Tribute to an imperfect father - father's day reflections of a son

It will soon be two decades since suddenly left us. He was only thirty-nine at the time, a Minister, as it had been for almost half a century. But to everyone, time had been trapped with him. When it did, Pope reluctantly withdrew the Pastorate. Made his home in retreat to Louisville, Kentucky and, while living in the city of the Church that I served rare time came out a week, but it would be in the Church on Sunday. One day, I was surprised and joined. Without a doubt, he was one of the happiest days of my life.

However, the joy and pride that I felt was short-lived. At dusk, Pope suffered a massive heart attack, lived for ten days and died. We carry out a memorial service for him in the Church where had been a member only a very few hours. Influence of Pope was deep, much more than we imagine. More than 1 thousand people were to pay their respects. Someone told me more afternoon was the funeral of the largest in the history of the Church. My brother gave praise, sang my younger brother, and preached the funeral Sermon.

Once heard Barack Obama say, "a son is trying to the expectations of his father or compensate for the mistakes of his father." For a long time after his death, I saw unexpected step a big cosmic mistake my father. I was confused and angry with him for leaving. My life began to unravel. As a result, he left the Ministry altogether, I changed careers and since my marriage had not been a priority in my life, when Pope died, did.

In addition, I wondered where was God in all this. In fact, over time, I grew up angry as hell with her. "Do you you take my father?" "What kind of God are, anyway?" He advised others to find their faith in times of crisis. In my own crisis, I found little help in my faith. Where a Minister turning when you have questions? Fears? Ira? Sadness? For many months after her death, was the proverbial basket - case. About two years to be exact; but, time heals and I finally did.

In recent days, I have been thinking much about Pope. Thus, in this father's day, I've found I expressing personal gratitude for the many valuable things I learned from my father.

From the beginning I knew that dad was not a perfect man. He made his share of mistakes. One of them was that he was so busy with the work of the Church that had little time for us. He would be sacrificing anything, even the time with his family, if I thought that it would enhance his image in front of others. What is interesting to me is that, while I grew up recognizing these flaws, and resentful you for them, once I became an adult, a Minister and a father I, repeated quite the same with my own family.

My dad used to say: "son, there's a lot about life, about yourself or about God that you will never understand." "Learn to live with ambiguity, be at peace and forgive yourself and others when they make mistakes and don't forget to forgive God, too". I have long forgiven him to exit, forgiven God to take it, and today I'm in peace. Still strange and does not take much that make me cry everytime I think of him. But I do not see his death as an error. I have learned so much dad, especially how forgiving. How could anything it be less grateful for this?

I learned to laugh in life, with each other and myself of Pope. It was a joke for every occasion. My siblings and I had heard them dozens of times. But he would say, "you ever tell you about the time..." and I would say, "Just a few thousand times." Then it would be as if we had never heard before. In the perforation line they laugh as if we never had. It is a funny thing, but today, give almost anything to hear you tell a story that I heard a thousand times before.

Dad taught me the value of hard work; the importance of charity, too. I got my first job at age 12, delivering to the Lexington Herald-Leader. At five o'clock every morning, my brother and I had doubled the newspapers, then they rode our bikes around the neighborhood delivering papers before summer. That first month, I think I did twenty bucks. How it was enjoying my financial gains and imagining all that I would like to buy, my Dad gave me an envelope of offer to the Church and said, "a tithe of twenty bucks is two dollars." Much, is part of God. "In this envelope and place it in the offering plate on Sunday".

The good book says, "God loves a cheerful giver". Well, maybe so, but my father didn't believe in that God was very particular about how he gave us. The fun part is this: that was more than forty years ago and today, everytime I receive a paycheck, the first check I write is checking of charity. And what's really funny is today I really enjoy writing it.

Pope was a devout man. And he wanted their children to grow up being devout, too. However, was wise enough to know what many religious parents do not. You can just don't tell a child what to believe and then I think that you have successfully transferred the faith from one generation to the next. Pope knew instinctively that beautifully expresses Deepak Chopra: "beliefs are a mere cover-up of insecurity." "Only you believe in things that you are not sure".

I knew that, until they have forged a faith in the crucible of his own experience, you can grow with a identity religious, but hardly will be a spiritual person. Dad modeled for us the spiritual values that were important to him. Rather than telling us what they should believe or how we should live, he left it to us and work together to God. As a result, a deeply devout person I am today because I choose to be, not because I've been cloned or coerced to be religious.

My dad had severe the teachings of Jesus. Instead of the classification or explain away the radical things Jesus said, such as "Love your enemies", dad put it into practice. Were he here today, he would be one of the few that really are embracing our Islamic brothers and sisters and calling for an end to all wars, the majority of which is religiously instigated anyway. It would be between seeking them equality and justice for all, if you're gay or hetero, Palestinian or Jew. I would remind people that true faith is to be fully human, and learning to live in the here and now and at peace with others; not escape from this world and live in some imaginary are placed in the future.

In an era of religious dogmatism and fundamentalism Irreflexive, Christianity, Islam or any other religion, that is my sincere desire that all children within the human family would have the opportunity of servants, as I have, by a parent, although it is not a perfect man, is worthy of being remembered and so honest in what we call father's day.

Regularly publish thoughts and stories like this on my blog (and I've written a book about the spiritual perceptions to which have benefited over the years). I would love to share some of the things that I've learned with you. Simply visit my website for more information and for the books that I've written. From there, you can visit my blog for more reading online. Go to: http://www.stevemcswain.com.

Reflections on the gap of the nation-State Ummah

Hopefully, this essay will provide some food for thought as we begin the arduous process of rethinking many of the fundamental ideas and institutions that developed during an age that is rapidly drawing to a close. As that age expires, many of the ideas accompanying it must be allowed to expire with it. If we attempt to cling dogmatically to outmoded ideas and institutions, we are only delaying their inevitable demise and handicapping the ability of coming generations to build a world that is a more realistic reflection of their resources, potential and limitations.

One of the most profound developments in the modern history of Islam has been the emergence of the Nation-state in Europe and its subsequent imposition on the Muslim world. Its profundity is illustrated by the fact that it has come to capture the imagination of all politically active Muslims. In the process, it became one of the principal means for consolidating the destruction of a viable Islamic civilization by introducing into the Muslim world an institutional and conceptual framework that helped to hasten the disappearance of the institutions and organizations that gave Muslim societies their unique character and identity.

To briefly illustrate both the pervasiveness and the destructiveness of the nation-state in the Muslim world, we can mention the statement of Dr. Sayyid Hussein Nasr that the Muslim nations are united in their destruction of their respective environmental richness. Hence, Qaddafi's Libya, Saddam's Iraq, The Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. all share a reckless disregard for environmental protection and a total disregard of classical Islamic teachings relating to environmental stewardship and conservation. His point is that these Muslim nation-states, despite their varying ideological orientations, have all waged an undeclared war against their fragile ecosystems.

One of the reasons for this is the imperative that the Muslim nation-states "catch-up" with its western counterparts in terms of economic and industrial development. In the context of a linear view of national development, the argument goes, Muslim nation-states cannot afford the luxury of considering the ecological consequences of their so-called development programs. Environmental protection can only come at the cost of slowing development and the strategic implications of lagging to far behind are too grave for ecological concerns to even be considered.

Before proceeding, let us mention that the nation-state as a modern political arrangement was unknown until 1648, at the earliest, in the aftermath of the signing of the Peace of Westphalia, which resulted in the break-up of the Holy Roman Empire. This is seen as the event that demarcates the birth of the modern nation-state. As far as Muslims are concerned, the idea of a sovereign nation-state is a 20th Century phenomenon. Most contemporary Muslim states did not achieve independence until after the Second World War through the expiration of various colonial mandates and decolonization struggles. There are a few exceptions to this chronology, such as the secular Turkish Republic, which achieved its independence in the aftermath of the First World War.

Prior to the 20th Century, hence, for most of the history of the Muslim Ummah, Muslims organized themselves, politically, according arrangements that primarily reflected tribal or geographical lines of demarcation. A sultan's (political leader) authority was demarcated by the limit of his tax-collecting and rebellion-suppression ability, not according to his claim to hold sway over a territory demarcated by fictitious lines drawn on a map. Similarly, although people may have accepted the authority of a particular sultan, their ultimate allegiance was, practically, to their tribe or clan.

Despite such practical ties, most Muslims held a sentimental attachment to the Ummah, in its conceptualization as the global Muslim community. There were instances when that sentimental attachment translated into tangible political action, such as the Turks soliciting volunteers from lands as far flung as India and Morocco to assist in the expulsion of the European occupiers from the remnants of the Ottoman Empire in the aftermath of the First World War.

In endeavoring to look at the question of what it means to be a member of the global Muslim Ummah in the context of the modern nation-state, we must look at the different ways we can examine the idea of the Ummah. We can examine it politically, socially, culturally and religiously. In many instances confusion arises when discussing issues related to this topic, we fail to make these distinctions.

Let us begin by looking at the idea of a distinct Ummah, religiously. Most of the verses in the Qur'an dealing with the idea of a single, unified Ummah are religious statements. They demarcate a unique religious community, and in most instances they enjoin upon it specific religious duties.

"Our Lord! Make the two of us submissive unto you, and from our progeny a community submissive unto you. Teach us our rituals, and accept our repentance. Surely, you are most accepting of repentance, the all merciful".

"Thus have we made you a moderate community in order that that you be a witness against humanity and the Messenger will be a witness against you".

"Let there arise from you a group calling to all good, enjoining right and forbidding wrong. They are those who will be successful".

"You are the best community brought forth [to serve] humanity. You command good, forbid wrong and you believe in Allah".

"They are not the same! Among the People of the Scripture is an upright group that recites the Signs of Allah, throughout the night, all the while in humble prostration".

"How [will it be] when We bring forth from every community a witness, and We will bring you forth as a witness against these".

'Verily, this community of yours is a unified community, and I am your Lord. Worship Me!"

In these verses Allah describes a religious community that has been commissioned with religious responsibilities: submission to God; undertaking certain rituals; witnessing for or against humanity; recipients of and preservers of a scripture; followers of the Prophetic tradition; calling to the path of God; enjoining the right; forbidding the wrong; believing in God; a community that will be testified against by the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessing of Allah upon him, a community established to worship Allah.

These functions are religious duties or obligations that can be performed within or outside of the context of a nation-state. There is no excuse for Muslims not to be performing them in whatever time or place we find ourselves in. This is the most basic level of our defining our membership in the Ummah of Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah upon him. This is a level that defenders of most modern nation-states would view as noncontroversial.

Another level we can consider the Ummah is directly associated with the first. As a religious community of shared rituals, a shared liturgical language, shared dietary conditions, a common general dress code and unique approaches to art and music, Muslims share a common culture. This shared reality creates an Ummah at the cultural level. This cultural Ummah, cuts across the various nations, tribes and geographical regions that comprise the religious Ummah. At its height, it allowed Ibn Battuta to travel over 70,000 miles, from Tangiers in Morocco to Indonesia, and to remain, for the most part in a single, integrated cultural zone. Hence, he was able to become a judge in the Maldives. He was at home wherever he went in the vast Muslim world. His situation stands in stark contrast to Marco Polo, who traveled to many of the same areas a quarter century before Ibn Battuta. The latter was an outside observer in virtually all of the lands he traversed.

This cultural unity has indeed decayed, but it is still an extant reality, even in its diminished form. Muslims pray the same way the world over. We fast the same month of Ramadan in the same way the world over. If a Muslim from Canada and or the United States were to go to Indonesia or Mali he or she would find Muslims praying and fasting exactly as he or she is praying or fasting, and if they were educated, Islamically, they could communicate with their hosts in the Arabic language. Standards governing what constitutes acceptable or Halal food are universal among Muslims.

These cultural distinctions of the Ummah should be actively encouraged regardless of the political imposition of the nation-state over the Muslim people, as they are distinctions that are apolitical in nature. Those cultural traditions that are disappearing, such as calligraphy, spiritual musical, etc. should be revived. Furthermore, these standards have always accommodated local influences. Thus, by way of example, even though traditional Malay food or dress would be viewed as Islamic, it differs markedly from the traditional Fulani, West African Muslim food or dress owing to the unique Malay of Fulani contributions to the Islamic ideal.

It should be also be understood that the cultural reality of Islam has preceded, coexisted with and will likely outlive the nation-state. This latter statement does not assume an inherent superiority of the "Islamic." It assumes that humans will find superior ways to organize their societies than the already anachronistic (to some extent) nation-state. Again, these are levels of endeavor that most advocates and defenders of the nation-state will not find controversial.

The most controversial level of analysis in terms of assessing the relationship between the Muslim Ummah and the nation-state is at the level of politics. Here the degree of controversy does not arise from Islam, if that were the case, the nation-state would have never become the dominant form of political organization among the Muslim people.

The ongoing "Arab Spring" illustrates the pervasiveness of the degree to which Muslims have accepted the nation-state. The various movements in different Muslim countries are focused on who will control the nation-state. They are not movements that challenge the validity of the state itself. The movements' principal slogan illustrates this:

"The people want the downfall of the regime".

The activists, both Muslim and secular, are calling for the eradication of the oppressive ruling regimes, not the eradication of the state itself.

What controversy between Muslims and the nation-state that does exist arises from the nation-state itself, not from Islam and Muslims, with the exception of fringe groups that have little political relevance in their respective societies. The critical question here is what does the nation-state demand of the Ummah. If the nation-state demands the acceptance of a common set of political obligations and the assumption of a common set of political responsibilities, which advance the common good of all of its members, and I am speaking of Muslims in the context of a pluralistic, representative state, then the degree of controversy can be managed.

Among the most fundamental obligations and responsibilities for Muslims living in the western, secular, pluralistic nation-states are the following:

1) Respecting the sanctity of the life, property and honor of one fellow citizens;

2) Respecting the sanctity of the public space;

3) Respecting the plurality of ideas, beliefs and the personal freedoms that underlie them; and expecting that the belief, ideas and personal freedoms of Muslims will be protected.

These are obligations that virtually all Muslims will find acceptable and consistent with Islamic beliefs and values.

However, if the nation-state demands blind, unconditional allegiance that crosses into the realm of worship, which some fascist definitions of the nation-state imply, then the state is elevated to the level of an idol and idolatry is forbidden in Islam. Consider the following view of the fascist state by one of its most influential theorists and architects, the Italian dictator, Benito Mussolini:

Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State, which is the conscience and universal will of man in his historical existence. It is opposed to classical Liberalism, which arose from the necessity of reacting against absolutism, and which brought its historical purpose to an end when the State was transformed into the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular individual; Fascism reaffirms the State as the true reality of the individual. And if liberty is to be the attribute of the real man, and not of that abstract puppet envisaged by individualistic Liberalism, Fascism is for liberty. And for the only liberty which can be a real thing, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. Therefore, for the Fascist, everything is in the State, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value, outside the State. In this sense Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State, the synthesis and unity of all values, interprets, develops and gives strength to the whole life of the people.

This conceptualizing of the state is not only forbidden in Islam, it runs counter to the western, pluralistic democratic state as we know it and as it was envisioned by its founders. It is therefore a patriotic duty for Muslims and all other concerned citizens to oppose any fascist views that involve the deification of the state. Critically, and this is an issue I have addressed at length elsewhere, it is a duty of Muslims to oppose efforts deifying an authoritarian, totalitarian state in the name of Islam, or the "Islamic" state.

One of the greatest steps we can take to undermine the emergence of fascist views of the nation-state is to "de-reify" it. In other words, the modern state is not an anthropomorphized, monolithic, living, "spiritual" entity. It is an pseudo-abstraction comprised of individuals, groups, institutions and organizations, which have in most instances varying interests. Each of these is connected to a particular nation-state in different ways. Take the example of the United States.

It is comprised of groups that have been labeled Native American, African Americans, White Americans, Latino Americans, Asian Americans, Jewish Americans, home-owing Americans, corporate Americans, oil industry-controlling Americans, defense-contracting Americans, etc. Each of these groups is connected in different and differing ways to the American project. Some groups are able to control and manipulate the institutions of government in ways that advance their interests, while other have little or no influence over those institutions.

Usually, but not always, groups are connected to the American project in ways that reflect their being the victims or beneficiaries of that project. For example, many Native Americans feel no connection at all to America. As a result they are seeking independence from the United States and endeavoring to establish sovereign nations. Some African Americans, whose ancestors were brought to America in chains, lack the same sense of patriotism that resides in the breasts of many who came to America freely and found prosperity for themselves and their progeny. Their feeling is expressed well in the following words of Fredrick Douglas. In his moving speech, What is the Fourth of July to the Negro, Douglas stated:

"The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought light and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak today?"

Yet, even among African Americans, there is a a wide range of feelings towards America. While many would share the bitterness expressed by Douglass, others display a more ambivalent attitude towards the country. Consider the words of Langston Hughes when he writes, critically, but hopefully, in his poem, "Let America be American Again":

"O, yes, I say it plain,

America never was America to me, And yet I swear this oath- America will be!

Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,

The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,

We, the people, must redeem

The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.

The mountains and the endless plain-

All, all the stretch of these great green states-

And make America again!"

Yet other Americans of African descent find no problem in an unqualified embrace of the American project and unabashed praise for the country. This group is represented by the likes of Reverend Archibald Carey, Jr., an African American minister whose words informed Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s I Have a Dream Speech. He proudly proclaimed in an address to the 1952 Republican Convention:

"We, Negro Americans, sing with all loyal Americans: My country 'tis of thee, Sweet land of liberty, Of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, Land of the Pilgrims' pride From every mountainside Let freedom ring!"

The point I am making here is that if African Americans are this complex and diverse in terms of a connection to the American project then what about the entire country and all of its ethnic, racial and religious elements. That diversity is what makes America unique, and it argues against a fascist vision of the state that would seek to disguise that diversity beneath an imaginary uniformity generated by an authoritarian state.

In conclusion, America, and most other modern western nation-states are composed of many elements. Muslims, in varying numbers at various times have always been one of those elements. As such, the struggle of American Muslims, both to live peacefully in this land as Muslims, and the struggle to define the nature and terms of our engagement with the state, while belonging to a global Muslim community, are uniquely American struggles. As such, we have an obligation to our ancestors who preceded us in this land to continue that struggle, and we have an obligation to our fellow citizens to work along with them to preserve the integrity of the sociopolitical arrangement that made that struggle possible.

By Zaid Shakir

Imam Zaid Shakir is a co-founder and faculty member of Zaytuna College in Berkeley, CA. As a gifted author and lecturer, he was ranked as one of the world's most influential Scholars by "The 500 Most Influential Muslims", edited by John Esposito and Ibrahim Kalin, (2009).

He has also authored numerous articles. His groundbreaking books are "Heirs of the Prophets" in 2002, "Scattered Pictures: Reflections of An American Muslim" in 2005, an award-winning text "Treatise for the Seekers of Guidance" in 2008, and Where I'm Coming From: The Year In Review, in 2010.

For more articles, please visit New Islamic Directions website or subscribe to the blog.

Website: http://www.newislamicdirections.com

Blog: http://www.newislamicdirections.com/nid/notes/ C2011, Imam Zaid Shakir

Reflections on black history month

Black History Month should be of interest to every Muslim, especially in America. It is estimated that upwards to 20% of the Africans enslaved in the Americas were Muslim. [1] In some areas, such as the coast of the Carolinas, Georgia, and parts of Virginia, the percentages of Muslims in the slave population may have approached 40%. [2] The fact that the search of a random African American, Alex Haley, for his roots led him to a Muslim village in West Africa is indicative of the widespread Muslim presence among the enslaved population here in the Americas.

At this critical time in the history of our country, it is important for Muslims, whose legitimate existence in this country is being challenged in some quarters, to connect to our American Muslim roots. As Muslims, our story in this country did not begin with the coming of Syrians, Lebanese, Albanians, or Yemenis at the turn of the 20th Century and later. It began with the lives of those courageous African Muslim slaves whose blood, sweat, and tears were instrumental in building this country. Their struggle is our struggle, and our struggle should be viewed as a continuation of theirs.

In identifying with those African Muslims, we must not allow ourselves to forget that they were part of a greater community, a community which has evolved to almost fifty million African Americans. The struggle of that community, its pain, perseverance, triumphs, and defeats, cannot be separated from the struggle of its Muslim members. If we as Muslims are moved by the suffering of our coreligionists who were exposed to the dehumanizing cruelties of a vicious system, we should similarly be moved by the plight of their non-Muslim African brothers and sisters who suffered the same injustices.

We must also be moved to work with unwavering conviction to address, within the parameters of our organizational missions, the vestiges of institutional racism which continues to disproportionately affect African Americans and other racial minorities in this country. One statistic alone should be sufficient to alert us to the presence of such racism - 50% of this nation's 2.3 million incarcerated individuals come from her 12% African American population. Similarly discouraging statistics are found in areas ranging from access to higher education, teen pregnancies, high school dropout rates, youth homicides, and many other "quality of death" indicators.

African American Muslims have a particular responsibility in addressing such racism. In beginning to do so, we can take our lead from our formerly enslaved brothers. Despite their lack of freedom, many of them were never "owned." This fact is strikingly clear in their increasingly widespread biographies. Individuals such as Ayyub bin Sulayman (Job Ben Solomon), Ibrahim Abdul-Rahman, and Yarrow Mamout, to name a few, did not allow the ravages of chattel slavery to rob them of their dignity, honor, nor their human worth.

As we endeavor to address the imperfections of society, in race relations and other areas, we must do so with dignity, honor, grace, and with free and open minds. Those of us, who hail from the historically oppressed minority communities of this land, must resist the temptation to allow the triumvirate of rage, a sense of victimization, and vengeance to distort our ability to calmly assess and then pragmatically address the many issues confronting us. When such a distortion occurs, delusional thinking and irrational politics usually result.

One of the greatest delusions challenging us lies in seeing our situation as paralleling that of our brothers and sisters in foreign lands governed by repressive, authoritarian regimes. By viewing our situation as parallel to theirs we are tempted to view the paradigm of resistance which governs their struggles as valid for our situation. Such an assessment is fallacious for a number of reasons.

First of all, most of the significant "Third World" liberation struggles pitted oppressed majorities against oppressive minorities. In this country, the white majority and significant segments of the nonwhite minorities are not so severely affected by structural violence or institutional racism that they view violent or even aggressive challenges to the status quo as legitimate forms of political expression.

Secondly, alternative means of political expression, available in this country, are unavailable in most "third world" dictatorships or authoritarian regimes. Hence, the mechanisms whereby the Jews, by way of example, once a despised and demeaned minority, were able to favorably situate themselves within the system are not available in the previously referenced countries. Although some of their advancement was facilitated by their ability to benefit from their "whiteness," most of it is due to hard work and effective planning. Similarly, the progress achieved by African Americans in affirmative action, progress which has been steadily eroded, no doubt, could not have been hoped for by oppressed minorities in many other countries. Whether we view these realities as truly empowering or ultimately cooptive does not negate the fact that they do exist, and as long as they exist, they will be powerful mechanisms to damper the appeal and feasibility of radical challenges to the status quo.

Thirdly, while the feasibility of an aggressive, or even violent challenge to the status quo may be debatable in a small, minority-based, "third world" dictatorship, in a society as large, complex, diverse, and, ultimately, as politically conservative as the United States, such challenges would be used to legitimize severe repressive measures which would serve to render even milder forms of dissent less acceptable. While presented here in hypothetical terms, this is actually a recurrent lesson which American history has taught us.

The history of "third world" revolutionary change is no more encouraging. The Algerian experience is illustrative of the legacy of revolutionary violence in Africa. Frantz Fanon, in The Wretched of the Earth, his analysis of the Algerian decolonization struggle, saw decolonizing violence as a cathartic agent which would create a new liberated man. The sad reality created by that violence is documented by Fanon in the last chapter of his work. It led to a litany of mental disorders, which Fanon, a trained psychiatrist, documented all too well, wreaked lives which the leaders of the nationalist struggle were ill-prepared to repair. Furthermore, thirty years later, the heirs of the nationalist regime which the revolution brought to power would be all too willing participants in a bloodbath that would rival anything the former French colonizers had visited upon the Algerian people.

Archbishop Dom Helder Camara, has pointed out that once a spiral of violence begins, it operates on its own internal logic. Injustice leads to revolt. Revolt induces repression. Repression leads to greater injustices, which in turn encourage more radical forms of revolt. These then induce more severe forms of repression. This spiral continues, unbroken. The challenge for theologians in this age, when the potential destructiveness of war is so great it threatens the very existence of our world, is to devise strategies which can meaningfully enhance our collective wellbeing by peacefully altering the mechanisms of structural violence and institutionalized racism. Muslim theologians, if we are truly "Heirs of the Prophets," peace and blessings of God upon them, should not shy away from this challenge. However, in attempting to meet it, we must resist the temptation to resuscitate the failed strategies, stale ideas, and outdated methods of an ineffective "Third World" revolution.

On the other hand, we must not allow ourselves to be divorced from the struggles of the less fortunate members of the human family. In a not too distant past, when standards of political correctness were more closely associated with the truth and not selfish and narrow political agendas, John Kennedy said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." The great theologian Reinhold Niebubr declared, "In the social struggle we are either on the side of privilege or need." If these two white Americans, who were "privileged" in every sense of that somewhat trite expression, can advocate for the need to challenge oppressive social relations, it would be an unforgivable travesty for our voices to fall silent.

The question for us is, "How can we best address the oppressive mechanisms facing us, and those facing our co-religionists in so many redoubts scattered around the globe?" In answering this question, we can gain valuable insight from the lives and struggles of our African Muslim forebears. Superior erudition was the key to the liberation of Job Ben Solomon. Herein is a sign for us. As American Muslims we have been blessed to reside in the most intellectually dynamic society in history. Also, the primal command in our religion is to read. We should enthusiastically pursue the mandate created by these twin facts and push ourselves to become the most educated community on Earth -in religious and worldly knowledge. In so doing, the miracles which were so clearly manifested in the life of Job Ben Solomon will surely bless our lives.

The dignity, nobility, an erudition of Ibrahim 'Abd al-Rahman, qualities which earned him the epithet, "Prince," were instrumental in his liberation from of shackles of bondage. Our day is witnessing the steady degradation of our collective human dignity. We should be a community whose dignity and nobility readily impresses all who deal with us, and more importantly a community whose ethics are a reflection of the true value and depth of the prophetic teachings. Sadly, as Muslims, generally speaking, we have dishonored the prophetic legacy we been entrusted with. Our ethics oftentimes reflect a utilitarian approach to life. If something proves effective, and effectiveness for many of us is increasingly viewed in terms of money or security, let us find a way to provide it with religious sanction. Such an approach may ensure our short-term prosperity, but it will never open the hearts and minds of masses of people to Islam.

Our forefathers attracted people to Islam and conquered lands with the loftiness of their character and ethics. We oftentimes repulse dignified outsiders who come into our midst. At the height of American chattel slavery, Yarrow Mamout, an elderly Muslim who had gained his freedom, so impressed the artist Charles Wilson Peale with his dignity, nobility, and grace that the latter, who painted six portraits of George Washington, was inspired to paint Mamout. Who among us would inspire a similarly placed artist today?

It is not the purpose of these ruminations to suggest a specific program of empowerment. Power, as the Qur'an emphatically affirms, is God's to give to whomsoever He chooses.[3] However, a deep knowledge of God, self, and society will certainly yield insights conducive to conformity to the divine ways God has established to invite His empowering grace upon a particular community. Furthermore, history affirms that dignity, nobility of character and courage have been the indispensable characteristics of those who were able to take the oftentimes unpopular stands which helped to usher in fundamental change -by the Will of God.

In speaking of unpopular stands, we are not merely speaking of those which may place us in opposition to an unjust power structure, but similarly those which may place us in opposition to our race, tribe, class, or even member of our faith. Popularity has never been a condition for greatness. However, the acts of a great woman may certainly render her popular to those whose lives are bettered by her acts.

In conclusion, Islam is calling us to be bigger than what the world has made us. If the world has made us members of a "disadvantaged" race, class, ethnicity, or gender, the world wants us to be dehumanized by the ensuing rage, sense of victimization, and a quest for vengeance. The collective weight of those forces can easily lead to a dehumanizing loss of hope. For our African Muslim ancestors enslaved in this land, Islam was always a source of hope, dignity, and for many, as we have mentioned, the key to their liberation. For those who never escaped the shackles of physical bondage, Islam provided the basis for their rising above the dehumanization of the chattel system. In the words of Dr. Sylviane A. Diouf, "The African Muslims may have been, in the Americas, the slaves of Christian masters, but their minds were free. They were the servants of Allah."[4] As they were so too should we be.

[1] See Sylvianne A. Diouf, Servants of Allah: African Muslims Enslaved in the Americas (New York, London: New York University Press, 1998), p. 48.

[2] Diouf, p. 47.

[3] See Al-Qur'an 3:26-27.

[4] Diouf, 210.

This article is excerpted from Imam Zaid's book, Scattered Pictures: Reflections of an American Muslim.

http://www.newislamicdirections.com/nid/notes/reflections_on_black_history_month/

For More Information:

Telephone: 510.387.2604 / 1.866.496.8598

Fax: 510.251.0993

Imam Zaid Shakir was born in Berkeley, California and accepted Islam in 1977 while serving in the United States Air Force. He graduated Summa Cum Laude and earned a BA in International Relations at the American University in Washington, D.C. and an MA in Political Science from Rutgers University. While overseas in Egypt, Syria, and Morocco, he studied Arabic and traditional Islamic sciences including Islamic law, Qur'an, and Islamic spirituality. He co-founded Masjid Al-Islam in Connecticut and taught Political Science at Southern Connecticut State University. He has written numerous articles for various magazines, journals, newspapers, and author of the groundbreaking books "Heirs of the Prophets" and "Scattered Pictures". Imam Zaid Shakir currently teaches full-time at the Zaytuna Institute in Hayward, California as a scholar- in - residence.

In the spirit of the great scholars of the past, the Imam embodies the rationality, spirituality and breadth of traditional knowledge, as well as cutting-edge academic intellect. Imam Shakir leaves a lasting impression; his ability to move hearts and minds enlightens all walks of life.

For interviews or press/media kit: info@zaidshakir.com

Reflections on 9-11 and Ramadan-1

September 11, 2007

This year, the birth of the invisible new moon, an event that will be followed in a day or two by the beginning of the month of Ramadan. Upon the sighting of the waxing crescent in the evening sky, will occur on September 11th, the anniversary of the infamous attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11). Although no one can accurately claim that Ramadan will begin on the night of September 11th, this coming Tuesday, the beginning of the month of fasting will never be so close to the anniversary of those fateful events during the lifetime of anyone reading this article. That being the case, the occasion provides us with a good opportunity to reflect on 9/11 and Ramadan.

9/11 has been used by both the government and a significant segment of the Christian Right in this country, along with their allies, to launch a war on Islam. For the government that war has been confined to what it terms "radical" Islam. As for the latter grouping, that war can generally be described as a war on Islam itself, its beliefs, its Prophet, peace upon him, and its people. The actual prosecution of that war includes a variety of tactics, from invasion and occupation, to a war of words that involves demonizing and vilifying what is presented as the inherently violent Muslim "other" [2].

By choosing to wage this war, the parties mentioned above have placed themselves in the service, wittingly or unwittingly, of what the late American President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, referred as the military-industrial complex. They have become either the military or propaganda wing of that complex, aiding the accomplishment of its strategic imperatives. By so doing, they have contributed to a war that lacks an identifiable enemy, has no moral parameters for its execution, and theoretically, no end. Such a war threatens to undo most of the advances in international law and organization that have led to a situation in human affairs where war is an anomaly in relations between states, whereas in the pre-modern world it was the norm. Similarly, it threatens to erode valuable advances towards the creation of a global human rights regime that provided the basis for the extension of fundamental rights, at least in theory, to all members of the human family. These setbacks in international law and organization did not have to occur.

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, America enjoyed the sympathy and goodwill of the entire planet, including the most significant political actors in the Muslim world. Muslim leaders including the presidents, kings, and dictators of all the Muslim countries, ranging from the President of Iran to the late Yasir Arafat, expressed their sympathy and support for the United States. An international climate was created, which would have allowed the United States to use her power and influence to help usher in an unprecedented international collective security regime. This regime would have been founded on the premise that global terrorism is an international problem that can only be effectively combated through the combined and principled effort of the international community.

The approach buttressing such a regime includes a combination of intelligence gathering, policy changes, and a series of highly focused disruptive activities targeting the financial, recruitment, training, and communications infrastructure of identified terrorist organizations. Such activities rely far more on effective police work than they do on the might of standing armies.

This approach has been employed in Europe, and has been overwhelmingly successful, even if we include the setbacks represented by the Madrid bombings, and the events of 7/7 in Britain. Despite those setbacks, many plots have been foiled, a wealth of useful information about violent groups garnished, and most importantly, a pervasive climate of fear and siege among the general population has been avoided.

On the other hand, the approach taken by the United States, one she encouraged among her allies in Latin America, in face of the threat posed by violent groups confronting many of those countries during the 1960s,1970s, and 1980s, includes brutal repression in a political climate characterized by suspension of the democratic process, usurped civil liberties, or both. This approach, successfully employed in places like El Salvador, Guatemala, Argentina, and most famously, perhaps, Chile under Pinochet, includes torture, kidnapping, curtailing the right of free association, electronic spying, along with other surveillance techniques. In saner times, such an approach would never be viewed as suitable for a democratic state. However, it is the basis of the strategy currently employed by the United States in her "war on terror." If one adds to these abuses secret military tribunals, closed deportation hearings, the suspension of habeas corpus for a new class of detainees who can be held indefinitely without any charges or evidence levied against them, one has a clear formula for a police state.

The irony of this situation is that all of the measures mentioned above, in the case of the United States, have proven of little efficacy in eradicating the terrorist threat, if anything, if has exacerbated it. Furthermore, describing these tactics and the larger strategy they comprise as a "war" is misleading and counterproductive. In the words of Philip B. Heymann, a leading international security specialist:

Repeating and relying on the concept of "war" is also harmful to fighting terrorism. What we face is a very prolonged series of contests with opponents that do not have the powers of a state, or hope to defeat our armies, or destroy our powerful economy, or threaten to occupy our territory-the dangerous characteristics we have traditionally associated with war. More important, designing our plans as if this is a war leads us badly astray. The dangers we face involve several possible forms of attack by several forms of possible organizations, each of which may have any of a rich set of possible motivations and a rich set of possible organizational structures. This wide range of possibilities must be handled in a variety of different ways-with a subtlety that is obscured by the simpler assumptions hiding behind the term "war." Many of the most important ways we do not require, and are not advanced by the use of, our awesome military capabilities. [3]

The abuses outlined above, and using a fictitious "war" as a pretext for those abuses, is part of an effort to consolidate the position of America in the international arena as a militaristic global power. In addition to base motivations such as the mere lust for power, the militarism of this country has become the basis of massive commercial concerns, and those concerns are not just confined to the massive weapons manufacturing sector of the economy. To give just one small example:

Whole sectors of the American economy have come to rely on military sales. On the eve of our second war on Iraq, for example, the Department of Defense ordered 273,000 bottles of Native Tan sunblock (SPF 15), almost triple its 1999 order and undoubtedly a boon to the supplier, Control Supply Company of Tulsa, Oklahoma, and its subcontractor, Sun Fun Products of Daytona Beach, Florida. [4]

The growing militarism of America, and the attempts to consolidate and institutionalize the empire it facilitates in the international arena, in part through the abusive tactics mentioned above, has dire consequences for this country domestically and internationally. Domestically, as insinuated above, it threatens the civil liberties and freedoms that are the foundation of our democracy. Internationally, in addition to its destabilizing influence, it represents, among other things, a missed opportunity for this country to place its immense power in the service of justice, something many analysts see as being fundamental to a democratic state. Reinhold Niebuhr mentions in this regard:

Modern democratic nations have sought to bring power into the service of justice in three ways. (a) They have tried to distribute economic and political power and prevent its undue concentration. (b) They have tried to bring it under social and moral review. (c) They have sought to establish inner religious and moral checks upon it. [5]

Niebuhr discusses in a very pragmatic fashion the challenges to the accomplishment of these three objectives. He is particularly pessimistic about the feasibility of the achievement of the first in the international arena, although its attainment within a particular state is viewed as highly possible. He states in that regard:

No world government could possibly possess, for generations to come, the moral and political authority to redistribute power between the nations in the degree in which highly cohesive national communities have accomplished this end in recent history. [6]

Herein lies one of the greatest failures of the current administration, for in the aftermath of the attacks of 9/11 had our government pursued a policy that focused on redistributive justice, as opposed to blind vengeance, its moral and political authority, in the estimation of a sympathetic world, would have never been higher, and the beginning of a new, unifying political project would have been a real possibility. Rather than working for the creation of a true international community we chose to rationalize conflict. Rather than attempting to understand and work to accommodate the "other" we attempted to impose our strategic imperatives on him, or in the name of decency and democracy to eradicate his perceived barbarism. In pursuing this path, we are proceeding towards the negation of the moral foundations of our greatness. Niebuhr offers us prescient advice concerning the requisites of community. He says:

Genuine community, whether between men or nations, is not established merely through the realization that we need each other, though we certainly do. That realization alone may still allow the strong to use the lives of the weak as instruments of their own self-realization. Genuine community is established only when the knowledge that we need one another is supplemented with the recognition that "the other," that other form of life, or that other unique community is the limit beyond which our ambitions must not run and the boundary beyond which our life must not expand. [7]

9/11 provided this country with an opportunity to seek genuine community. By making the apparently tragic choice to pursue the path of war and blind vengeance, the administration has made the leap from irony to evil, for that choice accentuates the requisites of a militaristic policy to a point that pretensions to such virtuous goals as spreading democracy and stabilizing the Middle East ring hollow to informed observers. As long as the general public of this country supports such a policy, it can only be viewed as a partner in the evil that ensues. One of the ironies of our current situation is that the events of 9/11 are the greatest factor urging the general public to support the militarism of the government. Those events have been used to rob that public of the political imagination necessary to begin to think of sharing power and resources in a more equitable fashion or to desire to establish a genuine international community. Herein lays the challenge to the Muslims. Will we allow the events of 9/11 to destroy our political imagination? Will we allow them to rob us of the ability to resolve the ironies that define our situation, thereby pushing us to evil acts that defy our pretensions to higher virtues? It is here that we will speak of Ramadan. Ramadan is the promise of what Islam should be. Above all else, it is the unadulterated reverence and worship of God that seeks to glorify Him, and not our selves. In a beautiful passage in Lata'if al-Ma'arif, Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali mentions the following concerning the Night of Power (Layla al-Qadr) the very climax of Ramadan:

The scholars differ concerning the wisdom of the angels descending during this night [The Night of Power]. Kings and notables do not like guests to enter their homes until they have adorned them with suitable furniture and carpets and decked out their servants with fine clothing and ceremonial weaponry. When the Night of Power arrives, the Lord orders the angels to descend to the earth, because the servants have adorned themselves with acts of worship: with fasting and prayer throughout the month of Ramadan. [They have likewise] adorned their mosques with candles and lamps. The Lord then says to the angels: "You have levied a grave charge against Adam's descendants when you said concerning them, 'Will you place therein [on earth] one who will work corruption and wantonly shed blood, while we glorify your praise and extol your sanctity?' Did I not say to you, 'Surely, I know that which you know not.' Go forth and behold them on this night so you can witness them standing in devotion, prostrating themselves, and bowing on their knees in prayer. Then you will know that I chose them over all other creation based on [my] knowledge." [8]

This passage mentions what the angels perceived would be the reality of the human condition, but it also informs us of what God knew of our potentialities. Yes, we sometimes wrongfully shed blood. Sadly, we often do so in the name of God. However, we also pray to God, we seek His Guidance, we humbly confess our weakness before Him, we dedicate great acts to His service, and we seek light through Him. If we can lose ourselves, every individual "I", and each divergent "me", in the worship of God, as Muslims do on the Night of Power, then perhaps we can discover that the "I" and the "me" are not so important, that this life is really about the "He", God; and the "us", His children. If He can freely bestow His gifts upon us, what prevents us from sharing those gifts with each other? If He can forgive us for the countless transgressions we have engaged in relating to Him, what prevents us from forgiving each other? These are two other great lessons from Ramadan-forgiveness, and charity. It is related that the Prophet Muhammad, peace upon him, was excessively generous. However, he was even more generous during Ramadan. The reason for that enhanced generosity, we are told, is that the Angel Gabriel would visit the Prophet, peace upon him, during Ramadan and review the Qur'an with him [9].The Prophet's, peace upon him, reflection on the verses of charity as he reviewed the Qur'an would move him to his enhanced benevolence during this month. As for forgiveness, the Prophet, peace upon him, mentioned that the beginning of Ramadan is mercy, its middle days are forgiveness, and its latter part is liberation from Hell. Many paths leading to God's forgiveness are opened up for us during this blessed month. Fasting sincerely during the month is path to forgiveness. Standing in prayer during the nights of the month is a path to forgiveness. Spending the night of power in worship is a path to forgiveness. Remembering God is a path to forgiveness. Lightening the burden on an employee during this month is a path to forgiveness. Providing breakfast to a fasting person is a path to forgiveness. Merely, asking God for forgiveness is a path to forgiveness. All of these and many other avenues to good are open before us during Ramadan. The Qur'an also contains verses urging the faithful to fight, in the defense of the truth, the oppressed, and one's person. It contains other verses of great strategic import. However, these are not the lessons the Prophet, chose to emphasize in Ramadan. He emphasized charity. He emphasized forgiveness. He emphasized worship. These are the lessons, we as a community will have to collectively emphasize if we are to contribute to making the spirit of Ramadan the basis for the creation of the type of moral and political authority Niebuhr sees as essential for a more equitable sharing of power and resources in the international community.

Hence, Ramadan, if understood, could become our basis for a reformed world, for any real and lasting change is rooted in an idea, an idea that is subsequently actualized. That so many Muslims are able to actualize the ideas advanced by Ramadan in their individual lives and then make that actualization the basis for their personal reformation is a function of their moral imagination. Seeing those ideas as the basis for the reformation of our world is a function of our political imagination. Unlike so many others, we cannot allow 9/11 to destroy that imagination. If we can believe that a better world is possible, we can begin the work to make it a reality. If we believe otherwise, the terrorists, of all stripes, have indeed won.

Notes

[1] This article will not examine what actually happened on 9/11, although the glaring weaknesses and inconsistencies in the official narrative call for such an examination. For those seeking greater clarity concerning the events of that day see David Ray Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking (Northampton, MA: Interlink Publishing, 2007).

[2] For an excellent historical overview of the techniques and purposes of demonizing and dehumanizing the Muslim "other" see S.E.Djazairi, The Myth of the Muslim Barbarism and Its Aims (Manchester, UK: Bayt al-Hikma Press, 2007).

[3] Philip B/ Heymann, Terrorism, Freedom, and Security: Winning Without War (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2003), 161.

[4] Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2004), 2.

[5] Reinhold Niebuhr, The Irony of American History (New York: Charles Scribner and Sons, 1952), 135.

[6] Ibid., 136.

[7] Ibid., 139.

[8] Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali, Lata'if al-Ma'arif (The Subtleties of Knowledge) (Damascus:

Dar Ibn Kathir, 1996/1416), 350. It should be noted this is an addition that appeared in the earliest published version of the book but does not appear in the available manuscripts of the work.

[9] As related by Bukhari #1906 and Muslim #2308.

http://www.newislamicdirections.com/nid/notes/reflections_on_9_11_and_ramadan_1/For More Information:

Telephone: 510.387.2604 / 1.866.496.8598

Fax: 510.251.0993

Imam Zaid Shakir was born in Berkeley, California and accepted Islam in 1977 while serving in the United States Air Force. He graduated Summa Cum Laude and earned a BA in International Relations at the American University in Washington, D.C. and an MA in Political Science from Rutgers University. While overseas in Egypt, Syria, and Morocco, he studied Arabic and traditional Islamic sciences including Islamic law, Qur'an, and Islamic spirituality. He co-founded Masjid Al-Islam in Connecticut and taught Political Science at Southern Connecticut State University. He has written numerous articles for various magazines, journals, newspapers, and author of the groundbreaking books "Heirs of the Prophets" and "Scattered Pictures". Imam Zaid Shakir currently teaches full-time at the Zaytuna Institute in Hayward, California as a scholar- in - residence.

In the spirit of the great scholars of the past, the Imam embodies the rationality, spirituality and breadth of traditional knowledge, as well as cutting-edge academic intellect.

For interviews or press/media kit: info@zaidshakir.com