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.

And if you don't ban me for that last comment Zahed, you are a better man than I - like Kipling said

'though I whipped you and flayed you,

by the very God that made you

you are a better man than I, Gungadin!'

And that will be my very last visit to this place. Got my posting to Gitmo this morning - hope to NOT see any of you Kids there! Take care. :-) It's been a hoot!

Was bist du Weisskopf? Christlich? der Jude? Der Moslem? Der nichtchrist?
-Freunde rkelly

Nevermind : ).
Your point is well taken, though it was harsh and did little to help others.

Weiss, there is a huge difference between "Germany at all costs" and "There is nothing worthy of worship except God".

One is a statement of nationalism. The other is the Arabic equivalent of "Shema y'israel. Adonoi eluchanu adnoi echad."

Will you now tell us Judaism is the same as Nazism?

‘Inshaallah things will hpn soon’
Team DNA
Sunday, July 08, 2007 09:54 IST
MUMBAI/BANGALORE: The police team investigating the Bangalore link has begun scrutinising the email, Internet chats and other communication modes of three suspects — Sabeel Ahmed, Kafeel Ahmed and Mohammed Haneef. “We are trying to fit the pieces of the puzzle together.

But it might take at least a week before there is conclusive outcome,” a police officer DNA. “We require at least 15 days to complete the investigations,” Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), Gopal B Hosur said. Reacting to reports that Kafeel had held a protest meeting in remembrance of the Muslims, he said that the police had no prior information on the matter.
report continued below

“We are investigating whether any such meeting ever took place and who the participants were if it did take place”. The investigating teams would be quizzing all those associated with the suspects before they arrive at any conclusion,” he added.

According to the UK police Kafeel Ahmed phoned his mother in Bangalore just hours before the attack and told her “the time has come now”.

Kafeel Ahmed is also said to have told his family that a previous “presentation” had failed — suspected to have been the attempted attack on a London nightclub the day before — and asked for them to pray for his success in a second attempt.

A Daily Telegraph report quoting unnamed resources said the devices built by the bomb makers included high explosive as part of the detonator, which failed to go off.

Sabeel Ahmed had a page on Orkut in which a series of messages had been left in the run-up to the attack by a user calling himself “mujahid” (holy warrior).

On June 11, it read “when is kafeel comin bk” and on June 15 “inshaallah things will hpn soon, ill pray 4 u”

.The last entry on June 25 read: “everythins fine here by the grace of ALLAH, will ask shahid and let u knw in my next scrap (entry).” Shahid is a name, but also means “martyr”.

There is a large difference between Nazism and Islam, huge in fact. But I think what Weiss was trying to say, even though Nazism is absolutely abhorrent, is that the Muslim faith condemns other religions and those that practice such religions. That to enforce a sense of unity, if it is indeed forced, is not unity but a thievery of freedom and a lack of love. Am I wrong when I say that Islam and the Koran shows little acceptance when it comes to other religions and the worship of God? (this is an honest question, I promise I'm not being sarcastic)

Well, my friends you need to go to Mauritius, Paradise Island to see integration and respect of each religion. Here we are talking also about music and using music as a medim to embrace humanity.
I pasted the above article to show just how muslim fanatics are destroying the fabrics of India. India has always been a tolerant place.
Himesh Reshamiya, a music director and pop singer went to a muslim shrine to pay respect wearing a burka. there were mixed responses. He is a hindu and also a devotee on "Durga Mata" Unfortunately, Islamic fanatics will say that you ONLY have one GOD and it is "allah"
I believe that everyone have a choice in their religion and it is a private thing. Comments made by some here would suggest that you are not humans at all and prepared to incite hatred.
have a nice day!!

rkelly, islam regards itself has having the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in terms of religion. But then, so does christianity. And so does judaism. If you don't believe me, perhaps you should write to the Pope and ask if he is prepared to regard other non-Catholic faiths as true. If you read his Regensburg speech, you'll see he doesn't even regard Protestant Christianity as religious truth and condemns the Reformation.

They already asked the Pope. Here's what he said:

DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS

NOSTRA AETATE

PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON OCTOBER 28, 1965

3. The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.

Dear Irfy,
I agree, many religions hold themselves to be as one truth. Which truth is that way, it stands on its own. I understand that we are talking about tolerance, and not violence, which is good.
The pope is a good man, but he does not change what is said in the Bible and in the Koran. I understand that the Muslim people are devout, but I am not speaking of their wholehearted devotion.
But I am misunderstood. What I mean is that the core of the two religions, Christianity and Islam for example, contradict eachother and so cannot live in unison. The Christian God is a god of love, who wants all to be saved. But from what I understand from the Koran is that if someone is not a Muslim they are not to be tolerated. Such passages like, "...kill the disbelievers wherever we find them" (Koran 2:191), "Do not associate with Allah any other god, lest you sit down despised, neglected. (17.22), "fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem" (Koran 9:5)...
Am I wrong to interpret certain verses as such? I do not mean to promote violence, it's just that it doesn't sound as if the Koran would be very accepting of Christianity.
Sincerely,
Me

"The People of The Book are closest in love with you." That my friend is a translation of the meanings of a verse in the Holy Quran.

The verses you reference are taken completely out of context. These are specific to a particular time in history and a particular place. I invite you study. This website is a great place to start.

And by the way, the Christian God, Jewish God and Muslim God are one. All three theologies are Abrahamic faiths.

Dear Vhawthorne,
I will study.
And you are right to say that all three theologies are Abrahamic faiths, but I do not believe that they all are the same.
The Jews believe in a promise of Immanuel (God with us), "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14). The Christians believe in that same promise, but believe that Immanuel has already come through Jesus. And so, the Jewish God and the Chrisitian God are the same (though Jews would probably disagree).
The Muslim people believe that Jesus was only a prophet, and so not "God with us" (so he can neither come back to life nor save people from sin). The core of Chrisitianity is that Jesus was God, that he died and rose again, yet Muslims don't believe that. The hope of Jews is that the Messiah will come, yet Mohammed does not fulfill the prophecy's in the Torah, and so the Jewish God and the Muslim god are different.
I understand them to be different, but how do you understand each of these beliefs to be the same?
I promise to study, you are welcome to e-mail me and check up on me to make sure I am studying : ).

rkelly:
"When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." Deuteronomy 7:1-2, NIV. 1


"...do not leave alive anything that breaths. Completely destroy them...as the Lord your God has commanded you..." Deuteronomy 20:16, NIV.

Dear Maria,
Good point, those are violent verses. But I checked up on those verses in Deuteronomy and God says not only why these nations (Canaan...) were destroyed, but which nations were to be destroyed. The Jewish people were moving in to the land that God had given them and taking it from the current people. The current people served Baal and many other such Gods that practiced child/human sacrifice. Such a terrible thing as child sacrifice does not make me the judge of a nation, but God is too good to let such terrible things reign while no one stands to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves.
The nations were destroyed so that the Israelites would not fall into the same plight that the conquered people's had put themselves in because of their depravity. The Israelites did not destroy the people completely, they also intermarried, and ended up falling into the same terrible things such as human sacrifice. The Israelites were not exempt and were punished/destroyed/run out of their home as well.
But why, in the Koran, is it said "Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them." The people that were killed in Deuteronomy (Canaanites, Jebusites...) were killed because of their own depravity (they were given warnings of their own destruction for years).
But why is it that someone can be killed just for disbelieving, without warning, wherever they are found, and without mercy?
I hope that you can explain this to me, so that I may understand.
Sincerely,
Rachel

Here are some verses from the quran and their context. Credit:
http://www.themodernreligion.com/terror/terrorism_verses1.htm


Sura 8.12 "Remember thy lord has inspired the angels with the message. Give firmness to the believers and instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Smite them above their necks and smite the fingertips of them."
Sura 9.5 "When the sacred months have passed, kill the idolaters whereever you find them."
Sura 47.4 "When you encounter the unbelievers, Strike off their heads. Untill you have made a wide slaughter among them tie up the remaining captives."

Sura 8 is about a BATTLE - the Battle of Badr - not just some daily affair. A battles take two side to occur. Are you under the impression that while these 'horrid' Muslims were fighting, the enemies were simply standing there like good little peaceful men?
Sura 47 was revealed during the first year of Hijrah when the Muslims were under *threat of extinction* by invasion from Makkah.
Sura 9 is interesting. Non-Muslims almost invariably quote verse 5 but leave out verse 4 and 6. Why? Because verse 4 says, "But the treatires are not dissolved with those Pagans with whom you have entered into alliance and who have you subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided anyone against you. So fulfill your engagements with them to the end of their term: for God Loves the righteous."
And verse 6 says, "If one among the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him so that he may hear the Word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure."
1. The background to each sura was shown. One cannot take a verse revealed for a battle and insist it is if for the daily affairs of Muslims.
2. It was shown how Non-muslims who wish to attack Islam, conveniently leave out verses before and after their quoted verse.

http://www.themodernreligion.com/terror/terrorism_verses1.htm

Rkelly:

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; (Luke 12:49-53)

Whenever confronted with controversial topics regarding their holy books non-muslims start talking about “context”. However they are not prepared to extend Muslims the same courtesy. Do you know that the pre-Islamic Arabs buried their young daughters alive? It was Islam that eradicated such inhuman practices.

Credit: http://muslim-responses.com/Slay_them_Wherever_you_find_them/Slay_them_Wherever_you_find_them_

002.190
YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

002.191
YUSUFALI: And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

002.192
YUSUFALI: But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful

002.193
YUSUFALI: And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.

Dear Maria,
I have not said that Muslims are horrid, nor did it cross my mind. I am debating here, not accusing you or anyone else of injustice. I ask you the questions I ask you because I do not know who else to ask but someone who knows the Koran. If I have offended you, I'm sorry. Thankyou for giving me the context, it is what I wanted to hear. Unfortunately I do not have very easy access to the Koran as I usually do during the school year.
I am also confused about some verses that you quoted Maria. It is my understanding, tell me if you disagree (if it is true that you believe us to be of the same faith), that a god will only command his people what He himself would do. Allah would not command others to do what is against in His character to do. First Allah says, "but if they fight you, slay them." And He says in the next verse, "But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful". It takes such little mercy to not attack someone once they have stopped attacking you. Allah gives people what they deserve, and yes...I do deserve death or whatever would be judged against me. I am not trying to convict you, for I am just as guilty as anyone. But Jesus has given people what they needed, instead of what they deserve. Those two verses that you quoted from the New Testament, they are very true. About Jesus coming to the Earth to bring dissension. Has not the issue of God divided many a family?
Jesus has come to bring peace yes, but He will come back again as a judge. God has given us mercy, because there was no way that we could ever earn our way to heaven...or deserve anything from a perfect God. And so eventually God will redeem and judge, because He is just as well as merciful.
And Maria, how is tumult and oppression worse than slaughter? I ask you this question honestly, I am not being sarcastic nor do I wish to label all Muslims as something that they are not.
Sincerely,
Me

Dear rkelly,

I think you need more info than can be provided by debating on a forum. Please contact your local Islamic Center or visit some authentic Islamic web site. Try islamicity.com. Peace.

Dear Maria,
I wouldn't mind speaking to someone who knows much more about Islam, for maybe they could answer my questions. But still, I had hoped that these things were things that you had already thought of and the questions I ask at one point were the questions you have asked yourself. There are a lot of christians as well who haven't asked themselves questions where they could have found the answer. Because I believe truth is like that, it stands firm even when it is put under scrutiny. If I did not ask questions I would not know for sure that what I know to be true is true. If Islam is truth then I will follow it with my whole heart, but it has not stood under my questions.
I hope that you understand all my questioning.
Peace.
Sincerely,
Me

>> how is tumult and oppression worse than slaughter?

Ask anyone who fights for freedom of conscience why it is better to fight then be oppressed. When Mao changed Chinas economic structure to a communist one ... over 20 MIllION people died of starvation in the first few years alone. That is a very naive comment in view of the roads that humanity has walked to reach the modern era(even if muslim and developing nations must at the behest of former colonialists live in tyranny)