Continue reading »]]> by Donald Reeves – THE GUARDIAN
5 August 2011

Following the events of 22 July in Norway – when Anders Behring Breivik, driven by a hatred of Islam, killed 77 people – there have been ample expressions of outrage, analysis and commentary, but little indication as to what must to be done to prevent Islamophobia spreading.

Before 22 July, the Soul of Europe, together with the Soest Forum of Religions and Cultures (a German Muslim archive institute), had begun planning how to interrupt, undermine and dismantle Islamophobia. Beginning in France, Germany, UK and Scandinavia, we are establishing a coalition across Europe of institutions and organisations which are already engaged with Muslim communities. Our aim is to deepen, broaden and strengthen the foundations of those bridges between Muslim and non-Muslims, particularly among the younger generations – above all in practical ways.

One way is to develop patterns of solidarity. For instance: when a religious building is vandalised, whether a mosque or a church or a synagogue, communities will come together to condemn these actions. For condemnation to be effective, more than words are needed. Much depends on the slow, patient building of relationships.

Another way is for local communities to speak up on behalf of others, not least when Muslim communities complain of intimidation and harassment by police. These interventions emerge from relationships that have been established over time. Local politicians and religious leaders – vicars, imams and rabbis – will have to watch their backs. These actions will be seen as divisive among their own constituencies and congregations.

As Marwan Muhammad, director of the Collective Against Islamophobia in France, told the Soul of Europe: “We are scapegoats and are blamed for all of Europe’s problems.” Muslim communities need to be invited in from the cold. There should be no “them” and “us”. We are all “us”. Umar Mirza set up the Dutch website We’re Here to Stay as “an attempt to create an alternative space … a way of providing a stage upon which the voices of young Muslims can be heard”. Dutch Muslims are not going anywhere. The Netherlands is their country, their home.

for the full text: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/aug/05/grassroots-movement-to-tackle-islamophobia

Continue reading »]]> by Karen Peake
July 6, 2011

A new Ipsos MORI poll has found that religion still matters to most people in the world.

The global survey looked at the views of over 18,000 people across 24 countries, including the UK and US.

Seven in 10 of those surveyed said they had a religion but there was a marked difference between Christians and Muslims when it came to the importance they placed on their faith.

In Muslim-majority countries, 94% of those with a religion agreed that their faith was important in their lives, compared to 66% in Christian-majority countries.

Muslims were far more likely to believe that their religion was the only true path to salvation, liberation or paradise – 61% compared to 19% in Christian-majority countries.

They were also more likely to say that their faith or religion was a key motivator in giving time and money to people in need – 61% compared to 24% in primarily Christian societies.

Overall, 30% said that their religion motivated them to give their time or money to people in need, while more than half (52%) said that their religion made no difference to their giving because they saw it as important in any case.

Globally, faith was found to be important to young people. Almost three-quarters (73%) of under-35s said their religion or faith was important in their life.

A third of all respondents across the 24 countries said they had no or almost no friends or acquaintances from any religion other than their own.

Chief executive of Ipsos MORI, Ben Page said: “The survey is a good reminder to many in western Europe of how much religion matters – and is a force for good – in much of the world.

“Our analysis shows people would rather keep politics separate from religion, but that in a globalising world, it still matters more than many in old Europe think.”

The results were also welcomed by Tony Blair, a practising Catholic and patron of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation.

“This survey shows how much religion matters and that no analysis of the contemporary world, political or social, is complete without understanding the relationship between faith and globalisation,” he said.

“The evidence is that, though people fear the prospect of religious strife, even here in Britain, there is much to encourage the view that people can learn to respect those of another faith and live with them peacefully.

“Inter-faith dialogue and action today is not just an interesting but peripheral minor subject, it is the essence, central to creating greater social cohesion and harmony.”

sourcE: http://www.christiantoday.com/article/religion.still.matters.global.survey.finds/28257.htm

Continue reading »]]> Since the Arab Spring dawned,Turkey’s potential value as an inspiration for and facilitator of reform in the Middle East and North Africa has been a heated topic of discussion. Critics have been concerned that this debate would both work against Turkey’s EU integration by distracting intellectual and political attention and complicate domestic political dynamics through overemphasis on Turkey’s Muslim identity — in essence making Turkey more Middle Eastern rather than spreading reform and open society.

Though Turkey’s intensified engagement in the MENA region is inevitable, the shape of Turkey’s influence is not predetermined. The concentration of the debate should already be on how to make Turkey’s influence a positive one, while mitigating potential risks.
Recalling the significant role that interaction between Turkish and European civil society played in driving Turkey’s positive change raises the question of whether Turkey’s civil society development and related institutional transition experiences are transposable to the EU’s southern neighborhood. Looking more closely at the concrete example of Turkey’s experiences in adapting European approaches to women’s rights can shed light on the feasibility of this notion.
Given vested interests and strategic limitations, Turkey’s official approach to democratization in the region is expected to involve contradictions and may on occasion strain relations with the Western alliance as well as with counterparts in the neighborhood. Ankara’s diplomatic efforts to counsel democratic reform in the region (with an initiative ongoing in Syria currently) have so far yielded little or no results. In contrast, Turkish civil society may be able to play a more consistent and active role in assisting neighbors who venture on the longterm endeavor of building a culture of democracy. For this to materialize, there is a need for synergy between Turkish and European counterparts, as well as an informed demand from Turkey’s respective neighbors. The continuation of Turkey’s Europeanization journey will also be important for Turkey’s far-reaching contribution to positive change among its neighbors.
Turkey’s Not-so-Unique Formula
The freedoms and opportunities enjoyed in Turkey that set it apart in Europe’s neighborhood have largely been a function of Turkey’s Europeanization. Over recent decades, Western literature and interaction with European counterparts played an important role in building awareness among Turkish journalists, activists, and intellectuals. Benchmarking of European standards by NGOs and EU leverage — particularly after candidacy was achieved in 1999 — played a central role. This was distinctly the case in bringing about revolutionary legal reform progressive state policies towards gender equality. Though these European influences have taken on a life of their own in Turkey, some of the most challenging steps lie ahead.
Turkey and the Muslim Middle East share traditions and structural economic challenges that obstruct women’s equal standing in public life and trap women in controlling social networks. Social services and public administration fall short of compensating for these socioeconomic realities. These problems do not mean Turkey is regressing. In fact, many of today’s challenges can be characterized as transition pains. Breaking through the current plateau in women’s empowerment requires holistic policy design, political will, and continued socioeconomic change
Just as the problems are not Muslim, neither are the solutions. The wheel needs neither to be re-invented, nor adapted to a Muslim context. Spain, also traditionally patriarchal, lagged behind Europe in gender equality and violence until recently. It has, over the past two decades, not only caught up, but surpassed most other European countries in terms of gender parity — with relevant legislation, strengthening of law enforcement institutions, and allocation of resources to this end. To the extent that Turkey takes Spain as a model, so can a country like Egypt take Turkey as one. In short, for more effective regional democracy inspiration and assistance, Turkey needs to deepen and consolidate its Europeanization journey, not stall mid-stream.
Dissecting Soft Power — The Place of Islam
Turkey’s potential influence in the Arab world is a function, among other things, of shared religion and the related cultural affinity. The Turkish Prime Minister’s high-profile defiance of Israel, and his defending various controversial Muslim leaders on Western platforms arguably compounded Turkey’s popularity on the Arab street. In fact, Turkey’s secularism and good relations with the West are seen as obstacles to Turkey serving as a model in the Middle East by a sizeable proportion of Arab societies. Should we conclude that it is mutually exclusive for Turkey to intensify its Eastern and Western engagement? Not necessarily.
The kind of engagement that empowering intellectuals in the Arab world calls for is not the same kind of populistic engagement that arousing the Arab street involves. Turkey’s having a seat at Euro-Atlantic tables and raising its democratic and development levels are important pillars of its traction in the neighborhood.
Informed choices by opinion leaders and politicians of the respective recipient neighboring countries will determine which aspects of the Turkish experience are utilized. Ultimately, the liberal young political activists of Tunisia who are cautious about alienating conservative voters can, for example, point to the legal framework in Turkey while advocating that equal rights for women does not mean a split from Islamic conviction. In their long struggle lobbying conservative parliamentarians for progressive reform, Turkish women’s movement activists have in the past also justified their demands by drawing on examples from other Muslim countries. Developing the relatively weak ties between Turkish human rights advocates, journalists, dissidents, youth movements, women’s civil society organizations, and civil society organizations in the common neighborhood of Turkey and the EU is important.
Turkey’s experiment with using faith to promote progressive change may also be relevant for some Muslim reform advocates. For example, in order to promote girls’ education, besides infrastructure development, monetary incentives, and penalties for families that withhold their daughters from school, Turkish Imams have been tasked with delivering supportive messages in Friday prayers across the country. Another case in point is the ongoing scholarly review of hadiths (sayings and traditions attributed to Prophet Muhammad), with a view to weed out the suggestions of women’s secondary status. Promoting progressive interpretation of religion can arguably empower women’s struggle against discrimination in conservative environments. However, such initiatives can not replace, but only supplement, law, effective enforcement, protection mechanisms, civic mobilization, and political will. Over-rating the role of Islam in solutions to basic problems that require strong institutions, civic participation, and economic development would be a mistake. Along the same lines, while Turkey’s Muslim culture can reinforce its inspirational strength, substantiating this influence will require more concrete engagement with the needs of the people.
Seeking Synergy
There is no clean-cut model for the winds of change in the neighborhood stretching from North Africa to Central Eurasia. Not only is each society in the region very different from the other, but they are also presented with a wide range of competing examples. Given how polarized Turkey is domestically, it should come as no surprise that different groups from Turkey itself attempt to export disperate so-called Turkey-models to prospective recipients. One need only look at Azerbaijan, to which ethnic nationalist networks and Muslim brotherhood networks from Turkey have been advocating contrasting visions for two decades. From that example, one can conclude that if there is a risk, it is that the West-oriented liberal democrats in Turkey — who have played the biggest role in Turkey’s own transformation — risk falling behind in the race to influence neighbors. Neighbors motivated by the liberalization phase of Turkey’s complex evolution need to play a proactive role to engage these segments of Turkish society.
While Turkish women’s NGOs have experience working in social settings defined by tribal structures in Eastern Turkey, European women’s NGOs have valuable experience gained by East European EU accession. On issues such as utilizing social media, the transmission may very well be reversed; Turkish social movements have much to learn from some of their neighbors’ more active use of such Internet resources. The United States may be most influential in spreading values and activism through education, while Georgia has the most recent example of radical reform of police force.
Rather than assuming Turkey possesses an upper hand on the basis of popularity among neighboring masses, more modesty is called for to find synergy. To get plugged into the causes of reformists in the region and to play a more active role in their affairs, Turkish civil society and media is already benefitting from the language skills, sources, experiences, and funding of their Western counterparts.
Until recently, those in Turkey with a Western-oriented outlook largely neglected Eurasia and the Middle East; vice versa, Turkish groups with networks and advocacy among Eastern neighbors were not plugged in to the Western policy community. This is slowly changing but to find synergy between Turkish and European civil society in a more substantial and lasting way, adaptation of visions, resources, and structures will be important.
Conclusion
The argument that Turkey does not need Europe because it possesses stand-alone regional power is misplaced, but it has been seeping into the Turkish mainstream. Turkey’s EU vocation is still critical not only for strategic reasons but also for more effective use of soft power and to be a stronger role model. Turkey is yet to prove that it can sustainably overcome some of the major problems it shares with its Eastern neighbors. How Turkey deals with the challenges ahead will also be critical in determining whether Turkey can continue to inspire its neighbors — Muslim or otherwise.
Though Turkey’s transformation itself is a work in progress, it is precisely because similar problems with its neighbors still exist that Turkey’s example is perceived to be “within reach.” That being said, Turkey needs to be moving forward on the challenging fronts in order for this element of inspiration to be sustained. Even though Turkey’s progress can be seen as a sign that a Muslim country can overcome these hurdles, the flipside is that a stalling or regression on the part of Turkey can perpetuate perceived civilizational divides.

source: http://www.todayszaman.com/news-242987-europes-neighborhood-can-turkey-inspire.html

Continue reading »]]> By Adri Wanto
December 20 2010

INDONESIAN MUSLIMS live in the largest Muslim country in the world and are well-known for their moderation. They embody the key ideas of democracy, tolerance, freedom, respect for human rights and equality. Instead of establishing an Islamic state, a majority of Muslims are actively involved in promoting democratic institutions. Many questions have been raised as to the factors that facilitate Muslim moderation in Indonesia, and specifically how democratic is Indonesian Islam?

To answer these questions, I argue that the local culture and the Islamic texts used in traditional Islamic boarding schools are the two most dominant factors in moulding inclusive and tolerant Muslims in Indonesia.

Islamic Law and Local culture

Snouck Hurgronje, the Dutch colonial scholar, had written about the Indonesian community in Mecca in the 1880s. Hurgronje pointed out that the relationship between Muslims in Indonesia and in the Middle East was very unique. On the one hand, the Indonesian people sought knowledge and inspiration from Muslims in the Middle East, but they then adapted this knowledge to their local culture which was different from the source. Hurgronje considered it as adaptive and intelligent of the Indonesian people to blend Islamic teaching with their local culture to create a very rich religious synthesis.

In Islam, culture is usually referred to as ‘urf or ‘Adah. The 21st century Islamic scholar Muhammad Yusuf Qardhawi explained that ‘urf is the habits and behaviour of people in everyday life which become hereditary customs. Because the ‘urf is an inseparable part of a person, it is used in formulating the fiqh (Islamic law).

Muslims in Indonesia recognised that there were many cultures that existed in the pre-Islamic era, some of which were Islamised and adopted by the prophet Muhammad. This indicates that Islam was not born in order to eliminate the entire culture that developed in pre-Islamic Arab society. Prophet Muhammad created many rules of customary law that legalised Arab society, to make space for the practice of customary law in the Islamic legal system as long as the law was not against Islamic principles.

For instance, the Haj was practised in Arab societies long before Islam arrived. Pre-Islamic Arab societies also conducted worship at the Kaabah, although they were idolators. After the arrival of Islam, the practices continued with some changes. For example idol worship was terminated. The tawaf — one of the rites of the haj involving walking around the Kaabah at the beginning and the conclusion of the pilgrimage — was previously performed naked by pre-Islamic Arab society. The Prophet banned this and instead carry out this worship fully dressed till today.

The laws established by Prophet Muhammad and his successors (Sahabat) always took into account the evolving culture of the community. In the establishment of fiqh we can see the influence of different cultures in the laws that were created. Abu Hanifa, one of Islam’s four great imams, took advantage of customs and social habits of a diverse range of communities as a secondary source to the law as long as they did not contradict the Quran. Similarly, Imam Malik was influenced by the indigenous communities in Medina when developing fiqh theory.

Fiqh and Flexibility

One important history which explains social influence in the cultural constructs of Islamic fiqh is related to the phenomenon of Imam Shafi’i, another great imam of Islam after the Prophet. Social conditions and circumstances affected most of his thoughts on fiqh law. The clearest example of this is the emergence of the so-called qaul qadim (the old statement) and qaul Jadid (new statement) in the spectrum of thought of Imam Shafi’i. Originally, Imam Shafi’i made a statement for fiqh. However, later this statement became Qaul qadim (old statement) because he came across a new situation which led him to create a new statement or qaul Jadid. This indicates the flexibility of fiqh.

Many of Islamic book references (kitab kuning) used in the traditional Islamic boarding school (Pesantren) in Indonesia highlight the need for Muslims to apply awareness and wisdom when making historical reflections or interpreting Islamic fiqh thought in the early Islamic period. This perspective of Islamic law teaches that new approaches must be in accordance with the legal consciousness of society, namely law which was formed by environmental awareness, or with the local culture and traditions.

It is necessary to consider the traditions of the indigenous people when formulating local forms of Islamic law in Indonesia. This concept is based on Islam’s egalitarian characteristics, so that all cultural elements in Indonesian society can be a source of Islamic law. This argument denies the idea that only Arab culture can be the basis for the formulation of Islamic law.

Religious Harmony and Social Stability

Not all ‘urf or culture conflicts with Islamic teachings and therefore, they can be used as the source of Islamic law. The late president Abdurrahman Wahid, when he was leader of the Islamic organisation Nahdahtul Ulama (NU), conceptualised local Islamic teachings. According to him, localised Islamic teaching is interpreted as an attempt to hold on to the cultural roots of Indonesia, while still trying to create a religious community. In his thinking, Abdurrahman Wahid tried to place Islam and other cultures in a position of dialogue. From this basis, he refused to accept any movement adopting a hegemonic position whether privileging “Islamisation”, “Arabisation” or “the formalisation of Islamic teachings in the cultural sphere”.

In the context of Indonesia, the Indonesian formulation of Islamic law is very important. This idea can develop two important paradigms in localising Islamic law. The first is contextual: Islamic law is understood as a doctrine associated with the dimensions of the time and place. Changing the time and place must influence the interpretation or Ijtihad (individual interpretation) in Islamic law. Since Islamic law is adaptive it can be applied to every era and place (fi kulli zamanin wa fi kuli makanin). Secondly, Islamic law respects local traditions as long as these traditions are not in conflict or can be reconciled with Islamic principles.

Therefore Islamic law should consider local tradition and should not view local tradition as an object that must be defeated. As Indonesia’s case highlights, religious harmony and socio-stability prevail when Islamic law is positioned in synthesis with local tradition.

Adri Wanto is a Research Analyst with the Indonesia Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. He studied at a Pesantren in West Sumatra (Nurul Yaqin, Padang Pariaman), Indonesia.

source: http://www.eurasiareview.com/analysis/indonesian-islam-what-went-right-20122010/

Continue reading »]]> by Meryem Weld

The composition and history of Western civili zation is exceedingly complex and it is not an easy task to outline the importance of Christianity within it without over-simplifying and obscuring the question altogether. Christianity is itself a complex and multiform phenomenon that has undergone many transformations and divisions through the ages and the term should be defined carefully in whatever context it is being used. Having said that, we shall offer one or two points in the hope that it may point towards a way that true Christianity may take in order to draw closer to Islam.
From the very earliest days, sects and groups of the most diverse nature flourished in the Christian movement, each holding opposing views on the most fundamental tenets of Christian belief. The ‘orthodox’ views prevailed on the conversion of the Emperor Constantine in the early 4th century A.D. and from that event the course of future Christianity was set. Although they would later be developed into a complicated theology, the basic ideas on the nature of God as a trinity and the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ (Upon whom be peace) were accepted as fundamental and necessary beliefs. Also the nature of authority was established at that time and took the form of the Emperor as the head of the Church supported by a hierarchy of bishops, priests and deacons on the one hand, with the laity or ordinary believers on the other.
Subsequent centuries saw many developments and splits within what had then become accepted to be Christianity. In 1054 A.D. the Eastern Orthodox Churches rejected the claims of the papacy and broke away from the Western Catholic Church, but despite this their beliefs and the internal structures of their Churches remained broadly similar to the Roman Church. It was not until the Reformation that split the Western Church in the 16th century that not only was the authority of the papacy and the domination of the Church and its hierarchy challenged, but also there were serious attempts to return to the Bible and purify the Christian faith itself. Nevertheless, with a very few exceptions, the majority of the Protestant sects and Churches that emerged, with the exception of denying papal supremacy, cannot really be seen to have developed into anything radically different to the Catholic Church.
We may therefore make the two following points. Firstly, the institution of the Church came to be the representative of Christianity, although it had taken as its basis beliefs contrary to the pure monotheism taught by Jesus (UWP) and had superimposed these on the already existing Roman social and political system. And secondly, the internal structure of the Church, with its hier archy on the one hand, and ordinary Christians on the other was a rigid and oppressive institution that did not allow for the free exercise of reason and the development of knowledge. We may say, therefore, that a truly Christian civilization never developed, but that the Western civilization that did develop and that is known as Christian civili zation is in fact a development of classical Graeco-Roman civilization.
Nevertheless, as we.said to start with, it is an exceedingly complex question and while Western civilization is and always had as its base philoso phy rather than Revelation, it has also been one might say, leavened, tempered, or even softened by true Christianity, that is, those of Christ’s teachings that have been preserved in the New
Testament and the authentic parts of the Old Tes tament. The influence of this true Christianity on Western civilization has been stronger in some periods of history than in others. That it has been present is undeniable but to isolate and describe pure manifestations of it is difficult. Perhaps it can be said that at an individual level people have received and continue to receive genuine inspira tion and guidance through Jesus (UWP)’s teach ings and that this has been reflected in the society and civilization at large.
By the Early Middle Ages the Church had gained a stranglehold over all forms of cultural life. As mentioned above, the hierarchical struture itself of the church and power that the hierarchy enjoyed in relation to the laity prevented the growth of a spirit of enquiry. Education was lim ited to the clergy, so that the body of ordinary Christians merely followed them blindly in their ignorance. And among the clergy, the absolute power enjoyed by the papacy disallowed any advance in knowledge. Any new thought that threw into question the accepted dogmas of the Church, as all advances in knowledge could not fail to do, was branded as heresy and suppressed. These reasons, among others, therefore, meant that the society and civilization could only pro gress in so far as they could shake off this oppre-sive domination of the Church. As the strangle hold of the Church slackened, there was a great upsurge in scientific discovery and in progress inall fields of knowledge. However, it must be stated that it shared the same foundations as the Church and civilization that had preceeded it. In fact, what could it be other than the continuation of the Renaissance, that reaffirmation of the clas sical Graeco-Roman inspiration of Western civili zation?
In the Thirtieth Word, Bediuzzaman Said Nursi explains human history in terms of two cur rents or lines of thought, the line of prophethood and religion and that of philosophy and science, and he relates these to the human ego and describes the results they have yielded. The line of prophethood, which represents Divine revela tion, corresponds to man’s heart, and the line of philosophy, to his intellect or reason. The aim is for these two lines to be united, that is, for the line of philosophy to be obedient to and of service to the line of prophethood and religion. Whenever this has occurred, mankind has experienced true harmony and happiness, but when they have become separated, goodness and light have been drawn to the latter, and evil and misguidance to the former.
Thus, when man does not accept Divine revela tion he will rely on his own reason and will take his desires and impulses as his criteria. Since he imagines that he owns himself, he will be com pelled to imagine that everything else owns itself. This is the basis of the materialist philosophy which developed in the West. Instead of all causes, from the vastest galaxies to the minutest particles, being attributed directly their Creator, power is given to each of them. Each cause is imagined to have an actual effect, it is given the power to create. Such a man will attribute power and creativity to a false concept like Nature, or the laws of Nature, or the forces of Nature. Since he does not accept the key, the plan, the guide to understanding the universe that has been sent by its True Owner, he will not know how to approach it. Relying only on his own intellect and criteria he will run into immediate difficulties and contradictions. He will project these conflicts and contradictions that he experiences within himself as a result of acting contrary to the manner in which he has ben created on to the world outside himself. He will interpret what he sees in that world as struggle and competition and he will come up with such irrational claims as ‘life is a conflict,’ ‘might is right,’ ‘the survival of the fit test,’ ‘in power there is right,’ and so on. It is not difficult to see how accurately this describes Western thought.
Furthermore, such a man will see only the apparent face of the universe, he will not under stand its meaning. It will remain meaningless and purposeless for him. And this ownership and power that he claims will not bring him any real happiness, on the contrary, his endless desires will make him a slave to every cause he seeks to sat isfy them with. Since he denies his Creator and True Object of Worship, he will worship idols and false gods to the number of causes to which he gives power. He will fall from being the aim and fruit of creation to being abased and abject, groveling to every cause that will bring him per­sonal benefits,’ seeking to satisfy his greed and pride.
Thus, if we set aside for a moment the ele ments of true Christianity in Western civilization and their effects, we can see the results of the negative and rotten foundations of the line of science and philosophy. To quote Bediuzzaman, “Its aim and purpose are benefit and self-interest, after which everyone jostles and pushes without restraint. Its principle in life is conflict, which manifests itself in contention and discord. The tie between different groups is racialism and negative nationalism, which thrives on devouring others and which manifests itself in ghastly clashes. Its alluring service is encouraging the passions of the soul, satisfying its desires, and facilitating the attainment of its wishes.”
Since it does not spring from truth and reality and since its aim is not truth and reality, Western civilization has to resort to subterfuge and lies in order to perpetuate itself. Conflict, aggression, self-interest, discord, racialism and lust are indeed repugnant to man’s nature, therefore it both cloaks these ugly facts and deliberately perverts and dulls man’s nature. In order to maintain some sort of equilibrium among all those anarchic for ces, it pitilessly exploits the young and plays off group against group in the society. It excites aggression, animality and racialism through films, pornography, pop music, television and the media, and then seeks to control the release of those forces through seemingly innocent football and sport, pop concerts and festivals, political demonstrations, and minor though sustained con flict between different racial and social groups.
The major requirement in the perpetuation of this system is to stop people thinking, to deaden their perception, to smother their innate urge to find the truth. The whole edifice of Western art and culture is directed towards this aim. In partic ular it addresses the educated classes, satisfying their senses, flattering their conceit, and deceiving them into thinking that they are concerned with reality. The economic system, which is based on waste and consumption, aims to produce, at least for some sections of the society, a false, material paradise in which unfortunate Western man may drown in unthinking comfort and pleasure.
But what a hell they create, Man is not an ani mal. While his body wallows in glamour and affluence, his spirit, conscience, mind, and heart suffer the torments of hell.
The line of prophethood and religion, on the other hand, has as its base Divine revelation. A man who accepts this acknowledges that of him self he is nothing, he is a slave of God, his duty is to use his intellect and other faculties in learning to know God so that he may learn how to please Him with service and worship. He will learn from the revealed books not only what he is himself and his duty, but also the true nature of the uni verse and its duty. He will not get bogged down in its mere functioning, its apparent face of cau sality, beautiful, intricate and absorbing though it is; rather, his eyes will be directed through that wonderful functioning to the meaning behind it. He will see that each being from the minutest par­ticles to the vastest galaxies is performing endless duties in perfect submission and obedience, that beings are rushing to the assistance of the other beings in accordance with a law of co-operation that prevails over the cosmos, that singly and alto gether these beings are proclaiming the glory, beauty, and perfections of their single Compas sionate and Merciful Creator.
The firm and positive foundations of the line of prophethood result in a civilization the bases of which are as follows. Again to quote Bediuzza-man: “Its point of support is truth instead of force, which is manifest as justice and equity. Instead of benefit and self-interest its aims are vir tue and God’s pleasure, which are manifest as love and friendly competition. In place of racial ism and nationalism its means of unity are the bonds of religion, country, and class, which are manifest as sincere brotherhood and concord, and co-operation in only defending against outside aggression. The principle in life is that of mutual assistance and co-operation instead of conflict, which is manifest as unity and mutual support. In place of lust is guidance, which is manifest as progress for humanity and being perfected spiritu ally.”
Before concluding this section we shall analyse in more detail these principles quoted from Bediuzzaman Said Nursi and see how they actu ally manifest themselves both on the level of the individual and of society, concentrating firstly on Western civilization and society.
We saw above that if man does not acknow ledge the Creator and True Owner of the universe, he will claim ownership himself and be forced to attribute ownership or power to causes, that is, beings, outside himself; for example, to the sun, or the so-called forces and laws of Nature, such as gravity or nuclear forces. Therefore, since such a person does not believe that every single aspect of all the activity apparent in the universe is directly controlled, planned and created by One Ail-Powerful, Knowing, Wise, Compassionate, Merciful, and Just Creator, he will not only attrib ute its wonderful functioning to a manifestly absurd concept like chance or coincidence, but he will also see himself as justified in dominating and exploiting for his own benefits as much of the universe over which he can extend his power.
Power or force, therefore, becomes a fundamental principle of materialist philosophy, and man’s benefits the primary purpose or aim.
What does this mean in practice? We saw that Western civilization came to be fundamentally materialist. While it is undeniable that the Churches exert some influence over individuals and society, true Christianity, or pure monothe ism, failed to influence Western philosophy. Its aim, therefore, since it is not God’s pleasure and worship and service of Him through adhering to His law and commands, is man’s pleasure and man’s benefits. The ultimate purpose of the uni verse, in so far as it can be seen to have one, is to serve man’s interests. Man’s attitude towards the universe, then, becomes aggresssive and exploita tive; the universe, and all beings, are there for his use and benefit to whatever degree he can increase his power and thus his domination over them. This manifests itself plainly on all levels: political, national, international, societal. What is the real aim of much modern science and technol ogy? What is ‘Stars Wars’ and the race for space? And while ecologists and governments wring their hands over its effects ecologically and economi cally, let them consider the real causes.
This attitude necessarily expresses itself at the personal level as it does at the universal, for it is the manifestation of a basic belief. Although it is abhorrent to man’s true nature, and also although it may not immediately appear to be thus, a person who is not acting purely for God’s sake will seek to serve his own interests and follow his own benefits on the personal level, too, at the expense of others, whether they be his children, parents, spouse, friends or whatever. The results of this are plain for all to see in the West. Ever-increasing numbers of broken homes, divorce, and neglect of children, especially with regard to then-training and real education if not materially, just for a start.
Furthermore, the contradictions and conflicts that arise from adhering to such a view of the world result in a psychological imbalance that in turn all too often gives rise to both real mental ill ness and to the inhuman and distressing behaviour and crime that has become only too familiar to us in the news media. The reasons for the prisons and mental hospitals being crammed with increas ing numbers of inmates should be sought here and not in such matters as unemployment and social conditions, which, though real problems, can in no way be seen to be a fundamental cause.
Although the majority of people may not be driven to such extremes, their state is basically the same. Man is not designed to bear the burden of unbelief. He is impotent and at the same time sub ject to endless desires and needs. He therefore is in need of an All-Powerful, Wise, and Compas sionate Sustainer Who is able to answer all those desires and needs, that in fact reach to eternity. If he denies that Sustainer, he takes on himself not only all his own needs and problems, which he cannot secure, but also, since he is connected to the rest of the universe, he will be weighed down by all the problems and injustices in the world, which he is certainly powerless to solve. And then there is death, that inescapable reality that stands implacably at the end of the passage of life. What real hope or joy can death leave to someone who subscribes to materialist philosophy?
These great burdens of unbelief lead to a men tality of escapism. Western civilization compels people to entirely wrap themselves up in veils of oblivion in order to escape from the pain and despair that it inflicts on them. It is quite clear once one starts to notice it. Fiction, science-fiction, sport, music, television, video, films, ‘cul ture’; they are all universally used as’ means of escaping. Many people openly admit that they indulge in such pastimes and hobbies in order to escape from the realities of life. Walk down any street or even comb the universities or seek out the intellectuals and see how many will be pre pared to sit down and have a serious discussion of the meaning of life and death. They will avoid it at all costs. For if they do not recognize that Sin gle All-Compassionate Sustainer, the reality is just too painful and terrifying.
This escapism is strenunously encouraged in the West as the major means of perpetuating the system, but the true nature of Western civilization is now becoming inescapably clear. For four and a half centuries the West was engaged in a vigor ous expansion, and the aggressive forces men tioned above were directed outside itself and towards that expansion. But with its contraction an equilibrium cannot be maintained. The West ern materialist system necessitates the excitement and release of those aggressive forces, but in the restricted sphere they turn inwards, as it were, resulting in conflict and violence that can no longer be controlled. This conflict and violence, too, has become familiar to us in the form of foot ball hooliganism, racial violence, political Vio lence, violent crime. In many areas, it is no longer safe even to walk in the streets; there is an atmo sphere of anarchy, aggressiveness, and fear.
The society and civilization that revealed relig ion gives rise to presents a completely different picture. The need for force and aggression does not arise since all power and ownership is attrib uted directly to the True Owner of the universe. A believer recognizes that while being the aim and fruit of creation to whom the universe is in trust, the requirement of his exalted position is to use all the faculties and abilities he has been given in the service of that Ail-Powerful and Generous Owner. By conforming to the law and commands that He has revealed, he too will manifest the jus tice, balancé and equilibrium that is so apparent in the universe. Since he-recognizes God, the All-Wise and Compassionate Possessor of Absolute Power and Absolute Knowledge, and knows himself to be powerless and utterly needy, he understands that all benefits, bounty and good are given directly by God, so, while striving his utmost to receive God’s bounty and pleasure, he will gratefully receive what is given and will shrink from exploiting in any manner his fellow creatures. For to act in self-interest and to seek benefits for oneself is to caim ownership of one self and to attempt to extend that ownership over other creatures; it necessarily entails aggression in some form against them, as well as being a viola tion of the balance and order in the universe.
Since society is formed of individuals, a truly Islamic society and civilization can only come into being as a result of people understanding, believing and acting on these principles. Only when the True Owner of the universe is recog nized with all His functioning Names and attrib utes can believers act with true justice and mani fest love and sincere brotherhood and co operation in society. Only then can they rise above petty self-interest and that most damaging modern sickness, nationalism, which, together with racialism, is again the false claiming of own ership and constitutes an aggresssion against fel low creatures, let alone the damage that it does to the Muslim community. In fact, as the principle of jihad shows us, in no circumstances can there be aggression, only defence against outside aggression.
Furthermore, since a truly Islamic society reflects how each believer sees the universe and since the believer sees the universe not in terms of conflict, ‘the survival of the fittest,’ and such like, but as a vast system of mutual assistance and co-operation, he extends this principle to every aspect of his personal and social life. He attempts to conform to the wisdom, balance and order in the universe, to the Law and commands sent by its True Owner, to the practices of His Most Noble Prophet (Upon whom be blessings and peace), whom He sent as a mercy to all the worlds.
As we stated at the beginning, our aim in ana lysing Western civilization is not merely to deni grate it, but rather in discovering its foundations and true face to be able to learn something of the relationship of Christianity to that civilization, and thus to find ways in which true Christianity might draw closer to the complete religion of Islam, the religion of God Almighty’s final revealed book, the Qur’an, and His final prophet, the Prophet Muhammad (Upon whom be bless ings and peace), in the hope that together we. might fight our common enemies of atheism and irreligion. We therefore draw the following con clusions.
Firstly, that the churches as institutions do not represent true Christianity. Nevertheless, contem porary movements within them suggest a tendency towards it. For example, in the Catholic Church, the movement of ‘aggiornamento’

(bringing up to date) that was instigated by Pope John XXm in the late 1950′s and was then largely ratified by Vatican Countil II. It tackled some of the problems mentioned above and there was a devolvement of power and responsibility away from the clergy to the laity. The stress was on the greater involvement of ordinary Christians. As a result of this movement, a freer and more intellectually active theology began to emerge. And thoughout Christianity there is an uncoordinated questioning and seeking for a truer form of the religion that takes different forms in differ ent places. This general atmosphere of question ing and searching leads us to hope that sincere Christians will be able to draw closer to Islam.
This brings us to our second conclusion, that the easiest method of finding one’s way through the maze of Western civilization, Christianity, and their histories and relationship and arrive at the truth is through the analysis outlined above.
Bediuzzaman Said Nursi presented us with a model of how we should look at history, our- selves, and the universe. That was in terms of Divine revelation and religion on the one hand, and reason, science and philosophy on the other.
The latter must be subservient and of service to the former, and not vice versa, which is what happened in the Christian world. This analysis shows clearly the basis and nature of Western civilization and also points to the path that should be , taken by those Christians who wish to extricate
themselves from the bog of materialism and enter the complete and wholesome world of God Almighty’s revealed religion.

source: http://www.risaleinur.us/read/?art=2986&t=Western+civilization,+Christianity,+and+Islam

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 »]]> Sociological Principles of The Qur’an
by Suat YILDIRIM

Sociology is the study of events, trends and relationships in human societies. Through such study we learn the principles that societies are based upon, how they develop and which factors strengthen or weaken them.

The Qur’an, which contains the Divine guidance necessary for humankind, gives the social dimensions of human life the most importance. That is why Muslim scholars reflected upon and wrote about sociological matters long before sociology was recognized as a formal discipline in Europe. Even acts of individual worship commanded by Islam have an essentially social or collective aspect which is evidently beneficial to the community, enabling mutual care and solidarity as well as identity and cohesion.

The principle of worship
Part of the rationale behind the duties of worship established by the Qur’an is to maintain social order by training individuals in submission to the One God of all. The Qur’anic concept of worship is inclusive—it means fulfilling the commands and avoiding the prohibited. Every aspect of a Muslim life is interrelated with every other and oriented to worship. Verses 21-22 of Chapter al-Baqara give the reason for calling human beings to worship:

The Qur’an, which contains the Divine guidance necessary for humankind, gives the social dimensions of human life the most importance. That is why Muslim scholars reflected upon and wrote about sociological matters long before sociology was recognized as a formal discipline in Europe . Even acts of individual worship commanded by Islam have an essentially social or collective aspect which is evidently beneficial to the community, enabling mutual care and solidarity as well as identity and cohesion.
O people! Worship your Guardian-Lord who created you and those who came before you, that you may have the chance to learn righteousness; who has made the earth your couch and the heavens your canopy; and sent down rain from heavens; and brought forth therewith fruits for your sustenance. Do not then set up rivals to God when you know [the truth].

The comprehensiveness of worship reflects the comprehensiveness of the Divine attributes upon which human life depends and of which it is always needy. This is clear in the great opening chapter of the Qur’an, al-Fatiha. Before saying You we worship and to You we turn for help, we praise and glorify God as Lord and Sustainer of all creatures and creation, as the Most Merciful and Compassionate, as Master of the Day of Judgement.
As the Qur’an emphasizes in many verses, worship strengthens and matures the conscience making it individually and socially active on behalf of good. Without it, the Islamic virtues do not become a part of the normal character of either individual Muslims or of their communities. The present condition of Muslims in the world, in spite of their huge numbers, illustrates how, if worship is neglected, families and societies lapse into mutual distrust, feuding and internal wars, making them vulnerable to external manipulation and thereby weakening them further as Muslims.
Worship is the means to contentment both in this world and in the Hereafter. It harmonizes worldly and otherworldly aspirations and activities because it sustains a vigorous, honourable bond of each and all with their Lord and, through their worshipping as the creatures of One God, with each other. Just as people working for a highly regarded company or enterprise are proud to declare their association with it, so too are alert, practising Muslims proud to declare their belonging to God through the service of worship and say: inna li-llah — we are for God, we belong to God.
How worship provides for man’s worldly contentment can be explained as follows:

1. Man is privileged compared to other creatures by his subtle and complex senses and faculties. He is most selective and scrupulous and is born with an inclination towards living rightly and seeking perfection, and a corresponding aversion to what is bad, ugly and gross. The inclination towards perfection means that he has almost infinite needs. Indeed, even to satisfy the needs essential for survival, namely food, clothing and shelter (security), he is obliged to co-operate with fellow human beings. Therefore, man is, essentially a social creature.

The development of three basic faculties—thinking, desiring and using force to achieve objectives—are restrained in all creatures except man. Because man is uniquely charged with the duty of stewardship of the creation, God has put no restraints upon the development of these faculties in man. There is, in consequence, a potential in man to unjust and unruly conduct, to do wrong to his best nature, to live selfishly at the expense and in disregard of others. But social life requires some measure of discipline on the part of a society’s members if it is to function effectively to secure the basic needs for all.

However, though all people agree upon the need for justice, their understanding of justice will differ according to a number of factors such as cultural background and level, conscience, experience, interests and relationships. Hence the need for an overarching authority whose command is acceptable on account of its universality and impartiality. This authority is religion. As the laws of physics, set by Divine command, are constant in their operations and neutral as regards man’s interventions in the natural world, so too the ordinances of religion (the laws of human relationships and relationship with God) are constant, unchanging and impartial.

For man to consent to obey the commands of religion, he must be alert to the Divine Power which created him and all things. He must understand and remember the principles of belief, in particular that he is sent to this world to be tested and perfected, that the One who sent him observes him constantly and knows the condition of his innermost being and hears his every petition. Worship is the principal means to maintain this state of mind and to improve it.

2.Worship awakens conscience and therefore keeps people honest in their social relations and duties.

3. Worship, because of its social dimensions, maintains the quality of human relationships. Regular prayer enables meeting and interaction with other Muslims in the mosque; fasting at least one month each year reminds the prosperous and well-fed of the conditions of the less-fortunate and unites all in a shared discipline; the obligation to pay the alms-tax requires an effort to create prosperity and then share it to achieve distributive balance in the economy; the greater pilgrimage to Makka assembles all the diverse tribes and nations of Muslims in a great, public demonstration of unity and solidarity under One God.

It is hard to conceive of any more effective means of establishing social harmony and mutual responsibility than the duties of worship in Islam.

The principle of striving
One of the laws set in the universe by God is work or striving. As God is always active (Qur’an, 85.16) He commands human beings to be active also and renew themselves. The whole creation is constantly busy in glorifying and praising God (e.g. 59.1). The world of living organisms hums with the rhythms of labouring:
And your Lord taught the bee to build its cells in hills, on trees, and in [men’s] habitations… (Nahl, 56.68)

Many verses (e.g. 56.11-4) tell that day and night, sun and moon and stars etc., are for the service of human beings, to enable their striving in every dimension of human life.

Striving is so much a part of the structure of the universe that to resist it is more burdernsome than to go along with it. That is why a person who lies in bed all day making no effort is less happy than one who strives and struggles.

The principle of constancy in truth
The Qur’an tells us that God will help those who are constant in their adherence to and striving for the faith:
So neither lose heart nor fall into despair: for you must gain mastery if you are true in faith. (Al ‘lmran, 3.139)
The promised help is conditional:
1. There are two Ashari’ahs: the natural and the revealed, or the book of the universe and the Book of Revelation, the Qur’an.

The recompense for obedience or disobedience of the laws given in the Qur’an is seen mostly in the Hereafter whereas the recompense of following the laws given in the universe is mostly seen in this world. For example, the reward of perseverance in the laws of religion is ultimate victory, the reward of incompetence in understanding or applying the laws of nature is misery. It follows that a truthful person may be unsuccessful if he uses the wrong means and an untruthful person may be successful if he uses the right means.

2. Though a Muslim should be the bearer of all Islamic qualities it does not always happen so: a non-Muslim may be a better example of an Islamic quality. That’s why it can happen that an Islamic quality of a non-Muslim triumphs over the un-Islamic one of a Muslim.

Absence of the concept of ‘primitive’ peoples
Sociological and anthropological theory in the West still adheres to the notion that, at the beginning of human history, human beings and societies were ‘primitive’ and gradually evolved and progressed until they reached the ‘civilized’ state of societies as they are today.

The Qur’an does not teach any such notion of ‘primitiveness’. All human beings are descended from the Prophet Adam, who was taught the names of all things, and his wife, Eve. Neither their mode of life nor their relationships nor their religious worship were ‘primitive’.

Human societies frequently declined from their true or original state of recognizing and worshipping One God, and Prophets and Messengers were sent to teach them and guide them to righteousness. Throughout history, many societies and nations of so-called ‘high civilization’ were destroyed on account of their spiritual and moral decadence, and the Qur’an gives warning narratives about them. It is in part because of the absence of a concept of ‘primitiveness’ that Islamic rule over so many diverse peoples of the world has been, in general, tolerant, patient and assimilative with their diversity, whereas Western rule has been, in general, impatient, brutal and destructive.

All civilizations or cultures have a span of life, just as an individual human life has its determined span:
To every people is a term appointed: when their term is reached, not an hour can they delay it, nor advance it. (A’raf, 7.34)

Comparison with Western civilization
The Christian peoples by and large rejected the Qur’an’s offer to hold some common ground between themselves and the Muslims and to leave their differences to the Will of God (see. e.g., Al Imran, 3.64).

Though hard to believe now, at the time of the rise of Islam, the lands of the southern Mediterranean were the wealthiest part, in intellectual, cultural and economic terms, of the then Christian world. When these lands were conquered by Muslims and, with the passage of time, great numbers of Christians accepted Islam, many clerics became quite irrational in their attitude to Islam and presented it, willfully, in the most outrageously false manner. The early climax of this irrational hatred of Islam was the long wars of the Crusades. This dreadful campaign against Islam was formally abandoned seven centuries ago. However, an important part of it was the embedding of images which remain deep in the cultural attitudes (and the languages) of European peoples. Just as it is impossible, despite all the historical evidence to the contrary, to alter the image, created by centuries of Church propaganda, of witches or of Vikings, so too, it seems, it is impossible to alter the negative image of Muslims and Islam in popular Western consciousness.

After the Renaissance, civilization in Europe separated itself from the Christian religion and moved towards materialism and humanism. It took rather more of its inspiration from Greek philosophy and Roman political and administrative order and very little from Christianity. The Islamic civilisation which protects the Revelation continued to be regarded as the major threat and rival throughout the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods. When the military and economic balance had shifted, following the industrial revolution in Europe, overwhelmingly against the Islamic world, the Europeans tended to regard Muslims more with contempt than fear

Now, after the collapse of Communism, some authoritative Western figures have explicitly declared that the only enemy of the West is Islam. At this cross-roads, both parties, Western civilization and Qur’anic civilization, should state clearly what kind of people and society they want so that a choice can be made between them:

According to Western philosophy the basic rule in collective affairs is selfish conflict over who controls and profits from available resources. The outcome of this conflict is determined by power. The best that civilized society can offer is to balance powers within and between groups so that conflict is mitigated to some extent. Solidarity within the group has commonly been expressed as an extension of selfishness to embrace a particular nation or race. This means that the Western nations have felt free to exploit weaker peoples beyond their frontiers, to regard them as lesser beings who do not deserve the same rights and privileges, and should not expect the same share of the world’s goods, as themselves. The consequence of this philosophy has been continual tension between peoples expressed in overt or covert war. Within societies the same philosophy has been expressed in the conflict between economic classes and in ever-increasing levels of alienation and anxiety. In certain respects, community life, even family life, have ceased to function as a resource for people. Having no other status than as consumer units, and finding no other means of consolation, of belonging to society, the great mass of people are reduced to pointless consumption.

In absolute contrast, the Qur’an assures us that the basic rule in both individual and collective life is seeking the pleasure of God. Since God is the Most Merciful and Compassionate, seeking His pleasure means seeking virtue and contentment instead of pleasure and self-aggrandisement. It means that virtue is a practicable goal for a human society, that the governing principle of collective life is cooperation, not conflict. It means that what unites a people as a community is not primarily race or nationality but their shared status as servants of the One God and the bond of religion. That is why, in the Islamic world, by and large, mutual help and social welfare programmes were reasonably effective in spite of comparatively low levels of gross wealth. In the Western countries, expenditures on such programmes constitute a fraction of gross wealth and are under constant threat because the basic motive of these programmes is not mutual caring but the avoidance of class conflict: if gross wealth declines (as is happening at present) the level of ‘social spending’ is reduced in spite of the ‘social cost’ in civil unrest and crime.

Western civilization, for all its many splendid achievements is bound to fail, because of its radically unsound basic principles, to bring happiness to humankind. It can and does provide great material prosperity (amid great waste) to a segment of a segment of the human population. The Qur’an commands a balanced growth and development because it defines human beings, individually and collectively, as belonging to this world and the Hereafter, and as answerable, all equally, to their One Creator.

source: fountainmagazine.com

Continue reading »]]>

by Mona Maisami
The relationship between Islam and globalization has been open to much interpretation and acrimonious debate. At the crux of the current debate is the idea that Islam is somehow opposed to the process of globalization. In this article, I will illustrate why this debate should more accurately be deemed as a debate between Islam and Westernization. I argue that Islam is not against the process of globalization per se, but rather that the tension is due to the process of Westernization.

Globalization or Westernization?

As the mere terminology surrounding the debate has led to a considerable amount of confusion and misunderstanding, we need to define our terms. Globalization is the spread and exchange of people, goods, and ideas across the globe. Characteristically, it is directly associated with change, or transformation, modernity, and an increasingly interdependent relationship between different regions of the world. “Globalization is an aspect of human life that has always been there since the beginning of humanity. It corresponds with the natural human instinct and man’s tendency towards being a ‘social animal.’ It is the tendency with which God has created man to live on exchanging his sources and experiences with others around him, in order to achieve and realize the best chances of life.” (1)

However, globalization is frequently associated with the liberal classical economic theory, and since the mid-1970s with neo-liberalism, which has its roots in the classical economic theory. More specifically, globalization is considered a reflection of the classical economic theory’s principle of comparative advantage, which promotes an open economic system and free trade in order to achieve and realize the best chances of life.

Although the process of globalization has been linked with concepts of comparative advantage, free trade, and open economy, its origins can be traced to a time long before such ideas appeared. In order to develop a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of the so called “Islam-globalization” debate, it is critical to distinguish between the process of globalization in its original sense and such relatively more contemporary processes, like Westernization, that are masked as globalization and yet are fundamentally different.

“Globalization targets the narrowing of the gaps separating different communities. This is done by exchanging benefits in all aspects of life — economic, social, scientific, and political governance. That is, they exchange information, understand each other’s values and codes of ethics and build a common ground.” (2) In contrast, Westernization does not consider such an understanding or building of such common ground to be worthwhile enterprises. Globalization is a process in which “the whole world becomes like a small village, where the less advanced communities can develop their capacities” and that “tends to be a two-way street process, which makes it possible for each community to take as well as to give.” (3) Westernization, on the other hand, tends to be a one-way street, meaning that one region attempts to dominate and control other regions in the name of globalization. Moreover, while globalization occurs through the free will of different communities, Westernization is characteristically imposed upon other regions.

Islam’s role

Having clarified the difference between globalization and Westernization, the Islam-globalization debate can be assessed more accurately. Islam is not anti-globalization (or modernity, which is considered to be a by-product of globalization) in its original sense, but Muslims do have a problem with Westernization. “Although Westernization of society is condemned, modernization as such is not. Science and technology are accepted, but they are to be subordinated to Islamic belief and values in order to guard against the Westernization and secularization of Muslim society.” (4) Based upon historical precedence and contemporary evidence, Islam clearly embraces globalization in its original form, which is based upon free-will and not upon the aggressive imposition of the West upon the East.

First of all, it is important to note that Islam orders people to cooperate, to be helpful to one another according to goodness and piety, and not to be helpful in evil and malice (Qur’an 5:2). This principle is fully endorsed by Prophet Muhammad on the local level, regardless if your neighbor is a Muslim or not. Surely this principle can be extended into the international level, where a neighboring country can be defined as any country that has normal economic and political relations with the Islamic world.(5)

Other factors illustrate Islam’s acceptance and predominant role in the process of globalization. “For several centuries, Arabic was the world’s leading language in sciences. Muslims made important advances in mathematics, astronomy and medicine — a legacy from which European scholars derived great benefit,” and which led to the Renaissance. (6) Globalization is not only a Western phenomenon, for “the agents of globalization are neither European nor exclusively Western, nor are they necessarily linked to Western dominance. Indeed, Europe would have been a lot poorer — economically, culturally, and scientifically — had it resisted the globalization of mathematics, science, and technology [from the East]…”(7)

We have to differentiate between the gifts of globalization and the products of Westernization. More specifically, the Islam-globalization debate in itself is built upon a number of mistaken diagnoses that misconstrue Islam’s place in the globalized world — one that has been quite productive in the past and has the potential to be productive in the future. The misguided assumption that Islam opposes globalization and modernization is dangerous, because it could potentially result in the loss of Islam’s significant contributions to the rest of the world.

Muslim attitudes toward Westernization

The Muslim world’s reaction to Westernization, and the West’s emergence as the dominant force transforming the world, must be assessed. “It is similar to the emergence of the Arab Muslims as a major world power in the seventh and eighth centuries…”(8) It is important to note that “the Muslim weakness at the end of the eighteenth century coincided with the rise of an entirely different type of civilization in the West, and this time the Muslim world would find it far more difficult to meet the challenge.”(9) In the past, Muslim communities were able to revitalize Islam’s role and power in the world. However, the impact of Westernization was an unprecedented experience that significantly challenged Islam and created a bi-polar dichotomy that separated the West from the rest — and specifically from Islam.

From a historical perspective, Westernization minimized Islam’s role and made it dependent upon the Western way of doing things. “The Islamic world has been convulsed by the modernization process. Instead of being one of the leaders of world civilization, Islamdom was quickly and permanently reduced to a dependent bloc by European powers.”(10) As a result, resentment toward the West emerged. Muslims questioned whether they would have to accept Western-style modernization or be deemed as being anti-globalization. “From this point, a growing number of Muslims would wrestle with these questions, and their attempts to put Muslim history back on the straight path would sometimes appear desperate and even despairing. The suicide bomber — an almost unparalleled phenomenon in Islamic history — shows that some Muslims are convinced that they are pitted against hopeless odds.”(11)

The emergence and rise of extremism can be directly attributed to the resulting resentment toward the Western style of globalization — a one-way process that does not strive to create a common ground between the West and other regions, and hence the desire and perceived need to pursue religious revivalism. However, we should realize that violence and extremism are not exclusively Islamic phenomena. “The Western media often gives the impression that the embattled and occasionally violent form of religiosity known as fundamentalism is a purely Islamic phenomenon. This is not the case. Fundamentalism is a global fact and has surfaced in every major faith in response to the problems of our modernity.”(12)

“For Islamic society, the underlying concerns regarding globalization are: how to protect a unique heritage in the face of global pressure; to uphold religious traditions; to preserve linguistic purity; to defend social institutions; and ultimately, to maintain a viable identity in the midst of a rapidly changing global environment.”(13) According to Islam, complete submission to God is the first and foremost priority for all Muslims. Anything that undermines Islamic principles is considered a threat to Islam’s longevity and power in the world. More importantly, we should be aware of the fact that despite the Islam-West bi-polarization, Islam is rapidly becoming a global phenomenon that transcends the boundaries that once separated the West from the rest.

Global Islam: The growing phenomenon and implications for the future

Islam is the second largest religion and the fastest growing religion in the world. Islam began to spread in Arabia around the year 610 A.D. when Prophet Muhammad began receiving revelations from God through Archangel Gabriel, sharing with others what he had been told. Today, Islam is a global phenomenon represented by Muslims across the world. “Fifteen million Muslims reside in Europe, and seven to eight million in the United States. There are now about a thousand mosques each in Germany and France, and five hundred in the United Kingdom.”(14) One factor that may explain the rapid spread of Islam is the process of globalization itself.

Islam’s future depends upon its ability to wed Western-style modernism with Islamic principles, or, in other words, whether it can develop an Islamic-style modernism. The challenge is to engage in modernity without sacrificing Muslim values or undermining Islamic principles. “As we are only slowly realizing, Islam is truly a world religion, increasingly visible in Europe and the United States as well as Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.”(15) It is significant for the future of Islam that “the capitals and major cities of Islam are not only Cairo, Istanbul, Mecca, but equally Paris, London, New York.”(16)

Given that Islam has become a global phenomenon, it is increasingly important that its principles are respected and not made irrelevant in the modern world. “All religious people in any age have to make their traditions address the challenge of their particular modernity…”(17) Rather than provoking the bi-polarization of the world, separating Islamic values from Western values, the goal of globalization is to develop an understanding of each other’s values and codes of ethics and to establish a common ground. Establishing a common ground is vital for ensuring the progress of globalization and allowing the world to reach its full potential. Modernization and globalization need to respect the identities of all regions and respect religion as a natural necessity for humanity.

Conclusion

The struggle for religion to remain relevant in the world is common to all religions at some point in history. Much of the literature surrounding the current Islam-globalization debate provides an inadequate and fragmented view of religion’s role in the process of globalization. Secularization, which is promoted in the current forms of globalization, is a new concept. In fact, based upon historical precedence, religion has played a key role in contributing to globalization and, more specifically, Islam has had a predominant role. The challenge for the future of a globalized world, and not just for Islam, is to be helpful to one another according to goodness and piety, and not to be helpful in evil and malice (Qur’an 5:2).

Footnotes

1 www.IslamOnline.com.
2 www.IslamOnline.com.
3 www.IslamOnline.com.
4 John Esposito, Islam: The Straight Path, 3d ed. (Oxford University Press, 1998), 165.
5 Choudhury, www.Islamic-finance.net.
6 Hardy, http://news.bbc.co.uk.
7 Sen, www.prospect.org.
8 Karen Armstrong, Islam: A Short History, (Modern Library: 2002), 141.
9 Ibid., 138.
10 Ibid.,
146.
11 Ibid., 153.
12 Ibid., 164.
13 Dr. Ahmed Kamal Aboulmagd, The Middle East Times,
14 Armstrong, Islam, 176.
15 Esposito, Islam, xvi.
16 Ibid, 203.
17 Armstrong, Islam, 164.

source: fountainmagazine.com

Continue reading »]]> by Fethullah Gulen
The Muslims are those from whose tongues and hands other Muslims are safe and sound. The emigrants are those who leave behind and abandon those things God has prohibited.[1]

Let us briefly analyze the above hadith. Notice the presence of the definite article (al in Arabic) before Muslim. What can be extrapolated from this is that there are ideal believers who enter an atmosphere of safety and security, having so immersed themselves in that atmosphere that they harm no one with their hands or tongues. This refers only to the true and ideal Muslims who leave their mark on all minds, not those who appear or claim to be so, or to those whose identity cards or passports have “Muslim” written on them. We understand this from the article used in the Arabic, which indicates something specific, definite. This is derived from the grammatical rule of the Arabic language: “When something is described by a definite article, the item’s highest and most perfect condition is indicated.” So, when one hears “the believer,” the first thing that comes to mind is the most perfect meaning of “believer,” and that is what is meant in this hadith.

Moreover, one cannot learn such a fine grammatical point by oneself, for it is a topic that belongs to formal education. Hence, such an educational experience was not possible for the Messenger of God; he was illiterate. Thus, he was not speaking his own thoughts, but rather he was relaying what the Eternal Teacher taught him to say. For this reason, there are many subtle grammatical points found in the Prophet’s expressions and declarations, and there are no errors in usage.

Let us return to the above hadith: Real Muslims are people in whom one can feel confidence and trust, so much so that other Muslims can turn their backs on them without a second thought. One can entrust a family member to such people without fear; this person will suffer no injury from the hand or tongue of the Muslim. If one were to attend a gathering with a true Muslim, one could leave in full confidence that no one will gossip about one, nor would one have to listen to gossip about others. Such Muslims are as sensitive to the dignity and honor of other people as they are to their own. They do not eat; they feed others. They do not live for themselves; they live to enable others to live. They will even sacrifice their spiritual pleasure for others. I derive all these meanings from the fact that the definite article in Arabic also means hasr; a restraining, a devotion to a specific purpose.

Security and Muslims

Etymologically speaking, the word Muslim and the verb sa-li-ma both come from the root silm. This means that for Muslims, every matter takes place in line with silm (security), salamah (safety), and Muslim-ness. Muslims are seized by such a divine attraction that all of their actions take place around this powerful center.

They greet everyone with salaam, thereby placing love for themselves in everyone’s heart.[2] They end their prayers with salaam. All people, jinn, angels, and conscious creatures receive their salaam. That is, they exchange greetings with invisible creatures as well. Until now, no other people have extended this circle of greeting to such a degree as have the Muslims. Islam consists of performing such principal duties as fasting, giving alms, performing the Hajj, and striving to profess the faith. This means that they set sail on the sea of safety and security by obeying the command: Enter safety (Islam) whole-heartedly (2:208). Those who throw themselves into that sea emanate safety and Islam in every condition. No one sees anything but goodness in the actions and behavior of such people.

Why the Tongue and Hand?

As in every statement of our master, peace and blessings be upon him, every word in the hadith mentioned above was chosen carefully. Why did he choose the hand and the tongue to speak about? Of course there are many subtle points related to this choice. A person can harm someone in two ways: either directly or indirectly. The hand represents physical presence (directly), and the tongue represents absence (indirectly). People either attack others directly, physically, or indirectly, through gossip and ridicule. Real Muslims never engage in such activities, because they are supposed to always act justly and generously, whether they are acting directly or indirectly.

The Prophet mentioned the tongue before the hand because in Islam one can retaliate for what has been done with the hand. However, the same is not always true for damage done indirectly through gossip or slander. Thus, such action can easily cause conflict between individuals, communities, and even nations. Dealing with this type of harm is relatively more difficult than dealing with the harm caused by the hand, and this is the reason why the Prophet mentioned the tongue before the hand. On the other hand, the value of Muslims before God has been indicated. Being a Muslim has such a great value before God that other Muslims must control their hands and tongues in their actions toward them.

Another important moral dimension of Islam is that Muslims must keep at bay things that will harm others, whether physically or spiritually, and they must do their best not to harm others. Let alone not causing harm, every segment of Muslim society must also represent safety and security. Muslims can be real Muslims to the extent that they carry within themselves a feeling of safety and that their hearts beat with trust. Wherever they are or wherever they live this feeling that derives from al-salaam is revealed. They wish for safety upon departure, adorn their prayers with greetings, and send salaams to other believers when they end their prayers. In all probability, it is inconceivable that people who lead their whole lives in such an orbit of salaam would embark on a path that is contrary to the basic principles of safety, trust, soundness, and worldly and other-worldly security, thus causing harm to themselves or to others.

It would be useful to examine the very essence of these points: True Muslims are the most trustworthy representatives of universal peace. They travel everywhere with this sublime feeling, nourished deep in their spirits. Far from giving torment or suffering, they are remembered everywhere as symbols of safety and security. In their eyes, there is no difference between a physical (direct) or a verbal (indirect) violation of someone’s rights. In fact, in some cases the latter is considered to be a greater crime than the former.

[1] Bukhari, Iman, 4.
[2] Bukhari, Iman, 20; Muslim, Iman, 63.

source: fgulen.org

Continue reading »]]> Groups formed by disorganized and sinful (disobedient) individuals are merely crowds with no moral or esthetic values, people who are far removed from the thought of doing good. On the other hand, ideal, or complete, people carry the qualities of angels, and are monuments of human foresight and comprehension.

We see these qualities in the following Qur’anic verse, as well as in many others:

We have indeed created man in the most perfect form and nature. (AtTin 95:4)

The people to whom this verse refers understand it to mean that they are the most adorned and beautiful forms of creation, material or spiritual. They enjoy the perfect state of creation, and are conscious of the unlimited gifts that they have received.

Let us try to understand this verse: Humanity took on the responsibility that the Earth, the sky, and the mountains rejected, in fear that they would not be able to shoulder this duty. They perceived that humanity was the sole candidate for reaching immortality.

Humans may be considered as traveling on the path to becoming a complete person as long as they continue to develop the gifts with which they were adorned and to live according to divine inspiration.

Such mysteries, like the meaning of life and death, the reason of existence, and our responsibilities, are always on the minds of such people. They think deeply concerning sins, doing good, and being pious. The meaning of catastrophes that harm humanity agitates their minds; the light of divine wisdom shines in their hearts; the rays of this light are reflected on their souls.

All of this allows them to see behind the curtain. Their astonishment and amazement turns into love and affection, and they turn to the Creator of their souls and feel contentment. Souls at this level do not let Divine benevolence go to their heads, nor are they shaken by its loss, for they see benevolence and loss as one and the same thing, and understand that reward and punishment are also the same. While others are spoiled by such favors and descend into pessimism at the first sign of trouble, ideal people gain even when they seem doomed to lose. They manage to grow roses in the desert, to produce sugar from a dry cane.

Ideal people know that they are being continually tested and refined so that they may attain bliss. Even though they face fatal catastrophes and fall into the most terrible whirlpools, even in the most helpless and distressing moments, they hear comforting and consoling whispers from the other world; whispers that come from their innermost soul, and they bow in gratitude and admiration.

Such people have absolute confidence and trust in God, because they believe and trust in that omnipresent and omnipotent Immortal Power. The pure belief dwelling in the depths of their hearts, their perception that gives them unbelievable perspectives, and their knowledge and thoughts raise them to such a point that they can almost hear a voice say: “Fear not, nor be grieved, and receive good news of the garden which you were promised!”[1] and then they witness the most wonderful pleasures of all.

Ideal people try to remain removed from sin, for they have designed their lives according to the Divine Law in which they believe so sincerely. And, because they always struggle against their egos they have no time or energy to engage in ignorant pastimes or bohemian lifestyles. They are always on the look out for the beauty of their Friend, their minds are on the Hereafter, their hearts are bright and colorful gardens open to visits from spiritual beings, and they themselves are travelers in and explorers of this mystic land and atmosphere.

Worldly people who are enslaved by their egos live only to fulfill their carnal desires. Never content, they feel no tranquility. But ideal people are always at peace with themselves. They are content and, furthermore, they place their knowledge and understanding at the service of humanity. They courageously devote themselves to ridding the world of injustice and tyranny, and are not afraid to protect their land and honor. And, at times, they gracefully spread their wings of forgiveness over their brothers and sisters.

Knowing that everything but God is mortal and will fade away, ideal people do not bow before anything or anyone other than God. They resist the seductive attractions of the material world . . . they assess and use in the way of God that which has been bestowed upon them, just like heavenly beings . . . they examine all that occurs like a scientist in a laboratory . . . they dedicate their lives to humanity and leave a much better world for coming generations.

Ideal people constantly pursue God’s blessing and strive to be true. Neither their bodily passions nor spiritual goals cast doubts on their sincerity. They value all servants of God as being the greatest of people, and appreciate each as their peer. In their hearts, they melt any harshness or bad feelings that emanates from others, thus showing how kindness defeats wrong.

In their bright atmosphere, spears of lightning fade away. . . Nimrod, a merciless emperor who ordered Prophet Abraham to be thrown into the fire, saw his flames die down and turn into a green garden that soothed harsh and illtempered souls.

Most of us have not reached this level yet. We cannot confront wrongdoing with kindness. We confront harshness with harshness and hate with hate. We convince ourselves that our thoughts are objective and not really our own selfish desires. Thus we besmirch our struggle in the way of God and lose, although we set out to win. If it were not for the beauty, attractiveness, and lifegiving rays of the Qur’an, the misconceptions we have caused and the bad examples we have set would have prevented us from seeing this day.

[1] Fussilat 41:30.

source: fgulen.org

Continue reading »]]> by Fethullah Gulen
Since “real” life is only possible through knowledge, those who have neglected learning and teaching are considered to be “dead,” even when they are biologically alive. We were created to learn and to communicate what we have learned to others.

Real life is lived at the spiritual level. Those whose hearts are alive, those who conquer the past and the future, transcend the restrictions of time. Such people are never overly distressed by past sorrows or overly anxious about the future. Those who are not able to experience full existence in their hearts, those who lead banal, shallow lives, are always gloomy and inclined to hopelessness. They consider the past as a horrifying grave, and see the future as a bottomless well. They live in agony, wondering whether they will live or die.

All of us are travelers, and the world is a multicolored exhibition and a rich and colorful book. We were sent to study this book, to increase our spiritual knowledge, and to uplift others. This colorful and pleasurable journey is a onetime event. For those whose feelings are alert and whose hearts are awake, this journey is more than enough to establish a Paradiselike garden. But for those whose eyes are covered, it is as if all goes by in a single breath.

The humble and modest are highly regarded by the created and by the Creator. The haughty and selfconceited, those who belittle others and put on haughty airs, are always disliked by the created and are punished by the Creator.

Humility is a sign of virtue and maturity, whereas haughtiness and selfconceit indicate an imperfect, low spirit. The most perfect human beings are those who are at ease and intimate in the company of others. In contrast, those who are too proud to join in with others and to form warm friendships are considered to be mere representatives of imperfectness. Humility makes people into true human beings. One sign of humility is that people do not change after they have obtained rank or wealth, learning or fame, or whatever else may be publicly esteemed. If any of these circumstances causes people to alter their ideas, attitudes, and behavior, then they cannot be regarded as having attained true humanity or true humility.

When interacting with others, always use as a measure what you find pleasing or displeasing. Wish for others what you wish for yourself and do not forget that whatever conduct displeases you will also displease others. If you do this, you will be safe from misconduct and bad behavior, and will not hurt others.

Maturity and perfection of spirit mean that you should be just in your treatment of others, especially those who have done you an injustice. Return their bad action with goodness. Do not cease doing good even to those who have harmed you. Rather, treat them with kindness and nobility, for harming someone is cruel. Repaying evil with evil implies a deficiency in character; the opposite is nobility.

There is no limit of goodness that can be done for others. Those who dedicate themselves to doing good for humanity are so altruistic that they can even sacrifice their lives for others. However, such altruism is a great virtue only if it originates in sincerity and purity of intention; it should be far removed from racial or tribal superstitions.

Those who regard even the greatest favor they have done for others as being insignificant, yet greatly appreciate even the smallest favor done for themselves are perfected ones who have acquired the Divine standards of behavior and have found peace in their conscience. Such individuals never remind others of the good that they may have done for them, and never complain when others appear to be indifferent to them.

* This collection of aphorisms was written in 1984 and recently appeared in one volume Ölçü veya Yoldaki Işıklar, Kaynak, Izmir, 2000; English edition Pearls of Wisdom, The Fountain, New Jersey, 2000, pp. 13, 23, 41, 42, 49, 50.
source: fgulen.org

Continue reading »]]> by Fethullah Gulen
Religion, particularly Islam, has become one of the most difficult subject areas to tackle in recent years. Contemporary culture, whether approached from the perspective of anthropology or theology, psychology or psychoanalysis, evaluates religion with empirical methods. On the one hand, religion is an inwardly experienced and felt phenomenon, one that, for the most part, is related to the permanent aspects of life. On the other hand, believers can see their religion as a philosophy, a set of rational principles, or mere mysticism. The difficulty increases in the case of Islam, for some Muslims and policy-makers consider and present it as a purely political, sociological, and economic ideology, rather than as a religion.

If we want to analyze religion, democracy, or any other system or philosophy accurately, we should focus on humanity and human life. From this perspective, religion in general, and Islam in particular, cannot be compared on the same basis with democracy or any other political, social, or economic system. Religion focuses primarily on the immutable aspects of life and existence, whereas political, social, and economic systems or ideologies concern only certain variable social aspects of our worldly life.

The aspects of life with which religion is primarily concerned are as valid today as they were at the dawn of humanity and will continue to be so in the future. Worldly systems change according to circumstances and so can be evaluated only according to their times. Belief in God, the hereafter, the prophets, the holy books, the angels, and divine destiny have nothing to do with changing times. Likewise, worship and morality’s universal and unchanging standards have little to do with time and worldly life.

Therefore, when comparing religion or Islam with democracy, we must remember that democracy is a system that is being continually developed and revised. It also varies according to the places and circumstances where it is practiced. On the other hand, religion has established immutable principles related to faith, worship, and morality. Thus, only Islam’s worldly aspects should be compared with democracy.

The main aim of Islam and its unchangeable dimensions affect its rules governing the changeable aspects of our lives. Islam does not propose a certain unchangeable form of government or attempt to shape it. Instead, Islam establishes fundamental principles that orient a government’s general character, leaving it to the people to choose the type and form of government according to time and circumstances. If we approach the matter in this light and compare Islam with the modern liberal democracy of today, we will be better able to understand the position of Islam and democracy with respect to each other.

Democratic ideas stem from ancient times. Modern liberal democracy was born in the American (1776) and French Revolutions (1789-1799). In democratic societies, people govern themselves as opposed to being ruled by someone above. The individual has priority over the community in this type of political system, being free to determine how to live his or her own life. Individualism is not absolute, though. People achieve a better existence by living within a society and this requires that they adjust and limit their freedom according to the criteria of social life.

The Prophet says that all people are as equal as the teeth of a comb.[1] Islam does not discriminate based on race, color, age, nationality, or physical traits. The Prophet declared:

You are all from Adam, and Adam is from earth. O servants of God, be brothers [and sisters.]“[2]

Those who were born earlier, who have more wealth or power than others, or who belong to certain families or ethnic groups have no inherent right to rule others.

Islam also upholds the following fundamental principles:

1. Power lies in truth, a repudiation of the common idea that truth relies upon power.
2. Justice and the rule of law are essential.
3. Freedom of belief and rights to life, personal property, reproduction, and health (both mental and physical) cannot be violated.
4. The privacy and immunity of individual life must be maintained.
5. No one can be convicted of a crime without evidence, or accused and punished for someone else’s crime.
6. An advisory system of administration is essential.

All rights are equally important, and the rights of the individual cannot be sacrificed for the sake of society. Islam considers a society to be composed of conscious individuals equipped with freewill and having responsibility toward both themselves and others. Islam goes a step further by adding a cosmic dimension. It sees humanity as the “motor” of history, contrary to the fatalistic approaches of some nineteenth century Western philosophies of history, such as dialectical materialism and historicism.[3] Just as the will and behavior of every individual determine the outcome of his or her life in this world and in the hereafter, a society’s progress or decline is determined by the will, worldview, and lifestyle of its inhabitants. The Qur’an says:

God will not change the state of a people unless they change themselves (with respect to their beliefs, worldview, and lifestyle). (Ar-Rad 13:11)

In other words, each society holds the reins of its fate in its own hands. The prophetic tradition emphasizes this idea: “You will be ruled according to how you are.”[4] This is the basic character and spirit of democracy; an idea which does not conflict with any Islamic principle.

As Islam holds individuals and societies responsible for their own fate, people must be responsible for governing themselves. The Qur’an addresses society with such phrases as: “O people!” and “O believers!” The duties entrusted to modern democratic systems are those that Islam assigns to society and classifies, in order of importance, as “absolutely necessary, relatively necessary, and commendable to carry out.” The sacred text includes the following passages:

Establish, all of you, peace. (Al-Baqara 2:208)

Spend in the way of God and to the needy of the pure and good of what you have earned and of what We bring forth for you from the Earth. (Al-Baqara 2:267)

If some among your women are accused of indecency, you must have four witnesses (to prove it). (An-Nisa 4:15)

God commands you to give over the public trusts to the charge of those having the required qualities and to judge with justice when you judge people. (An-Nisa 4:58)

Observe justice as witnesses respectful for God, even if it is against yourselves, your parents and relatives. (An-Nisa 4:135)

If they (your enemies) incline to peace (when you are at war), you also incline to it. (Al-Anfal 8:61)

If a corrupt, sinful one brings you news (about others), investigate it so that you should not strike a people without knowing. (Al-Hujurat 49:6)

If two parties among the believers fight between themselves, reconcile them. (Al-Hujurat 49:9)

In short, the Qur’an addresses the whole community and assigns it almost all the duties entrusted to modern democratic systems.

People cooperate with one another by sharing these duties and establishing the essential foundations necessary to perform them. The government is composed of all of these basic elements. Thus, Islam recommends a government based on a social contract. People elect the administrators and establish a council to debate common issues. Also, the society as a whole participates in auditing the administration. During the rule of the first four caliphs (632-661) in particular, the fundamental principles of government mentioned above—including free elections—were fully observed. The political system was transformed into a sultanate after the death of Ali, the fourth caliph, due to internal conflicts and the global conditions at that time. Unlike the caliphate, power in the sultanate was passed down through the sultan’s family. However, even though free elections were no longer held, societies maintained other principles that are found at the core of liberal democracy of today.

Islam is an inclusive religion. It is based on the belief in one God as the Creator, Lord, Sustainer, and Administrator of the universe. Islam is the religion of the whole universe. That is, the entire universe obeys the laws laid down by God; everything in the universe is “Muslim” and obeys God by submitting to His laws. Even a person who refuses to believe in God or who follows another religion has to be a Muslim perforce as far as bodily existence is concerned. Our entire life, from the embryonic stage to the body’s dissolution into dust after death, every tissue of the muscles, and every limb of the body follows the course prescribed for each by God’s laws. Thus, in Islam, God, nature, and humanity are neither remote from one another nor are they alien to one another. It is God who makes Himself known to humanity through nature and humanity itself, and nature and humanity are two books (of creation) through which each word of God is made known. This leads humankind to look upon everything as belonging to the same Lord, to whom it itself belongs, and therefore regarding nothing in the universe as being alien. His sympathy, love, and service do not remain confined to the people of a particular race, color, or ethnicity. The Prophet summed this up with the command, “O servants of God, be brothers (and sisters)!”

A separate but equally important point is that Islam recognizes all religions that came before it. It accepts all the prophets and books sent to different peoples in different epochs of history. Not only does it accept them, but it also regards belief in them as an essential principle of being Muslim. In this way, it acknowledges the basic unity of all religions. A Muslim is at the same time a true follower of Abraham, Moses, David, all the other Hebrew prophets and Jesus. This belief explains why both Christians and Jews enjoyed their religious rights under the rule of Islamic governments throughout history.

The Islamic social system seeks to form a virtuous society and thereby gain God’s approval. It recognizes right, not force, as the foundation of social life. Hostility is unacceptable. Relationships must be based on belief, love, mutual respect, assistance, and understanding instead of conflict and the pursuit of personal interests. Social education encourages people to pursue lofty ideals and to strive for perfection, not just to run after their own desires. Justified calls for unity and virtues create mutual support and solidarity, and belief secures brotherhood and sisterhood. Encouraging the soul to attain perfection brings happiness in both worlds.

Democracy has developed over time. Just as it has gone through many different stages in the past, it will continue to evolve and improve in the future. Along the way, it will be shaped into a more humane and just system, one based on righteousness and reality. If human beings are considered as a whole, without disregarding the spiritual dimension of their existence and their spiritual needs, and without forgetting that human life is not limited to this mortal life and that all people have a great craving for eternity, democracy could reach the peak of perfection and bring even more happiness to humanity. Islamic principles of equality, tolerance, and justice can help it do just this.

* This article originally appeared in SAIS Review, 21:2 (Summer-Fall 2001):133-38.
[1] Abu Shuja’ Shirawayh ibn Shahrdar al-Daylami, Al-Firdaws bi-Ma’thur al-Khitab [The Heavenly Garden Made Up of the Selections from the Prophet's Addresses], Beirut, 1986, Dar al-Kutub al-’Ilmiya, 4:300.
[2] For the second part of the hadith see the sections “Nikah” (marriage Contract) in Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn Isma’il al-Bukhari, ed., al-Jami’ al-Sahih [A Collection of the Prophet's Authentic Traditions], Istanbul: al-Maktabat al-Islamiya, n.d., ch. 45; “Birr wa Sila” (Goodness and Visiting the Relatives) in Imam Abu Husayn Muslim ibn Hajjaj, ed., al-Jami’ al-Sahih, op. cit., ch. 23; and for the first part see “Tafsir” (The Qur’anic Commentary) and “Manaqib” (The Virtues of the Prophet and His Companions) in Abu ‘Isa Muhammad ibn ‘Isa al-Tirmidhi, al-Jami’ al-Sahih, Beirut, Dar al Ihya al-Turath al-’Arabi, n.d., chs. 49 and 74, respectively. The original text in Arabic does not include the word “sisters” in the command. However, the masculine form used refers to both men and women, as is the rule in many languages. An equivalent in English would be “humankind,” which refers to both men and women. By saying “O servants of God,” the Prophet also means women, because both men and women are equally servants of God.
[3] See Karl R. Popper, The Poverty of Historicism, trans. Sabri Orman, Istanbul, Insan Yayınları, 1985.
[4] ‘Ala al-Din ‘Ali al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Kanz al-’Ummal fi Sunan al-Aqwal wa al-Af’al [A Treasure of the Laborers for the Sake of the Prophet's Sayings and Deeds], Beirut, Mu’assasat al-Risala, 1985, 6:89.

source: fgulen.org

Continue reading »]]> Everyone takes up the matter of a new world order and evaluates it from a different point of view, according to their own thoughts. This is quite natural. For example, people who have suffered from an internationalism disagreeable for many might accept chauvinism as a form of salvation and be inclined toward it. As a matter of fact, in Asia today almost every nation, under the ideal of turning back toward its ancient history, is turning toward its own particular values to such a degree that these nations now see themselves as being nationalistic. In view of the present situation, it is possible to evaluate the changes in the Russians, the Uzbeks, the Kazakhs, and others in this way. Today there are a number of changes with similar significance taking place in other countries in the world. As long as these “changes” and “developments” do not harm anyone else they can be seen as being normal. However, if we can find a way and a method that would make these changes more beneficial it would then be possible to prevent further tragedies.

Some of these developments follow a course based on religion. In relation to these, it is possible to mention both organized and unorganized activities throughout various parts of the world. Unlike others, they approach every matter from the principle that “religion is basic.” And naturally they want to evaluate today’s unsettled situation in line with their own way of thinking and manipulate and lead people to the position required by religion.

In addition to this is the fact that the attempt by the powers which have exploited the world many times to take advantage of this period of restructuring seems normal from their own perspectives. Is there full agreement among these powers? Of course not. However, it is widely believed that they are trying to come together and to reach an agreement as soon as possible. As is known, Britain does not think very differently on this matter from America. Although they had a small difference of opinion regarding the Sarajevo issue, the British are now also following America’s line. Sometimes France appears to have different views, but that derives more from their effort to get a share in the new structure and formation rather than a genuine difference in view.

In addition, there are some countries in which it is difficult to tell whether they are comfortable with the new order or not. It is quite difficult to understand the situation of these countries, just as there are some diseases that are hard to diagnose. As a matter of fact, they do not expect a share in the general advantages. In fact, it is not obvious what they really want at the present time.

It is also necessary to take note of the internal change that every country expects from itself. Of course, the manifestation of this expectation will vary according to the country, and it is impossible to consider and analyze all of them separately. If you like, let us make a few points about expectations in our own country and then move on. Our society is prudent and vigilant; one day it will assuredly listen to its intuition and conscience and, adopting the change most suitable to its nature, it will realize this change. This situation being surmised, many differences in thought have emerged in our country. Hopefully those who possess all these different views and thoughts are sincere in what they say and want to do. In this broad spectrum some differences in line and motif are quite normal and, in fact, in one respect they should be accepted as being beneficial.

After these general remarks we can briefly consider the matter within a technical perspective. The idealized peaceful world cannot be established by war and spilling blood. Nor will camouflaging activities of aggression and occupation yield positive results. For this reason, it is beneficial to repeat clearly and precisely once again that any balance of power that is made by using force will collapse in the shortest period of time, and those who were responsible for it will be the first to be buried under the debris.

I think we have witnessed that, in this sense, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, and Somalia are some of the most striking examples. Examples of reaction are likely to be even more violent in the future. The sympathy among Muslim peoples in the Muslim world, a sympathy which was once felt for the leaders of the free world, will slowly melt and antipathy will take its place. It appears that if the new world order is founded upon explicit or implicit exploitation by force, instead of democracy and full enjoyment of basic human rights and freedoms, then this antipathy will continue in expanding dimensions.

Our ancestors said, “the water jug breaks on the way to the well.” Those who have gained a position by destroying something will themselves collapse and lose that position later on, in the same way. If we look all around us today and take into consideration the recurrence of history, we will be able to see more clearly what is awaiting us tomorrow.

Even if the world is not in a process of renewal, and it is clear today that it is not, it definitely is in a process of reconstruction. When the correct time arrives, this reconstruction will certainly be realized. When this happens, instead of having a world that has been shaped with malice and hatred, a surprising world that has taken its form in a climate of love, tolerance, and forbearance will appear before us. The collective conscience will gladly welcome and place it in its heart, not neglecting those who have a share in this reformation. These people will leave permanent tracks and, even if they have physically left this world, their tracks will remain for centuries. I believe with my whole heart that the only thing to do today in order to realize these spring-fragranced dreams is to perform this kind of service for humanity. For this reason, instead of temporary, fleeting, and un-promising efforts, I would advise a type of movement that is lasting and fully beneficial in every way. I think that as long as I am alive I will not hesitate to repeat these recommendations.

Continue reading »]]> Life is the foremost and most manifest blessing of God Almighty, and the true and everlasting life is that of the Hereafter. Since we can deserve this life only by pleasing God, He sent Prophets and revealed Scriptures out of His Compassion for humanity. While mentioning His blessings upon humanity, He begins:

All-Merciful. He taught the Qur’an, created humanity, and taught it speech. (Al-Rahman 55:1-4)

All aspects of this life are a rehearsal for the afterlife, and every creature is engaged toward this end. Order is evident in every effort, and compassion resides in every achievement. Some “natural” events or social convulsions may seem disagreeable at first, but we should not regard them as being incompatible with compassion. They are like dark clouds or lightning and thunder that, although frightening, nevertheless bring us the good tidings of rain. Thus the whole universe praises the All-Compassionate.

Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, is like a spring of pure water in the heart of a desert, a source of light in an all-enveloping darkness. Those who appeal to this spring can take as much water as is needed to quench their thirst, to become purified of their sins, and to become illuminated with the light of faith. Mercy was like a magical key in the Prophet’s hands, for with it he opened hearts that were so hardened and rusty that no one thought they could be opened. But he did even more: he lit a torch of belief in them.

The compassion of God’s Messenger encompassed every creature. He desired that everyone be guided. In fact, this was his greatest concern:

Yet it may be, if they believe not in this Message, you will consume (exhaust) yourself, following after them, with grief. (Al-Kahf 18:6)

But how did he deal with those who persisted in oppression and persecutions; those who did not allow him and his followers to worship the One God; those who took up arms against him to destroy him? He had to fight such people, yet his universal compassion encompassed every creature. This is why when he was wounded severely at the Battle of Uhud, he raised his hands and prayed:

O God, forgive my people, for they do not know.[1]

The Makkans, his own people, inflicted so much suffering on him that he finally emigrated to Madina. Even after that, the next 5 years were far from peaceful. However, when he conquered Makka without bloodshed in the twentyfirst year of his Prophethood, he asked the Makkan unbelievers: “How do you expect me to treat you?” They responded unanimously: “You are a noble one, the son of a noble one.” He then told them his decision: “You may leave, for no reproach this day shall be on you. May God forgive you. He is the Most Compassionate.”[2] 825 years later Sultan Mehmed II[3] said the same thing to the defeated Byzantines after conquering Constantinople. Such is the universal compassion of Islam.

The Messenger displayed the highest degree of compassion toward believers:

There has come to you a Messenger from among yourselves; grievous to him is your suffering; anxious is he over you, full of concern for you, for the believers full of pity, compassionate. (At-Tawbah 9:128)

He lowered unto believers his wing of tenderness through mercy … (Al-Hijr 15:88)

… was the guardian of believers and nearer to them than their selves. (Al-Ahzab 33:6)

When one of his Companions died, he asked those at the funeral if the deceased had left any debts. On learning that he had, the Prophet mentioned the above verse and announced that the creditors should come to him for repayment.

His compassion even encompassed the hypocrites and unbelievers. He knew who the hypocrites were, but never identified them, for this would have deprived them of the rights of full citizenship that they had gained by their outward declaration of faith and practice. Since they lived among the Muslims, their denial may have been reduced or changed to doubt, thus diminishing their fear of death and the pain caused by the assertion of eternal non-existence after death.

God no longer destroys unbelievers collectively, although He had eradicated many such people in the past:

But God would never chastise them while you were among them; God would never chastise them as they begged forgiveness. (Al-Anfal 8:33)

This verse refers to unbelievers regardless of time and place. God will not destroy whole peoples as long as there are some who follow the Messenger. Moreover, He has left the door of repentance open until the Last Day. Anyone can accept Islam or ask God’s forgiveness, regardless of how sinful they consider themselves to be.

For this reason, a Muslim’s enmity toward unbelievers is a form of pity. When ‘Umar saw an 80-year-old man, he sat down and wept. When asked why, he replied: “God assigned him so long a lifespan, but he has not been able to find the true path.” ‘Umar was a disciple of God’s Messenger, the prophet who said:

I was not sent to call down curses on people, but as a mercy.[4]

I am Muhammad, and Ahmad (the praised one), and Muqaffi (the Last Prophet); I am Hashir (the last Prophet in whose presence the people will gather); the Prophet of Repentance (the Prophet for whose sake the door of repentance will always remain open), and the Prophet of mercy.[5]

Archangel Gabriel also benefited from the mercy of the Qur’an. Once the Prophet asked Gabriel whether he had any share in the mercy contained in the Qur’an, Gabriel replied that he did, and explained: “I was not certain about my end. However, when the verse: (One) obeyed, and moreover, trustworthy and secured (At-Takwir 81:21) was revealed, I felt secure.”[6]

The Messenger of God was particularly compassionate toward children. Whenever he saw a child crying, he sat beside him or her and shared his or her feelings. He felt the pain of a mother for her child more than the mother herself. Once he said:

I stand in prayer and wish to prolong it. However, I hear a child cry and shorten the prayer to lessen the mother’s anxiety.”[7]

He took children in his arms and hugged them. Once when he hugged and kissed his grandson Hasan, Aqrah ibn Habis told him: “I have 10 children, none of whom I have ever kissed.” God’s Messenger responded: “One without pity for others is not pitied.”[8] According to another version, he added: “What can I do for you if God has removed compassion from you?”[9]

He said: “Pity those on the Earth so that those in the heavens will pity you.”[10] Once when Sa’d ibn ‘Ubadah became ill, God’s Messenger visited him at home. Seeing his faithful Companion in a pitiful state, he began to cry and said: “God does not punish because of tears or grief, but He punishes because of this,” and he pointed to his tongue.[11] When ‘Uthman ibn Mad’un died, he wept profusely. During the funeral, a woman remarked: “‘Uthman flew like a bird to Paradise.” Even in that mournful state, the Prophet did not lose his balance and corrected the woman: “How do you know this? Even I do not know this, and I am a Prophet.”[12]

A member of the Banu Muqarrin clan once beat his female slave. She informed the Messenger of God, who then sent a message to the master. He said: “You have beaten her without any justifiable right. Free her.”[13] Setting a slave free was far better for the master than being punished in the Hereafter because of a wrong act. The Messenger of God always protected and supported widows, orphans, the poor, and the disabled, even before his Prophethood. When he returned home in excitement from Mount Hira after the first Revelation, his wife Khadijah told him:

I hope you will be the Prophet of this community, for you always tell the truth, fulfill your trust, support your relatives, help the poor and weak, and feed guests.[14]

His compassion even encompassed animals. We hear from him:

A prostitute was guided to truth by God and ultimately went to Paradise because she gave water to a poor dog dying of thirst inside a well. Another woman was sent to Hell because she made a cat die of hunger.[15]

Once while returning from a military campaign, a few Companions removed some young birds from their nest to caress them. The mother bird came back and, not being able to find its babies, began to fly around, calling out for them. When told of this, God’s Messenger became angry and ordered the birds to be put back in the nest.[16]

While in Mina, some of his Companions attacked a snake in order to kill it. However, it managed to escape. Watching this from afar, he remarked: “It was saved from your evil, as you were from its evil.”[17] Ibn Abbas reported that God’s Messenger, upon observing a man sharpening his knife directly before the sheep to be slaughtered, asked him: “Do you want to kill it more than once?”[18]

His love and compassion for creatures differed from that of today’s selfproclaimed humanists. He was sincere and measured in his love and compassion. He was a Prophet raised by God, the Creator and Sustainer of all beings, for the guidance and happiness of conscious beings—humanity and jinn—and the harmony of existence. As such, he lived not for himself but for others. He is a mercy for all the worlds, a manifestation of Compassion.

He eradicated all differences of race and color. Once Abu Dharr got so angry with Bilal that he insulted him: “You son of a black woman!” Bilal came to the Messenger and reported the incident in tears. The Messenger reproached Abu Dharr: “Do you still have a sign of jahiliyah (ignorance)?” Full of repentance, Abu Dharr lay on the ground and said: “I will not raise my head (meaning that he would not get up) unless Bilal puts his foot on it.” Bilal forgave him, and they were reconciled.[19] Such was the bond of kinship and humanity that Islam created among a oncesavage people.

[1] Qadi ‘Iyad, Shifa’, 1:78-9; Hindi, Kanz al-’Ummal, 4:93.
[2] Ibn Hisham, Sirat al-Nabawiyah, 4:55; Ibn Kathir, Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, 4:344.
[3] Sultan Mehmed II (the Conqueror) (1431-1481). The 7th Ottoman Sultan who conquered Istanbul in 1453.
[4] Muslim, Birr, 87.
[5] Hanbal, Musnad, 4:395; Muslim, Fada’il, 126.
[6] Qadi ‘Iyad, as-Shifa’ al-Sharif, 1:17.
[7] Bukhari, Adhan, 65; Muslim, Salat, 192.
[8] Bukhari, Adab, 18.
[9] Ibid., Adab, 18; Muslim, Fada’il, 64.
[10] Tirmidhi, Birr, 16.
[11] Bukhari, Jana’iz, 45.
[12] Ibid, Jana’iz, 3.
[13] Muslim, Ayman, 31, 33; Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, 3:447.
[14] Ibn Sa’d, al-Tabaqat al-Kubra’, 1:195.
[15] Bukhari, Anbiya, 54; Muslim, Salam, 153.
[16] Abu Dawud, Adab, 164; Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, 1:404.
[17] Sunan al-Nasa’i, Hajj, 114; Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, 1:385.
[18] Hakim, Mustadrak, 4:231.
[19] Bukhari, Iman, 22.

source:fgulen.org

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 »]]> West must understand that Islamophobia is as dangerous as anti-Semitism
by
JOHN L. ESPOSITO
Enlightened Switzerland has now become part of an “enlightened liberal Europe” that is increasingly not all that liberal.

Some months ago, at a European meeting of intelligence officials from the US and Europe, a Swiss participant commented on this referendum on minarets. He was sure it would go nowhere since, as he said, Switzerland is a very pluralistic society, its Muslim population is relatively small and there were few mosques with minarets.

However, this stunning Swiss vote (57 percent) approving a referendum to ban minarets, was really not all that surprising, considering the growing power of Islamophobia. In both Europe and America right-wing politicians, political commentators, media personalities and religious leaders continue to feed a growing suspicion of mainstream Muslims by fueling a fear that Islam, not just Muslim extremism, is a threat.

In the aftermath of the attacks in America and in Europe, the relevance and viability of multiculturalism as a policy in the US and Great Britain were challenged by those who charged that such an approach contributed to domestic terrorism: retarding Muslim assimilation and civic engagement, perpetuating foreign loyalties and providing a space for militant radicals. The process of integration, in which immigrant citizens and residents could retain their religious and ethnic differences, was rejected by many, in particular the far right in Europe, who demand total assimilation.

Modern-day prophets of doom have predicted that Europe will be overrun by Islam, transformed by the end of the century into “Eurabia.” The media, political leaders and commentators on the right warn of a “soft terrorism” plot to take over America and Europe. Bernard Lewis, a Middle East historian and an adviser to the Bush administration on its failed Iraq policy, received widespread coverage when he chided Europeans for losing their loyalties, self-confidence and respect for their own culture, charging that they have “surrendered” to Islam in a mood of “self-abasement,” “political correctness” and “multiculturalism.” Daniel Pipes, a columnist, political commentator and relentless Muslim critic who wrote the article “The Muslims are coming. The Muslims are coming,” also declared: “Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene… All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most.”

The rise of anti-immigrant far right political parties in recent European elections has emboldened many of its leaders to applaud the Swiss vote and encourage similar prohibitions. Geert Wilders, a leader of the anti-Muslim Party for Freedom in the Netherlands who has supported the mass deportation of Muslims, called for a vote to “stem the tide of Islamization” in the Netherlands.

The far right persistently refuses to face a 21st century reality: to acknowledge and accept the fact that many Muslims are integrated citizens and that Islam is now a European religion and, in fact, the second-largest religion in many European countries.

Fortunately, many Muslim and Christian leaders across the world, major European politicians and human rights experts have condemned the ban, and the Vatican has denounced it as an infringement on religious freedom.

However, the Swiss ban, like some other European countries’ policies, highlights a failure of Western liberalism and raises fundamental questions about religious discrimination and freedom of religion. While there are only four minarets in Switzerland, a country that is home to approximately 400,000 Muslims, supporters of the referendum mindlessly charge that the minaret is a political symbol of militant Islam. This makes about as much sense as saying that church steeples symbolize militant Christianity.

Where do we go from here? Western political and religious opinion-makers and the media will need to resolutely address the dangers of Islamophobia as aggressively as they do other forms of hate speech and hate crimes, ranging from racial discrimination to anti-Semitism. European Muslims will need to continue to speak out publicly, demanding their rights as European citizens and residents and also denouncing religious discrimination and violence as well as limits placed on constructing churches in the Muslim world.

Globalization and an increasingly multicultural and multi-religious West test the mettle of cherished democratic principles and values. Islamophobia, which is becoming a social cancer, must be recognized and be as unacceptable as anti-Semitism, a threat to the very fabric of our democratic pluralistic way of life. The continued threat and response to global terrorism coupled with the resurgence of xenophobia and cultural racism have contributed to threatening the fabric of liberal democracies in the West and their Muslim citizens in particular. The fine line between distinguishing between the faith of Islam and those who commit violence and terror in the name of Islam, between the majority of mainstream Muslims and the acts of a minority of Muslim extremists and terrorists must be maintained. Blurring these distinctions risks the adoption of foreign and domestic policies that promote a clash rather than a coexistence of cultures. They play into the hands of preachers of hate (Muslim and non-Muslim), religious and political leaders, and political commentators whose rhetoric incites and demonizes, alienates and marginalizes.

source: http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-194888-109-centerwest-must-understand-that-islamophobia-is-as-dangerous-as-anti-semitismbr-i-by-i-brjohn-l-espositocenter.html

Continue reading »]]> Finally, let us shed some light on what is considered in the West as the greatest symbol of women’s oppression and servitude, the veil or the head cover. Is it true that there is no such thing as the veil in the Judaeo-Christian tradition? Let us set the record straight. According to Rabbi Dr. Menachem M. Brayer (Professor of Biblical Literature at Yeshiva University) in his book, The Jewish woman in Rabbinic literature, it was the custom of Jewish women to go out in public with a head covering which, sometimes, even covered the whole face leaving one eye free. 76 He quotes some famous ancient Rabbis saying,” It is not like the daughters of Israel to walk out with heads uncovered” and “Cursed be the man who lets the hair of his wife be seen….a woman who exposes her hair for self-adornment brings poverty.” Rabbinic law forbids the recitation of blessings or prayers in the presence of a bareheaded married woman since uncovering the woman’s hair is considered “nudity”.77 Dr. Brayer also mentions that “During the Tannaitic period the Jewish woman’s failure to cover her head was considered an affront to her modesty. When her head was uncovered she might be fined four hundred zuzim for this offense.” Dr. Brayer also explains that veil of the Jewish woman was not always considered a sign of modesty. Sometimes, the veil symbolized a state of distinction and luxury rather than modesty. The veil personified the dignity and superiority of noble women. It also represented a woman’s inaccessibility as a sanctified possession of her husband. 78

The veil signified a woman’s self-respect and social status. Women of lower classes would often wear the veil to give the impression of a higher standing. The fact that the veil was the sign of nobility was the reason why prostitutes were not permitted to cover their hair in the old Jewish society. However, prostitutes often wore a special headscarf in order to look respectable. 79 Jewish women in Europe continued to wear veils until the nineteenth century when their lives became more intermingled with the surrounding secular culture. The external pressures of the European life in the nineteenth century forced many of them to go out bare-headed. Some Jewish women found it more convenient to replace their traditional veil with a wig as another form of hair covering. Today, most pious Jewish women do not cover their hair except in the synagogue. 80 Some of them, such as the Hasidic sects, still use the wig. 81

What about the Christian tradition? It is well known that Catholic Nuns have been covering their heads for hundreds of years, but that is not all. St. Paul in the New Testament made some very interesting statements about the veil:

“Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head – it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head” (I Corinthians 11:3-10).

St. Paul’s rationale for veiling women is that the veil represents a sign of the authority of the man, who is the image and glory of God, over the woman who was created from and for man. St. Tertullian in his famous treatise ‘On The Veiling Of Virgins’ wrote, “Young women, you wear your veils out on the streets, so you should wear them in the church, you wear them when you are among strangers, then wear them among your brothers…” Among the Canon laws of the Catholic church today, there is a law that requires women to cover their heads in church. 82 Some Christian denominations, such as the Amish and the Mennonites for example, keep their women veiled to the present day. The reason for the veil, as offered by their Church leaders, is that “The head covering is a symbol of woman’s subjection to the man and to God”, which is the same logic introduced by St. Paul in the New Testament. 83

From all the above evidence, it is obvious that Islam did not invent the head cover. However, Islam did endorse it. The Quran urges the believing men and women to lower their gaze and guard their modesty and then urges the believing women to extend their head covers to cover the neck and the bosom:

“Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty……And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms….” (24:30,31).

The Quran is quite clear that the veil is essential for modesty, but why is modesty important? The Quran is still clear:

“O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their bodies (when abroad) so that they should be known and not molested” (33:59).

This is the whole point, modesty is prescribed to protect women from molestation or simply, modesty is protection. Thus, the only purpose of the veil in Islam is protection. The Islamic veil, unlike the veil of the Christian tradition, is not a sign of man’s authority over woman nor is it a sign of woman’s subjection to man. The Islamic veil, unlike the veil in the Jewish tradition, is not a sign of luxury and distinction of some noble married women. The Islamic veil is only a sign of modesty with the purpose of protecting women, all women. The Islamic philosophy is that it is always better to be safe than sorry. In fact, the Quran is so concerned with protecting women’s bodies and women’s reputation that a man who dares to falsely accuse a woman of unchastity will be severely punished:

“And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations)- Flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors” (24:4)

Compare this strict Quranic attitude with the extremely lax punishment for rape in the Bible:

” If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives” (Deut. 22:28-30)

One must ask a simple question here, who is really punished? The man who only paid a fine for rape, or the girl who is forced to marry the man who raped her and live with him until he dies? Another question that also should be asked is this: which is more protective of women, the Quranic strict attitude or the Biblical lax attitude?

Some people, especially in the West, would tend to ridicule the whole argument of modesty for protection. Their argument is that the best protection is the spread of education, civilised behaviour, and self restraint. We would say: fine but not enough. If ‘civilization’ is enough protection, then why is it that women in North America dare not walk alone in a dark street – or even across an empty parking lot ? If Education is the solution, then why is it that a respected university like Queen’s has a ‘walk home service’ mainly for female students on campus? If self restraint is the answer, then why are cases of sexual harassment in the workplace reported on the news media every day? A sample of those accused of sexual harassment, in the last few years, includes: Navy officers, Managers, University professors, Senators, Supreme Court Justices, and the President of the United States! I could not believe my eyes when I read the following statistics, written in a pamphlet issued by the Dean of Women’s office at Queen’s University:

*

In Canada, a woman is sexually assaulted every 6 minutes,
*

1 in 3 women in Canada will be sexually assaulted at some time in their lives,
*

1 in 4 women are at the risk of rape or attempted rape in her lifetime,
*

1 in 8 women will be sexually assaulted while attending college or university, and
*

A study found 60% of Canadian university-aged males said they would commit sexual assault if they were certain they wouldn’t get caught.

Something is fundamentally wrong in the society we live in. A radical change in the society’s life style and culture is absolutely necessary. A culture of modesty is badly needed, modesty in dress, in speech, and in manners of both men and women. Otherwise, the grim statistics will grow even worse day after day and, unfortunately, women alone will be paying the price. Actually, we all suffer but as K. Gibran has said, “…for the person who receives the blows is not like the one who counts them.” 84 Therefore, a society like France which expels young women from schools because of their modest dress is, in the end, simply harming itself.

It is one of the great ironies of our world today that the very same headscarf revered as a sign of ‘holiness’ when worn for the purpose of showing the authority of man by Catholic Nuns, is reviled as a sign of ‘oppression’ when worn for the purpose of protection by Muslim women.

source: http://www.sultan.org/articles/women.html#_Toc335566667

Continue reading »]]> As in the past, there are some conjectures being made about the future today as well. One of these is the claim regarding the future as an age of information. Those people who are discussing the future in this way are basically futurists.

There are many who see the people who are making these kinds of conjectures as oracles of the second millennium. Yet, rather than being objective evaluations, some of the claims that are made related to the future in terms of historical cycles are efforts to develop ideas around some particular desires and therefore they carry no more value than any other predictions. In other words, I think that as a result of these claims, people form expectations in the same way that they expect an answer to a prayer. Thus, while saying that the expectation produced by these types of claims that “the future will be like this” gives birth to certain efforts in that direction, these expectations eventually become goals and purposes. Once the goal has been determined, different strategies and policies will be produced to reach that goal and efforts will be made to fulfill it. I think this is the crux of the matter.

Along with this, there has been an extension of the prophetic mission of God’s Messenger up until the modern day through the line of representatives, through people like Muhyiddin ibn al-’Arabi,[1] Imam al-Ghazali, Imam Rabbani, Mawlana Khalid, and Bediüzzaman. We hope that the function of this fortunate line of transmission is to prepare a foundation for the rebirth of the prophetic spirit in the years to come, and, in this respect, we hope that this spirit will live again. Of course, the Prophet will not be there, but Islam, in the pure understanding of the Companions, will be ever-ready to greet life once again.

But apart from all this, as we live in a world where causality and certain other laws are operative, if we act without taking such laws into consideration we are in danger of falling into determinism. However, Muslims, by using their will, are able to consider the causes carefully enough so that someone looking from the outside would think that they are acting only according to laws of causality. On the other hand, regarding results obtained from actions, Muslims should be so completely submitted to and trusting in God’s will that someone looking from the outside would will think that they have completely rejected causes. Acting in this way shows that, on the one hand, causes are very important and everything humanity does should definitely be planned around them and put into effect accordingly. On the other hand, while so doing, due to their fear of falling into the error of speculating partners to God Almighty, they should also know that they have not personally achieved any success themselves, rather all success is directly from God.

After determining the matter in this way, we can summarize our thoughts regarding the future in the following way. In the future, everything will be within the orbit of knowledge, and the horizons that have been darkened by our neglect for a period will once more be enlightened. To a large extent, we have been particularly neglectful of the scientific knowledge obtained during the fourth and fifth century A.H. (after the Hegira) that is based on the Qur’an and we have turned our backs on the very important dynamics that could keep us on our feet. Personally, I have always been saddened that the madrassas got rid of Sufism, of what can be called Islam’s spiritual life. Later their decrease in interest in the experimental sciences and the eventual expulsion of the same contributed to our falling far behind the newly scientifically developing countries. So the neglect we showed in the past should be made up for, and our tomorrows will be built on knowledge, and everything will take its strength and power from knowledge.

Knowledge will occupy a very important place in a world that is rapidly becoming smaller and in an era when time and space are shrinking. The important point here is whether or not we will be ready for such a world.

Today, there are many scientists in the world, in many different countries, but, in my humble opinion, they are not enough to establish a new, happy world, even if they were to work all together. For this reason, there is a need for a new way of thinking today, a new approach to the sciences, a new life philosophy, and new educational institutions. New generations should be mobilized at every period of their lives, from kindergarten to high school and from there onto university. Since everything will obtain power from knowledge in the future, it will only be possible to build knowledge for the future with this kind of effort.

Huntington’s Assertions

Regarding Huntington’s claim about the clash of civilizations, I think that rather than being realistic evaluations regarding the future, these types of claims seem to me to be determining new goals in an attempt to influence public opinion within the framework of these goals. Until the disintegration of the Soviet Block, there was the idea of a clash between the East and West, or between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries. This time, by creating new enemy fronts, a clash between civilizations based on religious and cultural differences is being prepared and a new foundation is being laid for the continuation of the rule of the power blocks.

Actually, up until now, conflict is something that is desired by certain power centers. The masses have been put on alarm against a frequently conjectured and feared enemy; this enemy is more imaginary than real. It is in this manner that the masses have been prepared for every kind of war.

In truth, no divine religion has ever been based on conflict, whether it be the religions represented by Moses and Jesus, or the religion represented by Muhammad, upon them be peace. On the contrary, these religions, especially Islam, are strictly against disorder, treachery, conflict, and oppression. Islam means peace, security, and well being. Thus, in a religion based on peace, security, and world harmony, war and conflict are negative aspects. In exceptional cases there is a right to self-defense, just like when the body tries to rid itself of germs that have attacked it, but this can be done only according to certain principles. Islam has always breathed peace and goodness. Islam considers war as an secondary event. Rules have been placed in order to balance and limit it. For example, Islam takes justice and world peace as a basis:

Let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. (Al-Ma’ida 5:8)

Islam developed a line of defense based on certain principles in order to protect the freedom of belief, life, property, the mind and one’s descendants, as has the modern legal system. Christianity, as a religion of abstract love, from the very beginning categorically condemned war and did not lay down any rules regarding this human and historical reality. But it was not able to prevent wars like the World Wars or the Hundred Years’ Wars or the Nagasaki and Hiroshima incidents from occurring. The views of Huntington and others like him of the future are unfortunately based on conflict, and reflect plans to continue domination through conflicts.

With the blessings and beneficence of God, we are going to do our best to help this breeze of tolerance and dialogue to continue blowing; it is a breeze that has only recently begun to blow and it shows a tendency toward spreading over the entire world. God willing, we will prove the predictions of such scholars to be false. We believe that these breezes are powerful enough to overwhelm lethal weapons, to subdue mechanized military units and much of any other negativity that may arise. The fact that every segment of society is expressing and enacting this brand new message, the roots of which lie in the past, in the message of the prophets, is a divine favor to today’s devotees of love. In this respect, we state that tolerance and dialogue should be represented in our country in the best possible way and should be an example to the whole world. Such an example will encourage people to come together, to gather round the same basic human values and, God willing, humankind will live one more spring before seeing the end of the world.

from: http://www.mlife.org/content/view/75/71/

Continue reading »]]> Islam as the religion for the whole of the universe

We see that the universe is an orderly universe, a cosmos, whose parts are linked together and are working together towards the same purpose and common goal. Everything in the universe is assigned a place in a grand scheme which is working in a magnificent and superb way. the sun, the moon, the stars and in fact all the heavenly bodies are knit together in a splendid system. They follow an unalterable law and do not make even the slightest deviation from their ordained course. Everything in the world, from the little whirling electron to the mighty nebulae, invariably follows its own laws. Even in the human world the laws of nature are quite manifest. Man’s birth, growth, and the life are all regulated by a set of ‘biological’ laws. All the organs of his body from the small tissues to the heart and brain are governed by the laws prescribed for them.

The universe, although it seems monotonous, blindly obeying a set of laws, is neither a factory as thought of by theists of the eighteenth century, nor is it a chaos as conceived by the existentialist philosophers, which has nothing to say to man. Instead, it is a lively, dynamic organism each part of which works according to the position it occupies in the whole, and fulfills its share in the system of mutual relationships. God, on the other hand, is not a passive power which has left the universe to itself so that it should work automatically but is an ever-active Power the theophanies of Whose Names reflect in the mirror of the universe unceasingly. by each reflection of the Divine Names or, in other words, by the incessant flashes of the Divine theophanies is the universe renewed so that each moment a completely new universe is manifested. This renewal, however, depends on certain immutable principles without which it would have been impossible for man to live since he must have some unchanging principles according to which he could regulate his life. These principles, which we deduce by observing the natural events, do not have real and external existence but have nominal existence only, are called natural laws. They have been all laid down by the Creator and Ruler of the universe, so that the entire creation obeys these laws of God. That is why Islam is, first of all, the religion of the universe, for Islam signifies nothing but obedience and submission to God, the Lord of the universe. the sun, the moon, the earth, and all other heavenly bodies are thus ‘Muslim’. So is the case with air, water, and heat, stones, trees, and animals. Everything in the universe is ‘Muslim’ for it obeys God by submission to His laws. Even a man who refuses to believe in God, or offers his worship to someone other than God, has perforce to be a Muslim as far as his bodily existence is concerned. for his entire life, from the embryonic stage to the body’s dissolution into dust after death, and every tissue of his muscles and every limb of his body follow the course prescribed for each by God’s law. Thus, in Islam, God, nature, and man are not remote from each other nor are they alien to each other, and they certainly are not opposed to each other. It is God Who makes Himself known to man through nature and man himself, and nature and man are two books (of creation) through each word of which God is visible. Islam is the name of the code according to which nature operates without any disobedience, and man is required, but not forced, to live by using his free will.

Islam as God’s grace flowing in the arteries of the universe and as the religion governing human life

Islam, being a word derived from ‘silm’ meaning also salvation and peace as well as submission, is the expression of God’s grace flowing in the arteries of the universe. Islam being the Divine system to which all the creation except man has willingly submitted itself, there is no disorder observed throughout the universe. Islam is the firm, unbreakable rope stretched from Heaven, to which all creatures hold fast and, by means of which, man will be able to ascend Paradise, from where he came down to earth. Islam is a link which connects all creatures into a single unity, and this explains why it is the religion of universal brotherhood and solidarity.

Islam can be likened to a string of prayer beads. Each bead on the string stands for a species. When the string breaks, they will all scatter. This is just the case with the world, especially with the Muslim World at present, where people have been divided into groups of different classes, of races, nations, territories and economies. They look upon nature as “a prostitute to be used without any sense of obligation and responsibility toward her.”

The principle of Tawhid in Islam implies the necessity of man’s being in harmony with the world around him. the vast realm of the universe, which is in submission to one God only, displays a coherence and harmony of which the human world is also a part. Although the human world is subject, in addition to the general laws of nature, to a particular set of laws special to itself, yet it is also in harmony with other laws governing the rest of the phenomena beyond it. Man, unlike his fellow creatures who tread the path of nature, is endowed with the power of free will. He carries the gift of freedom together with the obligation to harmonize his life with the rest of nature -a harmony which is also the path of his exaltation and progress. This is the path upon which God has originated the nature of mankind:

So set thy face to the religion, a man of pure faith – God’s original nature in which He originated mankind. There is no changing God’s creation. That is the right religion; but most men know it not. (30:30)

Islam seeks to unite man with the vast domain of being, and strives to create an absolute unity between the universe and man. Man is the most essential partner in the realm of existence; and a Muslim is the co-religionist of all creatures in the universe:

What, do they desire another religion than God’s, while to Him has surrendered whosoever is in the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly, and to Him they shall be returned? (3:83)

Have you not seen how to God prostrate all who are in the heavens and all who are in the earth, the sun, the moon, the stars and the mountains, the trees and the beasts, and many of mankind?.. (22:18)

The mission of other Prophets

The religions prior to Islam were not meant to be universal religions. As far as their fundamental messages and teachings are concerned, the religion of Moses and of Jesus was not different from Islam, yet neither did contain complete guidance for all aspects of human life for all nations and ages. During the countless centuries of human history, when the different nations of mankind lived in more or less complete isolation, there was no means of rapid communication between one nation and another, so God sent different Prophets to the different peoples. Moses and Jesus were two of these national Prophets, both were the Prophets to the Israelites. This is what DR. C.J. Cadoux writes regarding the limited scope of the mission of Jesus:

The office of Messiahship with which Jesus believed himself to be invested, marked him out for a distinctly national role: and accordingly we find him more or less confining his preaching and healing ministry and that of his disciples to Jewish territory, and feeling hesitant when on one occasion he was asked to heal a Gentile girl. Jesus’ obvious veneration for Jerusalem, the Temple, and the Scriptures indicate the special place which he accorded to Israel in his thinking, and several features of his teaching illustrate the same attitude. Thus, in calling his hearers ‘brothers’ of one another and frequently contrasting their ways with those of ‘the Gentiles’, in defending his cure of a woman on the Sabbath with the plea that she was a ‘daughter of Abraham’ and befriending the tax-collector Zacchaeus ‘because he too is a son of Abraham’, and in fixing the number of his special disciples at twelve to match the number of the tribes of Israel -in all this Jesus shows how strongly Jewish a stamp he wished to impress upon his mission.” (The Life of Jesus, pp. 81,82)

Jesus himself declared his mission to be restricted to the Israelites by saying: “I have been sent only to the lost sheep of the people of Israel.” (Matthew, 15:24)

Each nation having been separately guided to the truth by the national Prophets, the time ultimately became ripe for the World-Prophet (peace be upon him) to be raised to preach the universal religion. Thus, when the world was on the eve of becoming one, God raised up the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to transmit the essential message of all the Prophets, shorn of all that was of a temporary and limited nature and purged of all the later adulterations and misinterpretations. God revealed to him the all-embracing religion as a universal faith, containing the unadulterated message of all the Prophets. He united the peoples of all nations and lands into a single world-wide brotherhood and gave the world a complete code of life for the whole of humanity. So there is nothing in Islam which is of benefit only to the people of a particular region or age. the Holy Koran enjoins nothing which is not of uniformly inspiring, edifying and practicable for peoples of all nations and times. the religious and moral teachings of Islam are of a universal nature.

Islam is the consummation of all religions: a good Muslim is also a good follower of Moses and Jesus

Since the religions prior to Islam were of a national character, their followers tended to believe that they were chosen peoples. the Christians acknowledge only the Prophets of Israel while the Jewish people reject the Prophethood of Jesus. Islam says, however, that it would be a denial of the universal providence of God to assert that Prophets were raised for one nation only. According to the Holy Koran, God is the Lord and Sustainer of all the worlds. As He has not discriminated between nations in sending His revelations, so Muslims make no distinction between any of His Messengers:

The Messenger (Muhammad) believes in what was sent down to him from his Lord, and the believers; each one believes in God and His angels, and in His books and His Messengers; we make no division between any of His Messengers. They say, ‘We hear, and obey. Our Lord, grant us Thy forgiveness; unto You is the homecoming. (2:285)

Islam is the consummation of all religions. by accepting the Prophets and Scriptures of all nations, Islam affirms the unity and universal providence of God and the universality of religious experience, and also seeks to bring together people of all races and creeds in a single all-embracing Faith and Brotherhood. Further, a ‘Muslim’ is also the true follower of all Prophets including Moses and Jesus. Such being the case, while Christian means ‘the one who follows Jesus Christ’ and Judaism has completely turned into the racial religion of Jewish people only, Muslims totally reject the term of ‘Muhammadanism’, a term used of them by non-Muslims. To understand Islam as its adherents do, one should purge the word ‘Muhammadan’ or ‘Muhammadanism’ from one’s vocabulary. the labeling of Islam as Muhammadanism is the result of a false analogy with Christianity. Muslims do not worship Muhammad as Christians worship Christ. Muhammad was neither a god, nor an incarnation, nor the son of God. He never claimed to be more than a man who received revelations from God. He did not make Islam, he simply received the Message of Islam.

Islam does not accept contradictions in any field of life

Since Islamic Tawhid, as an expression of human existence, implies the equality and unity of all human beings in their relation with God, it bears the notion of homogeneity, equality and unity of human origin. Humanness is the single basic element ingrained in the nature of all human individuals. Human beings associated with the different social strata are neither the creations of different gods so that any disparity could exist in their essential nature, thus giving rise to insuperable barriers between them; nor do the upper classes of society have a more powerful god than the lower classes. All are the creation of one and the same God, and all are uniform in their fundamental essence:

O mankind, fear your Lord, Who created you of a single soul.. (4:1).

Thus, Islam cannot accept legal, physical, class, social, political, racial, national, territorial, genetic, or even economic contradictions. the Islamic world-view of Tawhid implies a mode of looking upon all human beings as a unity and eliminates all contradictions between black and white, ruler and ruled, employers and employees, intellectuals and the masses, noble and vile, clergy and laity, eastern an western, Arab and non-Arab, capitalist and proletarian etc. All such contradictions are reconcilable only with the world-view of shirk -dualism, trinitarianism or polytheism, and are absent with the philosophy of Tawhid. the Holy Koran declares that mankind have been created male and female and formed into races and tribes so that they may know one another and not take pride in their color or race or claim superiority over others on account of their color, race or social or economic status; the noblest among them in the sight of God is the most God-fearing of them. the Holy Prophet (God’s peace and blessing be upon him) is also reported to have said: “Your God is one, you are from Adam and Adam is from dust; an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor white over a black except on account of piety and righteousness.”

The Islamic belief in the unity of mankind is the corollary of the doctrine of the Unity of God. the self-same God is the Creator and Nourisher of men and women of all nations, races, colors, creeds and cultures. Hence all mankind are slaves of God and the most dear to Him is one who is the best of them. the Holy Prophet is reported to have said:

God says to His slaves on the Day of Reckoning: “O man, you did not visit Me when I was ill.” Man responds: “How could it be that I would visit You since You are the Lord of the creation?” God says: “Do you not remember that my servant so-and-so got ill but you did not visit him. If you had visited him, you would have found Me with him. O man, you did not give Me food when I asked you for it.” Man responds: “How could it be that I would give You food seeing that You are the Lord of the creation?” God says: “Do you not remember that my servant so-and-so asked you to give him food but you did not do so. If you had given him food, you would have found Me with him.” God continues: “O man, you did not give Me water when I asked you.” Man responds: “How could it be that I would give You water since You are the Lord of the creation?” God retorts: “Do you not remember that my servant so-and-so asked you to give him water but you did not. If you had given him water, you would have found Me with him.”

The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) informs us that a prostitute finally deserved to go to Paradise since she gave water to a thirsty dog out of compassion, whereas another woman went to Hell because she had left a cat dying of hunger.

This is Islam with its arms wide-open to all creatures, regions and ages.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Said Nursi, Mektubat (The Letters 1, the Letters 2), Istanbul
Muhyiddin an-Nawavi, Forty Hadiths
Abu’l-A’la al-Mawdudi, Tafhim al-Koran, (Turkish trans), 1991
Towards Understanding Islam, 1970
G. W. Choudhury, Islam and the Contemporary World, London, 1990
A. Izzeti, the Revolutionary Islam, 1980
U.A. Samad, Islam and Christianity, 1977
A.C. Morrison, Insan, Kainat ve Otesi (Turkish trans.) 1973
S.H. Nasr, Ideals and Realities of Islam, London, 1966

from: http://www.mlife.org/content/view/77/48/