Have you been accused of being a spy because you mention sexual diversity among Muslims or talk about prostitution running rampant in Dubai, the city-state of Saudi tourist decadence. So much for Salafis being supposedly better Muslims.

It seems to be that Muslim reverts with impeccable English, and often white males are always public relations representatives.

As a "brown man" who can pass as white for all intensive purposes, I'm a true Aryan afterall, I find it interesting that these roles are assigned to non-cultural Muslims. How ironic, is this some form of Muslim mosque affirmative action.

Now I'm a smart-ass who doesn't adhere to group think or political correctness, I would totally be the liberal queer version of Ahmedinejah. I'm an "excitable" Shia who doesn't give a rat's ass about A-rab "adaab akhi" and speaks my mind, even if that means telling off a hijabi, a piece of polyester won't give you respect, how you carry yourself does.

The hard wired pre-conceptions abound:

brown immigrant who speak with an acccent; Umm are there
no white immigrants who speak with an accent and no fez?

Funny thing is for all this talk of the universal message of Islam
one rarely encounters human beings who become accessible
in any way that transcends these stubborn racial divisions. There
are only stock types, white veterans, immigrants with accents,
scarves or conservative ( reactionary is fine) agendas. The humanity
is elusive, the complexity is repeatedly reduced. The sense that
immigrants may be in the process of becoming immigrants is not
even postulated as a possibility. that is to say, we rarely see
intimated the remotest possibility of becoming, of adapting, of
changing. The human is lost in the constant racial bickering. We
are constantly treated to who people are in terms of ethnic identity
rather than to the issues they care about or the lives they lead.
The constant reiteration of these divisions, of what differentiates
or renders one ‘‘superior’‘ or better than those who claim to
represent Islam, as if anybody could ever claim to do that! What
hubris that would be….

Is this really about a universal message or just another guise for identity politics. It does get rather tiresome, especially in light of the
issues facing humanity like the spectre of endless war, environmental degradation, the threat to our economy really and the
middle class. after a while it does get to feel like a dead end non-debate.

Italians aren’t white, they are “swarthy” and fail the litmus test which was the common logic back in 1900, when these mostly Catholic immigrants were seen as undermining the American social fabric.

Sounds familiar to what people say about Mexican immigrants, legal and illegal.

Darwin said , "It is not the strongest or the cleverest species which survives but rather the most adaptable species."

Most Muslims are down an evolutionary dead-end.

Extinction is the norm, not the exception.

This makes me want to wear my American flag hijab again. I generally only whip it out for Election Day, July 4th, and the like, but I keep hearing this whole Muslim=foreigner thing, and it pisses me the hell off.
That said, I need to go figure out just how a blackAmerican Muslim wedding looks like.

Defining "revert"

My uncertainty was disconcerting, so I had to google and learn the truth.

By the way, Gustavo, I am certain you feel much rage and indignation, and I read your posts with sympathy. I encourage you to express your feelings.

If it is "flaming", I can take the heat.

Sartre said "Freedom is what you do with what other people do to you."

http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/31209

Malaysiakini columnist Phar Kim Beng refers to himself as a Muslim revert. A 'born-again Christian' is a person who was once a church-going Christian, then stopped, but then rediscovered Christ or returned to the church.

A Muslim revert, however, is not the Muslim equivalent of that. A Muslim revert according to their own construal, is a person who enters Islam, but has never been a Muslim before. The revert aspect is the attitude that he or she was always a Muslim but was previously not aware of it.

By implication all non-Muslims are also Muslims but simply have not realised the fact. Thus, non-Muslims are incomplete, while Muslims are in the privileged position of having become enlightened.

It may be the case that Phar Kim Beng does not mean revert in this manner and I'm sure no offence is meant, but the implications of revert so construed, as it is by others, may be offensive to non-Muslims.

I thoroughly defend the right to free expression, but I would, in the spirit of open discussion, like to express my objection to the attitude that gives rise to the concept of Muslim reverts (and similarly, to Christian, Buddhist etc reverts if such concepts exist).

My objection is of two kinds. Firstly, personally, I do not think that non-Muslims should be regarded as unaware of some supposedly underlying and innate knowledge, understanding or identity.

Secondly, I think that in the long term, it may have negative consequences. It is apparent that many Muslims, in Malaysia at least, feel justified in believing that they a) are able to speak for all Muslims and represent their views, b) are able to categorically say what Islam is and stands for and c) to subject 'deviant' Muslims to their beliefs, while rejecting the legitimacy of alternative views.

It is also the case that propagating unsanctioned understandings of Islam, such as that of the Shiites, is a Syariah offence and people have been arrested under ISA for this.

The idea of a revert implies that a non-Muslim is in fact an unrealised Muslim – but a Muslim none the less. Should alternative streams of Islam continue to be approached with intolerance, the logical conclusion would be that those who currently feel at liberty to tell all Muslims what is right for them, will feel at liberty to tell unrealised Muslims what is right for them too, and subject them to those beliefs.

Reports of non-Muslim girls in National Service being made to wear long-sleeved shirts while boys were not being made to do so is perhaps a forewarning of this.

But I think the core issue is one of representation. It is relatively easy to agree that non-Muslims should be not be subjected to Islamic law/morality etc.

My sincere concern is the readiness with which some people speak on behalf of all Muslims and impose their understanding of correct behaviour and morality on others. Using the example above, that Muslim girls should have the freedom to wear short-sleeves if they choose.

The reasons for the injunctions against expressing an unsanctioned understanding of Islam are evidently political. This is apparent in the recent justifications for the threat to use the ISA against Ayah Pin. 

The authority's reported concerns were a) to retain Muslims within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts, and b) 'maintain' the 'unity' of Muslims and prevent division. These reasons are political – not spiritual.

It is my opinion that the right of anyone to represent the views of all others of the same faith or religion and speak on their behalf is illegitimate.

I sincerely understand that the feeling that one's own understanding of the truth is ‘The Truth for all’ is very strong. It can be difficult to imagine that others are not incorrect in their differing beliefs.

However real one's truth feels to one's self, I implore all to understand that others can have an equally fervent and sincere set of differing beliefs.

And for those who insist on using the term 'Muslim revert' publicly, please understand that this does cause offence to at least some non-Muslims.

Rage?!

I’m not enraged.

Nice article Sitaram. Hey, Hindus still burn widows sometimes and practice female infantcicide. The largest group of suicide bombers in the world are Hindus. They also have the most rigid, harsh casts system on earth in terms of scale. Just thought I’d share a few fun facts you may not know.

On to your article;

“‘born-again Christian’ is a person who was once a church-going Christian, then stopped, but then rediscovered Christ or returned to the church.”

No, a born again Christian is someone who has been “born again” in Christ as described in the New Testament. Someone raised Hindu can be a “borb again” Christian. The usage is actually quite similar in meaning and implication to “Muslim revert”.

“By implication all non-Muslims are also Muslims but simply have not realised the fact. Thus, non-Muslims are incomplete, while Muslims are in the privileged position of having become enlightened.”

Well, if we don’t believe in original sin, and believe everyone begins in a state of submission to god, then we view return to that state as reversion, yes. You may disagree with our premise but it would be a non-sequiter for us to believe otherwise.

“My objection is of two kinds. Firstly, personally, I do not think that non-Muslims should be regarded as unaware of some supposedly underlying and innate knowledge, understanding or identity.”

Why should we bullshit about what we believe? Of course I believe that I’m correct and those who disagree are not. We all believe that (you certainly do) so why not just be honest about it?

“Secondly, I think that in the long term, it may have negative consequences. It is apparent that many Muslims, in Malaysia at least, feel justified in believing that they a) are able to speak for all Muslims and represent their views, b) are able to categorically say what Islam is and stands for and c) to subject ‘deviant’ Muslims to their beliefs, while rejecting the legitimacy of alternative views.”

How does this even relate to the point about reverts?

“The idea of a revert implies that a non-Muslim is in fact an unrealised Muslim – but a Muslim none the less. Should alternative streams of Islam continue to be approached with intolerance, the logical conclusion would be that those who currently feel at liberty to tell all Muslims what is right for them, will feel at liberty to tell unrealised Muslims what is right for them too, and subject them to those beliefs.”

Well, I won’t say they’re never violated, but we HAVE safegaurds in Islam for that. A distinction is recognized by those who practice din-al-islam and those who don’t. The “ifs” are tiring. If my aunt had testicles, she’d be my ubcle. If Hindus spread outside their racialist caste system to the rest of teh world, they might start torturing and murdering Jews the way they do to Sikhs. What’s the point?

“Reports of non-Muslim girls in National Service being made to wear long-sleeved shirts while boys were not being made to do so is perhaps a forewarning of this.”

In America, women cover their nipples in public, men don’t have to. Does that mean we’re on the road to a violent theocracy?

“It is my opinion that the right of anyone to represent the views of all others of the same faith or religion and speak on their behalf is illegitimate.”

Well, you can make that determination for your own religion. See, I think papacy is kinda dumb but I leave that to the Catholics. Cos, you know, it’s their church.

“However real one’s truth feels to one’s self, I implore all to understand that others can have an equally fervent and sincere set of differing beliefs.”

Sure, that’s fine. The irony here is how itolerannt the author feels of differing beliefs.

“And for those who insist on using the term ‘Muslim revert’ publicly, please understand that this does cause offence to at least some non-Muslims. “

So when Buddhists, who follow the ennlightened one and think we’re all capable of enlightenment but haven’t reached it, call themselves “Buddhists” publically….I can act offended.

Pretty lame stuff Sitaram.

Good. I am glad you are peace. If this is your peace, I hope I never see you enraged.

Still, I read your posts with a sympathetic, rather than critical, attitude.

Sarcasm and disagreement doesn’t equal rage.

“Still, I read your posts with a sympathetic, rather than critical, attitude.”

Passive aggresive or enlightened, folks? You be the judge.

Anyway, I’d be interested to see you address my points. By all means, be critical.

Bonkers and Laury dropped the hint to “knock it off.” But some people can’t take a hint. I find it more profitable to address ideas rather than individuals.

Besides, what is the point, really? Let us say hypothetically that you totally refuted me and furthermore convinced me to “revert” and become a Muslim. There would still be thousands just like me to take my place and post things which displease you. Conversely, if I somehow convinced you to change and think and act in an entirely different manner, or even to become a carbon copy of me, there would be thousands more just like you to take your place.

Sartre said, in a small essay on Existentialism, that when we deem something good for ourselves, we naturally conclude that it is good for all. Part of our human problem is trying to make the rest of the world into carbon copies of ourselves, whether it be the gun-point democracy of American foreign policy, or the proselytizing of any religious group.

If you are sincerely curious what I think about any number of issues, you can read my posts on the Internet spanning the past 10 years. But I find it hard to believe that you take a sincere interest in my opinions.

I cant really easily change who and what I am or how I think and feel, any more than you can. All I can really do is learn to be more tolerant of those who believe differently.

If you refute or convert me, you gain little, for you change only one person. But if you acquire a spirit of tolerance, then you change the entire world insofar as you change the way you perceive the world and others.

If you visit www.myfreeforum.org, and spend 10 minutes to sign up for a free forum, then, I will make an effort to meet you there and converse. But I would much rather meet you in that field which Rumi mentions, which is “beyond concepts of right and wrong doing.”

Thanks, but "my article" is not my article, (which I tried to signify by the indentation and italicization).

Follow the link, and you will see who wrote the article.

Not a bad article, omar…but really son, you aren’t exactly the most knowledgeable or tolerant Muslim either, so whyy complain about immigrants’ lack of either? I didn’t know you could get court martialized for kneeling, doesn’t sound like the army my uncle served in.
People who oppose the war aren’t pro-insurgent or communists, thats a cheap smear and you know it.
I got nothing but respect for the men and woman serving as long as they do their jobs and maintain professionalism. But if they’re torturing, raping and killing civilians and making videos of it, then I hope they get fucked up and come home in a box. No ifs, ands or buts about it. If you behave like an animal, you deserve to be put down like one.
Correct me if I’m wrong, your wife is a brown immigrant too, right? Seems like you got a mutiny at home, player…

I support Hezbollah and their campaign against Israel this past summer, and even if they did kill 200 plus Marines back in 1983, look, when you join the military you sign your death certificate. What made me any different from a suicide bomber?

The United States never acts in an altruistic fashion, we are an empire, get over it!

Serving in the military does not make you a hero, I was a paid faggot mercernary.

I joined the military after obtaining a four year degree, hence, I never got that “brainwashed.”

I supported Hizbollah before this last trick which turned me pretty solidly against them. Provoking the IDF like that and hiding like roaches while civlians die in the rubble is bad. Bragging how few of your fighters are dead while childrens’ corpses litter the streets is inexcusable. Running a 32 part series on the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion on your TV station is pretty bad too.

This idea of reverting to a natural state that is Islam makes
no sense to me. If submitting to God is a fitra or natural state
then why all the coercion? why socialize children and instruct
them on how to pray or fast? Does this by implication mean
that non-Muslims are betraying their true nature? Why this
annoying tendency to appropriate everything including the
‘‘essence’‘ of those who don’t recognize themselves as Muslims.
How insufferable really.

Ginan,
I would respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the concept of reversion. The idea as I understand it is that humans are born in a state of natural submission; as they get older, they leave that simple, animalistic state and learn processes and disciplines that will enable them to continue to live in harmony with the way of god. Thus, no, babies do not do salat but they have no need to; it is only useful for keeping us socialized people in control of our nafs. I don’t consider it a 100% effective process but when done correctly I do consider it a beneficial balancing tool. I can personally only vouch for its ability too return me to where I’m supposed to be.

Salaams DA

Natural submission to what? What about the possibility that we are
born into a state of rebellion that causes us to think and question
and that this then has to be beaten or socialized out of us?

But if human beings are born ‘‘Muslim’‘, a state in which they submit
to God or natural submission then it doesn’t how can it be an
‘‘animalistic state’‘. the logic

As I understand it, humans are born with some sort of innate understanding that there is a higher divinty. Its up to the revealed texts to satisfy that human’s curiosity later in life if they so desire. No one, obviously, is born knowing about muhammad or Ramadan or anything like that. I don’t think that the idea of fitra has been claimed to encompass the particulars of faith, just the notion of faith itself.

- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.