For instance, one supplication that is said during sermons (khutbahs), during the Eid festivities, and quite often after daily prayers includes the line, “help us against the people of disbelief.” The sentiment is bad enough in English, but in Arabic, the use of the preposition “’ala” -- which implies not only help us triumph over the people of disbelief, but also put us over them as well -- is particularly egregious.

That line a priori sets up a hostile relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. It instills the notion that we are naturally at conflict, and that one or the other has to come out on top.

The dua has a very obvious historical context (the battles between the Meccans and their allies and the Muslim community in Media and their allies) and in that context it is a natural prayer. I don’t find it nearly as objectionable in the historical context, as the Muslims were at war for the survival of the community against those who did not believe in Muhammad and/or his message.

However, this is not a reflection of the final state of relationships between the Muslim and non-Muslim communities during Muhammad's life time. The final state, as defined by the Qur'an, is one of fellowship (their food is permissible for you and yours for them) and of interconnectedness (you may marry them and they may marry you).(see Qur'an 5:5). Obviously, the hostility between the Meccans and the Medinans was resolved and the two communities moved beyond hostility into respectful, friendly, harmonious relationships.

Further, the dua does not reflect the kind of theological conflict that seems to be implied by the use of "people of disbelief." The battles between the Meccans and the initial Muslim community were not about religious issues. In particular, the Muslims weren't fighting to convert the Meccans, but rather to be able to live in peace and to have their own freedom of religion. Yes, the people they were fighting were all “kafirin” but, it very clearly wasn’t a battle over theology, but basic human rights. Again, reference the Qur'an which talks about fighting the people who drove you out of your homes and things like that.

This conflation of religion and politics in the language of the early Muslim community presents a challenge for present day Muslims, as it is easy to assume that "help us against/over the people of disbelief," stripped of its historical context is, in fact, a theological plea.

The idea of changing this dua to something like, "help us against those who are oppressing others," which is a fair representation of the sentiment in the original context, is very appealing to me. It would capture the spirit and the intent of the original dua and do so in a way that is less likely to be misunderstood.

Not only is it an accurate reflection of the sentiment Muhammad was expressing, but "Help us against the oppressors" is also a good prayer for modern people to pray as the oppressors today may come from any religion, ethnic background, nationality, etc, and certainly we have a surfeit of oppression going on.

I can't help but think that if Prophet Muhammad were alive today he would be struggling against many of the so-called "Muslim" regimes we have, and that he would be horrified over the way the shari'ah has been expanded and used as a blunt weapon against the populace.

Of course, I recognize that suggesting we change a line in the liturgy would be considered heretical -- and not just mildly heretical but wildly so -- in the eyes of many Muslims. The prospect of widespread acceptance of a proposal to revise this dua is precisely nil at this point in time. Perhaps in a few hundred years, but not now. There would be instant rejection by most mosque going Muslims of the idea that we might change the wording of something that is well documented as a dua that the Prophet used to say. Indeed, that he said regularly.

After all, people are say prayers thanking God for "taming this animal to me" when they get in their cars, cleaving to the exact wording the Prophet used, rather than being willing to say, thank you God for the blessing of an automobile, keep me safe as I drive, reflecting the intention of his prayer. That change seems like a no-brainer to me, but there is a large constituency of Muslims who would strongly resist it -- a barometer of how attached our community is to very literal implementations and interpretation of the Prophet's example and the Qur'an.

The dua about taming animals is largely harmless, and if people want to recite it verbatim as the Prophet did, then that is their prerogative. But this line about helping us against/over the people of disbelief is not harmless. The fact that it is recited in every khutbah and after many, many prayers, and during our most festive celebrations is very troublesome for me. It seeps into the subconscious, and informs our perceptions and relations with others. However,with the chances of getting it changed being approximately zero at this juncture in time, there seems to be little to do, other than work on an individual level, slowly, slowly trying to change people's mindsets.

I know people say that change is incremental, but God I wish it came in huge fits and leaps at a time.

The other issue which is raised by the encouragement for Latin mass is, of course, the accessibility of religious worship to people who may not speak Latin -- or in the Islamic context classical arabic. The parallels here are very similar. There are people who advocate for all the prayers and even sermons to be in Arabic, as the Prophet said them in Arabic himself. And there are people who advocate for supplications and sermons to be said in whatever language the devotee speaks -- often supported by the argument that the Prophet spoke in a language his congregation understood. I fall into the latter camp.

However, I do make an exception for recitation of the salaat (the five times a day ritual worship). This I believe should be maintained in Arabic. I very much appreciate the fact that I can go to any mosque in the world and find the same exact salaat being performed. The value of that unifying factor should not be discounted.

This is especially true of the recitation of the Qur'an. The Qur'an, Muslims believe, is the word of God, not an inspiration but a dictation. As such there is value in the exact word. Furthermore, translations of the Qur'an cannot help but miss some of the nuance of the Arabic, and introduce nuances that are only present in the language of translation. As such, I believe that we must approach the Qur'an in the Arabic, and particularly that we must not rely on translations for exegesis.

Given that Jesus did not deliver sermons in Latin, nor was the Bible written in Latin, and the vast majority of Christians long ago gave up reading the Bible in its original language, it seems less of an issue to me than the Arabic Qur'an and sermons/supplications in a local lanuage, but that is for Catholics to decide.