Akram’s Razor pointed out a moving piece about the Guantanomo Bay prisoners.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn
/content/article/2006/04/29/
AR2006042900145_3.html

Most are held in isolation in cells separated by thick steel mesh or concrete walls. Every man eats every meal alone in his small cell. The prisoners are allowed out of their cells three times a week for about 15 minutes to exercise, often in the middle of the night, so many don’t see sunlight for months at a time.

…

At 80, Haji Nusrat — detainee No. 1009 — is Guantanamo Bay’s oldest prisoner. A stroke 15 years ago left him partly paralyzed. He cannot stand up without assistance and hobbles to the bathroom behind a walker. Despite his paralysis, his swollen legs and feet are tightly cuffed and shackled to the floor. He says that his shoes are too tight and that he needs new ones. He has asked for medical attention for the inflammation in his legs, but has not been taken to a hospital.

“They wait until you are almost dead,” he says.

He has a long white beard and grayish-brown eyes that drift from Peter’s face to mine as we explain his legal issues to him. In the middle of our meeting, he says to me: ” Bachay .” My child. “Look at my white beard. They have brought me here with a white beard. I have done nothing at all. I have not said a single word against the Americans.”

He comes from a small mountain village in Afghanistan and cannot read or write. He has 10 children and does not know if his wife is still alive — he hasn’t received any letters.

An excellent piece found on SunniPath, by Fethullah Gulen, reflecting many things my Sheykh Abdul Kerim has said about the West’s “new slavery”:

Ah yes, our critics will say, it may be so, but now there are exchanges of prisoners if there are wars, now the institution of slavery does not exist, so are not the Islamic injunctions, however good, an irrelevance? No, indeed. There is nothing in Islam whose origin is in the commands and guidance of the Qur’an which can ever become irrelevant. Rather, we would say to these critics: open your eyes, study by what subtle means wars are now conducted, by what cunning devices whole nations are now conquered; how they are reduced to a state of absolute slavery (which is yet not called slavery) and made to devote their whole energies, indeed to dedicate the lives of their children for generations to come, to sustain their masters (who are yet not called masters) in a lifestyle of unbelievable affluence. We say, study how national currencies are bought and sold, how impossible sums of money are lent on terms of extraordinary brutality, not in order to help the poor nations, but in order to permanently entrap them in a state of dependence. To those who say, now there is no slavery, we say look into the faces of the earth’s poor peasants, striving to grow (in an increasingly barren soil) commodities which are not food for themselves but luxuries for the rich, and only if they have grown enough of these, have they some hope of buying something to eat-but there are still millions of others too poor to be poor peasants, who live upon mountains of urban rubbish, earn from it, eat from it. If you study the expressions of such people, locked in endless, fruitless toil, you will understand that slavery is not an evil that Western civilisation has eradicated, rather one which Western civilization has ably disguised and distanced from itself.

Total Jewish population in Israel:   5.3 million  [citation]

Total Population of Arabs in Israel: 1.4 Million [citation] 
Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza Strip: 3.7 million [citation]

Total of 5.1 million Palestinians according to Western sources (not including the millions in Jordan).

Interesting how this ‘democracy’ works, isn’t it? When we want the land and not the people (nor their votes and their ability to change government), we simply push them aside and treat them as the ‘other’.  Even if they share a city.   Even if it means leaving them completely without a state.

Just another way of looking at the Palestinian situation.
 

I enjoyed looking into this term I read from Husnu Ali Prince’s comment in one of the NY Times responses.

“Consensus Reality”

An excerpt from Wikipedia

Consider this example: reality is different for people who believe in God than for those who believe that science and mathematics are sufficient for explaining life, the universe and everything. In societies where God-centered religions are dominant, that understanding would be the consensus reality, while the religious worldview would remain the nonconsensus (or alternative) reality in a predominently secular society where the consensus reality is grounded in science.

In this way, different individuals and communities, at different developmental stages, have fundamentally different world views.[1] These are not merely more mature view, but fundamentally different ones, with fundamentally different comprehensions of the world around them, and of the constructs within which they live. Thus, in terms of consensus reality, a society that is (for example) secular and one which believes every eventuality is due to gods and devils, will have very different consensus realities, and their entire beliefs on issues from science to slavery through to human sacrifice may differ in direct consequence because of the differences in consensus concerning the world they live in.

What is your reality?

The New York times has come out and written an article full of lies for those who have the facts and an article full of truth for those who know how to find it amongst such deception.

NY Times: Leaving Stony Brook to Follow a Sheik by JULIA C. MEAD

The article attempts to take you, the reader, on a journey of a few family conflicts that eventually lead to some men living ‘the simple life’ at the dergah in upstate NY with Sheykh Abdul Kerim al-Kibrisi. Alhamdulillah, what a journey it is, but unfortunately the article is scattered with specific lies, misinformation, and a complete lack of the context which comes from having an Islamic background.

My specific objections to this article:

1) Having a title that insinuates that people did not complete college and left for a farm, when in fact two of three mureeds discussed here are graduates of Stony Brook.  Everyone eventually has to ‘leave’ Stony Brook.

2) It has no central theme and raises incompatible accusations.  An example is saying that Sheykh is taking people away from high paying careers and making them lowly clerks, while at the same time Sheykh is accused of being solely interested in their money.

Which is it? Answer: none of the above.

3) Completely unsubstantiated accusations of ‘mind control’ and ‘cultish’ behavior ( “Rita Skeeter”-style ).  Tactics of using words to emphasize “mind-control” by describing each mureed “looking to Sheykh hesitantly” before speaking a word.   This is ignoring the fact that most of the interview with the mureeds occurred when Sheykh left the room (audio tape available).

Proper manner and the relationship between the mureed and Sheykh is completely ignored.  Hundreds of years of Islamic Naqshbandi history and culture are unmentioned.

4) Ignoring freely available audio from Sheykh Nazim al-Haqqani, the worldwide leader of the Naksibendi Hakkani order, followed by hundreds of thousands who addresses Sheykh Abdul Kerim directly giving him permission (ijazat) to build and run the dergah and invite people to tariqa. (excerpt/links in the main response below)

5) Having a complete lack of context of the Islamic world. For example, no context is provided as to what is common practice for a Muslim convert (adopting an Islamic name).  This is presented as something strange and new.   Muslims and non-Muslims at large are concerned about the credit economy and Muslims are seriously concerned with the concept of interest.

6) While openly acknowledging that there are hostile groups (Wahabi’s) to sufi’s such as Sheykh Abdul Kerim, the same groups are quoted to determine the tariqa’s authenticity.

Please email NY Times about retracting this article at nytnews@nytimes.com
————–

Let’s dissect this article piece by piece.

Other parents should know that one day, their kid could be a student at Stony Brook, and the next day he’s changed his name to Salih Haqqani and is no longer their son,” said Jeanne Marie Malley. Her son moved to Sidney Center in January 2005.

MashAllah, bringing someone to Islam, something beautiful is treated as something foreign and dangerous. To a Muslim, however such a thing is far from dangerous, in fact, it is safety from true danger.

The article’s title, “Leaving Stonybrook to follow a Sheik”, combined with this reference to Stonybrook by Jeanne Marie Malley gives the reader the illusion that we are discussing Salih leaving Stonybrook.

However, one should realize that this quote from his mother doesn’t say Salih ‘left’ anything, in fact Salih completed his degree months before moving to the dergah. He now is studying to become a complete hafiz of the Quran.

On its Web site, Mr. Fuat’s group says that he is a deputy of Grandshaykh Muhammad Nazim, the spiritual leader of the worldwide Naqshbandi-Haqqani Sufi Order. But Abdul Haqq, a spokesman for that order in North America, said he is not.

“He has made his own group,” Mr. Haqq said.

Where does this come from? Sheykh Abdul Kerim speaks to Grandshaykh Nazim on a regular basis. Recently on Hajja Meryem’s (Sheykh Abdul Kerim’s wife’s) 2005 trip to meet Sheykh Nazim, a special message was even recorded for Sheykh Abdul Kerim, and it is available for all to read (translated from turkish) or listen to the original Turkish.

Maulana Sheykh Nazim says in this message to Sheykh Abdul Kerim (addressing him by name), for all to hear:
“The service that you do is beautiful, with their baraka continue that service. Bringing a person to Islam, iman, tarika is more valuable and rewarding than acquiring all of America in your hands. Continue it. Do not look at what people say. May you have no business with gossip. You are with permission, look at your job. If someone interferes then I will interfere. I have given you the permission. “

Although Peter Sazanoff (Abdul Haqq) chooses to expose some internal politics in the Naqshbandi order to the world, the truth is plain and clear from Sheykh Nazim’s message. What more needs to be said?

Mr. Haqq added that while “shaykh” the Turkish equivalent of the Arab word sheik is a formal clerical title among Sufis that can be bestowed only by the grandshaykh, the word is also a common informal term of respect.

What shoddy journalism! Is there no “h” in the Arabic version? Probably not, since it doesn’t use the English alphabet!

Both words are transliterations from the Arabic… The author, Julia C. Mead, is definitely not familiar with even the basics of the Islamic world. Attached to this post is audo of Sheykh Maulana Nazim calling Sheykh Abdul Kerim with the title ‘Sheykh’.

“Islam is not about leaving your family,” said Ahmet Kahyaoglu, whose son Erdem moved to the farm eight months ago. “It’s about making a strong family.”

Again, bringing a personal family squabble into the public, the NY Times reporter fails to provide any quotes from Erdem himself about his feelings regarding the situation. Erdem did distance himself from his father, as he is the one student who has not yet graduated. In fact he said to me:

“I was under constant psychological and verbal abuse from my father everyday. I had about a semester left to graduate but I could not focus on studies while living at home.”

The next line speaks the truth:

Mr. Fuat said in an interview that, far from telling the three men to isolate themselves, he had encouraged them to finish school and to remain close to their families. But he acknowledged that many of his followers’ families object strongly to their involvement in his group.

Absolutely. This is why two of three of the mureeds mentioned are actually graduates of Stonybrook, contrary to what the article insinuates , and most other mureeds have very close relationships with our family. Those families who are irreligious or non-Muslim continue to try to attack Shaikh, but alhamdulillah, being attacked for such things is actually a blessing.

Mr. Fuat, 49, is a naturalized United States citizen who once owned a Turkish restaurant in Manhattan. While visiting Turkey in 2001, he was arrested and charged with illegally preaching Sufism in the country, which has elaborate laws regulating religious activity. Human-rights groups protested the arrest. After six months in jail, he was acquitted, and he returned to New York.

Yes, Shaikh spent six months in a Turkish prison, not well known for their hospitality. That incident is summarized in a different article from the Associated Press:

http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=10022&sec=33&con=54

“Fuat, 44, faces six months in prison if found guilty of establishing an illegal religious congregation. In Turkey, only state-appointed clergymen can lead people in Islamic prayers. ”

Mashahallah, being put in jail under such circumstances is really a sign for those who understand.

Mainstream Muslims disown Mr. Fuat and his group. “They do not belong to any Naqshbandi order,” said Nayyar Imam, the president of the Islamic Association of Long Island, whose Selden mosque is attended by many Stony Brook students. “They have created their own thing.” Mr. Imam is also a Suffolk County human rights commissioner.

On what authority does Nayyar Imam speak about Naqshbandi’s? Again, I reference Maulana Sheykh Nazim’s words provided earlier. Or does Mr. Imam have the audacity to say Maulana is not Naqshbandi either?

Noting that the parents of the three men “are very ambitious for their children,” Professor Chittick speculated that Mr. Fuat’s profession of Sufism may play a role in how upset they are: “One day their kid suddenly announces he’s not going to become an engineer or a doctor, but is moving to some farm to pray. So they’re outraged and they call it blasphemy.”

Professor Chittick absolutely speaks the truth here, this is a case of parents consumed with ambition for their children. It is important to note that most  mureeds don’t ‘live on a farm’, and that most of the mureeds live in homes around the mosque and have jobs.

Clint Henderson, who followed Mr. Fuat for 15 years, said he and his wife broke away three years ago because Mr. Fuat’s group had become “a full-blown cult.”

“I gave every last dollar I could possibly give” Mr. Henderson said, adding that, like other followers, he gave $100 a week for years. “But it got so ludicrous that I could not kiss his hand without putting a $20 bill into it.”

This is just a lie, from a disgruntled man who chooses to suffer the wrath of the awliya.

Although there are existing problems in this article, such as talking about ‘leaving Stony Brook’, now we can begin to see the article unraveling itself -completely.

Isn’t the false premise of this article that the Sheykh tells people to isolate themselves, give up high-educated careers, and live on a farm earning no money?

Then I ask, where did all these alleged $100 and $20 bills came from?

Inside the chickens?

The use of the offensive word “cult” is absolutely derogatory and unacceptable. Although throughout my years I have encountered various definitions for “cult”, the general idea is of that of a closed religious group which is secretive, using ‘brain control’, as well as an organization which is difficult to leave.

To the point of whether the tariqa is secretive: do “cults” allow NY Times reporters to spend entire nights with them, interview them on every detail?

Do “cults” also allow people like Mr. Henderson to just pack his bags and go? Did it take him 15 years to realize the Sheykh is leading a “cult”?

Among the lawyers contacted was Robert J. Gaffney, the former Suffolk County executive and a former federal agent. He said Mr. Fuat’s group seemed to be a typical cult, preying on vulnerable young people yearning for spirituality, and the fact that it happened to espouse Muslim beliefs had little relevance.

Alhamdullah, Sheykh does not have approval from this lawyer.  Again, the idea of a “cult” is baseless yet propagated.

“Cults” and Islam is a very interesting topic which was discussed online some years ago. I particularly enjoyed Dr. Fariduddien Rice’s comments on the subject (link here) where he said,

“Even with this new definition, during the Prophet’s time, Islam was a
“cult,” since it was a “newly formed religious group with a living
charismatic or messianic leader.” Probably the majority of the major
world religions (eg. Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism) were at their
beginning “cults” (according to the above definition), since at its
beginning most major world religions were “newly formed religious
groups with a living charismatic or messianic leader.”"

“By the way, I am not denying that there are harmful groups out there.
However, in Islam, I believe we have a safety net — it is called the
“Shari`ah,” — the various restrictions and regulations Islam
specifies, which are there for everyone’s welfare and protection.
When considering a group, from an Islamic perspective, ask whether the
group tries to practice and teach the Shari`ah. If it doesn’t, then
stay away from it. I’ll call this criterion for assessing various
groups the “Shari`ah criterion.”

Alhamdulillah, has Sheykh called for anything other than the Shariah? This article doesn’t give any example, in fact it reinforces his application of the Shariah as being something ‘strange’.

Finally, the article closes on pitting Sheykh against education. The article is forced into this since obviously, no one has yet been demonstrated to leave Stony Brook in the entire article.

But Abir Rahman, one of Mr. Fuat’s followers, said in an interview that he quit law school after Mr. Fuat advised him that paying interest on a loan, even a student loan, would violate Islamic teaching. He said he now works in a mall as a salesclerk.

This is actually a blatent lie, Sheykh encouraged Br. Abir to finish law school. The interview tapes are available.

In fact, even though Abir didn’t wish to go to graduate school, Sheykh encouraged him to complete law school and make his parents happy. This agreement between Abir and his parents involved Br. Abir moving to Michigan (per their request), where they would support his education. At this point the parents backed out on their part of the bargain and Br. Abir chose not to enter into mountains of debt for a profession he did not enjoy. The topic of interest never even came up in the discussion.

Again the article is falling apart, on one hand it says Sheykh doesn’t support education for high paying jobs, on the other it insinuates that the Sheykh is seeking money. How can both be true? The answer is none of it is true.

The article continues with at least three references of “looking at Sheykh” before speaking, all of which are obviously written to insinuate that the mureeds were under the “Sheykhs control”. But why is it not mentioned that most of the interview with the mureeds occurred when Sheykh wasn’t even in the room, which he deliberately choose to leave to avoid any misunderstanding?

Ms Malley (Salih’s mother) is described now:

Mr. Monosson recalled driving by the farm one day and seeing a blonde woman standing at the farm entrance. “She looked despondent,” he said. “And she didn’t look like she belonged there.”

The woman was Ms. Malley.

despondent= without or almost without hope

The article does not mention that Salih comes from an troubled family with an alcoholic father (who is ignored in the article) and his mother has mental issues as well resulting from that relationship. Wandering around the dergah property is good enough evidence for that indeed. That the Sheykh supported his finishing of school and now getting even more islamic education is actually an excellent thing.

Note that the other parents have visited the dergah and come and go as they please.

Then Mr Stavato is used to conclude the article:

Mr. Stravato said. “The shaykh doesn’t seem to be well read, not grounded in the Koran, often misquotes it and shows a lack of knowledge.

Alhamdulillah, this is while Sheykh teaches his mureeds to be grounded in the Quran, making them hafiz of Quran.

When I left him this morning, Sheykh was continuing to read, “A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East (a book described by reviewers as “not for beginner’s”).

And alhamdulillah, it was Sheykh who opened his laptop computer, read it sometime before fajr time on Sunday, and invited us to read the article for ourselves. I don’t know many Islamic scholars who are even comfortable with computers today, much less not-well-read ones.

I too invite you to read this article, invite Sheykh Abdul Kerim into your homes by listening to this story. Sheykh doesn’t have permission from the New York Times, doesn’t have permission from the Turkish Government, and doesn’t have permission from other enemies of Islam.

But alhamdulillah, Sheykh continues his work with the permission of Maulana Sheykh Nazim.

Please email NY Times about retracting this article at nytnews@nytimes.com

Leave comments on this blog to support our Sheykh!

Sheykh Nazim is also being attacked by government authorities, please support his petition.