Alternative Religions for President Poll

Wow... 34% is much higher than I would have guessed, what with all the good press (Fox News) and notable representatives (Irshad Manji, Zarqawi, Bin Laden).

On "Critial Reviews"

I was recently written by a brother asking if I knew of any critical reviews of Bart D. Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus." I said I hadn't, and that I only read the book because it was a gift for a friend (and, consequently, I had it in my possession for awhile). The brother then sent me several critical reviews he knew of, so I decided to click one and see what they had to say.
I was shocked. Shocked at the... level of rationality and sophisticated argumentation used by this person trying to refute "Misquoting Jesus."

I did not originally intend to write a critique of the critique. I had slopped something out on a typewriter that had recently fallen into my possession, mostly an excuse to use the typewriter. But then the brother asked me to send him what I did have. In the process of typing it up, and with the addition to reading another bit of genius from the review, I decided that, since I already have the text here, I may as well post it.

So, for your reading pleasure:

I find it difficult to continue reading a "critical review" when the paper begins with such a flimsy argumentation that even I am able to spot holes on the first read through (and I am no scholar, I assure you of that). To begin, in the introductory page the author, a one James Snapp Jr., complains about the claim that this book is the "first of its kind," pointing out that other such writings (textual critiques of the bible) have been made, and that many of the points made can be found in other writings. What Mr. Snapp is missing is that the claim that this book is the first of its kind is not a claim to be the first book critiquing the textual authenticity of the bible, but the first scholarly work written on the subject intended for the general masses, rather than as a book for scholars (as is the case with Dr. Ehrman's "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture"). This book is a simplified, "dumbed down" version of more scholarly works, yet is still written by a biblical scholar (and not the kind of bible scholar you find at your local Baptist church who receives his "critical analysis" straight from Almighty God).

Mr. Snapp also diverts from any serious standard of critical thought when he goes down the path of textual variations. For instance, Mr. Snapp says, "So which textual changes are doctrinally significant? In this book, Dr. Ehrman discusses less than 40 -- quite a reduction from the 400,000 he refers to in the first part of the book."
This sort of argument is laughable. To cover 400,000 textual variances, or even 400, in a book meant for the common person would be insanity. Just because Dr. Ehrman discusses less than 40 alterations is no indication that the other 399,060 (plus or minus) of them are thereby of no consequence. The point is that there being any textual variances is a pivotal problem ignored (or, more likely, written off) by the orthodoxy.

An example I like to use is, say you have a bit of textual revelation from God (hypothetically speaking). This Holy Book consists of just three statements:

1. Fast every thursday;
2. Pray three times a day;
3. God is one.

Now, the problem with this text (in this hypothetical situation) is that one of these statements has been changed through the passage of time, but we don't know which one it is that has been changed. This puts the entire list at fault; knowing that any one of them could be the one that's been changed, how can we accept any of them as the de facto Word of God? Rationally, we can't, for to do so would mean attributing (or risk attributing) false words to the Divine Creator.

And that is just one error. What about 40? Or 400,000? Is there some margin of error that is allowed in Christian thought?

Mr. Snapp also runs into rational trouble when discussing his map analogy. The analogy itself is fine, but a point he implies while discussing is... well... He says,

"but what if some of those areas of uncertainty on the map involved roads and landmarks? What if we don't have the contents of the original map? Dr. Ehrman regards this as a justification to stop trusting the spiritual map known as the New Testament."

And so do I! How can you say the text is the Word of God when ou aren't even sure where the words come from? Dr. Ehrman's claim isn't that the New Testament is a useless document void of any guidance. What we cannot do is regard those words as the words of God, as the Evangelicals (and such) that Dr. Ehrman is refuting do.

Mr. Snapp continues with this rational malfeasance after the introductory page when he says,

"Dr. Ehrman says (on p. 10) that it doesn?t help much to say that the original text was inspired if we can?t reconstruct it. I take issue with that for several reasons, not least of which is the point that the message, not the package of written words in which it comes, is what guides God?s people. If every Greek manuscript on the planet suddenly disappeared today, the Word of God could still be preached tomorrow."

Hold on a minute, I need to catch my breath. This... this mess just astounds me. This, kids, is an introduction to circular reasoning. Mr. Snapp is saying that it doesn't matter if the words have been changed, so long as the message is there. Well how do you think the message is conveyed? By words! If the words have been changed (and changed thousands of times for some 2000 years), and if we don't have the original, we don't know what the message is! There is a message in the New Testament, yes, but we don't know if that was the intended message. The message that matters, the supposed Divinly Inspired message is the original message--the exact one we no longer have!

And for Mr. Snapp to follow this by saying, "If every Greek manuscript on the planet suddenly disappeared today, the Word of God could still be preached tomorrow" is a masterpiece in idiotic circular reasoning. The whole point of books like "Misquoting Jesus" is that the so called "Word of God" is actually the word of men! If every Greek manuscript disappeared from the face of the earth, the word of men would still be preached tomorrow.

Maybe Mr. Snapp makes some good points, but with lapses in reason such as that, I find it difficult to justify reading any further. Though I may once I have the book in hand.

Oh Bother

Muslim pundits clash over future of Islam in Europe

"Tariq Ramadan, the Swiss-born intellectual and grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somalian-born Dutch MP who was stripped of her Dutch citizenship over allegations of a falsified application for citizenship, displayed in personal form the bitterness of a debate which both agreed convulses their co-religionists."

What what what? How are Tariq Ramadan and Ayan Hirsi Ali going to be debating each other at a conference? Ayan Hirsi Ali isn't even in the same league as Tariq Ramadan. It's sick how such a hack is let in the doors alongside the studious simply because they shout the loudest. When people are shouting outside my house, I call the cops, not let them and saying, "Gee, let me follow you."

On Malcolm ("Living in the mansions of our memory")

I've been having some thoughts lately on my man Malcolm X (El-Hajj Malik El Shabazz) (r.a.). See, I've been thinking about his famous hajj (pilgrimage) and some difficulties he had during it (for those who aren't familiar with Malcolm's 1964 hajj, go check out "The Autobiography of Malcolm X").

See, what I've been thinking about are the early troubles Malcolm (r.a.) had on his trip. Apparently, the Saudi officials were skeptical about letting Malcolm into the precincts of Mecca. See, non-Muslims aren't allowed into the area, and they doubted that Malcolm X was a Muslim. And there's the rub. See, at that time, Malcom X had been a member of the Nation of Islam (although he had a severing of ties with Elijah Muhammad and was then trying to do his own thing). He was not actually a muslim yet, at least not a member of the 1400 year old tradition, the Islam of Muhammad ibn 'Abdullah (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam). He should not have, by the letter of the law, been allowed on the hajj, but he was.

Why was he? Because there were Muslims in high places there to put in a good word for him. Malcolm (r.a.) constantly refers to the warm way he was treated, even by men who, if they lived in America, would be considered white. They were, by that definition, white, but they did not have the white outlook in them. He began to see race as not the color of our skin, but the color of your outlook. The "White Man" isn't someone with pale skin, it's someone who looks down on other races. Had Malcolm X not been able to go on this hajj and meet these people, his outlook on race very well might not have changed.

Ok, so what? Who cares? To fully appreciate this, one must understand El-Hajj Malik El Shabazz (r.a.) holds for Muslims, especially American-Muslims, and especially African-American Muslims. Malcolm X has been a role model for countless young (and old) blacks and has led (posthumously) thousands of youths to Islam. On the DVD, "The Pilgrimage of Malcolm X", Shaykh Hamza Yusuf and Imam Zaid Shakir analyze the life of Malcolm X (r.a.), showing the different stages in his life, demonstrating how he was tempered almost specifically to be set up as a role model for future generations (Imam Zaid himself was one of the youths affected by Malcolm's life).

If you were to talk to many of the great convert scholars in the U.S. today, many of them would tell you of the impact Malcolm X (r.a.) had on their lives, and how he factored into their conversion to Islam--not to mention the countless "lay" Muslims out there, especially those in the African-American community.

So, who was it that guided Malcolm X (r.a.), this, for all intents and purposes, non-Muslim, into the sacred precints of Mecca against the laws of the land to perform a hajj that was not even incumbent on him to perform, and thus have his whole outlook on race relations changed, and thus affecting the lives of thousands, if not millions of people coming after him? Perhaps it was a coincidence, perhaps the judge in charge of hearing his case wasn't a "by the book" kind of guy, perhaps it was a fluke of events. Or perhaps it was God working to create a positive role model for young Muslims in America. Perhaps.

For more info on Malcolm X's hajj, read his famous Letter From Mecca.

Dr. Amina Wadud

Finally! I real entry!

This has been sort of a big deal in some of the LJ communities I frequent (although this is a little late). For anyone living under a rock, I'm talking about Dr. Amina Wadud leading the friday juma'a prayer, the first female to do it publicly. Most muslims I've talked to have been against it, with one exception. One female on LJ "debated" me on the topic. I put debated in quotes because she didn't really debate anything. Saying someone was in a debate implies they put forth an argument backed up by sources, and refuted the counter argument. She did no such thing. Her basic argument was, "It's right cause I like it." Her refutation of my counter-argument (which was backed up with sources) was, "Why are you being such an extremist?"

Obviously I lost the debate.

What I kept trying to get across was that, it's not my opinion I'm talking about here, it's the position of Ahl al-Sunnah. When I converted to Islam, I recognized it as truth, as something from God, so if I have opinion A, and Islam has opinion B, which contradicts my opinion, I discard opinion A for opinion B. Previously, as a secular humanist liberal American, I would have been like most everyone else, "All right! Way to go Dr.. Wadud, tell those sexists how it is!"
However, that's not that case. And that position reflects the i-word of our age (no, not iMac, information or internet): ignorance (it's funny how in a day where information is at such ready access that ignorance is so prevalent... maybe it is precisely because is much information is readily available).
See, my point is, it's not an issue of gender equality--the definition of gender equality in Islam is not the western definition, and our positions are not created by the standard of American liberalism. We derive our positions on the Qur'an and Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings upon him), as interpreted by our rightly guided scholars (another contentious issue these days). That women haven't been allowed to lead the prayer has nothing to do with whether or not they're inferior (the notion of women as "the weaker sex" is not an islamic ideal, as I understand it). It's like that because the Prophet (peace and blessings upon him) prohibited it (minus certain situations where women lead only women, but there's a difference of opinion).

The question we as muslims must ask about these issue is not, "What do I think?" but "Did the Prophet sanction it?" To borrow from the Christians, "What would Muhammad do?"

My favorite response to this whole ordeal came from Imam Zaid Shakir of the Zaytuna Institute, during the test-day session of his "40 Hadith of Imam Nawawi" class, given at Zaytuna and streamed over the internet. I transcribed what he said to the best of my ability and printed it below. Keep in mind that the following is not an article or prepared remarks, but basically Imam Zaid speaking off-the-cuff during a short Q&A session. I'm guessing the question was something like, "Is this going to happen?" judging from how his answer begins.

Disclaimer: I did this because I thought the remark was very thoughtful, and knew there would be many that would (and did) benefit from it. If anyone from Zaytuna or that knows Imam Zaid strolls across this and thinks I should remove it, I will.

His response begins at 21:27

"The reason this is going to happen is cause we're in America. That's why it's going to happen. In other words, you pay your money, you rent the hall, and you do what you want to do. This is America.
And another reason this is going to happen is because we're in America and there's no formal religious authority, then people make themselves into authorities, and as a result do what they want to do. So that's why it's happening. But is it right? It's not right and it's not proper. In the tradition ahl-e-as-Sunnah [other traditions listed which I'm unfamiliar with, so I can't type them correctly]... so from the dominant islamic traditions isn't not something that's sanctioned. The proofs and discussions of that are many. And I would say that the way it's being conducted, it wouldn't be permissible for a man to do what this lady's doing. Because it's an expression of an unrestrained nafs. Is it appropriate for a muslim, male or female, to say "I should have the right to lead the juma'a. I'm going to put myself forward over the believers." That's too much nafs, and that's a public position. And one of the basic principles on public positions is what? Whoever desires a public position is forbidden from holding it.

If any man did that in a place where there is islamic authority, he would be told, "We don't care what you want to do. You need to go to the back row and humble yourself for a few years before you put yourself up before the muslims." But from the shari'ah point of view there are a lot of issues, and insha'allah we are going to have something up on the Zaytuna Website in a few days with the nuances associated with the legal matters. But just from the point of appropriateness for a muslim in general. It's not anything the Prophet (sallalahu alaihe wa sallam) ever sanctioned.

There's a hadith of Umm Waraqah, and from the position of ahl-e-as-Sunnah the hadith is da'if. There is a weak narrator in the chain, and there's an unknown. So that hadith, based on that narration is not suitable for a proof. It's in Abu Dawood. The hadith says that Umm Waraqah was given permission to lead the people of her house. [arabic, I think it means, "people of the houseould. Something like Ahl e-bayt, but not exactly that] And there's no indication that there were men in that congregation she was given permission to lead. [arabic, same as before] And the Prophet (sallalahu alaihe wa sallam) told her to appoint a man to call the adhan for her, which indicated they might have all been women. We don't know. So there are a lot of nuances. Also the hadith would be weak, contradicted by other hadiths that are sound which say a woman shouldn't lead a group in prayer. Also, in terms of going before the men as an imam, the hanafi school doesn't allow the group prayer at all for w omen. They pray individually. And the other three schools don't permit the woman leading a group of women to go in front of them, she stands in the middle of the row equal with everyone else. So on what basis do we put the woman in front of not only the women, but the men, when the prophet told her to stand in the middle of the row? So there are a lot of things.

The issue of the juma'a is considered part of the prayer. [arabic--can't transliterate, possibly Qur'an] This is the khutbah and the prayer, so it is all considered salah. And in salah the men can speak and say subhan'Allah, but the women are told to clap their hands to alert the imam and not to raise their voices. So there are a lot of issue to be looked at. And then the people advocating this, they have their proofs, so the specific refutation of those has to be known, so insha'Allah we're gonna put our piece out and people can consider the merits of the argument against such a thing.

But it also comes to a thing when, what is most appropriate at the time? In other words, at a time where islam is generally being attacked from all angles, is it appropriate even if you feel, or if you have a right, to pursue your right if it means further and deep cleaviges within the muslim community at a time of fitnah? Or should one pull back and wait for a more appropriate time under more appropriate circumstances?
And it's a fitnah, it's a fitnah. Why is it a fitnah? People are confused. You know, "Is this right?" or "She can do it, what proof do you have to stop her?" Muslims are fighting and arguing, Muslims are pulling away from each other. "We don't need these masjids, they're all backwards and reactionary. We'll make a new progressive Islam." So it's a fitnah, and during a fitnah, the one who walks towards it is better than the one who runs towards it. The one who creeps towards it is better than the one who walks towards it. The one who remains seated is better than the one who stands. Et cetera. So one should not hasten to get wrapped up in these turmoils, because no good will come of it, no good.
For women, I mean what will happen to the sisters? Things are improving in the masajid. Things are improving. It might not be as fast as some like, but things are improving. But what's gonna happen? The conservatives are going to circle the wagon, go on the defensive and clamp down. And people are are considered extreme are going to go to another extreme, and you're going to have a deep cleavege in the muslim community. And under those circumstances... so husbands are realizing, "I'm in america, I'm not in a village in Uzbekistan, so I should ease up a little." What's he gonna do? "I don't want you listening to those people. I don't want you going..." So it's going to create a conservative backlash on the one hand, and more confusion on the other hand. So ask Allah for well being. Ask Allah for well being.

Response ends at 29:50.

I was also debated over the idea of following scholars, but that's for another entry.

the media

Police Search for Answers in Wisconsin Shooting

If a muslim did this at a mosque, Islam would be blamed. Not only that, but the fact that the man is a muslim would have been mentioned in the headline as well. Of course, since in this article, the man was a christian and not a muslim, it's not really mentioned all that much.

Seriously. If he was a muslim, the headline "Police Search for Answers in Wisconsin Shooting" would turn into something like, "Police Look For Answers in Muslim Shooting." Small change, big difference.

Fame resurrects thee

Well maybe I should start updating this blog of mine. I created it in a whirlwind of interest, but like all of my interest whirlwinds, they die down very quickly. I though it would be easy to maintain two (my livejournal and this blog), but I can hardly keep one. I have a lot more invested in my livejournal, which I update sporadically. Though here I've gotten some comments from people who did a search for islam, so perhaps I can toss in a post on that topic once in awhile, since it doesn't come up in my livejournal much (you can read my livejournal here).

And for any who care, "Small Change" is both a really good idea--change a little bit at a time (it's how the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, brought about Islam). It's also the name of a Tom Waits album. More so though, it allows me to have the spiffy tag-line, "Revolution pennies at a time." A friend of mine has the tag-line (on LJ) "Rebellion gone lazy."

As you can see I'm drawn by cute gimmickry.

The CIA is Beautiful

A few interesting links on the Berg Beheading.

A kuro5shin.org article
angryfinger
buzzflash
Marc Perkel
The Guardian

Since I'm not investigative journalist (I'll leave that to others), I merely got the following links from the kuro5shin.org article.

More Just Us

As if you thought it was over. Nope folks, there's more. A video has been showing where an American is beheaded with a knife. The video was titled, "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi shown slaughtering an American."

According to the BBC (linked above), one of the masked men said, "How can a free Muslim sleep well as he sees Islam slaughtered and its dignity bleeding, and the pictures of shame and the news of the devilish scorn of the people of Islam - men and women - in the prison of Abu Ghraib?"

OK, first off, nobody is slaughtering Islam. You cannot slaughter Islam, it's a religion, a deen, not a person or a goat. Just as what sick people do in the name of Islam (see above link) does not, in reality, denigrate Islam, torturing Muslims (which I obviously don't agree with) doesn't "slaughter" Islam. Each of these actions only shows the depravity of the people involved. As a Muslim, I put the onus on the Muslims. To quote Shaykh Hamza Yusuf from his article, "Religion, Violence, and the Modern World," he says, "Religious people who set aside every true and universal religious principle in the name of religion are worse than any secular beast doing the same in the name of 'might makes right.' The reason is obvious: one acts in the name of religion and causes others to hate religion; the other acts in the name of power and causes others to rightly hate the worst qualities of man."

I mean, cutting a man's head off with a knife? That's a terrible death. In Islam, prisoners of war (that is if these masked men consider themselves mujahideen and not merely brigands) cannot be treated as lifeless nothings. There are rules concerning the treatment of prisoners. Consider a quote from Islam-qa (I don't actively support many of the politics/views of this site, but this bit is informative): "If the Muslims capture them and take them to a place that has been prepared for them, they should not harm them or torture them with beatings, depriving them of food and water, leaving them out in the sun or the cold, burning them with fire, or putting covers over their mouths, ears and eyes and putting them in cages like animals. Rather they should treat them with kindness and mercy, feed them well and encourage them to enter Islam."
Consider the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) referring to the prisoners taken from Badr, "Take heed of the recommendations to treat the prisoners fairly." Now mind you, these prisoners spoken of were men who fought against Muslims, killing them, and fought against the Prophet himself, and would have killed him had they the chance. The man in Iraq was a civilian! An Islamic state is even expected to free a prisoner with its own funds if he is unable to pay for his freedom. Consider this article on the treatment of prisoners. Also consider the fatwa found at IslamOnline.

Sick minds begat sick actions. I think lack of education (of Islam) is a major factor in such atrocities. And I don't accept the argument of, "Well, the US/Israel/Soviet Union/Martians do terrible things too, what about them?" The evil deeds of another does not give you a line of credit to commit evil deeds of your own. If fighting the just fight means you have to fight with one hand behind your back, and perhaps die in the process, Allahu akbar, I cannot think of a greater example of being a martyr.

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to counter a wrong action with a right, and you thereby remove the power of the wrong. The cycle of violence is ended. When non-Muslims see Muslims beheading some man and shouting, "God is greatest," how many of them will accept Islam after that?

How many enemies can you make in a day?

How's This For Justice?

According to Xinhuanet.com (and several other sources), Palestinian Militants blew up an Israeli armored personnel carrier, killing 6 Israeli soldiers. Notice that? 6 soldiers. Saraya Al Quds, the armed wing of the Islamic Jihad movement claimed responsibility.

In response, according to eyewitnesses, an Israeli Apache helicopter (wonder where they got that from?) fired a rocket at a crowd of local residents (other sources say it was at a car). Israeli soldiers then arrested 5 residents on the spot in order to use them as human shields while they cleared away their 6 dead.

Body count?
6 Israeli soldiers dead
4 Palestinians killed, including a 10 year old boy
90 Palestinians wounded (according to the NYT), 5 of whom are in critical condition

Glad to know Israel, the only sovereign State in the fray, is fighting the good fight, and not steeping to State Terrorism

[Edit] Note, just heard on the radio that Palestinians has paraded some of the body parts through the streets, and Egypt is trying to pressure them to turn them over to Israel.

See, I just love this stuff. Let's reply to this action with some sick disgusting act. Yeah, that'll show them.