Thursday, 3 January 2008

Interfaith Dialogue

Interfaith Dialogue


Inviting non-Muslims to Islam is a matter that Allah has made
obligatory on the Muslims. The Muslims have been doing this for
fourteen centuries, and continue call others to Islam whether they
are from the People of the Book or not. Allah said:
"Invite (O Muhammad) to the Way of your Lord with Hikma
(clear proof) and fair preaching, and argue with them in a way that is better."
[Al-Nahl: 125]
And he said in his letter to Heraclius, the Roman Emperor:
“Verily,I invite you with the call of Islam. Embrace Islam and you shall be
safe and Allah will grant you the reward twice. If you turn away
then upon you will bear the sin of the people under your rule.”
Thus, our call to the non-Muslims is an invitation to have conviction
in Islam and to abandon Kufr.
As for the idea of interfaith dialogue that is being circulated nowadays,
it is a foreign, evil and Western idea that has no basis in Islam. This is
because it calls for mutual relationships between different religions. It
calls for a new fabricated religion which the Kuffar want the Muslims to
embrace instead of Islam, because the advocates and followers of this
idea are the Kuffar themselves.
Internationally, this idea started in 1932 when France sent
representatives to confer with the scholars of al-Azhar University about
the idea of uniting the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism.
This was then followed by the Paris Conference of 1933 attended by
orientalists and missionaries from every university in France, England,
Switzerland, America, Italy, Poland, Spain, Turkey and others. The
Conference of world religions in 1936 was the last conference of
religions before the Second World War, which distracted the Europeans
from these conferences.
In 1964 Pope Paolo VI sent a letter in which he called for dialogue
between the religions. The Vatican then published a book in 1969 with
the title: 'Guide to dialogue between the Muslims and Christians.'
During the 1970’s and 1980’s more than thirteen interfaith and
intercultural meetings and conferences were held, the most prominent of
which was the Second World Conference of Religion and Peace held in
Belgium attended by 400 delegates from various world religions. Another
conference was held in Cordoba in Spain attended by Muslim and
Christian representatives from 23 countries. These two conferences were
held in 1974 followed by the Christian-Muslim assembly in Qurtaj, Tunis
in 1979.
It was in the 1990s that those calling for interfaith dialogue became
most active. Thus they held the Arab-European Conference in 1993 in
Jordan, followed in 1994 by the Khartoum Conference for interfaith
dialogue. In 1995 two dialogue conferences were held, one in Stockholm
and the other in Amman, both of which were followed by the
Conference "Islam and Europe" at the University of Ahl al-Bayt in
Jordan in 1996.

One of the most significant justifications presented by delegates at
the interfaith conferences is standing firm in the face of the disbelief and
atheism represented by the Soviet Union before its collapse.
Communism was depicted as a danger to the divine religions, which
would threaten their cultural achievements. Then they pretended to weep
for humanity and to fight for the defence of all believers in the world.
They sought to define truth in relative terms, emphasising that no
individual and no religion could claim sole ownership of the truth, but
it should be subject to the democratic process where the majority
opinion is closest to the truth.
The following were the most important recommendations of the
conferences held in the name of interfaith and intercultural dialogue
and between Islam and Europe:
1. Devising and adopting new meanings and provisions for words
such as disbelief, atheism, polytheism, belief, Islam, moderation,
extremism and fundamentalism to ensure that these words would not
become factors of division between people of different religions.
2. Identifying shared elements in the three religions, which would
include creed, morals and culture, and to place emphasis on positive cooperation
between the religions and cultures, since all the people of the
Book were accepted as believers, and worshippers of Allah .
3. The formation of a joint document on human rights to permit
peace and co-existence between the followers of different religions. This
would be achieved by eliminating the feeling of barriers of blood
between the religions and by removing the concept of the cultures of
different peoples and policies of different states.
4. A comprehensive review of the history and education curricula,
so that they become free of any incitement or hatred. Religious
education would be considered part of basic humanitarian studies that
aim to create personalities open to human cultures and with mutual
understanding of others. Therefore, the study of certain beliefs and
worships had to be disqualified.
5. Raising interest in studying the following subjects and
formulating unified concepts for them: justice, peace, women rights,
human rights, democracy, work morals, pluralism, freedom, world peace,
peaceful co-existence, cultural openness, civil society etc.

After the failure of the Western Kuffar in distancing the Muslims from
their Aqeedah via the missionaries, orientalists, cultural works, the media,
intellectual and political deception, they resorted to government
authorities in their countries and in the countries of their agents. They
began to hold conferences and seminars, formed joint work teams and
established centres of study in their countries and in the Muslim lands,
such as the Oxford Centre for Islamic studies, the Centre for Middle
Eastern Studies at Durham University, the American college of the Holy
Cross, the Muslim League, the Royal Academy for the study of Islamic
Culture, the University of Ahl al-Bayt and the World Council of
Churches etc.
They deliberately used terminologies and pretentious general
expressions with undefined meanings to create deception and delusion.
For example, terms such as renovation, openness to the world, human
civilisation, universal sciences, the need for peaceful co-existence,
renunciation of partisanship and extremism, globalisation etc., were all
examples of this.
They mixed the concepts of science and culture, and the concepts of
Hadharah (civilisation) and Madaniyya (material progression) to justify
attacking those who hold to their specific way of life. They claimed that
such people opposed science and technology and the civilisation arising
from them, and accused them of being reactionary and backward, even
though this is not the case in Islam. Islam opens its gates to science and
to the technology that is derived from this science, but closes them in the
face of any Thaqafa (culture) or Madaniyya from other than the Thaqafa
and Hadharah of Islam. This is because these thoughts and concepts are
related to the behaviour of the human being, which has to be controlled
by the Islamic concepts about life.
They painted certain capitalist thoughts in glowing tones to the
Muslims and promoted them by claiming that they do not contradict
Islam to such an extent that some Muslims considered them as part of
Islam, such as democracy, freedom, pluralism, socialism and others. On
the other hand, they denounced certain Islamic thoughts and described
them as uncivilised and out of date, such as Jihad, the Hudood, polygyny
and other Shara’i rules.
They subjected the study of the Islamic texts to the Capitalist way of
thinking, which makes the reality the source of the rule and not the
subject of the thought. It makes benefit the criterion in adopting or
leaving the rule rather than the Halal and the Haram. This incited some
Muslims to invent certain principles, which did not rely on the Shara’i
texts to understand Islam. This is like the Fiqh of reality, the Fiqh of
balances, necessity permits the prohibited things and others. This
resulted in the dilution of certain rules of Islam and non-differentiation
of the foreign rule from the original rule, and even between what
constitutes Kufr and what constitutes Islam. For example, Riba (usury)
has become acceptable and martyrdom is now portrayed as suicide.
The non-muslims who initiated this dialogue are now generalising and
widening its scope. It will no longer remain restricted to the few who
participate in conferences and seminars. Rather it will include all sections
of society from men, women, the educated and labourers. This is done
via the universities, institutes of study, parties and associations. It is, as
some conference delegates have described, joining the western Hadharah
in economics, social relations, politics, education etc. Thus, Capitalism -
according to their claim - is humanity, rationalism, freedom and
democracy. It is the new and successful Hadharah. As for Islam, it is seen
as blind faith, despotism and heritage and depicted as the sovereignty of
religion, slavery and polygyny. It is thus an uncivilised religion!
One of the styles used to blind the Muslims to the real objective of
these conferences is to invite those belonging to certain beliefs such as
Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism to attend alongside the Muslims,
Christians and Jews. This happened at the World Conference for Religion
and Peace in Japan and in a seminar in Beirut in 1970, to ensure that
Muslims would not suspect they were the only targets of the dialogue.
How could so-called Muslim scholars allow Islam to be placed on an
equal stage with Buddhism and other religions?!

The West, which calls for dialogue with the Muslims and heads
conferences of dialogue, views Islam as the enemy. This viewpoint is
the motive for such dialogue and governs and directs this dialogue. For
example, the encyclopaedia of French culture, which is a renowned point
of reference, states that the Messenger Muhammad  is: 'a killer, the

Antichrist, kidnaps women and the greatest enemy to the human mind.'
Likewise most of the textbooks in Western Europe describe the
Messenger Muhammad , Islam and the Muslims with the most ugliest
of descriptions. Recently, the following has been mentioned in the book
'The End of History' written by the American thinker Fukuyama: “The
Capitalist system is the eternal salvation for man on earth. Islam, despite
its weakness and disintegration, threatens this new victorious way of life
(i.e. capitalism).” The former General Secretary of NATO, Javier Solana,
said: 'Fundamentalist Islam is the danger which threatens the geopolitics
of the future.' The orientalist Barnard Lewis said about Islam and
Capitalism: 'They are contradictory. There is no scope for dialogue.' And
Samuel Huntington, professor of political science at Harvard University
and the Director of the Institute of Strategic Studies said: “The clash
between civilisations (Hadharah) will dominate foreign policy. The
dividing lines between the civilisations (Hadharah) will be the battle lines
in the future.” Then he says: “Religion vehemently distinguishes itself
and it is clear to the people. A person can be half French and half
Arab...but it is difficult for a man to be half Catholic and half Muslim...”
Where is the dialogue they call us for from t h i s enmity?
When these statements are compared with the hostile actions which
have come from the West against Islam and the Muslims, such as the
Crusades, the extermination of Muslims in Spain, the destruction of the
Khilafah State and afterwards the establishment of the Jewish state in
Palestine, and the portrayal of Islam and the Islamic movements as
terrorist and extremist. When we compare these statements, we realise
the meaning and the aims of the dialogue that the Kafir West is
conducting with the Muslims.

The primary aim that the capitalists are working to achieve from the
dialogue between religions and Hadharah is to prevent the return of
Islam to life's affairs as a comprehensive system. This is because it
threatens the survival of their ideology and Hadharah and will destroy
their interests and influence.
As for other partial aims that serve their primary aim, these are various.
Thus the West aims to paint the world according to the colour of the
Capitalist civilisation, especially in the Muslim lands, in order to replace
the Islamic Hadharah. This will make it easy for them to remove the
Islamic Thaqafa (culture) from the minds of the people. They aim to
achieve that by shaking the confidence of Muslims in the Islamic Thaqafa
(culture) and in its sources and principles. They aim to neutralise Islam
in the clash of civilisations by stripping it of its most important
characteristics which distinguish it from other religions, namely the
political aspect with which the Khilafah would be established to look
after the affairs of the people according to the rules of Islam and carry
it to the whole of mankind.
The Capitalists also aim to reshape the personality of the Muslim a new
such that he finds no shame in leaving the duty and doing the
prohibited . Then they aim to corrupt the Islamic desires and
values and destroy in the Muslim the zeal for Islam such that he no
longer hates Kufr and the Kafireen, and he no longer enjoins good and
forbids evil. With this they will remove the cultural immunity of the
Islamic Ummah with which she resisted all external elements, and will
remove the emotional and intellectual barriers that threatened the
presence of Capitalist civilisation in Muslim lands. Thus, preserving their
influence and interests becomes easier and they guarantee their survival
and continuance.
The intention behind this dialogue, which the non-muslimsand their agent
rulers guard in the Muslim countries with an entourage of scholars and
thinkers, is to create a new religion for the Muslims. It is based upon the
creed of separating religion from life, and in which man is the Legislator
instead of Allah , the Creator of mankind. They are as Allah
describes them:
"And they will never cease fighting you until they turn you back from your Deen."
[Al-Baqarah: 217]

And He said regarding the people of Lut (peace be upon him):
"But We found not there any household of those who submitted (muslimeen)
except one (i.e. of Lut and his two daughters)."
[Az-Zariyat: 36]
And on the tongue of Musa (peace be upon him):
"Then in Him put your trust if you are those who have submitted (to Allah's will
[Muslimeen])."
[Yunus: 84]
And on the tongue of the Hawariyyoon, the followers of 'Isa (peace
be upon him):
"We believe in Allah, and bear witness that we are those who have submitted
(muslimoon)."
[Al-Imran: 52]
So the word 'Muslimoon' found in the Ayats means 'those who have
submitted' (Munqaadoon). It does not mean that they professed one Deen,
which is Islam as revealed to Muhammad saw. Islam was not known to
them and they were not addressed with it. Rather, each people had a
particular Messenger who called them to a specific Shari'ah. Allah
said:
"To each (Ummah) among you, We have prescribed a law (Shari'ah) and a clear
way (Minhaaj)."
[Al-Ma'ida: 48]
After the revelation (Wahy) came down to Muhammad , the
revelation took up certain Arabic words and transferred them from their
conventional linguistic meanings to Shara’i meanings. The Shari'ah texts
from the Qur'an and Sunnah have clarified this. One of these transferred
expressions is the word 'Islam' which linguistically used to mean
'submission' (Inqiyaad), and became a Shara’i meaning - the Deen revealed
by Allah to His Messenger Muhammad . Allah said, addressing
the whole of mankind until the Day of Judgement:
"I have chosen for you Islam as your Deen."
[Al-Ma'ida: 3]
And Allah said:
"And whosoever seeks a Deen other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him."
[Al-Imran: 85]
And the Messenger of Allah saw said:
“Islam has been built on five.”
Other religions are not based on these five.
After the divine transference of the meaning of the word 'Islam', the
words derived from it, such as the verb and active participle (Aslama
and Muslim), if used without a Qareena (context), indicate the Shara’i
meaning only. If the conventional linguistic meaning is intended this
would then require a Qareena to change it from the Shara’i meaning.
Allah for example says:
"Ibraheem was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was one who truly submitted
(Musliman) (to Allah's will)."
[Al-Imran: 67]
This does not mean that Ibraheem (peace be upon him) was on the
Deen that Allah revealed to Muhammad . Rather it means that
Ibraheem (peace be upon him) had submitted to Allah regarding that
which Allah revealed to him, unlike the Jews and Christians who
fabricated the Deen of their Prophets.
As for the statement that Muhammad , 'Isa and Musa (peace be upon
them) were on the Deen of Ibraheem (peace be upon him), it means that
they believed in the same ‘Aqeedah, which is the foundation of every

Deen revealed from Allah .
This is what is meant from His saying:
"He (Allah) has ordained for you the same Deen which He ordained for Nuh, and
that which We have inspired to you (O Muhammad), and that which We ordained
for Ibraheem, Musa and 'Isa saying you should establish the Deen and do not become
divided over it."
[Ash-Shura: 13]
So the word 'Deen' in the Ayah means the foundation of the Deen,
which is the ‘Aqeedah. Allah specified this when He said:
"To each (Ummah) among you, We have prescribed a law (Shari'ah) and a clear
way (Minhaaj)."
[Al-Ma'ida: 48]
(2) The Shar’i issue
Allah sent Muhammad saw was the seal of the Prophets and the
Messengers to the whole of mankind. He ordered them to leave
whatever religion they were following, whether divine or not, and called
on them to embrace Islam as a Deen. Whoever responded to the call
became a Muslim and whoever rejected committed Kufr. Allah said:
"And say to those who were given the Book (the Jews and Christians) and to
those who are illiterates (Arab pagans): 'Do you (also) submit yourselves (to Allah
in Islam)?' If they do, they are rightly guided; but if they turn away, your duty is
only to convey the Message; and Allah is All-Seer of (His) slaves."
[Al-Imran: 20]
And He said:
"Those who disbelieve from among the people of the Book (Jews and Christians)
and among the Mushrikeen (polytheists), were not going to leave (their disbelief)
until there came to them clear evidence, a Messenger (Muhammad) from Allah."
[Al-Baiyinah:1-2]
They are not separated from the Kufr except by their embracing of
Islam. The Messenger of Allah  said: “By the one in whose Hand
lies Muhammad's soul! No one from this Ummah, whether Jew or
Christian, who hears about me and then dies without believing in
what I have been sent with, except that he will be from the
inhabitants of the Fire.” So the people are all called to gain conviction
in Islam, and whoever does not profess Islam after the matter has been
proven to him, then he is definitely a Kafir. After Muhammad  was
charged with prophethood, if the Jews and Christians continued to hold
to their religion, they are considered Kafir according to the Quranic text.
It is forbidden to describe them as Muslims, and whosoever believes
that they or others are Muslims, he is a Kafir. This is because with this
belief of his he has rejected clear Shara’i texts that are definite in
meaning and authenticity. If they die on this belief then they will be
from among the inhabitants of the Fire.
(3) The issue concerning the sons of Ibraheem (Peace be
upon them)
This is a call to the bond of nationalism. It is a bond arising from the
survival instinct and is shallow and emotional in nature. It is not suitable
for man because it cannot bind one human being with another if they
differ in lineage.
The bond of the sons of Ibraheem (peace be upon him) has been
negated by time. It does not exist today because the descendants of
Ibraheem (peace be upon him) and his offspring have mixed with other
peoples through marriage, social intercourse, migration and wars.
Todayit is impossible to separate them from other peoples. Since the followers
of the three religions can be found among all peoples and tribes of the
world, they have mixed on the basis of religion and not on the basis of
ethnicity. Therefore, applying the claim regarding the sons of Ibraheem
(peace be upon him) on the Muslims, Jews and Christians and on those
who live around al-Masjid al-Aqsa or any others is a pointless exercise
and is incorrect. The intention is to fight Islam, justify the peace process
and normalise relations with the Jewish entity of Israel that exists on the
usurped land of the Muslims; all of this to give legitimacy to the terrible
crimes committed by the treacherous rulers of the Islamic lands under
the orders of their masters, the Kuffar of the West.
The family or nationalist bond is like the bond of the sons of
Ibraheem (peace be upon him). It is rejected by the Shari'’ah as a basis to
organise the relationships of the people. Allah said:
"Say: If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your kindred, the
wealth that you have gained, the commerce in which you fear decline, and the dwellings
in which you delight...are dearer to you than Allah and His Messenger, and striving
hard and fighting in His Path, then wait until Allah brings about His Decision
(torment). And Allah guides not the people who are Fasiqoon (disobedient)."
[At-Tauba: 24]
Thus, the order of Allah is above every nationalistic, family or benefit
bond. Allah clarified the shallowness of this bond to the previous
Messengers. He said:
“And Nuh called upon his Lord and said: 'O my Lord! Verily, my son is of my
family! And certainly your promise is true, and You are the most just of the judges'.
And He said: 'O Nuh! Surely, he is not of your family, indeed his work is
unrighteous.’”
[Hud: 45-46]
And He said about Ibraheem:
"He said to him: ‘Verily, I am going to make you a leader of mankind',
(Ibraheem) said: ‘And of my offspring (to make leaders).’ (Allah) said: ‘My covenant
includes not the Zalimeen (wrongdoers).’”
[Al-Baqarah: 124]
Thus, the son of Nuh (peace be upon him) according to the Shara’i
criterion is not from his family, because he did not believe in what Allah
revealed to his father. And the Zalimeen (wrongdoers) from the
offspring of Ibraheem (peace be upon him) are exempt from the
covenant of leadership made by Allah since they did not follow what
Allah revealed to their father Ibraheem (peace be upon him). So the
call to the sons of Ibraheem (peace be upon him) today is Jahil (ignorant)
and a politically motivated call. It is forbidden to call for it and invite
people to it. This is because the intention is to fight Islam, divert the
Muslims from their Deen, justify the treacherous peace treaty with the
Jews and concede to them what they usurped from the blessed land of
Palestine, so that relations with them may be normalised and Israel can
be accepted as a state in the Middle East.

Monday, 31 December 2007

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!’

Saturday, 15 December 2007

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.

Saturday, 10 November 2007

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.

Wednesday, 7 November 2007

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”
“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)]

Tuesday, 6 November 2007

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.