Naeem's Blog

Dear Imam Johari,

You probably don’t remember me. Actually, I’m certain you don’t. I think I’ve met you only twice; once at an MSA Iftar dinner we shared a table, and the other time I attended a campfire lecture you gave at Dar al-Taqwa, where, I might add, you displayed quite a beautiful voice in singing some nasheeds.

And eventhough we’ve only met twice, I’ve known you for quite some time, as is true for most of the American Muslim community. Your reputation precedes itself and I humbly acknowledge that your years of service at the national level for the cause of Islam dwarf my meager local community efforts of years past.

And that is why it has pained me to read your past few posts.

You started with an open declaration calling for Muslims to adopt the principle of non-violence. Surely, non-violence has its place in a larger movement of resistance, but it cannot be its sole strategy. There must be, as it always has been, space at the table for resistance by force. Surely, you are intimately aware of the American civil rights struggle with the existence of the black power effort in conjunction with the non-violence movement. Also, armed resistance played a significant role in the other example you cited, the South African anti-apartheid struggle.

And the same type of armed resistance has been playing a vital role in defying the authoritarian control of Israel over both the Palestinians as well as Lebanon. It can be argued that if not for the constant thorn-pricking by Hamas (in Gaza) and Hezbollah (in South Lebanon), Israeli forces would still be firmly established in those territories.

Dear Imam Johari, you would be well served to read this excellent piece by Max Ajl on the inability of a purely non-violent movement to affect positive change, especially in the I/P conflict.

“But the sort of non-violence Taylor supports is the sort that castrates resistance, and takes resistance out of the realm of history and into the realm of religion. What would Taylor have recommended to the Vietnamese? There is nothing nefarious about defending oneself from armed attack. Making it nefarious writes the Palestinian right to resist out of history, reserving righteous violence and force for the Western powers that already almost monopolize it.”

As the writer notes, look at the emasculated example of the MV Rachel Corrie, the June 5 ship that attempted to break the Gaza blockade. The IDF swiftly diverted the ship and the activists quietly complied with nary a cry. How effective was that?

In your call for non-violence you have mysteriously conflated the issue of illegitimate violence (e.g. suicide bombings of civilians) with the strategic usage of force employed by resistance groups. While the former is clearly indefensible, the latter is essential in opposing oppression.

It is a bit dispiriting to hear from a prominent American Muslim leader as yourself the unconditional call for non-violence by the Palestinians, as if such tactics have never been employed by the weaker side. For years, non-violence has played a leading role in the resistance against Israeli aggression, especially with the increased participation of foreign peaceful organizations.

So, for you to state your thoughts as you have, you are (unknowingly) bolstering the argument that Israel is justified in its actions to defend itself against this delusional ‘barrage of violence’.

Surely, that is not a sentiment you wish to express.

Ajl sums it up in the end of his article: “Those who resisted violently were brave. Those who resisted non-violently were brave. All were right. All were just. Solidarity organizations can agree in advance to resist or not to resist, as Taylor instructs us. But most oppression in human history has been thrown off by horrible violence. Frankly, if a man has a gun pointed at my head on my own territory and has shot the person standing next to me, and I can disarm that man, I will disarm him. And there is something surreal, if not pitiful, to demand not only that I abjure that basic human response, but furthermore, abjure it when the gun is pointed not at my head but at the person standing next to me. Writing about it admittedly makes for good copy and good employment for those living and writing in Western countries where power is eager to dissolve an internationally-sanctioned right to resist. For those living under the gun, Taylor’s prescriptions may seem a little odder.”

My other grievance is with regards to your blog post on the topic of Imam Anwar Awlaki. You write that Islamic bookstores and other businesses should stop selling his famous lectures, such as Lives of the Prophets, due to his recent calls in support of unIslamic acts of violence. You cite your concern that innocent Muslims who may be positively affected by his lectures, which you acknowledge as being extremely beneficial, could be led down the slippery slope towards his more recent lectures advocating unIslamic acts of violence.

How ironic is it that your warning of a slippery slope is itself leading you down another slippery slope. If we begin to advocate the censoring of Islamically legitimate material due to questionable views held by the author, where will this take us? You are creating a precedent that can be used in future calls to ban such revolutionary authors such Syed Qutb or Maududi.

Surely, that is not a precedent you wish to set.

As intolerable as Imam Anwar’s views on suicide bombing may be, it is equally intolerable to censor his legitimate work in fear of leading astray the ‘naïve’ and ‘ignorant’.

This reeks of paternalistic totalitarianism. Because lay-Muslims are too stupid to tell right from wrong, the Muslim leadership must censor the good stuff from the bad stuff.

Huh?!

While we’re at it, let’s get rid of all the Shia material. And all that goofy Sufi stuff as well. These books could really lead people astray, no?

I’m sure you realize that such an approach is inconsistent with the principles of a free society.

Many know you as a man of serious principle and strong leadership. But I must say that your past few posts have come off as someone trying to appease more than lead. I don’t think even Fox News has made such demands of the Muslim American community. So why would you? Also, what gives with you admitting that you've learned from Steve Emerson? The clown journalist has no interest in creating a working relationship with the Muslim community, as evidenced by his obnoxiously condescending response to you, yet you are touting his approval?

These past few posts seem like some ill-conceived PR campaign attempting to win over the distrusting American public. ‘Hey, look at us American Muslims. We understand you all are afraid of us, so watch us bend over backwards to prove our allegiance by cutting all relations with this new bogeyman, Imam Anwar, no matter how positive his work may have been to thousands and thousands of young Muslims. And we won’t stop there. We’ll throw in a complete rejection of all forms of violence resistance, choosing the more acceptable (to the American Empire) approach of non-violence. Now can someone please call Michelle Malkin so we can schedule a nice photo-op?’

In conclusion, while my letter is addressed to you, my thoughts are not solely restricted to you. They are more intended to address a trend I am fearful may be growing in the American Muslim community in specific, and the international Muslim community at large. That is why I chose to share my thoughts on my humble blog instead of writing to you in private.

Your brother,
Naeem

I'm not looking to pick a fight here or anything. The only subject more overhyped in the Muslim blogosphere than polygamy is hijab, so I'm not looking to revisit all the pros and cons of multiple wives.

I just want to see what people think about this semi-hypothetical situation:

A 34-year old sister is living with her parents after years of failed attempts at finding a suitor. Her family hasn't helped as they've rejected a few applicants due to petty cultural issues. She's become so desperate at wanting a child that she recently adopted an orphan baby.

A few weeks ago, a respectable business man in the community approached the father with a proposal that would make the daughter his second wife. The father laughed at the idea, followed by an immediate rejection. When the father came home and brought it up with the family, the daughter, after pondering over the situation, apprehensively came to a similar conclusion.

I say apprehensively since she has seen the writing on her wall and marriage is clearly a distant possibility. She fretted at the thought of sharing her man with another woman, but countered it with the possibility of having her own natural children. She savored the possibility of living in her own home with her own man, but shut that door with the social stigma of being a second wife.

So in the end, she played it safe and accepted her parent's decision.

The thought that immediately comes to my mind is how oppressive is the father (as well as the society) that simply will not entertain the possibility of this woman becoming a co-wife.

If all parties involved (the man, the first wife, and this sister in question) are accepting of the situation, who the hell are people to judge this polygamous relationship? What kind of irresponsible father places his own social circumstances and fears before the well-being of his daughter?

I just don't get it.

Sh. Yasir Qadhi wrote a piece over at MuslimMatters presenting his new initiative (Like a Garment) to address sex-related problems plaguing many Western Muslim couples. He cites his experience in presenting various lectures and seminars, where many young Muslims expressed confusion and frustration in navigating the murky waters of intimate relations.

He mentioned three examples in his article:

1. A couple experimenting in questionable acts.
2. A wife complaining about her selfish husband who cares nothing for her sexual satisfaction.
3. Husbands frustrated by their wives' lack of sexual interest.

So after discovering the dearth of Islamic scholarly work on this subject, he decided to read up on the countless western studies and decided to Islamify them for consumption by his Muslim audiences.

Sh. Yasir reasons that such problems of intimacy are “compounded for most of us, since we as a modern generation of Muslims are caught between two cultures: the excessive ultra-conservatism of our parent’s culture (in which parents never even held hands in front of their kids, or addressed each other in endearing terms, or indeed showed any signs of being romantic), and the hyped over-sexuality and over-romanticism of the culture surrounding us (in which much happens in public that we’d rather not discuss).”

So, he’s claiming that the social dynamics are so completely different for Muslims in modern society that it necessitates a new approach to address the challenges of their sexual problems.

Is it me or are the three examples he cited problems that have existed since the dawn of time and not merely specific to the modern generation of Muslims?

Married couples have been struggling with these issues for generations. I don’t see anything so problematic that it warrants such a focused attention.

Nothing modern about these issues.

What is modern is this self-serving need to talk about everything. We are the Oprah/Dr. Phil-generation. We need to open up and express our emotions and share our frustrations and analyze everything, even our most intimate of problems.

I’m not comfortable with this position.

What makes us believe that the problems related to intimacy found in our generation are so special that they need to be addressed in a manner different from what ALL the generations before practiced?

For ages, couples have dealt with these issues in the privacy of their homes or in extreme cases, in a private session with a respected elder.

But not us. We need to publicly discuss sensitive issues, such as masturbation, orgasms, and vibrators.

The lack of public sexual discourse found in Muslims societies is not a deficiency. I counter that it’s a strength. After all, with all this openness found in Western society, how has it improved their marriages?

Caught in this intersection between two cultures, we’re sadly choosing the ways of our newly adopted culture where it’s completely acceptable to openly discuss sex, while arrogantly tossing aside centuries of tradition and custom, marked by this most essential of characteristics, Haya (bashfulness).

Haya dictates that not every problem of intimacy needs to be addressed. Haya teaches us that getting the absolute maximum sexual pleasure does not take precedence over social propriety and modesty. Haya teaches us that problems created in the bedroom should be fixed in the bedroom.

Let me clarify that when I refer to problems, I speak not of modern-day perversions that are destroying marriages, such as porn, romance novels, and Facebook. Issues born from these sicknesses, as complex as they are, can be addressed either in the conventional manner, as detailed in this timely article posted at Imam Suhaib Webb’s site, or with the expertise of a marriage counselor.

And I’m not just picking on Sh. Yasir’s project. I have similar misgivings with programs like the one hosted by the Egyptian ‘Dr. Ruth’, Hoda Kotb, who shocked the Muslim world several years ago with her TV program ‘Big Talk’ in which she discusses sensitive issues. The sex therapist admitted that "Five years ago, I'd see two or three patients a week. Today, I'm booked three months ahead."

Some may conclude from her statement that modern couples are indeed having more problems in bed. On the contrary, I think it’s just that they’ve found an outlet receptive to their questions and frustrations.

Parents, elder siblings, and close friends simply don’t care about your bedroom antics. So in this day and age, where sexual prowess is critical to one’s identity, couples are insistent on finding a solution and thus these initiatives are taking hold in our communities.

Sex just isn’t that complicated. If village dwellers can figure it out, why can’t the modern Muslim generation?

I guess I’m just old school. I say to couples interested in improving their sex life exactly what my father told me before I got married.

Nothing.

My friend Marc Manley responded to my recent post on the scourge of Secular Capitalist Islam for which I’m greatly honored. Its always nice to get critical feedback, whether in the form of comments on my blog, emails in my Inbox, or dedicated blog posts.

So I will respond to his response in kind – with a post of my own.

I will begin with a clarification, one that I feel is a bit unnecessary. I made overarching generalizations in my original post. I realize that. But it should have been clear that everything I stated is applicable to those cases where the ‘shoe fits’.

I am completely aware of the existence of American Muslims who are NOT giving in to the secular capitalistic way of life and are NOT willing to sacrifice any Islamic principles in the molding of their American Muslim identity. They have not deceived themselves into believing in the validity of the Secular Capitalist Islam that I spoke of so critically. They are not the target of my critique.

Did I really need to explicitly state that? I guess so.

Now, let me address the contentions of the good brother, beginning with his comparison of American Islam in its infancy to the growing pains that Muslims must have gone through in ‘traditional’ Muslim outlets such as Egypt, Morocco, or Pakistan.

“It is very easy and convenient to think of Egypt as a Muslim country now, but what was Egypt’s transition like, from a non-Muslim polity to a Muslim one? What struggles did Egypt have to go through to negotiate this transformation? Even to this day, there are folk holidays still in practice such as Shams an-Nasim.”

In my original post, I alluded to this point when I stated that “[American Islam] is NOT Islamic with simply an American twist, like what may be found in China or Indonesia or Africa – those instances of Islam were never born in such a hostile environment (to Islam in specific and religion in general), necessitating great conciliatory gestures from its followers”.

I am convinced that when Islam was introduced in the cases that I mentioned as well as Marc’s examples it was a completely different experience than what we are witnessing in America. The power politics were simply not the same, which makes the comparison between then and now as day and night.

Historically, Muslims never entered into a land except as victors. They never suffered from inferiority complexes. They rode into those lands with their heads high and their core values even higher. The indigenous non-Muslim masses were scrambling to adopt the ways of the Muslims in order to “jump on the bandwagon” of the winning side.

Need I ask, who is jumping on whose bandwagon nowadays?

And in those rare cases, where they were not the conquering force (e.g. Indonesia), they were not entering a hostile environment, where their beliefs were being demonized and their traditions were being belittled. Theirs was a pre-modern time where principled religious beliefs were celebrated and embraced, in stark contrast to the current-day atmosphere which finds an anti-religion secular worldview proudly boasted in America.

In such challenging circumstances, where not only Islam, but religion in general is under attack, how can American Islam be nurtured and allowed to blossom *on its own terms*? In such a charged environment, where American Muslims are told to choose a side, how can American Islam genuinely develop its own character? It is naïve to remove the political context from the equation when analyzing the introduction of Islam into new lands.

The other point that Marc brought up was the typical counter-argument presented whenever Muslims in America are criticized – “Well, look at the Muslims in [choose any Muslim country]. They’re even worse than us!”

Living here in Riyadh, I’ll be the first to admit that crass consumerism has hit the shores of Saudi Arabia in a disgusting way. And sadly, this is the case all over the Muslim world. Muslims are falling over each other to talk, walk, dress, and act like their Hollywood heroes. The ‘tradition’ of the West, as glorified in the media and the web, is being replicated all over the Muslim world.

But the key difference is that Muslims in these lands are not sacrificing their Islamic identity in pursuit of this hollow lifestyle. As repulsive as it may be to see Muslims opting for gaudy Bentleys and Guccis, jet-setting in Europe, and clubbing in Dubai, no one is attempting to incorporate these social mores into a new flavor of Islam.

And that is my greatest fear – an Islam that has taken such conciliatory steps in order to assimilate with its adopted culture that it has sacrificed core Islamic principles.

Yes, all the illnesses found in American Muslims are becoming apparent in Muslims around the world. But these other Muslims are not in the formative stage of their Islamic identity, this most critical stage in the development of a child, a people, or a civilization. These other Muslims have centuries of Islamic tradition to fall back on, when faced with a philosophical crisis. These other Muslims have Islamic institutions built on principles of truth, not compromise. These other Muslims never had to concern themselves with conflicting loyalties between their adopted nation and their deen.

What of the American Muslims?

Stuck in a crumbling marriage with Billy Bob, poor Mary Lou is constantly wavering between the lows of physical violence and the highs of sweet love - abundantly showered on her by a suddenly remorseful husband.

While she knows that Billy Bob loves her to death, a fact unrealized by her friends and family, she fears those moments when his inner demons incite him to let loose on her petite frame.

Like that evening last weekend, when little Johnny broke daddy's favorite beer mug. Mary Lou pleaded in vain, begging her high school sweetheart to simply buy another mug. But the backlash was swift and severe. Billy Bob’s eyes turned bright red and with one fell swoop, he planted Mary Lou on her back with a deep blue bruise on her side to serve as memorabilia.

Or like the time two weeks ago, when Betty Sue from down the street dropped by for an unannounced visit. While she may be as nice as apple pie on a Sunday afternoon, Betty Sue just doesn't know when to quit talking. So she ended up leaving right before Billy Bob came home, causing Mary Lou to rush dinner; and in her haste, she burned the casserole.

Billy Bob didn’t take too kindly to the sentiment. She tried to explain that Betty Sue the neighborhood chatterbox had come over unexpectedly but that only increased his fury, resulting in a ferocious slap to the back and a quick punch to the face.

Pastor Buck has regularly provided them with counseling, constantly calling on Billy Bob to withhold quick judgments and temper his anger – but to no avail. The beating has only intensified at every perceived slight to his fragile manhood.

Mayor Jones even got involved, at the behest of Mary Lou’s mother. But no bigwig from Town Hall, driving a big car and spouting even bigger words in some official statement is changin’ Billy Bob’s wayward ways.

Mary Lou’s family has consistently pleaded for her to leave the scoundrel. The gifts he showers you with are no consolation for the misery he has heaped upon you, they cry. But she keeps holding out, in hopes that next time Billy Bob’s tears will be genuine and his promise to rehabilitate himself will be legitimate.

*****

The more I think about it, the more I can’t help but compare the plight of the American Muslim community to the sufferings of poor Mary Lou.

In the postmortem analysis of the tragic shootings in Texas, the situation bears an uncanny resemblance to the tension felt moments before an abusive husband’s foreseeable outburst:

1. An unfortunate incident involving Muslims has lit the fire in the American landscape with media talking heads inciting the masses to question every American Muslims' loyalties.

2. Leaders of the Muslim community have come out with all sorts of statements in hopes of forestalling an Islamophobic backlash.

3. Politicians and religious leaders have released official statements calling on the American community to temper bottled-up frustrations and withhold judging the wider Muslim American community.

4. All the while, American Muslims are legitimately fearful of the impending backlash from the wider American citizenry with whom they wish simply to coexist peacefully.

And this sad cycle has repeated itself countless number of times since the inception of the Global War on Terror.

So the question remains – Should Mary Lou leave this roller coaster relationship with Billy Bob or cling to the hope that they can find a way to coexist and maybe even live happily ever after?

Al-Jazeera recently exposed some US military personnel distributing Bibles and spreading the Gospel to locals in Afghanistan. The US Army denied the report citing quotes taken out of context and an overall misunderstanding, stating that "it is not our position to push any specific kind of religion."

Al-Jazeera fired back with this article, including an unedited video clip of various chaplains discussing their 'strategy'.

While this mindset is a bit annoying, I just don't get all the uproar over this sort of military preaching. What's the big deal? Isn't that what conquering forces do? Muslim forces did the same thing for centuries. Why should we cry foul?

What pisses me off is the absurd stance taken by the US Army. Why deny the existence of missionary efforts? It's such a farce how they present themselves as some benign, humane army, respectful of local customs and religions.

Get off your high horse. You people are no better than any other conquering force.

You see, I'm really not worried about folks in the Muslim world changing religions. I'm more bothered by the cultural and economical proselytizing that's long been taking place in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The US Forces are not Christian crusaders on a mission to convert or kill, as much as they're foot soldiers for free market capitalism and liberal values antithetical to local cultures.

If anything, THAT should be our greater concern.

Here's a very interesting article over at Christian Science Monitor on 10 terms not to use with Muslims. It includes common buzz words like secular, jihadi, and reformation.

I was going to write down my thoughts but Dunner beat me to it. Do check out his post. For example, here's JD's take on the term Moderate:

"Moderate" - "Moderate Muslim" isn't necessarily a bad term per se, but the real problem is that for most non-Muslims, a "moderate Muslim" really means a "secular Muslim." The way non-Muslims talk about Muslims, there's little to no difference between an observant Muslim (one who prays, fasts, etc.) and the al-Qaida types. That's what makes "moderate Muslim" such an offensive term. It doesn't help matters when governments promote this type of thinking, such as in the recently leaked British documents that "define" who is an extremist Muslim. (According to the British criteria, I qualify as an "extremist," an idea I find patently absurd.)

My one additional comment is on the term 'clash of civilizations'. Here is the excerpt from the CSM article:

'1. "The Clash of Civilizations." Invariably, this kind of discussion ends up with us as the good guy and them as the bad guy. There is no clash of civilizations, only a clash between those who are for civilization, and those who are against it. Civilization has many characteristics but two are foundational: 1) It has no place for those who encourage, invite, and/or commit the murder of innocent civilians; and 2) It is defined by institutions that protect and promote both the minority and the transparent rule of law.'

The author starts off by dismissing the entire good vs evil paradigm that was popularized by W Bush. Good start.

But then he props it right back up when he creates his own two sides of civilization - one that's made up of murderers of innocent civilians and the other consisting of institutions that protect minorities while upholding the rule of law.

Interesting, but what about the institutions who maintain their selective 'rule of law' while murdering innocent civilians?

It's extremely naive of him to suggest that the institutions he refers to are 'for civilization' while the evidence clearly indicates that those very institutions have a bloody track record of murdering civilians.

The clash of civilizations does exist. But its less ideological (Islam vs West) and more economical (North vs South). It's between the haves and the have-nots, most of whom just happen to inhabit the Muslim world. As long as the powerful continue to loot the lands and rape the resources of the powerless while maintaining control with despotic, proxy rulers, there will always be a clash.

Let's not kid ourselves.