For most, Las Vegas would seem to be the last place one would expect to find any religious interests, let alone the religion of Islam. This is where The Strip is famously located, as well as casinos. The Nightlife, with all its trappings, is what most think of when they hear about this city.
Yet, Islam is here! Muslims of all persuasions are present here. Although relatively small (an estimated 15,000 according to a local Imam), the Islamic religion is having an impact. While I cannot speak for other religious groups, or even other Muslim organizations locally, I can say with certainty that Islam is changing lives here, and for the better. This is a statement beyond affirmation of religious truths, but based on personal involvement and interactions, in the course of my duties at the mosque.
A summary of what attracts people to Islam in Las Vegas
[1] Religious foundational clarity: The concept of Tauheed ( Recognizing that God is one and alone in deserving worship), devoid of confusing ideas present in other religious expressions.
(2) Discipline: I have heard this from a great many people here. The structure involved in daily prayers, fasting in the month of Ramadan, as well as the drive to beat the monsters of drug and gambling addictions.
(3) Unique experiences: Some have had miraculous experiences, such as dreams and visions, which has led them to accept Islam.
(4) Positive interactions with Muslims.
What does Masjid Ibrahim do to support this development?
We have made support to new Muslims, and the wider community in general, top priority. Some of our activities are listed below
(1) Friday prayer services.
(2) Weekly lessons from the Prophetic Hadeeth/Seerah.
(3) Islam 101, which focuses on the details of faith and practice.
(4) Sunday school for children.
(5) Spiritual rectification (Tazkiyatun Nafs) sessions.
(6) Monthly food distribution to the homeless.
(7) Personal and couples counseling.
(8) Communal and political involvement.
(9) Interfaith activities.
A press article on the impact of the mosque is found at this link. Click here
How can you support Masjid Ibrahim?
Monthly pledges are best. Donations to the mosque are tax deductible, and certainly will be put to good use. We suggest a minimum monthly pledge of $100. If sixty five people committed themselves to this amount, to be paid in a timely fashion, that would be sufficient for our needs.
Donations can be made at our secure website click here as well as onsite at our Kiosk and donation boxes. Checks and money orders can be made out to the following address
Masjid Ibrahim
3788 North Jones Blvd.
Las Vegas, Nevada 89108
702-395-7013.
Above you will find some images of mosque activities. Please note that some of the photos predate the COVID-19 restrictions, and that Masjid Ibrahim strictly enforces the Health guidelines, such as social distancing and mask-wearing.
15 comments:
Hi Waheed.
Let's look more closely at your 4 attractions of Islam:
1. "The concept of Tauheed ( Recognizing that God is one and alone in deserving worship), devoid of confusing ideas present in other religious expressions."
As I have mentioned in the past, the concept of Tauheed precedes Islam. In fact, some religions say that Tauheed precedes Creation itself. What this implies is that Tauheed exists independently of human consciousness. It would be a mistake to conflate human consciousness and Tauheed.
I clearly don't agree with you that Islam is devoid of confusing ideas. While Islam may skirt the Christian Trinity, it inherits much of the confusion from Christianity. Islamic scholars, like their Christian brothers, have filled libraries with explanations (apologetics) concerning Divine Will, Divine Grace and Retribution, Divine Judgement and Salvation in an effort to provide "religious foundational clarity". These are confusing religious expressions which are entirely separate from Tauheed, which can and should be expressed independently of Humanity, a latecomer to Creation.
2. Discipline.
I agree. Discipline is important. Systems of discipline can take many forms and adherence to a rigorous religious orthodoxy is one approach. The world is a vastly different place from when the traditional religions were founded and it is important that the system can adapt to the changing world.
3. "Some have had miraculous experiences, such as dreams and visions".
This is a perfect example of the conflation of human consciousness and Tauheed. We has learned far too much about how the human brain functions to continue making this mistake.
4. "Positive interactions with Muslims"
This leads into my main thesis when posting into your blog. You are absolutely correct that everyone needs to immerse themselves within a community of positive souls. However, it is a huge mistake to imagine that people who identify as you do are positive and those who do not are negative. It is terrible to teach children who are too young to understand that other groups are "VERY BAD". (as in the link that I posted in the previous thread)
If only you could figure out how to present a more pluralistic view of humanity.
Hello N-B
Tauheed, as a concept, is the foundational principal of Islam, and the religion itself argues that it is the foundation of the authentic teachings as found or associated with the other great teachers. Karen Armstrong has made the argument that Tauheed- as explained by Islam- is perhaps its main attraction. Other faiths do not necessarily carry the same expression of Tauheed as the religion of Islam.
Of your comments above, what is interesting is the latter part of your post. Did you have a negative sunday school experience as a child? Why do you find parents- arranging that their children be taught religion- to be a problem? You mention "very bad" (in bold print), however religious education does not automatically equate hatred of outsiders.
Hi Waheed.
You have no idea how badly you've missed the mark when you ask "Did you have a negative sunday school experience as a child?" While I know people who have suffered for their childhood experiences, I was never subjected to any sort of rigorous religious education. So perhaps I should say something about how I was raised.
One thing that I've come to appreciate much more during the last few years is the difference between being raised in Canada from being raised in the USA. Our identity is not based on a belief that we live in the "greatest country in the world". Politicians don't have to proclaim that theirs is the "world's greatest democracy" and so on. American Exceptionalism is such a bizarre belief when viewed from the outside.
However, that isn't to say that Canadians of my generation were not raised without our own biases. Canada was part of the British Empire and Queen Elizabeth is still the Queen of Canada. Our institutions were established by the British; our government is modelled on the British government, our laws come from British common law, our court system is based on the British court system, and so on. Our school system was designed by the British and, until quite recently, we were taught more about British history than our own history. Our cultural heroes are British: Shakespeare and Dickens and Jane Austin, Newton and Darwin. The cities I've lived in have British names like Vancouver and New Westminster.
The schools that I attended were named after Englishmen like Churchill and Lord this or that. The map of the world that hung on the classroom wall had all of the countries of the British Commonwealth coloured the same colour, so that we would know which of the countries were the significant ones. We learned about India and Pakistan, East and South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. Countries of a different colour on the map were ignored.
Though I have no British ancestry, my cultural orientation is British, and so are my biases and prejudices.
As children, we were taught that the British had civilised a large portion of the world's population, establishing governments and administrations, transportation and trade, culture and education, and so on. Before the British arrived, North America was inhabited by savages and so was Africa. Indians and Pakistanis were inferior to the British in every way, and the Arabs were incapable of civilised society. The British had defeated Napoleon at Waterloo and the Germans in two World Wars, proving their superiority over the French and Germans. In short, we were raised in a milieu of British Exceptionalism.
What is important to understand is that these prejudices are established during childhood. Attitudes spread among children like a virus. "Have you met that new boy, Bernie? He's Jewish so my dad says we can't be friends." Or worse, "If you make friends with him, you can't be my friend any more." We had foul names for every minority group. Have you seen "West Side Story"? There's a lot of truth in that play.
Because Canada has changed so much since I was a child, it has become easier to overcome these prejudices. Canadians of British descent are no longer the majority in Canada. Our multiculturalism has become an important part of our identity as Canadians.
Now I will get to my point ...
You have ask yourself what it is that you are teaching children when you say that "what attracts people to Islam" is "positive interactions with Muslims."
You are simply reinforcing a prejudice against non-Muslims. You are implying that positive interactions with Muslims are more important than other positive interactions, or even worse, that positive interactions are only possible with other Muslims. This is like the prejudice that was imposed on me and my friends when I was a child. You are telling your Muslims to dissociate from non-Muslims.
Now about the cartoon story in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNdpvCWT2Ag
What purpose is there in teaching very young children that "the baaaad Banu Mustaliq were planning to attack the Muslims"? and "most of the men escaped, but the women and children were arrested"?
You are teaching that the Muslims are surrounded by bad people who will attack them without provocation. You are teaching that non-Muslim men will abandon their women and children, their mothers, sisters, wives, daughters and sons and not attempt to recover them. You are teaching that Muslims have so little regard for the welfare of non-Muslim families that they will separate the very sinews of our societies.
What about "Juwayriya was very impressed to see the beauty of Islam and became a Muslim. To make a friendly relationship with that tribe, the Prophet married her and released all of the prisoners."
Only a Muslim could believe that a woman who just saw her family and her tribe destroyed (what happened to her father?, I ask) would be happy to marry a Muslim. And what about these woman and children that were released, with no property and no men to support them. You have to think that their conditions as prisoners was so brutal that anything would be better. It just further reinforces the unconcern for the well-being of non-Muslims.
"What happened to the fake Muslims or the Munaafiqoon group? The munafiq or fake muslims were verrrry bad. They did not want the Muslims to have any success. Later Abdullah bin Ubai tried to break the unity of the Muslims and made the Madinan Muslims angry at the Makkan Muslims (all dressed in glowing white thaubs) because he haaaated the Makkan Muslims. Then Allah sent part of the surah Al Munaafiqoon to tell the truth about the baaaad false Muslim Abdullah bin Ubai and CURSED him until the Day ... of ... Judgement."
So you are happy to teach very young children that those who have disagreements with people in your community are very bad people and will be cursed until the Day of Judgement?
"He had a verrrry good son and his son became very angry at his father, Abdullah bin Ubai, and would not allow him to enter Madinah."
And you are happy to teach very young children that there is nothing wrong with a son becoming so angry with his father that he would prevent him from entering his own home? (and I'm guessing that the next episode tells how A.bin U.'s son is willing to kill his father)
These are awful lessons to teach young children.
It is important to understand that this isn't "history". It is a story that has been passed along, embellished and attempts made to fix its obvious flaws, but still remains impossible to think of as an accurate portrayal of anything that actually happened.
What is it that you are trying to teach? Couldn't you create a more effective story without all of the inconsistencies and implausibility?
Fake history shouldn't be taught without a lesson. An excellent example of this is the story of Jonas in the Bible. It is 100% fake history but with important lessons.
Hello NB,
I asked about sunday school experiences because you repeatedly raise it as if it is something doing damage to children. Your personal narrative was interesting, and worth exploring more in detail, but for now I will stay focused on core things ..
* It is really ridiculous to read the article as implying that " positive interactions with Muslims are more important than other positive interactions, or even worse, that positive interactions are only possible with other Muslims. This is like the prejudice that was imposed on me and my friends when I was a child. You are telling your Muslims to dissociate from non-Muslims'"
Where have I said that a person can't have positive interactions with Non Muslims, or that Muslims should disassociate from Non Muslims?
The article simply summarizes, on the basis of personal observations, why people tend to accept Islam. Indeed, published studies show that Americans who have a Muslim neighbor, co-worker, etc, will tend to have a more favorable view of Muslims as a result of personal/professional interaction. Has no relation to the idea you are sharing here.
* I am not the creator of the video you linked to, but in any case it simply summarizes, for an audience of children, the basic account. Why is this so much a problem? The Christians do the same thing. Plenty of Bible movies, cartoons, films etc, meant to convey Christian understandings of history/doctrine etc.
* You share the example of the Jonah story in the Bible as being fake history, but with important lessons. While I am not entering into the fake history rhetoric, I will say that the Qur'an is similar. In fact, it says repeatedly that the stories, the entire text itself, if meant to generate thinking and lessons. Indeed, the videos I shared from our Mosque (which detailed 'Abdullah b.Ubayy) likewise has some of those lessons.
Waheed, I'm only saying that if you are going to teach those stories as "history" then they need to be honest. If you can't tell them to your children with honesty, perhaps because of their young age, then you shouldn't be telling the story at all.
The Sirah does not say that the Banu Mustaliq men "escaped", so why is that how you teach your children? Is it because the truth is too atrocious for children to handle? Think about it: the stated purpose of the expedition was to eliminate the threat of this tribe. If "most of the men escaped", the the mission to destroy the threat would have failed. Either the men never were a threat or they were slaughtered, and we know that Muhammad had slaughtered a tribe of Jews shortly before this time.
The way the story is told, the mission can't be justified. It is entirely inconsistent to think that Muhammad destroyed a tribe that was such a great threat without a single Muslim being injured by the Banu Mustaliq. It is clear that they were not armed for battle and presented no threat at all to the Muslims in Madinah.
So the honest story would be: Muhammad heard about this weak tribe. He descended on them without any warning. He stole all of their property. He murder the men and he enslaved the women and children.
It isn't hard to understand why Muslims would sugar-coat this atrocious story when presenting it to children, or to adults for that matter.
Most cultures have had periods which they are not proud of. I don't think that German school children are taught that the 1930's was a time of German greatness. Such a thing has to be taught with absolute honesty.
@Pemakaman Muslim. Terimah Kasih, Selamat Datang
@NB
Some things about your last comment.
[1] If you are going to be critical about what "I" teach in Sunday school, you should stick to what you know that I actually teach. You are expecting me to be on the defensive about a video some other person/organization produced. There are a couple of videos on the blog (and probably a few more on YOUTUBE ) from our Sunday school sessions, so, in the interest of justice and even transparency, stick to actually asking about what I say, not what someone else says.
(2) The Banu Mustaliiqq participated in battle against the Muslim forces. A simple google search reveals a brief article on the subject. Here it is. https://www.islamweb.net/en/article/157923/the-battle-of-banu-al-mustaliq-i
(3) I still find your stance about this video situation to be untenable. After all, there are plenty of Sunday school cartoons, videos, books, used by Christians in their sunday schools. They often summarize their history/doctrine to make it understandable for children. Everyone does that.
(4) You have a pattern of making accusations, and then not following up on explaining your accusations! You accuse me of teaching to separate from Non Muslims, that I am prejudice against Non -Muslims, but you don't show why you even make those assertions.
Waheed, you seem to have a lot of trouble distinguishing between comments which are specific and comments which are general.
You seem to know the English language well enough to know that "you" can refer to a single person or to a group of people. And, you ought to know that, in common conversation, when referring to a group of people, a statement is still valid even when if it isn't true for every single member of the group.
You can defend or not defend that video. Either you think that the video can be defended or you think that it cannot. Since you haven't said anything to criticise it, I can only assume that you see nothing wrong with it, which says something about you.
It is ridiculous to argue that because others use cartoons like that, then there is nothing wrong with this particular cartoon. Obviously every cartoon must be judged on its own merits and there are many cartoons that were shown to me as a child which are generally seen as offensive today.
As for the link that you post ... yes, I can find articles on the internet. That particular article contains many details which are not found in the traditional Sirah. The article doesn't cite any sources. It, too, has many details which are inconsistent, but the question isn't about the accuracy of the history but rather what it is that Muslims are teaching about this history.
You don't seem to see what is wrong with your statement "A summary of what attracts people to Islam in Las Vegas ... (4) Positive interactions with Muslims."
If you heard someone say "What attracts people to the Klu Klux Klan in Las Vegas is positive interactions with White Supremacists", I think you would have a problem with that.
Of course, you'll say that this is a "false equivalence", but what is the difference, really? Both of you BELIEVE that your group is exceptional and that belonging to your group makes you better. Just as you see nothing wrong with your statement, a Klansman sees nothing wrong with a similar statement. He is simply articulating "a truth" that he believes, namely, that it is better to interact with Whites than with Blacks, and since he believes it to be true, what's wrong with him saying so?
It is not unusual to be blind to your own bigotry.
@NB
TBH I don't know if you play devil's advocate (I'm sure your English skills are sufficient to understand that expression) or you are being genuine in what you post.
* It is utterly ridiculous that You (as in YOU, whose screen name is NB or "NonBeliever") would attempt to make a "guilt by association" argument after being called out on what you (NB) asserted about what "YOU" teach in Sunday school. You (NB) are not speaking to the entire Muslim world, you are speaking with one person. So again, I suggest that if YOU are going to have a critical review of something, address that which I actually teach, not what some other Muslims/organizations teach.
* You mention items in the article posted "not found in the traditional sirah". How do you know what "the traditional sirah" contains? Have you read all the works on Seerah? Have you mastered Arabic, gained access to the volumes of information, with all the commentary and varying scholastic opinions? I'm not asking the above to be funny, but to show that reading a short version of an English translation of Ibn Is-haq's work (in English by Guilliame I believe) does not make one a scholar of the Prophet's biography.
* You continue to assert that I have said it is better to interact with Muslims, that it is somehow evil to interact with Non Muslims. I have never said or believed such a thing. In a religious community, one worships and learns the religious teachings from the relevant sources in the same community, that's just common sense, and does not mean that I am bigoted against Non Muslims. You are really stretching it with that assertion.
* If that wasn't bad enough, you compare my statement regarding what attracts people to Islam here to joining the KKK!! Certainly that is false equivalence. The KKK is, at best, a fringe group in American society, who are open about their particular racial views, whereas Islam is a global faith that advocates human brotherhood.
If a Klan member says that their group is good, that is their business. That has no relation to this post.
Well, Waheed, let's first talk about "guilt by association".
To be guilty by association, two things have to be true:
1. That you are being associated with others whom you don't wish to be associated, and
2. Those others are guilty of something.
Please be specific who these people are that you don't wish to be associated with and what their guilt is.
Need I remind you, that it was YOU, whose screen name is Shamsuddin Waheed, who cited the story of the destruction of the Banu Al-Mustaliq in this blog in support of an argument that you were making. All of of the versions of this story that I have read describe the outcome in much the same way. If there is a significantly different version within this vast library of Arabic commentary and scholastic opinion that you refer to, you have had ample opportunity to draw it to my attention. If you believe that this assault was not illegal, then the burden is on YOU to present the exculpatory evidence. There is no obligation on ME to search for something that I'm almost certain doesn't exist.
What the story describes is that the Muslims killed all of the men capable of fighting and enslaved all of the women and children. The story also describes how the women were given over to Muslim men and were violated. The story describes how a particular woman was first violated by a man, Thaabit bin Qays, but when it was discovered that she was the daughter of a tribal leader, she was given over to Muhammad. The story even goes so far as to say that Muhammad's wife, Aisha, hated this woman. Furthermore, the story describes how Aisha had been left alone and found by Safwan while these captive women were being violated.
You have defended THIS story. If there is a different version of the story in another book, that is irrelevant because it is THIS version that you have defend.
What is being described here is legally and commonly understood to be genocide.
What is being described here is legally and commonly understood to be slavery.
What is being described here is legally and commonly understood to be rape.
These are the crimes that YOU, Shamsuddin Waheed, cited in your article and are now defending.
What's more, this story was cited in your article about slander. The story accuses the ONE LEADER who opposed what the Muslims did with "hypocrisy". The man who had previously averted the genocide of the Banu Qaynuqa now found himself powerless to stop genocide. Attacking this man on account of his outrage against the Muslims is the actual slander of the story.
Now, Waheed, it is entirely up to you whom you choose to associate with and what stories you choose to cite. They are just stories and we are all free to adapt them to teach whatever lessons we think we can draw from them. It is also up to you to decide how to teach the parts of the story which represent the goodness of Man and the parts which represent the opposite.
It's a story. Just give the leaders simple American names like Simpson and Hawthorn and put them in charge of American factions. You have to read the story without any preconception about who the "good guys" and who the "bad guys" are.
Waheed has a good head over he's shoulders and I as a new Muslim in acceptance towards ISLAM have not ones heard this Imam talk nonsense nor have I listen to anything supporting Mischief and if any party agrees to children not being of age to hear or understand righteous truth behind lessons then as a Ignorant and Non scholar Muslim I see nothing wrong with a Little Sugarcoat for non muslim children and muslim children to inherite ancient Hadiths. Thru time we all have our Revelations and Inshallah Masjid Ibrahim will do the best to plant the righteous seed by all means necessary!.
Alhamdulillah.
Att: Milki Wafa' أوبريان
@ Milki Wafa.
Thanks for your comments. May Allah bless you.
@ NB
Just getting around to reply to your comments.
* There is a big difference between our screenames. Mine is real, in the sense that I write under my actual name, whereas you choose not to.
* The subject of this brief post has to do with the reception of Islam here, mainly in the Mosque I am affiliated with, you brought in a cartoon video reference to a particular account. Nonetheless, even with that irrelevant reference, I shared briefly thoughts on it, as well as on the history behind the account, but you have chosen not to listen to that, but rather zoom upon your own assumptions about it.
Hello Wilki Wafa'. I'm happy to see another person joining in this conversation.
Even though I use the screen name "NB", Non-Believer, there are beliefs about which I am very passionate. My screen name simple reflects that fact that there are ideas which Muslims believe in which I utterly reject. However, it is safe to say that no two people are identical in their beliefs, a fact that we have to respect.
It is a fact of life that each of us is here on Earth for only a short period of time. I believe that one of our foremost responsibilities as Human Beings is to safeguard the lives of all people so that they may benefit to the fullest extent possible of their time here on Earth. Actions which shorten the lives of others, deprive others of basic freedoms or the necessities of life are the greatest crimes.
This is the framework which I am using when I read the story of the Expedition of al-Muraysi' and when I read the words that the people are said to have spoken around that time.
I encourage you, Milki Wafa, to read these stories for yourself. Determine for yourself, who are the ones who oppress by killing and enslaving and who are the oppressed?
And then ask yourself: "Why are these stories being told the way they are?" and "Why do teachers of Islamic history continue to teach these stories the way that they do?"
Perhaps if you read these stories carefully, you and I will be able to understand "the righteous truth" together. That is my hope and my purpose in posting in this blog.
By the way, Waheed, I normally post under my actual name and I wish that I didn't feel the need to hide in anonymity. However, the reality is that there are literally millions of Muslims in the world who would murder me for my statements about Muhammad. At times I have used the screen name "Je suis Samuel" in this blog in reference to Samuel Paty who was pointlessly murdered because he had "insulted the prophet".
Post a Comment