God's Warriors - CNN's "Special Report"

Yesterday was the first of a three part "special report" by CNN called God's Warriors: last night they covered "religious extremism" in Judaism, tonight they will discuss Islam, and on Thursday they will discuss Christianity. I didn't watch the program last night, because frankly I didn't want to get annoyed. Instead I looked at the information on the website today, and it appears to me that this series doesn't offer any new or ground breaking information/explanation about why people are "extremists." I do appreciate though that they are at least attempting to include "extremists" from all three faiths, as opposed to just talking about Islam. But I don’t know how balanced or accurate the information is. I might watch part 2 and 3 out of pure curiosity.

Suicide Bombing, Is it an Islamic way?

Suicide Bombing,
Is it an Islamic way?


We read and hear about suicide bombing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Palestine almost everyday on the news and newspaper. The first thing that comes to my mind when I talk about suicide bombing is being confused, sad, frustrated, and challenged to think about.

As a Moslem, I do not agree with violence as a fight to achieve our goal or to solve our problem. Something that I understand that suicide is forbidden in Islam but those people acknowledge themselves that they do that based on Islam values. Some Moslems consider what they are doing is “syahid.”

As long as I understand from the Islamic history, I never hear that our prophet using suicide bombing as a way to defend from his enemies. It will be so scary if people have a justification to do what they think right based on the understanding from their religion.

“There is no Islamic justification for suicide bombing. In 7th century Arabia, Prophet Muhammad's people were humiliated and persecuted mercilessly by the pagan Quraysh, yet never did he ask his followers to kill innocent men, women, and children or to commit suicide in the name of Islam.” (http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2007/08/jihad_and_suici.html)

''Suicide is a major sin in Islam,'' Maher Hathout, imam of the Islamic Center in Los Angeles.

[Do not] kill yourselves, for truly Allah has been to you Most Merciful. If any do that in rancor and injustice, soon shall We cast him into the Fire...” (Qur'an 4:29-30).

“The Koran does tell Muslims, ''Do not kill yourselves'' and warns that those who disobey will be ''cast into the fire.’’ The Prophet Mohammed is reported to have said that a suicide cannot go to paradise.” (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/s37.html)

It becomes an interesting topic when nowadays some Moslems interpreted “suicide bombing” from “haram” (a major sin) to be “halal” (allowed). If we refer to the definition of suicide, it mentions that suicide is the act or an instance of intentionally killing oneself (www.answers.com) I do not want to judge which one of two opposite opinions is right. However, Moslem majority believe that “suicide” is against Islamic values.

I talked with my friend about it. In his opinion, why people committed suicide bombing is because they did not find any other way. When the media does not give opportunity to them to voice their suffering, their opponents are too strong to destroy and then they become frustrated; suicide bombing is one of the ways for that. I believe we need to think the causes of suicide bombing and it is time for us to be aware with their problems.

I found a good article about the reason why people in Palestine tend to commit suicide bombing; http://www.missionislam.com/conissues/palestine.htm

"Mottainai", its movement, and Japanese spirituality

I'm sorry for posting so many Japanese-related articles on this blog. But as Japanese, I think I'm the right person to explain these, so please bear for that. This time, let me explain one of the most important Japanese environment-related concepts. This would be included in our upcoming study guide on climate change. So, stay tuned...

Mottainai is a Japanese adjective that means “it is so wasteful that things are not made full use of their value,” or simply puts, “it is too valuable to waste.” This term is used in Japanese daily lives very frequently when things which are still useful and valuable are wasted. Originally it comes from old Buddhism term mottai (things). Nai in Japanese means denying. Therefore, a combination of word mottai and -nai means that things are sadly not in full use as much as it should be, with no respect and thank to both things and their producers such as farmers. Largely it is used in Japan for economical reasons to reduce unnecessary spending and waste. In this sense, it is, in some level, also connected to Japanese Zen’s spirituality which likes simplicity and stoicism of life.

However, this native Japanese word suddenly became an internationally known word thanks to the promotion by Dr. Wangari Maathai, a Kenyan environmentalist and Nobel Peace Prize winner of 2004. She discovered the value this word has in the conservation movement and knew that its profound meanings go beyond the concept of 3 Rs. She found this word when she visited Japan in 2005 for a Kyoto Protocol-related event, and learned there was no correctly equated word in any other languages with the same level of respect and love to things the term mottainai has. Since she learned this word, she has frequently used it in her public speeches including the one in the UN Commission on the Status of Women and the Live 8 concert held in England in 2005, while believing that the value and spirituality of mottainai Japanese traditionally have could transcend culture and national boarders.

After Dr. Maathai started to use mottainai frequently, Japanese government under the Koizumi Administration also made an effort to expand its philosophy in and out of Japan to conserve things and manage waste efficiently in the national-level discussion. In addition, a number of corporations use this word in their PR campaigns and green marketing strategies. Akira Yamaguchi, an author of a best-seller simply titled Mottainai (Waste Not, Want Not) (1995), explains its concept in detail that mottainai contains human beings’ awes, thanks, and in-depth love to all creations in our universe, recommending the ideal life in harmony with the nature. He extends mottainai’s philosophy that, for the convenience of our life, the social paradigm of technology-led 20th century such as mass production, mass marketing, and mass consumption destroyed humanity, culture, social values, sense of communities, and loves to the nature in which human beings live, and that the philosophy and implementation of mottainai can be a savior in 21st century which people have to reduce waste and realize carbon-free society.

With the word and philosophy of mottainai, Japanese traditionally considers wasting resources and throwing them away before fully using is the shameful act that profanes and disrespects our Creator of nature. Mottainai reflects a sad feeling that things are lost and underappreciated, as well. Therefore, traditional Japanese culture prohibits people to waste things with a sense of guilty. Most Japanese children are taught by parents with the term mottainai that they must eat every peace of rice in the bowl; otherwise, the leftover means disrespect to blood, toil, tears and sweat of hardworking farmers who produce rice. In addition, children are taught in a Japanese folk tale that if they waste things, “mottainai ghost” would haunt to scare them.

Much before 3 Rs education took place in Western countries, historically Japanese have had the ecological thought, mottainai, in the religious philosophy that human beings are just one of the creations in all nature, and that people should respect awesome magnificence of nature. In this philosophy, the hierarchy between human beings and nature is horizontal. Traditionally, Japanese do not think the nature as “resources” human beings can use as much as they want in the same way the Western culture treats nature. For them, every non-human thing (even stones and flowers) has spirit and soul inside of it. Simply put, wasting things is anti-social, anti-nature, and most importantly, anti-God-in-nature activity for Japanese. No wonder Japan is awarded the gold medal in the Recycling Olympics with the half level of CO2 emissions of the United States (Planet Ark, 2004; The World Bank, 2005). This love and respect toward things can be introduced as a revolutionary idea of conservation movement in the United States where people wastefully consume high volume of resources without understanding and respecting our nature.

Being a Muslim in the U.S.

Hi Everyone,

I found an interesting article about Being a Muslim in the U.S. If you are interested to know more about the author, you can look at their website. Enjoy the reading.....

Being a Muslim in the U.S.
A Letter to a Friend
Published: 17/11/2006
People will realize the benefit of liberalism and secularism when they were minority. Because both systems arose in the West among others in order to protect minorities. Indonesian Muslims, being majority, were totally unaware about the benefit of secularism and liberalism.
By: Ulil Abshar-Abdalla

I have been living in U.S. for almost two years, in the very “liberal” Massachusetts. I am very lucky to live here and I will show you how this benefits us as Muslim. Here, I fond of listening to NPR, National Public Radio, or public TV channel such as WGBH in Boston. Just like in Indonesia, the American conservatives were annoying too. Many talk shows in private radio tend to be conservative, and I cannot stand listening to them, particularly in regard Iraq, Iran and Israel. NPR saved me because of its “liberal” perspective and balance coverage about many things. Here, everyone had the opportunity to raise his or her perspective. It has various programs just like London BBC channel. This is the best channel for Muslims because it did not preserve the bad image of Islam propagated by several American media, mainly the conservative ones. Unlike BBC which is mostly funded by the government trough tax, NPR’s funding mostly comes from people, philanthropy, and very limited commercials. They held funding gathering program each year and therefore I voluntarily donated for this station. I felt that my interest as a Muslim was represented in this station and therefore I had to contribute for it. I think, most of Indonesian Muslims who hate liberalism and secularism must experience a “minority status” to realize the advantage of liberal and secular system. If U.S. were a Christian state, or its policies were based on Christianity, what would happen to the Muslim community there? What if all American radios or TVs want to be Christian (like "Islamic"); what if the FCC gives privileges upon the Christian station or channel: what would happen to the Muslims? If there is no “liberal” station such as NPR which provides balance opportunity for Muslim, what will happen to the Muslim listeners? People will realize the benefit of liberalism and secularism when they were minority. Because both systems arose in the West among others in order to protect minorities. Indonesian Muslims, being majority, were totally unaware about the benefit of secularism and liberalism. My son is now enrolled in Public school in Newton Centre. Religion has never been discussed in this school although the diversity of religious tradition is widely respected. In last Ramadhan, his teacher called my wife and gave her a story book for children on fasting tradition in Islam. “You need to read this for your kids,” she said. We were touched in that time. Is it possible to happen in Indonesia where hatred and enmity toward Christianity and other religions were preserved in various levels? In last Ramadhan, Newton Free Library had displayed books and comics about fasting ritual in Islam, therefore public can understand about this Muslim tradition. This custom is applied to all religions therefore one can learn about other's tradition. Multiculturalism and pluralism were developed among American society so that they respect the diversity of religious tradition. Religious diversity is respected although religion has never been part of American public school’s curriculum. If Christian family wants their kids to obtain religious studies, they may send them to Sunday schools. Religion becomes the matter of each community. Thanks to secularism and liberalism, Muslim families have never worried that their kids will be stuffed by Christianity which is dominant in U.S. If only the U.S. government supports the public school to be more Christian, what would happen to Muslims? Yet only in these public schools the immigrant’s children can learn because it is free of charge (including lunch). Islam in U.S. develop without any restraint because the secular system protects all religions. All sects and school of thoughts enjoyed their freedom, because the state is neutral toward religion and support religions tolerance. Of course, the majority does not need secularism and they probably want their religion to rule. But the minority needs secularism which benefits them in all aspects. I hear this testimony from several Muslims in Paris when I visited there three years ago. Despite of the problem of headscarf ban, Muslim community assumed that the secular France has benefited them since they can perform their religion freely. Compare this condition with France before the 20th century where even the Protestant, let alone Muslims, underwent pressure, discrimination, abuse and torture from the dominant Catholics, The proponent of Islamic state would say that Islam guarantees freedom of religion; throughout the history, Islam has given wide tolerance upon other religion. Non-Muslims were given the status of dzimmi by which they can enjoy freedom to perform their religion. My answer is this. As compared to Christianity, historically Islam had treated other religions with huge tolerance in the medieval period. However, this Islamic tolerance is not sufficient today. We do appreciate Islam for “its historical achievement” but, time has changed and the Islamic tolerance is inferior to the tolerance of the liberal secularism. See comparison as follows: Imagine bellow condition. If you are, as Muslim in the U.S., were to choose one of the options bellow: (1) U.S. become a Christian state or adopt Christianity as the state’s religion and make it influential, with requirement that Christianity will give other religions their freedom. (2) U.S. become a secular state and neutral toward any religion, but it respects all religions and gives every adherent freedom to profess and practice their respective belief. As a minority, the second option is more reasonable for Muslims. The first one, although with the promise that Christianity will give tolerance upon other religions, there is no guarantee that other religions would become second class religion. This condition is also applicable for other religious communities in a Muslim majority country such as Indonesia. Although Muslims promise that Islam will guarantee freedom of religion when it become the state’s official religion or in an Islamic state, or whenever sharia enforced, the non-Muslim are safer to be in a secular state, in the sense it does not interfere religious affair. It is exactly like the American Muslims who feel safe in America which is neutral toward religion. I think, in an Islamic state or a state that enforced the Islamic sharia, there is always possibility to persecute or discriminate other sect which is regarded as deviant from Islam. History proves this and the European has endured it. Now, Indonesian has slowly followed after what has been abandoned by European for a long time, by persecuting the minority sects, namely Ahmadiyah. The proponent of Islamic sharia must face this big issue: according to Islamic sharia (Sunni orthodox), anyone who believes in the prophet hood of the founder of Ahmadiyah were infidels and apostates. So, the proponent of sharia will enforce it by expelling or at least limiting the Ahmadi people’s moves, since they were infidels. Just compare it with the secular system: here, since the state is neutral toward religion, sect, and denomination, the Ahmadi people are able to disseminate their teaching freely. This freedom is valid upon other sect or school of thought also: Shiite, Sufi group of different orders. This freedom is valid for all religions. And this kind of system is applied in America today. Comparing both systems, it is clear that the secular system is superior, and it cannot be perceived except by minorities. Therefore, Muslims must live as minority within the liberal secular system in order to realized that. I deliberately give the “liberal” qualification upon this secular word, because there is illiberal secular system. The best example is Soviet Union before its fall. Soviet was clearly secular, but not liberal, because it hated religions including Islam. China is another example: this is a secular state but it is inhospitable toward religion. Of course there is no perfect system because heaven is impossible to establish on this earth. Heaven just exists in other space. However, human always attempt to reform the social system and institution controlling their life. The secular system arises to respond the condition in which religion based system causes many troubles. The secular system becomes the third way: between coercing religion as a system which is applied for all citizens or hate religion at all. Secular system wants the state to be neutral toward religion, and it also develops respect among religion. Under this system, minority Muslims would enjoy comfortable religious life in the US, where Islam becomes the fastest growing religion. Is it possible to happen if the US becomes Christian state? I do not see any clash between Islam ad the concept of secular state in the sense of neutrality toward religion. In this state, the idea of religious freedom and religious protection as the objective of Islam can be achieved better than state which regulate people based on Islamic sharia, in its conservative meaning.

Jesus Camp

I'm not sure how many of you have heard of this documentary, but "Jesus Camp" (2006) is certainly worth seeing and discussing for interfaith and intrafaith reasons. The film features a charismatic Christian summer camp located in North Dakota called "Kids On Fire School of Ministry" run by a Pentecostal youth pastor, Becky Fischer. (The camp is closed indefinitely due to a whole host of negative reactions after the release of "Jesus Camp.") But the documentary's poignant glimpses and true to life profiles of a faction of the evangelical Christian community are not limited within the confines of the camp. We are shown Pastor Becky Fischer in action at her church in Lee's Summit, Missouri, the lives and convictions of three camp-bound evangelical kids and their familial traditions, anti-abortion protests in Washington D.C., and Pastor Ted Haggard, former pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs and leader of the National Association of Evangelicals. (Haggard has since resigned due to scandal, a downright disgraceful situation.)

There are several noteworthy scenes exhibited in this documentary, some of which are nothing short of disquieting. However, I am inclined to believe that the film was executed in an honest manner, not particularly slanted or disingenuous in nature. I do not think that directors Rachel Grady and Heidi Ewing were agenda-pushing, though at the same time there's a lot I don't know about this movie's enterprise.

One thing that I'm sure struck many viewers was the speaking in tongues that both kids and adults alike practice in the film. Considered a fundamental prophetic gift in the Pentecostal and Charismatic traditions, it consists of what objectively sounds like incoherent babble in a trance state and is thought of as religious ecstasy, the workings of the Holy Spirit. Although this practice is not part of my tradition and I personally do not recognize its religious legitimacy or meaning (the account of Pentecost in the book of Acts, from which the phenomenon originates, is of a distinguishable nature because the different "tongues" were foreign languages that outsiders could understand), I try to be respectful of it as a sincere religious ritual.

There were other practices and dogma featured in the film for which I cannot even attempt to show reverence, however.

Many components of Pastor Fischer's style of ministry leave much to be desired. One example is her emphasis on spiritual warfare. Fischer portrays good and evil in such stark, disturbing, violent terms, juxtaposing evangelical Christians against everyone else in the world. (Note: "evangelical" in its purest sense means "of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian Gospel." When and why did this become such a loaded word?) Fischer's preaching method hurts me all the more considering that she's dealing with vulnerable children. Poor kids! Many are crying, wailing, compelled to take on what they perceive as the sins of the world and to confess tearfully to their own spiritual shortcomings. Some literally look in agony. And meanwhile Pastor Becky seems to think of this scene as a healthy cleansing ritual, a spiritual catharsis of sorts. Furthermore, she expresses her aggressive opinions so forcefully that it isn't a far stretch to call it indoctrination. She even semi-confesses to this in a radio interview later in the film, claiming that it's better to indoctrinate the "right" beliefs in children than not to at all. Here's a simple question for Pastor Becky to ruminate over before instilling her convictions in the minds of trusting children: "what truly is right and what is wrong?"

Another unsettling element of the film is the heavily encouraged amalgamation of church and state. There are at least two evocative instances of this. One is when an evangelical family recites the pledge of allegiance "to the Christian flag of the United States of America." (The recitation continues...) Another all too memorable occasion is the appearance of George W. Bush at the camp in cardboard cut-out form. Not only do the children pray for him and give him their blessing, but they engage in a laying of hands over the cardboard president and even speak in tongues for good measure. In the beginning of the film, Becky Fischer calls Bush a "holy man," and her visible deference towards the smirking cut-out certainly confirms her previously-expressed presidential assessment.

There are many more facets to this film, and it's nothing short of an education. I don't deem it necessary at this point to further lambaste the sad reality of some misguided Christians' beliefs as revealed in the documentary, but I do hope that they would consider a more open-minded, loving approach in their faith and towards the rest of the world. See it and let me know what you think!

LOTUS

You've gotta check this out. I'd really like to go here.

This interfaith temple is located in Yogaville, VA, and looks like an architectural nightmare. The grand archway has illuminated symbols of various religions etched in colored glass. Reflective ponds follow the long walkway down to the main temple, itself shaped like a lotus, suspended in water. Three cascading waterfalls adorn the outside of the main temple, as well as gold plated spires, hand-carved teak doors inlaid with brass, and the ceiling of the main temple is red oak. At the center altar of the main temple room is a powerful light emitter. A column of light erupts and strikes the ceiling, at which point it is diverted into 12 beams of blue light, each curving with the ceiling and leading down to 12 individual altars for 12 major religions. Taking a look at the temple at a glance is nothing compared to taking the virtual tour, which is truly mind bending. Both can be found on the left side of the home page.

For me, a couple questions sprung to mind immediately: first, where did they get the money required to build such a massive, intricate and ornate temple? Second, is all the gold-plated, brass-inlaid, hand-carved, nickel-covered stuff really necessary? I'm not kidding anyone; this stuff looks great, but I don't know...is it vital to have that level of opulence?

An honest question. I don't have the answer.