The protestors outside Westminster Cathedral came to demonstrate their outrage at the desecration of their church by, as one online antagonist put it, "the sound of heathen hymns in a Cathedral made Sacred by Christ's Presence." Holding placards and singing hymns, the small, stoic bunch surely knew their case was a lost cause. The sold-out crowd shuffled past them having waited in a queue that stretched around to adjacent streets. The buzz of anticipation was well-founded. They were here to listen to the world premiere of composer Sir John Tavener's The Beautiful Names - a meditation on the 99 names of Allah performed by the BBC Symphony Orchestra and sung in impeccable Arabic by the BBC Symphony Chorus with tenor John Mark Ainsley.

Composed by a famous convert to Orthodox Christianity, inspired by a Sufi sage, commissioned by the future head of the Church of England and performed in a Roman Catholic cathedral, The Beautiful Names is a testament to Tavener's confident spiritual universalism, his willingness to have his faith enriched by other traditions. The political impact of this exploration isn't lost on him. He hopes the piece will, "contribute a little to an inward healing of the appalling strife that permeates the modern world." For Tavener this is an act of devotion, of drawing close to God unashamedly, of turning to religious tradition for solace precisely at the time when religious practice is increasingly maligned and deemed anachronistic. The Beautiful Names is a bold musical rebuff to the narrow-mindedness of fundamentalist bigots (Muslim and Christian) and secular fanatics (like Dawkins and Hitchens) alike. Neither would be too pleased with his accomplishment.

The Beautiful Names is a challenging work. It doesn't easily fall on the ear and it doesn't immediately make the listener feel comfortable. It demands that we be involved, pay attention to each name as it is recited and to notice that no two names are the same in their musical quality. As Tavener himself points out, there is almost no repetition in the entire work. It is a contemporary piece that has a traditional sensibility: it requires patience and needs to be experienced at its own pace - slowly as it unfolds. "The Beautiful Names came to me as a vision. I contemplated the meaning of each of the Names as well as the sacred sound of the Arabic, and the music appeared to me spontaneously, neither chaotic nor random," says Tavener.

The 99 names are divided into nine groups with the first eight being proceeded by the "magisterial cries of Allah." In the first part, for instance, each name is sung by the tenor - a robust performance by John Mark Ainsley - and echoed by half the choir, who are quickly followed by the other half. The meaning of each name is mirrored in the music, the result of a meditation that is precisely crafted.

Taken from the Qur'an and the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, the 99 names or attributes of God are a mainstay of Muslim devotion. They are committed to memory at an early age, chanted and sung. Scholars of classical Islam, like Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, wrote treatises exploring the spiritual power and significance of these attributes. They are a means to come to terms with the vast ineffability of the Divine. The names often appear together in the text as sets of opposites - as ying-yang pairings: Al-Muhyi, The Giver of Life is followed by Al Mumit, The Taker of Life. God is at once Al-Tawwab, The Ever Relenting and Al-Muntaqim, The Avenger.

Tavener beautifully captures this sacred poetry. Al-Ghaffar (He who is full of forgiveness) is sung in a plaintive tone, announced with gentleness by the tenor, echoed sweetly by the choir. It is followed by Al-Qahhar (The Dominator), sung with intensity and force, the sound of the brass darkly rising to meet the voices of the choir. Al-Adl (The Just) is announced with categorical force, a vocal punctuation. It is followed by a soft, breathy Al-Latif (The Very Subtle) that stretches until it becomes almost inaudible. The singers proclaim Al-Dhahir (The Manifest). Yet Al-Batin (The Hidden) is concealed in the music, buried among overlapping voices. At times the choir falls into whispered entreaties, faint murmurs of either awe or humility. The Native American pow-wow drum is struck to announce each name.

Listening to The Beautiful Names, I was reminded of the dhikr gatherings held at the dergah of the Halveti-Jerrahi Sufi order in Istanbul's working class Karagumruk district where the congregation's singing and rhythmic repetition of prayers is at once disciplined, meditative and rapturous. I could hear in the steady, triumphant chanting of "Allah, Allah" by the BBC chorus, the controlled ecstasy of the dervishes as their ritual of divine remembrance reached its crescendo. The Beautiful Names is indeed more prayer than performance.

Tavener's work has precedence in writings of another Englishman, Sir Edwin Arnold, the 19th century editor of The Daily Telegraph who wrote a popular treatise on the life and teachings of Buddha and then followed up with a remarkable volume entitled Pearls of the Faith, a lyrical verse commentary on the "beautiful names" of Allah. Having lived in India during the 1857 uprising, Arnold was keenly aware of the dangers of religious conflict; his work no doubt came out of a desire for amity. "For Islam," he wrote presciently, "must be conciliated; it cannot be thrust scornfully aside or rooted out. It shares the task of the education of the world with its sister religions."

The Beautiful Names is a timeless plea for tolerance that is grounded in spiritual reflection and musical imagination. Composers write for posterity. I hope future generations will remember (perhaps stumble upon) this work and see it not just as a piece of music shaped and bounded by the current debates over the presence of Islam and Muslim in Europe, but as a testament to religious devotion that transcends the discrete bounds of any single faith.

We, however, don't have that luxury. The Beautiful Names makes a powerful argument against those who raise a hue-and-cry about whether Islam "belongs" by making aural the spiritual tissue that connects Islam and Christianity. The symbolism of a sacred Islamic litany being performed in a Christian church is a more tangible symbol of inter-faith understanding than a dozen government funded talk-shops. Tavener also, unintentionally perhaps, throws down the baton to Muslims. If Islamic sacred music can be performed in a Church, interpreted by an Orthodox Christian, will we see similar attempts by Muslims to create spaces for the celebration of other, congruous, sacred traditions in Mosques? It is fitting that this remarkable music will next be heard in Istanbul - the city on the faultline of Europe's identity crisis. The Beautiful Names will be performed at the Aya Irini, an ancient Eastern Orthodox Church situated on the grounds of the Ottoman Topkapi Palace.

As I left the cathedral, the protestors had dwindled to a handful. They weakly sang Ave Maria to the rainy night. I felt sorry for them and their poverty of spirit, their miserly credo. The Beautiful Names is not for the timid or the dogmatic - it is a work of sublime beauty that turns our attention, categorically and without excuse, to God - in all His names.

Dear Mr. Malik,

Can I now expect the Ave Maria to be sung in the holy mosque in Mecca in the same spirit of appreciation?

Since when has Westminster Cathedral held the same status in world Catholicism as Mecca has in world Islam?

Weisskopf does have a point. What would be an appropriate gesture of reciprocity that Muslims could do?

The performance of "The Beautiful Names" in another church in Istanbul is partially reciprocal, since it occurs in a predominantly Muslim country, but it is not in a Muslim place of worship.

Regarding a performance in al-Haram al-Makki ("the holy mosque in Mecca"-not quite the exact concept, but close enough), irfy is correct in pointing out that Westminister Cathedral is more like a historic mosque in Cairo (al-Azhar, for example) or Lahore than al-Haram al-Makki. Furthermore, I don't believe the Saudi authorities would permit a group of Muslims to sing "Beautiful Names" there, even without musical instruments, due to their particular beliefs about this practice.

One other point: It should be noted that I don't think the content of asma Allah al-husna (God's attributes such as knowledge, speech, power, justice, wisdom, etc.) is in theological conflict with Christian theology. On the other hand, Christian songs about the divinity of Jesus alayhi assalaam would be in conflict with Muslim theology. What Christian ritual/art form would be more compatible with Muslim theology?

It would be terrible to hear Ave or some other boring, cat wailing, type hymn in a mosque. Not that muslims don't have that - I was smacked for falling asleep during a nazaam several times when I was a boy.

Instead, I think if would be great to hear Ray Charles type gospel belted out in a Mosque. This would not be unprecedented either - just look at the heights which Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan and other qawali type preformers have taken Naats. Those were the majlises I enjoyed.

If the mullahs would get their heads out of their asses, I know just the people to sing...
you can find them in any black church in the Carolinas, Atlanta, Louisiana, or Mississippi. That would be an affirmation.

Noone can control religious expression or relgious identity ... or even dictate others beliefs. Its not just a recipe for disaster, it undermines the basic tenet of a faith that is driven by reason and choice.

I think that this polarised misunderstanding of music is one of the reasons that Islam rooted itself so unevenly in Africa. That lack of cross cultural understanding and the principality of a legalised Islam by the later Arabs, over its spiritual force.

As large and prolifically adhered to Sufi orders and practice is (as legitimised by the tacit and active approval of majority the worlds Ummah), there is no way of wholly associating the majority of the Ummah into an Orthodxy. That there should never be music in a Masjid goes without saying. Yet people are quick to plot out their worldly political and economic plans in Masjid is hardly ever confronted.

People are celebrating the message of Islam in their churches. We should be celebrating the Prophets (AS) of old (known and unknown) and should be preaching an interfaith dignity and respect. Non-muslims would meet us at a halfway point that we should have been at before them is distressing to me.

While I would not oppose the commissioning nor performance of the piece, I do not think that a Roman Catholic Church was an appropriate place for its performance. Contrary to posts above, I think many Christian clergy and theologians would suggest that some of the names are problematic for if not contradictory of widely-held Christian doctrine. Most would not agree to refer to God as "the abaser" (Al-Khafid) or "the destroyer" (Al-Mumeet) or "the one, the indivisible" (Al-Ahad). To have a discussion about these appellations would be admirable. However, a concert performance is not a discussion because there was no place to hear the prevailing Christian understanding. Only voices representing one (of many sides) were heard.

One last thing, I noted with disappointment the following sentence in the article, "I felt sorry for them and their poverty of spirit, their miserly credo." Why disparage those who chose to protest largely by prayer and singing hymns outside the church? If they accosted, ridiculed or demeaned those choosing to participate in or attend the performance, then the shame is theirs. However, if they did not, why does this represent a poverty of spirit? Furthermore, it is my understanding that the Credo, the profession of faith, was sung and I would hope it is not this specific credo that the author meant.

I ssuppose you guys will launch into another meaningless discourse about the comparison of Westminster church with the mecca mosque and thereby pretend to not get my point! Bravo, "scholars"!

My point was very simple: Dr. Malik dismisses so contemptuously those Christians who were protesting outside:

"I felt sorry for them and their poverty of spirit, their miserly credo."

All I want to know is how many muslims will tolerate the singing of anything but the koran in any mosque? Or, how about a Hindu Hymn instead? Any takers?

Weisskoph, maybe you will have some "takers" when the German nazi anthem is sung at your local synagogue. You are an utter disgrace. I humbly request that the editors of altmuslim ban this jewish fanatic.
I really don't consider myself "religious" guys but seriously, come on, be honest. Jews and Christians really have no room to pass judgement on Islam or Muslims or anything. Seriously, one group worships a man that supposedly let himself be nailed to a cross and then the other group grows long sideburns and bangs their heads on walls.

Not knowing too much about Christian theology, I'll buy Mosadi's claim that most Christians would have a problem with al-Ahad. I'd be more surprised about disagreement with al-Mumeet and al-Khafid. In any event, the point should not be about total agreement anyways. It would be some acknowledgement of the common truths in the doctrines and practices of the participants.

Weisskopf, you should realize that Makka and al-Madina do have a special status. You brought up Makka specifically, so don't blame people for responding to what you wrote. But from now on we'll just assume you mean any expression of Muslim "appreciation" of others' religious expressions.

Ultimately, I can say that such a program would have an uphill climb in my local mosque for the following reasons:

1. General apathy-(make sure you promise people food!)
2. Some will oppose such an event, saying it is not proper to promote falsehood.
3. The form is important as well. Choirs and dancing are not universally recognized forms of worship for Muslims. So some people who would have no problem with a Christian or Hindu talking about their beliefs might not be happy with a choral performancing or a dancing troup.

And I believe that in the local masjid there have been Christian clergy who have come and talked about certain topics.

I think an important point to make here is that Muslims did not create this performance. A Christian did, and presumably that Christian found something he/she liked in "Muslim" religious practices and convinced enough people that it was worth listening to. So it was not a wholesale import of Muslim religious practice or ritual into a church.

So having Ave Maria or Hindu hymns in a masjid is different.

I think there should be more things like this in all appropriate settings, so don't take this as a rejection of the idea. I'm just pointing out that it's not $100 analogous.

As for the names Al-Mumeet and Al-Khafid, I initially worked from the definition of the name. In the first case, I have seen two translations: (1) the destroyer and (2) the giver of death. I struggle to find (in granted a short period of time) Christian theologians that would refer to God this way. Typically, often in prayer form, God is referred to as "the creator" and the "giver of life," both of which are consonant with other appellations among the 99. Second, to abase is "to behave in a way so as to belittle or degrade." Neither of these descriptions fit much Christian theology.

Caveat. Largely, because I thought the translations might be off, I checked another website:
http://www.islamicpath.org/names.html

It listed the following brief, explanations of the names. I think both the explanations would be more palatable to most Christians than the simple translations of the names themselves.

<---SNIP-->
Al-Mumeet (The Giver of Death)
He is the creator of death. All who are alive will certainly die. Man is made of a combination of the flesh and the soul. The body is temporal, the soul is eternal.

Al-Khaafid (The Abaser)
He is the one who raises His creatures to honor and fame and who can cast them down to be the lowest of the low.
<--SNIP-->

>Ultimately, I can say that such a program would have an uphill climb in my local mosque for the following reasons:
>1. General apathy-(make sure you promise people food!)

I laughed when I read this. I'm on a college campus so I can definitely identify.

Yes, the composer is Christian, a convert to Orthodox Christianity. (There was an article in the Daily Telegraph about him recently.) He found something sublime in the practice and was moved to share that. Had he had it near me, I probably would have gone. However, I think a more appropriate venue should have been chosen.

Ladies and gentlemen, please note that the only expressions of hate are coming from someone else, though, he is a fool and I take no offense.

As for the eloquent reply Ayman gave me, I appreciate your depth, but my point is still very simple and no one wants to touch it (though you did allude to it - thank you for your honesty).

My point was how can Mr. Malik dismiss the christian protesters with such utter contempt when even the thought of something like this would evoke massive protests even in the remotest of mosques? At least he should have recognized that reality instead of making it look like Muslims are way above the "poverty of spirit, their miserly credo" that he scornfully heaps on the protesters.

Muslims are so much better than these Christians? Are they really? If at all any muslim were to be brave enough to suggest something like this (musical or otherwise - let's not get bogged down in semantics) I suspect that the numbers will be reversed - the majority protesting and minority approving.

Am I wrong? If I am, let me know when someone is planning to hold an event in a mosque which praises the thousand names of Buddha or Shive or Vishnoo (sorry I may not know the spelling but you know what I mean) and I will show up on my own dime.

I would never suggest that anyone is better than anyone else. That is God's job. While the author DOES mention the existance of protestors at the event at the open and close of the article, the point of the article is to tell us about the majesty of the musical piece.

I don't care much for the use of the term "Their miserly credo" whatever that means -- I kinda much like hearing Ave Maria.

That said, it doesn't sound to me that the protesters are being dismissed. Muslims are CONSTANTLY attacked in the media or in/on blogs and message boards (deservedly or not), usually uncontested. Whenever I try to add some reason or perspective or common sense, I am reduced to my miserly credo, as well.

As for music in the mosque, we've enjoyed events in Los Angeles with inter-religious groups joining for a common cause. No harm, no foul. It's not the thousand names of Buddha or 100 diiferent Eskimo words for snow, but it is open to all.

No sir, Tarik with a k, You are being too kind to Mr. Malik with a K also! I am sure you are not like him, but he clearly despised the protesters for being too narrow minded and too bigoted to not accept such 'sublime beauty'. No excuses there. To paraphrase some guy - the writing hand writes and no force on earth shall erase a word of what is written.

Please let me know the time the next time you have a Hindu troupe singing the praise of their God in your mosque in LA - I will be there. Not some wishy-washy thing like 'your god is my god, we are all god's children, La la la la!!!'

Something honest and bold, like thousand names of Vishnu (I checked it - there are a thousand names and the spelling is right now) - you know ? Like the Hundred names of Allah? Sorry, 99! We don't want a long discussion on the one missing name!

I chose Hindus because I am reading a lot about this Pakistani standoff in Islamabad and there are a lot of Hindu references every time Pakistan comes into the news...for some reason, I think this is an unknown part of Islamic history in the US. Not that we know much any 'other' history!

Weisskopf, I am sympathetic to your request for reciprocity. I also note that Muslim posters here have been sympathetic to it as well. Between groups that do not share ties of affection or kin, the key to developing trust and social capital is usually reciprocity.

However, in the interest of fairness, it is not right to keeping making Vishnu the analogue to the Abrahamic God. Clearly, Jews, Christians and Muslims see themselves worshipping the same God--the God of Abraham. We differ because some of us think others aren't using the right practices, or have confused worship of this Abrahamic God with something else. However, it is a shared claim. While there have been some attempts argue for a universalism in Hinduism, they do not make the claim to share the same lineage or to worship the God of Abraham. I suggest that analogues are more properly found in Judaism and Christianity. Since, Judaism is in many ways closer to Islam than Christianity is, that might be a better place to start.

I agree. I deliberately chose something outside of the 'kitab' religions because of Mr. Malik's attitude that those Christians were so bigoted as to not appreciate the sublime nature of the 99 names. If he is so broadminded, then let me see Islamic people really accepting things outside of the book! It is a convenient cop out to say that they accept Christianity and Judaism because the Korans says it is ok. Actually this is at the heart of the destruction wrought by the islamic hordes in countries where they had no judaism or Christianity. Bottom line? Either accept all GODs or don't talk about bigotry and narrow mindedness.

Weisskopf,

As I suggested earlier in a different discussion, you do really need to read up on Indian (Indonesian and Malaysian would also help) history before making such remarks as "Actually this is at the heart of the destruction wrought by the islamic hordes in countries where they had no judaism or Christianity."

In case of Indonesia and Malaysia, there were no muslim army that invaded either of these countries and there were no Christians or Jews in those countries either. So, how did they coexist with the other religions with any forced conversion? And, in India while there were pillaging and forced conversion by invading Muslims, there were also voluntary conversions by lower caste Hindus. Not to forget the different Sufis that had disciples from both Hindu and Muslim communities. Look at present day Bangladesh, my home country. We are a Muslim majority country, yet we have taken so much from the Hindus from the cultural side.

In your comments on this site, I sense a not so subtle hostility towards Islam and Muslims. That is not unlike something you accuse Mr. Malik of having towards the Christian protesters. Are you sure you have honest intention of learning or having a dialogue?

Actually Arshad, what I have not a hostility to Islam but a hostility to religious bigots who masquerade as moderates be they muslims or jews or christians. Like this Malik who is clearly a bigot but plays the victim and claims the christians who were peacefully protesting outside were miserly and spiritually bankrupt.

What about the grace of the people who let a performance they believed was sacrilegious, to go ahead instead of what Islamic people do every time someone somewhere says something critical of Islam - burn effigies and pass 'fartwas' threatening death and mayhem?!

Your suggestion that I should read more is well taken, but let me ask you - those Buddhas they blew up as recently as a few years ago in Pakistan, did they not take the same solace in destroying idols as the pillagers in India took centuries ago? Also, I have read many things about Bangladesh muslims destroying hindu temples even now. All made up stories from bigoted hindus, I presume? In fact there was an edition of The Dawn in pakistan which had the picture of a Temple destroyed just last year.

So don't ask self-righteous questions like is my intention an honest debate. Muslims forfeited the rights to such self-righteousness centuries ago. As did the Christians. Only difference is christians know it and acknowledge it. Muslims live in denial.

Ans as to someones questiona bout would it not be better if it was one world under one god, that sounds suspiciously like what my homie, Adolf, came up with 'Ein Volk, Ein Reaich, Ein Fuhrer!'

The trouble is not many Gods, the trouble is insisting there is only one god.

My apologies - the comment above was meant for another discussion. But it is not all that off mark here either!

Weisskopf,

I don't believe I claimed that the there are no wrongs done by muslims in Bangladesh or elsewhere. You are simply extrapolating things too much. But, look at the tone of your comment "All made up stories from bigoted hindus, I presume?" You are generalizing, extrapolating and even insulting.

Just like the other discussions on this site, you always end of saying Islamic people as a very general term - "What about the grace of the people who let a performance they believed was sacrilegious, to go ahead instead of what Islamic people do every time someone somewhere says something critical of Islam - burn effigies and pass 'fartwas' threatening death and mayhem?!" Have you even considered how many muslims actively or passively involved in these incidents? You will find that that number is miniscule. Vast, vast majority of muslims could not be bothered by any of these - just like most people in the world, they are busy bringing food to the table. There hardly goes a week in wich an article or essay written in the western press critical of Islam. You mean to say there we have fatwas coming against National Review, Weekly Standard or Little Green Football every week? Or someone burning the effigies of Anne Coulter, Daniel Piples, and host of other right wing bigots every month?

Tell me again why I should not consider you another bigot.