Should Imams in France Learn French?

In the Name of God, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful

Elizabeth Bryant of the Religion News Service wrote an article about the French government's plan to teach imams in France the French language. The program was launched by Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin, and they are accompanied by a separate program teaching imams about French history, civics, and culture.

"The only problem we have is with fundamentalism, it's not with Islam," said Blandine Kriegel, head of the French government commission on integration to the BBC. "The question is, can we have a moderate form of Islam? And the answer is, yes, of course."

Hocine Elafghani, a 72-year-old imam from Clermont-Ferrand, seems to agree with the sentiment: "I would like to learn to speak and write a bit more in French." The program is designed to battle the growing rift between France's Muslim community and the rest of the country. According to the Interior Ministry, about 2/3 of the country's 1,200 imams are foreign born, and of those, less than half speak French.

Yet, this begs the questions: should these imams be learning about French language, culture, and civics? Is this an appropriate way to spend the time of the imams' who signed up for the classes? Isn't this "imitating the kuffar"? Isn't the language of the Qur'an Arabic, not French? What is the motive of the French government?

These questions, I feel, are distractions. Every single imam in France should about learn about the French language, culture, and civic life. I believe it is their religious obligation. Yet, this is not so the imams can learn how to ask for the nearest bakery to buy French bread (which is, by the way, some of the best bread I have ever tasted). This is so that the imams - and the flocks they shepherd - can become part of the fabric of French society.

What is the purpose of Muslims on earth? Are we simply put here to consume and feed ourselves? Are we not supposed to give anything back? Are we another cog in the wheel of life's machinery? Absolutely not. The Qur'an clearly defines our mission on earth:

"You are the best nation set up for humanity [because] you enjoin that which is good, you forbid that which is evil, and you believe in God" (3:110).

Our purpose is to work to establish that which is good and forbid that which is evil, using the power inherent in our belief in God. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) echoed this sentiment:

"Whoever of you sees something wrong, he should work to change it with his hands (physically). If he is unable, then he should speak out against it. If he is unable to do even this, then he should at least hate it in his heart, this being the weakest level of faith."

That is why we are the "best nation set up for humanity." If we fail to meet the requirements of "enjoining good", "forbidding evil", and "believing in God", then we are not the best nation on earth. Period. Yet, we have to go a step further.

Although all Muslims are bound together by their faith in the larger Islamic ummah, they are still distinguished by language, color, and custom. This distinction is a blessing, and it is testimony to the Infinite Wisdom of the Loving Creator:

"And among his signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the variation of your languages and colors. Verily in that are signs for those who know" (30:22).

In the Arabic, ayatihi also means "His miracles." Thus, it is a miracle of God that we are of different colors and languages. And the Muslims in Spain should be fully Spanish; the Muslims in America should be fully American; the Muslims in France should be fully French. What better way, then, to "become" fully French than learning the language, history, and culture of France?

Moreover, the Qur'an says:

"And never have We sent forth any apostle otherwise than [with a message] in his own people's tongue, so that he might make [the truth] clear unto them..."(14:4).

Every Prophet began his mission with the address: "O my people!..." Wasn't the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) sent with the same message as all the previous Prophets? Aren't we the ambassadors of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)? How, then, can Muslims in France call their fellow Frenchmen and Frenchwomen "my people" if they are not engrossed in French culture, language, and heritage?

Now, I am sure some of you question the motives of the French government. You may be thinking that the French want to "change" Islam by offering these classes. Elizabeth Bryant's article actually says something like that: "Indeed, the new imam training programs are part of a a grander scheme to create a moderate, Western-oriented 'Islam of France.'" I think there should be an "Islam of France," or an "Islam of Spain," or an "Islam of America." But how?

I once heard a scholar say that Islam is like a crystal river. Its waters are clear, pure, and sweet. Yet, when it flows over red rocks, it turns red. When it flows over green rocks, it turns green. When it flows over white rocks, it turns white. Islam accepts the cultural practices of a people, so long as those practices do not conflict with the principles of Islam.

It is because of this that mosques in China look Chinese, mosques in Turkey look Byzantine, and mosques in Africa look African, while remaining authentic Islamic sacred spaces. I wish, in fact, that mosques in America look more "American," rather than transplants from the Middle East or Indian subcontinent. A French beret is as Islamic as a Pakistani Kufi. A three-piece suit is as Islamic as a Saudi thobe. As long as the core is Islamic, the outward form - as long as it conforms to Islamic norms - is completely immaterial.

Now, some of you may think I am speaking blasphemy. Hold your horses. If the French government wants the "Islam of France" to be a religion that allows Muslims to get income from usury, or drink alcohol, or eat pork, or commit adultery and fornication, then I am wholeheartedly against it. God says you can't do those things, and thus, who is the French government to say otherwise?

If, however, the "Islam of France" means that Muslims in France would be recognized as fully French and fully Muslim at the same time, then I am all for it. It is possible to be simultaneously fully French and fully Muslim, or fully American and fully Muslim, or fully German and fully Muslim. The two are not - and should not - be mutually exclusive.

Hundreds of imams have signed up for the French classes, and I commend them for it. It may be a radical change in understanding for some Muslims, but it is one that is desperately needed and long overdue. Muslims must never be islands of isolation in the countries in which they live, and I hope the French language classes are the first step of a healthy integration of Muslims into French society. Vive le France!

Qur'an Desecration Is Nothing New

In the Name of God, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful

Thanks be to God, this commentary was published today by the Religion News Service. It is reproduced for you below:

Although many Americans have recently come to learn about it
for the first time, the desecration of the Quran is nothing new. Islam's
sacred text has been desecrated for many years now, although not a single
printed page of paper and ink was harmed in the process.

The Sept. 11 hijackers desecrated the Quran by their act of mass murder
in New York City and Washington, D.C. In fact, all those who attack and kill
civilians in the name of Islam -- some of the insurgents in Iraq, suicide
bombers attacking a Shiite mosque in Pakistan, the bombers in Bali,
Indonesia -- all of them, by their actions, viciously desecrate the Quran. A
Muslim merchant who cheats his customers -- despite always taking care to
keep the book clean -- desecrates the Quran.

Yet, how can this be?

While technically a book of paper and ink, the Quran is a life-force,
breathing life into the believer and awakening him or her from a deep
spiritual slumber. Moreover, the Quran is brought to life by the believer
who follows its commands. The best example of this is the Prophet Muhammad,
who was described by his wife as a "walking Quran."

When someone wilfully desecrates the Quran, he or she manifests a
deep-seated disdain for the sacred text. Such an act says, "The Quran is so
meaningless to me that I will burn its pages or urinate on its printed
words." But wilful and wanton betrayal of the principles of the Quran in
one's actions effectively does the very same thing.

The Quran holds all life, but most especially human life, with the
utmost of sanctity. The Quran says: "Nor take life -- which God has made
sacred -- except for just cause ... " It also says, "Take not life, which
God hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law. Thus doth he command
you, that ye may learn wisdom." The verses are unequivocal, without
condition or qualification. Further emphasizing this sanctity, suicide is
strictly prohibited: " ... do not kill yourselves, for verily God has been
most merciful unto you."

So, when a Muslim militant straps a bomb on himself and kills innocent
people (Muslim or otherwise), doesn't he blatantly disregard a direct
commandment of God in the Quran? Doesn't this act of wilful violence show
disdain for the Quran?

The Quran also issues a stern warning to merchants and shopkeepers: "Woe
to those that deal in fraud -- those who, when they have to receive by
measure from people, exact full measure. But when they have to give by
measure or weight to them, give less than due." If a Muslim merchant,
therefore, pays no heed to this and wilfully cheats his customers, doesn't
this action say that the Quran is totally meaningless to him? I believe it
does. In fact, suicidal militants and dishonest businessmen might as well
spit on the Quran and tear up its pages.

This in no ways belittles the incidents of Quran desecration that
occurred at Guantanamo Bay, and I believe those involved should be punished
by authorities. Yet, even though I share the anger of Muslims across the
world over these incidents, I do not believe such anger excused the
senseless loss of life that occurred in its wake. Such violence and death, I
believe, is a far worse desecration of the Quran than what occurred at
Guantanamo Bay, without excusing in the least what occurred there.

Still, the incidents of Quran desecration did have some positive
outcomes. The American public has gotten an opportunity to learn more about
the Quran and how important the sacred text is to Muslims the world over. In
fact, according to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, almost 12,000
people have requested a free copy of the Quran since May 17. This can only
be a good thing. Equally as important, however, the incidents of Quran
desecration have caused me to reflect on the true meaning of the Quran and a
deeper understanding of what it means to desecrate any sacred text. And I
will be all the better because of it.

c. 2005 Religion News Service

When We SHOULD Become Angry

In the Name of God, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful

Last time, I wrote about how the Star Wars saga taught us the dangers of anger, especially when unrestrained and uncontrolled. Yet, as I said previously, it is not that we should never become angry. Rather, we should never let our anger get the best of us; we should never let our anger consume us.

Why, there are times when we are supposed to become angry. When someone maims and murders in the name of Islam, Muslims the world over should become angry. When a Muslim woman is unjustly sentenced to death in the name of the Shari'ah, Muslims should also become angry. When a Muslim declares all "infidels" are to be killed, once again, Muslims should become angry.

By the same token, when the United States illegally invaded another country on the basis of faulty intelligence - if not outright lies - and 1,700 U.S. soldiers and countless Iraqis are killed, we Americans should become angry. When the United States betrays her principles and way of life by imprisoning hundreds of people without charge or counsel, we Americans should become angry. When the United States sends people to other countries - our own "allies" - to get tortured, we Americans should become angry.

Now, as I said before, this anger must never get out of control. That anger at the sins of Muslims that smear all of Islam must never result in more violence. That anger at the actions of the United States should never translate into burning our flag, or cursing this country, or praying to God for America's destruction. Absolutely not.

Rather, that anger should move us to work to make America better. That anger should motivate us to point out to the world that this is not who we are. That anger should inspire us to remind our own people of our pristine heritage and strive to have us return to that heritage. The same goes with the violence committed in Islam's name. It must make us angry, but again, it must a righteous anger. It must be a controlled anger that motivates us to debunk the logic of the terrorists and show others - especially those that are not Muslim - that our faith is not one of violence and terror. And it should also motivate us to work to bring about global justice, so that the swamps in which terrorists breed are dried up forever.

Yes, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said, "Do not become angry." But, I believe he meant do not let your anger consume you and lead you to commit injustice. That is the essence of the verse in the Qur'an - a verse which, I believe, may be the most profound of all - that says:

"Believers, never let the hatred of a people toward you move you to commit injustice" (Qur'an 5:8).

It is the motto of this blog and of my life.

Yes, the hatred of others toward you may make you angry, but that anger should never allow you to transgress against others. The attack of September 11 made all Americans- including this American - extremely angry. That is natural. But, if - as many contend - the terrorists attacked us because of our freedom and way of life, and we respond in a manner that betrays those principles and abandons that way of life, then haven't the terrorists already won? Can we ever, as a nation, afford to let that happen?

Reflections on 'Revenge' Part III

In the Name of God, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful

Besides arrogance and trying to alter the future, one of the most important themes of Episode III - throughout all six films, actually - is anger and the path down which it leads. From the very beginning of the saga, when Qui Gon Jinn wanted to train the young Anakin Skywalker, Yoda objected because of the fear within Anakin. A Jedi master told him, "Your thoughts dwell on your mother."

"I miss her," was Anakin's reply.

"Afraid to lose her, I think," said Yoda.

"What's that got to do with anything?" quipped a feisty Anakin.

"Everything!" said Yoda. "Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate...leads to suffering."

And that was the key, wasn't it? Anakin's fear of losing Padme - like he lost his mother before - ultimately led him to become a vicious agent of evil. That fear, however, did not endure. Anakin was quickly consumed by anger, which caused him to almost kill his beloved Padme with the Force.

Anger. It can be a powerful ally, but it is liable to quickly consume the individual and lead him or her down the path of the "Dark Side." Uncontrolled anger can almost become a psychosis, clouding the judgment of the individual and causing him or her to do harmful, if not downright dangerous, things. Anger has caused traffic accidents, highway shootings, high school massacres, church burnings and bombings, hate crimes of all stripes, rapes, murders, you name it. How many of us - in the midst of our anger - have said horrible things that we never actually mean to those we dearly love? Although arrogance is at the root of all sin and evil, anger is a stalwart companion in many, if not all, crimes against other human beings.

That is why the Qur'an counts among the "righteous" those "who spend (freely), whether in prosperity or in adversity; [and] who restrain anger, and pardon others..." (3:134) [emphasis added]. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) once counseled a Companion, "Do not become angry." When the Companion asked again for some advice, the Prophet again answered, "Do not become angry." In addition, the Prophet told us that "the strong person is not the one who can wrestle others to the ground. The strong person, rather, is the one who can control himself when he becomes angry."

Does this mean, however, that we should never become angry? No. First of all, the Qur'an is full of references of God's anger, of which these are just a few:

"If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever): And the wrath and the curse of God are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him."(4:93)

"Punishment and wrath have already come upon you from your Lord..." (7:71).

"Eat of the good things We have provided for your sustenance, but commit no excess therein, lest My Wrath should justly descend on you: and those on whom descends My Wrath do perish indeed!" (20:81)

If God becomes angry - and He is the source of everything in the universe - then it is only natural for human beings to also become angry. In addition, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) also became angry, and such instances are well-documented in his biography. So, what did the Prophet (pbuh) mean when he said "Do not become angry." He meant, I believe, that we must never let our anger get out of control.

We can see this in the very verses and Prophetic traditions I cited. In verse 3:134, God praises the righteous because they "restrain [their] anger." He did not say the righteous never become angry. The same is true for the Prophet's saying about the strong ones: they are able to control themselves when they become angry. So, the righteous believer can become angry, but he or she never allows their anger to consume them.

In the Star Wars saga, the Jedi are not supposed to have any anger in their hearts, a very difficult standard indeed. But Episode III shows us why this is the case: anger can lead to hatred and evil. The same is true in the real world, but in the real world, there are probably very few people - if no people at all - who could never become angry. Succumbing to anger is part and parcel of the human condition. Thus, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) taught us what to do if we ever sense that our anger is beginning to get the best of us.

If our anger beings to consume us while standing, we should sit down. If this happens and we are sitting, we should lie down. Another safety mechanism the Prophet (pbuh) taught us to employ for protection from our own anger is wudu', or the ritual ablution prior to prayer. The act of going to the wash basin (or washroom) and putting water (usually cold water) on your face, hands, arms, head, and feet not only soothes you, but makes you step back and reflect over the cause of your anger. It is a powerful weapon against being consumed by your anger.

One only wonders what would have happened if Anakin had learned to control his anger. Yet, I don't think this would ever happen, because then there would be no Episode IV, V, and VI. Nevertheless, the lessons of Star Wars are universal: while anger is a part of the human condition, it must be restrained and controlled, lest it leads to evil, both in word and deed. It is a challenge, no doubt, but it is one which can only make every one of us a much better person in the end.

Dr. Hassaballa in the Chicago Tribune

In the Name of God, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful

Thank God, I was blessed with being published in the Chicago Tribune's Sunday Perspective section on June 19, 2005. I have reproduced the article for you below:


OUR OWN WORST ENEMY?
Guantanamo prison defiles principles dearly bought

By Hesham A. Hassaballa, a Chicago doctor and writer
June 19, 2005

The news coming from Guantanamo Bay has not been pleasant. The bad press seemed to begin with the Newsweek story about guards flushing the Koran down the toilet, sparking violent protests across the Muslim world. Although the magazine officially retracted the story, similar allegations had been made previously by former detainees. The Pentagon later released a report confirming "mishandling" of the Koran by U.S. personnel, some of which might not have been entirely unintentional. Now there is more bad news. The June 20 issue of Time magazine details the treatment of Mohamed al-Qahtani, a Saudi man believed to be the "20th hijacker," who was captured in Afghanistan and sent to Guantanamo Bay. According to the magazine, an 84-page log chronicling al-Qahtani's interrogation detailed several harsh techniques, including making him bark like a dog and forcing him to urinate in his pants.

All this has prompted several calls for the closing of the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Former President Jimmy Carter was quoted by The Associated Press as saying, "The U.S. continues to suffer terrible embarrassment and a blow to our reputation . . . because of reports concerning abuses of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo." Several senators have echoed this concern, including prominent Republicans such as Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who said closing Guantanamo would help America in the "image war around the world." In addition, Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) said Guantanamo has "become an icon for bad stories, and at some point you wonder about the cost-benefit ratio."

I am heartened by such criticism. Still, their calls give me pause, and it is because of the reason: America's image. Although it is true that Guantanamo has become an enormous liability with respect to America's image, especially in the Muslim world, we should not shut down the camp because it makes America look bad. Rather, we should close the facility because what is occurring there is patently un-American.

Let us step back for a moment and examine the situation: About 540 detainees are being held by the U.S. incommunicado without charge or trial, a detention that, according to Vice President Dick Cheney, the administration has no plans of ending anytime soon. It has been confirmed that several detainees have been subject to harsh interrogation, if not outright torture, and that many interrogators have shown total disrespect for detainees' religious beliefs. What has happened to us? We are a nation that prides itself on upholding the rule of law and the principles of freedom and justice. Detaining people for years on end without charge--and mistreating them--is an affront to those principles. Even the most hardened criminal cannot be denied the right of due process guaranteed by the Constitution. Why, then, should it be any different with those held at Guantanamo?

I am not oblivious to the fact that we were attacked and that thousands of Americans were murdered on Sept. 11, 2001. I am not oblivious to the fact that we face a ruthless enemy with no regard for human life. But do we abandon the moral high ground simply because our enemy is brutal and inhuman?

The vice president defends Guantanamo by reminding us that the people held there "are bad people. I mean, these are terrorists for the most part." First, that is not entirely accurate. Army Sgt. Erik Saar, a former Arabic translator at the prison, told the Christian Science Monitor: "I thought these were `the worst of the worst' hardened terrorists, but I soon realized many didn't fit that category, not only by talking to detainees, but by having access to intelligence which said that." He estimated that only a few dozen are the "worst of the worst."

But even if every single detainee at Guantanamo is a hardened terrorist, we still should not simply lock them up and throw away the key. Not because our enemy deserves our kindness, but because we are America, and we are much better than that.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Bush administration is not allowed to detain foreign terrorist suspects without access to lawyers and courts. Yet we as a people should have already known that. Interrogation is an important activity, but it must never be an excuse to abuse suspects. Waging a war on terrorism is a vital task, but it must never be a license to abandon the principles for which thousands of Americans have sacrificed their lives.

There are many who contend that the terrorists hate us for who we are, that they attacked us because of our way of life. If then, in response, we betray our principles and act like the terrorists themselves, then hasn't our enemy already won?

Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune

Isn't This Also Desecration Of the Qur'an?

In the Name of God, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful

Let me say up front: I do not belittle the desecration of the Qur'an. To intentionally desecrate the Qur'an - i.e., stepping on it, or urinating on it, or ripping up its pages, or kicking it across the room - is wrong, and it is indicative of either a deep disdain for all that is sacred or, more sinisterly, a deep disdain for all things Islamic. I agree that U.S. guards who intentionally desecrate the Qur'an should be punished by military authorities.

Yet, the reactions of some Muslims across the Muslim world to the desecration of the Qur'an is patently ridiculous. For instance, according to an article in the Christian Science Monitor,

When Ashiq Nabi got into an argument with his wife, she held up a Koran to protect herself, setting into motion a deadly series of events. Mr. Nabi then pushed his wife, say human rights activists, sending Islam's holy book onto the floor and prompting the local mullah in Spin Kakh, Pakistan, to file blasphemy charges. Before the police could act, Nabi was spotted in town and the mullah allegedly spread the word over the mosque's loudspeakers. A mob of more than 400 villagers chased Nabi until he climbed up a tree, then shot him dead. The April incident is only the latest in a string of extrajudicial killings by vigilantes for blasphemy, which is punishable by death under Pakistani law.

Shot him to death? Made his wife a widow? Orphaned his four children? Why? Because he sent the Qur'an to the floor? How about the Newsweek riots? 15 people were killed in Afghanistan, property was destroyed, and dozens were injured. Why? Was it worth having 15 people be killed? Did not God say:

Say: 'Come, I will rehearse what God hath (really) prohibited you from: Join
not anything as equal with Him; be good to your parents; kill not your
children on a plea of want--We provide sustenance for you and for them; come
not nigh to shameful deeds, whether open or secret; take not life, which God
hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law. Thus doth He command
you, that ye may learn wisdom (6:151)

Did not God say:

Nor take life - which God has made sacred - except for just cause.... (17:33).

Did not God say:

And the servants of the Most Gracious are those who... Those who invoke not,
with God, any other god, nor slay such life as God has made sacred
except for just cause... (25:63-68).

If you recklessly take the lives of innocent people in a riot protesting the desecration of the Qur'an, isn't that also desecrating the Qur'an? And what about the other instances of desecration of the Qur'an? Why haven't Muslims been up in arms about those?

Human Rights Watch documented in a report issued last year that the (Muslim) janjaweed militia desecrated Qur'ans belonging to the (Muslim) African inhabitants of Darfur. Yet, I don't care as much about that as the fact that the janjaweed have raped, pillaged, and massacred their own fellow Muslims in Darfur. Isn't this also a desecration of the Qur'an? Why hasn't the Muslim World responded forcefully to stop the genocide of Darfur?

What exactly is the Qur'an, anyway? Is it simply a book of paper and ink? Is it a charm with which Muslims adorn their chests and their walls at home? No. While I firmly believe the Qur'an is the word of God, transmitted through the Angel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), I also believe that the Qur'an is so much more than just the word of God. It is a life-force, awakening the believer from his or her spiritual slumber. Moreover, the Qur'an comes to life in the actions of the believer. The Prophet's wife, A'isha (r), once remarked that the Prophet Muhammad was a "walking Qur'an on earth."

Thus, if someone truly believes in the Qur'an and claims to revere its word, then he or she will live its teachings. Thus, he or she will respect the dignity of all life, and hold human life in particular especially sacred. He or she will always stand on the side of justice, even if it be against his or her own people or political faction. He or she will always work to help the poor, needy, and less fortunate. He or she will always strive to be an advocate for all of humanity, selflessly working for the greater good of all.

Now, there are those who believe that the vicious terrorists who kill in the name of Islam are living the "true Qur'an," and that is patently false. No matter how many times people - Muslim or otherwise - say it, killing and murdering the "infidels" is not sanctioned by the Qur'an. In fact, those terrorists desecrate the Qur'an by their acts of murder and mayhem. Those who killed Ashiq Nabi desecrated the Qur'an by their murder. Those Muslims who turn a deaf ear and blind eye to the genocide of Darfur, as well as those who are behind the genocide in Darfur, desecrate the Qur'an by their actions. Those Muslim merchants who cheat their customers desecrate the Qur'an, even if they wash up before touching the book and make sure it never gets dirty.

I can go on and on. Muslims need a deeper understanding of what it means to revere and sanctify the Qur'an. In Chapter 2:2, it says, "This is the book, no doubt, that is a guidance for those who are conscious of God." To get the full benefit from the Qur'an, one has to fully embrace and live by its teachings. Whenever one betrays the principles of the Qur'an or wantonly ignores its proscriptions, then he or she desecrates the sacred text. And it is a desecration that is far worse than ripping up pages of paper and ink ever was.

Star Wars and Islam

In the Name of God, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful

Praise be to God Almighty, I was blessed with the opportunity to appear on Radio Islam on Sunday June 12. We talked about Star Wars and Islam, and it was a very fruitful discussion. You can hear the show by clicking here.

God bless.

With All Due Respect...Give Me A Break!

In the Name of God, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful

The drama in Lodi continues. On June 10, it was revealed that the original affidavit released to the press was not the same one filed in court. Deleted from the affidavit released were references to "hundreds of attendees" at the Al Qaeda camp and that potential targets for attack included hospitals and large food stores. Department of Justice spokesman Bryan Sierra said it was "An unfortunate oversight due to miscommunication."

Defense attorneys for the Hayats decried the change in the affidavit. Johnny L. Griffin III, representing Umer Hayat, the father, accused the government of "releasing information it knew it could not authenticate." Wazhma Mojaddidi, attorney for Hamid Hayat, the son, questioned "how this got out and why this got out." Griffin also said, "If they didn't have enough to file the charges [of terrorism], in my view they should not say anything....why are they saying these things? Is it to taint the public, is it to paint these men as terrorists?"

Now, Mr. Griffin does have a slight point: unfortunately, when it comes to terrorism, Muslims are frequently deemed guilty until proven innocent. Even the hint at "links" to terrorist activity are enough to automatically make a Muslim guilty of terrorism in the eyes of Americans.

Still, despite the fact that the affidavit was changed, the core of the case remains the same. Yes, Hamid Hayat has not been specifically charged with terrorist activities, but he allegedly admitted to attending an Al Qaeda training camp, where he received training in weapons, explosives, and hand-to-hand combat. If these charges are eventually proven to be true, isn't that serious enough? Why would someone go to an Al Qaeda training camp? For fresh air? To get in shape? Isn't one of the goals of Al Qaeda to kill Americans? So, if someone trains at an Al Qaeda camp, what is his ultimate motive?

Now, it is important to remember that Hamid Hayat has not been formally charged with anything, and he has not been convicted in a court of law. He is still innocent until proven guilty, and he deserves a fair trial. Nevertheless, let's not let the changing of the affidavit muddy the waters in this case. Even if he is only charged with lying to the FBI and is convicted of those charges, that is a big deal in and of itself.

Now, I am sure there are some Muslims who are saying to themselves, "This must be a conspiracy against Islam." Or, "Don't believe what the media says when it comes to Islam and Muslims." I bet some are even saying, "These two guys were set up by the FBI."

I am also sure that there are some non-Muslims who are saying to themselves, "This is proof that you can't trust a big beard and a smile." Or, "See, all Muslims are terrorists!"

I say to both groups of people: with all due respect...give me a break!!!

To the non-Muslims, I say this: never can the whole be judged by the sins of the very few. To the Muslims, however, I say: let us wait until all the facts are in and then make a judgment. But, I also want to address an excuse that some Muslims proffer which, to me, is a total "cop out": they were "set up" by the FBI.

Give me a break. Let's say, for example, "Muhammad" is approached by "Ahmad" - in a mosque after prayers - and "Ahmad" says to him, "Psst, I plan on carrying out a 'martyrdom' mission to kill these horrible kuffar. Why don't you join me?" If "Muhammad" says, "Sure!" and goes along and helps him in his mission, isn't that wrong? Isn't that violating both the laws of Islam and America? Absolutely.

Now, say that "Ahmad" turns out to be an FBI informant. Does that change the situation? Does that make "Muhammad" any less guilty? Absolutely not. "Muhammad's" response should have been this: "Absolutely not! That is terrorism and murder! I am a Muslim, for God's sake, and I do not kill my fellow human beings! How dare you say such a thing to me?!" In fact, "Muhammad" should have reported "Ahmad" to the authorities after he told him such a thing.

Now, being falsely accused by the authorities is a whole different matter. But the fact remains: aiding and abetting a terrorist plot is un-Islamic, illegal, and immoral. Any and all plots against America must be discovered and foiled, and the perpetrators must be arrested, tried in a court of law, and if convicted, punished under the law. The fact that one of the plotters is an agent provocateur is not an excuse and never should be.

Can't Trust A Big Beard And A Smile?

In the Name of God, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful

It was a most distressing piece of news. A Muslim father and son, both U.S. citizens, were arrested for lying to FBI investigators about their involvement with an Al Qaeda training camp. They lived in Lodi, California, a small town outside of Sacramento, and, unfortunately, these two Muslims put Lodi on the map. Just like with the case of Ahmed Abu Ali, I am deeply disturbed about the allegations of the case, which everyone should read for themselves.

Now, it is important to keep some facts in mind: the affidavit released outlined that Hamid Hayat and his father were arrested for lying to the FBI, and not on terrorism charges. There is no evidence that Hamid Hayat had an actual plot to kill Americans, and the investigation is still ongoing. Still, I do not dismiss or downplay the seriousness of any of Hayat's alleged activities: from lying to the FBI to receiving training at an Al Qaeda camp. Frankly, I applaud the FBI for taking these steps, under the law, and moving to arrest the two men based upon the statements they made. What if Hamid Hayat was in the final stages of planning an attack? What if he was going to a local hospital to carry out his "jihad against the infidels" today? The authorities, charged with protecting our lives, did the right thing, and the men should get their day in court.

And I must say that I am outraged that an American Muslim would train at an Al Qaeda camp and come back to his own country allegedly intending on attacking his own people. Attacking his own people! Now, some may see my outrage as incredibly naive. For some, this sort of action is par for the course as far as Muslims goes. In fact, this latest piece of news may lead many in America to distrust every single American Muslim, all 6-7 million of them. As far as some are concerned, you can never trust a big beard and a smile.

Let us hold on, just a little bit. These were two men among the millions of American Muslims. Yes, two imams were arrested on immigration violations in connection with the case, and there may be more arrests and charges filed in the coming days and weeks, but still, it is quite unfair to paint all Muslims with the same broad brush of terrorism and violence. Yet, that is exactly what many in America do. They point out the actions of the violent fringe and conclude, "You see, all Muslims are monstrous and violent fanatics!" It is completely illogical.

And you would think these fellow Americans would know better, given our own experiences in the war on terror. Is it fair for Muslims the world over to see all Americans as sex-crazed sadists because of what happened at Abu Ghraib prison? No. Is it fair for Muslims the world over to label all Americans as having total disregard for everything sacred because of the mishandling of the Qur'an at Guantanamo Bay? No. Is it fair for Muslims the world over to conclude that all Americans hate Islam and Muslims because of the actions by interrogators at Gitmo? No.

Then why is the same logic applied to Muslims? Yes, there are violent fanatics in the Muslim World who would stop at nothing to kill Americans. They must be stopped and fought against tooth and nail. But, that does not mean all Muslims are violent fanatics. That does not mean that you can't trust every Muslim because of what the Hayat's allegedly did. That does not mean that all Muslims are the enemy of America and all Americans. Terrorists and criminals come in all stripes and flavors. All Muslims - just like all Americans - can never be judged by the sins of their few. They just can't.

Christian Nation Or Nation Of Christians?

In the Name of God, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful

There are many in our country today who believe America to be a "Christian nation," one based upon Judeo-Christian values. Personally, I have no problem with this. Judeo-Christian values are my values, as they are based on the worship of the One God of Abraham and the teaching of His Prophets throughout history. Yet, are we really a Christian nation, one founded upon the principles of Christianity?

It is true that the overwhelming majority of people in our country are Christians. Yet, does that make us a "Christian nation" or simply a nation of Christians? The question, I believe, is an important one, with many implications. Still, how can we, in the 21st Century, know for sure that our Founding Fathers (and Mothers) intended for this to be a "Christian nation"? They are, after all, very dead and have been so for a very long time. There is no way we can ask them directly and settle this dispute once and for all, unfortunately.

Or, is there? A little known treaty signed in 1797 between the nascent United States and the Barbary States of Tripoli may shed some light on this issue. Article 11 states,

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." (emphasis added)

That's very interesting. According to this treaty, which was approved by the Senate on June 7, 1797 and officially ratified three days later, the government of the United States "is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." To me, this contradicts the notion made by some of our fellow Americans that this country was intended to be a "Christian nation." I believe this argument is further bolstered by the fact that the language of the treaty was endorsed by President John Adams, one of our Founding Fathers. Moreover, the preliminary treaty was signed on November 4, 1796, at the end of George Washington's last term as President. Furthermore, the entire treaty was read in the Senate, and there is no record of any Senator raising even a single objection to the wording of Article 11. Also, the treaty was published in the Philadelphia Gazette on June 17, 1797, and there is no record of any member of the public raising an objection to Article 11.

Indeed, the Treaty of Tripoli has generated a spirited debate between "Christian nation" advocates and opponents. Some who believe our Founding Fathers established America as a "Christian nation" claim that Article 11 never existed, citing the research of Dutch scholar Dr. Snouk Hurgronje, who located the only surviving Arabic translation of the Treaty which did not have the famous Article 11 found in the English translation. Yet, the English version of the Treaty is what was accepted by the U.S. as the law of the land, and it clearly contains the "no Christian nation" clause found in Article 11.

So, what does all this mean? Am I objecting to the notion of America being a "Christian nation," especially because I am Muslim? No, not at all. Like I said before, I have absolutely no problem with this being a nation based upon Judeo-Christian values, because those values are my values. Yet - as I said before - if we are truly a Christian nation, as many contend, then this comes with a number of obligations and implications.

A Christian nation always stands on the side of justice, no matter what the political ramifications. A Christian nation must always act in accordance with the principle that right makes might, as opposed to the other way around. A Christian nation must always oppose those who commit injustice, even if it be its own friends and allies. A Christian nation must always have compassion for the poor and less fortunate, especially those living within its own borders. A Christian nation can never say one thing and do another. Now, I believe a Muslim nation is bound by the same obligations, but I am not a citizen of a Muslim nation, but rather a majority-Christian one.

Too many times, however, our country has hardly acted like a Christian nation. The most recent example of such failure is the invasion of Iraq, a war which the late Pope John Paul II himself said failed to meet the criteria of a Christian just war. Talk is cheap. If this country is truly a "Christian nation" - as many are wont to claim - if we are to talk the talk, then we have to simultaneously walk the walk. Otherwise, all America will ever be is just a nation of Christians. We can do much better than that.

A True Story, An Invaluable Lesson

In the Name of God, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful


Author's Note: The following is absolutely true. The names of places and people, however, have been changed for the sake of the personal saftety of the author.


It was not unlike any other night on call in the intensive care unit. As I walked into the call room, ready to settle in for a hopefully quiet night, I saw it and froze in horror. It was four-legged, hairy, golden brown with a black snout, and it had big brown eyes with a short, stubby tail. It was Dr. Brown's dog. There are two physicians who take call in this particular ICU, and my colleague brought his dog to spend the night with us...in the same call room. I do not like dogs, especially big dogs. And this dog was very, very big.

An overwhelming sense of dread slowly overtook me. How am I supposed to sleep with this dog here? How can I focus on taking care of patients with this dog breathing down my neck? What if he licks me? These and other questions plagued my mind as I put my things down on my side of the room. Apparently, Dr. Brown could not find a dog-sitter for his pooch, and so he had to bring him along...on our night on call together. Our call room was very wide and spacious, as we shared it with two nurses and health care technicians. The ICU we were monitoring was very big, and so we needed that many people to take call. As long as the dog leaves me alone, everything will be alright, I told myself.

The dog, however, would not leave me alone. It was not a mean dog, by any means. He was very friendly, in fact, jumping on my legs and eagerly wanting to play with me...to my utter panic and horror. Dr. Brown did his best to keep his dog away from me, because, although I was never mean to the creature, my disquiet at the dog's presence around me was clearly discernible on my face. It did not work, unfortunately. I quickly learned, however, that if I ignored the dog, he would in fact leave me alone. And so, I proceeded to ignore the dog the rest of the night.

Now, I have never taken call with Dr. Brown before. A few hours after the shift began, I mentioned to one of the nurses that Smallville Hospital, one of the hospitals in which I work, was not very good, but - I confidently continued - was much better than Vaudville Hospital, its cousin to the North. Across the room, to my utter surprise, came an emotional response to my innocent comment.

"Smallville Hospital is a dump! You are a second-year fellow and you are bad-mouthing a hospital you've never even worked at? I am the medical director of Vaudville Hospital, and I can tell you, it is much better than Smallville!"

"Oh," I said with a huge gulp, "you're the medical director of Vaudville Hospital?"

My heart sank, taking my stomach with it. He was right. I never actually worked at Vaudville Hospital, and so I had no right to disparage it.

"I was merely echoing the opinion of Dr. Smith," I told Dr. Brown.

That excuse did not go over well with him. The silence that followed our exchange was deafening. I tried to make amends later on in the shift, but the damage had already been done. I clearly made Dr. Brown upset by my comment, and I knew I made a big mistake. Thus, I decided to remain silent the rest of the night.

Although my ignoring of Dr. Brown's dog worked for the most part, it still was infatuated with me and would occasionally walk over to me - and jump on my lap - to play. I managed to doze off for a while, and when I woke up, I found its brown eyes and black snout right in front of my face--to my sheer terror. Needless to say, I was not very sleepy afterwards.

Now that I was awake, I decided to do some work when suddenly, I was overcome with one of the worst odors my nostrils have ever beheld. It conjured up images of cigars, horses, and elephants all together in one small room. Actually, it was more like a horse smoking a cigar in the elephant's tent at a circus. The odor was relentless, and it came right after the dog walked away from me. I dared not say anything and kept on working. No one else said anything about the smell, either, which surprised me because it was so inescapable. (It turns out later that others did smell it, but also neglected to say anything) The smell was becoming unbearable. Thankfully, I had to leave the room to use the restroom.

When I came back, I beheld the dog urinating in a corner of the room. He normally does not do this, I was told later, and he did this because he was sick. Just as with the horrific smell, no one said anything as the urine noisily hit the carpet, and so I acted as if nothing had happened. After the hospital gaffe, I was not about to tell Dr. Brown his dog had just defiled our living space.

The shift was nearing an end, thank God, and it was time to get dressed for work. After getting dressed, I was sitting in the middle of the room talking with one of the health care technicians, and the dog - again due to its illness - defecated right in front of me. I did not need to say anything this time as it was witnessed by other people. Now that the "cat was out of the bag," so to speak, I was emboldened to reveal to the group that the dog had urinated in the corner earlier. When we investigated that spot, we discovered that the dog had also defecated in that very same corner, and this was the source of the cigar-horse-elephant smell. Dr. Brown was clearly embarrassed by what had happened, and I could not help but pity him slightly. All the droppings were promptly cleaned up, and we all then left for the day.

I am thankful to God that Dr. Brown's dog pooped in front of other people. Otherwise, I would not have told anyone about that either, because of my previous "open-mouth-and-insert-foot" episode. I still feel bad about what I said about Vaudville Hospital, and I sincerely hope and pray Dr. Brown has found it in his heart to forgive me. Still, the Lord taught me an invaluable lesson from that night on call with Dr. Brown's dog: think before you say anything. Otherwise, you will get into a whole lot of crap.

This article was published today on MuslimWakeUp.

Reflections on 'Revenge' (Part II)

In the Name of God, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful

As I said in my previous post, watching Revenge of the Sith has led me to reflect over a great many things. Another one of these is the origins of evil. From where did evil come in the first place? What is the root of all sin, all evil? I believe it is arrogance. You can see it in the conduct of the Sith throughout all six films of the Star Wars epic. Darth Sidious engineers the invasion of Naboo by the Trade Federation in the very first film. Why? For his own aims; he cares nothing for the effect on the Naboo or the other star systems. Arrogance.

He tells the Viceroy to kill the Jedi, wipe out the Gungans, and tries to have Queen Amidala kidnapped. All out of arrogance. The same goes for Episode II. In Revenge, you can see the arrogance in full form. Supreme Chancellor Palpatine tells Anakin to kill Count Dookoo, Palpatine's own apprentice. Later, Palpatine - speaking as Darth Sidious - said that the murder was a necessary move. Arrogance. Palpatine does the exact same thing in Return of the Jedi. He tells Luke Skywalker, standing over Darth Vader with lightsaber to his throat: "Your hate has made you powerful. Now, fulfill your destiny and take your father's place at my side."

Now that I have seen all six films, this last exchange took on an entirely new significance. How could the Emperor tell Luke to kill Darth Vader? How, after everything that Vader did for Palpatine? It was Anakin Skywalker's command of the Force that led to the Emperor taking over the galaxy. It was Darth Vader who helped Palpatine destroy the Jedi, allowing the Galactic Empire to come to power. It was the fear of Darth Vader, not the old Emperor, that kept the Imperial footsoldiers and workers in line. The Emperor did basically nothing. Thus, how dare he tell Luke to kill Vader? Didn't the Emperor have any sort of loyalty?

Absolutely not. This was because the Emperor was not only evil, but arrogant. The root of his evil was his arrogance. I believe all those who are evil are, at the root of things, arrogant. They believe that the law (of God, of nature, etc.) do not apply to them. Thus, they can do whatever they feel is in their best interest, and to hell with the effect on other people. When I willfully and wantonly disobey God, I am being arrogant against Him. I feel that the requests of God - my Creator, the One who gave me life when I was dead - do not apply to me. How arrogant can that be?

The first sin ever committed, in fact, was one of arrogance:

And Lo! Thy Sustainer said unto the angels: "Be­hold, I am about to establish upon earth one who shall inherit it." They said: "Wilt Thou place on it such as will spread corruption thereon and shed blood - whereas it is we who extol Thy limitless glory, and praise Thee, and hallow Thy name?" [God] answered: "Verily, I know that which you do not know." And He imparted unto Adam the names of all things; Then He brought them within the ken of the angels and said: "Declare unto Me the names of these [things], if what you say is true." They replied: "Limitless art Thou in Thy glory! No knowledge have we save that which Thou hast imparted unto us. Verily, Thou alone art all-knowing, truly wise." Said He: "O Adam, convey unto them the names of these [things]." And as soon as (Adam) had conveyed unto them their names, [God] said: "Did I not say unto you, "Verily, I alone know the hidden reality of the heavens and the earth, and know all that you bring into the open and all that you would conceal?" And when We told the angels, "Prostrate yourselves before Adam!" They all prostrated them­selves, save Iblis [Satan], who refused and gloried in his arrogance: and thus he became one of those who deny the truth (2:30-34, emphasis added).

After this, Satan made it his mission in life to take this creation of God's - along with his progeny - into damnation with him: "[Iblis] said: "Now that Thou hast thwarted me, I shall most certainly lie in ambush for them all along Thy straight way" (7:16). All out of arrogance. Now, the overwhelmig majority of those who sin do not do so out of spite for God, I believe. Most sins are because of our succombing to human weaknesses, not our arrogance. Yet, deliberate disobedience to God, I believe, is out of sheer arrogance.

This arrogance, however, ultimately leads to the destruction of the arrogant one. Thus, the Emperor, in the end, was destroyed by his own arrogance. Luke spoke the truth when he told Palpatine, "Your overconfidence is your weakness." The Emperor never thought - in his arrogance - that Darth Vader would intervene to save his son from the lightning bolts of the Dark Side of the Force emanating from the Emperor's hands. That led to his destruction.

Back here on earth, the arrogant are ultimately defeated, because, there is only One Who is the Greatest, and that is God. And He has no rivals whatsoever.