Naeem's Blog

‘What do you want to be when you grow up?’*

This oft-repeated question heard across countless primary schools quite nicely sums up the problem with schooling. For the purpose of school is not about what you want to achieve when you grow up or how you want to improve society, but about which career path you wish to choose. The purpose of schooling is to get you a job. The purpose is to create cogs for the economic machinery – you may become a dull cog (garbage man, waiter, teacher) or a shiny cog (lawyer, doctor), but cogs you will all become.

Schooling creates career professionals. This is pounded into students from day one with the constant question of what you want to become.

This is the major concern for high schoolers when they choose a university to attend.
This is the major concern at the university level when students choose which degree to pursue.
And this is the major concern when the college student graduates and ‘enters’ into society.

Education has always taken a back to seat to careerism.

After all, every society has its own barometer of success. Hunter-gatherer societies placed a premium on those with adept hunting skills. Societies based on warfare deemed an individual with excellent fighting skills as successful. Tribal societies perceived strength in numbers, so a large number of sons was considered invaluable. In our modern capitalist society, one who has a ‘nice job’ and thus has accrued the most wealth is considered most successful.

But as Muslims, we have our divinely-sanctioned definition of success – faith and piety. Regardless of how good or bad we may be at hunting, fighting, or shopping, our success is measured by our level of spiritual development and servitude to our Lord.

And so, schools have failed at developing humans and have merely become the gatekeepers for the job-based professional economy as well as the national military. They have perfected the means for churning out ‘human resources’, citizens pliant enough to subserviently fit into the capitalistic model or become unquestioning soldiers in the battlefield. Schools excel at producing eager consumers and smoothly functioning bureaucrats.

Additionally, I am convinced that sending our kids off to school for 8 hours a day to be raised by complete strangers contaminates the parent-child bond. It plants the seed of deviation away from the parent’s thought-process. It paves the way for the child to accept, maybe even celebrate, a difference of opinion with his parents.

Once this reverence is corrupted, the child ceases to see the parents as sources of guidance deserving ultimate respect, viewing them instead as guardians charged merely with the child’s physical well-being and sustenance. The influence and sovereignty of the parents is eventually replaced by outside institutions such as school, government, or pop-culture.

Instead of impressing upon them the importance of family, religion, and community (social values that schools of the past focused on), modern day schooling hammers into our children’s minds that the most important goal is to get into a good college. And they must get into a good college in order to get a good job. And they must get a good job so as to live a comfortable life.

And that, my fellow readers, is the crux of the schooling failure.

The essential goal of schooling is materialistic success. Anything more is icing on the cake. Enlightening of the child’s mind, if it occurs, is merely accidental. To say otherwise is naïve at best.

I’m choosing not to be naïve.

----------
*I ranted in a previous post on my issues with a similar socio-cultural phenomenon - the casual question of 'What do you do?'

Having two school-age children (ages 12 and 10), education is of the utmost importance to me. I have sent both of them to school since KG and after years of persistent frustration, I have come to the conclusion that modern-day schooling is one of the greatest wastes of time.

I am convinced that schools are in the business of training, not educating, our children - in the same manner that animals are trained. Schools are factories of mass human training. They replicate the industrial model found in automated factories, churning out graduates in the same way factories churn out cars or laptops.

Schools produce graduates, not human beings. Schools excel at preparing their end-product for a capitalistic life in modern society. Schools provide a hierarchical education for a hierarchical society, embodied by the cubicle corporate lifestyle. Schools are perfect at producing docile, obedient citizens content with the status quo. Schools fill the role of creating cogs necessary for the machinery of society.

Schools do not engender a strong family or culture or religion. In fact, they undermine all of the above, replacing them instead with loyalty to the self, nation, and institutions.

The potential of most every child is stunted by this schooling system. I refer not to the ‘educational’ potential – that potential measured by report cards and SAT scores. Rather, I refer to the human potential – that potential to be a complete Adamic human being, who understands the true nature of the universe in ways the angels cannot even comprehend.

Our humanity is measured by more than grades and report cards. Life is more than homework and tests. Knowledge is more than some concocted curriculum taught at school.

Children and young adults need to understand man’s place in the universe. They need to actualize the higher purposes of life. They need to learn about the spiritual even more than the physical. They need to embody higher morals and ethics.

And this is not material that can be covered a few hours a week at Sunday schools. These subjects are the crux of our very being and yet, we have all accepted a model of education where these fundamentals are given lip service at our local Masjid. We have silently fallen in line with the rest of society, choosing to focus our children’s intellectual efforts on worldly studies.

And it’s not as if the schools excel in the worldly studies. In addition to the incredible absence of spiritual guidance, the schooling system fails to prepare children for the real world. Schools leave them disconnected, existing in a created space dedicated purely to children.

We fail to engage our children in mature topics, viewing them as mere receptacles for useless information such as Social Studies, Health, and Language Arts. When will they learn the affairs of the adult world? We coddle them in a manner that stunts their maturation process, leaving us with 23-year old adults playing video games and watching UFC.

Manufactured concepts, such as teens and tweens, thrive and take over the mind of young adults, robbing them of their productive place in greater society. Instead they are relegated to the periphery, in classrooms and study halls, playing nary a role in society at large.

After years of schooling my own children in this failed system, I have cast aside the artificial importance placed on my child’s ability to memorize data and regurgitate it for testing purposes. I have rejected all the counterproductive efforts required for homework, school projects, and exams. While the schooling system may prepare my child for the next grade or a good college or a good job, it fails miserably at producing a complete human being.

So I’m choosing to focus on educating my children instead of training them. Maybe they won’t become ‘successful’ engineers or lawyers or doctors (only a small percentage of all schooled children actually do), but my definition of success is not dictated by mainstream society.

I must admit that I was (naively?) shocked to read this recent article stating the enormously high divorce rate. I had heard about divorce skyrocketing in recent times, but I never imagined it was this high.

Without getting into any deep socio-psycho analysis of the Saudi landscape, I can say that it actually isn't very surprising.

The two genders live in completely separate universes, intermixing only in forbidden encounters or after marriage. For the most part, they have created lives devoid of the other. The males go out for nightly coffee sessions and weekend desert forays while the females busy themselves at the malls and salons, if and when they are allowed out.

In and of itself, the mere separation of activities by gender in the pre-marital years does not lead to a failed marriage.

But when these activities persist after marriage, with the husband and wife insisting on the continuation of their pre-marital lifestyle, the bonds of marriage are never afforded a rich soil wherein the roots can flourish and strengthen.

In my own experience, it’s not uncommon to see young married men going out with the guys almost every night, while the wives are at home tending to the young children.

And then there is the trend of many young Saudi women having lofty expectations that their male counterparts simply cannot fulfill. From the need for a villa to a housemaid and a driver to an expense account beyond the fiscal capacity of the husband, Saudi women can be very costly to maintain.

Also, the education disparity between the genders must also be considered. While many Saudi women are completing their degrees and even continuing onto graduate school (after all, they have not much else to do), many Saudi men struggle to finish college, busying themselves with questionable business ventures as well as social misadventures.

Finally, other more seedy variables, such as homosexuality and pornography, are surely playing an unwelcome role in the divorce phenomenon.

All in all, it’s a very sad situation, with the next generation of Saudis (ie. the children) being the biggest losers.

I highly recommend this article titled, 'How Eating at Home Can Save Your Life'. The writer doesn't just rail against fast-food restaurants, but stresses the importance of 'the ecology of eating', which includes knowing what foods you eat, preparing the various dishes, and enjoying it together as a family.

I particularly found the Family Dinner suggestion to be on-point, especially since we practice all the suggested guidelines in our own home:

"Reinstate the Family Dinner

Read Laurie David's "The Family Dinner". She suggests the following guidelines: Make a set dinnertime, no phones or texting during dinner, everyone eats the same meal, no television, only filtered or tap water, invite friends and family, everyone clean up together."

The institution of the family dinner that we saw as recent as a generation ago, is slowly withering away. Eating a meal is now seen as a biological function that is more efficiently carried out with a 'quick bite', as opposed to the more time-consuming family dinner that places everyone's life on a collective 'pause' and presents us with an amazing social opportunity and family-bonding experience.

Savoring the company of one's family over a meal is infinitely more valuable than savoring the meal itself. Unfortunately, the utilitarian mindset that is overtaking the world prevents us from appreciating this fact.

So I’m reading this must-read article in the Wall Street Journal, ‘Chinese Mothers are Superior’, about the way Chinese mothers raise their children in a strict, disciplinarian manner with high standards - in stark contrast to the Western method of coddling and appeasing the child’s self-esteem. I must admit that eventhough I’m convinced of the benefits found in the former approach, I’m guilty of practicing the latter. Not sure if my American sensibilities get in the way or if it's my wife’s guilt trips, but for the most part I find myself regularly letting my kids off the hook. I seriously need to commit myself to the more effective Chinese approach but with the most critical element of Islam and spirituality injected into the mix.

Anyways, I somehow end up reading this other WSJ article discussing a parenting revolution taking place in China where the current generation of parents are leaning towards a more liberal approach to raising children. As cited in the article, one of the top-selling books in China, titled ‘A Good Mom Is Better Than a Good Teacher’, “encourages independence and freedom while cautioning parents against overprotecting their children.” This revolutionary parenting advice of nurturing independent thought and questioning authority are cornerstones of Western thought and fly directly in the face of traditional Chinese parenting techniques.

And then I recall seeing a recent news report about countless elderly Chinese parents living a life of isolation and seclusion. And so to curb this negative trend, the Chinese courts have allowed these parents to sue their children for neglect and disregard.

The first thing that springs to my mind, admittedly as an outsider, is the seeming disintegration of basic Chinese values that I have long admired. The Far East was a land where elders were respected and children knew their place. Granted, these values defining the child-parent relationship are essentially ‘Eastern’, found throughout the Muslim world and Africa as well, but China has always been the embodiment of all things East.

Sadly, it is truly indicative of the times we live in, where the tentacles of the Western lifestyle are not sparing any nation or land. China is just the latest in the list of casualties.

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.

I was appalled by this recent article where the columnist actually recommends couples (married or not) spice up their sex life by engaging in public sex:

“The point is, the fear of getting caught -- combined with the thrill of being naughty by taking things out of the bedroom -- can really ramp up your sex life.”

Disgusting, yet expected.

Surely I am not the only one who immediately thought of these Prophetic warnings of the Last Day:

Narrated Anas (RAA) Allah's Messenger (SAW) said, "From among the portents of the Hour are (the following) …There will be prevalence of open illegal sexual intercourse." (Bukhari)

“The Last Hour will not be established until they (wicked people) commit adultery on the roads.” (Ibn Habban)

And finally a last narration, for which I couldn’t find the exact text, where the Prophet (saw) warned that the Last Day will not arrive until the wicked are engaging in public fornication like donkeys.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with the term ‘rubbernecker’, it refers to those depraved individuals who, while driving by a car accident, quickly turn their necks back and forth just so they can catch a glimpse of the wreckage. And to top it off, in the process of their gawking, they’re forced to slow down their car which inevitably results in a traffic jam.

I find it very unsympathetic of these schmucks to find some sort of viewing pleasure as they pass by the remains of someone else’s misery.

I can only imagine the frustrations felt by those involved in the accident. Adding insult to the injury caused by the crash, they have to stand there and endure the humiliation of becoming an unreluctant circus act for hundreds of passing viewers.

Why don’t these heartless souls just hand the victims a top hat and cane so they can at least dress for the part?

Sheesh.

And that’s not the worst of it.

You’ve all the heard the quip when someone is caught staring at somebody else, the person will respond, ‘Hey buddy, why don’t you take a picture? It’ll last longer’.

Well, some folks took that suggestion literally.

I’ve seen people here in Saudi Arabia, where I have witnessed more gruesome accidents than I wish to discuss, slow down their cars to the point where they can take out their phone and snap a few quick pics of the shocking scene.

Such an insensitive act is a serious invasion of the victim’s moment of grief and misfortune.

I shared my thoughts with some co-workers and they both felt I was being too sensitive. They reasoned that as long as the pics aren’t of the people involved and aren’t being taken to make light of the situation, it’s no big deal.

Really?! Where is the humanity???

I find such logic lacking in compassion and simple courtesy.

Or am I simply being too sensitive here?

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.

I recently discussed my experiences with weaning my kids off the TV. Yeah, I know, it really shouldn't that hard. Just throw the stupid thing out!

I know some families who have done exactly that. Kudos to them, I say. One day I hope to do the same.

But then I see these same folks giving their children free reign on the Internet. I see them buying their kids hand-held video games (Nintendo DS, PSP). I see them buying them fancy cell phones. I see them buying them iPods.

What in the world are they thinking?!

This attitude exposes their shallow understanding of the evils of the TV. Or their shallow understanding of their children's Tarbiya (spiritual development).

They hear all the talk of rejecting the TV and they obediently throw it out. But since they haven't heard any lectures condemning netbooks, Facebook, cellphones, and iPods, they mysteriously figure those items must be okay.

Huh?!

How is tuning into Youtube any different than tuning into TV? How is it any better having your kids glued to the laptop instead of glued to the TV set? What do you expect to teach your kids with their ears plugged into MP3 players or fingers texting away on cellphones, WHILE YOU'RE SITTING IN THE SAME FREAKIN' ROOM WITH THEM?!?!

Do you seriously need a fatwa to tell you that this other stuff is just as harmful for your kids as a television set?

I guess some people just need to be spoon-fed their religion.

(Sigh)

Someone please find me a fatwa against the new iPad before these folks buy one for their kids. :-/

I remember from days long past, trying to be the first to yell 'Shotgun!' in an attempt to get the front passenger seat. The one rule governing this childish antic is that one must *see* the car in order to win the position. So my siblings and I would quickly throw on our shoes and run outside, screaming 'Shotgun!' at the top of our lungs.

Of course, the fun of being in the front quickly subsided when we discovered that it was rather easy for our father to grab our ears when we were situated right next to him.

And so, it is with that quaint memory that I read the question posed by a brother who recently commented:

"who sits beside the husband in the car? wife or mother?"

My initial gut reaction would be to have them compete for it the old-fashioned way (by shouting 'Shotgun!'), but in case my mother won, that would make it easier for her to grab my ear for having the audacity to ask her to play this silly game.

So after some thought, I would have to advise my good brother to seriously consider setting things straight in his home.

My first advice is one that I got from Sh. Zulfiqar who taught that when you get married you must realize that you now have two fathers and two mothers. You must treat your spouse's parents as if they are your own parents. All this garbage of father-IN-LAW or mother-IN-LAW needs to be rejected. Her parents are your parents. Full stop.

When she sees you treating her parents with the same respect as your own, she will undoubtedly 'return the favor'.

Once that is established, the wife must then realize that complete respect is owed to the parents. So if and when a situation arises where the wife and the mother are at odds, it must be clear that precedence goes to the mother. Full stop.

If someone is to eat first, it will be the parent. If someone is to sit first, it will be the parent. If someone is to speak first, it will be the parent.

Obviously, I am simplifying the complex dynamics between relations, especially those living under the same roof (which I might add is *always* a bad idea). But the husband and wife must realize that both sets of parents are to be placed on a pedestal.

I'm assuming that the parent is not abusively tyrannical, trying at all costs to sabotage the marriage, and make the life of the child a living hell. In that case, serious counseling may be needed for all involved parties.

Such extreme cases are the exception.

The problem nowadays is that all too often, the newly married couple feels it's their God-given right to be independent. They desire to make their own decisions. The concept of the extended family, where parents played a vital role in the lives of the newlyweds, has become outdated. The wife feels challenged when the husband's mother is present. The husband feels emasculated when the wife's father provides input. Too much ego, not enough humility. Sadly, I speak from experience.

Instead of welcoming and embracing the wisdom of the parents with awe and respect, the couple views them with disdain and spite.

To be frank, the fact that such a question (of whether the wife or the mother should sit in the front) was ever allowed to be voiced reveals the enormity of the fundamental problem - the absence of parental respect. In an atmosphere loaded with respect for all four parents, such a confrontation would never arise.

The child always yields to the parent. Full stop.

And when such a recourse is taken with the intention of pleasing one's Lord, no matter what the damage it does to one's ego, it will only result in goodness and blessing from Allah (swt).

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?

As I was coming into my personal Islamic awareness many years ago, I was convinced that the light of Islam would reignite itself from within America, similar to how Prophet Musa (as) was raised and reared in the house of Pharoah. Back then, I viewed the Muslim world as backwards and in need of serious guidance – which American Muslims, stripped of cultural baggage and historical hiccups, would readily provide them.

But recently, I’ve begun to feel serious disillusionment with this entire “American Islam”* project.

Maybe it’s all the desperate talk of Islam being compatible with western democracy, which is in actuality a crooked corporatocracy.

Maybe it’s the post 9-11 lulling that saw so many Muslims tone down their stance against American's secular hedonistic ways and imperialistic aspirations out of fear of sounding unpatriotic.

Maybe it’s the unfounded need by American Muslims (under immense pressure from MSM and the American military industry) to constantly denounce terrorism and the unfortunate extension of this condemnation to now include Islamists, who, although having never partaken in acts of terrorism, have nonetheless incurred their wrath.

Maybe it’s the convenient acceptance by many American Muslims of principles of gender relations as understood by Western society, relegating centuries of Islamic tradition on the role of men and women to history’s dustbin.

Maybe it’s the glaring dilution of the Islamic concept of Jihad, or worse, its deliberate suppression altogether.

Maybe it’s the callous attitude of American Muslims striving for the American dream while participating in a system that is ravaging the entire world, politically, militarily, economically, and environmentally.

Maybe it’s the unquestioning adoption of capitalistic maxims which finds American Muslims enslaved by their struggles for better jobs, bigger homes, and nicer cars – all the while claiming to be adhering to the Sunnah of our Prophet (saw).

Whatever it is that’s causing my unease, my dear brother Yursil captured my feelings quite well with his recent posts on Suburban Capitalist Islam (Part 1 and Part 2). While he didn’t address all my grievances, he did well to introduce a long list of oddities found in American Islam.

I particularly like his characterization of American Muslims as naively accepting of their adopted culture, as long as it doesn’t outwardly contradict any Islamic teaching. This includes the whole McDonalds, blue jeans, and Hollywood outlook of American culture. The widely accepted view is that American Islam can be formulated by simply weeding out the haram components of American culture and freely embracing what remains.

The problem is that the ethos of these remains is not Islamic.

The result is not American Islam, but a twisted version that I prefer to call Secular Capitalist Islam (taken from Yursil's term 'Suburban Capitalist Islam'). This Islam is primarily American, with an Islamic veneer, not the other way around. It 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:

Change can only come about by way of assimilation and integration - otherwise, we will be deemed foreigners, anarchists, or terrorists.
The interest-based banking system is too entrenched to be questioned – the best we can do is minimize our exposure.
The educational system is our fast-track to success, regardless of any negative socio-intellectual repercussions.
Mixing politics with religion is taboo.
Scaling the corporate ladder is the only way to prosperity.
Gluttonously living beyond our means is completely acceptable.
All technological advances must be blindly embraced, regardless of socio-spiritual impact.
All forms of entertainment (adapted to Islamic mores, of course) are a necessary release from the pressures accumulated in daily life - this includes movies, music, sports, vacations, etc.
Environmentalism is about reducing our ecological footprint, not reducing our consumption.

These are the views underlying Secular Capitalist Islam, the core of which is fundamentally at odds with the Quranic worldview. And no amount of window dressing can alter this reality.

Just like most everything else in American culture, we’ve opted for the drive-thru version of actualizing Islam in America. Our instant recipe consists of slapping on a hijab or growing a beard, implementing the personal acts of worship, meekly presenting Islam to our friends and coworkers, and attending feel-good weekend Islamic programs, all the while diving headfirst into the American way of life.

And yes, I am aware of the American Muslim mantra that we have greater religious freedom in the West than our counterparts in the Muslim world. That may be true. And if it is, it makes the sin of Secular Capitalist Islam even more egregious. For instead of using this freedom to become moral leaders in the West and challenge the status quo, American Muslims have chosen passivity and integration, fearful of the repercussions of speaking out.

Where is the sacrifice that is inherent in the declaration of Tauheed and rejection of Taghut?

Where is the sacrifice that is inherent in the proclamation of love for the Prophet (saw)?

Sadly, Secular Capitalist Islam has replaced these sacred endeavors with the very profane struggle for the American dream.

In part 2, I want to discuss the legacy our children will be inheriting from us, the founding fathers of Secular Capitalist Islam.
==================

*I place the term in quotes because I’m not comfortable with creating varying flavors of Islam, but since the term is commonly used by so many American Muslims, I’ve stuck with it.

I've written before on the importance of reclaiming Jihad, but I've noticed a recent trend and felt it worthy to revisit the subject.

It has become commonplace in the current political climate for Muslims to regularly define (and sometimes redefine) the concept of Jihad. As I see it, there are three popular approaches, all factually correct, but functionally useless to those aspiring to holistically actualize this sixth pillar of Islam.

First, there are those who are keen to denounce blatant acts of terror and violence and disassociate said acts from the venerable principle of Jihad. This approach basically provides us with a clear definition of what Jihad is NOT.

That's all fine and well, but it fails to answer the obvious follow-up question - If that isn't Jihad, then what is?

The other popular trend is to emphasize the internal aspects of Jihad - the spiritual battle with the nafs (ego). Surely, you will find no greater proponent of this concept than this writer. The nafs is truly one of the greatest obstacles to pleasing our Creator.

However, this fails to address the outward needs of man. While struggling to purify our inner selves, we cannot turn a blind eye to the filth surrounding ourselves. The flood of secular hedonism is overtaking our homes yet we are busy with spring cleaning and interior decorating.

Finally, you find those focused on the spiritual Jihad responding to the claim that their ilk has abandoned the physical Jihad by waxing poetically on the glorious history of Sufi Mujahideen.

While this history is impressive to say the least, it says nothing about current day teachers of Tasawwuf and their inadequate approach to Jihad. Far too many of those calling to the ways of the inimitable Hasan al-Basri and Abdullah ibn Mubarak have become derelict with their obligations towards Jihad.

While countless awliyah of the past sufficed themselves with focusing on the inner self, content with the basic framework for "Islamic" governance provided by the sultans, emirs, and caliphs - the same cannot be said for today's situation wherein the Shariah has been shredded apart and relegated to the private domain. Yet, these spiritual inheritors of ibn Arabi and Imam Ghazali remain blind to contemporary political realities, choosing the route of passivity and non-interventionism.

Sadly, very few out there are interested in negotiating a balanced approach to Jihad that finds one combating the oppressions of the nafs while equally turning back the oppressive hands of the tyrant.

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?

I just read this awesome anti-teen-dating diatribe by Mohja Kahf. She compares the odd ritual of teen-dating as found in Western society to the alternative of early marriage:

"For Muslim parents to provide a nubile woman with a reliable life partner, with whom she can build a home as well as satisfy her sexual desires—someone who bears witnessed responsibility if she conceives a child, in a union nurtured by surrounding family—this is oppressive, while parents providing ill-prepared teens with the means for furtive groping amid all sorts of conflicting messages about what they are to do in this badly set-up ritual, that’s benign?"

And it reminded me of my rant on Sex Ed from two years ago:

"I would much rather have my adolescent son ask me why his wife gets upset every month or my daughter ask why her husband is so stubborn than to explain to them why their high-school peers are dating and they aren’t. I would rather have them struggle with the complexities of a marital relationship than struggle to create their own chaste space amongst their promiscuous schoolmates.

In the world I envision, Islamic sexual education would not be veiled behind social taboos nor would it be an instrument to blunt the natural urges of young adults. Rather, it would consist of teaching the adaab (etiquettes) of sexual education to couples preparing for marriage, not teenage kids worried about the next school mixer."

Yeah, I just quoted myself. I'm all about self-love.

During countless casual conversations, this question has been asked. And every time, the questioner is referring to the occupation of the one being questioned.

And thus, one's job has come to define that individual.

I work in the IT field, therefore I'm an IT guy.

My friend works in a hospital as a surgeon, so he's a doctor.

My sister teaches, so she's a teacher.

But the problem with this approach is that IT is NOT what I do and more importantly it definitely is NOT who I am.

Of more significance (I would hope), is that I'm a father, a husband, a son, a servant, a neighbor and so much more. I am someone who hopes to make my mark in this world and this mark has absolutely nothing to do with IT.

I struggle for more hours each month raising my kids than I do at work, yet I'm supposed to answer the question 'What do you do?' with my official job title??

'Yeah, I'm a networking engineer.'

No, that's not what I do.

What I really do is constantly struggle on the path back to Allah (swt). I struggle to please my parents, take care of my wife, and empower my children with goodness.

My entire life revolves around *THAT*. That's what I do.

I use my job merely to assist me and my family on that journey.

Full. Stop.

However, our society has turned us all into meaningless automatons, whose primary function is to work. And if we're not working, we're either studying to work or vacationing from work.

What the hell sort of existence is that??

Our conversations revolve around our ephemeral existence. The context of our vocabulary is completely of *this* world. If our intention is to talk of the other-world (you know, the REAL world), we are forced to specify it. But in our normal day-to-day interactions, it's become understood that we are referring to what our limited physical senses perceive.

We have lost sight of our true purpose and our social lexicon reflects that loss:

A 'successful' person is one with worldly fame or fortune.
An 'alive' individual is one who truly experiences life.
One who is 'bankrupt' is one without any wealth.

All terms that ought to have higher, other-worldly significance, but instead have become restricted to this-worldly (mis)understandings.

So, next time someone asks me what I do, I'm gonna answer that I'm a struggling traveler.

'Hmm, you mean you're a traveling salesman?'

[Groan]