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.

Muslim attitudes toward non-Muslims

Ever wonder why the gap of understanding between the Muslims and the non-Muslims is getting wider despite restless efforts on dawah proving that Islam is truly the religion from God?

One of the main reasons is the weakness of the ummah. We keep preaching to others that Islam is a religion of peace and a perfect way of life, but do we actually practice it? Do we ALL who claim themselves to be Muslims practice it? If we ALL do, certainly we ALL would have lived in a prosperous and jubilant life like those of the early Muslims who emulated the life of the Prophet for he is the walking Qur'an. If we ALL do, certainly we would not have seen the head-chopping of the hostages in the TV under the name of Islamic Jihad since the actual Jihad during the prophet time is not chopping the head of the hostages. And if we ALL practice the actual Islam, wouldn't we ALLenjoy the beauty and sweetness of Islam by now?

The answer is entirely up to you and how sincere and conscious would you dedicate your life to Islam. After all, it is inevitable that all your actions and deeds will be accountable to God on the Day of Resurrection anyways. But what i'd like to emphasis is that we tend to have a negative attitude towards the non-Muslims despite that they do not derserve such attitude at all. We have been trained to think that if Kafirs and Mushriks are the enemies of Islam, therefore non-Muslims are enemies of Islam too. If you think in that way, such idea is just too shallow or narrow. The ideas have set you a cage to think that there is no way that these people would ever have an interest in Islam. It makes that Islam is only exclusive to those who are borned-Islam and those who weren't were labelled as enemies of Islam eventhough they have no clue what Islam is all about.Have you ever thought what makes human to be non-Muslims/Kafirs/Mushirks in the first place? It is their obedience toward the devious whispering of Satan that lies in every single one of us. After all, our true enemy is not the non-Muslims, but Satan as is stated in a verse of Qur'an below:

"Verily Satan is an enemy to you: so treat him as an enemy. He only invites his adherents, that they may become Companions of the Blazing Fire." [Surah Fatir:6]

So how then can we Muslims help the non-Muslims not to follow such devious invitation from Satan? You see, we all humans, regardless of religions, ethinicity, races and gender were created by the single Creator. Everyone of us is blessed with intellects so that we can use it to think, to reason, as well as to get ourselves enlightened. ANd being enlightened is already meant that very person has already been guided and that very person could be a non-Muslim guided by a Muslim. So what rights do we have to treat them with negative attitudes since every single non-Muslims has the potential to be a Muslim if they are at least being guided just by one of us? Surely, to get them understand about Islam would require positive attitude toward them right?

Unfortunately, you may have heard that being friends toward the non-Muslims would influence us to be like them and thus got ourselves deviated from Islam. Yes, there is a possibility in getting yourself astray but that purely depends on your faith or how strong you can hold onto rope of Islam. If you hold it feebly, certainly you'll be swept away by a any current. But if you don't, that's good for you and who knows inshaAllah because of your strength you may share that rope to your non-Muslim friends who also want to hold that rope. Remember that we all were created so as to worship Allah alone and part of that worshipping is to be an ambassador of Islam. The job of ambassador is to propagate the wisdoms of Islam by being a Muslim who PRACTICE Islam.

So whatever non-Muslims have done to us, be positive and gentle towards them because that's how the Prophet did when he was propagating Islam. Otherwise, you'll be creating a fortress that would prevent you to help them to be on the right path and prevent them to be on the right path as their salvation. Remember, the responsibility in propagating Islam is on everybody and the best method in inviting them to understand Islam is to treat them with best manners. After all they are human just like us and we sensitive and emotional human beings would like to be treated nicely right? Also remember that good actions is more praiseworthy than words on good actions. Just do the good deeds and leave the rest to Allah.

So have positive attitudes towards non-Muslims and inshaAllah you'll experience the miracles..

Wassalamualaikum Wr. Wb.

ISLAM IN THE EYES OF A THEOSOPHIST

Asghar Ali Engineer

(Islam and Modern Age, March, 2006)

Today the western world looks upon Islam as a hostile religion and Prof. Huntington even made out a case for clash of western and Islamic civilisations. All this after years of de-colonisation and acceptance by western powers of pluralism. The hostility against Islam continues to be a determining factor in western politics. The western scholars too continue to attack Islam and Muslims. If there is no democracy in Islamic countries they blame Islam for this, not the dictators and irony of it is that presidents of USA remain very friendly with these dictators except the ones who do not bow down before America like Saddam Hussain or Ghaddafi or President of Syria.

Mrs. Anie Besant, a theosophist and freedom lover and founder of Theosophist Society of India in nineteenth century India, when India was still a colony of Britain, had much appreciative view of Islam. It is because these politicians view Islam from their political interests rather than as a religion. The Danish cartoon controversy has further aggravated the relations with Muslim countries.

The Danish cartoonists have shown total insensitive to religious feelings. For them hurting religious sentiments is also a part of freedom of press. These cartoons are extremely offensive as they make fun of the Prophet of Islam rather than any Muslim politician as if the Prophet was responsible for all that Osama bin Laden or his followers in Al-Qaeda have been doing. Whose fun do we make? One who is dead 1400 years ago and has nothing to do with contemporary developments in the world of Islam?

On the contrary Mrs. Annie Besant who lived in nineteenth century when there was no democracy and much more prejudice among orientalists against Islam, writes with so much sympathy and understanding abut Islam. I came across her booklet on Islam which she wrote in 1897 in Chennai (Madras) and published it on behalf of Theosophist Society of India that year, when I went to deliver a lecture on "Sufi Way to Peace" in their international conference in Adyar, Chennai, on 27^th December, 2005. I was presented with the copy of this booklet which I greatly enjoyed reading. When recently violent controversy about the Swedish cartons broke out I thought I will share some of the observations of Annie Besant on Islam with my readers so that they can understand the difference between those scholars and journalists who write with prejudice and those who write with understanding.

Mrs. Besant writes in the foreword of the booklet, which is very essential to understand a religion: "…an attempt is made to distinguish the essential from no-essential in each religion, and to treat chiefly the former. For every religion, in the course of time, suffers from accretions due to ignorance, to wisdom; to blindness, not to vision." Then she continues, "within the brief compass of a lecture, it was not possible to distinguish in detail, or to point out all the numerous on-essentials. But the following tests may be used by anyone who desires to guide himself practically in discriminating between the permanent and the transitory elements in any religion."

Her tests are as follows: "Is it ancient? Is it to be found in ancient scriptures? Has it the authority of the founder of the religion, or the sages to whom the formulation of the particular religion is due? Is it universal, found under some form in all religions? As regards spiritual truths, any one of these tests is sufficient."

Generally these later accretions Annie Besant refers to, become more important than the universal spiritual truths of any religion. These accretions are derived from local cultures, customs and traditions and hence for people of that area, becomes more fundamental that original scriptural pronouncements. Then there are political needs and arrogance of power, which distorts essential truths and real spirit of that religion. Religion of the ruling class is the political power and it is political power, which determines its contours rather than religion determining the contours and legitimacy of power.

Most of the scholars and journalists have no such basic vision and whatever they see being practiced, take it as the real core of religion and than either start criticising or even ridiculing it. Mrs. Annie Besant, on the other hand, tries to comprehend the essential spiritual truth of Islam, or for that matter of any religion.

Mrs. Besant, in order to understand religion of Islam, tries to first understand he biographical background of the Prophet. After describing his birth, his becoming orphan at a tender age, she continues, " Twenty -four years passed. He has been trading on behalf of a kinswoman, Khadija, far older than himself. She finds him so faithful, so frugal, so trustworthy, that they become man and wife – Muhammad not yet the Prophet, Khadija not yet the first disciple. Young man and older woman they are, but they live together so happily that their union remains one of the ideal marriages of the world, until she leaves him a widower at fifty years of age after twenty-six years of blessed married life."

She describes the Prophet as kind man leading a quiet outward life but engaged in terrible inward struggle, not satisfied with what he sees around him, poverty, slavery, suffering of the weaker sections of society. His wise counsels are forever for the poor and the distressed. He always keeps his word and is known as al-ameen, the trustworthy, surely the most honourable title a man can win.

As for his prophethood, Annie Besant describes it as follows: "Thus the years pass – years of struggle that few can measure and then on one night of nights as he lies there on the ground in his agony, a light from heaven shines around him, and a glorious form stands before him: 'Rise, thou art the Prophet of God; go forth and cry in the name of thy Lord.' 'What shall I cry?' 'Cry,' the angel says; and then he teaches him how the worlds were made, and how man was created. He teaches him of the unity of God, and the mystery of angles. He tells him of the work that lies before him. He, the most solitary of men, is to go forth and cry in the name of his Lord."

This story of the prophet is known to most of the Muslims but what is important is how sympathetically Mrs. Annie Besant, a Christian herself, narrates it with great sympathy and understanding. She perfectly understands the inner spiritual struggle, which the Prophet had to undergo before attaining prophet hood. All those who are not satisfied with the given society and its condition undergo such inner struggle before in their quest for the truth. The Prophet also underwent such inner spiritual struggle and spent days and days in the cave of Hira reflecting over the spiritual and material condition of Meccan society and it was in this cave that Truth was revealed to him, as Muslims believe, through Archangel Jibraeel.

The Prophet (PBUH), on being revealed this truth proclaims it to his fellow humans in Mecca. Mrs. Besant observes, "Among the many creeds of man there is none that is more earnestly believed, more passionately followed, than that spoken by the mouth of the Arabian Prophet and if the proof of belief be in conduct, then watch his followers and see how his word rules still the actions of their lives."

Mrs. Besant thinks that if a person has disciples from among his near and dear ones, that is the best proof of his sincerity and truthfulness as who knows a person from close quarters than his wife or sons or parents or daughters. Thus Mrs. Besant observes, The Prophet's first disciple was his wife, his next disciples were is nearest relatives. That says something about the man. It is easy to gain disciples from among those who do not know you, who see you only on the platform, who hear you only in a set speech. But to a Prophet to your close relatives is to be a prophet indeed."

Another genuine test of the truth of a great soul is how people not only love him but are ready to sacrifice everything including their lives for the sake of that truth. Without genuine conviction about the truth of the message no will stand utmost tortures and all conceivable troubles and even court death for its sake. The Prophet of Islam and the truth proclaimed by him won hearts and souls of his followers who were ready to face all troubles to protect and promote brought by him.

Mrs. Besant thus observes, " Some more gather round him, touched by his inspired words. But now fierce persecution breaks out, and his followers are called upon to endure terrible torture. His followers are torn to pieces; they are thrust through with stakes; they are exposed on the burning sand with faces upturned to the Arabian sun and with heavy rocks upon their chests; they are bidden to deny God and his Prophet; but they die murmuring: There is but one God and Muhammad is his Prophet.'

The people would not bear all such tortures without strong conviction in the truth of the message of Prophet. A pretender, a man of selfishness and violence to achieve his self designated goals as many western scholars project Muhammad to be, can never inspire ones followers to stand such unimaginable hardships. Only when one finds the message genuine, one will bear such unprecedented hardships.

The chiefs of Mecca even conspired to kill the Prophet but he manages to escape through the window of his small house and his cousin Ali, is ready to sacrifice himself by sleeping in his bed. The Prophet and his companion Abu Bakr, who chooses to accompany the Prophet (PBUH), are pursued and price is put on the head of the Prophet. The enemy does not remain silent. It pursues the Prophet and engages him and his followers at the battle of Badr. Prophet's own band is small while enemy is in much larger number and overawing indeed. They thus confront each other in the battle of Badr. It is not the Prophet who chooses to inflict war, it is enemy who is keen to defeat the prophet once and for all. Prophet wants peace but is forced into war. A small band of truth seekers vis-à-vis a mighty horde of enemy bent upon protecting its powerful interests. They clash – truth with interests and Mrs. Besant continues: The Prophet cries, 'O Lord! If this little band were to perish, there will be none to offer unto Thee pure worship.'

"This is Muhammad's first bloodshed", observes Mrs. Besant and proceeds, 'repelling an attack. He had ever been tender, compassionate, 'the womanish', as his enemies called him. But now he is no longer a private individual free to forgive all wrongs done to himself; he is ruler of a State, the general of an army, with duties to his followers who trust him. The days are coming when crimes that as a man he would have forgiven, as a ruler he must punish, and Muhammad the Prophet is no weak sentimentalist."

Though Mrs. Beasant is defending the Prophet as a head of the State, if one reads the Qur'an, the moral dimension cannot be lost sight of. The Qur'an repeatedly asserts Allah is Forgiving, Allah is Compassionate and Allah is benevolent. Thus throughout Qur'an one finds a palpable tension between the real and moral, political and ethical. Qur'an always gives precedence to moral over real and provides a transcendent vision. Transcendence is most fundamental to Qur'an and Qur'anic ethics.

Thus Mrs. Besant points out that "After the victory of Badr only two men were executed and, contrary to Arab usage, the prisoners were, by the Prophet's order treated with the greatest kindness, the Muslims giving them bread and keeping only dates for themselves."

Thus as far as the Prophet (PBUH) is concerned he was very kind and compassionate to the suffering of others. He is described by the Qur'an also as Rahmat lil 'Alamin i.e. Mercy of the worlds. However, there was violence everywhere in Arabia. It was way of life. One tribe attacking the other and killing in revenge (qisas) was considered normal. It was the Qur'an which portrayed Allah as Merciful and Compassionate and made 'afw (pardon) as morally superior to qisas (revenge)

The Prophet was so sensitive to suffering that even at the time of his death he asks his followers to pardon him if he has done anything wrong to them or to take qisas for that. Thus Annie Besant says, "And so things went on for ten years, and ten comes the end. And when prayers were over, they lift him up in the mosque, too weak to stand, Ali and Fazl on either side to hold him up, and he raises his feeble voice and cries: 'Muslims! If I have wronged any one of you, here I am to answer for it; if I owe aught to anyone, all I may happened to possess belongs to you.' One man says that he owes him three Dirhams and the coins are paid, the last debt to be discharged on earth."

Then Annie Besant comments (on the death of the prophet) "A noble life, a marvellous life; verily a Prophet of the Lord. And yet so simple, frugal, humble, patching his own worn out cloak, mending his own shoes, when thousands were bowing to him as Prophet – and gentle all around. 'Ten years', said Anas his servant, 'was I about the prophet, and he never said so much as "uff" to me.'"

Can we then portray the Prophet a "terrorist" as the Danish cartoonist did in the name of freedom of opinion and press? Does it show ignorance or prejudice or both? It is unfortunate that entire west today is reproducing these offensive cartoons and justifying them in the name of freedom of press. It is not only the question of freedom but also of proper knowledge about a person you portray. Where is the conscience where there is no knowledge?

Anie Beasant also defends the Prophet against charges of needless violence and slaying of kafirs. She writes, "But, they say, he preached war and extermination, and brutal bloody slaying of the unbeliever. It has ever been held, and laid down by Muslim legislators that when there are two commands, one of which is absolute, such as: 'Slay the infidel when he attacks you and will not let you practise your religion', that the condition, the limitation, is to be added to every such absolute command. This ruling is borne out over and over again by the practice of the Prophet. Concerning the infidel he says: 'that if they desist from opposing thee, what is already past shall be forgiven them; but if they return to attack thee, the exemplary punishment of the former opposers of the Prophets is already past, and the like shall be inflicted on them. Therefore fight against them, until there be no opposition in favour of idolatry, and the religion be wholly God's. If they desist, verily God seeth which they do; but if they turn back, know that God is your patron; he is the best patron and the best helper."

She also quotes an important verse from the Qur'an from chapter 17 'invite men unto the way of thy Lord, by wisdom and mild exhortation; and dispute with them in the most condescending manner, for thy Lord well knoweth him who strayed from his path, and he well knoweth those who are rightly directed. If ye take vengeance on any, take a vengeance proportional to the wrong which hath been done to you; but if ye suffer wrong patiently, verily this will be better for the patient. Wherefore do thou bear opposition with patience, but thy patience shall not be practicable unless with God's assistance. And be not thou grieved on account of the unbelievers; neither be thou troubled for that which they subtly devise; for God is with those who fear him and are upright."

Mrs. Besant has quoted an important verse, which summarises Qur'anic ethics. If one takes revenge, if should be proportional to the wrong inflicted and if one bears with patience (instead of taking revenge) it is always better and patience can be observed only with the help of God. Here we see that Qur'an permits revenge only as a matter of given reality but provides a transcendent dimension by asserting significance of patience (sabr). Sabr is a superior quality to revenge. Thus sabr is always preferable but if one wishes to take revenge it should be strictly proportional to the injury inflicted, not more. Thus the Qur'an makes us aware of superiority of oral over real.

However, if some Muslim violates the Qur'anic injunction and resort to violence out of all proportion to real, it is these Muslims to be blamed not the Qur'anic teachings. But the ignorant or those bearing malice towards other religion, will express opinion not based on real teachings of that religion but on the conduct of some of its followers and that too in the name of freedom of _expression. Freedom of _expression is by all means fundamental, even sacred, but has to be exercised with utmost sense of responsibility. There is no freedom without responsibility.

Mrs. Annie Besant held the Prophet of Islam in very high esteem and was well informed about the Prophet and his teachings. Throwing light on the conduct of the Prophet (PBUH) she says, "And look at his own conduct as illustrating his teaching. Never a wrong done him that he did not forgive; never an injury that he was not ready to pardon. There are faults in every faith; there are errors in the practice of all men. Ignorant followers often act wrongly, where prophets speak the truth. Judge a religion by its noblest, not by its worst, then we shall learn to love one another as brothers, and not hate one another as bigots and as fanatics."

If only we could follow this advice of Annie Besant, world will be very different. The Danish cartoonists created worldwide problem because they kept the worst examples of few Muslims before them totally ignoring what is the best in Islamic teachings. Freedom of _expression does not always mean writing or drawing anything expressing ones worst prejudices in its name. Many hate campaigners do precisely this. And even then they want to defend their right to freedom.

Throwing light on the teachings of the Qur'an, she observes quoting the verse from chapter 5, 'Who is better in point of religion than he who resigneth himself unto God, and is a worker of righteousness, and followeth the law of Abraham for the orthodox? Since God took Abraham for his friend."

She then says, "In that sense only is Islam the one religion; all men of every faith who surrender themselves to God are truly children of Islam. It is not the fault of the Prophet if his followers have narrowed it in later days. I appeal to the Prophet against his followers; as I have often appealed to the Christ against the Christians, and to the rishi-s against the modern Hindus."

It is important to note that when we dispute with each other we are guided by human ego rather than divine light and higher purpose. Those who understand and have knowledge will never quarrel on inter-faith differences. They will, on the other hand, live with these differences with proper understanding as human beings and leave it to God to finally judge who is right and who is wrong. What is wrong is due to human ego and what is right is due to divine light and higher purpose in life. That should be our approach to inter-faith problems.

I have tried to summarise here what Annie Besant has written in her booklet on Islam. She herself is not a Muslim but has truly understood the essence of Qur'an and Islam, more than many Muslims do.

PURPOSE OF LIFE - POEM

What is the purpose of this life?

Money, holidays, a beautiful wife?

There is no point in us denying

Each heart beat brings us closer to dying

You’ll breathe your last

Your life will have past

Don’t pretend

Death’s not the end

You will taste death, death never waited

Look around you, everything’s created

It has a creator, it has a meaning

A mother gives birth and then comes it’s weaning

The sun rises and gives us light

It sets, then falls, the blanket of night

The plants all grow, when falls the rain

They give fruits to man, and they too will wane

Why does man think that he will get away?

Spending life aimlessly, as if he’s here to stay

A fixed time is appointed, everything will perish

Everything you hate, everything you relish

Except the Almighty Allah, He will remain

And then will come judgment, all on one plain

Allah will say, I gave you life

I gave you health, wealth and a wife

What did you do with your time?

What did you do  in your prime?

Did you spread my message, did you spread Islam?

Why not? Did you not read the Qur’an?

My friends, we Muslims, we are so blessed

Allah gave us Islam to supercede all the rest

My non-Muslim friends, the Qur’an must be read

Read before it’s too late and you’re dead

You owe it to yourselves, it will make you cry

You’ll know these words are from the Lord most High

Instructing mankind to the purpose of life

And the reward my friends is everlasting life

Our purpose is to worship our Lord most High

The reward is heaven where no one will die

You’ll have anything you want, all the best dishes

And Almighty Allah will grant all of your wishes

This life my friends is just a cage

We should live by His orders, to be safe from His rage

You will understand when you read the Holy Qur’an

You’ll know the religion of truth is Islam

Protect yourself and your families from hell

Embrace Islam and all will be well

For the deeds of this life, you’ll pay the price

In the depths of Hell or in Paradise