Peaceful Jihad
A Principle Concerning Unity and Splitting – the reason for this and their resultant Effects
Imam Ibn Taymiyyah
Allaah said, "those who were given the Scriptures did not differ except out of mutual jealousy and hatred (bagyan) after knowledge had come to them." Informing that their differing arose after the coming of knowledge that made clear to them as to what they should steer clear of – for indeed Allaah does not let a people become misguided after He guided them except after telling them what they should steer clear of. And informing that they differed only due to the reason of mutual jealousy and hatred. Al-Bagy means to exceed the proper bounds as was indicated by ibn Umar (in his commentary to the verse): ‘arrogance and jealousy’ – this arising due to differing ijtihaads that were not based upon knowledge. What is not meant by al-Bagy is the permissible difference that arises between the scholars for al-Bagy is either the neglect or omission of the truth, or exceeding the proper bounds. Exceeding the proper bounds either by leaving an obligatory action or by performing a forbidden action and it is known that splitting and disunity is the outcome of this.
An example of this lies in what He said about the People of the Book, "and from those who call themselves Christians, We took their covenant but they abandoned (or forgot) a portion of the Message that was sent to them. So we planted enmity and hatred till the Day of Resurrection." (5:14) So He informed us that in their forgetting/abandoning a portion of the Message – meaning leaving a portion of that which they were commanded with – lay the reason for their enmity and hatred.
This is what is occurring amongst the adherents of our religion and it can be found amongst the various parties that differ with regards to their principles and many subsidiary matters – found amongst the scholars and the worshippers – to the point that one finds a resemblance to the two nations about whom one says about the other: ‘They are upon nothing.’
This is like what we find amongst the legal jurists who stick to the outward actions of the religion, and those that take to the path of tasawwuf who stick to the inward actions of the religion for each one of these negates the path of the other and claims that they are not from the People of the Religion, or they oppose the other in a way of opposing of those who do not consider the other to be part of the religion. There occurs between them enmity and hatred.
This is because Allaah has ordered that the heart be purified just as He has ordered that the body be purified. Both these aspects of purification are from the religion that Allaah has commanded and made obligatory. Allaah said,
"Allaah does not want to place you in difficulty, but He wants to purify you and to complete His Favour on you that you may be thankful." (5:6 – the verse pertaining to wudu)
"In it (the mosque) are men who love to purify themselves and Allah loves those who purify themselves." (9:108)
"Indeed Allaah Loves those who turn to Him in repentance and He loves those who purify themselves." (2:222)
"Take charity from their wealth in order to purify and sanctify them." (9:103)
"They are the ones whose hearts Allaah does not wish to purify." (5:41)
"Indeed the polytheists are impure and filthy" (9:28)
So we find that the concern of many of the legal jurists and the worshipper is only the purification of the body, and he goes beyond the requirement of the sharee’ah with respect to his concern and action. And he leaves what he has been commanded and recommended with respect to the purification of the heart, and he does not understand purification except in this bodily aspect. And we find that the concern of many of the sufis is the purification of the heart only, to the extent that he will go beyond the requirement of the Sharee’ah with respect to his concern and action. And he leaves what he has been commanded and recommended with respect to the purification of the body.
So the first group go to the extreme of wasting water and considering to be impure that which is not impure, and staying away from that which has not been legislated to stay away from, this despite their hearts containing different shades of jealousy, arrogance and hatred towards their brothers. In this there is a clear resemblance to the Jews.
The other group goes to the extreme of negligence, they go to great extents to safeguard the heart to the point that they consider ignorance of that which is obligatory to know – such as the evil from which it is obligatory to steer clear of – from those things that safeguard the heart (from actually desiring that evil). In this they do not differentiate between safeguarding the heart from desiring evil, and safeguarding the heart through its knowing the evil and its knowing that with which it has been commanded. Then alongside this negligence and ignorance they do not preserve themselves from the impure things and therefore establish the obligatory purification in the way of the Christians.
So enmity has occurred between these two groups due to their leaving a portion of what they have been commanded with, and due to their bagy – which is to exceed the correct bounds, either by ignoring or omitting the truth, or by enmity and oppression. Bagy sometimes occurs amongst some people, or sometimes with regards to the rights of Allaah – both of these are implied. This is why He said, "out of mutual jealousy and hatred," for each group was displaying bagy to the other by not acknowledging the others right and not refraining from showing enmity to the other. Allaah said,
"Nor were the People of the Book divided until the clear proof came to them." (98:4)
"Mankind was one nation and Allaah sent Messengers as bringers of glad-tidings and warners. And He revealed with them the Book in truth so that they may judge amongst mankind in that which they differed. And only those to whom it was given differed concerning it after clear proofs came to them through hatred, one to another." (2:213)
"Indeed those who divide their religion into sects, you have no concern in them in the least." (6:159)
"(Always) turning in repentance to Him, and be afraid an dutiful to Him: and establish the prayers and do not be of the polytheists - of those who split up their religion and became sects, each sect rejoicing in that which is with it." (30:31-32)
This is because each party of the polytheists used to worship whatsoever god their desires dictated as Allaah said, "what you call the polytheists to is hard upon them."
"O Messengers! Eat of the goodly things and do righteous deeds. Indeed I am Well-Acquainted with what you do. And Verily! This, your religion, is one religion and I am your Lord, so keep your duty to Me. But they have broken their religion into sects, each group rejoicing in what it has." (23:51-52)
So it becomes clear the way of unity is by means of gathering all of the religion, and acting upon it in its entirety – that is worshipping Allaah Alone without any partners as He ordered, inwardly and outwardly.
The way to disunity is by leaving a portion of that which the servant has been commanded with, and by al-bagy.
The result of unity is: the Mercy and Pleasure of Allaah, His sending salaah upon the servants, and happiness in this world and in the hereafter, and white faces (on the Day of Judgement).
The result of disunity is: the Punishment of Allaah, His Curse, and black faces, and the Messenger (SAW) declaring himself free of them.
This is one of the proofs that consensus is a definitive proof, for when they unite then they are all obeying Allaah in this and have Mercy showered on them. And there cannot be obedience to Allaah and His Mercy by way of an action that He has not commanded, in either belief, saying or action. For if there were to be a saying or action upon which they agreed that had not been commanded by Allaah, then this would not be obedience to Allaah and neither would it be a means of His Mercy. Abu Bakr al-Azeez depended upon this proof in the beginning of his ‘at-Tanbeeh.’
idea of peaceful coexistence
Are Muslims and the West bound to clash? Dr Jafar Sheikh Idris, professor of Islamic studies, Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences, Washington, gives an answer which supports the idea of peaceful coexistence.
Is it possible for the inhabitants of our global village to live peacefully together and reap the fruits of science and technology whose pace of advancement is ever increasing? Or are their religious, cultural and civilization differences bound to create clashes and wars among them? The matter is so important that it behooves Muslim intellectuals and statesmen to give it serious thought.
Western intellectuals are very much concerned with this question. But they are by no means agreed on the answer. One view is that the clash between Western civilization and others is inevitable, nay that it is already under way. Another view is that the real clash is within Western culture itself.
A third view is that people all over the world are heading toward Western political liberalism and economic capitalism, and that these systems constitute the end of history in these respects. A fourth view is that peaceful coexistence among people of different cultures and civilizations is possible provided they adopt secular pluralistic democracy.
What is the Islamic standpoint on this important and urgent issue? This paper is an attempt to give a brief answer to that question. But I am not speaking here as a social scientist who describes and explains actual reality; rather I am attempting to describe only theoretically what I consider to be the Islamic standpoint on this issue in our present circumstances. And my short answer is that it is a standpoint that is unequivocally on the side of peaceful coexistence. But to live peacefully with others you need sometimes to be fully prepared for war against them.
REASONS FOR PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE
1. Rationality is an inseparable part of the Islamic religion, and its rationality does include that important ingredient of judging actions by their consequences. but it is of course a rationality which is guided by other Islamic values. The preferred action is always the action which results in the greatest good, or the least evil. The main goods to be achieved in Islam for example, are ones which would be acceptable, in their general sense, to most people. These are: Spiritual well-being, mental well-being, human life, human wealth and honor. Judged by this rational standard and those values, peaceful coexistence and cooperation is definitely to be preferred over wars and clashes in normal circumstances.
2. While some religions, secular ideologies and psychological theories teach that the human person is born evil; while some teach that he is born neutral between good and evil and it is society which directs him one way or the other; and while yet others believe that there is no such thing as human nature; while some brazenly racist and others are discriminatory in other respects, the Islamic position in the words of its Prophet is that every child is born good. Whatever his or her present beliefs or cultural milieu, every human person is a potential Muslim. In viewing people of other beliefs and cultures, Muslims should not forget to see the original nature which lies behind the facade of those cultures.
3. The best favor that a Muslim can therefore do to a non-Muslim is to invite him to Islam, to persuade him or her to come back to their original nature. But in doing so a Muslim is required to bear in mind certain facts, and to abide by certain principles, among which is the fact that since faith is a matter of the heart, no one can be compelled to accept it. This is understood from the verse which reads, "And invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom, and good admonition, and argue with them in the best of ways". How can this be achieved except in a peaceful atmosphere?
4. God tells his Prophet that however keen he is on people accepting the faith, most of them will not. All the same, He tells His Prophet that he is sent as a mercy to them, and that his main task is to never tire of inviting them to the truth.
5. Peaceful coexistence among people belonging to different religions and civilizations makes it easy for them to exchange material and intellectual benefits. It also helps them to cooperate in solving the problems which face them as inhabitants of a global village: Drugs, diseases, pollution, etc. But his ideal picture of peaceful coexistence and cooperation cannot be realized if the West lives in constant fear lest its hegemony be lost, and therefore do its best to prevent others from developing.
6. No rational person who has an idea of the amount of destructive weapons available in the world and the extent of the damage they can cause would hesitate to be against all kinds of wars, local or worldwide. To avoid wars however we must try to eradicate as many of their causes as we can. We must thus stand for justice and against all kinds of unfair treatment and aggression.
7. Muslims should play a big role in this because they are qualified to do so. Islam is a religion which does not compromise on moral values like truth and justice. Believers in Islam are urged to be allies to each other irrespective of race or time or place.
8. Muslims, in my view, have a special stake in peace. If peace prevails, Islam will have a better chance of being heard and accepted in the West, and elsewhere. Many people in the West and other parts of the world are coming back to religion so much so that what is called fundamentalism has become a universal phenomenon. People have discovered that science much as it is respected and valued by them cannot replace religion.
REASONS FOR BEING POWERFUL
Islam is however too realistic a religion to be pacifist. It is one thing to want to live peacefully with others, but quite another to make them have the same attitude toward you. On the whole, people of every culture desire to be more powerful than those who are culturally opposed to them. They take all steps which they deem necessary for the preservation of their cultural identity, and for the subjugation of others. In his new classic paper on clash of civilizations, Huntington tells us with unusual candidness that, "The West is now at an extraordinary peak of power in relation to other civilizations. Apart from Japan the West has no economic challenge. It dominates international political and security institutions, and with Japan economic institutions."
And: "In the post-Cold War, the primary objective of arms control is to prevent the development by non-Western societies of military capabilities that would threaten Western interests. The West attempts to do this through international agreements, economic pressure and controls on the transfer of arms and weapons technologies."
Muslims are therefore enjoined to be materially powerful so as to deter those who might resort to aggression against Muslims or who are prone to use force to subjugate others. Material power can and should thus be an ally to the cause of spiritual development and not a contradictory of it.
Islam is Not the Source of Terrorism, But its Solution
HARUN YAHYA
Introduction
During the last two decades in particular, the concept of "Islamic terror" has been often discussed. In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks on targets in New York and Washington which caused the death of thousands of innocent civilians, this concept has once again returned to the top of the international agenda.
As Muslims, we completely condemn these attacks and offer our condolences to the American people.
In this article, we will explain that Islam is by no means the source of this violence and that violence has no place in Islam.
Even though the hijackers have Muslim identities, the terror they perpetrated cannot be labelled "Islamic terror", just as it would not be called "Jewish terror" if the perpetrators were Jews or "Christian terror" if they were Christians.
That is because, as we will examine in the following pages, murdering innocent people in the name of religion is unacceptable. We need to keep in mind that, among those who were killed in Washington or New York, there were people who loved Jesus (Christians), Prophet Moses (Jews) and Muslims. According to Islam, murdering innocent people is a great sin that, unless forgiven by God, brings torment in Hell.
Thus, a religious person who has fear of God can never commit such an act.
In fact, the aggressors can commit such violence only with the intention of attacking religion itself. It may well be that they carried out this violence to present religion as evil in the eyes of people, to divorce people from religion and to generate hatred and reaction against pious people. Consequently, every attack having a "religious" facade on American citizens or other innocent people is actually an attack made against religion.
All the three Theistic religions command love, mercy and peace. Terror, on the other hand, is the opposite of religion; it is cruel, merciless and it demands bloodshed and misery. This being the case, while looking for the perpetrators of a terrorist act, its origins should be sought in disbelief rather than in religion. People with a fascist, communist, racist or materialist outlook on life should be suspected as potential perpetrators. The name or the identity of the triggerman is not important. If he can kill innocent people without blinking an eye, whatever his label is, then he is a disbeliever, not a believer. He is a murderer with no fear of God, whose main ambition is to shed blood and to give harm.
For this reason, "Islamic terror" is quite a erroneous concept which contradicts Islam's message. That is because, the religion of Islam can by no means concur with terror. On the contrary, Muslims are responsible for preventing terrorist acts and bringing peace and justice to the world.
The Values of the Qur'an demands Goodness, Justice and Peace
Terror, in its broadest sense, is violence committed against non-military targets for political purposes. To put it in another way, the targets of terror are entirely innocent civilians whose only crime is, in the eyes of terrorists, to represent "the other".
This is an act bereft of any moral justification. This, as in the case of murders committed by Hitler or Stalin, is a crime committed against "mankind".
The Qur'an is a Book revealed to people as a guide to the true path and in this Book, God commands man to adopt good morals. This morality is based upon concepts such as love, compassion, tolerance and mercy. God calls all people to Islamic morals through which compassion, mercy, peace and tolerance can be experienced all over the world:
You who believe! Enter absolutely into peace (Islam). Do not follow in the footsteps of Satan. He is an outright enemy to you.
The values of the Qur'an hold a Muslim responsible for treating all people, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, kindly and justly, protecting the needy and the innocent and preventing the "dissemination of mischief". Mischief comprises all forms of anarchy and terror that remove security, comfort and peace. As God says in a verse, "God does not love mischief makers". (Surat al-Qasas: 77)
Murdering a person for no reason is one of the most obvious examples of mischief. God repeats in the Qur'an a command He formerly revealed to Jews in the Old Testament thus:
So We decreed for the tribe of Israel that if someone kills another person - unless it is in retaliation for someone else or for causing corruption in the earth - it is as if he had murdered all mankind. And if anyone gives life to another person, it is as if he had given life to all mankind. Our Messengers came to them with Clear Signs but even after that many of them committed outrages in the earth. (Surat al-Ma'ida: 32)
As the verse suggests, a person who kills even a single man, "unless it is in retaliation for someone else or for causing corruption in the earth", commits a crime as if he had murdered all mankind on earth.
This being the case, it is obvious what great sins are the murders, massacres and, attacks, popularly known as "suicide attacks", committed by terrorists are. God informs us how this cruel face of terrorism will be punished in the hereafter in the following verse:
There are only grounds against those who wrong people and act as tyrants in the earth without any right to do so. Such people will have a painful punishment. (Surat ash-Shura: 42)
All these reveal that organising acts of terror against innocent people is utterly against Islam and it is unlikely that any Muslim could ever commit such crime. On the contrary, Muslims are responsible for stopping these people, removing "mischief on earth" and bringing peace and security to all people all over the world. Being a Muslim cannot be reconciled with terror. Just the contrary, it is the solution and prevention of terror.
This being the case, how did the popular term "Islamic terror" emerge?
What has been examined so far reveals that it is not possible to talk about an "Islamic" terror. Indeed, a closer look at the characteristics of the perpetrators explicitly reveals that this terror is not a religious but a social phenomenon.
Crusaders: Barbarians Who Trampled Their Own Religion
The true message of a religion or another system of belief can be at times exposed to distortion by its pseudo-adherents. The Crusaders, who constitute a dark episode of Christian history, set a good example of this.
Crusaders were European Christians who undertook the expeditions at the end of the 11th century to recover the Holy Land (the area around Palestine) from the Muslims. They set out with a so-called religious goal, yet they laid waste each acre of land they entered with fear and violence. They subjected civilians to mass executions and plundered many villages and towns.
Their conquest of Jerusalem, where Muslims, Jews and Christians lived under Islamic rule in peace, became the scene of immense bloodshed. They violently killed all Muslims and Jews. The Crusaders' barbarism was so excessive that, during the Fourth Crusade, they plundered Istanbul, also a Christian city, and stole the golden objects from the churches.
No doubt, all this barbarism was utterly against Christian political doctrine. That is because, Christianity, in the words of the Bible, is a "gospel of love". In the Gospel according to Matthew, it is said that Jesus said "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" to his followers (Matthew, 5/44) In the Gospel according to Luke, it is said that Jesus said "If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also." (Luke, 6/29) No doubt, in no part of the New Testament, is there reference to the legitimacy of violence; murdering innocent people, on the other hand, is unimaginable. You can find the concept of "massacre of the innocents" in the Bible; yet, only in the cruel Jewish King Herod's attempt to kill Jesus while he was a baby.
While Christianity is a religion based on love that accommodates no violence, how did Christian Crusaders carry out the most violent acts of history? The major reason for this is that, Crusaders were mainly made up of ignorant people who could better be defined as "rabble". These masses, who knew almost nothing about their religion, who had never read or even seen the Bible once in their lifetime, and who were therefore completely unaware of the moral values of the Bible, were led into barbarism under the conditioning of Crusaders' slogans as "God wills it".
It is worth mentioning that in that period, Eastern Christians - the people of Byzantium, for instance - who were culturally far ahead of Western Christians, espoused more humane values. Both before and after the Crusaders' conquests, Orthodox Christians managed to live together with Muslims. According to Terry Johns, the BBC commentator, with the withdrawal of the Crusaders from Middle East, " civilized life started again and members of the three monotheistic faith returned to peaceful coexistence." [1] The example of the Crusaders is indicative of a general phenomenon: The more the adherents of an ideology are uncivilised, intellectually underdeveloped and "ignorant", the more likely they are to resort to violence. This also holds true for ideologies that have nothing to do with religion. All communist movements around the world are prone to violence. Yet the most savage and blood-thirsty of them was the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia. That is because they were the most ignorant.
Just as ignorant people may take a violence-ridden opinion to the point of insanity, so they may confuse violence with an opinion against violence (or to religion). The Islamic world also experienced such cases.
The Bedouin Character in the Qur'an
In the period of our Prophet, there existed two basic social structures in Arabia. City-dwellers and Bedouins (Desert Arabs). A sophisticated culture prevailed in Arab towns. Commercial relations linked the towns to the outer world, which contributed to the formation of "civilized life" among Arabs dwelling in cities. They had refined aesthetic values, enjoyed literature and, especially poetry. Desert Arabs, on the other hand, were the nomad tribes living in the desert who had a very crude culture. Utterly unaware of arts and literature, they developed an unrefined, harsh character.
Islam was born and developed among the inhabitants of Mecca, the most important city of the peninsula. However, as Islam spread to the peninsula, all tribes in Arabia embraced it. Among these tribes were also Desert Arabs, who were somehow problematic: their poor intellectual and cultural background prevented them from grasping the profundity and noble spirit of Islam. Of this God states the following in a verse:
The Desert Arabs are more obdurate in disbelief and hypocrisy and more likely not to know the limits which God has sent down to His Messenger. God is All-Knowing, All-Wise. (Surat at-Tawba: 97)
The Desert Arabs, that is, social groups who were "obdurate in disbelief and hypocrisy" and prone to disobey God's commands, became a part of the Islamic world in the Prophet's lifetime. In latter periods, they became a source of trouble for the Islamic world. The sect called "Kharijis" that emerged among Bedouins was an example. The most distinctive trait of this perverse sect (which was called "Kharijis" the rebels because they greatly deviated from Sunni practises), was their extremely vulgar, wild and fanatical nature. The "Kharijis", who had no comprehension whatsoever of the essence of Islam or of the virtues and the values of the Qur'an, waged war against all other Muslims and based this war on a few Qur'anic verses about which they made distorted interpretations. Furthermore, they carried out "acts of terrorism". Caliph Ali, who was one of the closest companions of the Prophet and was described by him as the "gate of the city of knowledge", was assassinated by a Kharijite.
In latter periods, "Hashashis" (Assassins), another brutal organisation, emerged; this was a "terrorist organisation" made up of ignorant and fanatical militants bereft of a profound understanding of the essence of Islam and thus who could be readily influenced by simple slogans and promises.
In other words, just as the Crusaders distorted and misinterpreted Christianity as a teaching of brutality, some perverted groups emerging in the Islamic world misinterpreted Islam and resorted to brutality. What is common to these sects and the Crusaders was their "Bedouin" nature. That is, they were ignorant, unrefined, uncultivated, vulgar, and isolated people. The violence they resorted resulted from this social structure, rather than the religion to which they claimed to adhere.
The Actual Source of Terrorism: The Third World Fanaticism
These examples from history are enlightening for a better understanding of the phenomenon, the so-called "Islamic terror", which is nowadays on the top of the international agenda. That is because those who emerge and carry out acts of terrorism in the name of Islam or those who back such acts -these people, no doubt, represent a minority in the world of Islam- stem from this "Bedouin character", not from Islam. Failing to understand the essence of Islam, they try to make Islam, essentially a religion of peace and justice, a tool of barbarism, which is simply an outcome of their social and cultural structure. The origin of this barbarism, which may well be called the "Third World Fanaticism", is the benighted initiatives of people who are devoid of love for humans.
It is a fact that, for the last few centuries, Muslims in all corners of the Islamic world, are being subjected to violence by Western forces and their affiliates. The colonialist European states, local oppressive regimes or colonialists backed by the West (Israel, for instance) caused great suffering for Muslims at large. However, for Muslims, this is a situation that has to be approached and responded to from a purely Qur'anic stance.
In no part of the Qur'an does God command believers to "respond to violence with violence". On the contrary, God commands Muslims to "respond to evil with goodness":
A good action and a bad action are not the same. Repel the bad with something better and, if there is enmity between you and someone else, he will be like a bosom friend. (Surat al-Fussilat: 34)
It is no doubt a legitimate right of Muslims to react against cruelty. However, these reactions should never turn into a blind hatred, an unjust enmity. God warns about this in the following verse: "... Do not let hatred for a people who debar you from the Masjid al-Haram incite you into going beyond the limits. Help each other to goodness and heedfulness. Do not help each other to wrongdoing and enmity. Heed God Allah (alone)..." (Surat al-Ma'ida: 2)
Consequently, carrying out terrorist acts under the pretence of "representing the oppressed nations of the world", against the innocent people of other nations is by no means compatible with Islam.
Another point that deserves a special mention here is that all the Western world cannot be held responsible for the aforementioned colonialist (or "neo-colonialist) violence and oppression against Muslims. Actually, the materialist, irreligious philosophies and ideologies that prevailed in the 19th century are responsible for these dismal acts. European colonialism did not originate from Christianity. On the contrary, anti-religious movements opposing the values of Christianity led the way to colonialism. At the roots of the greatest brutalities of the 19th century lies the Social Darwinist ideology.
In the Western world today, there are still cruel, mischievous and opposing elements as well as a culture dominated by peaceful and just elements that have its roots in Judeo-Christian faith. As a matter of fact, the main disagreement is not between the West and Islam. Contrary to the general opinion, it is between the religios people of the West and of the Muslim world on the one hand, and the people opposing religion (like materialists and atheists.) on the other.
Another indication that Third World Fanaticism has nothing to do with Islam is that, until recently, this fanaticism has been identified with communist ideology. As is known, similar anti-Western acts of terror were carried out in 1960s and 70s by Soviet-backed communist organisations. As the impact of the communist ideology faded, some of the social structures which gave birth to communist organisations have turned their attention to Islam. This "brutality presented under the guise of religion", which is formulated by the incorporation of some Islamic concepts and symbols into the former communist rhetoric are entirely against the moral values constituting the essence of Islam. A last remark about this issue is that Islam is not peculiar to a particular nation or geography. Contrary to the dominant Western perception, Islam is not an "Eastern culture". Islam is the last religion revealed to mankind as a guide to the true path that recommends itself to all humanity. Muslims are responsible for communicating the true religion they believe in to all people of all nations and cultures and making them feel closer to Islam.
Consequently, there is a unique solution for people and groups who, in the name of Islam, resort to terror or establish oppressive regimes and turn this world into a dreadful place instead of beautifying it: revealing the true Islam and communicating it so that the masses can understand and live by it.
Conclusion: Recommendations to the Western World
Today, the Western world is concerned about the organisations that use terror under the guise of Islam and this concern is not misplaced. It is obvious that those carrying out terror and their supporters should be punished according to international judicial criteria. However, a more important point to consider is the long-term strategies that have to be pursued for viable solutions to these problems.
The assessments above reveal that terror has no place in Islam. They further show the inherently contradictory nature of the concept of "Islamic terror". This provides us with an important vantage point:
1) The Western world, especially the United States, will surely take the most dissuasive measures to cope with terror and it has the right to do that. However, it has to state explicitly that this is not a war waged against Islam and Muslims but, on the contrary, a measure serving the best interests of Islam. The "Clash of civilisations", the dangerous scenario envisioned in the 90's should be at all costs prevented.
2) Support should be provided for the spread of "True Islam", which is a religion of love, friendship, peace and brotherhood, and for its true understanding by Islamic societies. The solution for radical factions in Islamic countries should not be "forced secularisation". On the contrary, such a policy will incite more reaction from the masses and feed radicalism. The solution is the dissemination of true Islam and the appearance of a Muslim role-model who embraces Qur'anic values such as human rights, democracy, freedom, good morals, science and aesthetics, and who offers happiness and bliss to humanity.
3) The source of terrorism is ignorance and bigotry and the solution is education. To the circles who feel sympathy with terror, it should be said that terror is utterly against Islam, that terror only does harm to Islam, Muslims and to humanity at large. Besides, these people have to be provided with education in order to be purified of this barbarism. The United States' support to such an education policy will yield very positive results.
Our hope is that these measures will help to the world get rid of terrorism and all other bigoted, brutal, barbarous structures. With its Christian-dominated culture and population, the United States, that defines itself as "a nation under God", is in fact a real friend of the Muslims. In the Qur'an, God draws attention to this fact and informs us that Christians are those who are "most affectionate to those who believe". (Surat al-Ma'ida: 82)
In history, some ignorant people (for instance, Crusaders) failed to understand this fact and caused conflicts between these two great religions. To prevent the repetition of this scenario, true Christians and Muslims need to come together and co-operate.
|
|
|
|
Islam, a religion of peace: Are we pretending?
OKOH EMEKA
[email protected]
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
T
his subject is far from easy, so many have been written on how really peaceful is the religion of "peace." Anybody writing on this subject has two options, to say what is deemed politically correct or to call a spade a spade. Aware of the saying - "you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free," I have therefore decided to be free than staying in political bondage, thus choosing the later. I chose the later not unaware of the fact that I will possibly face at least 3 audiences. Men have a sufficient natural instinct for what is true, and usually do arrive at the truth, the problems lie in acceptance; my first audience overcame such problems and accepted the truth. The second group also arrived at the truth but, when confronted by all powerful "Mr." Acceptance, they slacked and called a spade a shovel with a clear knowledge of the fact that what they have lying in their front is a spade. (Here, sentiment played not a smaller role.) My third audience is likely to be the blindfolded, brainwashed, the stooges, puppets, they are indifferent to facts -- we are told that it is white, so be it (in reality it’s as black as coal).
God gave us freedom of choice, including the choice to choose any belief system. It was that freedom that drove me into one of the Islamic secondary schools in Lagos, where I gained my O’Level. (Of course some showed concern as I was a strong member of The Methodist Church Nigeria.) One of my problems is that I have an uncontrollable desire to know, and it was that desire that took me to Islamic school where I learnt a lot about Islam and the people called Muslims. I came out having more Muslim friends than Christian friends, and I am ready to do anything to maintain them as friends. I am completely in support of freedom of choice, and I condemn no one for whatever he chooses to believe. I do not intend to offend anyone by anything in this write-up, and I sincerely hope that everybody will accept my words in the spirit in which there are meant. That does not necessary mean you must agree with me.
It may be erroneous to judge any religion by only looking at those who claim to be its followers. It would be all too easy to point finger at many Muslims who have perpetrated violence against Christians, against Jews, against fellow Muslims, against humanity in general over the centuries and conclude that Islam preaches violence, which will be incorrect. Not all who claim to act in the name of a religion are true adherents to its teachings. Having said that, however, I must confirm that a closer examination of terrorism and terrorist groups shows that one-half of all terrorist groups in the world are Islamic in nature. The biggest killings that have been witnessed in Nigeria since 1970 all have Islamic colouration. They all originated from the same place (the North), where Islam is claimed to be dominant. Just recently I read that Islamic extremism is on the rise in Nigeria; about nine churches were burnt in Kaduna. Over the years Islamic terrorists have targeted and murdered tens of thousands of males, females, and children all over the world, in Kenya, Algeria, Indonesia, France, USA, Spain, and recently in Saudi Arabia, the list could go on. Looking at all these one cannot help but ask: Why are these groups Islamic? What does Islam teach about violence and co-existence? What has the religion of "peace" got to do with terrorism? How and why do these groups justify maiming and massacre based on Islamic principles? Are violence, innocent killings, and terrorism actually allowed in Islam? In trying to answer these questions we will examine the holy book of Islam, the Qur’an, and the Hadith, which is the collections of Muhammad’s sayings and actions. It will also be necessary to consider the life of Prophet Muhammad and some early followers of the faith -- the role models. We need to study the past to understand the present and probably foretell the future.
In Qur’an, there are so many contradictory statements and, in dealing with these contradictions, the principle of abrogation is adopted, meaning that later texts supersede the earlier whenever there are inconsistencies, or they are said to "abrogate" the earlier texts. To abide by this doctrine a Muslim simply needs to know which verse came earlier and which one came later. Some believe that the only permissible war in the Koran is one of self-defence. Muslims may not begin hostilities.
These verses are enough to convince the strongest of heart that Qur’an teaches peaceful coexistence with "infidels." But Qur’an 9:5 says exactly the opposite,
Suyuti in his book (Istenbat al tanzeel) says: "Every thing in the Qur'an about forgiveness is abrogated by verse 9:5." Al-Shawkani in his book (Alsaylu Jarar) wrote "Islam is unanimous about fighting the unbelievers and forcing them to Islam or submitting and paying Jiziah (special tax paid only by Christians or Jews -- people of the book) or being killed."
Here are further quotes from Qur’an.
Qur’an orders Muslims to fight in order to establish Allah’s kingdom in all of the earth by any means. Most Islamic scholars believe that one verse of the Qur’an 9:5 (the above underlined verse) abrogates more than 120 verses, which are basically all the verses that talk about peace and forgiveness. As clearly stated in that verse, the infidels have the choice of becoming Muslims or be maimed. As for the people of the book, they either pay the Jizyah with willing submission and feel themselves subdued, or be killed. Christians in the Middle East are facing extreme difficulties to maintain their faith; they are second-class citizens in their fatherland. Those statements in the Qur’an are interpreted carnally by scholars; consideration is given to the absoluteness of the utterance, not the specialization of the reason for the revelation, which is to say that importance is attached to letters not the spirit therein.
The Hadith is the second source of Islamic doctrines; it is the sayings of Muhammad. The Hadith and the Qur’an are in complete agreement on the issue of coexistence, there equally enjoy the same historical trait which is that Muhammad’s teaching were quite peace-loving at the beginning , then these statements arrived.
Ibn Haban in his Sahih, vol. 14, narrates: Muhammad said: "I swear by Him who has my soul in his hands, I was sent to you with nothing but slaughter."
Omar Ibn al-Khatab said: "I heard the prophet of Allah saying: ‘I will cast Jews and Christians out of the peninsula and I won’t leave any one in it but Muslims.’"
Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi report that the Prophet said the morning after the murder (of Kab Ibn al’Ashraf), "Kill any Jew you can lay your hands on."
Let us now look at the conduct, the life and actions of the last prophet of Islam, which is of no less important as the Qur’an says: "Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah" 33:21. Aisha (wife of Muhammad) said: "His (Muhammad's) character was the Qur’an." Therefore the life of Mohammad reflects an accurate interpretation of the Qur’an. When Muhammad started out preaching his religion of Islam, he was not violent as I earlier stated. He was persecuted for preaching his religious ideas and denigrating the pagan religions of the Meccans. Eventually, he and his followers moved north to a city called Medina, where group of feuding Arabs accepted him as their prophet hoping he could help them maintain peace. They made a pledge to support Muhammad in war against the Quraysh and, suddenly, a revelation came from Allah allowing him to fight; before that, Allah had simply ordered him to call men to Him, to endure insult and to forgive the ignorant.(That is to say he at the beginning abided by what Christ said, "God forgive them for they no not what they are doing.") Before the revelation, forgiveness and endurance were at the centre of his activities. Muhammad's circumstances changed, and Muhammad's Allah changed with them. He went from being only a "Warner" to being an aggressor.
In many an Islamic history book are recorded the murder of Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant (after Muhammad commanded his followers to kill any Jew that falls into their power); and, when the brother of the murderer rebuked him, his reply was that had the one who ordered him to kill him (Ibn Sunayna) ordered him to kill him (the brother) he would have cut his head off. This murder was committed under Muhammad’s command and the murderer would not have minded killing a family member, all he needed was a command from "Oga" (i.e. the boss).
Another man called Abu Afak, aged 120, was killed by Salem b. Omayr when Muhammad asked, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" What did he do? He criticized Muhammad. What threat did a man of 120 years constitute? Quite disgusting. I choose not to comment on that cruel act, but if you (the reader) have conscience and dream of seeing old age then spare yourself two minutes and meditate on that.
Asma D Marwan wrote a poem blaming Islam and its followers for killing their opponents. When Muhammad heard what she had said he said, "Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?" Ummayr b. Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him; and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning, he came to the apostle and told him what he had done, and he (Muhammad) said, "You have helped God and His apostle, O Umayr!" This woman constituted no particular threat to Muhammad; her poem was as a result of injustice, she was not a leader, she had little or no influence. Still, Muhammad had her silenced just like Abu Afak when she was sleeping at night. Does God need us sneaking around at night killing sleeping women? What would have been your response to criticism? What would have been your reply to a poem? Though I am not claiming to be a prophet of Allah but, certainly, I would have reacted differently.
A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. He forbade her, but she did not stop. He rebuked her, but she did not give up her habit. One night, she began to slander the Prophet and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. The next morning, the Prophet was informed about it. He assembled the people and said: "I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up." The man stood up and sat before the Prophet and said: "Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and to disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it, till I killed her." Thereupon the Prophet said: "Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood." This slave woman paid so dearly for her criticism. A poor slave woman was murdered in cold blood and that action received Muhammad’s blessing. Excuse me, but I refuse to accept that Islam would have ceased to exist if the poor woman’s life was spared.
Arm Umayya was an Islamic faithful who Muhammad sent to kill his enemy Abu Sufyan; however, their assassination attempt failed. As he returned home, he met a one-eyed shepherd. The shepherd and the Muslim man both identified themselves as members of the same Arab clan. Prior to going asleep, the shepherd said that he would never become a Muslim. Umayya waited for the shepherd to fall asleep and, as soon as the innocent man was asleep and snoring, Umayya got up and killed him in a more horrible way than any man had been killed. He put the end of his bow in his sound eye, and then he bore down on it until he forced it out at the back of his neck. Umayya returned and spoke with Muhammad. He related the story to the master and he [Muhammad] blessed him (Umayya). Once again another man was murdered in his sleep and yet another blessing from the prophet.
Oswald Mbuyiseni Mtshal in his poem NIGHT FALL IN SOWETO wrote:
For anybody that had a different view apart from that proclaimed by Muhammad, coming of the night marked a decisive moment in such person’s life. The possibility of sleeping and waking up in pieces was not a joke.
An old woman, Qirfa Fatima, captured in Fazara a prisoner of war. She was cruelly murdered by tying her legs to two different camels and driving them until they rent her into two. Without mentioning more cases we can see that Muhammad, although did not commit act of murder directly, many were killed at his command, the result of an insult to Muhammad was/is death, doubting his credibility and speaking out was the greatest sin; men, women, and children were murdered because of his hatred against those who spoke against him. Those who murdered innocent people were blessed by Muhammad; in that light, those who commit these atrocities we are seeing in our today’s world are also hoping for the blessings of their prophet. Muslim terrorist are well educated in Islam; they study the life of Muhammad, and they believe they are following the life of Prophet Muhammad who is their role model.
Just recently, during the Arab week in my school, among the books shared freely by Saudi Embassy was one called The Book of Jihad by Muhmmad b. Ibraheem At-Tuwaijry. Among its contents are promises for the martyr.
I condemn Israel for the way they are handling the Palestinians, but I condemn even greater those that will encourage children to wear bomb and deny themselves the divine life that Allah gave them. Since Muslims don’t look beyond words, in my humble opinion, I think that such books should not be distributed, looking at these wonderful promises one can easily be stirred and simply succumb to a call to die even when it is not necessary.
It is unthinkable of what would have been of humanity if what Christ said in Mathew 11:12 were to be in Qur’an ("And from the days of John the Baptist until now the Kingdom of heaven has suffered violence and the violent take it by force"), most Muslims would have taken it as a command to take to violence, a command to establish God’s kingdom by all means. I am convinced that no sensible Christian will expect that the Prince of peace can command us to establish his Kingdom by force; therefore, meanings are read far beyond the words, attention is paid to the spirit behind the words, we must not forget that religion is not just about physical but spiritual. It is not uncommon to see wars and talks of war in the old testament of the Bible, but here interpretation plays a powerful role, emphasis are laid more on the peace that Christ left for mankind.
I was listening to a BBC radio programme -- "Reporting Religion" -- on Easter Sunday when a Muslim writer, who believes that Jesus plays important roles in Islam, was asked how can he reconcile Christ who preached peace all through and Muhammad who was actually a warrior. His answer was "they lived under different conditions." What he did not say anyway was who lived under better conditions, Muhammad or Christ? I have heard some people argue that generally there is nothing like liberalism or moderation in Islam, every Muslim is a fundamentalist when compared with what may be considered fundamentalism in other religions; every Muslim, if given a chance, will like to name his country after Islam; examples abound in the Middle East and, in some of this countries, not a small number of their population profess other confessions. Looking closely, I will neither completely contrast nor completely agree with that argument. Could Nigerian Muslims be nursing such aspiration?
If Muslims believe that Islam is the religion of "peace," that Islam preaches peace and that the adherents of the faith are ready to abide by that "peace," then they still have a lot to do to convince the world. I would still like to believe that Islam is a peace-loving religion, as many claim it to be, but not until someone gives me a credible reason to do so, not until someone gives me a clear interpretation of violence-ridden passages in Qur’an, the Hadith, and violent actions of the last Prophet of "God." Not until I hear a Muslim definition and understanding of peace.
Jesus taught us to love our enemies, to pray for those that persecute us. He said that he did not come to destroy but to save. Even at the point of death, he still said: "God forgive them for they know not what they are doing." If the infidels are to be slaughtered, then to whom are they planning to preach the good news? If the double standard of Sharia, which imposes death penalty on converts from Islam to other faiths and security for converts to Islam, are to be strictly adhered to, then we are moving towards chaos. Yes Islam means submission but must we submit to terror? Must we submit to evil? Must we submit to explosions that now happen on daily basis here and there? My answer is a healthy NO.
Muslim scholars should desist from carnal interpretation of holy Qur’an, prophesy is not just about the word but also about the spirit therein. More emphasis should be placed on the peace preached by Muhammad than on strategies of attack. Let us all work together to attain a world peace. As a student of International Relations, I still firmly believe that diplomacy remains the best way to resolve differences. Let us make words our swords, present a stronger argument that will overpower that of your opponent. Violence is not profitable for those that determine when and how it starts, neither is it an achievement for those who determine how and when it ends.
Once more I must say that I do not intend to offend anyone by anything in this article. I do hope that everybody will accept my words in the spirit in which they are meant. Contribution of a 21-year-old, 2nd year student may be nothing when compared with others, even professors have written on this issue. However, if someone after reading this piece starts working towards achieving a violence-free world, then the objective of this article has been meant.
Muslims in non-Muslim countries
Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah, one of the well-known Muslim scholars, has visited the United States, and this is part of one of his lectures, addressing all Muslims who live in Non-Muslim countries:
You are a group that is small in number and yet strong in faith, a group that
has diverse ideas and understandings and whose individuals come from many
different cultural and ethnic backgrounds, a group that is few amongst a
dominant group that is many. The dominant group is strong in many areas; in
fact, they are controlling many areas of the world. I would like to speak
tonight about what the priorities of such a group would be: What are the
obligations of such a group? What are the responsibilities of such a group? I
would like to present some ideas to you, and I hopes that Allah subhaana wa
ta'aala helps me to present some ideas that relate to a methodology, to
approaches, and to things that will be beneficial to this group if they
implement them.
I want to speak about the responsibilities that you carry here. In contrast to
Muslims living in the dominant Muslim world at large, you are, in many ways,
strangers in a strange land. Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) said:
"Tuba lil guraba." In other words, the conditions of the stranger are blessed
conditions,
and it also means, "lahum al-jannah: they have paradise" for bearing the burden
of alienation. An Arab proverb is, "ya ghareeb kun adeeba: oh stranger in a
strange land, be a man of courtesy and cultivation." There is also a Hadith
saying:
"Islam began alienated and will return as it began, alienated. So, blessed
are the alienated ones."
This alienation should not mean that you distance yourselves from those around
you. That is not the meaning of this state of estrangement. It does not mean you
should not work with others or that you should avoid the dominant society and
distance yourselves completely from it even though your state is one of
estrangement.
Since we know that Islam has legal injunctions and that Muslims have a code of
law, a question that occurs immediately to us in looking at these conditions
here is whether or not there are rules in our religion that apply to one land
and do not apply to another land. As we all know Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) said
that Allah subhaana wa ta'aala has made incumbent upon you to fulfill certain
obligations, and Allah has also set boundaries for you, so do not transgress
those boundaries. As we know, these rules in Islam relate to every Muslim. In
terms of human beings, every one is equal in relation to these rules. You cannot
say that one Muslim does not have to pray and another one does. All Muslims who
are responsible adults have to pray. So, these rules of prayer and fasting, what
are know as the Five Pillars of Islam, the foundations of Islam-are things that
are binding upon all Muslims, no matter where they come from, or what place they
are in.
In addition, there is another type of set of rules in Islam that is known as al-ahkam
as-sultania, and these are rules related to governmental authority, to the
state. These rules involve certain things, such as the penal code of the
Muslims. There is a code related to criminal law: if you do this, then this is
the punishment. The implementation of those laws is related to the ahkam as-sultania
or the rules related to the legitimate authority of the state.
The ahkam as-sultania includes the rules related to jihaad-in other words,
martial activity in which men fight in war and battles. They also include the
rules related to zakaah collecting: the gathering of wealth that Allah has
obliged people to pay. In addition, they relate to the establishment of imams,
not only the greatest imam, who would be the khalifa, but also the aaimma who
will be in the Mosque, and the qadaat who are the people who give the khutba on
the jumu'a prayer every Friday. All these types of things are traditionally
related to the authority of the legitimate governing body of the Muslims.
Muslims need judges; they need courts; they need police-all of these things
relate to these ahkam; rules. These types of rules which are known as the ahkam
as-sultania, or rules related to people of authority, are not the concern of
those people who are living in a land in which there is not a legitimate state
authority of Muslims.
If we want to look at an analogy, we will find it in the Makkan stage of Prophet
Mohammad (PBUH), or the stage where he was in Mekkah, he was not making any
claims to government authority. He was calling people to tauheed: the unity of
Allah. He was calling people to prayer. He was calling people to the
purification of their hearts. He was calling people to leave shirk (associating
partnership with Allah). All these are known as the jihaad of the tongue: jihaad
al-kalima; it is not the jihaad of the sword-or now the gun or the atom bomb or
whatever. It was the jihaad of the tongue. Allah subhaana wa ta'aala
said,
"jaahidhum bihi jihaad al-kabir." "Jaahidhum bihi"
means to struggle against them with the Qur'an. In other words, "speak the
Qur'an to them, and struggle against them with the truth in word;" and this was
the jihaad of Mekkah. You can say that this is speaking with a strong
tongue in the face of wrong, in the face of injustices.
Next, I would like to address the issue of our responsibilities. Given our state
of weakness and our minority status here, the Governmental Aspects of the Sharia'
(God Commandments) do not apply to us. We are not legally responsible for the
governmental aspects because of our condition here. Given that, what becomes our
responsibility?
The first aspect depicts the relationships that we have with one another. These
relationships have to be based on brotherhood. They have to be relationships
based on love. Since we are minorities here and are few in number, we have to
understand that we need to have solidarity. In order for us to have solidarity,
there is something that is very important that we must understand about our
legal structure, which is the jurisprudence of difference of opinion: fiqh al-khilaaf.
We have to look deeply into this because if we understand this, this is a way in
which we can be united and have good feelings towards each other and not
negative feelings based on our understandings of valid differences of opinion
amongst us.
Another aspect is the relationship that we have with non-Muslims. Now, an issue
that we must look at is that of the abode: the daar. Although there may be some
people who are educated in Islam who are aware of this issue of the abode, there
are many people who are unaware of this issue. In fact, you will even find some
people who are fuqaha, scholars of Islamic law and the legal system, who are
unaware of this issue. The issue of the abode is this: most people think that
the world is divided into two abodes, the abode of peace and the abode of war.
The abode of peace is the land of the Muslims, daar al-Islam, and the abode of
war is everywhere else. In Nixon's book that I read a translated version of
called Seizing the Moment, Nixon wrote a long chapter on the Islamic phenomenon
of the modern world. One of the things Nixon said after praising Islam a great
deal and saying many nice things about Islam is that one of the most fundamental
problems with the Muslims is that they view the world as a dichotomy of two
abodes: the abode of peace and the abode of war.This idea is completely
wrong, as Islam is a religion of peace. There are three abodes: there is the
abode of peace, the abode of war, and then there is the abode of treaty where
there is a contractual agreement between two abodes. We have to understand that
the relationship between the Muslims living in this land and the dominant
authorities in this land is a relationship of peace and contractual agreement-of
a treaty. This is a relationship of dialogue and a relationship of giving and
taking.
Also I want to underline the need for three institutions: The Mufti; somebody
who gives legal opinions based on the understanding of all of the different
areas of Islam, such as marriage, the rules of buying and selling, the rules of
prayer, and the rules of tahaara (cleanliness and purification). The mufti is
involved in all of these different things. So, we need an institution that deals
with this for the Muslims. They need a sound source for guidance concerning
these issues.
The second institution is The Court; we need is a muassasa of tahkeem, an
institution that issues rulings. In this culture, it is called people's court. A
people's court is where the state does not get involved with the case. The
parties that are differing agree to go to somebody who will listen to both sides
and then make a judgment, and that judgment becomes binding upon them based on
the prior agreement of the two.
Third institution is Reconciliation; bringing people together. Somebody brings
the differing groups together and reconciles between them so that they can work
together or work separately in peace; thus, they are not fighting each other,
undermining each other's work.
Thus, as Muslims, people should come together as one hand and create blocks to
where they can try to have some influence to the best of their ability.
Justice In Dealing With Differences in Opinion
Shaykh Salman al-`Awdah
Moral Code of the Daa`iya
Translated by Muhammad Buneef (Edited transl.) Difference of opinion is one of
mankind's natures, "And if your Lord had willed, He could have made mankind
one community, but they will not cease to differ. Except whom your Lord has
givenmercy..." (Surah Hud:118-119) Doubtlessly, differences in opinion occur
due to differences in intentions and purposes, differences in the strength of
minds and perceptions, and differences in knowledge. Dealing with these
differences requires a firm footing in the shariah.
Some duaat invite to the unity of the rank and file in order to forget conflict, without defining as to whom to unify with and who to be separated from due to misguidance and deviations. On the other hand, there is one who exaggerates about the conditions, to the point that he wants people to agree with him in everything, even in his personnal ijtihad and his own opinions. And if anybody disagrees with him, he turns away from him, takes the attitude of resistance towards him, and becomes careless and disrespectful to him! Justice is accepting the difference in that in which difference is permissible. Like the means of dawa, secondary matters, those rulings in which scholars of the past differed..., that which is based on the shariah ijtihad in understanding of the texts, not simply on desires. As for leniency towards the people of innovation concerning 'aqeedah, and fundamental deviations under the pretext of unifying the ranks, this is a false procedure that does not relate to reason nor to the shar'. As for asking people to agree in everything, and not to differ in anything at all, this is impossible and unreal.
Muslim scholar calls for unity
Muslims should speak out more against those who commit terrorism against civilians in the name of Islam, says a man who embraced the faith in Toronto and went on to become a leading Muslim scholar.
Bilal Philips, born in Jamaica and once a Marxist activist in British Columbia and Ontario, also said in an interview in Brossard about two weeks ago that Muslims in Canada should be working harder to free their religion from divisions many have imported to Canada from various countries of origin.
Philips, 50, based in the Middle East since 1974 and currently teaching introductory courses and Arabic at the American University in Dubai, one of the United Arab Emirates, was in town to give a six-day course at the Mosque as-Salaam in downtown Montreal to kick off the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.
In his second such trip to Montreal, Philips also spoke at several other mosques in the Montreal area. He’s gone on to Britain to tape some lectures with another prominent convert to Islam: Yusuf Islam, who was known as Cat Stevens in his days as a pop musician.
100 REGULARS
Philips said the six-days course was attended by young people in their teens and 20s, about two-thirds immigrants and the rest converts. About 100 people attended regularly, he said, and as many again drifted in and out during the week.
The course was devoted largely to trying to sort out genuine Islamic culture from practices he considers to be falsely associated with it.
In part, Philips was seeking to discourage a tendency for Muslims in North America to divide on ethnic lines according to country of origin. Now that the Muslim communities in places like Montreal have reached a size where mosques proliferate, Philips and other Muslims have noticed, with regret, that there is some tendency for Muslims from different parts of the world to gravitate to different mosques.
Philips was also seeking to dissociate Islam from abuses he believes are sometimes, wrongly, linked to it.
In his view, for example, the sort of terrorism recently practiced against civilian tourists and Copts in Egypt by terrorists and many of the actions of the Iraqi "tyrant" Saddam Hussein are abhorrent to Islam.
He said violence between military forces is one thing but there is nothing in Muslim teachings that warrants violence that targets civilians. Muslims in western countries can be criticized for not speaking out more clearly on this, he said.
"Silence is consent", he said, using a phrase he may have picked up during his pre-Muslim days as a political activist.
Excision of any great part of girls’ genitalia, as practiced in some cultures, is also forbidden, he said. Religious clitorectomy is nowhere required by Islam and is not practiced by the vast majority of the world’s Muslims. In areas where clitorectomy exists, he said, the practice pre-dated the arrival of Islam and is also practiced by local people of other faiths.
Philips said there is a teaching of Mohammed to the effect that, if clitorectomy is carried out it should be confined to a small piece from tip of clitoris. Philips said this scarring would have little effect on sexual activity and could be compared to male circumcision.
But Philips said it is "justified and legitimate" to outlaw clitorectomy altogether, as Egypt did recently.
His view of polygamy is much the same. It is not required by Islam and, while permitted by the faith, is subject to such restrictions that only 12 or 13 per cent of Muslim men have more than one wife in countries where the secular authorities permit it.
"If you are going to have more than one wife you must have the means to support more than one household. This isn’t having a wife and a mistress."
There are, however, some Muslim practices that may go against the grain of many people with western values but that Philips thinks are very much part of Islam.
He is not one of those Muslims who think that Muslim women can properly neglect to cover their heads. His studies have persuaded him that Islamic scriptures and other writings clearly require women to keep their bodies covered in public, except for their faces and hands. He said wearing hijab, or head scarf, is spreading even in Muslim societies where it was formerly rare. He sees no reason why western societies, which welcomed the even stricter traditional garb of Roman Catholic nuns not long ago, should object to the hijab.
In Philips’ view, the influence of western culture, a move away from Islam in general a few decades ago, the association in many minds of the hijab with the oppression of women and ignorance of the Muslim scriptures may be among factors that caused widespread neglect of this requirement in some Muslim cultures.
And, while some of the women who wear the hijab may be bowing to social pressure, hundreds of women in countries like the United States freely accept the hijab as they embrace Islam, he said.
He said his own wife, who embraced Islam in Toronto shortly after he did, found she was treated with more respect when she adopted the hijab – more likely, for example, to be offered seats by other passengers on Toronto transit vehicles. She was also occasionally mistaken for a Catholic nun.
Their daughter recently graduated from the University of Toronto in computer science and married a fellow student, a Muslim whose family is from Pakistan. Philips admits to wishing that more Muslims would ignore divisions among them in this fashion.
ATTACKING FASHION INDUSTRY
Philips said that some non-Muslim feminists have been moving somewhat closer to Muslim women on the issues, attacking the fashion industry and personally switching to looser-fitting clothes.
"What the veil is supposed to denote is that you have adapted a chaste life," he said, "one where virginity is of consequence and promiscuity is not the order of the day."
In his view, the widespread acceptance of "fornication" in western society is largely responsible for the repugnance many western people have toward the idea of the lash as a penalty for fornication.
Such a penalty, he said, seems less inappropriate "in a society where chastity is at a premium and where people, men and women, are raised and marry as virgins – and I’m not saying every Muslim man and woman is a virgin until marriage."
He said the fact that Muslim law also requires the act of adultery to have been witnessed by four people means that the penalty is seldom applied.
"But it’s on the books as a deterrent. It causes people to think twice."
Much the same is true of the penalty of amputation for theft, he said. The restrictions on the use of this penalty mean that in countries where it is in force it is applied only to people who have taken up thievery as a profession not to someone who may have yielded to temptation in one particular incident.
Born in Jamaica, Philips moved to Canada with his parents in the 1950s and grew up in Toronto; he and his parents "when tot church like everybody else."
During his university days, when he studied biochemistry at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, he was a political activist, and pretty well accepted Marx’s dictum that religion is the opiate of the people.
"But the concept of God is still there. No matter how far one may get into a atheistic philosophy, there is a vacuum there and eventually you turn back to God or fill it with sometime else: material things, sports, music or other things. People try to fill that vacuum."
Philips "reached a point of frustration" at a time the Marxist movement in Canada and the United States didn’t seem to be going anywhere. Communism, he said, promised that everything would change after the revolution but seemed to have little guidance to offer the individual in the here and now.
BORN INTO SLAVERY
A good friend and former fellow-activist embraced Islam and Philips started reading about the faith himself. He accepted Islam in Toronto in 1972.
I neglected to ask when he adopted the first name Bilal; Philips is his original surname. (Muslim tradition has it that Bilal ibn Rabaah was a companion of the Prophet Mohammed. Of African origin, Bilal was born to a woman in bondage called Rabaah and was freed from slavery by Abu Bakr, another companion of the Prophet and the first leader of Islam after the Prophet’s death.)
Two years later Philips was in Saudi Arabia, where he learned Arabic and earned a bachelor’s degree in Islamic studies from the University of Medina and a master’s degree from the University of Riyad. He earned a doctorate in Islamic Theology in 1994 at the University of Wales.
Philips has written more than 20 books on Islam. He has been in the Emirates for four years, where in addition to his university teaching activities he directs an Islamic-information centre and is in charge of the department of foreign literature at an Islamic publishing house.
A Montreal admirer describes him as "perhaps the most popular Muslim English writer of this day and one of the most sought-after Islamic lecturers."
If you want to know more about what Philips has been up to, I discovered after the interview that he’s on the Web. His home page address: http://www.islaam.com/bp/index.html
No Compulsion In Matters Of Permissible Ijtihaad
Imam Ibn Taymiyyah
Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allaah have mercy upon him, was asked about a person in authority, whose view is that partnerships involving shared labour are not permissible. Can he prevent the people from this?
The reply: "He cannot prevent the people from this, nor from the likes of this, because it is from the permissible Ijtihaad. Neither does he have any text from the Book, the Sunnah or the consensus to prevent this, especially when most of the scholars are of the view that the likes of this is actually permissible; and this is what has been acted upon by the Muslims in their lands in general. This is just like a judge who is not allowed to negate the judgement of others in the likes of such issues, nor is it for the scholar or the muftee to compel the people to follow him in the likes of such an issue. This is why when ar-Rasheed sought from Maalik that the people should all adopt his al-Muwatta' in the likes of these issues, the latter prevented him from this and said:
Once a person wrote a book about the various different opinions, so Ahmad said:
Due to this, one of the scholars stated:
`Umar ibn `Abdul-`Azeez said:
Likewise, Maalik and other scholars have said:
This is why scholars who wrote books about ordering the good and forbidding the evil - from the followers of ash-Shaafi`ee and others - have stated: Indeed there is to be no forbidding with the hand in the likes of such issues of ijtihaad, nor is it for anyone to compel the people to follow him in his view. However, he may speak about it with knowledge-based proofs. Whoever then sees the correctness of one of the two views, after it being clarified to him, may then follow it. But whoever follows the other opinion, then there is to be no forbidding him. And the likes of these issues are many…
Peace and the Spread of Islam
Invite (people) to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful Preaching, and argue with them in the best ways." [16:125]
On his way back to Madinah after the conclusion of the peace agreement of Hudaybiyah with the unbelievers of Quraysh, the Prophet, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam, received revelation from Allah. It was Suratul Fat'h which starts with the words: "We have granted you a victory which is clear victory." [48:1]
"Was this a victory, O Messenger of Allah?" One man asked. The Prophet, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam, answered. "Yes, by whom in whose hand is my soul, it is a victory."
Why did the man ask? What kind of victory was it? And what is the lesson for us in this kind of victory?
The man -he was no less than Umar ibnul Khattab- asked because the term of the agreement were apparently not in favor of the Muslims who had come to perform Umrah, which was something of a right to all Arabs during the Jahiliyyah period. However, the Quraysh who were in a state of war with the Muslims saw in their performing the Umrah a kind of victory for them, despite the Prophet's repeated assurances that their intention was purely religious, and that they had no intention of fighting. Quraysh insisted however, that the Muslims could not perform the Umrah that year but could come to do so next year on certain conditions. The Prophet, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam, agreed and signed with them an agreement for the cessation of hostilities for ten years. But the agreement, which in fact lasted for only two years, included the stipulation that:
If any man from us came to you, you must return him even if he accepted your religion."
So what kind of victory was it?
Ibn Hajar says in his book Fat'h al-Bari that Allah called it victory because of the great consequences that followed from it. He reports az-Zuhri, the great scholar, as saying:
"No victory in Islam was greater than Hudaybiyah. It used to be only fighting when people (meaning Muslims and non-Muslims) met. But when there was a truce, when the war stopped, and when people felt safe, they began to meet and talk to each other and negotiate. As a result, no thinking person to whom Islam was presented in that time [of the truce] but accepted it. The number of people who embraced Islam in those two years was equal to, or greater, than the number of all who had been Muslims before."
Ibn Hisham concurs:
"The evidence for this is that when the Prophet, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam, went to Hudaybiyah he was accompanied by one thousand and four hundred Muslims, but when after two years he marched to conquer Makkah there were ten thousand with him."
And Ibn Hajar explains:
"Because of the peace, which prevailed among them, people mixed with each other without any reprehension. Muslims recited the Qur'an to the polytheists, and debated with them openly about Islam without any fear, while earlier they used to speak to them about this only secretly." We learn from the comments of these three great scholars of people embracing Islam.
We also conclude that the reason for those was the state of peace that replaced that of war and fighting.
What lesson is there for us in all this? The main lesson, I think, is that if a state of peace with non-Muslims is found to be more conducive to the spread of Islam than that of war, then it should be, not only preferred, but actively sought and maintained. This should be so even if Muslims have the power and the means to fight and conquer the non-Muslims.
Instead of fighting or antagonizing them they should invite them and argue with them in the best of manners. In doing so they would be emulating the Prophet, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam. Look at the nice but firm words of the message, which he sent to the polytheists;
"We have not come to fight any one; we have come only to perform Umrah. Quraysh has been exhausted and devastated by war. If they will, I will give them time during which they let me alone with the people. If I come victorious then if they wish to embrace what other people embraced, they can do so, if not they would at least have had a respite. If they refuse, then by Him in whose hands is my soul, I will fight them until my neck is severed, and Allah will execute His command."
It seems to me that Muslims living in Western democratic countries where they are given the freedom, even it be a relative one, to practice their faith and preach it, are living in a situation which is very much like that of the two years of the Hudaybiyah truce. It is, therefore, incumbent upon them to do their best to maintain this peaceful environment, and exploit it to invite people to Islam in a way that is wise, nice and intellectual, in accordance with the Qur'an injunction:
"Invite (people) to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful Preaching, and argue with them in the best ways." [16:125]
The enemies of Islam in the West know very well that the best way to stop or hinder the spread of Islam is by presenting Muslims as terrorist enemies who would stop at nothing short of the destruction of Western civilization. Those native Muslims who advocate violence (which does not achieve anything positive any way) are in fact playing into the hands of their enemies. They give them the best evidence to convince people that Muslims are indeed, as the hostile media depicts them, destructive elements that should be fought at all costs.
I was in the United States when the Oklahoma tragedy occurred and I witnessed the great fear in which Muslims, especially those who frequent the masajid, lived when a so called expert declared in the media that the explosion was an act of Muslims. And I witnessed the great sigh of relief they felt when it was ultimately found out that the perpetrators were Christian Americans. It is very natural to have such a feeling in situations like these when you are a minority living under jurisdiction of a non-Muslim majority.
It may be because of this that Muslims were ordered not to rise a hand against the polytheists when they were still living amongst them in Makkah. They were allowed and subsequently ordered to fight only after they migrated and had their own land.
It is important for Muslims to be keen on maintaining this environment of freedom for another good reason -it will not last. Democratic countries are ready to let minorities like Muslims enjoy freedom so long as they are not envisaged to be a threat to secularism. Once they are feared to be, then the secularists are sure to sacrifice democracy to save secularism. This happened in many countries, and is bound, I think, to happen in the West.
I know that this is a sensitive topic that can easily be misunderstood. So let me emphasize that I am not here advocating pacifism. Being a realistic religion, Islam is not and cannot be pacifist. But being realistic does not condone senseless violence, which helps only to frighten people away from Islam. Neither do I want to give the impression that every peace treaty is a Hudaybiyah. Some of them can be utterly defeatist and bring nothing but harm to the cause of Islam. I only want to stress that war and violence are not ends in themselves; the noble aim is to guide people to the path of Allah. If peaceful coexistence with non-Muslim is found to be more conductive to this aim. Then it should be chosen.
Peaceful Jihad
Muslims themselves disagree on what jihad is supposed to mean. Many modernists in the West deny that it has anything to do with violence. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based group, asserts that jihad "does not mean 'holy war.'" Instead, jihad is "a central and broad Islamic concept that includes the struggle to improve the quality of life in society, struggle in the battlefield for self-defense . . . or fighting against tyranny or oppression." CAIR even denies that Islam includes any concept of a "holy war."
In the Qur'an, however, and even in later Muslim usage, the term jihad is usually followed by the expression fi sabil Illah, which means "in the path of God." The description of violence against the enemies of the Muslim community as jihad fi sabil Illah gave a sacred meaning to what was otherwise just tribal warfare.
The Hadith is a collection of reports of sayings and actions of Muhammad, and it follows the Qur'an as the most important source of Islamic law. In Hadith collections, jihad almost always refers to armed action. As an example, there are nearly 200 references to jihad in the most standard collection of hadith, Sahih al-Bukhari, and all assume that jihad means warfare. It is not surprising, then, that the majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists understand jihad in a military sense.
Contrary to popular perception, jihad is not about forced conversions. It certainly may have filled that role very early on, when Islam was first expanding, but that hasn't been the case for a very long time. It is instead a political goal: bringing as much of the world under the control of Islam as is possible. This then allows for the fulfillment of two other goals: promoting Islam among non-Muslims and establishing a just political and social order (only possible under Islam).
Ibn Taymiya (1268-1328) took an even more active view of j'ihad. He argued that a ruler who fails to enforce the Shari'a (Islamic law) in all aspects forfeits his right to rule - thus, jihad against this ruler becomes acceptable, if not mandatory. One of the aspects of Shari'a which a Muslim ruler must enforce is, in fact, jihad itself - but against the enemies of Islam, especially those who threaten it form the outside. Taymiya's thoughts have heavily influenced Muslim extremists in the twentieth century, including the Muslim Brotherhood and Osama bin Laden.
But the root meaning of jihad simply refers to "effort," and that sense of the word never entirely disappeared. Thus, it is not unreasonable to point to jihad as involving both inward struggle (directed against evil in oneself) and also an outward one (against injustice in society or the world generally).
A Hadith expounds upon this understanding by recounting how Muhammad, upon returning from a victorious battle, told others that "We have returned from the lesser jihad (al-jihad al-asghar) to the greater jihad (al-jihad al-akbar)." When asked what this "greater jihad" could be in relation to the battle just fought, he informed them that it was the struggle "against oneself."
Of course, it must be noted that this particular Hadith does not appear in any of the authoritative collections, and even with the idea that the "greater jihad" is against internal evil, it nevertheless remains true that the battle against external evil remains a valid form of jihad. This Hadith has, however, been very influential among Sufi mystics through the centuries.
With this we can see the three principle paths of understanding jihad that have developed over the years. The first is a mandatory effort by the entire ummah (community of believers) to defend and expand Dar al-Islam (the house of Islam, contrasted with "Dar al-Harb," the house of war, which is every place not ruled by Muslims). The second, and closely related, is Ibn Taymiya's idea of an active jihad against even internal problems as a fundamental characteristic of legitimate rule. The third and final is the more mystical notion of a "greater jihad" which involves the struggle against one's own internal problems.
All of these together have, to an extent, come together to develop modern notions of a peaceful jihad. More liberal Muslims still see jihad as a necessary and fundamental component of their religion, but they are trying to understand it in a nonviolent way which allows for peaceful coexistence with other religions.
Fazlur Rahman, for example, has argued that jihad exists so that Islam can accomplish its social and political goals of justice and equality:
But not all Muslims today believe that jihad should be peaceful - some, in fact, explicitly recommend violence and war. Important examples of this strain of thought are Hasan al-Banna (1906-49) and Sayyid Qutb (1906-56), who followed Taymiya's arguments that jihad includes the overthrow of governments that fail to enforce the Shari'a, but then added that this jihad must occur first, before any jihad against external enemies can take place.
Muhammad 'Abd al-Salam Faraj wrote a pamphlet called The Neglected Duty, which is perhaps the best expression of this sort of thinking. This work was used to explain and justify the actions of those who assassinated Egyptian leader Anwar as-Sadat, and its author was executed right along with those directly involved in the plot.
Faraj argued not simply that armed, violent jihad is a cornerstone of Islam, but also that it is something which has been woefully negelected by Muslims in recent decades. This neglect is the direct cause of the current position of Islam in the world. To rectify this situation, force is required. Most current leaders of Muslim nations are defined as apostates - and since Islam traditionally prohibits warfare among Muslims, the assertion that these leaders are not "really" Muslims allows for violent action against them.
Ayatollah Khomeini believed similarly, arguing that Muslisms "by means of jihad and enjoining the good and forbidding the evil, must expose and overthrow tyrannical rulers and rouse the people so the universal movement of all alert Muslims can establish Islamic government in the place of tyrannical regimes."
And after the current crop of apostates has been dealt with, the next step of course is to expand the boundaries of Dar al-Islam in an effort to elimate Dar al-Harb completely. This proposal is partically messianic in nature, exhorting Muslims to ensure that the Shari'a is completely enforced so that a truly just social and political order will exist.
These ideas of a violent jihad are not the ravings of a few fringe lunatics. On the contrary, they are ideas which have influenced Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic political movements throughtout the Middle East. That these ideas have gained legitimacy is the reason why an extremists like Osama bin Laden can say to someone:
And he won't be laughed at or driven off as someone who is polluting the pure, peaceful nature of Islam.
Even leading Muslim clerics send mixed messages regarding how peaceful Islam is. Two days before the September 11th attacks, Hamza Yusuf was outside the White House giving a speech in which he said that the U.S. "stands condemned," and that "this country has a great, great tribulation coming to it."
On September 20th, he was meeting with the president, having joined with other religious leaders in a show of unity. There, he said that Islam had been hijacked, and now he says he regrets his earlier statements.
So if groups like CAIR wish to argue that jihad should not include violence, they are welcome to do so. However, they should not pretend that jihad has not historically included violence, and that a Muslim cannot believe in a violent jihad while also being theologically consistent.
There are Muslim traditions of a personal, non-violent jihad, and modern Muslims can make use of them. But they won't succeed if they simply deny the existence and validity of the more standard traditions. They must instead demonstrate that theirs is ultimately the superior choice out of many.
ooo
Guide to Missionary Tactics
By Br. Khaled Al-Banaa
[Note: Edited by JIMAS.
The following article is deemed quite useful and posted with a certain reference
to the translation/explanation of the noble Quran taken out, in order to avoid
silly arguments that may come forth from those who for one reason or another may
disagree to it. We just want to ensure that the important lessons below are not
missed by anyone of any persuasion. Full apologies to respected brother Khaled
for the unkind cut in his article!]
This guide is intended to improve awareness about the tactics used by some groups and cults. The tactics of missionaries and missionary groups may vary, but there are some basic guidelines to keep in mind that will be helpful in dealing with them.
______________________________________________
HIDDEN AGENDA
Some missionaries attempt to develop a rapport with their subject without divulging their own religious affiliation or intention. As an example to make making them seem less "Christian" missionaries are coached by their superiors to avoid using words such as "Christ" or "savior" or "baptize".
If you are not sure about the religious identity of the stranger who begins talking to you about religion, ask him directly about his beliefs and agenda. Be suspicious of an indirect answer. Remember these people aren't interested in dialogue or trying to improve Anglo-Muslim links but are often in SECURE PAID EMPLOYMENT to Sell Christianity.
CREATING DOUBT
When talking to a Muslim about religion, a missionary may attempt to elicit as many "I don't know" responses as possible, in order to establish his superiority in matters of religion. Don't allow yourself to be intimidated!
Remember, the missionary has studied Islamic beliefs for the sole purpose to sell Christianity to Muslims. There heart are sealed and they are no longer interested in truth. Keep in mind that he is not speaking to you in order to exchange ideas, but rather to create as much doubt in your mind and lead you away from your faith. If you want to learn more about the Quran, do so from someone who doesn't have hidden motives. Therefore, feel free to simply end the conversation and walk away.
Remember that many of these questions and associations they are trying to sell have been debunked many times by more learned Muslims. If they were interested in dialogue the would be speaking to respected elders and community leaders exploring common ground improving understanding and faith in the community, but all one sees are the often the same question again to unsuspecting victims. Ask yourself what do they hope to gain ?
However, some of you may want to listen to their arguments and then learn the Muslim response, in order to be better prepared for future encounters. One must also remember that many missionaries intentionally go into Muslim areas in Britain so they train themselves and create the most seductive "Sales Pitch" they can manage. Once they have finished there training in salesmanship they will target unsuspecting Muslims (the lonely, vulnerable and weak) lacking in knowledge.
The following pointers should give you a basic idea of what to look for.
DECEPTION
The missionary may tell you that he (or a Christian friend or acquaintance) was once an Muslim, or that he had a solid Muslim education, a traditional Muslim family life, etc. This is almost always a lie, so don't let him fool you. The hidden message that he is attempting to convey is that he came to accept Christianity after knowing and overcoming all of the Muslim objections (Jesus being son of god, Bible being corrupted by man etc.), and therefore, why should you bother to check it out?
He may drop certain Islamic phrases or talk about the details of his "traditional" Muslim upbringing, in order to lend more credence to his story. In fact, his "memory" is often the result of careful coaching.
The missionary might tell you that he knows the Islamic objections to his arguments, and will then proceed to show how such objectives are ill-founded. Don't expect to hear the real Islamic response from such a source.
GOOD, BAD OR UGLY
Don't be taken in by the "good cop - bad cop" routine. This routine involves a "bad cop" who threatens the subject, and a "good cop" who protects him from the "bad cop". The subject is so grateful to the "good cop", and so worried about losing the good-will of his protector, that he invariably shows his appreciation by telling the "good cop" what he wants to hear. In similar fashion, the "good" Christian talks about how much he loves and respects Muslims, while denouncing the "bad" Christians who hate and have persecuted Muslims. The naive and ones lacking in knowledge of Christian history and bigotry will feel grateful to the "good cop", and may automatically judge him to be a friend and reliable ally. Watch out for hidden motives behind such "friendship".
WHO BELIEVES IN THE SON OF GOD?
At the outset, the missionary will talk about his belief that Jesus is the messiah. Many Muslims don't find out until later, often after they have joined a Christian friendship group, that their fundamental belief is that Jesus is god. Any talk about "the messiah" or "son of god" is merely a cover for that belief, basic to Christianity . However, since such a concept is repugnant in Islam, this most basic belief of Christianity is glossed over as much as possible when missionaries talk to Muslims.
PROOF or SPOOF?
Don't be impressed by the claim that Christians have 50, or 100, or 300 "proofs" that they are correct in their claims about Jesus. As proof after proof is shown to be meaningless, the missionary will hide behind his numbers, as if to say: "Well, we have so many more proofs, what's the difference if you can disprove some of them". He will attempt to "split the difference" with you: "Well, even if half our proofs prove nothing, we still have another 25 or 50, or 150". Remember, all of their proofs can be shown to be untenable. Keep in mind that a faulty point is not worth 50% of a good point, or 25%, or 10%. It is worthless. The simple mathematics are: 50 x 0 = 0, 100 x 0 = 0, 300 x 0 = 0.
CIRCULAR REASONING
Very often, the reasoning used by Christian missionaries is circular. That is, the "proof" only points to something is if you believe it in the first place, and therefore is no proof at all.
MISTRANSLATION
Be aware of the problem of mistranslating. A person who is not familiar with Arabic can be lead to accept a mistranslating which puts a Christian "twist" on a verse that never had such a meaning in the original. If you can't check it out yourself, talk to a reliable person who can. Remember, it is no coincidence that the Muslims of past generations, who were much better versed in the Arabic, never had any serious problems refuting Christian missionary arguments.
In addition beware of Christian Translations of the Quran, many date from sixteenth to the eighteenth century with the sole intention of to discredit Islam.
Please keep in mind ANY translation (interpretation) of the Quran will most definitely contain errors In its natural language (Arabic), the Quran is the direct Word of Allah (God) to mankind through the prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him). Any translation of the Quran no longer retains that 'official' and perfect status, however it can be tremendously helpful to beginning students wanting to learn more about Islam.
We would strongly encourage those want to learn about Islam to purchase a copy of the Quran but with the following conditions:
+ get one with commentary (tafseer)
+ make sure the tafseer is scholarly (e.g. references to reasons behind a verse,
references to hadith and sunnah etc.)
QUOTING OUT OF CONTEXT
Often a verse will be quoted to you that has been taken entirely out of context. When the entire chapter that contains that verse is read, it becomes clear that it does not corroborate the Missionary.
Conclusion : Selling Timeshare or Christshare?
You may recognize many of the tactics used by some Missionaries in selling there faith as they have similarities to disreputable Timeshare and Double glazing salesman, and this raises some interesting points:
Why would one propagate faith in such a deceitful and underhanded way, is it because:
God will not aid ones seeking the true path?
A bad product is difficult to sell unless you dupe someone?
If you are genuinely interested in faith
Why don't you go ask someone with a sound knowledge and understanding of Islam, instead of targeting the naive, vulnerable and the weak.
Why do you seek out the naive and week and then intentionally ask Mischievous questions, when they have been answered many times by learned scholars and by people that you have approached over the years? Surely this does not add to knowledge or understanding.
Why do you target Muslims
Considering the moral depravity often in your own family and neighbourhood and within so called Christians.
Is it because Muslims are wealthy in faith?
Is it because you have so much hatred for us and you are unable, incapable or tired of other methods:
RIDICULE
There is a very large number of publications by Muslims explaining Islam in plain and simple English. Look in any public library for books on Islam, a large proportion of them will be by orientalists and Christian missionaries, what do you think motivates someone to write a book on a subject one does not believe in and an area that has been already covered by numerous other books? Remember Christian "Translations" of the Quran whose sole intention was to discredit Islam.
CRUSADES
Butchered everyone including defenseless women and children or any one else that got in there way. Although it has taken many hundreds of years Crusaders have improved they now only kill some women and RAPE THE REST. The twentieth centuary has seen "Ethnic Cleansing" replace the word Crusade, in 1996 one of the youngest recorded victim of rape in Bosnia was a baby of 4 Months old. Many women and children had two of there fingers severed by the Serbs so that the three remaining fingers would remind them of the Trinity.
A WAY FORWARD
While we as Muslims believe that the entire Quran is the word of God and we would like every one to accept it as such, God Himself has given the freedom of religion which we respect. With that in mind, all we hope is that non-Muslims will at least enlighten themselves with an open heart and mind by knowing what Islam is. We hope that Muslims, Christians and Jews will find ways to work together to bring peace on earth by eradicating immorality, fear, hate, disease, poverty and injustice.
Muslims welcome the chance improve dialogue and understanding with all faiths. In addition we do not object to other groups explaining there ideas and faith to whomever expresses an interest, but we do think it is unacceptable that missionaries demean other faiths, use deceitful methods and harass communities with what can be described highly trained and focused door to door salesman.
USE THE PROPER RESOURCES!
Most Muslims spend their time studying Islam trying to find a path to true enligtenment, and therefore may not be familiar with the "curve-ball" approach of missionaries. If you need advice concerning a problem of this sort, get in touch with people who are familiar with the tactics being used and who know how to deal with them.
Islam for Our Times: How & Why?
Dr. Ja`far Sheikh Idris
What do we mean when we say Islam is good for all times? How could it be applied in our time?
Islam, exactly as it was revealed to Prophet Muhammad, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam, and without any changes or alterations, is the religion that Allah chose for all people from the time he sent His Messenger till the end of time.
Islam is thus for recent times just as it was for earlier times. But while the texts of this religion are immutable, people's conditions are not. What can we do? In answering this question, people these days have been, basically, divided into two main camps: the faithful and the revisionist.
THE REVISIONIST SAYS: Keep the religious texts as they are but give them meanings that suit contemporary culture just as those before you gave them meanings that suited their particular cultures. The texts are divine revelation, but their understanding is a human endeavor. Divine words are absolute, but their human understanding is relative.
THE FAITHFUL ANSWERS: But the Qur'an was revealed in clear Arabic words whose meanings are well known to Arabic speaking people, "we send it down as an Arabic Qur'an in order that you may understand." [12:2] The Prophet, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam, explained the Qur'an verbally and by example. All the Prophet's words and deeds are considered to be a living commentary on the Qur'an. The companions of the Prophet were better placed to do so than later generations because Arabic was their mother tongue, and because they had knowledge of the occasions on which the verses were revealed, and the situations in which the Prophet's words were uttered. Then came generations after generations of great leading scholars whose extant works are a living witness to the fact that they understood the basic meanings of the verses of the Qur'an in generally the same way as they were understood by the first generations. Your claim that each generation gave the words of the Qur'an and those of the Prophet meanings that suited their contemporary cultures is one that history belies.
REVISIONIST: Are you saying that they never differed?
FAITHFUL: They differed only slightly as far as the basic meanings of the verses and the ahadeeth are concerned. But they naturally differed sometimes on matters like what was to be deduced logically from the text or the way rules were to be applied to a new situation. What is important here, is that the differences, whatever they were, did not come as a result of differences in culture. They were individual differences that accurred even among contemporaries living in the same cultural milieu. True, there were drastic differences, but they were among those who adhered to the correct method as well as those who adopted irrational methods.
REVISIONIST: Are you claiming that there is a scientific method for the interpretation of Islamic text?
FAITHFUL: I am saying rather that there is a scientific method for the basic understanding of every text, Islamic or otherwise.
REVISIONIST: How?
FAITHFUL: If you want to understand a poem by say, Shakespeare, what do you do?
REVISIONIST: I consult the books that explain what Shakespeare meant by it.
FAITHFUL: Do you mean that you do not understand it in the light of your contemporary culture?
REVISIONIST: No, because my aim is to understand what Shakespeare meant by his poem.
FAITHFUL: Do you mean that you give his words and phrases the meaning that he meant by them at the time that he wrote his poem, even if they differed from what current English usage might suggest?
REVISIONIST; Of course; because my aim, as 1 said, is to understand what Shakespeare actually meant. If 1 give his words meanings that he did not intend by them, I would be attributing to him something that he did not say.
FAITHFUL: Do you follow this same method if you want to be, say, an Aristotle's expert? Do you try, for example, to learn ancient Greek in which he wrote his philosophy?
REVISIONIST: I certainly would, and would try not to confuse it with Modern Greek, because my aim again is to understand what Aristotle said.
FAITHFUL: Are there any ways, besides his language that you think would help you in understanding his philosophy?
REVISIONIST: Yes, I would, for example, try to see how his contemporaries understood it because they were better placed to do so than I am. I would also consult the works of the experts who preceded me, and so on.
FAITHFUL: Well, that is the method that we called scientific, and it is the method we advocate for understanding Islamic texts.
REVISIONIST: But you are now ignoring the great differences between ordinary texts and Islamic texts.
FAITHFUL: Would you please elucidate those differences for me?
REVISIONIST: One of them is that I can understand what humans like myself really mean because I am human being, and because they address me in words that are human; therefore limited. But God is absolute and what He means is absolute, and cannot therefore be couched in limited human words. But if every reader of Islamic text is given the right to interpret them the way the reader understands them, there will be a multiplicity of meanings which approaches the absolute.
FAITHFUL: Leaving aside your vague talk about the limited and the absolute, the gist of what you are saying is that while human beings have the ability to successfully communicate their meanings through a medium like Arabic, God fails to do so. This is despite the fact that He himself says that he used this human language so that those who speak it may under stand his message.
REVISIONIST: This looks like a good argument. But related to the difference we just mentioned is another important one. Islam, we say, is good for all times and places. If we give the words of its texts the same meanings that an earlier generation like the Prophet's companions gave, we would be limiting Islam to a particular age.
FAITHFUL: So, what is the alternative?
REVISIONIST: The alternative is what I propounded at the beginning of our dialogue. Every generation of Muslims should give them the meanings that suit their culture.
FAITHFUL: Is this the understanding of the principle of the suitability of Islam for all times and places?
REVISIONIST: It is, and I don't see how it can otherwise be.
FAITHFUL: If the characteristic of the suitability of a message for all times and places is what you take it to be, then any message, even one that is advocated by the most stupid of human beings can fit it.
REVISIONIST: / think you're exaggerating.
FAITHFUL: I am not, suppose that some one called Mr. Donkey formulated what he thought was a comprehensive ideology that consisted of many doctrines on different aspects of life. Suppose that, to make it suitable for all time and places Mr. Donkey concluded his ideology with this statement; I hereby give all believers in this world ideology the right to make any changes in it they deem necessary to make it suit their different times and circumstance.
REVISIONIST: Change will start to be made in donkeyanism soon after it is issued so much so that after a short lapse of time nothing remains of it except that concluding statement. But the Donkeyans will continue to boast of the suitability of their ideology to all times and places.
FAITHFUL: Is this how you conceive Islam to be?
REVISIONIST: Of course not. But then, what is your conception of this characteristic of the Islamic religion?
FAITHFUL: I conceive it to mean that Islam, as it was revealed to Muhammad, and without the slightest alterations, is good for all times and places. What makes this miracle possible is that Islam is not a manmade religion. It is a message of guidance from the Creator of mankind who knows who they essentially are, and who thus addresses them as human beings, and irrespective of their different cultures, colors, times, places, standards of living and so on.
REVISIONIST: What do you then mean by the phrase 'Islam for our times'?
FAITHFUL: I am saying that though the religion does not change, people's circumstances and problems do change. And so, to make the immutable religion relevant to their special circumstances, we need to present it in a language that our contemporaries understand, evaluate, in the light of it, any new ideas or ideologies that have a bearing on it, refute any claims that throw doubt on it, find in it solutions for new intellectual problems.
Finally it is important to make use of scientific discoveries to strengthen the faith of its adherents, and to use them as means of invitation to Islam. And many other things, all of which are made possible because though the texts are limited, what can be deduced and learnt from them is not.
Justice In Dealing With Differences in Opinion
Shaykh Salman al-`Awdah
Moral Code of the Daa`iya
Translated by Muhammad Buneef (Edited transl.) Difference of opinion is one of
mankind's natures, "And if your Lord had willed, He could have made mankind
one community, but they will not cease to differ. Except whom your Lord has
givenmercy..." (Surah Hud:118-119) Doubtlessly, differences in opinion occur
due to differences in intentions and purposes, differences in the strength of
minds and perceptions, and differences in knowledge. Dealing with these
differences requires a firm footing in the shariah.
Some duaat invite to the unity of the rank and file in order to forget conflict, without defining as to whom to unify with and who to be separated from due to misguidance and deviations. On the other hand, there is one who exaggerates about the conditions, to the point that he wants people to agree with him in everything, even in his personnal ijtihad and his own opinions. And if anybody disagrees with him, he turns away from him, takes the attitude of resistance towards him, and becomes careless and disrespectful to him! Justice is accepting the difference in that in which difference is permissible. Like the means of dawa, secondary matters, those rulings in which scholars of the past differed..., that which is based on the shariah ijtihad in understanding of the texts, not simply on desires. As for leniency towards the people of innovation concerning 'aqeedah, and fundamental deviations under the pretext of unifying the ranks, this is a false procedure that does not relate to reason nor to the shar'. As for asking people to agree in everything, and not to differ in anything at all, this is impossible and unreal.
The Dangers of Narrow-Mindedness
Narrow-mindedness is defined as lacking tolerance or not having the mental faculty to see beyond the superficial and recognize the underlying truth. Currently, this tendency appears to be widespread in all segments of Muslim communities.
The primary reason for this deplorable condition is ignorance, the inability to recognize this deficiency and to take corrective action. This situation is further aggravated if the ignorant person considers himself to be the epitome of wisdom, and if, he is in a leadership or a highly visible position, he can cause unnecessary harm to a family, a community or a an entire nation.
Absence of insight can also result in narrow-mindedness by having a negative effect on one’s thought processes. Insight is a rare virtue, and quite different from ignorance. A person who lacks insight may possess some knowledge, but derives no benefit from it due to a lack of analytical skills while someone with insight assesses his or her knowledge of a situation and then selects and uses its relevant parts. Through insight, they are able4 to see what others may not. Ibnul Qayyim, the famous Islamic scholar and author, said: "One person may read a text and learn one or two lessons from it, while another may learn one or two hundred."
A rigidly traditional individual’s perceptivity, like that of a captive frog in a deep well, is able to function only within narrow parameters. He does not realize that there are boundless vistas of knowledge beyond the scope of the well, therefore, his mental and intellectual evolution remains stunted. He is unable to take advantage of the knowledge available beyond his limited horizon.
Blind imitation creates another obstacle to one’s intellectual growth. The two world wars of the past century are the perfect examples of this disability that can allow ruthless political or religious leaders to manipulate the minds of people who are unable to form their own objective view.
Some individuals habitually look at things from one angle and accept them as actual facts without thinking that there may be a different side to the issue, or that reality may actually be quite different from appearance. In the following verse, Allah points out that the appearance of the hypocrites may not be a true indication of their reality: "And when you see them, you like their appearance, but when they speak and you listen to them, they seem worthless" … and then He goes on to give this warning: "They are the enemy, so be warned of them. The curse of Allah be upon them, how they are perverted." [63:4]
Furthermore, some people are impressed by quantity at the expense of quality. Referring to the battle of Hunain, Allah says: "On the day of Hunain, your numbers impressed you but did not benefit you." But, "If there be amongst you twenty who show fortitude, they will defeat two hundred." This does not, of course, mean that appearances are to be completely disregarded or that quantity is totally irrelevant. These fundamentals should not be valued in isolation, but should be understood through insight and common sense.
A failure to prioritize or differentiate wrong from right often leads people to lose sight of the broader picture. Often people will focus on the immediate and disregard the potential disastrous effects of an action further down the road. Along with ignorance, narrow-mindedness and, of course, a lack of insight, these gaps usually prove detrimental to that individual’s future.