Maikling pagpapakilala

We are religiously tolerant when we give others the freedom to do things and believe things, even though we feel that they are wrong! To some people, this is not easy. Some feel that their religion is the only true faith, and that to oppress followers of another religion is to promote God's will in society. We support their right to believe this. But we oppose them if they want to take action to oppress others. That path leads to the killing fields of Bosnia- Herzegovina, massacres in East Timor, the gas chambers of Nazi Germany and numerous other horrors.

With Islam coming to the West through immigration and conversion, it is to be expected that attitudes in the "public square" are going to be affected. The social reality of religious pluralism, where Islam and other religions cannot live in isolation any more, forces us to take seriously the implications of such a plurality of religious views and examine the effects on religious freedom and tolerance. Can Muslims and other religious people live together in peace and harmony? As a student of world religions says: "Frankly, the history of religion is not reassuring."^[1]

What makes some Muslims behave as they did in the streets of a French city? What leads some Muslims to blow up the World Trade Center towers in an American city, killing thousands of civilians? Is this behavior an expression of true Islam or a perversion of it? What does Islam teach on religious tolerance? These are questions that cannot be answered quickly or easily and yet the answers are there if one looks diligently.

The importance of understanding the Islam of the Qur’an

As Jacques Ellul says: "It is impossible to judge the Islamic world in a general way: a hundred different cultures have been absorbed by Islam. It is impossible to study all the doctrines, all the traditions, and all their applications together. Such a study can only be undertaken if one limits oneself to the study of specific questions, disentangling what is true from what is false."^[2]

My task in this piece of writing is to look at the environment of the interfaith exchange in a pluralistic society, especially focusing on the impact of Islam on such an environment. It is important to clarify that the Islam I have in view in this writing is the Qur’anic Islam – the Islam that is faithful to its source, the Islam which cannot exist without the Qur’an as it is – not innovative forms of Islam, or the Islam of people who do not understand and do not follow their religion as prescribed for them in the Qur’an.

I will not analyze the differences between numerous branches of Islam with their specific teachings and beliefs. I choose to focus on the teaching of the Qur’an since this is the common denominator for all the different branches of Islam. It is the one source which all Muslims accept, whilst other sources of authority are interpreted and believed (or denied) in unpredictable ways. My concern, therefore, deals exclusively with the unavoidable Islam, that form of Islam which will exist as long as the Qur’an exists.

I will specifically explore the extent to which Qur’anic Islam tolerates other religions.

The central question to be investigated in this study is this:

The professor and author Edward W. Said, who was born in Palestine but has resided in US since the 1950’s, claims as a matter of fact that "ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union there has been an active, explicit search in the United States for new official enemies, a search that has now come to settle on ‘Islam’ as a manufactured opponent."^[3] Seeking to avoid projecting a "manufactured Islam," one of the goals of this paper is to combat prejudice – that is, a posture which is not based on relevant information and experience, either favorable or unfavorable, about Islam.

In a recent article in Time magazine, Michael Elliott comments on the PBS documentary "Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet" (funded partially by a number of Islamic foundations). He writes: "What the world needs is not a hagiography of the Prophet or an apologia for Islam but a clear sense that modern Muslims are prepared to engage in an honest debate on the way in which their faith has been perverted by those who kill thousands of innocents."^[4] In this writing I seek to contribute toward the need for a clear sense in the debate about the relationship of the Muslim faith and its violent expressions.

The importance of understanding the unavoidable Islam involves exposing the lies of some presentations of Islam and raising awareness about the challenge presented by a faithful expression of Qur’anic Islam. We will also look at how it may affect the future of the democratic society, as formed by the values of Western civilization.

King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, a Muslim, has said: "The Democratic system that is predominant in the world is not a suitable system for the peoples of our region."^[5] It is important to determine why Fahd believes this to be so; and if the Islam to which he adheres is the Qur’anic (unavoidable) Islam, then how do Islam and democracy co-exist in a pluralistic society. Can Islam be tolerant?

Defining "tolerance"

Since we need to understand what the Qur’an teaches about religious tolerance we must define what tolerance is, and then we must see if there is such a thing taught in the Qur’an. Some Muslims may object to this approach, saying that the Qur’an ought to define the meaning of tolerance. The goal here, however, is to compare the concept of tolerance as generally understood in the democratic West with "Qur’anic tolerance."

Tolerance is different from toleration. Jay Newman wrote:

... [W]e are reminded that there are two different nouns corresponding to the verb ‘tolerate’ – ‘tolerance’ and ‘toleration.’ The latter seems to have a broader application; it refers to any instance of tolerating. But ‘tolerance’ is more closely related to the adjective ‘tolerant.’ Toleration is merely instantiated in each instance of toleration; the term is entirely behavioural. Tolerance is expressed as well as instantiated in tolerant actions. A person can be tolerant on one occasion and intolerant on another. But most of us believe that some men are generally tolerant while others are not. ‘Tolerance,’ then, unlike ‘toleration,’ is often seen as a character trait, a disposition, and usually as that kind of disposition that we call a ‘virtue.’^[6]

To describe a person, a religion, or a doctrine as both tolerant and intolerant says nothing about the disposition or character of such an entity with regard to tolerance.^[7] It is not possible to characterize any person or religion as both tolerant and intolerant if tolerance is understood as a normative and defining virtue. One person or religion can be intolerant, although at times may show toleration; another can be tolerant but, inconsistently with the tolerant character, may show lack of toleration in specific or isolated occasions. This distinction between "tolerance" as a normative virtue (something we ought to exemplify consistently) and "toleration" merely as an instantiation of tolerance (occasioned by expediency), is important to bear in mind as we investigate Muslim scripture and history where there may be examples of toleration.

Tolerance and the view of truth

What does it mean to tolerate another’s beliefs? To "tolerate" another’s beliefs does not mean that one accepts them as true; but in being tolerant one respects another’s right to free will to choose what to believe. As Newman clarifies, "Tolerating a religious belief, then, does not involve a half-hearted acceptance or endurance of the belief in itself, but rather it involves acceptance or endurance of someone’s holding that belief, that is of a certain case of believing."^[8]

Relativists modify this meaning of tolerance to make it more of a propositional attitude, which involves respecting another’s religious beliefs as being of equal value to all other truth claims, even one’s own convictions. If this line of thought, however, is followed to its logical conclusion, a person could end up holding as equally true both propositions, even if they are obviously contradictory.

Metaphysical relativism considers metaphysical constructs as valuable in that they give significance to our lives; but it is not necessary for them to correspond with something objective outside of our minds. They are basically our own constructs. The motivation for such a conclusion may be epistemological (doubting the possibility to know things as they are in themselves, following the Kantian postulation of the categories of the mind that give shape to reality as experienced by us) or moral (in seeking to accommodate everybody’s view).

When metaphysical relativism is considered as a foundation for tolerance, we end up with no tolerance at all because it deprives the belief of any significance which makes it worth holding. On the other hand, this view also ends up being another dogmatism itself, as Newman writes: "Tolerance, after all, does not demand that one believe that every other person’s metaphysical views are as true or as reasonable or as profound as his own. Indeed ... tolerance is possible only because we are capable of putting up with things that we do not like ... or agree with."^[9] This condition implies: (1) having a certain belief and (2) being introduced to another person who holds beliefs with which you disagree. If we didn’t have to put up with those who hold beliefs contrary to ours, there would be no need for tolerance. If all believed the same thing, namely, that all religious beliefs are not to be taken seriously, but rather are to be considered merely as different keys in a piano (which may be different but not true or false), than what is there to tolerate?

In conclusion, we can say that tolerance means exemplifying an attitude of respect^[10] or endurance toward another’s views, even those one may consider false, and tolerance as such can rightly be a virtue in one who believes in absolute truth. Muslims and Christians (and others who believe in the nature of truth as absolute and objective), have a real opportunity to be tolerant in this sense of the word, while relativists don’t.

Muslim background beliefs

To understand the Muslim view of tolerance we need to understand some basic concepts of the Muslim worldview and sources of authority. The answer to many questions about Islam and its nature is connected with understanding "the very structure of Islam as a religious and political complex."^[11] Although the so called Christian Byzantine Empire and the Western Holy Roman Empire, with the close association of the Christian Church and the State throughout the Middle Ages might suggest a similarity with the Islamic religious-political structure, it is a wrong assumption to consider them identical.^[12] Islam is radically different in that in its very identity is a political-religious structure. Fazlur Rahman, a well respected Muslim scholar writes: "Islam insisted on the assumption of political power since it regarded itself as the repository of the Will of God which had to be worked on earth through a political order ... To deny this fact would be both to violate history and to deny justice to Islam itself."^[13]

The concept of God as "Allah" is of a being that is totally other, wholly transcendent to the point of implying that Allah is unknowable in himself but known in his will and requirements revealed in the Qur’an (Sura 42:11; 112:1-4). In the words of a Muslim scholar: "You may not have complete transcendence and self-revelation at the same time."^[14] This view of God is accompanied by a view of humans as the "slaves" of God (Sura 19:93). One major concept in Islam is captured in the very meaning of the word "Islam" itself: namely "submission," which carries the sense of laying down arms before the victor and is taken to exemplify the total submission of every aspect of life, as an individual and society to Allah (The God).

The Qur’an teaches about itself that it is God’s direct and verbal word, that it is eternal and came down from what is preserved in heaven (Sura 85:22) as the "Mother of the Book" (Sura 3:7; 13:39; 43:4). Although the Qur’an considers the Old and New Testaments as God’s word (Sura 3:93; 4:163; 5:46 etc.), it considers its own authority as greater than theirs (Sura 5:48). Even the Arabic language of the Qur’an is considered an integral part of Allah’s word (Sura 20:113; 12:2), therefore, Muslims consider the Islamic culture as of heavenly origin.^[15]

So, Islam is a political, cultural and religious system. Religion, as based primarily on the Qur’an, is a part of the system, which informs all the other aspects of the Islamic system. Religious doctrine, however, is viewed in Islam as a preamble to Islamic law, the Shariah (divine law),^[16] which is a comprehensive code governing every aspect of life, because Islam is a religion primarily oriented toward law rather than theology.^[17]

Another important Muslim concept is the "Umma," or "the community of submission." Although Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, had been reciting the earliest Suras of the Qur’an starting in A.D. 610 for about 13 years, it is A.D. 622 that marks the beginning of the Muslim era, because this marks the emergence of the "Umma," the establishment of the Muslim political- religious structure. Dr. W. Bonar Sidjabat writes: "... the Islam of the Qur’an is theocratic and the Muslim state was a theocracy from its first ascent to power."^[18]

Prior to A.D. 622, Muhammad had not attracted many with his monotheistic message. The people of Mecca, the city of Muhammad’s birth and his first decade of religious activity (which started when he was 40 years old), were not responding positively to Muhammad’s message. They eventually made life so miserable for Muhammad and his few followers that they decided to flee to Medina, another city three hundred miles to the north, where some people had invited Muhammad to mediate differences between various tribal groups. William J. Saal writes:

That well-known event, the Hijra [emigration to Medina], gave Muhammed opportunity to gain control of Medina and eventually extend that control to the entire Arabian Peninsula and beyond.

This event is the pivotal event of Islamic history and has become the starting point of the Muslim calendar. Muslims believe that God’s ultimate objective was the creation of a new universal social order. The Hijra marks the beginning of this new world order, today identified with the Nation or Community of Islam, the Ummah.^[19]

There are many issues that require further development at this point in tracing the history of Islam; the looting of Meccan caravans and subsequent battles with Meccan protectors of the caravans (Sura 2:216-218) in A.D. 624; the conquering of Mecca in A.D. 630; massacres of Jews; and military campaigns against the Christians in the north of Arabia under the leadership of Muhammad. He died in A.D. 632 "... but not without ordering about a month before his death another expedition to the North."^[20] We should turn to our main question now and will pursue history only in relation to defining the Qur’anic view of religious tolerance.

The Qur’an: its importance

The Qur’an is the absolute authority of Islam (socio-political-economic-cultural-religious system). Fazlur Rahman writes: "This ‘Other’ [Allah] through some channel ‘dictated’ the Qur’an with an absolute authority."^[21] The high esteem with which Muslims regard the Qur’an seems best captured by a Muslim scholar, Yusuf K. Ibish, who says: "It is not a book in the ordinary sense, nor is it comparable to the Bible, either the Old or New Testaments. ... If you want to compare it with anything in Christianity, you must compare it with Christ Himself ... Christ was the expression of the Divine among men, the revelation of the Divine Will. That is what the Qur’an is."^[22]

With regard to the importance of the Qur’an in forming a concept of tolerance in Islam, Sidjabat correctly observes:

[A]lthough the Muslim opinion about any problem does not always find its answer literally in the Qur’an, but also in and supported by the Sunnah (custom) and Hadith (tradition), the Ijma (consensus) and Qias (analogy), the value of the Qur’an as the primary source of any Islamic religious problem is decisive. ... Its significance for the concept of religious tolerance is obvious, if we realize that the Qur’an can be considered as the command of God ... Following the contents of the Qur’an means practically being obedient to the will of Allah no matter how tolerant or intolerant this might be for others.^[23]

Sidjabat even goes so far as to suggest that Muhammad’s "political tolerance or intolerance should not be primarily attributed to Mohammad himself but rather to Allah from Whom – as Mohammad believed – came the Qur’an."^[24]

Qur’an’s nature and the problem of chronology

One would assume that if we just read the Qur’an we should be able to follow its teaching on tolerance easily, but that is not the case. Ignaz Goldziher, considered one of the outstanding European Islamists, wrote: "In its entirety, [the Qur’an] represents an amalgam of the two essentially heterogeneous periods that form the infancy of Islam [Meccan and Medinese]."^[25] Nevertheless, chronology and delineation of those periods, is downplayed in the present arrangement of the Qur’an; "ignoring its own pivot," as Kenneth Cragg puts it.^[26] Cragg says:

Through the sequences of [Muhammad’s] career – yearning, vision, utterance, pertinacity, controversy, endurance, rejection, emigration, militancy and triumph – the accumulation of the Qur’an moves in parallel relation, fusing meaning with mission, and truth with setting. It is as events unfold that the whole grows into entirety ... [But] In many circles, the non-chronological form of the Qur’an as it stands, however we account for it, becomes in this way a virtue in disguise or, rather, a proper parable of the necessary transcendence of mere point and circumstance which the believer should attain. God had not allowed the Qur’an to be arranged in sequence, in order to preclude notions of the time factor and of calendar time itself, seen as embarrassments to its celestial status.^[27]

The Qur’an was not written down systematically during the time of Muhammad but was primarily memorized by Muhammad’s followers. It was not until after his death, and due to the fear that those who knew the Qur’an by heart were dying in the conquering battles Muslims were fighting, that Umar got the idea to ask Muhammad’s successor (caliph) Abu Bakr (632-634) to "order that the Qur’an be collected."^[28] Although that compilation of the Qur’an doesn’t exist^[29] and there was another compilation made during the third successor, Uthman (644-656),^[30] the order of the chapters (Sura) was decided at the time of the first official copy as the order of length rather than chronology.^[31] All the other competing variants of Qur’an, "whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, [were ordered to] be burned."^[32]

The Qur’an itself does not help in determining the order of the chapters and sometimes, even verses from one chapter come from different periods. Cragg observes: "... the Surahs, especially the longer ones, are composite within themselves as well as irregular in time, so that the continuous reader oscillates bewilderingly across the years and has, indeed, a better chance of being in historical step if he starts at Surah 114 and reads back to Surah 2, than if he lets the paging guide him."^[33]

On the one hand, Muslims believe that since the Qur’an is eternal there is no need for a chronological order but, on the other hand, as Fazlur Rahman says: "the ‘occasions of revelation’ were recorded [in the Hadith] as a necessary aid for fixing the correct meaning of the Word of God."^[34] Some construction of the chronological order therefore has been undertaken by scholars, which should be supplemented with the "historical traditions containing reports about how those among whom the Qur’an first appeared understood its injunctions and statements."^[35]

The reason chronology is very important for our search for a definition of Qur’anic tolerance is related to the doctrine of abrogation taught therein. Sura 2:106 says: "Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it."^[36] Zamakshari, a famous Muslim scholar, commenting on this verse, wrote: "To abrogate a verse means the God removes (azala) it by putting another in its place. To cause a verse to be abrogated means that God gives the command that it be abrogated. ... Every verse is made to vanish whenever the well-being (maslaha) (of the community) requires that it be eliminated ... We bring a verse which is better for the servants (of God), that is, a verse through which one gains a greater benefit, or one which is equal to it in this respect."^[37]

In the earlier Meccan period, Muhammad may well have taught that he was to "declare openly ... and turn aside from the polytheists" (Sura 15:94) or to "call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner" (Sura 16:125).^[38] But when Muhammad went to Medina "it was ... time for a different watchword: ‘... kill the idolaters wherever you find them; take them prisoner, lay siege to them, and wait for them in every ambush’ (9:5); ‘fight in the way of God’ (2:244)."^[39] Have the later verses of Medina abrogated the earlier ones in this case to serve better the interests of the Muslim Community? Many commentators think that this is the case, although they disagree about the extent of the abrogation and the specific suras it applies to.^[40]

Following some chronological arrangement for the Suras (according to Nöldeke’s listing) that is generally accepted by Muslim scholars, we will now look at some pertinent verses from the Qur’an.^[41]

Qur’anic teaching on relating to "religious others"^[42]

Although the majority of Surahs (90 out of 114) were recited during the first 13 years of persecution in Mecca, it is interesting to notice that none of them contains commands to fight and kill.^[43] It is after the Hijra, the establishing of the first Muslim community in Medina, that the teaching on attacking religious others unfolded. Rev. Richard Bailey, in his study "Jihad," traces the progression of the attitude toward religious others in four stages: (1) No retaliation (in Mecca), (2) Defensive fighting permitted (in Medina), (3) Defensive fighting commanded (in Medina), and (4) Offensive war commanded (after conquering Mecca).^[44] I will follow the same progression but in three phases, linking phases two and three together.

In the Meccan Sura 67:26 and 22:49 we read: "Say ‘... I am (sent) only to warn plainly in public’" and "Say, ‘O men! I am (sent) to you only to give a clear warning.’"

During this period it is clear that Muhammad did not perceive his role to be that of a ruler and military leader. Another Meccan Sura 17:54, confirms this understanding by saying: "... We have not sent thee to be a disposer of their affairs for them." At this time in Mecca (A.D. 610 – 622), Muhammad seems to uphold tolerance in the real sense of the term as discussed earlier when he recites: "Repel evil with that which is best ... We are well acquainted with the things they say. And say, ‘O my Lord! I seek refuge with thee from the suggestions of the evil ones. And I seek refuge with thee of my Lord, lest they should come near me’" (Meccan Sura 23:96).

Mecca was the city of the Ka’aba, a cubic structure where 360 idols were presented for worship. Meccans, who profited from being the guardians of Ka’aba, did not welcome the Message of Muhammad. Their economic and religious traditions were threatened, therefore they ridiculed and harassed the little group of Muslims up to the point where they forbade them to go to the Ka’aba for their religious ritual, while all the polytheists could visit the shrine freely. It is difficult to understand why monotheist Muslims would want to worship at the shrine of 360 idols, but whatever the reason, it is in this context of prohibiting them to worship at the Ka’aba that the words "repel evil with that which is best" were recited. These words can give the impression that the virtue of tolerance is being taught in the Qur’an. If this was the whole of the Qur’anic teaching it may well have been the case that it teaches tolerance in the real sense, namely enduring religious others whilst disagreeing with their beliefs. But, in light of future developments, there is another possible interpretation of these verses, which might render this phase of the history of Islam as one of toleration rather than characterizing Islam as tolerant. It could have been simply a strategic position in order to survive since, being such a small number (no more than 150 converts),^[45] they would have been obliterated if they had decided to retaliate (Sura 8:26).

After Muhammad and his followers went to Medina, 13 years after the beginning of the movement, we see a different attitude toward those who didn’t believe the message of Muhammad. The Medinan Sura 2:190-194 says:

Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do no transgress limit; for God loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; But fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, God is oft-forgiving, most merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression ... If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear God, and know that God is with those who restrain themselves. (Emphasis mine.)

In his commentary Yusuf Ali writes: "If they want forcibly to prevent you from exercising your sacred rites, they have declared war on your religion, and it would be cowardice to ignore the challenge or to fail in rooting out the tyranny."^[46] This is in stark contrast to the previous Meccan attitude of bearing with and not retaliating against those who didn’t let Muslims go to perform the ritual at the Ka’aba, forcibly preventing them from exercising their sacred rites and in effect declaring war on Muslim religion as Ali interprets the opposition against Muslims.

The previous attitude of non-retaliation was not considered cowardice before but now the same persecution is considered worthy of war. What has changed in the situation is the strength of the Muslim community in military terms. The verses we have looked at so far present two different responses toward the same situation, namely, no retaliation at one time and retaliation at a more opportune time against opponents of Muslim religion.

In the face of this drastic change in the proposed response of Muslims toward those who oppose them, Rahman says: "... so far as the Prophet was concerned, there was absolutely no change in him from Mecca to Medina, except that in Medina external circumstances were favourable to him, something that he had longed for in Mecca."^[47] We can conclude, therefore, that the first attitude of non-retaliation was not a normative virtue but rather an expedient attitude due to circumstances, which cannot qualify as tolerance toward religious others but merely as expedient toleration.

Rahman referring to Muhammad in Medina says: "... the Prophet turned to the task that was the crux of his Prophetic mission: to bring Mecca to accept Islam and through the religious center of Mecca to spread Islam further. All his efforts thenceforward are directed to this end."^[48] Fleeing for his life after failing to influence Mecca from inside, Muhammad sought to convert the Meccans by force, which was eventually achieved after eight years of fighting.

One clear example from the Qur’an with regard to the unprovoked war by Muslims, is found in Sura 2:216-218, which says:

Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth, and ye know not. They ask thee concerning fighting in the prohibited month. Say: ‘Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of God to prevent access to the path of God, to deny Him, to prevent access to the sacred mosque [polytheistic Ka’aba in Mecca prior to its Muslim conquest], and drive out its members.’ Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the hereafter. They will be companions of the fire and will abide therein. Those who believed and those who suffered exile fought (and strove and struggled) in the path of God, they have the hope of the mercy of God, and God is oft-forgiving, most merciful. (Emphasis mine.)

To understand the significance of the passage one has to know the historical context it refers to. Rahman explains: "The Qur’an ... is referring to a skirmish that took place without the Prophet’s explicit permission between a Meccan caravan and a group of emigrants during the ‘forbidden months’ (when fighting was not allowed by Arab inter-tribal law) in [A.D. 624]."^[49] Whatever the "explicit permission" and "a skirmish" means for Rahman, another respected Muslim scholar, Baidawi, explains:

"... the Prophet sent out his paternal cousin ‘Abd Allah ibn Jahsh with an expeditionary force, in order to be on the look-out for a caravan of (the tribe of) Quraish ... they killed ‘Amr, took two of his men captive, and drove away the caravan, which contained the goods of trade from at-Ta’if. This happened at the beginning of (the month of) Rajab, while ‘Abd Allah and his people believed it was (still) the (month of) Jumada l-Akhira. ... This is supposed to have been the first booty in Islam."^[50]

Amazingly, after quoting the Qur’anic verse above, and after saying earlier that the prophetic task was to convert Meccans (implying the use of force), Rahman writes: "It is, therefore, obvious that the Prophet’s measures in terms of militaristic operations from Medina were not unprovoked."^[51] Some things need to be pointed out about this conclusion of Rahman.

If Meccans were going to fight Muslims in Medina it seems strange that they would go in war with caravans of goods. It is obvious that it was Muslims, attacking the Meccan caravans as they were passing to go home, who started the wars between Muslims and Meccans. They broke the customs that pagans themselves didn’t break, namely fighting in the sacred month, considered by the Qur’an itself as "great offense." W. Montgomery Watt commenting on Sura 2:194 about the holy month, writes: "Though the taboos were originally matters of pagan religion, many were accepted by Islam."^[52] How can one say that the Meccans provoked the Muslims in this situation, except by the lure of goods to be looted from the caravans? There is plenty of testimony in the Qur’an itself that Muslims suffered from the greed of looting (Sura 8:1; 8:67-69; 3:152).

Important to note in this Qur’anic passage is the attitude of distrust toward religious others: the portrayal of them as seeking to convert Muslims to another faith by force and thus motivating Muslims to do the same. Another aspect is the threatening attitude toward a Muslim who may convert to another religion. One hadith makes it more specific with Muhammad saying: "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but God and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In qisas [retaliation] for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and one who reverts from Islam and leaves the Muslims."^[53]

This prescribed attitude toward a Muslim embracing another religion has implications for tolerance. Moucarry correctly observes what true religious tolerance involves as he focuses on Christians and Muslims: "Christians and Muslims will be genuinely tolerant only when they have accepted the idea that debate, or dialogue, may lead to conversions either to Christianity or to Islam."^[54] Based on the Qur’anic passage above, therefore, we cannot fail to note that the Qur’an does not convey a situation where religious others can co-exist as equals with Muslims. The relationship between people of different religions is seen as between ruler and the subdued.

Another example from the Qur’an regarding this concept of ruling and authentication of the true religion by military victory and political supremacy (the seal of approval from God for the Muslim cause is seen in political dominance), is the passage referring to the battle of Badr,^[55] called the "testing" or the "criterion." Surah 8:38-42 says:

Say to the unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from unbelief), their past would be forgiven them, but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God altogether and everywhere. But if they cease, verily God doth see all that they do. If they refuse, be sure that God is your protector – the best to protect and the best to help. And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to God, – and to the Apostle, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer, – If you do believe in God and in the revelation we sent down to our servant on the day of testing, day of the meeting of the two forces. For God hath power over all things.

Remember ye were on the hither side of the valley, and they on the farther side, and the caravan on the lower ground than ye. Even if ye had made a mutual appointment to meet, ye could certainly have failed in the appointment, but (thus ye met), that God might accomplish a matter already enacted, that those who died might die after a clear sign (had been given), and those who lived might live after a clear sign (had been given).^[56] And verily God is He who heareth and knoweth (all things). (Emphasis mine.)

Commenting on the "day of testing," which refers to the meeting of Muslim and Meccan forces, Yusuf Ali considers the criterion between right and wrong to be decided by the military victory between two armies: "the forces of faith and of unbelief."^[57] The winning of the physical battle justifies the Muslim cause and to this day this kind of success, namely political rule, is seen as the mark of true, authenticated Islam.

The Muslims obviously didn’t know that Meccans would have an army coming to protect the caravan (that is why the meeting of the armies is considered an appointment of God not foreseen by them) but when they saw the Meccan army, since they were small in number, Muslims decided to deal with the danger of the Meccan army rather than loot the Meccan caravan which was what they originally desired. The Muslims won and that was believed to justify the Muslim cause. The belief that their strategy of asserting themselves as Muslims by waging war had God’s approval continued to cement their confidence and motivate further fighting.

What concerns us at this point is the attitude toward religious others. As far as we can tell, the Qur’an makes the case that fighting was against unbelievers as such. The phrase "Fight them until there is no more oppression" refers to fighting Meccans who still would not allow Muslims to perform the ritual at the Ka’aba. But, the extent of the war, which is to continue until "there prevail justice and faith in God altogether and everywhere" points to the real agenda of imposing Islam as supreme religion. Again, the envisioned environment with religious others, indelible in the Qur’an itself, is not one of equality, i.e. a pluralistic society, but of a victorious religion which subdues the others. This is what is actually said in Sura 8:67-69: "It is not fitting for an Apostle that he should have prisoners of war until he had thoroughly subdued the land." (Emphasis mine.)

Yusuf Ali’s comment follows: "An ordinary war may be for territory or trade, revenge or military glory – all temporal goods of this world. ... But a jihad is fought under strict conditions under a righteous imam, purely for the defense of faith and God’s law. All baser motives therefore are strictly excluded."^[58] Here we have one definition of Jihad as being a war for God’s cause, to establish the rule of Islam by the use of force. Moucarry presents the Muslim concept of militaristic jihad^[59] in this way:

In the event of God’s cause being in danger, Muslims are under an obligation to take up arms and fight the enemies of Islam, even if they are reluctant to do battle (2:216-218; 4:77) ... Indeed, it is preferable to engage in combat rather than to expose the Muslim community to sedition and run the risk of seeing God’s cause defeated (2:191-193; 8:39). Armed combat or holy war is therefore the extreme form of jihad. Its aim is to defend Islam from its enemies.^[60]

Muslims love to paint a picture of this being a defensive war in the normal sense of the word "defense," but one cannot escape another understanding of such a war; that is, one which subdues religious others and establishes Islam as supreme. This is made obvious by expressions like: "[no] prisoners of war until [Muhammad] had thoroughly subdued the land." The concept of "defense" in the Muslim understanding is related to the Muslim view of the Umma. Bannerman writes: "... followers of Islam ... were required, in pursuit of God’s will, to seek to establish a universal community comprising all mankind in which public order was regulated by the revelation [Qur’an]."^[61] Muslims consider the destiny of the world order to be the rule of Islam, which they identify with the rule of God; the Muslim community is what that rightly ruled society will look like.

"The world was divided into dar al Islam (the territory of Islam) and dar al harb (the territory of war: and, by extension, the territory of unbelievers). ... Dar al harb comprised the rest of the world which Muslim rulers were duty-bound to bring under their authority ... Clearly, dar al harb must in due course be transformed into dar al Islam by one means or another."^[62] War against the unbelievers is considered to be defending the cause of God to whom belongs the territory which the unbelievers unjustly occupy simply by existing there. As Bannerman observes,

Al Shafi’i, [787-820 AD] ... held that it was a duty to wage war on the unbeliever simply because he was an unbeliever, whether or not there was any threat to the community ... [this understanding] was re-established later on by Ibn Taymiyya [1263-1328 AD], and appears to be the view of the majority of today’s [Muslim] jurists for whom reality clearly circumscribes the ideal. Al Shafi’i’s reasoning is consistent with the obligation to establish the universal umma ...^[63]

We have to skip over many verses which clearly uphold the same teaching of waging war against the unbelievers during the years in Medina^[64] but will now pick up one Sura from the last years of Muhammad’s life, after conquering Mecca in A.D. 630, which establishes fighting not as defensive any more, but aggressive Jihad against all unbelievers. As Bailey writes in the context of this last phase of Qur’anic development, "[S]ince this is the final teaching of the Qur’an regarding Jihad, it is what is still in force today."^[65]

Sura 9:1-6 says:

A (declaration) of immunity from God and His Apostle, to those of the pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances. Go ye, then, for four months backwards and forwards (as ye will) throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate God (by your falsehood), but that God will cover with shame those who reject Him. And an announcement from God and His Apostle, to the people (assembled) on the day of the great pilgrimage – that God and His Apostle dissolve (treaty) obligations to the pagans. If, then ye repent, it were best for you. But if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate God. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject faith. (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfill your engagements with them to the end of their term, for God loveth the righteous. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war). But if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them. (Emphasis mine.)

The list of unbelievers (hence the enemies of Allah) includes Jews and Christians besides pagans as Sura 9 continues in verses 29-31:

Fight those who believe not in God nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the people of the Book [Bible], until they pay the jizya with willing submission, feel themselves subdued. Jews call Uzair [Ezra] a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the Son of God ... God’s curse be on them; how they are deluded away from truth! They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of God, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary. Yet they are commanded to worship but One God. (Emphasis mine)

"Those who reject faith" are those who do not want to become Muslims and at this point no more treaties of non-attack are to be observed, since it was decided that they "cannot frustrate God" any longer. The Qur’an clearly establishes an attitude of war toward all those who don’t believe Islam, wherever they may live, until they "repent and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way to them." Yusuf Ali’s comment is: "when war becomes inevitable, it must be prosecuted with vigour."^[66] This gives you the impression that it is a war not chosen by Muslims but by God, as it is viewed in the context of a mandate to subdue the world for Islam. The inevitability of war is interpreted not as the Muslims’ choice but as something imposed upon them. The time had come to abolish all agreements of peace with religious others and fight them until they become Muslims and follow Islamic laws.

Muslims would say that it is essential that God not to be frustrated, meaning that Islam has to cover the whole earth as the supreme religion. Since nonbelievers reject Islam there is no other alternative left but for Muslims to show that nonbelievers "cannot frustrate God" by waging war and conquering the world for Islam. "But even then there is room for repentance and amendment on the part of the guilty party, and if that takes place, our duty is forgiveness and establishment of peace,"^[67] continues Ali.

It seems clear that the guilt of the religious others lies in not embracing Islam and not being ruled by Islam. This is especially clear when Jews and Christians are included in the enemies to be conquered for Islam, even though their religion is considered valid for salvation at the Day of Judgment (Sura 2:62; 5:69). This means that Muslims do make a distinction between being under Islam and being in Islam, just as Moucarry says: "Submission to the political order of Islam does not necessarily imply assent to its doctrinal content [Surah 49:14; 48:11]."^[68] This "establishment of peace," means Muslim political rule of all who either become Muslims or live with "a grievous penalty to those who reject faith" in the form of a poll-tax and other humiliating conditions of the status of the dhimmi ("the protected").

Conclusion on Qur’anic teaching about relating to religious others

During the Meccan period, Muhammad claimed that his role was to warn people. Later, it seems that all those who don’t believe what he taught and forbade, are not simply warned but are to be fought, cursed and commanded to embrace Islam. Nevertheless, since it is logical (due to the nature of belief formation) that "there is no compulsion in religion" (Sura 2:257), those who choose not to embrace Islam have the alternative to live in submission, paying a tax to be allowed to believe what they had believed before but in such a way that they "feel themselves subdued."

Compared with the concept of tolerance defined at the beginning of this paper, Qur’anic "tolerance" is nothing less than religious persecution. Muslims would never accept this charge of intolerance but they must remember their own complaint when they were the persecuted ones in Mecca. Rev. Bailey makes a valuable observation at this point:

When the pagans were in control and the small number of Muslims were not permitted to enter the Ka’aba, their persecution was called a ‘sacrilegious act’ and ‘an open declaration of war.’ Brigadier S. K. Malik says, ‘The enemy repression reached its zenith when the Koraish denied the Muslims access to the Sacred Mosque to fulfill their religious obligations.’ Now that the tables are reversed, the denial of the pagans’ right to fulfill their religious obligations is not called ‘repression’ but is excused on the grounds that they must ‘shut out all impurity’ because the pagans ‘are unclean.’^[69]

In a late Medinan Surah 9:28 we read: "O ye who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean, so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque." (Emphasis mine).

The interpretation of Qur’an is a fossilized teaching beyond change

The Qur’anic teaching on how to relate to religious others is normatively exemplified in the life of Muhammad and the first community. Muslims cannot be free to interpret Qur’an differently from Muhammad’s interpretation throughout his life and as shown in the way his earliest followers imitated him. The Qur’an says: "And it behoves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Apostle have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Apostle, he surely strays off a manifest straying" (Sura 33:36).^[70] Yvone Yazbeck Hadad writes: "Islam is one as revealed in the Qur’an, and the ideal and perfect Islamic community is that of Medina where the Umma lived under divine guidance through the mediation of the Angel Gabriel and the Prophet Muhammad."^[71]

As said earlier, the flight to Medina in A.D. 622 is the watershed event that marks the emerging of the Muslim community (umma), which would remain the model for the future as a God-ordained model for society. Bat Ye’or, traces several significant events in the life of Muhammad and the first Muslim Community:

In 624 Muhammad, joined by more followers, called upon the Qaynuqa, one of the Jewish tribes of Medina, to recognize his prophetic mission. When they refused, he besieged and overcame them. ... their lives were spared, but they were expelled from the city, their lands and a part of their possessions being confiscated by the Muslims. The following year the Jewish Nadir tribe suffered a similar fate: Muhammad burned down their palm groves and divided all their fields and houses among the community of the Believers.^[72]

... In 627 ... guided by the angel Gabriel, Muhammad ... turned his host against the Jewish tribe of the Qurayza. ... Because the Jews refused conversion, Muhammad attacked and overwhelmed them ... six to nine hundred of them ... were led forth in batches and decapitated. ... The Prophet then divided the women, children, houses, and chattels among the Muslims.^[73]

... In 628, taking advantage of a treaty of nonbelligerency (Hudaybiya) with the Meccans,^[74] he attacked the oasis of Khaybar. ... The assailants came to the oasis at night and in the morning attacked the peasants as they were coming out in the fields, carrying spades and baskets.^[75] After a siege lasting a month and a half, the inhabitants surrendered under the terms of a treaty known as the dhimma. According to this agreement Muhammad allowed the Jews to continue cultivating their oasis, on condition that they ceded to him half of their produce; he also reserved the right to break the agreement and expel them whenever he wished.^[76]

Based on the dhimma of Khaybar, the relationship between Muslims and conquered peoples everywhere and for all time was held as an example for the future status of peoples under Muslim rule, the status of the dhimmi. When the early successor of Muhammad, Umar Al-Khattab, expelled the Jews and Christians from the Hijaz (Mecca and Medina) in A.D. 640, he referred to what Muhammad had said at the siege of Khaybar: "The land belongs to Allah and his Messenger."^[77] Based also on the Prophet’s advice: "Two religions shall not remain together in the peninsula of the Arabs,"^[78] even to this day there are no non-Muslims that can set foot in Mecca.

It is because of such examples left by Muhammad for all of his followers in all times and places, that one is baffled to learn of Muslim scholars like Pickthall who go "to the extent of asserting that Muhammad’s attitude to Jews and the Christians remained tolerant till he died."^[79] Against such a background, it defies understanding to read some evaluations of history by Hassan Al-Turabi who, as of 1983, was Attorney General of the Sudan. He wrote: "The historical record of Muslims’ treatment of Christians and Jews is quite good especially compared with the history of relations between different religions and religious denominations in the West."^[80]

After reading the Qur’an, it is surprising to encounter declarations such as Ahmad A. Galwash made: "There is not even a single verse in the Holy Qur’an which directly or indirectly insinuates the alternative of death or Islam for the unbelievers."^[81] Another Muslim claims that: "Mohammad did not merely preach toleration; he embodied it into law. In all conquered nations he offered liberty of worship. A nominal tribute was the only compensation they were required to pay for the observance and enjoyment of their faith."^[82] (Emphasis mine.)

What, then, are the implications of having to pay "compensation" for the "favor" of observing one’s religion? This clearly denies the "fundamental, and inalienable human right – the freedom to reach, hold, freely exercise, or change our beliefs independent of governmental control."^[83]

It is important to clarify that people who lived under Muslim rule didn’t have rights that flow from the mere fact of being a human being, but only as prescribed by a "concessionary charter" (the dhimma) which could be changed at the decision of the Muslim ruler. As Ellul notes: "... In the case of the ‘concessionary charter,’ ... one enjoys rights only to the extent that they are recognized in the charter and only for as long as it remains valid. As a person, by the mere fact of one’s ‘existence,’ one has no claim to any rights. And this, indeed, is the dhimmi’s condition."^[84]

This view of human rights is diametrically opposed to the rights that a liberal democracy envisions for its citizens. Nicholas Wolterstorff gives a definition of what democracy involves: "Equal protection under law for all people, equal freedom in law for all citizens, neutrality on the part of the state with respect to the diversity of religious and other comprehensive perspectives present in society, and equal voice for all citizens within the fair voting schemes."^[85] Weigel says: "Democracy is a way of public life, a way of being a political community," which will work if it includes people "who have made their own the values, the moral truths, that teach us to be civil, tolerant, respectful – in a word, democratic."^[86] I am fully aware that democracy is a fairly recent phenomenon even in the West but the point here is to see if Islam, with the Qur’an as its defining factor, can ever be compatible with democracy and the religious tolerance democracy epitomizes.

In light of the Muslim concept of the Umma, the status of religious others in Qur’anic Islam is not negotiable. Ellul says that the status of the dhimmi:

... was not the product of historical accident but was that which ought to be from the religious point of view and according to the Muslim conception of the world. In other words, it was the expression of the absolute, unchanging, theologically grounded Muslim conception of the relationship between Islam and non-Islam. ... One must know as exactly as possible what the Muslims did with these unconverted conquered peoples, because that is what they will do in the future.^[87]

Given the Muslim view of God as rule-giver, but not relational, tolerance as a concept is understood to be the undeserved and capricious generosity of a ruler toward the ruled. Epistemologically, given the authority of the Qur’an and Muhammad’s example, tolerance is defined according to the regulations of the Shariah law (divine law of the Muslim theocracy) and the normatively interpretative example of Muhammad and the first Muslim Community. Theologically, Muslims view everything in light of the destiny of Islam to rule the world and, therefore, they are committed to what they believe is God’s will, involving jihad (holy war). Moreover, there is the utilitarian dimension of Muslim intolerance, which includes reasoning that the greater good (for the umma) justifies hard measures. The same worldview and understanding of Islam as superior (not only as a religion but also as a form of government with which it is inseparably linked) persists today among Muslims generally. As Watt writes: "... the thinking of the fundamentalist Islamic intellectuals and of the great masses of ordinary Muslims is still dominated by the standard traditional Islamic world-view and the corresponding self-image of Islam."^[88]

The will to deny the obvious

Nothing that is presented in this paper is new or unheard of by those informed on the subject. Nevertheless, even among those who should know better, there is a tendency to behave like the proverbial ostrich, denying the obvious implications of the Qur’anic teaching. Daniel Pipes, who surveyed about 25 experts in religion (professors in Harvard, Georgetown, Duke University, Baylor, Rutgers, University of Wisconsin etc.), found only four of them who considered the term "jihad" to have any military component whatsoever and this, he says "is quite as if historians of medieval Europe were to deny that the word "crusade" ever had martial overtones ... [but rather the term "crusade" actually meant] ‘crusade on hunger’ or ‘crusade against drugs.’"^[89] It is also disturbing that, even in post 9/11 America, as Pipes testifies, "one who dares to dissent and utter the truth on the matter of jihad falls under enormous censure ... We have thus reached a point where merely to state a known fact about Islam earns one the status of a hostile bigot."^[90]

The will to believe that Islam is a religion of tolerance may cause some to be convinced that it is; but in reality it doesn’t make Islam a religion of tolerance. After being confronted with the facts of Islamic teaching, some still continue to say: "Please tell me this is not Islam."^[91] Even when one correctly observes that "Islam cannot but be ruling – and ruling on its own terms, and deciding what minorities it will allow and how," exemplifying the ostrich mentality, the same person still hopes against hope that Muslims will choose "Meccan priority (choose to make normative the Meccan attitude of toleration), in terms of the twenty-first century, [which] must emphasize an Islam that ... tolerates diversity ..."^[92] This is just another way of saying, "please tell me this is not Islam."

We live during the worst time for the West to confront Islam because of the loss of clarity on the nature of truth. The relativistic view of truth explained earlier in relation to tolerance is prevalent in the affluent, sleepy (even if restless) western society. The openness of the West toward third world religions is not because the West has become more tolerant (relativism just stupefies the mind giving the illusion of tolerance), but because it is confused about its own identity; it has educated itself to be ignorant and dismissive of its own heritage; it is embarrassed by colonialism and blows out of proportion the mistakes of the past throwing out the baby with the bath water.

It is as if the West is living the tale of the ugly duckling in reverse. Westerners, for a time, thought the West was beautiful but lured by the "nonconformists" and looking at the exotic "others" they now feel like as if the West is the ugly duckling. There is a need for people like Dinesh D’Souza,^[93] who emigrated from the East to the West and can’t be fooled by the hype of criticism against the West, to convincingly declare how beautiful America and the West, still are.

The West built a legacy of religious tolerance because it believed that objective truth existed; because truth mattered and because people should be free to pursue it. As was made clear earlier, in order to have tolerance at all, a view of truth as objective and an attitude of respect for humans (who are endowed by the Creator with dignity and rights that involve the exercise of their free will), is essential. This view of tolerance is part of the glorious legacy the West has bestowed upon the world. Therefore, it is tragic that one can be considered a bigot today in the West because one believes that another view can be wrong. America and the world have an opportunity to overcome this untenable relativistic stance as we face the ugliness of ideologies which result in events such as September 11^th 2001.

Contemplating Change: the impossible

At the end of his book Foundations of Religious Tolerance, Newman wants to strike an optimistic note: "... we ... still have a moral obligation to believe that further civilization – further civilizing – is possible. If the prospects for religious tolerance are not bright, then it is our business as human beings to make them bright."^[94] Another hopeful voice was Watt, suggesting that: "... a programme for the correction of the faulty self-image of Islam may seem utopian and unlikely to be realized. [but] ... That at least is the outcome for which the believer in God, Muslim or non-Muslim, should be praying."^[95]

I also wish that such a change in Islam were possible but understanding the nature of Islamic religion, forces one to agree with the incisive words of Ellul who says:

After all, ideas and concepts are known to change. ... But precisely what seems to me interesting and striking about Islam, one of its peculiarities, is the fixity of its concepts. ... Wherever the social organization is based upon a system, it tends to reproduce itself far more exactly. Islam, even more than Christianity, is a religion that claims to give a definite form to the social order, to human relations, and claims to embrace each moment in the life of every person. Thus, it tends toward an inflexibility that most other forms of society have not had. Moreover, it is known that the whole of Islamic doctrine (including its religious thought) took on a juridical form. ... Of course, there can be an evolution (in practical matters, in jurisprudence, etc.), but when there is a text, which is regarded in some way as an "authoritative" source, one has only to go back to that text and recent innovations will collapse. And this is exactly what has happened in Islam. ...

One should be aware that when one is dealing with some Islamic term or institution of the past, as long as the basic text – in this case, the Koran – remains unchanged, one can always return to the original principles and ideas whatever apparent transformations or developments have taken place, especially because Islam has achieved something that has always been very unusual: an integration of the religious, the political, the moral, the social, the juridical, and the intellectual, thus constituting a rigorous whole of which each element forms an integral part.^[96]

These words express exactly the thrust of my argument: there is an Islam that is unavoidable, namely the Qur’anic Islam, which can be rediscovered time and again. Just as Kenneth Woodward says: "Israeli commandos do not cite the Hebrew prophet Joshua as they go into battle, but Muslim insurgents can readily invoke the example of their Prophet, Muhammad, who was a military commander himself. And while the Crusaders may have fought with the cross and their shields, they did not – could not – cite words from Jesus to justify their slaughters."^[97] It is the Qur’an that binds Islam to intolerance and since Islam without the Qur’an is not Islam, there cannot ever exist true Islam that is tolerant. Again we may wish to believe that Islam can become tolerant but we will have to live with the consequences, which are inevitable given the hard evidence.

Contemplating change: the possible

If, as I have come to conclude, it is true that the Qur’an ultimately does not teach tolerance but rather intolerance toward other religions in the society it seeks to dominate, I am afraid that there is nothing we can do about it; we cannot change the Qur’an. This doesn’t preclude on the other hand sympathizing with Muslims and seeking to understand where they come from so we may responsibly address the issues of concern.^[98] They are fellow human beings, much more similar to us than different. Not every Muslim believes what the unavoidable Islam may suggest, and Muslims can and have changed or converted to another worldview. I am one among unnumbered Christians who come from a Muslim tradition.

Given the content of the Qur’an and the unquestioned place it has in Muslim religion and system, one fails to see how the Qur’anic Islam – the unavoidable Islam can possibly change but a change in its adherents is a different matter. Therefore, we should not get tired of upholding the truth, exposing falsehood, showing the consequences of certain views, seeking to win all people to the truth, and being prepared to stand our ground when the evil hour comes, as people who have hope.

Why study comparative Religion? In order to be more secure on our belief.

Let us make some example of comparison and assessment.

Chuang Tzu put on cotton clothes with patches in them, and arranging his girdle and tying on his shoes, (i.e. to keep them from falling off), went to see the prince of Wei.
"How miserable you look, Sir!" Cried the prince. "It is poverty, not misery", replied Chuang Tzu. "A man who has TAO cannot be miserable. Ragged clothes and old boots make poverty, not misery".

Chuang Tzu - (Taoism)

It is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for them that love him. But God has revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.

  ...the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Since we know that Humans can and are being victimized be Ignorant, Arrogant, greedy, hateful, prejudice, unjust, transgressor, corruption, crookedness, criminality, jealousy, selfishness, and all kinds of falsehood and evil.

FREEDOM

  PEACE

  JUSTICE

  EQUALITY

  DIGNITY

  DEMOCRACY

  CHARITY

  HONESTY

  FAIRNESS

AND

  ACCOUNTABILITY

are ALL Major concepts and major principles in GOD'S book.

And since we agree that any sincere good honest human is always in constant sincere search for the TRUTH and for the best possible solution.

And since we can realize that establishing a good, just, free, peaceful nation and peaceful world can't be accomplished by daydreaming and wishful thinking, or by blind following of conjectures and hearsay, and that we MUST be sincere, fair, and serious in our search for a REAL GENUINE ULTIMATE Solution.

And since we KNOW FORE SURE that a free, just, and peaceful nation and a peaceful world can not be established by wicked, ignorant, crooked, arrogant, unjust, greedy, and selfish people....and that when you don't have something you just simply can't give it.

Please be fair and honest with yourself...what is your formula to establish such a life, such a nation, and such a world?

What is your logical, realistic, balanced, complete, rational, effective, efficient, wise, practical plan to achieve or participate in achieving such life, such nation, and such a world?

How can you accomplish or seek to accomplish such a nation when you yourself do not have a good clear idea as to how to best do that.

And how can you claim to do so when you yourself is not sure about the quality of your intentions, sincerity and integrity, and the level of your knowledge and wisdom?

You see, through the Islamic logical, sensible, rational, practical, effective, efficient, balanced progressive process of guidance and soul purification you accomplish all of that and more.

The Progressive process of honestly, freely, humbly, sincerely, seriously, and intellectually desire and seek the TRUTH, follow the TRUTH, believe in the TRUTH, And act upon THE TRUTH, based on the TRUTH, in truth, by the TRUTH, and for the TRUTH.

This is basically the law and the universal nature of GOD'S system...don't let the name Islam or religion distract you and confuse you...think of it as an ideology and as process and compare it to any other process....this is the ONLY way/process to genuine guidance, genuine success, genuine truth, genuine freedom, genuine Justice, and genuine peace...and the ONLY way to the BEST reward in this life and the life-after.

OK...I believe that you agree with me that there are NO two honest, fair and good people would disagree so fare....so what is the problem, what is it that we need to clarify to have a complete agreement as to what is the BEST Ultimate genuine solution to all kinds of problems in this life and this world.... and what is the BEST choice and decision to take regarding this life and the Life-after...after all, DEATH is a reality and The most Important event after birth...so it does not hurt (to say the least) logically to take it in to consideration and do what we can to prepare for it.

So what is NEXT?

Is it some of the concepts of GOD'S book...you don't understand some of them, or disagree with some and just can't help it but out right reject them....that is fine for now, and there are two reasons for that.

You are either NOT a Muslim (meaning you are NOT going through the above process or missing some one of it's essential elements), or you are just simply not informed and you lack the right enough knowledge and that is what this site is here for...to convey and clarify to you what Islam is and all about, and how actually true believing in GOD is all about, and what SINCERE MONOTHEISM is all about, and how to BEST approach GOD'S message in HIS Infallible book to REALIZE the ULTIMATE GUIDANCE and ULTIMATE WISDOM there in to eventually believe in it as the WORD OF GOD.

Yes...we are talking about ULTIMATE WISDOM AND ULTIMATE GUIDANCE...we are not talking about all kinds of premature theories, hearsay, conjectures, and all kinds of nonsense.

You are invited in the name of GOD, HIS WORD, HIS Messenger, and in the name of freedom, peace, and justice, and in the name of the UNIVERSAL ULTIMATE SOLUTION and ULTIMATE SALVATION TO PONDER, REFLECT, AND CONSIDER.

CONJECTURES IN NO SUBSTITUTE TO THE TRUTH.

We have ONE life to live in this world to and we MUST be honest, sincere, fair and responsible enough with ourselves and our loved ones in our attempt to make the best out of it and to make the BEST out of our GOD GIVEN FREEDOM and INTELLIGENCE.

It is much easier in the short run to be careless, selfish, and irresponsible with all the evil that it entails, but then we ultimately pay the price of our own decisions and our own actions personally and collectively, in this life and in the life-after...and in addition our offspring will inherit our legacy and we Will be responsible of it as well....no matter what kind of justification we deceive ourselves with.

It is so clear and obvious that GOD is TESTING us EVERY STEP of the way...and HE is challenging us and using HIS messenger to put forth and clarify the challenging message of TRUTH...a challenge to rise up to our responsibility to believe in HIM and be thankful and appreciative to HIM and to reverence HIM, and to rise to embrace the TRUTH that equip us with knowledge, wisdom, purity that enables us to stand up against Satan and his allies and against all the ignorance, arrogance, crookedness, injustice, corruption, transgression, vice, jealousy, hatefulness, greed, lust, prejudice and selfishness, and all the falsehood and all kinds of evil they advocate and represent.

If you know that you are a Muslim according to the definition above then it is only a matter of time till you realize the wisdom in whatever issue that is confusion you or you can't fully understand in GOD'S book...and rest assured that you are ONLY required to follow what you know ...NOT only that, but you are forbidden from following what you don't know [17:36].

So take your time and maintain your sincerity and the Islamic process and GOD DOES ALWAYS KEEP HIS PROMISE...IT NATURAL A PROCESS, AND ACCORDING TO GOD'S SUNNAH (SYSTEM)...YOU HAVE TO GAIN THE GUIDANCE.

So if you fully understand the above you know by now that The Islamic Process and the Islamic System represents the ULTIMATE GENUINE SOLUTION and that it is the best thing anyone anywhere can do...and don't ever forget...Satan is the "OBVIOUS ENEMY"...the more you maintain the Islamic Progressive process, the more you seek GOD'S guidance, The more you are Guided the more you will Recognize him and his tremendous devastating effect on all human-kind....and the more you will gain and develop protection from him and his allies in-spite his increasing fancy tricks, temptations and deceptions.

And always remember...Muslims are brothers in Islam, not matter who you are or where you are, and that the believers of the BOOK are higher in ranking and are more advanced in knowledge, wisdom, and guidance.

Before I conclude let me clarify some VERY IMPORTANT FACTS.

As I repeatedly mention...Islam is a process, and when people start the process they will be guided and when they are guided they MUST follow the guidance and GAIN more guidance...this is the Challenge/Test...Satan the Devil and his human and unhuman (in the mind) allies will do everything in their power to distract you and divert you.

The process will go up in levels and the challenge/Test increases with time...you will reach a point were you are Challenged/Tested to TRULY believe in GOD...you see, believing in GOD is a MAJOR concept...a life changing concept...almost every one you meet in the street CLAIMS to believe in GOD...but that is NOT the Believe we logically talk about here and that is NOT the believe that GOD calls a TRUE believe....a believe were you begin to Reverence HIM, Reach-out to HIM, Trust HIM, and where HE becomes Number ONE in your life.

After you believe in GOD you will be faced with the Challenge/Test of believing in HIS message (The Quran).

And Ultimately you will faced with the Challenge/Test  to recognize and believe in HIS messenger.

Of cource, the Challenge.Test continues till the end of life...that is why we are here and that is why life and death were created...we are here to worship GOD...if we do we succeed in this life and the life after, and if we fail, we fail in this life and the life after.

You see, it is a CHALLENGE, and that is why many people simply give up on GOD, HIS message, and HIS religion...they don't have the sense of responsibility to rise up to the INEVITABLE MOST ESSENTIAL OBVIOUS CHALLENGE/TEST OF THEIR EXISTENCE...SO WHAT THEY DO IS DECEIVE THEMSELVES IN EVERY POSSIBLE WAY TO CONVINCE THEMSELVES THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THINGS IN LIFE WITHOUT EVEN HAVING AN ALTERNATIVE OR ANY OTHER LOGICAL EXPLANATION.

THEY DO THAT TO JUSTIFY THEIR FAILURE AND TO JUSTIFY THEIR EVIL, CORRUPTED, FALSEFUL MATERIALISTIC, IDOL- WORSHIPING, LUSTY, SELFISH, CARELESS, IRRESPONSIBLE LIFE.

PLEASE DON'T FEEL BAD AND BE OFFENDED...THE GATE OF FORGIVENESS IS ALWAYS OPEN...JUST COME BACK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND REMEMBER IT WILL TAKE TIME IT IS A PROCESS, SO WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR...TIME IS VERY PRECIOUS AND VERY VALUABLE...UNLESS YOU HAVE A GUARANTEED SPARE LIFE TO LIVE...EVEN THEN THAT IS NO EXCUSE :-)

GOD'S MESSAGE IS ABOUT BEING HONEST, REALISTIC AND RESPONSIBLE OF OUR ONE PRECIOUS LIFE TIME, AND IN MAKING THE BEST OUT OF OUR GOD GIVEN SACRED FREEDOM AND INTELLIGENCE IN FREELY, HUMBLY, SINCERELY, SERIOUSLY, AND INTELLECTUALLY DESIRING AND SEEKING HIS GUIDANCE(THE TRUTH), FOLLOWING HIS GUIDANCE, BELIEVING IN HIM, REACHING-OUT TO HIM IN REVERENCING HIM...IN REMEMBERING HIM AND TRUSTING HIM, AND IN SEEKING HIS SUPPORT IN PURIFYING OUR SOULS AND DEEDS WHICH WILL EVENTUALLY LIBERATE US FROM ALL KINDS OF IDOLS WHICH WILL RESULT IN US SURRENDERING AND SUBMITTING TO HIM THE WORTHY TRUE ONE AND ONLY GOD ALONE AND WORSHIPING HIM IN SINCERE MONOTHEISM, AND BY DOING SO WE NATURALLY AND INCREASINGLY BECOME MORE ABLE TO RECOGNIZE SATAN THE DEVIL AND HIS ALLIES AND MORE ABLE TO PROTECT OURSELVES AND OUR LOVED ONES FROM HIM BY RESISTING THEIR EVIL DECEPTION AND EVIL TEMPTATION TO INCREASINGLY AND EVENTUALLY DEFEAT THEM IN ALL FRONTS....AND IN DOING SO WE SUCCEED IN THIS LIFE AND THE LIFE-AFTER AND THAT IS WHAT SALVATION IS ALL ABOUT AND THAT IS WHAT THE CHALLENGING TEST IS ALL ABOUT AND THAT IS WHAT THE DAY OF JUDGMENT IS ALL ABOUT, AND THAT IS THE PRICE WE HAVE TO PAY TO GET TO PARADISE.

Is this the REAL OBVIOUS LOGICAL REASONABLE, RATIONAL, SENSIBLE, ULTIMATE CHALLENGE which happens to be the ULTIMATE GENUINE SOLUTION or what?

If not...then show me your ultimate genuine solution...after you show it to yourself that is :-)

 

GOD
IS
REAL

GOD
IS
TURE

 

TRUST IN ME

I SHOW YOU

 

when you believe in GOD you will recognize HIM almost everywhere and in everything...it is just an overwhelming and an indescripable increasing on-going exprecience.

IT
IS
THE
ULTIMATE ULTIMATE ULTIMATE
EXPERIENCE
******************

All the best.

United colors of Islam

One only need look to the Nazis' brutal persecution of the Jews earlier this century or the more recent genocide of the Bosnian Muslims to see how ethno-religious groups can suffer so terribly at the hands of racists. Quite often however, religion is itself responsible for racist oppression.
Middle-Eastern origins aside, Judaism is regarded as a Western religion. But the almost complete assimilation of Jews into all levels of Western society actually betrays Judaism's elitist reality. "There is no God in all the world but in Israel" [2 Kings 5:15].

A pious interpretation of such biblical verses would be to suggest that in those days, God (Allah) was not worshipped except by the Israelites. However, even today Jews still consider themselves as the exclusively chosen race of God.

Conversely, while most Christians are overwhelmingly non-Jews, Jesus as the last of the Israelite Prophets was sent to none but the Jews. In the Bible, he is reported to have said: " I have not been sent except to the lost sheep of the House of Israel" [Matthew 15:24][1]

And likewise every other prophet was sent exclusively to his own people; every prophet that is, except Muhammad. "Say (O Muhammad): People! I am the Messenger of Allah sent to you all"
[Qur'an, 7:158].

As Muhammad was Allah's final Messenger to humanity, his message was a universal one with the capacity to unite not only his own nation, the Arabs, but all the peoples of the world.

"And We have not sent you (O Muhammad) but to the whole of mankind as a giver of glad tidings and a warner, but most people have no knowledge"
[Qur'an, 34:28]



BILAL THE ABYSSINIAN

One of the earliest converts to Islam was an Abyssinian slave named Bilal. Traditionally, black Africans were a lowly people in the sight of Arabs who thought them to be of little use beyond entertainment and slavery. When Bilal converted to Islam, his pagan master had him brutally tortured in the scorching desert heat until Abu Bakr, the Prophet's closest friend, rescued Bilal by buying his freedom.
Muhammad appointed Bilal as his muadhin (muezzin) and the call to prayer announced from minarets in every comer of the world today echoes the exact same words proclaimed by Bilal. Thus, a onetime despised slave achieved one of the highest positions of honour in becoming Islam’s first muezzin. Although ancient Greece is accredited with being the birthplace of democracy, it was a democracy only for its Free citizens - the majority of its population, being slaves, were denied the right to elect their ruler. Yet Islam ordained that a slave could himself be ruler! The Prophet ordered: 'Stick to obedience (i.e. Obey your ruler) even if he be an Abyssinian slave'
[Ahmad].



SALMAN THE PERSIAN

Like most of his countrymen, Salman was raised a devout Zoroastrian but after an encounter with some Christians at worship in their Church he accepted Christianity as 'something better'. As a Christian, Salman travelled extensively in search of knowledge. His journey took him from the service of one learned monk to the next, the last of whom said to him: 'O son! I do not know of anyone who is on the same (creed) as we are. However, the time of the emergence of a prophet will shade you. This prophet is on the religion of Abraham'.

The monk then proceeded to describe this prophet, his character and where he would appear. Salman immigrated to Arabia, the land of the Prophecy, and when he heard about and met Muhammad, he immediately recognised him from hi, teacher's descriptions. Salman's long search for the truth was finally over and he embraced Islam.

Salman became renowned for his knowledge and was in fact the first person to translate the Qur'an into another language, Persian. Once, whilst the Prophet was amongst his Companions, the following verse was revealed to him: "It is He (Allah) Who had sent among the illiterates (i.e. the Arabs) a Messenger (Muhammad) from among themselves ... and (also to) others (i.e. non-Arabs) among them who have not yet joined them"
[Qur'an, 62:2-3].

Allah's Messenger placed his hand on Salman and said: 'Even if the Faith were near (the star of) Pleiades, a man from amongst these (Persians) would surely attain it'
[Muslim].

One such man was Imam Muhammad Isma'il of Bukhara (a predominately Persian city). His famous collection of hadith (narrations of the Prophet) entitled As-Sahih was unanimously declared by the scholars of Islam to be ' The most authentic book after the Book of Allah (i.e. after the Quran)'.



SUHAYB THE ROMAN

Blonde-haired and fair complexioned Abu Yahya Suhayb was born into the luxurious house of his father, a client governor for the Persian emperor. Whilst still a child, Suhayb was captured by a Byzantine raiding party to be eventually sold into slavery in Constantinople[2].

Suhayb eventually escaped from bondage and fled to Makkah, a popular place of asylum, where he soon became a prosperous merchant nick-named 'ar-Rumi' (the Roman) due to his Greek tongue and Byzantine up-bringing. When Suhayb heard Muhammad preach, he was at once convinced of the truth of his message and readily embraced Islam. Like the rest of the early Muslims, Suhayb was persecuted by the idolatrous Makkans and had to trade all his wealth in exchange for safe passage to join the Prophet at Madinah. When Suhayb finally arrived at Madinah, the Prophet, delighted to see him, greeted him thrice: 'Your transaction has been fruitful, O Abu Yahya. Your transaction has been fruitful'.

Allah had informed the Prophet of Suhayb's exploits even before they were reunited: "And there is a type of man who gives his life to earn the pleasure of Allah. And Allah is full of kindness to His servants"
[Qur'an, 2:207].

The Prophet loved Suhayb a great deal and described him as having preceded the Byzantines to Islam. Suhayb's piety and standing among Muslims was so high that when Caliph Umar was on his deathbed, he selected Suhayb to lead the Muslims whilst they were choosing a successor.



ABDULLAH THE HEBREW

The Jews were another nation that the pre-Islamic Arabs held in contempt. Many Jews and Christians had been expecting a new prophet to appear in Arabia during the time of the Prophet Muhammad. Jews from the Levite tribe in particular had settled in large numbers in and around the city of Madinah. However, when the much-anticipated prophet came not as a Hebrew son of Israel, but as the Arab descendant of Isma'il, the Jews rejected him. Except that is for a few like al-Husayn bin Salam.
Al-Husayn was a learned rabbi and leader of the Medinan Jews but was denounced by them when he embraced Islam. The Prophet renamed al-Husayn, 'Abdullah', meaning 'Servant of Allah' and in his own lifetime the Prophet gave Abdullah the glad tidings that he was destined for Paradise. Abdullah addressed his tribesmen, saying: "O assembly of Jews! Be conscious of Allah and accept what Muhammad-has brought. By Allah, you certainly know that he is Allah's Messenger and you can find prophecies about him and mention of his name and characteristics in your Torah. I for my part declare that he is the Messenger of Allah. I have faith in him and believe that he is true. I recognise him".

Allah revealed the following verse about Abdullah: "... and a witness from the Children of Israel testifies that this Qur'an is from Allah like (the Torah). So he believed while (most of) you (Jews) are too proud (to believe)"
[Qur'an, 46:10].

Thus, in the ranks of the Prophet Muhammad's Companions could be found Africans, Persians, Romans and Israelites; representatives of every then-known continent. The Prophet said: 'Indeed my friends and allies are not the tribe of so and so. Rather, my friends and allies are the pious wherever they may be'
[Sahih al-Bukhari, Muslim].

This point was further emphasised by the Prophet when he said: 'There is truly no excellence for an Arab over a non-Arab, nor for a non-Arab over an Arab; nor for a white man over a black man, nor for a black man over a white man; except through piety'
[Ahmad].

"O humanity! We have created you from a single male and female and have made you into nations and tribes that you may know one another (not that you may have pride over one another). Verily the most honorable of you in the sight of Allah is the one most pious"
[Qur'an, 49:13].

The Prophet Muhammad said: 'The parable of the Believers in their mutual love and mercy is like that of a (living) body; if one part feels pain, the whole body suffers in sleeplessness and fever'
[Muslim].


Such a universal brotherhood was championed by the Prophet's Companions after him, including his immediate temporal successors: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali (known collectively as the four Rightly-Guided Caliphs - radiAllahu anhum).
When the Companion Ubadah ibn as-Samitled a Muslim delegation to Muqawqis, the Christian patriarch of Alexandria, Muqawqis exclaimed: 'Get this black man away from me and bring another to talk to me. ... How can you be content that a black man should be the foremost among you? Is it not more fitting that he be below you?' 'Indeed no,' Ubada's comrades replied, ‘for although he is black as you see, he is still the foremost among us in position, in precedence, in intelligence and in wisdom; for darkness is not despised among us'.

"Verily, the Believers are but brothers (to one another)"
[Qur'an, 49:10].

The spread of nationalism with its separating of Muslims along ethnic, linguistic and tribal lines is an evil and divisive innovation in Islam. Allah says in His Book: "Say: If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your tribe, the wealth that you have gained, the commerce in which you fear a decline, and the dwellings in which you delight are dearer to you than Allah and His Messenger and striving hard in His Cause, then wait until Allah brings about His Decision. And Allah guides not a rebellious people"
[Qur'an, 9: 24].

In fact, the Muslims in and of themselves constitute one nation: "Thus We have made you (Believers into) a (single) justly balanced nation"
[Qur'an, 2:143].

The Prophet said: 'Whoever leaves off obedience and separates from the Jam'ah[3] and dies, (then) he dies a death of jahiliyyah (i.e. pre-Islamic ignorance and disbelief). And whoever fights under the banner of the blind, becoming angry for nationalism or calling to nationalism or assisting nationalism and dies, (then) he dies a death of jahiliyyah'
[Muslim].

While those who disbelieved placed in their hearts pride and haughtiness - the pride and haughtiness of jahiliyyah, Allah sent down His tranquillity upon His Messenger and upon the believers.
[Qur'an, 48:26].



A FINAL POINT

Still repeated in some circles and perhaps one of the greatest barriers to its acceptance by Westerners is the fallacy that Islam is primarily a religion for blacks or dark skinned people.
No doubt, the racial injustices against many blacks, be they Abyssinian slaves of pre-Islamic Arabia or twentieth century African-Americans, has prompted many to embrace Islam, but this is beside the point. The Prophet Muhammad was himself of pale complexion, described by his Companions as being 'white and ruddy'. And unbeknown to most people is the fact that Europe has more indigenous white Muslims than it has coloured immigrants. Albanians, for example, descended from the ancient Illyrian-Celts, are one of Europe's oldest tribes and amongst the earliest inhabitants of the Balkans. Today, 80%. of all Albanians Are MUSLIMS[4].
Some anthropologists believed that the Caucasus Mountain region of SE Europe was the cradle of 'the white race' and white people are still described as 'Caucasian'.
Today, six of Russia's seven autonomous Caucasus republics are Muslim republics. In fact, Islam peacefully entered parts of Europe long before Christianity. Over a thousand years ago, In times long ago, when the Russian Slav had not yet started to build Christian churches on the Oka nor conquered these places in the name of European civilisation, the Bulgar[5] was already listening to the Qur'an on the banks of the Volga and the Kama.'
[S.M. Solov'ev, Istoria Rossis Drevneishikh Vremen. Moscow 1965, p.476].

This century too has seen large numbers of Europeans embrace Islam. In the UK alone there are estimated to be tens of thousands of reverts to Islam (mostly Anglo-Saxon and Celtic women) and within the next 20 years their number is expected to overtake the immigrant Muslim population that brought the faith here (The Times, 11/9/1993). Neither has the large awakening to Islam gone unnoticed by US administration. Hillary Rodham Clinton recently remarked: 'Islam is the fastest-growing religion in America, a guide and pillar of stability for many of our people...'
[First Lady Breaks Ground with Muslims, Los Angeles Times, 5/31/1996].

"Truly, We created (all) humans in the best of moulds"
[Qur'an, 95:4].

Every faith besides Islam calls for the worship of creation in some way, shape or form. Moreover, race and colour play a central and divisive role in almost all non-Islamic belief systems. In Christianity, through the Prophet Jesus and the saints and in Buddhism, through Buddha and the Dalai Lama men and women of a particular race and colour are worshipped as deities in derogation of Allah. In Judaism, salvation is withheld from the non-Jew Gentile. Hinduism's caste-system likewise degrades and checks the spiritual, not to mention social, political and economic aspirations of the 'unclean' lower castes. Islam, however, seeks to unite and make one all the creatures of the world upon the Unity and Oneness of their Creator. Thus, Islam alone liberates all peoples, races and colours in the worship of Allah alone.

"Verily, I am Allah - there is nothing worthy of worship but Me. Therefore worship Me (alone)"
[Qur'an, 20:14].

'No other society has such a record of success in uniting in an equality of status, of opportunity and endeavour so many and so varied races o mankind. The great Muslim communities of Africa, India and Indonesia, perhaps also the small community in Japan, show that Islam has still the power to reconcile apparently irreconcilable elements Of race and tradition'
[H.A.R. Gibb, Whither Islam, London, 1937 p.379].

'The extinction of race consciousness as between Muslims is one of the outstanding achievements of Islam and in the contemporary world there is, as it happens, a crying need for the propagation of this Islamic virtue...'
[A.J. Toynbee, Civilisation on Trial, New York, p.205].

'How, for instance can any other appeal stand against that of the Moslem who, in approaching the pagan, says to him, however obscure or degraded he may be "Embrace the faith, and you are at once equal and a brother." Islam knows no colour line.'
[S.S. Leeder, Veiled Mysteries of Egypt].

"And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the (wonderful) difference of your languages and colours. Verily, in that are indeed signs for people of sound knowledge"
[Qur'an, 30:22].

 

 

FOOTNOTES

[1] Hence every one of the famous twelve disciples of Jesus was an Israelite Jew. The one biblical passage where Jesus is supposed to have told his disciples to 'Go and preach unto all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.' (Matthew 28:19), commonly quoted to prove the Gentile mission as well as the Trinity, is not found in any pre-sixteenth century manuscript and is thus considered 'a pious fraud'.

[2] The Byzantine or East Roman Empire was finally brought to an end when its ancient capital, Constantinople, was conquered by the young Ottoman Sultan, Muhammad al-Fatih, in 1453CE. The conquest was a watershed in world history, marking the end of the Middle Ages as well as the fulfilment of a prophecy of the Prophet Muhammad.

[3] 'Al-Jam'ah' refers to the group of Believers who are united upon the pure, unadulterated Islam of Muhammad and his Companions.

[4] Other 'native' European Muslims include the Bosnians, Pomaks and Ajarians.

[5] In 922 CE Islam became the official religion of the Volga Bulgars, a turkicised Iranic tribe originating from the ancient Afghan city of Balkh. The present-day Bulgarians, Volga Tatars, Chuvash and various Caucasus tribes all trace their ancestry back to the ancient Bulgars.

What different faith groups believe about Deity:

The religions of the world teach a wide diversity of concepts about deity. Books have been published which list over 1,000 Gods or over 1,000 Goddesses who have been worshiped in various eras and locations.

	At first glance, a person who is investigating the entire "God" concept for the first time might conclude that all of these diverse deities are purely human creations. That is: God did not create humanity -- humanity created Gods.
	However, in practice, most people believe that the God or Goddess or Gods or Goddesses of their faith tradition is or are real, whereas all of the other thousands of deities are human creations, who are nonexistent, except in the minds of humans.

Beliefs about deity cover a wide range, including:

	Agnosticism: having reached no conclusion whether God exists. (See Agnosticism)
	Animism. The belief that all entities have life force, a soul or mind. For example, rocks, trees and mountains have an awareness of their surroundings: (e.g. Native aboriginal religions).
	Atheism: According to most dictionary definitions, Atheists totally reject the possibility that God exists. This would include many Atheists, Buddhists, Unitarian Universalists, etc. However, American Atheists, the largest group of Atheists in the U.S. define Atheism as having no belief in God. A newborn would not be considered an Atheist within the dictionary definition, but would be an Atheist according to the American Atheists.
	Deism: The belief that God exists, but is remote, unknowable and uninvolved. They believe that God created the universe, set it going, but has not taken an active interest in it since. This was a popular belief among intellectuals during and after the American revolution. It shows up in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, and its references to to "Nature's God," and "Creator."
	Duotheism (a.k.a. Bitheism): belief in a dual divinity: (e.g. Wicca and Zoroastrianism). In the case of Wicca, one deity is female, the other male; in Zoroastrianism one is all good while the other is all evil.
	Henotheism. belief in many deities of which only one is the supreme deity. This may involve: One chief God and multiple gods and goddesses of lesser power and importance. Ancient Greek and Roman religions were of this type.  One supreme God, and multiple gods and goddesses who are all simply manifestations or aspects of the supreme God. Hinduism is one example; they recognize Brahman as the single deity. Some Wiccans believe in a single deity about which they know little. They call the deity "The One" or "The All." They recognize the God and Goddess as the male and female aspects of that supreme deity. One supreme God who rules over a country, and many other gods and goddesses who have similar jurisdiction over other territories. Liberal theologians believe that the ancient Israelites were henotheists; they worshipped Jehovah as the supreme God over Israel, but recognized the existence of Baal and other deities who ruled over other tribes.
	Monism: The belief that what people perceive as deity, humanity and the rest of the universe is in fact all of one substance - that divisions among the body, mind, flesh, spirit, material, physical are not real. All are simply aspects of one being.
	Monotheism: The belief in a single God. Examples include Islam, Judaism, and Sikhism). Within Christianity, most denominations consider themselves to be monotheistic, even though they teach the existence of three separate persons in the Trinity.
	Panentheism: The belief that the entire universe -- substances, forces and laws -- is God; the universe is God's body. God transcends the universe as well. (e.g. some components of New Age belief).
	Pantheism: The belief that every existing entity (humans, animals, etc.) together, is a part of God. They do not see God as having a personality, the ability to make decisions, etc.  Rather, God is the very spiritual essence of the entire universe.
	Polytheism: belief in many Gods and Goddesses: (e.g. various Neopagan religions. Hinduism is often looked upon in the west as a polytheistic religion).
	Trinity: belief in a single deity who has three aspects (e.g. historical Christianity, whose members generally believe in Trinity formed by a Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

Many specific denominations and faith groups are difficult to categorize. For example, a religion might believe in a single God, and a large number of minor deities, heroes, or saints who have many powers normally restricted to deities. It might be considered a monotheistic religion in theory or a polytheistic religion in practice.

WHAT DO YOU SEE?

 

 

 

Here is, without doubt, the coolest PC-related illusion, I've come

across.

To enjoy it, just follow the instructions:

1) Relax and lazily stare at the 4 tiny dots in the picture below,

for at least 30-45 seconds.

2) Slowly, shift your gaze from the screen to a wall near you.

3) You will see a circle of light formed on the wall.

4) Start blinking and continue till you see a figure within the

circle.

5) What do you see? Rather whom do you see?

I tried this a couple of times, to reconfirm.. man o man... freaky!

 

 

 

 

What Does Islam Say about Terrorism?

Islam, a religion of mercy, does not permit terrorism. In the Quran, God has said:

{ God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers } (Quran, 60:8)

The Prophet Muhammad used to prohibit soldiers from killing women and children, and he would advise them: "...Do not betray, do not be excessive, do not kill a newborn child" And he also said: "Whoever has killed a person having a treaty with the Muslims shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise.."

Also, the Prophet Muhammad has forbidden punishment with fire.

He once listed murder as the second of the major sins, and he even warned that on the Day of Judgment, "The first cases to be adjudicated between people on the Day of Judgment will be those of bloodshed"

Muslims are even encouraged to be kind to animals and are forbidden to hurt them. Once the Prophet Muhammad said:

"A woman was punished because she imprisoned a cat until it died. On account of this, she was doomed to Hell. While she imprisoned it, she did not give the cat food or drink, nor did she free it to eat the insects of the earth"

He also said that a man gave a very thirsty dog a drink, so God forgave his sins for this action. The Prophet was asked, "Messenger of God, are we rewarded for kindness towards animals?"

He said: "There is a reward for kindness to every living animal or human"

Additionally, while taking the life of an animal for food, Muslims are commanded to do so in a manner that causes the least amount of fright and suffering possible. The Prophet Muhammad said: "When you slaughter an animal, do so in the best way. One should sharpen his knife to reduce the suffering of the animal"

In light of these and other Islamic texts, the act of inciting terror in the hearts of defenseless civilians, the wholesale destruction of buildings and properties, the bombing and maiming of innocent men, women, and children are all forbidden and detestable acts according to Islam and the Muslims. Muslims follow a religion of peace, mercy, and forgiveness, and the vast majority have nothing to do with the violent events some have associated with Muslims. If an individual Muslim were to commit an act of terrorism, this person would be guilty of violating the laws of Islam.

Why is it that we give sadaqa, or what is normally translated as charity? Why do we spend of our wealth for the poor and the needy? Why do we give zakat, a specific subcategory of sadaqa which is the obligatory alms? A preliminary answer would be that we do so simply because Allah (swt) and His Messenger command it. Allah (swt) and His Prophet (saw) instruct the believers to give zakat, as well we all know. And beyond zakat, we are greatly encouraged to spend of our substance for those in need. We see this commanded in the Qur'an as follows:

"O ye who believe! Spend out of of [the bounties] We have provided for you, before the day comes when there will be no bargaining, no friendship and no intercession."

(2:254) "O ye who believe! Give of the good things which ye have earned, and of the fruits of the earth which we have produced for you…" (2:267)

But let us think more deeply. Why does Islam insist so much upon sadaqa, upon spending for charitable purposes? Let us begin with the fact that the mu'min, the person of faith, is defined in the Qur'an as one who spends in the way of Allah. This is seen both in the verses of command – ie, those that command the believers, the mu'minin, to spend of their wealth, as I have quoted just now – as well as in the verses that are descriptive in nature – ie, those verses that that inform us that those who spend charitably will receive their reward with Allah in the Akhirah, the Other Life. Examples of such ayat are these:

"Those who believe, and do deeds of righteousness, and establish salat, and give zakat, will have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." (2:277)

"Those who are patient and seek the countenance of their Lord, establish salat, spend out of that which We have given them for their sustenance, secretly and openly, and respond to evil with goodness, for such there is the final attainment of the Eternal Abode." (13:22)

Thus we see that the giving of one's wealth, or sadaqa, is somehow integrally connected to iman. So the next question to ask is, What is this profound relationship between faith and charity?

Some answers immediately present themselves. We might say, "If we have faith in Allah to provide for us, we will not fear poverty, and thus we will be more willing to give." Or we might say, "Charity forces us to part with material things, and thus reduces our reliance on those material things, which is both one of the objectives and one of the starting points of faith." And finally, we might say, "sadaqa is a way of recognizing that all we have comes from Allah, because we can only be legitimately commanded to part from our wealth by the One who gives us that wealth."

Some of these meanings are indicated in the dual meanings of the word zakat, which is not really best translated as "charity," but which rather means "purification" and "growth": To select out a portion of our wealth and to give it as charity in fact purifies the wealth that remains with us; at the same time, the giving of charity encourages growth, both of our iman and of our thawab – our recompense in the hereafter. Part of the essence of sadaqa is that it encompasses more than just the amount of monetary giving. An important element of sadaqa is the way in which we give, as Allah (swt) reminds us:

"Those who spend their substance in the cause of Allah, and follow not up their gifts with reminders of their generosity or with injury …" (2:262)

"O ye who believe! Cancel not your charity by reminders of your generosity or by injury…" (2:264)

"If you make known [your acts of] charity, it is fine; but if you conceal them, and make them reach those [really] in need, that is best for you …" (2:270)

In fact, sadaqa includes entirely non-monetary forms of generosity as well. In some cases, actions are more valuable than money: "Kind words and covering of faults are better than charity followed by injury." (2:263) Sometimes, sadaqa involves forgiving debts: "If the debtor is in difficulty, grant him time till it is easy for him to repay, but if you forgive it by way of charity, it is best for you, if you only knew." (2:280)

Amazingly, the taking of money can be a form of sadaqa, if it means a reduction or cancellation of capital or corporal punishment: "We ordained therein for them life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of sadaqa, it is an act of atonement for himself." (5:45)

The example of the beloved Prophet (saw) also demonstrates that sadaqa comprises any act of goodwill and generosity of time, effort and attitude. Kindness to any living thing is rewarded by Allah. For example, sharing a meal, establishing justice between people, assisting people in their daily activities like loading baggage into their vehicles, removing harmful things from the road, and kind words, are all examples he gave of sadaqa. The Prophet commanded us to visit the sick and procure the freedom of slaves.

And yet, and yet, all of these acts, while not monetary giving, are clearly charitable, in that they are acts of generosity and kindness toward others.

But how are we to make sense of some of the other acts described by our Prophet (saw) as sadaqa? This is where the question about sadaqa becomes more profound. For we see that certain acts are very unexpectedly cited as exemplifying sadaqa: steps toward prayer, glorifying Allah, affirming the oneness of Allah (tawhid), enjoining good and forbidding evil, and even conjugal relations.

How are these acts charitable?

In these hadith, in the categorization of these acts as sadaqa, we begin to sense the mysterious depths of this concept. And here begins the crux of what I would like to share with you:

When we say "charity," we mean "acts of generosity from one who possesses more, to one who possesses less, and who is in need of the object given." Charity is when one who is rich gives something of benefit to one who is poor. Charity is a social act that assumes some sort of differentiation in wealth, some sort of hierarchy. This, of course, is why people find it demeaning to receive charity from others. This is recognized in the ayah, "O ye who believe! Cancel not your sadaqah by reminders of your generosity or by injury." But praising Allah and taking pleasure with one's spouse are not in any clear way "charitable." In no direct way do they involve giving, nor do they reflect hierarchy as "charity" connotes. The answer is clear: We must look elsewhere than the concept of "charity" for the essence of sadaqa.

Sadaqa comes from the root s-d-q, and the fundamental noun from this root is sidq, which means "truthfulness, sincerity." Sadaqa is that which demonstrates our truthfulness and sincerity when we say that we "have faith," that we "have iman." A better translation of sadaqa would be "proof of faith." Sadaqa is proving to Allah our sincerity of iman, our truthfulness when we say of ourselves that we believe. And at the same time, at the same time, we know that God has no need of such proofs of faith, that our sadaqa does not help Allah in the least: He has no need of our sincerity, any more than He is harmed by our insincerity.

"Behold, ye are those who are invited to spend in the way of Allah, but among you there are some that are miserly. But any who are miserly are so at the expense of their own souls. And Allah is the Wealthy, and you are the poor…" (47:38)

Rather, sadaqa as a form of worship of the Creator, is singularly geared toward the creature. sadaqa brings us face-to-face with the need, the affliction, the plaint of others. It raises to our awareness the essential, structural and at times soul-crushing poverty that marks the human condition.

Confronted with the suffering of those less fortunate than ourselves, the one who is truthful is humbled and thinks, "There but for the grace of God go I." In the face of poverty, there wells up in the soul of him who is sincere a fountain of gratitude – shukr – for indeed, there is an intrinsic connection between sadaqa and shukr. In the act of shukr, we are the poor receivers, and in the act of sadaqa, we are the wealthy givers. Yet the one who is sincere in faith is not misled by her wealth: She knows that that which she bestows presently upon another, is only that which was bestowed upon her earlier, by another.

The divine wisdom in making sadaqa an obligation is this: That the giving of sadaqa is transformative. It is an invitation to gentleness (riqq) toward the world around us; it is a path to generosity of spirit. According to Ayesha (raa), the Prophet said: "Allah is Gentle, and loves gentleness in all things." (muttafaq alaih, Riyad as-Salihin, p.130)

In a supreme paradox, sadaqa enables us to realize that spiritual poverty – faqr – is simultaneously spiritual wealth. For it is a truth that when we are with faith, we are always wealthy, always full, always in a position to give. Only one who regards himself wealthy can give freely, and only one who is content can lower the walls of fear and see the suffering of others. For indeed it is fear that prevents us from developing generosity of spirit:

"Shaytan threatens you with poverty and bids you to sin, while Allah promises you forgiveness and abundance …" (2:268)

Only the one who is content and secure, can throw wide the gates of her being – not so as to let in every needy cry and desperate plea and thus to allow herself to be trampled– but so that she can venture outside without fear, and really see the world for what it is.

Sadaqa is not, in the end and at its core, about the giving of money at all. Nor is it about the giving of time, of effort, or even a smile. All of these – money, time, effort - are but indicators of one's spiritual state. Have I become of those who can put aside my own needs, my own nafs, for a while and see – really see – another?

Sadaqa is graciously giving the floor to another voice, another concern. It is being aware and attuned to the privation of others, not only material, but emotional, intellectual, and spiritual. And – and here we see the wondrous way in which sadaqa does its spiritual transformation – it is the confidence of knowing that, no matter how poor we feel, we in fact have something to offer, and it is simultaneously the humility of knowing that, no matter how wealthy we feel, the situation at hand may call for something it is not in our ability to give.

Sadaqa is the work of softening one's own heart, toward all of Allah's creatures, not only toward our own friends and family, and not only toward other Muslims. The Prophet (saw) was sent as a mercy to all of humanity, similar to the raincloud that sends showers upon all, faithful and unfaithful alike.

"And We have not sent you except as a mercy for all the worlds." (21:107)

The Prophet (saw), says Allah, invites humanity, "invites to Allah … as a lamp spreading light." (33:46) We see that the Prophet (saw), in a hadith of Anas, said:

"Make things easy and do not make them hard (for people); cheer people up and do not repel them." (muttafaq alaih, Riyad al-Salihin, p.131)

Our being should be such a fount of mercy, such a lamp spreading light, such an invitation to all others, great or small, Muslim or not. This is what it means to be the very affirmation, the very proof of faith. Like the raincloud and the sunlight, that are a source of bounty for all, sadaqa is a force for rectification of imbalance and removal of oppression wherever we find it.

Being such a one, who can put his ego aside in order to really see and hear the other, who is simultaneously aware of how wealthy and how impoverished he is, who is perfectly objective in his softness and mercy, being such a one – and we only pray that we may be like this -- is only possible when one has allowed the essence of sadaqa, which is none other than sidq, to penetrate one's being.

As a community we are now more than ever in need of sadaqa – not of receiving it, but of giving it, of doing it. We are in more need than ever of allowing sidq – sincerity – to penetrate into and transform our beings. Allah (swt) has put a great mirror before us, and we have seen much that is spiritually crooked.

Yet we ignore the divine mirror, like the tragic figure who rushes headlong to his own demise, too filled with hubris to hear any warnings or see any signs. In our conversations with our fellow human beings on this planet, we behave as children: we like to do all the talking, and we plug our ears with our fingers and raise our voices, and believe that others are convinced by our words.

It is time to take our fingers out of our ears and listen, really listen, to the fears, concerns and criticisms our fellow human beings have of us as a community that claims to best embody the the divine will. We must put our nafs out of the way and fast the fast of Zakariya (raa) – the fast from speech. Then we might hear, really hear, the cries of those in need. We must throw open the doors of our selves and venture outside into the world of others. And like the raincloud and the sun's rays, each of us must strive to be a mercy to all the worlds.

See: (Mattew 6:2)

Why study comparative Religion?

Chuang Tzu put on cotton clothes with patches in them, and arranging his girdle and tying on his shoes, (i.e. to keep them from falling off), went to see the prince of Wei.
"How miserable you look, Sir!" Cried the prince. "It is poverty, not misery", replied Chuang Tzu. "A man who has TAO cannot be miserable. Ragged clothes and old boots make poverty, not misery".

Chuang Tzu - (Taoism)

It is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for them that love him. But God has revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.

  ...the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Paul - (Christianity)

He that does everything for Me, whose supreme object I am, who worships Me, being free from attachment and without hatred to any creature, this man, Arjuna!, comes to Me.

Bhagavad Gita - (Hinduism)

The path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day. The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble.

Solomon - (Judaism)

Let a man overcome anger by love, let him overcome evil by good; let him overcome the greedy by liberality, the liar by truth! Speak the truth, do not yield to anger; give, if thou art asked for little; by these three steps thou wilt go near the gods.

Dhammapada - (Buddhism)

On any teaching, we should try to prove its validity according to a certain method of argumentation and by the selective use of sources.

As a guide it is my duty to provide a certain method of doing research in any subject that the student is interested to explore.

Thus, my way of teaching does not consist of memorizing books, creeds, and sayings, but rather of examining trends and ideas, and the sources that can be used to research them in the best possible way.

The demands in the study of religion are so extensive, wide, big, that is why it require strict discipline.

	"There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God." Baha'u'llah, founder of the Baha'i World Faith, "Gleanings," Page 217
	I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." The words of Jesus, as recorded in John 14:6.
	"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."  Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue. Reported by the News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, IN, 1993-AUG-16:
	"The idea that Jesus is the only way to God or that only those who have been washed in the blood of Christ are ever to be listed among the saved, has become anathema and even dangerous in our shrinking world." Episcopal Bishop John S. Spong. 11
	"People consider themselves to be orthodox, and everyone else to be a heretic." Anon

Responses to religious diversity differ:

Many people object to the presence of other faith groups in their community and nation, as indicated by the following statements: "The shadow of vandalism and violence perpetuated against religious groups, particularly minority or ethnic communities, falls across Hindu temples, Sikh gurdwaras, mosques, synagogues and minority Christian churches alike. Our common life as communities is menaced by many forms of belligerence and discrimination, negative stereotypes, benign ignorance and willful misrepresentation." 8   Anti-cult and counter-cult groups exist to convince the public of the dangers that they feel is presented by new religious movements.   There are two Protestant ministerial organizations in many cities: one for Evangelical pastors; the second for other clergy.   Some religions will not marry couples unless both are from their faith group.

Others willingly embrace diversity, as evidenced by the following: "...the Governor of the State of Kansas, in 1997, issued his first official proclamation on the Muslim observance of Ramadan. In it he called on Kansas citizens to recognize 'the dedication and service of Muslims as an important part of the fabric of religious pluralism which enriches us all.' " 8 President Clinton, in 1998, issued similar greetings on an important Sikh observance." 8    Local ecumenical and inter-faith organizations are flourishing in many cities.    The number of inter-faith marriages is rising rapidly.

Most people tend to view other religions in one of three mutually exclusive ways:

	Exclusivists regard their own faith tradition as the only completely true religion. Other religions might have elements of truth in them -- beliefs arrived at either by accident, or by observing nature, or by following their conscience. But they are largely false, and are often viewed as rivals to the one true religion. Among conservative Christians, other religions may be regarded as forms of Satanism, led by demonic forces. They are often vigorously opposed because they are viewed as drawing their followers away from salvation towards an eternity of punishment in Hell.   Exclusivism is probably the most common belief among devout Christians in the U.S. One indication of this comes from a 1995 poll showed that only 21% of churchgoers regarded Islam as having a positive impact on society. Only 21% felt that Buddhism had a positive effect.
	Inclusivists, like exclusivists regard their own faith tradition as the only completely true religion. They do not view other religions as wrong; they are seen to "reflect aspects of, or to constitute approaches to, that final truth." 5 Other religions are thus viewed as incomplete or partially developed faiths.
	Religious Pluralism: Religions are all legitimate, valid, and true -- when viewed from within their particular culture. All faith traditions are deserving of respect. Unfortunately, the term "Religious pluralism" is ambiguous. It is sometimes used as a synonym for "religious diversity" to refer to the fact that many countries have a followers of many religions within their borders. It is sometimes difficult to tell from a written document or speech which definition the author or speaker is using. More details. We will avoid the use of the term "religious pluralism" in this web site, where "religious diversity" is a clearer term.

In general:

	Religious liberals in North America often tend toward religious pluralism.
	Religious conservatives frequently embrace exclusivism, largely because it appears in their holy texts -- the Torah, Christian Scriptures (New Testament), Qur'an, etc. In fact, many Christian and Jewish conservatives do not recognize the liberal wings of their own religion as legitimate.
	Members of mainline denominations are split. For example, at the 2001 General Conference of the Presbyterian Church (USA), salvation for non-Christians surfaced as a major item of concern.

Does pluralism mean that all religions are factually true?

No. Multiple religions cannot all be absolutely true for the simple reason that they hold conflicting cosmological, moral, and theological beliefs. Consider just one belief: that of the nature of deity, as held by the following nine religions and ethical systems:

	Atheists have no concept of a supernatural God.
	Strong Atheists assert that God does not exist.
	Agnostics remain uncertain about the presence of God. They believe that there is insufficient proof of either God's existence or non-existence.
	Christian denominations generally teach that God is a Trinity of three personalities: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who together form a single entity.
	Hinduism is a henotheistic religion. Its followers believe in a single deity, Brahman, but also recognize other gods and goddesses as facets or manifestations or aspects of that supreme God.
	Islam and Judaism are monotheistic religions; Muslims and Jews believe that God is a unity, a single personality, without internal divisions. The belief that God is a Trinity is a sacrilege. However, they differ with respect to God's names, attributes and expectations of humans.
	Santeria recognizes Olorun, as God, the "owner of heaven." They also believe in a group of lesser guardians, called Orisha. Theirs is a polytheistic religion with a deity structure similar to the Pagan religions of ancient Greece and Rome.
	Wicca, and many other Neopagan religions teach that God is dual: consisting of a male God and a female Goddess.

Obviously, only one of the above religions can be absolutely true according to the Law of Non-contradiction. ₅

Thus, two or more of the above religions cannot be absolutely true simultaneously. 

 

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws