We Are Not Reverts

A Muslim organization recently announced a workshop seeking to explore and curb the supposed disappearance of 60% of “reverts” to Islam. Ignoring these dubious statistics momentarily, the terminology demands our immediate consideration.

“Revert” is apparently a clever term picked up by Muslims in America or England decades ago to describe individuals in those countries who have chosen Islam as their religion. This term is likely well-intentioned and based on a Tradition of Muhammad, i.e. “every human being is born with an innate inclination toward monotheistic belief.” Therefore, a person accepting Islam is, in essence, returning to a previous condition rather than accepting a new one. The logic is sound, but the term “revert” carries a negative connotation in the English language.

Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary lists the verb “revert” as “return to a former habit, practice, belief, condition, etc.” On the surface, this seems like a reasonably accurate expression to describe one who embraces Islam. After all, the reasoning goes, we are born with an instinctual belief in the oneness of God, and Islam is an affirmation of that belief.

Nevertheless, Webster’s also lists a single synonym, “retrogress,” or “go backward into an earlier and usually worse condition.” An online search on The Free Dictionary yields these additional synonyms:

• regress “return to a previous, usually worse or less developed state”
• recidivate “return to a previous pattern of behavior, especially to return to criminal habits”
• relapse “slip back into bad ways; backslide”
• retrogress “return to an earlier, inferior, or less complex condition”

The words listed above also cross-reference “revert” as a synonym, thus classifying it into a family of words denoting backwardness and a lack of progress, and even criminal deviance. To “revert” implies to worsen one’s condition, not improve it. Invoking this perception of new Muslims, no matter how ingenious the word may seem, actually serves in an opposite sense. It is not a fitting description of the process we have undergone, nor is it appropriate when applied to the religion of Islam.

Islam was revealed as a more enlightened, developed, and progressive faith than those practiced by Jews and Christians. It was certainly a radical break with the established traditions of the polytheistic Arabs of the time. While it is true that Islamic belief in the oneness of God harkens back to the message given to previous Prophets, Islam’s system of religious practices and laws represents an evolution into a religion previously unknown to mankind. For example, the number of times for the daily prayer and its permissible locale, i.e. the whole earth, were new concepts rather than the revival of or reversion to prior ones. Following the teachings of Muhammad, implementing Islamic law as he instructed, fasting the month of Ramadan, and thousands of other practices were new manifestations, not old ones. Islam was and continues to be a religion of human progress, not a regression or reversion to a previous, more primitive state. Incidentally, Muhammad and his followers referred to those who accepted Islam as “Muslims” and not by some other name indicating returning or reverting to some past doctrine.

Today, people choosing to enter into Islam are individuals seeking to grow and improve our lives. It is worthwhile to reflect on our value as Muslims, considering we have made a conscious decision to break with our own cultural and family traditions in our search for the right path. Most of us work hard to filter out the customs of those who were born into Islam in other countries from the religious instruction they provide us. This is something most of the world’s Muslims fail to do, even when they leave their homelands. To label us as “reverts” suggests that we have devolved, not evolved. As such, this word not only misrepresents our reality, it also does us grave disfavor in that it is a damaging and destructive term.

Given the negative undertone associated with “revert”, it is necessary for us to re-think the wisdom of employing this word to describe men and women newly entering into Islam. As for those clever Muslims who have selected and continue to employ it, chances are that English is not their first language and, perhaps the unconstructive nuance was lost on them. In any case, while the term has a crafty logical basis in modern English, it has no equivalent term used by Muhammad to describe his followers who underwent the same process. Therefore, it should be left up to us to decide upon a more suitable label if, in fact, anything other than Muslim would suffice.

Finally, it appears that “revert” would be an appropriate word to use in reference to those who at one time embraced Islam and then chose to leave it. They are the ones who have returned to a previous and worse condition. As for the current investigation into the causes for their decision to do so, maybe the Muslim community requires further introspection into its own attitudes toward and treatment of their new brothers and sisters and the people they come from.

Can We Reciprocate Hughes' Effort?

People stay channeled in their thinking by listening only to others who have opinions and points of view that resonate with their own. By avoiding dissonance, the anxiety or confusion resulting from exposure to "strange" ideas, we end up recycling and regurgitating the same information over and over again.

 

This is why the launching of Karen Hughes' "Listening Tour" is a gesture that should not go unnoticed by Muslim Americans. Nor should it be left unreciprocated.

 

At least by name, a "Listening Tour" has the ring of Stephen Covey's 5th Habit, "Seek First To Understand, Then To Be Understood." Listening leads to understanding the other. It also builds the other's trust in you. According to Covey, one of the key benefits of empathic listening is that you can learn how others' perceptions differ from your own. This is how Muslim Americans can break out of the repetitive processes of thought and (in)action that lead us to the frustrating result of not feeling understood.

 

If you were a car salesman and nobody was buying your vehicles, even though they were of excellent quality and price, would you blame the customer?

 

Though Muslims may be skeptical of Hughes' and the Bush administration's intentions in the "Listening Tour," we can still ask what we have done along these very same lines. Trying to help others understand Islam and Muslims is not listening; it's broadcasting our own ideas and opinions. The current state of affairs is that both sides have been shouting past each other in an attempt to persuade the other to see it their way. For obvious reasons, this has not worked.

 

Muslim Americans must take on the role of seeking to understand their fellow Americans' concerns about the Muslim community. We don't do this because we're afraid of what we might hear. Nevertheless, we should approach the situation as empathic listeners, taking in everything that others have to say about us without defending, correcting, or arguing. Afterwards, we must be able to reflect back to them not only their ideas but also the feelings, whether fear, anger or frustration, associated with their thoughts. This is how we can grow to understand other viewpoints. It is also how we can let them know we care enough about them to understand.

 

Seeking to understand, and successfully expressing that understanding back to Non-Muslim Americans contributes to expanding the Muslim American Circle of Influence. We must be sincere, however, and not merely go through the motions of listening so that we can, in turn, get to a hidden agenda of "educating Americans about Islam" or "convincing them that their policy towards the Palestinians is unfair."

 

We want Americans to understand Islam, but first they should understand Muslims. That is not likely to happen until Muslims take positive steps towards understanding Americans and America. 

A Mujahid Against Jihad?

Pakistani-born Christian preacher Robinson Abid has been crusading against Islam in America for the past six years under the name "Mujahid el-Masih," or Warrior of Christ. The stage name he has chosen for himself is derived from the Arabic root "j-h-d," which gives us the word "jihad." "Mujahid," then, means one who makes jihad or, in today's media and political parlance, jihadist. 

 

Mujahid el-Masih's own agenda is to warn Christian Americans about the "silent jihad" in which Muslims plan to take over the country by the year 2020. Regardless of the unlikelihood of his claim, Mujahid el-Masih deserves to be asked about his choice of pseudonym. It seems that somebody giving himself the title of Jihadist has little credibility warning others against jihad, just as a man employing the moniker "Marx" shouldn't go around speaking out against Marxism. Imagine a self-proclaimed Democratic Party with an anti-democracy platform, or an anti-homosexuality movement calling itself the "Gay Way." It just wouldn't make sense.

 

And what does it mean to be a Jihadist for Christ, anyway? Is Mujahid el-Masih pro-jihad or anti-jihad? If he is relying on the often-quoted, but mis-translation of jihad as "holy war," then what is his objective? Is war evil when waged by Muslims, but just and good when waged by Christians? If that is so, then why didn't Christ lead a war against the Romans and Jews of his time, especially when he was offered support in doing so by his own disciples? WWJD?, or What Would Jesus Do?, is quite in vogue among Christian Americans youth today. How could we know what he would do? The only evidence available to work from is in The Bible, or What Did Jesus Do?, or in this case, what didn't he do? Answer: He certainly didn't wage jihad, so why would he ask you to do so? He was peaceful even when confronted with his own persecution, detainment and crucifixion. After all, Christ is known to his followers as the Prince of Peace. So, how credible is a jihadist in the name of the Prince of Peace?

 

Christians can't be jihadists any more than Muslims can be crusaders. The concepts are self-contradictory. Mujahid el-Masih is an oxymoron.

 

One defense Mujahid el-Masih may offer is that "jihad" doesn't mean "war," but rather "struggle," particularly in the sense of the our inner struggle to overcome the demons and vices leading individuals, families, and societies to our own ruin. This has also been the response of mainstream Muslims since the term jihad entered the English lexicon. To think of jihad solely in terms of violence towards non-Muslims is ignorant. Similarly, the word crusade in English does not limit itself to the bloodbaths perpetrated by European Christians some 1,000 years ago. To invoke such images is meant to provoke hatred towards the very people Mujahid el-Masih claims he is duty-bound to love. This is odd, indeed.

 

The only way Mujahid el-Masih can avoid being a walking, talking paradox, is to adopt the latter, introspective and non-violent definition of jihad as the avenue he is pursuing in his own ministry. In this case, he should be truthful in his use of the word jihad in reference to Muslims and Islam. Irrespective of the truthfulness of his claim that the "jihad" is referenced more than 35,000 times in the Qur'an, including the definition of "mujahid," he should make it clear that the meaning of the word is not restricted to the current violent interpretations utilized by non-Muslim media, politicians, and preachers.

 

For the full article, click here.