Continue reading »]]> by JOOST LAGENDIJK – TODAY’S ZAMAN
J.lagendijk@todayszaman.com
26 July 2011

After the Norway massacre in which a homegrown extreme-right Islamophobe killed dozens of people, a profound debate started in the United States and Europe on how this could happen.

One of the most sensitive elements in that discussion is the relationship between, on the one hand, violent actions by individual extremists and, on the other, the rising popularity of far-right populist parties in Europe and the growing influence of anti-Muslim ideologues in the US.

In other words: Should we blame extremist politicians and columnists for having prepared the ground for the kind of horrific actions that we saw in Norway? Or should we not make that link and, in the end, blame each and every individual for the acts that he commits?

Let me start with the reactions of the American anti-Muslim bloggers to the Norwegian drama. When it turned out that it was a blonde Norwegian who planted the bomb and killed dozens of children in cold blood, the Islam critics tried to downplay the right-wing anti-Muslim ideology driving the shooter. Anders Behring Breivik was a lonely lunatic who had acted on his own.

In a blog on the website of The Washington Post, someone compared the reactions of two of the most well-known professional Islamophobes, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, to the terrorist attack in Oslo with their usual habits of tarring all Muslims with responsibility for acts of Islamist terrorism. Geller is an outspoken critic of Islam who runs the blog “Atlas Shrugs.” She wrote that any assertion that she or other anti-jihad writers bore any responsibility for Mr. Breivik’s actions was “ridiculous.” Spencer, who operates the “Jihad Watch” website and published several books unveiling Islam as a totalitarian ideology, angrily denied that what had happened in Norway “has anything remotely to do with anything we have ever advocated.”

As The Washington Post blogger put it: “Geller and Spencer are now pleading for the world not to do what they’ve spent their careers doing — assigning collective blame for an act of terror through guilt-by-association. … They are now begging for the kind of tolerance and understanding they cheerfully refuse to grant to American Muslims.”

By the way, after this blog was published, it became known that Mr. Breivik had written a 1,500-page manifesto in which he explains his motives. That document contains dozens of quotations from Geller, Spencer and many other American bloggers and writers who have warned for years about the threat of Islam. According to some well-informed American specialists, we should not underestimate the influence of these American Islamophobes. According to Max Blumenthal, a writing fellow for the Nation Institute, “the Islamophobic crusade has gone beyond the right-wing pro-Israel activists, cyber-bigots and ambitious hucksters who conceived it. It now belongs to leading Republican presidential candidates, top-rated cable news hosts and crowds of Tea Party activists.”

In that same manifesto, Mr. Breivik also refers many times to European politicians he admires, like the Dutch populist Geert Wilders. Confronted with appreciation by a mass murderer, these politicians’ reactions were copies of the American ones. Wilders said the killer was a “violent and sick character” and that he “did not share any of the views of Breivik.” Marine Le Pen, leader of the anti-immigrant National Front in France, claimed her party has “nothing to do with the Norwegian slaughter, which is the work of a lone lunatic who must be ruthlessly punished.”

Back to The Washington Post blog. After having bashed the American anti-Muslim ideologues for their hypocrisy and double standards, the writer concludes by saying that all of us should take this lesson to heart: “Terrorist acts are committed by individuals, and it is those individuals who should be held responsible.”

After reading this conclusion, I was left with very ambiguous feelings. Should we deny any link between Mr. Breivik and the poisonous wells he drank from? Are people like Spencer or Wilders in no way responsible for the acts of an individual who has clearly stated that he was inspired by their ideas and success?

The answer is indeed a straightforward “No” if we look at the majority of reactions by European liberals. They abhor what happened in Norway and they totally disagree with Islamophobic politicians and writers. But they draw a clear line between the violent acts of Mr. Breivik, for which only he can be held accountable, and the aggressive words of his ideological enablers who should be free to express their despicable views. If we would hold Mr. Wilders and others in any way responsible for Mr. Breivik’s cruelties, we would be making the same mistake as they do by blaming all Muslims for the terrorist acts of Osama bin Laden. Guilt-by-association is always wrong.

To be honest, I find it difficult to accept this rigid division of responsibilities. Mr. Breivik is definitively not a lunatic who got out of control. He is an ideological extremist who carefully planned his terrorist acts and who has a clear vision of the world and what he considers to be the threats to the open society he favors. His ideas are part of a much wider, growing right-wing movement in Europe and the US that, according to me, should not be able to get off the hook so easily by blaming all wrongs on a so-called crazy individual.

In order to understand what is happening in Europe and the US, we should not make the mistake to claim, as is often done in Turkey, that the new cultural conservatism that both Mr. Breivik and Mr. Wilders are championing is a copy of the fascist ideology of the 1930s.

There are clear differences and they are important in explaining the success of the current right-wing movement. The new populists distance themselves openly from the racism and authoritarianism of the past. They defend the Jewish state of Israel and gay rights, two positions that the “old” fascists would never support. Their focus is on anti-multiculturalism, anti-Islamization and the immediate threat to Western civilization as they define it.

On both issues, there is an overlap with the classic conservatives and even part of the social-democrats that enables them to reach out to parts of the electorate that the small post-war extreme right could never dream of. It also makes it much more difficult to isolate or marginalize this new movement. They are no longer harmless on the sidelines. Their ideas are the talk-of-the-town and, especially in northwestern Europe, their influence has reached government levels.

To pretend that this growing presence and popularity has absolutely no influence on some of their extreme supporters would, in my view, be dangerously naive. On the website of the American magazine Foreign Policy, I think two researchers strike the right balance in their assessment of the Norway tragedy. “No one really knows the exact relationship between extreme right-wing movements and political violence. Indeed, academics are still arguing, without resolution, about whether peaceful but extreme Islamist organizations are ‘gateways’ into Islamist terrorism. Yet all terrorists believe they are defending a wider constituency, fighting for ideas that others agree with but are too ignorant or afraid to take action. … Like al-Qaeda, far-right terrorists often see themselves as vanguards — striking a blow that will awaken the masses. There is no question that someone like Anders Behring Breivik is more likely to find that environment in Europe now than a decade ago. And though he may have acted alone, there are certainly more like him who share his concerns, his ideology and his belief that without immediate and drastic action Western civilization will be lost. The world can no longer afford to ignore this growing threat,” they say.

for the full text: http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-251714-words-do-matter.html

Continue reading »]]> 27 July 2011

Moscow, Interfax –

The recent terror attacks in Norway evidence the need to strengthen international cooperation in resisting racial hatred and xenophobia, Moscow believes.

“Firstly, I would want to join the sincere condolences expressed to the Norwegian people,” Russian Foreign Ministry Envoy for Human Rights, Democracy and the Supremacy of Law Konstantin Dolgov has told Interfax.

Asked how Moscow regards the tragedy from the viewpoint of human rights, he said that the current investigation has shown that “in addition to political extremism, this atrocity had such motives as racial hatred, xenophobia and Islamophobia.”

“If all this is proved, and Breivik is not leaving any doubts about being guided by these very motives, we believe that international cooperation must be intensified to neutralize these extremely dangerous challenges, which the international community and many European countries, in particular, are facing,” Dolgov said.

Oslo and Utoya island near the Norwegian capital were shaken by a double terror attack last Friday in which 76 people died. Anders Breivik, 32, suspected of both crimes, says he acted to save Norway and Europe from immigrants, primarily Muslims.

source: http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=8621

Continue reading »]]> Muslim terrorist, Arab jihadist, Islamic militia. In recent years, these words have almost become synonymous with each other in the daily news. With the onslaught of news coverage of the Middle East, all the news about Islam and Muslims seems to be bad.

All Americans see on their televisions are visions of turban-clad men screaming “Allahu Akbar” and women covered in black veils from head to toe.

But what is this religion and who are these people? Does this religion really condone these awful things we see?

To answer these questions, we must first start with the simplest way of defining things: definitions.

Islam means “to submit to the will of God” in Arabic, with its counterpart Muslim meaning “one who submits to the will of God.” Therefore, Islam is the religion and Muslims are its followers.

Now that we have that cleared up, let’s move on to a definition that is a little more controversial: jihad. The word, as used in the Quran, refers to a struggle or the act of striving toward the will of Allah (God), not exactly the modern “holy war” definition. In this way, jihad includes the fight against one’s self and the fight against Satan.

So here comes the disclaimer.

Islam in no way calls for terrorism, the killing of innocent people or, as I have heard before, the annihilation of infidels. Most of the terrorist groups we see on the news are formed through hardship, ongoing war and ignorance of the religion. Muslims seek only to have peace and harmony through a constant submission to Allah. This includes five key principles or pillars: a monotheistic belief in God which includes a declaration of faith or shahadah; prayer, which is done five times a day at set times; charity; fasting in the holy month of Ramadan; and a hajj, or pilgrimage to Mecca, if funds and health allow it, once in a Muslim’s lifetime.

Although these principles define a Muslim’s life, most of the questions I am asked about Islam never contain these points. Most of the inquisitors ask about topics anywhere from race to “that scarf thingy.” So in the rest of this article, I will try to answer some of the more common questions posed to me as a Muslim.

First of all, let’s talk about the scarf. Whether it is seen as holy or infamous, these are the facts: The headscarf, or hijab, is worn by Muslim women who are past the age of puberty in the presence of marriageable men.

This is done as a form of modesty to protect a woman’s beauty from unclean thoughts. The most widely accepted form of hijab is the covering of the body from the ankles to wrist, with the scarf used to cover all of the head except for the face. Covering any more of the face is usually viewed as a personal preference. (However, these views change from place to place.)

The scarf should always be worn during prayer and out of respect for entering a mosque but not at home or around other women. So please, stop asking women with scarves on their heads if they have to “wear that in the shower.”

(Although the scarf is a staple in most Muslim women’s closets, some reject it as a relic of the past and many wait to put the scarf on until they have reached a certain time in their life, a decision which takes a lot of thought and prayer.)

Another common question I receive, especially in the Bible belt, is, “So you don’t believe Jesus is the son of God?” The answer is, well, no.

In Islam, Jesus is viewed as a great prophet much like Moses, Abraham, and Mohammed, all of whom are held so highly in Islam that Muslims are advised to say, “Peace be upon them,” after their names. It is Islamic belief that every set of peoples was sent a prophet that relayed God’s message to them.

We believe that Moses was sent the Torah and Jesus the Gospel but unfortunately, over the years, man corrupted these messages, this corruption including the making of Jesus’ divinity. Mohammad, a merchant living in Mecca during the Middle Ages, was revealed God’s message in the form of the Quran. Mohammad was also given the revelation that he would be the last prophet to all of God’s creation and the promise that the Quran would not be corrupted.

by Jessica King
see the whole article:
from: http://www.cw.ua.edu/2010/04/14/islam-about-peace-not-hatred/

Continue reading »]]> by Muzammil H. Siddiqi

Intolerance is on the increase in the world today, causing death, genocide, violence, religious persecution as well as confrontations on different levels. Some times it is racial and ethnic, some times it is religious and ideological, other times it is political and social. In every situation it is evil and painful. How can we solve the problem of intolerance? How can we assert our own beliefs and positions without being intolerant to others? How can we bring tolerance into the world today?

I would like to discuss some of these issues from an Islamic point of view.

What is tolerance? Literally the word “tolerance” means “to bear.” As a concept it means “respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of the world’s cultures, forms of expression and ways of being human.” In Arabic it is called “Tasamuh”. There are also other words that give similar meanings, such as “Hilm” (forbearance) or “‘`Afu” (pardon, forgiveness) or “Safh” (overlooking, disregarding). In the Persian and Urdu languages, we use the word “rawadari” which comes from “rawa” meaning “acceptable or bearable” and “dashtan” meaning “to hold”. Thus it means to hold something acceptable or bearable.

Tolerance is a basic principle of Islam. It is a religious moral duty. It does not mean “concession, condescension or indulgence.” It does not mean lack of principles, or lack of seriousness about one’s principles.

Sometimes it is said, “people are tolerant of things that they do not care about.” But this is not the case in Islam. Tolerance according to Islam does not mean that we believe that all religions are the same. It does not mean that we do not believe in the supremacy of Islam over other faiths and ideologies. It does not mean that we do not convey the message of Islam to others and do not wish them to become Muslims.

The UNESCO principles on tolerance say:

“Consistent with respect for human rights, the practice of tolerance does not mean toleration of social injustice or the abandonment or weakening of one’s convictions. It means that one is free to adhere to one’s own convictions and accepts that others adhere to theirs. It means accepting the fact that human beings, naturally diverse in their appearance, situation, speech, behavior and values, have the right to live in peace and to be as they are. It also means that one’s views are not to be imposed on others.”

Tolerance comes from our recognition of:

1. the dignity of the human beings,

2. the basic equality of all human beings,

3. universal human rights, and

4. fundamental freedom of thought, conscience and belief.

The Qur’an speaks about the basic dignity of all human beings. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, spoke about the equality of all human beings, regardless of their race, color, language or ethnic background. Shari`ah recognizes the rights of all people to life, property, family, honor and conscience.

Islam emphasizes the establishment of equality and justice, both of these values cannot be established without some degree of tolerance. Islam recognized from the very beginning the principle of freedom of belief or freedom of religion. It said very clearly that it is not allowed to have any coercion in the matters of faith and belief. The Qur’an says, “There is no compulsion in religion.” (Al-Baqarah: 256)

If in the matters of religion, coercion is not permissible, then by implication one can say that in other matters of cultures and other worldly practices it is also not acceptable. In Surat Ash-Shura Allah says to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, “If then they turn away, We have not sent you as a guard over them. Your duty is but to convey (the Message)…” (Ash-Shura: 48) In another place Allah says, “Invite (all) to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious. Your Lord knows best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.” (An-Nahl:125)

Further, Allah says to the Believers, “Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and beware (of evil): if you do turn back, know then that it is Our Messenger’s duty to proclaim (the Message) in the clearest manner.” (Al-Ma’idah: 92)

One can also cite Allah’s words: “Say: ‘Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger: but if you turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and you for that placed on you. If you obey him, you shall be on right guidance. The Messenger’s duty is only to preach the clear (Message).”(An-Nur:54)

All these verses give note that Muslims do not coerce people; they must present the message to them in the most cogent and clear way, invite them to the truth and do their best in presenting and conveying the message of God to humanity, but it is up to people to accept or not to accept. Allah says, “And say, ‘The truth is from your Lord, so whosoever wants let him believe and whosoever wants let him deny.” (An-Nahl: 29)

The question then comes: If Allah gave choice to believe or not to believe, then why did He punish the people of Prophet Nuh, the `Ad, the Thamud, the people of Prophet Lut, the people of Prophet Shu`aib and Pharaoh and his followers? The answer is in the Qur’an itself. Those people were not punished simply because of their disbelief. They were punished because they had become oppressors. They committed aggression against the righteous, and stopped others to come to the way of Allah. There were many in the world who denied Allah, but Allah did not punish every one. Ibn Taymiyah, the outstanding Muslim scholar, said, “The states may live long inspite of their people’s unbelief (kufr), but they cannot live long when their people become oppressors.”

Another question is raised about Jihad. Some people say, “Is it not the duty of Muslims to make Jihad?” But the purpose of Jihad is not to convert people to Islam. Allah says, “No compulsion in religion.”(Al-Baqarah: 256). The real purpose of Jihad is to remove injustice and aggression. Muslims are allowed to keep good relations with non-Muslims. Allah says, “Allah does not forbid you that you show kindness and deal justly with those who did not fight you in your religion and did not drive you out from your homes…” (Al-Mumtahinah: 8)

Islam teaches that fighting is only against those who fight. Allah says, “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors.” (Al-Baqarah:190)

Islam may tolerate anything, but it teaches zero tolerance for injustice, oppression, and violation of the rights of other human beings. Allah says, “And why should you not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? Men, women, and children, whose cry is: ‘Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from Yourside one who will protect; and raise for us from Yourside one who will help!’”(An-Nisa’: 75)

Islam teaches tolerance on all levels: individual, groups and states. It should be a political and legal requirement. Tolerance is the mechanism that upholds human rights, pluralism (including cultural pluralism), and the rule of law. The Qur’an says very clearly: “To every People have We appointed rites and ceremonies which they must follow, let them not then dispute with you on the matter, but do invite (them) to your Lord: for you are assuredly on the Right Way. If they do wrangle with you, say, ‘God knows best what it is you are doing.’ ‘God will judge between you on the Day of Judgment concerning the matters in which you differ.’” (Al-Hajj: 76-69)

There are many levels of tolerance:

A. Between family members, between husband and wife, between parents and children, between siblings etc.

B. Tolerance between the members of the community: tolerance in views and opinions, tolerance between the Madhahib (Islamic Juristic Schools).

C. Tolerance between Muslims and the people of other faiths (interfaith relations, dialogue and cooperation).

Muslims have been generally very tolerant people. We must emphasize this virtue among us and in the world today. Tolerance is needed among our communities: We must foster tolerance through deliberate policies and efforts. Our centers should be multi-ethnic. We should teach our children respect of each other. We should not generalize about other races and cultures. We should have more exchange visits and meetings with each other. Even marriages should be encouraged among Muslims of different ethnic groups.

With non-Muslims we should have dialogue and good relations, but we cannot accept things that are contrary to our religion. We should inform them what is acceptable to us and what is not. With more information, I am sure the respect will develop and more cooperation will develop.

source: http://muslimvillage.com/story.php?id=811

Continue reading »]]> by Dr. Ibrahim Abu-Rabi

When Professor Mahmoud Ayoub asked me to talk about Muslim identity, I said to myself, this would be an easy topic. However, the more I pondered this, the more I came to realize that discussing identity in Islamic theology and history is not an easy matter. I would like to discuss my topic from the perspective of the field of Islamic Studies, which is the field I have been trained in as a scholar. Let me just begin with these two quotations from two contemporary Muslim thinkers:

1) “There does not exist progressive Islam, or radical Islam or political Islam or sultan’s Islam, on the one hand, and reactionary or pacifist Islam on the other. There is one Islam only and one book, which God revealed to his prophet and which the prophet conveyed to the people.” Fahmi Huwaydi.

2) “Today, Islam is a wounded religion; the majority of the nations that belong to it are the poorest of the third world.” Muhammad Ghazali;

In today’s world, we have two distinct fields of Islamic Studies that are somewhat ambivalent about each other; the first is the form undertaken in the West and the second is that undertaken in the Muslim world. These two fields have distinct epistemological and historical formations and serve two different audiences. In the Muslim world, the field of Islamic Studies is known as Shari‘ah Studies, except in Turkey, where the use of the term Shari‘ah is legally banned in academic and media discourses. Research in this field is focused on the Islamic tradition of Qur’anic exegesis, Hadith tradition, Islamic jurisprudence, mysticism, and, in certain cases, classical Islamic philosophy, especially in Iran.

Books written by Islamic Studies scholars in the Muslim world are usually about Islamic tradition and appear in several Islamic languages, especially Arabic. These books usually lack the rigorous approach found in Western books on Islamic tradition, since many of their authors refuse to incorporate recent discoveries in the fields of social sciences and humanities.

In the past three decades, a new school of thought has emerged in the Muslim world and the West known as the “Islamization of knowledge” school. Its main proponents have been the late Ismai‘l R. al-Faruqi, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Zaiduddin Sardar, and Seyyed Naquib Alatas. The IIIT has published a number of books in both Arabic and English on Islamic tradition and on the Islamization of sciences, such as the Islamization of history, sociology, economics, etc. However, this school of thought has failed so far to articulate a critical discourse in the field of Islamic Studies in the West.

In spite of the rigor evidenced by Islamic Studies scholars in the West, a plethora of books on Islam in the West have recently appeared that have gained prominence not because they have something profound or new to say about Islam, but because of the fame of their authors in certain circles. Examples of authors of this type are Bernard Lewis and Daniel Pipes. Similarly, many new publications exist solely because they address the subject of radical or political Islam, which is seen as a threat to the status quo and therefore feared in the West. A few of these post-9/11 titles include: B. Lewis, The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror and What Went Wrong: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East; Gilles Kepel, The Roots of Radical Islam; and Bruce Bawer, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within, though there are many other examples.

In the West, the field of Islamic Studies, sometimes called the field of Oriental Studies or Near Eastern Studies, has been driven by a number of factors: religious, missionary, Western economic and military interests in the Muslim world, etc. In his classic work Orientalism, Edward Said presents a comprehensive critique of the field. He points out that Orientalism as a field is complex indeed, and has been with us for the past 500 years.

Said defines Orientalism as a dimension of modern European intellectual and political culture that sees the world as divided into two unequal halves that are vastly different from one another. In other words, Orientalism is a style of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction between the Orient and the Occident. Although I am aware of the significant contributions made by Orientalism to the fields of Arabic and Islamic Studies, I do not share its basic epistemological premises and ideological biases.

Although Orientalism has been mainly text-oriented, some Orientalists have taken their knowledge of philology and ventured beyond this domain to mix with the local people, especially the missionary type Orientalist. In his magnificent book, The Arabists, Robert Kaplan depicts the missionary Orientalist as one who is at first more concerned about converting him- or herself to the local culture than with converting people to his or her religion. So, initially, the missionary does not so much bother about converting people as much as tapping into the true stream of Christianity that is still somewhat preserved in modern Arab literature, culture and people.

No doubt Orientalism has been promoted to a higher status after the tragic attacks on the US. However, one of the most positive results of 9/11 has been the steadily increasing involvement of Western Muslim communities in their local milieus and educational institutions.

I believe the time is ripe to rethink the question of Islamic identity for the following reasons:

The first is because of the evolving internal debate in the Muslim world about the meaning of Islam and the best way to revive, reform, and reactivate Islamic religious tradition and institutions in the modern world. This debate has been ongoing since at least the early part of the 19th century. It is fascinating, nuanced and has taken place in several Islamic languages.

The second reason is because of the intense debate in the West about the meaning of Islam and the relationship between the West and the Muslim world. I do not claim that the debate in North America and Europe began after 9/11; however, 9/11 and the other tragic attacks in London and Madrid made that debate a cultural necessity. Islam has become the subject of popular culture in the West as never before.

The third reason is because of the insights we have gained from progress in the fields of the social sciences and humanities in the past century or so, and how we can utilize these insights in order to understand Islam, Islamic history and the Muslim world.

In examining the Islamic phenomenon in the 21st century, one can discern the following salient features:

First, at the level of the production of knowledge, we can point to a distinguished intellectual/theological/philosophical Islamic tradition based upon a number of primary sources such as the Qur’an, the Hadith and the Tadwin of Islamic religious sciences in the formative phase of Islam. It is impossible to understand Islamic intellectual history or Islamic intellectualism without referring to these sources. Study in these sciences has seen fruition over a long period of time. In addition, their epistemological formation owes a debt to all sorts of intellectual influences from other cultures and civilizations, such as Greek, Persian, African, Hindu, and Buddhist. In other words, we can talk about a plurality of Islamic sciences and intellectual perspectives guiding the traditional worldview of the Muslim world.

Second, the Muslim world is distinguished by a multiplicity of cultures, which define the multiplicity of identity in the classical and modern Muslim world. One can point to the following cultural zones in the contemporary Muslim world: 1) Arab; 2) African; 3) Persian; 4) Turkic; 4) South Asian or Indian; 5) Malayo/Javanese; 6) Chinese, and 7) Western. In other words, we cannot talk about a monolithic Muslim culture but rather a web of cultures that have greatly influenced Islamic identity. To take it a step further, multiple Muslim identities emerged in the classical as well as modern phases as a product of the cross-fertilization of various epistemologies, perspectives, cultures, and societies.

Third, since the 19th century, at least, the Muslim world has responded to aggressive Western modernity in a variety of ways: 1) Pan Islamism; 2) Nationalism; and 3) Westernization.

Pan-Islamism was formulated by the Muslim political and religious elite in a number of Muslim regions in the world in the 19th century, most notably in the Ottoman Empire, India, and Indonesia.

In the Ottoman case, the political elite introduced the Tanzimat reforms at the beginning of the 19th century for the purpose of modernizing the Empire and reviving the Ottoman military, political, educational, and religious institutions. The Tanzimat were reforms implemented in such regions of the Empire as Albania, Bosnia, Asia Minor, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Tunisia, and the Sudan.

In the Indian case, the Muslim intelligentsia of the defeated Mughal elite were trying to come to grips with the changing tide of new times by adopting a new system of education for the Muslims of India. This project was spearheaded by Ahmad Khan, founder of the Mohammedan-Anglo College. This school came to be called Aligarh Muslim University after 1910.

In Indonesia, the Red Sarekat Islam and later on Muhammadiyyah movements were created in order to rebuild the foundations of Muslim education for the Muslims of Indonesia under Dutch hegemony.

In the 20th century, for all sorts of political and social reasons, Pan-Islamism mutated to become a number of significant Islamic movements in the world: 1) The Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt and the Arab world; 2) The Jama‘at al-Islami of India and later Pakistan, 3) the Tablighi Jama‘at, founded by Mawlana Elias in 1938 in India, and 4) the Muhammadiyyah and Nahdatu al-Ulama movements in S.E. Asia. Some of these movements have chosen politics as the field in which to articulate their worldviews, whereas others have chosen an educational or non-political path to express their identities.

According to British sociologist Anthony Giddens in The Consequences of Modernity, nationalism is one of the main consequences of modernity in the modern period. A serious academic debate has taken place about the historical genesis of nationalism, its philosophical underpinnings, and its transfer to the Muslim world in the latter part of the 19th century.

Nationalism has been a major intellectual and political fact in the Muslim world in the past century or so. As Benedict Anderson argues in his classic Imagined Communities, nationalism has been able to invent a nation where it did not previously exist. The nation is imagined or invented as a limited and sovereign political and national community, an entity that is somewhat different from the traditional Islamic imagining of the ummah or the Christian imagining of Christendom. In other words, the boundaries of religious imagining, be it Islamic or Christian, are more elastic and unlimited than national imagining tends to be.

Before the age of nationalism in the Muslim world, one could speak of a trans-Islamic Arabic-writing Islamic clerisy, which was augmented by another class of trans-Islamic Persian-writing Islamic clerisy in the case of the Mughal Empire or Safavid Empire and a trans-Islamic Ottoman-writing Islamic clerisy in the case of the Ottoman Empire.

What happened to the status of the Islamic clerisy under nationalism? Usually, orthodoxy is the hallmark of clerisy. That is to say, the clerisy in any religious tradition fulfills the function of preserving and transmitting sacred knowledge. In Islamic history, the clerisy began to take shape after the first century of Islam and has been an important part of the Islamic tradition.

However, the religious intelligentsia are not the most dominant intelligentsia in modern Muslim societies, although this does not mean that they have lost all of their power. In certain cases, the nation-state has restored the power of the religious intelligentsia and given them new powers in exchange for political alliances. In the case of Iran, the clergy or the ulama are in control of state and society.

Since the 19th century, new types of intelligentsia have begun to emerge in Muslim societies under the impact of Western missionary training or Western-style Muslim educational institutions. It is in this context that we must understand the rise of the first generation of nationalist thinkers and leaders in the Muslim world. Let us briefly take the examples of Indonesia and Pakistan, which both achieved independence in 1940s.

In the case of Indonesia, it is helpful to consider the life of Ahmad Sukarno, first president of Indonesia, who is credited with creating the Pancasila philosophy. As a young man after WWI, Sukarno went to Holland to study engineering. However, during his student years, he was very much influenced by the European ideologies of the inter-war period, especially nationalism and fascism. The Pancasila summarized his nationalist outlook. He chose not to establish a Shari‘ah state, but a nationalist state that would respect all the religions of Indonesia.

As a young nationalist, he was exiled by the Dutch to the distant Bakja islands and over there began searching for meaning in the Islamic religious texts. However, he was not satisfied with the formulations of Islamic movements in Indonesia at the time. In 1934, he had this to say about Islam: “Present-day Islam is half-dead, has no life, spirit or fire because Muslims drown themselves in the books of Fiqh, instead of flying like the Garuda bird in the sky of living religion. I want to learn but have no guide. I go back to the books that I have. But even the books written by Muslim authorities have parts that do not satisfy me. In a more lively place, it would certainly easier to spread my wings.”

Compare the above to what the most eminent Muslim authority in the contemporary Muslim world, Shaykh Yusuf Qaradawi, has to say about the ulama in the 1980s: In his very interesting book, Islamic Awakening Between Rejection and Extremism, “Our own hypocrisy and self-contradictions as ulama have alienated the young, who have sought to understand Islam without assistance or guidance from us.”

Muhammad Ali Jinnah, founder of Pakistan, was a student at Aligarh Muslim University, established by Sir Ahmad Khan in the 19th century, before he went to Cambridge. Jinnah worked tirelessly to build a nationalist state for the Muslims of India. After independence and a few months before his death, he addressed some high school teachers in Lahore, saying: “Now that we have got our state, it is up to you to establish a viable, productive and sound system of education suited to our needs. It should reflect our history and sound system of education.”

What has become of the system of education in Pakistan? In 1975, Professor Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi, minister of education at the time, lamented the state of both secular and religious education in Pakistan. He said, “ Our secular educated elite are the most spineless and most mercenary in the world. What has gone wrong during this quarter of a century that has eaten into the vitals of our society and the grit of its leaders except the continuation of a faulty, aimless, and diseased system of education that has bred no social virtues, no depth of feeling, no sense of responsibility, nothing except selfishness, corruption and cowardly lack of initiative and courage.”

As for the religious education and madrassah system in Pakistan, he argues, “The leaders of traditional madrassas have neglected modern knowledge to an extent that there is no scope left for dialogue between those who have received a modern education and the graduates of the madrassas. The madrassas are doing some useful work in preserving the classical theological education. However, they are providing ill-paid, ill-educated and ill-informed imams of the mosques. It is quite obvious that such education cannot help the growth of religious consciousness.” Qureshi, Education in Pakistan, 1975.

Thus, we can say that the first generation of nationalist intellectuals were mostly bi-lingual people who had gone to either missionary or Western-type schools, such as the American University in Beirut, Aleppo College for Women, Gordon College in Khartoum, Roberts College in Istanbul, Lahore Government College, Calcutta University or Aligrah Muslim University in India.

Because of the rise of the liberal and nationalist intelligentsia at the beginning of the 20th century, the intellectual scene in the Muslim world has been dominated by religious, nationalist and liberal/Westernized intelligentsia. This is still the case in the contemporary Muslim world.

There have been a number of responses from the three strata of intelligentsia to the question of the West. The Muslim intellectual position has ranged from a total rejection of the West, as in the case of Wahabiyyah and Jama’at al-Islami, to some form of eclectic acceptance, as in the case of Pan-Islam. In the case of nationalism, the ideology of the West was accepted whereas its politics were rejected. In the case of the liberal intelligentsia, Westernization and Western thought were embraced, though sometimes uncritically, as in the case of the famous Egyptian man of letters Taha Hussein, especially in his major work, The Future of Culture in Egypt.

For our discussion of the modern and contemporary Muslim world to be thorough, we must take into account Islamism, also known as Islamic revivalism or Islamic fundamentalism.

As I have said before, Islamism is not the product of nationalism, but to a certain extent a product of modernity. In many ways, it preceded the emergence of nationalism in the Muslim world. One can distinguish three broad types of Islamism: pre-colonial; colonial, and postcolonial. Take the example of the Wahabiyyah movement in Arabia, which was established in the 18th century for the purpose of reforming Islamic tradition and practice.

In fact, we need a whole lecture just on the Islamic movement. What we can do here is point out quickly that the goal of the Islamic movement has been, by and large, to create an Islamic state. It has proposed through its leading intellectuals that “authentic or correct Islam” can only be practiced in an Islamic political system. This has been the major argument of such Islamic movements as the Jama‘at Islami of South Asia, the Muslim Brotherhood of the Arab world, the Khomeini movement of Iran, the Ma‘sumi of Indonesia, the Refah party of Turkey, and the Hizb al-Tahrir of Jordan and Central Asia.

However, it is clear that the only successful Islamic revolution thus far has been waged by Khomeini, and Iran, to my knowledge, is the only state in the contemporary Muslim world where the clerisy is in firm political control. This is not true in Pakistan, or even Saudi Arabia.

One can talk about mainstream and non-mainstream Islamic movements. The mainstream movements have chosen to be part of the political process in their countries, such as the Jama’at in Pakistan, the Islamic Action party in Jordan and Refah party in Turkey. The non-mainstream ones, emerging in the 1970s and 80s, are usually critical of the older and more established Islamist political movements and believe that the only way to implement Islamic Shari‘ah is through violent confrontation with the regime.

Thus, the following questions are raised:

1) How has the modern nation-state dealt with Islamic education at the academic level? And,

2) What has been the relationship between the nation-state in the Muslim world and Islamic orthodoxy as an institution, as well as a current of thought?

Despite the spread of nationalism in the Muslim world in the 19th and 20th centuries, Islamic orthodoxy has not diminished or faded away. As a matter of fact, in some Muslim regions, Islamic orthodoxy emerged in the 19th century, as in the case of Indonesia. Here, I am not using the term “Islamic orthodoxy” in a pejorative fashion. I believe that the institutions of the nation-state gave new power to the proponents of orthodoxy in exchange for allegiance to the political status quo.

Arabic is the theological lingua franca of Muslim orthodoxy. I remember I attended a conference in Malaysia about 8 years ago and was surprised to discover that the 400 people who attended the conference had all gone to Al-Azhar University and, as a result, spoke excellent Arabic. Also, in my visits to madrassas in Pakistan, Indian Kashmir, Kerala, and Myanamar, I was surprised to meet many of young students who were conversant in Arabic and the traditional Islamic sciences.

English is becoming the lingua franca of a great number of Muslims born and residing in the West. This is true also of the Muslim educated elite in such regions as South Asia, South Africa and East Africa.

Some scholars ascribe the interest in Arabic and traditional Islamic Studies in these non-Arab countries to the influence of Wahabiyya and oil money on Muslim communities in Africa, South Asia and South East Asia. While this is partially true, the interest in Arabic and Islamic Studies in these regions is due first to the fact that contemporary Muslims are aware that they need to connect to traditional Islamic Studies if they are to preserve and enhance their Islamic identity in the modern world, and, second, Islamic Studies is used as a reaction against the encroachment of chauvinistic nationalism, such as in the case of the Muslims of Myanamar.

Where do we go from here?

İt is clear so far that I am advocating the creation of a new discipline of Islamic Studies which is synthetic in approach, and sensitive to both critical theory and traditional Islamic sciences. This field should be interdisciplinary in nature and sensitive to the importance of traditional Islamic Studies and their relevance to the formation of contemporary Muslim identities in the several cultures mentioned above.

The Muslim world, as well as the Muslim communities in the West, face challenges at all levels, and it is important to understand the nature of these challenges and the relevance of traditional Islamic sciences to the present. Some of the ulama in the contemporary Muslim world have been able to voice these challenges in their own way. I believe that they need our help in articulating these challenges in a critical fashion. I also believe that we need their help in relating to the colossal Islamic tradition and Islamic sciences, since these sciences will help us connect to the spiritual and ethical dimensions of Islamic life and thought.

Against the above background, we must be able to conclude with the following:

It is essential for the discipline of Islamic Studies to include a comparative study of the notion of the beginnings, foundations or origins of Islam in history, and even in the history of other religious traditions, such as Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism;

1) It is important to be in conversation with the multiple expressions of Islamic intellectualism or the various traditions of knowledge in Islam, just as it is imperative to be in conversation with the traditions of knowledge in the West. For the Muslims of South Asia and South East Asia, it is crucial for them to be in conversation with the traditions of knowledge in both the Hindu and Buddhist worlds.

2) To my mind, one major tradition we need to incorporate is that of spirituality in Islam and the role played by many male and female spiritual leaders in this field.

We must also seriously consider the following questions: How have traditional

Islamic sciences been transmitted in the modern Muslim world, especially in the context of the rivalry between the three types of intelligentsia I mentioned above? How do we close the gap between traditional Islamic sciences and modern social sciences?

What is the nature of Islamic orthodoxy, the Muslim religious class interested in preserving tradition, in the modern period and what is its relationship to political authority? How can we study contemporary Islamic intellectual history and what are the issues making up this history?

I hope I have made it clear that I am not only interested in the term “Islam.” I am interested in understanding the classical and contemporary Muslim discourses on the relationship between Islam, Muslims, and Muslim history or histories. When the eminent Muslim Shaykh Muhammad Ghazali says: “Today, Islam is a wounded religion; the majority of the nations that belong to it are the poorest of the Third World,” she means that contemporary Muslims need to face difficult challenges in order to overcome their wounds and suffering. We must locate these challenges in the interaction, forced or voluntary, between the Muslim world and modernity. Also, when the contemporary Indonesian thinker Seyyed Hossein Alatas said that Islam is a progressive religion in its essence, he did not mean that there is a progressive Islam on the one hand and a reactionary, backward Islam on the other. What he meant is that Muslim teachings are progressive and dynamic in nature.

Bearing in mind the formation of Muslim identities in the contemporary world, Islamic Studies should focus on the notion of Islamic expansion in its geographical sense, as well in its theological/intellectual sense. Throughout Islamic history, Muslims have been open to assimilating all sorts of ideas from the Greek/Byzantine, Persian/Zoroastrian and Hindu civilizations. That is to say, Muslims in the past never dismissed the scientific, philosophical, mystical, literary and historical achievements of other civilizations. Islamic civilization is a complex construct permitting the inclusion of all sorts of influences, without causing intellectuals to lose sight of the original sources of Islam.

In the early modern period, when Islam came to Indonesia in the 14th and 15th centuries, Muslims appropriated the syncretistic Hindu/Buddhist culture of Indonesia. Far from destroying this culture, Islam melded it into its own traditions. According to the late Clifford Geertz in Islam Observed, although the Javanese elite converted to Islam and discarded their rituals, they remained tied to the Javanese temperament and philosophy. Islam has been syncretistic, malleable, tentative, and multi-voiced. There is no doubt that the emergence of Muslim orthodoxy in Indonesia in the 19th century was a response to this malleable form of Islam.

It is therefore imperative to study the articulation of Muslim identities in the West, an articulation that does not shy away from engaging the political, social, and cultural realities of the West or from engaging the construction of Islamic tradition in the classical phase of Islam.

For example, how can we approach the issue of Islamic faith and belief in the context of migration? What happens to religious communities in the context of migration? Do they become more active in their new societies or not? Migration has been another major consequence of modernity. Millions of people have gone through that in the past century. There are lots of examples, of Gujaratis and Ismailis migrating to East Africa in the 19th century; of Chinese migrating all over SE. Asia in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Finally, I would like to share with you a story I heard from a brilliant Saudi journalist in Jedda, Saudia Arabia, a year after the Gulf war of 1991. He said, “Before the Gulf war, we Gulf people used to dream of being married to a Japanese wife, living with her in a spacious house in the British countryside, and eating Chinese food, while being supported by an American salary. After the war we have become forcibly married to an American wife whom we do not love; we have to live with her in a tiny Japanese apartment and support her with a meager Chinese salary while eating British food, which we do not like at all.”

One can interpret the above story in two ways: one, there is indeed a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West, and/or, two, “Islam is pregnant with Europe and Europe is pregnant with Islam.” I prefer the latter, following in the footsteps of the famous Muslim Imam Ustadh Badi‘ al-Zaman Said Nursi. This is more consonant with the plurality of Islamic knowledge and the expression of Muslim identities in both the classical and modern periods.
email: aburabi@hartsem.edu
source: http://www.bridgesoffaith.org/?page_id=108

Continue reading »]]> by Dr.Munir El-Kassem

Many people believe that Jihad is synonymous with “Holy War”, or fighting in general. Not only it is wrong to equate Jihad with fighting, it constitutes a gross misunderstanding of historical facts to use “Jihad” and “Holy War” exchangeably. In order to clarify the principle of Jihad one needs to engage in a linguistic investigation, bearing in mind that a major portion of one’s understanding of the Qur’an and the life example of Muhammad (pbuh) (Sunnah) requires an in-depth knowledge of Arabic as understood during the time of revelation.

The word “Jihad” is derived from the root “Juhd” which means “effort”. The first usage of Jihad in the Qur’anic text was during the Prophet’s stay in Mecca before migrating to Madinah. It is historically established that during that period Muslims did not have a state to defend by means of fighting in a battle field. Thus the usage of Jihad at that early stage in Islamic history illustrates the generic meaning of this noble practice. Jihad was mainly used to indicate “exerting an effort to improve something.” That thing could be one’s inner self, the surrounding environment, the community, relationship with God, etc…

One reads in Surat Al-Furqan/Chapter 25 of the Qur’an which was revealed in its entirety in Mecca: “Do not obey the disbelievers and put a great effort to teach them (the Qur’an) [Jaahidhum Bihi Jihadan Kabeera]” 25:52. Also in Surat An-Nahl/Chapter 16 of the Qur’an which according to Ibn ‘Abbas was also revealed in Mecca except for three verses 95, 96 and 97: “Your Lord recognizes those who migrated following their sedition and followed that with great efforts [to establish their religion] [Jaahadu] and with perseverance. For such, your Lord is Oft-forgiving, Compassionate.” 16:110. The migration mentioned in this verse is what is historically referred to as the first migration to Abyssinia (Ethiopia).

It is clear that Jihad in its “fighting” domain was used after migration to Medina to denote “the effort required to defend the nascent Islamic community.” The early Muslims continued to understand the “fighting Jihad” as only one manifestation of a broader concept of “struggle to improve something” as mentioned earlier. Actually, it was not until late in the eleventh century that Jihad started to be solely interpreted as “fighting” due to a historical abberation that was forced on the Muslims.

In 1095, when Pope Urban II launched the first of his crusade campaigns against the “infidel Muslims”, the defendants gathered under a banner of “Jihad” to defend themselves and their lands. By so doing they were literally exerting the effort to stop the aggression of the crusaders. Since the crusades raised the slogan of “Holy War” while the Muslims upheld the slogan of “Jihad”, these two terms became synonomous with the passage of time. Nowadays, “Jihad” and “Holy War” are used exchangeably as though Muslims were the ones who coined the term “Holy War”. One can clearly see how this terminology was imposed on Muslims by those who believed in it. From an Islamic perspective, there is absolutely nothing holy about war. It is only to be faught for necessity of defence and not for promoting aggression.

Islam is very specific as to the things a Muslim is obligated to defend. These include safety to practice one’s religious beliefs, honour associated with blood relationships and marriage, possessions of wealth irrespective of value, integrity of the state/one’s country, and one’s own life and the lives of other citizens. There are restrictions as to the methodology of defence which will be discussed later.

With the passage of time, people slowly forgot the most important components of Jihad and narrowed their understanding to the fighting aspect. It is unfortunate that such a noble concept be turned into a title of violence and aggression. It is also regrettable and even outrageous that certain Muslim groups contributed to this deviation from a true understanding of Jihad. By themselves being ignorant of the unadulterated meaning of Jihad, they engaged with their enemies assumingly under a pretext of Jihad. Quite often, such misguided operations ended up giving Jihad a bad name.

On many occasions the Prophet Muhammad made it clear that Jihad is a broad concept of noble doings aimed at affecting changes that please God. Many compilers of Hadiths (sayings or discourses of Muhammad pbuh) including Abu Dawood, At-Tirmithi and Ibn Maaja reported on the authority of Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri that the Prophet said: “The best form of Jihad is to utter a word of truth [reproach for injustice] in the presence of an oppressive ruler.” In another Hadith reported by Ad-Daylami, At-Tirmithi and Ibn Habbaan on the authority of Abu Thar, the Prophet said: “The true Mujahid [the one who undertakes Jihad] is he who struggles to improve himself in order to please God.” These prophetic statements which were made in Mecca clearly demonstrate the true meaning of Jihad.

Legitimate fighting in defense of one of the five entities mentioned earlier is only a branch of the massive tree of Jihad. One may speak of a Meccan Jihad, which is like nourishment to the body, without which health will suffer. Medinite Jihad, on the other hand, that which allowed defensive fighting, is a form of medicinal treatment which is sought to treat an illness.

One needs to examine the causes that legitimized fighting as a form of Jihad. In other words, why did Islam institute fighting to begin with? Is it true that Islam spread by the sword? To answer these questions, one has to appreciate that God had endowed all His messengers with divine intervention whenever human means would fail to provide protection to both the message or the messenger. Noah was divinely rescued from the cruelty of his people by the flood, Abraham did not suffer the consequences of being placed in the blaze, Moses was able to split the sea with his staff and escape the inevitable attack by Pharaoh and his army and Jesus was lifted up to heaven when the Romans decided to crucify him. With the advent of the final message of Muhammad, God withdrew such divine intervention allowing humans to interact through human means. The final message of Islam came at a time when civilizations became well established to warrant dissemination of human knowledge in an applied format. The aggressor has to be stopped through human means, otherwise humans will continue to be dependent on divine intervention. This does not mean that humans are independent of God’s mercy and grace, but rather indicates a human preparedness to accept the responsibility of “’Imarat- Al-Ard” or establishing vicegerency on Earth.

When Muslims migrated to Medina, the concept of Jihad did not change. However, its manifestations assumed new dimensions due to the new realities that defined the Medinite period. These realities arose as a result of the inception of the first ever cohesive Muslim community that satisfied the definition of statehood. The state in Medina was made of the migrant Muslims, their supporters (the original inhabitants of Medina, formerly known as Yathrib) and the Jewish tribes of Medina. Muhammad (pbuh) produced a constitution that governed the affairs of the newly established state. It was, moreover, necessary to defend the Islamic state of Medina against the aggression of the Arab tribes of Hijaz as well as the super powers to the north, namely the Roman and Persian empires.

The Arab tribes which considered the Islamic state a major threat to their powers and their cultural norms did not lose any time in plotting with each other and forging alliances to shake the foundations of the nascent state. Had the Muslims failed to uphold the newly defined form of Jihad to defend themselves and their state, they would have been over-run by the disproportionately superior powers of their enemies. The first injunction that allowed Muslims to defend themselves is found in Surat Al-Hajj: “Sanction is given to those who fight because they have been wronged, and God is indeed able to give them victory; those who have been driven from their homes unjustly, only because they said: Our Lord is God—For had it not been for God’s repelling some men by means of others, cloisters and churches and oratories and mosques, wherein the name of God is oft mentioned, would assuredly have been destroyed. Verily God helps him who is obedient to [God]. God is All-Powerful, Almighty. Those who, if We strengthen them in the land, would establish prayers, and give charity and enjoin the right and forbid the evil. Unto God is the return of all things.” 22: 39-41.

The above verse clearly defines the objectives of fighting as a form of Jihad. It is not meant to propagate aggression, but rather to defend the tripod of statehood: the land, the people and the authority within the state.

Some argue that Islamic Jihad is a form of spreading Islam by the sword. They insist that Muslims are instructed to fight anyone who rejects faith (Kaafer). As such, they look at the world as two camps: one for the Muslims and the other for everyone else. There is nothing further from the truth as indicated by many verses in the Qur’an. What is being propagated is a sensational campaign to discredit Islam from its very foundation.

It is a historical, legalistic fact that three out of the five Islamic jurisprudence schools of thought: Hanafi, Maliki and Hanbali insist that fighting can only be in self defense. Offensive fighting, according to them, is not allowed. They base their verdict on many Qur’anic verses and prophetic statements. Some of the verses quoted by these schools are:

“Fight in the way of God against those who fight you, but never be the ones to initiate hostilities. God loves not aggressors. You may kill them wherever you find them and you may drive them out from whence they drove you out, for their persecution to you is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship (Mecca) unless they first attack you; if they do attack you then it is permissible to kill them. Such is the fate of disbelievers. But if they desist, then God is oft-Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until persecution stops, and religion is established for God (alone). If they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong doers.” 2:190-193.

“If anyone of the disbelievers seeks your protection, then grant his wish to allow him the chance to hear the Words of God; and afterward convey him to his place of safety. Remember that they have no knowledge [of the truth] 9:6

“Will you not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges, and were determined to drive the Messenger (out of Mecca) and attacked you first? Do you fear them? Nay, God is more worthy to be feared if you are true believers.” 9:13.

“Wage war against all the disbelievers as they have waged war against all of you.” 9:36.

“God forbids you not those who did not fight you on account of your religion nor did they drive you out of your homes that you should show them kindness and deal justly with them. God loves those who are just. God, on the other hand, forbids you only those who fought against you on account of your religion and drove you out of your homes and supported the efforts to drive you out, that you befriend them or take them as advocates. Those who take them as advocates are the wrongdoers.” 60-8-9.

The above verses were revealed over a long period of the Madinan period and some were revealed a few months before the death of Muhammad (pbuh) which further supports the view that such injunctions affect the permanent position of Islam in regard to fighting as a form of Jihad. As for the prophetic statements in this regard, the following are indicators of how Islam viewed Jihad.

1) Ibn Maaja, Abu Dawood and Ahmad reported on the authority of Hanzala that during the battle of Hunayn, the Prophet passed by a dead woman. He immediately sent his instructions to the leader of the Centre of the army, Khalid Ibn Al-Walid, who was a new Muslim at that time and told him never to kill women orcovenanted people, such as Jews and Christians .

2) Abu Dawood reported through the authority of Anas Ibn Malik that the Messenger of God said: “March in the name of God. Never kill an old man, nor a child nor a woman. Never loot and make sure to justly collect any spoils of war.”

3) Abu Bakr, the first Caliph instructed Usama Ibn Zayd before marching to Mu’ta: “Do not commit treason, nor deceive people, nor loot, nor disfigure a corpse. Do not kill a child, an old man, or a woman…and if you pass by monks isolating themselves in their monastic cells for the purpose of worship, do not disturb them.”

4) Soon after migrating to Medina, the Prophet sent scouting missions to counteract any sudden attacks by the disbelievers. He was very clear concerning those missions that the objective was only scouting and not aggression even if the opportunity to overcome certain people would present itself. During one such mission, the Messenger of God sent a group headed by Abdullah Ibn Jahsh to Nakhla, a suburb of At-Ta’if. The group, not having enough experience in handling emergencies, got startled by a group from the enemy. To that they reacted swiftly by capturing one person and killing another. When they returned to Medina, the Prophet got quite angry with their response and ordered them to return the captured man and pay the blood money to the tribe of the killed man.

5) During the time of Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz, the Muslims reached Azarbaijan. Despite familiar etiquettes of entering a new country requiring permission of the head of state, the Muslims entered without such permission having the intention of presenting Islam to the people of Azarbaijan. The elders felt offended and as a result sent an envoy to Umar who sent his strict orders to the Muslims to leave promptly and thereafter seek permission to re-enter. From the time the envoy left till he came back, close to a month had passed which allowed the inhabitants of that country to familiarize themselves with the Muslims. As the Muslims prepared themselves to leave, upon receiving the Caliph’s orders, the people of Azarbaijan refused to let them leave and mass acceptance of Islam ensued.

It is noteworthy that Muhammad (pbuh) was not the only Messenger of God who was commanded to resort to fighting. Before him Solomon, David, Moses and Joshua were also commanded to resort to fighting to subdue oppressors who rejected faith and refused to deal justly with people.

One has to examine what major Muslim jurists wrote concerning the declaration of Jihad to conclude that Jihad can never be initiated by individuals but rather is restricted to the head of the Islamic state. Thus, due to the establishment of nation states that divided the Muslims throughout the world, a declaration of Jihad remains suspended and can never take place under present circumstances. Therefore, any talk about Jihad by Muslims against any of their enemies remains a form of rhetoric and is not supported by Islamic teachings. In order to deal with the alarming increase in violence and terrorism, one has to confront modern realities that are deeply rooted in politics rather than religious principles. If the international community insists on aiming its extinguishers at the flames and not at the source of the fire, we will fail to bring the fire under control. As long as the inhabitants of the earth are identified as “haves” and “have nots”, violence will continue to escalate and its perpetrators will always find ways to justify their strife, even by attempting to hide behind misguided religious interpretations. Modern violence will be dealt with only through political good will and not through demonizing certain religions.

Ibn Qudama wrote in his famous book Al- Mughni: “Jihad is the sole responsibility of the Imam (head of Islamic state) and those under his command have no choice but to obey his directive.” Ad-Dardir, in his book Al-sharh Al-Sagheer, wrote: “Jihad is declared by the Imam…” Similarly, Al- Tahanawi, in his book Kashaf Al- Qina’, wrote: “Jihad is declared by the Imam who is most knowledgeable in regard to the circumstances of his people and their enemy.” Finally, Al-Qaraafi wrote in his book Al-Ihkam: “The Imam is the person who is in charge of public relations and forging treaties and preventing harm from befalling his community. He is also the person who subdues offenders and punishes oppressors and maintains security and peace among his followers.” These quotations are very clear in stressing the fact that any acts of violence which happen to be committed by Muslim individuals cannot shift the blame on the religion itself.

In conclusion, Jihad is not only fighting, and not all fighting falls under the category of Jihad. Upon returning from one of his defensive campaigns, Muhammad (pbuh) told his companions: “We have just returned from the minor form of Jihad to continue with the major form of Jihad.” Violence, nowadays, is a global phenomenon, and no one religion or group of people can assume full responsibility for its propagation. All members of the international community should be ready to assume responsibility in tackling this serious disease and come up with a lasting cure.

* * *

Worship: The Islamic Perspective

by Dr.Munir El-Kassem

Worship is a fundamental feature of all religious traditions. However, every religion has its unique set of rules in performing worship which is usually guided by different objectives and assumes different forms. The late Ismail Al-Faruqi, one of the great Muslim scholars of modern times, states that “in all the religions of the world, worship means a ritual consisting of legomena (things thought or recited) and dromena (things done or acted) performed by people, more often regularly rather than at random, by which people adore,; thank or petition God, the Ultimate Reality.”

The concept of worship is inherent in the fact that human beings are created by God, their Lord, and are also destined to return to Him. This is actually the basis of worship or “ibadah” in Islam. God says in surat Al-Baqarah, ayah 156 (chapter 2, verse 156): “We belong to God, and to Him we are returning.” A person’s turning towards God in devotion and reverence, is not only seeking to purify his soul, but is also submitting himself to his master. This is indeed a reflection of the literal meaning of the word “Islam” which is understood as “attainment of inner peace through total submission to the Will of God.”

In the Qur’an, there is an ayah that emphatically states that worship is the very reason of our creation by God. In surat Adh-Dhariyat, ayah 56 (51: 56), God says: “I did not create the Jinn nor the human kind save for the purpose of worshipping Me.” This indeed is very significant because it shapes the definition of worship according to Islam. Worship, in its general sense, spans all actions which a believer undertakes for the sake of God, and for the fulfillment of the general imperative regarding human life on earth. The Islamic concept of worship is intimately related to the fundamental view that a good life is one which is firmly established on genuine faith, upright thinking, pure soul, and righteous actions.

A good life flows from the fundamental Islamic notion of the Oneness of God “tawhid” which is the first pillar of Islam. Briefly expressed, tawhid is the affirmation that “No deity is God but God, or La Ilaha Illa Allah.” This implies that God is the sole determinant of a person’s life and the ultimate cause of all events. Therefore, a believer who wants to live a good life, firmly believes that God is the eternal Creator, the Master and Judge and the ultimate end of all ends. This is translated into an absolute service of God and a fulfillment of His will. In this context, Al-Bukhari and Muslim report in their authenticated collections of Prophetic traditions “Hadiths” that: “Faith consists of seventy-some categories, extending from the testimony of faith (La Illaha Illa Allah) all the way to removing danger from the pathways.”

One may note that the Divine will is fulfilled through both immutable natural laws and commandments which are revealed for people to follow. Based on this, God’s will is manifested in the affirmation of a believer’s life by living it to the fullest: procreating, seeking knowledge, acquiring lawful possessions, earning money, and enjoying lawful worldly pleasures, all of that within the context of worship. If done out of loyalty to God, these acts are regarded as acts of worship. Indeed these acts are expected to cultivate in the worshipper, as well as in the family and society, the senses of justice, concern for others, responsibility, honesty, and morality in general, which is the motivating objective of all acts of worship. The Prophet, peace be upon him, is reported to have said: “I have been sent (by God) to promote moral behaviour.”

It does not require outstanding scholarship to detect in the teachings of Muhammad (pbuh) “Sunnah”, the strong correlation between acts of worship and morality, scattered throughout the books of prophetic traditions. Some of the examples include: “the pursuit of a livelihood for oneself and one’s family is ‘ibadah; spending of one’s wealth and spending of one’s life is ‘ibadah; fulfilling the physical desires of one’s spouse is ‘ibadah; smiling to another person is an act of charity or ‘ibadah, and so on and so forth.” These examples clearly demonstrate that worship is the very substance of life, as well as the stabilizing force of societies and civilizations. This means that, unlike some religions, worship in Islam does not promote asceticism and isolation from life. One is in a state of worship as he is enjoying the wholesome pleasures of life.

Worship plays an important role in the development of the Islamic personality. Again, it is the oneness of God “tawhid” which provides that personality with its distinct features. Every movement becomes a reflection of the presence of God in the consciousness of the worshipper. God, who is invested with all the attributes of perfection, is the ultimate mover and shaker of everything that happens in his life. When he sees something impressive, he immediately says: “Subhana Allah.” An act which requires praise, illicits the utterance of “Masha Allah”, while the response to satisfaction is “Alhamdu Lillah.” When things go wrong, a believer will not complain but instead will say: “La hawla wa la quwwata illa billah”, and when someone dies, the usual utterance is “Inna lillahi wa inna ilaihi raji’un.” It is evident from these statements that God is the only determinant of every act undertaken by the believer, whether he is working, studying, travelling, judging, feeling and so on and so forth. This possession by God makes the believer a committed person who aspires for something much bigger than himself, all other people and indeed the entire world. In other words, he is an idealist in the best sense of the term. He is a person for whom no act is random and every action or inaction is precisely calculated.

Central to the concept of worship in Islam is the uncompromising opposition to polytheism. This may sound as a foregone conclusion since Islam is founded on a strong belief in the Oneness of God. However, one needs to stress that Islam takes notice even of imperceptible forms of polytheism and considers it a major sin that may never be forgiven by God. In surat An-Nisa’, ayah 116 (4: 116), one reads: “God does not forgive that partners should be ascribed to Him. He forgives all except that, to whom He wills. Whoever ascribes partners to God, has wandered far astray.” One of the manifestations of this doctrine is that a Muslim may not swear in the name of anyone except God. When Caliph ‘Umar Bin Al-Khattab observed that people had started to sanctify the tree beneath which the Companions of the Prophet gave the famous pledge of allegiance at Al-Hudaybiyah, he ordered the tree to be cut down for fear that its sanctification might corrupt their faith.

Having realized that Islam has considerably widened the scope of worship, one needs to understand that in as much as there is a very wide spectrum of voluntary un-structured worship, or as I like to call it “free style worship”, there are also structured acts of worship that are obligatory and should be performed according to pre-defined strict rules. Famous among these acts are the five pillars of Islam: the testimony of faith “Shahadah”, daily prayers “Salah”, obligatory charity “Zakah”, fasting during the month of Ramadan “Sawm”, and pilgrimage to Makkah and its surroundings “Hajj”.

The Shahadah is the very foundation of all acts of worship. It is a solemn testimony that God is the sole deity and that worship is due to Him alone. It is also an affirmation that Muhammad is the Prophet and Messenger of God, sent by Him to preach His oneness “tawhid”. The Shahadah is so fundamental to the Islamic faith, to the extent that Muhammad (pbuh) spent the first thirteen years of his mission instilling the spirit of Shahadah in the consciousness of his companions who, by that time, numbered less than one hundred. Realizing that the entire prophetic mission of Muhammad (pbuh) lasted twenty three years, one can easily detect how fundamental Shahadah is to Islam. The Shahadah plays a pivotal role in the development of the Muslim’s personality, as it provides a constant reminder of the Islamic commitment.

Like in most religions, prayer “Salat” may be regarded as the most recognized act of worship, wherein the believer demonstrates his submission to God. Islam considers Salat the surpreme act of worship. There are many prophetic traditions that suggest that Salat may not be missed even under the most stringent of conditions. The first thing, according to one hadith, that a believer has to account for on the Day of Judgement is Salat; if performed satisfactorily, God may judge the rest of his actions as satisfactory as well. In another hadith, the Prophet is reported to have said: “The dividing line between faith and its rejection is the establishment of Salat.”

By using “prayer” as the English translation for “Salat”, one may confuse Salat, the structured form of Islamic prayer, with prayer in most other religions, which consists of invocations addressed to God in an unstructured manner. Islam does, however, encourage unstructured prayer called supplication or “Du’a” which, unlike Salat, can be invoked at any time, place, or in any position whether standing, sitting, walking, or lying down. The purpose of Du’a may be adorational, proclamational, or petitional. Salat, on the other hand, is an act of worship that should be done in a specific manner, at specific times and satisfying specific conditions. The Prophet told his companions to watch him doing his Salat and then do theirs exactly like him.

One distinguishing feature of Salat which it shares with all other structured acts of worship is the specific intention “Niyyah” which immediately precedes the act of worship. Technically speaking, a believer should always be conscious of his Niyyah, but this may be practically difficult to maintain. In the case of Salat or any other structured act of worship, the Niyyah defines the framework of consciousness required for communication with God. In comparison, a free style prayer or Du’a is a subjective method of communicating with God, and does not need any special preparation similar to Salat which requires ablution or “Wudu’”. This pre-requisite to Salat does not only clean the exposed organs of the body, but it also refreshes the whole “self”.

Salat provides the believer with a rich package of benefits. It inculcates an awareness of the importance of time, as it has to be performed at its prescribed time. The Qur’an teaches, “Salat, at fixed times, has been enjoined on the believers”, surat An-Nisa’, ayah 103 (4:103). This ends up teaching discipline and the proper utilisation of time. Salat also promotes solidarity and unity, as Muslims are encouraged to perform their Salat in congregation. Another outcome of congregational prayer is the cultivation of the spirit of equality since no one has any preference to occupy any particular spot. Having women pray behind the rows of men is not a matter of giving men preference over women, but is rather an organizational arrangement intended to provide women with the assurance that no man may run into them when they are in the state of prostration, which is quite uncomfortable. Furthermore, Salat teaches self-confidence as it allows the worshipper to directly communicate with God without the need for any intermediary. Closely related to self-confidence is the cultivation of one’s ability to concentrate, as the believer is instructed to focus on all that he says or does during Salat, “Successful indeed are the believers who attain a state of deep concentration “Khushu” during their Salat”, surat Al-Mu’minun, ayat 1-2 (23: 1-2). Salah also teaches responsibility, since the believer is constantly reminded of the reckoning he has with God. Surat Al-‘Ankabut, ayah 45 (29: 45) outlines another important moral benefit of Salat: “Salah prohibits debauchery and evil “al-fahsha” wal-munkar.” When established properly, Salah is indeed a preventive shield against corruption because it teaches the believer to follow God’s commandments and to condemn His prohibitions. The Qur’an describes the believers as those who “supplicate their Lord out of fear and hope,” surat As-Sajda, ayah 16 (32:16). Salat, the structured supplication, provides the believer with an exotic combination of fear and love of God. One can finally say that, in a nutshell, Salat draws the worship into a life of piety and virtue.

The third pillar of Islam, Zakah is sharing of one’s wealth with defined categories of recipients according to very specific rules. It is an act of worship in as much as the person who gives it out is admitting that all wealth belongs to God and that he is a mere trustee who willingly circulates God’s wealth among His servants. “Say: God! The maintainer of all sovereignty! You give power to whom You want, and You withdraw power from whom You want. You exalt whom You want and You abase whom You want. In Your Hand is all the wealth. You have the absolute ability to do all things.” Surat Al-‘Imran, ayah 26 (3: 26).

According to the Qur’an, the most powerful potential detractors from leading a virtuous and upright life are wealth and children. Sharing this wealth with the rightful recipients ends up purifying the inner soul of its destructive tendencies to align itself with greed, fraud, cheating, and unlawfully amassing as much wealth as humanly possible. The Qur’an instructs the Prophet (pbuh) to enjoin upon the believers to “give out of their wealth a charity that will purify them and make them more virtuous.” Surat At-Tawbah, ayah 103 (9:103)

Zakah, no doubt, helps in shaping the personality of the Muslim. Being an act of obedience to God, it requires the believer to give up for the sake of God the fruit of his labour which he cherishes most. This consolidates the bond of loyalty to God, and makes the believer an integral element of divine providence. Thus, through Zakah, the believer dissociates himself from the argument of those who say: “shall we feed those whom God; if He willed, would have fed?” surah Ya-Sin, ayah 46 (36: 46). Furthermore, Zakah strengthens communal bonds and adds a new dimension to the distinctiveness of the “Ummah” which is not a collection of individuals, not a society or a community in the classical sense, but a cohesive body which is beautifully portrayed by Muhammad (pbuh) when he says: “Muslims, to one another, are like a tightly stacked structure whose components strengthen each other,” and “The example of believers in their display of love and mercy, is like a single body whereby if one organ suffers, the rest of the body will reciprocate in that suffering.”

Unlike in some religious traditions, Sawm is not a renunciation of life and an act of self-denial. It is a significant act of worship intended to cultivate righteousness “Taqwa” which is a unique relationship between God, the Creator and Master, and His created worshipper and servant. Beside being an act of obedience to God, sawm is an exercise in self-control and discipline. No one can deny that food and sexual desires are the basic ingredients of life and the strongest urges a person possesses. Sawm does not deny these urges; it only addresses them through a cyclical process of abstention and satisfaction. This explains why the Muslims rejoice and celebrate at every sunset in Ramadan, because sunset marks the victory over oneself during the day.

Sawm is, furthermore, an act of self assessment and evaluation. Through sawm, as an act of worship, the believer makes new resolutions and strives to advance closer to God. By controlling the carnal desires, the spirit is encouraged to flourish and regain its transparency that gets subdued throughout the year. Moreover, the communal dimension of sawm awakens the feeling of belonging to the Ummah of believers, a feeling which contributes to the enhancement of pleasure associated with worship. During Ramadan, worship turns into an enchantment of acts that make it the happiest month of the year.

Although a worshipper may be forced because of certain circumstances to perform the above acts of worship alone, Hajj cannot be performed without the participation of the Ummah. It is a communal act of worship which is strictly bound by time and space. Thus the worship of Hajj is a binding force that helps eliminate social differences among people who realize how equal they are before God. But despite its collective nature, Hajj remains an act by an individual worshipper who knows that while being merely a drop in the ocean of other pilgrims, can still cherish a direct personal relationship with God, the Absolute. That relationship that is so effectively manifested through the worship of Hajj raises a slogan with a far-reaching implication: “Labbayk Allahumma Labayk, Labbayka Lasharika Laka Labbayk, Innalhamda Wanni’mata Laka Walmulk, La Sharika Lak – Here I am, O God, here I am. You have no associates, here I am, glory, abundance and sovereignty are among Your attributes, You have no associates.” This solemn chant uttered by each individual pilgrim resonates with benefits to the individuals as well as the entire Ummah.

It is clear then, how Hajj is the affirmative response of a human being to his Creator’s call, a re-dedication and re-consecration of one’s life to the Divine cause. After Abraham and his son Ishmael finished rebuilding the Ka’bah, Abraham was commanded by God to proclaim Hajj among all people. Despite the fact that no one was around to hear Abraham’s call, God assured him that people would positively respond to his proclamation. The on-going convergence of worshipers towards Makkah is indeed the response that God assured Abraham with.

As an act of worship, Hajj is unique among all religions. Indeed no religious tradition or civilization has ever witnessed or sustained something similar. Yes, pilgrimage is known among other religions but nowhere close to the dimensions of Hajj. What Hajj does to the individual and the Ummah is so significant to the extent that, unlike other Islamic acts of worship, God prescribed it only once in a life-time. After an intimate experience with the Divine cause, the pilgrim returns home with a reconstructed personality which is oriented towards God. This personality enjoys equilibrium on all fronts of the human existence.

Having examined some examples of both structured and unstructured forms of worship, it is easier to draw conclusions concerning the characteristic features of worship according to Islam.

Islam recognizes no intermediaries in worship between a human being and his creator. All humans are equal before God, and as such each one of them may directly communicate with his creator without the need for another human being to act as a “middle man”. Religious scholars, leaders or Imams are not to be regarded as intermediaries since they are not entitled to accept or reject acts of worship on behalf of God. Their role is to provide guidance and impart knowledge. Even Muhammad (pbuh) himself did not assume the role of an intermediary. God defined his role in the Qur’an in surat Al-Ghashiyah, ayat 21-22: “Remind them, for you are but one who reminds; you are not at all a warder over them.” (88: 21-22). On one occasion, Prophet Muhammad told his daughter Fatima: “O Fatima, daughter of Muhammad: I shall be of no help to you before God.”

Another important feature of Islamic worship is that it is not confined to specific places. As long as it is clean and does not have unlawful images that may cut through the real purpose of worship, any place is good enough to worship God. Muhammad (pbuh) is reported to have said: “The whole of the earth has been rendered a mosque “Masjid” for me (and my Ummah), pure and clean.”

Islam has associated lots of importance with one’s intentions. Thus any virtuous action which is performed with sincerity and with the intention to please God through fulfilling His commandments, is an act of worship for which a human being will be rewarded. This ends up widening the scope of worship in Islam, making it comprise everything a human being does, as long as the actions are associated with true religious motives.

It is an act of worship to take care of one’s body and satisfy its needs in a lawful manner. Imagine that one is in a state of worship if he goes to sleep with the intention to recover some lost energy which will enable him to shoulder responsibilities placed on him by God. The Prophet (pbuh) reinforces the theme of the inclusivity of worship by saying: “A strong believer is better and dearer to God than a weak believer.”

As an extension of the above, one concludes that spiritual growth and worldly pleasures may go hand in hand through a simple process of purification of one’s motives. While enjoying worldly pleasures, the heart will be in communion with God by virtue of the purity of the intentions. Unlike other religions, Islam does not dismiss the need to satisfy instinctive bodily desires in a lawful manner. Even further than that, abstention from satisfying those desires is not any more righteous or virtuous than satisfying them. Islam simply demands of its adherents that as one is legitimately satisfying one’s desires, he is not infringing on the rights of other people, nor is he transgressing against societal rights. This is significant in that it becomes easy to render obedience to God because such an obedience is not a foe of one’s legitimate desires, but rather an ally.

Granted that intentions are paramount in defining the scope of human actions, one may not win the argument that external manifestations of worship are rendered less significant. It was mentioned earlier that Islam is founded on five pillars which are mostly visible in nature. Thus to deliberately disregard the structured act of worship and focus only on unstructured acts, arguing that only intentions do matter, is destructive of the very foundations of Islam. For, were this viewpoint to be adopted, everyone, even those who are not religious, could claim to be opportunistic devout worshippers. Worship, from this standpoint is not a lip service. Faith, which is the pre-requisite of authentic worship, is defined by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as “that which is felt by the heart, and translated into visible action.”

No system of worship has ever lasted as long, and none has been as universally and consistently observed as the worship in Islam. Its intimate association with the life of the Muslim is next to none among other religions. A justification for this intimacy may be sought in the fact that Islamic worship is a perfect fit of the ideology of Islam and its very purpose. This is not a biased assessment of worship according to Islam, as many non-Muslim scholars have admired the deeply rooted commitment of Muslims towards worship in all its forms. Practicing Muslims are extremely careful not to do anything that will invoke God’s anger. They are in constant communion with God through their daily activities and through the structured acts of worship that they strive to perform as close to perfection as possible. There are special rewards for those who are constantly conscious of their Lord. In short, a Muslim is constantly in a state of worship, although this worship is manifested in different forms. This is beautifully illustrated in a statement made by the famous Muslim scholar, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, in response to an inquiry concerning the cause of his permanent state of happiness: “I am aware that divine sustenance cannot be taken away from me, so as a result my heart is tranquil. I also know that no one is expected to do my share of the work, so I always get busy doing it. I am certain that God is constantly watching me, so I am embarrassed with the possibility that He may see me committing a sinful act, and I am expecting the Angel of Death at anytime, so I am as prepared as can be to meet my Lord.”

source: http://www.bridgesoffaith.org/?page_id=76

Continue reading »]]> In Islam, war is not the prerogative of the individual but of an established government. Only an established government can declare war. In other words, individuals can pray on their own, but they cannot wage wars of their own accord. Only when a war is declared by the ruling government, can the public join in and support it, and not before that. Islam does not sanction individual actions on this issue. Therefore no Non Governmental Organization or NGO can declare a war.

As a general principle, the Quran tells us that, even where an external attack is feared, the common man should not act independently, but should take the matter to the ruler, and then under his guidance take proper counter measures. (4:83).

The Hadith also states that ‘the ruler is a shield, fighting is done under him, and security is attained through him.’

This clearly shows that the decision to do battle and its planning are the tasks of an established government. The common man can play his role as need be under government orders, and not independently.

This Islamic principle shows that there is no room for non-state warfare, which is what we generally call guerilla war. A guerilla war is fought by individual organizations, not by the State. As far as the state is concerned, if it wants to wage a defensive war against any country it has first—in obedience to the Quran—to issue a proper declaration. Only then can it wage a lawful war (8:58). In Islam, there is only ‘declared’ war. Therefore, in accordance with this principle, no proxy war in Islam can be lawful.

Most Islamic actions are governed by certain conditions. The waging of war is also thus subject to certain principles, one being that, even when a defensive war has been declared by the State, it will be aimed only at the combatants. Targeting non-combatants will be unlawful. The Quran enjoins us not to do battle with those who are not at war. Such people have to be dealt with kindly and equitably. But you are free to do battle with those who are fighting against you. (60:8-9)

If, for instance, a Muslim state is at war with a particular nation, and this war is in conformance with Islamic principles, it should still not permit any destructive activities against non-combatants (civilians), as was done on September 11, 2001, in New York and Washington. Similarly in Islamic war, Muslims are not permitted to commit suicidal bombings in order to destroy the enemy. Strapping explosives on to oneself and hurling oneself upon the civilian settlements of even those with whom one is at war, for the purpose of destroying the enemy, and in the process killing oneself deliberately, is totally un-Islamic. This can in no way be termed ‘Shahadah’ (martyrdom). According to Islam we can become martyrs, but we cannot court a martyr’s death deliberately.

source: http://www.cpsglobal.org/content/war-state-action

Continue reading »]]> Full Text of the Madina Charter

1. This is a document from Muhammad the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), governing relations between the Believers i.e. Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib and those who followed them and worked hard with them. They form one nation — Ummah.

2. The Quraysh Mohajireen will continue to pay blood money, according to their present custom.

3. In case of war with any body they will redeem their prisoners with kindness and justice common among Believers. (Not according to pre-Islamic nations where the rich and the poor were treated differently).

4. The Bani Awf will decide the blood money, within themselves, according to their existing custom.

5. In case of war with anybody all parties other than Muslims will redeem their prisoners with kindness and justice according to practice among Believers and not in accordance with pre-Islamic notions.

6. The Bani Saeeda, the Bani Harith, the Bani Jusham and the Bani Najjar will be governed on the lines of the above (principles)

7. The Bani Amr, Bani Awf, Bani Al-Nabeet, and Bani Al-Aws will be governed in the same manner.

8. Believers will not fail to redeem their prisoners they will pay blood money on their behalf. It will be a common responsibility of the Ummat and not of the family of the prisoners to pay blood money.

9. A Believer will not make the freedman of another Believer as his ally against the wishes of the other Believers.

10. The Believers, who fear Allah, will oppose the rebellious elements and those that encourage injustice or sin, or enmity or corruption among Believers.

11. If anyone is guilty of any such act all the Believers will oppose him even if he be the son of any one of them.

12. A Believer will not kill another Believer, for the sake of an un-Believer. (i.e. even though the un-Believer is his close relative).

13. No Believer will help an un-Believer against a Believer.

14. Protection (when given) in the Name of Allah will be common. The weakest among Believers may give protection (In the Name of Allah) and it will be binding on all Believers.

15. Believers are all friends to each other to the exclusion of all others.

16. Those Jews who follow the Believers will be helped and will be treated with equality. (Social, legal and economic equality is promised to all loyal citizens of the State).

17. No Jew will be wronged for being a Jew.

18. The enemies of the Jews who follow us will not be helped.

19. The peace of the Believers (of the State of Madinah) cannot be divided. (it is either peace or war for all. It cannot be that a part of the population is at war with the outsiders and a part is at peace).

20. No separate peace will be made by anyone in Madinah when Believers are fighting in the Path of Allah.

21. Conditions of peace and war and the accompanying ease or hardships must be fair and equitable to all citizens alike.

22. When going out on expeditions a rider must take his fellow member of the Army-share his ride.

23. The Believers must avenge the blood of one another when fighting in the Path of Allah (This clause was to remind those in front of whom there may be less severe fighting that the cause was common to all. This also meant that although each battle appeared a separate entity it was in fact a part of the War, which affected all Muslims equally).

24. The Believers (because they fear Allah) are better in showing steadfastness and as a result receive guidance from Allah in this respect. Others must also aspire to come up to the same standard of steadfastness.

25. No un-Believer will be permitted to take the property of the Quraysh (the enemy) under his protection. Enemy property must be surrendered to the State.

26. No un-Believer will intervene in favour of a Quraysh, (because the Quraysh having declared war are the enemy).

27. If any un-believer kills a Believer, without good cause, he shall be killed in return, unless the next of kin are satisfied (as it creates law and order problems and weakens the defence of the State). All Believers shall be against such a wrong-doer. No Believer will be allowed to shelter such a man.

28. When you differ on anything (regarding this Document) the matter shall be referred to Allah and Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).

29. The Jews will contribute towards the war when fighting alongside the Believers.

30. The Jews of Bani Awf will be treated as one community with the Believers. The Jews have their religion. This will also apply to their freedmen. The exception will be those who act unjustly and sinfully. By so doing they wrong themselves and their families.

31. The same applies to Jews of Bani Al-Najjar, Bani Al Harith, Bani Saeeda, Bani Jusham, Bani Al Aws, Thaalba, and the Jaffna, (a clan of the Bani Thaalba) and the Bani Al Shutayba.

32. Loyalty gives protection against treachery. (loyal people are protected by their friends against treachery. As long as a person remains loyal to the State he is not likely to succumb to the ideas of being treacherous. He protects himself against weakness).

33. The freedmen of Thaalba will be afforded the same status as Thaalba themselves. This status is for fair dealings and full justice as a right and equal responsibility for military service.

34. Those in alliance with the Jews will be given the same treatment as the Jews.

35. No one (no tribe which is party to the Pact) shall go to war except with the permission of Muhammed (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). If any wrong has been done to any person or party it may be avenged.

36. Any one who kills another without warning (there being no just cause for it) amounts to his slaying himself and his household, unless the killing was done due to a wrong being done to him.

37. The Jews must bear their own expenses (in War) and the Muslims bear their expenses.

38. If anyone attacks anyone who is a party to this Pact the other must come to his help.

39. They (parties to this Pact) must seek mutual advice and consultation.

40. Loyalty gives protection against treachery. Those who avoid mutual consultation do so because of lack of sincerity and loyalty.

41. A man will not be made liable for misdeeds of his ally.

42. Anyone (any individual or party) who is wronged must be helped.

43. The Jews must pay (for war) with the Muslims. (this clause appears to be for occasions when Jews are not taking part in the war. Clause 37 deals with occasions when they are taking part in war).

44. Yathrib will be Sanctuary for the people of this Pact.

45. A stranger (individual) who has been given protection (by anyone party to this Pact) will be treated as his host (who has given him protection) while (he is) doing no harm and is not committing any crime. Those given protection but indulging in anti-state activities will be liable to punishment.

46. A woman will be given protection only with the consent of her family (Guardian). (a good precaution to avoid inter-tribal conflicts).

47. In case of any dispute or controversy, which may result in trouble the matter must be referred to Allah and Muhammed (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) of Allah will accept anything in this document, which is for (bringing about) piety and goodness.

48. Quraysh and their allies will not be given protection.

49. The parties to this Pact are bound to help each other in the event of an attack on Yathrib.

50. If they (the parties to the Pact other than the Muslims) are called upon to make and maintain peace (within the State) they must do so. If a similar demand (of making and maintaining peace) is made on the Muslims, it must be carried out, except when the Muslims are already engaged in a war in the Path of Allah. (so that no secret ally of the enemy can aid the enemy by calling upon Muslims to end hostilities under this clause).

51. Everyone (individual) will have his share (of treatment) in accordance with what party he belongs to. Individuals must benefit or suffer for the good or bad deed of the group they belong to. Without such a rule party affiliations and discipline cannot be maintained.

52. The Jews of al-Aws, including their freedmen, have the same standing, as other parties to the Pact, as long as they are loyal to the Pact. Loyalty is a protection against treachery.

53. Anyone who acts loyally or otherwise does it for his own good (or loss).

54. Allah approves this Document.

55. This document will not (be employed to) protect one who is unjust or commits a crime (against other parties of the Pact).

56. Whether an individual goes out to fight (in accordance with the terms of this Pact) or remains in his home, he will be safe unless he has committed a crime or is a sinner. (i.e. No one will be punished in his individual capacity for not having gone out to fight in accordance with the terms of this Pact).

57. Allah is the Protector of the good people and those who fear Allah, and Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is the Messenger of Allah (He guarantees protection for those who are good and fear Allah).

source: http://www.constitution.org/cons/medina/macharter.htm

Continue reading »]]> I do not like to make claims and I have a poor memory, but in spite of this I can recite tens of verses, one after the other, that are concerned with forgiveness, dialogue and opening one’s heart to all. This demonstrates the allembracing nature or universality of Islam.

For example, the Qur’an states, “peace is good” (An-Nisa 4:128). The verse does not necessitate its being particular to a certain event, meaning or framework. The rule is general. Moreover, does not the root of the noun “Islam” express soundness, surrender, peace, safety, and trust? Then it is not possible for us to be true Muslims without fully representing and establishing these characteristics. In addition to this, underlying the meaning of this sacred name is an essence that incorporates embracing all and approaching everything with love. But if we do not approach the subject in this spirit, then we cannot be considered as having understood Islam or having made its call or having represented it.

In addition to rules that guarantee peace and security, there are also verses in the Qur’an related to attitudes that should be taken against criminals and people who cause anarchy and terror; for such people there are legal sanctions, punishments, and retaliations. However, whether regarding verses and hadiths on these subjects or their implementations, if we do not take into consideration the conditions, if we do not separate the essence from the detail and the goal from the means, if we do not evaluate the verses in the context of the situation both before and after they were revealed, then we will always arrive at false conclusions.

I can and do say that peace, love, forgiveness, and tolerance are fundamental to Islam; other things are accidental. Yet, it is necessary to give priority to basic Muslim issues according to their degree of importance. For example, if God gives importance to love, if he has informed us that He loves those who love Him, and if he has given to the person He loved most the name “Habibullah,” i.e. one who loves God and is loved by Him, then we have to take this as a fundamental principle. Rules like jihad against hypocrites and unbelievers are secondary matters that are necessitated by circumstances. Rules are tied to various reasons and conditions. If there are no such reasons, then the rules will not be enforced.

Rules regarding things like execution, exile and war have been tied to various reasons. What is essential here is explaining and conveying the principles of Islam with kind words and gentle behavior. Also, peace, justice and stability are essential in Islam, war being a byproduct of circumstances and dependent on certain conditions. Unfortunately, those who ignore the essence and do so without taking into consideration the reasons for the secondary rules and regulations, those who (by reading the Qur’an in the manner of a crude kind of Zahiris[1]) emphasize violence—these people have not understood the rules, the reasons for them nor their source, nor have they understood Islam.

When the relevant reasons appear, of course the rules necessitated by the reasons become operative. For example, when foreign enemy armies attack our country, we will, of course, not be expected to sit passively in a corner and say to the attackers, “How nice of you to come.”

Look at the world in which we find ourselves! According to some news recently reported in one of the newspapers, “bloody wars” are continuing in 56 places in the world. There are still floods of tears and blood flowing in many parts of the world. In many of these wars, some of the countries that defend democracy and human rights are on both sides. In that case, opposing war means opposing a human reality. For this reason, the moment someone touches our democratic rights and freedoms, we are, of course, going to defend ourselves and fight when necessary. But as I mentioned at the beginning, these are secondary things. The basis of Islam is peace and embracing humankind with love.

A Call to the Common Word

Another aspect of establishing and maintaining dialogue is the necessity of increasing the interests we have in common with other people. In fact, even if the people we talk with are Jews and Christians, this approach still should be adopted and issues that can separate us should be avoided altogether. For example, when the Qur’an calls the People of the Book, it says, “O People of the Book! Come to a word (that is) common between us and you.” What is that word? “Let us not worship anything but God.” Because real freedom is realized only by being saved from being someone else’s slave. When someone becomes a servant of God they are rescued from being anyone else’s slave. So come and let us unite on this matter. The Qur’an continues, “Let us not take some of us for Lords.” (Al-Imran 3:64) What is meant here is that our primary common point is belief in God; mentioning the Messengership of Muhammad has not even been mentioned yet. In another verse: “Say to those who believe: Let them forgive those who have no hope for the afterlife.” What is being said here is let those who do not believe in the afterlife and resurrection after death be forgiven, because “God only rewards or punishes a people with what they have earned,” (Al-Jathiya 45:14) i.e., if someone is going to be punished, then God will punish them and this matter does not concern anyone else.

Another clear example of this issue is related in particular to our Prophet who received a mild warning from God regarding the time he prayed against some guilty pagans. According to a report, a Bedouin Arab tribe requested that the Messenger send them teachers of the Qur’an. The Messenger sent them some, but they were ambushed and cruelly martyred at Bi’r Al-Maunah (the well of Al-Mauna). After this event, God’s Messenger prayed to God for their punishment. However, God revealed the following verse:

Not for you, (but for God), is the judgment concerning My servants: whether He turns in mercy to them, or punishes them because they are indeed wrongdoers. (Al-Imran 3:127-128)

Today there is an interest in religion all over the world. In my opinion, representing faith with its true values has gained an even greater importance than before. Today there is a need for people who are virtuous, selfpossessed, cautious, sincere and pure of heart, people who do not steal or think too highly of themselves, and who prefer the wellbeing of others to their own, and who have no worldly expectations. If society can educate people with these characteristics, then it means that a much better future is imminent.

[1] Zahiris approach the Qur’an and the Sunna only from the perspective of their outward meaning, devoid of insight and proper perception. They are very few in number.

Continue reading »]]> Al-Hajj Talib ‘Abdur-Rashid, imam of the Mosque of Islamic Brotherhood in Harlem answers a question that has puzzled both non-Muslims and Muslims for ages.

What is jihad and what role does it play in the lives of Muslims?

Answer: Jihad is one of the most misunderstood of Islamic terms used today, and many Muslims are as confused by it as non-Muslims. In the West, few words carry as much power to instill fear or hatred. That’s because the news media have widely interpreted jihad to mean “holy war,” linking it with extremism and terrorism in the public consciousness. News reports of bombings in the Middle East only deepen the identification of jihad with violence. It’s not surprising that so many Americans perceive the word in light of the Crusades of centuries ago — as a kind of latter-day Crusade in reverse.

But the concept of jihad is a beautiful one that has nothing to do with aggressive warfare. Simply put, jihad finds its origin in the verb jahada which means to struggle, to fight.

The word has a few different connotations, since struggle can occur on several levels. Muslims understand these levels based not only on the words of Allah in the Qur’an, but also on the authentic statements of the Prophet Muhammad as recorded in our oral traditions, preserved as ahadith. Here are the levels of jihad:

Personal Jihad: Prophet Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdullah (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “The most excellent jihad is that of the soul.” This jihad, called the Jihadun-Nafs, is the intimate struggle to purify the soul of satanic influence — both subtle and overt. It is the struggle to cleanse one’s spirit of sin. This is the most important level of jihad.

Verbal Jihad: On another occasion, the Prophet said, “The most excellent jihad is the speaking of truth in the face of a tyrant.” He encouraged raising one’s voice in the name of Allah on behalf of justice.

Physical Jihad: This is combat waged in defense of Muslims against oppression and transgression by the enemies of Allah, Islam and Muslims. We are commanded by Allah to lead peaceful lives and not transgress against anyone, but also to defend ourselves against oppression by “fighting against those who fight against us.” This “jihad with the hand” is the aspect of jihad that has been so profoundly misunderstood in today’s world.
source: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Islam/1999/12/Ask-The-Scholar.aspx

Continue reading »]]> For years Islamic terrorists have justified their actions as being compelled by their faith. Osama Bin Laden reportedly thanked Allah when he heard the news of this week’s attack. Other terrorist groups invoke Islam as well. Hezbollah, the name of one militant group, is the Arabic word for Party of God; Hamas is the Islamic Resistance Movement.

Are the terrorists who cite the Qur’an distorting the spirit of the religion or depicting its emphasis accurately? Here are several of the Qur’an passages most frequently cited, and analysis from Islamic scholars.

On Jihad or “Holy War”

Chapter 2, verse 190: Fight in the cause o of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors.This portion of the Qur’an was written in about 606 C.E., when the Prophet Muhammad and his followers were under attack in the city of Medinah, says Imam Yahya Hendi, a Qur’anic scholar who is the Muslim chaplain at Georgetown University. There, they had established their own state. But various coalitions of non-Muslim tribes–including Christians, Jews, atheists and animists–continued to go to war with them. This portion of the Qur’an explains their reasoning behind striking back.

The passage actually refers to a defensive war. “You fight back. You go as far as it takes to stop the aggression but you do not go beyond that. So if you have to, you go as far as fighting verbally to get someone out of your home–but you don’t shoot him after he is out. You don’t keep going on with it–only if you are attacked, if there is an oppression applied to you. The idea is that justice prevails. You don’t fight because you enjoy fighting, but because there is an oppression.

“It could be military force or [in today's world] it could be media force, writing against you. But when the hostilities are over and the enemy offers a peace treaty, you should submit. Muslims are obliged to submit to a peace treaty offered by the enemy. You don’t keep fighting.”

Al-Hajj Talib ‘Abdur-Rashid, imam of the Mosque of Islamic Brotherhood in Harlem, says the word jihad has its origin in the verb jahada which means to struggle, to fight. The word has a few different connotations, since struggle can occur on several levels.

“Muslims understand these levels based not only on the words of Allah in the Qur’an, but also on the authentic statements of the Prophet Muhammad as recorded in our oral traditions, preserved as hadith,” he says. According to ‘Abdur-Rashid, there are three levels of jihad:

Personal Jihad: The most excellent jihad is that of the soul. This jihad, called the Jihadun-Nafs, is the intimate struggle to purify the soul of satanic influence–both subtle and overt. It is the struggle to cleanse one’s spirit of sin. This is the most important level of jihad.

Verbal Jihad: On another occasion, the Prophet said, “The most excellent jihad is the speaking of truth in the face of a tyrant.” He encouraged raising one’s voice in the name of Allah on behalf of justice.

Physical Jihad: This is combat waged in defense of Muslims against oppression and transgression by the enemies of Allah, Islam and Muslims. We are commanded by Allah to lead peaceful lives and not transgress against anyone, but also to defend ourselves against oppression by “fighting against those who fight against us.” This “jihad with the hand” is the aspect of jihad that has been so profoundly misunderstood in today’s world.his portion of the Qur’an was written in about 60On Non-Muslims

Chapter 2, verse 256: Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
This passage has been cited to justify expelling non-Muslims from Muslim countries. But Imam Hendi says that not only does the Qur’an avoid any such suggestion, it even prohibits aggressive efforts to convert. “No Muslim is allowed to go out and force people to become Muslim. In the early days of Islam, Jews came to Islam and had younger children and asked Muhammad if they could force Islam on their children because they are younger. This verse [which was] revealed to him says that there can be no compulsion on other religions. This is very clear.

“I have had people come to my office and say they wanted to convert to Islam. I talked to them and it turned out they just weren’t happy in their own faiths. So I said, no, go back to your own faith.”

What’s more, fundamentalist Muslims seldom cite the passages of the Qur’an which are quite religious pluralistic. For instance, chapter 29, verse 46, says: “And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, ‘We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam).’”

People of the Book is the term Muslims use to refer to Jews and Christians. “This is the most-viewed verse in terms of how we talk to non-Muslims. We have common ground between us and them,” says Imam Hendi.
Chapter 3, verse 169: Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord.
Chapter 3, verse 172: Of those who answered the call of Allah and the Messenger, even after being wounded, those who do right and refrain from wrong have a great reward.”

Does Islam have a special emphasis on martyrdom? Those who believe so often look at these verses. Imam Hendi says there is, indeed, a special place for those who die in the service of God, though that service needs to be of a different sort than that provided by terrorists. “Suppose I’m on the pulpit teaching and giving my sermon,” says Imam Hendi. “If someone shoots me because of what I’m saying about God, the Qur’an says I’m not really dead because I’m with God. If I’m feeding the poor, and calling for justice, I can’t be called dead. My soul is alive and God sustains me.”

“If you are a teacher in a school and you die while teaching, you are a martyr. If you die while doing a service for people, you are a martyr. If I am traveling on American Airlines 700 going to London for a conference or to learn something, if that plane, God forbid, crashes, I am a martyr. Travelers for learning are martyrs.

So to claim martyr status, all terrorists have to do is convince themselves that they are fighting for “justice,” which is, of course, highly subjective. “They say that America is the leader of injustice worldwide because of the embargo against Afghanistan, and the thousands of people suffering in Iraq. Some people think America has a double standard when it comes to the Middle East and Israel. [Terrorists] think if they hurt Americans, they serve the cause of justice. They use these verses,” says Imam Hendi.

But the Qur’an has just as many passages describing how martyrdom cannot cause harm to others. “The prophet Muhammad said, ‘Do not attack a temple a church, a synagogue. Do not bring a tree or a plant down. Do not harm a horse or a camel. He went on and on in detail about what Muslims cannot do.”

On Terrorism and Violence

Obviously the Qur’an doesn’t condone terrorism, though Muhammed was the leader of a military force and therefore used violence. “In the West,” writes scholar Karen Armstrong in her book, Muhammad, “we often imagine Muhammad as a warlord, brandishing his sword in order to impose Islam on a reluctant world by force of arms. The reality was quite different. Muhammad and the first Muslims were fighting for their lives, and they had also undertaken a project in which violence was inevitable.”

It is true, she says, that unlike Christianity, Islam’s leader was not a pacifist. “Islam fight tyranny and injustice. A Muslim may feel that he has a sacred duty to champion the weak and the oppresed,” she writes. “Fighting and warfare might sometimes be necessary, but it was only a minor part of the whole jihad or struggle. A well-known tradition (hadith) has Muhammad say on returning froma battle, ‘We return from the little jihad to the greater jihad,’ the more difficult and crucial effort to conquer the forces of evil in oneself and and in one’s own society in all the details of daily life.”

While there are passages in the Qur’an, like the Old Testament of the Bible, that celebrate military victory, the overall gestalt of the Qur’an promotes a more restrained view. Chapter 5, verse 32, for instance, states: On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person–unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land–it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.

That passages places a great value on the sanctity of a single life. “If you kill one person it’s as if you kill all humanity,” says Imam Hendi.

Indeed, Hendi says, the Qur’an goes one step further in chapter 8, verse 61, “But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah.”

from: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Islam/2001/09/Save-A-Life-Save-All-Humanity-Take-A-Life-Kill-All-Humanity.aspx?p=3

Continue reading »]]> John Esposito, raised a Roman Catholic in Brooklyn, New York, is the director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. He spoke with Beliefnet after the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington.

How did Islam get this reputation for violence?
Americans have very little background about Muslims. Historically, Muslims were not visible in this country. Academically, too, Islam was not put with other [monotheistic] faiths, but with Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism. It was foreign. So you end up with generalizations. It’s like if all you see is headlines about the Mafia, all Italians all become Mafia.When the American public first experienced Islam, then, it was as the oil embargo in the early 1970s, and the Iranian revolution in 1979, both of which were experienced as threats. The Iranian revolution was seen not in a political context, but as Islamic, as the work of the ayatollahs. And Ronald Reagan and later Dan Quayle put radical Islamic action beside the Soviets as the world’s great evils.

How do these people, Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, fit into the larger picture of Islam?
Let me ask, how do Christian fundamentalists who blow up clinics fit into a Christian context? How does someone like Baruch Goldstein, who shot Muslim worshipers inside the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron in 1994—how did he fit into the Jewish context? The analogies are many: when we have David Koresh, whose group died at Waco, or when Mr. Rabin was assassinated, Americans frame it as extremism. The media talk about Christian cults, for instance. This [recent attack] is not a legitimate act by a resistance movement.

What do you think of the Muslim response to the attack?
What’s different from past events is how major Muslim leaders are condemning it. The fatwa against Salman Rushdie [after his novel "Satanic Verses" was regarded as blasphemous] brought more mixed reactions. They created a gray area. Now the Muslim mainstream is going on the record as saying this is not only irrational but unislamic. They are setting the stage for the possibility that this turns out to be a Muslim terrorist. They want to distance themselves.

On the other hand, there were pictures of people rejoicing in [the West Bank city of] Nablus.
The average American might not know that in the past few weeks the town has been surrounded by the Israeli military. So for us, again, we don’t have the context. For the residents there, this comes in the context of an Israeli siege, for which they blame the United States in part for its support of Israel with American weapons.

So we look and say, “what’s the basis for this?” Bin Laden plays off these situations, where you have a political and social context where people have been driven to the edge. Bulldozed homes, no electricity and water–those youth are radicalized by all that.

Is there anything in Islam itself that promotes violence?
Any Muslim will be offended that Islam is seen as more violent than either Judaism or Christianity. Read your Hebrew Bible, the conquests of Judaism. In Christianity you have the crusades. Both have a holy war tradition. All three suffer from fact that this notion of just war can be manipulated by extremists.

In her recent history of Islam, Karen Armstrong says that in an Islamic understanding, “politics was…what Christians would call a sacrament,” and she refers to the Muslims’ “sacralization of history.”
Judaism and Christianity are also based on sacred history. One sees history not just as human made and guided but divinely guided. The very rational for the creation of Israel has been in terms of their tradition, their history, their sacred history. Many images have been pulled from Exodus, and the great sacred stories of the past. When you have three monotheistic faiths pulling from the same history, you get flashpoints.

ou mention the Crusades, which Christianity fought in the Middle Ages. Do religions simply have violent phases?
When you talk about religion and violence, you have to look at the political and economic violence that occurred around it. Politics and economics cause violence, which then gets legitimized by religious ideas. Not that there aren’t conflicts are not narrowly religious, but many battles that are actually for land or nationhood are framed religiously. For instance, the situation in Bosnia took on that strong religious dimension. In Christianity, martyrs are passive–victims thrown to the lions or put to the sword. These suicide missions strike one as the opposite–are they representative of Islamic martyrdom?
One expert on TV said “This [attack] has religious markings” because of the suicides. People willing to die for what they believe in–we used to call that patriotism. We’ve become so secular that we can only understand giving your life as a religious act.

But this kind of martyrdom exists in Christianity–to fight and die what you believe in. And when we saw Iran and Islamic as a threat, we celebrated the mujahedeen Pakistan and their willingness to die.

Where does the Muslim community in America go from here?
From almost within minutes, they have come out as American citizens, not just as Muslims, to say these attacks are unacceptable. Don’t rush to judgment, they are saying, but if it turns out to be Muslim, this is not what Islam is about.

What about long term?

It’s going to take a while for us to recognize that Muslims are our neighbors, our fellow citizens. Muslims have been not visible, but that’s changing. Muslims are now second, third and fourth generation immigrants. They aren’t foreigners. But it’s only beginning to percolate into our consciousness, and Muslims themselves are just now starting to address these issues. Where do I send my kids to school, where do I live? How do I preserve my identity as a minority but participate fully as an American?

Many fear there’s no way of dealing with the terrorists. You hear things like, “They don’t see violence the same way we do.” There is almost a despair that no matter what we do, there’s no way of stopping the violence.
This is really risky stuff. We don’t sufficiently understand of the nature of terrorism. We react as if it’s all mindless. That makes it easier for us. We say, the only thing to do is go up and drop bombs and antiseptically kill them. It’s all right, as long as we do it rationally.

You can’t stop the crazies. But unless you wind up addressing the injustices in Palestine and Israel in way that confirms Israel’s right to exist and the right of Palestinians to a state and the right to live peacefully, you’ll have kids growing up in this polarized view of the world.

The terrorists know how to exploit this situation. What Saddam did is the same. To get popular support, he played the cards of colonialism, of American exploitation, of

the Palestinians. Bin Laden does the same thing. If you listen to his statements, they are rationally argued. But then when he draws his conclusions, that’s when he goes wrong.

source: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Islam/2001/09/Does-Islam-Promote-Violence.aspx?p=2

Continue reading »]]> It is open season on Islam these days, with conservative critics making remark after remark that attack Islam, Muslims, the Qur’an, and the Prophet Muhammad as pervasively and inherently bad. An essential argument these conservatives and others have against Islam is that the Qur’an preaches violence.

The most popular verse quoted is the fabled Verse of the Sword: “Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them: seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war).” (9:5) On the surface, this verse seems to confirm Islam’s perceived intolerance of non-Muslims. It may even lead one to conclude that all the talk about Islam being a religion of “peace” is a ruse, and that the real Islam is the violent, repressive faith practiced by Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.

But hold on. The truth is quite different from what these Islam’s attackers want us to believe.

I must address a few very important points here. For there to be any semblance of an intelligent and scholarly analysis of verses of the Qur’an, a full understanding of the Arabic language along with understanding of the context of the verses in question is an essential prerequisite. In fact, this must be the scholarly approach to the exegesis of any book of scripture, including the Hebrew and Christian Bibles. Volumes upon volumes have been written by numerous Islamic scholars, both classical and modern, that attempt to interpret the meaning of the over 6,000 verses of the Qur’an. Qur’anic exegesis is an academic discipline in itself, and it requires years of learning before a scholar is able to independently comment on Qur’anic scripture. Neither Islam’s conservative critics, nor the “scholars” and “experts” they read and quote from in their writings, possess such knowledge. What they do is misquote, mistranslate, or quote Qur’anic verses out of context and use those misquotations as evidence for their claims. These tactics violate every rule of Scriptural Exegesis 101.

When the infamouse “Verse of the Sword” is studied in its proper context, it becomes quite clear that the claim the Qur’an is violent is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. From the very beginning of his mission, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was violently opposed by his people. At first, the Pagan Arabs simply ignored the Prophet’s call and ridiculed his message. They quickly realized, however, that this tactic did not stop the flow of converts to Islam. The Meccans then turned to torture and repression of Muhammad and his companions to try to muffle his message, which was nothing more than the abadonment of the worship of idols for the worship of the One True God. Muhammad himself survived several assassination attempts. In one of these, a Meccan tried to crush the Prophet’s head with a large boulder while he was praying at the Ka’abah, the holy shrine at Mecca. God, however, miraculously foiled the attempt and the Prophet was saved.

After 10 years of hardship, the Meccans finally expelled the Prophet to Medina, a city 200 miles to the north. Since they could not kill him, this was the only thing the Meccans could do to stop the Prophet’s message. There, the inhabitants of Medina accepted Islam, and it became the first Islamic city-state with the Prophet Muhammad as its spiritual and political leader. While in Medina, the Meccan pagans did not relent in their hostilites against the Muslims. Now, however, many surrounding tribes also became hostile to Islam and joined in the Meccans’ fight. Several battles were fought against the Muslims. These tribes also attempted to assassinate the Prophet on several occasions, as the Meccans tried a decade earlier.

It is in this violent context that verse 9:5 was revealed. The commandment to “slay the pagans wherever you find them” in verse 9:5 speaks of the hostile Arab tribes surrounding Medina. At every given chance, these tribes attacked the Muslims and killed as many of them as possible for no just cause.

Frequently, columnists and pundits who try to smear Islam quote verse 9:5 incompletely and out of context. The full verse reads as follows: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them: seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”

If one reads on in the ninth chapter, the reasons for “slaying the pagans” is clearly outlined: “Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is God Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!” (9:13) When sincere scholarship and exegesis is applied, it becomes quite clear that verse 9:5, and all others similar to it, is one of self-defense and not a carte blanche to kill all non-believers, as some would want us to believe.

In fact, the principle of fighting in Islam is self-defensive: “To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged; and verily, God is most powerful for their aid…If God did not defend one set of people by means of another, then monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of God is commemorated in abundant measure, would surely have been destroyed…” (22:39-40)

Notice that the reason the Qur’an gives for waging war, as a last resort, is for the protection of churches, synagogues, and mosques–so much for Islam’s “intolerance.”

Further, Muslims are commanded not to be aggressive: “Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors” (2:190) In addition, when the enemy inclines toward peace, Muslims are commanded to cease hostilities: “But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace” (8:61). The guiding principle of Islam with respect to non-Muslims is one of tolerance and mutual respect, plain and simple: “God does not forbid you from dealing kindly and justly with those who do not fight you for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes: for God loveth those who are just.” (60:8)

Then there is the issue of how the Qur’an treats Jews and Christians. Some have claimed that the Qur’an says Jews are consigned to “humiliation and wretchedness” (2:61), try to introduce corruption (5:64), have always been disobedient (5:78), and are enemies of God (2:97-98). When addressing verses that, on the surface, seem to be derogatory toward Jews, again, it is essential that the verses be placed in context (remember Scriptural Exegesis 101).

Verse 2:61 refers to those of the Children of Israel who were disobedient to Moses after being freed from Egyptian bondage, not all Jews. The text of verses 2:97-98 refer to those who are “enemies of Archangel Gabriel,” not Jews. Verses 5:64 and 5:78 speak of the Jews who were disobedient to God and His Prophets, again not all Jews.

When sincere scholarship and exegesis is applied to the Qur’an, it becomes a clear that the claim of the Qur’an’s anti-Semitism is an absurd fallacy.

In the Qur’an, Jews and Christians are given the honorific title of “People of the Book.” The Prophet was the last in the line of Prophets and Messengers, dating back to Adam, and Islam is nothing more than the continuation and completion of their message. Thus, the Qur’an acknowledges and respects the prior messages of Moses and Jesus.

The Torah is described as “a guide to mankind” (3:3) and the Gospel of Jesus as having “guidance and light” (5:46). While the Qur’an rejects the notion of the divinity and crucifixion of Jesus, the Jewish Prophets that are named in the Qur’an are highly honored: “And we gave him [Abraham] Isaac and Jacob, each did We guide, and Noah We did guide before; and of his descendants David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, and Aaron; and thus do We reward those who do good. And Zechariah, John (the Baptist), Jesus, and Elias; every one was of the righteous. And Ishmael, Elisha, Jonah, and Lot; each one we favored above all others” (6:84-86).

Further belying the accusation of the Qur’an’s anti-Judeo-Christian stance is this passage: “Those who believe and those who are Jews, Christians, and Sabeans; any who believe in God and the Last Day and work righteousness shall have their reward with their Lord and on them shall be no fear and they will not grieve” (2:62).

I neither deny nor dismiss the existence of Muslims who use the Qur’an to justify their acts of terrorism and murder. These Muslims, like Islam’s conservative critics, also misquote or quote the Qur’an out of context. In fact, anyone with sinister intentions can quote a verse of scripture out of context to seemingly prove a point. Biblical verses, quoted out of context, have been used to condone murder, violence, slavery, racism, and anti-Semitism, all in the name of God, throughout history. Further, take this passage from I Corinthians: “For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” (I Corinthians 11:8-9) Can I conclude that Christianity is a sexist religion that seeks to opress women? Is it fair to characterize misinterpretations of Biblical scripture as tenets of Christianity or Judaism? Absolutely not. Islam must be accorded this same treatment.

In addition to quoting Qur’anic verses out of context, Islam’s attackers project the opinions of a small handful of Islamic scholars upon all of Islam, as if Islam is a monolithic blob that can be packaged and labeled as this or that. Such insincere and disingenuous scholarship is wrong and fans the flames of hatred. It is this fueling of hatred and intolerance against American Muslims that threatens to destroy the fabric of our nation’s unity.

It must be stopped before it is too late.

source: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Islam/2002/08/What-The-Quran-Really-Says-About-Violence.aspx?p=3

Continue reading »]]> Question:

I am not a Muslim. Yet I’m a peace-loving person and I am eager to know whether there are ethics that govern war in your religion, especially as we know and see what happens nowadays: gross violations of all ethics and teachings. Your earliest response will be very much appreciated.
In The Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

Answer:

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear brother in humanity, thank you very much for having confidence in us, and we hope our efforts, which are purely for Allah’s Sake, meet your expectations.

First of all, we would like to tell you that war is decreed in Islam in self defense. This indicates that aim behind war is to ward off aggression not to impose Islam as a religion. Referring to this, Allah Almighty says: “To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged; and verily God is most powerful for their aid.” (Al-Hajj:39)

Turning to the main topic of the question concerning war ethics in Islam, we would like to develop the whole issue while dealing with the following main points:

1-Personal Behavior of the Troops:

In war, as it is in peace, the instructions of Islam are to be observed. Worship does not cease in war. Islamic jurisprudence maintains that whatever is prohibited during peace is also prohibited during war. War is no excuse to be lenient with misbehaving troops. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, is reported to have said: “Beware of the prayer of the oppressed; for there is no barrier between it and Allah.” Here, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, differentiates between the oppressed believers and non-believers.

2-Whom to Fight:

Fighting should be directed only against fighting troops, and not to non- fighting personnel, and this is in compliance with the Qur’anic verse that reads: “ Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not, aggressors.” (Al-Baqarah: 190)

In one of the battles, a woman was found killed, and this was denounced by the Prophet saying “She did not fight” This will be further detailed under the instructions given to the armies and their commanding chiefs by the Prophet and his Caliphs.

3-The Prophet’s instructions to Commanding Chiefs:

The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, used to instruct his commanding chiefs saying: “Fight in the cause of Allah. Fight those who deny Allah; Do not be embittered. Do not be treacherous. Do not mutilate. Do not kill children or those (people) in convents.”

4-Abu-Bakr’s instructions to Usama’s Campaign on Syria:

“Do not betray or be treacherous or vindictive. Do not mutilate. Do not kill the children, the aged or the women. Do not cut or bum palm trees or fruitful trees. Don’t slay a sheep, a cow or camel except for your food. And you will come across people who confined themselves to worship in hermitages, leave them alone to what they devoted themselves for.”

5-Abu-Bakr’s Instructions to Yazid ibn-Abi Sufian:

“I give you ten commandments: don’t kill a woman or a child or an old person, and don’t cut trees or ruin dwellings or slay a sheep but for food. Dont burn palm trees or drown them. And don’t be spiteful or unjust.”

6-Maintaining Justice and Avoidance of Blind Retaliation:

None can be more illustrative in this respect than the words of the Qurt’an. Allah Almighty says: “ O ye who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that ye deal not justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty. Observe your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Informed of what ye do.” (Al-Maidah: 8)

7-Medical and Nursing Services:

From the early days of Islam the sanctity of the medical profession was recognized. Christian and Jewish doctors were employed by the Islamic state since the days of the Umayyads, and some of them were even court and personal physicians to caliphs. Under the tolerant attitude of Islam, some of them got the chance to unfold their full scientific potential and thus contributed to the progress of medical knowledge.

Medical help was a right to all men in spite of religion or creed. That this was also extended to those amongst enemy. An example well known in the West is that of Saladin securing medical help to his opponent, Richard Lion Heart of England who was seriously ill during the Crusades. Saladin sent him his own doctor and personally supervised Richard’s treatment until he became well.

In quoting this particular example, one dare say that such an attitude was quite different to the behavior characterizing the invading crusaders. When the crusaders entered Jerusalem on July 15th 1099, they slaughtered seventy thousand Muslims including women, children and old men. They broke children’s skulls by knocking against the wall, threw babies from roof tops, roasted men over fire and cut up women’s bellies to see if they had swallowed gold.

This description was given by Gibbon, a Christian writer, and commented on by Ludbig Wbo wondered how come after those horrible atrocities they prayed at the burial place of Christ for blessing and forgiveness (Draper/History of the Intellectual Development of Europe, Vol. 2, p. 77).

We do not mention this in bitterness or prejudice for every honest Muslim or Christian well knows that Christianity is something and many deeds of the crusaders are something else.

8-Prisoners of War:

For the first time in religious or sectarian history, Islam adopted an attitude of mercy and caring for the captured enemy. Unprecedented by previous legal systems, and long before the Geneva Convention, Islam set the rule that the captive is sheltered by his captivity and the wounded by his injury.

Previously, it was the custom for the captive to work for his food or get it through private means. The Qur’an made it a charity to feed the prisoners saying:

“Lo! the righteous shall drink of a cup whereof the mixture is of water of Kafur. A spring wherefrom the slaves of Allah drink, making it gush forth abundantly. Because they perform the vow and fear a day whereof the evil is wide spreading. And feed with food the needy wretch, the orphan and the prisoner, for love of Him. (Saying): We feed you, for the sake of Allah only. We wish for no reward nor thanks from you.” (Al-Insan: 5-9)

The Prophet instructed his Companions to be good to the captives. In one of his traditions, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, ordered his Companions saying: “ You should be good to the captives.”

Abu Aziz-ibn Umair, one of the captives of Badr battle, recalls:

“Whenever I sat with my captors for lunch or dinner, they would offer me the bread and themselves the dates, in view of the Prophet’s recommendation in our favor (in that desert situation bread was the more luxurious item of food than dates)

As soon as any of them held a piece of bread, he would offer it to me. “Feeling shy, I would give it back to one of them but he would immediately return it to me.”

Another, Thumama ibn-Athal, was taken prisoner and brought to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, who said: “Be good to him in his captivity.” When the Prophet went home he instructed to collect whatever food there, and ordered it sent to the prisoner.

When the Jewish tribe of Bani Qurayzah were captured, loads of dates were regularly carried to them, with the Prophet’s instructions to shelter them from the summer sun and to provide them with water to drink.

From the legal point of view, Muslim opinion is unanimous on the prohibition of subjecting the captives to ill treatment by withholding food, drink or clothing.

9-The Fate of War Prisoners:

This was based upon the teaching of the Qur’an:

“Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.” (Muhammad: 4)

According to Islamic law, the captive belongs to the state and not to his captor. The ruler has the ultimate option, as he sees fit, of granting freedom or doing that after taking a ransom.

Among those whom the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, granted freedom was a poet called Abu-Azza who said to the Prophet: “I have five daughters who have no one to support them, so give me away to them as a charity and I promise never to fight you or help your enemies.

Abul-As Ibn Al Rabiae was freed for a ransom, which the Prophet later returned back to him. Later, the man embraced Islam.

Umarna Ibn-Athal was set free upon his promise not to provide the enemy with food. This gentle treatment touched the man’s heart and was then converted to Islam saying to the Prophet: “There was a time when your face was the most hated face to me, and there comes a day when it is the most loved.”

Sometimes captives were exchanged for Muslim captives in enemy hands. An acceptable ransom that was quite often carried out was to teach ten Muslim children to read and write. It is noteworthy that modern international law allows for setting free a prisoner of war on equivalent lines.

Personnel were set free upon their word of honor not to fight again, and they should not be ordered by their governments to go to battle again. If they break their promise, they might be punishable by death if they are captured again.

10-Nonbelligerents

Islam never fought nations but fought only despotic authorities. Islamic war was one of liberation and not of compulsion. The freedom of the liberated people to decide their religion has already been mentioned, and it was to ensure this freedom that Muslims fought. It is interesting to mention that when Muslims fought the Romans in Egypt, the Egyptian Copts sided with and helped Muslims against the Romans who were Christians like them. This was because Christian Egypt was suffering religious oppression by the Christian Romans to compel them to adopt their religious beliefs.

One of the earliest actions of the Muslims in Egypt was the assurance of religious freedom and the reinstatement of Bejamin as Bishop of Alexandria after years of hiding from the Romans in the western desert.

But religious freedom was but one aspect that Islam gave. Whether Arab or Egyptian, Muslim or Christian, Islam built up that FELLOWSHIP that humanity aspires to, in equality and fraternity .The story is well known of the running contest held in Egypt and won by an Egyptian to the dismay of an Arab competitor who was the son of `Amru Ibn Al-`Aas, governor of Egypt. The Arab hit the boy saying ‘how dare you outrun me and I am the son of the nobility.” Upon which Umar, the caliph, ordered the three all the way to Madinah, and ordered the Egyptian to avenge by hitting the offending Arab, saying: “Hit him back. Hit the son of nobility.” Addressing `Amru, he uttered his famous saying: “O `Amru, since when have you enslaved people while their mothers have born them free.”

10-International Law:

The process of active intervention to stop or remove aggression is a development that modem international law has recognized.

The second world war for example was sparked by Germany’s invasion of Poland, and drew into the fighting countries that were not direct parties to the conflict. One of the fruits of war was the creation of the United Nations in order to settle disputes between nations by peaceful means or indeed if necessary by a collective military force. No one should argue therefore that Egypt and the Roman Empire for example should have been left alone to solve their mutual problems. In modem times the rest of the family of nations consider it a duty to do something about it. Fourteen centuries prior to the establishment of the League of Nations and later the United Nations, Islam decreed such responsibility.

The legal principle of intervention to solve dispute was offered by the Qur’anic saying:

“If two parties of believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: But if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of God; but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for God loves those who are fair.” (Al-Hujurat: 9)

11-Respect of Treaties and Agreements:

One of the major shortcomings of modern international politics is its meager regard to moral obligation. Time and again, treaties and agreements proved unworthy of the price of paper they had been written on. The most splendid produce of the human intellect in the field of international law might instantly vanish upon the call of greed or creed at this age that we wish to think has brought us to the epic of civilization.

And what is worse is that the most sophisticated achievements of scientific progress are often used as tools in the hands of Godless or God-disregarding policies: instead of being exploited ‘in the cause of God.’

From the outset, Islam has emphatically prohibited treachery by taking the enemy by surprise attack. Recent examples of signing a pact or treaty with a nation as camouflage to hidden intent to attack it are quite contrary to Islam, as several quotations from the Qur’an reads:

“ O ye who believe! Fulfil your undertakings…”(Al-Maidah:1)

“Fulfill the convenant of God when you have entered into it, and break not your oaths after you have confirmed them; indeed you have made God your surety, for God knoweth an that you do.” (An-Nahl: 91)

If Muslims sense the treachery of any enemy with whom they had a treaty, they should declare to him the annulment of that treaty before embarking on war again.

“Thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: for God loveth not the treacherous.” (Al-Anfal:85)

Although Muslims are bound to go to the help of their Muslim brethren who are religiously persecuted in the land of an enemy; they are not allowed to fulfill this duty if there is a treaty between the Muslim community and this enemy. Priority goes to honouring the treaty.

“But if they seek your aid in religion, it is your duty to help them, except against a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance. And (remember) God seeth an that you do.” (Al-Anfal:72)

Now, Can any law be more idealistic!?

And above all, this is not a nicety to be taken or left by the state. It is a binding religious dictate overruling emotion and prejudice: otherwise it would be a grave violation of Islam.”

source: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503545840

Continue reading »]]> How should you not fight for the cause of God and of the feeble and oppressed men and women and children, who cry: “Our Master! Bring us out of this town whose people are oppressors! Give us from Your presence some protecting friend! Give us from Your presence some defender!” (4:75)

Some rules. As believers cannot transgress God’s limits, they must observe His rules related to fighting. Some are deduced direct from the Qur’an and Sunna, and are as follows:

• A believer is one from whom God has bought his or her life and wealth in exchange for Paradise (9:111). They are dedicated solely to His cause and seek only His good pleasure. Therefore, whoever fights for other causes (e.g., fame, wealth, racial or ideological considerations) is excluded from God’s good pleasure.

• Fight in the way of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress. God does not love transgressors (2:190). Believers are told not to fight neutral parties, and to reject unscrupulous methods or indiscriminate killing and pillage, which characterize all wars waged by non-Muslims. The excesses alluded to consist of, but are not limited to, fighting women and children, the old and the injured, mutilating enemy corpses, destroying fields and livestock, and other acts of injustice and brutality. Force is to be used only when unavoidable, and only to the extent absolutely necessary.

• When fighting cannot be avoided, the Qur’an tells believers not to avoid it. Rather, they must prepare themselves, both morally and spiritually, and take precautions. These are:

- Strive for that spiritual stage when 20 Muslims can overcome 200 of the enemy: O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. Twenty steadfast men shall overcome 200; 100 hundred steadfast men shall overcome 1,000 unbelievers, because unbelievers have no understanding or sound judgment (8:65), and when those who will meet their Master exclaim: How often a small company has overcome a mighty host by God’s leave! God is with the steadfast (2:249).

To attain such a rank, Muslims must have an unshakable belief and trust in God and avoid all sins as much as possible. Belief and piety or righteousness are two unbreakable weapons, two sources of inexhaustible power: Don’t faint or grieve, for you shall gain the upper hand if you are true believers (3:139), and The sequel is for the righteous people (7:128).

- In addition to moral strength, believers must equip themselves with the latest weaponry. Force is vital to obtaining the desired result, so believers cannot ignore it. Rather, they must be further advanced in science and technology than unbelievers so that the latter cannot use their superiority for their own selfish benefit. As Islam states that “right is might,” believers must be able to prevent unbelievers and oppressors from showing that “might makes right”: Make ready for them all you can of armed force and tethered horses, that thereby you may dismay the enemy of God and your enemy, and others beside them whom you don’t know; God knows them. Whatever you spend in the way of God will be repaid to you in full, and you will not be wronged (8:60).

An Islamic state should be powerful enough to deter the attacks of unbelievers and oppressors, as well as their plans to subject weaker people. It should be able to secure peace and justice, and to prevent any other power from causing trouble or corruption. This will be possible when Muslims equip themselves with strong belief and righteousness, and with scientific knowledge and the latest technology. They must combine science and technology with faith and good morals, and then use this force for the good of humanity. Belief in God calls for serving people. Greater belief means a greater concern for the created’s welfare. When Muslims attain this rank, God will not allow unbelievers to defeat believers (4:141). Otherwise, what the Prophet predicted will happen: “(The forces of unbelief) will unite to make a concerted attack upon you. They will snatch the morsel out of your mouths and pillage your table.”

- When fighting is necessary, Muslims must report for duty, for:

O you who believe! What ails you that when you are told: “Go forth in the way of God,” you sink down heavily to the ground? Are you so content with the life of the world, rather than the world to come? Yet the enjoyment of the life of the world, compared with the world to come, is a little thing. If you don’t go forth, He will afflict you with a painful doom. He will replace you with another people; and you will not hurt Him. God is powerful over everything. (9:38-39)

God loves those who battle for His cause in ranks, as if they were a solid structure. (61:4)

O you who believe! Shall I show you something that will save you from a painful doom? You should believe in God and His Messenger, and strive for the cause of God with your wealth and your lives. That is better for you, if you only knew. He will forgive your sins and admit you into Gardens underneath which rivers flow, and to dwelling places goodly in Gardens of Eden. That is the mighty triumph; and other things you love, help from God, and a nigh victory. Give good tidings to believers. (61:10–13)

- A community is structured and functions like a body, for it demands a “head” having “intellect.” Therefore, obedience to the head is vital for communal prosperity. When The Messenger was raised in Arabia, people resembled a broken rosary’s scattered beads and were unaware of the need for obedience and the benefits of collective life. The Messenger inculcated in them the feeling of obedience to God, His Messenger, and their superiors, and used Islam as an unbreakable rope to unite them:

O you who believe! Obey God, the Messenger, and those of you who are in authority. If you have a dispute concerning anything, refer it to God and the Messenger if you believe in God and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end. (4:59)

O you who believe! When you meet an army, hold firm and remember and mention God much, so that you may be successful. Obey God and His Messenger, and don’t dispute with each other lest you falter and your strength departs. Be steadfast, and God is with the steadfast. (8:45–46)

The Companions’ consciousness of obedience made many previously impossible things possible. For example, when he appointed the 18-year-old son of his emancipated (black) slave as commander of an army containing many elders, among them Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman, no Companion objected. In another case, during a military expedition the commander ordered his soldiers to throw themselves into a fire. Even though this was not an Islamic order, some tried to obey it. However, others prevented them from committing suicide and persuaded them to ask The Messenger whether they had to obey such un-Islamic orders. Although it is unlawful to obey sinful orders, obedience to law is vitally important to a community’s collective life, particularly if it wants to win a war.

- Believers must remain steadfast and are forbidden to flee the battlefield:

O you who believe! When you meet unbelievers in battle, don’t turn your backs to them. Whoever does so on that day, unless maneuvering for battle or intending to join a company, has incurred God’s wrath, and his habitation will be Hell—an evil homecoming! (8:15-16)

Fleeing the battlefield is one of the seven major sins, for it causes disorder in the ranks and demoralizes the others. Their belief in God and the Hereafter cannot be firm, for their actions show they prefer this life to the Hereafter. Believers may leave the battlefield only to maneuver, as a tactic, or to join another company.

In the Battle of Yarmuk (636 CE), 20,000 valiant Muslims fought—and defeated—200,000 Byzantines. Qabbas ibn Ashyam, one of the heroes, realized that he had lost a leg (around noon) only when he dismounted from his horse hours later. His grandson later introduced himself to Caliph ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-’Aziz, saying: “O Caliph, I am the grandson of the one who lost his leg at noon but became aware of it only toward evening.”

During the Battle of Mu’ta (629 CE), the Muslim army consisted of 3,000 soldiers; the opposing Byzantine forces had about 100,000 soldiers. The Muslims fought heroically, and both armies retreated at the same time. Despite this, the Muslims thought that they had fled the battlefield and so were ashamed to meet The Messenger. However, he welcomed and consoled them: “You didn’t flee; you retreated to join me. You will collect strength and fight with them again.” It happened just as he said, for just before his death the Muslim army raided southern Syria; 2 years later, the Muslims dealt the Byzantines a deadly blow at Yarmuk.

Continue reading »]]> The Companions of the Prophet were fearless on the battlefields, and as sincere and humble as dervishes in worshipping God. Those victorious warriors used to spend most of their nights praying to God. Once, when night fell during battle, two of them took turns in standing guard. One rested while the other prayed. Having become aware of the situation, the enemy shot a shower of arrows at him. He was hit and bled profusely, but did not abandon his prayer. When he finished his devotions, he woke his friend, who asked him in amazement why he had not done so sooner. He replied: “I was reciting Surat al-Kahf, and I did not wish the deep pleasure I found in this prayer to be interrupted.”

The Companions went into a trance-like state of ecstasy when in prayer, and would recite the Qur’an as if it were being revealed directly to them. Thus, they did not feel the pain caused by arrows which penetrated their bodies. Jihad, in its lesser and greater aspects, found complete expression in them.

The Prophet combined these two aspects of jihad in the most perfect way in his own person. He displayed monumental courage on the battlefields. ‘Ali, one of the most courageous figures of Islam, confesses that the Companions took shelter behind the Prophet at the most critical moments of fighting. To give an example, when the Muslim army experienced a reverse and began to scatter in the first phase of the Battle of Hunayn, the Prophet urged his horse toward the enemy lines and shouted to his retreating soldiers: “I am a Prophet, I do not lie! I am the grandson of ‘Abd al-Muttalib, I do not lie!”

Jihad’s stages and main principles. The first Revelation to The Messenger was the command: Read! This command, coming at a time when there was nothing readily available to read, meant that believers should use their intellectual and spiritual faculties to discern God’s acts in the universe and His laws related to its creation and operation. Through such discernment, believers seek to purify themselves and their minds of all ignorance-based superstitions and to acquire true knowledge through observation and contemplation.

We are not composed only of our minds. God has endowed us with many faculties, each of which needs satisfaction. So while feeding our minds with the Divine signs in the universe, we seek to cleanse our hearts of sin. We live a balanced life in awareness of Divine supervision, and continuously seek His forgiveness. In this way, we eventually conquer our desire for forbidden things and, through prayer, ask God to enable us to do good deeds.

Thus Read! signifies action. For The Messenger, who already was absolutely pure in spirit and devoid of superstition, it meant that it was time to start his mission as a Messenger of God. He was to recite the Revelation in public and instruct people about His signs. By doing this, he would purify their minds of superstitions carried over from the Age of Ignorance, and their hearts of sin. He would enlighten them, intellectually and spiritually, by instructing them in the Revealed Book of God (the Qur’an) and His Created Book (the universe): We have sent among you, of yourselves, a Messenger who recites Our signs to you, purifies you, and instructs you in the Book and in the Wisdom, and also instructs you in what you don’t know (2:151).

After he received this first revelation, The Messenger returned home in great agitation. He was sleeping wrapped in a cloak, enwrapped by his people’s suffering and this heavy responsibility, when God commanded him: O enwrapped one, keep vigil the night long, save a little (a half of it, or diminish or add a little), and chant the Qur’an in measure, for We shall charge you with a weighty word (73:1-5).

The short period between the first revelation and the spreading of the Message, a period marked by such verses as those mentioned above, was a preliminary stage for The Messenger. He had to prepare himself to convey the Qur’an by keeping long night vigils and reciting the Qur’an in measure.

In addition to conveying the Message, jihad, as discussed above, entails the believers’ struggles with their carnal selves to build a genuine spiritual character, one overflowing with belief and inflamed with love. These two dimensions of jihad continue until the believer dies (the individual sphere) and until the Last Day (the collective sphere). Therefore, soon after this verse was revealed, The Messenger received the following revelation: O enshrouded one, arise and warn! Magnify your Master, purify your robes, and flee defilement! Do not show favor, seeking worldly gain! For the sake of your Master, be patient! (74:1-7).

These revelations ordered the Prophet to begin preaching Islam. He started with his family members and nearest relatives and, after Warn your tribe of nearest kindred (26:214) was revealed, spread this call throughout his tribe. His subsequent public preaching was met with derision, threats, torture, enticing bribes if he would stop, and boycott.

In Makka, The Messenger never resorted to or allowed retaliation. Islam came not to spread trouble or cause dissention, but, in the words of Amir ibn Rabi’, to bring people out of the darkness of unbelief into the light of belief, to free them from serving that which is not God so that they can serve the One True God, and to elevate them from the pits of the Earth to the heights of Heaven.

As Islam literally means peace, salvation, and submission, it obviously came to establish peace. This is established first in our inner worlds, so that we are at peace with God and natural environment, and then throughout the world and the universe. Peace and order are fundamental in Islam, which seeks to spread in a peaceful personal and collective atmosphere. It refrains from resorting to force as much as possible, never approves of injustice, and forbids bloodshed: Whoever kills someone, other than in retaliation for murder or corruption on the Earth, in effect has killed humanity; whoever saves a life in effect has saved humanity (5:32).

Coming to eradicate injustice and corruption, and to “unite” the Earth with the Heavens in peace and harmony, Islam calls people with wisdom and fair exhortation. It does not resort to force until the defenders of their corrupt order, which is rooted in injustice, oppression, self-interest, exploitation, and usurpation of others’ rights, seek to prevent its preaching in peaceful ways and to suppress it. Thus, force is allowed in the following cases:

• If unbelievers, polytheists, or those who cause trouble and corruption actively resist the preaching of Islam and prevent others from listening to its message. As Islam is a Divine religion seeking to secure human well-being and happiness in both worlds, it has the right to present itself. If this is not allowed, theoretically, its opponents are given three alternatives: accept Islam, allow its preaching in peaceful ways, or admit its rule. If they reject these alternatives, force is allowed.

However, there is an important point to mention. In order to use force, there must be an Islamic state. It was allowed only after the Prophet emigrated to Madina and established an independent state, for the Muslims had been wronged. The verses revealed to give this permission explain the Islamic view of just war:

(Fighting is) permitted to those who are fought against, because they have been wronged. God is able to give them victory. Those who have been driven from their homes unjustly only because they said: “Our Master is God.” For had it not been for God’s repelling some people by means of others, cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the Name of God is much mentioned, would have been pulled down. God helps one who helps Him [His religion]. God is All-Strong, All-Mighty. Those who, if We give them power in the land, establish worship and pay zakat and enjoin the good and forbid the evil. And God’s is the sequel of events. (22:39-41)

It is clear from these verses and from history that Islam resorts to force only to defend itself and establish freedom of belief. Under Muslim rule, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and adherents of other religions are free to practice their religion. Even many Western historians and writers have agreed that Christians and Jews experienced the most prosperous and happiest period of their history under Muslim rule.

• Islam, being the true religion revealed by God, never approves of injustice. As declared in: We have written (decreed) in the Psalms after the Torah (and remind once more in the Qur’an) that My righteous servants will inherit the Earth. (21:105), God’s righteous servants must submit the Earth to His rule, which depends on absolute justice and worship of the One God. They also are obliged to strive until persecution, as well as any worship of and obedience to false deities and unjust tyrants, is ended. Thus Muslims are to fight for the feeble and oppressed:

from http://en.fgulen.com/prophet-muhammad-the-messenger-of-god/940-jihad

Continue reading »]]> Jihad has the literal meaning of exerting our best and greatest effort to achieve something. It is not the equivalent of war, for which the Arabic word is qital. Jihad has a much wider connotation and embraces every kind of striving in God’s cause. A mujahid is one who is sincerely devoted to his or her cause; who uses all physical, intellectual, and spiritual resources to serve it; who confront any power that stands in its way; and, when necessary, dies for this cause. Jihad in the way of God is our struggle to win God’s good pleasure, to establish His religion’s supremacy, and to make His Word prevail.

A related principle, that of enjoining good and forbidding evil (amr bi al-ma’ruf wa nahy ‘an al-munkar) seeks to convey the message of Islam and establish a model Islamic community. The Qur’an introduces the Islamic community as a model community required to inform humanity of Islam and of how the Prophet lived it: Thus We have made you a community justly balanced, that you might be witnesses for all humanity, and the Messenger may be a witness for you (2:143).

The greater and lesser jihad. There are two aspects of jihad. One is fighting to overcome carnal desires and evil inclinations—the greater jihad. The other is encouraging others to achieve the same objective—the lesser jihad.

The Muslim army was returning to Madina after they had defeated the enemy in a battle, when the Messenger of God said to them: “We are returning from the lesser jihad to the greater one.” When the Companions asked what the greater jihad was, he explained that it was fighting with the carnal self.

The aim of either jihad is that the believer be purified of sins and so attain true humanity. The prophets were sent for this purpose. God says in the Qur’an:

Thus We have sent unto you a Messenger from among you, who recites unto you Our revelations (and makes Our signs known to you), and who purifies you and instructs you in the Book and in the Wisdom, and also instructs you in what you don’t know. (2:151)

Human beings are in some sense like raw minerals to be worked upon by Prophets, who purify and refine them by removing the seal from their hearts and ears, by lifting the veils from their eyes. Enlightened by the Prophets’ message, people can understand the meaning of the laws of nature, which are signs of God’s Existence and Unity, and can penetrate into the subtle reality behind things and events. Only through the guidance of Prophets can we attain the high status expected of us by God.

In addition to teaching the signs, Prophets also instructed their people in the Book and in Wisdom. As the Qur’an was the last Revelation to the Last Prophet, God means the Qur’an when He speaks of the Book, and the Sunna when He speaks of Wisdom. We must therefore follow the Qur’an and the Prophet’s Sunna if we desire to be rightly guided.

The Prophet also teaches us what we do not know, and so humanity will continue to learn from the Prophet until the Day of Judgment. We learn from him how to purify ourselves of sin. By following his way, many great saints have attained their distinctions as saints. Among them, ‘Ali says that his belief in the pillars of Islam is so firm that even if the veil of the Unseen were lifted, his certainty would not increase. ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani is said to have had insight into the mysteries of the seventh heaven. These and many others, such as Fudayl bin ‘Iyaz, Ibrahim bin Adham, and Bishr al-Khafi might well have been endowed with Prophethood, if God had not already set a seal on Prophethood.

The dark clouds of ignorance have been removed from our intellectual horizon through the guidance of Prophet Muhammad, and many more advances will be made in science and technology as a result of the light he brought from God.

Jihad is the legacy of the Prophets, and Prophethood is the mission of elevating men to God’s favor by purifying them. Jihad is the name given to this prophetic mission, which has the same meaning as bearing witness to the truth. Just as judges listen to witnesses to settle a case, so those who have performed jihad have borne witness to God’s Existence and Unity of God by striving in His way. The Qur’an says: God bears witness that there is no god but He and so do the angels and the people of learning, maintaining justice. There is no god save He, the All-Mighty, the Wise (3:18). Those who have performed jihad will also bear witness to the same truth in the heavenly court, where the case of unbelievers will be settled.

Those who bear witness to God Existence and Unity the remotest parts of the world and preach this truth. This was the duty of the Prophets as stated in the Qur’an, and it should be our duty as well:

…Messengers who brought good news to humanity and who admonished them, so that they might have no argument against God after their coming. God is the All-Mighty and the All-Wise. God Himself bears witness by what He has revealed to you that it has been revealed with His knowledge; and so do the angels. There is no better witness than God. (4:165–66)

God has sent a Prophet to every people, so that every people can have an idea of Prophethood. As the term used to describe the activity of Prophethood, jihad is deeply engraved on the heart of every believer so that he or she feels a profound responsibility for preaching the truth in order to guide others to the Straight Path.

The lesser jihad, usually taken to mean fighting in God’s cause, does not refer only to military struggle. The term is comprehensive, for it includes every action done for God’s sake. Whether speaking or keeping silent, smiling or making a sour face, joining or leaving a meeting, every action taken to ameliorate the lot of humanity, whether by individuals or communities, is included in its meaning.

While the lesser jihad depends on mobilizing all material facilities and is performed in the outer world, the greater jihad means a person’s fighting against his or her carnal soul. These two forms of jihad cannot be separated from each other.

The Messenger of God has taught us how to perform both forms of the jihad. He has established the principles of preaching the truth, which have application until the Day of Judgment. When we scrutinize the way he acted, we shall see that he was very systematic. This is actually another proof of his Prophethood and a wonderful example of following the way of God in behavior.

The believers kept their belief vigorous and active by means of jihad. Just as a tree keeps its leaves as long as it yields fruits, so believers can preserve their vigor as long as they perform jihad. Whenever you encounter a hopeless pessimist, you soon realize that he or she is one who has abandoned jihad. Such people have been deprived of the spirit, and are sunk in pessimism because they have abandoned preaching the truth. Whoever performs jihad unceasingly does not lose his or her enthusiasm and always tries to increase the scope of his or her activities. Every good deed results in a new one, so that believers never become deprived of a good: As for those who strive for us We surely guide them to our path. God is with the good (29:69).

There are as many paths leading to the Straight Path as the number of breaths drawn in creation. Whoever strives for His cause is guided, by God, to one of these paths and is save from going astray. Whoever is guided to His Straight Path by God lives a balanced life. They neither exceed the limits in their human needs and activities or in their worship and other religious observances. Such balance is the sign of true guidance.

All sacrifices made in fighting oppressive unbelievers, no matter how great, only constitute the lesser jihad of striving to discharge religious obligations as perfectly as possible. The greater jihad is much harder to accomplish, since it requires us to fight against our own destructive drives and impulses, such as arrogance, vindictiveness, jealousy, selfishness, self-conceit, and the carnal desires.

Although the person who abandons the lesser jihad is liable to spiritual deterioration, he or she may recover. Everything in the universe praises and glorifies God with each breath and is, accordingly, a sign of God’s Existence and Unity. A person may be guided to the Straight Path through one of these signs. For this reason, it is said that there are as many paths leading to the Straight Path of God as the breaths of all His creatures. A person returning from the lesser jihad is vulnerable to worldly weaknesses. Pride, love of comfort and ease may captivate that person. Thus the Prophet warned us through his Companions by saying, while returning to Madina after a victory: “We are returning from the lesser jihad to the greater.”

from: http://en.fgulen.com/prophet-muhammad-the-messenger-of-god/940-jihad