This just in. According to his father Anwar Al Awlaki, the “radical” scholar who praised Nidal Hassan as a hero, has been missing for 8 months.

Of course this will add fuel to the flames of those who have been claiming all along that www.anwar-alawlaki.com was not really his site at all, and that the writings attributed to him were not really his.

Although Awlaki does not enjoy the specter of grandiosity attributed to Osama Bin Laden, one must wonder if he is being setup as a new shadow-jihadi that America can use as an excuse to invade nations.

Or then again he may have posted that now-infamous message without realizing the storm of condemnation that would descend upon him and simply fled into hiding afterward.

Only time will tell – or not.

In every religion that has lasted more than a single generation there comes, at some point (or at several), a serious debate regarding which instructions of the religions’ patriarch(s) are intended to be followed temporarily, and which ones are intended to be followed permanently.

For example: In Christianity the old testament places lots of restrictions on behavior, like the prohibition on pork and other things. However the official position of the majority of Christian theologians is that those instructions were not intended to apply for all time (i.e. they were temporary).

In Islam there have been, and still are, similar debates. For example the prophet Muhammad placed certain restrictions on his followers regarding their food, dress, manners, personal hygiene and other things. Some of those instructions are taken by Islamic theologians to apply permanently to all who are followers of Prophet Muhammad, while others are taken to have applied only to those living in his time.

Consider the miswaak (a small twig used to clean the teeth). Prophet Muhammad commanded his followers to use it. Most Islamic theologians today consider this to be a command which no longer applies to Muslims today, because the modern toothbrush does (some say) a better job.

So all of this brings to the fore a fundamental question: In matters of religion how does one differentiate a permanent injunction from a temporary one?

Lets’ take two examples. One will be from Christianity, and the other from Islam.

Jesus, according to the New Testament, is reported to have commanded his followers to “Turn the other cheek”. Taken at face value, and some have done just this, that command seems to command pacifism. Jesus is not reported to have placed any time restriction on this command, so one could reasonably assume that this command is to be followed for all time.

Likewise Muhammad, according to several hadith (recorded sayings), is reported to have ordered his followers not to retaliate to violence, even unto the point of death. Just as in the previous instance (regarding Jesus) it could easily be assumed that he intended this to be the case for all times. In fact, had Muhammad died before he entered the War Phase of his ministry Muslims today would likely still espouse “Turning the other cheek” just as much as their Christian counterparts.

But let’s apply the filter of real life to these things. I’m sure that all of our mothers, at some point, ordered us not to touch the stove. Our parents often ordered us to “be quiet”, or to “sit down”.

Of course no person, whether child or adult, takes these commands as having permanent impact. the child told not to touch the stove does not avoid stoves for a lifetime, nor does the person told to be quiet become a permanent mute.

This is because, in real life, the rule is that any order is temporary, unless it is stated to be permanent.

So why the opposite approach when we look at our religious guides? Why do we assume, quite often, that every command given is intended to apply permanently?

I believe that this behavior, of assuming that all religious injunctions are permanent, is simply a way of “passing the buck”. Most of us do not want the responsibility of determining for ourselves when certain rules apply and when they do not. We tend to prefer (most of us) to simply be told what to do. This removes from us the burden of personal deliberation.

Why do you suppose that so many people of every religion actively like to suppress discussion by the “layman” on core religious topics. In Islam, for example, the common excuse given is that, regarding certain matters, only qualified scholars should speak on them or consider interpreting them. This is even applies to interpreting the Quran (the Muslim bible, so to speak). In the personal context that attitude is applied as, “I don’t have enough knowledge to come to my own conclusion, so I’ll just follow what such-and-such a scholar says.”

So the determination of what injunctions are permanent and which ones are temporary must, by it’s very nature, come down to a personal choice between two approaches:

A) All commands are permanent, unless they are stated to be temporary.
B) All commands are temporary unless they are stated to be permanent.

Of course the choice that precedes the one stated above is whether or not the individual is even willing to make his/her own choice (or to just follow that of a pastor, scholar, minister, etc.)

I personally apply the following approach:

A) No scholar is more qualified to interpret the commands of God than I am. I believe that God’s command are quite clear and that he intentionally made his words open to interpretation in many, many different ways so that they could be applied to many different people, in many different places, in many different times. When I am judged by Him I will not be able to use excuse my mistakes by claiming that I was only following someone else’s interpretation. Thus I am duty bound to make my own decisions and to take responsibility for them.

B) All prophetic (i.e. non-divine) commands are temporary unless stated to be permanent. No prophet or messenger is all-wise. Not Moses, Prophet Muhammad, or any of the others. They all made well-documented mistakes (as upsetting as that reality may be to some of you).

C) All divine commands are permanent unless stated to be temporary.

Which approach do you take?

As if Muslims in America aren’t already going through enough, now apparently the stereotypes are just going to get worse.

Muzzamil Hassan founded Bridges TV, a network dedicated to erasing negative stereotypes about Muslims and Islam.

Now he has allegedly murdered his wife by beheading her.

No kidding.

Click here for the full story.

Religion For Sale

In the ancient Islamic world there was a term that was used as a stinging insult toward some religious scholars.

The term was “Government Scholar”.

These scholars were known, or suspected, to give religious rulings either in exchange for financial support from the government (some recieved actual stipends) or directly in exchange for money on the spot.

Today in both the Muslim world and in the West there seems to be a resurgence of the Government Scholar.  Religious leaders across the world are approving practices and lifestyles that the very books which they claim to represent openly condemn.

But since the governments accept it, so to must they, it seems.

The reality is that the Government Scholar never really went away.  There have been shadowy meetings between religious officials and governemnt officials in almost every society throughout history.  But now the fact of it is becoming increasingly evident.

Last year we had to sit through recording after recording of Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his biting criticism of the USA.  We had to hear how un-American he was and watch the media demonize him.

But wait.

When have religious officials ever been openly beholden to a state?  It used to be considered an accepted fact that the Churches, Mosques, or Synagogues were not the province of the state, but were the houses of God Himself, and thus stood autonomous.

In the public eye, rulers have generally curried the favor of the Church, not the other way around.  Of course, behind the scenes the story was often quite different, but in the public sphere part of the legitimacy of the Minister/Imam/Priest/Rabbi hinged on his being beholden to God alone.

Today, however, religious leaders are expected to be beholden to the State, openly and secretly, and as a result their influence among the poeple is waning rapidly.

Every time a religious leader compromises his principles and says what the government or the people want to hear, in exchange for the retention of status, for financial gain, or both, the respect of the people toward that leader goes quickly out the window.

Religion is for sale, and has been for a long time.

An interesting group, now accused or being a network of jihadi training camps in Rural America.

A moving moment for me last night was when Roland Martin on CNN said (paraphrased):

“I have seen with my own eyes when black kids say to their parents that they want to be president when they grow up and the parents have told them ‘No baby, you should choose something else.  Our people can’t do that in America’.  Now and for the rest of my life, and I have 9 nieces and nephews, I and every black parent can say to them ‘Yes you can’, and mean it.”

Many of you will not understand my words here, because you haven’t been through what Blacks in America have gone through.  I am happy for you that you do not bear the weight of our history.  I wish that we did not have to either.

If you think that it’s unislamic for me to take pride in such a thing, I am not surprised, nor do I really care.  It has been a pattern throughout our past that every time we (Blacks in America) try to stand together or do for self, it is called racist, irrespective of the fact that every other ethnicity does the same, and with much more enthusiasm.

Now one of us (Black people in America) has achieved what almost none thought possible.  Even as Obama spoke last night we all waited breathlessly for the shots to ring out which would end his life.

They never came.

So I, and Blacks across the world are now holding our heads a little higher.  Our voices are a little more firm.  We now know, if we ever had doubts, that we are every bit as capable of success as any other people on the planet, and as a result we will not, and cannot, go back to the way that we were.

For better or for worse, the world will never again be the same.

I’ve heard and read lots of opinions and arguments on Muslims voting in Democratic elections.

Many vehemently oppose this practice and have gone so far to say that to do so is sinful, and even blasphemy.  On the other side I have seen some argue that it is sinful not to vote, as voting is the jihad of the 21st Century (Jihad being an obligation incumbent on all Muslims).

My personal perspective is this:  Both sides need to shut up.  I know the Quran pretty well and there is not verse that specifically condemns voting, and there is no verse that specifically enjoins it.  Essentially voting is like the cell phone, or the jet engine.

If any Muslim wants to vote, I say that as long as your intentions are correct, have at it.  If you don’t feel comfortable voting, or feel that it is wrong, then by all means enjoy the show on TV like millions of others will.  It’s going to be a drama guaranteed to go into the history books, be sure of that.

My perspective is that whatever is not haraam (forbidden) is, in fact, halaal (permissible), and this view has been shared by the majority of Islam’s scholars of record over the ages.  Since voting is not mentioned, or even alluded to, by the words of Allah in the Quran (and only He has the authority to make a thing haraam) then it is, by default, permissible (halaal).

But I have no interest in converting you to my way of thinking.  Quite frankly I couldn’t care less if you agree or disagree.  I just want you to think and to form your own opinion.

But whatever your perspective, please clam up and leave others alone.  Stop condemning people to hellfire for not doing what you want them to do.  We all have our personal jihad to perform.

Now stop reading blogs and go perform your own.

-Z-

Today there was a brief, but intense, thunderstorm here in the south-suburbs.
I happened to be at home with the kids, while my wife was out making runs with a friend, when the thunder began.  The first peal was really more of a crescendo, as it went on for several seconds (typical of rolling thunder).

All 4 of the kids rand through the house toward their bedrooms screaming.  Not surprising for the girls, who are really still toddlers, but for the boys (aged five and eight) I thought it shameful.  Especially since it happened each time the thunder sounded (about 5 times).
So in my best Super-Jihadi-Man impression I gave them a stern lecture on how fear is healthy, but allowing it to control you is not.  I even delivered what, to me, was the ultimate closing point,  Here it is paraphrased:

“All of that screaming didn’t do anyone any good.  Did you really think that someone would hear you screaming and make the thunder stop?”

When the three oldest ones all assumed very thoughtful expressions I figured that my point had been made and I almost gave a self-satisfied smirk.

But just then my 4 year old daughter spoke, and her words left me in absolute shock.  Here’s what she said:

“Daddy.  The thunder did stop though, right after we all screamed.  And you said that Allah hears everything and can do anything.  So maybe he heard us screaming and made it stop just for us.  Allah loves us just like you do and I know you would have stopped it if you knew how.”

The Wisdom of Children indeed…

Some of this video’s parts are disturbing, others are downright funny. You be the judge.