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.

Arshad, I wish you guys did burn Coulter in effigy everyday regardless of what she said or not. That is one despicable woman who deserves a good beating. The trouble is muslims don't protest such hatemongers. Instead they protest logical questions like the ones people like me ask.

You should consider me a bigot if you think what I am saying is bigoted in your opinion. In my opinion dogmatic ideas that preach violence are bigoted. I have not asked for anyone to be harmed (except Coulter - but that's ok) but the problem is many many of the 'moderate' muslims agree with the infallibility of the word of Koran and silently support the mullahs advocating the beating of wives (with 'wet noodles' nonetheless!) or the tiniest critique of koran to be BLASPHEMY - punishable by death, and whatnot.

In any case, I will leave this site now. It is obvious to me that Islamic people need a few more centuries to realize what other religions have realized for a long time. And yes, that is a generalization but one I have arrived at after trying to find someone who does not fit the generalization.

Until then!

Weiss, I have no problem with people attacking Islam as a religion. I do, however, have a problem with d!ckheads like you who quote texts out of context and then wonder why Muslims reject your infantile arguments.

If you produce cr@p to support your arguments, how can you expect us to support your claims? Or do you want us to show tolerance toward your idiocy?

I have no problems with people attacking my faith, its sacred texts and its law. I do, however, have a problem with those who regard my refusal to accept their arguments as some kind of acceptance of terrorism or as some kind of narrow-mindedness.

Just as you have the right to say nasty things about my faith, I have the right to say nasty things about your forensic inabilities.

If you cannot stand the heat of freedom of speech, good riddance.

Weiskoph, I believe extremist jewish fanatics like you will never join the rest of the human race. You are dull and predictable.

I wanted to ignore this but this is too rich. Irfy, what is with this inability to say dirty words? Or is it that you are fooling yourself into thinking you are too pure to think of dirty words? A stupider act of hypocrisy is hard to find! CR@P? what's that?

I am guessing you think you can trick your maker into thinking you are really a nice guy! 'See allah, I did not say Crap, I said CR@P!'

You really think your god will fall for that? Even I did not! What a dimwit! Anyway - Irfan get fitted out for the Orange suits, looks like you are on your way to becoming an Islamist - what with all this hidden anger and inability to express words like d!ckhead? I would luagh but sadly, your hypocrisy is a sign of a pathetic cry for help.

As for the other worm who squeaks along, I am not worried because he will blow himself up trying to make a bomb. You on the other hand, might actually do something and THEN land up in Gitmo.

I hear they are sweeping Australia for your co-religionists from India and Iraq! Wonder what is common between them...Indians and Iraqis? Getting arrested in Australia for a bombing in London? Wow, complicated relationships - or is it? Maybe they all belong to the same club? Or could it be...NO! Not religion!

Weisskopf, the Taliban blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan. It was not in Pakistan. Most Muslims of the world protested this barbaric act. IIRC, even the Iranian government condemned it.

For centuries, those Buddhas were cared for by Shia muslims, of a tribe belonging to the Hazara people. Bet you didn't know that. I met them years ago in Afghanistan, and they were very mellow and, dare I say, Zen, people.

I find it narrowminded, sorry, when you say things like "muslims are in denial," "christians are in denial." It is bigoted and irritating to judge all members of any group by the actions of some of them, as you do, repeatedly.

Is Judaism monolithic? Are all Jews Hasidic? Let's try it with a few traditional slurs. Are all Jews bankers? Are all Jews rich? Are all Jews bigots? Are all Jews part of a zionist conspiracy? Do you like it when people practice that sort of bigotry on you? I don't. You see what I mean?

I think we all need to practice a bit of christianity* known as the golden rule, do unto others as you'd like them to do unto you. People in this forum are, by and large, trying to engage you in reasonable discussion, not name-calling. Losing your hatred of Muslims will not hurt a bit. It can only help.

As for being in denial... it looks to me that no one religion or philosophy has a monopoly on that, just as none has a monopoly on truth.

Hey, who suggested gospel singers! I vote for that.

* For all I know, Jesus took this from Buddhism or Hinduism, but he's the guy who gets the credit for the golden rule afaik.

Honor the Oneness of God and do good deeds -- the Quranic version of the Golden Rule.

So now Weiss thinks he has the power to issue sentences to Gitmo. Mate, you've really lost the plot.

Weiss, you are welcome to stay as long as you like. You can criticise and you can even attack. But be prepared to receive as good as you give. If the freedom of speech in this part of the cyberworld isn't good enough for you, then you can always visit sites like this ...

http://www.korea-dpr.com/

Irfan Husian says what I say only in 'polite' words.

Here's the link in case you think I made it all up!
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/mazdak.htm

Changing outlook

By Irfan Husain

IT is two years to the day since suicide bombers attacked the London transport system in 2005, killing over 50 innocent victims. Since then, others have tried to emulate these atrocities, including the botched attempts in London and Glasgow recently. Although thousands of miles separate the recent violence in and around Islamabad’s Lal Masjid from the UK attacks, a strong strand connects the incidents.

In both cases, those allegedly responsible were Muslims. Both groups share a worldview where it is incumbent on them to create a world where Islamic law prevails. And to achieve this utopia, both think it is legitimate to use any degree of force necessary. In the process, if innocent men, women and children are killed, so be it. In fact, they usually target civilians because they are easier targets. They have, in effect, declared jihad on the rest of the world.

The theological underpinning of this logic requires a significant departure from orthodox Islamic teachings. For instance, standard commentaries prepared after decades of study by all the major schools of jurisprudence argue that only Islamic states can declare jihad. This is not something individuals can go around doing according to their whim.

...continued...

...continued...
However, radical Islamists following the teachings of Syed Qutb and Maudoodi argue that in the absence of a genuine Islamic state and a caliphate, true believers have a duty to bring Islamic rule to the whole world, by the sword if necessary. This line has appealed to two generations of Muslims, and there has been a steady hardening of these beliefs over the last 50 years.

In the same period, Muslims in the West have been expanding their religious and political space. Simultaneously, non-Muslims living in Muslim-majority countries have seen their rights circumscribed, and their freedom to practise their faith reduced. Muslims in the West have taken advantage of the prevailing climate of tolerance, secularism and democracy to demand greater rights and privileges. Mosques and faith schools have mushroomed. Political correctness and the reluctance to debate religious issues in a post-modern West have seen the steady rise in the demands of Muslims.

‘The Islamist’ is a current bestseller in the UK about Ed Husain’s five-year journey from radicalism to disillusionment. The writer reveals how he was indoctrinated by a Jamaat-i-Islami group at a London school, and finally inducted into the Hizb-ut Tahrir. Along the way, he discusses the different extremist groups that have put down roots in Britain:

“But though internally divided, they (extremist groups) are all in agreement in their veneration of Maudoodi and Qutb. In different but unquestionable ways, they are affiliated to the Jamaat-i-Islami of the subcontinent, the Muslim Brotherhood of the Arab world, or Hamas of Palestine. And in recent years they have united as the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), formed in 1997 at the request of the Tory home secretary Michael Howard. What were isolated, competing, often bitter enemies have come together to present a united front as spokesmen for British Muslims…”

...continued...

...continued...

Syed Qutb’s most influential book is ‘Milestones’, and one of its chapters is about ‘The Virtues of Killing a Non-Believer’. Among the ideas it discusses is ‘Attacking the non-believers in their territories is a collective and individual duty’. Ed Husain bought a copy (published in Birmingham) from the mosque bookshop of the London Muslim Centre, ‘Europe’s largest Islamist hub’.

Ironically, the British government subsidised the expansion of this centre. Needless to say, non-Muslims are prohibited from building their places of worship, or even buying their holy texts, in Saudi Arabia.

Another young British-born Muslim who has recently broken away from extremism publicly is Hassan Butt. He has appeared on TV and radio to denounce the violence that is taking hold in the name of Islam. He also questions the popular liberal notion that western policies towards the Muslim world are the direct cause of extremist terrorism. In an article in the Observer on July 1, Butt writes:

“…I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was western foreign policy. By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the ‘Blair’s bombs’ line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology…

“…But the main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Islamic institutions in Britain just don’t want to talk about theology. They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex topic of violence within Islam and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace, focus on Islam as personal, and hope that all of this debate will go away. This has left the territory of ideas open for radicals to claim as their own…”

...continued...

...continued...
Two events have fed this radicalism and violence. In 1973, the oil embargo following the Arab-Israel war pushed up oil prices, and gave the Saudis enormous wealth as well as leverage in the Muslim world. And the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan gave money, arms and respectability to extremist Islamic groups that defeated the mighty Red Army. Even more importantly, it showed Muslims across the world that a movement inspired by their faith could topple a superpower.

Saudi support of Wahabism, an extremely austere and literalist school of Islam, went global. Petrodollars funded dozens of university chairs for Islamic studies, scores of mosques in western capitals, and thousands of madressahs in poor Muslim countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia. Salafi ideology, an even more militant version of the faith, gained a foothold in the West for the first time.

There is a notion that despite our backwardness, we are somehow morally superior to the West. But Ed Husain, after a stint with the British Council in Saudi Arabia, sets this myth to rest:

"After hearing personal stories from my students about incidents of paedophilia, rape and abuse in their families I was convinced that the West is no more decadent than the East.

"The difference is that in the West we are open about these issues and try and handle them as and when they arise. In comparison, in the Muslim world, such matters are swept under the carpet in an attempt to pretend that all is well"

But as incidents like the ones in London and Glasgow increase the uncertainty and fear in the host community, people are increasingly questioning why Muslims who hate their ways are allowed to enter and work in Britain. Several of those allegedly involved in these latest attempted attacks are doctors. This has horrified westerners who are more used to seeing doctors as peaceful professionals than as suicide bombers.

The question being asked privately in the UK is: 'If these people hate us and our way of life so much, why don't they just go back to where they came from?'

***The End*** in more ways than one? :-)

Weisskopf, I see you didn't respond to my post about the Bamiyan Buddhas.

There is a problem in this world with Islamic extremism, for sure. But the vast majority of muslims are not extremists. Of course, a lot of "all muslims are terrorists" talk and other bigotry can increase the extremists numbers in the world. Is that your intention?

An equally damning article could be written about western foreign policy in regard to muslim countries, from Mossadegh to the foolish way the Americans funded the mujahedin in Afghanistan in the 1980s. An equally damning article could be written about Israeli policy. Every side has its violent extremists. I dare say, in terms of dead civilians, the west has much more blood on its hands.

Here we have a forum of reasonable people you keep trying to tar with one wide brush. What is the point of that? If you want to take on extremism, go to the extremists, in your own corner first, perhaps.

It's fair to say, the people here are part of a larger group in this world who reject extremism and intolerance of all kinds. And here you come, again and again, trying to provoke an angry reaction that would justify your bigotry. YOU, as an extremist, are part of the problem.

Kid - address all objections to

The point of the Buddhas was to show that muslims have been destroying idols of other religions from the time they came out of Arabia and continue to do so today. I know all muslims don't do that. Trouble is many muslims agree that idolatry is against islam and those who worship idols need to be saved. 'Saving' takes many forms - subtle brainwashing to outright beheading. Take your pick.

I tend to think that we won't see many Christian rituals inside mosque's. Islam and Christianity have only history in common, the God (the very core of the two religions) is in conflict. What truly makes up Christianity, no matter how it is presented (gospel or hymn) will not be welcome in a mosque.

Tarik,
'Ein volk, Ein Reich, Ein fuhrer!' - the nazi version of oneness just like 'there is no god but god...etc etc.

As long as people think there should be ONLY ONE of anything, we are going to be fighting. If they think EVERYTHING is equally good, we will not fight.

Are muslims willing to accept other gods (not the 'al kitab' cop-out) but really different gods, like hindus and Buddhas, as 'real' gods?

And lastly my dear Irfy, who am I to issue tickets to Gitmo! You all have an equally good chance of qualifying for one! All I did was point out that suppressed anger is one of the milestones on the path to change from islamic ot isalmist whihc you just crossed when you went on a filthy words rampage (very cutely disguised so as to fool allah of course!)

Dear Weisskopf,
I took four years of German, and I haven't learned enough, but what I understand from "Ein volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" is a sense of unity. But who will bring about such a unity? With unity there is no freedom, something that I hold very dear. While there should be acceptance and love, don't get me wrong, it is a fallacy to suppose that everyone is right If everyone is right then there would be no clear definition of truth. Truth is supposed to be evident, stand on its own two feet. If you combine so many religions with differing god's, you end up with no God at all, unless that is your point?

Too many typos: Let's try again.

And lastly my dear Irfy, who am I to issue tickets to Gitmo! You all have an equally good chance of qualifying for one! All I did was point out that suppressed anger is one of the milestones on the path to change from islamic to isalmist which you just crossed when you went on a 'filthy words' rampage (very cutely disguised so as to fool allah of course!) Have I lost the plot? Or have you lost your calm? I did not click on your hyperlink incase it took me to some virus ridden porno site (oh - I should know better - no good muslim will watch porno!) And as a reciprocal good gesture for your permission for me to stay here, I grant you a free pass to Gitmo whenever you want!

Liebe Kelly,

velleicht ist so! Ich weiss nichts, mein freund!

'deutschland, deutschland uber alles.....!

OR

la ilahi illallah! ashaju anna muhammada rasool allah...

Freund Weisskopf,
Du weisst nicht?
Then why such an avid argument?