Friday, July 28, 2017

Neo-Wahhabism and Neo-Sufism: Two Facets of the Same Modern Phenomenon

Let me begin by saying that my focus on Islam stems from being Muslim, and, therefore, partially responsible for my tradition and its evolution.

I am fully aware that all the difficulties with the evolution of modernity that I spell out here are present also in other traditions -- whether within Orthodox Judaism (not recognizing fully many American Rabbis); pseudo-Christian fundamentalism (a neighbor who grew up in Houston told me that growing up in the 1950s, the phrases "mighty-Christian of you" and "mighty-White of you" were interchangeable); or secular socio-legal constitutional originalism (which brings to mind Derrida's comment that to imitate an original is to miss the point).

It is a mistake, in my humble opinion, for Muslims to deflect responsibility by pointing to similar difficulties elsewhere. The above mentioned problems in various traditions all emerge from social evolution (for example, the racial difficulties facing traditionally White America as we make progress towards a post-racial society; two steps forward, one step back).

Wahhabism itself was born when Muhammad ibn Abdel Wahhab, a Central-Arabian cleric, was shocked by the cosmopolitanism of Southern Iraq. The stark contrast can be seen to this very day within Saudi Arabia, where the coastal cities of Jeddah and Dhahran remain much more cosmopolitan, at least compared to the greater orthodoxy of Riyadh. Pure Wahhabism, like Orthodox Judaism, sought to freeze time, for fear of losing their tradition. Of course, pure Wahhabism could not defeat modernity entirely, and has evolved with time.

My central focus in the last two postings on this blog was squarely on the phenomenon of neo-Wahhabi American preachers, who teach a softer form of orthodoxy, but orthodoxy nonetheless -- and it bears repeating that there is nothing authentic about orthodoxy. It is an attempt to freeze in time a mythical society that the orthodox invent to fight change. Thus Muhammad ibn Abdel Wahhab's own family of scholars were perplexed by his teachings -- they thought that they were already preserving the tradition, which required keeping up with the times!

It is not surprising that American Muslim immigrants would seek some similar form of time-defying orthodoxy (especially after they had to admit, even if silently, that the programs of MB and JI have been disastrous failures in their countries of origin and throughout the world). All immigrants are known to try to preserve tradition, much like Italian immigrants in New York did a century ago, for fear that their children would melt within society and lose their identities (in the cases of Judaism and Islam, that includes intermarriage and conversion). They sent their kids to Madinah to learn what they thought to be authentic Islam, and find comfort in the mixture of American youth slang and orthodoxy (what I have labeled neo-Wahhabism for lack of a better term).

Others have not been comfortable with this neo-Wahhabism, and found comfort in their children chasing alleged Sufi masters. Those have failed to see that organized Sufism (which is pseudo-Sufism) is just as dogmatic and potentially dangerous (hence my constant discomfort with the Gulen movement, for example; after all MB had also claimed since its inception to be a Sufi Tariqa and devised very similar chapter and family structures). Just as Wahhabism tried to turn human beings into Shari`a-following automata, Sufism tried to turn them into Tariqa-following automata; and the irony is that the two terms (Shari`a or road to watering hole and Tariqa or method) almost mean the same thing. Today's neo-Sufis play the same role as the neo-Wahhabis, even as the two groups claim that they couldn't be more different.

I am aware, as my friend hinted in his emailed response to my posting yesterday, that I tend only to offer criticism, which does not seem constructive (this is the same charge that I received for my work on Islamic finance). This charge misses the point of, say, the negative theology of Maimonides or the perpetual deconstructionism of Socrates: Some problems simply do not have positive answers (or at the very least easy positive ones), and the role of the critic is to point out that easy solutions are by definition no solutions at all. I do not mean easy in implementation (neo-Wahhabis and neo-Sufis are given many tasks to keep their bodies and minds busy); it is conceptual ease that I criticize. As the Grand Sheikh Mohyiddin ibn Arabi would say, every time you think you are worshipping God, you are merely worshipping your own created mental image of God; and since this is your own creation, you are still worshipping yourself.

Thursday, July 27, 2017

American neo-Wahhabi Preaching, Part II

Two friends have responded critically to my post this morning. 

The second simply responded with the quote:
"At the end of my life, I want to be able to say I contributed more than I criticized." Brene Brown
 I replied as follows:
A good point.

However, the great teachers, from Socrates onwards, including most prophets recognized in our scripture, contributed mainly by criticizing.

The first friend had a longer warning:
I certainly share your concern regarding the advice being given, but see no need to avoid the substantive criticism by condemning people based on where they studied, particularly in the circumstances in which we find ourselves.  There are plenty of thoughtful American and Canadian Muslims who have studied in Saudi Arabia, and tarring them with the label of Wahhabis because they studied in the KSA is dangerous and self-defeating. This same strategy can be used tomorrow against any one of us once the identity of the scapegoat is changed.  Let's stick to criticizing or praising ideas, rather than names and places.  We'll be much better off if we do so. 
I responded as follows:
You are absolutely right, ... The problem is that this brand of preacher always make sure to say during their khutab that they studied at Madinah University, and that their teacher taught them this and that… This is an integral part of their own chosen and marketed brandname that lends them legitimacy. 
I agree that the word Wahhabi is counterproductive, but Salafi would be even more misleading, and so on. I am trying to inform them of the alienness of their own teaching to who they are, and use the term neo-wahhabi to describe them… 
In summary, I see your concern about using the term as a pejorative, and understand the dragnet mentality that is ever-present and also dangerous, but my main objective is for families to stop sending their kids to this recruitment school. My guess is that once USG stopped their direct sponsorship of mosques and Imams in the U.S. after 9/11, they started offering these scholarships to indoctrinate American citizens who cannot be kept out. So, I wanted to sound the alarm — not that anyone is listening. 

American neo-Wahhabism: The Outbreak of "Madinah University" Preachers in Our Mosques

Over the past several months, I have noticed a dangerous pattern:

Mostly gone are the immigrant generation of JI-influenced South Asians and MB-influenced Arabs (so far, so good), but the almost exclusive category of new preachers are their American-born children (together with American-born Hispanic, African-American, or White converts) who were sent to study at "Madinah University," only to return and preach a thinly-sugar-coated neo-Wahhabism (the sugar coating is a superficial veneer of Sufism).

I thought that this was only a Houston phenomenon, with which I had been familiar for a while. However, the mosque at which I have been praying most Fridays has had a number of preachers from Illinois, Michigan, and elsewhere who fit the exact same profile. This is too systematic to be a coincidence: It was clearly a methodical recruitment campaign, and it has succeeded in infecting our American-Muslim communities with neo-Wahhabism.

I must point out that those preachers (mostly in their 20s and 30s) clearly don't understand this. Indeed, except for the few forced Arabic terms that they have clearly memorized (with improper grammar and translation that betrays the superficiality of their education), they mostly pepper their sermons with American slang and profess their American patriotism. The sugar coating of superficial Sufism seals the deal for their parents' generation and other uncritical listeners.

Let me give one example to illustrate: Almost all of those neo-American-Wahhabi preachers are obsessed with male and female youth interacting electronically. During Ramadan, the advice was to delete all contacts of their Muslim friends of the opposite sex... "Don't even text her to remind her to pray," the preachers warned: "This is just Satan fooling you to make you commit a sin even as you think that you are pursuing virtue."

For those who are not aware, this is not even an American adaptation of Saudi Wahhabi teaching. For the past decade or more, Saudis have been greatly distraught that their sexual segregation was circumvented by electronic means (many years ago, they tried banning Blackberry Messenger, but they couldn't stop bluetooth scanning for nearby friends, ...). So, even this seemingly very contemporary and American preaching is imported lock stock and barrel through their "Madinah University" pseudo-education.

I have yet to hear a single hint of humanities and social sciences inspired insights from this generation of neo-Wahhabis. To belabor the specific example of sex segregation, I have to say that this cannot be more worrisome. I am not saying that a contemporary and authentic teaching to American Muslims that will meet them on their own terms will advocate sexual promiscuity, but surely these teachings have been proven sources of social disease.

Pew recently shared data that American Muslims are getting more liberal, but our mosques seem to be dangerously trying to stem this healthy tide. Instead of riding and redirecting the natural tide of Muslim integration in American life, with soul-searching similar to that experienced, say, by the Conservative Jewish community a century ago, they are importing the very plague that has caused the backwardness and failure of their countries of origin.

What a shame.

Friday, August 12, 2016

To Embrace Pluralism and Democracy, We Must Repudiate Islamism

This is a draft for my sermon (khutba) this afternoon at ISGH Main Center.

I urge you and myself to be God-conscious and truthful:
 يا أيها الذين آمنوا اتقوا الله وكونوا مع الصادقين 
[O, community of faith, be God-conscious, and be Truthful 9:119]

As American Muslims, there are two factors that have intensified our desire to embrace religious pluralism and democracy in American society. The first is our neighbors' increasing interest in understanding our worldview, in large part because of repeated terrorist acts by members of our extended community, and the second is the heretofore unfamiliar anti-pluralistic strain in the current political season.

Both of those factors require acceleration of our embrace of pluralism and active conversation with the broader American society, both socially and politically. However, I submit to you, that the Islamist mindset that has characterized our institutions and sermons is antithetical to this pluralism from which we have benefited.

The solution cannot be hypocrisy: continuing to profess the Islamist anti-pluralist orthodoxy within our communities, while trying to present a democratic facade to others outside these communities. This hypocritical two-facedness was condemned in the following Hadith.

Bukhari and Muslim narrated, on the authority of Abu Hurayra, that the Prophet (p) said:
تجدون الناس معادن فخيارهم في الجاهلية خيارهم في الإسلام إذا فقهوا وتجدون من خير الناس في هذا الأمر أكرههم له قبل أن يقع فيه وتجدون من شرار الناس ذا الوجهين الذي يأتي هؤلاء بوجه وهؤلاء بوجه 
[You will find that people have different intrinsic characteristics. The best among them in the pre-Islamic age of ignorance are also the best in Islam if they understand. And you will find among the best people in this religion to be the ones who hated it the most before it arrived. And you will find among the most evil people to be those who are two-faced, meeting this group with one face and that group with another]

As I shall argue later, in line with the views expressed by Bassam Tibi in Islam's Predicament with Modernity: Religious Reform and Cultural Change, that the word for "understanding" in this Hadith (فقهوا) is the crux of the matter. Do we understand "understanding" in the rationalist sense of my hero Ibn Rushd, reading scripture and tradition with rational thought as the arbiter, or do we understand it in the theological and juristic Islamist sense that has dominated Islamic societies (giving primacy to traditional reading of scripture over rationalism)?

I choose the former, and read the Tradition thus: The best people are the ones who are discerning, in the rationalist sense, regardless of their religion, and the worst people are those who are two-faced, regardless of theirs.

Let me explain further why Islamism grounded in Qur'an and Sunnah in the sense of static anchoring is inconsistent with pluralism. Tibi makes a correct distinction between diversity and pluralism. Thus, the verse that we often cite to claim that traditional Islamism is consistent with pluralism:

 يأيها الناس إنا خلقناكم من ذكر وأنثى وجعلناكم شعوبا وقبائل لتعارفوا إن أكرمكم عند الله أتقاكم إن الله عليم خبير
[O mankind, we have made you into males and females, and made you into peoples and tribes, so that you may get to know one another, the best among you are those most God-conscious, and God is all knowing 49:13]

To understand why this refers to diversity, while still asserting supposed supremacy of Islam, which is antithetical to pluralism, let's examine an historical episode that is often cited as a shining example of Islam's consistency with pluralism: The Prophet's (p) dealing with Najran (south of Hijaz, in the direction of Yemen).

In our contemporary Muslim apologetics, we often cite the Prophet's (p) permission to the Christian delegation from Najran to pray inside his mosque, and cite the verse:
 قل ياأهل الكتاب تعالوا إلى كلمة سواء بيننا وبينكم ألا نعبد إلا الله ولا نشرك به شيئا ولا يتخذ بعضنا بعضا أربابا من دون الله فإن تولوا فقولوا اشهدوا بأنا مسلمون
[Say, O people of the Book, let us come to common terms between us: that we worship none but Allah and do not associate any others with him, and that we do not take any among us as lords in place of Allah; then if they turn away, say we are Muslims 3:64]

In fact, within its historical context, this was not at all pluralist. Indeed, the reference to worshipping none but Allah and not associating others with him were direct refutations of the Christian theology of divinity of Christ. To see this, recall how the story with the Christians of Najran started. The Prophet (p) sent them a warning letter:
«باسم إله إبراهيم وإسحاق ويعقوب، من محمد النبي رسول الله إلى أسقف نجران إن أسلمتم فإني أحمد إليكم إله إبراهيم وإسحاق ويعقوب؛ أما بعد فإني أدعوكم إلى عبادة الله من عبادة العباد وأدعوكم إلى ولاية الله من ولاية العباد، فإن أبيتم فالجزية، فإن أبيتم آذنتكم بحرب والسلام»
[In the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. From the Prophet and Messenger of God, Muhammad to the Bishop of Najran. If you have submitted to God, then I thank for you Allah the God of Abraham, Jacob and Isaac. Now I say this: I am calling you to the worship of God away from the worship of his servants, and the protection of God away from the protection of people. If you refuse, then you must pay jizya (a tribute and per-capita tax). If you refuse, then I warn you that I shall declare war against you. And I close with the greeting of peace.]

The Christians of Najran were terrified, and after deliberating, they decided to send a delegation to the Prophet (p). At first, they changed into fancy clothes and went to meet him, but he would not return their greeting of peace. They consulted with the merchants whom they know, `Uthman ibn `Affan and Abdulrahman ibn `Awf, who, in turn, consulted with `Ali ibn Abi Taleb. The latter advised them to change back into their more ordinary travel clothes, which they did, and then the Prophet (p) returned their greeting of peace.

Then ensued a debate. They claimed that they had already submitted to God, and worshipped only him, implying that he should not demand that they pay tribute and otherwise should not fight them. The Prophet (p) disagreed, questioning them about their views on the divinity of Christ. They turned the question around, and asked him how he would characterize it given his acceptance of the virgin birth of Jesus. He replied that he didn't have definitive knowledge of the matter, and asked them to wait. Then he received the revelation:
إن مثل عيسى عند الله كمثل آدم خلقه من تراب ثم قال له كن فيكون الحق من ربك فلا تكن من الممترين
[The example of Jesus, for Allah, is like the example of Adam, whom he had created out of dust, saying "be," and he was. Truth is revealed from your Lord, so do not doubt it 2:59-60]
فمن حاجك فيه من بعد ما جاءك من العلم فقل تعالوا ندع أبناءنا وأبناءكم ونساءنا ونساءكم وأنفسنا وأنفسكم ثم نبتهل فنجعل لعنة الله على الكاذبين
[Then, whoever debates you about him [Jesus] after the knowledge that you have received, then say let us bring our children and your children, and our women and your women, then let us supplicate to God that he may curse those who speak untruth.]

The two groups went out into the desert in a field to make these supplications, wherein the Prophet (p) brought his beloved daughter Fatima, her two sons Hasan and Husein, and husband Ali ibn Abi Taleb. Instead of proceeding with the religious duel, as it were, the Bishop said that they do not wish to participate (Muslim commentators tell us that he did this for fear that the Prophet's (p) theology may be the correct one) and agreed to pay tribute. Thus, the Christians of Najran were the first to pay tribute to the new Islamic state. This was simultaneously a sign of submission, acceptance of the sovereignty of the Islamic state, and protection money, because they were not required to serve in the military, but would still be protected.

This is clearly not an example of pluralism. It is toleration of diversity, on condition that Islam's superiority is unquestioned. I quoted Bassam Tibi at the beginning. He announced in 2002 that he has quit interfaith dialogues, in which he had been engaged for two decades, because other Muslim interlocutors refused to give up the Islamist mindset, continued to confuse dialogue with proselytization (da`wa), and to profess ultimate supremacy of Islam.

In this regard, the accommodation of diversity in early centuries of Islam was, indeed, exemplary by the standards of its time, and throughout the medieval period. However, it falls tragically short of the post-enlightenment democratic notion of pluralism.

The litmus test for any of our community leaders in embracing pluralism and democracy is this: Are you willing to accept that other traditions and their standards of truth  are equal to yours (whether they call themselves Sunni, Shi`a, Christian, Baha'i, Athiest, or anything else)? If not, then no twisting of Qur'anic verses and Prophetic traditions can suffice. You are still being two-faced if you claim to embrace pluralism.

If we are still under the illusion that we can accept the Jamat-i-Islami and Muslim Brotherhood, or any other Islamist organizations, as potential partners in the modern world, we need only read the following two quotations of their top ideologues:

Mawdudi is quoted thus:
I tell you, my fellow Muslims, frankly: Democracy is in contradiction with your belief … Islam, in which you believe, … is utterly different from this dreadful system … There can be no reconciliation between Islam and democracy, not even in minor issues, because they contradict one another in all terms. Where this system [of democracy] exists we consider Islam to be absent. When Islam comes to power there is no place for this system. 
Tibi, Bassam (2009-02-25). Islam's Predicament with Modernity: Religious Reform and Cultural Change (p. 226). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition. 
And Qaradawi is quoted thus:
Democracy is a Greek term which means the government of the people... democratic liberalism came into the life of Muslims through the impact of colonialism. It has been the foremost dangerous result in the colonial legacy.” 
Tibi, Bassam (2009-02-25). Islam's Predicament with Modernity: Religious Reform and Cultural Change (p. 232). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition. 
The alternative to Islamism is rationalist and secular: Our religion contains many excellent elements, that we wish to preserve and develop, and they inform our politics. However, we also recognize that our Canonical texts are anchored in a time of religious empires, to which they remain captive.

Muslim societies have tried to escape the text-bound, juristic, Islamist pull, first in the example of the Mu`tazila, then in the philosophies of Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina, and Ibn Rushd, and the social scientific study of Ibn Khaldun, but the rationalists lost the cultural battle.

The victorious traditionalist approach continued to work reasonably well while society still resembled the world in which the Canonical texts are anchored, but failed miserably as the world changed drastically from that world.

That is why our Muslim societies have failed. And this is why we are here, to escape that failure.

We may not have overarching political, religious and philosophical solutions and leverage to bring Muslim societies to a post-enlightenment mindset that accepts pluralism. However, we ourselves belong to this post-enlightenment world. There are others within our Muslim community and in other communities who wish to take us back to darker times. We stand with those who accept modern pluralistic democracy, regardless of their religion, which means that we repudiate Islamism in all its forms.

Friday, March 04, 2016

Islam in America: Demographics and Politics

This is a draft of my planned sermon this afternoon. 

After the classical liturgical opening. The Prophet [p] said
المؤمن القوي خير وأحب إلى الله من المؤمن الضعيف وفي كلٍّ خير، احرص على ما ينفعك واستعن بالله ولا تعجز، فإن أصابك شيء فلا تقل: لو أني فعلت كذا لكان كذا، ولكن قل: قدر الله وما شاء فعل، فإن لو تفتح عمل الشيطان
(A strong person of faith is better than a weak one, and there is good in both. Pursue what is of benefit to you, seek God's support, and do not feel helpless. And if you face adversity, say not "Had I done such and such, something different would have happened." Instead, say: "God has ordained this, and His will is done," because obsessing over counterfactuals starts the devil's work).

This is to say that we should look forward and not obsess over the past. But it does not mean that we should not consider our past mistakes. Instead, we must study the past objectively, with the purpose of learning from past mistakes and doing our best going forward.

This political season has put the issues of religious identity politics centerstage, especially as they pertain to Islam. This is not surprising for two main reasons:

  • First, nationalism and religion have often played similar roles, and were often indistinguishable, not only during the age of empires and military conquests, but also in contemporary periods. In America, specifically, religious pluralism was forced on the early colonies because none of the competing religious groups could enforce their preferred religion on others, and an alternative social contract was necessary. However, remnants of the early Puritans' and Congregationalists' confounding of good citizenship with membership of their particular religious group has remained strong under the tolerant surface. 
  • Second, Muslims have been particularly active in using religion politically variously as a substitute or motivation for nationalism, and this trend has been especially strong in the countries form which most of today's American Muslims have migrated.
The numbers of American Muslims have grown significantly over the past few decades, mainly in the aftermath of the immigration act of 1965. In recent decades, Pew statistics suggest that nearly 10% of all new legal immigrants have been Muslim, and first generation immigrants account for approximately 65% of all Muslims in America -- the remaining 35% split equally between children of first generation immigrants and descendants of multi-generation Americans (mostly African American Muslims).

For the first few decades, Immigrant American Muslims were mostly politically inactive, and the imported fundamentalist view that participation in democratic elections was un-Islamic prevailed. Then, in the 1990s, a flurry of religious opinions from conservative clerics in majority-Muslim countries as well as from various religious institutions in the West changed course, and the view increasingly changed to one wherein voting (for the best available or least-worst available option) was a civic duty, and, indeed, very Islamic.

This set the stage for the catastrophic behavior of Muslim American organizations in the 2000 election season. CAIR and other organizations started grossly over-stating the number of Muslims in America (with ridiculous numbers as high as 10 or 12 million being publicized), their cohesion as a potential "Muslim voting block," and their degree of commitment to fundraise, organize, etc. Grover Norquist was in part architect of this move, as he promised the Republican Party a new voting block that can deliver Michigan and Florida. In the event, fundraising efforts with Muslim communities failed abysmally, and Muslims failed even to deliver significant vote numbers in Michigan.

In the years that followed, this posturing by American Muslims, together with numerous horrific terrorist attacks perpetrated by various Muslim groups, raised suspicions about the role that Muslim Americans are playing in American society. Outreach activities by Muslim organizations only helped to make matters worse: Most immigrant Muslims thought of outreach in terms of proselytizing, and our spokespersons were the usual leaders of Muslim Student Associations who became leaders of ISNA, ICNA, ISGH, etc. Even if the vast majority of American Muslims are not Islamists, the leaders of these organizations continue to be Islamist. Just try to talk to any of them about how fortunate we are to have the opportunity to live in this country, and they will promptly change the subject to how much good Islam will bring to America (evidence of devastating failures in most majority-Muslim countries from which they migrated notwithstanding). We were not ready to engage America politically, and, I submit to you, we still are not. My goal today is to suggest some ways that we may become more ready.

The result of our continued accommodation of Islamism in our institutions, and our premature and disastrous political adventure in 2000 was predictable: Surveys began to show increasing numbers of Americans who viewed Islam as inconsistent with American values, and a number of states strove to pass legislation banning Shari`a (later dubbed foreign) laws. The focus on outreach (in Arabic da`wa) as proselytizing prompted a leading candidate in this election cycle -- on Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day, no less -- to say that "They [Muslims] want to change your religion, folks. But I won't let them." The same candidate later called for a total shutdown of Muslim immigration into the U.S. 

Those events must be understood in light of recent demographic projections. Most recent estimates by Pew suggest that the number of Muslims in America is approximately 1% of the population (i.e. just over 3 million) or just below. Islam is the largest growing religion worldwide and in America, and Pew projections suggested that by 2050, Muslims would constitute 1.4% of the population if there is no new immigration, and 2.4% if there is continued immigration. The latter number would make Islam the second largest religion in America after Christianity. Growth would still be significant if there is no new immigration, because Muslims have the highest fertility rates, in part due to being among the youngest demographics in the country (fertility is approximately 2.5 children per Muslim woman in America), but Muslims constituting 10% of all new immigrants has been the main source of growth. Incidentally, Pew suggests that conversion has been a net neutral factor -- roughly 20% of Muslims in America converted to Islam, and roughly 20% of Muslims in America leave Islam.

Put yourself in the shoes of this candidate and his supporters. Would you not feel the same way if newcomers to your neighborhood behaved contrary to the prevailing social contract, and added insult to injury by professing superiority of their imported culture?

This political season, I hope that our community will begin to understand its social and political failures, and begin to take positive steps for better integration in the American landscape. Let us begin by understanding some of the causes of our political failures:
  • Except on reactive identity-political-preservation instincts, there is really no "Muslim American vote." From 2000 through 2008, Muslims have tried to organize a voting block based on the secret evidence act and later profiling threats, and politicians are likely to play that angle in either direction, but that does not make for a natural constituency. American Muslims are as socioeconomically diverse as most other American groups, and their natural tendency may be socially conservative but economically liberal -- which makes them difficult to coalesce as a voting block.
  • Different subgroups also have completely different agenda items of primary interest: social issues for the African Americans, and different foreign policy issues for different subgroups. Infamously, immigrants from India tended to be Democrat and immigrants from Pakistan tended to be Republican, and most Arab immigrants have been obsessed with the issue of Palestine (and various Arab countries more recently).
  • Our organizations and discourse continue to scare America -- rightly so. First, we have the obsession with numbers and conversion, because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of outreach or da`wa, which continues to be understood as proselytizing by most immigrant Muslims and many of their offspring. Second, the community continues to harbor fundamentalist views on Shari`a, mainly due to lack of proper knowledge of Islamic history and culture -- Muslim immigrants are mostly professionals who have never received a liberal arts education, and mistake fundamentalist sacred history for history! The fact that this fundamentalist paradigm has failed miserably everywhere does not seem to deter the Islamist worldview -- on the contrary, it has fueled greater extremism in some corners.
  • Our investments as a community have been minimal and misguided. Positive trends in a Zogby report notwithstanding, most of our philanthropic funds have gone to real estate and other sterile forms that nonetheless serve as sources of identity-political pride. Our investments in our communities, both in terms of time and financial resources, have been minimal, and they have been driven by insincerity and cynical pursuit of short-term acceptance.
We can begin to fit better in American society and to merit political voices if we begin to address these shortcomings. This must include:
  • Genuinely caring about the affairs of our immediate communities and adopted nation state. We should vote for what is beneficial to all of society, on which we're allowed to disagree with others, but we must abandon the narrow religious justifications for voting that were popularized in the 1990s. The Prophet [p] said that a neighbor is almost a family member who merits a share in inheritance. To be good Muslims is to care deeply about the welfare of all our neighbors.
  • Whenever we resent being subjects of double-standard treatment, we should use the opportunity to recognize how we ourselves are among the worst users of double standards -- including against members of our own communities with different socioeconomic backgrounds, or, in some cases, outright racism!
  • In our interactions with law enforcement, both to protect our societies from extreme elements in our communities and to protect ourselves from overzealous law officers, we should use the opportunity to think longer-term about integration and acceptance of our status as small minorities -- they way early Puritans in the Colonies had to accept the rise of other religious groups, such as Baptists and Methodists, and the way Jews and other religious groups integrated better in American society during the mid 20th Century. Rather than seeing other minority groups as a threat, we should see them as our natural allies and trailblazers. We need not agree with any of those groups on all issues, and, indeed, we will learn that even those small minorities don't agree on everything. Part of understanding our place in a pluralistic society is truly to acknowledge and appreciate diversity -- not only for now, not until they know better, because we have a lot more to learn from them than they can learn from us, and we can only contribute positively when we are truly part of the American mosaic. Hopefully, this can happen soon, and the fear- or identity-politically-driven idea of a Muslim voting block will no longer be necessary.

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

On The Outside Looking In: The Paradox of Perspective

Appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, we're all multicultural, and we all wish to be on the inside of whatever community we happen to be courting at any point in time. Our confirmation bias makes us seek and trust others whose multiculturalism is harmonized with ours, but keeps us watchful for the slightest divergence (an offhand remark or gesture, perhaps) to reconfirm our suspicion about said others.

Being on the outside looking in gives you a valuable perspective for those on the inside, or so you think when you're the one on the outside. Those on the inside are quick to decide that your perspective is not useful, tautologically, because you're on the outside, and vice versa.

I have a small replica of the Rosetta Stone above my desk at school, and used to have a mousepad shaped like one. I thought that my comparative advantage -- professionally, socially, politically, and in every other way -- was in my ability to translate cultures on the inside to those on the outside and the other way around. Now I think that this may be a futile exercise: How can you convince those who want translation that you truly understand the two languages -- ancient Greek and ancient Egyptian on the Rosetta Stone, Economics and its critiques professionally, Islamic scholarship and its critiques professionally and socially, Egyptian and American cultures, and so on?

More difficult still, when they think that they already have a dictionary and good translations (on the inside), how can you convince them that their translators' understanding of the two languages was flawed? Can you convince yourself? Aren't you essentially arguing that you're the one on the inside of this cultural bridge, and that their other translators are the ones outside that bridge looking in?

Rumi famously composed the verses about blind people in a room, each holding a different part of the elephant, and each insisting based on their differential experiences that the elephant is something different from what the others profess it to be. You would think that a sighted person standing at appropriate distance -- for example, Rumi -- shedding a light on the situation, and describing the full elephant and how you can reconcile the varied experiences described by others, would be offering a valuable perspective. Why should those on the inside need Rumi, though: they will say that they are the ones experiencing the elephant directly, and they can aggregate their experiences without his help -- thank you, very much.

Saturday, October 10, 2015

On Islamists, Hindu Nationalists, and Education

Today's New York Times has a very interesting op-ed piece on India's Prime Minister Modi, and the clear lack of education that he and other leaders BJP leaders exhibit. The author, Aatish Taseer, indicts the Indian intelligentsia, to which he and his readers belong, which is associated with Congress party, and generally have received elite Western education, while the majority of the Indian population was left to Socialist-era public education systems that failed to deliver.
The parallels to my native Egypt are staggering. Indeed, Nader Bakkar, who may still belong to the Salafist Nour Party, for which he was a spokesman until recently, raised a question in his op-ed yesterday: What have the highly-educated offered beyond criticism of Islamists? At the other extreme, we find democracy advocate Mohamed Aboul-Ghar today saying that he and his party will not deal with prospective parliamentarians from the Nour Party, ostensibly because the party is religious and therefore unconstitutional (never mind that this constitution would not have been possible without the alliance of Salafis with military and civilian-democratic forces to oust the Muslim Brotherhood government).
This also reminded me of a vignette with the late Jamal Barzinji, who passed away last month, at IIIT in 2010. He had invited me to a two-day discussion of a proposal for IIIT to sponsor a textbook on "Islamic Economics." Naturally, I stuck with my view that you can't write a respectable textbook on something that doesn't exist, and which is almost certainly neither needed nor possible. My view was that it would make sense to write a book on "Economics for Islamists," as a way to introduce them to modern social scientific thought, which would be of value beyond economics per se. Needless to say, this was not a popular view, especially with the advocates for this proposal, but I believe that it prevailed, at least during that short visit. Late in the second day, Dr. Barzinji spoke to me privately during a coffee break, with apparent embarrassment regarding the Islamist project to which he once belonged, saying that when they were high school and college students, the dominant cultural forces in school were communist, and they sought to balance it out, but found nothing but these anachronistic Islamic references to counter. There, also, the Arab literati and elites are primarily to blame.
As the world's largest democracy, India provides a perfect example of the difficulties of balancing democracy, which will put majorities in power, sooner or later, with the need to have decisions made by those who are best educated. The tension becomes particularly high when the latter elites fail to deliver sufficient economic dividends to support some degrees of authoritarian or elitist bargains. They get even worse when the highly educated use their positions of power to make Wall-Street-style fortunes, as their fellow Western-educated friends in the West do, again without producing sufficient dividends for the less fortunate strata in their societies, but demand to remain in control because they know best.

Tuesday, October 06, 2015

State Religion Explanatory Power (Barro and McCleary 2005)

Today, I am going to discuss in class (Econ 452: Religion, Ethics, and Economics) the Barro and McCleary (2005, Quarterly Journal of Economics) paper "Which Countries Have State Religion". The preliminary data analysis in the previous few posts is part of my illustration to the students in this class of how to come up with a term paper topic, how to look through available data to formulate a reasonable hypothesis, etc. They all write term papers for this course, and I am writing one with them, hopefully showing them by example how it's done (they also do team projects wherein they do data analysis to replicate results from earlier papers, to learn how to use R, concatenate datasets when needed, use reasonable instrumental variables, etc.).
For today, I figured that the presence of a state religion may provide explanatory power for the level of mistrust of people of other nationalities (which, as we have seen in previous posts, correlates strongly with the level of mistrust of people of other religions). Below are plots of the level of mistrust measured as the percentage of those surveyed who choose "do not trust very much" or "do not trust at all" when asked how much they trust people of other nationalities (this is the percentage for those who gave an answer; i.e. those who said that they didn't know or otherwise didn't give a response wee excluded).
The first plot is for the country having a state religion in 2000 against the level of mistrust, and the second plot is the ratio over three years (1900, 1970, and 2000) of having a state religion. The data for that are taken from the Barro and McCleary paper, Table I, which is mostly based on Barrett's World Christian Encyclopedia.
What would be more interesting would be to correlate the state religion variables with the correlation between mistrust of people of other nationalities with mistrust of people of other religions (treating religion as a nationality). I should do that next, but am not sure whether or not I can get it done before going to class in an hour.

Monday, October 05, 2015

Mistrust, FDI, and Trade (No Relationship!?)

Below are two plots of the level of mistrust in a country (the portion choosing either "don't trust very much" or "don't trust at all" when asked about people of other nationalities, WVS Wave 6 data) against (1) foreign direct investment as a percentage of GDP, and (2) openness (exports + imports) as a percentage of GDP (both from WB, WDI).

The two fail to exhibit any significant relationship. (The outlier countries with moderate levels of mistrust and very high levels of FDI/GDP and (X+M)/GDP are the Netherlands and Singapore. Removing them makes the relationship even less significant).

Less extreme mistrust in East Asia

I shared the previous two blog posts with an Egyptian-American friend, who was equally alarmed. Then he asked how the patterns in China, Japan, and South Korea compare.

Here is the data for China:

and here is the (somewhat similar) data for Japan:

Both show very strong cautious mistrust of people of other religions and other nationalities, as well as quite significant extreme mistrust of both. Concentration along the diagonal is extremely high for these countries, suggesting that they have stronger association of nationalities with religions than most other countries.

Data for South Korea also shows quite significant cautious mistrust of people of other religions and nationalities, but almost equally significant cautious trust. This places South Korea somewhere between Japan and China, on the one hand, and U.S. and Germany, on the other.

Thursday, October 01, 2015

Religion, Nationality, and Trust Redux: How Blameworthy Are Muslims?

This is really alarming. The relationship between trust of people of other religions and trust of people of other nationalities, which I have mentioned in the previous blog posting is one of the strongest relationships in the latest wave of the WVS, may reconfirm my worst fears about Muslims remaining stuck in the 20th Century phenomenon of confusing religion with nationalism. In the previous posting, I showed that for the entire world, the largest category seemed cautiously untrusting both of people of other religions and nationalities, but the second largest category, and not by far, was people who were cautiously trusting of both people of other religions and people of other nationalities. I then showed that the picture was significantly better in the U.S., where a significant majority was cautiously trusting of both.

Then it struck me: I had spoken before about the 20th Century confusion in Muslim countries, wherein the concept of a Muslim community ('umma) was interpreted in the sense of nation statehood. The abomination that is ISIS/ISIL may just be the most offensive manifestation of this heresy, but its roots are unmistakably traceable back to the middle century thought of Mawdudi and those whom he inspired, and to some extent also to the earlier effect around the turn of the previous century of Al-Afghani, who equivocated a lot on those issues, depending on his audiences. So, the hypothesis immediately jumped to my mind: Is it possible that Muslims are the most offending culprits in mistrust of other religions and nationalities. WVS data on religious identity is not very usable, because, it appears, that a person, for example, may identify herself or himself as "Sunni", and thus not be counted as "Muslim." So, I decided to look at countries with Muslim majorities, and the first few results were quite alarming.

Here are the data for Algeria:

The largest category of those surveyed in Algeria (42%) fully mistrust people of other religions and other nationalities. The second largest category (24%) somewhat mistrust people of other religions and other nationalities. Together, more than two thirds of the population either do not trust at all or somewhat mistrust people of other religions and nationalities. This is very sad, indeed.

The results for my native Egypt are not as bad:

However, they are still not good at all. The magnitudes of the two groups along the diagonal of mistrust are not as large as in Algeria, but they are still quite large. 21.5% not at all trusting people of other religions and not at all trusting people of other nationalities is not good!

Pakistan is somewhere in between Algeria and Egypt.

Speaking of Pakistan, it was natural to check neighboring India, with whom she shared the colonial past and gained independence:

India displays the most diffuse distribution of any country that I have checked so far, and, certainly, none of the xenophobic mistrust of people of other religions and/or nationalities. I don't want to jump to the conclusion that this is a Muslim problem, but the evidence is certainly mounting in that direction.

Returning to the West, I wanted to check France, but, unfortunately, it was not available in this sample. However, West Germany was, so I used it, and the results are back to the relatively good ones seen in the case of the U.S., although not quite as good. This is the table for Germany:

And this is the table for the U.S.:

Now, I understand that these negative attitudes in majority-Muslim countries may be the result of their colonial pasts (this is the same excuse that we use for most ills of that part of the world in the 20th century). However, that cannot be the end of the analysis. This lack of trust must be serving a function in today's world -- which may or may not be a positive one. One can compare it to the negative attitudes towards Islam and towards immigration among some Americans on the extreme political right. However, the latter, thankfully, are a small minority.

Analysis to be continued ...

Thursday, September 24, 2015

A Question of Trust -- Religion and Nationality

Everyone must know by now about presidential candidate Dr. Carson's remarks regarding a Muslim potentially becoming President of the U.S. and some depressing data from recent polls about percentages of Iowa Republicans who must have a very low opinion of Islam, to say the least.

As it happens, I've been looking deeper at the World Values Survey, and, in particular, at relationships between questionnaire responses that are strong whether or not we control for country specific effects. One of the most resilient relationships, I have found, is that between questions V106 (degree of trust in people of other religions) and V107 (degree of trust in people of other nationalities). For the entire sample, the relationship is shown below:


1 = Trust Completely
2 = Trust Somewhat
3 = Do not trust very much

4 = Do not trust at all

Here is the relationship graphically:

Fortunately, the largest groups are those who are reservedly non-trusting (3 for both variables) followed by those who are reservedly trusting (2 for both variables), but there is a large mass (the third largest) of those who do not trust at all people of other religions or other nations.

For the U.S., the data is even better:

A clear majority, 56% of the respondents were cautiously trusting (2 for both variables), with an additional 5% fully trusting (1 for both variables). Yes, 16% are moderately mistrusting, and 4% are fully mistrusting, but these percentages are still much lower than for the world as a whole. Here it is graphically:

The relationship between approaches to religion and nationality are undeniable, here in the U.S. or in the world as a whole. Recent bad news notwithstanding, America still seems more (cautiously) trusting than most!

Friday, September 18, 2015

Walking into the desert

This is the draft of my khutba (Friday sermon) for this afternoon:

Roughly 2 million pilgrims are converging on Makkah. On Tuesday, they will move to the tent city in Mina, and then on Wednesday, they will go to the mount of Arafat to perform the central rite of Hajj.
For those of us who have not performed the Hajj, may we get a chance to be there. For those of us who have already fulfilled the requirement, please join me in thinking of another group.
Pilgrims pay substantial amounts, around $10,000 for each of the 10,000 or so Americans going to Hajj, and in many parts of the world, their entire life’s savings, to leave their homes and dwell in tent cities in the Arabian desert for five days.
Meanwhile, many more millions have been forcibly displaced from their homes, often after suffering life-altering losses in life and property, and with little or no hope of ever returning to their homes.
According to the UNHCR (the UN refugees agency), the number of displaced persons at the end of 2014 was 59.5 million people — and by now, the number must have exceeded 60 million. This is an all time high, nearly double what it was a decade ago.
This rise in the number of refugees is mainly due to conflicts in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, and more than half the refugees are children. 
Most recently, Syria — historically one of the wealthiest and most educated regions on earth, the cradle of civilization, the seat of the mighty Umayyad dynasty — has become the largest producer of refugees — nearly 8 million internally displaced and nearly 4 million refugees seeking refuge in other countries. The second largest number of refugees come from Afghanistan, nearly 2.6 million, and Somalia at 1.1 million. Adding Iraq, Pakistan, Myanmar and other countries, it is clear that disproportionately most of the refugees and internally displaced persons are Muslims.
A Friday sermon is not the right place to focus on denouncing the war-mongers and the Muslim and non-Muslim states that feed the war machines that have resulted in massive carnage and displacement of Muslim and non-Muslim populations. Denounce we must, because the refugee problem in Europe, which grabs most headlines today, is only the tip of the iceberg, consisting of the relatively few tens of thousands who have managed to brave treacherous waters or mountains to make it to European borders. Many more millions stay behind, internally displaced or seeking refuge in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, etc. So, denounce we must, but we must also look at what we as individual Muslims can and should do.
Therefore, I want to return to the stark similarities and stark differences between the two experiences of groups, on the one hand, paying thousands of dollars to walk out into the desert and stay in tent cities, and those, on the other hand, who had to risk their lives by moving out of their homes, in order to avoid near certainty of death if they stay.
I want to focus on the individual Muslim and his choices. As I scanned opinions of scholars and laypeople last night on the issue of performing multiple pilgrimages, I noticed a rift between those (including numerous highly respected religious scholars) who had condemned it — because it increases crowds, and raises costs, thus preventing others from performing the obligation and increasing the risk of disease for those who go — and those who deflected the question by saying that acts of religious obedience should never be condemned, and that one should first look at those who waste their money on frivolous tourism and other spending, those who haven’t paid the right amount of zakah, etc. 
I will not even comment on the $20 billion being spent in the construction sector to attract more pilgrims, or the many more billions spent on buying weapons and supporting waring groups, sometimes on both sides of conflicts. And, of course, I am not commenting on those who are performing their first obligatory Hajj.
I want to use the contrast between the two groups walking out into the desert — one knowing that tents are waiting for them, and that there is a very good chance that they will make it back to their homes, and the other group, just hoping for food, water and shelter to last one more day — and to think of a Muslim who has to decide whether to pay $10,000 to go to Hajj one more time or to give a fraction of that money to support the refugees.
Please understand that I do not mean to condemn any particular personal choices. I mean to study the mindset of Muslims that may be behind our current state of affairs. 
As a social scientist, I turned to data. In the most recent World Values Survey, collected in 2013 and 2014, two questions were asked about the meaning of religion:
  • The first question (V150) went as follows: With which one of the following statements do you agree most? The basic meaning of religion is:
1 To follow religious norms and ceremonies 
2 To do good to other people 
While 71% of non-Muslims stated that the basic meaning of religion was to do good to other people, barely 51% of Muslims stated the same. The sample sizes were big enough (63,500 non-Muslims and 17,500 Muslims) for this result to be shocking.
This is in direct violation of the Hadith narrated by Tabarani:
 حَدَّثَنَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ  ، ثَنَا السَّرِيُّ بْنُ مِهْرَانَ  ، ثَنَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ قَيْسٍ  ، ثَنَا سُكَيْنُ بْنُ أَبِي سِرَاجٍ  ، ثَنَا عَمْرُو بْنُ دِينَارٍ  ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ  ، أَنَّ رَجُلا جَاءَ إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، فَقَالَ : يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ، أَيُّ النَّاسِ أَحَبُّ إِلَى اللَّهِ ؟ وَأَيُّ الأَعْمَالِ أَحَبُّ إِلَى اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ ؟ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : " أَحَبُّ النَّاسِ إِلَى اللَّهِ أَنْفَعُهُمْ لِلنَّاسِ ، وَأَحَبُّ الأَعْمَالِ إِلَى اللَّهِ سُرُورٌ تُدْخِلُهُ عَلَى مُسْلِمٍ ، أَوْ تَكْشِفُ عَنْهُ كُرْبَةً ، أَوْ تَطْرُدُ عَنْهُ جُوعًا ، أَوْ تَقْضِي عَنْهُ دَيْنًا ، وَلأَنْ أَمْشِيَ مَعَ أَخٍ لِي فِي حَاجَةٍ ، أَحَبُّ إِلَيَّ مِنْ أَنْ أَعْتَكِفَ فِي هَذَا الْمَسْجِدِ يَعْنِي مَسْجِدَ الْمَدِينَةِ شَهْرًا ، وَمَنْ كَفَّ غَضَبَهُ سَتَرَ اللَّهُ عَوْرَتَهُ ، وَمَنْ كَتَمَ غَيْظَهُ ، وَلَوْ شَاءَ أَنْ يُمْضِيَهُ أَمْضَاهُ ، مَلأَ اللَّهُ قَلْبَهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ رِضًا ، وَمَنْ مَشَى مَعَ أَخِيهِ فِي حَاجَةٍ حَتَّى يُثْبِتَهَا ، أَثْبَتَ اللَّهُ قَدَمَيْهِ يَوْمَ تَزُولُ الأَقْدَامُ " .
[On the authority of Ibn Umar, a man came to the Prophet (pbuh) and asked him, what people are most beloved to Allah, and what acts are most beloved to Him. The Prophet (pbuh) replied: "The most beloved people to Allah are the ones who are most beneficial to other people. And the best actions in the eye of Allah is happiness that you bring to a fellow Muslim, a problem that you solve for him, hunger that you feed, or debts that you repay. Indeed, to walk with my brother in his time of need is better for me than spending a month in seclusion in this (Madinah) mosque. Whoever can curb his anger, Allah will hide his faults, and one who curbs this anger when he can act on it will be rewarded on the day of judgement with a heart full of contentment..."]
  • The second question (V151) went as follows: And with which of the following statements do you agree most? The basic meaning of religion is: 
1 To make sense of life after death
2 To make sense of life in this world 
For this question, 67% of non-Muslims opined that the basic meaning of religion is to make sense of life in this world, but, again, only 51% of Muslims agreed.
Combined, nearly one third of Muslims, 31%, chose the first option in both questions (religion to them was basically about norms and ceremonies, and is about life after death), whereas the fraction was less than half, at 14.6% for non-Muslims.
 This is quite alarming. Lest we forget —
In the Qur’an, those who focus on ritual and make business of religion have been strongly chastised:
أَجَعَلْتُمْ سِقَايَةَ الْحَاجِّ وَعِمَارَةَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ كَمَنْ آمَنَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَجَاهَدَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ لَا يَسْتَوُونَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ 
[Do you consider providing water to pilgrims and keeping the Holy Mosque occupied the equivalent of having faith in Allah and the final day and struggling in His way? These are not equivalent in His eyes, and He does not guide transgressors.]
Muslim has narrated
4661 2569 حَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ حَاتِمِ بْنِ مَيْمُونٍ حَدَّثَنَا بَهْزٌ حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ سَلَمَةَ عَنْ ثَابِتٍ عَنْ أَبِي رَافِعٍ عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ يَقُولُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يَا ابْنَ آدَمَ مَرِضْتُ فَلَمْ تَعُدْنِي قَالَ يَا رَبِّ كَيْفَ أَعُودُكَ وَأَنْتَ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ قَالَ أَمَا عَلِمْتَ أَنَّ عَبْدِي فُلَانًا مَرِضَ فَلَمْ تَعُدْهُ أَمَا عَلِمْتَ أَنَّكَ لَوْ عُدْتَهُ لَوَجَدْتَنِي عِنْدَهُ يَا ابْنَ آدَمَ اسْتَطْعَمْتُكَ فَلَمْ تُطْعِمْنِي قَالَ يَا رَبِّ وَكَيْفَ أُطْعِمُكَ وَأَنْتَ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ قَالَ أَمَا عَلِمْتَ أَنَّهُ اسْتَطْعَمَكَ عَبْدِي فُلَانٌ فَلَمْ تُطْعِمْهُ أَمَا عَلِمْتَ أَنَّكَ لَوْ أَطْعَمْتَهُ لَوَجَدْتَ ذَلِكَ عِنْدِي يَا ابْنَ آدَمَ اسْتَسْقَيْتُكَ فَلَمْ تَسْقِنِي قَالَ يَا رَبِّ كَيْفَ أَسْقِيكَ وَأَنْتَ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ قَالَ اسْتَسْقَاكَ عَبْدِي فُلَانٌ فَلَمْ تَسْقِهِ أَمَا إِنَّكَ لَوْ سَقَيْتَهُ وَجَدْتَ ذَلِكَ عِنْدِي
[On the authority of Abu Hurayra, the Prophet (pbuh) said that on the day of judgement, Allah will say "O, Son of Adam, I was sick and you didn't visit me." Man will answer: "Lord, how can I pay you a visit in sickness when you are the Lord of all worlds," and the Lord will reply: "Did you not know that my servant so and so was sick, and you didn't visit him; did you not know that had you visited him, you would have found me there?" "O, Son of Adam, I was hungry and you didn't feed me." Man will way: "Lord how can I feed you when you are the Lord of all the worlds," and the Lord will reply: "did you not know that my servant so and so was hungry, and you didn't feed him; did you not know that had you fed him, you would have found the same with me?" "O, Son of Adam, I was thirsty, and you didn't give me water." Man will say, "O, Lord, how can I give you water, when you are the Lord of all the worlds," and the Lord will reply: "Did you not know that my servant so and so was thirsty and you didn't provide him with water; did you not know that had you provided him with water, you would have found the same with me?"]
So, I leave you with these questions:
  • Have too many of us confused tools (acts of worship) and incentives (afterlife rewards or punishments) for ends in themselves?
  • In the process, have we become so selfish that even when we want to spend in the religious path, we end up spending on ourselves?