Rabbi Alan Bright on fasting in Judaism

Ramadan went by with its usual speed this year, and we are nearing the end of Shawwal. Meanwhile, the Jews have celebrated the High Holy Days, one of which, Yom Kippur, involved one of the most important fasts of the Jewish calendar.

During Ramadan, all Muslims read or hear the Qur'anic verse "You who believe, fasting is prescribed for you as it was prescribed for those before you, so that you may be mindful of God" (2:183). "Those before you" refers to older communities of monotheists, including the Children of Israel. I therefore asked my friend Alan, rabbi of the Shaare Zedek synagogue here in Montreal, to share with us his perspective on fasting in Judaism.

Atonement through Affliction

by Rabbi Alan Bright

Islam follows a solely lunar calendar; as a result, the cycle of twelve lunar months regresses through the seasons over a period of about 33 years. Judaism, however, follows a quasi-lunar calendar or, as it has become known, a “lunisolar” calendar. As the Jewish festivals are quired by Torah mandate to fall in specific seasons, months are intercalated according to the Metonic cycle, in which 235 lunations occur in nineteen years. In our days, the Jewish calendar is predominantly used for religious observances; however, it is used by traditional Jewish farmers in Israel as an agricultural framework.

Due to the mechanics of both the Muslim calendar and the Jewish calendar, Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish calendar, followed the holy month of Ramadan, the most sacred time of the year for Muslims, by approximately one week this year.

A question that is often asked of me;

“Is there a corollary between the fasting within the Judaism and Islam”?

Ask a Jew why he/she fasts on Yom Kippur (the most widely observed fasts of numerous fasts within the Jewish calendar) and the answer will most likely be “to atone for our sins”. Suffice it to say that this vague answer is only one facet of repentance for a Jew.

Ask a Muslim why he/she fasts during Ramadan and the answer most likely will be "to create a greater awareness of God". Awareness of God and his presence is called "Taqwa", a word that can also mean "fear of God", "piety" or "self-restraint". Another reason many Muslims give for fasting is "to feel more empathy for the poor and indigent".

While both these great Abrahamic faiths include fasting as part of their doctrine, they do so for very different reasons.

From sunset Sunday September 27th through dark Monday September 28th, Jews around the world observed the festival of Yom Kippur. For this year only, these dates correspond to the dates outlined in the Old Testament. In the book of Leviticus the following is found:

...In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict your souls, and you shall not do any work ... For on that day he shall provide atonement for you to cleanse you from all your sins before the L-RD. -Leviticus 16:29-30

The name of the seventh month in the Jewish calendar is Tishrei. So from the evening of the ninth day of the month of Tishrei until the following evening, (Leviticus 23:32), the holiest day of the year in the Jewish calendar is observed.

Even though not stated directly, i.e., “on this day you shall abstain from eating”, this, however, is the place from whence the concept of fasting in Judaism is derived. The question that begs to be asked is how did the rabbinic sages arrive at an interpretation of “you shall afflict your souls” to mean an abstention from all food and drink?

Throughout biblical literature, we find cases of great people who took it upon themselves to abstain from food and indeed other luxuries in order to repent for wrongdoing. For example ,in the Book of Samuel II, we read that King David –- King of Israel -- atones for his unacceptable sexual proclivities towards Bathsheba by fasting while praying to God for forgiveness. This motif of fasting as atonement for prior sins either committed or even contemplated became an accepted mode of repentance throughout Jewish history to present day. Furthermore, we find the same not only for individuals, but also for congregational penance. It is believed that fasting arouses the compassion of God to forgive the penitent for not only negative behavioral situations, but also to implore God's protection in times of calamity either personal or communal.

To answer our question about how the rabbinic sages arrived at the interpretation of “you shall afflict your souls” to mean the abstention from all food and drink,

Rabbi Arnold Bienstok in his essay on Fasting in the Jewish Tradition states that the rabbinic commentators interpreted the Biblical phrase “affliction of the soul” to embrace a generic understanding of denying oneself physical pleasure on Yom Kippur. The prohibitions included not just eating and drinking, but also bathing, washing, and anointing. Sexual abstinence also becomes part of the rabbinic understanding of “affliction of the soul.” Even the wearing of leather is prohibited because of its association with luxury or rabbinic compassion for animal life (tsaar baalei hayyim).

As stated earlier, fasting is found in the books of the Bible. Throughout biblical Judaism, the prophets develop the concept of Divine appeasement by fasting as it serves to transform the individual spiritually. Bienstok further comments that for the prophetic voice, ethical perfection is the ultimate demand of the religious life. Ritual behavior is meaningful only if it is marked by the inner transformation of the character of the penitent. The prophetic voice condemns ritual expression that is not marked by spiritual transformation. Rabbinic tradition selected the Biblical readings of Leviticus 23 and Isaiah 58 as the readings of Yom Kippur to share a balanced perspective on fasting. Leviticus 23 presents fasting as a propitiatory offering of atonement. Isaiah 58 asserts that the genuine fast is self-evaluation.

* Rabbi Alan Bright, a native of London, England, is the spiritual leader of Shaare Zedek Congregation, Montreal Quebec. Born into a modern orth'odox Jewish family, Alan attended seminaries in the UK and USA, namely Jews' College (UK), Yeshivat Rivevot Ephraim and The Jewish Theological Seminary (USA). In addition to Orthodox ordination, Alan holds a Masters' degree from Concordia University, with a major in Ancient and Medieval Jewish History. Alan's area of interest is medieval Jewish death and burial rites and customs. Alan can be reached via email at rabbi@shaarezedek.ca.

Today we are all Palestinians

Today was the 16th day of Israel's murderous Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip. In order to stop Hamas and other rockets that, over the last several years, have killed 13 Israelis (including three children), the Israeli government has, to date, killed over 800 Palestinians. According to Palestinian Ministry of Health figures accepted by the UN, as of 8 January, the Israeli offensive had killed 257 children and 56 women. And who knows how many of the men killed by Israel were civilians? So who is the terrorist?

I am certainly not taking any kind of ambiguous stance towards the killing of civilians. When Hamas or another Palestinian militant group kills even one Israeli civilian, that is wrong. But what happens when Israel blatantly kills hundreds of Palestinian civilians in a few days? When are we all going to admit that an innocent Palestinian life is just as precious as an Israeli one? When are we going to proclaim loudly that killing a hundred Palestinians is no less evil than killing one Israeli?

As we are told by our Creator in the Qur'an,

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 (Qur'an, 5:32; Abdullah Yusuf Ali's interpretation).

This is something that Hamas would do well to remember. But, in the current circumstances, these words from the sacred text of Islam apply especially to those who are mentioned in them in the first place. Over the years, the thing that has angered me the most about Hamas is their refusal to draw a distinction between the Israeli armed ("defence") forces and Israeli civilians. According to Hamas's logic, since most Israelis, at one time or another, serve in the armed forces, they are all legitimate military tactics. This interpretation, IMHO, very clearly runs counter to the long-established Islamic tradition of limiting warfare to clear military targets. However, Israel, which, despite its occupation of Palestine, has, for decades, been claiming the moral high ground on the issue of terrorism, is now, quite obviously, deliberately targeting Palestinian civilians in order to make Hamas look bad in the eyes of its civilian supporters.

This is an exceedingly slippery slope. Pretty much the only sympathy Israel enjoys outside the US is related to its civilians coming under attack every once in a while from Palestinian extremists. It has now proven that it is willing to do the same to the Palestinians, and on a massively higher scale. It may well be that the only well wishers Israel will have left if it continues down this path are going to be American Republicans.

Meanwhile, the mood on the streets of the world is decidedly pro-Palestinian. A demonstration here in Montréal, which my wife and I attended yesterday, drew "almost 10,000 people" according to the normally pro-Israeli Gazette. This time around, even the Gazette looked decidedly pro-Palestinian. And in London, somewhere between 4,000 and 15,000 pro-Israeli, largely Jewish, demonstrators, demanded a cessation of hostilities.

Olmert said to the Israeli Cabinet today that "Israel is nearing the goals which it set itself." If that goal is the destruction of Hamas, Israel has, in fact, taken a step back. If it is a secure future for Israel, Olmert has taken one giant leap back. One can only hope that he'll come to his senses.

David Nancekivell on the Christian view of Jesus (pbuh)

Here is the third installment in the series of articles by invited authors. This article is by David Nancekivell, who currently teaches Arabic at McGill University's Institute of Islamic Studies (I was in two of his classes during the 2007-2008 academic year). Mr Nancekivell was born in Fort William, Ontario (now part of Thunder Bay), and, outside Canada, has lived in Malaysia, China, the United States and Lebanon. He has a BA in French as a second language and an MA in French-English translation from Laval University in Quebec City. Mr Nancekivell is currently doing a PhD in Arabic at Harvard University.

Readers may find this article controversial, and perhaps rightly so. It does, after all, call on Muslims to adopt the Christian view of Jesus Christ (pbuh). I'd like to mention here that I was invited to speak at three different churches in Grinnell, Iowa, and presented the Islamic perspective on Jesus (pbuh) to Christian audiences there. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) received a delegation of Christians at his mosque in Medina, where he listened to their point of view and told them about the Islamic perspective on the matters that interested them as presented in the Qur'an. Thus, I see no problem with listening to what a sincere Christian has to say regarding the status of Jesus (pbuh). You can find my reply (based on the Qur'an) in the Editor's Note that follows the article.

Jesus as the Fulfillment of Abraham's Sacrifice

By David Nancekivell

One of the heroes of the three monotheistic faiths is Abraham son of Terah. He was told by God in Genesis 12 that "All peoples on earth will be blessed through you" (verse 3) and, in the Qur'an, Surah al-Baqarah v. 124 "Innii jaa'iluka lil-naasi imaaman" (I will make you a leader to the nations) . We admire Abraham for his courage in leaving Mesopotamia at the call of God for a destination far away. We admire him for his selflessness and faith in God, who gave him a son when he was already a hundred years old (Genesis 21:5). Abraham is the actual flesh-and-blood ancestor of the Jews and Arabs, and Muslims are enjoined to follow "millata abiikum Ibraahiim" (the faith of your father Abraham) in Surah al-Hajj v. 78.

Perhaps one of the most telling things about Abraham is the title he is given in both the Bible and the Qur'an. Surah al-Nisaa' v. 125 tells us "Wa-ttakhadha Allaahu Ibraahiima khaliilan" (And God took Abraham for a friend). James 2:23 tells us "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness, and he was called the friend of God." The word for friend in both the Qur'an and the Arabic Bible is "khallil".Darayabadi, in his translation of the meaning of the Qur'an (Vol. 1, p. 91a) says, "But the English word "friend" does scant justice to the idea of "khalil", which, in Arabic, denotes the dearest or most sincere friend who has no rival in the love and reliance placed upon him." Surely, then, God's decision to bestow such a title on Abraham points to a special relationship between God and Abraham. Close friends love and trust each other.

It is not without surprise, then, that we read the story in Genesis 22 and Surah al-Saaffaat, in which God commands Abraham to sacrifice his beloved son. We are surprised at two levels. One the one hand, Abraham agrees to offer up what, surely, is most precious to him. Any normal human father, if he sees someone attacking his son, would go to his defence immediately and without question. Yet here Abraham is asked to "attack" (sacrifice) his very own son, and he agrees! Scripture is silent on the inner struggle that no doubt ensued as Abraham contemplated obeying God, but we can imagine his agony.

On the other hand, we are surprised at God. God possesses all good qualities to the supreme degree. Thus human beings are somewhat righteous, but God is perfectly righteous. Human beings are somewhat patient, but God is perfectly patient. Human beings are somewhat loving and merciful, but God is perfectly loving and merciful.

In asking Abraham to be willing to sacrifice his own son, God was asking Abraham to part with his most precious possession. Why? Surely, if Abraham was willing to give up his most precious possession to God, then there is nothing he would withhold from Him. But if God is more loving than any human being, what love had God demonstrated for Abraham that would surpass Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son? Could it be said that Abraham was showing more love for God than God had showed for Abraham? This conclusion seems necessary unless it is true that, as the Gospel of John, chapter 3, verse 16, says, "God loved the world so much that He gave His only son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

In the end, God did not allow Abraham to go through with the sacrifice. An angel intervenes and a ram is provided. But the Qur'an says, rather mysteriously, in Surah al-Saafaat, v. 107, "Wa-fedaynaahu bi-dhibHin 'aDHiimin" (We ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice). The prophet Yahya ibn Zakariyya, when first introducing Jesus to his own disciples, declared, "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). Jesus. in response to the Jews who asked him if he was greater than their forefather Abraham, replied, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; he saw it, and was glad" (John 8:56).

Indeed, what God did not, in the end, require of Abraham, He required of Himself. The near-sacrifice of Abraham's son was but a foreshadowing of the sacrifice that Jesus made so that those of us who believe in Him might not perish for our sins, but have everlasting life.

Editor's Note: As a Muslim, I completely disagree with Mr Nancekivell's point of view, and here is why. God says in the Qur'an:

O people of the book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah. Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs (Qur'an, 4:171; Abdullah Yusuf Ali's interpretation).

To this, I would add the following verses: "Blessed be He in whose hands is Dominion; and He over all things hath Power;- He who created Death and Life that he may try which of you is best in deed: and He is the Exalted in Might, Oft-Forgiving" (Qur'an, 67:1-2; A. Yusuf Ali's interpretation).

Finally, I welcome comments on this article from everyone. I would just like to remind Muslims wishing to leave a comment of the following verse:

And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)" (Qur'an, 29:46; A. Yusuf Ali's interpretation).

Peace be upon you!

Deoband against eye donation

In an edict issued in April, Darul Uloom Deoband declared the donation or transplanting of eyes by Muslims undesirable. Their argument was based on the idea that humans are only temporary caretakers of their bodies, while ultimate ownership belongs to God. According to Deoband, a transplanted eye is impure. The edict added, however, that blood transfusion was permissible when it was needed to save lives (ExpressIndia).

What can I say? Using this logic, we could declare almost anything "undesirable". For example, how can we build a house of wood, when God is the ultimate owner of the forest? How can we wash anything using water, when God is its ultimate owner? The answer is simple: God gave us these things to use. According to the Qur'an, he appointed us His representative on earth. It is up to us to use our God-given conscience and intellect in order to utilise these resources in a responsible manner. And wasting an eye that could enable someone else to see is anything but responsible.

Wait until they find out Obama is a Christian, says "scholar"

In a piece of wacky logic and the worst example of Orientalism I've ever seen in the New York Times, Edward Luttwak, a fellow with the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), has claimed that, if Muslims found out that Barack Obama "chose to become a Christian", they would try to kill him. According to Luttwak, the hope among many Americans that a victory by Obama in the general election would improve American relations with the Islamic world is "a mistake".

Luttwak disingenuously calls Obama "the son of the Muslim father" (sic), while Obama has written that his father had become an atheist before marrying Barack's mother. In Luttwak's words, this fact "makes no difference". But according to whom? Which Islamic scholar would say that a child born to an atheist father and an agnostic mother must practice Islam when he has grown up? Can Luttwack cite even one such scholar?

Further, Luttwak argues that "under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother's Christian background is irrelevant." This statement, I'm afraid, is a simple case of deception. There is nothing in the Qur'an about punishing apostates, so Luttwak strategically employs the words "based on". Secondly, I lived in Kuwait when a Kuwaiti Muslim converted to Christianity, changed his name to Robert Qambar, and was declared an apostate by conservative Kuwaiti Muslim groups. He fled to the US despite assurances of government protection, but eventually came back with his Christian wife and reconverted to Islam. During the discussion sparked by the case, it was said in the Kuwaiti media that the apostasy law does not apply to people born of at least one non-Muslim parent. In that case, how would they apply to someone born of one ex-Muslim and one non-Muslim parent?

More importantly, the entire premise of Luttwak's article is based on what may be charitably called a false assumption, and less charitably called a lie. He says "that most citizens of the Islamic world would be horrified by the fact of Senator Obama’s conversion to Christianity once it became widely known". As my wife, an American Muslim, said when she heard this, "it's not like Muslims live in a hole". I think most Muslims already know that Obama is a Christian. Hundreds of millions of Muslims speak English, and can follow the debates and discussions surrounding the race for the American presidency in the original language. Non-English-language media worldwide are also discussing Obama. All the fellow-Muslims I've spoken to about Obama support him and wish him well, without exception. Each one knows that he is a Christian.

Luttwak attempts to paint "most citizens of the Islamic world" as ignorant, irrational bigots. I am encouraged by the dozens of comments his article has generated on the New York Times website, almost all of which say that his argument is ridiculous. The amount of goodwill that has already been generated for Obama in the Muslim world is very considerable. Islam stands for justice, fairness, dignity, truth and peace. These are values that Obama espouses as well. It is these values that Muslims, like anyone else, want to see in a presidential candidate, especially one who is running for the leadership of the most powerful country in the world. So if Obama wins the election and then acts on these values of his, I think the United States will find millions of new Muslim friends around the world.

Anti-Taslima protesters riot in Kolkata

Protesters led by the All-India Minority Forum, a group dominated by Muslims, have barricaded several major streets in Kolkata and attacked the policemen who had been sent to dispersed them. The rioters are demanding that the Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen, who has been accused on insulting Islam in her homeland, be expelled from India. According to the All-India Minority Forum, Taslima had "seriously hurt Muslim sentiments" by calling for revisions to the Qur'an, an accusation she denies. The protesters also wanted to express their disaffection with the recent violence in the Nandigram region of West Bengal.

According to Kolkata's chief of police, Gautam Chakrabarty, "the protesters started pelting policemen with brick bats and acid bottles in several places." As a result, the army was called in to restore order. Idris Ali, an All-India Minority Forum leader, said that agents provocateurs working for West Bengal's Communist government had caused the violence in order to discredit the protests. However, Biman Bose, the leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), countered the accusation, saying of the protesters, "they have planned the trouble, they must take the blame for this mayhem" (BBC).

Frankly, Ali's attempt to blame the Communists for the riot looks pathetic. I think Indian Muslims have a lot to learn from North American Muslims: arguments should be countered with arguments, books with books, not with riots. If someone disagrees with Taslima's views, they should challenge or criticise her in the press or in books of their own that attempt to disprove what Taslima makes out to be true. Instead, when literary criticism and political disagreement takes the form of a riot, with protesters throwing stuff at the police, the first victim is sanity.

Rape victim faces 200 lashes in Saudi Arabia

A Shi'ite Saudi woman who was raped 14 times by a group of seven Sunni Saudi men has been herself sentenced to six months in prison and 200 lashes. The rapists, meanwhile, were given prison sentences ranging from two to ten years.

The woman's crime, according to the appeals court that doubled the number of lashes she was originally sentenced to receive, was that she had ridden in a car with an unrelated man. The reason the court doubled her sentence and added a jail term is that, according to them, she had tried to manipulate the judicial system through the media. The appeals court also doubled the rapists' jail sentences. Originally, the perpetrators were supposed to serve between a year and five years in prison.

The appeals court has also withdrawn the licence of the victim's lawyer, which means he that he is now barred from practising his profession (BBC).

The only word that occurs to me is "disgusting". On second thought, there are many choice words you could describe the actions of the Saudi court with, including "deranged", "apalling" and "highly, exceptionally un-Islamic".

According to the Qur'an, someone who has been found guilty of adultery should be flogged a hundred times. Now, the person who is to be flogged has to be found guilty of actually having engaged in extra-marital sex, not of merely being in the same enclosed space as an unrelated member of the opposite sex. So to sentence the victim of rape to twice the punishment prescribed by God for a confirmed adulterer or adulteress simply defies belief. On the other hand, this is Saudi Arabia we're talking about.

American Muslim demographics and views of religion

The recent Pew Research Center survey of American Muslims indicates the following demographic profile for this population:

While 52% of adult Americans overall are female and 48% male, 54% of adult American Muslims are male, while 46% are female.

American Muslims are a younger group than Americans in general. 30% of adult American Muslims are aged between 18 and 29, while only 13% are aged 55 or more. On the other hand, 21% of adult Americans in general are aged between 18 and 29, and 30% are 55 or older.

60% of adult American Muslims are currently married, as opposed to 57% of adult Americans as a whole.

The racial composition of American Muslims is different from that of the overall American population. Only 38% of American Muslims are white, as opposed to 77% of Americans as a whole. Blacks account for 26% of American Muslims but 11% of Americans. Asians make up 20% of American Muslims and 5% of Americans in general. 4% of American Muslims are Hispanic, as are 13% of Americans as a whole.

In educational attainment, Muslim Americans are very similar to Americans in general. 10% of American Muslims have gone to graduate school, as have 9% of Americans as a whole. 14% of American Muslims have a bachelor's degree, as do 16% of Americans as a whole. However, as many as 21% of adult American Muslims have not graduated from high school, while the figure for Americans as a whole is 16%.

Income-wise, Muslim Americans are also very close to the overall American population. While 16% of American Muslim households have an annual income of US $100,000 (Canadian $108,000) or above, the same was true of 17% of American households overall. Again, while 35% of American Muslim households earn less than US $30,000 (Canadian $32,400) a year, so do 33% of American households overall.

However, in home ownership, American Muslims are far behind Americans as a whole: 68% of adult Americans own a home, but only 41% of American Muslims do.

Income disparities between Muslims and non-Muslims are much greater in four Western European countries than in the US. 45% of French Muslim households have an annual income of €17,500 (Canadian $25,400) or less, compared to only 27% of French households overall. 73% of Spanish Muslim households have an annual income of €14,500 (Canadian $21,100) or less, compared to 50% of Spanish households overall. 53% of German Muslim households have an annual income of €18,000 (Canadian $26,100) or less, as opposed to 35% of German households overall. 61% of British Muslim households have an annual income of ₤20,000 (Canadian $42,800) or less, compared to 39% of British households overall.

Interestingly, 23% of American Muslims live in households that contain both Muslims and non-Muslims.

59% of American Muslim households contain children.

50% of American Muslims are Sunnis, while 16% are Shi'ites. As many as 22% do not belong to a specific sect.

91% of American converts to Islam were born in the United States.

59% of Muslim converts in the US are African-American, while 34% are white. 55% of converts are Sunni, while 6% are Shi'ite.

49% of converts embraced Islam when they were less than 21 years old. 67% of American converts to Islam were Protestants before they became Muslims, 10% were Catholics, while 4% were Orthodox Christians. 15% did not observe any religion before becoming Muslims.

58% of American converts to Islam embraced the religion because of the beliefs and practices of Islam. 18% did so for reasons primarily connected with family and marriage.

86% of American Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the word of God, while 78% of American Christians think the same about the Bible. Only 50% of American Muslims think that the Qur'an is the literal word of God, while 40% of American Christians have this view of the Bible.

60% of American Muslims believe that there is more than one correct way of interpreting "Islamic teachings".

74% of American Muslims are satisfied with the mosques in the areas where they live.

41% of American Muslims report praying five times a day. Another 20% perform some of the five prayers.

48% of American Muslim men and 45% of American Muslim women believe that women should pray at the mosque "separately from men". 20% of Muslim men and 26% of Muslim women think that women should pray at the mosque "behind men, not separately".

78% of American Muslims report being "very happy" or "pretty happy" with their lives. The same is true of 87% of Americans as a whole.

47% of American Muslims think of themselves as "Muslim first", while 28% see themselves as "American first". On the other hand, 42% of American Christians think of themselves as "Christian first", while 48% see themselves as "American first".

51% of American Muslims are "very worried" or "somewhat worried" that "women wearing the hijab will be treated poorly". Curiously, only 44% of American women who always wear the hijab share this concern.

It seems that, overall, African Americans face more prejudice than American Muslims. For example, 26% of American Muslims say they were "treated or viewed with suspicion" in the past year, while the same is true of 33% of African Americans.

Muslim Americans who voted in the 2004 presidential election backed John Kerry over George W. Bush by a 71-14 margin.

Only 63% of adult Muslim US citizens are registered to vote, while 76% of adult Americans are overall.

55% of American Muslims think that the current US War on Terrorism is not "a sincere effort to refuce terrorism". This compares with 63% of Turkish Muslims, 66% of Moroccan Muslims, 52% of Jordanian Muslims and 59% of Pakistani Muslims.

While 78% of American Muslims believe that suicide bombing can never be justified, this view is shared by 64% of French Muslims, 69% of Spanish Muslims, 70% of British Muslims, 83% of German Muslims, only 28% of Nigerian Muslims, 43% of Jordanian Muslims, 45% of Egyptian Muslims, 61% of Turkish Muslims, 69% of Pakistani Muslims, and 71% of Indonesian Muslims.

61% of American Muslims think that a way can be found "for Israel and Palestinian rights to coexist". 67% of Americans overall, as well as 67% of Israelis overall, share this view.

This is the fourth (of four) posts in a Notes on Religion series on the Pew Research Center's
survey of American Muslims, released in May 2007.

Here are links to the other three:

[First post] [Second Post] [Third Post] [Fourth Post]

Survey of American Muslims released

The Pew Research Center has released a large-scale survey of American Muslims, which gauges their opinion on subjects like the the American lifestyle, Islamist extremism, September 11, discrimination, US foreign policy (including the Iraq War), religious observance, homosexuality, President George Bush, and US domestic politics.

The survey also attempted to find out the number of Muslims in the United States, as well as the national, racial, sectarian, age and gender composition of the community. Finally, the respondents were asked about their incomes, education levels, employment, and, importantly, their interpretations and opinions concerning religious matters, such as the Qur'an, and the way mosques operate.

The survey sample consisted of 1,050 Muslims, and participants were paid $50 for taking part. The survey was conducted over landline telephones.

You can view the Pew Research Center's complete report in a PDF file.

Here, though, is a sample of the results:

The survey found that Muslims make up only 0.6% of the US population, which means that there are 1.4 million Muslims over the age of 18 in the United States. This is substantially lower than the currently widely accepted estimate of 6 million Muslims, but the latter number includes children. If we multiply 0.6% by the total US population, i.e. 301.7 million, we get 1.8 million Muslims. However, because American Muslims are a younger population on average than the overall American population, that number is likely to be higher.

65% of American Muslims are foreign-born, while the other 35% are native-born. Only 14% of American Muslims are people who were born into Muslim families in the US. 21% of American Muslims are converts.

It seems that American Muslims are optimists. 71% said that it is possible to "get ahead with hard work", while only 64% of the general public agreed with the statement. Also, interestingly enough, 38% of American Muslims are satisfied with the current state of the United States, while only 32% of the general public are.

43% of American Muslims think that "Muslims coming to the U.S. today should adopt American customs". 62% believe that "life is better for women here than in Muslim countries".

51% of American Muslims are "very concerned about Islamic extremism in the world these days".

53% of American Muslims believe that it is more difficult to be a Muslim in the US since September 11. 54% think that the government singles Muslims out for surveillance. Only 25%, however, report being victims of discrimination "as a Muslim in the U.S."

75% of American Muslims (as opposed to 47% of Americans in general) think that starting the war in Iraq was a wrong decision. 48% of American Muslims (as opposed to 29% of Americans in general) are against the war in Afghanistan.

83% of American Muslims said that suicide bombing could rarely or never be justified. 68% have a somewhat or very unfavourable view of Al-Qaeda. However, only 40% believe that Arabs carried out the September 11 attacks on the United States.

The discussion of this fascinating survey will continue on Notes on Religion in the coming days, God willing.

This is the second (of four) posts in a Notes on Religion series on the Pew Research Center's survey of American Muslims, released in May 2007. Here are links to the other three:

[First post] [Second Post] [Third Post] [Fourth Post]

NWFP Christians ask govt for help

Christians in Pakistan's North West Frontier Province (NWFP) have asked the government for protection after receiving an unsigned letter threatening unspecified consequnces if the Christians do not convert to Islam. The letter was delivered to the house of Michael John, a Christian MP, in Charsadda. About 500 Christian families live in the town.

Pakistani authorities have deployed policemen to protect the NWFP's Christians, but representatives of the minority say that the patrols are few and far between (BBC).

Evidently, those who sent the letter, if it is genuine, have forgotten God's words, as revealed in the Qur'an: "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (2:256). The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) also reportedly said, "Whoever hurts a dhimmi [a non-Muslim living under the protection of a Muslim state], I am his adversary, and I shall be an adversary to him on the Day of Resurrection" (Al-Khatib).

Iranian couple sets off on world tour by bycicle

Jafar and Naseem Edrisi from Iran have set out on a tour of four continents on bycicles. They are planning to cover a distance of 20,000 km in two years. They are aiming to promote world peace, improve the international image of their homeland, and plant trees in every city they visit, thus constructing a "green line... to help the environment."

The Edrisis are financing the expedition with money they themselves saved up over the last two years.

Among the things they packed for the journey are a Qur'an, a Bible, and several books of Persian poetry (BBC).

We should have more of this in the world, eh? Ma sha' Allah.