My Journey: Why No Prophetess?

If the word "Prophetess" seems odd to both the secular and religious, it does for good reason: the overwhelming majority of the representatives of Gods in human history are male; as such, they are called "Prophets" or "Heroes" (in Greek, Roman and Norse faiths). In a house beaming with feminist pride from my three sisters, I find it difficult to believe that no one has critically analyzed this aspect of religion and I want to delve deeper into the subject in this post. I find the gender discussions that concentrate on the meaning of holy texts to be extremely relative to one's beliefs, whereby, the Atheist always sees an oppressive sexist God while a progressive theist always sees a gender-neutral and gender-loving divine being. Instead, I want to look at the statistics of the prophecy which are quite revealing.

Let us first look at the numbers. Judaism and Islam both clarify that they believe that Yahweh/Allah has sent thousands if not hundreds of thousands of prophets across the world to preach the word of God. Of those many, most of the messages were meant to be restricted to their time and/or circumstances. Those noted in different holy texts were the ones with the most important messages for all humanity. This notion of thousands of prophets isn't so different from Buddhist, Hindu, Greek, Roman, Norse, and Egyptian belief in thousands of Heroes, Deities, and those things in between. I may be wrong, however, I can't tell if Christianity also holds a similar belief, but as you will see, that's irrelevant. Given that thousands of prophets have gone undocumented, it wouldn't be worth wondering (if even possible) what their teachings much have been like. Therefore, we are stuck looking at the prophets that were of notable mention in different holy texts when looking at gender balances (or rather imbalances). 

By my own count, it is easy to see the overwhelming gender inequality in the prophecy. Out of Judaism's 55 mentioned prophets, 7 were female; in percentages, that means that 87% of the time, Yahweh chose a man over a woman to preach to the crowd and commit glorious acts. 

In Islam, out of 24 prophets mentioned in the Quran 0 are female. That means, Allah chose a man over a woman to spread word of his existence 100% of the time. Even when considering 7 "other prophets" recognized by Islamic scholars but not explicitly mentioned by the Quran, the number remains unchanged. It should be noted that Islam does recognize "holy women" but none, not even the "holiest woman" Miriam (Mother of Jesus) is considered a prophet despite talking to angels. 

In Christianity, out of the 75 explicitly recognized prophets in both the Old and New Testament, 9 are female. One wouldn't be surprised to find the difference to be so stark: 88% of all recognized prophets were men. Even when considering those who had "prophetic" experiences (14 others and the genderless "seventy elders of Israel") only two more women are added and the percentage declines to an unimpressive 87.6%. To get an even more complete picture, we can also include "False prophets" or those recognized as having misused their gifts from Jehovah. Out of the ten, 1 is female and the percentage changes to 87.8% male prophets.

I won't discuss the gender inequalities in the Christian Sainthood and Islamic Umah (among others) lest I start to bore you.

With such stark contrasts in gender balances, one wonders why feminists haven't analyzed why God avoided women when spreading word of his existence. What is more interesting is that, if this inequality existed in any other institution, we would all be outraged (and have been).

Let's remember when women were (in the U.S.) and still are (in Saudi Arabia) specifically not allowed to attend colleges. Let's remember when women were specifically barred from voting (still exists in many countries). Let us remember when institutions barred women from leadership positions because of their gender. By resisting the inevitable push toward greater gender equality, the men of their time actively and consciously chose male candidates for jobs in the private and public sectors (even after the institutional sexism was long gone). In all these cases, women (and some men) became outraged that personal sexism became institutionalized sexism. If the Abrahamic God shows the sexism of a university in the 1800s in U.S. history, why do we avoid calling it like it is? We have at all other instances, yet in this case, we blind ourselves to the striking statistics.

It seems plainly obvious to me, from my studies and family religious teachings, that God makes conscious decisions and in fact, his existence as the omnipresent omnipotent creator of all things demands it. Therefore, such a divine being actively made decision after decision to choose men over women.

After researching it and asking around (everyone from my father, brother in law and friends pitched in), I've received unsatisfactory excuses for God's sexist selection of prophets. Some have suggested that women can't be prophets because they have periods (also used as an excuse many decades ago against females in leadership roles). During their periods, women can't think straight and can't possibly preach the word of God. Such an argument is constantly proven wrong by millions of women today in leadership positions unaffected by their menstruation cycle.

Another honestly made argument is that the words of God prove that men and women are equal. Although all my atheist friends will take up the challenge to debate such a statement, it doesn't really matter. Like many institutions, the declaration of the equality of sexes has been given many times, yet when words don't match the statistics, it is plainly obvious that sexism exists, no matter what the institution or person says. Take a law school that says it views female and male applications as equal, yet has a population of 90% male. More likely than not there are sexist practices barring women from joining. Words are different than numbers.

After sifting through some other bad reasons, another one stuck out: Women weren't respected and couldn't have been taken seriously by the people of their time. This excuse is especially troubling. The nature of prophet-hood includes doubt by members of any community. Almost all prophets have had to prove that they were truly the messengers of God, take Moses' staff transformation into a snake; Jesus resurrecting the dead; Mohammad ascending to Heaven; Lot's protection of the angel (the list goes on). I can't see how with a female, it would be very different. Yes, there will be doubt, and strong doubt because of her gender, but a few staff transformations or angel visits and God could have easily given the women the validation they needed. If you reject that proposal, then it seems to me that God is a push-over to human biases. The idea that God would bend to what humans want is complete lunacy as shown by the story of Lot, by destroying entire cities because of sin, and Moses, by sending wave after wave against the Pharaoh of Egypt. The Abrahamic God is not a push-over, and makes his decisions on who he wants to represent him; we can clearly see who he's chosen. 

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

Religion's Oppression

It has been quite some time since I began contemplating the existence of God (some 3 years ago) and during that time, I've discovered a discussion like no other: debates on the source of morality, historical evidence of miracles, and gaps in science that can never be explained, to name just a few, yet there is something that hasn't been properly addressed; what I consider the 500 lb gorilla in the room : Homosexuality. 



I won't entertain debates on the natural-ity of homosexuality for other reasons than being distasteful: 

1. Homosexuality is a direct product of natural processes, of which can not be dictated by the parents, environment, or person.
2. Science is verifying such a belief with many discovering that it is a mix of neurological and genetic alternations from the "norm" of heterosexuality. See here.

By concentrating on the gay community (as I've done in the past), many atheists may be offended by my choice to address just one aspect of the divine; their impression of the Abrahamic God is best described in the opening paragraph of Chapter 2 of Richard Dawkin's bestseller The God Delusion:

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, magalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

I choose to address just one aspect of his intense description because I believe it is the most relevant today. No group (that I know of), in the history of the world, has faced as much religious hatred as gays have. Nearly every religion in the world denounces homosexuality as unnatural, deviant, unholy, blasphemous, and impure (Buddhism and Hinduism have thousands of denominations that vary in belief, so it's harder to pinpoint)

To name the Abrahamic religions:

Islam:  

Sura 7:80-84: "And Lot, when he said to his people, 'Do ye approach an abomination which no one in all the world ever anticipated you in? Verily, ye approach men with lust rather than women- nay, ye are a people who exceed.' But his people's answer only was to say, 'Turn them out of your village, verily, they are a people who pretend to purity.'  But we saved him and his people, except his wife, who was of those who lingered; and we rained down upon them a rain; -- see then how was the end of the sinners!" [Here, God massacres thousands of people] Christianity and Judaism: Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." There is much more in all the texts, but these help summarize the basis of belief; All center around the story of the Sodom and Gommorah. All translations, yet homophobia is prevalent in English speaking Muslim, Christian, and Jews as they are in Hebrew and Arabic speaking believers; the homophobia exists inter-linguistically. Of course, I recognize Islamic history's shaky acceptance of flamboyant men and masculine women, but this is no substitute for the hateful anti-gay speech found in many other places. I'm also well aware of the debates within the religious community that center around whether homosexuality is the sin, or homosexual intercourse is; either way, it's just as disgusting. If homosexuality is accepted but not the relationship, do we force all gays to marry people they don't want? Of course not, that's absurd. Despite the debate (some more lively than others), there is one thing that can't be denied: The belief in the divine is the the reason that children are raised believing gays are wrong; the reason gays grow up in hiding; the reason outed gays are hung in Iran; the reason the Catholic Church (as well as most others) denounce gays; the reason gay girls and boys are bullied; the reason they are beat. Two gay men hung in Iran Why such torment? Because of who they are. Their sin? No evil action, no far worse: Their sin is in their state of being. No other issue boils my blood as this does. The debate here in the United States about gay rights and gay marriage is quite a step forward from other countries where expressing one's homosexual tendencies will have them jailed, tortured, raped, and killed. This isn't abuse of man of the "loving" word of the divine, no, nor is it the changing of rules by the corruption of men; this is a God that hates the people he makes.  "Hate for being" quickly reminds me of human slavery where colored people were considered property to others because of who they were; regardless of their natural equality.  The hatred toward gays is as open today as the hatred toward colored people was all over the world (from Native Americans, to Africans, to the Chinese) at it's peak. Pink Triangles Labeled Holocaust prisoners as Gay; similar to the Star for Jews Could homophobia exist in a secular world? Sure, but it would never have the mandate and authority of an all-wise, all-powerful divine being; thus easier to overcome. In fact, the only reason homosexuality is as big of an issue anywhere in the world is because of religion, be it personal faith or religious institution. What should have been addressed long ago is being dragged out (far past the end of my lifetime) to deny gays safety, equality, and dignity in all countries.  The hatred toward homosexuals isn't limited to the boisterous protesters of the Westboro Baptist Church nor the loudest demagogues in the mosques of Saudi Arabia nor in the longest public decrees of radical rabbis. Overwhelming majorities throughout the world believe homosexuality is morally wrong.  There is nearly 0% tolerance of homosexuality in the UK Muslim community while 75% of French and German Muslims also believe homosexuality is, by nature, immoral.  (See here).   Even in the United States, 43% of Americans (regardless of faith) believe that homosexuality is wrong. That's around  129 million people that believe a state of being is wrong.  On this issue, more-so than any other, even the most (seemingly) intelligent and open-minded people I know, express (with pride) their denouncement of homosexuality. They don't base their decree on any evidence, because they don't need to: Whatever contradicts the word of God should be shunned. No other force on earth gets people to believe in such hateful things as the divine does.  No one can deny that the belief in the divine is the direct cause to the imprisonment, torture, rape, and murder of millions of gays throughout history. We can put aside the killing of children, the genocide, the rape that has been sanctioned by the divine throughout the Torah, Bible and Qur'an because even then, this divine being shows itself to be quite hateful, quite unforgiving by sentencing a girl who grows up to love women, to an eternity in hell.  Think about that. To burn forever, for loving someone she wasn't supposed to love.   If God does exist, I'm not sure I'd want to worship him.

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

Bell's Hell or Hell's Bells?

There has been an extremely interesting discussion going on across the country as of late; its about the existence of hell. 

Although primarily a discussion about the Christian concept of Hell, it think it is an extremely important discussion, one that wouldn't have begun without an Evangelical preacher named Robert Bell. A  growing controversial figure, he's become famous for his "hip" look as a preacher wearing more than tight clothing, even, jeans! (HOW DARE HE!) His cool look and young attitude has gained him a very youthful crowd, and one willing to listen to his preaching. 

Earlier this year, Mr. Bell wrote a new best-seller book titled "Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived." In it, he challenges modern Evangelical (and Christian) beliefs in Hell (some have called him a heretic). The idea of the book came from his church of 7,000 goers, where the preacher stresses discussion among the people about the faith instead of religious dogma. Since then, he's gained even more attention when TIME Magazine put him on the front of their cover with the question: Does Hell Exist?  Meanwhile, the Magazine has listed him in their annual TIME 100 most influential people in the world. 

The questions that the pastor raises are important ones; ones that began during an art exhibit in his church. The pastor writes about it in his book:

An artist in the show had included a quotation from Mohandas Gandhi. Hardly a controversial touch, one would have thought. But one would have been wrong.
A visitor to the exhibit had stuck a note next to the Gandhi quotation: "Reality check: He's in hell." Bell was struck.
Really? he recalls thinking.
Gandhi's in hell?He is?We have confirmation of this?Somebody knows this?Without a doubt?And that somebody decided to take on the responsibility of letting the rest of us know?

The experiences poses important questions: Is Gandhi in Hell? How do we know? What is it based on? Does Hell even exist? 

Traditional religious teachings from the three Abrahamic religions strongly believe and warn of some form of hell (though there are variations from the Christian Hell). Other religions don't include hell, but an endless cycle of reincarnation until you reach Nirvana, or simply no end of life at all. 

I would highly recommend you read the TIME magazine coverage of the discussion here. I've come to think that the idea of hell is inseparable from any belief system and I'm not the only one. 

Regardless of how this place of punishment is described, there is one thing in common: it is used as an enforcement tool. Religion without a place for punishment isn't much of a religion because there is no way to enforce consistency in belief and also no form justice system. 

What happens to the mass murders? Straight to heaven? Probably not. To the adherents of the faith? (depending on the belief) Sure, they have a ticket to some kind of heaven. Without Hell, there is no incentive through fear of burning for all eternity, to not have sex before marriage, fight yourself from being gay, not masturbate, drink or eat pork (depending on the faith). Yet nothing is black and white; the gray area comes with the Gandhi question and its a question that needs to be answered. 

Gandhi spent his entire life working for justice, freedom, and improving the lives of so many, but because of his own divine beliefs, he's not in heaven. In fact, he's being punished for his beliefs on earth. This is where the Pastor is so shocked. Gandhi? Well then, what of Aung San Sui Kyi?  The peace driven Dalai Lama? Malcolm X? The freedom activists in the Middle East?  and the endless list of non-Christians who've made the world a better place and helped their fellow humans in good deeds?

This doesn't just apply to the Christian idea of Hell. What of Judaism? Islam (although I think Islam's idea of heaven is far more accepting of more people from personal knowledge). But if you think that is the extent of our exploration, you'd be wrong. We have to take a step deeper, and one I have been thinking about for sometime. Gandhi is burning in hell because, although he did great deeds for his fellow man, he (supposedly) believed in the wrong god. If you  have the personal belief that perhaps Gandhi is actually in Heaven (despite thousands of years of religious doctrine that Hell exists for those that don't accept Jesus as their Savior, or Allah as the only God, or Vishnu as the Destroyer of the World) the remains question: Why is a belief in any of the divine beings mandatory for our acts to be judged well and rewarded? 

Isn't the act itself moral? Or is it such when someone believes in the higher being? Is an act only moral when it has the blessing by a holy book? When an atheist helps his neighbor, why isn't that considered a good act? The fact is, the act IS good, especially considering that many a holy books advocate for very immoral behavior.

If there is a God, there must be a heaven, and also a hell. Religion and faith can never be separated from the idea of hell because without some form of punishment, what is my incentive to believe in any of the Gods? I can do whatever I want without having to worry about being punished since we are all going to Heaven someday. 

It is a tough relationship, and one that really needs to be discussed further. Robert Bell's stance has forced the discussion to us all, but his position is dangerous for religion. He doesn't explicitly say that hell doesn't exist, but he does say that our idea of what happens after earth is just speculation (some choose to talk about that speculation further). If his speculation leads to less of a stress of hell, religion's enforcer is lost and overtime, its adherents. What do you think? Must hell exist for religion to stay solvent? Can it exist without it? Are acts considered moral by a God? or are they moral per se?

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

Science and Religion

In my earlier post, I talked about my journey to figure what world view I could believe. I detailed my criteria in my previous post: "My Journey: With or Without God."

From the feedback I got, there was no problem with my criteria, but something I mentioned much earlier on: the incompatibility of the Science worldview and the Religious worldview.

Today, many more liberal or progressive believers of faith try to bend the two views together, arguing that they compliment one another (while most others take either or as the only true story). The story of the divine beings (the thousands of them) are our first effort to explain the world around us (and the universe). For this, these divine stories should be given due credit and I would never take that away from them because they take on human curiosity and seek to explain what we see around us. 

The reason why I say they are incompatible is because of the trend that has been going on since the beginning of man. As the earliest world view, belief in the divine has been used to explain everything: 

1. Cavemen used it to explain nature by talking about different natural Gods. 
2. This was also reflected in Roman and Greek Gods for explaining everything from the season changes to lighting. 
3. The divine Gods (from the Greeks to today's religion) explained why the Sun rose every day. 
4. Stories of the Gods explained love, the flaws of man, different kinds of hell (Hades, Hell, or Jhannam)
5. Most importantly, they detailed the creation of our universe
• God created the universe in 6 days, rested the 7th. 
• Egyptian God ejaculated and his sperm created the earth and all humans (no joke). 
6. They also spent no time explaining things like how humans came about
• Made of clay, breath of life
• A God is ripped to shreds and his lifeless body parts turn into man. 

Even now, we still haven't touched on the thousands of differing beliefs about how the world came about, as well as humanity. There is, however, one consistency: Religion's retreat over time. 

When people explained lightning as the anger of Zeus, scientists struck that down and explained that they were naturally occurring. When people explained the mountain's and God's direct hand, science explained that they were a result of plate tectonics. When worried about crops and praying to different Gods, scientists explained different weather cycles and the seasons.

This gradual retreat by religion hasn't stopped either, even though believers constantly bend their beliefs to get around science. Where once, the Gods raised the mountains, now, the Gods just set in motion the process for raising mountains. Where once, God made man of clay, now God set the "spark" that led to evolution.  Where once the earth was the center of the universe since man was God's "greatest" creation, now, humans are one of the most irrelevant pieces in our universe. The end of our species wouldn't even be noticed by any part of the universe. 

The divine stories were written to be understood literally, however, we can always say that that is just because of the influence of man, and that the god (whichever one) knew we would discover the true reality of our world (like a child story, where the child eventually learns the truth). This again, is another example of a retreat. Where once these stories were literal, now they are metaphorical. 

The idea of intelligent design is also a biased one. Most intelligent design believers believe in one God ruling the universe. What kind of intelligent design will Hindu's, Daoists, and Buddhists, who belief in (literally) thousands of gods hold? What makes the beliefs of the monotheistic religions any more intelligent in design than the polytheists or pagans? 

If the beliefs were so compatible, then religious beliefs wouldn't constantly be bending to new science discoveries (and it doesn't in many areas where science is dismissed). To many, the earthquake in Japan is not the result of a converging (or reverse) dip/slip at the tectonic plate boundary at Japan's sub-duction zone deep underground (which caused the tsunami), it is God's punishment of a nation with the highest concentration of atheists. 

I'll be the first to admit  that humans don't know everything, and science leaves more answers than questions. "Science" back in the day, had very little rules and very little oversight on reliability. In fact, early on, observations of the universe were made to try proving the beliefs of one set of religion over another. 

Today's standards are much different and much higher which is why so much "science" thousands of years ago is dismissed today. As time goes on, we can imagine that our standards will continue to increase and although science may not be able to explain such complex processes like love, anger, sexual attraction, and most other things in our minds, this is not a reason to dismiss it because there is always the prospect of discovery. 

This is why the two views are incompatible and why I believe you can't have both. I think that those who think they are compatible don't understand the extent of what belief each entails (the divine and science belief). 

Please feel free to comment with your thoughts!

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

France's Niqab Ban

Today France's law banning the concealment of one's face in any public space is being put into effect. Inspired by French fear of fronts to their "way of life," and a strong political effort by President Sarkozy to regain support on his popular stance, anyone intentionally concealing their face with just their eyes showing will be subject to the equivalent of a 200 dollar fine, and/or be forced to attend French "Citizenship" classes (aimed to teach them how to be better citizens).

Italy has a similar law, however, France's is unique from similar anti-Muslim laws in different European nations because it bans the Niqab in all public places, from the sidewalk to the mall. Much is being said about it, as groups of protesters in France (some wearing their Niqab) demand it's nullification because they believe it is an affront to their religious beliefs. 

Even so, French police have voiced how difficult it will be to enforce saying

"The law will be infinitely difficult to apply, and it will be infinitely rarely applied, unfortunately," Emmanuel Roux of the police union SCPN said on France-Inter radio.

He said police have been instructed not to use force to remove the veils, and that if a woman refuses to remove it, the police officer is meant to call the prosecutor for further legal action. Only in very extreme cases, he said, would a woman be jailed for refusal to remove a veil.

Allow me to break through the noise with some common sense:

Although a ban of the Niqab, France is famous for it's extreme interpretation of secularism. For example, state teachers are not allowed to wear a cross pin on their clothing, and Jewish men aren't allowed to wear the yammukah. 

The latest ban comes from a law that never uses the words: women, Niqab, or Islam but has politically been its purpose. President Sarkozy began pushing for the law for nearly two years, saying that it was a sign of repression that would not be welcome in France.

The President and others have also continued by describing the Niqab as an attack to French way of life, despite the fact that no more than 2000 women wear it out of France's 5 million Muslims. 

With such a small amount of women that choose to wear it, it hardly seems like an attack on anyone's way of life.

Quite possibly the worst argument, but most used on to destroy the rights of others, is that of safety: The Niqab poses a direct threat to public safety. Opponents argue that terrorists can use the Niqab to hide bombs, and convicts use it to mask their faces while they steal or kill, but how many instances have their been? Terrorists: Never. They more often choose backpacks. Robbery: Once. Clearly not a threat to society or anyone's safety. 

The ban represents an odd ideology in Western philosophy of freedom: That everyone should have the freedom to not wear what they want. This makes sense given that societies over time have become less conservative, and in their effort to break with tradition, younger generations endorsed more nudity: First with short sleeved shirts, then tighter shirts for men and women, then women's choice to wear jeans or anything they wanted, or nothing at all. It all seemed like the freedom in a country was measured by the level of nudity. 

Rarely is a women's (or man's) desire to cover herself seen as a form of empowerment. Choosing to wear more clothing seems counter-revolutionary. As societies keep pushing the lines of nudity, led my massive industries where "sex sells," covering oneself can easily become a sign of individuality and rebellion. It seems here that France believes that nudity equals freedom, but clothing is a sign of repression. 

I understand that the debate is deeper than that, as even Muslims disagree about the purpose of the Niqab, but it shouldn't matter if they do. Everyone should have the right to wear whatever clothing they want as an expression of their cultural or religious beliefs. THAT is the sign of truly free societies. In a sex-crazed world, the ability of any woman to demand respect based on her thoughts and not her looks should be applauded. Some may disagree with the extremity to which the Niqab does this, but different women have different means and interpretations of how to reach this goal. 

A creative protest by Non-muslim French women. It is meant to show that France will tolerate women freedom to show off legs, but not their choice to cover their faces. How would France react to these? Free enough to show their legs, but not to show their face?

We may not like what they wear, but they should always have the right to wear it. The Niqab is not a sign of repression as any Muslim women will tell you. Muslim women wearing it are not subconsciously oppressed into thinking that they should wear it (if they were the number of women who wear them in France wouldn't be so minute). As an LA Times article on the subject points out, of the veiled French women surveyed 28 out of 30 said that they were the first in their family to wear the Niqab.

Yes, there are women out of those 2000 in France that were probably forced to wear it, but how does a ban help in any way but restrict more women to their homes? For those forced to wear it, there should be more options of outreach to get government help aimed at getting them out of a possibly abusive house and more. A ban for all is useless and just part of the larger (misconstrued) ideology of what freedom is all about.

As the dynamics of a free society have changed (meeting the demands of earlier generations for less restrictions on enforcing dress code policies for women), so should the measure of freedom --As I like to say: 

Freedom should never be measured by how much thigh a woman can show, but by how much thigh she refuses to show for your lingering eyes.

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

Jihad Emails: A Prequisite

Some time ago I had one of my readers (and friend)  suggest that I use this blog as an outlet to help curb mainstream perceptions about Islam. As time goes on, I find myself working to that end. Sometime this week, I'm going to be presenting to a classroom in my old high school about misconceptions of Islam and being Muslim American (When it happens I'll post about it). I'm also starting a Muslim Awareness initiative on my university campus that will roll out in the next month or two. It only seems natural to use this blog as another outlet to get out the message.

Admittedly, as you all know, I am no expert on Islam. I am no scholar, no Sheikh, and no historian. I am a practicing Muslim who looks at the world and my own religion critically when I see something wrong. This post was inspired by an email conversation I had with one of my readers about my Facebook status. My status said "Oh the misconceptions of Jihad..." When questioned about it, I sent him an email that began the emails titled "Jihad."

I want to present those emails in a series titled "Jihad Emails" because they address a lot of issues that some people tend to have with Islam. These emails have been stripped of any personally identifiable content as well as an personal messages that we sent (as friends). I've also made edits to grammar and sentence structure; as well as paraphrasing in some areas to save space. What is left is the lengthy and in depth discussion at its best. 

When asked what I meant by my status I began: 

One thing I’ve constantly recognized from this debate about Jihad (or any religious discussion) is that both non believers (and/or atheists) and extremists interpret the religion the same way. Atheists do so to denounce the “extremists” as evil and extremists do it to find justification for their attacks against Atheists (among others).

When he mentioned that many Muslims believed that Islam was a peaceful religion I continued: 

Muslims never shy away from the aggressive texts of the Quran, because they don’t have to. No Muslim that I’ve ever known has ignored the aggressive side of Islam and only dealt with the peaceful one, because without the two the religion isn’t what it is. Islam does condone violence in very particular instances. Otherwise peace and mercy are supreme. My status on Facebook was sparked by an article I read about how Jihad has been misconstrued today to justify the killings BETWEEN Muslims and between Non Muslims and Muslims, instead of being used for what it is meant to be used for: defense. This is the article:  http://islamopediaonline.com/editorials-and-analysis/debating-jihad-yoginder-sikand It was posted on Islamopedia, a website that my sister is a part of but it was extracted from another news source.

 (I would recommend reading the link from Islamopedia). I said this in reply to his statement that believers tend to have a biased view of their religion because they have been raised that way (which I generally agree with):

I don’t have a protective stance for my religion. I have to deal with Walter (an atheist friend) all the time and he’s constantly challenging my belief and all that. If I found something unreasonable in my religion I just don’t accept it because it is so. I like to think that I’m a reasonable follower, not a blind one.

I continued to talk about the structure of the Islamic Institutions:

 

 Islam, Islamic documents, edicts, and Sharia law are not stagnant. This is A HUGE misconception with most of the people in the world. They are constantly changing, being debated, and implemented based on different interpretations. Just keep that in mind as time goes by. :)
Furthermore, an important tenet in Islam is ijtihad, the duty of everyone to learn analyze and understand the texts on their own. In Islam interpretations and knowledge (even in the sciences) is promoted and not restricted.

As for a central tenet of Islam, prophetic messages are not restricted to the prophets mentioned in the Quran and some of the other texts. In fact, Muslims believe there have been thousands of prophets within their communities, but those in the holy books were either the most influential or powerful. -- this is what I was talking about when I mentioned learning about Islam from a Muslim than from Google or even a christian or a person of any faith. On this point, I can't defend any of the other Abrahamic faiths, as they can't defend mine and I wouldn't expect them to. Belief in faith and then defending it is more convincing and powerful than not.

Many people aren't recognizing that a religion isn't a solid block. It has nooks and crannies. It is beautiful in some parts and fucked up in others, they need to realize the complexity of the belief system. People think there are rules 1, 2, and 3. Anything that is slightly different isn't Islamic, and only those rules lead to "true" Islam. There are thousands of interpretations, teachings, edicts, and philosophies studied by hundreds of thousands of leaders, and billions of Muslims over its history. People are oversimplifying the people, belief system, and structure. Where you see a wooden plank, I see the Golden Gate Bridge.

As I've posted several times on this blog, I recommended a woman who gave a TED Talk some time ago, here she is:

What she learned was that most ideas of Islam are wrong (including many things you've said to me in the past), but she also said something extremely important: she was an outsider. With all her knowledge on it's history, reading 4 translations and even the 7th century Arabic Qur'an, she could not truly grasp it's power, passion and beauty on her own. She was limited in her knowledge of the belief system because she lacked it.

Then I talk about the nature of Islamic interpretation:

Given all that I’ve said, there are important implications: first, if every Muslim has a duty to interpret the Quran and Islamic teachings we establish that, to the ability and subjectivity of those interpretations, all are correct. In fact, Muslims believe that the only one who knows the “true” meaning of the Quran and Islam is Allah (I would say God, but the two aren’t linguistically equal, but they speak of the same being). Now, from an interpretation to interpretation basis, one holds their belief believing that the interpretations of others are wrong and so humans should try their best to interpret and apply Islam as they can best understand it (with good intentions).  So the extremist positions aren’t necessarily wrong from the Godly objective standard as they are from the subjective standard.

Likewise, the progressive interpretations aren’t necessarily right or wrong based on those same standards. We can only do our best to understand it, I  along with most others, have come to the conclusion that people like Osama bin Laden is wrong in his interpretation and we strongly believe that we are correct in our belief and will work on that, but that is only to our human ability to reason.  

 As you can tell, the issue of Jihad still hasn't been directly addressed. As the title implies, this is all you need to know before entering this discussion. I hadn't realized how long and in-depth these emails actually are. This post alone is just half of my first email to begin the conversation. There will be plenty more to come! Feel free to throw any of your comments about what's been said in the comments.

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

Congressional Ignorance

Yesterday began Rep. Peter King's House committee hearing on the "Radicalization of American Muslims." If you have not heard of this, NPR has a short introduction on the issue that should give you both sides:

However as you can see, there was a tension on the first day:

As controversial as these hearings are, Politico points out that they are not the first. (See here)

I've come out strongly against the hearings because it singles out Muslims as enemies of the state as well as the only community that has had to deal with terrorists instigation. Furthermore, it has launched an extremely important debate about WHAT exactly constitutes terrorism when the media picked up that Rep. King supports the IRA in their fight against England. Although a comedian, John Stewart started his show the other night on the issue. He makes several good points:

The Daily Show - Radical Muslim Hearings
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

(Just so you know, the IRA has killed an American before, if you are one of those who believes that is the only criteria for terrorism)

My opposition to the hearings also comes from who were invited to speak to Congress. Put aside the unfair concentration of Muslims. Put aside the hypocrisy of Peter King. Put aside the horrible message such probes send. All these ignored, the hearings themselves don't have experts on the topic. As the Representative from Michigan Hansen Clarke pointed out: "... in our effort to battle terrorism, we must base our decision on this panel on reliable intelligence," he said. "Religion — faith and God — is not the issue."  Yes, it is always good to have members of a community speak to give personal stories, however expert numbers and analysis are needed.  Mostly to counter King's ridiculous statement that 85% of all Muslim Mosques in the U.S. are radicalized. He has been called out several times by analysts to provide ONE study or statistic to back him up, but all he has is the "conversations" he has had with people. These generalization, by people in power, is what drives McCarthy-Style persecution.

Historic NBA player Kareem Abul Jabar is Muslim

Now, I am in no way denying that there isn't some radicalization within the Muslim community. However, as the NPR piece showed, many are questioning the usefulness of the hearings. Will they really shed any new light on the subject? How far will we move forward with these hearings? Congress needs to have a broader hearing on all radicalization (which would include Muslims) in the country. Congress also needs to investigate groups like "God's Army", a radical Christian organization who has posted military training videos on its website (I would post up a link, but I'm afraid someone will find it on Bentley's network and start asking questions...).

You are reading my blog so I'm assuming you want to read my take on it. If not through these hearings, then how can we best fight home grown terrorism. I believe, based on my research and sociological study, the best way to counter terrorism in this country is to decrease the alienation most American Muslims feel in this country. In order to do that, we must do many things: First, although their are many programs, we need to see an increase of outreach programs by Muslim communities to non Muslims. Don't get me wrong, there are HUNDREDS of programs like this all over the country, however, there are only so many people these programs can reach with such a small population. What needs to be done is an expansion of these programs and initiatives to areas where Muslims aren't so concentrated like in Tennessee and the "Bible Belt" where even the proposal for a mosque breeds protests the next day. In areas where Brigitte Gabrial draws huge crowds on her anti-Islam stance by telling them that the USA is being taken over and over run by invaders.

As the NYTimes article explains:

"She presents a portrait of Islam so thoroughly bent on destruction and domination that it is unrecognizable to those who study or practice the religion. She has found a receptive audience among Americans who are legitimately worried about the spread of terrorism."

Despite this, there is a growing crowd with tehse sentiments (read the article I attached about her movement).Getting to know Muslims humanizes the accusations and fights ignorance at its base. I will be starting a flier Muslim Awareness  campaign at my university to address Muslim stereotypes and would suggest any of my readers to also do so.

Rapper Lupe Fiasco is Muslim

At the end of the day, holding hearings in order to generalize an entire population will NOT make the population feel more "at home" in the U.S. You can't solve Muslim feelings of alienation in the  United States by holding hearings with a chair who believes that they don't cooperate with the police (Note: Records show 50% of all counter terrorism operations in the U.S. were done with the cooperation of Muslims in the U.S.)

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

Religious Hatred

There is no doubt that religion has pierced every society on earth and effected every human who's felt its influence. To many (including myself) it has been uplifting, inspiring, and extremely useful in their day to day lives. Historically, religion has led to tens of millions of deaths but has also forced reformation and change in almost all societies. Furthermore religion inspires hundreds of millions of people to donate and take initiative to save the lives of people they have never and probably will never meet in their lives.

However, religion (all religions) have been infamously slow to push for progress, keep up with a ever-modernizing world, and especially accommodate to science. Yes there are those examples of religious men and women pushing for change like Gandhi, the 14th Dalai Lama, and Dr. King but they have not been representative of religion as a whole. Most Christians today don't realize that the Bible supports slavery, and was used to justify it across the world. Why? Because as abolitionist Christians moved to help eliminate it, they ignored the passages that supported it and looked for passages that supported their cause (and I don't doubt that their are). Likewise, Jews in Israel (and many Christians in the West)are justifying more and more (and have done so) their unequal treatment of Palestinians because they are "The Chosen People" and are therefore "superior." I certainly need not explain the hatred that Islam has inspired against people of other faiths. 

Many like to argue that these are only the extremes of each religion who advocate for these things, but there is a key defining issue that united them all in their hatred: homosexuality. As I know it, Hinduism is the only religion in the world that openly accepts Hinduism as a mainstream belief. All others accept it as a small denomination of a larger faith, but never as mainstream as Hindus do. The largest denomination of any faith that now accepts gays is the Anglican Church. The question I'm trying to pose is this: Why is this kind of hatred tolerated when we would never accept secular hatred? We know that secular hatred for the Jews by the Nazis was irrational, and would never accept it today, however, we seem to accept the hatred of a people ONLY because it is based on religion. Why can the irrational hatred of people be accepted when advocated by different gods but not accepted by irrational human thinking. 

We can't remain hypocritical. If we reject irrational, emotionally driven hatred, we must reject it from all sources. As science progresses and more evidence shows that homosexuality is beyond the control of those who identify with it, religion will do what it has done time and time again: adapt its teachings and ignore older texts.

Gay Iranians being hanged.

Admittedly, the area of study in science about homosexuality is relatively new, but I have no doubt that it will end up showing that gays do not choose to be gay, rather, they just choose to acknowledge their sexual orientation. I refuse to believe that so many people would choose to identify as people who are hated so much in the world. People don't choose to be gay when they know gays are killed in different parts of the world; in other parts they are sent to jail. If people could choose their orientation, they would choose to be straight so that their lives could be A MILLION times easier. Furthermore, most gays first identify with their homosexuality at an early age, usually around 11 years old, and some much younger at 7 and 8 years old. These kids don't know anything about the world around them, or the discrimination and hatred they will have to deal with in the future, but they just go with what comes naturally to them. They have no agenda. They aren't sexually driven beings looked to quench their sexuality. They are kids and they struggle with this their entire lives; hatred only makes it worse.

 A common argument against acceptance of gays is the preservation of the "family." This argument never really holds because the "family" is constantly changing; the argument echoes claims throughout history that interracial couples shouldn't be allowed to "preserve" the family. Others made were that black couples shouldn't have been allowed to adopt white children. The fact is, every time, these arguments fail the test of time because the concept of the family is quickly changing. Today, the nuclear family no longer exists. Millions of families are single parent households, others are have interracial parents, and adoption of children from this country and outside is the new "cool" for most celebrities. The family, culture, and our way of life is constantly changing; opponents seem to believe that there is a stagnant rock where a rushing river exists. History has shown these arguments will fall and progress will win. If history is a sign, you better start getting used to pictures of families like those pictured.

In the face of science, religion has abandoned most of its teachings of about the creation of the universe by explaining it as a metaphor, despite the fact that it was originally written to be believed as literal. Progressives of each religion, will choose to ignore the hate filled texts toward homosexuals in time and preach a message of love. As Karen Armstrong likes to say, the central tenant of all religion is compassion. This "bending" of religion to fit modern times in ways it wasn't originally meant to be bent shows that most religions don't have much backbone, however, if they want to exist in our world today, they can not continue to preach blind ignorance and hatred as they have done time and time again. Centering a message around compassion is the only way forward.  I would highly recommend watching Karen Armstrong's TED talk.

Islam's Struggle

Islam is probably the most relevant religion today; not because it  may hold a greater truth than  say Christianity (which currently has the most practitioners) but because it has literally redefined the lives of both Muslims and Non Muslims in a way unlike any other. Its background is extraordinary, but that isn't what makes it relevant today since it has always had the same history. What makes it the most relevant of all religions is its struggle. 

 The struggle of Islam is global in scale. The struggle is one of identity and placement. Where does Islam fit in our world today? Should it accommodate Western perceptions of freedom? Or should it break away in its own interpretation of itself? Are the two more similar than different or are they always bound to conflict with each other? Can they be reconciled? or Should they be? In a world where Islamic extremism and Islamophobia feed off one another, the destination of such a global religion is difficult to say. Some of you may question why this is unique; Hasn't Christianity  suffered with this conflict of extremism and anti Christian sentiment? and what of Judaism/ Hinduism/ Buddhism/Daoism and all the other major religions of the world? 

My answer is clear:

Islam's struggle is so unique because a religious discourse as this one is happening in a world far different than the world where Christianity struggled with its identity or Judaism. Furthermore, belief systems like Confucianism, Buddhism, and Hinduism struggled with their identities thousands of years ago when they first spread. In addition, their struggles were limited to most of East and Southeast Asia. Of those mentioned, Hinduism, with the rise of India, is another extremely relevant religion, however, that all depends on the success or failure of a state. Confucius' teachings greatly guide China's economic system, family structure and more however I've found these faiths to be too tied down to a nation. Furthermore, you don't find anyone waging war in the name of Confucius.  

 Above that, faiths like Christianity and Judaism are no longer defined by their extremists as much as Islam is. Christian faith wasn't challenged during the Catholic-Protestant fighting in Northern Ireland. Even if we went back to the days of the Crusades, Christianity wasn't struggling with an identity. The faith became more relevant in its day after it developed an identity in its rise in Jerusalem and thanks to Constantinople. As for Judaism, its numbers alone limit its relevance in the world. Today, the greatest relevance that the faith itself has is in Israel. Nowhere else does the actual faith affect the lives of millions. 

But Islam's struggle is also unique in history because it happens in a time of great globalization. There is more trade today between nations than ever before. There is more migration between nations than in any other time in history. A struggle of identity by such a global religion has effects that resonate around the world. 

Muslim immigrants are actively changing the face of Europe and the U.S. as they  grow in numbers and challenge the legitimacy of the freedoms that these nations pride themselves over. From banning minarets in Sweden, to being elected to office in the Netherlands on an anti-immigrant/anti-Islam platform, to France's ban on the burqa and the unreasonable controversy of the construction of mosques in the U.S. everywhere from NY's "Ground Zero" to Tennessee it is clear that Islamophobia is on the rise as the enemies of the faith try to define the religion as anti-western with a message to declare war on it. It's also no surprise that any and all conflicts in the mostly Muslim Middle East send oil prices rising all over the world.

I should also point out that Islam is unique from other religions in its relevance because it is not, nor ever will be strapped to a nation, or establishment. Islam governs the lives of somewhere between 1 to 1.3 billion people and although there are Muslim countries that are guided by the faith, it also gives lessons for ones personal life. This is key because, although Muslims are told to respect the laws of the nation they are governed by, and also told to value elders, they are also told to rebel if one's parents tries moving them away from the faith. Islam also teaches Muslim of their personal duty to their fellow Muslims and highly regulates war and peace. Because it details rules of personal duty, the effects of the faith are never strapped to an institution or a nation. Muslims must take it on themselves to do the right thing. Even when it comes to interpretation of the Quran and Islamic teachings Muslims have a DUTY to read, learn, and understand the teachings for themselves; this is called Ijtihad. As you can see, Muslims aren't even limited to the religious institutions that are established for the belief system in the first place. 

Although this allows for great discussion on the meaning and teachings of Islam, these duties have been used by Muslim extremists for their wars against everything West. You see, in Islam, they have a right to their interpretation but humans are to do the very best they can do get the interpretation right.; the extremists believe that they have the correct interpretation, unfortunately that is difficult for me or most Muslims to see. Only Allah knows the real meaning of the text.  This relates to Islam's struggle because it is increasingly being defined by the Islamophobes and the Islamic Extremists. Never before has a faith had to deal with this kind of discussion (if that's what you want to call it).

I'm certainly not arguing that there is a "silent majority." The idea of a "silent majority" in Islam is only in the minds that don't keep track of the religion. Soon after the Sept 11 attacks, hundreds if not thousands of denouncements by Muslim religious leaders were published in religious edicts; yet the only thing that the Western world saw was clips of Taliban members dancing in the streets of Afghanistan. There is no such thing as a "silent majority" in Islam because of the duties appointed to each of the faithful, but regardless of how loud a majority can be, explosions and demagogues on both sides will always seem louder. Muslims need to replace the cacophony of extreme Islam/Anti Islam with a sweeter tune of what the religion is really about.  Islam hasn't been hijacked as many like to say, hijacking is the wrong analogy; the extremists on both sides just have the cameras and lights pointed toward them in all their extravagance, while the spotlight always seems to avoid the majority of the people on the stage. Muslims need to kick the camera hogs offstage and take control of the show.

Is Islam perfect? Some say yes, others say no. Should Sharia law be spread or accepted? There is also a divide there. Can Muslims be inspired to fight for their religion? yes, but under extreme regulations. There may be disagreements on these issues and more, and while I'm not Muslim scholar, all I can leave you is with this final point: Islam is the most relevant religion in the world today. Its growth will guarantee its relevance for at least another 50 years. You may disagree with the beliefs of even the moderate Muslims, but Non Muslims always seem to believe that Sharia law, Muslim rules and practices are stagnant. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Religions edicts are constantly debated, renewed, reformed, and rescinded. Muslim law is constantly changing and being interpreted and reinterpreted.

Regardless of whether you are a Muslim or Non Muslim, take the first step, watch this two minute TED video of a Non Muslim, Agnostic Jew named Lesley Hazleton on Reading the Quran. It's a first step.

Lesley Hazleton: On reading the Koran | Video on TED.com

As she says, the Quran is extremely flexible "except for minds that are inflexible." I'll even challenge you to listen to a bit longer TED Talk by Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, the Imam of the infamous "Ground Zero Mosque." Click below.

TED TALK

If you have any questions about the religion , post it as a comment, or email me.