Devoted to the viewpoint of Islam of Muhammad SAW and Amir ul-Mumineen, Ali ibn Abi Talib SA, in the Shi'a Fatimi Ismaili Dawoodi Bohra tradition.
November 11, 2002
animated biography of Muhammad (SAW).
AICN reports that an animated biography of the Prophet Muhammad SAW is in the works, with the actual animation and CGI embellishment to be done by RichCrest Animation in Burbank CA. There's a detailed look at the project as well as background historical material. The producer, Badr International Corporation[1], has plans to introduce further topics of Islam as well beyond this project once it is completed:
It is Company’s vision to become the major provider of high quality Islamic animated stories, episodes, and series for distribution to Islamic countries and people worldwide. Such stories will be produced in Arabic, English and other significant languages in the Muslim world.
...
The Company’s primary mission is to convey knowledge and cultural values through the medium of animation in an entertainment format, targeted to the entire family as a single audience.
I note that the intended targets for marketing of the movie is to an Islamic audience as well as an American one. The impact at home doesn't interest me as much as the foreign - is the goal here to try to "reprogram" the masses towards moderate Islam, by using the moral lessons and example for humanity that was Muhamad SAW? Or just to be a Disneyfied package of history like Liberty's Kids? Perhaps I am reading too much into it - or it could be a combination of identifying a market niche and performing an experiment in social engineering .
The definitive project in film to narrate the early history of Islam was the powerful movie, The Message (1976). The director, Moustapha Akkad, actually shot each scene twice, with different sets of actors for the English version and the Arabic version, because he felt that subtitles would mar the film. Anthony Quinn played Hamza in the English version. Akkad also introduced the cinematic equivalent of the Islamic tradition of not representing the Prophet SAW visually, by framing scenes involving Muhammad SAW from his point of view. Thus, when other characters address the Prophet SAW, they are actually addressing the viewer of the movie. Some scenes had the Prophet SAW off-screen, and Akkad used a haunting musical theme to indicate Muhammad's presence. Muhammad's SAW spoken words are never heard by the audience but are heard by the other characters. The net effect is to convincingly establish the presence of the Prophet SAW but yet never actually violate the tradition against representation. It's partly a brilliant statement about perception and cue within movies in general as well as a merely functional device to circumvent offense. I consider Akkad's use of this device to be the opposite of Jar Jar Binks - rather than visualize an artificial person, the character has enormous impact upon the film and the mportance of the character is underscored, by their absence (visually speaking. But in cues from other actors and the music, the character exists. With even more realism than the jarring artifice of a CGI construct).
To say that there was controversy surrounding the making and release of The Message would be an enormous understatement :) But the film was vetted by established Islamic scholars, notably those at Al-Azhar University in Cairo [2], and garnered enormous acclaim. The video is worth purchasing for the appended "maing-of" documentary alone.
However, while I purchased a copy of The Message for my family, it bore the marks of having been "sanitized" to reflect a cohesive vision of the early history that probably was decided by calculated compromise rather than historical accuracy. While I don't seriously expect the political machinations that gave rise to the Shi'a-Sunni schism to be highlighted (what purpose would it serve, except for disunity?), it's still somewhat jarring to be see certain personalities portrayed in ways opposite to what you've been taught. I have a feeling that this animated version will also bear the same marks, but I cannot fault them for it. The core message of that early history is the story of Muhammad SAW, and the details of the supporting players are not the main narrative. How Islam came into being, the environment that preceded it, the principles that it was founded on (which any denizen of the West would easily recognize), these are what is important. I highly recommend The Message to non-Muslims and I cautiously recommend it to Muslims.
The animated film adopts Akkad's pioneering approach to non-representation, by also using camera point-of-view and thematic music to convey the presence of the Prophet without direct portrayal:
William Kidd has created a thrilling epic score that illuminates this most important moment and man in history. Mr. Kidd helped solve on of the film’s greatest challenges. According to tradition, the Prophet (pbuh) is not physically portrayed in the film. How then does the filmmaker convey his presence in a powerful way? Cinematically, Mr. Rich used the camera’s point-of-view to indicate the comings and goings of the Prophet (pbuh). But this technique is completely brought to life by an unforgettable melody created by Mr. Kidd. The effect is stirring.
To be honest, I am not sure how I feel about this. The problem is that by using entertainment media as a vehicle, the message is inherently commercialized. That's not necessarily bad, but it does undermine the authority of the film. It's easier to dismiss something because it's a movie than if it were, say, a book or even a play. A variant of this "dismis-by-association" theme is what makes it so difficult for Japanese anime to gain any kind of foothold in the movie industry here in the US, because the primary reaction of most adults is, "it's a cartoon". The concept that animation can be used for adult-oriented information (I'm using "adult" in its more general sense, not merely a pornographic context) is one that is dofficult for most adults.
The movie The Message had impact because it was live actors. I think that animation might be the wrong vehicle for this kind of project. But of course, I am highly interested in how it turns out, and I do want to see the outcome.
There is an interesting and moving anecdote related to the making of the film, related to the voice actor for the role of Muhammad's SAW uncle, Abu Talib.
Early on in the casting it became clear that the voice of Abu Talib would be crucial. Though not an adherent to Islam, Abu Talib was a loving uncle to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). His was the responsibility to support his nephew but also to lead, placate, and sometimes stand up to his peers of Quarysh. The voice needed strength, majesty, but also kindness and a gentle quality. It was found in Eli Allem, a veteran actor of stage and screen. With each recording session it became clear that Eli was creating a unique and powerful performance. Finally, his job was done. On the day after his final recording session, he passed away.
[1]It is interesting to note that the company is named after the Battle of Badr, in which Muhammad's followers defended themselves against a Meccan army three times larger. Badr was the first great victory of Islam in its struggle to survive the machinations and entrenched power brokers of pre-Islamic Arabia.
[2] Most assuredly, these Islamic scholars and authorities were not contacted by Osama bin Laden for validation of his religious interpretations. Most likely because it would have been pointless.
O Allah! This is the month of Ramadan in which descended the Qur'an as a guide to mankind and a criterion to separate truth from falsehood. O Allah! Bless us in the month of Ramadan, and give us Your help and accept our ibadat, for You have power over all things.
There is no god but Allah. We seek Your forgiveness. O Allah! Grant us Paradise and save us from Hellfire.
Ramadan mubarak, and remember my family and myself in your duas.
The reason that these murderers are not going to heaven is because they killed innocent men, women and children. They were engaged in harabah, not jihad.
Wrapping them in pigskin to "prevent" them from entering Heaven implicitly gives credence to the idea that these murderers were engaging in jihad, and had performed an act worthy of admittance to Paradise.
Overall, wrapping the bodies in pigskin is a stupid and foolish action, because all it has done is lend "comfort" to the terrorists, by giving weight to their arguments.
And people wonder why the voice of moderate Islam isn't heard?
I was unsurprised to read in NRO's The Corner the entry by Kathryn Jean-Lopez about the MEMRI "analysis" which purports to demonstrate that the Qur'an calls Jews "apes and pigs".
The verse she is referring to is 5:60 - while I do not deny that the verse has been deliberately misused to justify calling Jews "apes and pigs" - it has nothing to do with Jews. This is a group of ayats that are a kind of dialouge. It is confusing to follow but here is the general gist:
5:57 - (addressing Muslims) - do not choose as *guardians* (actual word
used) those people who follow earlier Revelations but not Islam (ie, Jews
and Christians), and people who are outright disbelievers (in Allah). The
issue of Guardian goes back to 5:55, which has an extensive history in and
of itself, as relates to Ali.
5:58 - Some ignorant Jews and Christians mock you (as a muslim) and your
Azaan (call to prayer) because they do not understand what you are doing
(they do not see it as a form of worship). This should not dissuade you from
doing your actions (duties to Allah).
(personal comment: I have been ridiculed while praying in parking lots. My
wife and I used to go to movies before Baby arrived, and sometimes the
only time we could catch a show was right around sunset. So we would do our
obligatory prayers in the parking lot. To be honest, we are reluctant to do that
nowadays, but this verse demands that we persevere despite that paranoia)
5:59 - addressing Jews and Christians - "is the only reason you hate us
(Muslims) because we believe in Allah, and the revelations that came before
(which you also believe in)? Is this because most of you do not follow your
own scriptures as well as we follow them (the same scriptures) ?
at this point the Muslim understands that they are inheritors to the same
scriptures that Jews and Christians follow. However, they are a target of
ridicule by some in these groups for adherence to these scriptures.
5:60 - addressing Muslims again - Do you want to know who is worse (than
such ignorant Jews and Christians. Note, not ALL, see 5:58)? Those who are
worse are those who Allah has cursed, had wrath upon, had damned to be apes
and swine.. etc . these are far, far worse than Jews or Christians (who mock
the azaan, etc.)
5:61 - The group that is discussed in 5:60 is here revealed to be those who
say (on the surface) I believe in Allah but who actually do not, and seek to
cause dissent and turmoil within the community of believers.
Clearly, the average Jew or Christian who follows their own scriptures, or
who at least does not ridicule Muslim belief, is clearly not the target of
5:59, let alone 5:60.
5:61 is taken by Sunnis to be generally aimed at evil people. Shi'a consider
it aimed at very specific groups of Muslims who subverted the Prophet's
wishes, especially against Ali. This entire section has very little to do
with Jews and Christians per se and has everything to do with the internal
struggles of the followers of the religion against the Hypocrites. These
Hypocrites were a significant threat to Islam at the outset, and saw the
best way to destroy it by trojaning it and working at cross purposes from
within.
Verse 4:91 also has been used by detractors of Islam and by politically-motivated psychotics like OBL. It is commonly represented as enjoining the believer to "kill all the infidels".
But for a full contextual understanding, it is necessary to read 4:88 onwards to 4:91. Also note that 4:91 has been short-quoted by critics, the full verse is:
"Ye will find others who desire that they should have security from you, and
security from their own folk. So often as they are returned to hostility
they are plunged therein. If they keep not aloof from you nor offer you
peace nor hold their hands, then take them and kill them wherever ye find
them. Against such We have given you clear warrant."
This is clearly referring to people who keep attacking you, in which case you are
justified in waging war out of defense.
Verse 4:91 itself has no justification for global war against infidels, it is self-contained in discussing other groups who just wont leave you alone. But the entire thread from 4:88 up to 4:91 is worth reading for even more subtlety.
I also sent this explanation to John Derbyshire,whom I consider honorable in distinguishing the misuses of Islam by evil people like OBL from the inherent message of Islam itself. MEMRI and Mrs. Lopez have failed to make such a distinction.
Bill Allison's Ideofact blog is one of those rare blogs that serves as a reference site for others, rather than a mere collection of opinions. Bill has blogged on topics ranging from the middle ages to Bosnia, covering literature and history and supported by a formidable library. One of the most important series of posts that Bill has worked on is his ongoing analysis of "Sayyid" [1] Qutb's book, Social Justice in Islam[2]. This book's influence on the radical segment of Islam has been profound, to the extent that Qutb has been called "the brains behind Osama bin Laden" (here are a pair of articles that discuss this influence in detail by Dinesh D'Souza).
What is important about Bill's thorough analysis is that it demonstrates just how far from mainstream Islam that Qutb's ideas and interpretations are - to the extent that even an outsider to the faith can see them (not to impugn Bill - he has deep and personal knowledge of Islam, though he is not muslim himself). I agree completely with him when he says:
I've never been convinced that it is Islam in and of itself with which we are at war, but rather with a bunch of lunatics who believe that Islam justifies flying a few airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Beyond that, I tend to think the main problem of the Middle East is tyranny.
...
Islam shares the concept of the equality of souls before God. It has not found expression in anything like our Declaration, it is not the organizing principle of any predominantly Muslim society, but the concept is there, and is something which perhaps can be built upon.
Following the vein of my previous post, where I discuss how far off base OBL is from Islam, this post is an attempt to catalouge all of the Ideofact entries on Qutb. Thus we can demonstrate that not only is OBL's ideology flawed, but also the lineage of his ideology as well. Taken together, this could be considered the beginnings of a systematic refutation of the OBL version of Islam. I am regrettably not qualified to "deconstruct" Qutb with Qur'anic references but I know this to be possible, and Bill does an admirable job even without turning to the ultimate authority.
Bill hasnt yet finished the series, so I will update this post as he adds new entries.
So, then, what is the alternative to Qutb? The answer is Ali ibn Talib AS, the chosen sucessor to the Prophet (and the defining figure of Shi'a theology). I will review Ali's AS work, "Peak of Eloquence" (Nahjul Balagha), in the next post in this series.
[1] As far as I can determine, the title of Sayyid was bestowed upon Qutb by himself.
[2] For the masochistic, you can buy this book from Amazon. Not recommended unless you have the patience of a sage (like Bill).
Osama bin Laden's "fatwa" against Americans - calling upon Muslims to murder and plunder them - is well known and was widely reported by the media. OBL labeled this as a jihad and a religious duty. However, it was actually neither a fatwa nor a call to jihad, let alone a religious duty of any kind. It is critical for muslims and non-muslims alike to understand exactly how OBL has misapproriated these terms and how his call to action goes against the fundamental tenets of Islam in the Qur'an itself.
A fatwa is a religious pronouncement, a call to religious duty. By its very definition, therefore, it can only be invoked by a religious authority. OBL has no such authority, and in fact usually fatwas are issued by councils of clerics (in the Sunni tradition) or by religious imam (in the Shi'a). OBL's family may have built many mosques, but it is certainly doubtful he ever led prayers in one, or ever acted in a religious advisory capacity. If anything, OBL is a pretender to religious authority. The notion that his pronouncements can be labeled fatwas is intrinsically ludicrous. Even the ruling Saudi family dares not lay claim to the authority to issue fatwas (though in their case, they just let their Wahabi symbiotes do it).
OBL's ignorance about Islam and the laughability of his claim to religious authority is well-illustrated by his own words:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God." . . .
The very first statement asserts that "killing Americans and their allies" is an "individual duty". The Qur'an does in fact support violence if in defense against attack, but here OBL explicitly describes the targets as "civilians and military." Note that if you make the argument that there is no such thing as a civilian, then that qualification is unneccessary. Presumably then OBL does make such a distinction, and thus he is knowingly calling for the murder of innocents.
Contrast this with the words of the Qur'an itself:
We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. Those who wage war against Allah and His prophet, kill the believers and plunder their property shall be disgraced in this world, and for them is a dreadful doom in the hereafter. (5:32-33)
The contrast is crystal clear. What OBL is calling for violates Qur'anic precepts. His assertion that this is the "duty" of all Muslims is thus ignorant and self-refuting. His gross ignorance of the Qur'an demonstrates that he is an impostor of religious authority.
On a minor theological note, the "holy mosque" (ie, the Kabba) never needs to be liberated. It is Allah's - and thus will always be safe. To say that the Saudis are pagans and that the Kabba needs to be liberated is in one sense an insult to God. Would Allah allow the Kabba to fall into the hands of pagans? The Saudis - despite all their faults - have made it possible for Muslims worldwide to perform the Hajj[1]. As for Masjid al-Aqsa, it still is owned by the Waqf and muslims do have access, for the most part. Any muslim who has actually gone there can attest to this. I wonder if OBL has ever bothered?
Finally, the ayats that OBL invokes are taken grossly out of context. Again with a translation (sigh) :
Surely the number of months with Allah is twelve months in Allah's ordinance since the day when He created the heavens and the earth, of these four being sacred; that is the right reckoning; therefore be not unjust to yourselves regarding them, and fight the polytheists all together as they fight you all together; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil). (9:36)
This is directed at two targets. First, the pagans here are specifically the pagans of Saudi Arabia before Islam, who used to observe a year of 13 months after two years to combine the solar and lunar years, due to which they had to transfer the observance of Muharram to the succeeding month, Safar. This verse condemns their interference with the lunar calendar. Second, taken in a broader context, says to fight them together as they fight you all together. Since Islam is not under attack by America or her allies (in fact, Muslims reside there as well, and none of the established schools of jurisprudence consider American muslims to be inferior or non-muslim), this ayat does not apply.
The other ayat that OBL invokes is also very out of context:
Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression. (2:190-193)
These ayats are often used by fanatics for precisely oppsite to their intent. The main points here are that fighting is only permitted in self-defense. If fighting starts, then kill them wherever they are found, unless they ask for mercy (this is also the Jacksonian model as well). Most importantly, show mercy when one has the upper hand.
The Qur'an is also explicit about the fate of those who misuse the words of Allah themselves for their own gain. I'll let OBL, and any fan of his, look that up themselves. For all the good it shall do them.
OBL continues,
We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.
I have previously blogged about jihad. What OBL calls for here is not jihad, since he has already explicitly targeted non-combatants, but note that he goes further here and calls for plunder as well. This is actually a call to harabah, or "war of intimidation." Note that harabah is strongly condemned in the Qur'an, for example the explicit reference in 5:33 to those whose intent is "mischief through the land".
Because the word jihad roughly means "religious effort," the West can come off as attacking the daily life of ordinary Muslims, while terrorists get away with wrapping their crimes in religious phraseology. Muslim scholars are meeting in Washington with US officials to change this. "When people carelessly dump on jihad, it has an immediate polarizing effect," said Khaled Abou el Fadl, a professor of Islamic law at UCLA who will attend the meeting. "It may not change much, but it allows Muslims and non-Muslims to say something about terrorists without appearing to malign Islamic theology."
Khaled Abou el Fadl (professor of Islamic law at UCLA) is also an accomplished writer on these topics. His book, Speaking in God's Name, is a very thorough look at how religious terminology is abused by the extremists. It is vitally important that these differences in terminology are understood - more than merely semantics, it is the framework for understanding the problem of radical fascist Islam and the underlying problem of tribalism. I urge other bloggers to make a point of calling terrorism harabah and not jihad, and to avoid labeling every frothing opinion of extremists a fatwa.
Islam is actually the solution to the problem. It is in our collective best interest, to understand the classical interpretations of Islam (of which mine is but a single example of many), because that understanding can shape policy. Consider the hypothetical post-war Iraq. If we simply set up a barbie dolls and rock and roll culture, then there will be a fundamentalist backlash. The last thing we want to do is turn secular but tyrannical Iraq into a defeated but fundamentalist nation. The former can be bombed and deterred and exiled and killed, but the latter is a huge incubator just like Afghanistan was.
If we are to be successful we have to remove the incubators, the conditions under which they are created, as well. Doing that means that an understanding of classical Islam is essential. Thats the propaganda war we need to fight against OBL.
[1] I drive an SUV. Whether I'm killing the Earth or helping muslims do hajj depends on your point of view, I guess.
This post is unlike most of mine, in that it really is a colection of links rather than an analysis of an issue. But there are a range of resources Iwhose existence I want to document here.
Previously, I blogged about Ismail Royer (whose essay on Victimhood is absolutely brilliant) - though I've become somewhat disenchanted with him subsequently, since his personal interpretation of Islam compels him to make acid comments about the validity of others' marriages, and make a curious denial of the existence of Wahabism. Read the comments section on this post for details. I've also recently noted the alt.muslim site, which is so good that I'm going to add an XML feed to Shia Pundit from it. The editor, Shahed, has graciously invited me to submt content for alt.muslim, so I willdo my best not to disappoint him.
But apart from luck, it is quite hard to find other Islamic sites, especially ones that link to me. I rely heavily on the statistics pages at Ecosystem websites like Myelin and Organica to find new refers. That's how I came across Bin Gregory, a Muslim blogger who immediately captured my attention with his post on the beauty of Qasida, which are elegies of faith, haunting and powerful, taking the elegance of the written Arabic to an entirely different level.
Also, Bin Gregory reminded me of the following link, to the Zaytuna Institute, which was founded by Shaikh Hamza Yusuf, a staunch proponent of Modern Islam and its role in the world as a beacon of reason. Yusuf is a true intellectual and has an extensive portfolio of speeches and essays that are mandatory reading if you want to understand the true Islam of the ages as opposed to the pseudo-Islam of the media and the tribal idiots. Some of these speeches are Islam's Progressive Tradition, and America's Tragedy (an essay about 9-11). The Zaytuna Institute also runs an Academy, which is an Islamic school run according to modern and rational philosophies in stark contrast to the ignorance of the madrassahs in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. Their explanation of their mission rejeuvenates the original spirit of the word madrassah, in my opinion:
Zaytuna Institute and Academy is a non-profit, educational institute and school founded and run by people committed to reviving time-tested methods of educating and transforming human beings. It is our belief that Islam offers a cohesive understanding of the world and a praxis for it that is able to cut through the illusion of contemporary nihilism and materialism.
We recognize ignorance as the greatest weapon of the dark forces working in the world and believe that the light of true knowledge is the only weapon to dispel that darkness. This is our struggle, and our efforts are directed at spreading the light and wisdom of prophetic truths everywhere and to all peoples. Our aim is to teach the tools individuals need in order to live lives of guidance and adherence to sacred order and to restore broad-based pluralistic and true scholarship to its proper place as a first priority of Muslims.
We believe the problems facing this generation are those very problems mentioned in our Prophet's final sermon, upon him be prayers and peace: economic injustice, racism, the oppression of women, and the manipulation of natural order. We believe these human illnesses can only be treated through healing the hearts of humanity with spiritual truths of the impermanence of the world and the need to understand our purpose while we are here and act accordingly. This can only be done with sound and true knowledge. It is our goal to acquire and disseminate that knowledge.
There are two other great modern Islamic writers I want to mention as well. First is Irshaad Hussain, a relative unknown, but whose discussion of The Place of Intellect in Islam remains one of my favorite essays of all time. Second, is Seyyed Hossein Nasr, whose essay Science and Civilization is a powerful refutation of Huntington's flawed Clash of Civilizations thesis. Links to these many other essays on the nature of Science and Islam can be found at my friend Murtaza Gulamali's website, The Interface.
Shi'a Pundit was launched in 2002 during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. The blog focuses on issues pertaining
to Shi'a Islam in the west and in the Islamic world. The author is a member of the Dawoodi
Bohra Muslim community. Bohras adhere to the
Shi'a Fatimi tradition of Islam,
headed by the 52nd Dai al-Mutlaq, Syedna
Mohammed Burhanuddin (TUS).
The definitive project in film to narrate the early history of Islam was the powerful movie, The Message (1976). The director, Moustapha Akkad, actually shot each scene twice, with different sets of actors for the English version and the Arabic version, because he felt that subtitles would mar the film. Anthony Quinn played Hamza in the English version. Akkad also introduced the cinematic equivalent of the Islamic tradition of not representing the Prophet SAW visually, by framing scenes involving Muhammad SAW from his point of view. Thus, when other characters address the Prophet SAW, they are actually addressing the viewer of the movie. Some scenes had the Prophet SAW off-screen, and Akkad used a haunting musical theme to indicate Muhammad's presence. Muhammad's SAW spoken words are never heard by the audience but are heard by the other characters. The net effect is to convincingly establish the presence of the Prophet SAW but yet never actually violate the tradition against representation. It's partly a brilliant statement about perception and cue within movies in general as well as a merely functional device to circumvent offense. I consider Akkad's use of this device to be the opposite of Jar Jar Binks - rather than visualize an artificial person, the character has enormous impact upon the film and the mportance of the character is underscored, by their absence (visually speaking. But in cues from other actors and the music, the character exists. With even more realism than the jarring artifice of a CGI construct).
Khaled Abou el Fadl (professor of Islamic law at UCLA) is also an accomplished writer on these topics. His book, Speaking in God's Name, is a very thorough look at how religious terminology is abused by the extremists. It is vitally important that these differences in terminology are understood - more than merely semantics, it is the framework for understanding the problem of radical fascist Islam and the underlying problem of tribalism. I urge other bloggers to make a point of calling terrorism harabah and not jihad, and to avoid labeling every frothing opinion of extremists a fatwa.
