The Manrilla Blog | Life. Art. Religion. Culture.

A good brother recently brought to my attention a disturbing video of a Muslim openly bashing and berating a group of Nation of Islam men standing on a street corner in the UK. I watched the video with a sense of shock and disgust. The antagonist obviously had only one thing in mind – to act or perform for his audience and to denounce the “kafirs“, as he termed them, for all to see. Chalk up another victory for Islam.

My frustration and anger do not stop at the video. On the site that’s posting the video, the brother describes the NOI brothers as, “nuts”. I am curious to examine the potential reasons behind this NOI bashing in an attempt to find some validation for it.

Let me start my vent with a short statement: polemics is a waste of time. I have yet to ever see any good come of it. Nor should healthy dialog and debate be mistaken for polemics and especially visa versa. Is is because they claim Islam that they deserve such a scathing public display? For me, it is a real shame that Muslims today [with special emphasis placed on Blackamerican Muslims] cannot find the room to find a dialog with the Nation. They are simply stripped of any value and tossed aside. How utterly ignorant and shortsighted this is [not to mention thankless - we would not have had a Malcolm X without the Nation!].

While other Muslims seem to enjoy the ability to foster care, concern and dialog about their own people, regardless of religious affiliation [the Palestinians come to mind], the same room is not afforded to Blackamerican Muslims who wish to address the Nation. In fact, Blackamerican orthodox/Sunni Muslims in my opinion, tend to be the biggest offenders. Why? Have we forgotten the contribution that the Nation of Islam has made to Islam being a viable and tangible mode of Americana for blacks in this country? I would hope no one out there would be absurd enough to forget that blacks in America [for the time being] have the capacity to move from Christianity to Islam without sacrificing neither their Americanness nor their blackness. This shift has been greatly made by the efforts of the Nation. This simply cannot be emphasized enough. The sooner we all come to openly recognize this and appreciate the reality of this, the sooner I believe we can repair a rift between the Nation and other orthodox/Sunni Blackamerican Muslims.

The gentleman in the video seemed to frame his arguments against the Nation around three central points: that they’re kafirs. That they murdered Malcolm X. And that their theology isn’t “true” Islam. I shall attempt to look at each of these critical points.

Before analyzing the brother’s takfir [calling them kafirs], we must examine this word kafir and see what type of value is placed on this word now and if so, how does that value compare to previous historical values that have been used by Muslims in the past.

Undoubtedly, in the Modern context, kafir is a dirty word, akin to calling somebody a son-of-a-bitch [or in reality, much worse – so use your imagination]. But beyond epithetical value, the word is also used to strip someone or a whole group of people, of their humanity. If one is a kafir, in this sense, then one isn’t even fully human. And historically, we have seen the darker side of humanity when one group of people imagines the other without human value. But in pre-Modern times, kafir was used to simply denote a person who fell outside the religious fold of Islam. Not whether or not they had value as a person or a human being. And while it’s not within the scope of this post to do so, there are numerous sources that will support my opinion here including Prophetic ones. For further reading, research some of Dr. Sherman Jackson’s work on this term, kafir.

As for the murder of Malcolm X, this is not in repute nor dispute. Rather, what is important, in the immediate case, is that were any of the brother’s in the park personally responsible for brother Malcolm’s murder. Communal guilt is not a practice that can be legitimized in the religion of Muhammad of Arabia and I find no reason to instigate that bid’ah. Conversely, Usama bin Laden and his cohorts were responsible for the mass murder of some 2, 998 people. And yet we as Muslims, worldwide, have been clamoring against precisely the same thing – communal guilt. That we are guilty by religious association, for the deaths of those 2, 998 people [God rest their souls]. I have no doubt, that if put to the question, Mr. Abdur-Raheem Green, would agree that he in no was is responsible for the actions of the nineteen hijackers despite his religious affiliation with them. So why then are the NOI brothers held in duplicitous guilt? I can find no facts that support this presupposition and move to have the case dismissed.

Mr. Green’s final point, that their Islam isn’t “real” Islam, again, is a dog barking up a wrong tree. I don’t think any moderately educated orthodox/Sunni Muslim [in his/her religious tradition] could condone the Nation of Islam’s theology as valid according the strictures of the religion that Muhammad of Arabia brought. The fact is besides the point and ties back to the misplaced value and making takfir on them. Nation of Islam or not, kafir or not, does not give one the reason to chide these people. But let me further my case with some Sunnah.

Any orthodox/Sunni Muslim worth his or her salt knows that the Prophet loved his people. Religious affiliations aside, he loved his people. It is apparent in his actions and most evident in the love of his uncle, who is recorded in more than one authentic narration, died in a state of kufr [disbelieve]. If one were to give the life of the Prophet a thorough, detailed study, you will find a man who was deeply troubled about and for his people. That throughout his Prophethood, he dearly wanted to make concessions to make Islam more attractive for Mekkans/Arabians. Which is why Allah shows to us in the Qur’an that He had to strengthen the Prophet’s resolve or he was have conceded more to them than was proper. That is the real Muhammad, Mr. Green. That is your real Prophet, of which your actions show you are woefully ignorant of. And to toss gasoline on a fire, Mr. Green actually proceed to yell out verses of the Qur’an, in Arabic, of which his target audience was most likely ignorant of. In my opinion, this is akin to shouting fire in a burning house full of deaf people. It does no one any good and saves no lives. What would you do, Mr. Green? Keep shouting at those poor, miserable deaf bastards until the house falls down on them or learn to communicate with them and try to save some lives?

Nuts? Only nuts I’ve seen lately were in the snack isle. But I have seen some crazy stuff on the Internet lately…

And God knows best.

Above photograph was shoot outside the United Muslim Masjid, South Philly, Jumu’ah Prayer, 2002. © Marc Manley

If there is one primary characteristic that Modernity spells out to me, it is in the way in which certain schools of thought or groups of people, who deemed antagonistic or undesirable, are cast, part and parcel, as barbaric and backwards. The underlined point in this type of casting is that the target group has always been so. Modernity, in all of its technological advancements, falls short in analytical thinking. Islam, as an example, a highly sophisticated entity [no different than any other religious tradition] is reduced to simple barbarism [as if it has always been so]. Ironically, many Muslims have fallen pray to this line of thinking as well. Recently, I was reflecting on the user of the word, kafir, and how it is used and understood now, in this Modern context, and then how it was used and understood in contexts prior. And while I do not subscribe to the apologists’ theory that the word some how does not have any application for Modern Muslims, I do think there is a sincere and important need to revisit the history of this word in the Muslim tradition. Sample if you will, as articulated by Dr. Sherman Jackson:

“Premodern and even early modern jurists spoke quite casually of the “non-Muslim wife” [al-zawjah al-kafirah], the “non-Muslim mother” [al-umm al-kafirah], and “non-Muslim parents” [al-walidan al-kafiran] as human beings worthy of respect as such. For example, in Bulgat al-salik li agrab al-masalik ila madhhab al-imam Malik 2 vols. [Cairo: Mustafa al-Babi al-Halabi, n.d.] [an authritative Maliki text still used on the graduate level at al-Azhar seminary today], after indicating that a Muslim must be good to his parents regardless of their religion, al-Dardir [d. 1201/1786] writes, “and he should guide the blind parent, even if he or she is a kafir, to church, and deliver him or her thereto and provide him or her with money to spend during their holidays” [2: 523]. Also, the Maliki and Hanafi schools unanimously agreed that a non-Muslim mother [umm kafirah] had a primary right to custody of her Muslim children in cases of divorce from a Muslim husband, assuming that she would not attempt to steer the children away from Islam. […] It should be noted that the Maliki school bore the brunt of the atrocities inflicted by the Christians upon their expulsion of the Muslims from Spain and Sicily and the Hanafi school bore the brunt of the Mongol invasions. Still, these views on the non-Muslim relatives remain standard in the Maliki and Hanafi schools right down to the present day.

Essentially, in the Modern context, both used by Muslims and understood by non-Muslims, kafir has come to no longer be a religious term for those who are outside the belief-fold of Islam but rather a subset of humanity, unworthy of respect, completely devoid of value. In the Modern context, the kafir is someone who is rejected, not on moral or religious grounds, but some deeper, innate characteristic that is wholly incompatible with Islam. Sadly, this philosophy was common in much of the rejectionist rhetoric I heard as a young Muslim in the Blackamerican community as well as the need-to-dominate propaganda I head from immigrant Muslims. This is completely inconsistent with the view of many of the jurists and great personalities from Islam’s past that Modern Muslims evoke! When one examines this, the [hostile and unfortunate] nature of relationships between Muslims and non-Muslims becomes more clear. Does this mean that the word kafir has no place in Islam today? I would argue it certainly does have a place but it should have nothing to due with placing or determining “human value”. Instead, as it has been understood in times past, it is merely a demarcation, signifying someone who is outside the religious fold of Islam. And as in a recent conversation with a non-Muslim, who stated, “this is the problem with Islam”, in that as long as Muslims see the world in a Muslim/non-Muslim dichotomy, then we will inevitably have this issue. My rebuttal to her was to quite frankly, “grow up”. There is no reason why I should be forced to not recognize those who are outside of my religious fold whilst still keeping good relationships with them. To claim that I have to make up my mind, to either jettison the word [and join the rest of the “reformist” Muslims who would just as soon sell the religion for a chance to gain the approving nod of the dominant culture] or use the word in its current state, dehumanizing all those who fall outside the classification as Muslims, is erroneous and childish. Life is not a true or false exam - I will make my own choices and operate by my own rationals, thank you very much. In truth, this classification, kafir, would apply in my case with many members of my family and even friends - it is no way a classification of their worth as human beings.

And God knows best.

Found this very interesting post on Rasheed’s blog. I had recently read about Leo Strauss and Sayyid Qutb in my Poli-Sci course last term. Check it out. Short post, I know, but I’ll fill in some comments when I get a few.

So I have this philosophy course this term. Great fun. Good teacher. The guy’s british by education and somewhat by background. He’s also a huge Monty Python fan. But, the other day he tossed out this funny little paradox that seemed to really impress many folks in the class. He proposed the following:

God cannot be both All-Knowing and All-Powerful
The parable he sets forth is this: imagine a box, which the contents are unknown and unknowable.
Could God created such a box? If so, how could He be All-Knowing?
If not, how could He be All-Powerful?

I’d be interested to get your feedback on this one. Really made me chuckle.

So here we are, on another Thanks Giving. Thanks For Nothing, if you ask our family. This isn’t a post to discuss the permissibility of Thanks Giving or not. But being an American and a Muslim, I want to ponder some of what it is and what it might mean (to me, at least).

I was watching today’s Democracy Now! - Amy Goodman had Jane Goodall as her main guest today talking about many issues I feel that Muslims should be having public opinions on. By public, I mean that we should engage in the public dialog from our perspective. Get active in America - be a part of America and not simply live as this shadow contingent, misunderstood and underrepresented.

One of the first topics that Ms.Goodall brought up was evolution and primates being our closest relatives. If you are unfamiliar with Ms.Goodall, she’s known as the chimpanzee lady (see her Web site here). As Amy Goodman had pointed out, evolution and intelligent design and all the talk revolving around this topic have become hot again in America. And while I don’t know Ms.Goodall I will say that she says she doesn’t see a conflict between gradual evolution and Darwinism. So just as there are many verses in the Qur’an that talk about Man looking at his world, looking around and saying, subhana Allah. Perhaps Darwin was just one man trying to use his God-given mind to puzzle out his existence. I am not saying aye or nay in terms of what I think of her theory, but I do feel it should be noted. And secondly, before any religious people jump into the fray slashing and bashing with their holy texts, I should say, “Try and have a dialog.” Read more this entry »

Philadelphia’s a small city given it’s fairly large size. What I mean by that is that unlike New York, it doesn’t have the feeling of being a metropolis. This past week alone, I’ve run into friends and acquaintances by accident, so much so that it feels like I’m living in Smallsville. It’s beginning to feel like home, despite my best laid plans to prison break all the way back to the West Coast (the Bay Area’s so beautiful). I even ran into Orpheo at the Broad Street/City Hall change over. And he’s only been in the city for 6 weeks, most of that teaching at Temple. It’s funny, I remember meeting him by chance at Cleveland’s Diner, back in Madison. He had studied in Berkley and I lived in San Francisco. We were both lamenting on no longer living in the Bay Area. Oh, well. One day. One day. But I’ve got some things to do here, I believe. And as Morpheus said oh-so-poigantly to Neo, “There’s a difference between knowing the path…, and walking the path”.

Life is short. Life is long. Life is not just the linear passing of time. Years to months. Days to hours. Minutes to seconds. Life is so much more than this. As I continue to grow older and hopefully grow as an individual as well, I see life in a constantly changing way. Matters of importance shift and are in a state of flux. Or more perhaps, it’s akin to silt settleing to the bottom - things finding their own weight and place. I am in Wisconsin this weekend shooting a wedding and came to learn that a former co-worker of mine passed away. I was not shocked per se, because I knew she had been ill. But none the less, it still impacted me. It is impacting me. When I left Wisconsin for California, she and I weren’t on the best of terms, though I didn’t dispise her. In fact, it was something small and childish that we both let get in the way of our friendship together. I feel the fool now, because no matter how I’d like to go and say, “I’m sorry for what I said or did”, it’s too late now. What we do with our time is so very, very important in this life. It has full weight and baring on what will happen in the next.

I wish I had taken the time to let her know I still thought well of her. She and I had many things in common and for the majority of our time together as co-workers, we got along very well. We shared a common interest in design and art - I would often help her with the Web site (she was the webmaster), helping her resolve issues and bugs. We would go to lunch from time to time and I never minded the sibling like teasing that ensued when we went out for group lunches at work. But that time has come and gone. I can only offer my sincerest sympathies to her husband, Pat, and to the rest of the staff at work, some of whom were good friends of hers.

I guess all that I mean by any of this is take the time while you have it to live with those as you really and truly want to live with them. Don’t put it off tomorrow if it can be done today. We are promised no time and believe me, writing about it in a blog is small recompense for what would have been the right thing to have done.

I know that I talk a lot here of interfaith coalitions and Muslim, non-Muslim relationships. I also talk a lot of finding the middle ground so that we can all fit in and coexist with one another without strife. So, while I have said and do maintain all of that I’d now like to voice my opinion on this concept of Mother Nature. Read more this entry »