“It is good to carry some powdered rouge in one’s sleeve. It may happen that when one is sobering up or waking from sleep, his complexion may be poor. At such time it is good to take out and apply some powdered rouge.” – Yamamoto Tsunetomo

The challenge of modernity is not met necessarily in the clash of civilizations, the clash of titans or anything quite as grandiose as we may be led to believe. Rather, it would be the clash of plurality; the attempt to make the many, one. In modern times, we often see the implacability of multiple notions on the same ideal. These neuroses have not escaped the Muslims here in America, where it is often more popular than not for self-appointed vanguards of personally conceived notions to coerce the masses into a mold other than that of their choosing. This is carried out by groups and individuals, that for lack of a better word and for dramatic effect, I will dub virtue bullies. The tactic is simple: bludgeon, batter and browbeat those who are perceived to differ in form and thus function of these bastions of moral rectitude. The results of these cultural-psychological attacks are the demonization of individuals and groups who can now easily be used as target practice – religious target practice in as far as this post is concerned. But in my opinion, these attacks are a rouse; a distraction, a cover-up. An applying of rouge to cover one’s blemishes.

What I am speaking about here, primarily, are the notions and concepts on manhood and vis-a-vie, Islam, that some bloggers have taken to attacking. These rants are not merely a waste of time – indeed, they are a fitnah, a trial and tribulation of the community in a time when we have bigger proverbial fish to fry. We live in a time when we need contributors, not detractors. Those who can strive intelligently and morally to say “yes”. Not to fall back on their shortcomings as a safety net to give us the all-too familiar, “no”. But we must get to the heart of these derisive comments. What is really being said here? What is the goal and what is it that these pundits of manhood are seeking to protect, or as I mentioned above, cover up?

To cut to the quick, many of these attacks have centered around the theme of a “hard working man”. The kind of man who earns his keep and, if possible, with his hands. Work that may not involve physical labor while not outright disdained, is certainly mistrustful. Vocations of an intellectual nature are cast with aspersions. After all, how can one really embody all that is right and manly, if you’re providing for your family while dressed in an ascot sweater, wearing suede shoes. Of course, we must not forget the affinity that such men may also have for coffee beverages, such as lattes, cappuccinos, and the like.

While the examples I am giving here are for dramaturgical effect, they are nonetheless, part and parcel with this scornful outlook on those who do not fit their predetermined profile. But in essence, these attacks are highly reminiscent of nativist sentiments towards immigration. Like the attitudes of many lower-class working whites at the turn of the 20th century who saw themselves as the defenders of a way of life, so to do these unsubstantiated claims smack of the same song ilk. Manhood, in the eyes of this self-selected few deem those who exist outside their socio-economic class as lacking in manhood. I say these notions are folly and instead, it would appear that their mascara is running at this point.

To say that Islam is a religion that is broad and wide enough to emcompass many modalities of manhood goes without saying. I would prefer to move beyond this Islam 101 narrative and instead seek to broaden the circle of enclosure. We must endeavor to find ways to include, not exclude. To state that the only acceptable form of dress is for men to dress as these pundits due is outright idiocy and completely outside their jurisdiction. Many such pundits have had the audacity to call for reforms in the community that will promote marriage, strong families and yet, many of them have been the participants of multiple marriages, leaving a wake of divocees, uncared for children and worse in their wake. How can someone who has little to no formal education, no formidable job skills, and makes a questionable contribution to community or society have the gumption to leer at persons who have a well-paying jobs, provide for their families in comfortable means, and even have the disposable income to potentially give to charity [something most of these individuals are hardly in the position to do, let alone reliably provide for their families in safe neighborhoods, provide quality educational opportunities for their children, etc.]? But instead of pointing the looking glass at themselves, they reach up their sleeves for some powdered rouge. Again, the mascara is really starting to run at this point. Only upon becoming spiritually sober, to awaken from the slumber of half-baked misconceptions of manhood whose substance is that of papier-mâché, will they have the chance to contribute something to themselves, their families and their communities and perhaps even society. I continue to be baffled at the state of some Muslims’ minds. With the serious future we face, that intellectual capital would be spent on something as asinine as this truly boggles the mind. Assuredly, manhood in Islam can be broad enough to accommodate a cup of coffee.

Of course, I am a tea drinker so I dare not ask what may be said of me.

There is something to be learned from a rainstorm. When meeting with a sudden shower, you try not to get wet and quickly run along the road. But doing such things as passing under the eaves of houses, you still get wet. When you are resolved from the beginning, you will not be perplexed though you will still get the same soaking. This understanding extends to everything. — Hagakure

As you may be able to tell, it rained here tonight. It needed it, too. It was starting to get kinda muggy again. Hopefully this will cause it to cool off nicely. I have to pack and move boxes up and down the stairs. No fun when it’s hot out.

Did some more reading of Islam and the Blackamerican, professor Jackson’s new book. Here are some collected notes so far that you may find interesting:

• Black Religion: “refuses to separate the struggle for otherwordly salvation from the struggle for temporal liberation and a dignified existance.”
• Black Religion: the “deism”, “natural religion” or “spontaneous folk orientation” of Blackamericans grounded in the belief of supernatural power outside of human history while being focused on that power’s manifesting itself in the form of intervention between the crucible of American race relations.
• Blackamericans are a “blues people” and their blues are an exercise in resistance and protest.
• Subversion, resistance, protest, opposition: these are the keys to the constitution of Black Religion.
• Blackamericans: “African heritage played little or no role to the development of Black Religion. It was the experiences in the New World that would create Black Religion.
• Medieval Europe’s rationalism was based on the Aristotelian Neo-Platonic tradition. This tradition had little inroads to West Africa. The Ash’arite school of theology (which had major influence from Aristotle) was very prevelent among learned West African Muslims.
• West African Muslims were a minority among those brought to the New World.
• “Early America reinforced the primodially religeous orientation of her enslaved Africans by doubly denying them access to a rationalist tradition on the basis of which the might transcend that orientation and or negate a negotiate a new relationship between religion and exigencies of life.”
• American slavery caused the onset of a cosmic alienation: the Africans were strangers in a strange land Nature was lost – its sacredness gone. This confered on them a sense of being powerless, friendless and in a sense, godless.

Where I could, I have quoted Dr. Jackson from the book, other areas were paraphrased. All material from the book is Copyright © 2005 Oxford University Press.