ISIS Apocalypse Agenda

IN MY LAST POST, I promised an Editing Islam discussion about the hijab for women in majority-Muslim countries. But with all that has happened, a discussion about headscarves seems a trivial pursuit. So instead, I am discussing the “doomsday” agenda of ISIS.

The Editing Islam posts on this blog are designed to give writers, editors and others in the media an education about Islam. I began to write these blogs after hearing many in the mainstream media (like CNN), who have no animus towards Islam, say things that are just incorrect or uninformed. One would think that 15 years after 9/11, the Western media would have educated themselves about the basic tenets of the Islamic faith.

---

I RECENTLY READ a book by William McCantis, “The History, Strategy, and Doomsday vision of the Islamic State.” McCantis directs the U.S. Relations with the Islamic World Project at the Brookings Institute; he is also a former U.S. State Department adviser for countering violent extremism. He has a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Studies from Princeton. So this guy knows what he is talking about.

His book has given me much insight into ISIS. I highly recommend it to anyone who just doesn’t “get” ISIS and wonders what type of religious philosophy could condone ISIS’s savagery. Almost all of the info in this post comes from his book. The editorializing, however,  is my own.

According to McCantis, one reason why ISIS does what they do is that they are trying to hasten the Islamic version of the apocalypse.

What? I have never heard a terrorism expert discuss ISIS’s apocalyptic viewpoint in the media. Turns out that al-Qaeda shares this belief in the “End of Times.”

---

While not in the Quran, Islamic belief has, over the centuries, developed  a “doomsday” scenario—an End of Times viewpoint that is similar to that of evangelical Christians.

SOME ISLAMIC SCHOLARS argue that certain ahadith (reported words of the Prophet) support an End of Times prophesy. And of course no apocalypse can be complete without a savior (called the Madhi  in Islam), who would oversee, and fight in, the final battle between good over evil. “In Islamic eschatology, the Mahdi is the prophesied redeemer of Islam who will rule . . . before the Day of Judgment and will rid the world of evil.” (Wikapedia)

So how do you identify the Madhi when he appears? Some Muslims believe that he will be a holy man who is a descendant of the Prophet; some Shi’a believe that it might be one of their mystical imams, and others believe that the Madhi is Jesus Christ. Weird? No. The Quran contains the Bible’s account of Jesus. Muslims view Christians as “People of the Book,” sharing a common history, from Abraham, to Moses, to Jesus, and finally, the Prophet Mohammad. (If you read some of my other posts, I discuss this at length.)

Evangelical Christians and radical Islamists seem to be the only ones who get in a tizzy about the End of Times. For them, Armageddon is imminent, and we need to do something to hasten the coming of the messiah. For example, evangelical Christians give large amounts of money to Israel because of their belief that the End of Times will only come if there is a Jewish state.

According to McCantis, many Muslims view the Islamist hue and cry about the apocalypse like we treat “UFO sightings.” In other words, most Muslims take these prophesies with a grain of salt or, even if they believe in them, do not view the apocalypse as an immediate concern. This situation calls to mind how people in the United States, a Christian-majority country, ignore those people on the street with their “Repent now! The end is nigh!” signs. The world may end one day—but not today. So let’s go buy a bunch or stuff—maybe a new car for Christmas!

---

THE LEADERS of both al-Qaeda and ISIS hold these Islamic apocalyptic beliefs. That’s what unites them. However, they differ on the method for hastening the emergence of the Madhi and the End of Times. And once you understand this difference, you can begin to understand the “method to the madness” of ISIS.

Here are a variety of Islamic beliefs about what must happen before the Madhi will appear and begin the chain of events that brings about the apocalypse:

• The whole world and all countries become Islamic
• One true Islamic state (caliphate) is created
• There is a battle between Islam and the West
• There is war and tribulation within the Islamic world (Muslims fighting Muslims)

---

DOCUMENTS OBTAINED by the United States and other countries, as well as those leaked from within the al-Qaeda and ISIS camps, show that each side has a radically different view about how to hasten the coming of the Mahdi.

When Abu Mus’ab al-Zarquawi, the “founder” of what would later be called ISIS, wrote to Osama bin Laden asking that his group become an al-Qaeda affiliate in Iraq and Syria, bin Laden was reluctant to let them join up. Why? Even then, bin Laden believed that this new group was so violent that it would only exacerbate divisions between fellow Muslims around the world. However, eventually, bin Laden and his advisors decided to let this group join the organization and call themselves “al-Qaeda in Iran and Syria.” Bin Laden and al-Qaeda would come to regret this decision. Bin Laden would discover that this new group was totally uncontrollable—likening them to little children who will not obey their parents.

ONE PROBLEM for both al-Qaeda and the new hatchling, al-Qaeda in Iraq and Syria, was that they disagreed about hastening the End of Times, when they would fight with the  Mahdi in the final battle. The al-Qaeda approach was to rally all Muslims to the cause by creating affiliates in every country. Bin Laden’s approach was to “win the hearts and minds” of Muslims so that there would be a giant Muslim army when the inevitable war with the West came about. He advised against fighting between different Islamist groups, arguing that they would all be needed for the coming war between the West and Islam.

For example, bin Laden counseled its affiliates to introduce the strict Sharia “huddud” punishments listed in the Quran gradually; applying strict punishments immediately to populations that did not yet understand Sharia law would cause people to rebel against al-Qaeda. For example, Don’t give a guy 40 lashes for drinking when he did not even know that it was prohibited by Sharia law. Bin Laden also counseled al-Qaeda affiliates to “win the hearts and minds” of the people by giving them food, shelter, social order and a working economy. (Surprisingly, if you read this book and the correspondence between Osama bin Laden and the early leader of the nascent ISIS— Abu Mus’ab al-Zarquawi , bin Laden comes out looking like a human-rights advocate—at least for Muslims.)

---

 

Bin Laden and al-Qaeda were proponents of the West vs. Islam theory of the apocalypse. In considering this, the reason for the 9/11 attacks makes perfect sense. Those in the United States ask, “Why do they hate us?” In fact, some of them may not hate us—they just want to hasten the appearance of the  Mahdi and the End of Days.

But, reality check, al-Qaeda pretty much do hate us.

BIN LADEN and his right-hand al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri were constantly urging al-Qaeda in Iraq to act less violently against Muslims that did not share their beliefs, as well as non-Muslims. In addition, bin Laden counseled that, if you must do any beheading, follow the example of Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, where the strict Wahhabi ideology mirrors that of ISIS, they do their beheading, stoning, and lashing in private. But al-Qaeda in Iraq was applying “huddud”-like punishments in front of the world. However, I think that we can easily say that 99% of the people killed by ISIS were killed not because of Sharia law, but because they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time; did not believe in the  ISIS ideology; were in ISIS’s path of conquest; or were Westerners, especially Western journalists, whose murder has high propaganda appeal. These human-rights abuses are a way for ISIS to strike fear in the hearts of both Muslims and the West.

---

The repugnance of the violence committed by al-Qaeda in Iraq and Syria, eventually led to its expulsion from al-Qaeda. Too violent even for al-Qaeda. Imagine that.

---

But the leaders of the now-defunct al-Qaeda in Iraq and Syria probably felt liberated. They did not share al-Qaeda’s apocalyptic version of bin Laden—that all Muslims must rally around the flag and hasten the war between the West and Islam. Instead, they believed in one of the other End of Times prophesies—that only when a true Islamic caliphate was established, would the Madhi arrive.

After being thrown out of al-Qaeda, al-Zarquawi and his gang changed their name to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). He and his immediate successor were killed by the United States. The current ISIS leader is the secretive, rarely seen Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

For the Islamic State, it is the true caliphate or nothing—and by any means necessary. Therefore, in the beginning, ISIS focused more on conquering territory for the caliphate than on perpetuating terror in the West.  Any person or group that did not “bend the knee” to ISIS was exterminated.

---

WE HAVE ALL witnessed horrible scenes on the news of mass graves full of unburied bodies murdered by ISIS. The photos remind me of those of the Holocaust. Is ISIS as cruel to its “enemies” as Hitler was to the Jews and other “undesirables”? You bet. The similarities between the rise of the Nazis and the rise of ISIS are eerily similar. When the Nazis first formed and began recruiting, most Germans thought that the Nazis would never come to power because they were too extreme. They thought that their Jew-hating was just propaganda (although many secretly did hate Jews). So Germans bided their time hoping that the Nazis would go away. But they got stronger and stronger—many violent people and anti-Semites were attracted by their extreme violence. The United States bided its time too, underestimating the Nazi threat until the Nazis were in power.

---

THE ISLAMIC STATE,  now headed by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi,  promises its recruits participation in nothing less than the ultimate contest between good and evil. ISIS members will be right there fighting with the Mahdi when it all happens. Islamic State’s martyrs will go to paradise. But they don’t have to wait for Paradise for beautiful virgins. ISIS will give them a “bride” now. Amazingly, young women are also joining the ranks of ISIS, dreaming of becoming fighters and/or “brides.”

---

No one thought ISIS would go anywhere. Bin Laden believed that its violence would never be accepted. In the United States, al-Qaeda was the giant cobra to be destroyed—but no one looked for the little asp that was growing in the weeds of Iraq and Syria. The Islamic State grew not only because of its apocalyptic views and ultraviolence, but also because the United States created a power vacuum when it left Iraq. I think we all can admit that. We didn’t know how dangerous this little snake was. The people of the United States wanted an end to a war that had lasted for over a decade and had accomplished nothing. I too held that position. We should never have gone into Iraq under Bush I or Bush II. All we did is make it worse—and the result is thousands of dead and wounded brave men and women, who were just doing what they believed was in the interest of the their country.

---

The wages of Iraq wars are the bodies of our children. They died for nothing.

---

AND WHEN THE United States, or any other interested country, finally decides to put “boots on the ground,” they will find only quicksand. Why don’t we let the other Muslim-majority countries fight the Islamic State themselves? Why don’t “moderate” Muslims and their countries fight to take back the soul of Islam?

Maybe for them the apocalypse is now . . .

---

WHAT TO DO?  I would advocate just leaving the Middle East and the Muslim world alone. We will never “win” anything there.

Everything we have done there since 9/11 has made it worse. Just leave the Middle East the fuck alone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stranger in a Strange Land–Foreign Words

I HAVE NEWS FOR MY LOYAL BLOG FOLLOWERS! I will be taking a trip to Egypt sometime during December and/or January. You might wonder why I want to go to Egypt. My answer is that Egypt is the only place on my bucket list— I have vowed to stand before those pyramids before I exit this life. If I never do anything else, at least I can say that  I went to Egypt!

There are so many reasons why I have been drawn to Egypt’s amazing blend of ancient, mysterious civilization and contemporary Islamic society. I have loved Egypt for as long as I can remember. As a child, I wore costumes of Isis or Cleopatra for Halloween. The only reason that I go to Vegas is to visit the Luxor and buy Egyptian statues and other items.

---

MY STUDY of Islam and the Arabic language also draw me to Egypt. Travel to predominately Muslim Middle Eastern or African countries (Egypt is technically in Africa, but usually gets lumped into the “Middle East”) can be difficult and dangerous. However, if I delay my trip to Egypt until there is peace in the Middle East, I fear that I will be waiting for the rest of my life! Luckily, Egypt is a relatively safe Islamic country to visit. My knowledge of Islam, which gave birth to my Editing Islam series of posts on this blog, will serve me in good stead!

---

In order to make the most of my trip to Egypt, I am studying both Arabic and the ancient hieroglyphs. I have a lot to learn between now and my journey—and I’m sure that, as I study and prepare for my trip, some writing and editing topics will pop up and that can inform new blog posts.

---

THIS WEEK’S TOPIC IS THE USE OF FOREIGN WORDS

The Chicago Manual of Style and the AP Stylebook differ on the typeface used for foreign words. Chicago uses italics (Rule 7.49), and the AP uses quotation marks (entry foreign words, p. 106).

The Chicago Manual of Style and the AP Stylebook also differ on the punctuation of the definition that should be given after a foreign word. The AP favors a short definition or explanation in the body of the text. Chicago requires an explanation or definition after the foreign word be given in either quotation marks or parentheses.

HOWEVER, both stylebooks agree that when a foreign word becomes familiar through repeated use, it can enter the lexicon of English in normal [Roman] typeface.

[I have not yet mentioned “Roman” typeface in my posts, but it is just the formal word for regular typeface. The other most common typefaces are bold, italics, underline and smallcaps (yes, all capital letters, just smaller). I usually use italics for all of my examples. Here, because we are discussing Roman typeface versus italics, I will give my examples in Roman and use italics only in examples where italics are actually used.]

---

FOREIGN WORD TYPEFACE

The Chicago Manual of Style states that italics “are used for isolated words and phrases in a foreign language if they are likely to be unfamiliar to readers.”

Chicago lists some foreign words that have become familiar and, thus, can appear in regular Roman type: pasha, in vitro, de novo, a priori, the Kaiser, eros and agape, bourgeoisie, weltanschauung, and recherché. I would argue that the last two words would be a judgment call. I only know weltanschauung because I speak German; I had to look up recherché in Webster’s. Recherché is an adjective meaning rare, exotic, or obscure.

Chicago also lists some Latin words and abbreviations that should not be italicized: ibid., et al., ca., and passim.

Chicago notes that “if a foreign word becomes familiar through repeated use throughout a work, it need be italicized only on its first occurrence.” Rule 7.49. Thus, if I used a word from one of my Editing Islam posts, hajj, in an article or a book intended for those not familiar with Islamic words—and hopefully, that’s not you my readers, but pretend!—the book might use italics for hajj on first use, but then use ordinary type if the word is used throughout the book. However, “If [the word] appears only rarely, however, italics may be retained.”

IF YOU ARE NOT SURE about a word, look it up in Webster’s. If it is not there, you should definitely treat it as a foreign word. If it is, but you still think it may be unfamiliar to your readers, treat it as a foreign word.

---

The AP Stylebook also stresses that “some foreign words and abbreviations have been adopted universally into the English language: bon voyage; versus, vs.; et cetera, etc.” These words do not need special treatment

He waved bon voyage to Jennifer as she boarded her flight to Cairo.

Omar wanted to get his student visa extended, but he did not produce his passport, application, photo, etc.

She just ran on and on about this and that, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

---

Note: Legal stylebooks never use versus and vs. Instead, they use v., and the v. is not italicized. Thus we have Brown v. Board of Education. Legal texts almost never italicize case, statute, or regulation names. I say almost because legal citation is a complex world of its own. The national legal stylebook is the Harvard Bluebook. But many states, courts and jurisdictions have their own stylebooks or style sheets. California’s legal stylebook is the California Style Manual.

---

OK, NOW IT IS GOING TO GET REALLY TRICKY

FOREIGN WORD DEFINITIONS

BOTH STYLEBOOKS require a definition or explanation of meaning following a foreign word.

Chicago uses italics for the foreign word (as mentioned above) and then quotation marks OR parentheses for the definition.

AP uses quotation marks for the foreign word and a definition in the body of the text (right after the word).

You see how this can get very confusing!

Chicago references three more rules (6.93, 11.6, and 14.109) that determine whether quotation marks or parentheses are used for the foreign-word definitions. I list them here in case you care, but will not discuss them—I don’t know about you, but this is all the complexity that I can handle right now. The examples in Rule 7.50 itself are all over the place—so confusing that I will not restate them here. However, from the examples given in Rule 7.50, it seems that one-word definitions generally use quotation marks, while longer explanations use parentheses.

---

EXAMPLES OF FOREIGN WORD DEFINITIONS

Chicago Manual of Style

The Arabic words marhaba (the secular word for hello) and a salaam u aleikum (an Islamic greeting, meaning peace be with you) are both common greetings in Egypt.

The Arabic words marhaba, “hello,” and a salaam u aleikum, “peace be with you,” are both common greetings in Egypt.

Akhmed told Layla that she couldn’t touch his Quran because she was just a bintun (the common Arabic word for girl) and might get it dirty.

Akhmed told Layla that she couldn’t touch his Quran because she was just a bintun, “girl,” and thus might get it dirty.

In Arabic 101 we learned the words bintun (a girl) and waladun (a boy).

In Arabic 101, we learned the words bintun, “a girl,” and waladun “a boy.”

---

AP Stylebook

The Arabic words “marhaba,” the secular word for hello, and “a salaam u aleikum,” an Islamic greeting meaning “peace be with you,” are both common greetings in Egypt. Note how I also put the definition of “peace be with you” in quotation marks. The AP example does this as well.

Akhmed told Layla not to touch his Quran because she was just a “bintun,” a girl, and thus might get it dirty.

In Arabic 101, we learned the words “bintun,” a girl, and “waladun,” a boy.

---

Offhand Punctuation Note: The sentence in the first paragraph—You might wonder why I want to go to Egypt.—is a good example of a sentence that contains a question but does not need a question mark. Generally, when you have a sentence that is talking about a question, you may not need a question mark. In some sentences, the issue of question mark versus period is up to your own discretion. The more the sentence sounds like a question, the more appropriate the question mark. For example, the sentence— You might wonder why Egypt. sounds more like a question and would read better as You might wonder, why Egypt? This way, the actual question is separated from the beginning of the sentence.

---

THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE

WHICH TREATMENT of foreign words and definitions do you like best? I like putting the foreign word in italics and the definitions in parentheses.

However, if your publication or author uses a particular stylebook, or an internal style sheet, you will have to cede to those authorities. The main thing is to learn or decide the rules that you will or must apply and then to apply them—consistently.

To end, I wish that peace is indeed with you tonight. Wa aleikum u salaam!

.

Editing Islam: Sunni versus Shiite: What’s the Big Deal?

Editing Islam: How to tell a Shiite from a Sunni?

9/11 made the United States, as well as much of the non-Muslim world, sit up and take notice of Islam—this often-strange and mysterious faith that has 1 billion followers world-wide. We Americans get most of our information from TV, newspapers, and online sources. But how do our editors and journalists learn about Islam? I have no idea. Some are very astute; you can tell that they have done their homework. Others are still woefully inadequate and incorrect when reporting on Islamic issues.

You would think that, 15 years after 9/11, those who bring us the 24-hour news cycle would have a better understanding of Islam and some basic, yet vital, Islamic terms and ideas. As editors and reporters cover the clusterfuck that is the Middle East, they often label people and groups as Sunni or Shiite. Now this info is good to know, but what do these terms actually mean?

---

So here today I am going to give you the entry in the AP Stylebook that discusses this great schism in the Muslim faith. It is certainly just a drop of water in a very big well. As always, if you want more information, refer to the books in my Editing Islam Resources post. The AP Stylebook quote is verbatim, but I will add some notes in green paraphrased from Seyyed Hossein Nasr‘s book The Heart of Islam.

AP Stylebook, Religion Guidelines, page 461

“The schism between Sunni and Shiite stems from the early days of Islam and arguments about Muhammad’s successors as caliph, the spiritual and temporal leader of Muslims during that period. [The record is uncertain about whether Muhammad himself designated an heir. Shiites believe he privately chose Ali, but Sunnis dispute this.] The Shiites wanted the caliphate to descend through Ali, Muhammad’s son-in-law [and first cousin. Much in the Shiite–Sunni conflict was about how a leader should be chosen, by bloodline or by merit. Those supporting merit, not lineage, chose Abu Bakr, who was a wise man and one of Muhammad’s first followers. Abu Bakr was the first caliph.] Ali eventually became the fourth caliph, but he was murdered; Ali’s son, al-Hussein, was massacred with his fighters at Karbala, in what is now Iraq. Shiites considered the later caliphs to be usurpers. The Sunnis no longer have a caliph.”

Nasr paraphrased: Shiites got their name from the words shi’at (partisans) of Ali. The word Sunni means follower of the sunna (actions) of the Prophet; and also is a term for “the majority.” Here is another tidbit: Currently, 87% of Muslims are Sunni and 13% are Shiite.

---

Grammar note for editors and writers: Shiite–Sunni takes the en dash. It is also used in dates (“the July–August school session”) or where you might mean “versus” (the Bears–Steelers game”).

There are many spellings for Shiite Islam. I used Shiite here because that is the AP Stylebook spelling.  You will also see Shi’a, Shia, or Shi’ite. I prefer Shi’a Islam myself. However, because these words are transliterated from the Arabic, various spellings of many Islamic words are common.

Editing Islam: What Jihad is About?

Disclaimer: I am not a Muslim, but I have studied this faith for many years. I find it woeful that writers and editors, 14 years after 9/11, still display such ignorance about the world’s fastest-growing religion. I hope that the Editing Islam series will benefit editors and writers, so that they can deal with Islamic subjects properly.

---

My last Editing Islam (which I reposted today if you want to check it out) post dealt with what jihad is NOT. It does not mean holy war. If we as editors and writers use the term holy war, we are participating in the continued misunderstanding of jihad. In addition, if we call terrorist groups, like the Islamic State “jihadis,” we participate with them in the obscene warping of the word jihad and concept behind it.

---

So how does the AP Stylebook define jihad?

“jihad Arabic noun used to refer to the Islamic concept of the struggle to do good. In particular situations, that can include holy war, the meaning extremist Muslims commonly use.”

So we see that even the AP Stylebook perpetuates the “holy war” definition. As mentioned in my earlier Editing Islam post, the term “holy war was coined by Christian crusaders who were sent by the Pope to fight against Muslims during the Crusades.

(Now you see why many Muslims were offended when George W. Bush, after 9/11, called for a “crusade” against terrorism. Many Muslims heard this just as another new crusade by the West to occupy and subjugate the Muslim world. If the president’s handlers had done a better job . . . well it probably doesn’t matter now. A new crusade against the “evildoers” has resulted in nothing for the West, except a greater hatred among Muslims.)

---

As writers and editors, do we have an obligation to give equal time to those who know the true nature of jihad, or will we continue to let it be abased? When these terrorist organizations, which seem to be vying with each other to see who can commit the most gruesome human-rights abuses, tell us that they are acting under the flag of jihad, do we have an obligation to counteract this bullshit with the truth?

---

So, you must be thinking WTF is jihad? OK, here goes.

There are actually two types of jihad. These were derived by the Prophet’s words, after his followers won a victory at over the ruling tribe of Mecca, which allowed them to come out of exile in Medina: “You have returned from the lesser to the greater (akbar) jihad.” When asked what the greater jihad was, he replied, “It is the jihad against your passionate souls.”

What does this mean? The fight to end injustice is a “lesser” pursuit than the fight within oneself to be a good person and a good Muslim.

---

Seyyed Hossein Nasr writes of the greater jihad: “In Arabic, the term jihad is derived from the root jhd, meaning “to strive” or “to exert effort,” and in the context of Islam this striving and exertion are understood to be in the path or God. The person who performs such a task is a mujāhid usually translated in the West as “holy warrior.”

---

“On this basic level it might be side that all of life, according to Islam, is a jihad, because it is a striving to live according to the Will of God and to exert oneself to do good and oppose evil.”

One of the main struggles for any Muslim is performing the five Pillars of Islam. As with many of these issues, this topic is vast, but I will summarize:

1. The Profession of Faith: “There is no God but God, and Muhamad is the Messenger of God.” This is called the shahada. Note here that the correct terminology is used. Allah is simply the name of God in Arabic. Allah is not separate from the God of Abraham and Moses.
2. Prayer five times a day (called salat)
3. The payment of charity to the poor (zakat)
4. The fast during the month of Ramadan from dawn to dusk (abstaining from food, water, tobacco, perfumes, and sexual relations).
5. The pilgrimage to Mecca (called the Hajj)

This sounds like a lot to do. But exceptions are allowed. If one is sick or poor, for example, and can’t make the hajj, that is acceptable. If someone is ill or a child and needs to be fed during the day, that is also acceptable.

---

Wow, we have gotten so far! We have learned a little about the difference between the lesser and greater jihad and discussed the Pillars of Islam. I think that I will leave discussion of the lesser jihad (fighting oppression) until next Editing Islam post.

Editing Islam — Jihad Is Not a “Holy War”

My Tip of the Week posts are designed for editors and writers—and normally deal with issues of grammar, punctuation, spelling and the use of stylebooks. But writing and editing go beyond these prosaic issues every day. We are constantly making decisions and judgment calls about the treatment of difficult issues—such as writing and editing material dealing with Islam.

Editors must make these decisions every day: What do you call groups like ISIS or al Queda? Islamic fundamentalists, radical Islamists, Islamic terrorists, jihadists, Islamic jihadists, Islamists, Muslim fundamentalists, Islamic-inspired terrorists, Muslim terrorists, radical Muslims—this list is never ending.

And why have these super-violent organizations hijacked the word jihad?

And what about the vast majority of Muslims who do not think that a suicide vest is the fashion of the day? Who are horrified about what people do in the name of their religion? They are routinely killed for speaking out. Can we speak out for them? 

Today’s subject is the difference between the terms jihad and holy war.

Before attempting to define jihad, we need to do battle with some of the stereotypes and put the word jihad in its historical and religious context. (If you are hungering for more info between posts, please check out my last post listing recommended books on Islam.)

I hope to give writers and editors a better understanding of this word and its historical and religious meanings.

As any good copyeditor, my first source of information about everything fit to print is the AP Stylebook.

“Jihad. Arabic noun used to refer to the Islamic concept of the struggle to do good. In particular situations, that can include holy war, the meaning extremist Muslims commonly use.”

Here, the AP Stylebook both helps us and fails us. While the first sentence is fairly correct, second sentence is problematic. It does not mention that Christians, not Muslims, invented the phrase holy war. It is true that “some extremist Muslims” translate the word jihad into holy war. What is really sad is that these young jihadis are more familiar with an AK-47 that with the Quran.

Reza Aslan in his book No god But God, writes: “‘Holy War’ was not a term used by Muslim conquers, and it is in no way a proper definition of the word jihad. There are a host of words in Arabic that can be definitely  translated as “war”: jihad is not one of them.”

Gabriel Mandel Khân, in Muhammad, makes this clear when he writes: “The word for holy is quds and the word for war is harb.”

Aslan continues:”The deep-rooted stereotype of Islam as a warrior religion has its origins in the papal propaganda of the Crusades, when Muslims were depicted as the soldiers of the Antichrist in blasphemous occupation of the Holy Lands (and, far more importantly, of the Silk Route to China).”

I also would recommend the film Kingdom of Heaven, which portrays this time period of the Crusades well; although it is not totally historically accurate. It also stars Norman Reedus, that hot guy Daryl from The Walking Dead.

So how does an editor at a news publication deal with the words holy war (if used as a synonym for jihad)? Do not use the term holy war unless it is in a quotation. If you must use it, briefly discuss the two terms and let your readers know why holy war is not appropriate.

We All Are Shattered–Is Burning an Islamic Punishment?

How can I not blog on this? It has consumed me all day, just like the fire that consumed the Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kaseasbeh.

So below is what I have found out so far about the punishment of burning a person alive in Islam. This is a lot more than most Western media will give you. I know. I went online to the front pages of many daily newspapers, and, right below the headlines about this atrocity, there were links to other insightful articles, like “How to Prevent Your Gel Manicure Nails from Breaking.”

Really?

I just hope that this terrible death, with video readily available on YouTube, will spur other Muslims to speak out and condemn ISIS.

The punishment of burning alive is not supported by Sharia. However, in the long history of Islam, people have been burned alive. Christians who condemn this form of punishment would be advised to remember the Inquisition, where burning alive was the penalty for almost anything.

Hudud (literally meaning “limit,” or “restriction”) is an Islamic concept, based on the Quran and the Hadiths, that defines “crimes against God.” These include the religious crimes of adultery, fornication, homosexuality, accusing someone of illicit sex but failing to present four Muslim eye-witnesses, apostasy, consuming intoxicants, highway robbery and theft. Interestingly, murder is not an Hudud crime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudud#Punishments

In Islamic law, that is Sharia, hudud crimes trigger a class of punishments that are fixed by God. These range from public lashing, publicly stoning to death, amputation of hands or public execution. However, public stoning and execution punishments are relatively uncommon in the modern times in most Muslim nations, and are currently witnessed in Muslim nations, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, that follow strictest interpretation of sharia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudud#Punishments.

There is some evidence in the hadiths that Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet, resorted to burning people alive. However, his actions were rejected by others at the time. http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/why_did_ali_burn_some_apostates___by_understanding_islam.

The main rationale for not burning people alive, according to this and other Islamic sources, is that God has reserved the penalty of burning alive to Himself. So dead bodies should not be burned as punishment—if the person is bad enough, God will burn him in hell.

I read on one website: “The punishment for sodomy is also more severe than that of adultery according to the Islamic law. Islam prescribes capital punishment for the active as well as the passive partner in the crime. If both are major and sane, both of them have to be killed. The active partner is beheaded with the sword or killed by stoning or burnt alive or thrown from a height with the hands and the legs tied.” Try as I might, I cannot find the URL again. I think that this goes to show that burning is uncommon. I would need to do further research here.

Isn’t is sad, though, that an act of love can be punished more harshly than murder?

Here is an article about the ban on cremation in Islam:

What Happens If Your Body Is Cremated According to Islam?

by E. Anne Hunter, Demand Media

http://people.opposingviews.com/happens-body-cremated-according-islam-3426.html

 Why Cremation Is Forbidden

Muslims believe that the deceased must be treated with the same respect as the living. This belief originates from the Prophet Mohammed’s statement that breaking the bone of the deceased’s body is like breaking it in life. Burning the dead for cremation, like breaking the bones of the dead or other such mutilation, is therefore prohibited, as is accepting or encouraging such treatment. According to some Muslims, the condemnation of cremation should extend to all living creatures including animals and plant life.

Fate of Cremated Individuals in Islam

Based on the belief that the dead must be treated as the living, the cremated deceased experiences a disrespect that is inconsistent with the honor bestowed by Allah. However, it is also believed that Allah can make the cremated body whole again for resurrection, so cremation is not believed to preclude the deceased from reaching heaven or hell.

Cremation of Non-Muslims

Just as it is forbidden to cremate a Muslim, it is also forbidden for a Muslim to cremate a non-Muslim. Muslims believe, based on the Prophet Mohammed’s teachings, that burning is a punishment that must only be delivered by the Creator, and that respect for the dead applies to Muslims and non-Muslims. A Muslim must not, therefore, cremate another, or participate in the act of cremation in any other way, such as by witnessing the event or approving of it.

Exception

There is only one situation in which cremation may be allowed in Islam. If large numbers of people are killed by disease that would spread through burial, burning of the bodies may be permitted. Prior to the cremation, the potential spread of disease through traditional burial must be proven and express permission must be given by authorities.

Conclusion

Moaz al-Kaseasbeh was not a criminal or an apostate or a homosexual. He was just a regular Muslim trying to serve his country. And if it is true that God has reserved the punishment of burning alive to Himself, to punish sinners after death, then He had better keep those fires hot. ISIS is coming!

And if you would rather not dwell on such things, maybe you should read the gel manicure article.

 

 

Tip of the Week–Editing Islam (Chapter Three)–Images of Muhammad

As-salamu alaykum everyone!

Welcome to EDITING ISLAM (Chapter Three). In this post, we are going to explore one of the most controversial issues of the day—depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. This post, of course, has the most meaning for editors publishing pictures or cartoons of the Prophet—as well as for the artists themselves.

(As mentioned in previous posts, I am not a Muslim, but I have studied the faith extensively. I am also a freelance editor and have my own business, Red Pen Editing. I am writing these posts to help non-Muslim editors and readers understand the faith better. I am no authority. Please see my last post, EDITING ISLAM—SUPPLEMENTAL, which contains a reading list of distinguished authors and experts on Islam.)

In EDITING ISLAM (Chapter Two), I asked a teaser question for this post: Why does the depiction of the Prophet Muhammad make many Muslims so damn mad?

Ever since the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks, and even before that (with the Danish cartoons), non-Muslims, especially Westerners, have asked, “What’s the big deal?” Well, to many Muslims, it is a very big deal. Yet, throughout all of the news coverage, I have heard only one Muslim commentator even allude to the taboo on depicting living things in Islam. This ban on depictions of living things has deep historical and religious roots in the faith. It particularly extends to depictions of people and of the Prophet Muhammad.

I will cite here from Wikipedia:

“Aniconism in Islam is a proscription against the creation of images of sentient living beings. The most absolute proscription is of images of God, followed by depictions of Muhammad, and then Islamic prophets and the relatives of Muhammad. The depiction of all humans and animals is discouraged in the hadith and by the long tradition of Islamic authorities, especially Sunni ones. This has led to Islamic art being dominated by Islamic geometric patterns, calligraphy and the barely representational foliage patterns of the arabesque; but figurative art still has a strong tradition, especially on a small scale in private works for the home or palace. The proliferation of photographic and filmed images today has led to controversy, with some religious authorities stating, for example, that all television is un-Islamic; but this is not a widely held position.”

The ban on images of sentient beings lies at the heart of the story of Islam.  At the time of Muhammad’s birth (c. 570-632 C.E.), the Bedouin tribes were basically polytheistic. Each tribe usually had its own important God or Gods. These Gods were portrayed by statues or other types of idols sacred to the tribe. In Mecca, there is a stone structure called the Ka’aba (the AP Stylebook or Webster’s Online has no entry on spelling, some use Kaaba). Below you see a painting of Muhammad at the Ka’aba. Notice that his face is veiled.

The Ka’aba contained all of the idols of the Gods of the different tribes. Once a year, the Ka’aba was opened and pilgrims flocked to the Ka’aba, taking out their precious idols and worshipping them. When Muhammad began having his revelations (610 C.E.), God spoke to him (at first through the Angel Gabriel, but later directly). The main thrust of the revelations was that there was only one God and that all idols were blasphemous. When Muhammad began to bring his teachings to the residents of Mecca, they were not pleased at all. The annual pilgrimage was a big moneymaker for the city—its main source of income. They drove Muhammad out of Mecca to a town later called Medina, where his religion began to take hold. It is too involved to get into the whole story here, but eventually Muhammad returned to Mecca. He had converted so many people, both Medina and in Mecca, that the doors of the city were opened in welcome for him. The first thing he did was enter the Ka’aba and rid it of all of the idols (except one, a statue of the Virgin Mary). His condemnation of idols is one of the bases for the prohibition on depicting living things.

A widely held Islamic tradition teaches that only God has the power to create life and that art depicting living things is an attempt to imitate God. So Muslim artists had to get creative. One way that they channeled their creativity was into the beautiful calligraphy of the Arabic script. Muslim artists worked around the ban by writing Arabic calligraphy in the form of living things. This necessity spawned some of the most beautiful calligraphy in the world. Most of the famous mosques are decorated solely with calligraphy. Another way artists worked around the ban was to portray living images imperfectly. The idea is that only God can create perfect things. This carries over into the great art of Middle Eastern rug-making—all traditional rugs are woven with a defect somewhere, given that only God can create perfection.

Throughout his life, Muhammad insisted that he was just a man and should not be worshipped as an idol. For this reason, Muslims prohibited the depiction of Muhammad, fearing that paintings or statues of the Prophet would be worshipped like idols. As Islam spread, artists got around the prohibition on painting Muhammad by veiling his face. Below are two examples, although one of the veils is pretty thin!

So for conservative (and of course extremist) Muslims, depiction of the face of the Prophet is just wrong. It is forbidden by religious belief and historical practice. Thus, even if the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, and those Danish cartoonists before them, had portrayed Muhammad as a great guy, with the caption: “Islam is the Best Religion!”,  it still would be still be “haram” (sinful) to many Muslims.

This does not give anyone the right to commit terrorism, knowledge of this history may help Westerners understand these actions. Remember when the Taliban destroyed those giant Buddhist statues? That action was based on the same ideology. But we must remember, of course, that although many Muslims hold these beliefs dear to their hearts, they don’t respond violently.

And some Muslims don’t even believe in the ban. Here is a picture I found of Muhammad and the Angel Gabriel where Muhammad’s face is drawn.

So if you are an artist who wants to portray the face of the Prophet or an editor or publisher, I hope that this blog entry has been illuminating. Unfortuately, if you don’t want a fatwa on your ass, you would be better to steer clear. Webster’s Online defines a fatwa as “a legal opinion or decree handed down by an Islamic religious leader.” However, I applaud those who risk their lives daily by saying and doing things that are condemned by fundamentalist Muslims and their leaders.

I mention fatwas here because I am reading a new book: Karima Bennoune, Your Fatwa Does Not Apply Here, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, London, 2013.

Bennoune is a professor of international law at the UC David School of Law. She grew up in Algeria and now lives in the United States. In this book, she tells the tales of courageous people who are fighting against Islamist extremism, both in the Muslim world and in exile. She not only condemns the Western Right for demonizing Islam, but also faults the Western Left for whitewashing the human-rights violations of perceived “moderate” Muslim nations or U.S. “allies.” I am not done with the book yet, but I highly recommend it!

Next week in EDITING ISLAM (Chapter Four), I will provide a list of some of the main Islamic terms in the AP Stylebook and Webster’s Online, in keeping with the purpose of this blog—to help writers and editors. And for those of you sick of Islam, I promise some posts about other issues in the future.

Until next time, Peace Be Upon You.

Supplemental Tip of the Week–Recommended Books on Islam

 As-salamu alaykum everyone!

Thank you to those who have visited my EDITING ISLAM posts on my Red Pen Editing blog. My blog stats have gone through the roof. Please keep coming back for the next chapters of EDITING ISLAM. As long as there is a demand, I will keep blogging on this subject. As I mentioned in Chapter One, I am not a Muslim. However, I have read extensively about this faith. Here I want to give the reading list that I promised to supply in Chapter One. All of these writers are pre-eminent scholars on all things Islamic. I will also recommend a film about Islam. I did a lot of cut-and-paste here, so I hope my followers who are editors will help me out by pointing out any typos. Thanks!

Welcome to Supplemental Tip of the Week–Recommended Books on Islam

Reza Aslan, No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam, Random House Trade Paperbacks, New York, 2005 (Updated Version, Aug. 30, 2011).

If you read only one book on Islam, read this one. This is the most accessible and informative book on Islam for non-Muslims and Muslims alike. Aslan gives a great historical perspective on the Prophet Muhammad and the rise of Islam. He is a Muslim who doesn’t ignore history that contradicts common Islamic beliefs. No god but God has been translated into 17 languages and named one of the 100 most important books of the last decade.

Reza Aslan has written over a dozen books and countless articles. He holds a Master of Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School and a PhD in Sociology from UC Santa Barbara. He teaches religious studies at UC Riverside. It is difficult to provide anything like a comprehensive survey of his accomplishments, so check him out on Wikipedia. He has written about Christianity and Judaism, as well as Islam. He is a Iranian Shia Muslim.  His most recent book is Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth (2013). Visit his website: rezaaslan.com.

Seyyed Hossein Nasr, The Heart of Islam, Enduring Values for Humanity, HarperSanFrancisco, 2009.

Here is another great book by a scholar who knows what he is talking about. Seyyed Hossein Nasr is an Iranian Islamic philosopher and renowned scholar of comparative religion. He writes in the fields of Islamic esotericism, Sufism, philosophy of science, and metaphysics. Checking out Amazon.com, it seems that he has written even more books than Reza Aslan.  He is a graduate of MIT and Harvard.

Gabriel Mandel Khân, Muhammad the Prophet, Thunder Bay Press, San Diego, 2001.

This book is a beautifully illustrated introduction to Islam. It provides all of the basics and includes tidbits about the influence of Islam on Western writers like Dante and Goethe. If you want to see what the face of Islam looks like buy this book.

Gabriel Mandel Khân (1924–2010) was an Italian psychologist, writer, and artist of Afghan descent. He was the son of a Sufi father and Jewish mother. 

Khaled Abou El Fadl, Speaking in God’s Name: Islamic Law, Authority and Women, One World, Oxford, 2005.

Do you really want to know about Islamic law (Sharia) and the role of women in Islam, this is the book for you. Sharia is not all about stoning women for adultery or other drastic human-rights abuses. If anyone should know, it is this guy. In some ways, Sharia is not that different from the American justice system. The Quran is the Constitution, the Hadiths and Sunna (I will explain these terms in a future post) are supplements to the Quran, and Islamic judges follow legal precedent, just as judges do in U.S. or British Common Law.

Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl was born in Kuwait. He has a law degree from University of Pennsylvania Law School. He teaches human rights, Islamic law and terrorism at UCLA. He is the author of 14 books (five forthcoming) and over 50 articles on various topics in Islam and Islamic law. He is also an Islamic jurist and scholar, having received 13 years of systematic instruction in Islamic jurisprudence, grammar and eloquence in Egypt and Kuwait.

The Message: The Story of Islam (1977)(film)

This great film focuses on the life of the Prophet and the birth of Islam. It stars Anthony Quinn and was directed by Moustapha Akkad.  A must-see!

And finally, for a very different point of view, I must mention:

Ibn Warraq, Why I Am Not a Muslim, Prometheus Books, New York, 2003.

“Ibn Warraq” (a pseudonym) is an ex-Muslim from Pakistan. He was inspired to write this book by the Salman Rushdie affair. Although he is not a scholar, his book is a well-researched and provoking indictment of Islam.

As an aside, many new books on Islam have been written since I did my major flurry of research. Please send me comments recommending additional books and films, and I will include them in future posts—after I read or watch them, of course!

I need to stop now, my fingers are tired of blogging!

EDITING ISLAM (Chapter Three) will post next Saturday.

Tip of the Week: Editing Islam (Chapter 2)

As-salamu alaykum! Welcome to EDITING ISLAM Chapter 2.

THIS traditional Muslim greeting means “Peace be with you.” The appropriate response is Wa alaikum assalaam  (“and upon you be peace”). Interestingly, this is very similar to the Hebrew greeting Shalom aleikhem  (“peace be upon you”) and response Aleikhem shalom (“upon you be peace”).

BECAUSE these Islamic greetings are phonetic translations of Arabic into English, any phonetic spelling may be correct. No definitive English spelling has been agreed upon. These words are not in the AP Stylebook. Google them and you will see many spellings, as with other Arabic words. The best thing to do is find out the spelling used by the publication for which you are working. In your own writing, you can use any spelling, just be consistent.

In Editing Islam Chapter 1, I threw out a teaser question: Do Muslims believe in the virgin birth of Jesus? Answer: Yes they do.

Here I will quote from Reza Aslan’s wonderful book No god but God:

“From the beginning of his ministry, Muhammad revered Jesus as the greatest of God’s messengers. Much of the Gospel narrative is recounted in the Quran. … including Jesus’ virgin birth (3:47) … .”

This goes back to Chapter 1—Muslims believe in the same God as Jews and Christians. According to Islamic teaching, Muhammad considered Jews and Christians to be “People of the Book” (abl al-Kitab). Each group had its own holy book: Jews the Torah, Christians the Bible, and Muslims the Quran. Each holy book built upon the teachings of the book before it.

 

Interesting, but what does this all mean for editors?

Last week, we discussed the word Allah. Here is the AP Stylebook’s definition:  “Allah. The Arabic word for God. The word God should be used, unless the Arabic name is used in a quote written or spoken in English.”

Thus, anyone Editing Islam should use the term God, not Allah, unless it is in a quote. The discussion above supports this usage. Luckily, the people writing the AP Stylebook understood enough about Islam to prefer the term God.

Teaser for Chapter 3: Why do depictions of the Prophet Muhammad–even if they are nice ones–make some Muslims so mad?