Getting Serious About Our Islam – More Thoughts on Tradition

Over this winter break I had a chance to engage in a number of good dialogs with my wife and friends about what’s going on right now with Muslims, American Muslims in particular (though, as it was recently pointed out, some of this is equally pertinent to Muslims living in Europe). From those talks sprang a reference to the article in which Dr. Umar Faruq Abd-Allah, from the Nawawi Foundation, was interviewed regarding Muslims, tradition, and dress. I read over the article again and thought I’d just point out a few brief points, as I felt they were relevant to the last post.

To be specific, Dr. Abd-Allah’s article highlights the dichotomy that exists between Muslims of so-called “Tradition” and its ever-increasing counterproductive results. Dr. Abd-Allah highlights a key issue facing Muslims, namely that of the burden that Muslim women are currently carrying: Identity. Abd-Allah points out this burden is “way too heavy”, and that it in effect reverses the very objective (Maqāsid al-Shari’ah/مقاسد الشريعة) that the Divine Law is trying to aim us towards:

When a Muslim woman in a scarf is coming out into public and she is totally exposed, the man is now in hijāb. He is in hijāb. She’s not in hijāb. She’s wearing a scarf yes, but if we know what hijāb really is, the man is in hijāb because he’s hidden. You can’t see him, you don’t know if he’s a Muslim or Hindu, you don’t know if he’s an Arab Muslim, an Arab Jew, an Arab Christian or just white. The man is in hijāb. That is what hijāb means – he is hidden from the public eye. She is not. She is the one who is absolutely out there, everybody knows it, so that’s hard for her to bear. Continue reading “Getting Serious About Our Islam – More Thoughts on Tradition”

Another Letter To My People

To say that we are living in difficult and troubled times would be an exercise in escapism itself.  Put aside economic depression and endless wars, for these are only symptoms of a greater social illness; an illness so perverse that it is killing us from the inside like cancer.  The culprit?  We are the culprits and the crime is a crime against Reality.  So far have we become detached from the true nature of Reality that we have had no other recourse than to foolishly attempt to make our own reality.  And man is a piss poor creator.

Less than twenty four hours from now, Americans will excuse themselves from work, class, and other obligations, to go and vote.  But vote for what, I ask?  And for whom?  These are not merely rhetorical questions, but real inquiries as to what it is we think we’re going to do?  Nor is this a clarion call to un-rock the vote.  It’s an honest-to-goodness petition to ask ourselves what it is we want and what it is we’re doing and is there any modicum of possibility that those choices will elicit the results we claim we so desperately want.  And yet if it is change we want, what kind of change?  Is it change for the better or for the worse?  2008 certainly did bring about change, but it hardly seems that things have gotten remotely better.  “Official” unemployment numbers threaten to crest the 10% mark (“the unemployment rate held at 9.6 percent”, says the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ web site, during the month of September).  However, anyone who’s spent a little time with numbers and statistics knows that data findings can be manipulated to almost any means.  Unofficial sentiment says that unemployment has gone beyond 10%, with some particularly hard-hit areas (like my native Detroit) are as high as 50%, as Mayor Dave Bing as attested (Melnick).  With staggering numbers such as these, how can we as a nation go the poles and elect officials from either side of the isle?  Finger pointing simply won’t do.  Quick glimpses at our social condition point to both political parties being equally guilty and equally incapable (let alone even having the interest to change the status quo) of making that change.  So again, who and what are we voting for and what do we think we’ll see?

To bring things a bit sharper into focus and to talk about this issue from a personal perspective, I want to highlight one aspect of our current illusory state: Black America.  There are so many points I want to touch on but one aspect that stands out from amongst the crowd is the damaging effect that liberalism has had on Black America.  In fact, I believe that the current brand of liberalism has had a detrimental effect on America as a whole, not because I am a conservative (which I do not adhere to, either), but because liberalism has been guilty of the very same crimes it accuses conservatism of.  Furthermore, in line with what Chris Hedges said in a recent article, I find liberals to be “a useless lot” (Hedges, Liberals Are Useless).  I know this language may sound unduly harsh, but it is how I feel nonetheless.  My truck with liberalism (perhaps neoliberalism works better here?) goes beyond Hedges’ critique, which includes a “bankrupt liberal intelligentsia” or the cynicism that is part and parcel of the attitudes many young people mistake today for being rebellious, and touches on something much more personal and insidious: the perpetuation of a post-slavery mentality amongst Blacks.

In order to help elucidate what I mean here, let me reference Tim Wise, author of a number of books on racism in the modern age such as Between Barack and a Hard Place: Racism and White Denial in the Age of Obama, and Color Blind: The Rise of Post-Racial Politics and the Retreat from Racial Equity, speaks to what I am aiming at here.  Wise manages to strike right at the center of liberal-based racism, which is no easy task being that (neo)liberalism struggles to maintain “a position of invisibility” (Dryer 39) as whiteness itself does.  Liberalism makes a very convincing argument based on supposed positions of equality and egalitarianism but in fact is one half of the coin that is American racism.  As Wise points out,

“many white liberal Obama supporters openly admitted that what they liked about the candidate was his ability to ‘transcend race’ (which implicitly meant to transcend his own blackness), to ‘make white people feel good about ourselves,’ and the fact that he ‘didn’t come with the baggage of the civil rights movement.'” (Wise)

Wise here lays bare the troubling and duplicitous nature of liberal race rhetoric: Blackness (and any other color or category for that matter) can be rendered harmless and acceptable so long as it is viewed as something to “get beyond”.  To be blunt, Obama appealed to the Change Generation not because he was a part of Black consciousness but because he seemed to be alienated from it.  His white heritage was seen as a means of finally moving beyond that troublesome social construct, race, and launching off into the realm of a post-race reality, something much more akin to how white Americans see themselves: “at once a sort of race and the human race, an individual and a universal subject” (Dryer 39).  This line of thinking has the same core values as tradition American conservative-base racism a la Jim Crow: Blackness is the problem, where here, instead of barring access to blackness as is the game play of American conservatism, liberalism only grants access so long as the black signifier is either left behind or is rendered irrelevant.

This modality of racism also bears the marks of a very subtle exceptionalism.  Barack Obama cannot be seen as part of the greater body of what is American blackness, but is seen as wholly exceptional.  This is part of the very same rhetoric of those would chastise Blacks on “not being happy with finally having a Black president” as if Obama has been the only qualifying candidate in the last four hundred years.  To see Obama as normal would run the risk of tainting him of the very same blackness that liberals are trying to strip him of.  The flip side to this is not only making Obama out to be exceptional but also to make the rest of Black America un-exceptional and thus un-qualified as an entire racial group for greatness.  Wise concludes that this process draws comparisons between Obama and The Cosby Show, a sitcom that was much beloved by white America which “despite [Bill Cosby’s] blackness”, it allowed white America the ability to “identify” with him (Wise).

As Wise further points out, the implications here go beyond personal biases and into the realm of social institutions.  Liberal attempts to create a colorblind society have been amongst the most debilitating to Blackamericans to acknowledge and wrestle with their own personal demons.  The outcome from this has been the enshrining and even “angelisizing” of Blacks, who as a result of their brutal history at the hands of whites, are deemed categorically noble despite any flaws they may have.  In doing so, Blacks have been nurtured and encourage to turn their intellectual and creative resources away from solving Black issues and instead into helping liberals maintain this status quo through actors such as the Reverend Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson.  I mention the two men here not because of their lack of commitment to the Black Cause (at least on first blush) but because their efforts have been solely directed at maintaining a social way of thinking amongst Blacks that perpetuates victimization.  The only time color is seen is when there is some overt racial bias, such as a police shooting of Black teens or race-based attacks or slurs.  In the absence of obtuse acts of racism, the two activists are woefully silent on the issues confronting Blackamericans on a social, existential, intellectual, and even cosmological level.

To return to the political spectacle at hand, I must confess my own guilt involved.  I voted for Barack Obama in 2008.  I won’t delve into the details here but to summarize, it surely involved not only his great oratory skills, but also my own identity politics as well as the disillusionment I felt at the past eight years.  But there is one illuminating vision I have had come out of the last two years: This is no longer a nation by the people, nor for the people.  There is simply no way that the majority of Americans have asked to lose their jobs, have their homes taken from them, and driven into crushing debt.  And the actions of the current administration have revealed them to be an extension of a very evil and anti-human system that has and is, tearing the fabric of our society apart.  But the finger pointing can only go so far.  We must, as a nation, be willing to indict ourselves as being apathetic and greedy.  It is the apathy of liberalism again that I point to as half of the blame.  Despite all of its complex rhetoric, liberalism has proved to be toothless in the onslaught against the American public.  I was deeply saddened to see Yusuf Islam on stage with Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.  I believe I understand Yusuf’s intentions but as people of conscious, I believe American Muslims must stand up with the conviction and courage to see the playing field for what it is.  Allying ourselves with a party and a way of thinking, which at its heart, is no less despicable than the crass, overt racist conservatism we see amongst the Old South Resurrected (a.k.a., the Tea Party), is in my opinion a mistake and a disservice to the broader public.  If Muslims truly are people of the Middle Way, then both parties’ deceptions should stand out clear to us.  So long as we allow the senseless banter of a two-party rodeo show to continue without criticism, we may be a guilty third party.  The conservative party seeks to scare the populace to death with the threat of terrorism and immigration while the liberals turn serious issues of the day into mere entertainment, the gravity of the topics is drowned out from the laugh track.  Chris Hedges sums it up here:

The rally delivered a political message devoid of reality or content. The corruption of electoral politics by corporate funds and lobbyists, the naive belief that we can somehow vote ourselves back to democracy, was ignored for emotional catharsis. The right hates. The liberals laugh. And the country is taken hostage (Hedges, The Phantom Left).

Islam is first and foremost about Reality, about Truth, as these are the names of God, both capable of being distilled from the name, al-Haqq, one of God’s 99 names.  Islam sees reality itself contingent upon God and at once pointing towards the Truth.  When we are in the state we are in now, where reality—most properly here our understanding of reality—is based not on God, not even on scientific empiricism (which can be just as tyrannical) but rather on illusion and imagery.  “Reality itself has been converted into stagecraft”, as Hedges puts it (Hedges, Empire of Illusion 15).  All of pop culture bears this out.  At the risk of sounding self-aggrandizing, man is a piss poor creator.  Yet, in light of our social grip on reality being lost, what other recourse could we have taken?  As Daniel Boorstin warns us, “We risk being the first people in history to have been able to make their illusions so vivid, so persuasive, so ‘realistic’ that they can live in them” (Boorstin 240).  Fingers on both sides of the liberal/conservative isle have pointed to the cultural media engine which churns out image after image, practically making slaves out of young people who are coerced into hopeless attempts to live up to these illusions; body image, wealth, prestige, beauty, self-worth.  The list goes on and yet neither side has been able to offer an effective countermand to the system that produces them which leaves me to think that if they’re not part of the solution, they’re part of the problem.  And yet, in order for Muslims to even having a chance of being part of the solution, we will have to finally answer the question as to whether or not we will get serious about America.  It has to go beyond slogans and flag waving (a recent picture showed an American Muslim woman with a sign that read, “I am a Veteran.  I am an American. I am a Muslim.”) and get down to a real, honest and committed conversation where American Muslims will offer up their human and economic capital for the salvation of the society.  Anything less will result as the victims of rabid conservatism or perhaps even worse, the perpetrators of liberal apathy.

So when you vote tomorrow, think about what you’re really doing.  Are you simply exercising your rights as an American, or are you acting as a God-conscious person.  A purveyor of truth or too afraid to bite the hand that’s feeding you (today).

“The spectacle is not a collection of images; rather, it is a social relationship between people that is mediated by images” (Debord 12).

يريد الله ليبين لكم ويهديكم سنن الذين من قبلكم ويتوب عليكم والله عليم حكيم

God desires to make things clear to you and to guide you to the correct practices of those before you and to turn towards you. God is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

والله يريد أن يتوب عليكم و يريد الذين يتبعون الشهوت أن تميلوا ميلا عظيما

God desires to turn towards you, but those who pursue their lower appetites desire to make you deviate completely.

يريد الله أن يخفف عنكم و خلق الإنسن ضعيفا

God desires to make things lighter for you. Man was created weak.

يأيها الذين ءامنوا لا تاكلوا أمولكم بينكم بالباطل إلا أن تكون تجرة من تراض منكم ولا تقتلوا أنفسكم إن الله كان بكم رحيما

O’ you who profess belief in God!, do not consume one another’s property by false means, but only by means of mutually agreed trade. And do not kill yourselves. God is Most Merciful to you [Qur’an, 4: 26-29].

Sources & Links

A Letter To My People

In the past two weeks, I have had a number of conversations with Blackamerican friends and colleagues (Muslim) who have expressed dismay of the present state of Black America. I commiserated with them, expressing my own turbulent thoughts. I thought I might share a few of these thoughts here. Just as a note: these thoughts are the culmination of ideas based upon my personal experiences, observations, conversations, research and scholarship, and as a concerned citizen. I welcome any feedback and constructive criticism. However, if your words are nothing other than vitriol, save the electrons, as I will not be posting them.

And God knows best,

In a recent talk I had mentioned that Black folks have steadily become the most secular people in the United States. This surprised many people, especially other Black folks, who thought of themselves and other Black folks as being particularly religious. However, when I directed them to look at their lived realities, the social and existential conditions, the proof was in the pudding. Continue reading “A Letter To My People”

Islam: Questions and Answers

I am re-posting this from a letter my wife wrote about the 20/20 incident.

After lengthy discussion about ABC’s recent 20/20 program on an email listserv for Middle East and Islamic Studies, Maytha Alhassan invited members to compose a letter to the producers. We have workshopped the letter with someone in the media and incorporated suggestions from readers. If you are interested in signing, please send your name, title, and affiliation.

ABC’s 20/20

Islam: Questions and Answers

We applaud ABC’s 20/20 for producing the show “Islam: Questions and Answers” program, which attempted to address the American public’s curiosity about Islam and show the true face of Islam in America. However, as scholars, activists, educators, and community leaders, we are concerned about the ways in which this program misrepresented Muslim Americans.  We would like to address three major areas where your program inaccurately depicted Islam in America: first, by continually asserting that moderate Muslims do not speak up; second, by overlooking the contributions of African American Muslims;  and finally, allowing women who have complete antipathy towards Islam (Pamela Gellar and Ayaan Hirsi) to speak for Muslim women. The producers and researchers may have been well meaning, however the program’s insensitivity and lack of nuance  alienated many American Muslims and perpetuated many misconceptions about American Muslims. Our aim is to address these three areas and provide some recommendations for more accurate coverage of American Muslims in the future.

  1. First, the show continually asked, “Why don’t we hear or see more mainstream, peaceful Muslims speaking up?” or “Where are the moderate voices?”
    • It is problematic to divide Muslims into binary categories of “moderate” and “radical.” Would the same categorical statement be made about the socio-political orientation of followers of different religious faiths and other ethnic groups? How would the mainstream reaction to your program be had you produced a segment titled “Where are all the moderate Christians?,” “Where are all the moderate Latino Americans?” The framing of these questions and methodology of answering these questions highlights an acceptability of a bigoted stance on Muslims that is rarely acknowledged.
    • Muslim Americans are constantly blamed for not speaking up, however the media bears some responsibility. Moderate Muslims continually speak out and do positive things for American society, but this does not make it in the news. And there American Muslim scholars and leaders who hold conferences, talks, lectures devoted to the topic of “Forging an American Muslim identity.” Zaytuna Institute scholars Hamza Yusuf and Imam Zaid Shakir, Islamic Center of New York University Imam Khalid Latif and professor Dr. Sherman Jackson are but a few of the many American born intellectuals and community leaders who do speak out.
    • Where is the media when peaceful Muslims gather, participate in the American political process, protest terrorism, violence, and hatred?
    • At one point, an expert posits a recommendation “They need to have a million man march on Washington,” while conveniently ignoring that the Million Man March was actually led by a Muslim man, Louis Farakhan.
    • On September 25, 2009, Islam on Capitol Hill gathered an estimated 8,000 to prayer Friday prayers. And on October 15, 2010 thousands of Muslims once again convened on Capitol Hill to demonstrate their belief in American democracy and promote religious freedom, however, there were few media outlets at the DC event.
    • Muslim Congressmen Keith Ellison wrote an Op-ed “Should We Fear Islam?” in the Washington Post speaking to the first point made in this section. Ellison and Muslim Congressman Andre Carson were also completely absent from the program, which brings us to an important issue of accurate portrayal of American Muslims.
  2. The program reinscribes Islam as a foreign religion by focusing on Arab and South Asian immigrant communities in the US, at the expense of African American Muslim communities.
    • Your program excluded African American Muslims in the narrative of Islam in America and conflated of Arab with Muslim. African Americans make up the largest percentage of Muslims in America, and yet your program visited Dearborn, Patterson, NJ, and even Egypt to speak with Arabs who compose the third largest group of Muslims in the US.
    • The Nation’s first capitol, Philadelphia, has a rich and long history of Muslims. There was a community of orthodox Black American and Caribbean American Muslims from the 1920s. It has high concentration of Muslims, a Muslim chief of police, Muslims who work in city government, etc.
    • With the over-exposure of Arab Muslims, your program even failed to mention that Arab American Muslims are in the minority in Arab American communities. Most Arab Americans are Christian.
    • The program did a poor job discussing, engaging with and highlighting the diverse community of Muslims.
    • Low figure for Muslims (2-3 million?), and no breakdown of the demographics.
    • No discussion of converts.
    • The program even failed to show celebrated athletes (NFL, NBA, boxing, Soccer players), politicians and historical figures who are Muslim and African American.
  3. Finally, the segment, “Does Islam oppress women?” did a great disservice to Muslim women.
    • While we appreciate the inclusion of one Muslim voice, Irshad Manji, she herself is not a scholar on Islam.
    • Instead two polemics who are vehement in their anti-Islam stance, Ayaan Hirsi and Pamela Gellar received undo attention.
    • Your program failed to include any Muslim scholars such as Amina Wadud, Ingrid Mattson (a Canadian scholar who recently ended her term as ISNA president), or Dr. Aminah Beverly McCloud to speak in this segment? Their and other scholars’ absence is an indication of an asymmetric representation of opposition views.
    • Perhaps these scholars would have shed light on Muslim women’s contributions through history such as Islam’s first convert, Khadija al-Kubra, the Prophet Muhammad’s wife, who was also his employer before marrying. One of the first Sufi saints was a woman, Rabia al-’Adawiyya al-Qaysiyya (Rabia al-Basri) or Nana Asma’u, a West African educator and reformer.

In order to explore our rich diversity, we have provided some recommendations to improve your coverage of American Muslims below:

  1. Explore the long history of Muslims in the US, a history of residency and settlement that predates the formation of America as a country. American born Nawawi scholar Dr. Umar Faruq Abd-Allah has written extensively on this subject.
  2. Include broader segments of the American Muslim community to ensure that each major ethnic group, South Asian American, African American, and Arab American, is represented in your programs.
  3. Attend Muslim American events, banquets and conferences like the prayer on Capitol Hill, MPAC, CAIR’s functions, etc. Do not just focus on sensationalism, but cover American Muslims during Ramadan or Eid al-Adha (the end of Hajj).
  4. We ask your researchers and staff to be more careful in their selection of “experts.” Make distinctions between socio-politics and Islamic scholarship. None of the women you interviewed in the question on the oppression of women in Islam had training in Islamic scholarship on covering or the hijab. We can help provide a list of scholars and experts who would be happy to lend their expertise.
  5. Consider diversifying your staff, researchers and interns with knowledge, expertise, and experience in various communities may yield better results.

In summation, your program provided a rare opportunity to provide accurate coverage of Muslims and clear up misconceptions. As acknowledged at the onset of your program, the controversy surrounding the Park 51 community center elicited a renewed curiosity in Islam. We were pleased with the inclusion of Edina Lekovic’s (MPAC) comments, Reza Aslan’s explanation of the definition of “fatwa,” and Faiza Ali’s (CAIR-NY) elucidation of the hijab’s complex historical place in cultural and religious practice, “coerced headcoverings are tribal.” However we note that while your program was a step in the right direction, it still ended up being misleading. By taking into consideration the recommendations we have made, your producers can create more accurate programing on Muslim Americans thereby showing the real face of Islam in America.

A Wakeup Call – This Time For Maureen Dowd

Maureen Dowd – White Person Extraordinaire

I have written two articles (1 and 2) on the phenomenon of Muslim pundits. To be more precise, the articles were about Muslim Muslim pundits, those few self-elected personalities that have made careers out of irresponsible critiques against Muslims and Islam, especially when Muslim do not meet their expectations. And it is the latest article from Pulitzer Prize winning columnist, Maureen Dowd, that provides an example of a non-Muslim Muslim pundit. In her New York Times article, Ms. Dowd uses 911 words (coincidence? You decide…) to inform us just how short her recent trip to Saudi Arabia, the “cradle of Islam”, fell in how it failed to educate her about the religion that, “smashed into the American consciousness on 9/11”. Dowd’s article, despite its obvious lack of respect for the subject, does manage to bring to light a glaring tendency in popular discourse, namely the general acceptance of attacking Muslims and by proxy of them, Islam, through one, convenient scapegoat: Saudi Arabia. According to Dowd and those who follow this mode of logic, to reproach Saudi Arabia is to reproach Islam in its entirety.

In one of my recent articles, I talked about the phenomenon of American Muslims and their need to travel abroad to the Muslim world in order to feel validated. Dowd has in many ways followed the exact same line, albeit for a different end goal: to denounce Islam. However, the two parties both have a misguided perception that Arab world, and Saudi Arabia in particular, are symbiotes of the same host: the religion of Islam. As we have seen in recent events, this could not be father from the case. Saudi Arabia is a country, a Muslim country no doubt, but hardly representative of Islam itself in such a way that all other expressions of Islam outside of the Arab Kingdom are merely simulacrums of Islam.

Dowd’s article, Pilgrim Non Grata In Mecca, is problematic even in its titling. From the very get go, Dowd ascribes to herself a status she does not possess: that of a (Muslim) pilgrim. A play on the Latin persona non grata, a close translation being “unwelcome person”, Dowd assumes that she is indeed on a pilgrimage (perhaps she was making ‘Umrah?), Dowd places herself within her own narrative in a role she never possessed from the start. Dowd repeatedly misses the very Muslimness of Mecca and Madīnah, especially as it relates to the necessity of those would visit the Ka’abah. Dowd fails to realize or recognize the need to be a Muslim to not only visit these places, but to perform the ritual acts for which they solely exist for. This deliberate intention, on the part of Dowd, to ignore such an overarching fact concerning the Two Holy Mosques only further demonstrates the utter lack of respect that Dowd had for her subject matter from the beginning. It is not that Dowd is an unwelcome pilgrim but that she is not a pilgrim at all.

Pilgrim Non Grata continues its bull-in-a-china-shop critique of Islam by attacking not how Islam views sacredness, but in how Islam is not Christianity, Judaism, or Buddhism. Dowd’s smug rant about how Mecca is not as open as the Vatican or how one can have their picture taken with the Dalai Lama only further illustrates how absolutely biased and ignorant Dowd is on the subject of Islam. By holding up Islam to a fit it was never meant to wear, Islam can only but fall short of appearing to be “civilized”. In essence, Dowd’s main axe to grind with Islam (which during the course of Dowd’s article is difficult to discern where she’s more concerned with getting access to the country of Saudi Arabia or learning anything in particular about Islam the religion) is how it’s not Christian, or Buddhist, than it is about understanding how Islam views the sacred. Here, Dowd reveals her true colors (literally) as a white, western woman, whose only particular historicized notions of freedom, access, equality, etc., are theorized into ontological truths that can be used to demonize Muslims (by proxy of Saudi Arabians) and Islam as a religion as a whole. I must admit I am sorely disappointed that a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist could either be so woefully ignorant or so unabashedly crude. Perhaps that prize, along with western white privilege, is not all it’s cracked up to be.

It would seem that much of Dowd’s ignorance stems from a complete lack of understanding of Islam on its own terms as well as the few, highly questionable sources she draws upon. Aside from her own trumped up cosmology, Dowd refers to Sir Richard Burton, the British “adventurer”, who translated “The Arabian Nights”, referring to himself as a “amateur barbarian”. Perhaps if Dowd had done some research she may have found that the Arabian Nights in no way shape or form has any relation to the religion of Islam. No all things Arab constitute a running commentary on Islam. Perhaps if Dowd had simply talked to a few recognized, educated and reputable Muslim figures on the religion, she may have accomplished her goal of trying to “learn about the religion that smashed into the American consciousness on 9/11”.

Part of understanding Islam on its own terms would entail learning how Islam views the sacred. In fact, it is perhaps in Islam’s view of the sacred that continues to distinguish itself from other religious expressions in modernity as the quintessential pre-modern religion. In other words, the sacred, for the main body of Muslims, was never rendered into the profane; the secular. Aside from the anomaly of modern thought as expressed by a few pro-modernity Muslim thinkers, there has never existed the concept of Les Belles Lettres. Beauty, in the body of Muslim thought, has always been connected to the Divine. It is even one of the Attributes of God in Islam, where all other emanations of beauty only point back to the source of Ultimate Beauty. This notion of sacredness extends to the mosque – any mosque, not solely the Two Holy Mosques of Mecca and Madīnah – as well to the Qur’ān. Art in the Muslim world (and in pre-modern Europe as well) was viewed as religious: the decorating of mosques, the illumination of the Qur’ān and other classical texts and so forth. These artistic endeavors were done not out of a desacralized sense of beauty, but rather as a mode of religious devotion. In fact, if Dowd had spoken with a body of Muslims before hand, she may have heard voices from the Muslims who dismay over the very secularness of the Blue Mosque, in that what once used to be a place of worship has now been reduced to a museum of historic architecture; the belle lettre of buildings. So when Muslims wish to keep and preserve the sacredness of the Two Holy Mosques in Mecca and Madīnah, perhaps Dowd could see that this decision is informed by a very specific thought process that has very specific goals, namely the preservation of the sacred for all Muslims.

As for the three faith traditions that Dowd lists, she misses a key point: you may not have to be Catholic to go to the Vatican, but you may have to be Catholic to really understand what it means to be Catholic. You may be able to learn some very interesting facts about Catholicism as a non-Catholic, but without having the experience of being a Catholic, especially in a modern mindset, you will only have accumulated a collection of details that may or may not have the same meaning for the viewer as it does the object of their viewing. Similarly, as above, simply because Catholics have chosen to open up the Vatican does not mean that Muslims should open up Mecca. The Vatican is not Mecca, nor vise versa. Perhaps Dowd should consider doing some research on her topic before flailing about wildly with her pen.

Finally, I will depart with commenting on the methodology of Dowd’s inquiry. In her own words, Dowd stated that, “It was nearly impossible for me to experience Islam in the cradle of Islam”. Another in a long line of presumptions, I would challenge Ms. Dowd on just how she arrived at this observation. Much akin to Africa being the cradle of civilization, going back to Kenya and walking around the dusty streets of Nairobi will not, cēterīs paribus, give me any epiphanic understanding of what life is like in New York City. Further, the analogy of a “cradle” is also not without critique, as a cradle, according to the dictionary, is a small bed, often for infants, during which they are nurtured in their early existence. Islam was born in Mecca, but it grew up and moved out the house, expanded in Madīnah and eventually flew well beyond its borders. While learning about Mecca will indeed teach one about certain aspects of Islam, but it cannot give the whole picture. In the end, my advice to Maureen Dowd would be: if you want to learn about Islam, become a Muslim. If you wish to know some “facts” about Islam, well, you could visit Wikipedia. Or for that matter, continue reading this blog.