Arabic: The Language of the Qur’an

Arabic: The Language of the Qur’an

Print Version | Back

---

Article originally taken from www.alharamain.org

The Praise is for Allah, the one who has honored us with the Qur'aan, and chosen for us the noblest of languages, and the peace and the blessings be upon the best one of the ones who articulated themselves in Arabic, and the most-preferred from the servants of Allah, Our Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him), and his family and his distinguished companions.

The Arabic language is the language of the Noble Qur'aan, and with it, the Qur'aan was revealed upon the seal of the Messengers (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam), so attention to the Arabic language is to have attention to the Book of Allah the Most High and the studying and the practicing of it helps in the understanding of the Noble Book of Allah and the narration of the master of the Prophets, Muhammad (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam). It is also the language of our esteemed Islamic law (As-Shari'ah), so when we defend it we are not proceeding on a path of nationalism or racism or culturalism, but in fact we are defending the language of our religion (way of life) and it is the cloak of our Islamic Civilization.

As such, Sheikh-ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said:

"The Arabic Language is from the Religion, and the knowledge of it is an obligation. For surely the understanding of the Qur'aan and the Sunnah is an obligation, and these two are not understood except with the understanding of the Arabic Language, and whatever obligation is not fulfilled except by certain steps then those steps themselves become obligatory (to fulfill the initial obligation)"[1]

So then the knowledge of the Arabic language is essential for every Muslim so that he can perform his religious acts of worship and he can be proficient in the recitation of the Noble Qur'aan. Allah says in His Book (which means):

"Verily we have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'aan in order that you may understand" (Surah Yusuf: 2)

And likewise the Most-Glorious said (which means):

"And thus We have inspired unto you (O Muhammad) an Arabic Qur'aan that you may warn the mother of the towns (Makkah) and all around it." (Surah ash-Shura: 7)

And The Exalted said (which means):

"And truly this (the Qur'aan) is a revelation from the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists), which the trustworthy Ruh (Jibreel) has brought down upon your heart (O Muhammad) that you may be (one) of the warners, in the plain Arabic language" (Surah ash-Shura: 192-195)

And He the Most High also said (which means):

"A Book whereof the verses are explained in detail, a Qur'aan in Arabic for people who know" (Surah Fussilat: 3)

The Most Merciful said (which means):

"Verily! It is We who have sent down the Reminder (i.e. the Qur'aan) and surely We will guard it (from corruption)" (Surah Hijr: 9)

Despite this, many of the Muslims are content by spending their whole lives reading a translation of the Qur'aan and so depriving themselves of the miracle of the Speech Of Allah. Also a translation implies a human factor, which goes against the very essence of the Book of Allah. Also, the person who does not know Arabic, will have added difficulty in his concentration during his prayers and also in his understanding of the Sunnah. This is because a language is just not a collection of words which can readily be translated into another language but is a whole way of thinking.

Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali (Translator of the Noble Qur'aan) writes:

"It is a pity that many nations are only satisfied in the translated meaning of the Qur'aan and Prophet's Sunnah instead of studying the (true) Arabic text of the Qur'aan and Prophet's Sunnah. For this reason they are divided into various sects (due to the lack of knowledge about the religion of Islam) e.g. as regards to the ways of religious education, etc. so they are plunged in differences, which was prohibited by Allah. If the translation of the meaning of the Qur'aan is meant for the above said purpose then it is a real mischief-doing, and an evil action and is against what was brought by Allah's Messenger (Peace be upon him) and also against the opinions of the early present day religious scholars. All the religious scholars unanimously agree that the Qur'aan and the Sunnah should be taught in the language of the Qur'aan (i.e. Arabic Language). So did the early religious scholars of the Muslim nation when they conquered different countries.

Translations are mainly meant for informing the people who have not yet embraced Islam to make clear to them the principles of Islam and the teachings of Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and to know its exact facts. When they reach this state and Allah has blessed them with Islam, they must take the Qur'aanic and the Messenger's Language (i.e. Arabic) as the only language to understand Islam. May Allah's mercy be on Sheikh 'Umar Uzbak, a great Turkish man, who strove for Islam in Uzbakistan under the Russian government, after his long fight against the enemies of Islam with fire (iron) and tongue (speech), he took refuge in Afghanistan at Kabul, where the government honoured him. I met him there in 1352 A.H. (approx. 1932 CE) i.e. nearly 40 years ago, and he had vowed to Allah that he will never speak to a relative or anybody else except in the Qur'aanic and Messenger's (Arabic) language. His wife sent a man for me to intercede for her to him that he should speak with her and her children in the Turkish language even for an hour everyday. So when I spoke to him about it, he said:

'Russians had compelled us to learn perfectly the Russian language (by force), so we learnt it. And unless they knew that the learning of the Russian language will make the person who learns it, follow their ways of thinking, characters, and their traditions, they would not have forced anybody to learn it.'

He further said to me,

'I have vowed to Allah long ago not to speak except in the language of the Qur'aan and Sunnah (i.e. Arabic) and I do that only for Allah's sake. If my wife and children desire to enjoy speaking with me, they should learn the language of the Qur'aan and of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) (i.e. Arabic) and I am ready to teach them the Qur'aanic language whenever they desire that"[2]

The Meaning of The Pronoun "We" As Used in The Qur'aan

It is a feature of literary style in Arabic that a person may refer to himself by the pronoun nahnu (we) for respect or glorification. He may also use the word ana (I), indicating one person, or the third person huwa (he). All three styles are used in the Qur'an, where Allaah addresses the Arabs in their own tongue. ( Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa'imah, 4/143).

"Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, sometimes refers to Himself in the singular, by name or by use of a pronoun, and sometimes by use of the plural, as in the phrase (interpretation of the meaning):'Verily, We have given you a manifest victory" [al-Fath 48:1], and other similar phrases. But Allaah never refers to Himself by use of the dual, because the plural refers to the respect that He deserves, and may refer to His names and attributes, whereas the dual refers to a specific number (and nothing else), and He is far above that."

( Al-'Aqeedah al-Tadmuriyyah by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, p. 75).

These words, innaa ("Verily We") and nahnu ("We"), and other forms of the plural, may be used by one person speaking on behalf of a group, or they may be used by one person for purposes of respect or glorification, as is done by some monarchs when they issue statements or decrees in which they say " We have decided…" etc. [This is known in English as "The Royal We" – Translator]. In such cases, only one person is speaking but the plural is used for respect. The One Who is more deserving of respect than any other is Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, so when He says in the Qur'an innaa ("Verily We") and nahnu ("We"), it is for respect and glorification, not to indicate plurality of numbers. If an aayah of this type is causing confusion, it is essential to refer to the clear, unambiguous aayaat for clarification, and if a Christian, for example, insists on taking ayaat such as

"Verily, We: it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e., the Qur'an)"

[al-Hijr 15:9 – interpretation of the meaning] as proof of divine plurality, we may refute this claim by quoting such clear and unambiguous aayaat as (interpretation of the meanings):

"And your god is One God, there is none who has the right to be worshipped but He, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful" [al-Baqarah 2:163]

and

"Say: He is Allaah, the One" [al-Ikhlaas 112:1]

and other aayaat which can only be interpreted in one way. Thus confusion will be dispelled for the one who is seeking the truth. Every time Allaah uses the plural to refer to Himself, it is based on the respect and honour that He deserves, and on the great number of His names and attributes, and on the great number of His troops and angels.

Which surah of Al-Quran when recited is equal to reciting 1/2 Al-Quran?.

Answer :

Praise be to Allaah.

There are many ahaadeeth which speak of the virtue of certain soorahs of the Qur’aan, some of which are saheeh, but many of them are da’eef (weak) or munkar. That includes the hadeeth which speaks of the virtue of Soorat al-Zalzalah and says that it is equivalent to half of the Qur’aan. A number of munkar ahaadeeth were narrated concerning that. They are as follows:

1 – It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “ ‘When the earth is shaken with its (final) earthquake’ (i.e., Soorat al-Zalzalah) is equivalent to half of the Qur’aan.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (2894) and al-Haakim (1/754).

Its isnaad includes Yamaan ibn al-Mugheerah al-‘Anzi, concerning whom al-Bukhaari and Abu Haatim said: his hadeeth is munkar. Ibn Hibbaan said: his hadeeth is very munkar; he narrates munkar hadeeth that have no basis and deserve to be ignored. See Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb (4/452).

Yamaan is the only one who narrated this hadeeth, alone among the companions of ‘Ata’, and he is not acceptable as a sole narrator of a hadeeth, rather the fact that he is the sole narrator indicates that it is munkar. And Allaah knows best.

The majority of scholars are the view that the hadeeth is to be regarded as weak because of Yamaan ibn al-Mugheerah, in contrast to those scholars who classed it as saheeh. It was classed as da’eef by al-Tirmidhi when he said, after quoting it: it is ghareeb and we know it only from the hadeeth of Yamaan ibn al-Mugheerah. It was also classed as such by Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr in al-Tamheed, where he said: It is one of the ahaadeeth of the Shaykhs, not one of the ahaadeeth of the imams. And it was classed as da’eef by Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Baari (8/687), by al-Dhahabi in Talkhees al-Mustadrak, by al-Manaawi in Fayd al-Qadeer (1/367) and by al-Shawkaani in al-Fath al-Rabbaani (12/5930). Al-Albaani said in al-Silsilah al-Da’eefah (1342): it is munkar.

2 – It was narrated from Anas ibn Maalik (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever recites ‘When the earth is shaken with its (final) earthquake’, it will be equivalent to half of the Qur’aan for him.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (2893).

Its isnaad includes al-Hasan ibn Saalim al-‘Ajali. Al-Mazzi said: He is a Shaykh who is unknown and recited only one hadeeth. Al-‘Aqeeli said: He is unknown with regard to transmitting hadeeth. Ibn Hibbaan said: he narrates from trustworthy narrators things that do not sound right.

See Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb (1/396()

The scholars are unanimously agreed that this hadeeth is also to be regarded as da’eef. It was classed as da’eef by al-Tirmidhi when he said, after quoting it: It is ghareeb. Al-‘Aqeeli said: It is not known, as stated in Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb (1/396). It was also classed as da’eef by Ibn Hibbaan in al-Majrooheen (1/279), and al-Bayhaqi in Shu’ab al-Eemaan (2/497). Al-Dhahabi said in Mizaan al-I’tidaal (1/523): it is munkar. Al-Albaani said likewise in al-Da’eefah (1342).

3 – It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever recites ‘When the earth is shaken with its (final) earthquake’ in one night, it will be equivalent to half of the Qur’aan for him.” Narrated by Ibn al-Sunni in ‘Aml al-Yawm wa’l-Laylah (691).

Shaykh al-Albaani (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Silsilah al-Da’eefah (1342): It was narrated by Abu Umayah al-Tarsoosi in Musnad Abi Hurayrah (2/195), but its isnaad is very weak (da’eef jiddan); it includes ‘Eesa ibn Maymoon al-Madani, who was classed as da’eef by a number of scholars. Abu Haatim and others said: His hadeeth is to be rejected. End quote.

Ibn Hajar said in Nataa’ij al-Afkaar (3/268): Its isnaad includes a narrator who is very weak. End quote.

From the above it is clear that there is no saheeh report from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) about Soorat al-Zalzalah being equivalent to half of the Qur’aan. But it seems that some of the imams of the salaf followed this hadeeth and, based on their own ijtihad, stated that the important meanings that are contained in this soorah are equivalent to half of the principles that the Qur’aan referred to.

It says in Musannaf ‘Abd al-Razzaaq (3/372): It was narrated that Ma’mar said: I heard a man narrating that ‘When the earth is shaken with its (final) earthquake’ is equivalent to half of the Qur’aan.

It was narrated from Ja’far that Hishaam ibn Muslim said: I heard Bakr ibn ‘Abd-Allaah al-Muzani say: ‘When the earth is shaken with its (final) earthquake’ is half of the Qur’aan.

Abu ‘Ubayd narrated a mursal report from al-Hasan al-Basri: “ ‘When the earth is shaken with its (final) earthquake’ is equivalent to half of the Qur’aan, and ‘By the (steeds) that run’ (Soorat al-‘Aadiyaat) is equivalent to half of the Qur’aan.”

See: al-Itqaan by al-Suyooti (2/413).

It was narrated that ‘Aasim ibn Abi’l-Nujood al-Imam al-Muqri’ said:

It was said that whoever recites ‘When the earth is shaken with its (final) earthquake’ it is as if he has recited half of the Qur’aan.

Ibn Hajar said in Nataa’ij al-Afkaar (3/270): its men are thiqaat.

Al-Manaawi said in Fayd al-Qadeer (1/367):

Because the greatest objective of the Qur’aan is to explain the creation and the resurrection, and ‘When the earth is shaken with its (final) earthquake’ refers only to the resurrection, therefore it is equivalent to half of the Qur’aan. This was referred to by al-Qaadi.

End quote.

This is the ijtihaad of some of the salaf, and it is not permissible to attribute it to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). It does not mean that it is equivalent to half of the Qur’aan in terms of reward.

And Allaah knows best.

Du'aa

Ya Rab! sa'idny 'ala an aquoul kalimat al haqu fy wajh al 'aquwiya'
Oh God, help me to say words of truth in the face of the mighty

wa an laa aquoul al battel ly aksab tassfeeq al du'afaa'
And to refrain from speaking ill in order to gain the applause of the weak

wa an ara al nahyah 'l oukhrah min alsourah
And help me see the other aspects of things

Wa la tatrukny attahim khussumy bi'annahum khawanah li'annahum ikhtalafou ma'iee fi 'l ra'yee
And do not let me accuse my adversaries of treachery because their opinions oppose mine

Ya Rab, itha a'taytunee maalan fa laa ta'khuth sa'adatee
Oh! God, should you give me wealth, do not take away my happiness,

Wa ithaa a'taytanee quouwah fa laa ta'khuth 'aqulee
And should you give me might, do not take away my wisdom

Wa ithaa a'taytanee najaahan falaa ta'khuth tawadu'ee
And should you give me success do not take away my humility

Wa ithaa a'taytanee tawadu'an falaa ta'khuth i'tizaazee bikaraamatee
And should you give me modesty do not take away my sense of dignity

Ya Rab, 'allimnee an ahibb innass kama ouhibbou nafsee
Oh God, teach me to love others as I love myself

Wa 'allimnee an ouhasib nafsee kamah ouhasib annass
And teach me to judge myself as I judge others

Wa 'allimnee inn attasaamuh huwa akbar maraatib alquouwah
And teach me that forgiveness is one of the greatest steps towards strength

Wa hubbu'l'intiquaam houwa awwal mathahiri'lddu'f
And that the love of revenge is the first sign of weakness

Ya Rab, laa tada'nee ousaab bilghourour ithaa najaht
Oh God, do not curse me with arrogance should I be successful

Wa laa bilya's ithaa fashalt
And neither with dispair and hopelessness should I fail

Bal thakkirnee daa'iman an alfashal huwa 'ttajaarub allatee tasbuq annajaah
Rather remind me always that failure is the trial that precedes success

Ya Rab, ithaa jarradtanee min almaal fatruk lee al'amal
Oh God, should you dispossess me of my wealth do let me keep my hopefulness

Wa ithaa jarradtanee min alnajaah fatruk lee quouwwat il'inaad
And should you dispossess me of success do let me keep the power of determination

Hattaa ataghallab 'ala alfashal
So that I can triumph failure

Wa ith jarradtanee min ni'mati'ssahhat fattruk lee ni'mat al'eemaan
And should you dispossess me from the blessing of good health do let me keep the blessing of faith

Ya Rab, ithaa asa't ilee'nnaas fa'tinee shajaa'at al'i'tithaar
Oh God, should I have harmed others give me the courage to apologize

Wa ithaa asa' lee 'nnaas fa'tinee shajaa'ati'l'afouu
And should others harm me do bless me with the courage to forgive

Wa ithaa nasaytak ya Rab arjouk an laa tansaanee min 'afwik wa hilmak
And should I forget you Oh God I beg that you should not exclude me from your compassion and clemency

Fanta al'atheem alquahaar alquaadir 'ala kul shay'
For you are the Greatest, the Vanquisher, the All Powerful on all things

CONCEPT OF GOD IN ISLAM

The Qur’an too propounds monotheism. So you will find similarities between Hinduism and Islam even in the concept of God.

a. SURAH IKHLAS WITH EXPLANATION

(i) Translation

As per Islam, the best and the most concise definition of God is given in Surah Ikhlas of the Glorious Qur’an:

Say He is Allah,

The One and Only;

Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;

He begets not,

Nor is He begotten;

And there is none

Like unto Him.

(Al Qur’an 112:1-4)

The word ‘assamad’ is difficult to translate. It means that absolute existence can be attributed only to Allah, all other existence being temporal or conditional. It also means Allah is not dependant on any person or thing but all persons and things are dependent on Him.

It is the touch stone of Theology

Surah Ikhlas i.e. Chapter 112 of the Glorious Qur’an is the touchstone of Theology. ‘Theo’ in Greek means God and ‘logy’ means study. Thus ‘Theology’ means study of God and Surah Ikhlas is the touchstone of the study of God.

If you want to purchase or sell your gold jewellery, you would first evaluate it. Such an evaluation of gold jewellery is done by a goldsmith with the help of a touchstone. He rubs the gold jewellery on the touch stone and compares its colour with rubbing samples of gold. If it matches with 24 Karat gold he will tell that your jewellery is 24 Karat pure Gold. If it is not high quality pure Gold, he will tell you its value whether 22 Karats, 18 Karats or it may not be gold at all. It may be fake because all that glitters is not gold.

Similarly Surah Ikhlas (Chapter 112 of the Qur’an) is the touchstone of theology, which can verify whether the deity that you worship is a true God or a false God. Thus, Surah Ikhlaas is a four-line definition of Almighty God according to the Qur’an. If any one claims to be, or is believed to be Almighty God satisfies this four-line definition, we Muslims will readily accept that deity as God. This Chapter of the Glorious Qur’an, Surah Ikhlas, is the acid test. It is the ‘Furqan’ or the criterion to judge between the one True God and false claimants to divinity. Hence, whichever deity any human on earth worships, if such a deity fulfills the criteria specified in this Chapter of the Qur’an, then this deity is worthy of worship and is the One True God.

b. Is Bhagwan Rajneesh God ?

Some people say that Bhagwan Rajneesh or Osho Rajneesh is Almighty God. Please note my words, I have stated that some people say that Bhagwan Rajneesh is Almighty God. Once during a question-answer session there was a Hindu gentleman who misunderstood my statement. He said that Hindus do not worship Rajneesh as God. I am aware that Hinduism does not consider Rajneesh to be God. Rajneesh has followers, who are converts to his philosophy / ideology, but who were originally followers of various different religions.

Let us put this candidate Bhagwan Rajneesh to the test of Divinity as prescribed by Surah Ikhlaas, the touchstone of Divinity.

(i) The First Criterion is ‘Qul hu Allah hu ahad’ –‘say, He is Allah one and only’. Is Rajneesh one and only? We know several such fake god-men and claimants of divinity amongst humans. Several are found in our country, India. Rajneesh is surely not one and only. Not as a human and not even as a human claimant to godhood. However, some disciples of Rajneesh may still state that Rajneesh is unique and that he is one and only.

(ii) Let us analyse the second criterion ‘Allah hus samad’– ‘Allah the Absolute & ‘Eternal’. Is Rajneesh absolute and eternal? We know from his biography that he was suffering from diabetes, asthama, and chronic backache. He alleged that the U.S.A. government gave him slow poisoning while he was in their jail. Imagine! Almighty God being poisoned! Moreover, all are aware that Rajneesh died and was cremated / buried. So Rajneesh was neither eternal, nor absolute

(iii) The third Criteria is ‘Lam ya lid wa lam yu lad’ – ‘He begets not, nor is begotten’. However, Rajneesh was begotten. He was born in Jabalpur in India. Like all humans, he too had a mother and a father. They later on become his disciples.

Rajneesh was a very intelligent person. In May 1981 he went to U.S.A. He established a town in Oregon and named it ‘Rajneeshpuram’. It seems that he took America for a ride for the U.S. government arrested him and later deported him out of America in 1985. So Rajneesh returned to India and started a ‘Rajneesh Neosanyas commune in Pune in India which was later renamed the ‘Osho commune’.

If you visit this ‘Osho commune’ in Pune you will find it written on his tombstone, “Osho - never born, never died, only visited the planet earth between 11th Dec. 1931 to 19th Jan 1990”. They conveniently forget to mention on this tombstone that Rajneesh was not given a visa for 21 different countries of the world. Imagine Almighty God visiting the earth and requiring a visa! The Arch Bishop of Greece had said that if Rajneesh was not deported they would burn his house and those of his disciples.

(iv) The fourth test is so stringent that none besides the One True God, Allah (swt), can pass it. ‘Wa lam ya kullahu kufuwan ahad’ which means, ‘there is none like Him’. The moment you can imagine or compare the candidate or claimant to godhood to anything, this candidate is not god. Neither can you have a mental picture of God.

We know that Rajneesh was a human being. He had one head, two hands, two feet, and a white flowing beard. The moment you can think or imagine what the claimant to godhood is, he or she is not god.

Suppose someone says, “God is a thousand times as strong as Arnold Schwarzenegger”. Arnold Schwarzenegger is one of the strongest men on earth. He was given the title ‘Mr. Universe’ in (the year). The moment you can compare Almighty God to anything, whether it is a 1000 times stronger or a million times stronger, whether it be Darasingh or Kingkong, the moment you can compare the claimant to godhood to anything, he is not God. ‘Wa lam ya kul lahu kufwan ahad’ ‘there is none like Him.’

c. ATTRIBUTES OF GOD

To Allah belong the most beautiful names:

(i) The Qur’an mentions in Surah Isra Chapter 17 Verse 110:

Say: “Call upon Allah, or

Call upon Rahman;

By whatever name ye call

Upon Him, (it is well):

For to Him belong

The Most Beautiful Names

(Al Qur’an 17:110)

You can call Allah by any name but that name should be beautiful and should not conjure up a mental picture. The Qur’an gives no less than 99 different attributes to Almighty God. Some of these are Ar-Rahman, Ar-Raheem, Al-Hakeem; Most Gracious, Most Merciful and All Wise. 99 different names / attributes and the crowning one, the hundredth one is Allah. The Qur’an repeats this message that to Allah belong the most beautiful names in:

(i) Surah Al Aaraf Chapter 7 Verse 180

(ii) In Surah Taha Chapter 20 Verse 8

(iii) In Surah Al Hashr Chapter 59 Verse 23 & 24

d. NAME ALLAH PREFERED TO THE WORD ‘GOD’

The Muslims prefer calling Allah (swt) with His Name Allah, instead of the English word ‘God’. The Arabic word Allah is pure and unique, unlike the English word God which can be played around with.

If you add ‘s’ to God, it becomes ‘gods’ that is plural of God. Allah is one and singular, there is no plural of Allah. If you add ‘dess’ to God, it becomes ‘goddess’ that is a female God. There is nothing like male Allah or female Allah. Allah has no gender. If you add father to God, it becomes ‘godfather’. “He is my Godfather” means that “he is my guardian”. There is nothing like Allah Abba or Allah father in Islam. If you add mother to God it becomes ‘godmother, there is nothing like Allah Ammi or Allah Mother in Islam. If you put tin before God, it becomes tin god i.e. a fake God, there is nothing like-tin Allah or fake Allah in Islam. Allah is a unique word, which does not conjure up any mental picture nor can it be played around with. Hence, the Muslims prefer the name Allah when referring to the Almighty Creator. But sometimes while speaking to non-Muslims we may have to use the inappropriate word God for Allah.

Allah is mentioned by Name in Hindu Scriptures

The Word “Allah”, which refers to Almighty God in Arabic, is also mentioned in

Rigveda Book 2 hymn 1 verse 11

Rigveda Book 3 hymn 30 verse 10

Rigveda Book 9 hymn 67 verse 30

There is an Upanishad by the name ALO Upanishad.

IIA. THE CONCEPT OF GOD IN ISLAM

We had earlier stated that as per Islam the best and the most concise definition of God is as given in Surah Ikhlas of the Glorious Qur’an:

Say He is Allah,

The One and Only;

Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;

He begets not,

Nor is He begotten;

And there is none

Like unto Him.

(Al Qur’an 112:1-4)

i. Similar Verses in Hindu Scriptues

There are several passages in the Hindu Scriptures, which have the same or similar meaning as Surah Ikhlas.

1. Say: He is Allah, The One and Only.

(Al Qur’an 112:1)

It has a meaning which is very similar to:

“Ekam Evadvitiyam”

“He is only one without a second.”

(Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:1)

2. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute.

He begetteth not,

Nor is He begotten;

(Al Qur’an 112:2-3)

It has similar meaning as:

“He who knows Me as the unborn, as the beginning-less, as the Supreme Lord of all the Worlds.”

(Bhagvad Gita 10:3)

and “Of (check – or For Him?) Him there is neither parents nor Lord.”

(Shwetashvatara Upanishad 6:9)

3. And there is none

Like unto Him.

(Al Qur’an 112:4)

A similar message is given in Shwetashvatara Upanishad & Yajurveda:

“Na Tasya pratima asti”

“There is no likeness of Him.”

(Shwetashvatara Upanishad 4:19 & Yajurveda 32:3)

Remember, the Brahma Sutra of Hindu Vedanta is:

‘Ekam Brahm, dvitiya naste neh na naste kinchan”

“Bhagwan ek hi hai dusara nahi hai, nahi hai, nahi hai, zara bhi nahi hai”.

“There is only one God, not the second, not at all, not at all, not in the least bit”.

Status of women in islam

For women, Islam is a special blessing; and the Prophet (pbuh) of Islam is indeed the greatest single benefactor of womenfolk. In Arabia, before the advent of Islam, the birth of a female child was regarded as a great misfortune and a shame, and cruel fathers buried them alive :

When news is brought to one of them, of (the birth) of a female (child), his face darkens, and he is filled with inward grief! With shame does he hide himself from his people, because of the bad news he has had! Shall he retain it on (sufferance and) contempt, or bury it in the dust? Ah! What an evil choice they decide on.
(Qur'an 16 : 58-59)

Islam made this primal injustice a case for the highest court when on the Day of Judgment,

The female (infant), buried alive, is questioned - for what crime she was killed
(Qur'an 81 : 8-9)

“Prior to Islam,” write the authors of Cultural Atlas of Islam, “a woman was regarded by her parents as a threat to family honor and hence worthy of burial alive at infancy. As an adult, she was a sex object that could be bought, sold and inherited. From this position of inferiority and legal incapacity, Islam raised women to a position of influence and prestige in family and society.” Islam gave this oppressed section of humanity, as it did to all other classes and groups, her legitimate place in life. In a world where women were no more than objects of sexual gratification for men, and at a time when the religious circles argued over whether or not women were human, with a soul of her own, Islam proclaimed,

“O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and female.
(Qur'an 49 : 13)

O mankind! Reverence your Guardian-Lord, Who created you from a single person, created of like nature his mate, and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women - Fear Allah, through Whom ye demand your mutual (rights), and (reverence) the wombs (that bore you), for God (Allah) ever watches over you.
(Qur'an 4 : 1)

Men and women are of the same family, and as such have similar rights and duties, and their Lord promises them:

Never will I suffer to be lost the work of any of you, be he male or female: ye are members of one another.
(Qur'an 3 : 195)

Islam removed some of the false notions about women. It for instance refuted the idea that Eve tempted Adam to disobey God (Allah), and thus caused his downfall. God (Allah) tells us explicitly in the Qur'an that they both disobeyed. He negates the idea that the woman is a source of evil. God (Allah) in the Qur'an mentions some of the women with great respect, e.g., the wives of Adam, Abraham, the mothers of Moses and Jesus (pbut). Some of them (Mary and Sarah, for instance) were visited by angels who talked to them. This clearly puts women on a pedestal of personal and social respectability they never enjoyed before.

Islamic civilization rests on two cardinal principles. One, belief in God (Allah), and the knowledge that He is the Lord and Creator of all humans. All humans are equal and have similar rights and obligations as servants of God (Allah). Second, all humans, men and women, are created “from a single person,” or (“from a single pair of a male and a female”). In other words they are children of the same parents, members of one family, and have similar rights and duties. If the first principle represents God (Allah)-man bond, the second stands for blood ties or man's relationship with his fellow men and women. Emphasizing its importance the Prophet (pbuh) said : “The word Ar-rahm (womb) derives its name from Ar-Rahman (i.e., The Gracious One, one of the names of God [Allah]) and God (Allah) said: I will keep good relations with the one who keeps good relations with you, (womb, i.e., kith and kin) and sever relations with him who will severs relations with you” (Bukhari). The woman (or ar-Rahm - womb) thus occupies a pivotal position in human society.

Islam elevated the position of women in society and treated them on equal footing with men, and in some cases, especially mothers were given an even higher status. Thus, when a man asked the Prophet (pbuh) “Who is most entitled to be treated with the best companionship by me?” The Prophet (pbuh) told him “Your mother.” The man asked, “Who is next?” The Prophet (pbuh) said, “Your mother.” Again the man asked, “Who is next?” The Prophet (pbuh) said, “Your mother.” The man asked for a fourth time, “Who is next?” The Prophet (pbuh) said “Your father.” (Bukhari). On another occasion when a man came to the Prophet (pbuh) and expressed the desire to join a military expedition, the Prophet (pbuh) asked him if he had a mother. When he replied that he had, the Prophet (pbuh) told him, “Stay with her, for Paradise is at her feet.” (Ahmad, Nasa'i, and al-Baihaqi).

In the transformed society, to have a daughter was no longer a stigma or a matter of shame but a source of perpetual blessing and a means of winning God's (Allah's) pleasure. The Prophet (pbuh) said : “If anyone cares for three daughters, disciplines them, marries them and is kind to them, he will go to Paradise.” (Abu Dawud).

Islam gave women an independent identity and declared that their moral and spiritual gains depended solely on their own performance. Like man, a woman's failure or success rests on her own beliefs, attitude, behavior and conduct. She is a responsible being in her own right and carries the burden of her moral and spiritual obligations. The Prophet (pbuh) said : “Everyone of you is a guardian and responsible for what is in his or her custody. The ruler is a guardian of his subjects and responsible for them; a husband is a guardian of his family and is responsible for it; a wife is a guardian of her husband's household and is responsible for it.” (Bukhari).

In the Qur'an, women are presented as the role model for believers as well as non-believers. In Sura Al-Tahrim we read :

God (Allah) sets forth, for an example to the unbelievers, the wife of Noah and the wife of Lut : They were both (respectively) under two of our righteous servants, but they were false to their (husbands) and they profited nothing before God (Allah) on their account, but were told : “Enter ye the Fire along with (others) that enter.” And God (Allah) sets forth, as an example to those who believe, the wife of Pharaoh. Behold she said : “O my Lord! Build for me, in nearness to You, a mansion in Paradise, and save me from Pharaoh and his doings, and save me from those who do wrong.” And Mary, the daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity. We breathed into her body of Our Spirit and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His revelations and was one of the devout.
(66 : 10-12)

To enable both men and women to achieve their full potential Islam provides a social framework and seeks to establish a healthy moral atmosphere. In Islam, a woman regardless of her marital status is fully capable of owning, buying, selling and inheritance.

From what is left by parents and those nearest related there is a share for men and a share for women, whether the property be small or large - a determinate share.
(Qur'an 4 : 7)

As a legal entity, her marriage is not possible without her consent, and where a genuine case is present she can even divorce her husband. Imam Malik has recorded in his book “Al-Muwatta” that a certain widow named Khansa was given by her father in marriage. She disapproved of that and went to the Messenger of God (Allah) (pbuh) and he revoked the marriage. On another occasion a virgin came to the Prophet (pbuh) and mentioned that her father had married her against her will, so the Prophet (pbuh) allowed her to exercise her choice, (Abu Dawud). The wife of Thabit bin Qais came to God's (Allah's) Messenger (pbuh) and said, “O God's (Allah's) Messenger (pbuh)! I do not blame Thabit for any defects in his character or his religion, but I cannot endure to live with him.” On that God's (Allah's) Messenger (pbuh) asked her, “Will you return his garden (he had given to her as a marriage gift) to him?” She said, “Yes.” And he separated them. (Bukhari).

The Muslim women were equal partners with men in all spheres of life. The most important function of the Muslim community as described in the Qur'an is “enjoining good and prohibiting evil” in which women stand side by side with men :

The believers, men and women, are protectors, one of another: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil: they observe regular prayers, practice regular charity, and obey God (Allah) and His Messenger (pbuh). On them will God (Allah) pour His mercy: for God (Allah) is exalted in power, wise. God (Allah) hath promised to believers - men and women - Gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein, and beautiful mansions in Gardens of everlasting bliss.
(Qur'an 9 : 71-72)

At the conclusion of the treaty of Hudaibiyah the Prophet (pbuh) asked his companions to abandon their state of ihram, shave their heads and sacrifice their animals. They were so distraught by the seemingly humiliating terms of the treaty that none of them moved. In anger the Prophet (pbuh) went to his tent and told his wife Umm Salamah of what happened. She advised him to go out and shave his head and sacrifice his animal, for if he did so, his companions will surely follow him. And this is what happened.

A Muslim woman, Umm Hani, gave protection to one of the idolaters. The Prophet (pbuh) approved of it and said, “We give protection to whom you (Umm Hani) have given protection.”

Knowledge, which is the basis of all progress and advancement, is compulsory on all Muslim men and women. So when a lady asked the Prophet (pbuh), “Messenger of God (Allah) (pbuh), men have monopoly of all of what you say. Appoint for us a day on which you may teach us of what God (Allah) has taught you,” he appointed a time and place for them separately and he would go and teach them.

Aishah occupies a unique position in the history of Islam not because she was a wife of the Prophet (pbuh), but because she is one of the greatest teachers that Islam ever produced. In the new Islamic community women were so active and well informed that an old woman corrected Caliph Omar when he wanted to limit the amount of dowry. Omar was pleased and said, “The lady is right and Omar is wrong.

WHY Islam is Popular?

Q33. Is Islam a cult? I don't understand how this religion can be embraced by so many. It's inconceivable that such hatred has ever been collected in a single population such as that which calls itself Muslim. Mohammad, and indeed, his followers, are way off the path. Stop your attacks on non-Muslims.

John Guerra



Ans. The two meanings of the word ‘cult’ according to the Oxford dictionary are as follows:

1) “A way of life, an attitude, an idea etc. that has become very popular”.

2) “A small group of people who have extreme religious beliefs and who are not part of any established religion”.



By referring to Islam as a cult, if you intend to imply the first meaning, then yes Islam is a way of life – in fact it is ‘THE way of life’ prescribed for humankind by the Creator. I am aware that most widely, the second meaning of the word cult is implied. In that context, Islam is not a cult.



Many people have a misconception that Islam is a new religion and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was the founder of Islam. However, let me clarify that Islam is not the name of some unique religion presented for the first time by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who should, on that account be called the founder of Islam.



The Qur’an states that Islam – the complete submission of man before his one and only Unique Creator – is the one and only faith and way of life consistently revealed by God to humankind from the very beginning. Noah, Solomon, David, Abraham, Moses, Isaac and Jesus (pbut) – prophets who appeared at different times and places – all propagated the same faith and conveyed the same message of Tawheed (Oneness of God), Risaalat (Prophethood) and Aakhirah (the Hereafter). These prophets of God were not founders of different religions to be named after them. They were each reiterating the message and faith of their predecessors.



However, Muhammad (pbuh) was the last Prophet of God. God revived through him the same genuine faith which had been conveyed by all His Prophets. This original message was earlier corrupted and split into various religions by people of different ages, who indulged in interpolations and admixture. These alien elements were eliminated by God, and Islam – in its pure and original form – was transmitted to humankind through Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).



Since there was to be no messenger after Muhammad (pbuh), the Book revealed to him (i.e. the Glorious Qur’an) was preserved word for word so that it should be a source of guidance for all times.



Thus the religion of all the prophets was ‘total submission to God’s will’ and one word for that in the Arabic language is ‘Islam’. Abraham and Jesus (peace be upon them) too were Muslims, as Allah testifies in Al-Qur'an 3:67 and 3:52 respectively.



Islam is embraced by so many humans in all centuries because it is the Truth and it provides practical and comprehensive solutions to problems of humankind. Islam not only teaches good things but also shows practical ways of achieving that state of goodness.



Your surprise regarding many people embracing Islam is justified. Today, though Islam happens to be the fastest growing religion in the world, it also happens to be the religion about which people have maximum number of misconceptions. This is largely because of the virulent propaganda by the media about Islam.



A Christian surveyor, Professor Edward reported in the Time Magazine of April 16, 1979 that in a span of 150 years, from 1800 CE to 1950 CE “over 60,000 books have been written against Islam by the Christian West.” Now, it is questionable, who has initiated, nurtured and collected the hatred which you have referred to, the Muslims or the Christian West?



Many are surprised that despite such propaganda being made against Islam, it still happens to be the fastest growing religion in today’s times. It is so, on the merits of its superior and noble teachings. Says Allah swt in the Glorious Qur'an:



“They (the non-Muslim enemies and critics of Islam) plot and plan, and Allah too plans; but the best of planners is Allah”.

(Al-Qur'an 8:30)



You have advised the Muslims not to attack non-Muslims; I request you to direct your advice to those authorities, who only claim to be ‘peaceful, peace-loving people’ and ‘peace-keepers of the world’, but ironically have attacked thousands of innocent Muslims under the theme ‘War on terror’. The noted writer Arundhati Roy states: "So now we know. Pigs are horses. Girls are boys. War is Peace."



The terrorist acts attributed to Muslim suspects, should not be attributed to Islam or the Muslims in general but to individual human weaknesses. Such human failings occur among all religious and ethnic groups. Recorded history has not witnessed an incident similar to the ‘Holocaust’. However, one is not expected to and should not attribute the holocaust to Christianity or to Christians in general.



A number of skeptics have made comments about Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Skeptics allege that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was “a violent man, a man of war”. Some further state that "Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses … Muhammad set an opposite example” (remember Jerry Falwell?). These skeptics somehow fail to realize that far from being a man of war, “…he (Muhammad) must be called the saviour of humanity”, as described thus by George Bernard Shaw.



Though the portrayal of Moses and Jesus (pbut) of being peace-loving people is fully in accordance with the teachings of the Qur’an, the Biblical testimony is contrary to it. Many quotations from these Biblical testimonies can be given to substantiate this claim, but considering the length of the answer, I will simply furnish ONE incident that will prove my point, because in this ONE incident, no less than three thousand people were killed by the sword at the command of Biblical Moses. We read:



“(Moses said): ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbour’. The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died.” (Exodus 32:27-28, NIV)



It is also a well-known fact that the total number of deaths that took place in ALL the wars fought during the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was 1018. The biblical quotation given above and many such quotations appear to escape the grasp of those who allege against Muhammad (pbuh), further ignoring the words of Jesus:



“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”

(Matthew 7:1-2 KJV)

Cartoon Controversy: Cannon of “Free Speech” versus “Sword of Jihadism”

Polarization is Fuelling Extremism and
Hindering the Spread of Democratic Values


Najah Kadhim*


The publication of the infamous cartoons about the
Holy Prophet (pbuh) in a Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten,
and their republication in other European media have been
a setback for the spread of free speech and democratic
values in the Muslim world. They have also been a serious
obstacle to the attempts to narrow the gap between the West
and Muslim society.

In a world of tension, instability and globalization,
the need for a univision, a building of bridges between
people and a strengthening of common human values is of
the utmost importance. Instead, the row generated
in the aftermath of the publi­cation of the cartoons has
done exactly the opposite and has been hijacked by the
extremists on both sides. Reductionism, stereotyping,
generalization and simplifi­cation, as well as claims to
the “absolute truth” have become firmly entrenched
in their minds.

The radicals in the secularist camp have used the power
of the media to whip up the argument to promote emotional
venom in defence of “free speech”. Their action has been
matched by militant Muslims, who have used the power
of religion to mobilize mass gatherings around the
world and thus trigger waves of emotions, violence and
sloganeering against non-Muslims.
It is imperative that the wise, reasonable and moderate majority of both camps,
who believe in the common good of humanity, step in to isolate the Muslim and
non-Muslim radicals, restore the debate to a constructive dialogue, and prevent
any further damage to intercommunal relations.

The Secular Radicals
In the 1890s, the French newspaper La Libre Parole [Free Speech] ran a series of
articles and crude cartoons commissioned by its editor, Edouard Drumout, about
what it saw as the dominance of Jews in Europe in general and France in
particular. The campaign reached fever pitch in 1894, when Alfred Dreyfus, a
French artillery officer, was put on trial for treason, an event that split
French society.

Europe has had a unique history of turning on its minorities, culminating in the
greatest violence known to humankind, when 62 million people were slaughtered
during the Second World War. The Holocaust was Hitler’s attempt to exterminate
the Jews, who comprised the majority of the victims, though many other groups
were also put to death, including the Roma, Slavs, Greeks, and even Germans who
opposed the Nazi regime.

It is Europe’s history of intolerance, cultural singularity, racism and double
standards against minorities and the powerless, which worries Muslims and other
observers, who fear a repeat of these events. Indeed, there have already been
depressing developments in the early years of the twenty-first century with talk
of “exit strategy” and “the future of Muslims in Europe”. There is also the fear
of Islam and Muslims in the minds of some non-Muslims, who practise various
forms of bigotry against them. It is their anxiety about losing their power to
the influence of Islamic culture, which could explain the reaction of the
secularists to the affair of the cartoons in Jyllands-Posten.

The Danish newspaper, which had commissioned the cartoons, had fully anticipated
Muslim reaction, yet decided to go ahead with their publication. According to
the Guardian, it was the same newspaper that, in April 2003, rejected
unsolicited cartoons about the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The editors decided
that the readers of Jyllands-Posten would not find the cartoons amusing and
their publication might well provoke an outcry.

The Danish episode, the republication of the cartoons in various European media,
the picture of the Prophet on a T-shirt worn by Roberto Calderoli at the Italian
Embassy in Libya (who has since been forced to resign), the reference to the
Prophet as a terrorist by the American Reverends Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson
in 2004: all these events have caused the Muslim community to regard the affair
as a deliberate insult. What has really stirred up Muslim emotions is not only
the pejorative depiction of the Prophet but also that the cartoons were designed
to humiliate and polarize Muslims and remind them that they are clearly Europe’s
latest “Other”. It is a blunt double standard applied by radicals belonging to a
civilized and secular society, where people of different backgrounds and faiths
are supposed to be treated equally and without injustice or gross violation of
their rights. Should one expect the principle of “freedom of speech” to be
extended to child pornography or jokes about mentally handicapped people or
obscene telephone calls, or the many other examples that been mentioned since
the beginning of this crisis?

Superficially, it is indeed a double standard. A closer analysis, however,
reveals it to be a barefaced show of power. It is clearly a form of domination
with a thin and flimsy veneer of something called “freedom of speech”. Its
adherents claim for it a sanctity that is not allowed to the Other. It can
invade the divinity of the Other at will with a fully muscled attack to preserve
its own sanctity. It claims the right to set its own standard and apply its own
criteria, yet that right is not granted to the Other.

This is a display of power, no more and no less. In the past, the cannon of fire
was used to invade and physically colonize Muslim lands en masse by means of
military might. Today, it is psychological colonialism using the cannon of “free
speech” from the European arsenal of media power. The Other has to be confined
to the Western way of thinking and the Western mentality and mind settings
dimension to qualify for membership of the “free speech” club and satisfy the
European power formula. Formerly, it was the enslavement of the land; today, it
is the enslavement of the mind.

Another manifestation of this power is the persistence of some Western media
personnel and politicians in using the _expression “Islamic terrorism”, implying
that Islam and terrorism are synonymous and, therefore, every Muslim is a
potential terrorist. This has created a situation in which no followers of other
faiths have had to endure such extreme alienation or suffer abuse by this power
so regularly. The feeble excuse given by the users of this _expression is that
all the terror groups in the Muslim world use the words “Islam” or “Islamic” as
part of their group names (despite the fact that the largest group is called
al‑Qa‘idah).

One might well ask if it is fair to attach such a description to a religion with
more than 1.3 billions adherents, simply because of the behaviour of a tiny
minority of militants. When Muslims hear the _expression “Islamic terrorism”, it
not only angers them consciously, but also implants feelings of frustration and
uneasiness in their subconscious. The antagonism that is provoked inclines
Muslims to be unreceptive to Western ideas or even to resist them, to encourage
extremism or the belief in the “war” of the West versus Islam. Is this not the
first step to the polarization of or the creation of tension between the two
camps? Are the Western media and politicians really unaware of the psychological
and social implications for Muslims when they refer to “Islamic terrorism”? Is
this _expression used by design or by accident? To me, the former looks more
plausible than the latter.

Even if this is the way for the Western media to deal with Muslims in distant
lands, it is certainly not, as the ideals and principles of freedom and
secularism suggest, the way to deal with Europe’s minorities, when more than
half of their members have been born and bred in Europe. Just because the Other
happens to be connected with the European historical subconscious about Islam or
is influenced by its geographical proximity to the Muslim world or its cultural
extension, it does not mean that European Muslims should be dehumanized.

We constantly hear of Europe’s belief in integration and of some governments
even following the path to multiculturalism. The reality, however, indicates
that even in politics, where pluralism can be seen in action, the homogenous
culture creates its own controversies and has to negotiate a long and bumpy road
to multiculturalism. There are still more challenges in the social and cultural
fields. Any minority culture that is understood according to its own merits and
on its own terms will produce constructive changes and modifications with a
positive reflection on society as a whole. When the dominant society uses a show
of force in any form to impose a set of values or rules, the result is changes
and modifications which are distorted and deformed and which push the minority
group to the margins of society.

Minorities will always be on the defensive, and their response to events will be
reactive rather than proactive. The reality of multiculturalism today is,
frankly speaking, little more than multicolourism. Western society has become
somewhat blind to the colour of the skin, yet no real power, no matter how
little, has been conceded. The West has still not reached the level of
inclusiveness that would be expected in a modern and mature civilization of the
twenty-first century. In practice, Europe is still culturucentric, in other
words, a complete monoculture continues to dominate others.

Furthermore, are not the Europeans ardent believers in human rights? Belief in a
faith and its sanctity is a human right. The violation of that right means that
the freedom to express its divinity and beliefs has been denied. Have human
rights not been enshrined by the United Nations and have somehow become blended
smoothly with local culture to produce global values? India and Japan are two
examples of this phenomenon. So, why do we so often hear about the
“incompatibility” of “Western values” with Islam? Although it is true that these
values originated in Europe, which deserves the credit for their humanity, yet
their propagation throughout the world since the end of the Second World War has
enabled them to develop a global identity and character.

However, the radical secularists continue to remind the Other that Western
values must be imposed, as pure western, because they are superior to anything
else. In reaction, the radical Muslims and the tyrannical rulers of the Muslim
countries hinder the establishment of the direct and indirect influences that
accompany the spread of these values. The fact that these values are promoted by
Western secularists (interpreted by the Other as Big Brother), generates from
the Other a type and level of resistance and violence resonant of the colonial
period. Indeed, following the row over the cartoons, there have been signs of
the strengthening of forces opposed to democracy and human rights in the Muslim
countries.

Philosophically speaking, the West in general, and Europe in particular, do not
believe in the absolute in theory or in practice. Since the Enlightenment, the
work and reasoning of European philosophers have focused on the relativism that
has effectively shaped modernism and postmodernism. The use of “freedom of
speech” in an absolute manner without any limits or conditions is contrary to
European tradition and represents serious contradictions in the thinking and
practice of its societies.

The publication of the photographs depicting American soldiers abusing prisoners
in Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad and the video film of British soldiers beating
Iraqi civilians in Basrah have fuelled an already volatile situation and
provided the radicals with the polarization and the collision course which they
have wanted and which has been implied by their behaviour.

Muslim Militancy
The “clash of civilizations”, an interpretation favoured by some non-Muslims,
also has many supporters among Muslims.

The cartoon affair has proved that Muslims are extremely vulnerable to attack by
the media. This is a weakness that is easily exploited and makes the behaviour
of Muslims clearly predictable. The level of violence was again expressed in
various forms and colours, thus showing the militant Muslims to be no better
than their radical counterparts among the non-Muslims. It was especially
depressing to see Muslims resorting to violent tactics that included storming
and setting fire to embassies, broadcasting offensive slogans, and generally
creating an emotional frenzy.

What the militant Muslims have shown is their intolerance of the intolerance
expressed by some of the European media. This is, of course, a contradiction,
for they were trying to rectify one mistake with another mistake. As the saying
goes: “Two wrongs do not make a right.” The Holy Qur’an teaches a basic
principle that one injustice cannot be treated with another injustice.

The intelligentsia, which normally plays an important role in any mature society
by supplying ideas, the bloodline of social activity, has failed miserably in
the Arab and Muslim worlds. As intellectuals, they ought to provide the basic
models of morality that have the courage to speak the truth. What the world has
witnessed as events in the Middle East have unfolded, is that the majority of
intellectuals have paid lip service to the masses, fearful of antagonizing them,
even when they have been behaving in an irresponsible manner.

Meanwhile, the storming and burning down of diplomatic missions, contrary to
international law, seem to have been part of a political agenda. How else could
people behave in this way in countries where there is a fear throughout society
of initiating any kind of action, especially in the political arena? We should
not forget the oppressive regimes of these countries and their effective and
repressive security apparatus that has full control of events. The violence also
indicates the presence of extremist social forces outside the government domain,
which still hold sway in the Muslim world.

What is more worrying, though they number only a handful, is that militant
Muslims are resorting to violence in European countries. In early February 2006,
a bunch of hooligans took the centre stage during a demonstration in London,
bran­dishing banners inciting murder and using extremely offensive language.
This demon­s­tration in particular did incalculable damage to the Muslim cause
and destroyed whatever sympathy was formerly felt by many non-Muslims around the
world for Muslims and their legitimate concern about the degrading cartoons.
Indeed, it has since overshadowed the original complaints and reinforced the
argument by the radical secularists that Muslims are incapable of accepting free
speech.

Muslims complain about the double standards of the secularists, yet Muslims also
forget the equally double standards applied from time to time in Muslim society,
as well as its apathy and indifference towards the sufferings of other people.
Examples are the countless murders and kidnappings of civilians – Christians,
Jews and others – who happen to be Western and in the wrong place at the very
wrong time. Christians and Jews are also constantly referred to as the “enemy”.
Even native Christians in the Arab world were frightened in the aftermath of the
infamous cartoon episode.  Nigerian Christians were the target of violent attack
by their Muslim fellow citizens, who also set fire to churches during yet
another public protest against the cartoons.

Racist remarks and graphic anti-Jewish representations are a frequent
occur­rence, no effort being made to distinguish between Judaism as a religion
and the policies of the Israeli government. This kind of behaviour is a clear
violation of the basic principle of the Qur’an that the Christians and Jews are
also People of the Book. It is also contrary to the practice of the Prophet and
his Successors, who pioneered the differentiation between combatants and
civilians in their military campaigns. They were instructed not to kill women,
children and the elderly, nor to destroy forests, crops, animals and buildings.
This respect for people and property was applied to both believers and
unbelievers. One should remember the Prophet’s kind treatment of the Jews, even
when some of the Jewish tribes in Madinah sided with the Quraysh in the latter’s
campaign to destroy him. There are numerous other examples that are well
documented in Islamic and non-Islamic sources, highlighting how far removed is
the behaviour of the militant Muslims from the practice of the Prophet.

The violence inflicted on innocent non-Muslims, including women and children,
has become the unique trademark of the terrorist groups originating in the
Muslim world. Their methods of killing are devoid of any feelings of remorse or
humanity, for the concept of perfection is part of their psychological makeup.
Because they believe that they are God’s purest representatives on this earth,
they assume that they can act as they please with impunity.

The imposition of an unquestionable truth means that there is no allowance for
any variable or any new or formerly unknown concept, since all the decisions
have been taken and all the problems solved according to a rigid code of conduct
and ideology. There is no room for the middle ground, for extremists find it
difficult to adapt to change – especially when it affects their culture – and to
absorb new ideas. Their resistance leads to violence, the intensity of which
increases with the level of change that is taking place in society.

Before long, and as expected according to the physical law (though it is
difficult to apply the physical law of solid matter to the fluidity of social
behaviour, yet the comparison is a useful way of explaining the phenomenon), the
momentum of the killing culture and the inertia of fellow Muslims to halt it
have been affecting innocent Muslims themselves. Sometimes, the vengeance has
been fiercer, more blood spilt and the number of victims greater than for
non-Muslims.

Soft targets, as witnessed daily in Iraq and from time to time in Saudi Arabia,
Egypt and elsewhere, as well as the events in Bali, Madrid, London and New York,
are the professional and preferred methods of the terrorists.  Also their other
true specialism is the attack on cultural and holy places of Muslims and
non-Muslims.  In addition, there is the revival of particularly horrible ancient
methods, such as beheading, a physically and psychologi­cally cruel and inhumane
way of killing a person. The terrorists are not only causing death, but also
employing a means of torture that reflects the level of their hatred and anger.
Thanks to the violence of the Jihadists, Neo-Salafi and other groups, the name
and image of Islam have been well and truly blackened. This situation has
provided the ammunition for some Western media personnel and politicians to
portray the religion as encouraging terrorism, and Prophet Muhammad and every
Muslim as congenital terrorists.

Double standards are manifested in the abusive treatment of minorities in the
Arab and Muslim worlds, frequently those of the same religion, such as the Kurds
and black Africans. Another example is the almost total silence of Muslim
society and its leaders concerning the destruction of the places connected with
Prophet Muhammad and the early period of Islamic history in Saudi Arabia. His
birthplace has been converted into a library. The battlegrounds of Madinah, such
as Uhud, are now covered with concrete.

During the past 50 years, the holy cities of Mecca and Medina have suffered
incalculable violence. More than 300 historical sites have been levelled
systema­ti­cally, only a few historic buildings remain in Mecca, and these are
about to be demolished.[1]



“We are witnessing the last few moments of the history of Mecca,” says Sami
Angawi, a Saudi expert on the Islamic architecture of the Holy City.[2]



The Way Forward
On the one hand, there are the radical secularists, who regard Islam as the
threat to their power at home and abroad. In the minds of some of them, Islam
has replaced the Soviet Union as the latest political enemy, which needs to be
dealt with, as they believe, with provocation, polarization and confrontation.
On the other hand, there are the radical Muslims, whose insecurity and hatred
find _expression in their wicked use of Islam or the violence of the sword of
jihadism as their first and last resort to confront non-Muslims, especially
secularists in the West. Their strategy is to provoke the Western secularists
into increasing their attacks on Muslims so that new young recruits will be
attracted to the ranks of the radical groups to fight under the “banner of
Islam”. There is no doubt that the photographs depicting the abuse of Iraqi
prisoners by American soldiers and the video film showing British soldiers
beating Iraqi youths inflame Muslim militancy and complicate the implementation
of democracy, when the bearers (Coalition forces) of “humane” Western values
show themselves to be no better than the dictators leading the Muslim reaction.

These are the people who need to be isolated by the rational majority of Muslims
and non-Muslims, who believe in the sanctity of human life, and encouraged to
engage in constructive debate. Muslims in the Muslim world and Muslim minorities
in the West in particular, need to engage themselves and their communities in
soul-searching questioning to enable them to argue and articulate their anger in
other ways whenever they face pressing challenges. They need to create a more
dynamic relationship with one another and learn to pursue a dialogue in various
forms such as the written and spoken word, film, art, etc.

Interfaith dialogue is certainly an important path to pursue, for the common aim
of all religions is humanity, truth and love. This type of dialogue should not
be restricted to spiritual matters but examine social and cultural aspects too.

Muslims need new ideas and modern material and mental tools to equip them for
influential civic participation, which is important for the Muslim community and
society in general. Muslim education should include knowledge of one’s rights
and duties as well as an understanding of citizenship in a modern society. The
Muslim community should make sophisticated use of the media to project a fair
represen­tation of its members and should seek to understand the laws of the
country so as to protect their rights and beliefs.

Muslims need to be more committed to making a greater contribution to the
well-being of the society in which they live. The way forward during this
difficult period is not resentment, withdrawal and the highly charged emotion
that have isolated them in their own communities. Instead, Muslims should use
their brains, their knowledge, their creativity and other rational tools to seek
a place at the heart of society so that they can serve themselves and others,
regardless of the religion, race or background of the others. That is the
essence of the Islamic message.

It is equally important to project a modern, innovative way of reading and
interpreting Islam. It is necessary to begin with the Qur’an. Its emphasis on
dialogue should be noted, as well as the way in which it formulates questions
and references to multifaith societies. A significant reminder of the human
dimension is how the Qur’an addresses the Prophet: “We sent you but as a mercy
to the world.” More than 170 verses address humankind as “O people…”. Numerous
verses refer to “Bani Adam” or the followers of Adam, in other words, humankind.

There are famous examples of the Prophet’s tolerance and kindness. He cared for
a lady when she fell ill, despite the fact that it had formerly been her habit
to throw rubbish at him whenever he passed by her home. He also visited a Jewish
man when he became ill. These examples and many more should be highlighted and
disseminated to both Muslims and non-Muslims.

From the Western point of view, a minority is defined not numerically, but by
the level of its power and how far others make decisions for it. By granting a
small proportion of the power available, an effective leadership could be
created. The result would be social cohesion instead of tension and division
among the members of society. Thus would be laid the foundation of the harmony
and dynamism that are necessary to bring out the best in people, regardless of
their background. In this way, everyone is in a position to make a creative
contribution to enable the society to compete effectively with other parts of
the world in a global market. Indeed, a good relationship with the Muslim
community in the West could help the Western nations to build the urgently
needed bridges with the Arab and Muslim worlds and narrow the gap of mistrust
and dislike between the two communities.

Non-Muslims need to be educated about the immense Muslim contribution to world
civilization. An awareness campaign should be initiated to inform Muslims of
their rights and duties as citizens in the West as well to convince Western
non-Mus­lims that the presence of people from different backgrounds benefits and
enriches a society. People need to learn true tolerance of those who are
different, which means the ability to hold a discussion with those whose views
may be difficult to accept. There is clearly no real dialogue with those who
share the same outlook on life.

Non-Muslims are asked to give the Muslims the respect that they deserve. Mutual
respect at individual and community level promotes mutual understanding with its
psychological and emotional implications, which finally lead to mental matu­rity
and tolerance. Respect also encourages responsiveness, interaction and mutual
participation, which is vital for innovation and creativity in a society in this
age of rapidly expanding information and knowledge.

Clear condemnation of the cartoons about Prophet Muhammad was not forth­coming
from the moderate non-Muslims, and this is necessary for peace and social
cohesion. It is important, too, for the truthfulness and transparency of Western
society, that the moderate Muslims are asked to condemn loudly the acts of
violence by Muslim militants.

The West is divided over how to deal with Islam, as are the Muslims over how to
interact with the West. It is the role of the majority and every responsible
person on both sides to acknowledge and repair the rift, and thus prevent the
already polarized situation from escalating to a dangerous level. They should
search for effective ways to reinvigorate the dialogue and thus avoid the
“dialogue of the deaf”, which has governed intercommunal relations so far.


*Najah Kadhim is the Executive Director of IFID and a Senior University
Lecturer, London, England.

Cartoon Controversy: Cannon of “Free Speech” versus “Sword of Jihadism”

Polarization is Fuelling Extremism and Hindering the Spread of Democratic Values


Najah Kadhim*


The publication of the infamous cartoons about the Holy Prophet (pbuh) in a
Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, and their republication in other European
media have been a setback for the spread of free speech and democratic values in
the Muslim world. They have also been a serious obstacle to the attempts to
narrow the gap between the West and Muslim society.

In a world of tension, instability and globalization, the need for a univision,
a building of bridges between people and a strengthening of common human values
is of the utmost importance. Instead, the row generated in the aftermath of the
publi­cation of the cartoons has done exactly the opposite and has been hijacked
by the extremists on both sides. Reductionism, stereotyping, generalization and
simplifi­cation, as well as claims to the “absolute truth” have become firmly
entrenched in their minds.

The radicals in the secularist camp have used the power of the media to whip up
the argument to promote emotional venom in defence of “free speech”. Their
action has been matched by militant Muslims, who have used the power of religion
to mobilize mass gatherings around the world and thus trigger waves of emotions,
violence and sloganeering against non-Muslims.

It is imperative that the wise, reasonable and moderate majority of both camps,
who believe in the common good of humanity, step in to isolate the Muslim and
non-Muslim radicals, restore the debate to a constructive dialogue, and prevent
any further damage to intercommunal relations.

The Secular Radicals
In the 1890s, the French newspaper La Libre Parole [Free Speech] ran a series of
articles and crude cartoons commissioned by its editor, Edouard Drumout, about
what it saw as the dominance of Jews in Europe in general and France in
particular. The campaign reached fever pitch in 1894, when Alfred Dreyfus, a
French artillery officer, was put on trial for treason, an event that split
French society.

Europe has had a unique history of turning on its minorities, culminating in the
greatest violence known to humankind, when 62 million people were slaughtered
during the Second World War. The Holocaust was Hitler’s attempt to exterminate
the Jews, who comprised the majority of the victims, though many other groups
were also put to death, including the Roma, Slavs, Greeks, and even Germans who
opposed the Nazi regime.

It is Europe’s history of intolerance, cultural singularity, racism and double
standards against minorities and the powerless, which worries Muslims and other
observers, who fear a repeat of these events. Indeed, there have already been
depressing developments in the early years of the twenty-first century with talk
of “exit strategy” and “the future of Muslims in Europe”. There is also the fear
of Islam and Muslims in the minds of some non-Muslims, who practise various
forms of bigotry against them. It is their anxiety about losing their power to
the influence of Islamic culture, which could explain the reaction of the
secularists to the affair of the cartoons in Jyllands-Posten.

The Danish newspaper, which had commissioned the cartoons, had fully anticipated
Muslim reaction, yet decided to go ahead with their publication. According to
the Guardian, it was the same newspaper that, in April 2003, rejected
unsolicited cartoons about the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The editors decided
that the readers of Jyllands-Posten would not find the cartoons amusing and
their publication might well provoke an outcry.

The Danish episode, the republication of the cartoons in various European media,
the picture of the Prophet on a T-shirt worn by Roberto Calderoli at the Italian
Embassy in Libya (who has since been forced to resign), the reference to the
Prophet as a terrorist by the American Reverends Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson
in 2004: all these events have caused the Muslim community to regard the affair
as a deliberate insult. What has really stirred up Muslim emotions is not only
the pejorative depiction of the Prophet but also that the cartoons were designed
to humiliate and polarize Muslims and remind them that they are clearly Europe’s
latest “Other”. It is a blunt double standard applied by radicals belonging to a
civilized and secular society, where people of different backgrounds and faiths
are supposed to be treated equally and without injustice or gross violation of
their rights. Should one expect the principle of “freedom of speech” to be
extended to child pornography or jokes about mentally handicapped people or
obscene telephone calls, or the many other examples that been mentioned since
the beginning of this crisis?

Superficially, it is indeed a double standard. A closer analysis, however,
reveals it to be a barefaced show of power. It is clearly a form of domination
with a thin and flimsy veneer of something called “freedom of speech”. Its
adherents claim for it a sanctity that is not allowed to the Other. It can
invade the divinity of the Other at will with a fully muscled attack to preserve
its own sanctity. It claims the right to set its own standard and apply its own
criteria, yet that right is not granted to the Other.

This is a display of power, no more and no less. In the past, the cannon of fire
was used to invade and physically colonize Muslim lands en masse by means of
military might. Today, it is psychological colonialism using the cannon of “free
speech” from the European arsenal of media power. The Other has to be confined 
to the Western way of thinking and the Western mentality and mind settings
dimension to qualify for membership of the “free speech” club and satisfy the
European power formula. Formerly, it was the enslavement of the land; today, it
is the enslavement of the mind.

Another manifestation of this power is the persistence of some Western media
personnel and politicians in using the _expression “Islamic terrorism”, implying
that Islam and terrorism are synonymous and, therefore, every Muslim is a
potential terrorist. This has created a situation in which no followers of other
faiths have had to endure such extreme alienation or suffer abuse by this power
so regularly. The feeble excuse given by the users of this _expression is that
all the terror groups in the Muslim world use the words “Islam” or “Islamic” as
part of their group names (despite the fact that the largest group is called
al‑Qa‘idah).

One might well ask if it is fair to attach such a description to a religion with
more than 1.3 billions adherents, simply because of the behaviour of a tiny
minority of militants. When Muslims hear the _expression “Islamic terrorism”, it
not only angers them consciously, but also implants feelings of frustration and
uneasiness in their subconscious. The antagonism that is provoked inclines
Muslims to be unreceptive to Western ideas or even to resist them, to encourage
extremism or the belief in the “war” of the West versus Islam. Is this not the
first step to the polarization of or the creation of tension between the two
camps? Are the Western media and politicians really unaware of the psychological
and social implications for Muslims when they refer to “Islamic terrorism”? Is
this _expression used by design or by accident? To me, the former looks more
plausible than the latter.

Even if this is the way for the Western media to deal with Muslims in distant
lands, it is certainly not, as the ideals and principles of freedom and
secularism suggest, the way to deal with Europe’s minorities, when more than
half of their members have been born and bred in Europe. Just because the Other
happens to be connected with the European historical subconscious about Islam or
is influenced by its geographical proximity to the Muslim world or its cultural
extension, it does not mean that European Muslims should be dehumanized.

We constantly hear of Europe’s belief in integration and of some governments
even following the path to multiculturalism. The reality, however, indicates
that even in politics, where pluralism can be seen in action, the homogenous
culture creates its own controversies and has to negotiate a long and bumpy road
to multiculturalism. There are still more challenges in the social and cultural
fields. Any minority culture that is understood according to its own merits and
on its own terms will produce constructive changes and modifications with a
positive reflection on society as a whole. When the dominant society uses a show
of force in any form to impose a set of values or rules, the result is changes
and modifications which are distorted and deformed and which push the minority
group to the margins of society.

Minorities will always be on the defensive, and their response to events will be
reactive rather than proactive. The reality of multiculturalism today is,
frankly speaking, little more than multicolourism. Western society has become
somewhat blind to the colour of the skin, yet no real power, no matter how
little, has been conceded. The West has still not reached the level of
inclusiveness that would be expected in a modern and mature civilization of the
twenty-first century. In practice, Europe is still culturucentric, in other
words, a complete monoculture continues to dominate others.

Furthermore, are not the Europeans ardent believers in human rights? Belief in a
faith and its sanctity is a human right. The violation of that right means that
the freedom to express its divinity and beliefs has been denied. Have human
rights not been enshrined by the United Nations and have somehow become blended
smoothly with local culture to produce global values? India and Japan are two
examples of this phenomenon. So, why do we so often hear about the
“incompatibility” of “Western values” with Islam? Although it is true that these
values originated in Europe, which deserves the credit for their humanity, yet
their propagation throughout the world since the end of the Second World War has
enabled them to develop a global identity and character.

However, the radical secularists continue to remind the Other that Western
values must be imposed, as pure western, because they are superior to anything
else. In reaction, the radical Muslims and the tyrannical rulers of the Muslim
countries hinder the establishment of the direct and indirect influences that
accompany the spread of these values. The fact that these values are promoted by
Western secularists (interpreted by the Other as Big Brother), generates from
the Other a type and level of resistance and violence resonant of the colonial
period. Indeed, following the row over the cartoons, there have been signs of
the strengthening of forces opposed to democracy and human rights in the Muslim
countries.

Philosophically speaking, the West in general, and Europe in particular, do not
believe in the absolute in theory or in practice. Since the Enlightenment, the
work and reasoning of European philosophers have focused on the relativism that
has effectively shaped modernism and postmodernism. The use of “freedom of
speech” in an absolute manner without any limits or conditions is contrary to
European tradition and represents serious contradictions in the thinking and
practice of its societies.

The publication of the photographs depicting American soldiers abusing prisoners
in Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad and the video film of British soldiers beating
Iraqi civilians in Basrah have fuelled an already volatile situation and
provided the radicals with the polarization and the collision course which they
have wanted and which has been implied by their behaviour.

Muslim Militancy
The “clash of civilizations”, an interpretation favoured by some non-Muslims,
also has many supporters among Muslims.

The cartoon affair has proved that Muslims are extremely vulnerable to attack by
the media. This is a weakness that is easily exploited and makes the behaviour
of Muslims clearly predictable. The level of violence was again expressed in
various forms and colours, thus showing the militant Muslims to be no better
than their radical counterparts among the non-Muslims. It was especially
depressing to see Muslims resorting to violent tactics that included storming
and setting fire to embassies, broadcasting offensive slogans, and generally
creating an emotional frenzy.

What the militant Muslims have shown is their intolerance of the intolerance
expressed by some of the European media. This is, of course, a contradiction,
for they were trying to rectify one mistake with another mistake. As the saying
goes: “Two wrongs do not make a right.” The Holy Qur’an teaches a basic
principle that one injustice cannot be treated with another injustice.

The intelligentsia, which normally plays an important role in any mature society
by supplying ideas, the bloodline of social activity, has failed miserably in
the Arab and Muslim worlds. As intellectuals, they ought to provide the basic
models of morality that have the courage to speak the truth. What the world has
witnessed as events in the Middle East have unfolded, is that the majority of
intellectuals have paid lip service to the masses, fearful of antagonizing them,
even when they have been behaving in an irresponsible manner.

Meanwhile, the storming and burning down of diplomatic missions, contrary to
international law, seem to have been part of a political agenda. How else could
people behave in this way in countries where there is a fear throughout society
of initiating any kind of action, especially in the political arena? We should
not forget the oppressive regimes of these countries and their effective and
repressive security apparatus that has full control of events. The violence also
indicates the presence of extremist social forces outside the government domain,
which still hold sway in the Muslim world.

What is more worrying, though they number only a handful, is that militant
Muslims are resorting to violence in European countries. In early February 2006,
a bunch of hooligans took the centre stage during a demonstration in London,
bran­dishing banners inciting murder and using extremely offensive language.
This demon­s­tration in particular did incalculable damage to the Muslim cause
and destroyed whatever sympathy was formerly felt by many non-Muslims around the
world for Muslims and their legitimate concern about the degrading cartoons.
Indeed, it has since overshadowed the original complaints and reinforced the
argument by the radical secularists that Muslims are incapable of accepting free
speech.

Muslims complain about the double standards of the secularists, yet Muslims also
forget the equally double standards applied from time to time in Muslim society,
as well as its apathy and indifference towards the sufferings of other people.
Examples are the countless murders and kidnappings of civilians – Christians,
Jews and others – who happen to be Western and in the wrong place at the very
wrong time. Christians and Jews are also constantly referred to as the “enemy”.
Even native Christians in the Arab world were frightened in the aftermath of the
infamous cartoon episode.  Nigerian Christians were the target of violent attack
by their Muslim fellow citizens, who also set fire to churches during yet
another public protest against the cartoons.

Racist remarks and graphic anti-Jewish representations are a frequent
occur­rence, no effort being made to distinguish between Judaism as a religion
and the policies of the Israeli government. This kind of behaviour is a clear
violation of the basic principle of the Qur’an that the Christians and Jews are
also People of the Book. It is also contrary to the practice of the Prophet and
his Successors, who pioneered the differentiation between combatants and
civilians in their military campaigns. They were instructed not to kill women,
children and the elderly, nor to destroy forests, crops, animals and buildings.
This respect for people and property was applied to both believers and
unbelievers. One should remember the Prophet’s kind treatment of the Jews, even
when some of the Jewish tribes in Madinah sided with the Quraysh in the latter’s
campaign to destroy him. There are numerous other examples that are well
documented in Islamic and non-Islamic sources, highlighting how far removed is
the behaviour of the militant Muslims from the practice of the Prophet.

The violence inflicted on innocent non-Muslims, including women and children,
has become the unique trademark of the terrorist groups originating in the
Muslim world. Their methods of killing are devoid of any feelings of remorse or
humanity, for the concept of perfection is part of their psychological makeup.
Because they believe that they are God’s purest representatives on this earth,
they assume that they can act as they please with impunity.

The imposition of an unquestionable truth means that there is no allowance for
any variable or any new or formerly unknown concept, since all the decisions
have been taken and all the problems solved according to a rigid code of conduct
and ideology. There is no room for the middle ground, for extremists find it
difficult to adapt to change – especially when it affects their culture – and to
absorb new ideas. Their resistance leads to violence, the intensity of which
increases with the level of change that is taking place in society.

Before long, and as expected according to the physical law (though it is
difficult to apply the physical law of solid matter to the fluidity of social
behaviour, yet the comparison is a useful way of explaining the phenomenon), the
momentum of the killing culture and the inertia of fellow Muslims to halt it
have been affecting innocent Muslims themselves. Sometimes, the vengeance has
been fiercer, more blood spilt and the number of victims greater than for
non-Muslims.

Soft targets, as witnessed daily in Iraq and from time to time in Saudi Arabia,
Egypt and elsewhere, as well as the events in Bali, Madrid, London and New York,
are the professional and preferred methods of the terrorists.  Also their other
true specialism is the attack on cultural and holy places of Muslims and
non-Muslims.  In addition, there is the revival of particularly horrible ancient
methods, such as beheading, a physically and psychologi­cally cruel and inhumane
way of killing a person. The terrorists are not only causing death, but also
employing a means of torture that reflects the level of their hatred and anger.
Thanks to the violence of the Jihadists, Neo-Salafi and other groups, the name
and image of Islam have been well and truly blackened. This situation has
provided the ammunition for some Western media personnel and politicians to
portray the religion as encouraging terrorism, and Prophet Muhammad and every
Muslim as congenital terrorists.

Double standards are manifested in the abusive treatment of minorities in the
Arab and Muslim worlds, frequently those of the same religion, such as the Kurds
and black Africans. Another example is the almost total silence of Muslim
society and its leaders concerning the destruction of the places connected with
Prophet Muhammad and the early period of Islamic history in Saudi Arabia. His
birthplace has been converted into a library. The battlegrounds of Madinah, such
as Uhud, are now covered with concrete.

During the past 50 years, the holy cities of Mecca and Medina have suffered
incalculable violence. More than 300 historical sites have been levelled
systema­ti­cally, only a few historic buildings remain in Mecca, and these are
about to be demolished.[1]



“We are witnessing the last few moments of the history of Mecca,” says Sami
Angawi, a Saudi expert on the Islamic architecture of the Holy City.[2]



The Way Forward
On the one hand, there are the radical secularists, who regard Islam as the
threat to their power at home and abroad. In the minds of some of them, Islam
has replaced the Soviet Union as the latest political enemy, which needs to be
dealt with, as they believe, with provocation, polarization and confrontation.
On the other hand, there are the radical Muslims, whose insecurity and hatred
find _expression in their wicked use of Islam or the violence of the sword of
jihadism as their first and last resort to confront non-Muslims, especially
secularists in the West. Their strategy is to provoke the Western secularists
into increasing their attacks on Muslims so that new young recruits will be
attracted to the ranks of the radical groups to fight under the “banner of
Islam”. There is no doubt that the photographs depicting the abuse of Iraqi
prisoners by American soldiers and the video film showing British soldiers
beating Iraqi youths inflame Muslim militancy and complicate the implementation
of democracy, when the bearers (Coalition forces) of “humane” Western values
show themselves to be no better than the dictators leading the Muslim reaction.

These are the people who need to be isolated by the rational majority of Muslims
and non-Muslims, who believe in the sanctity of human life, and encouraged to
engage in constructive debate. Muslims in the Muslim world and Muslim minorities
in the West in particular, need to engage themselves and their communities in
soul-searching questioning to enable them to argue and articulate their anger in
other ways whenever they face pressing challenges. They need to create a more
dynamic relationship with one another and learn to pursue a dialogue in various
forms such as the written and spoken word, film, art, etc.

Interfaith dialogue is certainly an important path to pursue, for the common aim
of all religions is humanity, truth and love. This type of dialogue should not
be restricted to spiritual matters but examine social and cultural aspects too.

Muslims need new ideas and modern material and mental tools to equip them for
influential civic participation, which is important for the Muslim community and
society in general. Muslim education should include knowledge of one’s rights
and duties as well as an understanding of citizenship in a modern society. The
Muslim community should make sophisticated use of the media to project a fair
represen­tation of its members and should seek to understand the laws of the
country so as to protect their rights and beliefs.

Muslims need to be more committed to making a greater contribution to the
well-being of the society in which they live. The way forward during this
difficult period is not resentment, withdrawal and the highly charged emotion
that have isolated them in their own communities. Instead, Muslims should use
their brains, their knowledge, their creativity and other rational tools to seek
a place at the heart of society so that they can serve themselves and others,
regardless of the religion, race or background of the others. That is the
essence of the Islamic message.

It is equally important to project a modern, innovative way of reading and
interpreting Islam. It is necessary to begin with the Qur’an. Its emphasis on
dialogue should be noted, as well as the way in which it formulates questions
and references to multifaith societies. A significant reminder of the human
dimension is how the Qur’an addresses the Prophet: “We sent you but as a mercy
to the world.” More than 170 verses address humankind as “O people…”. Numerous
verses refer to “Bani Adam” or the followers of Adam, in other words, humankind.

There are famous examples of the Prophet’s tolerance and kindness. He cared for
a lady when she fell ill, despite the fact that it had formerly been her habit
to throw rubbish at him whenever he passed by her home. He also visited a Jewish
man when he became ill. These examples and many more should be highlighted and
disseminated to both Muslims and non-Muslims.

From the Western point of view, a minority is defined not numerically, but by
the level of its power and how far others make decisions for it. By granting a
small proportion of the power available, an effective leadership could be
created. The result would be social cohesion instead of tension and division
among the members of society. Thus would be laid the foundation of the harmony
and dynamism that are necessary to bring out the best in people, regardless of
their background. In this way, everyone is in a position to make a creative
contribution to enable the society to compete effectively with other parts of
the world in a global market. Indeed, a good relationship with the Muslim
community in the West could help the Western nations to build the urgently
needed bridges with the Arab and Muslim worlds and narrow the gap of mistrust
and dislike between the two communities.

Non-Muslims need to be educated about the immense Muslim contribution to world
civilization. An awareness campaign should be initiated to inform Muslims of
their rights and duties as citizens in the West as well to convince Western
non-Mus­lims that the presence of people from different backgrounds benefits and
enriches a society. People need to learn true tolerance of those who are
different, which means the ability to hold a discussion with those whose views
may be difficult to accept. There is clearly no real dialogue with those who
share the same outlook on life.

Non-Muslims are asked to give the Muslims the respect that they deserve. Mutual
respect at individual and community level promotes mutual understanding with its
psychological and emotional implications, which finally lead to mental matu­rity
and tolerance. Respect also encourages responsiveness, interaction and mutual
participation, which is vital for innovation and creativity in a society in this
age of rapidly expanding information and knowledge.

Clear condemnation of the cartoons about Prophet Muhammad was not forth­coming
from the moderate non-Muslims, and this is necessary for peace and social
cohesion. It is important, too, for the truthfulness and transparency of Western
society, that the moderate Muslims are asked to condemn loudly the acts of
violence by Muslim militants.

The West is divided over how to deal with Islam, as are the Muslims over how to
interact with the West. It is the role of the majority and every responsible
person on both sides to acknowledge and repair the rift, and thus prevent the
already polarized situation from escalating to a dangerous level. They should
search for effective ways to reinvigorate the dialogue and thus avoid the
“dialogue of the deaf”, which has governed intercommunal relations so far.


*Najah Kadhim is the Executive Director of IFID and a Senior University
Lecturer, London, England.