To every knowledgeable person it is clear that Muslim
countries put together are no match to U.S. not to speak of the West as a
whole. Muslim countries are backward in the field of education.
Technologically Muslim countries are far behind the West. The Muslim
countries jointly or singly cannot challenge the U.S. let alone the West.
Why then the West is suspicious of the Muslim ummah?
This question needs to be addressed afresh from an academic point of view
to erase misgiving of the West towards the Muslim world for nobody can
hope for a peaceful future in the world unless the mistrust between the
Muslims and Judeo-Christian West is removed.
Why West considered people
of Timor who fought for separation from Indonesia as freedom fighters
whereas it considers the Palestinian or Kashmiri or Chechen or Moro
fighters for freedom and independence as terrorist? Why is this attitude?
Why is this hypocritical behavior of the West towards the Muslims? Why is
this double standard? What is the underlined reason? Is the West afraid
that Muslims world will retaliate for the past misdeeds of the West once
they become powerful? Is Britain or U.S. afraid that if the Arab Muslims
become powerful they will avenge the illegitimate creation of the state
Israel by expelling Jews from Palestine? Are the former colonial
powers and new-colonial powers of the West afraid that if Muslim countries
become powerful they will have to pay back for plundering of the Muslim
wealth and resources? Is it the sole and only reason or more than one
reasons are liable for the existing bitter and sour relations between the
Muslims and Judeo-Christian West?
One must not overlook the
fact that Western scholars, the Occidental intellectuals frequently quotes
from the text, from the revealed verses of the Quran and the Traditions of
the Prophet (saws), sometimes out of context to justify their contention.
It cannot however be denied that our earlier scholars sometimes did
interpret texts in a way that as if it was the only valid explanation and
that the prevailing situation of their time was the last situation. They
forgot that newer conditions might arise afterwards which will need to be
addressed by interpreting the revealed text of the Quran and sayings and
practices of the noble Prophet (saws) and what he (saws) had endorsed by
remaining silent when certain things happened before him (saws) and he
(saws) did not oppose them. Islamic scholars of the golden era thought
that Muslims are born to translate the teachings of Islam worldwide and
make Islam a victorious deen,
way of life. The classical jurists took it for granted that Muslim society
would remain powerful and established for forever. They therefore could
not contemplate today’s situation where Muslims are living. They took
very rigid stand on many matters at a time the Muslims were rulers
although the Divine Guidance is definitely more flexible and elastic to
suit ever changing environment. What is important is that Western scholars
are using these very interpretations of the imams,
the eminent jurists and scholars of the earlier generation, to prove that
Muslims are intolerant. The oriental scholars and Western media are making
concentrated propaganda to prove that Muslims do not believe in pluralism
and there is no question of living with them peacefully and no hope of
coexistence with them.
The beauty of Islam is
that its followers, the Muslims submit if new truth is established through
ijtihad, research and
investigation. The Muslims therefore always change their position if more
appropriate and correct conclusions are arrived after careful and
meticulous use of reasoning. Islam therefore is a dynamic religion which
is able to match with the ever changing milieu. The West however
intentionally repeats the old ijtihad made by some of the eminent scholars and intellectuals of
the earlier generation of Muslims. One example is that it repeats the
thousand years old ijtihad which
had divided the world into dar al
Islam (the abode of peace) and dar
al harb (the abode of war). The contemporary Muslim scholars and
jurists have however divided the world into two realms: dar
al ijabah (the land of acceptance, land whose people have accepted
Islam and Islamic values are practiced) and dar
al dawah (the land of
invitation, land to which dawah
has been presented and its people are invited to
Islamic values and practices) [Globalization: Centralization not
Globalism. p vii. Vol. 15. No. 3. Fall 1998. Fakhr al Din Al Razi quoted
by Dr. Taha Jabir al Alwani in The American Journal of Islamic Social
Sciences. IIIT.U.S.]. Dr. Alwani, president of the Fiqh Council of North
America (FCNA) and also a member of Jeddah based International Academy of
Fiqh in an interview with the ‘Islamic Horizons’ pointed out that an
“example of misguided rulings is the fatwa
that countries like the United States are dar
al kufr and dar al harb, where Muslims have the right to circumvent
their laws and regulations” [Muslims in the West need contemporary fatwa.
Available in www.witness-pioneer.org].Dr.
Alwani pointed out: “We are living in North America as a small minority
among non-Muslims in a pluralistic, multicultural and multi-ethnic
society. Muslims have the facility of opting to live their lives as
Muslims according to the Islamic shariah
and fiqh. We need a lot of understanding from our fuquha
and ulema in the North American environment, and if they issue fatwa
without studying this environment, they will be doing a great disservice
to the North American Muslim community. Indeed their rulings, or rather
their misinterpretations, will have a serious effect on the future of
Islam in this continent” [ibid]. Dr. Alwani pointed out that “in the
past, scholars were unanimous in their view that the entire earth was the
land of Allah and did not divide it into such spheres. Instead, some
scholars like Imam al Razi considered the earth to consist of dar
al ijaba, which replaces the term dar
al Islam, and dar ad dawah, which replaces the term dar al harb. Dar ad dawah
means a land for dialogue and inter-faith communication, a land where
people are not classified, but all human being are considered one family.
This family has two parts. One is identified as ummat
al ijaba, instead of ummat al
Muslim, and other as ummat ad
dawah, instead of kuffar or harbiyun. This part of our heritage and legacy represents Islam more
correctly than the other part, because the whole earth has been created by
Allah as humanity’s home. The Prophet (saws) told us that the entire
earth is a masjid and pure. The
only difference is that in dar al
ijaba, the message of Islam has been established, and in dar
ad dawah the message has to be spread. We all know what the nuances of
performing dawah are, and
certainly that misguided dar al harb
/ dar al kufr ruling is not among the instruments of dawah”
[ibid]. “The famous 5th Hijra century Imam al Mawardy, in
fact said that even if we have one Muslim family living in a non-Muslim
state, their home will be the home of Islam.
The reality is that wherever Muslims find the freedom to practice
Islam, that place will be dar al
Islam for them, and there is no need for them to migrate to some other
dar al Islam for this purpose”
Lebanese jurist and
professor at T.C Williams School of Law, University of Richmond, USA Dr.
Azizah al Hibri while addressing a selected gathering in Dhaka preferred
to divide the world in to land and people where dawah,
the message of Islam has been presented on the one and where dawah, the call and guidance of Islam has not been presented or yet
to be presented on the other rather than
dar al Islam (the abode of peace) and dar
al harb (the abode of war). Yet other scholars grouped lands and
people dar al sulh (the abode of
peaceful coexistence or on contractual peace). There can be further
classification of states in the light of the spirit of the Quran and the sunnah, the Traditions of the Prophet (saws).
The West also repeats the
old ijtihad of the Muslim
scholars that non-Muslims living in Muslim countries have to pay jiziah tax even though contemporary jurists have ruled that paying
of jiziah is not compulsory and
binding. In fact the second rightly guided caliph Omar bin Khattab (ra)
reviewed the jiziah policy (tax
imposed on the non-Muslims) and abrogated the jiziah imposed on old people, children, orphans and unsupported
women [Islam & Democracy: Mutually Reinforcing OR Incompatible. p 87. Dr. Hassan Al Alkim. Article contributed in
Dr. Azzam Tamimi edited Power-Sharing Islam. Liberty for Muslim World
Publications. U.K. 1993]. Omar (ra) even ordered to pay monthly allowance
to a Jew when he (ra) saw him begging door to door. As long as non-Muslims
pay some taxes as a mark of their obedience to the Muslim state, there is
no need for a special tax only to be paid by the non-Muslims. The renowned
Islamic jurist Dr. Yusuf Al Qaradawi is his book Fiqh-uz-Zakat mentioned
that Caliph Omar bin Khattab (ra) dropped jiziah
on the Christian of Banu Taglib tribe on their request and imposed another
tax. Dr. Qaradawi opined that
it is not necessary that non-Muslims pay jiziah.
It is enough if the non-Muslims pay a tax equal to zakat [Fiqh-uz-Zakat. pp 144-152. Vol. I .Dr. Yusuf Al Qaradawi..
Bengali Edition. 1982]. Eminent Arab economist Dr. Monzer Kahf currently
working with Islamic Development Bank (IDB) opined that jiziah can be charged only from the subjects of the conquered lands
[Quoted in Zakat and the Tax System. Shah Abdul Hannan. Unpublished work].
Moulana Maududi also holds the same view. Moulana argued that Pakistan not
being a conquered land the question of imposing jiziah on the non Muslims citizens of Pakistan does not arise. [Rasail
Wa Masail. p 158. Vol. IV. Bengali Edition. 1999].The day of colonization
is over. Modern states have been established by the joint struggle of both
Muslims and non-Muslims. The imposition of jiziah has therefore become irrelevant and impractical. In fact
Islam makes no difference between Muslims and non-Muslims as far as the
basic necessities are concerned [Al Quran 2(Surat Al Baqarah): 126].
Islam and Muslims are
being accused by the West on the basis of the old ruling of the Muslims
jurists that if a Muslim leaves Islam or converted to some other religion
such person is beheaded for being murtad
(leaving Islam). But eminent contemporary Islamic scholars hold different
view on the basis of renewed ijtihad,
research and investigation. The West however continues to beat drum and
propagate that Islam is against the freedom of conscience and Muslims do
not believe in liberty, free will and choice. In fact there is not a
single instance that Prophet Muhammad (saws) did treat apostasy as a
prescribed offence under hudud
(capital punishment) only for leaving Islam. Prophet (saws) never put
anyone to death for apostasy alone rather he (saws) let such person go
unharmed. No one was sentenced to death solely for renunciation of faith
unless accompanied by hostility and treason or was linked to an act of
political betrayal of the community. As a matter of fact the Quran is
completely silent on the question of death as a punishment for apostasy.
Apostasy does not qualify for temporal punishment. In fact the Supreme
Court of Malaysia ruled that conversion to Christianity by a Muslim is not
a punishable offence [Freedom of Expression in Islam. pp 87-107. Mohammad
Hashim Kamali. Chapter IX. Freedom of Religion (Al-Hurriyyah al-Diniyyah).
Ilmiah Publishers. Kuala Lumpur. 1998].
Mohammad Hashim Kamali put
forwarded verse 137 of Surah 4 (Surat An Nisa) as conclusive proof of
argument against the death penalty for apostasy: “Those who believe,
then disbelieve, then believe again, then disbelieve and then increase in
their disbelief – God will never forgive them nor guide them to the
path”. Commenting on the verse Mohammad Hashim Kamali pointed out:
“The implication is unmistakable. The text would hardly entertain the
prospect of repeated belief and disbelief if death were to be the
prescribed punishment for the initial act. It is also interesting to note
that the initial reference to disbelief is followed by further
confirmation of disbelief and then ‘increase in disbelief’. One might
be inclined to think that if the first instance of apostasy did not
qualify for capital punishment, the repeated apostasy might have provoked
it – had such a punishment ever
been intended in the Quran”(emphasis added)[ ibid pp 97-98].
Mohammad Hashim Kamali
pointed out to the hadith, the
Saying of the Prophet (saws) which “makes it clear that the apostate
must also boycott the community (muifariq
lil-jamaah) and challenge its legitimate leadership, in order to be
subjected to death penalty” [ibid p 96]: “The blood of a Muslim who
professes that there is no god but Allah and that I am His Messenger,
is sacrosanct except in three cases: a married adulterer; a person who has
killed another human being; and a person who has abandoned his religion,
while splitting himself off from the community (muifariq
lil-jamaah)” [Muslim. Mukhtasar Sahih Muslim. p 271.Hadith No. 1023. Quoted in Freedom of Expression in
Islam. p 96].
Imam Ibn Taymiyyah
explaining the aforementioned hadith
of the Prophet (saws) inferred that “the crime referred in the hadith under discussion is that of high treason (hirabah)
and not apostasy (riddah) as
such” [Al Sarim Al Maslul. p 52. Ibn Taymiyyah. Quoted in Freedom of
Expression in Islam. p 96].
S. A. Rahman, former Chief
Justice of Pakistan in his monograph The Punishment of Apostasy in Islam
looked “into the evidence in the Quran and the sunnah
in detail, and draws attention to the fact that the Quran is silent on the
question of death as the punishment for apostasy, despite this subject
occurring no less then twenty times in the Holy Book” [ibid p 93].
Justice Rahman examined the hadith
“kill whoever changes his religion” (man
baddala dinahu faqtuluhu) and found “some weakness in the
transmission (isnad)” [ibid p 93]. Justice S. A. Rahman’s conclusion is also
supported by other evidence, such as the fact that neither Prophet (saws)
himself, nor any of his Companions (ra) ever compelled anyone to embrace
Islam, nor did they sentence anyone to death solely for renunciation of
faith [The Punishment of Apostay in Islam. pp 63-64. Justice S. A. Rahman.
Quoted in Freedom of Expression in Islam. p 93]. Justice Rahman’s
view is supported by such eminent earlier scholars as Ibrahim al Nakhai
and Sufyan al Thawri (both held the view that “apostate should be
re-invited to Islam but should never be condemned to death”), the
renowned Hanafi jurist Shams al Din al Sarakhsi (“apostasy does not
qualify for temporal punishment”), Malaki jurist al Baji (“apostasy is
a sin which carries no prescribed penalty, hadd”)
and modern scholars as Abd al Hakim al Ili and Ismail al Badawi (apostasy
to be punishable by death has to be “political
in character and aimed at the inveterate enemies of Islam”), Mahmud
Shaltut (“apostasy carries no temporal penalty”), Mahmassani (“death
penalty was meant to apply, not to simple act of apostasy from Islam, but
when apostasy was linked to an act of political betrayal of the
community”). Selim el Awa raised a very rational argument that if the hadith “whoever renounces his religion shall be killed” is
literally applied it would be applicable also “to Christians, who
convert to Judaism and vice versa” which “manifestly fall outside the
intention” of the hadith [ibid
The great Iranian scholar Ayatollah Mutahhari highlighted the incompatibility of the coercion with the sprit of Islam, and the basic redundancy of punitive measures in the propagation of its message. He wrote that it is impossible to force anyone to acquire the kind of faith that is required by Islam, just as “it is not possible to spank a child into solving an arithmetical problem. His mind and thought must be left free in order that he may solve it. The Islamic faith is something of this kind” [Islam and the Freedom of Thought and Belief. Al Tawhid. p 154. Ayatollah Mutahhari .Quoted in Freedom of Expression in Islam. p 95].
Dr. Hassan Turabi, the
ideologue of the Sudanese Islamic movement, raised a very pertinent
rational argument on the validity of the opinion of those scholars who
hold the view that apostasy in Islam is punishable by death. He pointed
out: “How can it be imagined by a rational person that Allah, Who has
compelled none to believe, allows us the right to compel others and force
them to believe?” [Al Mustakillah. Issue No. 96. 11 March 1996. English
translation by The Diplomat, U.K].
“If Almighty Allah has
granted us the merit of freedom, he who wants to believe is allowed that
right and so too the one who wants to disbelieve. If He has chosen to
distinguish us from other creatures through His gift of freedom, instead
of creating us believers by necessity like stones, mountains, and the
earth, which all fear the responsibility of freedom shouldered by Man, the
ignorant, the unjust; if that is so, then the exercise of that freedom
will become a matter of course – a self-evident truth confirmed by the
Quran as in, ‘No one is to be compelled to believe’ ”.
“At the time of the Prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him, the
Quran tells us of those who believed and then disbelieved again and so
forth. The opinion of the people of those days changed so easily and
freely – between belief and disbelief – that it appeared to swing like
“The Prophet’s saying about apostasy is a short statement
pronounced within the context of war conditions. Muslims were greatly
affected to see one of their companions desert his faith and join the
ranks of disbelievers. They were not sure if they should kill him or spare
his life because he was a Muslim once. The Prophet, peace be upon him,
explained that one who abandons his religion and deserts his fellows
should be killed. Regrettably, people of the subsequent generations have
taken the Prophet’s saying out of its historical context and generalized
it. In so doing they deny one of the basic truths of Islam: the freedom of
“The saying is related
to the case of the Muslim who deserts his fellows and joins the enemies of
Islam. Such a person will either be killed or kill someone else” [ibid].
It is therefore clear that
the Prophet’s saying about the apostate is restricted to times of war,
when a Muslim deserter joins the ranks of the enemies to wage war against
Islam, rather than seeing this hadith
as a measure for controlling the faith of those who do not bear arms.
In fact “any attempt
by a Muslim forcibly or by unfair pressure to convert a Christian subject
… was punishable to death. This law existed in the Turkish Empire even
in our day”[Eminent German orientalist Adam Mez.. Die
Renaissance des Islam. English translation The Renaissance of Islam
tr. S. K. Bakhsh and D. S. Margoliouth. Delhi. Idarah-i-Adabiyati.1937. p
33. Quoted in Prof. Zafar Ishaq Ansari and Prof. John L. Esposito edited
Muslim and the West: Encounter and Dialogue. p 110.Chapter 4. Article
contributed by Ahmet Davutoglu, Professor of International Relations and
Political Science at Beykent University, Istanbul Turkey in Civilizational
Self-Perception and Pluralistic Coexistence: A Critical Examination of the
Image of the Other. A joint publication of Islamic Research Institute,
Islamabad, International Islamic University, Islamabad and Centre for
Muslim-Christian Understanding, Georgetown University, Washington DC].
If anybody however takes a
very penetrating look into the revealed text of the Quran, the verses
related to the creation, the very pluralistic approach of Allah swt will
be crystal clear. Allah is All Powerful [Al Quran 57 (Sura Al Hadid): 1-2]
and He created everything to worship Him alone [Al Quran 51(Sura Az
Zariyat): 56]. He even then tolerated the rebellion of the Satan and
allowed Satan the opportunity to misguide men and women from the worship
of Allah [Al Quran 7 (Surat Al Araf): 11-18]. When Allah swt tolerates
Satan, how Muslims can be intolerant to some people or powers who do not
subscribe their view and way of life? The Prophet Muhammad (saws) was sent
as a mercy on humankind and not to force people [Al Quran 3 (Surat Al
Imran): 164, Al Quran 21 (Sura Al Anbiyaa): 107 and
Al Quran 50 (Sura Qaf): 45]. The very principle of Islam is
persuasion and not to force. There is no compulsion in religion [Al Quran
2 (Surat Al Baqarah): 256]. How then Muslims can be intolerant and deny
other religious communities the opportunity to live with them peacefully?
Prophet (saws) was
considerate and sympathetic in his (saws) attitude and behaviour towards
the non-Muslims. Some Jewish families lived in the neighbourhood of the
Prophet’s (saws) quarter in Madinah. If some of their children fell
sick, Prophet (saws) would visit the sick child. If funeral passed through
the streets of Madinah and Prophet (saws) was around, he (saws) would
stand up as a mark of respect for the deceased [Pluralism and
Multiculturalism: An Islamic Perspective. p 134. Prof. Abdur Rahman Momin.
Department of Sociology. University of Bombay. India. American Journal of
Islamic Social Sciences. IIIT. U.S. Vol. 18. No. 2. Spring 2001].
The scheme of Allah swt is
basically and essentially plural. He created humankind into many tribes,
races and nations. Humankind speaks many languages and is of many colours.
[Al Quran 49 (Sura Al Hujurat): 13 and Al Quran 30 (Sura Ar Rum): 22].
Every race is different from the other in their physical appearance and
nature, which is the reflection of His beauty. Had Allah willed He could
make humankind into one nation [Al Quran 5 (Surat Al Maida): 48 and Al
Quran 11 (Surat Hud): 118]. But His scheme is different.
The shariah is very flexible and gives only the outline and leaves the
matters of details to humankind. We therefore find that the attire of the
Nigerian Muslims is different from the Arab Muslims or Indonesian Muslims.
Muslims man everywhere use cap, but the cap of one Muslim country is
different from the other. The cap used in Central Asia is different from
what is used in neighbouring Pakistan. The Nigerian cap is different from
the Malaysian cap. The Muslim women do hijab,
but the hijab used by the women
in Indonesia-Malaysia is different than the Iranian chadder or the Saudi abaya,
The essential teaching of
Islam is tawheed, unity of
Allah. Allah is alone and there is no partner of Him [Al Quran 17 (Surat
Bani Israil): 111] Still then Allah has ordained Muslims not to criticize
even the idols [Al Quran 6(Surat Al Anam): 108]. This precept of Islam has
direct bearing to the life and activities of the Muslims. The Quran played
and continues to play a major role in forming and maintaining values in
Muslim conscience and social system. The Quran shapes Muslim outlook.
Muslims are therefore by and large tolerant.
The plural nature of Islam
can be understood from the fact that Muslims are permitted to eat food of
the Jews and Christians. Accordingly Muslims can eat the flesh of
otherwise lawful animals Jews and Christians have slaughtered or hunted
[The Lawful And The Prohibited In Islam. p 59. Dr.Yusuf Al Qaradawi.
American Trust Publications. U.S.A.].The Muslim bridegroom can marry
Christian and Jew bride without conversion to Islam. Islam has made the
marriage of Jewish or Christian women lawful for Muslim men for they being
the People of the Book, ahl al kitab [ibid p 183].
According to Imam Abu
Hanifa non-Muslims are not subjected to Muslim legal punishment (hudud) for committing adultery and theft [Towards an Islamic Theory
of International Relations. p 10. Dr. AbdulHamid AbuSulayman.
IIIT. U.S. 1994.].
The Islamic state guaranteed not only the safety of the lives and honour of the non-Muslims and the protection of their religious beliefs and rituals but also the protection and maintenance of their personal laws, institutions and endowments [The Islamic Law of Nations: Shaybanbi’s Siya’r. M. Khadduri. Johns Hopkins Press. Baltimore. MD. 1996; The Cultural Atlas of Islam. p 199. Dr. Ismail Raji al Faruqi and Dr. Lois Lamya al Faruqi.. Macmillan Publishing Company. New York. 1986]. In some cases, the expenses for the maintenance and repair of the places of worship of the non-Muslims were met from the public treasury (bayt ul mal). Similarly the salaries of rabbis and priests were often paid from the state treasury [Pluralism and Multiculturalism: An Islamic Perspective. P 135. Prof. Abdur Rahman Momin. Department of Sociology. University of Bombay. India. American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences. IIIT. US. Vol. 18. No 2. Spring 2001.].
There was no pressure on
Jews or Christians to convert to Islam; Muslims continued to uphold the
old religious pluralism of the Middle East and learned to coexist with the
members of other religions, which according to Quran, were earlier
revelations. Karen Armstrong rightly pointed out: “In the Islamic
empire, Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians enjoyed religious freedom. This
reflected the teaching of the Quran which is a pluralistic scripture,
affirmative of other traditions. Muslims are commanded by God to respect
the People of the Book, and reminded that they share the same belief and
the same God” [The Curse of the Infidel. Karen Armstrong.
The Guardian. 20 June 2002].
Muslim Empire from Christian mediaeval Europe is the fact that within the
borders of the former, unlike the latter, lived a large number of peoples
of other faiths than Islam. … The necessity to live side by side created
an atmosphere of toleration, absolutely unknown to mediaeval Europe”
[Adam Mez. “Die Renaissance des
Islam”. Quoted in
“Muslim and the West: Encounter and Dialogue. p 110.Chapter 4. Article
contributed by Ahmet Davutoglu].
“The Quran and the sunnah
are replete with strictures calling for peace, mutual tolerance, justice
and equity among the Peopleof the Book. Because of the spirit of tolerance
of Islam Muslims, Jews and Christians coexisted in harmony from the
beginning of the Islamic Empire, through Umayyad and Abbasid eras until
the end of Ottoman Empire. Nor should we forget that in Spain both Jews
and Muslims, who had lived peacefully for seven centuries, suffered at the
hands of Christian inquisitions. It is also interesting to note that
French Jews began to flee the Nazi occupation of France the only country
to offer them refuge was Morocco under late King Mohamed V” [Osama El
Baz- Chief Political Advisor to the President of Egypt. Contaminated
Goods. Al Ahram Weekly. 2-8 January 2003. Issue No. 619].
It has never been a
problem for Muslims to coexist with the people of other religions. The
Islamic caliphate was able to pay host to Christians and Jews for
centuries; but West has found it almost impossible to tolerate Muslims as
aptly demonstrated in Bosnia and more recently in Chechnya. John Major,
the then British Prime Minister, is on record to have said that Britain is
not ready to have an independent and sovereign Muslim state on the soil of
If we fall back to the
history we find that Arab Muslims-Christians-Jews were living together
peacefully during the Muslim rule in Jerusalem. The conquest of Jerusalem
(637 AD) “put an to the centuries of instability, religious persecution
and colonial rule once by the Egyptians, another by the Greeks, a third by
the Persians and a fourth by the Romans. …
To the natives of Palestine, the Muslims were a new breed of
humans, different from all those who invaded their country before. …
For both Jewish and Christian inhabitants of the conquered lands,
Islamic rule signaled the start of the golden age. The territories under
Muslim rule became the safe havens to which many Jews and Christians fled
to escape persecution in their own homelands. It was in Muslim metropolis
that many Christians and Jews found the opportunity to acquire learning
and to excel in various fields of knowledge and expertise. Many of them
had become historic figures who benefited from as well as contributed
greatly to the Arab Muslim civilization” [Jerusalem During Muslim Rule.
Dr. Azzam Tamimi. Al Aqsa Journal. Vol.1. No. 2. April 1999].
Prof. T. W. Arnold in his
book ’The Preaching of Islam’ wrote : “When the Muslim army reached
the valley of the Jordan and Abu Ubaidah pitched his camp at Fhil, the
Christian inhabitants of the country wrote to the Arabs saying: ‘O
Muslims, we prefer you to the Byzantines, though they are of our own
faith, because you keep better faith with us, and your rule over us is
better than theirs, for they have robbed us of our goods and hour
homes’. The people of Amessa closed the gates of their city against the
army of Heracl and told the Muslims that they preferred their government
and justice to the injustice and oppression of the Greeks” [The
Preaching of Islam. p 55. Prof. T. W. Arnold. Quoted in Fanaticism,
Intolerance and Islam. p 44. Dr. Khurshid Ahmad. Islamic Publications Ltd.
Commenting on the visit of Omar bin Khattab (ra) to Jerusalem, Prof. T. W. Arnold wrote: “In company with the Patriarch, Omar visited the holy places, and it is said while they were in the Church of the Resurrection, as it was the appointed hour of prayer, the Patriarch bade the Caliph offer his prayers there, but he thoughtfully refused, saying that if he were to do so, his followers might afterwards claim it as a place of Muslim worship”[The Preaching of Islam. p 57. Prof. T. W. Arnold. Quoted in Fanaticism, Intolerance and Islam p 52. Dr. Khurshid Ahmad. Islamic Publications Ltd. Lahore. 1960. Also see Al Khulfa al Rashidun p 36. A. S. Hashim. Maryland, 1955 quoted in Non-Muslim Under Shariah (Islamic Law). Prof Dr. Abdur Rahman I. Doi pp 78-79, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 1994]. This was the attitude of the Muslims and noble example of Muslim’s tolerance towards non-Muslims.
History is the testimony
that Christians and Jews in Andalusia, Spain under Muslim rule lived very
peacefully and therefore non-Muslims could survive in Spain even after 700
years (around 800 to the late 15th century) of Muslim rule. It
was however when the Muslim caliphate became weak and the Muslim rule
ended that Muslims were systematically killed and massacred. “King
Ferdinand and Queen Isabella drove the Moor Muslims out of Spain, forced
everybody to embrace Catholic Christianity or be killed, and promoted the
exquisite Christian tortures of the Inquisitions. Under Muslim rule,
Christian and Jewish communities generally flourished from Spain to Iraq.
On the other hand, until recent times, Christian intolerance prevailed
throughout Europe” [Gary Leupp. Associate Professor of History. Tufts
University. Challenging Ignorance on Islam: Points for Americans.
Available in firstname.lastname@example.org].How then Muslims can
be described as intolerant?
“To be a foreigner in
the Abbasid court was not really a drawback since the culture encouraged
diversity and rewarded people for speaking many languages and bringing the
richness of their backgrounds. In fact during that time scholars, artists,
poets and litterateurs came from a variety of ethnic backgrounds (speaking
Aramaic, Arabic, Persian and Turkish), colours (white, black and mulatto),
and creeds (Muslim, Christian, Jew, Sabian and Magian).It was this
cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism of Baghdad that made for its enduring
strength as a great centre of culture” (Scheherezade Goes West:
Different Cultures-Different Harems. p 124. Fatima Mernissi. Washington
Square Press. 2001.). It is therefore evident that today’s
multiculturalism and pluralism has its roots in the 7th and 8th
century Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates.
The Muslims ruled India
for nearly 800 years. Even then Hindus always remained the majority in the
old quarters of Delhi, the seat of Mogul dynasty, all through history. The
Hindus held prominent position in Mogul courts, from Emperor Babur to
Awrangzib and thrived in all fields of knowledge, from music to military
craft. Awrangzib punished the grandson of his Prime Minister Azad Khan,
Mirza Tafakhur who outraged the modesty of a non-Muslim woman. Awrangzib
wrote: “It is my duty to prevent oppression on the people who are a
trust from the Creator” [Anecdotes of Awrangzib. pp 109-111. Sarkar.
Quoted in Fanaticism, Intolerance and Islam. p 43. Dr. Khurshid Ahmed.
Is it not a sufficient
testimony that Muslims are tolerant, they believe in pluralism and all
religious communities can live with them peacefully? It is however the
Hindus who throughout the history behaved in an intolerant manner. The
recent happening in Gujrat is the glaring example of the intolerant
attitude of the Hindus towards their neighbour Muslims who are living in
India side by with the Hindus for thousand years. As a result of this
brutal communal violence, in which the Indian government machinery took
part, 19,000 Muslims were killed and another 12,000 Muslim women were gang
raped whereas 90 percent of the total persons arrested during the riots
are Muslims. This is the example Indian Ghandian justice [for more
information on Gujrat riots visit www.gujratcarnage.com].
During his (saws) life
time, Prophet Muhammad (saws) concluded many treaties with the Jews and
Christians and the community of the believers lived peacefully with the
Christians and Jews as long as the concluding parties remained faithful to
the terms of the treaties which are the reflection of the plural nature of
Islam and its capacity to live with other communities peacefully and its
tolerant attitude. Some misunderstandings have however arisen regarding
verses 3-16 of Surat At Tauba. Surah
9 [Surat At Tauba] of Al Quran is “entirely devoted to
treaty-breakers” [Standard Missionary Islamphobia. G. F. Haddad.
Available in www.Qasyoun@ziplip.com].
Westerners have however inferred on the basis of Surat At Tauba that
“Islam teaches the destruction of the non-Muslims” [Jerry Vines.
Pastor of First Baptist Church. Jacksonville, Fla. Available in www.bpnews.net].
The Westerners, the Christian and Jews particularly took exception to:
“… slay those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God wherever you
may come upon them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and lie in
wait for them at every conceivable place. Yet if they repent, and take to
prayer, and render the purifying dues, let them go their way: for, behold,
God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace” [Al Quran 9 (Surat At Tauba):
Muhammad Asad (formerly
Leopold Weiss from Polish/Austria and brought up in a Jewish family) in
his monumental commentary of the Quran pointing to this verse observed:
“Every verse of the Quran must be read and interpreted against the
background of the Quran as a whole. The above verse, which speaks of a
possible conversion to Islam on the part of “those who ascribe divinity
to aught beside God” with whom the believers are at war, must,
therefore, be considered in conjunction with several fundamental Quranic
ordinances. One of them, “There shall be no coercion in the matter of
faith” [2 (Surat Al Baquarah): 256] lays down categorically that any
attempt at a forcible conversion of unbelievers is prohibited – which
precludes the possibility of the Muslims’ demanding or expecting that a
defeated enemy should embrace Islam as the price of immunity. Secondly,
the Quran ordains, “Fight in God’s cause against those who wage war
against you; but do not commit aggression, for, verily, God does not love
aggressors” [2(Surat Al Baquarah): 190]; and, “if they do not let you
be, and do not offer you peace, and do not stay their hands, seize them
and slay them whenever you come upon them: and it is against these that We
have clearly empowered you (to make war)” [4(Surat An Nisa): 91]. Thus,
war is permissible only in self defence, with the further proviso that
“if they desist – behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of
grace” [2(Surat Al Baqarah): 192], and “if they desist, then all
hostility shall cease” [2(Surat Al Baqarah): 193]. Now the enemy’s
conversion to Islam – expressed in the words, “if they repent, and
take to prayer (lit., “establish prayer”) and render the purifying
dues (zakat)” – is no more
than one, and by no means the only way of their “desisting from
hostility”; and the reference to it in verses 5 and 11 of this surah
certainly does not imply an alternative of “conversion or death”,
as some unfriendly critics of Islam choose to assume. Verses 4 and 6 give
a further elucidation of the attitude which the believers are enjoined to
adopt towards such of the unbelievers as are not hostile to them. In this
connection see also 60 (Sura Al Mumtahana): 8-9” [The Message of The
Quran. pp 255-256. Muhammad Asad. Dar Al Andalus. Gibralter.1980.].
Eminent Egyptian scholar
Sayyid Qutub commenting on the verse “Fight in God’s cause against
those who wage war against you; but do not commit aggression, for, verily,
God does not love aggressors” [2(Surat Al Baqarah):190] quoted above
pointed out: “War should not be pursued for glory or dominance, nor for
material aggrandizement, nor to gain new markets or control raw materials.
It should not be pursued to give one class, race or nation of people
dominance over another” [In the Shade of the Quran. Fi
Zilal al Quran. p 209. The Islamic Foundation. UK. Vol. I. 1999].
This makes it clear that
Islam is essentially tolerant and does not really intend to fight back
unless compelled by rebellious circumstances. Now is the time to reflect
why the West established the vessel state Israel in the Middle East and
nourishing it with all military and economic assistance against the rights
of the Palestinians in their homeland. [Time Magazine immediately after 11
September 2001 reported that U.S. alone annually provide Israel $3 billion
military aid plus access to advanced U.S. weapons in addition to another
$84o million economic assistance. Why The Hate? Roots of Rage. Lisa Beyer.
Quoted in The New Nation. 28 September 2001]. Why U.S and U.K want to make
renewed attack on the Iraq? The good intention of U.S. to invade Iraq is
to “turn Iraq into another U.S. oil protectorate” [Mr. Bush’s War.
Eric S. Margolis. Toronto Sun. 25th August 2002]. President
Bush and Prime Minister Blair are out attack Iraq now for they think that
if Iraq acquires nuclear arms it will “alter the strategic balance in
the oil rich Persian Gulf” [U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for
A-Bomb Parts. Michael R. Gordon and Judith Miller .The New York Times. 8th
September 2002] to the disadvantage of the interest of the West. According
to the report of the U.S. Air Force Counter Proliferation Center located
in the Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, Israel has 400 atomic and
hydrogen bombs and thermonuclear weapons with nuclear cruise missiles
range of 350 kilometers [www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_9.html].
The West is however silent about the possession of nuclear arms by the
Israel. U.S. is now threatening the world community that if the U.N. do
not take any action against Iraq for the alleged possession of chemical
and biological weapons of mass destruction and non compliance of the
Security Council resolutions and if Iraq does not allow U.N. inspectors (Earlier
reports showed that U.S. intelligence personnel entered Iraq under the
cover of U.N. inspectors. Reuters in a report from Stockholm released on 4th
October 2002 claimed that U.N. inspector team members made “too many
copies of their of the finding documents and passed on to U.S. and Israeli
military” as is evident from the fact that “some targets checked out
by the weapons inspectors were bombed by the U.S. and its allies just
immediately after the inspection”. Ake Sellstrom, Swedish expert
employed by the U.N. weapons inspection organization UNSCOM led by
American Scott Ritter “accused that ‘90s arms inspectors in Iraq were
spies” and the inspectors were therefore forced to leave Iraq in
December 1998) than it would take unilateral action against Iraq.
However U.S and its Western allies are silent about the continued
violation of U.N. resolutions by the Israel. In this connection it will
suffice to mention that when the U.N. Security Council by an unanimous
resolution decided to send five member facts finding team headed by former
Finish President Martti Ahtisaari to investigate the massacre in
Palestinian refugee camp in Jenin early April 2002, the Israel blocked the
mission to probe the atrocities committed by the Israeli military forces
and the fact finding team could not proceed to Israel to begin its
assigned task. Neither U.S. nor U.K. nor any other member state of the so
called civilized club, the champion liberty and freedom, spoke a word
condemning the Israeli defiance not to speak of forcing Israel to comply
the U.N. Security Council resolution. The Western war on terrorism is
nothing but a “smokescreen”, as rightly pointed out by John Pilger.
Why the West is supporting
client governments in the Middle East against the wishes of the people of
these countries? It is undoubtedly to ensure their economic interest and
plunder oil resources of the region. It is the Western desire to dominate
and control the resources of the Central Asian republics which encouraged
U.S. led Western coalition attack Afghanistan and install a puppet
government in the name of resisting terrorism.
It is high time to review
the current world scenario and state of affairs. The West is pursuing a
policy, a strategy to keep the West dominant power. Ever since the demise
of the Soviet Union, the U.S. is pursing a policy that no new Centre of
Power can emerge. What the West, particularly U.S. and U.K. is doing is
nothing but attempt to impose hegemony over the Third World and Muslim
countries. U.S. and U.K. are now planning to attack Iraq and trying to
mobilize a coalition of Western countries although these very countries
are silent against Israeli oppression of the Palestinians old, women and
children and continuous occupation of Palestinian land, creation of new
Jewish settlement in Palestinian land expelling the original Arab
Palestine population from their homeland.
The need of the hour is to
identify the real enemies of the tension and conflict and sincerely work
to eliminate the existing bitterness – thus rekindling hope among the
peace loving people and making this world a safer and happier abode for
all of humankind. This however cannot be achieved unless the developed
West makes genuine change of attitude and develop a new paradigm of
equitable relationships. This would require adopting new policies that
would pave the way for a healthy exchange of ideas and creating
opportunities for dialogue between civilizations. This calls for the
construction of a New World Order where different civilizations could
coexist peacefully without resorting to war and mutual destruction.
Wilfred Cantwell Smith in
1965 summarized the fundamental weakness of both Western civilization and
the Christianity in the following words:
“[It] is their [West and
Christianity] inability to recognize that they share the planet not with
inferiors but with equals. Unless Western civilization intellectually and
socially, politically and economically, and the Christian church
theologically, can learn to treat other men with fundamental respect,
these two in their turn will have failed to come to terms” [‘Islam and
Modern History’. p 305].
The reality is that Islam
and the West share a common tradition for both affirm monotheism,
profess belief in revelation, in Prophets and in scriptures. Muslims
shares many teachings with the Christians: it accepted all Biblical
Prophets, emphasized moral responsibility and believed in the Last Day. From
the time of the Prophet Muhammad (saws), Muslims have recognized this, but
the West cannot accept it. Today some Muslims are beginning to turn
against the cultures of ahl al kitab,
the People of the Book, which have humiliated and disgraced them. The Arab
Muslim mind towards the West is depicted in the just conducted opinion
poll of Weekly Al Ahram, Cairo. The result of opinion poll on ‘what the
Egyptians think about the West’ reported by the weekly in its issue of
12-18 September 2002 shows that 68 percent respondents see the U.S. war on
terror “as a means of asserting the U.S.’s global dominance” and 51
percent consider “a war against Arabs and Muslims”.
The paradox of history is that the West accuses the Muslims of being intolerant towards the West whereas its leaders are behaving in manner, which directly reflect the prejudiced and intolerant attitude of the Western leaders towards the Islamic civilization and their abhorrence towards the Muslims. Immediately after the Twin Towers attack, President Bush Jr. without losing time declared “crusade” which undoubtedly reflect his subconscious mind and the U.S. President outlook and stance towards Islam and Muslims. Following the foot steps of President Bush Jr. the Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi declared that “Western civilization is superior to Islamic culture”. Speaking at a news conference Berlusconi said: “We must be aware of the superiority of our civilization, a system that has guaranteed well-being, respect for religious and political rights” [AP from Manama. 26th September 2001].
If Muslims need to understand Western tradition and institutions more thoroughly today, the West needs to separate it from some of their prejudices. “Perhaps one place to start is with the figure of Muhammad: a complex, passionate man who … founded a religion and a cultural tradition that was not based on the sword- despite the Western myth- and whose name ‘Islam’ signifies peace and reconciliation” [Muhammad: A Western Attempt to Understand Islam. p.266. Karen Armstrong. Victor Gollancz Ltd. London. 1992].
1st Octoner 2002