* Questions and Answers on the Jamaa`atu-l-Fitrah

What does "fitriyyah" mean?

The Prophet Muhammad referred to the primordial path, which all things practice
innately, as the "Deenu-l-Fitrah." That is, the Natural Order itself is given this
name and was regarded as synonymous with the Path, Deen or Religion of Muhammad.
This is quite a shock to many who see something quite different reflected in the
modern practice of the Muslim Ummah. It also elucidates that so many components of
modern institutionalized "Islaam" are alien to what the prophets saw as Islaam.

"Fitriyyah" is like saying "Primordial" in a sense, as the suffix in English for

"ial" is something like this suffice in Arabic. Moreover, we have Maseeh (Messiah,
Christ) and Maseehiyyah (Christianity). It is like saying "Messiahism." This
notion, in Arabic is not as one-dimensional as the English "ism" however. For
example, the synonym for 'alamu-l-barzakh, is "hurqaliyyah," because it takes
"Hurculean" strength of intent or niyyah, to sustain awareness therein. So there
is not the implicit negative connotation of the "ism" and "schism" in the English,
Post-Enlightenment era. If translated, one might say "that which is of the
Fitrah."

* What is tasawwuf?

"Tasawwuf" is often translated as "Sufism," but this is something of a misnomer.

So what does "Sufi" mean? Some claim that it originates from the word "Saff" while
others from "Suffa" or "Soof." Saff means " row" in Salaatu-l-Juma'ah. Some
suggest that this means those individuals of supposed piety to strive towards the
first row (the implication here is that they would want this position to be most
attentive). This of course, is a supposition of many world religious traditions in
imagined outward piety. Safa refers to purity and cleansing, referring to the
inner purification of the qalb, the refining of the base individual into an
insaanu-l-kaamil. Finally, there is the wordsoof, which refers to wool. The
implication here is that the pious wear the simple, unassuming clothing of wool,
much as John the Baptist wore camel hair and Jesus wore wool.

What must be noted is that etymology in Semitic languages is not happenstance. If

there is a common root then there is almost certainly a connection (save in cases
of imported words), even when not apparent on the surface. Taking the latter
example of "fitriyyah," the word "fitriyaat" means mushroom. The words may seem
unrelated on the surface, but the connection is deep and multifarious.

To that end, "Sufi" means all of these things: one who is truly pious, spiritually
refined, and outwardly unassuming, yet the foremost in attentiveness in seeking
knowledge. Accordingly, it is inappropriate, and ironically quite assuming in
itself, to say that one is a "Sufi." "Mutasawwuf," instead conveys the wayfarer's
quest towards the state of pure Imaan.

* Who is in charge of this Jamaa'ah?

Allaah alone is in charge and to Allaah alone is all of the glory. If there is any
truth here then al-hamdulillaah, it is from Allaah, and if there is any error then
it is from the rijs which we strive to purify. May Allaah give us guidance and
allow us facilitation in purifying the mirror of theqalb from this rijs, to more
perfectly reflect the One and Only.

More practically speaking, this Jamaa'ah is, from its inception, deliberately
decentralized. As in the ancient tradition of the Jamaa'ah of John the Baptist at
Qumran, we accept a certain level of commitment and seniority of individuals who
have remained steadfast for an unbroken period of three years. With commitment and
consistency comes a level of unspoken and unarticulated seniority. This is only
natural.

When I was young there was a very strong childhood acquaintance only a couple of
blocks away. At recess we would wrestle and slap box with him for mutual fun. The
goal was to see who could last the longest with him. It was a given that there was
no one at the school who could beat him because his skills were obvious. Those who
tried to fight him with malicious intent found out why the rest did not. His
seniority was unarticulated but was based upon his practical experience in
fighting, and his demonstrable skill and strength. It was not a matter of debate
or self appointment, but a matter of friends respecting one of their own for the
guidance he gave us on the play ground when it came to how to spar or roll. If
there was someone comparable, the two wouldn't have been enemies, but would have
likely been very close friends and we would have respected them no matter how
numerous. If any of us would have progressed to his level of skill he too would
have respected us for it and new comers would have respected us based on our skill
and knowledge. Still, we would have respected him as our predecessor.

In the case of 'Uwaysu-l-Qarni, he met Muhammad on hurqali footing when he

confirmed the authenticity of 'Ali, in physical meeting, he was quick to join with
him, even fighting for him against the army of Mu'aawiyah at the Battle of Siffin,
where he passed from this world a shaheed! This is the natural way of things and
requires no official titles, no appointments, no organizational hierarchy and no
nonsense. This is the approach that we take.

* What do you mean by "Inner Imaam"?

Everyone is talking about taqleed to this marja' or shaykh. People speak of the
"Gates of Ijtihaad" being closed in the case of Sunnis, and in the case of Shi'ah
it is a matter of deferring your own intellect to a representative of a system
which is quantifiably modern (that is to say, it is a matter of historic record
that the marja'iyyah system does not originate with the Ahlu-l-Bayt). These man-
made approaches are not what the prophets told us. This is not what Muhammad or
his family told us. In the famousKitaabu-l-'Aql wa-l-Jahl of 'Usoolu-l-Kaafi, a
compilations of oral traditions from the Ahlu-l-Bayt, we read that the first of
creations was Al-'Aql, Reason itself. By Reason ALL things were created and remain
eternally subordinate. Why then would we subordinate our reason to a leader in a
man-made hierarchical scheme?

Muhammadu-l-Hadi said "When you see your Imaam disappear from sight, expect relief
to come from beneath your own feet." This relief, thisfaraaj, is what you hear
Shi'ah wailing for every Thursday night. Why? Is it any wonder that Shi'ah wait in
vain for 1,200 years for a raj'a of a man who did not see fit to lead their
predecessors? Is it any wonder that Ja'faru-s-Saadiq did not see it fit to lead
the Shi'ah of his time when he said there were not even five helpers who would
commit to the level that his disciple Haroonu-l-Makki had? We are the ones we have
been waiting for.

On message forums, in masaajid and so on there is all this speculation about where
the Imaamu-l-Mahdi is. Is he in the Bermuda Triangle? Sunni's claim that he is
someone who will be appointed Caliph, as though human subjectivity could just vote
for the best spiritual leader? Shi'ah scoff at this just as they select their own
maraaji' to spiritually guide them; never stopping to note the irony or hypocrisy!
Some reading this probably do not understand the contradiction. They are not
supposed to. They should put this all aside and forget that they ever heard about
the Jamaa'atu-l-Fitrah.

The Imaamu-l-Mahdi is our own inner hadi, our own inner guide; one who is with us
as much in this world as ahadeeth tells us he is with us when we pass on. This
Mahdi is the higher self, the self which we share in common, the existence which
precedes our essential expression, and to which we can both trace our spiritual
origins and which we can access throughhurqali meditation.

Years ago I was told that Federal Law Enforcement was trying to discoverwhen
andwhere we were meeting with the hidden Imaamu-l-Mahdi. I told them that these
meetings were not physical but were within the Masjid within. This sort of talk is
nonsensical to those who have not experienced it. If you cannot sit still for a
moment without your mind being flooded by distraction then it will seem like make
believe. If you can find time to play video games as a grown man but cannot
discipline yourself to meditation then this will sound like mad ravings or
charlatanry. This is the way it is supposed to sound to you.

* What is your objective?

What objective does an animal, a child or even a plant have when it buds from a
seed? It does not deliberate or consider an objective, it is only completely
possessed with and all encompassing drive to grow and to manifest something
internal, something which Allaah Itself is instigating to come out and be
expressed. This drive is so strong that blades of grass crack through concrete in
their expression! Microscopically, a mineral like quartz - of a crystalline
structure - is of a hexagonal rhombohedralmolecular array. It is outwardly,
apparently, what it is fundamentally, essentially, what it is through and through,
right down to its very molecular composition. What it "is" is what it is. More
important, however, is the "is-ness" preceding the essentiality. What we are at
the core is what we express and to express this is our undeliberated, yet all
permeated and irresistible, hyper-conscious objective.

* Do I have to be "Muslim" or Shi'i to participate?

You will hear and read a lot from us about the Ahlu-l-Bayt. This is because the
Ahlu-l-Bayt were the unmistakable "Mutaharoon" described (and named), within the
Qur'aan. There has, for many centuries, been a politically driven conspiracy to
marginalize the importance of the Ahlu-l-Bayt, both in the history of the
formation of Islaam as an institutionalized religion, and as Spiritual Guides,
Spiritual Leaders or "A'immah." With that said, we are neither Shi'ah to the
exclusion of Sunni, nor Sunni to the exclusion of Shi'ah. This is the way of the
mutasawwuf.

It is ridiculous when you see people say today "I am a Sunni Sufi" or "I am a
Shi'ah Sufi." It is like someone saying they follow this type of Zen or that type
of Dao. Zen, Dao, Sufi, all of these preclude an absolutely undivided and
undistracted mind; one which sees no contradiction in unity and no justification
in sectarian division. For such a person it is impossible to say "I am this not
this." For such a person you cannot say "I am Sunni but not a Shi'i" or "I am a
Shi'i but not a Sunni." Those sorts of people won't find anything interesting with
us. We are not what they are looking for. It is best for such people to stick with
what they assume they know.

Shaykh Bawa Muhaiyaddeen was once asked by his disciples about these sorts of
Universalistic sayings. If taken literally, what should his students say was their
religion when asked? He responded, "Say: I am a Jew because I follow Moses, I am a
Christian because I follow Jesus and I am a Muslim because I follow Muhammad."

Though likely to create more questions than answers for whoever would have been
responded to, these words seem to echo the teachings of the 6th Spiritual leader
of the Ahlu-l-Bayt, Ja'faru-s-Saadiq, who once responded when he was asked: "O my
Master and my Noble One! Why are the people of Moses called 'Yahood' (in the
'Arabic language)?' He said, 'Because of the saying of Allaah the Mighty and
Magnificent, "Verily, we turn (hudna) unto You." That is, "We seek Your
guidance."' He said, 'What about the Nasara (Christians)?' He said, 'Because of
the saying of Jesus "Who will be my helpers in the Way of Allaah?' The Disciples
said, 'We are the helpers (Ansar) of Allaah. We believe in Allaah and bear witness
that we are those who submit (Muslimoon).'" So, they were called Nasara because of
their help to the Deen of Allaah.'"

Today in Arab speaking countries "Yahood" is a racist insult. If a child is

mischievous a parent might call them a little "Yahoodi." How far is the Ummah from
Islaam let alone from the superior deen of Pure Imaan. To that end, it must again
be stated that "Islaam" is not the end all be all of deen, but is merely a step to
Pure Imaan. Shaykh Bawa Muhaiyaddeen spoke of this as well and some of these
khutbaat are recorded in the excellent book "Four Steps to Pure Iman."

The follower of Pure Imaan could be called alternately mutasawwuf or mu'min. The
mutasawwufoon, the mu'minoon cannot see a difference between "Jew" or "Christian"
or "Muslim" in the sense that Ja'faru-s-Saadiq himself saw only the true meaning
of these words and could not object to their use. Who could object to being one
who turns towards Allaah, or one of the helpers of Allaah? Who could object to
submitting to the will of Allaah? It is impossible for us to have a problem with
any of these words. Instead, we have a problem with the man-made institutionalized
religions which cropped up around these words.

* You emphasize eating what is pure and not just halaal - what is the distinction
between the two?

The Qur'aan itself makes it clear that there is a difference. This much is certain
from the simple phraseology of the Arabic. Were the two synonymous then there
would be no need for redundancy. Mystically speaking, every word in the Qur'aan is
deliberate and essential, with no superfluous repetition. If there is seeming
repetition or redundancy of speech, it is then in particular that the 'arif must
pay the closest attention; for here there is something very important being
revealed in the minor alteration of phraseology. This holds true for revelations
of history, 'irfaan, or even dietary purity.

If the halaal was inherentlytayyib then there would be no need for the repetition,
and to be sure it would be absent from the Qur'aanic articulation. Because tayyib
is there, it is the Qur'aan telling us that there are thingshalaal which are not
necessarilytayyib. This is only a controversial matter for those who are
uneducated in the Qur'aan or in the 'Arabic language. Differentiation between
"Muslimoon" and Mu'minoon" is made throughout the Qur'aan, and no 'alim of any
sectarian variety has the audacity to state that the two are synonymous.

As such, when the Muslimoon are instructed in the fundamentals of the "submission"
or "Islaam," they are given a base of obligatoryfurood to obey. They must eat of
what is halaal, to be sure. Nevertheless, for the Mu'minoon there is a
consistently higher standard being articulated throughout both the Qur'aan and
through recorded oral traditions (ahadeeth) from Muhammad's family, the Ahlu-l-
Bayt. 'Urafa,mutasawwufoon, or whatever one may chose to explain this path, are
only rendered as labels to the mind locked within Western thought and linguistic
phraseology, just as in the case of "Muslim" and "Mu'min" as these are in fact
words with literal meanings.

It seems to me that traditionally, within Martial/Medical/Spiritual Orders there

is a significant insistence on a Chain of Transmission - Silsilah. I would not
join a martial arts school that did not have a demonstrable lineage in the Nei
Jia. However, I simultaneously have reservations regarding the practice of
"Taqleed" - as in blind acceptance - of a Shifu or a Shaykh - though there is
certainly something to be considered of such a Shaykh/Disciple relationship. How
do we distinguish the line between "i follow the way of Uwaisi" and "hubris?"

Here is the core issue and the problem. First of all silsilah is greatly
exaggerated BOTH in Martial lineages AND in "Sufism," to say nothing of other more
mainstream varieties of "Islaam," like the 'Usooli Shi'i system.

Take the following examples:

Bagua from Dong, Hai-Ch'uan comes from sources much more ancient and while this is
accepted, there is no direct proof of this, nor is there an unbroken list of such
people.

Xingyi goes back to General Yueh Fei and yet there is a huge, centuries long gap
in the historical record.

T'aiji goes from Yang, Lu-Chan through Jiang Fa to Wu Dang and supposedly to
Zhang, San-Feng. There are several huge, centuries' long gaps here too.

Such gaps are the norm. At most, one usually has about six to ten generations they
can document&183; The Shaolin temple has a more complete record, IN PART, because
the Communist Chinese government has made sure that it is more complete. The
Shaolin temple was destroyed many times, and what we know of its history come by
way of the five fugitive monks Ng Mui, Jee Shin Shim Shee, Fung Doe Duk, Miu Hin
and Bak Mei, each propagating lineages which tell a slightly different history and
lineage.

Every Daoist order almost certainly originated from the T'ien Shi and T'ai Ping
Movement of the Huang Jin, but there is no real documentation of how you get from
them to the later orders. Does this mean they are not connected? Does it mean they
are? Does it matter? The reality is that it is only when an order claims to
possess "the real" based upon their lineage connection does this matter. If their
claim is valid then they might be telling the truth. If they cannot back up their
claim then it is certain they are not.

People talk about silsilah as though it is a foregone conclusion that their

silsilah has been authenticated by a third party historian. This is an academic
problem on its own ONLY because such orders wish to make such an ideological
investment in their silsilah. If they had not, and based their credentials on what
they were saying, what they could do for people (much the same as was the case
with Martial Artists like Yang, Lu-Chan, Dong, Hai-Chuan who did NOT tout, nor
publicly advertise their esoteric lineages, then there would be no need for such
scrutiny. It is only when the lineage becomes the basis for "realness" that one
has to take a closer look

This is all the more true AND problematic in the 'Usuli system – which today
proclaims taqleed to the marja'iyyah system as waajib – which has no credible
claim to origins traced through the Ahlu-l-Bayt. There is much talk about unbroken
lines of scholars back to the disciples of the Ahlu-l-Bayt, but this is never
substantiated and does not account for how vehemently opposed early Akhbari
compilers of Ahadeeth were against principles later codified into 'Usooli Shi'i
Islaam. This doesn't justify the Akhbari system either (which is tragically
uncritical in their approach), but it is necessary to understand that Akhbariyyah
was Shi'i Islaam until the 'Usooli's took over in the late 18th Century. No matter
what you hear from the Shi'i world today about how everything is just a myth that
you hear about Shi'ism, the reality is that most of these stereotypes are of
Akhbari Shi'i Muslims, and thus stereotypes of what was Shi'i Islaam until very
recently.

All the while, while these systems of emphasizing silsilah were emerging many
centuries after the Prophet Muhammad and the 12 a'immah of his family, we had
individuals throughout history who never had any link whatsoever in terms of
quantifiable human lineage who emerged as great mystics. The "'Uwaysi" connection,
thus, has often proven more spiritually potent than have watered down lineages of
various "Sufi" orders that i am simply not interested in calling out by name. Of
these, many produce books on eschatology that are demonstrably erroneous, speaking
of the future birth of the Dajjaal which Muhammad told us in ahadeeth was already
alive in his day. This is but one small example where error is expressed as a
foregone conclusion by such orders and people do not view the respective Shuyookh
critically because of their proclaimed silsilah.

Simultaneously, the silsilah of the Catholic Church into fairly deep antiquity is
disregarded (as it should be), and the silsilah of Jews is acknowledged by
Ahadeeth (referring to the Jew at Karbala who commented upon - and was
acknowledged in speaking to - the barakah STILL with Jews from King David). At the
same time where is consideration of this Jewish silsilah in the Muslim world? Why
the double standard?

i have met a few individuals who actually have documentation which could be in a
museum, going back to King David, tracing their ancestry. This is, of course,
rare, but does occur, and in many cases it occurs with people who are not
particularly "enlightened." Does their silsilah thusly justify them? The point is
that everyone argues their own authenticity based on silsilah and yet rival groups
pay this no mind even when the silsilah is verifiable. This is because we all
innately understand that reason trumps lineage and that many great teachers have
many students who do not measure up.

Just look at most salasil, they originate in the Middle Ages, many centuries after
Muhammad, the A'immah or Sahaabah. Why is this? Because they are central to great
teachers who themselves were reputed for their own knowledge not for their
silsilah. Look at those which purport to be more ancient and you will see many
historical problems. You will see 'Ali and 'Umar as the passers of silsilah to
'Uways al-Qarni, in contradiction to every source of hadeeth about the matter (in
fact, 'Uways rejects 'Umar's understanding of Muhammad and affirms 'Ali's
understanding). You will see Abu Bakr passing silsilah to Salmanu-l-Farsi who
ahadeeth of both Sunni and Shi'ah sources are unanimous in stating was a disciple
of 'Ali! You will see key figures in the formation of both Sunni and Shi'i Islaam
such as Muhammadu-l-Baaqir and his son Ja'faru-s-Saadiq supposedly passing
silsilah to students who were one amongst many thousands.

In Martial Arts you have so many people who step up years after the death of a
great master and contend that they were passed lineage; often with no proof, no
lineage name, no document, no etching or engraving, no nothing, just a claim of
one amongst many, years after it can be debated. If you challenge the matter you
will be shown "proof" that such a person indeed "studied" with the aforementioned
master. In the scholastic community of any other discipline, this is NOT regarded
as "proof" any more than Irenaeus can be regarded as correct in stating his
teacher Polycarp to have been the "student" of John the disciple of Jesus. This
supposed "authentication" from John to Polycarp and Polycarp to Irenaeus is the
very basis of Christian claims of theological authority! People need to do their
homework and see what is going on with these claims in any religious tradition.

There are a number of further implications, somewhat contextually specific to the

notion of one purporting to follow a 'Uwaysi path and NOT actually doing so. In
Buddhism, the tradition from the prophet Zhu-l-Kifl, we have both traditional
transmission of teachings, and we have examples such as the Southern Ch'an "Sudden
Enlightenment" school. Huineng gained enlightenment not only suddenly, but through
hearing the mere recitation of words from monks who themselves did not comprehend.
This is the nature of things. One man might train all his life to gain
Enlightenment, and another might suddenly realize it without ever facing a
dilemma.

Jesus said "Seek and you will find," and indeed many who seek ardently and long
enough will find. Yet imagine you are one who has tricked yourself into believing
that you are truly seeking, yet the parameters of your quest have been confined to
your own presuppositions of truth, and where and how it is obtained. You will
never find the truth because you are not looking thoroughly. Imagine then that you
are such a person and you see a man such as Huineng! You will be furious with him
and imagine him to be full of hubris! This is the nature of self-deception and it
is what keeps spiritual materialism in business.

You are right to call self-deception "hubris," and it is indeed audacious to think
that there are people who consider reading books, websites and otherwise just
avoiding formality to be on par with hurqali communication. 'Uways was a man of
hurqali concentration and was not contextually bound by the same limitations as
many Sahaabah. For someone to imagine this of themselves when it is not their
reality is bizarre. i would imagine that such individuals could not even sit for
meditation for a single hour, and it would be interesting to test them
accordingly. To be sure, the "'Uwaysi" path is a legitimate - even superior - one,
but it must be authentic. To be authentic one must not be lying to themselves,
which precludes people not getting into "mysticism" for the sake of spiritual
materialism (to be popular with a certain scene, to aggrandize themselves, etc).
The Siraatu-l-Kamaal lessons are designed in such a way as to put such people off,
maybe not at first, but certainly before they get very far.

* Will I get to kill the Joooooooooos?

Jews, Christians, Hindus and everyone else will die. Of course, Muslims also will
die and will have to face the karmic repercussions of their actions, intentions,
and even words in the mirror world of thebarzakh, orhurqaliyyah. There is no
escaping death, even for thekhalidoon. When one dies, whether in a controlled,
spiritually self-willed manner, or going kicking and screaming, they will have to
face their karma. This process begins virtually immediately, with many not even
realizing that it has begun, when their deeds – and their repercussions - unfurl.

Right "now," reading this, there are those who fill up with rage and insanity in
their hearts. This is a filth, that must either be purified in this world or the
next. I often find advice that I give people for meditation, for lucid dreaming or
the like to fall on bewildered ears. I describe how to will yourself into the
barzakh, how to "wake up" therein, how to have completely waking dreams, how to
study your spiritual body therein and so on. I describe what to do when you want
to see someone specific, or go somewhere specific, or even wake up. These
descriptions are sometimes lost on the individual, until they get to the point
where they begin to experience these things for themselves. It is only then, once
they begin tasting, that the advice proves useful to them. Before that, it is
purely theoretical to them. Most connoisseurs of text-based "mysticism;" whether
the bookstore "Sufi," or "Qabalist" or the myriad of online "Daoists" can't seem
to calm their mind for 10 minutes a day of meditation but will quickly point out
whatever passage from the Daodejing they find most aptly suited for self
aggrandizing and condescending purposes.

Such "theoretical" mysticism – mysticism here being a flawed but appropriate word
– is where many start, but where the sincere, the Mu'minoon must flee from. One
does not make any spiritual (or physical) progress bound within the speculative
pages of book collecting and message board addiction. To be sure, our path is one
of work, a path of action, not of speculation (qiyaas). To begin this path of
practical knowledge, practical 'irfaan, you may request the Siraatu-l-Kamaal
lessons. The first level is composed of eight lessons corresponding with the
Prophet Adam. The levels themselves are eight, corresponding to the eight main
prophets denoted by the Sufi Bawa Muhaiyaddeen. Participation in these lessons is
the gateway to our Jamaa'ah.

Now apart from this matter, there is another serious one that must be addressed.
Clearly the question here, of killing Jews, is responding to the ridiculous
caricature of the modern day "Militant Muslim," or so-called "Mujaahid." Far from
participants in the true and all encompassing "Jihaad" which the Mu'minoon of
Muhammad's era engaged in, almost without exception, the so-called "Mujaahidoon"
today are engaged in politicalistidraaj at the expense of their own spiritual well
being. In many cases, this is also to the detriment of their own political causes.

Today many who profess Islaam as their deen are the most racist people, towards
black people, Jewish people, and even – in many cases – simply tribal variants of
their respective nations. Hajj is segregated, for the purpose of convenience of
course, but the end result is the same (much as it is in the cases of the rotting
fields of animal carcasses). Hajj today is rarely Hajj and Islaam today is rarely
Islaam.

We must strive to embody the Islaam of Muhammad and his family, the Islaam that
denounced 'asabiyyah (racism, tribalism and nationalism), in even the quantity of
a mustard seed. This is the Islaam of a man who married a Christian women and two
Jews, one of which who almost certainly never converted to Islaam. If you look at
many ahadeeth about Muhammad, today so many of the Wahhabi Petro-Dollar funded
masaajid would be filled with cries of takfir against him!

We must look to these examples for emulation, not modern day religion peddlers who
tell you that taqleed to them and their man-made hierarchy is waajib for spiritual
success. Emulation of the prophets, is what theSiraatu-l-Kamaal is about. These
same people get irate about minor issues which history will never remember and yet
excuse, even justifying, acts of genocide in the Sudan. This is the state of the
Ummah which Muhammad foretold would be dead after "a day or half of a day," when
he himself passed from this 'alamu-d-dunyaa'.

* What Would Chuck Norris Do?

I have often wondered this myself. It would seem that Mr. Norris would not be our
biggest fan, but this might be a matter of prejudice on my part. Perhaps if we sat
down and discussed the matter with him then we could see eye to eye. I know little
about Mr. Norris except what I saw in many of the Anti Communist Americana movies
of the 1980's… That and the fact that he is reputed to displace the Earth, giving
way to the illusion that he is actually engaging in push ups.

* How Can I Get Involved?

To get involved, contact the Jamaa'ah via email at:Fitriyyah@gmail.com. Visit us

on mySpace.com/fitriyyah and join the email discussion list
at:Fitriyyah@googlegroups.com

This is the 21st Century and it is difficult to find individuals who do not have
access to the Internet. In the city where, in many very low income areas there are
WiFi connections being broad cast. On my old block there are many people with
cable Internet. Of those who do not, Internet is available for free at any Public
Library.

Currently, the need for a central Post Office Box or the like has not arisen. This
is because the da'wah of the Jamaa'atu-l-Fitrah is such that we merely share these
precepts with those who seem to fit with them. There is somethingfitrah about
community itself. Many of the brightest individuals wall themselves off from a
society (mujtama') and community (jamaa'ah). They do not feel that society
understands them nor can they find themselves at ease within popular social
masquerades.

Still, the nature of all examples we see in the natural world, of our closest
primate kin, is to work within community frame works. At the most basic, primitive
level, human beings assemble into tribal communities, striving to live in harmony
with one another and the world around them. The drive is a natural one and should
not be abrogated by those who get trapped within their own heads, immersed in
philosophy but all too often incapable of applying the fruits of introspection to
the world around them.

Indeed, if the purpose of life is entirely internal and introspective then the
world of creation is the greatest of cosmic jokes. Why would the manifest world
exist if only for us to utterly shut it off, ignore it and stay to ourselves?

Because we are a Natural Community, if someone obtains our literature there should
be a fairly easy to follow path, from the one who gave them said literature, to
the community itself. In the case of prison correspondence, where one has no
Internet access, the individual correspondent remains in touch through the
individual who they are conversing with. There is simply no need for
centralization or hierarchy except