Craig Ferguson is Respectable.

I was wasting time trying to learn how to C-walk and Harlem Shake on YouTube this evening and came across this video and I have to say I was seriously impressed.

Craig Ferguson played Drew Carey's boss on the latter's self-titled sitcom for about 7 years through 2003. Pretty funny guy, actually. He has most recently been on a run with Craig Kilborn's post-The Daily Show attempted self-resuscitation on CBS, called The Late Late Show. Formerly a serious, in-depth talk show, a la The Charlie Rose Show or Bill Moyers' NOW, Killborn took it in the comedic direction, but left after a few years. Ferguson is doing much better with it than Killborn, arguably.

This clip below is actually just after Ferguson's father passed away, around 4 months ago. What is particularly interesting about this segment is that it shows this man's moral clarity. (To me, at least.) Instead of continuing with the show, not mentioning it, or mentioning it in passing and then proceeding with the same old "show-must-go-on" mentality, he refused and decided that he would share what was going on inside of him. And the bravest thing is that it wasn't comedy and I don't think he cared at all. Some parts were funny, but he genuinely just came out and said that his father died and that he wanted to talk about it - and he did!

To me, this affirms a very important reality, which is that while the true, Islamic fitrah is covered in a lot of outwardly identifiable non-Muslims, as the Arabic designation given to them implies, it is not necessarily deep under the surface when it comes to certain areas and we should be tireless in seeking to uncover it, inshaa`Allah.

There is supposed to be a full episode somewhere on this site.

Betrayal of Self.

I was recently listening to a lecture on 'diseases of the heart' by a scholar and he noted how careful attention to speech is actually frighteningly damning evidence, of a specific nature, regarding the given individual's disease(s).

What he meant was that despite the sitr (veiling) that the Almighty provides for most of our individual wrongdoing - and certainly for our hidden aspects of hard-heartedness and disease - we, our very selves, can betray on our tongues the state of our hearts for all in earshot (and who have discerning minds) to know.

This adds myriad subtlties to the narration in which the prophet exhorts the individual to guard what is between the lips and between the legs to avoid the Fire. Minding the latter can often be easier to do, in a way, since it requires much deliberate, calculated, and repeatedly heedless mis-stepping. The former is much more easily lost track of - and a byproduct is the S/self-inflicted loss of Divinely guarded privacy. This is terrible given that up until one divulges oneself to others, the matter was between God and the individuals involved, regardless of the transgression.

The scholar then mentioned, in reading the advice of a previous scholar, the words of a poet who said [paraphrasing]:

"Guard your tongue from manifesting upon it the faults of others, remembering that you have faults and others have tongues...And if you ever find your eye wandering towards the faults of others say to your eye, 'oh my eye, others have eyes, too."

Examining many of these exhortations and numerous examples of the prophet's conduct, 'alayhis-salatu was-salam, with those who came to him admitting manifest and especially punishable sin, it is clear that among the objectives of Islam with regard to personal morality is the encouragement of non-publication of sinful conduct in favor of private repentance and reform.

This is crucial because the dominant culture we live in loves to "talk" about things. Islam seeks to inhibit the need/desire to share wrongdoing because Allah is eminently aware of our psychology with regard to un/consciously sought peer justification/reinforcement. There are typically only two reasons to share sin or diseased state of Self: a) truly seeking help, or b) seeking someone like oneself to serve as a virtual or literal companion in transgression.

To be sure, there is some value to having a dialogue on many otherwise internalized issues, but like all things, there is a middle path which should be sought.

Most of this could be said simpler and I love the saying of the prophet, 'alayhis-salatu was-salam, that encompasses all of this in much fewer words than I took to communicate it with less clarity:

Silence is wisdom, but so few are the wise.

Jahiliyya - but it looks so cool.

I must say that I respect perfection wherever it is - in a palace or slum and in virtue and vice. We do not know the reason why many talented, creative, and amazing people are not cognizant of of The Truth, but one thing is for certain: if Allah were to give them guidance, they would surpass most of us in many respects. This is both a warning and a motivator. The deen is not a right, it's a privilege - and guidance can manifest as spontaneously as it is removed. After all, several years ago, Imam Suhaib Webb might have DJed a similar gig as that which is posted below, may God preserve and increase him. If you watch this video, consider the amount of dedication it took to reach this level of skill (these are RockSteady and SuperCrew, two top-of-the-line bboy squads) and ask whether you exert yourself towards your chosen aims with as much effort as it took these guys to get to this stage. I guess it seems trivial, but that's what I see when I watch this.

That...and it's one of the flyest, coordinated battles I've ever seen.

Occidentalist Atheism.

This post is concerned with the fact that modern atheism/secular humanism (and a lot of agnosticism, as well) is inherently (and somewhat insultingly) Occidentalist. That is to say, its wholesale rejection of Divinity/religion is decidedly a rejection of its interaction with the Judeo-Christian Institution (capital 'i') and the essentially racist extrapolation that Islam is the same.

To begin, I am posting two links relating to how I have engaged in dialogue on Islam with non-Muslims. I'll segue into the above topic from the second link. In the first, some random Christian dude used to spam our MSA listserv ('01 -'02) challenging us to prove that there is salvation in Islam (he showed up again last year, as well - same arguments). I engaged him briefly and then I think somewhere in my second and last correspondence you can hear me sighing and never wanting to do anything interfaith ever again.

To be certain, this guy was particularly insincere about his interest in Islam - lesson #1 in how to decide with whom one should engage in discussion and with whom one should recite "For you is your way and for me is my way."

http://www.angelfire.com/realm2/truth/dialogue2.html

As you can see here and elsewhere on his website, he is clearly quoting from compiled arguments that I would be amazed if he conjured himself. Not because of their potency, but their sheer volume. He probably has no clue whom he was quoting. The arguments themselves are as poorly crafted and unlikely as the idea that anyone would pay for the sins of another.

Recently (spring '06), I was incensed by news of riots abroad regarding the illustration of the prophet, 'alayhis-salatu was-salam, and started a da'wa group on Meetup.com. I invited various people through the website and through Craigslist, as well. I also very selectively browsed the profiles of agnostic groups and sent a few invites to people who didn't seem like belligerent agnostics, but openly or possibly interested ones based on their profile comments. I was careful to attempt a tone that was not condescending, insha´Allah. I found the link below as a discussion surrounding my invitation:

http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopic-16443-0-days0-orderasc-.html

I am not quite certain whether my email was the best method, but I don't know how I would change if I had to invite this person again. I think shameless and harmless invitation is not a problem, as long as you are not reckless or insensitive.

Clearly, I was not terribly condescending, but she did take issue with me apparently assuming she was searching. Perhaps there is a lesson there. But a closer look at what I wrote reveals that it is she who was assuming about my assumptions:

"I'm not going to lie and say I'm emailing you on coincidence, but on the off-chance that you are interested in learning and discussing what Islam claims it is..."

So, I was honest and said that while it would be the unlikely case that you are interested ("off-chance") I am extending you an invitation to this group. If she read what I said, it communicated that I did not "assume" she was searching.

What is more telling, however, are the silly responses in the thread that follow. They clearly have no rudimentary idea of Islam, which is all the more disconcerting, considering how erudite and enlightened agnostics and atheists would claim to be about their rejectionism. (Not to mention most Christians and Jews.)

Nonetheless, I still think that Western atheists and agnostics (more so the latter) are possibly the most fruitful grounds for da'wa in many respects. I believe this in light of the following:

1) Judaism is unfortunately tied to Israeli politics in the current world stage and the campaign of the Zionists to conflate religion with politics impedes da'wa opportunities.

2) Much "orthodox" Christianity is tied to the war against "militant Islam," politicised by the Republican Right, and tends to go in circles around the contention that deeds are worthless. On the flip side, most Christians who are Democrats tend to depart from their religion on many aspects of practice. (It's true!) Not that Republican Christians are great moral leaders, but a larger proportion adhere to the letter of their deen a bit more, at least in theory.

3) Hindus tend to be tied to deep cultural symbols, more than anything religious - but their pantheistic relativism typically makes for very unfruitful da'wa. And, really, along with Buddhism, it is more of a philosophy than a religion.

But there is something different with Western Agnostics and Atheists. I find that most are quite dishonest with themselves - or ignorant - about characterising what exactly they are rejecting. It is obvious that they are typically overwhelmingly rejecting a Judeo-Christian concept of God and religious institution - almost never are they at all versed of anything with respect to Islam. They base the latter perception off of carnage and fatwas on the evening news like other lazy people.

I used to correspond via email with a very decorated professor of linguistics periodically about religion, geopolitics, and race, among other things, and I was shocked when I subtly queried him about his knowledge of scripture in Islam.

Our discussion centered around the violence and genocide present in Judeo-Christian texts, among other things; I suggested "what of the Muslim texts?" and he simply analogically prescribed that he "assumed" that Islam "probably" had the same problems that exist with the Judeo-Christian texts, though he had never read a word of it.

So, if Noam Chomsky rejects religion without reading Qur'an, we can assume the average atheist or agnostic probably hasn't done a whole lot either in that respect. Sure, they will rattle off their hatred of the institution of the church and organized religion and etc., (Chomsky's model was his father's Rabbinical example). But all of that is experientially based on interaction with Judeo-Christian understanding of the Divine. And most Judeo-Christian understanding in that respect is severely flawed, especially institutionally.

Here, I believe, lies a critical point of empathy between Muslims and those who reject the Judeo-Christian traditions:

Muslims reject much of the concepts of Divinity and religious institution that most atheists and agnostics reject from the Judeo-Christian traditions. In many cases, discussion may find that we, too, are "atheists," by their framing of religious parameters.

While we maintain that the original link is the God of Abraham, the way the Jews and Christians have come to institutionalize and understand that God is by no means identical to the concept that Muslims have.

This, I believe, is a unique point through which the Muslim and the non-believer can attempt to come to a dialogue.

It's a simplistic thesis, but I think it holds some water - maybe.

CAVEAT: Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala has elevated the rank of ahl ul-kitab above other kuffar and the above conention is not rejecting that fact. I believe that in the U.S. today, ahl ul-kitab da'wa can suffer from political realities that ineract with those religions - by their own imposition. This thought experiment simply states that there exists a very unique point of empathy between Muslims and modern Atheists, Secular Humanists, and Agnostics by virtue of the fact that they are built largely on assumptions about religion constructed from a deep rejectionism of Western religion - not Eastern. "...so give glad tidings to the strangers..."