Superpowers, Prophets, and Religion

Travel causes even the least observant to re-learn history. I began reading Ehsan Masood's Science and Islam (2009) last week, and I highly recommend the book. 

From what I gather so far, a world with two primary superpowers is not new. Masood mentions the Greek-Persian rivalry several times. (From my museum visits, I know the hatred between these two empires was so fierce, the Greeks engraved faces of defeated/dead Persians on their mead mugs.) 

Less predictable is the path of a new superpower. As America and the Soviet Union continued a costly rivalry from 1945-1991 and then from 2000 until 2016, China took advantage of their inattention, becoming a new superpower in just twenty years (1995-2015). No country can maintain supremacy if it expends energy and wealth fighting multiple fronts over an extended time period, a lesson every empire seems to forget. 

The Persian Sassanids and the Byzantine (Orthodox) Christians were similarly occupied with each other, allowing the untrained Arab Umayyad tribes and Bedouins to eclipse both empires within thirty years. Interestingly, such victories against outsiders occurred after Muhammad's (PBUH) death. For all the talk of the Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) strategic prowess, his military career--as opposed to his economic and philosophical one--lasted only ten years, towards the end of his life, from 622 to 632, and after his first wife's death. (The Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) was born in 570 A.D.) 

A diversion: Muhammad (PBUH) initially fled to Medina to escape assassination attempts; however, the polytheistic elites, his brethren in Mecca, continued to pursue him. Only after he moved from Mecca, his birthplace, to Medina in 622--when he was approximately 50 years old--did he authorize violence under the express limitation of self-defense:

Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory. (Qu'ran, 22:39) 

Furthermore, Muhammad (PBUH) testified he was visited by the angel Gabriel/Jibril in 610 A.D.--at the age of 40--meaning he opposed elites and their excesses before receiving divine revelations, even though he belonged to the influential Qurayshi tribe. Like most changemakers, he was a rebel early on, disgusted by materialism (see Jesus's actions, overturning tables of moneychangers at temple), making friends with outsiders, including but not limited to African slaves. (FYI: though Abu Bakr, Muhammad's successor, was said to have light skin, we don't know if "light skin" referred to light brown or some other color.) 

Thus, for most of his life, Muhammad (PBUH) gained influence and protection through two sources: first and foremost, his older wife, an affluent, established merchant who trusted the younger Muhammad in part because he disdained materialism; and second, the poor, especially slaves, whom he freed, co-opted, and elevated into positions of authority (see stories of Bilal ibn Rabah, Salman Al-Farsi, and Suhayb ar-Rumi aka Sohaib ibn Sinan). ["Many of those who fought for Islam in the early years were among the poorest in the region." (Masood, pp. 24)] Regarding the second source, Muhammad's (PBUH) openness to outsiders surely arose because he was orphaned at a young age. 

The Bible's New Testament is starkly different than the Koran on the matter of slavery.
See 1 Peter 2:18.

As for other historical topics, Masood doesn't cover the Sunni-Shia split in depth, but I'll try to summarize here: some Shia scholars argue Muhammad (PBUH) united the numerous tribes and peoples of Arabia under a monotheistic and Abrahamic banner, only to have his work destroyed after his death in a military coup defying his succession wishes as set forth in his Ghadir Khumm speech. The Sunnis, for their part, see no conflict because Ali ibn Abi Talib, Muhammad's chosen successor, was eventually made into a Caliph and was too young to command a leadership position at the time of Muhammad's (PBUH) death. (Ali was eventually murdered in 661 in present-day Iraq.) 

Being too young didn't stop the Europeans from choosing successors,
perhaps their way of ensuring the military's influence.

If they want to pursue the matter further, the Shias might argue Umar/Omar--the same person who pledged allegiance to Ali at Ghadir Khumm--altered the Prophet's intended inheritance (the Fadak estate) to his daughter, Fatima Zahra, allegedly causing her to suffer a miscarriage and death less than three months after Muhammad's (PBUH) death. (Muhammad once said, "Fatima is a part of me. Whoever makes her angry, makes me angry.") The Sunnis may counter by saying succession is rarely a smooth process--almost every caliph after Muhammad (PBUH) and Abu Bakr was assassinated or poisoned, not just Ali ibn Abi Talib. Additionally, the Fadak estate was eventually returned to Fatima's heirs by an Ummayyad caliph. 

[Timeline: Abu Bakr (632 to 634AD), includes Ridda Wars (Arabic: حروب الردة‎) aka the Wars of Apostasy from 632 to 633; Umar I (634 to 644); Uthman (644 to 656); Ali (656 to 661)] 

Furthermore, while Husayn ibn Ali, Muhammad's (PBUH) grandson, was murdered under the Sunni Ummayads, their ancestors did not specifically target the Shias--after all, the Ummayads lost to the Abbasids, direct descendants of the prophet Muhammad, who were also Sunni. According to Professor M. Umaruddin of Aligarh University, the "Abbasids put to death not only all the members of Ummayad family but also all their supporters. They disillusioned the Shi'as by killing them wholesale." (The Ethical Philosophy of Al-Ghazzali) 

Succession and internecine feuds were common in Europe, too.

In fact, both the Sunnis and Shia can point to a third interloper, the Khawarij group, as the source of division within Islam. The Khawarij (aka the Seceders) were about 12,000 people, a hardline sect that refused to accept Ali's governance, eventually assassinating him. 

In any case, after 755 A.D. and after the end of Ummayad rule, "Persian culture and civilization asserted itself dominantly and triumphantly in the Muslim world." (Id., pp. 10) "Shi'ism in particular appealed to the Persians, who further developed the Shi'ite doctrines of the Imamate and evolved most of the transcendental theories about it. The two main sects of the Sh'ias, the sect of the Seven and the sect of the Twelve appeared during this period," a split once again caused by the familiar issue of succession. The Sixth Imam, Ja'far Al-Sadiq, disinherited his eldest son Isma'il, nominating his younger son Musa al-Kazim instead. It seems the Twelvists chose incorrectly, disappearing circa 873 AD, leaving the "Seventies" to follow the son of Is'mail, a man named Muhammad who favored allegories, storytelling, and even wine to interpret the Quran. (Id.) (Were Rumi, born around 1207, and his mentor Shams, born around 1185, influenced by the Seventies? I don't know.)  

As I was reading Masood's book, I realized another pattern in power replacement: the presence of a single unexpected defeat leading to the collapse of a long-standing empire. We've all heard of Napoleon's Waterloo and Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union (starting in June 1941, with the winter in November 1941 destroying Germany's morale), but what about the battle of Yarmuk in Jordan in 636, where about 35,000 Arab Muslims defeated a Byzantine force of 100,000? Or the Battle of Badr in 624, where Muhammad's army of 313 men defeated almost 1,000 Arabs from Mecca? 

I'm reminded of Ernest Hemingway's quote about bankruptcy/collapse coming gradually then suddenly, a sentiment that seems to apply perfectly to empires in decline after an unexpected military defeat. 

Another pattern discussed in Masood's book is the speed by which a center of commerce or influence can shift. The Ummayads moved the center of operations from Mecca to Damascus, and Baghdad's intellectuals also seem to have moved to Damascus. Similarly, Constantinople immediately became an important city after the Byzantines moved the center of Christianity away from Rome. 

Yet, all empires drove away distinguished minorities even as they attracted intellectuals and new residents. For example, the Byzantines excluded Nestorians, who were Christians, but who had a different interpretation of Christ's role. Masood describes the Byzantines as fundamentalists who insisted on "a single interpretation of the nature of Christ," displacing minorities and non-conformist Christians as far away as China. 

It got me thinking: for most of human history, groups of minorities were rarely able to tell their stories in documents that survived intact, so we lack full knowledge about declining social cohesion and the numerous escalations that led to expulsions. Such gaps make it almost impossible to study complete patterns in historical displacement, rendering history books woefully incomplete. Consequently, when studying history, remember: you are learning a sliver of a sliver of a moment in time. Be humble. 

© Matthew Mehdi Rafat (2019)

Bonus 1: Europeans were not scientifically advanced until they came into contact with post-Islamic Arab civilization. See https://bahai-library.com/cobb_islamic_contributions_civilization#7 

"[V]irtually all the science and technology of the classic world had already been passed on to Europe by the Arabs - a process which had begun before 1100 and was completed by the time Constantinople fell. Although this Arab revival of classic learning was the chief influence in Europe's scientific awakening, this fact has been popularly disregarded." 

Algebra is an Arabic term. (So is mocha, in case you didn't know.) As for freedom, the first declaration of human rights comes from the Persians. See http://www.persepolis.nu/persepolis-cyrus.htm 

"The Declaration of Human Rights written by Cyrus the Great has been hailed as the first charter of human rights, predating the Magna Carta by nearly two millenniums." 

Finally, one reason the Persian Empire lasted around 430 years (224 to 651 A.D.)--longer than the Greeks and Romans (14 to 395 A.D.)--is because it was one of the most tolerant empires in the history of the world. 

Bonus II: Lisa Ling, in 2019, unintentionally showed a significant overlap between Arab Islam's and Genghis Khan's military success: "I think also in this period of class divide is really a moving one, because he was this character [Khan] who was a slave at one time himself, went on to conquer two thirds of the population of the earth, because he elevated people, he elevated slaves, and the lowest level of human to rise up in his army." 

Keith Ellison and Common Sense

"The best defense against extremist ideologies is social inclusion and civic engagement." Shameful that some people smeared Mohammed Salman Hamdani and recanted only when confronted with his dead, heroic body. More from Rep. Keith Ellison here: Ellison's transcript of prepared remarks for March 10, 2011 Congressional hearings.

Every generation has its Joseph McCarthy, and it appears ours will be Rep. Peter King. Kudos to Rep. Ellison for his common sense.

One Immigrant's Perspective on America

Below is one of the most awesome letters I've ever read. First published in the San Jose Mercury News (July 3, 2010): 

It took awhile for me, an Indonesian Muslim who works and lives in America, to appreciate the significance of July Fourth. Then, I came across a quote of President John F. Kennedy that helped me understand: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." 

Since I have lived here, this nation has given me an education, freedom, security and the liberty to become a part of its society. I understand and realize that this country has paid a huge price and sacrificed many of its citizens for me, and so many others like me, to enjoy these freedoms. For this I am very grateful and this July Fourth, I simply want to say to the Founding Fathers, "Thank you." 

Tahir Ahmad 

Milpitas, CA 

Props to Mr. Ahmad.

Debate on Rima Fakih

Rima Fakih, and American citizen from Michigan, recently won the Miss USA pageant. This wouldn't be a big deal, except she is Lebanese and from a Muslim family. Some Americans are protesting a Muslim winning a beauty pageant, alleging that her victory was politically-motivated. There has also been backlash from Muslims. I don't understand any of it. A beautiful woman won a beauty pageant. Who cares? Well, these people do, and there was a debate about whether Islam allows Muslims to enter beauty pageants. Technically, the Koran specifically requires women only to cover their bosoms and private parts in public, which all the beauty pageant contestants did. Unfortunately, many Muslims are confused about the minimum requirements of their own religion, which has created many problems worldwide. More below:

Z: these contests don't have anything to do with our faith. There's nothing Islamic about what she's representing. I'm just saying, why don't we provide Muslim women professors with an opportunity to be crowned so we avoid the same misrepresentation of Muslim women in the media? Why do men applaud women who reveal their bodies and then pray 5x a day?

M: I don't view Islam as an "either/or" religion when it comes to beauty and educational pedigrees. Also, there is nothing in Islam that forbids the showing of physical beauty. To exhibit physical beauty, one must demonstrate one's physical form. Therefore, demonstrating one's form cannot be unIslamic b/c Islam is not against physical beauty.

You are questioning the degree of the demonstration, which is fine, but you've automatically lost credibility once you make a statement like, "There's nothing Islamic about what she's representing." Is she immodest? Perhaps. But since modesty is an ambiguous term and in the eye of the beholder, we must be more careful before we issue broad statements about what is Islamic or unIslamic. After all, Islam is not like the Catholic Church, where all Muslims must heed a particular interpretation coming from one source (i.e., the Vatican). As such, Muslims ought to recognize that no individual Muslim has authority over what is Islamic or unIslamic, and such debates must be settled by quoting the Koran, which is oftentimes ambiguous and open to interpretation.

Z: if the lines of modesty are ambiguous to you, it speaks volumes about your confusion of Islamic principles. I'm not comparing Islam to other faiths. I'm merely stating that its followers of the faith who are misrepresenting the religion and the media picks up on that. No one said physical beauty is a sin.

M: the Koran asks women to guard their "private parts" and their bosoms and then immediately references husbands and fathers. A hijab covers a woman's private parts and bosom--but so does a one-piece bikini.
The Koran also asks women to act modestly when outside the presence of their husbands or fathers; however, one husband or father may view a bikini as immodest, while another may have no issue with it. Therefore, the Koran seems to be asking women to take actions to minimize jealousy in their husbands and maximize harmony in their families, which requires a case-by-case analysis of the "lines of modesty." I hope this makes sense. Also, note that Muslim-majority countries like Dubai, Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Saudi Arabia have vastly different rules on modesty, which should tell you right away that there isn't any singular interpretation of the Koran's definition of modesty.

Z: as you know Muslims were known for their good character, honesty, and intellect which magnified the beauty of their physical state. This is not an issue of interpretations, the reason I brought this is up is because we need to be thoughtful in our approach about what we're supporting. I'm sure that there are many women who don't practice their faith but wear the hijab because of the rules of their government/families. In a country such as ours where there are no rules about what's immodest, shouldn't we harness the best of our faith and freedom and question the values set forth?

Ask how many of these pageant winners have stalkers and live in fear of their lives. Ask how many of these pageant participants have eating disorders. Ask how many of these pageant winners spend their wealth and time in combating the problems of the world long before they entered a pageant. I see this as further ridicule...it's definitely not praise. It's saying, "look how we can brainwash your women into thinking we accept them for their religion and beauty" or "this should make up for all the bombs we're dropping on the innocent people (in all the Muslim countries you didn't mention)."

M: Connecting categories like beauty and modesty to stalkers and bombs in one leap indicates a fantastic imagination. I don't know anyone who looks at Ms. Fakih and thinks that her award makes up for the death of innocent civilians, so to suggest such a connection is troubling. It's like referencing 9/11 every time a Muslim is stopped at the airport in 2010--it's a tenuous connection at best and ultimately fails to support a conclusion or argument.

F: your statement "there is nothing in Islam that forbids the physical showing of beauty" is true. A woman may ONLY expose herself to other women or to another maharam. This is in the Qu'ran, and not up for debate. Modesty may be an "ambiguous" term, but strutting around in a two piece in front of eight million people is not ambiguous at all. There really is no gray area here.

Also, for anyone to equate wearing a hijab to wearing a two-piece is absolutely illogical. Are you saying that God is ok with either apparel? Clearly the two are not similar. It is either this or that, but not both, because both are contradictions to one another, and we all know contradictions are illogical. Wearing a bikini and wearing a hijab are not the same, so they will not be looked upon the same in God's eyes.

In the Qu'ran, 24:31 says, "And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty..." Come on now, we are being asked to lower our gaze!! This is such a modest and subtle gesture. From this you are concluding that it is ok to wear a two piece bikini? You are unsure whether wearing a bikini contradicts this aforementioned verse? what possible argument can someone have? Surely this is illogical right? Why would God put that in the finite book, and then be ok, with naked women on a stage. I-l-l-o-g-i-c-a-l.

33:59 goes on to say, “O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters AND the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them." Yes, draw cloaks around the body, to prevent from giving the woman a discernible shape. You know how girls like to wear things real tight these days?

Whatever Miss Fakih does is between her and her God. It doesn't bother me one bit she calls herself Muslim. It's all good, because the rules, and regulations are all there. We have Taliban and extremist blowing people to bits. A girl strutting her goods on stage is the least of our concerns.

But rules, will be rules. And right will always be different from wrong.

M: First, did you really just admit that "modesty" may be an ambiguous term and then in the next breath allege no "gray area"? (I hope you see the problem there.)

Second, there is no "contradiction" between a bikini and a hijab. Both are articles of clothing, and articles of clothing can't contradict anything. It's like saying that a t-shirt and a sweater contradict each other, which makes no sense.

Also, you use the word, "naked." Ms. Fakih was never naked. She covered her "bosom" and her private parts--the only two areas of the body specifically cited in the verses at issue--so she complies with the Koranic sections that are most specific on modesty.

Since there is no singular authority on Koranic interpretation, all you can say is that your own interpretation of Islam forbids wearing a bikini in public--that's it. You cannot demand only one interpretation for an ambiguous term--this isn't like eating pork or drinking alcohol, which are clearly prohibited in the Koran.

Your other Koranic quotations are also open to interpretation. As I am sure you agree, almost every single Koranic section that discusses modesty and dress does so within the context of family members and husbands, so a reasonable interpretation cannot ignore the variable opinions of a woman's family. Why specifically include husbands and family members in the modesty verses if their opinions--which may vary greatly--are insignificant?

You also take the "cloak" verse out of context. First, a cloak refers to an outer garment that was popular in that time--it doesn't necessarily mean an actual cloak, just an outer garment. Second, take a closer look at the verses. It is discussing a time when women travel abroad or into lands where they will not be recognized as Muslims and may encounter problems with disrespectful men. Within context, the "cloak" verses appear to suggest simple, inexpensive ways for women to feel respected when they travel, i.e., to "be recognized and not harassed" and "not given trouble." There is nothing in the verses that requires women to wear particular outer garments when they travel. The verses merely encourage a woman to identify herself as a Muslim when she travels to foreign lands so she can avoid being bothered by disrespectful men. Such identification may be done in several ways, such as wearing a symbol of Islam (similar to wearing a cross if one is Christian). Of course I do not claim my interpretation is the only interpretation, but I do try to read verses in context.

F: So since there is no singular authority on the interpretation of the Qu'ran, you in your heart believe that it is acceptable from women in Islam to wear bikini's in public? You, with all your given faculty believe, that this is the message that God was striving to send to us? Just because the concept of female clothing is vague and open to a variety of interpretations, does not include the possibility that wearing such a thing in public is correct.

I was not sure what you were trying to say regarding the husband and father. All I was trying to say that a woman's clothing maybe more lax in front of maharam.

As for the cloak/garment verse 33:59, it says that women should cover them selves with this cloak (or garment) to avoid being harassed by men. All other things equal, who do you think has a higher probability of being harassed, a covered woman or one in a bikini? I think the latter. Basically this verse is trying to avoid having the woman attract unnecessary attention. Correct? Women should be clothed in ways that do not attract men's attention. Regardless if they are traveling, not traveling, are in the market, or anywhere in the public.

I'm going to revert back to 24:31. You say that a woman who covers her vitals, as a two piece does, is meeting the minimum requirements. Correct? Then how come this verse talks about a very subtle gesture, that is the lowering of the gaze. Can you compare the lowering of the gaze to wearing a bikini? Are these not on the opposite sides of the spectrum? Are these not contradictory. The Qu'ran advocates the woman should humbly lower her gaze, while you are saying that a woman in a bikini is not trespassing any rule. Can you please reconcile this blatant disparity?

24:31 also has an interesting thing that it mentions. It says for the woman to " not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment." Looks like to me that holy God is talking about another sense in addition to sight.....hearing. This is the extent to which women in Islam are instructed to behave. That they shouldn't even walk with a heavy foot. So again, when the bikini wearing in public is factored, how do you reconcile this disparity?

You know what the sweet thing about Islam is? It cuts the problem off at the root. Drinking causes problems, so guess what, no drinking AT ALL. Drugs causes problems, guess what, no smoking weed AT ALL. Stealing causes problems, guess what, no stealing AT ALL. Even a dollar. If everyone was allowed to drink "a little bit", or smoke weed "once in a while" then the entire system would crumble. There would always be one guy who drank too much and plowed his car into a group of kids, or a guy who fried his brain over drugs.

Islam, quite candidly is a religion of limits.

M: this will be my last response to you, b/c I've already studied this issue in detail and have explained most of my position. As I said before, in my heart, I believe Islam is not rigid--the different Islamic cultures across the world prove it--and we cannot ignore the varied opinions of family members when interpreting the modesty verses. Such verses almost always refer to women's "husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husband's sons, their brothers or their brother's sons, or their sister's sons." These references are consistent and numerous, indicating that the intent of the modesty rules is to promote marital and familial harmony. Each father and husband has different preferences, so a bikini may make one husband jealous while another man may not mind. The only rule we know for sure is that women ought to cover their "bosoms" and "private parts"--anything beyond that is subject to interpretation.

You don't really offer anything new in your latest response. "Lowering the gaze" means women shouldn't look at forbidden things, just like men shouldn't be looking at forbidden things. The "gaze" verse talks about self-restraint, but each individual has unique boundaries. One woman may not be able to handle looking at a man's ankles, while another may be able to look at Fabio and maintain self-restraint. Again, we are back to a case-by-case analysis.

The "stamping feet" verse warns against showing off "ornaments," i.e., expensive jewelry, not body parts. Indeed, near the same place that "ornaments" is used, the Koran specifically cites "bosom" and "private parts," so it appears we are referring to something other than physical areas. In conclusion, if you think Islam has limits, wonderful--you can set up a mosque and preach however you like, but the minute you argue that Islam has only one way or one interpretation, you have crossed into Catholicism or some other religion.

Z: In reference to verse 24:31 about a woman to " not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment." It is not only referring to jewelry worn around ankles that make sounds to attract a man's attention, but as a woman, it's also referring to the movement of the chest as one walks. God created us all in the best of forms and provided us beauty as well as intellect. Our ancestors were known for their character because of how they used their intellect and that in itself magnified their physical attributes.

Clearly Ms. Fakih possess physical beauty, and no one is arguing that...but I just wish to learn more about her intellect. She has great potential to be a positive role model and I pray she gains the strength to overcome the whirlwind of the life she's chosen.

Would you congratulate your sister, mother, aunt, cousin, wife or daughter if any of them were following Ms. Fakih's lead?

M: if a woman in my family decided to participate in a beauty contest, the appropriate discussion would take place privately. I don't see anything in the Koran that requires a non-family member to judge another Muslim's modesty.

Generally speaking, in Islam, both the wife and the husband are tied together--or yoked together--and both must avoid harmful and immodest behavior. The definition of immodest behavior is based on input from both the husband and the wife. The wife can ask her husband to dress conservatively if such dress conforms to her definition of modesty, and vice-versa. This is why it is important to know the expectations of the person you are marrying. The intent of the modesty rules is to avoid jealousy on both sides, which helps promote a peaceful marriage.

So if you really look at the Koran in context, the intent of the modesty rules is, "Don't tick off your spouse." Thus, outside the house, the wife gets to ask the husband to dress in ways that make her feel comfortable, and the husband gets to ask his wife to dress in ways that make him comfortable. Such preferences are expressed in most marriages anyway, e.g., the wife buys the husband new clothes, throws away old shirts, lays out what she wants him to wear, etc. I've heard Christian husbands refuse to go out if the wife is wearing something too risque, and Christian dads complain about their daughters' clothing, so this issue isn't an "Islamic thing."

The Koran anticipates these marital and familial problems and tries to fix them ahead of time. In real life, women tend to become the focus of clothing/modesty discussions b/c most women are attracted to men who dress up, not down, but the opposite is true for women. At the end of the day, if you marry someone reasonable, modesty and clothing preferences won't be an issue.

Interesting Article on Muslims in America

H. D. S. GREENWAY has an excellent article on Muslims in America. See here for more.

The worst we could do as a society is to overreact, to make American Muslims feel they are a not one with the rest of us; in effect, to take the American flags off their front lawns.

Common sense? From an American journalist? Shocking, my lad.

On India

Why India has a long way to go before I will believe in its long-term economic success:

We live in a democracy, but it is not for Muslims. We live in silent dictatorship.

-- an Indian Muslim lamenting the failure of inter-faith cooperation, in today's New York Times

There are 161 million Muslims in India.

WSJ Letter on Quran: Religion and Randomness

I've written about religion and randomness before, but I don't think I've published the following post. Here you go:

From the WSJ's letters section, A18, December 10, 2008:

One of the most important verses in the Quran reads, "Those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good, they have their reward with the Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve." (Surah 5, verse 69) ... I know of no other religion as inclusive as Islam. In Sura 2, verse 256, the Quran commands, "Let there be no compulsion in religion..." -- Donald A. Jordan, Doha, Qatar

Some people allege the Quran appears to be more inclusive than Christianity. See, for instance, Matthew 11:27:

All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

There are, however, two ways of interpreting this verse. One interpretation equates it with the Quranic verses above, which require belief in the one Abrahamic God and therefore also Jesus and Judgment Day to achieve piety. Another interpretation is more restrictive and can be used to argue that only Christians are able to achieve God's good graces. Certainly, there are plenty of verses in the Torah, Bible, and Quran to lend support to any particular philosophy, but any competent analysis of religion must consider the following:

Religion is determined, most of the time, by the accident of birth. For example, if you are born in Israel, you are most likely to practice Judaism or secularism rather than Buddhism. You can cite similar examples ad infinitum--e.g., if you are born in Malaysia the year 2009, you are most likely to practice Islam rather than Judaism; if you are born in Poland, you are most likely to practice Christianity instead of Islam, etc.

But as far as a child is concerned, being born in a particular place is an accident. Therefore, a system that requires belief only in one particular religion to achieve piety is basing a child's fate primarily on chance and parental decision (or, in some cases, another "accident"). Yet, no reasonable philosophy can elevate chance or other people's random actions as primary factors in achieving piety. Therefore, unless God is unreasonable, either all religions or no religion is required to achieve piety or good graces.

In short, assuming God is just, no just God would allow the accidental factor of birth to play such a substantial (and almost determinative) part in a person's fate or opportunity to achieve piety.

In addition, if God predates religion, and religion is required to achieve piety, then all human beings prior to organized religion had no chance of achieving piety. But this conclusion is absurd. Some human beings prior to the introduction of religion must have acted in ways that we would now consider religious or that allowed them to fall into God's good graces.

Therefore, assuming God is just and reasonable, a person's behavior and actions--not his/her religion--must be the primary factors in determining his/her piety.

Nidal Hasan: What's Religion Got to Do with It?

Quick thought of the day:

People who focus on the Fort Hood shooter's religion are doing themselves as well as future crime prevention a disservice. For instance, what would we learn if we focused on Bernie Madoff's religious background? Nothing. In fact, by focusing on his religious background, we would spend less time on relevant issues, such as how to best prevent fraud for all securities customers. In addition, since we can't change someone's religion or legally discriminate against someone on the basis of religion, we cannot implement effective defenses against criminal activity even if we did find a high correlation between a person's religious background and a particular criminal act.

For instance, continuing the Madoff example, even if we find that high-level financial advisors happen to be Jewish (something I highly doubt), what do we do with such information? If we subject Jewish financial advisors to more scrutiny, all we're doing is making it more expensive for them to serve their clients. We're not actually preventing fraud or helping the general consumer avoid fraud.

In fact, focusing on a perp's religion is a triple-loss--it injects irrelevant data into an analysis, skewering any results; castigates religious practitioners who are innocent of any wrongdoing; and causes us to spend less time focusing on relevant data, which we could then use to create new, effective regulations or new methods.

1.57 Billion Muslims

Here is an interesting report on the number of Muslims worldwide.

Does this mean I can no longer impress/shock Americans by asking them to name the most populated Muslim country? Sigh. 

The Pew Forum has published lots and lots of good stuff. If you're interested in religious discussion, check them out.

[Editor's note: links have been updated.] 

Muslim Themed T-Shirt or Bumper Sticker?

Idea for a t-shirt to be worn by Muslims:

I'll apologize for 9/11 when white people apologize for Timothy McVeigh, Jews apologize for Bernie Madoff, and Mormons apologize for Glenn Beck.

The point? It's ludicrous to demand someone apologize for an event or person just because someone of his/her religious or racial background happens to be involved.

Religious Assimilation

My response to this post:

It's sad to see a reputable website publicize a re-hashing of Samuel Huntington's false Clash of Civilizations thesis. First, if some sort of clash between Islam and the West is inevitable, why hasn't America experienced major issues with integrating Muslims? "Muslim Americans, like Arab-Americans, have fared well in the U.S. The Zogby survey found that 59% of American Muslims have at least an undergraduate education, making them the most highly educated group in America...[Also] 21% of Muslim Americans intermarry...close to the national rate of 22% of Americans who marry outside their religion" See WSJ article (Stephens/Rago, 8/24/05).

Second, is it fair for anyone to judge an immigration pool after just one or two generations? It typically takes at least three generations to assimilate--and this is true of all immigrant pools, not just Muslims.

Third, isn't Europe's "problem" of integration its own doing? Europe needed immigrants to do tough jobs for low pay. It voluntarily imported low paid men without any long term plans on how to integrate them into a society far different from their homelands. Is it any wonder that, in the absence of a welcome alternative, these men gravitated towards similarly situated ethnic and religious groups? Or did Europeans expect these immigrants to speak the Queen's English and order pints within a few months?

Fourth, when will we learn from history? These exact same objections were made against Jewish immigrants; against Irish Catholic immigrations; against Italian Catholic immigrants; and against Latino Catholic immigrants. All have integrated into American society. Moreover, despite suffering persecution in Europe, non-Christians, including Jews and atheists, are now accepted as fully assimilated European citizens and still retain their own identity--so why should the experience of Muslims be any different in the long run? Mind you, assimilation isn't the only path to prosperity. American-born Mormons may have actually done better by not fully assimilating in American society and now have the state of Utah to show for it.

In the end, religion isn't a reliable factor for any future projections, because it is practiced in so many different ways all over the world and by so many different people. For example, a religiously-focused person may claim African-American Christians are the least assimilated group in America based on their segregated living patterns, lower education, and lower income levels. Does this mean Christians cannot be assimilated in America? One immediately sees the absurdity in making this kind of argument.

I am saddened by Mr. Cowen's seeming endorsement of this book, especially on a date so close to Ramadan.

Bonus: another blogger's take on European Muslim immigration is here.

Bonus II: below is my response to another comment on Marginal Revolution, which alleges Muslims are somehow different than previous generations of immigrants because they self-identify as Muslims rather than their ethnicity. In other words, the writer's (unsupported) theory is that German immigrants were more likely to identify as Germans rather than Christians, but a Syrian Muslim is more likely to identify as a Muslim first and a Syrian second. The (unproven) theory is that this form of self-identification apparently creates problems because nationalism and patriotism are better suited to assimilation than religious identification. The writer also made a comment that Islam is more politicized today than other religions.

My response: Assimilation is a long, gradual process. Thus, no matter how immigrants self-identify, it's the third generation that assimilates, making data about the first and second generation of limited relevance.

Also, so what if some Muslims in 2009 self-identify as Muslims instead of an ethnic background? Take your theory and replace Muslims in 2009 with Jews in 2009. Is there a difference between the groups in favoring religious over ethnic self-identification? Probably not. Thus, the real question is whether there will there be a difference by the third generation in terms of self-identification. To the extent a host country provides its immigrants with a reasonable chance of upward mobility and political representation, cultural assimilation should not be a problem by the third generation.

I don't understand your second point. To the extent you are saying religious conservatives fight with secularists, so what? This same "fight" happens in America, especially between Southern states and non-Southern states. The key issue isn't religion, but balancing separation of religion and state with freedom of religious expression. On this issue, America seems to be doing a much better job than Europe. For instance, most American elected officials strive for tolerance, while European elected officials seem to openly criticize non-Christians. America's ideal of tolerance, including religious tolerance, may assist America in assimilating its American Muslims. At the end of the day, it seems like Europe is repeating its mistakes--or did you forget that Europe's failure of religious tolerance spawned modern-day America?

John Yoo Defends Bush Administration

Professor John Yoo recently wrote an article (WSJ, July 16, 2009) defending President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program. Mr. Yoo's reasoning is sound only if Americans desire a world where the Constitution is selectively applied using ethnic or religious criteria.

Mr. Yoo begins by using the government's incompetence as an excuse to ignore civil liberties. He says that post-9-11, we didn't know much about Al-Qaeda, so the best option was to tap everyone's telephones and computers to learn more. He also alleges that compliance with FISA--which requires a judge to approve a wiretap if the target is an American citizen or permanent resident--would have been cumbersome and impractical post-9-11.

Mr. Yoo's arguments have merit. A warrant requests permission to spy on a specific person, telephone number, or email account. If you don't know who the terrorists are or what email/telephone accounts they use because your foreign intelligence services are incompetent, how do you ask a court for a warrant? The only option--at least initially--is to start spying on everyone to narrow the list of likely suspects. Consequently, any discussion about warrantless wiretapping must begin by accepting Mr. Yoo's general premises: getting a warrant is cumbersome, and it prevents law enforcement agencies from identifying terrorists as quickly as possible.

Mr. Yoo damages his credibility, however, by not disclosing other relevant facts: one, existing law does not require a FISA court order to spy on non-U.S. citizens or non-lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens; two, most of the 9-11 terrorists were not American citizens or permanent residents; and three, his argument requires Americans to ignore the 4th Amendment, which protects U.S. persons from unreasonable and unlimited government surveillance.

FISA requires a warrant only when American citizens or permanent residents are involved. The CIA and FBI may intercept communications between two non-U.S. persons without a FISA warrant, as long as they follow certain procedures. While it is true that American residents may engage in terrorism, most of the 9-11 hijackers were not U.S. citizens or permanent residents. As a result, the Constitution's so-called "dysfunctional" warrant procedure had little to do with 9-11.

In fact, the CIA's and FBI's failure to prevent 9-11 was clearly not affected by any Constitutional limits. Think about it: even having access to every email and spoken word doesn't mean anything if our security agencies lack the linguistic and cultural competence to determine what is "noise" and what is relevant. It should also be obvious that any competent terrorist will use code words, so even intercepting every communication with the words "Muslim," "airplane," or "terrorist" won't help anyone find potential hijackers. Thus, Mr. Yoo's intent on creating reasons to ignore the Constitution is misplaced, because the real issue has always been how to properly gather and analyze relevant information.

Most troubling, however, is Mr. Yoo's failure to realize the real effect of warrantless spying--namely, that it gives carte-blanche to law enforcement to single out Americans based on nothing more than their ethnicity or religion. How much do you want to bet that singling out American citizens because of their religion or ethnicity will make them less loyal to America and law enforcement in particular? Why would people belonging to any targeted religion or ethnicity report suspicious persons or activity to law enforcement agencies if they think they will be treated differently than other Americans? Once you follow Mr. Yoo's belief that warrants are not required during wartime, you realize that what he's really saying is that every time there is a war, certain groups of Americans--whether Japanese, German, or Muslim--may be disproportionately targeted based on their religion or ethnic background. Under Mr. Yoo's logic, if Muslim terrorists attack Americans, then the quickest way to find more information is to target all communications involving Muslims or Islamic-related words. In reality, however, allowing the executive branch to selectively apply the 4th Amendment makes it harder to protect Americans.

Allow me to explain. Let's assume, as a purely theoretical exercise, that the primary threat of terrorism comes from Muslims. If we agree with Mr. Yoo's statement--that the lack of information about terrorists post-9-11 required suspending the Constitution--then it follows that we need more information about Muslims to protect America. What are the best sources of information about Muslims? People who go to mosques; people who have Muslim friends; people who eat in halal restaurants; and people who understand basic Muslim culture, allowing them to have comfortable interactions with Muslims. What groups of people fit into all of the aforementioned categories? Primarily Muslims. In general, a Muslim is more likely to have information about other Muslims, some of whom may be terrorists, than a non-Muslim. Overall, the best source of information about Muslims probably comes from Muslims themselves.

Once we accept that a) Muslims represent the greatest threat of terrorism (again, this is a purely theoretical exercise); and b) in general, Muslims have the most access to information about Muslims, then it should be follow that we would want to maximize the number of Muslims who are more loyal to the United States. As such, treating Muslims differently than other groups is a terrible idea. When a Muslim reads a webpage about how violent Islam is, do you think he or she becomes more or less likely to report potential terrorist activity to the government? When a Muslim reads that evangelical Christians believe that Islam is the natural enemy of Christianity, does that perception make it more or less likely that he will share information with other Christians? When a Muslim reads yet another anti-Islamic Daniel Pipes article, do you think he suddenly feels compelled to give up his religion and dedicate his life to finding Muslim terrorists? Allow me one last example: when a Muslim reads that his government's top legal advisor believes that the executive branch may spy on Americans without any checks and balances and realizes it means that his communications will be more heavily scrutinized than other Americans, does that make him more loyal or less loyal to America?

Each and every time a Muslim reads an ignorant statement about his religion or about the government spying on a mosque, he trusts his government less. This is a natural reaction. Anyone who believes his fellow citizens think he is not fully American because of his religion or ethnicity will probably isolate himself or associate only with people with similar backgrounds. This logical reaction--to withdraw and self-segregate--leads to less interaction, less openness, and less trust between Americans. We can prove that singling out people based on their religion or ethnic background leads to distrust and a lack of national allegiance by recognizing France's inability to assimilate its Muslim population. The French are notorious for believing that Muslims are not truly French and for attempting to restrict the exercise of Islamic modesty. As a result, in France, discrimination against Muslims is commonplace, which has led to riots. In America, law enforcement's disparate treatment of African-Americans caused riots, including the Watts Riots. (Note: despite America's participation in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and Iraq, America has not experienced any Muslim riots.)

When Mr. Yoo proposes to ignore the Constitution during wartime, he's saying it is acceptable to antagonize certain groups and make them less loyal to America during a time when we need all Americans to be more loyal. In order to maximize our chances of gaining viable intelligence regarding suspicious activity, it is vital that all Americans, regardless of their religion or ethnic background, feel loyal to their country and their government. Thus, in the real world, Mr. Yoo's proposed Constitutional interpretation restricts information about potential terrorists by weakening loyalty and increasing distrust of government, making us less safe.

Also, practical consequences aside, if Mr. Yoo is legally correct, why did America's founders specifically include a warrant requirement in the 4th Amendment if they believed the executive branch could freely spy on American citizens during wartime? The founders could have included a wartime exception within the 4th Amendment. They did not.

There is another problem with Mr. Yoo's argument. He states that in wartime, the President may bypass Constitutional safeguards to protect the American people because war requires quick action; however, post-9-11, the United States declared war on "terrorism," not a specific country. Such a war could last another hundred years or more. Without any oversight, who decides when the war is over and how to erase personal information gathered during the surveillance? Does the executive branch get to keep all the personal information it has gathered for the next wartime emergency? Without continuing oversight, who decides what information to keep, how to protect that information, and what information should be erased? What if Congress decides a war is over, but the President disagrees? If the executive branch believes an attack is imminent but does not want to share information with Congress, may it spy on Americans without a warrant? Most important, without a warrant procedure, who decides when to stop surveillance? After East Germany's experience with the Stasi, you would think that an educated person like Mr. Yoo would realize the need for safeguards.

Mr. Yoo's belief that the executive branch may ignore the 4th Amendment during wartime would be more reasonable if the FISA courts were unduly interfering with the terrorism investigations. In reality, FISA courts have rubber-stamped the government's requests for a warrant. From 1979 to 2006, FISA courts approved all but nine wiretapping applications. (See here for the statistics.)

While Mr. Yoo's basic premise is correct--the 4th Amendment is indeed cumbersome--from a practical and legal standpoint, his interpretation of the Constitution makes us all less safe. What is most interesting about Mr. Yoo is his utter lack of self-awareness. One of the most serious threats to the United States right now is North Korea. Mr. Yoo is ethnically Korean. If North Korea attacks Hawaii, will Mr. Yoo mind if the government spies on him and his family, unmolested by the 4th Amendment? He probably won't. Anyone who interprets the Constitution in such a way that approves of an American version of the Stasi clearly expects to be the one doing the monitoring, not ever the one being monitored. Perhaps Mr. Yoo, with his government connections, is more self-aware than I give him credit for.

Bonus: information from wiretapping isn't necessarily helpful. The following newstory further indicates that loyal citizens and their willingness to communicate with the government are essential elements of any effective counter-terrorism operation. From CNN:

Friday's report found that the intelligence gathered [from Bush's wiretapping program] was only a small part of counterterrorism work, and most intelligence officials interviewed for the report had trouble "citing specific instances where PSP reporting had directly contributed to counterterrorism successes."

Bonus: ROBERT FISK: No, not at all. Look, over and over again, we’ve been told about the enormous sophistication of the intercepts and the surveillance and the satellite pictures and so on. So why have they not got bin Laden 'til now? They were after him when I first met him in 1994. And then they were after him in 1996 when I met him. And then they were after him in 1997. If they have all this information, why didn't they use it? I’m sure they have bits and pieces. But, you see, the problem is that the Americans are blind on the ground. They don’t have—I love these phrases—HUMINT, human intelligence, on the ground in Afghanistan.

Religious Biases Coming Back?

Brad Greenberg writes a great article on racism and religious bias:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0227/p09s01-coop.html

Though some Jewish money managers have proved to be scoundrels at best, like Shylock, it is not because they are Jewish – just as Christianity did not inspire Ken Lay to cheat Enron's shareholders. Indeed, Jews may be the easy historical target, but scapegoating misses the moral of our own failures. The real responsibility lies with all of us.

More from Mr. Greenberg can be found here.

Also, from the NYT, here are some interesting survey results about American Muslims:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/us/02muslims.html

One excerpt, showing the diversity within Islam:

But American Muslims are not one homogeneous group, the study makes clear. Asian-American Muslims (from countries like India and Pakistan) have more income and education and are more likely to be thriving than other American Muslims. In fact, their quality of life indicators are higher than for most other Americans, except for American Jews...

American Muslims are generally very religious, saying that religion is an important part of their daily lives (80 percent), more than any other group except Mormons (85 percent). The figure for Americans in general is 65 percent.

By political ideology, Muslims were spread across the spectrum from liberal to conservative, with about 4 in 10 saying they were moderates. By party identification, Muslims resembled Jews more than any other religious group, with small minorities registered as Republicans, roughly half Democrats and about a third independents.

The poll shows that American Muslims tend to be diverse, highly educated, religious, and Democratic.

NYT Article on Credit Card Debt

The NYT has an outstanding series on debt ("The Debt Trap"). Today's article was about ballooning credit card debt in Turkey (Landler, "Credit Cards Tighten Grip Outside U.S."). Most European citizens, until recently, used debit cards, not credit cards, so Turkey's acceptance of credit cards is unusual. 

Here are some facts from the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/business/worldbusiness/10card.html 

1. Outstanding credit card debt in Turkey ballooned to nearly 18 billion dollars in 2007. 

Before any Americans start gloating, here is a link to our consumer credit numbers--and yes, that's in billions of dollars, and percentage-wise, we're in the same boat as Turkey, a country that recently had to pay over 15% on its bonds/Treasuries to get buyers: 

http://www.federalreserve.gov/Releases/g19/current/ 

(The Federal Reserve tracks outstanding revolving consumer debt in its "G19" release. What is revolving consumer debt? It's mostly credit card debt. The G19 stats include all outstanding balances outstanding, including balances from people who pay off their debt at the end of the month, not just those who have continuous balances.) 

2. Cute Turkish proverb re: risk-taking: "Stretch your leg only as far as your blanket." 

3. South Korea at one point, prior to nationalizing some banks/issuers, had a 28% default rate. South Korea had 148 million credit cards. South Korea's population at the time was only 49 million people. 

Unrelated note about our FBI and wonderful national security people: the same 8/10/08 NYT has an article about closing the anthrax case (page 17). We now know the perpetrator/terrorist was probably an American-born Christian. The FBI, in its infinite wisdom, reflexively targeted Muslims, in this case, Pakistani-born residents, including one American citizen. (Makes sense. We all know Pakistani Muslims have a long history of using anthrax in America, right? Wait...) The FBI apparently asked these suspects, who worked for the city, "What do you think about 9/11?" (Because if you're a terrorist with half a brain, this is the question that will get a confession or relevant admission about anthrax.) Here's a chilling line about how the FBI works:

[A]n [FBI] agent pointed a gun through an open window at [the suspect's] home while others knocked down the front door as his wife was cooking in the kitchen. 

Here's where it gets really tragic. Two of the Pakistanis were non-citizens. Their visas expired, and they had to find work abroad. As for the remaining Pakistani-born citizen suspect, every time he traveled to Canada to see his brother, he was searched and interrogated for up to two hours, and his name was put on a watch list. 

Congrats, FBI. With friends like you, who needs enemies to sully the name of America? 

As for Bruce Ivins, the white American-born Christian-raised anthrax suspect who killed himself, may you burn a slow death in the lowest levels of hell. 

I am of course specifying Ivins' racial and religious background. Aren't racial and religious traits relevant in understanding why people commit evil acts? More important, has President Bush declared a War against Chemicals yet? Do we need a new security agency to handle these chemical issues? There are millions of chemical compounds just waiting to be unleashed on Americans. Should we petition the government to open a Department of Chemical Security? Something must be done. Perhaps we should spend billions of taxpayer dollars restricting chemicals from entering the hands of American-born citizens to prevent future terrorist incidents. For more information, or to register your comments, write the government at 

Attn: George Orwell 

Ministry of Peace 

1984 Ave. 

Washington, D.C. 20500 

And don't forget: War is Peace. 

For more on this topic, check out this earlier post:

http://willworkforjustice.blogspot.com/2008/06/terrorism-socialism-and-danger-of.html