Insults to the Religion

Why Muslims Don’t Laugh at Insults to their Religion


Twelve cartoons, first published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on September 30th 2005, satirised the prophet Muhammad and were received negatively by Muslims in Denmark and throughout the world. Muslims generally perceived them to be derogatory and took the insult as an attack upon Islam. Protests were organised all over the world, and serious violence occurred at a number of them: embassies were ransacked and western institutions and property in the Muslim world bore the brunt of these expressions of anger. Other forms of protest included economic boycotts of Danish companies leading to considerable financial loss for the companies affected, which formerly had a substantial market investment in the Muslim world.

Regardless of the nature of the Muslim expressions of anger, many westerners were incredulous. The extent and universality of Muslim anger were to them very surprising. Why, they asked, should Muslims be so upset by harmless cartoons that should not have hurt anybody? The old English saying, 'sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me' just didn't seem to wash with Muslims. Why? Why couldn't Muslims just accept the insults to their prophet and their religion as harmless fun, or as a legitimate form of criticism?

Western critics were not alone however in their incredulity. Muslims also felt incredulity. How could the Danish and other governments allow such insulting material to be published in their countries? Shouldn't they apologise and promise to prevent a repeat of the offence? It seems that the mutual incredulity proves the truth of the famous saying about east and west that 'never the twain shall meet'. Despite the deeply polarised feelings the cartoons have generated, it ought to be possible for Muslim and western personalities to understand each other’s sentiments. The opposing emotions highlight not only the sharp differences between Muslim and western thinking, but also some unexpected similarities. This article explores these differences and similarities, and offers a possible basis for mutual criticism and debate between opposing ideologies, without recourse to rancour and reckless provocation.Before exploring the deeper issues in question, it is necessary to decide upon the reality of the cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammad. Do they constitute an intellectual argument or are they to be regarded as an insult?

The question is important in order to determine whether Muslims have a problem with intellectual criticism of Islam or with being insulted. It is clear from listening to the protestations of Muslims across the world that they feel insulted, but are these perceptions accurate? Could it be that they feel insulted by criticism or do the cartoons in reality constitute an insult? One of the most controversial cartoons depicted Muhammad with a bomb in his turban; the fuse was lit and written upon the bomb was the Islamic creed. Another cartoon included a poem with the words: ‘Profet! Med kuk og knald i låget som holder kvinder under åget!’ which means: ‘Prophet, you crazy bloke! Keeping women under yoke!’ Mohammad is also drawn standing in heaven, upon a cloud greeting dead suicide bombers with the words: ‘Stop Stop vi er løbet tør for Jomfruer!’ which means: ‘Stop, stop, we have run out of virgins!’ It is difficult to see how such cartoons could be seen by Muslims as anything other than an insult to the prophet Mohammad. In response to Muslims protests, Jyllands-Posten published two letters of explanation. The second letter, dated 30th January 2006, states that the cartoons: ‘were not intended to be offensive … but they have indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologise.’

The stated intentions of the cartoons’ publishers have a bearing upon these questions. The Danish publishers explained that their motive was to test the boundaries of freedom of speech and they did not challenge Muslims to debate any substantive issues about Islam. They did not explain what intellectual criticisms they were bringing through the medium of cartoons; rather they sought to see how far they could go to provoke Muslims in order to make a statement about freedom of speech. They claimed that freedom of speech was under threat in Denmark and published the insulting cartoons as a means to bring attention to their issue. Insulting Muslims may not have been their objective, but it was a means of publicising their concerns through the debate that followed. Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten’s culture editor, made this clear:‘

The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule … we are on the way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him.’

Thus Rose made it clear that Muslims should be ready to accept insult, mockery and ridicule. Debating Islam is not the issue, and so Muslim perceptions of being insulted were accurate. The question then is not why Muslims cannot accept to listen to criticism and respond with reasoned argument, but why Muslims cannot accept ‘insults, mockery and ridicule’ of Islam. As Rose explained in the Washington Post, on February 19th 2006, his paper was not singling out Islam for attack, but was drawing Muslims into the secular fold, so that they be treated as equals to Christians and those of other religions:

'The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: we are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims.’

Jyllands-Posten were thus making a principled stand for secularism in general and more specifically for freedom of speech in Denmark, which was enshrined in the constitution of 1849 and reaffirmed, after the suspension of freedoms during the German occupation of Denmark in World War II, in section 77 of the Constitutional Act of Denmark (1953). The feeling amongst some Danish thinkers, that freedom was under threat in Denmark, was expressed two weeks before the publishing of the cartoons. On September 17th 2005, the Danish newspaper Politiken printed an article titled: ‘Dyb angst for kritik af Islam’ (‘Profound fear of criticism of Islam’, which discussed the difficulty the writer Kåre Bluitgen was facing in finding an illustrator for his children’s book about Islam. Three illustrators refused and a fourth agreed to assist anonymously - apparently for fear of repercussions. Carsten Juste, Editor-in-Chief of Jyllands-Posten, wrote in a letter of clarification dated 8th February 2006, that the cartoons were published: ‘as part of an ongoing debate on freedom of expression, a freedom much cherished in Denmark.’

Freedom is an abstract concept; you cannot see or hear freedom, you certainly cannot eat it, but it does have a reality nonetheless, to those who cherish it. The editors of Jyllaands-Posten cherished freedom and they made sacrifices for it that were borne by many Danish companies and individuals. The Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, described the cartoons affair as, “Denmark's worst international crisis since World War II”. Such an abstract concept cannot have a priced assigned to it, and the initial publishers of the cartoons were arguing that it was worth paying a high price in order to preserve freedom. Many Muslims viewed the cartoons as a base attack upon Islam, but the publishers of the cartoons claimed they were making a principled stand for a core western belief in the primacy of freedom.

Abstract concepts are can be priceless and they often ennoble human society. Abstract thinking and aesthetic appreciation distinguish man from beast and enrich life with many forms of art. The western renaissance and scientific revolution fused art and science, which were built upon new forms of abstract reasoning. In the arena of personal relationships, the abstract concepts of love and honour are cherished as priceless. It has always been considered noble to believe in high concepts and sacrifice material benefits for the sake of principle.Western societies do not, however, hold a monopoly on cherishing abstract ideals. In fact, while such ideals have become scarce in the west, Muslims cherish a multitude of abstract ideals and this is where East and West crashed head-on over the issue of the cartoons.

Muslims hold the concept of honour in high esteem, and to insult someone is to transgress upon his honour. Just as the publishers of Jyllaands-Posten were ready to sacrifice for freedom, so too were Muslims, ready to sacrifice for the sake of honour. If a Muslim would seek to defend his own honour, then it would be even nobler for him to defend the honour of another. If defending the honour of his mother or his father should be nobler than defending his own honour, then for the Muslim nothing is more precious than defending the honour of the prophet who brought to him his religion. Honour, however, like freedom, is an intangible concept that does not put food on the table. Pragmatists who criticise Muslims for getting upset, and might equally criticise a newspaper for causing such a fuss in the first place, argue and against taking principled stands for the sake of intangible concepts. They are practical people who concern themselves solely with the material; this preoccupation with the material has become a dominating feature of western life, which has eroded many former values and concepts in favour of hard-nosed materialism. The concept of honour, held dearly by Muslims, needs no explanation to a western audience who are familiar with it as a part of their historical heritage. Nowadays however, honour is an outmoded concept in the west. Standing up for honour, as opposed to reason, is to be considered naive or romantic at best, and dangerous fanaticism at worst. It is no surprise, therefore, that the editors of Jyllaands-Posten found little support from their freedom loving allies in Britain or America and took the full force of criticism on their own. Their publication of cartoons that were expected to cause offence appears foolhardy. Likewise, intense expressions of Muslim anger may by western standards also be considered unreasonable. In both cases, to argue a point of principle too far, be it western freedoms or the honour of a prophet, risks being labelled in the west as extreme or fanatical.

While western values are being eroded, Muslims are still adhering to and championing their own values. By opposing insults upon the prophet Muhammad, they are not excluding the possibility of reasoned debate and listening to intellectual arguments against their belief, but standing up for the honour of the man most beloved to them – Mohammad the prophet. The indignation expressed by Muslims would be easier for many to understand if Mohammad were a company director, Islam a company and Muslims shareholders! In such a situation an insult upon Mohammad would affect the stock value of the company capital and the shareholders could sue for damages. Honour or what used to be called in law ‘goodwill’ is an intangible phenomenon that as capitalism has developed is now considered an asset, which can be given a pecuniary value and hence receive protection in law. The ‘good name’ of a company or an individual may be lost and the implications of that could be financial loss. Financial loss being a material thing is protected in western law, but honour for the sake of honour itself has no such recognition. This is in contrast to Islam, which protects not only life and property, but also honour for its own sake regardless of the financial implications.

As for argument and debate, while Muslims jealously protect the honour of the prophet Mohammad and react strongly to any insults levelled at them or their religion, they are not unyielding to criticism. Reasoned criticism is of the greatest concern to Muslims because Islam calls for adherents to assent to belief in the truth of key ideas: the existence of a supreme Creator and the messengerhood of Mohammad who brought the Qur’an as guidance for mankind from the Creator. This is an intellectual belief that requires proof for acceptance and led Muslims to engage in intellectual dispute with others from the time of the prophet Mohammad himself until today. The Qur’an expressly forbade the coercion of non-believers into the faith of Islam and protected their right to live in peace and harmony as citizens of the Islamic authority, without compulsion to change their religion. Muslims through the centuries have listened to the arguments and philosophies of other nations, translated their literature into Arabic and responded intellectually to whatever criticisms of Islam they encountered.

When the issue of reasoned debate is considered comparatively, it will be discovered that the thinkers and politicians of western countries are remarkably opposed to debate with their own Muslim minority populations and seek to impose their beliefs by coercion rather than persuasion. When Jyllands-Posten sought to make a stand for freedom they chose not to raise an intellectual discussion directly, but to offend Muslims in Denmark and push them into a corner. If it were not for the world-wide reaction, then the Muslims in Denmark would have been under intense pressure to concede to others the right to ‘freely’ express any racist or insulting views towards them, in the name of secularism and tolerance. They would have been asked to compromise on their values and give up their adherence to pre-modern non-tangible values in the name of integration with the Danish host society.

The publishing of offensive cartoons in the name of freedom seems less honourable when it is recalled that in April 2003, the same Danish newspaper rejected publishing cartoons "lampooning" Jesus Christ, citing that they could be offensive to readers and were not humorous. The Sunday editor of the paper remarked, "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them." Freedom then has its limits – except when used against Muslims and what they hold dear. If politicians, editors and writers in the west are concerned that the Muslims living in their countries do not share their political visions and their values, then they ought to try and convince Muslims through discussion and debate. In fact coercion is the favoured method used against Muslims who do give intellectual reasons for their beliefs and values. Muslims who reject western political culture are commonly insulted rather than refuted. In fact it is almost impossible to find any serious attempts to refute the political ideology of Muslims who refuse to believe in democracy and secularism. Instead, offensive cartoons or the issue of immigration are used to coerce Muslims into believing in and participating in the political culture of secularism. If this does not work, Muslims are told they must conform or the extremists will gain power. If Muslims still fail to fall in line, they risk being labelled as ‘extremist,’ ‘militant,’ ‘fanatic’ or ‘terrorist’.

Such a tactic has an historical precedent. The nationalism of the 19th century that cemented the concept of the ‘nation state’ in Europe had violent consequences in the 20th century in the rise of fascism. Fascism had a powerful hold on many Europeans and wars had to be fought in order to defeat it. Nevertheless, ‘far-right’ politics is still very much alive in Europe. It seems then that fascism is a resilient force and those opposed to fascism have adopted a common tactic in fighting it. They are incapable of defeating it intellectually, because it is no more or less rational than any other western political philosophy. No one tries to prove the concept of ‘freedom’ in the same way that Muslims, for example, offer proofs for the existence of the creator or the prophethood of Mohammad. Instead the terminology used against fascism is framed in opprobrium and insult. Fascism is ‘obscene’, ‘repugnant’, ‘unacceptable’ and so on, but is also ‘wrong’. While Muslims would respond to fascism by trying to demonstrate its intellectual flaws, western opponents of fascism simply insult it and those who believe in it. This approach has been successful in marginalising extreme forms of nationalism and even the word fascism has become a standard insult in the English language. This word is even applied to Muslims who hold to their political culture and express the hope of the return of the Caliphate. The debates in Denmark and throughout Europe regarding the presence of growing Muslim minorities that are slow to accept western political concepts has focused upon coercion and has neglected debate. This can only end in disappointment, because Muslim political thought is resilient and evidence-based, leaving it untouched by coercive integration measures. This approach may also lead to conflict, because Muslims believe in intangible values, such as honour, and will respond vigorously to insults upon their religion.

If newspaper editors dispense with mocking cartoons and opt for intellectual debate with Muslims they can expect a more fruitful response than the worldwide reaction the editors of Jyllands-Posten managed to incite with: ‘Prophet, you crazy bloke! Keeping women under yoke!’

The secular attack on Islam

The secular attack

Good talk to listen and learn from.



http://www.khilafah.com/kcom/multimedia/audio/audio-talk-the-secular-attack-on-islam.html

Britain's Afghan venture

Why Britain's Afghan venture has failed

Six years after the invasion, the overthrow of the Taleban regime, the installation of a client regime that is now steeped in corruption, the deaths of thousands of people and an aid programme that is failing dismally,
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has set out Britain's 'plan B' for Afghanistan. Given the appalling record of destruction, matched only by the chaos that is Iraq, it is no surprise that people are sceptical about the likelihood of these new plans bringing peace and stability to the region, and cynical about the motives behind the ongoing intervention. Corruption, poverty and insecurity have all worsened in Afghanistan under occupation. This "free, democratic" Afghanistan has levels of poverty comparable to sub-Saharan Africa, as well as 120,000 women and 60,000 children who are amongst Afghanistan's new drug users, giving a meaning to the term "liberation" that is entirely in keeping with intervention by capitalist liberal states.

One has to ask if this is what western politicians mean when they boast that they have brought democracy to Afghanistan . People want more than a rigged vote labelled as democracy. They want stability, security and a decent standard of living. Not death, destruction and poverty. They want Islamic values, not to be liberated to enjoy cannabis and heroin.

Given the deepening crisis in Afghanistan it is no wonder that Brown is suggesting this new plan. He has to win hearts and minds in Britain and justify the billions of tax payers money, as well as justify the many troop casualties. However, the hearts and minds in the Muslim world are already lost. The worsening security and worsening poverty prove this military venture has not been about ensuring a more peaceful world, or about humanitarian intervention, but has been about Britain fighting its corner in a new colonial Great Game. Sadly, the people of Afghanistan are the victims of this competition between Russia, Britain and the US, in this most strategically and materially important region.

On Security, Brown has proposed this be under the auspices of ISAF and the Afghan national army. Yet under their watch the UN estimates that violent incidents are up at least 20 percent since the previous year. In November 2007 they criticised international troops for killing civilians at 'alarming levels'. It is NATO troop presence that fuels the insecurity. Moreover the UN high commissioner also raised concerns about whether ISAF was turning detainees over to torture in Afghan custody. Amnesty International said that NATO forces in Afghanistan have handed detainees to Afghan security services (the NDS) despite reports that they torture their prisoners.

On economic development the current record is shameful. Almost half of the US ' aid budget goes directly to fatten the profits of five US contractors. Much has been squandered on profits for companies or subcontractors, or spent on high salaries and living expenses for expatriate staff (each full-time expatriate consultant costs up to $500000 a year.) Only $270 million of the $15 billion of aid has been spent on the agricultural sector when this is the major source of income for 80 percent of Afghans. Heroin production is up since the occupation, providing 93 percent of the world's opium supply. Tragically the rates of addiction within Afghanistan have increased sharply since 2003 to nearly 4 percent of the population.

On political development, even Karzai himself cannot hide the levels of corruption. The democratic parliament is packed with former warlords, who voted themselves an amnesty from war crimes earlier this year. Large profits from Afghanistan's $3-billion opium crop, funds skimmed from aid and reconstruction contracts and bribes for services all fuel official corruption. One elderly parliamentarian addressed Karzai saying. "The government and cabinet members are sucking the blood of innocent people; we can't tolerate the corruption in every government office."

The on-going western occupation and interference only fuels the desire for an independent Islamic Caliphate where authority lies with people; where elected representatives cannot vote themselves an amnesty from prosecution; where the laws and values are those based on the beliefs,heritage and values of the population; where the executive is wholly accountable and has to stand up for the interests of its citizens and not for those of foreign governments.

Western governments will never admit that their repeated interventions trying to "fix" what they themselves have broken only creates more problems. They show no signs of wanting to leave the Muslim world to shape its own future and political destiny. Stability can only come when a system of government enjoys the trust and confidence of the people and that will only come when Islam lies at the heart of the system. All people want to have the rulers they chose, and not be forced to accept stooges who represent foreign interests.

In Britain

Possessing a book can be 'Terrorism'

This week a 23year old woman was convicted of an offence of possessing material ‘likely to be used for terrorism'. It was accepted that she has committed no act of violence and has not helped anyone planning to commit acts of violence. However, by simply writing poems and possessing literature for which no violent motive was found, she has been convicted as a ‘terrorist'. Hers is not an isolated case. A young Muslim man was recently convicted of possessing DVDs and we now see ‘innocent' people being pressured - via long detention periods - into pleading guilty to ‘get it over with', thus changing the law of precedent and in some instances making possession of certain literature virtually illegal.

This is occurring in Britain, a nation that trumpets the rhetoric of freedom and free speech. Many in the media turn on Muslims who criticise Salman Rushdie for insulting the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) or who are critical of those who draw offensive cartoons. Yet this is now a nation where possession of articles meant for no violent purpose is considered terrorism!

Undoubtedly, there will be media outlets, academics and maybe even some who are simply ‘voyeurs' who view and possess material that is similar to what the convicted lady possessed. However, prosecutions will be selective and based on racial, religious and political profiling. Destroying the lives of young people and their families by criminalising ‘possession without intent' is the justice of countries like Uzbekistan.

Quotes

Quotes praising Islam by non-Muslims

“I have always held the religion of Muhammad (saw) in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness.”

[Sir George Bernard Shaw in ‘The Genuine Islam’ Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936]

“Our use of phrase ‘The Dark ages’ to cover the period from 699 to 1,000 marks our undue concentration on Western Europe... From India to Spain, the brilliant civilization of Islam flourished…To us it seems that West-European civilization is civilization, but this is a narrow view.”

[Bertrand Russel in ‘History of Western Philosophy,’ London, 1948, p. 419]

“The Islamic teachings have left great traditions for equitable and gentle dealings and behavior, and inspire people with nobility and tolerance. These are human teachings of the highest order and at the same time practicable. These teachings brought into existence a society in which hard-heartedness and collective oppression and injustice were the least as compared with all other societies preceding it....Islam is replete with gentleness, courtesy, and fraternity.”

[H.G. Wells.]

“…Science owes a great deal more to Arab culture (Islam), it owes its existence”

[Robert Briffault in the “Making of Humanity”]

“I have to deplore the systematic manner in which the literature of Europe has continued to put out of sight our obligations to the Muhammadans. Surely they cannot be much longer hidden. Injustice founded on religious rancour and national conceit cannot be perpetuated forever. The Arab has left his intellectual impress on Europe. He has indelibly written it on the heavens as any one may see who reads the names of the stars on a common celestial globe.”

[John William Draper in the “Intellectual Development of Europe”]

“History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated”

[De Lacy O’Leary in ‘Islam at the Crossroads,’ London, 1923]

“Islam is a religion that is essentially rationalistic in the widest sense of this term…and the dogma of unity of God has always been proclaimed therein with a grandeur a majesty, an invariable purity and with a note of sure conviction, which it is hard to find surpassed outside the pale of Islam....A creed so precise, so stripped of all theological complexities and consequently so accessible to the ordinary understanding might be expected to possess and does indeed possess a marvelous power of winning its way into the consciences of men.”

[Edward Montet, ‘La Propagande Chretienne et ses Adversaries Musulmans,’ Paris 1890. (Also in T.W. Arnold in ‘The Preaching of Islam,’ London 1913)]

Arabic language

The importance of the Arabic language

Language is a means of communicating thoughts, ideas, and concepts. Through this medium, ideas are conveyed from one person to another, from one place to another, and from the past to the present and recorded for the future. Whether written or spoken, it remains as a medium through which people express their thoughts, images, and emotions in a manner comprehensible to others.If we analyze language, and study the relationship between language and thought the issue becomes more complex. Does language play a role in the way we perceive, think, analyze, or judge, and if so to what extent and in what ways? Many different scientific theories and research have only contributed to confusion. Rather, we will discover through empirical evidence that language is not part of the thinking process but one of its byproduct. This is evident by people who speak different languages and share similar ideologies and views. It is common to see a Chinese, a Korean, a Cuban, or a German adopting Communism as an ideology and applying it without any interference from their respective languages. These languages do not modulate their viewpoint towards different issues. The same can be said of the Muslim and Capitalist with respect to the fact that dissimilar languages do not result in ideological differences. To claim the opposite does not only mean to cast a blind eye on hard empirical evidence but more significantly demonstrates a racial inclination that speakers of certain languages are more intelligent than speakers of other languages. It should be emphatically noted that language is independent from thought, and that thinking precedes language and thinking produces language and continues to expand the depth and breadth of language.Moreover, there is no language that is superior to another. A certain language is viable to the extent that it can encompass the various needs of the people who speak it. As such needs expand in scope or multiply in number, the medium will naturally expand and improve by borrowing existing terms and words from other languages or through the coinage of new terms and words.Arabic, like other languages is a medium of communication. It is not a sacred language as some believe. By origin it is believed to have come into existence around three thousand years ago, though its writing appeared much later. Some Muslims scholars used to believe that Arabic came from Allah (swt) and cite the verse, "...He Taught Adam all the names." The majority of scholars, however, believe that the verse refers to Allah (swt) instructing Adam what things are called and how he could use them. After all, we know that the Arabs are descendants of Isma'eel and Ibrahim who lived at a time when Arabic was not used.Arabic, however, is very unique. It is the language of the Qur'an and Sunnah. It is the medium through which the Islamic concepts and laws were conveyed to us. It is impossible to know what Allah (swt) wants us to do without knowing and understanding Arabic. Nobody can claim to know why Allah (swt) selected Arabic for His final revelation. Allah (swt) says:"Allah knows best where, or to whom, He should reveal His Message." [TMQ 6:124]The Arabic language has certain characteristics. One of them is that it is derivational, rendering it as a language where a Mujtahid can seek the Illah or reasons behind the law and thus extend the Illah to other situations to apply the law. Another fascinating quality of Arabic is in its richness in words which describe human actions and feelings while lacking names of objects. As a matter of fact, many Arabic words describing objects have their etymological roots in other tongues like Persian, Hindi, and Ethiopian. The Arab who lived in the desert with very few objects and many actions was compelled to deal with the harsh nature of the desert, managed to produce a language capable of describing human thought and actions in a clear manner. Life in the desert continued to be an inspiration for those who sought oratory skills and eloquence for many generations. When Prophet Mohammed (saaw) was born, his (saaw) mother sent him (saaw) to the desert to live amongst the nomads for some time. These qualities cannot classify the Arabic language as part of the Islamic thought. It is the legal aspect which classifies the Arabic language as such. The importance and relevance of the Arabic language to the Islamic ideology can be divided into three aspects:Fundamental beliefs: the Arabic language here is not relevant. One can become a Muslim and believe in Allah, His Angels, Messengers, Revelation, Day of Judgment, or Divine Destiny, simply by pondering about the creation of Allah and accepting what he or she is asked to believe in.Practice: To practice Islam, one needs to know a certain amount of Arabic, such as in performing the 'Ibadah (e.g., Salah or Hajj);Islamic law: Arabic is required for the study of Islamic law, 'Usul ul Fiqh and Hukm Shari' (the body of laws). Muslim scholars mastered Arabic, its syntax, semantics, vocabulary, grammar, various modes of usage, and rhetoric as a prerequisite for Ijtihad.Since Islamic law deals with all aspects of life; social and individual, economic and cultural, and since the Qur'an and Sunnah constitute the foundation of Islamic civilization, any serious study of Islam should include the study of Arabic. The Arabic which is meant here is the classical Arabic along with its structure. The study of colloquial Arabic of a certain dialect or vernacular is without value in this regard.Amongst the factors which contributed towards the decline was the neglect of Arabic language. The Arabic language is the medium by which revelation becomes accessible, thus applicable in life. The neglect of Arabic language led the Muslims to a situation in which they were not able to derive laws from the Qur'an and Sunnah and thus apply Islam. It eventually led to the closure of the doors of Ijtihad and the opening of the doors of Taqleed or imitation. At one point, Ijtihad became impossible and as a result, new issues and circumstances were either left out without knowing the Islamic views on them or were accepted as being Islamic only because there is no direct evidence in Islam against them. As a result, many Muslims began to believe that Islam is a thing of the past and looked for answers to new issues in the Kufr civilization. When the Kuffar finally abolished Islam as a way of life, only a few amongst the Muslims objected to it because it was widely accepted that Islam was an obstacle to modernization and progress. This is a view which is still rampant amongst some Muslims today who express it directly if they are secular or indirectly by finding middle grounds between Islam and the Western civilization if they are "moderates."Revival is not embodied in material or scientific advancement. Rather, the intellectual and ideological elevation is the basis for the correct revival, whereby material advancement is a byproduct . Thus, the revival for Muslims lies with resuming the Islamic way of life. The Arabic language is needed to deduce solutions from the Islamic perspective in leading an Islamic way of life. Deducing the solutions requires the comprehension of the Arabic language, since Ijtihad can be performed only in Arabic. Also, to produce original material requires from us to directly access the revelation, otherwise we will be restricted to thought based upon translations or secondary works.When the campaign against Islam reared its ugly head, the Europeans specifically targeted the Arabs and Turks. The Turks were targeted because the ruling belonged to them while the Arabs were targeted because the heart of Islam was nestled in the Arab world, due to the Arabic language. Missionary campaigns, ideological and cultural invasion, and secret associations were established specifically in those area to destroy the fabric of the Islamic State. Therefore, the work for revival mandates that it commence in a well defined area, a location where one would be able to establish a creative way of thinking which leads towards revival.Today, as Muslims reflect on their past and look to the future, it is required for them to make the study of the Arabic language an integral part of their study of Islam. We need Mujtahideen, legal experts of Shari'ah, Muslim thinkers, judges, and statesman, all of whom must have a good command of Arabic, the language of Qur'an. The Prophet (saaw) said: "I am the most eloquent Arab being one of Quraysh". Allah says,"We have revealed it as an Arabic Qur'an." [TMQ 12:2]Arabic is the official language of the Islamic State, as the Prophet (saaw) used it in government affairs and the Khulafah followed suit. The Muslims should not heed to the rumors from the West and their sympathizers amongst the Muslims who claim that calling for the study of Arabic and adopting it as the official language of the state means calling for Arab nationalism or an "Arab Islam". All Muslims, Arab and non Arab should leave aside national affiliations and patriotic affinity and identify themselves with Islam. Let us not forget that the West attacks the Arabic language and its study as a part of its campaign against Islam. That's why they do not direct their attacks against Turkish, Somali, Urdu, Bengali, Pushto, Malay, Chinese, or Farsi even though millions of Muslims speak those languages. All Muslims are called upon to defend Arabic in the manner they defend Islam.

Fatalism

Al-Qadaria al-Ghaibiya

During the time of Rasool Allah (saaw) and the Sahabah, the meaning of Qadr was well understood without any ambiguity and what it meant was very clear. There was no debate. inquiries, or differences in this issue, except the discussion between Abu Ubaidah and Umar (ra), when Umar decided not to proceed in his trip to as-sham, once the news came telling that there was a plague spreading there and decided to go back to Madinah, telling the people '' I'm returning back, thus you should return as well''. In this incident Abu Ubaidah did not attend Umar's consultation with the people and the result of the consultation.

However, when Abu Ubaidah heard of Umar's orders. he came to Umar telling him ''O Umar, are you running away from Allah's Qadr.'' By this he was objecting Umar's decision to return back to Madinah. Umar was amazed by this objection raised by Abu Ubaidah and Umar said to him, ''O Abu Ubaidah. I wish someone other than you would have said this. Yes. I am running away from Allah's Qadr to Allah's Qadr ''. He explained this by saying, if you see a man coming to a place where there are two areas, one area is lush and the other barren. Don't you see that if he takes his cattle to the lush area, he is doing so according the Allah's Qadr and if he take his cattle to the barren area, he is also taking it by Allah's Qadr.

This is the only report which talked about the difference in understanding Al-Qadr, amongst the Sahabah. Otherwise, Muslims in general understood Al-Qadr the way it is in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. This understanding is that everything is written in the preserved tablet (al-Lowh al-Mahfooz), from the very beginning (before creation) and there is no relationship for this in the man's actions or in the obligations Allah orders us to carry. This situation continued all the way till the second half of the second century Hijri or till the middle of the Abbasid era. Due to the translation of the Greek, Persian and Hindu philosophies, some misconceptions accumulated in the minds of some people and the question of al-Qada wal-Qadr emerged and over shadowed the concept of Al-Qadr.

After that, the issue of al-Qadaria al-Ghaibiya (fatalism) became widespread among the people. It influenced them and shaped their behavior. It was one of the declining factor for the Muslim Ummah and when the decline became more obvious (during our time), it was one the most important factor, which prevented the Muslims form working for the revival. This situation continued till the beginning of the second half of the 20th century, Common Era (CE). At that time, a new Islamic culture emerged, clearing the issue of al-Qada wal-Qadr intellectually and presenting the Islamic point of view towards it. This culture also cleared the meaning of al-Qadr based on the Sharii text.

Thus, now the issue of al-Qada wal-Qadr became very clear for those who are involved in the Islamic work or Islam in general. Those who looked up to the western culture and the ones cultured by it, their interest in addressing Islam started decreasing (so they stopped attacking Islam through this perspective). The issue of al-Qada wal-Qadr was no longer an issue which occupied the mind of the Muslims or shaped their behavior. However, this did not affect al-Qadaria al-Ghaybiya (fatalism) and its place in the minds of the Muslims. All of the Muslims kept being influenced by it, the way it was in the past and those who are adhering to the Western culture, they started to get influenced by similar ideas carried by the West, which they call divine destiny. Thus, the issue of the al-Qadaria al-Ghaybiya is not solved and a question emerged about the difference in al-Qadr and al-Qadaria al-Ghaybiya due to the difficulty in distinguishing the difference between them. Before starting to address this question, we would like to pay attention to the fact that al-Qadr is a word which is different than ''al-Qada wal-Qadr'', the combined term.

The Qadr as the word is what Allah knows and wrote in preserved tablet (al-Lowh al-Mahfooz) at the very beginning (of creation). However, al-Qada wal-Qadr means the question of having the actions occur against man's will. This includes the characteristics of objects, which also occur against man's will. Thus, the real meaning of both are different. Although, the meaning which may come to the mind of the people once they hear both terms may be the same, which is the ability of man to stand and face what was written.

Since al-Qadr is different then al-Qada wal-Qadr, then a deep investigation of the issue leads us to realize that what needs to be addressed in al-Qadariya al-Ghaibiya versus al-Qadr. It should not be al-Qadariya al-Ghaibiya versus al-Qadr and al-Qada wal-Qadr. Because the issue is the written actions and not the free choice of man or having man being forced to carry out his actions. Now it is clear that al-Qadariya al-Ghaibiya emerged when people started mixing between al-Qadr and the meaning of al-Qadariya al-Ghaibiya without distinguishing them. In other words, it emerged as a result of mixing between al-Qadr and its results (submitting to it). While forgetting al-Qadr itself and being confined to its submission. Due to this mixing and the failure to define the fine line of separating both, al-Qadariya al-Ghaibiya emerged and spread and even over shadowed al-Qadr. Therefore, we need to understand the reality of both and the difference between them. Al-Qadr is all that Allah (swt) knows which is everything in al-Lowh al-Mahfooz. This taken from many Shani text (which are used as Daleel for the meaning of al-Qadr); for example when Allah (swt) says:

''(All) except the family of Lut. Them all we are surely going to save (from destruction). Except his wife, of whom We have decreed that she shall be of those who remain behind (i.e. she will be destroyed)''.

[Al Hijr 15: 59-60]

Also'

..And the Command of Allah is a decree determined.''

[Al-Ahzab 33:38]

also,Say:

''Nothing shall ever happen to us except what Allah has ordained for us..''

[At-Tauba 9:51]

and

And there is nothing hidden in the heaven and the earth, but is in a Clear Book (al-Lowh al-Mahfooz)

[Al-Naml 27:75]

and

And no aged man is granted a length of life, nor is a part cut off from his life, but is in a Book (al-Lowh al-Mahfooz,)

[Fatir 35:11]

and

And with Him are the keys of the Ghaib (all that is hidden), none knows them but he. And he knows whatever there is in (or on) the earth and in the sea; not a leaf falls, but he knows it. There is not a grain in the darkness of the earth nor anything fresh or dry, but is written in a Clear Record.

[Al-An'am 6:59]

The meaning of all of these Ayat is that Allah knows everything in the universe and Allah wrote it in a clear book. Similarly, this is described in the following Ahadith:

The one which mentions that a woman should not ask for her sister's divorce in order to marry her sister's husband, because she will have what Allah wrote for her.

And the one which says that Musa told Adam, ''O Adam, Allah has chosen you and wrote by His hand for you; how come you blame me for something Allah wrote before He even created me.''

And in the Hadith which mentions that Allah wrote the Qadr of everything 50,000 years before the creation of the universe while His throne was on the water.

And the Hadith which mentions that Allah (swt) created the pen and instructed it to write. The pen asked, ''O Allah, what should I write''. Allah said, ''write the Qadr of everything till the day of judgement.''

And the Hadith which mentions that writing is dried and you will meet what is written.

And the Hadith which mentions that if the Ummah gathered to benefit you in something, they will never be able to benefit you with something other than what Allah wrote for you and if the whole Ummah got together to harm you in something, they will never be able to do it. unless Allah wrote it for you. Pens are laid down, and the ink has dried. (Ibn Abbas)

When Rasool Allah (saaw) says all of this, he means that nothing happens, except what Allah destined and wrote for the human beings and nothing happens against that which Allah knows. This is the meaning of Qadr and this is the meaning which is included in the Sharii text.

The Sharii text gives the meaning in a clear way without any ambiguity. This is what a Muslim should believe in. A Muslim knows that he cannot do anything against what Allah has determined. He knows also that what he can and cannot accomplish are within al-Qadr. A Muslim knows that he cannot succeed, unless Allah determined this success for him (wrote in al-Lowh al-Mahfooz). A Muslim is aware of all this and believes in it, because this is what the different Ayat imply: such as:

''...Nothing will happen to us except for what Allah wrote for us

[At-Tauba 9:51]

And what the different Ahadith tell us; such as the one which mentions that the pens are laid down and the ink has dried.

Based upon this understanding, Muslims believed in al-Qadr without any ambiguity. There was no doubt in a Muslim's Aqeedah, so long as no alien ideas were attached to this understanding. However, after Muslims got influenced by alien thoughts, a veil covered their minds, causing them to loose the clarity of their understanding of the Aqeedah. Muslims used to believe in the Qadr and keeping it in the realm of belief (Iman). But now, Muslims started noticing this Iman in the Qadr, before performing any action and they started to carry various actions shaped by this Iman in the Qadr. Thus, they surrounded themselves by what is predetermined. Muslims started to think that whatever Allah predetermined is going to happen, regardless if they became active or passive in carrying out an action. They started believing like this, despite the fact that they know for sure that, it is impossible for anyone to have access to Allah's knowledge. In other words, the Muslims do believe that it is impossible for anyone to know what Allah's knowledge is.

Muslims know all of this, yet they still link their actions with this knowledge of Allah. Thus, al-Qadaria al-Ghaibiya (fatalism) emerged. It became something different than believing in al-Qadr. This is because, believing in the Qadr is to believe conclusively that nothing will happen in this universe, other than what Allah has predetermined everything and wrote in al-Lowh al-Mahfooz. However, al-Qadariya al-Ghaibiya means to surrender to what is predetermined. There is a difference between believing in the Qadr and surrendering to the predetermined. Surrendering to this predetermined is simply the result of believing in the Qadr with the absolute surrender; which is that what is predetermined is going to happen and nothing will happen if Allah did not predetermined it.

By the time, believing in the Qadr was over shadowed and now the Muslims have the total surrender. In other words, the belief in the Qadr is no longer restricted to the realm of belief. Now, the outcome alone (which is the total submission) became the issue. Al-Qadaria al-Ghaibiya, inside ourselves is linked to the combination of Iman in the Qadr and absolute submission to it; but when it comes to the actions of a person who believes in it, it is no longer a combination of Iman in the Qadr and the total submission to it. Now it is just total submission. In the end. Muslims started saying (once they fail), this is Allah's predetermination and it is my Qadr. If he fails many times, and succeeds in the end, he will say, this is the predetermined time for my success and I succeeded just because it came in the time which Allah had decided. Thus, Muslims started linking the success or the failure to the Qadr in most of their actions. Muslims started saying that it is useless to overcome the predetermined because whatever is predetermined is going to happen and no power can stop it.

This is al-Qadaria al-Ghaibiya. It is the absolute surrender to the predetermined without even looking at the belief in the Qadr. In other words, it is moving the issue from the belief to the surrender. As a result, all actions will be linked to the Qadr and to Allah. From this we see that al-Qadaria al-Ghaibiya did not emerged from the belief in the Qadr. Rather, it emerged from surrendering to the Qadr or from observing al-Qadr when performing an action. This observation is the fine line and it is the pit fall. Thus, we have to understand it believing in the Qadr and understand that issue of this observation and recognize the fine line that separates believing the Qadr and al-Qadaria al-Ghaibiya. We must know that believing in the Qadr is just a belief. It is a conclusive belief and must not produce a submission to the predetermined. The danger is from this surrender which was produced by this belief. In other words, it came form observing the Qadr while we perform an action or while we are just about to perform it. This danger cannot be prevented, except by keeping the Qadr totally and completely in the realm of Iman without linking to the actions. It is like any issue of the Aqeedah, we are asked to believe in it, while making it distinct from the actions. Mixing it with the actions and removing this fine line is what causes this pit fall. Al-Qadaria al-Ghaybiya spread amongst the Muslims during the decline era, because of the lack of clarity misunderstanding the Qadr and not separating this Iman in the Qadr from the actions. People started surrendering to the Qadr. Muslims started justifying their failure and successes to the Qadr. They started justifying their obedience and disobedience to Allah on the Qadr.

Consequently. Muslims no longer want to overcome obstacles facing them and no longer want to achieve the great achievements which they are supposed to, because they started surrendering themselves negatively to whatever happened to them, good or bad. Al-Qadaria al-Ghaibiya is to observe the Qadr in everything and in every action: whatever occurred and whatever did not occur. It is to believe and surrender to the Qadr in a negative way. It is one of the most dangerous and harmful dogma the Ummah can carry. It has grave consequences and it annihilates the individual, Ummah and the society, any society. Thus, it has to be countered and separated from the belief in the Qadr. We do believe that Allah knows or predetermined everything. This, however, should not be observed in our actions. We do not have access to Allah's knowledge. No one knows that there is going to be a failure or success. No one knows weather there is going to be obedience or disobedience. We do not have access to Allah's knowledge and consequently Allah's knowledge should not be observed and linked to our actions, because we do not know it and it is impossible for us to know. Thus, we do not surrender to it. Rather, we should put a thick barrier separating it (Allah's knowledge) from our minds. It should not be thought about, imagined or speculated before carrying any action. But, we should restrict ourselves to the issue, the hukm Sharii, causes of success, the factors of failure and keep this alone in mind.