Playful Pugilist with a Purpose

(You can also read the article here.)

In May of 1989, Muhammad Ali made a surprise appearance at a community dinner of the South Bay Islamic Association of San Jose, California. It took us about three seconds to change the program and make him the keynote speaker for the evening. Ali spoke slowly, between a rasp and a whisper, and although time has dimmed my memory of the details, I can still recall the essence of his message: Take it easy. Enjoy life. Don’t take yourself too seriously but don’t forget you have a purpose in life as well.

Ali holding Ayesha Rahim, 4-year-old daughter of the author,
during his May, 1989, visit.

Those who knew Ali only through his hyperbolic self-promotion would have found his mix of play and purpose strange but that was Ali. Beneath the bluster was a serious soul who thought deeply about race, responsibility and justice and how they shaped him into who he was.

Aware that he was blessed in the sweet science, Cassius Clay (later to give up his “slave name” to become Muhammad Ali) was determined to make it his ticket to success but on his own terms, a daring dream in the Jim Crow South of the ‘60s. When he beat Sonny Liston against all odds in February of 1964 (eighteen days after the Beatles first landed in America) to become the heavyweight champion of the world, white America was stunned but a wide-eyed world embraced the genius of a fast-talking, fleet-footed heavyweight with lightning-fast hands.

For the following two decades, Ali would take us on an emotional roller-coaster ride. When he won, we won; when he lost, we lost. Fight fans will forever debate who the “greatest of all time” is but can anyone dispute that Ali at his best will remain peerless? Even past his prime, Ali could summon that rare intestinal fortitude to beat the fearsome Foreman and Frazier, although at a terrible physical cost.

The confluence of the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War convulsed America but transformed Ali into an icon. He spoke truth to power long before politicians turned the phrase into a platitude. From “I have seen the light and I am crowing” to “I ain’t got no quarrel with them Viet Cong,” Ali opened raw wounds in the psyche of America, provoking hate and anger that in the end proved cathartic for our nation.

Ali’s unique brand of humor eased his acceptance. His punchy poems made us laugh at a time when laughter was scarce. After he had won the light heavyweight gold medal in the Rome Olympics in 1960 and received a hero’s welcome in Louisville, Kentucky, Ali and a friend walked up to a restaurant in his hometown one rainy day.

Waitress: “We don’t serve Negroes.”

Ali: “Well, we don’t eat them either.”

Drawn by the teachings of Elijah Muhammad, leader of the Nation of Islam, Ali had become a Muslim in 1964. Following a falling out with Malcolm X that he was to regret later, Ali gradually gave up on the supremacist ideology of the Nation and settled on mainstream Islam.

Ali found strength, serenity and purpose in his faith but he wasn’t immune to vice. He could be cruel inside the ring - Floyd Patterson, Ernie Terrell - and unfaithful outside. Ali never sought to idealize his life, however, and publicly acknowledged his moral failings. He was as devoted to his two out-of-wedlock daughters as he was to his nine children from four marriages.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, as Ali watched the terrorist attacks unfold on TV at his home in Berrien Springs, Michigan, his confidant Howard Bingham asked him how he felt about different religions. Replied Ali: “Rivers, ponds, lakes and streams. They have different names, but all contain water. Religions have different names but all contain truth.” In my three decades of attending prayer services in mosques throughout America, I never heard an Imam summarize our common humanity in such compelling words. He would later affirm: “I wouldn't … represent Islam if it were the way the terrorists make it look.”

Today’s generation, weaned on social media and celebrity idiosyncrasies, may find Ali’s legacy hard to fathom. That’s a pity. Ali was the real McCoy. He transcended boxing by standing up for his belief even though it cost him the best years of his career. Racism scarred his soul, traumatized as he was at 14 by the fate of another fourteen-year-old named Emmett Till. But his intolerance was for the sin, not the sinner. Meeting with both triumph and disaster, he came as close as anyone to treat the two impostors just the same.

American Muslims Must Reclaim Their Faith from Terrorists

Who could have imagined that American Muslims would produce their own Bonnie and Clyde?

Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow robbed banks and killed 13 people between 1932 and 1934, during the height of the Great Depression, in Central United States before dying in a hail of bullets by police in Louisiana.

Now we have Tashfeen and Rizwan, assailants at a potluck party at a county health department in San Bernardino, killing 14 people in the span of a few minutes before dying few hours later in a shootout with the police in a quiet residential street nearby.

Tafsheen Malik, 29, born in Pakistan but raised in Saudi Arabia, came to the United States on a fiancé visa in 2014, the wife of Chicago-born Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, of Pakistani parents. Their victims ranged in age from 26 to 60. It was the deadliest mass-shooting in the U.S. since the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in 2012.

Unlike Bonnie and Clyde who early showed psychopathic signs, there is as yet no consistent explanation for the depravity, the utter inhumanity that motivated a reclusive Muslim couple to consign their 6-month-old daughter to orphanhood- even an animal would not abandon its baby with such callous cruelty as this couple did - and murder 14 innocent people enjoying a quintessential American holiday tradition. (It is not unreasonable to suggest that this monster became a mother only to conceal her terrorist identity.)

All we know is that the trajectory of their seemingly normal life hit a shocking singularity on December 2, raising a million questions and unleashing a tidal wave of rage and sorrow.

While details are emerging daily about the couple, Malik pledged fealty to ISIS on the day of the attack, for instance, the central fact is clear: Malik and Farook planned the terror attack centered on their own malevolent ideas, the seeds of which may have been sown abroad, nurtured by social media and facilitated by the absurdly easy access to guns in America. The last-minute allegiance to ISIS was more likely a desperate attempt at notoriety by the wife desperate to hitch her wagon to an infamous organization.

Beyond that, who can comprehend what Faustian bargain this couple made and why.

So what now?

The average American is angry at, and suspicious of, his or her Muslim neighbor and co-worker. This does not include xenophobic bigots like Donald Trump and Ben Carson and their followers, whose numbers naturally spiked following the killing, as did the sale of guns and ammunitions.

No, I am talking about Americans who are not bigots and who are not hostile toward Muslims by instinct. But they are undoubtedly worried and rightly so. A Muslim friend, who has a college-going son, told me that his neighbor, whom he has known for years, asked him this troubling question a day after the San Bernardino shooting: “Does your son own a gun?”

We Muslims must have the self-assurance, the integrity and the honesty, to acknowledge that these Americans are not suffering from Islamophobia. They cannot be categorized as Islamophobes. They have raised an existential question and the least we can do, we must do, is to address it truthfully and practically.

The first step is to engage our neighbors and co-workers in frank discussions, not just in the wake of a shooting, but on a regular basis, about our faith, our rejection of violence, and our loyalty to America. Too many Americans are beginning to think these aspects of our lives are mutually exclusive. We must dispel this notion. Inviting Americans to visit local mosques can help but that is too limiting. It is the open and personal interactions at the neighborhood and the office levels that we urgently need, and not just in liberal coastal cities but in America’s hinterland.

But talk can go only so far. We need to become a more integral part of what makes America, America. This can include opening small soup kitchens, Muslim doctors holding weekly or monthly medical clinics, creating a shelter for abused women, promoting the gift of reading, tutoring neighborhood kids, organizing community evenings to look at stars and constellations, and so on. Many Muslims communities are already engaged in these activities but the number needs to increase.

The second step is to be alert for signs of extremism in our midst. For an Imam of any mosque to say that “I saw no signs of extremism in this or that Muslim” is becoming increasingly indefensible. If a seemingly moderate Muslim suddenly stops coming to a mosque, the Imam and one or more congregants need to become proactive and try to determine what may be brewing. It could very well be that this particular Muslim had become fed up with mosque politics and decided to pray at home. But it could be something sinister as well. If a Muslim suddenly starts sprouting strident piety, that should raise a red flag. If someone begins to show an inordinate fondness for guns, that too should ring an alarm bell.

The point is, almost always, there are signs. We just have to become more vigilant. Consider the statistics. Published reports indicate that there are currently 900 American Muslims under investigation by the FBI for possible ties to ISIS. Given that there are about 3 million Muslims in America, it translates to 3 Muslims per 10,000. Let’s say two of these three Muslims are proven to have no ties to terrorism. That leaves 1 out of 10,000, which is still 1 too many! A single psychopath, or a couple for that matter, can create carnage in a community in the blink of an eye, as we saw in San Bernardino.

Finally, we need to increase the quality of engagement with the youth in our mosques. Many Imams in America, particularly those born abroad, cannot speak meaningfully with the youth. (For that matter, many have not even mastered English, even though they have lived in the U.S. for decades.) Many youth are alienated by the obscure and irrelevant discourses they are forced to sit through in mosques and conferences. Inevitably, they turn to the Internet to figure out for themselves what Islam means and how they can practice their faith. In such a vacuum, these vulnerable, impressionable youth fall prey to the seductive, ‘purpose-driven’ language of social-media savvy terrorist organizations like ISIS. The process of selecting an Imam for any mosque in America needs to become more rigorous, and preference should be given to U.S.-born Imams who can relate to young Muslims as a kind and friendly teacher, rather than as an authoritarian figure.

American Muslims are at a crossroads. If we only pay lip service to our faith, not engaged in any meaningful way with the society at large, the terrorists will define our faith for us and we will lose. On the other hand, if we make it a priority that we will define our faith through action that will influence our society for the better, while remaining alert for any misguided and malcontent Muslim capable of giving us a collective black eye, we will have lived up to our highest calling, a state in which everyone is safe from our hands, and our neighbors are secure with us around them.

Lessons from the Chapel Hill Tragedy

A deranged American, a ticking time bomb by any definition, kills three bright, young Americans in cold blood in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. It is not clear if the killings are due to a
long-simmering parking dispute or to the killer’s antipathy toward the “otherness” of
his victims.

What is clear is that when Craig Stephen Hicks, 46, shot dead Deah Barakat, 23, his wife Yusor Abu-Salha, 21, and her sister, Razan Abu-Salha, 19, in their home, it sent a tremor through Muslim communities throughout America. Hicks’s victims were Muslim.

American Muslims are experiencing the same combination of shock, fear, frustration, anger and grief as they did in the aftermath of 9/11.

Events have a way of juxtaposing themselves. On February 2, the trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the Boston Marathon bombers, got underway. On the same day as the Chapel Hill murders, the terrorist organization ISIS confirmed that the 26-year-old American Kayla Mueller it had abducted months ago was dead. In Peshawar, in the same city where the Taliban had killed 145 people, including 132 schoolchildren, last year, the same group killed at least 20 worshipers in a Shiite mosque on February 12. And on Valentine’s Day, one or more terrorists attacked a cultural center and a synagogue in Copenhagen, Denmark, perhaps copying the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris on January 7.

Some Americans have unfortunately conflated the atrocities of these terrorists with the religion of Islam. What makes the situation even scarier for Muslims is that the conflation is fueled by media personalities and public officials with impunity.

Television host and comic Bill Maher often speaks of a “Muslim problem,” and has suggested that “the Muslim world … has too much in common with ISIS.” The neuroscientist Sam Harris is convinced that Islam is “the mother lode of bad ideas.” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a GOP Presidential hopeful, has concluded that “Islam has a problem,” and called the immigration of Muslims to the U.S. an “invasion” and a “colonization.” Oklahoma state representative John Bennett recently declared to applause that Muslims in America were a cancer that needed to be cut out of the country.

The list goes on, despite the unequivocal condemnation by Muslims of terrorist acts that occur in their name.

Anti-Muslim bigotry seems to have gained a firm foothold in America. Is it any wonder that American Muslims feel besieged?

Yet there are reasons for hope. Anyone watching the funeral of the three slain Americans must have noticed the inspiring mix of attendees representing all creeds and color. Their presence spoke far louder than what we read in the media and hear from some of our public officials. As the pastors of the United Church of Chapel Hill said in a statement: "As leaders of faith communities in Chapel Hill, we deplore the senseless killing of Deah Shaddy Barakat, Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha, and Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, and we share in the profound grief of their families. An attack on any of God’s children, our sisters and brothers, is an attack on us all. We renew our pledge to continue the vital work of fostering mutual understanding and respect that cross all lines of difference."

President Obama condemned “the brutal and outrageous murders,” adding that no one in America should be targeted “because of who they are, what they look like or how they worship.” The President was echoing what Yusor recently said of her life in America: “Growing up in America has been such a blessing. It doesn’t matter where you come from. There are so many different people from so many different places, of different backgrounds and religions – but here, we’re all one."

At the somber Friday congregational prayers in mosques throughout America following the murders, Imams emphasized the need for patience and faith in the due process of law. At the South Bay Islamic Association’s mosque in San Jose that I attend, Imam Tahir Anwar reminded congregants that when any calamity befalls them, believers are instructed by the Quran to say, “To God we belong, and to Him shall we return.”

One way we American Muslims can remove the fear of the “Other” from among our fellow-Americans is by getting to know our neighbors. Instead of offering a perfunctory “hi,” as many of us often do when we run into them, we should introduce ourselves and lend a helping hand whenever there is a need. Woe to the worshipers, the Quran warns, who do not heed the needs of their neighbors.

There is a lesson that, particularly the youth, can draw from this tragedy as well. Barakat and his wife Yusor often volunteered to help the homeless in their college town. They were also active in raising money to help Syrian refugees in Turkey.

Setting aside a part of our busy lives to help those in need is perhaps the best way to honor and remember these selfless Americans.

As for Craig Stephen Hicks, we pray that God’s grace will find its way into his heart. And when the time comes for society to judge him, we pray that society will temper justice with mercy.

Two to Tango

The motto of the school I attended in the 1960s was: “Deeds, Not Words.” Our principal, a no-nonsense New Zealander, had the annoying habit of drilling this message into us at every opportunity. We bitterly resented him for it but with time and experience came to recognize that this was a tough but good tenet to live by.

I thought of this while listening to President Barack Hussein Obama’s address to Muslims from Cairo. It was a stirring speech, delivered with poise and flair, but that was expected from this wordsmith and orator. The pressing question is: Can Obama match his words with deeds?

The president anticipated this challenge: “Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people,” he said. “These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead, and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.”

With that as context, let’s try to understand the specific issues the president identified in his speech. The issues are meaningful not only in and of themselves but also in the order in which they were presented.

One would have thought that at the top of the list would be the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. That the president chose, instead, to begin with the issue of “violent extremism in all its forms” is significant. By doing so he is challenging Muslims to reject and defeat the minority of extremists among us. He is also subtly suggesting that these extremists pose a greater danger to world peace, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or elsewhere, than the Israeli oppression of Palestinians.

Having framed his worldview thus, the president then takes up the “situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.” While reiterating America’s strong bonds with Israel and the fundamental right of that nation to live in peace and security, the president gave equal credence to Palestinian aspirations for a homeland. But how does an independent nation of Palestine come about? “Palestinians must abandon violence … Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build.”

These are tough words. The president is saying that it is easy to destroy, to be trapped in the past, to be driven solely by revenge. Why not learn from history and try the non-violent and the moral high ground approaches to achieving your goals? The president is saying that for far too long, Palestinian leadership and the Arab world have used Palestinians as pawns for power and self-aggrandizement.

“At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. By using the word “Palestine,” Obama is saying that an independent nation for Palestinians will be a cornerstone of American foreign policy. “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”

But the real issue here is not Palestinian but Israeli leadership. Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu refused to even utter the words “two-state solution” during his recent meeting with Obama in the White House. Can the Israeli leader, obsessed with trumped-up threats from Iran, be forced to deal with the issue of Palestinians who “endure daily humiliations, large and small, that come with occupation?”

The last U.S. president who spoke forcefully for Palestinian rights during office was Jimmy Carter. He was also a one-term president. Things have changed since Carter’s time, however. There is more awareness about the plight of the Palestinians in America now than there was three decades ago. Obama also has a more powerful mandate than Carter to bring lasting changes to the Middle East and probably more clout with Israel, with Hillary Clinton firmly by his side.

The irony is that all U.S. presidents become ardent supporters of Palestinians when they become ex-presidents. Jimmy Carter found out the hard way what happens when this trend is broken. And yet, if any president can be a catalyst for change in the Middle East, it is Barack Obama. In the wake of the speech, the world will keenly observe how the president plays his hand in helping to create a separate homeland for Palestinians. There is only one criterion here: Deeds, Not Words.

On nuclear weapons, Obama was mostly addressing Iran. He repeated his offer to negotiate with Iran without preconditions. But what about the fact that Israel has one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world? The president referred to it subtly and suggested this somewhat Utopian solution: “I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons and others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.”

Obama also touched on democracy, religious freedom, women’s rights, and economic development and opportunity, in each case hinting at the lack of these values in many Muslim-majority countries, while admitting that the United States was also deficient in them.

The president broke new ground by quoting from the Quran three times:
“Be conscious of God and always speak the truth.” (33:70)
“Whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.” (5:32), and
"O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another." (49:13)

I chuckled when Obama mispronounced “hijab” as “hajib.” A distraction was his mix of pronunciations: “Izlam” as well as “Islam” and “Mozlem” as well as “Muslim.” A request from a citizen: Please, Mr. President, talk about “Islam” and “Muslim” when you need to, not “Izlam” and “Mozlem.”

In lauding the achievement of American Muslims, he talked about those who excelled in our sports arenas (Obama did not name names but it is easy to guess: Muhammad Ali, Kareem Abdul-Jababr, Ahmad Rashad, and many more), won Nobel Prize (reference to Ahmed Zewail, an Egyptian-American who won the 1999 Nobel Prize in chemistry), built our tallest building (Fazlur Rahman Khan, Bangladeshi-American structural engineer, considered "the greatest structural engineer of the second half of the 20th century" for his constructions of the Sears Tower and John Hancock Center), and lit the Olympic Torch (again, Muhammad Ali).

The president inspired hope in most of his listeners that a better and more peaceful world is a distinct possibility, now that he is at the helm of the most powerful nation on earth. It is no longer "either you're with us or you're against us" but "mutual respect and mutual interests."

It is by no means certain that Obama can deliver on the promises he has made in his Cairo speech. But by the vision he has articulated and the challenges he has undertaken, surely he deserves the gratitude not just of Muslims but of all those who have the “courage to make a new beginning,” and thus strengthened, “to make the world we seek.”

Reviving Science in Muslim Countries

I have been an admirer of Dr. Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy’s writings on bringing about a scientific renaissance among modern-day Muslims. His 1991 book, Islam and Science – Religious Orthodoxy and the Battle for Rationality, was an eye-opener for me. The Quran is a book of moral guidance and not a book of science, he wrote. In one clear sentence, he exposed the inadequacy of Muslims who would do away with the scientific method and install revelation (as they understood it) as the source of scientific progress and discovery. His subsequent writings on the topic only deepened my admiration.

Which was why, in an otherwise incisive article in Physics Today, I was disappointed by a solution he proposed for Muslim renaissance in science. Dr. Hoodbhoy recommends behavioral changes among Muslims to excel in a ruthlessly global marketplace dominated by science and technology. Such changes would allow Muslims to develop intense “social work habits” that “are not easily reconcilable with religious demands made on a fully observant Muslim’s time, energy, and mental concentrations. The faithful must participate in five daily congregational prayers, endure a month of fasting that taxes the body, recite daily from the Quran, and more. Although such duties orient believers admirably well toward success in the life hereafter, they make worldly success less likely. A more balanced approach will be needed.”

Is Dr. Hoodbhoy suggesting that daily prayers, recitation of the Quran and month-long Ramadan fasting are hindrances to a Muslim’s attaining scientific excellence, since they disrupt sustained concentration? Although he does not spell out the details of “a more balanced approach,” the implication is clear: Do away with these religious demands, or, at the very least, reduce their frequency.

I am surprised by the obvious errors Dr. Hoodbhoy has made in his argument. While it is commendable for Muslims to offer the five daily prayers in congregations, it is not a must. The prayers (with the exception of the Friday noon prayer) can be offered in private, taking no more than a few minutes and very little space. In fact, that is how most observant Muslims meet the requirements of their faith during workdays in their professional lives. If, for some reason, they cannot offer the daily prayers on time, they can make them up later.

His use of the word “endure” for the month of fasting is also perplexing. Most Muslims do not “endure” fasting but look forward to it as a time of physical cleansing and heightened spirituality.

The major flaw in Dr. Hoodbhoy’s suggestion is that religious practices prevent observant Muslims from focusing and maintaining the continuity of their thoughts, particularly in science. In fact, the opposite is true. Properly practiced (a challenge for many Muslims for whom religious observances have become rituals without meaning), prayers and fasting instill discipline, a prerequisite for concentration. His mentor, Nobel physicist Abdus Salam, was an obvious example. Salam was one of the great theoretical physicists of the twentieth century but he was also a devout Muslim, punctilious about the demands of his faith. In numerous essays and articles, Salam explained how his faith inspired his science and vice-versa. While most Muslim scientists of our times can hardly match Salam’s achievement, the science of many of them is also informed by the awe and wonder inspired by their faith.

So why are Muslim nations so far behind in science compared to the West? Why does the observation of Turkish-American physicist Taner Edis that “if all Muslim scientists working in basic science vanished from the face of the earth, the rest of the scientific community would barely notice” ring so true? Why is creationist literature unleashed by a Turkish clergy named Harun Yahya sweeping the Muslim world?

One reason is the lack of separation of mosque and state, and consequently, separation of mosque and science, in many Muslim countries. Science thrives on unfettered inquiry. If the clergy can impose religious limits on free inquiry and threaten dire consequences if the limits are transgressed, science can never advance.

Another related reason is the lack of quality education. Take the case of Dr. Hoodbhoy’s own country, Pakistan. As William Dalrymple observed (The 'poor neighbor, The Guardian UK, August 14, 2007) on the occasion of Pakistan’s 60th independence anniversary, only 1.8% of Pakistan's GDP is spent on government schools. 15% of these government schools are without a proper building; 52% without a boundary wall; 71% without electricity. Many of the barely functioning schools cram children of all grades into a single room, often sitting on the floor because of lack of desks. While 65% of India’s population is literate and rising, the figure for Pakistan is 49% and falling. Out of a population of 162 million, 83 million adults of 15 years and above are illiterate. It is worse for women: 65% of all female adults are illiterate. The absence of quality government schooling has compelled the poorest Pakistanis to place their vulnerable children in the madrasa system. Madrasas offer free education but can turn their young wards into ideologues under the tutelage of fiery preachers, as the recent red mosque showdown in Islamabad demonstrated.

When one adds to this grim status quo the general lack of accountability and respect for law by the leaders of many Muslim countries, it is easy to see why engaging in genuine scientific research can become hazardous to one’s health.

Yet there is hope. Even diehard conservative Muslims are becoming aware of the central role of science in defining the destiny of modern nations. Slowly but surely, they are beginning to see that science does not undermine religion but enriches it. The wind of change is blowing and it can be stopped or reversed.

Perspective on Ramadan Crescent and the Pope's Speech

Religious passions have a direct bearing on our spirituality, so it is important that we evaluate these passions from time to time to steer ourselves in the right direction.

One particular issue that ignites Muslim passion is marking the beginning of Ramadan. It determines not only the day we begin fasting, but also the days we celebrate Eid-ul-Fitr, the feast of fasting, and Eid-ul-Adha, the feast of sacrifice.

Most Muslims have traditionally split between two schools of thought, one going with moon-sighting announcements from the Middle East, typically Saudi Arabia, and the other with local moon-sighting. In most cases, the former begins Ramadan a day earlier, and celebrates the two Eids also a day earlier, than the latter.

About a month ago, the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) announced that it would use astronomical calculations to determine the beginning of the Islamic lunar months “with the consideration of the sightability of the crescent anywhere on the globe.” The sightability criterion was for the new moon to be born before 12:00 noon GMT somewhere on the globe before the end of the night in North America.

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) endorsed FCNA and referred interested Muslims to its Website for a “50+ page analysis and a PowerPoint presentation” for details.

The response was swift. The Islamic Shariah Council of Northern California, along with other organizations, issued a statement refuting the decision of FCNA to pre-fix the beginning of the lunar months on the basis of the said criterion, and forcefully reiterated its decision to continue with local moon-sighting.

A close reading of FCNA and the Sharia Council declarations, however, reveals a startling fact: The two groups have used the same set of core Quranic verses and sayings of the prophet to justify their respective conclusions and refute the other!

So what’s new, a cynic might ask.

What is new is that for the first time, FCNA has defined a specific astronomical calculation to mark the beginnings of lunar months, particularly the month of Ramadan. This has had the unfortunate effect of revealing more sharply than ever the latent acrimony between the two schools of thought and polarizing Muslim communities further.

Why does this particular issue arouse such passion? More importantly, can we do something about it?

I believe the heightened passion is due to a myth that has gone unchallenged for too long, which is that to begin fasting on the same day and to celebrate the two Eids together reflect Muslim unity at it best. Conversely, not doing so implies that Muslims are fragmented and disunited.

It is time we exploded this myth once and for all. Muslim unity has nothing to do with the same-day commencement of Ramadan or its same-day ending. It is a false criterion, a red herring that leads to bitter finger-pointing such as “You have sold your soul to the Saudis,” “No, you have sacrificed independent thinking on the altar of your ignorance,” and so on.

Once the myth is gone, the invectives can disappear and the stress that accompanies the start of the sacred month can be a thing of the past.

But we can also look at the issue in a more positive way. Consider this saying of the Prophet: “The differences of opinion among the learned within my community are a sign of God’s grace.” In this light, we see the two schools of thought not as a cause for anger or sorrow but as a blessing. After all, both schools consist of Muslim scholars, imams, astronomers and professionals drawn from different fields. Why not celebrate their good intentions, even if their conclusions differ?

This points to two larger problems, however: first, the inability of many Muslims to articulate their position without indulging in overheated rhetoric and second, responding to religious provocations with violence. The reaction to Pope Benedict’s “evil and inhuman” speech is only the latest of such examples.

Muslims had a right to be offended by Pope Benedict XVI quoting a 14th century Byzantine emperor’s insult of Prophet Muhammad and “his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” Many Muslim leaders and organizations responded to the Pope’s speech at the University of Regensberg in Germany on September 12 with calm dignity and accepted his subsequent expression of regret, but there were also many shrill and incendiary denunciations that were disgraceful. And there could certainly be no excuse whatsoever for the firebombing of churches in the West Bank and Gaza and the killing of the Italian nun Leonella Sgorbati in Mogadishu.

Even though we cannot control the behavior of a minority of deviants and extremists among the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims, it must never keep us from unequivocally condemning their acts of terror and bring them to justice whenever possible. Many Muslims, in fact, were quick to condemn these acts and demanded the apprehension of the perpetrators. Surely the Quranic warning that “if anyone kills an innocent human being it is as if he has killed all mankind” applies to the killers of the 65-year-old nun in Somalia.

As we transcend our polarizing passions in the month of renewal that is upon us, and as we work on improving our ability to articulate our opinions, we should also recognize that in a world of contending truths, provocations through words, cartoons, pictures or movies should be met not with violence or displays of religious chauvinism but with dialogue and decency.