur’an reminds us that:

“… for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and if Allah had wished He would have made you a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return of all, so He will let you know that in which you differed;” [Qur’an, 5:48]

Prior to becoming Caliph, Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) said:

"Listen to me, ye people. Those of you who worshipped Muhammad know that he is dead like any other mortal. But those of you who worship the God of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) know that He is alive and would live forever."

Then he repeated a passage from the Qur’an:

"And Muhammad is no more than an apostle; apostles have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, he will by no means do harm to Allah in the least and Allah will reward the grateful.” [Qur’an, 3:144]

Public space should be governed in a way that prevents oppression, exploitation, or abuse of any kind to undermine or interfere with people’s basic right – which is granted by God – to decide the spiritual direction of their path in life. This is a right and a freedom which each human being has so long as whatever acts arise out of such choices do not spill over into the lives of other individuals and, in the process, adversely or problematically affect the latter’s ability to freely chose and act with respect to their own individual course in life.

The public space, or commons, should be governed through principles of justice, equitability, peace, tolerance, integrity, honesty, charitableness, freedom, compassion, balance, harmony, and the sort of mediated settlements which help limit, if not eliminate all together, all forms of oppression, persecution, abuse, and exploitation. A public space governed in accordance with the foregoing qualities will, if God wishes, generate the type of environment which may prove to be most conducive to the exercise of the basic right to choose between good and evil – a responsibility which belongs to each and every human being.

If one looks to the example of the Prophet, the public space of his community was regulated in accordance with all of the foregoing considerations. He did not force people to pursue shari‘ah but, rather, regulated public space in such a way as to provide people with the fullest opportunity to individually pursue shari‘ah as rigorously as the latter individuals were so inclined to do as long as that pursuit did not infringe upon the right of others to do as they were inclined to do with respect to their own individual journey of shari‘ah. Moreover, quite frequently, the Prophet made judgments concerning the regulation of public space which were in accordance with pre-Islamic, customary practices of the Arab or Jewish tribes.

The Qur’an instructed the Prophet to:

“Say: ‘This is the truth from your Lord’, then, whoever wills let him believe, and whoever wills let him disbelieve.” [Qur’an, 18:29]

At another juncture the Qur’an informs the Prophet:

“You shall remind; you are entrusted to remind. You are not a watcher over them.” [Qur’an, 88:21-22]

And, at another point, the Qur’an indicates:

“Say, ‘Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger.’ If they refuse, then, he is responsible for his obligations, and you are responsible for your obligations. If you obey him, you will be guided.” [24:54]

Moreover, the Qur’an states:

“The guiding of them is not thy duty (O Muhammad), but Allah guides whom He will.” [Qur’an 2: 272).

If, according to the Qur’an, the Prophet is not responsible for the guiding of people to God, and if the duty of the Prophet is not to watch over whether, or not, people pursue shari‘ah, and if God is making it clear that it is up to the individual as to whether he or she believes in the truth which has been sent through the Qur’an and that each person has her or his own responsibility with respect to God, then, why do Muslim religious scholars, imams, theologians, mullahs, leaders, and the like all believe they have duties and responsibilities which were not entrusted to the Prophet? And, in the light of the foregoing considerations from the Qur’an, what is the source of their authority for assuming such duties and responsibilities?

Some religious scholars, would-be leaders, and theologians point to the following Quranic ayat as a possible source for what they consider their ‘rightful’ authority over people:

“O believers! Obey Allah, obey the Rasool and those charged with authority among you. Should you have a dispute in anything, refer it to Allah and His Rasool, if you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day. This course of action will be better and more suitable.” (Qur’an 4:59)

When would-be leaders cite the foregoing verse and seek to use it as an authority for expecting, if not demanding, that others should be obedient to the former, those who approach things in this manner are not only making several questionable assumptions, but, as well, such individuals often tend to act contrary to the full text of the guidance. More specifically, an assumption is being made that the sort of ‘authority’ to which the previous Quranic verse alludes is referring to worldly authority as opposed to spiritual authority, and a further assumption is being made that such individuals have been “charged” or given responsibility by God – or the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) -- to exercise authority over other individuals. Furthermore, when disputes arise in the community, then, contrary to the guidance of the Qur’an, such religious and political leaders often do not refer the matter to either Allah or the Prophet, but, instead, attempt to decide the matter according to their own theological likes and dislikes – with the assistance of imams, mullahs, and religious scholars who are loyal to those leaders -- and, then, seek to impose – forcibly, if necessary -- their decisions on others.

The Prophet had a unique position within the Muslim community. Under the Divinely-sanctioned circumstances surrounding such a standing, the public, for the most part, did not wish to place constraints on what the Prophet could and could not do. This would have been antithetical to the nature of his position and the Divine authority in which his position was rooted – something which, after all was said and done, most [but not all] people in the community acknowledged and accepted.

However, there were those who came after the Prophet [and I do not necessarily have the four ‘righteous Caliphs’ in mind here] who enjoyed something very similar to the status of the Prophet within the Muslim community. As a result, those individuals became rulers in a more or less absolute sense without necessarily having that status sanctioned by Divinity, even though, obviously, such rulers were permitted by God to do whatever they did.

The Prophet had appointed no one to succeed him with respect to the regulation of public – as opposed to spiritual – space. On the other hand, the individuals who followed the Prophet as leaders of the community often were supported through the general trust of the public with respect to the presumed character, morality, piety, and good intentions of whoever it was that became ruler.

Once someone was elected to lead the community – and this was usually by a small group of individuals rather than the community as a whole – or in those cases where a current caliph appointed a successor – and this tended to be the case quite frequently because fathers tended to appoint their sons as their successors -- the general public would be required, en masse, to take ba’yt, or an oath of allegiance, with respect to the individual who would be king or sultan. Unfortunately, such a process offered few, if any, avenues through which a person might opt out of that oath or agreement either before or after the oath of allegiance was to be given, nor did that system permit or encourage the general public to play much of a rigorous, active role in determining who would be ruler or whether, or not, there should only be a single leader for the community -- as opposed to some sort of system of self-governance in which shura or consultation was used as the means through which to address the problems which confront a given community in accordance with the Quranic guidance which says:

“And their rule is to take counsel among themselves …” [Qur’an, 42:38]

In addition, apparently, many people forgot what Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) said upon becoming Caliph:

“Obey me as long as I obey Allah and His Prophet. When I disobey Him and His Prophet, then obey me not.”

Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) was alluding to the right of people to opt out of their oath of allegiance to him – or to any leader. The determining factor was not the identity of the leader, but, rather, the determining factor was whether, or not, such a person was acting in accordance with the guidance of the Qur’an or the example of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

The belief that there should be just one leader who was either given or assumed authority to do whatever he deemed to be appropriate became corrupted within a fairly short period of time following the passing away of the Prophet. When this sort of corruption was thoroughly entrenched and became institutionally calcified, many people apparently had considerable difficulty grasping the idea that the Qur’an actually served as, among other things, a Bill of Rights that was intended to protect people against oppression, exploitation, or abuse from their political or religious leaders. This sort of difficulty was maintained and perpetuated through the manner in which, on the one hand, the sultans and kings, and, on the other hand, various imams, qadis, muftis, and theological scholars would engage in reciprocal back-scratching among themselves with respect to mutually framing the historical situation in such a way that the majority of the community were induced to believe that both the leaders and their theological accomplices were the proper guardians and representatives of Sacred Law, despite the fact that many of these individuals might not have recognized the nature of Sacred Law or shari‘ah even if the former tripped over the latter.

The regulation of public space is one issue, and the pursuit of shari‘ah is quite another matter and completely independent of how public space is to be regulated. To seek to impose on others, through the public space, one’s own ideas about what the nature of the spiritual journey ought to involve is to engage in a form of spiritual abuse.

When anyone – imam, mufti, theologian, scholar, leader, qadi, mullah – seeks to control the spirituality of another human being, then, that the former individual has transgressed due limits and has entered into the realm of spiritual abuse or exploitation, and, therefore, oppression. As the Qur’an reminds us:

“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress the limits, for God does not love the transgressors. [Qur’an, 2:190]

“… tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter.”[Qur’an, 2:191]

“And fight them till there is no more oppression, and Deen should only be for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressor.” [Qur’an, 2:193]

The foregoing is not sanctioning leaders to force Deen upon people, but, rather, the foregoing ayat is a reminder to everyone – especially leaders -- that Deen belongs to Allah and should not be interfered with or undermined by anyone. Moreover, when Deen – that is, the process of nurturing and enhancing the relationship of an individual with God, and, indeed, this is the cause of Allah -- is subject to oppression, then people have the right to resist such aggression so long as the form of that resistance does not transgress due limits of propriety, and one of the limits of propriety is that resistance should only be directed toward those who are being oppressive … no one else.

Indeed, as the Qur’an makes clear elsewhere:

“The blame is only against those who oppress human beings with wrong-doing and
insolently transgress beyond bounds through the land defying right and justice.” [Qur’an, 42:42]

The foregoing remains true even when the ones who are doing the oppressing are the very ones – in the form of religious or political leaders – who supposedly have assumed responsibility for protecting the people against such oppression.

Scholarly debates, rigorous research, discussions, informal conversations, symposia, conferences, round-table sessions, formal talks, books, articles, podcasts, television programs, documentaries, educational programs, and so on, are all legitimate venues through which to exchange views, ideas, and various considerations concerning problems, questions, and issues of spirituality. The foregoing are all legitimate venues through which people may consult with one another on such matters – provided there is no compulsion or oppression involved in these activities either with respect to the matter of attending these sort of exchanges or with respect to having to abide by what is said during those sessions.

In this respect, the Qur’an indicates:

“Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner.” [Qur’an, 16:125]

Although the foregoing guidance was specifically addressed to the Prophet, and although the calling others to the way of God is not the responsibility of a non-Prophet, nonetheless, when one engages in discussions with others concerning various issues, problems, and questions affecting the quality of public space, one still can follow the sunna of the Prophet in such matters and, thereby, seek to do so “with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner.”

“O ye who believe! Be upright for Allah, bearers of witness with justice, and let not hatred of a people incite or seduce you not to act equitably; act equitably, that is nearer to piety (taqwa) , and be careful with respect to Allah, surely Allah is aware of what you do.” ‘Qur’an, 5:8]

The public space or commons should not be operated in accordance with any philosophy or theology of public policy which imposes economic, legal, political, physical, moral, intellectual, educational, or cultural agendas on the members of the community who inhabit that public space. The sole task of governance is to guard against the emergence of any kind of oppression, exploitation, or abuse which may arise within the community or which threatens such a community from an external source.

Moreover, all members of the community have a duty of care toward themselves and others to contribute to helping those who are entrusted with governance to succeed in their sole task and responsibility concerning the struggle against oppression, along with the close cousins of oppression – namely, exploitation and abuse.

God:

“… made the balance, That you may not be inordinate [exceed limits, or transgress boundaries] in respect of the measure. And keep up the balance with equity and do not make the measure deficient. [Qur’an, 55:7-9]

The balance, the measure, equity, and taqwa are all expressions of truth and justice. They are all expressions of the Sacred Law. They are all expressions of a realized shari‘ah.

Determining the hukm or realities of such truths are challenges to which, God willing, individuals must aspire. They are not challenges which can be imposed on people or with respect to which compulsion is appropriate.

On the other hand, the ones who are entrusted to exercise governance have a duty of care to assist oppressors not to oppress others -- including themselves. Indeed, the Prophet is reported to have said that one should “Assist any person who is oppressed – whether Muslim or non-Muslim.”

The primary forms of oppression, exploitation and abuse come in the form of those actions which are likely to undermine or interfere with an individual’s God-given right to pursue, or not pursue, the realities and truths of Sacred Law and shari‘ah according to the nature of that person’s capacity, circumstances, level of understanding, inclinations, and God’s Grace … so long as the exercise of such choice does not interfere with, or undermine, the right of others to address such issues in their own manner. All other expressions of oppression, exploitation, and abuse are variations on the foregoing theme.

*****************

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross and My Year Inside Radical Islam - Part 1

About six or seven months ago I read the book My Year Inside Radical Islam by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross. While reading the book, a number of thoughts and emotions bubbled to the surface, among which were a certain sense of resonance with various facets of the author's experiences, as well as a sense of empathy for him because of his worries that he might be assassinated by some radicalized, fundamentalist, self-appointed, presumptuous 'agent' of an invented theology who believed that if anyone became Muslim and, then, moved on to some other faith system, then such an apostate must be killed. On the other hand, I also found myself in disagreement with a number of the author's ideas and some of his conclusions.

Once I finished the book, I had intended to write something at some point, but the project kept being put on a back burner as other contingencies of life took on more immediate importance. However, now the original intention has been taken off the back burner and moved to a front burner where an analytical stew is being simmered in the form of the present essay.

Earlier, when I indicated that I felt a certain resonance with some of Mr. Gartenstein-Ross's experiences that had been described within the aforementioned book I did not mean to suggest I have spent time inside any sort of radical, fundamentalist Muslim group. Nonetheless, during various situations and circumstances, I have come in contact with such individuals along the path of my own spiritual journey, and I am familiar, to some extent, with the mind and heart-set of those people.

I always have felt very uncomfortable with these sorts of individuals, and there are many reasons for this sense of discomfort. For example, some of these people are quite ignorant about the nature of Islam, and when one couples such ignorance with an arrogance which is unwilling to entertain the possibility that maybe they don't know as much or understand as much about Islam as they suppose is the case, the result has truly frightening implications … both for them as well as for others.

Yet, as problematic as this kind of ignorance and arrogance may be, what is even more worrisome is the inclination of such people to feel entitled to impose their views on other human beings … whether these latter unfortunates be Muslim or non-Muslim. These self-proclaimed true-believers imagine themselves to be God's gift to humanity and, as such, they operate in accordance with a delusion which maintains that Divinity has assigned them the mission to cleanse humanity of its spiritual impurities.

I have met this kind of individual in the Muslim community. I have met such people in the Christian community. I have met similar people in the Jewish community. In addition, I have met such people in other communities as well. Apparently, ignorance, arrogance, and presumption know no community boundaries.

On the other hand, I also have met some wonderful, sincere, rigorous, compassionate, loving, considerate, kind, generous, and courageous seekers of truth in all of the foregoing communities. Such qualities are not the province of any one faith but are manifested in the lives of those who have been blessed with grace irrespective of the formal character of the spiritual path out of which they may operate.

It is a person's personal relationship with God or a person's personal relationship with the reality which makes everything possible that matters not the theology. What matters is our heart and soul realized connection to the truth which lies at the center of our being and not the theological concepts and terms through which one wishes to label that truth.

In fact, more often than not, theology merely serves as a lens which introduces distortion into spiritual dynamics, and theology, more often than not, gives expression to a paradigm which filters out anything which is inconsistent with itself. In the end such paradigmatic filters frequently miss the truth as we become preoccupied with viewing life in terms of what we theologically project onto life rather than what being has to reveal to us on its own terms … if we would just be willing to listen to what it has to offer free from the chattering, accusations, and machinations of our ego-driven theologies.

Having said the foregoing by way of preface, the plan for the remainder of this essay is as follows: Since Daveed Gartenstein-Ross' book My Year Inside Radical Islam consists largely of a series of observations, reflections, insights, and reactions to what went on during his life in the period covered by the time-frame of the book, my plan is to do something similar. More specifically, within the framework of the present essay, I intend to put forth an array of observations, reflections, reactions, and, possibly, insights with respect to the time I spent inside of the aforementioned book … some of these thoughts and feelings will be more developed than others.

*****************

By way of a very brief overview, the book entitled My Year Inside Radical Islam describes a journey which starts in Ashland, Oregon where Daveed Gartenstein-Ross grew up as the son of parents who were nominally Jewish yet had become dissatisfied with various aspects of the Jewish faith and who, as a result, went in search of a ecumenical approach to spiritual issues. Although, from time to time, a little more is said in the book about his relationship with his parents, most of My Year Inside Radical Islam provides an account of how he came into contact with Islam, followed by a detailed description of how he became involved with a group of fundamentalist Muslims, and, then, an account of how and why he left Islam and made a decision to become Christian.

The purpose of this essay is not to find fault with Mr. Gartenstein-Ross's decision to become Christian. Such a decision is between God and him, and, quite frankly, I have absolutely no idea how God views such a decision.

Mr. Gartenstein-Ross made choices based on his circumstances, his understanding, and his needs at the time his decisions were made. During the present essay, I will have some things to say about various aspects of his understanding concerning different issues, but the rest is not my business.

****************


On page 6 of My Year Inside Radical Islam Mr. Gartenstein-Ross mentions a book by a Christian author Josh McDowell and says:

“McDowell discussed at length C.S. Lewis' claim that there were three possible things Jesus could have been: a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord …. This is because Jesus claimed to be God in the New Testament.”

As is the case with many theological meanderings, certain possibilities have been left out of the foregoing set of choices. For instance, maybe, Jesus (peace be upon him) is neither a liar, nor a lunatic, nor the Lord, but, instead, individuals – such as Lewis -- have interpreted the New Testament in accordance with the requirements of their own (i.e., Lewis') theology.

To the best of my knowledge, Jesus (peace be upon him) never claimed to be the Lord in the New Testament. What he is reported to have said in John 10: verse 30 is that:

“I and the Father are one."

However, almost every form of mysticism – not just Christianity -- touches upon this issue of oneness which seeks to reconcile our usual perceptions of multiplicity with the idea that, according to the mystics of just about every faith tradition, in some sense creation and Creator are joined together in a unity. What the nature of this unity involves is a mystery except to those to whom the secret has been disclosed.

To say that creation is other than Divinity is to give expression to the idea that something apart from God exists, whereas to say that creation is the Creator reduces things down to some form of pantheism in which anyone or anything – not just Jesus [peace be upon him] -- may make the claim that 'I and the Father are one'.

The truth to which mystics allude is more complex and subtle than either some manner of dualism or some form of pantheism. In some sense, all of creation is one with Divinity, but, simultaneously, Divinity transcends all of creation. Creation is dependent on Divinity, but Divinity – aside from the purposes inherent in creation – is quite independent of creation.

When Jesus (peace be upon him) taught people to pray, he is reported to have begun with: “Our Father in heaven hallowed be Thy name [John 6: verse 9]. Jesus (peace be upon him) did not say “Jesus' Father in heaven”. Rather, Jesus (peace be upon him) made it clear that, as creation, everyone had the same kind of connection with the One Who brought forth creation and, as such, God was the 'father' of all being, not just Jesus.

Furthermore, in Mathew 19:17, Mark 10:18, and Luke 18:19, Jesus (peace be upon him) is reported to have said variations upon the following teaching theme:

“Why callest me good? God alone is good.”

A distinction is being made between God and creation. Whatever goodness we have – even that of Jesus (peace be upon him) or Moses (peace be upon him) or Muhammad (peace be upon him) -- is borrowed and derivative from Divinity.

Earlier in his book, Mr. Gartenstein-Ross echoes the foregoing when he says:

“I rejected the Christian idea that Jesus had been God; no matter how deep a person's spiritual insight, there's a fundamental difference between the Creator and his creation.”

I agree with Mr. Gartenstein-Ross on this issue. However, the point of the foregoing discussion is not meant to be a critical exegesis of certain Christian beliefs as much as it is an attempt to point toward the fact that all of us stand in the middle of the vastness of mysterious being and try, as best we can, to make sense out of what we encounter. Some of our attempts may be better than others, but it is not human beings who are the measure of truth, but, rather, it is truth which is the measure of human beings.

C.S. Lewis stood within the vastness of being and claimed that everything could be reduced down to one of three possibilities concerning the alleged claim of Jesus to be God, the Lord. Either Jesus (peace be upon him) was a liar, or he was a madman, or he was, indeed, God. Apparently, Lewis didn't consider it worthwhile to examine either the possibility that, perhaps, Jesus (peace be upon him) didn't mean what Lewis believed him to mean when Jesus (peace be upon him) said what he is reported to have said [i.e., that I and the Father are one], nor did Lewis appear to examine the possibility that, maybe, Jesus (peace be upon him) didn't claim what some people have attributed to him.

In this latter regard, there is a very interesting book by Bart D. Ehrman entitled: Misquoting Jesus. Ehrman began his spiritual explorations very much in lock-step with the sort of literalist fundamentalism which is taught at many Bible colleges in the United States, but as a result of some very rigorous exploration into the history of Biblical transcription and translation, Ehrman underwent tremendous transformations in his perspective concerning the nature of the New Testament.

Despite his findings, Bart Ehrman remains a very committed Christian. Nonetheless, Ehrman's aforementioned book takes the reader through a litany of hermeneutical problems concerning the reliability of, and inconsistencies among, the texts given expression through, among other things, the first four books of the New Testament.

I do not say the foregoing in order to try to cast doubt upon Christianity. Indeed, I do not believe such is the intent of Ehrman's book for, as indicated above, he remains, in his own way, a believer in, and follower of, Jesus (peace be upon him).

In any case, I am not the one who will sit in judgment of people either in this world or the next concerning their spiritual beliefs and actions. Rather, I, like others, am one of the ones who will be judged for my deeds and misdeeds … my true beliefs and my false beliefs.

There are those, however, who would try to argue that by merely raising questions concerning the reliability or accuracy of certain textual sources – as Bart Ehrman does in his book Misquoting Jesus -- one is something of an apostate and, therefore, one is not deserving of the moniker: 'Christian' … and similar absurdities take place within both the Muslim and Jewish communities. Indeed, there are many so-called religious leaders of all manner of theological persuasions who would have everyone believe that the truth comes directly from God's lips to their ears. Moreover, such spiritual luminaries would seek to imbue people with the working principle that to disobey such individuals is tantamount to disobeying God and, consequently, that the wrath of God will descend on all who would deviate from the 'teachings' of these self-appointed spokespeople of God.

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross writes in My Year Inside Radical Islam that it was the dogmatic force with which some Christian fundamentalists sought to impose on him their ideas about God and, in the process, seemed intent on creating a sense of inferiority in the author's own ideas concerning God and Jesus (peace be upon him) that actually moved the author a little further down the road toward becoming involved with the Muslim community. And, ironically, it was also this same kind of dogmatic intransigence on the part of the Muslim community with which he was involved that helped move him along a path away from that community and toward Christianity.

Mr. Gartenstein-Ross first encountered a Muslim and Islam while attending Wake Forest University in North Carolina. The Muslim was in the form of al-Husein Madhany who was of South Asian ancestry and had been born in Kenya. Initially, the relationship between the two of them revolved around political issues concerning campus life as well as issues that overlapped with, but extended beyond, the horizons of the university.

Little by little, Mr. Gartenstein-Ross leaned about his friend's beliefs concerning Islam. According to the author, some of the things he learned were that:

“the Qur'an is God's direct, literal word. I was also interested to learn that Muslims believe that the Old and New Testaments are earlier holy books inspired by God – but those books became corrupted over time and are no longer completely reliable.” (page 18 of My Year Inside Radical Islam)

There are a few problems inherent in the foregoing 'learnings'.

For example, what does it mean to say that the Qur'an is God's direct, literal word? Literal in what sense? Direct in what sense? In what sense is the Qur'an the word of God?

To be sure, on one level the Qur'an is manifested in the Arabic language. However, it would be a mistake to try to reduce the Qur'an down to merely language.

The Qur'an is infused with the barakah or Grace of God. Words may be the portals through which one encounters such Divine barakah, but the barakah is quite independent of the words, and, in fact, this is why some people can read the words of the Qur'an and, yet, derive no spiritual benefit because all they have engaged is language while remaining untouched by the Divine barakah associated with those words.

As far as the Qur'an being the literal word of God is concerned, I'm not really sure what this would mean. Of course, there are those who would wish to make their literalistic interpretations of the Qur'an be what they claim is meant by the literal word of God, but I also know from the reported words of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) that:

“the Qur'an has an outward and an inward dimension, and the latter has its own inward dimension, and so on, up to seven dimensions.”

In addition, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have said that:

“All of the Revealed Books are contained in the Qur'an. And the meaning of the Qur'an is contained within surah al-Fatiha [that is, the opening chapter of the Qur'an]. And, the meaning of surah al-Fatiha is contained in Bismillah ir-Rahaman ir-Raheem [that is, in the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful], and the meaning of Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Raheem is contained in Bismillah [that is, in the Name of], and the meaning of Bismillah is contained in the dot beneath bey [that is the Arabic letter with which Bismillah begins].”

So, what is meant by the literal word of God in all of this? There are literalist understandings of God's meaning, but God's meanings transcend all such understandings even if some -- but by no means all -- of those literal understandings may, within certain limits, give expression to part of the truth.

We may engage God's guidance through the language of the Qur'an. However, God willing, eventually understanding goes beyond mere words and gives expression to the light of God which illuminates faith, the heart, the spirit, and the entire soul of an individual.

Aside from the foregoing considerations, I would also take exception with the author of My Year Inside Radical Islam when he says in the excerpt quoted previously that “Muslims believe that the Old and New Testaments are earlier holy books inspired by God.” To begin with, revelation and inspiration are two different phenomena.

God did not inspire Muhammad (peace be upon him) to write the Qur'an. Rather, the Qur'an was Divine guidance that descended upon the heart of the Prophet and which he was commanded to recite to others in the manner in which it had been revealed to the Prophet.

Artists are inspired. Song writers are inspired. Poets are inspired. And according to the nature of their God-given talents and life experience, they translate the Divinely bestowed inspiration into a visible form … such as paintings, songs, and poetry.

Revelation is Divine guidance which is disclosed to special individuals who are the recipients of such guidance and are known as a Rasul or one who proclaims to others the received revelation. These messengers do not transform the revelation as artists do with respect to inspiration, but, rather, the task of a Rasul is to relate to others the linguistic form of the revelation precisely as it was bestowed upon such an individual.

Furthermore, while some Muslims may believe, as Mr. Gartenstein-Ross claims in the quote given earlier, that the Old and New Testaments are earlier Holy books inspired by God, this may be a very problematic, if not overly-simplistic, way of looking at such matters. What is referred to as the Bible is largely a human construction which contains remnants, here and there, of what had been revealed to earlier messengers.

The books of the Old Testament and the New Testament represent choices made by human beings concerning what they believed to be authentic spiritual scripture. Over the years, different books have been included in the Bible, and, as well, various books have been taken out of what is called the Bible because the latter books were considered, rightly or wrongly, to be apocryphal with respect to Divine guidance.

As my shaykh once said to me with respect to the Book of Revelations: “There is truth there if one knows how to look.” So, too, with certain other portions of the Bible, both in relation to the New and Old Testaments … there is truth there if one knows how to look, but the corruptions which have entered into the historical process of translating, transcribing, interpreting, and compiling the various books of the Bible -- while excluding various other books that some claim to possess spiritual authority -- have made differentiating the true wheat from the false chaff a very difficult process.

To give but one example of the complexities which enter into such matters, consider the writings of St. Paul that are included in the New Testament. Whatever truths and spiritual inspiration may be contained in the letters of St. Paul, those letters are not revelation. Those letters are not the spiritual equivalent of the Divine revelation which was given to Jesus (peace be upon him), and St. Paul is not the spiritual equal of Jesus (peace be upon him).

St. Paul's letters give expression to his understanding of spiritual matters. There may be many truths contained in the text of his epistles, but while such truths might resonate with certain aspects of the teachings of the Gospel of Jesus (peace be upon him), the teachings of St. Paul cannot necessarily be considered to be coextensive with the teachings of the revelation given to Jesus (peace be upon him).

Different strains of Christianity have developed their own style of hermeneutically engaging such theological issues. While there are many themes and principles on which such different strains of Christianity might agree, there are also many themes with which they have differed and over which blood has been spilled.

Similarly, there are many themes and principles upon which Muslims and Christians might agree, but, unfortunately, there also are some themes and principles over which differences have arisen. As a result, blood has been spilled in all directions.

People – whether Muslims, Christians, or Jews … or anyone else for that matter – who believe they have the right to play God and not only serve as arbiters of truth but, as well, to serve as judge, jury and executioner on behalf of God with respect to the identity of such truth may not have as firm a grasp of the nature of Divine Guidance as they believe. Anybody who believes that God is in need of human beings to spill blood to serve Divine purposes may want to meditate a little more deeply and longer on Who and What God is and who and what human beings are.

All that has been said in conjunction with the foregoing comments concerning St. Paul and Jesus (peace be upon him) can also be applied to any number of Muslim theologians, philosophers, scientists, theoreticians, and leaders. Irrespective of whatever truths may, or may not, be contained in their writings, what such people wrote is not the Qur'an, and those people are not the spiritual equals of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) … even though many of these same individuals would like to induce others to believe that the so-called “experts” – often self-appointed -- have somehow been authorized to speak for God and/or the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Confusion has been let loose across the surface of the Earth. The lesser is conflated with the greater; the counterfeit mingles with the real, and that which is false is treated as being synonymous with that which is true.

On page 25 of My Year Inside Radical Islam, Mr. Gartenstein-Ross briefly discusses the part of Houston Smith's book The World Religions that examines Islam. One of the quotes drawn from the latter book has to do with Houston Smith's belief that the Qur'an “does not counsel turning the other cheek, or pacifism.” Without appropriate qualifications, the quote from Professor Smith is not correct.

Throughout the Qur'an one is enjoined to have patience, to do righteousness, and not transgress beyond boundaries of propriety.

For example, in Surah 103, one finds the following:

“By the declining day, indeed human beings are in a state of loss except such as have faith and do righteous deeds, and join in the mutual teaching of the truth and of patience and constancy.”

Moreover, in Surah 5, verse 8, God provides this guidance:

“O ye who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for Allah with respect to fair dealing and let not the hatred of others seduce you away from doing justice. Be just: that is nearest to Piety. Remain conscious of God, verily God is aware of all that you do.”

Elsewhere in the Qur'an, one finds:

“The blame is only against those who oppress human beings with wrong-doing and insolently transgress beyond bounds through the land defying right and justice.” [The Qur'an 42:42]

And, finally:

[But whatever they may say or do] repel the evil [which they commit] with that which is better.” (Qur'an, 23:96)

There are many other passages in the Qur'an beside the foregoing ones which speak about the importance of exhibiting patience in the face of adversity, doing justice, not transgressing proscribed boundaries of behaviour and approaching life through understanding and insight. In addition, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have said:

“The right and the left are both ways of error, and the straight path is the middle way.”

Sometimes pacifism is warranted, and sometimes it is not. Life is nuanced, subtle, complex, and intended by God to be a considerable challenge to all who encounter it.

One principle – such as pacifism -- does not necessarily fit all situations. Rather, the guidance of the Qur'an gives expression to an array of spiritual principles which can be combined in different ways in order to resolve problems.

Consequently, to say as Houston Smith does in his book that the Qur'an “does not counsel turning the other cheek” is incomplete, and, as such, inaccurate. Sometimes turning one's cheek is the best recourse, and in such circumstances one should be governed by patience and restraint.

On other occasions, justice and equity may require one to defend against oppression in other ways, but these other ways do not necessarily entail using force or violence. For instance, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have said that:

One performs the best kind of jihad or spiritual struggle when one stands up and speaks out against injustice in the face of tyranny and oppression.

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross and My Year Inside Radical Islam - Part 2

At one point in My Year Inside Radical Islam, Mr. Gartenstein-Ross talks about how he became Muslim. This occurred before coming in contact with a radicalized fundamentalist group in Ashland, Oregon.

His Muslim friend from Wake Forest, al-Husein, had told the author about a Naqshbandi group in Italy. Therefore, when Mr. Gartenstein-Ross was in Venice, he contacted the group.

While visiting with this group in Italy, certain events went on which led the author to inquire about becoming Muslim. The author was told by one of the members of the group that he would have to say the shahadah, or declaration of faith, in public before two witnesses.

Actually, neither the public part nor the two witnesses issue is a necessary requirement for becoming Muslim. In the Qur'an it says:

“The one whose breast God has expanded unto Islam enjoys a light from one's Lord.” (39:22)

Everything begins with barakah. Through barakah, intention becomes inclined toward declaring one's commit to the principle that there is no god but Allah – that is, the God – which is the literal meaning of al-lah.

Public declaration does not make one a Muslim. Two witnesses do not make one a Muslim.

God's Grace opens one's heart – or, at least, that part of the heart which is referred to as the 'breast' – to the possibility of Islam. One is called to Islam, and, then, one has the choice of responding to the Divine overture or rejecting that invitation.

Some people argue that the formal ceremony conducted by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) at Hudaybiyah in which Muslims were asked to swear their allegiance to the Prophet constitutes the form on which the public declaration of faith is based. However, most, if not all, of the individuals who took part in this ceremony already were Muslim, and, furthermore, as the Qur'an indicates:

“Those who swear allegiance to thee [Muhammad] swear allegiance, in truth, to God. God's hand is above their hands. So whoever breaks one's oath breaks it only to the hurt of one's own soul.”

Becoming Muslim is not a contract between the individual and the Muslim community. Becoming Muslim is an expression of the transition which has taken place with respect to an individual's relationship with God.

The transition has taken place in the privacy of one's heart. God is the witness to that transition. Indeed, God is the One Who has made such a transition possible.

I remember the process of my becoming Muslim. Through a complex set of circumstances, I had been introduced to the person who would, eventually, become my shaykh.

Per the request of the shaykh, someone from the shaykh's circle had talked to me about the basic teachings of Islam. For two or three hours, I just sat and listened to what was being said.

At the time, what was important to me was what was being said, not who was saying it (whom I really didn't know) or how it was being said. For me, truth had entered into the chambers of my heart, and I was moved by what struck me as the truth which was flowing through whatever words were being spoken.

After the session, I was asked what I thought about things and whether I wanted to speak with the shaykh. I indicated that I had liked what I had heard, and, yes, I would like to meet the shaykh.

A meeting was arranged. As I recall, the first time I met my future shaykh was at his apartment where I was invited to eat with the family. After the meal and some discussion, a further meeting was arranged.

The next meeting took place at the local mosque. It was Christmas Eve in the Christian world and Ramadan in the Muslim world.

It was during the last ten days of the month of fasting, and some of the initiates of the shaykh were staying at the mosque during this ten-day period. I was introduced to one of them, and, then, the shaykh took me to a space in the middle of the mosque and taught me how to say a dhikr.

At the time, I wasn't fasting, or saying prayers, or doing any of the other basic pillars of Islam. I had made no public declarations in front of witnesses.

Almost immediately upon beginning to say the dhikr, I underwent an opening of sorts.

After that evening, I began to spend more and more time with the shaykh and his circle. I attended the Thursday evening sessions and was invited to all of the spiritual anniversaries of the passing away of different great shaykhs within the Chishti Order of Sufis.

From time to time, there were people who were initiated into the Order, and these often were done during one of the celebrations. I began to feel that because I had not been initiated in any public way that I was not worthy of being a member of the Sufi circle, and, if truth be known, I probably wasn't worthy, but that is another story.

Eventually, after a year or so, my shaykh told me that I was to be initiated during the anniversary of my shaykh's shaykh. I told him about my concerns and fears that, perhaps, I was never going to be initiated.

He smiled and said: “I have always considered you part of the group. What is about to take place was just a formal way of acknowledging what already is the case.

*************

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross's initial encounter with fundamentalists took place in his hometown of Ashland, Oregon. He had invited his friend, al-Hussein, to visit with him in Ashland and to meet his parents.

During this visit, the Daveed and al-Husein discovered the existence of a mosque in the city. The two of them attended the Friday noon-day prayers.

The sermon or khutbah which is delivered prior to the actual ritual prayers was given by a Saudi who was living in northern California. This individual talked about the alleged duty of Muslims to immigrate to a country ruled by Muslims. More specifically, according to the speaker's perspective:

“The Holy Qur'an says: 'Verily, those who believed, and emigrated and strove hard and fought with their property and their lives in the cause of Allah, as well as those who give asylum and help – these are allies to one another. And to those who believed but did not emigrate, you owe no duty of protection to them until they emigrate.' So as Muslims we too must emigrate. We are living in the land ruled by the kufur [unbelievers]. This is not the way of Muhammad, he said.”

Prior to hijra, or emigration, the Prophet lived for 13 years among the unbelievers. He emigrated to Yathrib, later known as Medina, because a plot to assassinate him had been uncovered by the Muslims and, therefore, staying in Mecca was no longer a viable option. In other words, the Prophet did not leave Mecca because it was a land ruled by unbelievers, but, instead, the Prophet left because he had run out of options with respect to being able to live safely in that city.

Initially, there were only two who emigrated to Yathrib – namely, Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) and the Prophet. All the other Muslim residents of Mecca stayed behind.

Gradually, over time, more Muslims from Mecca emigrated to Yathrib. However, there were other Muslims that were experiencing financial or life circumstances which prevented them from being able to emigrate.

The only permission which the Prophet had received from God to engage in fighting was for purely defensive purposes. To say that the Prophet was not under any obligation to protect the believers who remained behind in Mecca until they emigrated did not establish a precedent with respect to the need of Muslims to emigrate but, rather, was a reflection of the Divine permissions concerning rules of engagement with the non-believers which had been established by God.

If the believers in Mecca emigrated, then, those individuals could be defensively protected if the Muslims happened to be attacked. However, as long as the believers remained in Mecca, then, the Prophet did not have any Divine authorization and concomitant duty or obligation to attack Mecca in order to protect the believers who were continuing to live there.

According to Mr. Gartenstein-Ross, the Saudi speaker went on to say:

“Prophet Muhammad [upon him be blessings and peace] described the risks of living among the kufur. Our beloved Prophet said: “Anybody who meets, gathers together, lives, and stays with a Mushrik -- a polytheist or disbeliever in the oneness of Allah – and agrees to his ways and opinions and enjoys living with him, then he is like the Mushrik.” So when you live among the kufur, and act like the kufur, and like to live with the kufur, then, brothers, you may become just like the kufur. If you do not take the duty of emigration seriously, your faith is in danger.”

There are many problems with how the Saudi speaker is interpreting things in the foregoing quote. First of all, there is a difference between, on the one hand, outlining the nature of certain risks of living about people who are unbelievers and, on the other hand, trying to claim that such risks imply a duty to emigrate.

The Prophet never said that people have a duty to emigrate. He said that if people lived among unbelievers, and came to agree with their opinions and their ways of living, then, obviously, one becomes like such people.

The Prophet lived with unbelievers for 13 years and, by the Grace of Allah, did not come to agree with their opinions about things or agree with their ways of living or enjoy living in their midst. Other Muslims, by God's Grace, were able to manage this as well.

Were there risks involved in such arrangements? Yes, there were, but Muslims did not become unbelievers merely by living among the unbelievers.

The Prophet was warning Muslims against opening themselves up to the opinions and ways of the unbelievers to such an extent that one not only came to agree with those ways of believing and doing things but enjoyed doing so. When one did this, then, one's faith was at risk.

Warning people about risks to their faith is one thing. Saying that one has a duty to emigrate because of such risks is quite another thing … something foreign which is being added to, or projected onto, what the Prophet actually said.

The process of twisting the Qur'an and the sayings of the Prophet to lend support to ideas which were never being espoused by the Qur'an or the Prophet is a trademark tactic of the very sorts of people with whom Mr. Gartenstein-Ross began to become involved when he visited the mosque in Ashland, Oregon. Such teachings sow the seeds of ignorance and arrogance which have so decimated the landscape of many Muslim and non-Muslim communities around the world – even in Saudi Arabia from which the person giving the Friday sermon came.

The irony of all this is that such would-be saviours of the Muslim community are actually among the very forces which place a sincere Muslim's faith at risk. If one emigrates toward such individuals and comes to agree with their opinions and their way of doing things and enjoys living with them, then, one stands a very good chance of losing whatever legitimate faith one might have had.

To his credit, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross didn't necessarily accept the concepts being espoused by the Saudi speaker. However, he also admitted that he had no reliable understanding of Islam through which to combat those ideas.

Initially, he was able to keep his distance from the undertow of such a theological maelstrom. However, in time, he found himself being pulled under by the currents emanating out from such a perspective.

I know just how seductive and powerful those currents can be for I have encountered them on a variety of occasions within the Muslim community. Fortunately, at the time of the encounters I had a Sufi shaykh who -- because of, by the Grace of Allah, his tremendous insight and understanding of Islam -- could explain to me in considerable detail the numerous logical, doctrinal, and historical defects contained within the structure of the theological arguments of such people. I was never left unsatisfied by the explanations I was given by my shaykh concerning such matters.

**************

On pages 51-52 of My Year Inside Radical Islam, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross describes how the Muslim activities in Ashland, Oregon were being subsidized by a Saudi Arabian charitable institution known as al-Haramain Islamic Foundation. One of the proposed programmes of the Muslim group in Ashland was called the 'Medina Project'.

According to the leader of the Ashland Muslim group, the idea at the heart of the Medina Project involved building an Islamic village in the United States. More specifically:

“The village would be run by sharia to the extent that U.S. laws allowed. While there wouldn't be any beheadings and amputations, the women would be veiled, pork would be banned, and so would alcohol.”

Almost everywhere one hears 'sharia'ah, sharia'ah, shari'ah' from the lips of Muslim fundamentalists, mullahs, imams, theologians, and would-be revolutionaries. Yet, rather ironically, the Qur'an apparently mentions the term shari'ah just once.

In Surah 45, verse 18 one finds:

“O Prophet, We have put you on the Right Way (Shari'ah) concerning the religion, so follow it, and do not yield to the desires of ignorant people;”

All of the fundamentalists assume they know what the 'right way' is even as they engage one another in hostilities so that they may gain control and invest their own interpretations and theories concerning the precise nature of that 'right way'. Furthermore, such individuals also seem to assume they have God's permission to impose that way on just about anyone they like.

As far as the first assumption is concerned, everyone has the right to form his or her opinion – whether such opinions be correct or incorrect -- concerning what one believes the nature and purpose of one's relationship with God to be. However, as far as the second assumption is concerned – that is, the presumed right to impose their opinions on others -- I do not believe such individuals can point to any aspect of the Qur'an which indisputably demonstrates that God has arrogated to them the right to impose their opinions concerning spirituality or life upon others.

In fact, even with respect to the Prophet, the Qur'an indicates:

272 The guiding of them is not thy duty (O Muhammad), but Allah guideth whom He will.” [Qur'an 2: 272).

The actual etymology of the verb shari'ah is to take a drink. By implication this terms also refers to the 'path or way which leads to the place where one can take a drink of water' … so the questions are: What is the nature of the path/way? What is the nature of leading? What is the nature of water? What is the nature of the drinking? Do the answers to any of the foregoing questions provide evidence in support of the idea that shari'ah is meant to indicate a process that is to be imposed upon people in the sense of a code of law or conduct to which everyone must adhere and for which any wavering from that path should be met with the force of a body of social/public law that is considered to be the guardian and protector against such a 'way/path' being corrupted, undermined, compromised or not obeyed?

I find it strange that a term – namely, shari'ah --which, as far as I can determine, is used only once in the Qur'an should have been propelled into the pre-eminent status it not only currently assumes in many discussions but which it has 'enjoyed' for hundreds of years in the Muslim community – at least within circles of jurisprudence, fatwa, qazis, muftis, imams, and books of fiqh.

Moreover, if one peruses the Qur'an in search of the 'right way', one actually finds a multiplicity of Arabic words (for example, deen, tariqa, sirat-ul mustaqueem, taqwa, and so on). Unfortunately, all of these terms are taken by many, if not most, fundamentalists and reduced down to just one way of thinking and understanding – that is, in a legalistic/legislative sense -- yet none of these terms should necessarily be construed in such a narrowly conceived, reductionistic fashion.

The Qur'an does not refer to itself as a book of jurisprudence but as a book of guidance, wisdom, and discernment. Yet, there has been a centuries-long attempt by all too many individuals to force-fit the Qur'an into becoming little more than a source document to serve the interests of jurisprudential and legalistic theologies.

If one wishes to use the term 'Divine Law' in conjunction with the Qur'an, one would be, I believe, closer to the truth of the matter if one were to think about the idea of law in terms which refer to 'the natural order of creation'. That is, Divine law refers to the nature of manifested existence and the principles (both spiritual and otherwise) which are operative within that natural order of things. This is consistent with another sense of the same Arabic root from which shari'ah comes which concerns the sort of lawgiver or legislator who has established the order of things and how those things operate in a given realm – in the present case, creation.

For example, the law of gravity does not say that one must obey gravity or that one has a duty or obligation to observe gravity. Rather, through experience, reflection, and the guidance of those who have some wisdom in such matters, one becomes aware of gravity's existence and properties. Moreover, one comes to understand that as one goes about one's life one may run into problems if one does not pay attention to the principle of gravity, and, in addition, one learns that there are consequences which follow upon a failure to observe such a principle – unless one can devise ways of defying (within certain limits) the presence of gravity through propellers, wings, rockets, jet engines, and the like.

Some people may like to look at what occurs when someone fails to pay close enough attention to the presence of gravity as some kind of 'punishment' for swaying from the path of reality. Nevertheless, once again, I feel it would be closer to the truth to say that actions – both spiritual and physical -- have consequences and, therefore, caveat emptor (let the buyer beware). In other words, there is a rigor to life – both spiritual and physical -- about which one pays heed, or not, to one's own benefit or risk.

Shari'ah is not about beheadings, amputations, lashings, corporal punishment, legal courts, banning alcohol, the length and shape of a beard, marriage, divorce, inheritance, dietary restrictions, dress codes, and the like. Shari'ah is about realizing the purpose of life by drawing upon the whole of the Qur'an as one struggles toward acquiring the Divine guidance that will assist one to fulfil one's spiritual capacity and recognize the nature of one's essential identity so that one will come to give expression to the process of ibadat or worship as God has intended.

To be sure, there are verses in the Qur'an which touch upon issues of punishment, alcohol, inheritance, diet, dress, marriage, apostasy, fighting, and so on. Yet, there are many, many more verses in the Qur'an (at a ratio of about 13 or 14 to 1) which explore issues of equity, fairness, balance, harmony, peace, forgiveness, patience, God-consciousness, remembrance, repentance, kindness, love, restraint, compassion, tolerance, insight, generosity, knowledge, wisdom, understanding, humility, purification of the heart, and honesty.

Why is it that the former legalisms have come to assume dominance and pre-eminence over the development of spiritual character? Or, why do so many people seem to assume that punitive measures are the only road to spiritual purification? Or, why do so many people appear to automatically assume that the principles inherent in the development of spiritual character cannot or should not be applied to issues of jurisprudence?

There was a man who once came to the Prophet and confessed that he had broken the fast of Ramadan. The man wanted to know what would be necessary to set things right with respect to his mistake.

The Prophet informed the man that in such circumstances the Qur'an indicated that one should fast for two consecutive months. Upon hearing this, the man replied by saying that if he could not even fast for one month, how would he be able to fast for two months?

The Prophet then responded by saying that the Qur'an also indicated that one could also satisfy the conditions of the fast if one were to feed the poor. The man said that he had no money with which to feed the poor.

The Prophet called someone and told them to have food taken from the storehouse and brought to the Prophet. When this task had been completed, the Prophet gave the food to the man and said the man should distribute the food to the poor.

Upon receiving this instruction, the man commented that in the entire valley, there was no one poorer than he and his family. In reply, the Prophet said that the man should, then, take the food and feed his family, and that would constitute expiation for having broken the fast.

Among other things, Quranic principles of equity, compassion, generosity, and kindness were used by the Prophet in conjunction with the Quranic provisions concerning fasting to arrive at a manner of handling the situation which gives expression to shari'ah. Muslims as well as non-Muslims to whom I have recounted the foregoing hadith are moved by the obvious display of spiritual wisdom that is present in the interchange between the Prophet and the man who came to him seeking advice.

So, what is the moral, so to speak, of the story? The Qur'an is a book of spiritual principles, not a book of legal rules. Basic Quranic principles concerning fasting were taken by the Prophet and, then, were modulated in accordance with existing life contingencies and other principles of the Qur'an.

Shari'ah gives expression to an indefinitely large set of spiritual principles that can be combined together in different ways to assist individuals to realize life's purpose and their essential identity. However, one of the limiting factors in all of this, has to do with the depth of insight and understanding in the individual who is seeking to engage Quranic guidance in order to resolve any given issue or problem, and this is true both on an individual as well as a collective or social level.

As previously cited:

“O Prophet, We have put you on the Right Way (Shari'ah) concerning the religion, so follow it, and do not yield to the desires of ignorant people;” (Qur'an 45:18)

but, unfortunately, now that the Prophet is no longer with us physically, the desires of all too many ignorant people have come to dominate many communities. When such people do this only in relation to their own lives, then, although such applied ignorance tends to lead to problematic ramifications, those problems are likely to be far, far fewer and more contained or isolated than when such ignorance seeks to legalistically and legislatively impose itself on everyone else.

When Muhammad (peace be upon him) was first called to the tasks of being God's rasul (messenger) and nabi (prophet), the society in and around Mecca was often crude, rude, lewd, and brutal. Infant girls were buried alive. Women were treated as third, fourth and fifth class citizens. Orphans were marginalized and neglected. Blood-feuds were the rule of the day. Punishment for transgressions was severe. Financial and material inequities pervaded and divided society. Slavery existed, and those who were unlucky enough to be slaves were used and abused in any way that pleased their slave masters. Tribal alliances and antipathies structured society from top to bottom. Tribes or clans were not run in accordance with principles of justice but in accordance with the authoritarian rule of a leader or small group of such leaders who were only interested in protecting their vested interests. The excessive drinking of alcohol was rampant, as were the problems which arise out of such excesses. Public nudity in and around the Kaaba was not uncommon.

While there are some similarities between the social, economic, and historical conditions which prevailed during the pre-Islamic days of Meccan society and the conditions existing today, the times, circumstances, history, problems, and needs of the people during the life of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) were, in many ways, very, very different than what is the case today – and vice versa. If the Prophet were physically with us today, can anyone claim with certainty that she or he knows that the Prophet would approach the problems of today in exactly in the same way as he did during his lifetime more than 1400 years ago?

In ecology there is a guideline known as the 'Cautionary Principle'. In essence, this indicates that when one does not have demonstrative proof that some, say, industrial process will not harm people and/or the environment, then, one should proceed with caution.

This principle also applies in the case of spiritual matters. If one cannot clearly demonstrate that, ultimately, a given application of a spiritual principle is not likely to have adverse consequences for the spiritual well-being of either individuals within that society or the group as a whole, then one should exercise considerable caution before applying such Quranic principles to the ecology of society.

Just as every medicine has a use and a value, this does not mean that using a given medicine without any consideration for the illness which needs to be remedied or the needs and condition of the patient will lead to successful results. So, too, just because every spiritual principle in the Qur'an has a use and value, this does not mean that using any given Quranic principle without consideration for the illness which needs to be remedied or the needs and conditions of the individual or society to which it is being applied will necessarily lead to successful results.

Although there are ayats or verses in the Qur'an which are stated in specific, detailed form, this does not automatically mean that such verses must take precedence over all the other principles of guidance in the Qur'an. Patience, forgiveness, tolerance, love, humility, equitability, peace, compassion, remembrance, generosity, nobility, God-consciousness, and restraint are also specified in the Qur'an, and these latter spiritual principles are mentioned many more times and given far more emphasis than are the verses which fundamental legalists like to cite as being the principles which must govern public and private life.

The process of creating a public space within which individuals may pursue shari'ah according to their capacity and inclinations has been confused with the process of shari'ah which focuses on the development of character. In a sense, many Muslims have confused or conflated the frame (i.e., the process of creating a safe and stable social space) with the picture (i.e., the process of shari'ah, which is an individual and private activity rather than a public one).

Similarly, the punishments which are mentioned in the Qur'an are not shari'ah. Rather, such punishments were the specific guidance provided by Divinity to help society during the time of the Prophet to be able to establish a safe and stable space within which to pursue shari'ah – something that is entirely separate from, and not to be confused with, the process of structuring the public space that surrounds the activities of shari'ah.

However, there are different ways of creating the kind of public space within which people will be able to pursue shari'ah. As pointed out previously, in the Qur'an God did provide some specific examples of how Muslims might go about creating the sort of safe and stable public space through which individuals could privately pursue, each in his or her own way, the development of character traits which is at the heart of the process of shari'ah. Nevertheless, God also provided many general spiritual principles in the Qur'an that also could be used to help create the kind of safe, stable public space through which individuals could privately pursue the purpose of shari'ah.

When, God willing, character traits are developed and perfected, they possess the potential for having a constructive and positive influence on helping to maintain the peace and stability of the public sphere. When such traits become widespread, then, in effect, the process of pursuing shari'ah also becomes the means through which public space is constantly renewed in a safe and stable manner entirely without legalisms or legislative mandates.

One cannot legislate or make legal rules that force people to become loving human beings. However, once a person becomes a loving person, then, the constructive impact such a person has upon the quality of public life is incalculable.

One cannot legislate or make legal rules or apply punishments which will cause people to pursue shari'ah. However, once shari'ah -- in the sense of an individual's development of character traits and purification of his or her nafs/ego takes place -- then, legislation, rules, and punishments become marginal issues.

Many fundamentalists want to return to the past in order to engage the Qur'an. The Qur'an doesn't exist in the past. It exists in the eternal now as always has been the case.

To filter the present through the times of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is a fundamental, as well as a typical, fundamentalist mistake. To demand that the Qur'an be engaged and understood through the filter of the circumstances, problems, and conditions of 1400 years ago is, I believe, to introduce substantial distortion into one's attempt to understand the nature of Quranic guidance.