Because She Hates?

In the Name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful

Syndicated columnist and radio host Larry Elder recently published an interview (split into Part I and Part II) with Brigitte Gabriel, an American journalist of Lebanese descent. It is just astounding to me that someone as respected as Larry Elder would interview a so-called "expert" on Islam such as Ms. Gabriel.

Her interview is full of sweeping indictments and generalizations about Islam and Muslims. She is exactly like Wafa Sultan, Ayan Hirsi Ali, and others. In fact, it seems as if she has taken the very same accusations against Islam from the very same playbook as everyone else who loves to bash Islam for the sins of a few Muslims.

Now, my heart goes out to her if what she says about her experience as a child during the civil war in Lebanon is indeed true. No child should have to live through war, be they in Beirut, or Tel Aviv, or Ramallah, or Gaza City, or Darfur, or Baghdad, to name just a few. Yet, to conclude that the religion of Islam is all about hatred and killing is extremely irresponsible.

When asked by Mr. Elder if she studied Islam, she replied: "No, I did not study Islam; I lived Islam. I lived in the Middle East. I read the Koran in the Arabic language — I do not need translation. There is something about living in a place and being an eyewitness and coming from a culture and blowing the whistle on that culture, and that is very different from someone majoring in Islam and living in the Middle East for two months so they can write their thesis."

As a result of her "living Islam," she concludes that: "Not all of them [Muslims] are radicals. We estimate that the radicals are between 15 and 25 percent; that translates to between 180 and 300 million people like Mohammad Atta who are willing to strap bombs to their bodies and commit martyrdom operations. Now, that is still a minority, 15 to 25 percent, but 300 million Mohammad Attas ready to unleash their blood upon the West. . . . Now, the rest of them . . . despise the West, they hate our westernization, they think we are morally corrupt, that we are corrupting the world, and they think we are such a bad influence on the world that we need to be stopped at any cost. They may not be willing to commit martyrdom operations themselves, but they will sit there and cheer on and rally those who are willing to kill us."

That is very interesting. From where did she get this figure of 15-25% of Muslims are "radical"? And what is even more interesting, the rest of the "non-radical" Muslims are cheerleaders for the radicals...aiders and abettors because they all "despise the West, hate our westernization, they think we are morally corrupt, that we are corrupting the world, and they think we are such a bad influence on the world that we need to be stopped at any cost."

All this she learned by "living Islam" during the terrible time of the Lebanese civil war. But wait, it gets even better.

Ms. Gabriel doesn't think all Muslims are "radicals." No. She makes an important distinction. When asked whether there are moderate Muslims, she replied:

"Yes. . . . I call it a practicing Muslim and a non-practicing Muslim. I think it is a better description than "moderate" and "radical." A practicing Muslim goes to mosque, prays five times a day, doesn't drink, believes God gave him women to be his property — to beat, to stone to death. . . . He believes Christians and Jews are apes and pigs because they are cursed by Allah. He believes it is his duty to declare war on the infidels because they are Allah's enemies. That is a practicing Muslim. A non-practicing Muslim no longer goes to mosque or prays five times a day, has an occasional glass of wine and believes that a woman is equal to a man. . . . He believes he cannot murder his wife just because he wants to. He does not believe in taking four wives just for sexual pleasure. . . . He no longer believes that, as a Muslim, it is his duty to kill the apes and pigs that have been cursed by Allah. A non-practicing Muslim is educated, an intellectual who believes the Koran — written in the 7th century — doesn't apply to today's standards, and Islam needs to be reformed. Those Muslims do exist and live in the West. However, they are such a minority — we estimate about 2 percent — they are irrelevant because it is the majority that is causing the problem now."

Very interesting. I am a practicing Muslim - I pray five times a day, don't drink, don't eat pork, fast during the month of Ramadan, pay my Zakah - but I don't believe that God gave me women to be "my property" to beat or stone to death. I could never even fathom any sort of harm to my wife or any other woman. She is the greatest blessing God has ever bestowed upon me. I have spoken out against the crimes against women being committed in some parts of the Muslim world today.

I am a practicing Muslim, but I don't believe Christians and Jews are "apes and pigs that have been cursed by Allah." Quite the contrary, I have vehemently spoken out against using Islamic texts to hate Christians and Jews. I do not believe the Jews are "apes and pigs," as some Muslims wrongly claim. I believe that a woman is wholly and completely equal to a man, and I do not even need "an occasional glass of wine" to believe so. I have never believed - and will never believe - that one can murder his wife "because he wants to."

I am a practicing Muslim, and I would not even consider taking on a second wife (I am very blessed to have the one God gave me right now), let alone four wives "just for sexual pleasure." Most Muslim men would also never take a second wife. I have clearly shown that there is no basis for the claim that Muslims are supposed to kill, in her words, "the apes and pigs that have been cursed by Allah."

I am a practicing Muslim, and I believe that the Qur'an - revealed in the 7th Century by God - must be re-interpreted in light of modern times and circumstances. In fact, I know plenty of "practicing Muslims" - better practicing than me - that believe the same things as I do. Moreover, we are the overwhelming majority, not the 2% (again, from where did she get this statistic?) "irrelevant" minority.

My beliefs, as well as those of the practicing Muslim majority, stem from the very fact that I am a practicing Muslim; that I do pray five times a day; that I don't drink alcohol; that I do go to the mosque on Fridays to observe the weekly Friday prayers (the "Muslim mass" if you will). My religion teaches me to believe these things.

In fact, Ms. Gabriel's math, in distinguishing between the "moderates" and the "radicals" simply doesn't add up. At first she claims the radicals are between "15 and 25 percent" of all Muslims. The "moderate, non-practicing Muslims" are only 2%. That leaves, worst, 73% of Muslims who are...what? "Practicing moderates"? Doesn't she contradict herself here?

What's more, Ms. Gabriel claims: "We have terrorists coming through our borders. Al Qaeda is working with the MS-13 gang [El Salvadorian gang Mara Salvatrucha], smuggling al Qaeda terrorists into the country. Hezbollah is doing the same. . . . We estimate thousands have already been smuggled into America. . . . Hamas is here. . . . They have cells in over 40 states."

Those claims are dubious at best. Still, even if true, what is her solution to this problem?

She says: "We need to monitor who is coming into our country and why. . . . We need to increase human intelligence. . . .To get that human element that gets you the information, it takes years to establish trust with the enemy in order to get the secrets out of them. . . . "

That makes sense.

But she also said: "As for profiling, I want everyone who fits the terrorist profile to be profiled. We have men between the ages of 16 and 40 who have committed terrorist acts around the world in the name of Islam. They are not little old ladies from Ohio with blue hair. They are not children going to Disney World on their Easter vacation."

Yet, that would also mean profiling people...like her! There have been female suicide bombers in the Middle East. If we are to profile all those who "fit the terrorist profile," that would mean stopping her for "increased scrutiny," for she is a woman of Middle Eastern descent. What would she say then?

The bottom line is this: yes, there are criminals among Muslims who kill in the name of religion. That terrible reality does not mean all of Islam is evil or violent. It is not correct to indict all Muslims for the sins of the few, just as it was not right for Syed Qutb to indict all of American (and Western) society based upon the two years he spent living in America. Yes, the neo-kharijite Al Qaeda do hate us, that is a fact. But, based upon Ms. Gabriel's comments about Islam, is it also true that she hates as well?

Let Me Tell You About My Brother...

In the Name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful


Let me tell you about my brother. As the blogosphere was aflame with intense speculation (and it was just that: speculation) about Cho Sueng-Hui's possible connection to "Islamic terrorism" because of the words "Ismael Ax" tattooed on his arm, the Virginia Tech Muslim community was mourning the death of one of their brightest stars.


Waleed Shaalan, 32, was a graduate student in the Civil Engineering Department at Virginia Tech. He first came to VT in August 2006 from northern Egypt. He took on an assistantship position, choosing to leave his Ph.D. track which he started in Egypt. He was known for "his broad smile and wave that he gave everyone."

Says Fahad, Waleed's roommate: "He was the simplest and nicest guy I ever knew.We would be studying for our exams and he would go buy a cake and make tea for us." Fahad was the last person to have spoken to Waleed.

"He was studying late for an exam the morning of the incident," Fahad said, "it was about 4 am when I last saw and spoke to him. We were talking about how amazing it would be once he brought his wife and son to Tech after the summer. I could never have imagined that in 5 hours he’d be gone forever."

Mr. Shaalan is survived by his wife for three years Amira and Khaled his one-year old son.

As some people were wondering whether Cho Seung Hui was a "terrorist" because of two cryptic words on his arm, details were emerging about how Mr. Shaalan was murdered in cold blood.

As reported in the New York Times, Waleed Shaalan died a hero:

According to Randy Dymond, a civil engineering professor at Virginia Tech, Mr. Shaalan was in a classroom with another student when the gunman entered and opened fire.

Mr. Shaalan was badly wounded and lay beside the other student, who was not shot but played dead, as the gunman returned two times searching for signs of life. Just as the gunman noticed the student, Mr. Shaalan made a move to distract him, at which point he was shot a second time and died. The student believed that Mr. Shaalan purposefully distracted the shooter to save him, Mr. Dymond said.

"Waleed was bright, energetic and caring," Mr. Dymond said. "The reason we are in higher education is because there are students who are the bright light to the future. Waleed was one of them."

That was my brother who died there. That was my brother who put his own life on the line to save the life of someone else. That was my brother who embodied Islam's teaching that the sanctity of life is paramount. Now, to be clear: Mr. Shaalan is not my actual, "blood" brother. Rather, he was my brother in faith: "The believers are one brotherhood" (49:10)

Still, Waleed Shaalan gave his life to follow the instructions of the Qur'an: "...if anyone saves a life, it shall be as if they have saved all of humanity." (5:32) This is how the majority of Muslims live and act. This is what the majority of Muslims believe about life and death. Waleed Shaalan is the true face of Islam, not the murderous, vicious soldiers of Satan who kill and destroy and claim they are doing so in Islam's name.

Thus, for some to try to link Islam to the Virginia Tech shootings is insulting. When it first came out that the shooter was "Asian," some people asked the question: "Were they from Pakistan and part of a terrorist attack?" How sickening.

Of course, I am also sickened by the acts of terrorism committed by some Muslims in the name of Islam. Of course, authorities must consider all possibilities when investigating an incident as terrible as the shootings at Virginia Tech. But to automatically assume that it is "terrorism" whenever something even remotely connected to Islam shows up, this is plain wrong.

Waleed Shaalan was what Islam is all about: kindness, caring, compassion, and respect for life. Rather than take your life senselessly, you will find that the overwhelming majority of Muslims would do what they can to save your life, because, their religion tells them so.

It's "Deja Vu All Over Again"

In the Name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful

All throughout the day of the horrific Virginia Tech massacre, everyone was wondering about the identity of the gunman. It took the authorities an unusually long time to identify the gunman, and this sent speculations flying...and had Muslims worrying. I am almost certain the entire Muslim community was on edge as authorities worked to identify Cho Seung-Hui.

"What if he turns out to be a Muslim?"

That question, I am sure, was on the minds of many, if not most, Muslims across the country. Then came the news reports - citing reports from survivors of the deadly shooting rampage - that the shooter was an young, Asian man. Immediately, some screamed: "Terrorism!"

Punidt Debbie Schlussel, on her weblog, speculated that the "Asian" was a Muslim (and therefore a terrorist): "The murderer has been identified by law enforcement and media reports as a young Asian male. The Virginia Tech campus has a very large Muslim community, many of which are from Pakistan. Pakis are considered 'Asian.' Were there two [shooters] and was this a coordinated terrorist attack?" The reason she speculated thus was "law enforcement and the media strangely won't tell us more specifically who the gunman is." Well, that was because he so badly injured himself and failed to carry any form of identification with him. Thus, it took the authorities a long time to positively identify him.

Yet, the speculation over whether Cho had any connections to Islam continued because of the words "Ismael Ax" that were tattooed on one of his arms. What do these words mean? In the April 18 edition of the Chicago Tribune, Eric Benderoff wrote: "In Islam, Ibrahim is the father of the prophets and, upset that people in his hometown still worshiped idols and not Allah, he smashed all but one statue in a local temple with an ax. Ibrahim's son is Ismail, who also became a prophet." He continued, "This theory picked up speed because many bloggers wondered if the actions at Virginia Tech could be related to terrorism."

Once again, because of extremely dubious "connections" to Islam, Poof!...Cho Seung Hui becomes a terrorist. Once again, the moment someone who is Muslim commits a crime, it automatically becomes an act of terrorism. Never mind that Muslims, too, can be simple criminals and not "lone jihadists" ready to "die (and kill) for Allah." What if the "young Asian Male" turned out to be a "Muhammad Ahmad" from the Indian subcontinent? What if he shot the exact same videos as Cho; wrote the exact same disturbing writings and plays; wrote the exact same manifesto railing against rich "brats" and declaring: "You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul, and torched my conscience"? What if the facts were exactly the same as they are now, the only difference being the ethnicity of the gunman?

Would he still be referred to as "disturbed" or "deranged" or "mentally ill"? Or, would he have been called a terrorist for simply being a Muslim?

To be sure, if someone shoots a video declaring "Allah commanded me to kill these infidels for what they have done to Muslims around the world" and then proceeds to murder innocent people, this is clearly an act of terrorism, no matter if he sets off a bomb or shoots an AK-47. I'll even grant that, if a Muslim commits an act of murder because he believes the Qur'an demands Muslims to "kill all the infidels," as horribly satanic as this belief is, it is an act of terrorism. Yet, if a Muslim commits murder, being "deranged," or "disturbed," or "mentally ill", it should not automatically be considered an act of "jihad."

And the rest of the Muslim community should not have to be on edge for fear of reprisal. The terrorists who act in the name of Islam no more reflect the community than Cho Seung-Hui reflects the Korean-American community. Korean-Americans have expressed shock and sadness that the gunman at Virginia Tech was of Korean origin. And they are afraid of backlash: "This community is very fearful right now," said Walter T. Son, a Korean-American, to the Chicago Tribune. "Our children on the street are worried about a backlash." Daniel Lee, a professor of Social Work at Loyola University Chicago, also told the paper that he tells Korean youth: "'You guys need to know, this is a very rare case, but it will affect you because people will think that you are the next one.'" The same is true with American Muslim youth.

Yet, if there is anything positive about this terrible, terrible tragedy, it may be that we Americans can see more clearly that our country is made up of people from all over the world. People from practically every country and every faith group are represented in America and are counted as Americans. If one of them - be he Muslim or of Korean origin - commits a heinous crime, we should not tar other Americans of the same group with the stain of the crime. Just because one Muslim commits an act of terrorism, just because one Korean American commits mass murder, it does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists. It does not mean that all Koreans are mass murderers.

If we as a people fully understand and implement this fact in our lives, then we can live in a country where one group of Americans will never have to fear another group of Americans. And it would make the already fabulous country called America even more fabulous.

Stem Cell Support in Islam (And Not The Oval Office)

In the Name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful

This article is the feature story on alt.muslim.

Once again, the Congress and the President are heading toward a showdown on the issue of stem cell research. By a vote of 63-34, the Senate passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (S5), which eased the restrictions placed in 2001 on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research by President Bush. The House passed its version of the bill three months ago, by a vote of 253-174. President Bush has vowed to veto the bill: "This bill crosses a moral line that I and many others find troubling. If it advances all the way through Congress to my desk, I will veto it." Although polls indicate that a majority of Americans support embryonic stem cell research, this means little to the President, who vetoed a similar bill passed by Congress last year.

This begs the question: what are stem cells, and why does this issue garner such a passionate debate among politicians of both parties? Stem cells are cells which have the ability to form any cell in the body, given the correct conditions. Potentially, these cells can be used to cure a variety of diseases, from juvenile diabetes, to cancer, to Alzheimer's and Parkinson's dementia, to spinal cord injury. Although adults do have these cells, they are few in number, much more difficult to harvest, and, experts say, may not be as versatile as the stem cells obtained from human embryos.

Herein, however, lies the rub. In order to harvest embryonic stem cells, the human embryo is inevitably destroyed. This is the reason the President, and other Christian conservatives, oppose the process. They believe human life begins at conception, and therefore, to destroy a human embryo amounts to nothing short of "infanticide." In a statement, the President said, "I believe this bill will encourage taxpayer money to be spent on the destruction or endangerment of living human embryos."

This begs another question: what do Muslims believe? Most American Muslims support research on human embryos, according to a survey conducted in 2001, and many Muslim countries also support the practice, although the debate has not eluded the Muslim world. Islamic law also appears to be on the side of supporting embryonic stem cell research. According to Dr. Muzammil Siddiqui, the Shar'iah makes a distinction between "actual life" and "potential life," with "actual life" given a higher priority for protection in the law. An embryo created in a dish during the process of in vitro fertilization - generally considered permissible in Islam - has the potential to become a human being, but it is not yet a human being. Thus, to destroy it to harvest stem cells would not be considered destroying human life.

Moreover, there is a debate among Muslim scholars as to when exactly the soul enters into the fetus, rendering it "actual life": some say 40 days, others say 120 days, depending on how they interpret this hadith of the Prophet (pbuh): "Each of you possesses his own formation within his mother's womb, first as a drop of matter for forty days, then as a blood clot for forty days, then as a blob for forty days, and then the angel is sent to breathe life into him." Either way, an embryo which is just days old and is destroyed after stem cells are removed would still not be considered destroying "actual life," and thus should be permissible.

And one must not forget the ultimate purpose of this research: to use the knowledge God has given us to cure disease, alleviate human suffering, and save human life, which the Qur'an says God has made sacred. According to Dr. Siddiqui, "It is claimed by the experts in the field that the research on stem cells has great potential to relive human disease and suffering. If this is the case then it is not only allowed, but it is obligatory (fard kifayah) to pursue this research." The argument in favor of stem cell research from the Islamic perspective has been excellently summarized in an article by Michele Weckerly in the Journal of Law and Religion published by the Rutgers University School of Law.

Yet, I suspect that the support of most Americans for embryonic stem cell research does not come out of religious conviction. This is in contrast, however, to the opponents of stem cell research, most importantly President Bush, who base their opposition, it seems, on their personal religious belief. While I respect this religious belief, I find it interesting that the President would veto a bill expanding stem cell research in the name of preserving life (albeit in the form of unborn, frozen embryos).

Yet, he took the nation into war against another country which had nothing to do with 9/11, neither attacked nor was going to attack the United States, and did not have weapons of mass destruction. As a result, more than 3200 American soldiers, along with an estimated 650,000 Iraqi civilians, have been killed. This is in addition to the tens of thousands that have been maimed and injured.

All of these people were living, breathing, and already born. Doesn't this "cross a moral line"? Doesn't the President find this "troubling"? Or are some lives more sacred than others?

"Oh My God..."

In the Name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful

I was more than horrified. A gunman massacred at least 22 (Fox News is reporting 32) students at Virginia Tech Univeristy. Authorities are still investigating the circumstances of the shooting, but this is confirmed as the deadliest shooting on a college campus in U.S. history.

One can really not put into words the horrific and barbaric nature of this crime. I can not even imagine the pain of the students, faculty, and staff of Virginia Tech. As a parent, I understand the pain of those parents who lost their precious children to this horrible crime. I was an engineering student at Marquette University, and I know how close-knit engineering students tend to be. I can't imagine the pain the students who survived this tragedy must be feeling. My thoughts, prayers, and condolences go the parents, students, faculty and staff of the University.

I pray the Lord sends His soothing comfort to the families of the victims of this terrible shooting. I pray the Lord helps them during this most difficult and dark time. I pray the Lord protect Virginia Tech - and all other college campuses across the world - from anything like this happening again. I pray the Lord protects this country - and all other countries across the world - from this type of senseless, wanton violence against the innocent.

O God, please let this type of senseless violence end all across this earth! Let us all see the dignity of their fellow man and woman. In Your Most Holy Name I ask this. Amen.

I Affirm Freedom of Faith

In the Name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful

I have been clear about my beliefs about apostasy in Islam. I believe it is clear from the Qur'an that apostasy is a sin against God, but there is no credible evidence for the punishment of apostasy (i.e., simply deciding to leave the faith of Islam) on earth. God will judge and decide in the end.

A new blog has been set up that is dedicated to creating further awareness about Islam and the freedom of faith. On this blog is a list of more than 100 Muslim scholars, academics, and professionals who have endorsed the freedom of faith as an essential tenet of Islam. I am proud to announce that I have joined this list, and I am proud to link that blog on this blog.

The statement to which I am a signatory is as follows:

We the undersigned Muslims from diverse backgrounds affirm: The freedom of faith and the freedom of changing one's faith. In light of the Qur'anic guidance and the Prophetic legacy, the principle of freedom of faith does not lend itself to impose in this world any punishment or retribution solely for apostasy; Thus there ought not to be any punishment in the name of Islam or fatwa calling for the same.

I urge all Muslims to endorse this statement of truth based in the beauty of our faith. The realm of the heart is the most personal and intimate realm of any human being. No government, Islamic or otherwise, has any business intervening in its matters. The convictions of the heart and the consequences of those convictions are God's alone to judge.

Thinking About Our Own Mortality

In the Name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful

I was in my office, in between patients one morning, when I got a phone call from my sister.

"How are you doing?" she asked.

"Fine," I replied.

"Is everything OK?" she asked again.

"Yes," I replied again, starting to get a bit confused.

"I just got an email saying that 'Hesham Hassaballa' had passed away," she then said.

"Really?" I said, in amazement. Obviously, it was not me, and I did not think of it again until later that night when I got a phone call from my good friend.

"You should sit down for this," he tells me. He then proceeded to tell me how he was on a business trip in New York when he received a voice mail message from a mutual friend (living in Washington, D.C.) asking whether it was true that Hesham Hassaballa had passed away. My friend did not hear anything, but he called his mother (who is a good friend of my mother) to find out.

"No, I didn't hear anything," my friend's mother said. "Why, I was just with his mother today, and she did not say anything like that to me."

Still, to absolutely make sure, my friend's mother called my mother back that same day and made some small talk, seeing if my mother would mention that I had passed away. My mother said no such thing.

My friend then called me on my cell phone to see if I would pick up, and when I did, he told me this whole story. It really warmed my heart to know that he cared so much about me. It also comforted me to know that at least one person (outside of my immediate family) would care if I had passed away. The truth of the matter is that another Hesham Hassaballa, a man about my age who lived in Virginia, had passed away overseas in Egypt.

I pray the Lord God gives healing, comfort, and relief to Mr. Hassaballa's family, and I also pray the Lord God grant Hesham everlasting life in His presence. Amen.

Yet, this entire incident brought home to me my own mortality. It reminded me that death is an inevitable part of life, and I do not have wait until old age to think about death and dying. Being a doctor, especially one who sees patients with cancer and in the intensive care unit, death and dying are not that far from my mind.

Still, this incident got me thinking: how do I want to die (as if I have a choice in the matter)? I have said many times in the past that I want to die in my sleep: I want my heart to simply stop beating, and that will be the end of it. After what I have seen some patients go through in the medical system, this would be the easiest and most peaceful way to go.

Yet, that would mean that death would "sneak up" on me. What if I was not ready? What if I had sins for which I had not yet asked God's forgiveness? What if I had wronged someone and had not yet asked his or her forgiveness? What if my death had come at a time in my spiritual life when my faith was in a low spot?

On the other hand, if I was given a "forewarning" of my imminent death, that would likely mean that I would have some sort of terminal disease, like cancer. That may mean terrible pain and suffering. Yes, I would have some knowledge as to the possible time of my death, and I can prepare myself for meeting my Lord, ask His forgiveness, etc. But, then again, that may mean that - as I am preparing for my death - I am suffering miserably, and I don't want that, either.

It is a tough choice (again, assuming that I even have a choice, like Meredith Grey). What would you choose?

When I reflected on this matter, there was only one thing for me to do: always be ready for death. Always ask God for forgiveness for the loads of sins that I commit on a daily basis. Always make sure that I have not wronged anyone on this earth, because, when I meet my Lord, the person I wronged has a right to take his or her retribution from me on that day. I do not want that to happen. I need to always make sure that my relationship with my Precious Beloved is solid, so that, if it is my time, then I can meet Him with a "heart free of evil," as the Qur'an says (in the words of the Prophet Abraham):

"and do not put me to shame on the Day when all shall be raised from the dead; the Day on which neither wealth nor children will be of any use, [and when] only he [will be happy] who comes before God with a heart free of evil." (26:87-89)

For sure, death should not dominate my thinking: I should always look and plan for the future on this earth, as the Qur'an also says: "O You who have attained to faith! Remain conscious of God and let every human being look to what he sends ahead for the morrow! And [once again] remain conscious of God, for God is fully aware of all that you do." (59:18)

Islam does not demand that we abandon all earthly pleasures and pursuits. Rather, I must maintain a balance between my (temporary) life on this earth and my (permanent) life in the next world. That is best achieved by my always remaining conscious of God.

In fact, I must use this life as a vehicle toward achieving everlasting peace, love, and happiness with my Lord in the next life. If I can do so, then I will have been most successful. I pray that I am able to do just that, and I pray that Br. Hesham Hassaballa from Virginia had done the same.

Dr. Hassaballa in the Chicago Tribune

In the Name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful

Thanks be to God (and then the editors at the Tribune), my article was published today in the Persepctive section of the Chicago Tribune. It is reproducted below.



WHEN CANCER RETURNS

Disease's destructive path often perplexing, fickle


By Hesham A. Hassaballa. Hesham A. Hassaballa is a Chicago pulmonologist and writer
Published April 1, 2007

"How can this be, doctor?" my patient asks me. The anguish is palpable across the room. "They told me that all the cancer was removed. They told me I was cured. How could it have come back?"

It is a gap that no cancer survivor ever wants to bridge: the gap between cancer that seemingly has been cured and the dreaded cancer that has returned and spread. This is what has happened to White House spokesman Tony Snow, whose colon cancer has spread to his liver, and Elizabeth Edwards, wife of presidential candidate John Edwards, whose breast cancer has spread to her bones and possibly elsewhere.

Although Stage IV cancer can be treated with varying degrees of success, it can never be cured. Unfortunately, many people already have Stage IV cancer when it is first diagnosed, and it is difficult to break such news to patients and their anxious and worried families.

Yet many others do not come to their doctors with Stage IV disease. Many, in fact, see their cancers diagnosed at a very early stage, when the tumor is small and localized and has not spread to any other organ. These are typically called Stage I cancers. These cancers are potentially curable. They are the cancers that many, many Americans have had. These people have been treated and now are living healthy, active lives that are cancer-free. And then, for some, the cancer comes back.

The problem lies in the biology of cancer itself. At its very essence, cancer is a disease of immortality, characterized by unrestrained cell growth. Due to a variety of factors -- genetics, environmental exposures and chemical toxicity, to name a few -- cancer cells acquire the ability to grow and divide ad infinitum. The exquisite and delicate processes that govern normal cell growth and death are disrupted, and a tumor arises.

Some cancers are slow-growing and are not likely to cause much harm to the patient. Others, however, can be particularly vicious, spreading all over the body seemingly at will. Sometimes I feel as though the cancer has a mind of its own; it almost seems as if the cancer is self-aware, willfully going to the places in the body where it knows it will cause the most damage.

How do cancer cells ultimately kill? Wherever they go, they destroy healthy tissue in their path, and if that includes a vital organ, such as the brain, the patient can die.

Yet if a cancer is found early enough and taken out, how does it ever come back? Again, the problem lies with cancer biology. A malignant tumor starts out as one abnormal cell. Yes, the tumor seemingly can be completely removed. But all it takes is one cell to escape the surgeon's scalpel, or the pulverizing blow of the X-ray radiation, or the caustic burn of chemotherapy drugs. Wherever that cell ends up in the body, it can form another malignant tumor.

That unyielding fact is why I am hesitant to tell patients they have been cured. True, some cancers are completely curable, such as testicular cancer and some childhood leukemias. Still, it is usually recommended that patients with Stage I cancer undergo continued disease surveillance -- such as periodic CT scans -- to make sure the cancer does not come back. All it takes is for one cell to escape, and the whole process will start again.

It is a devastating blow to any cancer survivor to learn that not only has her cancer come back, but that it now has become incurable. Again, it is hard to break such news to a patient. Yet another part of my job is to help counsel and console my patients during this difficult time. It is the part I truly enjoy, and it was one of the principal reasons I became a doctor.

Even though I know I can't make their recurrent cancer go away, I still can help them feel better by holding their hand and saying: "It's OK. I'm here for you." It helps ease the pain I feel knowing that my patient's cancer, despite having been treated correctly, has returned.

Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune